"Not Subject to the Law of God?"

[RND]

Then. One of those errors of the Pharisees was to call people Rabbi. And it would then be an insult to call Paul as being Rabbi.

In the sense of the desire of being called teacher in order to get a swelled head about oneself I might agree. being called an "elder" or a "board member" has the same effects on people. I don't see anything about Paul that would indicate that he was anything but humble. Calling Paul "rabbi" would be no different than calling your pastor, "pastor."

BTW, Paul's dead. Do you think there's much that "insults" him?

Okay. So I guess that means, that you would follow Paul rather than your own estimate of whether people should follow the Law.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Paul never taught anyone to disobey the Torah. In the sense that Paul, as a teacher, never taught anyone that there is no more law I certainly believe what he taught.

[mikew]

Okay. So I guess that means, that you would follow Paul rather than your own estimate of whether people should follow the Law.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Paul never taught anyone to disobey the Torah. In the sense that Paul, as a teacher, never taught anyone that there is no more law I certainly believe what he taught.

Ok. so you would esteem your opinion over Paul's though he were found to have taught against the effort to follow the Law of Moses?

Your response, except for the part related to the question I just asked, didn't really answer anything.

Paul of course never said that the Law of Moses didn't exist anymore. And true again, without resolving any issues, is that Paul never taught anyone to disobey the Law of Moses. These aren't issues on the table as far as I know.

All I'm trying to learn now is whether an investigation into Paul's writings can influence your thinking. Or is your hermeneutic based primarily on the apriori requirement of an expanded obligation to obey the Law of Moses (that is, expanded beyond the covenant made with Israel, expanded to include Gentiles under this Law of the Israel covenant)?

[RND]

Ok. so you would esteem your opinion over Paul's though he were found to have taught against the effort to follow the Law of Moses?

Paul never taught "taught against the effort to follow the Law of Moses" he taught that it was impossible to follow the law without faith.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

This was the Pharisees problem and one of Paul's self-stated problems. This is how the Pharisees could threaten to kill Jesus for healing on the sabbath. The proper observance of the sabbath according to their traditions became more important than the healing.

Your response, except for the part related to the question I just asked, didn't really answer anything.

Sorry. Your questions are difficult to follow sometimes.

Paul of course never said that the Law of Moses didn't exist anymore. And true again, without resolving any issues, is that Paul never taught anyone to disobey the Law of Moses. These aren't issues on the table as far as I know.

All I'm trying to learn now is whether an investigation into Paul's writings can influence your thinking.

I don't believe what I believe because I've never read Paul or studied his epistles. So I guess you can say I have been quite influenced by Paul, via the Holy Spirit.

Or is your hermeneutic based primarily on the apriori requirement of an expanded obligation to obey the Law of Moses (that is, expanded beyond the covenant made with Israel, expanded to include Gentiles under this Law of the Israel covenant)?

My "hermeneutic" is based on the plain meaning of the Bible. The covenant with Israel was not just for Israel, but anyone that chose to (on their own volition) sojourn or become an Israelite. This was established long before Mt. Sinai. The picture of this is the perfect picture of joining the nation of Israel today headed by it's true King and Lord, Jesus Christ. This is true when we understand that the only way God ever promised the gentiles salvation was by taking hold of His covenant.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

The "new" covenant was promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Which one do you belong to?

[mikew]

Your response, except for the part related to the question I just asked, didn't really answer anything.

Sorry. Your questions are difficult to follow sometimes.

Yes. Sorry. Some of my questions are confusing to me when I have re-read them (in posts from the past).

I also finally realized you didn't setup your original post by saying it was a topic for discussion. I started reading the article with the idea that it was up for discussion. Certainly there are controversies introduced by the title and by the content of the referenced article. The title is both controversial and ambiguous. The title was ambiguous in just mentioning the "law of God" which is a more generalized statement, which can refer only to New Testament concepts. But the real question seemed to be whether one should follow the letter of the Old Testament law.

So I ended up asking some preliminary questions about whether you would consider what Paul says about following the Law of Moses( or not being required to give attention to it -- attention such as in reading such Law and trying to follow it). So I would guess the confusion started by the very fact that I was asking such questions. (But there are many reasons my questions are confusing or difficult -- many reasons are just cause of my errors.)

