PDA

View Full Version : "The spirit of the law" vs "the letter of the law"



Fenris
Feb 14th 2011, 02:46 PM
My rabbi gave a sermon this Saturday which referenced 1 Samuel 15.


1. And Samuel said to Saul, "The Lord sent me to anoint you to be king over His people, over Israel; and now hearken to the voice of the words of the Lord. 2. So said the Lord of Hosts, 'I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid (wait) for him on the way, when he came up out of Egypt.
3. Now, go, and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him: and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.' " .
4. And Saul called the people together, and he counted them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand, the men of Judah. .
5. And Saul came as far as the city of Amalek, and he fought in the valley. .
6. And Saul said to the Kenite, "Turn away and go down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them, and you did kindness with all the children of Israel, when they went up out of Egypt." And the Kenites turned away from amidst Amalek. .
7. And Saul smote Amalek, from Havilah until you come to Shur, which is in front of Egypt.
8. And he seized Agag, the king of Amalek, alive; and he completely destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. .
9. And Saul and the people had pity on Agag, and on the best of the sheep and the cattle, and the fatlings, and on the fattened sheep, and on all that was good; and they did not want to destroy them; but everything which was vile and feeble, that they utterly destroyed. .
10. And the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying,
11. "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me, and he has not fulfilled My words." And it distressed Samuel, and he cried out to the Lord all night.
12. And Samuel arose early in the morning to meet Saul; and it was told to Samuel, saying, "Saul has come to Carmel, and behold, he is setting up a place for himself, and he passed and went down to Gilgal."
13. And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, "May you be blessed of the Lord; I have fulfilled the word of the Lord."
14. And Samuel said, "What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears? And the lowing of the oxen which I hear?"
15. And Saul said, "They brought them from the Amalekites, for the people had pity on the best of the sheep, and the oxen, in order to sacrifice to the Lord your God: and the rest we have utterly destroyed." .
16. And Samuel said to Saul, "Desist, and I shall tell you what the Lord spoke to me last night." And he said to him, "Speak." .
17. And Samuel said, "Even if you are small in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? And the Lord anointed you as king over Israel. .
18. And the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, 'Go, and you shall utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and you shall wage war against them until they destroy them.'
19. Now, why did you not hearken to the voice of the Lord, but you flew upon the spoil, and you did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord?" .
20. And Saul said to Samuel, "Yes, I did hearken to the voice of the Lord. I did go on the mission on which the Lord sent me, and I brought Agag, the king of Amalek alive, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. .
21. And the people took from the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the ban, to sacrifice to your God in Gilgal." .
22. And Samuel said, "Has the Lord (as much) desire in burnt offerings and peace-offerings, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than a peace-offering; to hearken (is better) than the fat of rams.
23. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. Since you rejected the word of the Lord, He has rejected you from being a king."
24. And Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned, for I transgressed the Lord's command, and your words, for I feared the people, and I hearkened to their voice.
25. And now, forgive now my sin, and return with me, and I shall prostrate myself to the Lord." .
26. And Samuel said to Saul, "I shall not return with you, for you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being a king over Israel." .
27. And Samuel turned to go, and he seized the skirt of his robe, and it tore.
28. And Samuel said to him, "The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you, today; and has given it to your fellow who is better than you. .
29. And also, the Strength of Israel will neither lie nor repent, for He is not a man to repent." .
30. And he said, "I have sinned. Now, honor me now in the presence of the elders of my people, and in the presence of Israel, and return with me, and I shall prostrate myself to the Lord your God." .
31. And Samuel returned after Saul, and Saul prostrated himself to the Lord. .
32. And Samuel said, "Bring Agag, the king of Amalek, near to me." And Agag went to him delicately. And Agag said, "Surely, the bitterness of death has turned." .
33. And Samuel said, "As your sword bereaved women, so will your mother be bereaved among women." And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.
34. And Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house in Gibeah of Saul. .
35. And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death, for Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord was repentant that He had made Saul reign over Israel.

The point of the sermon was to stop trying to second-guess what God wants. He already told us what He wants, and that's what we should do. Saul tried to reason that "Since God likes sacrifice, I will spare the animals so that I can sacrifice them". But that isn't what God asked for. And I see the same thing with the whole "spirit of the law" vs "the letter of the law" debate. There's nothing wrong with the spirit of the law- but follow the letter of the law too.

Doubtless few if any here will agree. Still, I felt like sharing it.

Servant89
Feb 14th 2011, 02:59 PM
My rabbi gave a sermon this Saturday which referenced 1 Samuel 15.



The point of the sermon was to stop trying to second-guess what God wants. He already told us what He wants, and that's what we should do. Saul tried to reason that "Since God likes sacrifice, I will spare the animals so that I can sacrifice them". But that isn't what God asked for. And I see the same thing with the whole "spirit of the law" vs "the letter of the law" debate. There's nothing wrong with the spirit of the law- but follow the letter of the law too.

Doubtless few if any here will agree. Still, I felt like sharing it.

There is nothing wrong with the spirit of the law and we should follow the letter of the law as a guideline, yes. But sometimes to fulfill the spirit of the law, people have to break the letter of the law.

Shalom

markedward
Feb 14th 2011, 03:04 PM
The point of the sermon was to stop trying to second-guess what God wants. He already told us what He wants, and that's what we should do. Saul tried to reason that "Since God likes sacrifice, I will spare the animals so that I can sacrifice them". But that isn't what God asked for. And I see the same thing with the whole "spirit of the law" vs "the letter of the law" debate. There's nothing wrong with the spirit of the law- but follow the letter of the law too.

Doubtless few if any here will agree. Still, I felt like sharing it.I agree with you. It's a good point to make. I would say, one should follow the letter of the law through their following the spirit of the law... because if you disregard the law itself, how can you follow the spirit of it?

Fenris
Feb 14th 2011, 04:14 PM
But sometimes to fulfill the spirit of the law, people have to break the letter of the law.

How and when? In this example, that's what king Saul did, how did that work out for him?

Fenris
Feb 14th 2011, 04:15 PM
I agree with you. It's a good point to make. I would say, one should follow the letter of the law through their following the spirit of the law... because if you disregard the law itself, how can you follow the spirit of it?

An excellent way to put it.

Firstfruits
Feb 14th 2011, 04:26 PM
What does it mean to follow the spirit with regards to these scriptures?

Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Firstfruits

tango
Feb 14th 2011, 04:30 PM
My rabbi gave a sermon this Saturday which referenced 1 Samuel 15.

The point of the sermon was to stop trying to second-guess what God wants. He already told us what He wants, and that's what we should do. Saul tried to reason that "Since God likes sacrifice, I will spare the animals so that I can sacrifice them". But that isn't what God asked for. And I see the same thing with the whole "spirit of the law" vs "the letter of the law" debate. There's nothing wrong with the spirit of the law- but follow the letter of the law too.

Doubtless few if any here will agree. Still, I felt like sharing it.


I think the concept of "the letter of the law" and "the spirit of the law" is to look at what the law was intended. When Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around the idea was that man needs a day off. But if you are a shepherd and your sheep falls into a pit, you get the sheep out even though technically that is working on the Sabbath.

There's a huge difference between someone who works seven days a week to earn extra money, someone who works seven days a week because their boss demands it, and someone who spends a short time working on the Sabbath to deal with an emergency, then rests once the emergency has passed.

If we know what the law was intended to accomplish we can act as it was intended to instruct us. If all we know is "Thou shalt not..." then all we can do is slavishly follow. When Jesus summed up the Law with "love God, love each other" he made it very clear what the law was intended to accomplish.

Fenris
Feb 14th 2011, 04:56 PM
I think the concept of "the letter of the law" and "the spirit of the law" is to look at what the law was intended.
How do we know what the law intended? Saul tried to presume God's motives and lost the kingship.



When Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around the idea was that man needs a day off. But if you are a shepherd and your sheep falls into a pit, you get the sheep out even though technically that is working on the Sabbath. And rationale is...what?


There's a huge difference between someone who works seven days a week to earn extra money, someone who works seven days a week because their boss demands it
What is the difference? Does the bible say "don't work on saturday unless...."


and someone who spends a short time working on the Sabbath to deal with an emergency, then rests once the emergency has passed.But what if an emergency is not a violation of the sabbath?


If we know what the law was intended to accomplish we can act as it was intended to instruct us. If all we know is "Thou shalt not..." then all we can do is slavishly follow.If it's following God's word, what is the problem?


When Jesus summed up the Law with "love God, love each other" he made it very clear what the law was intended to accomplish.Right. But how does one express that love? Perhaps, by following the law?

WSGAC
Feb 14th 2011, 05:01 PM
If your ox falls into a ditch on the sabbath, will you leave it in the ditch until after the sabbath?

LookingUp
Feb 14th 2011, 05:24 PM
My rabbi gave a sermon this Saturday which referenced 1 Samuel 15.



The point of the sermon was to stop trying to second-guess what God wants. He already told us what He wants, and that's what we should do. Saul tried to reason that "Since God likes sacrifice, I will spare the animals so that I can sacrifice them". But that isn't what God asked for. And I see the same thing with the whole "spirit of the law" vs "the letter of the law" debate. There's nothing wrong with the spirit of the law- but follow the letter of the law too.

Doubtless few if any here will agree. Still, I felt like sharing it.Sounds like Jesus agreed with you. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

Fenris
Feb 14th 2011, 05:24 PM
If your ox falls into a ditch on the sabbath, will you leave it in the ditch until after the sabbath?
Yup....................

Fenris
Feb 14th 2011, 05:25 PM
Sounds like Jesus agreed with you. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
So Jesus was all for observance of the law...

LookingUp
Feb 14th 2011, 05:27 PM
So Jesus was all for observance of the law...Yes, according to Scripture.

WSGAC
Feb 14th 2011, 05:37 PM
If your ox falls into a ditch on the sabbath, will you leave it in the ditch until after the sabbath?


Yup....................

If your child fell into a ditch on the sabbath, would you leave him/her in the ditch until after the sabbath?

notuptome
Feb 14th 2011, 06:00 PM
It was permissable to do good on a sabbath day. If your ox fell into a ditch you could show mercy to the animal and extract it from the ditch. David gleaned grain on the sabbath day as did Jesus and His disciples. How foolish to think that it is a transgression to save a life on the sabbath. The height of hypocrasy.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Feb 14th 2011, 06:02 PM
If your child fell into a ditch on the sabbath, would you leave him/her in the ditch until after the sabbath?

Nope. When human life is at stake, one is obligated to save them. It is not a violation of the sabbath laws.

Fenris
Feb 14th 2011, 06:03 PM
How foolish to think that it is a transgression to save a life on the sabbath. The height of hypocrasy.

No one argued that it is forbidden to save a human life on the sabbath.

rejoice44
Feb 14th 2011, 06:25 PM
My rabbi gave a sermon this Saturday which referenced 1 Samuel 15.

The point of the sermon was to stop trying to second-guess what God wants. He already told us what He wants, and that's what we should do. Saul tried to reason that "Since God likes sacrifice, I will spare the animals so that I can sacrifice them". But that isn't what God asked for. And I see the same thing with the whole "spirit of the law" vs "the letter of the law" debate. There's nothing wrong with the spirit of the law- but follow the letter of the law too.

Doubtless few if any here will agree. Still, I felt like sharing it.

This was not a case of "spirit of the Law". Saul knew he had done wrong, and tried to blame it on the people. Look at verse 15 and 21, and then consider that Saul not only knew he was not being obedient, but put the blame on the people because he feared them (verse 24).

Fenris
Feb 14th 2011, 06:59 PM
This was not a case of "spirit of the Law". Saul knew he had done wrong, and tried to blame it on the people. Look at verse 15 and 21, and then consider that Saul not only knew he was not being obedient, but put the blame on the people because he feared them (verse 24).
What's the difference whose idea it was? Someone tried to do what they supposed God had wanted, in direct violation of what God stated that He wanted.

How is that any different from violating the word of the law in order to fulfill the spirit of the law?

rejoice44
Feb 14th 2011, 07:21 PM
What's the difference whose idea it was? Someone tried to do what they supposed God had wanted, in direct violation of what God stated that He wanted.

How is that any different from violating the word of the law in order to fulfill the spirit of the law?

You cannot violate the the law, and be fulfilling the spirit of the law.

My comment is that the scripture you provided does not fulfill the spirit of the law.

Fenris
Feb 14th 2011, 07:29 PM
You cannot violate the the law, and be fulfilling the spirit of the law. I agree. That's why I keep the law to the best of my ability.


My comment is that the scripture you provided does not fulfill the spirit of the law.Well what is the "spirit of the law"? It's something that God didn't specifically ask for. It is, in fact, an assumption on the part of the doer that "this is actually what God wants (even though He didn't say it)". Just like this case- "I know God said he wanted the animals killed, but I'm sure He would rather have a sacrifice (even though that isn't what He said)".

rejoice44
Feb 14th 2011, 07:36 PM
I agree. That's why I keep the law to the best of my ability.

Well what is the "spirit of the law"? It's something that God didn't specifically ask for. It is, in fact, an assumption on the part of the doer that "this is actually what God wants (even though He didn't say it)". Just like this case- "I know God said he wanted the animals killed, but I'm sure He would rather have a sacrifice (even though that isn't what He said)".

Saul knew he was being disobedient. Blatantly disobeying God could never be considered fulfilling the spirit of the law.

Fulfilling the spirit of the law is when God says love your neighbor as yourself, and then you find a Samaritan who does not live next door, that was attacked by criminals and left for dead, but yet you treat him as your neighbor.

Fenris
Feb 14th 2011, 07:57 PM
Saul knew he was being disobedient. Blatantly disobeying God could never be considered fulfilling the spirit of the law.OK, so you're on board with me here that the law should be followed.


Fulfilling the spirit of the law is when God says love your neighbor as yourself, and then you find a Samaritan who does not live next door, that was attacked by criminals and left for dead, but yet you treat him as your neighbor.
I would say that is the letter of the law.

rejoice44
Feb 14th 2011, 08:13 PM
[QUOTE=Fenris;2619431]OK, so you're on board with me here that the law should be followed.

Yes.


I would say that is the letter of the law.

Some might argue that your neighbor is the guy next door.

Fenris
Feb 14th 2011, 08:30 PM
Some might argue that your neighbor is the guy next door.
Your neighbor is the person next to you right now.

rejoice44
Feb 14th 2011, 09:07 PM
Your neighbor is the person next to you right now.

I could see where a Jew might not recognize one of another nation as his neighbor. The laws are oriented toward the Jew and not the goyim.

Fenris
Feb 14th 2011, 09:28 PM
I could see where a Jew might not recognize one of another nation as his neighbor.
You would be wrong, though.

divaD
Feb 14th 2011, 09:39 PM
OK, so you're on board with me here that the law should be followed.

.

Can one follow the law and not be under the law at the same time? Anybody, including Jews?

notuptome
Feb 14th 2011, 09:45 PM
No one argued that it is forbidden to save a human life on the sabbath.
Splitting frogs hairs.

David writes Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity...I acknowledged my sin unto Thee...and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Ps 32:1-5 Mercy and blessing produce forgivness not the law.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Beckrl
Feb 14th 2011, 09:56 PM
My rabbi gave a sermon this Saturday which referenced 1 Samuel 15.



The point of the sermon was to stop trying to second-guess what God wants. He already told us what He wants, and that's what we should do. Saul tried to reason that "Since God likes sacrifice, I will spare the animals so that I can sacrifice them". But that isn't what God asked for. And I see the same thing with the whole "spirit of the law" vs "the letter of the law" debate. There's nothing wrong with the spirit of the law- but follow the letter of the law too.

Doubtless few if any here will agree. Still, I felt like sharing it.

Hi Fenris,

Jesus came not to do away with the law,(Matthew 5:17) but to give us a way to live it and that is by the spirit of the law which is love, if one has love he can fulfill all of the law. (Galations 5:14)

But Jesus did say this: " For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18)

It appears at sometime the letter of the law would disappear, for it would then be in the heart of man. It is my belief that what Jesus is indicating here is that no more will the letter of the law rule the man, but that it would be written on his heart rather than stone and his heart would rule with love.

LookingUp
Feb 14th 2011, 10:00 PM
Living by the spirit of the law means living out the heartfelt intention of the law. One would think that if you follow the letter of the law, you’d automatically be following the spirit of the law. But that’s not necessarily true, because God is actually interested in the state of our heart when we live out the letter of the law. And it’s not true that when one follows the spirit of the law that the letter of the law is always kept. For example, the letter of the law teaches that lying is wrong. It teaches this because lying can hurt people (laws are created to protect). But if lying to keep Jews safe in your house from Nazis is violating a lesser law of God in order to fulfill a higher law of God—protecting life—the spirit of the law is fulfilled rather than the letter of the law regarding lying. If love and mercy are neglected for the sake of fulfilling the letter of the law, the spirit of the law is not fulfilled.

RollTide21
Feb 14th 2011, 10:06 PM
What's the difference whose idea it was? Someone tried to do what they supposed God had wanted, in direct violation of what God stated that He wanted.

How is that any different from violating the word of the law in order to fulfill the spirit of the law?I don't know that I would translate that sermon into a word about the Spirit of the Law vs. the Letter of the Law. God had a command specific to Saul and Saul ignored it. It had nothing to do with the Law.

However, I would say that it is a perfectly good message about obedience and trust in God. Much of the tension between God and man for both Christians and Jews is trust and obedience...or lack thereof. Allowing God to guide our footsteps is a difficult prospect when we would love to rely on our own wisdom and understanding. Perhaps you would assume that God guides your footsteps via the Letter of the Law and that is where you feel this is analagous to Saul. Well, I would say that the Christian principle of guidance through the Holy Spirit and rejecting that quickening is more analagous to Saul's disobedience.

keck553
Feb 15th 2011, 12:46 AM
I could see where a Jew might not recognize one of another nation as his neighbor. The laws are oriented toward the Jew and not the goyim.

Not true. Read the book of Ruth.

tango
Feb 15th 2011, 09:51 AM
How do we know what the law intended? Saul tried to presume God's motives and lost the kingship.

I think Jesus summed it up pretty well.


And rationale is...what?

That we take a day off every week for our benefit rather than for the sake of having an arbitrary rule.


What is the difference? Does the bible say "don't work on saturday unless...."
But what if an emergency is not a violation of the sabbath?

If you were a heart surgeon and someone suffered a massive heart attack on the Sabbath and you could save their life, but only by working on the Sabbath, what would you do? Would you work on the Sabbath to save a life (and perhaps take a different day off during the week) or would you stand by and watch that person die while saying what a good person you were for not working on the Sabbath?


If it's following God's word, what is the problem?

I'm not so sure "following God's word (to the letter)" will count for much if we do just watch someone die when we could have saved them.


Right. But how does one express that love? Perhaps, by following the law?

