Was St. Paul a liar and deceiver?

[Shermana]

Then why did the mosaic law allow 'unintentional manslayers' to flee to the 'cities of refuge' ?

To prevent them from the anger of the relatives of course.

Those cities were real...they were not a metaphor.

Your example has absolutely no basis. Besides, it would involve a total contradiction even if it was as you say. It's only to allow the innocent to flee the wrath of the relatives, it specifically says so. By your total "literal" interpretation, the innocent still has to suffer.

because there is a difference between the words 'fulfill' and 'fulfilled'

Doesn't change the meaning of the word. Just the tense. This is kinda like how you tried this last time with another word on another post, forgot which one. But they were basically the same with the same meaning. The burden is on you to prove that they mean something totally different when in such tenses.

it could simply mean for 'all generations' until the new covenant is installed too...or until God decides otherwise

I guess we can just read anything we want into the text now can't we.

So about Paul saying "As the Law says"....

 

[Pegg]

We still have the problem of the fact that the OT states several times that the law would remain forever. Regardless of what metaphors we use to assume that it wouldn't, the Bible is clear on the fact it would. I can't reconcile the idea that the law would eventually be done away with, with statements in the OT that it would always remain in force.

The priesthood was the primary focus of the mosaic covenant....the entire camp of Isreal were situated around the tabernacle and facing it....the sacrifices have ceased for the past 2,000 years.

But where is it today?...did it always remain in force? Obviously not, therefore perhaps there are some other parts of the same law which have not remained in force.

You're combining two different passages that don't seem to be interconnected except by Christian theology. Moses never said that the prophet to come would be the one who would institute the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah. And Jeremiah never said that it would be the prophet to come who would institute the new covenant, he mentions no one but god on that topic.

but that is exactly what christian theology is....its about the fulfillment of the OT and how these prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus. for example,

(John 1:45) Philip found Na·than′a·el and said to him: “We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote, Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Naz′a·reth.”

(John 6:14) Hence when the men saw the signs he performed, they began to say: “This is for a certainty the prophet that was to come into the world.”

(Acts 3:22) In fact, Moses said, ‘Jehovah God will raise up for YOU from among YOUR brothers a prophet like me. YOU must listen to him according to all the things he speaks to YOU.

(Acts 7:37) “This is the Moses that said to the sons of Israel, ‘God will raise up for YOU from among YOUR brothers a prophet like me.’

This is a good point. There were servants of god before the institution of the law of Moses, who were acceptable to god. God did not give them a law, so there was none to practice. But, after he established the law, he said from that point on it would remain forever. We can't discount this. We can't assume that god would not institute the law of Moses forever just because he didn't give it before Moses, or else we'd have to say the same of the new covenant. It's something to explore in more detail.

but when you look at ancient examples of people like Abraham, Abel, Noah, Job etc...they already knew the righteousness of Gods laws....they didnt NEED the mosaic law to tell them. So we could say that Gods laws have been in existence since the beginning of man himself. They have always existed because they were inbuilt into the conscience of man....so Gods laws will remain forever.

But we cannot say the same for the mosaic law for the reason that it only came into existence in the 15th century BCE. And there were some of the laws in it which were not given to Noah such as the dietry restrictions (eg. he was told he could eat from all the animals)
There are different parts in the mosaic law....there are moral laws/standards, priestly services/sacrifices, personal cleanliness requirements & festivals & tithings...some of these are peculiar only to the mosaic law.

Ok, let's assume that it was Peter and the apostles, of their own accord, who decided that the gentiles would not have to follow the law. Are they infallible? Jesus clearly taught otherwise. For the apostles to go against what Jesus taught, especially when he echoed the sentiments of the OT, would mean that the apostles were in error. We can't assume that they were right just because faith says they are. If we look at it objectively, we can see clear distinctions between Jesus who taught to follow the law, and those who taught that it was not necessary.

Ok, i hear your point and agree, its entirely possible that the entire christian outlook is wrong because the apostles were fallible, yes. the questions would need to be asked if their line of reasoning is reasonable & in harmony with the OT, and if it fits with Gods plan for the nations.

The account about their decision is found in Acts...maybe you can have a read of it and decide for yourself if their reasoning is based on the un-disuptable facts of what was happening at the time with regard to gentile believers, and on the scriptures, or if they are creating new theologies which could be prone to human error.

Acts 15:1-29 And certain men came down from Ju·de′a and began to teach the brothers: “Unless YOU get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, YOU cannot be saved.” 2 But when there had occurred no little dissension and disputing by Paul and Bar′na·bas with them, they arranged for Paul and Bar′na·bas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and older men in Jerusalem regarding this dispute.
3 Accordingly, after being conducted partway by the congregation, these men continued on their way through both Phoe·ni′cia and Sa·mar′i·a, relating in detail the conversion of people of the nations, and they were causing great joy to all the brothers.
4 On arriving in Jerusalem they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the older men, and they recounted the many things God had done by means of them. 5 Yet, some of those of the sect of the Pharisees that had believed rose up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and charge them to observe the law of Moses.”
6 And the apostles and the older men gathered together to see about this affair.

7 Now when much disputing had taken place, Peter rose and said to them: “Men, brothers, YOU well know that from early days God made the choice among YOU that through my mouth people of the nations should hear the word of the good news and believe; 8 and God, who knows the heart, bore witness by giving them the holy spirit, just as he did to us also. this is the first fact they took into account - people of the nations were receiving holy spirit even before they got baptized such as Cornelius and his household.

9 And he made no distinction at all between us and them, but purified their hearts by faith.
10 Now, therefore, why are YOU making a test of God by imposing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our forefathers nor we were capable of bearing? 11 On the contrary, we trust to get saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way as those people also.” Here Peter was making the point that if the people of the nations were being saved because of their faith, then surely that would hold true for Jews as well and therefore he is asking the question, why is anyone adhering to the mosaic law if that is the case.

12 At that the entire multitude became silent, and they began to listen to Bar′na·bas and Paul relate the many signs and portents that God did through them among the nations. 13 After they quit speaking, James answered, saying: “Men, brothers, hear me. 14 Sym′e·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree (SEE AMOS 4:11), just as it is written, 16 ‘After these things I shall return and rebuild the booth of David that is fallen down; and I shall rebuild its ruins and erect it again, 17 in order that those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things, 18 known from of old.’ 19 Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.” Here the disciple James (Jesus brother) recounts the prophecy of Amos which says that the nations would be brought into the worship of God, but he advises them of the need to observe several very important standards of righteousness which is repeated by the Apostles.

22 Then the apostles and the older men together with the whole congregation favored sending chosen men from among them to Antioch along with Paul and Bar′na·bas, namely, Judas who was called Bar′sab·bas and Silas, leading men among the brothers; 23 and by their hand they wrote:
“The apostles and the older men, brothers, to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Ci·li′cia who are from the nations: Greetings! 24 Since we have heard that some from among us have caused YOU trouble with speeches, trying to subvert YOUR souls, although we did not give them any instructions, 25 we have come to a unanimous accord and have favored choosing men to send to YOU together with our loved ones, Bar′na·bas and Paul, 26 men that have delivered up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We are therefore dispatching Judas and Silas, that they also may report the same things by word. 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”

 

[Pegg]

To prevent them from the anger of the relatives of course.

and if the law 'life for life' 'eye for eye' was not literal, why would they need to be protected from the avenger of blood?

You dont need a literal city of refuge if the law is not literal....obviously it was very literal.

Your example has absolutely no basis. Besides, it would involve a total contradiction even if it was as you say. It's only to allow the innocent to flee the wrath of the relatives, it specifically says so. By your total "literal" interpretation, the innocent still has to suffer.

if you killed a man, you were not innocent even if it was an accident, you were still held responsible for the death. But because it was an 'accident', you were given an opportunity to escape the death penalty....the relatives were given the right to hunt you down and kill you in recompense.

For someone who promotes the mosaic law so much, you should know this.

BTW, you dont need a priesthood to keep this mosaic law in force.

Doesn't change the meaning of the word. Just the tense. This is kinda like how you tried this last time with another word on another post, forgot which one. But they were basically the same with the same meaning. The burden is on you to prove that they mean something totally different when in such tenses.

I filled my bucket with water. Action complete.
Wait until I fill my bucket with water. Action incomplete.

big difference.

 

[Shermana]

and if the law 'life for life' 'eye for eye' was not literal, why would they need to be protected from the avenger of blood?

What part about "Angry family member" didn't you get?

You dont need a literal city of refuge if the law is not literal....obviously it was very literal.

Yes it was very literal. To protect the innocent from angry family members who didn't care if it was an accident or not.

According to eye for an eye, unintentional spilling of blood necessitates it either way.

if you killed a man, you were not innocent even if it was an accident, you were still held responsible for the death. But because it was an 'accident', you were given an opportunity to escape the death penalty....the relatives were given the right to hunt you down and kill you in recompense.

Where does the Law distinguish such in eye for an eye? Did you get the impression that I said the innocent in an accidental killing is not necessarily guilty of unintentional manslaughter? By "innocent" I meant "One who has not willfully committed the sin", I should have been more clear.

For someone who promotes the mosaic law so much, you should know this.

Where does the Law distinguish such in eye for an eye? Please stick to the subject of which this issue pertains. Don't act like I don't know this when you're basing it on the subject for eye for an eye. Where did I give the impression that I'm not aware of this part of the Law? What did you read into what I said that's not there? You brought up the city of refuge, and I thought you were actually trying to stay in context to your own argument. And you certainly are demonstrating just how much you read into things that aren't there, not even in the text but from my replies even!

BTW, you dont need a priesthood to keep this mosaic law in force.

By all means explain how I am to make sacrifices or perform rituals that involve a priest without them.

I filled my bucket with water. Action complete.
Wait until I fill my bucket with water. Action incomplete.

So if you fulfill the Law of Christ, would it not be fulfilled?

Clearly, Jesus said he did not come to destroy/abolish the Law. Also, he said he came "to fulfill" them. So even by your own attempt to act as if the past and present somehow change the meaning, Jesus still used the same tense.

With that, good night.

 

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by dyanaprajna2011
Ok, let's assume that it was Peter and the apostles, of their own accord, who decided that the gentiles would not have to follow the law. Are they infallible? Jesus clearly taught otherwise. For the apostles to go against what Jesus taught, especially when he echoed the sentiments of the OT, would mean that the apostles were in error. We can't assume that they were right just because faith says they are. If we look at it objectively, we can see clear distinctions between Jesus who taught to follow the law, and those who taught that it was not necessary.

Hi dyanaprajna2011, it appears that you might be calling all of the Apostles liars and deceivers also (their error), instead of just doing it to Paul, or am I reading you incorrectly? Are you sure you don't have an agenda? I think Pegg has answered you very well and has shown that it wasn't Paul who made the decision to not burden the Gentiles. But one thing you should take into account...it seemed good to the Holy Spirit ALSO. Will your next accusation be against the Holy Spirit? It appears you are attempting to teach how the Apostles, Paul, and the Holy Spirit all disagreed with "Jesus?" Boy, that is something if you are accusing them all of lying and deceiving?? But really, could it be that you just don't understand things properly? KB

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Hi dyanaprajna2011, it appears that you might be calling all of the Apostles liars and deceivers also (their error), instead of just doing it to Paul, or am I reading you incorrectly?

In a manner of speaking, either that, or they were mistaken.

Are you sure you don't have an agenda?

An agenda, depends on what you mean. What I'm trying to do is to get people of the Christian faith to think objectively about what they believe and why, instead of accepting everything they are told on blind faith.

I think Pegg has answered you very well and has shown that it wasn't Paul who made the decision to not burden the Gentiles.

Pegg has been very patient with me, and has attempted to the best of her ability to answer my questions. However, there is one thing she hasn't satisfactorily answered, no one has, which is why the law would be done away with when both the OT taught that it would remain in effect forever, and Jesus taught it. I was focused on Paul, and his role in the topic, but she brought up that it was not Paul, but the apostles who done this. My question is why, and should they be trusted. If they are the one's who said the law was no longer in effect, then, from what I read, they are in disagreement with both the OT and Jesus, and it has not been answered to me yet as to why I'm wrong. Pegg has answered most of my questions, but this one remains open.

But one thing you should take into account...it seemed good to the Holy Spirit ALSO. Will your next accusation be against the Holy Spirit?

Pentecostals make all sorts of claims, claiming that it was the "holy ghost" speaking through them. Should we not question their claims, and see if they are being truthful?

It appears you are attempting to teach how the Apostles, Paul, and the Holy Spirit all disagreed with "Jesus?" Boy, that is something if you are accusing them all of lying and deceiving?? But really, could it be that you just don't understand things properly? KB

It's very well possible that I am not understanding properly. It might also be the case that you are not understanding things properly. Hence, the reason for this thread. This is one of the issues that I had when I was a Christian, and no one could give me an objective or rational answer to my questions, which is one of the reasons why I left.

My main problem is that, why would people place their faith in men, making the assumption that they are infallible, basically equating them with god/the divine? If you believe that the apostles and Paul were infallible, then that's one thing. But to admit that they were men, and make the claim that no man is perfect, begs the question of why one would accept their words at face value, and never question what they taught.

 

[Desert Snake]

My main problem is that, why would people place their faith in men, making the assumption that they are infallible, basically equating them with god/the divine? If you believe that the apostles and Paul were infallible, then that's one thing. But to admit that they were men, and make the claim that no man is perfect, begs the question of why one would accept their words at face value, and never question what they taught.

What does that have to do with your OP?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

The priesthood was the primary focus of the mosaic covenant....the entire camp of Isreal were situated around the tabernacle and facing it....the sacrifices have ceased for the past 2,000 years.

But where is it today?...did it always remain in force? Obviously not, therefore perhaps there are some other parts of the same law which have not remained in force.

This is a good point, and one that I don't think has an easy answer. Since the sacrifices had to take place at the temple grounds, and the temple was destroyed nearly 2000 years ago, then it could be argued that it was god saying that the old covenant had been done away with. Of course, you could also make the argument that it was man, and not god, who did this. But like I said, there's no easy answer.

but that is exactly what christian theology is....its about the fulfillment of the OT and how these prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus.

I won't argue this point, but only ask a question: does fulfillment equal abolishment?

but when you look at ancient examples of people like Abraham, Abel, Noah, Job etc...they already knew the righteousness of Gods laws....they didnt NEED the mosaic law to tell them. So we could say that Gods laws have been in existence since the beginning of man himself. They have always existed because they were inbuilt into the conscience of man....so Gods laws will remain forever.

Then what is the law of Moses? A written form of these laws, or something else? Since it's not god's ultimate law, and his eternal law was in effect both before and after the law of Moses, exactly what point did the law of Moses serve?

There are different parts in the mosaic law....there are moral laws/standards, priestly services/sacrifices, personal cleanliness requirements & festivals & tithings...some of these are peculiar only to the mosaic law.

Jews don't necessarily make this distinction as to various classes of the laws. Christians did this to differentiate between what they thought was to be followed, and what wasn't. This seems peculiar to me, as Paul says the whole law was abolished, later Christians attempted to differentiate between different classes, in order to determine what was to be followed, and what wasn't, my guess, in order to try to reconcile the teachings of the OT that the law would remain forever, Jesus teaching his followers to follow the law, and Paul teaching that it was to be abandoned. I'll give you an example: Paul said the holy days were just a shadow of things to come, the reality is in Christ. This suggests to me, as later Christians would determine, that the holy days were no longer to be followed. Yet one of the OT prophets, I believe it was Zechariah, said that later gentile believers, especially toward the end days, would follow, along with the Jews, one of the holy days: I think it was the festival of booths, but I'm probably mistaken.

Ok, i hear your point and agree, its entirely possible that the entire christian outlook is wrong because the apostles were fallible, yes. the questions would need to be asked if their line of reasoning is reasonable & in harmony with the OT, and if it fits with Gods plan for the nations.

The account about their decision is found in Acts...maybe you can have a read of it and decide for yourself if their reasoning is based on the un-disuptable facts of what was happening at the time with regard to gentile believers, and on the scriptures, or if they are creating new theologies which could be prone to human error.

I'm very familiar with the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Being former Eastern Orthodox, it was used as the basis for the ecumenical councils and the power they possessed. I'm glad to see you admit that it may be a possibility that they were wrong. I'm not trying to dissuade you from your faith, but it seems my goal, at least with you, was achieved.

I want to ask you another few questions. Does Jesus say, anywhere, that he was the prophet to come spoken by Moses, the instigator of the new covenant, and that it would replace the old?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

What does that have to do with your OP?

Quite a bit. Christians make the claim that only god is perfect, and that man is naturally sinful. Therefore, only god is to be followed, as man is imperfect and prone to error. Yet, at the same time, complete and unwavering faith is placed in the apostles and Paul, without ever questioning whether or not they could have been wrong, mistaken, lying, etc.

 

[Desert Snake]

Quite a bit. Christians make the claim that only god is perfect, and that man is naturally sinful. Therefore, only god is to be followed, as man is imperfect and prone to error. Yet, at the same time, complete and unwavering faith is placed in the apostles and Paul, without ever questioning whether or not they could have been wrong, mistaken, lying, etc.

That's ridiculous, some churches don't even use the Pauline epistles, and theologians question all aspects of the Bible.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

That's ridiculous, some churches don't even use the Pauline epistles, and theologians question all aspects of the Bible.

Most churches rely heavily on the Pauline letters. And it's not the theologians job to question what's in the Bible, but to explain and interpret it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Most churches rely heavily on the Pauline letters. And it's not the theologians job to question what's in the Bible, but to explain and interpret it.

Why aren't you questioning the text in Matthew, or are you? How do we know that ANY of the Bible is accurate?
Are Jesus's teachings accurate? What is your opinion?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Why aren't you questioning the text in Matthew, or are you? How do we know that ANY of the Bible is accurate?
Are Jesus's teachings accurate? What is your opinion?

This is a bit off-topic, but I'll answer your questions.

First, I'm curious as to which text in Matthew you're referring to.

We simply don't know if anything in the Bible is accurate. There is certainly evidence pointing to historical and scientific errors, but these are only important if you take the Bible as a history or science textbook. The Bible is a book of spirituality and religion, so it's accuracy cannot be based on objective reason, but on speculative metaphysics.

As far as what Jesus taught, it's not even certain he existed; at least there's not much to go on outside the Bible. But, if he did exist, we can only guess at what he would have taught, considering that the gospel accounts could have errors in recording.

My opinion on the Bible is that it's a decent book of spirituality and religion, and in order to get to it's true meaning, one has to look at it mystically. There's a lot of myth and legend added in, but this is simply for effect. One has to get past the surface, the straight meaning of the words written, in order to get to the deeper teachings of the Bible. And with Jesus, I think that there probably was a Jesus of Nazareth, a great wisdom teacher, but someone who never made the claims about himself that the Bible records.

 

[Desert Snake]

This is a bit off-topic, but I'll answer your questions.

First, I'm curious as to which text in Matthew you're referring to.

We simply don't know if anything in the Bible is accurate. There is certainly evidence pointing to historical and scientific errors, but these are only important if you take the Bible as a history or science textbook.

Matthew 5 ,...I have been using verses selected from that chapter to demonstrate that Jesus did teach to go against the OT laws, frankly no-one has refuted that evidence.....it's obvious

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Matthew 5 ,...I have been using verses selected from that chapter to demonstrate that Jesus did teach to go against the OT laws, frankly no-one has refuted that evidence.....it's obvious

What I read in Matthew 5, is not Jesus teaching to go against the law, but giving a proper understanding of it. I may be wrong, and this might be my own personal understanding, but I don't see anything in Matthew 5 that suggests Jesus taught against the law.

 

[Desert Snake]

What I read in Matthew 5, is not Jesus teaching to go against the law, but giving a proper understanding of it. I may be wrong, and this might be my own personal understanding, but I don't see anything in Matthew 5 that suggests Jesus taught against the law.

Really? Those teachings that Jesus was referring to were "law", there is quite a bit of difference between those laws and what Jesus was preaching.

If by "proper understanding" you mean "completely different", then I agree

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Really? Those teachings that Jesus was referring to were "law", there is quite a bit of difference between those laws and what Jesus was preaching.

If by "proper understanding" you mean "completely different", then I agree

I don't remember anything that Jesus refuted there as being law. He said such things as "you heard it was said", but not "it has been written". What he was refuting wasn't the law, but the rabbinical traditions on how the law was to be practiced.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't remember anything that Jesus refuted there as being law. He said such things as "you heard it was said", but not "it has been written". What he was refuting wasn't the law, but the rabbinical traditions on how the law was to be practiced.

Yeah, that's the definition of "Laws" that are being referred to.

 

[Desert Snake]

How does it benefit Christian's today to get converts? And they try very very hard to convert people. Some people are quite erratic about their beliefs they want to "save" everyone. Some people get off on controlling others with their beliefs.... And another plus side is more donations.

Lol that seem s a bit cynical, but o.k.

 

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by dyanaprajna2011
However, there is one thing she hasn't satisfactorily answered, no one has, which is why the law would be done away with when both the OT taught that it would remain in effect forever, and Jesus taught it.

Hi dyanaprajna2011, my real name is Ken Brown, and I believe in being open and honest, and I have nothing to hide. So I will try to answer your question.

In reality, I have already answered your question, and the answer wasn't understood, but that may not be your fault, it may be mine. Let me try to do it a little better.

Your question is whether or not the Law is done away (and this is more or less the whole issue with whether or not St. Paul is a liar and deceiver). The up front answer is absolutely not, the Law is forever/eternal, but it is not forever/eternal according to it's physical keeping, rather, only according to it's Spiritual keeping. I know that is not a very clear answer, but let me explain.

I'll come back to the Ritual of the Red Heifer. Some might say that since the Ritual of the Red Heifer is the Foundation of the Torah (as believed by Judaism), that it would remain forever in it's physical keeping. But what if there is a secret, veiled, hidden side of this Ritual that can be done or kept by Faith? Isn't that the whole issue (faith versus works of the Law), and it's not BLIND faith, it is a faith that one can "see" and "believe" in.

When the Ritual of the Red Heifer was "opened" to Yeshua's Disicples and then later to Paul, it established a new and better way in which the Torah can be fulfilled. They saw how they were involved in the process of killing and burning the Red Heifer, and they saw how that burning was increased by casting into the midst of that burning, cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet. They were there, they saw the Cross (cedar wood), they saw the reed with the vinegar placed to HIs lips (hyssop), and they saw the scarlet robe placed on Him to mock Him (scarlet), and they KNEW that they were shamefully involved with that suffering of the Messiah. And this was the message that they in turn Sprinkled upon the unclean. They Sprinkled the Ashes of the Red Heifer through the preaching of the Gospel. Sprinkling the Ashes of the Red Heifer is telling someone THEY, with the help of wicked men, did cause Yeshua to suffer, die, and be buried. But wait, the Ashes had LIVING WATER added to them in the Vessel. Yeshua states that LIVING WATER is Eternal LIfe. Eternal Life was added to Yeshua's dead body as He was buried in the "vessel" of the tomb.

Now notice, the Ashes of the Red Heifer is to be Sprinkled with HYSSOP. What does hyssop represent. The vile taste of vinegar was presented to Yeshua through the stalk of a hyssop plant. The tongue is like unto hyssop, it can rebuke or cast insults and it can be used as a switch, to correct. Yeshua started the Sprinkling of His Ashes with hyssop/rebuke, "O fools not to believe all that is written." Peter stood up at Pentecost and announced to the people that they had killed Yeshua, and gave them a very good tongue lashing (hyssop) about it. This was all according to how the eternal/forever Law of Moses would be kept and followed. This Spiritual fulfillment far outweighs the killing of any physical animal in how the worshipers would be affected and changed from their sin.

This is very important. Once a Believer has their mind "opened" to the fulfillment of the Torah, according to it's Spiritual Fulfillment, THEN they can start to walk according to each and every command through the command's Spiritual Fulfillment. The WHOLE Torah is Spiritual, and each and every command has a hidden, veiled, or secret meaning:

Psa 119:18
(18) Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy Torah.

Psa 51:6-7
(6) For, behold, thou lovest truth (the Torah is Truth-Psa 119:142): thou hast manifested to me the secret and hidden things of thy wisdom (wisdom and understanding comes from DOING the Commandments-Deu 4:6, Psa 111:10, and there is a secret and hidden doing of them that is FOUND is Messiah).
(7) Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop (The Gospel is Sprinkled with Hyssop), and I shall be purified: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.

dyanaprajna2011, I know this is not an easy concept to believe in, but the Torah is Spiritual, and the suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection of Yeshua is according to what Moses wrote in the Ritual of the Red Heifer, and this establishes the Torah through your faith in believing it. And this also proves Paul was not a liar and deceiver, but a True Witness. KB