|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/20/2009 7:28:32 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 485
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Your reasoning so far appears to be sound. You will probably find few details regarding the weekly Shabbat in the Scriptures. It is not as meticulious as some make it out to be. There is one verse that commands us to have a convocation on Shabbat and the Jerusalem Council passage gives us an indication as to what was done at the convocation. Acts 15:21 "Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." This is not to say one should ignore the rest of the Scriptures. It is just that they believed as we read and discuss HaTorah on a regular basis we tend to pick up on the details.
Your second interest regarding "communion" ties into the other appointed times. I am not going to try to exert undue influence in these matters, but would rather you discover them for yourself. That said, you might want to look at the history and commandments regarding Pesach to get a clearer view of what was going on at the "last supper". You might even contact a local conservative synogogue or jewish family and ask to take part in their Seder on the evening before April 9th. In this way you can get the feel of what might have taken place on that night.
Rabbinics can also be of some help. I do not consider them to be much more than commentary. However, they do provide some direction on ways one might choose to observe Shabbat.
Thanks Blue,I appreciate your help.You probably won't believe this;but about ten years ago I was really tired of all the leaven that is in our traditional Churches.I just wanted to know what was right,pure,and Holy.I would have paid money to receive information on legitimate Jewish customs.
Funny thing is,I used to scoff people who felt like going to Israel to walk where Jesus walked had any real practical benefit.Sometimes I find myself just wanting to know what is right and true,not because I'm afraid I won't be accepted,although admittedly I've been there as well too.
Right now it's just about the quality and authenticity of my relationship with him.
One of the best things I've gleaned since fishing this out,is the heart of God concerning details.I specifically heard the voice of God by way of his Spirit,not audible,telling me.Steve don't hide behind rules and regulations,thinking that will make me closer to him.
He's telling me not to seek rules and regulations as a means to an end.Rather he wants me to stay true to the simplicity of the message that is, Jesus Christ and him crucified.
Having said that,he still lets me know that details matter,regarding how I relate to him.That is if I love him,I will seek him.I will seek him with all my heart and might.I will search out his ways,and desires and do them.
I know I'm on the right path and I won't let it go.I feel like God is helping me build a wall right now Bro,and I can't come down till it's finished.
God,bless man,and thanks for your help.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/20/2009 4:03:40 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
I know I'm on the right path and I won't let it go.I feel like God is helping me build a wall right now Bro,and I can't come down till it's finished.
God,bless man,and thanks for your help.
While you work on that wall you might want to heed the example of Nehemiah and be prepared for those who might wish to hinder your efforts. (Nehemiah 4:17b-18a) "Those who carried materials did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other, and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked."
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/20/2009 4:26:29 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 485
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
I know I'm on the right path and I won't let it go.I feel like God is helping me build a wall right now Bro,and I can't come down till it's finished.
God,bless man,and thanks for your help.
While you work on that wall you might want to heed the example of Nehemiah and be prepared for those who might wish to hinder your efforts. (Nehemiah 4:17b-18a) "Those who carried materials did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other, and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked."
Thanks Blue that's good advice.I had an unrelated question to ask you or whoever might want to chime in.
In 1 Corin.9vs7-14 Paul takes from the law of Moses and the pattern of the Temple and says it was written for the current time.
In other words when God instituted this law he had New Testament preachers in mind.When using the example of the Temple,he makes a bold statement saying that in the same way the Priest and those who serve at the altar get their food from the temple ans altar.
That God has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
What do you make of this?On the one hand it seems Paul took extreme liberty,and under the full weight of his authority to expound and deliver doctrine for the New Covenant believer,to reinterpret the law and the system which was currently in place.
On the other hand how could Paul argue that God had two competing systems in place concurrently?That is the temple which was supported by Tithe and the Temple tax,and also some undefined financial obligation to financially support the New Testament Preacher?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/21/2009 3:14:06 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
Paul's founding principle in this argument is (1 Cor. 9:9) "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.". From this he shows that the principle has been used to support the proper payment of laborers. He then points out, even in the case of those who do not work for a direct wage, the priests, a wage is provided through the sacrifices and temple tithe. Now I do not believe Paul is establishing another tithe or that a rabbi is now the equivalent of a preist. What he is establishing is the fact that the rabbi also works. Therefore, he deserves a wage. The whole principle that it is somehow unseemly to get paid for doing Adonai's work is, in my opinion, false doctrine. If there are those in the community who have been commissioned by the community to study the Scriptures and minister, the community has an obligation to provide for them.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/21/2009 8:13:52 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 485
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Now I do not believe Paul is establishing another tithe or that a rabbi is now the equivalent of a preist. What he is establishing is the fact that the rabbi also works. Therefore, he deserves a wage. The whole principle that it is somehow unseemly to get paid for doing Adonai's work is, in my opinion, false doctrine. If there are those in the community who have been commissioned by the community to study the Scriptures and minister, the community has an obligation to provide for them.
We need to back up here Blue.Paul was not taking about Rabbis here .He was talking about Christian,teachers/elders.According to history the term Rabbi evolved after the destruction of the Temple.Paul wrote this letter in Ad 56,so the Temple was still in force,as was the system of tithing.
The governments of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were based on a system of Jewish kings, prophets, the legal authority of the court of the Sanhedrin and the ritual authority of priesthood. Members of the Sanhedrin had to receive their semicha ("ordination") derived in an uninterrupted line of transmission from Moses, yet rather than being referred to as "rabbis" they were more frequently called judges (dayanim) akin to the Shoftim or "Judges" as in the Book of Judges.
All of the above personalities would have been expected to be steeped in the wisdom of the Torah and the commandments, which would have made them "rabbis" in the modern sense of the word. This is illustrated by an two-thousand-year-old teaching in the Mishnah, Ethics of the Fathers (Pirkei Avot), which observed about King David,
"He who learns from his fellowman a single chapter, a single halakha, a single verse, a single Torah statement, or even a single letter, must treat him with honor. For so we find with David King of Israel, who learned nothing from Ahitophel except two things, yet called him his teacher [Hebrew text: "rabbo"], his guide, his intimate, as it is said: 'You are a man of my measure, my guide, my intimate' (Psalms 55:14). One can derive from this the following: If David King of Israel who learned nothing from Ahitophel except for two things, called him his teacher, his guide, his intimate, one who learns from his fellowman a single chapter, a single halakha, a single verse, a single statement, or even a single letter, how much more must he treat him with honor. And honor is due only for Torah, as it is said: 'The wise shall inherit honor' (Proverbs 3:35), 'and the perfect shall inherit good' (Proverbs 28:10). And only Torah is truly good, as it is said: 'I have given you a good teaching, do not forsake My Torah' (Psalms 128:2)." (Ethics of the Fathers 6:3)
With the destruction of the two Temples in Jerusalem, the end of the Jewish monarchy, and the decline of the dual instititutions of prophets and the priesthood, the focus of scholarly and spiritual leadership within the Jewish people shifted to the sages of the Men of the Great Assembly (Anshe Knesset HaGedolah). This assembly was composed of the earliest group of "rabbis" in the more modern sense of the word, in large part because they began the formulation and explication of what became known as Judaism's "Oral Law (Torah SheBe'al Peh). This was eventually encoded and codified within the Mishnah and Talmud and subsequent rabbinical scholarship, leading to what is known as Rabbinic Judaism.
# 54 A.D. - After leaving Ephesus, Paul moved on to Troas, and eventually to Macedonia (2Co 2:12-13).
* There he met Titus, who brought him good news from Corinth (2Co 7:5-7). In response, Paul apparently wrote 2 Corinthians 1-9, the ‘reconciliation letter.’
# 55 or 56 A.D. - He then left Macedonia for Corinth where he spent three months (probably the winter of 55 or 56; see Act 20:2-3) and wrote Romans [including his letter to the church in Rome (Romans 1-15) and his introduction letter for Phoebe to the church in Ephesus (Roman 16). For further details, see http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/women01.htm.].
# 55 or 56 A.D. - From Corinth, Paul departed for Jerusalem with the offering, anticipating trouble from the Jews and Jewish Christians (Rom 15:31).
# 55 or 56 A.D. - Biographical information from the Letters ceases at this point. Acts, however, describes in detail Paul’s final trip to Jerusalem (Act 20:3-21:16), his imprisonment (Act 21:27-23:30), his transfer to Caesarea (Act 23:31-26:32), and his voyage to Rome (Act 27:1-28:31).
* Those who accept the pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus) as genuine believe Paul was released from his first imprisonment in Rome (2Ti 4:16-17) and made another journey in the East. During this hypothetical journey, he is supposed to have visited such places as Troas (2Ti 4:13), Ephesus (1Ti 1:3), Miletus (2Ti 4:20), and Crete (Titus 1:5). According to 2Ti 4:6-8, Paul is back in prison, anticipating martyrdom. This reconstruction, built on data which the pastorals have derived from the authentic Letters, is unconvincing.
# 62 (or as late as 67) A.D. - Although a tradition suggests that Paul had been released from Rome and visited Spain (1 Clement 5:7), this tradition probably rests on Rom 15:24, 28. More likely, Paul was executed at the end of his original Roman imprisonment, probably in a.d. 62 [or as late as 67 A.D.].
Of course we can not state that Paul was saying that the Church should continue a tithing system to support teachers of the New Covenant,and I would not say that Pastors/Teachers should receive no financial support from the student.
The point of my question is, if God and Paul were in harmony with the Old Testament system in place at the time of Paul's ministry,how would God institute two different systems of worship/service concurrently?
That is to say,if the way of the Temple was Ordained of God and accepted as a means of rightful worship and service.How could God at the same time be employing a total different service of worship,and making New Testament Teachers,some of whom were uncircumcised Gentiles,equivalent to those Priest who served at the Temple,and Altar?
God is not the author of confusion,neither is he double minded,receiving and accepting two opposing systems of worship at the same time.
What's going on here?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/21/2009 5:44:14 PM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 842
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
...he still lets me know that details matter,regarding how I relate to him.That is if I love him,I will seek him.I will seek him with all my heart and might.I will search out his ways,and desires and do them.
I know I'm on the right path and I won't let it go.I feel like God is helping me build a wall right now Bro,and I can't come down till it's finished.
Good luck, sunofone. I'm moving on to some other things I've got going in my life right now.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/21/2009 9:05:24 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: sunofone
The point of my question is, if God and Paul were in harmony with the Old Testament system in place at the time of Paul's ministry,how would God institute two different systems of worship/service concurrently?
That is to say,if the way of the Temple was Ordained of God and accepted as a means of rightful worship and service.How could God at the same time be employing a total different service of worship,and making New Testament Teachers,some of whom were uncircumcised Gentiles,equivalent to those Priest who served at the Temple,and Altar?
God is not the author of confusion,neither is he double minded,receiving and accepting two opposing systems of worship at the same time.
What's going on here? [/quote]
I am not ignoring your historical summary. It appears to be important for you to connect the dots. The factor that is missing in this historical recounting of authoritative teachers is the Shema. (Deut 6:4-7) ""Sh'ma, Yisra'el! ADONAI Eloheinu, ADONAI echad [Hear, Isra'el! ADONAI our God, ADONAI is one]; and you are to love ADONAI your God with all your heart, all your being and all your resources. These words, which I am ordering you today, are to be on your heart; and you are to teach them carefully to your children. You are to talk about them when you sit at home, when you are traveling on the road, when you lie down and when you get up." Not every town had a Levite. Therefore, in order to be observant the members of a given community needs to convocate among themselves. You touched on this when you quoted from (Ethics of the Fathers 6:3) "He who learns from his fellowman a single chapter, a single halakha, a single verse, a single Torah statement, or even a single letter, must treat him with honor."
This is how I use the term rabbi, in a general sense. I do this to point out to those who wish to create a clear dividing line between the Tanach and the Apistolic Writings that many of the concepts in the Apistolic Writings come from the Tanach and rabbinics. Thus, there is little difference between a Master of Divinity and a rabbi apart from the name and the school that they follow.
Now, since every man who teaches another is worthy of honor, this honor is seperate from the service of the priest. This is what I believe Paul is talking about. Those who might be set aside by a particular community for service of that community should be provided for by the community. This is what one would expect of a community in any time. Also, it is presumptious to believe that uncircumcised Gentiles would be elevated to positions of authority. As far as I know there is no case of an Apostle doing such a thing.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/21/2009 9:57:03 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 485
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Also, it is presumptious to believe that uncircumcised Gentiles would be elevated to positions of authority. As far as I know there is no case of an Apostle doing such a thing.
I don't know what you mean by this? Would I be correct in assuming that you do not believe in the entire Holy Bible?That is specifically that Titus is not,or should not be considered as valid?Titus was in fact an Elder who was a uncircumcised Gentile,was he not?galatians 2 - Study This Chapter
1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.
If this is the case,on what basis could you make this statement?
I still would like to know how God through Paul was ordaining/accepting two opposing systems of worship at the same time.
< Message edited by sunofone -- 3/22/2009 9:48:11 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/22/2009 9:57:18 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 485
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am not ignoring your historical summary. It appears to be important for you to connect the dots. The factor that is missing in this historical recounting of authoritative teachers is the Shema. (Deut 6:4-7) ""Sh'ma, Yisra'el! ADONAI Eloheinu, ADONAI echad [Hear, Isra'el! ADONAI our God, ADONAI is one]; and you are to love ADONAI your God with all your heart, all your being and all your resources. These words, which I am ordering you today, are to be on your heart; and you are to teach them carefully to your children. You are to talk about them when you sit at home, when you are traveling on the road, when you lie down and when you get up." Not every town had a Levite. Therefore, in order to be observant the members of a given community needs to convocate among themselves. You touched on this when you quoted from (Ethics of the Fathers 6:3) "He who learns from his fellowman a single chapter, a single halakha, a single verse, a single Torah statement, or even a single letter, must treat him with honor."
This is how I use the term rabbi, in a general sense. I do this to point out to those who wish to create a clear dividing line between the Tanach and the Apistolic Writings that many of the concepts in the Apistolic Writings come from the Tanach and rabbinics. Thus, there is little difference between a Master of Divinity and a rabbi apart from the name and the school that they follow.
Now, since every man who teaches another is worthy of honor, this honor is seperate from the service of the priest. This is what I believe Paul is talking about. Those who might be set aside by a particular community for service of that community should be provided for by the community. This is what one would expect of a community in any time. There is much that can be said concerning what you just posted,perhaps I will address it another time.For now I want to ask this question here:
Isn't it true that the Levites who did not attend to the altar were to teach in every town and community as a profession:
The occupation of the Levites were in what we call professional fields today. Moses expected this to be the case. They were ordained to be teachers of the nation (Deuteronomy 24L8; 33:10; 2 Chronicles 35:3; Nehemiah 8:7); they also represented many of the judges of the land, and in the time of Ezra they were the sole members of the Sanhedrin—the Supreme Court of the nation (Deuteronomy 17:8–9; 21:5; 1 Chronicles 23:4; 2 Chronicles 19:8; Ezekiel 13:2; 14:2; Luke 17:14); they were professional singers and musicians (1 Chronicles 25:1–31; 2 Chronicles 5:12; 34:12; producers of books and librarians were almost exclusively Levites (2 Chronicles 34:13). It may appear strange to some but even law enforcement was in their care (1 Chronicles 23:4)—they were the "sheriffs" (Moffatt). Many of the Levites were architects and builders (2 Chronicles 34:8–13).
Furthermore I thought I'd slip this question in here as well:
I know there is a separate thread for this,so I don't want to argue the issue of tithes here.I just want to know if the following holds true concerning modern day Rabbis teaching:
Thankfully, Jewish theologians know better than their Christian counterparts. They are well aware that only Levites have the right to receive tithe of the people. After all, the Jewish leaders have the Old Testament as their Scripture and that’s what it commands. And since there is no Temple in existence (and consequently no ordained Levites or Priests serving in a Temple), then a major factor in fulfilling the laws of tithing does not exist in our modern world.
In regard to this, it may be profitable to relate an event that happened to me over thirty–five years ago when I was just starting to study theology in college. A letter had been given to me for answering. It was from a woman who heard that modern Jews were not tithing. She wanted to know whether the information was true, and if so, why the Jews seemingly violated the plain laws of the Bible which spoke of tithing as a law to be obeyed?
Having read the letter, I began to share her concern. To resolve the matter I telephoned three rabbis in the Los Angeles area for their explanation. Much to my dismay, all three independently of each other informed me that no religious Jew should tithe today. I was startled at their replies. This appeared to be evidence that the Jews were so lax with their biblical interpretation that they were abandoning even the simple words of their own Scripture about the laws of tithing.
By the time I spoke with the last rabbi, my youthful indignation was beginning to emerge. But that rabbi then wisely began to show me my ignorance (not his) in the whole matter. First, he admitted that none of his congregation paid one penny of tithe that was demanded in the Old Testament. He then said: "If any member of my synagogue paid tithe in the scriptural manner, he would be disobeying the law of God—he would be sinning against God."
I was staggered by his answer. He went on to inform me that since the Bible demands that the tithe be paid to Levites, he said it would be wrong to pay it to anyone else. And further, because there is presently no official Levitical order of Priests ministering at a Temple in Jerusalem, this makes it illegal at this period to pay any biblical tithe. He went on to say, however, that the moment a Temple is rebuilt, with its altar in operation and with the priesthood officiating at that altar (and the Levites there to assist them), then every Jew who lives in the tithing zones mentioned in the Bible will be required to tithe according to the biblical commands.
I realize I've asked a lot,you can respond to them separately and take your time.Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/24/2009 3:12:23 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
quote:
Also, it is presumptious to believe that uncircumcised Gentiles would be elevated to positions of authority. As far as I know there is no case of an Apostle doing such a thing.
I don't know what you mean by this? Would I be correct in assuming that you do not believe in the entire Holy Bible?That is specifically that Titus is not,or should not be considered as valid?Titus was in fact an Elder who was a uncircumcised Gentile,was he not?galatians 2 - Study This Chapter
1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.
If this is the case,on what basis could you make this statement?
I still would like to know how God through Paul was ordaining/accepting two opposing systems of worship at the same time.
I believe there is more going on here than simple circumcision. Therefore, I will conceed the point to this extent. It is consistent to allow one who is not circumcised to be in a position of leadership, if one were to say the same thing regarding one who has not been baptized. I say this because Paul says pretty much the same thing regarding baptism. (1 Cor. 1:14-17) "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." In fact, as you see, he even repeats the idea of The Sacrifice being ineffective if one is contentious about baptism.
quote:
Isn't it true that the Levites who did not attend to the altar were to teach in every town and community as a profession: . . .
There are many things that the Levites were appointed to do. However, not all of these are exclusively for the Levites. If this were the case with all of your examples then no one could sing or play instruments in their own homes and nothing would get built. Those matters regarding ministry in the temple and administration of justice, are the perview of the Levites. However, your analogy of the Levite being the "Sheriff" is not accurate, in my opinion. In the captial cases, the accused is taken to the "scene of the crime" and the Levite would act as Judge while each side made their case. In the case that the accused did not turn themselves in to a city of refuge, the avenger of blood(close relative) would act as a "bounty hunter". This can get very complicated, primarily because HaTorah does not provide all of the details. That said, one can not expect us to have no justice without a Temple and without a High Preist how is one to ordain a judge. However, we do have a High Priest who gives us directions regarding justice and He has clarified how one should enforce HaTorah in the absence of an ordained levite.
quote:
I was staggered by his answer. He went on to inform me that since the Bible demands that the tithe be paid to Levites, he said it would be wrong to pay it to anyone else. And further, because there is presently no official Levitical order of Priests ministering at a Temple in Jerusalem, this makes it illegal at this period to pay any biblical tithe. He went on to say, however, that the moment a Temple is rebuilt, with its altar in operation and with the priesthood officiating at that altar (and the Levites there to assist them), then every Jew who lives in the tithing zones mentioned in the Bible will be required to tithe according to the biblical commands.
It is true that one is to take one's tithes to a levites, one for his provision, one for the poor and one to be consumed at Sukkot. For those without an ordained preist this would not be possible. However, as noted above, we have a High Priest who has given us instructions on how to distribute these funds on His behalf. "As you have done it unto the least of these ..." tells us how to handle the levitical tithe. Paul tells us that we should appoint people in the name of the High Preist for the distribution of the poor tithe, if it becomes too difficult for the individuls to administer. Finally, we consume the feast tithe in the presence of the High Preist at the appointed time.
In each of these cases, it is possible to keep HaTorah without needing to resort to two seperate systems. For Paul, he continued to yield to the levites in these matters until they refused to allow him to. At that point, I believe, he appealed to our High Priest and received clarification on how one serves Adonai under a corrupt leadership and without a Temple.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/24/2009 7:19:53 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 485
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
quote:
Also, it is presumptious to believe that uncircumcised Gentiles would be elevated to positions of authority. As far as I know there is no case of an Apostle doing such a thing.
I don't know what you mean by this? Would I be correct in assuming that you do not believe in the entire Holy Bible?That is specifically that Titus is not,or should not be considered as valid?Titus was in fact an Elder who was a uncircumcised Gentile,was he not?galatians 2 - Study This Chapter
1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.
If this is the case,on what basis could you make this statement?
I still would like to know how God through Paul was ordaining/accepting two opposing systems of worship at the same time.
I believe there is more going on here than simple circumcision. Therefore, I will conceed the point to this extent. It is consistent to allow one who is not circumcised to be in a position of leadership, if one were to say the same thing regarding one who has not been baptized. I say this because Paul says pretty much the same thing regarding baptism. (1 Cor. 1:14-17) "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." In fact, as you see, he even repeats the idea of The Sacrifice being ineffective if one is contentious about baptism.
quote:
Isn't it true that the Levites who did not attend to the altar were to teach in every town and community as a profession: . . .
