If the post office bring you a telegram from your friend who has requested you to come out for dinner, you dont assume the post office has invited you to dinner. You know the message is from your friend so you can say "so and so has invited me to dinner"...its the same in this case...Moses could say 'God has said/God has told me' and that was perfectly legitimate, not a contradiction.
Fine providing the person who transcribed and sent ther telegram didn't make any mistakes in the transcribing ie. Meet me at 764 Main St at 7PM but the transcriber wrote 467 Main St at 7AM.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
quote:God is doing the talking 'through' the angel.
If i sent you a telegram and it came to you via the post office...who would you view the message as coming from, me or the post office?
A telephone would be a better analogy. Even though I'm talking at the phone, I am still talking to you directly. According to the text God spoke directly to Moses. The angel did not repeat what God told him to say. As I showed you with the text, as it is written the angel is not passing on words from God. God called to Moses from the bush. The text does not support your position.
Exodus 3 4 When the Lord saw that he had turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, Moses, Moses!"... 5 Then he said, "Come no closer! Remove the sandals from your feet... 6 He said further, "I am the God of your father, the God of abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."...
quote:if you believe the writers of the old and new testaments were inspired by God, then you must believe that what they said about God speaking through angelic representatives is true.
When the text specifies as such. I can doubt a later writer who didn't represent the story in the OT correctly.
quote:There are actually only 3 instances recorded in the bible when God speaks personally. On each occasions, he was speaking to Jesus Christ and others who were present heard... Matthew 3:16-17, 17:1-5 & John 12:28-30
You know better than that. God spoke to people personally in the OT. I'm only going to list one because you do know better.
God appeared to Abram and said to him...Gen. 17:1
quote:Paul is speaking about 'the word spoken through angels',
any message from God, such as one uttered through an angel or a prophet, is known in the bible as the word of God.
Jesus and the christians taught the principles, meaning and fulfillment of the mosaic law, therefore, as a christian I must believe that what they explained was the truth and came from God.
If God inspired them to explain that the law was transmitted through angels, then I believe that the law was transmitted this way.
You didn't address the issue. What makes you think the author of Hebrews is talking about the Mosaic Law in 2:2?
Hebrews 2 We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?
This is why people doubt authority of the Bible. You yourself pick and choose what has authority.
The text of Exodus clearly shows that angels did not give the law to Moses. God spoke to Moses directly, but you persist in giving authority to a writer over a thousand years later who supposedly knows better. You also claim they are both inspired by God.
Bottom line: you give authority to any text that supports your religious beliefs, as opposed to what the texts actually say.
quote:This is in no way a contradiction. If God sends a messenger to deliver a message, the message is still Gods and its as if God himself is speaking.
If the post office bring you a telegram from your friend who has requested you to come out for dinner, you dont assume the post office has invited you to dinner. You know the message is from your friend so you can say "so and so has invited me to dinner"...its the same in this case...Moses could say 'God has said/God has told me' and that was perfectly legitimate, not a contradiction.
Postal analogy is not the same as the burning bush incident. As I said earlier, it is more like a telephone call. The angel may be holding the "phone", but the text clearly says that God is talking to Moses. The angel is not passing on a message.
Of course you don't want to hear that the angel of the Lord portion is from the J author and the God calling from the bush portion is the E author.
These differences don't really pose a problem if one believes the stories are inspired, not imparted. If one believes they are imparted, then there is a problem.
From Message 1 your position is flawed and doesn't match up with the text.
Peg writes:
The writer of Acts says that God used Angels to transmit his messages to humans. Acts 7:53. He never spoke personally to any man, but his Angels did.
And I showed you in Message 10 that your statement is incorrect; but you persist in rationalizing against the text, which you claim is "inspired".
The Bible loses authority when believers can change the text to suit their own purposes. "Inspiration" (impartation) is also questionable for the same reason.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
Regarding the inspiration of the book of Samuel ...
Thank you for the exchange sista Peg. I hope things are going well for you.
