# A question for anyone who knows about Gods law



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

In another thread over in politics someone posted a verse related to taking oaths... which has nothing to do with my question but it led me to look up the verse... Matthew 5 34. Now being a seeker of knowledge I generally do not care much for a single verse... they are too easily taken out of context and meanings get distorted so I make a habit of reading at least the chapter. Which brings us to my question. Matthew chapter five is all about JC having a little sitty down chat with His disciples about a few things He seemed to think they needed to know. Now from what I have been able to discern about ol JC from reading the new testament.... He had a habit of talking in riddles sometimes.... and according to this account by Matthew it would appear that He was up to His old tricks... talking about people not putting candles under bowls and the like, and how salt that aint salty needs to be tossed out. Anyway, not too far into His spiel He takes on what appears to be a more serious note with his students, and it doesnt really appear to be riddles this time.. more like He's spittin out what He means. Here.... lemme bring the quote up for ya, so you get the flavor of it better. Pay particular attention to line 18 coz thats the part that relates most to my question. 

"The Fulfillment of the Law

17 &#8220;Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. *18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.* 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Now we have JC's own words here... at least according to one of His best fishin buds... how is it that I hear so many good Bible believers claim that the old law no longer applys? Seriously.... I dont know about heaven... it may be gone, I dont think so but maybe... but the earth is still here, and so is a whole passel of people! we aint disappeared yet! So accordin to JC the old law should still be in effect... what have I missed? :shrug:


----------



## manawar (Nov 1, 2011)

Nothing.
You didn't miss it, you found it. The schism started when the new "church" (not pointing any particular fingers, because it is as you pointed out prevalent all over today) wanted to distance themselves from all things Jewish. Forgetting the fact that the only thing Jesus preached from when He was here, WAS the "old testament" as we call it now - the Torah, Psalms, the prophets, etc.

Not one jot or tittle.
http://www.bible-history.com/backd2/jot_tittle.html


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

manawar said:


> Nothing.
> You didn't miss it, you found it. The schism started when the new "church" (not pointing any particular fingers, because it is as you pointed out prevalent all over today) wanted to distance themselves from all things Jewish. Forgetting the fact that the only thing Jesus preached from when He was here, WAS the "old testament" as we call it now - the Torah, Psalms, the prophets, etc.
> 
> Not one jot or tittle.
> http://www.bible-history.com/backd2/jot_tittle.html


Ditto manawar.
We no longer (we, Believers) have to offer 'blood sacrifices' for forgiveness of sin....Christ did that for us, once and for all on the cross.
The Old Law, stands.
It's not the way to Salvation. Christ made that clear.
But.
The Old Law still stands!!


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Yes, the Old Law still stands. The Law was there as a measuring stick, not as a means to salvation. It is there to show us that we cannot measure up to God's definition of righteousness. As Jesus said, He did not do away with the Law, He fulfilled the Law by providing the blood sacrifice required by the Law.


----------



## manawar (Nov 1, 2011)

I think the Law (old testament) gets a bad rap because it's used and seen as all about punishment and how many different ways we can screw up. Very defeatist. But most of it is how good life can be if we try to follow it. Who can argue that the 10 commandments if followed make living in society pretty trouble-free? Following the financial advice will guarantee you won't have money troubles. The dietary laws will keep your health better.
It's not harsh if you take it the way it was intended.
As y'all pointed out the ONLY thing that changed was the blood sacrifices and that wasn't done away with, just done to perfection and completed.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

manawar said:


> I think the Law (old testament) gets a bad rap because it's used and seen as all about punishment and how many different ways we can screw up. Very defeatist. But most of it is how good life can be if we try to follow it. Who can argue that the 10 commandments if followed make living in society pretty trouble-free? Following the financial advice will guarantee you won't have money troubles. The dietary laws will keep your health better.
> It's not harsh if you take it the way it was intended.
> *As y'all pointed out the ONLY thing that changed was the blood sacrifices and that wasn't done away with, just done to perfection and completed*_._



Thank you for pointing this out. You are very correct!!


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Here's my understanding of it, as taught to me by a Messianic Rabbi. He said that the ten commandments were the law, the rest of the so called laws were the Rabbi's interpretations of the laws.


----------



## DanielY (Aug 25, 2011)

First I am not real thrilled with your casual tone of Jesus Christ coupled with your claims that you are seeking knowledge. In fact I suspect you are doing anything but but I will take that chance.

First Matthew is well known as the Gospel that was written for the Jews. The religious believers of that day. So your quest for knowledge obviously has not gone very deep since this is a very basic on the surface tidbit for anyone that has spent even an inkling of study of scripture.

It is also well known that the riddles as well as other writing styles are common among the Israelites. they taught with them much the same way we teach children through bedtime stories, rhymes and songs. Again your quest for knowledge is revealed to be significantly shallow.

Being that the book of Matthew was written for the religiously knowledgeable. It is also fair to assume that they not only knew of the law they had an in depth knowledge of the law. they actually lived ate and breathed obeying the law. In his time Matthew was addressing accusations by the religious crowed concerning Jesus, His actions and teachings and how they relate to the law. You fail to see the distinction between fulfilling and abolishing. You also do not understand the purpose of the law. The law is still very much present and active and still doing what it was made to do, Convict the sinner. What it cannot do is forgive or purify the sinner. Jesus did that when he fulfilled the law.

The law is actually vary complicated and I would suggest you devote some time to understanding it as well as the times and practices of writing in that time. With a little understanding you will come to see that there is nothing unusual at all about JC's little sitty down as you call it. There is really not much about it that is not perfectly understandable. Complex but understandable. In a nut shell the law tells us we need to be saved and cannot do it ourselves. Jesus little chat proceeded his doing something about it. Keep in mind all his fishing buddies thought he was going to walk into Jerusalem and start a war that would drive the Romans out of the Holy Land and he woudl then take his throne int eh temple and lead the world to nervana. They where about to get a big surprise and Jesus was preparing them for it. Jesus in fact walked into Jerusalem, turned himself over to the Romans and was crucified. Not exactly what 12 men that had given up their homes livelihoods and had spent 3 years following Jesus around where looking for. So much so that Judas betrayed Jesus in order to try and force his hand to begin the war. Judas never expected Jesus to be arrested. He thought that Jesus would start fighting rather than submit to roman rule.

This is in no way complete but i do hope it sheds some light on the context, style and distinctions of this passage. He was basically tell people that had paid a dear price to follow their belief in the law that it was not all for nothing. the Law was still very active and relevant. God had not given them some pointless list of rules and regulations that they lived there entire lives trying to uphold. In fact the law had and has a very important purpose. part of that purpose is not to save man from a fallen condition. It is only to show man his fallen condition. Jesus' death was the fix.

I read the comment on the ten commandments after posting this. No the ten commandments are not the entire law. There is nothing in the commandments that speak of blood sacrifice much less kinsman redemption. Which an understanding of both is needed to understand how Jesus dying on a cross had anything to do with saving mankind. The law in fact is fluid and changing. more like growing throughout the old testament. The ten commandments may have been the beginning of the law and a new convenient (agreement) but they where hardly all of the law. there are laws governing farming, eating, cleanliness, social order, justice, private and public behavior and on and on. I am talking about laws that are spelled out in scripture not the scrolls upon scrolls that the Religious leaders of that day wrote to expend the Law as God gave it. God said not to work on the sabbath. The religious leaders then took it upon themselves to write volumes on just exactly what it meant to do work. Jesus himself was accused of working on the sabbath because he was seen picking hands full of grain along the road side as he walked. His reply was that his accusers where wicked and corrupt in their hearts and only had an outward act of being devoted to God. In the mean time they heaped impossible demand on those they lead. They had themselves corrupted the very purpose of the law in order to make the law something that it was not. They also believed that if you lived good enough you could satisfy God's demand for perfection. This is impossible and a gross false belief. It is still taught today and believed by most. If a christian is really saved then they are good. No they are not good, they are forgiven.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Daniel, I'm assuming-by the # of posts- you just don't know YH, but I'll be one to jump to his defense.
He's anything BUT disrespectful. Many folks, me included, are SURE God has a sense of humor. Many of us are in no way formal in addressing our Lord & Savior.
Please don't judge. I'm assuming you meant well, tho.

Patty

PS- thx for the other info.


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> Here's my understanding of it, as taught to me by a Messianic Rabbi. He said that the ten commandments were the law, the rest of the so called laws were the Rabbi's interpretations of the laws.


He might have been referring to the difference between the Torah and the Talmud, but the 10 Commandments are not the only laws in the Torah. The Torah is full of commandments from God, 613 of them.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> First Matthew is well known as the Gospel that was written for the Jews. The religious believers of that day. So your quest for knowledge obviously has not gone very deep since this is a very basic on the surface tidbit for anyone that has spent even an inkling of study of scripture.
> 
> It is also well known that the riddles as well as other writing styles are common among the Israelites. they taught with them much the same way we teach children through bedtime stories, rhymes and songs. Again your quest for knowledge is revealed to be significantly shallow.





> John 13: 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.&#8221;


Oh yeah! Just showing that good Christian love ... ound:


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> Oh yeah! Just showing that good Christian love ... ound:


the way many of the good "Christians" around here speak to other people, the name calling of public figures, the ganging up on "liberals", the personal attacks, the implications of wrong-doing, the using religion to belittle and exclude...I think the teachings of Jesus have gone right over their heads.

Christianity has just become another tool for them to feel better about themselves at the expense of others. 

I've found many here to be right out of central casting for the role of narrow-minded, sanctimonious hypocrites. Hollywood may soon be calling.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Elffriend said:


> He might have been referring to the difference between the Torah and the Talmud, but the 10 Commandments are not the only laws in the Torah. The Torah is full of commandments from God, 613 of them.


Thanks for the info. You may be right.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> Daniel, I'm assuming-by the # of posts- you just don't know YH, but I'll be one to jump to his defense.
> He's anything BUT disrespectful. Many folks, me included, are SURE God has a sense of humor. Many of us are in no way formal in addressing our Lord & Savior.
> Please don't judge. I'm assuming you meant well, tho.
> 
> ...


Very well stated.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

In the spirit of not taking things out of context, whether that be quoting one's pet verse, chapter or book......

God's law is actually quite simple, summed up by the Messiah in two short phrases and given further witness in multiple portions of scripture throughout.
"Love the Lord thy God with all thy might", and "Love thy neighbor as thyself" was His take.
His admonition in that the "spirit of the law" supersedes the "letter of the law" is quite liberating, stopping the pious legalists dead in their tracks.
His releasing of the adulteress with the blessing "go, and sin no more" was particularly telling, especially in light of His further confounding of the intent of her captors by challenging those of them without sin to cast the first stone.

His assurance that "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" was strong evidence of the benevolent intent of the law, and not of an intent for the law to be of a binding or crippling nature.

But, the particularly urgent tone in the introductory phrase, "_above all things, my brethren_" does give one pause as to the dire nature of the warning, "_swear not at all_".

My dear, "church"-going mother used to tell me that swearing was what sailors and barhops did on the weekends. God love the naivete of the self-assumed innocent.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Forerunner hit it with the only two laws God wants us to follow. With that said there are a lot of other things to remember. Two important ones are;

First off you have to take God's word as a whole not in parts. Its easy to get confused by trying to look at parts as standing alone.

Second, what you are reading is a translation of the original. This means someone had to read what was written in one language and decide what it meant in another. This gets a little tricky because the meanings of words and phrases change as time goes by and mean different things in different cultures. If I wrote you it was raining cats and dogs you'd know I meant it was raining hard. Now if someone from a different culture read that 50 years from now he may think dogs and cats were really falling from the sky.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Forerunner said:


> In the spirit of not taking things out of context, whether that be quoting one's pet verse, chapter or book......
> 
> God's law is actually quite simple, summed up by the Messiah in two short phrases and given further witness in multiple portions of scripture throughout.
> "Love the Lord thy God with all thy might", and "Love thy neighbor as thyself" was His take.
> ...


Good points. If we follow those two laws it would cover everything.


----------



## acde (Jul 25, 2011)

18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ( I add for my understanding ,and not before.) I would also ask what is meant by everything.

As far as your your paraphrasing, Jesus as an example for us ,spoke to people in ways they could understand. Good for you following his example. I once told a doctor to explain things to me like I was a teenager when he did ,I said ok explain it to me like I'm 10 when he did I fully understood. we call it breaking it down barny style.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Thanks for the responses.... it would appear that I have not missed anything, which now raises another question. Since it appears that the old law is still valid... JC's "reduction" to love they neighbor as thyself and love thy Lord thy God.... being one thing, (which we can deal with a bit later perhaps) but seriously does NOT do away with any of the old law other than the blood sacrifice.... which JC fulfilled. So why do many churches not observe most of the rest of the old law? Little things like observing the sabbath on the 7th day? (actually that one is in the big ten) Eating foods on the forbidden list even when not sitting down at the same table with a gentile whom might feel offended if you refused his hard earned rabbit?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DanielY said:


> First I am not real thrilled with your casual tone of Jesus Christ coupled with your claims that you are seeking knowledge. In fact I suspect you are doing anything but but I will take that chance.


First off I would like to extend an apology for any offense you may have taken by my writing style, and I do appreciate you overlooking it, and "taking the chance". You answer was very enlightening to me in several respects. As to my "casual" approach while referencing JC... He was a pretty casual guy.... wasnt big on putting on aires so to speak. Seems like He was a carpenter by trade. I have worked as a carpenter... although I had the advantage of power tools... but the crews I worked with all pretty much maintained a sense of humor, and were pretty much laid back when not actually driving those nails. I have done a bit of fishing too... and found most fishermen to be a bit less than "Formal". JC didnt wear fancy uniforms, or spit polished boots. He cruised around from place to place in common attire and an early form of "flip flops"... sounds pretty casual to me. 

as to my seeking knowledge.. tis true right down to my socks... or I wouldnt have bothered asking the question... not to say I am going to devote my life to finding the "truth", but I do like to expand my horizons a bit as I go along. This particular question has had me curious for quite sometime, and thought I would pitch it out and see what sorta info I could get back.... its that fishin thing doncha know.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Daniel, I'm assuming-by the # of posts- you just don't know YH, but I'll be one to jump to his defense.
> He's anything BUT disrespectful. Many folks, me included, are SURE God has a sense of humor. Many of us are in no way formal in addressing our Lord & Savior.
> Please don't judge. I'm assuming you meant well, tho.
> 
> ...


Awww thanks Tricky. I didnt feel attacked in the least, but its nice to know someone has my back anyway.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Forerunner said:


> In the spirit of not taking things out of context, whether that be quoting one's pet verse, chapter or book......
> 
> God's law is actually quite simple, summed up by the Messiah in two short phrases and given further witness in multiple portions of scripture throughout.
> "Love the Lord thy God with all thy might", and "Love thy neighbor as thyself" was His take.


Ok, this might be a good time to look at the "condensed" version of the old law. I can see the possibility of conflict here if we try to do both at once. If we "Love the Lord thy God with all thy might" I think we would naturally want to follow all of His laws... pretty sure He had something in mind there when He gave them out. He "likes" that sorta thing. Now in the big ten there was one that mentioned adultery. So ifn a married feller was to overdo on JC's version of loving their neighbor.. ifn his neighbor happened to be one of them cute young widders...... 

see the problem?


----------



## acde (Jul 25, 2011)

When God rested on the 7th day that was the end of completion, but was it 7/24 hr days read 2 Peter 3:8


----------



## acde (Jul 25, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, this might be a good time to look at the "condensed" version of the old law. I can see the possibility of conflict here if we try to do both at once. If we "Love the Lord thy God with all thy might" I think we would naturally want to follow all of His laws... pretty sure He had something in mind there when He gave them out. He "likes" that sorta thing. Now in the big ten there was one that mentioned adultery. So ifn a married feller was to overdo on JC's version of loving their neighbor.. ifn his neighbor happened to be one of them cute young widders......
> 
> see the problem?


That problem sir is what I refer to as wicked justification, It's the imperfect human spin on things. never stop searching for truth.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks for the responses.... it would appear that I have not missed anything, which now raises another question. Since it appears that the old law is still valid... JC's "reduction" to love they neighbor as thyself and love thy Lord thy God.... being one thing, (which we can deal with a bit later perhaps) but seriously does NOT do away with any of the old law other than the blood sacrifice.... which JC fulfilled. So why do many churches not observe most of the rest of the old law? Little things like observing the sabbath on the 7th day? (actually that one is in the big ten) Eating foods on the forbidden list even when not sitting down at the same table with a gentile whom might feel offended if you refused his hard earned rabbit?


Some of those issues Jesus dealt with in the NT, like eating things on the forbidden list when he says it's not what one puts in his mouth that defiles him.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> Some of those issues Jesus dealt with in the NT, like eating things on the forbidden list when he says it's not what one puts in his mouth that defiles him.


If I remember correctly He was referring to washing ones hands before eating when He made that comment. It had nothing to do with obeying God's dietary laws. This is why context is important and why I seldom read a single verse..... when one reads the chapter, or in some cases the book, it puts things in an entirely different.... and I think proper perspective.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

acde said:


> That problem sir is what I refer to as wicked justification, It's the imperfect human spin on things. never stop searching for truth.


Humans will inevitably attempt to justify their misdeeds... seems to be the nature of the beast. This is one of the reasons I initially began this thread... it was an attempt to find what I was missing... because so far, (not in this thread) most of the folks I have talked to have provided me with numerous and assorted justifications for ignoring the old laws. None of which has ever made any sense to me.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If I remember correctly He was referring to washing ones hands before eating when He made that comment. It had nothing to do with obeying God's dietary laws. This is why context is important and why I seldom read a single verse..... when one reads the chapter, or in some cases the book, it puts things in an entirely different.... and I think proper perspective.


What about the dream or vision one of his disciples had about all of the animals coming down?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> What about the dream or vision one of his disciples had about all of the animals coming down?


Good point... I havent read acts lately, so had to go and refresh my memory. Again,,, context is very important... Might I suggest you do what I did, and read chapter ten of the book of acts and over into chapter 11 even. I think you will agree that the "vision" that Cornelius and Peter had was not really related to dietary law nearly as much as it was redemption. I was unable to find any real deletion of the old dietary law in acts.... perhaps you know of somewhere else we might look?


----------



## manawar (Nov 1, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> What about the dream or vision one of his disciples had about all of the animals coming down?





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Good point... I havent read acts lately, so had to go and refresh my memory. Again,,, context is very important... Might I suggest you do what I did, and read chapter ten of the book of acts and over into chapter 11 even. I think you will agree that the "vision" that Cornelius and Peter had was not really related to dietary law nearly as much as it was redemption. I was unable to find any real deletion of the old dietary law in acts.... perhaps you know of somewhere else we might look?




This is a little long and deep, but may help. I have heard of Peter's vision used as a justification for eating unclean animals a few times. As young as I was, I sensed this wasn't really the point.

http://jerusalemcouncil.org/articles/commentaries/peters-vision-clean-unclean/

It is about people. As you say, reading the whole chapter, you'll find that God was trying to tell Peter not to view Gentiles as creatures that were created "unclean." They were God's children too, He could make anything "clean" again and oh, BTW, there are 3 of them about to knock on your door. Invite them in, eat, enjoy their company and spread the Good News.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Very well stated.


Well, tnx, I consider that a compliment!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks for the responses.... it would appear that I have not missed anything, which now raises another question. Since it appears that the old law is still valid... JC's "reduction" to love they neighbor as thyself and love thy Lord thy God.... being one thing, (which we can deal with a bit later perhaps) but seriously does NOT do away with any of the old law other than the blood sacrifice.... which JC fulfilled. *So why do many churches not observe most of the rest of the old law? *Little things like observing the sabbath on the 7th day? (actually that one is in the big ten) Eating foods on the forbidden list even when not sitting down at the same table with a gentile whom might feel offended if you refused his hard earned rabbit?


In a sentence?

There's no money in it.

(There are no more forbidden foods....)


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

Blood sacrifice is not required. It was only one means to atone, besides charity, repentance and prayer. Blood is not the only way to atone, and in fact can only atone for unintentional sins, and the blood MUST cover the temple altar--Jesus's blood did not. Human sacrifice, which the story of Jesus represents, is abhorrent to the God of Israel. Jesus was one of 50,000 Jews killed by the Roman Empire. The messiah, in the Hebrew texts (Torah/Tanakh) according to the God of Israel, is not meant to suffer, could not ever be God, and would come once and only once, fulfilling the messianic prophecies, of which Jesus did not fulfill even one. Christianity as we know it today (as opposed to the early Jewish Jesus-believing messianic sect) is an invention of the Roman Empire and Constantine. It has nothing to do with the Jewish teacher Yeshua, who had anti-Semitic vitriol placed in his mouth thanks to the political needs of the church. If you read/study the words of the G-d of Israel in the Tanakh, in his chosen language, Hebrew, you quickly find the proposed "replacement covenant" 100% smoke and mirrors.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

> "Love the Lord thy God with all thy might", and "Love thy neighbor as thyself" was His take.


These teachings are in the Jewish scriptures. We don't need Jesus or Christianity for these teachings to come to us. We only need the God of Israel in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18.

And yes, there are 613 commandments, which Jesus lived by and taught, which were given by the God of Israel, which require interpretation by whomever reads them (including Pharisaic rabbis like Jesus)--which are *ever-lasting* and which, according the the words of the God of Israel are not too difficult or far off, but are near to us, in our hearts that we may do them as is stated in Deuteronomy 30, 10:14: 

. . . if you will hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law; if you turn unto the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul; for this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you neither is it too far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, and make us hear it, that we may do it?" Neither is it beyond the sea that you should say: "Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it that we may do it?" *The word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it*.

Interestingly, Paul, who was not shy or ashamed of misrepresenting himself to gain followers, could not make that message from God work harmoniously with his, or the church's christological message, so he just went ahead and changed the words of God. 

Paul in Romans 10:8: "But what does it say? "_The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach)_." 

What did Jesus teach? NOT to change one jot or tittle? Oh my.....So it is no wonder unknowledgable gentiles accepted Paul's teachings and Torah devoted, Hebrew speaking Jews could not and did not (and will not). 

Christians see the "God of the OT" as wrathful and full of punishment because they are forced to believe that this god would tell his children that they COULD do something as beautiful as live a Torah observant and G-d connected life, but actually lied to them all along, and then pulled the rug out from under them cruelly just to prove them wrong and then punish them eternally and tortuously. That is the Christian god. That is NOT the God of Israel.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Take it one step at a time and I think you'll understand much better. 

First, Jesus is God in the flesh; therefore, He _is_ the law (past, present, future) - including the Big 10 and all other Jewish laws. Take all the written words and roll it into one and you have Jesus Christ. 

Next, realize that those laws set the _only 'standards' _for sin and death. There are no other choices.

Finally, recognize that Jesus Christ didn't diminish those standards whatsoever; rather took the entire world's burden of living up to the those standards on Himself so we would be set free from living up to something no man could -- but with one catch, _if we believe and follow Him_. For those who don't believe and follow Jesus Christ, the laws (as written) still apply.

In other words (as it says in Romans 8:2) this means for the believer: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death". Or as it is written in the Aramaic says it even better: _"For The Law of The Spirit of Life which is in Yeshua The Messiah has freed you from the law of sin and of death"._


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Purplemartineer, congrats on the bird acquisition. 
Your post is one example of why I don't place much faith in "writings" of any flavor.

To easy to take sides and battle over interpretations.
Too easy to swallow absolutely one doctrine over another, and beat down all within reach with one's own presumptions of "righteousness".

I have come to believe that there is a far bigger picture than can be contained in writings, old or new, and certainly eons beyond the scope of what is offered from the pulpit today.
Scripture does give evidence of _some_ of the will of the Creator. 
"Jesus" does exemplify a perfect path to oneness with the Father.
But holding tightly onto one precept while shunning "the weightier matters of the law" is exactly what deifying a book will get you.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

Forerunner, we all choose a path and all are paths up the same mountain to the Holy One. All are worthy paths, and all have a place. My assertion however is this: The Christian texts say they stand on the word of the God of Israel. Well, if that is the case, then Christianity cannot be true without the prophecies of the Hebrew texts being true. I make no arguments for those who attempt to immerse themselves in "christ-consciousness" or seek/find connectedness to God through a path similar to that walked by Jesus. But if a person is telling me that a new covenant exists, and blood is required and "believing in a suffering God-Messiah" is necessary for salvation, well, that is wrong and is not based in the teachings of the Hebrew prophets, which Christians claim foretell a story that actually contradicts them--because they do not speak, read, study or understand Hebrew. It's simple--for the Jesus story as the church tells it to be true, it MUST match with the God of Israel's words in the Hebrew texts. This is supposed to be the same eternal unchanging God right? And again, yes, there is a bigger picture, and not everyone needs to or should be on the same path--but when it comes to Judaism and Christianity based on the same prophecies, it must add up, or it doesn't add up. It's kind of like Christians getting all fussy over Mormons calling themselves Christians and claiming another text. Yes, fine, Mormons are going up the mountain as well. But don't expect a mainstream Christian to believe what Joseph Smith said because it contradicts what the Christian and Hebrew texts say. Same with Christians claiming they have the new covenant. There is not a new testament where an "old covenant" gets thrown out and a new one is set in its place. There is nothing scriptural from the God of Israel in the Hebrew texts to support that claim, in fact, it can be proven false. The Christian texts directly contradict what the God of Israel says in the Hebrew Bible. Again, I am not claiming one way is better than another, or that the Hebrew bible is the only way to knowing God. BUT, if a Christian is going to try to claim a one and only TRUTH and condemn others here on earth and in the afterlife, scramble the words of the Hebrew Bible (as Paul and others did) to satisfy a means to an end...wellll.....umm.......on principle and technicality it must be addressed. 

