TTN - The Torah Network

2 d

FROM THIS WEEK’S TORAH PORTION – TOL’DOTH:

And Yitzchaq loved Ěsaw because he ate of his wild game, but Rivqah loved Ya’aqov.

And Ya’aqov cooked a stew, and Ěsaw came in from the field, and he was weary.

And Ěsaw said to Ya’aqov, “Please feed me with that same red stew, for I am weary.” That is why his name was called Edom.

But Ya’aqov said, “Sell me your birthright today.”

And Ěsaw said, “Look, I am going to die, so why should I have birthright?”

Then Ya’aqov said, “Swear to me today.” And he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Ya’aqov.

Ya’aqov then gave Ěsaw bread and stew of lentils. And he ate and drank and rose up and left. Thus, Ěsaw despised his birthright.

What have you sold yours for?

Comment

word for today

3 d

111725 / 25th day of the 8th month 5786
WORD FOR TODAY “the reason for all the problems in the middle east”: Gen 25:23 The LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples will be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger."

WISDOM FOR TODAY: Pro 20:9 Who can say, "I have cleansed my heart, I am pure from my sin"?

Ask the LORD how you can serve HIM better

www.BGMCTV.org

Comment

3 d

https://thestraightandnarrow.cfw.me/comics/1021

#bible #bibleverse #bibleverseimages #biblestudy #biblestudynotes #church #christian #webcomic #webcomicseries #cartoon

The Straight + Narrow - Does the Bible actually say? The Law was given so that you know you need a Savior.

thestraightandnarrow.cfw.me

The Straight + Narrow - Does the Bible actually say? The Law was given so that you know you need a Savior.

Does the Bible actually say? The Law was given so that you know you need a Savior.

Comment

Torah midrash: BE Noah!

3 d

https://open.substack.com/pub/....silvertrumpetradio/p

Comment

3 d

Comment

3 d

Comment

3 d

Comment

3 d

Comment

3 d

It has been claimed by some that most Christians today naturally keep most of the commands of Torah, whether wittingly or unwittingly, simply by being good followers of Jesus according to their particular church doctrines. This statement is false and is made by people who do not truly know the Torah, but who think that if they say such things loud and long enough, they will be believed. I think they will not, because most people are not that naïve, and simple math is all that is necessary to disprove and discredit their claims:

· There are arguably 613 Commands in the Torah.

· There are about 77 positive commands (thou shalts) which can be kept today.

· There are about 194 negative commands (thou shalt nots) which can be kept today.

· There are about 26 additional commands which can be kept today, contingent upon one living in the land of Yisrael.

This means that, of the 613, only 271 Torah commands can currently be kept by anyone outside the land of Yisrael – which is roughly 44% of the total. If one lives in the land of Yisrael, about 279 commands could currently be kept, which is roughly 49% of the total possible. This is the best that could presently be accomplished by a perfect Tzadik – a fully righteous man who knows the Torah and scrupulously practices it to the best of his or her ability.

I have personally surveyed numerous Christians and Torah-observant believers in Yeshua over a period of two decades regarding their keeping of the commandments of Torah. In these surveys, I went through every one of the commandments, explaining each in its turn to those who did not understand them, and asking each person these six questions:

1. Should you keep this command?

2. Should you not keep this command?

3. Would you keep this command?

4. Would you not keep this command?

5. Do you keep this command?

6. Do you not keep this command?

The results were amazing and eye-opening, and no one could possibly have guessed them. Relatively pious Christians kept (either incidentally or tried to keep) an average of just 43 positive commands and 42 negative commands of the Torah, a total of 85 or about 31% of the possible 271 commands which can possibly be kept today. All of those surveyed acknowledged that this was an ideal number, and that they did not do so well in daily practice. This means that Christians, on average, keep or try to keep only 14% of the total 613 Torah commands.

