Paul Bethke vs the 613 Mitzvot

[halleyscomet]

Why not explain your on-again/off-again relationship with the commands of your 'god', including the process by which you identify the ones you may ignore (then explain why that does not make you less enthusiastic about enforcing them upon others)?

I don't think he HAS a process beyond his personal convenience. That's why he refuses to elaborate on what it is.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Then again, you have demonstrated, over and over, in things great and small, in details gross and fine, that the truth is not in you.

Why not simply answer the questions?

Why not simply admit your errors, and learn from them?

Why not explain your on-again/off-again relationship with the commands of your 'god', including the process by which you identify the ones you may ignore (then explain why that does not make you less enthusiastic about enforcing them upon others)?

You fail to understand that there are laws that are no more required for the faith.

The worship required for the Temple has been replaced. We do not travel to Jerusalem three times a year—so the selection of laws for worship have diminished, so essentially everything is based primarily on the Ten Commands. Judicial laws are in line with many laws that are accepted today.

The laws pertaining to hygiene are laws that most people apply, there are laws to ensure peoples safety. Every application today is covered by a law.

So when driving a vehicle we are required to apply the laws stipulated—so society in general have laws that are parallel to the Laws contained in the Torah. So what is required is to teach people laws that ensure the safety of all.

But there are laws of morality that must be adhered to.

Now the nations in general have abolished the death penalty, in opposition to what is prescribed in the Torah. So, there are customs that people still practice that is in opposition to what is stipulated in the Torah.

So, the Kingdom of God will introduce the penalty for murder, rape and kidnapping, and deal with violence in a way that people will consider their action before committing a crime.

 

[Craig B]

But there are laws of morality that must be adhered to ... the Kingdom of God will introduce the penalty for murder, rape and kidnapping, and deal with violence in a way that people will consider their action before committing a crime.

But if the rape victim is not betrothed, and many victims of that crime are not betrothed, will the Kingdom of God apply this Torah-prescribed punishment?

Deuteronomy 22:28–29, If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.​

Fifty shekels is just under one pound weight, the shekel was around 11 grams. The current price of silver is $0.56 per gram. So he doesn't suffer the death penalty. He pays her father three hundred dollars.

 

[halleyscomet]

You fail to understand that there are laws that are no more required for the faith.

You claim to be the One True Christian_(tm).

You claim there is a way to determine which Mitzvot are still necessary.

You REFUSE to discuss the specific Mitzvot to let anyone know which are still required and which are not.

You can't even be bothered to explain the laws you've admitted you don't follow, despite it being perfectly possible for you to follow them.

Where do you get off claiming ANY kind of moral authority in this conversation when you refuse to actually engage in it?

1. Do you now or have you ever withheld food, clothing, or sexual relations from your wife?
   
2. Why is that question so terrifying that you refuse to answer it directly?
   
3. Have you fathered or adopted any children? (If you refuse to answer this one on privacy grounds the site's rules require I respect that decision.)
   
4. Have you ever made a human form for any purpose, decorative or otherwise?

 

[Border Reiver]

So, the Kingdom of God will introduce the penalty for murder, rape and kidnapping, and deal with violence in a way that people will consider their action before committing a crime.

If you've ever done any criminology studies you would remember that the deterrence value of a penalty is correlated strongly to the certainty of being caught and being found guilty. The Bloody Code of Great Britain (late 18th/early 19th centuries) prescribed the death penalty for an absolutely staggering number of offences, yet the crime rate for those offences was much higher then it is today.

Many criminals would simply not be caught, and fewer of those would be convicted of capital crimes, making the deterrence value of capital punishment far less then you seem to think it is.

Yahweh has indicated that those who do not follow his Laws will be punished, yet you choose to ignore many of them - remind us what your punishment should be.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You fail to understand that there are laws that are no more required for the faith.

And yet, in your misinterpretation of "Peter's" "Rooftop Vision", you based your entire error on your claim that Jesus would not let ANY of "the Law" lapse. Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now? Or did you simply say a convenient lie, both times?

 

[Paul Bethke]

And yet, in your misinterpretation of "Peter's" "Rooftop Vision", you based your entire error on your claim that Jesus would not let ANY of "the Law" lapse. Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now? Or did you simply say a convenient lie, both times?

Peters vision was not about abolishing the Kosher laws, it was given to him to show him that Gentiles can also be considered clean acceptable to God. The very statement show this. You are like the people who want to see the Torah made null and void.
How does a person like yourself who claims to know the ancient languages interpret the event so erroneously?

Act 10:28 He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.
Act 10:29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?"

But I find that most every Church denomination would rather believe that Peter was instructed to denounce the Torah.

But that would be in contradiction to what Jesus the head of his Church would instruct. On the contrary there is this statement---Mat 5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You SEE Sir if Jesus wanted to change the laws contained in the Torah he would have declared it while on earth. Besides there was no other witness to the vision, so Peter could not have the authority to implement a change to what Jesus decereed.

And again, when Peter addressed the Jerusalem council he did not say that the dietary laws were abolished, but rather that Yahweh had declared the Gentiles who adopted the Torah as clean.

Act 15:19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
Act 15:20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

So you SEE the Torah was still regarded as the guide to the acceptance of the Gentiles into the faith.

But it is good of you to allow me the opportunity to clear up this misconception.

 

[Border Reiver]

Peters vision was not about abolishing the Kosher laws, it was given to him to show him that Gentiles can also be considered clean acceptable to God. The very statement show this. You are like the people who want to see the Torah made null and void.
How does a person like yourself who claims to know the ancient languages interpret the event so erroneously?

Act 10:28 He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.
Act 10:29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?"

But I find that most every Church denomination would rather believe that Peter was instructed to denounce the Torah.

But that would be in contradiction to what Jesus the head of his Church would instruct. On the contrary there is this statement---Mat 5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You SEE Sir if Jesus wanted to change the laws contained in the Torah he would have declared it while on earth. Besides there was no other witness to the vision, so Peter could not have the authority to implement a change to what Jesus decereed.

And again, when Peter addressed the Jerusalem council he did not say that the dietary laws were abolished, but rather that Yahweh had declared the Gentiles who adopted the Torah as clean.

Act 15:19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
Act 15:20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

So you SEE the Torah was still regarded as the guide to the acceptance of the Gentiles into the faith.

But it is good of you to allow me the opportunity to clear up this misconception.

There is more to the Law then what Paul was writing about - there are also the grooming laws, clothing laws, feasts, etc.

All of which you ignore, contrary to Mat 5:19.

Paul was in a contest at the time with James the Just to determine who was going to lead this new Jewish sect. Paul's convenient "revelation from god" allowed him to gather more followers then James, who kept within the Jewish community and did not relax the Law just to get more bums in seats. Essentially, Paul relaxed the membership requirements, and then flooded the group with people beholden to him and his interpretation of "God's Will" to stay in the group.

 

[Paul Bethke]

There is more to the Law then what Paul was writing about - there are also the grooming laws, clothing laws, feasts, etc.

All of which you ignore, contrary to Mat 5:19.

Paul was in a contest at the time with James the Just to determine who was going to lead this new Jewish sect. Paul's convenient "revelation from god" allowed him to gather more followers then James, who kept within the Jewish community and did not relax the Law just to get more bums in seats. Essentially, Paul relaxed the membership requirements, and then flooded the group with people beholden to him and his interpretation of "God's Will" to stay in the group.

There is more to the Law then what Paul was writing about - there are also the grooming laws, clothing laws, feasts, etc.

All of which you ignore, contrary to Mat 5:19.

Paul was in a contest at the time with James the Just to determine who was going to lead this new Jewish sect. Paul's convenient "revelation from god" allowed him to gather more followers then James, who kept within the Jewish community and did not relax the Law just to get more bums in seats. Essentially, Paul relaxed the membership requirements, and then flooded the group with people beholden to him and his interpretation of "God's Will" to stay in the group.

There are many laws that are incorporated in the laws that are present today in gentile society—there are many laws that are based upon the laws in the Torah.
If I were a Jew and lived in Israel I would apply the laws that attain to holiness. But then what must be considered is that the Temple is no more, and the laws pertaining to the Temple and the priests and the sacrifices no longer exist.

This excludes some 200 Mitzvah.
Then there are farming laws, animal laws, laws for the building of houses, laws pertaining to mildew, laws regarding leprosy. So many of these laws are laws currently in force. There are laws for woman, and there are laws for men, there are laws pertaining to children, there are laws for hygiene.

But the laws pertaining to a sanctified marriage are paramount, and cannot be compromised.

So, a person can keep all the laws, but if the marriage is not sanctified then it is useless.
Jesus stressed that all the laws must be taught, as each law contains a parallel application.

There may not be a Temple, but the Temple represents another facet of the faith.

1Co 3:16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?
The death of Jesus as a propitiation has replaced the animal sacrifice for atonement.

So a comparison can be considered in each law, so each law has an application or a comparative meaning. But each law must be considered and no law must be rejected.

Lev_19:16 "'Do not go about spreading slander among your people.
"'Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life. I am the LORD.

Lev 19:9 "'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest.

Lev 19:4 "'Do not turn to idols or make gods of cast metal for yourselves. I am the LORD your God.
Lev 19:5 "'When you sacrifice a fellowship offering to the LORD, sacrifice it in such a way that it will be accepted on your behalf.

Lev 19:19 "'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
Lev 19:27 "'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
Lev 19:28 "'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.



Now the description of sins pertaining to adultery are numerous---Lev 20:10 "'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Lev 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Lev 20:14 "'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

Lev 20:15 "'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

So, you SEE, these laws must be taught, even if they do not apply—the law makes us aware of what is sin, faith is to adhere to these laws.

So what Jesus decreed still applies today---Mat 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

So, the Torah will be the means by which people will be judged and the Torah will be the means to make people holy, acceptable to the Creator.

Lev 11:43 Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them.
Lev 11:47 You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.'"

All these laws must be taught, but a sanctified marriage must be proceeded.
Boys and girls must be taught what is a sanctified marriage.

 

[JayUtah]

All these laws must be taught, but a sanctified marriage must be proceeded.

Your obsession with sex and adultery doesn't make the rest of the mitzvot go away. Your emphasis doesn't create an excuse for disobeying the other parts that are not made moot such as by the lack of a temple. The dress and grooming mitzvot are examples. Nothing prevents them from being obeyed. Do you obey them?

 

[Paul Bethke]

Your obsession with sex and adultery doesn't make the rest of the mitzvot go away. Your emphasis doesn't create an excuse for disobeying the other parts that are not made moot such as by the lack of a temple. The dress and grooming mitzvot are examples. Nothing prevents them from being obeyed. Do you obey them?

There is no obsession only an understanding that adultery is rife in the world today, and is the main cause of family disruption—everywhere I go I find people in an adulteries relationship.
There are children who do not know who their fathers are, there are abandoned children, there is child abuse. There is rape and prostitution. But this seems not to concern you!
Dress and grooming, in what way are they applicable—if they are significant, how are they applied.
What do you mean by grooming?
Certainly there is a dress code--1Titus_2:9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,

1Co_11:6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
1Co_11:14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,

1Pe 3:3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.
1Pe 3:4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.

So there is a dress code, emphasising that an inward change is better than an outward display.

Do not lose site that a sanctified marriage is paramount, and all other laws must hinge on that.

What you must consider is that the Hebrews came out of a heathen situation in Egypt and had to have laws that separated them from the culture they were subject to.

So we take our cue from all these laws, and find a parallel application.
There is also the scientific and hygienic consideration for these laws, such as what is the purpose.

Cleanliness was considered important, that which had an outcome on preventing diseases.
For one when slaughtering animals—there is a parallel today—contact with blood.
Mixing of fibres cause irritation mildew in houses, the prevention of such.

So every law must be considered and evaluated.

 

[Border Reiver]

There is no obsession only an understanding that adultery is rife in the world today, and is the main cause of family disruption—everywhere I go I find people in an adulteries relationship.
There are children who do not know who their fathers are, there are abandoned children, there is child abuse. There is rape and prostitution. But this seems not to concern you!

