Thou Shalts and Thou Shalnts

I recently reread the book of Leviticus. It occured to me that it sounded a lot like: "Don't do A, but if B happens then you have to do C - but every second Thursday, if the sun is shining, do D - unless E or F and then only if G...."I got the distinct impression that the law was designed to be impossible to obey perfectly.Hmm... a written law with a built-in requirement for a priestly caste to interpret it. Any chance of an ulterior motive there? Professing Christians are fond of the we-are-not-under-the-law-because-Jesus-fulfilled-the-law gambit. That excuses them from dietary laws and yet allows them to discriminate against homosexuals, etc. (Jesus has done wonders for cherry-picker sales.)I would have thought that "Love thy neighbour as thyself" was a pretty straight-forward "thou shalt". Unfortunately, for many professing Christians, it does seem to be a gray area.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

My point was that the law was clearly the work of men - designed to guarantee the priesthood a never-ending supply of roast ox. If it had been possible to obey the law, there would have been no sacrifices. The priests would have starved, or - heaven forbid! - had to get a real job.As jar has said, it is more important to try to fulfil the law than to succeed in fulfilling it to the letter. Do your best. Fix today's screw-ups tomorrow. And to hell with the priests. God! No wonder you wish you were dead. Well, it ain't workin'. I don't feel condemned - not even a little bit - and there are lots of Old Testament laws that I don't keep. On the contrary, I feel privileged to be alive since I gave up my primitive beliefs (similar to yours ).No, I would say the primary purpose of the written law was to feed the priests, and the secondary purpose was to keep the people in line.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I did a quick whip-round of the Bible:

quote:

---

Jos 8:34 And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law.

---

Seems that the law contains blessings as well as cursings. Maybe condemnation isn't the sole purpose after all?

quote:

---

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

---

Loving God and loving thy neighbour don't sound like condemnation, do they? Jesus seemed to think that was the purpose of the law.So, sorry, I still can't work up any feeling of condemnation.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Well, I quoted the Bible. Did you? Point is, some of us - the Biblical geezers and me - do find blessings in the law, not just condemnation. Maybe you need to think that "sole purpose" thing through a little more clearly. You didn't answer my question. When Jesus said:

quote:

---

... Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

---

where do you see condemnation in that?Point is, the spirit of the law is not about condemnation. It's about love. And the spirit of the law was the same in the Old Testament as it was in Jesus' time. He was just trying to get that through their thick heads. That's where you missed the trolley. Feeling guilty about what I've done wrong accomplishes nothing. Instead of feeling "condemnation", I try to figure out how to unscrew the screw-ips and try not to screw up the same things again. (There's that word "try" again, for all the jar fans out there. )That's what Jesus was all about: Forget about the condemnation. Forget about kicking yourself. Shape up. Do something.The last sacrifice has been made. No more sacrifices necessary. Do something productive instead.Thus endeth today's sermon. Go to your homes and enjoy your fish.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Hmm.... I quoted Jesus. You quoted Paul. Who has the high card? As Jesus said, the spirit of the law is the law. The spirit of the law does not condemn. It uplifts. (You still have not told us where you see condemnation in "love thy neighbour as thyself".)Paul was talking about the letter of the law. The letter of the law seems to condemn because it has been corrupted by human authors, copyists, translators, commentators, etc.Jesus came to save us from the letter of the law, but without changing the spirit of the law. Salvation is not just some woo-woo "belief". It's how we live our lives. That's all God cares about and that's what He sent His Son to tell us.That's also what Paul was saying to the Romans. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death." That is, the spirit of the law has set me free from the letter of the law.The spirit of the law is about helping us to live better, not about condemning us when we miss the mark.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Yes, I am assuming for the purpose of this discussion that both Jesus and Paul were quoted accurately. What Jesus said trumps what Paul said every time.When I refer to translators, etc., I am referring to the letter of the law and how words can be changed by multiple copyings, etc.That is precisely why Jesus came to tell us that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter. Not one jot or tittle of the spirit of the law can be changed, ever. But the letter of the law has had all the jots and tittles removed and the letters themselves have been changed to Latin characters, etc.The Ten Commandments were a fairly simple codification of the law. Then the Levites got a hold of them and "amplified" them - largely for their own benefit. By Jesus' time, the letter of the law had been further corrupted to the point that there were money-changers doing business in the temple.But Jesus didn't amplify - He simplified the Ten Commandments, condensing them into two sections - one relating to God and one relating to our fellow man.(Unfortunately, Paul kind of took a step backward with his detailed advice to the young churches. The devil is in the details, you know. )Let's look back at the OP: That hits the nail right on the head. The spirit of the law is a "gray area". It is something that we need to examine in ourselves. It is a big responsibility.But that is the antithesis of condemnation. Condemnation is somebody else - e.g. God - telling us, "Do this or I'll do that to you." That's the letter of the law. (Notice that there is none of that in the Ten Commandments.)The spirit of the law tells us, "Do what feels right - i.e. love thy neighbour as thyself. By doing that, you are loving God and keeping His commandments."It is true that we can never succeed 100% in loving our neighbours. A sprinter can never run 100 meters in zero time either. The key is to try to do a little better every time.The spirit of the law is fulfilled by our constantly trying to improve ourselves and our relations with others. That is a blessing, not a condemnation.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This is exactly in line with what I've been trying to say. The spirit of the law is for our benefit (our blessing), not God's (whether or not She exists). Obeying the "thou shalt nots" makes our lives better. That's the ultimate standard of good.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

It's relevant to what I've been saying, anyway. The only morality which is useful is morality from our own point of view - because it's the only point of view that we have.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

No. Jesus' words are prime because Jesus is prime. Paul's words are secondary because Paul was secondary. Are you a "Christ"ian or a "Paul"ian?Jesus was the son of God (for the purposes of this discussion). He ought to have known what He was talking about. If there is any difference in what He said and what Paul said, then what Jesus said automatically takes precedence.Furthermore, what Jesus said takes precedence over what Paul said because Jesus was talking about the general. "On these two commandments hang ALL THE LAW and the prophets." Paul was talking to specific churches about specific problems.It's as if Jesus said that in general it's wrong to kill people and Paul said that in specific instances it's permissible to kill specific people. Paul's specific words do not supercede Jesus' general words.When Jesus says that the law consists of loving God and loving thy neighbour, that takes precedence over anything Paul said about condemnation.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

That's exactly what I've been saying: for the purpose of this discussion, you and I are both assuming that the Bible has been handed down to us, word-for-word, as if dictated by God Herself. Nonetheless, that epistle was addressed to the church of Rome and deliverd to the church of Rome. It is a mistake to extrapolate what Paul said to the Romans, as if it was universally applicable. If you think what he said was universally applicable to all Christians, show us where he said the same things (i.e. about condemnation) in his other epistles. In case you can't see it, my hand is up. Just over the horizon, I think I can see that jar's hand is up too. I see a lot of hands up.No, we don't succeed in following those commandments 100% all the time. Show us in the Bible where it says we have to be 100% successful.I don't know how to make it any plainer: Jesus said, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang ALL THE LAW and the prophets."You have not addressed that point: ALL THE LAW. There is no need for any "explanation" by Paul. ALL THE LAW consists of loving God and loving thy neighbour. And nothing is said about a 100% success rate.You can complain all you like about the idea of "trying" to keep the law, but you haven't shown where the Bible says anything else. Since the Bible makes it quite plain that we are not perfect, it stands to reason that perfection is not required of us.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Don't get me wrong - I do think that either Paul's writings were corrupted or that his thinking was corrupted. But I am letting jar, et al. handle that side of the discussion.My point is that the accuracy of Paul's epistles is not important to this discussion for two reasons:1. What Paul said was targeted at specific audiences.
2. Nothing that Paul said can ever trump what Jesus said. Simple. You are trying to extrapolate Paul's specific message to the Romans into a general message for all Christians. If the same message was sent to the other churches, then it was clearly meant for all Christians.For example: if I tell my five-year-old she has to be in bed by eight o'clock, does that automatically apply to my thirteen-year-old as well? Not if I tell my thirteen-year-old she can stay up till ten.If Paul's comments to the Romans were meant for all, then show us where he said the same thing to everybody else. No I don't. I ask you to show us where the Bible demands a 100% success rate in following the law.When I send my thirteen-year-old to school, do you think I tell her, "If you don't get straight A's don't bother coming home"? Of course not. I tell her, "Do the best you can."Why do you think God would treat His children worse than that? When did I ever say the Bible isn't relevant to me? Don't dodge the issue with that pretense. If the Bible backs up what you're saying, quote it.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

No. We should take it in context:

quote:

---

Rom 1:1 Paul...
Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome....

---

Romans is a letter specifically addressed to Rome. It's like an email specifically addressed to you. You're suggesting that it's like a post on a public forum. But you're claiming that Paul "explains" what Jesus said. You're claiming that that "explanation" is more important or more relevant than what Jesus actually said.Once again: Jesus spoke about the spirit of the law. Paul took a step backward and spoke about the letter of the law. That had already been done, ad nauseum, since the Levites. In the context in which Paul was speaking, it may have been relevant, but in a general context it is a subtraction from what Jesus said, not an addition.I asked you:

quote:

---

If Paul's comments to the Romans were meant for all, then show us where he said the same thing to everybody else.

---

to which you replied: Okay:

quote:

---

Mat 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth....

---

Sounds pretty inclusive to me.

quote:

---

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

---

Remember what the will of His Father in heaven is? Love God and love thy neighbour.

quote:

---

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock....

---

Sounds pretty inclusive to me.Now, I've answered your question. Are you ever going to answer mine? Where does it say that Paul's comments to the Romans apply to everybody?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Ain't copy and paste wonderful?

quote:

---

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man....

---

I can keep repeating it until you understand. He was talking about everybody who hears His sayings - and not just those who hear His sayings from His own lips either - everybody who hears His sayings, from whatever source. (Remember that Paul was not quoting Jesus - he was "explaining" Jesus.) And I have been asking... and asking... and asking.... Where did Paul say the same things to other Christians? Did he say them to the Galatians? To the Thessalonians? How about the Ephesians? If what he said to the Romans was as wonderfully universal as you claim, simply show us where he said the same things to the other churches. (Remember that the specific topic that we are discussing here is condemnation under the law.) I did. I said that Jesus said it is simple to fulfil the law: love thy neighbour as thyself. You seem to be arguing against that point, but all you have for a reference is Paul.Do the math: Son-of-God > messenger-of-God. So what if Paul had "direct contact" with Jesus? I'm quoting the actual words spoken by Jesus (to the best of anybody's knowledge, for the purpose of this discussion).What Paul said was merely commentary. What Jesus said was the real thing.This message has been edited by Ringo316, 2005-10-18 03:59 PM

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

In Message 117, I said:

quote:

---

He (Jesus)was talking about everybody who hears His sayings - and not just those who hear His sayings from His own lips either - everybody who hears His sayings, from whatever source.

---

and you quote-mined me: I used the word "everybody" because Jesus used the word "whosoever":

quote:

---

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man....

---

Whoseover = everybody. That's why I included the word. Don't leave it out when you quote me.Jesus clearly said that His message was directed at everybody. Because Jesus made a general statement that He specifically said applied to everybody. Paul was making specific satements that he specifically said were directed to specific people - e.g. to the church at Rome.Since you seem reluctant to answer my question, I'll given our loyal readers a hint: You quoted Paul talking to the Romans about condemnation, but Paul seems to have very little to say to the other churches about condemnation. He mentions it to the Corinthians, and to some of his individual correspondents - e.g. Timothy - but (to my knowledge) nothing to the Galatians, Ephesians, etc. If condemnation is the "sole purpose" of the law, as you claim, and if the message was as universal as you claim, why was Paul himself so silent about it in much of his writing? The mere fact that Jesus didn't mention any complications is a Biblical case for simplicity. But that isn't the issue.The issue here is whether or not the "sole purpose" of the law is to condemn. You claim that it is, using one or two specific references to the Romans as your evidence. I'm saying that the first-hand words of Jesus (to everybody) ought to be our primary source, not the second-hand words of Paul to somebody else. Do you mean:

quote:

---

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

---

(It would help our readers if you would quote the Bible - i.e. cut and paste. Not everybody has the ability or the inclination to do it for you. )Notice that Jesus was speaking privately to the eleven disciples - not Paul.Also notice that "the end" has not come yet, 2000 years later. Clearly, Jesus expected the Gospel to be spread by others - including Paul - not just the disciples or the "apostles" who had met Him personally.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Asked and answered: Any command to an imperfect human being is predicated on the human being trying to do the best that he/she can.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.