Why Do We Believe in the Trinity?

We believe in the Blessed Trinity because we believe in Jesus, Who revealed the Trinity. God had prepared the Jews not only to welcome the Messiah, but to recognize through revelation what philosophers like Aristotle achieved through reason: that there is a God and there can only be one God.

Moses said to the Jews, “Acknowledge today and take to heart that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other but to believe in God Who is the only God.” When the Messiah finally came, He revealed a huge mystery that went far beyond what the Jews were expecting: that the one God in Whom they believe is not solitary, but a unity, a communion of three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that the Messiah is the Son.

He told them explicitly that the Father and He are one (Jn 10:30). He told them that He and the Father would send the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26, Jn 15:26). And when He sent them out to baptize in the name of God, He didn’t give them instructions to baptize in the “names” of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit — as if they were three different gods — but in the “name,” for they are fundamentally a union of three persons. This is what the term Trinity means. It was devised by the early Church apologist Tertullian around the year 200 from the Latin words “unitas” and “trinus,” literally “unity” and “three.” It signifies that there is a unity of three persons in one God.

Since the beginning of the Church, theologians have spent their lives trying to penetrate this mystery and explain it to others. St. Patrick used the image of a three-leaf clover. St. Augustine used the image of the mind, with memory, reason and will. More recent minds have used the image of H20, which can exist as ice, water, or steam. But none of these analogies — though interesting and somewhat helpful — do justice to the reality of the mystery of how three persons can exist in the one God.

When St. Augustine was in the middle of his voluminous and classic study of the Blessed Trinity, he took a walk along the beach in northern Africa to try to clear his head and pray. He saw a young girl repeatedly filling a scallop shell with sea water and emptying it into a hole she had dug in the sand. “What are you doing?” Augustine tenderly asked. “I'm trying to empty the sea into this hole,” the child replied. “How do you think that with a little shell,” Augustine retorted, “you can possibly empty this immense ocean into a tiny hole?” The little girl countered, “And how do you, with your small head, think you can comprehend the immensity of God?” As soon as the girl said this, she disappeared, convincing Augustine that she had been an angel sent to teach him an important lesson: No matter how gifted God had made him, he would never be able to comprehend fully the mystery of the Trinity.

This, of course, does not mean we cannot understand anything. If we want to get to the heart of the mystery of the Trinity, we can turn to the most theological of the Apostles, who meditated deeply on all that Jesus had revealed and, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said simply and synthetically, “God is love” (1 Jn 4:16). For God to be love, He has to love someone. None of us can love in a vacuum; there must always be an object of our love. Who is the object of God’s love? It cannot be man, or the created world, or the universe, because all of these existed in time and God is eternal and therefore existed before time.

It’s also impossible to say that God merely loved Himself in a solitary way, because this would not really be love but a form of egotism and narcissism. For God to be love, there needed to be an eternal relationship of love, with one who loves, one who is loved, and the love that unites them. This is what exists in the Blessed Trinity: The Father loved His image, the Son, so much that their mutual and eternal love “spirated” or “generated” the Holy Spirit. They exist in a communion of love. The three persons of the Blessed Trinity are united in absolutely everything except, as the early Church councils said, their “relations of origin,” what it means to be Father, what it means to be Son of the Father, and what it means to proceed from the Father and the Son.

These theological insights about the blessed Trinity may seem theoretical, but they become highly practical when we reflect on the fact that we have been made in the image and likeness of God and called to communion with God. To be in the image and likeness of God means to be created in the image and likeness of a communion of persons in love. Our belief in the Trinity — the central teaching of the Catholic faith — has given the Church the deepest understanding available to human beings of the nature of man, the meaning of human life, and what it means to love.

The Jerusalem Council could have reached a "compromised" and simply say, "Well, each to their own." They didn't.

Not precisely, no. However, they did leave room for grace without throwing out the Torah.

There's a dynamic going on in that debate that I don't think we're very sensitive to as a result to a major cultural difference: We in the West admire and aspire to rugged individualism. The culture of the Bible, both Jewish and Greek, was very collectivist. Everyone belonged to and derived their identity and protection from the groups they belonged to; there were no universal rights or protections.