I would say by following the spirit of the law, but that leads into a lovely circular argument :)

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 02:11 PM
Can one follow the law and not be under the law at the same time? Anybody, including Jews?Not sure what you mean.

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 02:13 PM
It appears at sometime the letter of the law would disappear, for it would then be in the heart of man.
Or maybe the letter of the law will be written on man's heart?

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 02:15 PM
I don't know that I would translate that sermon into a word about the Spirit of the Law vs. the Letter of the Law. God had a command specific to Saul and Saul ignored it. It had nothing to do with the Law.Is not the bible full of God's specific commands to man?


However, I would say that it is a perfectly good message about obedience and trust in God. Much of the tension between God and man for both Christians and Jews is trust and obedience...or lack thereof. Allowing God to guide our footsteps is a difficult prospect when we would love to rely on our own wisdom and understanding. Perhaps you would assume that God guides your footsteps via the Letter of the Law and that is where you feel this is analagous to Saul. Well, I would say that the Christian principle of guidance through the Holy Spirit and rejecting that quickening is more analagous to Saul's disobedience.What if God doesn't guide our footsteps at all? He merely tells us what He expects from us, and then leaves it to us whether to do it or not?

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 02:19 PM
I think Jesus summed it up pretty well.What, "love your neighbor"? That's not Jesus's summation, it's in Leviticus. And anyway that's a principle, not so much a law. How do we express that love? Perhaps through application of the law?




That we take a day off every week for our benefit rather than for the sake of having an arbitrary rule.

Hmmm but that isn't the rationale provided by God, now is it?


If you were a heart surgeon and someone suffered a massive heart attack on the Sabbath and you could save their life, but only by working on the Sabbath, what would you do? Would you work on the Sabbath to save a life (and perhaps take a different day off during the week) or would you stand by and watch that person die while saying what a good person you were for not working on the Sabbath?The oral law is very clear- in an emergency, human life takes precedence over the sabbath.




I'm not so sure "following God's word (to the letter)" will count for much if we do just watch someone die when we could have saved them.But no one makes this point.




I would say by following the spirit of the law, but that leads into a lovely circular argument :)But what is the spirit of the law? Everyone talks about it but no one seems to be able to actually define it.

RollTide21
Feb 15th 2011, 02:43 PM
Is not the bible full of God's specific commands to man?Are you referring to the Law? I assume you are equating this specific word to Saul with specific rules of law from God in our daily life that we should also obey to the letter. I can see that correlation. However, since I see the Law as unnecessary for righteousness, I see this instance with Saul as merely him not following God's command for a specific circumstance in his life just as I would see myself ignoring the Holy Spirit's command for me at a specific circumstance in my own life. The issue is not trusting God's wisdom to guide us in life.


What if God doesn't guide our footsteps at all? He merely tells us what He expects from us, and then leaves it to us whether to do it or not?God telling Saul "In this instance, I want you to do this: __________" isn't guiding his footsteps? What in the Mosaic Law instructed Saul in that scenario?

By the way, as for the following of the Letter of the Law, I agree with your principle. As long as one would follow the Letter of the Law in the proper Spirit of the Law, I can see no reason why that living would not be pleasing to the Lord. I don't personally feel convicted to follow the Letter of the Mosaic Law because the Spirit of God that is within me testifies that it is unnecessary for me to follow that Law. But...I do believe that the righteousness given to me through Christ is what the Law was meant to point toward.

tango
Feb 15th 2011, 02:46 PM
What, "love your neighbor"? That's not Jesus's summation, it's in Leviticus. And anyway that's a principle, not so much a law. How do we express that love? Perhaps through application of the law?

Jesus put it that the whole of the Law and the Prophets hangs upon "Love God, love each other".


Hmmm but that isn't the rationale provided by God, now is it?I think in the light of what Jesus said about the Law it was at least part of the rationale. Just like a lot of the laws on food hygiene made a lot of sense then but are less critical now given modern day refrigeration.


The oral law is very clear- in an emergency, human life takes precedence over the sabbath.So at a stroke two laws conflict. Do you work on the Sabbath or not? Earlier you said Does the bible say "don't work on saturday unless...." - if you treat someone with a condition that may be life threatening but turns out not to be, on the Sabbath, do you break the Law or not?


But no one makes this point.So where does the line get drawn? You mentioned the oral law - I assume you mean the Talmud? Where does it draw the line - if someone is in excrutiating pain does it count as "work" to relieve them of their pain even if they won't die if you don't?


But what is the spirit of the law? Everyone talks about it but no one seems to be able to actually define it.In generic terms doing what the Law intended rather than necessarily what the precise letter of the Law says. Certainly the spirit of the Law is nothing to do with nailing people on legal technicalities, which I gather the Pharisees were prone to do. I'd say the spirit of the Law would also involve seeing the bigger picture so that individual rules can be seen as a whole with a view to what the whole was intended to achieve. So the rule that we don't work on the Sabbath can be trumped by a higher rule that we must save human life if we are able to do so because the intention that we take one day of rest every week is secondary to the intention that we love others.

divaD
Feb 15th 2011, 02:51 PM
Not sure what you mean.



you're not alone then, since I'm not certain what I mean either. What got me to pondering the question in the first place, is because of the following verse.

Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.


This says if one is led of the Spirit, they are not under the law. Would this same person still be following the law, tho they are not under the law, if they are being led of the Spirit? Probably not a real great question to ask of you, since you pretty much don't believe the NT to be inspired by God.

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 03:02 PM
Are you referring to the Law? I assume you are equating this specific word to Saul with specific rules of law from God in our daily life that we should also obey to the letter. I can see that correlation. However, since I see the Law as unnecessary for righteousnessNot sure what gives anyone the right to make such a bold statement. The Law is God's specific command.


God telling Saul "In this instance, I want you to do this: __________" isn't guiding his footsteps?No, that's giving an order. Saul is free to follow or not.


What in the Mosaic Law instructed Saul in that scenario?There is a positive command to wipe out the Amelekites, in Exodus and Deuteronomy. There is no conflict between bible Law and God's command here.



By the way, as for the following of the Letter of the Law, I agree with your principle. As long as one would follow the Letter of the Law in the proper Spirit of the Law, I can see no reason why that living would not be pleasing to the Lord. I don't personally feel convicted to follow the Letter of the Mosaic Law because the Spirit of God that is within me testifies that it is unnecessary for me to follow that Law. But...I do believe that the righteousness given to me through Christ is what the Law was meant to point toward.Ok

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 03:10 PM
Jesus put it that the whole of the Law and the Prophets hangs upon "Love God, love each other".Those are principles, not laws. How are those principles expressed? If I love God, won't I do as He asks?


I think in the light of what Jesus said about the Law it was at least part of the rationale. Just like a lot of the laws on food hygiene made a lot of sense then but are less critical now given modern day refrigeration.But God didn't provide that rationale either. He says "You are a holy people, so don't eat these things etc".


So at a stroke two laws conflict.hence, the oral law.


- if you treat someone with a condition that may be life threatening but turns out not to be, on the Sabbath, do you break the Law or not?
We don't take chance with human life.


So where does the line get drawn? You mentioned the oral law - I assume you mean the Talmud? Where does it draw the line - if someone is in excrutiating pain does it count as "work" to relieve them of their pain even if they won't die if you don't?I am not a rabbi, but I would say we would alleviate the pain as best as possible but the sabbath rules must be observed. Everything comes from God, so if it was His will that a person be in pain on sabbath, then so be it.


In generic terms doing what the Law intended rather than necessarily what the precise letter of the Law says.But how do we know what the law intended? Above you make the correlation between kosher food and hygiene, even though the bible says nothing about that. What exactly gives us the right to guess God's intention? How is that any different from not killing the animals because "God probably wants them for sacrifice" even when He said nothing of the sort.


Certainly the spirit of the Law is nothing to do with nailing people on legal technicalities, which I gather the Pharisees were prone to do. Yeah, reading the NT might lead one to conclude that. The Talmud and Josephus tells us another story.

tango
Feb 15th 2011, 03:21 PM
Those are principles, not laws. How are those principles expressed? If I love God, won't I do as He asks?

In which case where do you draw the line? Do you want to see adulterers stoned to death, homosexuals stoned, children who disobey their parents stoned, and so on? Do you avoid wearing clothes of mixed fibres?


But God didn't provide that rationale either. He says "You are a holy people, so don't eat these things etc".


hence, the oral law.

I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean the oral law takes precedence when they conflict?


We don't take chance with human life.

I am not a rabbi, but I would say we would alleviate the pain as best as possible but the sabbath rules must be observed. Everything comes from God, so if it was His will that a person be in pain on sabbath, then so be it.

But you'd be taking a chance with your own life. Based on this:

Exo 31:14-15 NKJV You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. (15) Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

if you profane the Sabbath by working on it with the best intentions but for invalid reasons you deserve to be put to death.


But how do we know what the law intended? Above you make the correlation between kosher food and hygiene, even though the bible says nothing about that. What exactly gives us the right to guess God's intention? How is that any different from not killing the animals because "God probably wants them for sacrifice" even when He said nothing of the sort.

If you believe that Jesus is God (which I imagine as a Jew you don't) then that gives Jesus the right to explain the Law, what it was there for and so on.

On a loosely related note, since the Law of Leviticus said "You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard." (Lev 19:27) how does that tie up with what Ezekiel was commanded to do, namely "And you, son of man, take a sharp sword, take it as a barber's razor, and pass it over your head and your beard;" (Eze 5:1)?

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 03:47 PM
In which case where do you draw the line? Do you want to see adulterers stoned to death, homosexuals stoned, children who disobey their parents stoned, and so on? If there existed a proper Sanhedrin to carry it out, although you're overgeneralizing since there are oral law principles involved. But that is, I think, another discussion.


Do you avoid wearing clothes of mixed fibres?Indeed I do.






I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean the oral law takes precedence when they conflict?No. the oral law explains specifics that are not present in the briefer written law. For example, the bible says not to work on the sabbath. What is "work"?




But you'd be taking a chance with your own life. Based on this:

Exo 31:14-15 NKJV You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. (15) Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

if you profane the Sabbath by working on it with the best intentions but for invalid reasons you deserve to be put to death. That's why I would have to ask a rabbi if there was any doubt.




If you believe that Jesus is God (which I imagine as a Jew you don't) then that gives Jesus the right to explain the Law, what it was there for and so on.But I don't see where he explained the law anyway. Making a general statement like "love your neighbor" (which is already in Leviticus) or "love God" (In Deuteronomy) doesn't really tell us anything new. How does one express that love?


On a loosely related note, since the Law of Leviticus said "You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard." (Lev 19:27) how does that tie up with what Ezekiel was commanded to do, namely "And you, son of man, take a sharp sword, take it as a barber's razor, and pass it over your head and your beard;" (Eze 5:1)?I have no commentaries here to consult. If you want an ignorant answer, it's a purely symbolic act about the coming doom.

RollTide21
Feb 15th 2011, 03:58 PM
Not sure what gives anyone the right to make such a bold statement. The Law is God's specific command.Well, for a Christian, I believe that Jesus gave me the right to make such a bold statement. However, to speak on our common ground, I would say that as long as I know and love God and my life is a reflection of that love, there is no need for me to make sure that I follow each letter of the law. In saying this, I want to ask the question: What are you seeing as the Law? This is probably a silly question to be asking at this point, but oh well. I just want to clarify what specific laws we are talking about following to the letter.


No, that's giving an order. Saul is free to follow or not. When I say "guiding my footsteps", I don't mean God takes over my body and forces me to do something. I simply mean he leads me to do what he wants. Of course I can choose not to do it.

There is a positive command to wipe out the Amelekites, in Exodus and Deuteronomy. There is no conflict between bible Law and God's command here.What I mean is, the Law given to the Israelites didn't specifically instruct Saul on what to do with the Amelekites. God gave His instruction outside of the Law in that instance. Unless you are saying that this instruction to Saul WAS the Law. In that case, I am misunderstanding what you mean by the Law.

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 04:25 PM
Well, for a Christian, I believe that Jesus gave me the right to make such a bold statement. However, to speak on our common ground, I would say that as long as I know and love God and my life is a reflection of that love, there is no need for me to make sure that I follow each letter of the law.But you're stating a principle without specifying how. Yes, love God. Now how to express that?



In saying this, I want to ask the question: What are you seeing as the Law? This is probably a silly question to be asking at this point, but oh well. I just want to clarify what specific laws we are talking about following to the letter.
The laws in the bible. As explained in the oral law of course.



When I say "guiding my footsteps", I don't mean God takes over my body and forces me to do something. I simply mean he leads me to do what he wants. Of course I can choose not to do it.Well God always leads us to a place where we can carry out His will, should we make the right choice.



What I mean is, the Law given to the Israelites didn't specifically instruct Saul on what to do with the Amelekites.Sure it did. "Blot them out".


God gave His instruction outside of the Law in that instance. Unless you are saying that this instruction to Saul WAS the Law.The law is God's commands, whether stated in the Pentateuch or directly via prophet.

keck553
Feb 15th 2011, 04:34 PM
The point of the sermon was to stop trying to second-guess what God wants. He already told us what He wants, and that's what we should do. Saul tried to reason that "Since God likes sacrifice, I will spare the animals so that I can sacrifice them". But that isn't what God asked for. And I see the same thing with the whole "spirit of the law" vs "the letter of the law" debate. There's nothing wrong with the spirit of the law- but follow the letter of the law too.

Doubtless few if any here will agree. Still, I felt like sharing it.

Do you think Solomon wrote Kohelet for an event like a feast? Or was it just a random writing? Anyway, though it may not define 'the spirit of the Law' directly, I think it contrasts a spiritual walk from a 'worldly' walk very well. Especially at the conclusion, which happens to be in the 'spiritual walk' column. I think if anyone would have asked Jesus about Solomon's conclusion, He would have fully embraced it.

RollTide21
Feb 15th 2011, 04:35 PM
But you're stating a principle without specifying how. Yes, love God. Now how to express that?By living in the Spirit of God. It is this Holy Spirit by which Christians are guided. It is this same Spirit that we believe that those Jews declared righteous by God also lived.


The laws in the bible. As explained in the oral law of course.OK.


Well God always leads us to a place where we can carry out His will, should we make the right choice.I'm with you.

Sure it did. "Blot them out".See, this is where I got lost...presumably due to my ignorance of Judaism. I assumed that the "Law" meant ONLY the written law that was given to the Israelites as a guide for living.

The law is God's commands, whether stated in the Pentateuch or directly via prophet.OK. Then really, the only argument that we would have is the necessity of following the Lett of the WRITTEN Law. I am certainly on board with precisely following an expressed command given by God through an anointed prophet.

keck553
Feb 15th 2011, 04:43 PM
By living in the Spirit of God. It is this Holy Spirit by which Christians are guided. It is this same Spirit that we believe that those Jews declared righteous by God also lived.

Can you explain then why most Christians these days conform so much to 'the world?' How is living in the Spirit setting apart most Christians from this age and preparing them for the age to come? What's missing?

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 04:46 PM
By living in the Spirit of God.What does this mean?


See, this is where I got lost...presumably due to my ignorance of Judaism. I assumed that the "Law" meant ONLY the written law that was given to the Israelites as a guide for living.First of all, the written law does say to blot out the Amelikites.

Second of all, the written law is very nonspecific in most instances, which is why it needs to be explained via the oral law. Again, as an example the bible says not to "work" on the sabbath. What, exactly, is "work"?



OK. Then really, the only argument that we would have is the necessity of following the Letter of the WRITTEN Law. OK. Why? Is it not God's will?

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 04:47 PM
Do you think Solomon wrote Kohelet for an event like a feast? Or was it just a random writing? Anyway, though it may not define 'the spirit of the Law' directly, I think it contrasts a spiritual walk from a 'worldly' walk very well. Especially at the conclusion, which happens to be in the 'spiritual walk' column. I think if anyone would have asked Jesus about Solomon's conclusion, He would have fully embraced it.

How do you feel Ecclesiastes compares or contrasts with the written law?

RogerW
Feb 15th 2011, 05:15 PM
Keeping the letter of the law will not eternally save! This is the point that Christ makes in His beatitudes. The pharisee's were very zealous to keep the letter of the law, but not the spirit. But Christ says it is not actually committing murder that condemns a man, but to be angry with our brother without a cause; it is not committing adultery that condemns, but rather to look upon another woman with lust; divorce for adultery was permitted according to the law, but divorce for any cause destroys the original intent of God, the two shall become one flesh, therefore what God has joined together let not man put asunder; it is not swearing an oath before the LORD, but the act of swearing at all, because our yes should always be yes, and our no always no; no longer repay eye for eye and tooth for tooth, but resisting evil and turning the other cheek to the one smiting you on the right cheek; not only are we to love our neighbor, but our enemies also, and do good to them that hate you.

It is in recognizing that Christ alone fulfilled all that was written in the law and prophets, and it is in complete dependence upon Him, His works that man is declared righteous before Almighty God this is how we obey the spirit of the law through Christ alone.

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 05:35 PM
Keeping the letter of the law will not eternally save! The whole idea of needing to be "saved" is a Christian contruct, and not really relevant to this point.



This is the point that Christ makes in His beatitudes. The pharisee's were very zealous to keep the letter of the law, but not the spirit. But Christ says it is not actually committing murder that condemns a man, but to be angry with our brother without a cause; it is not committing adultery that condemns, but rather to look upon another woman with lust; divorce for adultery was permitted according to the law, but divorce for any cause destroys the original intent of God, the two shall become one flesh, therefore what God has joined together let not man put asunder; it is not swearing an oath before the LORD, but the act of swearing at all, because our yes should always be yes, and our no always no; no longer repay eye for eye and tooth for tooth, but resisting evil and turning the other cheek to the one smiting you on the right cheek; not only are we to love our neighbor, but our enemies also, and do good to them that hate you.
So he condemns the Pharisees for adding to the law then goes ahead and does the same thing? Heh.


It is in recognizing that Christ alone fulfilled all that was written in the law and prophets, and it is in complete dependence upon Him, His works that man is declared righteous before Almighty God this is how we obey the spirit of the law through Christ alone.How exactly does one obey the "spirit" of the law? I keep asking this.

RollTide21
Feb 15th 2011, 05:45 PM
What does this mean?This:

13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love.
14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want.
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions
21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.
26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.


First of all, the written law does say to blot out the Amelikites.I didn't know that.


Second of all, the written law is very nonspecific in most instances, which is why it needs to be explained via the oral law. Again, as an example the bible says not to "work" on the sabbath. What, exactly, is "work"?Again, this goes back to my misunderstanding of the Law. You have clarified this.

OK. Why? Is it not God's will?Well, this question seems more complicated now. I doubt you will find a single Christian that would say if God revealed Himself to them in their home and commanded them to do something, they would say that it isn't right to follow that specifically. On the other hand, the New Testament clearly wasn't referring to that instance as being the "Law". It was obviously referring to the written law. I don't believe that it is God's Will that I learn the written law and follow it because I don't believe that God is impressed with the works that I accomplish for Him. I believe that it is God's Will that I abide in the Holy Spirit. This will lead me into the righteousness that God wants from me. I don't need written guidelines to abide in the Spirit.

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 05:56 PM
: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions
21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness and self-control.
Ok, now this looks suspiciously like a written list of "do's and don'ts", in other words, a recap of the law. Which is something I've said before: How do we show our love for God/our fellow man? By application of the law.




Well, this question seems more complicated now. I doubt you will find a single Christian that would say if God revealed Himself to them in their home and commanded them to do something, they would say that it isn't right to follow that specifically. On the other hand, the New Testament clearly wasn't referring to that instance as being the "Law". It was obviously referring to the written law. I don't believe that it is God's Will that I learn the written law and follow it because I don't believe that God is impressed with the works that I accomplish for Him. I believe that it is God's Will that I abide in the Holy Spirit. This will lead me into the righteousness that God wants from me. I don't need written guidelines to abide in the Spirit.And yet Jesus apparently gave written guidelines. Heh.

RollTide21
Feb 15th 2011, 06:13 PM
Ok, now this looks suspiciously like a written list of "do's and don'ts", in other words, a recap of the law. Which is something I've said before: How do we show our love for God/our fellow man? By application of the law.



And yet Jesus apparently gave written guidelines. Heh.How does one have "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control"? These aren't laws. These are characteristics of righteousness.

I guess the guts of this whole thing is that you believe that it is possible to be all of those things by following the Law. You do this to the best of your ability and that is good enough for God. I obviously disagree. I believe that the only way we can obtain all of these characteristics in a manner satisfactory to God is via the Holy Spirit.

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 06:24 PM
How does one have "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control"? These aren't laws. These are characteristics of righteousness. You're right. These are pretty vague. Does "peace" mean "be a pacifist"? Or does that actually make less peace since people walk all over you?




I guess the guts of this whole thing is that you believe that it is possible to be all of those things by following the Law. You do this to the best of your ability and that is good enough for God. I obviously disagree. I believe that the only way we can obtain all of these characteristics in a manner satisfactory to God is via the Holy Spirit.Which you cannot define.

RogerW
Feb 15th 2011, 06:31 PM
The whole idea of needing to be "saved" is a Christian contruct, and not really relevant to this point.

Let me rephrase, keeping the letter of the law will not make one righteous before God.


So he condemns the Pharisees for adding to the law then goes ahead and does the same thing? Heh.

Actually Christ condemns the Pharisees for keeping the letter of the law, but having "omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (Mt 23:23; Lu 11:42).


How exactly does one obey the "spirit" of the law? I keep asking this.

It's been answered, "through Christ alone"!

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 06:40 PM
Let me rephrase, keeping the letter of the law will not make one righteous before God.
But that's not what the bible says. Deuteronomy 24:13 Return the cloak to its owner by sunset so he can stay warm through the night and bless you, and the LORD your God will count you as righteous.

Simply returning a cloak makes one "righteous", according to the bible.



Actually Christ condemns the Pharisees for keeping the letter of the law, but having "omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (Mt 23:23; Lu 11:42). OK, so it's ok to add to the law, provided it's judgement mercy faith etc?




It's been answered, "through Christ alone"!
How is that an answer?

RogerW
Feb 15th 2011, 07:02 PM
But that's not what the bible says. Deuteronomy 24:13 Return the cloak to its owner by sunset so he can stay warm through the night and bless you, and the LORD your God will count you as righteous.

Simply returning a cloak makes one "righteous", according to the bible.

Yes, but then you sin again and righteousness becomes unrighteousness...is that not true?


OK, so it's ok to add to the law, provided it's judgement mercy faith etc?

Christ did not add to the law, rather He fulfilled every jot and tittle! In the beatitudes Christ shows us the fullness of the law, and how the law was never given as a means of righteousness apart from perfection. Therefore the law was given to drive man to Christ, being our teacher until that which was perfect came. Now that He has come, we don't do away with the law, but realize we can never attain to the righteousness the law demands...So we turn to Christ, dependent upon Him, resting in His righteousness, for apart from the righteousness of Christ Scripture tells us, "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away" (Is 64:6).


How is that an answer?

It makes no sense to you because the natural mind cannot know the things that only the Spirit of God reveals. If you were "in Christ" you would understand the impossiblity of obtaining righteousness apart from Christ Alone! The full revelation of what was written in the Old is found in the New.

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 07:20 PM
Yes, but then you sin again and righteousness becomes unrighteousness...is that not true?
Doesn't say that in the bible...


Christ did not add to the law, rather He fulfilled every jot and tittle! I do not see how this is possible, given that no one part of the law applied to any one person.



In the beatitudes Christ shows us the fullness of the law, and how the law was never given as a means of righteousness apart from perfection. Therefore the law was given to drive man to Christ, being our teacher until that which was perfect came. Now that He has come, we don't do away with the law, but realize we can never attain to the righteousness the law demands...So we turn to Christ, dependent upon Him, resting in His righteousnessThis is all stuff that you believe. Which is fine. But I don't see how reading the bible (my part anyway) will automatically lead one to that conclusion.


for apart from the righteousness of Christ Scripture tells us, "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away" (Is 64:6). I think this verse is being taken out of context. This is describing the feelings of generation of Jews that saw the temple's destruction. Not all of humanity for all time.




It makes no sense to you because the natural mind cannot know the things that only the Spirit of God reveals. If you were "in Christ" you would understand the impossiblity of obtaining righteousness apart from Christ Alone! The full revelation of what was written in the Old is found in the New.This still doesn't answer the question though.

RollTide21
Feb 15th 2011, 08:03 PM
You're right. These are pretty vague. Does "peace" mean "be a pacifist"? Or does that actually make less peace since people walk all over you?That's not referring to keeping the peace. The "peace" referred to in Galatians is inner peace.




Which you cannot define.Why the need to define it? If the Holy Spirit cannot lead us into anything that isn't pleasing to God, is that not enough? We believe that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God Himself. In it, we are pure and completely righteous. That righteousness doesn't have to be defined in a list of rules.

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 08:12 PM
That's not referring to keeping the peace. The "peace" referred to in Galatians is inner peace.
What does that mean?



Why the need to define it? If the Holy Spirit cannot lead us into anything that isn't pleasing to God, is that not enough? We believe that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God Himself. In it, we are pure and completely righteous. That righteousness doesn't have to be defined in a list of rules.
How does one know when it's the holy spirit that's acting?

episkopos
Feb 15th 2011, 08:27 PM
Deut. 25:2 And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number.

3Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.


OK so do you follow the letter of the law. Or have you, like Saul, merely interpreted the law to your own choosing?

episkopos
Feb 15th 2011, 08:41 PM
My rabbi gave a sermon this Saturday which referenced 1 Samuel 15.



The point of the sermon was to stop trying to second-guess what God wants. He already told us what He wants, and that's what we should do. Saul tried to reason that "Since God likes sacrifice, I will spare the animals so that I can sacrifice them". But that isn't what God asked for. And I see the same thing with the whole "spirit of the law" vs "the letter of the law" debate. There's nothing wrong with the spirit of the law- but follow the letter of the law too.

Doubtless few if any here will agree. Still, I felt like sharing it.

I doubt you agree! Would your rabbi even lift a finger to destroy the sinners from out of Israel according to the law? Have you attended a public stoning recently. PALEESE! Enough of the rhetoric.


The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.


What do you really think of the Taliban who stone their adulterers? Are they more obedient than the Jews?

What of gays? Do the Jews stone them as decreed in the law? Or are they ignoring the letter of the law as Saul did?

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 08:49 PM
Deut. 25:2 And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number.

3Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.


OK so do you follow the letter of the law. Or have you, like Saul, merely interpreted the law to your own choosing?

No judges, no Sanhedrin, at this time.

episkopos
Feb 15th 2011, 09:00 PM
No judges, no Sanhedrin, at this time.

....or ever shall be! ... Judaism has ceased to be the way that God is working through men. Would God abandon His own ways for thousands of years? Would He leave many generations without recourse to His Torah?

This is a sham! The truth is that obeying the law of Moses would draw the ire of those who consider such practices barbaric. Even the Jews would not obey God and lose face.

So do you admire the Taliban and other extremist Muslim groups for their courage in doing what their law proscribes?
Do you take the law of Moses seriously at all?

Could God be rejecting Israel through disobedience to the law they claim to be following?

A Jew is bound by the law.
A Christian is bound by the Spirit of Christ.

Can a Christian go on happily sinning because he has not yet received the Spirit?
Can a Jew go on ignoring the law through ignorance.....wait!!! ...he HAS the law! So why the disobedience?

RollTide21
Feb 15th 2011, 09:01 PM
What does that mean?It's a foundational knowing that God is in control. It's an understanding that, underneath all troubles, God is with us. A couple of verses

Phillipians 4:6-7
6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.
7 And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.


John 16:33
33 “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

Matthew 11:28-30
28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”


How does one know when it's the holy spirit that's acting?An appropriate question for the discussion. Many would say that we verify the Spirit via the Scripture. This is certainly valid, but not always necessary. After all, IN SCRIPTURE, we are told to test the Spirits to see if they are of God.

1 John 4:1-3
1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

As I am led in the Spirit, I don't need to constantly check Scripture. The life I live in the Spirit brings peace and is never in conflict with God...or Scripture, for that matter. The nature of the Spirit is one that, when we live within it closely, can be discerned naturally. In other words, we just KNOW when something isn't of the Spirit.

ProjectPeter
Feb 15th 2011, 09:08 PM
The oral law is very clear- in an emergency, human life takes precedence over the sabbath.


When did that oral law take place and since when did the oral law trump the written Law of Moses? That's news to me.

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 09:09 PM
....or ever shall be! ...
Heh. God says otherwise.

Isaiah 1:26: "And I will restore your judges as at first and your counsellors as in the beginning..."


Judaism has ceased to be the way that God is working through men. Would God abandon His own ways for thousands of years? Would He leave many generations without recourse to His Torah? Jews seem to be following Judaism just fine. You might think our beliefs are mistaken; that's fine. It doesn't give you the right to mis-state the facts however.


This is a sham! The truth is that obeying the law of Moses would draw the ire of those who consider such practices barbaric. Even the Jews would not obey God and lose face.
Jews have obeyed God at the cost of their lives. Losing face? Hah.


So do you admire the Taliban and other extremist Muslim groups for their courage in doing what their law proscribes?Mmm no. For one thing, the Jewish Sanhedrin seldom carried out the death penalty, unlike the Muslim courts that seem to consider it the best outcome.


Do you take the law of Moses seriously at all?Yes, quite sreiously, in case you hadn't noticed.


Could God be rejecting Israel through disobedience to the law they claim to be following?Dunno, you seem convinced that God is rejecting us. Now you just have to find the reason!

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 09:11 PM
As I am led in the Spirit, I don't need to constantly check Scripture. The life I live in the Spirit brings peace and is never in conflict with God...or Scripture, for that matter. The nature of the Spirit is one that, when we live within it closely, can be discerned naturally. In other words, we just KNOW when something isn't of the Spirit.
What happens when two people wanting to do different things both claim to be "in the spirit"? How to know which one is right?

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 09:13 PM
When did that oral law take place and since when did the oral law trump the written Law of Moses? That's news to me.
Oral law was handed out the same time as the wirtten law...without it, it actually is impossible to follow the law. The bible doesn't define many terms, such as "work" on the sabbath. Hence, the oral law that provides the missing details.

ProjectPeter
Feb 15th 2011, 09:36 PM
Oral law was handed out the same time as the wirtten law...without it, it actually is impossible to follow the law. The bible doesn't define many terms, such as "work" on the sabbath. Hence, the oral law that provides the missing details.I see. Have you ever pondered why it was that when the Law was found after missing... they found they were WAY off what was written? I mean I hear you on this "oral" law thing but the oral law was sorely lacking apparently.

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 09:36 PM
I see. Have you ever pondered why it was that when the Law was found after missing... they found they were WAY off what was written? I mean I hear you on this "oral" law thing but the oral law was sorely lacking apparently.Don't know what you mean.

ProjectPeter
Feb 15th 2011, 09:39 PM
Don't know what you mean.
For example:

2 Chronicles 34:15 *And Hilkiah responded and said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan.
16 *Then Shaphan brought the book to the king and reported further word to the king, saying, "Everything that was entrusted to your servants they are doing.
17 *"They have also emptied out the money which was found in the house of the LORD, and have delivered it into the hands of the supervisors and the workmen."
18 *Moreover, Shaphan the scribe told the king saying, "Hilkiah the priest gave me a book." And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.
19 *And it came about when the king heard the words of the law that he tore his clothes.
20 *Then the king commanded Hilkiah, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Abdon the son of Micah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king's servant, saying,
21 *"Go, inquire of the LORD for me and for those who are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book which has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD which is poured out on us because our fathers have not observed the word of the LORD, to do according to all that is written in this book."

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 09:44 PM
For example:

Commonly understood to be Deuteronomy.

ProjectPeter
Feb 15th 2011, 09:53 PM
Okay. Question still remains. :)

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 09:54 PM
Okay. Question still remains. :)

What question? :)

keck553
Feb 15th 2011, 10:12 PM
How do you feel Ecclesiastes compares or contrasts with the written law?

Tough but worthy question. Sorry it took so long to answer, but I'm a slow typer. Rather than answer directly at this point, I think there is a way to discover this association through a little thought and study, and of course my own perspective.

One of the most repeated phrases in Ecclesiastes is "under the sun." It usually proceeds a cynical statement, but some statements that follow "under the sun" do not seem cynical at all. It is these contradictions that make the book an enigma to some.

Another phrase used is "tachat ha-shamayim." What follows this phrase is very different than what comes after tachat ha-shemesh.

Another word repeated a lot is "kohelet." It is used as a title, and is Solomon speaking of himself. So why the title? Again, there is some correlation to "under the sun" and "under the heavens" in the usage of this title, and it established an importance of the title "kohelet."

Most of us can identify with Solomon in his "under the sun" references. His cynicism carries with it a ring of truth. It seems Solomon is right - life is not fair.

"There is a vanity which is done on the earth, that there are righteous men to whom it happens according to the work of the wicked. Again, there are wicked me to whom it happens according to the work of the righteous." (8:14)

There is a relationship between 1:4-8 and Psalm 104:1-35, between 2:17 and Psalm 39: 1-8 and Proverbs 13:21-22. Another relationship resides between 4:1-4 and Matthew 5:1-12.

The righteous are not called to live "under the sun." Living under the sun is not fair, it is brutal and harsh. The hurts and disappointments outweigh the good. But we who love God are not called to that life.

"So they took thier journey from Sukkot and camped in Etam at the edge of the wilderness. And HaShem went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so as to go by day and night. He did not take away the piilar of cloud by day or the pillar of fire by night from before the people." Exodus 13

Then consider the instructions for the feast of Sukkot:

"You shall keep it as a feast to HaShem for seven days in the year. It shall be a statute forever in your generations. you shall celebrate it in the seventh month. You shall dwell in booths, that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt. I am HaShem your God. Lev 23

In the wilderness you dwelt in Sukkot. The roof was patchy. The walls were flimsy. You had been enslaved for hundreds of years. You were exposed to the elements in the harsh wilderness. It "appeared" that you were wandering around in the wilderness, living "under the sun." But the reality was something else. You were sheltered by the cloud of Glory above you. You would gaze up through the holes in your Sukkah and see a semblence of the Shekinah. You are not "under the sun" you were under HaShem's shadow. You were (are) His beloved, and He rests above you.

I think this nighttime prayer reinforces this:

Hashkivenu HaShem Eloheinu l’shalom v’ha-amidenu Malkenu l’chayim ufros aleinu sukkat sh’lomecha v’tak’nenu b’etzah tovah mil’Fanecha v’hoshienu l’ma-an Sh’mecha V’hagen ba-adenu v’haser may-aleinu oyev, dever v’cherev v’ra-av v’yagon, v’haser satan mil’franeinu u-me-achareinu uvtezel k'nafecha tastirenu ki El shom’renu u-matzilenu atah. Ushmor tzetenu u-voenu l’chayiim ulshalom me’ato v’ad olam. Baruch atah Adonai haporet sukkat shalom aleinu v’al kola mo Yisra’el va’al Yerushalayim.

(Lay us down to sleep, HaShem our God, in peace, raise us erect our King, to life; and spread over us the shelter of Your peace. Set us aright with good counsel from before Your Presence. and save us for Your Name's sake. Shield us, remove from us foe, plague, sword, famine and woe; and remove spiritual impediment from before us and from behind us, and in the shadow of your wings shelter us - For God Who protects and rescues are You; for God, the Gracious and Compassionate King, are You. Safeguard our going and coming, for life and for peace from now to eternity. Blessed are You, LORD, Who spreads the shelter of peace upon us, upon all of his people Israel and upon Jerusualem).

“sukkat” has the same root as “sukkot.” – therefore “sukkat sh’lomecha = the shelter of Your peace. Therefore we are not to live under ‘the sun.’ Paul (I know you don’t like Paul) reiterates this very concept in Romans 12:1-12:2. He instructs us to ‘renew’ our minds and test what is good and pleasurable to the LORD. How do we do this? By the Word of God. What was the Word of God in Paul’s day? Your 5 books of Moshe plus the writings and the prophets. It’s unavoidable how in our New Covenant how we are to respond to God’s grace.

Back to Ecclesiastes, it’s not that the cynicism expressed is a lie – no matter how depressing, Solomon’s words are quite true. But – what about the contradictions? God declares the righteous will see their reward, and the wicked their punishment. But here, in this age, we do not “see” that. It seems there are two realities. But this is where many theologians make their mistake. They interweave Greek philosophy in their interpretations, probably unavoidable, but even so. Stoicism and Platoism may seem novel, but they are from the minds of men. Solomon was no Greek philosopher; in fact he was the wisest of all “men” (by the pleasures of God).

So he’s using the words “vain” (havel) and “vanities” (havelim) repeatedly. Interesting Hebrew words “havelim” and “havel” share the same root as Abel’s Hebrew name “Hevel,” meaning breath. Looking at 1:2, 1:14, 2:1, 2:11 and 2:15, and more…..we see some context to their usage, the point being that when the word “havel” (vanity) is used, it seems to be speaking of a contrast. There may be substance, but all these things “under the sun” are a vapor. In the NT, Paul reiterates this concept. So substantial things, like wealth, labor and descendants are described as “vanity” for those living “under the sun.”

