Posted on 06/14/2006 8:05:55 AM PDT by NYer
We believe in the Blessed Trinity because we believe in Jesus, Who revealed the Trinity. God had prepared the Jews not only to welcome the Messiah, but to recognize through revelation what philosophers like Aristotle achieved through reason: that there is a God and there can only be one God.
Moses said to the Jews, “Acknowledge today and take to heart that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other but to believe in God Who is the only God.” When the Messiah finally came, He revealed a huge mystery that went far beyond what the Jews were expecting: that the one God in Whom they believe is not solitary, but a unity, a communion of three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that the Messiah is the Son.
He told them explicitly that the Father and He are one (Jn 10:30). He told them that He and the Father would send the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26, Jn 15:26). And when He sent them out to baptize in the name of God, He didn’t give them instructions to baptize in the “names” of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit — as if they were three different gods — but in the “name,” for they are fundamentally a union of three persons. This is what the term Trinity means. It was devised by the early Church apologist Tertullian around the year 200 from the Latin words “unitas” and “trinus,” literally “unity” and “three.” It signifies that there is a unity of three persons in one God.
Since the beginning of the Church, theologians have spent their lives trying to penetrate this mystery and explain it to others. St. Patrick used the image of a three-leaf clover. St. Augustine used the image of the mind, with memory, reason and will. More recent minds have used the image of H20, which can exist as ice, water, or steam. But none of these analogies — though interesting and somewhat helpful — do justice to the reality of the mystery of how three persons can exist in the one God.
When St. Augustine was in the middle of his voluminous and classic study of the Blessed Trinity, he took a walk along the beach in northern Africa to try to clear his head and pray. He saw a young girl repeatedly filling a scallop shell with sea water and emptying it into a hole she had dug in the sand. “What are you doing?” Augustine tenderly asked. “I'm trying to empty the sea into this hole,” the child replied. “How do you think that with a little shell,” Augustine retorted, “you can possibly empty this immense ocean into a tiny hole?” The little girl countered, “And how do you, with your small head, think you can comprehend the immensity of God?” As soon as the girl said this, she disappeared, convincing Augustine that she had been an angel sent to teach him an important lesson: No matter how gifted God had made him, he would never be able to comprehend fully the mystery of the Trinity.
This, of course, does not mean we cannot understand anything. If we want to get to the heart of the mystery of the Trinity, we can turn to the most theological of the Apostles, who meditated deeply on all that Jesus had revealed and, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said simply and synthetically, “God is love” (1 Jn 4:16). For God to be love, He has to love someone. None of us can love in a vacuum; there must always be an object of our love. Who is the object of God’s love? It cannot be man, or the created world, or the universe, because all of these existed in time and God is eternal and therefore existed before time.
It’s also impossible to say that God merely loved Himself in a solitary way, because this would not really be love but a form of egotism and narcissism. For God to be love, there needed to be an eternal relationship of love, with one who loves, one who is loved, and the love that unites them. This is what exists in the Blessed Trinity: The Father loved His image, the Son, so much that their mutual and eternal love “spirated” or “generated” the Holy Spirit. They exist in a communion of love. The three persons of the Blessed Trinity are united in absolutely everything except, as the early Church councils said, their “relations of origin,” what it means to be Father, what it means to be Son of the Father, and what it means to proceed from the Father and the Son.
These theological insights about the blessed Trinity may seem theoretical, but they become highly practical when we reflect on the fact that we have been made in the image and likeness of God and called to communion with God. To be in the image and likeness of God means to be created in the image and likeness of a communion of persons in love. Our belief in the Trinity — the central teaching of the Catholic faith — has given the Church the deepest understanding available to human beings of the nature of man, the meaning of human life, and what it means to love.
Why are Jews then calling them commandments? That's what that website called them: "Below is a list of the 613 mitzvot (commandments)."
Also, the very word means commandments:
"At the heart of halakhah is the unchangeable 613 mitzvot that G-d gave to the Jewish people in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). The word "mitzvah" means "commandment." In its strictest sense, it refers only to commandments instituted in the Torah; however, the word is commonly used in a more generic sense to include all of the laws, practices and customs of halakhah, and is often used in an even more loose way to refer to any good deed."
very interesting, thanx
In a broad sense, sure, but that was its particular meaning when Sha'ul wrote. Besides, it doesn't change my point one iota: Just because you are no longer under your math teacher, do you suddenly stop believing that 2+2=4?
That is the context that is used in the Douay Rheims Bible. The KJV says:"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."
The Greek word is paidagogos. The Douay Rheims Bible is simply transliterating instead of translating it into its nearest English equivalent, which is what the KJV did. Neither is wrong.
I'm kind of confused on how you come up with that logic about homosexuality.
Simple: If there being "neither Jew nor Greek" means that there is no distinction between the two anymore, then so does the parallel, "neither male nor female." If there is no distinction between male and female, then there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, since the sin of homosexuality assumes a major difference in role between the two sexes.
But if Sha'ul is simply stating that we are all one in salvation, though not in function, then one cannot use this passage to criticize the existence of Messianic Jews who maintain a distinctly Jewish, Torah-observant culture.
I think you have proved my point in a way when you say that we are all equally one body. If we are all equally one body, why would the Jewish Christians tell Gentiles to be under different laws than they?
If that were the case, it is the Gentiles who would have to change to keep the whole Torah zealously as the Jewish believers did (Acts 21:20), not the Jews who would have to become Gentiles in order to follow a Jewish Messiah. Is that the conclusion that you're going for?
But as for why the Jewish believers gave the Gentiles more grace and leeway without shunning them from the community, I answered this in detail in post #521. Basically, they took the attitude of, "If God has shown so much grace to we who had the Torah and were raised from birth to keep it, but still sinned, how much more should we show grace to those who did not have the Torah and who have to reject their whole pagan upbringing to follow the Messiah?"
I just don't think that they meant for the Gentiles to stop at the minimum requirements. Or do you think that if a man abstains from idolatry, sexual immorality, blood, and things strangled, that it's okay for them to steal?
How is that equal?
Because regardless of the differences between them, they were still brothers and sisters, "fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Messiah by the gospel" (Eph. 3:6)--not on the basis of their Torah-observance, just as their salvation was not on the basis of one's Torah-observance--but by the gift of God.
Excuse me, but why are you asking me about personal shortcomings?
It's not to get personal. However, there is a common argument that I was going ahead and nipping in the bud that says basically that the Torah is too hard to keep. I'm pointing out that even the Ten Commandments, which you acknowledge as being still true, are too hard to keep. That doesn't end our obligation to our Lord to strive to keep them and repent when we don't, does it?
If one should follow the Ten Commandments, even though we often fail, then one should follow the other 603 in the same way, even though we often fail.
The issue here is that the Ten Commandments should be followed because Jesus said so and His Apostles preached it too.
And as I've shown, they preached following the Torah as a whole as well.
Acts 20:7 specifically states that "on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread....i.e, they assembled on this day to break bread not for some special farewell to Paul!
Two points: First, "when we were assembled to break bread" speaks of the dinner hour, not of a church service. Remember that to the Jewish mind, the day begins at sundown, not at midnight or at dawn. Ergo, this would have been a fellowship dinner immediately following the Sabbath (still Saturday by our clocks), not an event on Sunday evening .
Secondly, the verse continues: "Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." The author is clearly presenting this as a special occassion.
My point still stands.
As to 1 Corinthians 16:2, you are still seeing everything as through Jewish law which we are no longer under.
No, I'm seeing everything through the lens of the culture from which and to which the NT was written--which pretty much substantiates my point early in this thread that if you want to understand the Bible, you have to learn to think a bit Jewish. Besides, I've already shown why the alternative reading doesn't work, and you haven't answered that.
You've also not answered why the NT does not come right out and state that the Sabbath had changed. Two extremely oblique references do not counter a straightforward command written by the very finger of God.
This sums up why the Church celebrates on Sunday:
The day of the Resurrection: the new creation
That's the excuse, and one I believed for most of my life, but it doesn't stand up. The Bible doesn't substantiate it, and there was continued debate on the subject well into the fourth century--for example, you wouldn't have John "Chrysostom" making up vile anti-semetic slurs to discourage keeping the proper Sabbath and Feastdays unless a significant number of Christians were continuing to do just that.
The fact is that the Church stopped keeping the Sabbath not out of any Biblical injunction, but to distance itself from its Jewish roots at a time when the Jews were enemies of the state due to Judea's two failed revolutions in 70 and 135 AD. The Gentile Christians were willing to suffer persecution for the Name of Christ, but not to identify themselves with the Jews who had actively rejected them.
God Himself wrote the day of the Sabbath in stone. Therefore, God Himself (i.e., in the person of Yeshua HaMashiach) is the only one with the authority to change it. He did not do so, and it was pure presumtiveness for the later Church to claim that authority for itself.
Mitzvah is from the root 'tzavtah' - joining," "attachment," "connection."
Translations between any languages are a problem. But it brings up the point that because two people use the same word/s, it doesn't mean they have the same concepts in mind. This is especially true between Jews and Christians, where similarity of terms is misleading given the chasms between understandings.
It has been my experience on this site that what people believe and what people say they believe are usually two different things. What I am merely pointing out is that 1) no one can live by the law; 2) if you break one law you're guilty of breaking all the law (see rich, young ruler); and 3) doing the "work of God" is nothing more than believing on the Lord Jesus. God writes His laws upon our hearts to MAKE us obey.
Psalms 119:174 - "Thy law is my delight" - the signs of a redeemed man
Nehemiah 1:5 - "That keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him" (Well, we know what happened to the old covenant, now don't we?)
John 14:21 - Yep, we keep His commandments...didn't John also write that His commandments are not burdensom to us? Apparently Christian naturally keep the commandments-even those who eat a ham sandwich.
Duet 11:13-15 - Sure, they were admonished to keep the commandments. There was a great many wonderful things promised to those who kept God's commandments. Trouble is, it didn't work, did it? We are by nature children of wrath.
As far as slander goes, I believe it is you who accused the Reformers as preaching people should not follow God's commands and the rewards of the Calvinists would be diminished.
How am I misunderstanding? The sites that I gave were Jewish and they call the Mitzvot commandments. Perhaps this Rabbi will convince you that I am using it in the proper sense:
"The word "mitzvah," commandment, implies a Commander. The real spiritual value of a mitzvah is when it is performed with this understanding.
Well, I tried...
Lol. Kuddos....it was a valiant effort. :-)
Who said the Ten Commandments are hard to keep? They aren't. It is easy for me not to steal. It is easy for me not to lie. It is easy for me not to commit adultery. It is easy for me not to take the Lord's name in vain, etc.
If one should follow the Ten Commandments, even though we often fail, then one should follow the other 603 in the same way, even though we often fail.
Well, St. James said that if you fail in one of the laws, you are guilty in failing in all of them. Dang! That's a lot of laws to break don't you think? 613 of them?
No, I'm seeing everything through the lens of the culture from which and to which the NT was written--which pretty much substantiates my point early in this thread that if you want to understand the Bible, you have to learn to think a bit Jewish. Besides, I've already shown why the alternative reading doesn't work, and you haven't answered that.
Um.. I did answer it. You may not have agreed with my answer, but I showed where I think the verses do support it. I used the Catechism and in another post showed early Church Fathers writings that supported Sunday worship.
Speaking of not answering questions, why haven't you responded to my query regarding the charging of interest to Gentiles but not Israelites in the 613 laws. Do you support that?
That's the excuse, and one I believed for most of my life, but it doesn't stand up. The Bible doesn't substantiate it, and there was continued debate on the subject well into the fourth century--for example, you wouldn't have John "Chrysostom" making up vile anti-semetic slurs to discourage keeping the proper Sabbath and Feastdays unless a significant number of Christians were continuing to do just that.
I believe the Bible does substantiate it. The day the Lord rose was the first day of the week according to Scripture. The book of Acts supports it as does First Corinthians. They were celebrating on Sunday, the first day of week, in accordance with the Resurrection.
God Himself wrote the day of the Sabbath in stone. Therefore, God Himself (i.e., in the person of Yeshua HaMashiach) is the only one with the authority to change it. He did not do so, and it was pure presumtiveness for the later Church to claim that authority for itself.
Jesus said that He was the Lord of the Sabbath. Why didn't He rise up on Saturday then or Friday night when the Sabbath starts?
Also, he healed on the Sabbath and did other things on that day that disturbed the Jewish leaders of His time. By your logic, He had no right to do this either because He was guilty of breaking Torah law which you claim He set in stone!
Jesus touched lepers, breaking Torah law. Jesus allowed his disciples to pick grain(corn) on the Sabbath, breaking Torah law. Jesus touched dead people and raised them to life. You can't touch a dead person in the 613 laws!
Jesus was touched by a woman that was ritually unclean and He had mercy on her. Torah law would say that she had a committed a serious transgression.
Jesus forgave an adulteress. The law of the time was to stone her to death.
I think that there are many examples from the New Testament where Jesus went directly AGAINST the prescribed laws of the Torah.
Well, gotta run. My wife just came home from a meeting she had to attend this evening. Better go spend some time with my better half.
A valiant effort at what? To prove that mitzvot doesn't mean "commandments" when I have given many Jewish websites that says it does. Even a Rabbi confirmed it. I guess he doesn't know what he's talking about either, right?
Yes, yes, and yes. We would both agree that a person who is truly redeemed will do good works as a result of that faith, and that faith without works is dead. We're just disagreeing on what those works are.
I would also disagree if you mean to indicate an instantaneous, perfect change in a person, or that having the Torah written in our hearts automatically means that we know everything God wants us to do. What it means is that we have the earnest desire to do God's will as a result of receiving His Spirit. It takes time to learn and grow.
My argument is not that the Gentiles are more incapable intrinsically of doing God's will than the Jews. Rather, I'm arguing that the Jews acknowledged that the Gentiles were not starting off having been trained all their lives to study and follow the Scriptures, and therefore shouldn't be shunned while they were still learning and growing. Again, consider the difference between a person who was raised in the Church, but just fell away for a few years before personally repenting and receving the Lord, and a person who has never read the Bible and has spent their whole lives in a homosexual lifestyle. Which one will probably need more time to "ramp up" to a congregations standard of righteous living? Which one has more hurdles to overcome?
Now, by acknowledging the gay man's extra hurdles, am I condescending to him or saying that he is less capable, in the long run, of living a Christian life than the man who was raised by his parents to do so and never fell far from the tree? Or by acknowledging the extra hurdles, loving him anyway, and giving the Spirit time to grow him while instructing him on what the Bible says he's supposed to do and rebuking him with love when he stumbles, am I showing him the love and grace my Lord Yeshua has shown to me?
I have been the recipient of that same grace, so I look down on no man in that regard.
Our will is not, by nature, to do the will of God.
Then by definition, I am not following my own (natural) will in my desire to keep the Torah; it must be from God.
As far as slander goes, I believe it is you who accused the Reformers as preaching people should not follow God's commands and the rewards of the Calvinists would be diminished.
You have yet to show where I've misquoted or misunderstood you, despite repeated invitations to do so. Beyond that, all I've done is quote the Lord's own warning on the subject. You have four options that I can see:
1) Show where I have misunderstood you and explain what you really meant.So far, you seem to be going for option #4. However, that doesn't help you: Since the Lord is the one who said that the Torah had not passed away, and that breaking the least of its commandments and teaching others to do the same lessened one's position in the Kingdom, unless you can provide a solid alternate exegesis of His words, then your beef is with Him, not with me.2) Admit that I've quoted your argument fairly, but demonstrate that your argument is correct.
3) Admit that I've quoted your argument fairly and that it is incorrect, and repent of it.
4) Shoot the messenger.
Prozac anyone? lol.
If one should follow the Ten Commandments, even though we often fail, then one should follow the other 603 in the same way, even though we often fail
No, I'm seeing everything through the lens of the culture from which and to which the NT was written--which pretty much substantiates my point early in this thread that if you want to understand the Bible, you have to learn to think a bit Jewish. Besides, I've already shown why the alternative reading doesn't work, and you haven't answered that.
That's the excuse, and one I believed for most of my life, but it doesn't stand up. The Bible doesn't substantiate it, and there was continued debate on the subject well into the fourth century--for example, you wouldn't have John "Chrysostom" making up vile anti-semetic slurs to discourage keeping the proper Sabbath and Feastdays unless a significant number of Christians were continuing to do just that.
God Himself wrote the day of the Sabbath in stone. Therefore, God Himself (i.e., in the person of Yeshua HaMashiach) is the only one with the authority to change it. He did not do so, and it was pure presumtiveness for the later Church to claim that authority for itself.
Sorry about that Buggman!
It is easy for you to not look upon a woman lustfully--especially in today's culture? It is easy for you to not become angry with your brother? It's easy for you to never covet? Then you are clearly a better man than I. I have to check myself often.
Well, St. James said that if you fail in one of the laws, you are guilty in failing in all of them. Dang! That's a lot of laws to break don't you think? 613 of them?
Probably more. I'm just using the standard rabbinic enumeration as short-hand. Why? Is it somehow better to only break 10 commandments, one of which is against murder, than 613?
Um.. I did answer it.
With all respect, you did not. I said:
. . . if on the first day, then why would he tell them to gather money on the first day, a supposed "Christian sabbath," but not on the particular Sunday when he presumbably came and preached?In other words, why would he want them to collect money on the Sunday-sabbath after his letter was read, but not on the Sunday-sabbath when he would be speaking to them?
Moreover, without a clear statement that the churches were treating Sunday as the "new sabbath" from any other NT source, you're merely arguing in a circle, assuming that which must be proven. I can show where the Bible repeatedly states that the Sabbath is on the 7th day--can you show an equally unabiguous statement that it moved to the 1st? If not, since both of your cites work equally well, if not better, in a context of a 7th day Sabbath still being the norm, they don't prove a thing. They're merely a pretext for your assumed belief.
Speaking of not answering questions, why haven't you responded to my query regarding the charging of interest to Gentiles but not Israelites in the 613 laws. Do you support that?
Sorry, didn't see it. Which post was the original query in?
I believe the Bible does substantiate it.
Where? I've already shown that Acts and 1 Cor. do not state that the Sabbath had moved to Sunday, and why they fit a 7th day Sabbath. I've also pointed out that God is very, very direct about the Sabbath being the 7th day--can you show me where He is equally direct about it moving? If not, then you need to cede the point.
Jesus said that He was the Lord of the Sabbath. Why didn't He rise up on Saturday then or Friday night when the Sabbath starts?
He was resting. :-) No, seriously, that's a stretch worthy of Mr. Fantastic--what is Biblical, logical justification for assuming that because Yeshua is the Lord of the Sabbath, that He would rise on that day?
Also, he healed on the Sabbath and did other things on that day that disturbed the Jewish leaders of His time. By your logic, He had no right to do this either because He was guilty of breaking Torah law which you claim He set in stone!
No. I simply side with Him in disagreeing with the Pharisees about what is permitted on the Sabbath. As the Lord of the Sabbath, He has the sovereign right to decide what counts as "work" and what does not on that day. He never moved the day, He simply stated that it was lawful to do good--like healing, setting people free of the Adversary, teaching and carrying out worship, or even rescuing animals from a pit--on the Sabbath.
Once again, it's foolish to use the accusations of Yeshua's enemies to build theology. One may as well use Satan's charge that Job was only good because God blessed and protected him as evidence against Job.
Jesus touched lepers, breaking Torah law.
Hardly! Go read the Torah. It would make Him ceremonially unclean, but no more so than burying His adopted father or having a blister form and burst. He would need to bathe and wait until the next sunset before entering the Temple. He would only have sinned if He entered the Temple while knowingly unclean.
Anyway, if Yeshua touched a leper, and the leper were instantly healed, one has to wonder if Yeshua was even ritually unclean from that.
Jesus allowed his disciples to pick grain(corn) on the Sabbath, breaking Torah law.
Again, this strictly speaking wasn't a sin--it was merely a violation of Pharisaical tradition. Ditto healing a man and telling him to pick up his mat on the Sabbath.
Jesus touched dead people and raised them to life. You can't touch a dead person in the 613 laws!
Again, you confuse ritual uncleanliness with sin.
Jesus forgave an adulteress. The law of the time was to stone her to death.
The Pharisees were trying to trap Yeshua in a Catch-22: If He said to stone the woman, they could report Him to the Roman authorities. If He said to let her go, they could accuse Him of breaking Torah.
Yeshua did an end-run around them: He said that he without sin should cast the first stone. None of them took Him up on His offer, whether because they were cognizant of their sin, or because they feared the Roman reprisal if they took Him up on His offer. Eventually, they all left, leaving only Yeshua and the woman.
Now, according to Torah, a person can only be convicted by 2 or more witnesses (Deu. 17:6). Yeshua had not witnessed her crime, and those who had were no longer there to accuse her to Him--therefore, He was actually keeping the Torah by letting her go!
I think that there are many examples from the New Testament where Jesus went directly AGAINST the prescribed laws of the Torah.
I look forward to you being able to show me one. Next time, do a bit of study on the differences between ritual impurity (which happened to everyone on a fairly regular basis) and breaking the Torah, or the difference between Pharisaical tradition and the actual written Torah, before saying that Yeshua broke the Torah--which would, by definition, mean that He sinned, by the way.
Have a great evening with your better half. I'm greatly enjoying our discourse.
How does that answer the question? "Even a Rabbi confirmed it. I guess he doesn't know what he's talking about either, right?"
Suggesting that someone needs Prozac when all they have done is request that you answer a question is unreasonable. It also brings it down to a personal level.
They don't have the bible, they just have a poor transliteration of the bible, the New World Translation.
Discuss the issues - don't make it personal.
I was trying, lol! She said that she was so tired she wanted to go on to bed. I am enjoying the discourse as well.
It is easy for you to not look upon a woman lustfully--especially in today's culture? It is easy for you to not become angry with your brother? It's easy for you to never covet? Then you are clearly a better man than I. I have to check myself often.
Am I perfect? Heck no! I will honestly say that I don't look on women lustfully. I have too much respect and love for the wonderful woman that is my wife. There's not a woman on earth that can compare to her, IMO. Do I become angry with my brother? Sometimes. Sometimes anger can be warranted, such as when people blaspheme God, promote homosexuality, commit murder, rape, etc. I wonder should we have no emotions about those things? Do I covet? Honestly, I haven't done that in years. I have been guilty of it when I was younger.
With all respect, you did not. I said:
. . . if on the first day, then why would he tell them to gather money on the first day, a supposed "Christian sabbath," but not on the particular Sunday when he presumbably came and preached?
In other words, why would he want them to collect money on the Sunday-sabbath after his letter was read, but not on the Sunday-sabbath when he would be speaking to them?
Hmm..with all due respect to you as well I answered:
"As to 1 Corinthians 16:2, you are still seeing everything as through Jewish law which we are no longer under." From post #572
St. Paul is giving instruction to the Church when the money is to be collected and it is on the same day they worship. One theologian put it that "offerings are a part of the worship service" so it makes sense that since these offerings took place on the first day of the week, they were also worshiping on the first day of the week.
Sorry, didn't see it. Which post was the original query in?
See post #568.
Where? I've already shown that Acts and 1 Cor. do not state that the Sabbath had moved to Sunday, and why they fit a 7th day Sabbath. I've also pointed out that God is very, very direct about the Sabbath being the 7th day--can you show me where He is equally direct about it moving? If not, then you need to cede the point.
Sorry my friend, but I am not going to cede the point. I see things a lot differently than you about Acts 1 and 1st Corinthians. If His Apostles were celebrating on Sunday, which I believe they were, are you saying that they are going against God? Wouldn't they know better than you and I what day to celebrate?
He was resting. :-) No, seriously, that's a stretch worthy of Mr. Fantastic--what is Biblical, logical justification for assuming that because Yeshua is the Lord of the Sabbath, that He would rise on that day?
Because Scripture tells us He rose the first day of the week. See St. John 20:1
St. Mark 16:9 "But he rising early the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalen, out of whom he had cast seven devils."
The Christians referred to this as the Lord's Day, therefore worshiping on that day. St. John refers to the Lord's day in the Apocalypse. See chapter 1:10
Once again, it's foolish to use the accusations of Yeshua's enemies to build theology. One may as well use Satan's charge that Job was only good because God blessed and protected him as evidence against Job.
Please, these aren't using accusations of Jesus' enemies. I am using the 613 laws themselves and how Jesus did not follow some of them!! Did He or did He not touch a leper? In the 613 laws, you aren't suppose to do that.
Hardly! Go read the Torah. It would make Him ceremonially unclean, but no more so than burying His adopted father or having a blister form and burst. He would need to bathe and wait until the next sunset before entering the Temple. He would only have sinned if He entered the Temple while knowingly unclean.
Show me where Scripture says that He bathed after touching/healing them? Are you saying that it's possible for our Lord to be ceremonially unclean?
The Pharisees were trying to trap Yeshua in a Catch-22: If He said to stone the woman, they could report Him to the Roman authorities. If He said to let her go, they could accuse Him of breaking Torah.
I disagree because Jesus said that He didn't condemn her, for her to go and sin no more. He had no fear of the Roman authorities or of them. Interesting too that He said "go and sin no more. Proves He knew she had committed the sin of adultery.
Now, according to Torah, a person can only be convicted by 2 or more witnesses (Deu. 17:6). Yeshua had not witnessed her crime, and those who had were no longer there to accuse her to Him--therefore, He was actually keeping the Torah by letting her go!
Fuzzy logic, IMO. The witnesses were the scribes and Pharisees that took the woman to Him. There were plenty of witnesses handy. They repeated Mosaic law to Him:
"Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?" He responded that the one who was without sin should cast the first stone. He didn't say "Oh gee fellas! We don't have enough witnesses here." Neither did He say, "You know the law, get enough witnesses and then stone her to death!" Jesus showed her mercy.
You say that Jesus hadn't actually witnessed her crime, but He did acknowledge that a sin had been committed when He said go and sin no more. He had to be talking about the sin of which she was accused.
I think it is a touching story of Jesus' forgiveness and His wonderful mercy upon us.
Could you please show me where I have made any personal remarks to Invincibly Ignorant? I don't believe that I have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.