Should Christians Be Keeping the Sabbath?

[metis]

First. lets address "the law" , as applies to the Jews. Jews do not keep the law as it was originally given in the Torah. The Talmudic tradition of the law, developed in the first century AD, eliminated and changed many parts of the law. As an example, I know of no Jewish communities that sacrifice animals,or Jews that segregate menstruating women during their time. So, Judaism itself has changed the law.

The Talmud does not in any way replace or change the Law. What it does do is to try and help to apply the Law in everyday life for Jews. Some aspects of the Law are null and void at this point because certain conditions may not apply, such as the fact that we do not perform animal/grain sacrifices at the Temple because the Temple no longer exists. The death penalty applied to our life in the desert whereas we had no jails or prisons, but once they were built, the penalties as stated in Torah became viewed as maximum penalties. Does it not say in the Writings of the Prophets that we should show mercy? Didn't Jesus say the same thing?

As for Christians , As I have said elsewhere, quoting Christ, he has fulfilled the law. What did he mean ? One of the definitions of fulfill is to "satisfy".

I would suggest that the only way to "fulfill" the Law is to follow it. If Jesus taught otherwise, then he is a "false prophet" as stated in the Tanakh, which also states that the Law is "forever" and "perpetual".

If I murder someone, the law identifies my crime and demands my capture. The law demands I have a trial, when convicted, the law demands my punishment, when I am executed, the law is fulfilled, satisfied. It is impossible for the law to have any more effect on me. For me, the law ceases to exist.

Since I assume you're a gentile, it doesn't apply to you anyway. Also, how can the Law cease to exist when God through the prophets said it's forever and perpetual?

Now then, we all are guilty of heinous crimes before the law of the Torah. We all deserve death for these crimes. Christ, in our place, lived the law perfectly totally without sin, through him we have and will be sinless before the law. The punishment for those crimes that we deserve before the law, he received, his death, was ours. All the demands of the law are totally fulfilled. In his death, we are dead to the law, it can have no further authority over us. The law still exists, it is forever, and those who put themselves under it, rejecting Christ's substitute live and death, must attempt to follow it, and receive it's punishments. For the Christian, there is a new law, as Paul said, "he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law " To paraphrase Martin Luther, " in Christ, it is as if I lived his life, breathed his breath, lived his life, suffered his pain, experienced his crucifixion, died his death, and was raised with him from the dead".

Tell us, which aspect of Jesus supposedly was this final sacrifice, the human aspect or the supposed divine aspect? Can't be the human because human sacrifices have never been allowed in Judaism. And how is it that God can supposedly be sacrificed for God?

What you are doing is to take a theological construct and believing it at the literal level, which really doesn't make sense no matter how one tries to twist it. IOW, there's symbolism involved, so the "final sacrifice" only makes sense on that level. And at the literal level it makes no logical sense. How does one man's execution "atone" for another? Going by that, all prisons should be opened up to all Christians to leave who are in there because they're forgiven, plus any crime committed by a Christian should never be prosecuted since they're supposedly forgiven already. How does that make any sense?

Anyhow, what you believe in is fine for you, so I'm just going to move on as it doesn't apply to me.

Take care, and have a nice weekend.

 

[metis]

I would suggest that before you chastise, you look at the links in relation to the discussion. They have nothing to do with my religious beliefs, nor am I attempting to proselytize anyone to anything.,

What?! Did you not write post #734?

 

[rosends]

"Jews do not keep the law as it was originally given in the Torah. The Talmudic tradition of the law, developed in the first century AD, eliminated and changed many parts of the law. As an example, I know of no Jewish communities that sacrifice animals,or Jews that segregate menstruating women during their time. So, Judaism itself has changed the law."

This is a matter of your opinion so please do not post it as fact. Judaism accepts that the oral law is contemporary with and complementary to the written law and that neither can exist or be followed without the other. Claiming Judaism "changed" the law shows a judgement of Judaism full of bias.

As to the date line, here is some reading about it (this is not a new issue). The Sabbath, the International Date Line and Jewish Law - How does the change in Samoa affect Sabbath for the local Jews? - Shabbat

As for "fulfill" meaning "satisfy", that definition works when there is a specific and discrete obligation which can be satisfied/fulfilled. But adherence to a law is not a singular obligation. If I don;t kill someone on a Tuesday, I am still obligated to follow the law on Wednesday. Nothng has been "fulfilled". If law is eternal (as it claims it is) then no one can be made exempt because it is "satisfied" espcially vicariously.

 

[rosends]

True, but the dateline phenomenon remains intriguing.

Yup. Try this site The Sabbath, the International Date Line and Jewish Law - How does the change in Samoa affect Sabbath for the local Jews? - Shabbat

and this one (stay out of Hawaii on Passover)

halacha - Halakhic International Date Line issues - Mi Yodeya

 

[shmogie]

"Jews do not keep the law as it was originally given in the Torah. The Talmudic tradition of the law, developed in the first century AD, eliminated and changed many parts of the law. As an example, I know of no Jewish communities that sacrifice animals,or Jews that segregate menstruating women during their time. So, Judaism itself has changed the law."

This is a matter of your opinion so please do not post it as fact. Judaism accepts that the oral law is contemporary with and complementary to the written law and that neither can exist or be followed without the other. Claiming Judaism "changed" the law shows a judgement of Judaism full of bias.

As to the date line, here is some reading about it (this is not a new issue). The Sabbath, the International Date Line and Jewish Law - How does the change in Samoa affect Sabbath for the local Jews? - Shabbat

As for "fulfill" meaning "satisfy", that definition works when there is a specific and discrete obligation which can be satisfied/fulfilled. But adherence to a law is not a singular obligation. If I don;t kill someone on a Tuesday, I am still obligated to follow the law on Wednesday. Nothng has been "fulfilled". If law is eternal (as it claims it is) then no one can be made exempt because it is "satisfied" espcially vicariously.

 

[shmogie]

Well then it should be easy to determine if Judaism at some point modified the law. Lets take my examples. As required in the Torah, do Jews sacrifice animals for remission of sin ? Do they segregate menstruating women ? There are many other examples. Bias, what bias ? The law kept from Moses to c. 70 AD is not kept as itoriginally was at the time of Moses
Either this is true, or it isn't. Any etherial "bias" has nothing to do with it.
As to vicariously fulfilling the requirements of the law through Christ, your
'
'

"Jews do not keep the law as it was originally given in the Torah. The Talmudic tradition of the law, developed in the first century AD, eliminated and changed many parts of the law. As an example, I know of no Jewish communities that sacrifice animals,or Jews that segregate menstruating women during their time. So, Judaism itself has changed the law."

This is a matter of your opinion so please do not post it as fact. Judaism accepts that the oral law is contemporary with and complementary to the written law and that neither can exist or be followed without the other. Claiming Judaism "changed" the law shows a judgement of Judaism full of bias.

As to the date line, here is some reading about it (this is not a new issue). The Sabbath, the International Date Line and Jewish Law - How does the change in Samoa affect Sabbath for the local Jews? - Shabbat

As for "fulfill" meaning "satisfy", that definition works when there is a specific and discrete obligation which can be satisfied/fulfilled. But adherence to a law is not a singular obligation. If I don;t kill someone on a Tuesday, I am still obligated to follow the law on Wednesday. Nothng has been "fulfilled". If law is eternal (as it claims it is) then no one can be made exempt because it is "satisfied" espcially vicariously.

 

[metis]

Well then it should be easy to determine if Judaism at some point modified the law. Lets take my examples. As required in the Torah, do Jews sacrifice animals for remission of sin ?

That has already been explained to you. It was not us who destroyed the Temple, so we had to deal with what has existed. Also, the Temple sacrifices are only one way in which our sins can be forgiven by God.

Do they segregate menstruating women ?

I'll let rosends deal with this.


[QUOTEThere are many other examples. Bias, what bias ? The law kept from Moses to c. 70 AD is not kept as itoriginally was at the time of Moses
Either this is true, or it isn't. Any etherial "bias" has nothing to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
Are you Jewish whereas you try to keep the Law? Do you attend synagogues to quiz Jews about how they may or may not observe the Law? Do you go to the homes of Jews to see exactly how they may or may not observe the Law? If not, how can you possibly know what current Jews do or don't do?

 

[shmogie]

ni

Well then it should be easy to determine if Judaism at some point modified the law. Lets take my examples. As required in the Torah, do Jews sacrifice animals for remission of sin ? Do they segregate menstruating women ? There are many other examples. Bias, what bias ? The law kept from Moses to c. 70 AD is not kept as it originally was at the time of Moses
Either this is true, or it isn't. Any etherial "bias" has nothing to do with it.
As to vicariously fulfilling the requirements of the law through Christ, your opinion is noted, but I will defer to the true authorities on the matter, Christ, and Paul, the other Apostles, the Reformers, the Evangelists, in total
A covenant is a contract, you do this, I will do that, quid pro quo. A covenant was entered at Sinai between God and the people of the world through the Jews. A sign of this covenant was singularly given to the Jews, the sabbath, as a remembrance of their place as the chosen people of God, and their responsibility to share the knowledge of God to the world. They failed. Consequently the old covenant was fulfilled in Christ, and a new covenant was entered into between God and man. The old covenant still exists, and will continue to exist forever in its complete and fulfilled state. Israel was promised a Messiah, and when they realize Yeshua is he, they will resume their rightful place and partake of the new covenant.
'
'

 

[shmogie]

That has already been explained to you. It was not us who destroyed the Temple, so we had to deal with what has existed. Also, the Temple sacrifices are only one way in which our sins can be forgiven by God.




I'll let rosends deal with this.


[QUOTEThere are many other examples. Bias, what bias ? The law kept from Moses to c. 70 AD is not kept as itoriginally was at the time of Moses
Either this is true, or it isn't. Any etherial "bias" has nothing to do with it.

Are you Jewish whereas you try to keep the Law? Do you attend synagogues to quiz Jews about how they may or may not observe the Law? Do you go to the homes of Jews to see exactly how they may or may not observe the Law? If not, how can you possibly know what current Jews do or don't do?[/QUOTE]
Well then, tell me I am wrong. Tell me that the law is kept, as written at Sinai, by the Jewish community, and I will happily retract my assertion. It is a moot point to me, I am a Christian Gentile, under a different law. If Jews believe they are keeping the law and have not modified or amended it, they are entitled to the conviction of their belief.

 

[shmogie]

The Talmud does not in any way replace or change the Law. What it does do is to try and help to apply the Law in everyday life for Jews. Some aspects of the Law are null and void at this point because certain conditions may not apply, such as the fact that we do not perform animal/grain sacrifices at the Temple because the Temple no longer exists. The death penalty applied to our life in the desert whereas we had no jails or prisons, but once they were built, the penalties as stated in Torah became viewed as maximum penalties. Does it not say in the Writings of the Prophets that we should show mercy? Didn't Jesus say the same thing?



I would suggest that the only way to "fulfill" the Law is to follow it. If Jesus taught otherwise, then he is a "false prophet" as stated in the Tanakh, which also states that the Law is "forever" and "perpetual".



Since I assume you're a gentile, it doesn't apply to you anyway. Also, how can the Law cease to exist when God through the prophets said it's forever and perpetual?



Tell us, which aspect of Jesus supposedly was this final sacrifice, the human aspect or the supposed divine aspect? Can't be the human because human sacrifices have never been allowed in Judaism. And how is it that God can supposedly be sacrificed for God?

What you are doing is to take a theological construct and believing it at the literal level, which really doesn't make sense no matter how one tries to twist it. IOW, there's symbolism involved, so the "final sacrifice" only makes sense on that level. And at the literal level it makes no logical sense. How does one man's execution "atone" for another? Going by that, all prisons should be opened up to all Christians to leave who are in there because they're forgiven, plus any crime committed by a Christian should never be prosecuted since they're supposedly forgiven already. How does that make any sense?

Anyhow, what you believe in is fine for you, so I'm just going to move on as it doesn't apply to me.

Take care, and have a nice weekend.

 

[shmogie]

Allow me to respond. If you believe that a change in circumstances allows a change in adherence to the law, that is your belief.

Adam, a perfectly created human, a representative of all humanity, with no propensity to sin, made a cold calculated choice to sin. Only a person with Adam's perfect, prefall nature is capable of living a perfect life, and mitigating the sin of all Adams his descendants. Paul says Adam convicted all of sin, the second Adam, Christ, redeemed them of this sin
See the 13th chapter of Romans. All must must suffer the consequences of breaking human laws. The state of the soul is between God and man and is no excuse for not following civil law.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See the 13th chapter of Romans.

Why would Romans 13 be deemed at all authoritative?

 

[metis]

Well then, tell me I am wrong. Tell me that the law is kept, as written at Sinai, by the Jewish community, and I will happily retract my assertion. It is a moot point to me, I am a Christian Gentile, under a different law. If Jews believe they are keeping the law and have not modified or amended it, they are entitled to the conviction of their belief.

A great many Jews do try and keep the Law as closely as possible.

 

[metis]

Allow me to respond. If you believe that a change in circumstances allows a change in adherence to the law, that is your belief.

Adam, a perfectly created human, a representative of all humanity, with no propensity to sin, made a cold calculated choice to sin. Only a person with Adam's perfect, prefall nature is capable of living a perfect life, and mitigating the sin of all Adams his descendants. Paul says Adam convicted all of sin, the second Adam, Christ, redeemed them of this sin
See the 13th chapter of Romans. All must must suffer the consequences of breaking human laws. The state of the soul is between God and man and is no excuse for not following civil law.

So, if your great grandfather committed murder, should we execute you? That's the craziness of the concept of "original sin".

"Sin" means to "miss the mark", in this context a violation of what God has commanded, so how can a new-born "sin"?

 

[rosends]

Well then it should be easy to determine if Judaism at some point modified the law.

Actually, it wouldn't be. If the Jewish belief is that the oral law was given and made applicable simultaneously with the written one, you can't ever make the claim that the law was changed, only that the application of law changed to conform to other legal subtleties as the situation changed. Here's an example ignoring oral law -- Moses gives a rule about the Passover and ritual purity. Then some guys come and say "Hey, we were impure...what do we do?" Moses then checks with God and says "have a Passover a month later." This is not a change in law, but an application of law differently because there was more to the law than the simple "have a Passover." Now, take a situation where the text says "an eye for an eye" and yet no one textually ever had an eye taken out. Instead of saying that the law was changed, one can say that the law, even as given, was explained by another set of code. Unless you have a thing about eyes being plucked out. I don't.

Lets take my examples. As required in the Torah, do Jews sacrifice animals for remission of sin ?

Well, actually, animal sacrifice only dealt with a small group of sins, and even then, animals were never required (a meal offering sufficed). Textually, the sacrifice had to be brought in a state of ritual purity and at the place which God chose, the temple in Jerusalem. The lack of ritual purity and lack of a temple require that we fall back to another law. Not a change in the law, just another law.

Do they segregate menstruating women ?

In Orthodox Judaism, men and women don't touch during the 7 days of a woman's menstruation and for 7 days afterwards, until the woman goes to a ritual bath. This is actually a rabbinic extension of the law because, as said earlier, since there is no ritual purity, a woman's menstruant state isn't the worst of our purity problems. But we follow the law anyway.[/quote]

The law kept from Moses to c. 70 AD is not kept as itoriginally was at the time of Moses
Either this is true, or it isn't. Any etherial "bias" has nothing to do with it.

OK. It isn't true. That was easy.

As to vicariously fulfilling the requirements of the law through Christ, your opinion is noted, but I will defer to the true authorities on the matter, Christ, and Paul, the other Apostles, the Reformers, the Evangelists, in total.
A covenant is a contract, you do this, I will do that, quid pro quo. A covenant was entered at Sinai between God and the people of the world through the Jews. A sign of this covenant was singularly given to the Jews, the sabbath, as a remembrance of their place as the chosen people of God, and their responsibility to share the knowledge of God to the world. They failed. Consequently the old covenant was fulfilled in Christ, and a new covenant was entered into between God and man. The old covenant still exists, and will continue to exist forever in its complete and fulfilled state. Israel was promised a Messiah, and when they realize Yeshua is he, they will resume their rightful place and partake of the new covenant.
'

Your opinion is noted but it fails in terms of the people cited (non-authorities) and the linguistic angle which does not equate "fulfill" with "satisfy" for an on-going obligation.
Also, the sabbath continues to be remember by Jews. It starts at 8:10 pm tonight around here. The assessment that Jews failed is incorrect. And no covenant can be "satisfied" by a person if it is made with a group.

And you should check your Hebrew -- the only name in the text similar to the one you say is actually pronounced "yeyshuwa" not "Yeshua".

 

[shmogie]

So, if your great grandfather committed murder, should we execute you? That's the craziness of the concept of "original sin".

"Sin" means to "miss the mark", in this context a violation of what God has commanded, so how can a new-born "sin"?[/QUO
Once again, you confuse the issue of humans relating to the law of humans, and the issue of the spiritual nature relating to God. A newborn has committed no crime. A newborn deserves no human punishment. "Scripture says ALL have come short of the glory of God" ALL. Christ said, if I be lifted up, I will draw ALL men unto me", ALL,. Human nature is inherently evil. You may believe that all means some, and you may believe that we are all blank slates, who jump from good to evil and back again by sin, forgiveness, sin forgiveness ad infinitum, but I do not. Man is at enmity with God by our sinful natures. Doing all the good things we can and fighting our natures, till we fail, and we always do, is a nonsensical way to have peace with God. There are people careening toward sin, and sinful people under this system. In Proverbs, I think, it says " there are none good, no, not one" Now, you may believe this is situational. none that are good becomes some that are good, then back again. Not I

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And you should check your Hebrew -- the only name in the text similar to the one you say is actually pronounced "yeyshuwa" not "Yeshua".

Huh? Why would I pronounce ישוע "yeyshuwa"?

 

[shmogie]

Actually, it wouldn't be. If the Jewish belief is that the oral law was given and made applicable simultaneously with the written one, you can't ever make the claim that the law was changed, only that the application of law changed to conform to other legal subtleties as the situation changed. Here's an example ignoring oral law -- Moses gives a rule about the Passover and ritual purity. Then some guys come and say "Hey, we were impure...what do we do?" Moses then checks with God and says "have a Passover a month later." This is not a change in law, but an application of law differently because there was more to the law than the simple "have a Passover." Now, take a situation where the text says "an eye for an eye" and yet no one textually ever had an eye taken out. Instead of saying that the law was changed, one can say that the law, even as given, was explained by another set of code. Unless you have a thing about eyes being plucked out. I don't.

Well, actually, animal sacrifice only dealt with a small group of sins, and even then, animals were never required (a meal offering sufficed). Textually, the sacrifice had to be brought in a state of ritual purity and at the place which God chose, the temple in Jerusalem. The lack of ritual purity and lack of a temple require that we fall back to another law. Not a change in the law, just another law.


In Orthodox Judaism, men and women don't touch during the 7 days of a woman's menstruation and for 7 days afterwards, until the woman goes to a ritual bath. This is actually a rabbinic extension of the law because, as said earlier, since there is no ritual purity, a woman's menstruant state isn't the worst of our purity problems. But we follow the law anyway.

OK. It isn't true. That was easy.

Your opinion is noted but it fails in terms of the people cited (non-authorities) and the linguistic angle which does not equate "fulfill" with "satisfy" for an on-going obligation.
Also, the sabbath continues to be remember by Jews. It starts at 8:10 pm tonight around here. The assessment that Jews failed is incorrect. And no covenant can be "satisfied" by a person if it is made with a group.

And you should check your Hebrew -- the only name in the text similar to the one you say is actually pronounced "yeyshuwa" not "Yeshua".[/QUOTE]

 

[metis]

Once again, you confuse the issue of humans relating to the law of humans, and the issue of the spiritual nature relating to God.

If you believe God gave us a brain, then logic, much like mathematics with physics, should work The idea that God made junk when He made humans doesn't show up in the Torah, nor does it say anywhere there that we need some sort of human or divine sacrifice in order to be forgiven.

Therefore, the concept of "original sin" fails no matter how one looks at it. It defies what the scriptures say about humans, namely that we are "a little lower than the angels". It defies what is described about what "sin" actually is. It defies even basic logic about being responsible for our sins. It defies what Torah actually says about the issue of forgiveness.

Only a blind belief in an absurd teaching that's minus any logic whatsoever makes it acceptable.

 

[shmogie]

OK. It isn't true. That was easy.

Your opinion is noted but it fails in terms of the people cited (non-authorities) and the linguistic angle which does not equate "fulfill" with "satisfy" for an on-going obligation.
Also, the sabbath continues to be remember by Jews. It starts at 8:10 pm tonight around here. The assessment that Jews failed is incorrect. And no covenant can be "satisfied" by a person if it is made with a group.

And you should check your Hebrew -- the only name in the text similar to the one you say is actually pronounced "yeyshuwa" not "Yeshua".

[/QUOTE]
Last, first, I am not too concerned about Hebrew, I am much more concerned about New Testament Greek.
You think Paul is not an authority ? He was a Pharisee, educated in Jerusalem by one of the great Rabbi's of the time, and he worked hand in hand with the Temple leaders in murdering Christians. His knowledge and zeal of and for Judaism cannot be questioned. I would humbly suggest that both were probably in excess of yours.,
As to your definition of a covenant. Wrong, a covenant relationship can exist between individuals, between groups, or any combination thereof. A covenant is a legal agreement, a promise based upon certain actions.
As to the "linguistic angles", re fulfill and satisfy, I know English, I know the NT Greek I am not wrong.
The Jews didn't fail ? At the time of the Diaspora, they had converted very few Gentiles. They became a self centered, inward looking people, more content to treat outsiders as barbarians and unclean, they had become a petty argumentative people. Swept away by the Romans. 12 men, in 400 years, did more to show the love and mercy of God to the world than the entire Jewish nation did in 2500 years. Oh yes, they failed.