Slade wrote: > It seems you are confusing terms. Manmade laws created > by governments to rule over their subjects are laws we > must do according to Scripture. ... Manmade rules created > by the Religious Intelligencia that are given the same > credence as Scripture, on the other hand, are a completely > different monster.
I'm not confusing terms. You separate terms because of eisigesis, but I recognize that for the Jews, there was no separation of church and state, as you seem to want to interject here. Their laws were not a completely different monster. They were presently subjugated under Roman law, but they continued their own Judaic law under Roman rule. The conflict they had was not the classic "separation of church and state" that we have today, but rather some considered it traitorous to give taxes to a foreign power because it was viewed as a competing government. The sabbath laws during Jesus day were as binding in a civil manner as crimes like stealing are today. Slade wrote: > These rules created by the Pharisaic and the > Sadducee Intelligencia that contradicted or > hamstrung Scripture are the laws Yeshua fought > against. That's why he made the comment, > "Shabbat was made for Man," and "These things > you should do, but you forgot the weightier > things of the Law like Grace and Mercy." > He was not referring to the laws of Caesar. Right, he was referring to the Torah. The apostles were breaking Torah when they plucked ears of corn, according to most any scholar's interpretation of Torah. I doubt you can find a Jew today who would not agree that their plucking corn violated Torah. Am I wrong? How do you justify plucking corn on Sabbath according to your understanding of Torah? David Miller wrote: > First, we must understand that most traffic violations are not crimes. > They are civil infractions. It would be illegal for the authorities to > punish you with incarceration or other penalties that are used for > crimes. Slade wrote: > I don't intend to be rude, but so what? It's > a matter of semantics. Would you believe if > I told you "It was a simple affair... it's > not like it was adultery or anything?" Studying the semantics in this case might help you understand the relationship between crimes in the eyes of men and sins in the eyes of God. Unless we understand this distinction, we will likely condemn the guiltless, like the Pharisees did of the apostles who plucked corn on Shabbat, and like some here condemn others to hell for slipping a few mph over the speed limit. The "simple affair" thing doesn't work because that is still a sin. A more proper analogy would be dropping your car keys, over-cooking or under-cooking the meal, putting not quite enough sugar in your ice tea, not knowing the correct answer to a question, etc. Some people want to make these things sins that damn us to hell for all eternity. Slade wrote: > By the way, when you exceed the speed limit > someone is harmed... you, because you are > allowing sin to enter your life and that > is interfering with your communion with > the Almighty. You are begging the question here. You are arguing a tautology. The question is whether or not it is sin, so you can't accept that conclusion to make your case. If it were not a sin, then no harm has been done to anyone. I would say that an action which harms either God, yourself, or your neighbor, is a sin, and if none of these are harmed in any way, then it is not sin. Slade wrote: > Civil crime is not the issue here. I am trying > to keep the focus on how YHVH sees things. And I'm trying to help you see sin the way God sees sin. Man was created in God's image, and man has been anointed to function in government as his minister. Therefore, when we see men creating laws against sin, calling it a crime, we understand the motivation that YHWH has for his Torah. Why did YHWH prohibit stealing and murder? For the same reason that governments make it a crime. Seeing this overlap will help us understand God's moral government and the reasons for his law. Slade wrote: > ... our God has said we must obey our nation's > laws otherwise we are sinning before YHVH and > He will remember our sins come Judgment Day. But you conveniently ignore the Mat. 12 passage and other examples of Scripture that show righteous men going against their nation's laws without sinning. I'm not saying that we ought not be subject to our nation's laws; I'm just trying to point out that it is not necessarily a sin in God's eyes to violate certain laws. Slade wrote: > Therefore, I do not have a problem with exceptions > existing in the manmade laws of civil government. > Exceptions exist in the Torah of YHVH as well ... Good. So let me ask you a question about the apostle's plucking corn. If neither Jesus nor anyone else gave any reason why it might be lawful for them to pluck corn on sabbath, would they still have been guiltless? In other words, does a person have to be able to articulate an exception in order to be exempt from literal observance because of a weightier precept? The idea of "Kal V'khomer" actually explains the perspective I have on where Torah is in relation to the teachings of Jesus. Torah as a whole is simply a lighter issue to abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Slade wrote: > (One exists in Numbers 15 if you read it closely > and pay attention to what is NOT said in the text! > ***That's a test for you, David. Will you take me > up on it? Please do. It'll be a wonderful > exercise.***) Do you mean the fact that forgiveness exists for ignorance, but not for presumption? Did you ever notice that the man might have made the argument that he forgot? I say this because God immediately commands the blue fringe to help them remember. Is there a connection between this and what happened to the man gathering sticks? Slade wrote: > No. A legalist says that one MUST obey the Religious > Intelligencia's rulings in order to be saved (in my > book at least). I think you are too strict on this definition. Righteousness is the issue, and strict adherence to WRITTEN precepts is how the legalist believes it is obtained. Slade wrote: > Obedience to Torah is for our own good. We agree on this, but for some reason, you keep failing to see that. Our difference is not on being obedient to Torah, but on how obedience to Torah works itself out. Slade wrote: > No. Yeshua did not reveal a righteousness greater > than Torah (Deut 6:25). I'm sorry you can't see that. What does Deut. 6:25 have to do with this? Read Romans 10:1-13 and notice the contrast between righteousness that comes through Torah and righteousness that comes through faith in Christ. Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) Rom 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Rom 10:11 For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
