I can only today imagine how many stars were visble back then without all the disturbing light pollution.

BaRe'syth 15

15:5 And he brought him forth

[ forthYatsa' (yaw-tsaw') - a primitive root; to go (causatively, bring) out, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, direct and proxim]

a broad,

[ abroad,Chuwts (khoots) - or (shortened) chuts {khoots}; (both forms feminine in the plural) from an unused root meaning to sever; properly, separate by a wall, i.e. outside, outdoors:--abroad, field, forth, highway, more, out(-side, -ward), street, without.]

and said, Look

[ Look Nabat (naw-bat') - a primitive root; to scan, i.e. look intently at; by implication, to regard with pleasure, favor or care:--(cause to) behold, consider, look (down), regard, have respect, see.]

now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number

[ number Caphar (saw-far') - a primitive root; properly, to score with a mark as a tally or record, i.e. (by implication) to inscribe, and also to enumerate; intensively, to recount, i.e. celebrate:--commune, (ac-)count; declare, number, + penknife, reckon, scribe, shew forth, speak, talk, tell (out), writer]

them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed

[ seed Zera` (zeh'-rah) - from zara`; seed; figuratively, fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity:--X carnally, child, fruitful, seed(-time), sowing- time.]

be.

15:6 And he believed

[ believed 'aman (aw-man') - a primitive root; properly, to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; figuratively to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once (Isa. 30:21; interchangeable with 'aman) to go to the right hand:--hence, assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, stedfast, sure, surely, trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put), trust, turn to the right.]

in YHWH and he counted

[ counted Chashab (khaw-shab') - a primitive root; properly, to plait or interpenetrate, i.e. (literally) to weave or (gen.) to fabricate; figuratively, to plot or contrive (usually in a malicious sense); hence (from the mental effort) to think, regard, value, compute:--(make) account (of), conceive, consider, count, cunning (man, work, workman), devise, esteem, find out, forecast, hold, imagine, impute, invent, be like, mean, purpose, reckon(-ing be made), regard, think.]

it to him for righteousness.

[ righteousness. Tsdaqah (tsed-aw-kaw') - from tsadaq; rightness (abstractly), subjectively (rectitude), objectively (justice), morally (virtue) or figuratively (prosperity):--justice, moderately, right(-eous) (act, -ly, -ness).




17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be an Elohim unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.



17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.



17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.



17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

I am not sure whether to post this here or start a NEW TOPIC with it. I will leave it up to you James. This runs parallel with our topic. I pulled this from my archived notes. It is a compilation I have made from a certain mentor of mine. I hope it makes a point. Sorry for the length, but I cut it down quite a bit. So without further adieu is there anything to point us to come to reason that Circumcision for the Passover could have been changed? Was it an eternal covenant?

Here we go -

Is Torah and the Law eternal?

How can the New Testament teach something contrary to the Hebrew Scriptures and both be inspired and God remain immutable?
2 questions come up -

1. Does the NT contradict the Hebrew Scriptures in its treatment of the immutability(?) of the Mosaic Law?
2. Would a "change of law" compromise the immutability of God?

Sub-questions hiding inside these questions include:

1. What do statements of 'eternal' (e.g. olam) mean in references to specific laws and/or covenants?
2. How would such an 'immutability' view deal with change within the Mosaic law?
3. Is God 'free' (legally, righteously) to annul a covenant once it was described as 'eternal' (olam)?
4. What is the relationship between Mosaic Law, the Mosaic Covenant, and Torah?
5. How would the New Covenant of the Hebrew Bible be understood in an immutability view?
6. How would Jewish believers of apostolic times (e.g., Paul, author of Hebrews) have even come up with the idea of a 'change of Law' (given a presumed 'immutability' understanding in apostolic times)?

