|
Post by Josh on Apr 27, 2009 15:29:47 GMT -8
Now we're getting straight to it. No more beating around the bush, huh? The royal law, and the point of the Torah, is summed up in the command, "love thy neighbor as thyself and love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and mind and soul". The particulars of the Jewish ceremonial law have been fulfilled as types and shadows pointing to Jesus. What remains of the Torah in the New Covenant is the moral law, which defines what loving God and our neighbors looks like. Jesus certainly did not abolish the law, but His fulfilling of it ushered us into the New Covenant/ a new age. When the Temple was destroyed in AD 70, the old covenant on Sinai was completely fulfilled, the old age passed away, and a new age, the age of the Church/His Bride/the True Israel/The New Jerusalem began. This has already occurred. We are living in it- followers of Yeshua, Jew and Gentile by human descent, but one in His body. The ceremonial aspects of the law have been fulfilled and are no longer necessary. But Jesus did deepen the law of love in the Sermon on the Mount, going past the letter and straight to the intent. We now live not by outward law, but by the Holy Spirit's discernment and guidance in righteous living. I imagine this will be a long conversation about particular passages. If you're up for it, I am as well. Let's be careful to guard our attitudes in the process, because, obviously, this is no small matter.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 27, 2009 16:03:59 GMT -8
remember that the divisions within the law are instiuted by man... i only divide torah into sections to make it easier to comprehend-- never do i claim that YHVH made those divsions so that some may be changed/ some may not... my B i shouldve explained this earlier-
also, Yaakov (james) said the WHOLE law--- ceremonial laws are part o Torah and if we LOVE THE LORD THY GOD than we will wanat to do his commands- this is how the law is summed up into this.
also- the jews say that the first 5laws can be summed up into loving YHVH, the last 5 laws of the decalogue can be summed up as loving your neighbor. so Yeshua was only repeating rabbinic knoweledge.
so it is a rabbinic thing as wel, and they do not think that the law is abolished.
ceremonial laws can be summed up as saying love YHVH.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 27, 2009 20:14:57 GMT -8
Granted, the division of the Torah into civil/ceremonial/moral is not clearly articulated in the Scriptures. However, since you are trying to make the case that the entirety of the Law should still be followed, let's start with a part of the ceremonial law that that New Testament clearly says has been "set aside"/ "fulfilled", and that would be the sacrificial system. Here's just one section of the New Testament that makes that case. I will bold certain sections that particularly emphasize how the goal of the ceremonial sacrifices in the law has been accomplished and need no longer be done.
Hebrews 10:1-18
1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, O God.' " 8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 16"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."17Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more."18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
I don't really have a quibble with you about the 10 commandments, which I see as the moral law (with the possible exception of the Sabbath- though I think the Sabbath would provide enough discussion for it's own thread).
Anyway, the only sacrifices we are to offer in the New Covenant are spritiual sacrifices- giving up our own selves and living sacrifices. Peter and Paul agree on this: Romans 12:1, 1 Peter 2:5.
If this is true, then we have established that at least some of the law has been abrogated.
thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 27, 2009 21:22:34 GMT -8
John,
I'm sure you are aware of the many passages in Paul that speak to this matter (Galatians, Romans, Colossians, etc.) and seem to say the exact opposite of what you're saying. I'm curious if you hold Paul's writings as canonical and authoritative or not. The answer to that will make a big difference in this discussion.
Also, I believe that John indicated that Jesus did indeed break the Sabbath law (on purpose) in John 5:18 and that he spoke to the pharisees of David (and by extension, Jesus' disciples) being justified in breaking the letter of the law in Matt 12.
I'm curious how you would respond to those passages.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 28, 2009 12:53:06 GMT -8
well, firstly i DO think shauls epistles are authorative. however, they have just as much authority as the rabbinical commentaries. the only idfference is that shaul was following a different, messianic line of thought. he is like the oral law of messianic judaism. not literally, but i hope you get my pint.
secondly, the law that hebrews speaks about is the 'law of works'--- the rabbis teach something similar (actually, almost identical) to the teaching in hebrews. they teach that the law BEFORE the tablets of stone were broken was one of freedom. but after the tablets were broken, it became a law of bondage. it is the same Torah, but with something added. this is the 'law of works' or 'the old testemant' or 'the curse of Torah.' it is what theologicans teach is 'the palestinian cov't.' it is found in dt 28-30 where it lists all the curses for breaking the law. it says that a person is cursed if he doesnt follow all of the law. Yeshua took upon himself thesse curses. NOT that they arte abolished, but that Yeshua took our penalty.
in other words, YHVH's standard is perfection, and adam (man in general at that) could not fill that standard. so Yeshua came down as the second adam. he fulfilled that standard of perfection. Now, the penalty that we should have gootten, YHVH allowed us not to have because Yeshua took the penalty for us (not the sin, the penalty for the sin) as an inoocent person who fulfilled YHVH's standard. If Yeshua was to sin, he could not have taken the curses because only a person who fulfilled YHVH's standard of perfection could offer to take the penalty instead of the guilty.
[quick question: if Torah is the shadow of Yeshua, than how much greater will the commandments of Yeshua be as th eperson who casts the shadow? ]
also, Yeshua NEVER broke the sabbath. even the talmud says that you can heal on the sabbath. also, the TORAH says that a poor man can eat the edge of corn-feilds, barley feilds, etc on the sabbath and NOT BE BREAKING TORAH.
lastly, you are speaking of the sacrificaial system altogether correct? i dont know if i can explain everything to you. however, i will try. i will only explain my perspective on the bolded parts of your post (if this is okay):
there are three views within messianic judaism.the first is held by david stern that not all the sacrificaial system is abrogated, but the part about sin offerings is. (for information purposes: he also says that gentiles do not have to follow kashrut or jewish holidays... i disagree, but i love what he did for messianic judaism, and most of his theology is good.)
i dont think i will have to try to explain this verse by verse, but i will if you want.
the second responds to these verses like this:
this is NOT said to belittle Torah- rather, it is put here to explain the role of Torah. the fact that there are heavenly thihngs for earthly things is established by the Torah and by the rabbis. there is an earthly temple, heavenly temple, earthly ark, heavenly ark, earthly kingdoms, spiritual kingdoms, etc. however, this draws more off of platos philosophy of 'platos caves.' where the real thing is casting a shadow and on the basis of the shadow alone we cannot understand fully what the creature is that is casting this shadow.
sets aside what? not the first sacrificial system. rather, the sacrifices of those before Yeshua could only offer up the blood of animals. so YHVH replaced their sin offereing with another one. however, we shouuld still offer sin offereings, NOT for the forgiveness of sins, rather, for a memory of what Yeshua did. just as shaul himself offered sacrifices, we are to do so also. but again, these are NOT for sins, for if they were, they would be put aside anyway for the blood of Yeshua which can cleanse. these again, are for remembering and acknoweledging that Yeshua is the one who casts the shadow of these sacrifices.
here bar-nabba (author of hebrews) is explaining that Yeshua is a higher preist with a higher sacrifice that the lower preist and the lower sacrifice is a picture of (not that they are ABOLISHED, but that they are to be seen as a PICTURE OF YESHUA now, not as an instument for forgiveness of sins). He shows the superiority of the melki-tzedekan(melkizidekan) preisthood of HaMashiach (the messiah) by proving that Yeshua did what no cohen hagadol (high preist) ever did... ascend to the right hand of the father by his own will.
here, members of this school of thought would say that there is no longer any need for sacrifice of SIN, but the same sacrifices are now to be viewed as being a shadow of the sacrifice of sin. it reminds us now NOT of our sins anymore, but for our FORGIVENESS of sins. the law hasnt been abolished, but the meaning of this law has changed.
Now, for the school of thought that I personally lean towards more. I DO NOT like the first school of thought, the second one i can deal with, but this one resembles my theology more.
but let me explain this theology as a whole before i go verse by verse: i think that the sacrifices are still to be offered as sin offerings. HOWEVER, i do not think that they will be needed because Yeshuas perfect sacrifice makes them not needed at all. We naturally have a yetzer hara (evil inclination) in our nature because of Ha'Adam. so when we offer the blood of goats and bulls, YHVH is not pleased. why? because he knows that without the blood of Yeshua, we are going to have to offer the sacrifices again. they cant make us perfect. they can incline YHVH to forgive our sins, but they do not take the sins away, because they do not take the Yetzer hara away.
i have proclaimed in earlier posts that our evil inclination is circumcised off as the foreskin of our human nature.So through Yeshua, we are cleansed of our fleshly nature, and given a better nature for our flesh (later in the ressurection actually). without the Yetzer hara, we are not inclined to sin, so it makes it VERY easy not to sin. it makes every sin an intentional act if we were cleansed from it. so Yeshua's sacrifice makes it so that we can 'go and sin no more' AND if we do not sin, we do not have to offer sin sacrifices. he takes our sins away by making it an able thing for us not to sin. we are to be 'perfect even as [our] father in heaven is perfect.' how are we supposed to co this with a Yetzer hara? we cant really.
but Yeshua makes it so that we can be sinless after accepting him. shaul himself offered sacrifices however, and did purification ceremonies- in which case proves that all the ceremonial laws are to be offered if not to do with sin. this might also sugest that after sinning, even as a child of light, you are to offer sacrifices. 1 Yochanon (1 john) speaks extensively on how a child of light ought to live as Yeshua and not sin, but if the child of light does he has Yeshua as a intercessor to be like mosheh- convince YHVH not to destroy the sinners. read 1 Yochanon for more on how a child of light is not to sin.
so basically, it says that the sacrifices of sin are not needed after you offer the sacrifice of Yeshua, in which you should not sin afterwards.
i agree with the second school of thought's interpretation of this.
let me go through some parts not bolded:
in other words, the blood of goats and bulls cannot cleanse a person of sin by taking away the Yetzer Hara. they can cause YHVH to forgive the sin, but he is not satisfied with it because the people are going to sin again. but Yeshua says that he will offer his body as a oerfect sacrifice that will make it so that not only the people are forgiven, but it can be made easier for them not to sin as well. they can become perfect and sin no more after offereing this sacrifice. therefore, the sin offereings wont be needed because the people of THE WAY wont sin.
they will be holy.
they will be perfect.
so he sets aside the first what? this is open to interpretation, so it would be foolish to claim any one thing. the context can give this 'first' thing a number of different possibilities of meaning. but it does not suggest the law is abolished as every other verse proves contrary. but i gave one possible meaning in the second interpretation. another one might be that he does not literally sets aside the first, but that he the second sacrificial system is inferior to the first. just like the verse 'Yaakov i loved but Esav i hated.' it does not mean that he hated Esav, but that the older was to serve the younger just as Shaul himself explains in Romans.
another possible (but unlikely) meaning is that the second refers to the second adam, to establish the race of the chosen people.
this verse again shows that the first is inferior to the last... not that it is abolished, but that it is inferior. Just as Esav was inferior. (as you can see, i favor this interpretation of the previous verse, but i cant be for sure).
so when the yetzer hara is replaced with this spiritual nature of the TORAH (the whole torah) being written in their minds, we have no need for sin offerings; the sins in the past have been forgiven AND we have been given the means to go and sin no more.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 28, 2009 20:53:16 GMT -8
John, Respectfully, I don't believe you have made a very solid case here. You seem to be giving commentary on the Rabbis rather than exegeting scripture. I believe we may have a different view of what "His commandments" are in 1John. I think he's talking Jesus' commandments (as in Matt 28), not the Sinaitic covenant or Levitical law. I will take John at his authoritative word when he himself said Jesus broke the Sabbath (John 5) because he was "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matt 12:8). Jesus also indicated that the Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around (can't remember the verse off the top of my head right now, sorry). Jesus also "abolished" the dietary laws (Mark 7:19) by the way. Paul indicates that trying to follow the law is a stumbling block to faith (Gal 5, Col 2 for example) and didn't offer much encouragement to Gentiles seeking to follow it. On the contrary, he gave a stern warning to it. I don't see how you can get around Paul on this if you hold his writings as authoritative.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 29, 2009 11:00:26 GMT -8
and the messianics point out that shaul himself offered sacrifices, possibly for a nazarite vow. he performed purification laws. Yeshua himself said the law was not to be abolished until the new age (after the resssurection, when the world is changed with us by fire).
and each of the things you broght up are saying something that (1) is the exact opposite of what you are saying it says (2) only says what you say it says when you take it out of context. (3) misunderstanding the jewish understanding of commandments (ie, like the sabbath.)
now, i need to go to the library to get some books for school but when i come back i will go verse by verse in each of the things that you are saying.
btw- Shaul said 'we uphold the law' and Yaakov said 'if you follow the whole law but offend one point, you are guilty of all.' we know that Yaakov is speaking highly of this law since earlier he states that this 'law of liberty' was something we should follow, but dont. Torah has not changed, but application of the laws have. And TECHNICALLY, they shouldve been applied the way Yeshua said in the first place, not the way the jews had it.
shalom- (i will post in a few mins)- john.
PS- what do you mean i am not exegeting scripture? i posted in quotes SCRIPTURE and gave my interpretation on that. i did give the rabbinic ideas and such for supporting material, and/or for you to understand how the HEBREWS (who the book is written to) understood what bar-nabba was writting of and how his teachings influenced them.
i am rambling and i got to go to the library- shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 29, 2009 13:47:50 GMT -8
i am back and i will try to go through each of the stories and give the messianic jewish interpretation. :
respectfully- i beleive i have. just because i use rabbinic material for supporting material on my over-all scriptural thesis, does not mean that the whole idea is rabbinic. also, we should put more emphasis on understanding jewish culture for thebook of hebrews than any other book simply because it was written to the hebrews. we need to know what exactly bar-nabbas teachings meant to the theology of the jews.
Yeshua's commandments in mt 28 are his teachings (the original ones) of Torah. Yeshua always used Torah's mitvot (commandments) to show how the original way to foolow them was.For example, on the sermon on the mount he explained that 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' did not mean that if a tooth was taken from you, you are to take another persons tooth. he was showing that in Torah, YHVH was giving a MAXIMUM amount of punishment you could put on a person for taking your tooth. He pointed out that some MINIMUMS would be if a stranger asks for a coat. you are required to give him one, but Yeshua teaches that followers o him would give the person two. O Contrare, taking a tooth of another person for taking your own tooth is not a minimum, but a maximum.
So Yeshua is not contradicting Torah, rather, he gives the original interpretation of YHVH. So yeshua's laws are actually alot like messianic judaisms oral law.
once again you are missing the jewish idea of the sabbath commandment, and how Yeshua was proving they were contradicting Torah with that view. the sabbath is a day of freedom like the sabbaths of jubilee, the sabatical year, etc. But if you had to decide between providing freedom (rest) for yourself, or rest for others, you were to pick others. In other words, heal somebody on the sabbath- this is not breaking the sabbath, rather, fulfilling Torah. just as circumcision overrides the sabbath, the commandment to love your neighbor overrides the sabbath as well. threfore, if you can help your neighbor, you are to do so in acord with Torah. This is the meaning of Yeshua's sabbath teachings.
as for this scripture in john 5- Yeshua healed someone- this is not against Torah. plus, the veerse that says 'he broke the shabbat' is the jews reasoning, not Yochanons. also, like i said, Yeshua did not break the sabbath by healing people, again, rather, he fulfilled Torah. see the above paragraph. (it may also be improtant to note that the rabbis later ruled that healing on the sabbath was permittable.) as for the man carrying his mat. we do not know the whole of the mans story and other verses recording things like 'we uphold the law' etc can assure us that the man was not breaking shabbat by doing what Yeshua said. but Yeshua later condemned the man for breaking shabbat (v 14) which proves that Yeshua expects us to uphold Torah's Shabbat. we do not know why Yeshua was condemning the man.
so just because the sabbath was made for man means we shouldnt follow it? also, since we are talking about jewish things, let me give you the jewish perspective on this. Talmud, yoma 85b says the following:
"Rabbi Yonatan ben-Yosef said: 'For it [shabbat] is holy unto you' (exodus 31:14). That is, it is commited unto your hands, not you unto its hands!"
a similar passage appears in mekhilta, shabbata 1:1 on exodus 31:12-17, where the saying is attributed to Rabbi Shim'on Ben-Menasyah.
It may be therfore, that Yeshuas comment that 'the son of man is the lord of shabbat' does not refer only to himself but to everyone since 'ben-Adam' (literally 'son of man') can mean simply 'man, person' with no messianic overtone. 'people control the shabbat" not the other way around.
(complements to david stern, Jewish New Testement Commentary).
anyway, you get the idea that the jews thought the same thing.
i am not stupid, i know this story. but i do also know from my lack of stupidity that 'abolished' is the wrong word here. he did not even abrograte these laws. throughout the beginning of the chapter the subject was on the washing of hands- in other words, ritual purity. so he declared all foods ritually clean. there was no mention of kashrut laws, so in context we realize that he did not abolish the laws of 'kosher.'
trying to explain all the doctrines of shaul takes way to mush to do here, but i will investigate the scriptures that you gave here (gal5; col 2) later. i have got to get off.
shalom- john
PS.. i was thinking about erasing the 'lack of stupidity' comment. i decided against it however because i thought it would be a good thing to use as an example to explain this: when i say things like this i am not being rude but using the school of rhetoric that i use for 'debates.' so the comment was not to be demeaning to you, but to show the seriousness, etc, of what i was putting down. it stimulates certain emotions that i want. meaning, i want you to get on the defensive so that i can hear your BEST 'argument' for your interpretation.
shalom
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 29, 2009 14:58:22 GMT -8
First off, no one believes you are stupid. Far from it.
However, I don't understand this response on Mark 7:19. If he declared "all foods clean", then aren't "all foods" now "kosher"?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 29, 2009 15:05:28 GMT -8
One major difference you'll find between us touches on the issue of the "new age". Many of us would argue that the "new age" you speak of began to be unfurled during Jesus' earthly ministry and came into full effect in AD 70 at the destruction of the Temple. So, to us, we have already passed into the Messianic age. I see we are getting to this difference of opinion on the "Replacement Theology thread". That's probably a better place for it anyway, so I'm going to transfer this post over there.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 29, 2009 15:35:38 GMT -8
read the PS on the end of the post.
he declared all foods ritually clean. the text does not say this directly, but the contest states this- nothing about kosher was said from the beggining of the chapter... the only thing was the subject of the washing of hands. in other words, the jews thought that you had to wash your hands before you ate so the food would be ritually clean. This was the subject of the dispute- not kosher. so to say that statement had to do with kosher (actually kashrut) would be done only to desperately try to prve a point that is not really there. CONTEXT context context... this is the thing.
also, what does Shaul mean when he says 'we uphold the law.' if you think the law was abolished? he said flat out that the law was not done away with. romans just says that it was not the law that YHVH had a problem with, it was sin (yetzer hara) that came alive through the law. it took advantage of the law and sin came alive in him. so not by abolishing the law, but by ridding yourself of sin through Yeshua's sacrifice, immersion, and circumcision (alll spiritual) can you attain YHVH's level of perfection.
and Yeshua followed the law. even for those who beleive that the law is abolished in him, scripture does not say that it was abolished until the cross. therefore, Yeshua would have had to have followed the law to fulfill it or (according to replacement theologians) run its course for it to have been abolished. but this would not comply with Yochanons statement that we should live as he lived- because you would know that he followed the Torah.
also, your theology AT THE LEAST must have the followers perform the feasts of Yisrael. the feast were to last generation after generation, for all eternity. according to you, the descendants of avraham (jews) are any who YHVH accepts into the gardened olive tree. so you must follow the feasts because the feasts were to last forever. and yet, the verses that you point to to say that the law is abolished includes the feasts of Yisrael is no longer in affect. So from that should we conclude that the bible is not inspired? Or should we conclude YHVH changed his mind? No! we should conclude man is the liar and the verses mean something different. otherwise they would have been contraditing the commandment that the feasts were to be followed FOREVER!!!
shalom, and please answer all of the questions i proposed-
john
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 30, 2009 19:39:41 GMT -8
Hi John, Let me just start by saying that I think Jewish heritage is rich with beautiful and poetic symbols of heavenly things. I think God masterfully communicated and revealed His prophetic plan of reconciling the world to Himself through the rituals and laws of the Old covenant. That said, it would take a lot of convincing for me to see it as anything other than a prophetic drama pointing to the Messiah and leading up to the climax of human history (Col 2:17). I believe Jesus fulfilled the law in the same way that other prophesied events fulfilled their prophesies. As such, I believe that neither Jew nor gentile are still obligated to keep the law (as it seems you are suggesting). Christ fulfilled it, He's the substance, there's no longer any need to look at the shadows. Galatians probably has the most concentrated information on this topic. From what I read, Paul offers no encouragement, and in fact, he gives warning to his gentile readers for trying to follow the law. I'll spell out what I think his major points are here and the verse references: 1. He comes out swinging by flat out referring to the Judaizers' message of OT law requirements as a [different, another, perverted] gospel (1:6-9)
2. He states that gospel of Christ was received by "revelation", not instruction and that Judaism was a thing of the past for him (1:13-14)
3. He points out that his own gentile companion (Titus) was under no obligation to be circumcised (by extension, observe Jewish law). (2:3-5)
4. He even harshly rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in inappropriately seeking to impose OT laws on Gentiles, which he himself couldn't even keep (2:11-14).
5. He emphatically shows the folly of seeking merit through obeying the OT law, and actually suggests that it's counterproductive to our salvation and rebukes the Galatians for "not obeying the truth" by doing so (2:15-21).
6. Chapter 3 essentially points out that the law was never about how God wants to be served and worshipped, it was simply a "tutor" to bring us to faith. But what happens when we come to faith? Paul says:
Gal 3:25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. NKJV
7. He refers to the law as "weak and beggarly" that do nothing but put a believer under bondage (4:9-10, 5:1), making reference to observing "months, days, years" (sounds like feasts and Sabbaths to me). He later says circumcision (by extension, the law) "avails nothing" and says that even those who seek to keep it, really don't (6:13-15).
8. He often states that he fears for their very salvation because they are seeking to follow the law (meritoriously) . (4:11, 20; 5:2,4)
9. At the end of chapter 4, he uses Hagar as metaphorical symbol of the law and what does he say? "Cast out the bondwoman... (4:28)
10. His main point, and this is important, is this:
Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. NKJV Now, I have nothing against someone wanting to observe the Torah as a way to stay in touch with their heritage. I think that when Paul said: Col 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,..NKJV ...it works both ways. And when he says: Rom 14:5-7 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. NKJV ...he is playing the peacemaker between Jew and gentile in that he's saying that it's all the same to God whether you practice the rituals or not, as long as it's with a pure heart. Just to answer a few of the things you mentioned. you wrote: Of course he did. It was Paul's M.O. to be all things to all people so that he could win them to Christ. To the Jew he acted like a Jew, to the gentile, like a gentile (1Cor:9:19-22) Fear not, I do not easily offend. And I always try to give my best arguments, what would be the point otherwise? Shalom
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on May 1, 2009 2:52:54 GMT -8
i am about to have to leave for school but i want to tell you that galatians mean the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. and 'under the law' was even used by people of the dead sea scrolls- before christians. they used it to mean under legalism, under bondage, etc. they thought that the tablets that broke were tablets of free dom, and the tablets that YHVH gave him after ward were tablets of bondage. so 'under the law' is actually a phrase in first vcentury judaism.
i g2g, but i will reply later with a 'comeback to what you have written.
good... my worries are eased.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by christopher on May 1, 2009 8:40:50 GMT -8
Looking forward to it. Your theory sounds like a tremendous stretch, but I'll hold my tongue until you reply.
Keep in mind though what the Galatians were being pressured to do by the Judaizers (get circumcised). If I understand you correctly, you think that is an requirement from the Abrahamic covenant forever. Perhaps you disagree with Paul on this issue?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on May 1, 2009 11:08:21 GMT -8
it is definately an eternal commandment under the avrahamic cov't. and in first century judaism, and even now, you have to get circumcised before officially becoming 'jewish.' shaul disagrees and (i can make this clearer by pulling scriptures from acts-- but i guess i will put that in a later post) shaul believes that you must first spiritually get circumcised by getting saved through faith. AFTER that we can get circumcised. he does not think that we should do mikvah or circumcision OR offer sacrifices until AFTER we are saved. and we do not have to be jewish to be saved either. we can be gentiles and still be part of the nation of Yisrael.
again, the dead sea scrolls said that mikveh (baptism) does not purify until your soul is purified through repentence. kabbalists think that by ascending spiritually on the tree of life (allegorical) by making each of the 613 mitzvot an internal change as well as an outward work, you are circumcised. and shaul points out that Yesuha was our spiritual sacrifice. so through Yeshua we are circumcised, baptised and recieved a sacrifice all spiritaully, only LATER to do it through acts. shaul thinks that if a child of darkness gets circumcised before getting saved, than it means nothing.
also, the three requirements for converting in judaism is baptised, circumcied and offering a sacrifice.
also note (and i will pull quotes for other literature uusing the same slang shaul was) alot of times during that period, 'circumcised' means jewish and 'uncircumcised' means gentile. so when shaul says your circumcision has become uncircumcision he is reffereing to you "becoming a gentile spiritually." and when he says that kefa preaches unto the circumcision, he is reffering to the jews. while he also says he himself was called to the uncircumcision... you can guess what that means.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by christopher on May 1, 2009 18:51:58 GMT -8
Hi John, Thanks for your response. Your perspective is a very interesting one to say the least. However, I'm not sure how far we'll be able to take this conversation if we don't agree on the same sources of authority. In my view, all of the books in the protestant NT are apostolic, inspired, and authoritative, not merely to be equated with rabbinic commentary. I will say this though, if, as you suggest, Paul is wrong on this matter (and I don't believe that he is), he would be guilty of causing young Christians to stumble into sin and should not be trusted at all. Jesus said such people are worthy of being thrown into the sea with a millstone necklace (Luke 17). Furthermore, James (who you quoted earlier as saying the whole law was to be kept), was right there taking the lead in the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Try imagining yourself as a gentile (with no Jewish background whatsoever) receiving this letter: Acts 15:23-29 The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law'--to whom we gave no such commandment-- 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell. NKJV Would you come to the same conclusion you are suggesting?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 1, 2009 19:15:03 GMT -8
Where does Paul say that after salvation gentiles must be circumcised?
|
|