Fr.Andrew

(Fr.Andrew): Hi, noah! I'm enjoying this exchange and admire your scholarship and debate ability. I have a question about the above. How do you square it with Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount:
"You have heard it said of old--"A" (adultery, eye-for-an-eye, etc), but I say unto you--"B" (adultery in the heart, turn-the-other-cheek, etc).
It seems to me that he's out to alter the law some (or so says the author of Matthew).
And his willingness to break bread with gentiles?
How does that jive with Yahweh's immutable law?
Just wondering.

noah

Hi Fr. Andrew. Great question. You're right. I have gone out on a limb here and I want my skeptic friends to know that I am mindful of JCs many Torah violations. For purposes of this debate I am being rather pro-Jesus when it comes to the Law. I know full well that JC violated the commandments, his and his father's commandments that is. The list of offences you gave does, by no means, end there, for example JC also violates the command to honor Torah sages (Leviticus 19:32) and to honor your parents (Exodus 20:12). In fact in one of the instances you gave "You have heard it said of old--"A" ,JC breaks the really big one, the one that Paul also breaks - Deut 4:2. But I know Christians won't bring these offences up because doing so creates more problems for xians than they solve. First it reveals a contradiction in JC's words and deeds, and second, more seriously, if xians admit JC broke the Law then they haven't got the saviour they thought they did.
The truth is JC's words did not always match his deeds when it came to the Law. Mathew 5:17-20 is a powerful, unequivocal statement in which JC gives the distinct impression that he is echoing everything his Father ever said about his Law. JC gives in Mathew 5:17-20 the distinct impression that he is upholding, in fact championing the sanctity of every aspect of Torah Law right down to the last comma, jot and tittle of Torah Law. He says "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) which again gives you the distinct impression that his will regarding his Laws are identical to his Father's as expressed in Deuteronomy etc.. Matthew 12:50 imparts the same feeling.
On the other hand however JC ignores the law of burial (Matthew 8:22) and rejects rabbinic law as the
"traditions of men (Mark 7:8)."
It just depends on which JC you go with. It's a mixed bag.
My personal view is that JC talked a good game in Mathew and other places but in reality, in practice, had little regard for his and his Father's Laws. JC seems to have spent more time breaking them than he ever did complying with them. In either case it's a losing proposition for xians.
It's interesting to note here that even Paul himself, the xian champion of ignoring God's Laws, advocated obeisance to those very Laws; see Romans 3:31 and Romans 2:13 for example.
So the answer in my opinion is that JC's Father's Laws are exactly as he describes them in the Old Testament - immutable and permanent and perfect. JC's attitude towards the Law was inconsistent.
The passages in the OT where Yahweh is going on about his Laws is one of the few places in the bible where you will find any appreciable level of consistency.
And it is opposite that great bulwark, that wall, of codified, immutable Laws that Paul stands like a jouster with a broken lance.
And that's the bottom line really. Even if you take JC away from the equation you still have Paul (and most xians) in direct defiance of Yahweh and ignorance of Yahweh's Laws and the only people who seem to know or care are the Jews and so-called fringe xians.
Where it gets really confusing and fun for the skeptic is that under the doctrine of the Trinity, JC and Yahweh are one!

noah

I did what you should have been doing Sheshbazaar and that's legwork, actually talking to Jews who know. I'm not going to do anything other than post the answer I got from the webamster of Kosher Judaism and adminsistrator of the Jews for Judaism forum. Here's his answer

As I said before, what this has to do with your obeying the Laws of Yahweh/JC is anyone's guess.

Jesse Leigh

G'morning!

Rather than use my own wording, which apparently some people here consider "preaching," I submit for your consideration an article detailing the differences between the two Covenants, and "when and where (and how) the OT Law Covenant was repealed."

It is thorough and comprehensive. I hope it will be of some help to those of you who are truly seeking an answer to this question.

Yours, insert suitable signature/well-wishes here - Jesse.

noah

First of all we need a link to the article you mentioned and secondly the New Covenant Jer 31:31-34 was never repealed. Paul had no authority to repeal it. Period. It's pure Christian fiction and wishful thinking to argue that any of God's Laws were ever repealed. God's Laws are eternal and immutable. They can't be undone by a human blood sacrifice. Paul got the Laws of sin and atonement sacrifices all wrong anyway. Funny. He sought to abolish a law he didn't understand.

noah

Actually if you take a look at some of the things JC said it's like he knew there was a Paul waiting in the wings to undo all that he had done and said. Consider Matthew 23:9
with Paul's declaration of himself in 1 Corinthians 4:15:
Hmmm.

Matthew 24:23-24
2 Corinthians 12:12
Poor JC. If only he knew the sad irony of his words:
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35)

Sheshbazzar

As I said noah this question will be asked until YOU give a straightforward and unambiguous answer.
As your latest reply failed again to supply such, the question is repeated.
And I'll address each of your above comments
Pathetic noah, really pathetic, I have walked in and practiced my faith for over three decades now, an entire branch of my close family are practicing Jews, whom I both speak and eat with, I don't need to do any "legwork" seeking after what their beliefs, opinions and practices are;
Perhaps if you weren't a unbelieving atheist, you wouldn't have needed to be doing any "legwork" to find out what Jew's and Rabbi's believe either.
(I also have another branch of close family that is devoutly Muslim, whom I also talk and eat with, and am well of aware of their beliefs, opinions, and practices, and thus have no need to go seek out an Imam to know of those things)
And both of these branches of my family, yet greet me and welcome me into their homes with open arms, hugs, kisses, and all of the affection bestowed upon a loved family member.
Why? because they know me, and what my manner of conduct is, toward them, and toward all.

Your quote from the Rabbi appears to be highly edited, and by not revealing the context and the exact wording of the questions that he is supposedly replying to, barely even touches on the exact question that I have been asking here.
Which you still seem to be missing the main point of so I will repeat it;
The actual question being asked, is not about whether or not "Law keeping" Jews still hold that an "eye must be taken for an eye" (the LAST part of the commandment, which Mishna and Hallaka deal with, and interpret as a requirement for the paying of money to compensate any such loss.)
But my question, specifically deals with the FIRST and primary injunction of that commandment, the matter of being merciful, showing compassion, and forgiveness, to have, or to not have "pity" and "spare" the guilty, rather than the "Your eye shall not spare"..."a breach for a breach" (Lev 24:20) see Neh.13:22, Psalm 18:25 72:13, Prov.3:3, 13:31, 16:6, 2 Sam. 22:26, and Matt. 5:7
The qualities of "pity" and "mercy" and "forgiveness" are not made manifest in the sparing of innocent men, but of them that are found guilty.

Is it not recorded, reported and known unto all of Israel, that their fathers were found guilty in transgressing The Law?
And yet that their Elohim took pity upon them, and yet showed His mercy upon them, delivering them, NOT utterly destroying them for the sake of His Laws which they had violated?
He can take pity, be merciful, and forgive, but His children are totally barred from exercising these same ethics by His Law?
Then That Law ought to have been annulled and replaced by the Lawgiver that gave it. Yet remain on the Books that we might know what transgression was FORGIVEN, that we might also forgive them that trespass against us, and no longer be demanding of a "breach for breach".
So go back again noah, if you need to, and ask the question, Is it unlawful for a Jew to show "pity" or to show "mercy" or to "forgive", or must they remain under the injunction of The Law, demanding the legal redress permitted for each and every breach, as it says, "A breach for a breach....(Lev. 24:20)
The paying or receiving of monetary compensation for a breach is an attempted redress of a wrong or a legitimate grievance.
It is not "mercy", it is not "compassion", it is not "pity", when one has been the one guilty of causing that breach. and money alone will not remove the stain of guilt, the offender must also seek the forgiveness of the offended, least the rich and the haughty without remorse for their actions, think it sufficient to simply throw their vile money in their path to cover their tracks, and the harm they have wrought.

And the injured, if forgoing the extending of full forgiveness, becomes also guilty in demanding redress. Forgive and you shall be forgiven, if not this is a guilt to be likewise not forgiven by Ha'Elohim.
And this IS the aw'vone; (crookedness-perverseness-evil)
When the guilty ought to be asking for forgiveness of a trespass, they pay filthy money, with remorse only for their money, and not for their neighbor, calling their showing, "mercy" and "pity".
And when the one who has suffered the breach demands compensation, but forgoes to fully forgive, yet calls it his right, purchases his own guilt with the money he receives.

But Elohim of old has shown us what true mercy, and forgiveness, and pity is.

If you do not believe so, then go back to your Rabbi and condemn Ha'Elohim unto him, saying, Ha' Elohim has never shown us, nor taught us, what true mercy and forgiveness and pity is.

Over two million of my fellow NT believers have no trouble at all understanding these matters, they don't even need to guess, because we that are hearing, are hearing the voice of One Teacher.
In private messages, other believers who post in these forums have often expressed that we hold a common view on matters of the interpreting of, and of the keeping of The Law.
We that are believers, and brethren to one another, do "speak often, one to another", and do AMEN one another's words.
When we read here what another believer, a brother or a sisters, whose words build up the faith, has written, Your ear does not hear it,
But we each in our place, collectively offer up our AMEN'S in support of that one, believing that One in Heaven hears our AMEN and we are His.

Remember when Moshe had read all of those words into their ears, and all were enjoined to "say AMEN"? The strong had no say, nor words greater than or above the weak, the wise no greater than or above the foolish, so it is with us.
As brother Gamera has been saying, boasting in words or works is excluded, for we all have a free, easy, and equal access to The Word of Life.
For we have now also one AMEN, a greater AMEN over us, whose AMEN before YHWH is spoken as One who is The Master over His household,
Wherefore the illiterate, the deaf, the mute, the simple-minded, the eunuch, and the child yet within its mother's womb, even all and everyone of these, - whom the wise in their own conceits would cause to stumble at The Law,- are already spoken for, and His Word IS AMETH and AMEN evermore.

Jesse Leigh

Afternoon:

Let's try this again...

Rather than use my own wording, which apparently some people here consider "preaching," I submit for your consideration an article detailing the differences between the two Covenants, and "when and where (and how) the OT Law Covenant was repealed."

http://www.tentmaker.org/oldandnew.htm

It is thorough and comprehensive. I hope it will be of some help to those of you who are truly seeking an answer to this question.

Have a wonderful weekend everyone - Jesse.

Gawen

I don't believe I asked. I recommend you read the right names from the right posts if you wish to comment on them.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...86#post3340886

Other than that, I await with baited breath of your next post.

noah

Since Sheshbazaar has now abandoned the topic of this discussion and refuses to answer the basic relevant question I would like to suggest that this portion of the thread be broken off and be used to start a new thread to do with Rabbbis and Deuteronomy.
The original question here in this discussion was and is not whether Rabbis obey or change a certain Law but whether xians are under the Law.
This is not a showdown between you and me over some irrelevant issue about Rabbis obeying one Law.
It's really very simple Sheshbazaar. God's Law are permanent immutable and perefect and give salvation. Period. What scriptural support can you adduce for your disobedience of God's Laws?
Ooh! I'm so impressed. Hanging on to this failed stratagem is no help to you. I'm not sure who you seek to bring on board or convince with your threat to copy/paste this "question" or whatever it is.
The question of the day has not changed. You still have to answer it. Trying to reverse this dynamic on me and put me in your position of having to answer the basic question won't work. Period.
I'm surprised you're sticking with this one Sheshbazaar.

I will repeat the question. Since God cares only about your obeisance to his Laws why do you keep talking about Rabbis?
When are you going to stop worrying about other people and actually go to His Laws in Deuteronomy and Leviticus where you can find them in their pristine form and do them?

Relevance? None of this helps your position. The question is why do you not obey God's Laws? God's Laws are there for you ion the Bible. They arer easy to find they are not hidden. You need only go to the bible of your choice and open up Deuteronomy and follow those clearly defined and easy to follow Laws of Yahweh.



Agian, what's the relevance? None of this helps you. It's all irrelevant. I really don't care about all this preaching and personal witness stuff.
For my own edification I will inquire again here regarding your "question". What you don't seem to get is that you have not shown why this is relevant.
You seem to think that you have somehow achieved a victory here by trying to get me to answer some obscure irrelevant question about Rabbis and eye for an eye.
Just so you know, the topic is whether xians are under the Law of Yahweh. I have no idea what you seek to prove by pounding away on this distraction.
You have not shown why this is relevant. All your concerns about the Law are resolved as soon as you go to God's word in Deuteronomy and Leviticus and follow God's Laws as you find it there. No Rabbis. No distractions. Just you and Yahweh.

This is just preaching. None of it is relevant or substantive. I suggest if you want to do this bear witness "keep the faith stuff you do so in a forum intended for that very thing. You impress very few people with it here I assure you.

Yeah and what "brother" Gamera and you have missed is there is no boasting involved when you follow Yahweh's Law. This boasting thing is just an attempt to discredit the Law, following the Law, and it has no basis in scripture which apparently I am the only one reading.
In addition, both you holier than thous are now guilty of profaning God's Laws.

What on earth is the point of all this? JC/Yahweh say over and over that their Law is not only perfect and eternal but gives salvation, protects you from evil, enriches the soul and connects you directly to the heart of God. No mention of Paul or faith in Jesus as a human blood sacrifice:
Psa 119:106-118
Psa 19:7
Psa 119:142-147
Mathew 5:17-20
Matthew 19:17
John 14:15
Matt. 24:35 Revelations 22:14
Revelations 14:12
Any mention of boasting in any of these verses Sheshbazaar?
Any mention of Paul and/or his doctrine of faith in Jesus as a human blood sacrifice? Answer? NO.
BTW Paul's doctrine of faith in JC as a human blood sacrifice is very much out of line with the Law he seeks to align it with.
Just so you Sheshbazaar and the readers know, Heb 9:22
is utterly and totally false. According to Judaic Laws there are three methods of atonement: the sin sacrifice, repentance, and charity. Moreover, the sin sacrifice (known in the Jewish scriptures as korban chatat) did not atone for all types of sin, but rather, only for man's most insignificant iniquity: unintentional sins. Offerings of fine flour (Lev 5:11 ), money (Ex 30:15-16), jewelry (Num 31:50) and prayer ( Hos 14:1-4) can also atone for sin.
In addition, God's Laws make clear that the individual himself is the only one that can atone for or erase his own sins:
Ezekiel 18 20-22
So this whole idea that JC died for anyone's sin is a red herring meant to dupe the uninformed. It's up to the individual to seek God's Law and do his best to keep it. Period. The question Sheshbazaar, despite your attempted distractions, is why do you and other so-called Christians not keep God's Laws?