Just on this point I want to relate this account from 1 Samuel. Samuel the prophet had been sent to denounce Saul the King who failed to obey Gods direction. Saul was told not to take any spoil from the Amalakites, yet Saul did take spoil and this is how he responds to Samuel.... . 21 And the people went taking from the spoil sheep and cattle, the choicest of them as something devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to Jehovah your God in Gil‘gal.h
Saul says that the spoil was taken to be used as a sacrifice to Samuels God. But in reply, Samuel doesnt condemn making sacrifices to God, he condemns Saul for another reason...
22 In turn Samuel said: gDoes Jehovah have as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of Jehovah? Look! To obey is better than a sacrifice
Samuel's point is that God takes 'MORE' delight in obedience, then in sacrifice.
If I may, I will first begin addressing your concerns regarding the book of Samuel, as well as its inspiration, by way of these two points you offer ...
1) In Message 113 you state, Psalms 40:6 is a prophetic utterance which asserts that '... Burnt offering and sin offering you did not ask for'.
2) Shortly after - in the same message you state, 'God takes 'MORE' delight in obedience, then in sacrifice'.
In light of these two points you have established, please explain why you then assert in the same message that ...
* God asked for burnt offering and sin offering.
* The sacrificial ritual atonement killing of Brother Joshua is required to attain salvation?
Or have I misunderstood your position?
If it was really true that sacrifices were never part of the mosaic law, then this would have been the perfect opportunity for God to say so through his prophet Samuel.
On this point, I have to ask you an honest question sista Peg; a yes or no answer will suffice for now. If I provide you with a verse from scripture texts wherein Samuel plainly states that sacrifices were not part of the original ToRaH, would you concede that 'sacrifices were never part of the mosaic law'?
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Regarding sacrificial authority and inspiration ...
Thank you for the exchange sista Peg. I hope things are going well for you.
sista Peg writes:
weary writes:
Everyone of the practices condemned as abominations by Isaiah in the following passage are then advocated in the sacrificial blood law books, supposedly commanded by Moses. I'll provide the contrasting scriptures and we must must keep in mind; logically, Fido cannot have both three legs and four ...
They are mutually exclusive. So then, either some Prophets are confused/liars, or some scribes are confused/liars; both cannot be performing honestly ...
But he who sacrifices an ox is like one who murders a man; He who sacrifices a lamb is like the one who breaks a dog’s neck;
He who offers a grain offering is like one who offers swine’s blood; He who burns incense is like the one who blesses an idol.
These people have certainly chosen their own ways and their souls revel in their abominations.
Isaiah refers to these practices as 'abominations' and he, like Yirmiyahu, Hoshea, Joshua the Anointed One, as well as Paul the Pharisee and others after him, equates them with rebellion. Yet, all these practices are advocated within the ordinances, supposedly delivered to Moses by the Father - the same Father who then delivered messages through the Prophets condemning such practices.
Sacrifice the other lamb at twilight with the same grain offering and its drink offering as in the morning - a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the LORD by fire.
... and an ox and a ram for a fellowship offering to sacrifice before the LORD, together with a grain offering mixed with oil. For today the LORD will appear to you.
He slaughtered the ox and the ram as the fellowship offering for the people. His sons handed him the blood, and he sprinkled it against the altar on all sides.
When a calf, a lamb or a goat is born, it is to remain with its mother for seven days. From the eighth day on, it will be acceptable as an offering made to the LORD by fire.
This easily shows that without nullifying the author(s) of various Psalms, Isaiah, Yirmiyahu, Hoshea, Micah, Joshua the Anointed One and Paul the Pharisee - and others, the above cannot honestly be from the Father. The tradition of rejecting Mosaic authorship of the sacrificial blood law books is also found in other areas of the Psalms which, I strongly suspect, is why Joshua the Anointed One mentioned them specifically, along with the ToRaH and the Nevi'im.
If God did not approve of sacrifices ...
Please sista Peg, do not put words in my mouth. I have not asserted at any point in this discussion whether the Father would 'approve of sacrifices'. I stated that such ordinations were not original to the ToRaH. That is all. If you would like my opinion on whether 'God' did 'approve of sacrifices', simply ask me.
Trust me on this one point sista Peg - being a filthy sinner, I know all too well how easy it is to be completely evasive and dishonest with people.
However, there is little room for an 'If, regarding whether the sacrificial blood laws found within the Levitical regulations of the law books are original. I would truly appreciate any bit of effort you could afford us within our dialogue that may curb the various word games you have been taught to play.
That said, first, you have asserted that a specific statement found in one of the Psalms is a prophetic utterance which states matter of factly that, 'Sacrifice and offering{the Father}did not delight in; These ears of mine you opened up. Burnt offering and sin offering{the Father}did not ask for.v. 40:6'.
According to this alleged prophetic Psalms, the Father did not, in any way, ask for burnt offerings or sin offerings.
Next, it has been clearly shown to you that Brother Yirmiyahu testifies as a witness to the fact that 'When{the Father}spoke to{the Yisraelites}ancestors after{the Father}brought them out of Egypt, {the Father}did not give them commands regarding burnt offerings and sacrifices.v. 7:22'.
It has also been clearly shown to you that Brother Yirmiyahu testifies as a witness to the fact that 'When{Yirmiyahu}tell{s} {his contemporary Yisraelites}all this, {the Yisraelites}will not listen to{him}; when{he}call{s}to them, they will not answer.v. 7:24'.
It has, as well, been clearly shown to you that Brother Yirmiyahu testifies as a witness to the fact that '... Lo & behold, certainly the lying pen of the scribes has made{the ToRaH}into a lie'. v. 8:8'.
And lastly, it has been clearly shown to you that Brother Yirmiyahu testifies as a witness to the fact that certain Yisraelites he delivered this testimony to '... said, Come on! Let us consider how to deal with Yirmiyahu! There will still be priests to instruct us, wise men to give us advice, and prophets to declare God’s word. Come on! Let’s bring charges against him and get rid of him! Then we will not need to pay attention to anything he says.'v. 18:18'.
So then, what authority allows you to state that the Father asked Yisraelites for burnt offerings and sin offerings or that they were ever required?
Much less that a sin offering is still necessary and required, in the form of accepting the sacrificial ritual atonement killing of Brother Joshua?
... why did Christ sacrifice himself at Gods request? John 3:16
Why would you even say that the Father requested Brother Joshua to sacrifice himself? Joshua never testified to that notion within the gospels.
Hopefully you will answer that as honestly as possible for me, but regardless, the Greek word for sacrifice is - transliterated as 'thusia'.
It can be found in Strongs's Greek numbers under and is no where to be found within the verse you provided.
... the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve,
And to give his life as a ransom for many.
Please, if you will, go learn what this means: Brother Joshua gave himself as a ransom, not sacrifice.
Why did God approve of Abels sacrifice? Hebrews 11:4
The first mention of an 'offering' - or minchah, is established within Cain and Able's approach to the Father.
The first mention of a 'sacrifice' - or zebach, occurs at Gen 31:54, when Yacov offers a sacrifice.
Have you ever heard of one passing the 'sacrifice plate' at a church service? Probably not, seeing as an offering and a sacrifice are not equivocal.
According to the testimony of Cain and Able as found in the witness of the bible, they made no sacrifice. The two brother's each made an offering.
It does not seem proper to assign whatever definition one so desires to a word just because it seems to suit their religious position.
Its not a black and white answer.
That seems an interesting response, coming from one who has not yet made the concession that there are gray areas within these various scripture texts.
Then again, maybe it is difficult to recognize what is black and what is white for one who may not differentiate between offerings, ransoms and sacrifices.
Please do not try to convince people that an apple is an orange, and that they are both, as well, bananas. It seems quite deceitful, dishonest and rude.
The fact is that God did approve of sacrifices and offerings when the ones offering them did so out of love for God.
Perhaps you are right ...
After all, as I understand, the Father exercises loving kindness, just discernment and righteousness on earth and delights in those who do the same.
However, withstanding burnt offerings and animal sacrifices is not equivocal to requesting them and requiring them, which is what you claim the Father did.
Have I misunderstood your position once again?
When faithless, wicked people did so, they were rejected by God and their sacrifices were like abominations.
Po' lil buggas ... in all fairness though, the Father may have rejected faithless, wicked people whether they entertained offerings and sacrifices or otherwise.
In the name of Brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
As I showed you with the text, as it is written the angel is not passing on words from God. God called to Moses from the bush. The text does not support your position.
the account shows that it was the angel who was in the midst of the thornbush, then God spoke out of the midst of the thornbush.
the angel appeared to him in a flame of fire in the midst of a thornbush....God at once called to him out of the midst of the thornbush and said: Moses! Moses!
So the account firstly identifies, not God, but the angel as being the one in the midst of the thornbush...this is why the Christians were teaching that the law came to moses at the mouth of Angels.
Exodus 19:19 says 'When the sound of the horn became continually louder and louder, Moses began to speak, and the [true] God began to answer him with a voice' Notice the verse says 'with A voice' and not 'with HIS voice'
God used angels to communicate his messages just as he did in the account about Jacob who wrestled with an angel and yet at the end of it said at Gen 32:30 "Hence Jacob called the name of the place Peni′el, because, to quote him, I have seen God face to face and yet my soul was delivered.
And when the Angels announced the birth of Jesus to the shephards Luke 2:9 says that it was the glory of God gleamed around them.
And its also why Jesus could tell his followers at John 14:9 He that has seen me has seen the Father also. because Jesus was the representation of God just as the angels were the representation of God and just as the smoke cloud on the top of Mount Sinai was the representation of God.
purpledawn writes:
And I showed you in Message 10 that your statement is incorrect; but you persist in rationalizing against the text, which you claim is "inspired".
I believe Jesus and his apostles were teaching truth. Jesus is the son of God and he knows all things better then anyone else so his word is trustworthy.
If you dont want to believe them, why do you bother with christianity?
Surely if they are wrong about this, then they must be wrong about everything pertaining to God so why do you concern yourself with christianity?
quote:the account shows that it was the angel who was in the midst of the thornbush, then God spoke out of the midst of the thornbush.
Exactly! God spoke.
quote:So the account firstly identifies, not God, but the angel as being the one in the midst of the thornbush...this is why the Christians were teaching that the law came to moses at the mouth of Angels.
But the law wasn't given from the thornbush. Show me the angel at the time the law was given.
quote:Exodus 19:19 says 'When the sound of the horn became continually louder and louder, Moses began to speak, and the [true] God began to answer him with a voice' Notice the verse says 'with A voice' and not 'with HIS voice'
Good grief! Whether God is making a different voice or not, it is God's voice. Besides, it really depends on the translation.
and the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder. Then Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him. The LORD descended to the top of Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain. So Moses went up (NIV)
When the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and God answered him with thunder.The LORD came down on Mount Sinai, to the top of the mountain; and the LORD called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up. (NAS)
And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice. And the LORD came down upon mount Sinai, on the top of the mount: and the LORD called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went up. (KJV)
I think the point of the verse was that God answered vocally and not as a vision.
quote:God used angels to communicate his messages just as he did in the account about Jacob who wrestled with an angel and yet at the end of it said at Gen 32:30 "Hence Jacob called the name of the place Peni′el, because, to quote him, I have seen God face to face and yet my soul was delivered.
I haven't disagreed that God uses messengers to deliver messages. I disagree with your statement that God never spoke personally to any man. I've shown you that the Bible also does not support your statement. As for the Jacob story, show me the words that show he wrestled with an angel. Just because he saw angels at the beginning of Chapter 32 doesn't mean that's who he wrestled with towards the end of the chapter. Connect the dots please.
quote:I believe Jesus and his apostles were teaching truth. Jesus is the son of God and he knows all things better then anyone else so his word is trustworthy.
If you dont want to believe them, why do you bother with christianity?
Surely if they are wrong about this, then they must be wrong about everything pertaining to God so why do you concern yourself with christianity?
The all or nothing scenario again. I don't have an all or nothing scenario. I understand the reality behind the writings of the Bible. Religion changes as civilization changes.
Unfortunately we don't really know what Jesus actually said. Basically he taught Judaism. He battled the dogma of his time.
As I've said before, I believe the Bible writers were inspired. I don't believe information was imparted to them. They wrote for their time and their audience. As I tried to get you to understand earlier, the Bible stories were probably told many different ways over time. (You know, the same way you change the text.) The NT writer may have used a version familiar to him and his audience.
Judaism and Christianity have some very good life lessons. Dogma, on the other hand, tends to be dangerous.
Re: Regarding the inspiration of the book of Samuel ...
Hi Bailey, yes im well thankyou, hope you well too
Bailey writes:
please explain why you then assert in the same message that * God asked for burnt offering and sin offering.
Because the law given to Moses stipulated the requirement of burnt offerings, grain offerings, peace offerings, communion sacrifices and sin offerings
the festivals associated with those sacrificial requirments were always a part of isreals history and that verse in samual i quoted shows that sacrifices were not questioned by the prophet...actually 1Samual 7:17 says about the prophet "But his return was to Ra′mah, because there was where his house was, and there he judged Israel. And he proceeded to build an altar there to Jehovah."
The alters were where sacrifices were offered, so obviously Samuel himself offered sacrifices to God.
do you realise that by this teaching, that God did not institute the sacrifices set out in the Mosaic law, you are really saying that the mosaic law was not given to Moses by God...that it is not really Gods law? Is that what you believe?
Bailey writes:
* The sacrificial ritual atonement killing of Brother Joshua is required to attain salvation?
This is what Christ himself, and the apostles taught
quote:Matt 14:14-16 As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf and, after saying a blessing, he broke it and, giving it to the disciples, he said: ‘Take, eat. This means my body.’ Also, he took a cup and, having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: ‘Drink out of it, all of you; for this means my blood of the covenant, which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.
Romans 8:34 Who is he that will condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, rather the one who was raised up from the dead, who is on the right hand of God, who also pleads for us.
1John 2:1 My little children, I am writing YOU these things that YOU may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one. 2And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s. 3And by this we have the knowledge that we have come to know him, namely, if we continue observing his commandments.
Bailey writes:
If I provide you with a verse from scripture texts wherein Samuel plainly states that sacrifices were not part of the original ToRaH, would you concede that 'sacrifices were never part of the mosaic law'?
I would need a good reason to believe, and i have a good reason not to, so no.
Whether God is making a different voice or not, it is God's voice.
thats exactly right and that is all that needs to be said and its exactly why the people could say 'God said' or 'God spoke' or 'Gods glory shone'
because it did not matter that God used angels, the fact is that they were delivering Gods message and therefore it was as if God himself was speaking.
This is precisely why Jesus could say 'he who has seen me has seen the father' and 'i do not speak of my own originality'
God spoke by means of angels and prophets. According to the christians, God spoke to moses by means of Angels.
purpledawn writes:
I believe the Bible writers were inspired. I don't believe information was imparted to them. They wrote for their time and their audience.
well then you are missing a very large and important part of the puzzle. Prophecies were uttered in their time, but fulfilled in a different time and place....therefore to say the bible writers only wrote for the people of their own time cannot be the case.
The prophecies of Jesus are being fulfilled upon our generation today, yet they were uttered 2,000 years ago. And the prophecies about the earthly paradise, the destruction of Satan the devil and resurrection of all those who have died will be fulfilled at a future time. The bible was written for ALL mankind and stretches into all times.
quote:thats exactly right and that is all that needs to be said and its exactly why the people could say 'God said' or 'God spoke' or 'Gods glory shone'
because it did not matter that God used angels, the fact is that they were delivering Gods message and therefore it was as if God himself was speaking.
Except that the specific incident, the writer doesn't have the angel say "God said" like the prophets did. You need to show that the angel is speaking, not make up an inappropriate analogy. Not even going to attempt the challenges are you?
Show me that God used an angel at the time the law was given to Moses. Show me that Jacob wrestled with an angel and not God.
Your blanket statement that God never spoke personally to any man is incorrect. Do you have a problem with God speaking to man personally? That shouldn't corrupt your beliefs at all.
quote:well then you are missing a very large and important part of the puzzle. Prophecies were uttered in their time, but fulfilled in a different time and place....therefore to say the bible writers only wrote for the people of their own time cannot be the case.
No they aren't. Check out any prophecy thread. You also miss a very large and important part of the puzzle by not understanding what the authors were trying to tell their audiences.
quote:The prophecies of Jesus are being fulfilled upon our generation today, yet they were uttered 2,000 years ago. And the prophecies about the earthly paradise, the destruction of Satan the devil and resurrection of all those who have died will be fulfilled at a future time. The bible was written for ALL mankind and stretches into all times.
Nope. Prophecies serve no purpose to be spoken thousands of years early. They wrote to their audiences. Sorry.
If you truly believed the words in the Bible were imparted directly to the authors, you wouldn't change the stories so often.
The fact that you can adjust the Bible to serve your purpose shows that man gives authority to the writings in the Bible. There's no inherent authority.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
Show me that God used an angel at the time the law was given to Moses.
Acts 7:37 "This is the Moses that said ... 38This is he that came to be among the congregation in the wilderness WITH THE ANGEL THAT SPOKE TO HIM on Mount Si′nai"
purpledawn writes:
Show me that Jacob wrestled with an angel and not God.
Gen 32:24Finally Jacob was left by himself. Then a MAN began to grapple with him until the dawn ascended
the account itself says it was a 'man' who grappled with Jacob...when Jacob realised he was no ordinary man, he asked for Gods blessing and when he got it he proclaimed that he had 'seen God face to face'
This is the sort of expressionism found in the hebrew language...it doesnt mean he literally saw God with his eyes, its merely an expression. This same expression is seen in other verses such as:
Exodus 5:1-4 "And Moses proceeded to call all Israel and to say to them...4Face to face Jehovah spoke with YOU in the mountain out of the middle of the fire. However, God did not speak with the nation, they remained at the foot of the mountain and only moses went up. Moses says that God spoke to THEM...its expressive language and not literal. In english it may be read as literal, but its not literal in Hebrew and those who know hebrew understand that it was not literal...which is likely why the christians could rightly say the word of God came through messengers (angels)
purpledawn writes:
Do you have a problem with God speaking to man personally? That shouldn't corrupt your beliefs at all.
no it wouldnt corrupt my beliefs, it really makes not difference in the scheme of things...but its what the bible says, not me.
quote:Acts 7:37 "This is the Moses that said ... 38 This is he that came to be among the congregation in the wilderness WITH THE ANGEL THAT SPOKE TO HIM on Mount Si′nai"
You can bold it all you want, but that still isn't what is written in Exodus. Exodus was written waaaaay before Acts. Show me that the angel was there in the Exodus story on the giving of the law.
quote:Gen 32:24 Finally Jacob was left by himself. Then a MAN began to grapple with him until the dawn ascended
the account itself says it was a 'man' who grappled with Jacob...when Jacob realised he was no ordinary man, he asked for Gods blessing and when he got it he proclaimed that he had 'seen God face to face'
This is the sort of expressionism found in the hebrew language...it doesnt mean he literally saw God with his eyes, its merely an expression. This same expression is seen in other verses such as:
Exodus 5:1-4 "And Moses proceeded to call all Israel and to say to them...4 Face to face Jehovah spoke with YOU in the mountain out of the middle of the fire. However, God did not speak with the nation, they remained at the foot of the mountain and only moses went up. Moses says that God spoke to THEM...its expressive language and not literal. In english it may be read as literal, but its not literal in Hebrew and those who know hebrew understand that it was not literal...which is likely why the christians could rightly say the word of God came through messengers (angels)
Show me that it is an expression and what that expression means. Please provide links that aren't Christian that support your explanation. Quite frankly, you make up so much I don't really trust your knowledge.
Exodus 5:1-4 doesn't say what you wrote.
quote:no it wouldnt corrupt my beliefs, it really makes not difference in the scheme of things...but its what the bible says, not me.
It is and it isn't. NT contradicts the OT. If it doesn't make a difference why bring it up? Why go to such lengths to make the NT writer correct?
It is and it isn't. NT contradicts the OT. If it doesn't make a difference why bring it up? Why go to such lengths to make the NT writer correct?
you are the one who is claiming that the NT contradicts the OT...you dont believe the writers of the NT are correct on this matter of how God gave his law to the Isrealites which is why im attempting to show you otherwise.
The expression that 'God spoke', or someone 'saw Gods face' is in those scriptures that I have already shown you yet you ignore the possiblity. Im beginning to think that you like the idea of a bible full of contradictions and holes. The OT says that 'God lead isreal out of Egypt' However, it also says that it was an Angel who was the one leading Isreal just as the account about Moses and the thornbush says 'an angel appeared to Moses out of the Thornbush'
quote:
Exodus 20:16Finally we cried out to God and he heard our voice and sent an angel and brought us out of Egypt
Exodus 14:19Then the angel of the [true] God who was going ahead of the camp of Israel...
Now think about this, If Jesus was the very Son of God, then surely God would have personally come down to earth to support him during his earthly life. If God personally came to Moses, then there is no reason why he would not do the same for his very own son...yet what did Jesus himself say?
quote:John 1:51He further said to him: Most truly I say to YOU men, YOU will see heaven opened up and the angels of God ascending and descending to the Son of man.
If God did not descend to earth to be with the one he personally sent, his only begotten and perfect son, how is it he personally came to earth to direct Moses...an imperfect sinful human?
it doesnt make sense. Jesus said that Angels would be coming to minister to him and supporting him, not God himself, but angels. Exodus says that it was an Angel of God who led Isreal out of Egypt even though it also says
Deut 4:33 33Has any other people heard the voice of God speaking out of the middle of the fire the way you yourself have heard it, and kept on living? 34Or did God attempt to come to take a nation to himself out of the midst of another nation with provings, with signs and with miracles and with war and with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm and with great fearsomeness like all that Jehovah YOUR God has done for YOU in Egypt before your eyes?
Moses words say that it was the voice of God that was heard by the nation, and that it was God who led the nation out of Egypt...he also says the nation was led by an Angel as the above scriptures show.
So which is it?
Its either 1. Moses contradicted himself 2. The christians contradicted the OT or 3. The hebrew language uses concrete expressions such as 'God Spoke' or 'Gods glory shone' in connection with those who speak on Gods behalf. Another example of this is how Moses wrote that he himself spoke to Pharaoh when in fact it was his brother Aaron who spoke for Moses to Pharaoh. It was Moses message, but Aaron was the one speaking it and therefore Moses wrote that it was he whom spoke to Pharoah. Exodus 7:2 "Youyou will speak all that I shall command you; and Aaron your brother will do the speaking to Phar′aoh"
quote:you are the one who is claiming that the NT contradicts the OT...you dont believe the writers of the NT are correct on this matter of how God gave his law to the Isrealites which is why im attempting to show you otherwise.
It has nothing to do with belief. If we stick strickly to the text in our Bibles today, the writer of the NT verse in question presents a different story than the OT writer. In Message 117 I presented the probability that the NT writers pulled from the Jewish Legends. Whereas Jews tend to use their legends to teach, Christians stay away from the Jewish legends. So if the writer pulled from the Jewish legends, then are the legends inspired? Do they also hold authority?
quote:The expression that 'God spoke', or someone 'saw Gods face' is in those scriptures that I have already shown you yet you ignore the possiblity. Im beginning to think that you like the idea of a bible full of contradictions and holes. The OT says that 'God lead isreal out of Egypt' However, it also says that it was an Angel who was the one leading Isreal just as the account about Moses and the thornbush says 'an angel appeared to Moses out of the Thornbush'
The text is very clear that God spoke out of the bush, so God did speak to Moses at that time no matter what his visual appearance was. Remember, my issue is with your statement that God never spoke personally to any man.
Exodus 33:11 The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.
I didn't ignore what you presented. I asked you to show me that it is an expression and what that expression means. I asked you to provide links that aren't Christian that support your explanation. How is that ignoring what you wrote? Just because you say it is an expression, which I guess you feel makes a point, doesn't mean that it is an expression. Show me that it is an expression and what that expression means. Since it is a Jewish expression, the explanation should come from the Jewish perspective, not Christian.
Appearing and talking are two different things. Show me that that angel talked. If God's voice came through the angel/flame, God was still talking directly to Moses. Remember the phone analogy. The text does not present the idea that God told the Angel what to say and then the angel passed on the message.
