Determining the Dates for Easter and Passover

[Paradigm]

34 minutes ago, Joline said:

Hello Keith? I did not realize it was you in those recordings. Nice to meet you. As for Easter, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

When I spoke of the issue of heirs, as only born and firstborn. When I opened your link I seen a list of teaching tapes. Each one having a particular focus.

The names of those tapes in the order I seen them are

Vayakhel

terumah

beshalach

Bo

vayechi

vayeshev

vayeitzei

beresheet

vayelech

kitavo

It is the fourth tape on the list, I am speaking of.

If you would like I could try and listen again to find the minute marks for the comments I am speaking about?

 

Hi. Yes, I'm Keith. Sorry, you through me when you mentioned a video on "Bo" because mostly we just have audios. That helps to clear things us some, so I'll know more of what you are referring to. 

 

I'm a little behind on uploading audios, but hopefully we will have some new ones up soon. Thanks for clarifying and also for listening. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Paradigm said:

 

Hi. Yes, I'm Keith. Sorry, you through me when you mentioned a video on "Bo" because mostly we just have audios. That helps to clear things us some, so I'll know more of what you are referring to. 

 

I'm a little behind on uploading audios, but hopefully we will have some new ones up soon. Thanks for clarifying and also for listening. 

Sorry about the video comment. I can see how that would confuse you.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Paradigm said:

Hi Joline,

Believe it or not, I normally am not easily confused, but again I am not understanding what you are referring to. I don't know of a video on the portion "Bo" that I have available. I have audios that discuss that portion. Did you listen to an audio of me discussing "Bo?" I'm trying to understand what your posts are responding to. Are you just telling me about a video that you watched of someone else and thought I might be interested? 

Once I understand the answers to those questions, hopefully I'll better understand your basis and the relevance of your posts.

Regarding some of what you have written, in the last couple of posts. 

Exodus 12:12-14 

¹² For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

¹³ And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

¹⁴ And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

 

²⁴ And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.

²⁵ And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the Lordwill give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.

²⁶ And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service?

²⁷ That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.

Easter is not Passover. 

Regarding firstborn status, as important as this is, the natural firstborn is not the one that ultimately inherits, but the spiritual. For as we read, the natural is first, then the spiritual. Here are some examples: 

Cain/Abel

Ishmael/Isaac

Esau/Jacob

Reuben/Joseph

Manasseh/Ephraim

 

 

What you still do not understand is Isaac is not as a firstborn, natural or spiritual. He has a higher status as an heir. He is an only born........................SOLE HEIR. He does not have a double portion only. He has the whole inheritance. If he were firstborn, then Ismael would have an inheritance with him.

[Paradigm]

7 hours ago, Joline said:

What you still do not understand is Isaac is not as a firstborn, natural or spiritual. He has a higher status as an heir. He is an only born........................SOLE HEIR. He does not have a double portion only. He has the whole inheritance. If he were firstborn, then Ismael would have an inheritance with him.

I think that to an extent we see both pictures with Isaac. 

 

Genesis 17:19-20 

¹⁹ And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

²⁰ And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

 

Genesis 21:10-13

¹⁰ Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. ¹¹ And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son. ¹² And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

¹³ And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.

 

Genesis 25:1-6 

Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. ² And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. ³ And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim. ⁴ And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abidah, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah. ⁵ And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. ⁶ But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Paradigm said:

I think that to an extent we see both pictures with Isaac. 

 

Genesis 17:19-20 

¹⁹ And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

²⁰ And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

 

Genesis 21:10-13

¹⁰ Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. ¹¹ And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son. ¹² And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

¹³ And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.

 

Genesis 25:1-6 

Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. ² And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. ³ And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim. ⁴ And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abidah, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah. ⁵ And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. ⁶ But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

 

But You are talking about an heir .............................

Ge 15:4  And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

Scripture speaks of Isaac as a sole heir. Abraham gave gifts to all the sons of  the concubines, while he yet lived. The book of Hebrews confirms these are not counted as heirs

Heb 9:16  For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. {be: or, be brought in }
Heb 9:17  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

 

Gal 4:22  For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23  But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24  Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. {covenants: or, testaments } {Sinai: Gr. Sina }
25  For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. {answereth to: or, is in the same rank with }
26  But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
 

[Guest]

from before thee

On ‎4‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 8:41 AM, Paradigm said:

On ‎4‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 8:41 AM, Paradigm said:

Yes, the feasts which are God's were given to Israel. However, if you will notice in several passages it mentions both "home born and the stranger among you." You may have not seen the other scriptures that I quoted that refers to "all nations" keeping the Feast of Tabernacles or "all flesh" keeping the new moons and the Sabbath. You might want to also look at the Hebrews passage that I quoted above regarding the Sabbath as well as Isaiah that mentions the "stranger."

So yes the promises and covenants were to Israel. There has not been a covenant made specifically with the Gentiles. However Gentiles can be part of these things and are invited to be grafted in. (Rom 11)

Ephesians 2:11-13  Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;¹² That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:¹³ But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Even the brit chadesha (renewed covenant) was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. 

Hebrews 8:8  For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

What is this covenant?

⁹ Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

¹⁰ For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

¹¹ And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

So we see that the new covenant was made with Israel and Judah. A big aspect of this covenant is that now the Torot (laws) are written within as well. 

We see also this from Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 36:24-27 ²⁴ For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. ²⁵ Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.²⁶ A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.²⁷ And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

This covenant with Israel creates a renewed heart so that they will keep the "chukim" statutes and "mishpatim "judgements."

We must also understand that the concept that most have of the word "church" is not in line with scripture. The English word "church" in the NT is "ecclessia." This corresponds directly to the Hebrew word "kahal" that is found throughout the Tanakh (OT). We do even see in the English the "church" at Mount Sinai. 

 

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

That being said, even in the first century, most of the early followers of Y'shua were Jews and others from the tribes. The leadership positions were Jewish for a while and then as far as I know there was never another Jewish Bishop or other leaders. Especially once things were moved to Rome which didn't take long. After this, it was predominantly a Gentile populace and began to look very different quickly. 

It is also important to understand that the term "Jew" did not develop until much later. It was not the "Jews" who came out of Egypt, but Israel which included "Judah." Later the kingdom of Israel (10 northern tribes) split from the kingdom of Judah. Within the kingdom of Judah was mainly Judah, Benjamin and some Levites. 

All of the tribes, especially the 10 northern ones were scattered throughout the earth. Though many have lost their identity, those who put their trust in YHVH will be gathered one by one. 

So yes the promises and covenants were to Israel. There has not been a covenant made specifically with the Gentiles. However Gentiles can be part of these things and are invited to be grafted in. (Rom 11)

Ephesians 2:11-13  Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;¹² That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:¹³ But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

 

I disagree. It is probably due to how you read the law vs how I do, from Paul? Again the idea of covenant as a will and testament, to heirs...is focus IMO. The new testament concerns the Heirs promised to Abraham. the promise to be made a father to many nations

 

But here is my take. The law of faith, is distinct from the law of works.

 

Ro 3:27  Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Ga 3:12  And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Hebrews 11:7  By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

 

Why does Paul say the law is not of faith? Why they sought by their own righteousness, law which was added because of sin (faithlessness) ETC.

Read the law which Paul is speaking about. Which also were for shadows and patterns of entering into an inheritance

1. Israels righteousness by the law of Moses.

De 6:25  And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

2.  God's righteousness to keep the promise made to Abraham. God performs (works) this

De 9:4  Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee.

De 9:5  Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
De 9:6  Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people.
 

3. the law is not of faith, but works........... Faith is made void

De 7:12  Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

4. Prophetic utterance of the law........................Failure of their own righteousness which is by the works of the law to attain (be heirs of the covenant promises to their fathers.

 

 

De 31:16  And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them. {sleep: Heb. lie down }
De 31:20  For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant.
21  And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware. {against: Heb. before } {go…: Heb. do }
 

5. Not even the king prophesied by law comes to a good end. The Davidic covenant made with David due to this void in the mosaic covenant. But none the less, was also subject to it in the world and flesh

De 28:36  The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.
 

So, it is no wonder a new covenant was needed for Israel and Judah. For the law is not of faith, but for the faithless. The Abrahamic promises concern God's righteousness to keep the word to Abraham the father of us all

5. Why did the Rabbis of 1st century interpret the prophets apart from and contrary to these prophetic utterances of God himself to Moses?

Ro 3:22  Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Ro 9:30  What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

We are all counted as seed of Abraham in Christ. For it is a work of God, because it concerns God's faithfulness and his work of performing his promises. That is the faith we as heirs have our hope in Christ. It is not of ourselves.

[Paradigm]

2 hours ago, Joline said:

I disagree.

Hi Joline,

You began your post by stating that you disagree. Like I said before, so that I am clear on precisely what you are disagreeing with it would be helpful if you tell me.

For example:

Paradigm said a,b & c and I disagree because of x, y & z. 

Most of my post was scripture. We do have to remember that there are things in Paul's epistles that are difficult to understand and those who are unlearned and unstable twist his writings to their own destruction as Peter said. 

2 Peter 3:15-17

¹⁵ And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; ¹⁶ As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

¹⁷ Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

 

If people are unlearned in the Tanakh,(OT) which was the only scripture canonized in the 1st Century, they can be lead away into the error of (athesmos) wickedness/lawlessness. 

Paul said that there was but "one faith." The "one faith" that he spoke of established the Torah, rather than making it void. For the Torah is holy and good as Paul said. 

There was confusion even in the 1st Century regarding what Paul was teaching. In Acts 21 everyone was excited that there were thousands of Jews that believed and they were all zealous for the Torah. However, they were hearing rumors about Paul that were disturbing. In order to put the issue to rest once and for all, Paul took a Nazarite vow along with four others including sacrifices to show that people had misinformed regarding Paul and that the charges were "nothing." Paul's actions would prove to everyone that he kept the Torah and walked orderly despite what some misinformed people thought. 

We can't begin with a premise and use only Paul to establish it. Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees and blameless concerning the Torah. He said that we should follow him as he followed the Messiah. Paul kept Sabbath, Feasts, etc. Paul did not eat pork and keep pagan festivals. 

In order for the common view of Paul to be correct, it would mean that most of the scriptures would have to be wrong. We would have to rip out most of our Bible to make the modern interpretation fit. However, a proper interpretation is able to reconcile all of the scripture with Paul.

If one cannot make their case without using Paul's words, it should be a sign of a major problem of interpretation. Y'shua said that man should live by every word that proceeded from the mouth of God. Is the Torah part of God's Word? If Paul's words don't square with that, there is a problem. Y'shua said that until heaven and earth passed away the smallest letter of the Torah would not pass away. Consider the immense volume of the scriptures both old and new we would have to dismiss in order to establish the doctrine that Paul taught against following the Torah. 

We have to take off the modern 21st century denominational filters and try to see the entirety of the scriptures in their cultural context. We can't just pick and choose what words from Paul we like and ignore the rest of his words and the rest of the scriptures. We can't just define words and concepts however we want. 

How does the NT define sin for example? Does the NT not define sin as the transgression of the Torah? Does not Paul say that true faith establishes the Torah? If there is no law, sin is not imputed to man. Therefore, there would be no need for grace. Grace is only only needed if there is a standard of righteousness. 

Why is it that YHVH would bless Isaac and perform the oath that He swore unto Abraham? Because Abraham obeyed His voice, kept His charge, mitzvot, (commandments) chukim (statutes)  and torot. (laws)

Genesis 26:1-5

26 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.

