DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Biblical Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 12448--------------------------------------------------
Do people believe what Jesus said about Moses?
By: Giuliano Date: June 27, 2016, 11:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I wonder how people interpret these verses:
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command
you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep
the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all
be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the
least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach
them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
John 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father:
there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he
wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my
words?
#Post#: 12451--------------------------------------------------
Re: Do people believe what Jesus said about Moses?
By: twinc Date: June 28, 2016, 3:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
so shall we guess what Moses wrote that is mostly not accepted
by most Christians - btw it is mostly accepted by Protestants as
a yardstick that if it is not in the Bible it need not, should
not and must not be accepted or believed - so guess what is not
in the Bible and is widely believed by Protestants - more later
- twinc
#Post#: 12454--------------------------------------------------
Re: Do people believe what Jesus said about Moses?
By: George Date: June 28, 2016, 8:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think the first thing to address here is what was fulfilled?
What is it that Jesus fulfilled that would change the law given
to Moses? Or was there ever actually a change at all? Is that
just something modern day religion teaches because they are not
willing to live by the actual law given to moses? I think
personally it's all misunderstood and people read it to fit into
what they want to believe.
#Post#: 12473--------------------------------------------------
Re: Do people believe what Jesus said about Moses?
By: Kerry Date: June 30, 2016, 4:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=twinc link=topic=1102.msg12451#msg12451
date=1467103792]
so shall we guess what Moses wrote that is mostly not accepted
by most Christians - btw it is mostly accepted by Protestants as
a yardstick that if it is not in the Bible it need not, should
not and must not be accepted or believed - so guess what is not
in the Bible and is widely believed by Protestants - more later
- twinc
[/quote]Protestants often say that only what is in the Bible
should be believed and that it all must be believed; but it
seems to me we find that some do not believe the Bible, not
completely. They say they believe it but they don't.
Protestants often have traditions which they say are derived
from the Bible but which really contradict it.
#Post#: 12474--------------------------------------------------
Re: Do people believe what Jesus said about Moses?
By: Kerry Date: June 30, 2016, 5:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=George M. C. Jr. link=topic=1102.msg12454#msg12454
date=1467122194]
I think the first thing to address here is what was fulfilled?
What is it that Jesus fulfilled that would change the law given
to Moses? Or was there ever actually a change at all? Is that
just something modern day religion teaches because they are not
willing to live by the actual law given to moses? I think
personally it's all misunderstood and people read it to fit into
what they want to believe.
[/quote]I agree. I don't think God told Moses one thing and
Jesus another. God's Truth doesn't change.
What it says to me is that when people behave with love with
each other, they don't need laws. The laws may or may not
still be there; but their purpose has been seen, achieved and
fulfilled. Paul is often hard for me to understand since his
style of writing confuses me; but I think that's what he was
saying here:
Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God,
but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature
the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are
a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their
conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean
while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Christians are very apt to read the laws of Moses literally --
by the letter -- in spite of Jesus saying not to do that. We
may not be able to understand the cultural context of all the
laws; but we can some of them. Take the one about men not
wearing women's clothes. What does that have to do with love?
Jesus said all the law of Moses was connected with love in one
way or another, so we can't say, "It's a sin because God said
so, and that's that." A little thinking -- and perhaps a
little reading of the news where we find today some terrorists
disguise themselves by dressing in women's clothes -- tells us
men can get away with some things if they can deceive others
into thinking they're women.
When Moses wrote that, women were closely guarded. If a man
could dress up as a woman, he might find it easier to sneak into
a house, possibly seduce a virgin and destroy her chances of a
good marriage. Then there were the males who did it to seduce
men. That can still happen -- when I lived in Reading, a man
told me about how he got tricked that way. He thought it was a
woman offering him oral sex and he said okay. Later on he
found out it wasn't a woman. Also in Moses' time, there were
pagan priests who dressed up as women as a way of tricking men.
It's in the news about how ISIS fighters have dressed up like
women -- there are some pictures here:
HTML http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995737/Islamic-State-militants-caught-cross-dressing-attempt-flee-battlefield-unhindered.html
Last year too, a "woman" was arrested in Saudi Arabia for
molesting other women at a mosque.
A man, who disguised as a woman by wearing the traditional
‘abaya’, has been arrested for allegedly molesting women at a
mosque in Saudi Arabia’s holy city of Makkah. The man, in his
30s and yet to be identified, was arrested by authorities
following a complaint that a woman sometimes used to enter the
bathroom of Jaarana Mosque and behave oddly.
It was alleged that the ‘woman’ sexually harassed other women
during the ablutions preceding the prayers, the Gulf News
reported. The authorities started monitoring the mosque until
they saw a woman, who was behaving suspiciously, leave the
building. They tracked her movement and saw her heading towards
a car with tinted windows parked near the mosque and got in to
the back.
No male driver was found in the car, the report said. The team
quickly approached the car and saw a man taking off the ‘abaya’
– a loose garment worn by Muslim women in some parts of the
world, prompting them to arrest him and seize the garment, it
said.
Surely we can see that it's not wearing of the "wrong clothes"
that is the sin. It's the intent to do something unloving and
using clothes to deceive others. I don't think it means women
can't wear jeans or that it's wrong for a man to wear a dress on
Halloween or just for fun. If all people were loving, it
wouldn't matter in the least what kind of clothes they wear.
It is evil though -- to use clothes to deceive others.
I don't read that quote from Jesus to mean he "fulfilled the law
so we don't have to." He said he came so it would be fulfilled.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all
be fulfilled.
I read that to mean the law will remain in effect until after
the Thousand Year Reign. It will be fulfilled by all people
then -- and God will descend and tabernacle among men, meaning
living in them all. What need then would there be for any
written law to tell anyone what to do?
There is an additional problem for those who say "Jesus
fulfilled all the laws of Moses so I don't have to." What about
the first commandment in the Book?
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:
and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Did Jesus obey that commandment literally -- by the letter?
Did he marry and have children? If he did, the Bible is quiet
about it. So why do Christians interpret it literally today
when talking about marriage and children?
I say he did obey it spiritually. We are to become like him,
like his children, after his image and likeness. Adam and Eve
were in the image and likeness of God, and their children were
supposed to be too.
Does that commandment have any physical meaning then? Yes, of
course. In physical terms, a man and a woman with children
should do their best to lead loving lives so their children grow
up that way too. I don't think it applies to evil hateful
people. Why would God want them to have children, so they beat
and abuse their children? Nor can we say it was a godly act if
some man seduces a girl in the back seat of a car, gets her
pregnant and then disappears. We could say -- literally --
they were obeying the commandment and being fruitful and
multiplying. The man in India who (at last count) had 39 wives
and 94 children
HTML http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/617681/Indian-man-has-39-wives-94-children-33-grandchildren-big-families-India-sect<br
/>would be a saint if we read that commandment literally. He is
a
Christian, by the way.
He heads a local Christian religious sect - called the 'Chana' -
which allows polygamy.
The sect, formed in June 1942, believes it will soon be ruling
the world with Christ and has a membership of around 400
families.
I think the question at all times is about love. And until
people are perfect in their love and wisdom, I believe studying
the laws of Moses can teach us something. It doesn't mean
however that we have to obey them all literally. Some of them
have a cultural context; and if the culture changes, how we
apply them also changes. Today few people go out on their
rooftops. In the Middle East then, they did. Having a wall to
prevent people from falling off was a good thing. But today if
you don't use your roof that way and don't go out on it, you
don't need a wall on it. But that law would tell you if you
have a swimming pool, make sure children can't fall into it.
That law (spirit of the law, not the letter) says today pools
should have fences unless you live out by yourself with no one
around. And second story porches should have railings. The
Law of Moses was about love -- and sometimes wisdom.
Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul:
the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
How could it make the simple wise? Take the example of a second
story porch having railings. If you were a simple person, you
might build a house and not put railings on the porch. You
might love your children but just aren't thinking. When your
child falls off and dies, you're sorry and then think about it,
wishing you had put them on. It's better to become wise before
disaster strikes.
#Post#: 12479--------------------------------------------------
Re: Do people believe what Jesus said about Moses?
By: coldwar Date: July 1, 2016, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If all we're thinking about is the 10 Commandments (which is not
the whole law, nor is it even possible for anyone to keep the
whole law now that there is no Temple in Jerusalem), please do
some research, and think about the following question very
carefully before answering:
Are there any instances in the Old Testament in which Jehovah
himself violated any of the 10 Commandments, allowed any of them
to be violated without consequence, or commanded a man or woman
to violate any?
#Post#: 12480--------------------------------------------------
Re: Do people believe what Jesus said about Moses?
By: Kerry Date: July 1, 2016, 7:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=coldwar link=topic=1102.msg12479#msg12479
date=1467384931]
If all we're thinking about is the 10 Commandments (which is not
the whole law, nor is it even possible for anyone to keep the
whole law now that there is no Temple in Jerusalem), please do
some research, and think about the following question very
carefully before answering:
Are there any instances in the Old Testament in which Jehovah
himself violated any of the 10 Commandments, allowed any of them
to be violated without consequence, or commanded a man or woman
to violate any?
[/quote]About the impossibility of keeping some of them, the
Jews do still keep them all the best they can . . . spiritually.
They substitute prayers for animal sacrifices and so on.
I can't think of a specific instance where God directs someone
to break one of the commandments given in the Decalogue; but I
can think of a case where another commandment comes into
conflict -- namely the commandment to circumcise males when
they're eight days old. The generally accepted solution is
that circumcision preceded the Laws of Moses and is more
important than keeping the Sabbath. Thus male children of
Israel should be circumcised on the eighth day even if it is the
Sabbath or even Yom Kippur.
Almost any of Moses' laws can be suspended in order to save a
life of course. The purpose stated for giving the Law was so
people would live and not die. It would be absurd then to argue
Sabbath observance was more important than saving a life. A
similar argument is used to resolve the conflict between the
Sabbath and circumcision. That is the standard Jewish thought;
and Jesus agreed:
John 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not
because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the
sabbath day circumcise a man.
23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the
law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I
have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
A further clue may be in the phrase "made whole." The Sabbath
was given to Israel (not to Gentiles) to teach them how to "come
to rest" -- to enter the eternal peace" -- "shalom" meaning both
peace and whole. Making someone whole on the Sabbath would
have been keeping it!
A similar argument can be made in favor of circumcisions on the
Sabbath for Jewish boys. Here's one from chabad.org
HTML http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/634611/jewish/Can-a-circumcision-be-conducted-on-Shabbat.htm:
"The children of Israel shall observe the Shabbat, to make the
Shabbat throughout their generations as an everlasting
covenant." The purpose of sanctifying the Shabbat, as well as
abstaining from work on this holy day, is in order to maintain
the everlasting covenant between G‑d and His people. As
such, the brit, which is the ultimate expression of G‑d's
covenant – etched in our very bodies – does not pose a
contradiction to Shabbat observance. According to this
reasoning, circumcision doesn't supersede Shabbat, rather it is
completely in line with the spirit of the Day of Rest. We honor
the Shabbat by conducting circumcisions.
On this point, I think I have to disagree with Paul. . . if he
wrote what is attributed to him. I do not think Gentiles need
to be circumcised; but I do believe anyone born a Jew should be.
Genesis 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my
covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their
generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you
and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be
circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it
shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you,
every man child in your generations, he that is born in the
house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy
seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy
money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in
your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin
is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people;
he hath broken my covenant.
You can see that was ordered only for Abraham's children after
the flesh in all their generations and for those Gentiles born
into their households. Nowhere does the Torah say Gentiles
need to be circumcised. I agree (almost) with what Paul wrote
here:
1 Corinthians 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him
not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let
him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but
the keeping of the commandments of God.
20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was
called.
If Paul wrote that, he was writing sloppily at the time since
circumcision of Jewish males is one of the commandments!
Caution is needed when reading Paul lest we interpret his words
to contradict things Moses or Jesus said.
Now note this -- note how legalistic and literal the Catholic
Church became over things like the Sabbath and circumcision when
the Council of Florence (said to be a source of infallible
truth) proclaimed :
It [The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and
teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the
Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices
and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify
something in the future, although they were adequate for the
divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was
signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of
the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the
passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits
himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in
Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not
deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the
gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no
way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that
after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed
without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all
who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other
legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and
unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some
time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who
glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision
either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place
their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of
eternal salvation.
That sounds to me as if they are saying if you are circumcised,
you are damned. If you keep the Sabbath, you are damned. True,
they allow for "recoiling" from these things; and you could
recoil from keeping the Sabbath, but how could you recoil from
being circumcised? How could someone get his foreskin back?
Note: This Papal Bull, issued by Pope Eugenius IV and approved
by his "Ecumenical Council", is basically not only saying it's
okay to break the commandments of Moses but you're damned if you
do! Should I go on to discuss the character of Pope Eugenius
IV, condemned as a heretic by the Council of Basel? That was
another Ecumenical Council, also said to be the source of
infallible truths! The Pope's solution to that was to
excommunicate them all and call another council that would do
what he wanted.
This was also the
[url
HTML https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM]same<br
/>Council[/url] that said they were changing what the Apostles
had said concerning the consuming of blood. Surely this is
astonishing. not only did they say the Old Testament was
outdated, they said parts of the New Testament were as well:
It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from
what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what
is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was
rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with
different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles
should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion
would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of
God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient
custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and
gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they
ate sacrificial food. In places, however, where the Christian
religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no Jew is
to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly
practising the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and
believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the
cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect
has ceased. It condemns, then, no kind of food that human
society accepts and nobody at all neither man nor woman, should
make a distinction between animals, no matter how they died;
although for the health of the body, for the practice of virtue
or for the sake of regular and ecclesiastical discipline many
things that are not proscribed can and should be omitted, as the
apostle says all things are lawful, but not all are helpful.
The prohibition against blood goes back to the time of Noah and
the covenant God made with Noah and his offspring and all the
animals. So say the Jews. It preceded the Law of Moses; and
it was binding on all of mankind. Indeed the things the
Apostles forbid in Acts is quite similar to the provisions of
the Noahic Covenant. These things did not change.
Their line of reasoning was also defective in my opinion. They
say the Apostles forbid this in order not to offend Jews? I
don't see that in Acts at all. Jews were told not to try to
impose their dietary laws on Gentiles. That is what Jews today
teach too.
It wouldn't surprise me if Eugenius IV is still burning in
Purgatory or Hell for judging people by such a legalistic
standard and also for actively teaching people they would be
damned if they tried to keep the laws of Moses and defying the
teaching of the Apostles. The irony is that some people
interpret the Law of Moses to mean you could be damned for
failing to obey them literally, by the letter while Eugenius
thought you would be damned if you kept them literally, by the
letter.
#Post#: 12490--------------------------------------------------
Re: Do people believe what Jesus said about Moses?
By: coldwar Date: July 3, 2016, 7:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking of what Jesus said about Moses regarding all
this, but I did not clearly state that - in fact, I didn't state
that at all - sorry!
"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one
that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he
wrote of me."
It seems Moses often assumed a role with Jehovah that was
bigger than what we give him credit for. One example, we see in
the very first Commandment:
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
But at some time after that, we find (Exodus 32):
"7 ¶And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy
people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have
corrupted themselves: 8 They have turned aside quickly out of
the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten
calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and
said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up
out of the land of Egypt. 9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I
have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against
them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a
great nation. 11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said,
LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou
hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power,
and with a mighty hand? 12 Wherefore should the Egyptians
speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them
in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the
earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil
against thy people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy
servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst
unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and
all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed,
and they shall inherit it for ever. 14 And the LORD repented of
the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Moses had to ask the LORD to repent. Jehovah wanted to destroy
the people and start over with Moses, but Moses had to intercede
to remind Jehovah that his wrath would be an embarrassment to
the Egyptians, and to remind him of the covenant he had
assuredly repeated with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Ultimately,
the LORD did repent.
Closely related to this, we have the Second Commandment:
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness
of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: ...for I the
Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation
of them that hate me..."
Because of Jehovah’s jealousy, he had commanded the Tribes to
not make any statues or castings of anything on earth or in the
heavens, to serve or worship – the point being not to worship
anyone (thing) else but Jehovah. The people made the golden calf
to worship, but not much later, at the very epicentre of their
worship, he commands that two images of Cherubim be struck and
placed within the Tabernacle.
How then did Moses "speak of me" as Jesus said? Moses spoke
through his actions, needing to intercede often with Jehovah on
behalf of the people who were put under this yoke of "Yawhism".
It is very true that the people were often disobedient, as they
were expected to honour the covenant of Jehovah's laws, the
which of here we have one example that He might have broken
Himself. In other examples, Jehovah gloried in killing
(gencide), stealing (plundering), looking the other way when
someone lied and deceived people and then afflicting the one
deceived, and the same for adultery.
This was a Law that begged fulfilment, as the very LORD who gave
it often transgressed it Himself. But Jesus proved himself to be
the only man, and indeed God, to fulfil this Law through a life
of intercessory Love; the same as Moses had tried to accomplish.
#Post#: 12491--------------------------------------------------
Re: Do people believe what Jesus said about Moses?
By: Kerry Date: July 3, 2016, 11:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=coldwar link=topic=1102.msg12490#msg12490
date=1467550174]
How then did Moses "speak of me" as Jesus said? Moses spoke
through his actions, needing to intercede often with Jehovah on
behalf of the people who were put under this yoke of "Yawhism".
It is very true that the people were often disobedient, as they
were expected to honour the covenant of Jehovah's laws, the
which of here we have one example that He might have broken
Himself.[/quote]I'm short on time but will try to get back to
you soon.
[quote]In other examples, Jehovah gloried in killing (gencide),
stealing (plundering), looking the other way when someone lied
and deceived people and then afflicting the one deceived, and
the same for adultery.[/quote]
I do not see any genocide in the Bible except with the cursed
race of Amalekites -- and I would argue they were not humans.
It was impossible for anyone born as an Amalekite to be saved.
My guess is demons inhabited those bodies from before birth.
What cases of stealing and plundering do you mean? What case
of lying do you mean? And what adultery?
[quote]This was a Law that begged fulfilment, as the very LORD
who gave it often transgressed it Himself.[/quote]I don't see
it. [quote]But Jesus proved himself to be the only man, and
indeed God, to fulfil this Law through a life of intercessory
Love; the same as Moses had tried to accomplish.[/quote]Did
Jesus have children? Did he obey the commandment to be fruitful
and multiply?
I think it confusing to say Jesus was God since the Jews were
told not to worship any other God. Jesus affirmed the Jewish
position too when speaking to woman at the well. Jews know what
they worship -- salvation is of the Jews.
If you told me Jesus was and is a god, that I could believe.
Moses was also a god, acting as a god for Pharaoh instead of the
LORD.
Exodus 7:1 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a
god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
But there is still only One God -- not Jesus according to Paul.
1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of
whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ,
by whom are all things, and we by him.
I'll get back to you about the two cherubim too. One Jewish
opinion (not mine) about them is at Chabad.org
HTML http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/256216/jewish/Unidolatry.htm.<br
/>
#Post#: 12494--------------------------------------------------
Re: Do people believe what Jesus said about Moses?
By: coldwar Date: July 4, 2016, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Genocide - 1) I agree totally about the Amalekites - they were
nonredeemable, possibly taking on the demons that resulted
before the flood, these would've had Nephalim spirit possession.
In fact, he might still be fighting against Amalek (Ex 17:16)
But there were other cases- such as what potentially He was
burning hot to do to His own people and Moses had to intercede
to stop him. I want to also include here any seemingly
unjustified killings, or intent to kill, especially as Jesus had
later proclaimed that calling a person a fool is the same as
killing that person. So here's an example (Exodus 4:24-26);
right out of the blue, the LORD wants to kill Moses because his
wife had somehow up til then refused to have their son
circumcised... why was she not threatened with death instead,
because she was to blame after all, presumably because she did
not believe in shedding of blood. But in a fit of anger, she
does the circumcision to the poor young man and throws his skin
at Moses.
Here's one I find particularly hard to understand - Exodus 22:20
¶He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he
shall be utterly destroyed. 21 ¶Thou shalt neither vex a
stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of
Egypt. 22 ¶Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto
me, I will surely hear their cry; 24 And my wrath shall wax
hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be
widows, and your children fatherless. In spite of all He had
done before against the Egyptians (arguably a Genocide), the
LORD commands Israel to be kind and hospitable to strangers, and
not inflict any injury on them (good!), but He in turn threatens
his own people with death and barrenness if they do.
Just as a foot-note; what exactly is a genocide anyway? We would
call the Nazi slaughter of 6-million Jews, or the Turk's
slaughter of 1 million Armenians "genocide" in spite of the fact
that Jews and Armenians still exist in abundance with us, so I
don't think the complete elimination of a race is genocide. It
might be the "intent" to kill an entire race, but that's not the
way we define it today. So I would say, perhaps wrong, but
perhaps not, that Israel's boasting about how "Saul has slain
his thousands and David his ten-thousands" was genocidal (of the
Philistines with David holding the office of Saul's chief
warrior). Did this song infer that Jehovah intended the complete
annihilation of the Philistines? Who in fact were the
Philistines? Christian Fundamentalists today say the modern
Palestinians are descendants of the Philistines, and therefore
their complete elimination now, as it was then, as they say now
is justified. But is it? They were not listed as one of the
nations of Canaan to be subjugated in Gen 15:18-21. In fact,
these 10 naions of Canaan, plus the Philistines, were to be
destroyed under the command of Jehovah, in a slow, methodical
fashion - Exod. 23:26 ¶There shall nothing cast their young, nor
be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.
27 I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the
people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine
enemies turn their backs unto thee. 28 And I will send hornets
before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite,
and the Hittite, from before thee. 29 I will not drive them out
from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and
the beast of the field multiply against thee. 30 By little and
little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be
increased, and inherit the land. 31 And I will set thy bounds
from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from
the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of
the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before
thee.
The Philistines had decided to fight back, to keep their land.
Were not all of these conquests the very definition of genocide?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page