When did the Law pass or has it passed away?

[Drew]

How could he challenge himself then and be at enmity with himself? If I cannot cite scriptures to support what I am saying, nothing will convict you, sorry.

I don't understand your point. I see Jesus as effectively the author of the Law of Moses. Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that He has the authority to set aside the very Law that He, as divine agent, has put in place.

I will be interested to read any response you have to the argument about Ephesians 2.

 

[Ryan]

Matthew 8:1-4 When Jesus came down from the mountain, large crowds followed Him. 2 And a leper came to Him and bowed down before Him, and said, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.” 3 Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4 And Jesus *said to him, “See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the priest and present the]offering that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”

I suggest this text supports my position, and does not refute it, as you appear to believe. Jesus knows very well that He is "side-stepping" the Law of Moses and how this will elicit huge reaction from the religious authorities. So he orders to person not to tell anyone what has happened and, for the moment, to keep up the pretense that the Law is still in force, as it always has been.

Jesus is being appropriately careful and shrewd. As He does many other times, He chooses to "hide" some elements of His message from the authorities since He knows that if too much is divulged too soon, He will be sent to the Cross, or otherwise stopped earlier than He needs to.

But, at other times Jesus clearly does challenge the Law publically - the challenge to the kosher purity laws in Mark 7 is a clear example.

I suspect you may challenge me on my casting Jesus in this light - you may suggest that such behaviour on His part constitutes deception. Well, we can have that discussion, but I suggest there are other cases where Jesus is intentionally quite evasive.

So I do not see how the text you quote undermines the general argument that Jesus is challenging the Law of Moses. He is in a difficult position - He needs to announce that the "old" system is coming to an end, but He also needs to delay the springing of the trap that is being set for Him.

How can God side-step himself? This is self-explanatory Jesus commands the leper to purify himself in accordance to the law.

Mark 7 I have already gone over this here. Handwahing. Plain and simple and the rabbinic additions put in. Has nothing to do with kosher food.

 

[Ryan]

How could he challenge himself then and be at enmity with himself? If I cannot cite scriptures to support what I am saying, nothing will convict you, sorry.

I don't understand your point. I see Jesus as effectively the author of the Law of Moses. Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that He has the authority to set aside the very Law that He, as divine agent, has put in place.

I will be interested to read any response you have to the argument about Ephesians 2.

Jesus could not contradict his Father, or go against his will.

Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

A false prophet was defined by this verse. That is why the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus in anything and asking him "is it not lawful..." questions. Matthew 12:2, Matthew 19:3, Matthew 22:17. They were trying to have Jesus contradict the Law of Moses, and then label him a blasphemer because he had taught against the Word of God. But they had perverted the Word and were called hypocrites many times. Jesus was bringing clarity to his Word, not replacing it with version 2.0. Everything he said was in agreement with the Law. He could not add or take away anything. That would be considered blasphemous.

 

[JLB]

I'm sorry you haven't read my previous posts the word "covenant" was an insertion by the translators.

And I take it you haven't read any of About Son of God research on Galatians 3 earlier in this post? Refute that first please.

I don't know what your referring to.

My statements are clear, directly from the scripture and can not be refuted by anyone.

Again, show me in the Law of Moses where it says - I am the way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Only the Levites, specifically the high Priest could enter the Holy of Holies.

Now the veil is rent and we [Jew and Gentile] enter in by a NEW and living way. Jesus is that Way.

The old has vanished away.

JLB

Jesus is God. There was always only one ways to have a saving relationship with him. For those strong in the faith as Anna was, they knew the time was upon them for the Messiah to be born. It was an easy transition filled with great joy the Messiah had arrived. Those who were walking in the light, had no problems accepting Jesus. You are saying everybody born before Jesus then were not saved then? Just his very name "Yeshua" meaning salvation was spoken of in the Torah. So was nobody saved before Yeshua then because your argument implies so?

There were a lot of Israelites in the days of Moses that received salvation, however that is not what we are discussing.

We are discussing the right to enter the Holy of Holies, which was done only by the high priest, and then once a year.

Now we freely have access by One spirit, both Jew and gentile. Thats why the Law had to be "taken out of the way" because it was always intended for gentile to be in the covenant.

as it is written -

And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. Galatians 3:17

and again -

"As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations.


The Law is not of faith

The Law of Moses was temporary.

The Law of God is Eternal.

Without faith it is impossible to please God.


JLB

 

[Drew]

You are going beyond what the Bible wrote.

What do you mean? I have simply asserted that the word "olam" can mean "for a time", so there is at least an argument that translators have erred in translating it as "eternal" or "forever" in some settings. I have more evidence about this, which I hope to post later.

If there is some areas where "olam" didn't mean eternal, you have to start then with Noah and the Noachide Covenant. You opened up this can, not me.

Indeed. And I will be happy to provide more evidence. I strongly expect that when I look up the Hebrew word that has been translated as "forever" in respect to the applicability of the Law of Moses, I will be able to show that the word can, repeat can, denote a non-eternal time interval.

But we will see.....

 

[Ryan]

...it shall be a statute forever to their generations.... (Exodus 27:21) ...it shall be a statute forever to him and his seed after him. (Exodus 28:43) ...a statute forever... (Exodus 29:28) ...it shall be a statute forever to them, to him and to his se throughout their generations. (Exodus 30:21) It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever. (Exodus 31:17) There is no shortage of passages in the Torah which specify that the Torah will not be abolished but will be for all generations forever.

I will bet that when we look at the original Hebrew, we will find that the word translated as "forever" really means "for an age", and that the translators have taken liberties.

While the following argument is not made in relation to the texts you have cited, it demonstrates that we need to be careful when we read the word "forever", or its cognates, in the Scriptures:

The following text from Genesis 17 is often used to argue that God promised the land of Canaan to the Jews forever:

I will give the whole land of Canaan – the land where you are now residing – to you and your descendants after you as a permanent possession. I will be their God.”

The Hebrew word that is translated as “permanent” is the word “owlam”. Note how the definition of this word is fluid – embracing the eternality that would support the common reading of this text (that Canaan has been promised to the Jews forever), but also allowing for a reading that does not denote eternality:

Definition (from Net Bible): 1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting,
evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world

And here we have an example from Isaiah 42 of this same word used in a context where eternality is certainly not intended:

The LORD emerges like a hero,
like a warrior he inspires himself for battle;
he shouts, yes, he yells,
he shows his enemies his power.
I have been inactive for a long time;
I kept quiet and held back.
Like a woman in labor I groan;
I pant and gasp.
I will make the trees on the mountains and hills wither up;
I will dry up all their vegetation.
I will turn streams into islands,
and dry up pools of water.

Clearly God is talking about talking action after a long period of “inactivity”. So here, the word “owlam” does not denote an everlasting period of time – it denotes a limited duration of time.

So one cannot simply assume that Genesis 17:8 entails a promise of Canaan to the Israelites forever. That is one reading that needs to be considered, but there are others as well.

So...when speaking of the covenant with Noah, and that pretty, beautiful half circle thing we find in the sky during showers, is that temporary to? Are we awaiting another massive flood by God as you say that word is not eternal.
12 H430 And God H559 said [H8799] H226 , This is the token H1285 of the covenant H589 which I H5414 make [H8802] H2416 between me and you and every living H5315 creature H5769 that is with you, for perpetual H1755 generations:

I best start building an ark I reckon as the same word "olam" is used here as well.

If you still see a rainbow then it is still in effect.

And if you see an Israel, they are ALL still in effect.

 

[Drew]

Jesus could not contradict his Father, or go against his will. Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

We are going in circles. I suggest that, as God, Jesus is not subject to this prohibition. It is, I suggest, targeted at the nation of Israel - God is not "commanding Himself" not to change the Law, He is commanding His people not to do so.

What is your take on Mark 7? Does Jesus not sayi that "food doesn't make you unclean"?

What does the book of Leviticus have to say on this matter?

 

[Ryan]

You are going beyond what the Bible wrote.

What do you mean? I have simply asserted that the word "olam" can mean "for a time", so there is at least an argument that translators have erred in translating it as "eternal" or "forever" in some settings. I have more evidence about this, which I hope to post later.

If there is some areas where "olam" didn't mean eternal, you have to start then with Noah and the Noachide Covenant. You opened up this can, not me.

Indeed. And I will be happy to provide more evidence. I strongly expect that when I look up the Hebrew word that has been translated as "forever" in respect to the applicability of the Law of Moses, I will be able to show that the word can, repeat can, denote a non-eternal time interval.

But we will see.....

Genesis 21:33 33 H5193 And Abraham planted [H8799] H815 a grove H884 in Beersheba H7121 , and called [H8799] H8034 there on the name H3068 of the LORD H5769 , the everlasting H410 God.

God is temporal as well? You cannot pick and choose when you want to use it to suit yourself.

1. long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
a. ancient time, long time (of past)
b. (of future)
1. for ever, always
2. continuous existence, perpetual
3. everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity
Origin: from H5956
TWOT: 1631a
Parts of Speech: Noun Masculine

 

[Ryan]

Jesus could not contradict his Father, or go against his will. Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

We are going in circles. I suggest that, as God, Jesus is not subject to this prohibition. It is, I suggest, targeted at the nation of Israel - God is not "commanding Himself" not to change the Law, He is commanding His people not to do so.

What is your take on Mark 7? Does Jesus not sayi that "food doesn't make you unclean"?

What does the book of Leviticus have to say on this matter?

Circles are fun because they are eternal. OR are they? Are they olam? Or which olam?

A false prophet was always someone that preached against Torah and took away its commandments. How could the Jewish people recognize himself as the Messiah if he taught against it. Impossible. God cannot go against himself. Jesus was the Word made flesh.

You already know what the book of Leviticus says.

Leviticus 19:2
“Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.

1 Peter 1:16 because it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

 

[Ryan]

I'm sorry you haven't read my previous posts the word "covenant" was an insertion by the translators.

And I take it you haven't read any of About Son of God research on Galatians 3 earlier in this post? Refute that first please.

I don't know what your referring to.

My statements are clear, directly from the scripture and can not be refuted by anyone.

Again, show me in the Law of Moses where it says - I am the way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Only the Levites, specifically the high Priest could enter the Holy of Holies.

Now the veil is rent and we [Jew and Gentile] enter in by a NEW and living way. Jesus is that Way.

The old has vanished away.

JLB

Jesus is God. There was always only one ways to have a saving relationship with him. For those strong in the faith as Anna was, they knew the time was upon them for the Messiah to be born. It was an easy transition filled with great joy the Messiah had arrived. Those who were walking in the light, had no problems accepting Jesus. You are saying everybody born before Jesus then were not saved then? Just his very name "Yeshua" meaning salvation was spoken of in the Torah. So was nobody saved before Yeshua then because your argument implies so?

There were a lot of Israelites in the days of Moses that received salvation, however that is not what we are discussing.

We are discussing the right to enter the Holy of Holies, which was done only by the high priest, and then once a year.

Now we freely have access by One spirit, both Jew and gentile. Thats why the Law had to be "taken out of the way" because it was always intended for gentile to be in the covenant.

as it is written -

And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. Galatians 3:17

and again -

"As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations.


The Law is not of faith

The Law of Moses was temporary.

The Law of God is Eternal.

Without faith it is impossible to please God.


JLB

Ever heard anyone ever say I obey because I am saved? Galatians was written for those who were told to obey to be saved. But now because we are saved, we are free to obey.

Jesus was Torah observant till the day he died and after. Why is it so wrong to say we want to live our life like him? That's what the bible tells us to do.

 

[About the Son of God]

Hi Drew,

I will bet that when we look at the original Hebrew, we will find that the word translated as "forever" really means "for an age", and that the translators have taken liberties.

I think it's a shaky bet in Hebrew, although -- I don't think it matters because of other considerations. ( You're right, but perhaps for the wrong reason?) See two posts down for an actual discussion of the Isaiah passage 42:xx alone.

To be fair: My Hebrew isn't perfect, I don't know of any "original" Hebrew, and I don't have the dead sea scrolls to compare against right now; but a scholarly Modern rendition is here: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0227.htm
יְהוָה: חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתָם, מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. {ס

I don't see "Ayt" (ayin - tav) "a time"; I see "AyVaLaMe" עוֹלָם

Using a concordance, I see the same word in Genesis 9:12 ; as in "perpetual" generations ? ( Unless the flood is to come again, rather than fire. )
And again, Exodus 12:14 has it; Which also is supported by the fact that Jesus transformed the passover into his own memorial.

So, it is used as "eternal" or "perpetual" (which you know)...

Switching to Greek (400A.D. versions) for a cross - examination -- I get:

LXX: Exodu 27:21 ... εως πρωι εναντιον κυριου νομιμον αιωνιον εις τας γενεας υμων παρα των υιων ισραηλ

Now, words supporting the "age" theory are like: epoch, "this generaton", cosmos, and especially oikou-mene (world);
Cosmos is where we get "Cosmopolitan" ( a well ordered city ... and a "cosmos" can be either the whole organized/civilized planet, or even the universe as a an ordered mechanism of God. )
oikou-mene -- is the idea "world"; but as in the "The Roman world", or Roman age, bronze age, etc.

The one word really *not* supporting the "age" theory is: αιωνι-ον
See 1Timothy 6:12 to show it means "eternal", unless "eternal" life isn't perpetual! :shocked!
But it can be restricted if used as a qualifying adjective: eg:
"συντελεια των αιωνων" "purpose of all ages without limitation." = "fullness of time", "end of the ages"

And that;s exactly what I find for the passage Ryan mentioned; "throughout all(no exceptions) generations."
That is: it applies to all of Aaron's children; but obviously -- if no more babies were generated, it ends.

So ... that's the major hitch I see for Ryan's position:
Although Levite priests still exist -- from checking history books -- I'm pretty sure that all qualified Aaronites have died; Executed by the Romans or died in exile/by mixed genealogy; (That doesn't mean some of them aren't in heaven, or awaiting resurrection...)

The tribe died out; and of course, what about not having "red heffers" either, (Jurassic park anyone? are there any gene samples left??)

So, it's hard to see how that statute applies today; or can apply on this earth; regardless of the meaning of the word.

Cheers.

 

[Ryan]

OTOH: there's a problem...
Ryan, if you notice, is beginning to discuss the eschatological (possible) Aaronite priesthood shown in Revelation;
and part of the problem in our discussion is that although Levite priests still exist -- from checking history books -- I'm pretty sure that all qualified Aaronites were executed by the Romans or died in exile/mixed genealogy;

The tribe died out; and of course, what about not having "red heffers" either, (Jurassic park anyone? are there any gene samples left??)

So, it's hard to see how that statute applies today; or can apply on this earth; regardless of the meaning of the word.

Cheers.

I don't believe the Aaronites were exterminated. Otherwise the prophecy in Ezekiel of the temple's return would be false about their return.

Ezekiel 44:9 ‘Thus says the Lord God, “No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary. 10 But the Levites who went far from Me when Israel went astray, who went astray from Me after their idols, shall bear the punishment for their iniquity. 11 Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary, having oversight at the gates of the house and ministering in the house; they shall slaughter the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister to them.

Their have been red heifers born in Israel: http://www.templeinstitute.org/archive/red_heifer_born.htm

 

[About the Son of God]

I don't believe the Aaronites were exterminated. Otherwise the prophecy in Ezekiel of the temple's return would be false about their return.

Ezekiel 44:9 ‘Thus says the Lord God, “No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary. 10 But the Levites who went far from Me when Israel went astray, who went astray from Me after their idols, shall bear the punishment for their iniquity. 11 Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary, having oversight at the gates of the house and ministering in the house; they shall slaughter the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister to them.

Their have been red heifers born in Israel: http://www.templeinstitute.org/archive/red_heifer_born.htm

Hm.... I've never seen that about the red Heifers....
As to the prophecy in Ezekiel, no it doesn't make it invalid that they have died out.
It only says "Levites" in that passage; and second, Ezekiel is about the resurrection, correct? Some of those who died were undoubtedly Aaronite.

I just realized the word Drew mentioned also happens to be the one I found; I didn't see his transliteration clearly. But, in any event -- I obviously missed a portion of your conversation...
for I see I'm repeating some of your findings...

==============================

Hi, Drew -- do you mind (in future Hebrew comments) doing a copy paste of the Hebrew word in question (Mecron Mamre lets you do that) so that I can see it in Hebrew, directly? Thanks!

I've looking into Isaiah 42.

Isaiah 42:14 הֶחֱשֵׁיתִי, מֵעוֹלָם--אַחֲרִישׁ, אֶתְאַפָּק; כַּיּוֹלֵדָה אֶפְעֶה, אֶשֹּׁם וְאֶשְׁאַף יָחַד.
Isaiah 42:14 εσιωπη-σα μη και αει σιωπη-σ-ομαι και ανεξομαι ε-καρτερη-σα ως η τικτ-ου-σα εκστη-σω και ξηραν-ω αμα

Notably both the KJV and Drew's translation have too many words to match the newer Hebrew; the KJV especially so -- for I don't see the word "now" anywhere in the manuscripts we have.

basically, either the KJV has to be from a different Hebrew manuscript -- or else, it's not a true translation. That makes the sentence source Hebrew questionable...

Nor is it clear to me what a pregnant woman in travail has to do with what follows: esp: in the KJV (eg: I will devour).

From the Mechon Mamre Hebrew, the best I can do now is...

I have kept an eternal still-restrained labor; I will groan, gasp and pant, together.
(I probably could improve it... but I don't have my Hebrew notes here...)

But:
The word for "eternal" isn't found in the Greek; although it is found in the modern Hebrew. So the earlier translators before Christ's time might not have had "eternal" in their Hebrew manuscript; It's an "iffy" apologetic to use a passage which doesn't agree very well with other manuscripts.

The Septuagint Greek basically reads:
I-[was]-silenced not and always will-silence-myself and I-myself-endure-[continuously] as the bringing-forth will-strike-awe and I am-drying-up [at the same time]/together

I was not silenced, and always I, myself, will silence;
I continually endure as the bringing forth shall cause awe and disappearance together.

1) The "silenced-not" parallels God's activity "bringing forth" and freeing captives Isaiah 42:16
2) The "I will silence" parallels God's "I am drying up" and the punishment of pagans Isaiah 42:15

If the first "silenced not" had been "eternal" -- it would still be correct; God is never silenced.


I don't know what to think,
There really does seem to be something wrong with the Hebrew or perhaps some 21's century accidental ventriloquism might be going on....

But assuming the Hebrew is also correct...
I notice that "labor" (travail) (explicitly mentioned) are often understood as punishment for sin; eg: given to Eve. Genesis 3:16
http://www.biblos.com/genesis/3-16.htm

So that the passage might mean that the person pregnant is not God -- but the sinners.
Psalm 48:6
eg: child is in eternal still-born state; never to come to life until (perhaps) the end of the world?

Or perhaps, the woman is Israel; who is God's covenant "wife"; not the husband who fights.
We have her giving birth on the very "last" day (eschatology); cf: Revelation 12:1-2

Also: there is another idea about "stilling" the birth: Isaiah 54:1-2

OTOH: how many examples of "fluidity" can you find?
Perhaps another example from you would be easier/more solid...

I'll study the Hebrew some more, and see if I can figure out why it's different than the Greek.

 

[reba]

I don't believe the Aaronites were exterminated. Otherwise the prophecy in Ezekiel of the temple's return would be false about their return.

Ezekiel 44:9 ‘Thus says the Lord God, “No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary. 10 But the Levites who went far from Me when Israel went astray, who went astray from Me after their idols, shall bear the punishment for their iniquity. 11 Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary, having oversight at the gates of the house and ministering in the house; they shall slaughter the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister to them.

Their have been red heifers born in Israel: http://www.templeinstitute.org/archive/red_heifer_born.htm

Hm.... I've never seen that about the red Heifers....
As to the prophecy in Ezekiel, no it doesn't make it invalid that they have died out.
It only says "Levites" in that passage; and second, Ezekiel is about the resurrection, correct? Some of those who died were undoubtedly Aaronite.

I just realized the word Drew mentioned also happens to be the one I found; I didn't see his transliteration clearly. But, in any event -- I obviously missed a portion of your conversation...
for I see I'm repeating some of your findings...

I'm looking into Isaiah 42.

The Cross made the red heifers unnecessary ....

 

[jasoncran]

so then why do we need goverments then if we don't need laws?

Because not everyone has the Spirit to guide them. I know this may sound controversial, but I believe that Paul believes that "systems of rules" essentially enslave.

Christians don't sin? we don't lie , steal and murder, and cheat etc?

I never said that. But I think Paul is quite clear - we now serve in the newness of the Spirit and we leave "the letter of the law" behind.

how on the earth does one know the SPIRIT that is talking to you if you don't have the word in you to test it?

To me, the posing of this question essentially discounts the reality of the Spirit. It seems to me that you are not really certain of the presence of the Spirit, and need law as a kind of "backup". Well, I empathize with that, but think we all need to take Paul seriously and recognize that the time of law has passed, and the time of the Spirit is here.

the problem is that I see. you aren't pentacostal. pm free on hyper pentacostalism.

I know far more about the Lord direction of his word. there are things he has said about judiasm, that has been confirmed by research. that is why we need the written revalation. it checks what any spirit might say.i have seen hyper pentacostalism personally. it gets whacky.


I come from a heavy Jehovah witness indoctrination and believe all that I do by that Holy spirit revalation. I was taught the bible mostly by the holy spirit. I have been told by him to genesis and not john, for I am a jew. when I did that. the ot was opened to me as much as the Spirit wanted to show me. Now im lead to look deep into jewish thought.Im not suggesting we are put under the law. but Christ is like a marriage. study the commands to learn what pleases him since you already married him.

we do that with our wives. why not with jesus. we declare love for them and then do we not if we do care strive to please them? if you look at the law that way it will change what the law is. im not saying be kosher, etc or the feasts.the core stuff that god always hated.

 

[Sparkey]

So there we are. The valley of dry bones. Whose bones? Ours.
And what about them? They are dry. Quickly now, what is good for bones? You know, you've heard it a thousand times.

Isaiah 60:16
You shall also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shall suck the breast of kings: and you shall know that I the LORD am your Savior and your Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

Did you guess right? Yes, it is milk. Milk. So who is given so the dry bones will have the nourishment and the grace and the vitality they need?

1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body--whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

The Holy Spirit is given so that those dry bones (the bones of the body of Christ) will be provided for. I like the coloring book edition and hope you do too. So then we may see that Prophets are the eye of the body, and if the eye be single, or as Luke said, your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy, your body also is full of darkness." New International Version (©2011). There are so many worthy discussions on this topic, we are all bound to be familiar with it. Paul exhorts all to seek after and not be ignorant of the Gift of Prophecy (and other Gifts) for edification of the body.

So there, in the valley we see the dry bones and there, in the valley, we hear of Prophecy too. But what of the Jew? What of his belief? How could such a thing be? To better understand the question prior to attempting an answer we turn to the works of Alfred Edersheim, and his book, "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah."

"And then, as the proud Roman passed on the Sabbath through the streets, Judaism would obtrude itself upon his notice, by the shops that were shut, and by the strange figures that idly moved about in holiday attire. They were strangers in a strange land, not only without sympathy with what passed around, but with marked contempt and abhorrence of it, while there was that about their whole bearing, which expressed the unspoken feeling, that the time of Rome's fall, and of their own supremacy, was at hand.

"To put the general feeling in the words of Tacitus, the Jews kept close together, and were ever most liberal to one another; but they were filled with bitter hatred of all others. They would neither eat nor sleep with strangers; and the first thing which they taught their proselytes was to despise the gods, to renounce their own country, and to rend the bonds which had bound them to parents, children or kindred...",

"To begin with, every Gentile child, so soon as born, was to be regarded as unclean. Those [Gentiles] who actually worshipped mountains, hills, bushes, etc, idolaters, should be cut down with the sword. But as it was impossible to exterminate heathenism, Rabbinic legislation kept certain definite objects in view, which may be summarized:

• To prevent Jews from being inadvertently led into idolatry
• To avoid all participation in idolatry
• Not to do anything which might aid the heathen in their worship; and, beyond all this...
• Not to give pleasure, or even help, to heathens.

The latter involved a most dangerous principle, capable of almost indefinite application by fanaticism."

And what do you, Sparrow, consider when you think about a possible turning point that will change these very tightly bound attitudes?

I think that as we take up the Great Commission and continue to preach to all nations, we will only be left with the need to continue to cast more and more of ourselves onto the bosom of our Lord and the Spirit of God.

I think that as that happens and true salvation is realized and seen through what I could only describe as the "Glory of God" on the earth once again, that the Jews will pause and consider why their hearts are jealous. They will recall the law and the prophets and they too will join in the heartfelt effort and will in that effort of joining into our shared burden and labour become truly one, fulfilling prophecy and culminating the return of their, and yes(!) of our: KING!

Okay, I know. I did leave out some parts, but this isn't the End Time Events forum and I do like the coloring book edition.

~Sparrow

 

[Ryan]

I don't believe the Aaronites were exterminated. Otherwise the prophecy in Ezekiel of the temple's return would be false about their return.

Ezekiel 44:9 ‘Thus says the Lord God, “No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary. 10 But the Levites who went far from Me when Israel went astray, who went astray from Me after their idols, shall bear the punishment for their iniquity. 11 Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary, having oversight at the gates of the house and ministering in the house; they shall slaughter the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister to them.

Their have been red heifers born in Israel: http://www.templeinstitute.org/archive/red_heifer_born.htm

Hm.... I've never seen that about the red Heifers....
As to the prophecy in Ezekiel, no it doesn't make it invalid that they have died out.
It only says "Levites" in that passage; and second, Ezekiel is about the resurrection, correct? Some of those who died were undoubtedly Aaronite.

I just realized the word Drew mentioned also happens to be the one I found; I didn't see his transliteration clearly. But, in any event -- I obviously missed a portion of your conversation...
for I see I'm repeating some of your findings...

I'm looking into Isaiah 42.

The Cross made the red heifers unnecessary ....

Could the blood of bulls really take away sins? This passage was prior to the implementation of the temple system.

Exodus 34:7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”
N
So how could he forgive then if the sacrificial system was not yet introduced?

We must keep in mind that Yeshua was slain before the foundation of the world. Meaning, sacrifices before Yeshua arrived on earth were pointing to future fulfillment, and sacrifices after Yeshua will be in remembrance.

We must also consider that God’s own commandments state that the Levitical priesthood is an eternal, perpetual statute. We must also recognize that Yeshua was not a Levitical priest.

Finally, we must acknowledge that Messiah’s disciples, even after Yeshua’s death, carried out sacrifices in the Temple.

The latter chapters of Ezekiel all point to the temple system being reinstituted during the millennium. To deny this Reba, is to deny a good chunk of prophecy.

 

[About the Son of God]

Quote Originally Posted by About the Son of God View Post If this is still a hair split, then we can let it drop. More later.... Good night for now. I really don't see how it's relevant to this discussion? Difference between "work" and "works" I haven't poured much thought into it other then "works of the law" are those trying to achieve salvation through works apart from saving faith.

I said it was a small point, but the relevance was this quote of yours:

Hebrews 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. it states there is a disannulling of a commandment, not commandments. If it was the whole law of Moses being cancelled then we would be dealing with more than one commandment. The law is not weak and unprofitable, however; the author does not clarify yet at this point what is weak and unprofitable. Later we discover it is the sinful man administration of the priesthood that is causing the weakness, which is the root cause of the problem at hand. In verse 12 when reading verse 18. We know the commandment was not erased, but transferred, or removed from the Levitical Priesthood to Yeshua (Jesus) in the order of Melchizedek.

Since a single "work" (based on faith) can represent the sum total of all a Christian's good deeds when Paul writes about it, eg: in Greek, then when speaking about Hebrews and commandment/S which are work/S there can be a problem keeping Paul's meaning straight .... that's all.

As I said, it's a small point -- but Paul distinguishes good "work" from worthless "works"; he's "biased"

But it wasn't the main issue, the main question I had for you -- was "which ONE command (work?)" is cancelled?

Please quote me an actual Mosaic Law's verse.... so I can examine the command.
or at least explain, clearly, why you can't do so.

 

[About the Son of God]

Hi Reba!

Hm.... I've never seen that about the red Heifers.... As to the prophecy in Ezekiel, no it doesn't make it invalid that they have died out. It only says "Levites" in that passage; and second, Ezekiel is about the resurrection, correct? Some of those who died were undoubtedly Aaronite. I just realized the word Drew mentioned also happens to be the one I found; I didn't see his transliteration clearly. But, in any event -- I obviously missed a portion of your conversation... for I see I'm repeating some of your findings... I'm looking into Isaiah 42.

The Cross made the red heifers unnecessary ....

Was it the cross... or Jesus... or Jesus on the cross... or ... hmm... ;) Yeah, I know... a shorthand.

And I agree with that.... and I was just in the thread having a tittilating conversation about the tittles of the law, and I believed a reference to red heifers extinction made by another poster....

Originally Posted by About the Son of God View Post I sometimes wonder what it means that whole passages of the Law were not executable (correctly) when Jesus made his comments about the "tittles" of the Law.

Like the law of the red heifer.

Now, when Ryan comes up and gives me a link to a Red heifer, Gee --- it's pretty surprising.
I wonder if Jethro knows about this.... if so, I get the feeling I want to make some irritated noises with my mouth; but I'll do it behind the silent monitor screen....

Now, Ryan claims he doesn't need the law of Moses for salvation (or at least, I think he did) but he wants to follow many of the precepts out of love for God... and so ...
I'm having fun building theological sandcastles, and demolishing them, and each time I build a new one -- I get a better idea of what is sand, rock, pebbles, and living bedrock; and what Ryan thinks.

God bless you today, Reba.

 

[Mitspa]

Jesus is God. There was always only one ways to have a saving relationship with him. For those strong in the faith as Anna was, they knew the time was upon them for the Messiah to be born. It was an easy transition filled with great joy the Messiah had arrived. Those who were walking in the light, had no problems accepting Jesus. You are saying everybody born before Jesus then were not saved then? Just his very name "Yeshua" meaning salvation was spoken of in the Torah. So was nobody saved before Yeshua then because your argument implies so?

There were a lot of Israelites in the days of Moses that received salvation, however that is not what we are discussing.

We are discussing the right to enter the Holy of Holies, which was done only by the high priest, and then once a year.

Now we freely have access by One spirit, both Jew and gentile. Thats why the Law had to be "taken out of the way" because it was always intended for gentile to be in the covenant.

as it is written -

And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. Galatians 3:17

and again -

"As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations.


The Law is not of faith

The Law of Moses was temporary.

The Law of God is Eternal.

Without faith it is impossible to please God.


JLB

Ever heard anyone ever say I obey because I am saved? Galatians was written for those who were told to obey to be saved. But now because we are saved, we are free to obey.

Jesus was Torah observant till the day he died and after. Why is it so wrong to say we want to live our life like him? That's what the bible tells us to do.

No, Galatians was written to warn those who had received the free gift of righteousness by faith and had now turn back to the law and the written code. FOR THE LAW IS NOT OF FAITH.

to FALL FROM GRACE, means one was justified freely by grace and has rejected that and turned to justify themselves by the law of moses.

So if one is under law? they cannot be under grace.
Either one is justified by grace or by keeping the law? You cannot be under two covenants, this is spiritual adultry!
Rom 7