Quetzalcoatl

I'm confused by this statement:huh:

noah

What? What on earth are you talking about? Do you know what the the term atheist means? Just so you know; Atheists are not bound by the doctrines or precepts of any religion. They don't believe in theism. Period.

Actually no. I do know however, what the bible says about the Law.
BTW, trying to manoeuvre me into an extreme position or opinion will not work.

Extensive discussion does not guarantee mastery over anything.
And I don't know why you bring this up anyway since most epole in this forum agre with me anyway. Must be the fruits of all that discussion Sheshbazaar.

It's not the Law of Moses? Book/Chapter/Verse please?
Now you're trying to get out of it by saying it is not what it is.
Careful with your (irresponsible and disrespectful) use of the term Rabbinic Judaism. A lot of Jews take offence at the term. Rabbis didn't create Yahweh's Laws-Yahweh did. You do know that don't you? (Most) Rabbis keep the Law by the way.

Yes. Thank you for that update.

That, as you know, is not my desire nor is it the point of my argument.
Jews and Rabbis have added nothing to JC's Laws. Nothing. They are all there in Tanach just the same as the day Yahweh delivered them to the people of Israel.
Can you prove that Jews and Rabbis have altered the Laws? I and everyone following this thread would be interested to see your proof.

The Law is as it was delivered to Moses and until you can prove otherwise your comment is without merit. When you do come around to the truth of Law, you will find it is not impossoble to obey:
Elizabeth and Zacharias followed the Law faithfully.
See Luke 1:5-6:

Noah did it:

Genesis 6:9

God says you can do it:

Deuteronomy 30:11-14

1 John 5:3:
2 Chronicles 15:17
Mathew 5:17-20:


Were JC and Yahweh joking when they said all that Sheshbazaar? Would they really tell you do something that your life depended on but was impossible? Hardly.


JC's more rigorous declaration notwithstanding, you may not keep the Law perfectly but that is entirely excusable so long as you keep trying.



The Law has not been perverted. Following the Law is the path to salvation.

Largely a (semi-incoherent) regurgitation of mainstream xian doctrine. Sorry. I missed that. Where is it written that the Priesthood was reprobate? I mean real proof not just your word or JC's word.
My Priesthood Sheshbazaar?
You do not stand fully condemned. What kind of nonsense melodrama is that?
Do you not know how strange that sounds?
Of course there's salvation under the Law. I refer you to Rev. 22:14, Rev. 14:12, Mathew 5:17-20, Ezekiel 18:20-27, Ezekiel 33:14-16, Genesis 4:7, Isa 56:1-8 and so on.


Not very logical in my opinion. Someone said break JC's and his Father Yahweh's Law in Acts and you've decided to base your religion on it. You're passing your own revision of Yahweh's Law with no authority. You're using one blatant violation of Jesus/Yahweh's Laws and turning it into your won little theology. You still don't see that I guess.
If you want to call yourself xian than do as JC said. Do as JC and his Father Yahweh said. Don't try to come up with your own little theology based on one incident where they broke the Law. If someone breaks the law, the law does not disintegrate. You still have to bey the Law. Nobody present in Acts had the authority to pronounce new legislation on the Law of JC and his Father Yahweh. In fact, as you and I well know, JC and his Father Yahweh warn repeatedly against those who condone or teach violation of their Law. You call yourself a xian. Do as JC said. Do as his Father said. Don't do as some lawbreakers said in Acts. You do see the mismatch don't you? I mean JC and his Father Yahweh versus some bit players in Acts? It's a mismatch and you know it. Are those people in Acts going to pass judgement on you? Or is your god JC/Yahweh going to pass judgement on you.
I like the way you say "My JC". LOL. I assure you Sheshbazaar he is not my JC.
I like the way you quote Paul and Joel and Acts as though you have found something really potent. Sorry. "Call on the name of the Lord" refers to JC and his Father Yahweh. Guess what JC and his Father Yahweh stood for? That's right. Obeying the Commandments. I guess you just didn't think that one through Sheshbazaar.

LOL. What on earth are you talking about. Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. Where have I "found fault" with the Jewish people? I have not stated that I seek to find fault with the Jewsih people.
I'm glad you know the Law brings salvation. If you already knew the Law brings salvation you should have said so before now. Or is this a recent epiphany of yours?
Anyway do tell me how observance of the Law goes. Remember, Sabbath is Saturday not Sunday

Sorry Sheashbazaar but JC and his Father Yahweh's Law is not a curse. You can't prove that it is a curse so why regurgitate this arrogation of Paul's? JC's and his Father Yahweh's Law is the path to salvation. You can't show me that I'm wrong because there is no support anywhere in the bible to support Paul's assertion except to quote more Paul.
If JC's and his Father Yahweh's Law was a curse why did JC and his Father Yahweh preach it so much? Why did they say it was the path to salvation?Why do you say you believe on JC when you ignore his teachings?

More Pauline rhetoric which can only be substantiated by citing more Paul. Did JC say this anywhere Sheshbazaar? Did Yahweh?
Why did JC say his Law was the path to salvation? Did he say it was a curse?
Why did his Father Yahweh say his Law was the path to salvation? Why id he not level with everyone and say the Law was a curse.
On whose or what authority is Paul making this claim?

I am an unbeliever. Thank you for your solicitude. I thought your comment related in some way to the forum membership.
I am not double minded. I am single minded. I believe firmly and solely that xians are incorrect and fooling themselves if they believe Paul's declarations get them off the hook of obeying JC's/Yahweh's Law. The words of JC and his Father Yahweh trump anything Paul or anyone else said until proven otherwise citing the appropriate scripture.

1) Paul was never "put in office" by Yahweh and you know it. Yahweh/JC would never "put in office" anyone who contradicted and violated their Laws.
Remember Sheshbazaar the Laws are JC and his Father Yahweh's Laws. Not Paul's. Paul was never granted authority to rewrite JC/Yahweh's Laws. If he was please show me Book/Chapter/Verse. If you can't then I suggest you move on.

2) Citing previous differences within some parts of the Jewish community regarding the Law is not adequate support for your contention that all xians are exempt from the Law totally. Squabbles within various elements of the Jewish community as to whether the Law should be kept or more specifically how certain parts of the Law should (best) be kept. Although it varies in degree, the vast majority of Jews keep the Law. They certainly don't and didn't buy in to any of Paul's revisionism and that alone should tell you something.
Besides, the main point, the incontrovertible point, is that, as a xian you are under strict orders from JC to obey the Law (Mather 5:17-20).

3) One thing you can take to the bank is that JC and his Father Yahweh intended for their Laws to be kept. Period.

4) The compassionate heart is not moved against the Law. Compassion and mercy are part of the Law.
Parts of the Law are indeed barbaric and brutal and shameful. But that's your problem. JC/Yahweh is your god not mine.

Gawen

I'm having a brain fart. Could someone please refresh me with what GT means?



I know I'm gonna hate myself in the morning.

JustinK

Fwiw, certain Church Fathers dealt indirectly with this issue, when trying to explain how the morality of Jesus as given on the Sermon on the Mount could be superior to the morality in the (supposedly) divinely-given Mosaic law. Here are some of their thoughts...

John Chrysostom
Commentary on Matthew 5:1-16
Commentary on Matthew 5:17-26
Commenatry on Matthew 5:27-37
Commentary on Matthew 5:38-48
Commentary on Matthew 6:1-15
Commentary on Matthew 6:16-23
Commentary on Matthew 6:24-27
Commentary on Matthew 6:28-34
Commentary on Matthew 7:1-20
Commentary on Matthew 7:21-27

Augustine
Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, Book 1
Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, Book 2

I am not, of course, saying that the arguments are persuasive. Just giving links in case you're interested.

Sheshbazzar

Noah, long posts touching on dozens of subjects are very time consuming to answer. Most all of the things in your preceding post will not even stand up to investigation by the Atheists on this board, and most are just content to let you have all the rope you need.
You are mistaken about a few things regarding me as an individual however.
This point IS controvertible, in that I am not a "xian" (nor a "Christian" either) I do not follow anyone named "JC" and do not take orders from anyone named "JC", (did you not note how I designated it was "YOUR "JC", not mine?)
As for Him from whom I DO receive my orders, you do not know Him, nor what are the orders that He gives me.
Which is more compassionate and merciful,
That a man forgive, his rebellious son, who has cursed him, sending him upon the way, or that he obey the letter of the Law and condemn him before all, and cause him to be stoned with stones? Deut. 21:18-21

Which is more compassionate and merciful,
That an innocent virgin who is raped by a stranger be forced to marry and be made a life-long slave to her attacker, Or that the attacker of innocent virgins be punished, and that innocent virgin be comforted and consoled by her father, her family and community, and not sold unto that evil one for filthy money, as though she were an heifer, and not one loved in her fathers house-hold? Deut. 22:28-29
The Law curses such as do not obey these, wherefore My Elohim curses whosoever will seek to uphold, or be be justified by the doing of such evil injustices. Your "GAWD" IS NOT mine.

Sheshbazzar

Having a few more minutes available, I'll comment on a few more of your mistaken "points" and incorrect assumptions and statements for the benefit of the readers of this forum.
No, noah, knowing The Law, I am aware that ALL Rabbis selectively obey their own versions and interpretations of That Law which Moshe gave, mostly they concern themselves with following their thousands of man-made precepts that are no where to be found within The actual Torah.
I stated it before, not a one of them actually fully obeys and does exactly what the Torah requires.
Are you familiar with the teachings of The Mishna and Gemera? of The Midrash and the Talmuds? The Kabbala and Zohar? and how much of so called "Jewish" daily conduct and thought is circumscribed by the contents these "extra-scriptural" works?
My, my, noah, I have read books -written by Rabbis- that explain how they have altered and even reversed sayings written within The Law.
Are you really so naive as to think they do not delight in their perceived "authority'" and ability to "interpret" and alter the Law?

Of course you are aware that The Temple was then still standing, and they were both able to, and did, offer up all of the sacrifices that The Law required. and that YHWH had not, as of that time yet provided the blood of His Passover Lamb to exempt them from the requirements of the old covenant.
People on this forum that are at all familiar with The Scriptures, are aware that Noah lived far prior to the giving of The Law, thus Noah was not subject to such rules as "Your eye SHALL NOT pity....eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for a hand..."
By the way, do the Rabbi's still teach that this Law must be obeyed to enter Olam haBa? or are they now teaching that "pity" IS acceptable?

The context is the instructing of the Israelites, in what they (not the Gentiles) must do to remain in His covenant relationship. Scripture also goes on to tell us of all the ways that they violated the terms, and how YHWH took their land away from them and scattered them among the nations. And how out of making an example of their disobedience, He would redeem men of all nations, kindreds and tongues. even ALL men (not just the "Jews", or "Israel" alone) but ALL men that put their trust in Him.
Abraham, without The Law, believed YHWH, and that belief alone was accounted for righteousness. (Did you happen to notice the meal Abraham prepared for his guests in Genesis / Breshith 18:6-8? Must not have had a Jewish rabbi present to instruct either YHWH or Abraham on what is kosher.)

1 John is an epistle full of Paul's teachings, the "commandments" being referred to are not the Laws of the Old Covenant, but those very few and simple, that unlike those pitiless Laws of old, are not grievous, but that any man with the least measure of faith might in doing, be fully justified from all that went before.

As most everyone here is aware, the Books have all been tampered with, men have put words into the mouth of YHWH, that YHWH, His prophets, and His Son never spoke, and even today continue to produce "Bibles" that add unto His words, and that diminish from His words.
As for me and my brethren, we hear the voice of YHWH best when He speaks as that "still small voice" that speaks into our hearts and into our minds, the things that are pleasing to Him, saying "This IS the Way, walk you in it." such a voice cannot be ignored, nor gainsayed, to them that do hear it.
And this, unbeliever, is beyond you, for all you have are old books corrupted and slapped together by men to fuel your misconceptions.

You ought to be aware of it by now, but to them that believe in YHWH, there is nothing accomplished under the sun among men that YHWH is not the author and cause of, The doctrine preached by Paul has been effective and transformed the world, and this IS YHWH's doing, and is marvelous in our sight.
YOUR "JC", that old Greek idol, has never done anything except be a deception to the deceived.

noah

Yes it's called debate. I will post rejoinders to your arguments I will marshall any and all facts and verses etc. that I deem necessary to respond to your arguments. The facts that I have the resources available to me to rebut you does not mean I should not employ them.
Really? Well let's have a sound off. I ask the Atheists on this board to let me know whether Sheshbazaar is correct. Do the Atheists think that my argumentation is so seriously flawed as Sheshbazaar says it is. My goodness Sheshbazaar. Now you're a mind reader. Again, I ask the Atheists on this board to sound off here and let me know whether Sheshbazaar is correct that you (Atheists) are really just humoring or indulging me by not telling me that my argumentation is so faulty.

Great so you're a mystery character. Who cares? The issue is whether Xians have to obey the Law. If you are not a xian but a Yahwist as you say in your profile than you are all the more compelled to obey the Law of Yahweh.
If you're not a xian then you are engaged in a purely intellectual exercise in arguing with me about the applicability of the Law to xians. In either case my point stands; Whether you are a xian or a Yahwist or anybody else who claims to be dedicated to the bible you are under orders to obey the Law of Jesus/Yahweh.
I really have no interest in whether the Law is just. That's your problem. My point is that whether you are a Xian or a Yahwist, you are under orders to obey the Law.
Great sounds like you've got your own little cottage religion going there. I really don't have the time or inclination to weave my way around and through the vagaries and lacunae of your religion.
If you want to make up the rules as you go along, fine. But the point here at least as far as I'm concerned, is that xians and anybody else who dedicates themselves to the New and Old Testaments are under the Law.
Whether you like the Law or not is irrelevant not only to this discussion but to the Law of Yahweh.
Stop putting words in my mouth. Where did I say "GAWD" is my god?

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Not as far as I'm concerned. He ignores your main point--that the law was established for eternity, with nothing being said about it's "fullfillment"--and that no one was given the authority to change it or establish a new one at a later date.
And that any claims to the contrary are transparently self-serving.

noah

Sheshbazaar you have yet to present one iota of scriptural support for your contention that xians and other bible believers are not under the Law. Your argument now consists of blaming Rabbis and falsely accusing Rabbis without even the tiniest bit of proof. You seem content to sit around and try to poke holes in my arguments without presenting proof texts or legitimate arguments of your own. That is hardly debate.

Changing the subject doesn't help you Sheshbazaar. You and your obedience of Yahweh's Law is the point. Other people breaking or changing the Law is not a way out for you. This is like a child getting caught stealing and saying "Johnny did it too!" as though Johnny's stealing somehow justified the child's stealing.
It's up to you to go to the word of God in Deuteronomy, Leviticus etc. where it stands unadorned and follow Yahweh's Law.

Whether Rabbis do or don't obey the Law fully or properly is irrelevant. The point is they do obey the Law. They discuss it. The read about it. They do it. More importantly they teach it.
The "precepts" are minor points debated between Rabbis. Rabbis have not tampered with or changed the Law. It's forbidden to tamper with the Law. Rabbis only debate small points within the Laws themselves.

Rabbis have not changed or reversed the Laws. Rabbis have historically debated minor points of the Law between themselves but that's it.
See this article
for a proper understanding of the Rabbis' historical relationship to the Law.
In any case, you are not excused from the Law just because you say someone else broke the Law.

By the way, please furnish me with some proof that Rabbis have changed or reversed the Laws as you say they have here. Stop being vague. I shouldn't have to keep asking for you to prove your assertions.
The mishnah and gemarra are not records of Rabbis changing or reversing the Laws. You betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the Talmud when you adduce mishnah and gemarra as proof of your point that the Rabbis have changed or reversed the Laws. If you know of a specific example of Rabbis changing or reversing the Law in either the mishnah and/or gemarra then please present them here.
However, I advise you to reconsider this argument of yours as it does nothing to help you prove your point that bible adherents, xians or otherwise, are not under the Law. As I said before you are under the Law regardless of how or whether others follow the Law.

You seem to think that Temple sacrifices are all the 613 commandments comprise. You're wrong. The Temple is not the end or the beginning of the Law. If it were the Jews would not be obeying the Law today. You don't need the Temple to obey all 613 commandments Sheshbazaar. Just ask a Jew. Jews don't do the sacrifices because the Temple is gone that's true. But none of them argue that the Law is cancelled because the Temple is gone. Elizabeth and Zacharias would still be righteous so long as they didn't break the rest of the Lord's commands.

God never provided the blood of any passover lamb that exempted anyone from the covenant. That's xian mythology pure and simple. Read Mathew 5:17-19 and all the passages in the OT that I have already referenced.
Passover lambs are commemorative sacrifices. They are not valid sin sacrifices.
There is no atonement for sin provided in a Passover sacrifice, as it celebrates an event.

Technicality. The term righteous can only mean one thing; that Noah was lawful and obedient and did not violate god's will. God had not revealed his Laws to Moses yet but the context and reason tells you that the word righteous means lawful. My assumption here is that God had revealed his Laws to Noah or some form of them. Otherwise what does righteous mean?
Throughout the bible god talks about his Laws and how the righteous follow them. God and his Laws are virtually synonymous. It is reasonable to conclude that God deemed Noah righteous because he followed God's Laws.
Perhaps Noah was a strict adherent of the Noachian Laws.
The point you are missing here of course is that your idea that Yahweh's Law cannot be followed is demonstrably false. Yahweh's Law is doable.
I mentioned Elizabeth and Zacharias and Noah. Consider also Job. Job was righteous Job 1:1
Asa too was righteous: 1 Kings 15:14

Jews keep the Law today. You and xians don't even try.

What is it with you and Rabbis? Don't change the subject. The issue is whether xians or anyone else dedicated to the bible is under the Law. The answer is yes they are.
You have yet to substantiate just one of your claims against Rabbis. Set up another thread and talk about Rabbis and the Law and Olam Haba if that's what interests you.

BTW, Sheshbazaar, a little consistency would be nice. You said Rabbis distorted and reversed the Law. Why are you now citing what you claim are their teachings? You said they perverted the Law. Remember? If they're teaching pity it must be one of their reversals of the Law, right Sheshbazaar? Or is this a case of pick and choose whenever it's convenient?
Intellectual integrity?

Wrong. This is the old tactic of getting out of the implications of a verse or passage by trying to argue that the verse or passage applies only to the individuals involved. This tactic presents a number of problems.
First, the bible is the word of God. Period. And the word of God is instructive to all of us. The bible tells us as much:
2 Timothy 3:16Timothy was written before the New Testament was compiled. Therefore we know that all Old Testament scripture is valid and applies to us.
The Old Testament is not flotsam. Christians tell us over and over and over again that the bible is the word of god. As such there is no distinction between God's instructions to one person or two people or two thousand people. It applies to all of us.
The other problem with this tactic is that it works both ways. I can turn this argument around, for example, and say Paul's letter to Galatians does not get xians out of following the Law because Paul's letter was only to those people inside the Churches in Galatia. Or I can argue the same thing about Romans and say that entire book only applies to those few n Rome whom he hoped to visit. If you reduce this passage to just a private exchange between Yahweh and the Jews, which passages do you accept as the word of God? Which parts of the bible do you believe apply to you? On what basis do you believe that those passages that apply to you actually do apply to you?

Third, it is not up to you to parse the word of God. On whose authority do you put this spin on the word of God?

Fourth, it really doesn't matter what spin you put on this passage because JC went on to reinforce the point time and again that the Law was doable and the path to salvation.
a) If it was and is doable for Jews why is it not doable for you? Surely you're not going to argue that the Jews are superhuman. Or are you?
If you call yourself a Yahwist (whatever that means) why do you not follow Yahweh's Laws?
Or do you reduce every passage in the bible to being nothing more than just a private exchange between people and other people and god? If so, why do you even bother with the bible?

Sorry Sheshbazaar but I can not find proof of your assertion here. I find only consistency between John and JC and Yahweh. 1 John makes no distinction that I can see between the commandments. You know; the ones that all apply forever and provide salvation, Revelation 22:14 Mathew 5:17-19 and Psalms 111:7-8 and Ezekiel 18:21 for example.
In fact, it's far more likely that John was referring to JC's and his Father Yahweh's commandments the same way JC and Yahweh did.
John is just echoing the many OT passages in which state that love for Yahweh is synonymous with keeping his commandments, all of them. So no big break in continuity there.
I take John's references to Jesus' commandments to be the same as Jesus' until you can show definitive proof of a break in continuity between John's references to them and JC's references to them.
It's clear to me that the love of god was to keep all Jesus' commandments. The phrase "This is the love of God that we keep his commandments" refers to far more than "do unto others". Yahweh's commandments were a specific idiosyncratic body of instructions peculiar to Yahweh/Jesus. Do not kill and don't steal were laws around before this Yahweh god reiterated them. What would be the big deal or show of love for god that you kept universal previously uttered and encoded commands that lots of people already obeyed.

Your other problem of course is why would JC and Yahweh say keep their commandments if they were not doable?

If you're right about 1 John then you have another renegade contradicting the word of JC and his Father. So what? It's called Christianity not Johanininity. You, as a Yahwist, will be the first to agree that Yahweh's Law are eternal and have to and can be kept.
Why would Yahweh issue a bunch of Laws that could not be kept?

Interesting concession on your part. I'm glad you agree that Jesus/Yahweh is not perfect or benevolent. Why would a perfect loving being allow his word to be perverted when the salvation of his children was at stake?

Of course, you now have to prove to me that you know exactly what Yahweh said. You say you know people put words in his mouth. Tell me what he really meant. And, as you do, tell me what your sources are. You do know don't you that there are no original manuscripts, that all we have are translations once or twice or three times removed from the original manuscripts.
So what are your sources?

Well I don't know what you think is pleasing to him but I do know what he said is pleasing to him. How do I know? I look at his word. I look in the bible. Where do you look? A little voice does not sound like the bible to me.

Voices? What about the bible? I guess you're not into the bible. OK. Fair enough. What is a Yahwist anyway?

.
Proof?

More preaching. This is an intellectual forum. If you want to preach I suggest you go to another forum.

Proof?

One more time Sheshbazaar, JC is not mine.
A lot of xians would disagree with you by the way.

When are you going to stop picking at my arguments and start presenting some of your own. It's getting tedious being the only one involved in this debate.

You have yet to prove:

1) That Yahweh's Law is undoable.
a) If it is undoable why did Yahweh issue it? Why can and do Jews (to varying degrees) obey Yahweh's Laws?

2) That Paul had authority to cancel Yahweh's Laws.
a) Is Paul a member of the Trinity?

Just curious. You call yourself a Yahwist. Why are you so contemptuous of Yahweh's Laws?

Lux Interior

Where does the repeal of polygamy fall? It was seemingly tolerated, if not precisely welcomed, up until Rabbi Gershom's pronouncement, right? I'm afraid the gradations of Jewish law leave me scratching my head, but isn't polygamy to be tolerated (again if not to be precisely welcomed) under the Penteteuch?

As loathe as I am to give shishkebab (or whatever his name is) any talking points, its always struck me as something akin to the way Mormon elders get special revelations to repeal embarassing doctrines, just about the time said doctrines fall under public scrutiny. I look forward to having my ignorance dispelled. I'm learning more from reading you in this thread than I have in quite a while.