Don't leave me out! I totally agree that what you have posted, BibleGuy, is not the truth revealed in the Bible.
And I read both Hebrew and Greek, and you are so wrong on every count!
"For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility." Eph. 2:14-16
Hello Angela 53510,
Thanks for joining the chat!
But unless you defend your position against the 11-point argument (which JGIG refuses to even properly engage by telling us which premise(s) she rejects and why), then you've merely established that your viewpoint is INCONSISTENT with mine.
You haven't shown your position is BETTER than mine.
Furthermore, the phrase "law of commandments expressed in ordinances" does not even refer to Torah anyway....
Why? Because there is no Torah commandment that requires that Jew and Gentile be separated by a barrier (wall of hostility).
So the "law" abolished in Eph. 2:15 is man-made human DOGMA which (in opposition to Torah) divides Jew from Gentile.
The "law" abolished in Eph. 2:15 is not God's Torah. Remember? Paul JOYFULLY CONCURS with God's Torah (Rom. 7:22), but JGIG joyfully OPPOSES obedience to that very Torah.
BIG difference!
Paul would not JOYFULLY CONCUR with an abolished law he opposes!
Paul's beliefs are in ACCORDANCE with Torah and the Prophets (Ac. 24:14), but JGIG's beliefs OPPOSE the Torah and OPPOSE the Prophets who prophesy of Torah-to-come even in the future.
BIG DIFFERENCE! PAUL vs. JGIG....you choose.
"Dogma" never refers to Torah! It refers to the decrees or rulings in RESPONSE to Torah judgments or to a governmental administrator's decrees/rulings of his own design.
If you know Greek, then you can verify this for yourself. Rather than ignorantly rely on some canned "definition" from a Bible resource (as JGIG likes to do), simply examine the contextual usage of "dogma" throughout the NT and LXX, and see my position is confirmed.
After all, we don't IMPOSE canned definitions of terms onto their linguistic expression within texts....RATHER, we EXTRAPOLATE definitions of terms FROM the text.
CANNED definitions are NOT Scripture...
Thus, the abolished "dogma" of Eph. 2:15 is NOT abolished Torah!
But of course, JGIG would not bring out these facts...because then it would disconfirm her position!
Remember? JGIG doesn't want us to think a word refers to "Torah" unless we see something like maybe "graphe" or "nomos". But there's NO "graphe" or "nomos" even in Col. 2:14 (so don't bother with a failed counter-example attempt from there).
And the "nomos" of Eph. 2:15 is a "nomos" contained in "dogma"....NOT contained in Torah.
Right?
We can't say that "dogma" refers to Torah (according to JGIG's reasoning....), because THEN we would be saying that "dogma" is DEFINED as Torah (again, using that faulty ["object" = "definition"] confusion she espouses, but has not justified).
So then, will YOU explain to us which premise(s) you reject in this argument which JGIG REFUSES to engage properly?
Here it is again (in case you missed it):
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).
But be careful!
If you actually directly challenge ANY PREMISE (or if you explain ANY REASON why you reject one of these specific premises), then (according to JGIG) you are GUILTY of FALLING FOR THE BAIT and GETTING SUCKED INTO A CHILDISH GAME.
So what do you choose?
Defend your position against my 11-premise argument?
Or REBUKE JGIG’s characterization of such a defense as “falling for bait” and “getting sucked into a childish game”?
You choose!
And if you REFUSE (like JGIG and others here in this thread) to engage my 11-premise argument directly...well....then you've likewise FAILED to permit us to properly test your anti-Torah viewpoint. We should, thus, reject such a failed defense.
best…
BibleGuy