The Ten commandments!!!

Repeat my challange to find ONE verse in Exo through Deut that obligates gentiles living outside the land to any part of the Mosiac Covenant.

Hi Billwald
I havent looked but it would be my guess there wasnt much written to the gentiles in those chapters. However, Romans 10(?) does say we are grafted into the tree(of the house of Israel). Many will try and tell you they are to grafted into our tree but thats not what the Word says.

billwald said:

Repeat my challange to find ONE verse in Exo through Deut that obligates gentiles living outside the land to any part of the Mosiac Covenant.

Click to expand...

What do you think a foreigner living within the gates of Israel was? Many of them were ones who united themselves with YHWH, because the Gentiles at that time served other gods than YHWH (look up "nations" in the Old Testament, as "Gentiles" and "The nations" are both translated from the same word "goyim" and mean the same thing).

Isaiah 56 covers what Gentiles should do if they unite themselves with YHWH: Keep the Torah

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

The Sabbath, just like animal sacrifices, food laws, and cerimonial festivals, was a shadow, a representation of something that was to come.
The animal sacrifices were a shadow of the true sacrifice of Jesus, they didn't have any real sin forgivin power, they were on outward sign that would show the faith of the individual practicing it.
Food was a representation of the Gentiles, they were unclean, but now we are all equal, all has been sanctified by God, He has declared all things clean. (1 Tim 4, Mark 7, Acts 10, Romans 14)
Same way with the Sabbath, it was a representation of the eternal rest we have in Christ, it was given to Israel and it was part of the old covenant made between God and Israel at Mount Sinai.
When we acept Christ we die to ourselves, we are new creations therefore we are not bound to the old covenant anymore, if one of the parties die the covenant is broken.
We are now bound to Jesus in the New Covenant by His blood, this is the Sabbath, it's the rest from the Law and it's the eternal rest we will have in the presence of God. When we enter that rest we will rest from our works just like God has rested from His works when He finished creation, He didn't start creating again on the 8th day, He rested forever, and so will we.

Colossians 2
16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--
17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.


Hebrews 4

1 Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it.
2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.
3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
" AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,
THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST,"
although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: " AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS";
5 and again in this passage, "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST."
6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience,
7 He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,
" TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,
DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS."
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that.
9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
11 Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.

Now there is nothing wrong with setting a day appart to worship God, as long as you do it knowing that that's not where your righteousness comes from and that it has no role in the salvation of the person doing it, it is not a requirement because we are not saved by works, but by the grace of God alone. There is also a big dofference between a Worship day and a Sabbath day, Christians have a worship day wich is Sunday, it is nopt a Sabbath day, if you want to keep a Sabbath day you must hang out with some Jews, they'll let you know how to do it, it is not as simple and watered down as the SDA's Sabbath wich is a joke compared to the Jewish Sabbath.

Hi Andre

For if Joshua had given them rest

Why does your bible feel the need to change the name of Jesus to Joshua? Ever look into Hebrews 3 to understand what Hebrews 4 might be talkin about?

Andre,

In your post, I feel that you have taken so much of scripture out of context I do not know where to begin to discuss it.

Let me see if I can condense it to several points:

1) Everything is not ritually clean. Pork is still ritually unclean as far as the Bible teaches. Jesus' exchange with the Pharisees in Mark is a debate against Jewish Oral Tradition:

Mark 7:
1 Then the Pharisees, and some of the scribes gathered together to him, having come from Jerusalem.
2 Now when they saw some of his disciples eating bread with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands, they found fault.
3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, don’t eat unless they wash their hands and forearms, holding to the tradition of the elders.
4 They don’t eat when they come from the marketplace, unless they bathe themselves, and there are many other things, which they have received to hold to: washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.)
5 The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why don’t your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?”

Click to expand...

The Pharisees, according to Oral Tradition believed that if you did not ritually wash your hands before you eat that the food which you handled became ritually unclean. It is a fact that this is found nowhere in the Old Testament (search for yourself ), as it was a tradition that was created by them in fear of ritual defilement.

In confronting Jesus they use -very- rabbinical terminology: “Why don’t your disciples walk according to the tradition (Gemara) of the fathers (Abot)?" The Gemara is a portion of the Talmud. It is rabbinical debate on the Mishnah, or Oral Law that they believe was handed down from God to Moses at Sinai. Unfortunately, no such exchange is recorded anywhere in the Old Testament

Jesus taught that nothing was unclean in and of itself like the Pharisees declared in their tradition. Paul, who was a Pharisee, was convinced by his argument, but neither of them broke keeping kosher. Neither did Peter when he received his vision, he saw that it had to do with the Gentiles.

The context that everyone misses about these encounters and situations is that the oral tradition (as recorded in the Talmud) declares many things which are -continually- unclean or unclean "just because", with no precedent in the Torah.

Along with gentiles, this list included with tax collectors, and Samaritan women. The oral tradition was so strict that any house a tax collector would enter in to the rabbis declared unclean, and Samaritan women were to be treated like women with a permanent menstrual flow, making them ritually unclean. (Seeing a pattern to whom Jesus conversed with?)

2) Sacrifices are not done away with. Paul in Acts 21 made sacrifices in the Temple for 4 men taking a Nazarite vow. These included sin offerings (see Numbers). Some Asian Jews made an uproar that Paul, in doing this, had let Gentiles into the Temple. Furthermore, there is a strange parenthesis in verse 29 that, under standard methods of Textual Criticism, is not original to the story. Taking that into account, the only way Paul would have let Gentiles into the Temple would be those 4 taking the Nazarite vow. Since the Temple was destroyed, there is no place where God lets his name rest, and sacrifices, until then, are suspended, as per what is written in Torah.

3) God wants everyone who joins with him to keep the Sabbath. It's right there in Isaiah 56, emphasis on verses 2 and 3:

2:...and the son of man who holds it fast; who keeps the Sabbath from profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.
3 Neither let the foreigner, who has joined himself to Yahweh (That's us), speak, saying, Yahweh will surely separate me from his people; (!!!)

Click to expand...

We don't get "special treatment" concerning the Law of Moses, as we are not treated differently from native born Israelites.

Do you, as a Christian keep the 10 Commandments? Or or do you keep the 10 Commandments*?

* = Except #4.

Following the Sabbath the way many Jewish circles do is not Biblical. According to Oral Tradition if one drags their chair a certain way, they break the Sabbath. Jesus lambasted the Pharisees over their Sabbath interpretations, as they said that one couldn't pick and eat grain, or that one could not heal or do good.

Go to this link: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t01/t0109.htm

Read through Mishnah 1 and the Gemara about it.

It's craziness, no? There is no support for this in the Bible at all. Feel free to continue reading. It gets worse.

At the same time Paul, himself, attested in Acts 24:"14 But this I confess to you, that after the Way, which they call a sect, so I serve the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the Torah, and which are written in the Prophets;" Early Christians were a sect of Judaism, Torah observant, rejecting this oral tradition.

I'll deal with some other points later. I need to work on a project.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Pope Says Sundays for God, Not Sports
March 26, 2004

Vatican City (Reuters) - Pope John Paul on Friday said Sunday should be a day for God, not for secular diversions like entertainment and sports.

"When Sunday loses its fundamental meaning and becomes subordinate to a secular concept of 'weekend' dominated by such things as entertainment and sport, people stay locked within a horizon so narrow that they can no longer see the heavens," the pontiff said in a speech to Australian bishops.

John Paul criticized the "culture of the 'here and now,'" urging Church leaders to "lead men and women from the shadows of moral confusion and ambiguous thinking."

The 83-year-old pope also encouraged Christians, especially young people, to remain faithful to Sunday Mass, saying the secular culture was undermining family life.

________________________________________________________________

Now the push is on.....

The Thadman said:

1) Everything is not ritually clean. Pork is still ritually unclean as far as the Bible teaches. Jesus' exchange with the Pharisees in Mark is a debate against Jewish Oral Tradition:

Click to expand...

But Jesus did declare all foods clean - Mark 7:19. Cleanliness isn't a ritualistic matter anymore, it's an issue of the heart.

clinzey said:

But Jesus did declare all foods clean - Mark 7:19. Cleanliness isn't a ritualistic matter anymore, it's an issue of the heart.

Click to expand...

If a Jew today were to talk about "food" do you think for one second that they are referring to pork?

Never

If he endorsed eating something like pork, you'd think the Pharisees would have had a $%^& fit over it? -THAT- would have been recorded in the Bible

NOW looking at the entirety of the verse:

1 Then the Pharisees, and some of the scribes gathered together to him, having come from Jerusalem.
2 Now when they saw some of his disciples eating bread ((NOTE: He was eating BREAD. Not ritually unclean food.)) with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands, they found fault.
3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, don’t eat unless they wash their hands and forearms, holding to the tradition of the elders.
4 They don’t eat when they come from the marketplace, unless they bathe themselves, and there are many other things, which they have received to hold to: washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.) ((NOTE: This is found nowhere in the Torah, so this must be an issue of the oral tradition. See "tradition of the elders"? This in Aramaic or Hebrew would be the Gemara of the Fathers, i.e. part of the works that were later compiled as the Talmud.))
5 The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why don’t your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?”((NOTE: No pork, no shellfish. Bread ))

6 He answered them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
‘This people honors me with their lips,
But their heart is far from me.

7 But in vain do they worship me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8 “For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men—the 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 Qorbani”’
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.”

14 He called all the multitude to himself, and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand.
15 There is nothing from outside of the man, that going into him can defile him; ((NOTE: Paranoid rigorous washing of hands anyone?)) but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.
16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”

17 When he had entered into a house away from the multitude, his disciples asked him about the parable.
18 He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Don’t you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can’t defile him,
19 because it doesn’t go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all food clean?” ((NOTE: He would have not called pork or shellfish "food." ))
20 He said, “That which proceeds out of the man, that defiles the man.
21 For from within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins, murders, thefts,
22 covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil eye ((NOTE: An "evil" eye is a very Jewish idea.)), blasphemy, pride, and foolishness.
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”

Click to expand...

Pharisees made NO distinction between ritual impurity and moral sin, believing that they were one in the same. As a result, the Talmud declares tax collectors, gentiles, and samaritan women (people they saw as moral sinners) as ritually unclean, completely against what is found in the Torah.

For example:

If taxgatherers entered a house all that is within it becomes unclean; even if a gentile was with them, they may be believed if they say `We did not enter,' but (if a gentile was with them) they may not be believed if they say `We entered but we touched naught.' If thieves entered a house only that part is unclean that was trodden by the feet of the thieves
-- M.Tohoroth 7:6.

Click to expand...

Jesus contradicted this notion, he not declare everything ritually clean, he declared that nothing was ritually unclean in and of itself like the Rabbim declared. Paul, who was a Pharisee, originally believing in these oral traditions, was convinced by Jesus' idea:

Romans 14:14

14 I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; except that to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Click to expand...

"Him who considers anything to be unclean" would be the Pharisee who follows the rabbinic practices (like the one about tax collectors I have stated above), not someone who doesn't eat pork because God in the Torah says not to eat pork

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

The Thadman said:

Now looking at the entirety of the verse:

Pharisees made NO distinction between ritual impurity and moral sin, believing that they were one in the same.

Click to expand...

I have looked at the entire verse. While it begins over a discussion over ritual washing, it ends on a note about all foods. By not washing then the food consumed by unclean hands becomes unclean, no? Jesus said that nothing going into a man from the outside can defile - he never said "except for pork and shellfish."

seangoh said:

Hi trucker, first off, i'm SDA so let me put things in proper perspective.
I believe that Jesus died for my sins and He did everything possible to save us. We didn't have to do anything. IOW, i'm just sitting down here typing away knowing that God had done something that i couldn't do. He saved the world and that if i believe and accept it, i will be saved.

Now with this knowledge, i know that i am saved and so i'm extremely grateful! So the next question is "what do i do??" or "what is the proper response?" or "what do you want me to do Lord?". Of course i know i'm already saved, but i just want to do something that is pleasing to God in this life and i want to make sure it is. So the guidelines that i see are in the 10 commandments which of course includes the Sabbath commandment.

I see it often that if couples are so in love with each other, they would do anything to make the other happy. This would include asking "i know you love me already and i'm grateful for you BUT what can i do to make you happy?i really want to behave in a proper way and to please you"

Jesus represented human race in saving us. And i am certain that he wouldn't leave us without any guidelines in ways we could express ourselves such that it would be pleasing to Him. The 10 commandments are essentially the guidelines in this world to please Him. They DO NOT replace the sacrifice of Jesus nor do they provide salvation to us. It is just a proper response!

Lastly, christians would agree that the whole salvation message is wrapped up in one word "Love".

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. " Matt 22:37-40

I would propose a hierarchy of commandments if you will.
At the top level you have LOVE.
The second level you have love to God, and love to neighbor. In verse 40 it goes on to say "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
So the third level would be the 10 commandments. 1st 4 commandments describes our response to God. Last 6 describes our response to our neighbor.
Is there a 4th level? Yes. When Jesus came, he demonstrated what the 4th level was. He came to earth to demonstrate the SPIRIT of the law. Note that the 3rd level (10 commandments) is the LETTER of the law. And the religious leaders of that day were just keeping the LETTER without the SPIRIT. So one purpose Jesus came was to re-introduce the SPIRIT into the law and to teach them the proper way of true obedience. So the 4th level would be like "You murder too if you have angry thoughts against your brother". IOW, it gets more specific as you go down the levels. But yet, the top level is LOVE. That's why i say, LOVE is enough. But do not forget how many things would be hanging on that word LOVE.

If i am truly grateful for Jesus' death for me on the cross, i would bother to ask "what do you want me to do Lord?You did everything and i just want to live a pleasing life wholly and acceptable to you". Jesus answers "If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15. John goes on to say "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous."1 John 5:3

I've been an SDA all my life and his commandments provide freedom (James 1:25) and satisfaction to my life because i know it is pleasing to Him. There is nothing more i can do than to obey because i know Jesus saved me already.

Hope you get a better picture of SDAs. Of course some demonstrate in such a way that the 10 commandments are SOO necessary as if they are necessary for salvation but it's not what we believe.

Click to expand...

seangoh,

Thank you very much for your response.

Would you care to comment on John 15:10 for me please?

SDA use John 14:15 to imply that keeping the 10 commandments are a requirement of salvation (proof of salvation or maintenance if you will). Special imphas on the 4th, of course. But SDA people never heard of John 15:10. Jesus says keep my commandmenst and Jesus says He kept His Father's commandments. We agree that Jesus kept the 10 commandments. So what are the commandments that Jesus said for us to keep?

This also presents another problem. Namely, the trinity. Jesus the Son can not be the Father or the Holy Spirit. You can not say "my" and "my father" are the same person. Therefore "my commandments" and "my Father's commandments" can not be the same.

trucker

John 20:26: NO WORSHIP. It says after 8 days. If his first appearance was on a Sunday, his next would be on a Monday if the period of time was 8 days. This does not help your case

Thadman,

You are not counting the way the Jews did and are using their statement with todays method. Use one method only. If yyou use their statement count the way they did, or make a correct assement using after 7 days the way we count today.

trucker

trucker said:

John 20:26: NO WORSHIP. It says after 8 days. If his first appearance was on a Sunday, his next would be on a Monday if the period of time was 8 days. This does not help your case

Thadman,

You are not counting the way the Jews did and are using their statement with todays method. Use one method only. If yyou use their statement count the way they did, or make a correct assement using after 7 days the way we count today.

trucker

Click to expand...

How am I miscounting with Jewish days? I was counting sundown to sundown.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

clinzey said:

I have looked at the entire verse. While it begins over a discussion over ritual washing, it ends on a note about all foods. By not washing then the food consumed by unclean hands becomes unclean, no? Jesus said that nothing going into a man from the outside can defile - he never said "except for pork and shellfish."

Click to expand...

First and foremostly: Washing one's hands has nothing to do with the ritual cleanliness of the food one consumes. This is nowhere in the Torah, and is part of the oral traditions of the Pharisees that Jesus rebuffed. His commentary was speaking out against the Pharisees' belief that not washing one's hands makes what they eat ritually unclean, and by what he said we know that he didn't change a single jot or tittle of the Torah.

Secondly: Unclean animals were NOT food to a Jew.

Leviticus 11:46-47:
46 “‘This is the Torah on the animal, and of the bird, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth,
47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the living thing that is may be eaten (food) and the living thing that may not be eaten. (not food)’”

Click to expand...

Deuteronomy 14:3
3 You shall not eat any abominable thing.

Click to expand...

Therefore, to imply from this that we can now partake of animals that God has deemed not to be food (not to mention unclean) is a contradiction to the entire situation.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

The Thadman said:

Secondly: Unclean animals were NOT food to a Jew.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this point. If Jews did not view it as food (even forbidden food) then there would be no need for an injunction against it. And as Paul says, "Food does not bring us near to God."

Mark 7

18 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,
19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

Thus He declared all foods clean... This part is there in the text, it was written by Mark, I think it's pretty clear to me.

Double post..

clinzey said:

I disagree with this point. If Jews did not view it as food (even forbidden food) then there would be no need for an injunction against it. And as Paul says, "Food does not bring us near to God."

Click to expand...

There had to be an injunction against the rabbinic declaration of something as inherently unclean that was inherently clean to begin with.

Food does not bring us closer to God, because the Pharisees believed that by following their oral tradition (their additional purity laws) they were closer to God, that God was obligated by their "higher state of purity" to tend to them first. What do you think Pharisee means? Separated one, separated from humanity and closer to God

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Andre said:

Mark 7

18 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,
19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

Thus He declared all foods clean... This part is there in the text, it was written by Mark, I think it's pretty clear to me.

Click to expand...

That's a Markan parenthesis which the majority of scholars will agree is not part of the original text. The rest would agree that it is Mark's own private interpretation, as the other two Syntopic Gospels do not have such a remark. Mark did not know Jesus, and as a result was not present when these words were spoken.

In short, do we hinge on the words of Mark or God?

Additionally, the issue still stands that Levitically unclean animals were not food to a Jew, God forbade it. The entire debate started over eating bread with un-ritually-washed hands. There is no record of Jesus ever partaking of any food that was ritually unclean, nor record of any of the Apostles or his Disciples either. This would have made a HUGE stir in the Jewish population, and there would have been some record of it.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

The Thadman said:

That's a Markan parenthesis which the majority of scholars will agree is not part of the original text. The rest would agree that it is Mark's own private interpretation, as the other two Syntopic Gospels do not have such a remark. Mark did not know Jesus, and as a result was not present when these words were spoken.

In short, do we hinge on the words of Mark or God?

Additionally, the issue still stands that Levitically unclean animals were not food to a Jew, God forbade it. The entire debate started over eating bread with un-ritually-washed hands. There is no record of Jesus ever partaking of any food that was ritually unclean, nor record of any of the Apostles or his Disciples either. This would have made a HUGE stir in the Jewish population, and there would have been some record of it.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Click to expand...

That's where you an I might dissagree, I don't see a contratiction there, and I take everything in the Bible as the Word of God and not the interpretation of the writer.

2 Timothy 2:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;


1 Timothy 4
3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;
5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

If it was sanctified it wasn't clean before, it has been made clean.

The foods have been declared unclean to the nation of Israel for a reson, to serve as a shadow of things to come (Col 2:16) it wasn't like that before the Law, remember Noah, God told him when He made a covenant with Noah that he could eat anything.


Genesis 9
2 "The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.
3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.