Torah keepers and sacred name.

[welltan]

Either we are or we are not under the 'law'. Usually someone will say "they are not under the law...but". And then they go on to state their favorite part of the law that they keep no matter what. And by "no matter what" I mean that they sooner or later may accept their private part of the law as equal with Christ's work on the cross. Or state that this part of the law works hand in hand with what Christ did. If it goes far enough they will even disavow Christ and state that they are the high priest of their own home or hold the keys to some religious safe deposit box somewhere. They then recomend we all figure out how to get into or put things into this safe deposit box, which works nicely for them as they have the keys. For most the appeal of keeping the law is a control/power heart problem. They want to hold all the theo-cards rather then know Christ. Christ seemed to go out of his way to not form a new Law.
Christ may spit once, twice, or three times to heal you and to relate to you. But this is not to start three groups that separate from each other as "one spitters" "two spitters" and "three spitters". That's why preachers should not chew tobaco even though the Old and New Testament have no law against it. Every time a preacher spits it seems to start a new denomination or group. However, when Christ spits it is a healing thing.
This is why I never sit on the front row in church and also I am not the founder of the Great Assembly of sarcastic spitters. I have no patience with members of our Christian family who lightly call themselves pre, mid, post, all, instrumental, non instramental, 7th day, 6 day, 3rd day (nice singing group though), one dunker, three dunker, reformed, non-reformed, etc. If you are a member of the 10 lost tribes of Israel then stay lost till Christ finds you. If you want your group to move to the desert away from other Christians then you better actually be Moses or you will find only rattlesnakes in the desert. If you die for Christ then you are a martyr but if you die for your own road show then you are just road kill.

 

[^_^]

yep, that's pretty well put
I'm not quite sure why man likes to put labels to himself and everything around him (guilty in some degree here too), but it can't be healthy.
Do I think keeping Torah will save me? Um, hardly, because I haven't kept it, and I'll probably screw up big time again. That's why there is this forgiveness clause in Scripture. Seems to run the whole way through from what I can see.
But, back to this label thing: I think it's just peoples way of communicating their differing perspectives and how they relate to each other. Under the law vs not under the law as relating to should we do what Scripture says? My position is that we have been told:
1. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2. When that portion was written as a letter to a minister of sorts, what did both the sender and recipient consider to be Scripture? I rather doubt Timothy thought that letter from Paul was Scripture, so what was?
3. An almighty God came down and told and entire nation along with a mixed multitude how to live and relate to each other. Seems like a pretty big cloud of witnesses to testify against us if they so choose.
4. This Messiah that came down and paid our redemption price, what did he say? I can't find even one word breathed about anything being abolished. I can find him criticizing some folks for applying the law legalistically while totally missing the grace, mercy and justice that's in Torah and meant to be applied, and at that point, he told them, this you should do, and not leave the other undone. That's pretty powerful to me.

so do I want a Torah spitting church? only if the spitting is healing

 

[GivenMercy]

Well, Face, you put it very well. The point for Paul never was whether or not the "law" was good or not (after discussing the dilemma of the law causing the old nature to fall into sin in Romans 7 - he clearly states in v 12 "So then, the law is holy, and the commadment holy, righteous, and good"). His point - any time throughout the N.T. is that the law never could - and never will save us! But, we should be careful not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". We do not have a "label" for our "beliefs' -- we just love God - know our salvation is through Christ alone - and like Face so very well quoted from Timothy - "Allscripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteouness;". We do NOT, however, judge any other for where they are at in their walk with God! (As we mentioned before from Romans - it is before his own master a man will stand or fall - and God is able to make them stand). Also, just a reminder to all of us -- Jesus said they would KNOW we were His disciples by our LOVE for one another (remember the greatest commandment.....) NOT by what part of His instruction we choose to follow due to personal convictions we may have.

Peace & Blessings to you all!

Don & Shari

 

[DaPastor]

Using Generic Terms for God

Hello,

Pastor Randy, you say Jesus used Theos for the father's name.

Brother Face, I shared that Jesus used the generic term "Theos" to refer to the Father in the Greek New Testament text:

Mat 4:4 ο δε αποκριθεις ειπεν γεγραπται ουκ επ αρτω μονω ζησεται Aο ανθρωπος αλλ επι παντι ρηματι εκπορευομενω δια στοματος θεου

The Septuagint uses the same term when referring to God:

Gen 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν

I should add that the Aramaic and its most popular Lamsa's translation does exactly the same thing:

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, that it is not by bread alone that man can live, but by every word which comes from the mouth of God - Lamsa

Murdock's Aramaic translation does the same thing:

Mat 4:4 But he replied, and said: It is written, that not by bread only, doth man live; but by every word proceeding from the mouth of God - Murdock

The Old Testament did the same thing. It used Eloah as a generic term for God. The Aramaic uses Elah as a generic term for God.

The only version that I have found that does not do that is actually a modern Hebrew Bible:

Mat 4:4 ויען ויאמר הן כתוב לא על־הלחם לבדו יחיה האדם כי על־כל־מוצא פי־יהוה׃

The point that I am making is that I do not know if it is the wisest thing to make major doctrinal issue of using a generic term for our creator. If you want to discuss the fact that God has a Name, then we can discuss the legitimacy of using one's native language.

Too me, it seems that we can make a mountain out of a mole hill when, in fact, there is a great deal more important issues to concentrate on. I do not mind if someone says that I am a "man" and we know that יהוה does not mind if we use a generic term for Him as well. Afterall, He is the one who wrote inspired the text!

 

[^_^]

to say that though, assumes alot of things.
Theos is the equivalent of God, that I'll agree with. Elohim, Elah, Eloah, any variation, I've no problem with that
It's the Kurios that is the Greek equivalent of Adonai that trips everyone up.
Yet Yahushua doesn't seem to have used that name, and I've a theory why, but people hate me for it.

 

[Anonymous]

Face what is the theory??? I won't hate you. I promise.

 

[^_^]

Mostly based on what I read in Scripture, and partly based on my understanding of what most refer to as body, soul and spirit, I see this Yahushua as none other than Yahweh himself in the flesh. Might even more accurately say Yahweh_shua.
I see that he came down and took on himself the form of a man, experiencing life as we do. And he overcame. The body is nothing but dirt for the spirit to express it'self on earth, if allow our spirit that we have been given as a gift to be corrupted, it will manifest it'self as a sinner. If we return our spirit to it's rightful owner while on earth, righteousness will be displayed through the body.
So, this brings me to one awful realization.... if he could come down in human flesh and do as he instructed in Torah, he as EVERY RIGHT to condemn us to death, no ifs, ands or buts about it. However, since he also took on flesh, and has experienced life as we do, he also manifests his great mercy and grace that he has always been famous for. Many folks read the 'Old Testament' through the colored lenses that Yahweh is such a wrathful God, but when you look at the whole picture, he is certainly a gracious and forgiving mighty one. He should have wiped us out completely, we deserved it, but he is great of compassion, you can't read Psalms or the prophets without seeing this.

I am strictly monotheistic, I believe in no such theory as God the Father, Jesus the Son, and some mysterious thing we have labeled the 'Holy Spirit'. Yahweh has always been a spirit, and it's that spirit that gives the gifts, the power, and while no human body can contain all of it, he's certainly big enough to put all of his attributes into one earthly body and come down to earth and suffer with us to pay our redemption price himself. To me, that's what Abraham saw, it's what the prophet Isaiah saw, and I think that's the pattern Moshe was shown on the mountain. I see the sacrificial offerings and all that as very useful, practical training tools for a 'hands on' people such as the Hebrews. And I think we would do well not to see them as ritualistic relics, but as spiritual training tools for humans to learn to connect to the spirit we have been given, and return that spirit to control of it's rightful owner while we walk this earth. Otherwise, it will be taken from us, and our soul (the combination of body and spirit) taken from us.

OK, now you can ban me

 

[DaPastor]

Making Mountains out of Mole Hills

Now, I guess you assume he spoke Greek?

No, I do not believe that He spoke in Greek. Most scholars believe, and the evidence supports, that Jesus spoke in Aramaic.

Most Jews, especially the tzadok (observant or righteous ones) did not speak Greek. Even Josephus the historian admitted that he tried hard to learn it, but was difficult to speak it correctly, as the custom was to speak their own language. That language would have been Hebrew or an Aramaic version of it. It certainly didn't contain a word 'theos'. Nor was any messiah named Jesus as the J wasn't invented until about 150 years ago or so. Heck, look at how you pronounce Halleluiah, that's clue enough to know that i sound in the greek iesous wasn't a J sound. Now another thing, Hebrew names didn't typically end with an s or and s sound, so why does the Joshua used in Heb 4:8. Funny that the Greek text there is the same name usually rendered Jesus, and some versions of KJV actually have Jesus in the text there, but it's quite obvious who they were speaking of. So, go look up how to pronounce Joshua's name phonetically corrected without the J sound, and you'll have a pretty good idea how the angel who announced the conception to Mary sounded. Except her name wasn't Mary, it was Miryam..... the fun goes on....

Yes, the fun does go on. The fact is that no one really knows the correct pronunciation of ancient Hebrew - period! Moreover, even today there are at least four ways of pronouncing Hebrew (I learn two of them in Seminary): Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Yemenite, and Samaritan. To make an issue out of pronunication takes away from the more important aspects of following the true God. It is like making a mountain out of a mole hill, don't you think? ...unless you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that your particular pronunication is the one and true correct one? I don't know any scholar on earth today that can do that - it is all a guess!

 

[DaPastor]

Anyway, this Yahushua the messiah, while on earth made it pretty clear in quite a few places that not a bit of Torah would pass away, in fact, the command to love Elohim with our whole heart, and our neighbor as our self is what all of Torah and the prophets hangs on. You learn Torah, it teaches how to love Elohim and your neighbor. Good thing too, because we tend pretty quickly to serve ourselves, and we have been given instructions on how to better treat both ourselves and our neighbor. In fact, it is impossible to love your neighbor as yourself until you first love yourself. Furthermore, it's impossible to love Yahweh while hating your neighbor or yourself. All that's in Torah, and as the Psalmist said, it's beautiful. Unless it's twisted by wicked men to serve themselves, but evil men can turn anything beautiful into ugliness.

Hello Face,

Yes, Jesus said that the Law would not pass away. However, what does that mean? It is obvious, for example, that there are to be no more blood sacrifices. How is that determined? What hermeneutic establishes this truth? There needs to be a consistent hermeneutic established that anyone can apply in order to establish what part of the Law applies and what part of the Law does not apply. So, what principles do you use?

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Face. Are you saying you believe there is one God and not a trinity? Well that is what I believe right now. There are/were many manifestations of God and Jesus was God. At least that is my belief and understanding right now. O.K.? I don't think they'll ban you... :?

 

[^_^]

Yes, Jesus said that the Law would not pass away. However, what does that mean? It is obvious, for example, that there are to be no more blood sacrifices. How is that determined? What hermeneutic establishes this truth? There needs to be a consistent hermeneutic established that anyone can apply in order to establish what part of the Law applies and what part of the Law does not apply. So, what principles do you use?

so when Paul was in the temple for his cleansing for his vow, what do you make of his preparation for sacrifice? He seems to see no problem with sacrifices, so I don't see any reason to either. In fact, Hebrew indicates that sacrifices were still happening when that book was written, the point being made in Hebrews was the blood of bulls and goats didn't take away sin, not that they were done away with. They didn't take away sin in the day of Cain and Abel, not in Abraham's day, nor in David's day. Nope, not even in Yahushua's day. That's the point we should take away from this, our best efforts cannot save us, it's the redemption price paid by our very creator to redeem us from our choice of giving ourselves to the serpent. Like it or not, it was our choice, each and every one of us, we can't blame Adam and Eve.

As far as the annunciation, whatever...... but it seems a shame people just substitute any word they like instead of even a feeble attempt at their best understanding of transliteration... talk about making his name empty and void. Who will proclaim his great mercy and justice? I will, even if I'm the last man standing!!

 

[welltan]

An interesting verse follows. Christ calls it "their law". This is why law-keepers end up at odds with Christ at the end of their hobby Hebrew law research. Christ will disassociate after a while and they don't even notice it.

John 15:25
But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Scripture specifically says we should fulfil the law by love as in Romans 13:8 and by walking in the Spirit as in Romans 8:4 (sorry, you can not dump being filled with the Spirit as some temporary manifestation for only the early church) This can fulfil the law. Keeping the Law or perhaps better to say attempting to keep the law will not fulfil the law (as strange as it seems). Otherwise Christ would have not needed to show up. And again we have the basis of those who want to keep the law being at odds with Christ.

All meditation and study upon the law should start and end with the 10th chapter of Hebrews.

 

[^_^]

so then you do what with the following verse? and the surrounding companion verses?
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

He wasn't talking about the law of love, even though Torah was chock full of love. See, that's the hard thing, love in a Hebraic sense was not the lovey dubby way we tend to think of it today.
For your consideration:
Pro 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

I respectfully offer that Torah is the tool that is to teach us how to love, and we should not put our western mindset of love as a standard of righteousness, because the pagans also do this. Of what use is the visitation at Mt. Sinai and indeed of Messiah himself's sacrifice if all we do is go back to humanistic type theology? Tshuva, the Hebrew word for repentance, should not involve us turning towards ourselves, it should involve turning back to God and the paths he says to walk in.

 

[Anonymous]

Actually right now where i am with this, since I am a pretrerist (woops, should I not have said that??) Is that the whole entire Bible points to Jesus Christ as the savior. The Sabbath, feasts, sacrificial laws etc. all point to him and therefore since the whole bible is fulfilled then there need not be feasts or days celebrated above others. I do not believe in communion either. This does not mean that the keeping of the sabbath does not bring blessings. All the laws were wise and had a purpose but the truth of the Holy Ghost within us is what hte law was all about. David was saved not only because he delighted in the lord and kept the sabbath but because he was awaiting and believed God about the saviour to come. Anyway, I don't have all the answers. If you want to ask me about birth, babies, breastfeeding or maternity I can be definitive but as far as this goes I am learning like everyone else. I am posting this as a kind of request for opinions or other perspectives on mine. Thanks

Your view on preterism is the only eschatological view that is completely consistent with Matt. 5:17-18. In addition to studying Biblical marriage, I had spent several years studying Torah and any application for Believers today, because there seems to be a great deal of confusion these days concerning Mosaic Law. Aside from all the obvious Scriptural evidence for a 70 AD fulfillment of the events Jesus described, His words in Mt. 5 are clear:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete. For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done."

Either He completed the Torah and Prophets, or He did not complete the Torah and the Prophets. Either "heaven and earth" have passed away, or not "one jot or one tittle" has passed away from the Torah. Without a proper understanding of eschatology, this single verse could be used to argue that the entire Torah remains in effect (including animal sacrifices, circumcision, sabbath observance, tithing, dietary laws, etc.) regardless what the rest of Scripture says. An incorrect eschatology leads to an incorrect understanding of the purpose and duration of the Mosaic Law.

I wasn't going to go there, because discussions regarding end times and/or Torah observance can be more controversial than even Biblical marriage! As with everything else in Scripture, study until all the passages come together and make sense. Scripture will never contradict Scripture, so when we seem to find an inconsistency, you can bet we have an incorrect worldview somewhere.

May God continue to bless you!

David

 

[DaPastor]

Hello Brother,

1. So, why do you believe that the feasts are still to be followed?

Growing up I was always taught that we should be more like Jesus. From what I remember the Messiah at least kept the Passover which stands to reason that He also kept the other feasts as well. After all, WWJD?

There are three ways of looking at this: Did Jesus keep all these commandments "in our stead", or as an example, or as both? The more important question is "What hermeneutical principles determine the right answer?"

2. Do you have any passages that show that the Sabbath was for worship?

Aaahh, Definately a good point for both the seventh day observers and the sunday observers. The sabbath was never meant as a day of worship, but rather as a day of rest and from the Messiah's example, another day of teaching and education. So what day should we worship our heavenly father? All seven.

I do not recall the Sabbath designated as a day of worship. So, if this is the case, then it is a moot point whether one worships on Saturday or Sunday. Another thing to think through is this: If the Saturday is to be a Day of Rest, then should we be doing all the activity that an average worship service takes to conduct... is this really "resting"?

 

[DaPastor]

Our family has kept the biblical feasts for about 10 years now. We are not strict about it and do not follow the letter of the law, we do it the best we can and as close to godly principles as we can. A good website that has helpful information is http://www.MessianicLinks.com.
Rooty

Hello...

I have looked at the site. Unfortunately, you have to pay for most of the information. That bugs me somewhat... Nonetheless, what would you see the difference between the Judaizers that Paul addressed and the modern Messianic movement?

 

[DaPastor]

That language would have been Hebrew or an Aramaic version of it. It certainly didn't contain a word 'theos'. Nor was any messiah named Jesus as the J wasn't invented until about 150 years ago or so.

Randy,
This reminded me of the brief conversation we had at the retreat about the theory that the Messianic scriptures were originally written in Aramaic. I just wanted to post that Wikipedia link I mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy

Hello Brother,

There is a lot to consider about this issue. It should be recognized that although most scholars agree that Aramaic was spoken by Jesus, these same scholars do not believe that the Aramaic texts are more accurate than the Greek texts. Why? It may not mean that they are correct, but it should push us to study this issue very carefully, examining all the real evidence and arguments before embracing the Aramaic Primacy viewpoint, don't you agree?

 

[DaPastor]

Hello,

We've learned a lot on our journey of learning of the Jewish roots of Chrisitanity (there is so much Greek and Roman influence in the "church" which most of us here in this group know due to our research into godly polygny and church history regarding the monogamy only doctrines)...... but, I would say the MOST IMPORTANT thing we have learned is that never should any knowledge take priority over relationship - most specifically our relationship we have with God through our Lord and Savior - His Son (no matter what "name" one knows Him by -- there is a lot of controversy out there regarding this - but like Paul states in Rom 14 it is before his own master a man will stand or fall). It is when we let knowledge - and our "keeping" of what we learn to the point of strict adherence ("letter of the law") that our relationship begins to suffer. God's Torah (actually meaning "instruction" rather than "law" - at least our use of the word "law") has not changed -- but, when we become legalistic about it we have lost sight of the purpose that God gave it to us. It was given as a "schoolteacher" - to show us things like of God's holy and righteous character - to show us our fallen state in and of ourselves -- to point us to Christ because we need a Saviour. In no way does this ever make God's law not important -- but, Paul did clearly say that those who choose to be justified by the law will be judged by the law. Our Messiah also clearly stated that ALL the law and the prophets were hung on the greatest law - of Love (Loving God first and then all others second), and Hebrews tells us that God's Law is now written on our hearts (by means of His Holy Spirit). Also important to remember is that to do anything out of the "flesh" (our own carnal nature) is "death" - but that the Spirit gives "life". If we are keeping his Torah, including the feasts, as a means of gaining God's approval or for other such reward - this will lead only to "death" --- but, if we follow His teachings as He leads - and do so out of a love for Him an what He has already given us in the Messiah - then it will lead to "life".

I know this is all very condensed - each point mentioned above contains much more to it than time allows to express. But, I hope as we all seek to walk in all of God's ways - that we keep our relationship (personal time spent with Him - in prayer, praise, worship, bible study, etc) at the center of all we do! (I share this because we have at times fallen into the trap of putting knowledge above relationship in the past - and so have learned this by experience)

Don & Shari
(Although I am the one submitting this - Don & I discussed and wrote this together)

Very Good - the Bible says that "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up".

I am not necessarily against practicing the feasts, except it seems to me, after studying the typology of all the feasts, and the typology of the animal sacrifices, these things were 100% fulfilled in Christ. If it is true that the animal sacrifices were 100% fulfilled in Christ, why are the feasts not fulfilled in Christ?

 

[DaPastor]

Hello Sister,

Hi everyone,

I want to say that I appreciate the post from Don and Shari(given Mercy). Actually right now where i am with this, since I am a pretrerist (woops, should I not have said that??) Is that the whole entire Bible points to Jesus Christ as the savior. The Sabbath, feasts, sacrificial laws etc. all point to him and therefore since the whole bible is fulfilled then there need not be feasts or days celebrated above others. I do not believe in communion either. This does not mean that the keeping of the sabbath does not bring blessings. All the laws were wise and had a purpose but the truth of the Holy Ghost within us is what hte law was all about. David was saved not only because he delighted in the lord and kept the sabbath but because he was awaiting and believed God about the saviour to come. Anyway, I don't have all the answers. If you want to ask me about birth, babies, breastfeeding or maternity I can be definitive but as far as this goes I am learning like everyone else. I am posting this as a kind of request for opinions or other perspectives on mine. Thanks

I have studied Preterism very, very, very thoroughly, and I see a lot of it as a very realistic approach to theology. Sometimes people get "caught away" in Newspaper Eschatology that every changes with every new headline. If you compare what people taught about end times even 25 years ago with what they teach today, it is an embarrassment to the Christian Church. However, like all positions, there are extremes, and it takes time to sort it all out.

 

[Mark C]

I am not necessarily against practicing the feasts, except it seems to me, after studying the typology of all the feasts, and the typology of the animal sacrifices, these things were 100% fulfilled in Christ. If it is true that the animal sacrifices were 100% fulfilled in Christ, why are the feasts not fulfilled in Christ?

I've been out of town for a few days, and so missed quite a bit of this thread; there's more to comment on than I can get to in a single response anyway...

I find the attempt to observe the feasts to be an incredible blessing, as well as a demonstration of how we are to be ready, "in season and out", for what our Master has to teach us through His appointed times. He repeatedly used words like "thoughout your generations", and "forever" to describe those instructions for keeping His sabbaths; the admonition seems clear to me, and the rewards for obedience in my house have been undeniable.

For many centuries, the Pesach observance served as both a reminder of the original exodus and a foreshadowing of the perfect fulfillment of the Lamb -- and yet many people who had seen all the symbols still missed the reality being played out before their eyes.

I would say that the SPRING feasts were perfectly fulfilled by Yeshua on His first coming, while the Fall feasts are yet to be fulfilled in every detail. For just one obvious example, the feast of Sukkot/Tabernacles foreshadows both another time of exodus and regathering of the Remnant in the wilderness, as well as the ultimate wedding feast. Also interesting to note is that the primary task to be accomplished during the first of the fall feasts (Trumpets) is simply that we are to blow and hear a shofar. It has always seemed fairly easy for me to believe that He may have a reason for wanting us to know that sound; it seems logical to me that we should be very familiar with those feasts, because we may well live them in the "last days".


Deuteronomy 30 outlines the summary of blessings and cursings for obedience and rebellion to His commandments, respectively, and makes it clear to us that they are "not too difficult" for us. Yeshua, in addition to His observation that not "one yod or tiddle" would pass from His Torah until "heaven and earth" pass -- which clearly has NOT occurred! -- also made the simple request that "If you love Me, keep My commands." Seems to me that my "reasonable service" is to obey my Master, King, and Kinsman-Redeemer. Not because I expect to "earn salvation" by being "under" anything (except His authority) - but because of what He has already done, and because I do love Him.




[PS: I do note, BTW, that Paul writes of having made the appropriate animal sacrifice associated with the completion of his Nazerite vow AFTER his becoming a follower of Yeshua.]