This "Christian socialism" thing is absolutely heretical

[The_Patriot21]

31 minutes ago, Slibhin said:

One, "toraic" is not a word that I'm aware of. 

Two, you are totally incorrect:

Deuteronomy 24:19 When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf in the field, do not turn back to get it; it shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow – in order that L-ord your G-d may bless you in all your undertakings.

Deuteronomy 24:20 When you beat your olive tree, you shall not deglorify it [by picking all its fruit] after you; it shall be for the stranger, the orphan and the widow.

Deuteronomy 24:21 When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not pick it over again; that shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow.

Leviticus 19:9 When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not fully reap the corner of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest.

Leviticus 19:10 And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you collect the [fallen] individual grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. I am the L-rd, your G-d.

These are commands, not suggestions. Hashem did not say "If you feel like" or "It would be nice if". They are G-d's justice, not charity. Notice these are phrased as "shall not", "you shall" "refrain from" "nor shall you" and so on.

I don't know if you put any thought into this, but in order for the poor and widows to eat the food G-d has provided in this way they'd be required to go on the property.

I don't really care what your websites say, G-d's will is absolute and beats anyone else's opinions.

 

I am of course, unsurprised that Christians who claim to believe in the Tanakh somehow always feel it doesn't apply to them anymore, except somehow when it does.

I did a bit of a Google. Forgive me rabbi!

2 Corinthians 9:7

English Standard Version

7 Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

The bible contradicts the Torah. I am again unsurprised.

It's actually not a contradiction. You are correct in that OT law did require landowners to leave food for the poor, etc.

However, in the new testament we see a shift. Sin has always required a sacrifice be made, and salvation was obtained by as strict adherence to the law as possible and animal sacrifices for when it wasn't.

In the new testament, Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, completely doing away with the OT sacrificial system.

However, what most Christians don't fully understand was He didn't actually do away with the law. He did away with certain parts of it, like the dietary restrictions, but if He didn't specifically undo it in the NT then it's still the law.

What He did though, was shift how it was used. The law was used to govern the Israelites, even before they had a central government so to speak. But in the NT, that was no longer needed.

The apostle Paul in Romans went to great length to describe the purpose of the law-the purpose of the law is to define what sin is, and what sin is not.

And what Jesus, and the apostles did, that the pharisees of the time, did not, was to get to the heart of the law. Yes the pharisees adhered to the letter of the law. Not happily, not because they wanted to, but because it was the law. Period.

What the author of Corinthians is doing, is getting to the heart of the law. The law was put in place to take care of the poor. Period. What Paul is saying, is to take care of the poor, not because you have to, but because you want to. The law says it's a sin not to, yes, but as a Christian you should help the poor because you want to.

And the more a Christian loves Jesus, the more they will take care of the poor, because Christs love shines through. And a gift given out of pure love and free choice, means more then that given by force.

It is why Jesus praised the poor woman who only gave two mites over all the rich and pompous pharisees who gave lots. The pharisees were obeying the law, and giving their 10% out of their riches. The widow gave everything she had.

So, not a contradiction, Paul just addressing the heart of the law, vs the letter of the law. It's the difference between a grace based faith and legalism.

 

[Marathoner]

Walking in the Spirit has nothing to do with ideological systems contrived by man. Socialism is such a thing, as is every other "ism" under the sun. It's simple:

Everything I have has been given to me by the Lord, but it's not mine. If someone needs a coat and I have one, I'll gladly give it to them. Whenever I go from one place to the next, I give away possessions to those who want them. The Lord gives, and He takes; it was never mine to begin with, and He is faithful to provide what I need when I arrive at where I need to go. 

Two things I have asked of You;
Do not refuse me before I die:
Keep deception and lies far from me,
Give me neither poverty nor riches;
Feed me with the food that is my portion,
So that I will not be full and deny You and say, “Who is the Lord?”
And that I will not become impoverished and steal,
And profane the name of my God. 
(Proverbs 30:7-9 NASB)

I learned the value of possessions and property long ago. Why endeavor to store up what thieves steal, and moths destroy? Things come and they go, but the Lord endures forever. "Give me what I need, nothing more or less."  

