
|
A while back, a Catholic apologist and I briefly discussed the Christian's relationship with the Law of Moses. He began the exchange with these words: The Challenge: Although as Christians we're not "under *the curse of* the Law," there's nothing wrong with following the Law. The Response: Based on this statement, may I ask whether you try to keep the Law? Do you know the Law well enough to make the effort? Keeping all the 613 Laws our Lord gave the Hebrew nation was more than any Jew ever could or ever will be able to do. Do you have any idea what is really involved in “following the Law?” For example, Let's look at the simple observance of just one major point of the Law – the Commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. Are you aware of, and do you manage to keep, all the melachos involved? Do you know what a melacha is? Basically, a melacha is is a creative act which was done to construct the sanctuary. The thirty-nine melachos represent thirty-nine categories of creative acts. There are actually hundreds, if not thousands of creative acts which fall under these categories and are forbidden. The thirty-nine melachos are what the Torah expressly forbids. There are hundreds, if not thousands of things that Jews do or don't do, whose source is by rabbinic decree. Actually, one cannot know what to do and not to do from just reading a list. For example, cutting is a melacha. Does this mean that a Jew can't cut up his Shabbos Kugle? Observant Jews really need a guide and/or a teacher to know what to do. Without a guide/teacher to explain the requirements of the Law, one is merely playing at “following the Law” – participating in a simplistic sham. For your edification, these are the melachos:
The defender of Romanism then turned the exchange to a new direction:
Nothing wrong? Of course not. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with proclaiming Catholic Mary as Queen of Heaven. Just as Mary's role as Queen of Heaven is fictitious, so also is the Year of Jubilee. There used to be a Year of Jubilee – read all about it in Leviticus 25 – but one has not been proclaimed since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The Jews once again will begin counting sabbatical and Jubilee years when they enter their Messianic Era after they recognize Jesus as Messiah. I see nothing wrong in proclaiming the Decalogue – though your introduction of it in this instance seems a non sequitur. Aware that arguments put forth in apologetic encounters are much stronger when the sources are identified, my Catholic antagonist offered support for his position: “Pretty sure?” “I heard?” Well, that settles that. Nothing like authoritative sources. If you're pretty sure, or recently heard, then it must be a done deal. Of course, it IS just a tad difficult to check your sources. He continued:
“I think?” There you go again; calling upon those authoritative sources. Are you here confusing research and study with opinion? “Orthodox Jews?” Who do you think study the Mishnas? Do you know what the Mishnas are? Let me help you out. His response to this was a standard Catholic tactic: If it causes difficulties; make it go away: The Mishnas are NOT part of the Bible and so we can't rely on them -- YOU THINK? Then please tell me, Sir, is I think or I heard part of the Bible? If they aren't, please tell me why I should pay any attention at all to YOUR unsupported opinion. “Guaranteed blessings?” Do you understand what it means to read Scripture in context? In this particular instance, one of the very first things to consider when approaching this passage is to whom God is speaking and for what purpose. He is giving His Law to the Hebrew nation and promising them blessings for obeying it. The promise of blessing is contingent upon the obedience of the Hebrews. Have you considered what that blessing was to be? It is quite clearly spelled out in the passage. 18 Wherefore ye shall do my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them; and ye shall dwell in the land in safety This defender of Romanism fired his parting shot and withdrew:
Actually, I could not care less about which ear a man might adorn with an earring; or whether a man wears an earring at all. And what in the world does that have with the subject at hand? |
![]()
| Home | More Questions | Catholic Stuff | PTG Forum | ![]() |