Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
Message-ID: <Apr.22.00.56.21.1993.2079@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 93 04:56:22 GMT
Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Lines: 86
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

In article <Apr.20.03.02.26.1993.3803@geneva.rutgers.edu> clh writes:
>Re: Are you Christian or Pauline?
>Both.

Sure, why not? But, are you using Paul to correct the words of Jesus?

>There is no doubt in my mind about what is sin and what is
>not, at least not in this case.  Jesus did not deal explicitly with
>the question of whether the Law was binding on Gentiles. 

"So *anyone* who dissolves even one of the smallest commands and teaches
others the same way, will be known as the lowest in the kingdom of the
skies; whereas *anyone* who keeps the commands and teaches them too, will
be known as *someone* great in the kingdom of the skies." Mat5:19 (Gaus)

Are you an "anyone" or are you a "no one?"

Why not assume, that since Jesus didn't say that his words apply only to
Jews, that they apply to all human beings, irregardless of race or sex?

Why not assume, that even though Jesus did not mention your name, still
Jesus was talking directly to you?

>That's why I
>have to cite evidence such as the way Jesus dealt with the Centurion.
>As to general Jewish views on this, I am dependent largely on studies
>of Pauline theology, one by H.J. Schoeps, and one whose author I can't
>come up with at the moment.  Both authors are Jews.  Also, various
>Christian and non-Christian Jews have discussed the issue here and in
>other newsgroups.
>Mat 5:19 is clear that the Law is still valid.  It does not say that
>it applies to Gentiles.

Does it say that it applies to *you*? Are you anyone or no one?

>And yes, I say that the specific requirement for worship on the
>Sabbath in the Ten Commandments is a ceremonial detail, when you're
>looking at the obligations of Gentiles.

Ex20:8-11(JPS) Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy. Six days you
shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of
the LORD your God; you shall not do any work - you, your son or
daughter, your male or female slave, or your cattle, or the stranger who
is within your settlements. For in six days the LORD made heaven and
earth and sea, and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh
day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hollowed it.

Note: There is no specific requirement for worship here, however I for
one would not be so bold as to call these verses a "ceremonial detail."

>Similarly circumcision.

Don't many Christians still practice circumcision?

>I'm not sure quite what else I can say on this subject.  Again, it's
>unfortunate the Jesus didn't answer the question directly.

It's unfortunate that Jesus didn't use your name directly, or maybe
Jesus did? Are you somebody or nobody?

>However we
>do know (1) what the 1st Cent. Jewish approach was, (2) how Jesus
>dealt with at least one Gentile, and (3) how Jesus' disciples dealt
>with the issue when it became more acute (I'm referring to Acts 15
>more than Paul).  Given that these are all in agreement, I don't see
>that there's a big problem.

If you don't see a problem, then perhaps there is none. As Paul closes
Romans 14 (Gaus):

  In short, pursue the ends of peace and of building each other up.
Don't let dietary considerations undo the work of God. Everything may be
clean, but it's evil for the person who eats it in an offensive spirit.
Better not to eat the meat or drink the wine or whatever else your
brother is offended by. As for the faith that you have, keep that
between yourself and God. The person is in luck who doesn't condemn
himself for what he samples. On the other hand, the person with doubts
about something who eats it anyway is guilty, because he isn't acting on
his faith, and any failure to act on faith is a sin.

[As far as I know, Christians (except specific Jewish Christian
groups, and maybe some of the sabbatarians -- both of which are very
small groups) do not practice circumcision on religious grounds.  In
some countries it has been done for supposed health reasons, but I've
not heard it argued that it is being done because of the Biblical
commandment.  --clh]
