jmullaney, plenty of people on this MB think I am going to spend my afterlife being fried Extra Tasty Crispy. However, were they to continually tell me this, and repeatedly mock me and call me ignorant and sinful and misled, I might be disinclined to listen to their preaching for very long. If you’re trying to convince people of the rightness of your beliefs, you’re going about it the wrong way. If you’re trying to irritate people and make them resent your message, you’re doing a masterful job. You can console yourself because you are Right and they are Wrong, but if your words and attitude actively prevent people from listening to your arguments, aren’t you doing far more harm to your cause than Dave ever could?
You are making a joke, right? You know more about the New Testament than you are letting on perhaps?
Now, it seems to me the Devil is saying – as long as what you are trying to do is impossible, you might as well try to fly while you are at it. Furthermore, it is not fair of you to ask mortals to follow your (God’s) teachings, as, sure, you may be able to come and be an example but you will still be using supernatural powers to not sin.
And Jesus’s response I would interpret as meaning: jumping from the temple and coming away unharmed is impossible, but living by the word of God is not, and you should not be tempting me to say otherwise.
I therefore defer to rabbi j.c. on your question.
Interesting point. I’d be interested in reading these laws myself, if you can give me book and chapter of where I should be looking. You know what the Christians would say – these laws are not divinely inspired, blasphemous as such a sentiment may be, or that that Jesus’s fulfillment of the law made those laws moot. (I for one do believe God can change his mind.) But I’d be interested in reading them first – they may yet make perfect sense.
In other words, while you can respect those who don’t believe that Jesus is God’s son, but that because God agrees with your reading of the quote, you are justified in casting out digs at Dave, a hypocrite who is going to burn in hell. Do you see how stupid that sounds? Can you not entertain the thought that you might actually be wrong? Is that too much for your self-control?.
Didn’t Jesus say that you shouldn’t judge people, that that’s God’s role? Or am I misreading that line?
OK, OK. Gaudere – you have no idea how much I’m biting my tongue already. I promise I will try to do better, but when it comes to calling a spade a spade I won’t dissemble.
One more time: You don’t need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
Now, if someone, let’s call him Perry, were to come to me and say Hamlet was about “what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil” and I said, “no, I really think if you look but a few lines above that you might reason Hamlet is about, if you could summarize it with one line, ‘to be or not to be’,” there is no telling who is right and who is wrong, except as evidenced by the text (i.e. “that is the question,” right?). Why should I have to say I respect Perry’s beliefs or that I agree to disagree? I mean, were you to pick up a book on Shakespeare and it began, “No one really has any idea what Hamlet is about, and who knows who is right and who is wrong, and there is a whole variety of opinion, and I don’t want to offend anyone but I think maybe, although I’m probably wrong, it might be about making a life/death descision…” I quite well think you’d put it down just as quickly. I hardly see why believing you are right is stupid.
I am perfectly willing to do so. I’ve heard a lot of the arguments before, though, and I sometimes know where there are going before they hardly begin. I am always willing to entertain new ideas, and my beliefs about what Jesus taught continues to evolve in this process.
Context is important. He said you shouldn’t pre-judge people. And you should not try to tell people they are wrong unless you know what is right.
Jesus certaintly pointed out to people in no uncertain terms when they held false beliefs, when he had evidence that this was so. I hold that anyone here, who claims to be a Christian, knows what the truth is until they make a statement to the contrary, but then they are fair game.
Now, I am not sure whether following Jesus and being able to judge must be concurrent, but having been a follower of Jesus I know these people are out there to judge you never-the-less:
I’m only warning you. My judgement means nothing, but the followers of Jesus judge you no differently, and God listens to them.
Are you suggesting that God can sin??
Here are two off the top of my head:
Leviticus 19:35-36 Fairness in business
Leviticus 25 Property sales
**
Yes, but that’s not really relevant. You asked what Jews think. You’ve been answered, several times.
**
You think Leviticus is not divinely inspired or is blasphemous?
**
Which Jews don’t buy.
**
Have you seen Numbers 23:19?
Or have you read Malachi 3:9?
Zev Steinhardt
God made man could starve to death and die though, right? There is certaintly no sin in that.
You got me there, fair and square Zev.
I meant, you would say anyone who says Leviticus is not dictated by God is commiting blasphemy, right? Though it reads like it was written by the-great-and-terrible-Oz-please-ignore-the-man-behind-the-curtain?
Numbers 23:19? No, of course God does not lie, nor need he repent. I mean, here where I live we’ve got laws on the books regarding horse-drawn carriages. Do those need to be repealed just because people drive cars? I mean, I would hope you do not think everything in Leviticus 25 is still permitted, such as owning slaves, right? And if you are going to tell me there is some section of the Talmud that overrides this, I don’t see how it is fair that some parts of Leviticus are divine and some are not.
And Malachi 3:9? “You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me; the whole nation of you.” :eek: What the heck do you mean by that??
This is getting out of hand…
Theoretically, Jews (and anyone else) can own slaves. However, there is a Talmudic dictum called dina d’malchusa dina. In layman’s terms, it means that the law of the land is the law. Thus, since slavery is illegal in the US, Jews cannot own slaves in the US. If it were legal in other parts of the world, it would be legal for Jews to own slaves.
As for Malachi, I was looking for the verse “I do not change.” Sorry if I quoted the wrong verse number.
In any event, you asked your question in the OP and have been answered numerous times. If you want to observe the 10th commandment to what you interpret it to mean, fine, go right ahead. I am tired of this game you are playing. If you’re not happy with the answer you received, that’s your problem. We’ve explained the Jewish position to you over and over.
Have a good day, sir.
Zev Steinhardt
jmullaney:
The word for “covet” used in the commandment, Tachmod, comes from the root “CH-M-D,” meaning to develop an attachment/desire/love for. It is not an inherently bad thing; G-d’s love for Israel, a man’s love for his wife, and G-d’s love for observance of the Sabbath day are described using that term.
However, the commandment specifies not to develop an attachment for that which belongs to your neighbor. The fact that the text continually stresses the issue of who the owner is is what defines the scope of the commandment.
zev:
I think you’re thinking of Malachi 3:6.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Thanks Zev – yes, I have had my answer many times over and I am content with it. Thanks for bearing with me!! That “law of the land” is a fair enough principle – and, as an aside, I recall thinking Catholicism (I do keep my eyes on the largest Christian sect) probably could use something similar. For example, the latest Catechism declares using illegal drugs is a sin – but does that mean smoking pot in Amsterdam is OK, since there it is not illegal? Confusing, no?
Now I might wonder why Israel doesn’t legalize slavery, since it is permitted, but I don’t want to give them any ideas!
Thanks also to Chaim for your investigation into the use of the word elsewhere.
Not everything that is permitted is a good idea.
Zev Steinhardt