How do you as a believer see Matthew 24:12 in light of 2 John 1:6

Matthew 24:12 - Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold.


2 John 1:6 - And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.

quote:

---

That we should follow the teachings of Christ. Love God with all our heart, soul, and mind and love our neighbor as ourself.

If we do those all the time, the commandments are met.

---

If you love God with all your heart, wouldn't you desire to do what God asks you to do? Of course. Especially, if what He asked you to do was something simple. Then why do you refuse to do the simple things God asks you to do?

What am I refusing to do? You seem so certain to know all my sins!

quote:

---

What am I refusing to do? You seem so certain to know all my sins!

---

Leviticus 24:22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born.
Numbers 15:38 Speak to the sons of Israel, and tell them that they shall make for themselves tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations

Win & agie95, You guys keep ignoring- the apostles- Peter and Paul? Were they correct or not?

They ruled the gentiles DO NOT have to obey all of the Mosaic law- all 613! Why do we AS Christians, need too?

So you are either wrong/ mistaken, or Peter and Paul (Apostles) were mistaken. Which one is it?

If you do not believe in Jesus and his apostles this would make sense to me. But if you believe in Jesus, then how do reconcile the apostles actions? Do you ignore the book of ACTS of the Apostles and the letters of Paul?

Since we are bringing up OT rules- this one made me wonder, how often this occurred? I guess the law worked, don't see this being much a problem today.

Detr. 25 11-12 When two men are fighting and the wife of one intervenes to save her husband from the blows of his opponent, if she stretches out her hand and seizes the latter by his private parts, you shall chop off her hand without pity.

In defense of the 613 Laws, Theses laws covered a wide area: Civil laws (easy to see parapet as early OSHA law- keep worker safe), Ceremonial and Moral laws. Also it was 2500 years ago, but even today we are little different we have capital punish in the USA some countries today cut off hands for offenses.Go back 100 years to the old west (it was very much like the OT)- because human nature does not change.

When you look at the 613 laws we follow or understand why they were created and used. Example- We avoid blood contamination today (Aggrad-Everyone is wearing gloves, we clean up the blood quickly), we all wash our hands (it is a law for food industry).

How about stoning gays? Just a nice correlation to modern laws? All about love?

quote:

---

How about stoning gays? Just a nice correlation to modern laws? All about love?

---

It wasn't just gays, long list of consequences for bad behavior. These bible verses deal primarily with sleeping around. I think most of us agree, sleeping around is not good for society. 2500 years ago consequences the society wanted to give was death, roughly 75 years ago Frank Sinatra went to jail for having an affair. Today, we have no rules or expectations- hence fall in marriages, porn addiction,rise in divorces, out of wedlock births, kids being raised with no fathers. Not good for our society.

Leviticus 20 9-21 "Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life. If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. If a man disgraces his father by lying with his father's wife, both the man and his stepmother shall be put to death; they have forfeited their lives. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; since they have committed an abhorrent deed, they have forfeited their lives.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

If a man marries a woman and her mother also, the man and the two women as well shall be burned to death for their shameful conduct, so that such shamefulness may not be found among you.If a man has carnal relations with an animal, the man shall be put to death, and the animal shall be slain. If a woman goes up to any animal to mate with it, the woman and the animal shall be slain; let them both be put to death; their lives are forfeit. If a man consummates marriage with his sister or his half-sister, they shall be publicly cut off from their people for this shameful deed; the man shall pay the penalty of having had intercourse with his own sister.

If a man lies in sexual intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period, both of them shall be cut off from their people, because they have laid bare the flowing fountain of her blood. You shall not have intercourse with your mother's sister or your father's sister; whoever does so shall pay the penalty of incest. If a man disgraces his uncle by having intercourse with his uncle's wife, the man and his aunt shall pay the penalty by dying childless. If a man marries his brother's wife and thus disgraces his brother, they shall be childless because of this incest.

So you're saying we need similar laws? Kill people for having sex with the wrong person or kick them out of society for having sex during a period?

quote:

---

So you're saying we need similar laws? Kill people for having sex with the wrong person or kick them out of society for having sex during a period?

---

Nope, trying to explain, provide context, background.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So you're saying we need similar laws? Kill people for having sex with the wrong person or kick them out of society for having sex during a period?

---

Nope, trying to explain, provide context, background.

---

It doesn't really clear up much

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So you're saying we need similar laws? Kill people for having sex with the wrong person or kick them out of society for having sex during a period?

---

Nope, trying to explain, provide context, background.

---

It doesn't really clear up much

---

What are you trying to clear up? Bible is pretty big, covers a lot of material.

I apologize For butting in on your thread and then dropping out, but I'll probably be way too busy at work for the next few days to give any meaningful replies. However, for the sake of argument at the moment, I will say many of the things you guys are posting would be very hard to do. Too hard. I can't do them. But I'm not wondering why we refuse to do those things God asks us to do that are very hard. I'm wondering why we can't just start with the easy things. Do those first at least. Why not?

quote:

---

Detr. 25 11-12 When two men are fighting and the wife of one intervenes to save her husband from the blows of his opponent, if she stretches out her hand and seizes the latter by his private parts, you shall chop off her hand without pity.

---

Read an interesting commentary on this law. There are a few things at play. One is the tendency of the Old Testament to use euphemisms. "Seizes the latter by his private parts" was a euphemism for full emasculation. She not only seized, but also ripped off. Also, Moses was given some comprehensive laws in full (see the priest handling of skin diseases or the rules for sacrifice), but a lot of the Mosaic Law is just case law. Something happens, there is no precedent, go ask God what to do.

So a woman intercedes in a fight on behalf of her man and completely rips off the other man's special parts. The law says "an eye for an eye", but she doesn't exactly have an "eye" in this situation. So how do you punish her fairly? Apparently the answer is that she loses a hand. Not exactly rainbows and unicorns, but appropriate to the legal standard of the time.

The eye for an eye was never meant to be physically an eye. The Sages have taught that it meant what would that eye cost him, either in income, future marriage, etc. Whatever the cost is one must pay the damage or work it off.

quote:

---

That we should follow the teachings of Christ. Love God with all our heart, soul, and mind and love our neighbor as ourself.

If we do those all the time, the commandments are met.

---

Do you even try to keep the Sabbath ordained by G-d? No working, no spending money, worshiping G-d with others, not going after your own desires?

Christ is a manifestation of G-d. He is G-d revealed. What you are saying is that G-d after 1500 or so years decided to throw out His Word, His Torah, and go a different route. This despite all the Prophets. This despite what will happen in the Millennial Kingdom. This despite Paul still following Torah throughout his life.

The teachings of Christ are not different than G-d's previous teachings. That would not make any sense.

Faith without works is dead. However, we have no faith that wasn't given to us by the Holy Spirit, so are good works are not of our own, but rather of the New Adam created by the Holy Spirit working in us to create faith. We do good works because we have faith. Doing good things is a natural realization of our Christian identity and if you aren't doing those things, its a good indicator that your faith isn't in a good place either

quote:

---

The eye for an eye was never meant to be physically an eye. The Sages have taught that it meant what would that eye cost him, either in income, future marriage, etc. Whatever the cost is one must pay the damage or work it off.

---

Seems to be a pretty unambiguous statement. I agree that a civil recompense is better for everyone than a criminal retribution, but Exodus 21:24 is pretty straight-forward. The law could have been more nuanced like many others, but it wasn't. I guess you could argue that God gave the command satirically to point out the horror of blind justice, but there aren't really any context clues to give that impression.

If you read the Sages....Talmud, Midrash Rabbah, etc. You will see. No one expected to have their eye gouged out if someone accidentally blinded someone.

The Talmud, in fact, records a lengthy discussion of this verse, (Bava Kama 83b-84a). The Talmudic sages bring a number of compelling proofs, both logically and from the inference of other verses, showing one should not even entertain the thought that "an eye for an eye" is to be taken literally. Maimonides, the renowned 12th century sage, further cites the verses in Exodus 21:18-19 which openly speak of damages in terms of monetary payment. Hence, a few verses later when the Torah speaks of "an eye for and eye" it is obviously referring to the same sort of payment. Other early sages bring additional proof: if literal, if the perpetrator injures another and minimizes his sight by one third or half, how is it possible to do the same in punishment, no more and no less? From Aish.com

No offense to the sages, but our Supreme Court has given me a healthy scepticism of people interpreting plain speech centuries after the fact.

I read the law as a starting point. An eye for an eye is perfect justice. However, it is better for the victim to "be made whole" for his loss, and it is more merciful to the perpetrator. So the perfect justice solution is far from the best solution. Because the principles of mercy, forgiveness, restitution, and love are a more important part of the Law than perfect justice, then you could say that civil restitution is more Lawful than the punishment actually proscribed in the Law.

Reminds me of something my pastor says. The Law is the starting point. It's square one. If you have the example of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, you can never be satisfied with simply fulfilling the Law. I think of the example above the same way. Given the principles set forth in the Law, we can do better than the basic law. Thus the passage, "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees", and the passage about the Law as a "schoolmaster". With God's Spirit we can not only live the literal Law, but we can do even better.

We must understand that phrases mean different things at different times. Without looking into the history of particular phrases you very well could be misunderstanding what was said. To think you can simply read something and figure it out without any help from people who lived approx. 2000 years before you did is pretty silly in my opinion.

Never said that. Context and phrasing are certainly key. But let's be honest. The ancient sages made up a lot of stuff. Then other sages made up stuff that contradicted the first made up stuff. I always appreciate good commentary, but a lot of the Oral law is just flat ridiculous.

Here is a good article on someone's thoughts basically saying the same thing you are:

Oral Torah

It is worth the read.

quote:

---

What am I refusing to do? You seem so certain to know all my sins!

---

Clearly you don't love God with all your heart because you don't put tassels on your clothes and, gasp, likely wear clothes made up mixed blend fabric.

quote:

---

How about stoning gays? Just a nice correlation to modern laws? All about love?

---

Pretty sure that, on another thread, agie said he wouldn't be opposed to this being reinstated under the right circumstances.

quote:

---

Here is a good article on someone's thoughts basically saying the same thing you are:

Oral Torah

It is worth the read.

---

I appreciate the link. That guy is really long-winded, and he doesn't really answer any of my criticisms of the Oral Law. It is painful obvious that the Oral Law has grown, changed, and adapted to different circumstances, and I don't think that's a problem. The problem is that rabbis continue to insist that their authority (and that of the Oral Law) comes directly from God in an unbroken stream of caretaking tradition starting with Moses, which is a ridiculous claim based on both the writings and behavior of the Jewish people.

For instance, the kippah was only widely adopted several centuries AD. Most observant Jews wear one, but many rabbi's still argue over whether it is necessary. You can't tell me that the commandment to wear a kippah came from Moses on Sinai and that commandment was passed through tradition for over a thousands years until everyone started wearing one around 300 AD.

Another example is the Hillel 2 calender. You can't convince me that Moses and the rabbis received this calender from God and only formally published it in 300 AD.

It's the same problem I have with most religious authorities. Instead of relying on faith and love to hold people together, they invent a "God-given authority" to browbeat people. It's perfectly okay to say "Jews should wear kippahs because it is a sign of distinctiveness and unity, and it shows how much we love our God and each other." You don't have to claim that God told you that He wants every Jew to wear a kippah. To me that is "using God's name vainly", or using God's name falsely to puff up your own standing and power.

Kippah is not considered Oral Torah. I think there is some confusion as to what is Oral Torah.

http://www.orthodox-jews.com/jewish-skull-caps.html

quote:

---

The Talmud (Kidushin, 31a) states "cover your head, so you should fear from heaven". The Talmud (Shabbos 156a) states sages who didn't walk 8 feet without a yarmulke. The Talmud explains that because there is divine presence over one's head, you should cover your head to show respect to Hashem (God).

---

quote:

---

Although according to the Talmud it is not obligatory to cover the head, this custom has developed as a requirement. There are some differences within Orthodox Judaism on how stringent to be with wearing a yarmulke

---

It comes straight from the Talmud and is observed unswervingly as a prayer requirement by all Orthodox (Oral Law keeping) Jews. It is a fully fixed tradition. How is that not part of the Oral Law?

Is Chabad (largest Jewish organization today) Orthodox enough for you? From their website:

Until the end of the Talmudic Era (approx. 1500 years ago) there was a central rabbinic authority which issued gezayrot which were accepted by all the Jews. Since that time, different communities have assumed upon themselves various stringencies, but rarely are there universally accepted gezayrot.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/812102/jewish/What-is-the-Oral-Torah.htm


So when was the kippah ordained? According to Rambam, Jewish law dictates that a man is required to cover his head during prayer, but there is no mention of any claim that Jewish law dictates that a Jew is required to cover his head at all times. Rambam lived in the 1100's.

The kippah was written into the Shulchan Aruch in the 1500's. Long after anything could officially become Oral Torah. It was not widely worn all day until a couple hundred years later.

I do wear a kippah all day. Most people have problems with kippahs and other items or things Jews do b/c of the unknown. Why do they do it? Fear is another reason. I would suggest don't let ignorance of something be a reason. Look into it. A majority of the items decreed by the Jews have very good reasons for them. They are trying to honor G-d in the utmost. Those who are observant take their relationship with G-d very seriously.

quote:

---

Does your house have a parapet? Do you stay within the city walls on the Sabbath? How do you and your wife deal with this one?

When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. And whoever touches anything on which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. Whether it is the bed or anything on which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening

---

I might become unclean. But seeing as you are so interested in this scripture, let's look further. What does it mean to be unclean? What did Jesus do here in Matthew Chapter 9:

18 While He was saying these things to them, a synagogue official came and bowed down before Him, and said, "My daughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live." 19 Jesus got up and began to follow him, and so did His disciples.
20 And a woman who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years, came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak; 21 for she was saying to herself, "If I only touch His garment, I will get well." 22 But Jesus turning and seeing her said, "Daughter, take courage; your faith has made you well." At once the woman was made well.
23 When Jesus came into the official's house, and saw the flute-players and the crowd in noisy disorder, 24 He said, "Leave; for the girl has not died, but is asleep." And they began laughing at Him. 25 But when the crowd had been sent out, He entered and took her by the hand, and the girl got up. 26 This news spread throughout all that land.

Numbers 19:11 Whoever touches a human corpse will be unclean for seven days.

First, the Yeshua's "fringe" the woman touched was surely the tassels we are commanded to wear in Numbers 15. If it's good enough for Jesus to wear, shouldn't it be good enough for us to wear. Not to mention, that He commands us to wear them.

But, back to your topic; We see two incidences in Matthew chapter 9 where Yeshua was made "unclean" according to the Law. What do you make of that? What does it mean? What does it mean to be unclean according to the bible?

Since Yeshua followed Torah He would have been wearing tzitzit which are the tassels hanging from His garment.

The Greek word used is kraspedon which has as one of it meanings a tassel, tuft: the Jews had such appendages attached to their mantles to remind them of the law.

Why would the woman think she could grab the tzitzit and be cleansed? Was she just grabbing anything she could grab a hold of to be cleansed? Or was there a purpose?

A majority of the Bibles out there reference Numbers 15:38 for this passage in Matthew 9. The Septuagint (Greek translation of Tanakh) uses the same word in Numbers 15:38 as Matthew 9:20.

But why grab the tzitzit? The Hebrew word used in Numbers 15:38 is kanaph which is translated as wings, hem, border, corner of garment. The commandment is to attached tzitzit to ones kanaph or wings. This lady knew the Tanakh. Malachi 4:2 says - "But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall.

The Hebrew word for wings is kanaph the same word used in Numbers 15:38. In the wings, which attached are the tzitzit, their will be healings.


One day in the future those same tzitzit will be very important....Zechariah 8:20-23 - "Thus says the L-rd of hosts, 'It will yet be that peoples will come, even the inhabitants of many cities. The inhabitants of one will go to another, saying, "Let us go at once to entreat the favor of the L-rd, and to seek the L-rd of hosts; I will also go." So many peoples and mighty nations will come to seek the L-rd of hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the L-rd.' 23 Thus says the L-rd of hosts, 'In those days ten men from all the nations will grasp the garment of a Jew, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you."'"

Guess what the word is for garment? Kanaph! Sometime in the future, ten men will grab the tzitzit and want to go with the Jew. The word for grasp is chazaq which means grab strongly....won't let go.

What is interesting is this prophecy does not state they will grab hold of a garment of a Christian or a Gentile, but a Jew who is wearing tzitzit.