Biblical literalists-To Law or not to Law

[AnimatedDirt]

That is David talking and doesn't say anything about all babies, just him. And he doesn't even sound very confident about it.

So now you're asking for something different.  You want proof of something I already admit there is none of?

Doesn't say anything about babies or even about conception.

ALL.  I guess in your English class ALL excludes some.  Ok.  Moving on.

This bit of rhetoric does nothing to address either of the points I just made. Let's start again: You're claiming that babies have sinned at the time of conception, before they even have a chance to make a choice, you're calling them sinners... let alone that many of those likely won't even reach a state where they even have a brain.

You brought up babies.  I simply mentioned that I don't know whether babies are saved or lost on their own merits or lack thereof. 

How can a person make a choice, let alone sin without even having a brain?

Do you agree that when two humans conceive, the result is another human?  Their genetic code is transferred to their offspring.  A bit from the male and a bit from the female.  In the same light, their sin is transferred.

But you speak for this god all the time, like the previous verses you just cited here, you're putting more into the verses than is there in themselves.

What did I insert?

I am not angry at all, just pointing out what doesn't make sense about what you said. Refrain from making assumptions about me and I will continue do you the same honor.

Your "anger" was assumed by your wording.  I only have your wording to go on so if you don't want me to assume, refrain from passing judgment when neither of us has the evidence to conclude on the part of infants/babies/the unborn.

If a person is sinful before even given a chance to make a choice and that sinful people get punished, then the game is fixed. If the person can sin before even given the chance to choose to sin, then where is the free will? This god forces the people to sin at their conception then punishes them for that sin (even if they never commit another one), which is ridiculous.

Have you been punished?  If so, I would guess that is evidence for God...isn't it?  Where is your punishment?  Have you done anything that the Bible speaks of that is sin?  Now who is making assumptions?  What have you been forced to do?  Sinful people do get "punished" (again, punishment is a whole different topic).  Do you have the capacity to choose to do good or are all your actions bad?  The only sinful people that get "punished" are the ones that refuse to put Christ's death (and so their faith in Him) as their own death to sin (the punishment is death, not perpetual suffering)  Everyone will die.  I'm sure you don't deny that.  So, when you die, you will have paid for your sinfulness.  The difference is you (apparently) are satisfied and happy to live this life and this life alone.  I and anyone who claims Christ as their Savior, hope for something better/more.  That's all.

[Davin]

That is David talking and doesn't say anything about all babies, just him. And he doesn't even sound very confident about it.

So now you're asking for something different.  You want proof of something I already admit there is none of?

No, I'm asking for the same thing I asked earlier: "where does the bible say all are born sinful?"

Doesn't say anything about babies or even about conception.

ALL.  I guess in your English class ALL excludes some.  Ok.  Moving on.

Well apparently "men" and "man" means women and children too in the bible, so one can't really be certain can they? Snide comments aside, the usage of "all" could be a colloquial meaning that is common usage which is meant as "most" or "almost all". Another problem is that the definition of "all" includes everything from animals to rocks. So do you take that all muffins have sinned? Ridiculous I know, but you chastized me for not taking "all" to mean "everyone" while the word "all" means more than just humans... which would also include god, so you must take that all, which includes god, have sinned. So while you're little derogatory comment may make you feel all superior on this point, it's solves not a problem with the verse you cited.

This bit of rhetoric does nothing to address either of the points I just made. Let's start again: You're claiming that babies have sinned at the time of conception, before they even have a chance to make a choice, you're calling them sinners... let alone that many of those likely won't even reach a state where they even have a brain.

You brought up babies.  I simply mentioned that I don't know whether babies are saved or lost on their own merits or lack thereof.

Yet you spoke for them as if you knew. To be fair, you brought up babies, I was just letting you know the logical problems with your statement as well as not having any biblical back up for your statement (woot for me for staying on topic).

How can a person make a choice, let alone sin without even having a brain?

Do you agree that when two humans conceive, the result is another human?  Their genetic code is transferred to their offspring.  A bit from the male and a bit from the female.  In the same light, their sin is transferred.

Is this from the bible? I read the whole bible a few times and don't remember it saying anything like this. This would also mean that sperm are sinful and eggs are sinful. Those milions of little sperm several times a week and one to a few eggs about once a month, get punished without even a chance at becoming a person. This kind of sin inheretence is unreasonably placing the actions of two people onto another person who had no choice in the matter. Again a problem with free will when a person is sinful without even having the chance to commit a sin. How is one sinful without committing a sin?

