Torah Observant Christians.

[eternally-gratefull]

There is no thing in the new testament that is able to abrogate the fact of God's giving His 10 commandments in the old.

Personally? I don't believe any Christian can say , when God said it first, that the ten commandments do not apply anymore. To claim the 10 commandments CANNOT BE the Law of God, is to call the 20th chapter in Exodus where God gives His 10 commandments unto Moses a fiction, a lie.

Even Jesus referred to them when He told us that the law is grounded in Love. Love of God, and love of ones neighbor as themselves. And those two commands are those which the law and the prophets hang.

God said He has put His law in our hearts so that we will never be separated from them. Thinking His moral law, grounded in love of God and our fellow human beings no longer applies, is foolish. Or, something far worse.

Hey sis, who says they do not apply?

 

[posthuman]

@SUNDOWNSAM sorry i have not gotten around to talking about this passage --- i've had a lot of other things my attention has been focused on, ((for example getting falsely attacked even in this thread)) and i only have so much time. but i've been looking at it today

In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”​

Then He turned to His disciples and said privately, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see; or I tell you that many prophets and kings have desired to see what you see, and have not seen it, and to hear what you hear, and have not heard it.”​

And behold! A certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”​

He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”​

So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’ ”​

And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”​

But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”​

(Luke 10:21-29)​

​

i notice similarities with the conversation He had with the 'rich young ruler' in Matthew 19 / Mark 10 -- this teacher of the law calls Him 'rabbi' not Lord. this is, in my understanding, unbelief. in both instances, He references Leviticus 18:5, the one who does the things in the law will live by them. this though, we know, is not sufficient - Romans 10:5, Galatians 3:12 - and Galatians 3:21, a law was not given through which a person can be imparted life. it's not of faith, and without faith it is impossible to please Him.

in Matthew 19 / Mark 10 the man who calls God merely 'rabbi' seeks to inherit life by doing works. this is evil; grace is not a wage, and without His grace, we would not have life. so this man who does not believe Christ is the Son of God - who believes only that He is a teacher, and doesn't understand that only God is good - to this man Christ points to the law. this context & His reply speaks volumes about the nature of the law; what the law is and why it was added: because of transgressions. i have another thread here i started about the topic, because i feel it is a very big topic, a very important topic.

similarly, here in Luke, this man who calls Jesus 'rabbi' instead of Lord, speaks to Him with this question 'to test Him' - why is this man who doesn't call Him Lord testing Him? and then after Jesus commends his answer, the man wants to justify himself. why does he want to justify himself? Christ has just said he answered well -- so what further need of justification does he have? yet he does. he is still not calling Christ 'Lord' and his purpose in speaking to Him was to test Him. what was this test? what did he expect? is this like all the other times we read in the gospels of teachers of the law and of pharisees trying to 'test' Jesus? in all those many examples, the purpose was nefarious. they were trying to trap Him, to make Him stumble in His replies, to cause Him to say something they could attack Him as evil. is that what's going on here, too?

how significant is the fact that this account is immediately prefaced by Christ glorying in the fact that the truth is hidden from the wise and prudent and revealed to babes. how significant it is that this account is immediately prefaced by Christ declaring that no one knows Him except those He chooses to reveal Himself to.
and we have immediately following these profound sayings, a man who is accounted wise and prudent ((a teacher of the law)). a man to whom the identity of Christ is not revealed ((for he calls Him rabbi)). a man who has come up with a test for him. a man who wants to justify himself.
this is prefaced with "behold!" -- that's a very important word. in scripture, this means something amazing is about to be said. something profound, not something simple.


so i wonder to myself, this lawyer, he tests God-manifest-in-flesh and wants to justify himself. immediately after Christ says the truth is hidden from those wise in the world and that no one knows Him but those He wills to reveal Himself to. and immediately after this conversation, Christ gives the parable of the good Samaritan in reply to this lawyer who tests Him calling Him rabbi.

i wonder to myself, who is this lawyer, in the parable?
i know who i am in it. i am the man robbed & beaten, dying in a ditch, to whom the Lord looked on with a compassion i never merit.

 

[Whispered]

Continuing

21. The O.T. sacrifices were not recognized as the Gospel or types of the Messiah as sin-bearer, but only seen as such in retrospect. this is not true, the law is a tutor as Paul said,

22. The Holy Spirit indwells only believers in the dispensation of Grace, not O.T. and not after the Rapture. add the word permanently and I will agree, the HS indwelt both Saul and David and many others in the OT. And he will indwell all after the rapture also


23. Jesus.made an offer of the literal Kingdom to Israel; since Israel rejected it, it is postponed. True, god said I give you this land as an eternal gift. The church was never promised a plot of land in the middle east, Lev 26 gives the requirements for them to live and enjoy the land

24. O.T. believers were not in Christ, not part of the Body or Bride of Christ. yes some believe this

25. The Law has been abolished. The law is still in force to do. Not one jot and tittle

26. O. T. laws are no longer in effect unless repeated in the N.T. the law could never save us, and condemns us just as much today as back then adultry is a sin.


27. The Millenium is the Kingdom of God. Dispensationalists are always Pre-Millenial and usually Pre-Tribulational. True but not sure most are

28. The O.T. animal sacrifices will be restored in the Millenium. Some believe this

29. The Millenium will fulfill the Covenant to Abraham. Israel has a future. Abrahams covenant is eternal yes on davids, .the gifts and calling of god are irrevocable concerning israel

30. David will sit on the Millenial throne in Jerusalem. Wrong it will be davids son, Jesus

Do you have a source for your counter to the aforementioned chart I'd posted? The reason I ask is in point 30, as that caught my attention first, you are in error, or your source is.
Emmanuel is not David's son.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

I thought the subject is Torah observant Christians...
In relation to the subject ye are discussing the curses.and blessings.
So asked what are the curses and blessings.

You have given cursesnpertaining to the Land, which are not applicable to christians.
You can mark anyone who does not agree with you but that does not make you right.
Whatever the differences as christian shame on you on calling a brother wicked....

--------------


1) We were not discussing Torah, were discussing the being obedient to the Ten Commandments, they saying that the curse of the law Yeshua took it to the cross and I am in agreement with that, but the law was not taken to the cross it was the curse, the law also have blessing so the God take the blessing of the law to the cross, if not, that what is the blessing of the law? Being obedient to the law of God (Ten Commandment). Just because one is discussing the law the does mean one is talking Torah keeping the way some people keep them, making it like it is part of Justification which I do not believe.

I made it clear from the beginning, I just put it on the table and never did I say they were wrong, I am just saying what God made clear when he first spoke. I also stated that it is okay to disagree, the important thing is that if we are saved by grace, through faith in Yeshua apart from the law we are brothers whether we disagree on a theological topic.

2) Disobedient to the law of God bring curses to the land, Deuteronomy 27:20 says, cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt, Jeremiah 48:10 says, cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully.

The curse of the law Yeshua took to the cross and those who are redeemed the curse of the law does not fall upon them, but those who live by the law it is clear from the Scripture they are cursed, the curse of the law falls upon them because they rejected Yeshua.

3) You are mark for me not because you disagree because you tactic to try to trap me was malicious and wicked as I call it. I do not play games and I do not use tactic to try to trap a person and by the way, you did not succeed. Was the Apostle Paul wrong when he rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy? I have every right to call it what it is and you know exactly that you try to trap me.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

There is no thing in the new testament that is able to abrogate the fact of God's giving His 10 commandments in the old.

Personally? I don't believe any Christian can say , when God said it first, that the ten commandments do not apply anymore. To claim the 10 commandments CANNOT BE the Law of God, is to call the 20th chapter in Exodus where God gives His 10 commandments unto Moses a fiction, a lie.

Even Jesus referred to them when He told us that the law is grounded in Love. Love of God, and love of ones neighbor as themselves. And those two commands are those which the law and the prophets hang.

God said He has put His law in our hearts so that we will never be separated from them. Thinking His moral law, grounded in love of God and our fellow human beings no longer applies, is foolish. Or, something far worse.
There are 603 other laws in the Mitzvot, perhaps your contention against God's law pertains to that because your argument, when there is no actual true scripture that revokes God's Ten Words, cannot in all truth pertain to the Decalogue.

------------------------

You are correct and I have been stating the same and everyone is refusing to read the story of the teacher of the law and Yeshua, the teacher of the law knew how to read the law with the two commandments you mentioned which fulfills the law. In addition, if Yeshua fulfilled the law, and Yeshua live is us he will fulfill his laws. Another thing, the law of God brings a blessing, why did he not take the blessing of the law to the cross? Because he only took the curse of the law to the curse and believer will escape that curse. The commandments brought not only curses, but blessings as well and as I was writing that the Spirit of God enlightened my mind with the following... The law is all about obedient and everyone that opposes my laws focuses on the curse, but why aren't they focusing on the blessings, did I take the blessing of the law to the cross or just the curse?

I am not here to impose upon them the law, it is a discussion that we are and I put in on the table it is not my job to convince them the Spirit of God is the one that convinces.

They have been impressed with what they believe which has blind them from what God made clear when he first spoke.

 

[posthuman]

Emmanuel is not David's son.

As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard the crowd going by, he asked what was happening. They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.”​

He called out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”​

Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”​

Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to Him. When he came near, Jesus asked him,
“What do you want Me to do for you?”​

“Lord, I want to see,” he replied.​

Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.”
Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.​

(Luke 18:35-43)



​

 

[posthuman]

Emmanuel is not David's son.

​

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. ​

(Matthew 1:1) ​

 

[watcher2013]

--------------


1) We were not discussing Torah, were discussing the being obedient to the Ten Commandments, they saying that the curse of the law Yeshua took it to the cross and I am in agreement with that, but the law was not taken to the cross it was the curse, the law also have blessing so the God take the blessing of the law to the cross, if not, that what is the blessing of the law? Being obedient to the law of God (Ten Commandment). Just because one is discussing the law the does mean one is talking Torah keeping the way some people keep them, making it like it is part of Justification which I do not believe.

I made it clear from the beginning, I just put it on the table and never did I say they were wrong, I am just saying what God made clear when he first spoke. I also stated that it is okay to disagree, the important thing is that if we are saved by grace, through faith in Yeshua apart from the law we are brothers whether we disagree on a theological topic.

2) Disobedient to the law of God bring curses to the land, Deuteronomy 27:20 says, cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt, Jeremiah 48:10 says, cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully.

The curse of the law Yeshua took to the cross and those who are redeemed the curse of the law does not fall upon them, but those who live by the law it is clear from the Scripture they are cursed, the curse of the law falls upon them because they rejected Yeshua.

3) You are mark for me not because you disagree because you tactic to try to trap me was malicious and wicked as I call it. I do not play games and I do not use tactic to try to trap a person and by the way, you did not succeed. Was the Apostle Paul wrong when he rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy? I have every right to call it what it is and you know exactly that you try to trap me.

It is not wrong to rebuke someone in error and against God...Did I do you wrong or are my questions against God's word, to call even my questions wicked? or can you not simply answer the question at hand....If you position will hold ground then you cannot be afraid to be trapped.
Let me get this clear...Those who live by the law are not cursed? are Christian then cursed if we do not follow the sabbath?

 

[posthuman]

Emmanuel is not David's son.

behold! A woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying,
“Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.”​

But He answered her not a word.​

And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.”​

But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”​

Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”​

But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.”​

And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”​

Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.”
And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
(Matthew 15:22-28) ​

​

how is it He says this woman has great faith if, as you suggest, she is calling Him by a lying name?

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

@SUNDOWNSAM sorry i have not gotten around to talking about this passage --- i've had a lot of other things my attention has been focused on, ((for example getting falsely attacked even in this thread)) and i only have so much time. but i've been looking at it today

In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”​

Then He turned to His disciples and said privately, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see; or I tell you that many prophets and kings have desired to see what you see, and have not seen it, and to hear what you hear, and have not heard it.”​

And behold! A certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”​

He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”​

So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’ ”​

And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”​

But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”​

(Luke 10:21-29)​

​

i notice similarities with the conversation He had with the 'rich young ruler' in Matthew 19 / Mark 10 -- this teacher of the law calls Him 'rabbi' not Lord. this is, in my understanding, unbelief. in both instances, He references Leviticus 18:5, the one who does the things in the law will live by them. this though, we know, is not sufficient - Romans 10:5, Galatians 3:12 - and Galatians 3:21, a law was not given through which a person can be imparted life. it's not of faith, and without faith it is impossible to please Him.

in Matthew 19 / Mark 10 the man who calls God merely 'rabbi' seeks to inherit life by doing works. this is evil; grace is not a wage, and without His grace, we would not have life. so this man who does not believe Christ is the Son of God - who believes only that He is a teacher, and doesn't understand that only God is good - to this man Christ points to the law. this context & His reply speaks volumes about the nature of the law; what the law is and why it was added: because of transgressions. i have another thread here i started about the topic, because i feel it is a very big topic, a very important topic.

similarly, here in Luke, this man who calls Jesus 'rabbi' instead of Lord, speaks to Him with this question 'to test Him' - why is this man who doesn't call Him Lord testing Him? and then after Jesus commends his answer, the man wants to justify himself. why does he want to justify himself? Christ has just said he answered well -- so what further need of justification does he have? yet he does. he is still not calling Christ 'Lord' and his purpose in speaking to Him was to test Him. what was this test? what did he expect? is this like all the other times we read in the gospels of teachers of the law and of pharisees trying to 'test' Jesus? in all those many examples, the purpose was nefarious. they were trying to trap Him, to make Him stumble in His replies, to cause Him to say something they could attack Him as evil. is that what's going on here, too?

how significant is the fact that this account is immediately prefaced by Christ glorying in the fact that the truth is hidden from the wise and prudent and revealed to babes. how significant it is that this account is immediately prefaced by Christ declaring that no one knows Him except those He chooses to reveal Himself to.
and we have immediately following these profound sayings, a man who is accounted wise and prudent ((a teacher of the law)). a man to whom the identity of Christ is not revealed ((for he calls Him rabbi)). a man who has come up with a test for him. a man who wants to justify himself.
this is prefaced with "behold!" -- that's a very important word. in scripture, this means something amazing is about to be said. something profound, not something simple.


so i wonder to myself, this lawyer, he tests God-manifest-in-flesh and wants to justify himself. immediately after Christ says the truth is hidden from those wise in the world and that no one knows Him but those He wills to reveal Himself to. and immediately after this conversation, Christ gives the parable of the good Samaritan in reply to this lawyer who tests Him calling Him rabbi.

i wonder to myself, who is this lawyer, in the parable?
i know who i am in it. i am the man robbed & beaten, dying in a ditch, to whom the Lord looked on with a compassion i never merit.

-------------------------------------

THe story of the of the teacher of the law and Yeshua was not a parable, but as you can see, Yeshua made it clear that two commandments would fulfill the law. But you brought up something that I overlooked, the teacher of the law tried to justified himself, why? Because the they made the law to be what it was not intended to be. Also, he probably gave the parable of the good Samaritan because he probably was pointing out that they are distorted the law of God and showing him that it is more important to give a helping hand than following the teaching of men. I will look into this again. Thanks for bringing up that the teacher of the law tried to justified himself, I will not study that verse deeply.

I leave abroad, it is 12:35AM, time to hang it up for the day.

 

[posthuman]

THe story of the of the teacher of the law and Yeshua was not a parable, but as you can see, Yeshua made it clear that two commandments would fulfill the law.

i meant, who in the parable of the good Samaritan represents this lawyer trying to test Christ & justify himself?

