Izzy, a scheme is simply another word for plan. And a plan is required, however simple it may be, in order to accomplish anything. If you are going to say “scheme” in a “bad way,” as God does not herein adress good ways or bad ways, nor does he define them, your reasoning is quite circular – you can break this commandment as long as you don’t do so in a bad way.
Well, as a non-Jew, I never-the-less find that rather disturbing. But if you are saying the Jews possess workarounds so they do not need to keep any or most of the commandments, that does seem to answer my question.
That does not imply all the commandments are vague.
Well, if God meant envy, he should have said so. As far as “inordinantly”, you are using the same circular reasoning as Izzy. I mean – either you desire something or you do not. Can you provide any examples in the OT where this same word is used clearly to have this meaning?
Thanks!
No, not at all. I was merely being the devil’s advocate when I said that keeping this was impossible, Jesus obviously would have disagreed. However, I had heard people say that a “devout Jew” could have salvation, and I, as a Christian sympathizer, intially had a knee-jerk response to this, as Jesus’s teaching seem to go beyond the Ten Commandments. But the more I thought about it, the more I doubted this was necessarily the case. Now of course, I’m really confused!
He didn’t say “envy”, or “desire”, or “covet”, because had he spoken English to Moses, Moses wouldn’t have had the faintest idea what to write down. Different languages often have different connotations for a given word, even if their denotations are the same. This gets even trickier when one language has multiple words for a concept that has only one word in the other. For example, in Spanish, the verbs ser and estar both translate to “to be” in English.
Claiming that God should have used the word “envy”, rather than “covet” or “desire”, in an English translation from the Latin Bible, translated from the Greek Bible, translated from the Hebrew/Aramaic Bible, is spitting into the wind. In fact, different translations do use different words, and some even have explanations for the text in footnotes.
The Oral law is about when and how to apply the commandments in the Torah.
For example (using the one given), it says “Do Not Murder.”
OK, what’s murder? Self defense? Is war forbidden? Can you kill to prevent another’s death? Can you kill to in self defense when you could have escaped by only wounding your persuer? Is abortion murder?
**
No, but most of them are.
I can give you numerous examples, but I’ll settle on a few. (For those of you who have seen this before, just bear with me please).
"Thou shalt not steal"
Under all circumstances? What about to save your life? Can you steal $100 from someone to invest in a sure-fire moneymaker and give him all the returns? Can you steal something from the rich to give to the poor? What is the penalty for stealing? Does the penalty or prohibition apply to all amounts, or is there a certain amount which you must steal first?
Rosh Hashanna
Rosh Hashanna is described in Numbers as a “day of blowing.” The question is, blowing what? Horns? Trumpets? Shofars? Trombones? How long are we to blow for?
Yom Kippur
It says that on Yom Kippur we are to “afflict ourselves.” What does this mean? Fasting? Celibacy? Putting ourselves in the oven? Whipping ourselves with chains?
Succos
On Succos we are to take the “branches of goodly trees.” Which trees? What are we to do with them once we have them?
Mezuzah
In Numbers (11, I believe) and Duet. (6), we are commanded to “write [these words] on our doorposts.” OK, should we get out the felt-tip markers and write? Which words? The entire Torah? That paragraph? That book? Do we just write on the walls, or do we write on a paper and put that on the door? Parchment, maybe? Where on the doorposts shall we write? Can we write these words in any language, or only in Hebrew?
Shabbos
As CKDextHavn pointed out earlier, we are to refrain from work on Shabbos. OK, what’s work? Is posting to SDMB work? Moving heavy furniture? Computer programming? Writing poetry for fun? Cooking?
Levirate marriage
Can any brother perform the marriage? What if the widow is prohibited to you (if she is, for example, your wife’s sister). Do you marry her anyway? If not, does she require chalitza (the ceremony mentioned in Duet that releases the widow from the marriage)?
Leaving over the corner of your field for the poor
How much do you have to leave over? Does it have to be literally in the corner, or will any portion do? Does it have to be from the best quality of produce available? Middle quality?
I could go on and on.
The point, jmullaney, is that the Oral law is there to expound upon and elaborate when and how the Written law applies.
Zev Steinhardt
All these questions need to be answered.
jmullaney, please refrain from twisting my words around and misrepresenting statements I have made. You did it in a thread in Great Debates and now you have done it here.
My Oxford American Dictionary defines “diabolical” as “like a devil, very cruel or wicked.”
I called your reasoning circular based on the following statement in your response to Chaim:
I have read this quote numerous times and still cannot find the logic in it. To my mind, it simply circles around itself. I did not ever call it wicked or fiendish.
