• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is it good to help a disabled widow by cutting her grass?

Is it good to help a disabled widow by cutting her grass?

  • yes

    Votes: 15 88.2%
  • no

    Votes: 2 11.8%

  • Total voters
    17

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,660
1,017
Visit site
✟111,942.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Deuteronomy 7 is talking about all of the laws, it's not specific to dietary laws. It says if you keep them, even your crops will do well.

God sometimes sends disease to people for breaking laws other than clean/unclean laws.

I agree that health benefits can be seen in many of the food laws. At the same time, improperly handled rice is also dangerous :)

I'm not aware of any statement in the scriptures that clearly connects specifically the dietary laws to good health. Maybe there is one and I haven't found it yet?

God does not send disease upon anyone. It is the devil that does that. He is the destroyer, not God. It's like God saying He would harden Pharoah's heart when the Bible tells us God tempts no man.

Something has to be explixitly stated before you'll believe it? Many times ideas/concepts are implied and that makes them no less true.
 
Upvote 0

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,660
1,017
Visit site
✟111,942.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I'm not sure the context of why you are posting this and since you've given no commentary yourself you leave me guessing what meaning you want me to hear.

Is this a warning for searching for layered meanings? I dont arbitrarily make up stuff and just superimpose it over scripture if this indeed is your warning. 2 Cor 4:6 shows us the light of creation is an allusion to Christ. The creation account is written in a chiastic pattern so there are verses that parallel each other and give each other broader meaning, this is the nature of chiastic patterns. Using Paul's outlook of creation/new creation as a heuristic approach to the creation account and it's already organized chiastic patterns these conclusions are inevitable.

But I'm confused what you want to say? Do you reject them and only affirm a literal view? Is there a specific aspect that you reject that I've addressed in terms of interpretation? Do you reject light spoken into darkness is a salvation event? Do you reject when Christ addresses fallen sheep he actually is not talking about physical sheep? Do you reject the meaning of the Sabbath is of spiritual rest not physical? Or is it just an allergy to look into scripture beyond the surface and so you reject the notion of finding something your tradition doesn't teach?
The point is that I see you taking some of Paul's statements out of the cultural context of the Jews. You read into his statements what our culture is like and we have no oral law that has been handed down for centuries that is in complete conflict with God's word so you end up misunderstanding what Paul is saying.

To understand anyone fully we have to take what they say in the context of their culture and background. Otherwise we can end up with serious misunderstandings of what they are saying. It seems odd to me that you don't understand this.
 
Upvote 0

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
9,298
2,554
55
Northeast
✟239,444.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God does not send disease upon anyone. It is the devil that does that. He is the destroyer, not God. It's like God saying He would harden Pharoah's heart when the Bible tells us God tempts no man.
Very possibly. Possibly God just allows evil things to happen, diseases and so on.

But the statement in some scriptures is that God is the causative agent. Maybe that's just one way of putting it, some other force of evil is actually doing it.

Something has to be explixitly stated before you'll believe it?
No, quite the opposite.
Many times ideas/concepts are implied and that makes them no less true.
I don't see that health is implied specifically in the laws about clean and unclean.

When dealing with things that are under what is stated, such as the possibility that the creation account is symbolic of salvation, maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. Maybe one person sees it, and another doesn't. (Myself, I think what @DamianWarS is saying about creation and the Sabbath makes sense.)
 
Upvote 0

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,660
1,017
Visit site
✟111,942.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Very possibly. Possibly God just allows evil things to happen, diseases and so on.

But the statement in some scriptures is that God is the causative agent. Maybe that's just one way of putting it, some other force of evil is actually doing it.


No, quite the opposite.

I don't see that health is implied specifically in the laws about clean and unclean.

When dealing with things that are under what is stated, such as the possibility that the creation account is symbolic of salvation, maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. Maybe one person sees it, and another doesn't. (Myself, I think what @DamianWarS is saying about creation and the Sabbath makes sense.)
I understand that. I would have to be really dense not to. As to the health laws remember our discussion about scavengers? They are very diseased animals as shown by how diseased pork is.
 
Upvote 0

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
9,298
2,554
55
Northeast
✟239,444.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As to the health laws remember our discussion about scavengers? They are very diseased animals as shown by how diseased pork is.
I remember it somewhat, yes. I remember issues arose with the scavenger idea when it came to chickens and pigeons.

The laws that are sometimes called the dietary laws, is it stated in Scripture that they were given for the health of Israel? That's what I was asking about :)

I'm pretty sure it's not stated. I did ask that here, but it's not really related to this thread. If it's important that we talk about it more, I suggest we move to a different thread :)
 
Upvote 0

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,660
1,017
Visit site
✟111,942.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Could you be more specific than this?
Yes. But if you haven't read what I posted about the Talmud it won't make sense to you.

When Paul talks about the law he may be talking about the oral law (Talmud), the 10 commandments, or the ceremonial law as those were the divisions of the law the Jews of his and Christ's day lumped into one. The only way to recognize which law he is talking about is the surrounding context.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,148
3,442
✟1,000,300.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes. But if you haven't read what I posted about the Talmud it won't make sense to you.

When Paul talks about the law he may be talking about the oral law (Talmud), the 10 commandments, or the ceremonial law as those were the divisions of the law the Jews of his and Christ's day lumped into one. The only way to recognize which law he is talking about is the surrounding context.
I read what you posted.

If the context of law is "lumped into one" then I'm confused why you're trying to divide it?
 
Upvote 0

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,660
1,017
Visit site
✟111,942.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I read what you posted.

If the context of law is "lumped into one" then I'm confused why you're trying to divide it?
I don't believe that. That was what the Jews did and they murdered Jesus because He wouldn't go along with their traditions. which they placed above the law of God, and taught the people not to do that either.

Mat_5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Jesus said five times near the start of the sermon on the mount "ye have heard it said of them of old time" in chapter five. This was the influence of their oral law, their Talmud, on their teaching and it remains to this day. Their Talmud has taken the place their Torah in their understanding of God.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,148
3,442
✟1,000,300.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't believe that. That was what the Jews did and they murdered Jesus because He wouldn't go along with their traditions. which they placed above the law of God, and taught the people not to do that either.

so where does Jesus cut up the law? where is he even accused of doing such things? Jesus said he come to fulfill law, not destory it (or cut it up) and he said he was there when it was made.... that's what got him killed.

Jesus said five times near the start of the sermon on the mount "ye have heard it said of them of old time" in chapter five. This was the influence of their oral law, their Talmud, on their teaching and it remains to this day. Their Talmud has taken the place their Torah in their understanding of God.

he has this contrast of "you have heard that it was said to those of old..." with "but I say to you..." showing us a deemphasizing of the "old" with a new emphasis. it may have been targeted at the oral law or he may have worded it in a way that includes both written and oral, certainly, his remarks can be found in the written law too. What is clear is his focus is not the old but a new way of thinking that is driven on love and consistent with the law of love. This is a greater consistent message of Christ's ministry, in no way does this say we need to keep the 10 commandments. vs 17 Jesus says he came to fulfill the law. You may see this as obeying it, as I would expect from your traditions, but I'm sure you must also admit the room that this may mean completing it in a way that no longer needs to be repeated. Since a far greater theme is that we are released from law I would say this is consistent with the latter, not the former.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
9,298
2,554
55
Northeast
✟239,444.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jesus said five times near the start of the sermon on the mount "ye have heard it said of them of old time" in chapter five. This was the influence of their oral law, their Talmud, on their teaching and it remains to this day. Their Talmud has taken the place their Torah in their understanding of God.
I just wanted to note this.

In the version of the KJV at Bible Gateway, the exact phrase
"ye have heard it said of them of old time"
does not occur in Matthew 5.

Very similar phrases do occur, yes. One example is

This would indicate that the commandment about adultery is part of the oral law, following the above reasoning.
 
Upvote 0

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,660
1,017
Visit site
✟111,942.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
so where does Jesus cut up the law? where is he even accused of doing such things? Jesus said he come to fulfill law, not destory it (or cut it up) and he said he was there when it was made.... that's what got him killed.



he has this contrast of "you have heard that it was said to those of old..." with "but I say to you..." showing us a deemphasizing of the "old" with a new emphasis. it may have been targeted at the oral law or he may have worded it in a way that includes both written and oral, certainly, his remarks can be found in the written law too. What is clear is his focus is not the old but a new way of thinking that is driven on love and consistent with the law of love. This is a greater consistent message of Christ's ministry, in no way does this say we need to keep the 10 commandments. vs 17 Jesus says he came to fulfill the law. You may see this as obeying it, as I would expect from your traditions, but I'm sure you must also admit the room that this may mean completing it in a way that no longer needs to be repeated. Since a far greater theme is that we are released from law I would say this is consistent with the latter, not the former.
It seems you have a hard time understanding plain words. I said this:

I don't believe that. That was what the Jews did and they murdered Jesus because He wouldn't go along with their traditions. which they placed above the law of God, and taught the people not to do that either.

And you replied with this:

so where does Jesus cut up the law? where is he even accused of doing such things? Jesus said he come to fulfill law, not destory it (or cut it up) and he said he was there when it was made.... that's what got him killed.

Can you see that your response is a non sequitur? It doesn't even come close to addressing what I said. Jewish traditions are not the law of God.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,148
3,442
✟1,000,300.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It seems you have a hard time understanding plain words. I said this:

And you replied with this:

Can you see that your response is a non sequitur? It doesn't even come close to addressing what I said. Jewish traditions are not the law of God.
I asked:
If the context of law is "lumped into one" then I'm confused why you're trying to divide it?
you reply:
I don't believe that. That was what the Jews did and they murdered Jesus because He wouldn't go along with their traditions.

Since you indicated "I don't believe that" the implication is Jesus did the opposite.... opposite of what? opposite of the "lumped into one" context and my statement asking why you're trying to divide it. hence my conclusion that you're suggesting Jesus tries to divide the law which seem resonable to me but I apologise if I miss understood. Regardless this is still an indirect point you're trying making to justify separating law, and me pointing out that was never Jesus's goal is still relevant. You're of course right to react shocked as it's an absurd idea that Jesus divded law but I'm happy you agree with this because in the same context is Mat 5:17-18 where Jesus says he did not come to destory the law but to fufill it. I know this is a poster verse for SDA, however it requires one to dichotomise law to come to SDA conclusions, since Jesus doesn't dichotomise law it makes this unbiblical dichotomony difficult to accept.

This doesn't change that what Jesus quotes can be found in written law as well as oral. My point is Jesus doesn't uniquely choose something just in oral law, or uniquely pick something just in written law, he phrases it a way to capture both because he knows his audience which is a common approach of Jesus. For example, when he speaks to the Sadducees regarding the resurrection (Mat 22), Jesus only quotes from the law of Moses because that's the only thing the Sadducees accepted, rather then use something they will mock and flat out deny Jesus demonstrates his ability to know his audience well and contextualizes to how they accept things which is a great focus on how we can reach others. The concluisions are on the new not the old so it really doesn't matter what he is quoting from. He doesn't emphasize the written or oral law, and his point is to emphasize the new.
 
Upvote 0

returntosender

EL ROI
Site Supporter
May 30, 2020
9,760
4,407
casa grande
✟414,494.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Assuming motivations are aligned to the gospel, it is good to help a disabled widow by cutting her grass?

if we call this good, is it not also good on the Sabbath as Christ tells us "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" (Mat 12:12)

it's a simple question but please stick to answering it and not other sabbath digressions. Be careful in your reply, because declaring something is restricted on the sabbath also eliminates it from being called good.
You didn't mention the sabbath in your question so you have to start over again.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,148
3,442
✟1,000,300.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You didn't mention the sabbath in your question so you have to start over again.
that's the point. The measure of "doing good" is not held hostage by what day of the week it is, it is by the deed and motivation so if it is good on a Tuesday, it should also be good on the Sabbath. For example, feeding orphans mid-week should be equally as good as feeding orphans on the Sabbath. Jesus tells us "doing good is lawful on the Sabbath" this begs the question what is "doing good"?
 
Upvote 0

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,660
1,017
Visit site
✟111,942.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I asked:

you reply:


Since you indicated "I don't believe that" the implication is Jesus did the opposite.... opposite of what? opposite of the "lumped into one" context and my statement asking why you're trying to divide it. hence my conclusion that you're suggesting Jesus tries to divide the law which seem resonable to me but I apologise if I miss understood. Regardless this is still an indirect point you're trying making to justify separating law, and me pointing out that was never Jesus's goal is still relevant. You're of course right to react shocked as it's an absurd idea that Jesus divded law but I'm happy you agree with this because in the same context is Mat 5:17-18 where Jesus says he did not come to destory the law but to fufill it. I know this is a poster verse for SDA, however it requires one to dichotomise law to come to SDA conclusions, since Jesus doesn't dichotomise law it makes this unbiblical dichotomony difficult to accept.

This doesn't change that what Jesus quotes can be found in written law as well as oral. My point is Jesus doesn't uniquely choose something just in oral law, or uniquely pick something just in written law, he phrases it a way to capture both because he knows his audience which is a common approach of Jesus. For example, when he speaks to the Sadducees regarding the resurrection (Mat 22), Jesus only quotes from the law of Moses because that's the only thing the Sadducees accepted, rather then use something they will mock and flat out deny Jesus demonstrates his ability to know his audience well and contextualizes to how they accept things which is a great focus on how we can reach others. The concluisions are on the new not the old so it really doesn't matter what he is quoting from. He doesn't emphasize the written or oral law, and his point is to emphasize the new.
This has nothing to do with SDA's. The Talmud is of 100% Jewish origin and is not believed in any way shape or form by SDAs because it is a completely man made law. I don't know how you can read what I posted to you and attribute it to SDAs. Paul and Jesus spoke to specific instances of laws in the Talmud and said they were specious error.

Here is a Talmud quote having to do with the Pharisees accusing Jesus and His disciples eaating without washing their hands.

LAWS ON WASHING OF THE HANDS
17. The laws of the washing of hands are the last code but one of the Mishna. One scholarly rabbi of modern times has this to say concerning these laws: “These laws rest entirely on the authority of tradition, as no commandment of the Pentateuch is quoted or adduced in their support by the Mishna.”
18. Nevertheless, when the hands are washed the person is obliged to offer the following prayer: “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hath sanctified us in His
commandments, and hath commanded us concerning the washing of the hands.” Thus the people are made to believe that this law, while given by men, has the authority of God back of it. The rabbis themselves claim that the institution of this ordinance is from themselves; this we find in the New Testament as well as in the Mishna. Thus the traditions of men were made to appear as the commandments of God. Mark 7: 3, 4, 8, 9, 13.
19. The first thing necessary in the washing of the hands must be the water. Four things must be attended to: 1. The right kind of water; that is, it must be lawful for this service. 2. There must be just enough for both the hands, which was about a quart; no more, no less. 3. The vessel from which the water is to be poured must be of a certain kind. 4. The person who does the pouring must have sufficient force back of him that the water shall flow properly, proportionately, and according to the time. Of course each one of these four definitions has a great many explanations as to the kind of water that was lawful, and which was not allowed. The kind of water which was used for manufacturing purposes was not allowed. It was therefore necessary to define the kinds of water which were non-permissible for manufacturing purposes, etc.
20. It was the same with the other three divisions. The same measurements for a quart were not regarded in everything, hence a proper knowledge of measurements must be gained.
21. Then there were certain restrictions as to the water, even though it were permissible for
washing of hands. If it were used by those who were troubled with certain impediments, it was not lawful. The kinds of impediments are treated in another section of the Mishna, known as “The Laws of Ablutions.”
22. It was also necessary to know just how far the hands must be washed, or the fists dipped. Then it must be known how much salt the bread would contain which was to be eaten after the hands were washed; also the kind of salt which was expected to go into it. Matthew 15:10-12, 16-20; Mark 7:14-22.
23. If his hands touched a certain object after he washed but before he dried them and said the blessing, they were unclean; if he touched certain other things before he wiped them and said the blessing, they were lawful.
24. If he washed the hands, and spoke to some one before lie dried them and said the blessing, they were unclean; he must wash them again.
178

25. The most strict accuracy must be considered in the washing of the hands, and in the proper observance of all these laws. Severe penalties were attached if these laws were not implicitly obeyed.
26. It is related in the treatise “Berachoth,” or Blessing, that a prominent man who despised this law of the washing of hands, was excommunicated. When he died, the tribunal sent a number of men, and placed upon his coffin a heap of stones, as a memorial to the people that whoever despised these laws of the wise men, and did not wash their hands, would be stoned to death, in addition to being considered an outcast among Israel.
27. It is not at all surprising then that the Pharisees came to Jesus in surprise and asked Him why He and His disciples disregarded the laws of the scribes and Pharisees by not washing the hands. Jesus, however, came to make men free; and for this reason He answered them as He did.

This is only a very small part of the laws of the Talmud. The laws it contained on how to keep the Sabbath were in the hundreds.
 
Upvote 0

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
9,298
2,554
55
Northeast
✟239,444.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
that's the point. The measure of "doing good" is not held hostage by what day of the week it is, it is by the deed and motivation so if it is good on a Tuesday, it should also be good on the Sabbath. For example, feeding orphans mid-week should be equally as good as feeding orphans on the Sabbath. Jesus tells us "doing good is lawful on the Sabbath" this begs the question what is "doing good"?
Speaking of feeding orphans, another good scenario would be working at a soup kitchen. Is feeding hungry people good?

It's not quite an emergency, usually, but neither does it sound good to put it off. Giving people canned goods the day before won't help, since many of the people who visit are mentally ill and won't have the cans with them the next day.
 
Upvote 0

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,660
1,017
Visit site
✟111,942.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Speaking of feeding orphans, another good scenario would be working at a soup kitchen. Is feeding hungry people good?

It's not quite an emergency, usually, but neither does it sound good to put it off. Giving people canned goods the day before won't help, since many of the people who visit are mentally ill and won't have the cans with them the next day.
Of course working in a food kitchen is lawful on the Sabbath. I wouldn't do it every Sabbath but if I wasn't disabled and can't spend a lot of time on my feet it is something I would do.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Leaf473
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,148
3,442
✟1,000,300.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This has nothing to do with SDA's. The Talmud is of 100% Jewish origin and is not believed in any way shape or form by SDAs because it is a completely man made law. I don't know how you can read what I posted to you and attribute it to SDAs. Paul and Jesus spoke to specific instances of laws in the Talmud and said they were specious error.

Here is a Talmud quote having to do with the Pharisees accusing Jesus and His disciples eaating without washing their hands.



This is only a very small part of the laws of the Talmud. The laws it contained on how to keep the Sabbath were in the hundreds.
Either I'm not clear enough or you're not reading the post. I don't suggest SDA's accept the Talmud, my point has nothing to do with it. I'm saying you're dichotomise the law and this is required in order to land at SDA conclusions regarding verses like Mat 5:17-18.
 
Upvote 0