The Melchizedek Two-Book Theory Debunked? | Torah to the Tribes Response

Right out of the gate the title “DEBUNKED” suggests that the author believes that the opposing view is not merely untrue but a ‘laughable sham and foolish nonsense’ (Webster’s dictionary). Titling a paper about differing biblical viewpoints (the study of theology) in this manner reveals an offhanded, disparaging and cavalier approach by the author to the serious subject of distinction in law – “a change of law” (Genesis 49:10, Hebrews 7:12). If the book of the covenant and the book of the law are one and the same as our author assumes, then what ‘Torah’ sanctioned change of law does our author actually recognize?  Throughout this article the author takes the position of a ‘NO change of law’ which is a contradiction to the written Word of both the Old Testament & New Testament (Genesis 49:10 & Hebrews 7:12). Adding ‘Jesus’ to Judaism is not the answer and is rightly rejected by both Christianity and Judaism itself. “The Melchizedek two-book theory debunked” position is one of propagating the status quo ‘one book theory’ accepted by both Christianity and Judaism for the past 2000 years which denies the ‘Torah’ and ‘New Testament’ sanctioned “a change also of the law;” which leads both religions to draw opposite but equally erroneous conclusions about the redemptive work of Messiah. Torah to the Tribes position, in contrast, is one of viewing Torah as applicable in its New Covenant administration under Melchizedek Yahusha recognizing “a change also of the law” which is uniquely distinct from both Judaism and Christianity. Torah to the Tribes believes this position should be at least studied with merit before being dismissed offhand. Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.   A) Either the law has changed with Yahusha        <OR>   B) The law was not changed. If B) is true (which our author believes) then we’re left with one of two choices: To be lawless (the law in its entirety is done away with, Christianity’s position – a status quo position) To be Judaized (the law is unchanged and we’re to keep it in its entirety, including animal sacrifices – The Judaizing of ‘Jesus’ – a status quo position) I offer a final and third option; but it is contingent on accepting the truth of A): The New Testament has been given as MalkiTzedik Book of the Covenant-Torah based upon the better promises given to Abraham (Hebrews 8:6 Gk: ‘nomotheteō’, Ephesians 2:12, Galatians 3:16). Torah to the Tribes believes A) and 3.   We find B)  1. and 2. to be unacceptable, against the written testimony of The Word; either lawless pagan syncretism or Judaizing. We have chosen the narrow way A) (3): The law has changed, the New Testament has been given as MalkiTzedik Book of the Covenant-Torah based upon the better promises given to Abraham (Hebrews 7:12, 8:6, Ephesians 2:12, Galatians 3:16). Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was given as torah based upon better promises.   Torah to the Tribes believe the bible demands us to thoroughly investigate its language and context; especially in the light of the High Priesthood of Yahusha before we dismiss offhandedly a distinction between the Book of the Covenant and the Book of the law  – a distinction in law. The Exodus 24:7: Book of the Covenant:  Hebrew: Sepher ספר Brit בּרית – proposed, accepted, blood ratified, and meal confirmed brit given as torah (Hebrews 8:6,10 Greek: diathēkē) Deuteronomy 28:6: Book of the Law: Hebrew: Sepher ספר torah תּורה – torah void of a proposal, acceptance, blood ratification and covenant confirming meal (NT Greek: nomos) Linguistically, textually we have unconnected and disparate words in the Masoretic Text, Septuagint and New Testament – three textual witnesses to these Sepherim/books NOT being one and the same! Both are torah: one is Melchizedek covenant; the other is the “added” and “imposed” “school master