So you are saying that you have no source even though you claimed that you were quoting from authorities. OK ma'am, I'll make a note that what you say is not supported.
Scripture has it's own SOURCE, ma'am. It is called C O N T E X T.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So you are saying that you have no source even though you claimed that you were quoting from authorities. OK ma'am, I'll make a note that what you say is not supported.
That 's true, but then everyone should be consistent. If someone says' "Elohim can mean any deity', ok, great, but then they are never consistent. What they really mean is, 'Elohim can mean any deity in the the way I personally am interpreting Scripture.Scripture has it's own SOURCE, ma'am. It is called C O N T E X T.
Maybe you have lost track of what is going on. The claim was made, "Core Law is in Jewish terminology, mishpatim. Extensions of Law are something else, even given by later rabbis"Scripture has it's own SOURCE, ma'am. It is called C O N T E X T.
Maybe you have lost track of what is going on. The claim was made, "Core Law is in Jewish terminology, mishpatim. Extensions of Law are something else, even given by later rabbis"
I am asking for a source for this statement, because the scripture uses a variety of words for laws (which I listed earlier...I'll wait while you review). If you don't have a source for your statement then just say so. Scripture disagrees with you, ma'am.
Ah, so there are 613, all textual, and you say that two categories have been eased. That's a far cry from ""Core Law is in Jewish terminology, mishpatim. Extensions of Law are something else, even given by later rabbis""The 613 mitzvot have been divided also into three general categories: mishpatim; edot; and chukim. Mishpatim ("laws") include commandments that are deemed to be self-evident, such as not to murder and not to steal. Edot ("testimonies") commemorate important events in Jewish history. For example, the Shabbat is said to testify to the story that Hashem created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day and declared it holy. Chukim ("decrees") are commandments with no known rationale, and are perceived as pure manifestations of the Divine will.[4]
613 Commandments, wiki.
In NT theology, Peter received a vision or dream by which God tells him the Law had changed in outline, although not by Core Law. My term, but consistent with Authorial intent.
If you don't believe in NT, then of course you will not know that God had eased many technical boundaries, especially in the Edot and Chukim categories. Shema can and is seen by many as Chukim, but my contention in Deut 30 the view of God shows that it is not. In order that even CHILDREN may do Shema, in Deut 31 implies rather the Law was given to be simply known and simply done.
But if these technical boundaries are not eased objectively, then you or your leaders may think it is STILL righteous to stone a man like me, picking up sticks on the Sabbath, ma'am.
Believe as you wish. Calling it 'knowledge' is simply laughable.In NT theology, Peter received a vision or dream by which God tells him the Law had changed in outline, although not by Core Law. My term, but consistent with Authorial intent.
If you don't believe in NT, then of course you will not know that God had eased many technical boundaries,
By the way, are you referring to Acts? Seriously?In NT theology, Peter received a vision or dream ...
By the way, are you referring to Acts? Seriously?
Believe as you wish. Calling it 'knowledge' is simply laughable.
The author of Acts writes about Peter having a dream and, therefore you claim to know. It never occurs to you to question your source.When am I not serious? You like to draw things out? State your refute at the same time. I might see it tomorrow.By the way, are you referring to Acts? Seriously?
The title "Acts of the Apostles" (Greek Πράξεις ἀποστόλων Praxeis Apostolon) was first used by Irenaeus in the late 2nd century. It is not known whether this was an existing title or one invented by Irenaeus; it does seem clear, however, that it was not given by the author.[4]
The gospel of Luke and Acts make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke-Acts.[3] Together they account for 27.5% of the New Testament, the largest contribution attributed to a single author, providing the framework for both the Church's liturgical calendar and the historical outline into which later generations have fitted their idea of the story of Jesus and the early church.[5]
The author is not named in either volume.[6] According to Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the "Luke" named as a companion of the apostle Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still sometimes advanced, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters."[7] (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17-24).)[8] He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately.[9] He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.[10]
Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110.[2] The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward. source
We must therefore regard Luke as a Gentile Christian who lived in contact with the Disapora synagogue and who consciously integrated Jewish Christian traditions into his composition.
The author of Acts writes about Peter having a dream and, therefore you claim to know. It never occurs to you to question your source.
Critical scholarship suggests:
Udo Schnelle, in The History and Theology of The New Testament Writings, notes:
Therefore your so-called knowledge begins to look very much like the simple act of taking a story written decades later by a non-eyewitness apologist as holy writ. I have no problem with you having faith in it, but it is nothing more than faith, and uninformed faith at that.
There's not much left to say.Udo can kiss my grits, sir. No smarty pants scholar is gonna ...
There's not much left to say.
@nothead --> ignore-list
How many of the 613 are mishpatim after all, and not historically/culturally given in their own context? For a Gentile with different customs, are these after all, for us to do? I think not, being the pigstye dog that I am, ma'am.Ah, so there are 613, all textual, and you say that two categories have been eased. That's a far cry from ""Core Law is in Jewish terminology, mishpatim. Extensions of Law are something else, even given by later rabbis""
How many are mishpatim? Wouldn't you have to know that to make your claim? And how can something be given NOT in its own context? That makes no sense at all. As for a gentile, none of these is given to you. But for a Jew, all (which can apply to a particular person) are given, textually. You made the claim that those not of the "core" were added on later. Now you see that all 613 are textual so you try to make distinctions that you don't even understand.How many of the 613 are mishpatim after all, and not historically/culturally given in their own context? For a Gentile with different customs, are these after all, for us to do? I think not, being the pigstye dog that I am, ma'am.
The author of Acts writes about Peter having a dream and, therefore you claim to know. It never occurs to you to question your source.
Critical scholarship suggests:
Udo Schnelle, in The History and Theology of The New Testament Writings, notes:
Therefore your so-called knowledge begins to look very much like the simple act of taking a story written decades later by a non-eyewitness apologist as holy writ. I have no problem with you having faith in it, but it is nothing more than faith, and uninformed faith at that.
How many are mishpatim? Wouldn't you have to know that to make your claim? And how can something be given NOT in its own context? That makes no sense at all. As for a gentile, none of these is given to you. But for a Jew, all (which can apply to a particular person) are given, textually. You made the claim that those not of the "core" were added on later. Now you see that all 613 are textual so you try to make distinctions that you don't even understand.
And what's a "pigstye dog"? Ma'am.
"should be in modern lingo"? Really? You just make up a statement like that and decide that it means something? How about "black" in modern lingo should be "kghfkvj". Is that valid? And why would I care that Jesus called someone a dog according to texts that I don't believe hold any authority, ma'am?Like I said, Mishpatim should be in modern lingo, BASIC or Core Law. Self-evident, to a Jew ma'am, but not really to a Gentile at all. A DOG is a Gentile, ma'am, from Jesus' own mouth, to the woman of Canaan. You don't know this?
In other words, our context is not YOUR context. To be in the outer courts is to know the FEAR of God firstly, mishpatim.
To be grafted-in is to know JESUS as our lord. Mishpatim for the Christian, ma'am.
A DOG is a Gentile, ma'am, from Jesus' own mouth
"should be in modern lingo"? Really? You just make up a statement like that and decide that it means something? How about "black" in modern lingo should be "kghfkvj". Is that valid? And why would I care that Jesus called someone a dog according to texts that I don't believe hold any authority, ma'am?
The context of the laws is the context of the laws. Not YOUR context or mine. You just keep inventing things. Just admit it.