Melkizedeq Priesthood Attack II Here it is Torah Fans ++ Should we only keep the commands contained in the Book of the Covenant, and not the ones contained in the Book of the Law? By David Wilber (Works at Passion For [some] Truth Ministries) ** Rebuttal by Dr. David L. Perry ++ Note: This is still just a rough draft. Sorry for my poor grammar ** 1st off this title is a dead give away – It presupposes that the Book of the Covenant and the Book of the Law are the same – They are Not! It also presupposes that the content of these 2 are the same – They are Not! Melkizedeq values and issues (including Book of the Covenant Ex.19:5-24:8) are peppered throughout the Book of the Law (Ex.24:12 thru Dt.31:26) but still stand in their respective original Melkizedeq place (Gen.1:1 thru Ex.24:8-11). ++ “”I’ve recently been discussing an interesting view of the Torah with two individuals over e-mail. One of these individuals has written two books on the topic while the other is actively teaching their ideas at conferences and congregations around the United States. Normally I tend to keep to myself and let people believe what they want. I rarely feel the desire to publicly address what I consider to be false teaching, but I’ve received quite a few questions from people asking about the information brought forth by these two individuals. After privately trying to reason with both of them, I’ve decided that I should go ahead and write this public response””. ** 2nd of all – your claim to have spoken – to me in depth is patently false and utterly baseless – Yes I have received 4 or less FB posts from you but NONE that say – read such and such an article (including this 1) and lets discuss it – But what tops this is you assume to assert comment on my Books that you have not read! Now thats rich and is the height of arrogance. ** “these two individuals – Rabbi Matthew Nolan of Torah to the Tribes - FB and and Dr. David L. Perry of Torah without Rabbinics” - FB and wordpress ** “at conferences and congregations around the United States” - Wow! Exciting! Thanx! ** “two books” - 1] The Covenants of Promise – Deals with the The Covenants of Promise of Eph.2:12. Identifying the Biblical Covenants that attach directly to Abrahams Promise Covenant of Gen.15. Distinguishing these various Melchizedek Covenants as distinct from Levitical Law (Gal.3:10; 19 / Heb.7:11-12). And the caveats involved with these various Melchizedek Covenants – Which always involve 5 issues - 1] a Proposal, 2] an Acceptance, 3] a Blood Ratification and 4] a Covenant Confirming Meal - Which always involves attachment directly to 5] Yahwehs oath at Gen.12 thru Abrahams Promise Covenant of Gen.15. 2] Back to the Melchizedek Future – Deals with the return to the original Melchizedek Priesthood (1Ptr.2:9). Ex.19:5-6 is the original open invitation call to that Melchizedek Priesthood. When the Israelites broke the Ex.19 Covenant with the Gold Calf (Ex.32) – They had defiled themselves; no longer eligible to be Melchizedek Priests (This included Aaron and Aarons Sons). They were thrust under the Levitical Priesthood (Num.3:12 / Heb.7:11-12) for the next 15 centuries until Yahshua – the High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek (Heb.7:17; 26). Reconnecting the New Covenant Melchizedek Priesthood (1Pt.2:9) with the Melchizedek Priesthood of the Original Covenant. Available at - torahwithoutrabbinics.wordpress/20…/…/06/books-3/ The Application of Torah ++ “”For those who are unfamiliar with my views concerning the role of Torah in the life of Believers, I’ll give a quick summary: I am a Torah-pursuant Christian. That means that I follow Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) and I believe that the Bible teaches me to obey the commandments and principles outlined in the Torah (often translated in English as “law”) given through the Prophet Moses””. ** Would that include the Gen.49:10 change? or Num.3:12 change or Num.8:15-18 change or my new favorite Jos.5:5 which evidences a circumcision lapse ie change in Torah from Ex.32 yet unstated in Torah (Prv.25:2) and the need for a 2nd command under the Levitical Priesthood – Jos.5:2? ++ “”Stated more negatively, I deny the belief that the Torah is, at best, no longer relevant to Christians, or at worst, a burdensome yoke that was abolished and taken out of the way by Yeshua’s death and resurrection. According to Yeshua, nothing from the Torah will pass away until heaven and earth passes away first (Matthew 5:17-19). Heaven and earth do not pass away until there is no more crying, mourning, pain, nor death (Revelation 21:1-4). We still have crying, mourning, pain, and death; therefore, it follows logically that nothing from the Torah has passed away yet.”” ** And 1ce again - Would that include the Gen.49:10 change? That had to be fully filled during Yahshuas life and 1st coming – The only viable answer is; Yes! - Actually read both texts! Heb.7:12 is not a change to no Law or no Priesthood it is a reversion back to the Torah Melkizedeq original. ++ “”Many aspects of the Torah cannot be kept today due to the fact that the elements required to Biblically observe them do not exist right now. For instance, we cannot observe the commandments concerning sacrifices because there is no Temple in Jerusalem at which to make sacrifices. However, there are many aspects of Torah that we should keep today, such as: the Sabbath, dietary instructions, wearing tzitziyot, and not lying, stealing, coveting, etc. Also, although there are some aspects of the feasts that cannot be observed right now (e.g. sacrifices at the Temple), we keep the memory of the Feasts to the best of our ability while were not in the