Edited January 6, 2023 by Marathoner

[Starise]

13 hours ago, RealReligionofPeace said:

You are %100 correct.

Even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then.

[Rick-Parker]

On 1/5/2023 at 8:32 PM, Slibhin said:

One, "toraic" is not a word that I'm aware of. 

Two, you are totally incorrect:

Deuteronomy 24:19 When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf in the field, do not turn back to get it; it shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow – in order that L-ord your G-d may bless you in all your undertakings.

Deuteronomy 24:20 When you beat your olive tree, you shall not deglorify it [by picking all its fruit] after you; it shall be for the stranger, the orphan and the widow.

Deuteronomy 24:21 When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not pick it over again; that shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow.

Leviticus 19:9 When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not fully reap the corner of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest.

Leviticus 19:10 And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you collect the [fallen] individual grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. I am the L-rd, your G-d.

These are commands, not suggestions. Hashem did not say "If you feel like" or "It would be nice if". They are G-d's justice, not charity. Notice these are phrased as "shall not", "you shall" "refrain from" "nor shall you" and so on.

I don't know if you put any thought into this, but in order for the poor and widows to eat the food G-d has provided in this way they'd be required to go on the property.

I don't really care what your websites say, G-d's will is absolute and beats anyone else's opinions.

 

I am of course, unsurprised that Christians who claim to believe in the Tanakh somehow always feel it doesn't apply to them anymore, except somehow when it does.

I did a bit of a Google. Forgive me rabbi!

2 Corinthians 9:7

English Standard Version

7 Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

The bible contradicts the Torah. I am again unsurprised.

These Scriptures you posted all have the poor working to gather that which is left in the field and on the vine. Not handed to them by the owners.

Your contempt for Christianity remains quite evident.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Rick-Parker

[Mije]

Proverbs 30:7-9
Now THIS little nugget of a verse was worth reading this thread for!

@Marathoner👍🏽

[The_Patriot21]

1 hour ago, Slibhin said:

Either the Torah is in effect or it isn't. If your Bible says to do the opposite of the Torah, then it is contradicting G-d.

Actually the new testament never contradicts the Torah...as I have already pointed out. It just completes it, and changes the sacrifice.

For example, under the old covenant, you were still saved through your faith, however you had to accompany that faith with regular sacrifice. (News flash, if you believe your still under the old covenant and your not regularly offering animal sacrifices, you are in violation of that covenant and the Torah which you hold In such high regard) the reason for that is sin has to be accounted for with blood.

Under the new covenant, that blood sacrifice was Jesus. And since He was fully God and fully man, and never sinned, his sacrifice was the last one needed, no more animal sacrifices needed. Just your faith in Him.

As far as the law, Jesus again, never contradicted it, but rather pointed people to the heart of the law vs the letter. Like your example, feeding the poor. Your absolutely right we should feed the poor... because we love the poor. We are supposed to give out of love.

A gift given by force isn't a gift and spiritually, is worthless.

Even your example of OT law that stated that farmers had to let the poor glean their fields... realistically, at that time Israel had no central government nor really any super police force going around enforcing that law. If a farmer refused or made sure there was nothing left for the poor...his neighbors would all think he was a jerk, but unless the priesthood stepped in there wasn't much that could be done, and if they lived a long ways from a temple, well, it would be left to peer pressure to enforce it. So the farmer had to want to follow it.

Also, they didn't just hand the food the poor... they had to go out and gather it. You know, work. Difficult concept to understand In today society.

There are a few rules which Jesus lifted...like dietary restrictions. But that's an entirely different conversation.

In any case, unless you participate in regular animal sacrifices, then you really have no ground to tell me how we all need to obey the Torah while ignoring the new testament, and as such I see no further point to this conversation as your initial accusation about the new testament being contradicted has been proven false. Have a blessed evening 

 

[RealReligionofPeace]

On 1/5/2023 at 8:32 PM, Slibhin said:

One, "toraic" is not a word that I'm aware of. 

Two, you are totally incorrect:

Deuteronomy 24:19 When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf in the field, do not turn back to get it; it shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow – in order that L-ord your G-d may bless you in all your undertakings.

Deuteronomy 24:20 When you beat your olive tree, you shall not deglorify it [by picking all its fruit] after you; it shall be for the stranger, the orphan and the widow.