Some of God's commandments were one-time-only, specific to one-individual at one time, and not binding on any other soul. Examples might be the commandment to Moses to climb the mountain to look at the Land and then die, or the command to Noah to build an ark in preparation for the Flood, or the command to Jeremiah to buy a specific field before the Captivity. These are imperatives and commands (mitzvoth), but they do not apply to everyone and to every time and to every situation (generally, they only applied once). In between these two extremes is a very wide spectrum of 'commandments'. Consider some of these, and where they should be placed on the continuum between universally obligatory and 'disposable', 'once-use-only':

• The command to Abraham to circumcise himself, his descendents, and all the males in his household. Was this ethically binding on the Gentiles? On Terah, Nahor, and Laban? On Noah or Enoch?

• The command for all Jewish males--WHEREVER THEY LIVED--to visit Jerusalem three times a year (and no less). During the Babylonian captivity? "Backward-obligatory?"--when enslaved in Egypt?

Moreover Torah is not equated with 'law'. Torah is instruction, teaching, the revelation of God's will and intent. It comes in many forms: laws, narrative, proverbs, oracles. Torah and Mitzvoth are a complement to each other, or, as a Rabbi expressed it, "they borrow from each other, as wisdom and understanding - charity and lovingkindness--the moon and the stars," but they are not identical. To use the modern phraseology, to the Rabbinic Jew, Torah was both an institution and a faith. It was intended to serve as guidance and direction for one's life, not as static requirements that supplied a rigid set of rules demarcating what was in bounds from that which was out of bounds.

The legal sections of the Torah are a relatively small part of the total Pentateuch. If one places all the material from Exodus 20-40, the entire 27 chapters of Leviticus, and the first ten chapters of Numbers together, they form only 58 chapters out of a total of 187 chapters. In other words, there are 129 chapters in the first five books of the Bible that are not included in the legal portions of the total Torah. "A survey of the 220 occurrences of tora throughout the OT reveals three main aspects to this word. It involves (1) teaching or instruction to be learned, (2) commands to be obeyed and (3) guidance about how to live in specific situations.

Since Torah included historical sections/narratives, with obvious time-delimited significance (e.g., the command to Noah to build an ark), Torah was more eternal revelation of the character/will of God (e.g., God looks to show grace and makes plans to rescue the needy) than eternally-binding commands (e.g., "everyone should build an ark, X cubits by…"). This means, of course, that even laws-in-historical-contexts could reveal the heart of God, whether one-time-only (e.g., go down to Egypt because of the famine) or enduring (e.g., thou shalt love the Lord your God). So, the 'law' might not have to be in force at all to be 'Torah'…all it had to do was reveal the heart/character of God, as a guide to how we should think and act. An eternal Torah, therefore, would NOT require there to be a set of eternally in-force or continually obligatory regulations.

What does the Torah say about the good-hearted nature of God?

• The passages in which God enjoins empathy as motive upon His people--"treat them well, for you remember what it was like when you were thus…"
• Passages in which kindness must be exercised toward enemies.
• Passages which focus so completely on the heart and soul ('love from your heart', 'forgive from your heart', 'do not harden your heart').
• Passages which require "internal" motivations of goodness and mercy, instead of fear or duty.
• Passages in which God makes tender-hearted 'concessions' for the poor (e.g., the sacrificial animals)
• Passages in which precious God cares for and protects the marginalized--the fatherless, the widow, the alien.
• Passages in which God places hedges around the treatment of servants and foreign emigrates.
• Rituals which were meant to grow beautiful families and communities, and for social relief.
• Passages in which motivations are stated as God's moral outrage over abuse and exploitation of the weak and poor.
• The main legal passages which exalt and protect and honor women--above and beyond that of other neighboring cultures.
• Laws which recognize the dignity of His people, and make allowances for ignorance and development.

And in Yashua did we not see this in action?

Does 'eternal' (olam) mean 'unchangeable', when applied to the Law?

The curious thing about this issue is that it is a little unclear what the assertion of 'eternal law' really means. Historically, those who have argued the most tenaciously about the Mosaic law being still in-force and applicable eternally were some of the formative Jewish rabbis. But oddly enough, the element of change and annulment of specific commands of the mosaic law can be documented within the Mosaic corpus, within the OT/Tanaak, in post-biblical Judaism, and absolutely within Rabbinic Judaism!

Mosaic Law changed within the lifetime of Moses

For example, the Passover in Exodus was supposed to be eaten in the individual homes (Ex 12), but in Deut 16, it was NOT supposed to be so--it was supposed to be eaten at the sanctuary in Jerusalem. This is a change within the period of Moses' leadership.

"This law [Lev 17.5-7] could be effective only when eating meat was a rare luxury, and when everyone lived close to the sanctuary as during the wilderness wanderings. After the settlement it was no longer feasible to insist that all slaughtering be restricted to the tabernacle. It would have compelled those who lived a long way from the sanctuary to become vegetarians. Deut. 12:20ff. therefore allows them to slaughter and eat sheep and oxen without going through the sacrificial procedures laid down in Leviticus, though the passage still insists that the regulations about blood must be observed (Deut. 12:23ff.; cf. Lev. 17: 10ff.)." [NICOT, Lev, at 17.5-7]

There were changes in where Israel was supposed to live: camped out around the tabernacle, or in the lands allotted at the end of Moses life. The circumstances changed--and the 'old' laws of the wilderness wanderings were annulled and new ones created. Numerous other examples can be adduced: no more following the cloud, no more laws about the manna, etc.

In fact, the covenant at the end of Moses' life is said to be different from the earlier covenant at Sinai -

"These are the terms of the covenant the LORD commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb (Deut 29.1)

Slightly related to this is the difference in God's pre-Mosaic law and God's Mosaic law. The patriarchs seem to reflect slightly different laws (e.g. the penalty for Reuben's sleeping with his father's wife/concubine was loss of firstborn inheritance rights, and not death, as under the Law of Moses), further showing that Torah did indeed change. For example, in Gen 26.5 Abraham is said to have kept all of God's "charge, commandments, statutes and laws" (Torah). Does this mean that Abraham celebrated the Passover (before the Exodus), went to the non-existent tabernacle for sacrifices, gave his tithes to non-existent Levites, fasted on the non-existent Day of Atonement, observed the Sabbath (before it was legislated in the Mosaic Covenant), and abstained from making treaties with the inhabitants of the land? Of course not--Torah can and has and does change…The 'obligatory content' (i.e., laws) contained in Torah for Abraham was different than that for Noah, Moses, Adam, Ezekiel-in-Exile, and Ezra-in-the-land.

Mosaic Law changed within the post-Mosaic period of the Hebrew Bible, with some laws becoming obsolete and new ones being added

"Other rabbis, however, saw in this contradiction [Ezek vs. Moses on 'children dying for sins of fathers'] a direct prophetic improvement upon the words of the Torah. 'Moses said, 'God visits the sins of the father upon the children,' but there came Ezekiel and removed it and said, 'The soul that sinneth, it shall die'"" [ART, p.187; cites b. Makk 24a]

Other examples of this would be the 'annulment' of the laws of the layout of the tabernacle when the Temple (with its different dimensions and layout) was built, the addition of singers under David, and specific monetary amounts of fines (e.g., shekels).

What exactly was the content of the word 'olam' (eternal) in biblical and rabbinical writings?

Oddly enough, the lexical data will indicate how something could be 'olam' and still easily be of finite duration.

First of all, olam does not mean "philosophical eternity". It is always relative to some 'base'. Let's look first at the lexical data and biblical usage, and then look at how the Rabbinics understood this word.

1 Lexical/Biblical data

If you look at the lexical works, you arrive at this conclusion very quickly concerning olam -

"long time, duration , usually eternal, eternity, but not in a philosophical sense"…[HALOT]

"everlasting, forever, eternity, i.e. , pertaining to an unlimited duration of time, usually with a focus on the future ( Ge 3:22 ); 2. ancient, old, i.e. , existing for a long time in the relative past ( 1Sa 27:8 ; Ps 119:52 ); 3. lasting, for a duration, i.e. , an undetermined duration of time without reference to other points of time, with a focus of no anticipated end, but nevertheless may have limits ( Nu 25:13 ; Jer 18:16 )" [Louw-Nida]

That neither the Hebrew nor the Greek word in itself contains the idea of endlessness is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past, and also by the fact that sometimes it is thought desirable to repeat the word, not merely saying “forever,” but “forever and ever.”

Now, notice some of the uses of olam along these lines:

"There are other examples which, though not ‘everlasting’ in the unlimited sense, are usually translated ‘everlasting’. Servant ‘forever’ or ‘everlasting’ ( עבד עולם , Deut. 15:7 ; 1 Sam. 27:12 ; Job 40:28) certainly does not mean everlasting in the sense of unlimited time. A slave would not be a slave after he died.

And we might also note a few other items from the lexical entries:

of persecutors of Jeremiah; always (olam) at ease; [and Ps 73.12: "Behold, these are the wicked; And always at ease, they have increased in wealth." Biblical doctrine would not typically maintain that these people are 'at ease' today, some 3000 years later.

temple to bear God’s name always (the temple was destroyed, a couple of times)

These are all olam-things, which obviously were not meant as 'eternal' per se (or at least not 'continuously'). Olam thus seems to mean 'indefinitely, with reference to the nature of the thing being so described.' If the nature is God, then olam means 'truly eternal'. If the nature is a human, then it means 'as long as he lives'. If the nature is a relationship, then it means as long as the conditions upon which the relationship is based still hold.

2 Rabbinic Understanding/usage

That olam did not typically mean 'philosophical eternity' was certainly understood by the rabbi's. They understood it to mean various indefinite or 'uninterrupted' periods of duration, but it was almost always bounded by the status quo or existing order. It was the present 'world' that was stable, unchanging, uninterrupted and so it was the 'measuring rod' of 'olam'. Olam thus was frequently translated 'world' in the rabbinics. And when the rabbi's were commenting on the olam-passages, they often reflect this finite-duration understanding of the biblical word/phrase.

y. Ber. IV, 7b: referring to I Sam 1.22 ("that he may appear before the Lord and stay there forever"): "but the life-time (active service) of the Levite is only up to fifty years." [Notice how the 'olam' in this passage is understood by the rabbi as being not even 'as long as he lives', but rather 'as long as his condition of service is operative'. Olam came to an 'end' in this case, but did so 'naturally'.

Kidd 15a, referring to Ex 21.6 "And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently."): "I might have thought, that it meant really for ever (for life)"…[note: they understood this olam to refer to 'lifetime']

Thus, for the rabbi's, olam when used in the Hebrew bible was generally/often relative to the 'base' of the thing under discussion; and when used in their own discussions, referred to the something like 'the lifetime of the existing world/order'. It was long in duration, generally, but definitely bounded and capable of being ended. So, the combined lexical data from biblical and rabbinic usage argues that olam does NOT mean 'invariably unending time', but rather an 'indefinite continuation of some present condition, subject to inherent limitations on the duration'. Olam does not mean "irreversible" or "cannot be annulled/cancelled." It is always subject to God's authority, and generally/often subject to conditions. The lexical/usage data bear this out clearly

An interesting use of עולם [olam] is that of the גבעות עולם ('everlasting hills') of Gen. 49:26 and Deut. 33:15 , which in Hab. 3:6 are said to collapse ( שחו ), hardly appropriate for ‘everlasting hills’.

There are other 'olam'-type statements that end up being revealed to be conditional, sometimes even within the same passage:

"When Solomon had finished building the house of the Lord and the king’s house and all that Solomon desired to build, 2 the Lord appeared to Solomon a second time, as he had appeared to him at Gibeon. 3 The Lord said to him, “I have heard your prayer and your plea, which you made before me; I have consecrated this house that you have built, and put my name there forever [olam] ; my eyes and my heart will be there for all time. 4 As for you, if you will walk before me, as David your father walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you, and keeping my statutes and my ordinances, 5 then I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised your father David, saying, ‘There shall not fail you a successor on the throne of Israel.’ 6 “If you turn aside from following me, you or your children, and do not keep my commandments and my statutes that I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, 7 then I will cut Israel off from the land that I have given them; and the house that I have consecrated for my name I will cast out of my sight; and Israel will become a proverb and a taunt among all peoples. 8 This house will become a heap of ruins; everyone passing by it will be astonished, and will hiss; and they will say, ‘Why has the Lord done such a thing to this land and to this house?’ 9 Then they will say, ‘Because they have forsaken the Lord their God, who brought their ancestors out of the land of Egypt, and embraced other gods, worshiping them and serving them; therefore the Lord has brought this disaster upon them.’ " [1 Kings 9, NRSV; notice how this/these 'olam' was/were conditional on continued royal fidelity to YHWH.

These agreements were "eternal" as long as the condition was being fulfilled! This makes 'olam' look to mean something like 'certain' or 'continuing' or 'indefinite', as long as some 'condition' or 'nature' supported it. Olam could be 'revoked'.

And then some olam-covenants 'expire' when the world changes so totally…The Noahic olam-covenant reads:

"As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." (Gen 8.22; called an olam berith in 9.16), but parts are 'scheduled for expiration' in Zechariah 14.6:

"Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him. On that day there will be no light, no cold or frost. It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime- a day known to the LORD. When evening comes, there will be light. On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea and half to the western sea, in summer and in winter." [NAS]

Likewise we see Psalms 119. "I will always obey your law forever and ever" vs. 44. "My heart is set on keeping your decrees to the very end." vs 112.

This is exactly what olam means--'to the very end' (not just 'to the end', but with SOME notion of 'continuance'). The 'very end' could come in a natural fashion (as in the death of the Psalmist?) or in an 'unscheduled' fashion, precipitated by unexpected changes in conditions (e.g., failure of Eli).]

So, olam neither means 'continually in force, throughout infinite time--no matter what happens to the world'; nor is it irreversible or something God cannot put to an end, should He desire to do so, or should conditions change as to warrant such a change. Whatever olam means, it does not necessarily mean 'eternally in force', and that it was understood by many (both rabbi's and Jewish believers) in ancient times to have an 'expiration date' of the "end-of-the-present-world". The Mosaic covenant was a conditional one, it could easily have been understood after the model of many others in the OT/Tanaak: "eternal, as long as the agreed upon conditions are met". And it was exactly the failure of the OT people of God to live the Torah that prompted God to create a way for them to actually be able to fulfill Torah.

How does the New Covenant of Jeremiah and Ezekiel fit in with the Mosaic Covenant?

The first thing to note is that the Hebrew Bible sees these two covenants as being in contrast , but one of the two major points of difference is that ONLY the New Covenant is 'olam'!

"The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt- a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband,' says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more." [Jeremiah 31.31ff, NRSV]

"In Jer 32:37–41 , which is a parallel passage to 31:31–34, the covenant of the future is described as an “everlasting covenant”. The term “everlasting covenant” appears also in Jer 50:5. Previously, only the unconditional covenants given to Noah, Abraham, Phinehas, and David, along with a few lesser ones, were taken to be everlasting.

This is also an implied contrast in Ezek 16.59f:

"Yes, thus says the Lord God : I will deal with you as you have done, you who have despised the oath, breaking the covenant; 60 yet I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish with you an everlasting covenant." [NRSV; the Mosaic covenant is NOWHERE called an 'olam' covenant in the Hebrew Bible, but the New one is…]. The Exodus and Passover was a result of the Abrahamic covenant, NOT the not-yet-in-existence Mosaic one.

The second thing to note is that the other major difference between the two covenants was about Torah--about how the covenant people would finally be able to live Torah, because God would place it in their hearts! In the Mosaic covenant, the people were supposed to write the law on their own hearts, but they did not. According to the prophets, their hearts were hard, uncircumcised, and made of stone. But in the New Covenant, those who enter into the New Covenant get new hearts -- hearts of flesh--and the beauty of Torah was written by God onto their hearts, via the ministry of His Spirit!

When it is held that the Law must still be observed, we still must ask the question of 'which version of the Law'?

We have--in this simple example of the sanctuary alone--at least four different 'sets of law': Mosaic (ark, tabernacle), Davidic/Solomonic (ark, Temple), Post-exilic (no-ark, Temple--but not built to the same 'revealed' specs as the Solomonic one, though); and Post-NT (no-ark, no-Temple)…It is not enough to say that only the unchanged laws (e.g., diet, Sabbath, festivals?) are to be observed today--this would simply be an "admission of guilt"--that (some of) the Law DID change, and that the theological grounding for 'Torah immutability' is questionable and/or relative. It is not theologically obvious how one could ever be considered obeying the Law of Moses without a central, earthly sanctuary.

Summary

Some aspects of Torah are eternal and invariable (e.g., those reflective purely of the character/heart of God).

Some commands in the Hebrew Bible were once-only commands, and not of 'eternally in-force' status (but they still could reveal God and function as Torah-as-teaching).

Torah means teaching, instruction, guidance--and NOT simply 'law'.

Most of the text of Mosaic "law" is NOT in legal form, but includes narratives, sermons, poetry, and oracles.

Laws which were one-time-only or no-longer-in-force could still function as Torah, since they revealed something about God.

Torah included stories and narratives about the 'wonders of God' and the 'failures of people'.

The legal content of Torah changed over time and changed as often as circumstanced required.

Abraham was said to have kept the commandments and Torah, but this would certainly not have been the Mosaic law-Torah. Abraham's Torah was different from Moses', which would have been different from Solomon's (with the Temple instead of the Tabernacle).

Changes can be seen in all periods of biblical and post-biblical/rabbinic periods: Patriarchal, within the lifetime of Moses, post-Mosaic biblical, post-biblical, and rabbinic.

Many Mosaic laws were obsolete by NT/Rabbinic times.

The Rabbi's--who proclaimed the most loudly that the Law was 'eternal and unchangeable'--made many, many, many changes to the Law. [This was even one of Yashua’s complaints against the Pharisees--they did NOT hold to the Law closely enough.]

The Hebrew word 'olam' (eternal) almost never means 'infinite duration'--it is always relative to the matter/objects under discussion.

There are many, many examples where 'olam' is CLEARLY finite in duration. The Rabbi's themselves understood this clearly, and even use the word to describe 'worlds' or 'ages'.

Olam does NOT mean 'irreversible' or 'non cancel-able' or 'irrevocable', either.

There are many cases were something 'olam' is reversed or ended (e.g., ruins, judgment, cities, nations, covenants).

There are several cases in which covenants which are called 'eternal' are clearly conditional ('eternal as long as…') and some that are clearly revoked for failure in those conditions (e.g., the priesthood of Eli).

Olam-covenants can/might be changed without any 'failure' reasons

Olam doesn’t mean 'continually in force, infinitely--no matter what happens', nor does it mean 'irrevocable'.

The rabbi's believed in two olams--a world to come and the present world. (Two olams, reflecting the 'indefinite' duration of olam, but not reflecting an 'infinite duration' thereof).

Some/many rabbi's understood the New Age to involve a New Torah--with the annulment of some of the Old Torah and a promulgation of a New Torah by the Messiah.

This New Torah was associated with the New Covenant and the related passages in Isaiah/Ezekiel/Joel.

Thus, a group of 'published' Rabbi's held that the Mosaic Law was not 'of infinite duration' or 'irreversible/irrevocable'. The NT writers are thus not unique or 'innovative' in believing this.

The OT/Tanaak prophets explicitly contrasted the New Covenant with the Mosaic one, especially in its distinction as 'olam' and in its ability to produce true Torah-compliance in us flawed people.

The Mosaic covenant is never called by the phrase 'olam berith' (eternal covenant), even though other covenants are.

The main goal of the New Covenant will be to produce 'spontaneous' Torah-compliance, from a people of life and Spirit. But the legal content of this Torah would be quite different than that in the Mosaic code--without an Ark, without the Levitical teaching function, and with non-Israelite priests and Levites, this Torah would be substantially ('unrecognizably'?) changed.

The New Covenant was NOT fulfilled in pre-NT times--it was still considered (mostly) future by the pre-NT Jewish writers (e.g., Qumran, Jubilees, some rabbinics).

The ordinances and ceremonies of the Judaism of the time had become barriers to righteousness and shalom for many, and these were the targets of both Jesus and Paul.

Paul sought to produce in the lives of believers the 'righteousness that the Law demands'.

The resolution to this "debate" is simple:

Yah's Word is Yah's Word.

Paul's word is an errant man's word.

Any intelligent being would know what to do.

I rest my case.

Yah blesses those who come to know Him through His timeless Torah which is applicable from the beginning of time until the end of time.

MA,

Acts 26:14 "It is hard for you to kick against the goads." A well-known quote of Dionysus in Euripidies' Bacchus Greek play.

Glad I could help show what you are really about. You are, of course, like your Master - Paul. First you said you needed to research the answer and you would provide it Sunday or Monday night, then you said you were going to answer them because they "pushed your buttons", now all of a sudden you "have no interest". Okay, sure. Is the problem really the fact that you have to admit Paul was making up stuff, taking authority he didn't have, changing the Torah instructions of YHWH, going against the words of Yahushua, and not following Torah himself. I'm sure you don't have any interest in the questions - you looked for the answers and what you found shocked you. You had a choice to reject Paul and accept YHWH and instead - you chose to continue to embrace Paul.

Oh well, I'm sure no one here is surprised.

Me too. I just finished reading the entire thing.

MA is just regurgitating what someone else is saying.

MA is all over the place, jumping back and forth from the "New" Testament to the Torah.

Cherry picking verses that fits his narrative.

Answering a question with another question.

And the whole "olam" thing can be answered in one simple statement:

Yahweh is not trapped in our space-time therefore the way we reckon time does not mean anything to him.

As Yada points out Hebrew words or tenses (like Yahweh) are not stuck in time.

There is no past, present, or future. They simply exist.



This always gets me. Yahweh is VERY prejudicial and judgmental.

As a matter of fact he wants us to be judgmental about him and his Torah.

I don't know why you think we shouldn't take his advice and be more like him.

Most of my heart ache in life was because I didn't take Yahweh's advice and instead listened to the likes of Paul.

Now that I think about it YOU'RE the one being judgmental with us with your quote above.

Berating us because we choose to follow Yahweh and not you or Paul.

Yes MA, absolutely riveting story you said there.

Instead of offering "more evidence" you go on a nonsensical rant.

Plus your rant doesn't make sense either. You state that ONE of the "captains" came to Don Guido, but then turn around and say that the Don turns to THEM (i.e. captains plural) which suggests that all the Don's captains were present.

And the "captain" should have asked what should "I" do, not "we."

Anyway, nitpicking here, but your scenario in and of itself doesn't make any sense either.

Unlike my more cordial and exceedingly tolerant brothers and sisters here in this forum, I'll be blunt with you!

Your whole spiel here is mindless.

Most certainly you can cut and paste with the best of them but you yourself cannot explain in your own words and thoughts what it is you are trying to say.

And as far as "respect" goes, why don't you respect Yahweh more than Paul?!?!




You should have done that to begin with.

Edited by user Tuesday, May 22, 2012 11:51:50 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

MA, Hello again, I could not let you get away with this...

MA, MOST of the time, especially on this site, people mean what they say and say what they mean. Words have specific meanings and are grouped together to form larger ideas, concepts and to make statements. You have a problem reading these word groupings and pulling out the intended meaning. You do this with Paul and you just did it with me. I did not call you drivel. I called what you posted drivel. This ERROR is a filter defect on your part.

You have worked so hard to contort your thinking to make Paul make sense, that now you can't think straight, you can't separate your words from yourself! Honestly ma, you need to think about that.

I am done with this.