Messianics and other supposedly Torah-observant believers in Yeshua fared somewhat better in my surveys, keeping (or trying to keep) roughly twice the number of commandments as their Christian counterparts. They averaged about 150 commands which they thought ideally should be kept, which is about 55% of the 271 possible to keep today, or about 24% of the total 613 commands of Torah. These numbers varied somewhat between them, though not significantly, as there is little agreement between supposedly “Torah-observant” groups about what Torah commands are possible to keep and are binding upon believers today, and because different types or groups of people have certain commands which apply only to them (such as priests, farmers, women, lepers…).

So much for the claim that most believers, especially Christians, keep a majority of the commands of Torah “naturally.” If folks are going to make such claims, they should first do the basic math and be certain of what they are saying. If they do not, they undermine their own credibility and potentially mislead people, whether wittingly or unwittingly.

“Man does not live by bread alone, but by EVERY Word that comes from the mouth of YHWH.”

“If you love me, keep my commandments.”

“And by this we know that we know Him, if we guard His commands. The one who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not guard His commands, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever guards His Word, truly the love of Elohim has been perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. The one who says he stays in Him ought himself also to walk, even as He walked.”

“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear Elohim and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For Elohim shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be excellent, or whether it be evil.”

Comment

just a mathematical criticism, for the numbers to really make true sense.

i quote you
- and because different types or groups of people have certain commands which apply only to them (such as priests, farmers, women, lepers… -
the commands which do NOT apply to each individual asked should have been taken out of the total number of commands, and then the percentages worked out.
this would have brought a truer picture to the fore...

· Reply · 1763384746

1 Reply

know scripture? can you help me?

3 d

i saw something that really piqued my interest, but i could definitely use some help here.
of all things, it's to do with garments, clothing.
(i started off actually just looking for when cloth first came into the picture, the upgrade from animal skins...)
let me show some connects first.

gen 3
- 7And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed together fig leaves and made coverings for themselves. -
rev 3
- 17You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. 18I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed, and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. -

so, basically, one gets the idea that nakedness is shameful. this may seem too obvious to even state. let's thicken the plot.

gen 9
- 22And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside.
23Then Shem and Japheth took a garment and placed it across their shoulders, and walking backward, they covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned away so that they did not see their father’s nakedness. -

so, again it is brought up in connection with nakedness.
the sons didn't even want to SEE their father's nakedness...
now, the word garment is simlah, here's strong's exhaustive concordance

- apparel, clothes garment, raiment
Perhaps by permutation for the feminine of cemel (through the idea of a cover assuming the shape of the object beneath); a dress, especially a mantle -- apparel, cloth(-es, -ing), garment, raiment. -

this is where it gets interesting, it's very carefully showing a connect to cemel (semel), again, strong's exhaustive

- figure, idol, image
Or cemel {say'-mel}; from an unused root meaning to resemble; a likeness -- figure, idol, image. -

so, roughly going with a thought wondering if clothing as covering is in some way a form of idolatry, we look at the theme of the original iniquity, of adam, that got him (and eve) to want to clothe themselves.
and up pops job 31

- 33if I have covered my transgressions like Adam
by hiding my guilt in my heart, -

now, to be fair, it actually says bosom, not heart.
but this looks to say one clothes oneself to 'hide' one's guilt.
job says adam covered his transgressions, and genesis says he covered his nakedness. same thing(?).
and now the connect between clothing and idols makes more sense.
we wear clothing to cover our nakedness, but are we actually attempting to hide our guilt over our transgressions in our hearts?
this is not possible of course, as what the Father looks at in us is precisely the heart.
and why the theme constantly comes back that the clothing we wear is nothing more than filthy dirty rags.

- “Who told you that you were naked?” asked the LORD God. -

why (in all innocence) need to cover one's nakedness if one has no guilt? why attempt to 'hide' what's in one's heart from the eyes of the Father?
could be another way to put it.

anyway, this is where i am so far, i hope you can see this is quite intriguing.

does anyone have any knowledge of texts that could expand on this, or does it trigger any thoughts in anyone?
please share them, i'd appreciate it.

Comment

I can't yet answer your question, but can add some further thoughts on the definition of clothing...

It is interesting how toddlers up to a certain age don't care for and sometimes doesn't even want to wear clothes. I recall young toddlers on the beach running in their skivvies enjoying themselves and they only become shy when their eyes are opened, and they know that they are naked; according to social norms. And I say by "social norms" as I wonder what the outcome would be if we don't keep telling our children that they are naked by our standards and should dress themselves???

Is it our upbringing which now influences our judgement as someone told us that we are naked or we might not have considered it to be a problem?

On the other side of the spectrum, does that say something of native tribes who generally don't wear upper body coverings? We would consider them naked and yet it is acceptable and right according to their own social norms.

And what is the norm? Who sets it?

If we say that the Bible sets the standard then what I see in the instruction to the priests in Exodus 20:26 (“And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it.”) and in Nahum 3:5 (“I will lift up your skirts over your face, and nations shall see your nakedness…”) is that nakedness is the revealing of the lower body. But nowhere in the Bible does it talk about exposed breasts as being nakedness or that either men or women must cover their breasts.

Our mental pictures of Eve is influenced by what we have been taught and in that version she is always dressed to cover her breasts.

So coming back to the native tribes, are they according to Bible standards covered? And are the general norm of having ones breasts covered not directly instructed and therefore a social norm which we now say is Torah? What then when the social norms change, do we then interpret Torah differently?

What is interesting is that all future promises are to receive white robes in the here after. Aren't there any trousers on the new earth as we only read of robes or is it because the writers were writing from the perspective of their own social norms and what was known to them?

It also never says that people will walk around like Adam and Eve. So does it mean that the knowledge of sin and therefore the choice to do sin will continue?

Or on your question of clothing being an idol, does it mean that YHWH replaces our idols with versions of His own which He accepts so that we are still covered?

I can't yet answer your question, but can add some further thoughts on the definition of clothing... 
 
It is interesting how toddlers up to a certain age don't care for and sometimes doesn't even want to wear clothes.  I recall young toddlers on the beach running in their skivvies enjoying themselves and they only become shy when their eyes are opened, and they know that they are naked; according to social norms.  And I say by "social norms" as I wonder what the outcome would be if we don't keep telling our children that they are naked by our standards and should dress themselves??? 
 
Is it our upbringing which now influences our judgement as someone told us that we are naked or we might not have considered it to be a problem? 
 
On the other side of the spectrum, does that say something of native tribes who generally don't wear upper body coverings?  We would consider them naked and yet it is acceptable and right according to their own social norms. 
 
And what is the norm?  Who sets it?   
 
If we say that the Bible sets the standard then what I see in the instruction to the priests in Exodus 20:26 (“And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it.”) and in Nahum 3:5 (“I will lift up your skirts over your face, and nations shall see your nakedness…”) is that nakedness is the revealing of the lower body.  But nowhere in the Bible does it talk about exposed breasts as being nakedness or that either men or women must cover their breasts. 
 
Our mental pictures of Eve is influenced by what we have been taught and in that version she is always dressed to cover her breasts. 
 
So coming back to the native tribes, are they according to Bible standards covered?  And are the general norm of having ones breasts covered not directly instructed and therefore a social norm which we now say is Torah?  What then when the social norms change, do we then interpret Torah differently? 
 
What is interesting is that all future promises are to receive white robes in the here after. Aren't there any trousers on the new earth as we only read of robes or is it because the writers were writing from the perspective of their own social norms and what was known to them? 
 
It also never says that people will walk around like Adam and Eve.  So does it mean that the knowledge of sin and therefore the choice to do sin will continue?   
 
Or on your question of clothing being an idol, does it mean that YHWH replaces our idols with versions of His own which He accepts so that we are still covered?

· Reply · 1763451967

3 Replies

working on clothing being a form of covering, and covering being an attempt to hide iniquity, i look at 1 corinthians 11 again.

- 3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man -

so, further references to the head, for instance of the man, can at times refer to who his head is, not his own head.

- 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. -

so a man praying with his physical head covered is dishonoring who his head is, Yeshua.
and

- 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head -

a woman praying with her physical head uncovered is dishonoring her husband.

how?
well, Yeshua has not performed any iniquities that He needs to cover, and so the man who covers his head is dishonoring Yeshua by implying Yeshua has some form of guilt.
conversely, a woman not covering her head is either implying her husband has no guilt or, more directly, by not covering her head is putting his shame out for all to see, displaying his iniquities, as it were.

verse 5 continues,plus verse 6

- for it is just as if her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. -

this is saying that for a woman to pray without covering her head she should shave her hair-covering off, now she's unequivocally showing what's the guilt of her husband, and if that is shameful, and for which husband would it not be, better cover her head.

verse 7 is reinforcing this, showing that one is a reflection of someone else's glory

- 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. -

excepting that normal men aren't really that glorious, guilt ridden sinners that they are.
and so, in private, when a woman does not cover her hair to indicate to others she is united with her man, she does something really cool by wearing her hair long.

- 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. -

her glory? her glory is of her man. and so she, by covering her head with long hair is covering his iniquities, amplifying his glory, or, not seeing his faults. which is an answer to a question so many men ask, what does she see in me? well, she sees you without your faults.

and conversely,

- 14Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, -

again, what's being talked about is the man, by covering his head with long hair, is in fact disgracing Yeshua, implying He has faults that need covering.

right, this is tentative, i can't say i've built a water-tight case here.
but it does show how the idea of covering one's iniquities, or someone else's, can be inferred by talking of clothing, head-covering, or even hair itself.
whaddaya fink?

working on clothing being a form of covering, and covering being an attempt to hide iniquity, i look at 1 corinthians 11 again. 
 
- 3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man - 
 
so, further references to the head, for instance of the man, can at times refer to who his head is, not his own head. 
 
- 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.  - 
 
so a man praying with his physical head covered is dishonoring who his head is, Yeshua. 
and 
 
- 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head - 
 
a woman praying with her physical head uncovered is dishonoring her husband. 
 
how? 
well, Yeshua has not performed any iniquities that He needs to cover, and so the man who covers his head is dishonoring Yeshua by implying Yeshua has some form of guilt. 
conversely, a woman not covering her head is either implying her husband has no guilt or, more directly, by not covering her head is putting his shame out for all to see, displaying his iniquities, as it were. 
 
verse 5 continues,plus verse 6 
 
- for it is just as if her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. - 
 
this is saying that for a woman to pray without covering her head she should shave her hair-covering off, now she's unequivocally showing what's the guilt of her husband, and if that is shameful, and for which husband would it not be, better cover her head. 
 
verse 7 is reinforcing this, showing that one is a reflection of someone else's glory 
 
- 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. - 
 
excepting that normal men aren't really that glorious, guilt ridden sinners that they are. 
and so, in private, when a woman does not cover her hair to indicate to others she is united with her man, she does something really cool by wearing her hair long. 
 
- 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. - 
 
her glory? her glory is of her man. and so she, by covering her head with long hair is covering his iniquities, amplifying his glory, or, not seeing his faults. which is an answer to a question so many men ask, what does she see in me? well, she sees you without your faults. 
 
and conversely,  
 
-  14Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, - 
 
again, what's being talked about is the man, by covering his head with long hair, is in fact disgracing Yeshua, implying He has faults that need covering. 
 
right, this is tentative, i can't say i've built a water-tight case here. 
but it does show how the idea of covering one's iniquities, or someone else's, can be inferred by talking of clothing, head-covering, or even hair itself. 
whaddaya fink?

· Reply · 1763553014

Discover Posts

word for today

The Straight + Narrow - Does the Bible actually say? The Law was given so that you know you need a Savior.

Torah midrash: BE Noah!

Henk Wouters

know scripture? can you help me?

Rhy Bezuidenhout

Henk Wouters