PDA

View Full Version : Was the Law given by God to the Israelites meant to punish them?



keck553
Jan 28th 2011, 04:57 PM
It has been suggested that the Law given through Moses at Sinai was for the punishment of the Golden Calf incident and the obstinate attitudes of the Israelites, whom God freed from slavery in Egypt.

Intent of this thread: To discuss whether the Law given through Moses was “punishment” for Israelites. This is not, repeat not a thread to argue if/how Jews or Gentiles are “under the Law.”

This point of view of the Law given through Mosses caused me to pause and attempt to discover through Scripture if this was indeed true.

Oddly, my first stop was at the book of Ruth. I wanted to ask Ruth (through the word) if she thought the Law was some form of punishment. I’m sure all here have at least read it, but in short, Ruth was a Moebite widow, who’s mother in law was Naomi. Ruth eventually become the grandmother of King David. When Ruth’s husband was killed, she decided to move the land of her late husband, Israel. She wanted the God of Israel to be her God, so upon arriving she wound up gleaning in the fields owned by a Godly man named Boaz.

Ruth and her mother survived through the generosity of Boaz. By allowing Ruth to glean Boaz was obeying the Law given through Moses. By being Ruth’s kinsman redeemer, Boaz was obeying the Law given through Moses. The story reveals the character of Boaz, and presents us with a picture of the character of Jesus – and that of God. According to the story, here is what Boaz’s character was not. Boaz’ obedience to the Law was not legalistic or antagonistic. Boaz didn’t see Ruth in the field and say “oh great…another foreigner…now I have to feed her because of that overbearing Law of Moses…” or “Oh great, now I have to be Ruth’s kinsman redeemer because of that punishing, heavy Law.”
No…that is not the story told in the book of Ruth. Boaz obedience to the Law had quite the opposite outcome – liberty – and perhaps even more importantly – the character of the invisible hand of God of Israel was made visible through the hand of Boaz. It wasn’t the Law itself that revealed the character of God, it was the heart of the obedient Boaz who revealed the character of God. In other words, Boaz was not one of those Pharisee’s Jesus had issue with. Jesus would have blessed and exalted Boaz for his love of God manifested to this foreign widow through God’s instructions.

Ruth would disagree with the assertion that the Law given through Moses was a useless, worthless punshiment.

David Taylor
Jan 28th 2011, 05:42 PM
It has been suggested that the Law given through Moses at Sinai was for the punishment of the Golden Calf incident and the obstinate attitudes of the Israelites, whom God freed from slavery in Egypt.


I believe the intent of the Law was to show them they could not live a sinless life by their own strength, and the purpose of the law was to point them to saving faith in Jesus Christ who would come to deliver them from their sins.

Butch5
Jan 28th 2011, 05:46 PM
It has been suggested that the Law given through Moses at Sinai was for the punishment of the Golden Calf incident and the obstinate attitudes of the Israelites, whom God freed from slavery in Egypt.

Intent of this thread: To discuss whether the Law given through Moses was “punishment” for Israelites. This is not, repeat not a thread to argue if/how Jews or Gentiles are “under the Law.”

This point of view of the Law given through Mosses caused me to pause and attempt to discover through Scripture if this was indeed true.

Oddly, my first stop was at the book of Ruth. I wanted to ask Ruth (through the word) if she thought the Law was some form of punishment. I’m sure all here have at least read it, but in short, Ruth was a Moebite widow, who’s mother in law was Naomi. Ruth eventually become the grandmother of King David. When Ruth’s husband was killed, she decided to move the land of her late husband, Israel. She wanted the God of Israel to be her God, so upon arriving she wound up gleaning in the fields owned by a Godly man named Boaz.

Ruth and her mother survived through the generosity of Boaz. By allowing Ruth to glean Boaz was obeying the Law given through Moses. By being Ruth’s kinsman redeemer, Boaz was obeying the Law given through Moses. The story reveals the character of Boaz, and presents us with a picture of the character of Jesus – and that of God. According to the story, here is what Boaz’s character was not. Boaz’ obedience to the Law was not legalistic or antagonistic. Boaz didn’t see Ruth in the field and say “oh great…another foreigner…now I have to feed her because of that overbearing Law of Moses…” or “Oh great, now I have to be Ruth’s kinsman redeemer because of that punishing, heavy Law.”
No…that is not the story told in the book of Ruth. Boaz obedience to the Law had quite the opposite outcome – liberty – and perhaps even more importantly – the character of the invisible hand of God of Israel was made visible through the hand of Boaz. It wasn’t the Law itself that revealed the character of God, it was the heart of the obedient Boaz who revealed the character of God. In other words, Boaz was not one of those Pharisee’s Jesus had issue with. Jesus would have blessed and exalted Boaz for his love of God manifested to this foreign widow through God’s instructions.

Ruth would disagree with the assertion that the Law given through Moses was a useless, worthless punshiment.

According to Paul the Law was given to the Jews as a tutor to lead them to Christ.

Galatians 3:19-25 ( KJV )
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

keck553
Jan 28th 2011, 05:51 PM
I believe the intent of the Law was to show them they could not live a sinless life by their own strength, and the purpose of the law was to point them to saving faith in Jesus Christ who would come to deliver them from their sins.

I agree and this is a clear and unmistakable teaching which has its roots in the Old Testament. I also propose this concept was known and practiced before Jesus' first advent; I just don't know how widespread the belief it was. It's clear to me that total dependency on God is a continuing thread throughout the Bible.

Surely there were many who lived by faith that the Bible doesn't even mention, regular folk I mean. Like the 7000 in Elijah's day. Who were they, and what kind of lives did they live? Probably just like us, not very high in profile, but mighty in faith?

keck553
Jan 28th 2011, 05:52 PM
According to Paul the Law was given to the Jews as a tutor to lead them to Christ.

Galatians 3:19-25 ( KJV )
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Indeed. So did Boaz rightfully use the Law in his application of it? Do you think the Law point Boaz to Jesus? Maybe His character, which is an exact likeness to God's character? Do you think the Law was intended as a 'punishment?'

John146
Jan 28th 2011, 05:58 PM
Indeed. So did Boaz rightfully use the Law in his application of it? Do you think the Law point Boaz to Jesus? Maybe His character, which is an exact likeness to God's character? Do you think the Law was intended as a 'punishment?'No. The main purpose of the law is stated in Galatians 3:24, which is that it "was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith". But it also served the purpose of showing people that they were sinners who fell short of the glory of God.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Vhayes
Jan 28th 2011, 06:05 PM
Keck, I'm going to throw in my two cents, if that's ok.

The law was indeed a tutor to lead the Israelites to Christ. It was not meant as a punishment as much as a guide/teacher/tutor. Christ was the bodily fulfillment OF the Mosaic Law.

When the children of Israel were in the desert, they had just left a pagan land. They had spent many generations in that land. Much like small children need to be held by the hand and protected, so were these people. They needed to be reined in and focused. But all the "rules" were put in place to show the people they NEEDED a savior.

Does that makes any sense at all?

keck553
Jan 28th 2011, 08:37 PM
Keck, I'm going to throw in my two cents, if that's ok.

The law was indeed a tutor to lead the Israelites to Christ. It was not meant as a punishment as much as a guide/teacher/tutor. Christ was the bodily fulfillment OF the Mosaic Law.

When the children of Israel were in the desert, they had just left a pagan land. They had spent many generations in that land. Much like small children need to be held by the hand and protected, so were these people. They needed to be reined in and focused. But all the "rules" were put in place to show the people they NEEDED a savior.

Does that makes any sense at all?

Of course you make sense because you are on sound biblical principles. My question is "was the Law given to punish Israel?" and then by logical extension: "was the Law given to push Israel into sin?" Is that a characteristic of God, to push His own chosen people into sinfulness? That we come to know our dependence on God, yes, He has done that, and will still do that; are we really that different as a church as Israel was? How much like Canaan does the church look today? Check the divorce rate lately in the church? Adultery, legailism, etc, etc.? Romans 11 clearly states that we should not become too proud of our position, that if God cut off the natural branches, He will not spare the wild branches for the same disobedience, religious legalism and pride either. We need to remember this.

God flatly states in Deuteronomy that the Law was not too difficult for the Israelites. Can God lie? The written code is easy as any religious ritual. That's not what Israel had a problem with. Any of us can partake in the LORD's supper; it is not difficult. What is difficult is falling on our face before God with the complete and utter knowledge that HE is our only source of life and light in this world, not the worship and legalistic compounding of a bunch of precepts and rules, but worship of the Almighty God, and the total submission of our all; to cast our crowns at His Feet, so to speak. Until we get into that position, we're not going to 'get it.' To simply admit "I CAN'T DO IT."

I just want to know how Boaz' application of the Law caused any harm to Ruth's faith. Did all those "silly ordanances" cause Ruth and Boaz to stumble, or did they reveal the hand of God and the need for dependency on God?

This is just one story that relates an utter dependance on God, not in spite of the Law, but because of the Law. It is repeated; in fact Solomon wrote an entire thesis on how vain and worthless obedience to the Law is without the very dependence on the LORD that we know very well we need.

These people only had a glimpse of what we know through the prophets, the Gospels and the Apostolic writings. But I believe they knew full well what we know. I do not think Boaz' application of the Law in regards to Ruth was insufficient worthless rags. In fact, the Bible tells us different. The real difference was Boaz heart condition, Ruth's heart condition and both their relationship with God - not the Law - not religion - but GOD. Boaz was a sinner just like we all are, nowhere does it say Boaz was justified or favored by God for his "works." I am not addressing justification in this thread; I hope we all know that God alone did that for us through Jesus, and not by our own hand.

Vhayes
Jan 28th 2011, 08:46 PM
Of course you make sense because you are on sound biblical principles. My question is "was the Law given to punish Israel?" and then by logical extension: "was the Law given to push Israel into sin?" Is that a characteristic of God?


I just want to know how Boaz' application of the Law caused any harm to Ruth's faith.
I don't think it could/would be termed "punishment" as much as "discipline" - not to FORCE them into sin but to show them the logical extension of law keeping as opposed to grace and mercy - which IS the law of God when coupled with the all important "love". Rule keeping frustrates a person until they learn to do something because they desire to do it.

keck553
Jan 28th 2011, 09:30 PM
I don't think it could/would be termed "punishment" as much as "discipline" - not to FORCE them into sin but to show them the logical extension of law keeping as opposed to grace and mercy - which IS the law of God when coupled with the all important "love". Rule keeping frustrates a person until they learn to do something because they desire to do it.

Yeah, I can go along with this.

rejoice44
Jan 31st 2011, 04:04 PM
[QUOTE=keck553;2608480]It has been suggested that the Law given through Moses at Sinai was for the punishment of the Golden Calf incident and the obstinate attitudes of the Israelites, whom God freed from slavery in Egypt.

The Golden Calf incident occurred simultaneously, while Moses was receiving the law.


Intent of this thread: To discuss whether the Law given through Moses was “punishment” for Israelites. This is not, repeat not a thread to argue if/how Jews or Gentiles are “under the Law.” One has to consider the Father/son relationship when asking if it was punishment, or not. The motive of the father when correction is given is to change the direction that the child is going in, so that he might conform to the wishes of the father.

2 Samuel 7:14-15 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: but my mercy will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.

Was the law given because of iniquity? Definitely! Galatians 3:19-25 ( KJV )
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come

Jeremiah 7:21-24 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.

These verses in Jeremiah indicate that it was not God's perfect will that Israel should have been given the burnt offerings or sacrifices, otherwise they should have been given to Jacob.

Was the Law punishment? If you make your child write on the blackboard a thousand times, "I will not lie", is that punishment, or correction?

If the child takes to heart what he has written, then it will be for his good.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2011, 04:12 PM
Read psalm 119 for king David's view of the Law. It begins "Happy are they that are upright in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD. Happy are they that keep His testimonies, that seek Him with the whole heart." and takes it from there.

Jews have never seen the law as a "punishment" or a "curse", but rather the way to express the divine will on this earth.

notuptome
Jan 31st 2011, 04:51 PM
Sin caused the curse. Death was the result. The law was given to give sin the character of transgression. To make sin as a transgression personal and impute personal guilt. Gal 3:19

Exo 19:8 is interesting...we will do all the Lord has spoken.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

keck553
Jan 31st 2011, 04:53 PM
Sin caused the curse. Death was the result. The law was given to give sin the character of transgression. To make sin as a transgression personal and impute personal guilt. Gal 3:19

Exo 19:8 is interesting...we will do all the Lord has spoken.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

So then I read it that you believe God did not give the Law because He was "angry" and made them do "silly" things.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2011, 04:57 PM
Jeremiah 7:21-24 [/B] Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.
.
You keep bringing this up, and it's not getting any better a point.

God is saying that He didn't bring the Jews out of Egypt to bring sacrifice, which is when they fall short of the law. He brought them out to obey the law.

The Mighty Sword
Jan 31st 2011, 05:02 PM
Like Fenris said "He brought them out to obey the law" that they might be saved from themselves.

notuptome
Jan 31st 2011, 05:31 PM
So then I read it that you believe God did not give the Law because He was "angry" and made them do "silly" things.
Israel wanted the law that they might please God by obeying it. God gave it to them to demonstrate that they would not obey the law and would need to depend on Gods grace to save them from their now personal transgressions.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Jan 31st 2011, 05:33 PM
Like Fenris said "He brought them out to obey the law" that they might be saved from themselves.
I thought God brought them out so they could worship God. Does on worship God through the law? Christ said that God must be worshipped in Spirit and Truth.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

The Mighty Sword
Jan 31st 2011, 05:39 PM
I thought God brought them out so they could worship God. Does on worship God through the law? Christ said that God must be worshipped in Spirit and Truth.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

The only Law in Egypt was Egyptian Law, the tribes of Israel already worshiped GOD, the egyptians didn't apply blood over the door because they didn't believe whereas the tribes of Israel did.

notuptome
Jan 31st 2011, 06:12 PM
The only Law in Egypt was Egyptian Law, the tribes of Israel already worshiped GOD, the egyptians didn't apply blood over the door because they didn't believe whereas the tribes of Israel did.
The premise for Israel coming out of Egypt was to worship the Lord. Exo 5:3

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Jan 31st 2011, 06:18 PM
Israel wanted the law that they might please God by obeying it.
I don't see where they had any choice in the matter.

keck553
Jan 31st 2011, 06:20 PM
Israel wanted the law that they might please God by obeying it. God gave it to them to demonstrate that they would not obey the law and would need to depend on Gods grace to save them from their now personal transgressions.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I have a question, and perhaps it is a mystery?

11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

Do you think God was mocking the Isrealites when He spoke the above? What was God's purpose with these words?

rejoice44
Jan 31st 2011, 07:08 PM
Jews have never seen the law as a "punishment" or a "curse", but rather the way to express the divine will on this earth.

Do the Jews perceive the law to be a burden?

Fenris
Jan 31st 2011, 07:17 PM
Do the Jews perceive the law to be a burden?
Is it "easy"? No.

Is it a "burden"? Certainly not. If the one you love asks you to do something, it's not a burden- even if it is difficult.

Oddly enough, my rabbi touched on this point during his sermon. Take a look at Exodus. The Jews had been slaves, with no free will of their own. They had to obey their Egyptian masters. And as soon as God freed them, He brings them to Sinai. To do what? Be free? No! To give them more rules to follow. You might think they would be miserable, would chafe at that; they finally had a chance to be "free". And yet, what did they say when God gave them the laws? Exodus 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.' And again, 24:3 When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one voice, "Everything the LORD has said we will do." And again, 24:7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey."

I think this is pretty amazing.

keck553
Jan 31st 2011, 07:35 PM
Is it "easy"? No.

Is it a "burden"? Certainly not. If the one you love asks you to do something, it's not a burden- even if it is difficult.

Oddly enough, my rabbi touched on this point during his sermon. Take a look at Exodus. The Jews had been slaves, with no free will of their own. They had to obey their Egyptian masters. And as soon as God freed them, He brings them to Sinai. To do what? Be free? No! To give them more rules to follow. You might think they would be miserable, would chafe at that; they finally had a chance to be "free". And yet, what did they say when God gave them the laws? Exodus 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.' And again, 24:3 When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one voice, "Everything the LORD has said we will do." And again, 24:7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey."

I think this is pretty amazing.

Oddly, those who never even attempt to keep the law insist the law is a burden simply because they are told it is. That akin to someone who never ate meat but keeps insisting that meat tastes terrible simply because they are told so, with the burden of condemnation if they dare deviate from what they are told.

Legalism is legalism. What is more of a burden? To keep Sabbath, or to be condemned for keeping Sabbath? To refrain from eating garbage-eaters (for lack of a better term) or to be condemned for refraining? There's always someone waiting...just waiting to pounce on another for having a relationship or response to God that's different from their own. In the final analysis, people will do or not do what they want to do or not do, and that's just the reality of the situation. But in the long run, it does not matter. I wonder sometimes if God is humored or pained to see us silly finite humans brain each other constantly over the purposes and desires of the infinite and incomphrehensible God. Sometimes I think all He really wants, what would really please Him is if we took our prying eyes off each other, put our self-righteous pointing fingers in our pockets and spent all that time talking with Him.

So you would agree this particular idiom ("the Law is a burden") should be dispensed with, at least by those who have absolutely no experience with it.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2011, 08:06 PM
So you would agree this particular idiom ("the Law is a burden") should be dispensed with, at least by those who have absolutely no experience with it.

You know, I think that's an excellent point. How do these people know it's a burden? Because that's what someone else who also didn't keep it told them?

notuptome
Jan 31st 2011, 08:27 PM
I have a question, and perhaps it is a mystery?

11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

Do you think God was mocking the Isrealites when He spoke the above? What was God's purpose with these words?
When Israel was faithful God blessed them. When Israel was unfaithful God judged them. The promise is always open to Israel. 2 Chro 7:14

God seeks more than lip service. God seeks a right heart attitude to serve Him. Isa 29:13, Mark 7:6

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Jan 31st 2011, 08:39 PM
God seeks more than lip service. God seeks a right heart attitude to serve Him.
God seeks more than a right heart attitude. He seeks concrete actions. Observance of the Law.

notuptome
Jan 31st 2011, 08:46 PM
God seeks more than a right heart attitude. He seeks concrete actions. Observance of the Law.
Without a right heart attitude you can do no good works. Begrudging service is not at all pleasing when the Lord seeks joyful service. Psalm 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea Thy law is within my heart.

Didn't you just say the law was not a burden?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

rejoice44
Jan 31st 2011, 08:48 PM
Is it "easy"? No.

Is it a "burden"? Certainly not. If the one you love asks you to do something, it's not a burden- even if it is difficult.

Oddly enough, my rabbi touched on this point during his sermon. Take a look at Exodus. The Jews had been slaves, with no free will of their own. They had to obey their Egyptian masters. And as soon as God freed them, He brings them to Sinai. To do what? Be free? No! To give them more rules to follow. You might think they would be miserable, would chafe at that; they finally had a chance to be "free". And yet, what did they say when God gave them the laws? Exodus 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.' And again, 24:3 When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one voice, "Everything the LORD has said we will do." And again, 24:7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey."

I think this is pretty amazing.

But they didn't do what the Lord commanded them. Obviously it was a burden for those in the wilderness if they could not, or would not keep the commandments.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2011, 08:49 PM
Without a right heart attitude you can do no good works.According to who?



Begrudging service is not at all pleasing when the Lord seeks joyful service. Psalm 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea Thy law is within my heart.This is a poem, not a legal ruling. Really now.


Didn't you just say the law was not a burden?What does that have to do with God seeking concrete actions?

Fenris
Jan 31st 2011, 08:50 PM
But they didn't do what the Lord commanded them. Who didn't do what God commanded?


Obviously it was a burden for those in the wilderness if they could not, or would not keep the commandments."Obviously"? Jump to conclusions much?

notuptome
Jan 31st 2011, 09:10 PM
According to who?
1 Sam 16:7...the Lord seeth not as a man seeth for men look on the outward appearance but the Lord looketh upon the heart.

This is a poem, not a legal ruling. Really now.
It expresses the heart attitude of David King in Israel.

What does that have to do with God seeking concrete actions?
Concrete is a great building material but it makes a terrible bed.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

rejoice44
Jan 31st 2011, 09:12 PM
Who didn't do what God commanded?

"Obviously"? Jump to conclusions much?

The Jews in the wilderness. Numbers 11:20 But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the LORD which is among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt?

Fenris
Jan 31st 2011, 09:24 PM
1 Sam 16:7...the Lord seeth not as a man seeth for men look on the outward appearance but the Lord looketh upon the heart.And from this you conclude that "Without a right heart attitude you can do no good works."? Because that isn't what it says at all.

Matthew 23 says "They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden." Isn't that what you just did?


It expresses the heart attitude of David King in Israel.And Psalm 119 says that he loves the law. So he supports concrete actions too.


Concrete is a great building material but it makes a terrible bed.Ok, so no connection at all.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2011, 09:26 PM
The Jews in the wilderness. Numbers 11:20 But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the LORD which is among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt?
What law was being broken here? I don't see how this even applies to the discussion. What do you do, search the bible for verses that make the Jews look bad?

notuptome
Jan 31st 2011, 09:35 PM
And from this you conclude that "Without a right heart attitude you can do no good works."? Because that isn't what it says at all.

Matthew 23 says "They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden." Isn't that what you just did?
Just the opposite. There is no reward in even a good deed done for spite. Better to not say I love you if you do not love the one to whom you speak. I'm certain you have had someone apologise to you who you knew was not at all sorry for what they had done save that they were sorry they were found out. I know of no one who appreciates hypocrasy.

And Psalm 119 says that he loves the law. So he supports concrete actions too.
Well sure if you know to do right and do not do it you it seems reasonable to conclude that you transgress the law.

Ok, so no connection at all.
Exactly.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

rejoice44
Jan 31st 2011, 09:37 PM
What law was being broken here? I don't see how this even applies to the discussion. What do you do, search the bible for verses that make the Jews look bad?

How does this apply to the discussion? It should be clear that the law was definitely a burden to the Jews in the wilderness. So much of a burden that only Joshua and Caleb were found righteous enough to get into the promised land, of all those over twenty years of age.

The law they broke was the main one. Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Make the Jews look bad? We all look bad when we stand before God. Unless God looks at us through the shed blood of the Lamb from whom the living waters flow.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2011, 09:50 PM
Just the opposite. There is no reward in even a good deed done for spite. And you know this...how?




Well sure if you know to do right and do not do it you it seems reasonable to conclude that you transgress the law.I don't see what this has to do with psalm 119. You guys are all over the place.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2011, 09:58 PM
How does this apply to the discussion? It should be clear that the law was definitely a burden to the Jews in the wilderness. It's "clear" how, exactly? Does the bible use those words? Or are you inserting them because you, personally, believe the law to be a "burden"?


So much of a burden that only Joshua and Caleb were found righteous enough to get into the promised land, of all those over twenty years of age.
That had nothing to do with "burdens of the law" or "being righteous". They were denied entry to Israel because they believed the words of the spies. They didn't want to enter Israel, so they didn't. Read Numbers 13 and 14.

When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.



The law they broke was the main one. Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
That's an anachronism. They were denied entry in Numbers, but that happened before Deuteronomy. God was punishing them for something He hadn't commanded yet? Really?



Make the Jews look bad? Yes, you go out of your way to cite those verses. No idea why.

notuptome
Jan 31st 2011, 10:18 PM
And you know this...how?
I've been there and done that. Both sides of the equation. I have pleased God and displeased God. Example My mom compelled me to wash the dishes and I wanted to play ball. I washed the dishes but I hated it. The job was not the best I could do and at times it showed. I dishonored my mom and myself because I had a poor attitude toward the job I was given to do.

I don't see what this has to do with psalm 119. You guys are all over the place.
Come on... Ps 119:11 Thy word have I hidden in my heart that I might not sin against Thee. The word says thou shalt not steal. If I steal I sin. If I want to steal but have learned the statute that says stealing is sin and turn back I sin not.

Which is the concrete work? Not sinning or hiding the word in the heart?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Jan 31st 2011, 10:30 PM
I've been there and done that.OK, so you're applying your own personal experiences. I find this much less compelling that the word of the bible, which does not say that.



Come on... Ps 119yes, come on.

With the way of Your testimonies I rejoiced as over all riches.

15. Concerning Your precepts I shall converse, and I shall look at Your ways.
16. With Your statutes I shall occupy myself; I shall not forget Your speech.

32. [In] the way of Your commandments I shall run, for You will broaden my understanding.
33. Instruct me, O Lord, [in] the way of Your statutes, and I shall keep it at every step.

34. Enable me to understand and I shall keep Your Torah, and I shall keep it wholeheartedly.
35. Lead me in the path of Your commandments for I desired it.

44. And I shall keep Your Torah constantly, forever and ever.

47. And I shall engage in Your commandments, which I love.
48. And I shall lift up my palms to your commandments, which I love, and I shall converse about Your statutes.

55. At night I remembered Your name, O Lord, and I kept Your Torah.
56. This came to me because I kept Your precepts.

92. Were not Your Torah my occupation, then I would have perished in my affliction. .
93. I shall never forget Your precepts for through them You have sustained me.

98. Each of Your commandments makes me wiser than my enemies, for it is always mine.

106. I swore and I fulfilled, to keep the judgments of Your righteousness.

127. Because I loved Your commandments more than gold, even more than fine gold.

145. I called with all my heart; answer me, O Lord; I shall keep Your statutes.

151. You are near, O Lord, and all Your commandments are true.

165. There is abundant peace to those who love Your Torah, and they have no obstacle. .
166. I hoped for Your salvation, O Lord, and I performed Your commandments.

rejoice44
Jan 31st 2011, 11:43 PM
[QUOTE=Fenris;2610144]It's "clear" how, exactly? Does the bible use those words? Or are you inserting them because you, personally, believe the law to be a "burden"?

God commanded the Jews to collect the manna from heaven and eat it. That was such a burden to them that they wished they were back in Egypt eating the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlick. God said they despised Him. Numbers 11:20.

When they searched out the promised land and were afraid, they made plans for going back to Egypt, then Joshua and Caleb chided them for rebelling against God, and then they wanted to stone Joshua and Caleb. Then God was going to smite them and disinherit them, and would have, had it not been for Moses.

Numbers 14:22-23 Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it:


When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.

It wasn't me that called the Jews a stiffnecked people nine times.


That's an anachronism. They were denied entry in Numbers, but that happened before Deuteronomy. God was punishing them for something He hadn't commanded yet? Really?

In Deuteronomy Moses was reminding them of the laws that were first given in Exodus. As an Example,

Exodus 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Deuteronomy 5:10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.



Yes, you go out of your way to cite those verses. No idea why.

I can assure you that it is not because of a dislike of the Jews. My Lord is a Jew, and to the Jews were given the Word of Life.

Those verses are prominent through out the Bible, and show that the Jew was incapable of obtaining righteousness through his own good deeds.

rejoice44
Feb 1st 2011, 12:03 AM
And Psalm 119 says that he loves the law. So he supports concrete actions too.

While David loves the law, David is well aware there is no atonement for him within the law. There is no atonement in the law for taking an innocent man's life. David acknowledges this late in life as we see in the 143 Psalm. Psalms 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

dagar
Feb 1st 2011, 01:14 AM
It has been suggested that the Law given through Moses at Sinai was for the punishment of the Golden Calf incident and the obstinate attitudes of the Israelites, whom God freed from slavery in Egypt.

Intent of this thread: To discuss whether the Law given through Moses was “punishment” for Israelites. This is not, repeat not a thread to argue if/how Jews or Gentiles are “under the Law.”

This point of view of the Law given through Mosses caused me to pause and attempt to discover through Scripture if this was indeed true. Seems clear to me God intended they hear the spoken word and follow Him through relationship as He intended for Adam and intends for us, but they refused. The intended effect would have been the same whether verbal or spoken, just as it was for Adam and is for us. Man had drowned out the law written on their heart and needed to get back on track. He started with Israel who would deliver His word to mankind.

Butch5
Feb 1st 2011, 01:19 AM
According to Paul the Law was given to the Jews as a tutor to lead them to Christ.

Galatians 3:19-25 ( KJV )
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

I don't think it was to punish them, rather to lead and guide them. It was also to keep them separate from the world, to set them apart and make them holy. It was a tutor to lead them to Christ.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2011, 01:28 PM
God commanded the Jews to collect the manna from heaven and eat it. That was such a burden to them that they wished they were back in Egypt eating the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlick. God said they despised Him. Numbers 11:20.It wasn't a "burden" to collect it. They just missed some variety in their diet. My God man, do you just read the bible and fill in any words you think are "missing"? "Let's see, it doesn't say that the law is a burden, but someone told me it is, so I'll just write it in...here. And here. And here...."


When they searched out the promised land and were afraid, Yep, they were afraid. A generation that grew up in slavery could not think like free people, and could not fight like free people. So they weren't the ones who could conquer the land of Israel.

Still nothing about a "burden".


It wasn't me that called the Jews a stiffnecked people nine times.Wow, nine times. You love that, don't you?



In Deuteronomy Moses was reminding them of the laws that were first given in Exodus. As an Example,

Exodus 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Deuteronomy 5:10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
There's no command to love God prior to Deuteronomy. It's so easy to convict people with laws written after the fact, isn't it? Plus that verse says that loving God is not sufficient- it also says something about "keeping My commandments".




I can assure you that it is not because of a dislike of the Jews. My Lord is a Jew, and to the Jews were given the Word of Life.

Those verses are prominent through out the Bible, and show that the Jew was incapable of obtaining righteousness through his own good deeds.Shrug. It says nothing of the sort, just like it doesn't call the law "a burden". But you already believe it to be so, so every verse you read reaffirms your conclusion.

Noah was called "righteous" and "perfect". Pinchas was zealous for God, he stood up and intervened, and according to Psalms, "This was credited to him as righteousness for endless generations to come".

But what do I know, that's just what the bible tells me.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2011, 01:29 PM
While David loves the law, David is well aware there is no atonement for him within the law. There is no atonement in the law for taking an innocent man's life. David acknowledges this late in life as we see in the 143 Psalm. Psalms 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.
Just keep quoting the verse out of context. Maybe someone else will be convinced by it. I, however, am not.

keck553
Feb 1st 2011, 04:03 PM
What law was being broken here? I don't see how this even applies to the discussion. What do you do, search the bible for verses that make the Jews look bad?

Romans 11: "Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either."

Over and over again Paul exhorts us to look in the mirror least we boast. If all of us Christians practiced this, much burden would be lifted.

keck553
Feb 1st 2011, 04:15 PM
Seems clear to me God intended they hear the spoken word and follow Him through relationship as He intended for Adam and intends for us, but they refused. The intended effect would have been the same whether verbal or spoken, just as it was for Adam and is for us. Man had drowned out the law written on their heart and needed to get back on track. He started with Israel who would deliver His word to mankind.

So you think the infinite, perfect God had a 'plan B?'

rejoice44
Feb 1st 2011, 04:46 PM
Still nothing about a "burden".

It was a burden for the three families of Levi.

Numbers 4:15,19,31,32,47,49.

It was also a burden for Moses.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2011, 04:51 PM
It was a burden for the three families of Levi.

Numbers 4:15,19,31,32,47,49.Oy vey. This is talking about the physical burden of carrying the tabernacle. It's not saying that the law is a burden.

This is the best you can do?


It was also a burden for Moses.Where?

watchinginawe
Feb 1st 2011, 04:55 PM
Of course you make sense because you are on sound biblical principles. My question is "was the Law given to punish Israel?" and then by logical extension: "was the Law given to push Israel into sin?" Is that a characteristic of God, to push His own chosen people into sinfulness?
...
I just want to know how Boaz' application of the Law caused any harm to Ruth's faith. Did all those "silly ordanances" cause Ruth and Boaz to stumble, or did they reveal the hand of God and the need for dependency on God?

The portions of the law that you reference which are illustrated in Ruth had no application in the wilderness. They were given in the wilderness to determine the theocratic government that would rule the land that the Israelites would conquer. There was no gleaning in the wilderness and there was no redemption of inheritance either. We see God's provision for government in these things.

In Ruth 4, we see a harmonious application of the law and it doesn't seem a burden at all. The whole region round about Bethlehem seemed a good model of how God intended Israel to possess the land.

However, in application to today, we will find that certain aspects of the law (the ones you mentioned in Ruth for example) cannot translate directly to our culture. We can look for principles in the law, like the gleaning, and apply it to our own lives even if we aren't farmers. But we shouldn't say that this kind of application is "following the law".

Can you give a link or elaborate a little more about this "burden of punishment" deal? I may have forgotten it or something, but I think this is a first for me in my ears.

rejoice44
Feb 1st 2011, 05:15 PM
Oy vey. This is talking about the physical burden of carrying the tabernacle. It's not saying that the law is a burden.

This is the best you can do?

Maybe you need to define the different types of burden you perceive, and which one you are referring to.


Where?

Numbers 11:11 And Moses said unto the Lord, Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in thy sight, that thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?

Fenris
Feb 1st 2011, 05:19 PM
Maybe you need to define the different types of burden you perceive, and which one you are referring to.
Carrying something heavy like the tabernacle is indeed a burden. Because it's, you know, very heavy. That doesn't mean that the law is a burden.


Numbers 11:11 And Moses said unto the Lord, Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in thy sight, that thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?

Moses is saying that leadership is a burden. And it is. The law, however, is not.

keck553
Feb 1st 2011, 05:23 PM
The portions of the law that you reference which are illustrated in Ruth had no application in the wilderness. They were given in the wilderness to determine the theocratic government that would rule the land that the Israelites would conquer. There was no gleaning in the wilderness and there was no redemption of inheritance either. We see God's provision for government in these things.

In Ruth 4, we see a harmonious application of the law and it doesn't seem a burden at all. The whole region round about Bethlehem seemed a good model of how God intended Israel to possess the land.

However, in application to today, we will find that certain aspects of the law (the ones you mentioned in Ruth for example) cannot translate directly to our culture. We can look for principles in the law, like the gleaning, and apply it to our own lives even if we aren't farmers. But we shouldn't say that this kind of application is "following the law".

Can you give a link or elaborate a little more about this "burden of punishment" deal? I may have forgotten it or something, but I think this is a first for me in my ears.

I don't understand the wilderness comment. How many times does God say "when you enter the land......" when He gave the Law through Moses?

My question is "did God give the Law to punish the Hebrews?" I cited one Biblical source to call that concept into question. What bearing it has on us today in application is not why I started this thread.

"The burden of punishment" idea I've heard in the past in my Charismatic experiences; I've heard it in replacement theology circles and recently I read this gist "the Law was given because God was angry and wanted to punish Israel with silly and useless ordinances" (paraphrased) by another poster in another thread. It certainly doesn't seem a good doxology to me.....I just was curious how prevalent this idea was in the community.

rejoice44
Feb 1st 2011, 05:36 PM
Carrying something heavy like the tabernacle is indeed a burden. Because it's, you know, very heavy. That doesn't mean that the law is a burden.

The law is so heavy that no one ever kept it, not even David. David, before he had Uriah killed said this, "The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness: according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me." And after David had Uriah killed he said this, "And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified."




Moses is saying that leadership is a burden. And it is. The law, however, is not.The leadership burden was a result of the law.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2011, 05:46 PM
The law is so heavy that no one ever kept it, not even David.
And you will provide scripture that describes the law as being "heavy" and a "burden"? No? Why not?

The point about the tabernacle being physically heavy is now forgotten? The point is refuted, so you move on as though it was never said?



David, before he had Uriah killed said this, "The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness: according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me." And after David had Uriah killed he said this, "And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified."How do we know when he made these statements? We don't. You just assume when David made them at the times that it best furthers your point.




The leadership burden was a result of the law.
So leadership is easy provided Jewish law isn't involved?

I don't think you're convincing anyone aside from yourself.

keck553
Feb 1st 2011, 05:51 PM
The leadership burden was a result of the law.

In all fairness rejoice44, that is like me saying the leadership burden of the RCC was a result of faith.

rejoice44
Feb 1st 2011, 06:09 PM
And you will provide scripture that describes the law as being "heavy" and a "burden"? No? Why not?

The point about the tabernacle being physically heavy is now forgotten? The point is refuted, so you move on as though it was never said?

You have as yet not clearly defined the meaning of "burden" in regards to the law.



How do we know when he made these statements? We don't. You just assume when David made them at the times that it best furthers your point.

We know when they were made because the scripture states when.

2 Samuel 22:21 The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness: according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me. The first verse of this chapter says David spoke this song in the day that the Lord had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul. We know that Saul was dead when David had Uriah killed.

Psalm 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. We know that is Psalm was written near the end of David's life. David is looking back over his life and he says in verse 5, "I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works; I muse on the work of thy hands."

So I do not assume. The scripture answers your question, how do we know?

Fenris
Feb 1st 2011, 06:12 PM
You have as yet not clearly defined the meaning of "burden" in regards to the law.You have not yet shown me where the law is called "a burden".





We know when they were made because the scripture states when.

2 Samuel 22:21 The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness: according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me. OK, so presuambly up until this point david had not sinned? If he doesn't get Uriah killed he's perfect? Because that would mean that it is in fact possible to not sin.



Psalm 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. We know that is Psalm was written near the end of David's life. David is looking back over his life and he says in verse 5, "I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works; I muse on the work of thy hands."
Actually, you're just assuming that's when this verse was written because it helps your argument.

rejoice44
Feb 1st 2011, 06:16 PM
In all fairness rejoice44, that is like me saying the leadership burden of the RCC was a result of faith.

I don't believe the leadership of the RCC has a burden, I have spent some time in one of their homes in Manhattan.

keck553
Feb 1st 2011, 08:30 PM
I don't believe the leadership of the RCC has a burden, I have spent some time in one of their homes in Manhattan.

Right. Forced conversions, the Crusades, mass murder of "infidels," inquisitions, pogroms, anti-semtism, prohibition of the Bible to common folks, weekly salvation only through the blessings of priests, paying pentance, purgatory, forced confessions on Easter, being forced to pray to a dead Jewish woman...the list is very long. At one point, even the Muslims had to step forward to protect Jews from "Christians zealots." And that's not even counting Martin Luthur's long list religious yoke.

No, no burden there....

rejoice44
Feb 1st 2011, 09:16 PM
OK, so presuambly up until this point david had not sinned? If he doesn't get Uriah killed he's perfect? Because that would mean that it is in fact possible to not sin.

It wasn't that David had not sinned, but David did not recognize his actions as sin. God did not hold him accountable because God judges the heart. Saul, who was called Paul, was presenting Christians to be slaughtered, and yet he said he was blameless in the law.


Actually, you're just assuming that's when this verse was written because it helps your argument.

You are right that it cannot be definitively stated when this verse was spoken.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2011, 09:21 PM
It wasn't that David had not sinned, but David did not recognize his actions as sin. God did not hold him accountable because God judges the heart. But David said "according to the cleanness of my hands". If God judges the heart, why didn't he sa y "according to the cleanness of my heart"?

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2011, 09:37 PM
Folks need to read Ezekiel 20.

Keep in mind too that the Law is a generic word that covers well... law. God's law was called the law. Christ's law can be called the law. Moses' law... law. Roman law... law.

Example with Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 saying women should be shushed in the gathering. He said that he agreed with the law on this.

What Law was Paul agreeing with because there ain't no such law in the law of Moses. No such law in the law of God... law of Christ... so what Law?

Add to all that... Ezekiel 20 makes it clear that God was angry with the Israelites. Moses himself mentions God giving Israel Ten Laws. He added no more... that was it.

Most folks can't even tell you when it was that the Law came into effect. I mean seriously guys... Jesus sums up the law with what we call the royal law of love God with all your heart, soul, and mind and your neighbor as yourself.

How does you mixing blends of material prove that love? How does even sacrifice prove that love?

And yeah I know... we love the sacrifice thing but fact... God didn't save Israel to require them to offer Him sacrifice. Not what God wanted nor did God require it.

If folks very slowly and carefully read Deuteronomy and Moses' message... you will find a ton of sacred doctrinal cow kicking stuff in His writing. :)

And did I mention it already... read Ezekiel 20. :D

rejoice44
Feb 1st 2011, 09:39 PM
But David said "according to the cleanness of my hands". If God judges the heart, why didn't he sa y "according to the cleanness of my heart"?

As far as David was concerned, his hands were clean. If he had sinned, he was not aware of it. We are not as good at recognizing sin as God is. The case was the same for Job. Job was perfect and upright because of his heart, and not because of his actions. The reason that I keep bringing up Psalm 143 is because David recognized that no man is just before God. It is God that is righteous, and not man.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2011, 09:43 PM
Here is the passage. Read it all and I'll highlight a specific text. Everyone says NO! But it says what it says and I didn't write it. I'm just the one pointing it out to you'uns!

Ezekiel 20:1 *Now it came about in the seventh year, in the fifth month, on the tenth of the month, that certain of the elders of Israel came to inquire of the LORD, and sat before me.
2 *And the word of the LORD came to me saying,
3 *"Son of man, speak to the elders of Israel, and say to them, `Thus says the Lord GOD, "Do you come to inquire of Me? As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "I will not be inquired of by you."´
4 *"Will you judge them, will you judge them, son of man? Make them know the abominations of their fathers;
5 *and say to them, `Thus says the Lord GOD, "On the day when I chose Israel and swore to the descendants of the house of Jacob and made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt, when I swore to them, saying, I am the LORD your God,
6 *on that day I swore to them, to bring them out from the land of Egypt into a land that I had selected for them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all lands.
7 *"And I said to them, `Cast away, each of you, the detestable things of his eyes, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.´
8 *"But they rebelled against Me and were not willing to listen to Me; they did not cast away the detestable things of their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. ¶Then I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.
9 *"But I acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations among whom they lived, in whose sight I made Myself known to them by bringing them out of the land of Egypt.
10 *"So I took them out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness.
11 *"And I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live.
12 *"And also I gave them My sabbaths to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them.
13 *"But the house of Israel rebelled against Me in the wilderness. They did not walk in My statutes, and they rejected My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live; and My sabbaths they greatly profaned. Then I resolved to pour out My wrath on them in the wilderness, to annihilate them.
14 *"But I acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations, before whose sight I had brought them out.
15 *"And also I swore to them in the wilderness that I would not bring them into the land which I had given them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all lands,
16 *because they rejected My ordinances, and as for My statutes, they did not walk in them; they even profaned My sabbaths, for their heart continually went after their idols.
17 *"Yet My eye spared them rather than destroying them, and I did not cause their annihilation in the wilderness.
18 *¶"And I said to their children in the wilderness, `Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers, or keep their ordinances, or defile yourselves with their idols.
19 *`I am the LORD your God; walk in My statutes, and keep My ordinances, and observe them.
20 *`And sanctify My sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the LORD your God.´
21 *"But the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, nor were they careful to observe My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live; they profaned My sabbaths. So I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the wilderness.
22 *"But I withdrew My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out.
23 *"Also I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands,
24 *because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes, and had profaned My sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers.
25 *"And I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live;
26 *and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their first-born to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the LORD."´

Fenris
Feb 1st 2011, 09:45 PM
As far as David was concerned, his hands were clean. If he had sinned, he was not aware of it. We are not as good at recognizing sin as God is. Hmmm so the law is a terrible burden but we can't even know when we've violated it? That doesn't make sense. If it's such a burden we'd be breaking it all the time.


The case was the same for Job. Job was perfect and upright because of his heart, and not because of his actions. Noah too?


The reason that I keep bringing up Psalm 143 is because David recognized that no man is just before God. And I'll keep saying that you're citing the verse out of context.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2011, 09:47 PM
Hmmm so the law is a terrible burden but we can't even know when we've violated it? That doesn't make sense. If it's such a burden we'd be breaking it all the time.
Noah too?

And I'll keep saying that you're citing the verse out of context.
In all fairness and just to keep it real... Noah didn't have the Law of Moses and it is likely that Job didn't either although that's argued either way.

rejoice44
Feb 1st 2011, 09:51 PM
Example with Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 saying women should be shushed in the gathering. He said that he agreed with the law on this.

What Law was Paul agreeing with because there ain't no such law in the law of Moses. No such law in the law of God... law of Christ... so what Law?

Paul said they are commanded to be under obedience, and the law he was citing is found in Genesis 3:16 -------and he shall rule over thee.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2011, 09:51 PM
24 *because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes, and had profaned My sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers.
25 *"And I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live;
I'm sorry, I don't think this means what you're implying at all. First of all, some of the very cardinal laws of Judaism (that were adopted by Christianity) occur after the ten commandments. Love your neighbor? Leviticus. Love God? Deuteronomy.

What's God saying here? Because the Jews sinned and didn't follow the laws he gave them, laws that "give life", instead God exiled them and forced them to follow laws of their new masters; laws that do not "give life".This is also supported by Deuteronomy 28- God warns the Jews what will happen:

because you did not serve the Lord, your God, with happiness and with gladness of heart, when [you had an] abundance of everything, Therefore, you will serve your enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, [when you are] in famine, thirst, destitution, and lacking everything...

Which did in fact happen. And obviously the Babylonian law and Roman law and all the laws of the other nations that oppressed the Jews did not give "life".

Fenris
Feb 1st 2011, 09:53 PM
In all fairness and just to keep it real... Noah didn't have the Law of Moses and it is likely that Job didn't either although that's argued either way.
Noah was called "perfect" so he must have done something right.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2011, 09:58 PM
Paul said they are commanded to be under obedience, and the law he was citing is found in Genesis 3:16 -------and he shall rule over thee.
Uh... that was speaking of the husband ruling over the wife not women shut up in the public gathering. It doesn't work without you making that a generic catch-all Scripture that men are to rule women and doesn't matter if they are married or not. So all chicks need to keep their biscuits in the oven and their buns in the bed. Other than that... hush your mouth in the presence of all men! Now... is that your argument even as crass as it might be?

rejoice44
Feb 1st 2011, 09:58 PM
Hmmm so the law is a terrible burden but we can't even know when we've violated it? That doesn't make sense. If it's such a burden we'd be breaking it all the time.
Noah too?

But the truth is we are breaking it all the time. Do you love those that despitefully use you? This law was given by the lawmaker.


And I'll keep saying that you're citing the verse out of context.

If that is true you should be able to explain what David meant when he said, "for in thy sight shall no man living be justified".

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2011, 09:58 PM
Noah was called "perfect" so he must have done something right.

Not arguing that point at all. Just making it clear... he didn't follow the Law of Moses... that hadn't been written yet. He avoided evil it says... that's a pretty good standard to live.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2011, 10:03 PM
But the truth is we are breaking it all the time.How do you know? have you ever tried to actually follow it?


Do you love those that despitefully use you?
Am I "using" God?



If that is true you should be able to explain what David meant when he said, "for in thy sight shall no man living be justified".
How many times do I have to explain it?

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2011, 10:03 PM
I'm sorry, I don't think this means what you're implying at all. First of all, some of the very cardinal laws of Judaism (that were adopted by Christianity) occur after the ten commandments. Love your neighbor? Leviticus. Love God? Deuteronomy.I know you don't think that's what it means. You're Jewish for crying out loud! I can't even get most Christian's to see this! :lol: And sure they've adopted a lot of it. No doubt. Just not the useless precepts and ordinances. ;)




What's God saying here? Because the Jews sinned and didn't follow the laws he gave them, laws that "give life", instead God exiled them and forced them to follow laws of their new masters; laws that do not "give life".This is also supported by Deuteronomy 28- God warns the Jews what will happen:The Law doesn't give life... never gave life. The Law was a law of death or restitution. Not much life giving to it. ;) And not... God did not force them to follow the law of their masters. Daniel, Shack, Rack, and Benny are proof of that very thing. Jeremiah as well and even Ezekiel. That is not at all what God was speaking of. HE GAVE THEM useless precepts and ordinances. Not I will make you follow the laws of Babylon, Rome, or America etc.




because you did not serve the Lord, your God, with happiness and with gladness of heart, when [you had an] abundance of everything, Therefore, you will serve your enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, [when you are] in famine, thirst, destitution, and lacking everything...

Which did in fact happen. And obviously the Babylonian law and Roman law and all the laws of the other nations that oppressed the Jews did not give "life".Yes it happened. And it says there "you will have to follow their laws where?"

rejoice44
Feb 1st 2011, 10:04 PM
Uh... that was speaking of the husband ruling over the wife not women shut up in the public gathering. It doesn't work without you making that a generic catch-all Scripture that men are to rule women and doesn't matter if they are married or not. So all chicks need to keep their biscuits in the oven and their buns in the bed. Other than that... hush your mouth in the presence of all men! Now... is that your argument even as crass as it might be?

To be fair to Paul he qualified that to speaking in the churches. Paul extrapolated that commandment for man to have rule over the woman through, (a) his own thoughts, or (b) God's revelation?

Fenris
Feb 1st 2011, 10:04 PM
Not arguing that point at all. Just making it clear... he didn't follow the Law of Moses... that hadn't been written yet. He avoided evil it says... that's a pretty good standard to live.

OK, so it is possible to be justified by God if one avoids evil?

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2011, 10:07 PM
To be fair to Paul he qualified that to speaking in the churches. Paul extrapolated that commandment for man to have rule over the woman through, (a) his own thoughts, or (b) God's revelation?Sure it was in the church... that was the public gathering which is what the Law said. Women were to be silent in the public gathering. Hint... in many places this is still a law even today. In other words... it was a national law. Not a biblical law.

keck553
Feb 1st 2011, 10:07 PM
The Law doesn't give life... never gave life.

How do you reconcile your statement with God's statement (after having gave all the commandments)?

This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

Fenris
Feb 1st 2011, 10:12 PM
The Law doesn't give life... never gave life. God says otherwise in Leviticus. "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I [am] the LORD."


Yes it happened. And it says there "you will have to follow their laws where?"
Slaves and captives of war generally don't have a choice in the matter.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2011, 10:21 PM
OK, so it is possible to be justified by God if one avoids evil?That and faith... which we clearly know Job had boat-loads of. Mind you... faith in Christ would be my next comment to you... you know the drill... I've gotta clarify it. :)

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2011, 10:26 PM
How do you reconcile your statement with God's statement (after having gave all the commandments)?

This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may liveYou are a Christian right? You do know that Jesus Himself told them that they search the Scripture and in them is eternal life? You really believe that there is life in the Law of Moses?

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2011, 10:31 PM
God says otherwise in Leviticus. "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I [am] the LORD."


Slaves and captives of war generally don't have a choice in the matter.Ever read Daniel? Sure they had a choice. Even in the times of Christ one of the things that blew Pontius Pilate away was the fact that the Phrarisee was insanely zealous of their belief in their God. Even to the point when he sent soldiers to the temple and those soldiers drew their swords... the Pharisee literally stuck their necks on the sword blades making it clear that they would have to slit their throat before they could allow them to defile the temple in such a way. Josephus writes on that in great detail. So yes... they certainly have a choice. With many that might have brought about their death mind you... but they had the choice.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2011, 10:35 PM
Ever read Daniel? Sure they had a choice.Daniel was taken to be special advisor to the king or somesuch. He really can't be compared to the hundreds of thousands of Jews taken captive by the Romans, for example.


Even in the times of Christ one of the things that blew Pontius Pilate away was the fact that the Phrarisee was insanely zealous of their belief in their God. Even to the point when he sent soldiers to the temple and those soldiers drew their swords... the Pharisee literally stuck their necks on the sword blades making it clear that they would have to slit their throat before they could allow them to defile the temple in such a way. Josephus writes on that in great detail. So yes... they certainly have a choice. With many that might have brought about their death mind you... but they had the choice.
regardless, they were given rules that did not "give life".

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2011, 10:41 PM
Daniel was taken to be special advisor to the king or somesuch. He really can't be compared to the hundreds of thousands of Jews taken captive by the Romans, for example.Most the others didn't have to live by the rule as Daniel and the 3 young men did Fenris! Seriously dude... think on that. These guys were under constant care by the king's folk who were in charge of them. Certainly it would apply to others.




regardless, they were given rules that did not "give life".No... that passage doesn't say that it was laws of other nations. God says I GAVE them. What Laws outside of the Ten (He added no more since that was enough) did God give them?

dagar
Feb 2nd 2011, 01:51 AM
So you think the infinite, perfect God had a 'plan B?'No I do not...........

ProDeo
Feb 2nd 2011, 11:30 AM
I believe the intent of the Law was to show them they could not live a sinless life by their own strength, and the purpose of the law was to point them to saving faith in Jesus Christ who would come to deliver them from their sins.

Exactly.

I also believe God deliberately made the Law hard enough to know on beforehand no human that ever would live could keep it. Not in a million or xxx billion of years. Not one. It's God's demonstration that only a divine human, God incarnate can. And God even put the Law to a higher and new standard, for instance the list in Matt 5: You have heard that it was said -> But I say to you. Only this new standard has God's real pleasure.

The Law is centered what man can (must) do to please God based on works, the new covenant is based on grace and what Christ has done. Hence God refused (father) Abraham's sacrifice of (son) Isaac and provided his own sacrifice at the time as a sign to the real sacrifice 2000 years later, Father God putting his own Son on the alter and not withholding the knife.

Amazing grace...

Moving in lately, I realize.

Fenris
Feb 2nd 2011, 01:21 PM
Most the others didn't have to live by the rule as Daniel and the 3 young men did Fenris! Seriously dude... think on that. These guys were under constant care by the king's folk who were in charge of them. Certainly it would apply to others.I beg to differ. the king might make exceptions for his posse that wouldn't apply to the general public.


No... that passage doesn't say that it was laws of other nations. God says I GAVE them. Yes, God gave them- through the nations that He sent to conquer Israel.

Find some scripture that breaks the laws out into "good laws" and "bad laws". It doesn't exist. Read Psalm 119. David embraces the law. All of it.

notuptome
Feb 2nd 2011, 02:43 PM
I beg to differ. the king might make exceptions for his posse that wouldn't apply to the general public.
Yes, God gave them- through the nations that He sent to conquer Israel.

Find some scripture that breaks the laws out into "good laws" and "bad laws". It doesn't exist. Read Psalm 119. David embraces the law. All of it.
God gave all of it and it is all profitable for the believer including the poetic parts.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

WSGAC
Feb 2nd 2011, 04:16 PM
The Law was given to be the rules of God's household. At one time you belonged to Egypt and Pharaoh, but God has brought you out of the household of Egypt and into His. No longer will you serve Egypt's gods or Pharoah, for now you are God's people. And being now people of God's household, you will live by His rules. You shall have no other gods before Me...You shall not make any graven images....You shall not....etc. etc.

keck553
Feb 2nd 2011, 04:21 PM
You are a Christian right? You do know that Jesus Himself told them that they search the Scripture and in them is eternal life? You really believe that there is life in the Law of Moses?

Really, the sarcasm isn't necessary. I wish to take your posts seriously, but the sarcasm and posturing is making it difficult. My qeustion still remains unanswered.

Besides, you've read the passage I quoted out of context. If you want to know what God's view is of the value of the Law, please read the parable of Lazarus. It's all there, right from the mouth of Jesus.

In regard to your context, I would go with this:

1 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.
5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, 7 in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.
8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

Where do you think the bolded parts come from in the Bible?

keck553
Feb 2nd 2011, 04:24 PM
No I do not...........

So then I propose God's 'intent' remains a mystery. Probably connected with Paul's sod in Romans 11

Fenris
Feb 2nd 2011, 04:35 PM
Something else king David had to say about the law: Psalm 19

8. The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the Lord is faithful, making the simple one wise.

9. The orders of the Lord are upright, causing the heart to rejoice; the commandment of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes.

10. The fear of the Lord is pure, existing forever; the judgments of the Lord are true, altogether just.

11. They are to be desired more than gold, yea more than much fine gold, and are sweeter than honey and drippings of honeycombs.

12. Also Your servant was careful with them; for in observing them there is great reward.

Doesn't sound like he thinks it's a "punishment" to me. He isn't making the point of there being "good laws" and "bad laws". He thinks it's all perfect.

Firefighter
Feb 2nd 2011, 04:58 PM
Fenris... anything that prohibits eating bacon is bound to be punishment. :lol:

Hard to argue with that logic, huh? ;)

Fenris
Feb 2nd 2011, 05:14 PM
Fenris... anything that prohibits eating bacon is bound to be punishment. :lol:

Sigh. You guys know me too well....

I guess I can take some comfort in that.

keck553
Feb 2nd 2011, 05:41 PM
Fenris... anything that prohibits eating bacon is bound to be punishment. :lol:

Hard to argue with that logic, huh? ;)

eating dead worms....ewwwwww. To me, that is punishment.

dagar
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:12 AM
So then I propose God's 'intent' remains a mystery.No. It's called foreknowledge. Just because God does something in time with us doesn't mean he doesn't know the outcome during the process. Adam sinning? Abraham believing? How many righteous in Sodom? etc.....

Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:


Probably connected with Paul's sod in Romans 11come again?

keck553
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:36 PM
No. It's called foreknowledge. Just because God does something in time with us doesn't mean he doesn't know the outcome during the process. Adam sinning? Abraham believing? How many righteous in Sodom? etc.....

That was not my context. I wasn't referring to the forknowledge of God who knew my future from the foundation of the world. For us it is a mystery until God chooses to reveal it.

My reference was Paul's reference to the "mystery" of the salvation of the Gentiles. Chapter 11.

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2011, 06:38 PM
Really, the sarcasm isn't necessary. I wish to take your posts seriously, but the sarcasm and posturing is making it difficult. My qeustion still remains unanswered.

Besides, you've read the passage I quoted out of context. If you want to know what God's view is of the value of the Law, please read the parable of Lazarus. It's all there, right from the mouth of Jesus.

In regard to your context, I would go with this:

1 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.
5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, 7 in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.
8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

Where do you think the bolded parts come from in the Bible?

Came from God's Law. And rest assured... I wasn't in the least bit sarcastic in that response. I marvel at this idea that the Law of Moses gave life. You can tell me I took it out of context all day long but you have a major problem. That is the context in which you argue. The Law of Moses did not give life... never gave life to anyone.

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 06:45 PM
I marvel at this idea that the Law of Moses gave life. ... The Law of Moses did not give life... never gave life to anyone.

But that's exactly how Jews see it- giving life.

There is a blessing that is made after reading from the Torah. It has the phrase "...You planted eternal life in our midst..." - by giving us the Law.

And why do you refer to it as "the law of Moses"? Is it not God's laws?

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2011, 07:04 PM
But that's exactly how Jews see it- giving life.

There is a blessing that is made after reading from the Torah. It has the phrase "...You planted eternal life in our midst..." - by giving us the Law.

And why do you refer to it as "the law of Moses"? Is it not God's laws?
I know they see it that way..... never refuted that. Tis my point actually. ;)

Because it was the Law of Moses... not God's Law. God gave ten and added no others.

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 07:18 PM
Because it was the Law of Moses... not God's Law. God gave ten and added no others.
Hmm in the bible seems pretty plain that God added many more.

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2011, 07:38 PM
Hmm in the bible seems pretty plain that God added many more.Moses added them and God let it be done because He was ticked. ;)

But just to satisfy you what with me being here to serve and all... ;)

Deuteronomy 5:22 *¶"These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain from the midst of the fire, of the cloud and of the thick gloom, with a great voice, and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.

Follow that into chapter 9... all that "I'll write them on the doorpost of your heart" and all that... it was speaking of those Ten. Moses is speaking all through that of the Ten Commandments given Him by God Himself.

The "these words" if you look up.... the Ten Commandments.

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 07:49 PM
OK, a quick search-

Leviticus 11:44 I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground.

Leviticus 11:45 I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.

Leviticus 19:1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them: Ye shall be holy; for I the LORD your God am holy....9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest. 10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God. ...14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but thou shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD. 15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. 16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him. 18 Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. 19 Ye shall keep My statutes....26 Ye shall not eat with the blood; neither shall ye practise divination nor soothsaying. 27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. 28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor imprint any marks upon you: I am the LORD. ...33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. 34 The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. 35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. 36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. 37 And ye shall observe all My statutes, and all Mine ordinances, and do them: I am the LORD.


Looks like it's God giving these commandments, not Moses.

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2011, 07:54 PM
OK, a quick search-

Leviticus 11:44 I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground.

Leviticus 11:45 I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.

Leviticus 19:1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them: Ye shall be holy; for I the LORD your God am holy....9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest. 10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God. ...14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but thou shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD. 15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. 16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him. 18 Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. 19 Ye shall keep My statutes....26 Ye shall not eat with the blood; neither shall ye practise divination nor soothsaying. 27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. 28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor imprint any marks upon you: I am the LORD. ...33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. 34 The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. 35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. 36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. 37 And ye shall observe all My statutes, and all Mine ordinances, and do them: I am the LORD.


Looks like it's God giving these commandments, not Moses.

So then what... when Moses said God added no more... typo? ;) Nah... enter Ezekiel 20 Fenris. God wasn't speaking of Babylonian laws... God was speaking of the multitude of other useless precepts and ordinances that He piled on letting Moses add the multitude of laws called the Law of Moses. ;)

God gave the Ten. That was God's Law and that was the covenant Law between God and man. Moses Law... that was man's (Jews) covenant made with God.

keck553
Feb 3rd 2011, 07:58 PM
Back to the first post. If the Law (all of it) wasn't in place for Boaz to obey, there would be no David, hence no Jesus. Fortunately God knows what He is doing.

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 08:06 PM
So then what... when Moses said God added no more... typo? ;)
My translation says "which did not cease." not "He added no more". Regardless, in Leviticus it seems to be God speaking.


Nah... enter Ezekiel 20 Fenris. God wasn't speaking of Babylonian laws... God was speaking of the multitude of other useless precepts and ordinances that He piled on letting Moses add the multitude of laws called the Law of Moses. ;)Let me ask you a question: If you didn't have that one verse in Ezekiel 20, would there be any other hint that most of the law is junk filler? because I can't find it.


God gave the Ten. That was God's Law and that was the covenant Law between God and man. Moses Law... that was man's (Jews) covenant made with God.Not the way I see the bible.

keck553
Feb 3rd 2011, 08:37 PM
I would like to know how the below sampling of the Law was imposed on the Israelites because God was "mad:"

P195 Dvarim 15:8; On to give charity to the poor Vayikra25:35-36

P199 Dvarim 24:13; On restoring a pledge to its owner if he needs it Shemot22:25

P200 Dvarim 24:15 On paying the worker his wages on time

P202 Shemot 23:5 On helping unload when necessary a tired animal

P203 Dvarim 22:4 On assisting a man loading his beast with its burden

P204 Dvarim 22:1; On that lost property must be returned to its owner Shemot23:4

P205 Vayikra 19:17 On being required to reprove the sinner

P206 Vayikra 19:18 On love your neighbor as yourself

P207 Dvarim 10:19 On being commanded to love the foreigner

P208 Vayikra 19:36 On the law of accurate weights and measures


P175 Shemot 23:2 On in case of division, abiding by a majority decision


P176 Dvarim 16:18 Appointing Judges & Officers of the Court in every town


P177 Vayikra 19:15 Treating litigants equally/impartially before the law


P178 Vayikra 5:1 Anyone aware of evidence must come to court to testify


P179 Dvarim 13:15 The testimony of witnesses shall be examined thoroughly


P180 Dvarim 19:19 False witnesses punished, as they intended upon accused

Be logical. Many of these concepts are written in various ways in the US Constitution. Does the US Constitution bring bondage and punishment, or the promise of life and liberty? What kind of life would have in the US if not for many of these precepts?

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2011, 08:38 PM
My translation says "which did not cease." not "He added no more". Regardless, in Leviticus it seems to be God speaking.

Let me ask you a question: If you didn't have that one verse in Ezekiel 20, would there be any other hint that most of the law is junk filler? because I can't find it.
Not the way I see the bible.

Oh sure... there are other spots particularly in the Prophets. Example is in Isaiah 1.

Isaiah 1:11 *"What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, And the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats.
12 *"When you come to appear before Me, Who requires of you this trampling of My courts?
13 *"Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies -- I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly.
14 *"I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me. I am weary of bearing them.
15 *"So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you, Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.


Why would God so utterly despise these things they were doing if these things were the things that were to bring them life? If these things are the things that free them of their guilt and sin... then God should be right glad they were doing this! Reason... He really didn't care about that stuff. What God wanted was them to DO right... not all their whatnot to rid themselves of that guilt by acts of rote.

David understood that as well. All that stuff was "legal" but none of that stuff was "life". If that legality brought life then David would simply offer sacrifice as written in the Law and God would be required to honor that law. If God wrote it as a requirment then God would have to honor it. He didn't... thus He didn't honor it. God doesn't

The Law REQUIRED SACRIFICE from man but what did God require?

Micah 6:6 *¶With what shall I come to the LORD And bow myself before the God on high? Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings, With yearling calves?
7 *Does the LORD take delight in thousands of rams, In ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my first-born for my rebellious acts, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 *He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2011, 08:43 PM
I would like to know how the below sampling of the Law was imposed on the Israelites because God was "mad:"

P195 Dvarim 15:8; On to give charity to the poor Vayikra25:35-36

P199 Dvarim 24:13; On restoring a pledge to its owner if he needs it Shemot22:25

P200 Dvarim 24:15 On paying the worker his wages on time

P202 Shemot 23:5 On helping unload when necessary a tired animal

P203 Dvarim 22:4 On assisting a man loading his beast with its burden

P204 Dvarim 22:1; On that lost property must be returned to its owner Shemot23:4

P205 Vayikra 19:17 On being required to reprove the sinner

P206 Vayikra 19:18 On love your neighbor as yourself

P207 Dvarim 10:19 On being commanded to love the foreigner

P208 Vayikra 19:36 On the law of accurate weights and measures

Be logical. Many of these concepts are written in various ways in the US Constitution. Does the US Constitution bring bondage and punishment, or the promise of life and liberty?

Oh come on now... get serious. You know well the laws I am speaking of. You post what... a dozen out of 613? Moses included the Ten Commandments that were given by God... sort of a no-brainer.

Goodness... do you guys think that Moses just sat down with God over a couple of days and wrote out a bunch of laws? These are all parts of Moses' various judgments made throughout their being in the Wilderness those 40 years. The children of Israel didn't even have these Laws until they crossed over into the Promised Land... the Ten were still the Laws they followed until something came about that Moses ruled against as they were going on.

And the Constitution has nothing to do with the Law of Moses although the country did begin with most following Judaic- Christian values. And MANY is far from ALL so wanna talk logical?

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 09:00 PM
Oh sure... there are other spots particularly in the Prophets. Example is in Isaiah 1.

Isaiah 1:11 *"What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, And the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats.
12 *"When you come to appear before Me, Who requires of you this trampling of My courts?
13 *"Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies -- I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly.
14 *"I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me. I am weary of bearing them.
15 *"So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you, Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
Why stop at verse 15? Go a few further-

16. Wash, cleanse yourselves, remove the evil of your deeds from before My eyes, cease to do evil.
Ok, cease to do evil. What should we do?

17. Learn to do good, seek justice, strengthen the robbed, perform justice for the orphan, plead the case of the widow.

Ah. Are these in the ten commandements? They are not.


Why would God so utterly despise these things they were doing if these things were the things that were to bring them life? If these things are the things that free them of their guilt and sin... then God should be right glad they were doing this! Reason... He really didn't care about that stuff. What God wanted was them to DO right... not all their whatnot to rid themselves of that guilt by acts of rote. Well, yes and no. God didn't waste all that space in Leviticus with the specifics of sacrifice. Ritual is important too. But it should not take the place of all those other laws that pertain to our behavior with out fellow man.


David understood that as well. All that stuff was "legal" but none of that stuff was "life". If that legality brought life then David would simply offer sacrifice as written in the Law and God would be required to honor that law. Sacrifice is only part of the law. Only part.


The Law REQUIRED SACRIFICE from man but what did God require?

Micah 6:6 *¶With what shall I come to the LORD And bow myself before the God on high? Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings, With yearling calves?
7 *Does the LORD take delight in thousands of rams, In ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my first-born for my rebellious acts, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 *He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?
Ironically enough, this would seem to make Jesus's sacrifice unnessecary as well.

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2011, 09:17 PM
Why stop at verse 15? Go a few further-

16. Wash, cleanse yourselves, remove the evil of your deeds from before My eyes, cease to do evil.
Ok, cease to do evil. What should we do?

17. Learn to do good, seek justice, strengthen the robbed, perform justice for the orphan, plead the case of the widow.

Ah. Are these in the ten commandements? They are not.Sure they are... it is totally the essence of the Ten. Do righteous... not evil. Love God, love neighbor. Clothing blend and how you boil the kid goat... nothing to do with any of that. ;)


Well, yes and no. God didn't waste all that space in Leviticus with the specifics of sacrifice. Ritual is important too. But it should not take the place of all those other laws that pertain to our behavior with out fellow man.God didn't write that... Moses did. God penned Ten and added no more. ;) Keep in mind too. God did not bring them out of Egypt to offer sacrifice. That wasn't His desire at all.


Sacrifice is only part of the law. Only part.Sure it is only part Fenris but even you have to freely admit it a VERY VITAL part as well as a very large part.


Ironically enough, this would seem to make Jesus's sacrifice unnessecary as well.Not exactly. What God required of man is one thing. What God did Himself was His way.

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 09:38 PM
Sure they are... it is totally the essence of the Ten. Do righteous... not evil. Love God, love neighbor. MM, no. Those are seperate commands. "Love God, love the nieghbor" are not in the ten commandements.


Clothing blend and how you boil the kid goat... nothing to do with any of that. ;)And yet, they were God's will. I contend they still are.


God didn't write that... Moses did. God penned Ten and added no more. My friend,t hat isn't what the bible says.


God did not bring them out of Egypt to offer sacrifice. That wasn't His desire at all.
he brought them out of Egypt to give them the law.


Sure it is only part Fenris but even you have to freely admit it a VERY VITAL part as well as a very large part.No. It is only a part.


Not exactly. What God required of man is one thing. What God did Himself was His way.
Shrug. We all see what we want, I guess.

keck553
Feb 3rd 2011, 10:39 PM
Oh come on now... get serious. You know well the laws I am speaking of. You post what... a dozen out of 613? Moses included the Ten Commandments that were given by God... sort of a no-brainer.

The laws you are speaking of? What are those? The ones you don't like? I don't understand. Or do you mean by application? Sorry, now I am totally confused. According to who's wisdom are "the good ones" chosen?



Goodness... do you guys think that Moses just sat down with God over a couple of days and wrote out a bunch of laws? These are all parts of Moses' various judgments made throughout their being in the Wilderness those 40 years. The children of Israel didn't even have these Laws until they crossed over into the Promised Land... the Ten were still the Laws they followed until something came about that Moses ruled against as they were going on.

Moses had God's Holy Spirit to guide him. Let's not sell God short on His capabilities through ordinary (usually less than ordinary) men. By the way, where did you get the above summary from? Can you provide the Scriptures you made these conclusions from? My King Jimmy Bible says over and over again: "The LORD said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites...." regarding all these commands. I don't understand. Did Moses lie when he wrote "The LORD God said....?"




And the Constitution has nothing to do with the Law of Moses although the country did begin with most following Judaic- Christian values. And MANY is far from ALL so wanna talk logical?

So where did the founders come up with these precepts? No guessing or assumptions are necessary. The answer is well documented in the federalist and anti-federalist papers. Check it out.

dagar
Feb 4th 2011, 03:27 AM
That was not my context. I wasn't referring to the forknowledge of God who knew my future from the foundation of the world. For us it is a mystery until God chooses to reveal it.

My reference was Paul's reference to the "mystery" of the salvation of the Gentiles. Chapter 11.I didn't ask what your 'context' was, and why would I? You asked if God had a plan B. There's only one possible 'context' here. God never has a plan B because of His foreknowledge.

Romans 11 doesn't have a mystery of the salvation of the Gentiles. The mystery is of the salvation of Israel.

ProjectPeter
Feb 4th 2011, 03:41 AM
MM, no. Those are seperate commands. "Love God, love the nieghbor" are not in the ten commandements.They were the commandments. ;) that was the same problem the Jews had... they couldn't see the forest for the tree.



And yet, they were God's will. I contend they still are.How does that mesh with love God and love neighbor? Doesn't. So I know you will contend they are... but those were in fact those useless precepts and ordinances that God knew they wouldn't nor could follow.




My friend,t hat isn't what the bible says.
Sure it is... I posted the Scripture in Deuteronomy that says exactly that. Did you miss that... I can post it again?



he brought them out of Egypt to give them the law.
Interesting... that's where in Scripture? What Scripture says is that He bought them out because He loved them and chose them to be a peculiar people etc. But to give them the Law? Why did God only give them the 10 and yet you contend it is the whole 613? Again Fenris... that passage is like MAJOR clear. He only gave them the ten and added no more.


No. It is only a part. You don't think it a most vital part? You are a strange and out of sort Jew if that's the case! :lol: I've never had a staunch believer not admit to the importance and how vital that is to the law before.


Shrug. We all see what we want, I guess.Read Deuteronomy closely... it's all in there. :)

ProjectPeter
Feb 4th 2011, 03:48 AM
The laws you are speaking of? What are those? The ones you don't like? I don't understand. Or do you mean by application? Sorry, now I am totally confused. According to who's wisdom are "the good ones" chosen? Moral laws are moral laws period. To argue their validity is silly. Has nothign to do with "like or not like". All of those laws are well understood if one understands the summation of love God with all your heart, soul and mind and your neighbor as yourself. Again... many of the Laws of Moses have absolutely nothing to do with either of those two "royal" decrees (if you will).




Moses had God's Holy Spirit to guide him. Let's not sell God short on His capabilities through ordinary (usually less than ordinary) men. By the way, where did you get the above summary from? Can you provide the Scriptures you made these conclusions from? My King Jimmy Bible says over and over again: "The LORD said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites...." regarding all these commands. I don't understand. Did Moses lie when he wrote "The LORD God said....?" The Lord said a lot of things to Moses. Even I'll show you my backside. So what? Ezekiel made it quite clear where the useless precepts and ordinances came from... Him. So I have no doubt God said it. ;) Still not God's Law. God gave them ten and did so personally to them and then wrote it on stone for them. He added no more. Your King Jimmy says that as well. You've got to contend with that.


So where did the founders come up with these precepts? No guessing or assumptions are necessary. The answer is well documented in the federalist and anti-federalist papers. Check it out.Apparently you aren't getting the point. So what? Who cares? Has nothing to do with the validity of anything... etc. etc. And notice... nothing in the constitution about eating pork, mixed clothing, sacrifice, or how to boil your kid goat, and a SLEW of things that are in fact in the Law of Moses. Your point is silly and in fact weakens your argument but I was trying to be nice. Clear enough now?

Fenris
Feb 4th 2011, 11:04 AM
They were the commandments.Then they wouldn't have been repeated later. But they were.

Judaism is a rules-based religion. Christianity is a principle-based religion. I can see the difference very starkly right here.


How does that mesh with love God and love neighbor? Doesn't. Of course they do. If I love someone, how do I show it? By doing the things they ask.


So I know you will contend they are... but those were in fact those useless precepts and ordinances that God knew they wouldn't nor could follow.
These are "useless"? These can't be followed?

9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest. 10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger:

14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but thou shalt fear thy God

5 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. 16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him. 18 Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. 34 35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. 36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. 37 The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. And ye shall observe all My statutes, and all Mine ordinances, and do them: I am the LORD.

These all seem very doable. And very useful.




Sure it is... I posted the Scripture in Deuteronomy that says exactly that. Did you miss that... I can post it again?
Please do.



Interesting... that's where in Scripture? What Scripture says is that He bought them out because He loved them and chose them to be a peculiar people etc. But to give them the Law? Why did God only give them the 10 and yet you contend it is the whole 613? Again Fenris... that passage is like MAJOR clear. He only gave them the ten and added no more. Again, that isn't what my translation says at all.

Until I got here I had never heard of anything like this. The law is arbitrary? made up by Moses? A Punishment? No wonder you don't make headway with religious Jews. The law is the ultimate grace; God told us what he expects from us.


You don't think it a most vital part? You are a strange and out of sort Jew if that's the case! :lol: I've never had a staunch believer not admit to the importance and how vital that is to the law before. So the sacrifices in Leviticus are super-important, but the rest of Leviticus is just filler made up by Moses? No, I don't buy that at all.


Read Deuteronomy closely... it's all in there. :)Shrug. We all see what we want, I guess.

ProjectPeter
Feb 4th 2011, 05:12 PM
Then they wouldn't have been repeated later. But they were.Okay... lost me here.



Judaism is a rules-based religion. Christianity is a principle-based religion. I can see the difference very starkly right here. Sure... I'd not argue that with clarification. There are rules... not a popular thought in Christian circles because most think that wrong but they're wrong. ;) Just not those 613.


Of course they do. If I love someone, how do I show it? By doing the things they ask.But you don't... you can't. Even today y'all can't. So what... no Jew loves God? All you have is that we do the best we can with what we have... yet even you guys can't follow your rules.




These are "useless"? These can't be followed?

9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest. 10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger:

14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but thou shalt fear thy God

5 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. 16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him. 18 Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. 34 35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. 36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. 37 The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. And ye shall observe all My statutes, and all Mine ordinances, and do them: I am the LORD.

These all seem very doable. And very useful. You're playing from the same rulebook that Keck is playing from. You know well the laws I am speaking of. You guys post the rules that fall well under common sense when speaking of loving God and loving neighbor and you say... see! Problem... you guys aren't grabbing the goofy rules and posting those and saying .. see! Because you know exactly the rules I am speaking of. :)




Please do.
Start where Moses is speaking on the ten commandments being given in Deut 5. Follow that all the way through to Deut. 9 so that you see that the whole time Moses was speaking of the Ten Commandments and not the stuff Moses penned throughout the 40 years in the wilderness.



Again, that isn't what my translation says at all.Test the Hebrew... the translation I posted is correct.



Until I got here I had never heard of anything like this. The law is arbitrary? made up by Moses? A Punishment? Whoa now... nowhere did I say it was just made up by Moses in a way as to make it seem that Moses was just a strange man that Jews followed etc. or that Moses just got a wild hair in his nether region and made up a bunch of laws!


No wonder you don't make headway with religious Jews. The law is the ultimate grace; God told us what he expects from us. And if you don't follow that Law to the letter... kill them. No grace there Fenris. One has to stretch really hard and far to call that grace. Reminds me of someone in a Calvinism discussion one time. I made the point that John Calvin could have stopped the killing of Servitus at any time but he didn't. The member then actually said this... Calvin showed grace to the man. I naturally asked how is letting someone get burned at the stake showing grace? The response... Calvin asked them to not burn him at the stake but to cut off his head instead... but they wouldn't do as he asked. Now stretched... that's grace I guess because it certainly would have been a quicker death. But truthfully... there was no grace in that at all.


So the sacrifices in Leviticus are super-important, but the rest of Leviticus is just filler made up by Moses? No, I don't buy that at all.Huh? You're really stretching again. No one said the other was filler. There are other aspects of teh Law that are very important. Not saying otherwise. What you are doing is dodging the importance of the sacrifice and there's reason I suspect for that. It's a MAJOR part of the Law that you guys can't do any more.



Shrug. We all see what we want, I guess.
Study it out and see... all I can ask or expect from anyone.

keck553
Feb 4th 2011, 06:23 PM
I Romans 11 doesn't have a mystery of the salvation of the Gentiles. The mystery is of the salvation of Israel.

That's never been a mystery to me. But I understand.

keck553
Feb 4th 2011, 07:00 PM
Moral laws are moral laws period. To argue their validity is silly. Has nothign to do with "like or not like". All of those laws are well understood if one understands the summation of love God with all your heart, soul and mind and your neighbor as yourself. Again... many of the Laws of Moses have absolutely nothing to do with either of those two "royal" decrees (if you will).

Hmmmm....who sets the moral standards? I opened the Gospel of Lujke. Jesus was invited by a Pharisee to dine with him, so Jesus ate at his table. There were other Pharisees and Teachers of the Law among them. Implicit to me in this story was some hostility and hidden agenda, which is a really bad thing to do in middle eastern culture at the table. Anyway, the first gripe comes when Jesus doesn't ritually cleanse His hands (man-made law). Jesus already knows this invite is a travesty so He's like...."you realize God made the inside of you as well as the outside of you, I suggest you attend to your inner parts as well.....you know wickedness, greed, rude disposition...etc., etc. Jesus seems to get even more fired up at these religious leaders...and I'm going to change to modern day venacular....."you know you all dress up for church and have that first row reserved for you, you've got the fine watch, the young big-hair bride, the flashy gold rings and you're oh so pious with the rehearsed statements of faith and your 'annointed' position above us farmer-boys, you squeeze contractors who build your church, pay minimum wage with no benefits to your staff, so that if one of your staff is in need, yet if one of them has a serious burden. you won't lift a finger to help them, unless of course there is some opportunty for self-edification. I tell you God doesn't give a rip about your pretty wife, your gold ring, your mega-church, your exact 10% tithe carefully and ritually deducted from your 1040 long form." You're unclean to your core, and your uncleanliness corrupts those who are trying to have a relationship with the God of the Word in your church. Sure, you an obey your tithe, tightly budget your outreach, take communion, give out cotton candy sermons during advent, these things you should do, but you've ignored the weighty matters - justice and love of God." Woe to you!

Come, Jesus' message is timeless. Not once did Jesus ridicule or condemn what the Pharisees tried to do in obedience to God. In all Gospels, Jesus said "these things you should have done without neglecting the others..." If God didn't condemn them for this then perhaps you shouldn't either.


The Lord said a lot of things to Moses. Even I'll show you my backside. So what? Ezekiel made it quite clear where the useless precepts and ordinances came from... Him. So I have no doubt God said it. ;) Still not God's Law. God gave them ten and did so personally to them and then wrote it on stone for them. He added no more. Your King Jimmy says that as well. You've got to contend with that.

Apparently you aren't getting the point. So what? Who cares? Has nothing to do with the validity of anything... etc. etc. And notice... nothing in the constitution about eating pork, mixed clothing, sacrifice, or how to boil your kid goat, and a SLEW of things that are in fact in the Law of Moses. Your point is silly and in fact weakens your argument but I was trying to be nice. Clear enough now?

I'm sorry, my relationship with the Father does not lead me to debase His Word. Perhaps you see foolishness in your above contentions, but I see justice, grace and mercy in application. So be it.

ProjectPeter
Feb 4th 2011, 08:06 PM
Hmmmm....who sets the moral standards? I opened the Gospel of Lujke. Jesus was invited by a Pharisee to dine with him, so Jesus ate at his table. There were other Pharisees and Teachers of the Law among them. Implicit to me in this story was some hostility and hidden agenda, which is a really bad thing to do in middle eastern culture at the table. Anyway, the first gripe comes when Jesus doesn't ritually cleanse His hands (man-made law). Jesus already knows this invite is a travesty so He's like...."you realize God made the inside of you as well as the outside of you, I suggest you attend to your inner parts as well.....you know wickedness, greed, rude disposition...etc., etc. Jesus seems to get even more fired up at these religious leaders...and I'm going to change to modern day venacular....."you know you all dress up for church and have that first row reserved for you, you've got the fine watch, the young big-hair bride, the flashy gold rings and you're oh so pious with the rehearsed statements of faith and your 'annointed' position above us farmer-boys, you squeeze contractors who build your church, pay minimum wage with no benefits to your staff, so that if one of your staff is in need, yet if one of them has a serious burden. you won't lift a finger to help them, unless of course there is some opportunty for self-edification. I tell you God doesn't give a rip about your pretty wife, your gold ring, your mega-church, your exact 10% tithe carefully and ritually deducted from your 1040 long form." You're unclean to your core, and your uncleanliness corrupts those who are trying to have a relationship with the God of the Word in your church. Sure, you an obey your tithe, tightly budget your outreach, take communion, give out cotton candy sermons during advent, these things you should do, but you've ignored the weighty matters - justice and love of God." Woe to you!

Come, Jesus' message is timeless. Not once did Jesus ridicule or condemn what the Pharisees tried to do in obedience to God. In all Gospels, Jesus said "these things you should have done without neglecting the others..." If God didn't condemn them for this then perhaps you shouldn't either.

Sure He did.

Matthew 15:2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."
3 And He answered and said to them, "And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 "For God said, `HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,´ and, `HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, LET HIM BE PUT TO DEATH.´
5 "But you say, `Whoever shall say to his father or mother, "Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God,"
6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.´ And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7 "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
8 `THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
9 `BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.´"





I'm sorry, my relationship with the Father does not lead me to debase His Word. Perhaps you see foolishness in your above contentions, but I see justice, grace and mercy in application. So be it.Debase His Word? You have to contend with Ezekiel 20. God said it... not me. Let me post it again for you.

Ezekiel 20:19 `I am the LORD your God; walk in My statutes, and keep My ordinances, and observe them.
20 `And sanctify My sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the LORD your God.´
21 "But the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, nor were they careful to observe My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live; they profaned My sabbaths. So I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the wilderness.
22 "But I withdrew My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out.
23 "Also I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands,
24 because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes, and had profaned My sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers.
25 "And I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live;

keck553
Feb 4th 2011, 08:17 PM
Sure He did.

Matthew 15:2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."
3 And He answered and said to them, "And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 "For God said, `HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,´ and, `HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, LET HIM BE PUT TO DEATH.´
5 "But you say, `Whoever shall say to his father or mother, "Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God,"
6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.´ And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7 "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
8 `THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
9 `BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.´"

This doesn't make your point. Nowhere does it say not to do these things. Read Psalm 51. David does something at the end ourwardly. But not before he asks God to do something inwardly in him. "Then my sacrifice will he worthy." You don't see it?



Debase His Word? You have to contend with Ezekiel 20. God said it... not me. Let me post it again for you.

Ezekiel 20:19 `I am the LORD your God; walk in My statutes, and keep My ordinances, and observe them.
20 `And sanctify My sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the LORD your God.´
21 "But the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, nor were they careful to observe My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live; they profaned My sabbaths. So I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the wilderness.
22 "But I withdrew My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out.
23 "Also I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands,
24 because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes, and had profaned My sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers.
25 "And I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live;


These passages do not tell me what you are saying. I think we're having a hermeneutics quagmire.

Consider. Earlier Ezekiel had just been complaining that the Israelites have not kept the statutes and laws. Now he says, apparently, that the statutes and laws were not good. In that case, why complain that the Israelites did not keep them? Or were there two sets of laws, one good, which the Israelites did not keep, and the other bad, given to them as a punishment for not keeping the first set? Where in the Bible is there any evidence for two such sets of laws?

Did you know the Nazi's used this very same verse to justify their attempted erradication of all Jews?

dagar
Feb 4th 2011, 08:52 PM
That's never been a mystery to me. But I understand.Do you? It's never been a mystery to you because you have the benefit of it already being revealed. Mystery in Romans 11:25 "is not something incomprehensible, but “something before kept secret, either wholly or for the most part, and now only fully disclosed”" -JFB. What was revealed is "that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Luk 21:24). What was happening certainly was a 'mystery' but it wasn't plan B.

keck553
Feb 4th 2011, 08:54 PM
Do you? It's never been a mystery to you because you have the benefit of it already being revealed. Mystery in Romans 11:25 "is not something incomprehensible, but “something before kept secret, either wholly or for the most part, and now only fully disclosed”" -JFB. What was revealed is "that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in". What was happening certainly was a 'mystery' but it wasn't plan B.

Yeah, you're correct. I think we agree, but for some reason our paths are crossing?
Now I can't even remember what my thoughts were regarding the "plan B question...."

ProjectPeter
Feb 4th 2011, 09:20 PM
This doesn't make your point. Nowhere does it say not to do these things. Read Psalm 51. David does something at the end ourwardly. But not before he asks God to do something inwardly in him. "Then my sacrifice will he worthy." You don't see it?Uh... that ain't talking about David nor Psalm 51. ;)








[quote]These passages do not tell me what you are saying. I think we're having a hermeneutics quagmire.

Consider. Earlier Ezekiel had just been complaining that the Israelites have not kept the statutes and laws.Hate to break it to you but it ain't Ezekiel going on about it.

Ezekiel 20:2 *And the word of the LORD came to me saying,
3 *"Son of man, speak to the elders of Israel, and say to them, `Thus says the Lord GOD, "Do you come to inquire of Me? As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "I will not be inquired of by you."´

God's the one doing that. Perhaps the hermeneutic issue is on your end? ;)



Now he says, apparently, that the statutes and laws were not good. In that case, why complain that the Israelites did not keep them? Or were there two sets of laws, one good, which the Israelites did not keep, and the other bad, given to them as a punishment for not keeping the first set? Where in the Bible is there any evidence for two such sets of laws?I've always been amazed to see the hoops folks are willing to jump through to make this say something other than what it is actually saying. Case in point here as well as it is definite... your hermie's are way off. :)




Did you know the Nazi's used this verse in a simular hermenutic to justify their attempted erradication of all Jews?Uh... you just made that up. That isn't at all the passages that they used and you just left a great example of very pathetic debate tactics because you can't properly explain it away therefore imply that my belief is akin to Nazi belief. Frankly.... it's pitiful and you should be ashamed that you are trying to pull that junk.

keck553
Feb 4th 2011, 10:46 PM
It's not a debate tactic as much as something I learned at a very early age about taking great care with God's Word. I just wanted to pass it along. My mother and 2 uncles grew up under that regime, and I happen to also have a sweet elderly friend (a believer) with some numbers tatooed on her arm. It was they that told me of this. It is not made up, nor meant in any way to associate your point of view with that evil. It teaches me that sometimes (actually often) it is profitable to stop, clear my mind of the disallusions of man-made docttrines (yep, I have a few of those still to shed) and consider what God is trying to tell me. I'll admit it, because I don't know everything, not even a fraction of it.

You've got one verse in 66 books as your proof text for an entire doctrine, and frankly your interpretation is questionable among many, many Bible scholars and Bble expositors. I'm sorry, but basing an entire doctrine on just one verse is just not a good foundation for sound doctrine, in my humble opinion.

I think we've (at least I have) gone into the arena of unfruitful debates that Paul warns against in Titus (I think it's Titus), so I need to stop.

May the peace and grace of Christ be with you

ProjectPeter
Feb 4th 2011, 11:40 PM
It's not a debate tactic as much as something I learned at a very early age about taking great care with God's Word. I just wanted to pass it along. My mother and 2 uncles grew up under that regime, and I happen to also have a sweet elderly friend (a believer) with some numbers tatooed on her arm. It was they that told me of this. It is not made up, nor meant in any way to associate your point of view with that evil. It teaches me that sometimes (actually often) it is profitable to stop, clear my mind of the disallusions of man-made docttrines (yep, I have a few of those still to shed) and consider what God is trying to tell me. I'll admit it, because I don't know everything, not even a fraction of it.

You've got one verse in 66 books as your proof text for an entire doctrine, and frankly your interpretation is questionable among many, many Bible scholars and Bble expositors. I'm sorry, but basing an entire doctrine on just one verse is just not a good foundation for sound doctrine, in my humble opinion.

I think we've (at least I have) gone into the arena of unfruitful debates that Paul warns against in Titus (I think it's Titus), so I need to stop.

May the peace and grace of Christ be with you

Your friend is the only one that I have ever heard mention that verse in regard to Hitler and frankly that part of history is where I flourished because I found it most fascinating because of the time. Many of Luther's writings were used and that was mostly what he based his junk on over there... not Scripture. Certainly not Ezekiel because Luther was not a fan of using much of the Old Testament at all and he despised the Jews. And as well you dang well know I am not espousing anything close to Nazism so yes... it was a very bad attempt at painting me in that light. That is a poor tactic.

You may certainly stop at any time but be truthful. I have used throughout this discussion more than one passage of Scripture to base all this on. Again, you're painting a picture that doesn't exist and trying to put this in that sort of negative light. It isn't honest and while you may not agree, I could care less on that front, at least be honest in that disagreement.

Fenris
Feb 7th 2011, 03:00 PM
Okay... lost me here.If the Ten Commandments are really all about "love your neighbor, love God", why does the bible specifically repeat them later, as though they hadn't been said? Obviously because they hadn't.



But you don't... you can't. Even today y'all can't.Why not? Because "The law is impossible to keep"?



You're playing from the same rulebook that Keck is playing from. You know well the laws I am speaking of. You guys post the rules that fall well under common sense when speaking of loving God and loving neighbor and you say... see! Problem... you guys aren't grabbing the goofy rules and posting those and saying .. see! Because you know exactly the rules I am speaking of. :)Common sense is not so common. Which is exactly why God spells out exactly what He wants us to do.

During the inquisition, people were tortured, many to death, into accepting the RCC's version of Christianity. The mindset was "If I torture them and get them to believe the right thing, I am saving their soul for all eternity". It was love that made them hurt people, you see. Common sense?

Also, I'd like to know what rules you consider "goofy". God gave them all, and nearly all can be understood.



Start where Moses is speaking on the ten commandments being given in Deut 5. Follow that all the way through to Deut. 9 so that you see that the whole time Moses was speaking of the Ten Commandments and not the stuff Moses penned throughout the 40 years in the wilderness.
You may believe that it's only referring to the Ten, but the text specifies that nowhere. Even worse, it introduces new commands aside from the Ten: Deuteronomy 6:6 6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; 7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. 9 And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.

Teach them to your kids: a new command.
Say them at home, while on the road, morning and night: a new command.
Bind them on your hand/frontlets between your eyes (Phylacteries) a new command.
Write them on your doorposts: a new command.




Test the Hebrew... the translation I posted is correct.I can read Hebrew fine. :)


Whoa now... nowhere did I say it was just made up by Moses in a way as to make it seem that Moses was just a strange man that Jews followed etc. or that Moses just got a wild hair in his nether region and made up a bunch of laws! Then what are you saying?


And if you don't follow that Law to the letter... kill them.Says who?



No grace there Fenris. One has to stretch really hard and far to call that grace. If you understood Judaism better you would see that we do believe in God's forgiveness. So much so, in fact, that we see Jesus's sacrifice as unnecessary.




Huh? You're really stretching again. No one said the other was filler. There are other aspects of teh Law that are very important. Not saying otherwise. What you are doing is dodging the importance of the sacrifice and there's reason I suspect for that. It's a MAJOR part of the Law that you guys can't do any more. You may see it as "major" but Jews do not. It simply does not apply today. As indeed, it did not apply from 586BC to 516BC. And somehow, God was still able to forgive the Jews and bring them back from exile.



Study it out and see... all I can ask or expect from anyone.And I say the same to you.

ProjectPeter
Feb 7th 2011, 04:57 PM
If the Ten Commandments are really all about "love your neighbor, love God", why does the bible specifically repeat them later, as though they hadn't been said? Obviously because they hadn't. That still makes no sense... Repeat what later? The Ten or the "love your neighbor as youself and love God?" Not sure how you don't see those two commands as a great summation of the Ten if that is what the problem is.



Why not? Because "The law is impossible to keep"? Sure it is... when's the last time you sacrificed a bull? ;)


Common sense is not so common. Which is exactly why God spells out exactly what He wants us to do.He shouldn't have had to... tis why He gave the Ten. ;)




During the inquisition, people were tortured, many to death, into accepting the RCC's version of Christianity. The mindset was "If I torture them and get them to believe the right thing, I am saving their soul for all eternity". It was love that made them hurt people, you see. Common sense?That wasn't common sense Fenris... as well as so far from anything Christ taught that it's insane sense.


Also, I'd like to know what rules you consider "goofy". God gave them all, and nearly all can be understood. Understood isn't the issue. I agree they can be understood. They were however useless.

I posted about half a dozen or more earlier and you responded to the post so I figure you know already what I am speaking of.


You may believe that it's only referring to the Ten, but the text specifies that nowhere. Even worse, it introduces new commands aside from the Ten: Deuteronomy 6:6 6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; 7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. 9 And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.

Teach them to your kids: a new command.
Say them at home, while on the road, morning and night: a new command.
Bind them on your hand/frontlets between your eyes (Phylacteries) a new command.
Write them on your doorposts: a new command.
Uh... what is it telling them to teach? To say? To bind? To write on the doorsteps?

Deuteronomy 5:1 *Then Moses summoned all Israel, and said to them, "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully.
2 *"The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.
3 *"The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today.
4 *"The LORD spoke to you face to face at the mountain from the midst of the fire,
5 *while I was standing between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain. He said,
6 *¶`I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
7 *¶`You shall have no other gods before Me.
8 *¶`You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
9 *`You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
10 *but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
11 *¶`You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
12 *¶`Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you.
13 *`Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
14 *but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
15 *`And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.
16 *¶`Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, that your days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with you on the land which the LORD your God gives you.
17 *¶`You shall not murder.
18 *¶`You shall not commit adultery.
19 *¶`You shall not steal.
20 *¶`You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
21 *¶`You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field or his male servant or his female servant, his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.´
22 *¶"These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain from the midst of the fire, of the cloud and of the thick gloom, with a great voice, and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.

Deuteronomy 5:32 *"So you shall observe to do just as the LORD your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right or to the left.
33 *"You shall walk in all the way which the LORD your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which you shall possess.


Deuteronomy 6:1 *"Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the LORD your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it,
2 *so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the LORD your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments, which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged.
3 *"O Israel, you should listen and be careful to do it, that it may be well with you and that you may multiply greatly, just as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey.
4 *¶"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!
5 *"And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
6 *"And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart;
7 *and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.
8 *"And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead.
9 *"And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

Deuteronomy 6:23 *and He brought us out from there in order to bring us in, to give us the land which He had sworn to our fathers.´
24 *"So the LORD commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God for our good always and for our survival, as it is today.
25 *"And it will be righteousness for us if we are careful to observe all this commandment before the LORD our God, just as He commanded us.


Deuteronomy 8:1 *"All the commandments that I am commanding you today you shall be careful to do, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to give to your forefathers.
2 *"And you shall remember all the way which the LORD your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.
3 *"And He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.
4 *"Your clothing did not wear out on you, nor did your foot swell these forty years.
5 *"Thus you are to know in your heart that the LORD your God was disciplining you just as a man disciplines his son.
6 *"Therefore, you shall keep the commandments of the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to fear Him.

Deuteronomy 9:9 *"When I went up to the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD had made with you, then I remained on the mountain forty days and nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water.
10 *"And the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone written by the finger of God; and on them were all the words which the LORD had spoken with you at the mountain from the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly.
11 *"And it came about at the end of forty days and nights that the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.


Follow it Fenris... those entire chapters are speaking of the Ten Commandments. The children of Israel didn't even have the written law of Moses yet. Up to this point they were pretty much doing simply what was right in their own eyes.





I can read Hebrew fine. :)

Then what are you saying?I am saying what Ezekiel said. God gave them useless precepts and ordinances that they couldn't follow. ;)


Says who?Oh come now! The Law. According to the Law, David only had one option for the sins he committed. He should have been put to death. According to the Law there is no option of mercy. Life for life.


If you understood Judaism better you would see that we do believe in God's forgiveness. So much so, in fact, that we see Jesus's sacrifice as unnecessary. okay... might be a mindset now considering they've been so long without blood sacrifice and thus have to reason that out... but I think you'd have a very hard case to make if you're trying to show that in the Scripture.


You may see it as "major" but Jews do not. It simply does not apply today. As indeed, it did not apply from 586BC to 516BC. And somehow, God was still able to forgive the Jews and bring them back from exile.
Again... if that was the case then biblically you're going to have a tough time proving that. If what you say is true then they sure did a funny thing when they did get set loose to go back and build the temple.


And I say the same to you.I always do man... always. :)

Fenris
Feb 7th 2011, 05:20 PM
That still makes no sense... Repeat what later? The Ten or the "love your neighbor as youself and love God?" Not sure how you don't see those two commands as a great summation of the Ten if that is what the problem is.
How are they a "summation" of the ten?



Sure it is... when's the last time you sacrificed a bull? ;)I also haven't left the corners of my field ungathered. Because I'm not a farmer.

One is only obliged to follow the laws that apply at that time. No altar, no sacrifice. Doesn't make me bad.


He shouldn't have had to... tis why He gave the Ten. ;)or the 613.


That wasn't common sense Fenris... as well as so far from anything Christ taught that it's insane sense. It was common sense at the time.


Understood isn't the issue. I agree they can be understood. They were however useless. I don't believe that God gave any rules that are useless. There isn't an extra single letter in the bible; let alone one of God's laws.




Follow it Fenris... those entire chapters are speaking of the Ten Commandments. The children of Israel didn't even have the written law of Moses yet. Up to this point they were pretty much doing simply what was right in their own eyes.OK, so it's your contention that God gave the Ten (to be followed) then He gave many "useless" laws, followed by the Ten (again, to be followed) interspersed with more "useless" laws? Againm the bible makes no clear delineation as to which are "good" and which are "useless". It's you that makes the point. Thus far unproven, in my mind.


I am saying what Ezekiel said. God gave them useless precepts and ordinances that they couldn't follow. ;)Ezekiel didn't say they couldn't be followed. he said they didn't "give life". Which is true, Babylonian and Roman laws don't give life; only God's laws do that.


Oh come now! The Law. According to the Law, David only had one option for the sins he committed. He should have been put to death. According to the Law there is no option of mercy. Life for life. David is probably a bad example...he was, after all, the King David, author of Psalms and first king of the Davidic line.

According to the law, one can only be convicted of a capital offense if the crime is witnessed by two (or more); the oral law adds the further obligation of a spoken warning.

The rabbis of the Talmud (and today for that matter) make every effort to be lenient in the application of the law, as much as can be done. We do not see it the way Christians do at all.


okay... might be a mindset now considering they've been so long without blood sacrifice and thus have to reason that out... but I think you'd have a very hard case to make if you're trying to show that in the Scripture.I can find plenty of scripture that says God will accept other things besides sacrifice.

ProjectPeter
Feb 7th 2011, 09:17 PM
How are they a "summation" of the ten? First five... love God with all your heart, soul and mind... Last five... your neighbor.


I also haven't left the corners of my field ungathered. Because I'm not a farmer. Legalistically you are absolutely correct. But seriously... looking beyond the "I am not a farmer" can you not see how even that has application to you and loving your neighbor? Like I said... it isn't that the Law is bad. It isn't. It was set apart for God thus holy. It is what made Israel that special people. Many of the Laws are much like the proverbs... they are full of wisdom. There are some though... mixed material, boiling the kid in the mothers milk... etc (posted a bunch of them) that really are simply useless in that regard.


One is only obliged to follow the laws that apply at that time. No altar, no sacrifice. Doesn't make me bad.The Law doesn't say that Fenris... there lies your problem. You guys speak of them being eternal... Laws to follow from now to the end.

And by the way... I didn't say that the sacrificial laws were bad. I said they weren't required nor did God even desire sacrifice. ;)


or the 613.No... many of those came about because God was ticked off at the children of Israel. :)


It was common sense at the time. No it wasn't... it was unbiblical in every way for anyone claiming the name of Christ. In every way.


I don't believe that God gave any rules that are useless. There isn't an extra single letter in the bible; let alone one of God's laws. Again... I can only tell you what God said through the Prophet Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc.


OK, so it's your contention that God gave the Ten (to be followed) then He gave many "useless" laws, followed by the Ten (again, to be followed) interspersed with more "useless" laws? Againm the bible makes no clear delineation as to which are "good" and which are "useless". It's you that makes the point. Thus far unproven, in my mind.Huh? The fact that Moses included the Ten in the Law of Moses for the children of Israel to follow is simply a no-brainer. He did the same with circumcision which was given to the ForeFather Abraham... again another no-brainer.

The useless precepts and ordinances are the ones that have nothing to do with loving God with all your heart, soul and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself.


Ezekiel didn't say they couldn't be followed. he said they didn't "give life". Which is true, Babylonian and Roman laws don't give life; only God's laws do that.Well if God's laws give life (I've no problem with that terminology so we don't get lost in the usage of a word) and God gave them Laws which don't give life... God is not speaking of the Ten... that was made clear in the early part of the chapter... what Law is left. Don't boil a kid in it's mothers milk etc. ;)


David is probably a bad example...he was, after all, the King David, author of Psalms and first king of the Davidic line.Uh... a perfect example actually.


According to the law, one can only be convicted of a capital offense if the crime is witnessed by two (or more); the oral law adds the further obligation of a spoken warning. A warning "now don't kill Uriah?" Come on now... that's just the problem the Jews had back then and why God jacked them up so many times! There were two witnesses. Joab and Nathan... not to mention the ultimate witness being God who gave word through the prophet of that time. That was enough. Had it not been David, the person would be put to death having to pay for such a serious offense. David would have led the charge in that. Read the parable Nathan gave him. ;)



The rabbis of the Talmud (and today for that matter) make every effort to be lenient in the application of the law, as much as can be done. We do not see it the way Christians do at all.Sure you don't see it the same way... if you did you'd be a Christian. :) As to how they practice it today... sure. If they go to stoning the offenders and putting them to death... National laws frown on that. It's a different time thus they practice it differently. Biblically though Fenris... they were very stern as Scripture shows.


I can find plenty of scripture that says God will accept other things besides sacrifice.But what was required for atonement of sin Fenris?

Fenris
Feb 7th 2011, 09:32 PM
First five... love God with all your heart, soul and mind... Last five... your neighbor. I don't see it. Sabbath observance = "love of God"?


Legalistically you are absolutely correct. But seriously... looking beyond the "I am not a farmer" can you not see how even that has application to you and loving your neighbor? Like I said... it isn't that the Law is bad. It isn't. It was set apart for God thus holy. It is what made Israel that special people. Many of the Laws are much like the proverbs... they are full of wisdom. There are some though... mixed material, boiling the kid in the mothers milk... etc (posted a bunch of them) that really are simply useless in that regard. You're meandering. My point is, we don't bring sacrifice because there is no temple, just as I don't leave my field ungathered because I am no farmer.


The Law doesn't say that Fenris... there lies your problem. It's common sense. I'm allowed to use it too, you know ;)


You guys speak of them being eternal...It's not "us guys". the bible says they are eternal.


And by the way... I didn't say that the sacrificial laws were bad. I said they weren't required nor did God even desire sacrifice. Except Jesus I suppose?


No... many of those came about because God was ticked off at the children of Israel. :)A point you still haven't proved.


No it wasn't... it was unbiblical in every way for anyone claiming the name of Christ. In every way.It was considered "common sense" at the time. That society has changed is why it doesn't make sense to us.


Again... I can only tell you what God said through the Prophet Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc.Every verse you've provided was not understood by Jews the way you see it.


Huh? The fact that Moses included the Ten in the Law of Moses for the children of Israel to follow is simply a no-brainer. He did the same with circumcision which was given to the ForeFather Abraham... again another no-brainer.

The useless precepts and ordinances are the ones that have nothing to do with loving God with all your heart, soul and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself. You've concluded that. It doesn't follow that it logically must be understood like that.


Well if God's laws give life (I've no problem with that terminology so we don't get lost in the usage of a word) and God gave them Laws which don't give life... God is not speaking of the Ten... that was made clear in the early part of the chapter... what Law is left. Don't boil a kid in it's mothers milk etc. ;)Or it was laws imposed on the Jews by their captors. That makes sense.


Uh... a perfect example actually. Shrug. I disagree.


A warning "now don't kill Uriah?" Come on now... that's just the problem the Jews had back then and why God jacked them up so many times! There were two witnesses. Joab and Nathan... not to mention the ultimate witness being God who gave word through the prophet of that time. That was enough. Had it not been David, the person would be put to death having to pay for such a serious offense. Not according to Jewish law.


Sure you don't see it the same way... if you did you'd be a Christian. :) As to how they practice it today... sure. If they go to stoning the offenders and putting them to death... National laws frown on that. It's a different time thus they practice it differently. Biblically though Fenris... they were very stern as Scripture shows.Shrug. Again, that is not how they were applied.


But what was required for atonement of sin Fenris?According to the bible? Lots of things.


I understand that only one of us can be right. But you read the bible as though there is no other way for the verses to be understood. As though logic can only lead to your belief system. This is not so.