Apikorus

I prefer Hillel:

On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand. When he went before Hillel, he said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.' (B. Shabbat 31a)

Gamera

Well you've chopped it up a bit. Put back into context this passage is exactly NOT a command. Deuteronmy 6:1 announced that "these are the commands," but it doesn't get to any commands until Deut 12. In between, the book keeps stating over and over again in admonitory language not to forget the commands, to keep them, by all means, and fear the Lord (same thing). Not one definite command until Deut 12, just a great deal of admonitory language about what a mistake it would be not to and what a good idea it is for them to do so, and why Israel doesn't really deserve this, so listen up. In this context Deut 6:4 is an imperative, but only because it is more admonitory language about what it means to keep the command, the revving up of the engine to the giving of the command 6 chapters later. Hence the next line once again states that the commands are coming: "These commandments that I give to you today are to be upon your hearts." I.e., I still haven't given them to you so listen up, they're really important.

Yes, but the prolegomena sums up what "love" BHA, means here. The passage conceives of love an act, not an emotion or a state. To love means not to seek revenge or bear a grudge.

Thus a few verses later, the author says (using the same work):

Leviticus 19:34 - The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Clearly the meaning of BHA here isn't to emotionally care about, but to treat in a certain way, i.e., to treat a stranger like a loved one.

Review all of Leviticus 19 -- you will not find one instance of any command that doesn't involve an action or a forebearance. The whole thing is about conduct, not emotional states. And of course it must be: How can you command somebody to love another (Christianity of course has a "resolution" to this issue -- the Holy Spirit -- but Judaism clearly did not accept that resolution, nor the Christian conception of love. The Law is exactly not about emotional states, but conduct, conduct, conduct.

michael wellenberg

Sorry I cannot follow you here. Do you mean that the law has never been accepted and observed by gentile converts ? If you do I disagree.
On the contrary all Christians whether gentile or Jewish did observe the law in the early times that is well into the forties.
This could possibly shed light upon Jesus´attitude. Since the earliest church would likely have behaved toward the law like Jesus did this would be a point against Jesus having overturned it.

Michael

Gamera

Of course the law applied to converts. By definition then it didn't apply to nonconvert gentiles. The fact that there is a class of people not under law has no impact on whether the law is "eternal" That's my point. Christians are just such a class.

Regarding early Christian practices regarding the law, that became a issue in the church and it was resolved pretty definitively: the law doesn't apply to Christians. The resolution happens to accord with Jesus' teachings about the law.

noah

The matter hardly speaks for itself. Why do you think xians disagree with each other so vehemently on so many important points?

Wrong anwser. Are you saying your god's creation, your god's laws are imperfect? Time for the scripture again. Your god's law is perfect:

Psa 19:7
Do you have any idea how nonsensical the idea of fulfilling a law is? It's like saying I don't have to pay my hydro bill because paying the hydro bill has been fulfilled. It makes no sense at all. None. No law on earth is designed to be fulfilled. You might as well say "I have circumnavigated the dinner hour at my aunt's tool shed." You have no scriptural support for your assertion that JC fulfilled your god's Law. Please tell me and everyone else where in your Gods laws is there any mention of their being "fulfilled" and any mention of Jesus (grabbing popcorn).
The word fulfill here is clearly a bad translation to put it mildly. The context of the passage requires that the word actually be "uphold" or "continue" or "enforce". The rest of the passage (if you read it) is JC stating that his law lasts forever and that his law is the key to salvation. If you insist on the word fulfill here you are reducing JC to a incoherent blathering idiot (Not that that's hard to do mind you) who says one thing at the beginning of the passage:
and then proceeds to contradict himself violently with his next three words:
and then proceeds to backtrack from that momentary lapse in reason and continue his original train of thought for the balance of the passage stating in no uncertain terms that his law saves and that no one may seek to change it or teach others to do so:

Please not the phrase "till all be fulfilled". There is no indication anywhere that "all" has been fulfilled. The Jewish messiah has not yet come. The xian god's new covenant (Jer. 31-36) has yet to be realized etc. etc.

Wrong. The xian god's law will never pass away because it is eternal. Read your bible Gamera. We keep going over all this over and over. Do you think it might be a good dea if you read the bible sometime? The law of the xian god is not condemnation. It makes you wise, gives life, protects you from evil, fills you with joy and provides salvation:

Psa 19:7
Psa 119:152-160
Psa 119:106-118
There has to be at least half a dozen passages similar to these ones in the bible. When are you going to start reading them?
More importantly when are you going to consider the implications of badmouthing your god's laws.

Wrong. Time for the scripture again. The xian god's laws are the key to god's shelter and god's favor see Psa 119:106-118 and Psa 119:152-160 (above).

One more time. There is no mention of Jesus anywhere in the xian god's laws. None . Furthermore, according to the xian god, no one can die for the sins of another:

Deut. 24:16 2 Kings 14:6 Ezek. 18:20 Ezek.33:20 The only sin sacrifice that comes close to the kind of sin sacrifice xians say JC was is the animal sacrifice which provides remission of unintentional minor sins. But here the xians have more problems. JC was not only human which is verboten but he did not meet the prerequisite conditions for being a sin sacrifice. In order for a sin sacrifice to be lawful it conform with Torah which:

1. Requires that a sacrificial ritual be administered by a Priest (see Leviticus Chapters 1-7). According to the accounts in the New Testament (NT), Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:33; John 19:18, 23).

2. Requires that the blood of the (sin) sacrifice had to be sprinkled by the Priest on the veil of the sanctuary and on the altar in the Temple (e.g., Leviticus 4: 5-6). New Testament evidence clearly shows this was not done.

3. Requires that the (sin) sacrifice be without any physical defect or blemish (e.g., Leviticus 4:3). According to the various accounts in the NT, Jesus was beaten, whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified (Matthew 26:67, 27:26, 30-31; Mark 14: 65, 15:15-20; Luke 22: 63; John 18:22, 19:1, 3). Moreover, as a Jew by birth, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day after being born, a ritual that leaves a scar ("sign of the covenant"). According to the NT, circumcision is tantamount to mutilation (Philippians 3:2, Galatians 5:12).

4. Requires that the Passover (sin) sacrifice, a male-goat, be offered on an individual (per household) basis (Numbers 28:22), not as a communal offering. According to the NT, Jesus’ death (termed a “sin sacrifice”) expiated the sins of mankind (Romans 6:10; Hebrews 9:12, 10:10, 10:18).

5. Directs that the Paschal Lamb was NOT to be offered for the removal of sins. It was a commemorative/festive offering (see also under items 4 above and 6 below). A more appropriate time for a sin offering would have been on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement; Numbers 29:11 [individual sin-offering―male goat]; Leviticus16:15 [communal sin-offering―male goat]).

6. Requires sacrificed Paschal Lamb to be roasted and eaten, and it’s blood used to place markings on the side-posts and lintel of the doors (Exodus 12: 7-8). There is no record in the NT that this was done (lest it be suggested that Christianity promotes cannibalism).

7. States that the sacrificial sin offering could only atone for UNINTENTIONAL sins, with few notable exceptions as stated in Leviticus 5:1-6, 20-26 [Leviticus6:1-7 in Christian Bibles]; [e.g., Num 15:27-31] .

8. Teaches that sacrifices can only atone for sins committed PRIOR to the offering of the sacrifice. No sacrifice could ever atone for sins committed AFTER the sacrifice was offered. Thus, no sacrifice could ever atone for people born after the sacrifice was offered.

9. Strictly FORBIDS human vicarious atonement (e.g., Exodus 32:31-33; Numbers 35:33; Deuteronomy 24:16; II Kings 14:6; Jeremiah 31:29 [30 in a Christian Bible]; Ezekiel 18:4,20; Psalms 49:7).

According to the xian god, there are also other different types of sins that require different types of sacrifices or atonement. Forgiveness does not always require bloodshed. 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.

I do suggest you pick up a copy of the bible sometime and read it.

Absolutely unsupported by anything Yahweh ever says anywhere in the bible. Does any member of the Trinity mention this grace through faith in a human blood sacrifice named Jesus? I can tell you that the xian god forbids human blood sacrifices.

Loving others is part of your god's laws. Surpassing the letter of the law has no scriptural support anywhere in the xian god's laws. Your god's laws are the ultimate human endeavor. Why don't you read them sometime instead of quoting Paul's ignorance. Start with Psalms then go to Deuteronomy maybe.

I don't know why you mentioned this passage in your statement hereAll you've done is opened up a can of worms for yourself now by introducing all the examples of Jesus' sins and there are many of those. If Jc sinned you've got another problem: 1) He's not the expected messiah and 2) Hebrews 4:15 (Jesus was sinless) is wrong. Are you sure you want the debate to go in this direction?
In any case, how does expanding on the law cancel the law. If anything JC is making the law even more stringent and rigorous in a couple of placesAs for the rest of the passage I'm not even going to try to argue for some kind of consistency here. You walked right into the inconsistency trap. In this case JC says one thing about the law and proceeds to do the opposite.

Jesus is in direct violation of his own laws.

Mathew 5:19
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your G-d which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

JC's also contradicting his words in Mathew 5:20 which state that we have to be more righteous than the devout followers of the xian god's laws - the Pharisees and scribes. "More righteous than the Pharisees" means strict Torah observance.
JC expands on this idea (on which he contradicts himself) of strict Torah observance in Mathew 23:2-3 saying that we must do what the Pharisees tell us to do:

and, as everyone knows, the Pharisees taught observance of the xian god's laws.
JC then proceeds to badmouth the Pharisees and Scribes which is a violation of the xian god's law that one must not insult a fellow Jew (Leviticus 19:17-18) and one must honor a Torah sage (Leviticus 19:32) and he does so without any proof which amounts to a false accusation, oops there goes another law down the drain.

As I said, I'm not sure why you think you gain by mentioning all those palces where JC violates Torah and therby disqualifies himself as your messiah.
It's kind of odd don't you think that I am the one arguing for some kind of consistency in the bible. However, if you want to discuss all of Jesus sins then by alll means let's switch gears and do just that. It's either way you want it.
I still believe however, actually I know for a fact that the bulk of the bible states unequivicolly that the law provides salvation. Remove Paul from the equation and your case, the case that xians aren't under your god's laws, falls apart.

BTW Gamera, I've issued this challenge to you before but so far I haven't gotten a response from you. I'll try once again. Instead of calling your god's laws "the" law, why don't you call them "my God's" laws. Shouldn't be too hard Gamera. After all that's exactly what they are: your god's laws.

noah

No it doesn't read the words of the xian god sometime.
What? This is supposed to impress me? Who wrote Hebrews? Guess what? Could have been anybody. No one knows. Why don't I ask you. Is the author of Hebrews a member of the Trinity Gamera? Offer proof of your answer.
On whose authority did the author of Hebrews set aside the so called old covenant? Did he he even know which covenant he was talking about? He sure wasn't talking about the xian god's new covenant as stated in Jer. 31-36That covenant has yet to be realized. And guess what? It's founded on the xian god's eternal and perfect laws.

You got that right. You only need to say "see the xian gospels" for a definition of inconsistent, flawed and errant.

Actually no. Don't put words in my mouth. If you read this thread and my post which I recommend you do sometime you will see that I am referring to the fact that the xian concept, the concept you seek to affirm through your citation of Matthew 19:8 of a warm and fuzzy heart through grace is bogus. It is demonstrably false. If all you xians were so softhearted as you Gamera are trying to claim, we wouldn't see so much crime perpetrated by xians. Your god's laws have nothing to do with this. The jury is in. A kind heart through grace from Jesus is a demonstrably false concept and spurious concept. If it were real then xians would commit no crimes. Period.
If it were real then Gamera would not keep trying to put words in my mouth. If it were real NUwanda and Sheshbazaar would not have trangressed against me and been forced to apologize. There is nothing repeat nothing real about this idea that JC fills your heart with love. It is total nonsense. Any atheist can wrong someone and apologize for it. Any atheist can lead a morally upright life and treat others well. You don't need JC for any of it.
BTW if Gamera, NUWanda and Sheshbazaar had been keeping their god's laws, they would have not sinnned against me.
How do you keep faith? Who knows? Who cares? It obviously has nothing to do with personal conduct and loving thy neighbor etc.

noah

Still trying to put words in my mouth Gamera? <edit> Jesus must be so proud.
I don't think the bible is inspired. I think the words of your god take precedence over anything anyone in the bible says including Paul and the author of Hebrews. That's just basic logic. That doesn't mean I think the bible is inspired.
You can't prove the bible is inspired except to say that the bible says it's inspired. What a wonderful proof. With logic like that who needs reason or common sense or a democratic judicial system.

Other books say they're inspired Gamera. Why don't you believe in them. And as you answer be sure to explain why the criteria you are applying to the other books does not apply to the bible.