But I am most upset by the following:
The exact quote, from Paul’s first letter to Timothy, Chapter 6, verse 10: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” (New International Version)
Now read my quote above, and your reply. Which is closer to the text?
How dare you presume to judge anyone’s spiritual condition? For someone who misinterprets and misquotes Scripture as much as you do, you should look to the plank in your own eye before you attempt to remove the mote from your neighbor’s.
I do have faith in God, and believe in His providence for everything that I have. I also believe in capitalism as the means God has provided for this country economically. I also work for money, which I use to buy things I want. But my perspective is influenced by the understanding that I truly own nothing. “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it, the world and all who live in it.” Psalm 24:1. God is kind enough to allow me to share in the earthly pleasures of having possessions, but they are only on loan to me. And my attitude toward them and how I use them either glorifies His name, or causes Him grief.
To conclude, jmullaney, I will not tolerate you misquoting me or misrepresenting me on this message board; not after these two blatant examples. Do not do this to me again, or I will take it up with the Board Admins. Consider yourself warned.
My mistake, jmullaney. When you posted your OP, I thought you wanted various theological takes on the “covet” commandment. I see now (belatedly) that you want to argue about it.
Due, quite possibly, to my limited intelligence, I still cannot fathom what you might mean. In the hope that you have misunderstood me and not the other way around, I will restate my original point.
You asked in your OP
The answer that I gave is that this commandment does not prohibit wanting anything. It only prohibits planning to pressure your fellow man to sell it to you against his will.
IOW, if you want your neighbors car and decide to offer him to buy it, you are not in violation of this commandment. If you decide that you will not take no for an answer, and will hound and pressure him until he finally relents and sells it to you, than you are in violation.
I don’t see anything circular about this reasoning, and it seems to address your OP quite directly. If you continue to disagree, please explain yourself more fully.
The devil is often symbolized in the Western world as a dog chasing its own tail. I was only throwing in a synonym to circular reasoning – please forgive me for being poetical.
Even though my question has been answered, and I see no further need for debate, I will try to clarify the flaw I saw in this reasoning. “I don’t see how [don’t want anything owned by anybody] can become ‘Don’t want anything anyone else has just because they have [that thing]’ because if they do not have [that thing], of course you can not want [that thing as something which your neighbor has].”
In other words, let’s say I want an ox, for I either want an ox or I do not, right? Bob has an Ox. Larry does not have an Ox. it seems to me the argument that Chaim was making is that I can not want Bob’s ox just because he has it. But I can want Larry’s ox, because he does not have an ox.
It doesn’t make much sense.
You are taking this quote out of context.
If a Christian has food and clothing, with these he shall be content. Those who desire more than this are ruined and destroyed. They desire money in exchange for their labors (the whole chapter is about serving others), and thus have wandered away from the faith. But, Timothy shouldn’t fall into their trap, he should keep hold of eternal life.
Now, what must one do to have eternal life? Perhaps you would care to say, Dave?
(The author continues to Timothy: “I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ”)
I did not judge you, but what has come out of your keyboard shows me you do not understand the faith.
And again. Am I supposed to just ignore this and go on my merry way? If you would read the entire 1st Timothy 6, rather than taking a few verses out of context, I think it would do you good.
Do you believe that the world is an illusion?
But you will not have eternal life.
But you should use them to lay for yourself a good foundation, so that you might eventually take hold of eternal life youself. True, God does not want you to be haughty; however, he does not want you to set your sights on the uncertain treasures in this world, but upon the treasures in heaven.
I have done neither. But, as long as you are reading 1st Timothy, you might want to pay special attention to 1st Timothy 6:3-5
In anycase, Be content with food and clothing and you’ll be OK – I don’t see money on that list!
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.
In other words, accept the sacrifice of Christ’s death as atonement for my sin and believe in his resurrection as the triumph over hell. That one act is the key to eternal life. There is more to follow, of course, in terms of keeping Jesus’s teachings and striving to understand more about God and faith, etc. But that one act of acceptance is sufficient.
I say this because of “deathbed” conversions, in which a person cannot live a Christian life. It is better, of course, to come to faith early in life, so that during the course of a normal lifespan, one can grow in faith, disciple others, and live one’s life as an example for Christ. But those works are not essential for salvation.
I’m willing to address your other points in the last post after hearing your answer to the same question.
What must one do to have eternal life? Perhaps you would care to say, jmullaney?
Nonsense. You are taking Paul out of context, again – so perhaps you should stop calling yourself a Christian, and start calling yourself a pauloutofcontextian? You really think merely calling Jesus “Lord” will save you?
As Jesus said, “If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
“Which ones?” the man inquired.
Jesus replied, "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and love your neighbor as yourself.’ "
“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Now, I theorize you will say that Lord Jesus was lying when he told the man what he was lacking for eternal life, or Jesus was avoiding the question, or you will find some hardly knew way to weasle out of what is there plainly written. But, by all means, prove this theory wrong.
Now in the context of the thread, it occurs to me that there are those whose explanation of the Ten Commandments come from the Talmud, and those whose explanation of the Ten Commandments come from the New Testiment. I’m not sure either of these groups can be equated with the Old Testiment Jews more than the other.
No. And you are ignoring my context and putting words in my mouth again. Let’s look at everything I wrote in answer to your question, shall we?
(my emphasis at this time)
I know that not everyone who calls Jesus “Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven. The operative word in my reply is “believe”, not “Lord”. My followup makes that clear. You’re batting 1.000 in misrepresenting me.
I don’t think Jesus was lying, nor was he avoiding the question. And although I’m sure you won’t find what I say to be a satisfactory explanation, I trust you at least will see it as something other than weasling out.
I believe Jesus wasn’t making a blanket statement for humanity’s salvation as much as he was addressing this individual’s situation. Let’s examine what happens in this account. A man comes to Jesus and essentially wants to do something good to gain eternal life. Jesus tells him to keep the commandments, and the man says, “I do that.” Now, why didn’t Jesus just say, “OK, you’re in.”??
I believe Jesus was merely setting the table to make his point. Because when he is told to sell everything and give it to the poor, the man slinks away, very sad, obviously unwilling to part with his worldly wealth even to gain eternal life.
The point? I believe it’s that you can’t do good deeds and earn your way to heaven. Nor can you buy your way into it. The man obviously had not kept all the commandments, either, since one of the ones Jesus mentions is “Love your neighbor as yourself.” This would mean giving away all your stuff to the poor, wouldn’t it? And the man wasn’t willing.
Jesus tells his disciples that it’s hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; not because possessions or money are bad, but because they become an object of worship themselves.
This is why Jesus also says what he says in Matthew 19:29. It’s not the act of leaving family and possessions behind, it’s the example of putting Jesus first, even if it means losing everything you have. Losing everything you have is not a prerequisite, but being willing to, through the strength of your faith, is. That’s still a hard enough road to follow.
I’m sorry you don’t seem to care much for Pauline theology. But since much of the New Testament was written by him, and a lot of Christian doctrine is defined by him, I find it nearly impossible to understand Christianity without trying to understand Paul.
If you give all you have to your neighbor, are you not showing more love to your neighbor than yourself? Spreading wealth out evenly to all, then, would be more equitable, by this reading.
Jesus — the original communist. No wonder they crucified him.
Of course it doesn’t make sense to want something that doesn’t exist.
I don’t know where I’m being unclear before, but I’ll try again one more time. It doesn’t seem anyone else is misinterpreting what I’d been saying. Here goes:
You’re allowed to want an ox, if you decide, independent of what other own, that an ox would be a good thing for you to have. And, wanting an ox, you’re allowed to offer to buy someone else’s.
You’re not allowed to let the fact that someone else owns an ox bring you to suddenly desire an ox.
To put it in modern terms: Surely you’ve heard the expression “keeping up with the Joneses”? It’s that kind of mentality that’s prohibited by this commandment. The mentality of feeling you need something because you see someone else has it rather than feeling you need something because it would be a good thing to have.
One more example, and if you don’t get it, I’m just going to give up: Two children, of different ages are being served food. The mother puts on their plates the proper amount that will physically satisfy each of them…naturally, that will be less for the younger one than for the older one. But the younger one sees the older one’s plate and says “I want as much as he got! It’s not fair!” Never mind that the younger child wouldn’t be able to eat as much as the older child. He wants it, because he sees the other one has it.
I still don’t understand where you get these strange beliefs. You are sadly mislead.
We’ll see.
I’m sorry. I’m sowing a sweater out of camels, so I’m having trouble keeping up! Come on. This is hard enough, but you are making me tear up!
You apparently haven’t been following this thread. He thinks he is keeping all the commandments – but he’s not keeping the 10th commandment, at least not in the way Christians are supposed to interpret it. We are born with nothing. Therefore, everything we have gained in life is essentially a violation of the 10th commandment – either it is something we have desired, or something given to us by someone else who desired it. Therefore we have to go back to our pure state – to be “reborn” as Christians call it.
If you steal something, it behooves you to return it, but there is no need here to go through everything and try to return everything to their proper vendors.
Well, that is true. But you do have to keep the commandments, or perform proper restitution for violating them. You can’t just go on sinning your whole life. I mean, if you steal something, and regretting your sin, later return it, returning it is not a good work. If you think so, by all means, become a back robber so you can do good works by returning the money you have stolen. I’m sure you will be regarded as a saint in no time! :rolleyes:
Jesus doesn’t say this, the man does. But, yes, it is obvious he was not keeping all the commandments “from his youth” as he claims, as he clearly had possessions now he did not have when he was born.
Where do you see this? Are you reading a different Bible than I am? You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I wouldn’t spread such false teachings around if I were you.
So again, what you are saying is Jesus was lying. What he meant to say was “if you are willing” but what he instead said was “if you do.” He is completely misleading his followers in your opinion, right?
Now, the reason he says people must leave their families and follow him is it is not enough to merely give up your possessions and sleep on your mom’s couch for the next forty years. You have to go and be a part of the Kingdom.
Oh, no. I understand Paul. I also understand a lot of people take his teachings out of context to justify their false beliefs – we have one example of this already in this thread regarding “love of money” which when taken in context the meaning of is quite clear, but that doesn’t seem to stop people. You don’t see many people going around quoting the part about being content with just food and clothing do you? Some people take the parts of the Bible they like and throw the rest away.
Anyway, Dave – you seem like a good guy. I would hate for you to go to eternal damnation while blindly believing you are saved. I hope you can appreciate that I’m only trying to help.
Yes, Chaim. I still am of the opinion that you are reading things into this text that are not there, and would still like to see this word for “covet” used elsewhere in the Old Testiment in such a manner as you describe to help prove your point. Although, if there is a scene like this:
Malachi: Do you covet something to drink?
Obediah: I covet some tea.
M: Do you covet one lump or two?
I think you would have a very hard time convincing me Obediah is inordinantly coveting sugar.
Apparently, and I want you to appreciate this, differing interpretations of this commandment are the main difference between Christianity and modern Judaism (although, many people call themselves Christians but basically keep the Jewish teaching here). Islam is yet another view – what you desire for yourself, desire for others also – which seems really bizarre.
jmullaney, do you really think slighting remarks about the putative salvation and/or morality of those you are debating with is a helpful tactic in a debate? I am concerned that you are going to irritate people to the point that they will cease responding to you. Given the wide variety of strong-willed, aggressive and passionate people in this forum, the thing that keeps us from being constantly at each other’s throats is a modicum of respect for other people’s beliefs and a preference for avoiding smugly casual dismissals of intelligent poster’s stongly held beliefs as being “misled” or “blind” or wholly unjustified. I think it can only improve your debating style if you take this into serious consideration.
So, what’s the bottom line? Are you telling us that God gave us an impossible commandment? You know that makes no sense. It would be the equivelant of God telling us to grow wings out of our backs and fly.
In addition, there are laws on business, lending and civil jurisprudence. If business was not possible because of this commandment, why would God give us all these other laws?
As Jesus said: “The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.”
If people claim to be Christians, they either:
a) lay claim to wanting to know and follow the teachings of Jesus because they want to love others, in which case I am only trying to help or:
b) are simply claiming to be Christians in order to mislead others, in wish case I only wish to make it clear to others when these people are teaching falsely or:
c) want eternal life, in which case I am only trying to help again.
And if they have some other purpose, they should just rebuke Christ and stop screwing around. They are giving real Christians a bad name.
Take Dave for example. He wasn’t born thinking that Jesus was a liar. He’d never even heard of Jesus. But at some point, someone told him that this verse really meant something totally different from what it clearly means. That someone was a false teacher and I can only hope there is a special place in hell for that person. It is not Dave’s fault that he has been mislead, but it is his fault if now, as an adult, he can not realize what the truth is. I’m not going to coddle someone when their life is on the line.
I just don’t know what sort of terms I should use. I respect that fact that Dave has been misled? I think that just sound patronizing. I can’t respect Dave’s beliefs because he does not believe what he claims to believe. Now, the Jews on this thread I have the utmost respect for. Once they explained to me what they, as Jews, believed, although I wanted to make sure they could justify what they believed based on the source material, I was content to let them go on their way. I don’t have any problem with you being an atheist. Presumably, you don’t believe in any afterlife and you are probably right – we are birds of a feather. But I have no sympathy for hypocrites. They are undermining the faith of true believers and doing a great disservice to the true church of Christ. If Dave wants to work against God’s plan for the rest of his life, fine, but if he wants to pretend to be wearing a halo while doing it, too bad. I’m not cutting him any slack.
