800 Years in Exile

[David D]

He didn’t fulfill the law in terms of abolishing it:

Matthew 5:17
7 Do not think that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets. No, I have not come to destroy them, but to fulfil them. 18 For truly I say to you, till heaven and earth perish, not one jot or one tittle of the law shall escape, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, he will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever observes and teaches them, the same will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

“Has all been fulfilled?”

If no - then not one little thing in the law is done away with.

How do you fulfill the first and greatest commandment? Love the Most High with all your heart, soul, and strength?

How did the faithful and good servants of old show their love? How about for starters - not doing the things he says he despises. If he despises something - avoid it. That’s one way you can show love. That’s where the law/instructions/commandments come into play. In Paul’s time - people knew the law of Moses much better than today. Because it was preached in every city. Today - the law of Moses is rarely preached and behold - lawlessness has followed. Coincidence? I don’t think so. So I most definitely won’t stand on any side that teaches the law was done away with, and have to potentially drink the cup of wrath that goes with it.

Your missing something really important. Christians have a law, its given of the risen Christ. Doing the best we think we can to keep mosses law is not what Christ is looking for from us. We must be found in Christ Jesus believing and walking in obedience to him. Hear ye him. That law will not condemn all that are found in Christ Jesus. We can, with eyes to see and ears to hear see and hear what Christ is looking for from his people. His law will be written on the hearts of all who have his Spirit.

John 15:9-12
King James Version
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

 

[Mark C]

Is it good to be circumcised? If so, what good is there in it?

If I don’t get any answers, the silence will speak volumes.

What answer is clear? I must assume and infer because nobody has the stones to say their beliefs. It’s shameful behavior.

I'm actually sick and tired of hearing you prattle about your precious 'stones.'

But, we do know any answer will, in fact, be "in one ear and out the other." So, why bother? Zec will likely delete it anyway.

I find it interesting that people who don't seem to want to be "grafted in" (to WHATEVER) don't want to care about His covenant, either. So people talk past each other, and virtue signal for 'likes'.

Nevertheless, the answer is right here:

"This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." (Gen 17:10)
...and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. (v 13)

The next four verses just continue to bring home the point. If the idea is painful to your 'stones,' blame your father for not reading those. (v 14) But enough posturing please.

 

[OttoM]

John 15:9-12
King James Version
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

The very next verse:

10 When you obey my commandments, you remain in my love, just as I obey my Father’s commandments and remain in his love.

Paul says - imitate me like I imitate Christ.

Paul also kept Saturday sabbath and Passover. He was circumcised, and continued to be obedient to the law of Moses even after Christ. Why would he do that if “the law was nailed on the cross?”

But Constantine says Sunday is the new sabbath and Easter is the new Passover. Is it love setting aside your Messiah’s commandments for a man that helped create the Roman Catholic Church?

Another example - if the Creator says eating swine is an abomination to him - why eat it then? This goes back to verse 10 - “when you obey my commandments, you remain in my love.”

Either YAH doesn’t change - or he changes like a human changes his mind. If it was an abomination to him before - it still is today.

Numbers 23:19
The Most High is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind

Hebrews 13:8
YAHUSHA (Jesus Christ) is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

If we are one in YAHUSHA - then why would there be different rules for different groups? So something is a sin for the Jew but not a sin for a gentile? That’s not what the Word says. It says he hates un-equal weights and scales.

 

[FollowingHim]

@NickF, if you want straight answers that people are unwilling to give due to forum policies, feel free to start a private conversation with those who you would like to hear an answer from. That avoids both the issue of Torah debate dominating the public forum (our concern), and everyone else's concerns about having their posts removed for crossing our admittedly ill-defined line. Of course, I think you've already got a straight answer from @Mark C as to what he personally believes, and that might be all you were looking for. But if you're still interested in the views of others that's a good way to proceed.

 

[Mark C]

Galatians, as Mis-Translated, is arguably the Most Twisted Book in the Bible. Remember what Shaul/Paul said about HIMSELF and his perspective, and re-read chapter 1, especially verses 7 through 9. And remember what that same guy warned in II Cor. 11:4 about "another jesus, whom we have NOT preached." He was right - they've been getting away with it for 17 centuries now.

 

[OttoM]

You’re missing some very important concepts. It looks like to me they don't want this debate flooding the form but you’re welcome to message me. Don't let the gospel be hid from you. If we keep these false understandings we will never see or understand the kingdom of Christ. This "Hebrew roots" (for lack of better term) doctrine is a disease to the Israel of God. It was once said, "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?" and still is very true today.

There’s an avalanche of scripture that goes against what you’re saying. The confusion is this prideful idea that salvation comes from works (how good I am). It comes from humbleness and faith. It's that faith and willing to accept correction (repent) is what starts the sanctifying process.

Paul says we are to uphold the law of Moses through faith (Romans 3:31). He said he himself walks in obedience to the law of Moses (through faith), and we are to follow his example. Part of the new covenant is the Torah being written in your heart:

Hebrews 10:14-16
14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. 15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 16 “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Most High. I will put my “Torah” in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”

Paul says this same thing in Romans:
Romans 8:7-10

7 For the sinful nature is always hostile to the Most High. It never did obey the Most High’s laws, and it never will. 8That’s why those who are still under the control of their sinful nature can never please the Most High.

9 But you are not controlled by your sinful nature. You are controlled by the Spirit if you have the Spirit of the Most High is living in you.

From the Messiah:

Mark 2:22
“And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. For the wine would burst the wineskins, and the wine and the skins would both be lost. New wine calls for new wineskins.”

The old wine skins is the human flesh that’s hostile to his ways and laws. The new wine skins is the Spirit - that starts washing you clean and removing the hostility through sanctification - so you can walk in obedience to the Creator through faith.
—————————

There was also another law at work - the same law at work in Christianity - it’s called human tradition. The Messiah had major problems with human traditions - especially those that added or took away from his Law. He rebuked the Pharisees by calling them hypocrites for teaching obedience to their law, but when it comes to his own law - they taught dis-obedience.

It’s only called the law of Moses because Moses was the mediator. But the Father in Heaven is the one that gave the law:

Galatians 3:19
The Most High gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between the Most High and the people.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Only once your view is in agreement with every single text might you have properly understood what is being said.

This. Over and over again, this. And then one more time for good luck, this. If your beliefs don't reconcile every verse, then your beliefs are wrong.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Cowards won’t answer clear questions. I pray the judgement of Yah upon you for refusing to answer a clear question on His requirements for obedience. This cowardice disgusts me.

Why won’t anybody answer this simple question? @PeteR @The Revolting Man can any of you answer? I’ve asked and asked. Nobody will ever give an answer. Everyone has tucked tail and run. Do either of you have the stones to actually answer? This guy won’t. Are all of Yah’s so called “men” so cowardly they won’t ever take a stand? I’m embarrassed and ashamed that nobody will ever give a yes or no clear answer.

So many men purport to hold the Truth but none will proclaim it boldly.

If I don’t get any answers, the silence will speak volumes.

The answer is obvious, if you do not wish to approach the Passover and feel called to the Hellenized religion laid out in Acts 15 at the council of Jerusalem then there is no need for you to be concerned at all with circumcision. Galatians makes clear that it is not necessary to live in relationship with your God. What is also made clear in both passages is that those of us who feel called to are able to become circumcised and in fact must be so if we want to approach the Passover. If we keep the Law we're responsible for keeping all of the Law. This is not an either-or situation, there's a reason why Peter ministered to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

So, for some people, circumcision is a requirement. We're called to a different, albeit parallel path. For some people circumcision is not only not required but discouraged. It's not for those people and they are not the lesser for it. They're simply walking on a different, albeit parallel path.

My question is always why are the uncircumcised to obsessed with this issue? If you're confident in your position, then the hell with what anyone else has to say. I am not aware of anyone here preaching that circumcision is required. Whether or not they believe it is is none of anyone else's business. No one gets to dictate another man's conscience. They don't get to tell you that you have to be circumcised and you don't get to tell them they shouldn't be. Everyone look to their own genitalia and stop being so fixated on other men's junk.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Zec will likely delete it anyway.

Likely.

 

[NickF]

The answer is obvious

And this is why I have respect for you! Frankly one of the few men I’ve come across who has the cajones to speak his mind and beliefs!

 

[OttoM]

When it comes to judgement before the 2nd Exodus - here are some of the characteristics of the people that won't make the cut (Isaiah 65):

1. They follow their own evil paths and their own crooked schemes.
2. All day long they insult him to his face by worshiping idols in their sacred gardens.
3. They burn incense on pagan altars.
4. Worshipping the dead.
5. They eat the flesh of pigs, and make stews with other forbidden foods.
6. They deliberately sinned—before his very eyes -- and chose to do what they know he despises.

