613 Laws : We Read in the New Testament about Sins that will Keep Us from Heaven : How do those Sins connect to the 613 Laws?

[LiveWire]

On 5/10/2023 at 10:12 AM, Slibhin said:

1. I'm not Ashkenazi and couldn't speak Yiddish if you put a gun to my head.

Sephardim?

On 5/10/2023 at 10:12 AM, Slibhin said:

2. I'm not here to challenge anyone.

Same here

On 5/10/2023 at 10:12 AM, Slibhin said:

3. I stated Christians do not follow the Torah. You said they did and would "research". You did not explain how they follow the Torah.

That's because I started this Thread and then allowed it to catch on.  As You see, there's 8 Pages, not all going into great detail about the Laws, but enough discussion to see Christians do consider the LAW to be Important and Valuable.

On 5/10/2023 at 10:12 AM, Slibhin said:

4. I don't care what church fathers say, and I don't believe in the bible so quoting it is meaningless to me.

Doesn't matter, these same Church Father's were first hand observer's of the Ancient Pharisees, Sadducees, and Rabbinical Leaders.   You can learn much about them from the CF's.   I compare them to modern day Rabbi's.   A lot of similarities still.

[LiveWire]

1 hour ago, Slibhin said:

Does it really matter?

No, unless my bloodline is similar to Yours. Joking!

1 hour ago, Slibhin said:

I'm not interested in Christian theology, (other then intellectual interest) ergo I don't participate in those discussions. You made it out that Christians follow the Torah, I asked how so. Then you admitted they don't.

Not sure I admitted they did or not, but I did encourage the idea they do understand it, realize the importance of it, and attribute it towards their heritage as Followers of Abraham's Ha-Shem.

1 hour ago, Slibhin said:

I don't care. Christian's don't have to follow the Torah because they aren't Jewish. I didn't even ask my Christian husband to follow the Torah except where necessary to be able to be married and live together (eating kosher, purity laws etc...). I asked out of mere amusement and curiosity.

I think they should because it's a closer Version of what God gave to Moses compared to their Hebrew translated to Greek (Septuagint) to Latin (Vulgate) to English (KJV) Version of the first 5 Books.

1 hour ago, Slibhin said:

Agree to disagree. They matter to you, not to me. Their opinions mean as much to a Jewish person as my Jew opinions matter to the users here... not an iota.

A Rabbi today would not care how a Rabbi 2,000 years ago presented himself and represented himself as a man who was a life long Student of Ha-Shem?   Interesting!

Edited May 16, 2023 by LiveWire

[Roymond]

On 5/15/2023 at 10:51 AM, JimmyB said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.  Under the Old Covenant, God demanded that animals be sacrificed be sacrificed as payment for sins.  Sins were covered by the "payment" of animals.

The foundation of the sacrificial system is not Jesus on the Cross.  Jesus' sacrifice is the end of the sacrificial system.

Since sins were covered, they were not paid for; the sacrifice "paid for" the covering.

Yes, the Cross is the end of the sacrificial system in terms of history, but the foundation of the sacrificial system is indeed Christ on the Cross; that is the font of God's mercy to all, and apart from the Cross there is no mercy.  That the Cross comes later in history is not a problem since the Cross stands not just in history but in eternity.

[Roymond]

On 5/15/2023 at 11:48 AM, Tony the student said:

Jesus taught me a lesson regarding the Law. Do you know why Jesus is not under the Law? Jesus is God. The laws are useless for God because God will not break His own standards of conduct and behavior, which are found in the Law.

I heard a sermon once about "How Jesus Broke the Law".  The title sure got attention, but the pastor explained that Jesus was "too big" for the Law, so He shattered it by rising above it and reaching beyond it.

Jesus was under the Law while on Earth, but the Law fell before Him because the Law was made for sinners; it couldn't extend far enough to cover or contain the Son of Man who was no sinner at all.

[Roymond]

On 5/15/2023 at 12:17 PM, JimmyB said:

All Christians have died to themselves and are alive in Jesus Christ.  We are His body.  So, since we are in Christ, we have attained those standards.  And while we are still alive in our natural bodies, He has given us the Holy Spirit, who guides us into all truth.

That is what the Gospel clearly says.

Ah, one of those "already but not yet" situations theologians talk about:  we in Christ have attained those standards, but not in our lives; our new man has attained those standards and more, but our old man clings on and fails them.

We are already righteous... but not yet.

[Roymond]

On 5/16/2023 at 6:54 AM, Neighbor said:

There would be no reason known  to me for the sacrifice willingly made by Yeshua,  the sacrifice that has paid the total price of my shame and sin against God. My reliance on the faith of Jesus ( Yeshua) would have little  or no basis in fact. It would be without any basis at all, just a kind of wishful thinking or mere fanaticizing.

I can't agree with this.  Paul speaks of the elemental principles of this world that enslave those who didn't have the Law, and for many that is enough to recognize that they need a Savior.  Looking at myself I know that I fail my own standards, and that is misery enough to know to cry for help!  As an ancient liturgy says, I am broken and there is no health in me, but Jesus brings that health, the wholeness of spirit.

[Roymond]

On 5/16/2023 at 1:19 PM, LiveWire said:

I think they should because it's a closer Version of what God gave to Moses compared to their Hebrew translated to Greek (Septuagint) to Latin (Vulgate) to English (KJV) Version of the first 5 Books.

Just for accuracy, the King James relied more on earlier English versions, and on the Hebrew, than on the Latin.  Their Hebrew knowledge would be considered sketchy today, which is why they often went to the Septuagint when they couldn't figure out the Hebrew; when both of those left them puzzling they turned (IIRC) to Tyndale's translation -- there are sections of the KJV that are basically copied from Tyndale, in fact.

[JimmyB]

6 hours ago, Roymond said:

Ah, one of those "already but not yet" situations theologians talk about:  we in Christ have attained those standards, but not in our lives; our new man has attained those standards and more, but our old man clings on and fails them.

We are already righteous... but not yet.

Since we are in Christ -- part of His body -- and He was/is righteous, we are also.

[LiveWire]

12 hours ago, Roymond said:

Just for accuracy, the King James relied more on earlier English versions, and on the Hebrew, than on the Latin.  Their Hebrew knowledge would be considered sketchy today, which is why they often went to the Septuagint when they couldn't figure out the Hebrew; when both of those left them puzzling they turned (IIRC) to Tyndale's translation -- there are sections of the KJV that are basically copied from Tyndale, in fact.

The Textus Receptus, Erastus, 10th Century copy of Latin Vulgate, far from the accuracy of Jerome's in the 3rd Century.   Erastus, even written confesses about the lack of accuracy. the KJV uses the Septuagint, that was originally translated from the Hebrew.  Jerome's writes he just accepted that and translated the Greek into Latin, rather go find the Hebrew and translate into Latin.   And we know from the KJV Writers, they relied heavily upon the Latin Version, meaning, they translated the English from the Latin, not the Greek, nor especially the Hebrew.   A literal 3rd Language to Language, not Hebrew to any of those Languages (Latin/English) Version of the Tanakh "Old Testament."

 

No thanks, I trust the Hebrew Tanakh and the 3rd Century Koine Greek New Testament.

[Daniel Marsh]

2 peter 1