My questions then were largely focused on determining if a conversation could be convincing based on Paul's words. I have heard of some people who don't give much weight to Paul's writings. And somewhat of a similar idea is that these readings were largely disregarded until the Reformation. So its good to know that you at least agree that Paul is an authority in interpretation of the Old Testament, even if you hold to a modern trend to revitalize the Law of Moses.

Or is your hermeneutic based primarily on the apriori requirement of an expanded obligation to obey the Law of Moses (that is, expanded beyond the covenant made with Israel, expanded to include Gentiles under this Law of the Israel covenant)?

My "hermeneutic" is based on the plain meaning of the Bible. The covenant with Israel was not just for Israel, but anyone that chose to (on their own volition) sojourn or become an Israelite. This was established long before Mt. Sinai. The picture of this is the perfect picture of joining the nation of Israel today headed by it's true King and Lord, Jesus Christ. This is true when we understand that the only way God ever promised the gentiles salvation was by taking hold of His covenant.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

The "new" covenant was promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Which one do you belong to?

Ok. So I never desired to sojourn in Israel. I guess that leaves me out of your concept. I simply was called by God through Jesus. As far as I know I never descended from Israel and never was under their governments (house of Judah nor house of Israel). And I haven't heard of anyone ever changing their race. (Okay. maybe there is one person I heard that has tried to do this.)
Paul, in the Book of Romans, even wrote to Gentiles who were hostile to Jews and nowhere did I see Paul try to convince the Gentiles to change to a different race. Instead Paul just seemed interested in making the Gentiles benevolent toward Israel.

Now you bring up an interesting issue, something I have wondered about, namely whether the new covenant of Jer 31:31 was basically just relevant, like you said, tot he housed of Israel and house of Judah. For example, I never had an Old Covenant covering me, so therefore I could not get into a new covenant.

For the most part, the Old Testament was quiet or cryptic about the inclusion of non-Jewish people into being God's people. So it was a mystery that was revealed later on. In the Book of Romans, the insertion of Gentiles into a place of faith was through Abraham rather than through Israel. Gentiles became children of Abraham by virtue of faith, and skipped the subsequent complexity implied of children of Isaac or Israel. So it would seem that my connection with Abraham is the safest claim I can make.

I hope this makes sense.

[RND]

Ok. So I never desired to sojourn in Israel.

Have you desired to know and follow Jesus? He is Israel.

I guess that leaves me out of your concept. I simply was called by God through Jesus. As far as I know I never descended from Israel and never was under their governments (house of Judah nor house of Israel). And I haven't heard of anyone ever changing their race. (Okay. maybe there is one person I heard that has tried to do this.)

When one chooses to "join Israel" they make a conscious decision to abide by the rule of Israel. That is a common theme in the OT and a common theme in the New as well.

Paul, in the Book of Romans, even wrote to Gentiles who were hostile to Jews and nowhere did I see Paul try to convince the Gentiles to change to a different race. Instead Paul just seemed interested in making the Gentiles benevolent toward Israel.

It's not about race, it's about acceptance.

Now you bring up an interesting issue, something I have wondered about, namely whether the new covenant of Jer 31:31 was basically just relevant, like you said, tot he housed of Israel and house of Judah. For example, I never had an Old Covenant covering me, so therefore I could not get into a new covenant.

Do you believe God put His laws in your hearts?

For the most part, the Old Testament was quiet or cryptic about the inclusion of non-Jewish people into being God's people.

Cryptic? No way, it was actually quite direct.

So it was a mystery that was revealed later on. In the Book of Romans, the insertion of Gentiles into a place of faith was through Abraham rather than through Israel.

Abraham was a gentile.

Gentiles became children of Abraham by virtue of faith,

Gentiles became children of Christ Jesus by virtue of faith. The seed of Abraham was singular, not referring to many but to one. The promises regarding "Abraham's seed" were to Christ.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

and skipped the subsequent complexity implied of children of Isaac or Israel.

God never saves by race. Otherwise, God would be a "racist." It is always by faith no matter who one is or where they are from.

So it would seem that my connection with Abraham is the safest claim I can make.

I hope this makes sense.

Your connection isn't with Abraham, it is with his seed, Jesus Christ. So I'll ask again because it is such a vital point in understanding this topic. The "new" covenant was promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Which one do you belong to?

If you don't have an immediate answer I understand. I didn't at first either. Oh, and BTW this isn't some strange teaching from the WWCOG/Herbert Armstrong connection. Straight Torah.

[Pierac]

The law of God is surely a revelation of the very character and personality of God. Yet the scriptures appear to many to be filled with contradictions on this subject.

For example, in Matt. 5:17-19, Christ says think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets, I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, 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.

From this point on, Christ begins a series of six you have heard it said by them of old time... followed by, but I say unto you... In every case, the but I say unto you... is a dramatic change from "the law" which Christ quotes every time he says you have heard it said by them of old time...

In several instances, Christ's teachings flatly contradict the law of Moses. This is done immediately after warning us whosoever... shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

How can this be? The writings of the Apostle Paul contain these things... which are... hard to be understood, by they that are unlearned and unstable... (II Pet. 3:16).
Paul asks the question Do we then make void [Greek word - katargeo] the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law (Rom. 3:31). Yet later he says having abolished [same Greek word katargeo] in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances... (Eph. 2:15).

Is the law "abolished" or not? These are but a couple of examples of the confusion that is the rule whenever "the law" is discussed.

We will accomplish this by demonstrating that there are two completely separate laws under discussion in the scriptures.

It will be revealed that generally the phrase "the law" when standing alone refers to the law of Moses. It will also be shown in graphic detail how this law is "oldness of letter" and is completely different and separate from the "newness of spirit" (Rom. 7:6). It will be shown how in many instances, the "newness of spirit" flatly contradicts the "oldness of the letter." The scriptures will be provided which show that while the oldness of "the letter killeth... the spirit giveth life" (II Cor. 3:6). Yet the "letter of the law," while it defines sin, is not of itself sin.

The preordained function of the law of Moses corresponds with the function of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. By both we come to know what sin is (Rom. 7:7) and what good is and therefore both become "ministrations of death" (II Cor. 3:7).

While the "law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph. 2:15) is a "ministration of death" (II Cor 3:7) and is indeed "abolished" (Gr.- katargeo) and "done away" (also Gr. - katargeo), that this is only so "after that faith is come" (Gal. 3:25).

"The law" was not a "schoolmaster" just to bring Paul's generation to Christ and then disappear. "The law" was OUR schoolmaster to bring US unto Christ" (Gal. 3:24). This statement can be made in its past tense only "after that faith is come". "Before faith comes" (vs. 23) we are all, generation by generation, concluded under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed (Gal. 3:22, 23).

It will be demonstrated "after faith is revealed" in each generation of believers, that the righteousness of God without the law is manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets (Rom. 3:21) thereby "establishing the law".

It will be shown that it is only by the law that all the world may become guilty before God. (Rom. 3:19).

The law is "abolished" and "done away" only for those "in Christ." We know that what things soever the law saith it saith to them who are under the law... guilty before God (Rom. 3:19).

We know [and hope to demonstrate] that the law is good when used lawfully [meaning] that the law is not made for a righteous man but for the lawless and disobedient... (I Tim. 1:8,9). "Lawful use of the law" is for the "lawless and disobedient". Thank God it is not "abolished" or "done away" for those folks.

We shall show that "the law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2) is as superior to the ten commandments as Matt. 5 is to Ex. 20, and as meat is superior to milk.

The reader will be pointed to the scriptures which show that both laws, like both trees in the garden of Eden, were given by God and both have served and continue to serve their different and separate functions in God's plan and purpose.

We will show that the law of Moses was for a carnal, Christ-rejecting Israel.

Yes, even "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16), those who come to know Christ, "also shall be cut off" (Rom. 11:22) if not continuing to see that our standing in Christ brings us out from under the "yoke" (Acts 15:10) of "bondage under the elements of the world" (Gal. 4:3). These "elements of the world" under which the heir is kept until he is brought to Christ, are the ten commandments and the law of Moses.

