1 corinthians 9:19-23

[Mark C]

No. Paul tells us in Galatians 5 that is a sin for a gentile to be circumcised.

No, read it. That is NOT what he said. Even in a crappy translation.

And WHICH law? Man's, or Yah's? What was the word Shaul used? DO you know? (hint: in the Greek you'll look at, it is NOT the word 'torah'.)

And - IFF we are bondservants, we are ALREADY SUPPOSED TO BE OBEDIENT TO HIM!!!!!!!!!

"Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and NOT DO the things I say?" (Luke 6:46) Yeah, BUILD that house on the sand!

Before people take Galatians out of context (and, as Kefa noted - well, read II Peter 3:15-16 for yourself, you just demonstrated perfectly what he meant!) - they need to "study, to show yourself approved."

There's a reason I refer to Galatians as the "most twisted" Book in the Scriptures. Because it is SO 'twisted' by the "unlearned and untaught," even "unto their own destruction."


Does Paul's writing trump what the Torah Made Flesh actually SAID? Including to "hypocrites" who (Matthew 23, Mark 7) do EXACTLY the stuff the whore church does with Galatians?

Note what Paul himself said - TWICE - in the VERY first part of that same Book! No wonder it's so often ignored:
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you...unto another gospel...
...and would pervert the gospel...
...But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed...
...As we said before, so say I now again, If any preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:6-9)

Now go read Deuteronomy chapter 13.

 

[Mark C]

Does all of the law of Moses apply to everyone?

Aw, come'on. That's just pitiful. Are you a woman? (oops - I forgot - this is AmeriKa 2023...)
Are you a king? A levite? A cohen?

So, at least pretend to understand some context.

But - it's fair to ask: Do you want to be "grafted in"? Or not. Then, "choose this day Whom you will serve."

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

The prohibitions in Leviticus don’t apply to Christians. - The Reformation Project

reformationproject.org

"1. Christians are not under Leviticus Law or Jewish Law or Moses' Law.
2. The New Testament never tells Christians they must keep the Jewish Law. The Bible says we are not required to keep the Law, Acts 15:24, 21:24-25.
3. The New Testament specifically tells us we are not under law but under grace, Romans 6:14, 10:4, Galatians 3:24-25." https://www.gaychristian101.com/Leviticus.html

The association there is a tad uncany don't you think? These pro-homo groups are using your EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS to justify themselves, as every other "Christian" does to justify eating swine and working on Sabbath.

The enemy knows his church's tools incredibly well, and uses them to great effect.

To answer the question "does the Law of Moses apply to everyone?" No. It only applies to Israel and Judah.

So who does the "New Covenant" apply to? (Hint: Jeremiah 31)

You’re still doing the false equivalency thing. Some teach that we are saved by keeping the law of Moses. You’re teaching that we must keep the law of Moses. Obviously you’re teaching salvation by works of the law.

 

[Mark C]

Can you remove the enigmatic language and state plainly what you mean here?

Enigmatic?

Wasn't that why people have been able to deny what He said so clearly? (As long as "heaven and earth" still exist - do they? - He isn't changing the TINIEST ITTY-BITTY PART of His 'torah'-instruction- Word, or even prophets.) Is that not clear? Who are people calling a liar? And just what, after all, is "blasphemy"?

How 'bout this (already referenced, but it's "Olde" - so some won't read it in context):

"Ye shall walk after the YHVH Elohekah, and fear Him, and keep His commandments, and obey His voice, and ye shall serve Him, and cleave unto Him...
...And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the YHVH Elohekah, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the YHVH Elohekah commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee."

If 'jesus' actually DID what some here claim, and did away with His own Word, then 'that man' deserved to die, and - forget circumcision - that shed blood does nothing.

So - here it is, unambiguously, and not at all 'enigmatic':

If WHEN someone came, and "preached another desus whom we have not preached," AND, "you received a different spirit,"
AND "a different gospel" - which you then accepted.
Paul was right. You got suckered. "—you may well put up with it!" (II Corinthians 11:4, IN CONTEXT!)

I have a question for those who say He isn't "clear" enough:

Why do you claim to follow "Christ" when you claim that it's what "Paul" wrote that trumps anything He ever said anyway? (Even if it's a crappy translation! But, hey, maybe it's the Translators that are the Real One True God?)

 

[Mark C]

Some teach that we are saved by keeping the law of Moses.

You’re teaching that we must keep the law of Moses.

And you can't see those aren't the same thing? Talk about "false equivalency"!

Ever seen this?
"If you love Me, keep My commandments."

Isn't that pretty clear?

 

[DawoodSaar]

And you are promoting intentional sin.

Sin is trangressing the Law 1John 3:4.

And if you say we are no longer under the law, then its perfectly fine to transgress the Law. Sin is a-ok!

For Torah-keepers, at least in some general sense, they note that being under the condemnation, the penalty of having broken the law, there is need for payment of the fine for having broken the law. Grace is wiping away the cost associated with those penalties. So there is still "salvation" by grace, but the grace doesn't mean we are free to intentionally, willfully, knowingly transgress and break the law. We keep the law so we do not keep coming under condemnation. And if we do well in obedience, then we would not be under the condemnation of the law.

Your current interpretation conflates the penalty for breaking the law with the law itself. Instead of saying that sin (the transgression of the law) is death, you call the law death. Meanwhile calling transgression of the law life and grace and acceptable.

It is this transposition "that which is good shall be called evil."

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

It's why I contend ("His mama NEVER called Him 'jesus'!") that there is a BIG difference between the Torah-Made-Flesh, Who's very NAME means "Yah-saves," and the fake who 'did away with the law,' and thus - by His Own Written Word - can NOT be the prophesied Messiah.

Reading algebra has never my strong suit. What are you implying here?

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

And you can't see those aren't the same thing? Talk about "false equivalency"!

Ever seen this?
"If you love Me, keep My commandments."

Isn't that pretty clear?

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

And you are promoting intentional sin.

Sin is trangressing the Law 1John 3:4.

And if you say we are no longer under the law, then its perfectly fine to transgress the Law. Sin is a-ok!

For Torah-keepers, at least in some general sense, they note that being under the condemnation, the penalty of having broken the law, there is need for payment of the fine for having broken the law. Grace is wiping away the cost associated with those penalties. So there is still "salvation" by grace, but the grace doesn't mean we are free to intentionally, willfully, knowingly transgress and break the law. We keep the law so we do not keep coming under condemnation. And if we do well in obedience, then we would not be under the condemnation of the law.

Your current interpretation conflates the penalty for breaking the law with the law itself. Instead of saying that sin (the transgression of the law) is death, you call the law death. Meanwhile calling transgression of the law life and grace and acceptable.

It is this transposition "that which is good shall be called evil."

I was illustrating a point, not making an accusation, so stop accusing me of something other people are doing.

 

[JudahYAHites]

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. — Matthew 23:1-3 KJV

 

[Mark C]

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. — Matthew 23:1-3 KJV

Interesting, YAHites, check out Nehemiah Gordon (who is a translator of ancient Hebrew, and done a lot of work on the Dead Sea Scrolls) and his work with Michael Rood. He wrote a book on aspects of it, entitled The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus
and addresses his translations (plural) of that particular verse from early texts.

Bottom line: He makes an excellent case that most English renderings are WRONG, and the error is a single Hebrew 'stroke', or yod...which turned "he" into "they".

So, it SHOULD say:
...All therefore whatsoever HE [Moshe] bids you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not...

Actually, it makes the case He [Yahushua] makes even more clearly.

 

[Mark C]

Reading algebra has never my strong suit.

Hmm.

What are you implying here?

Yahushua != 'jesus'

The real one is - literally - 'the salvation of Yahuah.'

OTOH, "another jesus" - who allegedly 'did away with' His very own Word, is a "liar and the Truth not in Him." For reasons the Real Messiah made undeniably clear.

No wonder the Real One warned that the path is "narrow" and "few there be that find it."

People pushing things He called "hypocrisy" - and worse - doesn't help.

But for a real eye-opener, read the END of that same speech (the "Sermon on the Mount") where He said He wasn't changing His own Torah, and added the warning, "I never knew you."

 

[JudahYAHites]

Interesting, YAHites, check out Nehemiah Gordon (who is a translator of ancient Hebrew, and done a lot of work on the Dead Sea Scrolls) and his work with Michael Rood. He wrote a book on aspects of it, entitled The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus
and addresses his translations (plural) of that particular verse from early texts.

Bottom line: He makes an excellent case that most English renderings are WRONG, and the error is a single Hebrew 'stroke', or yod...which turned "he" into "they".

So, it SHOULD say:
...All therefore whatsoever HE [Moshe] bids you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not...

Actually, it makes the case He [Yahushua] makes even more clearly.

That hammers it home beyond doubt, but I guess christendom will do a matrix move to avoid it...

 

[Mark C]

That hammers it home beyond doubt, but I guess christendom will do a matrix move to avoid it...

That is literally why my ministry is "come out of her, My people."

I saw through that sun-god-day crap when I was still a teenager...but the problem was, it was ALL I saw.

So I left the Whore Church - good riddance - and stayed out for years. Until I finally decided to read it, ALL of it, from the Beginning, line-by-line, precept-by-precept, for myself, and realized Jeremiah was right:

We DID "inherit lies from our fathers."

And it still amazes me that people who can see through one small part of it - that They LIE about MARRIAGE - still can't take the red pill and see the rest of it.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

2 Corinthians 3:1-18 KJV
[1] Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
[2] Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
[3] Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

[Not written with ink... not on tablets of stone... but on tablets of the heart? I thought that kind of talk was for the distant future?]


[4] And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
[5] Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
[6] Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

[Say what? God made Paul and Timothy able ministers of the new testament (kainos diathēkē)? I thought that was way in the future. Not of the letter? What letter? The letter killith? That cannot be talking about the law of Moses, can it?]



[7] But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

[That’s exactly what he’s talking about. Why is Paul calling the very thing he is supposedly teaching everyone to follow a ministration of death... and simultaneously saying he is currently a minister of the kainos diathēkē, which he asserts has greater glory? Paul and Timothy are saying here that they are not ministers of the law of Moses, but rather they are ministers of the kainos diathēkē]



[8] How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
[9] For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

[Law of Moses = condemnation, but was glorious?
Ministration of righteousness = even more glorious?



[10] For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

[Is he saying the law of Moses pales in comparison to the kainos diathēkē... that he is currently a minister of? That’s exactly what he’s saying]



[11] For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

[He’s not talking about extra biblical rules made up by the pharisees, he’s talking about Sinai and it could not be more clear]

[12] Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
[13] And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

[ IS abolished?] [Paul says what he speaks about is not vailed, so we can understand plainly what he is saying here ]



[14] But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

[old testament (palaios diathēkē) the contrast is plain and unambiguous]



[15] But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
[16] Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
[17] Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
[18] But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Hmm.

Yahushua != 'jesus'

The real one is - literally - 'the salvation of Yahuah.'

OTOH, "another jesus" - who allegedly 'did away with' His very own Word, is a "liar and the Truth not in Him." For reasons the Real Messiah made undeniably clear.

No wonder the Real One warned that the path is "narrow" and "few there be that find it."

People pushing things He called "hypocrisy" - and worse - doesn't help.

But for a real eye-opener, read the END of that same speech (the "Sermon on the Mount") where He said He wasn't changing His own Torah, and added the warning, "I never knew you."

Peter, Paul and everyone else calls Him iēsous. I know it is Yeshua in hebrew, but nobody in Scripture seems to be hung up on that like you are. Are you telling us to “come out” of the Scriptures?

 

[The Revolting Man]

@Asforme&myhouse can speak for himself, but I believe he is describing the law of the Spirit as referenced in Romans 8:2. Now that we have the Spirit of God living inside of us we are no longer bound by the external written law that can only lead to sin and death. It is not that the Spirit is in in opposition to the written law, it is that the Spirit is a more accurate depiction of God's will than the written law.

An example of this would be David eating the showbread in 1 Samuel 21. How does David know that it is ok for him to eat it?

You might not agree with Paul, but that is clearly what he is saying.

You can say that this position leads to licentiousness. However this would be the same position taken by Paul's detractors which Peter refutes in 1 Peter 3:

"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

If you are going oppose both Peter and Paul you would really be kicking against the goads so to speak.

If that’s what I thought Paul was saying that I would agree with you. Since Romans is such a pro-Law book let me go look at this passage and see what you’re talking about.

 

[The Revolting Man]

@Asforme&myhouse can speak for himself, but I believe he is describing the law of the Spirit as referenced in Romans 8:2. Now that we have the Spirit of God living inside of us we are no longer bound by the external written law that can only lead to sin and death. It is not that the Spirit is in in opposition to the written law, it is that the Spirit is a more accurate depiction of God's will than the written law.

An example of this would be David eating the showbread in 1 Samuel 21. How does David know that it is ok for him to eat it?

You might not agree with Paul, but that is clearly what he is saying.

You can say that this position leads to licentiousness. However this would be the same position taken by Paul's detractors which Peter refutes in 1 Peter 3:

"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

If you are going oppose both Peter and Paul you would really be kicking against the goads so to speak.

Oooh, you’re reading a verse at a time again. You just called God’s Words sin and death. That’s a hard statement to reconcile. The law of sin and death is not God’s Law which we know brings life. Keep reading and you’ll find verse 4 talks about the righteousness of the law. Keep reading and in verse 7 you’ll see that the law of sin and death is carnality.

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”

Remember this is Paul. He can not be read one verse at a time.

 

[Mark C]

It's not about pronunciation. It's about calling Him a liar. But I don't really think you are THAT obtuse. (You didn't really read it, did you?)

 

[rgmann]

2 Corinthians 3:1-18 KJV

The problem, brother, as I’m sure you are aware, is that our most obnoxious opponents here simply do not believe anything that Paul says in this passage – they believe a false gospel! They deny that Christ’s Apostles are “ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (v. 6). They blatantly reject that the old covenant is “the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones” (v. 7), “the ministry of condemnation” (v. 9), and that it has been forever replaced by the new covenant, “the ministry of righteousness” (v. 9). They are, quite simply, false teachers. “And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works” (2 Cor. 11:14-15). Apart from God granting them genuine repentance and faith (2 Tim. 2:25-26), and I hope and pray that He will, their end will indeed be “according to their works.”