Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: kilroy@mimsy.UUCP (Nancy Proposed & I Answered) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Sabbath Shortened Message-ID: Date: 18 Oct 89 21:38:23 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci. Lines: 78 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In some earlier articles (the referents to which I don't have, since they expired here), David Buxton & I were discussing the Sabbath Day. The articles have gotten execrably long (I will refrain from quoting Proverbs 10:19 8^), and some of the discussion doesn't directly address my earlier complaints, so I've trimmed it a bit. I hope nobody minds. My earlier objection was primarily that none of the people who quote Matthew 5:17-18 observe all of the OT Law themselves. David has posted some articles explaining why he distinguishes the Ten Commandments from the rest of the OT Law, and he makes what I see as an extremely confused comment: >It appears that you would like to combine the laws of man with the laws of >of God and then say that the total of it all cannot be kept or that the >homogeneous mass has been done away with. Jesus clearly had no patience >with the Jewish Mishna and said: [ Mark 7:7-9 ] I said not one word about `laws of men' -- I mentioned by reference only two ordinances, Leviticus 19:19 and Exodus 20:9. The first is attributed (in Scripture) as a direct quote from God. Is this what you mean by `the laws of men'? Do you mean that God didn't really say it and that Moses made it up, or what? And the second is part of the Ten Commandments -- in fact, part of the Sabbath commandment. (Did you even bother to look these up?) There was one other complaint I wished to make about David's separation of the OT Law into parts, and his explanation of which laws he considers binding (remember, this started with a citation of Matthew 5:17-18): THAT'S NOT WHAT THE BLOODY THING SAYS !!!!!!!!!!! The NIV rendering is "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished". (Other translations agree in spirit.) But where Jesus declared that "not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear", you are apparently ready to toss the entire book of Leviticus. If you don't feel that "everything [has been] accomplished" yet, how do you justify discarding even `the least stroke of a pen', let alone the entire book of Leviticus? If you do feel that "everything [has been] accomplished", then why do you feel qualified to determine what has and hasn't passed away? As I see it, your categorisation is directly at odds with Scripture. (My previous article mentioned Acts 15, but I fat-fingered away one of my questions; David's article answered that question, and leads to this one:) Given that the letter from the Council of Jerusalem does not mention keeping the Sabbath day, but *does* contain orders to refrain from blood and the meat of strangled animals, doesn't that muck up your division of the OT Laws? After all, they do not require Sabbath observance from the church at Antioch, but they *do* re-impose some of the food rules -- by your method of categorising the OT Laws, the Council has elevated mere ordinances to a higher level than one of the Commandments. How do you reconcile that? kilroy@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "Revelation, n. A famous book in which St. John the Divine concealed all that he knew. The revealing is done by the commentators, who know nothing." -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_