Enemy's enemies are your friends - jews and Christians, unlikely friendship

[Muffled]

Muslims don't believe in the Trinity, which it looks like you are trying to claim.

I believe I am not claiming that. The Trinity is not three Gods but the Muslims say it is and that is why they don't believe in it but in doing so they are doing the very thing the Quaran forbids them to do ie say the Trinity is three Gods.

 

[Muffled]

The problem with that claim is, how can I know that no prophet ever said so?

I believe you would have to read them all.

 

[1213]

I believe you would have to read them all.

That is true.

But, now that we have the scripture that tells about person who claims there is a prophecy about something, it is more difficult to me to believe that person would make up the claim, when it would have been easy for those present to see it as a lie.

 

[1213]

That's not much of an explanation, though. First Jesus say one can only reach God through him, then he says everyone can reach God directly?

Jesus taught that we should pray like this:

Pray like this: 'Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy.
Matt. 6:9

So, we can pray God directly. Also, Jesus doesn’t say we should pray him.

Why? Because God said to do so. That's the first and foremost reason, before any other. It says so right there in the Torah.

Ok, and please show the scripture and the scripture that tells why we should do so?

Of course you would think so. Because it fits well with Christianity's view that God has left Israel. …

Why would that be a Christian view? Jews have been scattered all over the world and only a short time ago they have been coming back to their country, as told in the Bible.

… if you will not listen to me, and will not do all these commandments; and if you shall reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant; I also will do this to you: I will appoint terror over you, even consumption and fever, that shall consume the eyes, and make the soul to pine away; and you will sow your seed in vain, for your enemies will eat it.
Leviticus 26:14-16

I will scatter you among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land will be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.
Leviticus 26:33

Jews broke the covenant and were scattered as God had told. But it doesn’t mean Israel is totally rejected by God.

Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them; for I am Yahweh their God; but I will for their sake remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God. I am Yahweh.'"
Leviticus 26:44-45

It shall happen, when all these things are come on you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you shall call them to mind among all the nations, where Yahweh your God has driven you, and shall return to Yahweh your God, and shall obey his voice according to all that I command you this day, you and your children, with all your heart, and with all your soul; that then Yahweh your God will turn your captivity, and have compassion on you, and will return and gather you from all the peoples, where Yahweh your God has scattered you. If any of your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of the heavens, from there will Yahweh your God gather you, and from there will he bring you back:
Deuteronomy 30:1-4

God clearly keeps His promises and doesn’t reject Israel, even if Jews have rejected God.

 

[Harel13]

Ok, and please show the scripture and the scripture that tells why we should do so?

"And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates." (Deut. 6:6-9)
"And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is at this day." (Deut. 6:24)

So, we can pray God directly. Also, Jesus doesn’t say we should pray him.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.
John 14:6

Nope, not seeing what you're saying.

Why would that be a Christian view? Jews have been scattered all over the world and only a short time ago they have been coming back to their country, as told in the Bible.

Why would it not be a Christian view? We believe God has not left us, no matter how much we've sinned in the past. Christians, however, believe Paul's twisting up of the original verse to be the truth - that God has "turned away from Israel". Paul invented verses to further a Christian agenda - that's anti-Judaism!

Now, to go back to where we started off from, you claimed Jews should be the same as Christians. I see no reason why this should be so: Christians believe God has rejected Israel, Christians believe in a text that purposefully misquotes the Tanach, Christians don't keep all but one of the many, many commandments in the Torah, Christians believe in Jesus as some kind of mediator to god. Jews do not believe any of this.

In conclusion, there's no point in believing that Jews and Christians should be friends because of supposed similarities between the groups. Friendship may or may not exist, but not for any of those reasons.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The problem with that claim is, how can I know that no prophet ever said so?

The prophets are right there in the Good Book for you to read at your leisure. At least the parts of what they said that God thought important enough to pass down to future generations.

 

[1213]

"And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates." (Deut. 6:6-9)

"And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is at this day." (Deut. 6:24)

I can agree with the Deut. 6:6-9. That tells we should always keep His words in our heart. I think it is good and in no way in contradiction with the NT. I think NT confirms it.

Deut. 6:24 is telling that we should do all the statues for God to preserve us alive. I think that is still valid. But does anyone do it 100 %, even any Jew? Jeremiah says Jews broke that covenant, what do you think it means? Can person do it on his own, or would he need the new covenant that is told in these:

Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. Yahweh your God will put all these curses on your enemies, and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. You shall return and obey the voice of Yahweh, and do all his commandments which I command you this day. Yahweh your God will make you plenteous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your ground, for good: for Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers;
Deuteronomy 30:6-9

Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Yahweh. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says Yahweh: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.
Jeremiah 31:31-34

What do you think, are Deuteronomy 30:6-9 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 valid and true? What do you think it means?

Bible tells that to get eternal life, one must be righteous. And person can become righteous by words Jesus declared. And when person is righteous, it means this:

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

Now, this doesn’t mean that Deut. 6:24 is not true or valid. It means, if one can’t do it on his own, there is help for one to become righteous and have the law written in persons heart.

It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

Nope, not seeing what you're saying.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.
John 14:6

That doesn’t mean one must pray or worship Jesus. It means, through Jesus it is declared forgiveness of sins, which opens the possibility to come back to God. But again, as Jesus said, it is not his teachings, but what God had commanded him to speak.

Why would it not be a Christian view? We believe God has not left us, no matter how much we've sinned in the past. Christians, however, believe Paul's twisting up of the original verse to be the truth - that God has "turned away from Israel". Paul invented verses to further a Christian agenda - that's anti-Judaism!

To me Christian means a disciple of Jesus. And person who is truly a disciple, remains in the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

But, can Paul still be correct? After all, we can all see from history what has happened to Jews and Israel. Jerusalem was destroyed and Jews scattered. I think that can be seen as God turning away. But I don’t think Christians should believe God has rejected Israel. And by what I know, Paul doesn’t say God has utterly rejected Israel.

Now, to go back to where we started off from, you claimed Jews should be the same as Christians. I see no reason why this should be so: Christians believe God has rejected Israel, Christians believe in a text that purposefully misquotes the Tanach, Christians don't keep all but one of the many, many commandments in the Torah, Christians believe in Jesus as some kind of mediator to god. Jews do not believe any of this.

I say, Christians are Jews, in Biblical point of view. Because:

but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 2:29

The words Jesus declared can cause the “circumcision of heart” that is foretold in Deuteronomy 30:6-9 and Jeremiah 31:31-34.

If person is truly a disciple of Jesus (“Christian”), he remains in the teaching of Jesus. And what Jesus tells, is not in contradiction what God has told in OT.

But, I can agree that many “Christians” have teachings that are not Biblical. many “Christians” don’t truly remain in the teachings of Jesus, but have adopted doctrines of men that are not from the Bible. And I think Jews do rightly, if they reject teachings that are in contradiction with God’s words. It is interesting that today Jews seem to be closer to God than “Christians” and the situation has turned from what it was during Jesus era. When Jesus was on earth, many Jews rejected him. Now, if Jesus would be on earth, many “Christians” would similarly reject him as heretic, so far they have come from what Jesus said.

 

[dybmh]

I say, Christians are Jews,

I say, nyet.

 

[Harel13]

I can agree with the Deut. 6:6-9. That tells we should always keep His words in our heart. I think it is good and in no way in contradiction with the NT. I think NT confirms it.

No. You agree with the "heart" part. You choose to ignore the "binding it on your arm and the frontlets on your eyes" part.

I think it is good and in no way in contradiction with the NT. I think NT confirms it.

The NT confirms the heart part. And though Jesus apparently said that one must keep all of God's commandments, Paul came and decided that there was no need. And since Christians generally believe that Paul's words came from Jesus, voila, contradiction.

But does anyone do it 100 %, even any Jew?

No. I should hope I won't ever need to give my future wife a divorce document. And I'm not a priest, so I sadly won't be able to light the Menorah, when the Temple will be rebuilt...
Jokes aside, that's a terrible excuse. Because man is fallible, one should not do his best to keep God's commandments? Stop and think for a moment: God originally gave Israel many many commandments, before any sort of "breaking of the covenant" - obviously He believed that this - and only this - was the way to connect to Him. And He knows that man is fallible - after all, He predicted in the Tanach that Israel will fall - which happened! So all of a sudden He changed His mind, said: Nope, I was wrong, gotta change course, let's delete everything?! Seriously?

What do you think, are Deuteronomy 30:6-9 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 valid and true? What do you think it means?

All true. However, I see no reason to think that the new covenant means erasing all the commandments, no longer needing to keep them.

if one can’t do it on his own

According to Christianity, no one can do it by themselves. Why give Torah commandments in the first place? Seems pointless.

I think that can be seen as God turning away.

And for centuries the Christians seemingly had the upper hand. Now, welcome to the year 5780 (2020 in your terms); we are back in our land of Israel, we are prospering (thankfully dealing pretty well with the virus, too), we've never lost any wars. Does that look like a nation that God has left? So I'd say Paul is incorrect.

Furthermore, none of this actually explains why Paul purposefully misquoted the Tanach. Do you deny he did that? I don't think you do. You just say it was alright for him to do that, because a, b, c, whatever. Okay, you can make up excuses for Paul. But all of that doesn't contradict the fact that Paul edited away the Bible to make it more favorable for Christianity, and that, my friend, is anti-Judaism. No way to argue that, I'm afraid.

I say, Christians are Jews

Of course you do. But Jews don't. And when I say Jews, I mean the people who don't believe in Jesus.

I'll go back to what you first wrote: You said it was stupid if either group doesn't join together with the other. Speaking as a Jew, I'll ask again: Stupid on whose side? Because as we've discussed, Jews disagree with many, many Christian views, in particular, core views. We also know how to differentiate between real Jews and certain Christians who call themselves "Jews" or "Jews inwardly" or "spiritual Jews" or whatnot. Many Christians seem to want to latch themselves onto Jews, for whatever reasons. We don't appreciate that. You do your shtick, we'll do ours. Friendship (the subject of this thread) won't exist while one group continues to claim that 'the other is the same as they are, and are just a little confused or something, but everyone are really one and the same'.

 

[1213]

…Paul came and decided that there was no need…

I think that is not true.

…Because man is fallible, one should not do his best to keep God's commandments?...

I think it is ok idea to do your best. But I hope you don’t do it by wrong motives.

…All true. However, I see no reason to think that the new covenant means erasing all the commandments, no longer needing to keep them. …

Why would it mean? If the Bible, both OT and NT say in new covenant the law is written in persons heart, I think is means it is valid and good. But, maybe there is some difference what is the God’s law.

…According to Christianity, no one can do it by themselves. Why give Torah commandments in the first place? Seems pointless…

You also said earlier that “…man is fallible…”, which I understood means no one can do it perfectly by themselves.

…And for centuries the Christians seemingly had the upper hand. Now, welcome to the year 5780 (2020 in your terms); we are back in our land of Israel, we are prospering (thankfully dealing pretty well with the virus, too), we've never lost any wars. Does that look like a nation that God has left? …

Congratulations. I hope all the best for Israel. Unfortunately, it seems there will still be some hard times for Israel. I don’t claim God has rejected Israel, and I don’t think Bible tells so.

…Furthermore, none of this actually explains why Paul purposefully misquoted the Tanach. Do you deny he did that?…

I don’t think he purposefully misquoted the Tanach.

 

[metis]

(By "friends" I here mean any kind of ally in religious terms.)

In our area, we have many Muslim students who attend Catholic schools because we both do believe in God ("Allah" in Arabic).

 

[dybmh]

Why would it mean? If the Bible, both OT and NT say in new covenant the law is written in persons heart, I think is means it is valid and good. But, maybe there is some difference what is the God’s law.

Excuse the interjection?

The most important element, which I think you're missing, is verse 32 ( in the Christian OT ). This verse describes the difference between the new covenant and the previous covenant. The new covenant will be followed.

 

[Harel13]

I think that is not true.

You are welcome to think that. So tell me, are you planning on having a Passover Seder this year, complete with unleavened bread, bitter herbs, all the works, etc? Do you pray three times a day (morning, afternoon and night)? Do you say some form of grace both before you eat and afterwards? Are you planning on fasting on Yom Kippur? Five days later, will you be sitting in a wooden hut/booth?

But I hope you don’t do it by wrong motives.

What possible "wrong" motives could there be?

But, maybe there is some difference what is the God’s law.

I don't know what you mean by this. God's law is what is described in the Torah. In Jeremiah, a "new covenant" is described, but nothing in the text states that the "old covenant" will be canceled.

You also said earlier that “…man is fallible…”, which I understood means no one can do it perfectly by themselves.

No. It means it isn't a ginormous shocker when a person succumbs to his darker side and sins - and exactly because of this, the Tanach describes how to repent.

Congratulations. I hope all the best for Israel.

Thank you. All the best to you, too.

I don’t think he purposefully misquoted the Tanach.

So he made a mistake? Okay, legit argument. But why didn't anyone ever bother to edit his words in all these nearly 2000 years of Christianity?

 

[1213]

´…
I don't know what you mean by this. God's law is what is described in the Torah. In Jeremiah, a "new covenant" is described, but nothing in the text states that the "old covenant" will be canceled…

Please notice, this means is no way that “old covenant is canceled”.

When Moses got the stone plates, they had ten commandments from God.

Yahweh said to Moses, "Write you these words: for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." He was there with Yahweh forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread, nor drank water. He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Exodus 34:27-28

As we can see, the covenant was made with ten words, the ten commandments. And I think that is clearly the God’s law and it is fulfilled by loving God and neighbor as yourself. And because it is said:

…and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

I think the law certainly is that we love others. But does the God’s law also include all the rules that are listed in the Torah? I am not sure about that. However, I don’t think there is any wrong or bad rule that person should not obey. For me the important question is, what is the reason to obey. I think only good reason is that one loves God and therefore wants to go by the rules.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

If you obey the rules only to gain salvation or eternal life, or something like that, I think that is wrong reason. And I think that is also what Jesus and Paul are teaching.

…
So he made a mistake? Okay, legit argument. But why didn't anyone ever bother to edit his words in all these nearly 2000 years of Christianity?

Sorry, I don’t see that he made a mistake. I think he is misunderstood.

 

[Harel13]

Sorry, I don’t see that he made a mistake. I think he is misunderstood.

Okay, so what did he mean?
The original verse says X, Paul apparently said it says Y. What did Paul mean when he said it says Y and not X?

As we can see, the covenant was made with ten words, the ten commandments. And I think that is clearly the God’s law and it is fulfilled by loving God and neighbor as yourself. And because it is said:

…and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

If all of the laws can be summed up by love, why bother giving other laws in the first place?

But does the God’s law also include all the rules that are listed in the Torah? I am not sure about that.

Oh, do you think that the authors of the Tanach invented the laws that appear there?

If you obey the rules only to gain salvation or eternal life, or something like that, I think that is wrong reason.

I agree. Jews agree.

 

[1213]

Okay, so what did he mean?

The original verse says X, Paul apparently said it says Y. What did Paul mean when he said it says Y and not X?

I am not sure do I remember correctly what you mean with that, but if it was about this:

For finding fault with them, he said, "Behold, the days come," says the Lord, "That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they didn't continue in my covenant, And I disregarded them," says the Lord. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days," says the Lord; "I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be to them a God, And they will be to me a people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen, Every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For all will know me, From the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more."
Hebrews 8:8-12 (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Jeremiah that we have, doesn’t have the “And I disregarded them". Now, it is possible that it has been later removed from there and that is why it would not be right to accuse Paul of speaking falsely. And, because we can see from the scriptures that God did really “disregard”, because they had later, after rejecting God, many things that show disregard. One of signs of disregard is that Jews were scattered, which God had told will happen, if they brake the covenant.

"'But if you will not listen to me, and will not do all these commandments; and if you shall reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant; I also will do this to you: I will appoint terror over you, even consumption and fever, that shall consume the eyes, and make the soul to pine away; and you will sow your seed in vain, for your enemies will eat it.
Leviticus 26:14-16

I will scatter you among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land will be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.
Leviticus 26:33

Because those did happen, I think they were disregarded and Paul is correct.

If all of the laws can be summed up by love, why bother giving other laws in the first place?

I believe the reason is that we would understand what is harmful for others.

Oh, do you think that the authors of the Tanach invented the laws that appear there?

I don’t think so. I think it is possible that they are just not the God’s law that was the part of the covenant. It may be that they are just rules for Jews, not actual God’s law. But, I may be wrong with this. I mean to say only that for me, it is not absolutely sure is the “smaller” rules also the God’s law, because when God made the covenant, it speaks only about ten commandments. Do you have something that would support the idea that all the rules are also the God’s law?

 

[Harel13]

Now, it is possible that it has been later removed from there and that is why it would not be right to accuse Paul of speaking falsely.

That's an interesting answer.

Two questions on that point:
1. To my knowledge, Christians usually accept that all of the Tanach as it is today is correct and is God's word. Yet you are of the belief that the Tanach was actually edited at some point after Paul's time, which leads to discrepancies such as this?
2. Why accept Paul's words as perfect and unedited but not Jeremiah's?

Because those did happen, I think they were disregarded and Paul is correct.

Paul may be correct about the reality of things, but that is not at all the issue at hand. The issue I'm asking you about is Paul's claim of quoting Jeremiah when in fact he changed the words. To which we go back to your above answer, that Jeremiah was edited after Paul's time.

Now I have another question on that:
3. If Jeremiah (and perhaps other parts of the Tanach) was edited after Paul's time, how come both the Jewish and the Christian versions of Jeremiah read the same, and do not contain Paul's version?

I believe the reason is that we would understand what is harmful for others

Which is? Sacrificing cows is harmful to someone? Building a small wooden hut is harmful to someone? Stringing small strings into four-cornered clothes is harmful to someone? I don't understand.

It may be that they are just rules for Jews, not actual God’s law

What are "rules for Jews" that are not created by the sages but also not actually God's law? I don't understand. Who created the rules? And did you not say that Jews are Christians and Christians are Jews? Per that definition, why should Christians be exempt from the laws?

Do you have something that would support the idea that all the rules are also the God’s law?

Certainly. Open a concordance and search the following phrase:
"The Lord spoke (/said) to Moses"
You will find that phrase (or a variant) preceding every single commandment, not just the Ten Commandments, but all of them.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Eh I dunno.. to an outsider, they appear way, way, closer to each other than they might to many other things. I realized much of this just thinking about Abrahamic faith in general on forums. (since it's usually the main topic of interest) There are so many things that surviving biblical faiths have in common at the root level, it almost can sort of make the Jesus part sort of a minor detail. Many of the major things they have in common on the other hand, are ontological in nature and of no minor consequence, and to me this is so impressive that I often find myself using the umbrella term of Abrahamism to refer the whole constellation of faiths therein. Also, where they are in disagreement they may also have much in common - in merely assigning relevance to otherwise obscure rules and concepts, whether they go one way or the other with them, lies an assumption that such items are relevant, when they may not at all be universally relevant or even given any consideration outside of the faith constellation

 

[dybmh]

I believe the reason is that we would understand what is harmful for others.

It's more than that. A lot more. The law consecrates every aspect of material life.

 

[1213]

…
1. To my knowledge, Christians usually accept that all of the Tanach as it is today is correct and is God's word.

It can be correct, even if it would be missing something.

…Yet you are of the belief that the Tanach was actually edited at some point after Paul's time, which leads to discrepancies such as this?

It may also be possible that it is some other source. After all, Paul doesn’t seem to say he is quoting Jeremiah.

…2. Why accept Paul's words as perfect and unedited but not Jeremiah's?

I think they both can be some way edited and I think it is even possible that there are parts missing. In this case I think the thought is the same, even if there is that small difference. What Paul says, comes obvious from what we can see happened.

…Paul may be correct about the reality of things, but that is not at all the issue at hand. The issue I'm asking you about is Paul's claim of quoting Jeremiah when in fact he changed the words. To which we go back to your above answer, that Jeremiah was edited after Paul's time.

I didn’t find Paul saying he is quoting Jeremiah. They are very similar, but if Jeremiah didn’t have the part Paul has, maybe he is quoting some other source. In any case, my point is only to say, by what I know, it is not possible to accuse Paul of lying, because we don’t have enough evidence for it.

…3. If Jeremiah (and perhaps other parts of the Tanach) was edited after Paul's time, how come both the Jewish and the Christian versions of Jeremiah read the same, and do not contain Paul's version?

I would say, one possible reason is that there has not remained any other version.

…What are "rules for Jews" that are not created by the sages but also not actually God's law?

My point is, the ten commandments are mentioned specifically when God made the covenant. The other rules were not, that is why I think it may be that they are not at the same level (Law, and decrees/orders). But, it is possible that I am wrong, I just don’t yet know surely how it is.

…"The Lord spoke (/said) to Moses"

You will find that phrase (or a variant) preceding every single commandment, not just the Ten Commandments, but all of them.

Yes, but it seems to me that the ten commandments are the God’s law, and the other commandments are decrees (orders how things should be done). The difference between law and orders is that if you brake the law, you deserve punishment. And if you don’t do as ordered, it doesn’t necessary mean you have broken the law. So, when we read all the commandments, do they all have some punishment determined, if one doesn’t do as the order says? If they all have punishment determined, then I think they are law and not just orders. Law is usually about “don’t do this, or you will die (or something else)” and orders are like “do this, because it is good”.