There are many things that the Levites were appointed to do. However, not all of these are exclusively for the Levites. If this were the case with all of your examples then no one could sing or play instruments in their own homes and nothing would get built. Those matters regarding ministry in the temple and administration of justice, are the perview of the Levites. However, your analogy of the Levite being the "Sheriff" is not accurate, in my opinion. In the captial cases, the accused is taken to the "scene of the crime" and the Levite would act as Judge while each side made their case. In the case that the accused did not turn themselves in to a city of refuge, the avenger of blood(close relative) would act as a "bounty hunter". This can get very complicated, primarily because HaTorah does not provide all of the details. That said, one can not expect us to have no justice without a Temple and without a High Preist how is one to ordain a judge. However, we do have a High Priest who gives us directions regarding justice and He has clarified how one should enforce HaTorah in the absence of an ordained levite.
quote:
I was staggered by his answer. He went on to inform me that since the Bible demands that the tithe be paid to Levites, he said it would be wrong to pay it to anyone else. And further, because there is presently no official Levitical order of Priests ministering at a Temple in Jerusalem, this makes it illegal at this period to pay any biblical tithe. He went on to say, however, that the moment a Temple is rebuilt, with its altar in operation and with the priesthood officiating at that altar (and the Levites there to assist them), then every Jew who lives in the tithing zones mentioned in the Bible will be required to tithe according to the biblical commands.
It is true that one is to take one's tithes to a levites, one for his provision, one for the poor and one to be consumed at Sukkot. For those without an ordained preist this would not be possible. However, as noted above, we have a High Priest who has given us instructions on how to distribute these funds on His behalf. "As you have done it unto the least of these ..." tells us how to handle the levitical tithe. Paul tells us that we should appoint people in the name of the High Preist for the distribution of the poor tithe, if it becomes too difficult for the individuls to administer. Finally, we consume the feast tithe in the presence of the High Preist at the appointed time.
In each of these cases, it is possible to keep HaTorah without needing to resort to two seperate systems. For Paul, he continued to yield to the levites in these matters until they refused to allow him to. At that point, I believe, he appealed to our High Priest and received clarification on how one serves Adonai under a corrupt leadership and without a Temple.
Hey Blue,your response first of all deserves a great big thank you!!I also feel compelled to say WOW 
I say because it is only now that I see a glimpse of what you actually believe,and I honestly have to say I thought I knew about every major offshoot,concerning the Christian faith.
Now in one post you just WOWED ME!!
I respect your position Blue,because it is your conscious and understanding of God's word and requirements that is on the line.I will not trample on that.
Thank you for clearing up the Gentile in leadership position comment.A lesser man would have put on his dancing shoes,or filibustered me until I gave up caring any longer.Hats off to you!!
The whole baptism comment in regards to the law I felt was interesting.It's not the first time I heard that position.I'm not sure if we would be t liberty to continue to delve into that here a little closer.I would love to get into that a little more.
Concerning the tithes portion,if I'm not mistaken you still owe me an explanation of your understanding of that on the Tithe thread.I asked you a question in that thread to which you responded,you would have to let me know.
I could have you mixed up with someone else though,so I could be wrong about you being the one who has over six months now to get back to answering my question 
If it's not to much trouble,I would like you to put a little more flesh on this statement as well to:He has clarified how one should enforce HaTorah in the absence of an ordained levite.
Thanks again Blue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/24/2009 8:22:28 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 485
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
Blue I thought about this in my travels this morning,and think it is worth noting.If there were only two positions available to choose from.One being,the entirety of Protestantism,the other being whatever you are,I would choose what you are.
I believe that you at least try to grapple,and reconcile the Old and the New Covenant,in keeping consistent with what is the will of God.I believe that in your heart,you are doing due diligence to walk circumspectly before God.I wholeheartedly respect you for that.
Not that it matters what I think Blue,because it doesn't.I'm just one more person seeing through a glass darkly.I know in part,I too am grappling to walk circumspectly before God.
I believe that the truth resides somewhere in the middle.I couldn't settle in your camp and find comfort anymore than I can the other.I think both camps put blinders on in some respect,and go to far to uphold a belief that scripture simply will not support.
That's just my thoughts for what it's worth Blue,God bless.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/24/2009 9:35:16 PM
|
|
|
LBolt
Posts: 798
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
|
I think that's why the" key's of the Kingdom" were that Christ spoke of in Matthew were vested to the Apostle Peter, and I believe all the apostles. There would be situations and circumstances that would arise that are not specifically spelled out in Scripture that need clarifying. He would back their decision, hence whatever you bind on earth would be bound in heaven...In other words allowing and prohibiting...halacha.
Apostle Paul, who was not from the tribe of Levi, did alot of teaching and biblical expositing. I am of the belief that it was Yah's intention that all Israel be a kingdom of priests unto our God. When the Levites administered divine justice when the Israelites sinned, it elevated them to a higher level than their fellow brethern as far as being priests with Aaron's line being high priests. What I can see, this was only a replica of the heavenly priesthood. The covenant we have is greater because we have a heavenly High Priest Who is Eternal, sinless, compassionate whose sacrifice is much greater contrasted to the priesthood that was in place. Which was compromised on a lot fronts. This, imo, is what was old and passing away.
We are under a greater priesthood, with greater promises
Switching gears again, I do know that we are the children of Abraham and we are to follow his lead. When it comes to the financial affairs of a local assembly, it is the responsibility of those who are being taught to support the work of the local assembly, the geniunely poor, as well as the Tabernacles tithe. As we all know, it takes finances to run a ministry.
I think what turns people off and what causes us to research deeeeeply (LOL) whether or not tithing is for today is because of the abuses of $$, financially draining programs, projects and building funds. And in return you have very little Biblical exposition and discipleship. I think a study of 2nd Temple Judiasm and the early church can give us practical ideas of were to start and how to structure our local assemblies. In a bum economy, it put a strain on ministries. I see some more savvy churches investing in real estate and other business ventures in order to supplement for loss of charitable proceeds.
We geniunely need more servant leaders to serve God's flock and we need to reform our theology in order to reflect what our heavenly Abba wants us to have. I've come to the conclusion that we aren't going to have it 100% sound until Messiah comes. We are going to have our own dogmas interjected. The approach we should take is to be humble and teachable and constantly striving to understand the mind of Yah and being willing to allow God to change us and mold us into the image of His dear Son. The Holy Spirit will lead us and we should follow His lead.
Sabbath and Torah in the early assembly was not a question. It was practiced. Yahshua taught about it. Non-Jews were grafted in to the family of God. He did not make one standard for the Jew and another for the non-Jew.
This is my jamboliya kosher post. LOL! Everything is put in here.
_____________________________
Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding...she shall give to thine head an ornament of grace..---Proverbs 4:7
www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-60604-743-9
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/25/2009 4:01:11 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
The whole baptism comment in regards to the law I felt was interesting.It's not the first time I heard that position.I'm not sure if we would be t liberty to continue to delve into that here a little closer.I would love to get into that a little more.
I'm not sure the discussion of mikvot(baptisms) would be moved to another thread. This could lead to a serious minion gathering for the mods. Given there seems to be a tendency to keep all things Torah on this thread. I must admit my view of the Scriptures has probably caused much difficulty in maintaining categories. Regardless, I am willing to discuss issues regardless of which thread I have to discuss them in. What is your interest regarding the mikvah(baptism)?
quote:
Concerning the tithes portion,if I'm not mistaken you still owe me an explanation of your understanding of that on the Tithe thread.I asked you a question in that thread to which you responded,you would have to let me know.
I could have you mixed up with someone else though,so I could be wrong about you being the one who has over six months now to get back to answering my question
I have never been on the finance forum. I did once respond to the giving of 10% on the "pardon my ignorance" bible thread. What is the question? I will try my best to keep the discussion related to HaTorah. 
quote:
If it's not to much trouble,I would like you to put a little more flesh on this statement as well to:He has clarified how one should enforce HaTorah in the absence of an ordained levite.
The context of that statement was justice, though it is a general principle with regard to anything one might depend on a levite to perform. Therefore, we have two issues to discuss. How does one administer justice without an anointed preist to officiant? Also, how is it that the levites were given these responsibilities and are they exclusive? Which of these two is of interest to you?
quote:
Blue I thought about this in my travels this morning,and think it is worth noting.If there were only two positions available to choose from.One being,the entirety of Protestantism,the other being whatever you are,I would choose what you are.
I believe that you at least try to grapple,and reconcile the Old and the New Covenant,in keeping consistent with what is the will of God.I believe that in your heart,you are doing due diligence to walk circumspectly before God.I wholeheartedly respect you for that.
Thank you for the note of confidence. However, your first point is of little significance. It is your second that is noteworthy. This is, in my opinion the essence of the Shema(Deut.). We are called to "grapple" with the angel of Adonai as Yakov did and for which he received the blessing of Israel. For me it is not a matter of reconciling "the Old and the New Covenant", for I begin with the premise that there is one covenant. What I must then reconcile is the various claims of those who call themselves Apostles and Prophets. If those claims can not be reconciled with HaTorah, one must consider them herecy, for that is what HaTorah says.
quote:
Not that it matters what I think Blue,because it doesn't.I'm just one more person seeing through a glass darkly.I know in part,I too am grappling to walk circumspectly before God.
On the contrary, it does matter what you think. Not that I would bow to your opinion over the Scriptures, but, as I illuded to before, what my neighbor thinks is at the center of the "second greatest" commandment. (Lev. 19:17-18) "Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." Though some may consider them harsh, the rightious Hasid(Orthodox) rebukes someone because they care. Some Hasidim are no doubt spiteful as are some Lutherans or Methodists. However, this does not undo the value of speaking to one another with what you call "spunk".
quote:
I believe that the truth resides somewhere in the middle.I couldn't settle in your camp and find comfort anymore than I can the other.I think both camps put blinders on in some respect,and go to far to uphold a belief that scripture simply will not support.
That is good. We are not to be comfortable settled in any camp. That is the point of Sukkot. It reminds us that (Ex 40:36-37) "In all the travels of the Israelites, whenever the cloud lifted from above the tabernacle, they would set out; but if the cloud did not lift, they did not set out--until the day it lifted." We are not to be comfortable, but must be prepared to set out at a moments notice to wherever Adonai might lead us.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/25/2009 5:40:18 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 485
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
The whole baptism comment in regards to the law I felt was interesting.It's not the first time I heard that position.I'm not sure if we would be t liberty to continue to delve into that here a little closer.I would love to get into that a little more.
I'm not sure the discussion of mikvot(baptisms) would be moved to another thread. This could lead to a serious minion gathering for the mods. Given there seems to be a tendency to keep all things Torah on this thread. I must admit my view of the Scriptures has probably caused much difficulty in maintaining categories. Regardless, I am willing to discuss issues regardless of which thread I have to discuss them in. What is your interest regarding the mikvah(baptism)? You Mentioned about Baptism being equally obsolete as circumcision is in regards to salvation.Those are not your exact words,but my understanding of what you posted.
In doing so you mentioned Paul being weary of the division among the Brothers @ Corinth,where he stated he was thankful he did not baptize any of them.
It's the last statement he made that was even more significant,that is that Jesus did not send him to baptize but to to preach the gospel.Are you of the school that what we term as the great commission from Jesus to his Disciples first stated in the Gospels,and then repeated in the book of Acts was a transitional command?Sort of like John's baptism?
Do you believe that physical baptism has lost it's significance as literal circumcision has?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/25/2009 5:47:24 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 485
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
In each of these cases, it is possible to keep HaTorah without needing to resort to two seperate systems. For Paul, he continued to yield to the levites in these matters until they refused to allow him to. At that point, I believe, he appealed to our High Priest and received clarification on how one serves Adonai under a corrupt leadership and without a Temple. Blue it's actually this whole statement that interest me.I want to know how it is you believe that this statement is true.
You believe that after Jesus met Paul on Damascus road, he continued to look past Jesus to a physical High priest,and literal Levites for pardon of sins,and that only after they refused to allow him to continue to so,that he looked to Jesus his High Priest?
So either Paul never came to Christ until after the Levites refused to have him,or after coming to Christ he then backslid to the law?
I would really like to know where you are coming from with this?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/25/2009 5:54:23 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 485
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
It is true that one is to take one's tithes to a levites, one for his provision, one for the poor and one to be consumed at Sukkot. For those without an ordained preist this would not be possible. However, as noted above, we have a High Priest who has given us instructions on how to distribute these funds on His behalf. "As you have done it unto the least of these ..." tells us how to handle the levitical tithe. Paul tells us that we should appoint people in the name of the High Preist for the distribution of the poor tithe, if it becomes too difficult for the individuls to administer. Finally, we consume the feast tithe in the presence of the High Preist at the appointed time. What are you talking about here?I mean I know what you're saying,but no offense it makes very little sense.In fact the only thing that would make sense is if we dropped the word tithe altogether and used offering instead.
Tithe is fixed,offering is flexible.One is mandatory,and given under compulsion,the other is given willingly,without compulsion.
One is demanded for blessing,and to avoid cursing,the other is expected and only promises blessings.
How about you just go back over this and explain it in biblical terms please.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/25/2009 5:40:11 PM
|
|
|
McFatty
Posts: 879
Joined: 12/8/2007
From: Augusta, GA
Status: offline
|
I've read a few pages back and still can't seem to find where we are in this discussion, though I'd like to ask the "keep the law" people how they interpret the letter to the Galatians.
_____________________________
"O LORD, You have pleaded my soul's cause; You have redeemed my life." - Lamentations 3:58
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/25/2009 6:16:09 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
You Mentioned about Baptism being equally obsolete as circumcision is in regards to salvation.Those are not your exact words,but my understanding of what you posted.
In doing so you mentioned Paul being weary of the division among the Brothers @ Corinth,where he stated he was thankful he did not baptize any of them.
It's the last statement he made that was even more significant,that is that Jesus did not send him to baptize but to to preach the gospel.Are you of the school that what we term as the great commission from Jesus to his Disciples first stated in the Gospels,and then repeated in the book of Acts was a transitional command?Sort of like John's baptism?
Do you believe that physical baptism has lost it's significance as literal circumcision has?
I am not sure obsolete is the right term. I believe, neither circumcision nor the mikvah(baptism) have ever been necessary for salvation. They are important for identification and preparation, but not for salvation. This confusion is what Paul is refering to when he equates circumcision and baptism to denighing the Sacrifice. If these things are necessary for salvation, them the Sacrifice is not sufficient.
That is not to say simply doing them is denighing the Sacrifice. If one asserts this latter with regard to circumcision based on Paul's testimony, they must then say the same of baptism. I personally do not believe that either one has been done away with but misunderstood.
Now regarding John's mikvah(baptism), the differentiation in the book of Acts refers to the two different purposes that I mentioned above, preparation and identification. John's was for repentence(preparation) and Yeshua's is for identification as one of His disciples.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/25/2009 6:56:24 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
Blue it's actually this whole statement that interest me.I want to know how it is you believe that this statement is true.
You believe that after Jesus met Paul on Damascus road, he continued to look past Jesus to a physical High priest,and literal Levites for pardon of sins,and that only after they refused to allow him to continue to so,that he looked to Jesus his High Priest?
So either Paul never came to Christ until after the Levites refused to have him,or after coming to Christ he then backslid to the law?
I would really like to know where you are coming from with this?
No, let me clarify. Paul probably didn't know what to think on the road to Damascus. He does begin to preach immediately, but we don't know the extent of his knowledge at that time. It is not certain when he made the High Priest connection, but let's presume he figured it out right away. Just because we have a new High Priest, does not mean that Adonai has changed the commandments regarding the levites.
Paul does tell us that when there is a change of High Preists the administration of HaTorah changes to suit the new High Priest. This does mean that we no longer are subject to the wide swings of interpretation that we experienced before Yeshua. However, it does not appear to do away with the levitical priesthood, per se. We know this is the case because, Paul continues to acknowledge their authority to the extent that they do not violate Yeshua's instructions. Even in his defense, he uses HaTorah to justify his actions and establish Yeshua's authority. He does not out right challenge the earthly high preist.
Therefore, if the levites were to acknowledge Yeshua as High Preist, there is no reason why they could not continue their commission. This leads to the question of why the levites do not continue that commission. For the sake of brevity, I will leave that for another post.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/25/2009 7:31:56 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunofone
Tithe is fixed,offering is flexible.One is mandatory,and given under compulsion,the other is given willingly,without compulsion.
One is demanded for blessing,and to avoid cursing,the other is expected and only promises blessings.
How about you just go back over this and explain it in biblical terms please.
This is not a truly accurate use of these terms, in my opinion. There are three tithes and there several offerings that are commanded. One has always been permitted to make a free will offering. The contriutions for the construction of the Tabernacle and Samuel were just such offerings. Now, there is compulsion in a sense with regard to tithes and offerings, but no more than with any other command. Also, the Tanach tells us that Adonai desires us to serve him with joy and not out of compulsion.
(2 Chr. 31:9-12a) "Hezekiah asked the priests and Levites about the heaps; and Azariah the chief priest, from the family of Zadok, answered, "Since the people began to bring their contributions to the temple of the Lord, we have had enough to eat and plenty to spare, because the Lord has blessed his people, and this great amount is left over." Hezekiah gave orders to prepare storerooms in the temple of the Lord, and this was done. Then they faithfully brought in the contributions, tithes and dedicated gifts."
Just because something is commanded does not mean it must be seen as a burden.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 3/25/2009 7:50:37 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 485
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
Thanks for your responses Blue.I appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 4/16/2009 4:47:38 PM
|
|
|
fallenstar
Posts: 60
Joined: 11/29/2007
Status: offline
|
This is a huge issue in almost all political issues that involve religon. Christians often tell non-believers that they don't really use the old testament for anything but the story of the Jews and psalms, but I am also aware that there are many Christians that do still use the laws in the old testament. But here is where the conflict comes in. Below is a few examples.
#1 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
THEY MUST BE PUT TO DEATH; their blood will be on their own heads -Leviticus 20:13
In accordance to the gay rights movement taking place currently in the USA, this raised a lot of hoopla in California. Most Christians in my area said only part of this is true. This would be that homosexuality is wrong. But would'nt that be picking and choosing? Choosing to follow part of the verse and not the rest?
#2 Leviticus 15:19 - 30:
19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
20 " 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.
24 " 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.
25 " 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.
28 " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.
And also : Ezekiel 36:17
17 "Son of man, when the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman's monthly uncleanness in my sight.
Of course you don't see people burning pigeons at churches anymore, and so this is a part of the old testament that people do not believe in anymore. This is a part of the old testament that is no longer a law, or a practice. I am certianly gald it is not anymore, because I find it slightly sexist and "over the top". It's like having you period is a sin or somthing, which is why so many people brought it to question. And, as is on topic, this is a part of the old testament we choose not to follow.
#3 But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)
"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)
"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)
Honestly, I think this is good advice. Things that crawl on the ocean floor are kind of like the fleas of the ocean, so to speak. They eat waste from other animals and eat the dirty scraps. But I'm sure you have eaten crab cakes before, or visited a Red Lobster. This si a part of the Old Testament that we ignore, because of advances in medical treatments, and there is a bacteria check on the food before it leaves the processors, or wherever it goes after it's caught. (I'm pretty sure) Yet still, it is picking and choosing.
All or nothing? In my oppinion, I think I can pick and choose all I want. Back in the day things were different, and the standard of life was lower. Certain things were traditional that are not now, and we have developed new traditions. I believe that as human being, we are allowed to change our minds. God gave us the gift of choice, and I think He will allow us to use it.
I made this thread because of certian propositions that brought me to wonder what other Christians are thinking. So what do you think? Do you think the Old Testament should be followed 100%, or just what is nessecary? Do you think that you understand why people would be angry at the Christian communtiy for "picking and choosing", or do you think they are incorrect in their statements?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 4/16/2009 5:07:47 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2934
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
I to have questioned the division of HaTorah into categories of applicable and inapplicable commandments. However, I would not be too hard on those who take that view. In fact, this accusation has been leveled at who choose to be observant, because we do not observe in a "strictly literal" fashion. One example of that is I believe we should continue to make sacrifice as a reminders of salvation, but it is not possible to do so. Therefore, since I can not do the impossible, I do not do it. Therefore, my approach to these questions is to examine each commandments one at a time and evaluate them both independantly and in light of the whole council of Adonai.
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 4/16/2009 5:16:13 PM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 4/17/2009 7:43:01 AM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 485
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
All or nothing? In my oppinion, I think I can pick and choose all I want. Back in the day things were different, and the standard of life was lower. Certain things were traditional that are not now, and we have developed new traditions. I believe that as human being, we are allowed to change our minds. God gave us the gift of choice, and I think He will allow us to use it.
I made this thread because of certian propositions that brought me to wonder what other Christians are thinking. So what do you think? Do you think the Old Testament should be followed 100%, or just what is nessecary? Do you think that you understand why people would be angry at the Christian communtiy for "picking and choosing", or do you think they are incorrect in their statements? Paul said if you back to the law you will subject to it's curses and Christ will be of none effect to you.It further says that you can not pick and choose what parts you will follow but he that will do the law must do all of it.To be guilty of any of it is to be guilty of all of it.
Christians can not find salvation through the law.It has to come through Jesus and him only.Having said that Paul also said that all scripture is given by God and is profitable for doctrine etc..
This word has to be properly or rightly divided.We need to take example of Jesus Christ and Paul and other Gospel writers who took what was in the Old Testament and applied New Testament understanding or application to it.
Look at how Jesus took Psalms of David and said they were speaking of him.Look at how Jesus told the leaders of his day that the scriptures testified of him,that if they understood the scriptures they would know they testified and spoke of him.
Paul used a law concerning muzzling not the ox and gave it a completely spiritual application,went as far as to say that the commandment was written with him,and other Elders in mind.
So the old is not rejected or dismissed,it is simply applied rightly,or rightly divided.This can only be done by and through our paraclete who teaches us all things.
As you have rightly stated to many are straggling the fence of old and new,applying some while dismissing others.They have placed their salvation in law and not Jesus,although they will deny this to be the truth.
How in the world are you going to pray that God would return the Temple which he destroyed to come back so you can offer sacrifices that he said he was not pleased with?
Total nonsense and blatant refusal to accept the stumbling block who is Jesus.You are right brother,it is all or nothing,not a mixture of the two,like the confusion of tithes and keeping of Sabbaths and holy days etc.. Paul would not have supported such nonsense.
Some even believe that circumcission is still necessary even though he said in more than three places that it is not.I am convinced that we are living in the times of Jesus where men are serving themselves believing themselves to be serving God.
Jesus is our salvation.Period,not a mixing of the new and old.Jesus only!!
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