 

[posthuman]

But you brought up something that I overlooked, the teacher of the law tried to justified himself, why? Because the they made the law to be what it was not intended to be. Also, he probably gave the parable of the good Samaritan because he probably was pointing out that they are distorted the law of God and showing him that it is more important to give a helping hand than following the teaching of men. I will look into this again. Thanks for bringing up that the teacher of the law tried to justified himself, I will not study that verse deeply.

He desires mercy, not sacrifice

have a good trip

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

It is not wrong to rebuke someone in error and against God...Did I do you wrong or are my questions against God's word, to call even my questions wicked? or can you not simply answer the question at hand....If you position will hold ground then you cannot be afraid to be trapped.
Let me get this clear...Those who live by the law are not cursed? are Christian then cursed if we do not follow the sabbath?

----------------------

Your intention to try to trap me was wrong and you knew exactly what you were doing which is why you told eternally-gratefull let's see what he comes up with (something like that).

It has nothing to be scared of being trap, but you did not have to do that and you just admitted to it. I respect people who are direct.

I never said those who live by the law are not curse, if I stated that it was an error, but show me where I stated that. Those who live by the law most likely are not saved, therefore, they are cursed.

If you would read my discussion you will see just like I mentioned to you I do not burden them with the law, like the Apostle Paul said, it was fine with the Holy Spirit that they abstain from four things, this does not mean that the law was dismissed. Find with the Holy Spirit because down the road the Spirit of God would teach them the truth of what God made clear when it first spoke. Again, I do not burden my Gentlle brothers with law.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

i meant, who in the parable of the good Samaritan represents this lawyer trying to test Christ & justify himself?

---------
As I stated, I think Yeshua is telling him he is like the two that passed the man by because they are following the doctrine of men and not the commandments of God. Hope I am responding accordingly.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

-------------------------------------

THe story of the of the teacher of the law and Yeshua was not a parable, but as you can see, Yeshua made it clear that two commandments would fulfill the law. But you brought up something that I overlooked, the teacher of the law tried to justified himself, why? Because the they made the law to be what it was not intended to be. Also, he probably gave the parable of the good Samaritan because he probably was pointing out that they are distorted the law of God and showing him that it is more important to give a helping hand than following the teaching of men. I will look into this again. Thanks for bringing up that the teacher of the law tried to justified himself, I will not study that verse deeply.

I leave abroad, it is 12:35AM, time to hang it up for the day.

_________________

I meant I live abroad, 9 hours ahead of U.S. eastern time. By the way, I am American.

 

[Whispered]

------------------------

You are correct and I have been stating the same and everyone is refusing to read the story of the teacher of the law and Yeshua, the teacher of the law knew how to read the law with the two commandments you mentioned which fulfills the law. In addition, if Yeshua fulfilled the law, and Yeshua live is us he will fulfill his laws. Another thing, the law of God brings a blessing, why did he not take the blessing of the law to the cross? Because he only took the curse of the law to the curse and believer will escape that curse. The commandments brought not only curses, but blessings as well and as I was writing that the Spirit of God enlightened my mind with the following... The law is all about obedient and everyone that opposes my laws focuses on the curse, but why aren't they focusing on the blessings, did I take the blessing of the law to the cross or just the curse?

I am not here to impose upon them the law, it is a discussion that we are and I put in on the table it is not my job to convince them the Spirit of God is the one that convinces.

They have been impressed with what they believe which has blind them from what God made clear when he first spoke.

There are many that would then appear blind. Perhaps that is as God means it to be? Maybe what we're witnessing is the reality as described in the Book of Mark chapter 4. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that “they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.”

 

[watcher2013]

----------------------

Your intention to try to trap me was wrong and you knew exactly what you were doing which is why you told eternally-gratefull let's see what he comes up with (something like that).

It has nothing to be scared of being trap, but you did not have to do that and you just admitted to it. I respect people who are direct.

I never said those who live by the law are not curse, if I stated that it was an error, but show me where I stated that. Those who live by the law most likely are not saved, therefore, they are cursed.

If you would read my discussion you will see just like I mentioned to you I do not burden them with the law, like the Apostle Paul said, it was fine with the Holy Spirit that they abstain from four things, this does not mean that the law was dismissed. Find with the Holy Spirit because down the road the Spirit of God would teach them the truth of what God made clear when it first spoke. Again, I do not burden my Gentlle brothers with law.

eternally grateful responded to my question that originally was addressed to your comments, obviously i would wait for your response.
the questions are direct..what are the curses and blessings of the law...?

What would be the answer that will get you trapped?

your accusation of entrapment is absurd...you are in a forum where we discussed biblical topics..if you are trapped that means your doctrine is wrong...additionally you are easy to marked a brother without giving a benefit of a doubt...

I asked about those who lived by the law are not cursed....that is a question to clarify your stand...

I do however agree on your last statement.
"Again, I do not burden my Gentlle brothers with law".

 

[posthuman]

---------
As I stated, I think Yeshua is telling him he is like the two that passed the man by because they are following the doctrine of men and not the commandments of God. Hope I am responding accordingly.

yes i think so too. even though this lawyer knows what is good he doesn't do it. he doesn't believe God, that's why he's trying to test God, trying to justify himself, and looking to receive life through works. very similar to the rich young ruler.
to him Jesus repeats the saying of the law, that the one who does the things in it will live by them, and then Jesus gives a parable involving both a certain priest and a Levite acting wickedly while a goyim acts righteously. this is enormously significant -- and it is all in the context of how God has hidden the truth from the learned and revealed it to children; how no one has knowledge of the holy except those to whom He directly reveals it - having the law and the covenant of Sinai notwithstanding. this is just like the purpose of the method of speaking in parables itself ((Matthew 13:10-17)) - so of course He gives a parable. this teacher of the law who tests Him, Christ is not entrusting Himself to him; 'the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven' is not being given to this man, as it is to our Lord's disciples ((re: Matthew 13:11)). i think this is significant too.

i think it is, as i have said in here previously, that to whomever believes Christ, whose death and life are with Him and in Him, they are no longer under the law - set free, as children. we should never think not being under the law implies they are unrighteous or lawless. but to whoever does not believe Christ, the law is the only hope they have for life ((re: Romans 2)) but the law condemns them, one and all. 'Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God' -- and even more clearly now, because the law in which whoever denies Christ must pin their hopes, it commands things regarding the temple and the tabernacle, which no longer is. the modern orthodox Jew has no hope, because, denying the Son, he depends on sacrifices and ordinances which no more are.
in this way not one jot or tittle has passed away. the believer has died to them; the unbeliever is under a sentence of death by them.

but God says in the Torah that these commandments and statues be carried out in the place where He places His name. if we believe the Messiah, we are 'not under the law but grace' and we believe in a city wherein there is no more temple because the Lamb is its temple. the Son declares the Father: in Him His name dwells, but the one who relies on the law does not believe it; having the ear, but not the hearing

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Do you have a source for your counter to the aforementioned chart I'd posted? The reason I ask is in point 30, as that caught my attention first, you are in error, or your source is.
Emmanuel is not David's son.

Matthew 1:1
[ The Genealogy of Jesus Christ ] The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the Son of Abraham:


Matthew 9:27
] When Jesus departed from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out and saying, “Son of David, have mercy on us!”

Matthew 12:23
And all the multitudes were amazed and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”


Matthew 22:42
saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” They said to Him, “The Son of David.”

Luke 1:32
He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.


Romans 1:3
concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of Davidaccording to the flesh,

as for where I got it, prophesy and history are my favorite subjects. I have studied all sides for years.

as a life land dispensational I also think I a, qualified to speak for my View,

 

[posthuman]

There are many that would then appear blind. Perhaps that is as God means it to be? Maybe what we're witnessing is the reality as described in the Book of Mark chapter 4. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that “they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.”

in Matthew 22:41-46 Christ is not denying that He is the Son of David.
He is shutting the mouths of His unbelieving accusers by proclaiming that the Son of God is the Son of Man