As examples:

- A subject could be beaten at the whim of the Roman officials, but a citizen could not be scourged before a trial, a fact which Sha'ul employed to his advantage twice.
- A person identified as a Jew received special exemptions from Roman Law, such as being allowed not to burn incense to idols of the emperor, being granted their special feastdays off from service (including Sabbath) and not being expected to join in the pagan rites.

Now consider the plight of a new Gentile Christian coming from a pagan background. He has to give up all idolatry, which most likely loses him his guild status, his family, and may mark him as an enemy of the Empire when he refuses to call Caesar Lord. He has no Constitutionally-guarunteed right to dissent or freedom of religion; the only protections he has is if he is brought under the protection of the Jewish umbrella, so to speak.

It's frankly hard to be a Jewish proselyte, and there are darn few who can turn their lives on their heads overnight, but until they do, keeping not only the written Torah but the traditions of one of the major Jewish sects, they are not given the protection of a community. The potential convert is pretty much out in the cold unless they happen to be blessed with the resources to weather the storm during the transition. It's like joining a fraternity: Until you've jumped through all the hoops and gone through initiation, you don't get to live in the fraternity house or get any of the other benefits ofthe brotherhood. The difference is that one can survive college without a fraternity; most ancients couldn't survive life without a community to protect them.

The reason for making new converts jump through the hoops is to preserve the integrety, character, and mission of the group. This wasn't unique to the Jews; guilds and mystery religions had their own initiation rites, always involving subjecting the potential member to their rules and their gods. The difference was that joining a guild or a mystery religion didn't require you to abjure all other gods or to risk being called a traitor for not worshipping the emperor. Being a "God-fearer" did.

So in the face of this situation, what do the Apostles do? Those who wanted new converts to become circumcised within the Church wanted to preserve its character and integrity; the motiviations of those who were not believers in the Messiah were less noble (Gal. 6:12-13).

What they did was show a radical kind of love. They saw that the Spirit was coming to the Gentiles, and they trusted God to finish what He had started. Therefore, they accepted the new Gentile members only on the condition that they separate themselves from the pagan temples and feasts (which are what the strictures given in Acts 15 were designed to do) and proclaim that Yeshua the Messiah is Lord--that is, is YHVH. They opened their arms and offered the protection of the community, the ekklesia, freely, just as the Lord had offered His protection and community freely.

Did they expect them to stop at simply not participating in idolatry? Clearly not! The exortation of the Apostles was always to live holy lives, and yes, even to observe the Feastdays of YHVH (1 Cor. 5:8). In Acts 15, we see the expectation that the new believers would enter the synagogue and learn about the Torah there (v. 21). The four commands given were clearly meant as a beginning, a minimum requirement for fellowship, not an end to the person's growth.

Does that growth necessarily include keeping kosher? No. But I do believe it includes sacrifice, giving things up to, or back to (as you are quite correct that God gave them to us and owns them to begin with--just as He owned the lambs that were sacrificed on Passover), God. This may be pleasures that we come to see as sinful. This may be our freedom, should we be arrested or otherwise persecuted for our witness. This may be property, lost in persection or given up as an offering to further the Lord's work. One's leisure time has a way of evaporating quickly when one is doing his Master's work; that too is a sacrifice of praise.

If you truly have never known the Lord to call upon you to sacrifice something of value to you, then you should probably wonder what's wrong with your walk. If He has, then you should have no problem understanding why another might make a sacrifice of what they eat.

If a Gentile became a Jew, such as Ruth, they were required to live by the covenantal laws. Ruth wasn't granted any special favors. Nor was Caleb for that matter.

Ruth was given the protection of the community, such as the right to glean the harvest, up front because of her association with Naomi. She most likely also had a transition time during her marriage to Naomi's son. Caleb was with Israel almost from the beginning, and recieved the Torah along with them. What have they to do with my point, especially when I've given counter-examples that you've not even attempted to address?

Selling meat to non-believers has nothing to do with giving one set of rules to Jews and one to Gentiles.

It doesn't say they were non-believers, but aliens living in the land. There were many in the Tanakh who worshipped YHVH but who were not Israelites, like Jethro, Naaman, and Nebuchadnezzar.

What your statement really implies is that Gentiles are incapable of living to the same standards as the Jews.

If you are just as capable, then why don't you?

But in any case, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that those of us who were not born and raised keeping the Feastdays of YHVH, watching what we eat, keeping the other ceremonial commands, thinking of matters of ritual cleanliness, etc., require time to learn and make the transition under the best of circumstances. Trust me, I fail often, and I know whence I speak of when I say that it takes time to learn and grow. I plan to write a book on that subject someday. But you know what? I fail in keeping my temper, in having lustful thoughts, in taking time for prayer, and a host of other things too. That doesn't mean that I stop trying.

In addition, there are many commands that we may be morally capable but physically incapable of keeping. For example, though I would if I could, I do not have the resources to be able to fly out to Jerusalem three times a year. For another example, a tribesman who lives in a harsh part of the world where the major part of the diet that keeps him alive is pork may not be able to keep kosher without risking his family's health. (The latter case is precisely why I believe that God intentionally did not make kosher manditory on Gentile believers even in the Tanakh.)

However, the inability to keep one command does not release me from all others. I may not be physically able to loan money to a person in need due to my own financial situation, but that does not release me from the commands to love and care for him in other ways--for example, by helping him to fix his broken-down car. Likewise, the inability to make pilgrimage to Jerusalem does not release me from the commands to observe God's Appointed Times. The inability of a tribesman to keep kosher does not release him from the command to give up his idols and fetishes.

The normal Christian life should be as such:

1) Recognizing one's fallen state, repent and trust in the Lord Yeshua for one's salvation.
2) Having been so saved, read the Word and seek ways to apply its teachings to one's life, not to obtain the salvation already given, but because one loves the Lord and trusts Him to know what is best.
3) When discovering a new command, or an old one that convicts one of any existing sin, seek to keep it. Memorize the passage, try to apply it at every opportunity until it becomes a habit and a lifestyle rather than an artificial external rule.
4) Repeat steps 2 and 3.

I minister to men in prison. When I meet a man who is struggling with homosexuality (and there is a lot of it behind bars) or a murderous temper, I don't worry about the fact that he cusses a lot. Outside of prison, if I meet a man who cheats on his wife and smokes, how much effort do I put into telling him that smoking is bad?

That's part of what I think the Apostles were dealing with when they set the bar so low for new Gentile believers to enter into the community (see my other post for the other reason). Some things, like putting an end to idolatry, are major and have to be nipped in the bud from the get-go, while others, like eating pork, can wait for the person to read about it themselves and let the Spirit convict them or not at His pleasure and in His time.

Fasting is not designed to make me into SuperSwami of Christian Theology.

Who's saying that it can? This discussion is not so much about fasting (which I've never been able to do) but about maintaining dietary laws, customs ands ceremonies that have been superseded by Christ's one, perfect sacrifice on the cross.

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." -- Hebrews 10:1-14

I apologize for the length of this excerpted link but I think it addresses our discussion most accurately...

"Truth's Victory Over Error" by David Dickson (1589-1662), from which the following excerpts were taken, was the first published commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith. Dickson was a contemporary of the Westminster Assembly, and a close ministerial associate of the Scottish commissioners to the Assembly. In 1640 Dickson was appointed Professor of Divinity at Glasgow University. In 1650 he was transferred to the corresponding chair of theology at Edinburgh University, which he held until his death in 1662. It was in the first two years at Edinburgh, 1650-1652, that Dickson delivered his lectures on the Westminster Confession of Faith. These were apparently the basis for his printed commentary on the Confession, which was published posthumously in 1684. The book has not been reprinted since 1726. What follows are Dickson's comments respecting the ceremonial and judicial laws of Moses.

"Are the ceremonial laws now abrogated under the New Testament? Yes, Col. 2:14, 16-17, Dan. 9:27, Eph. 2:15-16. Well then, do not the Judaisers err, who maintain that all the ceremonial laws remain in their former strength and vigour, and are obliging to believers under the gospel, and not abrogated or disannulled by Christ? Yes.
By what reasons are they confuted?
(1) Because Christ hath abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances, that he might gather together both Jews and Gentiles into one new man, Eph. 2:14-15, Col. 2:14. Note that the apostle here speaks of all believers, both of Jews and Gentiles, as of one man, because they being all under Christ the Head, as members of one spiritual body, are made up as one renewed man.
(2) Because the apostle says, let no man judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: all which are shadows of things to come, but the body is of Christ, Col. 2:16-17. This verse is a conclusion of the apostles'; foregoing discourse against ceremonies, and things commanded by the ceremonial law, which by the coming of Christ are abolished. He calls them in the 17th verse, a shadow of things to come, but the body (says he) is of Christ. That is, the thing signified is of Christ: for all the shadows of the Old Testament had respect to Christ and his benefits, by whose coming they also have an end, John 1:17, Gal. 4:3-5.
(3) Because, the apostle says, believers are dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world: that is, from the ceremonial commands, as is evident from the context. Why, says he, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances? That is, as if your life and happiness consisted in these outward worldly principles, but suffer yourselves to be burdened by such teachers, with human institutions and ordinances. The apostle indeed, in these last words, is reasoning against the institutions and ordinances of men from this medium, which is an argument from the greater to the lesser: if ye be dead with Christ from the ceremonies of the law instituted in the Old Testament by God himself, much more are ye free from the institutions and ordinances of men which are only grounded upon their own good pleasure, Col. 2:20-21, Gal. 4:10-11.
(4) Because the apostle affirms that the observation and using of circumcision cannot consist with true faith in Christ, now after the gospel is fully published. And he exhorts the Galatians to abide in their liberty purchased by Christ, and not to submit themselves to the yoke of Mosaical ceremonies, Gal. 5:1.
(5) Because those teachers who pressed the believing Gentiles to be circumcised and to observe the law of Moses (I mean the ceremonial law) were condemned by the council of apostles, Acts 15:24.
(6) Because ceremonial commands are neither of the law of nature, nor are they enjoined to believers under the gospel as things moral.
(7) Because these appointed ceremonies were figures only of things to come, imposed on the Jews until the time of reformation, but taken away by Christ, Heb. 9:9-12 and Heb. 10:9, where it is said, He taketh away the first, namely all sorts of propitiatory offerings which were used in the Old Testament, to settle the second, namely his obedience to the will of his Father.
(8) Because they were given to the Israelites to foresignify and represent Christ and his death, and to be marks of difference between them and the unbelieving nations, Col. 2:17, Eph. 2:14, where it is said, Who hat made both these, namely Jews and Gentiles, one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition, whereby the ceremonial law is understood, which made a difference between the Jews and the Gentiles. Now since Christ hath suffered death and the Gentiles are called, all these ceremonies which did foresignify his death and made that difference must of necessity cease.
(9) Because the temple of Jerusalem, to which the ceremonies were restricted, is destroyed, and could never since be re-builded.
Did the Lord by Moses give to the Jews, as a body politic, sundry judicial laws, which expired together with their state? Yes. Do they oblige any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require? No. Exod. 21 from the first to the last verse, Exod. 22:1 to verse 29, Gen. 49:10, I Cor. 9:8-10, I Peter 2:13-14, Matt. 5:17, 38-39.
Well then, do not some err, though otherwise orthodox, who maintain that the whole judicial law of the Jews is yet alive, and binding all of us, who are Christian Gentiles? Yes.
By what reasons are they confuted?
(1) Because the judicial law was delivered by Moses to the Israelites to be observed as a body politic, Exod. 21.
(2) Because this Law, in many things, which are of particular right, was accommodated to the commonwealth of the Jews, and not to other nations also, Exod. 22:3, Exod. 21:2, Lev. 25:2-3, Deut. 24:1-3, Deut. 25:5-7.
(3) Because in other things, which are not of particular right, it is neither from the law of nature, obliging by reason, neither is it pressed upon believers under the gospel to be observed.
(4) Because believers are appointed under the gospel to obey the civil laws, and commands of those under whose government they live, providing they be just, and that for conscience sake, Rom. 13:1, I Peter 2:13-14, Titus 3:1.
Is an oath warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament as well as under the Old, in matters of weight and moment? Yes, Heb. 6:16, Isa. 65:16, Gal. 1:20, Rom. 1:9, Rom. 9:1, II Cor. 1:18, 23, and II Cor. 11:31 with II Cor. 2:19, I Thess. 5:27, Rev. 10:6.
Well then, do not the Quakers and Anabaptists err, who maintain that there is no lawful use of an oath under the New Testament? Yes.
Do not likewise the Papists err, who make it a degree of perfection to abstain from all oaths? Yes.
By what reasons are they confuted?....
(2) Because the calling upon the name of God with due fear and reverence in swearing is commanded in the third command, as the profanation of his name is forbidden: but Christ came not to abolish the moral law....
(6) Because there being an express law for swearing (to wit rightly, Deut. 10:20), it must either belong to the moral law, to the judicial law, or ceremonial law. The adversaries will not call it a part of the judicial law, which was given to the Jews as a body politic, which expired together with the state of that people. It is no part of the ceremonial law, for what was purely ceremonial was purely typical, but the law concerning an oath was not a type of anything to come. And if it was a type, where will you find its antitype in all the gospel, or the thing represented by it? Therefore it must be a part of the moral law, Deut. 6:13, Jer. 4:2, and consequently perpetual, which Christ came not to destroy."

Now consider the plight of a new Gentile Christian coming from a pagan background. He has to give up all idolatry, which most likely loses him his guild status, his family, and may mark him as an enemy of the Empire when he refuses to call Caesar Lord....It's frankly hard to be a Jewish proselyte, and there are darn few who can turn their lives on their heads overnight, but until they do, keeping not only the written Torah but the traditions of one of the major Jewish sects

So after two thousand year now what? Gentiles still find it difficult to be "Jewish proselytes"? Are you going to go on record as saying all Christians need to become Jewish proselytes or else they are not as "spiritual"? That is what you and a few others are implying. You're making the claim that most Christians find it too difficult to follow this path but you, and a few others, are making this "sacrifice".

Honestly, don't you see just a tad bit of problem with this attitude? Gentiles have been grafted in with the Jews. Shouldn't everyone follow the same code?

But in fairness to you, what's equally astonishing is other Christians saying, "Well, if that's Buggman's thing of "sacrificing" to God then more power to him. I "sacrifice" in other ways." There remains no more sacrifice. The sacrifice has been paid.

I'll publicly go on record and say there isn't anything that I sacrifice to God. If I fast tomorrow I'm really not giving up anything that God hasn't first given to me.

BTW-Please note in regards to your comment on western and biblical cultures that it is my position all Christians belong and derive their identity and protection from the group, just as you claim was the biblical culture. There is no different between Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles have been grafted into the Jewish believers who trust God through faith. By taking the position that some can be Messianic Jews and other Gentiles, you are taking the western path of rugged individualism.

What have they to do with my point, especially when I've given counter-examples that you've not even attempted to address?

My point of Ruth and Caleb was Gentiles, as well as Jews, must come to God through faith-not ceremonies or rituals. It is those Jews who through faith that the Gentiles are grafted into. We are one family.

It doesn't say they were non-believers, but aliens living in the land....like Jethro, Naaman, and Nebuchadnezzar.

The verse you quoted does not clarify what "alien" means. You can no more interrupt it as meaning non-Jewish believers and I can say these were unbelievers. However, I will add that generally when the term "alien" is used (such as Gen 19:9) it refers to an outsider who doesn't fit in with the crowd.

As far as your list of Gentile believers in the OT, until the perfect sacrifice was made, these individuals looked forward to promise. We look back. That was the normalizing process of God's grace.

In addition, there are many commands that we may be morally capable but physically incapable of keeping.

No excuses. If we are incapable of keeping one part of the law we are guilty of breaking the whole thing. Our God is a perfect and holy God that cannot stand to view even the slightest imperfection. That is what divine love is all about; that He would have fellowship with those who would rebel.

If you seek to "keep the commandments" you'll end up like the rich, young ruler-unable to fulfill all the commandments. It is in Christ that we must trust for our strength to overcome, and were we fail to ask forgiveness.

So after two thousand year now what? Gentiles still find it difficult to be "Jewish proselytes"?

lol Harley, Gentiles and Jews both still find it difficult to be Christian "proselytes." Almost no significant change in a person's behavior or lifestyle happens overnight, except on some very rare occasions where the Holy Spirit decides to do it "the easy way"--just read about the struggles of those who are trying to leave a homosexual lifestyle to walk with the Lord. All of us spend the rest of our lives "tweaking" our behavior to more closely conform to God's standard in Scripture.

You're making the claim that most Christians find it too difficult to follow this path but you, and a few others, are making this "sacrifice".

Oh, please. Your argument by outrage is wearing just a bit thin, and your accusations of attitude are mere projection. I've said no such thing--I've said that there was a reason why the Apostles didn't demand that new proselytes walk perfectly in the Torah as a prerequsite to inclusion in the community. They didn't even demand that they conform to what a modern Gentile church regards as the norm for Christian behavior. All they did was require them to separate from the worship of pagan gods and believe in Yeshua. Obviously, that was a baseline, not an end.

Imagine if a Wiccan became a Christian in your congregation. The first and prerequisite condition would naturally be that she put away all of her paganism and occultic practices. Would you also require that she memorize and be able to perfectly spout Calvinist theology before you let her in to teach her? I doubt it. I imagine that you'd set a minimum bar and then give her room and time to study the Bible both with you and on her own, gently correcting her errors as she learns, and trusting the Lord to finish what He's started.

Conversely, do you regard the hours you've spent studying Calvinist theology to be some horrible burden, some amazing sacrifice that ordinary mortals can't pull off? What about the growth in your Christian walk that you've made by purposefully changing behaviors because of various things you've found in Scripture in your studies? Or do you regard the gain, the growing walk with the Lord, to be far an away better than the sacrifice of time, leisure, and whatever sins you've given up?

Same here.

Shouldn't everyone follow the same code?

I certainly think so; tell me, which code did the Apostles follow? Which code did the Jerusalem Church follow? Which code did Yeshua follow?

Go thou and do likewise.

There remains no more sacrifice. The sacrifice has been paid.

Funny, Sha'ul didn't seem to think so, at least not in the sense that we are using the term in this discussion (Phil. 4:18). Who are you to contradict him again? Or are you simply committing a form of the logical fallacy of ambiguity?

By taking the position that some can be Messianic Jews and other Gentiles, you are taking the western path of rugged individualism.

No more so than God saying that some Israelites could be priests and others not, or than the Apostles strictly adhering to Torah themselves while giving the Gentile believers more leeway.

As usual, you are trying to have it both ways: On the one hand, if I say that everyone should be Torah-observant, you get to accuse me of legalism and Judaizing. On the other hand, if I allow for grace and honest disagreement, you accuse me of having some kind of double-standard. You're failing on a very simple point: I've shown that the Scriptures themselves establish different standards for different people under different circumstances. You have made much sound and fury, but you have not yet even addressed, let alone countered, my Scriptural examples. Moreover, I've shown that there were very good reasons for the Apostles not to dump all the Torah at once on new Gentile converts, but also that they kept a rigid standard of Torah-observance themselves. Therefore, my position is 100% consistant with theirs.

My position has been consistant all along: Every command of Scripture should be kept to the best of our physical ability, and I utterly reject the "what's in it for me?" system of ethics. However, I do not expect someone to be able to keep or even know all of the commands they are to keep immediately on conversion, and I don't hold honest disagreement on this subject against my brothers and sisters in the Messiah. Instead, I continually enjoin my brethren to go back to the Book, read it for themselves, and apply what they read and understand to be God's commands to their lives without trying to find loopholes as to why they shouldn't have to, and I trust the Spirit, who writes the Torah in our hearts (Jer. 31:33) and moves us to obey God's commands (Ezk. 36:27) to grow them as God wills, not as I will.

God always supplies the lamb

Amen.

"Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein." -- Hebrews 13:9

"Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.
Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God...
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance...
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." -- Hebrews 9:1-15;28

*sigh* We've been through this before, but sure, I'll say it again: If the Spirit writes the Torah in our hearts, the Torah is still to be followed.

Yeshua says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the Torah, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Torah, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Mat. 5:17-19)

Sha'ul says, "Do we then make void the Torah through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the Torah. . . What shall we say then? Is the Torah sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the Torah . . . Wherefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. . . For we know that the Torah is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin." (Rom. 3:31, 7:7, 12, & 14)

He also says, "All scripture (which includes the Torah) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Tim. 3:16)

The original Jerusalem Ekklesia say, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the Torah." (Acts 21:20)

Ya'akov (James) says, "For whosoever shall keep the whole Torah, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." (Jas. 2:10)

And Yochanan (John) says, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the Torah: for sin is the transgression of the Torah." (I Jn. 3:4)

Funny, they don't seem to think the Torah has been superceded by the Gospel in such a way that it should no longer be kept. What they do say is that salvation is by grace received by faith rather than of works (Rom. 4, Eph. 2:8-9), that the Torah could bring no one to perfection (Heb. 7:19), however, this was not due to a flaw in the Torah, for, "Wherefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good," and, "the Torah is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin"--that is, the flaw is not in the Torah of the Spirit, which defines sin, but in ourselves. Thus, "the Torah worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression" (Rom. 4:15).

Since we are flawed and therefore justly condemned by the Law of the Torah, which pronounces a curse upon all who do not keep it perfectly (Deu. 27:36), God acted in grace--unmerited favor--in sending His Son to take all of the curses that you and I justly deserve upon Himself (Gal. 3:13). Since a law is not a law unless it comes with the threat of punishment, we are no longer "under the Law," to use Sha'ul phrase--that is, we are no longer under the curses of the Torah, and therefore it is no longer a Law to us. Rather, it is now the teachings of God.

Torah does not really mean "law," though nomos is how it was translated into Greek in the LXX, which carried over to the NT. This is not to say that it does not contain the Law, but it is more than that. Torah comes from the Hebrew verb yarah, which literally means, "to hit the mark." Conversely, the Hebrew word for sin is chattah, which means "to miss the mark." Ergo, the Torah teaches us what the mark of God's perfection is and what sin is (Rom. 7:7), and to sin literally means "to fall short of the Torah."

"What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid!" (Rom. 6:15). Therefore, though we are under grace, we should still strive to keep the Torah, not out of fear of punishment, for our punishment has all fallen on Yeshua, but because

If ye love me, keep My commandments. . . He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him. (John 14:15-21)

and

For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous. (I Jn. 5:3)
Therefore thou shalt love YHVH thy God, and keep His charge, and His statutes, and His judgments, and His commandments, always. (Deu. 11:1)

What are Yeshua's commandments? To keep the Torah to its highest degree by loving God above all else and loving our neighbor as ourselves (Mat. 5:17-19 & 22:36-40). To paraphrase Rabbi Hillel, "That is the whole of Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and learn it." That is to say, every command in the Torah tells us how to go about loving God and loving our neighbor.

Every command in the Torah also points us to Yeshua HaMashiach, either by telling us His character, or by giving foreshadows of His two Comings. "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Messiah" (Col. 2:16-17). Note Sha'ul's present tense; he is not speaking of the Feastdays as a thing of the past, but as something which continues to be "a shadow of things to come." Thus he commands the Corinthians, "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Messiah our Passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Co. 5:7-8).

There is absolutely zero disagreement between the Gospel and the Torah. To say that there is is to commit a form of practical Marconianism: It pits Yeshua, the Living Word of God, against the Torah, the Written Word of God.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.