Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Buggman
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?

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.

589 posted on 06/20/2006 6:57:43 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies ]


To: All
I need to correct an editing error from post #589. When I checked it, it looked okay. Don't know what happened, but these quotes should have been italicized which are Buggman's, not mine:

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!

593 posted on 06/20/2006 7:53:27 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies ]

To: FJ290
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.

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.

594 posted on 06/20/2006 7:59:57 PM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson