Based on what?

I'm sorry for not having a proper response. It's been a bit hectic for me lately.

My understanding of my church's teaching is that Christ always fulfilled by way of elevation, rather than abrogating by way of negation. He never says "don't do this". He always teaches a higher way.

In this way, Mark 7 and the corresponding passage in Matthew is showing that the ritual purity maintained by hand washing (which his disciples did not follow) was inferior to the actual purity demanded by Christ (of the heart). This is always the way. Before shadow and physical, after Christ truth and spirit.

Further, the account in Matthew is interesting because St Peter - presumably a disciple who may or may not have washed his hands - had to get clarification from Christ. So was He simply speaking of handwashing? My read is that the Pharisees were offended -- and possibly some of the Twelve.

Quote:

---

He never says "don't do this".

---

That's your understanding, but your understanding is wrong even in this very same scripture you are referencing. In Mark 7:10-13, Yeshua exactly told them "don't do this" in regards to living out doctrine that invalidates Torah.

Quote:

---

In this way, Mark 7 and the corresponding passage in Matthew is showing that the ritual purity maintained by hand washing (which his disciples did not follow) was inferior to the actual purity demanded by Christ (of the heart)

---

I agree with this, but Yeshua disagrees with your application of this. Your point is that having purity of the heart means it's okay to violate Torah, but in this very same scripture you're referencing (Mark 7:6-8) Yeshau says when you have a "heart for him" you will keep his Torah free of man-made doctrine that contradicts Torah. By Yeshua's own words, having a heart for Christ is having a heart for Torah and doctrine against Torah is the definition of not having a heart for Christ. Thus invalidating the word of God by your doctrine which you have handed down. You honor Christ with your words, but your heart is far away from Yeshua and His doctrine of perfect Torah keeping. In vain do you worship Yeshua, teaching precepts of men as Yeshau's perfect Torah keeping doctrine.

Your "Jesus" is one who violates Torah, which makes Him a sinner according to Deuteronomy 4:2 and a hypocrite according to Mark 7:15 and Matthew 5:19, "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven"

I provided you an interpretation of Yeshua's words that are plausible and do not make Yeshua out to be a sinner and a hypocrite. Shouldn't such an interpretation be your preferred interpretation?

Shalom.

Win At Life said:

---

agie95 said:

---

Win At Life does not keep Torah, according to Judaism.

---

Neither does Yeshua.

---

Based on what?

If this is the case, then the faith is inconsistent and pointless. Did Jesus annul Leviticus 4?

agie95 said:

---

Win At Life said:

---

agie95 said:

---

Win At Life does not keep Torah, according to Judaism.

---

Neither does Yeshua.

---

Based on what?

---

Yeshua rejected rabbinic Jewish doctrine that contradicted His interpretation of proper Torah keeping. Your form of rabbinic Judaism accepts some things Yeshua rejected as man-made doctrine. Therefore, Yeshua's form of Judaism is not the same as your form of Judaism.

k2aggie07 said:

---

If this is the case, then the faith is inconsistent and pointless. Did Jesus annul Leviticus 4?

---

I don't see anything about this that makes faith inconsistent and pointless. But you immediately reference Leviticus 4 in order, I presume, to point out how this is the case. Leviticus 4 is primarily about making sacrifices at the temple for sin offerings. No sacrifices can be made at the moment according to the Torah without the temple, but I don't understand how that detail makes faith inconsistent and pointless.

But to further your line of thinking, let's look at what Paul did when the temple was still standing.

Acts 21:26 "Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them."

This was a Nazarite Vow as described in Numbers 6:14 (among others) "He shall present his offering to the LORD: one male lamb a year old without defect for a burnt offering and one ewe-lamb a year old without defect for a sin offering and one ram without defect for a peace offering,"

So, Paul sacrificed a lamb in the temple as a sin offering while he was a believer in the faith of Yeshua. Does that make his faith inconsistent and pointless? Is your doctrine opposed to what Paul did? Did Paul, and all the Apostles in Jerusalem who told him to do this, fall into error that you've seen fit to correct them with your doctrine?

It's not my doctrine. I'm in obedience to my bishop.

But no, my point is you can't do it. Have you sinned unintentionally? Did you offer a bull?

I see. Rabbinical Judaism is at fault here. I know, I know you will defend yourself that you are not, but basically that was anti-semitic. It also shows the level of knowledge about Rabbinic Judaism, which is lacking. There were several groups of Pharisees during that day. They each had their own leaders who had different Halacha's. The two famous ones were Hillel and Shammai. There were several other ones as well.

Yeshua did not rejected man-made traditions, which you are calling doctrine. He rejected placing them (traditions, the customs, etc) above or equal to His commandments. Yeshua Himself spoke from the traditions, customs, and Oral Law several times.

k2aggie07 said:

---

It's not my doctrine. I'm in obedience to my bishop.

But no, my point is you can't do it. Have you sinned unintentionally? Did you offer a bull?

---

Come on man. At least make some effort. Your question is answered in the third sentence in the post immediately above yours. Please be honest, reference that post and address it however you will.

agie95 said:

---

I see. Rabbinical Judaism is at fault here. I know, I know you will defend yourself that you are not, but basically that was anti-semitic. It also shows the level of knowledge about Rabbinic Judaism, which is lacking. There were several groups of Pharisees during that day. They each had their own leaders who had different Halacha's. The two famous ones were Hillel and Shammai. There were several other ones as well.

Yeshua did not rejected man-made traditions, which you are calling doctrine. He rejected placing them (traditions, the customs, etc) above or equal to His commandments. Yeshua Himself spoke from the traditions, customs, and Oral Law several times.

---

Which of these rabbinic groups do you most closely align your doctrine with?

Because it says you SHALL. If you don't do it, you're breaking the Law.

The Law says you can follow the Law. You don't see that as a bit of a conundrum?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Because it says you SHALL. If you don't do it, you're breaking the Law.

The Law says you can follow the Law. You don't see that as a bit of a conundrum?

---

You're tying way to hard to create a logical paradox for following Yeshau just as the Pharisees did when they asked Him if it was legal to pay Roman taxes. There is absolutely no conundrum. If the Law is applicable to you, then do it. If the Law is not applicable to you, then it's not applicable to you. How is that beyond understanding? That's exactly what Yeshua did. Laws that only applied to women, did not apply to Yeshua, so He did not do them, because they did not apply to Him. I feel like I'm slipping into bizzaro world tying to answer something so obvious.

You think that a command to offer sacrifices, really to live an entire liturgical life based on temple worship, just sort of hand waves away? "It just doesn't apply"?

Talk about bizarro world.

Now you sound like k2aggie07....ridiculous question after an unsupportable comment from the previous post.

It is impossible to live sola scriptura.

Quote:

---

Which aspect of the 1 Cor 13 definition of love would prohibit the eating of shrimp or bacon?

---

Bacon-wrapped shrimp - we can all agree that's okay, right?

94chem said:

---

Quote:

---

Which aspect of the 1 Cor 13 definition of love would prohibit the eating of shrimp or bacon?

---

Bacon-wrapped shrimp - we can all agree that's okay, right?

---

Agreed. Two negatives equal a positive right?