² And the Lord appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:

³ Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;

⁴ And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

⁵ Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

We should also consider what James said regarding Abraham: Does what James's says harmonize with the way most interpret Paul?

James 2:21-24

²⁰ But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

²¹ Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

²² Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

²³ And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

²⁴ Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

 

If you decide to respond and disagree with a point or points that I have made, please be clear and specific by saying exactly what statement or verse that I have quoted that you disagree with. 

 

Acts 24:14

But this I (Paul) confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Paradigm said:

Hi Joline,

You began your post by stating that you disagree. Like I said before, so that I am clear on precisely what you are disagreeing with it would be helpful if you tell me.

For example:

Paradigm said a,b & c and I disagree because of x, y & z. 

Most of my post was scripture. We do have to remember that there are things in Paul's epistles that are difficult to understand and those who are unlearned and unstable twist his writings to their own destruction as Peter said. 

2 Peter 3:15-17

¹⁵ And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; ¹⁶ As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

¹⁷ Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

 

If people are unlearned in the Tanakh,(OT) which was the only scripture canonized in the 1st Century, they can be lead away into the error of (athesmos) wickedness/lawlessness. 

Paul said that there was but "one faith." The "one faith" that he spoke of established the Torah, rather than making it void. For the Torah is holy and good as Paul said. 

There was confusion even in the 1st Century regarding what Paul was teaching. In Acts 21 everyone was excited that there were thousands of Jews that believed and they were all zealous for the Torah. However, they were hearing rumors about Paul that were disturbing. In order to put the issue to rest once and for all, Paul took a Nazarite vow along with four others including sacrifices to show that people had misinformed regarding Paul and that the charges were "nothing." Paul's actions would prove to everyone that he kept the Torah and walked orderly despite what some misinformed people thought. 

We can't begin with a premise and use only Paul to establish it. Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees and blameless concerning the Torah. He said that we should follow him as he followed the Messiah. Paul kept Sabbath, Feasts, etc. Paul did not eat pork and keep pagan festivals. 

In order for the common view of Paul to be correct, it would mean that most of the scriptures would have to be wrong. We would have to rip out most of our Bible to make the modern interpretation fit. However, a proper interpretation is able to reconcile all of the scripture with Paul.

If one cannot make their case without using Paul's words, it should be a sign of a major problem of interpretation. Y'shua said that man should live by every word that proceeded from the mouth of God. Is the Torah part of God's Word? If Paul's words don't square with that, there is a problem. Y'shua said that until heaven and earth passed away the smallest letter of the Torah would not pass away. Consider the immense volume of the scriptures both old and new we would have to dismiss in order to establish the doctrine that Paul taught against following the Torah. 

We have to take off the modern 21st century denominational filters and try to see the entirety of the scriptures in their cultural context. We can't just pick and choose what words from Paul we like and ignore the rest of his words and the rest of the scriptures. We can't just define words and concepts however we want. 

How does the NT define sin for example? Does the NT not define sin as the transgression of the Torah? Does not Paul say that true faith establishes the Torah? If there is no law, sin is not imputed to man. Therefore, there would be no need for grace. Grace is only only needed if there is a standard of righteousness. 

Why is it that YHVH would bless Isaac and perform the oath that He swore unto Abraham? Because Abraham obeyed His voice, kept His charge, mitzvot, (commandments) chukim (statutes)  and torot. (laws)

Genesis 26:1-5

26 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.

² And the Lord appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:

³ Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;

⁴ And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

⁵ Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

We should also consider what James said regarding Abraham: Does what James's says harmonize with the way most interpret Paul?

James 2:21-24

²⁰ But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

²¹ Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

²² Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

²³ And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

²⁴ Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

 

If you decide to respond and disagree with a point or points that I have made, please be clear and specific by saying exactly what statement or verse that I have quoted that you disagree with. 

 

Acts 24:14

But this I (Paul) confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

 

Hello Paradigm,

Do you mind if I address you as keith? I have a hard time remembering how to spell paradigm. I scroll up to see, but by the time I get to responding I am not sure I remembered it right, LOL. Getting old here.

I also with I knew how to make breaks in a post, to respond to specific points in the post. It makes it so much easier to address things more clearly. But I appreciate your willingness to keep dialogue with me here.

First, I don't think we are seeing eye to eye on the law, in various ways. I can give you scripture for these things if you like.

Whole law = the first five book of Moses, as instruction. Even in the sense of instruction, some is in the form of allegory.

Moses law = additional law given to the nations of Israel only. This law RETAINS law which was previous law.

Therefore I believe scripture speaks of whole law to Jew's (the circumcision) as added or additional law, which also included law which was prior. Not exclusive to Israel.

 

Within the WHOLE LAW There are several covenants.

I therefore distinguish the Abrahamic covenant as promises made which were before and distinct from the Mosaic covenant. This is where I think you perhaps differ? Or are not understanding in my points. There were two covenants made in Genesis. One in Genesis 15, the other in Genesis 17.

There is the covenant made in Exodus through Moses.

So, my post was speaking in those terms. As I believe Paul speaks in those terms, as did all the apostles. That is why there is so much in your above posts concerning the Abrahamic covenant.

Now I am gonna guess here. It seems you do not distinguish these covenants distinctly and clearly. Like you are bulking them all together into the Mosaic covenant? Or how do you see them?

As for not understanding Pauls letters, LOL, I disagree with the understanding of that passage given historically, which you appear to agree with the historical acceptance of that passage.

Consider again the passage.

Peter here begins by saying he is writing them a second time, which things concerning things future. What is yet to come. PRPHECY, and their teachings concerning that SUBJECT.

2 Peter 3:1  This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2  That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3   Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4  And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
 

8   But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9   The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10  But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11  Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
 

Peter is clearly Reminding them of what was already taught to them by the Apostles concerning the day of the Lord and his coming, as they preached out of the scroll (book) of the prophets.

14  Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

Now notice what he says about Paul.
15  And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
 

Peter has already said the letter was to once again remind them of what had already been commanded by US APOSTLES. In speaking on things concerning prophecy of the day of the lord, Paul had also written to them the same thing ( again peter is reminding them of what had already been taught)

Now look at the next verse

16  As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

notice the italics are not in the original text. This is not saying All Pauls letters are hard to understand. It is saying the subject matter of the day of the Lord according to the Prophets are difficult to understand. And all epistles which teach on the prophets are difficult to understand. Which unstable men will distort just like the do the rest of the scripture.

So can we get on the same page in these things?

Again, I appreciate your response.

[Paradigm]

1 hour ago, Joline said:

Hello Paradigm,

Do you mind if I address you as keith? I have a hard time remembering how to spell paradigm. I scroll up to see, but by the time I get to responding I am not sure I remembered it right, LOL. Getting old here.

Hi Joline,

Yes, feel free to call me Keith. I understand about getting old too. It has become more difficult to read the small writing on ingredients and directions.

If you want to just quote a sentence or paragraph, you can just click on the left side of  your mouse and highlight whatever you want to quote. Then there should appear a small window that says "quote this." Just click on that menu. Took me a while to figure that out. 

Thanks for explaining more in your last post. I found it much more clear and understood better the points that you were trying to make. 

Regarding the 2 Peter passage, while I agree with some of what you stated there, when we look at that whole section it is not just talking about prophecy. The passage explains that a misunderstanding of the difficult things in Paul's epistles can lead to wickedness/lawlessness. That is not merely a lack of understanding regarding prophecy, but living life in a way that is in error based upon a misunderstanding of the difficult things in Paul's epistles.

2 Peter 3:15-17

¹⁵ And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; ¹⁶ As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. ¹⁷ Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Yes, there have been covenants and expansion of them from the beginning. The points that I made still stand. Not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the Torah until heaven and earth pass. Who ever breaks one of the least commandments and teaches others will be least in the kingdom, but whosoever keeps and teaches them shall be great in the kingdom. 

We cannot interpret Paul in a way that contradicts many of his pro-law statements and his own personal actions. Neither can we interpret him in a way that contradicts Y'shua, the other writers of the NT or the Tanakh. YHVH changes not. His Word endures forever and the Torah is part of His Word. In fact, the Torah is connected directly to the Messiah. 

Romans 10:5-8

⁵ For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. ⁶ But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) ⁷ Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) ⁸ But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

 

Paul, the Pharisee of Pharisees that studied at the feet of Gamaliel and stated that he was blameless concerning the Torah and lived in a good conscience toward God quoted from Deut 30 in Romans 10. That passsage in Deut is speaking of the Torah and Paul connects it directly to the Messiah. He then quotes again the passage and says that it is the word of faith that we preach. 

Deuteronomy 30:10-14 

¹⁰ If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

¹¹ For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

¹² It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

¹³ Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

¹⁴ But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

¹⁵ See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

That is how the Messiah and the Apostles proved what they were saying. They used the Tanakh. For as Y'shua said, if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. If you don't believe Moses (Torah), how will you believe my words?

In Luke 16, the rich man wanted someone sent back from the dead to warn his five brothers. Abraham told him no. He said let them hear Moses and the prophets. Abraham further said that if they will not hear Moses (Torah) and the prophets, neither will they believe though one be raised from the dead.

The message of the parable is clear. You cannot truly believe upon the one who rose after three days and three nights if you reject the testimony of Moses and the prophets. For Moses and the prophets spoke of the suffering of Messiah and his glory. 

But even if one believes that Paul taught against the Torah, should his words be given more weight that the words of Y'shua, the other Apostles, the Torah, the prophets and the writings? 

If we put the verses by Paul that sounds as if he is teaching against the Torah on one side of the scales and all of the verses from the rest of the Bible saying something different on the other side, how would they be tilted? If God said that something was to be done forever and Paul theoretically said something contradictory to that, who should we follow?

The early followers of Y'shua, including Paul went to synagogue and the temple, they kept the festivals, kept Sabbath, etc. All of the early Bishops were Jewish until Hadrian the Roman Emperor put an end to it. After that the base was moved from Jerusalem to Rome and everything changed. Later Constantine solidified this new blend of paganism with their understandings of Paul and the rest is history. 

When we look at how the Apostles lived their lives and what they practiced and did not practice, it is at great odds with what we see today. 

Again, even if we look only at the NT, the way that things are defined there differs greatly from the typical understanding and practices today.

• Not one jot or tittle will pass from the Torah until heaven and earth pass away
• There is one faith.
• We do not make the Torah void through faith: God forbid, we establish the Torah.
• The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
• This is the love of God that we keep his commandments and His commandments are not grevious.
• Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep His commandments. He that saith he knows Him and keeps not His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth His word, in him truly is the love of God perfected. Hereby know we that we are in him.
• Whosoever sins transgresses also the Torah, for sin is the transgression of the Torah.
• Many will come to Y'shua on that day claiming various things, yet to many he will say depart from me you who work anomia torahlessness. 
• Even when we look to the future, we see the Torah being the standard. For the Torah shall go out of Zion and the Word of YHVH from Jerusualem.
• The gospel is the everlasting gospel. It was preached to Abraham and the children of Israel.
• The Messiah was with the children of Israel in the wilderness. Yet some of them tempted the Messiah and were destroyed by serpents. 
• Moses esteemed the suffering of Messiah greater than what Egypt had to offer.
• The church/ecclesia/kahal was in the wilderness. 
• The prophets spoke by the spirit of Messiah which was in them. 
• Paul did a Nazarite vow including offerings to prove that he kept the Torah and walked orderly and that all of the charges against him were false.
• He said to follow him as he follows the Messiah. 
• Paul kept Sabbath, feasts, etc. 

 

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Paradigm said:

Hi Joline,

Yes, feel free to call me Keith. I understand about getting old too. It has become more difficult to read the small writing on ingredients and directions.

If you want to just quote a sentence or paragraph, you can just click on the left side of  your mouse and highlight whatever you want to quote. Then there should appear a small window that says "quote this." Just click on that menu. Took me a while to figure that out. 

Thanks for explaining more in your last post. I found it much more clear and understood better the points that you were trying to make. 

Regarding the 2 Peter passage, while I agree with some of what you stated there, when we look at that whole section it is not just talking about prophecy. The passage explains that a misunderstanding of the difficult things in Paul's epistles can lead to wickedness/lawlessness. That is not merely a lack of understanding regarding prophecy, but living life in a way that is in error based upon a misunderstanding of the difficult things in Paul's epistles.

2 Peter 3:15-17

¹⁵ And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; ¹⁶ As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. ¹⁷ Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Yes, there have been covenants and expansion of them from the beginning. The points that I made still stand. Not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the Torah until heaven and earth pass. Who ever breaks one of the least commandments and teaches others will be least in the kingdom, but whosoever keeps and teaches them shall be great in the kingdom. 

We cannot interpret Paul in a way that contradicts many of his pro-law statements and his own personal actions. Neither can we interpret him in a way that contradicts Y'shua, the other writers of the NT or the Tanakh. YHVH changes not. His Word endures forever and the Torah is part of His Word. In fact, the Torah is connected directly to the Messiah. 

Romans 10:5-8

⁵ For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. ⁶ But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) ⁷ Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) ⁸ But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

 

Paul, the Pharisee of Pharisees that studied at the feet of Gamaliel and stated that he was blameless concerning the Torah and lived in a good conscience toward God quoted from Deut 30 in Romans 10. That passsage in Deut is speaking of the Torah and Paul connects it directly to the Messiah. He then quotes again the passage and says that it is the word of faith that we preach. 

Deuteronomy 30:10-14 

¹⁰ If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

¹¹ For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

¹² It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

¹³ Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

¹⁴ But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

¹⁵ See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

That is how the Messiah and the Apostles proved what they were saying. They used the Tanakh. For as Y'shua said, if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. If you don't believe Moses (Torah), how will you believe my words?

In Luke 16, the rich man wanted someone sent back from the dead to warn his five brothers. Abraham told him no. He said let them hear Moses and the prophets. Abraham further said that if they will not hear Moses (Torah) and the prophets, neither will they believe though one be raised from the dead.

The message of the parable is clear. You cannot truly believe upon the one who rose after three days and three nights if you reject the testimony of Moses and the prophets. For Moses and the prophets spoke of the suffering of Messiah and his glory. 

But even if one believes that Paul taught against the Torah, should his words be given more weight that the words of Y'shua, the other Apostles, the Torah, the prophets and the writings? 

If we put the verses by Paul that sounds as if he is teaching against the Torah on one side of the scales and all of the verses from the rest of the Bible saying something different on the other side, how would they be tilted? If God said that something was to be done forever and Paul theoretically said something contradictory to that, who should we follow?

The early followers of Y'shua, including Paul went to synagogue and the temple, they kept the festivals, kept Sabbath, etc. All of the early Bishops were Jewish until Hadrian the Roman Emperor put an end to it. After that the base was moved from Jerusalem to Rome and everything changed. Later Constantine solidified this new blend of paganism with their understandings of Paul and the rest is history. 

When we look at how the Apostles lived their lives and what they practiced and did not practice, it is at great odds with what we see today. 

Again, even if we look only at the NT, the way that things are defined there differs greatly from the typical understanding and practices today.

• Not one jot or tittle will pass from the Torah until heaven and earth pass away
• There is one faith.
• We do not make the Torah void through faith: God forbid, we establish the Torah.
• The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
• This is the love of God that we keep his commandments and His commandments are not grevious.
• Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep His commandments. He that saith he knows Him and keeps not His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth His word, in him truly is the love of God perfected. Hereby know we that we are in him.
• Whosoever sins transgresses also the Torah, for sin is the transgression of the Torah.
• Many will come to Y'shua on that day claiming various things, yet to many he will say depart from me you who work anomia torahlessness. 
• Even when we look to the future, we see the Torah being the standard. For the Torah shall go out of Zion and the Word of YHVH from Jerusualem.
• The gospel is the everlasting gospel. It was preached to Abraham and the children of Israel.
• The Messiah was with the children of Israel in the wilderness. Yet some of them tempted the Messiah and were destroyed by serpents. 
• Moses esteemed the suffering of Messiah greater than what Egypt had to offer.
• The church/ecclesia/kahal was in the wilderness. 
• The prophets spoke by the spirit of Messiah which was in them. 
• Paul did a Nazarite vow including offerings to prove that he kept the Torah and walked orderly and that all of the charges against him were false.
• He said to follow him as he follows the Messiah. 
• Paul kept Sabbath, feasts, etc. 

 

 

Thank you keith for your thoughtful effort here. Please take note, that if I say you don't understand, I mean you don't understand what I am really getting at. So please  take no offense. I thought I would add that as an addendum of sorts to some our previous exchanges. the reality is, we equally begin this discussion thinking the other does not understand scripture so that goes without saying on either of our parts LOL.

But from your comments above, you did not understand, and that more than likely is my fault. But if you will bear with me, maybe you and I can at least see where the other stands.

 

Ok, I would like to start with the distinction of covenants that are found in the law i.e. whole law. Since you mention Gamaliel, I think this lies at the very foundation of our disagreement. I believe it safe to assume you have a Rabbinic (Pharisaic view) of covenant building, or as you say "EXPANSION". 

You said this (still can't get that quote thing to come up)

"Yes, there have been covenants and expansion of them from the beginning."

Galatians speaks in opposition to this notion of Rabbinic Judaism.

Ga 3:15  Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Ga 3:17  And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
 

De 4:2  Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
De 12:32  What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
 

Also we see this spoken of concerning covenants being non expansive units.

Heb 7:11  If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

14  For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15  And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16  Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17  For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18  For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
 

Put all the above together Keith.

Therefore the disannulling of the carnal command, is a change in law, Not a change in the covenant. Paul was not preaching that the carnal command was disannulled from the previous covenant. The entire reason a new covenant was needed was because of the weakness of it.

You said this........................

"The points that I made still stand. Not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the Torah until heaven and earth pass. Who ever breaks one of the least commandments and teaches others will be least in the kingdom, but whosoever keeps and teaches them shall be great in the kingdom." 

I agree with you, so does Paul. But what Gamaliel missed is, that the covenant made at Sinai was not an expansion of the covenant of circumcision. The Abrahamic promises were not added to the Sinai covenant. Rather the promises were not disannulled by that covenant.

so yes the law begins in Genesis, and promises are made in covenant. But the covenant made with Abraham spoke concerning us all Jew and Gentile. The problem with the Rabbis were and still are....they have added Abrahamic covenant promises to the Sinai covenant, and thereby taken away the Promises from the Abrahamic covenant.

Again Passover is a Memorial of the  redemptive work of God Made in the covenant 430 years before the Sinai covenant. It still belongs to that covenant. We do indeed establish the law Keith. The Church of the firstborn. The apostles were acknowledging their DOUBLE PORTION in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenants. We Gentiles have a share in the SECOND covenant with them as heirs. A father of many nations have I made thee. We do establish it.

As Paul spoke of law clear back to the law which Abraham kept, the law of faith, and the hearing of it according to that which was before Moses law. It is still law..

Gal 4:21   Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22  For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23  But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24  Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.