quote:

---

If Jerusalem became the permanent camp then everyone living outside its gates were “outside the camp.” Then did the people in Dan and Asher have to obey the part of the commandment that said “she shall be put apart seven days”?

Most people believe the separation for menstruating women was not outside the camp but simply the separating spoken of, that being no physical contact. Regardless, did the laws governing the expulsion of individuals outside the camp apply to those outside Jerusalem? And do they apply to us today?

---

I would say yes to all your questions, especially since these laws were kept in Babylon according to the Babylonian Talmud (Not that I base my obedience on that Talmud. I simply use it to show what took place in Jewish cultures outside the Land). These laws had to be kept in the Land as well since the Tabernacle could not be polluted by pilgrims traveling to the Feasts.

quote:

---

Were those returning from traveling outside Jerusalem considered unclean? Were those working with Gentiles inside Jerusalem considered unclean? Of course they were unclean, just as we know we are unclean everyday but uncleanness is only imputed when we are aware of becoming unclean.

---

This may hold true in our eyes, but Yahweh knows if we are unclean even if we don't, just as He knows if we sinned unknowingly. Sin is sin whether we are ignorant of it or not. I would think uncleanness is uncleanness whether we are ignorant of it or not as well.

quote:

---

Many people were within the camp even though they were unclean. I’m inclined to think menstruating women remained within the camp.

---

I agree which is why I disagree with the concept of doing away with these laws because we are now living "outside the camp". It doesn't matter if we are in or out. Paul wrote several letters to saints living "outside the camp" in which he warned them about uncleanness. 2 Cor.6:17 is one example.

quote:

---

The priest (in your example) or anyone else wasn’t made clean by the red heifer or by the water or by the sunset but by faith. That is why when we are actually unknowingly unclean we are in fact clean.

---

Yes, the unclean are made clean by faith, but it is faith in Yahweh's declaration that after the appropriate washing, etc., that they would be clean by sunset. Yahweh said it and they believed it. Our faith is founded upon Yahweh's written words as well as His living word, Yahshua. "Do we then make void the law through faith? Elohim forbid. Yea, we establish the law" (Ro.3:31).

quote:

---

The laws of cleanness were given for health reason. Lepers, dead bodies, issues, blood and human waste all spread disease. They still do today and it would be a good idea when a member of our family comes down with a cold to quarantine them to the garage but we don’t. Today do we separate a family member with an issue from our midst? Why, because we all live outside the camp or because that commandment no longer applies?

---

First, I would say that health is a secondary factor. The primary factor was to maintain the purity of the Tabernacle. Since our bodies are now the temple of the Holy Spirit, I believe we should keep them clean. Health concerns would be another good reason to continue these laws. Concerning your last question, a third reason 'why' would be because we have been taught falsely and need to relearn these laws as we did with Sabbath, Feasts, dietary laws, etc.

quote:

---

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Cordaro wrote: Are we permitted to touch dead bodies today? I would say no. For the most part, whenever possible, we are to avoid such touching. Are we to touch lepers whenever we so choose today? I would say no, except under certain circumstances such as laying on of hands for healing. Why, then, is it permissible to touch someone with an issue?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand and accept your statement but I am left with this question, today is a menstruating women or a leper living through faith in Yahshua clean or unclean?

Heb 10:10 By that will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Yahshua Messiah once for all.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

1Co 6:11 But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified.

Ep 5: 26-27 Sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”

He 9:13-14 states if the blood of animals made them fleshly clean in the OT how much more must the blood of Messiah make us still cleaner.

He 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Yahshua, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21 And having an high priest over the house of Elohim; 22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

If a menstruating woman is “washed and sanctified” and “holy and without blemish” and her body “washed with pure water” and clean enough for Yahweh to allow to “enter into the holiest” is it possible that something has changed in regard to these commandments?

---

All of these verses deal with either cleansing us of sin or cleansing our conscience and setting us apart from those who are yet in their sins. Yet, being cleansed from sin does not mean we cannot be defiled by it again (Mt:15:18,19). While we have been cleansed spiritually speaking, we can still become unclean by the various means that Yahweh has already declared. I believe we need to maintain a physical and spiritual purity if possible.

quote:

---

When you touch your menstruating wife you are unclean. But when you touch (shake hands) with a menstruating female client at work you are not unclean.

