The LAW of Moses Definitely set aside ?

[JacobEzra.]

Too bad Jesus didn't think about setting up an eruv to get around the law......and the Pharisees...

I guess he should've.

 

[Shermana]

He still broke the sabbath and didn't follow torah.

In your interpretation at least.

 

[Bob Dixon]

He still broke the sabbath and didn't follow torah.

No! He knew that the Sabbath was created for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27, I think)! Well, the same applies to the Torah, and Jesus really, really understood the Torah well.

 

[JacobEzra.]

In your interpretation at least.

Well it does go with what Lrd said in the law cooncerning sabbath

No! He knew that the Sabbath was created for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27, I think)! Well, the same applies to the Torah, and Jesus really, really understood the Torah well.

I agree sabbat was created for man, but it contridicts with the law given on Mt. Sinia. And especially in light of the very militant messianic judaism of some, this is contradiction that can't be ignored. Unless you believe With Jesus and his birth destroy the law.

 

[Shermana]

Was it a contradiction when David and his men ate the Holy Shewbread as they were being hunted down? If not, then there's no contradiction here. Meanwhile, Jesus warned his followers to pray that they don't have to flee for their lives on the Sabbath day

 

[JacobEzra.]

Was it a contradiction when David and his men ate the Holy Shewbread as they were being hunted down? If not, then there's no contradiction here. Meanwhile, Jesus warned his followers to pray that they don't have to flee for their lives on the Sabbath day

He wasn't in the exact situation, and he broke sabbath. Israelites got in trouble for such in the desert. You said Jesus was being hunted down like David, but he wasn't because it was the Pharisees who asked him about breaking the law.

So how are you going to call all other christians "lawless" and whatnot, when Jesus himself was lawless?

 

[Shermana]

He wasn't in the exact situation, and he broke sabbath. Israelites got in trouble for such in the desert. You said Jesus was being hunted down like David, but he wasn't because it was the Pharisees who asked him about breaking the law.

So how are you going to call all other christians "lawless" and whatnot, when Jesus himself was lawless?

Jesus specifically compared the situation to David and the Shewbread, so whether or not it's the "exact situation", it's the exact corrolation that Jesus drew. Whether or not you think it's the "exact situation", Jesus compared it to it.

He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?

I was incorrect on the Hunted down thing, but Jesus also compares it to the work of Priests in the Temple. (Note: The Church is the New Malchezdiek Priesthood).

Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent?

Regardless how you interpret it, Jesus is not saying its okay to desecrate the Sabbath in general. If Jesus was Lawless, then he'd be contradicting himself when he says anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least. In the Jameson-Faussett-Brown commentary, it agrees it was done out of necessity, which is why the comparison was made to David.

1. At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn-"the cornfields" (Mr 2:23; Lu 6:1).
and his disciples were an hungered-not as one may be before his regular meals; but evidently from shortness of provisions: for Jesus defends their plucking the corn-ears and eating them on the plea of necessity.

This book discusses it in more detail, link should open to page 123.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zJ...AL_hOyDDQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

It seems that picking heads of grain and eating them on the spot is not the same as gathering Manna in bags and hauling them back to camp. Interestingly, it takes it in another direction, in that the argument is over when its appropriate to eat new Grain (before the grain offerings) and even says that Jesus was quoting "Oral Torah". Page 126-127 says the Pharisees were incorrect for saying that one could not heal on Sabbath according to Rabbinical opinion on the matter.


This site says similarly: http://www.saltshakers.com/gospels/gosp3.htm

When questioned by some of the Pharisees concerning the picking of grain on the Sabbath, Yeshua developed His discussion upon the foundation of Jewish oral teachings. In addition to other points of His discussion, here Yeshua reminds His listeners of more legal principles which would be similar to His argument in John concerning circumcision taking precedence over the Sabbath observance. He defends His more lenient position concerning the Sabbath rest with a similar proof. He mentions the famous episode from the life of King David when he tried to escape the death plot of King Saul. David and his men ate the Bread of the Presence which according to Jewish Law was forbidden for them to eat. These points are clear from the words of Yeshua in the Gospel story concerning the Sabbath controversy.

Vs. 6:4: The Jewish oral tradition places great emphasis on the preservation of life. All commandments of the Bible must be suspended in order to save a human life. The Pharisees emphasized saving life at all cost. The only exceptions to this rule are idolatry, incest and murder. One should choose death rather than commit any of these. Nonetheless, the preservation of life takes precedence over the Sabbath observance. David and his men were being pursued by Saul. They were so hungry, according to Jewish traditional interpretation, that their lives were at risk. All the commandments of the Bible must be suspended to save their lives. They were hungry and so they ate the Bread of the Presence from the house of God.

Verse 12:5 The Jewish oral tradition gives Yeshua’s argument definite force. According to traditional Jewish interpretation of this incident in King David’s life the Bread of the Presence was always baked on the Sabbath (Lev. 24:5). The fact that this event in David’s life happened on the Sabbath made it so much more pertinent to the question concerning Yeshua and His disciples. So, not only did the incident occur on the Sabbath, but also according to Jewish commentary on the Biblical passage, David and his men’s lives were at risk because of their great hunger. Their life-threatening hunger is crucial because of the legal rulings in the Oral Torah.

Moreover, Yeshua directly refers to the Oral Law concerning the priests and the requirements of the Sabbath. He notes that the priests perform their tasks in the Temple on the Sabbath, even though their activities constitute work and would be forbidden without a proper interpretation of the Torah. In the Gospels this ruling is described with precision in the same way it appears in the later Jewish sources. The priests perform their work in the Temple on the Sabbath because their sacred duties take precedence over the laws pertaining to the day of rest. Yeshua employs the Oral Law to address those who question the actions of His disciples. He possesses an intimate acquaintance with the Oral Torah and does not betray any interest in violating either the Written Torah or its traditional Jewish interpretation. The Oral Law gives the written letter of the Bible its true force.

Vs. 6:5 Yeshua’s answer rises above a purely judicial ruling and reaches beyond into Israel’s past to create a dynamic approach to Sabbath observance. In fact, the words of Yeshua concerning the Sabbath and every human being are closely paralleled in Rabbinic literature. Sometimes the sayings of the ancient Jewish Rabbis are quite similar to the Gospel teaching of Yeshua. For example, the words of mark’s Gospel are almost identical to the teachings of the Jewish Sages, Rabbi Simeon ben Menasya, concerning Sabbath day observance.

And another:

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/magazines/2005/may-jun/did-jesus-break-the-sabbath

. The disciples' actions were "clearly not a breach of the Biblical, but of the Rabbinic Law" (Edersheim, Book II, 2.56). Jesus said that the Pharisees, not understanding the law, had "condemned the guiltless" (Matthew 12:7). Clearly, the disciples were falsely accused, and were not guilty of breaking the Sabbath as charged.
Since healing might entail work, Pharisaic law permitted it on the Sabbath only if necessary to save life or prevent death. Thus a plaster might be applied to a wound if the object was to prevent it from getting worse, but not to heal it. Yet, contrarily, a splinter might be removed from the eye, or a thorn from the body, though no immediate danger to life was perceived. Furthermore, an animal might be removed from a pit, or taken to water, on the Sabbath.
When the Pharisees accused Jesus of violating the law by healing on the Sabbath, He again was able to reveal their hypocrisy by using their own contradictory rules. First, we will examine Jesus' acknowledgement that He had been working. The Sabbath law is, in part: "Six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work" (Exodus 20:9–10). Notice that the work forbidden by the Sabbath law is "your work." The law does not forbid works of service towards God. Indeed, the very reason we are commanded to cease from our own works on the Sabbath is so we may devote the time to the work of honoring and serving God; that we may "turn your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on My holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy day of the Lord honorable, and shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words" (Isaiah 58:13). Here it is clear that it is our own works—the course of our everyday business—that we are to avoid on the Sabbath. On the other hand, we are to honor God on the Sabbath. Giving honor to God often entails work—"good works."
A careful reading of Scripture reveals that we are to cease and rest from common or profane work on the Sabbath, so that the time may be devoted to God's holy purpose. But implicit in the Sabbath command is that we do the work necessary to fulfill the spiritual aim and meaning of the Sabbath. On the first Sabbath, God rested from His work of physical creation, but He did the work of creating the Sabbath, blessing and sanctifying it (Genesis 2:2–3; Mark 2:27). The weekly Sabbaths and the annual Sabbaths were proclaimed to be "holy convocations"—commanded assemblies for the purpose of gathering to hear God's word taught, and for congregational worship (Leviticus 23:2, 4). This includes the "work" required to travel to the place of assembly, and to listen, learn and participate in the worship service. Those commissioned to teach did the work of reading and explaining God's word. On such occasions, people customarily did the work of eating and drinking, sharing and rejoicing in the holy day and in the truth of God's word (Nehemiah 8:1–12). Other work implicit in the command was done, too: even on the most solemn day of the year—the Day of Atonement—the priests did the work of slaying animals and offering sacrifices before God, according to the requirements of the law (Leviticus 16).

 

[james2ko]

As I've said before, the Sacrificial laws still apply, we are just unable to perform them.

1. But if God has made it so we are unable to perform them, how could they still apply? This proves your premise and conclusion are based on circular reasoning.

It's the same issue as during the Babylonian and Assyrian captivities. How were they able to offer sacrifices back then?

2. God eliminated the opportunity of offering animal sacrifices for removal of their sins by allowing them to be taken captive. And what was the primary reason for their captivity? Was it because they were breaking the Mosaic law by improperly offering sacrifices? NO! It was due primarily to the breaking of the 2nd (idolatry) and 4th commandments (Neh 13:18)--the ten commandments.

I still don't see where the Dividing Line exists where you'd call the 'permanent laws" like avoiding lying, coveting, and idolatry stand but others are "changed".

3. The very fact the 10 commandments have not changed but, over time, the civil and sacrificial laws have IS the dividing line.

