What is "the handwriting of ordinances" that Christ nailed to the cross?

October 1, 2016

On 9/26/2016 at 4:05 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Well - He DID reject some of them. He gave them a "bill of divorcement". The LORD divorced the 10 Northern tribes (called Israel at the time). They were lost to history, and they lost their identity. That doesn't mean some descendants won't be "grafted in".

Do you imagine that God has lost track of their identity?

God apparently means something different by the metaphor of a "bill of divorcement" in Jeremiah 3:8 than what you understand. If you keep reading that same passage you will see that God continued on to say a few verses later:

Go, and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; I will not frown upon you; for I am merciful, saith the LORD, I will not bear grudge for ever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every leafy tree, and ye have not hearkened to My voice, saith the LORD. Return, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am a lord unto you, and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion; (Jeremiah 3:12-14)

Although it sounds like only a few will choose to return to Zion, it doesn't sound like the "divorcement" constitutes rejection from God's perspective.

Later in Jeremiah God says, "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,"

And later in Jeremiah God addresses the very notion that God has rejected Israel.
The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: “Have you not observed that these people are saying, ‘The LORD has rejected the two clans that he chose’? Thus they have despised my people so that they are no longer a nation in their sight. Thus says the LORD: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth, then I will reject the offspring of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his offspring to rule over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.” (Jeremiah 33:23-26)

If God says that in chapter 33, it seems apparent that God hadn't rejected the nation in Jeremiah 3.

October 1, 2016

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

However the phrase "house of Israel" was also used to refer to all 12 tribes of Israel together before the kingdom was divided.

"House of Israel" was also used to refer to all 12 tribes in Joshua 21:45, Ruth 4:11, and 1 Samuel 7:2-3.

Because Jesus was familiar with the Torah, the Psalms, and the Writings and the way "house of Israel" had been used in Scripture to refer to all 12 tribes, it is likely that he would use the phrase in the same way.

Note, I said there would be one House --again-- just as in the beginning.

Before the division, they were a single House (Kingdom). They then were simply known as the Kingdom (House) of Israel, not the more complicated Kingdom of Judah and Kingdom of Israel (the Houses of Judah and Israel).

Before the division they were not Houses, plural.

But after the division, House of Israel meant only one thing, just as House of Judah (the Jews) meant only one thing.

I don't believe Jesus would have referred to them both as House of Israel. That would not have been proper. Not in his day.

That is why he did not go to the Jews of eastern Mesopotamia, and why Christian missionaries did not go there either. Because they were not of the House of Israel, but of the House of Judah (Jews) only. If he had been sent to both, as you maintain, then he would have gone to the Jews of eastern Mesopotamia as well and not just to the "Jews" of Judea and Syria, especially when the Jews of eastern Mesopotamia were far more numerous than the Judeans and were the ones among whom the highest authorities in Judaism sat.

Jesus didn't even go to the Samaritans, who were entirely Gentile in origin, even though they maintained some Jewish practices. He went only to those people who were of the lost tribes of the House of Israel, just as he said.

October 1, 2016

Now, again I must make this clear, because someone is bound to miss it.

Even though Jesus was not sent to all peoples, that does not mean they themselves cannot come to him. Eventually everyone will. He will not refuse any who sincerely come to him. Like the Samaritan woman at the well, for example.

October 1, 2016

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Are the errors in Paul's teachings, or are the errors in the interpretations of Paul's writings?

Often it is just misinterpretation which gets Paul wrong.

But not always. There are definite errors in his teachings.

And he himself admits as much, noting on some occasions that sometimes he was merely giving his own opinion.

October 1, 2016

1 hour ago, Martn said:

Note, I said there would be one House --again-- just as in the beginning.

Before the division, they were a single House (Kingdom). They then were simply known as the Kingdom (House) of Israel, not the more complicated Kingdom of Judah and Kingdom of Israel (the Houses of Judah and Israel).

Before the division they were not Houses, plural.

But after the division, House of Israel meant only one thing, just as House of Judah (the Jews) meant only one thing.

I don't believe Jesus would have referred to them both as House of Israel. That would not have been proper. Not in his day.

That is why he did not go to the Jews of eastern Mesopotamia, and why Christian missionaries did not go there either. Because they were not of the House of Israel, but of the House of Judah (Jews) only. If he had been sent to both, as you maintain, then he would have gone to the Jews of eastern Mesopotamia as well and not just to the "Jews" of Judea and Syria, especially when the Jews of eastern Mesopotamia were far more numerous than the Judeans and were the ones among whom the highest authorities in Judaism sat.

Jesus didn't even go to the Samaritans, who were entirely Gentile in origin, even though they maintained some Jewish practices. He went only to those people who were of the lost tribes of the House of Israel, just as he said.

What "he said" was quoted by one of His disciples. You reject the things He "said" concerning His drawing all men to Himself. You reject the part where He said that God had given His only begotten son. You reject the part where He was proclaimed "My beloved son" by God's Himself. But you accept this one statement, because it agrees with your understanding of who Jesus was (NOT God the Father's ONLY begotten son).

Seems like you're picking and choosing, what part of the New Testament, you find acceptable.

October 1, 2016

23 hours ago, Martn said:

Jesus, it says, descended from the priestly class who ruled Judea. They were of (partly) Jewish ancestry, but not regarded as Jewish by the authorities in eastern Mesopotamia, because they had become largely Hellenized. Also, they made themselves into a dynasty of kings over Judea even though, being of priestly descent, they had no authority to do so.

As for the disciples, it is possible some of them had actual Jewish ancestry, but we don't know for sure because most of the population of Judea at that time were descended from pagan converts, forced to convert to the renegade Judaism of their rulers, only a century before the birth of Jesus. Yes, the people considered themselves Jewish, but still, because of the many pagan ideas and practices which they retained, they were not regarded as truly Jewish by Jews outside of Judea who by far were the majority.

The tribes of Israel were not called Houses until after the Davidic Kingdom divided. Under David they were simply the Kingdom of Israel, but when the Kingdom divided into North and South, then they were called Houses. There is no instance where the term was used to refer to anything else. So, when Jesus said he was sent only to the lost people of the House of Israel, he could not have been referring to people of the House of Judah (Jews).

This is evident further in the fact that Jesus did not go to the Jews of eastern Mesopotamia, and Christian missionaries afterward did not go there either. Even though the Jews of eastern Mesopotamia were by far more numerous than the "Jews" of Judea, and even though eastern Mesopotamia was where the highest Jewish authorities resided.

Jesus went only to "Jews" of Judean extraction, descendants mostly of the ten lost tribes.

OK. Nice to know what "Jews" believe, and what you believe Martn.

If they make Jesus a "non-Jew" (not of the tribe of Judah) then He cannot possibly be a descendant of David, or an heir to David's throne.

I think that must be why the genealogy of Joseph (his legal father) is traced from Abraham by Matthew, and the genealogy of Mary is traced clear back to Adam, by Luke.

October 1, 2016

4 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Judaism has always maintained --since well before the time of Jesus even--

that only minor parts of the Law (and only minor parts of the Ten) apply to non-Jews.

For the most part, therefore, the Law (and the Ten) do not apply to non-Jews.

Exodus 12:49 "there shall be one law for the native and for the alien who resides among you" (NRS)

When "the land" is divided:

"the strangers who sojourn among you and who bear children among you. They shall be to you as native-born among the children of Israel; they shall have an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel." "And it shall be that in whatever tribe the stranger sojourns, there you shall give him his inheritance,' says the Lord GOD" (Ezekiel 47:21-23).

THREE men who came out of Egypt, actually lived to cross over the Jordan River into "the land". Joshua, Caleb, and the High Priest Eleazar. Not one was originally of Judah. Joshua was of Ephraim (Numbers 13) Caleb was a Kenizzite. (Kenaz was a chieftan of the Edomite clan). That makes Caleb a "grafted in" Jew. He was descended from Esau. So he was mixed multitude. Yet he received an "inheritance" in the land.

Isaiah 66 22-23 says "all flesh" will come to worship the LORD on the Sabbaths and New Moons - NOT all Jews.

October 1, 2016

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Do you imagine that God has lost track of their identity?

Many from the North fled South before the invading Assyrian army. Those people would have mixed in with the 2 Southern tribes.

God apparently means something different by the metaphor of a "bill of divorcement" in Jeremiah 3:8 than what you understand. If you keep reading that same passage you will see that God continued on to say a few verses later:

Does he "mean something different" when He says that Israel committed adultery - in their worship of other gods?

Go, and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; I will not frown upon you; for I am merciful, saith the LORD, I will not bear grudge for ever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every leafy tree, and ye have not hearkened to My voice, saith the LORD. Return, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am a lord unto you, and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion; (Jeremiah 3:12-14)

Although it sounds like only a few will choose to return to Zion, it doesn't sound like the "divorcement" constitutes rejection from God's perspective.

Later in Jeremiah God says, "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,"

And later in Jeremiah God addresses the very notion that God has rejected Israel.
The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: “Have you not observed that these people are saying, ‘The LORD has rejected the two clans that he chose’? Thus they have despised my people so that they are no longer a nation in their sight. Thus says the LORD: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth, then I will reject the offspring of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his offspring to rule over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.” (Jeremiah 33:23-26)

If God says that in chapter 33, it seems apparent that God hadn't rejected the nation in Jeremiah 3.

A "broken off branch" and a divorced "wife" - SAME message. But the door is left open.

If those of Judah or those of any other tribal ancestry, come to believe in Him, THEN they will be "grafted in again". UNTIL they do come to believe in Jesus, they are NOT attached to the Tree, and are not betrothed to Christ.

Believers have been "grafted" in to the Olive Tree (Israel) in the place where "branches were broken off". MOST of the "grafted in"s are of Gentile (non-Hebrew) ancestry.

ONLY "those of faith" are sons of Abraham. That makes those NOT "of faith" - NOT Abraham's sons.

Galatians 3:29 "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (NKJ)

October 2, 2016

3 hours ago, Martn said:

Before the division they were not Houses, plural.

But after the division, House of Israel meant only one thing, just as House of Judah (the Jews) meant only one thing.

I don't believe Jesus would have referred to them both as House of Israel. That would not have been proper. Not in his day.

When Jesus spoke of the "kingdom of heaven", was he referring to a kingdom that was still split into two houses, or to a kingdom restored as a united kingdom?

October 2, 2016

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Many from the North fled South before the invading Assyrian army. Those people would have mixed in with the 2 Southern tribes.

Generations before that, when the kings of the northern kingdom turned away from worshiping God, there were probably some faithful families from the 10 tribes who moved to Judah for religious reasons.

Where do we get the idea that the 10 tribes lost their identities? I suspect that God knows who they are, since He had made promises that could only be fulfilled after they went into captivity.

October 2, 2016

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

THREE men who came out of Egypt, actually lived to cross over the Jordan River into "the land". Joshua, Caleb, and the High Priest Eleazar. Not one was originally of Judah. Joshua was of Ephraim (Numbers 13) Caleb was a Kenizzite. (Kenaz was a chieftan of the Edomite clan). That makes Caleb a "grafted in" Jew. He was descended from Esau. So he was mixed multitude. Yet he received an "inheritance" in the land.

I suspect that the "Kenaz" that Caleb was descended from might be different from the "Kenaz" that was from Edom, because in Numbers 13 God had instructed that the men who were chosen to spy out the land were to each be a chief from one of the tribes of Israel, and it specifies in verse 6 the Caleb was of the tribe of Judah.

October 2, 2016

On 9/26/2016 at 4:33 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Galatians 4:21 [Paul speaking] "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law"

The above words define the "problem" at Galatia.

