I know that I've already written on this subject. But I believe based off of more reading from Paul in Acts, as well as having done further deeper study on the Dead Sea Scrolls that its important that we understand this matter a little deeper than previously understood before. So lets discuss this further.
Today, unlike what I did beforehand, I'm going to definitively show everyone that Paul is not writing that people should not follow the Torah. If he is presumed to do so after this writing, those who believe this to be the case will see that Paul is nothing more than merely a hypocrite.
We must first define what a prophet is. It is a messenger of God. If Paul is a messenger of God, he must fulfill the definition of this mold. So we shall look first at Deuteronomy 18:20 "20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." What is meant by this? That anybody who speaks against the Torah, must be put to death (since Yeshua came and abolished the death penalty though...we shall think of this as he should simply not be followed). So first off we run into the dilemma. If Paul is speaking against the Torah, against anything that God commands, he is not a prophet. Therefore, he holds no authority to preach the message of God.
Secondly, I'm going to bring up Peter's claims again in 2 Peter 3:15-18 "15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen." Ebionites believe in not following the words of Paul. I don't believe these groups are following incorrectly necessarily. I just think in the realm of Apologetics in seeking to understand the truth, Paul is a very valuable individual who teaches an accurate portrayal of Torah. So I'm here today to declare that I believe this rejection to be in error. I believe Paul was a) well intentioned and b) accurate in his presentations. One does not need to cherry pick scripture or misinterpret it to accept that Paul was promoting the Torah. Lets just take Paul's expression in Acts 21. He demonstrates fully that he is in accordance with the Torah, and shows his deep concern by taking the Nazirite vow. And if we have further doubts, we shall look at Paul's own words. In Acts 24:14 he states "14However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets." As if this was not plain as day, Paul states that he agrees with the Torah. Does it make sense for him to believe everything in the Torah, and then turn around and preach against it? Of course not. Because that would be against the Torah in and of itself. Paul also declares again in Acts 25:8 " 8Then Paul made his defense: "I have done nothing wrong against the law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar." We have already talked about the use of Ha nomos as an expression for the Torah. That terminology is used here (Stern even admits that this is referring to the Torah). Keep in mind, Paul does not talk about not adhering to oral tradition. We're going to get to this in a minute and we'll see why Paul is getting into trouble for making these claims, as they would appear radical to a Jewish follower.
Thirdly, I'm going to bring up what David Stern talks about with the group expressions erega nomou and upo nomoun. These are the terms utilized for "under the law" and "works of the law". They both indicate according to Stern, a graduate from the American Jewish University and Fuller Theological Seminary, a term that denotes a legalistic observance of Torah. Ariel and D'vorah Berkowitz do not clearly define what this is, but they both certainly note that the terms are not an expression of Torah. Finally, Christian author CEB Cranfield, a renowned "New Testament" scholar, agrees 100% with David Stern's expression of these terms by Paul. So the Greek lines up with the statements I'm attempting to draw on.
The final point that I'm going to make is based off of the Sectarian Manifesto. A background research study of the Essenes demonstrates a similarity between this sect's adherence to the Oral tradition (Jews know this as the Oral Torah) and the Pharisees. They both esteemed the oral tradition as equal in power to the Written Torah. We have to take a good look at this expression. I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls also demonstrate that the oral Torah was written prior to when Christians label the Mishnah to have been written. Lets look at what the Sectarian Manifesto declares. "Now, we have written to you some of the "works of the Law", those which we determined woudl be beneficial for you, and your people, because we have seen that you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these things and beseech Him to set your council straight and so keep you away from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel."
Here we see the origin of the source of the wording, "Works of the Law." We see that these particular rabbis were well meaning. Earlier it is even expressed that the Rabbis are writing the Sectarian Manifesto so that you might understand the Law of Moses more clearly. We shall see that in 3 verses (Numbers 15:13-16), I can destroy this presupposition. We are not questioning the motives of the rabbis here. They were good, but misdirected. These types of particular words misguide Gentiles to persuade them to follow the Talmud even to this day.
Heres where we see Paul's concern for understanding the "works of the law" and why he is telling the Gentiles (new believers unacquanted with the difference) not to follow the law. Particularly of importance, it nullifes sacrifices made by Gentiles. In 4Q394 Frags. 3-7 Cols. 1-2 with 4 Q395 Frag 1, it is directed from a legal body of people's that we shall not mixed the holy with the profane. Heres what is defined as holy. The section begins "These are some of our pronouncements [concerning the law of God]; specifically some of the pronouncements concerning works of the law which we have determined and all of them concern defiling mixtures and the purity of the sanctuary." Again, based off of this pronouncement prior to the listing of the provisions, we see these are meant as an extension of God's Torah. The first provision is 1) Ban on offerings using Gentiles grain (Mishnah parah 2:1). "Concerning the offering of the gentile grain that they are..... and allowing their...... to touch it and become defiled. No one should eat from Gentile grain nor bring it into the sanctuary." We saw previously how there was concern over Peter eating with the Gentiles. It wasn't that there was concern over Peter eating nonkosher food with the Gentiles. The detailed complaint was that there was a problem with Peter simply eating with Gentiles. We see this expression not mentioned in the Torah, but it is mentioned in the Oral Talmud.
2) Ban on sin offerings boiled in Gentile vessels. (Mishnah Zebahim 11:6-8). This declares "Concerning the sacrifice of the sin offering that they are boiling in vessels of bronze and thus defiling the flesh of their sacrifices as well as boiling them in the Temple court and defiling it with the broths of their sacrifice." Again, why are Gentile sacrifices being rejected? In part it is a concern over whether or not their food was offered to pagans. But the Gentiles who follow God's word are excluded with all of these provisions as well. And lets not forget what Numbers 15:13-16 states " 13 " 'Everyone who is native-born must do these things in this way when he brings an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 14 For the generations to come, whenever an alien or anyone else living among you presents an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the LORD, he must do exactly as you do. 15 The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before the LORD : 16 The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you.' "
THE SAME LAWS AND REGULATIONS APPLY TO BOTH. Thus saith the Lord.
3. Ban on sacrifices by Gentiles (Mishnah Parah 2:1). "Concerning the Gentile sacrifice, we have determined that they are sacrificing to the....which is like a woman who has fornicated with him."
So what does this mean? Gentile sacrifice becomes a problem based off of the above expression. Why is this a problem? It is a dividing wall of enmity (sound familiar...Ephesians 2:14). Because Gentile sacrifices are revoked by the Oral expressions, this consequently leads to the sin sacrifice of Yeshua not being allocated for the sins of Gentiles. There is a direct separation here. It is not a wonder that Paul had a problem with this provision, as it is not mentioned in the Tanakh ANYWHERE, nor inferred.
4. Ban on eating peace offerings on the 4th day (Leviticus 7:11-18) "Concerning the cereal offering of the sacrifice of well being, they are to set it aside daily. Indeed it is written...that the cereal offering is to be eaten with the fat and the flesh on the day that they are sacrificed. For the sons of the priest are responsibile to take care of this matter so as not to bring guilt upon the people."
Before we jump to the conclusion that this is based directly off of Leviticus 7:11-18, which is often done by Christian readers when reading the Mishnah and Gemara, lets read what Leviticus 7 states. " 11 " 'These are the regulations for the fellowship offering [a] a person may present to the LORD :
12 " 'If he offers it as an expression of thankfulness, then along with this thank offering he is to offer cakes of bread made without yeast and mixed with oil, wafers made without yeast and spread with oil, and cakes of fine flour well-kneaded and mixed with oil. 13 Along with his fellowship offering of thanksgiving he is to present an offering with cakes of bread made with yeast. 14 He is to bring one of each kind as an offering, a contribution to the LORD; it belongs to the priest who sprinkles the blood of the fellowship offerings. 15 The meat of his fellowship offering of thanksgiving must be eaten on the day it is offered; he must leave none of it till morning.
16 " 'If, however, his offering is the result of a vow or is a freewill offering, the sacrifice shall be eaten on the day he offers it, but anything left over may be eaten on the next day. 17 Any meat of the sacrifice left over till the third day must be burned up. 18 If any meat of the fellowship offering is eaten on the third day, it will not be accepted. It will not be credited to the one who offered it, for it is impure; the person who eats any of it will be held responsible."
Nowhere does it declare that the sons of the priests shall take care of this matter in the Torah. This is a freewill offering by the people. It can be done anywhere where the holy of holies or the temple are. But it is not up to the priests to do this, but rather the people. However, we see similar provisions, often made by the Catholic church and the Orthodox church today regarding the "New Testament" especially in the role of intercessory of the priests for sin, or praying to Mary, Peter, Paul, whoever. Again, as my conclusion has been after studying all of the religions that I have, one side has gone all the way to the left with the "Old Testament" the other side has gone all the way to the right with the "New Testament."
5) Ruling on the purity of those who prepare the red heifer (Num 19:2-10; Mishnah Parah 3:7, 4:4 text 58).
Lets again, take a look at what the rabbis declare and what the Torah declares. "Concerning the purity of the heifer of the sin offering, the one who slaughters it, the one who burns it, the one who gathers its ashes, and the one who sprinkles the water of purification-for all of these, the sun must set for them to be pure- so that the pure might sprinkle the water of purification on the unclean. For the sons of Aaron are responsible to take care for this matter."
Sounds pretty close. But there is a certain discrepancy. Numbers 19:1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron: 2 "This is a requirement of the law that the LORD has commanded: Tell the Israelites to bring you a red heifer without defect or blemish and that has never been under a yoke. 3 Give it to Eleazar the priest; it is to be taken outside the camp and slaughtered in his presence. 4 Then Eleazar the priest is to take some of its blood on his finger and sprinkle it seven times toward the front of the Tent of Meeting. 5 While he watches, the heifer is to be burned—its hide, flesh, blood and offal. 6 The priest is to take some cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool and throw them onto the burning heifer. 7 After that, the priest must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water. He may then come into the camp, but he will be ceremonially unclean till evening. 8 The man who burns it must also wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he too will be unclean till evening.
9 "A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and put them in a ceremonially clean place outside the camp. They shall be kept by the Israelite community for use in the water of cleansing; it is for purification from sin. 10 The man who gathers up the ashes of the heifer must also wash his clothes, and he too will be unclean till evening. This will be a lasting ordinance both for the Israelites and for the aliens living among them.
What is wrong with this? It never declares what time this can be done.......That is an addition to the text (we have already declared the problem with this from Deuteronomy 4:2). It doesn't say anywhere in the Torah that the sun must set for these things to be pure. AGAIN! wake up call. We have got to pay attention to detail when analyzing these texts so we do not make mistakes.
Lets take a look at some more passages, not consistent with Torah from the Dead Sea Scrolls. I can assure you after going through the entire Sectarian Manifesto, discrepancies as the above have been pointed to my attention. There are in all about 30 of these same provisions that serve to either a) add on to the text in a similar manner that the early church fathers of the Christian flavor added to the text or b) directly oppose the Torah. I want to mention these next two as primarily a wake up call to the Christian community.
10. Ruling on place of sacrifice (Leviticus 17:3-9; Temple Scroll, text 155, 52:13-21). "Concerning that which it is written: anyone who slaughters in the camp or outside the camp an ox, a lamb or a goat for...to the north of the camp. We have determined that the sanctuary is the "tabernacle of the tent of meeting" that Jerusalem is the "camp" and that outside the camp is "outside of Jerusalem" in other words the "camp of their cities." Outside the camp...the sin offering and they take out the ashes of the altar and burn the sin offering there. For Jerusalem is the place that he chose from all the tribes of Israel to make His name to dwell...Concerning the...which they are not sacrificing in the sanctuary."
Again, this is problematic. Its obvious in this context, they are talking about physical Jerusalem. Thanks to the traditions of the elders, it is now impossible for the Gentiles to be cleansed of sin...but also impossible for Jews outside of Jerusalem to be cleansed of sin. In other words, even the ones who were scattered abroad during this time period become condemned. Again, the provisions for making a sacrifice are in the temple (now our bodies) and the holy of holies (ark of the covenant). Nowhere else in the Torah is anything else decreed. And this is inconsistent with this expression. Why? Because the holy of holies has the physical capacity to leave Jerusalem (those taking notes with an interest in Eschatology, take note. We are going to see the problematic expression later when in an article I'm writing for somebody else against Preterism soon, that both Preteristic and Futuristic expression of Eschatology have problems). They are right to infer that Jerusalem holds a special place to God, but not right in their declaration of definition for what the "camp" is.
Lets again, take a look at what Leviticus 17:3-9 says "3 Any Israelite who sacrifices an ox, [a] a lamb or a goat in the camp or outside of it 4 instead of bringing it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD in front of the tabernacle of the LORD -that man shall be considered guilty of bloodshed; he has shed blood and must be cut off from his people. 5 This is so the Israelites will bring to the LORD the sacrifices they are now making in the open fields. They must bring them to the priest, that is, to the LORD, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and sacrifice them as fellowship offerings. [b] 6 The priest is to sprinkle the blood against the altar of the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and burn the fat as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 7 They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols [c] to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting ordinance for them and for the generations to come.'
8 "Say to them: 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice 9 and does not bring it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice it to the LORD -that man must be cut off from his people."
First of all, this demonstrates a contradiction within the "works of the law" in and of itself. Based off of their own citation, Gentiles may offer a burnt offering or sacrifice.
Secondly, this would be especially problematic today as the definition of the Essenes presents an unnecessary burden. Solomon's temple was destroyed, and God ceased to accept sacrifices from the temple for the last 40 years anyways. The proper expression, as expressed by Yeshua, is that our bodies are now the dwelling place of the Lord. So, in effect, we are the actual physical temple (our bodies) as it stands today. Thus, the works of the Law become a hindrance to us, Christians and Messianics, just as they were to the Orthodox Jews after Yeshua's death. Again, we can see why Paul's concern would be expressed.
13. Ban on the inclusion of unfit into the congregation of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:1-4, mishnah Yebamoth 8:2-3)
"Concerning the Ammonite, the Moabite, the bastard, the one whose testicles are crushed, or whose penis is cut off who enter the congregation...and take wives, that they might become one flesh and entering the sanctuary...unclean we have also determined that there is not one must not have intercourse with them and one must not unite with them so as to make them one flesh and one must not bring them into the sanctuary...and you know that some of the people and are uniting. For all the sons of Israel are responsible to guard themselves against any defiling union and to show reverence for the Sanctuary."
Remember, Christians, in the book of Acts where Paul was taking so much heat for being accused of bringing Trophimus (oddly not Luke...we saw why in a previous article) into the temple? Here we see the provision laid out and why it was a problem. We need to take a view of the information not consistent with scripture again. It doesn't say that there can not be intermarriage between a Jew and a nonJew in the Bible. It merely states that anyone unequally yoked should not marry. We see a further problem with the above information. Where is the information in Deuteronomy 23:1-4 about the Ammonites or the Moabites? It doesn't say they cannot marry, just that they may not enter the assembly of the Lord. (Construction of a picture of the first temple would be of benefit here to show the court of the Gentiles. This didn't exist in Solomon's temple, leading to some problems that Jews felt they needed to address with the oral traditions). All Deuteronomy 23:1 is in reference to is someone not being able to marry when they are deformed (in the physical sense). Deuteronomy 23:1-4 " 1 No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.
2 No one born of a forbidden marriage [a] nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation.
3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim [b] to pronounce a curse on you."
Another problem, it states that this curse goes down to the tenth generation. It doesn't say "for the generations to come." If it did it would mean forever. This provision from the "works of the law" allows for the extermination of people within God's creation (no better than the Hitler provisions, or Martin Luther's claim to burn down the synagogues).
We will touch base on more of this information later. This is a good starting point I believe to end for the time being. I am praying that Christians can further see the problems with the "works of the law" as described by Paul. Let us throw away hellenization, but not to the point we turn too far into the Jewish manmade traditions. We shall not go to the right or the left, but stay in the center, abiding only by the word of God.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
On the 12th Imam - Will he fix the contradictions?
Our first article focused primarily on political matters of the Muslim faith. It was designed to be a wakeup call for America to seek the people we are fighting against. This is a matter of Theological concern. Within many Muslim websites in regard to the 12th Imam, it is claimed that the Torah, the Psalms of David and the Gospel accounts contain contradictions and are problematic. There is in fact believed to be a corruption of the texts over time. However, a thorough study as I have done within this area, demonstrates there has been absolutely NOT A BIT of tampering with the text of the Bible. There are some matters within some of the interpetrations of the Bible. I especially draw some issue with the KJV, NIV and NLT, amongst others. All of this aside, this has to do with Theological motivations more than it does the actual Greek and Hebrew variants of scripture that we have today.
That our first problem. But if the 12th Imam is supposed to fix contradictions, he runs into a major problem. The Quran itself contains contradictions in and of itself. So by fixing the contradictions in the Torah and the Gospel and Psalms of David, there is a significant problem we run into. By fixing the problems as is perceived, he creates more contradictions. Thus it is becomes a contradiction for one to consistently uphold this belief system (given that the Quran is pure and holy according to the Muslim). Don't take my word for it. Lets test the Quran. Surah 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clear from error."
We shall proceed by listing out a few of these contradictions.
1. Who was the First Muslim? The Quran has many different answers to this.
In Surah 6:14 and 6:163, it is Muhammad. In Surah 7:143, it is Moses. In Surah 26:51, it is some Egyptians. In Surah 2:127-133, it is Abraham. These people are from all different time periods. This is an irreconcilable contradiction.
2. Can Allah be seen, and could Muhammad see him? Again, both answers are given. Yes in Surah 53:1-18, 81:15-29. No in Sura 6:102-103 and Sura 42:51.
3. Were Warners sent out to the nations by Allah? In Surahs 10:47, 16:35-36 and 35:24 Warners were went out at the beginning of time by Allah to every nation. How can this be if Muhammad was sent to warn a nation who had never heard before? Suras 28:46, 32:3, 34:44, 36:2-6
4. What food will people eat in hell?
Depends on which Sura you ask. Sura 88:6 says it will be only dhari. Sura 69:36 says it will be only pus from the washing of wounds. Then 37:66 says that they will be able to eat from the tree of Zaqqum.
5. Can Muslims marry Christians?
Interesting what the Quran has to say. According to Sura 2:221, Muslims are not to marry idolatrous women. Sura 9:28-33 proceeds in calling Christians idolatrous people. But in Sura 5:5, Muslims may marry Christian women.
6. Will unbelievers be rewarded by Allah for their deeds?
Again, depends on which Sura we look at. Sura 9:17 and 9:69 the answer is no. However, when we look at Sura 2:62, Christians will be rewarded for their good deeds. We've also seen that Christians are defined as idolaters. And in Sura 9:17 it is declared that idolaters will have no reward.
Another clear contradiction.
Our 7th and final contradiction we will look at is found here.
7. How did God create man?
From a blood clot - Sura 96:1-2, water - 21:30, 24:45, 25:54, dust - 3:59, 30:20, 35:11, and nothing - 19:67.
From these alone it appears more rational that the 12th Imam might want to focus first on the Quran before starting on the Torah and Gospel accounts.
That our first problem. But if the 12th Imam is supposed to fix contradictions, he runs into a major problem. The Quran itself contains contradictions in and of itself. So by fixing the contradictions in the Torah and the Gospel and Psalms of David, there is a significant problem we run into. By fixing the problems as is perceived, he creates more contradictions. Thus it is becomes a contradiction for one to consistently uphold this belief system (given that the Quran is pure and holy according to the Muslim). Don't take my word for it. Lets test the Quran. Surah 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clear from error."
We shall proceed by listing out a few of these contradictions.
1. Who was the First Muslim? The Quran has many different answers to this.
In Surah 6:14 and 6:163, it is Muhammad. In Surah 7:143, it is Moses. In Surah 26:51, it is some Egyptians. In Surah 2:127-133, it is Abraham. These people are from all different time periods. This is an irreconcilable contradiction.
2. Can Allah be seen, and could Muhammad see him? Again, both answers are given. Yes in Surah 53:1-18, 81:15-29. No in Sura 6:102-103 and Sura 42:51.
3. Were Warners sent out to the nations by Allah? In Surahs 10:47, 16:35-36 and 35:24 Warners were went out at the beginning of time by Allah to every nation. How can this be if Muhammad was sent to warn a nation who had never heard before? Suras 28:46, 32:3, 34:44, 36:2-6
4. What food will people eat in hell?
Depends on which Sura you ask. Sura 88:6 says it will be only dhari. Sura 69:36 says it will be only pus from the washing of wounds. Then 37:66 says that they will be able to eat from the tree of Zaqqum.
5. Can Muslims marry Christians?
Interesting what the Quran has to say. According to Sura 2:221, Muslims are not to marry idolatrous women. Sura 9:28-33 proceeds in calling Christians idolatrous people. But in Sura 5:5, Muslims may marry Christian women.
6. Will unbelievers be rewarded by Allah for their deeds?
Again, depends on which Sura we look at. Sura 9:17 and 9:69 the answer is no. However, when we look at Sura 2:62, Christians will be rewarded for their good deeds. We've also seen that Christians are defined as idolaters. And in Sura 9:17 it is declared that idolaters will have no reward.
Another clear contradiction.
Our 7th and final contradiction we will look at is found here.
7. How did God create man?
From a blood clot - Sura 96:1-2, water - 21:30, 24:45, 25:54, dust - 3:59, 30:20, 35:11, and nothing - 19:67.
From these alone it appears more rational that the 12th Imam might want to focus first on the Quran before starting on the Torah and Gospel accounts.
Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims....Whats the difference?
This is an interesting question. Mostly for one solitary reason. For the most part if you are not involved in the fields of Apologetics....9 out of 10 people don't know the answer to this question. Yet its an important distinction to be made, as it explains the majority of problems that these two groups of Muslims have had, and also important for the American public to understand.
So whats the difference? Its extremely important to understand. I can't stress this enough. A lot more than what our media today lets the public know. And its important to know because we have to know the countries who are more proactive than others. I'm going to write a 2 article series on the topic of the 12th Imam (this being one of them). A political and a Theological. During the time of Muhammad, it was widely understood who was in charge. The problem became after Muhammad died. He didn't leave an executor of the will. Naturally this caused a problem between two faction groups of the Muslims. One wished to keep the government of the Muslim faith with the elect, the Sunnis. This group was led by Abu Bakr. Then there was a second faction, the Shi'ites, who wanted the lineage of Muhammad to be recognized. This left Ali in charge of this group. So for many 100s of years, wars raged between these two groups of the Muslim faith. Around the time of the 11th Imam, who is the leader via the lineage of Muhammad, the Sunnis captured the Imam, to prevent future Imams from popping up. In light of this 11th Imam's presence, they captured the Imam, and killed him. What happens after that is a 12th Imam emerges out of thin air. This 12th Imam was said to have disappeared from visibility, but is still with us even today though not seen. This Imam is similar to the Christian and Jewish idea of the coming of the Messiah and Muslims seem to draw many parallels (of course after the fact). What is different is the means as to how we may provoke the Messiah figure to come. The Christian and Jewish idea promotes a Messiah of love. The Muslims Imam is a figure that promotes the eradication of infidels. Thus, there is a proactive group fighting against us today overseas whom we are trying to appease with peace talks. These are the Shi'ite nations. In the future (this requires me to go through my notes), I will provide a list of these Shi'ite nations. Sunnis are much less proactive about getting the Imam to come (at the present time), but still seek to support and spread the same religion. The problem with peace talks follows. According to even former Muslim terrorists, Muslims have been claiming one thing in English, and another in Arabic. Here is our first problem. There is dishonesty, and the media hasn't done a very good job of uncovering this. Our leaders have responded by either a) keeping this information away from us or b) burying their heads in the sand on these important matters. If we think about past wars that we've had, a majority of them involved an understanding and knowledge by a majority of the population in knowing who our enemy was. Today's war against the Muslims, this does not seem to concern us. Thus Muslims are seemingly friendly in their conversation with us in English, and antagonistic towards the nation in Arabic amongst their own people. This is not targetting everybody of the Muslim RACE (there is a difference, I have a Palestinian Christian friend for example) but certainly many of the religion of Islam. Lets continue further here. In order to be proactive in subservience to the 12th Imam, it is thought that by the Shi'ites that if they go out and take the land that they believe is theirs, that this Imam will come. And this involves and includes the killing off of Christians and Jews (the infidels as defined in the Quran). Given this is a Theological agenda that is motivating this group of people to act, simple peace talks and treaties will be of no use to us. The liberal media wants us all to believe that "Islam is a religion of peace." The media in general in large part seems to be following suit. However, we as Americans have not been interested in seeking out information. Its obvious that we do not have people in charge of our country wishing to educate the public. Muhammad is called "the Prophet of the Sword" for a reason. The Muslim faith has been largely centered around conquering and dividing nations. I am not a man of politics. But I do want to make this perfectly clear. I have a brother..my best friend in this world, who is fighting to protect us overseas in Afghanistan. We have to understand the problem as a nation of Americans, and take necessary action as it is warranted. Backpedalling on issues, or ignoring a situation and hoping that it will go away will not alleviate the problem. At this time it shall be deemed appropriate to applaud anybody who has served overseas. Let us take some time to acknowledge your efforts. I personally would further thank each and every one who has assisted in this war. Let us stand together in support of the war on terrorism.
So whats the difference? Its extremely important to understand. I can't stress this enough. A lot more than what our media today lets the public know. And its important to know because we have to know the countries who are more proactive than others. I'm going to write a 2 article series on the topic of the 12th Imam (this being one of them). A political and a Theological. During the time of Muhammad, it was widely understood who was in charge. The problem became after Muhammad died. He didn't leave an executor of the will. Naturally this caused a problem between two faction groups of the Muslims. One wished to keep the government of the Muslim faith with the elect, the Sunnis. This group was led by Abu Bakr. Then there was a second faction, the Shi'ites, who wanted the lineage of Muhammad to be recognized. This left Ali in charge of this group. So for many 100s of years, wars raged between these two groups of the Muslim faith. Around the time of the 11th Imam, who is the leader via the lineage of Muhammad, the Sunnis captured the Imam, to prevent future Imams from popping up. In light of this 11th Imam's presence, they captured the Imam, and killed him. What happens after that is a 12th Imam emerges out of thin air. This 12th Imam was said to have disappeared from visibility, but is still with us even today though not seen. This Imam is similar to the Christian and Jewish idea of the coming of the Messiah and Muslims seem to draw many parallels (of course after the fact). What is different is the means as to how we may provoke the Messiah figure to come. The Christian and Jewish idea promotes a Messiah of love. The Muslims Imam is a figure that promotes the eradication of infidels. Thus, there is a proactive group fighting against us today overseas whom we are trying to appease with peace talks. These are the Shi'ite nations. In the future (this requires me to go through my notes), I will provide a list of these Shi'ite nations. Sunnis are much less proactive about getting the Imam to come (at the present time), but still seek to support and spread the same religion. The problem with peace talks follows. According to even former Muslim terrorists, Muslims have been claiming one thing in English, and another in Arabic. Here is our first problem. There is dishonesty, and the media hasn't done a very good job of uncovering this. Our leaders have responded by either a) keeping this information away from us or b) burying their heads in the sand on these important matters. If we think about past wars that we've had, a majority of them involved an understanding and knowledge by a majority of the population in knowing who our enemy was. Today's war against the Muslims, this does not seem to concern us. Thus Muslims are seemingly friendly in their conversation with us in English, and antagonistic towards the nation in Arabic amongst their own people. This is not targetting everybody of the Muslim RACE (there is a difference, I have a Palestinian Christian friend for example) but certainly many of the religion of Islam. Lets continue further here. In order to be proactive in subservience to the 12th Imam, it is thought that by the Shi'ites that if they go out and take the land that they believe is theirs, that this Imam will come. And this involves and includes the killing off of Christians and Jews (the infidels as defined in the Quran). Given this is a Theological agenda that is motivating this group of people to act, simple peace talks and treaties will be of no use to us. The liberal media wants us all to believe that "Islam is a religion of peace." The media in general in large part seems to be following suit. However, we as Americans have not been interested in seeking out information. Its obvious that we do not have people in charge of our country wishing to educate the public. Muhammad is called "the Prophet of the Sword" for a reason. The Muslim faith has been largely centered around conquering and dividing nations. I am not a man of politics. But I do want to make this perfectly clear. I have a brother..my best friend in this world, who is fighting to protect us overseas in Afghanistan. We have to understand the problem as a nation of Americans, and take necessary action as it is warranted. Backpedalling on issues, or ignoring a situation and hoping that it will go away will not alleviate the problem. At this time it shall be deemed appropriate to applaud anybody who has served overseas. Let us take some time to acknowledge your efforts. I personally would further thank each and every one who has assisted in this war. Let us stand together in support of the war on terrorism.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Galatians 4:21 - Galatians 5:1 in context
Its interesting how Galatians is a book that is taken so out of context within Christian communities today. Nevertheless, we also have read about what scripture says about taking Paul's letters out of context. So granted I think Paul is one of the hardest writers to understand, I think it very noteworthy to point out once again what 2 Peter 3:15-17 states "15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. Given Paul's background as a Pharisee, which in the context of what he WAS, equated the Oral Tradition to the Torah, and how the words "works of the law" were very prevalent amongst the culture of his day and even several hundred years prior, as referring to a legalistic approach to following the Torah, I believe it very dangerous whenever anybody tries to make the claim that Paul is not teaching those people to follow the Torah. Let us proceed.
Let us quote from Galatians. It states "Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. 23One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. 24Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. 25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written,‘Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children,burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs;for the children of the desolate woman are more numerousthan the children of the one who is married.’ 28Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac. 29But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30But what does the scripture say? ‘Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman.’ 31So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman. For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."
I think this to be an interesting passage and I'm going to show you why! One first has to understand what is being meant here when Paul is making the claim "subject to the law." The terminology utilized here in Greek is Erega nomou, which is the same thing that is utilized to mean "works of the law." When Paul utilizes the article Ha Nomos, he is always referring to the Torah. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see this claim after a portion of the Essenes "written" halakah (I did say written, as it appears portions if not all of the Talmud were written prior to when Christians believe they were) " "Now, we have written to you some of the works of the Law, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people, because we have seen [that] you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these things and beseech Him to set your counsel straight and keep you away from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before Him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel."Quoted from: A Sectarian Manifesto 4QMMT:4Q394-399 Thus this is good inference that the terminology that Paul is utilizing is not directed towards the Torah at all, but rather he is telling those who are following based off of a halakah to heed the words of the Torah. When one understands how the Pharisees were distorting the words of the Torah, it is not hard to understand what Paul is ACTUALLY claiming. Looking back at Ishmael, you have to understand his lineage too. Who was from the lineage of Ishmael? Muhammad. Verse 25 states that Hagar means "Mt Sinai in Arabia." NOT in Hebrew. This distinction, especially culturally is important to be made. Jewish names had significant meaning behind them, often denoting a specific purpose that someone would hold to in their lifetime. The present state of Jerusalem, if you go back and study the schools of Shammai, the schools of Hillel, the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes were in a total mess during this time period. So yes, they were slaves to sin. But corresponding to what Paul teaches in Romans 7...there is a separation between the Torah and the law of sin. Well, we know how the story turns out. Paul is actually reading prophecy in verse 30. "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for by no means will the son of the slave woman inherit along with the son of the free woman." What is God telling us from the Tanakh? This is incredible! God commands us in this manner of scripture not to follow the Muslim faith. This served some meaning for the community during the time period, but should hold more meaning for the present society because around 7th century A.D., this fellow Muhammad was roaming the Earth and started changing around things in the Bible just as the city of Jerusalem was doing in the 1st century. So its not hard to understand this portion of Biblical scripture after putting everything into context.
17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. Given Paul's background as a Pharisee, which in the context of what he WAS, equated the Oral Tradition to the Torah, and how the words "works of the law" were very prevalent amongst the culture of his day and even several hundred years prior, as referring to a legalistic approach to following the Torah, I believe it very dangerous whenever anybody tries to make the claim that Paul is not teaching those people to follow the Torah. Let us proceed.
Let us quote from Galatians. It states "Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. 23One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. 24Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. 25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written,‘Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children,burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs;for the children of the desolate woman are more numerousthan the children of the one who is married.’ 28Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac. 29But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30But what does the scripture say? ‘Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman.’ 31So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman. For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."
I think this to be an interesting passage and I'm going to show you why! One first has to understand what is being meant here when Paul is making the claim "subject to the law." The terminology utilized here in Greek is Erega nomou, which is the same thing that is utilized to mean "works of the law." When Paul utilizes the article Ha Nomos, he is always referring to the Torah. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see this claim after a portion of the Essenes "written" halakah (I did say written, as it appears portions if not all of the Talmud were written prior to when Christians believe they were) " "Now, we have written to you some of the works of the Law, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people, because we have seen [that] you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these things and beseech Him to set your counsel straight and keep you away from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before Him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel."Quoted from: A Sectarian Manifesto 4QMMT:4Q394-399 Thus this is good inference that the terminology that Paul is utilizing is not directed towards the Torah at all, but rather he is telling those who are following based off of a halakah to heed the words of the Torah. When one understands how the Pharisees were distorting the words of the Torah, it is not hard to understand what Paul is ACTUALLY claiming. Looking back at Ishmael, you have to understand his lineage too. Who was from the lineage of Ishmael? Muhammad. Verse 25 states that Hagar means "Mt Sinai in Arabia." NOT in Hebrew. This distinction, especially culturally is important to be made. Jewish names had significant meaning behind them, often denoting a specific purpose that someone would hold to in their lifetime. The present state of Jerusalem, if you go back and study the schools of Shammai, the schools of Hillel, the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes were in a total mess during this time period. So yes, they were slaves to sin. But corresponding to what Paul teaches in Romans 7...there is a separation between the Torah and the law of sin. Well, we know how the story turns out. Paul is actually reading prophecy in verse 30. "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for by no means will the son of the slave woman inherit along with the son of the free woman." What is God telling us from the Tanakh? This is incredible! God commands us in this manner of scripture not to follow the Muslim faith. This served some meaning for the community during the time period, but should hold more meaning for the present society because around 7th century A.D., this fellow Muhammad was roaming the Earth and started changing around things in the Bible just as the city of Jerusalem was doing in the 1st century. So its not hard to understand this portion of Biblical scripture after putting everything into context.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
On Origen the Heretic
We have looked at Marcion the Heretic, but now I wish to look at Origen Adamantius, the heretic. He is credited with writing parts of the Septuagint. He was a teacher of Alexandria school of thought, and was originally an Egyptian. Why was he pronounced a heretic? He was a heretic over his replacement Theology. He is considered as one of the most distinguished writers of the early church time period. Origen established a version of the Logos concept which was held LATER to be very controversial by around 500 A.D. and got him into a lot of trouble. Origen believed in the preexistence of souls (a concept that is also propagated by Jehovah's Witnesses), universal salvation (somewhat being propagated in Catholic churches today, and especially in universalistic ministries), and a hierarchical concept of the trinity. His ideology regarding the preexistence of the soul was right in line with reincarnation. Where is this taught within the Bible? However it certainly falls into line with Platonism. This was something that eventually began to coincide with the early church fathers, especially when we get to Augustine. By Augustine's time period, Neoplatonic Christianity was at its peak. Origen also taught the multiple ages and transmigration of souls; and eventual restoration of all souls to a state of dynamic perfection in proximity to the godhead. Thus far we have his teachings from "On First Principles." This sounds very much along the lines of modern day Mormon thought. This is in line with his Greek ideology, similar to that of Ignatius. Now lets take a look at some quotes from Origen in his writings "The Hexapla" to describe his belief system.
One thing that Origen did that was highly disputable was his approach to Jews. We can see clearly what he thought about Jews within this very quote "But Paul, in his preaching of the Gospel, is a debtor to deliver the word not to Barbarians only, but also to Greeks, and not only to the unwise, who would easily agree with him, but also to the wise. " He is calling the Jews unwise. We see that Paul disagreed with these writings, and declared that there was every advantage to being a Jew, and that they were the wise ones given the oracles. Funny how the Greeks were actually described. The Greeks are mentioned as the Barbarians within the Bible, to a certain degree, dabbling in paganistic ideology in Acts 17. The encounter that the Jewish disciples had with the Greeks can be found here "16While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearers, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." 21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' " What happened to what Origen was stating about the Greeks being the wise? It appears the Greeks are the ones being educated by the Jews. Lets proceed.
Origen separates the concept of God the Father from God the Son as can be seen here. "But the Wisdom of God, which is His only-begotten Son, being in all respects incapable of change or alteration, and every good quality in Him being essential, and such as cannot be changed and converted, His glory is therefore declared to be pure and sincere." I believe this statement is important. But obviously given the statement above by Origen, he is not claiming that Yeshua is the Wisdom of God as would have been understood by a Jew. Though I have been able to find no actual translation of Wisdom that means this definitively (that Logos means Wisdom), I am not opposed to saying that The Wisdom of God is actually the Logos, which means the Word, but it ultimately means the Torah. And we from the Messianic community recognize Yeshua as "the living Torah." What I am opposed to is that this is an attempt to put a vacuous ideology of Wisdom on John 1:1 since we see that Origen opposes the Torah. This is irreconcilable with scripture, and something that I often troubled myself over trying to understand when I was an advocate of Christian Apologetics, since if God became a man, and man's wisdom is below God's wisdom as is indicated by scripture, we have a contradiction here, because man's wisdom becomes God's wisdom based off of Greek philosophy. Of course we have the Matthew 24:36 scripture that is often translated puts a damage to this ideology to Greek thinking Christians. For a Jew, it is not hard to understand what Yeshua was talking about. But additionally, look at 1 Corinthians 3:19 " For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS." 1 Corinthians 1:25 clearly states "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." This is my number One objection to remaining a Neo-Platonic Christian, as I was in the past an admirer of the likes of Ignatius, Origen and Augustine, as well as Aquinas. The Bible teaches that God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts, and a part of this is even reflected in Origen's writings in the next passage.
"For whatever be the knowledge which we are able to obtain of God, either by perception or reflection, we must of necessity believe that He is by many degrees far better than what we perceive Him to be. " It also correlates with Isaiah 55:6-10. No problem here. So lets move on.
"Having refuted, then, as well as we could, every notion which might suggest that we were to think of God as in any degree corporeal, we go on to say that, according to strict truth, God is incomprehensible, and incapable of being measured. " To say God is incomprehensible here is incorrect, because we can know SOME things about God. You can not lay claims to even the triune nature of God without knowing something about God. So this is an Agnostic theology being promoted by Origen, and a vain attempt to relate it to scripture. This is self refutation. Moving on....
"If all things were made through Him, clearly so must the splendid revelations have been which were made to the fathers and prophets, and became to them the symbols of the sacred mysteries of religion." This is very true if we're talking about the Patriarchs of the Jewish faith. Again it doesn't appear given Origen's claim above about Jews being Barbarians that this is the case.
"This also is a part of the teaching of the Church, that there are certain angels of God, and certain good influences, which are His servants in accomplishing the salvation of men." What this declares is something rather heretical. Basically, that angels are necessary in accomplishing the salvation of men. What does the Bible teach? Acts 4:12 directly opposes this concept of Origen. "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." This is often put forth by the church today, even in Protestant circles. However, we see no documented place in scripture to support Origen's point of view beyond the various shofar blowing and announcements that they make within the Bible. Its always God doing something, never the angels. Lets continue forth.