land. This would include keeping the annual Sabbaths and practices associated with the Feast days (such as ridding our homes of leaven during the Feast of Unleavened Bread and fasting during Yom Kippur)””. ** You say “we cannot observe the commandments concerning sacrifices because there is no Temple in Jerusalem” - Where exactly is that proviso in Torah? - So let me line this out for you and everyone – So you as a Gospel-Torah believer have a legitimate mandate for change from Torah – that you deny – on the reverse side Jews (Rabbinic to Anti-Missionaries) deny a change (like you) yet act on a change they have no legitimate Torah mandate for. ??? wearing tzitziyot – Levitical - Num;15:38 – Read and understand Heb.7:11 then v:12 lying, stealing, coveting, etc. ...This would include keeping the annual Sabbaths and practices associated with the Feast days – Which all is originally Melkizedeq – Ex.12 - Ex.20 - Ex.23 ++ “”I say all that to make my point that when it comes to figuring out which parts of Torah are applicable for today, it is not a matter of “picking and choosing”; it’s a matter of whether some things are even possible.”” ** You say “..not a matter of “picking and choosing ..” that is a great point! - that does apply to the rightly dividing point concerning the Melchizedek Priesthood and the Levitical Book of the Law. Both are Torah - the Melchizedek was/is the Original, Superior, Plan A – Yahwehs Perfect will. The Levitical Priesthood was Yahwehs Permissive fix (Ex.32:10, Num.3:12, 18:1, Ezk.20:24-25) ++ “”For instance, in Missouri there are speed limit laws that apply to certain roads. If a road is under construction and blocked off to traffic, then the speed limit of that road becomes inapplicable. You can’t accuse a law-abiding citizen of Missouri of ignoring the speed limit of that road if they physically can’t apply it. In the same way, many of the laws in Torah require certain specific elements in order to be properly observed. As stated above, many of those elements do not exist today (e.g. a physical Temple in Jerusalem); therefore, they become inapplicable until the road is no longer under construction, so-to-speak. Furthermore, many laws in Torah only apply to specific people. To use the same analogy, if you don’t have a driver’s license, then none of Missouri’s driving laws apply to you. They only apply to drivers. In the same way, Torah gives specific laws to specific people (Priests, Levities, Judges, farmers, women, poor people, rich people, etc.). Therefore, if you are not a Priest or Levite operating within a physical Temple in Jerusalem, or a judge over theocratic Israel appointed by God Himself, then the specific laws given to those groups of people don’t apply to you.”” ** Your Missouri there are speed limit laws that apply would only make sense to a maroon – So you are saying if there is no stop without a license the laws dont apply so you can go 200mph? Stopping (where there is none) would prove an allegiance to an over riding original - Heb.7:12 is not a change to no Law or no Priesthood it is a reversion back to the Torah original ++ “”One day Yeshua will return and reestablish the Temple in Jerusalem. Israel will be a theocratic government with the Torah as its constitution again. Much of the Torah will apply again at that time, but in the meantime, we can only do the best we can with where we are.”” ** You say “Much of the Torah will apply again ...” - Really; So you admit to a change just not this 1? What law will that be based on if not Melkizedeq? Even more interesting What law will the omissions be based on if not Levitical? A New Revelation of Torah? ++ “”What is stated above has been my view for the past seven years. I’m used to having to defend my views against “mainstream Christians” who claim that the Torah is fulfilled in Christ, which according to them means that we don’t have to keep commands like a literal Sabbath anymore. However, recently the validity of the Torah is being questioned from a different angle. There are some who are now teaching that Torah-pursuant Christians and Messianics, such as myself, are clinging to the “status quo” by holding to our current Messianic theology. It is said by some that, until we accept their new revelation, we are rejecting our full inheritance as “Melchizedek priests.” So, what exactly is this “new revelation?”” **Yes you are “clinging to the “status quo” by holding to (your) current Christian - Messianic theology” - All the groups by-and-large take their Que from Yahshua denying Jews (Rabbis to Anti-Missionaries) and bring along a variety of Torah denying / Covenant denying Church baggage You ask “A New Revelation of Torah?” The point you have yet to understand is to remember Torah also states that in the witness of two or three the matter is established (Dt.19:15/2Cor.13:1). This then is the awareness we must realize – It is not a change of Torah to enact the change in Torah; that has in fact always been right there in the pages of Torah i.e. the first five books of Moses. (Gen.49:10, Gal.3:19, Heb.9:10) **What a revoltn development** The truth of the matter becomes; to refuse the change that has always been there in Torah as prophesy is to diminish ought (jot and/or tittle) from Torah (Mt.5:17-18; Lk.16:17; Dt.4:2; 12:32). ++ “”Some are teaching that God’s original plan was that His people were all supposed to be priests and only follow the commands that are found in “the Book of the Covenant.” They say that Exodus 19:5-6 are the opening lines of this covenant and that it ends when the Covenant is ratified at Exodus 24:8. ** You actual got that 1 pretty much right except Gen.1:1 thru Ex.24:8 has many more issues