Any other strawmen you need to fight? It's been mentioned before (and you've ignored it before) that disagreeing with your interpretation of marriage does not mean that people are not concerned with familial issues - where we disagree is that the only way to deal with these issues is for everyone to marry the first person they have sex with and stay with them until one or the other dies.

Dress and grooming, in what way are they applicable—if they are significant, how are they applied.

The Mitzvot are the LAW as you have stated - how can they not be applicable, given your fetish for insisting that the OT laws be followed?

What do you mean by grooming?

That would be the common definition - how you keep your hair, personal hygiene, style of dress, etc.

Certainly there is a dress code--1Titus_2:9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,

1Co_11:6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
1Co_11:14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,

1Pe 3:3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.
1Pe 3:4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.

So there is a dress code, emphasising that an inward change is better than an outward display.

None of this is part of the Mitzvot and therefore not part of the LAW. This is some guy trying to impose his standards it is not what Yahweh the Bloody commanded.

Do not lose site that a sanctified marriage is paramount, and all other laws must hinge on that.

Yahweh the Bloody was ready to kill Moses over circumcision - nothing about him killing those not married to the first person they had sex with. I'm thinking that your deity has other priorities.

What you must consider is that the Hebrews came out of a heathen situation in Egypt and had to have laws that separated them from the culture they were subject to.


So we take our cue from all these laws, and find a parallel application.

You see the need for Christians to culturally separate themselves from the dominant military culture of the time?

There is also the scientific and hygienic consideration for these laws, such as what is the purpose.

Cleanliness was considered important, that which had an outcome on preventing diseases.
For one when slaughtering animals—there is a parallel today—contact with blood.
Mixing of fibres cause irritation mildew in houses, the prevention of such.

So every law must be considered and evaluated.

Mixing of fibres causes irritation in houses does it? Or does it cause mildew?

What is the scientific reason then for the tassels on clothing? Or for not stewing a kid in its mother's milk?

 

[halleyscomet]

Are you not stupid--what is your motive, other than stupidity, why should I discuss this issue with anyone.

Because it's one of the Mitzvot that can be followed without a temple. Pretending not to see the relevance of my question does not negate its relevance.

Your refusal to answer reeks of guilt.

 

[JayUtah]

There is no obsession...

Yeah, there really is.

Dress and grooming, in what way are they applicable—

They are part of the mitzvot.

The rest of your post is just a feeble attempt at justifying your non-compliance.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Peters vision was not about abolishing the Kosher laws, it was given to him to show him that Gentiles can also be considered clean acceptable to God. The very statement show this. You are like the people who want to see the Torah made null and void.
How does a person like yourself who claims to know the ancient languages interpret the event so erroneously?

The "very statements" of the actual text (which is closed to you due to your inability to read Koiné) state otherwise.

Now--abut the outright lie you told about me; the one you have refused to address.
If you had the slightest pretension to honesty, you would own, and correct, your egregious errors.

 

[Pooneil]

So every law must be considered and evaluated.

In other words, these laws must be taken as a whole and considered and interpreted in a broad context? Rather than individual items selected to be proclaimed as paramount and literally followed?

That does not appear to be what you are doing. Can you reconcile this for us by informing us how you have done this to come up with your interpretation of the adultery standard you propose?

 

[Loss Leader]

About half the mitvot require the existence of the Great Temple. There is no Jew anywhere keeping all 613, and no Jewish authority thinks one has to.

 

[JayUtah]

About half the mitvot require the existence of the Great Temple. There is no Jew anywhere keeping all 613, and no Jewish authority thinks one has to.

Agreed. But Paul says he keeps them all. It's one of several instances in which his cargo-cult literalism gets the best of him.

Now ask any practicing Jew whether he obeys a mitzvah that requires the Temple and he'll say no. He'll have a fairly well-reasoned argument for why that particular mitzvah is irrelevant today, or which is obeyed today in spirit if not in precise letter. But he won't claim to obey all the mitzvot. We grant Paul those.

But Paul doesn't limit his non-compliance to reasons of impracticality. He has proposed -- not unreasonably -- that other mitzvot are old-fashioned or unimportant. In other words, he admits he adopts the same practical obedience as many adherents today. The question is not whether Paul's rationale for compliance is reasonable, but whether it is consistent with the degree of compliance Paul claims to achieve. It is hard for Paul to claim he obeys the mitzvot scrupulously when his non-compliance isn't limited to those he is merely prevented by circumstance from obeying.

Let me draw an analogy to the U.S. tax code. The code requires taxpayers to declare as income tips they receive, even if they are cash tips and otherwise unaccounted for. It puts the taxpayer on his honor to do this. I don't know of a single person who receives cash tips who declares them as income. Since, in my experience, this is a widespread minor disobedience, it could be considered roughly analogous to mitzvot that are considered by some today to be silly or outmoded and can be safely ignored. One can consider himself a reasonably obedient Jew even if he doesn't strictly obey the dress and grooming codes. Similarly one can be a reasonably honest taxpayer while taking advantage of common, poorly-enforced cheats. But one can't claim to be a scrupulously honest taxpayer in that case. If one is bragging about how honest he is in paying his taxes, he can't afford to omit declaring income that he's explicitly on his honor to report.

Paul is not claiming to be an ordinary subject of the mitzvot, but rather a scrupulous one. That bars him from invoking the common rationales for easing obedience merely for convenience in a modern age.

 

[Paul Bethke]

About half the mitvot require the existence of the Great Temple. There is no Jew anywhere keeping all 613, and no Jewish authority thinks one has to.

To examine them in the light of what Jesus stated without selection. It is essential that the laws are examined in context, and it would be necessary to consider the practical application.
No one can keep all the laws as some apply to men and some apply to woman.

So the Ten Commands are the basis of the faith (the moral standard), which is essential.
This is referred to as the Covenant and this is essential to all, both Jew and converts to Christ.

Another essential structure are the dietary laws
The dietary laws are simple to adhere to and contain a valuable blessing.

So now which laws are excluded, as I said each law must be evaluated, so.
Primarily the laws in the Torah were given in the desert to the Hebrews, and which laws pertain to the Hebrews when they settled in the land allocated.

Exodus_35:3 Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day."
Lev_23:22 "'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.'"

Now these laws cannot be implemented, because farming is different to what it was in the past,
But the principal of generosity still applies.

Not to light a fire on the Sabbath is not practical, as one cannot stop combustion that generates electricity. So, does one not use heat appliances on the Sabbath—what when winter comes and there are minus temperatures?

Now consider this— Deu_22:8 When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.

So, this law still applies and is in force today, as do these laws---- Deut 23:13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.
Anyone who is or who was in the armed forces will tell you that this is still current practice.

These are laws of liability, and make up the structure of laws that are imposed in society.
Exo 21:33 "If a man uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or a donkey falls into it,
Exo 21:34 the owner of the pit must pay for the loss; he must pay its owner, and the dead animal will be his.
Exo 21:35 "If a man's bull injures the bull of another and it dies, they are to sell the live one and divide both the money and the dead animal equally.
Exo 21:36 However, if it was known that the bull had the habit of goring, yet the owner did not keep it penned up, the owner must pay, animal for animal, and the dead animal will be his.

So what I have been saying is that every law, must be evaluated, and it will be obvious which are current laws and which are redundant laws as with the Temple decrees.

Now it is advocated that a Third Temple must be built, but in the light of the death of Jesus as the atoning sacrifice for sin, this will be of no value.

So to END, the Ten Commands are for both Jew and Gentile converts to Christ.

 

[Paul Bethke]

The "very statements" of the actual text (which is closed to you due to your inability to read Koiné) state otherwise.

Now--abut the outright lie you told about me; the one you have refused to address.
If you had the slightest pretension to honesty, you would own, and correct, your egregious errors.

Today there are many good translations that make understanding the ancient languages clear.
You are the dishonest one calling me dishonest—the errors you claim I have is due to your inability to understand what you claim to know.
You have no knowledge of prophecy, only the ability to read the originals, which are not original. So, line upon line and word upon word. I can do that with modern technology.

So to be fair, you can never at this time understand prophecy, because it is a revelation of the will of the Creator.

2Pe_1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.
2Pe_1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.