Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 149
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    My question to you would be: What value do you place on believers (Jew or Gentile) in Jesus keeping all or part of the 613 laws? And if you do, which ones should be kept, and for what reason?

    All the Best,
    Rose

    Could someone tell me where these 613 laws are spelled out?


    dr_sabra, where would you locate these laws?
    Brother Les

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Les View Post
    Could someone tell me where these 613 laws are spelled out?


    dr_sabra, where would you locate these laws?
    There are no first century documents that mention the 613 commandments, and there are no known lists prior to the eleventh century. Lenny's assertion in Post #58 that "[t]he Jewish world of Shaul’s time had mainstream belief in entrance to the coming world through faith in G-d, not by one’s successful completion of keeping the entire “taryag” of the mitzvot" is therefore totally anachronistic and has nothing to do with genuine first century Judaism. I find this utterly ironic, since his primary criticism has been my supposedly erroneous "stereotype of the 1st century Jewish world." I am amazed at how he speaks with such arrogant certainty while making such sophomoric errors.

    Furthermore, the idea that there are exactly "613" (the gematria of "taryag") commandments in the Torah is not based on any valid, or even logical, exegesis of the text of the Torah. It is nothing but a tradition supposedly based on the gematria of the word "Torah" (611) + 2 (for no good reason that I have ever seen). Personally, I think the real reason was that the gematria of BTWRH (IN THE TORAH) = 613. Obviously, the various "lists" were invented long after the number 613 was proposed. The wiki article gives a good overview of the logical problems with the doctrine that there are exactly 613 commandments in the Torah:

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki

    The rabbinic support for 613 is not without dissent and, even as the number gained acceptance, difficulties arose in elucidating the list. Some rabbis declared that this count was not an authentic tradition, or that it was not logically possible to come up with a systematic count. Not surprisingly, no early work of Jewish Law or Biblical commentary depended on the 613 system, and no early systems of Jewish principles of faith made acceptance of this Aggadah (non-legal Talmudic statement) normative. The classical Biblical commentator and grammarian Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra denied that this was an authentic rabbinic tradition. Ibn Ezra writes "Some sages enumerate 613 mitzvot in many diverse ways [...] but in truth there is no end to the number of mitzvot [...] and if we were to count only the root principles [...] the number of mitzvot would not reach 613" (Yesod Mora, Chapter 2).

    Nahmanides held that this counting was the matter of a rabbinic controversy, and that rabbinic opinion on this is not unanimous. Nonetheless, he concedes that "this total has proliferated throughout the aggadic literature... we ought to say that it was a tradition from Moses at Mount Sinai," (Nahmanides, Commentary to Maimonides' Sefer Hamitzvot'', Root Principle 1).

    Rabbi Simeon ben Zemah Duran likewise rejected the legal relevance of the 613, saying that "perhaps the agreement that the number of mitzvot is 613... is just Rabbi Simlai's opinion, following his own explication of the mitzvot. And we need not rely on his explication when we come to determine the law, but rather on the Talmudic discussions" (Zohar Harakia, Lviv, 1858, p. 99).

    Even when rabbis attempted to compile a list of the 613 commandments, they faced a number of difficulties:

    • Which statements were to be counted as commandments? Every command by God to any individual? Only commandments to the entire people of Israel?
    • Would an order from God be counted as a commandment, for the purposes of such a list, if it could only be complied with in one place and time? Or, would such an order only count as a commandment if it could - at least in theory - be followed at all times? (The latter is the view of Maimonides.)
    • How does one count commandments in a single verse which offers multiple prohibitions? Should each prohibition count as a single commandment, or does the entire set count as one commandment?

    Ultimately, though, the concept of 613 commandments became accepted as normative in the Jewish community. Today, even among those who do not literally accept this count as accurate, it is still a common practice to refer to the total system of commandments within the Torah as the "613 commandments."

    However, the 613 Mitzvot do not constitute a formal code of present-day halakhah. (See Halakha: Codes of Jewish law.) The most widely recognized is the Shulkhan Arukh, written by Rabbi Yosef Karo (Safed, Israel, 1550) and adopted to Ashkenazic custom by Rabbi Moses Isserles. For Sephardic Jewry, this is generally the accepted code. The Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh of Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried (Hungary 1804 -1886) is an especially popular among Ashkenazic Jews—though often criticized—overview of the rules of Ashkenazi Jewish life.
    Obviously, the dogmatic assertion that there are "613 commandments" in the Torah is without foundation in history, in the text of the Torah, or in logic itself. And again, it would be totally anachronistic to suggest that first century Jews would be concerned with keeping a list of "613 commandments."
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,113
    Thank-you for your response, Ram.

    I have just finished a book by Gary North on the 'Judeo/Christian Tradition'.....

    Bottom line of his book... there is no 'Tradition' by either, as one , for each is a stand alone Religion. One, the Isrealite New Covenant Messianic Cultus (Christian) and the other Rabbitical PharissianHumanism. The term does not come from either 'religion', but from the secular community and used as an afront to the religious community.

    Christians do not follow the Torah Law of the Mosaic Covenant, they follow the Torah Law of the Messianic Covenant.

    Like wise, Jews of Judaism do not follow Torah Law of the Mosaic Covenant, they follow the Rabbitical Law ie. Laws made (up) and enforced by the old Pharessian Sect of Rabbis.

    http://www.yoatzot.org/article.php?id=88

    Torah & Rabbinic Law (D'Oraita & D'Rabbanan)"Torah law" (D'Oraita) includes not only the commandments stated in the Torah, but also their authoritative Rabbinic interpretation. "Rabbinic law" (D'Rabbanan) refers to decrees enacted by the rabbis after the Torah was given. These Rabbinic decrees protect and enhance our observance of Torah Law.
    In most cases, Rabbinic law and Torah law are equally binding. Even when the Rabbis of the Talmud explicitly stated the reasoning behind an enactment, and circumstances have changed such that the reasoning no longer applies, the enactment remains in force unless formally revoked.
    However, our sages sometimes built special leniencies into Rabbinic laws. In cases of doubt (safek), after the fact (bediavad), or in extenuating circumstances (bish'at hadechak), rulings concerning Rabbinic law may be more lenient. The application of these general principles to particular cases is complex. A posek (halachic decisor) must consider many halachic factors and practical details before issuing a ruling appropriate to the individual situation.



    It is very interesting in reading of the Rabbis of the Talmud Cultus. One Rabbi making a decree in one direction and another making a decree in another direction and both being proclaimed as 'the law'.... but only if you (as a Jew) wish to follow what, if any law the you wish. The confusion runs deep and seems to be on par with the Koran in saying one thing in one place and the opposite in another. Knowing this, then the '613 commands' have nothing to do with the OT in the form of Gods Law of Ten, but mans law of unlimited......


    And by the way, if one wants to argue that it is the OT that is the Judeo/Christian tradition, you must also add Islam with the other two as they also hold that the OT is part of their past.
    Last edited by Brother Les; 08-08-2011 at 02:00 PM.
    Brother Les

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Les View Post
    Thank-you for your response, Ram.

    I have just finished a book by Gary North on the 'Judeo/Christian Tradition'.....

    Bottom line of his book... there is no 'Tradition' by either, as one , for each is a stand alone Religion. One, the Isrealite New Covenant Messianic Cultus (Christian) and the other Rabbitical PharissianHumanism. The term does not come from either 'religion', but from the secular community and used as an afront to the religious community.
    I have always thought that the phrase "Judeo/Christian" was supposed to reflect the fact that the two religions relate like parent to child. But this, of course, is disputable because there was no single "Judaism" in the first century to be a "parent" of Christianity, and neither was there a single version of Christianity that could be considered the "child." The Bible itself recognizes two primary Judaisms (Pharisee and Sadducee) and scholars know of many other variations. The modern religion of Judaism is itself fragmented into Orthodox, Reformed, Hasidic, and whatnot, and none of them represent a single "Judaism" that supposedly existed in the first century because all modern forms have accumulated a mountain of man-made traditions passed off as "oral Torah" or "Rabbinical proclamations" or whatnot. Case in point - Dr. Sabra blithely imposed the relatively modern concept of "613 commandments" onto first century Judaism as if it were an established fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Les View Post
    Christians do not follow the Torah Law of the Mosaic Covenant, they follow the Torah Law of the Messianic Covenant.
    That's correct. We know Christians after the destruction of 70 AD have never thought they should obey Torah, because if they did the first thing they would have done was REBUILD THE TEMPLE so they could go back to bloody animal sacrifices. They had all the opportunity in the world to do so since they controlled Jerusalem many times in history. But no Christian with any understanding would ever want to trample the blood of Christ by returning to carnal, bloody animal sacrifices that were TYPES, not the substance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Les View Post
    Like wise, Jews of Judaism do not follow Torah Law of the Mosaic Covenant, they follow the Rabbitical Law ie. Laws made (up) and enforced by the old Pharessian Sect of Rabbis.
    That's correct, and it is the source of gross corruption within the religion. The most obvious case is the practice amongst some Orthodox rabbis described in this article from the New York Times:

    Quote Originally Posted by New York Times

    A circumcision ritual practiced by some Orthodox Jews has alarmed city health officials, who say it may have led to three cases of herpes - one of them fatal - in infants. But after months of meetings with Orthodox leaders, city officials have been unable to persuade them to abandon the practice.

    The city's intervention has angered many Orthodox leaders, and the issue has left the city struggling to balance its mandate to protect public health with the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

    "This is a very delicate area, so to speak," said Health Commissioner Thomas R. Frieden.

    The practice is known as oral suction, or in Hebrew, metzitzah b'peh: after removing the foreskin of the penis, the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it.

    It became a health issue after a boy in Staten Island and twins in Brooklyn, circumcised by the same mohel in 2003 and 2004, contracted Type-1 herpes. Most adults carry the disease, which causes the common cold sore, but it can be life-threatening for infants. One of the twins died.
    So all it took was one pervert posing as a "Rabbi" and the next thing you know, you've got an unquestionable TRADITION to enforce! I saw similar kind of craziness in the Zohar. For example, it's author made up the idea that David did not sin with Bathsheba by inventing a host of ludicrous legal loopholes like "Uriah gave her a bill of divorce before going to battle" and on and on and on it goes. There are no standards by which to clean up the crap that infests religions. I find it particularly weird that the poor Jews can't enjoy a juicy steak because they must soak it overnight in water to ensure all the blood is removed while their "Rabbi" can suck a baby's bloody penis! That's just not right. This seems pretty typical of what religion does to the human mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Les View Post
    It is very interesting in reading of the Rabbis of the Talmud Cultus. One Rabbi making a decree in one direction and another making a decree in another direction and both being proclaimed as 'the law'.... but only if you (as a Jew) wish to follow what, if any law the you wish. The confusion runs deep and seems to be on par with the Koran in saying one thing in one place and the opposite in another. Knowing this, then the '613 commands' have nothing to do with the OT in the form of Gods Law of Ten, but mans law of unlimited......
    And don't forget the great pageantry of one infallible Pope contradicting the other! Again, it is the madness induced by religion which teaches people to not ask questions, and that the highest spiritual value is to be a gullible dupe that believes whatever one is told.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Les View Post
    And by the way, if one wants to argue that it is the OT that is the Judeo/Christian tradition, you must also add Islam with the other two as they also hold that the OT is part of their past.
    Yes, that is what the academics now do. They speak of the "Abrahamic religions" being Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,113
    Short, but very interesting read on what passes as Judaism of today that would appall Christians. Those of Judaism may claim Abraham as their Father, but it seems clear that Hagur is their mother.

    Go to author Gary North, book title Judeo Christian Tradition.

    http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm
    Last edited by Brother Les; 08-09-2011 at 07:32 AM.
    Brother Les

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Les View Post
    Short, but very interesting read on what passes as Judaism of today that would appall Christians. Those of Judaism may claim Abraham as their Father, but it seems clear that Hagur is their mother.

    Go to author Gary North, book title Judeo Christian Tradition.

    http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm
    I had to look around a bit to find it. You need to look on the sidebar for the "Books by title" link. Here is a direct link to the PDF:

    http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/d..._tradition.pdf

    It looks like an interesting read.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I had to look around a bit to find it. You need to look on the sidebar for the "Books by title" link. Here is a direct link to the PDF:

    http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/d..._tradition.pdf

    It looks like an interesting read.
    I tried to copy and paste the book set up page that gave you all of the details about the book and then you would be about to choose a pdf file. It always kicked it back to the start page of the web site. Duhhh , should have used the url on the book, but would have lost the book detail page. Also, there are many other interesting books and authors to look over. I do not agree with all of them or all that they write, but they make one think a little more.
    Brother Les

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by dr_sabra View Post
    Matthew 5.16-20. Try reading it. There is Yeshua's authentic teaching about the Torah, including all 613 mitzvot. What's he say? Cancel it? Or maybe that he contradicts it?
    Hi Lenny;
    Your invited to read this post on a discussion of the Sermon on the Mount.

    What did Jesus mean when he refered to 'these lesser commandments'?

    Verse 17 & 18 are parenthetical and contrasting within his deliverance of the sermon on the Mount. These 'lesser commandments' of verse 19 are not talking about the law; but about the instructions to the heart that he is then presently giving.

    The fulfillment of the law included the prophesies about the fulfillment of the latter end of the national entity that it created. There were prophecies that had yet to be fulfilled in Jesus day and in the first century. Many here on this forum hold the view that the law including it's prophesied ends was fulfilled by the end of what would have been Jesus' natural lifespan or 'day' and that this fulfillment of the law included the latter end of God's administration through the law and the destruction of the temple.

    Elsewhere you wrote:
    The New Covenant is not a contradiction of the 'older' one. They flow together, one renews the older ones (cf. Mt. 5.16-20).
    This is not so; In Jer 31; it is stated that the new covenant [to those under the mosaic covenant] would be NOT LIKE the one made when he took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt. It strongly implies, if not openly states, a Contrast of principles.

    The same contrast is implied in John 1:17. For the law came by Moses; BUT grace and truth through Jesus Christ.


    The contrast of the new prophet and His words, and love needed to supersede the law of Moses is found in Duet 5:25-29 and 18:15ff and declared fulfilled by Christ in John 5:46 and Acts 3:22-25. [The 'new' prophet of Deut 18 to bring the new words of the law of faith in God through knowledge of Him in Christ; of the new [to them] covenant.]

    The contrast is implied in Deut 30:6ff where the circumcision and indwelling of the heart is fore-told along with the time of the latter end of the mosaic covenant in Deut 31:29 and chapter 32. Paul declares the circumcision and indwelling of the heart fulfilled in receiving Jesus in Rom 10:4-9.


    The same contrast is found in Hebrews 10 where to revert to judaism and participate in the 'sin' of animal sacrifice and authority of the high Priests was to trample the blood of the covenant under foot. The 'contrast' is repeated in other places in Hebrews where if there was no fault with the 'old', there would have been no need to call the everlasting covenant 'new'.

    This is the message of the blessing to the latter son over the first son. The 'latter son' represents the fulfillment of the Everlasting covenant [as taught in chapter 3] and the seed promised to Eve; "the" Covenant of Dan 9:27; 'my covenant' passed through Noah and Abraham and the characteristics of the experiences of the patriarchs [Ps 105:1-10; Rom 9]. The former son represents the conditional, land-nation, temporal covenant of the mosaic law which was NOT made with the fathers [though it was prophesied to them] See Deut 5:1-3.
    1And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.

    2The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.

    3The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
    Paul refers to this 'bondage' of the conditional/national law in Gal 4 as the first son; and Barnabus includes the blessings of the other latter sons over the first son as having the identical meaning.

    Paul calls the law the administration of death in 2 Cor 3.

    For more info and perspective of the temporal nature of the law, feel free to visit these question which show that the mosaic covenant law was prophesied to have an end, 'latter end' and temporal purpose right when it was delivered by Moses.
    Last edited by EndtimesDeut32/70AD; 08-11-2011 at 06:23 AM.
    1Thess 4:8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    If you are oppressed and enslaved by religious law, you may have a tendency to oppress, enslave and attempt to lord over others who are free.

  9. #69

    response

    Well, gents, interesting comments, but I find that the same misunderstandings that I have often commented upon on this site are myriad in your responses. It seems like you are basically talking to yourselves (='preaching to the choir', is it called?) I am on vacation on the Emerald Isle right now, so I won't take the time to pick your thoughts apart. I will when I get back home, however, in another 10 days. Should be fun to dissect the very things that I've been bringing up on this blogsite.

    I still am hoping that there can be a bit more of a civility in the tone of the responses. We can all keep calm and speak with a little respect, n'est-ce pas?

    Lenny

  10. #70

    quick comment

    If sacrificing and participation in the Temple rituals was wrong, why did the early Messianic Jewish community continue taking part in such? (Acts 21 records such, some 30 years after Yeshua had died...my oh my! Either these 4 Messianic Jewish young men, and their financial sponsor [Shaul of Tarsus], and their community head [Yakov] were sinning, or they disagreed with the take that I'm reading about from you here).Cf. Acts 21.20-27. Was Shaul being a hypocrite, or did he see no contradiction between keeping the mitzvot of Torah, and his belief in Yeshua? It's one or the other, gents. [cf. Matthew 5.17ff].

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •