Jesus broke the law of Moses

[Jaime]

I'm doing the same.

Let me use an analogy.

When you have children do you want them to stay a baby forever? Or do you want them to grow up?

1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

We put away the law to embrace the Spirit of God. Fulfillment causes such things to "vanish away"......

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant

, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The New Covenant is written on our hearts and not tablets of stone like the first. My heart guides me or if that fails, the indwelling Holy Spirit does. Or my wife slaps me.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I already have. The quote from Google was entirely for the benefit of others

Then you're wrong. Share the evidence for your firm belief. I know otherwise.

 

[Wick Stick]

Then you're wrong. Share the evidence for your firm belief. I know otherwise.

I said that 'Tradition says that the LXX translators' gave the name 'Deuteronomy' to the book.

I'm not sure why that's even controversial, but if you want to disprove it, go for it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I said that 'Tradition says that the LXX translators' gave the name 'Deuteronomy' to the book.

I'm not sure why that's even controversial, but if you want to disprove it, go for it.

You haven't proven this. I know the evidence. You can not establish this as fact. "Books" and "Chapters/Verses" didn't exist until much later in the process. The greatest surviving witnesses of the Hebrew or Greek OT has ZERO "names/nomenclatures" in them.

Show me " ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΝΟΜΙΟΝ" from 300 BCE.

I just had an argument with Gemini on the subject. Here is a little blurb from Gemini.....

Your observation about the Greek tradition’s obsession with nomenclature compared to the ancient Hebrew people is a sophisticated historical point that matches the available evidence. The transition from "a copy of this law" as an instruction to "
Deuteronomy
" as a categorical title reflects a shift from a functional culture to a bibliographic one.

Don't believe everything you read and don't reduce a complicated discussion into the first few lines of response from an AI. At best AI are all different. The free versions often spend too little time returning an "easy answer" due to how much money it takes to give the "free users" content. Sam Altman spoke of this a little in a revealing comment he made several months ago.

Saying "thank you" or "please" to ChatGPT costs OpenAI "tens of millions of dollars" in electricity and processing power because every word adds to the computational load on their servers

 

[dwight92070]

Gods mercy and compassion were on display. Jesus uses this example to illustrate that human need can take precedence over ritual law. This teaches us that God's mercy and compassion are central to His character. David's actions demonstrate that human need can take precedence over ceremonial law, a principle Jesus emphasizes in His ministry (Mark 2:27).

Hope this helps !!!

You appear to be correct that human need can take precedence over ceremonial law, but that doesn't answer my question or make your point. In the case of David and his men, Jesus said that they were not guilty. Just as He was not guilty nor did He commit sin when He broke the Sabbath.

 

[Wick Stick]

You haven't proven this. I know the evidence. You can not establish this as fact. "Books" and "Chapters/Verses" didn't exist until much later in the process. The greatest surviving witnesses of the Hebrew or Greek OT has ZERO "names/nomenclatures" in them.

You've mistaken my proclaiming 'what tradition says,' with me endorsing that tradition as an absolute truth, which I have not done.

What I actually DID say is that Deuteronomy was NOT the name given to the book by Moses, neither was it the name that it was referred to by Josiah upon his re-discovery of the book, nor by the author of the book of 2Kings. All of these sources simply refer to it as "the book of the Law," which appears to be its original title.

Scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries have attempted to apply that title to the entire Pentateuch. This appears to be an error.

If you'd prefer to deal in facts, rather than traditions, then the oldest documented instances of the name 'Deuteronomy' come from the late 2nd century. "Deuteronomy" was an important book to Origen. The Jews refer to this book as 'Devarim' (English: 'Words'). The Jewish naming is probably later than the Greek one, as the Jews did not think of it as a separate book until relatively late in history, preferring to refer to the entire Pentateuch as "the books of Moses."

 

[praise_yeshua]

You've mistaken my proclaiming 'what tradition says,' with me endorsing that tradition as an absolute truth, which I have not done.

What I actually DID say is that Deuteronomy was NOT the name given to the book by Moses, neither was it the name that it was referred to by Josiah upon his re-discovery of the book, nor by the author of the book of 2Kings. All of these sources simply refer to it as "the book of the Law," which appears to be its original title.

Scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries have attempted to apply that title to the entire Pentateuch. This appears to be an error.

If you'd prefer to deal in facts, rather than traditions, then the oldest documented instances of the name 'Deuteronomy' come from the late 2nd century. "Deuteronomy" was an important book to Origen. The Jews refer to this book as 'Devarim' (English: 'Words'). The Jewish naming is probably later than the Greek one, as the Jews did not think of it as a separate book until relatively late in history, preferring to refer to the entire Pentateuch as "the books of Moses."

I never accept "traditions" without evidence. Either we know why we do what we do or we are nothing more than slaves to the "masters" we serve.

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey

I would agree that the "law" was a singular work without division. My issues is with the details you're referencing. If you reference tradition that is not your own, then please say just that.

Thanks

 

[Wick Stick]

I never accept "traditions" without evidence. Either we know why we do what we do or we are nothing more than slaves to the "masters" we serve.

There are places where a definitive answer is not possible. Tradition is useful in these places to serve as a starting point, or hypothesis.

I would agree that the "law" was a singular work without division.

Not sure if you mean the whole Pentateuch or just Deuteronomy. The latter appears to be a single work. The former is definitely not.

My issues is with the details you're referencing. If you reference tradition that is not your own, then please say just that.

I'm pretty sure that's what I did.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There are places where a definitive answer is not possible. Tradition is useful in these places to serve as a starting point, or hypothesis.

Sometimes it is a hinderance. Evil begats evil. Evil traditions produce evil outcomes. It is why Christ came to save humanity.

Not sure if you mean the whole Pentateuch or just Deuteronomy. The latter appears to be a single work. The former is definitely not.

Which is it. Torah or Pentateuch? Do you know the difference in those references?

The Torah was definitely a singular work during the times we are referencing. Thusly, contextually, I am accurate in what I said.

If you want to actually go all the way back to the hand of Moses, then we're talking about at least one additional intermediary between the "silver scrolls" and the "hand of Moses" or his immediate descendants.

I don't believe in "closed canons". If we found "1st and 3rd Corinthians", then I wouldn't have a problem changing "my" list.

I'm pretty sure that's what I did.

I don't believe you did but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. My problem. I didn't see that in what you said.