"This opinion, however, is held by most, that the devil was an angel, and that, having become an apostate, he induced as many of the angels as possible to fall away with himself, and these up to the present time are called his angels." There is absolutely no deviation from our stance here.
"We must believe what is good and true about the prophets, that they were sages, that they did understand what proceeded from their mouths, and that they bore prudence on their lips. " This is an interesting comment, but also contradictory to his earlier writings. Earlier we are hearing that anyone who is not a Greek is a barbarian and unwise, and now the prophets, who were NOT Greek are considered to hold prudence. Let us proceed.
This next comment I believe really disturbs scripture. "But God, who is the beginning of all things, is not to be regarded as a composite being, lest perchance there should be found to exist elements prior to the beginning itself, out of which everything is composed, whatever that be which is called composite." But God is described as infinite, so he can exist prior to the beginning itself. In fact, he created the beginning. He can not be less than a composite being if he does not hold to a triune nature. Besides this, Revelation 5:6 declares that God exists in the form of a sevenfold spirit. This is a contradiction.
Origen further put forth in finality, his replacement theology which spurned his first of two impeachments from the church. This is the final comment we will look at from Origen. "We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election."
It is definitely an assertion. But who was this "other" people called by God to the blessed election? We see that in Romans 11:1-2 it is stated " 1I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel."
God will not reject his people. Jeremiah 33:14-22 states " 14 " 'The days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will fulfill the gracious promise I made to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
15 " 'In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from David's line; he will do what is just and right in the land.
16 In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it [c] will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.'
17 For this is what the LORD says: 'David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, 18 nor will the priests, who are Levites, ever fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.' "
19 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 20 "This is what the LORD says: 'If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, 21 then my covenant with David my servant—and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me—can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne. 22 I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.' "
So God does say he will restore his people unlike what Origen believes. Origen is the 2nd to support a replacement Theology. And he was declared heretical. Not once, but twice. Yet today, he is held alongside Justin Martyr to be one of the most knowledgeable scholars in the early church on the history of Scripture, by both Protestant and Catholic alike. Orthodox Christians are much more reluctant to declare this title to him, but he also remains an early church father as pronounced by the Catholic church.
One thing that Origen did that was highly disputable was his approach to Jews. We can see clearly what he thought about Jews within this very quote "But Paul, in his preaching of the Gospel, is a debtor to deliver the word not to Barbarians only, but also to Greeks, and not only to the unwise, who would easily agree with him, but also to the wise. " He is calling the Jews unwise. We see that Paul disagreed with these writings, and declared that there was every advantage to being a Jew, and that they were the wise ones given the oracles. Funny how the Greeks were actually described. The Greeks are mentioned as the Barbarians within the Bible, to a certain degree, dabbling in paganistic ideology in Acts 17. The encounter that the Jewish disciples had with the Greeks can be found here "16While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearers, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." 21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' " What happened to what Origen was stating about the Greeks being the wise? It appears the Greeks are the ones being educated by the Jews. Lets proceed.
Origen separates the concept of God the Father from God the Son as can be seen here. "But the Wisdom of God, which is His only-begotten Son, being in all respects incapable of change or alteration, and every good quality in Him being essential, and such as cannot be changed and converted, His glory is therefore declared to be pure and sincere." I believe this statement is important. But obviously given the statement above by Origen, he is not claiming that Yeshua is the Wisdom of God as would have been understood by a Jew. Though I have been able to find no actual translation of Wisdom that means this definitively (that Logos means Wisdom), I am not opposed to saying that The Wisdom of God is actually the Logos, which means the Word, but it ultimately means the Torah. And we from the Messianic community recognize Yeshua as "the living Torah." What I am opposed to is that this is an attempt to put a vacuous ideology of Wisdom on John 1:1 since we see that Origen opposes the Torah. This is irreconcilable with scripture, and something that I often troubled myself over trying to understand when I was an advocate of Christian Apologetics, since if God became a man, and man's wisdom is below God's wisdom as is indicated by scripture, we have a contradiction here, because man's wisdom becomes God's wisdom based off of Greek philosophy. Of course we have the Matthew 24:36 scripture that is often translated puts a damage to this ideology to Greek thinking Christians. For a Jew, it is not hard to understand what Yeshua was talking about. But additionally, look at 1 Corinthians 3:19 " For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS." 1 Corinthians 1:25 clearly states "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." This is my number One objection to remaining a Neo-Platonic Christian, as I was in the past an admirer of the likes of Ignatius, Origen and Augustine, as well as Aquinas. The Bible teaches that God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts, and a part of this is even reflected in Origen's writings in the next passage.
"For whatever be the knowledge which we are able to obtain of God, either by perception or reflection, we must of necessity believe that He is by many degrees far better than what we perceive Him to be. " It also correlates with Isaiah 55:6-10. No problem here. So lets move on.
"Having refuted, then, as well as we could, every notion which might suggest that we were to think of God as in any degree corporeal, we go on to say that, according to strict truth, God is incomprehensible, and incapable of being measured. " To say God is incomprehensible here is incorrect, because we can know SOME things about God. You can not lay claims to even the triune nature of God without knowing something about God. So this is an Agnostic theology being promoted by Origen, and a vain attempt to relate it to scripture. This is self refutation. Moving on....
"If all things were made through Him, clearly so must the splendid revelations have been which were made to the fathers and prophets, and became to them the symbols of the sacred mysteries of religion." This is very true if we're talking about the Patriarchs of the Jewish faith. Again it doesn't appear given Origen's claim above about Jews being Barbarians that this is the case.
"This also is a part of the teaching of the Church, that there are certain angels of God, and certain good influences, which are His servants in accomplishing the salvation of men." What this declares is something rather heretical. Basically, that angels are necessary in accomplishing the salvation of men. What does the Bible teach? Acts 4:12 directly opposes this concept of Origen. "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." This is often put forth by the church today, even in Protestant circles. However, we see no documented place in scripture to support Origen's point of view beyond the various shofar blowing and announcements that they make within the Bible. Its always God doing something, never the angels. Lets continue forth.
"This opinion, however, is held by most, that the devil was an angel, and that, having become an apostate, he induced as many of the angels as possible to fall away with himself, and these up to the present time are called his angels." There is absolutely no deviation from our stance here.
"We must believe what is good and true about the prophets, that they were sages, that they did understand what proceeded from their mouths, and that they bore prudence on their lips. " This is an interesting comment, but also contradictory to his earlier writings. Earlier we are hearing that anyone who is not a Greek is a barbarian and unwise, and now the prophets, who were NOT Greek are considered to hold prudence. Let us proceed.
This next comment I believe really disturbs scripture. "But God, who is the beginning of all things, is not to be regarded as a composite being, lest perchance there should be found to exist elements prior to the beginning itself, out of which everything is composed, whatever that be which is called composite." But God is described as infinite, so he can exist prior to the beginning itself. In fact, he created the beginning. He can not be less than a composite being if he does not hold to a triune nature. Besides this, Revelation 5:6 declares that God exists in the form of a sevenfold spirit. This is a contradiction.
Origen further put forth in finality, his replacement theology which spurned his first of two impeachments from the church. This is the final comment we will look at from Origen. "We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election."
It is definitely an assertion. But who was this "other" people called by God to the blessed election? We see that in Romans 11:1-2 it is stated " 1I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel."
God will not reject his people. Jeremiah 33:14-22 states " 14 " 'The days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will fulfill the gracious promise I made to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
15 " 'In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from David's line; he will do what is just and right in the land.
16 In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it [c] will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.'
17 For this is what the LORD says: 'David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, 18 nor will the priests, who are Levites, ever fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.' "
19 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 20 "This is what the LORD says: 'If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, 21 then my covenant with David my servant—and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me—can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne. 22 I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.' "
So God does say he will restore his people unlike what Origen believes. Origen is the 2nd to support a replacement Theology. And he was declared heretical. Not once, but twice. Yet today, he is held alongside Justin Martyr to be one of the most knowledgeable scholars in the early church on the history of Scripture, by both Protestant and Catholic alike. Orthodox Christians are much more reluctant to declare this title to him, but he also remains an early church father as pronounced by the Catholic church.
Marcion the heretic
I list Marcion as a heretic for one specific reason. He denies the divinity of Yeshua. And his entire theology is built upon doing this very thing. I find it quite ironic that if you look up the word "catholic" it means universal. While Marcion was considered a Catholic bishop, he apparently was not "catholic" enough to stay within the Catholic church. Hence I see "God's holy church" as having a contradiction. But lets go back to Marcion. I believe it is necessary to cover this gentleman as a church father in a sense, because his worked is often revered as necessary by Christians today, even though most claim to not subscribe to it. And of course, his theology has been quite influential in the movements of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons today. We shall get to what I mean.
Marcion of Sinope the bishop has been described as being a heretic in regards to the Christian background. Marcion in like fashion was consecrated as an early church bishop. Its often ironic that I see Christians divide the Old Testament from the New Testament, so-called, because Marcion is the very one who created the two terms. His purpose for doing this was to divide God into two natures. While Clement of Alexandria places a certain Marcion around the time of Peter, this appears merely a contradiction if it were to apply to the Marcion that we are talking about. Tertullian, a more likely source for Marcion places him around the year 144 A.D.
So lets continue on. We can talk about the history of the Pope at a later time. What I want to look at right now is how the heretical doctrines espoused by Marcion are being instituted within many of our churches today. Marcion is recognized as having a huge following by Justin Martyr and other church fathers like Tertullian by the year of 150 A.D. leaving Clement as a dubious source on this issue.
Now its interesting that these are two terms that seem to be relegated by people within the church even today. By Marcion, there was a God of the Old Testament, who relegated his people to the status of following the Torah and was an issuer of legalistic reciprocal justice, and then there was "our Heavenly Father" who is described as a universal God of love who looks upon humanity with benevolence and compassion, rather known as the God of the New Testament. Before being educated on the Bible, I had this idea of God myself. What is quite interesting is that this terminology is still being utilized in the Christian church today. Lets continue on. Marcion declares in his book "Antitheses" " "One work is sufficient for our God: He has delivered man by His supreme and most excellent goodness, which is preferable to the creation of all the locusts."[ This was viewed upon as being a reconciliation between what was thought by Marcion to be a contradiction between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. He also believed in a docetic nature of Yeshua.
Marcion is significant in another way however. Because of this falling away and division of the Bible that we see here in order to promote his Theology that Yeshua was not divine, we get the development of the dogma within the Catholic church that was relegated up until the Protestant Reformation period. So essentially because of this falling away via man's power and necessity to control the issue of where Marcion's theology was heading, through the Catholic church, we get the beginnings of Christian halakah if you will, that which would eventually keep Jews out of the church.
We have this division between the Old Testament and New Testament even to this very day. Let me share something ironic with you however. Marcion's critics came from the very resources that utilized this division. Ireneous, Polycarp, Ephraim of Syria, Theophilus of Antioch, Philip of Gortyna, Hippolytus, Clement and Origen of Alexandria all opposed the teachings of Marcion. The irony is that they also chose not to oppose the teachings of Marcion by splitting the Bible into two halves. This motivation was a motivation shared by Marcion, which had anti-semitic overtures behind it, due to its replacement theology, which was shared by the early church. Marcion was the original founder of this fallacious belief system, often refered to today as Gnosticism. Thus there have been some which connect the Catholic church to Gnosticism.
I want to take a look at some of his viewpoints in relation to scripture now. Of course most Christians need not have a need to understand how the church viewed the diety of Yeshua. This is a non-issue even amongst the Messianic Jews for the most part. We need go no further than John 14:6 and John 10:30. But I want to see why it is impossible according to scripture to separate the Old from the New Testament if you will.
The word that is translated in Jeremiah 31:33 for "new covenant" as it is being applied to the "New Testament" in Hebrew is hadashah, and Aramaic is khawdata. 1 Sam. 11:14; 1 Chr. 15:8; 2 Chr. 24:4, 12; Job 10:17; Psalm 51:10; 103:5; 104:30; Isaiah 61:4; and Lamentations 5:21 all use the term "hadashah". The word for hadashah is the same word utilized by the Jews to refer to the "new" moon. Thus, what happens is not that there is a "new" testament, but in the context that the word is utilized a "renewed" testament. When we have a "new" moon, we don't get a brand new moon. It is merely a "renewed" moon. And the Jews rightfully translated this as "renewed" and it is even understood by us in the Western society to mean renewed, not a brand new covenant. So this separation is unwarranted, and does not even come close to matching the context of scripture.
I don't believe I need go any further with this gentleman except to ask, out of these heretical claims you have heard today, which do you believe apply to your following of Yeshua? This will be very valuable to understand and adjust when walking with Yeshua.
Marcion of Sinope the bishop has been described as being a heretic in regards to the Christian background. Marcion in like fashion was consecrated as an early church bishop. Its often ironic that I see Christians divide the Old Testament from the New Testament, so-called, because Marcion is the very one who created the two terms. His purpose for doing this was to divide God into two natures. While Clement of Alexandria places a certain Marcion around the time of Peter, this appears merely a contradiction if it were to apply to the Marcion that we are talking about. Tertullian, a more likely source for Marcion places him around the year 144 A.D.
So lets continue on. We can talk about the history of the Pope at a later time. What I want to look at right now is how the heretical doctrines espoused by Marcion are being instituted within many of our churches today. Marcion is recognized as having a huge following by Justin Martyr and other church fathers like Tertullian by the year of 150 A.D. leaving Clement as a dubious source on this issue.
Now its interesting that these are two terms that seem to be relegated by people within the church even today. By Marcion, there was a God of the Old Testament, who relegated his people to the status of following the Torah and was an issuer of legalistic reciprocal justice, and then there was "our Heavenly Father" who is described as a universal God of love who looks upon humanity with benevolence and compassion, rather known as the God of the New Testament. Before being educated on the Bible, I had this idea of God myself. What is quite interesting is that this terminology is still being utilized in the Christian church today. Lets continue on. Marcion declares in his book "Antitheses" " "One work is sufficient for our God: He has delivered man by His supreme and most excellent goodness, which is preferable to the creation of all the locusts."[ This was viewed upon as being a reconciliation between what was thought by Marcion to be a contradiction between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. He also believed in a docetic nature of Yeshua.
Marcion is significant in another way however. Because of this falling away and division of the Bible that we see here in order to promote his Theology that Yeshua was not divine, we get the development of the dogma within the Catholic church that was relegated up until the Protestant Reformation period. So essentially because of this falling away via man's power and necessity to control the issue of where Marcion's theology was heading, through the Catholic church, we get the beginnings of Christian halakah if you will, that which would eventually keep Jews out of the church.
We have this division between the Old Testament and New Testament even to this very day. Let me share something ironic with you however. Marcion's critics came from the very resources that utilized this division. Ireneous, Polycarp, Ephraim of Syria, Theophilus of Antioch, Philip of Gortyna, Hippolytus, Clement and Origen of Alexandria all opposed the teachings of Marcion. The irony is that they also chose not to oppose the teachings of Marcion by splitting the Bible into two halves. This motivation was a motivation shared by Marcion, which had anti-semitic overtures behind it, due to its replacement theology, which was shared by the early church. Marcion was the original founder of this fallacious belief system, often refered to today as Gnosticism. Thus there have been some which connect the Catholic church to Gnosticism.
I want to take a look at some of his viewpoints in relation to scripture now. Of course most Christians need not have a need to understand how the church viewed the diety of Yeshua. This is a non-issue even amongst the Messianic Jews for the most part. We need go no further than John 14:6 and John 10:30. But I want to see why it is impossible according to scripture to separate the Old from the New Testament if you will.
The word that is translated in Jeremiah 31:33 for "new covenant" as it is being applied to the "New Testament" in Hebrew is hadashah, and Aramaic is khawdata. 1 Sam. 11:14; 1 Chr. 15:8; 2 Chr. 24:4, 12; Job 10:17; Psalm 51:10; 103:5; 104:30; Isaiah 61:4; and Lamentations 5:21 all use the term "hadashah". The word for hadashah is the same word utilized by the Jews to refer to the "new" moon. Thus, what happens is not that there is a "new" testament, but in the context that the word is utilized a "renewed" testament. When we have a "new" moon, we don't get a brand new moon. It is merely a "renewed" moon. And the Jews rightfully translated this as "renewed" and it is even understood by us in the Western society to mean renewed, not a brand new covenant. So this separation is unwarranted, and does not even come close to matching the context of scripture.
I don't believe I need go any further with this gentleman except to ask, out of these heretical claims you have heard today, which do you believe apply to your following of Yeshua? This will be very valuable to understand and adjust when walking with Yeshua.
Observing Galatians 3:16...
I have been looking over some information on Galatians 3:16 for purposes of clarification. But we have to observe the wording of some passages from the Bible to make a clear determination of what the Bible is saying, and what the Bible is NOT saying.
The fallacy that Christians commit when looking at Galatians 3:16 is what is known as a sweeping generalization. It can mean something in one place, but the nonsequitor becomes, that it can mean that everywhere. It can also be viewed as an unwarranted expansion of semantics. Galatians 3:16 is a commonly cited passage by the Christian audience to declare that the Jews have fulfilled their purpose, and God is done with them. Lets take a look at what it says. "16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many, but "and to your seed,"[a] meaning one, who is Yeshua." The covenants were spoken to Abraham and to Yeshua. This declares one important thing to us...that Yeshua can be the only Messiah. There are Jews who believe that there will be multiple Messiahs within our generations. How funny that we get correction regarding this from one of the most popular students of the most popular teacher, Gamaliel, from the school of Hillel So do we then go further to the conclusion that God is done with the Jewish people? No, because it is only referencing the part of the promises of scripture where this applies. As Paul declares in Romans 11:1-2, "Heaven forbid." As a matter of fact, taking into account the context, this implies only that the promises were being spoken to Abraham and the Messiah. Was the Messiah preexisting? I don't think that the Christians would be willing to disagree with this expression as it applies here. So if we go back to the Tanakh, we can see what Paul is trying to state, and what he is not trying to state about the Torah. I will have to say that this was a verse that I was hardpressed to answer for probably the past week or so, on a personal level, so it required some heavy duty research.
Lets take a look at what this is being applied to. Derek Leman, a Messianic Jew, agrees that what Paul is doing is midrashing. He declares this in his article at his blog that can be found here http://derek4messiah.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/pt-5-thoughts-from-levines-3rd-chapter/. According to the Lexicons, the word utilized by Paul may be plural (spermas). It can refer to one and many, which also ties back into the Genesis accounts. What is Paul clearly trying to do? He is telling those who are following traditional Judaism that the passages so applied to Abraham are also indicative of a singular seed, which is the Messiah. Now lets take a look at what the John Wesley commentary says on this matter. " Now the promises were made to Abraham and his seed - Several promises were made to Abraham; but the chief of all, and which was several times repeated, was that of the blessing through Christ. He - That is, God.Saith not, And to seeds, as of many - As if the promise were made to several kinds of seed. But as of one - That is, one kind of seed, one posterity, one kind of sons. And to all these the blessing belonged by promise. Which is Christ - including all that believe in him. Genesis 22:18 ." http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/galatians/galatians-3.html
The way Christians utilize this verse is abominable. What many, especially of the Preterist breed I have encountered, take this to mean is that the only person that all of these promises are being applied to is Yeshua. So lets take a look at this passage more clearly as we cross reference scripture. Genesis 12:7 states "7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring [a] I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him." Here it is referring to a singular seed. But not a singular person. The parallel is obvious, but the context forgotten by the Jewish audience that Paul is teaching to. It means both Yeshua and what was later Israel. Now to Genesis 13:15 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring [a] forever. In 15, we observe again the restatement of the passage. It is referring to Yeshua. The Hebrew word here is "ul'zer'akha" which applies to a singular.
16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted.
Here is where we run into a problem. Zera is once again utilized. But it is being applied to a plurality of people. So we can't say that it refers to just one specific individual when we get to this passage. That is a contradiction based off of the Christian interpretation.
I want to look even closer at some other passages. The usage of the words is important to grasp here.
Genesis 16:10 - And the angel of the L-rd said to her [Hagar], “I will greatly increase your seed ( , zar’ech) and they will not be counted for abundance.” Here the word for seed is being utilized in the plural sense. And this is in reference to Gentiles. As prophecied, their seed has greatly increased.
Genesis 24:60 - And they blessed Rebecca and said to her, “May you come to be thousands of myriads, and may your seed ( , zar’ech) inherit the gate of his foes.” - Again, this is referring to Jacob and Esau's children, and the nations that develop out of it. Who gets the blessing and the birthright? We can see all of this developing, especially here. Again, zar'ech, the plural, is being utilized. This is one of the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This clearly is referencing who will be established as the nation before God as well.
Lets see some further contexts that are being missed by Christians. One of the most popular that we all should know about is Abraham and Isaac. The aftermath of the event is declared in Genesis 22. Genesis 22:16-17 - 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,That in blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply your seed ( , zar'acha) as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and your seed ( , zar'acha) shall possess the gate of his enemies;
Here, another form of the plural of zera can be seen in the form of the word "zar'acha." This is a covenant made between God and Abraham. I have a huge problem with giving up that the promises to Abraham include more than the Messiah based off of this VERY passage. The context may only refer to a plural, so this means through Abraham's actual seeds if you will. So based off of the supersessionistic strategy, we have a contradiction as is being applied to Galatians 3:16. We have to understand the purpose of the Messiah, and the purpose of the Torah.
The purpose of the Messiah is as follows. This will not come as a huge surprise to the Christian audience either. If you accept the Messiah as your savior, you will go to heaven and inherit the land. You will be judged according to this in the book of Life. Most people want to stop here though without looking further at the judgment process. The purpose of the Torah must be remembered and is as follows. The purpose of the Torah is obedience. We follow it out of love for God first and foremost. And our works will be judged according to the book of the Law, clarified in Revelation. But not just there, as we can see in Deuteronomy 30 which states " 6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. 7 The LORD your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. 8 You will again obey the LORD and follow all his commands I am giving you today. 9 Then the LORD your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The LORD will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your fathers, 10 if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul." I ask you to find where Paul or Yeshua has preached against this. There is a Book of the Law, that extends all the way through Revelation. Everything you do will be judged according to the Book of the Law. So the purpose of the Torah is to observe the works that are appropriate to follow. As James declares " 8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself,"[a] you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery,"[b] also said, "Do not murder."[c] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"
The Torah is not to be a burden to us. Deuteronomy 30:12-14 "12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it." My Jewish brethren, I encourage you to read the fullness of what the Brit Hadashah has to say. The Biblios (Tanakh and Brit Hadashah) never declares that we are to do away with the Torah. I have encouraged many of my Christian friends to show me somewhere in which another talmidim besides Paul teaches against the Torah. Not surprisingly, nothing has turned up (and we have even observed why it merely appears that Paul teaches against the Torah). My Christian friends, I encourage you to see how easy the Torah is to follow, and apply it to your lives. It is not as difficult as you might think.
Thus we can conclude based off of this information alone, that Galatians 3:16 is not referencing what supersessionists believe it to be referencing. Replacement of Israel never occurs.
To anyone further who wishes to declare that Galatians is where the Torah is abolished, lets take a look at that.
Galatians 3:17-21 states "17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.
21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not!"
Right here, we may stop because this is exactly what we in the Messianic community believe. The passage in Galatians 3:16 is referencing the inheritance of the land, and how one may inherit the land. One must follow and accept the promise that God gave in relevance to it, which is Yeshua. But does this mean that the Torah sets aside this covenant? Absolutely not. And does this mean that the Torah is opposed to the covenants made by God (that being any and all of them)? Absolutely not! Paul's clarification states that through the covenant was given the Torah, and that the Torah is not opposed to the promises of God.
This is clearly merely a midrash. As we clarified through the Greek and through Scripture, this can not be clarified in the sense that it is describing one person. The references that Paul is talking about clearly define more than one person in the sense that it is describing. And this is why we must avoid cherry picking from the Bible, but rather understand it fully in its context.
The fallacy that Christians commit when looking at Galatians 3:16 is what is known as a sweeping generalization. It can mean something in one place, but the nonsequitor becomes, that it can mean that everywhere. It can also be viewed as an unwarranted expansion of semantics. Galatians 3:16 is a commonly cited passage by the Christian audience to declare that the Jews have fulfilled their purpose, and God is done with them. Lets take a look at what it says. "16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many, but "and to your seed,"[a] meaning one, who is Yeshua." The covenants were spoken to Abraham and to Yeshua. This declares one important thing to us...that Yeshua can be the only Messiah. There are Jews who believe that there will be multiple Messiahs within our generations. How funny that we get correction regarding this from one of the most popular students of the most popular teacher, Gamaliel, from the school of Hillel So do we then go further to the conclusion that God is done with the Jewish people? No, because it is only referencing the part of the promises of scripture where this applies. As Paul declares in Romans 11:1-2, "Heaven forbid." As a matter of fact, taking into account the context, this implies only that the promises were being spoken to Abraham and the Messiah. Was the Messiah preexisting? I don't think that the Christians would be willing to disagree with this expression as it applies here. So if we go back to the Tanakh, we can see what Paul is trying to state, and what he is not trying to state about the Torah. I will have to say that this was a verse that I was hardpressed to answer for probably the past week or so, on a personal level, so it required some heavy duty research.
Lets take a look at what this is being applied to. Derek Leman, a Messianic Jew, agrees that what Paul is doing is midrashing. He declares this in his article at his blog that can be found here http://derek4messiah.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/pt-5-thoughts-from-levines-3rd-chapter/. According to the Lexicons, the word utilized by Paul may be plural (spermas). It can refer to one and many, which also ties back into the Genesis accounts. What is Paul clearly trying to do? He is telling those who are following traditional Judaism that the passages so applied to Abraham are also indicative of a singular seed, which is the Messiah. Now lets take a look at what the John Wesley commentary says on this matter. " Now the promises were made to Abraham and his seed - Several promises were made to Abraham; but the chief of all, and which was several times repeated, was that of the blessing through Christ. He - That is, God.Saith not, And to seeds, as of many - As if the promise were made to several kinds of seed. But as of one - That is, one kind of seed, one posterity, one kind of sons. And to all these the blessing belonged by promise. Which is Christ - including all that believe in him. Genesis 22:18 ." http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/galatians/galatians-3.html
The way Christians utilize this verse is abominable. What many, especially of the Preterist breed I have encountered, take this to mean is that the only person that all of these promises are being applied to is Yeshua. So lets take a look at this passage more clearly as we cross reference scripture. Genesis 12:7 states "7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring [a] I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him." Here it is referring to a singular seed. But not a singular person. The parallel is obvious, but the context forgotten by the Jewish audience that Paul is teaching to. It means both Yeshua and what was later Israel. Now to Genesis 13:15 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring [a] forever. In 15, we observe again the restatement of the passage. It is referring to Yeshua. The Hebrew word here is "ul'zer'akha" which applies to a singular.
16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted.
Here is where we run into a problem. Zera is once again utilized. But it is being applied to a plurality of people. So we can't say that it refers to just one specific individual when we get to this passage. That is a contradiction based off of the Christian interpretation.
I want to look even closer at some other passages. The usage of the words is important to grasp here.
Genesis 16:10 - And the angel of the L-rd said to her [Hagar], “I will greatly increase your seed ( , zar’ech) and they will not be counted for abundance.” Here the word for seed is being utilized in the plural sense. And this is in reference to Gentiles. As prophecied, their seed has greatly increased.
Genesis 24:60 - And they blessed Rebecca and said to her, “May you come to be thousands of myriads, and may your seed ( , zar’ech) inherit the gate of his foes.” - Again, this is referring to Jacob and Esau's children, and the nations that develop out of it. Who gets the blessing and the birthright? We can see all of this developing, especially here. Again, zar'ech, the plural, is being utilized. This is one of the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This clearly is referencing who will be established as the nation before God as well.
Lets see some further contexts that are being missed by Christians. One of the most popular that we all should know about is Abraham and Isaac. The aftermath of the event is declared in Genesis 22. Genesis 22:16-17 - 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,That in blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply your seed ( , zar'acha) as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and your seed ( , zar'acha) shall possess the gate of his enemies;
Here, another form of the plural of zera can be seen in the form of the word "zar'acha." This is a covenant made between God and Abraham. I have a huge problem with giving up that the promises to Abraham include more than the Messiah based off of this VERY passage. The context may only refer to a plural, so this means through Abraham's actual seeds if you will. So based off of the supersessionistic strategy, we have a contradiction as is being applied to Galatians 3:16. We have to understand the purpose of the Messiah, and the purpose of the Torah.
The purpose of the Messiah is as follows. This will not come as a huge surprise to the Christian audience either. If you accept the Messiah as your savior, you will go to heaven and inherit the land. You will be judged according to this in the book of Life. Most people want to stop here though without looking further at the judgment process. The purpose of the Torah must be remembered and is as follows. The purpose of the Torah is obedience. We follow it out of love for God first and foremost. And our works will be judged according to the book of the Law, clarified in Revelation. But not just there, as we can see in Deuteronomy 30 which states " 6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. 7 The LORD your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. 8 You will again obey the LORD and follow all his commands I am giving you today. 9 Then the LORD your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The LORD will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your fathers, 10 if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul." I ask you to find where Paul or Yeshua has preached against this. There is a Book of the Law, that extends all the way through Revelation. Everything you do will be judged according to the Book of the Law. So the purpose of the Torah is to observe the works that are appropriate to follow. As James declares " 8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself,"[a] you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery,"[b] also said, "Do not murder."[c] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"
The Torah is not to be a burden to us. Deuteronomy 30:12-14 "12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it." My Jewish brethren, I encourage you to read the fullness of what the Brit Hadashah has to say. The Biblios (Tanakh and Brit Hadashah) never declares that we are to do away with the Torah. I have encouraged many of my Christian friends to show me somewhere in which another talmidim besides Paul teaches against the Torah. Not surprisingly, nothing has turned up (and we have even observed why it merely appears that Paul teaches against the Torah). My Christian friends, I encourage you to see how easy the Torah is to follow, and apply it to your lives. It is not as difficult as you might think.
Thus we can conclude based off of this information alone, that Galatians 3:16 is not referencing what supersessionists believe it to be referencing. Replacement of Israel never occurs.
To anyone further who wishes to declare that Galatians is where the Torah is abolished, lets take a look at that.
Galatians 3:17-21 states "17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.
21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not!"
Right here, we may stop because this is exactly what we in the Messianic community believe. The passage in Galatians 3:16 is referencing the inheritance of the land, and how one may inherit the land. One must follow and accept the promise that God gave in relevance to it, which is Yeshua. But does this mean that the Torah sets aside this covenant? Absolutely not. And does this mean that the Torah is opposed to the covenants made by God (that being any and all of them)? Absolutely not! Paul's clarification states that through the covenant was given the Torah, and that the Torah is not opposed to the promises of God.
This is clearly merely a midrash. As we clarified through the Greek and through Scripture, this can not be clarified in the sense that it is describing one person. The references that Paul is talking about clearly define more than one person in the sense that it is describing. And this is why we must avoid cherry picking from the Bible, but rather understand it fully in its context.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
In the next couple of days....
We're going to be looking at more early church fathers. I will be examining Ireneous, Origen and Marcion. Our goal will be to evaluate how they did with their information as it pertains to their Biblical teaching. I don't believe this is done well enough on most Messianic sites, because most Messianic sites look solely upon how the early church fathers were anti-semitic. While there is tremendous amount of merit to this, and this teaching goes against what the Bible teaches, I have always been one to want to look at topics more deeper and thoroughly. Dr. Michael Brown does a good job, but more detail to the projects I believe is warranted. Deeper evaluation I believe will help the cause, and that is my calling on this project. We're also going to have information up on the Virgin Mary as it relates to the Bible and additionally on Calvinism. I have a few Christian friends, and some other Messianic friends who will be assisting on these two projects, and they will get their due credit as it is well deserved, and I have great gratitude for their willingness to help me out.
We're also going to take a look on the flip side, something that most are not used to hearing. We're going to look at the anti-Christian sentiment of Orthodox Jews. We will examine Bar Kochba a little bit more, and how the prayers within the Synagogue that were directed against Yeshua were hurtful, mostly to Messianic Jews, but the effect could also be extended to Christians. I hope this information will interest you.
Once again, if you feel I have erred on any piece of information, you may e-mail me at hamashiachagape@yahoo.com. I am always open to hearing comments and discussing. And I am always open to correction where it is warranted, as I am here to do my best to "present myself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15 paraphrase).
We're also going to take a look on the flip side, something that most are not used to hearing. We're going to look at the anti-Christian sentiment of Orthodox Jews. We will examine Bar Kochba a little bit more, and how the prayers within the Synagogue that were directed against Yeshua were hurtful, mostly to Messianic Jews, but the effect could also be extended to Christians. I hope this information will interest you.
Once again, if you feel I have erred on any piece of information, you may e-mail me at hamashiachagape@yahoo.com. I am always open to hearing comments and discussing. And I am always open to correction where it is warranted, as I am here to do my best to "present myself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15 paraphrase).
Saturday, July 3, 2010
To the Jew: Did Yeshua come at the expected time, and are we living in the Messianic era?
We've spent a lot of time looking at Christian objections to Judaism, but now I want to spend sometime "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus." (Sorry Michael L. Brown for the pun on words). Some of this material can be found in Dr. Brown's book "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" volume 1 being that he answered this very objection within his book (page 70-73). Most of this will be my wording however. I want to look into the matter of whether Yeshua came at the time he was supposed to come. First of all, what does the Tanakh say? We're going to look at this first, and then, I want to look at some Talmudic tradition so that Gentiles might be able to answer what the Jews have to say on the matter, and Jews may begin to get a better grasp on where we are at. First of all, how can we know from the Tanakh that Yeshua came in the right period to be called the Messiah? Lets start with Daniel 9:25-26 "
"Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Mashiach, the prince, shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, it shall be built again, with plaza and moat, but in times of distress." Daniel 9:25-26"
So this is discussing the decree to rebuild Israel. When is this mentioned to have occurred? The decree to rebuild Israel is mentioned in Nehemiah 2:1. Lets read it in context starting with 2:1-17 " 1And it came about in the month Nisan, (Z)in the twentieth year of King (AA)Artaxerxes, that wine was before him, and (AB)I took up the wine and gave it to the king. Now I had not been sad in his presence.
2So the king said to me, "Why is your face sad though you are not sick? (AC)This is nothing but sadness of heart." Then I was very much afraid.
3I said to the king, "(AD)Let the king live forever Why should my face not be sad (AE)when the city, the place of my fathers' tombs, lies desolate and its gates have been consumed by fire?"
4Then the king said to me, "What would you request?" (AF)So I prayed to the G-d of heaven.
5I said to the king, "If it please the king, and if your servant has found favor before you, send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers' tombs, that I may rebuild it."
6Then the king said to me, the queen sitting beside him, "How long will your journey be, and when will you return?" So it pleased the king to send me, and (AG)I gave him a definite time.
7And I said to the king, "If it please the king, let letters be given me (AH)for the governors of the provinces beyond the River, that they may allow me to pass through until I come to Judah,
8and a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king's (AI)forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of (AJ)the fortress which is by the [b]temple, for the wall of the city and for the house to which I will go " And the king granted them to me because (AK)the good hand of my G-d was on me.
9Then I came to (AL)the governors of the provinces beyond the River and gave them the king's letters Now (AM)the king had sent with me officers of the army and horsemen.
10When (AN)Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard about it, it was very displeasing to them that someone had come to seek the welfare of the sons of Israel.
Nehemiah Inspects Jerusalem's Walls 11So I (AO)came to Jerusalem and was there three days.
12And I arose in the night, I and a few men with me. I did not tell anyone what my G-d was putting into my mind to do for Jerusalem and there was no animal with me except the animal on which I was riding.
13So I went out at night by (AP)the Valley Gate in the direction of the Dragon's Well and on to the Refuse Gate, inspecting the walls of Jerusalem (AQ)which were broken down and its (AR)gates which were consumed by fire.
14Then I passed on to (AS)the Fountain Gate and (AT)the King's Pool, but there was no place for my mount to pass.
15So I went up at night by the (AU)ravine and inspected the wall. Then I entered the Valley Gate again and returned.
16The officials did not know where I had gone or what I had done; nor had I as yet told the Jews, the priests, the nobles, the officials or the rest who did the work.
17Then I said to them, "You see the bad situation we are in, that (AV)Jerusalem is desolate and its gates burned by fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem so that we will no longer be a reproach."
So we have the Torah admitting the Messiah will come into Jerusalem around 483 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem's decree from Nehemiah. So given this was about 445 B.C., what happens nearly 483 years later? Yeshua enters Jerusalem. Working from a decree by Cyrus, we arrive around the birth year of Mashiach. So given the Tanakh, we can demonstrate when the Messiah is supposed to arrive.
Now what does the Talmudic tradition declare? "The world will exist six thousand years. Two thousand years of desolation (Adam to Abraham), two thousand years of Torah (Abraham to around the beginning of what we know as the Common Era) and two thousand years of the Messianic era (the last two thousand years or so); but because our iniquities were many, all this has been lost" (i.e., the Messiah did not come at the expected time;) b. Sanhedrin 97 a-b).
So to the Jews, your Messiah according to your own writings was supposed to come around 2000 years ago? What happened 2000 years ago? This guy Yeshua walked amongst us. We need to view this further in context. The famous Jew, Rashi declares that the above passage from the Talmud means because of Israel's sins, the Messiah did not come. In Rashi's own words "After the 2000 years of Torah, it was G-d's decree that the Messiah would come and the wicked kingdom would come to an end and the subjugation of Israel would be destroyed....the Messiah has not come to this very day." Most traditional Jews will follow what Rashi is talking about to 200 C .E. Problematic in this is that this is an error in the Talmudic tradition, because the Second temple stood for approximately 600 years (the 6th year of King Darius's reign (521 B.C., Ezra 5) 515 B.C. to 70 A.D.http://judaism.about.com/library/1_jerusalem/bl_jerusalemhistory2.htm ), instead of the believed 420 years that the Rabbinical Jews believed in. So Rashi's calculations are off. According to the accurate calculations that we have, the Messiah came around the beginningo f the common era.
Now I want to examine this further by looking at Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah declarations from the Talmud. Rabbi Yehoshua declared when the midpoint of the world would be. The Athenian elders argued with Rabbi Yehoshua (this is not the Yeshua of the Brit Hadashah) that "the present should be the midpoint between the two productive eras of the world, the eras of Torah and Mashiach. but obviously he has not come, for you Jews have certainly not been redeemed. We have crushed you and turned you into a nation of ruin, disaster, and despair. The 'midpoint of the world' has manifestly passed by and the Era of Mashiach has not begun. Why, then, do you persist in hoping for his arrival? Why should he come in the future if he did not come at his appointed hour? Is it not clear that the time for his arrival has passed you by forever?" (Sanhedrin 97 a-b).