---

I do believe that could be true, but not for the same reason you do. Yahweh never said that whatsoever a menstruous woman touches will become unclean. It is only what she sits or lies upon that becomes unclean or when she is touched that another person becomes unclean. That leaves open the possibility that her hands do not transmit uncleanness allowing her to continue caring for her household. This is what the Babylonian Talmud teaches. Also, consider Lev.15:11. If a man had an issue and touched someone, he became unclean, BUT ONLY if the one with the issue did not wash his hands first. So, in his case, he could touch if he washed his hands first, but Yahweh is silent concerning the menstruous woman touching which suggests she can, if she washes her hands as well.

quote:

---

Can a menstruating woman’s faith today keep her clean enough to enter Yahweh sanctuary but when her husband touches her he becomes unclean?

---

What is Yahweh's sanctuary today? Are you referring to any place where saints are gathered? I do not believe a menstruating woman's faith makes her clean from that physical uncleanness unless she exercises that faith by believing what Yahweh said about how to become clean again. If that were true, then her husband's faith should allow him to have relations with her. Also, if that were true, our faith should allow us to eat unclean, touch dead bodies, etc.

May Yahweh bless all of our understanding.

Shalom,
John

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acheson:
Hi, Burning one:

While I agree with much of what you wrote, I believe we need to be careful about sprinkling in certain controversial teachings as though they are literal commands, such as the one some Messianics have been promoting here in our local area ... that of wearing "frontlets." Here is what you wrote: I drew a line through the part about wearing frontlets because there is no such command in Scripture, except by interpretation, and one that I certainly disagree with. If anyone is going to teach that we are commanded to wear frontlets, then they may as well [b]also teach that we should wear the commandments and the law on our fingers (Prov. 7:2-3).

Apart from that and your apparent [pious?] desire to reinvent the English language by ignoring capitalization rules, I agree with what you wrote!

May YHWH bless!

Love in Messiah,
Larry

_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

[/B]

---

Shalom Larry,

i placed the "frontlets" in the post because that is just one of the examples of the commands which is rather "grey" in its exact application. there is much freedom in the working-out of this command in our lives, just as with the others i listed above.

i understand your conviction that there is "no such command" in Scripture, but a thorough study of the texts and the history of the Hebrew people at large seems to show that this was indeed a literal command. i know someone who insists as well that it is only "Rabbinic" in its literal creation, but they cannot answer the instances in Scripture where frontlets appear actually being worn by people, or the fact that Hebrew people the world over ("lost" tribes included) have been found to be performing frontlets literally and without the help of the rabbi's interpretation, and no two literal applications in these instances are ever the same. to me, this shows that most of Yah's people in antiquity understood it to be literal in application (i would be much more ready to believe antiquity's performance of the commandments -- as they were far more closer to the actual giving of the Torah, and therefore most assuredly had a "purer" view on it -- than the modern "scholarly" interpretation), and it calls for answers if they are not truly intended to be taken literally. a mountain of evidence sits that speaks against a symbolic interpretation of the command, and in all fairness needs to be dealt with if we are to take that symbolic route.

for if it is not literal, just for starters, then we need to explain why a symbolic command was placed in the midst of commands that are obviously meant to be taken literal:

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 6:4-9
"Hear, O Yisra'El, YHWH your Elohim, YHWH is one!
And you shall love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart, and with all your being, and with all your might.
And these Words which I am commanding you today shall be in your heart,
and you shall impress them upon your children, and shall speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up,
and shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes."

our Father is not the author of confusion, and so it would be entirely inconsistent with the context of the passage to relegate the frontlets to a symbolic application when the surrounding commands are meant to be taken literally. the only way to get around it would be to symbolically apply the others as well. that would mean that we are not literally supposed to write the Words on our doors and on our gates, or speak of them to our children, or talk about them when we are out and about in the world. so perhaps caution needs to be taken before we out and out decide what is and what is not a commandment from Scripture. where there is freedom in the doing of a command (i.e., tying of the tassles, etc.) then let us not be dogmatic about it but allow each individual to perform the command the best way they see fit.

as for the verse from Proverbs, i think we need to understand that there is a major distinction between the direct commands from the mouth of the Father as delineated in Torah and the directions of a human father to his son. if Proverbs was telling us via a "Thus says YHWH" prefix, as we see many times in reading the Prophets, then the application would most certainly be a command that would need to be followed out. but seeing as how it is only a man's teaching to his son, then we have freedom in that aspect. incidentally, and not dogmatically by any means, i do have the Words written on my fingers by the way i wear my frontlets. although meaningful to me, i would not impose that application upon anyone, since it is not a direct command of the Father.

and as for my ignoring of capitalization rules, i do not do so to offend you or anyone else. i am sorry if it bothers you, but if find that when i write that way, only capitalizing the Names and titles of the Father and Son, then there is no room for errors or typos that need to be explained. i don't know that it arises from any initial "pious" decision, rather it stemmed from the way i write my poetry, begun when i was a teen. then i did so because i only wanted references to the Father or the Son to stand out in my writings as what was truly important to me. i knew it was not an accepted form of presentation, but it holds value to me personally. and it has just followed over from that time. of course, i do give justice to the rules of capitalization when quoting from Scripture, and when writing for "secular" reasons, but other times -- well this is just me! and thankfully, ignoring the rules of capitalization is not a sin (except in English class)! Hebrew does not use capitalization rules, so that's my defense!

in case you respond to this, i will be out for probably the next week or more, as i am going in for surgery tomorrow morning, and will be unable to use the computer for awhile (the computer withdrawals will be severe, i am sure!). and this is somewhat off-topic of the current thread, so maybe it should be continued in another thread.

Chayim b'Moshiach (Life in Messiah)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Missy:
Burning One... I mean no offense but that print is REALLY small..and the color is kind of hard to see. Not suggesting that you change it.. just letting you know on some screens it may be difficult to read.

Shalom,
M

---

i fixed it -- i don't know why, but a whole string of html code was attached to the top of my post, which is strange because i am but a floundering babe when it comes to writing html and i certainly didn't write that!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Missy:
[B]Burning One... I mean no offense but that print is REALLY small..and the color is kind of hard to see. Not suggesting that you change it.. just letting you know on some screens it may be difficult to read.

---

I had the same problem with that small light blue text. I got around it by clicking on the "reply" symbol, which produced a page with plain black on white text. Also, the following introductory paragraph appeared which didn't appear in the formatted message. It looks like an important lead-in to the rest of the message.

Chuck

quote:

---

Shalom Larry,

i placed the "frontlets" in the post because that is just one of the examples of the commands which is rather "grey" in its exact application. there is much freedom in the working-out of this command in our lives, just as with the others i listed above.

---

Just a few items:

1) I'm very sorry to learn that you're having surgery, and I hope it is nothing serious, plus that your recovery will be swift. May YHWH bless the surgeon with great skill and may He grant you a speedy recovery.

2) As for your rebuffing the rules of English capitalization, there is no danger of your offending me with regard to your choice. You are free to write however you want. The capitalization rules were never really designed to attribute "honor" to a word or to a person, per se, and there isn't even a rule requiring anyone to capitalize pronouns used in reference to YHWH ... it's simply a choice. But I'm sure you already know this, as you have access to the same English grammar rules that I have. It is very eccentric, I believe, to ignore this rule for the sake of making the Creator's name stand out ... but such being your reasoning, I am left to wonder why you capitalize "Burning one." I don't like Satan any more than anyone else here, but that doesn't mean I give him more honor by capitalizing his name/title than someone who writes his name as "satan."

3) I agree that the issue of the "frontlets" is off topic here, so if you wish to start a new thread addressing this issue, I'm all for it. NOTE: I see someone has already started one, so that would be a great place for us to continue our discussion. The thing is, I know you have written a book on this topic, so I can only wonder as to whether or not you deliberately slipped that little comment about frontlets in your posting as a subtle means of promoting an agenda that you very likely have with regard to the tefillin. I mean, I know this is a huge issue for you, so something tells me this was no "offhand comment" that you just happened to let slip in, at least that is how it appears from my perspective, and you are welcome to correct me if my perception is wrong. I do not like to openly question motives, as I get myself into enough trouble as it is ... however, I am one of those who doesn't mind it when people question my own motives, so long as when I straighten them out, they don't proceed with telling me I'm lying about my own motives. With this in mind, and since you know very well how controversial the "frontlets" issue is, I would like to know why you nevertheless chose to incorporate that particular teaching into your commentary above. It's as though you are inviting someone to challenge you on this one.

4) While I'm sure there were some very eccentric people living in ancient Israel, and these people may very well have worn the tefillin, it can be shown that Judaism as a whole did not have such an understanding, and I believe it can also be demonstrated that neither Yeshua nor the Apostle Shaul ever wore them. It can be shown that Yeshua wore tassels, but not the tefillin. I'll be happy to accommodate you on this in the other thread.

Take care and may YHWH bless!

Love in Messiah,
Larry

_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acheson:

Hi, Burning one:

Just a few items:

1) I'm very sorry to learn that you're having surgery, and I hope it is nothing serious, plus that your recovery will be swift. May YHWH bless the surgeon with great skill and may He grant you a speedy recovery.

2) As for your rebuffing the rules of English capitalization, there is no danger of your offending me with regard to your choice. You are free to write however you want. The capitalization rules were never really designed to attribute "honor" to a word or to a person, per se, and there isn't even a rule requiring anyone to capitalize pronouns used in reference to YHWH ... it's simply a choice. But I'm sure you already know this, as you have access to the same English grammar rules that I have. It is very eccentric, I believe, to ignore this rule for the sake of making the Creator's name stand out ... but such being your reasoning, I am left to wonder why you capitalize "[b]Burning one." I don't like Satan any more than anyone else here, but that doesn't mean I give him more honor by capitalizing his name/title than someone who writes his name as "satan."

3) I agree that the issue of the "frontlets" is off topic here, so if you wish to start a new thread addressing this issue, I'm all for it. NOTE: I see someone has already started one, so that would be a great place for us to continue our discussion. The thing is, I know you have written a book on this topic, so I can only wonder as to whether or not you deliberately slipped that little comment about frontlets in your posting as a subtle means of promoting an agenda that you very likely have with regard to the tefillin. I mean, I know this is a huge issue for you, so something tells me this was no "offhand comment" that you just happened to let slip in, at least that is how it appears from my perspective, and you are welcome to correct me if my perception is wrong. I do not like to openly question motives, as I get myself into enough trouble as it is ... however, I am one of those who doesn't mind it when people question my own motives, so long as when I straighten them out, they don't proceed with telling me I'm lying about my own motives. With this in mind, and since you know very well how controversial the "frontlets" issue is, I would like to know why you nevertheless chose to incorporate that particular teaching into your commentary above. It's as though you are inviting someone to challenge you on this one.

4) While I'm sure there were some very eccentric people living in ancient Israel, and these people may very well have worn the tefillin, it can be shown that Judaism as a whole did not have such an understanding, and I believe it can also be demonstrated that neither Yeshua nor the Apostle Shaul ever wore them. It can be shown that Yeshua wore tassels, but not the tefillin. I'll be happy to accommodate you on this in the other thread.

Take care and may YHWH bless!

Love in Messiah,
Larry

_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

---

Shalom,

1) the surgery isn't terribly serious, just the manner of it prevents much movement for a while afterwards. i feel at total peace and have received much prayer for it. thank you for your blessing! i'll take all i can get.

2) as for the capitalization of my screen name -- i hadn't noticed it, honestly, and so it must have been one of those slip of the fingers. nothing meant by it by any means. if i can change it to lowercase to accomodate i would but i don't know if that is possible on this forum. and i am sure i am eccentric, i've been called far worse, and i could certainly be worse off! i can see that you are somewhat of a stickler for correct punctuation, which is fine as well, cause it just shows we are two different personalities. the body of Messiah is made up of all types and kinds. i write this way in emails and on another forum that i frequent, so there is nothing in the way i write that is meant to offend or annoy anyone specifically on this site. i try to make my posts understandable in content, and for the most part, the capitalization "choice" i have made has been going for so long that i usually don't even realize that it might look odd to others.

3) the frontlet comment was not fueled by any "agenda" of mine, nor did i "let it slip in", but directly pertained to the subject at hand. there was no other motives, i can assure you. if you will notice, it was in a list of just a few of the many commands in Torah that are somewhat "grey" in application. and just to make it clear, it is not a "huge" issue for me, as you incorrectly assume. if it was, then perhaps my 69 previous posts would have dealt with it more repeatedly. it is one of those issues that i dealt with when it arose and it is not a major focus in my life. honestly, i seek to love the Father far more than i ever where frontlets, and it is the same way with most of other commands. i where tassels far more than i wear frontlets, as well. there are (supposedly) 612 other commands out there that are just as important in doing -- at least the ones that pertain to us in our lives today. so in that respect, all would be labeled just as "huge". there was no invite to anyone to challenge me on the subject of frontlets. if you will recall, in one of my previous posts about our need here to be more "nice" and "edifying" to each other (i don't remember the name of the particular thread), i stated something to the effect that we should be here building up alliances and edifying each other in the faith and in the walk. my post above was written as a light-hearted look at all of the various interpretations of the "niddah" commandments. it became sort of intense as it went, and i was offering a different perspective of looking at all the differing ways in which it was being presented. perhaps so that they could look at the differences in a positive light instead of a negative. we can glean truths and nuances from each other in all manner of ways, you know. thus what i listed in my post were examples of some of those commands which elicited the same sort of various applicatory methodologies in the Mishnah. i thought that the post was clear enough in what i was attempting to get across. it is a good thing to have all the various personal applications of these commands which are somewhat sketchy in their carrying-out, so that we can filter through them and see which ones seem the closest Scripturally, and which ones fit each person's personality inidividually.

and as for the book you mentioned i wrote, well, it was more of a personal study that turned into a book. i decided to share what i had learned in my studies, and a book format was the best i could come up with. and i think to be fair i have not even presented the book on this site, as it was not truly finished when i originally presented it to the one from whom you received knowledge of it. so there is no basis for a claim of me promoting an agenda. the only agenda i could possibly say i have is to share what truths i have found in Scripture, and obviously that includes whatever i feel led to contribute. and that is an agenda everyone should have, right? we're here to share the insights the Father has given us personally, and offer the questions we have found as well. this forum functions like that all the time, which of course you know.

4) as for your thoughts on the things presented about frontlets, those can be dealt with in the other thread more appropriately. i have information that was not presented in the book since it wasn't entirely finished, and it is info that the "rebuttal" book on your site has not dealt with, either. you may want to keep an open mind as of now before you hear all the evidence.

Thank you for your explanation. I will do my best to operate from this point going forward that you had no agenda to promote when you slipped in the part about the frontlets. I certainly hope you can at least understand my concern. It is a fact that you have authored a book on the subject, something I know about, but something probably no one else here was aware of. It is a fact that you had previously started a thread here in EliYah's Forum in which you promoted wearing tefillin. So when I notice a teeny little comment (presented as factual) that wearing frontlets is commanded in Scripture, when I see no such teaching, what am I supposed to think???

Anyway, I hope you understand why I questioned you, and now I will do my best to understand and accept that you truly did not have any ulterior motives when you added that comment.

As for being open-minded, that is what I always try to do, and that is why I always question things, sometimes from some angles that rub folks the wrong way. I am glad you have not shown any signs of being upset over my questions. I am a truth seeker, not a teacher, so I have no reason to come here to promote any agendas other than my own quest for truth.

Take care and may YHWH bless our understanding of His Word.

In the love of YHWH through His Son Yeshua the Messiah,
Larry

_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

We don't see Yahshua praying with those, and on the other hand I'm not sure if it's wrong to wear them. I'm pretty familure with Jewish traditions, but don't feel right about many things that have been passed down in that manner.

I know about the Bar Kochba caves, and now you got me curious of what book your talking about. Could it be called "To Be A Jew"? or from Rashbam?

Shalom in YHWH,

Bro Yohanan

You raise some excellent points.

You wrote:

quote:

---

We don't see Yahshua praying with those, ...

---

I reply: Indeed, Yeshua is never recorded as having worn the Totephot or tefillin. Those who believe we should wear such articles would counter that just because it isn't recorded that He did wear them doesn't mean He didn't.

However, there is evidence in the Bible that He did not. One thing that is fairly common knowledge is the fact that Samaritans never wore the Tefillin, yet Yeshua was accused by the Jews of being a Samaritan (John 8:48). I find it highly unlikely that Yeshua would have been accused of being a Samaritan if He routinely wore the Tefillin.

Your next point:

quote:

---

...and on the other hand I'm not sure if it's wrong to wear them.

---

I reply: And I agree! Regrettably, however, the individual promoting the wearing of tefillin has made allusion to his belief that those who do not wear them have taken the mark of the beast. These types of remarks complicate things insofar as accomplishing a productive dialogue with those who promote the wearing of the Tefillin.

You also commented:

quote:

---

I'm pretty familure with Jewish traditions, but don't feel right about many things that have been passed down in that manner.

---

I reply: We need to be very careful. While I freely admit that there were some eccentric Jews even during Yeshua's day who wore tefillin, I believe it can be successfully demonstrated that mainstream Judaism of Yeshua's day did not.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I know about the Bar Kochba caves, and now you got me curious of what book your talking about. Could it be called "To Be A Jew"? or from Rashbam?

---

I reply: I believe you misunderstood my reference to "the book." The book I was referring to is a very recent work authored by "Burning one," and is designed to promote wearing tefillin as an obedience vs. disobedience issue. His book is entitled The Sign of the Servant: Revealing the Meaning Behind a Mysterious Mitzvah.

Take care and may YHWH bless!

Love in Messiah,
Larry

_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

you stated that i made an allusion in my book that those who do not wear frontlets have taken the mark of the beast.

i have to say that this is categoretically FALSE.

that is an insane teaching which i do not believe in any way, shape, or form. never was that even in my head when i wrote the book. please understand that believing i teach that is a perversion of what i really did teach.

you said you only read portions of the study, so i don't know if you got that from what you personally read, or else you were told that.

if it was something you gleaned by actually reading my written words, then i would advise you to reread that section because i never stated that or even attempted to allude to that.

if it was something someone merely told you was written in the book, then i would say to be extremely cautious what you hear about what someone teaches before publically declaring it as truth.

i deny that teaching from beginning to end so if you would you might want to delete that part of your post, as it is not something i teach nor advocate, especially since i had not even thought of it when writing that part of the book. i hope you can understand my desire in this to make sure that what is true about one's teaching is made known. even if we disagree about something in Scripture, misinterpretation of one's teaching, or slander is not the way to go.

