Debate-For MJ's Only Cases for and against buying/shopping on the sabbath

[Heber Book List]

I made that point, but as I read it, the OP assumes that the shopkeep is non-sabbatarian, and would break the Shabbat anyway, so it does address your concern.

You did make a similar point - my key point was that it would be bad witness to not consider the person serving you. To open that up a little: If everyone observed Shabbat it would force businesses to close for Shabbat and he/she would not have to work - we can all do our bit by boycotting the businesses and supporting only Shabbat observant shops / businesses. We are in the world, but must not be of the world and its G-d rejecting ways.

 

[BukiRob]

You did make a similar point - my key point was that it would be bad witness to not consider the person serving you. To open that up a little: If everyone observed Shabbat it would force businesses to close for Shabbat and he/she would not have to work - we can all do our bit by boycotting the businesses and supporting only Shabbat observant shops / businesses. We are in the world, but must not be of the world and its G-d rejecting ways.

Had an interesting response to a somewhat related quesiton like this regarding Sabbath and its observance.

Rabbi told the group that Sabbath observance is a lot like the layers of an onion that you start with the things you are convicted by the Ruach to do and go from there and as you walk you may find that the Ruach is leading you to observe this or that.

He pointed out Daniel as an example. Daniel could have drawn a line at several different places. Daniel could have drawn the line at his name being changed But he didn't. We aren't told what choice foods were that he refused to eat just that it was a line Daniel was unwilling to cross. Others did... here is what is of interest... many of those and their offspring did return to Israel.

For me abstaining from the dietary things IS something I have been asked to forgo and this happened before I became a gentile called to the Messianic movement. I do loosely observe Sabbath and the feast days. To me, the highlight of the year is Passover and the feast of unleavened bread. The Passover Seder is without question my #1 absolute favorite holiday of the year bar none and for me, its not even close. For me it is the joyous celebration of Messiah and the deliverance if ISRAEL from Egypt (the World)

 

[Hank77]

Well I'm glad that the topic is being discussed so indepth on here

Yes... That's one of the reasons why I'm posting in here

What was the preparation day for?

 

[Pentateuch and Yeshua]

Well, the preparation day is *just* tradition (not demanded by Torah), but it makes sense to get as much of your work done and out the way as possible in order to enjoy the sabbath to it's full.


A further question, although I will state my pre-determined opinion on this, which may change if anyone presents a worthy argument, but right now I can only really see that we can only rely on opinion and reasoning with regards to anything beyond what we have already established in this thread, and my opinion is:

- I think that in certain circumstances such as the circumstances that I'm about to present, there is no harm in some limited spending on the sabbath, HOWEVER, I'm sure there are ways to avoid it, and if they can be avoided without detriment to your enjoyment of the sabbath rest, then they still should be.

And, the question is:
Imagine a scenario in which someone is a parent, and works long hours, perhaps even night shifts, and only gets one day off work a week. Let's say, for arguments sake, because I know what long hours they do, how tired they are and how limited free time they get that isn't just spent sleeping, and hopefully you guys understand just how heavy this and similar professions and trades can be.
So, let's say that Saturday, the shabbat, is the only day that this person has to do all their shopping (regardless of whether or not they have a partner who may or may not take care of the groceries), and the only day in which to take their children out, and say they want to experience things like taking their children to McDonalds, to the funfair, to the movies, to have icecream, to have treats, to have toys, etc etc, do you think that, in the previously described situations in which there are gentiles who would be working anyway, regardless of whether or not sabbath keepers buy there, who are selling, and so you are not putting anyone to work, could you bend the rules of the sabbath, so that the parent can enjoy their free day with their kids and have fun? Maybe it dsoesn't even have to be EVERY sabbath, it's true that there are ways they can enjoy their time together for free; football at the park, dinner at home, some scripture reading and a dvd, board games, etc, but still, every parent wants to enjoy taking their children out, right?
It doesn't only apply to children, also family and friends or potential partners, etc, but I'm trying to build a picture of a specific example, for consistency, in order to demonstrate my reasoning, somewhat.
I would liken trying to limit that person to a strict no spending money policy based on what evidence we go on in order to establish the basic "no buying on the sabbath" policy in the firt place, akin to saying that Yeshua was breaking the sabbath when he took an ear of corn, because the sabbath law prohibits reaping our crops on the sabbath (and such trains of thought have lead to people prohibiting typing on a computer keyboard or switching on lights because 1. they require you to use force and energy in pressing, and 2. we require that an electricity supplier be working - when in my logical understanding, this is stretching the law out of being something that makes the sabbath a gift into making it a restriction; and if a service is offered on a sabbath that is provided regardless of our acceptance or rejection, such as electricity, internet, running water, etc, then we are only cutting our noses off to spite our faces in prohibiting it).

If my assumption is wrong, then of course I am glad to accept it, but for the time being,I will assume myself to be correct with this post, HOWEVER, this post doesn't really cover my own circumstances, I am fortunate enough to not need to purchase goods on the shabbat (except a few times in emergencies, unsolicited necessities) and therefore am always able to be o prepared, and I can always spend time out with people at other times during my working week, so I am fortunate, but not everyone has the same circumstances.

Thanks in advance for any input

 

[Hank77]

Well, the preparation day is *just* tradition (not demanded by Torah), but it makes sense to get as much of your work done and out the way as possible in order to enjoy the sabbath to it's full.

Could we say that the principle of the preparation day was already in place.....
Exo 16:29 see, because Yehovah hath given to you the sabbath, therefore He is giving to you on the sixth day bread of two days; abide ye each in his place, no one doth go out from his place on the seventh day.'
Exo 16:30 And the people rest on the seventh day,

 

[Heber Book List]

The key to it is that the Law does not permit you to find a way round it in order to do whatever you want to do when, in reality, you do not NEED to circumvent the Law. This was the Nehemiah point - they were trying to find a way round the Law by, essentially, trading outside of the city in 'no man's land', for want of a better description. They were sent into exile.

There can be a fine line between what WE want to do, in an unrestricted way, and what G_d requires of us. We are called to live according to his Law to the fullest extent that we are physically and mentally able. He understands situations where we cannot, for perfectly valid reasons, obey him to the fullest extent BUT, it must not be due to purposely violating his Law when you do not NEED to. Acquiring what you need by way of shopping, in advance, to save shopping on Shabbat is a simple way of obeying his Law - why would you not do so, in a world where shops are open all sorts of hours? Preparing foodstuffs in advance, and other aspects of Shabbat, can still be followed, if not in its entirety.

You noted the situation when Yeshua argued in favour of his disciples eating grain and show bread. He was accused of hypocrisy, but explained that it was essential for them to eat, even though it could be argued that, technically, they were violating the Law.

'Need vs want' is the key.

 

[Hoshiyya]

I remember a similar discussion where people were trying to show the scriptures explicitly ban female homosexuality, and while it is pretty obvious that it is, nobody could find a specific verse.

 

[Pentateuch and Yeshua]

I remember a similar discussion where people were trying to show the scriptures explicitly ban female homosexuality, and while it is pretty obvious that it is, nobody could find a specific verse.

That's a very good point...

I actually came across this recently, and we see that in fact lesbianism is not permitted - the uncle-neice and the auntie-nephew relationships are clearly not permissible, but upon prima facie it appears that only one of the two is prohibited (I forget which) but clearly it wouldn't be permitted the other way around, and so we have a precedent for seeing that when something is worded for a man, it can also apply to a woman (If I were to say "you could go to prison for killing a man" that wouldn't imply that you're allowed to kill a woman). When we speak of man, as in sabbath was made for man, or man didn't descend from ape, we know that man in this context means the species of homosapiens, mankind, and we can assume that the same applies with the ancient hebrew text of the torah except when it's clearly not the case (referring specifically to one gender's anatomy for example).

 

[BukiRob]

That's a very good point...

I actually came across this recently, and we see that in fact lesbianism is not permitted - the uncle-neice and the auntie-nephew relationships are clearly not permissible, but upon prima facie it appears that only one of the two is prohibited (I forget which) but clearly it wouldn't be permitted the other way around, and so we have a precedent for seeing that when something is worded for a man, it can also apply to a woman (If I were to say "you could go to prison for killing a man" that wouldn't imply that you're allowed to kill a woman). When we speak of man, as in sabbath was made for man, or man didn't descend from ape, we know that man in this context means the species of homosapiens, mankind, and we can assume that the same applies with the ancient hebrew text of the torah except when it's clearly not the case (referring specifically to one gender's anatomy for example).

Paul kind of touches in Romans when he states:
Romans 1: 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

 

[Pentateuch and Yeshua]

Paul is only considered to be an authority to christians and a percentage of MJs/Messianic Gentile converts, Torah is the ultimate authority, but yes, Paul's position on homosexuality (of both genders) is one of the few things he and I agree on (though his attempt to explain where it comes from is not).

 

[Heber Book List]

Paul is only considered to be an authority to christians and a percentage of MJs/Messianic Gentile converts, Torah is the ultimate authority, but yes, Paul's position on homosexuality (of both genders) is one of the few things he and I agree on (though his attempt to explain where it comes from is not).

What percentage? From nothing to everything covers 0% to 100%! It doesn't mean an awful lot as written.

 

[Pentateuch and Yeshua]

You want me to estimate?

 

[Heber Book List]

The wording used could indicate the vast majority, or a mere handful. As we are talking about those who accept the validity of scripture, or not, the wording used needs to be better qualified, I think; no qualification questions the assertion, do you not agree? I'm not looking to argue the point, but 'throw away' comments can be quite misleading, in either direction, for or against.

 

[Pentateuch and Yeshua]

In my experience, a slight majority (as opposed to an overwhelming majority) of people who identify or could be identified by the labels of Messianic Jew, Messianic Gentile Believer or similar, consider Paul to be an authority, I would say (judging purely from my own experience of coming across others online and in person) maybe 30-45% reject Paul either completely or just as an authority.

The majority appear to believe that EVERYTHING Paul says is pro Torah, whether it is clearly pro Torah as some things are, or if it needs to be read to say the polar opposite of what is written (often using invalid or non-demonstrable, non-falsifiable arguments based on history or extraneous variables, asserted without proof of claim, and ignoring the majority of arguments against Paul in responses), while those who reject Paul do so on many many grounds, but ultimately because they can see where he speaks both for and against Torah, and the against is more than enough, without having to get gnostic (not Gnostic, as in the religion, gnostic as in bringing unnecessarily deep knowledge of the subject and applying it to the scriptural faith) on the subject - doing so really goes to town on Paul, totally tearing him to shreds, but just simply, seeing that he speaks from both sides of his mouth and is interpretable, and what fruits grow as a result of his letters (torahless xtianity) is more than enough.
I believe that many people cling on to Paul despite finding the importance of Torah because he both justifies the laws that they don't want to put the effort into following (an MJ who went to Indonesia said that most meat there is Halal but he would eat it because he could find Paul quotes that allowed it, for example) or they can find a way to hold onto Christian beliefs that are otherwise alien to Judaism and can't be justified in the Tanakh or gospels, such as human blood sacrifice, changing the priesthood, second Adam, the concept of original sin through Adam (despite genesis showing two others sinning before Adam), subjugation of the wife, women being threat to mankind by making angels horny unless they cover their hair, etc... So there is a divide there, and the Pro-Paulers appear to be larger in number.

This is just MY OWN estimation based on experience, I've actually searched for numbers before and couldn't find any so I cannot produce sources or evidence + my own understanding of the reasons for Paul acceptance and rejection, having been on both sides of the fence (at least, I supported Paul for a very short time until a Greek friend told me that Paul DOES say in Greek what the English text says, and the argument given by 119 Ministries arguing misinterpretation/translation of the text was a load of garbage that appears true to anyone using Google Translate but not to anyone who actually speaks Greek - I believed that maybe the reason for Paul being interpret-able both was the result of the translations being interpreted via Christianity, but no, it turns out that it's very accurate).

 

[Heber Book List]

In my experience, a slight majority (as opposed to an overwhelming majority) of people who identify or could be identified by the labels of Messianic Jew, Messianic Gentile Believer or similar, consider Paul to be an authority, I would say (judging purely from my own experience of coming across others online and in person) maybe 30-45% reject Paul either completely or just as an authority.

The majority appear to believe that EVERYTHING Paul says is pro Torah, whether it is clearly pro Torah as some things are, or if it needs to be read to say the polar opposite of what is written (often using invalid or non-demonstrable, non-falsifiable arguments based on history or extraneous variables, asserted without proof of claim, and ignoring the majority of arguments against Paul in responses), while those who reject Paul do so on many many grounds, but ultimately because they can see where he speaks both for and against Torah, and the against is more than enough, without having to get gnostic (not Gnostic, as in the religion, gnostic as in bringing unnecessarily deep knowledge of the subject and applying it to the scriptural faith) on the subject - doing so really goes to town on Paul, totally tearing him to shreds, but just simply, seeing that he speaks from both sides of his mouth and is interpretable, and what fruits grow as a result of his letters (torahless xtianity) is more than enough.
I believe that many people cling on to Paul despite finding the importance of Torah because he both justifies the laws that they don't want to put the effort into following (an MJ who went to Indonesia said that most meat there is Halal but he would eat it because he could find Paul quotes that allowed it, for example) or they can find a way to hold onto Christian beliefs that are otherwise alien to Judaism and can't be justified in the Tanakh or gospels, such as human blood sacrifice, changing the priesthood, second Adam, the concept of original sin through Adam (despite genesis showing two others sinning before Adam), subjugation of the wife, women being threat to mankind by making angels horny unless they cover their hair, etc... So there is a divide there, and the Pro-Paulers appear to be larger in number.

This is just MY OWN estimation based on experience, I've actually searched for numbers before and couldn't find any so I cannot produce sources or evidence + my own understanding of the reasons for Paul acceptance and rejection, having been on both sides of the fence (at least, I supported Paul for a very short time until a Greek friend told me that Paul DOES say in Greek what the English text says, and the argument given by 119 Ministries arguing misinterpretation/translation of the text was a load of garbage that appears true to anyone using Google Translate but not to anyone who actually speaks Greek - I believed that maybe the reason for Paul being interpret-able both was the result of the translations being interpreted via Christianity, but no, it turns out that it's very accurate).

Thank you very much - very informative