O.T. Law

[ChristianCynic]

Ain't true, bud. Besides the issues of cooking, watering, picking up a chair, et al, on the 7th day, consider that part of the '2nd' commandment which says 'you shall not make ANY likeness of ANYthing. That rules out photography, engineering drawing, computer icons, and models, among many other examples.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Johnv:
The Ten Commandments fall into the category of moral law and apply to us in their entirety. They are all issues of right/wrong.

Amen.

Ken

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by ChristianCynic:
Ain't true, bud.... consider that part of the '2nd' commandment which says 'you shall not make ANY likeness of ANYthing. That rules out photography, engineering drawing, computer icons, and models, among many other examples.

You're only reading half the Commandment. It's a common mistake, so common, it's enough to make the tassles fall off my kesooth!!

The Commandment is a two-parter: 1-You shall not make a gaven image (likeness), and 2-You shall not bow down and worship it.

So, you can take a photo, but you can't worship it. You can make a statue of Jesus, but not worship it. You can stick a statue of Buddah in your garden, but you can't worship it. You can make a painting, but you can't worship it.

God is telling us that only He is to be given worship, not any likeness thereof. But it does not forbid likenesses, only worship of them in His place.

Now as far as the Keeping of the Sabbath Day, there's much debate over this one in Christianity. Many say we've no longer bound to keep it. I disagree, because I believe that the Ten Commandments are moral and not covanental, and therefore are timeless. However, the commandment says, in addition to keeping the Sabbath day Holy, that if we work six days, we are commanded to rest. So resting (refraining from labor)is how we keep the day holy. Now the NT also says that we should not be judged by the day we keep, so I can understand why most gather on Sunday. But I think the spirit of the commandment is that we're commanded to rest. How we rest is not specified, but we must rest. That being said, I think that Christians who say this commandment no longer applies are dead wrong.

But before you ask the question, yes, it's morally wrong to work more than six days without resting. Ask any doctor. The first treatment for physical fatigue is regular rest.

[ July 23, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by ChristianCynic:
I can and I have, bud.

Originally posted by ChristianCynic:
The word "Decalogue" is not in the passage you cited.

And yet both examples supplied by James in the following verse are from the Decalogue! That James meant the Ten Commandments when he said "law" is obvious to the most casual observer. What do you think he was talking about? Circumcision?

Originally posted by ChristianCynic:
And in your example above concerning the sabbath, you stated "the NT form may be different." So if any part-- the particular day, no work of any kind by you, your family, servants, or animals-- is done away with-- and if the 'NT form is differnt,' it has been-- you say it has all [presumably the 'decalogue'] been done away.

Talk about moronic reasoning. Sheesh!

Now, about your examples to Johnv:

Could you find for me in the Ten Commandments, where lifting a chair, cooking, and watering are mentioned? Even the blind rabbis knew that works of mercy and necessity were not forbidden.

Now your violence to the Second Commandment:

That the ban on images and likenesses was not a complete and total ban, but only a ban on them as objects of worship, is evident in God's commands to Moses to make images of cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, and to fashion a brazen serpent to stem the plague of fiery serpents. Of course, after the serpent became an object of worship, it was destroyed.

[ July 23, 2002, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

[HankD]

Dear Aaron,

You posted…

Could you find for me in the Ten Commandments, where lifting a chair, cooking, and watering are mentioned? Even the blind rabbis knew that works of mercy and necessity were not forbidden.

Now your violence to the Second Commandment: That the ban on images and likenesses was not a complete and total ban, but only a ban on them as objects of worship, is evident in God's commands to Moses to make images of cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, and to fashion a brazen serpent to stem the plague of fiery serpents. Of course, after the serpent became an object of worship, it was destroyed.

Actually it's not in the 10 but its a negative mitzvah to prevent "cooking":

Exodus 35:3 Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.

This is a big problem for some modern Sabbath keepers. If one turns on an electric light on the Sabbath one is "kindling a fire" Just because it's a tungsten filament that is burning started by an electric charge doesn't change the process of kindling. One must unplug one's refrigerator because it stops and starts periodically.
In fact, one is "consuming electricity" on the Sabbath. Your meter keeps running. To stop it you must turn off the main switch on Friday preparation day.

Legalism you say? Yes, that's exactly it. The Law knows no exception even for the normal processes of life. One must "Prepare" for the Sabbath on the day before. How can one really do that now in the 21st century without turning off the electricty?

Exodus 35:3Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.

As for images, the Torah says one is cursed even to own or possess them privately (secretly).
True the restriction was to prevent worship but the restriction stood none the less.

Deuteronomy 27: 15 Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.

The Cherubim was in the Holy of Holies not a private possession of an individual.
The Brazen serpent was not a private possession.

BTW, check the passage in Numbers 21 and you will see that God used the Hebrew word "seraph" (probably - fiery torch) but Moses made a "copper serpent".

Some people believe that US currency is idolatrous with images of everything under the sun including the symbol of Isis (a goddess) on the back of the US Dollar, which one keeps in the "secret place" (wallet, purse).

Ancient Israel had no images on their money. There were several nations, which minted shekels, but the Hebrew shekel had no image. After the razing of Jerusalem (70AD) an Israeli shekel was minted with a pomegranate tree engraved on it.

Remember Jesus asking for the "penny"? He caught the Pharisees red-handed (which some say is where the term "red-handed" comes from.) with a gentile copper coin with an image upon it.

Just some thoughts.

HankD

[ July 24, 2002, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Johnv]

Some people believe that US currency is idolatrous with images of everything under the sun including the symbol of Isis (a goddess) on the back of the US Dollar

Some people think the outline of the eagle's wings on the back of the US dollar is in the shape of a sunburst which is supposedly similar to one found in drawings of Isis.

You'll be happy to know the only internet references I could find backing those up were sites that promoted that the Moon landing was a hoax, and that the dollar bill is part of a secret 100 year long war waged on the US by Rome starting in 1901.

Just goes to show if you look at a blank sheet of paper long enough, you'll be ale to see words that aren't there.

 

[LadyEagle]

Johnv, don't forget the $20 bill folded to look like the twin towers aflame!

 

[Aaron]

Hank,

I'm aware of the Mosaic constraints which were added. But those are not part of the Decalogue, which I maintain is still in force.

My point about the Second Commandment is that it is not a complete ban as asserted by Cynic.

 

[HankD]

I meant the eyeball at the apex of the Great Pyramid. It is the all seeing eye of Isis.

Actually I know better, its the eye of GATU the Masonic God (or is it god?).

HankD

[ July 24, 2002, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[HankD]

Dear Aaron,

Yes, I understand, that's why I said it was a mitzvah (no kindling of fires on the Sabbath).

Which by the way is an extension of the Sabbath Commandment.

HankD

[ July 24, 2002, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[ChristianCynic]

That James meant the Ten Commandments when he said "law" is obvious to the most casual observer. What do you think he was talking about? Circumcision?

When he said "law" I think he was talking about "law."

"the NT form may be different."

If you think the 'decalogue' is still valid, but "NT form(s) may be different," what is theft, false witness, murder, et al, in the NT?

Could you find for me in the Ten Commandments, where lifting a chair, cooking, and watering are mentioned? Even the blind rabbis knew that works of mercy and necessity were not forbidden.

Not the ones who condemned Jesus for healing on the sabbath, or for not forbidding his disciples from picking grain. And you are aware, I would assume, of the man who God ordered executed for gathering wood on the sabbath in Numbers. Lifting a chair, cooking, and watering are work, plain and simple. If you disagree, next time you are near someone tending to 2 or 3 pots on a hot stove say, "It's nice that cooking is no work at all ain't it?" The commandment says to not do any work on the 7th day, and do all your work in 6 days.

Now your violence to the Second Commandment:

You have a strange idea of what "violence" is.

That the ban on images and likenesses was not a complete and total ban, but only a ban on them as objects of worship

If one is a literalist,, one must see this ban as complete, because it is in itself a complete statement:

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth."

evident in God's commands to Moses to make images of cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, and to fashion a brazen serpent to stem the plague of fiery serpents.

How "evident in God's commands" is it that we can skip the "You shall not murder" command, since God ordered the genocide of the Amelekites {I Samuel 15:3}? God is not subject to His own commandments, and He does, as we see, sometimes allow or command certain ones to be broken. That's another reason to refute your claim that because this 'decalogue' is "from the beginning" it is completely valid under any and all circumstances. And the sabbath day was not 'from the beginning'... it was 6+ days after that.

 

[Johnv]

its the eye of GATU the Masonic God (or is it god?)

Sorry, that's a common misconception also. While the Masons require their members to espouse a belief in a higher power (allowing them to prevent atheists from joining), the Masons themselves do not have a deity specific to Masons.

Note the following information from the US Treasury:

Although Benjamin Franklin's committee did not suggest a pyramid, it did originate the suggestion of the eye. The term "the all-seeing eye" is never used in describing it. The Franklin committee wanted the seal to include a reflection of divine providence and discussed a variety of themes including the Children of Israel in the Wilderness. Some have suggested that the pyramid and the eye are the result of Masonic influence, but the only member of the original committee who was a Mason was Franklin and this committee's design was rejected by congress. None of the final designers of the seal was a Mason.

The eye as representing "the eye of providence" has a long history. It's coincidental that both the designers of the Great Seal and the Masons separately drew from that history. The use of "the all seeing eye" as uniquely Masonic did not appear until 1797, nearly 15 years after the adoption of the symbolism by Congress. It should be noted, however, that the "all seeing eye" has continually been used by groups and organizations that have nothing to with the Masonic order.

Oh, BTW, the Latin above the pyramid, ANNUIT COEPTIS, means "God has favored our undertaking."

Anyway, since this topic is about the OT law and not about Masons, I'll stop there.

 

[post-it]

I think it might help to realize what made sin a sin.

There are two types of action that forms the bases of a sin. 1. acts or thoughts that hurt the individual or others. 2. acts that are unnatural to the individual.
Things that are unnatural may not hurt the person or others in the present but it causes the average person to slid down a path that most likely will end in the causing the person or others some type of harm. It tends to be characterized by “overindulgence” in a non-harmful action; creation of an imbalance of nature.
Hurt or harm is the experience of Loss or Physical or Emotional Pain.

Since man is most often blind when examining himself for these traits or knowing what is good for himself, God steps into the picture to point out many of the common actions that would be classified as sin. However, the list of sins must be further examined to determine if the Biblically listed action is always a sin or sometimes a sin. As a sin action is not always a sin.

For example we all assume that telling a lie is a sin. But if your child asks you if they are handsome/pretty/smart, etc and you know they came up short in any of those areas, you should lie and tell them they are. If your wife asks you if she looks thinner after being on the diet for a week, you should lie. Are these actions a sin? In that the Bible says a lie is a sin, it would be a sin. But not lying in these cases is also a sin. If we put the “word” lie to the above test, it would fail to be classified as a sin in this example. On the contrary, not lying to your loved one would create a harmful act to them thus, it would be a sin NOT to lie in these cases. A lie is classified as a “sometimes a sin” While further it is also “sometimes a sin” NOT to lie.

Eating certain shell fish during certain months would be harmful while in other months it is not. As man grows in understanding, knowledge, science, and wisdom sin and what is or should be classified as sin changes with it. The Bible is extremely unclear as to what actions are ABSOLUTE sins and under what conditions. Therefore, it may be the wiser thing to examine and test sin actions individually to determine the true sin nature. One thing is for sure, it is certain that not committing some "classified" sin is actually a sin.

 

[Aaron]

I said, Could you find for me in the Ten Commandments, where lifting a chair, cooking, and watering are mentioned? Even the blind rabbis knew that works of mercy and necessity were not forbidden.

To which cynic replied, Not the ones who condemned Jesus for healing on the sabbath, or for not forbidding his disciples from picking grain. And you are aware, I would assume, of the man who God ordered executed for gathering wood on the sabbath in Numbers. Lifting a chair, cooking, and watering are work, plain and simple. If you disagree, next time you are near someone tending to 2 or 3 pots on a hot stove say, "It's nice that cooking is no work at all ain't it?" The commandment says to not do any work on the 7th day, and do all your work in 6 days.

If not the rabbi's who condemned Christ, then to whom did Christ say, "Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering," Luke 13:15? Yes, they absolutely understood. The Sabbath is not a Mosaic institution just as Marriage is not, though there were Mosaic laws prescribing certain forms of observation. We certainly do not observe the Mosaic forms of observing the Sabbath. But as a day to be set aside for the Lord, it is a good day to fast if you have a conscience toward cooking. However, Christ's plucking grain on the Sabbath was not the kind of "work" prohibited, obviously, for as a "man made under the Law," Galatians 4:4, He could not break the law, but did as He saw His Father doing, John 5:19. He rested from creating and went about blessing and sanctifying, Genesis 2:2-3.

Even so we do not do our own work, but we do His work. Therefore the Levites were blameless though they were working much harder than you would probably care to work on any day, Matthew 12:5.

Cynic said: If one is a literalist,, one must see this ban as complete, because it is in itself a complete statement.

You have a strange idea of what a literalist is. One can still be a literalist and know that God does not have wings and feathers, Psalm 91:4.

How "evident in God's commands" is it that we can skip the "You shall not murder" command, since God ordered the genocide of the Amelekites {I Samuel 15:3}? God is not subject to His own commandments, and He does, as we see, sometimes allow or command certain ones to be broken. That's another reason to refute your claim that because this 'decalogue' is "from the beginning" it is completely valid under any and all circumstances. And the sabbath day was not 'from the beginning'... it was 6+ days after that.

Possibly your worst assault yet upon rational thought! This is the best argument I've ever seen offered on disallowing the layperson to read and interpret the Scriptures himself. I hope the Catholics don't see this.

Tell me you aren't serious. Please!

Genocide?!! God's righteous judgment poured out upon an idolatrous and horribly depraved and lawless nation you dare to marginalize as genocide? No, worse. You call it murder? You are calling God a murderer. You'd better get on your knees and humbly plead for the forgiveness Christ promises for all manner of blasphemy. I am not joking.

The Law is a reflection of God's character. He cannot deny Himself. He cannot break it. He cannot lie. He cannot murder. Adultry? Don't even...

And as far as "the beginning" is concerned, we have Christ's own comments concerning that, Matthew 19:4-8.

 

[ChristianCynic]

We certainly do not observe the Mosaic forms of observing the Sabbath.

We sure don't, bud. You got that part right.

But as a day to be set aside for the Lord, it is a good day to fast if you have a conscience toward cooking.

Since cooking is absolutely not a necessity {and it is a very rare person who cannot go even a full day without food}, if your position is correct no one should do any type of food preparation on that day. If you don't already have ready-to-eat grub to drop down your throat, you would have to do without food.

However, Christ's plucking grain on the Sabbath was not the kind of "work" prohibited, obviously, for as a "man made under the Law," Galatians 4:4, He could not break the law, but did as He saw His Father doing, John 5:19.}

And He plainly said in v. 17, in response to condemnations of his healing on the sabbath, that His Father is "working until now;" therefore so is He.

Even so we do not do our own work, but we do His work.

You will have to show the verse which says these words. Regardless, making the coffee, shaving and grooming to make a better impression at church, cleaning a room... these all are "our own" work and have no "necessity and mercy"-- another nonbiblical term.

Therefore the Levites were blameless though they were working much harder than you would probably care to work on any day, Matthew 12:5.

Frankly I'm glad we ain't got no Levites.

You have a strange idea of what a literalist is. One can still be a literalist and know that God does not have wings and feathers, Psalm 91:4.

Apparently we think alike on this one. But do you think we can make all the images of anything we want to-- Baal, Buddha, totem...-- as long as we do not worship them? That is your contention-- we can make them, just not worship them. Right?

This is the best argument I've ever seen offered on disallowing the layperson to read and interpret the Scriptures himself. I hope the Catholics don't see this.

What motivates your fear in this?

Tell me you aren't serious. Please!

You aren't serious.

Genocide?!! God's righteous judgment poured out upon an idolatrous and horribly depraved and lawless nation you dare to marginalize as genocide?

Genocide: The deliberate and systematic desruction of a racial, political, or cultural group {Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary}

This word does accurately describe what God ordered. And "judgment poured out upon an idolatrous and horribly depraved and lawless nation" includes all men, all women, all children, all infants, and all animals? Every child which was mutilated and bleeding is "righteous judgment?"

The Law is a reflection of God's character. He cannot deny Himself. He cannot break it. He cannot lie. He cannot murder. Adultry? Don't even...

I can't argue with that. We have to assume slashing and killing those crying, bleeding children and infants is a "reflection of God's character" since it is within the law and His orders. Maybe we should rethink the abortion/infanticide issue, since apparently this is within God's character... at least if the victims are children of 'horribly depraved..." people.

 

[Aaron]

Who do you think you are to set yourself up as God's judge?

It is said of Babylon in Psalms 137:9, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

It is not for me to justify God to you. It is for you to fear and tremble before a God Who is a Consuming Fire.

BTW, Cynicism is not a Christian character trait. It's obvious that you are carrying around a lot of anger, and I'm afraid that unless you learn to forgive whoever it was that offended you, you will only get more angry and bitter.

I think that's what the real issue is in all the arrogant, snobbish personal jabs you submit as posts. I think you're angry at God. You possibly feel that He has somehow cheated you. I think you need to turn around and thank God for His mercy. If God is indeed a liar or a slaughterer of innoncents, as you imply, it is only His mercy that has not snuffed your little life out the moment you shot a jab in His direction.

 

[ChristianCynic]

Who do you think you are to set yourself up as God's judge?

Since I don't think that, it is a preposterous meaningless question. A meaningful and rational question is: Who do you think you are to set yourself up as the judge of anyone?

It is not for me to justify God to you.

Very noble.

BTW, Cynicism is not a Christian character trait.

That depends on what one is cynical of.

If God is indeed a liar or a slaughterer of innoncents, as you imply,...

Bud, I have just made it plain that I believe God did order the slaughter of the innocents {as well as the guilty}, and that rules out any implication that He is a liar. He inspired the Book, He is not a liar; therefore he did that.

...it is only His mercy that has not snuffed your little life

That makes 2 of us.