Jesus: faith vs works

[mooeypoo]

I see it clearly, mooeypoo. The instruction in Deuteronomy 5:8-9 and Exodus 20:4-5 are very clear, and the latter mention in Exodus 34:17 all relate to the same commandment, but as I said, the two more verbose of the passages logically connect the casting of images and the worshiping of those images in the same commandment. Otherwise the passages would be either reversed or the second passage would not be necessary.

Those are still two different sentences. While I see your point, I think it's more a point of *interpretation*, than it is literal reading.

 

I think it's totally fair of you to interpret (and hence, interpret differently than others) these passages. My point goes to those who claim to read the bible literally. If you read the bible literally, then the two sentences are separate.

 

It isn't the first, last or only place where a point is said more than once or is reiterated. The second sentence expands on the first.

 

As I stated earlier, it is very easy to get into logical quicksand if you insist on being both literal and granular in your use of the Bible. Most passage come with a thousand passages of context.

Of course. The way we did it when we studied the bible (I did that for 10 years in school, scholarly reading) we examined the usage of words and looked to see where these words are used elsewhere.

 

For instance - the word "love" can be expressed 10 dfferent words in hebrew and aramaic, and most of those variations appear in different places in the bible. The way to know what the intended meaning is, usually, is to see which of those words is used in which context. So when you read a passage, you "hunt" for the same word and see its usage (vs the other variations' usage) and you can get a better understanding of what it means.

 

Honestly, jryan, I don't think there *is* a way to read the bible literally without -- quite quickly -- falling into inconsistencies and vagueness.

 

(I'll continue the rest later, I was called into a meeting).

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Those are still two different sentences. While I see your point, I think it's more a point of *interpretation*, than it is literal reading.

 

I think it's totally fair of you to interpret (and hence, interpret differently than others) these passages. My point goes to those who claim to read the bible literally. If you read the bible literally, then the two sentences are separate.

 

It isn't the first, last or only place where a point is said more than once or is reiterated. The second sentence expands on the first.

 

That's not what "literal" means. You can literally interpret it as two sentences that belong together. It becomes non-literal when you, say, decide that "idol" is actually symbolic, and the commandment is actually referring to the use of toilet paper in early Israel.

 

It can be possible for a text to have several literal meanings.

[mooeypoo]

As a disciple of the New Testament, yes I do, on occasion. In the Bible Jesus was questioned about the rigor of the Jewish Sabbath as well, and Jesus didn't agree with the strict interpretation:

23

And it came to pass again, as the Lord walked through the corn fields on the sabbath, that his disciples began to go forward and to pluck the ears of corn.

24

And the Pharisees said to him: Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

25

And he said to them: Have you never read what David did when he had need and was hungry, himself and they that were with him?

26

How he went into the house of God, under Abiathar the high priest, and ate the loaves of proposition, which was not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave to them who were with him?

27

And he said to them: The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.

28

Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also. - Mark 2:23-28

9

And when he had passed from thence, he came into their synagogues.

10

And behold there was a man who had a withered hand, and they asked him, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? That they might accuse him.

11

But he said to them: What man shall there be among you, that has one sheep: and if the same fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?

12

How much better is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do a good deed on the sabbath days. - Matthew 12:9-12

Again, I would ask you to know the New Testament before you judge Christianity by the Old Testament.

jryan, the ten commandments are in the old testament. My criticism is about people who claim to follow them and don't.

 

If oyu admit that the new testament CHANGES THE RULES, then I have no issues with consistencies with you -- you basically admit that you *don't* follow the strict rules of the ten commandments because the *NEW* testament refined them.

 

Fine.

 

The ten commandments are *EXTREMELY* clear about the Sabbath, even more than the "idol/picture/image" bit. There is no middle ground or gray area. You either do it, or you don't.

 

It seems to me that you are aware of the fact that your religion changed the original rules and therefore you're not obligated to follow them. If that's the case, then there's no problem in consistency. You don't follow the ten commandments - you follow the "general ideas" of them, maybe.

 

But really. It is *VERY* clear. I don't need to know what the new testament *changed* when I look at the literal (or symbolic) writing of the ten commandments to see if I follow them or not.

 

 

 

BTW, you will not get any argument from me that the bible is internally inconsistent. None. There's no doubt that it is.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't think the New Testament "changed" the rules. Jesus stated that the rules were still in place. What Jesus objected to was the Pharisees and their method of interpreting the law, deciding what shouldn't be allowed based on the law, and demanding compliance with laws even when doing so would be contradictory or stupid.

 

For example, jryan's second example about healing on the Sabbath days: the Pharisees, in interpreting the Commandments for themselves, had come up with a gigantic list of things to be banned on the Sabbath. Jesus turned around and said "That's not the point of the law!"

 

You should specifically note where Jesus states, "Therefore it is lawful to do a good deed on the sabbath days." He's not objecting to the commandment. He's objecting to their strict legalistic interpretation of it.

 

edit: more specifically, Jesus is sometimes referred to as "rabbi" or "teacher." He's there to teach the law, not to rewrite it. He just doesn't interpret it the way the Pharisees do.

[Rickdog]

Aha! I found the official Catholic position on this: (note the domain name in the link)

 

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

 

 

Great link Cap`n Refsmmat my friend, it gives the Catholic Church`s position by their interpretation, I knew I had read something like it before, but really I didn`t remember where.

 

Anyhow it doesn`t necessarily represent Gods will in his commandments and specially related to idols and symbols.

[jryan]

 

BTW, you will not get any argument from me that the bible is internally inconsistent. None. There's no doubt that it is.

 

~moo

 

It's not inconsistent, however, except when you choose to cut it up piece meal and try to have various individual passages fight to the death in an ill conceived theological cage match.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's not inconsistent, however, except when you choose to cut it up piece meal and try to have various individual passages fight to the death in an ill conceived theological cage match.

 

I think we have a new reality TV show concept.

[ydoaPs]

It's not inconsistent, however, except when you choose to cut it up piece meal and try to have various individual passages fight to the death in an ill conceived theological cage match.

 

It's easily demonstrable that it is not internally consistent. However, that's what one should expect from such an anthology.

[Mr Skeptic]

Everyone knows it's not internally inconsistent when interpreted correctly

[Syntho-sis]

I go on Saturday usually but I have gone on Sunday as well. Which day is the 7th day of the week is one of those arguments I tend not to get involved in because it is as simple an argument as whether or not Sunday is the end of the weekend or the start of a new week.

 

It is a well-known fact that Christ kept the traditional Jewish Sabbath, which is Saturday.

 

You should do some research into the Jewish Calendar. A lot of interesting information regarding when the Sabbaths should be kept can be found in the Calendar.

 

Another thing, Do you know who changed the traditional 7th day Sabbath to Sunday? It was at the Council of Nicea which took place after there was a split in the early church and many things began to get changed.

 

It's almost like people don't understand History. If they would just look a littler further than their nose they would also find the reason the Catholics do the sprinkling of Holy water.

 

It was because a sick man named Novatian was never baptized. He figured that while on his deathbed if they would just come and splash some water on him, he would be good to go. So this is obviously a tradition... (Neander’s CHURCH HISTORY, I, 325)

 

Hmmm, what does the Bible say about all these traditions of men?

 

(Col 2:8 MKJV) Beware lest anyone rob you through philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ.

 

I just don't understand how people can ignore that and instead make their own practices and ideas doctrines. What's the point of having a religion if that is what you are doing?

 

Just thought all that was interesting.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I don't think the New Testament "changed" the rules. Jesus stated that the rules were still in place. What Jesus objected to was the Pharisees and their method of interpreting the law, deciding what shouldn't be allowed based on the law, and demanding compliance with laws even when doing so would be contradictory or stupid.

 

For example, jryan's second example about healing on the Sabbath days: the Pharisees, in interpreting the Commandments for themselves, had come up with a gigantic list of things to be banned on the Sabbath. Jesus turned around and said "That's not the point of the law!"

 

You should specifically note where Jesus states, "Therefore it is lawful to do a good deed on the sabbath days." He's not objecting to the commandment. He's objecting to their strict legalistic interpretation of it.

 

edit: more specifically, Jesus is sometimes referred to as "rabbi" or "teacher." He's there to teach the law, not to rewrite it. He just doesn't interpret it the way the Pharisees do.

 

You are absolutely correct. Many people fail to understand this very key concept..

 

Kudos to you.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

jryan, the ten commandments are in the old testament. My criticism is about people who claim to follow them and don't.

 

If oyu admit that the new testament CHANGES THE RULES, then I have no issues with consistencies with you -- you basically admit that you *don't* follow the strict rules of the ten commandments because the *NEW* testament refined them.

 

Fine.

 

The ten commandments are *EXTREMELY* clear about the Sabbath, even more than the "idol/picture/image" bit. There is no middle ground or gray area. You either do it, or you don't.

 

It seems to me that you are aware of the fact that your religion changed the original rules and therefore you're not obligated to follow them. If that's the case, then there's no problem in consistency. You don't follow the ten commandments - you follow the "general ideas" of them, maybe.

 

But really. It is *VERY* clear. I don't need to know what the new testament *changed* when I look at the literal (or symbolic) writing of the ten commandments to see if I follow them or not.

 

 

 

BTW, you will not get any argument from me that the bible is internally inconsistent. None. There's no doubt that it is.

 

~moo

 

That is entirely true. Most churches today take a very laid-back stance on the Ten commandments.

 

A good question to ask someone who claims that Christ did away with them is; Well you probably don't mind if I sleep with your wife then?

 

About the biblical inconsistencies. I'd be interested to see what you consider inconsistent. I have come across things that at first I though were wrong. After doing a bit of research I often come to find that I'm the one who is wrong. Like Abraham's age at his father's death. That is a very tricky one.

 

Can you provide an example or two?

[mooeypoo]

It is a well-known fact that Christ kept the traditional Jewish Sabbath, which is Saturday.

 

You should do some research into the Jewish Calendar. A lot of interesting information regarding when the Sabbaths should be kept can be found in the Calendar.

 

 

I agree.

 

(someone mark the day )

 

Not only is it a known fact, and not only was Jesus jewish (his *desciples* started Christianity. Jesus meant to lead the Jews, not a new religion), and not only did he celebrate other jewish religions (like Passover dinner, which was the "last meal"), but also the week days and their customs stayed *till today* from modern times, quite consistently.

 

That is, while there are many words and names in the bible that have changed in modern Hebrew, the word "Sabbath" and "Erev Sabbath" (the eve-of) stayed the same for the past 3000 years.

 

The only thing that changed is how modern actions are viewed under this law. For example, electricity did not exist when this law was written (or, if your belief states that, 'given'). Is it work, or isn't it? Should you do it on a Sabbath or shouldn't you? The common modern religious/cultural perception is that you shouldn't, and it's a mixture between interpreting the intent of the law and the literal meaning of the law (Intent: separate this day from any other for reflection, brain-rest, family interaction, etc - so no TV, no video games, etc.. literal meaning: No work; to *start* electricity you do work [there's even a physical formula for that] and hence you shouldn't start electricity).

 

Those who go very far in the literal interpretation and their 'modern' thinking go as far as to say you shouldn't pick your nose on a Sabbath for the fear of ripping out a nose-hair. Lovely.

 

In any case, the laws and regulations might've adapted, but the rule itself stayed true. It's the Sabbath. It always has been the Sabbath.

 

Another thing, Do you know who changed the traditional 7th day Sabbath to Sunday? It was at the Council of Nicea which took place after there was a split in the early church and many things began to get changed.

 

It's almost like people don't understand History. If they would just look a littler further than their nose they would also find the reason the Catholics do the sprinkling of Holy water.

Actually, I was under the impression that the day changed from Saturday to Sunday by Constantine, who made the official day Sunday (partially because of Sol Invictus, partially to encourage the pagans to join).

 

But the point remains:

The bible is clear.

You either do it or you don't.

If you don't, don't claim that you follow the 10 commandments.

 

About the biblical inconsistencies. I'd be interested to see what you consider inconsistent. I have come across things that at first I though were wrong. After doing a bit of research I often come to find that I'm the one who is wrong. Like Abraham's age at his father's death. That is a very tricky one.

 

Can you provide an example or two?

This is a whole discussion by itself, we should start a new thread for that. The inconsistencies come in different flavors -- inconsistencies of form (showing clearly thjat different people wrote the bible) and inconsistencies of content -- showing that different stories were combined in the bible, telling allegedly the same affair.

 

Theology, of course, is amazing. It can explain everything. *EVERYTHING*. Even if I said there are claims of a flat earth in the bible that came directly from God, theologians can explain it away. Even if we found claims of unicorns and dragons, theologians can explain it away.

 

So, I guess "inconsistencies" only count if you want to read the bible *literally*. If your flavor is symbolic, you can explain everything.

 

As a rough example, there are two stories of creation that don't fit one another (the order of creation, the stuff said, etc) one after the other, right on Genesis 1 and 3. There's another story of creation that's even less consistent with these later in genesis.

 

I will need to dig up my notes for a fuller list, but if you want to discuss it, I recommend we start a thread about it. It's a huge subject.

 

~moo

[jryan]

It is a well-known fact that Christ kept the traditional Jewish Sabbath, which is Saturday.

 

You should do some research into the Jewish Calendar. A lot of interesting information regarding when the Sabbaths should be kept can be found in the Calendar.

 

Another thing, Do you know who changed the traditional 7th day Sabbath to Sunday? It was at the Council of Nicea which took place after there was a split in the early church and many things began to get changed.

 

It's almost like people don't understand History. If they would just look a littler further than their nose they would also find the reason the Catholics do the sprinkling of Holy water.

 

It's funny you should mention not understanding history because you ignore the reason there was a calendar schism at all with the Jewish calendar. The reason was that the council had determined that the Jewish calendar calculations were faulty, or irregular.

 

The Council set out to standardize the calendar around the observable Spring equinox allowing for a clear and universal time keeping system throughout the Christian communities to ensure a standard observance of Christian Holidays.

 

As such, the Christian Calendar had 12 months, varying from 28 to 31 days standard, with one day added to the calendar every 4 years rather than the Jewish calendar that had 12 moths of between 29 and 30 days in length and that added a leap month 7 out of every 19 years.

 

The Christian Sabbath is based on the resurrection of Christ, which happened on a Sunday according to scripture. That the Christians find more importance in the resurrection than the Jewish law should not come as a surprise to anyone. Jesus, as stated earlier, was not as concerned with the strict Jewish tradition, and more concerned with the whole point of the day and the various laws. As such, Christians see Sunday as the Lord's day as it was the day of the Lord's resurrection.

 

Again, you can continue to argue against the Christian tradition, but understand that many of these divergences from Jewish tradition have been well considered by Christians over the last 2,010 years and all boil down to one big difference between the two religions: Jews don't think that Jesus was the Messiah and therefor don't feel compelled to change based on Jesus' declared clarifications of God's law... the Christians, believing that Jesus is Lord, tend to listen to Jesus' interpretations more than they listen to the Old Testament interpretations or modern Jewish interpretations.

 

But hey, even Solomon appears to have disagreed with strict orthodox Jewish interpretation....

[mooeypoo]

There was no doubt about Sabbath, jryan. It's called "Shabat" - the word ITSELF means "rest".

 

There was a shift in the calendar in terms of months calculation. That has nothing to do with Sabbath.

[jryan]

There was no doubt about Sabbath, jryan. It's called "Shabat" - the word ITSELF means "rest".

 

There was a shift in the calendar in terms of months calculation. That has nothing to do with Sabbath.

 

I can see that you are approaching this on a strictly Jewish perspective, but your statement above is completely wrong from a Christian perspective. I am trying to correct that misconception.

 

There IS a link between the Nicene calendar schism and the switch to Sunday as the Lord's day. The link was that the Jewish calendar was found to be insufficient for observing the feast of the resurrection, so a more accurate calendar was necessary, and the fact that the Resurrection happened on a Sunday was the reason they moved their day of worship to Sunday.

 

See the common link? It is the resurrection. Since Jews don't believe in the resurrection it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't alter their tradition to accommodate it. But since Christians DO believe in the Resurrection, and see t as the single most important even in human history, and the single most important even in God's relationship with man, it makes perfect sense for them to move their day of devotion to Sunday as a symbol of their gratitude for the resurrection.

 

Once you realize that Jesus was not a stickler for tradition, and that the resurrection is the single most important even in human history for Christians, your objection to the change of the sabbath on strict Jewish rationale is not compelling.

 

Christianity has different traditions and focuses than Judaism. Who knew?!

[mooeypoo]

I can see that you are approaching this on a strictly Jewish perspective, but your statement above is completely wrong from a Christian perspective. I am trying to correct that misconception.

 

My statement is very clear: The 10 commandments appear in the "old" testament. The ten commandments are very clear. You either follow them, or you make excuses as to why you're not supposed to follow them.

 

That might look to you as a 'strictly jewish perspective', but that's because Christianity, by definition, *changed* the original jewish laws. That's fine and good, but it only proves my point.