Yow wrote:

quote:

---

you stated that i made an allusion in my book that those who do not wear frontlets have taken the mark of the beast.

i have to say that this is categoretically FALSE.

that is an insane teaching which i do not believe in any way, shape, or form. never was that even in my head when i wrote the book. please understand that believing i teach that is a perversion of what i really did teach.

---

You concluded your posting by strongly implying that I either misinterpreted your teaching or slandered you.

I do not mean to slander you in any way, so I apologize if I misrepresented your beliefs. Here's what I will do: I will simply offer the quotation from page 67 of your book The Sign of the Servant: Revealing the Meaning Behind a Mysterious Mitzvah. In the following excerpt, it certainly seems clear that you attempt to make a connection between the tefillin and the mark of the beast. You certainly do state that "anti-tefillin" in some way or another constitutes the mark of the beast, right?? So whether or not a person receives the mark of the beast by not actually wearing the tefillin, it is clear from the following commentary that you believe one receives the mark of the beast by taking a position which is "anti-tefillin." Am I close? Here is the quotation from your study:

quote:

---

From the book The Sign of the Servant: Revealing the Meaning Behind a Mysterious Mitzvah, authored by Burning one (I presume you prefer to conceal your true name), page 67:

     The "he" mentioned here is the second beast described in this chapter, and this beast is later known as the false prophet. This tells us much, namely, that the mark of the beast is instigated by a corrupt spiritual leader, and the heart of its evil lies in this. The mark also affects the social and economic relations for those who take it, but its main focus is a spiritual one. As I have earnestly tried to make clear in this study, the significance of a physical mitzvah needs to be perceived even more clearly in its spiritual applications, or else one will approach that mitzvah in an incorrect light. The purpose, the spirit behind the letter of the Torah, is something we all need to endeavor to comprehend. When one is obedient, or in this case, disobedient, in things spiritual, there will always be ramifications in the physical. This is a truth that is laid out constantly in the Torah and shown to be true in application throughout the stories of Scripture.

     This mark is to be taken upon the right hand or the forehead. There is only one mitzvah in Scripture that speaks of something being placed upon the hand or the forehead, and that of course is tefillin! Attempts have been made to say that it is simply coincidence, and that they do not share any relation, but this line of thought is totally inappropriate. Scripture is a completely unified message, and when something is written to us in a prophecy that bears striking resemblance to another past passage or verse, then we should be quick to realize that the Spirit of Yah is referring us back to that original context and its spiritual and physical implications. The connection here is therefore unquestionable, for Yochanan, the one writing down this vision, would even himself have seen a connection between the two, for tefillin would have been a common part of his life of obedience to the Torah. Most believers have failed to see the relation for so long, due to their lack of study and observance of Yah's Word. But the relation is clearly present, and is undeniable.

     The book of Revelation quotes and makes references to the ancient Hebrew Scriptures more than any other book in the Messianic Writings. It contains images and allusions to things from the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings; all of Scripture! In our pursuit to comprehend this, one of Scripture's most mystical writings, rivaling or even perhaps surpassing similar texts found in the prophetic books of Dani'El (Daniel), Yechezq'El (Ezekiel), Zekar Yah (Zechariah), or if I may, even Shir HaShirim (The Song of Songs), we must keep in the forefront of our thinking that it needs to be viewed and interpreted through the lens of the Hebrew Scriptures. If we desire to rightly divide this so often wrongly divided book, the only path for doing so lay through the rest of Yah's written revelation. Doing this, we can safely arrive at a better grasp of this troublesome topic.

     In having a foundation laid showing the direct relation of tefillin with the mark of the beast, we can now delve deeper into the study. The first stone set has to be that we see this connection, or else the rest of the study will be fruitless. The relationship of the mark of the beast being given on the hand or the forehead is a clear and distinct comparison to tefillin, albeit in a corrupt and perverted way. The beast's mark is, in a sense, anti-tefillin. [Note: Emphasis and underlining mine]

---

My reaction to the above quote: Whatever it is you are saying here regarding the relationship between tefillin and the mark of the beast, it is obvious to me that you do see a connection between the two and you DO believe that "anti-tefillin" (in some way or another) constitutes the mark of the beast. Whether one receives the mark of the beast by not wearing the tefillin, it is clear from your statements that you believe a person receives the mark of the beast by taking a position which is "anti-tefillin." What that means, at least based on what you wrote above, is that you believe people who do not know how to keep the "mysterious mitzvah" of the tefillin are not condemned UNTIL and UNLESS we are presented with the (supposed) "TRUTH" of this commandment and then reject it --THEN we receive the mark of the beast! At least that is what you appear to be saying. If this is not what you are saying, then I certainly believe a clarification is well in order. Since I obviously do not agree with your position regarding wearing tefillin, then based upon what I read in your book, you must believe I have taken the mark of the beast.

