Levitucus - all or none?

ahab · Jul 18, 2005

And that is Paul, a man who did not meet Jesus in person and had rivalries with the other apostles, not Jesus.

He claimed he recieved the gospel from the risen Lord. The other writers and apostles support this, Peter and Luke for example.

Peace

D.W. · Jul 18, 2005

The Thadman said:
Jesus is not quoted to saying "also" in any Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic text that I have read. In Mark 7, we see:

Shalom Steve,

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

This is the Greek for also
2532. kai, kahee; appar. a prim. particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so, then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words:--and, also, both, but, even, for, if, indeed, likewise, moreover, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yea, yet.

In Mark it says the same thing you pointed out in Mathew.The words are differant a little but the meaning still remains the same. In Mathew we were given some wise words concerning the Pharisees.
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

And that is Paul, a man who did not meet Jesus in person and had rivalries with the other apostles, not Jesus.

I've met a lot of people that did not like Paul because they percieve that he says things that are differant from the Torah, but this is not so if you understand Paul and the Laws that he was taught under. To understand that he was first a member of the San Hedrin and understood the things of G-d as a Hebrew scholar helps a lot. Peter said it well when he said.
2 Pet 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Oral Traditions are not, nor can they be Torah. In my opinion, they are these "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." The idea of an oral torah that augments the Written is a transgression of the Written Torah. We are not commanded to wear kippot or teffilin, grow out peoth, or say a baruch atah prayer before using the bathroom. To say that these traditions are Torah, goes against one of the most basic of the written commandments, and (in that vein and others) the tennets of Jesus' teaching.

I don't believe that the kippot is a part of any law, Oral or Torah.
Teffilin however is a part of the oral and writen Torah, it is part of the Shema.
Deu 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

I realize that you will never see things the same way as I do, but for me if you leave out the oral laws then you will never know how to observe the Torah properly.

G-d Bless,
Dan

horuhe00 · Jul 18, 2005

I asked this precise question a week ago.

The answer you will find in Galatians 3:1-25

Before Christ - all
After Christ - none

D.W. · Jul 18, 2005

horuhe00 said:
I asked this precise question a week ago.

The answer you will find in Galatians 3:1-25

Before Christ - all
After Christ - none

Shalom,
Those are good verses and I believe that James brought it all together when he said.
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.

G-d Bless,
Dan

Fledge · Jul 19, 2005

Just thought I'd toss this into the mix. Not from the mouth of Jesus I know, but still highly applicable to the subject I think.

"Now therefore why do you put God the the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

[skip]

Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood."

(Acts 15:10,19,20 NASB. Verses 28 and 29 are in a similar vein.)

artybloke · Jul 20, 2005

and from blood

Oh dear, those black puddings were so nice too...

horuhe00 · Jul 20, 2005

It confuses me and frustrates me to no end how some christians pick and choose the different Old Testament laws they want us to follow... yet ignore other Old Testament laws completely.

For example: Lev. 18 says not to do what the Egypcians do and I know one person who took that into meaning that any form of sexual contact with your spouse that's not vaginal sex is a sin. However, the parts where it says not to eat rabbit and pork and marine animals without scales, they ignore. Not to mention the woman that gives birth to a boy is dirty for 7 days and, if it's a girl, she's dirty for 14 days.

Oh, and just try to tell them we are free of the Old Testament laws and see how they call you a heathen! :doh:

ahab · Jul 20, 2005

Hi Fledge,

This has always bothered me. Why would this explicit instruction be so, when Paul later writes to the Roman and Corinthian churches that eating meat sacrificed to idols is acceptable because idols are not real gods and not to inhibit those coming to faith. Besides Jesus pronouces all food clean Mark 7. However this isnt the OP 'Leviticus all or none' but Levitcus some. Might be worth starting a new thread.

Peace

D.W. · Jul 20, 2005

horuhe00 said:
It confuses me and frustrates me to no end how some christians pick and choose the different Old Testament laws they want us to follow... yet ignore other Old Testament laws completely.

For example: Lev. 18 says not to do what the Egypcians do and I know one person who took that into meaning that any form of sexual contact with your spouse that's not vaginal sex is a sin. However, the parts where it says not to eat rabbit and pork and marine animals without scales, they ignore. Not to mention the woman that gives birth to a boy is dirty for 7 days and, if it's a girl, she's dirty for 14 days.

Oh, and just try to tell them we are free of the Old Testament laws and see how they call you a heathen!

Shalom horuhe00,

Some do pick and choose however that is not the way it should be. Most do not understand the laws that the Jewish people have been doing since and even before MT. Sinai. That is why we need to learn from the traditions so that we can do them the right way. While some don't do all of the laws, it is only right to remember that some do these laws as part of thier lives because they and thier ancestors have been doing it since it was comanded.It is a way of life.

G-d Bless,
Dan

UberLutheran · Jul 20, 2005

THEM can be anything we want it to be, since with 616 laws there has to be a Scripture which can fit just about any situation.

THEM can be: gays; social, political, or religious liberals; racial minorities; couples with children or childless couples; old or young people -- or anybody who is Just Not Quite Like Us.

We could also read Leviticus (and Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and the second half of Exodus) in the social, historical and religious context of the period in which it was written and see if these laws still apply today -- but why should we allow God to spoil all the fun we're having Keeping People Out?

I do believe I see a possible ministry forming: ministering to all those people who have been removed from churches (or just ignored) because They're Not Like Us.

Chrysalis Kat · Jul 20, 2005

UberLutheran said:
I do believe I see a possible ministry forming: ministering to all those people who have been removed from churches (or just ignored) because They're Not Like Us.

This describes my church! It's full of folks that no longer attend the churches where they held membership for most of their lives. There is a surprising amount of middle aged divorced women that felt demeened at their former church as well as other social outcastes. Thank God they feel more than welcome at our church!

ahab · Jul 20, 2005

This describes my church! It's full of folks that no longer attend the churches where they held membership for most of their lives. There is a surprising amount of middle aged divorced women that felt demeened at their former church as well as other social outcastes. Thank God they feel more than welcome at our church!

Then you should try churches like mine which have men and women, young (every age) and old, richer and poorer, black and white and asian and european and amercian and canadian and australian. We also have doctors and dustmen, students and retired, able bodied and physically disabled. In fact although its an Anglican church, its got quiet a few under other ministry authroity and we certainly work with RC and Baptists and free churches, especially in outreach and mission, all sorts and we are growing.
We are a church that is very inclusive. I dont want to sound smug but thats why I became a member of my church.

peace

The Thadman · Jul 20, 2005

D.W. said:
Shalom Steve,

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Sorry, I misspoke. I was referring to Mark's rendition of the story, which is the older and more primitive of the two traditions, the rendition which Matthew borrowed from:

8 For you reject the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of menthe washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things. 9 He said to them, Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother; and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death. 11 But you say, If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever profit you might have received from me is corban, 12 then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this.

In Mathew we were given some wise words concerning the Pharisees.
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Have you read Nehemia Gordon's new book, "The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus"? Allow me to post an excerpt from it:

Armed with this new knowledge I finally opened to Matthew 23:2-3 in Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew to see what it said. As already mentioned, the King James Translation of the Greek reads:

(2) The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observer, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matthew 23:2-3 {KJV})

But when I went to look in the Hebrew text of Matthew I found something quite different:

<<I omitted the actual Hebrew characters, but here is the transliteration Nehemia gives>>

(2) Al ki-se Mo-she yesh-vu ha-pi-ru-shim ve-ha-cha-cha-mim. (3) Ve-a-ta, kol a-sher yo-mar la-chem shim-ru va-asu u-ve-ta-ka-no-te-hem u-ma-a-se-hem al ta-a-su she-hem om-rim ve-hem e-nam o-sim.

This translates into English:

(2) The Pharisees and sages sit upon the seat of Moses. (3) Therefore, all that he says to you, siligently do, but according to their reforms (takanot) and their precedents (ma`asim) do not do, because they talk, but do not do.

In the Hebrew Matthew, Yeshua is telling his disciples not to obey the Pharisees. If their claim to authority is that they sit upon Moses' Seat, then dilligently do as Moses says!

...

These are two fundamentally different messages, but in Hebrew, this is a difference of only one single letter! In Hebrew, "he says" is yomar while "they say" is yomaru

The compiler of Shem Tov had no reason for this divergence. Given the number of Hebrew and Aramaic phenomena within the Gospel of Matthew, and Jesus' portrayed venom torwards the acts of the Pharisees, this reading appears to be more original to the text. Just a simple reading of the entire pericope would show that Jesus was speaking out against their practices, not teaching them

Teffilin however is a part of the oral and writen Torah, it is part of the Shema.
Deu 6:8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

Do you tie teffilin around your neck and carve letters into your sternum, too?

"Do net let truth and righteousness leave you; tie them upon your throat, write them upon the tablet of your heart." Proverbs 3:3

Binding them "for a sign" and "as frontlets" are figurative. In the other parallel verses, "as frontlets" reads "as a rememberence." "As frontlets" is a minority reading within the tradition.

I realize that you will never see things the same way as I do, but for me if you leave out the oral laws then you will never know how to observe the Torah properly.

Which oral law is "correct"? Whose argument do we believe?

I'm not one who puts faith in the idea that the arguments of men over the centuries constitutes the word of God. The Oral Laws only make things much more complicated and detract from what God says (and very plainly):

Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you. (c.f Deut 12:32)

Deut 10
11 For this commandment which I command you this day, it is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? 14 But the word is very near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it.

It's not too hard. It's right there, and God doesn't want gingerbread men.

Peace!
-Steve-o

e=mv^2 · Jul 21, 2005

Anyone mentioned Acts 15 yet?

sidhe · Jul 21, 2005

On the topic of the thread, I've long argued (on many forums) that if you're going to keep any of Leviticus you need to keep it all.

By the same token, if you find keeping any of Leviticus too difficult, don't hold any of it and don't expect anyone else to, either.

horuhe00 · Jul 21, 2005

I see all this debate like this...

In highschool (mine at least), you were made to wear a uniform. Those who didn't wear a uniform were breaking the law and got punished for it.

But then we passed highschool and came to the university. We don't have to wear uniforms anymore. If someone still feels uncomfortable with this, they can still go on wearing a uniform and that is not wrong. But those people who insist on wearing uniforms can't judge and condemn us for not wearing uniforms.

I think it's a pretty good analogy

Chrysalis Kat · Jul 21, 2005

horuhe00 said:
I see all this debate like this...

In highschool (mine at least), you were made to wear a uniform. Those who didn't wear a uniform were breaking the law and got punished for it.

But then we passed highschool and came to the university. We don't have to wear uniforms anymore. If someone still feels uncomfortable with this, they can still go on wearing a uniform and that is not wrong. But those people who insist on wearing uniforms can't judge and condemn us for not wearing uniforms.

I think it's a pretty good analogy

A mighty fine analogy indeed

D.W. · Jul 21, 2005

horuhe00 said:
I see all this debate like this...

In highschool (mine at least), you were made to wear a uniform. Those who didn't wear a uniform were breaking the law and got punished for it.

But then we passed highschool and came to the university. We don't have to wear uniforms anymore. If someone still feels uncomfortable with this, they can still go on wearing a uniform and that is not wrong. But those people who insist on wearing uniforms can't judge and condemn us for not wearing uniforms.

I think it's a pretty good analogy

Shalom horue00,

While it is true that as a child, one is taught to wear the proper modest clothing, once in a University however that now adult child should know how to dress properly in a school setting. If you show up in a bikini bathing suit at a University you would be sent home. If you do not wear the proper attire you now condemn yourself by not being allowed in.

G-d Bless,
Dan

D.W. · Jul 21, 2005

Shalom Steve,

Do you tie teffilin around your neck and carve letters into your sternum, too?

"Do net let truth and righteousness leave you; tie them upon your throat, write them upon the tablet of your heart." Proverbs 3:3

Binding them "for a sign" and "as frontlets" are figurative. In the other parallel verses, "as frontlets" reads "as a rememberence." "As frontlets" is a minority reading within the tradition.

This may be figurative to you but to me it is quite literal. We are to have the laws writen on our hearts too, but the laws came on siani first. To write them on your heart is figurative. It means to live by those laws and to make them part of your everyday life. The laws and how to do them is a commandment, not to be put on the wait till you can put them on your heart list. G-d told us to obey these customs that you say we do not need. So I guess that would be G-ds word over yours.
Exo 18:20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt show them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.

706. choq, khoke; from H2710; an enactment; hence an appointment (of time, space, quantity, labor or usage):--appointed, bound, commandment, convenient, custom, decree (-d), due, law, measure, X necessary, ordinance (-nary), portion, set time, statute, task.

8451. towrah, to-raw'; or torah, to-raw'; from H3384; a precept or statute, espec. the Decalogue or Pentateuch:--law.

Lev 18:4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.

2 Ki 17:37 And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which he wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods.

2 Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

There are many more instances where G-d said to follow the ordinances but I believe this is enough.

Which oral law is "correct"? Whose argument do we believe?

I'm not one who puts faith in the idea that the arguments of men over the centuries constitutes the word of God. The Oral Laws only make things much more complicated and detract from what God says (and very plainly):

The oral laws were given to Moses who gave them to the seventy who gave them to the people and continued to be passed down from generation to generation. As far as the arguments go we all know that man continues to search out the truth of the Torah as G-d meant it to be. What you dont understand is that the Rabbis take every meaning that can be thought of, every word all of the way back to its original root, examine it pass it back and forth argue over its meaning come to a conclusion and agree on its meaning when it comes to the laws that are presented in the Torah. The meaning of scripture may not always be agreed on, but the meaning of the laws are.

Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you. (c.f Deut 12:32)

Nothing is added nor is anything taken away.

[Quote]Deut 10
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? 14 But the word is very near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it.
11 For this commandment which I command you this day, it is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, and make us to[/Quote]

No it is not to hard, we will always have the customs passed down so that we do not forget the proper way to honor G-ds laws and ordinances.

G-d Bless,
Dan

horuhe00 · Jul 21, 2005

D.W. said:
Shalom horue00,

While it is true that as a child, one is taught to wear the proper modest clothing, once in a University however that now adult child should know how to dress properly in a school setting. If you show up in a bikini bathing suit at a University you would be sent home. If you do not wear the proper attire you now condemn yourself by not being allowed in.

G-d Bless,
Dan

Yes, but the law broken there isn't the university's law, but the state law of indecent exposure. (which applies to people in highschool as well as people in university) It's like fornication. It was bad before Christ and it's still bad after Christ.

What I was talking about was going to the university in jeans and a t-shirt.

Levitucus - all or none?

ahab

Guest

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

ahab

Guest

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Gettin' Riggy With It

ahab

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Seemly Unseelie

Contributor

Gettin' Riggy With It

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads