Followers of Jesus. Bound to Obey Torah?

[rottweiler]

The Sacrificial Law is not part of the Mosiac Law, only the Aaronic and Levitical Priesthoods have the authority to carry out the sacrifices.

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

doormonkey, if i am not mistaken; does this mean I am going to have to go down to the farm and get some calves, hefers, etc . . . and then find some priests of the tribe of Levi to do the sacrifice as a part of my 100% obedience to the Torah?

[doormonkey]

Juststartingout writes in title of post:
Nothing like opening a can of worms, Doormonkey ;)

Always there to help. I am the....

[doormonkey]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

It is not important to acquire submission.

My point exactly.That's why it would be good to reference proof-texts from the Scriptures, and also maybe quotes from other authoritative sources. I have yet to do that however.

I said I'd be slow.

[2tim215]

[quote=juststartingout]David - of course Christmas and Easter have replaced the true biblical holidays. Of course we should be recognizing the birth and resurrection at the appropriate times. This doesn't mean that Paul was endorsing them. In fact, in Galatians he was telling the Gentiles there to not celebrate in their old Pagan ways any longer! I guess I don't see where, in the "New Testament" he is encouraging celebration of, say, the Winter Solstice.

Good points startingout. Christmas and Easter are not in fact scriptural holidays and were not celebrated by the early church. They were in fact pagan holidays as you point out which were brought in later on by the Roman Catholic church. As a matter of fact, many believers who have been more educated in the scriptures do not even celebrate them any more. There are many on this forum who do not celebrate it for the reasons mentioned.

And by "rebirth myth" are you talking about the Resurrection or are you talking about the need to be "born again."

jdog - Jesus was a Pharisee himself. So he was preaching against himself? He was also preaching against the Scribes.
The above statement I have to strongly disagree with. In no way was Jesus a Pharisee. If he were, that would make Him a hypocrite, as these were the ones He had the strongest rebuke against. What makes you believe this? There is no way. Some believe that He might have been a Nazarite or and Essene, but not a Pharisee. He was none of these. He was the Son of God or "God in the flesh" and there was no need to belong to any "group" or "sect" if you will.

Oh, and if Jesus were the perfect emobdiement of following all of Torah and so therefore we don't have to .... please tell me then why woman are still not observing the Niddah in the church - the ritual cleansing after Childbirth and mensturation? Jesus couldn't observe those, thus perfect and fulfill them.

Jesus was "incarnated" as a man, therefore He did not have to follow any the laws which were prescribed for women only (none of the Jews of the Old Testament had to nor could have met these female requirements). To meet all the requirements of the law, you had to follow the laws for your own gender.
Rom 5:19(KJV) For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Sin came into the world through Adam, who was a man, therefore it had to be removed by a man. A woman could not (and didn't need to) atone for the sins brought into the world by Adam.

Covenants? The Covenant, through Jesus, was renewed. The adulteress Israel could not be brought back to the marriage covenant (Torah) because they commited adultery with false elohim. In his own Covenant, Adonai says that once a husband and wife divorce they could not remarry if one of them had gone off and married (made covenant) with another. Adonai, being true to his Word, could not break that and take them back. So he needed to perfect and renew it. The shedding of blood was necessary for him to perfect this and so enter Jesus. Ahh, I know I'm missing a lot in this explanation... if need be, someone help me pleeeeze!
This is only partially true. With man yes, but not so with God. The Covenant of today is the "New" not the "Renewed" Covenant and has been opened up to the Gentilic peoples which is why the scriptures tell us that we are living in the "Age of the Gentiles". The "Old" Covenant was the Abrahamic covenant which has been partly fulfilled through the nations (both Jewish and Gentilic), the Davidic covenant (partially fulfilled through Jesus) and the Mosaic covenant which will be fulfilled through Israel but has yet to be accomplished. Also, Israel never “remarried”, they are currently out in fornication which would make them an adulteress. If you were correct in your assessment, then they could never be restored to Him, which is what God tells us He will do at some point..
Isa 50:1(KJV) 1 Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away. 2 Wherefore, when I came, was there no man? when I called, was there none to answer? Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem? or have I no power to deliver? behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stinketh, because there is no water, and dieth for thirst. 3 I clothe the heavens with blackness, and I make sackcloth their covering.
What God is saying here is that He never divorced Israel, that they sold themselves into idolatry and furthermore, He challenges them to prove it. But even so, When a woman does this, sells herself, it makes her a prostitute. If she happens to be married, it also makes her and adultress. Israel is both. He then asks whether or not He still has the power to redeem them in spite of their harlotry? I think we know the answer. Can the law keep God from redeeming His people? Also notice the term "put away" which sometimes means divorce (Moses uses this term as does Jesus and Paul at times). In this instance, it does not mean divorce. It means to send away which is what He did, He sent Israel away but I do not believe He divorced them as there are too many other scriptures which would contradict this.
H7971 שָׁלַח shâlach shaw-lakh'
A primitive root; to send away, for, or out (in a great variety of applications):— X any wise, appoint, bring (on the way), cast (away, out), conduct, X earnestly, forsake, give (up), grow long, lay, leave, let depart (down, go, loose), push away, put (away, forth, in, out), reach forth, send (away, forth, out), set, shoot (forth, out), sow, spread, stretch forth (out).
You need to read the book of the Prophet Hosea to get a better picture. For those of you who are not familiar with his story, which is one of the most tragic and yet beautiful books of scripture, we see this man of God Hosea whose wife Gomer leaves him on two separate occasions. Each time she goes into the city and becomes a harlot, where she has two illegitmate children and each time God commands Hosea to go into the city and to bring her back. This is the picture that God uses to show us His immeasurable love for us, His creation, but more importantly for this discussion, His love and desire towards Israel (as well as His intentions for her). This story of Hosea and Gomer, is the shadow and type of the relationship between God and Israel. It is a rather long book, but the first 4 chapters give you the jist of it. So when you talk about an adulterous relationship, the message God gives us throughout scripture is that He does not condone it, but at the same time, He feels likewise about divorce, which is a hard saying for most. Throughout this entire book, He uses this to parallel His relationship with Israel and His love for her. No matter what you or I think of the Jews, who are we to condemn these people whom God still loves? It doesn’t matter whether we are Jews, Christians, Muslims or whatever, we start to get an attitude that we should kill all the Jews which would solve all our problems, we are making a big mistake. When I say that God still loves them, you must keep in mind that God hates sin, but He loves the sinner (if it weren't so, He wouldn't save anybody). And in spite of His continued love for them, He still has judged them (and continues to do so) in the desire that they (some) will still at some point turn back to Him. We see this theme throughout the Old Testament and confirmed in the New. I am not putting in any of the scriptures from Hosea but if anyone wants I can share some of those also. This is why the Bible constantly refers to Israel (the "true Israel") as a remnant. In Jeremiah we see the covenant He made with Israel which has yet to be fulfilled:
Jer 31:31(KJV) 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This is the day that God promises to all those who believe and trust in Him and in His Son, available to all mankind who would believe and which is talked about in both Testaments.

Hope this helps.

2tim215
2 Tim 2:15(KJV)15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[rottweiler]

If God's bride was unfaithful, how could He remarry Israel after the "divorce"? By dying that's how, this is why Jesus gave his life for our sins and why Israel croaked so He could recontract with her. It will be fulfilled when we meet our end of the deal and He returns.


[quote=2tim215]

Originally Posted by juststartingout

Jer 31:31(KJV) 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This is the day that God promises to all those who believe and trust in Him and in His Son, available to all mankind who would believe and which is talked about in both Testaments.

Hope this helps.

2tim215
2 Tim 2:15(KJV)15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[Livefire]

I guess we'd best leave the topic of which is the true Sabbath out of this thread!

[doormonkey]

Originally Posted by Livefire

I guess we'd best leave the topic of which is the true Sabbath out of this thread!

Well, that is a good point Livefire. I read it literally. The true Sabbath is the seventh day of the week.

Originally Posted by Weishaupt1776

doormonkey, if i am not mistaken; does this mean I am going to have to go down to the farm and get some calves, hefers, etc . . . and then find some priests of the tribe of Levi to do the sacrifice as a part of my 100% obedience to the Torah?

Excellent question Weis. Here's another one. Since you probably will never menstruate (just an educated guess) are you sinning when you don't follow the purity laws concerning menstruating women?

A teacher of mine once said this to me. If the Law (Torah Law) is difficult to understand, rather than throwing it out, study it out.

Anyone trying to follow the main topic of this thread might be interested in my other new post, #16. It's really a finished post I started a few days ago, in answer to Idknow's post #2, where he/she stated that the law has been "optimized". I do agree that all other commandments revolve around "Love the Lord your G-d with all...." and "Love your neighbor as yourself".

All these posts are very interesting. It seems the SJ community is not only astute in matters of Law, but in matters of Scripture as well. Why am I not surprised?

Again, Happy Thanksgiving to all. See ya later.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by doormonkey

Just a quick response to your statement/question.

One possible reason is, I'm peculiar.


More than likely, it's because I realize questions on religion can quickly become inflammatory. I've observed this to be true, anyway. Maybe you haven't. I think if emotions cloud the issue too much, it prevents clear thinking.

In that introductory post, all I'm doing is requesting respect of one another's views. I can't demand it. This isn't my website. I'm just saying ahead of time, if someone resorts to being disrespectful of my views, then I might not respond. I also said I might overlook it and respond to the post in question anyway. Obviously, I can't do anything about other "posters" on this thread sniping at one another.



I agree with you that Jesus' teachings are easily understood as being in favor of Torah observance. I realize now, in my original post, that my underlying assumption when posing the question was that a "follower of Jesus" would also consider the rest of the New Testament as binding Scripture. Paul's teachings do seem to throw a "monkey wrench" into the works, don't they?

I'm just guessing, but I think it's safe to say that today most followers of Jesus also accept Paul's teachings as Scripture. Yet there are followers of Jesus who reject Paul.

I am not one of them.

Yet, my position remains the same. Someone who signs on as a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, is obligated to observe the entire Torah. By that I mean learn it, and live it out as a lifestyle.

Now I restate my position more clearly. I would also include Paul's teachings as binding. This might seem a contradiction. But if both the Gospels and Paul's teachings are Scripture to the average follower of Jesus, how is the contradiction resolved?

I'll look over the link you posted sometime in the next few days.

This is a serious problem; Paul was not contrary to scripture, neither Old covenant nor what Joshua said.

If one insists that Paul was contrary then one is NOT reading the whole text properly! the wor of Dad *MUST* be internally consist exactly because it is the word of God, inspired by him, given by inspiration of ruach hakodesh for the speaking and writing to those who lead to hear this word from Heaven.

There is NO choice in the matter, David, your direct and indirect inference that there is something wrong with Paul, that he is a liar is NOT consistant with truth and love.

Paul did NOT lie; so you are either left with

1. your failure to rightly divide the word of truth; or,
2. your use of a bad translation of scripture.

Now, as is said here,

To comprehend the Law of Man (as we do here on the Forum,
ALWAYS watch the context.

It is the with studying scripture.

To whom, ethnos-wise, did Joshua speak?

He was sent to the children of Israel; he spoke with the Samaritans
and he spoke to gentiles (goyim).

Paul, after his encounter with Joshua and salvation on the road to Damascus, spoke
also to the Israelites and the Goyim. Paul also wrote to his brothers in the flesh,
and to saints.

ALWAYS watch the context -- to whom is the particular word, verse, chapter, letter, book
written.

ALL the word of God is written to the Body of christ (anointing)

Not all the word applies to the body.

that which was written aforetime was written for our learning.

the "aforetime" refers to the first falling of the ruach ha kodesh after
Joshua's ascension to Heaven.

the true segmentation of all scripture generally is

Garden, Generations of the heavens and the earth;
eviction, Generations of Man;
redemption, Generations of Noah;
promise, Generations of Abraham;
Law, Moses;
reaping, Joshua;

Daniel's prophecy of ha masiac being cut-off, age of Grace, until
the time of the goyim be fulfilled

3 days waiting, then Joshua returns after bandaging the samaritan left
on the road and bringing him to the inn

we are NOW within those two days waiting for him to return and snatch us out of
the impending troubles

--

well, i'm gonna stop here
wanna know more, read it and ask God a question.

He's no clam.

[idknow]

Ok, so I'm going to respond to DoorMonkey's post below.

Originally Posted by doormonkey

[snip]


I agree with you that Jesus' teachings are easily understood as being in favor of Torah observance. I realize now, in my original post, that my underlying assumption when posing the question was that a "follower of Jesus" would also consider the rest of the New Testament as binding Scripture. Paul's teachings do seem to throw a "monkey wrench" into the works, don't they?

Joshua taught an optimised view of torah.
Love.

All the law can be and is contemplated and obeyed IN that one word.

Originally Posted by doormonkey

I'm just guessing, but I think it's safe to say that today most followers of Jesus also accept Paul's teachings as Scripture. Yet there are followers of Jesus who reject Paul.

I am not one of them.

God chose Paul and Joshua met him on the road to Damascus.

To reject Paul is to reject all of the word of God.
We do not have the choice to deny Paul.

It is NOT our duty pick and chose what we will accept of God's word.

It is ALL God's word and the ONLY discretion we have is to determine via rightly-dividing
is whether or not the translator(s) of the text we read was good and did well or not.

That's it.

And good research shows that people
- *have* added to scripture,
- *have* diminshed scripture,
- and changed scripture!

Thus to them shall be added the plagues of Egypt.

Originally Posted by doormonkey

Yet, my position remains the same. Someone who signs on as a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, is obligated to observe the entire Torah. By that I mean learn it, and live it out as a lifestyle.

Now I restate my position more clearly. I would also include Paul's teachings as binding. This might seem a contradiction. But if both the Gospels and Paul's teachings are Scripture to the average follower of Jesus, how is the contradiction resolved?

I'll look over the link you posted sometime in the next few days.

The Old Covenant applies to me only so far as I am to learn as a model for waht is and is
not to be done.

I am not to be zealous for the law as Paul wrote.

Doormonkey, any and every contradiction is because of either unauthorised amendment by man
and/or BAD translation on his part.

Therefore, as I wrote in a previous post above, all resolution MUST
be accomplished via

1. acquiring of Good Translations;
2. diligient right dividing of scripture, and
3. IMO, learn the original source languages
3a, use a computer.

[doormonkey]

Originally Posted by idknow

Ok, so I'm going to respond to DoorMonkey's post below.



Joshua taught an optimised view of torah.
Love.

All the law can be and is contemplated and obeyed IN that one word.



God chose Paul and Joshua met him on the road to Damascus.

To reject Paul is to reject all of the word of God.
We do not have the choice to deny Paul.

It is NOT our duty pick and chose what we will accept of God's word.

It is ALL God's word and the ONLY discretion we have is to determine via rightly-dividing
is whether or not the translator(s) of the text we read was good and did well or not.

That's it.

And good research shows that people
- *have* added to scripture,
- *have* diminshed scripture,
- and changed scripture!

Thus to them shall be added the plagues of Egypt.



The Old Covenant applies to me only so far as I am to learn as a model for waht is and is
not to be done.

I am not to be zealous for the law as Paul wrote.

Doormonkey, any and every contradiction is because of either unauthorised amendment by man
and/or BAD translation on his part.

Therefore, as I wrote in a previous post above, all resolution MUST
be accomplished via

1. acquiring of Good Translations;
2. diligient right dividing of scripture, and
3. IMO, learn the original source languages
3a, use a computer.

Idknow, did you check out my response to your post #2? I think it's post #16.

More later....