judge

Consider pauls view on one of these laws.


From 1 corinthians 9:3-10

BigJim

I dated an SDA for a few months, and while her parents were quite strict (not allowing her to wear skirts or two-piece bathing suit) I don't remember her being particular Kosher.

cajela

SDAs don't do jewish style kosher, they think that's overinterpreted. Vegetarian if possible and if you must eat meat, then at least no pork, shellfish etc.

BigJim

Interesting. I'm almost positive she wasn't vegetarian, but I have no recollection of her eating (or refusing) pork or shellfish, but that was almost 20 years ago, so I'm sure any brain cells that may have contained those memories are long gone.

Sheshbazzar

Actually noah, just so you know; It is the fact that I am very well aware of what The Law says, and how it is interpreted and how it is understood by its advocates, that I am thereby able to understand how many of those Laws are are either wholly ignored, or are "creatively" reinterpreted so they are not in any honest sense being "obeyed", "kept", or "observed".

You present yourself here as an advocate for the strict observance of The Law as the means to salvation,
(While this website IS understood to be an atheistic forum, your arguments have not clarified as to whether you a account yourself as a believer in ha'Torah, or as an Atheist with an atheist agenda. Which is it?)
Actually noah, I have made very few references to, or quotations from Paul in this thread, or in any of my previous 470 posts on this site, That one short quotation from Romans 7:1-6 as an explanation is certainly nothing that could honestly or rightly be interpreted as "You keep hiding behind Paul".
Was that "You" that you employed here, meant as a collective, or plural "you"?
After all, I had but began to post anything at all in this thread, so it is not evident how I as an individual, have kept, or do "keep hiding behind Paul." I had no foreknowledge of your extreme prejudice against Paul and his explanations, and as anyone may detect, your views as expressed in this thread are NOT at all represenative of those common to either mainstream Judiasim or to Christianity, That is, majority Judiasim does not normally try to push a legalistic "JC" character as you have done here, and most "Christians" do not normally reject the writings of Paul.
I have no need to "hide behind Paul", to present any of my own persuasions regarding The Law.
Every experienced poster on this board knows what "QUOTE MINING" and "PROOF TEXTING" is,
your ability to fill up bandwidth by regurgitating dozens of verses taken totally out of context, that -appear- to give some support to your position, does not constitute any real argument.
So no, I will not waste the time to correct your mishandling of The TaNaKa, or The NT.
Actually noah, you are entirely wrong in this perception, it is only your own old dull ax that you are still attempting to grind here.
Yes, noah, we both, and many others here, know, that there has been a long history of playing games with His name, no? You can call Him any thing you want.

Of course if the readers of this thread actually look up Acts 4:17-19 they will find that Paul is not even mentioned, and indeed this takes place in the narrative well before his entrance.

That I DID NOT
is evident.

That you are misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and MISREPRESENTING what Acts 4:17-19 DOES say, to build your straw house, is also evident.

Not neglecting this; And this
And this;
( here I make a very rare exception and employ a smilie)
And this;
And this; And this; If your "argument" had not employed misdirection, and MISREPRESENTATION it would not have needed redirecting.
What a hoot! are you saying you are not contemptuous of Paul?
that I pointed out your animosity is certainly no "smokescreen"

Actually noah, I DID respond to your "arguments", you were just unable or unwilling to comprehend the implications of those responses.
My first post in this thread;
And my second post in this thread;
You have quoted a lot of verses that use such words "The Law", "laws", "commandments", and "forever", it is an interesting study as to what each of the underlying Hebrew words actually meant and how they were, and are intended to be understood as used in any particular context, but that is not the actualy the subject of this thread, and has been extensively discussed elsewhere.

"WHEN AND WHERE ARE THE OT LAWS REPEALED?"

My answer is, and in agreement with you, (noah) in this, they never were, and they are ALL still in full effect against those of that circumcision which is in the flesh, and not in the heart, even as many as do hold a claim to being righteous by the doing of the things written within The Law.

But Moshe who gave you The Law, was himself one that restrained the hearers of that Law from the doing of that Law.
How so you ask?
Moshe gave these words that all who are under The Law might know them;
This was and yet is The Law of circumcision, it is as you said, to be "obeyed","kept" and is "forever".
( by the living but is of no application to them that have died.)
This Moshe, whom you say gave to you the Laws of circumcision, which are to be "obeyed", and "kept" and are "forever", When he had begat his sons Gershom and Eliezer of Zipphorah, he DID NOT circumcise them "in the eighth day", as was both the TRADITION, and the express COMMAND. (Breshith/Genesis 17:11-14 and 21:4)
Even evident danger from YHWH Himself (Shemoth/Exodus 4:24-26) was not sufficient to force his hand.
If Moshe HAD "DEMANDED" "rites of blood" he would have himself circumcised his sons (Shemoth/Exodus 4:20) "IN THE EIGHTH DAY" (Breshith/Genesis 17:12 and Vaiqura/Leviticus 12:3)
Moshe gave the letter of The Law that it might "Stand for a witness against you", - (ha'Devarim/Deuteronomy31:26) and these Words are STILL STANDING AS A WITNESS AGAINST YOU.
This same Moshe preached FORTY YEARS in the wilderness the doctrine of righteousness apart from the DOING of the letter of The (written) Law, RESTRAINING the hand of the Fathers, and of every mother amongst all of the children of Israel, that in those forty years under his leadership, in spite of The Laws which he had given, and in spite of all the traditions, NOT ONE SINGLE CHILD AMONGST THEM WAS EVER CIRCUMCISED IN THE EIGHTH DAY AS WAS THE COMMAND OF THE LETTER OF THE LAW.
Thus did he preserve and SAVE the children of the promise.

So pause now and consider, what manner of strong and persuasive preaching of the word of doctrine Moshe would had to have spoken (Torah sh'beh al'peh) in order to stay every hand among the people from performing any circumcisions at all for that entire forty years, contrary to both their own traditions and to those express commands of The Law which he had written and read into their ears.
And of this The Scriptures are incontrovertible, that thus he did DO, violating both TRADITION and The LETTER of The Law, for the DELIVERANCE of them NOT circumcised in flesh of their foreskins, as were their rebellious fathers who fell in the wilderness.

Skeptical

Is the gist of all of this supposed to mean that in your opinion Moses himself showed that he did away with the law? I assume your using the cirumcision as an example to illustrate this and your point is not really about circumcision?

jackrabbit

There is a clear cut way, they just won't admit it. The distinction is whether you want to follow it or not.

Sheshbazzar

Absolutely not, Moshe under direction from YHWH temporarily suspended The Laws of circumcision, and all of the related penalties, that some might be saved.
Suspending a Law is different than "doing away with The Law",
As I clearly stated, The Law IS still in full effect. howbeit SOME are -exempted- from its full requirements.
There are many laws upon the law books, with attending penalties, but even human judges hold discretion as to what is enforced and what is suspended, and to decree who is -exempted- from any statute or penalty and who is not. (David, and them with him, also did eat of that which it was not lawful for them to eat under the letter of The Law, yet they found therein the favor and the praise of YHWH their Elohim.)
"Passover" quite literally means exemption, that YHWH chose to "pass over" the children of Israel was not because they were in any manner more innocent that their oppressors, but respecting a promise He had made to the fathers, He showed His judiciary mercy on whom He chose, exempting them that Night from the death that came upon them whom were not exempted, and not the beneficiaries of His mercy.
Circumcision and its suspension, is an example and was provided for the purposes of illustrating a principal.
Yes, the point is about The Laws of Circumcision, but is not so limited in scope, The same Lawgiver and Judge is able to show His leniency and His forgiveness for any manner of trespass against the corpus of The Law, at His will.
This in no way requires Him to extend that exemption to any individual whom He perceives to be of a perverse heart.
As many as believe in His exemption have it within their grasp to receive that exemption.

As many as are baptized (immersed) into the name of His son, His "SALVATION", are baptized into his death, and are henceforth accounted as dead, and being so accounted dead, are no longer subject to the carnal ordinances of The Law regarding eating, wearing, and touching.
So that we may now extend a hand of compassion to the leper, to the diseased, and to her that is "unclean", that we may go forth and reconcile those whom society has cast out and rejected, that we may oppose the chains of slavery, though it be permissible under the letter of law, and in all good works that are condemned by Law, be found fully justified and acceptable unto YHWH our Elohim.

noah

Actually you're not aware of what the law says or you'd be obeying it now.
You need to cite Book/Chapter/Verse if you want to back up this argument. Relying on isolated little incidents (where the law was broken or for whatever reason ignored) that you try to turn into vast universal principles which violate God's law does not work. God/JC spoke of the law as a univeral binding permanent principal that brought you salvation. The only antidote to this argument is to show that they did not. No exception to the rule trumps the rule.

Who cares? Relevance?

Let's not play games here Sheshbazaar. Paul is the architect of the doctrine which xians say gives them a pass on the Law. We would not be having this discussion if it were not for Paul. So let's move from the ridiculous to the real shall we?

It was directed at you specifically and xians in general.

Relevance?
Sure you do. No Paul no doctrine of faith in JC as a human blood sacrifice.
Or do you believe otherwise?

Stupid tactic. Trying to dodge the substance of my posts by making it an issue of intellectual integrity. Your assertion is baseless, your strategem desperate.
Says you. If I have no argument, it's up to you to prove it. Labeling gets you nowhere Sheshbazaar. This is a forum for intellectuals not name callers. That's elementary school nonsense and you know it.
Note the desperation here too: Sheshbazaar is actually mentioning IIDB bandwidth as part of his pseudo-argument. A gap filling measure I suspect.
If I have mishandled thesetexts then prove it. I challenge you to prove it right here and right now. Bring forward a Jewish scholar or quote me something from Tanach to show how wrong I am. Or is this just another empty assertion? (Why am I even asking?)
Remember you disprove your oppopnents' arguments through logic and command of the subject matter.

I suggest you turn to actually hashing out and expanding on the points you have tried to make so far.

Much Clapping.

Yes. That's true. Are you disassociating yourself from Paul's doctrine of faith in a human blood sacrifice Sheshbazaar?

Empty rhetoric. Sorry to be the one to keep mentioning this Sheshbazaar but you have to do more than label an opponents argument or give it the broad stroke treatment. You have to actually repsond to the issue(s) involved, the point he is making.
I made my counterpoint to this Acts argument of yours in my previous post.


Garbage. Don't bother.

It seems I'm the one who keeps giving examples and citing verses and making arguments and you seem satisfied to sit around and play games.
Please tell me where I employed misdirection Sheshbazaar.

[QUOTE]Sure it is. Tyring to bring into question and/or making an issue of an individual's personal/emotional disposition (as you see it) towards a person or subject in the middle of a discussion of much larger issues and in a discussion where you have not offered anything substantive to support your position consitutes an attempt to distract. Period.

And, as I keep saying, neither of these consitute an argument. They consitute wishful thinking and artful dodges. They are nothing more than illusory and delusional. Why? Because as I keep saying: God and JC never said anything of the sort. I keep asking you to tell me where god/JC ever mention baptism as a way out of obeying the Law. You have just made this whole baptism thing up. You can offer no scriptural support for this doctrine of yours. Get it?


You have another problem here too Sheshbazaar. Baptism is not required for salvation. That's right. The bible lays out a number of other forms of salvation including:

Predestination - Acts 13: 48 and Ephesians 1:4-5

Psalm 65:4 suggests god picks people selectively

Works and faith: James 2:24

Faith only: Romans 3:28

Let's not forget the Beatitudes where JC lays out his blueprint for salvation:

Mathew 5I don't understand why you focus so much on baptism when there are so many alternatives available.

I responded to all this here

Sheshbazzar

Hmmm, by that reasoning every atheist here would also be obeying it now. You are inferring that none here, except yourself, "is aware of what The Law says," I disagree, virtually every Law in The Books has been extensively and minutely examined and discussed on these forums.
Of course all of the fabricated hokum that rabbinic Judaism has added to nullify, reverse, and explain away those Laws that they would rather not keep nor obey, is beyond the normal content of this forum, It is NOT The Law of Moshe, and in most cases is so contrived it is not even worthy of repeating.
This is not a "Jewish" forum, synagogue, or community, there is no one here who is non-Jewish who is going to submit to the doing all of those ridiculous things and interpretations that the Jews have imposed and added unto YHWH's Laws. To "keep" the latter is impossible, and to do the former is ridiculous and without profit.
In this particular case, not submitting to that command which came from your reprobate Priesthood and Council (Acts 4:18, 5:40), I stand fully condemned, and accursed to death by The Laws of ha'Devarim/Deuteronomy 17:8-13 and 25:1-2, being so condemned and accursed, there is NO salvation to be obtained under The Law, therefor there is no profit in any further endeavor to obedience of the rest of the carnal commandments of, "touch not, taste not, handle not", being in guilt of a far greater trespass.


I am guilty of breaking the BAN (Acts 4:18, 5:40) every day, so it is no isolated incident with me, (but you, with your allegiance to obeying The Law, really ought to refrain from preaching about what your "JC" has to say about anything, your high priests and councils disapprove of any such speech, so we are told)
"Vast universal principals", yah, man! I LOVE it, and it is so simple that the high minded will always reject it, even The Word of Promise that cannot fail; "And it SHALL come to pass, ALL whosoever shall call upon The Name YHWH, SHALL be delivered:" Yo'el 3:5 / Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, Romans 10:11-13


Yep, The Law brought us salvation, and that is why we the Nations (Gentiles) are now singing His praises with His people. (Psalm 117 is a short one, and it does not take us long to memorize its words, and even sing it in Hebrew, yea, even my illiterate brethren may sing its words, halleu-YAH!
Do you sing its words noah? or are you just too busy finding fault with YHWH's people, to find the time to sing His praises along with the people He has called from among the Nations?
Of course The Law must remain, biding and permanent, else there would be no curse to need any deliverance from.
so there is really no reason "to show they did not" because they DO uphold The Law, that ALL of the living might be found guilty before Them.
Are you without any trespass, and guiltless in obedience to all of The Laws noah?
Who cares? O' noah, noah, noah, have you not heard? YHWH, His Son, Moshe, the angels, the Prophets, all of the Hosts of heaven, and all of His people who are called by His Name, and even I, as becomes one who knows from the heart that he IS his "brothers keeper",
We ALL care whether you choose to classify yourself among the believers or among the unbelievers.
The relevance is the validity of any arguments you may make, either FOR or against The Law, for what gain is there for you to "win" a debate about The Law, if you do not believe in your heart and in your mind in the truth and in the validity of that Law, and in the Maker and sustainer of that Law? Winning thus, you lose. It is not a good thing for a man, to be double minded.


Actually noah, I am convinced that we would still be having this discussion even if Saul of Tarsus had never been born, the controversy was there before Saul ever became involved (even in the days of Moshe), and if Saul had not been put in his office by YHWH, then YHWH would yet have chosen and raised up another in his stead, for this matter of The Law, and of the heart, would still have remained without Paul.
For what The Law commands or forbids, "without mercy" and without compassion, the compassionate heart is moved against that Law, wherefore we no longer stone our children for disobedience, require our widows to marry their brother-in-laws, or the woman who has been raped to be married to her attacker.
This is really not an good forum to be arguing for the continuance of such Laws as offend the consciences of all compassionate and ethical men.