Dear 'BibleGuy' . . .

[JGIG]

I tried to post this last night, but CC was down! So here it is now:

.

Originally Posted by jcha

119 Ministries presented: (they do make a lot of valid points)
​

jcha, please understand that the following is a critique of the 119 Ministries concepts you've posted below, and not a critique of you. My hope is that through this thread and perhaps this post, you will take another, more discerning look at what you ingest from them. My tone is blunt regarding 119 Ministries; I've seen the bad fruit produced by them through many, many people over the years, and their teaching is to be dealt with head-on.

119 'Ministries' is not a reliable source for sound teaching, they do not 'make a lot of valid points', and they are the source for MUCH heresy consumed online. The guys at 119 have raised asking the flawed question to an art form, and their 'Pauline Paradox' series (as a primary example, though there are others), for the discerning viewer, is a lesson in systematic brain washing.

Now that we have that out of the way . . .

Originally Posted by jcha

Hebrews 7:12
Have you ever been told, the Law of God has changed?
It is different now.

It is not the same yesterday, today, and forever.

This verse is often cited:

Hebrews 7:12
For when there is a change (metatíthēmi) in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change (metáthesis) in the law as well.

The word for "change" as in “change of priesthood” and also "change of law" means "transfer" in the Greek.

It simply means that because the priesthood is transferred to the order of Melchizedek through our Messiah then the law must transfer to His administration as well.
So, same law, different administration.​

Note the leading, flawed question, flavored with sarcasm to start . . .

They start by setting up a straw man - Christians have said the Law is different now, they have changed it, when it is something that is the same yesterday, today, and forever!

The Scriptures do say that the Law of God has changed, they say that it has been set aside, made obsolete, yes, even abolished for those in Christ. The Law no longer has a functioning sacrificial system - it did change.

Note also note that they are giving attributes of God to Torah. This is important to note, since they claim that 'Yeshua (Jesus) is the Living Torah'.

And as you read below, note that the following teaching from 119 'Ministries' actually does do exactly what they accuse Christians of doing, which is to change the Law - make it 'different now'! They just try to attach the priesthood of Christ, Who is the High Priest of a better covenant built on better promises, to the Old Covenant.

Read on . . .

Originally Posted by jcha

If one reads the context of the surrounding text, this can be better understood.
It also helps to better understand the Greek definitions of the words translated as “change.”
The first, primary definition from Strong’s says it precisely.
"metatíthēmi / metáthesis"

First Primary Definition from Strongs:
"transfer: from one place to another"

There is a big difference in saying that the law is different versus simply transferred.

For example:

If a car is transferred from a car dealer in New York to a car dealer in California, the car is exactly the same, but simply in a different administration.

Did the car change?

No

The car was transferred.

When the administration of the priesthood was transferred in Messiah, the transfer of the law was transferred to that priesthood.​

Only part of the truth has been posted above regarding the language, with only one definition of one of the two words cited given. Let's look at the verse in question and examine context, as suggested above, but not actually done:

11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood

(for under it the people received the law),

what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?

12 For when there is a change G3346metatithēmiin the priesthood, there is necessarily a change G3331 metathesis in the law as well. ​

13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe,

​

from which no one has ever served at the altar. ​

14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. (from Heb. 7)​

Read through the above carefully and slowly.

• Under the Levitical priesthood the people received the Law
• If perfection were possible under the Law, why would there be a need for another priest to arise (in the order of Melchizedek - without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever - see Heb. 7:3)
• Melchizedek predates and did not preside over Torah Law
• "It is evident that our Lord was descended from [the tribe of] Judah" and as such, Christ is not eligible to preside over/mediate the Law

So with those facts in place, let's now go back to the verse in question, vs. 12:

12 For when there is a change G3346metatithēmiin the priesthood, there is necessarily a change G3331 metathesis in the law as well.

​

G3346 - metatithēmi

​

1. to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other)

1. to transfer
2. to change
3. to transfer one's self or suffer one's self to be transferred
   
   
   1. to go or pass over
   2. to fall away or desert from one person or thing to another

Jesus' priesthood was put in place of the Levitical priesthood. That is clear.

Also clear, from the context, is that Jesus cannot serve as a priest in the Law - He is of a different tribe - He is of the Tribe of Judah and not of the Tribe of Levi. Therefore, Jesus cannot serve as a priest in the Old Covenant.

So what of the assertion by the 119 'Ministries', that there was merely a transfer of priesthood from the Tribe of Levi to the Tribe of Judah?

Well, for one thing, regarding the priesthood, the language there, taking context into account, does not say 'transfer', it says 'transpose', which means "two things, one of which is put in the place of the other".

What are the consequences of taking the Levitical priesthood away and replacing it with a High Priest from the Tribe of Judah?

• There is no more mediation for Torah Law
• Without mediation, Torah Law becomes obsolete, for there is no relief from the condemnation the Law brings via the Old Covenant without the Levitical priesthood in place

So what do we make of the second part of vs. 12, where a different Greek word is used for 'change'? Let's take a look:

G3331 - metathesis

​

1. transfer: from one place to another
2. to change
   
   
   1. of things instituted or established

"Transfer from one place to another."
"To change - of things instituted or established."

Okay, what do we know about the Law from the rest of Scripture?

• The Law was a comprehensive unit.
• The Law, made up of commandments for everything from agriculture to hygiene to sacrifices and priestly duties worked together as a unit as a means to preserve Israel so that Messiah could be recognized when He came.
• Since the Law was violated when sin occurred, the Law had a sacrificial system and priesthood built in to atone for violations.

The Heavenly priesthood has always existed.
​

YHWH built into His law the right to administrate a priesthood on Earth as well.
The Heavenly always trumps the Earthly, as the Heavenly is perfect and the higher order...and the Earthly is only a reflection of the true image in the Heavens. This is what Hebrews goes on to say as well. (Exodus 25:40; Hebrews 8:5; Revelation 11:19).
Again...still the same law...

…new covenant, but same law.​

Hmmmm . . . the Law did not come until 430 years after Abraham . . . so that won't work . . .

Only four chapters later, the author of Hebrews uses the SAME Greek word in referring to Enoch:
Hebrews 11:5
By faith Enoch was taken up (metatithēmi) so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God.

Enoch was "transferred" up to the heavenlies.

Did YHWH "change out" Enoch and "replace him" with another Enoch?
No.

He was simply transferred, just as the law was transferred…not made different…not changed…but
transferred.​

There are several definitions to metatithemi - the Greek word used in Heb. 7:12 in reference to the priesthood, and in Heb. 11:5 in reference to Enoch. Context determines meaning when there are several definitions listed.

Swapping the Levitical priesthood out for a the Perfect Priesthood of Christ, which makes Him a guarator of a better covenant built on better promises makes the definition 'transpose' make sense.
Swapping out a human being (Enoch) does not, so in Enoch's case, 'transfer' is the meaning which makes sense from the possible definitions listed.

What is the point that you think is proven here, exactly?

(continued in next post due to length . . . )

​

 

[JGIG]

(. . . continued from above)

Originally Posted by jcha

Some then might point to verse 18, seemingly stating that the law of God was worthless:

Hebrews 7:18
For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

The first thing to note is that this verse is referring to a particular instruction, or commandment, in the Torah, not the whole Torah, or Law, in of itself.

Some attempt to state that verse 18 is referring to the whole Torah, but that is not what is being said.
The commandment that is being set aside, is the commandment for the Levites to administrate the priesthood. That commandment is set aside, not replaced or abolished. It is set aside through the means of the destruction of the temple.​

Um, the Law was given to the people through the Levites. Without them, the Law as a unit becomes obsolete as a functioning covenantal system (see Heb 7:11). That's why when there is a change in the priesthood, there must also be a change in the law (see Heb. 7:12).

There's another issue that comes up if you try to separate and 'set aside' just the Levitical priesthood and the sacrifices in the Law: Those are jots and tittles, and Mt. 5 says that the Law, not one jot or tittle, will pass from the Law until all is fulfilled.

Heck, 119 'Ministries' is built on the foundation that we are to obey ALL of Scripture, especially the Law - all the jots and tittles! At the same time they say that a bunch just can't be followed because they're in diaspora, and look forward to sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood coming back.

That's an abomination, as Christ is a Priest forever, by an oath made by God, Who says in Heb. 7,

Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:​

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
‘You are a priest forever.’”


22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.​

There is a difference between set aside, and abolished.
​

The Law is set aside as a functioning covenantal system; it IS abolished for those who are in Christ.

This means that the commandment of the Levitical system still exists, but it is not exercisable because of the destruction of the Temple, which was scheduled to occur a couple years after Hebrews was written.


​

Which makes the Law obsolete because it is no longer a functioning covenantal system.

The destruction of the temple was a curse, not a blessing. It was a punishment, not a gift (Matthew 23:38).​

This occurred because fault was found with “them” not the law of God. We see this in the very next
chapter:

Hebrews 8:8
For he finds fault with them when he says:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

So, the Levitical system is set aside through the destruction of the Temple, and we have a new High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, our Messiah Yeshua (Jesus).
​

Which makes the Law obsolete because it is no longer a functioning covenantal system.

The priesthood was set aside because of weakness and uselessness because they were found to be at fault. The law did not make the Earthly priesthood perfect.​

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law madenothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (from Heb. 7)​

On the other hand, our Messiah is perfect, and He is our High Priest. He operates in the Heavenly Tabernacle, that is also perfect, not built with human hands (Hebrews 8:2).​

Christ is the Perfect, Permanent High Priest of the New Covenant, not the Old. Remember, only Levites could mediate the Old Covenant. 1 Tim. 2:5 tells us this:

5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.


​

And Hebrews 7 continues on, telling us this:

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
‘You are a priest forever.’”

22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.​

Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant;
He did not make the Old Covenant better.

23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.

25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness;

but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.​

Two different covenants; two different priesthoods.

Christ has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

Because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent High Priesthood.

The Law appoints men as high priests.

But God, by an oath, which came after the Law, appointed Christ, our Perfect High Priest - forever, not of the Law, but of the better covenant.

The law remains intact and unchanged.​

The Law clearly is not the same; the Levitical priesthood has been replaced and the covenant rendered obsolete in Christ - this is clear. The Law is clearly not intact; the sacrificial system (a pivotal part of the Law) is also obsolete in Christ.

What changed is that:

 We have a new High Priest in the order of Melchizedek.​

Which renders Torah Law obsolete as a functioning covenantal system.

 The Earthly temple is destroyed, setting aside the ability for the Levites to function as priests according to the commandment.​

Which renders Torah Law obsolete as a functioning covenantal system.

 The Levites were found at fault, which merited the punishment of the destruction of the temple​

Which renders Torah Law obsolete as a functioning covenantal system.

 We have a better hope and promises through Yeshua in the order of Melchizedek.

​

Because Christ is the Perfect, Permanent High Priest of a better covenant built on better promises!

​-JGIG

 

[BibleGuy]

Hello JGIG,

We are STILL waiting for your answer to my simple question:

WHICH NUMBERED PREMISE DO YOU REJECT?


1. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which comes forth from YHVH.
2. YHVH's commands come from YHVH.
3. YHVH's commands are contained in the written Torah of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).
4. The written Torah of Moses comes from YHVH (from 2 and 3).
5. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 1 and 4).
6. The LXX uses "rhema" (in Greek, Dt. 8:3) to refer to that which comes from YHVH.
7. "Rhema" (Dt. 8:3, LXX) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 5 and 6).
8. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) is simply a citation of the Dt. 8:3 passage.
9. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 7 and 8).
10. Jesus said we LIVE by that "rhema" (Mt. 4:4).
11. Therefore, Jesus said we LIVE by that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 9 and 10).


Be CLEAR and SPECIFIC: WHICH NUMBERED PREMISE?

Premise 6? Premise 5?

One little step at a time is required to expose your faulty methodology.

If you refuse to clearly state the numbered premise you reject, then I can not directly refute your rejection of the Biblical position I've set forth.

Are you thus TRYING to prevent me from refuting your rejection of my position?

Are you intentionally avoiding a clear and simple and specific answer?

I'm beginning to wonder whether you are truly interested in dialogue...or whether you're simply a propagandist without regard for genuine dialogue.

Surely you can find 60 seconds or so and tell us which numbered premise, right?

Then we can proceed to examine the rational basis (or lack thereof) for your rejection (unless you're trying to avoid this, too).

So AGAIN: WHICH NUMBERED PREMISE DO YOU REJECT?

After you answer, your faulty understanding can be exposed.

best...
BibleGuy

 

[jcha]

The law remains intact and unchanged.
​

The Law clearly is not the same; the Levitical priesthood has been replaced and the covenant rendered obsolete in Christ - this is clear. The Law is clearly not intact; the sacrificial system (a pivotal part of the Law) is also obsolete in Christ.

What changed is that:

 We have a new High Priest in the order of Melchizedek.​

Which renders Torah Law obsolete as a functioning covenantal system.

 The Earthly temple is destroyed, setting aside the ability for the Levites to function as priests according to the commandment.​

Which renders Torah Law obsolete as a functioning covenantal system.

 The Levites were found at fault, which merited the punishment of the destruction of the temple​

Which renders Torah Law obsolete as a functioning covenantal system.

 We have a better hope and promises through Yeshua in the order of Melchizedek.

​

Because Christ is the Perfect, Permanent High Priest of a better covenant built on better promises!

​-JGIG

Say it three times and it shall become truth (even if it is not true).

I appreciate that you have taken time to respond to my post of 119 ministries. I do stand with 119 minisitries in that the Pauline Paradox series has to be addressed. The WORD is not based on PAUL. Sorry for the sarcasmn LORD, but I'm going to keep that Paul was Torah obedient and that Paul was not talking out of both sides of his mouth.

John 1:1 In the beginning was (PAUL), and (PAUL) was with God, and (PAUL) was God. NO! NO! NO!

Let's start with Jesus' words in Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.


Deu_4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deu_12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.


Mal 2:1 And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.
Mal 2:2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.
Mal 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
Mal 2:4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
Mal 2:5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.
Mal 2:6 The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity.
Mal 2:7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
Mal 2:8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

Mal 2:9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.
Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Mal 2:11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
Mal 2:12 The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.
Mal 2:13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
Mal 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
Mal 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
Mal 2:16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Mal 2:17 Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?


Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
Heb 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Mal 2:8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

My heart's desire is to have a heart that desires to please YHWH (LORD) and be totally grace dependent on Jesus for without Him it would not matter what my heart desires.

Thank you again JGIG for your thoughtful and timely response.

Heb 8:9 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 continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


The laws of the "old covenant" are still intact. The Laws of the Old Covenant were never for salvation, but are instructions on how to be "set apart", holy and clean and as God's children, this is how He wants us to represent Him.

Let me give a short story here to illustrate what has happened. I live in a town where we have had some recent flooding. Several of the feeder roads along side the highway are under water and rendered those streets inoperable for residents to be able to drive to their homes. There is a barricade at each end of the feeder road where the water lies on and over the road. The residents have been told where to park under a highway overpass and a super huge dump truck carries them through the flooded street to their residences. Has the law changed for use of these roads or are they temporarily out-of-order? The speed limit is still in act, even though no cars can now drive down the street. Does the city need to enforce a new law while the streets are impassable? Same is with YHWH (LORD) and The Word. First time around was good enough and still stands on "the books".

As we hear and read the "Old Testament" we find many many many instructions how God wants His People to live and behave and carry out government, as well.

God did not change His mind. The Word did not add to or diminish from the Father's written will.

If Jesus (God's Salvation Y'shua) had made any changes to the Word or to the Laws, He would be a sinner. And I do not believe Paul intended for any of us to think that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was anything less than Perfect.

Melchizedek. was before the Levite priesthood. And was this High Priest a man? No. It was The Word. The Levite priesthood was found to be at fault.

Mat 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
Mat 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Gen_14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Psa 110:2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Psa 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Psa 110:5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
Psa 110:6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.
Psa 110:7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.

 

[ukok102nak]

as it is written
:read:
Hebrews 10:15
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying,
16*“This is the covenant that I will make with them:
****‘After those days,’ says the Lord,
‘I will put my laws on their heart,
****I will also write them on their mind;’”b
then he says,

17*“I will remember their sins and their iniquities no more.”c
18* Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19*Having therefore, brothers, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
20*by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21*and having a great priest over God’s house,
22*let’s draw near with a true heart in fullness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and having our body washed with pure water,
23*let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering; for he who promised is faithful.
24* Let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good works,

:ty:

godbless us all always

 

[BibleGuy]

as it is written
:read:
Hebrews 10:15
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying,
16*“This is the covenant that I will make with them:
****‘After those days,’ says the Lord,
‘I will put my laws on their heart,
****I will also write them on their mind;’”b
then he says,

17*“I will remember their sins and their iniquities no more.”c
18* Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19*Having therefore, brothers, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
20*by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21*and having a great priest over God’s house,
22*let’s draw near with a true heart in fullness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and having our body washed with pure water,
23*let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering; for he who promised is faithful.
24* Let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good works,

:ty:

godbless us all always

Yes!

The Spirit testifies that Torah is written upon our hearts (Heb. 10:15-16). Jeremiah agrees (Jer. 31:33; "Torah").

This is the SAME Spirit that causes us to walk in Torah statutes and ordinances (Eze. 36:27) as we return to the land (Eze. 36:28), just as Moses likewise prophesied that we would return to YHVH in full obedience to Torah (Dt. 30:1-8) when we return to the land. Jesus will be reigning as our King in those days to come (Jer. 23:5) when we again return to the live on the soil (Jer. 23:8) promised to us through Abraham (Dt. 6:10; 30:20) when we again obey ALL Torah (Dt. 6:25; 30:16).

And yes...let us provoke one another to love...

And how did Jesus say we should love? Answer: Mt. 22:37 APPLIES Dt. 6 to us! Thus, we should love through OBEDIENCE (Dt. 6:25) to the commands of Torah, in imitation of the Torah-obedient walk Jesus exemplified (Lk. 6:40; 1 Jn. 2:6). John agrees (1 Jn. 5:3). Paul agrees (1 Cor. 7:19).

AND, loving obedience to Torah is a sufficient condition of eternal life (Lk. 10:25-28), because it requires FAITHFUL obedience to Torah, which requires FAITHFUL obedience to the Messiah (Dt. 18) and His word of faith (Dt. 30) preached even by Paul (Rom. 10 cites Dt. 30 FAVORABLY). AND, the Messiah and His apostles obeyed Torah and taught others to do the same.

But of course, JGIG rejects such an idea....she claims that Jesus' words before the cross NO LONGER APPLY!

Jesus says we should APPLY Jesus' pre-cross teachings to disciples of all nations (Mt. 28:20).
JGIG's viewpoint requires that we should IGNORE Jesus' pre-cross teachings which pertain to Torah.

JESUS said we should CONTINUE in His words (Jn. 8:31).
JGIG's viewpoint requires that we should DISCONTINUE Jesus' words about Torah.

JESUS says the Psalms can NOT be set aside (Jn. 10).
JGIG's viewpoints requires that we should set aside the Torah-obedient Psalms...

Peter and Paul uphold the Proverbs as authoritative Scripture for Christians.
JGIG's viewpoints requires that the Torah-obedient Proverbs should be set aside.

Paul told us to ADMONISH one another with Psalms (Col. 3:16) which, of course, require Torah (Ps. 1; 19; 119).
JGIG hopes you don't do that either!

JESUS says we LIVE by that which comes from YHVH's mouth...and this includes Torah!
JGIG hopes you NEVER EVER do that!

The Holy Spirit wants us to REMEMBER (not discontinue!) Jesus' words (Jn. 14:26).
JGIG...well...her viewpoint requires that we might as well forget about all those pre-cross Torah teachings (as found in, for example, Mt. 5:19; 23:2-3,23,34).

JESUS' pre-cross Torah Teachings are SPIRIT and LIFE (Jn. 6:63).
JGIG wants you to DISREGARD these teachings.

Choose for yourselves whom you will serve...

And to serve YHVH (Jos. 24:15) is to obey Torah (Jos. 22:5)...but JGIG does NOT want you to know this either....

But as for me, I choose to serve in newness of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), having died to the law (Rom. 7:4) of sin (Rom. 7:23), and serving the Torah of God (Rom. 7:25), and JOYFULLY (Rom. 7:22) concurring with (not opposing!) the Torah, and thus we may be justified as we obey the Torah (Rom. 2:13) by faith (Rom. 5:1), apart from any works of the law which do not exhibit faith (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 5:4-5).

But JGIG does NOT want you to do that either...

She does NOT want you to concur with Torah...

She does NOT want you to JOYFULLY agree with Torah...

She does NOT want you to be justified as you obey Torah in faith (along with all that is entailed by that faithful obedience).

She does NOT want you to serve the Torah of God (which Paul said he served...)

Paul BELIEVES (not OPPOSES!) the Torah and the Prophets....we should imitate Paul (1 Cor. 11:1; Php. 4:9).
JGIG...well....her viewpoint requires that we might as well forget about all that "Torah" and "Prophet" stuff....

Even though Paul took a vow to PROVE he walked orderly in obedience to Torah (Ac. 21)...EVEN infant circumcision Torah.

Sigh.....

BibleGuy

 

[JGIG]

.

Originally Posted by BibleGuy

Hello JGIG,

We are STILL waiting for your answer to my simple question:

WHICH NUMBERED PREMISE DO YOU REJECT?


1. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which comes forth from YHVH.
2. YHVH's commands come from YHVH.
3. YHVH's commands are contained in the written Torah of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).
4. The written Torah of Moses comes from YHVH (from 2 and 3).
5. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 1 and 4).
6. The LXX uses "rhema" (in Greek, Dt. 8:3) to refer to that which comes from YHVH.
7. "Rhema" (Dt. 8:3, LXX) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 5 and 6).
8. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) is simply a citation of the Dt. 8:3 passage.
9. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 7 and 8).
10. Jesus said we LIVE by that "rhema" (Mt. 4:4).
11. Therefore, Jesus said we LIVE by that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 9 and 10).​

The whole progression is to be ignored because it is based on the false premise that the Hebrew for 'word' [H4161 - mowtsa'] refers to Torah when it does not. Evidence for what the language actually says is already addressed at length in THIS POST.

A response to your '11 points' has already been addressed in THIS POST. Your re-posting of this same list two more times after my response to the first time you posted it makes me think you didn't read what I wrote (which is certainly your choice), or simply could not accept that someone disagrees with you and is willing to stand their ground. Furthermore, your 'list of 11 points' reminds me a bit of this funny story which demonstrates a false logical progression somewhat like the one you present in your list:

Why are Fire Trucks Red?
Because they have eight wheels and four people on them, and four plus eight makes twelve, and there are twelve inches in a foot, and one foot is a ruler, and Queen Elizabeth was a ruler, and Queen Elizabeth was also a ship, and the ship sailed the seas, and there were fish in the seas, and fish have fins, and the Finns fought the Russians, and the Russians are red, and fire trucks are always “Russian" around, so that's why fire trucks are red!
​

Here's the thing that you need to know: You're not going to convert me to Torah observance. Folks far more persuasive than you have tried since 2006, which prompted me to dive deeply into the Scriptures to prove/disprove what I was being taught. Contextual, linguistically integral study and hermeneutics disprove the Torah observant view. The Spirit of God brought Scripture after Scripture after Scripture to my mind as Torah folk put teachings in front of me, and as I examined the Law-keeping view vs. the simplicity of the Gospel, along with the language, context, and the history of the Law-keeping belief system, it became very, very clear that the Law-keeping paradigm is a false one.

Originally Posted by BibleGuy

Be CLEAR and SPECIFIC: WHICH NUMBERED PREMISE?

Premise 6? Premise 5?

One little step at a time is required to expose your faulty methodology.



​

Ah, and therein lies a common methodology to indoctrinating folks with false teaching. This, from Exit and Support Network's page on How Mind Control is Used for Influence and Control:

6. Manipulate information and language:

Conflicting, upsetting, or non-supporting information is censored or prohibited whenever possible in group communication and indoctrination. Direct deception or the clever mixing of truth and lies in confidence game strategies also may be employed to manipulate information or inhibit discovery of falsehood in stated claims.

Rules exist about permissible topics to discuss with outsiders. Communication is highly controlled. An "in group" language is usually constructed.

To reinforce the belief system, commonly used words often are redefined and new words created. Language is loaded[SUP]1[/SUP], often dividing the world into "good, aware, wonderful us" and "evil, unaware, ignorant them."

Information is controlled is such a way to offer "no choice choices." All alternatives given to the subject to choose from are void of any valid options that run counter to the goals of the operators of the C. P. (coercive persuasion) program.

This technique also helps to prevent independent thinking, discovery of deception, or rebellion by maintaining a closed system of logic and an uninformed state in the victim. One main theme in Orwell's 1984 was, without the capacity to express or use certain words, people lose access to the thoughts and actions that those words represent. Since words represent thoughts and thoughts motivate actions, if words can be controlled, thought and eventually action can be controlled.
​

Originally Posted by BibleGuy

If you refuse to clearly state the numbered premise you reject, then I can not directly refute your rejection of the Biblical position I've set forth.


​

I'm okay with that. You are free to respond, or not, as you've apparently chosen to do, to my post that already addresses at length your premise.

Are you thus TRYING to prevent me from refuting your rejection of my position?


​

Not at all. Knock yourself out.

Are you intentionally avoiding a clear and simple and specific answer?


​

You continue to cling to a false definition of H4161 - mowtsa'. Without properly defining that word, your list of 11 points is one big logical fallacy based on a false premise. The whole list is to be rejected on those grounds, as stated already in THIS POST.

I'm beginning to wonder whether you are truly interested in dialogue...or whether you're simply a propagandist without regard for genuine dialogue.

Surely you can find 60 seconds or so and tell us which numbered premise, right?


​

I find time where I can, and as stated in the first post of this thread, "As I have time and see your posts, I can always quote them here (or you can put them here yourself) and respond to them.

"We've talked about bantering in the forums, and as my time is limited, I've not been able to dive in. This week I may have a bit of time, however, and instead of having my time and efforts buried in threads elsewhere, I thought it would be prudent for us and for any readers here who are interested in the concept of Torah obedience for Christians to see our discourse in a separate thread which they can choose to read or ignore."

There are many demands on my time, and I post here as I am able. As I've stated before, I'm committed to responding to each of your questions/issues, but it will take time. And it won't all get done this week, or maybe even this month! And I'm okay with that. If you're not, then you are free to either respond or not in this thread.

I've answered your post regarding 'rhema' in Deut. 8:3 and Mt. 4:4 in THIS POST. I'm confident in the results that contextual and linguistic study, along with the lens of the Work of Christ - the Gospel, led me to, and am content to let God and the reader judge between us.

Then we can proceed to examine the rational basis (or lack thereof) for your rejection (unless you're trying to avoid this, too).

So AGAIN: WHICH NUMBERED PREMISE DO YOU REJECT?

After you answer, your faulty understanding can be exposed.

best...
BibleGuy​

That is a difference between us, BibleGuy: I'm content to let what I post remain out there and stand on its own merits, trusting that folks, absent manipulation to convince them, can sort the issues out and arrive at their own conclusions. I won't fall for the bait that you dangle to draw me into a conflict that exists only on your side.


Grace and peace,
-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

Say it three times and it shall become truth (even if it is not true).

I appreciate that you have taken time to respond to my post of 119 ministries. I do stand with 119 minisitries in that the Pauline Paradox series has to be addressed. The WORD is not based on PAUL. Sorry for the sarcasmn LORD, but I'm going to keep that Paul was Torah obedient and that Paul was not talking out of both sides of his mouth.

John 1:1 In the beginning was (PAUL), and (PAUL) was with God, and (PAUL) was God. NO! NO! NO!

Let's start with Jesus' words in Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Preached to those under the Law. We who are in Christ are dead to the Law.

I've written about this elsewhere; you can access it here:

• Released/Delivered From the Law and Christ is the End of the Law – Getting Greeky About Romans 7, 10, and Ephesians 2

Deu_4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deu_12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Then 119 'Ministries' should stop adding and subtracting from God's Word. They simultaneously teach obedience to all of God's Word and then endlessly qualify what parts can't be obeyed. Doublemindedness slickly packaged.

Mal 2:1 And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.
Mal 2:2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.
Mal 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
Mal 2:4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
Mal 2:5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.
Mal 2:6 The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity.
Mal 2:7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
Mal 2:8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

Mal 2:9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.
Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Mal 2:11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
Mal 2:12 The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.
Mal 2:13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
Mal 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
Mal 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
Mal 2:16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Mal 2:17 Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

Yep. Pretty strong warnings to those who don't obey Torah Law as it was given. 119 'Ministries' and those who claim to keep the Law should take note.

Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
Heb 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

You left off these last few verses in Heb. 8:

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 continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Mal 2:8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

Much like a hammer, the Law, which in and of itself is good and holy, in the hands of man became a ministry of death (see 2 Cor. 3).

My heart's desire is to have a heart that desires to please YHWH (LORD) and be totally grace dependent on Jesus for without Him it would not matter what my heart desires.

Never in doubt. Most Torah folk love and want to please God.

Thank you again JGIG for your thoughtful and timely response.

Heb 8:9 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 continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Oh, there it is . . . you did include it, though I do believe you reach different conclusions than do I about what it means.

The laws of the "old covenant" are still intact. The Laws of the Old Covenant were never for salvation, but are instructions on how to be "set apart", holy and clean and as God's children, this is how He wants us to represent Him.

And before the Cross, the Old Covenant was the way that God's people were set apart.

After the Cross, however, we are not set apart by what laws we keep, but by the Fruit we bear, and the Fruit of the Spirit speaks nothing of Torah obedience, but rather love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law (see Gal. 5).

Let me give a short story here to illustrate what has happened. I live in a town where we have had some recent flooding. Several of the feeder roads along side the highway are under water and rendered those streets inoperable for residents to be able to drive to their homes. There is a barricade at each end of the feeder road where the water lies on and over the road. The residents have been told where to park under a highway overpass and a super huge dump truck carries them through the flooded street to their residences. Has the law changed for use of these roads or are they temporarily out-of-order? The speed limit is still in act, even though no cars can now drive down the street. Does the city need to enforce a new law while the streets are impassable? Same is with YHWH (LORD) and The Word. First time around was good enough and still stands on "the books".

I like your story, though the metaphor falls short. See, God made a completely New Way to get from point A (dead to God in Adam) to point B (alive to God in Christ).

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (from Heb. 7)​

As we hear and read the "Old Testament" we find many many many instructions how God wants His People to live and behave and carry out government, as well.

God did not change His mind. The Word did not add to or diminish from the Father's written will.

If Jesus (God's Salvation Y'shua) had made any changes to the Word or to the Laws, He would be a sinner. And I do not believe Paul intended for any of us to think that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was anything less than Perfect.

God didn't change the Law, He replaced the Old Covenant with the New Covenant. The Law, in all its perfection, still serves a purpose: to point out to mankind their sin and to show them their need for Christ and His Work.

Melchizedek. was before the Levite priesthood. And was this High Priest a man? No. It was The Word. The Levite priesthood was found to be at fault.

Mat 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
Mat 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Gen_14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Psa 110:2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Psa 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Psa 110:5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
Psa 110:6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.
Psa 110:7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.

All of those Scriptures point to man's failure at Law-keeping and God's solution, which is New Life in Christ - Life under a New, Perfect, and Permanent High Priesthood in the established New Covenant, which is a better covenant built on better promises.

-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

.

Originally Posted by BibleGuy

Yes!

The Spirit testifies that Torah is written upon our hearts (Heb. 10:15-16). Jeremiah agrees (Jer. 31:33; "Torah").

This is the SAME Spirit that causes us to walk in Torah statutes and ordinances (Eze. 36:27) as we return to the land (Eze. 36:28), just as Moses likewise prophesied that we would return to YHVH in full obedience to Torah (Dt. 30:1-8) when we return to the land. Jesus will be reigning as our King in those days to come (Jer. 23:5) when we again return to the live on the soil (Jer. 23:8) promised to us through Abraham (Dt. 6:10; 30:20) when we again obey ALL Torah (Dt. 6:25; 30:16).

And yes...let us provoke one another to love...

And how did Jesus say we should love? Answer: Mt. 22:37 APPLIES Dt. 6 to us! Thus, we should love through OBEDIENCE (Dt. 6:25) to the commands of Torah, in imitation of the Torah-obedient walk Jesus exemplified (Lk. 6:40; 1 Jn. 2:6). John agrees (1 Jn. 5:3). Paul agrees (1 Cor. 7:19).

AND, loving obedience to Torah is a sufficient condition of eternal life (Lk. 10:25-28), because it requires FAITHFUL obedience to Torah, which requires FAITHFUL obedience to the Messiah (Dt. 18) and His word of faith (Dt. 30) preached even by Paul (Rom. 10 cites Dt. 30 FAVORABLY). AND, the Messiah and His apostles obeyed Torah and taught others to do the same.​

And that's where the above false progression of assertions leads - to a false gospel of Torah obedience for eternal life.


And now the ad hom attacks begin, based on the false premises for which BibleGuy has shown himself to have quite an affinity:

But of course, JGIG rejects such an idea....she claims that Jesus' words before the cross NO LONGER APPLY!​

Jesus preached the Law to those born under the Law. We who are in Christ after the Cross are dead to the Law, therefore Christ's teaching of the Law does not apply to those who are dead to the Law.
Not to worry - Jesus taught lots of stuff beyond Torah. So there are lots of Jesus' words that do apply to we who are in Christ.

Jesus says we should APPLY Jesus' pre-cross teachings to disciples of all nations (Mt. 28:20).
JGIG's viewpoint requires that we should IGNORE Jesus' pre-cross teachings which pertain to Torah.

JESUS said we should CONTINUE in His words (Jn. 8:31).
JGIG's viewpoint requires that we should DISCONTINUE Jesus' words about Torah.​

Jesus' command to go out into all the world baptizing them into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Mt. 28:19), which is NOT found in Torah, so Mt. 28:20 is likewise not speaking of Torah. Plus we who are in Christ are dead to the Law .

Oh, and in Jn. 8:31, the Greek for 'word' there is 'logos' (embodiment of God), not nomos (Torah Law) or 'graphe' (written Scripture), so Christ was saying we should continue in HIM, not in Torah.

Continuing in Christ and His Deity and why that's powerful is echoed here:

6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. (from Col. 2)


​

Neither Jn. 8:31 nor Col. 2:6-10 refers to walking in Torah, but rather points us to walk in the Reality Who is Christ.

JESUS says the Psalms can NOT be set aside (Jn. 10).
JGIG's viewpoints requires that we should set aside the Torah-obedient Psalms...


​

Nope, just that we should read them through the lens of the New Covenant realities in Christ. God's commandments/instructions/Torah after the Cross? Believe in the One He has sent and love one another (see 1 Jn. 3:23-24).

Peter and Paul uphold the Proverbs as authoritative Scripture for Christians.
JGIG's viewpoints requires that the Torah-obedient Proverbs should be set aside.

Paul told us to ADMONISH one another with Psalms (Col. 3:16) which, of course, require Torah (Ps. 1; 19; 119).
JGIG hopes you don't do that either!

​

Again, all Scripture should be viewed through the lens of the Work of Christ and His New Covenant. See the point directly above this one.

As for my 'hopes', my hope is this:

14 For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16 I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. (from Eph. 3)
​

JESUS says we LIVE by that which comes from YHVH's mouth...and this includes Torah!
JGIG hopes you NEVER EVER do that!


​

Building and ark and slaying Phillistines comes from the mouth of God, too, but I don't see you out there pushing obedience to those commands! Why? Because they were for a specific people for a specific time, just as the Old Covenant was.

The Holy Spirit wants us to REMEMBER (not discontinue!) Jesus' words (Jn. 14:26).
JGIG...well...her viewpoint requires that we might as well forget about all those pre-cross Torah teachings (as found in, for example, Mt. 5:19; 23:2-3,23,34).

JESUS' pre-cross Torah Teachings are SPIRIT and LIFE (Jn. 6:63).
JGIG wants you to DISREGARD these teachings.



​

Jn. 6:63 refers to the 'rhema' of God, not the 'nomos' of God. Again, your assertions are built on a premise proven to be false. The reader can go to THIS POST for clarification on the matter.

Choose for yourselves whom you will serve...

And to serve YHVH (Jos. 24:15) is to obey Torah (Jos. 22:5)...but JGIG does NOT want you to know this either....


​

Before the Cross the Old Covenant was the way to serve and draw near to God. After the Cross, God has put in place a better covenant by which to draw near to God and bear His Fruit, which is built on better promises (see Gal. 5, Heb. 7).

But as for me, I choose to serve in newness of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), having died to the law (Rom. 7:4) of sin (Rom. 7:23), and serving the Torah of God (Rom. 7:25), and JOYFULLY (Rom. 7:22) concurring with (not opposing!) the Torah, and thus we may be justified as we obey the Torah (Rom. 2:13) by faith (Rom. 5:1), apart from any works of the law which do not exhibit faith (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 5:4-5).​

That's quite a re-writing and rearranging of Scripture you've done there, BibleGuy. Unfortunately it adds up to a false gospel, which is no Gospel at all. Anyone can go read the references you've listed in context to see that they don't say what you say they say. Perhaps you should do the same?

But JGIG does NOT want you to do that either...

She does NOT want you to concur with Torah...

She does NOT want you to JOYFULLY agree with Torah...​

Torah points to Christ! I'm all for that! You falsely accuse, me BibleGuy!

She does NOT want you to be justified as you obey Torah in faith (along with all that is entailed by that faithful obedience).
​

Oh, this is going to be fun:

28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. (from Rom. 3)

1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. (from Rom. 5)

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (from Gal. 2)

21 "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." (from Gal. 2)​

​

21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (from Rom. 3)​

She does NOT want you to serve the Torah of God (which Paul said he served...)

Paul BELIEVES (not OPPOSES!) the Torah and the Prophets....we should imitate Paul (1 Cor. 11:1; Php. 4:9).
JGIG...well....her viewpoint requires that we might as well forget about all that "Torah" and "Prophet" stuff....

Even though Paul took a vow to PROVE he walked orderly in obedience to Torah (Ac. 21)...EVEN infant circumcision Torah.​

No, BibleGuy, Paul did not preach/teach Torah observance. The vow you speak of in Acts 21 was never completed, and Paul was pressured into participating and paying for others to participate to keep peace with Law-keepers in Jerusalem. The same Law-keepers who pressured Paul to take that vow also needed to be peeled away from him by Roman soldiers before they killed him. Paul was trying to 'be all things to all people in order to win some', and in that case, it was probably a mistake. One must remember that the book of Acts is a history of the early Body of Christ; much of it is an account of things that did happen, not necessarily an account of doctrine to be applied to the Body today.

Sigh.....

BibleGuy


​

Really? Gee, BibleGuy, contending for the Gospel pumps me up! I love it! Seeing how God orchestrates the simple truths of the Gospel so that the gates of hell cannot prevail against His Body! Woot woot! That's why I'm willing to spend lots of time here - it's in the hope that you will be built up in who you are in Christ and come into the fullness of His grace and love.


Grace and peace,
-JGIG

(Reader take note that BibleGuy is employing this tactic: To reinforce the belief system, commonly used words often are redefined and new words created. Language is loaded[SUP]1[/SUP], often dividing the world into "good, aware, wonderful us" and "evil, unaware, ignorant them." - source)

 

[BibleGuy]

ATTENTION!!! THE ARGUMENT THAT DEFEATS JGIG’s ANTI-TORAH THEOLOGY!

1. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which comes forth from YHVH.
2. YHVH's commands come from YHVH.
3. YHVH's commands are contained in the written Torah of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).
4. The written Torah of Moses comes from YHVH (from 2 and 3).
5. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 1 and 4).
6. The LXX uses "rhema" (in Greek, Dt. 8:3) to refer to that which comes from YHVH.
7. "Rhema" (Dt. 8:3, LXX) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 5 and 6).
8. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) is simply a citation of the Dt. 8:3 passage.
9. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 7 and 8).
10. Jesus said we LIVE by that "rhema" (Mt. 4:4).
11. Therefore, Jesus said we LIVE by that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 9 and 10).


CONCLUSION

1. It is our DUTY to test JGIG’s anti-Torah theology to see if it can be defended against criticism.

2. Testing JGIG’s position requires understanding WHICH PREMISES (in arguments that are critical of her view) that she rejects.

3. We can understand which premises she rejects ONLY IF JGIG tells us.

4. JGIG REPEATEDLY REFUSES to tell us which numbered premise she rejects.

5. JGIG REFUSES to tell us why she rejects any premise (in my 11-point argument) that she rejects.

6. JGIG, therefore, REFUSES to permit us to test her viewpoint against the criticism I’ve brought forth.

7. THEREFORE, JGIG’s viewpoint FAILS THE TEST!



You can’t pass a test that you REFUSE to take! JGIG agrees: “I won't fall for the bait…”

So there you have it…she WON’T “fall for the bait”. SHE REFUSES.

What is the “bait”? Simply a request to be able to TEST her view!!!

Simply a request to know WHICH premise she rejects, and then why she rejects it. But she won’t even tell us.

Now, she may raise another 50 objections to things I’ve written….but why should I engage?
I could develop more Biblical arguments which are carefully constructed, and Scripturally supported, and logically sound….only to discover more EXCUSES from JGIG explaining why she REFUSES to engage my position in detail again.

And look at ALL THE EXCUSES!

“I won’t fall for the bait”…

“already addressed at length…”

“the whole progression is to be ignored…”

“you didn’t read what I wrote…”

“could not accept that someone disagrees with you…”

“fire trucks are red…”

“how mind control is used…”

“manipulation to convince them…”

“other folks are more persuasive than you…”

“my mind is made up….so don’t confuse me with the facts!” (paraphrase…)

Yes, JGIG’s mind is ALREADY MADE UP! She hasn’t even seen the tiniest fraction of the full evidential support for my position…and she is evidently incapable of even properly understanding the position I’ve set forth thus far….

Yet JGIG is ALREADY CONVINCED that my position is wrong….before she has even reviewed the evidence for my position!

Remember? She wrote: “Here's the thing that you need to know: You're not going to convert me to Torah observance.”

Therefore: JGIG’s mind is ALREADY MADE UP….so it doesn’t matter WHAT ANYONE does or says….she has ALREADY closed her heart to even the possibility that she could be wrong.

Indeed….my suspicions regarding propagandist tendencies without regard for genuine dialogue (or regard for genuine pursuit of truth) now stand confirmed.

Wow….that’s VERY scary.

So she rambles on and on and on and on…

But WHERE oh WHERE oh WHERE does she tell us WHICH numbered premise she rejects?

Answer: She WON’T Tell us.

So what’s the real problem here?

She doesn’t lack evidence….she lacks the ability to subject herself to proper TESTING and critical evaluation.

And when she is finally cornered by an argument she can not answer in detail….then she simply REFUSES to answer, and pretends like everything is ok…..

This is a VERY unfortunate case in which a person simply refuses to follow the truth where it leads.

I know it’s difficult….it takes a HUGE amount of humility to admit you are wrong.

I’ll admit it! I’ve been wrong before….but still learning more each day.

BUT, when I encounter someone who REFUFSES to bother to explain to me WHICH premise they reject (or why) when I explain my belief system…well…then it’s CLEAR that such a person has REFUSED to subject themselves to the critical evaluation process. They have REFUSED to explain how to defend their viewpoint against the criticism brought forth from my own viewpoint. They have REFUSED to learn something new. They have RESISTED truth.

It’s SCARY to admit you are wrong….

It’s EASIER and “safer” to simply ignore the truth plainly before you….and refuse to answer a simple question…and then walk away, pretending like everything is ok.

But that’s wrong….VERY wrong….and I’m sad to see this.

But there is STILL hope for JGIG!

Let’s pray that her heart softens…that her ears be opened…that her eyes behold the heart of God in the face of Jesus by the power of the Spirit who will cause us to walk in Torah statutes and ordinances (Eze. 36:27) even in the future, when we fully turn to YHVH in obedience to ALL Torah (Dt. 30:1-8), as we return to the promised land in which we share an inheritance, when Jesus will rule in Torah-obedient justice and righteousness (Jer. 23:1-8).

Amen!


DETAILS

Ok…for those who may be interested, let’s expose the confused (and failed) effort JGIG has made to address my 11-point “rhema” argument.

She can (and surely will!) pretend like she has already addressed this argument….

But in fact, she has NOT even understood it, let alone brought forth any legitimate criticism.

I’ll mention just a few more things here:

1. JGIG wrote: “The whole progression is to be ignored because it is based on the false premise that the Hebrew for 'word' [H4161 - mowtsa'] refers to Torah when it does not.”

My response: This sounds like she’s rejecting Premise 5 here…but Premise 5 simply flows from Premises 1 and 4…and she gave us no reason to reject Premises 1 or 4, and neither Premise 1 (nor Premise 4) requires that the Hebrew word “motwsa” refer to Torah. So, JGIG has failed to justify her rejection. This is the hidden underlying failure behind JGIG’s rejection here.

Furthermore, I never said “motwsa” is DEFINED as Torah….rather, I simply use the 11-point argument to show that that which proceeds from God’s mouth INCLUDES Torah. And, JGIG gave us no good reason to reject any specific premise in the 11-premise argument.

JGIG has confused “definition” with “object”. I use a term to refer to an object, and then she complains that I defined the term as the object! But I never said the “object” is the “definition”. So, JGIG does not even understand my argument! But of course…she does a GREAT job of pretending that she understands.

2. Evidence for what the language actually says is already addressed at length in THIS POST.


My response: Go ahead…read it (and every other post she has EVER written). Does JGIG tell us WHICH NUMBERED PREMISE she rejects? No!

Does she tell us WHY she rejects a specific premise? No again!

So, she fails the test because she REFUSES to be tested.

Why should we trust a person’s analysis, when they REFUSE to be tested by Scripturally-grounded critical cross-examination?

We shouldn’t trust it!

It FAILS the test!

And, none of JGIG’s fans has bothered to come here (to her rescue) and explain to us which of the eleven premises we should reject (or why).

So none of JGIG’s fans has justified their rejection of my position either….even though they will likely congratulate JGIG on her great job “refuting” the “law-keepers”.

Is that really too much to ask?

Actually BELIEVE that Jesus words actually apply to us?

JGIG says “NO!” JGIG says we must REJECT Jesus words spoken before the cross which pertain to Torah.

I choose to believe Mt. 28:20 which says we should APPLY those words to disciples of all nations.

Blessings…
BibleGuy

 

[Grace777x70]

Going back to the law after coming to Christ is committing spiritual adultery on our loving Lord. Why accept a substitute - a shadow when we have the real with us now.

As long as people are going to be advocating to go back to the law after coming to Christ - I will be calling believers that are one spirit with Christ to stay true to Him as He alone is our life - our righteousness.

JGIG will refute the "law-keepers" faulty arguements. There will always be those that act like Judaizers that will come in to pervert the simplicity that is Christ. Paul had much to say about these kinds of attacks on the gospel of the grace of Christ and they were not good.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (NASB)
[SUP]3 [/SUP] But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

[SUP]4 [/SUP] For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

 

[jcha]

I keep seeing this phrase "going back to the law" after coming to Christ. If "law" means "the scriptures", then.........

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[Grace777x70]

I keep seeing this phrase "going back to the law" after coming to Christ. If "law" means "the scriptures", then.........

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The law means self-effort to achieve or maintain righteousness which is why the teaching of Christ fulfilling the law for us is "instructing us in righteousness" - the righteousness of God which is by faith in Christ's finished work for us.

Romans 1:16-17 (NASB)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

[SUP]17 [/SUP] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

Romans 10:2-5 (NASB)
[SUP]2 [/SUP] For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.

[SUP]3 [/SUP] For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

[SUP]4 [/SUP] For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

[SUP]5 [/SUP] For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.

We live now by the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, the law of love, the law of faith, the law of liberty, the law of Christ who is in us.

His life in us will fulfill all the intent of the law of Moses and then some as Jesus elevated the law of Moses to expose our need for a Savior.

 

[Grace777x70]

ATTENTION!!! THE ARGUMENT THAT DEFEATS JGIG’s ANTI-TORAH THEOLOGY!

1. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which comes forth from YHVH.
2. YHVH's commands come from YHVH.
3. YHVH's commands are contained in the written Torah of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).
4. The written Torah of Moses comes from YHVH (from 2 and 3).
5. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 1 and 4).
6. The LXX uses "rhema" (in Greek, Dt. 8:3) to refer to that which comes from YHVH.
7. "Rhema" (Dt. 8:3, LXX) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 5 and 6).
8. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) is simply a citation of the Dt. 8:3 passage.
9. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 7 and 8).
10. Jesus said we LIVE by that "rhema" (Mt. 4:4).
11. Therefore, Jesus said we LIVE by that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 9 and 10).


CONCLUSION

1. It is our DUTY to test JGIG’s anti-Torah theology to see if it can be defended against criticism.

2. Testing JGIG’s position requires understanding WHICH PREMISES (in arguments that are critical of her view) that she rejects.

3. We can understand which premises she rejects ONLY IF JGIG tells us.

4. JGIG REPEATEDLY REFUSES to tell us which numbered premise she rejects.

5. JGIG REFUSES to tell us why she rejects any premise (in my 11-point argument) that she rejects.

6. JGIG, therefore, REFUSES to permit us to test her viewpoint against the criticism I’ve brought forth.

7. THEREFORE, JGIG’s viewpoint FAILS THE TEST!



You can’t pass a test that you REFUSE to take! JGIG agrees: “I won't fall for the bait…”

So there you have it…she WON’T “fall for the bait”. SHE REFUSES.

What is the “bait”? Simply a request to be able to TEST her view!!!

Simply a request to know WHICH premise she rejects, and then why she rejects it. But she won’t even tell us.

Now, she may raise another 50 objections to things I’ve written….but why should I engage?
I could develop more Biblical arguments which are carefully constructed, and Scripturally supported, and logically sound….only to discover more EXCUSES from JGIG explaining why she REFUSES to engage my position in detail again.

And look at ALL THE EXCUSES!

“I won’t fall for the bait”…

“already addressed at length…”

“the whole progression is to be ignored…”

“you didn’t read what I wrote…”

“could not accept that someone disagrees with you…”

“fire trucks are red…”

“how mind control is used…”

“manipulation to convince them…”

“other folks are more persuasive than you…”

“my mind is made up….so don’t confuse me with the facts!” (paraphrase…)

Yes, JGIG’s mind is ALREADY MADE UP! She hasn’t even seen the tiniest fraction of the full evidential support for my position…and she is evidently incapable of even properly understanding the position I’ve set forth thus far….

Yet JGIG is ALREADY CONVINCED that my position is wrong….before she has even reviewed the evidence for my position!

Remember? She wrote: “Here's the thing that you need to know: You're not going to convert me to Torah observance.”

Therefore: JGIG’s mind is ALREADY MADE UP….so it doesn’t matter WHAT ANYONE does or says….she has ALREADY closed her heart to even the possibility that she could be wrong.

Indeed….my suspicions regarding propagandist tendencies without regard for genuine dialogue (or regard for genuine pursuit of truth) now stand confirmed.

Wow….that’s VERY scary.

So she rambles on and on and on and on…

But WHERE oh WHERE oh WHERE does she tell us WHICH numbered premise she rejects?

Answer: She WON’T Tell us.

So what’s the real problem here?

She doesn’t lack evidence….she lacks the ability to subject herself to proper TESTING and critical evaluation.

And when she is finally cornered by an argument she can not answer in detail….then she simply REFUSES to answer, and pretends like everything is ok…..

This is a VERY unfortunate case in which a person simply refuses to follow the truth where it leads.

I know it’s difficult….it takes a HUGE amount of humility to admit you are wrong.

I’ll admit it! I’ve been wrong before….but still learning more each day.

BUT, when I encounter someone who REFUFSES to bother to explain to me WHICH premise they reject (or why) when I explain my belief system…well…then it’s CLEAR that such a person has REFUSED to subject themselves to the critical evaluation process. They have REFUSED to explain how to defend their viewpoint against the criticism brought forth from my own viewpoint. They have REFUSED to learn something new. They have RESISTED truth.

It’s SCARY to admit you are wrong….

It’s EASIER and “safer” to simply ignore the truth plainly before you….and refuse to answer a simple question…and then walk away, pretending like everything is ok.

But that’s wrong….VERY wrong….and I’m sad to see this.

But there is STILL hope for JGIG!

Let’s pray that her heart softens…that her ears be opened…that her eyes behold the heart of God in the face of Jesus by the power of the Spirit who will cause us to walk in Torah statutes and ordinances (Eze. 36:27) even in the future, when we fully turn to YHVH in obedience to ALL Torah (Dt. 30:1-8), as we return to the promised land in which we share an inheritance, when Jesus will rule in Torah-obedient justice and righteousness (Jer. 23:1-8).

Amen!


DETAILS

Ok…for those who may be interested, let’s expose the confused (and failed) effort JGIG has made to address my 11-point “rhema” argument.

She can (and surely will!) pretend like she has already addressed this argument….

But in fact, she has NOT even understood it, let alone brought forth any legitimate criticism.

I’ll mention just a few more things here:

1. JGIG wrote: “The whole progression is to be ignored because it is based on the false premise that the Hebrew for 'word' [H4161 - mowtsa'] refers to Torah when it does not.”

My response: This sounds like she’s rejecting Premise 5 here…but Premise 5 simply flows from Premises 1 and 4…and she gave us no reason to reject Premises 1 or 4, and neither Premise 1 (nor Premise 4) requires that the Hebrew word “motwsa” refer to Torah. So, JGIG has failed to justify her rejection. This is the hidden underlying failure behind JGIG’s rejection here.

Furthermore, I never said “motwsa” is DEFINED as Torah….rather, I simply use the 11-point argument to show that that which proceeds from God’s mouth INCLUDES Torah. And, JGIG gave us no good reason to reject any specific premise in the 11-premise argument.

JGIG has confused “definition” with “object”. I use a term to refer to an object, and then she complains that I defined the term as the object! But I never said the “object” is the “definition”. So, JGIG does not even understand my argument! But of course…she does a GREAT job of pretending that she understands.

2. Evidence for what the language actually says is already addressed at length in THIS POST.


My response: Go ahead…read it (and every other post she has EVER written). Does JGIG tell us WHICH NUMBERED PREMISE she rejects? No!

Does she tell us WHY she rejects a specific premise? No again!

So, she fails the test because she REFUSES to be tested.

Why should we trust a person’s analysis, when they REFUSE to be tested by Scripturally-grounded critical cross-examination?

We shouldn’t trust it!

It FAILS the test!

And, none of JGIG’s fans has bothered to come here (to her rescue) and explain to us which of the eleven premises we should reject (or why).

So none of JGIG’s fans has justified their rejection of my position either….even though they will likely congratulate JGIG on her great job “refuting” the “law-keepers”.

Is that really too much to ask?

Actually BELIEVE that Jesus words actually apply to us?

JGIG says “NO!” JGIG says we must REJECT Jesus words spoken before the cross which pertain to Torah.

I choose to believe Mt. 28:20 which says we should APPLY those words to disciples of all nations.

Blessings…
BibleGuy

I highly doubt she is going to tell you for the 3rd and 4th time...you do realize that her posts are mainly for the viewers that are seeking the truth about the Lord and His grace alone for salvation?

At some point people will just have to do this below to all this "law-keeping" nonsense that is anti-the gospel of the grace of Christ...

 

[JGIG]

ATTENTION!!! THE ARGUMENT THAT DEFEATS JGIG’s ANTI-TORAH THEOLOGY!

1. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which comes forth from YHVH.
2. YHVH's commands come from YHVH.
3. YHVH's commands are contained in the written Torah of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).
4. The written Torah of Moses comes from YHVH (from 2 and 3).
5. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 1 and 4).
6. The LXX uses "rhema" (in Greek, Dt. 8:3) to refer to that which comes from YHVH.
7. "Rhema" (Dt. 8:3, LXX) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 5 and 6).
8. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) is simply a citation of the Dt. 8:3 passage.
9. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 7 and 8).
10. Jesus said we LIVE by that "rhema" (Mt. 4:4).
11. Therefore, Jesus said we LIVE by that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 9 and 10).


CONCLUSION

1. It is our DUTY to test JGIG’s anti-Torah theology to see if it can be defended against criticism.

2. Testing JGIG’s position requires understanding WHICH PREMISES (in arguments that are critical of her view) that she rejects.

3. We can understand which premises she rejects ONLY IF JGIG tells us.

4. JGIG REPEATEDLY REFUSES to tell us which numbered premise she rejects.

5. JGIG REFUSES to tell us why she rejects any premise (in my 11-point argument) that she rejects.

6. JGIG, therefore, REFUSES to permit us to test her viewpoint against the criticism I’ve brought forth.

7. THEREFORE, JGIG’s viewpoint FAILS THE TEST!



You can’t pass a test that you REFUSE to take! JGIG agrees: “I won't fall for the bait…”

So there you have it…she WON’T “fall for the bait”. SHE REFUSES.

What is the “bait”? Simply a request to be able to TEST her view!!!

Simply a request to know WHICH premise she rejects, and then why she rejects it. But she won’t even tell us.

Now, she may raise another 50 objections to things I’ve written….but why should I engage?
I could develop more Biblical arguments which are carefully constructed, and Scripturally supported, and logically sound….only to discover more EXCUSES from JGIG explaining why she REFUSES to engage my position in detail again.

And look at ALL THE EXCUSES!

“I won’t fall for the bait”…

“already addressed at length…”

“the whole progression is to be ignored…”

“you didn’t read what I wrote…”

“could not accept that someone disagrees with you…”

“fire trucks are red…”

“how mind control is used…”

“manipulation to convince them…”

“other folks are more persuasive than you…”

“my mind is made up….so don’t confuse me with the facts!” (paraphrase…)

Yes, JGIG’s mind is ALREADY MADE UP! She hasn’t even seen the tiniest fraction of the full evidential support for my position…and she is evidently incapable of even properly understanding the position I’ve set forth thus far….

Yet JGIG is ALREADY CONVINCED that my position is wrong….before she has even reviewed the evidence for my position!

Remember? She wrote: “Here's the thing that you need to know: You're not going to convert me to Torah observance.”

Therefore: JGIG’s mind is ALREADY MADE UP….so it doesn’t matter WHAT ANYONE does or says….she has ALREADY closed her heart to even the possibility that she could be wrong.

Indeed….my suspicions regarding propagandist tendencies without regard for genuine dialogue (or regard for genuine pursuit of truth) now stand confirmed.

Wow….that’s VERY scary.

So she rambles on and on and on and on…

But WHERE oh WHERE oh WHERE does she tell us WHICH numbered premise she rejects?

Answer: She WON’T Tell us.

So what’s the real problem here?

She doesn’t lack evidence….she lacks the ability to subject herself to proper TESTING and critical evaluation.

And when she is finally cornered by an argument she can not answer in detail….then she simply REFUSES to answer, and pretends like everything is ok…..

This is a VERY unfortunate case in which a person simply refuses to follow the truth where it leads.

I know it’s difficult….it takes a HUGE amount of humility to admit you are wrong.

I’ll admit it! I’ve been wrong before….but still learning more each day.

BUT, when I encounter someone who REFUFSES to bother to explain to me WHICH premise they reject (or why) when I explain my belief system…well…then it’s CLEAR that such a person has REFUSED to subject themselves to the critical evaluation process. They have REFUSED to explain how to defend their viewpoint against the criticism brought forth from my own viewpoint. They have REFUSED to learn something new. They have RESISTED truth.

It’s SCARY to admit you are wrong….

It’s EASIER and “safer” to simply ignore the truth plainly before you….and refuse to answer a simple question…and then walk away, pretending like everything is ok.

But that’s wrong….VERY wrong….and I’m sad to see this.

But there is STILL hope for JGIG!

Let’s pray that her heart softens…that her ears be opened…that her eyes behold the heart of God in the face of Jesus by the power of the Spirit who will cause us to walk in Torah statutes and ordinances (Eze. 36:27) even in the future, when we fully turn to YHVH in obedience to ALL Torah (Dt. 30:1-8), as we return to the promised land in which we share an inheritance, when Jesus will rule in Torah-obedient justice and righteousness (Jer. 23:1-8).

Amen!


DETAILS

Ok…for those who may be interested, let’s expose the confused (and failed) effort JGIG has made to address my 11-point “rhema” argument.

She can (and surely will!) pretend like she has already addressed this argument….

But in fact, she has NOT even understood it, let alone brought forth any legitimate criticism.

I’ll mention just a few more things here:

1. JGIG wrote: “The whole progression is to be ignored because it is based on the false premise that the Hebrew for 'word' [H4161 - mowtsa'] refers to Torah when it does not.”

My response: This sounds like she’s rejecting Premise 5 here…but Premise 5 simply flows from Premises 1 and 4…and she gave us no reason to reject Premises 1 or 4, and neither Premise 1 (nor Premise 4) requires that the Hebrew word “motwsa” refer to Torah. So, JGIG has failed to justify her rejection. This is the hidden underlying failure behind JGIG’s rejection here.

Furthermore, I never said “motwsa” is DEFINED as Torah….rather, I simply use the 11-point argument to show that that which proceeds from God’s mouth INCLUDES Torah. And, JGIG gave us no good reason to reject any specific premise in the 11-premise argument.

JGIG has confused “definition” with “object”. I use a term to refer to an object, and then she complains that I defined the term as the object! But I never said the “object” is the “definition”. So, JGIG does not even understand my argument! But of course…she does a GREAT job of pretending that she understands.

2. Evidence for what the language actually says is already addressed at length in THIS POST.


My response: Go ahead…read it (and every other post she has EVER written). Does JGIG tell us WHICH NUMBERED PREMISE she rejects? No!

Does she tell us WHY she rejects a specific premise? No again!

So, she fails the test because she REFUSES to be tested.

Why should we trust a person’s analysis, when they REFUSE to be tested by Scripturally-grounded critical cross-examination?

We shouldn’t trust it!

It FAILS the test!

And, none of JGIG’s fans has bothered to come here (to her rescue) and explain to us which of the eleven premises we should reject (or why).

So none of JGIG’s fans has justified their rejection of my position either….even though they will likely congratulate JGIG on her great job “refuting” the “law-keepers”.

Is that really too much to ask?

Actually BELIEVE that Jesus words actually apply to us?

JGIG says “NO!” JGIG says we must REJECT Jesus words spoken before the cross which pertain to Torah.

I choose to believe Mt. 28:20 which says we should APPLY those words to disciples of all nations.

Blessings…
BibleGuy

You know, we have seven children. They all, at some point, have asked for stuff, asked us to do stuff, over and over and over and over, thinking that if they wear us down for long enough, we'll cave. Our six-year-old is going through that stage right now, and I'm betting she's a lot cuter than you are , and she can't even hound us, in all her cuteness, into agreeing to things that are not in her best interest.

Now, I'm not saying I'm determining what's in your best interest; believe what you like - that's totally your choice.

You've claimed to be open to me proving what I believe. That's what I'm doing.

What I am saying is that I've addressed the 'rhema' issue at length, and no matter how much you hound me to respond to that which I've already responded to . . . it's just making you look silly, BibleGuy.

I fully understand what your arguments are; I simply disagree with them based on the study of contextual Scripture, an honest look at the language, and sound hermeneutics.

You are free to take or leave my conclusions. But you will not suck me into a childish game like is attempted above. Not biting.

When I have time, I'll continue on with your 24 and 36 issues/questions. For now - off to have blood work done for the boy and perhaps some vehicle shopping with hubby.

Until then,
-JGIG

 

[BibleGuy]

ATTENTION!!! THE ARGUMENT WHICH REFUTES JGIG’S ANTI-TORAH THEOLOGY! (now with EXPANDED list of excuses…)


Grace 777x70 wrote: "I highly doubt she is going to tell you for the 3rd and 4th time..."

My response: She never told us EVEN ONCE! (Attention readers…PLEASE verify this for yourself!)

JGIG has NEVER told us WHICH NUMBERED PREMISE she rejects!


Sadly, it is now clear that Grace777x70 understands NEITHER my position NOR JGIG's position!

Can Grace777x70 SHOW US where JGIG told us (for the 3rd time?!) WHICH numbered premise she rejects?

Of course he can NOT do this! She never told us!

In fact, she thinks it’s a “childish game”…yet Grace777x70 thinks JGIG already did this 3 or 4 times! (talk about confusion….)

Thus, we must again RE-EMPHASIZE the argument which JGIG (and which Grace777x70) have failed to properly address in detail...that is, NEITHER OF YOU have told us WHICH numbered premise you reject.

As a reminder, here's the argument that defeats JGIG's position (and defeats Grace777x70's position too):


1. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which comes forth from YHVH.
2. YHVH's commands come from YHVH.
3. YHVH's commands are contained in the written Torah of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).
4. The written Torah of Moses comes from YHVH (from 2 and 3).
5. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 1 and 4).
6. The LXX uses "rhema" (in Greek, Dt. 8:3) to refer to that which comes from YHVH.
7. "Rhema" (Dt. 8:3, LXX) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 5 and 6).
8. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) is simply a citation of the Dt. 8:3 passage.
9. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 7 and 8).
10. Jesus said we LIVE by that "rhema" (Mt. 4:4).
11. Therefore, Jesus said we LIVE by that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 9 and 10).


CONCLUSION

1. It is our DUTY to test JGIG’s (and Grace777x70’s) anti-Torah theology to see if it can be defended against criticism.

2. Testing their position requires understanding WHICH PREMISES (in arguments that are critical of their view) that they reject.

3. We can understand which premises they reject ONLY IF they tell us.

4. They REPEATEDLY REFUSE to tell us which numbered premise they reject.

5. They REFUSE to tell us why they reject any premise (in my 11-point argument) that they reject.

6. They, therefore, REFUSE to permit us to test their viewpoint against the criticism I’ve brought forth.

7. THEREFORE, their anti-Torah viewpoint FAILS THE TEST!



You can’t pass a test that you REFUSE to take! JGIG agrees: “I won't fall for the bait…”

So there you have it…she WON’T “fall for the bait”. SHE REFUSES.

What is the “bait”? Simply a request to be able to TEST her view!!!

Simply a request to know WHICH premise she rejects, and then why she rejects it. But she won’t even tell us.

Now, she may raise another 50 objections to things I’ve written….but why should I engage?
I could bring forth a thousand more Biblical arguments which are carefully constructed, and Scripturally supported, and logically sound….only to discover more EXCUSES from JGIG explaining why she REFUSES to engage my position in detail again.

And look at ALL THE EXCUSES! (----> expanded list now… <----)

“I won’t fall for the bait”…

“already addressed at length…”

“the whole progression is to be ignored…”

“you didn’t read what I wrote…”

“could not accept that someone disagrees with you…”

“fire trucks are red…”

“how mind control is used…”

“manipulation to convince them…”

“other folks are more persuasive than you…”

“I doubt she’s going to tell you for the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] or 4[SUP]th[/SUP] time…”

“all this law-keeping nonsense is anti-gospel…”

“it’s just making you look silly…”

“I fully understand what your arguments are…”

“you will not suck me into a childish game…”

“my mind is made up….so don’t confuse me with the facts!” (paraphrase…)

Yes, JGIG’s mind is ALREADY MADE UP! She hasn’t even seen the tiniest fraction of the full evidential support for my position…and she has repeatedly demonstrated failure to even properly understanding the position I’ve set forth thus far….

Yet JGIG is ALREADY CONVINCED that my position is wrong….before she has even reviewed the evidence for my position!

Remember? She wrote: “Here's the thing that you need to know: You're not going to convert me to Torah observance.”

Therefore: JGIG’s mind is ALREADY MADE UP….so it doesn’t matter WHAT ANYONE does or says….she has ALREADY closed her heart to even the possibility that she could be wrong. She has already HARDENED her heart.

Indeed….my suspicions regarding propagandist tendencies without regard for genuine dialogue (or regard for genuine pursuit of truth) now stand confirmed.

Wow….that’s VERY scary.

So what’s the real problem here?

We don’t lack evidence….we lack the ability to subject anti-Torah critics to proper TESTING and critical evaluation, because THEY refuse to be tested.

And when they are finally cornered by an argument they can not answer in detail….then they simply REFUSE to answer, and then they pretend like everything is ok…..

This is a VERY unfortunate case in which a person simply refuses to follow the truth where it leads.

You see, when I encounter someone who REFUFSES to bother to explain to me WHICH premise they reject (or why) when I explain my belief system…well…then it’s CLEAR that such a person has REFUSED to subject themselves to the critical evaluation process. They have REFUSED to explain how to defend their viewpoint against the criticism brought forth from my own viewpoint. They have REFUSED to learn something new. They have RESISTED truth.

It’s SCARY to admit you are wrong….It’s EASIER and “safer” to simply ignore the truth plainly before you….and refuse to answer a simple question…and then walk away, pretending like everything is ok.

But that’s wrong….VERY wrong….and I’m sad to see this.

But there is STILL hope for our anti-Torah critics!

Let’s pray that their hearts soften…that their ears be opened…that their eyes behold the heart of God in the face of Jesus by the power of the Spirit who will cause us to walk in Torah statutes and ordinances (Eze. 36:27) even in the future, when we fully turn to YHVH in obedience to ALL Torah (Dt. 30:1-8), as we return to the promised land in which we share an inheritance, when Jesus will rule in Torah-obedient justice and righteousness (Jer. 23:1-8).

Amen!


DETAILS

Ok…for those who may be interested, let’s expose more of the confused (and failed) effort JGIG has made to address my views.

She can (and surely will!) pretend like she has already addressed these issues….

But in fact, she has NOT even understood my position (nor has she even seen it in detail), let alone brought forth any legitimate criticism.

I’ll mention just a few more things here:

1. JGIG wrote: “The whole progression is to be ignored because it is based on the false premise that the Hebrew for 'word' [H4161 - mowtsa'] refers to Torah when it does not.”

My response: This sounds like she’s rejecting Premise 5 here…but Premise 5 simply flows from Premises 1 and 4…and she gave us no reason to reject Premises 1 or 4, and neither Premise 1 (nor Premise 4) requires that the Hebrew word “motwsa” refer to Torah. So, JGIG has failed to justify her rejection. This is the hidden underlying failure behind JGIG’s rejection here.

Furthermore, I never said “motwsa” is DEFINED as Torah….rather, I simply use the 11-point argument to show that that which proceeds from God’s mouth INCLUDES Torah. And, JGIG gave us no good reason to reject any specific premise in the 11-premise argument.

JGIG has confused “definition” with “object”. I use a term to refer to an object, and then she complains that I defined the term as the object! But I never said the “object” is the “definition”. So, JGIG does not even understand my argument! But of course…she does a GREAT job of pretending that she understands. And we surely do NOT expect her to humbly acknowledge her failure to properly distinguish “object” from “definition”.



2. Evidence for what the language actually says is already addressed at length in THIS POST.

My response: Go ahead…read it (and every other post she has EVER written). Does JGIG tell us WHICH NUMBERED PREMISE she rejects? No!

Does she tell us WHY she rejects a specific premise? No again!

So, she fails the test because she REFUSES to be tested.

Why should we trust a person’s analysis, when they REFUSE to be tested by Scripturally-grounded critical cross-examination?

We shouldn’t trust it! It FAILS the test!

Is that really too much to ask?

Can we actually BELIEVE that Jesus words actually apply to us?

JGIG says “NO!”

JGIG says we must REJECT Jesus’ words spoken before the cross which pertain to Torah.


3. I choose to believe Mt. 28:20 which says we should APPLY ALL those words to disciples of all nations.

Sure, Mt. 28:19 is NOT explicitly stated in Torah…but Mt. 28:19 is REQUIRED by Torah (via Dt. 18).

And, Mt. 28:20 refers to ALL of Jesus’ pre-cross words (which JGIG wants you to disregard).


4. JGIG's viewpoint requires that we should DISCONTINUE Jesus' words about Torah.

JESUS’ words included commands and teachings requiring Torah-obedience, and JESUS said we should CONTINUE in that word (Jn. 8:31). But JGIG does NOT want you to do that.


5. JGIG thinks “logos” does NOT refer to Torah, but rather to “embodiment of God”.

But, JESUS uses “logos” (Mk. 7:13) to refer to God’s commands (Mk. 7:9). God’s commands are found in Torah (1 Ki. 2:3). Thus, Jesus uses “logos” to refer to Torah commands. Is “logos” DEFINED as “Torah”? Of course not. But “logos” is used by Jesus to REFER to Torah commands in Mk. 7. Thus, JGIG does not even understand Jesus’ own object of reference when using the term “logos”.

Why would we trust a theological viewpoint that exposes FAILURE to understand the proper usage and meaning of Biblical terms?

We should NOT trust it!


6. JESUS says the Psalms can NOT be set aside (Jn. 10). The Psalms, of course, require Torah.
JGIG's viewpoints requires that we should set aside the Torah-obedient Psalms...but Col. 3:16 says nothing about making sure that you read the Psalms through some New Covenant anti-Torah lens. (but JGIG wants you to pretend that too…) You can’t admonish someone to adhere to the Torah-obedient Psalms while simultaneously telling them to IGNORE that Torah!


7. Peter and Paul uphold the Proverbs as authoritative Scripture for Christians.

JGIG's viewpoints requires that the Torah-obedient Proverbs should be set aside.


8. JESUS says we LIVE by that which comes from YHVH's mouth...and this includes Torah! (see the11-point argument above)

JGIG hopes you NEVER EVER do that!


9. The Holy Spirit wants us to REMEMBER (not discontinue!) Jesus' words (Jn. 14:26).

JGIG...well...her viewpoint requires that we might as well forget about all those pre-cross Torah teachings (as found in, for example, Mt. 5:19; 23:2-3,23,33-34; 7:21-23; 13:41-42).

So who is opposing this TORAH-OBEDIENT teaching-purpose of the Holy Spirit?


10. JESUS' pre-cross Torah Teachings are SPIRIT and LIFE (Jn. 6:63).
JGIG wants you to DISREGARD that Torah-obedient Spirit.

JGIG says:” Jn. 6:63 refers to the 'rhema' of God, not the 'nomos' of God. Again, your assertions are built on a premise proven to be false. The reader can go to THIS POST for clarification on the matter.”

But I ALREADY showed that “rhema” can REFER to that which includes Torah! (see the 11-point argument above which proves this….remember? This is the argument JGIG REFUSES to answer in detail…she REFUSES to even tell us which premise she rejects! And PLEASE read the post to which she links! Verify for yourself that she REFUSES to tell us which premise she rejects.

JESUS says that the “rhema” of Jn. 6:63 is the “rhema” that HE HAS SPOKEN…and JGIG already conceded that Jesus SPOKE about the need to obey Torah before the cross. Thus, the “rhema” of Jn. 6:63 refers to that which includes Jesus’ Torah-obedient teachings before the cross. But JGIG wants you to IGNORE these spoken words of Torah-obedience which JESUS says are SPIRIT and LIFE (Jn. 6:63).


11. Choose for yourselves whom you will serve...

And to serve YHVH (Jos. 24:15) is to obey Torah (Jos. 22:5)...but JGIG does NOT want you to know this either....

JGIG says: ‘Before the Cross the Old Covenant was the way to serve and draw near to God.”

BUT Hebrews 8:13 confirms that the Old Covenant had NOT passed away as of the New-Covenant-era time of the writing of the book of Hebrews. The Old Covenant had NOT yet passed away…it was merely READY (Gr. “engoos”, Heb. 8:13) to pass away. So, we find that the Old Covenant AND New Covenant function simultaneously. But JGIG does NOT want you to know this either!


12. But as for me, I choose to serve in newness of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), having died to the law (Rom. 7:4) of sin (Rom. 7:23), and serving the Torah of God (Rom. 7:25), and JOYFULLY (Rom. 7:22) concurring with (not opposing!) the Torah, and thus we may be justified as we obey the Torah (Rom. 2:13) by faith (Rom. 5:1), apart from any works of the law which do not exhibit faith (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 5:4-5).

But JGIG does NOT want you to do that either...She does NOT want you to concur with Torah...

She does NOT want you to JOYFULLY agree with Torah...she wants you to joyfully DISREGARD Torah.

JGIG says: “Torah points to Christ! I'm all for that! You falsely accuse, me BibleGuy!”

My response: Torah points to Christ! AND, Christ points to Torah! Have you forgotten? Christ POINTS US to his PRE-CROSS teachings (Mt. 28:20) which JGIG rejects!

Christ REQUIRES that we apply these pre-cross teachings to disciples of all nations (despite JGIG’s opposition to this Great Commission).

So go ahead and OPPOSE Christ’s Great Commission requirements if you really need to do that…rather than admit you are wrong.

But you have been warned.

Best…
BibleGuy

 

[Dan_473]

from post 70

'And, none of JGIG’s fans has bothered to come here (to her rescue) and explain to us which of the eleven premises we should reject (or why).'



I think JGIG's posts are well-written, and she seems to be doing just fine here. I don't think of myself as a Fan, like at a sporting event.

I haven't posted till now because I didn't want to clog the thread.

I believe the 'Eleven Questions' uses flawed logic. However, to explain why would likely lead to the kind of long posts I don't want to do.

Grace and Peace to everybody here!

 

[popeye]

Originally Posted by BibleGuy

Hello JGIG,

We're getting closer now!

I want to understand precisely, and in better clarified detail, WHY you reject my reasoning.

I wrote:

1. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which comes forth from YHVH.
2. YHVH's commands come from YHVH.
3. YHVH's commands are contained in the written Torah of Moses (1 Ki. 2:3).
4. The written Torah of Moses comes from YHVH (from 2 and 3).
5. Dt. 8:3 refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 1 and 4).
6. The LXX uses "rhema" (in Greek, Dt. 8:3) to refer to that which comes from YHVH.
7. "Rhema" (Dt. 8:3, LXX) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 5 and 6).
8. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) is simply a citation of the Dt. 8:3 passage.
9. "Rhema" (Mt. 4:4) refers to that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 7 and 8).
10. Jesus said we LIVE by that "rhema" (Mt. 4:4).
11. Therefore, Jesus said we LIVE by that which INCLUDES the written Torah of Moses (from 9 and 10).




WHICH of these eleven premises do you reject?

Please state the numbered premise you reject.

Be CLEAR and SPECIFIC: WHICH NUMBERED PREMISE?

I don't want to put words into your mouth...

I need to understand PRECISELY which of these 11 premises you reject.

Then we can examine PRECISELY the rational basis (or lack thereof) for your rejection.


CONCLUSION: WHICH NUMBERED PREMISE do you reject?


You wrote: "I reject the part where you don't go to the original language for the verse your referring to to define the word and then say that something 'refers to' (not defines) your word of choice."

My response: So WHICH NUMBERED PREMISE are you therefore rejecting?

Is it Premise 6 that you reject?

best...
BibleGuy

Who is Jesus?

Is he God?

^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^

 

[popeye]

Wow JGIG!

I love you!

Thanks for taking this seriously. I'm glad you're trying to explain your viewpoint to us.

This is surely a HIGH-PRIORITY issue, learning WHO we are (Israel!) and HOW we should live as Christians (Torah!), just as commanded by the Father, Son, Spirit, Pentateuch, Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Apostles, Epistles, even Revelation.

After all, most of us Christians do not even know this...yet!

I NOW ENTER ISSUE #rhema

Let's take a look at your "rhema" argument.

It seems pretty clear that you think that the Greek term "rhema" does NOT refer to Torah. Right?

However, "rhema" in Dt. 8:3 (LXX) clearly refers to Torah.

Likewise, "rhema" in Dt. 30:14 (LXX) clearly refers to Torah.

So, can we now agree that you are WRONG in claiming that "rhema" does not refer to Torah?

blessings...
BibleGuy

What group or organization teaches your doctrine?

Are there any links or youtube vids?

 

[jcha]

The law means self-effort to achieve or maintain righteousness which is why the teaching of Christ fulfilling the law for us is "instructing us in righteousness" - the righteousness of God which is by faith in Christ's finished work for us.


We live now by the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, the law of love, the law of faith, the law of liberty, the law of Christ who is in us.

His life in us will fulfill all the intent of the law of Moses and then some as Jesus elevated the law of Moses to expose our need for a Savior.

The Oral Law, the teachings and traditions and doctrines of men is for self-effort to achieve or maintain righteousness. Jesus went to great lengths to point out that those teachings, traditions and doctrines were of no value and done in vain.

But Jesus also went to great lengths to point us to keep the written Torah, and so did Paul and the other apostles.

Mat_7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat_12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mat_26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Luk_11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

Joh_5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. Joh_6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. Joh_6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh_14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Joh_15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Mat_19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mar_7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Joh_14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Joh_14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Joh_15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

1Co_7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
1Jn_2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jn_2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn_3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

1Jn_5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn_5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
Rev_12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev_14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Truth is:
Psa_119:142 Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.
1Jn_3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

1Jn_1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. Psa_119:105 NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Psa 119:115 Depart from me, ye evildoers: for I will keep the commandments of my God.

My heart delights in doing those things that "set us apart" from the lawless ones. There are two obvious camps of belief here, one is no Old Testament because that is done away and is of no use, and the other obvious camp is thank God the Father for Jesus Christ the Son, showing us it was those old oral traditions and doctrines of men that make our Father's instructions void. But the written Torah is good and holy and beneficial. YHWH and Jesus are both my guiding lights and shine their lights in the paths I walk. Does the O.T. done away with, draw you closer to our Heavenly Father? For me, no matter how many twists of the scriptures you spend, you can never take away my assurance that I am loving The Father and Christ the Way I am suppose to. And Thank God for GRACE. Grace dependent and Torah observant.

Rom_3:20 For in his sight no one alive will be considered righteous on the ground of legalistic observance of Torah commands, because what Torah really does is show people how sinful they are.

So, let's get rid of observance of Torah commands, then we don't see or know our sins, but wait.....
there is no need for a Saviour if we get rid of the commandments of Torah that reveal our sins.

I'll keep walking in obedience, and praising Jesus all the way. Shalom.