There are 613 commandments in the Tanakh, not just ten.
So, is anyone here obeying all 613 commandment in the Tanakh?
So, is anyone here obeying all 613 commandment in the Tanakh?
It is mandatory for BACs to participate in their salvation
- Thread starter John Zain
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
One of the participants in this debate prefers to repeat over and over one particular passage where Jesus told them if they want to enter into life, keep the commandments. I have replied over and over by reminding him of what is "also written" . The following is an example:
ROM.5:12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
20Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
According to what is also written, if we want to enter into life, we should accept that ONE MAN did the work for us on our behalf. What Jesus said was true. But what was revealed afterward was that He had full intentions of keeping the commandments for us so that by our acceptance of it (faith), we could receive the free gift of life. In fact, to take it a step further, Jesus also died on our behalf so that our sin can be remitted. In our friend's world (who's name I will not mention), this was merely a temporary benefit. He insists that it is also up to us to keep the commandments to enter into life, which amounts to the failure to acknowledge that we have already entered into life by faith.
I guess in his world, the receiving of life is a future event. However, he who has the Son HAS life. Present tense.
If anyone wants to follow the advice offered through the new covenant, they should refrain from working for a free gift, and also refrain from working for something they already have. He who seeks to save his own life will lose it. Why? Because God gives grace to the humble, resists the proud.
ROM.5:12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
20Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
According to what is also written, if we want to enter into life, we should accept that ONE MAN did the work for us on our behalf. What Jesus said was true. But what was revealed afterward was that He had full intentions of keeping the commandments for us so that by our acceptance of it (faith), we could receive the free gift of life. In fact, to take it a step further, Jesus also died on our behalf so that our sin can be remitted. In our friend's world (who's name I will not mention), this was merely a temporary benefit. He insists that it is also up to us to keep the commandments to enter into life, which amounts to the failure to acknowledge that we have already entered into life by faith.
I guess in his world, the receiving of life is a future event. However, he who has the Son HAS life. Present tense.
If anyone wants to follow the advice offered through the new covenant, they should refrain from working for a free gift, and also refrain from working for something they already have. He who seeks to save his own life will lose it. Why? Because God gives grace to the humble, resists the proud.
I think...I know... his point was that Jesus set the bar higher than man's idea of what it is. The law is a picture of absolute righteousness. In absolute terms, no one ever attained the righteous requirement of the law. No one except Jesus Himself. This is the reason that He Himself met the requirements for us on our behalf. (refer to my previous reply).Apocalypticist said:
He set the bar, and met the bar. No man ever did, nor ever will do the same until the resurrection. We can come close most of the time. We can equal it some of the time. But I wonder why some "righteous" people have not considered how it is that their offspring can sin. It is because as long as we are in this earthen vessel (2Cor.4:7), we are containers and carriers of the sin nature.
Instead of measuring and comparing each other against each other, men ought to quit playing that game and admit that we all fall short of God's glory, even now. Being born again and filled with the Spirit does not change the requirement. It is not nor ever will be by way of works of law. We did not receive the Spirit so that we can then earn our everlasting life through the works and the fruit that arise from the Spirit in us. That is a backwards step. The covenant changed at the death of Jesus. It is now governed by grace rather than law.
Instead of condemning a person by finding fault, why not compare his life with how it would look if he had not ever been given life? O, right, only God can do that.
The difference between grace and law: Under law, one sin and you are guilty of all. Under grace, where sin abounds grace abounds all the more. It stands to reason that the self righteous can't stand that idea....whomever they may be. (not for me to say)
Apocalypticist said:
So...as long as we have 'just cause' we can do whatever we want?? That does not hold...
Biblically there is such a thing as righteous anger....being angry over sin. But that leaves a lot....a lot! of space for anger elsewhere. Has he ever had a spurt of anger when someone cut him off in traffic? When someone here on this or other sites pushed him a little too far? What about his kid accidently spilling water on his laptop? The list goes on and on. Anyone who claims he has never felt anger at all....lies....which makes the point moot anyway.
I see this all the time from people who don't want to accept obvious Scripture.Rach said:
The whole NT is about believers not sinning, and provides the acceptable antidote for those who do.
Please try to get over it instead of under it, i.e. away from it.
Why do you feel the need to change Yeshua's words?Rach said:
He said not to be angry with your brother without cause. You say not to be angry at all.. I think your word does not hold.
But I think there might even be a compromise here. If you looked at the Greek, it might show that Jesus is saying not to be angry with rage against your brother. If you're saying that we are not to be angry with rage, I agree with you.
But I think what Jesus is meaning by leaving an exception is to say that your brothers will sometimes fail you and you should bring ought against them, but not to be bring ought with rage but to pursue a beneficial resolution.
So it could be we're just using the same word in a different way, in which case we could both be right.
Because you're not better than Paul or Peter, who freely confessed that they were not yet perfect.IBeMe said:
Look....it's a fairly easy concept to grasp. If you want anyone to take you and your claims seriously, you need to prove that you're walkin' your talk. You also need to prove it biblically, and thus far you have given nothing that contextually makes sense. Its easy to pick one line here, or a verse there, out of context, and make it say whatever you want it to. It's going to take faithful biblical exegesis to make people consider your proposal.
Apocalypticist said:
I'm not 'changing Jesus' words'.
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22, ESV)
So much of the Mosaic Law concentrated on outward showings...rituals for cleanliness, rituals for righteousness....they were all things you do. Jesus' big point here is that God looks at heart attitudes. Sure, you might not be physically murdering people, but with anger in your heart, it's just as bad in God's eyes.
But in terms of 'righteous' anger.....we know Jesus never sinned....and yet confronted with sin:
In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.” (John 2:14-16, ESV)
Jesus showed us that anger, if it is felt in response to sin, is not necessarily a sin in and of itself. Indeed...to not feel anger at such horrible crimes (child abuse, for example), could be argued to be a sin. We see such sins as what they are....an affront to our Holy God.
Well someone did change his words even if it wasn't you.
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
So you're just going to tell me that doesn't matter?
You're going to say the King James has errors now?
But where do we stop once we get on that merry-go-round? The NIV, the RSV, the ESV.. When does it all end?
If we can make the Bible say whatever we want, why should any honest person believe another preacher again or believe the Bible should be beleived at all, say over the Quran or the biography of Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Edison?
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
So you're just going to tell me that doesn't matter?
You're going to say the King James has errors now?
But where do we stop once we get on that merry-go-round? The NIV, the RSV, the ESV.. When does it all end?
If we can make the Bible say whatever we want, why should any honest person believe another preacher again or believe the Bible should be beleived at all, say over the Quran or the biography of Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Edison?
- Aug 10, 2012
- 6,098
- 7,489
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
No translation is perfect. All arguments about translations should be resolved by looking at the original Greek or Ancient Hebrew text.Apocalypticist said:
Everyone doesn't need to be a scholar to read the bible, there are many resources at our disposal that expounds upon every verse if there is a concern. It is helpful to become familiar with more than one translation so you can get an idea of the differences.
Most bible translations are honest in that they don't change their translation to say whatever they want. To claim otherwise is a straw man argument.
Well.....looking up 'Strongs'....which is usually held in high regard for those people relying on the KJV...and it doesn't seem to me that 'without cause' appears anywhere in the Greek.Apocalypticist said:
Certainly the KJV is one of only a small few translations that has that....most of them do not.
As for errors in the KJV....it's a translation into English by men....just as every other translation is.
The 'merry-go-round' would appear to 'end' to me with the point Jesus was making....that heart attitudes matter to God greatly, and anger towards another is as essentially selfish as murder is....it's self worship...I'm 'better' than that person, so I deserve to....hate, murder, lie, slander....to get my way. It's a blatant disregard for what Jesus told us: 'love your neighbour as yourself'.
Rach said:
I think it speaks volumes for anyone who will research what you've been saying in our discussions for a couple days now that your posts are not completely accurate. I researched this same problem and saw that 'without cause' wasn't added in. I know that because in the King James and anything that has been added in for reading pleasure is in italics.
That means that it was not added in by editors but that it was a part of the manuscripts that they used for their translation.
We were told not to add or subtract from God's word. I believe the King James. I can't say I'm correct about that but I know it makes more sense if 'without cause' is added to the end of the sentence because it clarifies the Greek.
As to the other but separate issue:
"Sure, you might not be physically murdering people, but with anger in your heart, it's just as bad in God's eyes."
That is another thing I'm curious as to where it came from.
Jesus said if you hate your brother it is as if you already killed him. Hate and anger are two different concepts.
This proves exactly why the King James is superior. It says you can never hate your brother and be right with God. But it says you cannot be angry without a reason. One reason, which I think is something wit application here, is a simple court case. If you have been heated or defrauded by your brother, it's perfectly rational to be angry about that. What you do is you go to law against him and you get a judgment where you're able to claim what's yours. Jesus of course teaches that this doesn't give you the right to hate, curse, or harm your brother. It's a cause to pray for him and see help him get back on the right track.
Do you see the difference? That is why a translation would have certain words added in is because it clarifies the original in a way that illiterate people or even quite intelligent people without knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and without those resources could research. It makes it more clear.
I know you're having trouble with the Greek and that's why I'm explaining it for you. You shouldn't feel put down for someone correcting you on an internet forum. I'm showing that for anyone here who is reading what's being said that wants to research it will discover it for themselves.
You know...I've never claimed to be fluent in Greek....or to be a mouthpiece of God....or to be able to research infalibly. You would note that I said "and it seems to me"....Apocalypticist said:
You, however, are claiming to be one God has sent directly to us, that we may sit at your feet in learning....big claims that you haven't really backed up. And now you're basically calling me out for being devious and underhanded. Nice.
But let's get into...as far as I am able with the tools I have. The verse in question: Matthew 5:22...let's see:
New International Version
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
New Living Translation
But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.
English Standard Version
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
New American Standard Bible
"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
King James Bible
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Fool!' will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But whoever says, You moron!' will be subject to hellfire.
There are more versions out there...but you get my point. Of all versions above, only the KJV has the 'without a cause'. But what about the actually corresponding Greek??
English, strongs No, and Greek:
I (1473; ἐγὼ),
however (1161; δὲ),
say (3004;λέγω) ,
to you (4771; ὑμῖν),
that (3754; ὅτι),
everyone (3956; πᾶς) ,
- (3588; ὁ) ,
being angry with (3710; ὀργιζόμενος) ,
the (3588; τῷ),
brother (80; ἀδελφῷ),
of him (846; αὐτοῦ),
liable (1777; ἔνοχος),
will be (1510; ἔσται),
to the (3588; τῇ),
judgement (2920; κρίσει·),
whoever (3739; ὃς),
moreover (1161; δ’),
anyhow (302; ἂν),
shall say (3004; εἴπῃ),
to (3588; τῷ),
brother (80; ἀδελφῷ),
of him (846; αὐτοῦ),
Raca (4469; Ῥακά,),
liable (1777; ἔνοχος),
will be (1510; ἔσται),
to the (3588; τῷ),
Sanhedrim (4892; συνεδρίῳ·),
whoever (3739; ὃς),
moreover (1161; δ’),
anyhow (302; ἂν),
shall say (3004; εἴπῃ),
fool (3474; Μωρέ,),
liable (1777; ἔνοχος),
will be (1510; ἔσται),
to (1519; εἰς),
the (3588; τὴν),
hell (1067; γέενναν),
- (3588; τοῦ) ,
of fire (4442; πυρός.)
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει· ὃς δ’ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ Ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ· ὃς δ’ ἂν εἴπῃ Μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός. (Matthew 5:22)
There really doesn't seem to be a corresponding Greek word that fills in for "without cause".
Sorry for the length...but since you just insulted me, I thought best to actually post this, just in case you want check my source...
You believe the King James. Huh. Well....you do realise that the King James, just like all the other versions above, is a translation from Greek that was done by humans. So it's just as liable to be 'mistaken' as all the other translations. There comes a point where you have to have faith that God's word...living as it is, will protect itself and make itself known to us.
You may believe the text makes more sense to have the 'without cause' included. I disagree. Jesus is making a startling point here. A point that says this: "Even if you think you've followed the 10 commandments perfectly, I'm here to tell you that is not so. Your hearts are broken and sinful, and thus, the ONLY way to salvation is through me."
The inclusion or exclusion of "without a cause" doesn't really impact on that message.
Well...it came from Matthew 5:22....I'll use the KJV for you:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
"Being angry with": Strongs No: 3710
orgizó: to make angry
Original Word: ὀργίζω
Transliteration: orgizó
Short Definition: I irritate, provoke, am angry
Definition: I irritate, provoke, am angry.
Where are you getting 'hate' from?
King James cannot be any more or less superior than any other translation that was done by man.
Do you speak ancient greek? Can you please show where you got 'hate' from? I don't mind admitting I'm wrong...if I am wrong. In an attempt to stop you from accusing me, I've put my sources here....please do the same.
Similar threads
