Why do Gentiles assume they should follow the ten commandments?

[roberto]

And please remember guys, if Rashi's not enough try some other commentaries until you understand something else other than what the verse says, because it just can not say what it says.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Oh good!
Then we can toss out the rest of the Bible?

I'm not trying to be rude or stupid but you have to think there is a point to the rest of the Bible being there.

of course there is, however the Ten Commandments are easier to memorize

 

[Nakosis]

of course there is, however the Ten Commandments are easier to memorize

Ok,

However what do you think the benefit is of people spending a great deal of their life in a scholarly pursuit to decipher the "correct" interpretation of the Christian/Hebrew Bible or the Koran?

Will this knowledge of the correct interpretation make you a better person then those who don't spend their lives in such scholarly pursuits. Will it make them more likely to get into heaven. Does it make God more pleased with them because they were able to come up with the "correct" understanding?

If someone doesn't achieve the absolute correct interpretation does it mean you are out of luck regarding God and heaven because maybe the individual wasn't smart enough?

 

[Harmonious]

And please remember guys, if Rashi's not enough try some other commentaries until you understand something else other than what the verse says, because it just can not say what it says.

See, it's comments like this that make me hesitant to want to talk to you.

Levite is answering your questions honestly, and you are trying to catch him out.

The fact is that there is an entire Oral Tradition, and the ways and means of doing so are complex, and complicated to explain all that there is.

Rashi was a brilliant scholar, a revered teacher, and a prolific author, whose teachings grace every book in Tanach and every Tractate in Talmud.

However, there is a method for understanding what he wrote. Because he was so brilliant, his work is often presented in terse language. The understanding of what he wrote might be simple on the surface, but there are whole books written about trying to understand Rashi.

One memorable title is "What is Bothering Rashi?" This book studies the texts of the Pentateuch, looking over spelling, punctuation, word choice, and many things that might not be at all understandable to non-Hebrew scholars. But finding the anomaly in the text that spurred Rashi to explain what he chose to explain is a serious scholarly pursuit.

And it also helps to know that sometimes, Rashi might bring one word of clarification. Sometimes, he might bring three different explanations of one particular nuance of a verse, meaning that all three are valid understandings, but each version has problems, or the other two wouldn't be necessary.

Sometimes, Rashi explains a little-used word in Hebrew with a word from Old French.

Rashi's commentaries are written in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, with Greek and Old French thrown in on occasion.

So... While Rashi's commentaries are always useful to learn, because they are usually the easiest and quickest and shortest to parse, they are often far more complicated than it might seem on the surface.

Levite gave you the short answer. The actual answer is probably pages long, and you scorn him.

It makes me question your motives.

 

[roberto]

See, it's comments like this that make me hesitant to want to talk to you.

Levite is answering your questions honestly, and you are trying to catch him out.

The fact is that there is an entire Oral Tradition, and the ways and means of doing so are complex, and complicated to explain all that there is.

Rashi was a brilliant scholar, a revered teacher, and a prolific author, whose teachings grace every book in Tanach and every Tractate in Talmud.

However, there is a method for understanding what he wrote. Because he was so brilliant, his work is often presented in terse language. The understanding of what he wrote might be simple on the surface, but there are whole books written about trying to understand Rashi.

One memorable title is "What is Bothering Rashi?" This book studies the texts of the Pentateuch, looking over spelling, punctuation, word choice, and many things that might not be at all understandable to non-Hebrew scholars. But finding the anomaly in the text that spurred Rashi to explain what he chose to explain is a serious scholarly pursuit.

And it also helps to know that sometimes, Rashi might bring one word of clarification. Sometimes, he might bring three different explanations of one particular nuance of a verse, meaning that all three are valid understandings, but each version has problems, or the other two wouldn't be necessary.

Sometimes, Rashi explains a little-used word in Hebrew with a word from Old French.

Rashi's commentaries are written in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, with Greek and Old French thrown in on occasion.

So... While Rashi's commentaries are always useful to learn, because they are usually the easiest and quickest and shortest to parse, they are often far more complicated than it might seem on the surface.

Levite gave you the short answer. The actual answer is probably pages long, and you scorn him.

It makes me question your motives.

Yeh, and if the both of you really were interested in debating "THE VERSE" you would have clicked on the link and saw that Rashi with his geniosity as described above by you........ Did in fact NOT comment at all on "THE VERSE" He knew that it meant what it meant.

Which made me question your motives.

Shabbat shalom to yous.
,

 

[Levite]

Yeh, and if the both of you really were interested in debating "THE VERSE" you would have clicked on the link and saw that Rashi with his geniosity as described above by you........ Did in fact NOT comment at all on "THE VERSE" He knew that it meant what it meant.

Which made me question your motives.

Shabbat shalom to yous.
,

Rashi doesn't comment on 3:9. He does comment on 3:10. What he considered the meaning of verse 9, we cannot say, because he wrote nothing on it. Which means that for elucidation of verse 9, we move right on to other commentators. Which I did. Which you ignored.

 

[Harmonious]

Yeh, and if the both of you really were interested in debating "THE VERSE" you would have clicked on the link and saw that Rashi with his geniosity as described above by you........ Did in fact NOT comment at all on "THE VERSE" He knew that it meant what it meant.

Which made me question your motives.

Shabbat shalom to yous.
,

I tried not to embarrass you by pointing that out. Instead, you used this as an opportuniy to embarrass us.

I changed my mind - you blew your second chance.

Welcome to my Ignore List. Unless I see a marked difference in your posting patterns, if I respond to you, it is because I hope others reading along will learn somthing.

I hope you have a good life.

 

[roberto]

I tried not to embarrass you by pointing that out. Instead, you used this as an opportuniy to embarrass us.

Then the following will please you.....>

Talmud - Mas. Baba Metzia 59a
"...But he who publicly puts his neighbour to shame has no portion in the world to come."’..."

and

Talmud - Mas. Baba Metzia 59b
‘It is not in heaven.’

Shalom.

 

[roberto]

.
Why do Gentiles assume they should follow the ten commandments? >
Because everything that was given to Moses was given to father Abraham "the father of the Nations".
.

 

[DefenderOfZion]

What I cant get is why Christians say Jesus 'fulfilled' the Laws so they dont have to follow them. Yet they still pick and choose which Laws to follow.

 

[Harmonious]

What I cant get is why Christians say Jesus 'fulfilled' the Laws so they dont have to follow them. Yet they still pick and choose which Laws to follow.

Good question. And welcome to the Forums!

 

[DefenderOfZion]

Thanks for the welcome!

 

[Nakosis]

What I cant get is why Christians say Jesus 'fulfilled' the Laws so they dont have to follow them. Yet they still pick and choose which Laws to follow.

What I've read is the Law is use to refer to prophecies. So the claim is Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of the OT. It's likely not a reference to all the civic OT laws.

It seems in some cases Jesus didn't agree with the understanding the Pharisee and Sadducee held of the Law. He took it upon himself to correct it.

A Christian needs only to follow the teaching of Jesus and otherwise is under no obligation to the civic laws of the OT.

That is if one happens to be a Christian. Jews don't accept the teachings of Jesus so no reason for them to stop following the civic laws of the OT.

 

[DefenderOfZion]

What I've read is the Law is use to refer to prophecies. So the claim is Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of the OT. It's likely not a reference to all the civic OT laws.

It seems in some cases Jesus didn't agree with the understanding the Pharisee and Sadducee held of the Law. He took it upon himself to correct it.

A Christian needs only to follow the teaching of Jesus and otherwise is under no obligation to the civic laws of the OT.

That is if one happens to be a Christian. Jews don't accept the teachings of Jesus so no reason for them to stop following the civic laws of the OT.

Well why do they pick and choose what they follow (ex. Gay marriage)?

 

[Nakosis]

Well why do they pick and choose what they follow (ex. Gay marriage)?

They shouldn't be IMO. Christians who accept Paul as a church leader I don't see any way around non-acceptance of homosexuality. Some think Paul didn't have any authority. That question seems to depend on the acceptance of Paul or not.

 

[Levite]

What I cant get is why Christians say Jesus 'fulfilled' the Laws so they dont have to follow them. Yet they still pick and choose which Laws to follow.

Great question. Welcome to the forums!

I also have to say, I think it is interesting when, for example, non-Jews will vigorously cite the prohibition against homosexuality in Leviticus, but will be utterly unmoved at the fact that the same language that is used to condemn the behavior described in those verses is also used to describe eating non-kosher animals, wearing shaatnez (mixtures of wool and linen), planting kilayim (two different crops in the same field together), failing to observe the laws surrounding menstruation and intercourse, worshipping in ways forbidden by the Torah, marrying a person that you have previously been married to and then divorced, and dealing dishonestly in business. Similar but not exactly identical language is used to describe eating blood, failing to tithe to the poor, failing to care for the poor the orphans and the widows, failing to be kind to the stranger who dwells among you, oppressing the laborer by working him unfairly or withholding his wages, taking unreasonable collateral for loans, charging interest on loans, and various other important commandments.

It seems to me that if anyone is going to cite the Torah's commandments and say that everyone ought to follow them, and not to do so is despicable in some way, that person really ought to actually be following all the Torah's commandments.

And if Christians want to say that Jesus came along and obviated the need for following the commandments (fine by me, since as non-Jews, the Christians were never responsible for following the commandments in the first place), then it hardly seems reasonable that somehow, a couple of commandments slipped by him, that everyone still has to follow, and we can randomly pick whatever commandments seem interesting to us to say are compulsory. Seems to me either Jesus lets them off the hook for all the commandments in Torah, or he didn't, in which case, maybe they ought to start keeping kosher, checking for shaatnez, observing niddah (the laws of menstrual purity and impurity), and being kind to the strangers among them-- to say nothing of not taking interest, not taking unreasonable collateral in loans, not cheating people, not oppressing laborers, etc.-- before starting in on condemning folks for who's shtupping who.

 

[Shermana]

What I've read is the Law is use to refer to prophecies. So the claim is Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of the OT. It's likely not a reference to all the civic OT laws.

Good luck selling that concept to the 'Christians" who think Jesus abolished (aka "Fulfilled" in their interpretation) the same Law which he claimed not a single iota would be ever rendered void until Heaven and Earth collapse. But I agree he was referring to the prophecies about the Moshiach.

It seems in some cases Jesus didn't agree with the understanding the Pharisee and Sadducee held of the Law. He took it upon himself to correct it.

Exactly. This is a key issue I get tired of having to explain to "Christians', the Pharisees were NOT obeying the Law in the context of the story, to the letter or to the spirit, they had corrupted it with artificial doctrines and bad understandings. For example, not even today do Jews have "Eye for an eye" in its literal sense, that's what Jesus was saying, to not apply it to accidents and petty offenses, and today the Rabbis have the same view as Jesus on that.

A Christian needs only to follow the teaching of Jesus and otherwise is under no obligation to the civic laws of the OT.

But the teachings of Jesus involve total obedience to the Law, so thus, the "Christian" must decide he wants to pick and choose what parts of Jesus's teachings he wants to obey, or do the honorable thing and drop the 'Christian" title and no longer stain the concept of what should be simply a Jewish sect.

That is if one happens to be a Christian. Jews don't accept the teachings of Jesus so no reason for them to stop following the civic laws of the OT.

Another funny argument they use is that there are "Two gospels", one for Jews and one for gentiles but when questioned, this logic always boils down to the "Jewish gospel" being done away with in their view.

The way I see it, Christ was meant to bring Torah to the gentiles, at least the righteous and honest ones who are fully interested in converting to God's will and not conforming God's will to theirs. If anything, I see the early Christians as Jewish Nazarene-sect missionaries who just happened to believe Jesus was the Messiah as well.

And if Christians want to say that Jesus came along and obviated the need for following the commandments (fine by me, since as non-Jews, the Christians were never responsible for following the commandments in the first place), then it hardly seems reasonable that somehow, a couple of commandments slipped by him, that everyone still has to follow, and we can randomly pick whatever commandments seem interesting to us to say are compulsory. Seems to me either Jesus lets them off the hook for all the commandments in Torah, or he didn't, in which case, maybe they ought to start keeping kosher, checking for shaatnez, observing niddah (the laws of menstrual purity and impurity), and being kind to the strangers among them-- to say nothing of not taking interest, not taking unreasonable collateral in loans, not cheating people, not oppressing laborers, etc.-- before starting in on condemning folks for who's shtupping who.

Welcome to my world of frustration, Levite. You'd be surprised how many "Christians' take offense to the idea that they even need to obey the social laws like not cheating and stealing. Some even try to find ways to weasel out of murder and adultery. They don't even go by the alleged "Council of Jerusalem" and find ways out of the prohibition on eating blood and idol-sacrificed meat! Let alone "Sexual immorality".

An oft-unanswered question (very strangely) I ask if they think the sexual purity Laws in Leviticus 18 are done away with too.....

 

[roberto]

......observing niddah (the laws of menstrual purity and impurity),

The way Rabbis intend this law to be followed , causes conflict with the law as intended by YHVH .
.

 

[Levite]

The way Rabbis intend this law to be followed , causes conflict with the law as intended by YHVH .
.

 

[roberto]

Levite , I love your "three faces"...... but could you say if Yahweh ever intended for some Jewish women never to fall pregnant ?

I mean, was it not the instruction of Yahweh .......Go forth and multiply ?

Was this instruction given only to some women or ALL women ?

Hopefully you shall uderstand by reading this :

............................................

The halakhic condom – a solution for Orthodox women?

Orthodox women who are “halakhically infertile” cannot conceive because they adhere to Jewish laws about when they can and can’t have sex with their husbands.

These women abstain from sex for five days during their periods and then another seven additional days, after which they visit a mikveh, or ritual bath, and rejoin their husbands. Most Orthodox women have no trouble getting pregnant with these restrictions—as evidenced by the high Orthodox fertility rates.

But for women with shorter cycles, ovulation occurs before they go to the mikveh, and they can’t conceive. Even though they’re technically healthy, Jewish law has rendered these women “halakhically infertile.”

Read more about this situation here >>>> The halakhic condom

................................................