Replies

[roamer_1:] That depends upon how you look at it - Betrothal is legally marriage, but is only the promise - until the consummation, it is not realized.

The question was not about whether this means one will persevere in faith, but whether faith appropriates justification.

Grace through faith appropriates all.

[roamer_1:] Murder was always in the heart, not the action.

No, murder was also action, and only that was penalized [...]

Only the action CAN be penalized, even to this day. That doesn't negate the fact that a true interpretation of Torah will line up with what Yeshua said. YHWH has always been interested in the circumcision of the heart, not the flesh. And murder has always been in the heart. Without the thought, the action would never occur.

while the Lord Jesus expanded love of brethren to enemies, contrary to the hatred of enemies enjoined as in "Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever," (Deuteronomy 23:6) "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:44)

You are comparing cats and bananas. National instruction vs. personal instruction.

[roamer_1:] Your point is not lost on me - but you might digest the fact that the spirit of the law, in every instance wherein Yeshua interpreted, was stricter than the letter - Even thinking of murder IS murder

Thanks for affirming my point that you just combated, that "the Lord fulfilled the Law in its fullest intent, going beyond what the letter of the law of Moses said,"

But I am not affirming your point. There is plenty of evidence that Torah is pointed at the heart. But one has to read it with that in mind.

Wrong, they were saved by grace by faith in the mercy of God, looking toward Christ, while the Law condemned them. For you deny what the Holy Spirit says about salvation under the Law in contrasting it under grace,

And you are saved by grace by faith in the mercy of YHWH looking back at the cross, and thereby toward Messiah, while the law condemns YOU. There has never been salvation under the law - that is not what the law is for. What has changed is that the Better Blood has come. Every time you sin, it is the blood of Messiah that is your covering. The mechanics of the thing have not changed. Sin must be repented and covered by blood.

[roamer_1:] Wrong answer. The law cannot be added to nor taken from.

It is you who is in error, as we are taking about the letter, not its intent, and the new covenant is distinctly stated to be,

Who is talking about the letter? The intent was always there, and IS there, if you would but find it. How can the literal law not contain the intent for which and of which it is written? That is simply schizophrenic.

Yes, they were based on the Law. Such things as "the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things" (Mk. 7:7) are easily seen to be derived from purification statutes upon which principal baptism was based, but went beyond them in making doctrines of them, and grievous to be borne. In such a case only what God affirmed was enjoined, thus the baptism of John was of God, and not of men.

Thank you for making my point - it wasn't the law itself, but rather the traditions of men - and that much we can agree upon. But traditions of men based upon the law, are still traditions of men. In every single case, Yeshua upheld Torah, and excoriated the Pharisaical law.

Wrong, you are a heretic who denies the manifest nature of the New Covenant, with the distinctions it makes btwn types of laws, and the literal observances thereof, obedience under which constitutes obedience to the Lord who instituted that Covenant with His own sinless shed blood!

Not at all - Obedience to Yeshua is all I can have, as his disciple. He is the one who said to keep Torah. And I will point you to the prophets, who declare my position as being true in the Kingdom. Why would it not also be true today?

To be consistent, you must hold that saving faith is only that which literally obeys all the ordinances of Torah entoto, as able, and thus you are substantially no different than "certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." (Acts 15:5)

According to whom? I am consistent in two things: To be a disciple of Yeshua is to follow his every example and word. And if we love YHWH we will keep his commandments. I have never ever said that keeping Torah is salvific, or that I expect it to justify me... BECAUSE I am saved, I keep Torah. Not the other way around. 'If you love me, you will keep my commandments' ... 'how do we know we love God, when we are walking in his commandments' - That seems simple enough to me.

[roamer_1:] It is in my case. Yeshua is our example. That means we do what he did. That is what obedience to the Rabbi is - As perfect an emulation as one can produce.

The "it is in my case" is equivocation - "A statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth." (The Free Dictionary)

No, it isn't. I am not in a position to place expectations upon others - that is above my paygrade.

It should be obvious this is not dealing with issues such as infants or the ignorant, but obedience to Christ by those who can hear and obey His voice, as per my reference, (Jn. 10:27,28) and if obedience to Christ means keeping the Torah including 7th day Sabbaths keeping, feasts, dietary laws etc. for you, then it means it for all such as who can hear and obey the Scriptures.

It is not my place to decide that. All I can do is tell folks what I see. Presbyterians are way different from Pentecostals... Is one right and the other wrong? My mother is far more comfortable with her old hymns and quiet ceremonies... But my sister would wither in that environment. It isn't in me to judge either one.

Meanwhile, by ignoring covenantal distinctions past and present, you must enjoin literally keeping the Law upon men as Enoch. But if such could be righteous before the Sinaitic covenant was given, so can those under the New Covenant which is not according to that.

...And so can those under Moses, as has obviously occurred. I just see those distinctions being differently placed, in order to reconcile Paul to John and to Peter, and in order to reconcile the present with the past and future.

Which essentially makes you a modern day heretical Judaizer.

LOL!

[roamer_1:] The yoke of a Rabbi is his interpretation of Torah, which the disciple is bound to strenuously keep, and duty bound to emulate (sometimes on pain of death) ). Is it your position that Peter was strenuously keeping Yeshua's interpretation of Torah by *not* keeping Torah? It is ridiculous! What then can the 'yoke we could not bear' be?

This is indeed ridiculous. Your response was to the yoke "which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear," and thus it was you who made that yoke being that of another rabbi, but which remains non-sense, for again, the context is not that of rabbinical additions, but,

> But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. (Acts 15:5)

When a Pharisee says 'Law of Moses', one has to realize what it is that they believe is the 'Law of Moses'. They believe in TWO Torahs handed down, the oral and the written, and ALL of that is (to them) the 'Law of Moses'. The fact that they are demanding something that is not in Torah should be a clue. What they are demanding is NOT in Moses.

And thus the contrasting requirements was not that of releasing the Gentiles from such things as the washing of cups, while keeping all feasts, dietary laws etc., but that of Noahide essentials, keeping the primary moral law (idolatry is the mother of all sin) and the primarily offensive practice of eating blood.

The Noahide essentials are where anyone starts out. Another clue is that not all of the Noahide essentials were listed... It is obvious to me that these things which were set forth were but a starting place, with an intention that they would learn more as they go.

Under the Law every time a man had marital relations, or even touched a dog or cat (or anything that walked upon its 4 paws) left one unclean till the evening. (Leviticus 11:27; 15:16) That's a lot of "unclean time," in addition to the constant sacrifices.

No, one is unclean for touching a dead carcass, not the animal itself.

Peter himself had been told to violate the dietary laws in Acts 10, regardless of any denial, and further proof that this referred to abrogating observance of the ceremonial law is seen in the reiteration of the sentence of Acts 15 by James in Acts 21, in contrast to Paul showing that he was one who "keepest the Law" such as in undergoing temple washing, for in contrast he states,

LOL! No, he wasn't. Peter doubted in himself what the dream should mean, and then interpreted it himself in the house of Cornelius.

Thus it is incontrovertible that this "yoke" is what Peter referred to no matter how much you try to spin it to refer to rabbinical additions, the rejection of which was already a foregone conclusion. .

The thing that is in your way is that a disciple is not greater than his teacher, and the Teacher said to do and teach Torah. It is plain to me that Torah does not require circumcision of male adults, and certainly does not say it is needed for salvation. So the premise from which this started is *not* Torah - Thus it must be referring to something else.

[roamer_1:] And as for meats and drinks, diverse washings, and carnal ordinances: What meats? What drinks? What diverse washings? What carnal ordinances? Specify please.

A valid question indeed.

And a well thought out answer - But if it is as you say, then why the return to Sabbaths and washings, and ordinances in Ezekiel's temple? Somehow that has to be reconciled, and I reject the dispensational view outright.

[roamer_1:] No, Torah keeping has nothing to do with salvation. Loving YHWH means keeping his commandments, and following Yeshua means copying him as an example. In both cases, that includes Torah.

But while works do not actually earn eternal life, following Christ is what faith does (and repents when convicted of not doing so)[...]

If following Messiah means keeping Torah to me, and my conscience will not allow me otherwise, what is that to you?

[...] and thus as caring for the brethren is one of the primary "things that accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9) and those who habitually are forsaking the assembling of believers together (Hebrews 10:25) are testifying against having faith, then it follows that not keeping the ceremonial law would also be the latter, if this is necessarily part of obedience to Christ as you contend.

How does that follow in the least?

But instead it is clearly stated, despite the Judaizer spin, that dietary laws are abrogated, as are those re holydays, the new moon, or the sabbath, and rather than being enjoined, going back into such is only rebuked.

Then you will have to explain the disciples participating in such. And the prophets proclaiming such to be the future... And explain how the ONLY one to change the times and laws is this guy:

Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

There is no other changing Torah. And I think this happened long ago... The frog in the pot can't tell...