A Change Of The Law? Another Priesthood?

[Solo]

Satan doesn't like the Word of God. What is your problem with it?

Please, for the 4th time:

on topic, on topic, on topic.

I am on topic, but it isn't exactly what you want to deal with. The Torah, the Law is the bondage that the is exhibited as analogous to Abraham's fleshly son, while the grace of God through Jesus Christ is analogous to the promise given to the spiritual son. This scripture below refutes your whole premise.

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. Galatians 4:21-31

No, the difference is between many references with maybe a few, say 1-7 verses posted for a few scriptures vs. 3-4 references with nearly the whole chapters posted.

My comment that satan doesn't like the Word of God; What is your problem with it stems from your quote above. This is not a flame, and if you have a problem, address me in a PM about it, not on the forum. You will receive a formal warning if your previous post of the Rule 2 Flaming remark is not removed.

 

[wavy]

I am on topic, but it isn't exactly what you want to deal with. The Torah, the Law is the bondage that the is exhibited as analogous to Abraham's fleshly son, while the grace of God through Jesus Christ is analogous to the promise given to the spiritual son. This scripture below refutes your whole premise.

Galatians equates Hagar with Mt Sinai with Jerusalem. Those who enslave people with "works of law" are operating through the spirit of Hagar to boast in the flesh. That is all this is saying. It is not teaching that the Torah is bondage.

Please don't assume what I can and can't (or will and won't) deal with.

My comment that satan doesn't like the Word of God; What is your problem with it stems from your quote above. This is not a flame, and if you have a problem, address me in a PM about it, not on the forum. You will receive a formal warning if your previous post of the Rule 2 Flaming remark is not removed.

You can remove it. Do it yourself. It's not a remark. It's the truth. I don't have a problem.

 

[Vic C.]

You can remove it. Do it yourself. It's not a remark. It's the truth. I don't have a problem.

I already did. 8-)

I can build you a Forum if you like and you can be the Mod and dish out all the warning you like. Until then...

 

[yesha]

Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

It is convenient to, at the very least, consult the Strong's Concordance for clarification and to look at the context of the verses before making a judgment of honesty and integrity.

The first thing I want to point out is that "change", in both cases, does not mean "different", as in contrary to the former. Here is how they are defined in the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance in order:

G3346

μετατίθημι

metatithēmi

met-at-ith'-ay-mee

From G3326 and G5087; to transfer, that is, (literally) transport, (by implication) exchange, (reflexively) change sides, or (figuratively) pervert: - carry over, change, remove, translate, turn.

G3331

μετάθεσις

metathesis

met-ath'-es-is

From G3346; transposition, that is, transferral (to heaven), disestablishment (of a law): - change, removing, translation.

From this we can make the judgment that these mean to "shift", or to "transfer" from one place to another. The second "change", in the context of "a change also of law" (there is no definite article "the" in the Greek, so it is just "law"), is used 3 times in the NT, all here in Hebrews. Once it is used in the context of Enoch, when he was "translated" (Hebrews 11:5), the word being metathesis. He was still the same Enoch, however.

But what specifically, in context, was changed/shifted? The whole Torah? Many use this passage to say this, but that is not in context. The ongoing theme is the priesthood and how Messiah has taken over the priestly office in exchange for Aaron and the Levites. Hebrews 7:12 has not switched the context to the whole Torah, but only in context of how Messiah is scripturally the priest without violating Torah or setting the whole thing aside.

Whatever argument you might give about having to keep old covenant laws is refuted with this scripture.

Heb 8:13
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
(NIV)

There is no way around this. With this verse alone the debate is over.
You acknowledge that there is a "new" covenant, but seem unable to follow the logic presented in this verse which states that if something is new, what was previous is obsolete. But this is not a one verse victory, Paul went to much trouble to tell us that gentile Christians are not under OT law. Again whatever you may say about the topic, whatever you might try to pass as context, or say that the greek says something else, or whatever you do to believe this, it is utterly defeated by simply reading Galations, for example. No commentary neaded. It's a direct rebuttel against your views, which are very probable, in my view, the same views that the Jewdaizers held.

That being said, from some of my research I did find that Jews at that time period, and beginning about two hundred years previous, did elevate the law to something universal, as opposed to a covenant to compete with other philosophies of the period. What I found interesting however was the words used to describe the law, are almost the same as the words used in the NT to describe Christ. For example, all things were made through the Law. This might make an interesting thread topic, where Christ might be viewed as the Law incarnate. A view already accepted, but more limiting then the view God Incarnate. Perhaps this is the view that the Ebionites held?

 

[wavy]

Whatever argument you might give about having to keep old covenant laws is refuted with this scripture.

Heb 8:13
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
(NIV)

There is no way around this. With this verse alone the debate is over.
You acknowledge that there is a "new" covenant, but seem unable to follow the logic presented in this verse which states that if something is new, what was previous is obsolete. But this is not a one verse victory, Paul went to much trouble to tell us that gentile Christians are not under OT law. Again whatever you may say about the topic, whatever you might try to pass as context, or say that the greek says something else, or whatever you do to believe this, it is utterly defeated by simply reading Galations, for example. No commentary neaded. It's a direct rebuttel against your views, which are very probable, in my view, the same views that the Jewdaizers held.

Well, you and I got into this before. Your misunderstanding comes form the same mindest Peter warns about in 2 Peter 3:15-17.

Also, you still never answered me as to WHEN whatever became obsolete was "near disappearing". Until you have answered that, please do not bring that in here. You, basically saying "It can easily be seen by reading..." this and this and that, does not make you correct. Paul was a Jewish Rabbi. A Pharisee, and in addition to that understanding, given extra wisdom about scripture by Yahweh himself. So your misunderstanding of what he writes only displays, imo, ignorance about what he taught. No offense.

You can say I've been "utterly defeated", but you haven't done a thorough job of proving it. Sorry that you have to lie against Paul when he said more than once that he never spoke against Torah. He even disproved that in Acts 21. A new covenant does not change contents. Only the priesthood was changed. You picked this little grain of scripture, but ignored everything else that I said.

So again, say what you want. You haven't disproven it with anything other than your word.

 

[Rick W]

Whoa,
Please forgive me but has the purpose of the new priesthood been defined or discussed?

The reason I ask is Mormonism claims a priesthood, two in fact, the aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood. Their purpose is a form of hierarchy to distinguish who is qualified for certain duties/recognition within the LDS church.

So, what purpose would the priesthood serve in this particular instance?
If you're referring to Christ, His priesthood, then never mind. :D

 

[wavy]

Whoa,
Please forgive me but has the purpose of the new priesthood been defined or discussed?

No. Not once.

So, what purpose would the priesthood have in this particular instance?

Well, I haven't studied the whole thing out yet, but if you mean Levi's priesthood, I'd say they still have a role to play in sacrifices (in some form or another for whatever reason) in the new heavens and earth according to these scriptures:

Isaiah 66:21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith YHWH.
Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith YHWH, so shall your seed and your name remain.


Jeremiah 33:17 For thus saith YHWH; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Jeremiah 33:18 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.
Jeremiah 33:19 And the word of YHWH came unto Jeremiah, saying,
Jeremiah 33:20 Thus saith YHWH; 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;
Jeremiah 33:21 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.
Jeremiah 33:22 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.


This promise is as sure as Yahshua reigning upon David's throne.

Malachi 3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto YHWH an offering in righteousness.

I think there's more in Ezekiel. Check Ezekiel 40:46.

 

[Rick W]

So this is in reference to a heavenly duty, not earthly?

 

[wavy]

Well, if I am understanding your question right, Yahshua's priesthood has heavenly service and the Levites have the earthly service. But in the millenium and on into the new heavens and earth, Yahshua will be here and I believe he will govern the Levites in their duties.

 

[Rick W]

OK.
Mormons claim an earthly priesthood, here and now.

I'd say they still have a role to play in sacrifices (in some form or another for whatever reason) in the new heavens and earth according to these scriptures:

Sacrifice for what was my next question but I see "in some form or another for whatever reason"

Thing is Christ was the Lamb of God, the ultimate and I believe the final sacrifice.
the Levites were given the office of priests and general duties around and about most parts of the temple. Only the High Priest entered into the Holy of Holies. Was it only the High Priest that performed sacrifices?

Oh, just a little unsubstanciated tidbit:

I heard somewhere that the High Priest had a rope tied around him when he entered the Holy of Holies in case he died in there from bring unclean for some unforeseen reason. The others could pull him out. I have no biblical reference what-so-ever to back this up.

 

[Solo]

Well, if I am understanding your question right, Yahshua's priesthood has heavenly service and the Levites have the earthly service. But in the millenium and on into the new heavens and earth, Yahshua will be here and I believe he will govern the Levites in their duties.

The Levites have no priestly duties other than serving the High Priest Jesus Christ with the rest of the elect saved chosen of God.

 

[Rick W]

Well, you fellas are going over my head so I'll bow out of this one while I still can.
But thanks for answering my questions.

 

[wavy]

Thing is Christ was the Lamb of God, the ultimate and I believe the final sacrifice.

For sin, I believe, yes. I do believe in literal sacrifices being performed and it being acceptable to Yahweh in the future by the Levites. But what they represent, I wouldn't have a clue.

Maybe Yahweh really does like the smell as a "sweet savor". Who knows, lol?

Was it only the High Priest that performed sacrifices?

Of course not (I'm thinking this is a rhetorical question). He'd pass out.

I heard somewhere that the High Priest had a rope tied around him when he entered the Holy of Holies in case he died in there from bring unclean for some unforeseen reason. The others could pull him out. I have no biblical reference what-so-ever to back this up.

It does mention the bells in the scripture to know if he was still alive. As far as the rope? I think you'd have to go to other sources. Probably the Talmud. I haven't read it though.

 

[Rick W]

Well, you fellas are going over my head so I'll bow out of this one while I still can.
But thanks for answering my questions.

Again thanks.
You're right. Too many sacrifices to perform. Wasn't thinking.

Anyway,

peace

:smt039

 

[wavy]

The Levites have no priestly duties other than serving the High Priest Jesus Christ with the rest of the elect saved chosen of God.

Well, I guess the scriptures are a lie then.

 

[yesha]

Also, you still never answered me as to WHEN whatever became obsolete was "near disappearing". Until you have answered that, please do not bring that in here.

I'm pretty sure I did answer that. The 'whatever' is the Old Covenant. The 'when' is when the New Covenant was introduced. Therefore because there is a NEW covenant, it follows there is an obsolete OLD covenant. BAD it is obsolete not because it is bad, not because it promises are no longer valid, not because the New Covenant speaks against the Old, and not because it is now untrue, or no longer useful. But because the New is better. I believe the disappearing refers to the Old Covenant not being seen. That is you do not see anyone putting into practice the requirements of the Old Covenant. Since no one is doing it, it cannot be seen, and at the time of writing it was near disappearing, now it has long disappeared.

You, basically saying "It can easily be seen by reading..." this and this and that, does not make you correct.

Only God knows what is correct. However if everyone who reads something agree's to it's meaning, and has done so over thousands of years, with no differing points of views, and then one day someone says that everybody's wrong, and that everybody's reading it at a basic, unlearned, level, then very probably that person is wrong, but I agree we can't say for sure, just for pretty sure.

Paul was a Jewish Rabbi. A Pharisee, and in addition to that understanding, given extra wisdom about sccripture by Yahweh himself. So, your misunderstanding of what he writes only displays, imo, ignorance about what he taught. No offense.

First of all, I don't believe that Paul wrote Hebrews. Second it's not just my understanding.
You disagree with all English translations. You disagree with Lexicons. You disagree with Scholars, people who actually know what a Pharisee taught and believed. You seem to know something that nobody else does, this is like yeast. And it leads you read read scriptures in a way that nobody else can.

So what exactly do you know about what Pharisee's taught? What is you education, and the source of it, on the matter?
There seem to be a lot of Scholars who, having researched whatPhariseess believed, have a hard time believing Paul was a Pharisee or even knew any of their teachings. This, I believe is because Paul writes as though the Pharisee's taught that you had to strickly observe the law to be right with God, but what they really believed was you had to be identified with Israel. That is you had to be a Jew. And this mentality is, I think, what Paul is really writing against because you are not saved by being identified with Israel, you are saved by being identified with Christ. The three ways that Jews stood out was circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath.

Gal 5:2-3
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
(NIV)

Paul is obviously not stating here that we are under OT law which states that you must be circumcised.
You say we are obligated to obey the whole law. This implies to me that you are part of the circumcision group.

Rom 14:20
20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.
(NIV)

Paul declares all food as clean. Obviously he is not under OT Law.

Col 2:16
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
(NIV)

Gal 4:10-11
10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!
11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
(NIV)

Pauls says not to let any judge you on your observance of Sabbath or any other Old Covenant festival or dietary requirements. He is obviously not for OT law. The list goes on and on. Like I said it would take us months to cover all the scriptures which show we are not under OT law.

You can say I've been "utterly defeated", but you haven't done a thorough job of proving it. Sorry that you have to lie against Paul when he said more than once that he never spoke against Torah. He even disproved that in Acts 21. A new covenant does not mess with the contents. Only the priesthood was changed. You picked this little grain of scripture, but ignored everything else that I said.

Paul didn't speak against Torah, nor have I. You seem to think that the New Covenant is the same as the Old Covenant. If that was the case it would not be a New Covenant.

So again, say what you want. You haven't disproven it with anything other than your word.

The scriptures disprove you. If you can't see that, then our debates will only be arguing over the basic meaning of words. I can only refer to dictionaries, and once you've rejected their definitions, and the opinions of those who wrote them, what else can I say. I can't convince you, and without some kind of reproducable substance (that is your word of what the greek means isn't good enough, especially since you admit to not speaking it), you won't convince me.

 

[wavy]

I believe the disappearing refers to the Old Covenant not being seen. That is you do not see anyone putting into practice the requirements of the Old Covenant. Since no one is doing it, it cannot be seen, and at the time of writing it was near disappearing, now it has long disappeared.

This is untrue, because people still keep Torah. So this makes no sense. You seem to equate covenant with contents. More advantagous/better promises? Yes. Different contents? No. This must be superimposed in order to prove your doctrine although it is not consistent with scripture.

Only God knows what is correct. However if everyone who reads something agree's to it's meaning, and has done so over thousands of years, with no differing points of views, and then one day someone says that everybody's wrong, and that everybody's reading it at a basic, unlearned, level, then very probably that person is wrong, but I agree we can't say for sure, just for pretty sure.

This is based off the idea that I just made this up. And again, you base or make firm what you believe off of what everyone else believes. Bad argument, weak position. Matthew 7:13-14 and Luke 16:15 needs to be read. This is also propoganda.

You disagree with all English translations.

At certain (few) points, but this is generally untrue.

You disagree with Lexicons. You disagree with Scholars, people who actually know what a Pharisee taught and believed.

Lies. Propoganda.

You seem to know something that nobody else does, this is like yeast. And it leads you read read scriptures in a way that nobody else can.

More propoganda.

So what exactly do you know about what Pharisee's taught? What is you education, and the source of it, on the matter?

I have connections. I know Jewish Rabbi's. I've looked at this stuff and studied this stuff for a while myself. I don't think you have seriously investigated or intend to. You just like to find things that back your position, as you did with that commentary you gave me (as if that means anything to me) and played semantics out of context of scripture.

And this mentality is, I think, what Paul is really writing against because you are not saved by being identified with Israel, you are saved by being identified with Christ.

No, this is what qualified you as a true child of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Messiah is King of Israel. Israel is called by Yahweh's Name, therefore being indentified with Messiah identifies you as Israel, which is a good thing because they are the elect congregation.

Gal 5:2-3
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
(NIV)

Paul is obviously not stating here that we are under OT law which states that you must be circumcised.
You say we are obligated to obey the whole law. This implies to me that you are part of the circumcision group.

He's making a point on the order of the faith after the manner that Torah teaches with men like Abraham. He had faith and then was circumcised and as such, as he grew, he was revealed and obeyed Yahweh's Torah (please see Genesis 26:5).

The problem was being circumcised for justification and being circumcised before true understanding and mature faith. Otherwise, Paul put Timothy in "bondage" for circumcising him in Acts 16. Once circumcision comes, that is a statement that you are ready for true Torah obedience.

Rom 14:20
20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.
(NIV)

Paul declares all food as clean. Obviously he is not under OT Law.

This would only make the slightest amount of sense if the context was clean vs. unclean. No, it is meat vs. vegetables (Romans 14:2) most likely in the context of meat sacrificed to idols if we compare 1 Corinthians chapters 8 & 10.

This is about as absurd (no offense) as saying Yahweh has sinned, since the bible says "all have sinned". No, the context is what? ALL HUMANS (that are not Yahshua). Jews and Gentiles.

This is also about as absurd (no offense) as saying the gospel is supposed to be preached to every single living thing on this earth because the gospel was supposed to be preached "unto every creature". No the context is logically MANKIND.

You see the word "all" and "food" and "clean" and take this completely out of context which makes it just as silly as the situations above.

Here, in essence, is how you are interpreting Romans:

"There are some who are weak in the faith who only eat vegetables because of fear of meat being sacrificed to idols. Some go ahead and eat the meat. Don't let anyone judge anyone else in this matter. Let all men come to their own conclusions about this because all foods are clean and we may eat pork".

A complete butchering. With a Hebraic mindset, we know that the only thing considered "food" is what is permissable in Torah as Yahweh outlined it. This is the correct mindset and the correct context.

Col 2:16
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
(NIV)

Exactly. Those outside the body of Messiah cannot tell us what to do when we worship or observe these eternal Torah commands. Once again, mutilation of context. The context is the commandments and doctrines of men. So, please be prepared to argue that these Torah mitzvot are commandments of men.

Gal 4:10-11
10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!
11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
(NIV)

And again, a butchering of context. The context is these believers returning to when the DID NOT KNOW YAHWEH and were serving other gods. Please read:

Galatians 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not YHWH, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known YHWH, or rather are known of YHWH, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

So please, once again, keep things in context. This tells us they were also being subject to paganism, or their masters ("works of law" group) were defiling their worship and loyalty to Yahweh based off of man's principles of justification and spiritual ranking systems. These manmade dogmas for justification and works can be seen and traced to the Qumran community, which the Jerusalem group was mimicking:

Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q-255-264a, 5Q11 column 5, Lines 20-24:

"They are to be enrolled by rank, one man higher than his fellow-as the case may be-by virtue of his understanding and works. Thus each fellow will obey his superior."

These type of groups had a self-appointed "teacher of righteousness" along with elders that decided the prerequisites for salvation. They were enslaving the Galatians as second-class citizens, not liberated from captivity as true Israelites.

This is the liberty of Messiah that he proclaimed when he quoted Isaiah:

Luke 4:18 The Spirit of YHWH is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luke 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of YHWH.
Luke 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luke 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

This was his mission. To proclaim salvation and liberty to the exiles through his mission to restore and regather Israel, as is all over the prophets and in NT scriptures like Matthew 15:24 and Acts 1:6-8.

The problem was a group of Jews proclaiming they were not truly saved until they had submitted themselves to the Jews as second-class citizens still considered unclean gentiles until they had come to full Torah obedience as Jewish prosyletes.

Torah cannot be called "weak and beggarly" by a Jewish Rabbi or by anyone else. This shows you how far the human heart is from Yahweh and how much of a liar they are willing to make him just so they can disobey his commandments.

Pauls says not to let any judge you on your observance of Sabbath or any other Old Covenant festival or dietary requirements.

Prohibition of certain drinks isn't even a dietary requirement in Torah (except for Nazarites and priests etc). To say he is saying not to let anyone tell you to keep these "big, bad" Torah observances is absurd (no offense). This is clearly seen when he mentions drink. Is he saying "don't let anyone tell you you have to drink" or "eat"? No. Why is the context switched over to "don't let anyone tell you you have to keep the sabbath" etc?

I don't know. Rather, more logically, he's saying don't let men tell you what to eat or drink when you eat or drink, or what to do in regard or in part/sharing of the feasts, sabbath's new moon festivals etc when you do these things either.

He is obviously not for OT law. The list goes on and on. Like I said it would take us months to cover all the scriptures which show we are not under OT law.

Then it would takes months and months to continue proving this untrue.

Paul didn't speak against Torah, nor have I.

Sure, you haven't...

You seem to think that the New Covenant is the same as the Old Covenant. If that was the case it would not be a New Covenant.

You seem to think a new covenant has anything to do with contents. On the contrary, the new covenant is still given as Torah:

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

The same word used here for these three words in the KJV:

Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

The scriptures disprove you.

]According to your biased, and yes, non-Hebraic, and according to Peter, "unlearned" and "biased" views.

I can only refer to dictionaries, and once you've rejected their definitions, and the opinions of those who wrote them, what else can I say.

You act like you have done this a lot. What you do is argue semantically and out of context when you do use "dictionaries" and biased commentaries. Tell me, are you an evolutionist?

I can't convince you, and without some kind of reproducable substance (that is your word of what the greek means isn't good enough, especially since you admit to not speaking it), you won't convince me.

You play semantic games and only used a Lexicon ONCE to prove the meaning of ONE word (the Greek word en). Which, in context, makes no difference to what is being conveyed by the author. But anyway, you trust in the theology of scholars who teach against Torah and Tanach and have their followers with their noses glued to 1/3 of the bible, when the foundation for what we believe is the Tanach. During the 1st century and during the time Paul taught, his students and those he wrote to had a different foundation than what most people today have. The results have been disastrous.

 

[yesha]

This is untrue, because people still keep Torah. So this makes no sense.

You should start clarifying what you mean by Torah.
I'm talking about the Old Covenant.
If people kept the Torah, then there would be peace in Israel. (lev 26:6)

You seem to equate covenant with contents.

I am perplexed that you do not. You are suggesting that an agreement between people has nothing to do with the terms of the agreement?

More advantagous/better promises? Yes. Different contents? No. This must be superimposed in order to prove your doctrine although it is not consistent with scripture.

More advantagous and better promises, but the same. This is a contradiction. If something is more or better then something else it is not the same.

This is based off the idea that I just made this up.

I been trying to figure out where you get your ideas. If you didn't make it up then where else can I find it?

Quote:
You disagree with all English translations.

At certain points.

This is because you views are not supported by the scriptues.

Quote:
You disagree with Lexicons. You disagree with Scholars, people who actually know what a Pharisee taught and believed.

Lies. Propoganda.

Let me reword it then. At the points you disagree with all English translations, you also disagree with the opinions of those who write lexicons, and scholars who write commentaries, not to mention scholars who do the translation.

Quote:
You seem to know something that nobody else does, this is like yeast. And it leads you read read scriptures in a way that nobody else can.

More propoganda.

Has anyone you've ever talked with agreed with your view that Christians are under Old Covenant law?

Quote:
So what exactly do you know about what Pharisee's taught? What is you education, and the source of it, on the matter?

I have connections. I know Jewish Rabbi's. I've looked at this stuff and studied this stuff for a while myself. I don't think you have seriously investigated or intend to. You just like to find things that back your position, as you did with that commentary you gave me (as if that means anything to me) and played semantics out of context of scripture.

What you are lacking is something that backs up your position. If you've looked into it, then you should have found something that supports your views.

No, this is what qualified you as a true child of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Messiah is king of Israel. Israel is called by Yahweh's Name, therefore being indentified with Messiah identifies you as Israel, which is a good thing because they are the elect congregation.

This is true, but Jews (who are already identified with Israel) need to be identified with Christ.

Quote:
Gal 5:2-3
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
(NIV)

He's making a point on the order of the faith after the manner that Torah teaches with men like Abraham. He had faith and then was circumcised and as such, as he grew, he was revealed and obeyed Yahweh's Torah (please see Genesis 26:5).

You should refrain from using Torah in conversations, because it is too ambiguous.
I'm talking about Old Covenant Law. Not teaching from God in general.
You claim that Christians are under Old Covenant Law, and even go so far as to say that the Old and New have the same contents. The Law says be circumcised. Paul is warning them not to. It is rediculous to believe that Paul, whom you believe requires Christians to live under Old covenant Law, is warning people not to fulfill it's requirement of circumcision or Christ will be of no value to them at all, and then they will have to then obey the Law which they are already under.

The problem was being circumcised for justification and being circumcised before true understanding and mature faith. Otherwise, Paul put Timothy in "bondage" for circumcising him in Acts 16. Once circumcision comes, that is a statement that you are ready for true Torah obedience.

Jews were not commanded to have true understanding and mature faith before being circumcised. Eight days old.
Timothy was not circumcised to fulfill the requirements of the Law.
Nor was he circumcised because he now had a true understanding and mature faith.
Paul is warning about haveing to obey the whole law, he is not suggesting to finish with the flesh what was began with the Spirit.

Quote:
Rom 14:20
20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.
(NIV)

Paul declares all food as clean. Obviously he is not under OT Law.

This would only make the slightest amount of sense if the context was clean vs. unclean. No, it is meat vs. vegetables (Romans 14:2) most likely in the context of meat sacrificed to idols if we compare 1 Corinthians chapters 8 & 10.

Paul says all things are clean. You read some meats are clean.
Paul says:

Rom 14:14
14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.
(NIV)

You say he meant no clean meat is unclean.

The context is clean and unclean, because these are the words Paul uses. Since all things are clean, even meat sacrfices to idols is clean and ok to eat because it is consecrated by prayer. That is if your faith isn't weak.

This is about as absurd (no offense) as saying Yahweh has sinned, since the bible says "all have sinned". No, the context is what? ALL HUMANS (that are not Yahshua). Jews and Gentiles.

When the bible says all have sinned, it's meaning is clear. When Paul says all things are clean and that there is nothing unclean of it's self, the view that he means something other then what he says is absurd.

Here, in essence, is how you are interpreting Romans:

"There are some who are weak in the faith who only eat vegetables because of fear of meat being sacrificed to idols. Some go ahead and eat the meat. Don't let anyone judge anyone else in this matter. Let all men come to their own conclusions about this because all foods are clean and we may eat pork".

A complete butchering. With a Hebraic mindset, we know that the only thing considered "food" is what is permissable in Torah as Yahweh outlined it. This is the correct mindset and the correct context.

Lets see how this holds up.

Mark 7:18-19
18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?
19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all {clean} foods "clean.")
(NIV)

Your argument is silly.

All {clean} food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.
As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no {clean} food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

Almost humourous, yet sad.

Quote:
Col 2:16
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
(NIV)

Exactly. Those outside the body of Messiah cannot tell us what to do when we worship or observe these eternal Torah commands. Once again, mutilation of context. The context is the commandments and doctrines of men. So, please be prepared to argue that these Torah mitzvot are commandments of men.

New Moon celebrations and Sabbaths are not commandments of men, except when stated by people who say that they must be observed when God doesn't command so.

Quote:
Gal 4:10-11
10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!
11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
(NIV)

And again, a butchering of context. The context is these believers returning to when the DID NOT KNOW YAHWEH and were serving other gods. Please read:

The context is those who are being led astry by those who say they must live under Old Covenant law (v21).

Galatians 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not YHWH, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known YHWH, or rather are known of YHWH, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

They would be returning to worship in a similar way to the false worship they previously gave.

God wants people to worship in Sprit.

John 4:23-24
23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
(NIV)

Not under bondage of Old Covenant law.

Isa 1:13
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations-- I cannot bear your evil assemblies.
(NIV)

So please, once again, keep things in context. This tells us they were also being subject to paganism, or their masters ("works of law" group) were defiling their worship and loyalty to Yahweh based off of man's principles of justification and spiritual ranking systems. These manmade dogmas for justification and works can be seen and traced to the Qumran community, which the Jerusalem group was mimicking:

The context of Galations is freedom from Law not superiors.

Gal 3:2-3
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?
(NIV)

The problem was a group of Jews proclaiming they were not truly saved until they had submitted themselves to the Jews as second-class citizens who were still unclean gentiles until they had come to full Torah obedience as Jewish prosyletes.

I didn't read much about second-class citizens in Galations. But alot about freedom from Law.
But don't you believe Christians must come to full Torah obediance as Jewish prosyletes?

Torah cannot be called "weak and beggarly" by a Jewish Rabbi or by anyone else. This shows you how far the human heart is from Yahweh and how much of a liar they are willing to make him just so they can disobey his commandments.

Gal 4:9
9 But now that you know God-- or rather are known by God-- how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?
(NIV)

It is a weak and misiable pricipal to believe you can save your self by obeying commandments.
Paul considers his past life of strick Torah obediance as dung.

Phil 3:8-9
8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-- the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
(NIV)

Prohibition of certain drinks isn't even a dietary requirement in Torah (except for Nazarites and priests etc). To say he is saying not to let anyone tell you to keep these "big, bad" Torah observances is absurd (no offense). This is clearly seen when he mentions drink. Is he saying "don't let anyone tell you you have to drink" or "eat"? No. Why is the context switched over to "don't let anyone tell you you have to keep the sabbath" etc?

Eat or drink, what you consume, as nothing in it's self is unclean.
Sabbaths, new moons, ect are Torah observances.
The context is consistant. People say gentile converts must live as Jews to be saved.
They are not saved by observing Old Covenant laws.

You seem to think a new covenant has anything to do with contents. On the contrary, the new covenant is still given as Torah:

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

The New Testament is Torah in the sense that it is teachings from God. It is not Torah in terms of Torah of Moses. Whatever you think this verse says to support that a covenant has nothing to do with it's contents is beyond me.

The same word used here for these three words in the KJV:

Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

And? Somehow covenant has nothing to do with it's contents?

 

[wavy]

You should start clarifying what you mean by Torah.
I'm talking about the Old Covenant. If people kept the Torah, then there would be peace in Israel. (lev 26:6)

The Book of the Covenant. Also, what is known as the first five books. And there can only be peace in Israel if all Israel was in the land practicing Torah. However, all Israel does not keep Torah. Much of Israel is caught up in lawless forms of Christendom.

[quote:91580]You seem to equate covenant with contents.

I am perplexed that you do not. You are suggesting that an agreement between people has nothing to do with the terms of the agreement?

[/quote:91580]

Never said this. If I make a contract with you wherein we exchange a certain valuable object between one another (just imagine whatever you want), and say you must do this (keep it for a certain time) and I'll do this (keep it for a certain time), what you have to do is NOT the covenant. They are the TERMS of the covenant, and that is my exact point.

And old covenant vs. a new covenant has nothing to do with the TERMS but the overall thing we are trying to accomplish, which would be to make sure we exchange the object. However, if you broke your part because of an evil, decietful heart, and I had GRACE enough to not immediately destroy you but find a way to redeem you, I would make a NEW COVENANT. This time, for instance, to make sure you don't BREAK the terms again, I'd give you a new heart so you could DO IT.

Fairly simple to understand.

More advantagous and better promises, but the same. This is a contradiction. If something is more or better then something else it is not the same.

No, because you are mixing the covenant itself with the terms...

I been trying to figure out where you get your ideas. If you didn't make it up then where else can I find it?

I forgot that you need to make sure other, numerous people believe something before you accept it or even hear it. But there's generally a main viewpoint held by many of those such as in Messianic Jewish movements and other Messianic circles. I don't think you have done thorough research.

Your main excuse is "this scholar which I have chosen beforehand because he agrees with my opinion does not agree with you and so therefore what you believe must be wrong".

This is because you views are not supported by the scriptues.

Once again, you've not done a very good job of proving that. Semantic games and the definition of a word has no bearing on theological standpoints.

Let me reword it then. At the points you disagree with all English translations, you also disagree with the opinions of those who write lexicons, and scholars who write commentaries, not to mention scholars who do the translation.

I'm sorry those that agree with your opinion because of bias translate things into English very unfairly . Not all the time, but in some instances. Sorry that you cannot see this because it contradicts those who hold your theology.

But again, you played a little semantic game on the Greek word en for the most part. But even that makes no difference. The message, theologically, stays the same. If you think with all the many translations and variations of how they read come about by scholars interpreting literally and without bias then I must say that you have are on a completely different level from myself (no offense).

The few translations you argued were trivial. Had no bearing on the content and context of the scripture. So please, once again, don't spread propoganda.

Has anyone you've ever talked with agreed with your view that Christians are under Old Covenant law? .

An old covenant law implies a new covenant law. One which you have not proven to exist. And again, you don't seem to see the difference between the covenant itself and the terms.

What you are lacking is something that backs up your position. If you've looked into it, then you should have found something that supports your views.

This was an ignorant statement. Specify what my views are first. Then please do some research.

This is true, but Jews (who are already identified with Israel) need to be identified with Christ.

Israel after the flesh, but not redeemed.

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of YHWH hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

To be a part of new covenant Israel under Messiah, you must accept Messiah. First covenant Israel was a foreshadow of the redemption and glory coming through new covenant Israel.

I'm talking about Old Covenant Law. Not teaching from God in general.
You claim that Christians are under Old Covenant Law, and even go so far as to say that the Old and New have the same contents.

"Old covenant law" implies a "new covenant law". Something, once again, you have not proven. And again, the difference between the covenant itself and the contents (book of the covenant) is something you need to get together. "Law" is not a covenant. [/color]

The Law says be circumcised. Paul is warning them not to.

Wrong. Unproven because you do not understand his message and don't want to listen to another viewpoint because you like to find scholars and theologians that agree with what you already believe...

It is rediculous to believe that Paul, whom you believe requires Christians to live under Old covenant Law, is warning people not to fulfill it's requirement of circumcision or Christ will be of no value to them at all, and then they will have to then obey the Law which they are already under.

It seems you ignored the points I made. This made no sense in light of anything I have ever said whatsoever.

There is no such thing as "old covenant law".

Jews were not commanded to have true understanding and mature faith before being circumcised. Eight days old.

But this is for people who are BEYOND EIGHT DAYS OLD. So what Paul had to do was give an example of Abraham which is directly from the Torah. Paul makes this clear in Romans:

Romans 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the Torah through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the Torah

Pretend there are no chapters and verses. He continues from the flow of the end of chapter 3 here into chapter 4 explaining that Abraham was justified because of his faith even though he was not circumcised yet:

Romans 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Romans 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Plain and clear. His point is that before Torah came, Abraham was already promised to be a father of nations and was justified and accounted righteous because of his faith. Because of this, he obeyed, as James makes it clear, and recieved circumcision as a sign when he was already justified.

This was the problem. People preaching that you had to be circumcised after the Torah (eigth day) to be saved. Paul uses TORAH to make the point that that is untrue for those entering the faith. Quite simple. Now we take the steps of Abraham.

Timothy was not circumcised to fulfill the requirements of the Law.
Nor was he circumcised because he now had a true understanding and mature faith.

Well, then basically Paul put him in "bondage" because of cowardly fear, as most Christians interpret that passage to mean. They try their best to sugarcoat it with nonsense like "he was just doing it for the Jews' sake" etc.

Paul is warning about haveing to obey the whole law, he is not suggesting to finish with the flesh what was began with the Spirit.

Wrong. Biased, unlearned thought. Torah is not "flesh". Torah is spiritual (Romans 7:14). Being made "perfect by the flesh", as Paul puts it in Galatians 3, is being subject to man's interpretation and justification for salvation. This is the "flesh". Please see Galatians 6:13. Not being faitfully obedient as Abraham was.

There's a difference. In your case, Abraham is not the father of them that believe. He had faith and then put himself in "bondage" and became perfect by the flesh because he was circumcised later and obeyed the Torah as it was revealed to him (Genesis 26:5).

Most Christians today cannot see the difference between mandated legalism, and true, hearfelt obedience.

Paul says all things are clean. You read some meats are clean.
Paul says:

Rom 14:14
14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.
(NIV)

You say he meant no clean meat is unclean.

The context is clean and unclean, because these are the words Paul uses. Since all things are clean, even meat sacrfices to idols is clean and ok to eat because it is consecrated by prayer. That is if your faith isn't weak.

No wrong. The Greek word is the word used for "common". Clean foods can become common. The context is not clean vs. unclean as it is defined in Torah. But eating meats vs vegetables, with regards to whether or not the meat (sacrificed to idols) is ok, a.k.a. pure/clean to eat. You have totally ignored the meats/vegetables context.

All "food" is indeed alright to eat. Unclean meats are not "food", however. Leviticus 11:2.

Also, please read Revelation 18:2, written after Galatians to see that Yahweh considers at least ONE animal unclean, thus, by your logic, all foods are not clean.

When the bible says all have sinned, it's meaning is clear.

And so it is when he says all foods are clean. You don't see this because you are biased and don't want to see it. Non-Hebraic mindset. Unclean meats as they are defined in Torah are not considered FOOD.

When Paul says all things are clean and that there is nothing unclean of it's self, the view that he means something other then what he says is absurd.

Again, this would only make sense if you understood the definition of the word "unclean" (common) and the context of the passage.

Lets see how this holds up.

Mark 7:18-19
18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?
19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all {clean} foods "clean.")
(NIV)

Your argument is silly.

Your argument is the silly one, imo. And it is my understanding that this phrase is not found in most Greek manuscripts ("in saying this, jesus declared...") Many bibles, however, translate it this way because of BIAS. And here again you butcher context. The context is obeying Yahweh's commands vs. man's commands. If he reversed any laws here he would have been a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:1-5) and also hypocritically destroyed his own point:

Matthew 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

His point is not EVEN FOOD, really. His point is that nothing going into a man can defile his inner man. And yes, this does include unclean foods. BUT, what defiles the inner man is what he thinks and what comes out of his mouth. And what comes out of his mouth are rotten attributes (works of the flesh) that seek to find loopholes in Yahweh's commandments that cause him to DISOBEY the commandments of Yahweh for his own manmade justification and rituals.

The point is man vs. Yahweh, not clean vs. unclean once again. Sorry that you choose to stay biased and cannot understand this. Please read in context. What type of food is not even an issue here in Mark 7 or the same event mentioned in Matthew 15.

Almost humourous, yet sad.

Yes, it is very sad.

New Moon celebrations and Sabbaths are not commandments of men, except when stated by people who say that they must be observed when God doesn't command so.

Well, you haven't proven this. He did command so. It's in five books/scrolls called the Torah and he was kickin butt all throughout the prophets for the breaking of these commands.

The context is those who are being led astry by those who say they must live under Old Covenant law (v21).

Please continuing reading before you make points. You ignored what I said and didn't even address the point. You just reversed it. And again, no such thing as "old covenant law". You understanding of this comes from the Torah being in what man (not Yahweh) has labled the "old testament" in the first 2/3 of the bible.

They would be returning to worship in a similar way to the false worship they previously gave.

God wants people to worship in Sprit.

A stretch. You are near equating Torah-obedient worship with false worship of pagan ways. Again, just shows how far the human heart is willing to go to disobey Yahweh.

Not under bondage of Old Covenant law.

Torah is both spiritual and truth:

Psalm 119:142 Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy Torah is the truth.

You superimpose everything in the NT in contrary to Torah based off of BIAS not the scripture itself.

Isa 1:13
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations-- I cannot bear your evil assemblies.
(NIV)

Out of context. And this sheds some light on exactly where your level of understanding is at, no offense. This is why I stopped arguing with you last time. He also said this:

Isaiah 1:15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

The context is where the people are at in their worship, which is in sin. They were defiled in spirit and made Torah obedience, and PRAYER vain. Not because of the things itself. But because of the people. This is the "spirit and truth" Yahshua spoke of in John 4. Not truth that means "Torah is bondage" as you seem to make almost every passage say.

But truth that is in the spirit to obey in faith with a pure heart. This is the 4th incident of you taking things out of context in this post alone.

The context of Galations is freedom from Law not superiors.

Sorry to say. But I do not see that you have done a good job proving this.

I didn't read much about second-class citizens in Galations. But alot about freedom from Law.

It's called historical context. This is your opinion based off of bias (how many times have I said that?) and inconsitency of the scripture based off of a Greco-Roman mindset of the scriptures rather than true Hebraic principles. This is why I don't like these types of debates. Two (or more) people looking at scripture in a completely different light.

My advantage is, though, I argued everything you do for a long time.

Anti-Torah Christians are the most impossible people to reasonably debate with. I know. I was one of them.

It is a weak and misiable pricipal to believe you can save your self by obeying commandments.

My point exactly.

Paul considers his past life of strick Torah obediance as dung.

Phil 3:8-9
8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-- the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

For what it was WORTH. He was a persecutor. His heart wasn't where it needed to be. It was for his personal gain. Not out of faith or love:

Galatians 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

For true right-standing with Yahweh, what he did in the past is (more accurately "garbage"), and doesn't mean anything anymore because he counted them for selfish gain. But Yahshua is what brings us into right standing that brings salvation.

Again, out of context incident #5. He's glorifying Messiah as YHWH Tzidqaynu, Yahweh our righteouness, as he should be. And YHWH surpasses all Torah and all righteous men and kings and is above boasting of yourself in the flesh.

He is glorifying Messiah, not degrading the very Torah that Yahweh gave himself.

Eat or drink, what you consume, as nothing in it's self is unclean.

*sigh*

People say gentile converts must live as Jews to be saved. They are not saved by observing Old Covenant laws.

I don't dispute this. Your problem is not understanding why I don't dispute this. I swear that everytime I get into arguments like these, some one always makes a comment like this which is irrelevant to the point...

And again, no such thing as "old covenant law".

The New Testament is Torah in the sense that it is teachings from God.

Cop-out answer. All scripture is teachings from Yahweh.

It is not Torah in terms of Torah of Moses. Whatever you think this verse says to support that a covenant has nothing to do with it's contents is beyond me.

*sigh*

You are aware that Yahweh commanded Torah, right?

And? Somehow covenant has nothing to do with it's contents?

I can't debate anymore...

Be cool. Sorry if I seemed impatient and a little angry. I'm a little on edge tonight. I'm also very tired. Not the best excuse, but just telling you that there are no hard feelings.

 

[Vic C.]

Behave yourself or your posts will go the way of the Coelacanth.

Uh, er... you know what I mean.


:-?