This, then, explains why I remarked in my previous posting that you made allusion to your belief that those who do not wear tefillin have taken the mark of the beast. I continue to maintain that these types of remarks complicate things insofar as accomplishing a productive dialogue with those who do not share your position.

May YHWH bless!

In the love of YHWH through Yeshua the Messiah,
Larry

_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Dave52 wrote:These commandments were for inside the camp and to impose them on those outside the camp is a yoke which neither we or our children are able to bear.

John Cordaro wrote: I believe you have taken Acts 15:10 out of context. It is not referring to any law of Yahweh as being a yoke that we cannot bear. It is talking about imposing those laws upon people as a means of salvation. We are saved through the grace of the Master Yahshua Messiah as verse 11 states.

---

You’re assessment of Act 15:10 was dead-on but I wasn’t quoting Act 15:10, although my quote had some similarities to it.

Are we expected to keep all the commandments given to the Hebrews living inside the camp? Of course that would be out of the question and to do so would be asking the impossible or imposing a yoke or burden we are unable to bear.

I’m not saying all the commandments inside the camp are unachievable but clearly all of them are not doable. I would think we all agree the situation and circumstances inside the camp at that time are not viable today.

quote:

---

John Cordaro wrote: Sin is sin whether we are ignorant of it or not. I would think uncleanness is uncleanness whether we are ignorant of it or not as well.

---

But sin is not always imputed to those who are ignorant of sinning (Lev 5:3-4).

quote:

---

John Cordaro wrote: The primary factor was to maintain the purity of the Tabernacle. Since our bodies are now the temple of the Holy Spirit, I believe we should keep them clean.

---

But we can’t keep them clean. For instance women obviously can’t always be clean and often times men as well yet our bodies remain the temple of the Holy Spirit. Back then these law could maintain the purity of the Tabernacle but today at any given time up to 25% of the temple is made up of unclean saints.

quote:

---

John Cordaro wrote: All of these verses deal with either cleansing us of sin or cleansing our conscience and setting us apart from those who are yet in their sins. Yet, being cleansed from sin does not mean we cannot be defiled by it again (Mt:15:18,19). While we have been cleansed spiritually speaking, we can still become unclean by the various means that Yahweh has already declared. I believe we need to maintain a physical and spiritual purity if possible.

---

We’re not so much talking about sin but uncleanness or our spirit but our bodies. Are our “bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:22) and if so does these take away our uncleanness, enabling our bodies to be the temple for Yahweh to dwell? Or has Yahweh changed His standards and is now willing to dwell in many people who are unclean not by any fault of their own.

I believe we are missing something in this that Yahshua accomplished and I would like to understand it if Yahweh permits. I am in no way disputing your understanding or advocating the abolishment of any commandments. In fact I am feeling guilty even questioning the side of an argument that supports obedience to each and ever law. Please don’t think I am against your support for the law.

quote:

---

Dave52 wrote: When you touch your menstruating wife you are unclean. But when you touch (shake hands) with a menstruating female client at work you are not unclean.

John Cordaro wrote: I do believe that could be true, but not for the same reason you do. Yahweh never said that whatsoever a menstruous woman touches will become unclean. It is only what she sits or lies upon that becomes unclean or when she is touched that another person becomes unclean. That leaves open the possibility that her hands do not transmit uncleanness allowing her to continue caring for her household. This is what the Babylonian Talmud teaches. Also, consider Lev.15:11. If a man had an issue and touched someone, he became unclean, BUT ONLY if the one with the issue did not wash his hands first. So, in his case, he could touch if he washed his hands first, but Yahweh is silent concerning the menstruous woman touching which suggests she can, if she washes her hands as well.

---

Very plausible, your explanation makes perfect sense but it goes to a deeper level of that grey area Burning one spoke of.

quote:

---

Dave52 wrote: Can a menstruating woman’s faith today keep her clean enough to enter Yahweh sanctuary but when her husband touches her he becomes unclean?

John Cordaro wrote:What is Yahweh's sanctuary today? Are you referring to any place where saints are gathered? I do not believe a menstruating woman's faith makes her clean from that physical uncleanness unless she exercises that faith by believing what Yahweh said about how to become clean again. If that were true, then her husband's faith should allow him to have relations with her. Also, if that were true, our faith should allow us to eat unclean, touch dead bodies, etc.

---

I was speaking of Yahweh’s temple.

quote:

---

Acheson wrote: Nevertheless, there is nothing in Torah that I'm aware of stipulating that it is a sin for a man to touch a woman who happens to be menstruating. We are only told that it makes him unclean until evening, that's all.

---

Uncleanness is not sin otherwise any woman who died during her menstrual cycle would die in sin.

Anybody else have a comment on Acheson’s statement?

quote:

---

Acheson wrote: Is it, then, a sin for a man to touch or kiss his menstruating wife? Not from what I have read in Scripture. It just makes him ritually unclean, which is not in and of itself a sin. Since my wife and I are "one flesh" anyway (according to Scripture), I prefer to just kiss and hug her each day regardless of whether or not it makes me unclean. Of course, this also includes sharing the same bed, and of course this also includes obedience to such laws as the one found in Lev. 18:19 and Lev. 20:18.

---

Just some questions I’m throwing out here, no offence meant to anyone.

If one sleeps in the same bed with their menstruating wife then is there any “separation” involved as mentioned, “she shall be put apart seven days?”

Le 15:22 Whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

Would you bother to do this since you’ve decided to join her in her state of uncleanness? Or would you wash each time throughout the day you did touch anything she sat upon?

quote:

---

I’m not saying all the commandments inside the camp are unachievable but clearly all of them are not doable. I would think we all agree the situation and circumstances inside the camp at that time are not viable today.

---

Can you give me a few examples aside from the laws of uncleanness and the sacrificial laws? That would help me understand you better.

quote:

---

But sin is not always imputed to those who are ignorant of sinning (Lev 5:3-4).

---

The JPS Torah Commentary on Leviticus translates verses 3 & 4 differently. It reads, "Or when he touches humaan uncleanness - any such uncleanness whereby one becomes unclean - and, though he has known it, the fact has escaped him, but later he realizes his guilt; Or when a person utters an oath ...and, though he has known it, the fact has escaped him, but later he realizes his guilt in any of these matters, he shall confess that wherein he sinned."

Their note on verse 3 reads, "As has been emphasized repeatedly, according to cultic law guilt is not a function of awareness; it is a function of committing an act or failing to commit one..."

quote:

---

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Cordaro wrote: The primary factor was to maintain the purity of the Tabernacle. Since our bodies are now the temple of the Holy Spirit, I believe we should keep them clean.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

But we can’t keep them clean. For instance women obviously can’t always be clean and often times men as well yet our bodies remain the temple of the Holy Spirit. Back then these law could maintain the purity of the Tabernacle but today at any given time up to 25% of the temple is made up of unclean saints.

---

We can't seem to stop sinning either. If I break the Sabbath by working on that day, I would be sinning. I would not then say to myself, "Well, since I am a sinner, there is no point in me trying to remain sinless from this point on." I would repent and try to sin no more. I approach uncleanness the same way. I try to avoid uncleanness. If I become unclean, I bath and become clean again at sunset.

quote:

---

We’re not so much talking about sin but uncleanness or our spirit but our bodies. Are our “bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:22) and if so does these take away our uncleanness, enabling our bodies to be the temple for Yahweh to dwell? Or has Yahweh changed His standards and is now willing to dwell in many people who are unclean not by any fault of their own.

---

I guess that depends on how one understands the heart/conscience issue of verse 22; "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." Can our hearts be defiled (Mt.15:18,19) or our conscience seared (1 Tim.4:2) even though they have been sprinkled by the blood of Yahshua? Those two references seem to suggest they can. Why, then, can't our bodies become unclean even though they have been washed?

quote:

---

I believe we are missing something in this that Yahshua accomplished and I would like to understand it if Yahweh permits.

---

If we are missing something, I would certainly like to understand it as well. May it be so.

quote:

---

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acheson wrote: Nevertheless, there is nothing in Torah that I'm aware of stipulating that it is a sin for a man to touch a woman who happens to be menstruating. We are only told that it makes him unclean until evening, that's all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uncleanness is not sin otherwise any woman who died during her menstrual cycle would die in sin.

Anybody else have a comment on Acheson’s statement?

---

It seems you have misunderstood Larry's statement. He is saying it is NOT a sin to be unclean.

While I do not believe it is a sin to menstruate or to touch a menstruous woman, I do believe it is a sin to touch the blood or unclean issue itself. That is what Lev.5:1-13 is dealing with. Some uncleanness is more severe than others.

Shalom,
John

You wrote:

quote:

---

It seems you have misunderstood Larry's statement. He is saying it is NOT a sin to be unclean.

---

I reply: Your expressed understanding of my understanding is correct! Thank you for that.

May YHWH bless!

Love in Messiah,
Larry

_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged