Why Islam, Christianity and modern Judaism are all apostate religious institutions.

[catch22]

Can you show me where Jesus taught this?

...? I did. That's why I quoted and broke down Matthew 5 there. Or, be more specific?

 

[Simplelogic]

You said in post 60 that the laws were given with the "intention of them taking them into the land of Israel to fully practice them" even though the text never says that. You also said that the laws of the sabbath were based on an agrarian system, even though the text never says that. The text clearly gives the laws of the sabbath outside of the land and never says that anything related to the sabbath each week depends on being in the land. So your definition of work as predicated on an agrarian system is pure invention.

This is silly. Are you really going to argue that Ancient Israel, along with most all other cultures, weren't agrarian based societies? Isn't this why we have commands on how to treat our animals on Sabbath?

 

[rosends]

1. It is logical to assume that Adam would copy God's expressed will in the garden. Its not like God told Adam this for no reason.
3. 20And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. Gen 8:20
4. The fact that Abraham was in covenant with another women proves he understood the law of marriage. As did other cultures.

1. "logical to assume"? So you are adding. OK.
3. You assume that "clean beast" has something to do with kosher laws and that the sacrifice in that verse had anything to do with eating. In fact, Noah is told in 9:2-5 that he can eat ANY animal just not the blood so there is no notion of the kosher laws there.
4. being in a covenant with a woman means he understood his society's laws of relationships -- not any law from God.

 

[Simplelogic]

...? I did. That's why I quoted and broke down Matthew 5 there. Or, be more specific?

You didn't break down anything. You dismissed Jesus direct declaration of the validity of the law of Moses.

 

[rosends]

This is silly. Are you really going to argue that Ancient Israel, along with most all other cultures, weren't agrarian based societies? Isn't this why we have commands on how to treat our animals on Sabbath?

The laws were not given predicated on the definition of work in an agrarian culture. You can't show that they were unless you ADD TO the text. The commands related to animals on the sabbath textually relate to animals doing work the same way a servant does work, or a child. That's all it says. Can you show me any agrarian-animal verses?

 

[catch22]

You didn't break down anything. You dismissed Jesus direct declaration of the validity of the law of Moses.

No, I didn't. He said the words Himself. He didn't come to abolish or destroy the law, He came to fulfill it. And it would remain until the work He set out from the beginning to accomplish.

And He lived as testiment to the law, abided in it, fulfilled it, and no one but He could. Answer me this: what did Jesus mean by He came to fulfill the law?

 

[rosends]

Except I am not the one telling everyone they need to follow my interpretation exclusively. YOU AND YOUR RABBIS ARE!!

So you are actually deciding that the interpretation by rabbis who have meditated, contemplated and studied should be followed? Great!

 

[Nakosis]

You can say what you want about the validity of the law of Moses. I would be happy to defend it against the bogus myth that the Torah was hijacked form Egypt. Easily debunked.

You can debunk it, maybe another tread. Let me know if you choose to take on that task.

My point is that a religion is bogus if it claims the law of Moses as "divine revelation" yet goes against or nullifies those same commandments.

They all have their explanations of why this was necessary. Just as I am sure you can explain that the Torah is not an apostate of some prior religion.

Ok, you are saying the claims of these other beliefs are bogus because they reference the Torah but not making any claims in this thread about the authenticity of the Torah.

I guess I will wait for the thread where you do.

 

[Simplelogic]

1. "logical to assume"? So you are adding. OK.
3. You assume that "clean beast" has something to do with kosher laws and that the sacrifice in that verse had anything to do with eating. In fact, Noah is told in 9:2-5 that he can eat ANY animal just not the blood so there is no notion of the kosher laws there.
4. being in a covenant with a woman means he understood his society's laws of relationships -- not any law from God.

So you are actually deciding that the interpretation by rabbis who have meditated, contemplated and studied should be followed? Great!

No. I have determined that I will consider there words but not blindly follow them. Nor esteem them as the only ones capable of discerning truth.

 

[Simplelogic]

No, I didn't. He said the words Himself. He didn't come to abolish or destroy the law, He came to fulfill it. And it would remain until the work He set out from the beginning to accomplish.

And He lived as testiment to the law, abided in it, fulfilled it, and no one but He could. Answer me this: what did Jesus mean by He came to fulfill the law?

Obviously not what you are suggesting because he went on to say that "anyone who diminishes the smallest command from the Torah will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. "

 

[metis]

Obviously not what you are suggesting because he went on to say that "anyone who diminishes the smallest command from the Torah will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. "

If Jesus supposedly demanded full adherence to the Law, why did the apostles gradually walk away from it? Doncha think Jesus would have made his feelings clear to them?

 

[catch22]

Obviously not what you are suggesting because he went on to say that "anyone who diminishes the smallest command from the Torah will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. "

Clearly, you didn't read my post.

 

[rosends]

No. I have determined that I will consider there words but not blindly follow them. Nor esteem them as the only ones capable of discerning truth.

Ah, so then if Judaism as it is today is based on the teachings of those rabbis whom you would agree to consider, because people who have thought about it have decided to follow them, it cannot be an apostate religion. You have no standing to decide that the decisions made by others about what to understand and follow are wrong or apostasy.

 

[catch22]

If Jesus supposedly demanded full adherence to the Law, why did the apostles gradually walk away from it? Doncha think Jesus would have made his feelings clear to them?

I think Jesus did make it clear; the apostles understood His teachings. Simplelogic simply... doesn't...

 

[catch22]

Ah, so then if Judaism as it is today is based on the teachings of those rabbis whom you would agree to consider, because people who have thought about it have decided to follow them, it cannot be an apostate religion. You have no standing to decide that the decisions made by others about what to understand and follow are wrong or apostasy.

I was gonna use Jeremiah 31:31-33, but it's not the Torah, so like, it doesn't matter...

We still haven't heard from Simplelogic on if God can add to His work, or not. Such a simple question, so slippery a slope....

 

[Flankerl]

3. 20And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. Gen 8:20

Berei**** 9:3
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be for food for you; as the green herb have I given you all.
ג כָּל-רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא-חַי, לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה: כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת-כֹּל.

But its probably a metaphor.

 

[Simplelogic]

I was gonna use Jeremiah 31:31-33, but it's not the Torah, so like, it doesn't matter...

We still haven't heard from Simplelogic on if God can add to His work, or not. Such a simple question, so slippery a slope....

See above ^^^

 

[Simplelogic]

Berei**** 9:3
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be for food for you; as the green herb have I given you all.
ג כָּל-רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא-חַי, לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה: כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת-כֹּל.

But its probably a metaphor.

1And the LORD said unto Noah: ‘Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation. 2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, each with his mate; and of the beasts that are not clean two [and two], each with his mate; Gen 7: 1-2

 

[Simplelogic]

Berei**** 9:3
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be for food for you; as the green herb have I given you all.
ג כָּל-רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא-חַי, לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה: כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת-כֹּל.

But its probably a metaphor.

You don't understand the Hebrew use of hyperbole I assume? When God says "every green herb", did God mean Adam was to munch on poison ivy and other poisonous plants? Come on.

 

[Flankerl]

1And the LORD said unto Noah: ‘Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation. 2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, each with his mate; and of the beasts that are not clean two [and two], each with his mate; Gen 7: 1-2

The Verse is about the animals to rescue, not to eat. You don't save animals by eating them, crazy **** I know.
Prior to Berei**** 9 Humans weren't allowed to eat any meat. So why should Berei**** 7 go into detail which animals are fair to eat? Berei**** 9 and beyond might be a place to check for references.

You don't understand the Hebrew use of hyperbole I assume? When God says "every green herb", did God mean Adam was to munch on poison ivy and other poisonous plants? Come on.

Ah but you do, of course.
Also since when are poison ivy or other poisonous plants herbs?