Paul Bethke vs the 613 Mitzvot

[halleyscomet]

Which of the "Ten Commands" is "love your neighbor as yourself?" What number is it in the list of ten on Moses's tablets?



Before you answer, please take not that loving your neighbor as yourself is not the same as not coveting your neighbor's stuff. For instance, one could be totally indifferent to ones neighbor, not wanting any of their possessions but also not caring at all about their problems or their fate.



Indeed, that's the exact situation presented in Jesus's parable of the Good Samaritan, the parable specifically answering the question of what it means to love your neighbor. After the unnamed traveler is robbed, stripped, and beaten, a priest and a Levite pass by without helping him. They are not violating the Tenth Commandment listed on Moses's tablets. What was there for them to covet? The traveler's nakedness? His injuries? Obviously not. Their inaction isn't due to coveting.



But, Jesus makes it clear, they were violating Jesus's admonition to love their neighbor. So, what number commandment is that? Where does that one appear on Moses's stone tablets?

There's also noting in the Ten Commandments about monogamy, regardless of which version of them you use. The Ten Commandments also say nothing about divorce. These are BIG issue with Paul Bethke.

 

[Peregrinus]

What must be considered is that although the Scriptures were not the first record to be written, they are the only record of the Creator and his dealings with humanity.

People prior to this were ignorant of creation.

Wrong yet again. The world has myriad mythologies with their creation myths far older than anything from your Bronze Age nomadic quasi-Hebrews.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Wrong yet again. The world has myriad mythologies with their creation myths far older than anything from your Bronze Age nomadic quasi-Hebrews.

Thank you for your contribution, but how can I be wrong, when the Creator has given us an account of how it all began, so Moses now has on record how it all began, and where man deviated from the perfect plan the Creator had for humanity.

As recorded--Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So anything else is a myth in the light of this truth—even the Jews have mythological imaginations.

Even Jesus pointed to the beginning---Mat 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?

You SEE science tells how the Creator created the worlds—the Scriptures tell us why.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Which of the "Ten Commands" is "love your neighbor as yourself?" What number is it in the list of ten on Moses's tablets?

Before you answer, please take not that loving your neighbor as yourself is not the same as not coveting your neighbor's stuff. For instance, one could be totally indifferent to ones neighbor, not wanting any of their possessions but also not caring at all about their problems or their fate.

Indeed, that's the exact situation presented in Jesus's parable of the Good Samaritan, the parable specifically answering the question of what it means to love your neighbor. After the unnamed traveler is robbed, stripped, and beaten, a priest and a Levite pass by without helping him. They are not violating the Tenth Commandment listed on Moses's tablets. What was there for them to covet? The traveler's nakedness? His injuries? Obviously not. Their inaction isn't due to coveting.

But, Jesus makes it clear, they were violating Jesus's admonition to love their neighbor. So, what number commandment is that? Where does that one appear on Moses's stone tablets?

I have to let the Scriptures explain what you so clearly presented—the understanding of the commands is that of love---subsequent laws illustrated that to love ones neighbour is to do good and not evil, understanding that another interpretation is to do to your neighbour the things that you would like done to yourself—so if you were a victim then you would like someone to help you.

Exo 23:4 "If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it.

So you are correct, in stating that it is not essential to help a fellow person, and is not decreed in the Decalogue---but it is a subsequent teaching, based on love, and compassion as Yahweh stated of himself---Exo 34:6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,
Exo 34:7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

So to love your neighbor is not to lie steal, or covet his wife—so love is a practical application of the commands.

James_2:8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbour as yourself," you are doing right.

Romans_13:9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbour as yourself."

Galatians_5:14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbour as yourself."

Take note the Decalogue was first given, then subsequent laws that would enhance the Decalogue.

It is said that we are created in the likeness of the Creator—but not everyone follows that characteristic. Some people become evil thereby denying the inherent good that we possess.

 

[Paul Bethke]

There's also noting in the Ten Commandments about monogamy, regardless of which version of them you use. The Ten Commandments also say nothing about divorce. These are BIG issue with Paul Bethke.

But Comet the decree—do not commit adultery covers all the issues dealing with marriage, because subsequent decrees explains this as Jesus taught. Also the explanation of the decree is covered in Leviticus 18----Lev 18:30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.'"

So the Decalogue cannot be separated from the other decrees used to explain the Decalogue. And then there is Jesus who explains in no uncertain terms what is adultery--Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And then there is this explanation of what marriage should be---Mat 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
Mat 19:5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

So there is always the beginning that illustrates the plan of the Creator for marriage—and adultery is the violation of that plan.

The reason that the flood came was because the marriage covenant was violated, and when covenant marriage is no longer adhered to as today, then the judgement of Yahweh will be directed at those who have violated his covenant.

 

[halleyscomet]

But Comet the decree—do not commit adultery covers all the issues dealing with marriage, because subsequent decrees explains this as Jesus taught. Also the explanation of the decree is covered in Leviticus 18----Lev 18:30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.'"

So the Decalogue cannot be separated from the other decrees used to explain the Decalogue. And then there is Jesus who explains in no uncertain terms what is adultery--Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And then there is this explanation of what marriage should be---Mat 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
Mat 19:5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

So there is always the beginning that illustrates the plan of the Creator for marriage—and adultery is the violation of that plan.

The reason that the flood came was because the marriage covenant was violated, and when covenant marriage is no longer adhered to as today, then the judgement of Yahweh will be directed at those who have violated his covenant.

Balderdash and nonsense. You are imposing your own definition of "adultery," one at conflict with the very Old Testament covenant you claim is unchanged. God explicitly endorsed polygamous relationships multiple times in the Old Testament. He even endorsed Sarah giving Abraham permission to impregnate her servant my making the resulting child, Ishmael, the patriarch of his own people.

 

[Myriad]

I told you that you do not understand prophecy--so to make it easy for you to understand--the Ten Commands are the basis for the faith. Nothing else is as important as the Ten Commands. A person begins with the Ten Commands and finishes with the Ten Commands.

So you are correct, in stating that it is not essential to help a fellow person, and is not decreed in the Decalogue---but it is a subsequent teaching, based on love, and compassion as Yahweh stated of himself-...

I sure wish you'd make up your mind. Either the "Ten Commands" are the entire basis for moral living such that a [moral] person "begins with... and finishes with the Ten Commands," or there are subsequent teachings of love and compassion that extend or even override the "Ten Commands."

It cannot be both.

And it's exaggeration at best to say that "love your neighbor" "sums up" the Ten Commandments. Only about half of the Ten Commandments relate to how one treats ones neighbors in general; the rest are about how to treat or honor God (and in one case, your parents). If I help the traveler lying injured and destitute in the road, have I loved him or helped him any less if I worship a different God before YHWH; if I utter a few swear words upon seeing the severity of his wounds; if I pay for his care and lodging with coins bearing the graven image of Zeus that I earned by cleaning toilets on the Sabbath; if I leave my father and my mother waiting for our lunch date whilst I help him?

Most Christians would say no, which is why we hold that Jesus's "subsequent teachings" do not merely summarize or recapitulate the Ten Commandments, but supersede them.

 

[Craig B]

Not that old chestnut again. Christians have been misinterpreting that verse from Isaiah for c. 2000 years it seems. First the proper translation of the Hebrew is not "virgin" but "young woman", secondly the whole passage is not a reference to the Messiah to begin with.

If you read the rest of the prophecy at Isaiah 7:18-20 it doesn't look very messianic. Here from New International version.

18 In that day the Lord will whistle for flies from the Nile delta in Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the Euphrates River—the king of Assyria—to shave your head and private parts, and to cut off your beard also.​

Did the Messiah come from the kingdom of Assyria to shave private parts? I think not.

 

[Peregrinus]

You SEE science tells how the Creator created the worlds—the Scriptures tell us why.

Repeated assertions without proof remain repeated assertions. Quote-mining won't turn the trick when your repeated quotes can be shown to have been taken from narratives far older than the particular source you've chosen to obsess over.

 

[halleyscomet]

If you read the rest of the prophecy at Isaiah 7:18-20 it doesn't look very messianic. Here from New International version.

18 In that day the Lord will whistle for flies from the Nile delta in Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the Euphrates River—the king of Assyria—to shave your head and private parts, and to cut off your beard also.​

Did the Messiah come from the kingdom of Assyria to shave private parts? I think not.

Wait, the Brazilian wax was prophesized in the Bible???

 

[halleyscomet]

The reason that the flood came was because the marriage covenant was violated

That's not what the Bible says. You are making that up as part of your own mythology.

Now, back to the thread topic. Do you follow this Mitzvot?

Ex. 20:15 — Not to covet and scheme to acquire another's possession — Yemenite->Ex. 20:14

So far you've asserted that it is indeed a Biblical law but never said anything about if you follow it. Keep in mind, just because it's a Biblical law doesn't mean we can assume you follow it, just look at your paper-thin excuses for not obeying the Mitzvot about clothing!

I sure wish you'd make up your mind. Either the "Ten Commands" are the entire basis for moral living such that a [moral] person "begins with... and finishes with the Ten Commands," or there are subsequent teachings of love and compassion that extend or even override the "Ten Commands."

It cannot be both.

And it's exaggeration at best to say that "love your neighbor" "sums up" the Ten Commandments. Only about half of the Ten Commandments relate to how one treats ones neighbors in general; the rest are about how to treat or honor God (and in one case, your parents). If I help the traveler lying injured and destitute in the road, have I loved him or helped him any less if I worship a different God before YHWH; if I utter a few swear words upon seeing the severity of his wounds; if I pay for his care and lodging with coins bearing the graven image of Zeus that I earned by cleaning toilets on the Sabbath; if I leave my father and my mother waiting for our lunch date whilst I help him?

Most Christians would say no, which is why we hold that Jesus's "subsequent teachings" do not merely summarize or recapitulate the Ten Commandments, but supersede them.

His assertion that any portion of the Mitzvot are relevant to modern Christians already contradicts his recent statements about the Ten Commandments.

 

[Paul Bethke]

That's not what the Bible says. You are making that up as part of your own mythology.

That is exactly what is implied, because that was the first commandment that the Creator gave besides the Sabbath.--- Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence.
The word corruption refers to the violation of the marriage covenant—the people corrupted that which the Creator decreed. Noah was the only person with his family that remained in the marriage covenant. As Jesus stated---Mat 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?

So this is what the Creator decreed and this is what man corrupted

Now, back to the thread topic. Do you follow this Mitzvot?
So far you've asserted that it is indeed a Biblical law but never said anything about if you follow it. Keep in mind, just because it's a Biblical law doesn't mean we can assume you follow it, just look at your paper-thin excuses for not obeying the Mitzvot about clothing!

His assertion that any portion of the Mitzvot are relevant to modern Christians already contradicts his recent statements about the Ten Commandments.

What must be considered is that before the Torah was given there was Abraham, and he is the prime example of those who have faith in the Creator---Rom_4:12 And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Now the Torah was given to the Hebrews who came out of Egypt as a nation.
The first laws that were given by Yahweh, were the Ten Commands that he inscribed on the two stone tablets, which constituted the Covenant, the remainder of the laws were written down on a scroll, which was known as the Book of the law.

So the Decalogue is for all peoples and the laws explain how the Decalogue is to be understood, so do not covet applies to all peoples—it means do not desire what belongs to another and scheme how to obtain it deceitfully. So covetousness is the motive behind all sin.

James_4:2 You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God.

Rom_7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

So through the law we understand what coveting is—so through repentance a person now has a change of heart and becomes a better person who no longer covets what is not his.

So faith is of the heart—as Jesus stated--Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
So through repentance a person acquires a pure heart.

So that should answer your inquiry.

 

[Zivan]

If you read the rest of the prophecy at Isaiah 7:18-20 it doesn't look very messianic. Here from New International version.

18 In that day the Lord will whistle for flies from the Nile delta in Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the Euphrates River—the king of Assyria—to shave your head and private parts, and to cut off your beard also.​

Did the Messiah come from the kingdom of Assyria to shave private parts? I think not.

Wait, the Brazilian wax was prophesized in the Bible???

Wow. That is a weird translation by the NIV. There is no word(s) for "private parts" in that verse. Also no word for "your" and "Euphrates" is not there either.

The hebrew says:

20 "On that day, the Lord shall shave with a hired razor on the other side of a river, on the king of Assyria, the head and the hair of the legs, and also the beard shall be removed."

 

[Zivan]

That's not what the Bible says. You are making that up as part of your own mythology.

That is exactly what is implied, because that was the first commandment that the Creator gave besides the Sabbath.---

No PB, that is not what it says. As halleyscomet said, "You are making that up as part of your own mythology".

The first commandment given to the mythical first humans was to "be fruitfull and multiply". And that was given before anything about marriage.

You just make **** up.

 

[halleyscomet]

<snip to remove irrelevant justifications of personal mythology>
So that should answer your inquiry.

I didn't make an inquiry. I pointed out you were wrong. You're still wrong and your attempt at a justification is just as laughable as your previous ones.

Now, back on topic. Do you obey this Mitzvot:

Ex. 20:15 — Not to covet and scheme to acquire another's possession — Yemenite->Ex. 20:14

You keep trying to hijack the thread to discuss your personal mythologies and interpretations of scripture. This thread is about the Mitzvot. Try to focus or I will be forced to start reporting your off-topic posts as a rule 11 violation. Please keep the Membership Agreement in mind:

11. You will not deliberately attempt to derail threads or start threads in the wrong section.

 

[JayUtah]

But Comet the decree—do not commit adultery covers all the issues dealing with marriage...

But it doesn't promote monogamy because the Torah goes on to regulate polygamy.

So the Decalogue cannot be separated from the other decrees used to explain the Decalogue.

That's exactly what you want to do. You want to separate the rest of the Torah from the Decalogue and treat the Decalogue as a proxy for everything else. And the reason is clear: you want to reduce the amount of the Torah that you're responsible for understanding and interpreting, since you've made it clear you can't understand it and you can't properly interpret it.

 

[halleyscomet]

But it doesn't promote monogamy because the Torah goes on to regulate polygamy.



That's exactly what you want to do. You want to separate the rest of the Torah from the Decalogue and treat the Decalogue as a proxy for everything else. And the reason is clear: you want to reduce the amount of the Torah that you're responsible for understanding and interpreting, since you've made it clear you can't understand it and you can't properly interpret it.

He could easily do all of that by simply accepting the interpretation of Peter's dream that's common to the vast majority of Christian Churches. Of course, if he did that, he'd have to give up on his claim that his preferred deity wants Christians to keep kosher and that he follows the Mitzvot he deems relevant.

Given his persistent refusal to answer questions about what Mitzvot he does and does not follow, and the lack of a coherent explanation for his criteria beyond the lack of a temple, I'd say he could save himself a lot of headaches if he gave up on the fiction of following the Mitzvot. Based upon the scant details we've been able to get from him he's basically an Evangelical or New Apostolic Reformation Christian who doesn't like pork or shellfish; he's trying to cloak his personal dietary preferences in religious clothing.

 

[JayUtah]

Based upon the scant details we've been able to get from him he's basically an Evangelical or New Apostolic Reformation Christian who doesn't like pork or shellfish; he's trying to cloak his personal dietary preferences in religious clothing.

Or more simply, his conceptualization of the mitzvot is simplistic and he thinks that if he just bites off one more mitzveh than the tradition in which he was instructed, he can sustain a claim to superior obedience. We haven't even been able to get from him a statement of whether he remains fully kosher or just omits certain famously forbidden foodstuffs. It's like trying to claim to be Amish just because you own a horse and buggy.

 

[Peregrinus]

The word corruption refers to the violation of the marriage covenant

Your rather twisted wishful thinking - yet again. And still wrong. And still suggesting a continuing obsession with the (real or imagined) sexual transgressions of others.

 

[halleyscomet]

Or more simply, his conceptualization of the mitzvot is simplistic and he thinks that if he just bites off one more mitzveh than the tradition in which he was instructed, he can sustain a claim to superior obedience. We haven't even been able to get from him a statement of whether he remains fully kosher or just omits certain famously forbidden foodstuffs. It's like trying to claim to be Amish just because you own a horse and buggy.

Good point.

Perhaps I'd get a better response if I focus on questioning him about some of the food related Mitzvot.

Dietary Laws

• To examine the marks in cattle (so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean) (Lev. 11:2) (affirmative). See Animals that may not be eaten.
• Not to eat the flesh of unclean beasts (Lev. 11:4) (CCN93). See Animals that may not be eaten.
• To examine the marks in fishes (so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean (Lev. 11:9) (affirmative). See Animals that may not be eaten.
• Not to eat unclean fish (Lev. 11:11) (CCN95). See Animals that may not be eaten.
• To examine the marks in fowl, so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean (Deut. 14:11) (affirmative). See Animals that may not be eaten.
• Not to eat unclean fowl (Lev. 11:13) (CCN94). See Animals that may not be eaten.
• To examine the marks in locusts, so as to distinguish the clean from the unclean (Lev. 11:21) (affirmative). See Animals that may not be eaten.
• Not to eat a worm found in fruit (Lev. 11:41) (CCN98). See Animals that may not be eaten.
• Not to eat of things that creep upon the earth (Lev. 11:41-42) (CCN97). See Animals that may not be eaten.
• Not to eat any vermin of the earth (Lev. 11:44) (CCN100). See Animals that may not be eaten.
• Not to eat things that swarm in the water (Lev. 11:43 and 46) (CCN99). See Animals that may not be eaten.
• Not to eat of winged insects (Deut. 14:19) (CCN96). See Animals that may not be eaten.
• Not to eat the flesh of a beast that is terefah (lit torn) (Ex. 22:30) (CCN87). See Kosher slaughtering.
• Not to eat the flesh of a beast that died of itself (Deut. 14:21) (CCN86). See Kosher slaughtering.
• To slay cattle, deer and fowl according to the laws of shechitah if their flesh is to be eaten (Deut. 12:21) ("as I have commanded" in this verse refers to the technique) (CCA48). See Kosher slaughtering.
• Not to eat a limb removed from a living beast (Deut. 12:23) (CCN90). See Kosher slaughtering.
• Not to slaughter an animal and its young on the same day (Lev. 22:28) (CCN108).
• Not to take the mother-bird with the young (Deut. 22:6) (CCN189). See Treatment of Animals.
• To set the mother-bird free when taking the nest (Deut. 22:6-7) (CCA74). See Treatment of Animals.
• Not to eat the flesh of an ox that was condemned to be stoned (Ex. 21:28) (negative).
• Not to boil meat with milk (Ex. 23:19) (CCN91). See Separation of Meat and Dairy.
• Not to eat flesh with milk (Ex. 34:26) (according to the Talmud, this passage is a distinct prohibition from the one in Ex. 23:19) (CCN92). See Separation of Meat and Dairy.
• Not to eat the of the thigh-vein which shrank (Gen. 32:33) (CCN1). See Forbidden Fats and Nerves.
• Not to eat chelev (tallow-fat) (Lev. 7:23) (CCN88). See Forbidden Fats and Nerves.
• Not to eat blood (Lev. 7:26) (CCN89). See Draining of Blood.
• To cover the blood of undomesticated animals (deer, etc.) and of fowl that have been killed (Lev. 17:13) (CCA49).
• Not to eat or drink like a glutton or a drunkard (not to rebel against father or mother) (Lev. 19:26; Deut. 21:20) (CCN106).