Originally posted at gephartr.blogspot.com
I haven't been able to put as much thought into this as I would like yet, but felt it worth posting for possible discussion. Relating to the nature of the final judgement, what is it based on?
I've started reading Leviticus, and beyond there been portions of it that just seem totally irrelevant anymore (as Jesus has made the once-for-all atoning sacrifice) it does give what I think is a clue. The first 13-14 chapters deal with sacrifices for sin that must be made once we recognize we did it. The sin is still sin even if we do not know that it was at the time and judgement is due for that sin.
On the contrary, in the New Testament it speaks of our sins being paid for at Calvary - and that of all mankind. It also speaks of sin as being more individually based (to him that believes it to be sin it is sin). It also speaks of how we, as being in Christ, are called to do the good deeds of Christ. Then in Revelation and in Matthew (and probably others) it speaks of how we will be judged for what we did and didn't do. But in light of how we are called to do the good deeds of Christ, it seems to me that this judgement of deeds is a judgement of what good deeds we did and did not do. But in the OT, that it be of the sins that we did and did not do.
Is this in fact one of the great changes, if not the greatest change that was implemented thru Jesus' life and sacrifice?
I haven't been able to put as much thought into this as I would like yet, but felt it worth posting for possible discussion. Relating to the nature of the final judgement, what is it based on?
I've started reading Leviticus, and beyond there been portions of it that just seem totally irrelevant anymore (as Jesus has made the once-for-all atoning sacrifice) it does give what I think is a clue. The first 13-14 chapters deal with sacrifices for sin that must be made once we recognize we did it. The sin is still sin even if we do not know that it was at the time and judgement is due for that sin.
On the contrary, in the New Testament it speaks of our sins being paid for at Calvary - and that of all mankind. It also speaks of sin as being more individually based (to him that believes it to be sin it is sin). It also speaks of how we, as being in Christ, are called to do the good deeds of Christ. Then in Revelation and in Matthew (and probably others) it speaks of how we will be judged for what we did and didn't do. But in light of how we are called to do the good deeds of Christ, it seems to me that this judgement of deeds is a judgement of what good deeds we did and did not do. But in the OT, that it be of the sins that we did and did not do.
Is this in fact one of the great changes, if not the greatest change that was implemented thru Jesus' life and sacrifice?
posted by:
|
|
Unsubscribed |
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Mon, June 25, 2007 - 7:16 AMIn revelations it says that all that were judged by there works are condemned. Only if you were exclude from judgement by having your name written in the book of life are you saved. Yes, the sacrifice of Jesus covers all mankind, but only if you choose to accept it. The book of life is the list of those that accepted the sacrifice of Jesus and are forgiven. -
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Mon, June 25, 2007 - 8:30 PMRe 20:11-15 (New Living Translation)
"And I saw a great white throne and the one sitting on it. The earth and sky fled from his presence, but they found no place to hide. I saw the dead, both great and small, standing before God’s throne. And the books were opened, including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had done, as recorded in the books. The sea gave up its dead, and death and the grave* gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds. Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death. And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire."
I'm not claiming to know the answers, but it appears that in Revelations it says that "all were judged according to their deeds." Meaning those in the book of life and those not - all judged according to their deeds. Which again raises my question as to whether instead of that referring to sin - as those of us in Jesus will not be judged by our sin which has been washed whiter than snow - maybe the deeds refer to the good deeds that we are called to do.
Again, I have no answers. But I am interested in what people think. This is both an intellectual exercise to me, and it is also life. "Seek first the kingdom of God..." -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Mon, June 25, 2007 - 9:13 PMGeppy,
I almost forgot, the judgement for our deeds has to do with our works. We are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works. Our works do not justify us but they are a natural response to the gift of life that we have received. I think the following scripture may give some insight into your question.
Matthew 16:25-28
25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
We will be rewarded according to our deeds. Does that make sense? -
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 9:58 AM<We will be rewarded according to our deeds. Does that make sense? >
I agree, but salvation does not come from that judgement all those whose name in not in the book of life are condemned. -
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 10:50 AM<I agree, but salvation does not come from that judgement all those whose name in not in the book of life are condemned.>
Aye, I agree with you Ricardo. But, with the given of salvation as a separate discussion, what is the meaning of these words in the Bible? What is the nature of the change of Jesus sacrifice on man's understanding of life...? These are more the questions that I raised for discussion. (Note: given this forum, I assume a common understanding of salvation itself as being a gift of God.)
Please understand, I am not trying to be critical. I am happy to find a group where these kinds of discussions may occur. I have missed having this type of conversation for many years. -
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 6:08 PM<Please understand, I am not trying to be critical. I am happy to find a group where these kinds of discussions may occur. I have missed having this type of conversation for many years>
Certainly, please do not see in me any offense, I welcome debate, and discussion, through which we both seek edification. There is enough evidence to support the idea that as Christians we will be despensed the spirit of God in an unequal fashion, according to the judgement of God. There are many that who are first that will be last and many that are last that will be first. I understand that to mean that there are many who we precieve as holy that will be last, and many that we precieve as wicked that shall indeed be first. We can not judge the place of those amongst us, we can only take care as be true to our own.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Mon, June 25, 2007 - 9:04 PMWhen you are reading leviticus keep in mind that the laws are a part of the covenant that God entered into with Israel. See exodus 24
www.biblegateway.com/passage/
The word sin means to miss the mark. Paul outlined the mark that we often miss in 1 Corinthians 13...love. That is why he follows up in 1Corinthians 14:1 by saying "make love your highest goal" (new living translation).
We sin when we break the new covenant..the royal law of love written on our hearts.
Hebrews 8:7-13 says:
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds[b] I will remember no more.”[c]
13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hopefully this helps. I will try to clarify a little bit later this week. I am a tribe addict in recovery so I try not to spend as much time here as I used to. Feel free to send me a message directly if you do not here from me ;0) -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 9:17 AMThe entire notion that the Torah (Law) has been in some way 'done away with" is not Biblical at all. Shaul (Paul) is, as Kefa (Peter) tells us, difficult to comprehend. That is because his words are easily twisted to establish a position that is against Torah observance. Keep in mind that when Shaul was called before the Beit Din in Jerusalem to answer charges of being anti-Torah he denied it and even took the strictest vow of Torah, the Nazarite Vow, to prove his fidelity to Torah.
Let us also not forget that Yeshua Himself stated that if anyone should teach us not to observe the Torah, that person would be least in the kingdom of heaven.
Torah observance is a Biblical mandate. I'm sure this will set off a firestorm of responses, but I am ready, willing and able to answer any questions that arise.
Shalom,
Uriel -
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 10:03 AM<Let us also not forget that Yeshua Himself stated that if anyone should teach us not to observe the Torah, that person would be least in the kingdom of heaven>
Sin has not changed, only the methods, those that put themselves under the law keep the commandments against their nature and fail. Those that born of the spirit , have their nature changed and keep the commandments naturally. That is what it means to have the commandments of God written into your heart.
Mat 9:16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
Mat 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
if you manage to keep the commandments of God by observing the law, then what need do you have of Jesus? what place does grace have in you, who has earned his own place in the kingdom?
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 ¶ But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
-
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 10:45 AMAs far as the Law, Romans actually argues that the Law of God is still valid and applicable. I won't repeat all that I wrote, but you may read it here: gephartr.blogspot.com/2007/06...aw.html.
As far as Matthew 9:16-17, where does the concept come from to claim that the old/new is the covenants? These concepts, in my understanding, refer to the "new birth" or the change of our own nature - not the Law.
Also, I don't think that the Bible or Uriel are arguing that following the Law is for the purpose of salvation - but instead a result of salvation. It is what we owe to God for his great mercy.
Anyway just my opinion there. I am still studying on this concept, and trying to come to grips with its implications for myself. Thus this topic, and my blog in general. -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 1:54 PMIndeed. We do not rely on the Torah for salvation, but we keep Torah as a result of our new birth in Yahweh's Covenant. Christians who think they are above Yahweh's Eternal Torah (again, the same Torah Yeshua said if one teaches us not to keep it, they are LEAST in the kingdom) turn the grace of Yahweh into licentiousness. Period.
Note Geppy that those who are against Yahweh's Torah ignore Yeshua when He says to keep it. It is salad bar theology. -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 2:05 PMWhat does the "New Testament" Teach About the Torah and Salvation?
Is Torah "a curse" that Yeshua came to do away with? Two frequently cited verses Christianity uses to support the idea that "the Law is a curse," are:
Galatians 3:10 -- For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them."
Galatians 3:13 -- Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree"
Clearly, there is something called the curse of Torah. But is Torah itself a curse?
First, recall that Yahweh gave it so that "it would be well" with His people (Deuteronomy 4:40).
Shaul wrote that Torah is holy, righteous and good (Romans 7:12).
Shaul stated that Torah is spiritual (Romans 7:14).
Shaul said that he himself delighted in Torah (Romans 7:22-25).
When accused that he might be teaching that Torah was done away, Shaul took steps to prove otherwise (Acts 21:21-26).
On the surface there seems to be quite a contradiction. How can something Yahweh gave, which is holy, righteous and good, that Yeshua practiced and upheld (Matt 5:17-20), that "James" (Ya'acov/Jacob is his real name!) said was to be our standard (James 1:22-25), that Shaul himself delighted in and also followed, be called a "curse" by Shaul?
Part of the problem is a failure to understand and teach the dual nature of the Torah. Yahweh Himself alluded to this duality when He gave the Torah:
Deuteronomy 30:15-17a -- "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgements, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. But if your hearts turn away so that you do not hear, you shall surely perish ..."
Notice in those verses that "faith" comes before, and is tied directly to, obedience. First, Yahweh says He commands His people to "love the Lord" (trust/faith), and then walk in His ways (obey Torah). Next, He says if their hearts turn away (lack of faith) they will perish. Yahweh's view of faith is not void of action on our part. It is not a matter of "just believing" in certain facts.
The most famous verse in Judaism is the Shema, found in Deuteronomy 6:4:
Shema Israel Adonai Elohenu Adonai echad.
"Hear oh Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.
"Shema," the first word of the verse, is usually translated "hear," but is a complex word that implies to, "'accept,' implying faith, commitment, and obedience." (10)
Hebrews 3:7-4:2, says Moses and the children of Israel were preached the Gospel in the Wilderness, but they perished. Were they condemned for "failing to follow every point of the Law?" No, It was due to lack of faith. The book of Hebrews says they did not "mix" what they knew to do (the Torah) with faith. Faith in God and following Torah are inseparable.
Shaul, in his letter to the Galatians, writes about the purpose of the Torah. He compares it to a tutor to us before faith (11). Yet, he also talks about "the curse" of the Law. One seems "good" and the other "bad." How can this be?
The answer lies with the duality of the Torah and its multiplicity of purpose. One function of the Torah is to show man how sinful he is and that he stands condemned before a righteous Elohim. This is not all the Torah does however! Only by trusting in Yahweh for salvation, AND agreeing to walk in His ways, can man escape judgment (1 John 2:4).
What is important to know here is that the Torah itself is not a curse, rather, the curse is but one part of the Torah.
The "curse of the law" AND its function of being "a tutor" (actually, a "guide" or "guardian," literally one who escorts you), apply to those who have not yet placed their faith in Elohim. Christianity incorrectly teaches that when Shaul spoke of Torah serving as a guardian before Yeshua, he was saying that it held the Jews, under the Law of Moses, in bondage until Yeshua came and died. (12) This is a biased misreading of the text, as Yahweh does not change. What Shaul is saying is that in the life of every living person (yesterday and today), the Torah functions as such before they come to Messiah.
After anyone comes to trust in Yeshua, those two particular aspects of the Torah cease. (It being a "guardian" and a curse.) However, Torah's role as Yahweh's revelation of how we are to live for Him continues.
The Torah is a way of living for Yahweh, so all will be well with you, is the other side of the duality of Torah -- a blessing and guide for us to live, and a revelation of Elohim to us, so that we can draw closer to Him.
The Torah lists 613 direct commandments. According to the Judaism of Yeshua (and today) 365 of these are considered "negative" commandments. You can call these the "thou shall not's." The purpose of these negative commandments is to; a) point out (even to arouse) sin, b) show man he is condemned by his sin, and, c) point him to God for salvation.
There are 248 "positive" commandments. The purpose of the positive commandments, is to show us the things Yahweh wants us to do AFTER coming to faith.
By "not under the Law," it does not mean we can murder, steal, or break any of Yahweh's Torah. It is assumed we no longer do those things as we now trust in and live for Him. Rather, it means we are no longer under the curse (penalty) of those negative commandments.
Put succinctly, this is what Shaul is teaching throughout his letters:
Attempting to gain salvation by following the Torah on your own without faith, and inevitably failing at some point, is the "curse of the Law" -- not the Torah itself.
Reading the "New Testament" with this Hebrew understanding of where Shaul was coming from, eliminates the conflicts caused by the (false) idea that he made contradictory statements about "the Law." Everywhere he went, Shaul preached against the "popular" teaching that you could earn your salvation through legalistic observance of Torah. However, he never taught against Torah being a part of the life of any believer.
I sincerely pray that the anti-Nomianism of Christianity will cease and that they make teshuva (return and repent), coming home to the true faith.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 6:49 PM<By "not under the Law," it does not mean we can murder, steal, or break any of Yahweh's Torah. It is assumed we no longer do those things as we now trust in and live for Him. Rather, it means we are no longer under the curse (penalty) of those negative commandments.
Put succinctly, this is what Shaul is teaching throughout his letters:
Attempting to gain salvation by following the Torah on your own without faith, and inevitably failing at some point, is the "curse of the Law" -- not the Torah itself. >
We are in agreement here, where I think we disagree is how one through faith keeps the Torah.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 2:05 PMSo, what I am first wondering is of course the discussion of meat and whether that part of the Law applies to gentile Christians. As James declared in the "first Jerusalem council," the gentiles must only refrain from that which is sacrificed to idols. In this I read that the rest of the Law still applies to gentiles, but that we are exempt from those relating to clean/unclean animals.
Would that be, in your opinions, a correct understanding? (And as a completely different topic, what about those that apply to ritual cleanliness. I don't really understand the purpose to those.)
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 6:24 PM<Christians who think they are above Yahweh's Eternal Torah (again, the same Torah Yeshua said if one teaches us not to keep it, they are LEAST in the kingdom) turn the grace of Yahweh into licentiousness. Period.>
I am not teaching you not to keep the Torah, but how to keep the Torah, through the law you will fail. None who live under the law are righteous in the eyes of God. Without having your nature changed every day is a struggle against your own desires, desires born of lust, envy, hate, for of such is the world. In this you will fail. We all have, to be saved you must accept that you can not be righteous in of your own will. Only then can you accept the grace of God and the sacrifice of Jesus. In doing so God will enter your heart, and transform your being, the old desires will be replaced with those born of Love. THIS is how you keep the Torah!
-
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 6:18 PM<As far as Matthew 9:16-17, where does the concept come from to claim that the old/new is the covenants? These concepts, in my understanding, refer to the "new birth" or the change of our own nature - not the Law. >
The law is applied to those of the old nature. Don't get me wrong sin is still sin, murder, envy, lust, the difference between the new and the old is that the old mens nature were corrupt and only through will could they force their behavior to change, thus the law existed. With the new nature a man will obey the will of God not because of law and exercise of will but by his nature being changed through grace. Consider what Peter had to say about turning again to the law:
2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 7:05 PMI read this topic, the post Eric made on Hebrews is interesting
"Hebrews 8:7-13 says:
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds[b] I will remember no more.”[c]
13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
The NIV Bible says Paul"s writting style is not in the letter, its first title of Author was someone else - maybe Barnabus.
-
-
-
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 9:08 PMU:"The entire notion that the Torah (Law) has been in some way 'done away with" is not Biblical at all. Shaul (Paul) is, as Kefa (Peter) tells us, difficult to comprehend. That is because his words are easily twisted to establish a position that is against Torah observance. Keep in mind that when Shaul was called before the Beit Din in Jerusalem to answer charges of being anti-Torah he denied it and even took the strictest vow of Torah, the Nazarite Vow, to prove his fidelity to Torah. "
===========
I resonate here, Uriel.
What I see Paul doing is contextualizing what he holds to be truth from his Jewish context as found in the teachings of Jesus. He contextualizes by suggesting that that election (salvation) does not have to be nomistic in nature - that one can be part of the "spiritual Israel" by accepting the authority of Jesus by faith. But Paul never suggests that the law ought not to be fulfilled.
Covenantal nomism does not suggest that one is chosen by keeping the law. Rather, the law is the custodian of God's covenanting unto his people. He chooses a people to work with and blesses them. In return, the relationship is maintained by the moral/ethical teachings of the law being observed. The notion that the Jews held to a legalistic soteriology is largely being discarded. Covenantal nomism and legalism are not the same at all.
Paul suggests that the time has come for all of the world to be called to be the people of God - Jew and Gentile alike. And the one can be part of the community of God by having faith in the teachings of Jesus. This doesn't do away with the Jewish cultural expectations found in ritual purity law. In fact, Paul preserves the Jewish tradtiion but argues that it is no longer only Jews that are God's elect.
MC
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, June 26, 2007 - 7:22 PMI believe that we are having a differentiation of terminology.
First, none are claiming that following the Torah gains salvation. Salvation is by faith in the Creator and His promises alone. (Jesus is the Creator.)
Second, there seems to be a confusion between the Law of God and the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was conditional and temporary and with the tribes of Israel. The Law of God is permanent, unchanging, holy, pure, and righteous. The Mosaic Covenant included the Law of God in written word along with the conditional covenant. Under the New Covenant of Jesus, the Law of God is written in our hearts, in our minds, and on our tongues. But the Law of God is still permanent, unchanging, holy, pure, and righteous. (Note, I make this claim because the Law of God is part of God and God is unchanging. Therefore the Law of God must be unchanging as well.)
Therefore, we should - as followers of Jesus - want to know what the Law of God is in its entirety. Do we recognize the entirety of the Law that is in our hearts or is there still some that we have not learned. Is our belief backed up by action or is it words only? What actions perform the Law of God? So, since we have the Law of God both in our hearts and in the written word of the Torah - why would we choose to ignore the Torah?
The question that is left and remains is to determine what of the Torah is the Law of God and what is the conditional covenant. And if we are honestly seeking the Law of God in the Torah, then our hearts should sing when it recognizes in the written word what is within our own hearts. And thereby we may just learn a little more.
Sorry for the ramble of some of the thoughts in my mind. I just think that we as Christians are just slightly too ambivalent of the Torah. I know that in the last few months I have been earnestly reading it and my heart sings as it has not sung in a long time... (The exceptions being when I accepted Jesus, and a few times of conviction since then.) -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Wed, June 27, 2007 - 12:22 AM"Note Geppy that those who are against Yahweh's Torah ignore Yeshua when He says to keep it. It is salad bar theology. "
LOL I thought that was really funny. Thanks for being so honest. For the record, I am not a theologian (salad bar or otherwise). I am an ordinary person who has been with Jesus ;0)
"I just think that we as Christians are just slightly too ambivalent of the Torah."
You are right in making this point. Still, whenever Jesus referred to the law he always spoke about what most Christians would call the Ten Commandments. Although, my close friend Michael would probably disagree with me, there is no biblical evidence that Adam, Enoch, Noah or Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob observed all of the laws prescribed under the Mosaic Covenant. The new covenant of love written on our hearts helps us to live our lives in a way that pleases God. Jesus explained this when he emphasized the schema to the lawyer. www.biblegateway.com/passage/
Galatians 5:13-24 affirms this. It says:
You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires (see 1 Corinthians 13 as well)
Torah observance is not the same as conforming to the Mosaic covenant. If we submit to the royal law of love, we uphold the Torah. As it pertains to worship, it is impossible for us to observe all of the mandates of the Mosaic Covenant because the temple has been destroyed. But that is probably another conversation for another post.
See you at the salad bar...I hope they have bacon bits...I love bacon bits!! -EC
-
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Wed, June 27, 2007 - 7:15 PM"Still, whenever Jesus referred to the law he always spoke about what most Christians would call the Ten Commandments."
Now THAT is pure bunk! This is exactly what I mean. Can you prove that the word Torah (which is the word Yeshua would certainly have used for Law) only refers to the 10 Commandments? What Jew would only think of the 10 commandments when speaking of Torah? This is so silly as to be laughable! That is nothing more than a very weak attempt at twisting Yeshua's words to give us an "out" on Torah observance.
Sadly, such bizarre notions are based completely in Replacement Theology ( read anti-Semitism), not Biblical knowledge. And before you say it, no I am not claiming you are an anti-Semite, only that the ideas you present are part and parcel of a theology based on anti-Semitism and you more than likely don't realize it. Most Christians don't. -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Wed, June 27, 2007 - 7:52 PMI'll write more here in the future the lord will.
Rambling off about whats running through my thoughts now momentarily.
The issue Jesus had with healing on the Sabbath was strict observance of the law -
could he do anything - good or evil? If he healed as a good work is this right? Or need he be stoned to death?
Did Jesus have his disciples pull a cart of stones so He could be ready to stone to death a broken commandment of Moses?
What teaching Jesus ask fulfills the LAW and the PROPHETS?
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Wed, June 27, 2007 - 9:38 PMU: "Now THAT is pure bunk! "
==========
I gravitate towards that as well.
Gentile/Greek contextualization of Jewish soteriology (a la Jesus) began with Paul. Not Jesus. Jesus maintained a world view that included a robust regard for the entire law (not one iota was to be overlooked) and Jewish primacy.
I see Jesus not discarding Judaism but a reformer challenging not the whole of Jewish tradition but the type of nomism that defined first century Pharisaic Judaism. In the process, he seemed to have brought a reawakening to what he considered the true moral/ethical base of The Law which, as in the Old Testament, seemed to have a deep foundation of social ethics.
I don't see Paul as EVER antagonizing the validity or goodness of the law. His indictments against nomism aren't even directed in a way to deconstruct Judaism. Paul is very pragmatic in his logic and seeks to assert that one can, post-Jesus, become part of the initiated Kingdom of God (a la Jesus) despite his/her religio/cultural heritage. He maintains, however, that we ought to strive to fulfill the law. The law and salvation are not diametrically opposed in Paul's theology. Only his globalized gospel and Jewish primacy are in tension. So, for the Jews there is the Law - to be observed and kept according to religio/cultural expectations. But for the Gentile, faith in Jesus is synomymous with the Jewish nomism in it that they both allow one to become part of the Kingdom of God.
The idea that Judiasm is, by inception (back to the beginning) a legalistic religion is bunk, imho. Most Christian theologians reject that. Instead, they see "covenental nomism" - a relationship not founded on lawkeeping but based on proactive election by Yahweh and a relationsip maintained by the ethical instruction of the Torah for the people of God. Jesus reached back to tradition to base his ministry upon and challenged not Judaism itself but the then current developments in first century Rabbinical Judaism.
MC
-
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Wed, June 27, 2007 - 8:04 PM<Still, whenever Jesus referred to the law he always spoke about what most Christians would call the Ten Commandments.>
I don't think that we can truly prove this point. I think that it could be reasonably argued that the Law is more than the Ten Commandments though. I think that it could also be reasonably argued that the Law is less than the entire Torah as well. For example, since the Law of God is unchangeable as is God himself, then whatever Laws have been replaced by Jesus sacrifice must not be part of the Law of God. And the NT does say that Jesus has replaced (at least) some of the law of Moses. (Note in the NT it speaks in some places of the Law of God and in others the law of Moses - not the same I think.)
Come at this from another side, when we read the Torah there are some laws that make us upset and we think "boy, that is just stupid and I will not do it." Is this not the exact attitude that Paul speaks of in Romans when he says that sin takes advantage of the purity of the Law and creates sin within us.
For a modern day example, I have a genetic "disease" which causes high blood pressure. My doctors tell me that to reduce my blood pressure that I must reduce the intake (1) salt, (2) caffeine, and (3) chocolate (among others). I say to myself "self, they are stupid" and "what is life if I do not live by eating what I want." I know that what the doctors tell me is right, but yet I continue to rail against what I know is right and do it anyway. This is the same thing with the Law.
Therefore, the fact that we sit here and argue about whether I will follow the Law due to this thing or that shows that sin is still active within us due to knowing what the Law is.
To use a phrase of a decent pastor in Michigan, "are we tracking?" -
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Wed, June 27, 2007 - 8:26 PMBummer, I don't see how to edit a post. So, sadly I make one new one to correct a word that was misused. Please change:
<Therefore, the fact that we sit here and argue about whether I will follow the Law due to this thing or that shows that sin is still active within us due to knowing what the Law is.>
to
<Therefore, the fact that we sit here and discuss about whether I will follow the Law due to this thing or that shows that sin is still active within us due to knowing what the Law is.>
I don't think that we are arguing and it was a poor choice of words. This is an excellent discussion!
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Wed, June 27, 2007 - 9:51 PMG: "I think that it could be reasonably argued that the Law is more than the Ten Commandments though. I think that it could also be reasonably argued that the Law is less than the entire Torah as well."
=================
In a resonant way, perhaps it can be seen this way:
Jewish theology is ongoing and living. Midrashic perspectives continue to develop and add to the understanding of the Tanakh. Maybe it is not whether or not the law is more or less than the Ten Commandments or the Mishnah but, rather, that the issue for Jesus was how the law, and perspectives on the law, were developed and articulated. He seems to have had no real problems with the Law itself. Rather, he seemed particularly opposed to sort of marginalization and exclusivism of first century Rabbinical Judaism and its interpretation and observance of the Law.
This next part might sound anti-semitic but I see it more subtly as (1) a critique on segments of Pharasaic tradition and (2) a very Christian specific view. I see Jesus as reminding the leaders of his time that, in the end, religion (as following Yahweh) was meant to beneift mankind as its goal and not, inversely, that man was to elevate religion.
What do I mean here? After centuries of dspersion, exile and occupation/rule by other cultures, and the loss of the temple (the abomination of desolation), I can easily understand the very specific and nomistic development in Judaism as they struggled to reconvene, maintain and strengthen their cultural identiy under Roman occupation. Seeing their culture influenced heavily by Persian and then Greco/Roman perspectives, I see first century Judaism as a sort of ultra-conservative backlash designed to distill and rebuild a more potent and specific Jewish revival. But in the process, the religion/culture itself had become the ultimate goal losing sight of the deeper social/ethical demands of Mosaic law. In other words, for the religious leaders in the Jewish quarter, religion at the time had a primary purpose of defining what it meant to truly be Jewish and, in the process, exclude many because of the newfound specifics of Pharasaic tradition. But Jesus countered by suggesting that religion was meant ultimately to beneift the human condition - all of humanity. The Jews first (of course...). So, we have that comment that "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath".
MC -
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 5:41 AMmc,
I like your phrasing, nor do I read what you say as anti-Semitism. As you say, the focus of 1st century Jewish leadership was ill-placed (as seen thru Jesus' words and actions).
But, I would still think that over the last 2000 years we have read meaning in that is not there. As you say, Jesus loved the Law; how could he not as it is his Law. So, when did we start believing that the Law had no meaning and we could ignore it? Jesus did say that love fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. Elsewhere it is asked "what is Love" and the answer is giving your life for others like Jesus did. Often we say "I love my neighbor" but it never has action. Love demands action, and the Law gives examples of actions to take. -
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 8:52 AM<Jesus loved the Law; how could he not as it is his Law. >
Jesus is the torah and the torah was sacrificed for us, that is the grace by which we are all saved, amen!
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:39 AMG: "But, I would still think that over the last 2000 years we have read meaning in that is not there."
--------------
I agree. In fact, I question much of the Christian approach to the Bible. If you have not already, I suggest using commentaries by Malina/Rorbaugh. They are scholars that are esteemed by most of Bibilcal scholarship (except perhaps the most literalist, traditional Christian fundamentalists) for their social-science approach to NT scripture. They reveal much in how our Western, forensic, capitalist lens can misread or even grossly misinterpret NT texts.
MC
-
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 5:42 AMThe issue between Yeshua and the Perushim regarding Shabbat observance wasn't over Torah, but over issues of halakah. When you read of Him criticizing their "traditions" or rules, he is referring to halakah, not Torah. -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 5:48 AMReturning to Shaul, he also read, understood, taught, and wrote about the Hebrew Scriptures and the Hebrew Messiah from a Pharisaic Hebrew mindset. Shaul was personally taught by Gamliel -- a Pharisee and the head of the Sanhedrin -- probably for the purpose of taking over the Sanhedrin's leadership, which would have made Shaul the equivalent of "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."
Shaul said he was a "Hebrew of Hebrews," a term that means he was not a Hellenistic Jew (Jews that had largely abandoned much of the Torah in order to be "more accepted" in the Greek/Roman culture they lived in). Scripture shows that none of this changed when Shaul became a believer -- he remained a Torah observant rabbi until the day he died. Twenty years into his ministry for Yeshua, he still identified himself as a Pharisee. (Acts 23:6, 26:5) Once you shake off the anti-Jewish mindset that "Pharisee = bad," then the supposed conflict vanishes.
All of this creates a serious problem for those who wish to understand Shaul's epistles today.
How can a Christian, reading Shaul's letters, in the 20th century westernized, anti-Torah culture and religion that he has been raised and taught in, understand the deep meanings of Second Temple-period Jewish religious texts, written by a first century Rabbi, Pharisee and advanced Torah expert?
And you wonder why Shaul sounds so confusing, hard to follow, and even contradictory to many people who read him. For instance, in the Christian Bible commentary, "The Daily Study Bible Series; the Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians," by William Barclay, it says of Galatians 3:19-22:
"This is one of the most difficult passages Shaul ever wrote, so difficult that there are almost three hundred different interpretations of it!" (52)
I would suggest that there are 300 interpretations not-grounded-in-Torah.
Make that 301 with Barclays. He goes on to say that Elohim gave the law for the sake of transgressions. True, but then Barclay says what this means is, "... where there is no law there is no sin. A man cannot be condemned for doing wrong if he did not know that it was wrong." (53) This is a nice sentiment, but not what the Torah, or Yeshua or Shaul teaches. Elohim provided sacrifice to make atonement for sins done in ignorance of Torah, thus showing there was sin in ignorance to the Law that needed atoning for. Shaul supported Torah when he taught that those ignorant of the Law stand condemned with those aware of it (Romans chapters 1-3).
Oddly enough, in the same Galatians commentary by Barclay, he correctly states that,
"... we have to remember that Paul was a trained Rabbi, an expert in the scholastic methods of the Rabbinic academies. He could, and did, use their methods of argument, which would be completely cogent to a Jew, however difficult it may be for us to understand them." (54)
Kefa warned that Shaul was hard to understand. Kefa also wrote that there would be those who would twist Shaul's words to mean something wrong. What kind of people would do that? Kefa said these are lawless men (2 Peter 3:17). By "lawless," did Kefa mean people who were without Roman law? Of course not. Lawless, in this religious context (understanding Shaul's writings and other Scriptures correctly), refers to being without Yahweh's Law - the Torah. Kefa is saying that those who twist Shaul's writings are those who don't have (know/follow) Torah. They will approach these letters, in (often willful) ignorance, and incorrectly interpret them.
This is the legacy of the Christian church. As early as 187, the Christian Bishop Iraneus counted twenty different varieties of Christianity. By the year 384, Epiphanius counted eighty. The lack of grounding in Torah allowed for every heresy to creep in under the guise of "love" and "liberty." The "New Testament" Scriptures warn about this in several places. Of course, no group who thinks they are "right with God," (especially if they are the "dominant voice") would consider themselves to be the false teachers spoken of in these texts.
Sadly they really are.
-
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 6:29 AMY'see, the thing is...
Leviticus 11:10-11 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
That's pretty darn clear. Doesn't leave much wiggle room to argue. Does that mean it's wrong of me to eat crabs, shrimp, oysters, clams, lobster, crayfish, eel, catfish, or swordfish? I live in rural coastal Florida. We eat those things here as part of our staple diet. Granted, it's not a good idea to eat oysters in the summertime ("months without R's") or if you have liver problems, but barring allergic reactions there's not anything particularly unhealthy about them, so I'd really hate to give them up. -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:33 PMW:"Does that mean it's wrong of me to eat crabs, shrimp, oysters, clams, lobster, crayfish, eel, catfish, or swordfish? "
=============
I would say no unless you are orthodox Jewish.
MC
-
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 6:41 PMI think it is obvious by reviewing church history that a lot of falsehoods have crept in. For one, under Constantine the goal was to unite all the varying christian groups under one church. How was this accomplished? By either compromising on certain thoughts and incorporating them into christianity, or by killing those who would not submit.
Then later in time, there were the Crusades and the Inquisition. Again, killing people who would not think the same. Murder is sin, no matter which viewpoint you have on what the Law is (as this is one of the 10 commandments).
The Reformation accomplished a great thing in bring the Bible back to the forefront, but it was accomplished by creating schisms - and from what I read, more anti Semitism (hatred).
Today, one denomination vs another - each trying to convert others to their way of thinking (since it is the only correct way). Again, more hatred, envy, and schisms.
You cannot look at the history of the church without seeing the hand of evil in it. Of course, there was also God's hand there too. Even still God's hand is seen in the growing (grown) Messianic Judaism movement. And we come full circle and once again have believe Jews and Gentiles and all of the 1st century arguments (and heresies) are thriving again today.
I think that we all should consider Uriel's words closely. They ring very true to me. God gave the full revelation to the Israelites. God promised that the Israelites were his chosen people (his choice) and that for this reason he gave them his revelation. Even if the leaders of 1st century Judaism were all wrong (which they were not - Zaccheus, Joseph of Arimathea, etc) they still were given the full revelation. We should therefore pay attention to the full revelation that was given. We should also not forget that we are the wild branches grafted into the olive tree and that Israel is the natural branches. It is to Israel that the promises were given. It is for our sakes that the eyes of the leaders of Israel were blinded so that we too could receive the promises. And at the end of this age, the promises will be restored to Israel. And you cannot look at current history in the making and not see the coming end of this age.
Ahh, I ramble again. This has been a decent discussion, and I would again encourage us all to pray that the Father open our hearts and minds to his truth, and that our hearts would not be hardened. It is all about Him anyway. -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Fri, June 29, 2007 - 12:37 PMG:"The Reformation accomplished a great thing in bring the Bible back to the forefront, but it was accomplished by creating schisms - and from what I read, more anti Semitism (hatred). "
=============
Schisms and anti-Semitism for sure - based on a faulty understanding of Jewish soteriology. Extreme factionalism as well - there no sense of tolerance towards even dissent WITHIN the Christian Church by reformers. I would like ot say it was just the more radical reformers that exhibited this but Luther presented not only his own anti-Semitism (based on faulty understanding of Jewish soteriology) but intolerance towards sub-groups such as the radical Anabaptists. The Swiss reformers had no problems allowing for the use of force against "heretics".
Religion can be so messy.
MC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 9:39 AMGeppy,
<I've started reading Leviticus, and beyond there been portions of it that just seem totally irrelevant anymore (as Jesus has made the once-for-all atoning sacrifice) it does give what I think is a clue.>
The Levitical priesthood is innactive. There has been a change of priesthood as well as a change of law. Jesus is not a Levitical priest. Jesus was appointed the One High Priest, to offer Blood Sacrifice, in the true Holy of Holies.
“If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
For he of whom these things are spoken of pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedec there ariseth another priest,
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
For he testifieth, thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedec.
For there is verily a disanulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God” (Hebrews 7:11-19).
In part, this is a conversation concerning two priesthoods, and two covenants, AND TWO LAWS. "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Jesus was never a priest of Levitical law or the Mosaic covenant. He is the one and only Eternal High Priest after the order of Melchezidic.
“But if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament: which veil is done away in Christ.
But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.
Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away” (2 Corinthians 3:7-16).
Apart from Christ, the mind and heart of the greatest of Pharisees was/is veiled. To this day, what Moses was given remains as it was, a shadow, and a veil upon the heart. Grace and Truth come by Jesus Christ.
<Elohim provided sacrifice to make atonement for sins done in ignorance of Torah, thus showing there was sin in ignorance to the Law that needed atoning for.>
The Mosaic Covenant states that the Levitical High Priest only sheds blood for those who are ignorant of the Mosaic Laws. All other Levitical lawbreakers are to be put to death. This only applies to those who are under that covenant (i.e. non-Jews were not stoned for gathering sticks on the Sabbath). Jesus did add to, or take away from, Levitical Law or the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus was not given authority to offer a blood sacrifice as a Levitical priest. Jesus acted and acts as the Eternal High Priest of another Order.
Covenant is not simply a matter of faith. It is also a matter of blood. No blood, no covenant. The covenant of Moses and the Levites is an animal blood covenant. That covenant no longer sheds animal blood. That covenant has no active priesthood, tabernacle, or ark. The Covenant of Moses is gone! Man cannot pick and choose pieces out of that Covenant, and declare that God must honor the blessing that was declared upon the whole of that Cavenant.
It is of utmost importance to remember that what was revealed to Moses was an earthly shadow. It is a pattern reflecting that which is heavenly, and that which was yet to come in the future (Hebrews 8:5).
“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect” (Hebrews 10:1).
<The first 13-14 chapters deal with sacrifices for sin that must be made once we recognize we did it. The sin is still sin even if we do not know that it was at the time and judgement is due for that sin.>
Knowledge of shadows is not knowledge of light. The Levitical priesthood judged according to ignorance and knowledge of the LAW. Christ (the Mechizedec priesthood) judges according to ignorance and knowledge of the TRUTH.
“For if we sin wilfully ater that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.
But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
He that despised Moses law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
For we know him that hath said, Vengence belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people” (Hebrews 10:26-30).
The heart that turns to Christ becomes enlightened to truth. The Melchezidic priesthood does not minister according to earthly material shadows.
“Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded” (I Peter 2:5-6).
“Buy ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy” (I Peter 2:9-10).
Many speak of the "priesthood of believers." But, what is your Order?
If you do not know, how can you minister as a priest of God?
Some desire to rebuild an earthly temple and reinstitute the Levitical priesthood with its sacrifices. Even if shadows remain on earth, God is light and in him is no darkness at all (I John 1:5). The Lord knows them that are his. The Lord shall judge his people in Righteousness and Truth.
Peace,
Peter -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 5:00 PMNothing more to say to that than, "What? More silly Replacement Theology babble?"
I think it may be time to stop casting pearls here. -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 6:06 PMTry resonating Uriel, you might like it, I hear it's all the rage amongst the Christian Apologists. -
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 6:24 PMOk, even though I may look stupid I'll ask. mc/Wendy - what is "resonate" in theological terms? -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Fri, June 29, 2007 - 12:16 AMResonate is like agreeing - but more conceptually. The devil is in the details and Christian theology is full of sub-details. I cannot always presume I fully grasp what anyone is saying because brief text has its shorcomings.
At least that is what it means to "resonate" with me - like the word indicates...like we are approaching the same frequency.
MC
-
-
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 8:18 PM<"What? More silly Replacement Theology babble?">
Actually, Talmudic Theology is Replacement Theology. For many it replaced Torah Theology.
If you wish to claim "Anti-Semitism", please be clear about what you mean. Semite is a language distinction. One does not need to be a Jew or a Hebrew to be a Semite. Ethiopians and Arabs are Semites. I'm not anti-Jews or Hebrews. According to the Bible, Ashkenaz descended from Japheth, the father of Gentiles (Genesis 10:3). Ashkenazi (German) Jews follow the Babylonian Talmud. Beta Israel (Ethiopian) Jews follow no Talmud. Are Jews who oppose the non-Talmudic practice of Beta Israel Jews "Anti-Semites"?
Before the destruction of the Temple in c.70AD, one could participate in the fulness of the Covenant of Moses. Today it is impossible, because there is no priesthood, no Ark of the Covenant, no blood of bulls and goats.
It is clear that, in Acts, the Jerusalem church observed Mosaic Law and tradition. The complaint against Paul was that he was teaching that all the JEWS that lived among the Gentiles should abandon Mosaic Law and Jewish customs. There was no disagreement concerning his teaching that Gentiles need not keep Mosaic Law. Read Acts 21:20-26. Today, it is impossible to enter the temple and make an offering for purification as Paul did. It is impossible to observe the full Torah of Moses.
Peace,
Peter -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Fri, June 29, 2007 - 12:23 AMP:"It is clear that, in Acts, the Jerusalem church observed Mosaic Law and tradition. The complaint against Paul was that he was teaching that all the JEWS that lived among the Gentiles should abandon Mosaic Law and Jewish customs. There was no disagreement concerning his teaching that Gentiles need not keep Mosaic Law."
==============
I agree to some extent (or perhaps to great extent). But Paul never abandoned that the law, in spirit, ought to be fulfilled. Take away the ritual/purity aspect and Mishnaic specifics and - I would like to suggest - you can find the same moral-ethical principles that undergirded the teachings of Jesus. Paul attempts to exapnd the kingdom of God not only in a forensic sense (the legality of salvation) but in embodiment as well. And for embodiment, he turns to The Law as a foundation.
I agree with you that here Paul was in tension with the Jerusalem church - Judaizers believed that entrance (salvation) to the status of "Israel" literally required becoming Jewish first, for all intents and purposes. Paul argued against this and suggested - justifying his views on his calling encountered on the Damascus road - that embodiment could be contextualized by thinking along the principles and spirit of the law while not having to be mindful of the cultural specifics of a literal application.
MC
-
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 9:04 PMUriel,
Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
" These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."
I admit I like the fact that you speak your mind. I wish more people would be that honest. However, your statements validate the point that I have been trying to make. You uphold the law while disregarding the most important commandments. You made the following comments which lets us know what is in your heart.
"Now THAT is pure bunk! ...This is so silly as to be laughable! That is nothing more than a very weak attempt at twisting Yeshua's words to give us an "out" on Torah observance...the ideas you present are part and parcel of a theology based on anti-Semitism...Nothing more to say to that than, "What? More silly Replacement Theology babble? I think it may be time to stop casting pearls here." Before you go please read the following:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not arrogant. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." 1 Corinthians 1-8
I would love for you to continuing posting here but it would be nice if you would consider being a bit more empathetic. Who knows...you might learn something. You might also try utilizing a few more scriptures to support your point instead of just standing on you soapbox looking down on everyone.
I dont hold any ill will against you. Just trying to be honest... -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 9:52 PM"I think that we all should consider Uriel's words closely. They ring very true to me. God gave the full revelation to the Israelites."
Geppy,
I respect your heart. But I have a few questions:
What is the new Covenant?
Do you have any biblical evidence that Enoch or Abraham lived according to the Mosaic laws?
What laws did Adam observe before he ate from the tree?
I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong. I am asking you to take another look. The mosaic covenant is more than the sabaath observance, dietary law, and feast days. If you observe part of it you are obligated to follow all of it. Christ dying on the cross does not provide an exemption. To Peters point it is impossible to follow what Uriel calls the Torah without the priesthood or the temple.
Food for thought: God allowed Noah to eat whatever he wanted..
Genesis 9
1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[a] 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as
the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Was Noah righteous in the eyes of God? -
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 11:06 PMEric,
I think that I have been quite clear in my statements that salvation is by faith alone in the Creator and his plan that he made before the world was formed ( and that Jesus is the Creator ). And in due time, his son Jesus came to earth lived a perfect life, died, buried, and rose again on the third day according to the scriptures. That due to this act of God, all of our sins are forgiven and that we are called to a life of action - to do as Jesus himself would do.
I have been clear that the Mosaiq Covenant is a covenant specifically with the descendants of Abraham and those Gentiles who convert to the religion based on that covenant. I have been clear that the Law of God - as described throughout the entirety of the scriptures - is unchanging as God is unchanging and is pure, holy, and righteous (see Romans for this exact description). This same Law has been since before the creation and is the same Law as God has written on our hearts with our acceptance of his promise and his gift of the spirit.
In my last post I have mentioned that the arguments that existed in 1st century exist now. The heresies that existed then exist now. That the time of our Lord's return is nearing. That God has made a promise with the nation of Israel that he will honor because he said he would.
I have not claimed that anyone is right or wrong. I have stated that maybe we should pray to the Lord that his will and truth be understood in each of our hearts. I have said a few times that I respect everyone's opinions and that this has been a great discussion.
In what of all this have I spoken error? Why do we continue to treat this as if it were a discussion of salvation since all involved have already stipulated an agreement on what brings salvation?
As far as the argument that if you obey any part of the Mosaiq Covenant you are obligated to obey it all.... A question for the males of the group that need not be answered but you should consider: are you circumcised? This was the sign of a male that is under the Mosaiq Covenant.
Peace my friends. May God bless you and keep you in His loving arms and in His peace. -
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Fri, June 29, 2007 - 5:40 AMIt struck me this morning that circumcision was given under the Abrahamic Covenant and not the Mosiaq. Where true it is under the Abrahamic, it was again repeated under the Mosaiq - at least to a certain degree:
Ex 12:48-51
“If there are foreigners living among you who want to celebrate the Lord’s Passover, let all their males be circumcised. Only then may they celebrate the Passover with you like any native-born Israelite. But no uncircumcised male may ever eat the Passover meal. This instruction applies to everyone, whether a native-born Israelite or a foreigner living among you.
So all the people of Israel followed all the Lord’s commands to Moses and Aaron. On that very day the Lord brought the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt like an army." -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Fri, June 29, 2007 - 5:54 AMI think, then, that circumcision would be a prerequisite, but by no means indicates that one is part of that covenant.
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Sat, June 30, 2007 - 8:14 AMHey Geppy,
<circumcision was given under the Abrahamic Covenant and not the Mosiaq.>
Before the Covenant of Circumcision, there was a Covenant made with Abraham, immediately after he was blessed by Melchizedec. This is when Abram believed and it was counted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:1-21).
The Covenant of Circumcision was not given until later, when Ishmael was 13 years old, and Abram was first called by his new name "Abraham" (Genesis 17:1-14).
<it was again repeated under the Mosaiq - at least to a certain degree:
Ex 12:48-51 “If there are foreigners living among you who want to celebrate the Lord’s Passover, let all their males be circumcised. Only then may they celebrate the Passover with you like any native-born Israelite. But no uncircumcised male may ever eat the Passover meal. This instruction applies to everyone, whether a native-born Israelite or a foreigner living among you…>
The Mosaic Exodus 12:43-50 instruction applied means a circumcised Messianic Mosaic Torah-observant Jew is forbidden to eat the Passover meal with an uncircumcised Believing Christian. The Mosaic Torah Passover meal, includes a whole fire-roasted lamb with unbroken bones, blood on the door posts, unleaven bread, etc. (Exodus 12:1-24).
A Talmudic Passover Seder, is not the Mosaic Torah Passover meal. The Lord’s Supper is not a Talmudic Passover Seder. As described by Paul in I Corinthians 11:20-30, the Lord’s Supper/Communion has two elements. Compare the elements of the Lord’s Supper to the Mosaic Torah Passover meal, then compare them to the elements brought by Melchizedec when he blessed Abram (Genesis 14:18). The Lord’s Supper is of the Melchizedec priesthood, not the Levitical priesthood. Also, when "Abraham" was blessed by Melchizedec, he was still uncircumcised “Abram.”
“I speak to wise men; judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread” (I Corinthians 10:15-17).
An important distinction between the Mosaic Torah Passover meal and the Lord’s Supper is that the Torah Passover meal is restricted to the physically circumcised, while Communion is not. The Lord’s Supper celebrates the Melchizedec blessing, the oneness of the body of Christ, the covenant entered into through the blood of Jesus.
The Mosaic Torah Passover meal is a shadow of Jesus Christ our passover. To this holy convocation we are not to add any manner of work, save eating (Exodus 12:16). Jesus is the lamb without blemish, whose bones were not broken (John 1:29; 19:33-36). One whose heart is circumcised, in the spirit, may partake (Romans 2:29).
“…Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness: but with the unleavened bread of sincereity and truth” (I Corinthians 5:7-8).
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” (Galatians 3:13-14).
Melchizedec blessed Abraham. “Now conside how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better” (Hebrews 7:7).
Peace,
Peter -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Mon, July 2, 2007 - 8:06 PM"Love demands action, and the Law gives examples of actions to take. "
Geppy you and I are tracking on this point. The law does give examples. My problem is that I get the impression from the pro-torah folks that love just is not enough.
1 John 4:7-16 says:
"7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
Seeing God Through Love
12 No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him."
Not picking on Uriel ,but she was willing to call people swines and exit the conversation. I just cant figure out why this is something that we have to divide over. It is clear that the 1st century church did not. Why are we?
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Mon, July 2, 2007 - 8:25 PMFor the record I am not anti-torah. I would never discourage anyone from honoring God that way. I just recognize that I would fail at it. So I walk in the way of love with the holy spirits assistance.
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Mon, July 2, 2007 - 9:03 PM<It is clear that the 1st century church did not. Why are we?>
Actually Eric, I would say that we are involved in the exact same discussions of 1st century christianity. This sounds like the exact discussions that would have lead to epistles discussing the differences between Jewish and Gentile believers and the Law.
I can understand Uriel's viewpoint, as those who believe in and follow the Jewish religion have been sorely abused both by non-believing Gentiles as well as believing Gentiles. In fact for a couple thousand years there has been a growing lesson in the Church that it has replaced Israel as the chosen people of God. Think of it from a family point of view. Say that you are the natural born child of your parents, and then they adopt a child who from all outward appearances is the favored child and you are now the black sheep of the family. How would you feel about the adopted child?
And this is exactly the situation between the Church and Israel. The Church is the adopted child and Israel is the natural born child to whom the blessings have been given. The Church has been given blessings and peace, while the Israelites have been cursed and tortured - and sometimes by the Church. But the time is nearing when Israel will again be granted its birthright and the Church will gather to Israel to worship God on his holy mountain. The natural branch is now being grafted back into the olive tree.
<My problem is that I get the impression from the pro-torah folks that love just is not enough.>
Well, I won't defend or attack a stereo-typically viewpoint. But, to continue the discussion lets look at what has been said in this response. You say that we are tracking, but then wonder why folks might think that "love just is not enough." This will depend a lot upon your definition of love. If your definition of love includes the actions, then you will be following the Torah and doing the works that we are called to do. If your definition of love does not include actions, then you need to grapple with the book of James - where he says that faith without works in meaningless and does not produce the fruit of the spirit. Then we are in a totally different, and long, discussion on whether a belief really is faith if deeds do not follow belief. Belief without works is what the devil has; belief with works is the example that Jesus and all the apostles gave us - and they all call "faith." I think the important word in 1 John from your post is "abide." Abiding or living infers action.
Anyway, just my viewpoints.
As a side-note, I hope that Uriel is still reading and I hope that one day he will participate again and give us all a chance to communicate with mutual brotherly love and respect (from all sides). Hopefully Uriel can give all of us the benefit of doubt of intentions, and hopefully we can all try to understand our history and view things a little differently - and speak with terminology that is slightly less loaded with meaning.
BTW, there are some good books out there on Messianic Judaism that are very good reads to come to grips with history and to learn what the loaded terminology is. And gives some good arguments on possible alternative meanings to some of the passages that have been quoted here adding some of the loaded meanings. If you want some examples, feel free to message me and I will let you know the ones that I have read and will be reading. -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, July 3, 2007 - 7:28 PM"You say that we are tracking, but then wonder why folks might think that "love just is not enough." This will depend a lot upon your definition of love"
I posted my definition earlier in the post when I referenced 1 corinthians 13 (below). Jesus told his disciples to love each other the way that he loved them. Love requires action. Is there something missing from this definition of love?
1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. -
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Tue, July 3, 2007 - 8:50 PM<Love requires action. Is there something missing from this definition of love? >
Nope. 1 Cor 13 sums it up well. And you state that love does require action and therefore the first part of my answer applies. If we are doing the actions that love requires, then we will be following the spirit of the Law and fulfilling the Law to the best of our abilities thru Christ. -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, July 5, 2007 - 9:18 AMGeppy:
Thanks for the original post. I also want to thank Uriel for standing in the face of little agreement. He said:
Part of the problem is a failure to understand and teach the dual nature of the Torah. Yahweh Himself alluded to this duality when He gave the Torah…
I doubt that the distinction on our final judgment will be between sins in the old testament vs. good deeds in the new. The duality of the Torah is that Yahweh gave His people instruction for how they were to live; these were the good deeds for life. This is the foundation for God’s Law, it includes loving and obeying Yahweh, loving your neighbor, honoring Yahweh’s Sabbaths, and being set apart by diet, sexual behavior, etc. As Eric put it, this may appear to be a daunting task, except that as Yahweh saw how Israel and Judah were failing miserably and He sent Yeshua to be our atonement when we miss it. That was the change. The curse of the Law was in not following the guidelines; now, we know that if we err, Yeshua’s sacrifice keeps us from condemnation.
Also, we have the Holy Spirit, a guarantee of our salvation, but additionally, Ezekiel tells us in chapter 36:
27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 28And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God. 29I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.
The purpose of the Holy Spirit is to help us walk in His way, which was spelled out at Sinai; Yeshua saved us from the curse of missing it. If sin is missing the mark, we should recognize that the mark was made clear to the children of Israel and those who aligned themselves with them. Isaiah tells us in chapter 56:
3Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
If we don’t see ourselves as ‘grafted in’, then we are promoting replacement theology. The Torah is not Moses’, it’s the LORD’s Torah, and for me, it extends through Revelation.
Shalom,
Michael -
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, July 5, 2007 - 9:28 AMThank you for your response Michael. I am convicted a little at a time of following the Laws, as can be noticed by my posts here and at my blog. But, as yet, I am not convicted of converting to Judaism. From what the Apostle's discussed in the 1st century it does not appear to me that conversion to Judaism is required - nor in the Prophets does this appear to be a requirement. Would this be a correct interpretation in your view?
That said, I do find some of the language in the Torah to be slightly less than explanatory to me in my upbringing (ie, the discussion of what is kosher and not kosher). Any tips on where to get a "Cliff Notes" to use in addition to the Torah? -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, July 5, 2007 - 11:50 AMGeppy:
I looked over my response again, and want to be clear about which part that suggests to you 'converting to Judaism'. I believe that was Paul's main argument; we don't have to covert to Judaism to be full covenant members. As I understand it, Torah observance, not being a salvation issue, is stictly a matter of walking out a redeemed lifestyle. I am grafted into Israel by adoption through Yeshua not conversion.
When you talk about 'what is kosher', are you speaking speciffically about dietary practices or just Biblical fitness?
Shalom,
Michael -
-
Unsu...
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, July 5, 2007 - 11:59 AM<When you talk about 'what is kosher', are you speaking speciffically about dietary practices or just Biblical fitness?>
Dietary. Not sure I'm even aware of Biblical fitness yet.
<As I understand it, Torah observance, not being a salvation issue, is stictly a matter of walking out a redeemed lifestyle.>
That is how I understand also. Some people still choose to go all the way and convert though.
Thank you for your response! -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, July 5, 2007 - 2:20 PMGeppy:
When I said fitness, I was referring to the state of being fit vs. being unfit or unclean. The term was not intended to suggest a standard of physical fitness, although there are several negative references to gluttony in the Torah; )
As far as a kosher dietary resource is concerned, nothing beats the Bible. Lev 11 is very clear about what to eat and what not to eat, Lev and Duet both speak of not consuming blood or fat. Other interpretations in the Talmud suggest that there are other protocols besides how to butcher meat that address food combinations and eating utensils. I don’t follow the oral tradition and these protocols are not something that I follow since the Bible is silent on those practices. I also consider Yeshua’s response to much of the oral tradition a barometer for how I should discern those practices.
Shalom,
Michael
-
-
-
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, July 5, 2007 - 11:36 AMMichael,
<If we don’t see ourselves as ‘grafted in’, then we are promoting replacement theology.>
Grafted into what? The nation of Israel, Abraham, or something/someone else? Is a tree identified by its branches or its root?
Peace,
Peter -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, July 5, 2007 - 12:00 PMPeter:
A tree is identified by its branches; at times it can be identified by its fruit. There is no argument, Yeshua is the Root of the tree, but in Paul's example to the Romans, the tree represents Yahweh's people.
Shalom,
Michael
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:00 PMUriel,
I stand corrected...you utilized a few scriptures. I will re-read them and get back at ya!
Peace and Blessings.
Eric Canaday -
-
Re: On Sin, Good Deeds, and Judgement
Thu, July 5, 2007 - 7:02 PMIf anyone wishes to discuss the real faith that Yeshua taught they can visit my tribe. Other than that, I'm done here.
-
-
-
-
