It is easy for you to not look upon a woman lustfully--especially in today's culture? It is easy for you to not become angry with your brother? It's easy for you to never covet? Then you are clearly a better man than I. I have to check myself often.
Well, St. James said that if you fail in one of the laws, you are guilty in failing in all of them. Dang! That's a lot of laws to break don't you think? 613 of them?
Probably more. I'm just using the standard rabbinic enumeration as short-hand. Why? Is it somehow better to only break 10 commandments, one of which is against murder, than 613?
Um.. I did answer it.
With all respect, you did not. I said:
. . . if on the first day, then why would he tell them to gather money on the first day, a supposed "Christian sabbath," but not on the particular Sunday when he presumbably came and preached?In other words, why would he want them to collect money on the Sunday-sabbath after his letter was read, but not on the Sunday-sabbath when he would be speaking to them?
Moreover, without a clear statement that the churches were treating Sunday as the "new sabbath" from any other NT source, you're merely arguing in a circle, assuming that which must be proven. I can show where the Bible repeatedly states that the Sabbath is on the 7th day--can you show an equally unabiguous statement that it moved to the 1st? If not, since both of your cites work equally well, if not better, in a context of a 7th day Sabbath still being the norm, they don't prove a thing. They're merely a pretext for your assumed belief.
Speaking of not answering questions, why haven't you responded to my query regarding the charging of interest to Gentiles but not Israelites in the 613 laws. Do you support that?
Sorry, didn't see it. Which post was the original query in?
I believe the Bible does substantiate it.
Where? I've already shown that Acts and 1 Cor. do not state that the Sabbath had moved to Sunday, and why they fit a 7th day Sabbath. I've also pointed out that God is very, very direct about the Sabbath being the 7th day--can you show me where He is equally direct about it moving? If not, then you need to cede the point.
Jesus said that He was the Lord of the Sabbath. Why didn't He rise up on Saturday then or Friday night when the Sabbath starts?
He was resting. :-) No, seriously, that's a stretch worthy of Mr. Fantastic--what is Biblical, logical justification for assuming that because Yeshua is the Lord of the Sabbath, that He would rise on that day?
Also, he healed on the Sabbath and did other things on that day that disturbed the Jewish leaders of His time. By your logic, He had no right to do this either because He was guilty of breaking Torah law which you claim He set in stone!
No. I simply side with Him in disagreeing with the Pharisees about what is permitted on the Sabbath. As the Lord of the Sabbath, He has the sovereign right to decide what counts as "work" and what does not on that day. He never moved the day, He simply stated that it was lawful to do good--like healing, setting people free of the Adversary, teaching and carrying out worship, or even rescuing animals from a pit--on the Sabbath.
Once again, it's foolish to use the accusations of Yeshua's enemies to build theology. One may as well use Satan's charge that Job was only good because God blessed and protected him as evidence against Job.
Jesus touched lepers, breaking Torah law.
Hardly! Go read the Torah. It would make Him ceremonially unclean, but no more so than burying His adopted father or having a blister form and burst. He would need to bathe and wait until the next sunset before entering the Temple. He would only have sinned if He entered the Temple while knowingly unclean.
Anyway, if Yeshua touched a leper, and the leper were instantly healed, one has to wonder if Yeshua was even ritually unclean from that.
Jesus allowed his disciples to pick grain(corn) on the Sabbath, breaking Torah law.
Again, this strictly speaking wasn't a sin--it was merely a violation of Pharisaical tradition. Ditto healing a man and telling him to pick up his mat on the Sabbath.
Jesus touched dead people and raised them to life. You can't touch a dead person in the 613 laws!
Again, you confuse ritual uncleanliness with sin.
Jesus forgave an adulteress. The law of the time was to stone her to death.
The Pharisees were trying to trap Yeshua in a Catch-22: If He said to stone the woman, they could report Him to the Roman authorities. If He said to let her go, they could accuse Him of breaking Torah.
Yeshua did an end-run around them: He said that he without sin should cast the first stone. None of them took Him up on His offer, whether because they were cognizant of their sin, or because they feared the Roman reprisal if they took Him up on His offer. Eventually, they all left, leaving only Yeshua and the woman.
Now, according to Torah, a person can only be convicted by 2 or more witnesses (Deu. 17:6). Yeshua had not witnessed her crime, and those who had were no longer there to accuse her to Him--therefore, He was actually keeping the Torah by letting her go!
I think that there are many examples from the New Testament where Jesus went directly AGAINST the prescribed laws of the Torah.
I look forward to you being able to show me one. Next time, do a bit of study on the differences between ritual impurity (which happened to everyone on a fairly regular basis) and breaking the Torah, or the difference between Pharisaical tradition and the actual written Torah, before saying that Yeshua broke the Torah--which would, by definition, mean that He sinned, by the way.
Have a great evening with your better half. I'm greatly enjoying our discourse.
I was trying, lol! She said that she was so tired she wanted to go on to bed. I am enjoying the discourse as well.
It is easy for you to not look upon a woman lustfully--especially in today's culture? It is easy for you to not become angry with your brother? It's easy for you to never covet? Then you are clearly a better man than I. I have to check myself often.
Am I perfect? Heck no! I will honestly say that I don't look on women lustfully. I have too much respect and love for the wonderful woman that is my wife. There's not a woman on earth that can compare to her, IMO. Do I become angry with my brother? Sometimes. Sometimes anger can be warranted, such as when people blaspheme God, promote homosexuality, commit murder, rape, etc. I wonder should we have no emotions about those things? Do I covet? Honestly, I haven't done that in years. I have been guilty of it when I was younger.
With all respect, you did not. I said:
. . . if on the first day, then why would he tell them to gather money on the first day, a supposed "Christian sabbath," but not on the particular Sunday when he presumbably came and preached?
In other words, why would he want them to collect money on the Sunday-sabbath after his letter was read, but not on the Sunday-sabbath when he would be speaking to them?
Hmm..with all due respect to you as well I answered:
"As to 1 Corinthians 16:2, you are still seeing everything as through Jewish law which we are no longer under." From post #572
St. Paul is giving instruction to the Church when the money is to be collected and it is on the same day they worship. One theologian put it that "offerings are a part of the worship service" so it makes sense that since these offerings took place on the first day of the week, they were also worshiping on the first day of the week.
Sorry, didn't see it. Which post was the original query in?
See post #568.
Where? I've already shown that Acts and 1 Cor. do not state that the Sabbath had moved to Sunday, and why they fit a 7th day Sabbath. I've also pointed out that God is very, very direct about the Sabbath being the 7th day--can you show me where He is equally direct about it moving? If not, then you need to cede the point.
Sorry my friend, but I am not going to cede the point. I see things a lot differently than you about Acts 1 and 1st Corinthians. If His Apostles were celebrating on Sunday, which I believe they were, are you saying that they are going against God? Wouldn't they know better than you and I what day to celebrate?
He was resting. :-) No, seriously, that's a stretch worthy of Mr. Fantastic--what is Biblical, logical justification for assuming that because Yeshua is the Lord of the Sabbath, that He would rise on that day?
Because Scripture tells us He rose the first day of the week. See St. John 20:1
St. Mark 16:9 "But he rising early the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalen, out of whom he had cast seven devils."
The Christians referred to this as the Lord's Day, therefore worshiping on that day. St. John refers to the Lord's day in the Apocalypse. See chapter 1:10
Once again, it's foolish to use the accusations of Yeshua's enemies to build theology. One may as well use Satan's charge that Job was only good because God blessed and protected him as evidence against Job.
Please, these aren't using accusations of Jesus' enemies. I am using the 613 laws themselves and how Jesus did not follow some of them!! Did He or did He not touch a leper? In the 613 laws, you aren't suppose to do that.
Hardly! Go read the Torah. It would make Him ceremonially unclean, but no more so than burying His adopted father or having a blister form and burst. He would need to bathe and wait until the next sunset before entering the Temple. He would only have sinned if He entered the Temple while knowingly unclean.
Show me where Scripture says that He bathed after touching/healing them? Are you saying that it's possible for our Lord to be ceremonially unclean?
The Pharisees were trying to trap Yeshua in a Catch-22: If He said to stone the woman, they could report Him to the Roman authorities. If He said to let her go, they could accuse Him of breaking Torah.
I disagree because Jesus said that He didn't condemn her, for her to go and sin no more. He had no fear of the Roman authorities or of them. Interesting too that He said "go and sin no more. Proves He knew she had committed the sin of adultery.
Now, according to Torah, a person can only be convicted by 2 or more witnesses (Deu. 17:6). Yeshua had not witnessed her crime, and those who had were no longer there to accuse her to Him--therefore, He was actually keeping the Torah by letting her go!
Fuzzy logic, IMO. The witnesses were the scribes and Pharisees that took the woman to Him. There were plenty of witnesses handy. They repeated Mosaic law to Him:
"Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?" He responded that the one who was without sin should cast the first stone. He didn't say "Oh gee fellas! We don't have enough witnesses here." Neither did He say, "You know the law, get enough witnesses and then stone her to death!" Jesus showed her mercy.
You say that Jesus hadn't actually witnessed her crime, but He did acknowledge that a sin had been committed when He said go and sin no more. He had to be talking about the sin of which she was accused.
I think it is a touching story of Jesus' forgiveness and His wonderful mercy upon us.