Thanks for the congrats on my birds.

Karen, there is nothing from the mouth of the God of Israel that supports "the annointed one" as anything but a king/leader/bringer of balance. The messiah concept is Jewish. The idea of a man-god, virgin birth, trinity, human sacrifice on the cross---this was the pagan-roman connection. If you read what the God of Israel says in the Hebrew, you will not only find zero support for those ideas, you find an abhorrence for them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Karen said:


> Take it one step at a time and I think you'll understand much better.
> 
> First, Jesus is God in the flesh; therefore, He _is_ the law (past, present, future) - including the Big 10 and all other Jewish laws. Take all the written words and roll it into one and you have Jesus Christ.
> 
> ...


Ok, I get the forgiveness thing... if we fail to follow the law somewhere along the line. And yep, we are all going to fail at some point, that is a given. What puzzles me is since those are God's laws, and He would prefer we follow them to the best of our ability.... Then should we not at least make the attempt rather than to go about our own way knowing that we are "covered"? If we "believe and follow" JC, it would appear that we need to follow His law,,, after all, He did. Of course I spose some would argue that JC paid the price for our sins... so we may as well get his moneys worth. :shrug:


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

Jesus said that not one jot or tittle should be changed. And the NT changed the very teachings on that law that he felt love and protection for. The Hebrew bible does not require a man-god-messiah to suffer and die for the forgiveness of sins. The only way to atone for "missing the mark" is to turn back to God, do charity and offer your heart felt prayer. Blood is not required. God does not desire sacrifice, he desires your heart. So if you sin against God or your fellow man/woman, feel it, repent, and return to devotion to Him, alone. Nothing more is required of you but that desire to be in connection to Him. "Getting your money's worth" cheapens everything.


----------



## acde (Jul 25, 2011)

yep, He gave us the gift of possible everlasting life, How we show our appreciation depends if we get the chance to use it.


----------



## acde (Jul 25, 2011)

PurpleMartineer said:


> Jesus said that not one jot or tittle should be changed. And the NT changed the very teachings on that law that he felt love and protection for. The Hebrew bible does not require a man-god-messiah to suffer and die for the forgiveness of sins. The only way to atone for "missing the mark" is to turn back to God, do charity and offer your heart felt prayer. Blood is not required. God does not desire sacrifice, he desires your heart. So if you sin against God or your fellow man/woman, feel it, repent, and return to devotion to Him, alone. Nothing more is required of you but that desire to be in connection to Him. "Getting your money's worth" cheapens everything.


he said he wanted Jesus to get his money's worth. Much like wanting to do a good job for a well paying employer. That's how I took it anyway.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

""Too easy to take sides and battle over interpretations."" This is the problem with translations. When you study the Hebrew, all the problems and misunderstandings associated with what you are calling interpretations simply fall away. What you find is a plain reading and further levels of depth. You definitely do not have the deliberate dishonest fiddlings with the texts I am pointing out, such as those that result in virgin births, and suffering messiahs (among many others).


----------



## acde (Jul 25, 2011)

I read the last sentence wrong, and He can speak for himself. lesson learned.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

acde said:


> he said he wanted Jesus to get his money's worth. Much like wanting to do a good job for a well paying employer. That's how I took it anyway.


Thats close, but not exactly... I said there are those who would make that argument.... not ME!


----------



## acde (Jul 25, 2011)

YV, Is your position It's already paid for so whats the problem?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

PurpleMartineer said:


> ""Too easy to take sides and battle over interpretations."" This is the problem with translations. When you study the Hebrew, all the problems and misunderstandings associated with what you are calling interpretations simply fall away. What you find is a plain reading and further levels of depth. You definitely do not have the deliberate dishonest fiddlings with the texts I am pointing out, such as those that result in virgin births, and suffering messiahs (among many others).


Ok, I have a problem here. I dont speak the hebrew language, and certainly am sure there are very few who speak, read and fully understand the dialect that was common in the times we are discussing. In order for me to read, or listen to any scripture... it must be first translated into a language that I understand. Reading the KJV is difficult at best due to the changes of the english language over the past few hundred years. How could I possibly be able to understand ancient foreign languages without depending upon someone to make those translations? Who do you recommend I get to either translate for me, or to teach me the ancient hebrew language? Were you born into the Hebrew language as your native tongue? Or have you learned it since? if it is not your native language, who taught you? Is it the same language that was common during ancient times?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

acde said:


> YV, Is your position It's already paid for so whats the problem?


My position is that of curiosity. I keep wondering why folks think that they are no longer bound by the old law, when Christ Himself says we are. I am well aware that if we have faith in Him, He will cover our mistakes... but some how that doesnt make it ok to deliberately break the laws. At least not to me.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I get the forgiveness thing... if we fail to follow the law somewhere along the line. And yep, we are all going to fail at some point, that is a given. What puzzles me is since those are God's laws, and He would prefer we follow them to the best of our ability.... Then should we not at least make the attempt rather than to go about our own way knowing that we are "covered"? If we "believe and follow" JC, it would appear that we need to follow His law,,, after all, He did. Of course I spose some would argue that JC paid the price for our sins... so we may as well get his moneys worth. :shrug:


No, you have it correct at the beginning.God expects us to follow Him and His commandments. Jesus gave us the example . Now being human we're going to mess up and that's where Jesus and his atonement comes in, but to not attempt to follow him would invoke these verse's in my opinion (the whole chapter is a discussion of this very subject)

Matthew 7: 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the person* who does what my Father in heaven wants*. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name? Didn't we force out demons and do many miracles by the power and authority of your name?' 23 Then I will tell them publicly, 'I've never known you. Get away from me, you evil people.'


----------



## acde (Jul 25, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> My position is that of curiosity. I keep wondering why folks think that they are no longer bound by the old law, when Christ Himself says we are. I am well aware that if we have faith in Him, He will cover our mistakes... but some how that doesnt make it ok to deliberately break the laws. At least not to me.


Some bibles say " he that exercises faith, Big difference in saying you have it and exercising it.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

www.eteacherhebrew.com 

You can study with a native speaker. Biblical Hebrew is different than modern Hebrew, which is spoken in Israel today. I am not a native speaker, this is God's chosen language, translations don't cut it. You can study and learn it as you study and learn any other language. I study online and with a number of native speaking rabbis.


----------



## acde (Jul 25, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> My position is that of curiosity. I keep wondering why folks think that they are no longer bound by the old law, when Christ Himself says we are. I am well aware that if we have faith in Him, He will cover our mistakes... but some how that doesnt make it ok to deliberately break the laws. At least not to me.


James 2:17 Faith without works is dead.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

PurpleMartineer said:


> www.eteacherhebrew.com
> 
> You can study with a native speaker. Biblical Hebrew is different than modern Hebrew, which is spoken in Israel today. I am not a native speaker, this is God's chosen language, translations don't cut it. You can study and learn it as you study and learn any other language. I study online and with a number of native speaking rabbis.


Will my teacher not be essentially "translating" that language for me? What makes a modern translator better than the scholars who translated the scriptures into English for King James? When I studied Spanish in school.. our teacher had to translate the meanings of the words to us, as well as the grammatical sentence structure differences. how would learning Hebrew be any different? Another problem was when I studied Spanish... it was pretty much useless to me when confronted in the workplace with Spanish speaking coworkers from places such as Argentina, Chile, Cuba and Mexico. Those fellers had a lot of trouble communicating with each other... and I was totally lost due to the dialectic variations. A few years later when I moved to Ky I was again up against a language barrier and had to have folks translate hickaneze for me until I learned to understand it... I have been here for over thirty years and STILL cannot speak it properly, and its merely a dialect of my native language!


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

Well, if you are fine with others doing the studying and learning for you than that is up to your heart and soul to decide. Everything has root meanings. You could ask yourself for example about the word "heaven"--what does that word mean? Why? Where does it stem from? What are that words origins? If you read the Hebrew word that is translated into this basically meaningless set of translated syllables: Heaven--you find a wholly different depth of meaning. The word translated as "heaven" is "Haishamayim"--(and that is a translitterated spelling). Aish = fire; mayim=water. So heaven is in essence "a balance of opposites." Fire and water both flow, they are both pure energy, they cannot on earth exist together, but somehow in this place, or state, they do. What is the meaning there? Do you get that depth from the word "heaven?" Hebrew is a language without capitalization, without page breaks, without verses, without punctuation. It is a language of verbs and process--it's not just the study of syllables and letters. Every letter has meaning. 

And if you want to know the meanings found in the differences between the two texts--Christian and Hebrew--you find where and how the church translates the same words in different places. For example--in Psalm 22 they word translated as "pierced" is ka'ari. You look up ka'ari in other places in the bible and double check it--is it always translated by christians as "pierced?" No it is not. In ALL other places, the church translates it as "like a lion." In Hebrew, ka'ari means "like a lion"--ari means lion--ka' means like....so in psalm 22 when the church needed that psalm to point to jesus they CHANGED God's chosen word ka'ari (like a lion) to peirced, as a means to an end. Why? whay change Gods' language? He chose it. WHo are they? 

In Isaiah 53, which is probably Christianity's most important text, they changed the word l'amo (which means "them") to a mean "Him" so Jesus would seem to be foreshadowed in the text. The text is pointing to the messianic age when the righteous remnant Israel/Jacob/the Jewish people, will be recognized as having been "with God" all along. The church wanted it to point to Jesus, so they changed that word l'amo (them) to Him. If you know how to read the word l'amo in Hebrew, you sinply cross check throughout the Christian texts and you ask yourself--WHY did they change that word ONLY HERE. Why in every other place is it translated correctly as "them." ??? And this is a trustworthy book? 

This is why the Jewish people are here today. Because the texts don't fit together and knowledgable Torah Jews always understood that the church was taking their bible--the Holy One's language-- and changing it--which even Jesus said was WRONG and should never be done.

In Hebrew there is no title "God"-- there are 70-something names for the powers or manifestations of the Creator. But Christianity used God, Lord and Messiah. In Hebrew the word translated into virgin is alma but it means young woman. All you need to do is learn the word in Hebrew and cross reference where it appears and see if you can trust the Christian translations. It is my assertion that you cannot. And when you realize this, you start to trust the church less, and the God of Israel more, and you delve into His language with amazement.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

First of all, any doctrine must be reconciled within the whole context of scripture. Pulling proof texts from scripture that require us to 'take Jesus' words over Paul's', or ignore other portions of scripture is not taking the whole context of scripture. If I believe that one passage contradicts another, I am misunderstanding one or the other. 

Jesus said that He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill. Then He said '...*till* heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law *till* all is fulfilled'. Notice that there are two 'tills' given there. No, heaven and earth have not passed away, but He *has* fulfilled the law.

We have the Old Covenant which was given to Moses in the wilderness. 

We then have the prophets that God sent as He saw fit to bring the word to the Israelites that He desired them to hear. 

We have one of those prophets, Jeremiah in chapter 31, who said,

_31) Behold the days are coming, says the Lord,
when I will make a *new covenant* with the house
of Israel and with the house of Judah--

32) *not according* to the covenant the I made with their fathers
in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them 
out of the land of Egypt,.._

The prophet tells us that God will send a *new covenant* that will *not* be according to the old covenant. It is *not* according, *not* like, *not* the same covenant.

We have Jesus telling us in Matthew 26 and Mark 14 that the wine of the supper is the symbol of His blood of the *New Covenant* that was shed for many.

We have many reference in the New Covenant which tell us that the Old Covenant has passed away. The first one occurs in Acts 15, when the apostles and elders, who actually walked and talked daily with Jesus, send a letter to the Gentiles telling them (us) that it is *NOT* necessary to keep the law.

As far as the 'Big Ten' go, when Jesus was asked which commandment was the 'great commandment', He said to love the Lord your God, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Notice that neither of the two commandments which Jesus said are greatest are in the Ten Commandments.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

PurpleMartineer said:


> The word translated as "heaven" is "Haishamayim"--(and that is a translitterated spelling). Aish = fire; mayim=water. So heaven is in essence "a balance of opposites."


Well, you can translate "heaven" into fire and water and call it a balance of opposites if you want.... When I think of firewater... I get an entirely different mental picture involving a fire, a good source of clear spring water, some copper kettles and tubing....... and its as about as close to heaven as I reckon a feller can get. I think am going to take your first advise, and let the scholars do the translating for me... thats their job. Then I think I am going to let cousin Jack apply his talents to produce some firewater and enjoy that bit of heaven. With any luck, I may have me one of them visions they talk about in the old testament and come to complete understanding.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

Well Yvonne's hubby, you are more trusting in human political motives than I am. A peaceful walk on your journey....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

PurpleMartineer said:


> Well Yvonne's hubby, you are more trusting in human political motives than I am. A peaceful walk on your journey....


I place very little faith in human political motives.... when it comes to having them look out for my best interests.... I have tremendous faith in their motives when it comes to looking out for THIER best interests.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

> The prophet tells us that God will send a new covenant that will not be according to the old covenant. It is not according, not like, not the same covenant.


Jeremiah is telling us about the new covenant that is to come when the messiah comes in the coming age. It hasn't happened yet. A covenant means "a promise." There have been many covenants made by God to his people. There was a covenant with Noah, and covenant with Abraham, Moses and David. When God made his covenant with Abraham did he throw out the laws he gave Noah? NO. Covenants with God are everlasting/eternal. That is scriptural. A suffering god-man-messiah is not. When the New Covenant Jeremiah speaks of is sealed in the future we will be in an age where we will have universal knowledge of God. Do we have that now?? Does knowledge of God cover the earth as the waters cover the sea? Finally, if the new covenant is already here by "belief in Jesus' than WHY does Zachariah 8:23 say the following about the gentile nations: 

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying: We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'

It doesn't say ten men will take ahold of the shirt of the baptists or the catholics or what have you??? If the "Old Law" has passed away, WHY is the Torah going forth out of Zion in the coming age? I will tell you why, because the Torah has not passed away, nor will it EVER. It is eternal, and no new theology can ever take it's place.

ALERT: Check your covenant theology.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

> I place very little faith in human political motives.... when it comes to having them look out for my best interests.... I have tremendous faith in their motives when it comes to looking out for THIER best interests.


Exactly my point. Religion is used as a political weapon. Read the bible for yourself in it's original language.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

PurpleMartineer said:


> JALERT: Check your covenant theology.


Already have.

Jeremiah said we would have a new covenant, and Jesus said His blood was the blood of the New Covenant. Can't get any simpler than that.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

*Covenants are ETERNAL--All covenants made thus far. : *

Regarding the Mosaic Covenant--good luck arguing it is thrown out after looking at the following:

Deuteronomy 29:29: The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children *forever*, *that we may follow all the words of this law.*

PSALM 119: 

(44) "So I will keep Your Torah - *continually forever and ever*."

(111-112) "I have inherited Your testimonies* forever*, for they are the joy of my heart. For I have inclined my heart to do Your statutes *forever*, unto the end."

(144) The righteousness of your testimonies is *everlasting*: give me understanding, and I shall live.

(152) Concerning your testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them *for ever*. 

(87) They almost destroyed me on earth, but I did not forsake Your precepts.
(88) According to Your kindness, sustain me, and I shall keep the testimony of Your mouth.
(89) *Forever*, O Lord, Your word stands in the heavens.

Psalm 111:5-9

"He has given food to those who revere Him;
He will remember His covenant *forever*. 
He has made known to His people the power of His works,
In giving them the heritage of the nations. 

The works of His hands are true and just;
All His precepts are certain. 
*They are upheld forever and ever*;
They are carried out in truth and uprightness. 

He has sent deliverance to His people;
*He has ordained His covenant forever*;
Holy and awesome is His name."

Psalm 105:8-11, 45 

He has remembered *His covenant forever*,
The word which He ordered to a thousand generations, 

The covenant that He made with Abraham,
And His oath to Isaac. 

Then He confirmed it to Jacob as a statute,
*To Israel as a covenant everlasting*,

Saying, "To you I shall give the land of Canaan,
As the portion of your inheritance,"

....In order that they shall keep His statutes and observe His laws...


*And Blood sacrifice is neither desired nor required: *

HOSEA 6:6 For I desire mercy, *not sacrifice*, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

PSALM 51:16 *You do not delight in sacrifice*, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. *The sacrifices of Gd are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart*, O Gd, you will not despise.

Numbers 16:47: So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but *Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them*. 

Numbers 31:50: So we have brought as an offering to the Eternal the gold articles each of us acquired-- armlets, bracelets, signet rings, earrings and necklaces-- *to make atonement* for ourselves before the Eternal. 

Leviticus 5:15 : When a person commits a violation and *sins unintentionally *in regard to any of the Eternal's holy things, he is to bring to the Eternal as a penalty a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value in silver, according to the sanctuary shekel. It is a guilt offering. _Intentional sins are not atoned for by blood, for those you must make restitution_

2 Chronicles 7:14...if my people, who are called by my name, will *humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways*, then will I hear from heaven and will *forgive their sin *and will heal their land. _BLOOD not necessary for forgiveness. A humble heart and prayer will do._

Psalm 34:18: The Eternal is close to the brokenhearted and *saves* those who are crushed in spirit. 

Hosea 14:2: Take words with you and return to the Eternal. Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the bulls of our lips." _BLOOD sacrifices are not necessary--we render for sacrifice the offering of our lips--PRAYER._

Proverbs 28:13: He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever *confesses* and renounces them *finds mercy*. 

Proverbs 16:6: *Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for*; through the fear of the Eternal a man avoids evil. 

Micah 6:6-8: With what shall I come before the Eternal and bow down before the exalted Gd? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Eternal be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has showed you, O man, what is good. *And what does the Eternal require of you? Only to do Justice, and to love Mercy and to walk humbly with your Gd.* 


So on the one hand we have the God of Israel saying one thing about the covenants being eternal and makes clear that atonement thru blood and sacrifice is the least desirable way to atone for sin....and on the other hand we have the NT changing the word of God to meet it's christological goals -- soooo......WHOM should one believe? 

And the covenant Jeremiah speaks of cannot have occurred yet. Impossible. Look around.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Jesus didn't destroy the law, He *fulfilled* the law. 

Love is the *fulfillment* of the law. 

The *righteous requirement* of the law is *fulfilled* in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit.

In that He says, 'A *new covenant*, He has made the first *obsolete*. Now what is becoming *obsolete* and growing old is ready to *vanish away*. Hebrews 8:13.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

What's the point of Jesus if blood is not required and connection to God is possible through His everlasting Torah?


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

PurpleMartineer said:


> What's the point of Jesus if blood is not required and connection to God is possible through His everlasting Torah?


I read this question three times, and I'm still not sure I understand what you're asking.

Blood *is* required. _'...and without shedding of blood there is no remission.' _ Hebrews 9:22

Jesus shed His blood on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice '*once for all*'. In so doing He fulfilled *all* the law.

He is our Passover. Instead of a yearly feast to commemorate applying lamb's blood to a doorpost, I apply the Lamb's blood to my heart by faith every day.

He is our Sabbath. Instead of stopping my physical work once a week, my rest is now a spiritual rest in Him, and I rest every day in the work that He completed for me on the cross.

I could go on and on, but ALL the shadows referred to in the Old Covenant are fulfilled in the reality of Jesus Christ. We no longer physically observe the shadows, but worship the real in spirit and truth on a daily basis.

Hebrews 8 quotes Jeremiah 31 in reference to the Old vanishing away, showing that the New Covenant spoken of in Jeremiah *is* the New Covenant we are under today.

Again, proof texts actually 'prove' nothing, unless those texts can be reconciled within the whole context of scripture.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

Listen, I understand you are saying the Christian texts say blood is required, and I understand why you believe it. HOW do you make sense of the fact that this is diametrically opposed to what the God of Israel teaches us in the Hebrew bible. Quote from the mouth of the God of Israel, tell me what He says, not what Paul or Luke says. My assertion is that the two religions cannot be saying opposite things and be true. ONE of these theologies has something confused. The same unchanging eternal God cannot be teaching two different things. Just because the Christian texts say this does not make it so. You would, for instance, probably argue that the Book of Mormon is not required because it contradicts your texts. Mormons say you need their book..that it is a truer and better book....maybe you do need their book? Maybe they are right and there really is yet another testament? A "better testament that doesn't worship the copy and shadows?" Christianity cannot be true unless the Hebrew texts are true. You can't start at the end and try and prove your assertions by disregarding the teachings in the first book. The first book stands as Truth from God FOREVER. It is the burden of the so called "NT" to 100% dovetail with the teachings contained within the "OT." It doesn't! Proof texts DO matter. You can't just say they don't when they don't fit your theological agenda. Your pastor says the new covenant of Jeremiah exists--yet we do not have universal knowledge of God in this world. Obviously, this is a COMING prophecy to be fulfilled when the "annointed one" comes ONCE, accomplishing ALL messianic prophecies in that day (look them up). So, again, why do I need Jesus (setting aside that Jesus does not fulfill the messianic prophecies and that no prophecies of a crucified dying messiah exist anywhere in the Hebrew texts)...WHY do I need Jesus, if the God of Israel tells me very specifically that I do not need saving through the washing in blood of any kind?


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Proof texts that must be taken 'over' another scripture, or that must ignore large portions of scripture to make them work, do *not* prove anything. 

I carefully laid out how the Old Covenant and New Covenant dovetail, and why the New has replaced the Old. You choose not to believe that, and that is certainly your prerogative to do so. That being the case we are too far apart on this issue to ever settle it on an internet forum.

I wish you well.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

The new covenant prophecies must have been fulfilled. They are not fulfilled. God says the covenant with Israel is everlasting. It is. 

I wish you well too.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I get the forgiveness thing... if we fail to follow the law somewhere along the line. And yep, we are all going to fail at some point, that is a given. What puzzles me is since those are God's laws, and He would prefer we follow them to the best of our ability.... Then should we not at least make the attempt rather than to go about our own way knowing that we are "covered"? If we "believe and follow" JC, it would appear that we need to follow His law,,, after all, He did. Of course I spose some would argue that JC paid the price for our sins... so we may as well get his moneys worth. :shrug:


It isn't that we're 'covered' so for us not to worry; rather, that we need to notice the caveat in my original statement being: to not only believe in Christ, but to _follow_ Him. 

Following Him means we apply all His principles and, many of those principles are 'actions'. If we sin, we are to ask forgiveness and make things right with those we offended and with God. It's no longer bringing in a lamb to be slaughtered by the high priest and saying some words to make atonement. Rather it's even more action - we actually have to take the responsibility, shoulder the embarrassment, and deal face-to-face with those we've sinned against.

The difference is, it's not a set of 'rules'; rather a 'teaching' and knowing in your heart what is the right thing to do. The motivation isn't a written set of laws and fear of going to hell, it's knowing you offended the God that loves you will all His heart. Kind of like when you disappointed your parents as a kid. You're were willing to do whatever you could to make it right when you know you broke your Daddy's heart. In other words, it isn't the 'mechanics' of it; rather it's now 'personal'.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I have a problem here. I dont speak the hebrew language, and certainly am sure there are very few who speak, read and fully understand the dialect that was common in the times we are discussing. In order for me to read, or listen to any scripture... it must be first translated into a language that I understand. Reading the KJV is difficult at best due to the changes of the english language over the past few hundred years. How could I possibly be able to understand ancient foreign languages without depending upon someone to make those translations? Who do you recommend I get to either translate for me, or to teach me the ancient hebrew language? Were you born into the Hebrew language as your native tongue? Or have you learned it since? if it is not your native language, who taught you? Is it the same language that was common during ancient times?


We think the Today's New International Version it the most accurate translation out there. Its well researched and footnoted where different manuscripts are different. It is also written in modern english making it much more readable.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

PurpleM, I'm sorry but I'm not following you. Are you saying that Jesus Christ is not God's Son, nor the Messiah, nor the Saviour?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Karen said:


> It isn't that we're 'covered' so for us not to worry; rather, that we need to notice the caveat in my original statement being: to not only believe in Christ, but to _follow_ Him.
> 
> Following Him means we apply all His principles and, many of those principles are 'actions'. If we sin, we are to ask forgiveness and make things right with those we offended and with God. It's no longer bringing in a lamb to be slaughtered by the high priest and saying some words to make atonement. Rather it's even more action - we actually have to take the responsibility, shoulder the embarrassment, and deal face-to-face with those we've sinned against.
> 
> The difference is, it's not a set of 'rules'; rather a 'teaching' and knowing in your heart what is the right thing to do. The motivation isn't a written set of laws and fear of going to hell, it's knowing you offended the God that loves you will all His heart. Kind of like when you disappointed your parents as a kid. You're were willing to do whatever you could to make it right when you know you broke your Daddy's heart. In other words, it isn't the 'mechanics' of it; rather it's now 'personal'.


I agree that its personal, and intent is key. My daddy had rules... and in order to make him happy I followed those rules. That being said, there was some self interest involved to. By following those rules he stayed happy, and kept his belt around him. Much to my personal benefit.  

God gave us rules... and JC followed them to the letter.. so if we want to please God, and truely follow JC.... I think we should be following those rules too. :shrug: Blood sacrifice?? ok, I can see where that one could be deleted, due to the crucifixion. Pretty sure JC covered that. The big ten? I think we should prolly keep those... along with the others... it really doesnt seem like a lot to ask.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> We think the Today's New International Version it the most accurate translation out there. Its well researched and footnoted where different manuscripts are different. It is also written in modern english making it much more readable.


I am sure its a much better translation than I could come up with.... even if I devoted the rest of my life learning the ancient languages, and researching all of the old texts.... which I have zero interest in doing!  I will accept the labors of teams of researchers and professional linguists.


----------



## acde (Jul 25, 2011)

2nd Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God

This Is my understanding of why NO MORE blood sacrifices.
Adam and Eve who were perfect sinned so Jesus who was the only other perfect human was given as a sacrifice to pay the debt. The debt has been paid.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

YH, also remember that man didn't have the Holy Spirit until after the resurrection. Today, we 'get' right from wrong a lot better because of the Holy Spirit working within us.

It isn't that The Law is no longer valid (including the Big 10), it's still there to show us the 'example' we should live by. That's why Jesus said The Law would also be there. It's still there to show us our errors.

Remember also that much of the law was to protect God's people during the time it was written. Things like dietary laws, fabric choices, etc. were based upon keeping them physically safe, in good health, physically comfortable, etc. Some of which just no longer apply in today's world of hygienic food preparations, scientific advancements, etc.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> God gave us rules... and JC followed them to the letter.. so if we want to please God, and truely follow JC.... I think we should be following those rules too. Blood sacrifice?? ok, I can see where that one could be deleted, due to the crucifixion. Pretty sure JC covered that. The big ten? I think we should prolly keep those... along with the others... it really doesnt seem like a lot to ask.


What? No cheeseburgers? No bacon? No polyester-cotton blends????! You're killing me, man. 

Seriously ... didn't the notion that the Law no longer was in effect have a lot to do with the fact Paul's Gentile converts were all gung-ho for Jesus, but not so thrilled with the Hebrew requirement to be circumcised?

(Do you think Christianity would have spread the way it did if the requirement to be 'snipped' hadn't been droped?)


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> What? No cheeseburgers? No bacon? No polyester-cotton blends????! You're killing me, man.
> 
> Seriously ... didn't the notion that the Law no longer was in effect have a lot to do with the fact Paul's Gentile converts were all gung-ho for Jesus, but not so thrilled with the Hebrew requirement to be circumcised?
> 
> (Do you think Christianity would have spread the way it did if the requirement to be 'snipped' hadn't been droped?)


I dont know of anything forbidding cheese burgers... as long as one knows the source of the ingredients.  That snippy thing seems to have caught on quite well even among the modern Christians.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I dont know of anything forbidding cheese burgers... as long as one knows the source of the ingredients.


I believe consuming milk and meat in the same dish was verboten. 



> That snippy thing seems to have caught on quite well even among the modern Christians.


Infant circumcision, maybe, but performed on adults? I don't see how a religion that required it could gain much traction. :shrug:


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I get the forgiveness thing... if we fail to follow the law somewhere along the line. And yep, we are all going to fail at some point, that is a given. What puzzles me is since those are God's laws, and He would prefer we follow them to the best of our ability....


In the OT they were to follow them, to the letter. Period. No "atta boys" for effort. Either you did, or did not.
Everyone.....did not.
Jesus Christ, was the only man to totally fulfill the WHOLE Law, perfectly.

Today? Those Laws show us our sin against God, and in doing that shows us our NEED for the Savior Jesus Christ.



> Then should we not at least make the attempt rather than to go about our own way knowing that we are "covered"? If we "believe and follow" JC, it would appear that we need to follow His law,,, after all, He did. Of course I spose some would argue that JC paid the price for our sins... so we may as well get his moneys worth. :shrug:


We adhere to the Laws NOT for Salvation, but because our goal on earth is to be "like Him". Because HE was the only perfect man, and fulfilled all those laws, then we too should desire the same. 
Those laws are written to protect us......not to be some big bummer. But to protect us.....



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I have a problem here. I dont speak the hebrew language, and certainly am sure there are very few who speak, read and fully understand the dialect that was common in the times we are discussing. In order for me to read, or listen to any scripture... it must be first translated into a language that I understand. Reading the KJV is difficult at best due to the changes of the english language over the past few hundred years. How could I possibly be able to understand ancient foreign languages without depending upon someone to make those translations? Who do you recommend I get to either translate for me, or to teach me the ancient hebrew language? Were you born into the Hebrew language as your native tongue? Or have you learned it since? if it is not your native language, who taught you? Is it the same language that was common during ancient times?


Rosetta Stone has a program to teach Hebrew, if you are interested.
I am blessed with having a friend, who lives in Israel, that speaks, reads, and writes Hebrew fluently. 



Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree that its personal, and intent is key. My daddy had rules... and in order to make him happy I followed those rules. That being said, there was some self interest involved to. By following those rules he stayed happy, and kept his belt around him. Much to my personal benefit.


Again. Those rules are there to (A) point us to the Savior (B) to protect us.



> God gave us rules... and Jesus Christ followed them to the letter.. so if we want to please God, and truely follow Jesus Christ.... I think we should be following those rules too. :shrug: Blood sacrifice?? ok, I can see where that one could be deleted, due to the crucifixion. Pretty sure Jesus Christ covered that. The big ten? I think we should prolly keep those... along with the others... it really doesnt seem like a lot to ask.


The 10 Commandments are Amazing.
The first 5 are our relationship with God.
The last 5 are our relationship with other humans.

Imagine the whole world.....if we 'just' kept the 10 Commandments?
Better eh?


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

The civilized world, "christian" and "heathen" alike, suffers the consequence of breaking the first commandment on a regular and ongoing basis. It has come to be looked upon as a matter of survival. 

Whether or not one chooses to eat pig is a moot point.

As for following the teachings of the Messiah, that is another failure altogether.

Scripture speaks of a strong delusion in the "last days". There is also mention of good being looked upon as evil, and evil being looked upon as good.

Do not make the mistake of allowing arrogance to convince you that you are above suffering those delusions.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Even the Lord said He wasn't that worried about people following the law it was what was their hearts He wanted. I'm too lazy to look it up but its somewhere in Psalms (40?)


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I'm with Yvonne's in that respect........ if your heart is in serving the Father, then your actions will strive to match.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> I believe consuming milk and meat in the same dish was verboten.


Only if the milk was from the mother of the one providing the meat. 

deuteronomy 14 21: "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." and a cheese burger wouldnt really qualify anyway. A slab of cheese applied to the top of a burger is not the same as a pot roast with gravy.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Only if the milk was from the mother of the one providing the meat.
> 
> deuteronomy 14 21: "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." and a cheese burger wouldnt really qualify anyway. A slab of cheese applied to the top of a burger is not the same as a pot roast with gravy.


Actually I think the Kosher laws are so extreme that they require separate pots and pans for cooking meat and milk dishes. (My mother used to work as a maid for a Jewish family when I was a kid.)

Now, here's an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_and_meat_in_Jewish_law

It seems the prohibition may have started as a way to curb idolatry. Who'd-a thunk it!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Actually I think the Kosher laws are so extreme that they require separate pots and pans for cooking meat and milk dishes. (My mother used to work as a maid for a Jewish family when I was a kid.)
> 
> Now, here's an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_and_meat_in_Jewish_law
> 
> It seems the prohibition may have started as a way to curb idolatry. Who'd-a thunk it!


If you read and research the laws there are a lot of sort of surprising things. Back in history one reason the Jews were thought to be the source of or just evil is their communities would not be hit with the diseases others would. The reason is because the laws cover quite a bit of hygiene issues which we know today keeps people from getting sick.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Actually I think the Kosher laws are so extreme that they require separate pots and pans for cooking meat and milk dishes.


That's one of the many 'fences' the Pharisees put around the law. The actual law in scripture only forbade cooking the meat in the mother's milk, as YH said.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Well, I think it's human nature to go "above and beyond" where rules are concerned! Kinda like the way that TSA screener over Christmas took away a passenger's cupcake. ound:

I have a sneaking suspicion that people _like_ rules, and the more, the better -- not to show them how to be good (they could figure that out on their own) but to clearly delineate how much they can get away with before being considered bad. 

Ya think?!


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Ironically, the Messiah came to free those who hear His calling from the harsh letter of the law. Adherence to that letter had become a status symbol for many, and remains so today. Then, as now, the law was a means for the central government to maintain a rigid rule over the working masses.
"Christ" exemplified a different approach to life, with entirely different priorities, a life which cannot be successfully lived so long as men recognize and bow to earthly dominions, swearing their oaths and partaking of their dainties. The world and it's governments of men will never be compatible with the teachings of the Messiah.
It pains me to see good people throwing energy after trying to mingle the two for lack of faith. Comfort is the order of the day, and Satan has certainly built a comfortable system to keep the masses from seeking truth.
Life as we know it has become a sterile course to be followed, cradle to grave, established by those that would keep men too busy and bound to allow them time to seek, suffer, and find the Creator on His terms.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Well, I think it's human nature to go "above and beyond" where rules are concerned! Kinda like the way that TSA screener over Christmas took away a passenger's cupcake. ound:
> 
> I have a sneaking suspicion that people _like_ rules, and the more, the better -- not to show them how to be good (they could figure that out on their own) but to clearly delineate how much they can get away with before being considered bad.
> 
> Ya think?!


I think its more of a power thing. Adding all of this stuff to the Law gave the Pharisees all kinds of power over people.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

I think for so many the real issues are:

1) If Christians today don't obey *all* of the Bible (_including all of the Laws_), then where is the line in picking and choosing what to obey or what is no longer relevant. 

2)If there is even _one_ thing that is not relevant or practiced today, how can we determine which things to follow and which ones we don't? 

3) If any of the above is true, then at what point does it become obsolete and who among us determines that?


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I suppose if we all just throw our hands in the air and go along to get along, Father will welcome us with open arms in spite of _not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven._

Sure sounds easy enough......and so conveniently non-committal.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

This passage is one of many that convinced me of the preterist view.

Study references to "heaven and earth" in the OT and you will find this is not a reference to a spiritual place or dirt.

In the context of the verse, heaven and earth are in fact now "passed away". Happened in 70AD.


Tim


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

> Ironically, the Messiah came to free those who hear His calling from the harsh letter of the law.


Actuallyyyyy.....no the messiah is not coming for that purpose. The messiah will come to do the following: 

1) Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
2) Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
3) Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
4) Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world &#8213; on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
5) The dead will be ressurected (Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2; Ezekiel 37:12-13)

MOREOVER, when the true messiah comes:
6)The Jewish people will be sought for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23);
7) The nations will recognize the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:12);
8) Israel will be fully observant in the practice of Torah (Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 31:31-33)
9) The Messiah will be universally recognized (Isaiah 11:10)

THIS IS ONLY A SHORT LIST of what MUST be accomplished.

The very concept of messiah is straight from the Hebrew bible--this is a Jewish concept that comes from the God of Israel Himself. When the "anointed one" arrives he will in no way be divine, other than being one who will do the will of God, an agent of God. The messiah will not BE God--not according to the God of Israel. Messiah will not be born of a virgin, but normal human parents from the line of David. Even if Jesus was in fact the genetic offspring of Joseph he would have been ineligible because he would be from the cursed line of Jeconiah. Mary's geneology is irrelevant. 

All the stuff that is referenced as "pointing to Jesus" in the Christian texts is taken out of context, edited and mistranslated, either sloppily or deliberately, by the Church. I am speaking of Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 and many many others. So much for changing a jot or tittle of God's supposedly sacred words.

Jesus was a pharisaic rabbi who was killed by the romans as one of 50,000 other jews killed during that time period. As such, if you read his teachings, he never claimed to be God, and never suggested that the Law of Moses should be anything other than upheld. He may have been disgusted by what he saw as the hypocrisy of the pharisaic rabbis and scribes, but he nevertheless quoted that they "sit in Moses' seat," thereby legitimizing their position in upholding the Law. 

Start at the beginning and you find no support for Jesus as messiah. He cannot be messiah because he MUST fulfill the messianic prophecies and he did not fulfill *even one*. Go back and look at the list. Not ONE. And there is nothing in the prophecies from the God of Israel about a "second coming" of the messiah. The messiah comes ONCE and gets the job done. End of story. You can't just make something up that doesn't fit with what the God of Israel says and call it truth. It may be "your" truth, but it's not the God of Israel's Truth found in the original Hebrew bible. The one that everyone, aside from atheists, believe is the unarguable word of God. Christianity must be proofed through the Hebrew bible prophecy. Either it works or it doesn't. The Christian texts CAN BE WRONG while the Hebrew Bible is True--however, the Christian texts CANNOT BE TRUE if what the Hebrew bible says is false. Impossible. Are there any prophecies anywhere in the Hebrew Bible that contradict each other? Does Ezekiel contradict Hosea and Hosea contradict Jeremiah? No, they all work together seamlessly. And along comes the Christian texts--not even fulfilling *a single messianic prophecy*........


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

> In the OT they were to follow [the Law of Moses], to the letter. Period. No "atta boys" for effort. Either you did, or did not.


FALSE. There are innumerable examples in the Hebrew texts where the God of Israel forgives and washes away iniquity with charity, heartfelt repentance, prayer and turning back to God. In fact the God of Israel is repeatedly telling us in prophecy that He does NOT want sacrifice. 

Isn't it striking how in the Hebrew Bible, for all the times that His people sinned against God, no one ever brought a sacrifice to atone for their sin? This was not the example of what God desired for us to achieve atonement. 

Christians like to push this idea because it works nicely with human blood sacrifice theology. 

But it is a lie against the God of Israel.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

PurpleMartineer said:


> FALSE. There are innumerable examples in the Hebrew texts where the God of Israel forgives and washes away iniquity with charity, heartfelt repentance, prayer and turning back to God. In fact the God of Israel is repeatedly telling us in prophecy that He does NOT want sacrifice.
> 
> Isn't it striking how in the Hebrew Bible, for all the times that His people sinned against God, no one ever brought a sacrifice to atone for their sin? This was not the example of what God desired for us to achieve atonement.
> 
> ...


I can give you Scripture to show you that God does NOT accept "ignorance" as an excuse. 
There never was, nor are there ever gonna be "atta boys" from God.
Then, (OT) you followed the Law to the letter or you failed.
NOW, (NT) you either Believe and are Saved, or you don't Believe, and you are lost for eternity. 
There is no fence to sit on. 
There is no 'credit' for 'trying'. 
It is very simple, cut and dried.
Do, or Do Not.....there is no try.

Romans 1: 18-32

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 
19* since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 
20 For since the creation of the world God&#8217;s invisible qualities&#8212;his eternal power and divine nature&#8212;have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.* 

21 For although *they knew God,* they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 
25 *They exchanged the truth of God for a lie,* and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator&#8212;who is forever praised. Amen. 
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 
28 Furthermore, *since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God,* he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 
31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 
32 *Although they know *God&#8217;s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


----------



## frugalmomma2 (May 24, 2008)

These 4 pages have given me a pretty good idea of what it must have been like when the Pharisee's were the only ones with the scripture's. People had to take their word about the contents. Unless I have overlooked something I have only seen 1 person with the understanding of the Hebrew language here. It also appears from what I have read that the Orthodox view is the only one that is correct and the Christian view is totally wrong.

I do have a question.

How would you explain what Isaiah was talking about in 
Is 7:10-16
when he described the virgin birth of the child named Immanuel?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I just read that, Frugalmomma, and the prophecy really doesn't seem to apply to Jesus (at least not in his first-century incarnation). 

Although Isaiah 7:20 left me with questions ... would a Brazilian wax count as fulfillment of the prophecy, or is actual shaving with a razor necessary? :hysterical:


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

Laura Zone 5, I have already demonstrated that the Christian texts can be wrong and as they CLAIM to rest on the Hebrew texts, they have nothing to stand on unless the words of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible are 100% RIGHT. So quote me the God of Israel, not the Christian texts because your book does not jibe with the first book and it SIMPLY MUST. Unless you have created a whole new book which is not a sequel to the first, in which case your god can say whatever he wants, I won't argue with that. And I WILL quote you MANY examples of the loving God of Israel forgiving transgression and iniquity based on prayer, charity and repentance later on when I have time. Christians REQUIRE an angry unforgiving "OT god" to make their theology/doctrine function. Read your Hebrew Bible. God does NOT want sacrifice and He does forgive. King David for example. Just a heart felt understanding and returning to God. Where's your blood there? 

Willowgirl, there is only one incarnation prophesied in the Hebrew bible. Second comings are not in scripture according to the God of Israel.

Frugalmamma I will get back to Emmanuel, I dont have time right now. Later tonight.

Peace and Light....


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

PurpleMartineer said:


> Laura Zone 5, I have already demonstrated that the Christian texts can be wrong and as they CLAIM to rest on the Hebrew texts, they have nothing to stand on unless the words of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible are 100% RIGHT. So quote me the God of Israel, not the Christian texts because your book does not jibe with the first book and it SIMPLY MUST. Unless you have created a whole new book which is not a sequel to the first, in which case your god can say whatever he wants, I won't argue with that. And I WILL quote you MANY examples of the loving God of Israel forgiving transgression and iniquity based on prayer, charity and repentance later on when I have time. Christians REQUIRE an angry unforgiving "OT god" to make their theology/doctrine function. Read your Hebrew Bible. God does NOT want sacrifice and He does forgive. King David for example. Just a heart felt understanding and returning to God. *Where's your blood there? *
> Peace and Light....


Praise The Lord, Thank you Father for Jesus Christ who shed HIS BLOOD, for my sins, thereby freeing me from the bondage of sin, and the eternal separation and ----ation, in the lake of fire!!! I am now free from satan's power, and Heaven bound!!

What 'bible' are you using for your information?


----------



## bugstabber (May 12, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In another thread over in politics someone posted a verse related to taking oaths... which has nothing to do with my question but it led me to look up the verse... Matthew 5 34. *Now being a seeker of knowledge I generally do not care much for a single verse... they are too easily taken out of context and meanings get distorted so I make a habit of reading at least the chapter.*


That is a very good bit of advice, something to remember.


----------



## frugalmomma2 (May 24, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I just read that, Frugalmomma, and the prophecy really doesn't seem to apply to Jesus (at least not in his first-century incarnation).
> 
> Although Isaiah 7:20 left me with questions ... would a Brazilian wax count as fulfillment of the prophecy, or is actual shaving with a razor necessary? :hysterical:


If it doesn't apply to Jesus the by all means point me to the scripture that talks of another Virgin birth.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If it doesn't apply to Jesus the by all means point me to the scripture that talks of another Virgin birth.


Keep in mind that the concept of a virgin birth was hardly exclusive to Christianity. Several other religions making the rounds at the time apparently incorporated the concept. The idea of gods mating with fetching human women (sometimes in disguises, as in Leda and the swan) also was found in Greek and Roman mythology. Christianity was a product of its times. :shrug:

But let's look at the verse in Isaiah. Not only does it predict this Immanuel would be born to a virgin, but that certain things would take place shortly following his miraculous birth. Specifically, "for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judahâhe will bring the king of Assyria."

The prophecy goes on to detail several other things that supposedly would happen, including the pubic shaving (!) of the men of Israel. Then it makes a rather confusing prediction that the land would overflow with milk and honey, while also being overgrown by thistles. That's kind of hard to fathom -- shouldn't it be one or the other? But anyway. Did these other prophecies come to pass? I can't recall reading about a surplus of butter in ancient Israel around the time of Jesus' birth. The popularity of metrosexual grooming habits also is in question.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

Laura Zone 5, I am using the Hebrew Bible, what you would call the "Old Testament" and which I would call Torah. I understand that you are feeling certain that God REQUIRES blood sacrifice to atone for your sins--but this is a concept that was never taught by the God of Israel. I already showed you how King David was forgiven simply by feeling a heartfelt repentance (why did God forgive him if he required a sacrifice? What is God's message to humanity in this example?) I will give you more scriptural examples of the forgiveness of the God of Israel through repentance, prayer and charity alone. If you want to argue with someone after reading these passages, you can take that up with God Himself: 

1) PSALMS 40:7 

"You desired neither sacrifice nor meal offering; You dug ears for me; a burnt offering or a sin offering You did not request." _(The Christian texts butcher this verse and change it deliberately, going against even Jesus' teaching that one should not change one jot or tittle. I won't even print it again here it is such an offense against the God of Israel's teaching on this matter. You can find the Christian text change in Hebrews 10:5) _

2) MICAH 6-8 

6. With what shall I come before the Lord, bow before the Most High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves?
7. Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with myriad streams of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8. He has told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord demands of you; but to do justice, to love loving-kindness, and to walk discreetly with your God.

3) I SAMUEL 15:22 

"And Samuel said, "Has the Lord (as much) desire in burnt offerings and peace-offerings, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than a peace-offering; to hearken is better than the fat of rams."

II SAMUEL 12:13 

And David said to Nathan: "I have sinned against the Lord." And Nathan said to David, "Also the Lord has removed your sin; you shall not die."

PSALMS 51: 16-19

16. Save me from blood, O God, the God of my salvation; let my tongue sing praises of Your charity.
17. O Lord, You shall open my lips, and my mouth will recite Your praise.
18. For You do not wish a sacrifice, or I should give it; You do not desire a burnt offering.
19. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; O God, You will not despise a broken and crushed heart.

HOSEA 14: 2-3

2. Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled in your iniquity.
3. Take words with yourselves and return to the Lord. Say, "You shall forgive all iniquity and teach us the good way, and let us render for bulls the offering of our lips. _(The "offering of our lips" is PRAYER, which is to replace the blood sacrifice)_

PROVERBS 10:2
2. Treasures of wickedness will not avail, but charity will save from death.

PROVERBS 21:3
3. Performing charity and justice is preferred by God to a sacrifice.

HOSEA 6:6

For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

I will respond more later.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

PurpleMartineer, none of those scriptures are saying that the sacrifices weren't required, (as other OT scriptures show that they were) but are simply showing that, even in the OT, the heart towards God was also important. Simply burning a sacrifice by rote meant nothing.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

These details are moot, in this late stage of world-wide deception and the long forecast strong delusion.
We need look no further than the first commandment of the ten for all the meat we can chew.

God said (if we believe the account of Moses, as it has been represented to us)

_Thou shalt have no other gods before me._

This has always been represented to me as a tyrannical, fist pounding demand.
It is not.

It is part of a formula for remaining free, as free and unencumbered as Adam.

When we bow to, acknowledge, pray to, submit to, prop up or otherwise "have" other gods, before the One, we remove ourselves from His protection and provision.
We place a barrier, allowed by free will and respected by Father. That barrier remains so long as we sit at the table of another provider, be that provider Cain, Ceasar, King George, George Washington or Barack Obama.

The word, "god", as used in the first commandment, is generic.
It means "judge", "magistrate", or "ruler".

The two solid warnings in the NT against the taking of oaths are more of that formula for remaining free. Funny that both testaments promote the same form of liberty, under The Creator, alone..... He wants us free to serve Him, and He wants to be free to sustain us........
Swearing an oath immediately and directly removes the otherwise heretofore unencumbered soul from the natural law jurisdiction of the Father of Creation, and places the same soul under the authority of another "god".
As does "striking hands" (warned against in Psalms and Proverbs, if I recall correctly), which is another way of saying "signing a contract" or making other binding agreements with men that can be interpreted and enforced by the black robed priests down at the temple that sits in your local county seat.
Yes, civil government is a religion, complete with priests, temples, doctrine, reward and punishment, and they will certainly offer you the opportunity to pray to and petition their gods.
There are myriads of traps laid by the enemy to seduce otherwise "good" men and women into giving up their God-given rights and status as free.
Got an insurance policy ? You've entered an agreement with an agent of one of the "merchants of the earth" spoken of in Revelation, and taken that principle on as your protector, removing GOD from the equation and submitting your free will to other gods, who have every right to determine what they will or will not allow you in the event that you have opportunity to make a claim.

This is a hard world, due to man exercising his free will.
There is a straight and narrow path allowed us to traverse this realm, and man has constructed and concocted all manner of red tape to protect himself from that reality.

When we get done chewing this one...... there is always the second commandment.

A graven image is any construction via man's hand that he and/or others might look to and claim as their protection, provision, fountainhead of rights, or otherwise acknowledge as the fiber that binds them.....again, before and in denial of all of the same that is offered by the Creator. The golden calf was Isreal's most famous graven image, and the acclaimed US Constitution is ours.

Choose this day, whom ye will serve. Reference Joshua 24:15.

Then look at Judges 10:13-14.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

Nope, tyusclan. 

Leviticus 17:10-11

10. And any man of the House of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My attention upon the soul who eats the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people.
11. For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have therefore given it to you [to be placed] upon the altar, to atone for your souls. For it is the blood that atones for the soul.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and *without the shedding of blood there is no atonement. *

Hebrews is FULL OF IT.

Leviticus is saying that blood should not be eaten because it atones for sin. It is NOT THE ONLY METHOD TO ATONE FOR SIN. Nor is it the most desired method to atone for sin.

The Sin Sacrifice was designated for UNINTENTIONAL SINS ONLY:

LEVITICUS 4:1-2

1. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 
2. Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a person sins *unintentionally * and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commandments....

Is atonement the ONLY method for atonement blood sacrifice??? No. 

As I have shown in previous posts (more than one post, at length), through scriptural examples from the God of Israel Himself: Atonement for sin is acheived through Repentance, Prayer, Charity and Devotion to God. *In fact, Devotion to God is BETTER than a sacrifice* as it says in I Samuel 15:22 and Micah 6:6-8 and Hosea 6:6: 

MICAH 6-8 

6. With what shall I come before the Lord, bow before the Most High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves?
7. Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with myriad streams of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8. He has told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord demands of you; but to do justice, to love loving-kindness, and to walk discreetly with your God.

I SAMUEL 15:22 

"And Samuel said, "Has the Lord (as much) desire in burnt offerings and peace-offerings, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than a peace-offering; to hearken is better than the fat of rams."

HOSEA 6:6

*For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.*


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

Forerunner these details are not moot, as the Torah and the promises made by God in the Hebrew Bible are ETERNAL and tell of a coming age of world peace, universal knowledge of and connection to God. The ten commandments are in actuality better called Ten Utterances. The word commandment is not so in Hebrew. The word translated as such is actually mitzvot which means "intimate connection." It is not a fist pounding. It is a call to embrace.

There is no word "god" in the Hebrew Bible. The name of the Creator is unpronouncable, transliterated as YHVH, which is something more akin to breathing if attempted to sound it out, and which has a root meaning "to be." It is this name not to take in vain, because it is an insult to try to use human limitation to speak of what cannot be understood. Other names of the Creator in Hebrew are "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" which means "I will be what I will be." Elohim represents the powers of God hidden in nature and creation, which is why Elohim is used in the Genesis account. Moses was also called elohim in the Hebrew Bible, as were judges, and the city of Jerusalem, because these are all powers of, or agents of, God. Another name used which is usually translated into english as "almighty" is El Shaddai, which means both "Life Giver" and "Destroyer."


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Wasn't there somewhere a reference made to "straining gnats" while "swallowing camels"?


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

PurpleMartineer said:


> Leviticus 17:10-11
> 
> 10. And any man of the House of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My attention upon the soul who eats the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people.
> 11. For the soul of the flesh is in the *blood*, and I have therefore given it to you [to be placed] upon the altar, *to atone for your souls*. For it is the *blood that atones for the soul*.


I'm assuming that you didn't read your own reference.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

I guess Matthew said that, but he also spoke of a virgin birth, which is also a pagan myth, so we can safely throw his testimony out. If you are saying that understanding the meaning and intent of God's chosen language, Hebrew, is straining gnats...???.....Lets say you are married to your beloved, and you want to communicate intimately with your wife, would you not find it problematic if your only choice to learn her thoughts were to have another person (or more accurately, many persons) stand between you, to speak and convey on her behalf? Because translations are just that. Stunted. Incomplete. Void of depth. Far from the Truth of Intent. 

You call that straining gnats? sad....


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

tyusclan--DID YOU READ MY POST. I said that God said that blood atones for UNINTENTIONAL SINS--and that OTHER METHODS were preferred. Not that it doesnt atone at all, EVER (this is WHY you arent to EAT the blood, which is what Leviticus is about--it is not saying that blood is the only way to atone--it is saying don't EAT blood because it has atoning properties and when you do spill it it shouldnt go into your mouth but on the altar) It is not telling that atonement is ONLY possible by shedding blood on the altar. (BTW did Jesus' blood touch the altar anyway?? NO!). The Christian texts says in Hebrews that blood is the ONLY WAY to achieve atonement---and that is flatly FALSE and a lie against the teachings of the God of Israel. Read my post. Read the scripture without the Christian bias which stands 100% on blood atonement-- there truly is NOTHING else in that religion. Which is why it is a separate religion from what is taught by the God of Israel, who states CLEARLY, that yes, while blood atones for SOME sins, it is NOT PREFERRED. Repentance, charity, devotion and loving kindness are PREFERRED to a sacrifice. Go. Scroll back. Look.

I am looking forward to replying to the Emmanuel and virgin birth deal, but I dont have time now. Long story short, the prophecy already occurred and the word "virgin" is mistranslated.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

You obviously can't discuss this rationally without getting angry, and as I said earlier, we are too far apart. My apologies for commenting in the first place.

Peace.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

I am not angry. Rationality is found in Scripture. I was asking you to read my post, which you clearly did not before dropping Leviticus back in my lap. We are far apart because the Judeo-Christian connection is an untruth. Jesus was a Pharisaic rabbi, that is true, but the connection to his roots was severed by Paul. Should we trust Paul or the God of ISrael on sin and atonement. I think you know my answer. I wish you peace as well.


----------



## frugalmomma2 (May 24, 2008)

PurpleMartineer said:


> I guess Matthew said that, but he also spoke of a virgin birth, which is also a pagan myth, so we can safely throw his testimony out. If you are saying that understanding the meaning and intent of God's chosen language, Hebrew, is straining gnats...???.....Lets say you are married to your beloved, and you want to communicate intimately with your wife, would you not find it problematic if your only choice to learn her thoughts were to have another person (or more accurately, many persons) stand between you, to speak and convey on her behalf? Because translations are just that. Stunted. Incomplete. Void of depth. Far from the Truth of Intent.
> 
> You call that straining gnats? sad....


So now we are to believe that the writers of the new Testament changed the writings of the Old Testament ? Was the Prophet Isaiah speaking of a pagan myth when he told of the Virgin birth of the child named Immanuel. I wish there were more here that could read Hebrew. Kinda at a disadvantage when there is only one. I just find it hard to believe that you can put 66 books together over 1400 yrs with 40 different writers and it stand the test of time that it has if God is not in it.


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

I can't read Hebrew, but the English translation in my Tanakh for the Isaiah quote mentioned earlier is "young woman" not virgin.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Elffriend said:


> I can't read Hebrew, but the English translation in my Tanakh for the Isaiah quote mentioned earlier is "young woman" not virgin.


The Hebrew word there can be translated 'maiden', 'young woman', or 'virgin'. In scripture, unless the woman is referred to as a 'harlot', a young, unmarried woman would always be understood to be a virgin.


----------



## gryndlgoat (May 27, 2005)

tyusclan said:


> The Hebrew word there can be translated 'maiden', 'young woman', or 'virgin'. In scripture, unless the woman is referred to as a 'harlot', a young, unmarried woman would always be understood to be a virgin.


Yeah, just as EVERY bride wearing white is understood to be a virgin today.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I think I wore white every time I got married. ound:


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

Does it say unmarried?


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Elffriend said:


> Does it say unmarried?


The word can be maiden, young woman, or virgin. It MEANS unmarried.


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

As I said, I can't read Hebrew. I did however do some googling. From what I saw the word being translated as virgin is almah, which is a generic Hebrew word for young woman. The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

You are correct Elffriend. The greek word _parthenos_ can mean unmarried, virgin or young woman, but the word _alma_ *always* means young woman in Hebrew. 

_Betulah_ is the *only* word that can mean virgin in Hebrew. 

Here is an example of a place in the Hebrew bible where the use of the word alma demonstrates that this word cannot ever mean virgin: 

PROVERBS 30
18 &#8220;There are three things that are too amazing for me, 
four that I do not understand: 
19 the way of an eagle in the sky, 
the way of a snake on a rock, 
the way of a ship on the high seas, 
and the way of a man with a _young woman [alma]_.
20 &#8220;This is the way of an adulterous woman: 
She eats and wipes her mouth 
and says, &#8216;I&#8217;ve done nothing wrong.&#8217;

No, alma never means virgin. Only betulah.

The church quotes the Septuagint when supporting the virgin birth by pointing to the greek word "parthenos"--saying, "See! The RABBIS themselves used a word in Isaiah than means virgin!" 

The answer to this issue is twofold: first, the 70 rabbis only translated the Pentateuch (the 5 books of MOses), not the Prophets or Writings (this is attested to by Josephus, Jerome and the Talmud). So Isaiah was not a book that any Hebrew speaking, Torah-abiding rabbi EVER translated. That translation was done solely by the gentile church scribes (in their hidden chambers in the Vatican I might add). Secondly, the rabbis did use the word parthenos in a clear example when the woman was obviously NOT a virgin: 

Genesis 34 2-4 

2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and raped her. 3 His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the _young woman [parthenos]_ and spoke tenderly to her. 4 And Shechem said to his father Hamor, &#8220;Get me this girl as my wife.&#8221;



> So now we are to believe that the writers of the new Testament changed the writings of the Old Testament ?


Politics and religion are intertwined. I could sit here all day typing out examples of how and where the church changed the word of the God of Israel to fit their christological intent. I will give you three examples to suffice, although there are MANY more.

1) Psalm 22. The word translated into 'pierced' is 'ka'ari.' Ka'ari does not mean pierced, it means, "like a lion." If the word pierced is inserted the psalm appears to be foreshadowing the death of Jesus. If read in the original language of Hebrew, the word ka'ari (like a lion) keeps with the theme of King David's psalms where he often, and many times in different psalms, calls out to God to save him from his enemies whom he likens to "dogs and lions that surround him and are at his hands and feet." In EVERY other place where this word ka'ari appears the church translates it correctly as "like a lion" (Isaiah 38:13 for example)-- ONLY in the 22 Psalm that makes claims to foreshadowing the death of Jesus is this word translated as "pierced." WHY? 

2) Isaiah 53: This chapter is the continuation of the previous Servant Songs which are quite clearly referring the Israel/Jacob/the Jewish people as God's servant. Israel (in the national singular) and Jacob (as individual) are constantly referred to as God's servant--they are also referred to as God's wife (singular) and children (plural). In Isaiah 53, the church changed the word of the God of Israel when they replaced the word "them" and the word "deaths" with the word "Him" and the word "death" to meet thier christological means to an end. The Servant of the God of Israel are not the Jews that screw up constantly, abandoning Torah and God. The "suffering" servant in this song is the "Righteous Remnant" of Israel--the small number of Jews who keep God's Torah thereby playing a part in the ushering in of the age of peace from which we will all benefit. This is why the "kings of nations" are so astonished at what they are finding out in this song, and this is what is meant by the suffering servant "bearing the sins" of the gentile nations. Not that the Jews *take away sins* but that they have been the whipping post of the nations, oppressed and afflicted. Have they not? Holocaust anyone???

Here is what the verse in question says in the english KJV:
*
Isaiah 53 KJV*

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who shall declare His generation? For He was cut off out of the land of the living; _for the transgression of My people was *He* stricken_.
9 And He made His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in _His *death*_, because He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in His mouth.

And here is the translation from Hebrew TaNaKh:

*Isaiah 53 Hebrew* 

8. From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell *them*. [l'amo]
9. And he gave his grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his *kinds of deaths*, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

The reference to "my people" in this song are the kings of gentile nations realizing that the plague which befell THEM (the Jewish people) was caused by the gentile nations. 

If this is the foreshadowing of Jesus, the word "l'amo" would not appear here anywhere. The "them" (l'amo) is the nation of Israel (in the plural). Deaths (plural--Israel). And, as you can imagine, in EVERY other place where l'amo (them) appears in the "Old Testement" translated by the church, it is translated correctly, to *THEM*-- NOT to "Him." WHY????

I will continue on another post.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

3) Deuteronomy 30

Deuteronomy 30: 10-14 

10. when you obey the Lord, your God, to observe His commandments and His statutes written in this Torah scroll, [and] when you return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.
11. For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.	
12. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"
13. Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" 
_14. Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, *so that you can fulfill it*.
_
And then along comes Paul, who was actually working FOR the high priest (that is, he claimed to be a Pharisee, but it is common knowledge that if you worked imprisoning people for the high priest (who was appointed by the Romans), you were a Sadducee, and Sadducees were the enemies of the Pharisees--so can we REALLY trust this Paul, who actually admits to misrepresenting himself according to whomever he is speaking?

--OK, so anyway, here comes Paul and what does he do with Deut 30?? He CHANGES it. Against the instruction of even rabbi Jesus not to change one jot or tittle of the law. He changes the word of the God of Israel. WHY? Why not just leave it alone? God says clearly in the scriptures hat "he is not a man," and does not ever "change his mind." The Torah is eternal. Don't change it. But Paul just willy nilly changes it! "Naw! It never said that! It doesn't say you CAN keep the law! You can't possibly fulfill it! (even though it says you can RIGHT HERE!). Oh nevermind that--here's what it REALLY SAYS....".

Here is what he conveys to his audience that Deut 30 says in Romans 10:8:

8 But what does it say? âThe word is near you, in your mouth and in your heartâ[d](that is, the word of faith which we preach).

Um, didn't the God of Israel Himself just say you COULD keep the law? That it is in your heart, not far away? Not beyond the seas, but RIGHT HERE that you may DO IT???

SO what is the timeless eternal message from the God of Israel? That we can or cannot keep his Torah?? The message is that we CAN. This does not work for Paul or the church, because Jesus is claimed to be the END OF THE LAW--right? So....no problem. Just. change. it.


Phfew. There is more but I can't right now.

Also, let me just say, that there is NO prophecy in the Hebrew texts coming from the God of Israel that directs us to look for messiah from Nazareth. Matthew made that one up out of _thin air_.

Even though we have already set the virgin thing from Isaiah aside, I will also address the issue of the name "emmanuel" from Isaiah 9: 5-6 later on. 

And in case anyone is wondering, the 7 Laws of Noah cover all of humanity for eternal salvation. If you are not a member of those who stood at Sinai, there are 7 laws given to Noah which apply to you, and as long as you are not committing idolatry, you are probably already considered righteous in your conduct by God. Google 7 Laws of Noah to find out what they are. 

Peace.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

willow_girl said:


> Oh yeah! Just showing that good Christian love ... ound:





LisaInN.Idaho said:


> the way many of the good "Christians" around here speak to other people, the name calling of public figures, the ganging up on "liberals", the personal attacks, the implications of wrong-doing, the using religion to belittle and exclude...I think the teachings of Jesus have gone right over their heads.
> 
> Christianity has just become another tool for them to feel better about themselves at the expense of others.
> 
> I've found many here to be right out of central casting for the role of narrow-minded, sanctimonious hypocrites. Hollywood may soon be calling.


Yea....you two should start a thread and instruct others how to behave, first get the speck out of your eye.....:nana:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Yea....you two should start a thread and instruct others how to behave, first get the speck out of your eye.....


Even better yet, perhaps Lisa and I should start a forum for the like-minded?

I have a feeling our forum wouldn't require a four-page thread with 111 replies just to lay the ground rules to keep the 'true believers' from tearing one another to shreds ... as the Bible Believers forum here on HT seems to require.

But ... whatever! :shrug:


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

willow_girl said:


> Even better yet, perhaps Lisa and I should start a forum for the like-minded?
> 
> I have a feeling our forum wouldn't require a four-page thread with 111 replies just to lay the ground rules to keep the 'true believers' from tearing one another to shreds ... as the Bible Believers forum here on HT seems to require.
> 
> But ... whatever! :shrug:


Yes, for the like minded....and there are a few others that could join, maybe a moderator position...I have come up with a name already...Glass House Forum.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Yes, for the like minded....and there are a few others that could join, maybe a moderator position...I have come up with a name already...Glass House Forum.


Perhaps it would have more than 9 posts in a month. For all that Christians like to parade their religion here in GC, when they're among their own kind, in their own forum, they don't seem to have much to say. Funny, that!

Actually, Lisa and I already participate on a forum for rebels, renegades, clowns and 'liberals' ... most of whom have been banned from HT. The forum is unmoderated and has only one rule (IIRC): don't become a crazed stalker by taking disputes to 'real life.' Yes, there is the occasional knock-down-drag-out, but most of the time, people get along ... Now, can you imagine a bunch of Christians being able to pull that off? Without moderators and the ever-present threat of being banned for misbehavior?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

willow_girl said:


> Perhaps it would have more than 9 posts in a month. For all that Christians like to parade their religion here in GC, when they're among their own kind, in their own forum, they don't seem to have much to say. Funny, that!
> 
> Actually, Lisa and I already participate on a forum for rebels, renegades, clowns and 'liberals' ... most of whom have been banned from HT. The forum is unmoderated and has only one rule (IIRC): don't become a crazed stalker by taking disputes to 'real life.' Yes, there is the occasional knock-down-drag-out, but most of the time, people get along ... Now, can you imagine a bunch of Christians being able to pull that off? Without moderators and the ever-present threat of being banned for misbehavior?


No, sometimes there is not much to say.....still some do.

Proverbs 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.

Proverbs 17:28 Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Now, can you imagine a bunch of Christians being able to pull that off? Without moderators and the ever-present threat of being banned for misbehavior?


Unfortunately, you are right.

Galatians 5:13-26

13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. *But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. *
14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: &#8220;Love your neighbor as yourself.&#8221;

15 *If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each othe*r.

16 *So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.*
17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 
20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 
21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. 
22 *But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 
**23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 
**24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires*. 
25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 

26 *Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.* 

Believers, have been given SPECIFIC and REPEATED instructions how to act, and unfortunately, we are all wrapped up in this ugly stuff called 'flesh'.
It's a shame....(as I am guilty too.....) that we cannot just Trust, and Obey the Lord, as He has Commanded.....and get over ourselves and our intense desire to be 'right'.
God's Word is Truth. It is not MY responsibility to MAKE other 'see it'. I am just to cast out seeds, or water, or weed, or tend to the soil, or shine the Son....maybe, even harvest. But *I* am not anyone's Holy Spirit. I am just the conduit that God Works through......

So when 'christians' fuss and fight.....we really are defaming the Name of God, and that is a HUGE no no. (See 10 Commandments, DO NOT Misuse the Name of the Lord)

Willow.....I apologize if I have been a horses rear end.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Laura, I think you have been a fine example of your faith, actually.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Laura, I think you have been a fine example of your faith, actually.


:kiss:
You have just made my whole day......thank you!


----------



## frugalmomma2 (May 24, 2008)

The Bible is pretty plain when it says that many will not withstand sound doctrine. It says they will have itching ears meaning they will seek out preachers and teachers who will deliver watered down and candy coated gospel. Those who refuse to call sin what it is..sin are gaining in popularity at an alarming rate. People flock to them to hear a message that tells them they can live any way they want and have Heaven waiting for them. Anyone who refuses to water down the Gospel receives the scorn of the multitudes. Kinda how it goes in here many times when things start out with honest discussion and evolve into veiled comments and then progress into open ridicule and name calling. I must say I just have to smile when that happens. It makes so "True" the words of Jesus when He said "they will hate you for my names sake because they hated me too"


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

No one hates Christians frugalmomma, the only thing people despise is hypocrisy, and unfortunately, as you have pointed out, there is never a shortage of that. Sound doctrine? Like that virgin birth thing, and how Paul changes the word of God by telling his audience that God said keeping the law was impossible when he actually said it was possible??? Now there's your sin.


----------



## frugalmomma2 (May 24, 2008)

PurpleMartineer said:


> No one hates Christians frugalmomma, the only thing people despise is hypocrisy, and unfortunately, as you have pointed out, there is never a shortage of that. Sound doctrine? Like that virgin birth thing, and how Paul changes the word of God by telling his audience that God said keeping the law was impossible when he actually said it was possible??? Now there's your sin.


Please. These are the words of Jesus not mine. Do you mean that Virgin birth that Isaiah spoke of ? The one that was rewritten by the New Testament writers? Not to be offensive here at all but since the majority here probably "don't" speak or understand Hebrew all I seem to be getting is your translation of the Bible and how wrong everybody else is.As I said before this is like the Pharisee's being the only ones with the written scripture. Everyone had to take their word about what it said. Since I don't comprehend Hebrew all I seem to have is your opinion which states that the Bible as we know it is a total sham and what you have is the only truth. The comment made earlier about Paul changing with regards to who he was speaking to if studied in other translations makes it clear that he was trying to find common ground in order to share the Gospel. This would be like you or I having conversation with people of different cultures or social levels. We would naturally search for common ground in order to forward the conversation.If God chooses to punish me for keeping my Faith in Jesus and standing up for what I believe then I will stand before Him guilty as charged on Judgment day.


----------



## VA Susan (Mar 2, 2010)

frugalmomma2 said:


> So now we are to believe that the writers of the new Testament changed the writings of the Old Testament ? Was the Prophet Isaiah speaking of a pagan myth when he told of the Virgin birth of the child named Immanuel. I wish there were more here that could read Hebrew. Kinda at a disadvantage when there is only one. I just find it hard to believe that you can put 66 books together over 1400 yrs with 40 different writers and it stand the test of time that it has if God is not in it.


frugal momma,
Here's a useful site where you can do word searches for Hebrew or Greek words. First type in the reference.
Click on the "C" on the left, next to the verse you are interested in then go to the number for the definition. 


http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=7&t=NKJV#14

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5959&t=NKJV


----------



## Hossplay (Jul 21, 2012)

Moses brought down 10 commandments given to him by God on Mt. Sinai. Then God's law was expanded upon by man. If a little is good then a lot must be a whole lot better so Jewish law dictated how many times you had to wash after sex. "Hey look at that. Old Zeke is taking another bath. Ha ha ha ha." The conflict arose in New Testament times because traditional Jews were taught and believed that you only entered an after life by obeying perfectly all the mosaic laws, all 633 of them. Jesus taught that you cannot get into Heaven by perfectly obeying mosaic law which is impossible but only by having faith and belief that He is God and through God's grace which is favor for something not deserved. This was unacceptable to the Jewish priests who perceived it as an attack on traditional Jewish religion and they had Jesus Crucified. The Apostles continued with Jesus' teachings and were imprisoned, stoned and placed in boiling oil for it. The foundation of Paul's ministry was that you cannot buy eternal life through the legalism of obeying mosaic law but only by faith that Christ is God. The writer of Hebrews tells us in Chapter 7 that Jesus has mediated a better covenant (contract or promise) between us and God his Father than the old mosaic Covenant; A New Covenant based on believing and receiving and not by earning and deserving. The reason God gives in Hebrews for the need of a new covenant was that the Israelite could not obey the old covenant because they (and we) could never be perfect. The law as a way into heaven was replaced by the belief that Jesus Christ is God as the way into heaven. Only the pathway to Heaven was changed in the New Covenant. The old law was not forgotten. Even though salvation is by faith alone, Hebrews 8:10 tells us that when we believe and have faith God's laws will be put into our hearts and minds through the New Covenant and that, "I will be your God and you will be my people." When we choose to walk out of darkness into light we are given a divine conscience that tells us through our hearts and minds what we _should_ do and we belong to God and He to us. 

Y.H. The word for love in 1 Cor 13 is charity which is the giving kind of agape love. Doing your neighbor's wife is lust and adultery which has dire biblical consequences and should not be confused with agape love but I am sure you already knew that, you rascal.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Now if we just had an accurate definition of "Heaven", and, maybe, "Kingdom of Heaven".


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks for the responses.... it would appear that I have not missed anything, which now raises another question. Since it appears that the old law is still valid... JC's "reduction" to love they neighbor as thyself and love thy Lord thy God.... being one thing, (which we can deal with a bit later perhaps) but seriously does NOT do away with any of the old law other than the blood sacrifice.... which JC fulfilled. So why do many churches not observe most of the rest of the old law? Little things like observing the sabbath on the 7th day? (actually that one is in the big ten) Eating foods on the forbidden list even when not sitting down at the same table with a gentile whom might feel offended if you refused his hard earned rabbit?


Because Jesus became our Sabbath.

Thing is I try so hard but the sins and temptations of this world is so strong. My actions don't bother me so much in my mind as much as they do in my Heart :Bawling:

big rockpile


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

"Heaven and Earth" have passed away.

Not in the literal sense, but in the OT sense.

Go study what (who) heaven and earth are in the OT. They "passed away" in 70AD.


Tim


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Wow! This thread died of natural causes nearly two years ago, laid to rest and buried.... only to be resurrected once again! 
Amazing how the tiniest amount of faith can resurrect the dead!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Hossplay said:


> Y.H. The word for love in 1 Cor 13 is charity which is the giving kind of agape love. Doing your neighbor's wife is lust and adultery which has dire biblical consequences and should not be confused with agape love but I am sure you already knew that, you rascal.


Rascal? Me?  naw no way, couldn't happen!


----------