But you speak for this god all the time, like the previous verses you just cited here, you're putting more into the verses than is there in themselves.

What did I insert?

"Every person born since Adam and Eve sinned are tainted with sin." Neither of the verses you cited state this.

I am not angry at all, just pointing out what doesn't make sense about what you said. Refrain from making assumptions about me and I will continue do you the same honor.

Your "anger" was assumed by your wording.  I only have your wording to go on so if you don't want me to assume, refrain from passing judgment when neither of us has the evidence to conclude on the part of infants/babies/the unborn.

That is entirely unreasonable. Questioning something that you stated does not give you a free pass to make assumptions about me. I did not say that I was angry nor did I even allude to my emotional state. Once again (but much less politely): stop making shit up about me. There is no anger in that statement, I'm just requesting that you stop saying things about me that aren't true.

If a person is sinful before even given a chance to make a choice and that sinful people get punished, then the game is fixed. If the person can sin before even given the chance to choose to sin, then where is the free will? This god forces the people to sin at their conception then punishes them for that sin (even if they never commit another one), which is ridiculous.

Have you been punished?  If so, I would guess that is evidence for God...isn't it?  Where is your punishment?  Have you done anything that the Bible speaks of that is sin?  Now who is making assumptions?  What have you been forced to do?  Sinful people do get "punished" (again, punishment is a whole different topic).  Do you have the capacity to choose to do good or are all your actions bad?  The only sinful people that get "punished" are the ones that refuse to put Christ's death (and so their faith in Him) as their own death to sin (the punishment is death, not perpetual suffering)  Everyone will die.  I'm sure you don't deny that.  So, when you die, you will have paid for your sinfulness.  The difference is you (apparently) are satisfied and happy to live this life and this life alone.  I and anyone who claims Christ as their Savior, hope for something better/more.  That's all.

This banter does nothing to address the points I made, please either address my points by accepting them or pointing out the problems you see with them. Keep it in context: I'm talking about the concept you presented making no supposition to the reality of a god being, merely the logical problems with the things that you've proposed. And in this context we are talking about babies (even freshly fertilized eggs), who have had no chance to make any kind of decision, let alone being able to choose or deny a god. So stop trying to bring something unrelated to the points I'm presenting (trying to bring me into it), and either discuss them or concede to them.

Edit: quoting issues.

[AnimatedDirt]

If all you want to do is bicker, then I'm done with you.  I plainly gave you answers along with texts.  If you choose to ignore them/it.  So be it.

[Davin]

If all you want to do is bicker, then I'm done with you.  I plainly gave you answers along with texts.  If you choose to ignore them/it.  So be it.

I was intrested in discussion which is why I asked you not to make assumptions about me and asked you to address the points I made instead of introducing loosely related things into the discussion. I did not choose to ignore your answers or the texts you cited, I addressed them directly. Please stop making untrue statements about me.

[AnimatedDirt]

I was intrested in discussion which is why I asked you not to make assumptions about me and asked you to address the points I made instead of introducing loosely related things into the discussion. I did not choose to ignore your answers or the texts you cited, I addressed them directly. Please stop making untrue statements about me.

I made no statements about you.

[Davin]

I was intrested in discussion which is why I asked you not to make assumptions about me and asked you to address the points I made instead of introducing loosely related things into the discussion. I did not choose to ignore your answers or the texts you cited, I addressed them directly. Please stop making untrue statements about me.

I made no statements about you.

Then perhaps these are the products of my imaginings?

You seem to pass judgment without even knowing the end...which is odd.  You are angry at God for something that you (or I) have no evidence for...isn't that interesting given the fact you* (the Atheist) finds no evidence for God) Well, I find that interesting anyway.

Your "anger" was assumed by your wording.  I only have your wording to go on so if you don't want me to assume, refrain from passing judgment when neither of us has the evidence to conclude on the part of infants/babies/the unborn.

If all you want to do is bicker, then I'm done with you.  I plainly gave you answers along with texts.  If you choose to ignore them/it.  So be it.

Or maybe you using the word "you" was not in reference to the person you were responding to? While I do admit that I made the assumptiong of the last two sentences of the last one because of the incorrect grammar, it is clear that you made several statements about me.

I am very much interested in the discussion and have demonstrated so by directly addressing what you had said and the texts you cited. Are you interested in the discussion? If so then please respond to the points I made.

[Gawen]

Indeed the Law IS a vehicle for salvation...as long as the individual has never sinned, the Law then testifies (in that no Law has been broken) that the individual is sinless and so is proven righteous. 

AD, if people never sinned, there would be no need for the Law. You have it backwards, that is, if I understand you. The Law is there because someone believed everyone (but a very small select few that are named in the Hebrew Bible) sinned. The Law does not testify at all, let alone testify someone blameless of itself. Even though nearly all Jews at the time, as they do now, thought that to observe every commandment of the Law was nearly impossible, it's why they made sacrifices for absolution. It's not to obey every commandment, but in trying to obey that was righteous and the sacrifices were for the ones they failed at.

However, as all are born sinful, (from conception we are sinful...there is not one without sin), the Law then is what is against the individual.  The Law cannot save a sinner.  It cannot be a vehicle to salvation for a sinner.  It only serves as a beacon of what righteousness is that a sinner would strive towards, but never be able to measure up to to save him/herself.

I think I have already shown how it is.

If this is all that existed as "Bible", then we would agree.  However it's not.

Then you need to show me how it isn't, not just claim it so.

It may be that you've overlooked some of Paul's words, namely, Romans 3:31.

Oh....I haven't overlooked Paul at all. And since you bring in Paul, I'll tell you all about tomorrow morning.

I'm slow at catching up and replying to all your comments.  I'm working on it though.  =)

No worries.

[Davin]

Do you agree that when two humans conceive, the result is another human?  Their genetic code is transferred to their offspring.  A bit from the male and a bit from the female.  In the same light, their sin is transferred.

I had an idea about this much later, wouldn't this mean that Jesus would have been born with sin? The sin comes from his mothers side. If he was born with sin then he couldn't be the innocent sacrifice to take away all other sins because he wouldn't be innocent or sinless. If however sin is not some kind of genetic disorder, then it is possible that other people aside from Jesus could live lives without sin. Both cannot be true: either all people (including Jesus), inheret the sin from their parents or sin is not inheretible.

[AnimatedDirt]

AD, if people never sinned, there would be no need for the Law.

In a sense, however God's Law (the 10 C's) are eternal in that it will never be 'ok' to dishonor God, use God's name in vain, dishonor parents, steal, murder...and so on.  Even the Sabbath, instituted at creation before there was ever any Jew, is perpetual as it is a reminder that we are created and have a Creator.

You have it backwards, that is, if I understand you. The Law is there because someone believed everyone (but a very small select few that are named in the Hebrew Bible) sinned.

Someone?  Are you simply avoiding saying God?  heh.  There is no person that has lived that has ever been sinless after A&E's fall (aside from Christ).  So while some are mentioned were sinless or blameless or whatever, it simply means that they were so close to God that it would seem as though they were.  

The Law does not testify at all, let alone testify someone blameless of itself.

The Law doesn't testify literally.  It's not unlike our laws today, for example.  As a citizen, if I am pulled over by an officer right now, for no apparent reason, and he does a check of my license, my vehicle and my insurance, and he/she finds that I am in compliance, then it is the law that does not condemn me and not the officer.  He's there to uphold the law, not make his own.  So then it is the law that proves me lawful.  In the same manner, when the Law of God shows no guilt on a person, that person, by the Law, is blameless or without sin and therefore the Law "testifies" of righteousness.  By that manner, the Law is then the measure of righteousness and therefore proves/saves/is the vehicle for salvation to one that has never sinned.  There is no need for a Savior.

Even though nearly all Jews at the time, as they do now, thought that to observe every commandment of the Law was nearly impossible, it's why they made sacrifices for absolution. It's not to obey every commandment, but in trying to obey that was righteous and the sacrifices were for the ones they failed at.

You almost have it right!  It's not the Jews that figured out the Law was "nearly" impossible to keep, it was God that knew it IS impossible for a sinner to keep (and so made sure there was another method/plan to save His creation, before creation (1 Peter 1:18-21).  It matters not how much we try because without Christ as our mediator (by His perfect keeping of the Law and therefore our advocate) we cannot attain salvation on our own.  It is impossible as (I think) you and the Jews knew/know.

I think I have already shown how it is.

I've agreed with you.  It is a vehicle for salvation...see the reply two points up.