The Vilna Gaon states that the Athenian elders were unaware of the Talmudic tradition that states "The son of David (the Messiah) will not come until all the government has turned to heresy" (b. Sanhedrin 97a). From page 149 of the Gaon, it explains "When the Elders asked, 'Where is the midpoint of the world?' Rabbi Yehoshua raised his finger and said, "Here!" He was saying that although the Jews had not merited Mashiach's coming by their deeds, nevertheless, the Era of Mashiach had indeed arrived at its appointed time. At 'the midpoint of the world' G-d began turning the wheels of history to insure the ultimate arrival of the scion of David." The purpose further mentioned in the Vilna Gaon states "mankind will realize that the only way to convert himself back into a tru human, a G-d-like being filled with wisdom, love, kindness, and an exalted spirit, is by the acceptance of G-d's dominion. And when G-d demonstrates all of this and man recognizes it, Mashiach will finally come" (p. 150). Thus it further declares from p. 150 "with the advent of the last third of human history; the Era of Mashiach may not be apparent, but it is 'here.'"
Most Jews viewing this who are knowledgeable of their faith will recognize that Rabbi Yehoshua was referring to ropes and measures when asked to prove his point about what he was declaring in regards to what time period we are in. He references 2 Samual 8:2 and Zechariah 13:8-9. "The ropes of King David are the measure of human history. The two-thirds of world history which did not choose to recognize G-d's dominion refused to choose life. But the last third will be directed towards eternal life by a Providence which will lead the Jews step by step to the recognition of G-d. What is the basis of your assertion, asked the Edlers, that "here", in the last third of human history, G-d's mercy is at work and we are in the Era of Mashiach? Answered Rabbi Yehoshua: Remember the ropes of King David and you will learn the ways by which G-d directs his world. They teach us that G-d will never abandon his world, and that ultimately the good for which G-d created it will be realized." (151-152). The Vilna Gaon's interpretation of the Talmudic account states that we are in the age of Mashiach. This was written some 1800 years ago. Now the Vilna Gaon did not believe in Yeshua as the Messiah. So this brings something else up that is very significant. Why did the Orthodox Jewish community reject Yeshua as the Messiah?
Lets take a look further at what the Talmud declares "Why was the first Holy Temple destroyed? Because of three wicked things: idol worship, adultery, and murder. But in the second Temple in which time the Jewish people were occupied studying the Torah and doing good deeds and acts of charity why was it then destroyed? The answer is: It was because of hatred without a cause to teach you, that hate without a cause is equal to these sins and that it is as serious a crime as the three great transgressions of idol worship, adultery, and murder. [Yoma 9]." In the Bible, it states that Yeshua was hated without cause and was rejected. Who do you think this is referring to? Psalms 69:4 warns Israel about doing this "Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head; many are my enemies without cause, those who seek to destroy me. I am forced to restore what I did not steal." And in John 15:25 states "But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'"
So who do you think the Rabbis hated without cause? It was Yeshua ha Mashiach, whom the Christian community has relabelled in light of viewing him as a Roman blonde haired, blue eyed gentleman we have totally a misunderstanding of. This is prophetic though my Jewish brethren! If Yeshua has come in the role of the high priest, lets think about this for a minute. That would make him ben Yosef. The story of Yosef is as followed though. What did his brothers see of this Jew when they viewed him? They saw an Egyptian, and because of this, they were unable to recognize him. So has become of Yeshua Ha Mashiach. We have clothed him as a Roman, and now the Jews are unable to recognize him as the Jew that he is! Yeshua Ha Mashiach is Elohim, the annointed one. He is preexistent just as the rabbis taught the Messiah would be. He has put his Earthly kingdom on hold, but will be returning to the Earth in the form of Ben David as he declares from his partial reading of Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18-19. He only goes through half of verse 2, so Yeshua tells us the role he has come in. A close paying attention of the Brit Hadashah, now commonly known as the New Testament because of the heretic Marcion's separation of Old Testament and New Testament, whom not even the Christians admire (ironic isn't it?) will reveal that in the first 4 books, he has fulfilled the role of High Priest, and did not come in the role of the King of Kings and establish his kingdom on the Earth. We know that he's returning because in Acts 1:6-11 Yeshua and the messenger of the Lord declares " 6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Ruach Hakodesh comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Yeshua, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." Jews want a sign, and here it is! I want to stop here because we see that Yeshua is telling us. Most Christians will read through this and say "Samaria, Gentiles!" No. Samaria was the capital of Israel. It was the burial place of Obadiah, Elisha and Yochanan the Immerser (known to Christians as John the Baptist). It is defined as such here - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=109&letter=S Samaria is mentioned all through the Tanakh as being associated with Israel. Yeshua is telling us to do what here? Go to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles. Christians have not been doing this, and on their behalf and because I once was one, I apologize! I have found the errors of my ways and am trying to help my Christian friends to do the same. Where do we find the role of ben David in the Brit Hadashah?Revelation talks about the role he will fulfill when he arrives a second time to Earth. He will establish his kingdom after the 7th shofar is blown (and we are going to put away the viewpoints of Preterism in a later article!). If paid close attention to, he is riding a white horse. He rode a donkey (another Rabbinical Messianic sign) into Jerusalem the first time. The 2nd time he will be riding in on a white horse on the clouds, which means he will be king of kings and lord of lords. He is not King of Kings and Lord of Lords over all the Earth yet. But my Jewish brethren, you are looking for ben David when looking at Yeshua when you should be seeking the first role that he fulfilled instead. The role of ben David has not been established yet, but it will in the future, and the prophecies given still to the Jews (and only to the Jews) within the Brit Hadashah demonstrate this. Further evidenced is that we have no further way to trace a Messiah since the destruction of the temple. Perhaps G-d did this for a reason? I pray that you will consider Yeshua ha Mashiach as your Messiah. Not Jesus Christ, Yeshua ha Mashiach.
"Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Mashiach, the prince, shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, it shall be built again, with plaza and moat, but in times of distress." Daniel 9:25-26"
So this is discussing the decree to rebuild Israel. When is this mentioned to have occurred? The decree to rebuild Israel is mentioned in Nehemiah 2:1. Lets read it in context starting with 2:1-17 " 1And it came about in the month Nisan, (Z)in the twentieth year of King (AA)Artaxerxes, that wine was before him, and (AB)I took up the wine and gave it to the king. Now I had not been sad in his presence.
2So the king said to me, "Why is your face sad though you are not sick? (AC)This is nothing but sadness of heart." Then I was very much afraid.
3I said to the king, "(AD)Let the king live forever Why should my face not be sad (AE)when the city, the place of my fathers' tombs, lies desolate and its gates have been consumed by fire?"
4Then the king said to me, "What would you request?" (AF)So I prayed to the G-d of heaven.
5I said to the king, "If it please the king, and if your servant has found favor before you, send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers' tombs, that I may rebuild it."
6Then the king said to me, the queen sitting beside him, "How long will your journey be, and when will you return?" So it pleased the king to send me, and (AG)I gave him a definite time.
7And I said to the king, "If it please the king, let letters be given me (AH)for the governors of the provinces beyond the River, that they may allow me to pass through until I come to Judah,
8and a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king's (AI)forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of (AJ)the fortress which is by the [b]temple, for the wall of the city and for the house to which I will go " And the king granted them to me because (AK)the good hand of my G-d was on me.
9Then I came to (AL)the governors of the provinces beyond the River and gave them the king's letters Now (AM)the king had sent with me officers of the army and horsemen.
10When (AN)Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard about it, it was very displeasing to them that someone had come to seek the welfare of the sons of Israel.
Nehemiah Inspects Jerusalem's Walls 11So I (AO)came to Jerusalem and was there three days.
12And I arose in the night, I and a few men with me. I did not tell anyone what my G-d was putting into my mind to do for Jerusalem and there was no animal with me except the animal on which I was riding.
13So I went out at night by (AP)the Valley Gate in the direction of the Dragon's Well and on to the Refuse Gate, inspecting the walls of Jerusalem (AQ)which were broken down and its (AR)gates which were consumed by fire.
14Then I passed on to (AS)the Fountain Gate and (AT)the King's Pool, but there was no place for my mount to pass.
15So I went up at night by the (AU)ravine and inspected the wall. Then I entered the Valley Gate again and returned.
16The officials did not know where I had gone or what I had done; nor had I as yet told the Jews, the priests, the nobles, the officials or the rest who did the work.
17Then I said to them, "You see the bad situation we are in, that (AV)Jerusalem is desolate and its gates burned by fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem so that we will no longer be a reproach."
So we have the Torah admitting the Messiah will come into Jerusalem around 483 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem's decree from Nehemiah. So given this was about 445 B.C., what happens nearly 483 years later? Yeshua enters Jerusalem. Working from a decree by Cyrus, we arrive around the birth year of Mashiach. So given the Tanakh, we can demonstrate when the Messiah is supposed to arrive.
Now what does the Talmudic tradition declare? "The world will exist six thousand years. Two thousand years of desolation (Adam to Abraham), two thousand years of Torah (Abraham to around the beginning of what we know as the Common Era) and two thousand years of the Messianic era (the last two thousand years or so); but because our iniquities were many, all this has been lost" (i.e., the Messiah did not come at the expected time;) b. Sanhedrin 97 a-b).
So to the Jews, your Messiah according to your own writings was supposed to come around 2000 years ago? What happened 2000 years ago? This guy Yeshua walked amongst us. We need to view this further in context. The famous Jew, Rashi declares that the above passage from the Talmud means because of Israel's sins, the Messiah did not come. In Rashi's own words "After the 2000 years of Torah, it was G-d's decree that the Messiah would come and the wicked kingdom would come to an end and the subjugation of Israel would be destroyed....the Messiah has not come to this very day." Most traditional Jews will follow what Rashi is talking about to 200 C .E. Problematic in this is that this is an error in the Talmudic tradition, because the Second temple stood for approximately 600 years (the 6th year of King Darius's reign (521 B.C., Ezra 5) 515 B.C. to 70 A.D.http://judaism.about.com/library/1_jerusalem/bl_jerusalemhistory2.htm ), instead of the believed 420 years that the Rabbinical Jews believed in. So Rashi's calculations are off. According to the accurate calculations that we have, the Messiah came around the beginningo f the common era.
Now I want to examine this further by looking at Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah declarations from the Talmud. Rabbi Yehoshua declared when the midpoint of the world would be. The Athenian elders argued with Rabbi Yehoshua (this is not the Yeshua of the Brit Hadashah) that "the present should be the midpoint between the two productive eras of the world, the eras of Torah and Mashiach. but obviously he has not come, for you Jews have certainly not been redeemed. We have crushed you and turned you into a nation of ruin, disaster, and despair. The 'midpoint of the world' has manifestly passed by and the Era of Mashiach has not begun. Why, then, do you persist in hoping for his arrival? Why should he come in the future if he did not come at his appointed hour? Is it not clear that the time for his arrival has passed you by forever?" (Sanhedrin 97 a-b).
The Vilna Gaon states that the Athenian elders were unaware of the Talmudic tradition that states "The son of David (the Messiah) will not come until all the government has turned to heresy" (b. Sanhedrin 97a). From page 149 of the Gaon, it explains "When the Elders asked, 'Where is the midpoint of the world?' Rabbi Yehoshua raised his finger and said, "Here!" He was saying that although the Jews had not merited Mashiach's coming by their deeds, nevertheless, the Era of Mashiach had indeed arrived at its appointed time. At 'the midpoint of the world' G-d began turning the wheels of history to insure the ultimate arrival of the scion of David." The purpose further mentioned in the Vilna Gaon states "mankind will realize that the only way to convert himself back into a tru human, a G-d-like being filled with wisdom, love, kindness, and an exalted spirit, is by the acceptance of G-d's dominion. And when G-d demonstrates all of this and man recognizes it, Mashiach will finally come" (p. 150). Thus it further declares from p. 150 "with the advent of the last third of human history; the Era of Mashiach may not be apparent, but it is 'here.'"
Most Jews viewing this who are knowledgeable of their faith will recognize that Rabbi Yehoshua was referring to ropes and measures when asked to prove his point about what he was declaring in regards to what time period we are in. He references 2 Samual 8:2 and Zechariah 13:8-9. "The ropes of King David are the measure of human history. The two-thirds of world history which did not choose to recognize G-d's dominion refused to choose life. But the last third will be directed towards eternal life by a Providence which will lead the Jews step by step to the recognition of G-d. What is the basis of your assertion, asked the Edlers, that "here", in the last third of human history, G-d's mercy is at work and we are in the Era of Mashiach? Answered Rabbi Yehoshua: Remember the ropes of King David and you will learn the ways by which G-d directs his world. They teach us that G-d will never abandon his world, and that ultimately the good for which G-d created it will be realized." (151-152). The Vilna Gaon's interpretation of the Talmudic account states that we are in the age of Mashiach. This was written some 1800 years ago. Now the Vilna Gaon did not believe in Yeshua as the Messiah. So this brings something else up that is very significant. Why did the Orthodox Jewish community reject Yeshua as the Messiah?
