How many Christians will actually do this......

[James Pierce]

I'd really like to know the answer to this. It seems to me that the majority of Christianity loves to disregard this certain aspect that should be apart of their daily walk. Here is a heart pounding, thought provoking question:

If Yeshuah gathered all Christians around the world, and He asked them the question,"Who wants to keep Torah?" How many of you Christians on here will actually say YES LORD! to Messiah??

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

The thing often ignore is the penalty behind the Law of Moses. If you REALLY want to uphold Torah, the why not tell them the ENTIRE story:

Exodus 21:15-17 "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

Exodus 21:22-29 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

Almost all the Torah was punishable by DEATH, be it stoning, speared, fire, or hanging on a tree. Its no wonder the Pharisees brought this situation to JESUS:

John 8:1-5 "Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

They were wrong for their actions, but according to the Torah, they were right! According to the Prophets, GOD said that HE would give a NEW COVENANT. You speak of the Old one refreshed and reissued, but thats not what GOD said. He said HE would give a NEW ONE. JESUS did say "a NEW commandment I give unto you....", where in Torah did you see such words? Romans 12 explains the new covenant. There is no "eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth" there. I know Proverbs mentions what Romans 12 says, but you spoke of the "Law of Moses", not the "advice" of Solomon. Torah gives strict commands, and the Prophets and writings give advice and guidance. The Apostles of the New Covenant takes the advice and guidance of the Prophets and make them the commandments of the NT. No stoning and eye for an eye applied till JESUS comes. It will be Him that administers this with the Lake of Fire, not us.

[James Pierce]

Rev,

How could we keep Torah? That question is really foolish to be honest. How do you not murder, steal, adulterate, worship other gods? You DONT DO THEM! We keep the Torah by DOING what it says DO, and NOT DOING what it FORBIDS. That simple.

Yes, Yehwah was supposed to be silent for 400 years. But, The practicing of Torah was still there. Nothing in Torah was commanded to be done with supernatural powers. Torah is for us humans to carry out. You said no one can keep Torah? Well, let me show you what the written scriptures say:

Duet 30:11,"For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off." His Torah is not too hard for us to do, neither is it far off(impossible).

1 John 5:3,"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome." His Torah is not a burden at all.

You mentioned something about plucking eyes out. You take that tooo literal. That is not a literal saying. Eye for an eye deals with monetary issues. Read the context of it, and not what you've heard :).

[James Pierce]

Trevor,

Thank you for displaying the penalties of disobeying Torah. I have often stated those penalties. It is true that Yehwah has given a new covenant, but as I proved before, this new covenant includes 3 decrees:

1) The Torah written on our hearts
2) All shall know Yehwah within the new covenant
3) Sins shall be forgiven, and never to be remembered

Trevor, you want to rid the covenant of the 1st decree, but thats the spirit of the anti-christ. You mentioned "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. Thats not a literal saying, rather, its dealing with monetary issues. Read that in context. Eye for eye still applies to all of us if the context of that happening occurs. Torah will also be the government of the future kingdom according to the prophets.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

When a person is killed, a person is sentenced to death. That don't sound like money to me!

Also, I HAVE stated that the Torah is written on your heart now with the New Covenant. Its all wrapped up in one word: LOVE! You refuse to acknowledge that though.

[James Pierce]

Trevor,

Eye for an eye has nothing to do with killing anyone lol. Why would you give an eye in exchange for one? Thats not literal buddy. Go back and read that scripture in its context. You will see that its dealing with monetary issues... i.e giving someone compensation.

My brother, love is action, and its the action of TORAH. You cannot claim to love Yehwah, and is absent of obedience to Torah. It is that simple lol.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Yes, but "LIFE FOR LIFE" does!

[James Pierce]

Trevor,

THE WHOLE SENTENCE is dealing with monetary issues. Read the context. It would not make sense for one part of the sentence to mean this, and the other part that. LOL Dude, read it again. Its dealing with COMPENSATION. Mostly all the sages of Torah agrees to this. But it doesnt take them agreeing for me or anyone else to agree. Its THERE in the text!

One of the most notorious injunctions is the biblical teaching of "an eye for an eye," known in academic circles as lex talionis. Several times in the Torah this law is stated; the first instance is from Exodus 21:22-25:

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Rabbinic Judaism has always interpreted the "eye for eye" law not in its literal sense but rather as monetary compensation for the victim's loss. However, many see this as apologetic revisionism. The contention is that, in fact, the Torah intended the courts to literally extract an eye for an eye from the wrongdoer. This cruel, sadistic, wasteful punishment has probably been the most outstanding blemish on the biblical system of justice.

A careful look at the text will, I think, show most unequivocally that the clear intention of the Torah was never the sadistic interpretation commonly conceived. I will analyze this from several angles. First, a broader view of the text:

When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.(Exodus 21:18-19)

A few sentences later, we find out text:

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.(Exodus 21:22-25)

Note that the first case is one of willfully inflicted harm, the second is of accidentally inflicted harm to the woman. By what logic could one explain that accidential harm is "recompensed" with an eye for an eye, while willful damage is punished by "only paying for the loss of time and he shall thoroughly be healed"! Certainly, if the intentional wrongdoer only has to pay for his victim's sick leave and medical expenses, then the hapless fellow who accidentially harmed this woman wouldn't be dealt with so vengefully.

There is a certain logic here which speaks for itself. A close look at the text itself also supports this idea. "But if there be harm you shall give (Hebrew: v'natatah) soul for soul, eye for eye...."

Were the text's intention to extract an eye from the villain, the use of the word "give" is inappropriate. The lex talionis punishment is meant to take from the guilty, not to give to the victim. Certainly the victim has no desire to receive a gouged-out eye. It should have said, "and you shall take an eye for an eye...." But it doesn't, it says "give." Giving implies something that is meant to reach the recipient. Monetary compensation fits that definition; handing over a dismembered limb doesn't.

Again we refer to the text, this time in the original Hebrew. "Eye for (tachat) eye." The crucial word is tachat. Here is an instance where noting similarities between different texts can help us better understand our text.

The word tachat appears many times in scripture, always meaning "in place of," or "on account of," and never "as identical substitution for."
Some examples"

"If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of (tachat)his tooth"(Exodus 21:27).

"... and Abraham went and took the ram and brought it up for a burnt offering instead of(tachat) his son"(Genesis 22:13).

"And the men said unto her: 'Our life in place of yours(tachteichem), if ye tell not this our business...' "(Joshua 2:14).

The meaning of this last quote is that if the enemy tries to kill Rahab and her family, then these men will fight to the death, if necessary, in order to save her life. They will give their lives in place of her giving hers. The meaning is certainly not that if she dies they, too, will give their lives(tachteichem).

Likewise, in the earlier examples cited, the meaning of the word tachat is "in place of," or "on account of," but not as identical substitution for the person or object in question. By noting the similar word tachat in other passages of the scriptures and construing its meaning there, we are led to a more accurate understanding of its meaning in out text.

Logic, the text and our key to interpretation all lead to the same conclusion: an eye for an eye means to give something in place of the lost eye, that being monetary compensation.

- Avigdor Bonchek, Studying the Torah: A Guide to In-Depth Interpretation, Pgs: 64-68

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

The point is this: Torah has always been punishable by death, and in need of circumcision and the Ark. Where are they? Are we still sacrificing with lambs? If not then we are NOT abiding by Torah, are we?

[James Pierce]

Trevor,

Torah had the curse til Yeshuah came. Scriptures state that He became a curse for us. There's no condemnation to "them that are in Messiah Yeshuah." Read Hebrews again, for it shows that there's no need for arks, and temple sacrifices. I repeated this like 10,000 times.

I think you are simply trying to get around, and reason yourself out of the real truth. How can one abide in something, namely temple duties, when there's no temple at all?

Yeshuah is our ultimate sacrifice, and that is what the whole book of Hebrews is about. That book never said all of Torah is completely done, rather, the levitical priesthood, and its duties are done away concerning the sacrifice for sin.

COMMON SENSE says that if all of Torah is completely done away, then it would not have been decreed as a new covenant decree! But, common sense is not common these days.

[Anna]

Treavor, the Gays will stand up to your coment and say

"YES Brother, now that's what We've been talking about all along!.

We LOVE our bothers hat we sleep with, we therefore are keeping all of god's law...

AMEN, AMEN AMEN!!!!

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Bro. James, you said:

"It is interesting that you posted John 13:34. The commandment that Yeshuah gave us is not new at all. The commandment to love one another is in Leviticus 19:18,"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am Yehwah." The word "new" was most likely added to the text to support the lawlessness of Christianity."

That is OUTRAGEOUS! Have you even checked the Greek for that before jumping out of the window with that comment??? WOW! You are trying to be what you are not: HEBREW! Be a black man born again by the blood of YESHUA/JESUS and recognize that a NEW COVENANT is a NEW COVENANT, not an old one restated! You are really coming out and dancing on heresy! Your doctrinal claims state that the blood of JESUS was not enough, but you need more works to go right along with it for salvation such as Sabbaths New Moons, and the like, the things Apostle Paul CLEARLY spoke against. NO APOSTLE backs up what you are saying! ALL the NT argument you really hold is in a few verses in Hebrews, which only quotes Jeremiah. How about touching on the other Epistles? How about saying something clear from Galatians, Romans, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd John? How about Ephesians? What about Peter or James, Apostles to the Jews? Nothing from them? Because it is not there!

Your doctrine nearly died when the Torah holding Jews first tried to exile Gentiles, then in return were rejected in the Churches for rejecting grace, and in the Synagogues for professing CHRIST. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND AND YOU KNOW IT!! The hard facts for you to actually believe are these:

1) The Torah is USELESS without circumcision and the Ark of the Covenant, both being done away with
2) its too hard for you to accept GOD's grace and favor without your extra input (works). If you could paid more, the JESUS didn't do it all! This is taught ALL THROUGHT GALATIANS!

[James Pierce]

Trevor,

That is OUTRAGEOUS! Have you even checked the Greek for that before jumping out of the window with that comment??? WOW! You are trying to be what you are not: HEBREW! This has nothing to do with anything. I am not trying to be anything, but to be obedient. I know that its there in the Greek, but again, look at the foundation for which all of Yeshua's teachings are grounded in... TORAH. What Yeshuah stated about loving our fellow man is not new at all. It does not take a PH.D in theology to see that. How can He issue a new commandment apart from what Yehwah gave? The word "new" was pretty much added to the text. Mark 16:9-21 are in our Greek manuscripts, and yet Scholars say that it was added. Just because its in the manuscripts, does not mean it belongs there. Go and read Lev 19:18, and then compare it to Yeshuah's command to love our fellow man, and come back to me and tell me that they are two opposite commandments, and that Yeshuah gave us a whole new commandment??? Be a black man born again by the blood of YESHUA/JESUS and recognize that a NEW COVENANT is a NEW COVENANT, not an old one restated! Read chapter 8 again, and you will see that its referring to the levitical priesthood, and not the rest of Torah. You are really coming out and dancing on heresy! Your doctrinal claims state that the blood of JESUS was not enough, but you need more works to go right along with it for salvation such as Sabbaths New Moons, and the like, the things Apostle Paul CLEARLY spoke against. Paul never spoke against anything in Torah. He even claimed that in Acts 24:14,"But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets." Acts 25:8,"Paul argued in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense." So, your statements are false, and even blasphemous! NO APOSTLE backs up what you are saying! ALL the NT argument you really hold is in a few verses in Hebrews, which only quotes Jeremiah. How about touching on the other Epistles? How about saying something clear from Galatians, Romans, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd John? How about Ephesians? What about Peter or James, Apostles to the Jews? Nothing from them? Because it is not there! We've already touched them, but I guessed you cant just get pass Jeremiah. He's the only prophet that gave FIRST, the decrees of the new covenant. And guess what? TORAH IS THERE! Its ok, because it would completely incriminate all that you stand for, your degrees, and your credentials.

Your doctrine nearly died when the Torah holding Jews first tried to exile Gentiles, then in return were rejected in the Churches for rejecting grace, and in the Synagogues for professing CHRIST. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND AND YOU KNOW IT!! The hard facts for you to actually believe are these:

1) The Torah is USELESS without circumcision and the Ark of the Covenant, both being done away with
If Torah is useless, then Yeshuah will not use Torah for His standard for judging. But, that is not true, because we can see Yeshuah will use Torah in His judgement(Matt 7:21-23). Torah is what we are commanded to keep, including the circumcision.

2) its too hard for you to accept GOD's grace and favor without your extra input (works). If you could paid more, the JESUS didn't do it all! This is taught ALL THROUGHT GALATIANS! I never rejected Yehwah's grace. You are rejected obedience. I embrace them both! We receive grace because of the curse of the Torah. The Torah, as you probably do not know, or want to know.... is a duality. It contains the blessing(life and good), and the curse(death and evil). Those who are truly in Yeshuah are not confined to Torah's curse, rather, to its blessing. Galatians is a book that does not refute obedience of Torah, rather, it refutes salvation via circumcision, and obedience of Torah. In no way is Paul refuting Torah. He kept Torah himself! And he taught others. Yeshuah, who we are supposed to model, kept Torah. In fact, in 1 Cor 11:1, Paul says imitate him as he imitate Yeshuah. Do you think this means that since Yeshuah walked around refuting Torah, that Paul will do the same, and we should also? Be gone with your torahlessness, Trevor, in the name of Yeshuah. May He bring you to the LIGHT OF OBEDIENCE. Love is not stagnate, rather carried out in ACTION. Action of what? TORAH!!

Let us not for forget....as I proved before, this new covenant includes 3 decrees:

1) The Torah written on our hearts
2) All shall know Yehwah within the new covenant
3) Sins shall be forgiven, and never to be remembered