The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Simple Questions

Theology Christology
#1

I decided a few years ago to become religious. I found the best place to start was the beginning, so I opened up the old testament and read it in great detail (I learn in a seminary 10 hours a day for the last 3 years). After all this time I have a good grasp on the old testament, but very confused by the new testament. The following a couple of questions that haven’t been properly addressed. I would appreciated answers that are based of passages, rather feeling.

  1. It says in the old testament, that if your someone comes to you with sign and wonders, but tells you to stray, you not follow them even though they do mirales.
    In the new testament, JC comes along with signs and wonders, and tells the people to pull out ox that fell in a well on the Sabbath, which is forbidden under the command of not working on the Sabbath. Wouldn’t it be appropriate not to listen to JC?
  2. Which bring me to my next question, it says not work on the Sabbath or create a fire. People do this all the time (BBQ, gas stove, etc) Why is that?
  3. A woman should immerse in a body of water after a menstrual cycle, who does that either?
    4)It says in Mathew and Luke JC’s lineage, however they are contradicting? Since in the whole bible and prophets lineage is only recorder by the paternal side (Which can’t be the case, because gd is “clearly” the “father”), why is there a contradiction?
    An honest question, not meaning to incite anyone. If we’re all looking for truth hopefully nobody will be upset.
#2

Well, those aren’t particularly simple questions, Emet. :wink: The first one especially gets into a high-level rabbinic dispute in several ways!

But welcome to the forum. :slight_smile: I’m going to move this thread to “Christology”, since your questions seem to be about that, instead of a general discussion on whether God will save all sinners from sin or not.

1.) It was not forbidden to heal on the sabbath if life was in danger. Jesus’ question assumed everyone there agreed that even an ox could be pulled from a well on the Sabbath. The point of contention was over whether non-critical healing could be done on the Sabbath, did that count as work and thus as breaking the Sabbath?

Part of Jesus’ answer was that, because the Sabbath was made by God for man and not man for the Sabbath (rabbis later disputed both sides of that), therefore God allowed and even sometimes required creatures to serve other creatures on the Sabbath. (“The priests in the Temple profane the Sabbath and yet are blameless,” was one of his examples.)

Part of his answer was that even the possibility of being a life-threatening situation allowed permission to help someone: an ox in a well wasn’t necessarily in danger of dying but might be. Don’t take the chance, help the ox.

Part of his answer was that people are more valuable to God than animals, so healing a person is that much more fitting and honorable on the sabbath. (“How much more value, then, is a man than a sheep!!?”) This was also related to the hardness of heart in his religious opponents for watching to see if he would heal a man with a withered hand while teaching in the synagogue: using the man’s illness for their own purposes in such a way!

Part of his answer was that the Sabbath is for the best of things, saving someone is an ideal thing to do, therefore it is lawful to do the best things on the sabbath. (Now Jesus says them: “I will be asking you a question: is it allowed on the sabbaths to do good, or to do evil? – to save a soul, or to destroy!?” … And looking around on them furiously, grieved at their hardness of heart, he says: “So then – it is lawful to do the best things on the Sabbath!”) Later rabbis actually agreed God blesses a person for doing the best of things on the sabbath in honor of God. There is a slightly off-color joke about this from one of the Talmud disputes, where a rabbi agreed that a man ought to please his wife (sexually) every day of the week but twice on the sabbath; thus the joke about the emphasis of doing something “every day of the week and twice on Sundays!”

So far non-Christian rabbis could dispute about this with each other, and even reach conclusions similar to Jesus. But the religious leaders knew Jesus was making high authority claims about himself, and Jesus himself framed the issue of healing on the sabbath in subtle ways to make those claims.

So, part of the answer that a rabbi might accept easily enough is that God does not rest on the sabbath but continues the action of keeping reality in existence and doing many other things, including overt miracles on the sabbath, including healing. So as long as a mere person is not doing medical work there isn’t even a question; God can be gracious on the sabbath and not profane the sabbath. But Jesus wasn’t praying to God asking to heal people (as Rabbi ben Dosa later did), Jesus was healing by direct action. This is like forgiving someone for sinning against someone else. Jesus is making a claim of power and authority on par with God Most High. (“My Father is working until now; and I myself am working!”)

Similarly, another part of his answer was that, just as God had the authority to grant His servants permission to work for food on the Sabbath (David’s soldiers even ate the bread of the presence of YHWH when being chased by Saul, though fleeing Saul would have been doing work by Pharisee purity standards in Jesus’ day), Jesus had the authority to grant his servants permission to work for food (gleaning the fields for a snack).

Similarly again, back in connection with healing on the sabbath, when Jesus commands someone he has healed to pick up his pallet and walk, he knows that’s going to set off warning flags to the Pharisees, who would regard that as possibly being work therefore forbidden in order to hedge the sabbath.

To be fair, the Pharisees didn’t always argue that this or that was certainly breaking the sabbath, only that it might be so just to be safe people shouldn’t do it: especially for the purpose of convincing God that the people were finally righteous enough for God to send the Messiah to save them! (The Pharisees used to claim that if Israel could keep the Torah perfectly for only one day, God would send the Messiah to save them from the Romans.) You should be able to see how this topic also folds back into Jesus’ claims about himself and what it means to be the King Messiah. This also goes back to Jesus talking about the ox or the sheep in the well: if you’re going to appeal to the mere possibility of something as an argument to do or not do something, appeal in favor of helping save a life and doing the best of things. A non-Christian rabbi could in theory accept that; but would not be able to accept the authority claims Jesus was making along the way without becoming a Christian rabbi.

2.) We probably shouldn’t light a fire, or do chores to strain ourselves on the sabbath, unless we’re serving other people by doing so. There are Christian Jews who keep shabbat regularly by not lighting fire on the sabbath day, preparing their meals for the day beforehand (and doing twice as much work the preceding day, by the way!) It’s a question of how best to love God and one’s neighbor on the sabbath: does lighting a fire or not lighting a fire do that best? There are different opinions either way. I for one am very grateful that other people light fires on the sabbath! – I think I should do the same to help them on their days off, in honor of God and my neighbor. (Sometimes I think God’s main purpose in having Jews, Muslims, and Christians, is so that one day we may each help provide the other with sabbath days. :slight_smile: )

3.) I don’t know how carefully women wash themselves after a menstrual cycle, not being a woman, but it seems like a good idea. The point is to remove the blood which might otherwise rot and lead to disease and other unhealthiness: much more of a problem in ancient (sometimes even modern) Near Middle Eastern countries than here in America (in most places). If a woman is being clean, and services are being provided for her to do so, that seems to meet the spirit of the law.

4.) With God being the father, that would itself explain the contradiction: someone could legitimately argue either way that the lineage could be traced back through Joseph or through Mary, although interestingly there are legal issues not merely biological in either geneology. GosMatt traces the biological lineage from Joseph back to Abraham (with a bit of telescoping, typical of lineage tracing in that time and place, though Matthew may not have realized that since he tries to make a point out of the resulting numbers), but states clearly that Joseph was not biologically Jesus’ father. GosLuke traces the legal lineage, which usually happens to be biological but not necessarily. In that case the only salient question is why there are two different fathers of Joseph, but because of the distinction in wording the inference is that Joseph was adopted into Mary’s family as the son of Eli. (This doesn’t fit church traditions outside the scriptures, but I’m not overly concerned about reconciling those.)

#3

Sure glad you created this thread. The first question is golden and one and I have been researching for a few days. As for your other questions, also great, but I believe Jason answered them exactly how I would have (except, with far fewer words :>), especially the lineage. The more I study Judaism, the more I see that they have reason to reject Jesus as the Messiah; some of their arguments are very sound! All of my Judaism that I knew previously has been fed to me by Christians, not Jews. Therefore, I have always received a biased opinion. When I study Judaism, I find the other side of the argument and they are compelling. Especially “The Lord (God) said to my lord (Jesus)” whereas, they insist in the Hebrew it was “The Lord (God) said to my lord (King David)”. I also find it difficult to understand Jesus. He claims that only God is good, then claims he is God. I still believe in Jesus Christ, but I am definitely still searching, in case I am very mistaken.

#4

The apparent conflict between the geneologies of Joseph as found in Matthew and Luke was resolved by the early church historian, Eusebius.

I regret that the right side of the following diagram is cut off, but I think you can follow it anyway. See the explanation below the diagram:

Matthan and Estha (according to Josephus this was her name) had a biological son, Jacob. Then Matthan died, and Matthat married his widow Estha who birthed Heli.

Thus Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers (had the same mother).

Heli married “Eva” ( I gave her this name for clarification), but Heli died and they had no children.

Jacob did the honourable thing and married his sister-in-law “Eva”, so as to produce offspring for his brother, according to ancient Hebrew practice:

And Judas said to Aunan, Go into your brother‵s wife, and marry her as her brother-in-law, and raise up offspring to your brother.
And Aunan, knowing that the offspring should not be his… (Genesis 38:8 An English Translation of the Septuagint.)

Note: Any child that should result would be the legal offspring of Er, Thamar‵s husband who had died. Aunan knew that legally the child would not be considered his, but Er‵s.

So Joseph, the husband of Mary, was the biological son of Jacob, but legally (according to Hebrew law) was the son of Heli.

#5

1)Paidion, I first have to say that yours is the best response I have gotten, that ancient tradition of leverite marriage is the answer. However, if Joseph is not the biological father, then that answer goes out the window, and keeps me wondering why are they doing the lineage of Joseph at all. He’s an adoptive father at best, and as sweet as that might be, in a legal stance that does not affect JC’s lineage at all. It is similar to asking an adoptive father his medical history when his adopted son is very sick.

2)Jason I appreciate your detailed response, I think it was well thought out, and am impressed by your knowledge. However, your response has a couple of cracks. I would agree that regards to a case where a person will die without intervention, even the sages would agree that something must be done. When David’s soldier did work on the Sabbath, that can considered saving heir own life, as Saul would have killed them all, thus they would be excused. But Gd doesn’t contradict himself, and JC would be sinning against gd “do not put a stumbling block in front the blind”, by saying its ok to glean for a snack. If it isn’t life threatening, it is forbidden. I believe the penalty for working on the Sabbath is death, implying the high regard that working on the Sabbath is. I believe in exodus, that a man was found collecting fire wood, the matter came before moses, and it was decided that the man would die. Couldn’t the man just have said “I was doing to help my fellow”. We can see from here, that unless you need the to do the work for someone to live, that it is forbidden.
3)in regards to a women immersing after a menstrual cycle, the answer I received was speculative not based on anything the bible. The reason they immersed was purity issue, much like a baptism, and not a cleanliness issue.

#6

I’ll take a “go” at it, though Jason and Paidion are much more learned on the topic than I.

1.) The purpose of the Sabbath was to enforce a time – a day of the week – in which people focused on God above all else. It also insured that servants, slaves & women would be guaranteed a day in which to rest from the brutal labor of survival in a world in which survival was always in the balance. There are a few examples given of “work,” but mostly the definition of “work” is left for interpretation. This doesn’t (to me) mean that all interpretations (of what qualifies as work) will be correct. We are to interpret the spirit rather than the letter of the law. (The letter kills but the spirit gives life.) I agree with this statement of Jesus. It makes sense. The point of the law was NOT to cause harm but rather to do good to those who kept it. A man carrying home his sleeping mat after having been healed from paralysis is NOT work. Forcing him to sit there next to it until sunset so that it won’t be stolen is far more uncomfortable and tiring for this man than allowing him to carry it home. Furthermore, forcing this in no way brings honor or glory to God. Having the man (who was most likely known by many) carry his mat home after God had healed him DOES bring honor and glory to God as it highlights what God has done for him.

Jesus’ “work” in healing on the Sabbath consisted in asking a woman to “stretch out her hand,” and then presenting her to the people whole and loosed from her infirmity. He didn’t even touch her. In another “work” He spat on the dust and made clay from the spittle. This the Pharisees interpreted as the mixing of clay. As a potter, I can verify that mixing clay by hand is laborious in the extreme. Rubbing a bit of moisture in your palm with some powdered clay dust is NOT work. Jesus didn’t violate the Sabbath. He violated the Rabbis over-the-top interpretation of the Sabbath. By their interpretation, a tailor who accidentally left a needle fixed to the hem of his tunic was breaking the law and guilty of sin. Any thinking person will realize this is ridiculous. God is not ridiculous. He looks at the heart. If the tailor is carrying around the needle in hope of getting in some “under the table” work on the Sabbath, then THAT would be a violation and, under the old covenant, a sin.

Jesus’ argument that “every man of them looses his donkey and leads it out on the Sabbath” is an example of the fact that even the Pharisees acknowledged that some forms of “work” were justifiable on the Sabbath for the comfort of both animals and humans. These people kept their livestock in a “stable” room in their houses during the night hours, to protect them from theft and predators. In the morning, they would lead the animals out to feed and water them and so that the house could be cleansed for the family’s use during the day. This was not considered work, yet these same men wanted to call Jesus’ act of healing the old woman who went about bent over double (with a mere word) a violation of the Sabbath. This is ridiculous hypocrisy. If the Pharisees have to be right according to the law, and Jesus wrong, then I’m going with Jesus. I have a brain. God gave it to me and I think He means for me to use it.

  1. This one is irrelevant. Jesus completed the old covenant and initiated the new covenant with His sacrifice on the cross. God gave His work the ultimate seal of approval when He raised Jesus from the grave. Those who are under the new covenant (Christians) and those who were NEVER under the old covenant (all non-Jews) and those who have left the old covenant for the new (Jewish Christians) are under no obligation to keep old covenant laws. Many cultural Jews who become Christians do continue in culturally Jewish ways and that’s fine. But aside from the love of their families and friends, they are under no obligation to keep the old covenant law (unless their consciences, being weak in that area, constrain them).

  2. This is also irrelevant old covenant law. That said, all women I know are eager to cleanse themselves thoroughly both during and after a menstrual cycle. Immersion in a body of water would be nice, especially in a dry dusty climate like the Middle East. I honestly think God put this one on the books for the sole purpose of blessing women. It is 5 degrees Fahrenheit here though at the moment. Immersion in a body of water (after drilling through the ice) would possibly be fatal.

  3. From what I’ve read on this subject, a Jewish man could disown his natural son, but an adopted son could never be disowned. The adopted son inherited not only the adoptive father’s name and estate, but also his lineage.

A bond of marriage created more relationships than that of husband and wife. The bride’s father and mother became the mother and father of the groom as well, and vice versa. These were real, fully acknowledged relationships in Jesus’ culture.

There are many theories as to why Jesus’ two genealogies appear to be different. I’m no expert, so I’ll leave it to those more knowledgeable on the topic to argue the various merits of the various arguments. I do understand that genealogies often skipped many generations while still stating that so and so was the father of such and such – even though he was actually the great x10 grandfather of such and such. You can see an example of this when the Jews said to Jesus: “We have one father: Abraham.” It was a convenient, short-hand way of speaking and not meant to be a precise literal statement.

Incidentally, I was told a few days ago (by a Jewish person) that “Jewishness” is passed through the maternal lineage. If this is the case, I wonder what implications this cultural tidbit has for the question at hand. :nerd:

Be blessed!
Cindy

#7

Hi Cindy you brought up a good question. What is considered work. the sages defined them as the 39 different types of work that was used to create the tabernacle. Picking up a very heavy couch, and moving it from one end of the room to the other, wouldn’t be considered work although very diffcult, but turning on the pilot to your stove would be even though quite easy. Unfortunately I can’t accept your answer as there aren’t any basis, although what you say isn’t the first time I’ve heard it. It says in the old testament, that the covenant is an ETERNAL covenant. Unless Gd is a liar or has a bad memory, which ofcourse he doesn’t, cannot and would not annul this covenant. All of a sudden JC annuls it, he can’t; and if he says he does, that concludes my first question.The old test. says if a man tells you to do something that is contrary to the old test., even if they show signs and wonders, don’t do it. If my memory serves me well, I think the bible says if your brother tells you to worship him, your supposed to kill him. Please check that out for me, as I don’t half the book in front of me this moment.
Many of questions have been disregarded as “Old Test” no longer applies, which is incorrect. If it didn’t apply, I could kill, and steal, and the 10 commandments wouldn’t apply either, I could, as you say, follow them in spirit, but not the letter of the law.
In regards to lineage. It has never happened in all the bible or prophets that you can adopt someone’s lineage, or take your in laws lineage as your own. Once again, in my original post I asked for proofs and not someone’s speculation.
In regards to jews being jews based on the mother side, I looked it up and it is learned it out from a passage in the old test. very spooky, I def. a shiver go down my back a is it is learned out in black and white.
I saw your attempted proof of what JC about Abraham, however, I’m putting serious doubts out on the new test completely, as I see so many mistakes, thus you can’t satisfy me by using the new test to prove anything, it must be proven using the old test.

#8

As Christ affirmed, there really is only one Law upon which all else, including the Old Testament law and prophets hang: Love. When this spirit of Law is not present in a mere outward following of the letter of a law, that violates the Law which all else should be in service of. By always fulfilling this Law of Love, in his life and death, the purpose of all things that extend from it has also been fulfilled.

Where there are principles in Old Testament law that are statements of the moral, natural law which is over all, these stand for all time, all situations: thou shall not steal, etc. Things like dietary laws are, I think, specific to the cultural context of the moment, what those people required at the time, either for their particular practical or character-forming needs.

As Paul discusses, the old law was like a schoolmaster showing that the real Law is not satisfied by mere outward striving and ritualism – and this goes along with God saying He cared not for sacrifices when the people’s hearts were not right. Mere following of external rules is dry, dead. Following the Law of Love from within is a wellspring of life and meaning – the only meaning and purpose of everything, in the end.

#9

Micah, a Christian would say homosexuality is forbidden because gd calls it “an abomination”. It is called this even when it is in the spirit of love. Funny enough dieters laws such as eating pork is also called an abomination. Why is there a distinction between the 2? Whether your gay or eat pork, according to the old test. Gd thinks the act is disgusting. I hope this isn’t interpretated as hate speech, I have not hate for anyone who eats pork or has inclination to someone of their own gender. As i stated in an earlier thread gd told Moses that the man who collected fire wood on the sabbath should be killed. Perhaps this man collecting in the spirit of love, but as can be seen from the text, gd doesn’t care spirit or not. Also said earlier the covenant is called an eternal one. My definition of eternal is forever and ever, not a matter of a thousand years or so.

#10

The point Jason made about the healing of the withered hand is critical because they were concerned, as he demonstrated, not only, perhaps not even primarily, with healing on the Sabbath but with the authority He presented. Jesus claimed “All authority” in heaven and earth. He claimed to be the Son of God and Messiah. Certainly He has the authority, as the One who would fulfill the law, and to transcend it with the “new commandment”(as Micah demonstrated) to interpret it. Whether or not the Sanhedrin agreed with His interpretation has little import if His claim to authority as the “bread of life coming down from heaven” is verified, which it was, in His death, burial and resurrection- if one believes in that, which is the basis for a relationship with God under the new covenant according to Romans 10.

“If you confess with your mouth Jesus Christ as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead you will be saved”(healed/delivered/made whole)

In Philippians 2 we see that, “every knee will bow…and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father”, because God has given Jesus the name above every name and exalted him above all, because He became a servant, humbling Himself in obedience to the point of death on a cross, in order to reconcile mankind. “As in Adam all die, so also in Christ will all be made alive”.

How does one act of righteousness overcome all acts of unrighteousness?

Because “No greater love has a man than this than to lay down His life for a friend.”

The greatest act of love, performed by the only one able(by virtue of virgin birth, sown by the Father, a holy seed of a new generation- a new lineage- born not of the will of man nor of the will of the flesh but of God- and by grace through faith in His Lordship and resurrection birth into it).

Certified by resurrection from the dead. “Declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection of the dead”-Paul

The new commandment swallows the old and the new lineage supersedes the old, but eventually all will come into the new lineage(Romans 11:30-36 and 1 Cor 15:22-28)each in his own order.

“If any man be in Christ he is a new creation, old things pass away, all things become new”

“Behold, I am making all things new”.

The Lord said unto my Lord, sit at my right hand… Jesus is given all authority and with it, by proper lineage and by the man after God’s heart who does all that is in His will, receives the key of David, so the psalm is fulfilled in them both- David initially and then the one who would come after, the Son of David, who was(if you receive it) Jesus- made Kings by calling and election of God.

“This same man whom you crucified God has made both Lord and Christ” and “being exalted to His right hand has received the promise of the Holy Spirit” now poured froth in the hearts of all them who believe enabling the ability to walk in the new commandment.('I will live among them and dwell among them and I will be there God and they will be My people", "I will take away their heart of stone(rooted in the letter) and give to them a heart of flesh(rooted and grounded in love(Eph3:19) and I will cause them to keep my commands (as a free will offering out of love for God-command one; and love for fellow man- command 2) by the enabling Spirit- “Prophesy to the wind”.

Dry bones live…“I live, yet not I, the life I live in the flesh I live by the faith of the son of God”
"The Spirit itself testifies within our spirits that we are children of God, whereby we cry “Abba Father”

Certified by the testimony of the spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the dead, and by the hope of resurrection. “The whole creation anxiously the revelation of the sons of God” … “and we ourselves also…awaiting our adoption as sons(placement in the house as steward/inheritors” …“even the resurrection of our bodies.” (Rom 8)

Perfect love casts out all fear, and the fruit of the spirit nullifies the law, and Jesus is in the process of nullifying “all rule power and authority” by subjecting every being under His feet(nail pierced feet), destroying (nullifying) evry adversary- the last of which is death, hence no more need for law, rule, power, or authority because all creation is set free from futility into the glorious freedom of the children of God, which is perfect love, love fulfilled- I do only those things i here from my Father.

Jesus did miracles and signs to serve man and glorify God under the Father’s authority.

He said the one who speaks his own words seeks his own glory. The ones who come with signs but are not under the Father’s authority, or under(now) Jesus’s authority- coming in their own names- not in the name above evry name, who only acts in the name of I AM That I AM, and for His glory.

#11

I might add that the "Sabbath rest of the believer (Hebrews 1-4) is what we labor diligently to enter. “Today if you hear His voice…” If we hear it, to walk in works “prepared from the foundation of the world, for us to walk in”, so that the penalty of death is for those who work (“repentance from dead works” Heb… 6) dead works, when rest is given, a Sabbath of God, “I live, yet not I”- the result of dying and reckoning oneself dead with Christ, “If any man would be my disciple, let him pick up his cross and come follow me” and “If anyman has entered God’s rest he has ceased from his own works.” “I only do what I hear from my Father(true rest)”.

Isaiah 28:12,13
To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear(Today if you hear My voice harden not your hearts…and I said they shall not enter My rest)
But(so) the word of the Lord was(became) unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Take my yoke upon you(obedience to the Father’s voice) and learn of me, you will find rest for your souls"

Love is the new Sabbath, laying down ones life in love the new command that transcends the old command, I no longer work but freely give what has been created in me and is bubbling forth by grace through faith - “Christ in me the hope of glory”.

Its hard to believe we can walk in such intimacy and freedom of love with God, but Messiah assures us we shall and prays that we would be one “as I and the Father are one…As I am in you and you are in me and I am in the Father.” The new vine :slight_smile:

#12

This question about healing on the sabbath got me to thinking. Our discussions here are talking about some miracle worker or supernatural healer. But I do know that surgical techniques and herbal medicines were available in ancient times. I think if you research TCM (i.e. Traditional Chinese Medicine) or Ayurveda from India, y9ou might find setting bones and surgical techniques being used hundreds or thousands of years ago. So my question is this: If someone breaks an arm or leg, or gets sick and needs a herbal treatment on the Sabbath, did Jewish culture and law forbid it? If not, what is the difference between that and a miracle healing on the Sabbath?

#13

It was allowed if their was a worry someone might die. So there wouldn’t be a difference about healing. But healing the blind, would be forbidden.

#14

I wonder if there is a distinction in the word ‘work’, as in working for ones own benefit, as in for pay or profit or want or pleasure or out of the carelessness of having not prepared for rest, as opposed for helping someone in genuine need of any type that was of an emergency on the Sabbath that might have been recognized even in the hearers of the law then, or some of them, and was intended even in the giving of the law- that Jesus was explaining.

Certainly being pulled out of a ditch would not get one killed, or being healed. Certainly only the puller or the healer would have to die :laughing:

#15

So Emet, just to help me out and not to put you in a box or anything. Are you Jewish? Because if you are, of course I wouldn’t expect you to accept any of the NT. (Which it appears you do not.)

Just as an aside and without attempting to argue with any of your other points . . . the word in the OT used as “eternal” is olam (or that’s one transliteration of it). It doesn’t actually mean eternal. It means age-lasting or long-lasting and is very frequently used that way in the OT.

#16

The apostle John clearly stated that Jesus broke the Sabbath. Some try to say that the verse below indicates only that the Jews THOUGHT He had broken the Sabbath. But this verse is not the statement of the Jews, but that of the apostle John in his record of events.

John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

#17

Paidion,

How can that be, since Jesus was without sin? If He truly broke the Sabbath according to the actual spirit of the OT law, then wouldn’t that be sin? I’m not sure I’d read it that way even without that caveat though. They wanted to stone Him because He had broken the Sabbath – it’s not clear here that John is saying that He DID break the Sabbath, but it IS clear that the Jews felt He had broken the Sabbath. Besides, it’s my understanding that you do NOT believe that Jesus is equal with God (or have I been misunderstanding you?), so why would you take the first as a statement of absolute fact, but not the second?

Just respectfully trying to understand your reasoning here.

Cindy

#18

Cindy, I am impressed that you know some Hebrew. The words in the ot is “brit leolam vayed” aka a covenant forever and ever, it is very literal. When gd says something (anywhere, let alone in the ot (ie. not wearing wool and linen in the same garment, not killing, not sowing a field with 2 different seeds)). There are very few places that we aren’t literal, I for one believe the red sea really did split. Once again, not to argue, just a passionate discussion.
Paidon, you are on fire, I love how you back everything up with a verse. True arguments on your side, whether you agree with me or not, very impressed. The verse says he broke the Sabbath, if that’s the case it would be apparent that he had preached others incorrect laws regarding the Sabbath. This brings me back to my first question, would it not have been proper to uphold the OT by not listening to the person that comes with signs and wonders that tells others to fall off the proper path?

#19

Emet –

At one time, eating meat of any kind would have been an abomination, given that vegetation was what was endorsed for food. God’s endorsement of eating meat after the Flood didn’t include any such restrictions; and it seems this was the case until the time of Moses. So the patriarchs could very likely have been engaging in all kinds of things which were not ‘abominations’ in their own context, in their own time and place, but would be abominations in a setting of God specifically calling a particular people in another time and place to be set apart from other cultures in this way.

The old law calls for animal sacrifices to be made for sin offerings – are you suggesting that the entire world needs to be doing that now (or working towards resuming it, and continuing it in perpetuity)? Are you doing that now (or at least working towards a priest resuming that for you), per the law? The old law calls for stoning people for some of the things you’ve mentioned: are you advocating we resume capital punishment for these things?

I’d say the eternal, universal abomination is non-Love, in any form, against anyone whether God or man, which is a matter of the heart within, and what is driving it to perform a particular action or think a particular thought in a particular time or place. If the Law of Love is what everything else derives from, then any sin is at root a violation of Love, which is what makes it sin.

At least, this is where I’m at in thinking about this, for now…

#20

Micah
Permission was given by gd to eat meat after the flood, and the restriction that were given was part of the noahide laws, one of which a limb of an animal cannot be ripped off a living animal. I doubt our kind hearted patriachs did such things.
The offereing were on done at the holy temple or tabernacle. Since they no longer exist, it would be forbidden to perform the sacrifice service. Once it is restored it must be continued.
Same by Capital punishment. It only happened when the igh court (Sanhedrin) was around, and capital cases are no longer tried. Once it returns it will and should happen again. FYI, capital cases happened at most once in 70 years, they were very rare.
I respect your opinion; the ot says “to hate evil”. It appears that there are time when love isn’t the answer and gd would rather us to hate.