• 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.

Torah keepers and sacred name.

Mark C said:
Perhaps we are getting somewhere, David. :)
Every moving creature that lives is food for you. I have given you all..."
This is why I continue to harp that torah is better translated as "teaching and instruction", for purposes of understanding, than law.
Okay, perfect. So let me make sure I’m understanding you correctly. You recognize that there is nothing actually WRONG with eating any animals we choose, any more than smoking is WRONG, caffeine is WRONG, alcohol is WRONG or animal fat is WRONG. None of it is in rebellion to God, so it’s really just personal choice that we’re talking about here. We understand that God gave a subset of animals for food to Israel for a season, just as He gave all animals for food prior to Israel. Some things may or may not be as "healthy" as others, some of which may be on either list, but it’s merely a matter of personal choice and understanding.

If that’s what you’re saying, then this doesn’t really have to do with anything in Scripture and the point is moot. Some people prefer to pull the skin off their chicken, some prefer to drink only spring water from bottles, some prefer to take vitamins every morning. I was originally under the impression that you were attempting to follow dietary requirements under Torah, rather than simply trying to eat more healthy. Since nothing in Scripture suggests that dietary requirements were ever for health reasons, we may someday discover that eating shellfish is more "healthy" than eating cows.

As for me, I don’t smoke because I choose not to, not because I think it has anything to do with Scripture or God’s will. Same thing for alcohol, as I can’t stand the taste of anything beyond maybe a fruity wine cooler. I have no problem with drinking caffeine, whether or not it might be unhealthy. Same thing with eating Alaskan King Crab Legs. I actually prefer beef ribs to greasy pork ribs, but I’ll have a side of bacon with my eggs. The eggs will probably kill me before the bacon will. Either way, I give thanks to God for my freedom in Him to live according to His Word, loving Him and loving my fellow man. Peace, brother.

Love in Him,
David
 
Mark C said:
Where did Yeshua ever say anything about obeying Torah?
Matthew 7:23 --
"And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from Me, ye that work torah-less-ness [iniquity, lawlessness]".
I would have no problem with that, except that isn’t technically what He said, at least not as you understand "Torah", which is why I was saying "Mosaic law" to distinquish from God's eternal morality. Let’s read the whole passage here to see what He is talking about.

Matthew 7:9-23: “Or is there a man among you who, if his son asks for bread, shall give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, shall he give him a snake? If you then, being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in the heavens give what is good to those who ask Him! Therefore, whatever you wish men to do to you, do also to them, for THIS is the TORAH and the Prophets. Enter in through the narrow gate! Because the gate is wide – and the way is broad – that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter in through it. Because the gate is narrow and the way is hard pressed which leads to life, and there are few who find it. But beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are savage wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles? So every good tree yields good fruit, but a rotten tree yields wicked fruit. A good tree is unable to yield wicked fruit, and a rotten tree to yield good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, by their fruits you shall know them. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Master, Master,’ shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of My Father in the heavens. Many shall say to Me in that day, ‘Master, Master, have we not prophesied in Your Name, and cast out demons in Your Name, and done many mighty works in Your Name?’ And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from Me, you who work lawlessness!’”

The Greek word here is anomia (G458) and literally means “without law”. Lawlessness, wickedness, iniquity. Notice the contrast being described here. The entire subject is to do good rather than evil. There isn’t even a HINT of ritual covenant law being discussed. The examples of good and evil are interpersonal relationships between people, not ceremonial procedures. After repeating over and over the contrast between good fruit and wicked fruit (good vs. evil), Yahushua sums it up with “Not everyone shall enter…but he who is doing the DESIRE OF MY FATHER”. What is the desire of His Father? Do good and not evil. And what does He say to those do evil and not good? “Depart from Me, you who work LAWLESSNESS.” Lawlessness is doing evil instead of good. What lawlessness is being discussed here? “Whatever you wish men to do to you, do also to them, for THIS is the TORAH and the prophets.”

This is so simple that we need help to miss it. Unfortunately, we’ve all had a lot of help along the way. It is clear from His own words that the LAW related to the LAWLESSNESS here is regarding good verses evil, what we would refer to as morality or ethics. Ritual and ceremonial requirements given to Moses have absolutely nothing to do with “whatever you wish men to do to you, do also to them”, and yet THIS SPECIFICALLY is what Yahushua said was the Torah, not the added ritual laws given to Moses.

Love in Him,
David
 
So let me make sure I’m understanding you correctly. You recognize that there is nothing actually WRONG with eating any animals we choose, any more than smoking is WRONG, caffeine is WRONG, alcohol is WRONG or animal fat is WRONG. None of it is in rebellion to God, so it’s really just personal choice that we’re talking about here.