Here’s some contrast of life NOT under the sun:
19 See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland. The wild animals honor me, the jackals and the owls, because I provide water in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland, to give drink to my people, my chosen, the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise. – Isaiah 43

17 May the favor[a] of the Lord our God rest on us; establish the work of our hands for us— yes, establish the work of our hands. – Psalm 90

1 Unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the guards stand watch in vain. In vain you rise early and stay up late, toiling for food to eat— for he grants sleep to[a] those he loves. Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him. – Psalm 127

13 This is the fate of those who trust in themselves, and of their followers, who approve their sayings. They are like sheep and are destined to die; death will be their shepherd (but the upright will prevail over them in the morning). Their forms will decay in the grave, far from their princely mansions. But God will redeem me from the realm of the dead; he will surely take me to himself. – Psalm 49

5 But you are to seek the place the LORD your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling. To that place you must go; there bring your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, what you have vowed to give and your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. There, in the presence of the LORD your God, you and your families shall eat and shall rejoice in everything you have put your hand to, because the LORD your God has blessed you. – D’varim 12

The wisdom of Solomon must be compared to God’s Word to glean the true wisdom. Solomon ends with some more words of wisdom:

“The words of the wise are like goads; and like nails well fastened are words from the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. Furthermore, my son, be admonished; of making many books there is no end; and much study is weariness of the flesh.” 12:11-12

“This is the end of the matter (d’var). All has been heard. Fear God, and keep His commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every good work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it is good, or whether it is evil.” – 12:13-14

Put cynicism aside. Put aside the unfairness of life. Put aside “life under the sun.” Here is the answer to the question: “Is that all there is….?” No. There is more. All the vanity, all the pain and evil of ‘living under the sun’ vanish in Solomon’s summation:

“Fear God and keep His commandments.”

Why? Because that’s why He created us. It is our duty.

The next question will be: “what commandments?” All of them or the “new” ones? What does “keep His commandments” mean? This is why some theologians blend Greek philosophy into Ecclesiastes. They need to bolster their bias against “Jewish Law.” Or the “Law of Moses.” Solomon calls himself “Kohelet” when he speaks with human wisdom, but in the “Law of Moses” the phrase “God spoke to Moses and said, ‘Speak to the children of Israel…” – this is an often repeated phrase. Is it not clear? These commands are the Instructions of the King of the Universe. Take it of leave it. Onecan claim they ‘fear God and keep His commandments’ – anyone can make that claim. But if one rejects God’s Words….is the truth in them?

Many see the contrasts in Ecclesiastes and then make the wrong conclusion. The conclusion may stem from in influence of Greek philosophy. If one mis-applies the understanding of a vain life “under the sun”, they could develop a bias against the physical things of life – and by extension the physical things of the Law. They fail to recognize that by doing so, they’ve also biased themselves against the “spiritual” things of life. Why? If someone has something against the physical, they have something against the spiritual. We are given good insights into the relationship between the physical and the spiritual in the Bible, but somewhere along the way, the theology was hijacked by philosophy (and that I can go into with an example).

Maybe it’s easy to denigrate the commandments of God when the perspective is ‘under the sun.’ Perhaps that’s why, as Jesus’ brother James says “faith without works is dead.” Yes, we live in a “sukkah’ during this season called life. We experience the harsh reality of the world, and yet we experience the joy of obedience and the knowledge that our God is our shadow and our shelter from life “under the sun,” We know the ‘vapor’ of our lives. We live in ‘earthen vessels.'

So, to answer your question, I see total and unequivocal harmony with God’s commands in Ecclesiastes.

ProjectPeter
Feb 15th 2011, 10:13 PM
What question? :)

Without that written instruction... they were not following the Law. Oral wasn't a problem in that I'm sure there were plenty of mouthy folk to tell them how they were to do things... problem is... they weren't and it was obvious enough to the king eh? So the Law was still followed by the letter... that was the mantra of the Jews back then!

Fenris
Feb 15th 2011, 10:20 PM
Without that written instruction... they were not following the Law. Oral wasn't a problem in that I'm sure there were plenty of mouthy folk to tell them how they were to do things... problem is... they weren't and it was obvious enough to the king eh? So the Law was still followed by the letter... that was the mantra of the Jews back then!
I think you're missing what the oral law is. It's not just bossy people telling other people what to do. It's a body of knowledge that wasn't written down at Sinai. It is necessary because without it, it is impossible to follow the law. Like I said, what is "work" that can't be done on the sabbath? And it's not a free-for-all. Much like any legal system, it's built on precedent and previous rulings.

Beckrl
Feb 15th 2011, 10:51 PM
Or maybe the letter of the law will be written on man's heart?

I agree absolutely. Romans 8:3 "The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature. So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin's control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins."

Romans 8:14-15 "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father."

Servant89
Feb 15th 2011, 10:57 PM
How and when? In this example, that's what king Saul did, how did that work out for him?

Typically is is wrong to adhere to the letter of the law when we want to look good before men and in doing so, we are violating the spirit of the law. For example: The law says: Rest on Sabbath day. Jesus worked on Sabbath days to heal people (fulfilling the spirit of the law) and in doing so, got the religious right upset. John 5:16-18.

Saul wanted to look good before people.

24. And Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned, for I transgressed the Lord's command, and your words, for I feared the people, and I hearkened to their voice.

It was rooted in peer pressure, it was rooted in pleasing men. Wrong ! Too many people quote the law and cling to the law to look good before men, the pharisees of old time were like that.

Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Rahab the prostitute lied to her people breaking commandment # 9. So did the Gibeonites in Joshua 9 and they got moved from the list of destruction to the list of salvation. They got saved by doing works that showed their faith but that work was a work that showed they were not under the law.

Shalom

episkopos
Feb 15th 2011, 11:00 PM
Man is unqualified to judge God or the things of God. The Sanhedrin correctly judged the false messiahs before Jesus of Nazareth. But they misjudged the Son of Glory when He came. God will only restore judges that look to Him in Spirit and truth.

The Sanhedrin failed, and they have been abolished.

Judaism has failed God and men.

When will the pride of men be broken?

Isaias 1:21 ¶ How is the faithful city become a harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.
22 Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:
23 thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.
24 ¶ Therefore saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies.
25 And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin:
26 and I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counselors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city.

Christ has come in the flesh and offered men a new and living way...the derech hakodesh! As long as Judah remains hardened against the truth, things will remain as they are for them.

tango
Feb 15th 2011, 11:01 PM
If there existed a proper Sanhedrin to carry it out, although you're overgeneralizing since there are oral law principles involved. But that is, I think, another discussion.

Where did the oral principles come from? (Genuine question, I'm not familiar with the Talmud or its origins)


Indeed I do.

Fair enough... I guess I have to concede that point at least :)


No. the oral law explains specifics that are not present in the briefer written law. For example, the bible says not to work on the sabbath. What is "work"?

If it was something serious enough to warrant execution I'd have hoped it would be in the written law.


That's why I would have to ask a rabbi if there was any doubt.

What does the rabbi have that you don't have?


But I don't see where he explained the law anyway. Making a general statement like "love your neighbor" (which is already in Leviticus) or "love God" (In Deuteronomy) doesn't really tell us anything new. How does one express that love?

Looking at laws in the sense that some are "higher" than others (i.e. if they conflict, which takes priority), I would say that what Jesus was saying was that loving our neighbour was more important than everything else, except for loving God.


I have no commentaries here to consult. If you want an ignorant answer, it's a purely symbolic act about the coming doom.

I was meaning in the sense that it shows that the rules can be varied rather than necessarily looking at the precise meaning of what cutting his beard was meant to indicate (I'd agree about the coming doom though)

LookingUp
Feb 16th 2011, 01:09 AM
But what is the spirit of the law? Everyone talks about it but no one seems to be able to actually define it.Living by the spirit of the law means living out the heartfelt intention of the law. One would think that if you follow the letter of the law, you’d automatically be following the spirit of the law. But that’s not necessarily true, because God is actually interested in the state of our heart when we live out the letter of the law. And it’s not true that when one follows the spirit of the law that the letter of the law is always kept. For example, the letter of the law teaches that lying is wrong. It teaches this because lying can hurt people (laws are created to protect). But if lying to keep Jews safe in your house from Nazis is violating a lesser law of God in order to fulfill a higher law of God—protecting life—the spirit of the law is fulfilled rather than the letter of the law regarding lying. If love and mercy are neglected for the sake of fulfilling the letter of the law, the spirit of the law is not fulfilled.

episkopos
Feb 16th 2011, 01:27 AM
Living by the spirit of the law means living out the heartfelt intention of the law. One would think that if you follow the letter of the law, you’d automatically be following the spirit of the law. But that’s not necessarily true, because God is actually interested in the state of our heart when we live out the letter of the law. And it’s not true that when one follows the spirit of the law that the letter of the law is always kept. For example, the letter of the law teaches that lying is wrong. It teaches this because lying can hurt people (laws are created to protect). But if lying to keep Jews safe in your house from Nazis is violating a lesser law of God in order to fulfill a higher law of God—protecting life—the spirit of the law is fulfilled rather than the letter of the law regarding lying. If love and mercy are neglected for the sake of fulfilling the letter of the law, the spirit of the law is not fulfilled.

Very good! Of course there is the other possibility where we do LESS THAN the law intends for the sake of a human understanding or reasoning!

As Jesus pointed out we can claim not to be adulterers in action but transgress the commandment in our hearts through lusting.

rejoice44
Feb 16th 2011, 01:02 PM
I think you're missing what the oral law is. It's not just bossy people telling other people what to do. It's a body of knowledge that wasn't written down at Sinai. It is necessary because without it, it is impossible to follow the law. Like I said, what is "work" that can't be done on the sabbath? And it's not a free-for-all. Much like any legal system, it's built on precedent and previous rulings.

Where is the other 594 sections of the Mishnayoth, if now we only have six. Quite a bit of the Mishnayoth must have been cleansed in the third century.

Babylonian Talmud, Book 10: History of the Talmud, tr. by Michael L. Rodkinson, [1918], at sacred-texts.com (Page 14)


"The second difficulty was in selecting, from among the mass of incongruous doctrines and laws--many of which had become obsolete, and others found to be unnecessary or impracticable--those which were both practicable and of direct application (for a tradition relates that Rabbi found six hundred sections of Mishnayoth; and even if we admit that this number is greatly exaggerated, still if even one hundred existed, it was no light task to reduce them to six).
The third difficulty was that as the subject had been studied in divers places, differing in dialect or language, all the Mishnayoth had to be made uniform in their dialect. Added to all this, he was forced to clear the Mishnayoth from the insertions incorporated into it by the Messianists; for being many and considerable persons, and in close alliance with their colleagues the Pharisees during two centuries, they could not have failed to introduce into the Mishnayoth their own peculiar opinion and beliefs, many such passages, indeed, being found in the Gemara.
Reason compels us to admit, at least, that there were passages in the Mishnayoth concerning Jesus and his teachings; for how is it possible that an occurrence which holds so important a place in the history of Israel, and which has spread its influence among the nations for centuries, should not be even hinted at in the Mishnayoth? We must, therefore, conclude that Rabbi thought it well to clear the Mishnayoth of any reference to the occurrence itself, as well as to the adherents of the new faith. In this he acted wisely, for he knew beforehand that the Mishnayoth would be the foundation upon which Judaism and the Talmud should be built, and that the interpretations of it would be many, each interpreter following the bias of his mind. Therefore it was deemed best by him to avoid all mention of the new event, to treat it as though it had no existence. Nothing can withstand a strong will. When once he had resolved to carry out his project at any cost, all difficulties vanished."

Paul sat under Gamaliel and it would not reason that Paul would not be mentioned.

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 01:37 PM
Typically is is wrong to adhere to the letter of the law
I could not disagree more. The king Saul example is exactly backwards- he wanted to look good before the people so he didn't obey the letter of the law.

When the day comes that I stand before the True Judge, if the worst thing He can say is that I tried to follow His commands, I think I'm in a good position.

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 01:39 PM
Judaism has failed God and men.

Shrug. As a Christian, you really have to believe this. No choice. That doesn't make it true.

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 01:43 PM
Where did the oral principles come from? (Genuine question, I'm not familiar with the Talmud or its origins)Handed down at Sinai. The written law is lacking specifics that would make it impossible to carry out otherwise.




Fair enough... I guess I have to concede that point at least :):D




If it was something serious enough to warrant execution I'd have hoped it would be in the written law. But it really isn't.




What does the rabbi have that you don't have?Rabbis are trained in practical Jewish law. While I consider myself fluent in the laws that I might encounter in an everyday situation, there are plenty of things that could happen where I would have doubt. Hence, consult with an expert.




Looking at laws in the sense that some are "higher" than others (i.e. if they conflict, which takes priority), I would say that what Jesus was saying was that loving our neighbour was more important than everything else, except for loving God. Fair enough. But how does this guide our adherence to law? In a practical sense, what laws become more important than others as a result of this concept?




I was meaning in the sense that it shows that the rules can be varied rather than necessarily looking at the precise meaning of what cutting his beard was meant to indicate (I'd agree about the coming doom though)Well as I say, I do not think it meant a physical action.

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 01:44 PM
Living by the spirit of the law means living out the heartfelt intention of the law.
How do we know what the intention of the law is?

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 01:54 PM
Where is the other 594 sections of the Mishnayoth, if now we only have six. Quite a bit of the Mishnayoth must have been cleansed in the third century.

Babylonian Talmud, Book 10: History of the Talmud, tr. by Michael L. Rodkinson, [1918], at sacred-texts.com (Page 14)


"The second difficulty was in selecting, from among the mass of incongruous doctrines and laws--many of which had become obsolete, and others found to be unnecessary or impracticable--those which were both practicable and of direct application (for a tradition relates that Rabbi found six hundred sections of Mishnayoth; and even if we admit that this number is greatly exaggerated, still if even one hundred existed, it was no light task to reduce them to six).
OK, so you get to quote "rabbinic tradition" when it suits your case, but ignore it otherwise? Come on, now. :lol:



Reason compels us to admit, at least, that there were passages in the Mishnayoth concerning Jesus and his teachings; for how is it possible that an occurrence which holds so important a place in the history of Israel, and which has spread its influence among the nations for centuries, should not be even hinted at in the Mishnayoth? I rather doubt it. I mean, Jesus is barely mentioned by his contemporaries in any other texts. Why would the mishna be different?

He was possibly mentioned in the Gemara (written down a bit later) but most of these references were edited out by the church in the middle ages (yes, they did determine what Jews were allowed to have in the Jewish holy texts).



We must, therefore, conclude that Rabbi thought it well to clear the Mishnayoth of any reference to the occurrence itself, as well as to the adherents of the new faith. In this he acted wisely, for he knew beforehand that the Mishnayoth would be the foundation upon which Judaism and the Talmud should be built, and that the interpretations of it would be many, each interpreter following the bias of his mind. Therefore it was deemed best by him to avoid all mention of the new event, to treat it as though it had no existence. Nothing can withstand a strong will. When once he had resolved to carry out his project at any cost, all difficulties vanished."This is pretty much pure speculation. There are many momentous events in first-century Judaism that garner little if any space in the Talmud.


Paul sat under Gamaliel and it would not reason that Paul would not be mentioned.Unless Paul never studied under Rabban Gamliel. We only have his word on it.

the rookie
Feb 16th 2011, 03:53 PM
Letter of the law = "what"; spirit of the law = "why". Jesus was compelling to the crowds in Matthew 5-7 because He provided a set of "whys" that, it seems, had never been communicated to them before. It seems to me that the Talmud, for the Jew, functions as the "how".

Personally, I find that following God wholeheartedly takes all three (what, why, how) and all three must be a part of effective discipleship.

ProjectPeter
Feb 16th 2011, 05:01 PM
I think you're missing what the oral law is. It's not just bossy people telling other people what to do. It's a body of knowledge that wasn't written down at Sinai. It is necessary because without it, it is impossible to follow the law. Like I said, what is "work" that can't be done on the sabbath? And it's not a free-for-all. Much like any legal system, it's built on precedent and previous rulings.

Sure... and it became no different in the straying away from the real intent... no different than what we see today in the US with our Constitution. Everything is so far away from what the founding Father's intended... yet it's all done in the name of the intent of the founding Fathers. Ultimately... it no longer even resembles the written law of Moses. All the while folks claim they "follow the Law of Moses."

the rookie
Feb 16th 2011, 05:04 PM
Sure... and it became no different in the straying away from the real intent... no different than what we see today in the US with our Constitution. Everything is so far away from what the founding Father's intended... yet it's all done in the name of the intent of the founding Fathers. Ultimately... it no longer even resembles the written law of Moses. All the while folks claim they "follow the Law of Moses."

Agreed - can't do the "how" without the "why" though our tendency in sincerity is to want to skip the "why" and go right to "how"...

keck553
Feb 16th 2011, 05:06 PM
Sure... and it became no different in the straying away from the real intent... no different than what we see today in the US with our Constitution. Everything is so far away from what the founding Father's intended... yet it's all done in the name of the intent of the founding Fathers. Ultimately... it no longer even resembles the written law of Moses. All the while folks claim they "follow the Law of Moses."

Kind of lilke how the church today does not resemble the 1st century church?

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 05:08 PM
Sure... and it became no different in the straying away from the real intent... no different than what we see today in the US with our Constitution. Everything is so far away from what the founding Father's intended... yet it's all done in the name of the intent of the founding Fathers.
This is quite an overgeneralization. Every single judge ruling on some Constitutional issue has not made the wrong ruling, which is what you're implying.


Ultimately... it no longer even resembles the written law of Moses.
Perhaps you could provide some examples?

ProjectPeter
Feb 16th 2011, 05:13 PM
This is quite an overgeneralization. Every single judge ruling on some Constitutional issue has not made the wrong ruling, which is what you're implying.No... not at all. But seriously... do you think EVERY single judge has made the right ruling? I know you don't.




Perhaps you could provide some examples?

You've done that already... work on the Sabbath itself. The law of Moses doesn't allow for that at all.... there is no exception. Yet now... you have exceptions. :)

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 05:16 PM
No... not at all. But seriously... do you think EVERY single judge has made the right ruling? I know you don't. Nope. Much like rulings on Jewish law, where there are also disagreements.




You've done that already... work on the Sabbath itself. The law of Moses doesn't allow for that at all.... there is no exception. Yet now... you have exceptions. Ahem. What is "work"?

keck553
Feb 16th 2011, 05:19 PM
Ahem. What is "work"?

Answer: Trying to figure out what "work" is.

ProjectPeter
Feb 16th 2011, 05:23 PM
Nope. Much like rulings on Jewish law, where there are also disagreements.


Ahem. What is "work"?

Depends on who you ask. With Moses... hope it ain't cold outside and the firewood runs out. ;)

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 05:25 PM
Depends on who you ask. With Moses... hope it ain't cold outside and the firewood runs out. ;)
Very clever. :lol:

Now, answer the question. According to "the law of Moses", as you see it, what is "work"?

the rookie
Feb 16th 2011, 05:29 PM
Originally Posted by Keck553
Kind of lilke how the church today does not resemble the 1st century church?

In some ways, it's apples and oranges. The 1st century church was meant to be the foundation, not the whole structure. We can idealize the 1st century church and forget that, for every Jerusalem revival, there is a dispute over food distribution borne out of real racism. For every Antioch revival, there is the book of Galatians. For every Ephesian revival, there is Revelation 2. Paul in Ephesians presents a vision for a mature, blameless, spotless church before the Second Coming of Jesus - in many ways the 1st century church will look at that church and say, "wow, we didn't resemble those guys at all!"

ProjectPeter
Feb 16th 2011, 05:30 PM
Most anything that required you to do anything outside of the tent or even doing anything inside the tent save chilling out... later added the holy convocation so gathering for worship was deemed okay.

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 05:32 PM
Most anything that required you to do anything outside of the tent or even doing anything inside the tent save chilling out... later added the holy convocation so gathering for worship was deemed okay.Okay, so I can't leave my tent on the sabbath? That's the techinical definition of "work"?

keck553
Feb 16th 2011, 05:42 PM
In some ways, it's apples and oranges. The 1st century church was meant to be the foundation, not the whole structure. We can idealize the 1st century church and forget that, for every Jerusalem revival, there is a dispute over food distribution borne out of real racism. For every Antioch revival, there is the book of Galatians. For every Ephesian revival, there is Revelation 2. Paul in Ephesians presents a vision for a mature, blameless, spotless church before the Second Coming of Jesus - in many ways the 1st century church will look at that church and say, "wow, we didn't resemble those guys at all!"

Oh...well I was thinking about the tepid church response to (among believers) the high divorce rate, pedephilia, mass marketing of cotton-candy gospels, the exalting of certain people into movie-star status (whatever happened to "I must decrease so my Master can increase attitude?)...etc. in the church.

the rookie
Feb 16th 2011, 05:48 PM
Oh...well I was thinking about the tepid response to the divorce rate, pedephilia, mass marketing of cotton-candy gospels, the exaulting of certain people into movie-star status (whatever happened to "I must decrease so my Master can increase attitude?)...etc. in the church.

Sure. But I could counter with promoting a doctrine of sexual immorality in the church, a tepid response to Jesus producing blind, naked, wretched forms of Christianity, getting drunk on communion wine and interrupting the preacher with tongues in the name of anointing, exalting Apollos as a "rock-star preacher" and forming a faction around him to avoid the implications of Paul's preaching, prayerlessness in Ephesus (post-revival), wolves claiming to be apostles and fleecing the believers - and the apostle of love putting an end to "wicked nonsense"; not to mention the Cretans...

rejoice44
Feb 16th 2011, 06:15 PM
Unless Paul never studied under Rabban Gamliel. We only have his word on it.

Consider what Paul said. Paul said that Jesus was the KIng of Kings, the High Priest, and the Temple of God.

When you consider since the time of Paul, nearly two thousand years ago, there has been no Jewish king, there has been no Jewish High Priest, and there has been no Jewish Temple, wouldn't you think that a wise man might consider Paul's words?

When you consider the Talmud said that the time of the Messiah would be from the 4,000th year to the 6,000th year coupled with the fact that everything is dated to those 2,000 years as the birth of Jesus Christ, why wouldn't a wise man stop and contemplate?

ProjectPeter
Feb 16th 2011, 06:15 PM
Okay, so I can't leave my tent on the sabbath? That's the techinical definition of "work"?You can leave it... I don't suspect they pee'd in the tent and all! But don't gather wood or dig a new hole to pee in. And come on... that's a simple intellectually honest way of reading what Moses wrote in the five books on the Sabbath... hence the problem with the guy gathering wood and they took it to Moses for a ruling. Moses seemed to solidify that ruling. My emphasis wasn't on "leaving" the tent... it was on "doing" when and if you did leave the tent. An intellectua honestl reading of the first five books written by Moses makes that pretty clear.

tango
Feb 16th 2011, 06:32 PM
Handed down at Sinai. The written law is lacking specifics that would make it impossible to carry out otherwise.

But it really isn't.

Which does seem to leave the people at the mercy of the keepers of the spoken Law. What's to stop them varying these unwritten rules in order to gain an advantage for themselves?


Rabbis are trained in practical Jewish law. While I consider myself fluent in the laws that I might encounter in an everyday situation, there are plenty of things that could happen where I would have doubt. Hence, consult with an expert.

In the sense that you might have a fair understanding of the national law insofar as you encounter it daily but consult an attorney for anything specific (or if it particularly matters) that makes sense. But it does seem odd to me that God would hand down a law so complex that it appears to be a mass of contradiction and circumstance that only someone who had spent their life studying it would be able to keep it. If, as a practising Jew, you were displaced such that you could no longer talk to a rabbi, how would you know what was important and what was not? You could be breaking the Law in all sorts of ways without even realising it.


Fair enough. But how does this guide our adherence to law? In a practical sense, what laws become more important than others as a result of this concept?

We've already seen that saving human life is more important than not working on the Sabbath. I find it hard to imagine that God would create a system of law whereby we honestly don't know whether a particular course of action is acceptable or whether it would lead to our execution. If we've got a choice of giving CPR right now or watching someone die it's easy to decide, but what if someone would probably (but not definitely) survive until the following day? Do we treat them and hope it wasn't classified as "work", or leave it until the next day and hope they survive?


Well as I say, I do not think it meant a physical action.

I struggle to see that in the text, but fear derailing the discussion if we pursue it much further.

RollTide21
Feb 16th 2011, 06:45 PM
What happens when two people wanting to do different things both claim to be "in the spirit"? How to know which one is right?"wanting to do different things"? I'm going to try to address this the best I can to make sure I cover the question:

Scenario 1:
John feels led by the Spirit to go visit an elderly man who has days to live and give him comfort. Bill feels led by the Spirit to pray for the same elderly man at home. There is no conflict, here. The Spirit is personal. It dwells within each of us and guides us individually in the Will of God. I bring up this scenario just to clarify that the Holy Spirit is not a singular entity that speaks to us as a group, with each of us having separate duties. It is the Spirit of God living within each of us. The determination of whether or not someone is "right" or not in the Spirit is whether or not the action is within the characteristics of Life in the Spirit for that particular, individual's circumstance.

Scenario 2:
Maybe this is more what you were driving at. A man cheats John and Bill out of some money. John says he feels led by the Spirit to knock the guy out. Bill says that he feels led by the Spirit to forgive the man and pray for him. Which exhibits the characteristics of Life in the Spirit?

Scenario 3:
John says that the Spirit tells him that the Nation of Israel will experience a national redemption. Bill says that the Spirit tells him that the Nation of Israel will NOT experience a national redemption, but only that contrite individuals within the Nation of Israel will see the Truth and will be saved. This one is trickier, but here is my take: Neither is being led by the Spirit. Both are being led by their own understanding of the Book of Romans. I would put no perameters on God and how He deals with us in the Spirit. That said, a common dilemma that many Christians come across is this above. One says that the Spirit convicts them that Scripture says this. Another says that the Spirit convicts them that the Scriptures say that. The Spirit is here to guide each of us into the full richness of our relationship to God. The Spirit speaks to us through Scripture in order to advance EACH OF US Spiritually. It is not meant to prove that we know the Bible better than somebody else.

keck553
Feb 16th 2011, 07:31 PM
Sure. But I could counter with promoting a doctrine of sexual immorality in the church, a tepid response to Jesus producing blind, naked, wretched forms of Christianity, getting drunk on communion wine and interrupting the preacher with tongues in the name of anointing, exalting Apollos as a "rock-star preacher" and forming a faction around him to avoid the implications of Paul's preaching, prayerlessness in Ephesus (post-revival), wolves claiming to be apostles and fleecing the believers - and the apostle of love putting an end to "wicked nonsense"; not to mention the Cretans...

I do realize there is 'nothing new under the sun.'

Still how deep, how wide the infiltration?

the rookie
Feb 16th 2011, 07:41 PM
I do realize there is 'nothing new under the sun.'

Still how deep, how wide the infiltration?

That's why I find the prayer of Jesus in John 17 (the "same love" He and His Father possess in us) and the promise of Ephesians 4 (maturity expressed in unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God) to be two of the most outrageous passages in the word of God. It seems clear to me that the seven churches in the book of Revelation struggled with issues and problems that have plagued the church throughout her existence (all seven, every generation). Yet the bride will be spotless and blameless in mature love before He returns - outrageous.

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 07:58 PM
Consider what Paul said. Paul said that Jesus was the KIng of Kings, the High Priest, and the Temple of God. What does that have to do with Paul's claim about being a student of Rabban Gamliel?


When you consider since the time of Paul, nearly two thousand years ago, there has been no Jewish king, there has been no Jewish High Priest, and there has been no Jewish Temple, wouldn't you think that a wise man might consider Paul's words? I don't understand. is there a requirement that there be a Jewish king or a Jewish temple at all times?


When you consider the Talmud said that the time of the Messiah would be from the 4,000th year to the 6,000th year coupled with the fact that everything is dated to those 2,000 years as the birth of Jesus Christ, why wouldn't a wise man stop and contemplate?Another one who quotes from the Talmud when he likes it and ignores the Talmud when he doesn't.

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 08:00 PM
You can leave it... I don't suspect they pee'd in the tent and all! But don't gather wood or dig a new hole to pee in. And come on... that's a simple intellectually honest way of reading what Moses wrote in the five books on the Sabbath... hence the problem with the guy gathering wood and they took it to Moses for a ruling. Moses seemed to solidify that ruling. My emphasis wasn't on "leaving" the tent... it was on "doing" when and if you did leave the tent. An intellectua honestl reading of the first five books written by Moses makes that pretty clear.
The bible isn't really clear on what 'work" is, now is it? Like many other aspects of the law, it seems vague. Almost as though there's another body of knowledge that accompanied it, that explained it. An "oral law" of some sort....

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 08:06 PM
Which does seem to leave the people at the mercy of the keepers of the spoken Law. What's to stop them varying these unwritten rules in order to gain an advantage for themselves?There are no "keepers" of the oral law. Anyone can study it. The redactors of the Talmud were for the most part working class people, not the rich and powerful.




In the sense that you might have a fair understanding of the national law insofar as you encounter it daily but consult an attorney for anything specific (or if it particularly matters) that makes sense. But it does seem odd to me that God would hand down a law so complex that it appears to be a mass of contradiction and circumstance that only someone who had spent their life studying it would be able to keep it.Unless that was by God's design. Perhaps he wanted it to be so intricate, so complex, that people devoted their entire lives to studying it. So that one was never really "done", but always diving into the sea of knowledge for more pearls of wisdom. Maybe.



If, as a practising Jew, you were displaced such that you could no longer talk to a rabbi, how would you know what was important and what was not? You could be breaking the Law in all sorts of ways without even realising it.Perhaps this too is by design, to keep Jewish communities together.




We've already seen that saving human life is more important than not working on the Sabbath. I find it hard to imagine that God would create a system of law whereby we honestly don't know whether a particular course of action is acceptable or whether it would lead to our execution.If "doing the right thing" is so easy, why are there studies on say, medical ethics? Shouldn't it be obvious?


If we've got a choice of giving CPR right now or watching someone die it's easy to decide, but what if someone would probably (but not definitely) survive until the following day? Do we treat them and hope it wasn't classified as "work", or leave it until the next day and hope they survive?
Again, I am not a rabbi. I am however inclined to say that when in doubt, we act.

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 08:09 PM
"wanting to do different things"? I'm going to try to address this the best I can to make sure I cover the question:Let's use an example that has practical ramifications.

One person says we should wage war against an evil, genocidal regime before it kills people, or kills even more people. The holy spirit is guiding him, he says.

Another person says no, we should love our enemies and pray for them. He too claims the holy spirit is guiding him.

Who is the holy spirit really guiding?

Firstfruits
Feb 16th 2011, 08:21 PM
With regards to the OP how is the following scripture understood?

Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Firstfruits

ProjectPeter
Feb 16th 2011, 08:37 PM
The bible isn't really clear on what 'work" is, now is it? Like many other aspects of the law, it seems vague. Almost as though there's another body of knowledge that accompanied it, that explained it. An "oral law" of some sort....

Sure it was clear. No work. Can't get any more clear than that... right?

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 08:45 PM
Sure it was clear. No work. Can't get any more clear than that... right?
What is "work"?

Dictionary.com has 54 definitions of the word 'work".

work

  http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/W02/W0235800) /wɜrk/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled [wurk] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA noun, adjective, verb, worked or ( Archaic except for 29, 31, 34 ) wrought; working.
–noun 1. exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something; labor; toil.

2. something on which exertion or labor is expended; a task or undertaking: The students finished their work in class.

3. productive or operative activity.

4. employment, as in some form of industry, especially as a means of earning one's livelihood: to look for work.

5. one's place of employment (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/employment): Don't phone him at work.

6. materials, things, etc., on which one is working or is to work.

7. the result of exertion, labor, or activity; a deed or performance.

8. a product of exertion, labor, or activity: musical works.

9. an engineering structure, as a building or bridge.

10. a building, wall, trench, or the (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the) like, constructed or made as a means of fortification.

11. works, a. ( used with a singular or plural verb http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) a place or establishment for manufacturing (often used in combination): ironworks.

b. the working (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/working) parts of a machine: the works of a watch.

c. Theology . righteous deeds.



12. Physics . force times the distance through which it acts; specifically, the transference of energy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/energy) equal to the product of the component of a force that acts in the direction of the motion of the point of application of the force and the distance through which the point of application moves.

13. the works, Informal . a. everything; all related items or matters: a hamburger with the works.

b. harsh or cruel treatment: to give someone the works.




–adjective 14. of, for, or concerning work: work clothes.

15. working (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/working) ( def. 18 ) .


–verb (used without object) 16. to do work; labor.

17. to be employed, especially as a means of earning one's livelihood: He hasn't worked for six (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/six) weeks.

18. to be in operation, as a machine.

19. to act (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act) or operate effectively: The pump will not work. The plan works.

20. to attain a specified condition, as by repeated movement: The nails worked loose.

21. to have an effect or influence, as on a person or on the mind or feelings of a person.

22. to move in agitation, as the features under strong emotion.

23. to make way with effort or under stress (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stress): The ship works to windward.

24. Nautical . to give slightly at the joints, as a vessel under strain at sea.

25. Machinery . to move improperly, as from defective fitting of parts or from wear.

26. to undergo treatment by labor in a given way: This dough works slowly.

27. to ferment, as a liquid.


–verb (used with object) 28. to use or manage (an apparatus, contrivance, etc.): She can work many business (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/business) machines.

29. to bring about (any result) by or as by work or effort: to work a change.

30. to manipulate or treat by labor: to work butter.

31. to put into effective operation.

32. to operate (a mine, farm, etc.) for productive purposes: to work a coal mine.

33. to carry on operations in (a district or region).

34. to make, fashion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fashion), or execute by work.

35. to achieve or win by work or effort: to work one's passage.

36. to keep (a person, a horse (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/horse), etc.) at work: She works her employees hard.

37. to influence or persuade, especially insidiously: to work other people (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/people) to one's will.

38. Informal . to exploit (someone or something) to one's advantage: See if you (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/you) can work your uncle for a new car (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/car). He worked his charm in landing a new job (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/job).

39. to make or decorate by needlework or embroidery: She worked a needlepoint cushion.

40. to cause fermentation in.


—Verb phrases 41. work in http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnginto, a. to bring or put in; add, merge, or blend: The tailor worked in the patch skillfully. Work the cream into the hands until it is completely absorbed.

b. to arrange a time (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time) or employment for: The dentist was very busy, but said she would be able to work me in late in the afternoon. They worked him into the new operation.



42. work off, a. to lose (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lose) or dispose of, as by exercise or labor: We decided to work off the effects of a heavy supper by walking for an hour.

b. to pay or fulfill by working: He worked off his debt by doing odd Jobs (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Jobs).



43. work on http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngupon, to exercise influence on; persuade; affect: I'll work on her, and maybe she'll change her mind.

44. work out, a. to bring about by work, effort, or action.

b. to solve, as a problem.

c. to arrive at by or as by calculation.

d. to pay (a debt) by working instead of paying money (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/money).

e. to exhaust, as a mine.

f. to issue in a result.

g. to evolve; elaborate (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elaborate).

h. to amount to (a total or specified figure); add up (to): The total works out to 176.

i. to prove effective or successful: Their marriage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage) just didn't work out.

j. to practice, exercise, or train, especially in order to become proficient in an athletic sport (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sport): The boxers are working out at the gym tonight.



45. work over, a. to study or examine thoroughly: For my term paper I worked over 30 volumes of Roman history (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/history).

b. Informal . to beat unsparingly, especially in order to obtain something or out of revenge: They threatened to work him over until he talked.



46. work through, to deal with successfully; come to terms with: to work through one's feelings of guilt.

47. work up, a. to move or stir the feelings; excite.

b. to prepare; elaborate: Work up some plans.

c. to increase in efficiency or skill: He worked up his typing speed to 70 words a minute.



48. work up to, rise to a higher position; advance: He worked up to the presidency.

—Idioms 49. at work, a. working, as at one's job: He's at work on a new novel.

b. in action or operation: to see the machines at work.



50. gum up the works, Slang . to spoil something, as through blundering or stupidity: The surprise party was all arranged, but her little brother gummed up the works and told her.

51. in the works, in preparation or being planned: A musical version of the book is in the works.

52. make short work of, to finish or dispose of quickly: We made short work of the chocolate (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chocolate) layer cake.

53. out of work, unemployed; jobless: Many people in the area were out of work.

54. shoot the works, Slang . to spend all one's resources: Let's shoot the works and order the crêpes suzette.

rejoice44
Feb 16th 2011, 09:25 PM
What does that have to do with Paul's claim about being a student of Rabban Gamliel?

You questioned Paul's integrity. The fact that you have no king, no priest, and no temple gives credence to the words of Paul.


I don't understand. is there a requirement that there be a Jewish king or a Jewish temple at all times?

Only if Israel is to have a relationship with God.


Another one who quotes from the Talmud when he likes it and ignores the Talmud when he doesn't.

Whether I agree with everything in it is not relevant, but whether you agree with it is.

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 09:34 PM
You questioned Paul's integrity. The fact that you have no king, no priest, and no temple gives credence to the words of Paul. I don't see how...




Only if Israel is to have a relationship with God.Ah. And it says this in the bible, where, exactly?




Whether I agree with everything in it is not relevant, but whether you agree with it is.During the middle ages, the church had disputations with the Jewish community. One of the ground rules seems to have been that the church could sort through the Talmud and find isolated passages that they liked, and accept those while discarding 99.9% of the body of knowledge. Jews, on the other hand, had to accept all of it.

I'm not going to play by those rules.

Servant89
Feb 16th 2011, 09:57 PM
I could not disagree more. The king Saul example is exactly backwards- he wanted to look good before the people so he didn't obey the letter of the law.

When the day comes that I stand before the True Judge, if the worst thing He can say is that I tried to follow His commands, I think I'm in a good position.

That is called taking things out of context. When I read your quote... it is obvious that my words are wrong (by themselves without the rest of the sentence). I was talking about the exceptions, not the rule. So, you think the Gibeonites and Rahab were wrong for breaking the 9th commandment?

Shalom

RollTide21
Feb 16th 2011, 09:59 PM
Let's use an example that has practical ramifications.

One person says we should wage war against an evil, genocidal regime before it kills people, or kills even more people. The holy spirit is guiding him, he says.

Another person says no, we should love our enemies and pray for them. He too claims the holy spirit is guiding him.

Who is the holy spirit really guiding?Great question that hopefully some others will chime in on. I'd tend to say that the latter is being led by the Spirit based on the characteristics of the Fruits of the Spirit. War is certainly not among the characteristics of the Holy Spirit. Is war necessary, however? In the advancement of human civilization, it seems to be. Does the Spirit even counsel in matters of war or does this merely fall under our responsibility to our own government as set forth by Jesus Himself?

Servant89
Feb 16th 2011, 10:01 PM
Fulfilling the letter of the law make us look good, it improves our resume. It pumps the EGO of people that actually think they are getting closer to look good before God in their own merit. Good luck with that.

Shalom

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 10:04 PM
That is called taking things out of context. When I read your quote... it is obvious that my words are wrong (by themselves without the rest of the sentence). I was talking about the exceptions, not the rule. So, you think the Gibeonites and Rahab were wrong for breaking the 9th commandment?

ShalomI have no idea what you are saying here, sorry.

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 10:05 PM
Fulfilling the letter of the law make us look good, it improves our resume. It pumps the EGO of people that actually think they are getting closer to look good before God in their own merit. Good luck with that.

So it's impossible to do good deeds without becoming arrogant?!

episkopos
Feb 16th 2011, 10:22 PM
Let's use an example that has practical ramifications.

One person says we should wage war against an evil, genocidal regime before it kills people, or kills even more people. The holy spirit is guiding him, he says.

Another person says no, we should love our enemies and pray for them. He too claims the holy spirit is guiding him.

Who is the holy spirit really guiding?

The second man! God's ways are not promoted through human reasoning.

Servant89
Feb 16th 2011, 10:24 PM
I have no idea what you are saying here, sorry.

Were the Gibeonites wrong for lying to Joshua? Was Rahab the prostitute wrong for lying to her people?

Shalom

episkopos
Feb 16th 2011, 10:25 PM
So it's impossible to do good deeds without becoming arrogant?!

If you claim the deeds as good and we're doing them in our own strength....yes! Jesus says to not let the right hand know what the left hand is doing when it comes to doing good deeds.

It is better to walk in the power of Messiah and let Him work through us. This way God gets the glory!

episkopos
Feb 16th 2011, 10:26 PM
Were the Gibeonites wrong for lying to Joshua? Was Rahab the prostitute wrong for lying to her people?

Shalom

One must ask...which brings glory to God?

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 10:27 PM
Were the Gibeonites wrong for lying to Joshua? Was Rahab the prostitute wrong for lying to her people?

The ninth commandment is about lying? :hmm:

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 10:27 PM
The second man! God's ways are not promoted through human reasoning.
I bet many here will disagree with you. Who's channelling the holy spirit better, you or them?

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 10:30 PM
If you claim the deeds as good and we're doing them in our own strength....yes! This sounds more like something you believe than something that could be empirically proved as "true". In any case I rather doubt a person being helped cares about someone's motivation.

Servant89
Feb 16th 2011, 10:31 PM
So it's impossible to do good deeds without becoming arrogant?!

It is possible to do good deeds without becoming arrogant, as soon as we realize that keeping the law can not save us, we are there. As soon as we realize that keeping the law does not justify us. As soon as we realize that keeping the law, our own righteousness is... what does the OT say about it? Oh, yeah,

Is 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;

As long as we are aware of that, we are ok. But the moment we start looking at ourselves in the mirror and start thinking that somehow, we have earned God's favor by how good we are... we blew it. The most righteous person over the face of the earth at one time was Job. When he felt pain, he said:

Job 13:26 For thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.

Yeah, that righteous man knew, he had sins pending from his youth.

Shalom

Servant89
Feb 16th 2011, 10:33 PM
The ninth commandment is about lying? :hmm:

Were the Gibeonites wrong for breaking the 9th commandment in Joshua 9? Was Rahab the prostitute wrong for breaking the 9th commandment?

is that better?

Shalom

Servant89
Feb 16th 2011, 10:34 PM
One must ask...which brings glory to God?

in those two cases... not telling the truth, bearing false testimony. Because by doing that, they both showed two things, that they were not under the law (Rom 7:4) and that they had lots of faith in God.

Shalom

Fenris
Feb 16th 2011, 10:37 PM
As soon as we realize that keeping the law, our own righteousness is... what does the OT say about it? Oh, yeah,

Is 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;

This out-of-context quote again? It's describing the feelings of the generation that saw the temple's destruction. It's not a binding ruling about all of mankind for all time.

Servant89
Feb 16th 2011, 10:43 PM
This out-of-context quote again? It's describing the feelings of the generation that saw the temple's destruction. It's not a binding ruling about all of mankind for all time.

Remember passover? When God delivered Israel out of Egypt? That is a picture of Christ. Christ saved us on passover day (a prophet like Moses, Deu 18:15). The angel of destruction was not interested in who kept the law. He did not ask, who is a good person, who is a bad person. All he cared about was the blood of the male lamb without blemish in the prime of its youth, whose bones were not broken. Is there blood on the door, yes or no. People's righteousness had nothing to do with it.

Ps 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Ps 53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Trying to impress God with our righteousness is a slippery slope, going down.

Shalom

ProjectPeter
Feb 16th 2011, 11:23 PM
What is "work"?

Dictionary.com has 54 definitions of the word 'work".

work

  http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/W02/W0235800) /wɜrk/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled [wurk] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA noun, adjective, verb, worked or ( Archaic except for 29, 31, 34 ) wrought; working.
–noun 1. exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something; labor; toil.

2. something on which exertion or labor is expended; a task or undertaking: The students finished their work in class.

3. productive or operative activity.

4. employment, as in some form of industry, especially as a means of earning one's livelihood: to look for work.

5. one's place of employment (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/employment): Don't phone him at work.

6. materials, things, etc., on which one is working or is to work.

7. the result of exertion, labor, or activity; a deed or performance.

8. a product of exertion, labor, or activity: musical works.

9. an engineering structure, as a building or bridge.

10. a building, wall, trench, or the (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the) like, constructed or made as a means of fortification.

11. works, a. ( used with a singular or plural verb http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) a place or establishment for manufacturing (often used in combination): ironworks.

b. the working (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/working) parts of a machine: the works of a watch.

c. Theology . righteous deeds.



12. Physics . force times the distance through which it acts; specifically, the transference of energy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/energy) equal to the product of the component of a force that acts in the direction of the motion of the point of application of the force and the distance through which the point of application moves.

13. the works, Informal . a. everything; all related items or matters: a hamburger with the works.

b. harsh or cruel treatment: to give someone the works.




–adjective 14. of, for, or concerning work: work clothes.

15. working (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/working) ( def. 18 ) .


–verb (used without object) 16. to do work; labor.

17. to be employed, especially as a means of earning one's livelihood: He hasn't worked for six (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/six) weeks.

18. to be in operation, as a machine.

19. to act (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/act) or operate effectively: The pump will not work. The plan works.

20. to attain a specified condition, as by repeated movement: The nails worked loose.

21. to have an effect or influence, as on a person or on the mind or feelings of a person.

22. to move in agitation, as the features under strong emotion.

23. to make way with effort or under stress (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stress): The ship works to windward.

24. Nautical . to give slightly at the joints, as a vessel under strain at sea.

25. Machinery . to move improperly, as from defective fitting of parts or from wear.

26. to undergo treatment by labor in a given way: This dough works slowly.

27. to ferment, as a liquid.


–verb (used with object) 28. to use or manage (an apparatus, contrivance, etc.): She can work many business (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/business) machines.

29. to bring about (any result) by or as by work or effort: to work a change.

30. to manipulate or treat by labor: to work butter.

31. to put into effective operation.

32. to operate (a mine, farm, etc.) for productive purposes: to work a coal mine.

33. to carry on operations in (a district or region).

34. to make, fashion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fashion), or execute by work.

35. to achieve or win by work or effort: to work one's passage.

36. to keep (a person, a horse (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/horse), etc.) at work: She works her employees hard.

37. to influence or persuade, especially insidiously: to work other people (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/people) to one's will.

38. Informal . to exploit (someone or something) to one's advantage: See if you (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/you) can work your uncle for a new car (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/car). He worked his charm in landing a new job (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/job).

39. to make or decorate by needlework or embroidery: She worked a needlepoint cushion.

40. to cause fermentation in.


—Verb phrases 41. work in http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnginto, a. to bring or put in; add, merge, or blend: The tailor worked in the patch skillfully. Work the cream into the hands until it is completely absorbed.

b. to arrange a time (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time) or employment for: The dentist was very busy, but said she would be able to work me in late in the afternoon. They worked him into the new operation.



42. work off, a. to lose (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lose) or dispose of, as by exercise or labor: We decided to work off the effects of a heavy supper by walking for an hour.

b. to pay or fulfill by working: He worked off his debt by doing odd Jobs (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Jobs).



43. work on http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngupon, to exercise influence on; persuade; affect: I'll work on her, and maybe she'll change her mind.

44. work out, a. to bring about by work, effort, or action.

b. to solve, as a problem.

c. to arrive at by or as by calculation.

d. to pay (a debt) by working instead of paying money (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/money).

e. to exhaust, as a mine.

f. to issue in a result.

g. to evolve; elaborate (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elaborate).

h. to amount to (a total or specified figure); add up (to): The total works out to 176.

i. to prove effective or successful: Their marriage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage) just didn't work out.

j. to practice, exercise, or train, especially in order to become proficient in an athletic sport (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sport): The boxers are working out at the gym tonight.



45. work over, a. to study or examine thoroughly: For my term paper I worked over 30 volumes of Roman history (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/history).

b. Informal . to beat unsparingly, especially in order to obtain something or out of revenge: They threatened to work him over until he talked.



46. work through, to deal with successfully; come to terms with: to work through one's feelings of guilt.

47. work up, a. to move or stir the feelings; excite.

b. to prepare; elaborate: Work up some plans.

c. to increase in efficiency or skill: He worked up his typing speed to 70 words a minute.



48. work up to, rise to a higher position; advance: He worked up to the presidency.

—Idioms 49. at work, a. working, as at one's job: He's at work on a new novel.

b. in action or operation: to see the machines at work.



50. gum up the works, Slang . to spoil something, as through blundering or stupidity: The surprise party was all arranged, but her little brother gummed up the works and told her.

51. in the works, in preparation or being planned: A musical version of the book is in the works.

52. make short work of, to finish or dispose of quickly: We made short work of the chocolate (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chocolate) layer cake.

53. out of work, unemployed; jobless: Many people in the area were out of work.

54. shoot the works, Slang . to spend all one's resources: Let's shoot the works and order the crêpes suzette.

Let's pretend we're not all retarded and know well, by context of the Scripture, that works simply means anything laborious eh? ;)

keck553
Feb 16th 2011, 11:28 PM
That's why I find the prayer of Jesus in John 17 (the "same love" He and His Father possess in us) and the promise of Ephesians 4 (maturity expressed in unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God) to be two of the most outrageous passages in the word of God. It seems clear to me that the seven churches in the book of Revelation struggled with issues and problems that have plagued the church throughout her existence (all seven, every generation). Yet the bride will be spotless and blameless in mature love before He returns - outrageous.

good points. God appears rather unorthodox when viewed from the world.

rejoice44
Feb 17th 2011, 01:56 PM
I don't see how...

Paul said Jesus was your king, priest, and temple. You haven't had a king, priest, or temple for nearly 2,000 years, isn't it logical that Jesus is your king, priest, and temple that you have rejected for nearly 2,000 years? God has separated himself from you for 2,000 years if your are correct. If Paul is correct, Israel has separated herself from God for nearly 2,000 years, which of the two is most logical. If God separated himself from you for nearly 2,000 years, why? Israel said they didn't want to have direct contact with God, for fear they would die, where has this changed? You have to have a mediator therefore, and you have no Moses and Aaron today. Your Talmud says that the Messiah was to come some 2,000 years ago and Paul said he did. For how many years will Israel remain hardened to God?

tango
Feb 17th 2011, 02:21 PM
There are no "keepers" of the oral law. Anyone can study it. The redactors of the Talmud were for the most part working class people, not the rich and powerful.

Unless that was by God's design. Perhaps he wanted it to be so intricate, so complex, that people devoted their entire lives to studying it. So that one was never really "done", but always diving into the sea of knowledge for more pearls of wisdom. Maybe.

Perhaps, but it still seems unlikely that God would create a law so complex one needed their entire life to understand it while also introducing a requirement for execution if specific rules were broken. It's a bit of a blow to find yourself facing the stoning squad when you didn't even realise you weren't allowed to do whatever it was that got you there.


Perhaps this too is by design, to keep Jewish communities together.

Which is all well and good, as long as that is an option. But even if it were an option, let's say for some reason large numbers of Jews (yourself included) had to flee your area. Along the way the rabbis were executed. Now who you do you go in order to make sure you don't break the law? Although admittedly you won't face execution if nobody else knows you broke the law, but it might be a little bit awkward when you face judgment.


If "doing the right thing" is so easy, why are there studies on say, medical ethics? Shouldn't it be obvious?

One obvious difference is that breaching medical ethics doesn't lead to execution. I could be wrong on this but from what I recall (which admittedly is very hazy) some areas of ethics relate to matters like offering payment to people in exchange for taking a risk (e.g. drugs trials), for enduring discomfort and the like. Obviously that doesn't include matters relating to relationships between a medic and a patient. I'd be surprised if there concepts like how much effort to spend on someone with minimal chances of survival, how to prioritise patients when there aren't enough medics to go around (e.g. do you treat the drunk driver or ignore him to take a much longer shot to save the child he ran over?)


Again, I am not a rabbi. I am however inclined to say that when in doubt, we act.

"When in doubt, we act" is all well and good, but "we act" is as vague as "the spirit of the law", no?

Fenris
Feb 17th 2011, 03:08 PM
Remember passover? When God delivered Israel out of Egypt? That is a picture of Christ. I'm sorry, I do not see it.


Trying to impress God with our righteousness is a slippery slope, going down.
I'm not trying to "impress" anyone. I'm simply doing what God told me to do. How this ends up being a bad thing, I have no idea....

Fenris
Feb 17th 2011, 03:08 PM
Let's pretend we're not all retarded and know well, by context of the Scripture, that works simply means anything laborious eh? ;)
Anything laborious? I don't get that from the scripture at all.

Exodus simply mentions no work, without defining it.

Numbers mentions gathering firewood.

Jeremiah mentions carrying outside of one's house or city gates.

Amos mentions people waiting for the sabbath to end that they may do business

Nehemiah mentions the prohibition against shopping on the sabbath

So we have prohibition against "work" (undefined), gathering wood, carrying, business transactions, shopping....

Fenris
Feb 17th 2011, 03:14 PM
Paul said Jesus was your king, priest, and temple. You haven't had a king, priest, or temple for nearly 2,000 years, isn't it logical that Jesus is your king, priest, and temple that you have rejected for nearly 2,000 years?
No. Again, why do we need a king, priest, or temple? You've created a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.


God has separated himself from you for 2,000 years if your are correct. Psalms says that God is near to all who call upon Him. I don't feel separated from Him at all.


If Paul is correct, Israel has separated herself from God for nearly 2,000 years, which of the two is most logical.I suppose that depends on what one believes.


If God separated himself from you for nearly 2,000 years, why? Obviously God desired the Jewish diaspora for reasons all His own.


Israel said they didn't want to have direct contact with God, for fear they would die, where has this changed? Why am I held accountable for something my ancestors said 3300 years ago?


You have to have a mediator therefore, and you have no Moses and Aaron today. I don't see the need for a mediator at all. I talk to God every day.


Your Talmud says that the Messiah was to come some 2,000 years ago and Paul said he did.It says nothing of the sort, but keep quoting it if it makes you happy.


For how many years will Israel remain hardened to God? It's so easy to say that anyone who believes differently from you is "hardened to God". That doesn't make it true.

Fenris
Feb 17th 2011, 03:23 PM
Perhaps, but it still seems unlikely that God would create a law so complex one needed their entire life to understand it while also introducing a requirement for execution if specific rules were broken. It's a bit of a blow to find yourself facing the stoning squad when you didn't even realise you weren't allowed to do whatever it was that got you there.One isn't executed for accidental transgression of the law. Anyway there are those who claim that the complexity of Jewish law is responsible for the average IQ of Jews being higher than any other group. No doubt it serves God's purposes, somehow.




Which is all well and good, as long as that is an option. But even if it were an option, let's say for some reason large numbers of Jews (yourself included) had to flee your area. Along the way the rabbis were executed. Now who you do you go in order to make sure you don't break the law? Although admittedly you won't face execution if nobody else knows you broke the law, but it might be a little bit awkward when you face judgment.Not a hypothetical. Jewish communities in Europe faced some 80 expulsions over the past 2000 years, or roughly once a generation. No big deal, they simply rebuilt elsewhere. If there was no incentive for Jews to stick together they might have entirely died out as a people.

Anyway if one has no rabbi to ask they simply must do the best they can with the information at hand. God understands.

Kind of an odd corollary that addresses the issue (sort of). What if one is stranded on (say) a deserted island and they don't know what day of the week it is? When do they observe the sabbath? Simple. They count 6 days and rest on the 7th. For them, that becomes their sabbath until they become aware otherwise. What if it isn't the "real" sabbath? God understands.




One obvious difference is that breaching medical ethics doesn't lead to execution.You're every hung up on this execution thing, aren't you?




"When in doubt, we act" is all well and good, but "we act" is as vague as "the spirit of the law", no?No, because we are still following rules. The statement about the spirit of the law" is really as vague as one can be.

episkopos
Feb 17th 2011, 03:26 PM
This sounds more like something you believe than something that could be empirically proved as "true". In any case I rather doubt a person being helped cares about someone's motivation.

This is true. However God DOES!

Fenris
Feb 17th 2011, 03:29 PM
This is true. However God DOES!
Someone who does good deeds for the wrong reason will eventually do them for the right reason.

Vhayes
Feb 17th 2011, 03:31 PM
I haven't read this thread all the way through - frankly, I haven't even read the original post. But I do want to share something I see played out over and over again in the real world.

We say that as Christians, we live by the spirit of the law and Jews live by the letter of the law. That the intent of the law was to show us/teach us about God's grace, mercy and love.

In the real world what I have personally observed is this. A Christian brother is a brother on Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. The remainder of the time, we don't think about him much. You say he has lost his job? Gee, that's a shame. I'll pray for him.

A Jewish man has lost his job? Hmmmmm. Let's see. The Jewish community says, "I will pray for him. And I know God gives the increase, so out what has been given to me, I will create a job for him or I will help him find another job tomorrow."

The Jewish people I know personally take care of each others needs far better than do we Christians. And it isn't just people in their circle of friends or members of their synagogue - it is anyone who claims the title "Jew".

So, in reality, who is living by the letter of the law and who is living by it's spirit?

Fenris
Feb 17th 2011, 03:41 PM
A Jewish man has lost his job? Hmmmmm. Let's see. The Jewish community says, "I will pray for him. And I know God gives the increase, so out what has been given to me, I will create a job for him or I will help him find another job tomorrow."

Now, see, this is the linchpin of the whole Torah. God says to love your fellow man. How to demonstrate this love? By following the laws that apply to our behavior with other men. That doesn't mean that one can't do more than the law requires. But one should certainly not do less.

Oh, and according to Talmudic law, a Jew is obligated to give to gentile charities as well. :)

Good post, V.

keck553
Feb 17th 2011, 04:23 PM
I haven't read this thread all the way through - frankly, I haven't even read the original post. But I do want to share something I see played out over and over again in the real world.

We say that as Christians, we live by the spirit of the law and Jews live by the letter of the law. That the intent of the law was to show us/teach us about God's grace, mercy and love.

In the real world what I have personally observed is this. A Christian brother is a brother on Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. The remainder of the time, we don't think about him much. You say he has lost his job? Gee, that's a shame. I'll pray for him.

A Jewish man has lost his job? Hmmmmm. Let's see. The Jewish community says, "I will pray for him. And I know God gives the increase, so out what has been given to me, I will create a job for him or I will help him find another job tomorrow."

The Jewish people I know personally take care of each others needs far better than do we Christians. And it isn't just people in their circle of friends or members of their synagogue - it is anyone who claims the title "Jew".

So, in reality, who is living by the letter of the law and who is living by it's spirit?

Amen. I've always maintained that God's salvation is manifested in us though actions. People tend to stumble over 'do's' and 'don'ts'. Ironically, 1 Timonthy and 2 Timothy are filled with 'dos' and 'do nots,' yet people blow right through these books without arching their backs in rebellion. Why?

RabbiKnife
Feb 17th 2011, 06:44 PM
Gandhi had a point. "Your Christ, I like. Your Christians, not so much so."

tango
Feb 17th 2011, 07:12 PM
Anyway if one has no rabbi to ask they simply must do the best they can with the information at hand. God understands.

Kind of an odd corollary that addresses the issue (sort of). What if one is stranded on (say) a deserted island and they don't know what day of the week it is? When do they observe the sabbath? Simple. They count 6 days and rest on the 7th. For them, that becomes their sabbath until they become aware otherwise. What if it isn't the "real" sabbath? God understands.

So at a stroke you've defined the spirit of the Law as you seek to understand what it's trying to accomplish. What counts is that you take one day off in seven, rather than necessarily taking off one specific day every week. Otherwise you'd best hope there isn't a handy pile of stones lying around on that desert island :)

keck553
Feb 17th 2011, 07:23 PM
Gandhi had a point. "Your Christ, I like. Your Christians, not so much so."

Gandi's just quoting Solomon in the words of the Kohelet (probably in ignorance).

Fenris
Feb 17th 2011, 09:08 PM
So at a stroke you've defined the spirit of the Law as you seek to understand what it's trying to accomplish. What counts is that you take one day off in seven, rather than necessarily taking off one specific day every week.
Mmmm no, because if you know which day is the sabbath you are obliged to rest on that day.

ProjectPeter
Feb 17th 2011, 09:14 PM
Anything laborious? I don't get that from the scripture at all.

Exodus simply mentions no work, without defining it.

Numbers mentions gathering firewood.

Jeremiah mentions carrying outside of one's house or city gates.

Amos mentions people waiting for the sabbath to end that they may do business

Nehemiah mentions the prohibition against shopping on the sabbath

So we have prohibition against "work" (undefined), gathering wood, carrying, business transactions, shopping....

Uh... those are laborious things Fenris. Pretty well defined in your various examples. ;)

Fenris
Feb 17th 2011, 09:20 PM
Uh... those are laborious things Fenris. Pretty well defined in your various examples.
Carrying a paperclip outside my house is not terribly labor intensive, yet it is forbidden. Moving furniture within my house is labor intensive, yet it's not forbidden.

RogerW
Feb 17th 2011, 09:20 PM
I haven't read this thread all the way through - frankly, I haven't even read the original post. But I do want to share something I see played out over and over again in the real world.

We say that as Christians, we live by the spirit of the law and Jews live by the letter of the law. That the intent of the law was to show us/teach us about God's grace, mercy and love.

In the real world what I have personally observed is this. A Christian brother is a brother on Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. The remainder of the time, we don't think about him much. You say he has lost his job? Gee, that's a shame. I'll pray for him.

A Jewish man has lost his job? Hmmmmm. Let's see. The Jewish community says, "I will pray for him. And I know God gives the increase, so out what has been given to me, I will create a job for him or I will help him find another job tomorrow."

The Jewish people I know personally take care of each others needs far better than do we Christians. And it isn't just people in their circle of friends or members of their synagogue - it is anyone who claims the title "Jew".

So, in reality, who is living by the letter of the law and who is living by it's spirit?

This is very common thinking IF one has confused the law and the gospel. Kind of reminds me of the preacher who wrote a book designed to bring unbelievers into the church. So he tells all who read that we must do good deeds to demonstrate Christ living in us. Then he says we are to do the gospel, be the gospel, live the gospel! Sounds pretty good...yes? Trouble is there is only One Gospel, Christ alone! Saying we must be/do/live the gospel, and doing good works is how...he has just destroyed the gospel he is trying to promote by confusing the gospel with the law. WORKS, done for whatever reason are ALWAYS obedience, done through faith, but the gospel of grace is NEVER a work we do...otherwise it would not be grace.

So we can do the law all day, every day, and our good deeds/works will no doubt benefit someone, but our work will NEVER justify us before Almighty God!

Servant89
Feb 17th 2011, 11:53 PM
I'm sorry, I do not see it.

I'm not trying to "impress" anyone. I'm simply doing what God told me to do. How this ends up being a bad thing, I have no idea....

You keep doing what God told you to do, it is a good thing. I do not believe you are trying to impress God with how holy you are. Sorry if that is how I came across.

But Rahab gave false testimony about the spies to her people and in doing so, she sealed the fate of her people. How come God liked when she broke the 9th commandment?

Be blessed Fenris, be blessed by the Holy One of Israel.

Shalom

tango
Feb 18th 2011, 12:19 AM
Mmmm no, because if you know which day is the sabbath you are obliged to rest on that day.

And if you don't know which day it is, you pick a day and take that day off every week. In other words when the letter of the law cannot be obeyed (in this case due to circumstance) the intention of the law, namely that you take one day of rest every week, is obeyed. Likewise if you couldn't see precisely when the sun set you could take a best guess based on the light and observe the rules as best you could - you might get the time a little wrong but the observation of a "day of rest" is still performed.

If someone washed up on your desert island on the day you had designated to be your Sabbath and was in desperate need of attention you could offer, then I guess you could offer the help needed and rest the following day.

Vhayes
Feb 18th 2011, 03:13 AM
This is very common thinking IF one has confused the law and the gospel. Kind of reminds me of the preacher who wrote a book designed to bring unbelievers into the church. So he tells all who read that we must do good deeds to demonstrate Christ living in us. Then he says we are to do the gospel, be the gospel, live the gospel! Sounds pretty good...yes? Trouble is there is only One Gospel, Christ alone! Saying we must be/do/live the gospel, and doing good works is how...he has just destroyed the gospel he is trying to promote by confusing the gospel with the law. WORKS, done for whatever reason are ALWAYS obedience, done through faith, but the gospel of grace is NEVER a work we do...otherwise it would not be grace.

So we can do the law all day, every day, and our good deeds/works will no doubt benefit someone, but our work will NEVER justify us before Almighty God!

Nor did I say our deeds WOULD justify us.

What I am saying is there are a whole lotta Jews I know who are more Christian than the Christians I know if I were to judge from the outside looking in.

Oh - and FYI - 90% of the Jews I know give because they care, not because they have to. Hence "the heart" giving.

Fenris
Feb 18th 2011, 11:03 AM
You keep doing what God told you to do, it is a good thing. I do not believe you are trying to impress God with how holy you are. Sorry if that is how I came across. That how a lot of people come across. Scratching my head on this one.


But Rahab gave false testimony about the spies to her people and in doing so, she sealed the fate of her people. How come God liked when she broke the 9th commandment?1)Lying is not always wrong 2)Lying is not what the 9th commandment is talking about and 3) the ten commandments were given to the Jews, not the whole world.

Fenris
Feb 18th 2011, 11:05 AM
And if you don't know which day it is, you pick a day and take that day off every week. In other words when the letter of the law cannot be obeyed (in this case due to circumstance) the intention of the law, namely that you take one day of rest every week, is obeyed. Likewise if you couldn't see precisely when the sun set you could take a best guess based on the light and observe the rules as best you could - you might get the time a little wrong but the observation of a "day of rest" is still performed.But the sabbath rules are in full effect in any case.


If someone washed up on your desert island on the day you had designated to be your Sabbath and was in desperate need of attention you could offer, then I guess you could offer the help needed and rest the following day.Mmm no, you couldn't.

RogerW
Feb 18th 2011, 02:42 PM
Nor did I say our deeds WOULD justify us.

What I am saying is there are a whole lotta Jews I know who are more Christian than the Christians I know if I were to judge from the outside looking in.

Oh - and FYI - 90% of the Jews I know give because they care, not because they have to. Hence "the heart" giving.

It's always a good thing to give from the heart! The non-Christian Jews will not be cast into the lake of fire because they lacked expressing love for others! However they, and all who remain in unbelief will be cast into the lake of fire because they have neven been born again through Christ. So unbelieving Jews doing good deeds are NEVER more Christian then those who profess to love the Lord! It is not our good works/deeds that save us! If good works must be evident to prove we are Christians then eternity will indeed be a very lonely place. Salvation is of the Lord...ALONE! We are saved by grace, not by our deeds. Our deeds may show the fruit of the Spirit in us, but our deeds are always works of obedience, not grace.

This is such a common thing in the church...Christians mixing law (obedience to God's commands) and gospel (Christ Jesus our Lord) alone.

Vhayes
Feb 18th 2011, 02:45 PM
I'm not "one of those" Christians. i take hits often for my stand on "Faith Alone in Christ Alone".

The point I was trying to make was this:

If you (generic you) are gonna claim the name of Christ and say you are His follower, then you (generic you) should act like it.

RogerW
Feb 18th 2011, 04:12 PM
I'm not "one of those" Christians. i take hits often for my stand on "Faith Alone in Christ Alone".

The point I was trying to make was this:

If you (generic you) are gonna claim the name of Christ and say you are His follower, then you (generic you) should act like it.

I understood your point V! What I took homage to was stating Jews, who stand in stark opposition to Christ show themselves to be more Christian, than professing Christians through their works. That IMO makes it appear you equate our good works to the gospel of Jesus Christ, that ALONE saves!

Tit*3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

RabbiKnife
Feb 18th 2011, 04:16 PM
I think my reply would be that there are many people that name the name of Christ that are not believers.

divaD
Feb 18th 2011, 04:25 PM
It's always a good thing to give from the heart! The non-Christian Jews will not be cast into the lake of fire because they lacked expressing love for others! However they, and all who remain in unbelief will be cast into the lake of fire because they have neven been born again through Christ. So unbelieving Jews doing good deeds are NEVER more Christian then those who profess to love the Lord! It is not our good works/deeds that save us! If good works must be evident to prove we are Christians then eternity will indeed be a very lonely place. Salvation is of the Lord...ALONE! We are saved by grace, not by our deeds. Our deeds may show the fruit of the Spirit in us, but our deeds are always works of obedience, not grace.

This is such a common thing in the church...Christians mixing law (obedience to God's commands) and gospel (Christ Jesus our Lord) alone.




RW, this is a tough one. I for one thought V made some very valid points, that I found myself agreeing with overall. On the other hand, I believe you make valid points as well. A tough call. I can see where V would be correct. I can also see where you would be correct as well. Is there any room for both of you to be correct, at least to some extent?

Vhayes
Feb 18th 2011, 04:34 PM
RW, this is a tough one. I for one thought V made some very valid points, that I found myself agreeing with overall. On the other hand, I believe you make valid points as well. A tough call. I can see where V would be correct. I can also see where you would be correct as well. Is there any room for both of you to be correct, at least to some extent?

Yes, there is. We are approaching the subject matter from opposite ends.

If I was an unbeliever and I looked around to observe which "religion" offered the most to me personally, which seemed to bring the most devotion/dedication/zeal, American Christianity is the last one that would recommend itself to me.

keck553
Feb 18th 2011, 04:45 PM
It's always a good thing to give from the heart! The non-Christian Jews will not be cast into the lake of fire because they lacked expressing love for others! However they, and all who remain in unbelief will be cast into the lake of fire because they have neven been born again through Christ. So unbelieving Jews doing good deeds are NEVER more Christian then those who profess to love the Lord! It is not our good works/deeds that save us! If good works must be evident to prove we are Christians then eternity will indeed be a very lonely place. Salvation is of the Lord...ALONE! We are saved by grace, not by our deeds. Our deeds may show the fruit of the Spirit in us, but our deeds are always works of obedience, not grace.

This is such a common thing in the church...Christians mixing law (obedience to God's commands) and gospel (Christ Jesus our Lord) alone.

Oh for the sake of red chevy's and green corvairs. This thread isn't about salvation. God works through us by means. Sometimes that requires effort on our part.

RogerW
Feb 18th 2011, 04:52 PM
RW, this is a tough one. I for one thought V made some very valid points, that I found myself agreeing with overall. On the other hand, I believe you make valid points as well. A tough call. I can see where V would be correct. I can also see where you would be correct as well. Is there any room for both of you to be correct, at least to some extent?

I was not implying V was wrong! There are many who profess Christ, but their lives do not reflect the Christ they profess. What I find in this thread are those who seem to find some goodness with non Christians (in this thread specifically unsaved Jews) because they do good works. Sadly their good works will burn with them eternally! Yes, Christians need to be better at expressing their faith...but we must be very careful not to confuse doing good (obeying God's commands) with the gospel of Christ! It is the gospel (Christ Jesus our Lord) Who saves, not our works of faith.

RogerW
Feb 18th 2011, 05:03 PM
Yes, there is. We are approaching the subject matter from opposite ends.

If I was an unbeliever and I looked around to observe which "religion" offered the most to me personally, which seemed to bring the most devotion/dedication/zeal, American Christianity is the last one that would recommend itself to me.

V, I truly do understand the point you are making, and I agree often times so-called Christians, lack devotion to Christ, and a zeal for doing good! I only make this point because there is (especially in America) incredible confusion about what is law and what is gospel. It will be very sad when we stand before the Lord and many will profess how many wonderful works they have done in His name, and then hear Christ tells them, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity"! They live their lives believing that somehow their good works would make them righteous before God. This because the lived their lives by the letter of the law, thinking (like the unbelieving Jews) their good works merited them favor before God.

What we have failed to express clearly, and with great love to Fenris is simply that! We do not show love for those in unbelief when we allow them to believe their good works are better examples of Christianity then those who profess to love Christ, even when their lives may not demonstrate the Christ they say they love.

RogerW
Feb 18th 2011, 05:27 PM
Oh for the sake of red chevy's and green corvairs. This thread isn't about salvation. God works through us by means. Sometimes that requires effort on our part.

It's about salvation for our friend Fenris, who does not believe in Christ! Basically what he has been told in this thread is that he is right to run away from Christians, because it appears to some that unbeliving, law abiding Jews are far better at showing love than Christians are anyway!

RabbiKnife
Feb 18th 2011, 05:37 PM
It's about salvation for our friend Fenris, who does not believe in Christ! Basically what he has been told in this thread is that he is right to run away from Christians, because it appears to some that unbeliving, law abiding Jews are far better at showing love than Christians are anyway!

Well, he should run from some "Christians." And some law abiding Jews are better at showing love than some Christians.

Fenris is not a novice. He's read the New Testament. He is far more proficient in the OT than anyone on this board. If you believe that Fenris' salvation is determined by this thread, then I would beg to differ.

RogerW
Feb 18th 2011, 05:57 PM
Well, he should run from some "Christians." And some law abiding Jews are better at showing love than some Christians.

And when he runs from some Christians, and then shows how much better than them he is at showing love...what has it benefitted him? Kudos in this life, and everlasting death in the life to come!!! Eat, and drink, and be merry, do all you can to enjoy this life...for tomorrow you die!


Fenris is not a novice. He's read the New Testament. He is far more proficient in the OT than anyone on this board. If you believe that Fenris' salvation is determined by this thread, then I would beg to differ.

Praise God salvation is of the Lord, He will save His people from their sins! How does proficiency in the OT help Fenris since to date he denies there is any mention whatsoever of Christ there?

RogerW
Feb 18th 2011, 05:59 PM
Fenris,

I pray that you are not offended by my statements here! They are not given to offend, but rather in love.

RW

Fenris
Feb 18th 2011, 06:02 PM
Fenris,

I pray that you are not offended by my statements here! They are not given to offend, but rather in love.

Not offended at all. :hug:


it appears to some that unbeliving, law abiding Jews are far better at showing love than Christians are anywayI won't say "far better". Certainly "as good as" though.

As I said, above, following the letter of the law ensures that love gets shown for our fellow man. One can certainly do more than what the law requires.

keck553
Feb 18th 2011, 06:35 PM
It's about salvation for our friend Fenris, who does not believe in Christ! Basically what he has been told in this thread is that he is right to run away from Christians, because it appears to some that unbeliving, law abiding Jews are far better at showing love than Christians are anyway!

Yeah. Nothing burns in my heart stronger than to see the ones I love (or even my enemies!) in heaven. I understand your heart in this matter. Unfortunately it seems there are many who think attaching themselves to the religion of Christianity will save them. Sort of a gamble similar to Blaise Pascal's "if God is real then we're good to go, if He's not then we're all in the same place anyway" nonsense. But we all know, in the final analysis, it is God who saves, may He provide us with the wisdom and the means to do His will!

I think the body of Christ as a corporate has much repenting to do. Repentance will always remove the shackles of bondage.

I tell you, I'm going to rant a bit more. My church has a Pastor, whom I put in this category:

"The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd "

This is great, but unfortunately his elders allow scripturally sloppy super-star eastern-mythology Bible study programs into their women's Bible study groups, without as much as reviewing the material. In my opinion, this is the same sin of Adam, neglecting the ones whom God gave the duty to protect, spiritually and physically. Now, unfortunately these wives are going to study under a false teacher, while the Pastor gives pretty much the opposite message on Sundays.

And now, we have to carefully present this enigma to the Pastor hoping we haven't raised the hairs on the back of the necks of the elders who are charged with this responsibility. I am sure this occurs everywhere - why are congregations sanctioning this kind of cotton-candy eastern completative rubbish to creep into their congregations - even worse to the women in the congregation? Is it neglect? Indifference?

it's time to WAKE UP.

LookingUp
Feb 18th 2011, 06:37 PM
Hey guys. I haven't been following this thread very much. Correct me if I'm wrong, Fenris, but you don't believe your good works "get you to heaven" (welcomed into eternity), isn't that right?

episkopos
Feb 18th 2011, 06:46 PM
Judaism is a religion of attaining righteousness through obedience. Ironically, so is Islam.

But Christianity is a living way or MEANS of accomplishing that obedience. Christians receive the grace to walk as the Master walked. We are not left to our own devices to do as best we can. We receive an empowering faculty through Christ who is become our life to do what is pleasing to the Father.....even to the miraculous daily works that faith enables. That is the difference.

Fenris
Feb 18th 2011, 06:51 PM
Hey guys. I haven't been following this thread very much. Correct me if I'm wrong, Fenris, but you don't believe your good works "get you to heaven" (welcomed into eternity), isn't that right?
We believe that people are judged by what they do more than by what they believe.

rejoice44
Feb 18th 2011, 06:51 PM
No. Again, why do we need a king, priest, or temple? You've created a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Well then you have just negated the law. The law requires a priest and temple, otherwise it cannot be fulfilled.


Psalms says that God is near to all who call upon Him. I don't feel separated from Him at all.My statement was referring to Israel as a nation. I never considered that you might be 2,000 years old. For nearly two thousand years there has been no prophet, no priest, and no temple. How then does Israel come before God, when God requires a priest and temple.


I suppose that depends on what one believes.Regardless of what one believes, it still has been nearly 2,000 years, and God continues, every day, to put onto more and more items, the announcement of his Son's birth.


Obviously God desired the Jewish diaspora for reasons all His own.Yes, and he clearly tells us what that reason is.


Why am I held accountable for something my ancestors said 3300 years ago? Why was all Israel responsible for what Achan did?


I don't see the need for a mediator at all. I talk to God every day.Is it a two way conversation? Has God told you why you have no priest, or temple to worship in?


It says nothing of the sort, but keep quoting it if it makes you happy.If you are going to hold me to the letter, here is what it says---

SANHEDRIN 97-A

The Tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation; two thousand years the Torah flourished; and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost.


It's so easy to say that anyone who believes differently from you is "hardened to God". That doesn't make it true. Exodus 32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:

Exodus 34:9 And he said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance.

Deuteronomy 9:6 Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people.

Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

2 Chronicles 30:8 Now be ye not stiffnecked, as your fathers were, but yield yourselves unto the LORD, and enter into his sanctuary, which he hath sanctified for ever: and serve the LORD your God, that the fierceness of his wrath may turn away from you.


The sanctuary and temple is Jesus Christ.


Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Fenris
Feb 18th 2011, 06:54 PM
Judaism is a religion of attaining righteousness through obedience. Ironically, so is Islam.Judaism places actions above beliefs, and teaches that any person may attain the afterlife regardless of their religion. Obviously this differs from Christianity and Islam.

episkopos
Feb 18th 2011, 07:00 PM
Judaism places actions above beliefs, and teaches that any person may attain the afterlife regardless of their religion. Obviously this differs from Christianity and Islam.

Christianity is Judaism fulfilled. Jesus Christ is all about good works.

It is doers not hearers that are justified before God. This is a consistent message throughout the NT. It is simply ignored by they who misunderstand and reason that grace makes them favourites of God. It is the same error that leads Jews to think that it is their birthright that makes them special to God.

We are saved by grace FOR good works. The fact that modern Christian doctrine emphasises a dead belief is more a sign of the times. The church is divided over this issue. Persecution would sort this out however.

LookingUp
Feb 18th 2011, 07:03 PM
We believe that people are judged by what they do more than by what they believe.But you dont' believe that it is your personal works that get you welcomed into eternity, isn't that correct?

By the way, Christians also believe we are judged on our works, but that this judgment is not about getting into heaven.

RR van Wyk
Feb 19th 2011, 07:11 AM
We believe that people are judged by what they do more than by what they believe.

But you at least need to believe in a moral system to do good things... don't you? It makes sence what you say... so many different religions... and most will die for all eternity? sounds cruel... But then again, you said we should not try to guess what God wants or means... So do You believe this because it makes sense to you, or God said this or want this for real? That sounds crazy, because God doesn't want us to believe or follow false gods... so how does it save you to follow false gods but do good?

Real deep stuff we talk about lately...

Kyle
Feb 20th 2011, 05:20 AM
A Christian's best witness is his walk -- his actions. So, the spirit of the law first. After that, walk the talk or you will be labeled a hypocrite. We will still
sin, but don't glory in it. Jesus Christ taught that the "letter of the law" and the additions to it, is where the Pharisees and the Sadducees made their
largest error. <><

Servant89
Feb 21st 2011, 12:26 AM
Judaism places actions above beliefs, and teaches that any person may attain the afterlife regardless of their religion. Obviously this differs from Christianity and Islam.

Rom 2:11-15 states that there will be people that never heard about the Bible, in heaven.

Shalom

ProjectPeter
Feb 21st 2011, 12:42 AM
Rom 2:11-15 states that there will be people that never heard about the Bible, in heaven.

Shalom

Um.... the vast majority of long dead folks never had a Bible what with them being a fairly new thing compared to time and all. :lol:

awestruckchild
Feb 21st 2011, 05:24 PM
The problem comes in when men ONLY follow the letter of the law. It is possible to be clean on the outside but inside to be full of dead mens bones. However, if the inside of the cup is clean, the outside just will be as well. This is because ALL sin proceeds FROM WITHIN a man to defile him. You must murder a man in spirit and truth BEFORE you will literally or physically murder him, but the opposite does not hold true. You can murder him in spirit and truth and never actually physically murder him and no one may ever know you have done it. There is no way to literally murder him (apart from an accident) without having first murdered him in spirit and truth. God demands truth in the inward parts. He demands our hearts. There is no law against the spirit because if a man fulfills the spirit of the law, his outside just will be clean as well.
This was in reply to the original post by Fenris

Servant89
Feb 22nd 2011, 12:12 AM
Um.... the vast majority of long dead folks never had a Bible what with them being a fairly new thing compared to time and all. :lol:

My point exactly.

Shalom

Servant89
Feb 22nd 2011, 12:19 AM
This is what Fenris is saying: Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

But the letter of the law is what our flesh can accomplish (or not). It speaks of our self righteousness, how well we keep the law.

Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

We can boast or count on how well we keep the law, or we can thank God for imputing the righteousness of Christ on us.

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Phil 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Shalom

P.S. from the OT

2 Chron 20:20 ... Believe in the LORD your God, so shall ye be established; Believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper.

Is 7:9 ... If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

Fenris
Feb 22nd 2011, 01:54 PM
Well then you have just negated the law. The law requires a priest and temple, otherwise it cannot be fulfilled.To say the law is something that needs to be "fulfilled" is talking like a Christian. The law is not something to be "fulfilled". It is something to be done by a person to whom it applies.


My statement was referring to Israel as a nation. I never considered that you might be 2,000 years old. For nearly two thousand years there has been no prophet, no priest, and no temple. How then does Israel come before God, when God requires a priest and temple.Who said that God "required" any such thing? The Lord is near to all who call Him.


Regardless of what one believes, it still has been nearly 2,000 years, and God continues, every day, to put onto more and more items, the announcement of his Son's birth.Oh, that calendar thing again? With the wrong date?


Yes, and he clearly tells us what that reason is. He does?


Why was all Israel responsible for what Achan did?They were, at least, his contemporaries. No one is blaming Jews today for what Achan did either.


Is it a two way conversation? Has God told you why you have no priest, or temple to worship in?No, the era of the prophets ended long before.

Do I seem worried?


If you are going to hold me to the letter, here is what it says--- I told you already. You do not get to pick through the thousands of pages of the Talmud for a single paragraph that you agree with and then quote it. If you insist on quoting the Talmud to prove your points, I will start quoting it to prove mine. Understand?

Besides this is a bad quote for your purposes. By my count, the last "2000 years" began about the year 250. A little late for your guy. ;)




Exodus 32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:

Exodus 34:9 And he said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance.

Deuteronomy 9:6 Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people.

Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

2 Chronicles 30:8 Now be ye not stiffnecked, as your fathers were, but yield yourselves unto the LORD, and enter into his sanctuary, which he hath sanctified for ever: and serve the LORD your God, that the fierceness of his wrath may turn away from you.


The sanctuary and temple is Jesus Christ.


Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Yes yes we all know that Jews are genetically evil. Still very self-serving to insist that anyone who believes differently from you is "stiff necked" or "blinded". Also rather arrogant, in my opinion.

Fenris
Feb 22nd 2011, 01:56 PM
But you dont' believe that it is your personal works that get you welcomed into eternity, isn't that correct?

Yes, our choices have meaning. Not just what we believe, but what we do. Every single day.

Fenris
Feb 22nd 2011, 02:00 PM
The problem comes in when men ONLY follow the letter of the law.
I rather disagree. Again, the letter of the law gives a baseline of acceptable behavior. Of course one can go beyond it. But to do less means to be falling short. Both where man and God are involved.

Doge
Feb 22nd 2011, 03:22 PM
It puzzles me how Christians who believe Christ is the word came to earth to contradict what he spoke and wrote in stone.

I think most people want to jump directly to the finishing line.. ..nah I'm too smart for the letter of the law or I'm spirit led or I keep the highest law ..when asked what the highest law means they revert back to the lowest.

The law is physical as well as spiritual.
No other Gods vs love God.
No idolatry vs love God.
Don't take Gods name in vain vs love God.
Keep the sabbath vs love God.
Honour your parents vs love them.
Do not murder vs don't hate ie love.
No adultery vs don't lust..love your neighbour.
Don't steal vs love your neighbour.
Don't covet, lie vs love your neighbour.

Now I'd love to see how one can follow the spirit of any of these and brake the letter without putting greater evil against lesser evil.*

rejoice44
Feb 22nd 2011, 05:24 PM
To say the law is something that needs to be "fulfilled" is talking like a Christian. The law is not something to be "fulfilled". It is something to be done by a person to whom it applies.

It is to be done by all Israel, and fulfilling the law is the same as doing it. The word Christian means one who follows the Messiah.


Who said that God "required" any such thing? The Lord is near to all who call Him.Fenris, of course God requires you to follow the law, and in order to follow the law you have to have a temple and a Priest.


Oh, that calendar thing again? With the wrong date? Right or wrong, the world accepts it as relating to the Messiah, Jesus Christ.


He does?Yes, over and over again he tells us that Israel was dispersed because of sin, the same reason that mankind was dispersed at the tower of Babel.


They were, at least, his contemporaries. No one is blaming Jews today for what Achan did either.We are all being blamed for what Adam did.


No, the era of the prophets ended long before.That is right, some 2,000 years ago the last prophet spoke and left us with his book.


Do I seem worried?They say ignorance is bliss, but don't believe it.


I told you already. You do not get to pick through the thousands of pages of the Talmud for a single paragraph that you agree with and then quote it. If you insist on quoting the Talmud to prove your points, I will start quoting it to prove mine. Understand?I thought you stood behind the Talmud. You can use the New Testament against me, I will not mind.


Besides this is a bad quote for your purposes. By my count, the last "2000 years" began about the year 250. A little late for your guy.Well then you disagree with Jose ben Halafta, for he set the date of the earth at 3,896 BC, and you are setting it at 3,761 BC.

Sir Issac Newton set it at 4,000 BC which would be to the year of the birth of Jesus.

And then we have the most famous World Chronological Chart by Bishop James Ussher, which sets the date at 4,004 BC. Isn't that amazing that his date would account for the years you claim our calendar is off.


Yes yes we all know that Jews are genetically evil. Still very self-serving to insist that anyone who believes differently from you is "stiff necked" or "blinded". Also rather arrogant, in my opinion.Sorry that you believe that. I see no difference between the Jew and the Gentile, for they are all born under sin. The scriptures do not have much to say about the Gentile, because the scriptures are written to the Jews. The scriptures clearly state that the Jews as a nation are stiffnecked, and will not enter into the sanctuary of the Messiah.


2 Chronicles 30:8 Now be ye not stiffnecked, as your fathers were, but yield yourselves unto the LORD, and enter into his sanctuary, which he hath sanctified for ever: and serve the LORD your God, that the fierceness of his wrath may turn away from you.

Isaiah 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.


You are stumbling at the rock of offence.

Fenris
Feb 22nd 2011, 05:52 PM
It is to be done by all Israel, and fulfilling the law is the same as doing it. I don't even know what that means.



Fenris, of course God requires you to follow the law, and in order to follow the law you have to have a temple and a Priest.No, it simply means that if there is a temple one is required to bring sacrifice. Not the same thing at all.


Right or wrong, the world accepts it as relating to the Messiah, Jesus Christ.Heh. You would think God could get the date right, at least.


Yes, over and over again he tells us that Israel was dispersed because of sin, the same reason that mankind was dispersed at the tower of Babel.Which sin?


We are all being blamed for what Adam did.No, we are not. We are each capable of making our own choices. If we choose to sin, we pay the price.




That is right, some 2,000 years ago the last prophet spoke and left us with his book.A bit longer by my accounting.


They say ignorance is bliss, but don't believe it.:lol:


I thought you stood behind the Talmud. You can use the New Testament against me, I will not mind.if you quote the Talmud as an authoritative source, I will also.


Well then you disagree with Jose ben Halafta, for he set the date of the earth at 3,896 BC, and you are setting it at 3,761 BC.Judaism in general dates it to about 3760 BC.



And then we have the most famous World Chronological Chart by Bishop James Ussher, which sets the date at 4,004 BC. Isn't that amazing that his date would account for the years you claim our calendar is off.Shrug. Why should his date be significant to me?


Sorry that you believe that. I see no difference between the Jew and the Gentile, for they are all born under sin. The scriptures do not have much to say about the Gentile, because the scriptures are written to the Jews. The scriptures clearly state that the Jews as a nation are stiffnecked, and will not enter into the sanctuary of the Messiah.


2 Chronicles 30:8 Now be ye not stiffnecked, as your fathers were, but yield yourselves unto the LORD, and enter into his sanctuary, which he hath sanctified for ever: and serve the LORD your God, that the fierceness of his wrath may turn away from you.

Isaiah 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Talking about the Assyrian invasion of Israel some 2700 years ago. Do you ever get tired of quoting verses out of context?

rejoice44
Feb 22nd 2011, 07:30 PM
Judaism in general dates it to about 3760 BC.

Have you read the book, Jewish History in Conflict? And if so, what do you think about it?

"A remarkable new book has recently been published which examines this problem in detail. It is called Jewish History in Conflict.14 The author is a New York attorney and Orthodox Jew by the name of Mitchell First. He studied Jewish history at Yeshiva University's Revel Graduate School, receiving his M.A. in Jewish history in 1995. He had previously earned a law degree from Columbia Law School in 1982."

Fenris
Feb 22nd 2011, 07:39 PM
Have you read the book, Jewish History in Conflict? never heard of it.


The author is a New York attorney and Orthodox Jew by the name of Mitchell First.Never heard of him.

Orthodox Jews don't usually have first names like "Mitchell". But I understand the compulsion to assume that any Jew who writes something one wants to quote be considered "Orthodox".

I also consider it disingenuous to shop around and find a quote by some outside the mainstream person because it supports your point. It's like sifting through thousands of pages of the Talmud for the single paragraph that you like.

RabbiKnife
Feb 22nd 2011, 07:43 PM
never heard of it.

Never heard of him.

Orthodox Jews don't usually have first names like "Mitchell". But I understand the compulsion to assume that any Jew who writes something one wants to quote be considered "Orthodox".

I also consider it disingenuous to shop around and find a quote by some outside the mainstream person because it supports your point. It's like sifting through thousands of pages of the Talmud for the single paragraph that you like.

Admit it, Fenris...you're still looking for the lost page on kosher bacon...

:D

Fenris
Feb 22nd 2011, 07:48 PM
Admit it, Fenris...you're still looking for the lost page on kosher bacon...

:D

Flip flip flip flip. Gotta be in here somewhere. Maybe that guy Mitchell found it.... MST3K shout out! Mmmmmmmmmmithcell...........

rejoice44
Feb 22nd 2011, 08:07 PM
never heard of it.

Never heard of him.

Orthodox Jews don't usually have first names like "Mitchell". But I understand the compulsion to assume that any Jew who writes something one wants to quote be considered "Orthodox".

He is an attorney located at 233 Broadway, Suite 2201, New York, NY 10279. Phone #212-962-638.


I also consider it disingenuous to shop around and find a quote by some outside the mainstream person because it supports your point. It's like sifting through thousands of pages of the Talmud for the single paragraph that you like.

I wouldn't consider an Orthodox Jew who attended Yeshiva University's Revel Graduate School as one outside the mainstream of Judaism.

Fenris
Feb 22nd 2011, 08:10 PM
He is an attorney located at 233 Broadway, Suite 2201, New York, NY 10279. Phone #212-962-638. Sure, lemme give him a call and ask his opinion.




I wouldn't consider an Orthodox Jew who attended Yeshiva University's Revel Graduate School as one outside the mainstream of Judaism.Anyome can attend YU, even non-Jews. And he has staked an opinion outside the mainstream of Judaism.

rejoice44
Feb 22nd 2011, 08:54 PM
Sure, lemme give him a call and ask his opinion.

You insinuated he wasn't an Orthodox Jew; how far is Manhattan from where you live? How many Orthodox Jews live in NY?




Anyome can attend YU, even non-Jews. And he has staked an opinion outside the mainstream of Judaism.

How do you know it is outside the mainstream of Judaism if you haven't read his book?

Fenris
Feb 22nd 2011, 09:02 PM
You insinuated he wasn't an Orthodox Jew; how far is Manhattan from where you live?I'm in Manhattan right now.


How many Orthodox Jews live in NY?
Many. Also, many non-Orthodox Jews live in NY.





How do you know it is outside the mainstream of Judaism if you haven't read his book?If he's claiming a date of creation that differs from what Orthodox Jews have determined, then he is making a claim outside of mainstream Judaism.

rejoice44
Feb 22nd 2011, 09:14 PM
I'm in Manhattan right now.

Small world.


If he's claiming a date of creation that differs from what Orthodox Jews have determined, then he is making a claim outside of mainstream Judaism.I thought you were commended to consider all opinions?

Fenris
Feb 22nd 2011, 09:18 PM
Small world.Apparently.


I thought you were commended to consider all opinions?We are?

rejoice44
Feb 22nd 2011, 09:45 PM
We are?

I thought I read that in the Talmud, perhaps I was wrong.