Paul is WRITING TO people who thought they needed to be "under the law" = "justified by works of the law".

Paul had taught them "by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified" (Gal 2:16) and "knowing that a man is NOT justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ" (Gal 2:16), and "if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain" (Gal 2:21), and "no one is justified by the law in the sight of God" (Gal 3:11).

But the circumcision party came down from Jerusalem - believing Pharisees, who thought it was still necessary to be physically circumcised and to be "justified through works of the law".

The Galatians got confused. Paul is trying to convince them that we are justified ONLY by faith in Jesus Christ.

Where in Galatians does it tell us that the circumcision party came from Jerusalem to Galatia?

In Galatians 2 Paul relates what had happened earlier when the Circumcision party came from Jerusalem to Antioch, and how Paul had publicly rebuked Peter for no longer eating with Gentiles. God's Law of Moses does not prohibit eating with Gentiles, so Peter's problem at Antioch must have been related to the man-made traditions of oral law. The problem in Galatia must have also been related to the man-made traditions of oral law, otherwise Paul wouldn't have brought up the incident in Antioch.

God's Law of Moses also says nothing about being justified by "the works of the law". In fact, the words "justify" and "justified" are not used anywhere in the Old Testament in any relation to God's law or any portion of it. So the false gospel being taught in Galatia had to be some man-made doctrine not found in Scripture. The phrase "the works of the law" is used in the Dead Sea Scrolls to refer to man-made community requirements.

Lets take a closer look at Galatians 4:21.
Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? (NASB)
The NASB renders correctly Paul's usage of the definite article "the" in this verse. The Greek doesn't contain a "the" before the first occurrence of "law" (under law), but it does contain a "the" before the second occurrence of "law" (listen to the law). Notice that Paul is chiding them for not paying attention to what is contained in "the law", which he proceeds to recount from the Law of Moses. So the Galatian version of being "under law" differed from what Paul was teaching directly from God's Law of Moses.

According to the Law of Moses a descendant of Abraham (through Isaac) inherited the covenant and promises by birth. Thus their inheritance was "under law". That is all good. But a person born a Gentile did not inherit the covenant and promises under law. Paul taught that Gentiles became heirs of Abraham by faith in Jesus. However, the Jewish sages had a method (supposedly received from Mt. Sinai) that supposedly turned a Gentile into a Jew and thereby made them heirs of the covenants and promises under law (a different law). However, that man-made method contained elements that were contrary to the gospel, such as the required vow to live by the oral law -- a vow those born Jewish were not required to make.

October 2, 2016

14 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Generations before that, when the kings of the northern kingdom turned away from worshiping God, there were probably some faithful families from the 10 tribes who moved to Judah for religious reasons.

Where do we get the idea that the 10 tribes lost their identities? I suspect that God knows who they are, since He had made promises that could only be fulfilled after they went into captivity.

Those "promises" will be fulfilled to their descendants (mixed in with the nations) who come to believe in Jesus.

Jesus said, "No one comes to the father, except through me."

October 2, 2016

15 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Generations before that, when the kings of the northern kingdom turned away from worshiping God, there were probably some faithful families from the 10 tribes who moved to Judah for religious reasons.

Where do we get the idea that the 10 tribes lost their identities? I suspect that God knows who they are, since He had made promises that could only be fulfilled after they went into captivity.

Ron,

You keep talking about promises - promises to the Levite priests, and promises to recover and unite all 12 tribes.

Those promises were CONDITIONAL. They will be fulfilled only to FAITHFUL priests and FAITHFUL Israelites.

The generation who lived BEFORE Jesus incarnated, are all dead. Yes - God knows who they were, and He will resurrect them, and He will fulfill His promises to them. But there will only be a handful of them. Just like the Israel who left Egypt. Only three men crossed the Jordan into the land.

October 2, 2016

13 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Where in Galatians does it tell us that the circumcision party came from Jerusalem to Galatia?

