tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post6541885124530455623..comments2024-02-05T00:22:41.291-08:00Comments on Orthodox Messianic Judaism: Now It Really Begins: Your Opinion Will Determine the Next StepUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-15220402686261599682013-11-25T10:14:02.666-08:002013-11-25T10:14:02.666-08:00Finally, there's the observation that simply, ...Finally, there's the observation that simply, to neglect to do as G-d instructs is immoral, period. Regardless of whether the instruction itself has moral content, the act of obedience is in and of itself a moral issue. <br /><br />If G-d commanded that I do ten jumping jacks a day, or spin around in a circle singing nursery rhymes, then there might well be no moral content - but if I refuse to do as He instructs, even if He instructs me to do something which isn't a moral issue - my neglect to obey is inherently immoral. I deny the King His rightful authority to regulate the lives and behavior of His subjects. Instead, I regulate my own behavior and He does not get to tell me what to do. This is nothing short of, once again, putting oneself in the place of G-d. Conversely, to obey G-d is inherently moral, even if He were to instruct us to do something that we saw as being morally neutral or silly.<br /><br />So, even if there were, theoretically, mitzvot which were not moral, the act of obeying G-d is in and of itself moral, and the act of not obeying is in and of itself immoral. Therefore, every single mitzvah is conclusively moral in nature, because it's not a question of whether G-d issues a particular command for moral or ceremonial reasons, but instead a question of whether or not we do as G-d instructs, and in the process either honor or deny His Kingship.Jonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-65831771304348070322013-11-25T10:13:33.879-08:002013-11-25T10:13:33.879-08:00I might challenge his initial bifurcation of the c...I might challenge his initial bifurcation of the commandments into "ceremonial" and "moral." Of course, the scripture never offers such a split, and decisions as to which commandments have moral character and which are merely ceremonial have no exegetical basis. The Torah, nor the rest of the Scripture, does not say "G-d says [XYZ] and it is bad to ignore this," and then in the next paragraph, "G-d says [ABC] but if you ignore this, you're just skimping out on ceremony, it's not a matter of what's right and wrong."<br /><br />In reality, people divide "ceremonial" and "moral" commandments based on external culture, unsupported by Scripture. Try telling an Arab believer that eating pork is not a moral issue, then go and have that same discussion with an Irishman. Sha'ul tells us that the Torah is how we know what is sin and what is righteousness, but apparently something in the Torah is not righteousness or sin if it, in the eyes of the moral code of our local time and place, doesn't *seem* to be a moral issue. Then, it is simply ceremonial. So the Bible can make *suggestions* about sin, but the culture decides the validity of those suggestions.<br /><br />Just as as kashut would seem a moral issue to an Arab but not a moral issue to an Irishman, we could conceive of societies which would write off all kinds of things which *seem* moral to the modern American as being ceremonial and pointless - they would perhaps write off commandments against dishonesty in business, or caring for the poor, etc, as being "ceremonial" or "a product of ancient near east culture," as I've often heard it said, and rationalize that they no longer applied because that particular culture didn't think such things were important - just as today's Church does with many commandments that don't seem to the local culture to be moral in nature.<br /><br />So, if we're to split up the commandments into "moral" and "ceremonial," we're really dividing them into "I like these" and "I don't like these." , the Torah doesn't define sin and righteousness, good and bad. The Bible doesn't have authority over what is sin. I do. Each individual person is the authority on what is sin. Because there is no conclusive list of what is "moral" and what is "ceremonial," because the Scripture doesn't provide such a list, "every man does what is right in their own eyes." All else is "ceremonial." Not only is that obviously, inherently backward, not only does it put oneself in G-d's place as the arbiter of sin and righteousness, but it descends into utter moral relativism. But, by defining some commandments as "not moral," moral relativism is really what we're aiming for in the first place, isn't it?<br /><br />Jonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-28906322172098551342013-11-24T15:26:54.964-08:002013-11-24T15:26:54.964-08:00All good advice, guys. I appreciate it.
I'll...All good advice, guys. I appreciate it.<br /><br />I'll use the Scriptural arguments...but I'll also invite the teacher over for Shabbat. However, we're in the middle of a move...so it might be another month or so before that will be possible. Moving is the worst, all the packing. : /Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742087402667360623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-61869519003643313762013-11-24T04:56:29.312-08:002013-11-24T04:56:29.312-08:00I think it is great, but you should show him what ...I think it is great, but you should show him what I call the "Pauline Paradox": passages that present Paul as still doing Torah and that assert explicit or not that Torah is good and irrevocable!<br /><br />You know, the second part of Romans 7 where Torah is something spiritual he wants to do.<br />Or the passage where we "don't abolish but uphold" Torah. Another good passage is the one in galatians where Paul argues that the Sinaitic Covenant could not make the abrahamic void (if this rationale is true than the new covenant could not do it to the "old" either - or Paul has two waits and two measures). Show him where Paul makes sacrifices of nazirite [that include even sacrifices for sin], where he SAYS he does not said anything against the Torah or the traditions, and show him the passages where Torah is eternal and good in the Tanack.<br />This is my piece of advice!, Blessings!Matheus Rincohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14977448663470665475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-44264855446088981242013-11-23T19:11:28.666-08:002013-11-23T19:11:28.666-08:00Peter, I just left you a comment and it disappeare...Peter, I just left you a comment and it disappeared when I posted, and this is not the first time this has happened. Okay, I will save it this time.<br /><br />If this friend is a theologian, then there are a number of excellent books he can peruse at his leisure; it is not as if you are going to win a proof-texting war. Today I heard something interesting from Paul Wilbur, that although we are surrounded by a sea of information, we are not to live our lives by information but by revelation. You can't communicate Hebraic wisdom via Greek methodology; it would be akin to teaching Algebra with a violin. Invite your friend to a Chanukah party and ask him to read Al Nissim.JewishPrincezzhttp://endtimechaverim.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-41412182836129419472013-11-23T16:55:50.792-08:002013-11-23T16:55:50.792-08:00Baruch HaShem. : )Baruch HaShem. : )Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742087402667360623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5143697192802548581.post-46402202406349559592013-11-23T11:15:14.762-08:002013-11-23T11:15:14.762-08:00Peter, I think you make some great points.
Stev...Peter, I think you make some great points. <br /><br />StevenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com