LAW

[Deborah13]

Can you show me where it is not allowed under the NC?

YLT
Tit 1:6 if any one is blameless, of one wife a husband, having children stedfast, not under accusation of riotous living or insubordinate--

Heb 8:13 in the saying `new,' He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete and is old is nigh [near] disappearing.

The new made the old 'obsolete'. The OLD covenant was the Law of Moses. The one of blessings and cursings.
In 70AD the temple was destroyed and Jerusalem was destroyed, that was the 'near' disappearing.

I don’t recall saying the Law will “return”. I don’t believe it ever left.

I believe you said something to the effect that we would again be living the Law of Moses, as they did in the OT.

I also don’t recall saying “all men” need to be circumcised. Gentile converts who were not circumcised on the 8th day are exempt since they missed the appointed time to do it under the Law.

I must have misunderstood what you said, I apologize for that. But under the Law for one to be considered one of the chosen people they had to be circumcised. And adult males were circumcised as we know Timothy was and there is another scripture that talks about proselytes (not the proselytes of the gate) but ones who were circumcised and therefore allowed to participate in the Passover with the full privileges of the natural born Israelite.

The wife and children belong to the master. He can do with them as he pleases. If he wants to, he can let them go, along with the servant who was freed, he can. It’s his choice to make.

Where does it say this anywhere in the Torah? I certainly haven't read it. God gave a commandment, a judgement that the wife and children would remain with the master. Either you have a scripture that says the master can break this judgement or you are deciding that for yourself.

What I am looking for is a judgement that releases the master, who is her lord, from his responsibility to see that she and the children are cared for and I don't see it, do you?

Either the man will love his wife and children enough to stay and serve her lord or he can leave without them, they stay with the lord. That is what I understand the Law says.

 

[jocor]

YLT

Tit 1:6 if any one is blameless, of one wife a husband, having children stedfast, not under accusation of riotous living or insubordinate--


Heb 8:13 in the saying `new,' He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete and is old is nigh [near] disappearing.


The new made the old 'obsolete'. The OLD covenant was the Law of Moses. The one of blessings and cursings.

In 70AD the temple was destroyed and Jerusalem was destroyed, that was the 'near' disappearing.

Titus 1:6 only applies to those in leadership (elders, bishops) just as kings were not permitted multiple wives under the OC. Keep in mind that I am not promoting polygamy. I am just asking you to show me why it is "not allowed" under the NC.


You cannot use Heb 8:13 to say polygamy is obsolete since it was never commanded against by Yahweh. Since many laws in the OC were brought over into the NC, you need to show that polygamy was forbidden to all.

I believe you said something to the effect that we would again be living the Law of Moses, as they did in the OT.

Since I don't believe the Law ever left, you will need to show me where I said that.

I must have misunderstood what you said, I apologize for that. But under the Law for one to be considered one of the chosen people they had to be circumcised. And adult males were circumcised as we know Timothy was and there is another scripture that talks about proselytes (not the proselytes of the gate) but ones who were circumcised and therefore allowed to participate in the Passover with the full privileges of the natural born Israelite.

Timothy was circumcised so that the preaching of the Gospel to the Jews would not be hindered. To the Jews, it did not matter if it was not the 8th day. As for other adult circumcisions, as far as I know, Yahweh specifically commanded them to occur on days other than the 8th day in order to be able to eat the Passover. He did not command that for anyone under the NC, especially since we no longer sacrifice and eat Passover lambs.

Where does it say this anywhere in the Torah? I certainly haven't read it. God gave a commandment, a judgement that the wife and children would remain with the master. Either you have a scripture that says the master can break this judgement or you are deciding that for yourself.


What I am looking for is a judgement that releases the master, who is her lord, from his responsibility to see that she and the children are cared for and I don't see it, do you?


Either the man will love his wife and children enough to stay and serve her lord or he can leave without them, they stay with the lord. That is what I understand the Law says.

It does not say that in Torah. The specific judgment is mentioned to protect the master, so that the servant would have no grounds to take the master's property with him. However, if the master loved the servant and didn't want to see his family split, he could let the wife and children go as well if that is what they wanted. Yahweh did not command that he MUST not let the wife and children go with the servant. This is my interpretation of the weightier matter of mercy within the Law.

 

[Deborah13]

Titus 1:6 only applies to those in leadership (elders, bishops) just as kings were not permitted multiple wives under the OC. Keep in mind that I am not promoting polygamy. I am just asking you to show me why it is "not allowed" under the NC.

Deut. 17:17 does not say that kings couldn't have more than one wife, if it does then kings could not have multiple silver or gold either or horses either. This is what it says,
YLT
Deu 17:16 `Only, he doth not multiply to himself horses, nor cause the people to turn back to Egypt, so as to multiply horses, seeing [YHVH] hath said to you, Ye do not add to turn back in this way any more.
Deu 17:17 And he doth not multiply to himself wives, and his heart doth not turn aside, and silver and gold he doth not multiply to himself--exceedingly.

Not only that YHVH Himself gave King David Saul's wives and when He rebuked David through the prophet Nathan for taking Bathsheba from Uriah He said that if what He had given David was not enough He would have given Him more. We know that God would not have broken one of His own laws.

2Sa 12:8 and I give to thee the house of thy lord, and the wives of thy lord, into thy bosom, and I give to thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if little, then I add to thee such and such things
2Sa 12:9 `Wherefore hast thou despised the word of Jehovah, to do the evil thing in His eyes? Uriah the Hittite thou hast smitten by the sword, and his wife thou hast taken to thee for a wife, and him thou hast slain by the sword of the Bene-Ammon.

You cannot use Heb 8:13 to say polygamy is obsolete since it was never commanded against by Yahweh. Since many laws in the OC were brought over into the NC, you need to show that polygamy was forbidden to all.

Well, I'm not sure I can prove that to you but I can give it a shot anyway.
Paul in Titus and Timothy, makes it clear that the one considered to be worthy (holy) to be in leadership would have one wife. Aren't those in leadership to be the example of true holiness to ALL of those in the Messiah?
Then we have the language in Ephesians 5.
Eph 5:23 because the husband is head of the wife, as also the Christ is head of the assembly, and he is saviour of the body,
Here in the Greek both husband and wife are in the singular form. It does not say, 'husband is the head of his wives', plural.

Since I don't believe the Law ever left, you will need to show me where I said that.

If you didn't say that some day, in the future, all men would live under Moses Law, then you did not and I apologize for thinking that is what you said.

Timothy was circumcised so that the preaching of the Gospel to the Jews would not be hindered. To the Jews, it did not matter if it was not the 8th day. As for other adult circumcisions, as far as I know, Yahweh specifically commanded them to occur on days other than the 8th day in order to be able to eat the Passover. He did not command that for anyone under the NC, especially since we no longer sacrifice and eat Passover lambs.

I agree, that is why Timothy was circumcised.

Now you have given me something I don't remember at all, except in Genesis. I don't remember reading where YHVH gave a command to circumcise at any time other than on the 8th day, although I know they did circumcise those who converted to Judaism. I do see it in Genesis and included in certain places but not in the law. Can you give me that scripture reference please.

This is what you said in post # 205...
"Circumcision is necessary as far as the circumcision of the heart is concerned. It is also necessary to obey the law of physical circumcision, but not in order to be justified or saved. However, an exception was made for new adult converts who were not circumcised on the 8th day. The male children of believers should be circumcised."

If not for justification, then why do you believe it is Necessary for All male believers and their sons to be circumcised? Necessary for what?

Thank you for your engagement in this conversation, maybe we can learn somethings from each other.

It does not say that in Torah. The specific judgment is mentioned to protect the master, so that the servant would have no grounds to take the master's property with him. However, if the master loved the servant and didn't want to see his family split, he could let the wife and children go as well if that is what they wanted. Yahweh did not command that he MUST not let the wife and children go with the servant. This is my interpretation of the weightier matter of mercy within the Law.

imo, by saying all of this, that is adding to what the Law of Moses says. Please give me scripture to support what you are saying.
Oh never mind, I see where you say this is your interpretation. That's fine.

 

[eddif]

Just as an aside.
Every Christian becomes a bride of Christ

One wife can be one type of wife (a pure bride with a pure heart -- born again)

To add a wife may be different than multiplying wives ( in the OT).

eddif

 

[jocor]

Deut. 17:17 does not say that kings couldn't have more than one wife, if it does then kings could not have multiple silver or gold either or horses either. This is what it says,
YLT
Deu 17:16 `Only, he doth not multiply to himself horses, nor cause the people to turn back to Egypt, so as to multiply horses, seeing [YHVH] hath said to you, Ye do not add to turn back in this way any more.
Deu 17:17 And he doth not multiply to himself wives, and his heart doth not turn aside, and silver and gold he doth not multiply to himself--exceedingly.

Not only that YHVH Himself gave King David Saul's wives and when He rebuked David through the prophet Nathan for taking Bathsheba from Uriah He said that if what He had given David was not enough He would have given Him more. We know that God would not have broken one of His own laws.

2Sa 12:8 and I give to thee the house of thy lord, and the wives of thy lord, into thy bosom, and I give to thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if little, then I add to thee such and such things
2Sa 12:9 `Wherefore hast thou despised the word of Jehovah, to do the evil thing in His eyes? Uriah the Hittite thou hast smitten by the sword, and his wife thou hast taken to thee for a wife, and him thou hast slain by the sword of the Bene-Ammon.

Here is a quote from John Gill's commentary on 2 Sam 12:8:

and thy master's wives into thy bosom; though we read of no more than one that belonged to Saul, if he is meant by his master, excepting Rizpah his concubine, nor ever of David taking them into his bosom and bed; wherefore this can be understood only of his having them at his disposal, to give them to whom he pleased; the word may be rendered his "women", as well as his "wives", and may design his daughters, Merab and Michal, who were both given to David, though taken again and given to others:
​

Several other commentaries read similarly. Also, the words, "and if little, then I add to thee such and such things" may refer to the size of his kingdom, not the number of wives he had.

Well, I'm not sure I can prove that to you but I can give it a shot anyway.
Paul in Titus and Timothy, makes it clear that the one considered to be worthy (holy) to be in leadership would have one wife. Aren't those in leadership to be the example of true holiness to ALL of those in the Messiah?
Then we have the language in Ephesians 5.
Eph 5:23 because the husband is head of the wife, as also the Christ is head of the assembly, and he is saviour of the body,
Here in the Greek both husband and wife are in the singular form. It does not say, 'husband is the head of his wives', plural.

Yes, we should all be so holy, but we are not. That is why only those men that meet the qualifications can hold those offices.

I agree, that is why Timothy was circumcised.

Now you have given me something I don't remember at all, except in Genesis. I don't remember reading where YHVH gave a command to circumcise at any time other than on the 8th day, although I know they did circumcise those who converted to Judaism. I do see it in Genesis and included in certain places but not in the law. Can you give me that scripture reference please.

Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

This is what you said in post # 205...
"Circumcision is necessary as far as the circumcision of the heart is concerned. It is also necessary to obey the law of physical circumcision, but not in order to be justified or saved. However, an exception was made for new adult converts who were not circumcised on the 8th day. The male children of believers should be circumcised."

If not for justification, then why do you believe it is Necessary for All male believers and their sons to be circumcised? Necessary for what?

Thank you for your engagement in this conversation, maybe we can learn somethings from each other.

It is necessary to avoid sin. Yeshua wants us to sin no more. Any transgression of the Law is sin (1 John 3:4). To avoid sin it is necessary to obey the Law.

 

[jocor]

Just as an aside.
Every Christian becomes a bride of Christ

One wife can be one type of wife (a pure bride with a pure heart -- born again)

To add a wife may be different than multiplying wives ( in the OT).

eddif

Can you elaborate on this? I am missing the point.

 

[eddif]

Can you elaborate on this? I am missing the point.

I really do not know when to do singular and plural forms when doing the bride of Christ. The stress on the NT bride of Christ (Church) is the purity of the bride. A bishop may should have one type of wife.

Tradition always gets hung up on 1. Scripture sometimes stresses defining the type of wife (keepers at home etc.).

I was trying to give ya'll a little break in the discussion; I do not belong to a group having multiple wives. I may even be considered strange with my comments.

eddif

 

[Eugene]

Every Christian becomes a bride of Christ

Really? Does the one rule conjointly with Him Rom 8:17, and another serve God day and night Rev 7:15?

One Christian is seen round bout the throne Rev 4:4, and in the midst of the throne Rev 4:6, while others take their place before the throne.

 

[Deborah13]

Here is a quote from John Gill's commentary on 2 Sam 12:8:

and thy master's wives into thy bosom; though we read of no more than one that belonged to Saul, if he is meant by his master, excepting Rizpah his concubine, nor ever of David taking them into his bosom and bed; wherefore this can be understood only of his having them at his disposal, to give them to whom he pleased; the word may be rendered his "women", as well as his "wives", and may design his daughters, Merab and Michal, who were both given to David, though taken again and given to others:
​

Several other commentaries read similarly. Also, the words, "and if little, then I add to thee such and such things" may refer to the size of his kingdom, not the number of wives he had.

This is what Adam Clarke says in his commentary..
"Thy master's wives into thy bosom - Perhaps this means no more than that he had given him absolute power over every thing possessed by Saul; and as it was the custom for the new king to succeed even to the wives and concubines, the whole harem of the deceased king, so it was in this case; and the possession of the wives was a sure proof that he had got all regal rights. But could David, as the son-in-law of Saul, take the wives of his father-in-law? However, we find delicacy was seldom consulted in these cases; and Absalom lay with his own father's wives in the most public manner, to show that he had seized on the kingdom, because the wives of the preceding belonged to the succeeding king, and to none other."

But this matters little considering David had seven wives that he married.
David was married to Saul's daughter, Micah (Eglar) and Bathshua and 5 others.
1Ch 3:1-8 lists the sons of David and his seven wives. Then verse nine says there were others with his concubines and his grandson who's mother was Tamar.
1Ch 3:9 These were all the sons of David, beside the sons of the concubines, and Tamar their sister.

Yes, we should all be so holy, but we are not. That is why only those men that meet the qualifications can hold those offices.

We know that the Law of Moses, the old covenant, is holy, just, and good, so we then know that for a man to have more than one wife according to the old covenant he was holy in doing that. But under the new covenant that man is not holy if he has more than one wife.
This appears to me to be a change in the law.

Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Excellent, I had forgotten that one, thank you.
Those would be the reverent proselytes who had converted to Judaism. I like the way the YLT has translated this because I think it has a clearer meaning as, they had passed over to YHVH and became one of His chosen people.
Exo 12:48 `And when a sojourner sojourneth with thee, and hath made a passover to [YHVH], every male of his is to be circumcised, and then he doth come near to keep it, and he hath been as a native of the land, but any uncircumcised one doth not eat of it;
Exo 12:49 one law is to a native, and to a sojourner who is sojourning in your midst.'

It is necessary to avoid sin. Yeshua wants us to sin no more. Any transgression of the Law is sin (1 John 3:4). To avoid sin it is necessary to obey the Law.

Remember why you said Timothy was circumcised, because of the Jews, not because he was in sin.
If being uncircumcised is sin then Paul made a man, Titus who was in sin, his disciple and did not correct him about it.
Gal 2:1 Then, after fourteen years again I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, having taken with me also Titus;
Gal 2:2 and I went up by revelation, and did submit to them the good news that I preach among the nations, and privately to those esteemed, lest in vain I might run or did run;
Gal 2:3 but not even Titus, who is with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised--
Gal 2:4 and that because of the false brethren brought in unawares, who did come in privily to spy out our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, that us they might bring under bondage,
Gal 2:5 to whom not even for an hour we gave place by subjection, that the truth of the good news might remain to you.

1 John 3:4 says 'the sin' so we need to read around that verse to see what 'the sin' was that would make one a 'lawless' person.
1Jn 3:10 In this manifest are the children of God, and the children of the devil; every one who is not doing righteousness, is not of God, and he who is not loving his brother,
1Jn 3:11 because this is the message that ye did hear from the beginning, that we may love one another,

If we love one another we do not do unrighteous things to each other and we glorify God. Many, many, of the things we are suppose to do and not suppose to do, if we love each other are in the Law of Moses but not everything in the Law of Moses is for us to do. Such as circumcision.
I cannot help but love the Law of Moses because I see the Messiah and the words He spoke and the words the apostles spoke in them.

 

[jocor]

We know that the Law of Moses, the old covenant, is holy, just, and good, so we then know that for a man to have more than one wife according to the old covenant he was holy in doing that. But under the new covenant that man is not holy if he has more than one wife.
This appears to me to be a change in the law.

Why do you say a polygamist was holy for being a polygamist?? If Yahweh commanded him to be a polygamist, then perhaps it would be a holy act, but Yahweh never commanded polygamy. Also, how can it be a change in the law if polygamy was never a law?

Excellent, I had forgotten that one, thank you.
Those would be the reverent proselytes who had converted to Judaism. I like the way the YLT has translated this because I think it has a clearer meaning as, they had passed over to YHVH and became one of His chosen people.
Exo 12:48 `And when a sojourner sojourneth with thee, and hath made a passover to [YHVH], every male of his is to be circumcised, and then he doth come near to keep it, and he hath been as a native of the land, but any uncircumcised one doth not eat of it;
Exo 12:49 one law is to a native, and to a sojourner who is sojourning in your midst.'

This seems to be another poor YLT translation. He puts "made a passover" in the past tense meaning the uncircumcised sojourner already kept/ate the passover, but the end of verse 48 says the uncircumcised one cannot eat it.

Remember why you said Timothy was circumcised, because of the Jews, not because he was in sin.
If being uncircumcised is sin then Paul made a man, Titus who was in sin, his disciple and did not correct him about it.
Gal 2:1 Then, after fourteen years again I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, having taken with me also Titus;
Gal 2:2 and I went up by revelation, and did submit to them the good news that I preach among the nations, and privately to those esteemed, lest in vain I might run or did run;
Gal 2:3 but not even Titus, who is with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised--
Gal 2:4 and that because of the false brethren brought in unawares, who did come in privily to spy out our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, that us they might bring under bondage,
Gal 2:5 to whom not even for an hour we gave place by subjection, that the truth of the good news might remain to you.

I never said being uncircumcised was a sin. The sin is failing to circumcise our 8 day old son if we are believers. The liberty mentioned in verse 4 is being free from having to be justified through circumcision. To be justified through circumcision is bondage (Gal 5:1-4).

1 John 3:4 says 'the sin' so we need to read around that verse to see what 'the sin' was that would make one a 'lawless' person.
1Jn 3:10 In this manifest are the children of God, and the children of the devil; every one who is not doing righteousness, is not of God, and he who is not loving his brother,
1Jn 3:11 because this is the message that ye did hear from the beginning, that we may love one another,

If we love one another we do not do unrighteous things to each other and we glorify God. Many, many, of the things we are suppose to do and not suppose to do, if we love each other are in the Law of Moses but not everything in the Law of Moses is for us to do. Such as circumcision.
I cannot help but love the Law of Moses because I see the Messiah and the words He spoke and the words the apostles spoke in them.

1 John 3:10 is not the context of verse 4. The context is sin in general. The law gives us the knowledge of sin when it is broken (Romans 3:20b). Any sin is a transgression of the law.

It is the law that tells us what the "unrighteous things" are.

 

[Deborah13]

Why do you say a polygamist was holy for being a polygamist?? If Yahweh commanded him to be a polygamist, then perhaps it would be a holy act, but Yahweh never commanded polygamy. Also, how can it be a change in the law if polygamy was never a law?

Well, we know it was not commanded that a man MUST have more than one wife but it is certainly in the law that he Could have more than one wife and Not be sinning.

This seems to be another poor YLT translation. He puts "made a passover" in the past tense meaning the uncircumcised sojourner already kept/ate the passover, but the end of verse 48 says the uncircumcised one cannot eat it.

It does not say he ate a passover, it says he 'made a passover TO YHVH'. Because it is a translation that is directly from the Hebrew sometimes it is difficult to read because of the way the words are arranged. Here it is in the Hebrew...http://www.scripture4all.org
Actually I think this is more accurate. This man has Passed over to YHVH, he is no longer a pagan, but a believer in the one true God, YHVH. Then he is circumcised and becomes one in the nation of Israel. But that is just me, here is Strong's and parsing in BBL.
If we look at it in the KJV....
Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
H6213 = will keep in the KJV, hath made in the YLT
עשׂה
‛âśâh
aw-saw'
A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application: - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready)

That word is a verb in the stem - Qal and in the perfect tense
"2d) Sometimes in Hebrew, future events are conceived so vividly and so realistically that they are regarded as having virtually taken place and are described by the perfect."
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exo&c=12&t=KJV#s=t_conc_62048

I never said being uncircumcised was a sin. The sin is failing to circumcise our 8 day old son if we are believers. The liberty mentioned in verse 4 is being free from having to be justified through circumcision. To be justified through circumcision is bondage (Gal 5:1-4).

Hold on....these are things I believe you have said, so please answer these questions.
Did you say.....?
1)you believe ALL those in Messiah must obey the Law of Moses or they are sinning?
2)that ALL those in Messiah must observe the Saturday Shabat and the feasts?
3) that the uncircumcised must be circumcised before they can observe the feasts?

If all these answers are yes then logically you are saying that one Must be circumcised or they are in sin because they do not and cannot by choice observe the feasts that are commanded in the Law.

You never answered as to where a gentile would find a rabbi trained and qualified that would do the ceremony of circumcision on their 8 day old gentile son. Got any suggestions?
By the way, do you eat the sedar passover feast? If so, have you been through the ceremonial rite of circumcision? If so who performed it and when?

1 John 3:10 is not the context of verse 4. The context is sin in general. The law gives us the knowledge of sin when it is broken (Romans 3:20b). Any sin is a transgression of the law.
It is the law that tells us what the "unrighteous things" are.

 

[jocor]

Well, we know it was not commanded that a man MUST have more than one wife but it is certainly in the law that he Could have more than one wife and Not be sinning.

Correct. Also, there is no verse in the NT saying polygamy is a sin.

It does not say he ate a passover, it says he 'made a passover TO YHVH'. Because it is a translation that is directly from the Hebrew sometimes it is difficult to read because of the way the words are arranged. Here it is in the Hebrew...http://www.scripture4all.org
Actually I think this is more accurate. This man has Passed over to YHVH, he is no longer a pagan, but a believer in the one true God, YHVH. Then he is circumcised and becomes one in the nation of Israel. But that is just me, here is Strong's and parsing in BBL.
If we look at it in the KJV....
Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
H6213 = will keep in the KJV, hath made in the YLT
עשׂה
‛âśâh
aw-saw'
A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application: - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready)

That word is a verb in the stem - Qal and in the perfect tense
"2d) Sometimes in Hebrew, future events are conceived so vividly and so realistically that they are regarded as having virtually taken place and are described by the perfect."
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exo&c=12&t=KJV#s=t_conc_62048

The same Hebrew phrase ועשׂה פסח ליהוה was used in Numbers 9:10,14 meaning to keep the Passover. Your interpretation of "Passed over to YHVH" is not found anywhere in Scripture except where you want to add it. I doubt you will find any commentaries giving that view either.

Hold on....these are things I believe you have said, so please answer these questions.
Did you say.....?
1)you believe ALL those in Messiah must obey the Law of Moses or they are sinning?
2)that ALL those in Messiah must observe the Saturday Shabat and the feasts?
3) that the uncircumcised must be circumcised before they can observe the feasts?

If all these answers are yes then logically you are saying that one Must be circumcised or they are in sin because they do not and cannot by choice observe the feasts that are commanded in the Law.

1) No. They must obey the Laws of Moses (Laws of Yahweh) that were not fulfilled. Those that were fulfilled such as animal sacrifices do not need to be obeyed.
2) Yes, but I would rather call it the 7th day Shabbat rather than Saturday.
3) No. Anyone is free to observe the Feasts. Under the OC, the uncircumcised could not eat the Passover.

You never answered as to where a gentile would find a rabbi trained and qualified that would do the ceremony of circumcision on their 8 day old gentile son. Got any suggestions?
By the way, do you eat the sedar passover feast? If so, have you been through the ceremonial rite of circumcision? If so who performed it and when?

Sorry, I forgot to reply to that. A rabbi is not needed to perform a circumcision, neither is a ceremony necessary. Most hospitals do circumcisions. One need only request it be done on the 8th day. If one was in an area where circumcisions where not performed, then I would think Yahweh would extend grace.

We partake of a seder, but there is no lamb. Yeshua is my Passover Lamb.

 

[Deborah13]

Correct. Also, there is no verse in the NT saying polygamy is a sin.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. To me, if something is not considered legal for a bishop, who is to be an example to the congregation, then it is not legal for the congregation to do either. So that makes more than one wife illegal. That's seem like a logical deduction to me.

The same Hebrew phrase ועשׂה פסח ליהוה was used in Numbers 9:10,14 meaning to keep the Passover. Your interpretation of "Passed over to YHVH" is not found anywhere in Scripture except where you want to add it. I doubt you will find any commentaries giving that view either.

Yep, that is an interpretation by me, not a Translation there is a big difference. My interpretation may be wrong but Young's Translation is another matter, completely.
I gave you the links to the Hebrew grammar to look at, that was NOT my interpretation but simply the facts about the Hebrew language, which said that in the Hebrew at times things are written in the perfect tense as a reality even though they haven't happened yet. So when Young translated it he did not give an interpretation at all but simply wrote it as the Hebrew was written in the perfect tense. When translating into English there is no comparative way to do that, so the KJV translated it in the English showing it to be a future action after circumcision, which I believe is correct and so is Young's.
There a very few differences between Young's and the KJV if one takes the time to look at the grammar in the original languages.

1) No. They must obey the Laws of Moses (Laws of Yahweh) that were not fulfilled. Those that were fulfilled such as animal sacrifices do not need to be obeyed.
2) Yes, but I would rather call it the 7th day Shabbat rather than Saturday.
3) No. Anyone is free to observe the Feasts. Under the OC, the uncircumcised could not eat the Passover.

Obviously, if one cannot partake of the Passover feast, without being circumcised, what would be the point? If one could not partake of the Passover they were not one of the nation of God's chosen people. It is the most important feast of the year. So if we are all suppose to be observing the Law of Moses in order to Not be in sin, then one MUST be circumcised to participate in this feast, that is what the LAW says.
If one does not have to be circumcised then that is a change in the Law.

Sorry, I forgot to reply to that. A rabbi is not needed to perform a circumcision, neither is a ceremony necessary. Most hospitals do circumcisions. One need only request it be done on the 8th day. If one was in an area where circumcisions where not performed, then I would think Yahweh would extend grace.

We partake of a seder, but there is no lamb. Yeshua is my Passover Lamb.

