There is a raging debate among "messianic Jews" [that means those born in the Jewish race who not only believe Jesus is the "messiah"=hence the name "messianic- of Jewish prophecy, but also is deity=god]- if they must "observe" Sabbath because the ten commandments said "do not work"?
this is not a discussion about hearing a lecture weekly!
the ten commandments certainly did not command go to gathering and pray nor hear a lecture that day [see for yourself, later please- in exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5- later]-
assume the faith requires weekly lecture and prayer- as part of the "relationship"- like one gives attention to a friend- relationship...
this debate is about the law.
one book claims "settled! we messianic Jews must keep the law of Sabbath"- see below, the other book says "law of Sabbath? no!"
each can be supported from the same "new-testament-book"- so which is truth?
**
if god believed "the law became inactive and inoperative", then this book which contains both opposing sources cannot be from god. therefore we will assume temporarily that it is a good book- in other words: for this discussion- which idea is the book teaching?
jesus defended the students who ate on sabath by quoting the event of david- he did not say "no sabath anymore" indicating in the gospels of mathew and other parallels- that the law of sabath is operative- yet somehow in the same new-testament-book paul says several times "I am free from the law" each time the same idea in different words-
which causes/allows translators to "bend" the text- each one according to his "doctrine" which is in fact a pre-judice=from the start- applied to bend the ideas of the book- instead of letting the book ESTABLISH the doctrine- assuming it is a good book- as above.
[dead to the law and we died to sin and dead in sin" in this context col 2 etc. refers to that same idea]
*in my search for letting the book establish the doctrine [of those who claim to believe in the book] i found in the greek some surprises, that translators "bent".
NOTE: i have no personal gain either way- because i became convinced from numerous examples that the book is not divine- and that people erred to include together books with opposing ideas- instead of edit it with the true message-
so i can be academically free to assume- with no previous bias "what is this book- if it is a good book- what is the message of the book" [without the influence of "the book must mean whatever so interpret it only that way"].
***which of the surprises which were revealed to me from the greek- to start with?
1 jesus teaching about circumcision in john 7
not only did jesus teach the "important laws" without circumcision- showing the cut was certainly NOT IMPORTANT- yet he said the word "you"=ymin- this is very significant because "even if jesus would have said: "important to circumcise yourself"- i am aware of several excuses" and ways "out" but jesus did not teach that! in fact he did say ymin=you!
the book is teaching us a message about the law becoming inoperative.
jesus did not say the pronoun "moses required us to have circumcision" nor did he teach his disciples moses required you to cut- instead he did say john 7.22 "jesus said moses gave you circumcision" and the pronoun is "you"=ymin see also:
regarding john 7.22
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/7/22/t_conc_1004022
wow! if he was trying to make friends- he would say "god gave us the law to cut" [to defend healing on sabath like circumcision on sabbath] instead he says "you" under the law- have a law to cut-which you do on sabbath.
not only did jesus not teach to his disciples: "do circumcision" nor "the cut is very important"- jesus did teach that "you Pharisees" circumcise on sabbath. not including his students and not ever instructing his students to cut-
****hence the claim "circumcision was good enough for jesus" is a "trick" misleading- because jesus never cut a man nor a baby- he was not a "moihel!" [he did cut wood- according to hearsay a carpenter not a "circumcisor"] nor even taught his apostles to cut the circumcision-
in fact his teaching of circumcision used the pronoun YOU towards those pharisees who cut a man on sabbath- or male baby.
assuming the book is good, as Christians must- then the report of the teaching is that jesus separated from circumcision of the flesh.
the words of the law "are not annulled"- for study- while the "force" of the law is inoperative- matching paul's message in several places- the one most clear is second-corinthian-3
*2 cor. 3
in verses 8-11 in greek "the law in stone [litho] which is the glory of his face was deprived of force" in other words: void, nothing, made idle, inactive, annulled-
specifically in the context of stone! the ten commandments- this was a shocker to me because i was not "trying to read in" i have no reason to make the book say keep the law or do not-
specifically the law "written in stone"- that is the decalogue- which include the sabath-
the decalogue often quoted by missionaries to convince people [you need jesus because] they are sinners- have been deactivated by the time of paul- according to the faith of those same christian evangilizors- that is a trick!
the ten commandments were given to israelites in that same chapter 20 and deuteronomy 5- the listener can say "i am not israelite! so i was never commanded=sin of: not to lie not to steal etc." even if I did those immoral things it was not a sin.
and the convince-r is using a text which has long ago been deactivated- since the letter of paul and perhaps earlier- as we see from the teaching of jesus-
god himself came to live among us and teach: "my words are now without force" they were for the time of the law of death. for example: not "we must cut" but instead did teach "moses gave you" ymin- circumcision, not my disciples.
god himself came to live among us and teach: "my words are now without force" they were for the time of the law of death. for example: not "we must cut" but instead did teach "moses gave you" ymin- circumcision, not my disciples.
i was surprised that this is in the book- but it is there, see for yourself
two more surprises romans 3.3 guaruntees future "security" for deniers! yet those who claim security quote other and not this verse- and one more from col. in next post.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה