posted
No, the issue comes from Christians having multiple gods (depending on interpretation on Christian beliefs).
Upon further reflection, I think the idea of teaching the Noachide laws comes from the idea that the soul was wants to live the "right way." Teaching them helps relieve suffering if the gentile soul.
ETA: For example, say someone lived in an area where information about proper nutrition for growing children was just not available. You wouldn't judge them harshly for not feeding their children a balanced diet. However, you would still want them to have the information.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I'm inclined to side with the commentators who say Christianity is not idolatrous, but then again, im an ignoramus.
Then call me an ignoramus as well, because I happen to agree.
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: For example, say someone lived in an area where information about proper nutrition for growing children was just not available. You wouldn't judge them harshly for not feeding their children a balanced diet. However, you would still want them to have the information.
posted
Point of curiosity: The first commandment is usually rendered in English "Thou shalt have no other god before me". Is this an accurate rendition of the Hebrew? And is it the same as the Noachide law having to do with worship?
Further, if the translation is accurate, would an atheist be in compliance with it? Certainly I hold no other god before the Christian (or Jewish) one.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, that sounds somewhat more reasonable than I had understood on my first pass. Consider me satisfied with your answers.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Personally, based on my understanding and study of Christianity - the trinity are 3 and one. Yet they are all one. 3 aspects of one central being. I'm sure there are a whole different amount of interpretations, but to me - I'm inclined to side with the commentators who say Christianity is not idolatrous, but then again, im an ignoramus.
Just for the record, since this thread was begun with a tale of LDS missionaries, the Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. They believe that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate Gods, and any "oneness" expressed in scripture is merely a metaphor for unity of purpose.
So if the Elders do come back, maybe Lisa would have some sort of humanitarian duty to enlighten them. Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Well THAT was rewarding! Thanks Speed!
I didn't know that about Mormons. Do they consider themselves polytheist? See, I didn't understand that whole thing a few pages back about God being married...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Point of curiosity: The first commandment is usually rendered in English "Thou shalt have no other god before me". Is this an accurate rendition of the Hebrew? And is it the same as the Noachide law having to do with worship?
Further, if the translation is accurate, would an atheist be in compliance with it? Certainly I hold no other god before the Christian (or Jewish) one.
Close enough; roughly; probably not. But why would you care?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that many of them would volunteer the word "polytheist." An understandable stance--they align themselves more with tratitional "Trinity" Christianity than most of what immediately springs to mind when you think of polytheism.
But they certainly believe in more than one God. Even their most superficial beliefs recognize that we're all governed by a "Godhead" of three.
So I guess that's a yes.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Point of curiosity: The first commandment is usually rendered in English "Thou shalt have no other god before me". Is this an accurate rendition of the Hebrew? And is it the same as the Noachide law having to do with worship?
Further, if the translation is accurate, would an atheist be in compliance with it? Certainly I hold no other god before the Christian (or Jewish) one.
Close enough; roughly; probably not. But why would you care?
Well, I don't care, precisely, any more than I really care about, say, the oxygen content of the Earth's atmosphere. But there's such a thing as idle curiosity.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
GinaG, Christians basically kept the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper or Communion, as Protestants call it) anytime they felt like it. Early in church history, it was probably any time they got together and had a fellowship dinner. Jesus just said: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes." (1 Corinthians 11:26)
Jesus had the Communion service with the bread and wine after having the Passover dinner with His disciples. Many Christians say the Communion took the place of Passover. The Passover was observed once a year.
Also, the concept of not being "under law" really should be more explicitly stated as "not under the condemnation of the law" (if by law, you mean the Ten Commandments). John told us in 1 John 3:4 that "sin is the transgression of the law." (Other translations say "sin is lawlessness"; the original Greek is anomia--literally, without law.)
If the Law could be done away with, then Jesus need not have died in the first place. Without the law, there are no sinners in need of a Saviour. Jesus did not save us by doing away with the law we broke; He saved us by doing away with the condemnation for our breaking of the law--by paying its penalty that humanity owed.
You surely would not say that Christians are freed from the commandment not to kill, or steal, or blaspheme, etc. The only commandment anyone seems to want to do away with is the Sabbath commandment. And why? It is just because their tradition is to keep a different day. Why is tradition so important?
Armoth, Exodus 31 has to do with Moses' elaboration on the Law. The original statement of the Ten Commandments as such is in Exodus 20. This was written by God Himself, by His own finger, on tables of stone. Does it not seem significant to you that God did this?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, Exodus 31:12 - "And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying"
Moses did not elaborate. God did.
Jews don't make as big of a deal of the 10 commandments as the rest of the world does. They hold the same legitimacy as the rest of the 613 commandments. It is certainly significant that God was more personally involved with the 10 commandments, but that doesn't mean that in a discourse about Sabbath, the 7th day, and to whom it was commanded, that we ignore the later words of God. Because it was not Moses, it was God who spoke in 31. That is the Jewish understanding of Moses and prophecy.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only commandment anyone seems to want to do away with is the Sabbath commandment. And why? It is just because their tradition is to keep a different day. Why is tradition so important?
Ron, could you please try not to make such statements about why others do things. It's beyond tiresome.
If you want to explain your view of Christianity, that's fine. If you want to attempt to demonstrate that your view of Christianity is correct and others' wrong, that's fine, too (within the limits of the TOS you promised to follow when you registered, of course).
But pretty much EVERY time you attempt to "explain" why those who disagree with you believe what they do, you are wrong - either due to gross oversimplification of others' beliefs or because of outright error. You are usually wrong about what others believe, too.
If you limited yourself to explaining what you actually know about - that is, what you believe - you'd look a lot less ignorant.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Jews don't make as big of a deal of the 10 commandments as the rest of the world does. They hold the same legitimacy as the rest of the 613 commandments.
Correction/clarification. There are NOT "10 commandments" -- not in Hebrew, anyway. Try "10 statements". Several are not commands at all; others include more than one commandment. (Leaving aside those opinions that claim there is an allusion to each and every one of the 613 somewhere in those 10 statements.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: It is certainly significant that God was more personally involved with the 10 commandments, but that doesn't mean that in a discourse about Sabbath, the 7th day, and to whom it was commanded, that we ignore the later words of God. Because it was not Moses, it was God who spoke in 31. That is the Jewish understanding of Moses and prophecy.
Mormons believe this as well. We have a pretty good scripture that condenses it all down,
"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."
Moses as a prophet and therefore God's mouthpiece when speaking as such is of equal importance to the words God himself says. But I suppose that is redundant because if a person speaks to me face to face or over the phone it does not change the fact that they said it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Point of curiosity: The first commandment is usually rendered in English "Thou shalt have no other god before me". Is this an accurate rendition of the Hebrew? And is it the same as the Noachide law having to do with worship?
The first commandment actually is: "I am the Lord, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." (Exodus 20:2)
The second is: "You shall not have the gods of others in My presence. You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness which is in the heavens above, which is on the earth below, or which is in the water beneath the earth. You shall neither prostrate yourself before them nor worship them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a zealous God, Who visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, upon the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, and [I] perform loving kindness to thousands [of generations], to those who love Me and to those who keep My commandments." (Exodus 20:3-6) JPS translation from chabad.org
The Noahide Law is just a pohibition against avodah zarah-worship of a foreign god (sanhedrin56a)
Posts: 399 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well then, my point remains. Is a man who does not worship any gods in compliance with this law? Rivka says no, but does not explain why.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Denying the existence of God is a big deal and not okay. However, I think Maimonides says its better than believing in multiple gods or a god with limited power over the world, as it acknowledges God would be One and all-powerful.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's sad. If you expect everything to be 100% the same for Jews and non-Jews, go ahead and dislike Judaism, because it'll never be what you want.
I expect a God that says He loves everyone equally to demonstrate it in a consistent way. I'm not seeing that consistency with what's been reported about Judaism here.
Can a gentile develop as strong a relationship with God, by honest obedience to the Noachide laws, as a Jew who has the same regard for the laws of Moses?
Lisa has stated that the laws given to Moses are eternal; in the life to come, will there be a division between Gentiles and the children of Israel?
About Mormons and polytheism:
Mormons worship Heavenly Father. We recognize the difference between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as being three distinct, separate beings, but NOT co-equal, in terms of worship. (No one prays to the Holy Ghost, for example)
From this point of view, we are monotheistic, in that we worship one god alone.
From another point of view, we are polytheistic, in that we believe that God's ultimate plan for men and women is for us to develop as He has developed-- capable of creating spirit children the way He created us. We believe that God has a female counterpart (separate and distinct from Him) but there isn't much information on her. They are our Heavenly Parents, and our greatest aim in mortal life, and throughout our existence, is to learn to become like them.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Mormons worship Heavenly Father. We recognize the difference between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as being three distinct, separate beings, but NOT co-equal, in terms of worship. (No one prays to the Holy Ghost, for example)
From this point of view, we are monotheistic, in that we worship one god alone.
In any case, if you believe in more than one God you're polytheistic. Doesn't matter which one you pray to.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, feel free to dig up the Rebbetzin thread. I believe my discussion with you on this same topic is on about pages 2-3, but I'm not positive. I'm much too tired (long day at work, and I have another tomorrow) to dig it up myself.
The irony of someone who practices an unashamedly patriarchal religion having issues with "inequity" is entirely too much for me. I am bowing out of this part of the conversation; I'm finding even peripheral participation too frustrating.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Just one thing to add - I believe that most Muslims do not violate the 7 Noahide laws, and that acc to some commentators, neither do Christians.
Muslims, da. Christians, nyet. Other than the Meiri, who is absolutely a daat yachid about this, that is not an Orthodox Jewish position.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: This ger toshav has many benefits and is included in a lot of Jewish ritual, etc. Rabbi Solomon ibn Isaac (Rashi), a major Jewish commentator and legal opinion cites that these non-Jews not only are not forbidden, but are required to keep the Sabbath. (See (Rashi, Tractate: Kritot 9, Yevamot 40))
I'd like a better source than that, if you don't mind. I'm very skeptical about this. When citing Rashi, you give the divrei ha-matchil. And when citing the Talmud, you give not just the daf, but the amud. Or did you copy this reference from somewhere else without looking it up yourself?
Edit: I'm looking at Kritut 9a, and Rashi says no such thing. The Gemara says that a ger toshav can do melacha on Shabbat for himself the way Jews can on Chol HaMoed. Rashi points out that this refers to a davar ha-aved, which is the kind of thing Jews can do on Chol HaMoed. If your source claims that Rashi says the opposite of what he actually says, you should find a better source.
I learned this sugya before, but did not have the mekorot, so yes, I found them online.
Very interesting. Thanks. That's a strange view for Rashi to present. Nevertheless, we definitely don't rule that way (see the Ein Mishpat on the page).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ...the Noachide laws are so basic that I doubt anyone can flout them and expect things to be cool with God.
Really? According to what I've gathered from this thread, the Noachide laws expect me to renounce any alternate religious ideas I may have picked up ("Do not worship false gods") and essentially become Jewish. I may not have to keep kosher or observe the Sabbath, but I would have to accept that Judaism is the one true religion and worship your God. That doesn't sound too basic to me.
Noachides should do that, but they aren't actually commanded to do that. You just have to not murder, not blaspheme, not worship idols (yeah, that would include Jesus), not steal, not eat Rocky Mountain Oysters (I think that's what they're called) or any other meat taken from a living animal, not have intercourse with someone else's wife, a close relative, an animal or another man, and be part of a legal system that enforces laws, and you're cool.
Just like it's better for a Jew to keep kosher because God said so than to keep kosher because, well, that's what my community does, but it's still better to keep kosher for imperfect reasons than not to keep kosher at all, the same is true for a non-Jew. Yes, you should recognize that the laws are from God, given to the Jews at Sinai, and that we're the ones who you need to go to if you want details about what God wants from you, but if you don't and you just keep those laws anyway, you should be fine.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: I haven't exhaustively followed all the religion threads here, but from what I've seen you've always said that Jews don't believe in proselytizing. The reasoning I've always gathered from you is that Jews don't really want other people to join their religion, and there isn't any need for Gentiles to convert to Judaism.
According to this thread that's not true. These rules aren't just a matter of not stealing or murdering. These rules specify that every person in the world must accept some form of Judaism or they'll suffer for eternity. That sounds like there is a serious and acute need for conversion.
We don't have "suffer for eternity". You must be confusing us with Christianity.
But you know, even if you were in deep, deep trouble with God for worshipping Jesus, that still doesn't create any kind of obligation on us to risk our lives to convince of it.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: I can understand why you'd be scared to proselyte. I'm sure Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't thrilled to be knocking on your doors themselves. But what I can't understand is the enmity against the idea of spreading religion.
What enmity would that be? Don't take things so personally. We don't proselyze. Well... God, the language really doesn't work well for this. We don't attempt to get non-Jews to convert to Judaism, because there's no need for any non-Jew to do so. Trying to educate non-Jews about their Noachide obligations is something we do if and when the subject arises. Lubavitch Hasidim have an outreach program specifically for this, and the nascent Sanhedrin in Israel has had official dealings with groups of Noachides. It's not something we take lightly. But... forgive me, but the cultural peaks and valleys of the non-Jewish world are capricious. You can say what you want about the "discomfort" some missionaries may feel about going door to door. I don't think any of them have found their entire community being locked into a synagogue which was then set on fire. That happened many, many times over the past several centuries, and for reasons far more trivial than our coming to tell you that your entire religion is based on untruths.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: If you really, truly believe all this is true, risking your lives to save the immortal souls of others is an act of nobility.
Feh. You go risk your life to save the souls of others. Have fun, and maybe send us a postcard. Is your blood redder than ours that we should risk shedding ours for you? Maybe when (if) we have a couple of centuries (one would be nice) of freedom from cries of Christkiller and Zionist Occupied Government and JewWatch dot com, we'll trust you enough to treat you as peers, and not as a potential danger.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: And finally, if you really are God's chosen people, if He speaks to the world through you, why hasn't he given you a commandment one way or another regarding evangelism?
Odd question. He hasn't given us commandments about what kind of music we should listen to, either. Though I imagine He'd probably incline towards classic rock, and sneer at rap.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: It sounds like some Jews are, of their own volition, beginning to spread this word, but based on what I've heard it sounds like volunteer work.
At the very most, yes.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: If he really loves everyone in the world, and we can't get into his presence without renouncing our false religions and accepting your understanding of him, why do you have a stack of commandments about sifting flour and counting steps and not a single word about saving the majority of humanity, beyond the idea that it's probably not worth the effort?
You look at things in terms of "salvation". We don't even really have such a concept. Do you steal or murder or commit incest or gnaw on living animals? If not, and if you show up for jury duty when you're called, you've got 5 out of 7 down right there. The biggest problem is obviously the worship of Jesus, and I guarantee you that if groups of Jews start going out to convince Christians that said worship is idolatry, Jews will pay for it in blood. Even in 2009. We don't see that as noble, Speed. We see it as stupid.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Speed: So Jesus isn't necessarily defined as a "false God?"
I misunderstood that the first time around. I guess that makes some elements of this less confusing.
Jesus absolutely is. Even according to the fringe view that non-Jews are permitted to worship secondary deities along with God, that doesn't help with worshipping an actual human being.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: It's a bit complicated. The dispute revolves around the concept of: Shituff - combination or joining.
For Jews it is considered idolatry to attach a divine being or another type of God to God Himself.
For non-Jews, this may not be the case.
Personally, based on my understanding and study of Christianity - the trinity are 3 and one. Yet they are all one. 3 aspects of one central being. I'm sure there are a whole different amount of interpretations, but to me - I'm inclined to side with the commentators who say Christianity is not idolatrous, but then again, im an ignoramus.
Like I said, shituf is idolatry even for non-Jews according to the vast majority of authorities. But Christianity is more than just shituf. And forms of Christianity that use icons in their worship... whatever.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Point of curiosity: The first commandment is usually rendered in English "Thou shalt have no other god before me". Is this an accurate rendition of the Hebrew? And is it the same as the Noachide law having to do with worship?
Further, if the translation is accurate, would an atheist be in compliance with it? Certainly I hold no other god before the Christian (or Jewish) one.
Heh. Yes, the translation is accurate (enough), and yes, as an atheist, you'd be in compliance with it. There are those who would say that your atheism is a kind of worship of a particular system/methodology, but that's metaphorical and not literal.
You clearly are not an idolator. You're just wrong.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Just for the record, since this thread was begun with a tale of LDS missionaries, the Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. They believe that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate Gods, and any "oneness" expressed in scripture is merely a metaphor for unity of purpose.
I pretty much understood that to be the case. It's one of the reasons why I offered to find time to sit with them and help them out.
quote:Originally posted by Speed: So if the Elders do come back, maybe Lisa would have some sort of humanitarian duty to enlighten them.
I gave them my e-mail address as well, for precisely that reason. Note, btw, that I don't see myself as having any moral obligation to do so, let alone a religious obligation. But I think it's a good thing to do if possible, and I consider myself capable of at least getting them started with some solid background.
And I'd probably do the same for non-LDS missionaries. It's just that my time on Hatrack has softened me a little towards the LDS ones.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Can a gentile develop as strong a relationship with God, by honest obedience to the Noachide laws, as a Jew who has the same regard for the laws of Moses?
In all honesty, probably not. But that's like asking, "Can a high school student gain as strong an understanding of advanced physics as a graduate student?" No. But if he really wants to, he can go to college and then to grad school.
A non-Jew who really wants that kind of closeness with God has the option of converting. It's just extra-credit, is all.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Lisa has stated that the laws given to Moses are eternal; in the life to come, will there be a division between Gentiles and the children of Israel?
That's an excellent question. We don't claim to know as much about what happens after you die as the LDS Church. I do know that when we say the laws are eternal, we mean eternal in this world.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have had detailed discussions on the topic. The Meiri is not the only source as you claim.
*shrug* You're wrong, and I have zero interest in trying to convince you otherwise. I just want to make it clear to anyone else reading the thread that your view is not as universally accepted as you claim.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I've read Rabbi Dr. Haym Soloveichik on the possible bias of the Tosafists when it comes to martyrdom. It is indeed possible that their view of Christianity as a form of Avodah Zarah may also be a part of this bias. Even though the presumption that the Tosafists could be biased about anything makes me slightly uncomfortable...
Scott - I'm not sure Rivka, Lisa, nor I can answer your question about the potential to become AS close to God as Jews can.
However, we all agree and it is stipulated in the Talmud that all righteous gentiles, can earn their place in the world to come, just as Jews can. (Read "World to come" as Reward, just bc it makes me feel more comfortable).
We all agree, or at least Lisa and I did, that it is certainly POSSIBLE that non-Jews can become as close to God as Jews can. But I don't think any of us know of any sources that detail this issue specifically.
What we CAN say is that Jews and non-Jews have distinct roles, which are both legitimate and righteous. I certainly believe that we are rewarded commensurate with our effort - the extent to which we fulfill our potential. How that translates to this situation? I'm not sure.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, you are misrepresenting my position and ascribing to me things I am not guilty of. It is no presumption for me to study the historic origins of Sunday-keeping among Christians, and to hear what many Sunday-keeping Christians today themselves say to justify their practice, and draw a proper, qualified conclusion as to why this practice continues. If you think I have misrepresented or drawn a false conclusion about why many modern Christians today keep Sunday, then you tell me what you think is the real reason.
You might be interested to know that the Roman Catholic church has been laughing at Protestants over this for a long time. They proudly admit in their literature that Christians observe Sunday today solely because the church of Rome instituted the change on its own authority, when there is no Scriptural warrant, and therefore they claim Protestants are inconsistent in rejecting the authority of the Papacy, when they keep a day that is the sign of that same authority.
quote:"Sunday is a Catholic Institution, and its claims to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles. . . .From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first."
"Protestantism, In discarding the authority of the (Roman Catholic) Church, has no good reasons for its Sunday theory, and ought logically to keep Saturday as the Sabbath."
—John Gilmary Shea, American Catholic Quarterly Review, January, 1883.
"It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church."
—Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, N.J. "News", March 18, 1903.
"Ques.- Have you any other way of proving that the (Catholic) Church has power to institute festivals of percept (to command holy days)?"
"Ans.- Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her: she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."
—Stephan Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism, page 176.
I could go on with such quotations all day. At least Catholics are honest about Sunday-keeping. They keep Sunday in place of the Sabbath because of their church tradition, not from any Scriptural warrant.
Armoth, God told Moses to tell the people to let their lands lie fallow once every seven years, and to observe a Jubilee when all debts are cancelled once every 49 years, and many more such things. That does not elevate such precepts to the same level as the Ten Commandments. As I said before, sound scholarship requires taking things in context, and NOT taking things out of context.
For example, there are passages in the New Testament (such as 1 Corinthians 9:20, 21) where Paul speaks of Jews who live under the Law. Attention to context will show he was speaking of the whole package of instructions given for running the Jewish state. Obviously non-Jews are not required to live as if they were Jews living in Judea.
There are places where the responsibility of Gentiles is discussed. While the Sabbath usually is not mentioned directly, neither is it explictly excluded. It is assumed to be accepted as a binding obligation, just as the the commands not to commit murder or theft. If the early Christians had left off keeping the Sabbath, the Jewish authorities would have made a big issue of this. There is no hint in Scripture or history that they did so.
The last book of the Bible, containing the words of Jesus Himself as dictated to John, contains these words in the last chapter: "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city." (Revelation 22:14; NKJV)
I challenge anyone to find anywhere in the Bible where the Sabbath commandment is said not to be included in the commandments all people are to keep. And of course I reject completely the claim by Jews that the Sabbath was only for the Jews, since it was instituted on the seventh day of Creation Week, when only Adam was alive (and therefore in him all of humanity, not just the Jews, who did not come along until thousands of years later.) Also I accept as authoritative Jesus' direct statement in Mark 2:27: "The Sabbath was made for man...." (Not just the Jews.)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron. I'm not really sure what techniques you just used in your argument.
You reject what I say without providing back up.
For instance, the sabbatical year? Yes, Jews view those commandments to be JUST AS OBLIGATING as those for the Sabbath. In fact, last year was such a year - let me tell you, purchase of vegetables, acc to law, in Israel at that time is not very easy.
As for your repeated thing about contexts, im STILL not following you. What have we taken out of context? You have ignored my charge that christians don't keep the Sabbath even as the bible proscribed, ignored the fact that the commandment to keep the sabbath was specifically a covenant between the Jews and God, as expressed by God specifically in the verses quoted above, you ignored the death penalty stated explicitly by God for Sabbath transgressions, etc.
If you want to use New Testament to tell me why you keep certain commandments and not others, that's cool - but you can't tell me it comes from the OT. The OT charges a follower to keep ALL of God's laws. Indeed, I quoted the verse in 31 that said that the words of commandment were God's words merely relayed through Moses and not elaboration by a renegade prophet.
And I have stopped appreciating phrases such as "As I said before, sound scholarship requires taking things in context, and NOT taking things out of context." I let that slide the last time you said it, but it is incredibly rude.
If you'd like to show me how I've taken things out of context to the point where it slaps me in the face, that's cool - I'll take your challenges quietly, but the force of your argument does NOT empower you to use that tone.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why bother about Christians keeping Shabbos or Jews denying Christians the ability to keep Shabbos. I doubt any Christian actually abstains from all the 39 melochos, particuarly since they are not explained in the written Torah anyway.
I don't see a problem with different people following their traditions about the 7th day being a day of rest.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, you are misrepresenting my position and ascribing to me things I am not guilty of. It is no presumption for me to study the historic origins of Sunday-keeping among Christians, and to hear what many Sunday-keeping Christians today themselves say to justify their practice, and draw a proper, qualified conclusion as to why this practice continues.
It is an improper an unqualified conclusion. It misses the entire point of the discussion.
To say that the Church worships on Sunday "just because their tradition is to keep a different day" is to utterly ignore WHY the tradition came about and the theological reason behind it.
quote:If you think I have misrepresented or drawn a false conclusion about why many modern Christians today keep Sunday, then you tell me what you think is the real reason.
There are dozens of people here with whom I might have that conversation. You are certainly not one of them. Your attitude in this thread and countless others makes it abundantly clear that discussing issues like this with you is a waste of time.
And I don't consider talking to people knowing I won't convince them to see things my way a waste of time. You, however, have almost never shown any inkling of understanding the positions of others in these matters. You started off that way here and haven't changed course one whit.
quote:You might be interested to know that the Roman Catholic church has been laughing at Protestants over this for a long time.
The fact that you categorize those quotations as "laughing at Protestants" is a perfect example of your seeming inability to summarize the beliefs of others without twisting it to serve your own purpose.
I am quite aware that the Church did not justify the institution of Sunday worship based on scripture. It's not news to me.
quote:I could go on with such quotations all day. At least Catholics are honest about Sunday-keeping. They keep Sunday in place of the Sabbath because of their church tradition, not from any Scriptural warrant.
Having a tradition of doing something is not the same thing as tradition being the reason for doing that thing. It's your forced dichotomy - if not scripture, then "just tradition" - that is so tiresome.
And what's so sad is that there's no need for it. You could make your case for Saturday worship and rest without distorting the views of others.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by adenam: Why bother about Christians keeping Shabbos or Jews denying Christians the ability to keep Shabbos. I doubt any Christian actually abstains from all the 39 melochos, particuarly since they are not explained in the written Torah anyway.
I don't see a problem with different people following their traditions about the 7th day being a day of rest.
Dunno. Ron didn't like that the Talmud forbids non-Jews from keeping the Sabbath. He tried to defend it using the Bible.
You're right. Christians do not abstain from Melocho, creative activity. They abstain from "work", which I already pointed out. Even though the verses do speak about not lighting a fire on the Sabbath...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth and Dagonee, I don't know how you can misread things so completely. Everything I have said is completely and strictly logical, and I have backed it up with clear authority of Scripture point by point. I have even quoted Catholic sources where they openly acknowedge that Sunday-keeping is based solely on their own church's authority. Since they say explicitly that it does not come from any Scriptural authority, that means they are appealing to Catholic church tradition. I have discussed this with Catholic theologians and other Catholic apologists on this very point, and this is what they claim. As you should be able to see from the quotations from their own literature I provided, which are very much to the point.
And please make sure you take due note of the way that Catholics define their church tradition--they are not merely customs, they are the practices and teachings of early papal authorities, outside of Scripture. Catholics explicitly teach that this tradition has more authority than Scripture. (In this they are not that far apart from the practice of Jews, in seeing inspired authority in their extra-Scriptural writings, such as the Talmud, which are merely the practices and teachings of early Jewish rabbis.)
If you are not equal to the task of following and contending with strictly reasoned and authoritatively backed arguments, then it is no wonder you resort to false characterizations and base insults. But whom do you really expect to persuade with such sophomoric debating tactics?
As for your refusal to see how you are taking Scriptural passages out of context, I really don't see how I can make the matter any plainer than I already have. I gave you specific examples. You just don't want to accept the clear sense of what I said.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The prohibition against building a fire on the Sabbath was in the context of the wilderness wandering, when God was making a special effort to train them to respect the Sabbath, since they had just spent 400 years in slavery to the Egyptians and had lost much of their faithful adherance to the teachings of the Patriarchs.
Specific applications of the Sabbath principle of abstaining from work have varied through the years of history. Jews, of course, try to codify everything. But their codes are too rigid. Thus Jesus taught His disciples it was OK to pick grain and separate the chaff out with their hands so they could eat it on the Sabbath, and He cited the practice of King David when he allowed his men to eat the sacred bread in the sanctuary, because they were starving. What many Jews apparently fail to understand is that there are OVERRIDING principles--such as the fact that "It is good to do well on the Sabbath day." Including helping your neighbor get his ox out of a ditch. The Jewish rulers in Jesus' time wanted to stone him for healing someone on the Sabbath from a lifelong affliction.
It is the privilege of every human being to ENTER INTO GOD'S REST WITH HIM ON THE SABBATH. (See Hebrews 4:9-11.) And please note that as Creator and Sustainer of all life on earth, God continues to enable your heart to beat, your lungs to draw breath, and your immune system to fight infection, and your body to be healed of injury. None of that stops on the Sabbath day. God did not create the Sabbath to be a burden, but to be a blessing. And so I am glad I do not have to work to earn a living on the Sabbath. (Although I could if I were a nurse or a doctor, especially ministering to people in the ER.) I do not even have to think about work on the Sabbath. I do not shop, I do not pay bills or even think about them, I do not even pay attention to advertisements clamoring for my attention. On the Sabbath I am free.
Adam and Eve were privileged to walk with God through the Garden of Eden on the Sabbath. Only Satan wants us to look upon the Sabbath as something burdensome and undesirable. That is why he inspired political and church leaders in the early Roman church to decree that Sabbath be a day for fasting and Sunday a day for feasting--so people would come to look with disfavor on the Sabbath, and welcome Sunday observance with gladness. In light of this, I for one refuse ever to fast on the Sabbath.
[ January 01, 2009, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding is that some forms of the Christianity are problematic with respect to the Noachide laws. Believing that Jesus is the son of G-d is not problematic, in itself. However, you must believe that Jesus has lesser powers to be "in compliance."
Additionally, I don't think atheism would count. It is not idolatry, but it violates the law to praise G-d.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: (In this they are not that far apart from the practice of Jews, in seeing inspired authority in their extra-Scriptural writings, such as the Talmud, which are merely the practices and teachings of early Jewish rabbis.)
If you are not equal to the task of following and contending with strictly reasoned and authoritatively backed arguments, then it is no wonder you resort to false characterizations and base insults. But whom do you really expect to persuade with such sophomoric debating tactics?
As for your refusal to see how you are taking Scriptural passages out of context, I really don't see how I can make the matter any plainer than I already have. I gave you specific examples. You just don't want to accept the clear sense of what I said.
First of all - Jews do NOT believe that the Talmud, or, more correctly, the Oral Law was not the traditions of a bunch of early Rabbis, but was given by God at the time of the giving of the written law. The Talmud is an attempt by early rabbis to put to writing the original Oral Law. You may not believe it, but we do, so please don't present it that way.
And sir, it is not I who resorted to insults. I'm sure others would agree that you have been rude in your discussion, and it is more than a little irksome. You need to respect the other side in your arguments or it is you who will have trouble coming across.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, one thing I have learned over the years through contact with many disharmonious minds, is that the clearest logic, the most authoritative arguments, by themselves do not always persuade people. The Spirit of God must reach their hearts, and bring them conviction and a warming sense that a better way is being offered, that if they accept truth as truth, they can know God better, and have a closer walk with Him. I do not know what is in the way of many people from accepting the truth that is so plain to me. But God does, and I can only do my best in setting forth the sound arguments backed by His Word properly handled, and leave it to Him to lead people when they are ready to advance and grow.
When people put up resistance by arguing, I can answer their arguments. But even when I do that time after time on every point they bring up, some people are not persuaded. To me, this does not mean that they are hopelessly evil, only that they are wrong. And the Spirit of God can fix that. I cannot make anyone see reason who is unwilling to. But I believe I can make my positions clear enough that anyone willing to see the truth can see it. The Spirit of God will have to take care of the rest, and bring them around eventually.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth you are reading things I have not written if you say anyting I say is rude or insulting. Just contradicting you, arguing against your arguments, presenting evidence to show why your position is wrong, is not rude or insulting.
By the way, the Scriptures themselves, especially written by Moses, are what constitute the putting into writing what was before only Oral tradition passed down through the generations.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have even quoted Catholic sources where they openly acknowedge that Sunday-keeping is based solely on their own church's authority.
Yes. And then you altered what they said and summarized it as "just because their tradition is to keep a different day."
Those are different things.
Catholics do not worship on Sunday "just because their tradition is to keep a different day." They have a tradition of worship on Sunday for a variety of reasons, none of which you've really addressed here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
How can you claim that the prohibition to light a fire on the sabbath applied only to that generation? Seems like you have an oral law of your own. Which parts of the bible only applied to the generation in the dessert and which did not? What are the sources that say this?
Pikuach Nefesh is Doecheh Shabbos - this mean that all cases of life endangerment push off the prohibitions of the sabbath. This means that if people were dying of starvation, they could certainly pick the grain from the chaff on the sabbath. For this reason, Jewish doctors remain on-call on the Sabbath, and are allowed to drive to the hospital to take care of their patients.
I don't know why you launched into a bunch of theology about Sabbath being a blessing and not a curse. Jews believe that abstention from the 39 major creative actions as a testimony to GOD being the creator and not us, is a great gift, for on the day of sabbath we are closest with the creator, merely by the results of an abstention.
Hebrews is in the NT if I'm not mistaken, right? So I'm not sure what it has to do with our argument. But your assumption that Sabbath is not a blessing if there are prohibitions on it is silly.
Fruthermore, Jews have a prohibition not only from fasting on the Sabbath day, but are forbidden to eat a large meal on the eve of sabbath in order to come into it with an appetite. Trust me, if you've ever been to an Orthodox Jew's house for a sabbath meal, you'll understand that we understand that it is a blessing.
I still have issues with your parcing of the words of God in the OT, deciding that certain things are Moses's elaboration, you're still ignoring the death penalty, deciding that certain things applied only to the generation of the desert, etc. You'll need to explain something like that to someone who does not share your beliefs, and who, in my opinion, takes the simpler course of assuming that the commandments and prohibitions apply to all and forever.
Personally, I think Christianity arose because Jews were being "religious" without being religious. They were keeping the laws meticulously but without the heart, spirit, and true character that is embodied in every one of the 613 commandments. It is something you can still see today - Rabbis or fundamentalist Jews who look incredibly religious and are indeed rotten people. Every religion has their share of this behavior. Christianity went through a number of reformations and splits as a result of this very phenomenon.
I, and Jews believe that we are meant, still, to cling to the God's original precepts (obviously, as we see them)though we must truly restore our relationship with God and with our fellow man with our hearts and souls as well as with meticulous legal observance.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron: "one thing I have learned over the years through contact with many disharmonious minds, is that the clearest logic, the most authoritative arguments, by themselves do not always persuade people."
Tell me about it...
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Armoth you are reading things I have not written if you say anyting I say is rude or insulting. Just contradicting you, arguing against your arguments, presenting evidence to show why your position is wrong, is not rude or insulting.
By the way, the Scriptures themselves, especially written by Moses, are what constitute the putting into writing what was before only Oral tradition passed down through the generations.
First of all, trying to parse that last sentence is giving me a headache. Second of all, talking about dropping context. God gave us the Torah. We know better than you what He gave. The Torah He gave us was part oral (which you do not have) and part written (which is the first five books in their entirety).
If I write a note and give it to you, and at the time that I give it to you, I also tell you things, including what I meant by everything in the note, your disregarding what I say and going with the note itself (or rather, with your personal interpretation of the note) is misplaced arrogance, at best. Doing so when God is the one who gave the note and the oral instructions is beyond even hubris.
If Armoth wants to waste his time debating Bible interpretations with you, that's his perogative. Bottom line, though, the written Torah, all five books, has an enormous context that you know less about than a kindergartener knows about quantum physics. It's simply laughable to hear you telling those of us who are heirs to God's Torah what God really meant. It's sad, really.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ron believes that God was mistaken or changed his mind so he sent jesus to correct the matter.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: rivka, one thing I have learned over the years through contact with many disharmonious minds, is that the clearest logic, the most authoritative arguments, by themselves do not always persuade people.
The irony burns us, precious.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