Sigh. No, David.

Are our bodies to be "a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God"? Do we "love Him"? Is it now OK for a man to defile a virgin (whether he has a wife or not) and cast her off? (I don't see that one reiterated in the post-Mosaic era)

And I might note that while the Gnostics introduced a number of heresies and prejudices about 'the flesh' there is no such clear explicitly Scriptural explanation of WHICH things allegedly done away with are "moral" and which are now mere suggestions. And was He really doing away with the tithe in Matthew 23:23? (I suspect the vast majority of 501c(3) ministers would balk at THAT being ceremonial :) )

All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

I have no problem with that statement in the context of obedience. Not because I'm trying to "earn" something by it, mind you, but simply because I love Him, and believe Him when He said that He didn't "do away with" one yod or tiddle of His torah.

Paul made clear that it is our conscience that matters. I do not try to "bind heavy burdens" on anyone, but I am certainly not going to DO contrary to what I think He taught, much less teach others to do so.

Blessings in Him,

Mark
 
I got interrupted while editing my response. I see that more has come in... ;)

I would have no problem with that, except that isn’t technically what He said...
And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from Me, you who work lawlessness!’”

The Greek word here is anomia (G458) and literally means “without law”. Lawlessness, wickedness, iniquity.

This is one of those places where we may disagree about translations, David. As I've indicated, I am convinced that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (and/or Aramaic), in which case the line WAS very likely "without torah". Furthermore, Yeshua was probably NOT speaking Greek when He made the statement; even if the TEXT was penned in Greek, He almost certainly said "you who are without torah". (And again, no, I believe His Word is inspired, but as originally Written. At the very least, this may be inconclusive.) Scripture is silent about smoking, too, but I have no problem believing that trying to be a good steward of the body He gave me is not a problem. Nor, of course, is it directly a "salvation issue".

Ritual and ceremonial requirements given to Moses have absolutely nothing to do with “whatever you wish men to do to you, do also to them”, and yet THIS SPECIFICALLY is what Yahushua said was the Torah, not the added ritual laws given to Moses.

We are not, and - so far as I recall - have not disagreed that Yeshua's summary of torah is superb. I have also said, probably more than once, that some "ceremonial" things (temple sacrifices et al) are "done away with" by obvious practical necessity. Many other things simply don't apply to me, in my station (I'm not a Levite, not a king - so no worry about multiplying horses, not a woman, etc).

One big problem that I have with the "done away with" assumption, besides His statements ;) , is this big "grey area", where Scripture is - at best - silent. Like I've said, when it comes to food - there's plenty of evidence, from mercury and toxins in bottom-feeders to putrescene enzyme in pork, that He hasn't changed His DESIGN, either!

Blessings in Him,

Mark
 
Mark C said:
So let me make sure I’m understanding you correctly. You recognize that there is nothing actually WRONG with eating any animals we choose, any more than smoking is WRONG, caffeine is WRONG, alcohol is WRONG or animal fat is WRONG. None of it is in rebellion to God, so it’s really just personal choice that we’re talking about here.
Sigh. No, David.

Are our bodies to be "a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God"? Do we "love Him"?
Yes, our bodies are to be a living sacrifice unto God. Yes, we love him. It is precisely because we love Him that we do not again try to return to the “Torah” after coming to faith in Messiah. There are enough clear examples throughout the New Testament that testify that we are to send the Old Mosaic Covenant out of our house and not try to mix it in with the New Messianic Covenant.

Mark C said:
Is it now OK for a man to defile a virgin (whether he has a wife or not) and cast her off? (I don't see that one reiterated in the post-Mosaic era)
No, it is not okay to defile a virgin, because again, it was wrong before Sinai. It has nothing to do with whether it was a command given at Sinai or whether it was repeated anywhere in the New Testament. God’s eternal morality does not change over time. If it was wrong before Sinai, it was wrong during Sinai and it was wrong after Sinai. As I’ve already demonstrated, murder, theft and adultery were wrong long before Sinai. They didn’t suddenly become MORE wrong because God spelled them out in the Ten Commandments. We are to treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. There were plenty of other sins that didn’t make it into the top ten, including sodomy (explicitly condemned prior to Sinai), and beastiality (also not repeated in the New Testament). These things are still wrong today because they were ALWAYS wrong. They didn’t suddenly become sin just because they were explicitly prohibited in the Mosaic Covenant, any more than they stopped being sin just because they weren't explicitly prohibited in the Messianic Covenant.

Mark C said:
And I might note that while the Gnostics introduced a number of heresies and prejudices about 'the flesh' there is no such clear explicitly Scriptural explanation of WHICH things allegedly done away with are "moral" and which are now mere suggestions.
Okay, that’s pretty funny. :lol: But no, I don’t see them as the Ten Suggestions. I see them as the Ten Commandments given to Moses at Sinai for the children of national Israel. I also see them as completely meaningless to me today, other than to study and learn from. They are LESS than suggestions, because they have NO application whatsoever to anyone in the New Covenant. My position is that ALL Mosaic law ended in 70 AD, precisely on time, and that those elements of the Mosaic law that predate Moses, that which we might call moral, have always applied -- before, during and after “all their generations”. If it was sin before Sinai, if it was sin for the gentiles during the time of Israel, then it is an eternal moral issue and is still sin today. But if it was ONLY wrong for Israel and not for anyone outside of the Mosaic covenant, then it is not an eternal law and is not applicable to us. Our law today is to love God and love man, not love Torah and love Moses. There really is no need to try to hold onto nine of the ten commandments, plus a few favorite sins like sodomy, in order to maintain that morality is eternal. That is the constant that binds all of God’s covenants together. His ethical views never change. Righteousness is always righteousness. Sin is always sin.

Mark C said:
And was He really doing away with the tithe in Matthew 23:23? (I suspect the vast majority of 501c(3) ministers would balk at THAT being ceremonial
Heh. I'm going to step on a lot of toes tonight. I don’t care if certain Christians believe the tithe exists today. Their belief does not make it so. It ended with the rest of the Mosaic law. If these 501c(3) ministers actually believe they are taking tithes, they’ve got a few things to answer for. As with Sabbath observance, you don’t get to make up the rules as you go. First, tithing money was not permitted – only food and the like (probably to prevent the very things we’ve all seen on TV with greed in the ministry). To tithe across great distances, they would send money but then would buy the food to be used for their tithe. No money ever exchanged hands in tithing. Second, tithing was meant to support the widows and orphans, so let’s hope that's what all the modern-day Levitical priests are doing with their tithes. Third, the tithe was actually closer to 25% of annual income once all the tithes were counted. In fact, I’d better stop here because I could go on for hours on the illegality of tithing today. Suffice to say, offerings are blessed by God if the giver’s heart is right, but calling it tithe (or using said “tithe” for anything other than specified in the Mosaic law) is a lie.

Mark C said:
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
I have no problem with that statement in the context of obedience. Not because I'm trying to "earn" something by it, mind you, but simply because I love Him, and believe Him when He said that He didn't "do away with" one yod or tiddle of His torah.
I understand, and that’s fine. I wouldn’t expect you to change your eschatological views based on the few passages we’ve discussed. But in light of all the evidence throughout the New Testament that the old system was passing away, and the historical evidence that the Temple (and with it their entire Mosaic economy) was brought down in the generation that Jesus said would witness it, and the fact that Jesus tied the destruction of the Temple to the end of the age, is it beyond the realm of possibility that He did what He said He would do, exactly when He said He would do it? It maintains the integrity of Scripture, it doesn’t make Jesus a liar or confused or a false prophet, and it explains why the Levitical priesthood and Temple sacrifices were finally put to a stop at the end of the age.

Mark C said:
The Greek word here is anomia (G458) and literally means “without law”. Lawlessness, wickedness, iniquity.
This is one of those places where we may disagree about translations, David. As I've indicated, I am convinced that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (and/or Aramaic), in which case the line WAS very likely "without torah".
You'll get no argument from me on this one. It's quite possible several NT books were originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic due to the textual indicators contained within the various translation errors. Nevertheless, the evidence I presented speaks for itself. Yeshua said, "whatever you wish men to do to you, do also to them, for THIS is the TORAH and the Prophets". He identified the subject as one of good verses evil with no discussion on ceremonial aspects of the added law. Everyone understands what good versus evil means, even the gentiles. (They may not necessarily agree whether a particular thing is good or evil, but they still understand the concept.) Good and evil is the very definition of morality, not of the added ceremonial and ritual aspects of Torah.

Mark C said:
I have also said, probably more than once, that some "ceremonial" things (temple sacrifices et al) are "done away with" by obvious practical necessity.
So you're admitting that temple sacrifices have passed away (which is a major component of the Torah), but not based on anything in Scripture but just on the technical fact of history. So if the temple hadn't been destroyed as prophesied in 70 AD, would you say that we should still be sacrificing animals to Yahweh today? In fact, let’s run with the popular dispensational idea that the Jewish Temple must be rebuilt in order for it to be destroyed again thousands of years after Daniel’s 70 weeks of years. We’ll slice off the 70th week from the other 69 and fling it into the far future. Since animal sacrifices will be put to an end in the middle of the 70th week by whomever you think is the subject of Daniel 9, then at least leading up to that event, there will be a period of animal sacrifices occurring in order that it can cease again. Would you have a problem with sacrificing a few animals each year as described in the Torah? I mean, supposing we could find some Levites somewhere that could step up and serve as priests? Is the only thing preventing you from sacrificing animals all over again merely the fact that the Temple is missing? Can you see the danger of this line of reasoning? Would you disobey Torah and NOT sacrifice animals as required in God's Word? If you truly believe all Mosaic law is still applicable, your only choices, with the Temple staring you in the face, would be to obey Torah or not obey Torah, correct? Am I missing something obvious here?

Please understand I'm not trying to frustrate you, but you must see the contradiction in believing Torah (as you use the term) applies today. It's easy to say we will obey every single "yod or tiddle" of Torah, until presented with the possibility of a rebuilt temple. If you believe it must be rebuilt just to be torn down again, what do we say to those who witness its restructuring? Obey Torah or disobey Torah? Based on precisely what passage in Scripture? I've said it before and I'll say it again. You can't be married to both Torah and Messiah. You don't honor your husband by trying to obey the commands of your previous husband. I pray this is making some sense to someone reading this blog.

Love in Him,
David
 
OK, ok, I can't resist asking one question, then I'll shut up for the rest of my week

Supposes what you are saying is true, Yahweh did tell us he wouldn't do a thing without telling the prophets first.
Why is it the prophet Isaiah saw messiah, predicted his birth, as did Daniel, and said nothing about the end of Torah?
Why is it the minor prophets who saw the end times, and in telling us about them conveniently forgot to mention this detail? And it's not like it was a minor detail that just was forgotten to be mentioned.
Why is it our messiah himself didn't mention the end of Torah? This is not a small matter, it would have been life changing, and would have received alot more attention than a passing obscure statement, it would have been announced clearly by the same folks who saw the messiah by faith, it would have been announced by those who saw the end times.
Funny they didn't have the clarity of vision being expressed here.....
 
Everyone understands what good versus evil means, even the gentiles. (They may not necessarily agree whether a particular thing is good or evil, but they still understand the concept.) Good and evil is the very definition of morality, not of the added ceremonial and ritual aspects of Torah.

Where we disagree here, David, is explained within your parentheses. Setting aside sacrifices of bulls and goats (which YHVH had already said*, even before Yeshua, that He "delight[ed] not in ...") I think you are drawing a distinction which is not so delineated in Scripture. The purpose of torah is to TEACH. I still contend that "ALL Scripture" is valuable for that very purpose.

Idolatry is spiritual adultery. I do not think there can be much debate on that. The equation between physical adultery in marriage, and God's use of identical imagery to refer to the practices and worship of other gods before Him is undeniable, I submit. Is going into ANOTHER temple and making 'sacrifices' to a pagan goddess "ceremonial"? Is it still abomination before Him, or has he grown out of that in this 'dispensation' ?

What about Jeremiah 10? Giving up the pagan traditions associated with Mithra at the winter solstice was harder for my house than bacon. The "Church" long ago replaced the Pesach sacrifice of the perfect Lamb of God with an Easter ham, and those "ceremonies" He said we were to keep 'forever' with died eggs and fertility goddess symbols (look up the charming imagery of dyeing eggs sometime, and compare to Deut. 7, 12, 13 and the exiles of Israel.) There is much more which could be written on this subject, but I contend that the amount of "ceremonial" worship of evil** in our fallen nation arguably competes with anything the inhabitants of Canaan had to offer. They didn't have TV.

It's one thing to conclude there is no NEED for me to sacrifice bulls and goats any more (although I DO note that Paul took a Nazerite vow AFTER coming to Yeshua, and did all that such entails!) - but something else to participate in ceremony and rituals that He called abomination.

My purpose in this rebuttal is not to cast stones, or condemn anyone else for their new moons and feast days. But it IS my intent to call into question distinctions which are inconsistent, or worse. Both of us, I know, urge people to be like the Bereans, and study for themselves. That the temple does not currently exist is historic fact; those animal sacrifices currently are moot. I do personally believe we will see them again - by those who do not yet recognize their Savior, but are prophesied to, having been driven to jealousy by what they see in Him, through us.***

I HAVE personally participated in the preparation of a lamb for Passover, however. I can personally testify that the experience gave me a new understanding of why He asked us to do it. And -- a great desire to hear a shofar at the fall Feast of Trumpets, repent and forgive thereafter, and build a sukka in preparation for the eventual Wedding at His return.


Blessings in Him,

Mark




----------------------------------
* Isaiah 1; although we've already been there, done that. :?

** I argued years ago on a radio show that abortion has become a sacrament to many in post-Christian Amerika. Compare how the "law", in every respect treats THAT "right" as opposed to how it treats those things written about in Amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, etc, in the Constitution. Once again, oral tradition has replaced written law.

*** A friend and teacher once summarized such arguments by noting, "Jesus Christ did not die on the cross so you could eat a ham sandwich."
 
Hello Gentlemen... again thanks for keeping things calm - both covenants tell us to love our neighbor... hehehehe

I wish I had time to engage in this discussion. I have tons of things I would like to say to both sides of this discussion - especially since I find myself in the middle theologically. However, between hurricanes, work, moving, retreat planning, and family... I am treading water. I love you guys!
 
^_^ said:
Supposes what you are saying is true, Yahweh did tell us he wouldn't do a thing without telling the prophets first.
Why is it the prophet Isaiah saw messiah, predicted his birth, as did Daniel, and said nothing about the end of Torah?
Why is it the minor prophets who saw the end times, and in telling us about them conveniently forgot to mention this detail? And it's not like it was a minor detail that just was forgotten to be mentioned.
Daniel 9:24: “Seventy weeks are decreed for YOUR people and for YOUR set-apart city, to put an end to the transgression, and to seal up sins, and to cover crookedness, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Most Set-apart.”

^_^ said:
Why is it our messiah himself didn't mention the end of Torah?
Not all Torah (as you mean it) has passed away, simply the Mosaic law, the added law, the law exclusively given to the nation of physical Israel as distinguished from eternal law of God given to all mankind. Galatians 3 tells us precisely when the Torah began and when it was to end.

Galatians 3:17-19: “Now this I say, Torah, that came four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously confirmed by Elohim in Messiah, so as to do away with the promise. For if the inheritance is by Torah, it is no longer by promise, but Elohim gave it to Abraham through a promise. Why, then, the Torah? It was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made. And it was ordained through messengers in the hand of a mediator.”

Torah began 430 years after Abraham received the promise, and Torah ended when the Seed came to who the promise was made. That much is clear Scripture, regardless what we think of end times. Laws applicable to everyone else, whether also given to Moses at Sinai, are eternal. But to answer your actual question...

Luke 21:22, 32-33: “Because these are the days of vengeance, to fill ALL that have been written...Truly, I say to you, this generation shall by no means pass away till all shall have taken place. The heaven and the earth SHALL pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away.”

Matthew 5:18: “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.”

I’ve previously shown the numerous places in the Old Testament where “heaven and earth” were destroyed multiple times in the course of God’s judgment coming on a nation. The “heaven and earth” being referred to this time by Jesus is THEIR “heaven and earth”; the powers and peoples of Old Jerusalem.

Isaiah 65:17-18: “For look, I am creating new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, nor come to heart. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; for look, I create Yerushalayim a rejoicing, and her people a joy.”

Is there any doubt that the “new heavens and new earth” refer to the New Jerusalem? The terms are synonymous.

Rev. 3:12: “...I shall write on him the Name of My Elohim and the name of the city of My Elohim, the new Yerushalayim, which comes down out of the heaven from My Elohim...”

Rev. 21:1-2: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. And I, Yohanan, saw the set-apart city, new Yerushalayim, coming down out of the heaven from Elohim, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”

If the new heaven and earth refer to the new Jerusalem, what do the former heaven and earth refer to? What was soon passing away?

Jesus said the heaven and earth was passing away. He said His words would not pass away along with the passing of the heaven and earth. He said until heaven and earth passed away, not one bit of the Torah would pass away. At the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, their heaven and earth passed away, along with animal sacrifices, levitical priests, Temple worship, etc.

I know this is a lot to try to take in at once, and I never meant for this to turn into an eschatology discussion. The heaven and earth is a direct reference to the Mosaic age system. The end of the heaven and the earth correlates to the end of their age, the age that the NT Scriptures state over and over was about to come to a complete end. All they were waiting on was the destruction of the Temple, which was symbolic of their present covenantal status.

Hebrews 9:8-9a: “the Set-apart Spirit signifying this, that the way into the Most Set-apart Place was NOT YET MADE MANIFEST while the first Tent has a standing, which was a parable for the present time in which both gifts and slaughters are offered...”

The physical Temple was a symbol for their present age. The disciples understood the connection between the destruction of the Temple and the end of the age.

Matthew 24:1-3: “And going out, Yahushua went away from the Set-apart Place, and His taught ones came near to point out to Him the buildings of the Set-apart Place. And Yahushua said to them, “Do you not see all these? Truly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, at all, which shall not be thrown down.” And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the taught ones came to Him separately, saying, “Say to us, when shall this be, and what is the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Yeshua tells them that their Temple will be completely torn down, and their thoughts immediately run to the end of the age. They understood that the destruction of the Temple, His coming, and the end of the age were all connected. They all speak to the same event.

^_^ said:
This is not a small matter, it would have been life changing, and would have received alot more attention than a passing obscure statement, it would have been announced clearly by the same folks who saw the messiah by faith, it would have been announced by those who saw the end times.
Funny they didn't have the clarity of vision being expressed here.....
It was actually much more than just a life changing event, it was a covenantal termination event. It was the judgment of God coming against the physical nation of Israel for her spiritual adultery. We certainly have no Scripture records of events beyond their fulfillment, but God didn’t leave us without plenty of historical evidence, if we bother to check it out...

“The Wars of the Jews”, by the historian Josephus, Book 6, Chapter 5, Section 3:

(288) Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend, nor give credit, to the signs that were so evident and did so plainly foretell their future desolation; but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see, or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them.

(289) Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year.

(290) Thus also, before the Jews rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus [Nisan], and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which light lasted for half an hour.

(291) This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it.

(292) At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple.

(293) Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night.

(294) Now, those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it: who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty, was able to shut the gate again.

(295) This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies.

(296) So these publicly declared, that this signal foreshadowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Beside these, a few days after that feast, on the twenty-first day of the month Artemisius [Jyar],

(297) a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it,

(298) and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sunsetting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen

(299) running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise,

(300) and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.”

Now understand that Josephus’ writings are in no way to be considered as anything more than historical writings. He was not himself a believer in Messiah, but simply a Jewish historian that ended up switching sides during the seven year war. But look at some of the events that occurred according to what he wrote from those final days of Jerusalem. In itself, it means nothing, but when combined with what Scripture prophesied, I think it speaks volumes about those events. It’s mostly boring reading (at least to me), but there’s a lot of valuable tidbits like these if you want to read what was recorded yourself.

Love in Him,
David
 
Mark C said:
The purpose of torah is to TEACH. I still contend that "ALL Scripture" is valuable for that very purpose.
I agree wholeheartedly. Scripture is clear on that point. Even those laws which were exclusive to the Old Covenant are useful in teaching us things about sin, righteousness, and the characteristics and nature of God. We only disagree regarding whether those uniquely-Mosaic laws still apply to us today or were meant only for national Israel for a time.

Mark C said:
Idolatry is spiritual adultery. I do not think there can be much debate on that. The equation between physical adultery in marriage, and God's use of identical imagery to refer to the practices and worship of other gods before Him is undeniable, I submit. Is going into ANOTHER temple and making 'sacrifices' to a pagan goddess "ceremonial"? Is it still abomination before Him, or has he grown out of that in this 'dispensation' ?
It most certainly still is an abomination, as it was prior to Moses. As His bride, idolatry is still spiritual adultery against the only true God. Yeshua commanded us to love God and love man, and I believe His word makes clear, both inside and outside of covenants, that idolatry is absolutely forbidden. Regarding your term ‘dispensation’, I do not believe in the heresy of dispensationalism, but I understand what you’re asking.

Mark C said:
What about Jeremiah 10? Giving up the pagan traditions associated with Mithra at the winter solstice was harder for my house than bacon. The "Church" long ago replaced the Pesach sacrifice of the perfect Lamb of God with an Easter ham, and those "ceremonies" He said we were to keep 'forever' with died eggs and fertility goddess symbols
I’m not disagreeing regarding your position against the pagan rituals we celebrate today. My family chooses not to celebrate Easter, Halloween or Christmas for the same reasons. Instead, we sit down together as a family, twice a year (once in spring, once in fall), and study the fulfillment of these feasts in Yeshua. It was a bit easier for us because we decided to abandon these holidays before we had children, so there was no transition needed for our kids. They will grow up knowing the history and background of these days (cultural, secular and religious aspects) and the truth regarding the feasts that Israel was actually commanded to celebrate, and their eventual complete fulfillment in Messiah.

Mark C said:
It's one thing to conclude there is no NEED for me to sacrifice bulls and goats any more (although I DO note that Paul took a Nazerite vow AFTER coming to Yeshua, and did all that such entails!) - but something else to participate in ceremony and rituals that He called abomination.
That’s just substituting one religious ritual for another. You say there is no “NEED” to sacrifice bulls or goats. Would you then say it would be perfectly acceptable before God to do so? Do you believe God would honor such a sacrifice today, especially after having come to faith in His Son? We would balk at the splinter of a Christmas tree but blindly ignore the plank of a slaughtered cow? How does that scan?

Mark C said:
My purpose in this rebuttal is not to cast stones, or condemn anyone else for their new moons and feast days. But it IS my intent to call into question distinctions which are inconsistent, or worse.
I actually believe there is a great deal to be learned by studying the ancient Biblical feasts as described in Scripture. They tell us a great deal about God’s plan of redemption. Most Western Christians have no understanding of the Hebraic roots of their faith. But anything that would put one back under that Mosaic system is probably worse than anything that could be gained by that knowledge. I don’t believe it must be an either/or situation. Everything must be tested according to the whole of God’s Word. Everything will be known by its fruits.

I think we're making good progress. I appreciate the opportunity to learn different views on these matters.

Love in Him,
David
 
DaPastor said:
I wish I had time to engage in this discussion. I have tons of things I would like to say to both sides of this discussion - especially since I find myself in the middle theologically. However, between hurricanes, work, moving, retreat planning, and family... I am treading water. I love you guys!
Hey Randy, I was beginning to wonder where you'd got to. Glad to see you're still alive and kickin'. If we don't hear from you before then, we'll see you in ... what is it now, five weeks? Wow! Time is flying by! Peace.

David
 
Regarding your term ‘dispensation’, I do not believe in the heresy of dispensationalism, but I understand what you’re asking.

Neither do I, David. I put it in quotes for that reason; tongue-in-cheek. Probably shoulda picked a smilie... :D


(Sorry, any other response will have to come later; guests here now.)
 
And I thought our family was the only ones that didn't celebrate Easter ,Devils Night and Christmas. When I said no more our parents had a fit and to this day we still hear about it. Dairyfarmer
 
The Bible is filled with warnings about how difficult it is, Dairyfarmer, as well as how important.

Persevere, and blessings in Him,

Mark
 
I will not respond in detail to your understanding of prophecy and prior fulfillment, David. Suffice it to say that such a view is far more subject to individual interpretation even than issues of translation or cultural bias. Even though "heaven and earth passing" may be true for an individual, or a nation, I have no doubt that the Flood was a world-changing event. Similarly, I see MANY cycles and repetitions in history and Scripture (after all, we are all "stiff-necked" - and He tells us things multiple times for our benefit) -- and expect a final fulfillment yet to come. Likewise, you may not accept my certain belief that the Fall feasts WILL be fulfilled perfectly when He returns as Meshiach ben David.

The Spring feasts taught me that the Lamb of God DID come; the Fall feasts teach me that He WILL return as promised.

And here will be a time when "heaven and earth" will pass - and there will be no discussion.


Do you believe God would honor such a sacrifice [bull, for example] today, especially after having come to faith in His Son?

This may well be a distraction from the point of view that I have been trying to express, David.

As I've noted, long before Yeshua came in the flesh to teach, His Word says that men had already corrupted His feasts via pagan traditions. Their sacrifices had become a 'stench'. Yeshua clearly reiterated this, and said - among MANY similar chastenings - that men worshipped Him with their mouths, but their hearts were far from Him.

King David, in Psalm 51, knew this long before the Savior He called "my lord" came in the flesh:

"For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give [it]: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

The sacrifices of God [are] a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

There was NEVER A 'CEREMONIAL' SACRIFICE specified in torah for rebellion, for deliberate disobedience to Him! But the Lamb of God, and the message of His sacrifice for us, is spelled out in every page of His teaching and instruction!

You call them "ceremonial law", I think I should have called them "teaching aids".*

I learned how to write in block letters first, David - on lined paper, so I'd know where the boundaries were to be. Then I learned cursive. I no longer need lines -- or even paper -- to be able to write, my brother. But I still know where they are, or can still stay between them if such a paper was to be given me. The lines are not 'the law', they are for instruction and guidance.




-----------------------------------
* And God may still not be done using them. If a temple is built, and He uses those events in fulfillment of His plan, I will praise His Name. I still expect to see Ezekiel's "two stick" vision fulfilled when the two houses are grafted back together in Him.
 
Mark C said:
I will not respond in detail to your understanding of prophecy and prior fulfillment, David. Suffice it to say that such a view is far more subject to individual interpretation even than issues of translation or cultural bias.
I understand, and I fully appreciate the difficulties in trying to wrap one's head around such a radical change in our end times thinking. I struggled with many of these passages for a long time before finally coming to accept preterism. In fact, C.S. Lewis, one of the greatest Christian writers of the 20th century, had this to say regarding Matthew 24:34 in his essay "The World's Last Night":

"The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, "This generation shall not pass till all these things be done." And He was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible."

Mark C said:
Likewise, you may not accept my certain belief that the Fall feasts WILL be fulfilled perfectly when He returns as Meshiach ben David. The Spring feasts taught me that the Lamb of God DID come; the Fall feasts teach me that He WILL return as promised.
We only disagree regarding the timing, not the fact. I believe the time statements He Himself gave regarding these events, but completely agree with you regarding the complete fulfillment of the spring and fall feasts, modeling the original feast patterns down to every exacting detail. The only significant difference is that where you believe He still WILL, I believe He already DID.

Mark C said:
Do you believe God would honor such a sacrifice [bull, for example] today, especially after having come to faith in His Son?
This may well be a distraction from the point of view that I have been trying to express, David.
Perhaps, but I do believe this is a valid concern. It is the inevitable conclusion that trying to follow Torah as written will lead people back to animal sacrifices, if possible. Especially with a futurist view of prophecy (with yet another temple and animal sacrifices reinstituted), it seems that believers would have to be on one side of the fence or the other regarding this issue. Let me rephrase the question. Does your VIEW of the Torah today support the idea that the Jews should be sacrificing animals again, if a refurbished Temple presents itself? Is this God's will? Why or why not?

Love in Him,
David
 
Let me rephrase the question. Does your VIEW of the Torah today support the idea that the Jews should be sacrificing animals again, if a refurbished Temple presents itself? Is this God's will? Why or why not?

"should be sacrificing" is problematic, David. They SHOULD be recognizing that their Savior has already come. I read the prophetic verses in Ezekiel and others to say that they WILL -- on both scores. I pray for the peace of Yerushalayim, and that His will be done.

This much we can perhaps agree on (or maybe not ;) ):

If/when we SEE the rebuilt temple and sacrifices, what does that say about either future, or another, fulfillment of such prophecy?

(I still intend to be listening for the shofar... :) )


Blessings in Him,

Mark
 
If he already returned and took his own, then I guess we can accurately call this present life hell. :o
Come to think of it, I dare say it fits :evil:
So, let's eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
 
^_^ said:
If he already returned and took his own, then I guess we can accurately call this present life hell. :o
I would think the alternative is a lot scarier, if He didn't do what He said He would do, WHEN He said He would do it. If we think He was wrong about these clear time statements, then what else might He have been wrong about? Is God's Word trustworthy?

Matthew 10:23: “And when they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For truly, I say to you, YOU shall by no means have gone through the cities of Yisra’el before the Son of Adam comes.”

Matthew 12:32: “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Adam, it shall be forgiven him, but whoever speaks against the Set-apart Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in THIS AGE or in the AGE TO COME.”

Matthew 16:27-28: “For the Son of Adam is going to come in the esteem of His Father with His messengers, and then He shall reward each according to his works. Truly, I say to YOU, there are some standing HERE who shall not taste death at all until they see the Son of Adam coming in His reign.”

Matthew 24:34-35: “Truly, I say to you, THIS GENERATION shall by no means pass away until ALL THIS takes place. The heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away.”

Mark 8:38-Mark 9:1: “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in THIS ADULTEROUS AND SINNING GENERATION, of him the Son of Adam also shall be ashamed when He comes in the esteem of His Father with the Set-apart messengers. And He said to them, “Truly, I say to YOU that THERE ARE SOME STANDING HERE who shall not taste death at all until they see the reign of Elohim having come in power.”

Mark 13:30-31: “Truly, I say to you, THIS GENERATION shall by no means pass away till ALL THIS takes place. The heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away.”

Luke 9:26-27: “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Adam shall be ashamed when He comes in His esteem, and in His Father’s, and of the set-apart messengers. But truly I say to you, THERE ARE SOME STANDING HERE who shall not taste death at all till they see the reign of Elohim.”

Luke 21:32-33: “Truly, I say to you, THIS GENERATION shall by no means pass away till ALL shall have taken place. The heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away.”

1 Corinthians 10:11: “And all these came upon them as examples, and they were written as a warning to US, on whom the END OF THE AGE has come.”

Ephesians 1:21: “far above all rule and authority and power and mastery, and every name that is named, not only in THIS AGE but also in that which is TO COME.”

Hebrews 6:5: “and have tasted the good Word of Elohim and the powers of the AGE TO COME,”

Hebrews 9:26: “For if so, He would have to had to suffer often, since the foundation of the world. But NOW He has appeared once for all AT THE END OF THE AGE to put away sin by the offering of Himself.”

These are just a few passages to consider. They have to mean SOMETHING, even if we think they don't mean what they say. Food for thought.

Love in Him,
David
 
Back
Top