Could ALL of Gods Laws REALLY Have been NAILED to HIS CROSS

[einstein]

I do not see how your argument countered what has been stated. The word olam means forever or everlasting. As previously stated, there are instances where it does not literally mean that- but in those instances the context allows one to discern the meaning. It's not that different from English usage of of words such as "ear" -obviously an examination of a sentence where this word is used allows us to understand whether we are referring to an organ of hearing or corn on the cob.

The Eternal's mitzvot (commandments) and his covenant with Israel are forever as stated in the Tanakh on multiple occasions. One example: Ps 111:3....and His righteousness endures FOREVER.
5....He remembers His covenant FOREVER. 7...all Hid commandments are faithful. 8 steadfast FOREVER...9 He sent redemption to His people; He commanded His covenant FOREVER. Do you really think that King David is talking about a temporary state of affairs?

 

[Entropic_Prodigy]

Re: Could ALL of Gods Laws REALLY Have been NAILED to HIS CROSS?

:amen

 

[RND]

einstein I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind sharing your perspective as to how a stranger became an Israelite.

 

[Drew]

I do not see how your argument countered what has been stated. The word olam means forever or everlasting. As previously stated, there are instances where it does not literally mean that- but in those instances the context allows one to discern the meaning.

Agree, but you then need to make a context argument that it means forever in specific relation to the duration of the Levitical priesthood. And so would I to support my claim that its use in that context is one where only a time-limited duration is implied. In that respect, I think that the global scriptural picture forces us to conclude that the writer of Exodus was using the term in a "time-limited" sense. I fully admit that this present post simply states my position - I may argue for it later.

But that is the important point here - neither of us can simply claim a meaning for owlam in the Exodus 40 context. Given its varied usage elsewhere, we each need to make a case. Now I understand that you do not consider the New Testament to be authoritative. And that is your right. My context argument for reading owlam in Exodus 40 would appeal strongly to the New Testament. So I suspect we will disagree of what the legitimate scope of context is.

 

[einstein]

einstein I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind sharing your perspective as to how a stranger became an Israelite.

RND- Not being an authority on conversion- I can only say that much depends on what denomination of Judaism you are referring to. Converts to orthodox judaism must appear before a "beth din" or religious court administered by at least 3 rabbinic authorities. The specifics are dealt with in the Talmud.

 

[RND]

einstein I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind sharing your perspective as to how a stranger became an Israelite.

RND- Not being an authority on conversion- I can only say that much depends on what denomination of Judaism you are referring to. Converts to orthodox judaism must appear before a "beth din" or religious court administered by at least 3 rabbinic authorities. The specifics are dealt with in the Talmud.

einstein, I was referring to the Torah and not the Talmud. Hebraic conversion versus Rabbinic. Exodus 12 and beyond.

 

[wavy]

Eccl12and13,


According to Hebrews vii.12 the law has been 'changed', i.e., abolished. This is simply a matter of Greek parlance.


Thanks,
E.L.B.

 

[Eccl12and13]

Eccl12and13,


According to Hebrews vii.12 the law has been 'changed', i.e., abolished. This is simply a matter of Greek parlance.


Thanks,
E.L.B.

Changed - become or make different: to become different, or make something or somebody different

Abolished - outlaw something: to put an end to something such as a law

There is no way one word could mean the other. If we are to believe the holy scriptures for what they are then we MUST accept the fact that:

2 Tim.3
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If the writer was inspired to write 'Changed" then that is what we are to accept. If the writer meant to write 'Abolished" then the holy spirit would have given him that to write.

The scripture says the law was changed because there was a change in the priesthood. It DID NOT SAY the law was abolished because the priesthood was abolished.

 

[wavy]

Changed - become or make different: to become different, or make something or somebody different

Abolished - outlaw something: to put an end to something such as a law

There is no way one word could mean the other.

The parallel terms for a change in Law and priesthood reflect common parlance for the alteration of a law or the removal of a priest from office. but what the author has in mind is obviously not an ordinary amendment of a law. He will later use [metatiqhmi] for the translation or removal of Enoch (11:5) and the complete disappearance of the shaky phenomenal world (12:27). Hence, as becomes clear with the reference to the "abolition" ([aqethsiv]) of the Law in vs 18, the supplanting of the Levitical priesthood by Christ has profound effects.
--H. W. Attridge, Hebrews: A Commentary, Hermeneia, Fortress Press, 1989, pp. 200-1


In case you did not understand, the way the Greek words are used here in this context necessitates that the law has been abrogated.

What the author has in mind here is not a reapplication of the same law to Jesus. If that were the case, he could not have said that there are priests who offer gifts according to the law in contrast to Jesus (Hebrews viii.4). Rather, what the author has in mind is a totally original institution enacted by the new covenant (Hebrews viii.6)...not a fudged rehash of the same stuff.

Your position on this issue cannot be sustained.

If we are to believe the holy scriptures for what they are then we MUST accept the fact that:

2 Tim.3
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If the writer was inspired to write 'Changed" then that is what we are to accept. If the writer meant to write 'Abolished" then the holy spirit would have given him that to write.

The scripture says the law was changed because there was a change in the priesthood. It DID NOT SAY the law was abolished because the priesthood was abolished.

Since you believe that, then I hope you spend some solemn time reflecting on why your 'interpretation' of what Hebrews is saying is demonstrably false and revise your scriptural outlook accordingly. See above.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[RND]

The parallel terms for a change in Law and priesthood reflect common parlance for the alteration of a law or the removal of a priest from office. but what the author has in mind is obviously not an ordinary amendment of a law. He will later use [metatiqhmi] for the translation or removal of Enoch (11:5) and the complete disappearance of the shaky phenomenal world (12:27). Hence, as becomes clear with the reference to the "abolition" ([aqethsiv]) of the Law in vs 18, the supplanting of the Levitical priesthood by Christ has profound effects.
--H. W. Attridge, Hebrews: A Commentary, Hermeneia, Fortress Press, 1989, pp. 200-1

You may want to re-read your source. He's talking about a change in the Priesthood, not in the removal of the law.

 

[wavy]

The parallel terms for a change in Law and priesthood reflect common parlance for the alteration of a law or the removal of a priest from office, but what the author has in mind is obviously not an ordinary amendment of a law. He will later use [metatiqhmi] for the translation or removal of Enoch (11:5) and the complete disappearance of the shaky phenomenal world (12:27). Hence, as becomes clear with the reference to the "abolition" ([aqethsiv]) of the Law in vs 18, the supplanting of the Levitical priesthood by Christ has profound effects.
--H. W. Attridge, Hebrews: A Commentary, Hermeneia, Fortress Press, 1989, pp. 200-1

You may want to re-read your source. He's talking about a change in the Priesthood, not in the removal of the law.

I am well capable of understanding my source, having read all 400-pages of it, and have underlined portions you seemed to have missed.

Also, there is this, as I said:

What the author has in mind here is not a reapplication of the same law to Jesus. If that were the case, he could not have said that there are priests who offer gifts according to the law in contrast to Jesus (Hebrews viii.4). Rather, what the author has in mind is a totally original institution enacted by the new covenant (Hebrews viii.6)...not a fudged rehash of the same stuff.

There is more I technical Greek legal language I can elaborate on with this, if you're up to contending me on the point. I was once a Messianic for two years, and I am thoroughly familiar with what they believe and how they argue it. And on this point, I would have agreed about 3 years ago. However, it is wrong.

Btw, sup, RND. I know you from CARM, I think.



Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

It is interesting, RND, that I wrote a lengthy OP on this very verse as a Messianic a long time ago on this site.

Check it out.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=20537


Thanks,
Eric

 

[RND]

I am well capable of understanding my source, having read all 400-pages of it, and have underlined portions you seemed to have missed.

Also, there is this, as I said:

What the author has in mind here is not a reapplication of the same law to Jesus. If that were the case, he could not have said that there are priests who offer gifts according to the law in contrast to Jesus (Hebrews viii.4). Rather, what the author has in mind is a totally original institution enacted by the new covenant (Hebrews viii.6)...not a fudged rehash of the same stuff.

There is more I technical Greek legal language I can elaborate on with this, if you're up to contending me on the point. I was once a Messianic for two years, and I am thoroughly familiar with what they believe and how they argue it. And on this point, I would have agreed about 3 years ago. However, it is wrong.

the supplanting of the Levitical priesthood by Christ has profound effects.

Christ is now are High Priest, no more physical sacrifices required.

Btw, sup, RND. I know you from CARM, I think.

A place I love to avoid.

 

[wavy]

the supplanting of the Levitical priesthood by Christ has profound effects.

Christ is now are High Priest, no more physical sacrifices required.

Please read the previous clause of the quote.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[RND]

Please read the previous clause of the quote.

Eric, I read your quote and it seems to say the same thing. The "priesthood" changed, not the "law." Instead of physical sacrifices we now offer "spiritual" sacrifices.

God's grace and His Law are two sides of the same coin. The Law defines our expected behavior, and God's grace provides forgiveness when we don't live up to that standard. Grace doesn't nullify the Law, it compliments it. Clearly, those who think they can be part of God's people without obedience to His Law are deceived. Jesus himself stated this clearly:

MATTHEW 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

A "new" priesthood was established by Christ in His death and ascension to the right hand of the Father, not a "new" law.

"Those who were high priests under the law of Moses were limited by human weakness. But after the law was given, God appointed his Son with an oath, and his Son has been made perfect forever."

 

[Eccl12and13]

Changed - become or make different: to become different, or make something or somebody different

Abolished - outlaw something: to put an end to something such as a law

There is no way one word could mean the other.

The parallel terms for a change in Law and priesthood reflect common parlance for the alteration of a law or the removal of a priest from office. but what the author has in mind is obviously not an ordinary amendment of a law. He will later use [metatiqhmi] for the translation or removal of Enoch (11:5) and the complete disappearance of the shaky phenomenal world (12:27). Hence, as becomes clear with the reference to the "abolition" ([aqethsiv]) of the Law in vs 18, the supplanting of the Levitical priesthood by Christ has profound effects.
--H. W. Attridge, Hebrews: A Commentary, Hermeneia, Fortress Press, 1989, pp. 200-1


In case you did not understand, the way the Greek words are used here in this context necessitates that the law has been abrogated.

What the author has in mind here is not a reapplication of the same law to Jesus. If that were the case, he could not have said that there are priests who offer gifts according to the law in contrast to Jesus (Hebrews viii.4). Rather, what the author has in mind is a totally original institution enacted by the new covenant (Hebrews viii.6)...not a fudged rehash of the same stuff.

Your position on this issue cannot be sustained.

If we are to believe the holy scriptures for what they are then we MUST accept the fact that:

2 Tim.3
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If the writer was inspired to write 'Changed" then that is what we are to accept. If the writer meant to write 'Abolished" then the holy spirit would have given him that to write.

The scripture says the law was changed because there was a change in the priesthood. It DID NOT SAY the law was abolished because the priesthood was abolished.

Since you believe that, then I hope you spend some solemn time reflecting on why your 'interpretation' of what Hebrews is saying is demonstrably false and revise your scriptural outlook accordingly. See above.


Thanks,
Eric

Actually, there was nothing wrong with the first covenant. The fault was not with the covenant, the fault was with the people that made the promises:

Heb.8
[8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

God found fault with "THEM", the people. Now let's read what the 'new' covenant will be made up of:

[10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Those same laws that God gave the nation, are not written in our minds.

I know there are those that do not agree, but as I have always said: It's not your fault!

2 Thes.2
[11] And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 

[RND]

Actually, there was nothing wrong with the first covenant. The fault was not with the covenant, the fault was with the people that made the promises:

Heb.8
[8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

God found fault with "THEM", the people. Now let's read what the 'new' covenant will be made up of:

[10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Those same laws that God gave the nation, are not written in our minds.

I know there are those that do not agree, but as I have always said: It's not your fault!

2 Thes.2
[11] And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

If we were playing "Pin the tail on the Donkey" you'd have gotten it on this attempt! If were target shooting you'd have hit 10 of 10. And lastly, if B-I-N-G-O was the game you be the first in the room to call it! Good job!

People change, not God's law.

 

[wavy]

Eric, I read your quote

Then apparently you do not understand it.

The "priesthood" changed, not the "law."

For when the priesthood is changed // of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

I have divided the verse into two segments. The first 'logically' entails the other. They are not synonymous. The plain reading of the texts says there is a change of law. And the way the Greek is employed here (see any lexicon on this word or any commentary), and in light of the verse's broader context, there can be no other interpretation.

Parroting the same thing while ignoring this and everything else I have said will not make what I said go away. Again, your position is refuted by the plain reading of the text.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

Actually, there was nothing wrong with the first covenant. The fault was not with the covenant, the fault was with the people that made the promises:

Heb.8
[8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

God found fault with "THEM", the people. Now let's read what the 'new' covenant will be made up of:

[10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Those same laws that God gave the nation, are not written in our minds.

I know there are those that do not agree, but as I have always said: It's not your fault!

2 Thes.2
[11] And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

I am not concerned with your irrelevant scriptural conflations and other dilemmas about who is at fault about what (a false dichotomy anyway, since according to the author of Hebrews in viii.7-8 fault was found both with the first covenant and with the people).

What I am concerned with is your specific claim about what the 'change' of the law means in Hebrews vii.12....and the information I have provided clearly debunks that claim.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Vic C.]

Actually, there was nothing wrong with the first covenant. The fault was not with the covenant, the fault was with the people that made the promises:

Form God's perspective, the covenant serves a purpose. HE accomplishes exactly what HE set out to accomplish; that Man is incapable of following a set of Laws to the letter, therefore we are made aware of our inescapable, sinful nature and are in need of a Savior.

If we are capable of following every point of the law flawlessly, there's be nothing to be "delivered" from, now would there?

Heb.8
[8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

God found fault with "THEM", the people. Now let's read what the 'new' covenant will be made up of:

The "them" in v. 8 are the points of the first covenant and the people finding fault in them. Vs. 7 and 8 have to read together; you can't take v. 8 out of context and expect to interpret it properly. Many of the newer translations make this very mistake and mess up the translation. Goodness, this entire passage is about Covenants, not people!

Here's how the YLT (Young's Literal...) interpreted it:

7 for if that first were faultless, a place would not have been sought for a second.

8 For finding fault, He saith to them, `Lo, days come, saith the Lord, and I will complete with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, a new covenant,

When read without the interpreter's interjection, "for finding fault" points back to "for if that were faultless" in v.7. It's referring to a covenant, not people.

It's no wonder you guys can't get your doctrines straight. RND, you're wrong too for agreeing with that poor interpretation.

Eric, that was actually close; God finds fault with both the people and the covenant or more precisely, their objections to the covenant, even though the passage is about covenants only.

I know there are those that do not agree, but as I have always said: It's not your fault!

2 Thes.2
[11] And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Ok, there's no need to be self-righteous. :gah Again, using verses out of context too.