-
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.
No buffet cherry picking, do all the laws!
- Thread starter Frogster
- Start date
SAAN
Newbie
Folks it is very obvious the law they were under was the law of sin and death. Jesus died for our sins and lifted the curse of the law, so now we are under grace to repent from those same sins. When you dont repent you remain under the curse of the law.
Jesus blood covered our sins, so it is his blood we need for repentance and not the blood of animals. As a believer who is saved, you are supposed to want to obey Gods commands as a testimony of your faith. The bible is qiuiet clear about this.
Jesus never said, now that you believe in me, you can now disregard everything my father taught and the same commands I was expected to obey.
The key Paul is trying to say is, that if you try to get your salvation form the law rather than faith in Jesus, you have fallen from grace and have put your self in bondage to try to get salvation from something that no one could accomplish. He is not saying you can sin at free will now. Sin is defined as breaking Gods commands. Even we we cant keep them perfectly, we should at least try. This is where grace covers us for falling short of Gods standards.
And lets pre address the ignorant comments to come.
-Kindling a fire was alot of work back then, so dont kindle a fire meant dont work, so please dont use the stupid reasoning that driving your car is a sin or cooking is a sin.
-Animal sacrifices were done away with and the book of Hebrews confirms this.
-Stoning disobedient kids would not work now, since we are under grace and these kids can repent of their wickedness. If they dont they will stand judgement before God
-Stoning homosexuals would not work now, since we are under grace and these homos can repent of their wickedness. If they dont they will stand judgement before God
Jesus blood covered our sins, so it is his blood we need for repentance and not the blood of animals. As a believer who is saved, you are supposed to want to obey Gods commands as a testimony of your faith. The bible is qiuiet clear about this.
Jesus never said, now that you believe in me, you can now disregard everything my father taught and the same commands I was expected to obey.
The key Paul is trying to say is, that if you try to get your salvation form the law rather than faith in Jesus, you have fallen from grace and have put your self in bondage to try to get salvation from something that no one could accomplish. He is not saying you can sin at free will now. Sin is defined as breaking Gods commands. Even we we cant keep them perfectly, we should at least try. This is where grace covers us for falling short of Gods standards.
And lets pre address the ignorant comments to come.
-Kindling a fire was alot of work back then, so dont kindle a fire meant dont work, so please dont use the stupid reasoning that driving your car is a sin or cooking is a sin.
-Animal sacrifices were done away with and the book of Hebrews confirms this.
-Stoning disobedient kids would not work now, since we are under grace and these kids can repent of their wickedness. If they dont they will stand judgement before God
-Stoning homosexuals would not work now, since we are under grace and these homos can repent of their wickedness. If they dont they will stand judgement before God
Upvote
0
"Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? " Gal. 3:3
Upvote
0
The real experts on the Mosaic Law, which Ellen White is NOT, disagree with you unequivocally. You do not get to pick and choose your own definitions and interpretations, otherwise it is not "Law," but your own subjective "gut feeling." The Bible unequivocally denounces travel on the Sabbath:
Driving on Shabbat in Jewish law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Isaiah 58:13-14 (New International Version)
Isaiah 58:13-14
New International Version (NIV)
13 “If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
and from doing as you please on my holy day,
if you call the Sabbath a delight
and the Lord’s holy day honorable,
and if you honor it by not going your own way
and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,
14 then you will find your joy in the Lord,
and I will cause you to ride in triumph on the heights of the land
and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob.”
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.
In a contest between Ellen White's 4th Commandment-Haloed LSD trip, versus the real experts on the law who studied it their entire lives, you would be well-served by following the experts on the law. The verse cited in Isaiah has been unanimously interpreted to mean that NO travel on Sabbath is permissible.
You put yourself under the law, then deal with the consequences that you have created for yourself. This is PRECISELY why your thinking was rejected by the Council of Jerusalem and has been condemned as an anti-Christian heresy since the beginnings of Christianity. Your arguments are simply rehashed heresies that went under the "Judaizer" and "Ebionite" labels. I understand that your "gut feeling" indicates that this must be impossible, but remember, you have rejected the same Talmudic interpretations that St. Paul actually relied upon numerous times in his Epistles. Your "gut feeling" that this must be wrong will not hold up in a court of law.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
SAAN
Newbie
Jewish law is the TALMUD, the same oral traditions Jesus spoke against because they are added laws that are not the word of God and are the traditions of man. You can Wiki the Talmud all day long, but that is not the word of God, just Jewish traditions.
Putting myself under law is when I say, I dont need Jesus, I can just follow the Torah for my salvation and when I fail I can go to the priest and do a animals sacrifice.
Once you show me where Jesus said NO travel on the Sabbath is permissible, I will believe. How else did they get to the synagogs back then, they had to leave their homes.
There is a big difference between legalism that Jews and SDA's preach and practice and just actual obedience to the scriptures that Jesus commands.
Upvote
0
Sophrosyne
Let Your Light Shine.. Matt 5:16
The problem I see is Christians are to LOVE, and in LOVING the Law is of NO USE for us... we don't need to be told not to HATE because we LOVE.
Those who focus on NOT HATING instead of LOVING aren't necessarily LOVING because NOT HATING (Don't Murder, Don't Lie, Don't Steal, etc) doesn't mean you are Loving anyone.
Trying to use the Law as any part of your standard gives you an artificial pat on the back when you "keep" that part of the Law. I've never committed adultery under the Law but I confess I have done so under Grace according to Jesus I've lusted after married women before the Law would have me believe I didn't sin but Jesus himself said I have. Under the Law I've never murdered so therefore I'm not sinful in that respect but under Grace Jesus tells me that hating someone is a sin on the level of murder so I'm guilty of sinning.
Those who tout the Law just miss the point, NOT breaking it still doesn't mean you aren't sinning the Law just doesn't spell it out like Love does.
Those who focus on NOT HATING instead of LOVING aren't necessarily LOVING because NOT HATING (Don't Murder, Don't Lie, Don't Steal, etc) doesn't mean you are Loving anyone.
Trying to use the Law as any part of your standard gives you an artificial pat on the back when you "keep" that part of the Law. I've never committed adultery under the Law but I confess I have done so under Grace according to Jesus I've lusted after married women before the Law would have me believe I didn't sin but Jesus himself said I have. Under the Law I've never murdered so therefore I'm not sinful in that respect but under Grace Jesus tells me that hating someone is a sin on the level of murder so I'm guilty of sinning.
Those who tout the Law just miss the point, NOT breaking it still doesn't mean you aren't sinning the Law just doesn't spell it out like Love does.
Upvote
0
There's no difference at all. It is still you thinking you can do something to keep yourself acceptable to God. Which God calls foolishness.
Upvote
0
Could you please point out the text from the New Testament that says anywhere that there is a difference between the Talmud and the Torah? Please point out ANYWHERE in the New Testament where the Talmud is condemned. Also please point out ANYWHERE where the "traditions of men" is condemned by Jesus or Paul. You will not find any such things, because Paul was an expert on the Jewish Law and knew there is NO distinction between the Talmud and the Torah when he was speaking of the "Law."
Thank you.
Upvote
0
SAAN
Newbie
THe TALMUD is not the Torah. The Talmud has a bunch of added laws to try to keep the Torah. The ceremnial hands washing being discussed in MArk 7 and Mathew 15 is a prime eaxample, as washing your hands before you eat is not a command of Gog, but rather a tradition of man.
When ever Jesus said YOU HAVE HEARD instead of IT IS WRITTEN, he is referring to the added laws that were not commands of God.
Upvote
0
Would you please now answer my question and show me a text in the New Testament that condemns the Talmud? Your rants are interesting, but they did not answer the question I asked. Much of the Talmud was in writing at the time of Jesus. Just answer the question:
A verse that condemns the Talmud please.
And lacking your ability to find a text that condemns the Talmud, one that separates it out from the Torah would also suffice. Since Paul studies Jewish Law under the famed expert Gamaliel, he CLEARLY would have been taught the oral Talmud as well. Notice something about the following text?
"Then Paul said: ‘I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.’" Acts 22:3 NIV
The "Law" that Gamalel would have taught him would have included the Oral Talmud.
I will give you a hint: NOWHERE does either Jesus or Paul condemn the Oral Talmud.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Please supply me a text that condemns the "oral Talmud." Please find me a text that condemns the interpretations of the Talmud and describes what is contained in them as "added laws that were not commands of God."
Thank you.
I will re-post a hint I wrote above:
"Then Paul said: ‘I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.’" Acts 22:3 NIV
The "Law" that Gamalel would have taught him would have included the Oral Talmud. That is exactly how the Talmud was transferred down through history until it was put in writing about 200 AD.
I will give you a hint: NOWHERE does either Jesus or Paul condemn the Oral Talmud. Since Paul was trained as a Pharisee by Gamalel, who was also a Pharisee, it is important to note Paul's views on the Oral Talmud:
"The most important of the three were the Pharisees because they are the spiritual fathers of modern Judaism. Their main distinguishing characteristic was a belief in an Oral Law that God gave to Moses at Sinai along with the Torah. The Torah, or Written Law, was akin to the U.S. Constitution in the sense that it set down a series of laws that were open to interpretation. The Pharisees believed that God also gave Moses the knowledge of what these laws meant and how they should be applied. This oral tradition was codified and written down roughly three centuries later in what is known as the Talmud."
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sadducees_pharisees_essenes.html
Are you getting it? Much of the Torah was given to Moses orally and passed down orally through the centuries. I can understand your frustration and your self-deception that leads you to think that the Talmud is "silly" and "irrational," but I can assure you that Paul would disagree: The Oral Torah is something no Jewish legal scholar would call "Silly." The Talmud plainly was a necessary part of the "Law." Nobody trained in the Law like Paul was would think otherwise. How could they? The Talmud contained much of the oral Torah given to Moses. It was not written down until 200 AD. None of it is in the Christian Old Testament, which makes it absolutely impossible to understand the Law as anything other than the "shadows" and prophecies pointing to Christ. There is no chance whatsoever that you can understand the law, or follow it without the Oral Talmud. And THAT, unfortunately, is not in your Old Testament. And why isn't it? Because the Early Fathers knew that Christians weren't bound by the Law, so had no need of understanding or following it. The Mosaic Law is a complete and utter waste of time for Christians. It has NOTHING to do with Christianity. They included what was important for Christians: The prophecies, history and law that pointed to Christ. And so you have at BEST a small part of the Mosaic Law. You have no way of understanding or following it. What is there is just enough to give historical context to Jesus Christ.
One of the WORST things a Christian can do is to urge that the Mosaic Law still applies. Our Old Testament contains maybe 5 percent of what is meant by the Mosaic Law! The vast, overwhelming majority of the Torah was oral that never made it into our Old Testament. And vast parts of that Talmud are the orally-transmitted Torah that was not written down until the second century. We were given enough of the Law and the Torah to understand that Christ was the fulfillment of both the Law and Prophecy. Outside of that limited use, our Old Testament is so deficient and scanty it is utterly useless.
You think otherwise because you have been taught history, law and Bible by a brain-damaged woman with a 3rd grade education who plagiarized most of what she wrote. NOT the recommended way to study history, law or the Bible. And I can't think of a WORSE way to study the Law. You simply have no capacity to understand the law or how it works. You should take Paul's outright and complete rejection of the Mosaic Law as a gift and run with it and be exceedingly grateful! That is ALL you are probably capable of understanding anyway.
Here's the basic problem: You have been lied to wholesale. There is NO way of reconciling Ellen White's views of the Mosaic Law with anything remotely resembling reality. She endevored, for purely selfish reasons, to strap her followers with highly-selective pieces of the Law so that she could control them and milk them for money. She put them on a never-ending treadmill, where they can never understand that the treadmill is the law, and the law they will never understand. But she was only willing to go so far: The Law was what SHE declared it was, not what the Law claimed for itself to be. Nor was it what the real experts said it was. She claimed all kinds of distinctions, ideas and separations in the law that have NEVER been accepted by any Mosaic law expert. Including Jesus and Paul.
As a result, Seventh Day Adventists have been handicapped in two ways: They have a delusional and unhistorical view of the Law, and they have never been taught pure Christianity the way it has been taught for 2,000 years. They have not the slightest clue about either Christianity or the Law. Your "history book" is the Great Controversy. I won't go into the massive and irreparable fatal defects of that book, but needless to say, you have been taught nothing remotely resembling the reality of either Christianity or the Law.
Ellen White's views on the Law are those of a severely mentally-ill person. YOU are also mentally ill if you accept what she said. You cannot understand the law, because you have never even THOUGHT about the entire law. You have never even HEARD about the full law. For you to get up on enough speed on the law to even have an intelligent conversation about it would probably take at least 3 years.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yeah, but what do you really think? LOL. Excellent points, in complete agreement.
Ellen White's horrifying ignorance of the Jewish Law is frightening and sickening, especially since so many people would immediately take her word for it. Most of Ellen White's original followers, and most of them nowadays, are people who have trouble reading and writing their own name. They are no more capable of understanding the Mosaic Law than they are capable of understanding Astrophysics or Quantum Mechanics. They should just leave it alone. Paul gave them a GIFT, a HUGE gift, and they have no idea of how HUGE of a gift it really was!
Some of the most brilliant minds in history have labored over the Jewish law trying to grasp it, some of them spending 50 years @ 20 hours per day just studying one subject, like the Sabbath! I have a doctorate in law, and some of their thinking takes ME a week to get through one single page!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Sep 7, 2009
- 44,343
- 3,067
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Republican
well, they could not gather sticks or cook, what's the difference, even the law was restrictive.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
