Meat Why wouldn’t God alter His commands?

[NickF]

I don't see where you get two sets of 'commandments'. Much less how they differ.

Would you re-read my quote? I specifically said “instructions”. Which is beside the point because the Ruach said He commanded them. I mean, you can say something different but I’m going to believe the text over a man’s interpretation.

See below.

Bear in mind, I'm a stickler that the Hebrew word "torah" should be better rendered as "instruction" than "Law." Because it is far more than JUST "statutes, judgments, and commandments."

This is a red herring and has nothing to do with our discussion or my point.

Remember that Yahushua Himself VERY frequently taught in parables. They applied His commandments to SPECIFIC situations. Like those who are ready for more than "milk" should be able to do.

What’s the point? The scripture I quoted was not a parable. He gave specific commands, no interpretation needed.

The text specifically says He commanded them. So I’m confused as to why you say it wasn’t a command. Scripture literally says it was “commanded”.

Mark 6:8-9
[8] And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: [9] But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.

That was temporally the first command. Then later he gave a second different command.

Luke 22:36
[36] Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: u and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Two sets of commands. The second set of commands/instructions conflicts with the first.

His command changed after the passage of time and with a different set of circumstances.

He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. However His commands in this instance clearly are different from one another. That much is clear in the text.

 

[Mark C]

Sorry, no, I don't see it. "Bring me a sandwich" is a command. He told them other things later, too. I can't believe this is a 'change' to His WORD.

 

[NickF]

Sorry, no, I don't see it. "Bring me a sandwich" is a command. He told them other things later, too. I can't believe this is a 'change' to His WORD.

Ok then. I don’t see any further need for discussion if plain wording in scripture plus basic logic is ignored.

I’ll not waste my time further.

 

[Mark C]

Ok then. I don’t see any further need for discussion if plain wording in scripture plus basic logic is ignored.

Do you really not see a difference between "go up this mountain," and "keep My Sabbaths"? Is 'basic logic' not obvious?

PS:

Two sets of commands. The second set of commands/instructions conflicts with the first.

His command changed after the passage of time and with a different set of circumstances.

Duh. Which is so blindly obvious one has to ask: Are you REALLY serious? He told someone to do something in one set of circumstances and something else in another? BOTH specific to individuals? And that proves WHAT? That word games are what matters?

 

[Transformator Reformator]

My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. - Psa 89:34 KJV

Trying to prove YAH does something that he literally said he does not do is NOT of the ruach hakodesh.... simple

The new Covenant that we are benefiting from was it not established from before foundation of this world? Psalm 89:34's "nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips" is reference to covenant. You applying this literally to everything including commandments. I am not sure if it is proper to do when Yeshua already made distinction how it was and how it will be when talking to woman at the well. John 4:23, "Yet the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. For the Father seeks such to worship Him."

The pharisees were righteous when they were teaching and obeying torah.

They were not. "Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone." (Romans 9:32).
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. (Romans 3:28)

, I'm a stickler that the Hebrew word "torah" should be better rendered as "instruction" than "Law." Because it is far more than JUST "statutes, judgments, and commandments."

Agree. But I think a case can be made that it could be rendered "God's will". Just because law requires that a daughter who has played harlot in her father's house should be stoned it does not obligate us to do it, in fact mercy is preferred and esteemed just like Joseph did in case of Mary.

Would I be wrong to assume that all those who adhere to every Torah commandment would wish to establish capital punishment for every infraction as defined in Pentateuch if they were legislators?

 

[Earth_is-]

They were not. "Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone." (Romans 9:32). Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. (Romans 3:28)

The Creator in the flesh said "If your righteousness does not exceed that of the Pharisees" -- that implies they had at least some righteousness:

Matthew 23:23 NLT
What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the law—justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things.

Matthew 23:2-4 (Hebrew Matthew)
Upon the seat of Moses the Pharisees and the sages sit. 3 Now all which they say to you keep and do when they sit on Moses' seat and teach torah; but according to their man made ordinances and deeds, do not do because they say and do not. 4 They demand and set forth great burdens which the shoulders of men are not able to bear; but they themselves even with their finger are unwilling to move.

Perhaps if their faith was stronger they would had rejected the oral traditions, because they were adding and removing from torah. Perhaps then they would had been able to see that the Messiah was the real deal, and they wouldn't had persecuted him. Instead they stumbled upon the stumbling stone.

Just because law requires that a daughter who has played harlot in her father's house should be stoned it does not obligate us to do it, in fact mercy is preferred and esteemed just like Joseph did in case of Mary.

I think discernment is key. Did they know the truth or were they ignorant? Are they repeat offenders, or have they've repented?

The torah is Holy, Righteous, and Good. When there is so much lawlessness/evil in the land - bringing back capitol punishments for certain sins that required the death penalty - I believe is the righteous path. We're instructed to purge the evil from the land. If such a law would be passed in the land - that approves of stoning to the death - I believe making public examples would send fear upon the land, and so people would think twice before committing certain sins. The public examples may lead to saving countless others and peace in the land; because perhaps someone else was thinking of committing that same sin, but the fear of being stoned lead them to re-consider. So they abandon their destructive path, and set forth on the righteous path.

We saw something like this occur in the time of the Apostles as well:

Acts 5:10-11
Instantly, she fell to the floor and died. When the young men came in and saw that she was dead, they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear gripped the entire church and everyone else who heard what had happened.

The solution for abortions, whoredom, and homosexuality is for men to bring back the stoning. Otherwise the land will continue to grow in evil and wickedness; until the Creator has had enough, and raises his fist to strike. Which politician would consider something like this? Perhaps the conservatives from the 1800's - if they were living today - perhaps they would consider it. But I think even the most "conservative republicans" today would reject this as being too extreme; which just shows how far we've gone away from torah. And lawlessness has been the result. Today you're a good conservative if you reject multiple genders.

 

[Mark C]

Why wouldn’t God alter His commands?​

Do we believe He is able to tell the difference between "thou shalt not murder," and "keep My Sabbaths," as opposed to "get thee to Nineva"?

 

[The Revolting Man]

So no one wants to talk Jesus and the fulfillment of the Law?

 

[Transformator Reformator]

The solution for abortions, whoredom, and homosexuality is for men to bring back the stoning. Otherwise the land will continue to grow in evil and wickedness; until the Creator has had enough, and raises his fist to strike. Which politician would consider something like this? Perhaps the conservatives from the 1800's - if they were living today - perhaps they would consider it. But I think even the most "conservative republicans" today would reject this as being too extreme; which just shows how far we've gone away from torah. And lawlessness has been the result. Today you're a good conservative if you reject multiple genders

I do not not trust religious rule. Perhaps this is why liberal government is better choice. Otherwise we would have scenarios such as with Obadia Holmes, Baptist preacher, who was flogged by Puritans in Boston in 1600s. Then there is debacle with Salem witch trials.

Religious rule attempts to take tree away of knowledge of good and evil. Liberal (in classical sense (I do not mean leftist)) rule allows for possibility to select death or righteous path. God gives us an opportunity to love Him back when choice remains. Religious rule applied through tyranny. Recently, there have been many attempts for governments to implement their religion of 'science'.

But regarding the topic in the thread. The following verse may suggest that with fulfilment of the law capital punishments for many infractions must be reconsidered.

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us," (Galatians 3:13). For this reason the woman who was cut in adultery and brought before Yeshua could escape the punishment she deserved because Christ would take her punishment upon Himself. He forgave her because He would become curse on her behalf. In the commandment to punish sin of adultery there is no directive that the punishment should be carried out by those who are without sins. It would have been requirement to punish her if there were witnesses, when witnesses are not available divorce was given as an option.

As result, I think, we are free from carrying out capital punishments. Especially on personal level, Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written: “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay,saith the Lord.”(Romans 12:19).

 

[Transformator Reformator]

So no one wants to talk Jesus and the fulfillment of the Law?

You mean something like this?

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. (Galatians 3)

So it seems that with the advent of Christ I can safely share my jacket with my wife to keep her warm and not be in violation of "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for all who do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." (Deuteronomy 22:5).

 

[Earth_is-]

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. (Galatians 3)

So it seems that with the advent of Christ I can safely share my jacket with my wife to keep her warm and not be in violation of "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for all who do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." (Deuteronomy 22:5).

In those days the Law of Moses was being preached every Sabbath, and was greatly respected:

Acts 15:21
For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.

Acts 21:10
When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.

"The law was our Guardian." So let's say you're training to be an pilot. You need a guardian to walk you through the basics. But after you've learned from your Guardian the instructions - you no longer need the Guardian. You can fly yourself. For Timothy - knowing the Holy Scriptures made him wise for salvation through faith in Yahushua. That doesn't mean he threw out everything he learned. That's certainly not how the Apostles walked. They continued to keep the Creator's Instructions, and they taught the gentiles those very same instructions. The Scriptures (Old Testament) were quoted hundreds of times in the letters we have in the New Testament.

 

[Earth_is-]

You mean something like this?

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. (Galatians 3)

So it seems with the advent of Christ I can safely share my jacket with my wife to keep her warm and not be in violation of "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for all who do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." (Deuteronomy 22:5).

2 timothy 3:15-17
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If the law was fulfilled - and no longer valid for us today - why does this text say differently?

Acts 23:2-5
2 Instantly Ananias the high priest commanded those close to Paul to slap him on the mouth. 3 But Paul said to him, “God will slap you, you corrupt hypocrite! What kind of judge are you to break the law yourself by ordering me struck like that?” 4 Those standing near Paul said to him, “Do you dare to insult God’s high priest?” 5 “I’m sorry, brothers. I didn’t realize he was the high priest,” Paul replied, “for the Scriptures say, ‘You must not speak evil of any of your rulers. (Exodus 22:28)

If the law was fulfilled/done away with - why was Paul still keeping it?

If the law is done away with - why did Yahushua prophecy a narrow gate that few find? He says there will be believers that casted out demons in his name not making it. The reason he says is due to lawlessness. What does lawlessness mean?

1 John 3:4 NKJV
4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

1 John 3:4 KJV
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The question before us is why wouldn’t God alter His commands. There’s no point in going to our respective corners and this is not an excuse to argue for or against Torah keeping.

Christ said that not one jot would pass away until it was fulfilled. That’s the most important passage on the topic and the one we should deal with.

I’ve suggested that it means individual portions of the Law can be fulfilled and that portion “passes away”. I apply this at bare minimum to the Tabernacle, priesthood and sacrifices.

@Bartato has suggested that in fact all of the Law was fulfilled with Christ’s crucifixion. He cites a scripture to back it up which puts him way ahead of the rest of us.

I am skeptical of his claim on two counts; the first is that I don’t think honk anyone thinks all of the Law has actually been done away with. Certainly Acts 15 has laws were to follow.

The second is that the verse he cites has Christ declaring that it is finished, the Law is fulfilled, at Christ’s death. I can see where the sacrifice had been made but the victory wasn’t complete until the resurrection. I find it much more plausible that Christ was referring to the crucifixion being complete.

Still, he’s the only one to suggest a solution let alone back it up with scripture. At the moment he’s winning.

Does anyone else have any ideas? @Earth_is- is quoting lots of scripture, still, but not explaining any of it. No points for him.

 

[The Revolting Man]

If the law was fulfilled - and no longer valid for us today - why does this text say differently?

This verse doesn’t say differently. It doesn’t say that God can’t alter His commands when He chooses.

If the law was fulfilled/done away with - why was Paul still keeping it?

Why couldn’t you still keep it if it was done away with?

If the law is done away with - why did Yahushua prophecy a narrow gate that few find?

Again, just because there’s a narrow gate doesn’t necessarily means it looks exactly like the narrow gate that Moses described. God made the gate, we’re trying to see why He couldn’t remodel it. No one denies that there’s a gate though.

The reason he says is due to lawlessness. What does lawlessness mean?

Yes but what’s lawlessness at this point in scripture? Again, no one is claiming that there’s no such thing as lawlessness. I’m asking someone to show me a scriptural reason why God can’t redefine that lawlessness when He so chooses.

1 John 3:4 NKJV
4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

See above.

1 John 3:4 KJV
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Again, no one is disputing the need for obedience. The question before us is whether or not God would alter any of Bis commands. Do you have anything to say about that?

This is tiresome. If you don’t understand the question ask for clarification or be quiet.

I am so sick of puffed up Torah keepers condescending to everyone else while we don’t even bother to examine the traditions we’ve been spoon fed by our own side. The logical fallacies we’ll endure as long as it comes from someone who sneers at Christians (don’t even get me started on the rejection of that word) while obsessing over the apocrypha but never cracking the New Testament is mind boggling.

Meanwhile we keep having major apostasies in our ranks. The fruit is not manifesting itself men. It’s time for us to get humble.

It is entirely possible, and at this point I would say probable, that we’re in the verge of being a whore church-a-gogue. There is certainly nothing in the movement that should lead us to have the towering sense of spiritual superiority so many of us convey in our writings.

There were a lot of very strict Torah keepers who Christ condemned explicitly and vociferously. Let’s not pretend like there can’t be more.

 

[Earth_is-]

Does anyone else have any ideas? @Earth_is- is quoting lots of scripture, still, but not explaining any of it. No points for him.

The message hasn't changed. This is the root of it all:

Joshua 24:15 NLT
But if you refuse to serve the LORD, then choose today whom you will serve. Would you prefer the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates? Or will it be the gods of the Amorites in whose land you now live? But as for me and my family, we will serve the LORD (YAHUAH)

Matthew 22:37 NLT
Jesus (Yahushua) replied, “‘You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’

Joshua 22:5 NLT
But be very careful to obey all the commands and the instructions that Moses gave to you. Love the LORD your God, walk in all his ways, obey his commands, hold firmly to him, and serve him with all your heart and all your soul.

Who changed the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? Did they consult with the Creator? Or was it entirely a man made decision? Why did it take 300 years after resurrection for it to be changed? If your master is the roman catholic church, then serve the roman catholic church by walking in her ways. If your Master is not the roman catholic church - then reject her changes - and go back to the eternal ROCK.

Unless you can find me in Scripture where YAHUAH says "His Sabbath" will be changed from the 7th day - to the 1st day of the week -- or that in the future we no longer need to keep it. I cannot find it. It's "His Sabbath." It's not a Jewish or Christian thing. It's one of the ways we're set apart from the world:

Deuteronomy 14:2 NLT
You have been set apart as holy to the LORD your God, and he has chosen you from all the nations of the earth to be his own special treasure.

Exodus 20:11
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

 

[Earth_is-]

There were a lot of very strict Torah keepers who Christ condemned explicitly and vociferously. Let’s not pretend like there can’t be more.

Example?

 

[The Revolting Man]

And whole I’m on a roll, Christmas is not a pagan holiday and Jeremiah 10:3-4 is not about Christmas trees. We sound like fools when we vociferously defend patently false statements.

I have tracked down every claim about Christmas’ pagans roots and none of them pan out. They’re all trolls by atheists that we swallowed hook, line and sinker because it supported the narrative that we were righteous and every one else were apostate sinners. It’s amazing what we’ll accept without question if it strikes our ego.

And I don’t celebrate Christmas and I don’t have a Christmas tree, largely so I can be in fellowship with you all. We have to grow up. We have to ask the hard questions of ourselves, not everyone else.

We need a reformation.

There is no point in leaving mainstream Christianity if all we’re going to do is adopt a whole new raft of traditions not found in scripture. There’s no point in looking for the ancient paths if we’re just going to make new ones whenever we feel like it.

Are we just LARPing Jewishness? Or are we searching for a new set apart holiness? We have to do God’s things, God’s way if we want God’s results. If we just want to keep doing things our way then let’s make up a fun religion; one with a lot more cocaine and strippers. This one sucks if it’s just something we invented.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Example?

Seriously!?!?!

 

[Mark C]

Example?

The Pharisees were NOT "strict torah keepers' - they were "hypocrites." They violated Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:31. They couldn't even find the man/men in the so-called "woman taken in adultery."

This is not hard. But justifying calling Him a liar is.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Who changed the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? Did

Unless you can find me in Scripture where YAHUAH says "His Sabbath" will be changed from the 7th day - to the 1st day of the week -- or that in the future we no longer need to keep it. I cannot find it. It's "His Sabbath." It's not a Jewish or Christian thing. It's one of the ways we're set apart from the world:

No! You have to prove the day was changed. Almost the entire western world treats Saturday as a day of rest. That’s the sabbath command. Anyone who rests on the seventh day is keeping the sabbath.

You don’t even understand what the sabbath is. You want submission to your theology from your fellow man. You think they can’t be keeping Sabbath unless they come to you and ask for your approval for they obsequiousness to your interpretation.

But according to the Law you claim to venerate so much, as long they’re resting on the seventh day then they are keeping the sabbath!

And keeping it better than many of us do since already the sabbath is getting watered down in our ranks, with avowed Torah keepers changing the timing, yes that’s happened in this group, or regularly not keeping the sabbath because it conflicts with their job, which is happened in this group with multiple people of very honored position.

So no, you’re the one accusing others of sin. The burden of proof is on you. As far as I can tell you don’t understand even the sabbath well enough to indict anyone.