In Galatians 2 Paul relates what had happened earlier when the Circumcision party came from Jerusalem to Antioch, and how Paul had publicly rebuked Peter for no longer eating with Gentiles. God's Law of Moses does not prohibit eating with Gentiles, so Peter's problem at Antioch must have been related to the man-made traditions of oral law. The problem in Galatia must have also been related to the man-made traditions of oral law, otherwise Paul wouldn't have brought up the incident in Antioch.

God's Law of Moses also says nothing about being justified by "the works of the law". In fact, the words "justify" and "justified" are not used anywhere in the Old Testament in any relation to God's law or any portion of it. So the false gospel being taught in Galatia had to be some man-made doctrine not found in Scripture. The phrase "the works of the law" is used in the Dead Sea Scrolls to refer to man-made community requirements.

Lets take a closer look at Galatians 4:21.
Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? (NASB)
The NASB renders correctly Paul's usage of the definite article "the" in this verse. The Greek doesn't contain a "the" before the first occurrence of "law" (under law), but it does contain a "the" before the second occurrence of "law" (listen to the law). Notice that Paul is chiding them for not paying attention to what is contained in "the law", which he proceeds to recount from the Law of Moses. So the Galatian version of being "under law" differed from what Paul was teaching directly from God's Law of Moses.

According to the Law of Moses a descendant of Abraham (through Isaac) inherited the covenant and promises by birth. Thus their inheritance was "under law". That is all good. But a person born a Gentile did not inherit the covenant and promises under law. Paul taught that Gentiles became heirs of Abraham by faith in Jesus. However, the Jewish sages had a method (supposedly received from Mt. Sinai) that supposedly turned a Gentile into a Jew and thereby made them heirs of the covenants and promises under law (a different law). However, that man-made method contained elements that were contrary to the gospel, such as the required vow to live by the oral law -- a vow those born Jewish were not required to make.

Jews believed they were destined for "Abraham's bosom" BECAUSE they were circumcised descendants of Abraham.

Whether "under law" or "by the works of the law" - either way - Paul was saying that Jesus Christ IS the ONLY WAY.

Being circumcised (therefore declared to be) "seed of Abraham" gives no salvation points with God. Neither do sacrifices at the Jerusalem Temple.

But if "under Law" means legally entitled to inherit the promise made to Abraham, then why would Paul (a Hebrew descended from Abraham) declare himself "NOT under the law"?

1 Corinthians 9:20 "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law." (NRS)

And he told the converts:

Romans 6:14 "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." (NRS)

Personally, I believe that "under the law" MEANS under the condemnation of the Law (for violating one of its tenents), and constrained to offer sin offerings in order to be relieved of that condemnation.

October 2, 2016

On 9/1/2016 at 11:45 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

Okay, I spent some more time with the Greek dictionaries ...

The Greek noun that is translated as "a change" near the end of Hebrews 7:12 is metathesis (Strongs # G3331). The verb form of the same Greek word is metatithemi (Strongs #3346), which is translated as "being changed" at the beginning of the verse.
In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) both words share the same definition, which says (after removing the Greek examples and references),
1. In secular Gk. a. the verb means “to bring to another place,” “to set in another place,” ...
b. [the noun] means “change of place,” ...
It also gives other meanings including "to change", "to alter", "to change opinion", or "change of mind", but the primary meaning is to change to another place.

The author of Hebrews uses the same noun (Strongs # G3331) and verb (Strongs # G3346) to refer to the translation of Enoch in Hebrews 11:5.

Isn't that change of place "from earth to heaven" exactly what Hebrews 7:12 is talking about for the Melchizedekian priesthood? When Melchizedek was priest it was on earth, and it is now in heaven where Jesus is priest. And the necessary change of law also involves that change of place, because Hebrews 8:4 says, "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all," so the necessary change that is actually required by the law is a change of location to a place where Jesus is allowed to be a priest -- a place that is not under the jurisdiction of God's Law of Moses but under the jurisdiction of a different law-- the law that governs priests in heaven. That is what the verse is talking about. The verse doesn't require any change to God's Law of Moses.

I suspect that if the translators of our English Bibles had been keeping the Law of Moses as Jesus and the author of Hebrews did, they would have translated Hebrews 7:12 so that it was obvious that the "change of law" was due to a change of location.

Whether "the priesthood" (not part of "the priesthood") is "changed" (to the restored Melchizedek) or "changed" by moving it to a new location" - either way - it is STILL "changed".

IF "the priesthood" (the ENTIRE "priesthood") is MOVED to a "new location" - a heavenly one, that still means the one left on the earth is no longer "THE priesthood" in the sight of God.

It's just what's left of the symbolic TYPE. It is "obsolete" BECAUSE "the priesthood" (of the order of Melchizedek) has now been restored - in Jesus Christ.

The priesthood of Jesus Christ has REPLACED and superseded the Aaronic/Levite. We know that because our sins ARE FORGIVEN when we ask in faith, with repentance and humility.

No one NEEDS to go to a Levite priest at the Jerusalem Temple, in order to be "justified" from any sin.

October 2, 2016

16 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I suspect that the "Kenaz" that Caleb was descended from might be different from the "Kenaz" that was from Edom, because in Numbers 13 God had instructed that the men who were chosen to spy out the land were to each be a chief from one of the tribes of Israel, and it specifies in verse 6 the Caleb was of the tribe of Judah.

Here's what I have on Kenaz.

Esau had a son Eliphaz (Gen. 36: 4, 10; 1Chron 1:35)
Eliphaz had a son Kenaz (Gen 36:15, 1Chron 1:36)
Kenaz is listed as one of the “chiefs” of Edom (1Chron 1:34-36, 53)

Jephunneh (father of Caleb) is called “Kenizzite” (Num 13:6, Num 32:12)
Caleb (son of Jephunneh) is always called “Kenizzite” (Numbers 32:12, Joshua 14:6) just as Ruth is always called "Ruth the Moabite".

Numbers 32:12 none except Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua son of Nun, for they have unreservedly followed the LORD.' (NRS)

Joshua 14:14 So Hebron became the inheritance of Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite to this day, because he wholeheartedly followed the LORD, the God of Israel. (NRS)

Hebron became the inheritance of Caleb (Judges 1:10-15, 20). It later became Levite property, but Caleb retained surrounding land and villages.

Interesting I think:

Teman was the first son of Eliphaz (1Chron 1:36). Eliphaz the Temanite was one of the friends of Job. He definitely had a sense of God.

You can suspect all you want to Ron, but I see no reason why a male ancestor of Jephunneh could not have married in to, or otherwise have been adopted in to the tribe of Judah, during the 400 years in Egypt.

October 2, 2016

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Jesus said, "No one comes to the father, except through me."

My understanding is that no one ever comes to Jesus unless they are in fact, somewhere along the line, literal descendants of at least one of the tribes of Israel. Wherever their descendants have been scattered among the Gentiles, the Spirit knows who they are and calls them home. At this point in time, or sometime in the future, that could quite possibly mean every single person on earth, because of all the intermarrying which we know has happened.

No one comes to the father except through him, for there is no other name under heaven whereby they can be saved, we are told.

However, there are those to whom the father has come, and so they do not need to go through a mediator, because the father has come to them. For while there may be no one else under heaven through whom they can be saved, there can be others in heaven able to save.

October 2, 2016

15 hours ago, jackson said:

The Ten Commandments (The Law of God) is not part of the Law of Moses. They are two separate sets of Laws with two distinctly different purposes.

That is a particularly very Adventist theory, which Jews and nearly all Christians do not accept.

For sure, the Ten have special status within the Law, as part of the Law, but by themselves they are not the Law.

The Law, written in our hearts, is vastly much, much more than what is written in the Ten or in the Torah.

