Law, commands, or instructions?

[IshChayil]

So... just in regards to food:

In Mathew 21:1-8, Jesus's disciples were being jammed up by the Pharisees for doing what was unlawful on the Sabbath, namely picking grain to eat.

Jesus had a 2 point rebuttal (which is really just one point), but the first of them is in verses 3-4. There are many avenues He could have chosen to pursue in His disciple's defense, but He chose to make His primary argument a strange tale of David eating the shewbread, which was not lawful that he or his men should eat.

The issue is that it was not a violation to graze on shabbat, only harvesting is a violation. Breaking in general is an add on in the "oral law".
As to why Yeshua chose to answer in the manner He did can be for many reasons; we can all speculate as you have here but our speculation can not take us out of bounds so to speak.
My first thought was that He knew their minds and perhaps they expected him to respond "that's just your traditions" but He's done that elsewhere so instead He uses a principal which they would be familiar with against them ... pikuach nefesh, "life risk" When there is a time of war or food scarcity and a risk of serious illness or risk, almost any command can be broken because to preserve life is the purpose of the Torah and in His case to make it more abundant even. He sides with Rabbi Hillel in most of these cases so it seems to me He ingeniusly uses in house debates among the Pharisees with whomever He's speaking.
In this case, it's over the issue of pikuach nefesh. ... brilliant!
To jump to a conclusion that He's beginning a slippery slope to allow all kinds of violations is not warranted and would make Him into a rasha (wicked person) by Torah standards, especially regarding the sabbath with it's looming death penalty for violation.
He'd be an unfit sacrifice to say the least if He "taught others to break the least of the commandments"

To which I say that the eating of food that is prohibited by the Law, is yet not a transgression of the Law. Or if it is: it is a transgression that is specifically allowed by Jesus Himself, and the man who does so under these circumstances is held blameless. The circumstances are: You are one of the King's men (a disciple) and you are hungry...

no...David was at war and you can eat even pork to have your strength so you don't die in battle...
simple pikuach nefesh case, Rabbi Hillel, writer of the L-rd's prayer wins again (as decided by Yeshua)

Taken together with God's command to Peter (Arise, Kill and Eat), I think it to be reasonable for a man (yea, even a Jew!) to eat things that the Law would say no to all day long, but still not be held in contempt of the Law, as God understands it and intends it to be understood.

Nope, Peter remained righteous and never killed because He knew from his vast training with the Messiah that G-d would never intend for him to do such a thing (remember the whole straining to keep unclean gnats out of food 'you'd do well to leave also the little things not undone'... good thing he kept his whitts about him and passed the test! He never ate and never was rebuked for it. I love how consistent scripture is.
I love how G-d isn't sneaky with His expectations of us and to a 1st century Jew of faith like Keyfa, He passed His test this time.

A side thought I posted in a different, now locked, thread. What does food in a vision taste like?
How do you kill it? Do you use air arrows and then clean it with an spirit knife (sword of the spirit perhaps?)
Do you cook it up on an air flame? I bet vision food tastes like spirit chicken.
Yummy!
Vision food .... it's what's for dinner!

 

[Slumberfreeze]

@IshChayil , I've said all I was going to say on this thread, as we were asked to wrap it up, some pages ago.

 

[IshChayil]

Oops as I scanned the thread I may have missed that.

I'm curious why does that happen? The "end the thread" or the "this thread is no longer on topic" comments?
Who cares?
Isn't the point to have exchange, iron sharpen iron, etc?
So we want to keep out interesting perspectives from future visitors to threads or those who didn't read it before (like myself)?
Most of these threads have nothing to do with polygamy anyway.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Isn't the point to have exchange, iron sharpen iron, etc?

Sometimes, I guess. Full-on though, I see that verse being quoted more often than not as a way for people to console themselves after they have blown all semblance of Christian charity while hotly debating a minor issue. If 'the point' is iron sharpening, well, I'll be leaving. If the point is agape, I'll stick around. If the point is 'iron sharpening in agape', I'll need to see that agape demonstrated before I'll welcome someone coming towards my face with an iron file.

Most of these threads have nothing to do with polygamy anyway.

THANK GOD. I love that this ministry is willing to acknowledge the place poly has in doctrine and is working towards restoring it to the framework of biblical teaching. That said, man does not live by polygamy alone. I wouldn't want non-poly threads handled with different standards than poly threads.

I think some mods just get tired of a subject or feel outdone and don't want to concede so then a thread gets locked (though this one interestingly is not locked)

If you feel they are being unfair in their actions and that it is poisoning the ministry, please pray for them. It is a difficult job deciding when a topic has ceased to be edifying and always embarrassing to tell a group of adults that they are misbehaving. I wouldn't have he patience for such a task.

 

[andrew]

I've just mentioned this in a private message to IshChayil, but I want to say it out here in public as well. This is not the language I used with IshChayil, and this is not directed at him; he doesn't need me to repeat it. It is for the sake of other readers happening upon this thread and trying to figure out what's going on.

We are working on a revised set of posting rules for this forum; they'll be published when they're ready. In the meantime, informally we consider whoever first opened a thread to be the 'owner' of that thread, and that owner has a certain latitude to decide when that thread has served its purpose or gone off the rails. In addition, moderators and admins will sometimes decide that a particular thread has run its course, or gotten off track, or dissolved into too many subjects, or gotten too heated, or whatever. When that happens, we can either ask everybody nicely to just back off and talk about something else, or we can just lock the thread.

We do not spend the resources to keep this website up and board running to create a convenient platform for others to piggyback on for their own agendas, or to come in and tell us how we should be running it. We have a specific mission focus, and we are in the process of tightening that up, which may chafe some folks here a bit until we all get used to it. Might even run some people off, and we're prepared for that. Please respect the mission, the intentions, and the individual actions of the moderators and admins of this board, and work with us instead of against us to make this board the best it can be, in terms of its stated purpose and mission.

Slumber, I appreciate very much your closing statement, and I know all of the leadership here does. We covet your prayers for wisdom and discernment.

 

[IshChayil]

I've just mentioned this in a private message to IshChayil, but I want to say it out here in public as well. This is not the language I used with IshChayil, and this is not directed at him; he doesn't need me to repeat it. It is for the sake of other readers happening upon this thread and trying to figure out what's going on.

We are working on a revised set of posting rules for this forum; they'll be published when they're ready. In the meantime, informally we consider whoever first opened a thread to be the 'owner' of that thread, and that owner has a certain latitude to decide when that thread has served its purpose or gone off the rails. In addition, moderators and admins will sometimes decide that a particular thread has run its course, or gotten off track, or dissolved into too many subjects, or gotten too heated, or whatever. When that happens, we can either ask everybody nicely to just back off and talk about something else, or we can just lock the thread.

We do not spend the resources to keep this website up and board running to create a convenient platform for others to piggyback on for their own agendas, or to come in and tell us how we should be running it. We have a specific mission focus, and we are in the process of tightening that up, which may chafe some folks here a bit until we all get used to it. Might even run some people off, and we're prepared for that. Please respect the mission, the intentions, and the individual actions of the moderators and admins of this board, and work with us instead of against us to make this board the best it can be, in terms of its stated purpose and mission.

Slumber, I appreciate very much your closing statement, and I know all of the leadership here does. We covet your prayers for wisdom and discernment.

I like the new rule, I certainly would have enjoyed having the latitude over threads I had started in the past...probably my perceptions would have been different had I not been denied that latitude. We are all works in progress though and this ministry seems to be learning from its mistakes so that is a wonderful thing to behold.
I liked our private discussion Andrew, thanks for explaining everything very succinctly.
I actually already deleted out my questions from my post above asking about these things as I didn't realize slumber already replied.

Makes sense in the future if the op wants to close their thread or fork it they should have that say-so.
If we can get enough moderators I think it would be a very good system to say that only a moderator not deeply involved in a thread has the right to close the thread.
Wouldn't this be a good check against abuse? Of course you'll still get the appeal to the op from a wayward mod "can't we close this already" who will feel pressured but maybe we can get away from that in time too.

 

[IshChayil]

THANK GOD. I love that this ministry is willing to acknowledge the place poly has in doctrine and is working towards restoring it to the framework of biblical teaching. That said, man does not live by polygamy alone. I wouldn't want non-poly threads handled with different standards than poly threads.

Yes, as do I. This is why I opened many threads in the past was simply to help the ministry pull in more googlers. That being said, you miss my point.
If we are allowed to upon up irrelevant threads in the first place, then who cares that an irelavent thread gets off course over time as long as it's keeping people interested and involved?
Must we be "thread-nazis" (I mean this in the "soup-nazi" genre not the socialists in Germany manner)?

Thread X has nothing to do with polygamy. It is on topic Y. It then meanders into an interesting topic Z and is in danger of being shut down while many are interested because "oh no, this is not internally consistent with it's own irrelevancy! must shut it down."
Splitting threads makes sense sometimes for browsing of future interested parties but when you shut it down then the super genius who joins tomorrow and would have enlightened us doesn't have an easy way to do that. Many people who will be brave enough to reply to an open thread, will not start a thread on their own.

That was my point. My point was not that we don't sit around and talk about the wonders of polygamy all day long

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Thread derailing is a crime in any civilized forum. When one clicks on a discussion of laws, commands, or instructions, they should be treated to a discussion on laws, commands, or instructions. Thread derailment is such a crime that most forums have a spot where everyone can let loose and not observe the usual rules of structured discourse.

That said, if you have an disagreement with how these forums are ran, I am truly not the person to come to, and it's my opinion that all such questions should be private messages between you and the mods.

 

[IshChayil]

Thread derailing is a crime in any civilized forum. When one clicks on a discussion of laws, commands, or instructions, they should be treated to a discussion on laws, commands, or instructions. Thread derailment is such a crime that most forums have a spot where everyone can let loose and not observe the usual rules of structured discourse.

That said, if you have an disagreement with how these forums are ran, I am truly not the person to come to, and it's my opinion that all such questions should be private messages between you and the mods.

over generalization. In the world of biblical studies it's completely natural for threads to meander quite a bit; neigh necessary. We're not talking about a redit forum on how to overclock your cpu here. Also we usually have 5 people max on a given thread at a given time here. It's not so much chaos and I have discussed with the mods just look above at Andrew's post.
everyone is happy happy thanks
maybe you can reply in private to my thoughtful post I wrote to you, related to this thread (laws etc) in a private message if it's just the thread winding down that was keeping you from responding. If you just don't care to be challenged on the issue I get it