We will determine that the failure to distinguish between these two laws keeps us from being able to differentiate between the two Israels. That failure is as vital as distinguishing Ishmael from Isaac. One of them is the heir, no longer under the "yoke" and "bondage to the elements of this world", but the one under the law is the son of the bondwoman and will not be made heir (Gal. 4:21-31). Christ cannot "be formed in those under the law" (Gal. 4:19-21).

Understanding the law is just that important!

Finally, we reveal that the perfection of the lamb of God; the blamelessness of the Being without blemish; the perfect righteousness of Christ was not reckoned by His perfect obedience to the "law of Moses" which He deliberately violated on more than one occasion for the sole purpose of showing that His new covenant law was far superior to the passing old covenant law; yes, even the ten commandments.

Rather, His righteousness was based on the righteousness of the new covenant, "the righteousness of God without the law... being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ..." (Rom. 3:20-22).

Christ was not "justified by deeds of the law" (vs. 20) any more than we are.

Two Opposing Theologies

There are two opposing theological thoughts and teachings among Christians today:

1. The vast majority of Christians (especially fundamentalists) believe that we fulfill the New Covenant (law) by keeping the Old Covenant (law) in our hearts. In this teaching, grace fills in the gaps should we fall short of perfection.

2. A smaller group of believers (libertarians) believe and teach that we are not under the Old Covenant (law) OR the New Covenant (law). But rather, we are free from ALL law. In this teaching grace covers all of our actions good or bad, with no consequences for anything we do.

Both of these above views are untrue and unscriptural.

The New Covenant Is Not A Modification Of The Old Covenant

Lest anyone should seriously entertain the notion that the New Covenant is in harmony with the Old Covenant or that it is a modification of the Old Testament or that it is still in force today, consider the following Scriptures:
Blue = Old Covenant and ... Red = New Covenant

Old Mosaic Covenant New Spiritual Covenant
OLD Covenant... II Cor. 3:14 NEW Covenant... II Cor. 3:6
FIRST Covenant... Heb. 8:7,9:1 SECOND Covenant... Heb. 8:7,10:1-9
Came by Moses... John 1:17 Came by Christ... Heb. 8:6,9:15
Law of God in STONE... II Cor. 3:3 Law of God in HEART... Heb. 10:16
Law of MOSES... Acts 13:38-39 Law of the SPIRIT... Rom. 8:2
NOT of faith... Gal. 3:2 Law of FAITH... Rom. 3:27
Yoke of BONDAGE... Gal. 5:1 Law of LIBERTY... James 1:25
Law of SIN... Rom. 7:5-6 Law of RIGHTEOUSNESS... Rom. 9:30-31
Law of DEATH... II Cor. 3:7 Law of LIFE... Gal. 3:11, 6:8
Christ removes OLD... Heb. 10:9 Christ enacted the NEW... Heb.10:9
A SHADOW... Col. 2:14-17 The REALITY... Heb. 10:1-18
FULFILLED... Matt. 5:17-18 NOW IN FORCE... Heb. 8:6,10:9
Priesthood CHANGED... Heb. 7:12 UNCHANGEABLE Priesthood... Heb. 7:24
MANY sacrifices... Heb. 9:12-13 ONE sacrifice for sin... Heb. 10:12
IMPERFECT... Heb. 7:19 PERFECT... Heb. 7:19
Blood of ANIMALS... Heb. 9:19 Blood of CHRIST... Matt. 26:28
Circumcision... Ex. 12:48 Uncircumcision... Rom. 4:9-12
WORKS of law... Gal. 3:10 NOT of works but GRACE... Eph. 2:8
REMEMBERS sins... Heb. 10:3 FORGETS sins... Heb. 10:17
YEARLY atonement... Heb. 10:3 PERMANENT atonement... Heb. 10:4
SINFUL priests... Heb. 5:3 SINLESS priest... Heb. 7:26
AARONIC priesthood... Heb. 7:11 MELCHISEDEC priest... Heb. 5:5-10
MAN MADE tabernacle... Heb. 8:5 HEAVENLY tabernacle... Heb. 8:2,11
Out of LEVI... Heb. 7:11 Out of JUDAH... Heb. 7:14
WEAK, UNPROFITABLE... Heb. 7:18 POWER of ENDLESS LIFE... Heb. 7:16
NO inheritance... Rom. 4:13 ETERNAL inheritance... Heb. 9:15
Sacrifice of ANIMALS... Heb. 9:13 Sacrifice of CHRIST... Heb. 9:28
Purified the FLESH... Heb. 8:13 Purged the CONSCIENCE... Heb. 9:14
PRODUCES wrath... Rom. 4:15 SAVES from wrath... Rom. 5:9
Perfected NOTHING... Heb. 7:19 Perfects BELIEVERS... Heb. 10:14
NO MERCY... Heb. 10:28 COMPLETE MERCY... Heb. 8:12
NO justification... Acts 13:39 BELIEVERS justified... Acts 13:39
BRINGS a curse... Gal. 3:10 REDEEMS from curse... Acts 3:13
ABOLISHED... II Cor. 3:13 CONTINUES IN GLORY... II Cor. 3:11
Brought DEATH... II Cor. 3:7 Brought RECONCILIATION... II Cor. 5:18 ISRAEL ONLY... Deut. 4:7-8,5:3 ALL MANKIND... Mark 14:24, II Cor. 5:14-19

So we have an abundance of scriptures that tell us that there was an Old Covenant (For Israel) that was an administration of condemnation and death: it was but a "shadow" of a better covenant to come and has been "annulled'. Now Christ has given us a New Covenant of the spirit based on spiritual law: (1) the Law of God, (2) the Law of Christ, (3) the Law of the Spirit, (4) the Law of Faith, (5) the Law of Liberty, (6) the Law of Righteousness and (7) the Law of Life. These seven (perfect) laws (for all mankind), written on our hearts by the spirit of God, cover every aspect of human life making the Old Covenant of none effect.

Taken from the works of Mr. Vinson, So any thoughts on his beliefs?
Paul

[RND]

As the OP I'd appreciate you discussing the topic at hand in your own words other than dominating the thread with other items, thanks.

[mikew]

David,

I found the article useful for some details about the Romans and a good listing of the fulfillment of prophecy that occured in the first century with respect to that generation of Jews.

That article was mainly about following the Law of Moses and in many ways about taking on Jewish culture, plus their non-Bible literature.

The author didn't really present a case, based upon NT scripture, why anyone should be obligated to the Law of Moses. And worse, he didn't show any reason why someone under the Law of Moses should follow Jesus. The most assertive statement of Paul's writing was Rom 8:7 "because the mind of the flesh is hostile towards God; for it is not subject to God’s law, neither indeed can it be." And this was used to allege a converse statement that "those in the Spirit are subject to Torah."
Most of the argument was saying that the Torah was unchanging and hence the NT must be interpreted as requiring people to follow the Law of Moses. Also, the argument was made that Jesus spoke many things out of the Talmud. Such an argument fails both by the ludicrous examples shown (most Talmud "matches" were not worth listing). Even if similarities occur in a few instances, Jesus never endorsed any books or writers of the Talmud, if even the Talmud existed in the form being mentioned by the author.

So the best benefit of the article was the evidence that Deut 29:22-29 and Song of Moses Deut 32 (also shown below, in part) had been fulfilled. These are good reason not to be get too enthralled with the culture of the first century.

29:22 The generation to come, your children who shall rise up after you, and the foreigner who shall come from a far land, shall say, when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses with which Yahweh has made it sick; 29:23 and that the whole land of it is sulfur, salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor bears, nor any grass grows therein, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which Yahweh overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath: 29:24 even all the nations shall say, “Why has Yahweh done thus to this land? What does the heat of this great anger mean?”

29:25 Then men shall say, “Because they forsook the covenant of Yahweh, the God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, 29:26 and went and served other gods, and worshiped them, gods that they didn’t know, and that he had not given to them: 29:27 therefore the anger of Yahweh was kindled against this land, to bring on it all the curse that is written in this book; 29:28 and Yahweh rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as at this day.”

29:29 The secret things belong to Yahweh our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

We see that Deut 29 prophesied of the treatment of Judaism under the Roman Empire. Their attitudes may not be what we like to endorse today, but the actions taken by Romans and other groups was inevitable.

32:20 He said, “I will hide my face from them.
I will see what their end shall be;
for they are a very perverse generation,
children in whom is no faithfulness.
32:21 They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God.
They have provoked me to anger with their vanities.
I will move them to jealousy with those who are not a people.
I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.
32:22 For a fire is kindled in my anger,
Burns to the lowest Sheol,
Devours the earth with its increase,
and sets the foundations of the mountains on fire.
32:23 “I will heap evils on them.
I will spend my arrows on them.
32:24 They shall be wasted with hunger, and devoured with burning heat
and bitter destruction.
I will send the teeth of animals on them,
With the poison of crawling things of the dust.
32:25 Outside the sword shall bereave,
and in the rooms, terror;
on both young man and virgin,
The nursing infant with the gray-haired man.
32:26 I said, I would scatter them afar.
I would make their memory to cease from among men;
32:27 were it not that I feared the provocation of the enemy,
lest their adversaries should judge wrongly,
lest they should say, ‘Our hand is exalted,
Yahweh has not done all this.’”
32:28 For they are a nation void of counsel.
There is no understanding in them.
32:29 Oh that they were wise, that they understood this,
that they would consider their latter end!
32:30 How could one chase a thousand,
and two put ten thousand to flight,
unless their Rock had sold them,
and Yahweh had delivered them up?
32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock,
even our enemies themselves being judges.
32:32 For their vine is of the vine of Sodom,
of the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are grapes of gall,
Their clusters are bitter.
32:33 Their wine is the poison of serpents,
The cruel venom of asps.
32:34 “Isn’t this laid up in store with me,
sealed up among my treasures?
32:35 Vengeance is mine, and recompense,
at the time when their foot slides;
for the day of their calamity is at hand.
The things that are to come on them shall make haste.”
32:36 For Yahweh will judge his people,
and have compassion on his servants,
when he sees that their power is gone,
There is none remaining, shut up or left at large.
32:37 He will say, “Where are their gods,
The rock in which they took refuge;
32:38 Which ate the fat of their sacrifices,
And drank the wine of their drink offering?
Let them rise up and help you!
Let them be your protection.
32:39 “See now that I, even I, am he,
There is no god with me.
I kill, and I make alive.
I wound, and I heal.
There is no one who can deliver out of my hand.
32:40 For I lift up my hand to heaven,
And say, As I live forever,
32:41 if I whet my glittering sword,
My hand take hold on judgment;
I will render vengeance to my adversaries,
and will recompense those who hate me.
32:42 I will make my arrows drunk with blood.
My sword shall devour flesh with the blood of the slain and the captives,
from the head of the leaders of the enemy.”
32:43 Rejoice, you nations, with his people,
for he will avenge the blood of his servants.
He will render vengeance to his adversaries,
And will make expiation for his land, for his people

There of course were many other errors of the author's argument. But Moses gave the most important response.

It is interesting about Paul's question "What advantage does the Jew have?" (Rom 3:1) in light of the Song of Moses... and I would say that in the first century, and before, that they had an obvious advantage in coming to the faith, so more became believers there, percentagewise, than anywhere else in the world. Maybe now they just have the same likelihood of coming to faith in Jesus as does the average person around the world.

[RND]

David, I found the article useful for some details about the Romans and a good listing of the fulfillment of prophecy that occured in the first century with respect to that generation of Jews.

Which section?

That article was mainly about following the Law of Moses and in many ways about taking on Jewish culture, plus their non-Bible literature.

That's confusing because I didn't see where the author made any such connection. Maybe you could elaborate.

The author didn't really present a case, based upon NT scripture, why anyone should be obligated to the Law of Moses. And worse, he didn't show any reason why someone under the Law of Moses should follow Jesus. The most assertive statement of Paul's writing was Rom 8:7 "because the mind of the flesh is hostile towards God; for it is not subject to God’s law, neither indeed can it be." And this was used to allege a converse statement that "those in the Spirit are subject to Torah."Most of the argument was saying that the Torah was unchanging and hence the NT must be interpreted as requiring people to follow the Law of Moses.

An astute observation. But I think it would be incumbent upon anyone insisting the Torah has been done away with to demonstrate as much, , using the New Testament, when discussing the topic or making any assertion. Simply saying "we are saved by grace through faith" isn't enough. Hebrews 11 makes the point that this, being saved by grace, has always been the case.

Also, the argument was made that Jesus spoke many things out of the Talmud. Such an argument fails both by the ludicrous examples shown (most Talmud "matches" were not worth listing). Even if similarities occur in a few instances, Jesus never endorsed any books or writers of the Talmud, if even the Talmud existed in the form being mentioned by the author.

Most Messianics believe and have a great deal of documentary proof that Jesus did in fact use the teachings of the Talmud in discussing scripture with the Pharisees. Jesus was a Jewish boy and as a result Jesus would have been subject to both learning and understanding the Torah, Tanakh and Talmud. In fact it was Jesus Himself that actually conversed with learned men of His day when He was a boy is obviously common scriptural knowledge.

Your arguments are fascinating simply because they really amount to "did not." If you wish to offer something of proof that Jesus didn't know the Talmud I'd be all ears. Otherwise I'll choose to side with those that know. Oh, and also please don't think I'm "supporting" the teachings of the Talmud by simply understanding that Jesus knew them - I do not.

But I will give you an example of Jesus knowing the Talmud. In Mark 7 Jesus was called to the carpet for not having his disciples wash their hands. This was no ordinary hand washing but an elaborate spectacle. This type of teaching is not found anywhere in the Torah but in the Talmud. Verse 3 confirms this by saying plainly that this was a "tradition of the elders." Mark 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash [their] hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. Talmud.

Jesus knew this. Verse 4 in fact tells one just how "ritual" this washing was. The Pharisees questioned him about this, being He was a Rabbi, and He answered them by quoting Isaiah. And then Jesus plainly tells them what they are doing is a "tradition of men" (Talmud) and not a commandment from God.

Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

When you see the word "tradition" in the Gospel think Talmud.

Luk 2:46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors (Doctors of the law, Torah and Talmud), both hearing them, and asking them questions. 47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

The word "doctor" here is the same word for "master." This was an extremely high position in Jewish culture of the time and one where a great deal of learning and understanding had to take place. Nicodemus was a "Master of Israel."

Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things ?

So the best benefit of the article was the evidence that Deut 29:22-29 and Song of Moses Deut 32 (also shown below, in part) had been fulfilled. These are good reason not to be get too enthralled with the culture of the first century.

Unfortunately you make the authors point for him here and don't even realize it. You're basically saying that since everyone is speeding on the freeway at 90 the speed limit sign that says 70 doesn't matter. The author is making the point that just because people believe their is no more Torah doesn't mean that is true. Just because those in the first century didn't understand the spirit of the law doesn't mean that there is no law. If you need any proof of this see the Sermon on the Mount. Or look for all the examples where Jesus taught what the proper observance of the sabbath involved.

We see that Deut 29 prophesied of the treatment of Judaism under the Roman Empire. Their attitudes may not be what we like to endorse today, but the actions taken by Romans and other groups was inevitable.

Deuteronomy 29 was fulfilled when first Israel, and then Judah, were carried off into captivity, not when Jesus began His ministry.

The curse of the law is ignoring it. That's also true in think one can be saved by it. Doesn't change the law however.

There of course were many other errors of the author's argument. But Moses gave the most important response.

Care to list a few so we can discuss them?

It is interesting about Paul's question "What advantage does the Jew have?" (Rom 3:1) in light of the Song of Moses...

Paul was reminding the Jews what their role was and what that role entailed. They were responsible for teaching the nations about the goodness of God. Instead, they ignored Him.

and I would say that in the first century, and before, that they had an obvious advantage in coming to the faith, so more became believers there, percentagewise, than anywhere else in the world. Maybe now they just have the same likelihood of coming to faith in Jesus as does the average person around the world.

God is not a respecter of persons. Happy Sabbath.