KBC1963
Active Member
I'm sorry but I referenced many points of evidence not just a single thing by a single author.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Law
- Thread starter Mattithyah
- Start date
I'm sorry but I referenced many points of evidence not just a single thing by a single author.
Dear kb,
Your only "evidence" was quoted from books written by Paul or unknown authors with links to Paul. As for your quote of Dt,, what does "put in the side of the ark of the covenant" even mean? Does the ark of the covenant have a side pocket? My bible reads but it "beside" the ark of the covenant. It doesn't meet the standards of the Law. More in the realm of Ez 20:24," I gave them over to statutes that were not good".
Last edited:
KBC1963
Active Member
First, If my evidence references were not entirely from Paul then your assumption would have to be that Paul is not the only false prophet contained within the bible and you would have to revise your assertion to be false prophets.
Second, my references from Deuteronomy are many, it is not simply about the placement of the book of the law it includes other points of evidence greater than just a position reference determined for the book.
In any event about the side pocket.... Different interpretations support differing possibilities but.... the fact is that the book of the law is being treated as a separate item from the stone tablets whose position was determined to be within the ark proper so regardless of whether it was in a pocket in the side or beside the ark is not really a consideration that alters the fact that it is treated as a different covenant than the 10 commandment covenant. Your reference to Ez 20:24 may hold some relevance to the book of the law since the new testament talks of those things contained in it as ultimately having the consequence of death since they only possessed a temporary answer for how to deal with sin.
I would point out here that regardless of your assumption about paul the fact remains that God gave his law in the form of 10 commandments that he expects man to aspire to obey and he initially provided a temporary covenant that the Jews were to obey until Christ came to fulfill the requirement of a single blood sacrifice to do away with the temporary animal sacrifices that simply pointed to his ultimate sacrifice. In the end God states that he is going to take his laws and put them directly in the minds and hearts of those he considers Israel and this is stated by God in a few places;
Ezekiel 36:25-27
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
Isaiah 59:21
“And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring,” says the Lord, “from this time forth and forevermore.”
Jeremiah 31:31-34
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
So the end result here is that God's laws will never be done away with but how disobeying them is handled will be.
Dear kb,
Your reference to Jer 31:31-34, undermines you case. "I will put my law within them....and no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, "know the lord for they shall all know me". This is not the current state of affairs. There apparently are approximately 43,000 different sects, and 43,000 different opinions.
As for your reference to Ez 36, " And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules." , you hedge and say "man can aspire to obey" versus "Ezekiel's "be careful to obey my rules". According to the "Christian" creed, they don't even make the attempt. They altered them in form, and mostly ignore them in practice.
The 10 Commandments are placed within the ark, and yet the "Christian" church has decided on ignoring those commandments, and going so far as to "intend to make alterations in times and in law".(Dan 7:24-25).
Per Matthew 7:15, there are "false prophets", Paul is simply the one that stands out with respect to the descriptions given in Matthew 7.
Ken Brown
Well-Known Member
Shalom KBC, thank you for the response. If I understand you correctly, the command, "Thou shalt not covet" is both in the TWO separate and distinct laws you speak of (Elohim's Law-10 Commandments and Moses' Law-all the commands that followed the 10). So when Paul speaks of how the command, "Thou shalt not covet" aroused all manner of "lust" within him (Romans 7:7-8), would you agree he was speaking about the 10 commandments AND the rest of the Law (both of them), or is it just one or the other?
A related question...When Paul stated that the Law ENTERED to INCREASE Adam's transgression (Romans 5:20), was this Law that entered the 10 commandments, the rest of the Law (Moses'), or was it BOTH which increased Adam's offence?
I hope you understand the significance of my questions. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.
KBC1963
Active Member
I would suspect that the command in question would need to be contextually referenced to which covenant was being alluded to by Paul. I will review it right now....
Ok I have observed its use in context and if we read chapter 7 of romans from the beginning we find Paul referring to;
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
I don't believe that described laws being reference in chapter 7 show Paul referencing the 10 commandments since marriage laws and such were contained within the Mosaic law. How do you see it?
I believe there is a further point to be considered here let's look at another part of the chapter;
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
When the 10 commandments were given by God directly to the people from his own mouth there was no part of it that defined a cost for not obeying it. The command in and of itself has no force to take life. All the laws contained in the Mosaic laws contain the costs for not obeying the all the various commands. These laws are what define what a person would suffer as a result of sinning. consider these verses in reference to the law;
Deuteronomy 4:12 And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.
13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
14 And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.
Note how the two things are separated according to who was doing the speaking. Now notice the distinction given to "his covenant" God's first covenant was a straight forward set of commands for people to follow. There was no part of the 10 that could be construed to define the result of not obeying them. Essentially we could say this about the covenant as it was given, God says "these are the rules that I want you to follow" and then when God speaks to Moses he defines the set of laws that define what the costs will be for disobeying. Mosaic laws were the only ones that defined how sin would be paid for. Notice that a distinction is made about this difference of law vs. commandments in more than 1 place;
2 Kings 21:8 Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them.
2 different sets of commands were given but note how God specifies that the people were to obey his commandments AND obey "the law" given through Moses. So had the people obeyed God's direct commandments and obeyed all the laws given by Moses then they would still be living in the land that God gave their fathers.
Ken Brown said:
Let's look at it;
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
I believed this is in reference to the Mosaic law because it was the Mosaic laws that described all the different ways that people could sin. Essentially this is how the single offence of Adam was made to "abound". The entering of the Mosaic laws began the conveyance of understanding to the people of how many different and unique ways they were sinning by not obeying God's commandments and it also prescribed how the huge volume of differing sins would be paid for. I understand that you might feel that your reference is talking simply about the first commandments given but the key word here is abound. We both know that man has sinned in a plethora of ways since Adam committed the first sin and we both know that the people did not sin any differently after the law was given. The only logical conclusion here is that the law that is being defined here is the one that was given to describe to the people exactly how they were sinning. The 10 commands were the essential laws of liberty but the Mosaic laws were the ones that provided the reference points for how the 10 were applicable in real life.
Ken Brown
Well-Known Member
Shalom KBC, thank you again for responding. I do agree with your basic principle that the 10 commandments hold a special place in the Old Covenant at Sinai. But have you considered Paul's statements concerning the Old Covenant, and how it came in 430 years after the Covenant with Abraham, and it (the Law-Sinai Covenant) cannot disannul the promises or Covenant made with Abraham (Galatians 3:17)? Or do you believe the Sinai Covenant was a separate Covenant from the 10 commandments? And have you considered how Paul viewed the PURPOSE of the Law...it was added to PROMOTE transgressions (Galatians 3:19)? Most feel Paul was saying that men's transgressions caused Elohim to give the Law, and that is not how Paul taught. Paul uses the Greek word G5484 (kharin) in describing WHY the Law was added...it was for the sake of GIVING transgression, thus, the Law made Adam's transgression ABOUND (Romans 5:20). The Greek word G5485 (kharis) is the Greek word for "gift" or "grace," and shows us that Paul was indicating Elohim was giving mankind the ability to sin by ADDING the Law/Sinai Covenant to the Promise/Covenant with Abraham. Most do not understand Paul here, as most do not understand Grace...when you increase the transgression of Adam, Grace is increased all the more...why is that? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.
P.S. What are the TWO Greatest Commandments found in the Law, and are they found in the 10 commandments? And is the WHOLE Law and Prophets dependent upon these TWO Commandments?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Which evidence? Our scriptures show us as real people, including our real defects. Many of the major figures as found in Torah as shown with defects, and that tradition carried over to the writing of the Christian scriptures as well. We as a people are shown as being imperfect, therefore not being demigods, and that tradition carried over to the Christian scriptures as well. We, like Christians in the "N.T.", are shown as real people with real defects and real successes.
However, with that being said, the center of our scriptures are written from a Jewish perspective, so objectivity was clearly not the purpose of the writings. Same is true with the Christian scriptures.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I would take the thread back to the op
and then redirect to the parable of the Wedding Feast.
fair warning.....it does not end well....
KBC1963
Active Member
My basic principle is that God's laws hold a special place all the time. Here is something that most people never think about or consider. Can you tell me why the law was written on 2 tables of stone?
Ken Brown said:
10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.
11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.
12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”
I have considered it and it makes things quite plain. The people were essentially told not to perform the works of the law any more but you need to realize what works are being spoken about here. Were there any works required by the 10 commandments? Think about your answer carefully; Now tell me which of these 10 commandments requires you to work? or do you suggest that obeying them is the work being described above?
Exodus 20: 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
If you obey these commands do you believe it would be work and that you would also be cursed for trying to follow them? Then here is an interesting thought.... if following God's commands was work then essentially God doesn't want to you to obey these commandments on the Sabbath day since it plainly states "the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work". Further if you think that obeying the 10 is work then by honoring the Sabbath day it would actually be a work in itself. Catch-22. Do you think God would do us that way and order us to do the very things we are not supposed to do?
This is where the mind of man has erred on the subject of the law. Many people have concluded that obeying is a work so they feel justified in not trying to obey it any more.
Once you realize that obeying God's commands is not a work then you realize that it means that everything else in the Book of the law which entirely covers all of the sacrificial side which was intended to be temporary until Christ came was the works of the law. Keep in mind that the performance of all the sacrificial laws was the work that each and every Israelite had to perform to satisfy the demand of the law for their sins. As anyone should easily realize the sacrificial law took a lot of effort and time. It was intended to show them what it is really going to cost to sin.... and it was an endless work to try and satisfy the demands of the law.
So now when we look at the above verses from Galatians it takes on a whole new meaning.
Where it states cursed is everyone lets look at that original curse;
Deuteronomy 28:58 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name --- the Lord your God....(you will be cursed in a lot of different ways)
Deuteronomy 28:61 The Lord will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed.
Where it states "no one who relies on the law is justified before God" it is directly referencing the works of the law that were at that time what the Israelites were doing through the sacrificial law to assuage the effect of sin and to justify themselves as worthy before God. The Jews believed that all they had to have was the blood of Abraham and to perform the sacrificial laws (works) and they would be justified to claim all the promises made by God. In essence they could keep right on sinning knowing they were sinning but feeling confident that all they had to do to offset it was sacrifice something. Remember the saying about how a catholic family would sin all week long and then ask forgiveness when they went to church and then go right back to sinning the same sins the next week? This is much the same way that the old law could and would work. God's law was outside the individual the actions that satisfied that law were outside the individual and could not be applied to the thoughts and desires of the inward man. This is why the old laws failed and it is why God says he will now put his laws in the heart and mind. Man is accountable to God all the way to his thoughts.
Ken Brown said:
This was already answered several posts previous
"Deut 29:1 These are the words of the covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb."
It is clear and concise there were 2 covenants made, one was in Horeb and one was in Moab. Horeb was the Decalogue, Moab was the book of the law.
Ken Brown said:
ummmm... no. The law with its 600 plus commands were given so that people would come to understand just how much they were actually sinning without even knowing it AND to realize just how much work it would take to satisfy its demands. God does not give commands to cause people to sin, believe me we do not need any help in that area. We sin just fine all by ourselves. We sin so well in fact that we have even rationalized that Gods commandments are no longer in effect because its easier to do that than obey them.
God gives commands to prove people;
Deut. 8:2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.
Ken Brown said:
Nope.
yup.
Those two commands are what all other commands were derived from and this also means that the laws which were made to satisfy the sins defined by those other commandments would of course be dependent as well since they would not exist without the other commands.
Now you should realize that the Decalogue specified the important ways you could accomplish the obeying of the 2 greatest commands since it should be clear that the 2 do not specify how to accomplish obeying them. God made sure to let us know what would specifically make him happy and specifically what would make others happy which if you were to roll them all up into 2 commands would equal the 2 greatest commands and since they will never pass away then everything they imply we should do to honor the intent of them still applies.
Last edited:
KBC1963
Active Member
The scriptures are the evidence because they do show the defects. If they were being deceitful then why leave the defects in there?
metis said:
Then why would they write in lies as you assert here;
metis said:
Your assertion does imply objectivity since they would be adding things where they didn't belong purposefully. You cannot have your cake......
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I did not use the word "deceitful" nor imply it. There's a difference between the words "subjective" and "deceitful", so please do not put words in my mouth or have me implying things I didn't imply at all.
Again, I did not use the word "lies" or imply it. See above.
I don't like cake anyway.
I have explained the context of much of the scriptural writings in a couple of my previous posts, so you might want to check back on what I had actually written.
KBC1963
Active Member
If people who are writing their history are changing the tale by adding parts where they were not originally then this is not being truthful. No matter how you want such actions to be viewed the fact would be that the original has been altered for a reason and if they had a reason to change it then where do the reasons stop if they feel that they have license to alter it? I would think that at this point in time you would have a hard task of being able to show what the actual reasoning for the supposed alteration of a historical account actually was. You can provide conjecture of course, but such conjecture is typically beyond the scientific method to be backed.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Again, I've explained this all before and you write above as if you never read it. Check back and you'll see, but if you're not willing to take a few minutes to do that, then this conversation has endith. You are misrepresenting what I had already explained a while back, and then in an entirely disingenuous manner you have put works into my mouth that I never stated nor implied.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Check my post #620.
added: Here, I'll post it again for ya:
In the study of the evolution of language, we can typically get an idea of when X was written, also when put into the context of the events that they supposedly cover. Even though the Torah supposedly covers events that may (or may not) have occurred somewhere around 1300 b.c.e., the writing style indicates a much later writing, with Dt. being the most recent. What this pretty much tells us is that these narratives were carried orally, possibly for several centuries, before being written-- at least in the form we now see them (some could and probably was written down earlier, but unfortunately we don't have any of those documents).
So, what we have are oral traditions being written down much later, and what probably happened, imo, is the placement of God into these events, correctly or incorrectly. People do this all the time even today. How many times do we hear people talking about how God saved them whereas others were killed, let's say in a plane crash.
For these early Jewish/Hebrew writers to place God into previous major events would make a great deal of sense, but the problem is that this would be a very imprecise art. Therefore, the idea of a "vengeful God" smiting Israel's enemies would be a logical thing for them to write, but...
We gotta remember, all scriptures in all religions are very subjective.
added: Here, I'll post it again for ya:
In the study of the evolution of language, we can typically get an idea of when X was written, also when put into the context of the events that they supposedly cover. Even though the Torah supposedly covers events that may (or may not) have occurred somewhere around 1300 b.c.e., the writing style indicates a much later writing, with Dt. being the most recent. What this pretty much tells us is that these narratives were carried orally, possibly for several centuries, before being written-- at least in the form we now see them (some could and probably was written down earlier, but unfortunately we don't have any of those documents).
So, what we have are oral traditions being written down much later, and what probably happened, imo, is the placement of God into these events, correctly or incorrectly. People do this all the time even today. How many times do we hear people talking about how God saved them whereas others were killed, let's say in a plane crash.
For these early Jewish/Hebrew writers to place God into previous major events would make a great deal of sense, but the problem is that this would be a very imprecise art. Therefore, the idea of a "vengeful God" smiting Israel's enemies would be a logical thing for them to write, but...
We gotta remember, all scriptures in all religions are very subjective.
KBC1963
Active Member
I did pay attention
I emphasize the points in your argument that I specifically refer to in my responses. If someone places "God into these events" then they would be adding to an existing story whether it was oral or written and your further assertion that the rationale for why they might do this act of placing "God into previous major events" making sense does not relieve them of the fact that they would be knowingly altering an original story to give it something it did not have before. This is called purpose based alteration no matter how much justification you may think or propose that they may have had for doing it.
Now I have no doubt that oral histories and written histories can and do change over time as we have a plethora of evidence for this by empirical studies. However, such stories are all typically assumed to be solely within the discretion of the those telling them and the interpretation of those hearing them. The biblical account is not supposed to be occurring in this manner. The assertion from the text is that the writers were inspired to write what they did which would remove the following of an oral tradition from the equation "if it is true".
I would think that if the God of the Jews did in fact inspire their writing then he would not be subject to historical alterations by the limited mind of man. So ultimately the question about the accuracy of the biblical historical records and whether they were "massaged" along the way must be able to determine if the information flowed from multiple storytellers over long periods of time (evolution) or whether there is evidence that the records were based on the inspiration of a single mind that may have existed over the entire time.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Do you know what "midrashim" are? If you do or if you have to look up what it means, then think about the implications in response to the above. Also, there's a Christian parallel found at the end of the "Lord's Prayer" whereas the oldest account does not have the ending found in the "N.T.". And to repeat, the nature of oral traditions is that they tend to change over decades and centuries, and probably most books in Torah/Tanakh were carried orally prior to being written.
But we know that the biblical accounts do differ at times, and there's also evidence of different authorship even within the same book. We see a book, such as Genesis, as being one, but most scholars simply think it's more likely a compilation that eventually got put together as one. There are also variations found in the "N.T.", such as can be read with checking out how many angels were supposedly at Jesus' tomb, where was he/they located, what did he/they say, and where did the women go and say after they left the tomb. No two gospel accounts match.
I do not assume that God inspired anything, and why would I make such an assumption anyway?
KBC1963
Active Member
Because that was one of the things written in the bible that is supposed to explain how it came to exist. You don't know this?
Ken Brown
Well-Known Member
Shalom KBC, thank you again for responding. Are you positive your beliefs are correct? Please consider several things.
Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew
Maybe, but why don't you first tell me why the New Covenant is NOT written on tables of stone, but rather tables of the heart? (2 Corinthians 3:3-6) And a related question. Why was the "ministration of death" so glorious that Moses had to place a "vail" over his face when he came down off the mountain at Sinai with those 2 tables of stone? (Exodus 34:29-35, 2 Corinthians 3:7-15) So KBC, how is it that Paul considered the 10 commandments (The Testimony) a "ministration of death," would it be along the lines of what he said about "Thou shalt not covet," that what he thought this command "which was ordained to life," was really "found to be unto death." (Romans 7:7-10)
Absolutely! Cannot the 10 commandments be followed by "works" and by "faith?" (Romans 9:30-32)
KBC, you misunderstand the "curse of the Law." The curse comes by NOT obeying ALL that is written in the Law. That is the WHOLE Law, not just the 10.
Then why in the next chapter does Moses state that AFTER those curses, they will return and DO all of Elohim's commandments that he commands them THAT day (at Moab)? (Deuteronomy 30:6-8) Is Moses ONLY speaking about the book of the law, or also the Decalogue here in chapter 30?
Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I taught it for many years but no longer believe it. Long story.