Lets take a look further at what the Talmud declares "Why was the first Holy Temple destroyed? Because of three wicked things: idol worship, adultery, and murder. But in the second Temple in which time the Jewish people were occupied studying the Torah and doing good deeds and acts of charity why was it then destroyed? The answer is: It was because of hatred without a cause to teach you, that hate without a cause is equal to these sins and that it is as serious a crime as the three great transgressions of idol worship, adultery, and murder. [Yoma 9]." In the Bible, it states that Yeshua was hated without cause and was rejected. Who do you think this is referring to? Psalms 69:4 warns Israel about doing this "Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head; many are my enemies without cause, those who seek to destroy me. I am forced to restore what I did not steal." And in John 15:25 states "But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'"
So who do you think the Rabbis hated without cause? It was Yeshua ha Mashiach, whom the Christian community has relabelled in light of viewing him as a Roman blonde haired, blue eyed gentleman we have totally a misunderstanding of. This is prophetic though my Jewish brethren! If Yeshua has come in the role of the high priest, lets think about this for a minute. That would make him ben Yosef. The story of Yosef is as followed though. What did his brothers see of this Jew when they viewed him? They saw an Egyptian, and because of this, they were unable to recognize him. So has become of Yeshua Ha Mashiach. We have clothed him as a Roman, and now the Jews are unable to recognize him as the Jew that he is! Yeshua Ha Mashiach is Elohim, the annointed one. He is preexistent just as the rabbis taught the Messiah would be. He has put his Earthly kingdom on hold, but will be returning to the Earth in the form of Ben David as he declares from his partial reading of Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18-19. He only goes through half of verse 2, so Yeshua tells us the role he has come in. A close paying attention of the Brit Hadashah, now commonly known as the New Testament because of the heretic Marcion's separation of Old Testament and New Testament, whom not even the Christians admire (ironic isn't it?) will reveal that in the first 4 books, he has fulfilled the role of High Priest, and did not come in the role of the King of Kings and establish his kingdom on the Earth. We know that he's returning because in Acts 1:6-11 Yeshua and the messenger of the Lord declares " 6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Ruach Hakodesh comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Yeshua, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." Jews want a sign, and here it is! I want to stop here because we see that Yeshua is telling us. Most Christians will read through this and say "Samaria, Gentiles!" No. Samaria was the capital of Israel. It was the burial place of Obadiah, Elisha and Yochanan the Immerser (known to Christians as John the Baptist). It is defined as such here - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=109&letter=S Samaria is mentioned all through the Tanakh as being associated with Israel. Yeshua is telling us to do what here? Go to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles. Christians have not been doing this, and on their behalf and because I once was one, I apologize! I have found the errors of my ways and am trying to help my Christian friends to do the same. Where do we find the role of ben David in the Brit Hadashah?Revelation talks about the role he will fulfill when he arrives a second time to Earth. He will establish his kingdom after the 7th shofar is blown (and we are going to put away the viewpoints of Preterism in a later article!). If paid close attention to, he is riding a white horse. He rode a donkey (another Rabbinical Messianic sign) into Jerusalem the first time. The 2nd time he will be riding in on a white horse on the clouds, which means he will be king of kings and lord of lords. He is not King of Kings and Lord of Lords over all the Earth yet. But my Jewish brethren, you are looking for ben David when looking at Yeshua when you should be seeking the first role that he fulfilled instead. The role of ben David has not been established yet, but it will in the future, and the prophecies given still to the Jews (and only to the Jews) within the Brit Hadashah demonstrate this. Further evidenced is that we have no further way to trace a Messiah since the destruction of the temple. Perhaps G-d did this for a reason? I pray that you will consider Yeshua ha Mashiach as your Messiah. Not Jesus Christ, Yeshua ha Mashiach.
Revelation 22:18, what is it talking about?
I have heard many an objection regarding this scripture. I had a discussion with a Catholic Apologist on this, and he was more than willing to state that when the word used for book is used in Revelation, that it is referring only to the book of Revelation, and nothing more. This interpretation would have made Muhammad and Joseph Smith, and Joseph Fletcher, as well as Jim Jones very pleased. However, when in doubt, go to the Greek. What is Revelation 22:18 saying?
"For I say to every man to whose ears have come the words of this prophet's book, If any man makes an addition to them, God will put on him the punishments which are in this book: And if any man takes away from the words of this book, God will take away from him his part in the tree of life and the holy town, even the things which are in this book." Now at first glance, when we see the words "of this prophet's book" one is quick to incline that this is MERELY referring to John's book, and nothing else. Lets see why this is wrong. What is John referring to? Those who are listening to his book. The problem comes into play when we look at the Greek translation for the word "book" here. Whats the problem? It is plural. Had John wanted to make this specifically to his book of Revelation, the word "Biblos" would have been translated here. A weird turn of events for those who have ever discussed this topic and agree with the former translation. The translation for one of these "books" is βιβλίου. The Greek form of the majority of the texts looks like "Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ,. The Greek form of the Diacritis translation of Revelation 22:18 looks like this "μαρτυρέω ἐγώ πᾶς ὁ ἀκούω ὁ λόγος ὁ προφητεία ὁ βιβλίον οὗτος ἐάν τὶς ἐπιτίθημι ἐπί αὐτός ἐπιτίθημι ἐπί αὐτός ὁ θεός ὁ πληγή ὁ γράφω ἐν ὁ βιβλίον οὗτος" The other book is "βιβλίῳ." Biblio or Bibliou (both translations utilized in this case mean the same thing) refers to a group of books, not a single book. So what group of books does John talk about here? We call it today, the Bible. Even Catholics would not be willing to concede that the Bible is only composed of Revelation (that is complete nonsense). And this is how we know that this would be the final book of the Bible based off of John's writings. It is that simple. He is sealing up the words of the entire Bible here. No one may add to these written words.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 states "
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. So that the man of God may be complete, trained and made ready for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16,17.
"For I say to every man to whose ears have come the words of this prophet's book, If any man makes an addition to them, God will put on him the punishments which are in this book: And if any man takes away from the words of this book, God will take away from him his part in the tree of life and the holy town, even the things which are in this book." Now at first glance, when we see the words "of this prophet's book" one is quick to incline that this is MERELY referring to John's book, and nothing else. Lets see why this is wrong. What is John referring to? Those who are listening to his book. The problem comes into play when we look at the Greek translation for the word "book" here. Whats the problem? It is plural. Had John wanted to make this specifically to his book of Revelation, the word "Biblos" would have been translated here. A weird turn of events for those who have ever discussed this topic and agree with the former translation. The translation for one of these "books" is βιβλίου. The Greek form of the majority of the texts looks like "Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ,. The Greek form of the Diacritis translation of Revelation 22:18 looks like this "μαρτυρέω ἐγώ πᾶς ὁ ἀκούω ὁ λόγος ὁ προφητεία ὁ βιβλίον οὗτος ἐάν τὶς ἐπιτίθημι ἐπί αὐτός ἐπιτίθημι ἐπί αὐτός ὁ θεός ὁ πληγή ὁ γράφω ἐν ὁ βιβλίον οὗτος" The other book is "βιβλίῳ." Biblio or Bibliou (both translations utilized in this case mean the same thing) refers to a group of books, not a single book. So what group of books does John talk about here? We call it today, the Bible. Even Catholics would not be willing to concede that the Bible is only composed of Revelation (that is complete nonsense). And this is how we know that this would be the final book of the Bible based off of John's writings. It is that simple. He is sealing up the words of the entire Bible here. No one may add to these written words.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 states "
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. So that the man of God may be complete, trained and made ready for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16,17.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Does Ephesians 2:11 support the viewpoint that Ephesians 2:15 does away with the Torah following?
I want to first mention that I received this comment in a discussion at Christianforums where i am a regular nondebater :). I do participate in the Apologetics section there, but I refuse to argue or debate. Lets analyze this position. First of all, we need to go to Ephesians 1 to understand where I will be going with this argument. It is here where Paul identifies himself as the writer. It should also be worthy of note that this was written somewhere around later in Paul's ministry, around 60 A.D. This will be important to know given the context of the letter. What does Paul state here? Ephesians 1:15-16 gives us some insight to Paul's relationship with the people he is writing to. "15For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, 16I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers." So what does this tell us of significance? That Saul/Paul has visited this congregation before. So what does Ephesians 2:11 state? 11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men). The argument being made here is that this refers to all Jews because the word circumcision is being utilized here. Now, lets put some pieces together because we are going to have to understand what Paul is teaching all of the congregations he's visiting. Is Paul talking to all Jews when he states this? The answer is clearly no. Lets look at Romans, an earlier writer of Paul's, to demonstrate what he is teaching to the churches. Romans 2:28-29 states " 28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God." In other words, spiritual circumcision is more important than a literal circumcision. This is directed only at his Jewish brethren, this part of the scripture, so Gentiles are not included in this (redundant as this may be to say). Romans 2:17 clearly demonstrates the intended audience "17But if you bear the name "Jew" and (A)rely upon the Law and boast in God." Those of the two house theory, Gentiles need not apply. This tells us some valuable information. Is a Jew circumcised if only done by human hands? The answer is clearly no. What is Paul teaching here? That a man must be circumcised of the heart. Before we jump to the conclusion that Paul is redefining what it means to be circumcised, lets look at the Torah. Deuteronomy 30:4-6 states "4 Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back. 5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. 6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live." So what is being taught? That one must let God circumcise the heart in order for one to be a true and spiritual Jew. A teaching that is taught by Paul in the Brit Hadashah is also a prevaltn teaching in the Torah. So all Paul is doing is reiterating what the Torah states in Romans 2:28-29. Now lets proceed forward from here. We have learned that Paul does not include Jews who are circumcised of the heart when referencing Ephesians 2:11. So who is he referencing? The Jews who were following the halakah/oral tradition. The ones who were not following Torah. What does Ephesians 2:12 state? " 12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, (A)excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to (B)the covenants of promise, having (C)no hope and (D)without God in the world. " So what Paul teaches is that Gentiles were excluded from the covenants of the promise. Why? Because of a dividing wall of enmity. The dividing wall of enmity can't be the covenants of the promise (the Torah, or the promises given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), because these are things Paul wants to be received. I want to also demonstrate two other scriptures that fly in the face of this. What does Paul state in 1 Corinthians 9:21? 21to those who are (A)without law, (B)as without law, though not being without the law of God but (C)under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. English Wycleffe states " 21 to them that were without law, as I were without law, when I was not without [the] law of God, but I was in the law of Christ, to win them that were without law [that I should win them that were without law]." Paul says he is not without the law of God, but rather is under the law of God (we do agree that Yeshua is God right?). His purpose is to try to win those who are without the Torah, by helping them to follow the Torah. Another place we need to look at that and is of interest is Acts 24:14 "14"But this I admit to you, that according to (A)the Way which they call a (B)sect I do serve (C)the God of our fathers, (D)believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets; " Paul is still following the Torah! If Paul does away with the Torah, then why does he keep following it and believing everything that is in accordance with the Torah? No matter which way you slice it, the Ephesians 2:15 abolishment of the Torah is a matter of Christian cherry picking. There is no way in context that Paul EVER says that we should not follow the Torah. As we have even spotted in an earlier chapter, and yes this is a mistake in Strong's dictionary too, the word Nomos is not even mentioned within the Greek context of Ephesians 2:15 (see Tim Hegg, www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Eph%202.14.pdf). Dogma is used instead. So instead of doing what Christians want for Ephesians 2:11, based off of the Roman verses, it actually enhances the definition that we want it to have. That the thing that is being abolished is the halakah that divides the Jew from the Gentile. Just recall in Ephesians 2:14 the word utilized is "
perifrassein" which means "to fence about." One may find the same context within the Talmudic writings "
R. Akiba said, Jesting and levity habituate [a man] to lewdness. [The]
Tradition is a fence to the Law; tithes are a fence to riches; vows are a
fence to abstinence; a fence to wisdom is silence.41 (m.Avot 13.3) The Qumran scrolls also utilize the term "
bonei hacheitz). which means "builders of the wall." So not to the contrary it can be plainly seen that Paul is not telling us that the Torah has been abolished, but rather the fence that has been built around the Torah has been abolished. The context of
"ton nomon twn entolwn en dogmasin" has never ever been utilized to mean the Torah, and this can be evidenced by Genesis 26:5's translation from the LXX. It has always been utilized to mean the Talmud, in the LXX, Josephus and Philo.
Thus we conclude that Ephesians 2:15 abolishment of the Torah is not hurt by Ephesians 2:11, but rather enhances the claim that Paul is making that the Torah does not stand in the way of Gentiles becoming followers of Yeshua.
perifrassein" which means "to fence about." One may find the same context within the Talmudic writings "
R. Akiba said, Jesting and levity habituate [a man] to lewdness. [The]
Tradition is a fence to the Law; tithes are a fence to riches; vows are a
fence to abstinence; a fence to wisdom is silence.41 (m.Avot 13.3) The Qumran scrolls also utilize the term "
bonei hacheitz). which means "builders of the wall." So not to the contrary it can be plainly seen that Paul is not telling us that the Torah has been abolished, but rather the fence that has been built around the Torah has been abolished. The context of
"ton nomon twn entolwn en dogmasin" has never ever been utilized to mean the Torah, and this can be evidenced by Genesis 26:5's translation from the LXX. It has always been utilized to mean the Talmud, in the LXX, Josephus and Philo.
Thus we conclude that Ephesians 2:15 abolishment of the Torah is not hurt by Ephesians 2:11, but rather enhances the claim that Paul is making that the Torah does not stand in the way of Gentiles becoming followers of Yeshua.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)