Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Do We Believe in the Trinity?
Catholic Exchange ^ | June 14, 2006 | Fr. Roger Landry

Posted on 06/14/2006 8:05:55 AM PDT by NYer

We believe in the Blessed Trinity because we believe in Jesus, Who revealed the Trinity. God had prepared the Jews not only to welcome the Messiah, but to recognize through revelation what philosophers like Aristotle achieved through reason: that there is a God and there can only be one God.

Moses said to the Jews, “Acknowledge today and take to heart that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other but to believe in God Who is the only God.” When the Messiah finally came, He revealed a huge mystery that went far beyond what the Jews were expecting: that the one God in Whom they believe is not solitary, but a unity, a communion of three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that the Messiah is the Son.

He told them explicitly that the Father and He are one (Jn 10:30). He told them that He and the Father would send the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26, Jn 15:26). And when He sent them out to baptize in the name of God, He didn’t give them instructions to baptize in the “names” of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit — as if they were three different gods — but in the “name,” for they are fundamentally a union of three persons. This is what the term Trinity means. It was devised by the early Church apologist Tertullian around the year 200 from the Latin words “unitas” and “trinus,” literally “unity” and “three.” It signifies that there is a unity of three persons in one God.

Since the beginning of the Church, theologians have spent their lives trying to penetrate this mystery and explain it to others. St. Patrick used the image of a three-leaf clover. St. Augustine used the image of the mind, with memory, reason and will. More recent minds have used the image of H20, which can exist as ice, water, or steam. But none of these analogies — though interesting and somewhat helpful — do justice to the reality of the mystery of how three persons can exist in the one God.

When St. Augustine was in the middle of his voluminous and classic study of the Blessed Trinity, he took a walk along the beach in northern Africa to try to clear his head and pray. He saw a young girl repeatedly filling a scallop shell with sea water and emptying it into a hole she had dug in the sand. “What are you doing?” Augustine tenderly asked. “I'm trying to empty the sea into this hole,” the child replied. “How do you think that with a little shell,” Augustine retorted, “you can possibly empty this immense ocean into a tiny hole?” The little girl countered, “And how do you, with your small head, think you can comprehend the immensity of God?” As soon as the girl said this, she disappeared, convincing Augustine that she had been an angel sent to teach him an important lesson: No matter how gifted God had made him, he would never be able to comprehend fully the mystery of the Trinity.

This, of course, does not mean we cannot understand anything. If we want to get to the heart of the mystery of the Trinity, we can turn to the most theological of the Apostles, who meditated deeply on all that Jesus had revealed and, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said simply and synthetically, “God is love” (1 Jn 4:16). For God to be love, He has to love someone. None of us can love in a vacuum; there must always be an object of our love. Who is the object of God’s love? It cannot be man, or the created world, or the universe, because all of these existed in time and God is eternal and therefore existed before time.

It’s also impossible to say that God merely loved Himself in a solitary way, because this would not really be love but a form of egotism and narcissism. For God to be love, there needed to be an eternal relationship of love, with one who loves, one who is loved, and the love that unites them. This is what exists in the Blessed Trinity: The Father loved His image, the Son, so much that their mutual and eternal love “spirated” or “generated” the Holy Spirit. They exist in a communion of love. The three persons of the Blessed Trinity are united in absolutely everything except, as the early Church councils said, their “relations of origin,” what it means to be Father, what it means to be Son of the Father, and what it means to proceed from the Father and the Son.

These theological insights about the blessed Trinity may seem theoretical, but they become highly practical when we reflect on the fact that we have been made in the image and likeness of God and called to communion with God. To be in the image and likeness of God means to be created in the image and likeness of a communion of persons in love. Our belief in the Trinity — the central teaching of the Catholic faith — has given the Church the deepest understanding available to human beings of the nature of man, the meaning of human life, and what it means to love.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; General Discusssion; History; Prayer; Theology
KEYWORDS: faith; theology; trinity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-618 next last
To: FJ290
What do you do with this verse from Scripture?

"For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." St. John 1:17

I'm not seeing a contradiction. As Sha'ul points out, the Torah, or Law, is spiritual and defines what sin is, but because we ourselves are carnal, it puts us under condemnation. Therefore, grace--God's unmerited favor--and truth--not limited to but including right interpretation of the Torah--came through Yeshua the Messiah, so that we are no longer under the condemnation of the Torah, but under His grace.

Nevertheless, the Torah still defines what is sin and what is good, and Sha'ul rightly says, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid! . . . What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid!" (Rom. 6:1-2, 15). Therefore, while we are no longer "under the Law," we should still keep the Torah and not sin.

The difference is between a man keeping his Lord's commands because he is afraid of punishment and a man keeping his Lord's commands because he loves his Lord.

According to Scripture, his followers didn't know the law.

You're giving credence to the accusations of Yeshua's adversaries? Do you also accuse Him of blasphemy, or of being the agent of Beelzebub, as they did?

What do you do with sections of the law that Jesus obviously abolished, such as divorce, that were granted under Mosaic law?

Yeshua never abolished any of the Torah: "Think not that I am come to destroy the Torah, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Torah, till all be fulfilled." (Mat. 5:17-18) What He did was call us to an even higher standard of keeping it.

Thus, where the Torah calls on one to not commit adultery, Yeshua tells us not to lust. Where the Torah commands us not to murder, Yeshua tells us to not harbour anger in our hearts. Thus He "fulfilled" the Torah--a rabbinical term which means to "interpret properly"; that is, one "makes the Torah full" by filling it with its proper meaning.

In the case of divorce, He was actually answering a long-standing debate between the rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shimmei: Whether one could divorce one's wife for any reason, or only for adultery, based on Deu. 24:1:

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
The key debate was over whether a man could divorce his wife simply for losing favor in his eyes (". . . even if she burns his dinner") as the school of Hillel claimed, or whether it had to be for sexual misconduct, as the school of Shimmei claimed the term "uncleaness" meant. Yeshua came down decisecivly on Shimmei's side (the only time He disagreed with Hillel, to the best of my knowledge).

The disciples wondered why Moshe allowed divorce at all, then. While not as common in their day as our own, divorce was hardly unknown. One could see an American audience wondering the same thing. Yeshua's answer does not override the Torah, but brings out its fullest meaning:

Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Mat. 19:8-9)
"Suffered you" is the key phrase. There are many instances in the Torah (and in the NT, for that matter) in which God permits a thing, but shows why it's a bad idea. God permits polygamy for the sake of protecting women and children, but one just has to read about Jacob and his wives to see why it'd be stupid to have more than one. There are any number of occassions in which the Bible presents a "second best" instruction: "Don't do X, but if you do do X, then you must do Y." The entire institution of repentence and sacrifice is a prime example: Don't sin, but if you do sin, repent and be atoned for by the blood of the sacrifice.

Ditto divorce: Why did God permit it? Strangely enough to protect the woman. A man wasn't simply allowed to cast aside a wife (as in other ancient near-east cultures of the time), but had to go through a legal proceding in which the wife obtained a bill of divorce. This provided protection to the woman: The man couldn't accuse her of adultery later when she remarried.

Yeshua's answer, then, comes to this: Divorce is wrong. A husband and wife become one flesh and one person in the institution of marriage, and if a man divorces his wife--unless she breaks the marriage first via fornication--he both sins against and dishonors her. However, the Torah given by Moses permitted divorce because God knew that the hardness of your hearts would cause you to do it anyway, so He provided a 'second best' answer that provided for the protection of the wife of an abusive husband (as one who would cast out his wife to marry another is clearly abusive).

St. Paul said, "Be it known therefore to you, men, brethren, that through him forgiveness of sins is preached to you: and from all the things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses."

That is correct. The Torah does not justify a man, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Therefore, God sent a perfect Sacrifice to give us His grace. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't still strive to obey God: Just because you sometimes slip and sin by looking at a woman lustfully, does that mean that you should run around stealing, murdering, and blaspheming God just because you are under grace? "God forbid!"

You should practice the Torah to the best of your ability only because you love the God who bought you. If you're practicing any aspect of it--even not commiting adultery--out of fear of punishment or to garner favor, then you are putting yourself "under the law."

I'll say it again: I do not seek to keep the Torah in order to be saved, but because I am saved, and I want to be like my Savior in every way.

That said, I have problems with some Protestants that I have spoken to that seem to think we aren't required to keep the Ten Commandments anymore.

Why? That's the logical conclusion of saying that because we are no longer under the law, we shouldn't keep it.

I personally don't know how they can justify that when Jesus repeated them to the rich young man to follow.

Yeshua was giving a summary, not "cutting back" the Torah to just Ten Commandments. In fact, pretty much every command in the Torah can be derived from one or more of the Ten.

Besides, if you're going to say that, which day then do you keep the Sabbath on?

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning anyone here on the basis of Torah. I who believe we should keep it still stumble all over the place, and I agree with you 100% that we are saved by grace, not by works.

What I'm trying to show you and others here is why I think the Torah is still valid under the New Covenant. I've written a longer piece on my blog that you may be interested in, called Why the New Covenant Doesn't Do Away with the Torah.

The cardinal error of so many Torah-observers is that they make it a matter of salvation: "Well, if you don't keep the Torah/keep the right sabbath/avoid pork/whatever, then you're not really saved." Wrong, wrong, wrong. Did YHVH save Israel from Egypt because they were following the Torah? No, He saved them by the blood of the Passover Lamb first, then gave them the Torah for their instruction on Mt. Sinai. Likewise, we are saved by God's grace, and then He teaches us how to walk with Him.

I'm no different from most conservative Christians in this regard. I just think that there are a few teachings that we've not been following for the last 2000 years that we should have been, that's all.

551 posted on 06/20/2006 10:26:54 AM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
*chuckle* Well, insofar as we believe that "Messiah" or "Christ" is Immanu'el (God With Us), and the Torah tells us not to take the Name of the Lord in vain, it definitely fits within a Christian or Messianic context. You and I just happen to disagree on whether Yeshua is literally Immanu'el.
552 posted on 06/20/2006 10:30:52 AM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; xzins; P-Marlowe
I believe Dr. E and I (certainly) did read your post. You've stated that Calvinists "actively discourage keeping the Torah" and you've insinuate that we "teach men" not to keep the Torah. I suppose that means we actively advocate breaking the 10 commandments. Or perhaps it's our advertising campaign for pork hot dogs? Our reward for our efforts, unlike xzins, will be that we shall be "called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Is that a fair summation?

Never mind that God has written His laws upon our hearts to walk in His statues and obey His ordinances.

553 posted on 06/20/2006 10:50:44 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Yep. It must have been the BLT at lunch.

Who knew we'd fall so far?


554 posted on 06/20/2006 11:08:45 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; xzins; P-Marlowe
I suppose that means we actively advocate breaking the 10 commandments.

As I recall, you and I had a series of debates not so long ago in which you not only said that the fourth commandment was no longer valid, but also claimed that Yeshua Himself had violated it. And in post #444 on this thread, you say:

Let's suppose there was an 11th commandment against fish. Then, guess what would happen. More than likely, sometime during my life as hard as I would try, I would eat fish on Friday. I would have transgressed the law. And the wages for my sin is death. The commandment isn't void-fish on Friday is a bad thing according to the 11th commandment. But Christ has freed me that if, on the most like possibility that I stumble and eat fish, He has taken away my sin. It doesn't excuse my actions. It only corrects my behavior before God. The trouble is, there is no 11th commandment about fish on Friday just as there are no commandments against dietary laws-unless you're willing to say everyone here is transgressing the law of God.

Let's suppose there is another reason for me giving up fish. If I give up fish on Friday to the Lord, what does that buy me? Do you think God would be extra pleased with my "sacrifice"? Do you think that I will "feel" a greater sense of spirituality by my sacrifice or an extra "closeness" to God than someone who doesn't give up fish? If I go to McDonald's with a group of my friends and they order a fish fillet and I order a hamburger because it's Friday, do you think this is a great testimony?

It buys you absolutely nothing and one has to wonder what precisely is the point?

You have therefore put yourself in the position of teaching men not to follow commandments unless they can see a clear benefit to themselves or to God. So, yes, I'm accusing you of attempting to discourage people from obeying the whole Torah, since you have made pragmatism, not God's Word, the basis of your walk with God.

Our reward for our efforts, unlike xzins, will be that we shall be "called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

I quoted Yeshua. If you have a problem with His sovereign right to determine position in the Kingdom of Heaven based on what a man practices and teaches (and I do believe that it is teaching men not to obey God's commands which is at issue here, cf. Jas. 3:1) on earth, take it up with Him.

Never mind that God has written His laws upon our hearts to walk in His statues and obey His ordinances.

Then go do so. But don't try to teach that I shouldn't follow a command that is plainly written in God's Word, or that obedience to the Scriptures--which have the Torah as their firstfruits--is pointless.

555 posted on 06/20/2006 11:27:29 AM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; HarleyD
You have therefore put yourself in the position of teaching men not to follow commandments unless they can see a clear benefit to themselves or to God. So, yes, I'm accusing you of attempting to discourage people from obeying the whole Torah, since you have made pragmatism, not God's Word, the basis of your walk with God.

I've rarely read a more specious post (except for maybe your last one...and the one before that.)

556 posted on 06/20/2006 12:03:18 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD

I just quoted Harley. I had previously engaged this point earlier in the thread, and he didn't answer it. Ergo, your accusation of speciousness is but sound and fury, signifying nothing. It's not even an argument that can be addressed.


557 posted on 06/20/2006 12:08:45 PM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; HarleyD

It wasn't your quote of Harley that was ludicrous; it was your specious conclusion.


558 posted on 06/20/2006 12:11:22 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; HarleyD
And in your post #551, you go so far as to write...

"Now don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning anyone here on the basis of Torah."

And yet you've done exactly that thing which you deny doing.

Contradictions abound.

559 posted on 06/20/2006 12:14:46 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
Again, I addressed the ramifications of his post earlier in the thread (see posts #453 and 465). He didn't deny that pragmaticism was in fact the result of his post #444. He simply changed the subject to attack the idea that God would allow different groups under different and/or difficult circumstances more grace in keeping His commandments.

Since he did not answer the charge, but changed the subject, I am not being out of line or specious to repeat it.

560 posted on 06/20/2006 12:22:06 PM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD
Not at all. To condemn someone on the basis of Torah would be to say that unless you keep the whole Torah, you're not saved. I firmly deny that. All I have done is shown why living under grace does not dispense with the Torah, and quoted Yeshua's warning against teaching others to break even the least of its commandments.

Your attempts to find some fault with me do not address the Biblical question of whether Yeshua said that the whole Torah should be kept or not.

561 posted on 06/20/2006 12:25:25 PM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; HarleyD

Read Hebrews.

And then read it again.


562 posted on 06/20/2006 12:37:52 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD

I have. Repeatedly. It's one of my favorite books. And? What has this to do with what Yeshua said about keeping Torah?


563 posted on 06/20/2006 12:39:25 PM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
You're giving credence to the accusations of Yeshua's adversaries? Do you also accuse Him of blasphemy, or of being the agent of Beelzebub, as they did?

That's a far fetched accusation! All I said was what Scripture quoted... that they didn't think his disciples followed the law.

I totally disagree with you on divorce. I think Jesus did abolish what the standard was on divorce according to Mosaic law.

It's very clear to me that we are no longer under the law according to Scripture. Galatians 3:23-28

But before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed.

Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue.

For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus.

For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.

There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of ALL law.

Why? That's the logical conclusion of saying that because we are no longer under the law, we shouldn't keep it.

I gave you the reason I follow the Ten Commandments. Jesus quoted them to the rich young man. Here's what the Catholic Catechism says on the subject:

2054 Jesus acknowledged the Ten Commandments, but he also showed the power of the Spirit at work in their letter. He preached a "righteousness [which] exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees" as well as that of the Gentiles. He unfolded all the demands of the Commandments. "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill.' . . . But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."

Besides, if you're going to say that, which day then do you keep the Sabbath on?

I worship on Sunday.

I think there are verses from Scripture that support that day too.

Acts 20:7 "And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight."

1st Corinthians 16:2 "On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him; that when I come, the collections be not then to be made."

564 posted on 06/20/2006 12:59:50 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; xzins; P-Marlowe
You have therefore put yourself in the position of teaching men not to follow commandments unless they can see a clear benefit to themselves or to God. So, yes, I'm accusing you of attempting to discourage people from obeying the whole Torah

From my example do you believe...

Either of these situation is wrong. Christ must work in us to help us to obey the commandments of God. Left to our own devices we are rebellious children. Always have been. Always will be until the resurrection.

That is the truth of the Torah.
565 posted on 06/20/2006 1:04:16 PM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; xzins; P-Marlowe
If I try to keep Torah apart from faith in Yeshua the Messiah, then you're right: I'll fail and be condemned ("for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God").

However, if I strive to keep God's commands while trusting Yeshua--and not my own works--for salvation, then yes, I believe it pleases Him:

The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way. (Psalms 37:23)

I have longed for thy salvation, O LORD; and thy law is my delight. (Psalms 119:174)

And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments: (Nehemiah 1:5)

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. (John 14:21)

If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. (John 15:10)

And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil. And I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full. (Deuteronomy 11:13-15)

All of your arguments against keeping the whole of the Torah are predicated on the idea that I believe that by keeping them, I am somehow trying to earn my salvation. Since I have repeatedly repudiated this idea, it amounts to a baseless strawman, and if carried too far, falls into the realm of slander.

I am redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. But I keep Torah out of love of the One who redeemed me, and to be just like my Rabbi.

566 posted on 06/20/2006 1:15:33 PM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
Your attempts to find some fault with me do not address the Biblical question of whether Yeshua said that the whole Torah should be kept or not.

I know this was addressed to someone else, so pardon my intervening.. but where did Jesus say that we should keep the whole Torah? Where does it say we have to follow all 613 Mitzvot of the Torah?

He gave us the commands we should follow and there weren't 613 of them! His yoke is sweet and His burden is light.

Galatians 5:1 "Stand fast, and be not held again under the yoke of bondage."

Here's a list of the 613 Mitzvot. While I can see obeying some of them, all of them.. a resounding no if you're a Christian.

List of the 613 Mitzvot

Do you agree with the law that says it is okay to charge interest to Gentiles, but not to an Israelite?

Do you keep all 613 of these?

567 posted on 06/20/2006 2:01:46 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; HarleyD; Frumanchu; OrthodoxPresbyterian; xzins; topcat54; Gamecock; ears_to_hear; ...
"The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." -- Hebrews 9:8-15

"Until the time of reformation...Christ...a greater and more perfect tabernacle...to purge your conscience of dead works to serve the living God"

"Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." -- Hebrews 13:9-10

Read this again, Buggmann. Those who serve the tabernacle have "no right to eat" at the altar of Christ's sacrifice.

568 posted on 06/20/2006 2:08:13 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
Do you agree with the law that says it is okay to charge interest to Gentiles, but not to an Israelite?

Excellent question. Bump to 568.

569 posted on 06/20/2006 2:17:06 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
That's a far fetched accusation! All I said was what Scripture quoted... that they didn't think his disciples followed the law.

Ah, and that is the key: Yeshua's enemies didn't think that He and His disciples kept Torah. Why? Because Yeshua rejected some (not all, which surprises some people) of the extra-Biblical traditions which had been built up around Torah. Therefore, their opinion of His Torah-observance was wrong, since it was He, not they, who interpreted the Torah correctly.

(That wasn't an accusation, btw. I was just demonstrating the dangers of basing one's theology on what the Bible records Yeshua's enemies as saying.)

I totally disagree with you on divorce. I think Jesus did abolish what the standard was on divorce according to Mosaic law.

Since you don't explain how you think this the case or answer my argument, there's no way for me to respond to this.

Galatians 3:23-28

Again, pay attention to the key phrase: under the law. I've already differentiated being "under" the law (which includes being under its condemnation when we violate it) and being under Grace but seeking to obey God's Torah.

How then was the Torah a pedagogue? The term "pedagogue" refers to a slave who was given charge over the children of a household. As part of his duties, he was given the authority to punish the children when they failed. Now, when the children grow up, they are no longer under the pedagogue and no longer fear being caned by him for their misdeeds, of course--but does that mean that they cease to walk in the ways of the lessons that the pedagogue taught them? Not at all.

Likewise the Torah. Before the Messiah, the whole nation of Israel was "under the Torah"--they had agreed with one voice to keep it (Exo. 24:3ff), and were therefore under the curses of disobedience it pronounced (Deu. 27). Yeshua came and took those curses on Himself, so that we are no longer threatened by them (Gal. 3). The children have grown, the pedagogue no longer weilds his cane: Does that mean that we throw off all the lessons of the teacher and cease to obey what he taught us? Not if we are wise and love the Father who put the pedagogue over us to teach us His ways.

The big error that we want to avoid--and this was why Galatians was written--is believing that Salvation is anything other than by grace received in faith--that is, trust. It is not faith + works (though genuine faith will result in works), nor is it faith + Jewishness (circumcision). God has redeemed us from our Egypt of sin by His outstretched arms; now we're simply learning to walk in His ways.

There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So, if there's no male or female, does this mean that homosexuality is now okay? Cross-dressing? Or is Sha'ul's point simply that though there may be different roles, we are still all equally beloved by the Father in His Son, all equally redeemed, all equally one body. That is:

Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. (1 Co. 12:4-6)
Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of ALL law.

Agreed. We're just disagreeing over the implications of that. I would argue that since He said that He came "not to abolish, but to fulfill," that His fulfillment, in whatever form you conceive it, does not result in the abolishon of the Torah. The fact that the essence of the New Covenant is to have the Torah written on our hearts would seem to confirm this (Jer. 31:31ff).

I gave you the reason I follow the Ten Commandments.

Really? You've never lusted after a woman in your heart? Never been angry with a brother? I agree that Yeshua "showed the power of the Spirit at work in their letter. . . preached a "righteousness [which] exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees" as well as that of the Gentiles . . ." and "unfolded all the demands of the Commandments." But He did that for more than just the Ten.

I think there are verses from Scripture that support that day too.

Not really. Let's look at Acts 20:7 first: It's the only time in Acts we see a Sunday meeting, and it was on a special occassion (Sha'ul being about to leave for Jerusalem). Saying that this is justification for moving the Sabbath would be like having a historian 200 years from now finding a record that Billy Graham once held a crusade on a Tuesday and using that as justification for a theory that American Christians moved their day of worship from Sunday to Tuesday!

In the case of 1 Co. 16:2, this actually contradicts the Sunday sabbath theory. Why? Because by tradition going back to before the 1st Century, a Jew does not handle money on the Sabbath! The synagogues did not permit alms to be collected on the Sabbath. Ergo, the second part of the verse, "that there be no gatherings when I come" actually supports the idea that Sha'ul was expecting to worship with them and address them on the seventh day rather than the first--if on the first day, then why would he tell them to gather money on the first day, a supposed "Christian sabbath," but not on the particular Sunday when he presumbably came and preached?

Why then did he say that they should lay aside funds on the first day of the week? Because his letter would have been read to them on the Sabbath, when they gathered in the synagogue/church to worship. Ergo, he was telling them to go out the very next day after the letter was read and set aside the gift.

In any case, neither of these supports the idea of a change in the Sabbath. God specifies that the Sabbath is to be on the seventh day, even tying it to the act of Creation (making it a universal, not merely a Jewish, cycle). He repeats this numerous times in the Tanakh (the OT). For there to be a change in the Sabbath, an equally clear and blunt statement would have had to be made by one with the authority to change the Torah--no mere Apostle, but Yeshua Himself! You'll find that neither He nor any Apostle made any such change.

That does not make the issue of the sabbath a salvational issue, of course. However, I do think that the greater part of the Church is in error on this issue.

570 posted on 06/20/2006 2:38:47 PM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
Here's a list of the 613 Mitzvot. While I can see obeying some of them, all of them.. a resounding no if you're a Christian.

You should study up on the 613 mitzvot. Even Jews don't keep all 613 mitzvot. When you exclude all the laws that pertain to the land of Israel, pertain to the temple, pertain to women, etc., etc., you're left with 278.

571 posted on 06/20/2006 3:22:51 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
How then was the Torah a pedagogue? The term "pedagogue" refers to a slave who was given charge over the children of a household

Pedagogue also means a teacher or schoolmaster.

pedagogue /peddgog/ • noun formal or humorous a teacher, especially a strict or pedantic one.

That is the context that is used in the Douay Rheims Bible. The KJV says:"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

So, if there's no male or female, does this mean that homosexuality is now okay? Cross-dressing? Or is Sha'ul's point simply that though there may be different roles, we are still all equally beloved by the Father in His Son, all equally redeemed, all equally one body.

HUH? I'm kind of confused on how you come up with that logic about homosexuality. You took one line from the verses I gave you from Galatians. I quoted Gal. 3:23-28 and you only keyed in on 28. I think you have proved my point in a way when you say that we are all equally one body. If we are all equally one body, why would the Jewish Christians tell Gentiles to be under different laws than they? Why would the Messianic Jews say that the Jews in their congregations are expected to follow Torah laws, but the Gentiles can refrain from it? How is that equal?

Really? You've never lusted after a woman in your heart? Never been angry with a brother? I agree that Yeshua "showed the power of the Spirit at work in their letter. . . preached a "righteousness [which] exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees" as well as that of the Gentiles . . ." and "unfolded all the demands of the Commandments." But He did that for more than just the Ten.

Excuse me, but why are you asking me about personal shortcomings? How does that prove that the Ten Commandments shouldn't be followed? Your point please? Frankly, my sins/or not having sinned isn't the issue here. The issue here is that the Ten Commandments should be followed because Jesus said so and His Apostles preached it too.

Not really. Let's look at Acts 20:7 first: It's the only time in Acts we see a Sunday meeting, and it was on a special occassion (Sha'ul being about to leave for Jerusalem). Saying that this is justification for moving the Sabbath would be like having a historian 200 years from now finding a record that Billy Graham once held a crusade on a Tuesday and using that as justification for a theory that American Christians moved their day of worship from Sunday to Tuesday!

In the case of 1 Co. 16:2, this actually contradicts the Sunday sabbath theory. Why? Because by tradition going back to before the 1st Century, a Jew does not handle money on the Sabbath!

Acts 20:7 specifically states that "on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread....i.e, they assembled on this day to break bread not for some special farewell to Paul! The fact that he was leaving the next day had nothing to do with it.

As to 1 Corinthians 16:2, you are still seeing everything as through Jewish law which we are no longer under.

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths

Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ."

That does not make the issue of the sabbath a salvational issue, of course. However, I do think that the greater part of the Church is in error on this issue.

I'm sorry you feel that way. This sums up why the Church celebrates on Sunday:

The day of the Resurrection: the new creation

2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath, it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:

572 posted on 06/20/2006 3:47:09 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

Place marker


573 posted on 06/20/2006 3:54:08 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
You should study up on the 613 mitzvot. Even Jews don't keep all 613 mitzvot. When you exclude all the laws that pertain to the land of Israel, pertain to the temple, pertain to women, etc., etc., you're left with 278.

I've studied it. According to the website I listed, look under "Marriage, Divorce and Family." Only 4 have been deemed negative out of 23 laws. Doesn't look like all the ones that apply to women have been excluded to me.

Let's apply your argument though that only 278 are left. That still doesn't match the number of commands that Jesus gave us that He said would help grant us eternal life.

574 posted on 06/20/2006 3:57:24 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: FJ290; Buggman
'm sorry you feel that way. This sums up why the Church celebrates on Sunday:

The day of the Resurrection: the new creation

2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath, it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:

572 posted on 06/20/2006 4:47:09 PM MDT by FJ290

The Roman church celebrates on the day of the Sun because:

This is the Decree from the first Pontiff of the Roman church to all the world.

Emperor Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire

He had issued an Edict making Sunday the day of rest

In 321 CE, while a Pagan sun-worshiper, the Emperor Constantine
declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire:

"On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest,
and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture
may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day
is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment
for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."
Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances were
to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath.

They ruled: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day."

b'shem Y'shua
575 posted on 06/20/2006 4:06:57 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Hosea 6:6 I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
Let's apply your argument though that only 278 are left. That still doesn't match the number of commands that Jesus gave us that He said would help grant us eternal life.

Whatever. You can argue with the others about what Jesus said. I just wanted you to get your facts straight.

576 posted on 06/20/2006 4:19:20 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
The 613 mitzvot, mistakenly called 'commandments', are a rectification intended for the souls of Jews who are obligated to them.

Concerning non-Jews, Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh explains the problem like this:

For a non-Jew, spiritual "rectification" involves the refinement of the seven innate powers of emotion through a commitment to fulfill the seven Noahide commandments. The non-Jew's innate first nature is thereby transformed into a second, rectified nature, which enables him to "see through" the three uppermost levels of his soul and envision the "One." This (often sudden) perception causes the seven emotive powers to serve the three Divine powers, rather than the other way round.

If a non-Jew neglects his obligation to observe his seven commandments, he remains unable to apprehend God's true unity, and his consciousness is apt to fall into idolatry, with its deluded worship of the "three"...


577 posted on 06/20/2006 4:25:48 PM PDT by hlmencken3 (Originalist on the the 'general welfare' clause? No? NOT an originalist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

Would you state your source please?


578 posted on 06/20/2006 4:41:02 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).

"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]). St. Ignatius of Antioch

"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]). Justin Martyr

"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]). Justin Martyr

Tell me again that Constantine was the originator of Sunday being the new day of worship for Christians? Compare the date that you gave of 321 C.E.(which should rightfully be A.D.)with the Early Church Fathers that I gave. It doesn't mesh does it? Proving that the early Christians celebrated Sunday worship before this "decree" of Constantine's.

579 posted on 06/20/2006 4:54:18 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; Frumanchu; OrthodoxPresbyterian; xzins; topcat54; Gamecock; ears_to_hear; ..
Let's deal with two separate issues here:

First, let us suppose for the sake of argument for just a moment that you are correct in your interpretation of Hebrews: If Hebrews actually does say that the Torah is done away with, then it is in direct contradiction to the words of the Lord Yeshua HaMashiach Himself, as well as the actions of the Apostles (cf. Acts 21).

If that's the case, why in the world would we take the word of an anonymous book over the words and deeds of the Lord and known Apostles? It is not my view that is put on trial by such an interpretation, but the canonicity of Hebrews!

Secondly, let's deal with your interpretation. First, let us step back a chapter. Heb. 8:8-12 quotes Jer. 31:31-34, which says:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law (Heb. Torah) in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Now, as I've pointed out innumerable times before, if the Torah is written on our hearts, by what convoluted thinking can we say that the Torah is no longer valid? Especially when the Lord by His own lips said that it is, and that even the least commandments should be followed and when we see that the Jerusalem Church had many myriads "who are all zealous for the Torah"?

Moreover, Hebrews is not dealing with the validity of the Torah as a whole--that much is assumed--but rather with the issue of the sacrificial system, which is but a small subset of the Torah's commands. Ergo, even if you are right in your interpretation, you have only proven that a small subset of the Torah has changed, not that the whole has been thrown out and replaced.

But even that does not hold up under the Biblical evidence. What was God's covenant with Aaron's grandson?

Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel. (Num. 25:11-13)
This everlasting priesthood is confirmed by the prophets. Ezk. 40-48 describes a future Temple, one which has never seen fulfillment, which will be ministered to by the Levites. Lest we think this some mere symbol of the Church, Jeremiah writes
For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. (Jer. 33:17-22)
Notice just what the Lord links His promise that the Levites will minister and offer sacrifice forever to: The Davidic promise of a Son to rule on his throne (cf. 2 Sam. 7:12-14, Luke 1:32)! That is to say, the priesthood of the Levites is as eternal as that of the Messiah's office!

Now, could it be that Yeshua fulfills both the role of the King and that of the Levites? Not quite. First, He wasn't a Levite, but from the tribe of Judah. Hebrews acknowledges this, calling Yeshua a priest after the order of Melchiezedek rather than after the order of Levi. Secondly, the prophecy speaks of Levites and priests in the plural, where it uses singular terms ("a man" and "a son") to refer to the Messiah's kingly role. Thirdly, even if we supposed this, the prophecy (and that of Ezekiel's) refer to several different types of animal sacrifice.

How then do we reconcile Hebrews with the rest of the Bible. The answer is not to "interpret the OT in light of the New"--a phrase which is wrongly used to justify throwing out anything in the Tanakh which does not fit with our preconceived notions of what the NT is saying. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). Therefore all Scripture must be understood in a way that none of it contradicts any other part of it. If we seem to have a contradiction between the Testaments, or between Yeshua and Sha'ul, or between everyone else and Hebrews, or between the Acts of the Apostles and their letters, then we are not understanding the Bible correctly.

So now let's get into the nitty-gritty, and hit the passage you've presented me piece-by-piece:

The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

Notice the terminology here: The first Tabernacle (Gr. skene), not the Temple (hieron). The Tabernacle of course ceased standing long before "the holiest of all [was] . . . made manifest," while of the Second Temple the prophets wrote:

The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts. (Haggai 2:9)

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 3:1)

So right off the bat we have to be suspicious of any interpretation that automatically assumes that the author is speaking of the Temple service, especially since the Apostles continued to participate in it.

Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

Indeed, the Levitical sacrifices and service were a figure for their time, centuries before they saw their culmination in the Messiah. However, that does not render them without value to the present time. Sha'ul speaks of our present "vision" of the glory of God as being "but through a mirror, darkly" (1 Co. 13:12), but looks forward to the Second Coming, when we will see "face to face." Likewise, Yochanan (John) writes,

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (I John 3:2)
It was in the light of this imperfect view of God's glory, which will only be brought to fulness when the Messiah returns and we are raised in our incorruptable bodies (1 Co. 15:42ff). Thus Sha'ul instructs:
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Co. 5:7-8)

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are (present tense) a shadow of things to come (future tense); but the body (reality behind the types) is of Messiah. (Col. 2:16-17).

Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

As far as I can tell, the key word in the entire passage is the word "until" (Gr. mechri). If it can only mean, "up to that point, but to be stopped thereafter," then indeed Hebrews would present a problem. However, it doesn't. For example, in Mat. 11:23, the Lord laments, "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until (mechri) this day." Does this mean that Sodom would have been destroyed the day after Yeshua uttered His words?

Or in 28:15, Matthew reports the bribery of the guards of the tomb: "So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." So . . . the day after Matthew published his book, the guard's false report ceased being published?

Let's take a Pauline example: "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to (mechri again) Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come" (Rom. 5:14). Does this mean that death ceased to reign after Moses?

Obviously, while mechri can refer to a termination point (as in Mat. 13:30), there is no requirement for it to--rather, it reports that an event has continued up to X time, and leaves open the question of whether it continues beyond that point. Therefore, it is not necessary by the language of Hebrews to suppose that "meats, and drinks, and divers washings and carnal ordinances" were to be done away with at the time of Yeshua's coming.

Moreover, there's a second problem with saying that "carnal ordinances" refers to the Torah: Sha'ul says that the Torah is Spiritual, but that we are carnal (Rom. 7:14). Either a) there's a contradiction, and Hebrews must be rejected, b) Hebrews is not using sarx with the negative connotation that Sha'ul gives it, or c) Hebrews is not referring to the Torah at all, but to the rabbinical ordinances which added to the Torah.

Therefore, we may interpret this verse as meaning either of the following:

1) The sacrificial and ritual purity ordinances of the Torah continued up to the time of Yeshua; whether they continue beyond that is not stated and must be inferred by other passages (which indicate that they do), or

2) "Fleshly ordinances," or rabbinical halakha, regarding meats and drinks (the latter of which the Torah is silent on), divers washings (the Torah only speaks of washing one's self, not of various kinds of washings), and other rulings continued up until the time of Yeshua. Again, whether they continue beyond that is not stated.

Neither of these makes a case for jettisoning the Torah.

In any case, the rest of the passage simply continues the theme that is built up throughout the book of Hebrews: That the Messiah is a superior priest, who ministers in the Heavenly Tabernacle, and whose blood, unlike that of bulls and goats, brings true forgiveness from sin. I agree. While it's beyond my scope here to delve fully into the subject, I believe that the blood of animals only served to ritually purify a sinner (or someone who was simpy unclean for non-sinful reasons) (Heb. 9:13), and stood to a witness of the death that sin brings (10:3, and note that the author uses the present tense). True forgiveness of sin had to come from God before the ritual offering of an animal could be made, not after and as a result of it. Thus David writes,

For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it : thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem. Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar. (Ps. 51:16-19)
But where the blood of bulls and goats could not appease a just God or remove the guilt of one's sin, through the blood of the Messiah, our Passover Lamb and Unblemished Sacrifice, "we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10).

Since your quote from Heb. 13 depends on your interpretation of Heb. 9, which I have shown to be incorrect, I'll leave it at that, except to say this: Given that Yeshua and the Apostles all kept Torah themselves, it is the doctrine that it is to be done away with that they would find to be "divers and strange."

580 posted on 06/20/2006 4:55:53 PM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: hlmencken3
The 613 mitzvot, mistakenly called 'commandments', are a rectification intended for the souls of Jews who are obligated to them.

Why are Jews then calling them commandments? That's what that website called them: "Below is a list of the 613 mitzvot (commandments)."

Also, the very word means commandments:

"At the heart of halakhah is the unchangeable 613 mitzvot that G-d gave to the Jewish people in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). The word "mitzvah" means "commandment." In its strictest sense, it refers only to commandments instituted in the Torah; however, the word is commonly used in a more generic sense to include all of the laws, practices and customs of halakhah, and is often used in an even more loose way to refer to any good deed."

Mitzvot

581 posted on 06/20/2006 5:02:02 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: hlmencken3

very interesting, thanx


582 posted on 06/20/2006 5:27:50 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
Pedagogue also means a teacher or schoolmaster.

In a broad sense, sure, but that was its particular meaning when Sha'ul wrote. Besides, it doesn't change my point one iota: Just because you are no longer under your math teacher, do you suddenly stop believing that 2+2=4?

That is the context that is used in the Douay Rheims Bible. The KJV says:"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

The Greek word is paidagogos. The Douay Rheims Bible is simply transliterating instead of translating it into its nearest English equivalent, which is what the KJV did. Neither is wrong.

I'm kind of confused on how you come up with that logic about homosexuality.

Simple: If there being "neither Jew nor Greek" means that there is no distinction between the two anymore, then so does the parallel, "neither male nor female." If there is no distinction between male and female, then there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, since the sin of homosexuality assumes a major difference in role between the two sexes.

But if Sha'ul is simply stating that we are all one in salvation, though not in function, then one cannot use this passage to criticize the existence of Messianic Jews who maintain a distinctly Jewish, Torah-observant culture.

I think you have proved my point in a way when you say that we are all equally one body. If we are all equally one body, why would the Jewish Christians tell Gentiles to be under different laws than they?

If that were the case, it is the Gentiles who would have to change to keep the whole Torah zealously as the Jewish believers did (Acts 21:20), not the Jews who would have to become Gentiles in order to follow a Jewish Messiah. Is that the conclusion that you're going for?

But as for why the Jewish believers gave the Gentiles more grace and leeway without shunning them from the community, I answered this in detail in post #521. Basically, they took the attitude of, "If God has shown so much grace to we who had the Torah and were raised from birth to keep it, but still sinned, how much more should we show grace to those who did not have the Torah and who have to reject their whole pagan upbringing to follow the Messiah?"

I just don't think that they meant for the Gentiles to stop at the minimum requirements. Or do you think that if a man abstains from idolatry, sexual immorality, blood, and things strangled, that it's okay for them to steal?

How is that equal?

Because regardless of the differences between them, they were still brothers and sisters, "fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Messiah by the gospel" (Eph. 3:6)--not on the basis of their Torah-observance, just as their salvation was not on the basis of one's Torah-observance--but by the gift of God.

Excuse me, but why are you asking me about personal shortcomings?

It's not to get personal. However, there is a common argument that I was going ahead and nipping in the bud that says basically that the Torah is too hard to keep. I'm pointing out that even the Ten Commandments, which you acknowledge as being still true, are too hard to keep. That doesn't end our obligation to our Lord to strive to keep them and repent when we don't, does it?

If one should follow the Ten Commandments, even though we often fail, then one should follow the other 603 in the same way, even though we often fail.

The issue here is that the Ten Commandments should be followed because Jesus said so and His Apostles preached it too.

And as I've shown, they preached following the Torah as a whole as well.

Acts 20:7 specifically states that "on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread....i.e, they assembled on this day to break bread not for some special farewell to Paul!

Two points: First, "when we were assembled to break bread" speaks of the dinner hour, not of a church service. Remember that to the Jewish mind, the day begins at sundown, not at midnight or at dawn. Ergo, this would have been a fellowship dinner immediately following the Sabbath (still Saturday by our clocks), not an event on Sunday evening .

Secondly, the verse continues: "Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." The author is clearly presenting this as a special occassion.

My point still stands.

As to 1 Corinthians 16:2, you are still seeing everything as through Jewish law which we are no longer under.

No, I'm seeing everything through the lens of the culture from which and to which the NT was written--which pretty much substantiates my point early in this thread that if you want to understand the Bible, you have to learn to think a bit Jewish. Besides, I've already shown why the alternative reading doesn't work, and you haven't answered that.

You've also not answered why the NT does not come right out and state that the Sabbath had changed. Two extremely oblique references do not counter a straightforward command written by the very finger of God.

This sums up why the Church celebrates on Sunday:

The day of the Resurrection: the new creation

That's the excuse, and one I believed for most of my life, but it doesn't stand up. The Bible doesn't substantiate it, and there was continued debate on the subject well into the fourth century--for example, you wouldn't have John "Chrysostom" making up vile anti-semetic slurs to discourage keeping the proper Sabbath and Feastdays unless a significant number of Christians were continuing to do just that.

The fact is that the Church stopped keeping the Sabbath not out of any Biblical injunction, but to distance itself from its Jewish roots at a time when the Jews were enemies of the state due to Judea's two failed revolutions in 70 and 135 AD. The Gentile Christians were willing to suffer persecution for the Name of Christ, but not to identify themselves with the Jews who had actively rejected them.

God Himself wrote the day of the Sabbath in stone. Therefore, God Himself (i.e., in the person of Yeshua HaMashiach) is the only one with the authority to change it. He did not do so, and it was pure presumtiveness for the later Church to claim that authority for itself.

583 posted on 06/20/2006 5:47:52 PM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

Mitzvah is from the root 'tzavtah' - joining," "attachment," "connection."

Translations between any languages are a problem. But it brings up the point that because two people use the same word/s, it doesn't mean they have the same concepts in mind. This is especially true between Jews and Christians, where similarity of terms is misleading given the chasms between understandings.


584 posted on 06/20/2006 5:49:23 PM PDT by hlmencken3 (Originalist on the the 'general welfare' clause? No? NOT an originalist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Dr. Eckleburg; xzins; P-Marlowe
All of your arguments against keeping the whole of the Torah are predicated on the idea that I believe that by keeping them, I am somehow trying to earn my salvation. Since I have repeatedly repudiated this idea, it amounts to a baseless strawman, and if carried too far, falls into the realm of slander.

It has been my experience on this site that what people believe and what people say they believe are usually two different things. What I am merely pointing out is that 1) no one can live by the law; 2) if you break one law you're guilty of breaking all the law (see rich, young ruler); and 3) doing the "work of God" is nothing more than believing on the Lord Jesus. God writes His laws upon our hearts to MAKE us obey.

There is either God's will or our will. One is good. One is bad. Our will is not, by nature, to do the will of God.

As far as slander goes, I believe it is you who accused the Reformers as preaching people should not follow God's commands and the rewards of the Calvinists would be diminished.

585 posted on 06/20/2006 6:02:22 PM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luk 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: hlmencken3
Mitzvah is from the root 'tzavtah' - joining," "attachment," "connection." Translations between any languages are a problem. But it brings up the point that because two people use the same word/s, it doesn't mean they have the same concepts in mind. This is especially true between Jews and Christians, where similarity of terms is misleading given the chasms between understandings.

How am I misunderstanding? The sites that I gave were Jewish and they call the Mitzvot commandments. Perhaps this Rabbi will convince you that I am using it in the proper sense:

"The word "mitzvah," commandment, implies a Commander. The real spiritual value of a mitzvah is when it is performed with this understanding.

Dear Rabbi

586 posted on 06/20/2006 6:05:28 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

Well, I tried...


587 posted on 06/20/2006 6:07:19 PM PDT by hlmencken3 (Originalist on the the 'general welfare' clause? No? NOT an originalist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: hlmencken3
Well, I tried...

Lol. Kuddos....it was a valiant effort. :-)

588 posted on 06/20/2006 6:15:44 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
It's not to get personal. However, there is a common argument that I was going ahead and nipping in the bud that says basically that the Torah is too hard to keep. I'm pointing out that even the Ten Commandments, which you acknowledge as being still true, are too hard to keep. That doesn't end our obligation to our Lord to strive to keep them and repent when we don't, does it?

Who said the Ten Commandments are hard to keep? They aren't. It is easy for me not to steal. It is easy for me not to lie. It is easy for me not to commit adultery. It is easy for me not to take the Lord's name in vain, etc.

If one should follow the Ten Commandments, even though we often fail, then one should follow the other 603 in the same way, even though we often fail.

Well, St. James said that if you fail in one of the laws, you are guilty in failing in all of them. Dang! That's a lot of laws to break don't you think? 613 of them?

No, I'm seeing everything through the lens of the culture from which and to which the NT was written--which pretty much substantiates my point early in this thread that if you want to understand the Bible, you have to learn to think a bit Jewish. Besides, I've already shown why the alternative reading doesn't work, and you haven't answered that.

Um.. I did answer it. You may not have agreed with my answer, but I showed where I think the verses do support it. I used the Catechism and in another post showed early Church Fathers writings that supported Sunday worship.

Speaking of not answering questions, why haven't you responded to my query regarding the charging of interest to Gentiles but not Israelites in the 613 laws. Do you support that?

That's the excuse, and one I believed for most of my life, but it doesn't stand up. The Bible doesn't substantiate it, and there was continued debate on the subject well into the fourth century--for example, you wouldn't have John "Chrysostom" making up vile anti-semetic slurs to discourage keeping the proper Sabbath and Feastdays unless a significant number of Christians were continuing to do just that.

I believe the Bible does substantiate it. The day the Lord rose was the first day of the week according to Scripture. The book of Acts supports it as does First Corinthians. They were celebrating on Sunday, the first day of week, in accordance with the Resurrection.

God Himself wrote the day of the Sabbath in stone. Therefore, God Himself (i.e., in the person of Yeshua HaMashiach) is the only one with the authority to change it. He did not do so, and it was pure presumtiveness for the later Church to claim that authority for itself.

Jesus said that He was the Lord of the Sabbath. Why didn't He rise up on Saturday then or Friday night when the Sabbath starts?

Also, he healed on the Sabbath and did other things on that day that disturbed the Jewish leaders of His time. By your logic, He had no right to do this either because He was guilty of breaking Torah law which you claim He set in stone!

Jesus touched lepers, breaking Torah law. Jesus allowed his disciples to pick grain(corn) on the Sabbath, breaking Torah law. Jesus touched dead people and raised them to life. You can't touch a dead person in the 613 laws!

Jesus was touched by a woman that was ritually unclean and He had mercy on her. Torah law would say that she had a committed a serious transgression.

Jesus forgave an adulteress. The law of the time was to stone her to death.

I think that there are many examples from the New Testament where Jesus went directly AGAINST the prescribed laws of the Torah.

Well, gotta run. My wife just came home from a meeting she had to attend this evening. Better go spend some time with my better half.

589 posted on 06/20/2006 6:57:43 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Lol. Kuddos....it was a valiant effort. :-)

A valiant effort at what? To prove that mitzvot doesn't mean "commandments" when I have given many Jewish websites that says it does. Even a Rabbi confirmed it. I guess he doesn't know what he's talking about either, right?

590 posted on 06/20/2006 7:00:57 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; xzins; P-Marlowe
What I am merely pointing out is that 1) no one can live by the law; 2) if you break one law you're guilty of breaking all the law (see rich, young ruler); and 3) doing the "work of God" is nothing more than believing on the Lord Jesus. God writes His laws upon our hearts to MAKE us obey

Yes, yes, and yes. We would both agree that a person who is truly redeemed will do good works as a result of that faith, and that faith without works is dead. We're just disagreeing on what those works are.

I would also disagree if you mean to indicate an instantaneous, perfect change in a person, or that having the Torah written in our hearts automatically means that we know everything God wants us to do. What it means is that we have the earnest desire to do God's will as a result of receiving His Spirit. It takes time to learn and grow.

My argument is not that the Gentiles are more incapable intrinsically of doing God's will than the Jews. Rather, I'm arguing that the Jews acknowledged that the Gentiles were not starting off having been trained all their lives to study and follow the Scriptures, and therefore shouldn't be shunned while they were still learning and growing. Again, consider the difference between a person who was raised in the Church, but just fell away for a few years before personally repenting and receving the Lord, and a person who has never read the Bible and has spent their whole lives in a homosexual lifestyle. Which one will probably need more time to "ramp up" to a congregations standard of righteous living? Which one has more hurdles to overcome?

Now, by acknowledging the gay man's extra hurdles, am I condescending to him or saying that he is less capable, in the long run, of living a Christian life than the man who was raised by his parents to do so and never fell far from the tree? Or by acknowledging the extra hurdles, loving him anyway, and giving the Spirit time to grow him while instructing him on what the Bible says he's supposed to do and rebuking him with love when he stumbles, am I showing him the love and grace my Lord Yeshua has shown to me?

I have been the recipient of that same grace, so I look down on no man in that regard.

Our will is not, by nature, to do the will of God.

Then by definition, I am not following my own (natural) will in my desire to keep the Torah; it must be from God.

As far as slander goes, I believe it is you who accused the Reformers as preaching people should not follow God's commands and the rewards of the Calvinists would be diminished.

You have yet to show where I've misquoted or misunderstood you, despite repeated invitations to do so. Beyond that, all I've done is quote the Lord's own warning on the subject. You have four options that I can see:

1) Show where I have misunderstood you and explain what you really meant.

2) Admit that I've quoted your argument fairly, but demonstrate that your argument is correct.

3) Admit that I've quoted your argument fairly and that it is incorrect, and repent of it.

4) Shoot the messenger.

So far, you seem to be going for option #4. However, that doesn't help you: Since the Lord is the one who said that the Torah had not passed away, and that breaking the least of its commandments and teaching others to do the same lessened one's position in the Kingdom, unless you can provide a solid alternate exegesis of His words, then your beef is with Him, not with me.
591 posted on 06/20/2006 7:15:08 PM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
A valiant effort at what? To prove that mitzvot doesn't mean "commandments" when I have given many Jewish websites that says it does. Even a Rabbi confirmed it. I guess he doesn't know what he's talking about either, right?

Prozac anyone? lol.

592 posted on 06/20/2006 7:33:46 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: All
I need to correct an editing error from post #589. When I checked it, it looked okay. Don't know what happened, but these quotes should have been italicized which are Buggman's, not mine:

If one should follow the Ten Commandments, even though we often fail, then one should follow the other 603 in the same way, even though we often fail

No, I'm seeing everything through the lens of the culture from which and to which the NT was written--which pretty much substantiates my point early in this thread that if you want to understand the Bible, you have to learn to think a bit Jewish. Besides, I've already shown why the alternative reading doesn't work, and you haven't answered that.

That's the excuse, and one I believed for most of my life, but it doesn't stand up. The Bible doesn't substantiate it, and there was continued debate on the subject well into the fourth century--for example, you wouldn't have John "Chrysostom" making up vile anti-semetic slurs to discourage keeping the proper Sabbath and Feastdays unless a significant number of Christians were continuing to do just that.

God Himself wrote the day of the Sabbath in stone. Therefore, God Himself (i.e., in the person of Yeshua HaMashiach) is the only one with the authority to change it. He did not do so, and it was pure presumtiveness for the later Church to claim that authority for itself.

Sorry about that Buggman!

593 posted on 06/20/2006 7:53:27 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
Who said the Ten Commandments are hard to keep? They aren't. It is easy for me not to steal. It is easy for me not to lie. It is easy for me not to commit adultery. It is easy for me not to take the Lord's name in vain, etc.

It is easy for you to not look upon a woman lustfully--especially in today's culture? It is easy for you to not become angry with your brother? It's easy for you to never covet? Then you are clearly a better man than I. I have to check myself often.

Well, St. James said that if you fail in one of the laws, you are guilty in failing in all of them. Dang! That's a lot of laws to break don't you think? 613 of them?

Probably more. I'm just using the standard rabbinic enumeration as short-hand. Why? Is it somehow better to only break 10 commandments, one of which is against murder, than 613?

Um.. I did answer it.

With all respect, you did not. I said:

. . . if on the first day, then why would he tell them to gather money on the first day, a supposed "Christian sabbath," but not on the particular Sunday when he presumbably came and preached?
In other words, why would he want them to collect money on the Sunday-sabbath after his letter was read, but not on the Sunday-sabbath when he would be speaking to them?

Moreover, without a clear statement that the churches were treating Sunday as the "new sabbath" from any other NT source, you're merely arguing in a circle, assuming that which must be proven. I can show where the Bible repeatedly states that the Sabbath is on the 7th day--can you show an equally unabiguous statement that it moved to the 1st? If not, since both of your cites work equally well, if not better, in a context of a 7th day Sabbath still being the norm, they don't prove a thing. They're merely a pretext for your assumed belief.

Speaking of not answering questions, why haven't you responded to my query regarding the charging of interest to Gentiles but not Israelites in the 613 laws. Do you support that?

Sorry, didn't see it. Which post was the original query in?

I believe the Bible does substantiate it.

Where? I've already shown that Acts and 1 Cor. do not state that the Sabbath had moved to Sunday, and why they fit a 7th day Sabbath. I've also pointed out that God is very, very direct about the Sabbath being the 7th day--can you show me where He is equally direct about it moving? If not, then you need to cede the point.

Jesus said that He was the Lord of the Sabbath. Why didn't He rise up on Saturday then or Friday night when the Sabbath starts?

He was resting. :-) No, seriously, that's a stretch worthy of Mr. Fantastic--what is Biblical, logical justification for assuming that because Yeshua is the Lord of the Sabbath, that He would rise on that day?

Also, he healed on the Sabbath and did other things on that day that disturbed the Jewish leaders of His time. By your logic, He had no right to do this either because He was guilty of breaking Torah law which you claim He set in stone!

No. I simply side with Him in disagreeing with the Pharisees about what is permitted on the Sabbath. As the Lord of the Sabbath, He has the sovereign right to decide what counts as "work" and what does not on that day. He never moved the day, He simply stated that it was lawful to do good--like healing, setting people free of the Adversary, teaching and carrying out worship, or even rescuing animals from a pit--on the Sabbath.

Once again, it's foolish to use the accusations of Yeshua's enemies to build theology. One may as well use Satan's charge that Job was only good because God blessed and protected him as evidence against Job.

Jesus touched lepers, breaking Torah law.

Hardly! Go read the Torah. It would make Him ceremonially unclean, but no more so than burying His adopted father or having a blister form and burst. He would need to bathe and wait until the next sunset before entering the Temple. He would only have sinned if He entered the Temple while knowingly unclean.

Anyway, if Yeshua touched a leper, and the leper were instantly healed, one has to wonder if Yeshua was even ritually unclean from that.

Jesus allowed his disciples to pick grain(corn) on the Sabbath, breaking Torah law.

Again, this strictly speaking wasn't a sin--it was merely a violation of Pharisaical tradition. Ditto healing a man and telling him to pick up his mat on the Sabbath.

Jesus touched dead people and raised them to life. You can't touch a dead person in the 613 laws!

Again, you confuse ritual uncleanliness with sin.

Jesus forgave an adulteress. The law of the time was to stone her to death.

The Pharisees were trying to trap Yeshua in a Catch-22: If He said to stone the woman, they could report Him to the Roman authorities. If He said to let her go, they could accuse Him of breaking Torah.

Yeshua did an end-run around them: He said that he without sin should cast the first stone. None of them took Him up on His offer, whether because they were cognizant of their sin, or because they feared the Roman reprisal if they took Him up on His offer. Eventually, they all left, leaving only Yeshua and the woman.

Now, according to Torah, a person can only be convicted by 2 or more witnesses (Deu. 17:6). Yeshua had not witnessed her crime, and those who had were no longer there to accuse her to Him--therefore, He was actually keeping the Torah by letting her go!

I think that there are many examples from the New Testament where Jesus went directly AGAINST the prescribed laws of the Torah.

I look forward to you being able to show me one. Next time, do a bit of study on the differences between ritual impurity (which happened to everyone on a fairly regular basis) and breaking the Torah, or the difference between Pharisaical tradition and the actual written Torah, before saying that Yeshua broke the Torah--which would, by definition, mean that He sinned, by the way.

Have a great evening with your better half. I'm greatly enjoying our discourse.

594 posted on 06/20/2006 7:59:57 PM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Prozac anyone? lol.

How does that answer the question? "Even a Rabbi confirmed it. I guess he doesn't know what he's talking about either, right?"

Suggesting that someone needs Prozac when all they have done is request that you answer a question is unreasonable. It also brings it down to a personal level.

595 posted on 06/20/2006 8:00:25 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
Taking yourself a bit seriously here? Why is this topic an either/or for you? I believe Mitzvot as "commandments" has validity and at the same time Mitzvah is from the root 'tzavtah' - joining," "attachment," "connection." makes very good sense as well. Dang you're defensive.
596 posted on 06/20/2006 8:25:08 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

They don't have the bible, they just have a poor transliteration of the bible, the New World Translation.


597 posted on 06/20/2006 8:49:17 PM PDT by TypeZoNegative (".... We are a nation of Americans. We are DECENDED from legal immigrants"- johnandrhonda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant; FJ290

Discuss the issues - don't make it personal.


598 posted on 06/20/2006 8:49:47 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
Have a great evening with your better half. I'm greatly enjoying our discourse.

I was trying, lol! She said that she was so tired she wanted to go on to bed. I am enjoying the discourse as well.

It is easy for you to not look upon a woman lustfully--especially in today's culture? It is easy for you to not become angry with your brother? It's easy for you to never covet? Then you are clearly a better man than I. I have to check myself often.

Am I perfect? Heck no! I will honestly say that I don't look on women lustfully. I have too much respect and love for the wonderful woman that is my wife. There's not a woman on earth that can compare to her, IMO. Do I become angry with my brother? Sometimes. Sometimes anger can be warranted, such as when people blaspheme God, promote homosexuality, commit murder, rape, etc. I wonder should we have no emotions about those things? Do I covet? Honestly, I haven't done that in years. I have been guilty of it when I was younger.

With all respect, you did not. I said:

. . . if on the first day, then why would he tell them to gather money on the first day, a supposed "Christian sabbath," but not on the particular Sunday when he presumbably came and preached?

In other words, why would he want them to collect money on the Sunday-sabbath after his letter was read, but not on the Sunday-sabbath when he would be speaking to them?

Hmm..with all due respect to you as well I answered:

"As to 1 Corinthians 16:2, you are still seeing everything as through Jewish law which we are no longer under." From post #572

St. Paul is giving instruction to the Church when the money is to be collected and it is on the same day they worship. One theologian put it that "offerings are a part of the worship service" so it makes sense that since these offerings took place on the first day of the week, they were also worshiping on the first day of the week.

Sorry, didn't see it. Which post was the original query in?

See post #568.

Where? I've already shown that Acts and 1 Cor. do not state that the Sabbath had moved to Sunday, and why they fit a 7th day Sabbath. I've also pointed out that God is very, very direct about the Sabbath being the 7th day--can you show me where He is equally direct about it moving? If not, then you need to cede the point.

Sorry my friend, but I am not going to cede the point. I see things a lot differently than you about Acts 1 and 1st Corinthians. If His Apostles were celebrating on Sunday, which I believe they were, are you saying that they are going against God? Wouldn't they know better than you and I what day to celebrate?

He was resting. :-) No, seriously, that's a stretch worthy of Mr. Fantastic--what is Biblical, logical justification for assuming that because Yeshua is the Lord of the Sabbath, that He would rise on that day?

Because Scripture tells us He rose the first day of the week. See St. John 20:1

St. Mark 16:9 "But he rising early the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalen, out of whom he had cast seven devils."

The Christians referred to this as the Lord's Day, therefore worshiping on that day. St. John refers to the Lord's day in the Apocalypse. See chapter 1:10

Once again, it's foolish to use the accusations of Yeshua's enemies to build theology. One may as well use Satan's charge that Job was only good because God blessed and protected him as evidence against Job.

Please, these aren't using accusations of Jesus' enemies. I am using the 613 laws themselves and how Jesus did not follow some of them!! Did He or did He not touch a leper? In the 613 laws, you aren't suppose to do that.

Hardly! Go read the Torah. It would make Him ceremonially unclean, but no more so than burying His adopted father or having a blister form and burst. He would need to bathe and wait until the next sunset before entering the Temple. He would only have sinned if He entered the Temple while knowingly unclean.

Show me where Scripture says that He bathed after touching/healing them? Are you saying that it's possible for our Lord to be ceremonially unclean?

The Pharisees were trying to trap Yeshua in a Catch-22: If He said to stone the woman, they could report Him to the Roman authorities. If He said to let her go, they could accuse Him of breaking Torah.

I disagree because Jesus said that He didn't condemn her, for her to go and sin no more. He had no fear of the Roman authorities or of them. Interesting too that He said "go and sin no more. Proves He knew she had committed the sin of adultery.

Now, according to Torah, a person can only be convicted by 2 or more witnesses (Deu. 17:6). Yeshua had not witnessed her crime, and those who had were no longer there to accuse her to Him--therefore, He was actually keeping the Torah by letting her go!

Fuzzy logic, IMO. The witnesses were the scribes and Pharisees that took the woman to Him. There were plenty of witnesses handy. They repeated Mosaic law to Him:

"Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?" He responded that the one who was without sin should cast the first stone. He didn't say "Oh gee fellas! We don't have enough witnesses here." Neither did He say, "You know the law, get enough witnesses and then stone her to death!" Jesus showed her mercy.

You say that Jesus hadn't actually witnessed her crime, but He did acknowledge that a sin had been committed when He said go and sin no more. He had to be talking about the sin of which she was accused.

I think it is a touching story of Jesus' forgiveness and His wonderful mercy upon us.

599 posted on 06/20/2006 9:26:08 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator
Discuss the issues - don't make it personal.

Could you please show me where I have made any personal remarks to Invincibly Ignorant? I don't believe that I have.

600 posted on 06/20/2006 9:28:12 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-618 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson