02-07-2004, 02:46 PM
drmlanc Wrote:But even AGR and Craig appreciate that namusa is Torah NOT law.
Not nearly as simple as that. Only "Aurayta" means exclusively "Torah" and it is only used three times in Mattai (Matthew). Namusa on the other hand can mean, Torah, or it can mean Law in the sense of Torah + Halakhic rulings, or it can just mean Halakhic law alone. If this wasn't the case then the Torah would have been nailed to the cross (Eph. 2:15), but rather it was "Namusa" in the sense of "Oral/Halakhic law" that was.
Akh Paul Younan:
"So then we must let the context dictate the proper usage. In Ephesians 2:15, especially because Paul further qualifies it with D'poqda - it is not to be understood as Torah, proper. "
Shlama, Craig