MA wrote:Yashua says this -
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents;
You can tell me what that word means in Greek all day. And it means a serpent. And does that mean he is saying you can literally pick up serpents? (It is funny that many folks believe that if they have this thing called the "Holy Spirit" they can pick up a rattle snake and not get bit.) Serpents are bad preachers and poison is the doctrine they spew. You can handle serpents and poison without picking up snakes and drinking belladonna root.
Actually he never said that. Nothing after the 8th verse of chapter 16 of Mark was in the original; it was added later by man. A perfect example of why we need to do our diligence in examining Scripture. An aside he also never said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” These are just two of many verses put into Yahowsha’s mouth.
So since he never said this the point is moot. There is no need to interpret it and people who pick up poisonous snakes to prove their faith, as with all religious people, would be better served examining and studying Scripture.
MA wrote:Just because the Greek does not spell it out for you does not mean it is not true. Don't limit your understanding by going to the Hebrew or Greek source as if that is the defining piece of the puzzle. In this case it is not. You need to understand WHAT THE WORDS SHOULD SAY. That is why I have a problem with Walch's PDF file. He is putting his own DOGMA in the way of explaining the intent of the word by saying Mosaic Law" in all the places it is not Mosaic Law. He wants to lay down what he says is right in spite of anything else.
Well since I am not psychic, and thus can’t conjure up and ask Paul what he meant to say, and I have yet to get my secrete Paul decoder ring in my cracker jack box, I am left with no choice but to examine the words that he wrote. And to do that I am much better served by studying them in the language he wrote them in, than a translation of them by man.
If Paul doesn’t make a distinction between which nomos he is referring to, why should we add it there for him? If you and I were having a discussion about the difference between “Mosaic Law” and “Rabbinic Law” we would qualify which we are refereeing to when we talk. I have had many conversations like this and never once have I used just the word law and hoped people would know what I am talking about at any given time. So if Paul was speaking in favor of Torah but against the Oral Law, why does he not specify which he is refereeing to?
Also Galatians was written to gentiles, not Jews, and gentiles where never under the Oral/Rabbinic Law. In all likelihood like most today they probably didn’t know that there was a difference. Most who have not taken the time to study Judaism don’t know that there is they believe in an Oral Torah and a Written Torah, most outside of Judaism think that Jews follow the written Torah.
Also since Paul uses nomos without any modifier we must examine the context in which it is being said in order to gain clues as to which nomos he is refereeing. In that light there are a few things which are important to note:
1. Does he ever quote or cite the oral law? NO
2. Does he ever quote or cite the written law? YES 3:6,8,10,11,12,13, and that is just in the 3rd chapter.
3. Galatians 3:17 tells us that the nomos he is referring to is the one that came 430 years after Abram, i.e. the Torah
4. 3:23 he says we were held prisoner by this nomos, still hasn’t changed which he is speaking of, this is a single stream of consciousness. Not once has he made a distinction of there even being two laws.
5. 4:24 while delineating his 2 Covenants he links the law that he is referring to, to a covenant formed at Mount Sinai, and that covenant to slavery. What significance does Mt. Sinai hold in Scripture that is where Yahowah gave Moshe the Towrah. Still no mention of oral law, but now we have him linking the Torah to a covenant of slavery.
I could pull out every reference in Galatians to Law, and not one does he ever even attempt to link to Pharisees, not one does he ever attempt to separate from another. Every reference to nomos in Galatians is to a single nomos, he is not distinguishing between Torah and Oral Law, he is not speaking of manmade vs God’s law, he is speaking of 1 nomos throughout the text, and given the information provided about that nomos we have no choice but to link it to the Torah. The Torah is:
1. The only nomos he cites or quotes.
2. The only nomos given 430 years after Abram.
3. The only nomos associated with Mt. Sinai.
MA wrote:However, when you study Torah and look at what it says about the Gentile, and study Rabbinical law you can see how the 2 are in diametrically opposing views. The separation or the inclusion of the Gentile? Please re-read the verses I posted that shows the INCLUSION of the foreigner in the OT verses. Isn't God's congregation going to be Jew and Gentile? Jesus called them out for promoting an anti-God teaching as being holy.
No one here has ever said that the Torah didn’t speak of gentiles, or that gentiles would not be included in Yah’s family. I am not Jewish, and I am a part of His family. And the fact that there are huge differences between Jewish Oral Law and the Towrah is nothing new to anyone here, but it also does not justify Paul, because it is impossible to link Paul’s condemnations to anything but the Towrah.
MA wrote:The separation of written and oral law is what Paul realized needed to be shown. And when you mix the word "law" like has been done it creates confusion. And that was probably done with intent - not Paul's intent. Paul tries to explain how if the Jews could have written a document (oral writings codified) that would have found salvation they would have gotten it by now. He is being facetious! He says that document started out as a good thing as any religion means to in the beginning. The trappings of those writings seduced him as does the Catholic priesthood seduce a priest. These "religious writings" are all the same. And Paul is showing in his words that these writings are useless even though well intended.
If he was attempting to show that there is a separation of written and oral law then why did he make no distinction between the two? There are plenty of books to be found, and articles that have been written that show the differences between the Oral Law and the Towrah, but Paul never once showed a difference. He never once said the oral Law says this, but the Written Law says this. He never once said the Oral Law says X but the Written Law contradicts X and says Y.
The only way Paul creates confusion is if you are trying to square him with Scripture. If you take what he says at face value then rather than trying to read between the lines to find a way to make it fit what Scripture is saying then he is not the least bit confusing.
And at Paul’s time the Oral Law had not been codified, it was still oral. And again why is it never cited if that is what he is referring to.?
MA wrote:I read your comments above and have issues with several points you are making. I am answering in different order. First your Galatians 5 answer.
Galatians 5 from the Message bible reads this way –
Gal 5:1 Christ has set us free to live a free life. So take your stand! Never again let anyone put a harness of slavery on you.
Yashua freed “us” (us = Paul and his Jewish friends) to live a free life (the Mosaic Law is freedom). A harness of slavery is the pages and pages of Rabbinical law he is talking about – not Mosaic Law. He also explained it this way-
Col 2:14 having blotted out the certificate of debt against us – by the dogmas – which stood against us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the stake.
Again see above, where does he ever delineate that he is talking of Rabbinic Law? Again look at the context, what was the end of the 4th chapter about, and keep in mind there were no chapter breaks in the original so one flowed immediately from the other? The end of the 4th chapter is all about his analogy of Sarah and Hagar representing two covenants, and the one from Mt. Sinai (i.e. the Towrah) being akin to Hagar the slave women and being a covenant of oppression and slavery. So why would you have me assume that 1 sentence later, separated by nothing, that he is now talking of a different nomos? The only reason to assume that is so that one does not have to condemn Paul.
MA wrote:This is not Torah Law removed. It is men's handwritings of dogma.
Gal 5:2 I am emphatic about this. The moment any one of you submits to circumcision or any other rule-keeping system, at that same moment Christ's hard-won gift of freedom is squandered.
Here I do not believe Paul is talking about Literal circumcision. He is saying to not submit to Judaism since the only thing now that says you are a Jew is circumcision itself. I believe he is saying do not become a Jew – not do not get circumcised per se. Do not become “of the circumcision and start following a bunch of religious rules” is what he is saying.
As someone else has already pointed out you have to use the terms “I believe what he means” a lot. You choose to try to interpret what he is saying so that it fits Scripture, I choose to take him at face value, let your yes be yes and your no be no.
Also it becomes impossible to argue that he was not teaching against circumcision when you read in Acts that that was the whole reason for the Jerusalem Sumit, Paul was teaching against Circumcision. Given that it is impossible to say that Paul was not opposed to Circumcision and thus contrary to Towrah.
MA wrote:Gal 5:3 I repeat my warning: The person who accepts the ways of circumcision trades all the advantages of the free life in Christ for the obligations of the slave life of the law.
The free life in Christ is Mosaic Law. Freedom in Christ is not freedom to live as a sinner. To me the Mosaic Law is freedom to live according to a better way of life. And I am not perfect and am still learning too. I still deal in unbalanced weights and measures for example. The Jewish law is what he calls slavery. And being a Jew in the rabbinical sense is to be of the circumcision in a bad way.
While I completely agree with your view of the Towrah, I completely disagree with your understanding of Paul. Paul only speaks of one nomos in Galatians, he never delineates any concept of a second law let alone that he is speaking of a second law. And Circumcision is a prescription of the Towrah, so to speak against it is to speak against the Towrah. And again Paul was summoned to Jerusalem because he was teaching against circumcision, so it is impossible to argue that he was not against it.
MA wrote:Gal 5:4 I suspect you would never intend this, but this is what happens. When you attempt to live by your own religious plans and projects, you are cut off from Christ, you fall out of grace.
Grace comes from trying to do the Mosaic Law, and when you have to work on the Sabbath you ask for grace and you get it. Grace is not unmerited for doing nothing. Religion garners no grace.
Gal 5:5 Meanwhile we expectantly wait for a satisfying relationship with the Spirit.
This can only come from learning Mosaic Law.
Gal 5:6 For in Christ, neither our most conscientious religion nor disregard of religion amounts to anything. What matters is something far more interior: faith expressed in love.
Love comes from learning Mosaic Law. When my friend’s ox (car) is in the ditch (shop) I always offer to help. When I have scraps leftover (food) I let me friends have them. I delight in the Law.
Galatians 5 here has nothing to do with Mosaic Law.
I don’t know what translation you are using but it is certainly butchering the words written to justify Paul. 5:6 does not read, “neither our most conscientious religion nor disregard of religion” and to say it does is to lie. Peritome, is circumcision, the cutting off of the foreskin of the male member. There is absolutely nothing about the word which conveys conscientious religion. So now we have moved from reading between the lines and interpreting what Paul wrote to justify him, to outright changing what he wrote to justify him. If this man where writing on behalf of and/or inspired by God you would think he would be better able to communicate. I seriously need to get my Paul decoder ring because looking at what he actually wrote is apparently the wrong way to go.
And again there is no way what so ever to link the nomos in Galatians to anything other than the Towrah. So while I agree with most of your views on the Towrah, you are twisting and changing what Paul wrote in order to make them fit your views, and relying on a translation that does the same.
MA wrote: On your comments on the covenant and circumcision I just want to give you my opinion - simple as that.
My view on this New Covenant is that we have a new "agreement" of how sin is to be atoned. In Hebrews 10:18 Paul tells us that there is no more sacrifice for sin. (He did not say that the other sacrifices were done away with by the way). The penalty for sin is done away with as we are not going to get "stoned" or have to sacrifice a lamb anymore after the death of Yashua. Yashua started his priesthood to take over for a corrupt Levite priesthood. And the change is that now we pray for sin atonement instead of go through blood-letting. To me that is all that changed at His death. A better way of atoning sin.
First, there is no New Covenant, and there never will be. There is only One Covenant. There will be a Renewal of this Covenant, but that is still in our future. The only place where this is spoken of is in Jeremiah, and most every English bible translates it wrong. The Hebrew word Chodesh does not mean new, it means renew. And if you examine the context in which it is spoken of this renewal occurs on the fulfillment of Yom Kippurium, when the Jewish people finally return to Yahowah. And the only difference between the Covenant as it stand today and this Renewed Covenant, is that when the Covenant is Renewed, Yahowah will write His Towrah on our Hearts.
Second Paul did not write Hebrews, we don’t know who actually did, but we know it was not Paul.
Third whoever wrote Hebrews may have said that there is no more sacrifice for sin, but did Yahowsha or Yahowah ever say that, because if they didn’t I don’t care.
Fourth Yahowsha never created priesthood. Or at least if He did He didn’t bother to tell anyone about it. Do you see anywhere in the eyewitness accounts of His life where he creates a new priesthood? Do you see anywhere in the eyewitness accounts of His life where he changes the Towrah in any way? Do you see in the eye witness account of His life anywhere where He tells us to ignore, or forget about any part of the Towrah?
MA wrote:What about circumcision? I believe you imply that you must be circumcised to receive some type of medal or reward in His Kingdom. I respectfully disagree.
This is either extreme misunderstanding or one of the weakest Straw Men arguments I have ever seen. All I did was state what Scripture states about circumcision. My view is that Yahowah meant it when he said that a male who is not circumcised has parar – broken, violated and thwarted, split open and tore apart, brought to nothing and invalidated his Covenant. My view is that Yahowah meant it when he said that a male who was not circumcised could not partake in, eat of or benefit from the Passover. And since the Passover is what removes the consequence of sin, death, and you can’t benefit from Matsah, which removes the penalty of sin, separation from God, if you don’t benefit from Passover, then if you are not circumcised you are not saved, and will not spend eternity with Yah.
Nothing I said had anything to do with receiving a medal or reward for being circumcised. All I said is that if you are a male and are not circumcised then you are not a participant in the covenant.
MA wrote:And again, when Paul speaks of people "of the circumcision" I think he is being derogatory to the Jews as I stated above. So what good is circumcision? I believe at one time it was needed when there was a physical Israel as a sign of the legal land ownership. After Israel got disbanded that need went away. So now what does it mean?
Again you are stating what you believe Paul to be saying as fact, even though it flys in the face of the text, and the events of his life.
And Yahowah never put an expiration date on His instructions. He didn’t say that one must be circumcised to partake in the covenant, until the fall of Israel, He didn’t say that one must be circumcised to be a Jew, He didn’t say that one must be circumcised until the messiah, and he didn’t say that one must be circumcised until Paul. His statement, His instructions are constantly referred to as everlasting and internal. This is attested by the very fact that the Hebrew language does not have words stuck in time, past, present or future. Yahowah’s prescriptions are eternal and timeless.
Psalm 19:7 wrote:"Yahuweh’s (YaHuWeH’s) Towrah (towrah – law and prescriptions for living) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, healthful, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (suwb – turning around) the soul (nepesh – consciousness). Yahuweh’s testimony is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam – educating and enlightening oneself to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded."
MA wrote:I think you are assigning some "magical reward" for doing it and some kind of "being left out" if you do not do it. Let me reiterate a thought - If you get circumcised and do not keep the Sabbath, the holy Days, the food laws, etc., then what good is the mark? It in itself gets you nothing or else all we would need to do is go get circumcised and we can just wait for salvation. This is the same thought many Christians have - that if they get Baptized and take communion they can then just wait for their salvation as if these rituals in and of themselves are the "magic bullet".
Again you are putting words into my mouth which I did not say. Being circumcised in and of itself does nothing, but not being circumcised according to Scripture is a deal breaker. There are plenty who are circumcised who will not be in God’s home, but there are none who are not circumcised who will be there.
MA wrote:I can assure you that if I have an uncircumcised prozelyte, and he continually keeps the Sabbath, follows the food laws as to not defile himself, learns many other laws, and the circumcised man does none of these - God will reward him much more highly. We must use common sense. Many good men of the world, who never opened a bible, but are good caring men and took care of their families, are going to be rewarded much higher than men who read the bible and did nothing.
Not to be rude, but your assurances mean nothing to me. I am interested in what Yahowah had to say. And once again I am not saying that all one has to do is be circumcised, but I am saying that your “uncircumcised prozelyte, and who continually keeps the Sabbath, follows the food laws as to not defile himself, learns many other laws” will not be in Yah’s home, because according to Yahowah he has has parar – broken, violated and thwarted, split open and tore apart, brought to nothing and invalidated His Covenant
MA wrote:To Baptize means nothing without repentance. To be of the circumcised covenant means nothing if you do not follow the Laws (and the rest of torah - torah not meaning just laws itself okay?).
I think Paul is telling these folks - "Folks, start keeping the food laws. And when your friends look at you funny do not care what they think. And keep these laws whether circumcised or not.
Again being circumcised in and of itself is meaningless, and again what you believe Paul is saying and what he wrote are opposite, so either you are miss interpreting him, or he is the absolute worst communicator of all time. Either way he is useless to me.
Quote:In the verses that allude to the Israelite and the foreigner it did not matter if a foreigner was circumcised or not when Jehovah said "Do not eat blood - you or your alien". He did not say some eat blood and some not. However, the Jews say the Gentile CAN eat blood. But this is opposite of the LAW, not part of their law. (Now I sound like Paul right?)
In Yahowah’s eyes there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles as far as forming a relationship with Him. There is but one way to form a relationship with Him. That iis why he constantly says there is but one law for the Jews and the Gentiles. There is only one way to from a relationship with Yahowah and that is through His Beriyth, His Covenant Relationship. And that Beriyth is delineated in but One place His Towrah. And it is that Beriyth and that Towrah which Paul links to a burden and to slavery in Galatians. And Circumcision is a requirement of the Covenant, and it is Circumcision that Paul speaks against. This is as clear as night and day if you stop trying to defend Paul and just look at what he wrote.