October 2, 2016

15 hours ago, jackson said:

The ten commandments... were in existence at Creation and known by mankind at least 2500 years before the Law of Moses

Obviously where there is sin there must be a law , and we know sin existed in the Garden

Sabbath observance was known before Sinai. (Ex 16:28).

Of course.

The Law of God, of which the Ten are part, is eternal as God is eternal.

The Sabbath, as part of the Law, was made for all humanity in the beginning.

But humanity rebelled, and so it was taken from them.

Which is why we do not hear about it again, or the Law, until many thousands of years afterward --when God restored it under Abraham, the first of those who would afterward be called Jews. Psalm 105:8-10.

October 2, 2016

18 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

When Jesus spoke of the "kingdom of heaven", was he referring to a kingdom that was still split into two houses, or to a kingdom restored as a united kingdom?

He said his Kingdom is not NOW of this world.

October 2, 2016

21 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Seems like you're picking and choosing, what part of the New Testament, you find acceptable.

I've answered this quite a few times already, but my answer keeps being ignored.

I do have a standard by which I judge all things:

To the Law and to the Prophets, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20.

Christian scriptures are riddled with mistakes, and I am very distrustful of them, on the whole, but they are the only thing most Christians can relate to, and so I share whatever I can if it is in accord with the Law and the Prophets.

Archaeologists have found over 30,000 (and counting) variations of the Christian scriptures, including every verse from Matthew to Revelation, many of which radically affect the meaning, and these date from the earliest period of the Church. Only as they get further from that date do they begin to become more standardized. Manuscripts with the most variations are the earliest ones.

How many variations have archaeologists found of the Jewish scriptures? A grand total of nine (give or take a few, depending on interpretation) --none of which alter the meaning significantly.

October 2, 2016

21 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

You reject the things He "said" concerning His drawing all men to Himself.

On this and other points you have accused me falsely.

Who is the accuser of the brethren?

October 2, 2016

21 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Exodus 12:49 "there shall be one law for the native and for the alien who resides among you" (NRS)

When "the land" is divided:

"the strangers who sojourn among you and who bear children among you. They shall be to you as native-born among the children of Israel; they shall have an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel." "And it shall be that in whatever tribe the stranger sojourns, there you shall give him his inheritance,' says the Lord GOD" (Ezekiel 47:21-23).

THREE men who came out of Egypt, actually lived to cross over the Jordan River into "the land". Joshua, Caleb, and the High Priest Eleazar. Not one was originally of Judah. Joshua was of Ephraim (Numbers 13) Caleb was a Kenizzite. (Kenaz was a chieftan of the Edomite clan). That makes Caleb a "grafted in" Jew. He was descended from Esau. So he was mixed multitude. Yet he received an "inheritance" in the land.

Again, the term is "among" us, those who are within. It only applies to those who are within our living quarters, and in most cases these are people undergoing the process of conversion to Judaism.

Apparently that part of my answer did not get through the filter, again.

October 3, 2016

On 9/26/2016 at 5:17 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Jeremiah 11:16 "The LORD called your name, Green Olive Tree, Lovely and of Good Fruit. With the noise of a great tumult He has kindled fire on it, And its branches are broken."

Sounds like ALL the branches are broken off - not just the 10 tribes.

Apparently that depends on what you are looking for in the passage. Were the faithful people like Jeremiah and Daniel broken from the olive tree of Israel?

When Elijah thought he was alone in Israel as a faithful prophet, what did God tell him? "Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him." 1 Kings 19:18

Sign In

What is "the handwriting of ordinances" that Christ nailed to the cross?

Recommended Posts

Ron Amnsn

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Robert

FLO

Ron Amnsn

Martn

Martn

Martn

8thdaypriest

8thdaypriest

8thdaypriest

8thdaypriest

Ron Amnsn

Ron Amnsn

Ron Amnsn

Ron Amnsn

8thdaypriest

8thdaypriest

8thdaypriest

8thdaypriest

8thdaypriest

Martn

Martn

Martn

Martn

Martn

Martn

Martn

Ron Amnsn

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity