Misunderstood Verses of the New Testament. Part V.

Acts 10:15

Problem: 15 And again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.”
Many understand this to be saying God has now made all food clean, the dietary laws no longer exist.

Solution: Acts 10:28 28 … But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.
The vision Peter had was about not disassociating with Gentiles or considering them unclean. This had nothing to do with food.

 

Acts 15 Overall

Problem:
Many understand Acts 15 to be teaching against circumcision and whether we need to follow the law of God, the Torah.

Solution:
We need to understand what parties are involved in this debate and what the topic of the debate is really about. The parties involved are: 1)The Circumcision Party (must be circumcised in order to be saved – identified in verse 1) 2) Jerusalem Council (first century church leadership – identified in verse 4) 3) Believing Sect of the Pharisees (Believers saved by faith and thus they know they cannot be saved by keeping the Law, but they still keep the Law out of obedience – just like Paul, also a Pharisee. – identified in verse 5) and 4) New Gentile Converts (This group has recently come into the faith but many are still deep into their pagan false god worship traditions per verse 20. – identified in verses 7, 12, 14, 17-20, 23). The debate is about whether the Gentiles should be keeping the Law of Moses as a means to salvation (vs. 1) or be keeping the Law of Moses as a matter of obedience as a result of faith (vs. 5). The debate is between one of these two choices. No one suggests anywhere in chapter 15 or even throughout the rest of scripture that there is a third option in which the Law of Moses has been abolished, in whole or in part.

 

Acts 15:18-20

Problem: 18 Known to God from eternity are all His works. 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
It is often taught that the only thing the Gentiles have to do are these 4 things.

Solution: Verse 21 – 21For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
The first thing the new converts had to do was to stop following the pagan practices associated with worshiping other gods (the 4 things). They would then learn how to live by going to the synagogue on the Sabbath in order to learn the law of God so they could then properly worship Him and live according to His ways, not man’s ways. Verse 20 is straight out of the Law of Moses (Leviticus 17:12-16; Deut. 32:17).

 

Acts 20:7

Problem: On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.
Many use this verse to defend having Sunday as the “new” Sabbath.

Solution: Verse 6 – But we sailed from Philippi after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and five days later joined the others at Troas, where we stayed seven days.
Verse 6 needs to be looked at for context and the time frame. We note that the Feast of Unleavened Bread has just occurred. This means we are now in the timeframe of the “counting of the Omer”, or “Counting of Weeks”, before Shavuot/Pentecost (Leviticus 23:4-6, 15). The Counting of Weeks involves counting out 7 Sabbaths. So, back to verse 7, if we go to the Greek where verse 7 says “first day of the week”, the Greek says, actually…mia ton sabbaton. The Greek word mia means “one,” not “first” … it is the Greek word ‘protos’ that means “first,” which is not present in the text … we cannot make it say something that it does not. It actually translates as “one of the Sabbaths”. Plural. Not “First day of the week”. Singular. The word ‘day’ does not even exist in the Greek, making it all the more difficult to understand the translation being “first DAY of the week”. When connecting this back to verse 6 we can better see what is going on and the timing makes more sense as they were counting the Sabbaths for the counting of the Omer, not the first day of the week.

Advertisements

Misunderstood Verses of the New Testament. Part II

Matthew 12:1-8

Problem: Verses 1-2: At that time Yeshua went through the grain fields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.”

The Oral Law/Traditions says you can’t rub grain between your fingers because it is considered threshing which is work on the Sabbath.

Solution: Verses 3-5: 3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, 4 how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? 5 Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? Feeding the hungry is greater purpose than rolling oats, when no actual work/profession is being accomplished.

Matthew 16:18-19

Problem: 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

There are two things here that are questioned, one is the understanding that Peter is the rock Yahweh builds a new church on; the other relates to binding and loosing and what authority is being given here and what the keys to heaven are.

Solution:

Regarding Verse 18-
Amos 9:11 11 “In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, And wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins And rebuild it as in the days of old; Joel 2:32-3:1 It will so happen that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered. For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who survive, just as the Lord has promised; the remnant will be those whom the Lord will call. For look! In those days and at that time I will return the exiles to Judah and Jerusalem. Yeshua is the only rock upon which anything is built, He is the cornerstone, the foundation (The Word).

The nation of Israel is the only institution which the prophets mention that God would restore and build back up. There is no mention of any other structure that God would “build” in the “last days” except for the house of Israel.

Regarding Verse 19-
The grammatical construction in the Greek manuscripts is very important to the understanding of the meaning of this instruction. “Shall be having been bound” and “shall be having been loosened”. This is very awkward English, but it accurately renders the periphrastic future perfect tense. . It essentially means, “when this judgment is ‘bound,’ it shall already have been bound in heaven,” and “when the judgment is ‘to loose’ (release), it shall already have been released in heaven.” What Messiah was actually saying was, “the judgment which you render shall have already been rendered.” Why? Because the Law of Messiah’s reign is the Law of Moses. Any loosing or binding must be done in accordance with what has already been decided by God and written in the Law. Thus, when the elders decide to “bind” in accordance to the dictates of the
judgments of the Torah, then heaven has indeed already decided the case and has been “bound.”


Thank you 119ministries blog

Misunderstood Verses of the New Testament. Part I

Matthew 5:17-20

Problem: Verse 17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Yeshua says He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets; it is often taught or understood that “fulfill” means to come to an end, it is finished.

Solution: Verse 18: For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Nothing from the Law changes until heaven and earth pass away. Therefore fulfill cannot mean “to be completed” or “finished”. Instead it means to be made full, filled full of meaning, fully preached. Yeshua was the Word made flesh who taught and showed by example what the Law meant in its fullness and how it was to be applied.

Matthew 7:15-23

Problem: Verses 15-16: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? It is not always clear what fruit is and how to tell a false prophet. Some are taught that fruit is a large congregation, feelings of love, or only the Fruit of the Spirit.

Solution:
1 John 3:9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.
1 Peter 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
1 John 3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
The fruit that we are to watch out for is the choosing to disregard God’s law. Everything else can be blended but there is no blending the desiring to obey and the desiring to disregard God’s Law. You either desire to obey it OR you desire to disregard it. It’s one or the other in the eyes of the Father. And remember, breaking one law is like breaking all of it.


Thank you 119ministries blog

Science now confirms the Sabbath

science-sabbath

The original Jews were not white!

Warning! The following author of the video below does not believe in Yahushua (Jesus) BUT does a great job at proving how the original Hebrews were not white. Therefore, Torahis4Today does not support the end of this video where the author states that Judaism and not Yahushua is the Way.

More Lies of the Black Hebrew Israelites

Lies of the Black Hebrew Israelites

A Jew proves how the original Hebrews were not Black.

Warning! The following author of the video below does not believe in Yahushua BUT does a great job at proving how the original Hebrews were not Black. Therefore, Torahis4Today does not support the end of this video where the author states that Judaism and not Yahushua is the Way.

The Scriptures 2009 edition

“The ISR Scriptures is a good version. And yes, it has done a great job with restoring the Names of our Creator, His Son, and most others found in the Scriptures. It has amended the English text to conform to a more Hebraic writing style, which is always nice. It also handles translated words and phrases better than most English Bibles out there. However, there are some notable differences. Primarily the differences being the base. The ISR Scriptures is essentially an extensive revision of the KJV. It retains some British English word order and spelling, and has a similar flow to the NKJV. It claims to use Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica as the source for the Tanakh (OT) and the Textus Receptus as the source for the NT. This is the major point of diversion. The largest disagreement [for some is] with this translation is its arbitrary use of source texts.

We say arbitrary because when a translation is being made, a source texts must be selected. ISR chose to use the Textus Receptus. They did this because, as they state in the Preface of the ISR Scriptures, “As a modus operandi then, we have started out using the Textus Receptus, modifying our rendering as seemed appropriate in light of those other texts which we consulted, such as the Nestle-Aland text and the Shem Tob text, noting certain differences in the footnotes, where necessary.” [emphasis added]

The major issue here is that these texts are not consistent on a Text-Critical level, nor are they consistent on a historical level. What the statement above essentially means is that readings were cherry picked from different source texts. Why would they do this? And at what point would they choose one reading over another? This shows that bias and personally-held theology drove the selection, and therefore influenced the translation. This is not consistent. They have created an eclectic text, with readings chosen from here and there. This is not uncommon, as the NIV translators did the same. However, one must wonder what lead the translators of ISR to choose one reading over another. If you are familiar with the translator and/or the organization, then you may already know the biases held by those individuals. And if you do, you can clearly see WHY these different readings were selected.

Another alarming fact about the ISR Scriptures is that, for the book of Matthew, they diverged yet again from both the Textus Receptus AND the Nestle-Aland, in that they translated it from the Hebrew Shem Tob Matthew. This book has been proven, rather easily and numerous times, to be a late translation of the Gospel of Matthew, made from Greek and Latin sources. In fact, contained within the publication which was published alongside the Shem Tob Matthew is an appendix which lists numerous objections to ישוע being the Messiah. Yet again we found it strikingly odd that ISR would diverge so far from their otherwise textually consistent translation. Even in this, ISR has not been completely faithful in their translation in sticking with their source texts when it comes to the New Testament” (http://literalenglishversion.weebly.com/faq.html).

Undeniable Biblical Proof That The Apostle Paul Was NOT just a “New Testament” Christian

pauls-example.jpg