You're welcome to your opinion on this matter, but I'd say Exodus 34 says much differently. He wrote the original 10 as WELL as the 10 that were spoken while on the mountain (which included some repeats like the Sabbath provision).

4. Opinion???? It's right there in black and white!! Deut 5 and Deut 10:1-4 irrefutably proves God re-wrote the words "He" spoke (the ten commandments-not civil statutes) in Exo 20 to the people in Exo 34 due to Moses breaking the first set of stones. There's no guess work or speculation.

Why don't you explain why those commandments were given during the time on the Mountain as opposed to the rest, and why the Sabbath commandment was repeated.

5. You need to be more specific. What commandments? The ten or the civil statutes? Which time--Exo 20 or Ex 34?

Again, Moses's 10 new commandments involved a repeat of the Sabbath. Nonetheless, this argument does not say that the Mosaic Code is somehow changable or not permanent, nor does it explain why the commandments written on the mountain (including the new set that includes not boiling a kid in its mother's milk and a repeat of the Sabbath) is somehow unchangable while the rest are not.

6. What the argument does prove is your misunderstanding of the text as evidence in point 4 above.

Does "pay attention" mean "Believe what I said as if there's no counter argument"?

7. No.. it means don't repeat questions that have already been answered.

Why not blame Traditional Christianity for wanting to get rid of ANY law that they may find oppressive. Why not let the Southerners marry their first kin without guilt too while we're at it? Or is that law somehow covered in the 10 while the others arent? Didn't you already say that all the commandments are covered by the first Law? So where's the seperation exactly?

8. I've explained the separate and distinct nature of the two ad naseum.

How this possibly counts as a legitimate rebuttal is beyond me.

9. I have also presented solid scriptures, parallels, examples, analogy's and have exposed your circular reasoning and misunderstanding and misinterpretation of scripture. How you can continue to embarass yourself by providing rebuttals is beyond me...

 

[JacobEzra.]

You are bending backwards to make this fit your theology. Id advise, you are no different then the gentiles you rail against as manipulators of "true christianity"

Jesus specifically compared the situation to David and the Shewbread, so whether or not it's the "exact situation", it's the exact corrolation that Jesus drew. Whether or not you think it's the "exact situation", Jesus compared it to it. I was incorrect on the Hunted down thing, but Jesus also compares it to the work of Priests in the Temple. (Note: The Church is the New Malchezdiek Priesthood).
Regardless how you interpret it, Jesus is not saying its okay to desecrate the Sabbath in general. If Jesus was Lawless, then he'd be contradicting himself when he says anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least. In the Jameson-Faussett-Brown commentary, it agrees it was done out of necessity, which is why the comparison was made to David.
This book discusses it in more detail, link should open to page 123.

Jesus, the Torah and Messianic Judaism - Stephen H Hedges - Google Books

It seems that picking heads of grain and eating them on the spot is not the same as gathering Manna in bags and hauling them back to camp. Interestingly, it takes it in another direction, in that the argument is over when its appropriate to eat new Grain (before the grain offerings) and even says that Jesus was quoting "Oral Torah". Page 126-127 says the Pharisees were incorrect for saying that one could not heal on Sabbath according to Rabbinical opinion on the matter.


This site says similarly: Saltshakers messianic community: The Gospels: A Hebraic commentary - Christianity from a Jewish perspective




And another:

Did Jesus Break the Sabbath? | Tomorrow's World | www.tomorrowsworld.org

 

[Shermana]

You are bending backwards to make this fit your theology. Id advise, you are no different then the gentiles you rail against as manipulators of "true christianity"

So that's no rebuttal, thank you.

 

[Shermana]

1. But if God has made it so we are unable to perform them, how could they still apply? This proves your premise and conclusion are based on circular reasoning.

Ignoring the thing on the Babylonian and Assyrian captivity thing again? If they weren't able to do it at one time for a long time, but resumed doing it later, the same applies for us today.

2. God eliminated the opportunity of offering animal sacrifices for removal of their sins by allowing them to be taken captive. And what was the primary reason for their captivity? Was it because they were breaking the Mosaic law by improperly offering sacrifices? NO! It was due primarily to the breaking of the 2nd (idolatry) and 4th commandments (Neh 13:18)--the ten commandments.

Same thing. But it also implies they were guilty of more sins than just that. For example (and this correlates to the second set of Commandments received on the mountain) (Have you read the whole chapter of 13)? Let's see if you'll see retract on this one.

Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. 24Half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not know how to speak the language of Judah. 25I rebuked them and called curses down on them.

[quoteBe careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same. [/quote]

3. The very fact the 10 commandments have not changed but, over time, the civil and sacrificial laws have IS the dividing line.

Same thing again. The Babylonian captivity generation was unable to perform sacrifices, yet they commenced again. Jesus even mentioned making offerings "as Moses taught". There is no dividing line except an arbitrary one you may make of it. Which other "civil laws" other than the sacrifices do you think would 'change" specifically?

4. Opinion???? It's right there in black and white!! Deut 5 and Deut 10:1-4 irrefutably proves God re-wrote the words "He" spoke (the ten commandments-not civil statutes) in Exo 20 to the people in Exo 34 due to Moses breaking the first set of stones. There's no guess work or speculation.

You are totally ignoring the fact that it mentions Moses receiving another set, INCLUDING SABBATH AGAIN, while on the mountain, before mentioning that he went down again, but he also rewrote the first set. Regardless, this does not divide it into categories of laws.

5. You need to be more specific. What commandments? The ten or the civil statutes? Which time--Exo 20 or Ex 34?

I think I was clear. The commandments Moses received in Ex 34 after he returned, in which he mentions the Sabbath AGAIN. You totally dodged that one.

6. What the argument does prove is your misunderstanding of the text as evidence in point 4 above.

No, it proves your unwillingness to accept that the Babylonian and Assyrian captives had the same situation, and that the text specifically mentions Moses receiving another set of 10 commandments including the Sabbath again while on the Mountain.

7. No.. it means don't repeat questions that have already been answered.

That you think have been answered. And you totally ignore/sidestep certain questions repeatedly like "how do we know which exactly of the "statues" are still binding and which ones aren't""?

8. I've explained the separate and distinct nature of the two ad naseum.

You've explained your opinion of them while ignoring my own points. You have yet to explain why they are even of a "separate" nature effectively.

9. I have also presented solid scriptures, parallels, examples, analogy's and have exposed your circular reasoning and misunderstanding and misinterpretation of scripture. How you can continue to embarass yourself by providing rebuttals is beyond me...

[/quote]

You're the one continuing to embarass yourself, I have also presented parallels and solid scriptures and points that you've ignored. You will be embarassed when you are referred to as among the least. You might as well say that EVERY Messianic Jew "embarasses" themselves for believing that the whole of the Law applies. Now are you gonna skip the issue of how the Babylonian and Assyrian captives were able to make sacrifices again?

 

[JacobEzra.]

So that's no rebuttal, thank you.

When one is so blind of the contradictiobs, it makes a waste of tine.

I'll just remember this ext time you rail against gentile christians

 

[Shermana]

When one is so blind of the contradictiobs, it makes a waste of tine.

I'll just remember this ext time you rail against gentile christians

So that's no rebuttal, thank you. Remember it all you want. Feel free to ignore all the commentaries as if they are meaningless too. I'll just repeat the same argument. It's a pretty standard common argument for Messianic groups as well as independent commentaries, as I've demonstrated (and as you've sidestepped completely). You can't compare picking grain and eating it on the spot to gathering manna in bags and hauling it back to one's tent. If you have a better commentary than the ones I presented, feel free. But if you feel its a waste of time to actually debate a claim you contest, you're on the wrong forum.

 

[james2ko]

Ignoring the thing on the Babylonian and Assyrian captivity thing again? If they weren't able to do it at one time for a long time, but resumed doing it later, the same applies for us today.

1. No I am not "ignoring the thing on the Babylonian and Assyrian captivity thing". There's major difference between the Israelites then and the spiritual Israelites of today- God didn't abolished the sacrificial laws prior to their captivity. God, through Paul, abolished the sacrificial laws for us today. (Heb 7:12) Once again, illustrating the ever changing nature of the law of Moses. Furthermore, the sacrifices ceased again after the destruction of the temple. Did God require His people to cease observing the ten commandments after its destruction? Of course not. This is just another piece of the overwhelming evidence on the distinct nature of the two sets of laws.

Same thing. But it also implies they were guilty of more sins than just that. For example (and this correlates to the second set of Commandments received on the mountain) (Have you read the whole chapter of 13)? Let's see if you'll see retract on this one.

2. I did use the adjective "primary" and adverb"primarily" instead of "only" and "exclusively", right?..This illustrates your lack of attention to detail and exegetical carelessness of my replies which usually carry over into other areas of study.

Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. 24Half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not know how to speak the language of Judah. 25I rebuked them and called curses down on them.[quoteBe careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

3. See reply 2

Same thing again. The Babylonian captivity generation was unable to perform sacrifices, yet they commenced again. Jesus even mentioned making offerings "as Moses taught". There is no dividing line except an arbitrary one you may make of it.

4. Of course there is a dividing line between the sacrificial laws and ten commandments. Paul tells us the sacrificial system has changed verbatim!!

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.​

Did Paul mention anywhere of the ten commandments changing? NO! He actually tells us we are to uphold them! (Rom 3:31). There's your dividing line. It's really not as complicated as your making it.

Which other "civil laws" other than the sacrifices do you think would 'change" specifically?

5. For instance, the annulment of the laws of the layout of the tabernacle when the Temple was built; the addition of singers under David; the cities of refuge; specific monetary amounts of fines; the death penalty for certain crimes; oh and let's not forget the change made for the daughters of Zelophehad. Plenty of additions and deletions to the constantly changing law of Moses, none for the ten commandments..

You are totally ignoring the fact that it mentions Moses receiving another set, INCLUDING SABBATH AGAIN, while on the mountain, before mentioning that he went down again, but he also rewrote the first set. Regardless, this does not divide it into categories of laws.

6. You are totally ignoring the fact that I did mention it in post 66 reply 3 and post 68 reply 3. But, as I mentioned in reply 2 above, your negligent study of my replies, coupled with your desperate attempt to hold on to a refuted belief, is blinding you from seeing the truth.

I think I was clear. The commandments Moses received in Ex 34 after he returned, in which he mentions the Sabbath AGAIN. You totally dodged that one.

7. Dodged????? I was asking for clarification--the complete opposite of dodging. lol...You see, unlike you, I carefully study a members replies and ask for clarification from time to time in order to offer an accurate response. You should try it sometime.

That you think have been answered. And you totally ignore/sidestep certain questions repeatedly like "how do we know which exactly of the "statues" are still binding and which ones aren't""?

8. Show me where you asked this specific question prior to this post and I failed to reply.

 

[Shermana]

.

No I am not "ignoring the thing on the Babylonian and Assyrian captivity thing".

Okay, if you say so.

There's major difference between the Israelites then and the spiritual Israelites of today-

Why is that? When Jesus said "I have come only for the Lost sheep of the House of Israel", I assume you think he was meaning something completely different than what "House of Israel" traditionally means.

God didn't abolished the sacrificial laws prior to their captivity. God, through Paul, abolished the sacrificial laws for us today. (Heb 7:12)

Okay, so your presumption that Paul is an authentic apostle also includes that he himself was the tool to abolish the sacrificial laws, and you're presumption also includes that he was the author of Hebrews, even though practically no one in the scholarly world considers him the author of Hebrews. Now I see where you're coming from more clearly.

Once again, illustrating the ever changing nature of the law of Moses.

Based on your presumptions about Paul and Hebrews and how to interpret 7:12. Even many of the earliest Christians viewed "Hebrews' as suspect, and was part of the Antiligemona.

Furthermore, the sacrifices ceased again after the destruction of the temple.

I don't see why it would be any different than the first and second times they ceased.

Did God require His people to cease observing the ten commandments after its destruction? Of course not.

Apparently he didn't require his people to stop observing the other set of the 10 commandments since Nehemiah records those who married Ammonite women were cursed.

This is just another piece of the overwhelming evidence on the distinct nature of the two sets of laws.

No it isn't. You dodged the issue of the last half of Nehemiah 13 for a reason it seems.

2. I did use the adjective "primary" and adverb"primarily" instead of "only" and "exclusively", right?..This illustrates your lack of attention to detail and exegetical carelessness of my replies which usually carry over into other areas of study.

I'd like to see if anyone else besides you can explain what exactly you meant and why it illustrates "lack of attention to detail and exegetical carelessness". Meanwhile, you completely ignored what I said about Nehemiah 13. You're just scratching and clawing because I disagree with your interpretations.

3. See reply 2

See reply to your reply.

4. Of course there is a dividing line between the sacrificial laws and ten commandments. Paul tells us the sacrificial system has changed verbatim!!

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.​

Talk about carelessness, you're presuming what kinds of changes to the priesthood the author of Hebrews (who you presume to be Paul against nearly unanimous scholarly agreement) is even mentioning.

Did Paul mention anywhere of the ten commandments changing? NO! He actually tells us we are to uphold them! (Rom 3:31). There's your dividing line. It's really not as complicated as your making it.

Romans 2:13 and 3:31 are referring to the Whole of the Law. Your presumptions don't make it so he was only referring to the 10.

5. For instance, the annulment of the laws of the layout of the tabernacle when the Temple was built; the addition of singers under David; the cities of refuge; specific monetary amounts of fines; the death penalty for certain crimes; oh and let's not forget the change made for the daughters of Zelophehad. Plenty of additions and deletions to the constantly changing law of Moses, none for the ten commandments..

I have no idea where any of that indicates a change in the law or statutes whatsoever, maybe someone other than you can point out the cohesiveness of your argument other than yourself for someone so "careless" as me.

6. You are totally ignoring the fact that I did mention it in post 66 reply 3 and post 68 reply 3. But, as I mentioned in reply 2 above, your negligent study of my replies, coupled with your desperate attempt to hold on to a refuted belief, is blinding you from seeing the truth.

Like how you totally ignored what I said about the second half of Nehemiah 13? I wouldn't call it "negligent study of your replies", I'd call it disagreement with your presumptions and interpretations.

7. Dodged????? I was asking for clarification--the complete opposite of dodging. lol...You see, unlike you, I carefully study a members replies and ask for clarification from time to time in order to offer an accurate response. You should try it sometime.

I challenge anyone reading to say that you did NOT dodge what I said about Nehemiah 13's last half for example. As for "accurate responses", your presumptious arguments are not even close to being accurate, I challenge anyone reading BESIDES YOURSELF to demonstrate where your argument is cohesive. As for dodged, you dodged what I said about the Sabbath being mentioned again in the second set of commandments (Which the 2nd half of Nehemiah 13 refers to, that you seem to have avoided as I predicted you would, and specifically said "I wonder if you'll retract on that one").

So to anyone else reading, I will give 3 frubals if you demonstrate where Jamesko here has a cohesive argument in the face of what I have said, and to prove where I am not accurate in my replies. 3 Frubals. Quite a deal.

8. Show me where you asked this specific question prior to this post and I failed to reply

You failed to reply to the issue of why the Sabbath ordinance is mentioned twice in the second set of 10 commandments, just like how you failed to mention how the second half of Nehemiah 13 refers to the second set of 10 commandments this time.

 

[Shermana]

An interesting Messianic site's article on why Hebrews should be considered non-canonical.

Why the Book of Hebrews is not Canonical

(Was widely held as Antilegemona in the first centuries, notably not included in the Muratorian fragment). And then there's the issue of what exactly 7:12 means specifically. It's quite a lengthy article. Origen classed it as "disputed". Even Daniel Wallace agrees it wasn't by Paul. Luther thought that Apollo wrote it. From the Wiki:

"
In general, the evidence against Pauline authorship is considered too solid for scholarly dispute. Donald Guthrie, in his New Testament Introduction (1976), commented that "most modern writers find more difficulty in imagining how this Epistle was ever attributed to Paul than in disposing of the theory."[11] Harold Attridge tells us that "it is certainly not a work of the apostle";[12] Daniel Wallace simply states, "the arguments against Pauline authorship, however, are conclusive."[13] As a result, few supporters of Pauline authorship remain.
As Richard Heard notes, in his Introduction to the New Testament, "modern critics have confirmed that the epistle cannot be attributed to Paul and have for the most part agreed with Origen's judgement, 'But as to who wrote the epistle, only God knows the truth.'"[14]"

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Both straight from the horse's mouth.

Mr. Ed?

 

[james2ko]

Okay, if you say so.

1. I didn't say it, you did

Why is that? When Jesus said "I have come only for the Lost sheep of the House of Israel", I assume you think he was meaning something completely different than what "House of Israel" traditionally means.

2. This is irrelevant to the fact Paul made changes to the law of Moses and not the ten commandments, hence the difference.

Okay, so your presumption that Paul is an authentic apostle also includes that he himself was the tool to abolish the sacrificial laws, and you're presumption also includes that he was the author of Hebrews, even though practically no one in the scholarly world considers him the author of Hebrews. Now I see where you're coming from more clearly.Based on your presumptions about Paul and Hebrews and how to interpret 7:12. Even many of the earliest Christians viewed "Hebrews' as suspect, and was part of the Antiligemona.

3. Oh I see, so you discard large portions of scripture-- like a dirty diaper-- to uphold your ideology? How convenient. That explains why your knowledge of scripture is incomplete (2 Tim 3:16-17). I suppose that is also one of your "trash bin" scriptures?

I smell a red herring

4. I used Heb 7:12 as irrefutible proof the sacrificial law has been changed. Blame yourself for flicking away that portion of scripture like a half-smoked cigarette.

Apparently he didn't require his people to stop observing the other set of the 10 commandments since Nehemiah records those who married Ammonite women were cursed.

5. I'm referring to the here and now. The fact that the 10 commandments (the words God spoke to Israel--thou shalt not..etc) did not change even after the destruction of the temple but the sacrificial portion of the law of Moses has, proves the two are distinct.

No it isn't. You dodged the issue of the last half of Nehemiah 13 for a reason it seems.

6. This particular aspect of our discussion involved the primary reason why Israel was taken captive in the first place which Neh makes reference to in Neh 13:18. The last half of Neh 13 refers to the sins of the people he witnessed while in Jerusalem--AFTER THEIR CAPTIVITY--not before! This is evidenced by Nehemiah's actions in Neh 13:25. He obviously did not perform these actions prior to their captivity. This proves, once again, your careless and misleading exegesis.

I'd like to see if anyone else besides you can explain what exactly you meant and why it illustrates "lack of attention to detail and exegetical carelessness". Meanwhile, you completely ignored what I said about Nehemiah 13. You're just scratching and clawing because I disagree with your interpretations.

7. see reply 6

Talk about carelessness, you're presuming what kinds of changes to the priesthood the author of Hebrews (who you presume to be Paul against nearly unanimous scholarly agreement) is even mentioning.

8. The are no presumptions. The book of Hebrews makes it very plain what laws were changed.

Romans 2:13 and 3:31 are referring to the Whole of the Law. Your presumptions don't make it so he was only referring to the 10.

9. The whole law of Moses or in this instance just the 10 commandments?

Rom 2:21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?
Rom 2:22 You who say, "Do not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?

Thus proving your red herring arguments about my presumptions are unwarranted. You're making this too easy, Shermana. Might be a good idea to quit while your behind.

I have no idea where any of that indicates a change in the law or statutes whatsoever, maybe someone other than you can point out the cohesiveness of your argument other than yourself for someone so "careless" as me.

10. If you don't consider the annulment of the laws of the layout of the tabernacle when the Temple was built; the addition of singers under David; the cities of refuge; specific monetary amounts of fines; the death penalty for certain crimes; and the change made for the daughters of Zelophehad, as a change in the law of Moses, then carelessness is the least of your worries..

Like how you totally ignored what I said about the second half of Nehemiah 13? I wouldn't call it "negligent study of your replies", I'd call it disagreement with your presumptions and interpretations.

11. There you go with your fallacious tactics again. I didn't ignore you. I simply referred you to a previous reply in order to avoid repeating myself....Shall I point it out for you?

I challenge anyone reading to say that you did NOT dodge what I said about Nehemiah 13's last half for example. As for "accurate responses", your presumptious arguments are not even close to being accurate, I challenge anyone reading BESIDES YOURSELF to demonstrate where your argument is cohesive. As for dodged, you dodged what I said about the Sabbath being mentioned again in the second set of commandments (Which the 2nd half of Nehemiah 13 refers to, that you seem to have avoided as I predicted you would, and specifically said "I wonder if you'll retract on that one"). So to anyone else reading, I will give 3 frubals if you demonstrate where Jamesko here has a cohesive argument in the face of what I have said, and to prove where I am not accurate in my replies. 3 Frubals.Quite a deal.

12. Looks like your final desparate plea for validation of your beloved beliefs have faded into the backdrop of the sound of crickets. Instead of begging for help, try reading the bible with a little more attention to detail and save the little dignity you have left.

You failed to reply to the issue of why the Sabbath ordinance is mentioned twice in the second set of 10 commandments, just like how you failed to mention how the second half of Nehemiah 13 refers to the second set of 10 commandments this time.

13. I asked for you to show me where you specifically asked me this: "how do we know which exactly of the "statues" are still binding and which ones aren't"? and your reply is your answer?????? What in the world ???? One has absolutely zero to do with the other...Might want to ease off the egg nog

 

[Shermana]

]1. I didn't say it, you did

Ummmm, okay..?

2. This is irrelevant to the fact Paul made changes to the law of Moses and not the ten commandments, hence the difference.

Another presumption based on presumptions based on your interpretation of what Paul did or didn't, and a presumption that Paul even wrote Hebrews, and a presumption of what exactly the meaning was. Can you list a SINGLE SITE that says that Paul was the one who did away with it? If not, just say "No, I cannot find a single other site that agrees with what I'm saying">

3. Oh I see, so you discard large portions of scripture-- like a dirty diaper-- to uphold your ideology? How convenient. That explains why your knowledge of scripture is incomplete (2 Tim 3:16-17). I suppose that is also one of your "trash bin" scriptures?

Sorry if you don't like the scholarly approach to scripture, sorry if you hold on to views of authenticity that even mainstream bible scholars don't accept. By the way, Timothy 1 and 2 are spurious too. Nearly all scholars consider them to be written well after Paul was dead. If you don't like it, that's not my problem. We're debating objective Theology of what Jesus said, not just what the Traditional Roman non-gospel canon says. If you want to discsuss Theology objectively, you have to be willing to accept that your canon may be under dispute. If you don't like it, go to Discussion boards and not the debate boards.

4. I used Heb 7:12 as irrefutible proof the sacrificial law has been changed. Blame yourself for flicking away that portion of scripture like a half-smoked cigarette.

Nope. That's your interpretation of 7:12 based on a presumption of what it means. You love the personal comments I notice. Hebrews 7:12 does not specifically say the Sacrifices are done away with, just that there is a change in the priesthood. You are presuming what "change in priesthood means". And then there's the issue that virtually no one outside of the church establishment (and many scholars of the church establishment agree with this) considers Hebrews to be by Paul, as I've demonstrated. If you have a problem with me taking the scholarly opinion, try not to use ad hom at least like "blame yourself", what you consider "scripture" not everyone else does. Just because its in the traditional Roman canon doesn't mean it's objectively legit.

5. I'm referring to the here and now. The fact that the 10 commandments (the words God spoke to Israel--thou shalt not..etc) did not change even after the destruction of the temple but the sacrificial portion of the law of Moses has, proves the two are distinct.

So that's again, dodging of what I said, and basing your interpretation on presuumptions. The Sacrificial Portion is nowhere proven to have changed, it's a similar condition to the generation of the exiles who had no access to sacrifices.

6. This particular aspect of our discussion involved the primary reason why Israel was taken captive in the first place which Neh makes reference to in Neh 13:18. The last half of Neh 13 refers to the sins of the people he witnessed while in Jerusalem--AFTER THEIR CAPTIVITY--not before! This is evidenced by Nehemiah's actions in Neh 13:25. He obviously did not perform these actions prior to their captivity. This proves, once again, your careless and misleading exegesis

.

This reply is a total non-sequitur to what I said. I don't even understand how this corrolates to what I said. Talk about careless and misleading, you totally ignored the concept of what I meant. Not only that, but there are other places where it lists reasons why the Israelites went into captivity other than Nehemiah, such as in Jeremiah (and Lamentations) and Isaiah, and you can find more than just the 10 there. The second half of Nehemiah 13 refers to the second set of "10 commandments" when Nehemiah curses the Israelites who married daughters of other tribes. You aren't even close to being on track to the point I made. Let me explain quite simply: In Exodus 34, Moses receives another set of 10 commandments (including the Sabbath again, as I pointed out several times, and you dodged from several times). A commandment is included to not marry the daughters of other tribes. You said that Nehemiah 13 is referring to only the 10 commandments as the cause of their sin. I showed that you are ignoring the second half of 13, which says that they violated one of the laws in the SECOND SET of 10 commandments. If you want to talk about careless and misleading exegesis, examine your own reply. Nehemiah was scolding them whether or not their sin was before or after the captivity, regardless, if Nehemiah was scolding them, that means that the second set of 10 commandments was being violated. Hope this makes sense to you.

For example, here is Isaiah lamenting on the Israelites breaking the commandment to not consult mediums: (But you'll probably say this ties into the 2nd commandment or something even though its a specific statute)

8:19 When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? W
why consult the dead on behalf of the living?

7. see reply 6

See above reply to your reply.

8. The are no presumptions. The book of Hebrews makes it very plain what laws were changed.

Wow. No seriously, your interpretation is completely a presumption of what the change of priesthood means.

9. The whole law of Moses or in this instance just the 10 commandments?

Rom 2:21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?
Rom 2:22 You who say, "Do not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?

Oh my, he quotes some of the 10, that must mean he was only referring to the 10. That's totally logical.

Thus proving your red herring arguments about my presumptions are unwarranted. You're making this too easy, Shermana. Might be a good idea to quit while your behind.

You're making it too easy to prove your presumptions and bad logic. Maybe you should quit before further embarassing yourself. Your tactic is to brush off my valid points as "red herrings" as if that excuses you from addressing them. I will let the reader decide who is behind here.

10. If you don't consider the annulment of the laws of the layout of the tabernacle when the Temple was built; the addition of singers under David; the cities of refuge; specific monetary amounts of fines; the death penalty for certain crimes; and the change made for the daughters of Zelophehad, as a change in the law of Moses, then carelessness is the least of your worries..

And you are presuming the laws were annulled based on your presumption of how to interpret Hebrews 7:12. YOU Make this too easy. You cannot base your interpretation on presumptions, sorry. The text is hardly explicit to begin with. And if you don't like the fact that virtually no one, not even uber-Christian-scholar Daniel Wallace agrees Hebrews is written by Paul, that's not my problem.

11. There you go with your fallacious tactics again. I didn't ignore you. I simply referred you to a previous reply in order to avoid repeating myself....Shall I point it out for you?

Talk about fallacious tactics, you completely dodged the issue itself, and then you say this? Nehemiiah 13's second half explicitly refers to the other set of 10 commandments, anyone can see that you are skipping this and trying to use ad hom to smooth it over.

12. Looks like your final desparate plea for validation of your beloved beliefs have faded into the backdrop of the sound of crickets. Instead of begging for help, try reading the bible with a little more attention to detail and save the little dignity you have left.

Wow, you further demonstrate your logical ability. The falling on crickets is anyone who can validate or back up YOUR own beliefs. How am I begging for help exactly? I offered 3 frubals for anyone who can BACK YOUR OWN POSITION FOR YOU. This is a perfect example of how you are interpreting anything I've said thus far. How was I looking for validation for my own beliefs in this comment? I was looking for validiation of YOURS. Do you not get that? Personally, I find this attack on what I said to be "desparate".

13. I asked for you to show me where you specifically asked me this: "how do we know which exactly of the "statues" are still binding and which ones aren't"? and your reply is your answer?????? What in the world ???? One has absolutely zero to do with the other...Might want to ease off the egg nog

[/quote]
This t appears to a cheap attempt to dodge out of the question. Let me find my initial quote, until then I leave you with the quote from Psalms that Knight brought up, the statutes are EVERY statute.

Psalms 119:152" Long ago I learned from your statutes that you established them to last forever

Let's see if you'll continue to ignore the issue of the second half of Nehemiah, the repeat of the Sabbath ordinance, and let's see if you'll continue to insist on your presumptious interpretation of Hebrews 7:12, and let's see if you'll insist on insulting people for taking the common scholarly view on Hebrews that even Daniel Wallace (and Luther) accepted.

 

[Desert Snake]

So that's no rebuttal, thank you. Remember it all you want. Feel free to ignore all the commentaries as if they are meaningless too. I'll just repeat the same argument. It's a pretty standard common argument for Messianic groups as well as independent commentaries, as I've demonstrated (and as you've sidestepped completely).

You can't compare picking grain and eating it on the spot to gathering manna in bags and hauling it back to one's tent.

If you have a better commentary than the ones I presented, feel free. But if you feel its a waste of time to actually debate a claim you contest, you're on the wrong forum.

I agree with you on this, they're two different things.