I will wait until the fullness of your response comes through.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Law, commands, or instructions?
- Thread starter Verifyveritas76
- Start date
No. It's clearly far more basic. It's about INSTRUCTION.
And please don't tell me what "I believe" based on a few posts that are no more than the equivalent of sound bites. I have several hundred hours of torah teachings up on-line for just the last year, and it's obvious you haven't even got a clue what I teach about Covenant.
Last edited:
You're welcome to listen live, and interact or ask questions as well. We're "on" now - and I'm getting the first recorded teaching from this week (on the Book of Judges/Shoftim, with a panel) going in a minute. That obviously goes for anyone else as well...
The sessions are on Paltalk (www.paltalk.com, it's a conferencing-type concept, for those that haven't used it) and simulcast via shoutcheap. Later, MP3s on multiple sites.
Meanwhile: just do a search once you get in for "torah" -- and look for us ( "Walking Torah with Shabbat Shalom Mesa" ) in the list.
Shabbat shalom!
Obviously, I'm only responding to sound bites in which you have presented what you believe. If you believe differently, please make your postulation clear in your sound bites.
I appreciate the invite to your show (if it was for me) but must decline for the same reason I haven't checked out your website. You have failed in the defense of your interpretation of INSTRUCTION in simple direct questions from Scripture or with logic. Why would I allow anyone to influence me about Scripture or INSTRUCTION who uses as the basis for his argument an example in which God obviously changed (from the Noahic Covenant) as proof that God doesnt change and wouldn't possibly entertain the thought of the slightest amount of change in an entirely New, but similar, Covenant Obviously you are more interested in your contradictory bias than truth.
I appreciate the invite to your show (if it was for me) but must decline for the same reason I haven't checked out your website. You have failed in the defense of your interpretation of INSTRUCTION in simple direct questions from Scripture or with logic. Why would I allow anyone to influence me about Scripture or INSTRUCTION who uses as the basis for his argument an example in which God obviously changed (from the Noahic Covenant) as proof that God doesnt change and wouldn't possibly entertain the thought of the slightest amount of change in an entirely New, but similar, Covenant Obviously you are more interested in your contradictory bias than truth.
On Peter's vision, there is a much more comprehensive explanation, that maintains that some animals, and even men may indeed be unclean.
After all YHWH told Peter "What God has cleansed, call not thou common." Peter's later observation is that "in every nation, men who fear God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him." (Acts 10:35)
I honestly don't have time for an in depth post, but this article does a very good job of presenting a comprehensive view.
YHWH said in Isaiah that He would gather others to Christ, and the great commission was to baptize into the new covenant all those that believe.
After all YHWH told Peter "What God has cleansed, call not thou common." Peter's later observation is that "in every nation, men who fear God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him." (Acts 10:35)
I honestly don't have time for an in depth post, but this article does a very good job of presenting a comprehensive view.
YHWH said in Isaiah that He would gather others to Christ, and the great commission was to baptize into the new covenant all those that believe.
@Joleneakamama, that was a pretty good analyses on the term common. He did that part well. Though I don't agree with his interpretation on everything, I did learn from him. What he failed to acknowledge is that God said " What God hath cleansed (present tense verb, katharizo meaning: to cleanse [indicating that something that was not clean is now] or to pronounce clean in a Levitical sense) let no man call common.
We all know and recognize in hindsight that God was using the example as a metaphor benefiting the men who were en route. However, the metaphor can only be taken so far. God said rise, kill and eat. A direct command that Peter hesitated at (as we probably all would have due to cultural conditioning). Aside from that, how do you rise, kill and eat other men? Peter associated rising, killing and eating any animals within the blanket because God did not place any restrictions on anything within the blanket. Sounds to me like God (not Jesus) restored the eating restrictions back to Noahic Covenant restrictions (nothing previously dead/no blood) as is evidenced by the words kill, and eat, however, nothing is said indicating that they may be used for sacrifice (which is a moot point in context anyway post crucifixion)
The author assumes that God is telling Peter to eat something declared clean (by God) yet in contact with something declared unclean (by God) thus declared common (by man). However the verb used as well as the directive given do not support this assumption. Peter could have then risen, killed and eaten on the next two instances and yet did not.
Peter then continues some time pondering what the vision actually meant. The spiritual application of a physical command did not become clear until the men showed up at the door later. Peter later in life has the opportunity to correct Paul's assertion that it was lawful to eat anything as long as it was not offered to idols, or strangled or with blood (as did the elders at Jerusalem) as he wrote his epistles later and yet he does nothing of the sort, just comments that Paul is sometimes hard to understand and men who are unstable or unlearned, torture his writings to get them to say otherwise, like they do the other scriptures to their own destruction.
The author also follows the common assumption that God does not change his mind, quoting several passages about how God doesn't change (macro) and interprets that God doesn't change His mind (micro). This entire idea (that He doesn't change his mind) can be proven to be false many times over in Scripture. Just do a quick search on the word repent in the OT. The first time I can find is where God repents (changes His mind) that he has made man because of their wickedness before the flood. As far as God changing his mind, in Exodus 32:9-14 we find it happening at least twice in the course of the conversation with Moses, and Moses is the one who convinced Him to change His mind.
And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked † people:
Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. [GOD CHANGES HIS MIND]
And Moses besought † the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swearest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. [MOSES ARGUING AGAINST GOD'S NEW DIRECTION]
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. [GOD CHANGES HIS MIND and we all breathe a sigh of relief.]
So within the course of the inception of the written Torah, precedence is established that God not only can, but will change His mind if He wants to while simultaneously remaining consistent in His nature. Other instances are Miriam's leprous hand, Jeroboam in 1 Kings 13:4-6. King Saul, (chosen by God promised a dynasty and later refused) Solomon's failed dynasty, the promised firstborn (Christ) through a second born son (Jacob) and later by lineage of Nathan, not Solomon.
What he does not, nor cannot change is who He is and His nature: Holy, Righteous, Creator, Just, Merciful, Gracious, Loving. He will always fulfill His covenants, though He reserves the right to change how He fulfills the promises or terms of the covenant.
That His nature does not change can find support throughout the entirety of Scripture with no known contradictions.
That His mind cannot change finds support only in the minds of those who err, because they focus on a few Scriptures that vaguely support their claim and ignore or attempt to discredit Scripture that directly contradicts their claims, never able to reconcile the 'god' that they've created with the God who is and was and is to come.
Sola Scriptura is only valid if "all of" Scripture is used.
We all know and recognize in hindsight that God was using the example as a metaphor benefiting the men who were en route. However, the metaphor can only be taken so far. God said rise, kill and eat. A direct command that Peter hesitated at (as we probably all would have due to cultural conditioning). Aside from that, how do you rise, kill and eat other men? Peter associated rising, killing and eating any animals within the blanket because God did not place any restrictions on anything within the blanket. Sounds to me like God (not Jesus) restored the eating restrictions back to Noahic Covenant restrictions (nothing previously dead/no blood) as is evidenced by the words kill, and eat, however, nothing is said indicating that they may be used for sacrifice (which is a moot point in context anyway post crucifixion)
The author assumes that God is telling Peter to eat something declared clean (by God) yet in contact with something declared unclean (by God) thus declared common (by man). However the verb used as well as the directive given do not support this assumption. Peter could have then risen, killed and eaten on the next two instances and yet did not.
Peter then continues some time pondering what the vision actually meant. The spiritual application of a physical command did not become clear until the men showed up at the door later. Peter later in life has the opportunity to correct Paul's assertion that it was lawful to eat anything as long as it was not offered to idols, or strangled or with blood (as did the elders at Jerusalem) as he wrote his epistles later and yet he does nothing of the sort, just comments that Paul is sometimes hard to understand and men who are unstable or unlearned, torture his writings to get them to say otherwise, like they do the other scriptures to their own destruction.
The author also follows the common assumption that God does not change his mind, quoting several passages about how God doesn't change (macro) and interprets that God doesn't change His mind (micro). This entire idea (that He doesn't change his mind) can be proven to be false many times over in Scripture. Just do a quick search on the word repent in the OT. The first time I can find is where God repents (changes His mind) that he has made man because of their wickedness before the flood. As far as God changing his mind, in Exodus 32:9-14 we find it happening at least twice in the course of the conversation with Moses, and Moses is the one who convinced Him to change His mind.
And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked † people:
Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. [GOD CHANGES HIS MIND]
And Moses besought † the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swearest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. [MOSES ARGUING AGAINST GOD'S NEW DIRECTION]
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. [GOD CHANGES HIS MIND and we all breathe a sigh of relief.]
So within the course of the inception of the written Torah, precedence is established that God not only can, but will change His mind if He wants to while simultaneously remaining consistent in His nature. Other instances are Miriam's leprous hand, Jeroboam in 1 Kings 13:4-6. King Saul, (chosen by God promised a dynasty and later refused) Solomon's failed dynasty, the promised firstborn (Christ) through a second born son (Jacob) and later by lineage of Nathan, not Solomon.
What he does not, nor cannot change is who He is and His nature: Holy, Righteous, Creator, Just, Merciful, Gracious, Loving. He will always fulfill His covenants, though He reserves the right to change how He fulfills the promises or terms of the covenant.
That His nature does not change can find support throughout the entirety of Scripture with no known contradictions.
That His mind cannot change finds support only in the minds of those who err, because they focus on a few Scriptures that vaguely support their claim and ignore or attempt to discredit Scripture that directly contradicts their claims, never able to reconcile the 'god' that they've created with the God who is and was and is to come.
Sola Scriptura is only valid if "all of" Scripture is used.
When the Israelites exodused from Egypt to Sinai, --- did ANYTHING about the BODIES of men change. According to the basis of your argument against the New Covenant, that would be the only reason for a CHANGED diet and restrictions on it from the Noahic Covenant, i.e. Everything that mooooves is meat for you. Restrictions? Road Kill. Still twitchin? Maaaaybe! Maybe not!
The article that @Joleneakamama posted offers a very interesting perspective I had never considered before, and I would encourage everyone to follow the link and read it. I don't know if it's correct, but it is well worth pondering.
In summary, the author points out that Peter suggests there are two classes of animals on the sheet - "common" and "unclean". Based on Pharisaical tradition, clean things became common on contact with unclean. So the "unclean" animals would be reptiles, pigs etc, and the "common" could refer to clean sheep, chickens etc that had become "common" through contact with the unclean animals. Peter was only told "don't call common what I have made clean", which could simply mean that what is clean is still clean despite its contact with unclean animals. In other words, the Pharisaical tradition of "common" things was invalid. The reason Peter would hesitate to go to Cornelius was purely due to Pharisaical tradition of Jews not mingling with Gentiles. Torah does not command this separation, that was tradition. And the purpose of the vision was to show that this tradition of things being "common" was incorrect. It says nothing about the laws of clean and uncleanness.
Read the article for the more well-reasoned and referenced version. Worth pondering.
In summary, the author points out that Peter suggests there are two classes of animals on the sheet - "common" and "unclean". Based on Pharisaical tradition, clean things became common on contact with unclean. So the "unclean" animals would be reptiles, pigs etc, and the "common" could refer to clean sheep, chickens etc that had become "common" through contact with the unclean animals. Peter was only told "don't call common what I have made clean", which could simply mean that what is clean is still clean despite its contact with unclean animals. In other words, the Pharisaical tradition of "common" things was invalid. The reason Peter would hesitate to go to Cornelius was purely due to Pharisaical tradition of Jews not mingling with Gentiles. Torah does not command this separation, that was tradition. And the purpose of the vision was to show that this tradition of things being "common" was incorrect. It says nothing about the laws of clean and uncleanness.
Read the article for the more well-reasoned and referenced version. Worth pondering.
I only have a few minutes here, but wanted to point out that God has before stated that those dispersed ten tribes were very unclean indeed. Ezekiel 36:16-27 details their previous state, and describes the changes that were to happen to the Israelites, with the commencement of the new covenant.
I think it is very interesting what you have brought out about all creatures being food. Still looking at it.
I have always seen God's offer to make a nation of Moses as a test, that Moses passed in pleading for mercy for the people. I never really saw it as God changing His mind. Have to consider that too!
This is, in fact, a forbidden "addition to" the actual commandments (Deut. 4:2, 12:32).
"Laws of men" - not YHVH.
It is in fact quite sound, and well-done. Those who are willing to look deeper than a mere 'sound bite' will find the related piece by the same author just as sound on the subject of food:
Did Jesus Declare All Foods Clean? A Hebraic Perspective on Mark 7:19
(Note: Robert Roy is clearly far more inclined to delve into the greek than I am. I accept that some here will find that perspective more comfortable to accept than Hebrew, but the fact that he is very careful with the translations means the conclusions remain sound. And, indeed, helps to make the point. He's also a bit 'kinder and gentler' than I tend to be with the abominable parenthetic insertion, which most scholars agree was added centuries later, 'thus he declared all foods clean.')
And this one addresses the point that I have at some length in the on-line teachings (and again today, given the question asked by YHVH in Numbers 14:11).
That two-part series for this week is now complete, and posted here:
Shalach Lekha - Numbers chapters 13 thru 15 - and "Let's Crack the Code!"
Direct link to the MP3s are here:
http://www.waytozion.org/teachings/mark_call/2017/SSM-6-16-17-Shalach-Lekha.mp3
http://hebrewnationonline.com/wp-co...6-16-17-Shalach-Lekha-teaching-podcast-xx.mp3
http://www.waytozion.org/teachings/mark_call/2017/WT-CooH-6-17-17-Shalach-Lekha.mp3
http://hebrewnationonline.com/wp-co...17-Shalach-Lekha-Crack-the-Code-podcast-x.mp3
Last edited:
I'm always curious about why some anti-Torah people are so adamant about claiming that following the Law is bad. I can see the argument about it not being required but I don't understand the animosity towards the idea of obeying instructions God has given.
Why is it so important to try and discredit the whole idea? To the point that you're willing to discredit the whole Old Testament? No one is saying that if you don't follow Torah you're going to hell. But there seems to be a surprising level of anger at the idea that anyone else would find value in it.
Why is it so important to try and discredit the whole idea? To the point that you're willing to discredit the whole Old Testament? No one is saying that if you don't follow Torah you're going to hell. But there seems to be a surprising level of anger at the idea that anyone else would find value in it.
It was a central point of the question He asked, and I referenced above, from this week's parsha, 'And YHVH said to Moses, “How long will this people despise Me? And how long will they not believe Me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?"'
And as it turns out, that is the full response. It's not a sound bite.
Thanks @Joleneakamama for the article, and thanks @FollowingHim for reiterating it was a good read. To be honest, I am only superficially reading this thread, with intent to read it closer when my mind is more ready to consider all positions clearly, so I likely wouldn't have read the article now without it being emphasized - I'm glad I did. Good stuff.
If you think about it, God never made a covenant with (the descendants of Jacob) Israel that they didnt break. He could have just as easily made a nation from Moses and still fulfilled His promises and covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. All of them were promised a Saviour from their seed which Moses was. God didnt change His mind because He had to, Moses convinced God that it would bring dishonor to His name.
Also, study out the firstborn that was saved in the Passover. God intended for them to be the priests and kings over his nation as the Paters of each household. The picture of the Kinsman redeemer. Exodus 13 & 19 makes this clear. It is not until you get to Exodus 32 when the Levites are not involved in the idolatry and orgy in camp, and they put on their swords to cleanse the camp and stand with Moses that there is a massive change in what God intended. He intended to reinstitute a Melchizedek style priesthood that had been in existence since Adam where the firstborn was the king and priest of the home and dealt directly with God as Adam, then Enoch, then Noah, then Shem, then Abraham, Isaac and Levi had done. Numbers 3:12,40-45 makes it very clear that the Levites were substituted for the firstborn to be priests, but not kings. Why? Because they obeyed God's voice and didnt participate in the golden calf incident. However, their priesthood was a temporary substitution until the original Melchizedek, the firstborn and only begotten of the Father, would be the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world and would reintroduce a nation of kings and priests.
After the rebellion on the 9th of Av 2nd year from the Exodus, where they refused to go in Canaan, the ordinances, statues and covenants are almost entirely unobserved until the 40th year when they enter Canaan. A new covenant is recorded in Deuteronomy 29:1 by Moses, in Moab, with the remnant of Israel that is separate from or "beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb (Sinai). Within the first year of entering Canaan, you find an interesting story of Joshua's longest day. It boils down to the Adonai-zedek, king of the city of Peace, being hung on a cross, buried in a cave and rocks piled over it. This event is accompanied by an incredible astronomical event that appears to me to be a near earth passage by a heavenly body. The "hailstones" mentioned are probably a meteor shower in the wake of the passing planet.
Long story short, as the Levitical priesthood and covenant is being installed in the land of Israel, the Melchizedek or Adonai-zedek (both mean Lord of Light) is killed by crucifixion, taken off the cross before dark and buried in a cave, rocks piled over it the same day as heaven and earth passing. Is it any wonder that as the Melchizedek priesthood and covenant is being reinstituted under the Son of God, in the land of Israel, that the identical signs are given, only instead of a long day, you have the covenant with the sun and moon broken, a day that the sun does not rule. Jer. 31:32-35 and a new covenant that is "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt."
Lev. 7:19. And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire: and as for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof.
Last edited:
I'm just gonna quote "The Lion King" here and continue to be a bystander...
"Can you feel, the love tonight" !!!
#Torahobservant
"Can you feel, the love tonight" !!!
#Torahobservant
This applies to food, not live animals. If your dog steals your chop, it is now unclean. But if your sheepdog catches your live sheep for you, it is still clean. That article suggested that the Pharisees were applying an intermediate category of "common" to many things and people, including live animals, in addition to what is in the Law.
The big question is whether what the article suggests the Pharisees taught about live animals becoming "common" is actually correct. Is there any support for this in the Talmud or other writings? I wouldn't have any idea.
What do you mean that Christ is "the original Melchizedek", and that He was "slain before the foundation of the world"? These are both unusual statements and I am not sure where you are going theologically with this. Could you elaborate?
This is interesting, as this Adonaizedek, being king of Jerusalem, was most likely the successor of Melchizedek, king of Salem. I hadn't noticed that before. However it is important to note that he was only one of five kings who were killed in this manner, although he was the leader of them. You also make a few statements here that I believe are incorrect.
- Melchizedek means "my king is righteous" or "king of righteousness", Adonaizedek means "my Lord is righteous" or "Lord of righteousness". Neither name refers to light.
- Adonaizedek was not killed by crucifixion. He was killed by Joshua, most likely decapitated with a sword based on the description (he was being pinned down with a foot on his neck), then his body was hung up.
- There is nothing in the text to directly suggest Adonaizedek's body was hung on a cross, he was most likely hung on a tree, although it could have been a wooden pole or structure. Of course, the same could be said about Yeshua...
After the death of Melchizedek (whether he was Shem or not), someone else would have succeeded him as king of Salem/Jerusalem. However, the Canaanites became wicked enough for their land to be given to Israel. So whoever succeeded him, this person did not have the level of peaceful influence on the people as Melchizedek may have had. Ultimately, we see here that rather than the king of Jerusalem truly being the king of peace, by Joshua's time, this king organises an aggressive attack against the Gibeonites, who had not threatened Jerusalem at all. He is not a man of peace, but of war. His character is nothing like the character of Melchizedek. So I do not believe the two can be equated in any way.
It just occurred to me that no one would claim that not eating pork is a sin. No one would claim that not working on Saturday is a sin. No one would say its a sin to celebrate Passover. And yet somehow the Law in it's entirety becomes something despicable that even God doesn't take seriously. It's such a weird jump.