The OT = UGH

[Pegg]

Different commentators approach Hosea differently. Some say that he was a specific exception, commanded by God directly for the single instance of being a demonstrative lesson to Israel. Others say that Hosea's entire story is metaphorical, and there was, in fact, no literal woman named Gomer bat Diblayim.

I tend to agree with this latter interpretation, since the name is clearly a pun, since the word gomer is never otherwise used as a name for either gender, and means literally, "to finish," but idiomatically, "to climax" or "to ejaculate." And diblayim is an ancient slang term for "breasts." And likewise, the names of the children, Lo-Ruchama and Lo-'Ami translate roughly as I Have No Compassion For Her and He Is Not My People. These names are nothing anyone would ever name a child, and, as you point out, marrying a prostitute is not done, much less giving adulteresses a free pass: it stands to reason that the whole thing is a parable.

to take that approach would put doubt on every character in the bible... Abrahams name means "Father of a Crowd/Multitude"
His wifes Sarahs name meant "Princess"
Ezekiel means 'God Strengthens'

all bible names could be puns, and hence not real people, couldnt they?

Mosaic laws only appear merciless if they are read relentlessly literalistically, in the absence of the Oral Torah. Which is not how they're supposed to be read.

It's not that God wants mercy without service ("sacrifice" being a metonymy for all kinds of service): He wants both. It's only if you're going to choose to be a sinner and flout a bunch of the commandments, better you choose the ones that don't directly harm other human beings. God can take one's bad behavior, but other people should not be made to suffer one's wickedness. A good Jew tries to follow all mitzvot, both "ethical" and "ritual," or at least struggles to follow as best they can.

i agree that it is worse to bring harm to someone else in the process of sinning. But do we really need laws telling us not to harm another person? Thats my question. Shouldnt it be a given that we respect all people regardless of who they are and where they are from?

I think if everyone lived by that golden rule, then why would we need laws at all? The problem arises when people dont respect others....and its interesting to look at Israels history, as recorded in the hebrew scriptures, in this regard. Whenever the nation of Israel had a close relationship with YHWH, they prospered and flourished and as communities they were at peace with each other. But when the nation turned away from God and their worship became corrupted, the people treated their fellows badly. Widows and orphans were not being cared for, people were defrauding each other, violence and crime broke out.

this indicates that when people have a love for God and they have a close relationship with him, they treat their fellow man with greater respect and dignity....but without a relationship with God, human relationships weaken and crumble. And to me, this explains how theoretically we could live without mosaic laws.

Because ultimately, the mitzvot are not stuff you do just because God says so, or just because, coincidentally, some other form of ethics also says such and such an action would be a good idea. The mitzvot are holistic: an interconnected and intersupporting system of spiritual discipline, to develop consciousness, spiritual awareness, empathy, thoughtfulness, and so on. They all serve a purpose, even if that purpose might seem elusive to start with.

i can agree that keeping our spiriutality alive and being disciplined can be very beneficial to ourselves and others and we should strive for that. Perhaps the jewish people feel closer to God when they are doing those things prescribed in the mosaic law?

personally i think there must be other ways to draw close to God without the mosaic law...otherwise how would Abraham ever have been called 'Gods friend' to start with?



thanks for your reply btw... its always very educational reading your posts.

 

[roger1440]

Who or what defines Jewish orthodoxy? Ohh, please dumb it down a little for us Gentiles.:sarcastic

 

[roger1440]

to take that approach would put doubt on every character in the bible... Abrahams name means "Father of a Crowd/Multitude"
His wifes Sarahs name meant "Princess"
Ezekiel means 'God Strengthens'

all bible names could be puns, and hence not real people, couldnt they?



i agree that it is worse to bring harm to someone else in the process of sinning. But do we really need laws telling us not to harm another person? Thats my question. Shouldnt it be a given that we respect all people regardless of who they are and where they are from?

I think if everyone lived by that golden rule, then why would we need laws at all? The problem arises when people dont respect others....and its interesting to look at Israels history, as recorded in the hebrew scriptures, in this regard. Whenever the nation of Israel had a close relationship with YHWH, they prospered and flourished and as communities they were at peace with each other. But when the nation turned away from God and their worship became corrupted, the people treated their fellows badly. Widows and orphans were not being cared for, people were defrauding each other, violence and crime broke out.

this indicates that when people have a love for God and they have a close relationship with him, they treat their fellow man with greater respect and dignity....but without a relationship with God, human relationships weaken and crumble. And to me, this explains how theoretically we could live without mosaic laws.




i can agree that keeping our spiriutality alive and being disciplined can be very beneficial to ourselves and others and we should strive for that. Perhaps the jewish people feel closer to God when they are doing those things prescribed in the mosaic law?

personally i think there must be other ways to draw close to God without the mosaic law...otherwise how would Abraham ever have been called 'Gods friend' to start with?



thanks for your reply btw... its always very educational reading your posts.

Without the Mosaic Law, Jews wouldn’t be Jews. That’s what most Christians don’t get. It would be like asking an American to throw away the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and let’s throw in there the American flag to boot. Then tell the American, “I have a better scheme for you.” How many Americans would jump at that opportunity?

 

[Levite]

to take that approach would put doubt on every character in the bible... Abrahams name means "Father of a Crowd/Multitude"
His wifes Sarahs name meant "Princess"
Ezekiel means 'God Strengthens'
all bible names could be puns, and hence not real people, couldnt they?

There's a difference between names that have meaning and names that are puns. Abraham is a name that has meaning. It, or names like it, exist to invoke some sort of ideal or image, or to describe a quality of the named. Names that were used at that time were descriptive, allusory, or evocative of a quality or a story. But they were not denigrating, cruel, or designed to bring about ridicule. Nobody would really name a girl Lo-Ruchama, or Gomer (which isn't even phrased in the feminine as a name).

In the same way, today, you might name a girl Joy, Grace, or something alluding to another strong or famous woman; but no one in their right mind would name a daughter Ejaculatrix Ta-tas, or Stupid B****. If you saw such a name in a short story, you would know it was satirical.

i agree that it is worse to bring harm to someone else in the process of sinning. But do we really need laws telling us not to harm another person? Thats my question. Shouldnt it be a given that we respect all people regardless of who they are and where they are from? I think if everyone lived by that golden rule, then why would we need laws at all? The problem arises when people dont respect others....and its interesting to look at Israels history, as recorded in the hebrew scriptures, in this regard. Whenever the nation of Israel had a close relationship with YHWH, they prospered and flourished and as communities they were at peace with each other. But when the nation turned away from God and their worship became corrupted, the people treated their fellows badly. Widows and orphans were not being cared for, people were defrauding each other, violence and crime broke out. this indicates that when people have a love for God and they have a close relationship with him, they treat their fellow man with greater respect and dignity....but without a relationship with God, human relationships weaken and crumble. And to me, this explains how theoretically we could live without mosaic laws.

I think this is completely unrealistic.

If the Tanach tells us that the people prospered when they had a good relationship with God, it's because they were following the Torah. It wasn't just that spontaneously, the people's hearts all grew three sizes and they realized how swell God is. Their awareness of God and love for Him was cultivated by living a life of mitzvot, and seeing how that affected not only themselves but their whole society.

Human beings need laws. Even truly good people have moments of weakness or unthinking desire or out and out failure, and in those moments, law is there to (ideally) hold back negative behavior, or (more realistically) help resolve and repair the breaches committed in those moments of transgression. Even the greatest among us sin, because human beings are imperfect and fallible. And God knows this, and expects nothing else: if He did, He would have created us without free will, like the angels. Instead, we have free will, and the obligation to make laws and create just societies. For Jews, this is based in Torah. But we believe that non-Jews also are obligated to make laws and create just societies.

Because we cannot have peace and prosperity without laws. At best, they tell us how to maintain a well-functioning society, to ensure it doesn't devolve into chaos and anarchy. At worst, they give us tools to make dysfunctional societies better. But to be without law altogether, and expect people to consistently behave not only well but in productive and orderly fashions, and to have any kind of reliable passage of ethical, practical, and even sometimes spiritual teaching and tradition, a framework of rules is necessary.

personally i think there must be other ways to draw close to God without the mosaic law...otherwise how would Abraham ever have been called 'Gods friend' to start with?

Sure there are other ways. Non-Jews aren't obligated to the mitzvot, and we presume they have their ways to productively and positively relate to God. We never claimed to have the only way. Just the only Jewish way.

 

[Shermana]

Yahweh, the malevolent deity of meatspace. (OT)

El Elyon, the benevolent deity of spirit-space. (NT)

As you can see here, even the Canaanites separated the two, all before the historical Yahwism Canaanite religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

El Elyon simply means "God most High".

The Canaanites may not have necessarily had a "YHWH", but a completely different but similar sounding YHW god with somewhat similar consenants (missing an H) but different vowels. Besides, as your link says:

"though the only Canaanite mention of Yahweh, found on the Mesha Stele, refers to the god of Israel contrasted with Chemosh.[15]

this concept that the Karen Armstrongs try to frantically push is far, far less substantiated than they try to artificially inflate. In this case, the Canaanites may have simply been saying the Israelite god is inferior to theirs. It's a testament to a dogged agenda against Judaic religion to read anymore into this as many "scholars" attempt to do, while pushing a book to Atheists.

Their word "God" as a name to mean "The king of these supreme beings" is similar to how we use the word "God" as a title for this being as well.

 

[Shermana]

Also when it says that G-D gave the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai, the word Torah is plural, to include the 2nd Torah (the oral law).

Or it could mean he gave the laws, as in the commandments that pertain to "The Law".

We know that the word "the laws" (Ha-Towrot) is used to refer to the statutes in the commandments that are part of "The Law" as well.

http://biblehub.com/text/leviticus/26-46.htm


Apparently it was only ONE law given to Moses says Deuteronomy 33:4.

http://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/33-4.htm

 

[nazz]

Also when it says that G-D gave the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai, the word Torah is plural, to include the 2nd Torah (the oral law).

Just above you said there was only one Torah. Which is it?

 

[nazz]

If you had to pick one subject to criticize in the Torah, which would it be?

The way it portrays God.

 

[Pegg]

Without the Mosaic Law, Jews wouldn’t be Jews. That’s what most Christians don’t get. It would be like asking an American to throw away the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and let’s throw in there the American flag to boot. Then tell the American, “I have a better scheme for you.” How many Americans would jump at that opportunity?

The Halakah defines a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or a convert to Judaism. This is the definition made into law in 1970 by the Israeli parliament.

So if im born to a jewish mother, im a Jew regardless of my belief or adherence to the mosaic law apparently.

Maybe a Jewish person would be able to answer this one for us??

 

[Pegg]

There's a difference between names that have meaning and names that are puns. Abraham is a name that has meaning. It, or names like it, exist to invoke some sort of ideal or image, or to describe a quality of the named. Names that were used at that time were descriptive, allusory, or evocative of a quality or a story. But they were not denigrating, cruel, or designed to bring about ridicule. Nobody would really name a girl Lo-Ruchama, or Gomer (which isn't even phrased in the feminine as a name).

In the same way, today, you might name a girl Joy, Grace, or something alluding to another strong or famous woman; but no one in their right mind would name a daughter Ejaculatrix Ta-tas, or Stupid B****. If you saw such a name in a short story, you would know it was satirical.

I dont think so. My sons name is Caleb which means 'dog' in hebrew. Caleb was a hebrew who was a faithful man under Joshua. His name may mean 'dog' but surely doent mean he was not a real person?

If the story of Caleb was real, why give him such a name when his example is one of faith, loyalty and courage? Why not give him a more valient name?

I think this is completely unrealistic.

If the Tanach tells us that the people prospered when they had a good relationship with God, it's because they were following the Torah. It wasn't just that spontaneously, the people's hearts all grew three sizes and they realized how swell God is. Their awareness of God and love for Him was cultivated by living a life of mitzvot, and seeing how that affected not only themselves but their whole society.

Human beings need laws. Even truly good people have moments of weakness or unthinking desire or out and out failure, and in those moments, law is there to (ideally) hold back negative behavior, or (more realistically) help resolve and repair the breaches committed in those moments of transgression. Even the greatest among us sin, because human beings are imperfect and fallible. And God knows this, and expects nothing else: if He did, He would have created us without free will, like the angels. Instead, we have free will, and the obligation to make laws and create just societies. For Jews, this is based in Torah. But we believe that non-Jews also are obligated to make laws and create just societies.

Because we cannot have peace and prosperity without laws. At best, they tell us how to maintain a well-functioning society, to ensure it doesn't devolve into chaos and anarchy. At worst, they give us tools to make dysfunctional societies better. But to be without law altogether, and expect people to consistently behave not only well but in productive and orderly fashions, and to have any kind of reliable passage of ethical, practical, and even sometimes spiritual teaching and tradition, a framework of rules is necessary.

what i was trying to point out is that Israel only applied the law when they had a good relationship with God. So the relationship must come first, yes?

The law is of no benefit to a person who feels no obligation in applying it....what is it that motivates a person to apply the law? Is it not love for God?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I dont think so. My sons name is Caleb which means 'dog' in hebrew. Caleb was a hebrew who was a faithful man under Joshua. His name may mean 'dog' but surely doent mean he was not a real person?

If the story of Caleb was real, why give him such a name when his example is one of faith, loyalty and courage? Why not give him a more valient name?







what i was trying to point out is that Israel only applied the law when they had a good relationship with God. So the relationship must come first, yes?

The law is of no benefit to a person who feels no obligation in applying it....what is it that motivates a person to apply the law? Is it not love for God?

Dogs are rather loyal.

Actually we don't know what the life of Israel was like, we only see much of the political back and forth between the prophets and the leaders. We don't really know if the people ever truly abandoned God.

 

[Shermana]

what i was trying to point out is that Israel only applied the law when they had a good relationship with God. So the relationship must come first, yes?

No, the relationship with God is directly tied to the obedience to the Law. One does not come before the other. One may think they have a good relationship with God based on their own beliefs and assumptions and presumptions, but that is all just pretensious self-righteousness if God doesn't agree. There are plenty of people who think they are held in esteem by others whom they don't actually respect, who aren't actually held in esteem. One cannot have a good relationship with God if they disobey him. Many Christians think they don't have to do a thing to have God's "grace" except have "faith". Yet even Paul denounces such thinking in harsh terms.

The Israelites went sour in their belief towards God probably because they didn't like the confines of the Law itself. As the prophet says, they neighed after each other's wives, they didn't want to cease their activities on the Sabbath, they wanted to use false weights and measures and cheat each other, they wanted to lend only at interest, they wanted to engage in magic and witchcraft and eat rats and swine flesh rather than restrict themselves and wait on God to attend to their requests. They likely got sick of such discipline and restraints and then decided to turn to other gods. Why would they decide to lose out on a relationship with god in the first place?

The law is of no benefit to a person who feels no obligation in applying it....what is it that motivates a person to apply the law? Is it not love for God?

Where does it say this? The law is of benefit to anyone who follows it, regardless if they are motivated. However, as Sirach says, a person who does good out of compulsion is like a Eunuch lusting after a girl. At the very least, he is kept out of trouble. That is the benefit. He may not receive the full spiritual reward for having a cheery heart and a mentality of agreement with God, but he will not be as punished. Now this however has a different application when it comes to ritual sacrifice, when it becomes empty and devoid of meaning.

 

[Pegg]

Dogs are rather loyal.

Actually we don't know what the life of Israel was like, we only see much of the political back and forth between the prophets and the leaders. We don't really know if the people ever truly abandoned God.

we get a very clear picture through the writings of the prophets, of what was happening in Israel. God sent those prophets to denounce the nation for all that they were doing wrong.

The hebrew scriptures are a 'history' of the nation. These are not stories but actual events and we can learn a lot from them.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

we get a very clear picture through the writings of the prophets, of what was happening in Israel. God sent those prophets to denounce the nation for all that they were doing wrong.

The hebrew scriptures are a 'history' of the nation. These are not stories but actual events and we can learn a lot from them.

No it's a clear idea of what was happening politically in Israel and even then we have it from one point of view.

It's a combination of politics, legends, religious beliefs, painted on a historical background.

Truth is the bible does not tell you much about what the average life of an Israelite was like.

 

[Pegg]

No, the relationship with God is directly tied to the obedience to the Law.

the law was given to the naton of Israel in the 15th century BCE. What about the people who lived prior to that time who had a relationship with God?

Noah?
Abel?
Enoch?
Abraham?
Job & Eliphaz?
The King Priest Melchizedek to whom Abraham tithed?

There was no mosaic law during all the lifetimes of these individuals. Its like claiming these people used Google Maps when they had to get somewhere.

The Israelites went sour in their belief towards God probably because they didn't like the confines of the Law itself. As the prophet says, they neighed after each other's wives, they didn't want to cease their activities on the Sabbath, they wanted to use false weights and measures and cheat each other, they wanted to lend only at interest, they wanted to engage in magic and witchcraft and eat rats and swine flesh rather than restrict themselves and wait on God to attend to their requests. They likely got sick of such discipline and restraints and then decided to turn to other gods. Why would they decide to lose out on a relationship with god in the first place?

God told Moses it was because the people lacked 'faith'

Exodus 14:2*And all the sons of Israel began to murmur against Moses and Aaron, and all the assembly began to say against them: “If only we had died in the land of Egypt, or if only we had died in this wilderness! 3*And why is Jehovah bringing us to this land to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become plunder. Is it not better for us to return to Egypt?” 4*They even went to saying to one another: “Let us appoint a head, and let us return to Egypt!”
5*At this Moses and Aaron fell upon their faces before all the congregation...7*and they proceeded to say...“The land that we passed through to spy it out is a very, very good land. 8*If Jehovah has found delight in us, then he will certainly bring us into this land and give it to us, a land that is flowing with milk and honey. ...10*However, all the assembly talked of pelting them with stones. And Jehovah’s glory appeared on the tent of meeting to all the sons of Israel.
11*Finally Jehovah said to Moses: “How long will this people treat me without respect, and how long will they not put faith in me for all the signs that I performed in among them? 12*Let me strike them with pestilence and drive them away, and let me make you a nation greater and mightier than they are.”


Lack of Faith is why the nation kept turning away. That is what the scriptures tell us over and over again.

Deut 9:23 "...YOU behaved rebelliously against the order of Jehovah YOUR God, and YOU did not exercise faith toward him and did not listen to his voice

Psalm 106:24 And they got to contemning the desirable land; They had no faith in his word

Hebrews 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of lack of faith

Psalm 78:11*They also began to forget his dealings
And his wonderful works that he caused them to see

Where does it say this? The law is of benefit to anyone who follows it, regardless if they are motivated. However, as Sirach says, a person who does good out of compulsion is like a Eunuch lusting after a girl.

do you realise that having such a law 'compels' you to obey it..... are you saying that you are like a Eunach lusting after a girl?

At the very least, he is kept out of trouble. That is the benefit. He may not receive the full spiritual reward for having a cheery heart and a mentality of agreement with God, but he will not be as punished. Now this however has a different application when it comes to ritual sacrifice, when it becomes empty and devoid of meaning.

keeping out of trouble is not a problem if someone has a good relationship with God and if they are rejoicing in their worship. The scriptures tells us that joy is an important part of worship..... if you are happy and joyful, you wont be quite so eager to go getting yourself into trouble.

Psalm 100:1 Shout in triumph to Jehovah, all [YOU people of] the earth.
*2*Serve Jehovah with rejoicing.
Come in before him with a joyful cry

Joel 2:23*And, YOU sons of Zion, be joyful and rejoice in Jehovah YOUR God;

Isaiah 12:6 “Cry out shrilly and shout for joy, O you inhabitress of Zion, for great in the midst of you is the Holy One of Israel.”


Nehemiah 8:10 "...the joy of Jehovah is YOUR stronghold

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You could look at the Bible as a coming of Age story, not for the Israelite's but for God.

God is the Israelite's warrior, defending them, protecting them. (That's the youthful God), powerful, quick to anger, wrathful, almost kills Moses for not having a circumcised child.

Then you have God as the husband to Israel and Judah. They are unfaithful, and God lets them be unfaithful until their lovers mistreat them to which they return to God, who does not shut them out but takes them back in.

Then you have God the father, the one spoken of in the NT, this God cares and loves greatly (you see glimpses of such a God in the psalms), but unlike the Husband, this God is now a father, Israel is no longer considered a wife, but children, who when they turn against God are being punished by a loving father. Except now God has more than one kid, God has the world.

I view it the other way around - that it's not God that is changing, but our perception of Him. How we perceive God evolves throughout the ages. Our consciousness evolves and so we come to a more advanced understanding of God.

 

[Shermana]

the law was given to the naton of Israel in the 15th century BCE. What about the people who lived prior to that time who had a relationship with God?

Noah?
Abel?
Enoch?
Abraham?
Job & Eliphaz?
The King Priest Melchizedek to whom Abraham tithed?

There was no mosaic law during all the lifetimes of these individuals. Its like claiming these people used Google Maps when they had to get somewhere.

How many times have I explained this to you? A hundred at least?

The Law of Moses is the Completeness of God's will. Abraham still obeyed God's "judgments, statutes, and ordinances", of which we have no idea what exactly they were. Noah knew which animals were clean and unclean.

Besides, you believe Genesis 38 isn't interpolated right? How did Onan know about the Levirite Marriage principle?

God told Moses it was because the people lacked 'faith'

That has a lot to do with it, but that's not at all the totality of it, especially as we see in the later prophets. And as it also says, they were repeatedly putting the Lord to the test.

Lack of Faith is why the nation kept turning away. That is what the scriptures tell us over and over again.

Then you're ignoring the rest of the prophets who explain that it's much more than just lack of faith, and explain in detail what causes that lack of faith in the later ages.

Deut 9:23 "...YOU behaved rebelliously against the order of Jehovah YOUR God, and YOU did not exercise faith toward him and did not listen to his voice

Behaved rebelliously AND did not exercise your faith AND did not listen to his voice. That can easily entail not obeying the commandments. Seriously. Did you not think about that? What do you suppose they did not exercise faith for? Why would they not exercise faith if they had directly seen his miracles?

Psalm 106:24 And they got to contemning the desirable land; They had no faith in his word

"Faith in his word" can mean a lot of things, like not having faith in the idea that they had to obey his commandments as well. It seems you are conveniently selecting what you want to read as usual, since it also implies they did in fact sin and not obey. Again, what do you suppose was the reason they lost faith?

Hebrews 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of lack of faith

And again, why did they lose their faith?

Psalm 78:11*They also began to forget his dealings
And his wonderful works that he caused them to see

Ah, they forgot his dealings and his works. Did they just have really bad memories?

do you realise that having such a law 'compels' you to obey it..... are you saying that you are like a Eunach lusting after a girl?

Do you realize that you're basically denying the very concept of what it means to have a law in the first place? Why do you suppose Abraham obeyed the statutes, judgments, and ordinances in the first place? You can argue that having "Faith" is merely out of compulsion all the same.

keeping out of trouble is not a problem if someone has a good relationship with God and if they are rejoicing in their worship. The scriptures tells us that joy is an important part of worship..... if you are happy and joyful, you wont be quite so eager to go getting yourself into trouble.

Why do you suppose someone wouldn't be happy and joyful in their worship in the first place?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Some of the 613 commandments.

Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Love and Brotherhood

1. To love all human beings who are of the covenant (Lev. 19:18) (CCA60). See Love and Brotherhood.
2. Not to stand by idly when a human life is in danger (Lev. 19:16) (CCN82). See Love and Brotherhood.
3. Not to wrong any one in speech (Lev. 25:17) (CCN48). See Speech and Lashon Ha-Ra.
4. Not to carry tales (Lev. 19:16) (CCN77). See Speech and Lashon Ha-Ra.
5. Not to cherish hatred in one's heart (Lev. 19:17) (CCN78). See Love and Brotherhood.
6. Not to take revenge (Lev. 19:18) (CCN80).
7. Not to bear a grudge (Lev. 19:18) (CCN81).
8. Not to put any Jew to shame (Lev. 19:17) (CCN79).
9. Not to curse any other Israelite (Lev. 19:14) (by implication: if you may not curse those who cannot hear, you certainly may not curse those who can) (CCN45).
10. Not to give occasion to the simple-minded to stumble on the road (Lev. 19:14) (this includes doing anything that will cause another to sin) (CCN76).
11. To rebuke the sinner (Lev. 19:17) (CCA72).
12. To relieve a neighbor of his burden and help to unload his beast (Ex. 23:5) (CCA70). See Love and Brotherhood.
13. To assist in replacing the load upon a neighbor's beast (Deut. 22:4) (CCA71). See Love and Brotherhood.
14. Not to leave a beast, that has fallen down beneath its burden, unaided (Deut. 22:4) (CCN183). See Love and Brotherhood.

But those laws only pertain to how you treat other Jews?!

 

[Shermana]

[/LIST]

But those laws only pertain to Jews?!

The "New Covenant" only applies to "Israel and Judah", and Christians believe that they are now "Grafts" to the tree, so that means they must be included to "Israel and Judah" and obey what Israel and Judah must obey if they want to be consistent. Otherwise, they aren't part of Israel and Judah, and thus aren't part of the New Covenant.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The "New Covenant" only applies to "Israel and Judah", and Christians believe that they are now "Grafts" to the tree, so that means they must be included to "Israel and Judah" and obey what Israel and Judah must obey if they want to be consistent. Otherwise, they aren't part of Israel and Judah, and thus aren't part of the New Covenant.

I'm saying that those laws only call Jews to love other Jews. They don't seem to have a universal application.