Great question. And when we observe the Hebrew and Greek.....we can see that it is!
As we have already declared, ANE language scholar Dr. Michael Brown has already confirmed that le'olam means forever.
Here are some places where this word occurs.
Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands.
Leviticus 16:34 "This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites." And it was done, as the LORD commanded Moses.
Exodus 31:16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant.
Leviticus 24:8 6 Set them in two rows, six in each row, on the table of pure gold before the LORD. 7 Along each row put some pure incense as a memorial portion to represent the bread and to be an offering made to the LORD by fire. 8 This bread is to be set out before the LORD regularly, Sabbath after Sabbath, on behalf of the Israelites, as a lasting covenant.
(one might notice that this means leavened bread...not unleavened bread as Christians typically put emphasis on week after week. Though I'm not incredibly opposed to this custom. The "Lord's table" is something different however.)
Numbers 25:13 - "13 He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites."
Exodus 12:17 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.
Also Leviticus 23. I want to dive into more detail on this subject here VERY soon as I have done enough research study to get involved with this. We are going to actually look at the feast days that are mandated by God to follow according to the Bible. Notice I haven't discussed Christmas, Easter, Valetine's Day or St. Patrick's Day just yet...but I will also touch base on those as well. Many will be surprised about their origins.
Leviticus 23 "1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'These are my appointed feasts, the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies.
The Sabbath 3 " 'There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a Sabbath to the LORD.
The Passover and Unleavened Bread 4 " 'These are the LORD's appointed feasts, the sacred assemblies you are to proclaim at their appointed times: 5 The LORD's Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. 6 On the fifteenth day of that month the LORD's Feast of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast. 7 On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. 8 For seven days present an offering made to the LORD by fire. And on the seventh day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work.' "
Firstfruits 9 The LORD said to Moses, 10 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When you enter the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest. 11 He is to wave the sheaf before the LORD so it will be accepted on your behalf; the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath. 12 On the day you wave the sheaf, you must sacrifice as a burnt offering to the LORD a lamb a year old without defect, 13 together with its grain offering of two-tenths of an ephah [a] of fine flour mixed with oil—an offering made to the LORD by fire, a pleasing aroma—and its drink offering of a quarter of a hin [b] of wine. 14 You must not eat any bread, or roasted or new grain, until the very day you bring this offering to your God. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live.
Feast of Weeks 15 " 'From the day after the Sabbath, the day you brought the sheaf of the wave offering, count off seven full weeks. 16 Count off fifty days up to the day after the seventh Sabbath, and then present an offering of new grain to the LORD. 17 From wherever you live, bring two loaves made of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour, baked with yeast, as a wave offering of firstfruits to the LORD. 18 Present with this bread seven male lambs, each a year old and without defect, one young bull and two rams. They will be a burnt offering to the LORD, together with their grain offerings and drink offerings—an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 19 Then sacrifice one male goat for a sin offering and two lambs, each a year old, for a fellowship offering. [c] 20 The priest is to wave the two lambs before the LORD as a wave offering, together with the bread of the firstfruits. They are a sacred offering to the LORD for the priest. 21 On that same day you are to proclaim a sacred assembly and do no regular work. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live.
22 " 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.' "
Feast of Trumpets 23 The LORD said to Moses, 24 "Say to the Israelites: 'On the first day of the seventh month you are to have a day of rest, a sacred assembly commemorated with trumpet blasts. 25 Do no regular work, but present an offering made to the LORD by fire.' "
Day of Atonement 26 The LORD said to Moses, 27 "The tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. Hold a sacred assembly and deny yourselves, [d] and present an offering made to the LORD by fire. 28 Do no work on that day, because it is the Day of Atonement, when atonement is made for you before the LORD your God. 29 Anyone who does not deny himself on that day must be cut off from his people. 30 I will destroy from among his people anyone who does any work on that day. 31 You shall do no work at all. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live. 32 It is a sabbath of rest for you, and you must deny yourselves. From the evening of the ninth day of the month until the following evening you are to observe your sabbath."
Feast of Tabernacles 33 The LORD said to Moses, 34 "Say to the Israelites: 'On the fifteenth day of the seventh month the LORD's Feast of Tabernacles begins, and it lasts for seven days. 35 The first day is a sacred assembly; do no regular work. 36 For seven days present offerings made to the LORD by fire, and on the eighth day hold a sacred assembly and present an offering made to the LORD by fire. It is the closing assembly; do no regular work.
37 (" 'These are the LORD's appointed feasts, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies for bringing offerings made to the LORD by fire—the burnt offerings and grain offerings, sacrifices and drink offerings required for each day. 38 These offerings are in addition to those for the LORD's Sabbaths and [e] in addition to your gifts and whatever you have vowed and all the freewill offerings you give to the LORD.)
39 " 'So beginning with the fifteenth day of the seventh month, after you have gathered the crops of the land, celebrate the festival to the LORD for seven days; the first day is a day of rest, and the eighth day also is a day of rest. 40 On the first day you are to take choice fruit from the trees, and palm fronds, leafy branches and poplars, and rejoice before the LORD your God for seven days. 41 Celebrate this as a festival to the LORD for seven days each year. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come; celebrate it in the seventh month. 42 Live in booths for seven days: All native-born Israelites are to live in booths 43 so your descendants will know that I had the Israelites live in booths when I brought them out of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.' "
44 So Moses announced to the Israelites the appointed feasts of the LORD.
We will discuss the Jewish calendar. So far according to the Biblical feasts, Yeshua has fulfilled all but the Festival of Tabernacles, Yom Kippur and the Festival of Trumpets. All of the festivals will be completed in sequential order. The Gentiles will one day all go up to celebrate the final culminating event, in the Festival of Tabernacles. Zechariah 14;16 "Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles." Its a wedding ceremony, but we'll discuss this later so that it makes sense. The presumption that I was brought up to believe was that we would go up to celebrate Easter partaking from the Lord's table. I'm sure this sounds familiar. The problem is that this is not mentioned in scripture. YIKES!
And also thanks to the Jewish calendar, we know when Yeshua was born. It correlates to the 1st of Nisan, but on a Graeco Roman Calendar, the exact date is March 20, 6 B.C. Even the early church father Hippolytus agrees with this (which absolutely floored me when I learned of how we came to this date).
Yeshua says that in order for the Torah to pass, heaven and earth must pass away. And this has not happened yet. It has never happened in the history of mankind. But not one yud or stroke shall disappear until that time.
More specifically, since Yeshua is God, his words will NEVER pass away. But we can understand that given the context of John 1:1, our Yeshua is the living Torah. We need to get used to living like this when we live in the new Jerusalem. Let us not forget Ephesians 2:12-13 "12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ." And Ephesians 2:19-20 again confirms " 19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." But this comes directly from the Torah...Numbers 15:13-16. Yeshua commands this holy living of us...iow God.
Proverbs 30:5-6 ""Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6"
EVERY WORD is pure.
"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." Deuteronomy 12:32
"You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2
"...if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ." Galatians 1:9-10
"If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18-19 (we already went over how the terminology refers to the entire Bible here in a previous article).
"This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. Have I not commanded you? Be strong and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go" Joshua 1:8-9
“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words...." John 14:23-24
"Because they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts, And despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.Therefore the anger of the Lord is aroused against His people; He has stretched out His hand against them and stricken them." Isaiah 5:24-25
2 Kings 17 declares "33 They worshiped the LORD, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought.
34 To this day they persist in their former practices. They neither worship the LORD nor adhere to the decrees and ordinances, the laws and commands that the LORD gave the descendants of Jacob, whom he named Israel. 35 When the LORD made a covenant with the Israelites, he commanded them: "Do not worship any other gods or bow down to them, serve them or sacrifice to them. 36 But the LORD, who brought you up out of Egypt with mighty power and outstretched arm, is the one you must worship. To him you shall bow down and to him offer sacrifices. 37 You must always be careful to keep the decrees and ordinances, the laws and commands he wrote for you. Do not worship other gods. 38 Do not forget the covenant I have made with you, and do not worship other gods. 39 Rather, worship the LORD your God; it is he who will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies."
(We're going to talk more about this chapter at a later date. Believe me, this will come up when we're talking about Christmas and Easter.)
If God departs from one of these claims..he no longer exists as God. For God is immutable. He is unchanging.
Hebrews 6:17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath.18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.'
God has an unchanging nature of purpose, and he can not lie. That is what we learn from the context of Hebrews 6.
2 Timothy 3:16 "16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"
Psalm 105:8 "He remembers his covenant forever, the word he commanded, for a thousand generations,"
Romans 11:28-29 "28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.
Ecclestiastes 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth [it], that [men] should fear before him.
So we have arrived to the answer of the question. Does the Bible declare the Torah is forever? You bet it does. These are words that we need to pay close attention to. Not only is the Torah forever, but the entire Bible is forever. Anything that deviates from this is not God-breathed, because God is not a liar. Its really as simple as that.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
The grace message: I'm not under the law
Okay, first of all, I want to make it perfectly clear what my intentions are to do in this article. What I'm going to do is present an article from the position of a Christian, and demonstrate where the argument ends up. What I am not trying to do is offend Christians. Christians, though I believe, well intentioned, have some issues within their theology. Nevertheless, it is not the fault of the doctrine, but rather the framework. It is not entirely a Christians' fault today that hellenization drives American culture. We shall look at this through a viewpoint that is honest and fair though, through the lenses of my former Christian position.
Let me begin. Most of the time, when I converse with Christians in the area of Apologetics, I often hear people go directly to the writings of Paul when discussing the Torah. (I know I have hammered this point to death, but for the sake of what I'm trying to explain, this is necessary to understand). The only person, and I"ll repeat this again, who is alleged by Christians to declare that we are not under the Torah any longer is Paul, the apostle Saul. It never fails that when I get on this subject his name is the ONLY one who pops up. We hear the dogmatic claims all the time. "Christ nailed half the Bible to the cross." But whom do they draw this based off of? Only Paul.
Well, lets interpret the Torah from the framework of Christians. To any Ebionites readers who might stumble upon this article, you should read my previous arguments on Paul. Readers of the blog should be familiar on my position by now. But I want to look at it through the dogmatic hyperliteral framework of what a Christian sees.
First of all, most Christians don't even observe what Paul talks about with the Torah. Usually they site Romans 6:14 "14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace." Or they might look to Galatians 2:21 "21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"[a]
I mention these two verses first because from two Christian theologians, doctorates at that, have these two verses been mentioned to refute the Torah. But again, we're looking at an English interpretation. We're going to see some problems when looking at purely the English here.
Lets read further what Paul writes. Romans 7:7 "7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[a]" We can obviously tell that Paul that the Torah is not sin based off of this writing. This brings a problem when looking at the interpretation of Galatians 2:21 in the English context because the Torah does not provide righteousness anymore according to the grace message interpretation. But if thats the case, the only thing the Torah can provide is sin. But if the Torah is not sin, it must be something else. Well, Paul describes in Romans 7:12 "12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good." Now we cut to our first contradiction within the given context. The law is now described as righteous, but then not righteous.
This has led Christian theologians to a correct interpretation of scripture. That the context of "under the law" and "works of the law" must be referring to some other law. Some who have done their homework will declare rightfully so that this is discussing the Talmud. So what do Christians turn to as their saving grace when this happens. Have no fear, we have Ephesians 2:15 "15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace." A little cherry picking and we have resolved the problem of contradiction within scripture. Now I mention this because I have Christian Apologist minister friends who direct me to this verse when they are done talking about the context of the other scriptures. But theres a little problem with this. Let me lay out the framework. Romans 3:31 states "31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." The most thorough argument I read from a Christian resource failed to actually do this though when pointing out Ephesians 2:15 to me. According to Paul, we have to go back and uphold the law. Alright, so lets see what the law says before jumping to the conclusion that Ephesians 2:15 in any way can contradict the scriptures. What does the Torah do for us that is very valuable in determining who to listen to or not? It identifies who a messenger of God is. Basically, by his own admission, we including himself, must uphold the Torah to be declared a messenger of God. This is defined in Deuteronomy 13. "1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 None of those condemned things [b] shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, 18 because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes." If Paul by his own admission is telling us that we are not required to obey the mitzvahs of the Lord our God...the simple conclusion can be reached that he is not a messenger of God. According to Apologists and Theologians from a hellenized Christian perspective, thats what is being declared. Remember when I said in a previous article its an all or nothing? Here is what I mean. Either Paul contradicts himself, or Paul teaches the Torah. When we go back to the Greek, we find it is the latter. FYI, when Christians preach this message to a Messianic Jew, the best their going to get from them is a convert to Ebionite, meaning a rejection of the writings of Paul. The ironic thing is that I don't know a single Christian who wants this to happen. But its as simple as that, its not an either/or fallacy. We reach the conclusion based on this information that Hellenized Christians do not understand Paul's writings (2 Peter 3:15-18). One must re-examine this, and preach this correctly to Jews if they are ever going to accept the message of their Jewish Messiah. We are therefore both under grace....but we are also under the Torah. Most often from Christian we hear about freedom in Christ. YES! We have freedom in Christ. Most people don't appreciate Ya'akov 2:12 (better unfortunately known as James 2:12) which states "12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom." The Torah gives freedom. Imagine that. We are free to follow the Torah because of Yeshua's sacrifice......have we ever thought of that? Indeed that is the whole point. And the thing abolished, the only thing abolished was the death penalty by Yeshua, and the need for an earthly high priest. Why was this? Specifically, the point being made in Hebrews is since we don't need an earthly high priest, it necessarily follows that the judging will now be done by Yeshua. The death penalty is now operated by Yeshua. For those who choose to follow and be obedient to him, though we will still be judged according to what we do, and for those who accept the ultimate sin sacrifice of Yeshua and do not act in active rebellion (because this is the one thing that there has never been a sin sacrifice for), we will be in the clear. For those who continue to live in active rebellion of God's word, you will be punished severely. It runs as simple as this. So the death penalty...is kind of in effect, and kind of not. It will be instituted when Yeshua returns to Earth. There is no way that one can arrive to the conclusion that the Torah is no longer in effect nor the Old Covenant (the term utilized is "Renewed" Covenant according to the Bible). It has not been diminished in its power. It just needs to be better understood. The best way to explain the Bible is that grace existed during the time of the Tanakh (God as I have stated in previous articles, forgave the people according to the Torah, their sins when they provided sacrifices and acknowledged their sins), and it still exists today. Hence I have no problem co-oping Grace and Torah. And to those who think following the Torah is difficult, lets remember Deuteronomy 30:11-14 " 11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 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." So it was then, and so it is even moreso today. All we have to do is study God's word and learn how to obey it.
What I really think is amazing is how we have arrived to this point of view about Paul without even acknowledging Matthew 5:17-18. The Torah hasn't been completely fulfilled yet, yet another problem for hellenism.
Let me begin. Most of the time, when I converse with Christians in the area of Apologetics, I often hear people go directly to the writings of Paul when discussing the Torah. (I know I have hammered this point to death, but for the sake of what I'm trying to explain, this is necessary to understand). The only person, and I"ll repeat this again, who is alleged by Christians to declare that we are not under the Torah any longer is Paul, the apostle Saul. It never fails that when I get on this subject his name is the ONLY one who pops up. We hear the dogmatic claims all the time. "Christ nailed half the Bible to the cross." But whom do they draw this based off of? Only Paul.
Well, lets interpret the Torah from the framework of Christians. To any Ebionites readers who might stumble upon this article, you should read my previous arguments on Paul. Readers of the blog should be familiar on my position by now. But I want to look at it through the dogmatic hyperliteral framework of what a Christian sees.
First of all, most Christians don't even observe what Paul talks about with the Torah. Usually they site Romans 6:14 "14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace." Or they might look to Galatians 2:21 "21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"[a]
I mention these two verses first because from two Christian theologians, doctorates at that, have these two verses been mentioned to refute the Torah. But again, we're looking at an English interpretation. We're going to see some problems when looking at purely the English here.
Lets read further what Paul writes. Romans 7:7 "7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[a]" We can obviously tell that Paul that the Torah is not sin based off of this writing. This brings a problem when looking at the interpretation of Galatians 2:21 in the English context because the Torah does not provide righteousness anymore according to the grace message interpretation. But if thats the case, the only thing the Torah can provide is sin. But if the Torah is not sin, it must be something else. Well, Paul describes in Romans 7:12 "12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good." Now we cut to our first contradiction within the given context. The law is now described as righteous, but then not righteous.
This has led Christian theologians to a correct interpretation of scripture. That the context of "under the law" and "works of the law" must be referring to some other law. Some who have done their homework will declare rightfully so that this is discussing the Talmud. So what do Christians turn to as their saving grace when this happens. Have no fear, we have Ephesians 2:15 "15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace." A little cherry picking and we have resolved the problem of contradiction within scripture. Now I mention this because I have Christian Apologist minister friends who direct me to this verse when they are done talking about the context of the other scriptures. But theres a little problem with this. Let me lay out the framework. Romans 3:31 states "31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." The most thorough argument I read from a Christian resource failed to actually do this though when pointing out Ephesians 2:15 to me. According to Paul, we have to go back and uphold the law. Alright, so lets see what the law says before jumping to the conclusion that Ephesians 2:15 in any way can contradict the scriptures. What does the Torah do for us that is very valuable in determining who to listen to or not? It identifies who a messenger of God is. Basically, by his own admission, we including himself, must uphold the Torah to be declared a messenger of God. This is defined in Deuteronomy 13. "1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 None of those condemned things [b] shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, 18 because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes." If Paul by his own admission is telling us that we are not required to obey the mitzvahs of the Lord our God...the simple conclusion can be reached that he is not a messenger of God. According to Apologists and Theologians from a hellenized Christian perspective, thats what is being declared. Remember when I said in a previous article its an all or nothing? Here is what I mean. Either Paul contradicts himself, or Paul teaches the Torah. When we go back to the Greek, we find it is the latter. FYI, when Christians preach this message to a Messianic Jew, the best their going to get from them is a convert to Ebionite, meaning a rejection of the writings of Paul. The ironic thing is that I don't know a single Christian who wants this to happen. But its as simple as that, its not an either/or fallacy. We reach the conclusion based on this information that Hellenized Christians do not understand Paul's writings (2 Peter 3:15-18). One must re-examine this, and preach this correctly to Jews if they are ever going to accept the message of their Jewish Messiah. We are therefore both under grace....but we are also under the Torah. Most often from Christian we hear about freedom in Christ. YES! We have freedom in Christ. Most people don't appreciate Ya'akov 2:12 (better unfortunately known as James 2:12) which states "12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom." The Torah gives freedom. Imagine that. We are free to follow the Torah because of Yeshua's sacrifice......have we ever thought of that? Indeed that is the whole point. And the thing abolished, the only thing abolished was the death penalty by Yeshua, and the need for an earthly high priest. Why was this? Specifically, the point being made in Hebrews is since we don't need an earthly high priest, it necessarily follows that the judging will now be done by Yeshua. The death penalty is now operated by Yeshua. For those who choose to follow and be obedient to him, though we will still be judged according to what we do, and for those who accept the ultimate sin sacrifice of Yeshua and do not act in active rebellion (because this is the one thing that there has never been a sin sacrifice for), we will be in the clear. For those who continue to live in active rebellion of God's word, you will be punished severely. It runs as simple as this. So the death penalty...is kind of in effect, and kind of not. It will be instituted when Yeshua returns to Earth. There is no way that one can arrive to the conclusion that the Torah is no longer in effect nor the Old Covenant (the term utilized is "Renewed" Covenant according to the Bible). It has not been diminished in its power. It just needs to be better understood. The best way to explain the Bible is that grace existed during the time of the Tanakh (God as I have stated in previous articles, forgave the people according to the Torah, their sins when they provided sacrifices and acknowledged their sins), and it still exists today. Hence I have no problem co-oping Grace and Torah. And to those who think following the Torah is difficult, lets remember Deuteronomy 30:11-14 " 11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 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." So it was then, and so it is even moreso today. All we have to do is study God's word and learn how to obey it.
What I really think is amazing is how we have arrived to this point of view about Paul without even acknowledging Matthew 5:17-18. The Torah hasn't been completely fulfilled yet, yet another problem for hellenism.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
What Does Paul Mean when he says "Under the Law" and "Works of the Law" pt. 2
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)