Deuteronomy 24:21 When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not pick it over again; that shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow.

Leviticus 19:9 When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not fully reap the corner of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest.

Leviticus 19:10 And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you collect the [fallen] individual grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. I am the L-rd, your G-d.

These are commands, not suggestions. Hashem did not say "If you feel like" or "It would be nice if". They are G-d's justice, not charity. Notice these are phrased as "shall not", "you shall" "refrain from" "nor shall you" and so on.

I don't know if you put any thought into this, but in order for the poor and widows to eat the food G-d has provided in this way they'd be required to go on the property.

I don't really care what your websites say, G-d's will is absolute and beats anyone else's opinions.

 

I am of course, unsurprised that Christians who claim to believe in the Tanakh somehow always feel it doesn't apply to them anymore, except somehow when it does.

I did a bit of a Google. Forgive me rabbi!

2 Corinthians 9:7

English Standard Version

7 Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

The bible contradicts the Torah. I am again unsurprised.

How do any of these verses contradict private property?

[RealReligionofPeace]

On 1/6/2023 at 7:23 AM, Starise said:

Even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then.

yep

[Roymond]

On 1/5/2023 at 6:19 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

It's actually not a contradiction. You are correct in that OT law did require landowners to leave food for the poor, etc.

However, in the new testament we see a shift. Sin has always required a sacrifice be made, and salvation was obtained by as strict adherence to the law as possible and animal sacrifices for when it wasn't.

In the new testament, Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, completely doing away with the OT sacrificial system.

However, what most Christians don't fully understand was He didn't actually do away with the law. He did away with certain parts of it, like the dietary restrictions, but if He didn't specifically undo it in the NT then it's still the law.

A rabbi in St. Louis back when I was doing some coursework at Washington University laughed at this claim.  He said the Law is the Law, and dividing it into pieces is just scholars spinning gold from thin air: you either honor the Law or you don't, you can't cut out pieces and leave others.

On 1/5/2023 at 6:19 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

What He did though, was shift how it was used. The law was used to govern the Israelites, even before they had a central government so to speak. But in the NT, that was no longer needed.

The apostle Paul in Romans went to great length to describe the purpose of the law-the purpose of the law is to define what sin is, and what sin is not.

Paul's biggest point about the Law is that is was a tutor to lead to Christ, Who is the end of the law.  If you have Christ, the Law is but a set of scrolls in a cabinet, their purpose accomplished.

On 1/5/2023 at 6:19 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

And what Jesus, and the apostles did, that the pharisees of the time, did not, was to get to the heart of the law. Yes the pharisees adhered to the letter of the law. Not happily, not because they wanted to, but because it was the law. Period.

What the author of Corinthians is doing, is getting to the heart of the law. The law was put in place to take care of the poor. Period. What Paul is saying, is to take care of the poor, not because you have to, but because you want to. The law says it's a sin not to, yes, but as a Christian you should help the poor because you want to.

And the more a Christian loves Jesus, the more they will take care of the poor, because Christs love shines through. And a gift given out of pure love and free choice, means more then that given by force.

It is why Jesus praised the poor woman who only gave two mites over all the rich and pompous pharisees who gave lots. The pharisees were obeying the law, and giving their 10% out of their riches. The widow gave everything she had.

So, not a contradiction, Paul just addressing the heart of the law, vs the letter of the law. It's the difference between a grace based faith and legalism.

Paul just took up where the prophets left off, pointing to the principles that the people were supposed to learn from the Law.  When they failed, God told them that He hated their ceremonies even when they were following the Law!

That shows that the point of the law all along was to "put itself out of a job" by getting across principles that people could apply to matters.

[Roymond]

2 hours ago, The_Patriot21 said:

As far as the law, Jesus again, never contradicted it, but rather pointed people to the heart of the law vs the letter. Like your example, feeding the poor. Your absolutely right we should feed the poor... because we love the poor. We are supposed to give out of love.

A wonderful preacher I got to meet long ago once preached on "How Jesus broke the Law".  His imagery was that of a building with a ceiling that contained all the things the Law said to accomplish -- and his point was that Jesus broke the ceiling by being better than the Law and rising above it.