that are not found in “the Book of the Covenant” yet are still Melchizedek. ++ “”Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” - Exodus 24:7-8”” ** Right! ++ “”Israel broke this Covenant when they made the golden calf (Exodus 32). Since Israel was unfaithful, God was going to wipe them out; however, Moses pleaded for them, and so God decided not to kill them. Instead, God made a plan B. The plan B was to establish the Levitical Priesthood. Moreover, God decided to add “the Book of the Law” to the Covenant, which apparently includes all of God’s commands from Exodus 24:12 – Deuteronomy 31:26. ** This is your own rehash; But it sounds like you read at least part of my book – Funny I dont remember any payment from you – or doesnt the 10 Comdts still apply? ++ “”When Messiah Yeshua died and was resurrected, the Melchizedek priesthood took the place of the Levitical priesthood, and therefore the Book of the Law was removed and taken out of the way. This means that followers of Yeshua today only need to keep the commands found in the Book of the Covenant, because that was the original Covenant to which God’s people were called as Melchizedek priests (before they forfeited this calling and God made the Levites priests instead and added the Book of the Law). God’s commandments that are found in the Book of the Law, plus the entire Levitical priesthood, were only temporary until Yeshua came and replaced the Levitical priesthood with the Melchizedek priesthood.”” ** You applying this to me state - followers of Yeshua today only need to keep the commands found in the Book of the Covenant, - This again is not fully correct - Gen.1:1 thru Ex.24:8 has many more issues that are not found in “the Book of the Covenant” (Ex.19:5 - 24:8) yet are still Melchizedek. AND - Not replaced the Levitical priesthood with the Melchizedek priesthood - BUT Reinstated the Melchizedek priesthood to its original place ++ “” The above (**clumsily stated) hypothesis is simply another attempt at reconciling the difficult passages in the New Testament that seem to speak negatively about the law (Torah). Basically, their view is that any time the New Testament seems to say that the law is done away with or burdensome or temporary, it’s actually talking about the “Book of the Law” (the commands contained in Exodus 24:12 – Deuteronomy 31:26). Again, according to their view, the Book of the Law was added because of transgression (Galatians 3:19) -- specifically the transgression of the golden calf. The Book of the Law was not part of the original covenant. Moreover, it was placed on the side of the ark (Deuteronomy 31:26), it’s “against us,” it’s not any good, and it is now removed and taken out of the way because Yeshua established the Melchizedek priesthood. Therefore, if anyone keeps and teaches the commands contained in the Book of the Law (e.g. wearing tzitziyot or fasting on Yom Kippur), they are living in legalistic bondage and promulgating the religious status quo! ** Tho clumsily stated it is a fair assessment – Yet there is much more to be understood concerning Priesthood and Covenant to truly gain an even handed fully-accounted-for assessment – The thing to understand is there are 19 categories of law in the New Testament – which 1 or 1s is Paul talkn about? Below are several reasons why you should reject this theory: ++ “” 1) The Bible never makes a clear distinction between the Book of the Covenant and the Book of the Law. In fact, sometimes the two titles are used synonymously. ** Wrong! Torah does! By Gal.3:15 1ce a Covenant is ratified you can neither add or subtract anything ++ “”For example: 2 Chronicles 34 tells us that the “Book of the Law” was found by Hilkiah the priest and brought to King Josiah (vs. 14-21). This same book is called the “Book of the Covenant” when King Josiah reads it to the elders of Judah and Jerusalem (vs. 29-30). This same exact scenario happens in 2 Kings 22 & 23: The Book of the Law is found (2 Kings 22:8), and the same book is called the Book of the Covenant (2 Kings 23:2). ** You cannot use the confusion of them finding what they had not been keeping for scores of decades to reinterpret Torah to another conclusion. This is neither Intelligent nor Honest! Isa.8:20 ++ “”When I brought this point up to the two individuals promoting this theory, they responded by saying that if Hilkiah had found the Book of the Law then he would have also found the Book of the Covenant since they were right next to each other (Deuteronomy 31:26). **Quick side note: They also believe that all the commands throughout the entire Book of the Covenant (Exodus 24:12-24:8) were written on the stone tablets; not just the Ten Commandments. This will be addressed later** The problem with their response is that they are assuming that there were, in fact, two books found. However, there is nothing from the text indicating that there were two books found. The plain reading of the text is that only one book is being referred to.”” ** Again Sir - You are a liar! – You never brought this up to me. Again you can try and wrench a position from the text But You cannot use the confusion of them finding what they had not been keeping for scores of decades to reinterpret Torah to another conclusion. This is not Honest! ++ “”They cited Ezekiel 20:25 as their proof text to support their view that there is a dichotomy between the Book of the Law and the Book of the Covenant: “because they had not executed My judgments, but had despised My statutes, profaned My Sabbaths, and their eyes were fixed on their fathers idols. 25 Therefore I also gave them up to statutes that were not good, and judgments by which they could not live; 26 and I pronounced them unclean because of their ritual gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire, that I might make them desolate and that they might know that I am the Lord.” -Ezekiel 20:24-26 These “not good” statutes, they say, are referring to the Book of the Law. However, there are several flaws with this interpretation. First of all, if Ezekiel was speaking against keeping certain commandments in Torah, then he would be a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 13. Moreover, Deuteronomy 30 states that the laws were given for a blessing, not for harm or punishment. And verse 14 of chapter 30 specifically says that we CAN do the Book of the Law. Therefore, the “statutes that were not good, and judgments by which they could not live” in Ezekiel 20:25 cannot possibly be referring to any of God’s commandments.”” ** You say “If Ezekiel was speaking against keeping certain commandments in Torah, then he would be a false prophet” this is a leading supposition to your own conclusion – Ezekiel merely stated the fact; he did not make a recommendation or assessment either way besides Yahshua had not come at that point there would be no choice but to keep doing as mandated – All the while knowing that these were in Yahs Words not good because of disobedience – Like adding salt to the wound. ++ “”A reasonable alternative interpretation is that these “not good” statutes and judgments were those adopted from the heathens. It seems more plausible that the text is saying because you have broken MY commandments (vs 24), I am going to give you over to these pagan ways that I pronounce unclean because they pass their firstborn through the fires of Molech. This is in the same way that it is said in Isaiah 63:17, “O LORD, why do you make us wander from your ways and harden our heart, so that we fear you not? Also consider Acts 7:42, “But God turned away from them and gave them over to worship the host of heaven.” Romans 1:21-28 says that God gave the heathens “up to uncleanness,” “unto vile affections,” “to a reprobate mind.” There are many other examples like this. Ezekiel’s point was that the consequences of disobedience and rebellion against God’s commands leads the sinner on to even greater sin. The Israelites rebelled against God; the natural consequence, therefore, was that they fell under the influence of the heathens.”” ** You say ““”A reasonable alternative interpretation is that these “not good” statutes and judgments were those adopted from the heathens. It seems more plausible that the text is saying because you have broken MY commandments (vs 24), I am going to give you over to these pagan ways that I pronounce unclean because they pass their firstborn through the fires of Molech” This is a flagrant deviation from the text; Ezk 20:24 Because they had not executed my (Melchizedek) judgments, but had despised my (Melchizedek) statutes, and had polluted my (Melchizedek) sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers (Pagan) idols. Ezk.20:25 Wherefore *I* (Yahweh) gave them also (Levitical) statutes that were not good, and (Levitical) judgments whereby they should not live; Now how much sense would it be that Yah gave (pagan?) statutes that were not good, and (pagan?) judgments after lamenting that their eyes were after their fathers (Pagan) idols. ??? Yah is Not the author of confusion !!! It make much more sense to realize and accept that both the Melchizedek and the Levitical are both Torah given by Yah. The Melchizedek is the prefect will; the Levitical is the permissive fix. ++ “”2) The Priesthood was given to Aaron and his sons before the golden calf incident: “Then bring near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests—Aaron and Aarons sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.” –Exodus 28:1”” ** Yes you can say that BUT you have to understand - The setting of the Exodus Book of the Covenant (Ex.19:5-24:8) was the last time Moses ever saw a Melchizedek Israel keeping the Melchizedek Covenant. For after promising to keep the Covenant - Moses goes up the Mountain - 40 days later Israel makes the Golden Calf (Ex.32); breaks the Covenant, defiles themselves and is no longer eligible to be that Melchizedek Priesthood (including Aaron and his sons). So - Moses started up with a Melchizedek intent -but- came down to a Levitical reality (Num.3:12). This ineligibility reigned for the next 15 centuries in the form of the Levitical Priesthood till Yahshuas death and resurrection, - releasing Him (Rom.7:1/Gal.4:4) from the law (the category of Levitical Law Heb.7:11-15) to be - the Melchizedek High Priest (Heb.2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5, 10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11; 10:21). ++ “”If God established the priesthood and added the Book of the Law as a result of the golden calf, then why does it appear that it was His intention to give the Priesthood to Aaron before the golden calf incident ever happened? It’s also helpful to note that all Priests were Levites, but not all Levites were Priests. Levites actually served as helpers to the Priests. They had some priestly-type duties, but they were not Priests themselves. It could be said that the Levites (not the Priests) were formally set apart for this service after the golden calf incident (Exodus 32:25-29). It is inferred that they replaced the firstborn for this particular service based on passages such as Numbers 3:12. However, this was NOT a change in priesthood, but rather a change in the office of priestly helpers to the sons of Aaron. Again, the priesthood on earth was established and given to Aaron and his sons before the golden calf incident. ** Well lookie here – you actually made a left-handed catch that most wouldnt – But still not 1 I havent thot of before. Again - The setting of the Exodus Book of the Covenant (Ex.19:5-24:8) was the last time Moses ever saw a Melchizedek Israel keeping the Melchizedek Covenant. For after promising to keep the Covenant - Moses goes up the Mountain - 40 days later Israel makes the Golden Calf (Ex.32); breaks the Covenant, defiles themselves and is no longer eligible to be that Melchizedek Priesthood (including Aaron and his sons). So - Moses started up with a Melchizedek intent -but- came down to a Levitical reality (Num.3:12). This ineligibility reigned for the next 15 centuries in the form of the Levitical Priesthood till Yahshuas death and resurrection, - releasing Him (Rom.7:1/Gal.4:4) from the law (the category of Levitical Law Heb.7:11-15) to be - the Melchizedek High Priest (Heb.2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5, 10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11; 10:21). Now what was the given home base setting? That Israel would be a kingdom nation of Priests; Right? This was the Melchizedek Priesthood for there was no such thing as a Levitical Priesthood a that time. So it then becomes evident that when Aaron and his Sons were tentatively mentioned at (you say) Ex.28:1 actually Ex.27:21 it was to be a nucleus center with the rest of Melchizedek Israel surrounding them – After the Gold Calf (which Aaron made then lied about) Covenant breach – Yahweh relented on wiping them all out -Why was Aaron and his Sons still aloud that distinction? The best Bible answer I can give is; - Rom.11:29 For the gifts and calling of Yah are without repentance (Num 23:19). Aaron and his Sons still retaining the nucleus (but no longer Melchizedek anything) were then surrounded by the rest of the Tribe of Levi *instead* of All Israel. The Levitical Priesthood was born, but there would be consequences (Num.3:2; 18:1) ++ “” Their response to this point was simply to say that some parts of Torah weren’t written in chronological order. In other words, they believe that Exodus 28 happened after Exodus 32. I fully concede that parts of the Torah are not written in chronological order; however, some parts of it are -- and the transition between the end of Exodus 31:18 (right after all the tabernacle and priesthood commands) and the beginning of Exodus 32 strongly appear to be chronological. He gives Tabernacle commandments in chapter 31 and ends the chapter saying: 31:18 And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God. This tells us that Moses is on the mountain as God gives him a ton of commandments concerning the Tabernacle and then writes the Ten Commandments on stone. The very next chapter starts out telling us that Moses is still on the mountain when the golden calf incident occurs, and then verse 15 tells us that Moses came down from the Mountain with the stone tablets. One would need a very strong textual argument to show that this is not chronological. ** You lie again – I can only speak for myself - I never said that or had this fictious exchange with you – And your assertion attributed to me concerning Exodus 28 happened after Exodus 32 is totally wack! ++ “” Their entire hypothesis rests on a reverse chronology in this story, and because the foundation of this theory is based on this reverse chronology, this must be addressed -- not just in theory, but with irrefutable proof. The only possible argument that could be made is that the commands given throughout Exodus 25 – 31 are not what Moses received when he was on the Mountain for 40 days and 40 nights, as indicated by Exodus 24:18. This argument is flawed, however, because the narrative picks up in Exodus 32 with Moses coming down from the mountain. What was he doing on the mountain if not receiving the commands given in Exodus 25-31? Why would the Torah be written in such a confusing way? Every indication is that the entire section is chronological.”” ** You lie again – I can only speak for myself - I never said that or had this fictious exchange with you – And your assertion concerning Exodus 28 happened after Exodus 32 is totally wack! I do maintain that the whole of Exodus was/is sequential. ++ “”It must be reiterated, also, that it is not stated anywhere that there was a change in the priesthood at the golden calf incident. If anything, the ordination of the Levities was established at that point. The Levites are not necessarily priests, though (again, all priests are Levites, but not all Levites are priests).”” ** Yes it is not stated outright BUT read; Prv.25:2 &; Nu 3:12 And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel *instead* of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; And ask yourself what could have happened to cause YHWH or given Him the legal premise to change the covenant deal? – The only obvious answer is the total Covenant break of Ex.32 (again see v:10). ++ “”3. God says that we are blessed when we keep His commands contained in the Book of the Law. These two individuals talk about how the Book of the Law was set beside the Ark of the Covenant as a witness against the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 31:26). They interpret this to mean that the instructions in the Book of the Law were added as a punishment; hence they were “against them.” They later correlate this concept with verses like Colossians 2:14 where it talks about Yeshua canceling the record of debt that stood “against us,” and they read the “Book of the Law” into that passage. Their conclusion, therefore, is that Yeshua took away the commandments contained in their definition of the Book of the Law, leaving only their definition of the Book of the Covenant to remain for Believers.”” ** Again I can only speak for myself – First of all your copy of Colossians 2:14 is a twist – it does not say sin debt - Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that *was against us*, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; Dt 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of YHWH your Elohim, that it may be there for a *witness against thee*. And if that isnt strong enough read all of Dt 31 and pick out the against/indictment language Read the article - torahwithoutrabbinics.wordpress/…/10/cheirograp…/ ++ “”If the commands are a blessing then how can it be said that they are against us or added as a punishment for making an idol?”” ** Dont be so shallow – Ex.32 was the corporate Israel nation breaking Covenant – And Yes; you can say the Levitical and its added Law was a Blessing – Right – over being completely annihilated? Hmmm? ++ “”When we read the context we discover that Deuteronomy 31:26 is teaching us that breaking God’s law brings disaster. The Book of the Law stood as a “witness against them” because it informed them of the consequences of their actions. We’ve all broken the law; therefore, it stands as a witness against us because of our sin. Yeshua took away the consequence of eternal damnation that we all deserve for breaking the law -- nailing our record of debt to the cross. He did not take away the law.”” ** nailing our record of sin debt to the cross is just plain Christian Goofy imagination – we have to remember the Book of the Covenant was the wedding Katubah – once agreed to then became Law – are your wedding vows against you? Confused? Go ahead ask your Wife – I dare you. It was against no one. However; Dt 31:26 Clearly says - Take this book of the law, .. it may be there for a *witness against thee* - Disregard this to your own peril. He did not take away the Melchizedek law Gen.1:1 thru Ex.24:8-11 ++ “”4. There is no reason to believe that Covenants made after Exodus 24:8 are somehow less valid or binding. A covenant is an agreement between two parties. Just because you have one agreement doesn’t mean that you can’t have more. When two people get married, they agree to certain terms of a Covenant (e.g., “in sickness and in health). After the first week of marriage, there are hundreds of laws that are “added” to that agreement (e.g., “don’t leave the toilet seat up). Is God not allowed to have additional expectations of His people after giving them expectations in Exodus 20-24?”” ** You say “Is God not allowed to have additional expectations of His people after giving them expectations in Exodus 20-24?” Yes – Hellooo Gen.1:1 thru Ex.24:11 is Melchizedek also and Yes – especially after they Break the Covenant agreement right from the start – Ezk.20.10-25 tells you that. ++ “”When I asked these two individuals this question, their response was that the laws given after Exodus 24:8 were “not a covenant.” In fact, here is their exact quote from our e-mail exchange: “BoL [Book of the Law] is Non-Covenant Torah, that was later added as a witness against us for breaking Covenant Torah. These later BoL laws are Not Covenant.” However, this is what Deuteronomy 29:1 says about the Book of the Law: “These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which He made with them in Horeb.” – Deuteronomy 29:1 This is after Exodus 24:8, and God makes it clear that the Book of the Law was called “Covenant.” Again, there is no reason to assume that we shouldnt follow one of Gods commandments just because He commanded it after Exodus 24:8.”” ** Again this is not any of my conversation or reply to you – Altho this is correct – You have to understand between Blood Ratified Covenants of Promise that have to be proposed, agreed on and Blood Ratified with a Covenant confirming meal - just as you see at the Ex.19:5-24:8-11 Book of the Covenant - Which is (but not the whole) Torah – Just like the Book of the Law is Not the whole Torah. Try to find any of these issues in these later Non agreed to Covenants which is more akin to Law enactments But you probably wont bother to actually study this out – cause it doesnt fit your rant ++ “”5. The “change in the priesthood” was not a change to the earthly priesthood. “Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.” – Hebrews 8:4 Hebrews 8:4 tells us that Yeshua cannot be a priest on earth, because according to the law, the earthly priesthood was given to Aaron (Exodus 28:1). This tells us that Yeshua’s heavenly priesthood did not affect the earthly priesthood. The earthly priestly system is a copy and a shadow of the heavenly system. The heavenly tabernacle does not replace the earthly tabernacle, just like the establishment of the earthly tabernacle didn’t replace the heavenly tabernacle (Exodus 25:9,40).”” ** Youll use Hebs but ignore what you dont like Read Heb.7:11-12 & 1Ptr.2:9 and realize that is all present or present-past tense as in already happened 2000yrs ago – On earth as it is in Heaven – Remember? - And where are these Lev priests? High or otherwise who offer gifts according to the law You and ones like you are just too funny – You come from a no law church – but just as then are now stuck in an all law position - youll hide behind the law that what? Isnt happening? And hasnt happened for 2000yrs? Ever since 70AD - And what is more will not consider that there is a mid-point law position in Melkizedeq neither no law or all law – yet Torah. ++ “” Their response to this point was simply to ask which priesthood we are part of if Yeshua’s priesthood is not on earth (citing 1 Peter 2:9 which states that we [Followers of Yeshua] are a royal priesthood). My question is, if Yeshua is not a priest on earth, then why are we? Furthermore, Peter clearly states that he is referring to a spiritual priesthood, not an earthly one (see verse 5 of 1 Peter 2). Not all of us are priests on earth; only the sons of Aaron are priests on earth. However, we all should function as priests from a spiritual perspective (priest means minister and servant of the High Priest). Peter is simply midrashing the quote from Exodus and applying it to Believers in Yeshua. Hes drawing a Spiritual principle to say that we should behave as holy ministers and servants of Yeshua. He isnt randomly declaring that Christians have replaced the sons of Aaron as the literal priests on earth.”” ** Most Christians dont see themselves as Israel or keep the Covt - How utterly clueless you are – You make my point in spite of yourself – You yourself say “Peter is simply midrashing the quote from Exodus and applying it to Believers in Yeshua.” Really? This part is correct – What is not correct – Is that you wont realize that Ex.19:5-6 is the Melkizedeq Priesthood offer “IF” they keep the Covt – We know at Ex.32 they did NOT! And how pray tell can Peter be applying it to Believers in Yahshua if it didnt happen just as you yourself pronounce? - present tense 2000yrs ago. 1 Ptr 2:9 is then, here & now, to everlasting a call to the Royal/Kingly Melek Zedek Priesthood. ++ “”6. Yeshua said that nothing from the Torah (including the Book of the Law) will pass away until heaven and earth passes away (Matthew 5:17-19). Yeshua was referring to a literal future event, which doesn’t occur until Revelation 21 – AFTER the Millennial reign. Therefore, nothing has passed away yet, not even the commands contained in the Book of the Law. Their response was essentially to agree that nothing has passed away, but they said that we still don’t have to keep the commands contained in the Book of the Law anymore because of the change in priesthood, which kind of makes the phrase “pass away” rather meaningless.”” ** Again you dont read, study or understand very well do you? Oh here Ill do it for you OK? Mt 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 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. Gen 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; ... I am come = until Shiloh come – the 1st time - Think not that I am come to destroy.. but to fulfill this includes Gen 49:10 obviously during His earthly life time - till all be fulfilled including Gen 49:10 which has already happened and the Unfolding of Yahs Kingdom continues to happen – ie be fulfilled ++ “”7. God has more than Ten Commandments. As briefly mentioned above, one of the aspects of this hypothesis is that all of the commands contained in the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 19:5 – 24:8) were written on the stone tablets. However, Deuteronomy 5:22 states that it was only the Ten Commandments that were written on the two tablets. After Moses gets done repeating the Ten Commandments, he says: “These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on the two tablets of stone and gave them to me.” Also, Deuteronomy 10:4 states: “And he wrote on the tablets, in the same writing as before, the Ten Commandments that the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. And the Lord gave them to me.””” ** You are just too narrow in your study and your thinking – Read and study Dt.4:1, 5:1 along with Dt.9:10, 10:4 That phrase “on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly” IDs 1 day – the giving of the entire Book of the Covenant at Sinai (Exodus 19:5 – 24:8 specifically Ex.20 thru 23) Big difference btx the day of the assembly and the 40 days of the 1 man Moses ++ “”Their response was that the Hebrew word “lo,” which is translated in English as “no” in Deut. 4:22 doesn’t actually mean “no.” I’m not a Hebrew scholar, but I have checked multiple concordances and have not been able to verify this at all. Furthermore, they claimed that the Hebrew word “Eser,” translated in English as ten (Deut 10:4), could actually mean more than ten. This Hebrew word is used 157 times in the Bible, and every single instance it means the exact number ten. Again, I checked multiple concordances and have not been able to verify this. This is actually very critical, because if these Hebrew words were translated correctly, then it would mean that what these individuals are defining as “Covenant commandments” -- the only ones we should still be keeping -- are actually limited to only the Ten Commandments.”” ** At least be honest - “doesn’t actually mean “no.””??? - doesn’t actually *always* mean no! Let alone accurate - Dt.4:22 ??? - dont you mean Dt.5:22? Dt.4:1, 5:1 statutes AND judgments prefaces Dt.5:22 H3808 לה לוא לא lo^ lo^ lo^h ; a primitive particle; not (the simple or abstract negation); by implication no; often used with other particles: - X before, + or else, ere, + except, ig [-norant], much, less, nay, neither, never, no ([-ne], -r, [-thing]), (X as though . . . , [can-], for) not (out of), of nought, otherwise, out of, *+ surely, + as truly as, + of a truth, + verily, for want*, + whether, without. surely, as truly as, of a truth, verily, for want - “more” ++ “”8. There is no reason to assume that the commands placed on the side of the Ark are less important or valid than the commands placed inside the Ark. Furthermore, if the commands placed on the side of the Ark of the Covenant are somehow less important, then by that formula, the entire rest of the Bible, including the New Testament documents, are therefore even LESS important as they are not included in the Temple at all!”” ** A wonderful example of Greek if-then logic – But- We are dealing with the Bible - Hebrew Block Logic and Yes; what was placed “IN” the Ark is separate to Yah therefore more important - Agreed? Yahshua Himself spoke of the weighter issues of Law Mt.23:23 ++ “”9. There is no evidence that this theory is true. Why is there not a single trace of clear instruction or dialogue about this distinction in the entire Bible? If this theory is true, then it would most certainly be THE MOST important doctrinal revelation since creation, and you would think that the prophets would have foretold it. Also, you would think that the apostles would have gone into great depth on the subject so that there would be no confusion. Furthermore, there is sooo much arguing between Paul and his opponents on the issue of Torah. However, not one single time did he think to just explain to the Circumcision Party that there are two different books!?”” ** “There is no evidence that this theory is true.” Another direct Lie! You say “Why is there not a single trace of clear instruction or dialogue about this distinction in the entire Bible?” Oh but there is Gal.3:17-19 from v:10 for 1 (I mean 4) You say “you would think that the prophets would have foretold it” Oh but they did Gen.49:10 for 1 – Ezk.20:24-25 for another “not one single time did he think to just explain to the Circumcision Party” see the above – But we also must remember Paul was in a time of initial transition to an old Jew mindset the would not see it another way (much like you) ++ “”Paul is brilliant and it seems illogical that he would miss such an opportunity to set the record straight. On the other hand, he seems to defend the Torah to the hilt. This topic is extremely controversial between Torah-based Messianics today and those who hold to this doctrine; how much more would it be controversial in a world full of Jewish Messianics who were even more zealous about the Law since the Temple was still standing? Yet there is not a single biblical or extra biblical source telling us of such arguments? This alone makes it very suspicious to me as a modern day creation.”” ** “Yet there is not a single biblical or extra biblical source telling us of such arguments?” More ignorant Lies You say “Paul is brilliant” Yes!!! And if you would study him and compare that to Torah you would understand how brilliant Rom.10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of ‘God’, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of Yah’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of Yah. All of us are to go on to Yah’s Spiritual Maturity; (Note, these are Yahshua’s words) Mt 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of Yah, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Did you notice the 2 phrases? – ‘the righteousness of Yah’, ‘the kingdom of Yah, and his righteousness’. ‘kingdom’ in Hebrew is ‘Malakah’, YHWH Elohim is the King or ‘Melek’ and ‘righteousness’ is ‘Zedek or in other words in Hebrew – Melkizedeq ++ “”10. The Apostles all continued to keep and teach the commands contained in the Book of the Law. Paul says that “all” Scripture is “breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” This would include the Book of the Law. James makes the judgment that the Gentiles will learn the rest of the Torah every Sabbath in the synagogue (Acts 15:21) knowing that the rabbis would be teaching the Book of the Law in addition to the Book of the Covenant. Is James advocating the Gentiles learning false doctrine? Furthermore, all four of the commands listed in Acts 15:20 that Gentiles were specifically commanded to do are found in the “Book of the Law.” Paul continued to observe Yom Kippur by fasting (Acts28:9). The list goes on and on...”” ** Did you just forget or would you just rather ignore Acts 15:10? Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye Elohim, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? – - This had to do with the “Book of the Law.” Acts 15:21 Yes they/we are to learn the complete Torah – How else are we to rightly divide it (2Tim.2:15 – By Paul) @ “Furthermore, all four of the commands listed in Acts 15:20 that Gentiles were specifically commanded to do are found in the “Book of the Law.” This ignores the fact that; All of these are listed between Gen.1:1 thru Ex.24:8-11- The Melkizedek portion of Torah. ++ “”There are many more reasons that I can list, but you get the idea. In conclusion, if and until these objections are addressed, there is simply no reason to believe that there is a dichotomy between the Book of the Covenant and the Book of the Law, or that the Book of the Law is done away with. As Paul says, all scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...not just the parts of Scripture before Exodus 24:8.”” ** all except the parts you dont like, dont agree with or cant interpret correctly? Like Gen.49:10 the Premier Torah Scripture of the Prophesy of coming / now come thru Yahshua; Change!!! So let me recap with my assessment of you – You; David Wilber are a Gospel - Torah - Covenant Twisting infiltrater with only partial knowledge - Jim Staleys Straw Man - You are an Error pusher - You are a Liar - You are most likely a Thief – The only way to justify that is you have not completely left the Church teaching that you are not under the law – the same law you champion to defend and push - yet you assume to Biblically square off with me on my area of study. Im not merely going to ask for but DEMAND! a public apology and remitted restitution (more correctly 4xs by Torah; you know by Covenant Law Ex.22:1)
Posted on: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 06:36:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015