Torah keepers and sacred name.

[Anonymous]

What I meant by this was that the Ten Commandments ended with the rest of the Mosaic law

I am not sure what you are saying when you say that the Ten Commandments ended under the New Covenant.

In order words, the law of God that we are to obey today has nothing to do with the Mosaic law, including the "Ten Commandments". Comparing the Mosaic and Messianic Covenants, there are some similarities, some differences, some additions and some deletions. They are two completely different contracts.

God's morality is above and beyond any covenants He makes. Whether the covenant remains or not, His values of right and wrong, of righteousness and sinfulness, are eternal and will NEVER be contradicted within His covenants. He will never instruct us or permit us to commit sin in any covenant. For example, since stealing is against God's eternal characteristics, it is sinful even for those outside of any covenant. Even if theft is prohibited in the Mosaic Covenant, theft remains sinful whether the Mosaic Covenant exists or not. The Mosaic Covenant certainly contained elements of God's eternal moral code, but His eternal moral code is in no way dependent on the existence of the Mosaic Covenant.

What many Believers fail to recognize (or refuse to accept) is that Jesus changed the law. We confuse the Ten Commandments of the Old Covenant with the Law of God of the New Covenant. The Old Covenant was REPLACED by the New Covenant. It's not some kind of addendum to the contract and it's not the same old contract recycled. The priesthood according to Aaron was REPLACED by the priesthood according to Melchizedek. The Old law-giver (Moses) was REPLACED by the New law-giver (Jesus).

I suspect the reason for this inability to see the change initially stems from the desire to mix the Old Covenant with the New Covenant, in order to maintain some form of continuity in the Mosaic law. The truth is that there already is continuity without trying to mix two Covenants together. But that continuity exists OUTSIDE the Covenants themselves.

"Do not murder" was changed to "Do not be angry with your brother without cause". Under the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, this change is so drastic that it has, for those who walk in the spirit, completely "done away" with the need for the Sixth Commandment under the priesthood after the order of Aaron. It wasn't changed into lasciviousness. Instead, anyone who hates his brother without cause is as guilty before God as a murderer. You still can't murder, but that's really beside the point. You couldn't murder before the Sixth of Ten Commandments was given either. Whether murder was also disallowed under the Mosaic Covenant has no bearing on the fact that it is disallowed under the Messianic Covenant. Murder is an eternal moral issue so it would apply to all men, regardless of covenant.

"Do not swear falsely but perform your oaths to Yahweh" was changed to "Do not swear at all. Let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'". Can anyone really argue that Messiah isn't REALLY changing anything there – that the law was REALLY spiritual all along and men had simply lost the spirit of the law and Jesus simply came to restore the law to its original glorious position that it had lost through the traditions of men?

After the order of Aaron:
Deut. 6:13: "Fear Yahweh your Elohim and serve Him, and SWEAR BY HIS NAME."
Deut. 10:20: "Fear Yahweh your Elohim. Serve Him, and cling to Him, and SWEAR BY HIS NAME."

After the order of Melchizedek:
Matt. 5:34a: "But I say to you, DO NOT SWEAR AT ALL..."

These two laws are as diametrically opposed to one another as black is from white, as yes is from no, as east is from west. They are absolute and complete opposites. Deuteronomy instructed men to swear by the name of Yahweh. Matthew instructed men NOT to ever swear at all. They both can't be applicable at the same point in time. There is no way to reconcile these opposing statements as somehow REALLY saying the same thing. The truth is that He made a drastic change to the law. No honest reading of the text can say otherwise.

I could go on about "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" versus "whoever hits your right cheek, turn to him the other as well", or "love your neighbor and hate your enemy" versus "love your enemies and bless them that curse you", but I think the point is clear enough. The Mosaic law, including the Ten Commandments, have all passed away and have no application for a New Covenant believer. Any similarities we have to laws given under the Mosaic Covenant are just that – similarities. We are NOT to follow the "Ten Commandments" today, any more than any other elements of the Mosaic Covenant.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Anonymous]

The Sabbath was made for man, but it is His. The Bible refers to His statutes, His ordinances, His Appointed Times, His feasts, and indeed His creation - since the earth and all that is in it is His.

I submit that what He hated was "your" appointed times that had been profaned, were no longer qadosh, no longer set apart, but a mixture of the clean and unclean, contaminated by pagan rituals, exactly as He had so clearly commanded not to be done. (Deut. 7, 12, 13, etc.)

Hmmmm.....so whose Sabbath were Jesus and His disciples breaking in the New Testament, the "His" Sabbath or the "your" Sabbath? When I see how Jesus elevated the moral requirements when compared with their Mosaic counterparts, while at the same time treating the Sabbath like a red-headed step-child, I can't help but notice how little significance "the" Sabbath had for Him. It was His day and He would do as He pleased on it.

David

 

[Mark C]

whose Sabbath were Jesus and His disciples breaking ...?
...treating the Sabbath like a red-headed step-child, I can't help but notice how little significance "the" Sabbath had for Him.

The Lord of the Sabbath was TEACHING. EVERY single thing that He did on the Sabbath which, to the "unlearned and untaught" as Peter remarked, APPEARED to be a violation, was something VERY different!

He was precisely teaching the WRITTEN Torah, and absolutely and deliberately violating the ADDITIONS, the false burdens, the vain traditions of men that were NOT part of His Word!

He was rightfully angry with those who claimed the false authority to rewrite His Word for Him! He called them "hypocrites!", and even worse, and mocked them, openly shaming them. The only 'red-headed stepchild' was rebellion to Him!

Seems like He had some other harsh words, too -- like, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?"

No sale, David. Be careful not to break commandments and "teach others to do so."

You really should do a careful reading of the story of the blind man healed on the Sabbath, David. (Michael Rood has a wonderful lecture on the topic; so far as I know it's only available on CD or DVD. It's called "The Jonah Code". I recommend it to you as well, Pastor Randy, for the same reason. At some point, perhaps I'll post a summary here somewhere - but it's quite lengthy to do the entire analysis justice.)

Not only did He heal, and teach about retrieving one's ox from a ditch, but He specifically violated any number of Pharasaic false traditions by healing the blind man. He "made" mud - a forbidden creative act. He commanded the man to walk farther than the 5/8 mile "Sabbath's day's journey", and so on.

Our Savior was not a liar. When He said that He came not to change "one yod or tiddle", He meant it.

 

[Anonymous]

EVERY single thing that He did on the Sabbath which, to the "unlearned and untaught" as Peter remarked, APPEARED to be a violation, was something VERY different!

He was precisely teaching the WRITTEN Torah, and absolutely and deliberately violating the ADDITIONS, the false burdens, the vain traditions of men that were NOT part of His Word!

First of all, forgive me if I'm about to slaughter any sacred calves regarding Sabbath for anyone, but we need to put this particular beast to rest, I think. Let’s read what His Word actually says...

Jeremiah 17:19-22: “Thus Yahweh said to me, “Go and stand in the gate of the children of the people, by which the sovereigns of Yehudah come in and by which they go out, and in all the gates of Yerushalayim. And you shall say to them, ‘Hear the word of Yahweh, you sovereigns of Yehudah, and all Yehudah,and all the inhabitants of Yerushalayim, who enter by these gates. Thus said Yahweh, “Guard yourselves, and bear no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Yerushalayim, nor take a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, nor do any work. And you shall set apart the Sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.”

John 5:5-18: “And a certain man was there who had a sickness thirty-eight years. When Yahushua saw him lying there, and knowing that he already had been a long time, He said to him, “Do you wish to become well?” The sick man answered Him, “Master, I have no man to put me in the pool when the water is stirred, but while I am coming, another steps down before me.” Yahushua said to him, “Rise, take up your bed and walk.” And immediately the man became well, and he took up his bed and was walking. Now it was Sabbath on that day. The Yehudim therefore said to him who had been healed, “It is Sabbath, it is not right for you to take up the bed.” He answered them, “He who made me well said to me, ‘Take up your bed and walk.’” Therefore they asked him, “Who is the Man who said to you, ‘Take up your bed and walk’?” But the one who was healed did not know who it was, for Yahushua had moved away, a crowd being in that place. Afterward Yahushua found him in the Set-apart Place, and said to him, “See, you have been made well. Sin no more, so that no worse matter befalls you.” The man went away, and told the Yehudim that it was Yahushua who made him well. And because of this the Yehudim persecuted Yahushua, and were seeking to kill Him, because He was doing these healings on the Sabbath. But Yahushua answered them, “My Father works until now, and I work.” Because of this, then, the Yehudim were seeking all the more to kill Him, because not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but he also called Elohim His own father, making Himself equal with Elohim.”

John 5:18 very clearly states that Jesus was, in fact, breaking the Sabbath, not merely APPEARING to break the Sabbath. The text, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is quite specific about the fact, and for good reason. Jeremiah 17:21-22 explicitly states NOT to bear a burden on Sabbath. That commandment comes direct from Yahweh Himself, according to the passage. Then in John 5:8, Jesus specifically commanded the sick man to do EXACTLY what was forbidden to do in Jeremiah. He told him to take up his bed and walk. He told him to carry his bed on the Sabbath. This is no mere APPEARANCE of a violation. This wasn’t a vain tradition of men or a misapplication of Scripture. The Pharisees were quite correct when they accused Him of violating Sabbath. Jesus didn’t even try to refute it. John 5:18 is correct. He WAS breaking the Sabbath, and He commanded the sick man to break the Sabbath as well.

There is no doubt that Jesus broke the Sabbath. He was in violation of Jeremiah 17:21-22. There’s no getting around the fact of the matter. The issue isn’t whether He broke the Sabbath, but whether He remained blameless. Let me be perfectly clear here: Jesus broke the Sabbath commandment and yet He remained blameless. He did NOT sin.

Matthew 12:1-2: “At that time Yahushua went through the grain fields on the Sabbath. And His taught ones were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain, to eat. And when Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Look, Your taught ones are doing what is not right to do on the Sabbath!”

His disciples were hungry and it was Sabbath. They start to pick grain to eat and the Pharisees become unhinged about it. They accuse Jesus' disciples of breaking the Sabbath. Now look what happens next...

Matthew 12:3-4: “But He said to them, “You fools! What are you thinking? Put down that grain this instant! Did you forget today is the Sabbath? You KNOW you can’t pick grain on the Sabbath!”

No wait…that’s not what it says.

Matthew 12:3-4: “But He said to them, “No no no, they’re not REALLY breaking the Sabbath because picking grain isn’t technically forbidden in the Torah. You can hardly call it WORK in any sense.”

No, wait a minute, that’s not right either.

Matthew 12:3-4: “But He said to them, “Have you not read what Dawid did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he went into the House of Elohim and ate the showbread which was not right for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?”

There we go. Not only did Jesus not deny that they were breaking the Sabbath law, but He compared Sabbath to another ceremonial law, that of the tabernacle showbread. His argument wouldn’t have worked if the Sabbath was somehow more important than the Showbread. Jesus deliberately used a ritual law as a point of comparison for the Sabbath. Does the Showbread still exist today?

Matthew 12:5: “Or did you not read in the Torah that on the Sabbath the priests in the Set-apart Place profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?”

Here again, Jesus compares Sabbath to sacrificial laws. The priests were allowed to work on the Sabbath, because the requirement to sacrifice animals was more important than the requirement to rest on the Sabbath. Do you see what Jesus said? The ceremonial law of sacrificing animals was more important than the Sabbath observance. Does animal sacrifice still exist today?

John 7:23: “If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the Torah of Mosheh should not be broken, are you wroth with Me because I made a man entirely well on the Sabbath?”

Here, Jesus compares the Sabbath to circumcision. This ritual work was required even on the Sabbath, because the ritual law of circumcision on the EIGHTH day was more important than the requirement to rest on the SEVENTH day. Once again, Jesus is lumping Sabbath in with the company of other ritual laws. Does circumcision still exist today?

Jesus is recorded as breaking the Sabbath as written in the Mosaic law. Jesus didn’t bother to refute it, but rather He justified it. Jesus specifically said David was blameless for eating the showbread, that the priests were blameless for sacrificing animals or performing ritual circumcision on the Sabbath, and that his disciples were blameless for picking grain to eat on the Sabbath. In the same way, Jesus was blameless for commanding the sick man to take up his bed and walk, and the sick man was blameless for doing just that. But there is absolutely NO WAY to say these events did not REALLY happen. The Sabbath commandment given by Yahweh in Jeremiah 17:21-22 was violated, yet Jesus remained blameless because it was not a sin for Him to violate the Sabbath. We have to get our heads around that simple fact. It was NOT a sin for Jesus to violate the Sabbath, nor to permit or command others to violate the Sabbath.

The sheer volume of New Testament Scriptures demonstrating that Sabbath was a ritual law is overwhelming. Jesus never grouped the Sabbath with what we would call “moral laws”, or even any of the other Ten Commandments. He always compared it to ceremonial laws. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

I stand on God’s Word and by my original statement. Jesus treated the Sabbath as a “lesser” law. Sabbath was made for man, yet Messiah is the Lord of the Sabbath. No “moral” laws were made for man, yet Sabbath was made for man. Observing one day out of seven is about as “ceremony” or “ritual” as it gets.

No sale, David. Be careful not to break commandments and "teach others to do so."

I didn't. Scripture says Jesus did, though, and He was blameless for it. You'll need to take it up with Him. I'm simply showing what God's Word says. We know the priests in the Temple were violating Sabbath all the time, yet did they sin? Jesus said they were blameless as well. If a common Levitical priest could violate Sabbath and be blameless, then why would we consider it sinful for the Lord of the Sabbath to do the same thing? There is no conflict in showing that He broke the Sabbath and yet remained blameless.

Matthew 12:7: “And if you had known what this means, “I desire compassion and not offering”, you would not have condemned the BLAMELESS.”

Love in Him,
David

 

[^_^]

so then, David, it appears you agree with the Pharisees in their interpretation of what a burden is.
No where in Torah did it say you couldn't carry a simple bed, basically a mat.
It did however, forbid work, which is what the bearing of burdens was referring to. Some in Yahushua's day even forbid to carry a wallet/purse because for one, it was bearing a burden, two, one might be tempted to spend on Shabbos.
Wasn't what Torah said, nor the intend of the prophet bearing Yahweh's word.

 

[Anonymous]

so then, David, it appears you agree with the Pharisees in their interpretation of what a burden is.
No where in Torah did it say you couldn't carry a simple bed, basically a mat.
It did however, forbid work

As you say, it did forbid work, the very thing Jesus admitted He was doing on the Sabbath. Apparently He agreed with their interpretation of what a burden is.

Whether we might think a bedding should be considered a burden or not, all I’m pointing out is that He did, in fact, violate Sabbath in the same manner as the examples that Jesus Himself gave as justification. Look at the evidence.

1. John 5:18 says Jesus was breaking the Sabbath in the same breath as He called Elohim His own father. Is this verse true or false?

2. When accused of allowing His disciples to break Sabbath, Jesus didn’t deny it. Instead, He pointed to other examples of breaking Sabbath.

3. Jesus specifically stated that the Temple priests profane the Sabbath in Matt. 12:5. Did they REALLY profane Sabbath? Were they blameless nevertheless?

4. In John 7:23, Jesus points out that circumcision would be required on the Sabbath day. Did they break Sabbath by doing so? Were they blameless nevertheless?

5. Jesus never once refuted or denied that He and His disciples were breaking Sabbath. Instead, He justified it. That should tell us something about the nature of Sabbath.

6. Jesus explicitly stated in John 5:17 that He was, in fact, working (healing) on the Sabbath. He didn’t say healing wasn’t REALLY work. He admitted He was working.

This strains all credibility of the plain reading of Scripture. What are we to say? He didn’t REALLY break Sabbath? Why does John 5:18 say He did? Why did Jesus point to other examples of people breaking Sabbath, instead of correcting their definition of a burden? Why did he admit He was working in John 5:17 if He wasn’t? This position cannot be substantiated with a clear reading of these passages.

John 5:17-18: "But Yahushua answered them, "My Father works until now, AND I WORK." Because of this, then, the Yehudim were seeking all the more to kill Him, because NOT ONLY WAS HE BREAKING THE SABBATH, but he also called Elohim His own father, making Himself equal with Elohim."

True or false?

 

[^_^]

It's true.
Just don't twist it

So basically what you are saying is that he broke his own commands, and taught other people to do so also, therefore by his own words he is least in his own kingdom.
Strange theology......

 

[Mark C]

You sound awfully "legalistic" when it comes to showing that our Savior broke His own Sabbath, David, as ^_^ has already made shown.

But what you are in fact doing is ignoring one of the most BASIC principles of Torah, which Yeshua taught better than anyone who ever lived:

"Choose life..."

WHENEVER there is an apparent "contradiction" between commandments, it is to be resolved by choosing life.

Everything about His teaching concerning not only the Sabbath, but "all of the Law" is clear within that context:

And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?

And they held their peace. And he took [him], and healed him, and let him go;

And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
And they could not answer him again to these things.

(Luke 14)

Why do you insist on trying to label Him a liar, rather than learning from what He taught, and did?

 

[Anonymous]

It's true.
Just don't twist it

I wouldn't twist it. The text speaks for itself. "..because not only was He breaking the Sabbath..."

So basically what you are saying is that he broke his own commands, and taught other people to do so also, therefore by his own words he is least in his own kingdom.
Strange theology......

It only seems strange if you assume Jesus Himself ever gave a command to observe Sabbath. He didn't. He said HIS words would continue beyond the passing of "heaven and earth". Immediately after Jesus speaks about breaking the least of these commands and teaching others to do so, He starts making major alterations to the Mosaic law. Are we to assume He was in violation of His own words? Or do we understand He was speaking of the commands that He Himself was then laying out before the people?

Please understand, I have no agenda in whether Jesus broke Sabbath or not. It makes no difference to me, so long as He didn't sin. That's the only deal-breaker for me, because that would preclude Him from being our sinless sacrifice. As far as I'm concerned, He could have told them to pick up the entire town and move it on the Sabbath, just as long as they were blameless. Why is it so hard to accept what Scripture says here, unless we have a preconceived idea regarding Sabbath observance? Are we so unwilling to accept the possibility that He could BOTH break the Sabbath and remain blameless? Why not? Scripture says the priests in the Temple managed it. Are we not going to believe that verse either? Isn't He our High Priest? Or have we elevated Sabbath observance above Scripture in order to maintain our own ideas regarding Mosaic law? I'm not accusing, just asking. If we've managed to understand and accept Biblical marriage, this should be a walk in the park (unless it's on Sabbath)

Love in Him,
David

 

[^_^]

Mat 23:1 Then Yahushua spoke to the crowds and to His taught ones,
Mat 23:2 saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on the seat of Mosheh.
Mat 23:3 “Therefore, whatever they say to you to guard, guard and do. But do not do according to their works, for they say, and do not do.
Mat 23:4 “For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders, but with their finger they do not wish to move them.

Can you please explain what this passage means in light of our discussion?

 

[Mark C]

It only seems strange if you assume Jesus Himself ever gave a command to observe Sabbath.

In other words, He is not what John 1 says, either. And forget "I change not", the "Lawgiver" of Isaiah 33, the "I AM" of John 8, and of course the "aleph and tav"* of Genesis 1:1.

The distinction here is "not too hard for you". It is the one Yeshua Himself made, to crowds at the Sermon on the Mount, to the Pharisees, and even to Satan - and all the way from beginning to end of His Word:

Do not "add to" or "subtract from" My Words. Do not mix the clean and the unclean, the qadosh and profane. "You have heard it said that... but I tell you..." "Hypocrites!" replace My commandments with the traditions of men, increase their burdens, "sit on Moses' seat", but do not do; because they do not believe Moses' writings, neither will they believe My Words; Satan was rebuked with the specific admonition "It is Written"!

It was ALL ABOUT WHAT HE WROTE, David - not men's paganized traditions, not the "oral torah", not what some self-appointed authority SAID He should have, and not what "the church" later changed to say!

"...let God be true, but every man a liar."

And what are the very next words in Romans 3:4 that Paul uses to make the case?

"...as it is written..."



---------------------------------
* and, I would, of add, of the original text of Rev. 1:8-11, 21:6, and 22:13 as well.

 

[Mark C]

...Mat 23:2 saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on the seat of Mosheh.
Mat 23:3 “Therefore, whatever they say to you to guard, guard and do. But do not do according to their works, for they say, and do not do.

Are you familiar with a book written by Nehemiah Gordon, ^_^, which is called The Greek Jesus versus the Hebrew Yeshua?

Gordon is a Karaite, an expert on ancient Hebrew, and a translator on the Dead Sea Scrolls project in Israel. At the initial request of Messianic teacher Michael Rood, he took a look at these very verses in a number of various copies of what are purported to be variants of the original Hebrew copies of the Book of Matthew, among them one known commonly as "Shem Tov's". That book was the eventual result.

His conclusion, supported at length in the book, and also on a speaking tour (which I was able to hear live in Denver a few years back, and conclude is conclusive to my own satisfaction) is that Matthew was unquestionably written originally in Hebrew, and then subsequently transcribed to Greek, with a high degree of certainty. Futhermore, that a SINGLE yod ( ' ) was missed in that verse when the translation to the Greek original was made. The result was to change the pronoun "he" into "they".

The correct verse is not at all inconsistent with a Yeshua who did not "do away with" His own torah:

The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moshe's seat:
All therefore whatsoever HE bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Nehemiah Gordon, BTW, concluded based on his studies that Yeshua was, both in this place and elsewhere, drawing a bright-line distinction between the Written Torah and the so-called Oral Tradition, or oral torah.

 

[^_^]

Interesting, I do recall hearing that once before, but had forgotten it.
Yes, I am somewhat familiar with Nehemiah Gordon. Sometimes I think he believes Yahushua is haMashiach, other times I'm not so sure. Either way, he's one of the reliable witnesses who reports the new month from Jerusalem.

 

[Mark C]

Correction --

I should have said that Nehemiah Gordon's conclusion in the referenced work was that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic, of course. Sorry.


and ^_^ -

I wondered about Nehemiah's private conclusion concerning Yeshua as well after hearing him. Certainly he could not make any such public statement and expect continued work in Israel on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[Anonymous]

Mat 23:1 Then Yahushua spoke to the crowds and to His taught ones,
Mat 23:2 saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on the seat of Mosheh.
Mat 23:3 “Therefore, whatever they say to you to guard, guard and do. But do not do according to their works, for they say, and do not do.
Mat 23:4 “For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders, but with their finger they do not wish to move them.

Can you please explain what this passage means in light of our discussion?

I believe this passage is saying that the scribes and Pharisees were teaching the people the Mosaic law and that they should listen to and obey them. But He was also giving them a warning not to do what the scribes and Pharisees themselves were doing, because they were being hypocrites, saying one thing while doing another. Verse 4 specifically states that they were binding the people with heavy burdens that they themselves were not willing to perform. I think this is very telling. Nowhere in this passage does it suggest that these “heavy burdens” were EXTERNAL to the Mosaic law. It seems clear to me that what Yahushua was telling the people was NOT to bind heavy burdens on others, as the scribes and Pharisees were doing. Peter apparently remembered Yahushua’s words when he was speaking to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.

Acts 15:10: “Now then, why do you try Elohim by putting a yoke on the neck of the taught ones which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”

This certainly sounds like it follows along the lines of what Yahushua had said previously. The debate in Acts 15 was centered on circumcision, part of the Mosaic law that was required for all believers prior to that generation, and yet Peter was calling it “a yoke on the neck of the taught ones which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” This wasn’t merely some added pharisaical law, this was a direct commandment required in the Mosaic law. Peter was responding directly to the Pharisees demand that “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Torah of Mosheh” in verse 5. Peter called this a yoke on their necks.

I'll let you make of that what you will, but one thing is certain -- the Mosaic law certainly did not permit circumcision to be optional. If it had, there wouldn't have been so much debate on the issue. Clearly something had changed. I hope some of this is starting to make more sense.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Anonymous]

In other words, He is not what John 1 says, either. And forget "I change not", the "Lawgiver" of Isaiah 33, the "I AM" of John 8, and of course the "aleph and tav"* of Genesis 1:1.

Our Savior was not a liar.

It was ALL ABOUT WHAT HE WROTE, David - not men's paganized traditions, not the "oral torah", not what some self-appointed authority SAID He should have, and not what "the church" later changed to say!

Mark,

It seems that all I've done is cause you distress. I never made any of the claims you're suggesting, nor am I denying the deity of Yahushua, nor am I calling Him a liar. I simply pointed out that He did, in fact, break Sabbath numerous times and was blameless. I'm not sure what men's traditions, oral torah or self-appointed authorities have to do with anything. I quoted direct Scripture. Regarding the church changing anything, are you saying these passages in Scripture have been altered and so are not truthful? I honestly don't see what the problem is with these passages if you believe in the inspiration of Scripture.

It seems that you are too entrenched in your “I change not” position for any NT verse to convince you of anything right now. One could take the same position to argue that Yahushua simply could not have been God in the flesh, because, well, “I change not”. I don’t want to beat a dead horse here. If none of these passages are sinking in by now, anything else I show will probably only antagonize you, and that was never my intent. You have all the Scripture references here at your disposal. That should be enough to start reexamining your views if you want to. Hopefully, others will be able to glean something from these passages as well. I pray we will continue to learn and grow as we spend more time studying His Word. Peace.

David

 

[Mark C]

I am not "distressed", David - but I have used the word frustrated.

...He did, in fact, break Sabbath numerous times...

NO, He broke MAN'S traditions, and was TEACHING, as the Lord of the Sabbath was inclined to do!

You yourself quoted the example that He gave of David and the shewbread which was "not lawful to eat" and yet David was not only "blameless", but still later called a "man after God's own heart" - and then used as an EXAMPLE by Yeshua! David was neither "doing away with the law" nor breaking it! He understood what Yeshua was teaching even then! The principle is "choose life!"

I'm not sure what men's traditions, oral torah or self-appointed authorities have to do with anything.

Then keep studying. Read Matthew 23 again; the entire litany of charges for which He repeatedly called those who did exactly that "Hypocrites!" should make the point. All of the Scriptures which make His point clear have been quoted repeatedly already. Blessings,

 

[Mark C]

This I'm going to put in a separate entry, so that the point is not missed again.

Regarding the church changing anything, are you saying these passages in Scripture have been altered and so are not truthful? I honestly don't see what the problem is with these passages if you believe in the inspiration of Scripture.

"

"The Church" HAS changed a lot of things, David - that's not my opinion, it's their doctrine. Read the official Catholic history. They are proud of the fact that the ability to change the day of rest from God's "original" Sabbath to "the Lord's Day" proves the power of apostolic authority.

As for your second sentence, it makes me wonder again if you read these comments before responding. Only a few entries ago, and less than 24 hours, I posted a comment which CLEARLY indicates that I do NOT believe in the INERRANCY of any arbitrary English translation! (In this case, the KJV - although other English variants of Matthew 23:3 based on the same flawed Greek original manuscript share the error.)

Other examples abound. I have discussed, and differed with you, about the translation ERRORS in Matthew 5:32. Anyone with a concordance and a King James translation can be like the Bereans and study for yourself, to see if these things be true. That the final use of the word "divorced" is incorrect is undeniable. Likewise, the rendering of "mia" as either "a", "first", or "one" in the oft-discussed "husband of a first wife" reference in Timothy and Titus has been discussed at length, and certainly MAY be an example of a culturally-biased translation choice! A web search of such differences will reveal literally hundreds of differences between popular translations.

I believe that God's Word is perfect - in the original language He wrote it. Some of that, in the case of the Brit Hadasha, may well be Hebrew and/or Aramaic, rather than Greek.

Peter noted that some of Paul's explicitly Torah-based epistles were hard to understand. Paul was not the only one who told us to study for ourselves. Proverbs 25:2 makes a similar point:

[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.

God does not lie, David, and He has said He DOES not change, and that He specifically WILL not change that "one yod or tiddle" of His torah until heaven and earth pass. I believe Him. When I see what APPEARS to be a contradiction, I know that it's a clue I should study harder - there's a condition, an important qualifier, perhaps even a mistranslation -- or it may be a "hard teaching".

 

[Mark C]

My brother David,

And I ask for your forgiveness for my frustration evidenced above. I know that on probably 98% or so of the issues we might discuss concerning His Word, we would be in a high level of agreement. It is, of course, on that final 2% -- the edges of the sword, if you will -- that iron truly sharpens iron*.

All of us here have "come out of her", to varying extents, and seek to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. If not, we simply wouldn't have the degree of zeal that we each do to search out His truth.

Blessings in Him,

Mark






-------------------------
* Perhaps this admittedly oversimplified summary comes close:

You believe that our Savior did away with, or at least changed, the "Mosaic Law". I disagree with that, but accept that our Kinsman-Redeemer, through His perfect sacrifice, saved us from the curse (or penalty) of rebellion to His commandments, which is death.

 

[Anonymous]

I am not "distressed", David - but I have used the word frustrated.

Well, I didn't intend to frustrate you either. My apologies regardless.

...He did, in fact, break Sabbath numerous times...

NO, He broke MAN'S traditions, and was TEACHING, as the Lord of the Sabbath was inclined to do!

I will rephrase. John 5:17 says Yahushua told the Pharisees He was "working" (G2038, ergazomai: toil, labor, work) on the Sabbath and John 5:18 says Yahushua was "breaking" (G3089, luo: to break up, destroy, dissolve, unloose, melt, put off) the Sabbath. We don't have to agree with Scripture, but that is what the verse says.

John 5:17-18: "But Yahushua answered them, "My Father works until now, AND I WORK (G2038)." Because of this, then, the Yehudim were seeking all the more to kill Him, because NOT ONLY WAS HE BREAKING (G3089) THE SABBATH, but he also called Elohim His own father, making Himself equal with Elohim."

I posted a comment which CLEARLY indicates that I do NOT believe in the INERRANCY of any arbitrary English translation!

That's fine. We can read from the Greek or Hebrew if you prefer. They say the same thing regarding these passages. But unless you have another Scripture that I don't know of, then we'll have to make due with what we've got. If every passage in the New Testament that disagrees with your views is simply a translation error or must have been added by the Catholic church, then there is little to be gained by discussing Scripture at all. Can we at least agree that this is what the verse says, whether or not we agree that it is God's Word?

And I ask for your forgiveness for my frustration evidenced above.

Honestly, you have nothing to ask forgiveness of. I have a thick skin (as my wife will attest), so I'd rather you be straight-forward and not have to pussyfoot around my feelings. You're my brother in Messiah and we don't have to agree on every single doctrine to be able to fellowship and get along. Look at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. They were all believers and yet struggled with these very things as well. If anything, you've helped me gain a better understanding of your views regarding God's Word.

Here's where I see things as they stand right now. I think the reason we are unable to agree on these matters has to do with a major difference in our final authority. We both agree that the law of God is a revelation of His character and personality and that there are no contradictions in the Old Testament and New Testament. Yet where I see two completely separate laws being discussed in Scripture, it appears that you see only one. As a result, everything you read in the Old Testament prior to Exodus and everything you read in the New Testament must conform to Mosaic law or it must be false, a bad translation, a misunderstanding or not of God. If I'm way off-base here in my assessment, please help me out.

Love in Him,
David