Why do Gentiles assume they should follow the ten commandments?

[Harmonious]

Shermana, the thing you fail to understand is that I was not engaging roberto's argument. I had explained sojourner's comment, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it.

 

[roberto]

It's obvious, dear roberto, that you are either willfully or unconsciously ignorant of the culture of both religions. You spend all your time touting what these religions "ought" to be, that you fail to fully appreciate what they truly are. No organic entity remains the same -- all things change, or they die. Religion will surely become insignificant when you place it under glass, as you seem to be doing here.

What can I say dear "sojourner" other than guilty as charged.

My messiah had a problem with traditions of men/man as you know so why would me having a problem with same be a problem other than with those following such and them feeling guilty that they do?

Mar 7:7 (HNV) But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

By the way, who/which cult do you "sojourn" with , sojourner?
.

 

[sojourner]

What is wrong with having a stance on what a religion should be and what it should not be?

If it's not your religion, you don't have any business having an opinion on what it "should" or "should not" be. Roberto obviously doesn't list as either Christian or Jew. Yet he argues with authoritative leaders about the theology involved, telling us that we're obviously wrong.
We don't like it when Iranians tell us that our country is "wrong." Why should religion play out any different. When roberto converts to either and becomes an authority, then he can have an opinion worth listening to.

I put down 'Christians" every time I use the term in quotation marks.

Yes, you do, and it has been discussed what bad form this is. It's sort of like a coward's way out. The quotation marks are not specifically against the forum rules, but are tantamount to a personal jab, which is against forum rules. You're playing the Pharisee game here, by resorting to a legal loophole in order to not play fair. I recall you once said that the Pharisees were wrong to do this, yes?

You yourself seem to have a very assertive stance of what "Christianity" Ought to be.

First of all, let me correct a grave error here: I have an assertive stance of what Christianity ought to be, not of what "Christianity" ought to be. I am a Christian, not a "Christian," got it?

Now that we've cleared that up, yes, I do have an assertive stance -- and I should have, because I am a member of that religion, as well as one with recognized authority in that religion. What's roberto got?

What's wrong with criticizing what many of their manifestations truly "are" and arguing that they "ought" not to be how they are logically through debate?

Syntax error. Try again.

A few posts back you will see that an entire tangent argument was made after me saying that the Talmud was not the original kind of Judaism as practiced by the ancient Israelites. Apparently saying that Judaism has "changed' since the old days hits a nerve to some. But if you apply to this the Nazarene Roots of Chrisitanity, a different standard arises?

Judaism and Xy are completely different religious paradigms. Judaism is almost completely identified by a particular people and culture. Xy, from extremely early (within a year, in fact), is almost completely pan-cultural.

What's wrong with staying the same?

Even Judaism has changed as time and environment has demanded. For example, would you argue that "death by stoning" is still valid as a means of religious adherence?

Who decides what should change?

Those who are part of the particular religion.

 

[sojourner]

What can I say dear "sojourner" other than guilty as charged.

My messiah had a problem with traditions of men/man as you know so why would me having a problem with same be a problem other than with those following such and them feeling guilty that they do?

Mar 7:7 (HNV) But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

By the way, who/which cult do you "sojourn" with , sojourner?
.

Yes, you are. Jesus was not only a Jew -- but a recognized rabbi. He had every right to have a problem with Judaism. Since you are neither one -- nor are you a Xtian or Xtian clergy, you have no leg to stand on here. Unless, of course, your religious listing is not accurate?

 

[roberto]

Yes, you are. Jesus was not only a Jew -- but a recognized rabbi. He had every right to have a problem with Judaism. Since you are neither one -- nor are you a Xtian or Xtian clergy, you have no leg to stand on here. Unless, of course, your religious listing is not accurate?

Hey dearest "sojourner", I have been lied to and trampled on for 40 years by Christianity and we were made slaves of this system that leads to the second death.

So, please , with your permission , allow me my moments of utter bliss and reward.

Go study :

"...We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews .." read more here>> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/const1-easter.asp

See my dearest "sojourner", christianity wants nothing in common with the detestable Jewishness of the Messiah, so I ask you again , why are you so different to/from your brothers , to want jes_s to be Jewish ?

Ps. I am sure when Yeshua returns he will have every right to have a problem with the Greek jes_s and the latest fad called chrislam.
.

 

[sojourner]

Hey dearest "sojourner", I have been lied to and trampled on for 40 years by Christianity and were made slaves of this system that leads to the second death.

I've been a Christian for over 50 years and, while some members of that religion have caused me considerable pain, others have been extremely helpful. Some systems of Xy I find honest, loving, supportive, and helpful. Some I find dishonest, hateful, adversarial and obstructive. Therefore, I choose to associate with those whom I find embody the former, and I try to emulate them. The bad apples diminish neither my affection for God or Jesus. While I am extremely hard on the latter, I don't simply dismiss the entire religion. In any case, since you're not "one of us," I don't see as you have the privilege of informing us how we "ought" to be. and your beef with Judaism less so.

So, please , with your permission , allow me my moments of utter bliss and reward.

Nope. I'm not going to be the scapegoat for your personal tragedies.

Ps. Go study :

"...We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews .." read more here>> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/const1-easter.asp

See my dearest "sojourner", christianity wants nothing in common with the Jewishness of the Messiah, so I ask you again , why are you so different to your brothers , to want jes_s to be Jewish ?

Yeah? So? Constantine (who, by the way, was not a Christian) wanted nothing to do with the Jews in their calculations of the date of Easter. This proves nothing (other than your penchant for gross generalization).

 

[roberto]

I've been a Christian for over 50 years and, while some members of that religion have caused me considerable pain, others have been extremely helpful. Some systems of Xy I find honest, loving, supportive, and helpful. Some I find dishonest, hateful, adversarial and obstructive. Therefore, I choose to associate with those whom I find embody the former, and I try to emulate them. ).

Firstly,
are you not supposed to emulate jes_s ?
Secondly,
does the word not say the body of christ is not devided[thousands of denominations] ?
Surely the christian "saviour" has shown them another way.

 

[sojourner]

Firstly,
are you not supposed to emulate jes_s ?
Secondly,
does the word not say the body of christ is not devided[thousands of denominations] ?
Surely the christian "saviour" has shown them another way.

Right off, let's get one thing clear: Jesus isn't a "saviour." He is a saviour. No "alleged," no "presumed," no "supposed," no "so-called" -- no "quotation"marks either necessary or asked for. The use of quotation marks suggests a lack of respect and is bad form -- and wholly uncalled for. Now that we have that clear,
Was not Jesus honest, loving, supportive, and helpful? Do not these systems emulate Jesus? One of the most basic tenets of our theology says that we are the body of Christ. Therefore, to emulate those who emulate Christ is to emulate Christ. What's your beef?

Additionally, does a body not have a multiplicity of cells and molecules, each with a distinct identity, job, and purpose? Even Paul recognizes a multiplicity of gifts, and asserts that not every one display every gift.
Likewise, the church, displaying a multiplicity of understandings, perspectives, and ministries, emulates an organic whole under the one head -- Jesus.
Again: What's your beef?

 

[roberto]

.."Additionally, does a body not have a multiplicity of cells and molecules, each with a distinct identity, job, and purpose? Even Paul recognizes a multiplicity of gifts, and asserts that not every one display every gift.
Likewise, the church, displaying a multiplicity of understandings, perspectives, and ministries, emulates an organic whole under the one head -- Jesus.
Again: What's your beef?

Flip it as you wish but Yeshua our saviour said the following about division :

Mar 3:24[HNV] If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
Mar 3:25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
Luk 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation. A house divided against itself falls.

 

[sojourner]

Flip it as you wish but Yeshua our saviour said the following about division :

Mar 3:24[HNV] If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
Mar 3:25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
Luk 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation. A house divided against itself falls.

Wait! I thought you said Jesus was a "saviour," not a saviour. Which is it? Why do you refer to the "saviour" as "our saviour?" Are you a Xtian, or aren't you? And if so, why preach to the Jews about their religion?

BTW, who said that the church is divided against itself? Surely a divided highway isn't divided against itself, or a pie cut into various pieces is not divided against itself. This is nothing more than desperate proof-texting and presents neither a valid argument, nor a logical threat to orthodox Xy.



But thanks for playing, whoever-you-are.

 

[kjw47]

Doesn't the Torah say that it was given to the Jewish people? I'm not saying that they shouldnt follow them, but to say Gentiles were given the ten commandments as well - is absolutely false. Seemingly, this is something strongly disagreed on. Simple question, where in the Torah does it say that gentiles should keep shabbat? Does it say somewhere in the new testament that they should? Because if it brings it down upon them as obligatory. From a stringent point of view I'm asking an explanation - leniancy has a very moot standing in order to form proper exegetical analysis in the case of determining law. I.e. To say "this verse doesn't apply because it's outdated or was based off other religions at the time."*

Assuming one is to say that the Torah was given to Moses from G-d himself in it's full, then we are assuming that it holds divine authenticity. Though certain historical questions may arise in one reader to the next's mind, they're irrelevant to the matter which is being adressed. Based on an exegetical, lawful exposition of the Torah through context of scripture and/or any other alleged divinely inspired texts, history from a non-biblical standpoint is somewhat irrelevant to canonizing an authorative view point... Unless you're attempting to reform perspective on authenticity. You can still develop laws from and within the context of the Torah without knowing too much history. In other words from long held canonical texts and opinions, where do we arrive at the logic that a non Jew should keep shabbat based on textual analysis?*Simple as that. Forgive me if I'm being too wordy to ask a simple question, I just want to know how do Christians think they should participate in obliging themselves with the ten commandments. That's all.

the gentiles were given a greater law to live by--LOVE-- and i believe if one had the love required they would never steal from their brothers, never covet their brothers things, never murder, etc,etc,etc. Love covers all of the law. I do believe they would learn all of Gods laws and statutes, Gods teachers would surely be teaching all of Gods laws and statutes to the flock--afterall Jesus taught--Man does not live by bread alone, but by every utterance of God-- Jesus taught that because he meant it.

 

[sojourner]

Didn't Paul say that, basically, where there is no law, there is no sin?

 

[Nakosis]

Didn't Paul say that, basically, where there is no law, there is no sin?

I think what Paul was saying that for people "that had been changed by the Word of God". The desire for sin was no longer part of their nature. The laws were necessary because people sin. We needed something to go by to judge their actions fairly considering those doing the judging were as likely also tempted by sin.

However someone "freed" from sin wouldn't need laws to determine what is wrong. They would inherently know what is right/wrong and act accordingly.

 

[sojourner]

I think what Paul was saying that for people "that had been changed by the Word of God". The desire for sin was no longer part of their nature. The laws were necessary because people sin. We needed something to go by to judge their actions fairly considering those doing the judging were as likely also tempted by sin.

However someone "freed" from sin wouldn't need laws to determine what is wrong. They would inherently know what is right/wrong and act accordingly.

I'd have to look it up, but I believe what he was saying was: "No law -- no infraction."

 

[Nakosis]

the gentiles were given a greater law to live by--LOVE-- and i believe if one had the love required they would never steal from their brothers, never covet their brothers things, never murder, etc,etc,etc. Love covers all of the law. I do believe they would learn all of Gods laws and statutes, Gods teachers would surely be teaching all of Gods laws and statutes to the flock--afterall Jesus taught--Man does not live by bread alone, but by every utterance of God-- Jesus taught that because he meant it.

Jesus provided some commandments because saying one is a Christian does not mean they have been freed from sin. People who trusted Jesus that they would eventually be freed from sin, still needed guidance.

 

[Nakosis]

I'd have to look it up, but I believe what he was saying was: "No law -- no infraction."

I'm going by what I remember reading. I realize there are various interpretations.

But that sounds more like a recipe for chaos...

 

[Shermana]

I'd have to look it up, but I believe what he was saying was: "No law -- no infraction."

So you're saying that "Christians" are ultimately free to do whatever they please?

Didn't Paul say that, basically, where there is no law, there is no sin?

Yes and statements like that are more evidence that Paul was a false apostle.

 

[kjw47]

I think what Paul was saying that for people "that had been changed by the Word of God". The desire for sin was no longer part of their nature. The laws were necessary because people sin. We needed something to go by to judge their actions fairly considering those doing the judging were as likely also tempted by sin.

However someone "freed" from sin wouldn't need laws to determine what is wrong. They would inherently know what is right/wrong and act accordingly.

I believe Nakosis is correct in that it says it will be written on their hearts--meaning they could discern right from wrong. Also Jesus taught this--Man does not live by bread alone but by every utterance of God--So i do believe a true follower of Jesus would assuradly take the time out of their God given life and learn every utterance so that it would be written on their hearts, not pick and choose what to do, but apply it all with their whole heart,soul, and mind.

 

[kjw47]

Jesus provided some commandments because saying one is a Christian does not mean they have been freed from sin. People who trusted Jesus that they would eventually be freed from sin, still needed guidance.

Not one is freed from the penalty of sin--all die. The wages sin pays is death. I do believe its only at Harmageddon when the righteous are brought through, those will never have to die--That is what Jesus meant when he said some of you standing here will never die( Jesus was referring to the righteous in that statement not the individuals standing there, because all of them died.

 

[sojourner]

I'm going by what I remember reading. I realize there are various interpretations.

But that sounds more like a recipe for chaos...

How? Xtians don't, by and large, follow the law.