Then you need to show me how it isn't, not just claim it so.

Oh....I haven't overlooked Paul at all. And since you bring in Paul, I'll tell you all about tomorrow morning.

Not avoiding this...going back to look as there are many points floating...or at least I can only handle one or two at most.  

[AnimatedDirt]

God and Jesus spoke of the law as a universal binding and permanent principal that brings salvation. The only antidote to this argument is to show that they did not. No exception to the rule trumps the rule.
Now, if you want to deny this passage and claim it's outdated or replaced that's up to you. But there isn't anything in the definition of the new covenant (Jer 31) that says anything about the law being replaced by faith in a human sacrifice. There is not one word about such a scenario. I think what we have here is yet another example of how the Bible will mean whatever a believer wants it to mean.

Paul is the architect of the doctrine which Christians say gives them a pass on the Law and I would not be writing this if it were not for Paul.

Then you need to show me how it isn't, not just claim it so.

One need not look any further than the OT for this.  It is in the sanctuary practice where God shows His mercy and gives His people the instruction on how sin is removed and/or forgiven.  Every action or point had its purpose or meaning.  It is blood that has always been the vehicle for the covering of sin (since A&E - see Genesis 3:21) and which pointed to the promise of a Savior (which the Jews/Hebrews mistook for a conquering king that would smite their physical enemies, not knowing that the enemy was spiritual and therefore eternal death or separation from God for eternity).  So while the Jeremiah texts you quoted seem to say man need only obey and so save himself, one need obey and by that obedience the person is putting their faith in God that He is Creator and ultimately Savior.  Salvation cannot be gained by any animal blood, but through that process we become aware of what sin causes and what the price of sin is.  The animal blood is a symbol of Christ's blood.  Once Christ's blood was shed, once Christ died, there is no more need to keep sacrificing animals, or continue all the ceremonies that pointed at or were a shadow of Christ's blood/death/sacrifice/ransom.  The 10 C's have nothing to do with this, but rather are a separate issue, a perpetual issue that never does it become lawful to do that which they point to as sin.

That's probably the best I can do.  I'm not a theologian or pastor that I could give you a thesis type answer.

Paul is the architect of the doctrine which Christians say gives them a pass on the Law and I would not be writing this if it were not for Paul.

There is no pass on the Law.  Any Christian that tells you he or she is freed from the Law is simply not understanding that he/she is not freed from the keeping of the Law, but that he/she is freed from the condemnation that comes BY THE LAW.  Again, it's that point that the Law either validates perfection and therefore righteousness or it points at sin and proves one a sinner.  As I mentioned above, we are freed from the ceremonial laws as they were a shadow of (a better) things to come but never are we free to dishonor God...neither of the 10.  Paul is very clear on this.  (Romans 3:31)

[Gawen]

AD, if people never sinned, there would be no need for the Law.

In a sense, however God's Law (the 10 C's)..

You simply must get past that there are 613 commandments of which the 10 C's are included. These Laws were given to an ancient, goat herding, bronze age, fire mountain worshiping tribe. You just can't rip off or borrow 10 Laws of their laws and forget the rest to fit your worldview.
Sorry....I guess you can, Most of the Christian Culture Club does it.

You have it backwards, that is, if I understand you. The Law is there because someone believed everyone (but a very small select few that are named in the Hebrew Bible) sinned.

Someone?  Are you simply avoiding saying God?  heh.  There is no person that has lived that has ever been sinless after A&E's fall (aside from Christ).  So while some are mentioned were sinless or blameless or whatever, it simply means that they were so close to God that it would seem as though they were.  

Elizabeth and Zacharias followed the Law faithfully.
Noah did it-Genesis 6:9: These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
2 Chronicles 15:17: The heart of Asa was perfect all his days.
God says you can do it:
Deuteronomy 30:11-14:
11: For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12: It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13: Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14: But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
John says you can do it.
1 John 5:3: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.


Oh, and back to salvation, of course there's salvation under the Law. I refer you to Rev. 22:14, Rev. 14:12, Mathew 5:17-20, Ezekiel 18:20-27, Ezekiel 33:14-16, Genesis 4:7, Isa 56:1-8 and so on.

The Law does not testify at all, let alone testify someone blameless of itself.

In the same manner, when the Law of God shows no guilt on a person, that person, by the Law, is blameless or without sin and therefore the Law "testifies" of righteousness.  By that manner, the Law is then the measure of righteousness and therefore proves/saves/is the vehicle for salvation to one that has never sinned.  There is no need for a Savior.

Now you're getting it!

You almost have it right!  It's not the Jews that figured out the Law was "nearly" impossible to keep, it was God that knew it IS impossible for a sinner to keep (and so made sure there was another method/plan to save His creation, before creation (1 Peter 1:18-21).  It matters not how much we try because without Christ as our mediator (by His perfect keeping of the Law and therefore our advocate) we cannot attain salvation on our own.  It is impossible as (I think) you and the Jews knew/know.

I already took care of this.

Not avoiding this...going back to look as there are many points floating...or at least I can only handle one or two at most.  

No worries.

[AnimatedDirt]

You simply must get past that there are 613 commandments of which the 10 C's are included. These Laws were given to an ancient, goat herding, bronze age, fire mountain worshiping tribe. You just can't rip off or borrow 10 Laws of their laws and forget the rest to fit your worldview.
Sorry....I guess you can, Most of the Christian Culture Club does it.

There is only once that God writes something down Himself  (Three if you consider Daniel 5:5, 25-28 and John 8:6)  that is physically given to a human.
I refer you to Genesis 31:18, Deut. 9:10

That, in and of itself, separates the 10 from the rest.  Not to mention only the 10 is placed/kept inside the ark (as a symbol of its perpetuity) as already pointed out.

You have it backwards, that is, if I understand you. The Law is there because someone believed everyone (but a very small select few that are named in the Hebrew Bible) sinned.

Elizabeth and Zacharias followed the Law faithfully.
Noah did it-Genesis 6:9: These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
2 Chronicles 15:17: The heart of Asa was perfect all his days.
God says you can do it:
Deuteronomy 30:11-14:
11: For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12: It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13: Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14: But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
John says you can do it.
1 John 5:3: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

As I mentioned, for a person to follow God and His Law is for that person to place their faith in God.  No person can gain salvation SIMPLY by adhering to God's Law and not putting faith in the one that put the Law in place.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to keep God's Law as part of the Law is acknowledging God as God, Creator and Savior.

Oh, and back to salvation, of course there's salvation under the Law. I refer you to Rev. 22:14

Wash in what?  Downey, Tide?  Certainly there is more to the meaning of those words than the use of a washing machine or washboard.  Again, I say, if this is all the enlightenment we had, I would agree.  But as has been said, "A text without context is a pretext."

Rev. 14:12,

"...and remain faithful to Jesus."

Mathew 5:17-20,

There's certainly a lot more than just being "good" if you desire righteousness.  Keep reading on

Ezekiel 18:20-27,

There is one word in this that begs research.  "credited".  What is this credit based on?

Ezekiel 33:14-16,

Who decides what is just and right.  Again...faith that God is God and ultimately that God saves us.

Genesis 4:7,

What or who decided that an offering of fruit/veggies was not acceptable.  So the "what is right" in this context was the animal sacrifice, shedding of blood, was the right thing to do.

Isa 56:1-8 and so on.

"righteousness will soon be revealed" ??  "Their burnt offerings will be accepted" ??  Accepted as what?  Your point is that simply following the Law is enough for salvation, yet the whole point of the sacrifice of animals is to cover sin and a symbol of the promise of Christ's blood.  If it was simply that the Law and a sinner NOW following it (when at some point he/she hadn't) is a vehicle for salvation makes the death and sacrifice/ransom of Christ's death a moot point.  Christ's death is central and the main point of faith.

[Gawen]

You simply must get past that there are 613 commandments of which the 10 C's are included. These Laws were given to an ancient, goat herding, bronze age, fire mountain worshiping tribe. You just can't rip off or borrow 10 Laws of their laws and forget the rest to fit your worldview.
Sorry....I guess you can, Most of the Christian Culture Club does it.

There is only once that God writes something down Himself  (Three if you consider Daniel 5:5, 25-28 and John 8:6)  that is physically given to a human.
I refer you to Genesis 31:18, Deut. 9:10

That, in and of itself, separates the 10 from the rest.  Not to mention only the 10 is placed/kept inside the ark (as a symbol of its perpetuity) as already pointed out.

And in turn I shall point you to:
Exodus 20:1:  And God spake all these words, saying,...
Exodus 24:3: And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.
And then...
4: And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD,...