 

Christianity changed - or refined, or reinterpreted, or switched, or any other word you want to put here that means 'no longer follows the same exact thing' -- the laws that judaism follow, either by adding them in the new testament or by reinterpreting the old testament.

 

Reinterpreting means you're not going by the literal meaning.

 

The rules say you should keep the Sabbath - "Shabat". They don't say 'the seventh day, please count it', they don't say 'boobapalooba' now translate it, they say SHABAT. That day exists. It's not a sunday.

 

You either follow this rule and then you can say you follow the ten commandments or you don't follow this rule, in which case you DON'T follow the ten commandments.

 

Whether or not you think you should or shouldn't follow the 10 commandments is irrelevant to my point. My claim is that if you *STATE* you are following it, you better make sure you are, otherwise you're bieng inconsistent.

 

Which you seem to be right now with the Sabbath.

The commandment is very clear. You need to really reinterpret things in light of a whole new doctrine (like you do, it seems) to excuse not doing it.

And *still* that would just mean that you're not doing it. So don't claim you do..

 

 

Just be consistent.

 

Christianity has different traditions and focuses than Judaism. Who knew?!

Yeah, that happens often with sequels.

 

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Reinterpreting means you're not going by the literal meaning.

 

No, it doesn't. It is possible for a sentence to have several possible literal meanings, or for the original intent of the author to be unclear. Christians do not interpret the commandments figuratively; they just have a different perspective on them.

 

You really ought to read the New Testament to see how Jesus deals with the Pharisees.

[jryan]

My statement is very clear: The 10 commandments appear in the "old" testament. The ten commandments are very clear. You either follow them, or you make excuses as to why you're not supposed to follow them.

 

I mad ethe odd choice to fisk this response from the bottom up, so I have answer the root of this assertion already. In the preceding responses I will spell out why I agree with this statement in part, but fall short at the point where you insist that your interpretation of the law, whatever the source, is the one and only interpretation.

 

That might look to you as a 'strictly jewish perspective', but that's because Christianity, by definition, *changed* the original jewish laws. That's fine and good, but it only proves my point.

 

Actually no. The only major change to the Christian rules is that Judaism is still waiting for the messiah while Christians are not. As such they accept the messiah's interpretation of the law over yours. Your interpretation is not necessarily the correct one, and I have made plenty of arguments already as to why it's most likely not correct.

 

Christianity changed - or refined, or reinterpreted, or switched, or any other word you want to put here that means 'no longer follows the same exact thing' -- the laws that judaism follow, either by adding them in the new testament or by reinterpreting the old testament.

 

They follow the the same laws, they just don't buy into your interpretation of them.

 

Reinterpreting means you're not going by the literal meaning.

 

No, it means I am not going by your interpretation. As I said before, King SOLOMON didn't follow your interpretation, so your interpretation is not at all compelling.

 

The rules say you should keep the Sabbath - "Shabat". They don't say 'the seventh day, please count it', they don't say 'boobapalooba' now translate it, they say SHABAT. That day exists. It's not a sunday.

 

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I would guess that the Jews didn't call the day "Shabat" until after they determined they should rest on it. And as I said earlier, the law says to keep the seventh day Holy. Beyond tradition can you name a reason why Saturday is the Sabbath rather than Sunday? It seems to me that if the Nicene Christians rested on Saturday and then again on Sunday, and then every seventh day after that then they were only guilty of being lazy one day, but adhered to the letter of the law thereafter.

 

So since that one sin would be punished to the 4th generation, and we're 30+ generations removed, I think we are in the clear.

 

But anyway, beyond Jewish tradition I see no reason why I should read that law as anything other than keeping every seventh day holy. But since Jesus nor I are slaves to Jewish tradition, I'm not sweating your interpretation, nor am I accepting it as the Truth.

 

You either follow this rule and then you can say you follow the ten commandments or you don't follow this rule, in which case you DON'T follow the ten commandments.

 

This is not a true statement.

 

Whether or not you think you should or shouldn't follow the 10 commandments is irrelevant to my point. My claim is that if you *STATE* you are following it, you better make sure you are, otherwise you're bieng inconsistent.

 

You're arguing that there is only one possible interpretation of the 10 commandments and it is, I'm guessing, the one you were raised with. How ever you came to that conclusion, your simply wrong. As I have pointed out several times now your interpretation of the 10 commandments is not even consistent within the Old Testament, let alone the New Testament. Whereas the interpretation I have offered is consistent in both.

 

Your defense of this on the grounds that the Bible is inconsistent therefor your inconsistent interpretation is valid is simply begging the question.

 

Which you seem to be right now with the Sabbath.

The commandment is very clear. You need to really reinterpret things in light of a whole new doctrine (like you do, it seems) to excuse not doing it.

And *still* that would just mean that you're not doing it. So don't claim you do..

 

That's like telling a Parisians that they aren't following the law because their law isn't how the British do it.

 

 

Just be consistent.

 

I am.

 

 

Yeah, that happens often with sequels.

 

Not a sequal... a refinement.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

You really ought to read the New Testament to see how Jesus deals with the Pharisees.

 

I think mooeypoo is just arguing that the Pharisees (now Rabbinical Jews following the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70AD) were right and Jesus was wrong.

Edited May 5, 2010 by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

I don't care about Jesus, or abouthim being right or wrong. My statement is *strictly* about the inconsistency in logic of anyone who claims to follow the 10 commandments while not following the ten commandments.

 

 

Looking at it, btw, I think that the argument I'm making is a tangent. Maybe we should split it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't care about Jesus, or abouthim being right or wrong. My statement is *strictly* about the inconsistency in logic of anyone who claims to follow the 10 commandments while not following the ten commandments.

But they are following the Ten Commandments. They just disagree with you on how one should go about doing so. Jesus clarified the Commandments in the New Testament. (He did not rewrite them, but merely clarified their meaning.)

[mooeypoo]

But they are following the Ten Commandments. They just disagree with you on how one should go about doing so. Jesus clarified the Commandments in the New Testament. (He did not rewrite them, but merely clarified their meaning.)

Cap'n, the ten commandments say you should not work on the Sabbath.

If you work on the Sabbath you disobey the ten commandments.

 

 

If Jesus said "oh, wait, it's not Sabbath, it's just a seventh day.. count from whenever!" then he changed the LITERAL meaning to a symbolic meaning.

 

So. A person claiming the bible is literally true, and claims to follow the 10 commandments (obviously literally), and works on a Sabbath, is being inconsistent.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Cap'n, the ten commandments say you should not work on the Sabbath.

If you work on the Sabbath you disobey the ten commandments.

 

 

If Jesus said "oh, wait, it's not Sabbath, it's just a seventh day.. count from whenever!" then he changed the LITERAL meaning to a symbolic meaning.

 

Well, he didn't. He just disagreed on what constituted "work."

 

You really, really should read the New Testament before judging what you think Jesus did or said.

[mooeypoo]

Well, he didn't. He just disagreed on what constituted "work."

 

You really, really should read the New Testament before judging what you think Jesus did or said.

Oh, jews today disagreed on what consists work too, so you have arguments of should you turn the lights on or not, or pick your nose or not, or drive a car, etc.

 

But Christianity's day of rest is Sunday. Not Sabbath. There's not even an ATTEMPT to 'not work'.. or not do work. There's a change of day.

 

I don't make claims on what Jesus said, though. I make claims on actual actions. If you follow the corrections in the sequel, that's fine. Don't claim to follow the original, then.

 

~moo

[jryan]

Cap'n, the ten commandments say you should not work on the Sabbath.

If you work on the Sabbath you disobey the ten commandments.

 

 

If Jesus said "oh, wait, it's not Sabbath, it's just a seventh day.. count from whenever!" then he changed the LITERAL meaning to a symbolic meaning.

 

Saturday translates to "Shabbat" in Hebrew because the Hebrew word for "rest" is "shabbat". "Rest", on the other hand, doesn't mean "Saturday".

 

So the LITERAL translation of Shabbat can be "Saturday" or "rest" but doesn't have to be both.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Oh, jews today disagreed on what consists work too, so you have arguments of should you turn the lights on or not, or pick your nose or not, or drive a car, etc.

 

But Christianity's day of rest is Sunday. Not Sabbath. There's not even an ATTEMPT to 'not work'.. or not do work. There's a change of day.

 

I don't make claims on what Jesus said, though. I make claims on actual actions. If you follow the corrections in the sequel, that's fine. Don't claim to follow the original, then.

 

~moo

 

And you are COMPLETELY wrong there as well.

 

A great many Christians don't work on Sunday. The whole idea of a weekend was to correspond with Jewish and Christian Sabbath observances!

 

As the U.S. became more multi-cultural Sunday became a little more loose to accommodate non-Christians. But in my lifetime (I'm 39) I can remember a time when there was nothing open on Sundays because everyone was observing the Sabbath.

 

Even today you will find Christian companies like Chick-fil-A that are closed on Sunday to observe the Sabbath.

Edited May 5, 2010 by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

Saturday translates to "Shabbat" in Hebrew because the Hebrew word for "rest" is "shabbat". "Rest", on the other hand, doesn't mean "Saturday".

... WHAT..?

 

Dude.. The bible is in hebrew/aramaic. The word "Saturday" came *after* the word "Sabbath" was invented, and given to the same day.

 

I don't get what you were trying to say there, but there *are* other languages than English, which came to them.

 

So the LITERAL translation of Shabbat can be "Saturday" or "rest" but doesn't have to be both.

First there was the day. Then it recieved the name "Shabat" after what God allegedly did at that day. Then came other languages who called this day other names, one of which is "Saturday".

 

The literal translation of Shabbat is rest, becfause the bible dosn't speak swahili. It speaks hebrew/aramaic.

 

If your law is that it can be whatever, then I assert the definition of "God" is, actually, "mooeypoo" and demand you bow to my omnibeauty.

 

You're making no sense. Literal is literal. Either you believe the bible is given by god (and then the original is obviously superior to any *human* nterpretation) and that it's literally true (in which case, words are judged by their proper contextual meaning, such as "Sabbath" the day and the meaning) or you don't.

 

You are making no sense, jryan.

 

And you are COMPLETELY wrong there as well.

No, I'm not wrong, I'm just making a different assertion than you thought I did.

 

Here's a claim: I follow the cultural spirit of Star trek the original series (TOS).

 

If I start wearing mini skirts and bang anything that movies, I am consistent.

If I put up the "TNG" uniform and claim TNG is updating TOS, then I just found a reason why I don't follow TOS but rather TNG. Sure, they're connected, they have the same writers more or less, the same producer and inventor, and sometimes cross-over characters. But if I go the TNG-way of the uniform, then I don't do the TOS wya.

 

I don't need to know what was said in star trek voyager as to *why* or *how* or *who* not to do the TOS or why is it okay not to follow TOS to know that if I don't go by the TOS uniforms, then I don't follow the TOS.

 

 

 

I don't care if you follow the new testament or the book of the dead. IF you claim you follow the ten commandments, you need to follow the ten commandments.

 

Since you don't follow them, you feel the need to explain why. I don't care why, because I'm not religious. I don't follow them either.

I'm just consistent enough to admit that.

 

A great many Christians don't work on Sunday. The whole idea of a weekend was to correspond with Jewish and Christian Sabbath observances!

The bible is explicit. Shabbat. Also, in days of slavery, did Christians let their slaves rest on Shabbat? Their livestock and pets not work? That's the continuance of the commandment.

 

 

As the U.S. became more multi-cultural Sunday became a little more loose to accommodate non-Christians. But in my lifetime (I'm 39) I can remember a time when there was nothing open on Sundays because everyone was observing the Sabbath.

 

Even today you will find Christian companies like Chick-fil-A that are closed on Sunday to observe the Sabbath.

And yet, it's not Sabbath, is it? Historically, the day changed FROM Sabbath *TO* Sunday. On purpose. To distinguish the Christians from the Jews, and to welcome the pagans.

 

Knowingly, the day changed from what is claimed in the commandments.

 

I don't care that you do it or not do it but you're not being consistent when you claim to follow a literal text that you keep excuse why it's perfectly fine you're not following literally.

 

Literal, or not literal, jryan? Pick one.....

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

As I've pointed out, that's not what "literal" means.

 

But whatever. There's a far more cogent point to be made. Christians believe that Jesus was God. Jesus taught people what the Commandments meant. Jesus clarified their meaning ("Was man made for the Sabbath, or was the Sabbath made for man?"). He did not rewrite them, he just stated what he meant.

 

Who are Christians to believe? The Pharisees, who took the commandments in the sense that you think "literal" means, or God?

 

In short, they're following what they believe the Commandments to believe, based on what God told them. Don't blame them for thinking something different. You missed the sequel, after all.