A lot of these characteristics align with the Catholic doctrine. Prayers to the dead. Idols in garden. Burning incense on pagan altars. The Northern Kingdom before they were exiled out of the land - also had pagan priests and pagan altars:

1 Kings 13:33
But even after this, Jeroboam (Northern Kingdom) did not turn from his evil ways. He continued to choose priests from the common people. He appointed anyone who wanted to become a priest for the pagan shrines.

This is something that the Northern Kingdom obviously carried with them into exile.

Eating something that is not food - particularly swine flesh - is something everyone should study the Word and pray on it. Changing from Sunday sabbath to Saturday is not hard. Sunday is associated with constantine and catholicism. So is easter and christmas. The way I see it - if you're not going to do passover (or don't meet its requirements) - why do easter instead? It's a holiday instituted by constantine and catholicism. This is how the mother church claims we belong to her, "You see! They are still my daughters. They're still celebrating "MY" holidays I taught their ancestors."

The Word says we are to come out of her. Keeping her holidays (holy-days) and her sungod sabbath day is being one foot out - one foot in. If you’re going to live in freedom from special days and things like physical circumcision - why do you then show bias by choosing to follow the holy days and Sunday sabbath from the mother church?

 

[NickF]

My question is always why are the uncircumcised to obsessed with this issue? If you're confident in your position, then the hell with what anyone else has to say.

If I have love for others and don’t want them to be cut off and accursed, then my love for others requires me to speak truth.

I am not aware of anyone here preaching that circumcision is required.

As far as I know there’s an abundance of those. But my frustration is they’re all too cowardly to outright speak it because they know it’s false.

Everyone look to their own genitalia and stop being so fixated on other men's junk.

I don’t care about the presence or lack of foreskin. I care about people being led astray. Like I’ve said numerous times. It’s simply the easiest way to illustrate the lack of logic.

If it’s sin for Gentiles to be uncircumcised then Paul is a liar. Which means the disciples are all untrustworthy. Which means Christ is as well.

 

[FollowingHim]

As far as I know there’s an abundance of those. But my frustration is they’re all too cowardly to outright speak it because they know it’s false.

Which means there are not people preaching that here. There are people who you think are thinking that - and you are probably right - but they're not preaching it here, and any such preaching would violate our policy.

I don’t care about the presence or lack of foreskin. I care about people being led astray. Like I’ve said numerous times. It’s simply the easiest way to illustrate the lack of logic.

If it’s sin for Gentiles to be uncircumcised then Paul is a liar. Which means the disciples are all untrustworthy. Which means Christ is as well.

In wanting to debate this, you're trying to have the exact debate that we are trying to avoid. There may well be a time and a place to ensure people are not led astray by Judaizers - but in practice it's too much of a hindrance to the core purpose of this forum to make this the place for that discussion.

 

[HomesteadWife]

Cowards won’t answer clear questions. I pray the judgement of Yah upon you for refusing to answer a clear question on His requirements for obedience. This cowardice disgusts me.

Why won’t anybody answer this simple question?

Were people saved in the time from Adam to Abraham? I would say yes.
Were people in the time of Abraham who had no idea who he was saved? Again I would say yes.
So how was this salvation given to them?

Were people who believed in Yeshua all baptized by him? Its not recorded to be so.
Was everyone who came to belief in Yeshua as the Messiah through the apostles baptized? Again, it is not recorded to be so.
So how was salvation given to them?

From the moment Adam sinned mankind had fallen and was in need of a Messiah. Faith given by YHVH and belief in this Messiah who would come/came to be the perfect sacrifice to attone for the sins of all mankind is the thread which binds all believers through history.

Do all men need to be circumcized? Yes, Everyone must have a circumcized heart.
Do all men need to be baptized? Yes, everyone must be baptized in the spirit.

Does keeping the commandments, laws and instructions of YHVH earn us salvation? No. Because none of us can keep them perfectly. Only by grace through faith can we be saved.

Can this circumcision and baptism of heart and spirit leave us with the desire to fulfill as many of YHVH's instructions for right living as we are able? I would say yes.

Physical circumcision or physical baptism are an outward manifestation of an inward desire to show your love in doing something which you believe is pleasing to YHVH. How do we show this love? Yeshua answers "If you love me keep my commandments"

Can anyone here tell you that you HAVE to be physically baptized or circumcized to be in obedience and to be saved? NO.

Can people tell you that they believe physical circumcision to be a sign of wanting to live in obedience in their understanding? For myself, I will say yes.

Do I believe only people who are physically circumcized are saved? No.

John 8:56, Romans 4:4-5 Faith not works is what saved Abraham and saves all believers.

 

[OttoM]

John 8:56, Romans 4:4-5 Faith not works is what saved Abraham and saves all believers.

Because of that faith - Abraham obeyed.

Was everyone circumcised before they entered the promised land in Joshua’s time? No - and YAHUAH instructed Joshua to have everyone circumcised before they can enter into the promised land.

Something similar may happen for the 2nd exodus - for those that aren’t circumcised - if it’s YAHUAH’s will that any un-circumcised remnant gets circumcised before coming back to the promised land.

I would study why we are in exile. What our ancestors did wrong. It’s only a remnant that will come back into the land. Most Israelites are destined for war and destruction. And they are all over the western world - numbers like the sand in the seashore. Abraham means - father of many nations.

 

[Mark C]

If I have love for others and don’t want them to be cut off and accursed, then my love for others requires me to speak truth.

For a second there, I almost thought you 'got it.'

 

[Mark C]

There may well be a time and a place to ensure people are not led astray by Judaizers...

Maybe there could even be a time and a place to ensure people have the knowledge and DISCERNMENT to recognize the difference between "judaizers" (THERE's a loaded word! Inquisition, anyone?) and being led astray by those ('least in the kindom') who deny His Written 'Instruction.'

 

[JudahYAHites]

Maybe there could even be a time and a place to ensure people have the knowledge and DISCERNMENT to recognize the difference between "judaizers" (THERE's a loaded word! Inquisition, anyone?) and being led astray by those ('least in the kindom') who deny His Written 'Instruction.'

A definition of "judaizers" by the accusers would be helpful. Coming on this platform was the first and only times that I have been labeled accused of being a "judaizer".
I personally took it as being adhominem attacks.

So @NickF and @FollowingHim I would be interested in seeing what your definitions are as I along with @Mark C have asked someone else on this platform a good while ago for a definition clarification but still have not received an answer or response.

As far as I know neither @Mark C nor myself ever commented or railed at this person in the following manner.

Cowards won’t answer clear questions. I pray the judgement of Yah upon you for refusing to answer a clear question on His requirements for obedience. This cowardice disgusts me.

Are all of Yah’s so called “men” so cowardly they won’t ever take a stand? I’m embarrassed and ashamed that nobody will ever give a yes or no clear answer.

So many men purport to hold the Truth but none will proclaim it boldly.

If I don’t get any answers, the silence will speak volumes.

James 4:11-12 KJV — Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Oops maybe I should not have shared that verse, I could be labelled called the J word again.

Nevertheless I am interested in getting clarification to see where the accusers and labellers are coming from.

 

[FollowingHim]

Maybe there could even be a time and a place to ensure people have the knowledge and DISCERNMENT to recognize the difference between "judaizers" (THERE's a loaded word! Inquisition, anyone?) and being led astray by those ('least in the kindom') who deny His Written 'Instruction.'

A definition of "judaizers" by the accusers would be helpful. So @NickF and @FollowingHim I would be interested in seeing what your definitions are

Don't try and place me on one side of this argument. In the post above that both of you are referring to, I was speaking as forum staff to one participant in the discussion, deliberately using their own terminology, and pointing out that even if their view is entirely correct this is not the time or the place for it.

Should the discussion continue I'll likely end up having to talk to the rest of you in your own terminology telling you that it's not the time or the place for your perspective either.

 

[JudahYAHites]

Don't try and place me on one side of this argument. In the post above that both of you are referring to, I was speaking as forum staff to one participant in the discussion, deliberately using their own terminology, and pointing out that even if their view is entirely correct this is not the time or the place for it.

Should the discussion continue I'll likely end up having to talk to the rest of you in your own terminology telling you that it's not the time or the place for your perspective either.

You wrote the following

There may well be a time and a place to ensure people are not led astray by Judaizers

So that's why I included you in my request for a definition. You used the term/name so I assumed that you have an understanding of the term as you are forum staff using the word.

So.......

Do you have a definition?