As I mentioned, for a person to follow God and His Law is for that person to place their faith in God.  No person can gain salvation SIMPLY by adhering to God's Law and not putting faith in the one that put the Law in place.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to keep God's Law as part of the Law is acknowledging God as God, Creator and Savior.

I have just shown you how that is not true.

Wash in what?  Downey, Tide?  Certainly there is more to the meaning of those words than the use of a washing machine or washboard.  Again, I say, if this is all the enlightenment we had, I would agree.  But as has been said, "A text without context is a pretext."

AD, as I said above, Christians spin all this to fit their worldview. You are no exception.

Who decides what is just and right.  Again...faith that God is God and ultimately that God saves us.

Well, not quite. Who is God. Why, is to follow all the Law. Paul is wrong.

What or who decided that an offering of fruit/veggies was not acceptable.  So the "what is right" in this context was the animal sacrifice, shedding of blood, was the right thing to do.

We really can't proceed here. You have to show me where God's Laws are preempted and sanctified by God himself. It makes no sense for the Hebrew Bible to say numerous times that the Law is for ever only to be thrown away by vicarious human sacrifice, which was illegal and performed by a Jew living under said Laws.

This is where you may draw heavily upon Paul. And I will just as heavily show you he was wrong.

I honestly can't stand the quote feature of this board...*sigh*

[Gawen]

I'm going to try a completely different tack. If I can't make this sensible to you, AD, then I'm afraid we'll have to give it up because all we're doing is arguing past each other. There are also points I made in previous posts that you overlooked that I wish you hadn't. But I don't really want to go back and look them up.

So here goes. Oh...and sorry for its length.

Deuteronomy 6:1 states God wanted the children of Israel to keep his commandments, statutes and judgments. Deuteronomy 6:1-3 reads:
"Now this is the commandment [mitsvâh], and these are the statutes [chôq ] and judgments [mishpât] which the Lord your God has commanded [tsâvâh] to teach you, that you may observe them in the land which you are crossing over to possess, that you may fear the LORD your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you . . . all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. "

The Hebrew Bible uses various names (for lack of a better word) to refer to different parts of the Law and some of these meanings overlap and some of those to quite a degree.  In Genesis 26:5, God said that He blessed Abraham because he: "obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments [mitsvâh], my statutes [chûqqâh], and my laws [tôrâh tôrâh]."
 
So, what are the differences between these? Let's start with some definitions.
Vine's Expository Dictionary
The word chôq in Deut 6, means "statute, prescription, rule, law, regulation," and may also refer to laws of nature (cf. Job 28:26; Jeremiah 5:22; 31:35-36) or what is allocated, rationed, or apportioned to someone (cf. Genesis 47:22; Exodus 29:28).  The Hebrew word in Gen 26:5 translated "statute" is chûqqâh and it may also refer to the laws of nature (Jer 33:25; 5:24) and the regular allocation of something to someone (Lev 7:36).  It also can be used to refer to the customs or practices of the gentile nations, which Israel wasn't supposed to imitate (Leviticus 18:3; 20:23).  The bad practices of Israel also could be called chûqqâh (Micah 6:16)."
 
Vine's also says Chûqqâh has a more specific meaning than chôq.  Chûqqâh refers to a particular law, perhaps relating to a festival or ritual, such as the Passover (Ex 12:14) or other festivals such as the Days of Unleavened Bread (Ex 12:17) or the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:41).

Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies says a statute is: "something decreed, prescribed; a statute, ordinance, law; usually applied to the positive statutes appointed by Moses, the institutions of his religion and civil polity." (p. 417)

Insight in the Scriptures simply says a statute is "A formally established and recorded rule, or law -- divine or human." (Vol. 2, p. 1034)

The Hebrew word mishpât means, "judgment, rights" and can refer to a person sitting as a judge, or it can refer to the rights of someone (Exodus 23:6).  There are several related meanings, according to Vine's.  It can refer to the area in which things remain in a proper relationship to someone's claim (Genesis 18:19), a judicial verdict (Deuteronomy 17:9), or an established ordinance (Exodus 21:1).
 
Wilson's Word Studies interesting comment about the word mishpât:
"There is a considerable difference between this word and [another Hebrew word], the former being much more general.  Jeremiah 10:24, 'correct me, but with judgment,' as a just as well as a considerate judge.  The latter rather implies a settlement of right between two persons, as to what is due to one or both; if Jeremiah had used this word, he would have prayed God to correct him according to his desserts [i.e., what he deserves]." Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12 are two examples of judgments concerning how to apply God's law.  After a case sets precedence, it then serves similar cases in the future.  It is similar to our country's laws where prior decisions by judges are normally respected by future judges in the same or analogous cases.  The difference here is that God made the initial decision.

The Hebrew word mitsvâh translates as "commandment," and normally appears when God directly gives an order.  The plural of mitsvâh refers to a "body of laws".  According to Wilson's this means:  "to set up, to put, to place; to constitute, appoint; to command, to charge. . . . With an [accusative, or a word meaning "to" someone or something] of person, without mention of the thing commanded, to give charge to any one, to send with commands, to command to go:  the person who whom one is thus sent is put with [a Hebrew word]." (p. 87)

The (liberal) Interpreter's Commentary maintains that Deut 6:1-3 is (another) introduction to the law and makes sense that it would mention the different parts or sections of God's law.

Now that I'm done with this part, let's take it another direction and all should come back to intent of the OP.


Which commandments did Jesus break or disobey? It may come as a shock to many, but when reading it a different way, one may realise that Jesus broke at least one commandment. And knowing which commandment He broke and why He broke it should be an eye opener.

Did Jesus break the Fourth Commandment? Let's look at the account in John 5: "Therefore the Jews sought to kill Him, because he not only BROKE THE SABBATH, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God" (NKJV throughout).
Jesus answers: "I have kept my Father's commandments" (John 15:10).
What the hell to make of that?

Jesus said in response to a man who asked Him what to do to inherit eternal life: "Now behold, one came and said to Him,  'Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?' . . .  
'But if you want to enter into life, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS.'  
He said to Him, 'Which ones?'
"Jesus said, "'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" " (Matthew 19:16-19)
These verses following clearly identify "the commandments" as those God gave in the Torah. Of course, I could make the case that that's only 6 Commandments and the others are nullified because Jesus didn't say them.

On another occasion Jesus said,
"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4).
Clearly, Jesus believed in, taught and kept all the commandments of God. He also commanded his disciples to be: ". . . teaching them [new converts] to observe all things I have commanded you . . . " (Matthew 28:20).
We do not have to go far into the gospels before we encounter the words of Jesus regarding the laws and commandments of God. In fact, near the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount he states:
"DO NOT THINK that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets.  I DID NOT come to destroy but to fulfill.  For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one JOT or one TITTLE will BY NO MEANS pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-18)

And again, one could make the case that the "JOT" Jesus stated would not be removed from the law is the smallest letter found in the (Greek or) Hebrew alphabet. The "TITTLE" is a small point or stroke added to some Hebrew letters to help distinguish them from ones that look similar. At any rate, we can only conclude as did the writer of that passage that since heaven and earth are still here, God's Law has not been "done away with" but are still in effect.

Did Jesus END the requirement to keep God's commandments? Unfortunately, many Christians still think He came to destroy or end the need to keep the commandments. Some say Jesus "transformed" the law. This means, according to the argument, that people don't need to keep the Law, because Jesus allegedly kept it for us. This ultimately means that Jesus did in fact "destroy the Law."

The word translated as "destroy" in the New Testament comes from the Greek word καταλύω, or kataluö, Strong's Concordance #G2647. It means "to loose or unloose what was before bound" (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, by Spiros Zodhiates, page 836). Another meaning of kataluõ is "annul" (Weymouth translation). So, if Jesus somehow "transformed" the Law so that we don't have to keep it, He annulled it and "loosed" us from keeping it.

But Jesus emphatically says He did no such thing: "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will BY NO MEANS pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18).
The word "fulfilled" means to complete; to completely accomplish the purpose God intended.
Jesus concludes his introductory "disclaimer" with a warning,
"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;  but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. " (Matthew 5:19).

Some carelessly assume and assert that "these commandments" refers to the teachings of Christ that follow in the remainder of the chapter. Not so! The wording of the Greek text simply will not allow such an interpretation. Expositor's Bible Commentary explains: "But what are 'these commandments'? It is hard to justify restriction of these words to Jesus' teachings, . . . for the noun in Matthew never refers to Jesus' words, and the context argues against it. Restriction to the Ten Commandments is equally alien to the concerns of the context. Nor can we say "these commandments" refers to the antitheses that follow, for in Matthew houtos ("this," pl. "these") never points forward. It appears, then, that the expression must refer to the commandments of the OT (old testament). The entire Law and the Prophets are not scrapped by Jesus' coming but fulfilled. Therefore, the commandments of these Scriptures--even the least of them -- must be practiced . . . . The law pointed forward to Jesus and his teaching; . . . so he, in fulfilling it, establishes . . . the way it is to be obeyed" (volume 1, page 146).

Actually, the word in verse 19 translated as "breaks" is related to the word in verse 17 rendered "destroy". Luõ literally means "to loose."  So Jesus' warning not only applies to anyone who disobeys even a minor detail of God's Law, but a warning to those that teach others to do the same. Loosing or relaxing any of the requirements is forbidden, because that is the first step toward destroying the law.

Have you heard the saying "For lack of a lace, a shoe was lost. For lack of a shoe, a soldier was lost. For lack of a soldier, a battle was lost. For lack of a battle the war was lost."? Apply this and the lesson is clear. No one should be careless about any detail of God's law, however minor it may seem.

And here we are back again to "Did Jesus break a Commandment?" Another answer is found in Matt 15: "And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the COMMANDMENTS OF MEN."
Jesus quoted Isaiah 29:13 and applied it to "the tradition of the elders" (Matt 15:1) speaking of the Pharisees who sat in judgment of Him. These "commandments" were also known to the Jews as the "oral Torah (law)."

It was this VERBAL version of the law that Jesus sought to correct in the Sermon on the Mount and is clearly evident by his statement: "You have heard that it was said to those of old, . . ."
This comes before each his pronouncements in (Matt 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43). What follows is then an explanation of the proper application of the commandment upon which the particular tradition was based. One may then make the case that Jesus "fulfilled" the law by restoring it to its original meaning and intent (and I still think "fulfilled" is a mistranslation). Righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees (verse 20) in that Christians must keep the law of God in its proper intent. In other words, to keep the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law.

The Jews charged Jesus with breaking the Sabbath (John 5:18, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6).
But let me digress. The two main sins that led to the captivity of Israel and Judah were breaking the Sabbath and idolatry (Ezekiel 20). But they failed having simply gone from one extreme to the other. They went from careless disregard for God's Law to a fanatical legalism that violated the intent of God's Law and deprived them of their effect (Matthew 15:6), rendering them Commandments of Men. So in their minds, the Pharisees considered Jesus a sinner worthy of death because he broke these commandments of men which they considered as binding as God's law.


But Jesus sets the record straight as is shown in the Gospels. If you are a Christian and believe Jesus was sinless, then He perfectly obeyed the Law and commands you to follow His example. Of course, very few people can live up to his example, even though that should be your desire and intent. Jesus did not live by the law of God to save you from the obligation to obey it.

If love is the basis of God's law, one cannot claim to love God apart from obedience to His commandments (1John 5:2-3, 2:4).

To see an analogy and to compare it with the times of Jesus and today...
The Sabbath is the epitome of the blessings of the entire Law of God and Jesus was accused of breaking it.  Today those who keep the Sabbath as a commandment of God are scorned by others who say they worship the same God. The majority of the Christian world has abandoned this one Commandment and are keeping a different day which is based on HUMAN TRADITION. Once again the pendulum has swung from legalism back to careless disregard for God's Law. By replacing the laws and commandments of God with human traditions many people, like the Pharisees have: "made the commandment of God of no effect by YOUR tradition." (Matthew 15:6).

The specific commandment Jesus stands accused of breaking is the Sabbath, which is the epitome of the blessings of the entire law of God and a type of the master plan of God. Even today those who seek to keep the Sabbath as a commandment of God are condemned by others who also say they worship God. The majority of the Christian world has abandoned this blessed gift God made for all mankind (Mark 2:28) and are keeping instead a different day which is based on HUMAN TRADITION. Once again the pendulum of human nature has swung. From legalism back to careless disregard for the laws of God such as the Sabbath. By replacing the laws and commandments of God with human traditions many people, like the scribes, Pharisees and other religious leaders at the time of Jesus, have:
"made the commandment of God of no effect by YOUR tradition." (Matthew 15:6).

So, after reading all that, one may see how ALL the Commandments (not just 10 of them) are to be obeyed.

[AnimatedDirt]

Unless I missed something, or it's too early in the morning for me, it seems we are in agreement about the Sabbath.