You believe that having a doctor perform a circumcision is the same thing as the OT priest? Circumcision was a religious act with spiritual significance, it was a sign, not just a physical act to be performed by just anybody, it had to be someone who was aware of that significance. When Moses failed to circumcise his son, his wife did it. It was an outward sign that one was of God's people.
Paul makes it very clear that physical circumcision was a shadow of the circumcision of the heart and that the circumcision done by the hands of men, meant nothing because there is no difference between the natural Hebrew and the natural non-Hebrew, in Christ.

Yes, Yeshua is your Passover Lamb.
And your physical circumcision does not make you one of His. Your circumcised heart makes you one of His chosen people.

May YHVH bless you and your family.

 

[jocor]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. To me, if something is not considered legal for a bishop, who is to be an example to the congregation, then it is not legal for the congregation to do either. So that makes more than one wife illegal. That's seem like a logical deduction to me.

It is obvious that we are told the bishop must only have one wife because other believers had more than one wife. If every believer only had one wife, then there would be no need to specify the need for a bishop to only have one wife. Many believers were coming out of the OC in which they were allowed more than one wife. If an OC Israelite with two wives became a believer, he would be a believer with two wives. He was not required to dump one of his wives, but he was not permitted to hold an office. It was not illegal for him to continue with two wives.

Yep, that is an interpretation by me, not a Translation there is a big difference. My interpretation may be wrong but Young's Translation is another matter, completely.
I gave you the links to the Hebrew grammar to look at, that was NOT my interpretation but simply the facts about the Hebrew language, which said that in the Hebrew at times things are written in the perfect tense as a reality even though they haven't happened yet. So when Young translated it he did not give an interpretation at all but simply wrote it as the Hebrew was written in the perfect tense. When translating into English there is no comparative way to do that, so the KJV translated it in the English showing it to be a future action after circumcision, which I believe is correct and so is Young's.
There a very few differences between Young's and the KJV if one takes the time to look at the grammar in the original languages.

I totally agree that something in the present tense can be speaking of a reality that hasn't happened yet. That is why the KJV and most other translations use "will keep". Young doesn't do that, but translates it in the strict present tense. Here is Young on Num 9:10:

Num 9:10-11 `Speak unto the sons of Israel, saying, Though any man is unclean by a body or in a distant journey (of you or of your generations), yet he hath prepared a passover to Jehovah; in the second month on the fourteenth day at dusk they shall keep it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs;
​

This makes no sense. Verse 10 says he has prepared it already, but verse 11 suggests he has yet to prepare it. The actual Hebrew is teaching us that if a man was unclean and missed the first month's Passover, he can keep the second month's Passover. The KJV is correct:

Num 9:10 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto the LORD. The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.​

Obviously, if one cannot partake of the Passover feast, without being circumcised, what would be the point? If one could not partake of the Passover they were not one of the nation of God's chosen people. It is the most important feast of the year. So if we are all suppose to be observing the Law of Moses in order to Not be in sin, then one MUST be circumcised to participate in this feast, that is what the LAW says.
If one does not have to be circumcised then that is a change in the Law.

The Law says you must be circumcised to EAT the Passover lamb. Under the OC, keeping the feast required one to eat the lamb. Under the NC, we still keep the feast, but the lamb we spiritually eat of is Yeshua.. Paul said "For even Messiah our Passover was sacrificed for us. Therefore, let us keep the feast ..." (1 Cor 5:7d-8a).

You keep mentioning a "change in the Law", but in post #253 you wrote, "I don't believe the Messiah Changed any of the Law of Moses, not one single law of the 613 of Moses' Law."
How do these statements harmonize?

You believe that having a doctor perform a circumcision is the same thing as the OT priest? Circumcision was a religious act with spiritual significance, it was a sign, not just a physical act to be performed by just anybody, it had to be someone who was aware of that significance. When Moses failed to circumcise his son, his wife did it. It was an outward sign that one was of God's people.

An OT priest was not necessary since Moses' wife did it. All that was necessary was for the parents to have it done. They are the one's who understand its significance and seek out a way to have it done. Yahweh never commanded a particular type of person to do it.

Paul makes it very clear that physical circumcision was a shadow of the circumcision of the heart and that the circumcision done by the hands of men, meant nothing because there is no difference between the natural Hebrew and the natural non-Hebrew, in Christ.

If physical circumcision was a shadow of the circumcision of the heart, why were both required by Yahweh under the OC?

 

[Voicndwilderness]

Here, by far, is the best way to look at it..........ijs
"1 John 2:1-6(KJV)
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."

We are the children of Israel.

We, as christians, are grafted branches into the 'tree', which is Christ. Because we are grafted in and the unbelieving Jews, (not all Jews) were cut off, does not give us or anyone the right to change the nature of the tree to our own choosing of what to keep and what to toss. When Moses walked those people out of Egypt, they weren't all Hebrew.

 

[JLB]

Here, by far, is the best way to look at it..........ijs
"1 John 2:1-6(KJV)
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."

We are the children of Israel.

We, as christians, are grafted branches into the 'tree', which is Christ. Because we are grafted in and the unbelieving Jews, (not all Jews) were cut off, does not give us or anyone the right to change the nature of the tree to our own choosing of what to keep and what to toss. When Moses walked those people out of Egypt, they weren't all Hebrew.

The Natural Olive Tree began with Abraham.

The root is the Covenant that The Lord made with Abraham.

Abraham was a Gentile.

The Olive Tree is not the Law of Moses.

The law was added til the Seed should come.

Get these things in order and your theology will began to clear up.


JLB

 

[Voicndwilderness]

(Edited, Tos 2.4, rudeness. Obadiah.)

I never mentioned the root....I should have, but didn't
so....I must've said something wrong....eh? the tree is Christ, not the Law of Moses as you think I said... The Law points out sin. You keep it BECAUSE you are saved, not to BE saved by keeping it. umm what part of everlasting don't I get and how is my theology foggy?2

you sir, surely have no qualms about the scripture posted, so let us stick with that.???

Also, ... why would anything change for Gentile believers and then be re-established in the new heavens and the new earth?

...ie

Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.

23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.

....the Seed did it as an example, why shouldn't we?

 

[JLB]

(Edited, Tos 2.4, rudeness. Obadiah.)

I never mentioned the root....I should have, but didn't
so....I must've said something wrong....eh? the tree is Christ, not the Law of Moses as you think I said... The Law points out sin. You keep it BECAUSE you are saved, not to BE saved by keeping it. umm what part of everlasting don't I get and how is my theology foggy?2

you sir, surely have no qualms about the scripture posted, so let us stick with that.???

Also, ... why would anything change for Gentile believers and then be re-established in the new heavens and the new earth?

...ie

Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.

23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.

....the Seed did it as an example, why shouldn't we?

The Seed never did submit to the Levitical Priesthood which were the administrators of the Law.

Jesus is a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Jesus obey the Voice of God, like Abraham.

The Law requires physical Circumcision.

The New Testament has nothing what so ever to do with the Law of Moses.

It has everything to do with the Law of God, the Law of Christ.


JLB

 

[Voicndwilderness]

The Seed never did submit to the Levitical Priesthood which were the administrators of the Law.

Jesus is a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Jesus obey the Voice of God, like Abraham.

The Law requires physical Circumcision.

The New Testament has nothing what so ever to do with the Law of Moses.

It has everything to do with the Law of God, the Law of Christ.


JLB

Jesus is the Word...... the SAME WORD that Spoke to Moses on Sinai. we could go back and forth about "the Law" if you wish but it will be a pointless endeavor if you insist upon separating the New Testament from the Old. The only change in the Covenant is WHERE it is written. Jesus said nothing new except "Love one another as I have loved you" to say otherwise is to say that God changed his mind. Did He?
The Apostles in Acts 15 talked about that very thing (circumcision). why regurgitate an argument that is already settled?
btw.... the Law of Moses, regarding circumcision is what God told him to write :amen. It is now spiritual, rather than physical. It means to be set apart..... more fuzzy theology....

 

[JLB]

Jesus is the Word...... the SAME WORD that Spoke to Moses on Sinai. we could go back and forth about "the Law" if you wish but it will be a pointless endeavor if you insist upon separating the New Testament from the Old. The only change in the Covenant is WHERE it is written. Jesus said nothing new except "Love one another as I have loved you" to say otherwise is to say that God changed his mind. Did He?
The Apostles in Acts 15 talked about that very thing (circumcision). why regurgitate an argument that is already settled?
btw.... the Law of Moses, regarding circumcision is what God told him to write :amen. It is now spiritual, rather than physical. It means to be set apart..... more fuzzy theology....

I don't seperate the New from the Old.

The Old Covenant is the Abrahamic Covenant, of which we are grafted into today.

The law was added to this Covenant, until...

The law was added until the Seed should come.

The Seed has come, the law being temporary has vanished away. Hebrews 8:13.


19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.
Galatians 3:19

added: Means the law was a part of something greater.

until: means the law was temporary.

The New Covenant has nothing to do with the law.

Physical Circumcision is no longer required.

This was absolutely mandated in the law of Moses.

Strict Sabbath requirements with the penalty of death, was absolutely mandated by the law of Moses.

The new testament or New Covenant does not require these laws and many more.

All I have to prove that a jot or tittle has changed.


JLB