1 corinthians 9:19-23

[rgmann]

Vincent Cheung’s commentary on Matthew 5:17-20 is well worth reading, as he gets it right and corrects many of the false teachings being promoted by a few here in this thread. Below is a portion of his commentary on this passage (emphasis in bold text is mine):

“Jesus says that he has come not to abolish but to fulfill the law. Thus, our starting premise must be that no matter what position we take regarding the law, it cannot be that Jesus has abolished it. If there is to be any change when it comes to the relationship between God's people and God's law, it must be understood in the context of its fulfillment and not its nullification.

This is important in explaining why we have ceased observing the ceremonial aspects of the law. Several New Testament passages have been construed to say that Christ's coming has indeed abolished the law along with all its commandments. However, whatever these
passages are saying, they cannot be understood as nullifying the law. Again, Jesus says in verses 17 and 18 that he has come not to abolish but to fulfill the law. Then, verse 19 says that one who practices and teaches the commandments in the law is called great in the
kingdom of heaven.

The truth is simple. In Ephesians 2:14, Paul mentions that there was a "barrier" or "dividing wall of hostility" between the Jews and the Gentiles. What was this barrier or dividing wall? In verses 11-13, he writes:

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth
and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the
circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men) –
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded
from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the
promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in
Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near
through the blood of Christ.

The barrier or dividing wall between the Jews and the Gentiles consisted of the external ceremonies and regulations that God commanded the Jews to keep, so that the Jews were called "the circumcision" and the Gentiles were called the "uncircumcised."

Paul takes care to specify that by circumcision, he refers to only that which was "done in the body by the hands of men." Elsewhere he explains that not all who were outwardly circumcised were saved, but only those who were inwardly circumcised, so that not all Jews were saved, but only the chosen ones in whom God sovereignly performed the "circumcision of the heart" (Romans 2:29). Although relatively few Gentiles were saved up to that time, God indeed saved some of them, and performed this inward circumcision in them.

Again, this barrier or dividing wall consisted of external ceremonies and regulations, and it is this barrier or wall that Jesus abolished. As Paul writes, "For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations" (Ephesians 2:14-15). "The law with its commandments and regulations" in the NIV is a misleading translation. The more literal NASB says, "The Law of commandments contained in ordinances," and the HCSB says, "The law of the commandments in regulations" (see also the KJV and NKJV).

Hebrews 9:10 says, "They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings – external regulations applying until the time of the new order." What are the things that have been stopped because of Christ's coming? What are the things that applied
"until the time of the new order"? Certainly not the entire law or the entire Old Testament and its commandments, but only the "external regulations," namely, those things that are "a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings" (see Mark 7:19 and Acts10:9-16).

Elsewhere, Paul explains, "These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ" (Colossians 2:17). These ceremonies and regulations have ceased not because they have somehow become false, but because their purpose was to prefigure Christ, and since Christ has come, the ceremonies and regulations have been fulfilled, and remained fulfilled in Christ. Those who observed them looked forward to Christ through them, but since Christ has come, to continue observing them would suggest ignorance and unbelief, as if Christ has not come.

Yet the Old Testament passages regarding these ceremonies and regulations have not become useless, since they remain instructive concerning God's plan of salvation, the work of Christ, and the doctrines that they prefigure and illustrate, as demonstrated by the letter
to the Hebrews and in the letters of Paul. Therefore, God's people have ceased observing these ceremonies and regulations, not that they have become false, but because they have become true at the coming of Christ. For example, we have no animal sacrifices at church not because there is no need for a sacrifice, but because Christ is our once-for-all and all-sufficient sacrifice.

On the other hand, this point concerning the ceremonies and regulations do not apply to God's moral commandments, such as the Ten Commandments. Just because Christ has come does not mean that we may now worship idols and commit murder. As mentioned,
Matthew 5:19 says that we should continue to practice and to teach the commandments written in the Law and the Prophets.

Some people claim that although we must not worship idols, commit murder, and the like, these restrictions exist not because the Ten Commandments are still in force, but because we are now under the law of love, and love prevents us from doing these things. However, what we have said above refutes this claim. Moreover, it was Moses who said, "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength" (Deuteronomy 6:5), which is "the first and greatest commandment" (Matthew 22:38) in
both the Old and the New Testaments. And the statement, "Love your neighbor as yourself," does not originate in the Gospels, but it comes from Leviticus 19:18.

As for the Ten Commandments, Paul explains that they are summarized – not replaced – by the commandment to love, so that love is not something that is altogether different: "The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" (Romans 13:9). In fact, this means that love itself is defined by these various commandments, and that it is undefined without them. He concludes, "Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (v. 10).

You walk in love by obeying the commandments, and so if you walk in love, you have fulfilled the requirements of the law. "It is a great mistake, then, to think that Jesus abolished the commandments and taught us that 'all you need is love.' For love means fulfilling the law (Rom. 13:10)." This is not an isolated or obscure teaching, and it is not difficult to grasp, so it is strange that so many people completely miss it. The greatness of the new covenant is not that God no longer requires you to obey the law, but that he enables
you to obey the law: "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds" (Hebrews 10:16). "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law" (Romans 3:31).

In verse 17, Jesus denies that he has come to abolish the law, but he has come to fulfill it. Then, in verse 18, he further affirms the law's inspiration and authority. He says, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a
pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Some commentators believe that the words "until heaven and earth disappear" constitute an eschatological expression pointing to the end of the existing order, but this is not the best interpretation. Jesus is not telling us when, or even if, the law will pass away, but his emphasis is on the permanence and the inevitable fulfillment of all that the law teaches. As R. T. France writes, "The expression is probably less a specific note of time than an idiom for something inconceivable."

Jesus expresses the highest view of Scripture, saying that "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen" in the law shall disappear or fail to be accomplished. The Greek for "the smallest letter" is iota, referring to the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet yod, which is almost as small as a comma, like an apostrophe or an accent mark. "The least stroke of a pen" (keraia) refers to one of the tiny hooks and projections that distinguish some Hebrew letters from others, like the serif in modern typefaces.

In other words, Jesus asserts that all of Scripture is inspired, inerrant, infallible, and authoritative to the letter. Therefore, the proper view of biblical inerrancy affirms not only the general events and doctrines taught in Scripture, but it affirms that God has infallibly caused to be written the very words and the very letters used in the Bible. To deny this or to affirm anything short of this is to call Jesus a liar and to renounce the Christian faith.

 

[rgmann]

John Gill’s commentary on Ephesians 2:15 also gets it right:

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity,.... The ceremonial law, as appears by what follows, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; which consisted of many precepts, and carnal ordinances; and is so called because it was an indication of God's hatred of sin, by requiring sacrifice for it; and because it was an occasion of stirring up the enmity of the natural man, it being a burden and a weariness to the flesh, by reason of its many and troublesome rites; and because it was the cause of enmity between Jew and Gentile: the Jews say (g), that Sinai, the mount on which the law was given, signifies "hatred"; and that it is so called because from it descended "hatred" or "enmity" to the nations of the world: now this Christ abolished, "in his flesh", or by it; not by his incarnation, but by the sacrifice of his flesh, or human nature, and that as in union with his divine nature; but not until he had fulfilled it in himself, which was one end of his coming into the world; and then he abolished it, so as that it ought not to be, and so as that it is not, and of no use and service; and that because it was faulty and deficient, weak and unprofitable, as well as intolerable; and because there was a change in the priesthood; and because it was contrary to a spirit of liberty, the great blessing of the Gospel; and that there might be a reconciliation and a coalition between Jew and Gentile, as follows:

for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; which explains what is meant before by making both one; and expresses the strictness of the union between Jew and Gentile, they became as one man; and points at the manner in which they became so strictly united; and that is by being made new men, or new creatures, by having a work of grace upon their souls, and so baptized into one body, and made to drink of one and the same Spirit; the foundation of which union is in himself; for Jew and Gentile, male and female, bond and free, are all one in Christ Jesus; he is the cornerstone in which they all meet, and the head to which the whole body is joined.

(g) T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 89. 1. Shemot Rabba, sect. 2. fol. 92. 4.

 

[rgmann]

John Gill’s commentary on Colossians 2:16 is also well worth the read, for those with ears to hear. The ceremonial commandments of the old covenant law are no longer binding upon believers in Christ under the new covenant (or “gospel dispensation,” to use his words). Don’t be deceived by the false teachers within our midst:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Let no man therefore judge you,.... Since they were complete in Christ, had everything in him, were circumcised in him; and particularly since the handwriting of the law was blotted out, and torn to pieces through the nails of the cross of Christ, the apostle's conclusion is, that they should be judged by no man; they should not regard or submit to any man's judgment, as to the observance of the ceremonial law: Christ is the prophet who was to be raised up like unto Moses, and who only, and not Moses, is to be heard; saints are to call no man master upon earth but him; they are not to be the servants of men, nor should suffer any yoke of bondage to be imposed upon them; and should they be suffered and condemned by others, as if they were transgressors of the law, and their state bad, for not observing the rituals of the former dispensation, they should not regard such censures, for the judaizing Christians were very censorious, they were ready to look upon and condemn a man as an immoral man, as in a state of damnation, if he did not keep the law of Moses; but such rigid censures were to be disregarded, "let no man judge", or "condemn you"; and though they could not help or hinder the judgment and condemnation of men, yet they could despise them, and not be uneasy with them, but set light by them, as they ought to do. The Syriac version renders it, "let no man trouble you", or make you uneasy, by imposing ceremonies on you: the sense is, that the apostle would not have them submit to the yoke they would lay upon them, nor be terrified by their anathemas against them, for the non-observation of the things that follow:

in meat or in drink; or on account of not observing the laws and rules about meats and drinks, in the law of Moses; such as related to the difference between clean and unclean creatures, to abstinence in Nazarites from wine and strong drink, and which forbid drinking out of an uncovered vessel, and which was not clean; hence the washing of cups, &c. religiously observed by the Pharisees. There was no distinction of meats and drinks before the law, but all sorts of herbs and animals, without limitation, were given to be food for men; by the ceremonial law a difference was made between them, some were allowed, and others were forbidden; which law stood only in meats and drinks, and such like things, but is now abolished; for the kingdom of God, or the Gospel dispensation, does not lie in the observance of such outward things, but in internal ones, in righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; it is not any thing that goes into the man that defiles, nor is anything in its own nature common or unclean, but every creature of God is good, so be it, it be used in moderation and with thankfulness:

or in respect of an holyday; or feast, such as the feast of the passover, the feast of tabernacles, and the feast of Pentecost; which were three grand festivals, at which all the Jewish males were obliged to appear before the Lord; but were never binding upon the Gentiles, and were what the Christians under the Gospel dispensation had nothing to do with, and even believing Jews were freed from them, as having had their accomplishment in Christ; and therefore were not to be imposed upon them, or they condemned for the neglect of them…

or of the new moon; which the Jews were obliged to observe, by attending religious worship, and offering sacrifices; see Numbers 28:11 2 Kings 4:23.

Or of the sabbath days, or "sabbaths"; meaning the jubilee sabbath, which was one year in fifty; and the sabbath of the land, which was one year in seven; and the seventh day sabbath, and some copies read in the singular number, "or of the sabbath"; which were all peculiar to the Jews, were never binding on the Gentiles, and to which believers in Christ, be they who they will, are by no means obliged; nor ought they to observe them, the one any more than the other; and should they be imposed upon them, they ought to reject them; and should they be judged, censured, and condemned, for so doing, they ought not to mind it. It is the sense of the Jews themselves, that the Gentiles are not obliged to keep their sabbath; no, not the proselyte of the gate, or he that dwelt in any of their cities; for they say (g), that "it is lawful for a proselyte of the gate to do work on the sabbath day for himself, as for an Israelite on a common feast day; R. Akiba says, as for all Israelite on a feast day; R. Jose says, it is lawful for a proselyte of the gate to do work on the sabbath day for himself, as for an Israelite on a common or week day:

and this last is the received sense of the nation; nay, they assert that a Gentile that keeps a sabbath is guilty of death (h); see Gill on Mark 2:27. Yea, they say (i), that "if a Gentile sabbatizes, or keeps a sabbath, though on any of the days of the week, if he makes or appoints it as a sabbath for himself, he is guilty of the same.

It is the general sense of that people, that the sabbath was peculiarly given to the children of Israel; and that the Gentiles, strangers, or others, were not punishable for the neglect and breach of it (k); that it is a special and an additional precept, which, with some others, were given them at Marah, over and above the seven commands, which the sons of Noah were only obliged to regard (l); and that the blessing and sanctifying of it were by the manna provided for that day; and that the passage in Genesis 2:3; refers not to the then present time, but , "to time to come", to the time of the manna (m),

(c) Vid. Casaubon. Epist. Ephesians 24. (d) Misn. Shekalim, c. 3. sect. 1.((e) Misn. Becorot, c. 9. sect. 5. (f) Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (g) T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 9. 1. Piske Tosaphot Yebamot. art. 84. Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 20. sect. 14. (h) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 58. 2.((i) Maimon. Hilch. Melachim, c. 10. sect. 9. (k) T. Bab. Betza, fol. 16. 1. Seder Tephillot, fol. 76. 1. Ed. Amtst. (l) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 56. 2. Seder Olam Rabba, p. 17. & Zuta, p. 101. Ed. Meyer. (m) Jarchi & Baal Hatturim in Gen. ii. 3. Pirke Eliezer, c. 18.

Colossians 2:17

Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Which are a shadow of things to come,.... By Christ, and under the Gospel dispensation; that is, they were types, figures, and representations of spiritual and evangelical things: the different "meats and drinks", clean and unclean, allowed or forbidden by the law, were emblems of the two people, the Jews and Gentiles, the one clean, the other unclean; but since these are become one in Christ, the distinction of meats is ceased, these shadows are gone; and also of the different food of regenerate and unregenerate souls, the latter feeding on impure food, the ashes and husks of sensual lusts, or their own works, the former on the milk and meat in the Gospel, the wholesome words of Christ; and likewise the clean meat was a shadow of Christ himself, whose flesh is meat indeed, and whose blood is drink indeed.

The "holy days", or "feasts" of the Jews, the feasts of tabernacles, of the passover and Pentecost, were types of Christ; the feast of tabernacles, though it was in remembrance of the Israelites dwelling in tents and booths when they came out of Egypt, yet was also a representation of the people of God dwelling in the earthly houses of their tabernacles here on earth; and particularly of Christ's dwelling, or tabernacling in human nature, and who likewise was born at the time of this feast. The passover, as it was a commemoration of the deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt, and of God's passing over their houses when he smote the firstborn of the Egyptians, so it was a type of Christ our passover sacrificed for us, and was kept by Moses in the faith of him, Hebrews 11:28; there is a very great resemblance, in many particulars, between Christ and the paschal lamb; See Gill on 1 Corinthians 5:7. The feast of Pentecost, or the feast of harvest and firstfruits, was a shadow of the firstfruits of the Spirit, which Christ having received, gave to his disciples on that day; and of the harvest of souls to be gathered under the Gospel dispensation, of which the conversion of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost was an earnest and pledge. The "new moon" was typical of the church, which is fair as the moon, and receives all her light from Christ the sun of righteousness; and of the renewed state of the church under the Gospel dispensation, when the old things of the law are passed away, and all things relating to church order, ordinances, and discipline, are become new. The "sabbaths" were also shadows of future things; the grand sabbatical year, or the fiftieth year sabbath, or jubilee, in which liberty was proclaimed throughout the land, a general release of debts, and restoration of inheritances, prefigured the liberty we have by Christ from sin, Satan, and the law, the payment of all our debts by Christ, and the right we have through him to the heavenly and incorruptible inheritance. The seventh year sabbath, in which there was no tilling of the land, no ploughing, sowing, nor reaping, was an emblem of salvation through Christ by free grace, and not by the works of men; and the seventh day sabbath was a type of that spiritual rest we have in Christ now, and of that eternal rest we shall have with him in heaven hereafter: now these were but shadows, not real things; or did not contain the truth and substance of the things themselves, of which they were shadows; and though they were representations of divine and spiritual things, yet dark ones, they had not so much as the very image of the things; they were but shadows, and like them fleeting and passing away, and now are gone:

but the body is of Christ — or, as the Syriac version reads it, "the body is Christ"; that is, the body, or sum and substance of these shadows, is Christ; he gave rise unto them, he existed before them, as the body is before the shadow; not only as God, as the Son of God, but as Mediator, whom these shadows regarded as such, and as such he cast them; and he is the end of them, the fulfilling end of them; they have all their accomplishment in him: and he is the body of spiritual and heavenly things; the substantial things and doctrines of the Gospel are all of Christ, they all come by him; all the truths, blessings, and promises of grace; are from him and by him, and he himself the sum of them all.

 

[Mark C]

Vincent Cheung’s commentary on Matthew 5:17-20 is well worth reading, as he gets it right ...

Maybe 80%. It's the other 20% (Pareto's Law) that's poison:

...
The barrier or dividing wall between the Jews and the Gentiles consisted of the external ceremonies and regulations that God commanded the Jews to keep, so that the Jews were called "the circumcision" and the Gentiles were called the "uncircumcised."

He doesn't know many Jews, nor much history, and certainly hasn't read "Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History," by former priest James Carroll. Nor has he been called a "judaizer" for turning down a slice of Easter Ham, much less killed for keeping His Sabbaths.

Killing people for attempting to honor their Elohim as He commands tends to result in "hostility".

But I have found over a number of years, with MANY Jews and no small number of rabbis, that trying to get them to believe in ANY "messiah" who did away with Torah is a non-starter.

 

[Mark C]

Jacob/Israel prophesied about the regathering. It is to Him (Shiloh) not to a place. How do you reconcile your belief in a return to that land when their continued possession of it was conditional and they did NOT keep the conditions? ...Did he ever return to Shiloh after He made it desolate?

That is an excellent point, and the answer won't fit a sound bite. I will suggest (and attempt to demonstrate) that Deuteronomy 30 is among several references (perhaps the first, or at least most unequivocal) to lay out the "Greater Exodus." But I believe the 'curses' (plural, or even 'judgments' if you prefer) we are seeing IN-PROGRESS, now, help "set the stage." So does the "torah-less-ness" which now abounds. And all of that, IMHO, seems to happen first.

They will be the subject of a teaching I will post on multiple sites (including Hebrew Nation Radio) once I finish uploading the podcast, related to the [double] Torah parsha this week, "Behar/Bechukotai: Comparing Curses - OR - did jesus 'Do Away With' the 'Law'?"

I'll put a link on this site somewhere. (Maybe a new thread; this one is getting 'long in the tooth'...but since those who won't listen anyway, won't listen anyway...that'll be kind-of an "Auto-Wheat-Chaff Separator." )



Edit: Here are the links.

Double Parsha “Behar/Bechukotai” teaching from Shabbat Shalom Mesa | Come out of her, My people…

Mark Call – Double Parsha “Behar/Bechukotai” teaching from Shabbat Shalom Mesa

This was either the week where average Americans began to awaken to the fact that what was once their country has been successfully invaded, or that it was in fact, conquered long ago. And it is al…

hebrewnationonline.com

 

[rgmann]

Maybe 80%. It's the other 20% (Pareto's Law) that's poison

Of course, I would say that what you are attempting to pass off as Biblical knowledge here is the reverse of Pareto's Law - 20% true and 80% deadly poison! Most of what you have been saying amounts to nothing more than convoluted and incoherent ramblings... I had no illusions that anything Cheung or Gill wrote would convince you. I posted their commentaries for those who still have eyes to see and ears to hear the truth.

 

[NickF]

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

@NickF it seems that you (like some others) are suffering from a classic case of adhominemitis, you can throw all the insinuations and false accusations you want, it means absolutely nothing, to me or anyone who knows me, but, if it makes you feel better... know that if you are right before YAH your words will receive praise, if your words about me are wrong or idle then....

1. What falsehood?
2. I cannot have used an ad-hominem argument because I asked a question that you refuse to answer. You need to learn what that fallacy actually means because by your usage you don't understand what you're accusing me of doing. Asking a question is categorically not in any way shape or form an ad-hominem fallacy.

Needless to say I have come across many like yourself who declare peace and love and then their reaction/response is anything but... c'est la vie

It's a weak position that when asked for explanation on how a thing is that you refuse to answer.

There is so much I could say, but, all I will say is, go and read all that I have written before you asked your questions and all that others have written, do try and take off those eisegetical glasses before you do, it would help stop the circular debate.

I have read the whole thread except for many of yours and mark's responses because they were incoherent or rambling/lacking context. Which is why I was asking for clarification. Apparently that's threatening, and makes me seem like I'm being contentious. I honestly can't understand how that's so scary. I understand that you don't want to give an answer for the hope you have. Maybe someone else will give me an answer.

 

[NickF]

The reality is that certain laws could only be practiced at a certain place. It is coincidental that it happened during a period of time.
The requirement to obey the laws was dependent upon their ability to obey them.

An example would be immersion in a Mikvah, it was a requirement that probably didn’t happen a lot in the desert. But as they had access to flowing water (going from memory, flowing might be inaccurate) it was expected of them. The law didn’t change with the circumstances, the requirement to follow it did.

I appreciate you answering. But that doesn't answer my question on circumcision, or on sabbath keeping.

Are those laws still in effect? Have they passed away? Have they been fulfilled?

 

[Mark C]

Most of what you have been saying amounts to nothing more than convoluted and incoherent ramblings...

I didn't write ANY of that to you, just those who might have honest questions.

But - let's get this straight:

You don't understand how preventing people from celebrating His moedim, or killing them (as the history of "anti-judaizing" demonstrates) might actually be a bigger 'barrier or dividing wall between the Jews and the Gentiles' than trying to justify some flawed anti-Feast-of-YHVH doctrine? Or are you just SO willfully blind that you'll deny Him before men rather than read for comprehension?

I'm not even gonna quote - much less respond to - the myriad BS above, other than to note it's SO filled with "LOVE" and "tolerance" and the fruits of - some 'spirit, that any of you torah-haters would fit in well on CNN. Just today, directly above, I see the same 'mouths' espousing Oh-so-PC "love" while then turning RIGHT around and condescendingly accusing others of being condescending!

You (all) claim I demand "everyone keep of all The Law" without having even read enough of what I say to recognize why that's a lie on its face. (Hint: others here know!)

Yahushua said exactly what fit then, and STILL applies NOW to the very same spirit!
"If you won't believe [Moses'] Writings, why would you believe My Words?"

One thing, however, has been demonstrated. This "spirit" of hatred for His Word, as Written, is NOT new. It fomented a lot of hatred, from 325 AD, through the Inquisition, and ...more,

 

[NVIII]

1. What falsehood?
2. I cannot have used an ad-hominem argument because I asked a question that you refuse to answer. You need to learn what that fallacy actually means because by your usage you don't understand what you're accusing me of doing. Asking a question is categorically not in any way shape or form an ad-hominem fallacy.


It's a weak position that when asked for explanation on how a thing is that you refuse to answer.

I have read the whole thread except for many of yours and mark's responses because they were incoherent or rambling/lacking context. Which is why I was asking for clarification. Apparently that's threatening, and makes me seem like I'm being contentious. I honestly can't understand how that's so scary. I understand that you don't want to give an answer for the hope you have. Maybe someone else will give me an answer.

You can understand how I lost my patience and made a ridiculing comment, even though I've tried to stay out of the argument for lack of inspiration. I've been reading it all, too, and very frustrated with the attitude, projecting, and gaslighting, not to mention lack of good-faith answers. You were right to call me out for my moment of weakness, but you see my point, don't you?

 

[NickF]

You can understand how I lost my patience and made a ridiculing comment, even though I've tried to stay out of the argument for lack of inspiration. I've been reading it all, too, and very frustrated with the attitude, projecting, and gaslighting, not to mention lack of good-faith answers. You were right to call me out for my moment of weakness, but you see my point, don't you?

I can certainly understand. I'm frustrated too. Just trying to keep this thread from devolving into name calling. As I've been looking for answers to these questions and can't seem to find any.

 

[NickF]

I'm not even gonna quote - much less respond to - the myriad BS above, other than to note it's SO filled with "LOVE" and "tolerance" and the fruits of - some 'spirit, that any of you torah-haters would fit in well on CNN. Just today, directly above, I see the same 'mouths' espousing Oh-so-PC "love" while then turning RIGHT around and condescendingly accusing others of being condescending!

When I ask questions respectfully and am given a response of condescension and mockery instead of an answer, am I to say nothing? Asking questions is BS? Showing how someone is being condescending and mocking is not condescension or a lack of love. Are we to not reprove bad attitudes and bad actions? Are you above reproof because you are holier and wiser than we? I don't understand your vitriol. Your tone as expected, is not filled with anything lovely or meek. This doesn't surprise me in the least as it's seemingly typical. It's your attitude and the same spirit of self-righteousness and spite towards those who don't believe everything you say that make people like me not want to be part of this place.

I'll ask my questions elsewhere. Maybe someone somewhere can answer. I'll certainly not get any straight, gentle, meek, humble answers around here it seems. Well except so far from Steve. Thanks for that @steve.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Scripture interprets Scripture is a phrase that gets thrown around, but doesn’t seem to get applied enough. Are Jesus and Paul at odds with each other? Certainly not. Jesus the Messiah taught the Gospel to Paul directly. Paul met with the other Apostles, who received him as a brother in Christ. Peter spent a fair amount of time with Paul and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Peter stated that Paul’s writings are Scripture. Having established that, we must conclude that Jesus and Paul are in harmony. Therefore if you see what you perceive as conflict between them it tells you that you are misunderstanding one or the other or both.

When we come to a passage like Matthew 5:18

“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

How do we interpret it? There are at least two ways to interpret it. Either it is saying not a single thing will pass from the Law until heaven and earth pass away. Or, it is saying not a single thing will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. If the correct interpretation is the former there can be no change whatsoever to the Law as long as Heaven and earth are here. If this is the case, then the covenant made at Sinai between God and the Nation of Israel is The Covenant. Under that covenant Jesus cannot be a high priest. He is disqualified from service because of His lineage. Under that covenant Jesus cannot be a sacrifice for sin because He is not a goat or a bull. Under that covenant Jesus’ place of sacrifice on a Roman cross outside of Jerusalem disqualifies His sacrifice from conforming to the qualifications given in the law of Moses. Without Christ being High Priest and the Sacrifice for sin, there is no good news. If Jesus couldn’t do any of those things, why was he sent? What benefit is there if He rose from the grave? To teach us how to live Torah better? He gives us grace to live it? How? What were the point of His miracles? He just came to heal a few random people and tell them “live Torah better like me and you’ll be blessed”... and then He was crucified? What was the point of sending out the Apostles? What Torah Law instructs Hebrews to evangelize and convert non-hebrews into the Sinai covenant?

Now if the second interpretation is correct that puts an entirely different spin on everything. If Christ accomplished all of what He came to accomplish, then He could establish a new covenant built on better promises. He could make a covenant in which He is High Priest and Sacrifice for all sin of all time. All of the signs and wonders He performed have the purpose of demonstrating who He is and that He was here to inaugurate a New Covenant. Like the signs and wonders performed in Egypt and the wilderness were witnesses to God’s Sinai covenant, so are the signs and wonders that Yeshua performed, they are the signs of the New Covenant. In this New Covenant He can send out Apostles to preach good news to the ends of the earth because there actually is good news. In this new covenant, obedience to God and fulfilling the law is done in the spirit through showing love for one another, not in the letter and ceremonial purity and circumcision of the flesh and the keeping of feasts. It would also harmonize Jesus’ words and Paul’s words. Jesus during His ministry kept the law perfectly to fulfill all righteousness and in His death and resurrection He is the mediator of a better covenant. The time has now come that those who worship God worship Him not in Jerusalem or on a mountain in Samaria, but rather in spirit and in truth.

 

[rgmann]

Now if the second interpretation is correct that puts an entirely different spin on everything. If Christ accomplished all of what He came to accomplish, then He could establish a new covenant built on better promises. He could make a covenant in which He is High Priest and Sacrifice for all sin of all time.

Which, of course, is precisely what Christ did, and why the false teaching being promoted by the Torah pushers here is so insidious! Great job in defending the truth of God's word brother!

 

[Mark C]

...why the false teaching being promoted by the Torah pushers here is so insidious! Great job in defending the truth of God's word brother!

With impeccable LOGIC like this brilliance?

Matthew 5:18

“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

How do we interpret it? There are at least two ways to interpret it. Either it is saying not a single thing will pass from the Law until heaven and earth pass away. Or, it is saying not a single thing will pass from the Law until all is accomplished...

Yeah, at LEAST.

Because even simple logic says the correct word is AND.
AND, everybody reading here with even a hint of integrity knows that.

AND, that's before recognizing that the correct word He used was NOT English, and, except for

false teaching being pushed by the Torah HATERS...

we all, by now, know what He was saying.


Do you really think anybody who has read this far actually looking for answers is that gullible?


AND that means, unless He was lying, there's a whole Whore Church dogma at issue.

 

[Michael Moon]

And yet, if you use the Gregorian calendar to mark your Sabbaths, you have been missing almost all of them.

I don't, I use the moons over Jerusalem.

No, this is not about Sunday vs. Saturday. Do you really want to follow the Torah to the letter? Then burn your house down if you find mildew in it.

There are multiple processes for cleaning written in the Torah, the last step is destruction by fire if a house or garment is overrun.

Take your child outside the city and stone him to death for dishonoring you.

Why single out that crime and its punishment? Are you trying to nitpick the Lord's judgements?

I mean, it's keeping His commandments, and that is love, right?

According to Him, yes. God is Love. Not what YOU think is love. God defines Love. God is Good. Not what YOU think is good. God defines what is Good.

That's what y'all have devolved into saying here.

And you have devolved into mocking the words of Messiah.

Don't just talk the talk. Go to your boss and tell him you will need time off to observe the real Sabbath. If you have love, that is. Don't tell me you're another cherry-picking Torah keeper.

So is the issue that you think we are not keeping Torah or that we are keeping it?

Surely the truth would set you free. But as it is, you want to proclaim to be bound while also being free. You remind me of kinksters with their bondage play. I think you guys get off to the Torah. You get some carnal rush from observing certain parts, but inwardly you know it's just pretend and you can quit at any point you like with your safeword. You don't have to actually keep the whole thing, but you pride yourself on drawing YOUR line deeper into the pain than someone else, and they are a detestable xtian.

*edit: This is a sarcastic response and way over the top to show you how ridiculous you are sounding. I, too, believe there is good in following the Law. There are blessings inherently built in. You have been set free, and so you may pick and choose as you and everyone in this forum has been doing their whole lives. Just quit pretending you actually know what you are doing or are keeping anything on the whole. That is laughable.

I suggest you either heavily edit the end of your post or just delete it entirely. Your statements here are detestable. To relate the keeping of God's Word to some perverted kink is disgusting.


"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"

"Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

 

[DawoodSaar]

The same points and verses have been brought up repeatedly and ground to mincemeat. Can't tell which is pork, and which is maggots, and which is lamb because it's all jumbled together.

Consistently, people have either made gigantic complex posts and dared anyone try to answer it, and if the respondent missed a point then hellfire is dropped. Or woefully written posts that could only be comprehended by people from a certain side, with barely enumerated references to vague ideas.

Some who comprehend formal debate and some who think they comprehend formal debate muddies the waters, because they are operating by different rules of engagement. It would seem both sides are having conversations with themselves.

This format is not conducive to structured conversations. So might I propose other threads be made for groups of four. Still public, but with only two proponents from each side. This would reduce the chaotic nature of this free-for-all, improve readability, and reduce miscommunications. Preferably, each of the new threads stays in one book in order to limit going in circles with that favorite cherry-picked verses. But limiting it to one book per thread, hopefully folks would have to give greater and deeper context, without randomly switching to a different favorite verse to squirm out of difficult arguments.

This is not a call to stop conversation, because the topic is vital; but merely to structure it. Because my eyes as a non-participant are bleeding.

Thanks.

 

[Joleneakamama]

That is an excellent point, and the answer won't fit a sound bite. I will suggest (and attempt to demonstrate) that Deuteronomy 30 is among several references (perhaps the first, or at least most unequivocal) to lay out the "Greater Exodus." But I believe the 'curses' (plural, or even 'judgments' if you prefer) we are seeing IN-PROGRESS, now, help "set the stage." So does the "torah-less-ness" which now abounds. And all of that, IMHO, seems to happen first.

They will be the subject of a teaching I will post on multiple sites (including Hebrew Nation Radio) once I finish uploading the podcast, related to the [double] Torah parsha this week, "Behar/Bechukotai: Comparing Curses - OR - did jesus 'Do Away With' the 'Law'?"

I'll put a link on this site somewhere. (Maybe a new thread; this one is getting 'long in the tooth'...but since those who won't listen anyway, won't listen anyway...that'll be kind-of an "Auto-Wheat-Chaff Separator." )

I have yet to see anyone who believes in the literal regathering THERE, answer the verses that contradict that.

He spoke of a new land, He said Israel's descendants would inherit the NATIONS, and Israel said "The scepter shall not depart from Judah or a lawgiver from between his feet TILL SHILOH BE COME and to HIM will the gathering of the people be."
Most people believing the new covenant is future do not see the uniting of "Jews" (house of Judah) and "Gentiles" (including the scattered ten tribes) under Yeshua as fulfilling those prophesies (Hosea, Ezekiel, Jeremiah) and I think that is a big part of why they are still believing (falsly) that the new covenant is still a future event.
I see Jer. 7 as completely ruling out a going back to that land. How else can that be reasonably understood?

 

[Mark C]

I have yet to see anyone who believes in the literal regathering THERE, answer the verses that contradict that.

OK - I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "there", but I suspect it differs from how I (whether correct or not) perceive it.

"The land" is an area that seems to be bigger than even the largest extent of what was later separated - into northern (Israel) and southern (Judah) kingdoms - under Solomon. It never reached the promised borders - yet.

But I agree, Jeremiah 7 talks of desolation. Some (including '70 AD' preterists that I just don't
get) conclude it is "100% fulfilled"; I am a proponent of a "Mark Twain School of Prophecy" (like history) - it doesn't repeat precisely but rhymes. In other words, I suspect elements of that which has been seen in Jeremiah 7 are playing out now, certainly in terms of some warnings and admonitions.

He spoke of a new land, He said Israel's descendants would inherit the NATIONS, and Israel said "The scepter shall not depart from Judah or a lawgiver from between his feet TILL SHILOH BE COME and to HIM will the gathering of the people be."
Most people believing the new covenant is future do not see the uniting of "Jews" (house of Judah) and "Gentiles" (including the scattered ten tribes) under Yeshua as fulfilling those prophesies (Hosea, Ezekiel, Jeremiah) and I think that is a big part of why they are still believing (falsly) that the new covenant is still a future event.

Here we disagree, so far as the ReNewed Covenant being future.

He says it'll no longer be necessary "for each to teach his neighbor, saying 'know Yahuah', for ALL shall know Me..." and I can't help but think we're nowhere CLOSE to that, as this thread should demonstrate! (Jer. 31:33; torah) In other fora, a reference to NYC or the District of Criminals usually suffices to bring home the point.

I see Jer. 7 as completely ruling out a going back to that land. How else can that be reasonably understood?

Deuteronomy 30:1-10.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

When it comes to Romans I am going to introduce perspective of who and what Paul was trying to address with his letter into context. The controversy that Paul was addressing by writing to the Romans was the topic of eating meat/food which had been sacrificed to idols. It was not an argument to nullify the rules for unclean and forbidden animals/foods. At that time food sacrificed to idols was often eaten without knowledge or purchased in the market without knowing. This caused those who were being overly cautious with their fences to eat only vegetables. Paul was making the point that food sacrificed to idols (as long as it was not unclean according to Torah) was clean to eat and should not be something to divide the believers.

That’s an interesting perspective. Is it from the text? I don’t see it in the text. If that is what is going on, why does he extend it to days of the week? In Romans 14:5-6 he says, “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks”. Under the law of Moses not every day is esteemed the same. If not sabbath keeping, to what is he referring? What other days would we observe to the Lord, besides Shabbat or feast days? The law of Moses also touches on foods sacrificed to idols. In Exodus 34:15-16 | NKJV, it says,

15 “lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they play the harlot with their gods and make sacrifice to their gods, and one of them invites you and you eat of his sacrifice, 16 and you take of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters play the harlot with their gods and make your sons play the harlot with their gods.”

And lest you say, oh that was for when they were in the land, I would ask, were they to play the harlot with other gods when they were not in the land? Some first century Hebrew christians were observing Torah by not eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul says it’s a none issue because “All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.” Romans 14:20 | NKJV. It is offending the weak brother by what you eat that is wrong not the food itself because all things indeed are pure.

As believers we need to focus first on what unites us. Belief in Yeshua as our Messiah. Faith by grace and not works which save us. I don't judge or condemn anyone for having different beliefs than I do on these things. As we each walk our own spiritual path we are led to do what we feel is pleasing to Yahweh more and more. We need to be united in our love for Him, and through Him each other.

This I agree with you on this 100%. Those who believe that we are saved by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ are my brothers and sisters in Christ. If you eat, do so with thanksgiving and if you do not eat, do so unto the Lord. I do not judge the one who does not eat. I would only caution that we are not required to keep those things and so if you begin to feel that you are more righteous because you do or do not eat, one must check their heart to be sure that we are doing those things for righteousness. Our righteousness is in Christ Jesus.

Bear in mind that the dietary laws for Israel were never given to gentiles, not then and not now. “You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the Lord your God.” Deuteronomy 14:21 | NKJV
These laws were to separate His chosen Ethnic Israelites from the other peoples of the earth. Hence the question in Hebrew believers minds when the Gospel came to the gentiles. Do they need to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses? The answer was no.

I'm curious, since I believe you mentioned in a post earlier in the discussion Matthew 22: 37-40
37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

What is your understanding of this passage? For me it means that the entire 10 commandments and all of Torah proceed from love of our Creator and through Him a love for our neighbor.
Since you believe the cross did away with the law/covenant with Moses do you believe the 10 commandments no longer need to be followed?

The Ten Commandments are part of God’s unchanging nature, and as such are applicable to believers. The ancient ethnic Hebrews being instructed not to eat a shrimp and pork has to do with them being set apart from the nations around them, as was physical circumcision. These things were commanded to the Israelites but not gentiles.