Judaism 101 Moses was the greatest prophet, leader and teacher that Judaism has ever known. In fact, one of Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith is the belief that Moses' prophecies are true, and that he was the greatest of the prophets. He is called "Moshe Rabbeinu," that is, Moses, Our Teacher/Rabbi. Interestingly, the numerical value of "Moshe Rabbeinu" is 613: the number of mitzvot that Moses taught the Children of Israel! He is described as the only person who ever knew G-d face-to-face (Deut. 34:10) and mouth-to-mouth (Num. 12:8), which means that G-d spoke to Moses directly, in plain language, not through visions and dreams, as G-d communicated with other prophets.
quote:If God did not descend to earth to be with the one he personally sent, his only begotten and perfect son, how is it he personally came to earth to direct Moses...an imperfect sinful human?
God can do what he wants. Maybe that's how the plan was supposed to play out. We can imagine anything we want, but it doesn't explain the text.
quote:Moses words say that it was the voice of God that was heard by the nation, and that it was God who led the nation out of Egypt...he also says the nation was led by an Angel as the above scriptures show. So which is it?
Its either 1. Moses contradicted himself 2. The christians contradicted the OT or 3. The hebrew language uses concrete expressions such as 'God Spoke' or 'Gods glory shone' in connection with those who speak on Gods behalf.
4. The redactor pulled pieces from different versions of the story and the NT writers pulled their information from other writings besides the OT.
Exodus 20:16 is not what you quoted. Exodus 14:19 is written by the E author. Deuteronomy is written by the 1st Deuteronomist. Exodus 7:2 is written by the Priestly author. Exodus 8:9 is written by the E author.
8:9 Moses said to Pharaoh, "Kindly tell me when I am to pray for you and for your officials and for your people, that the frogs may be removed from you and your houses and be left only in the Nile."
Other than the Priestly setup in Exodus 7:2, when did Aaron actually speak? Because of the setup, you assume Aaron spoke because they were both called to Pharaoh, but did he actually speak? The E author has Moses talking to Pharaoh.
The Bible we possess has contradictions. That's why we have to understand the lessons being taught or the arguments being made.
Inspiration (not impartation) doesn't mean flawless. They were inspired for their time and audience.
Exodus 14:19 is written by the E author. Deuteronomy is written by the 1st Deuteronomist. Exodus 7:2 is written by the Priestly author. Exodus 8:9 is written by the E author.
That's a lot of speculative assertion for someone supposedly above accepting the rearing up of "dogma".
Regarding textual analysis and the documentary hypothesis ...
Thanks for the exchange. Hope things are well ...
brutha jay writes:
sista dawn writes:
sista Peg writes:
Moses words say that it was the voice of God that was heard by the nation, and that it was God who led the nation out of Egypt...he also says the nation was led by an Angel as the above scriptures show. So which is it? Its either 1. Moses contradicted himself 2. The christians contradicted the OT or 3. The hebrew language uses concrete expressions such as 'God Spoke' or 'Gods glory shone' in connection with those who speak on Gods
4. The redactor pulled pieces from different versions of the story and the NT writers pulled their information from other writings besides the OT.
Exodus 14:19 is written by the E author. Deuteronomy is written by the 1st Deuteronomist. Exodus 7:2 is written by the Priestly author. Exodus 8:9 is written by the E author.
That's a lot of speculative assertion for someone supposedly above accepting the rearing up of "dogma".
Thank you for the interesting commentary brutha jay, yet - how, exactly, does it serve us towards loving the Father or one another, much less, contributing to the OP in any way? Not that I am accusing you of being a disciple of brother Joshua the Anointed One or being learned at all, but you remember what one of the assertions attributed to him, while spending some of his last few moments with his disciples, was ... right?
So when Joshua had washed their feet and put his outer garment back on, he reclined at the table again and asked his disciples,
"Do you understand what I have done for you?"
13 ~ "You call me 'teacher' and 'master,' and rightly so, for that is what I am.
14 ~ Now that I, your master and teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet.
15 ~ I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.
16 ~ I tell you the truth - no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the One who sent him.
17 ~ Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.
If any of us are greater than the teacher, brother Joshua, there is a good chance that it does not appear easily recognizable to any itinerant lurkers - so, perhaps we should focus on washing each others dirty feet for now. Anyway, what sista dawn is referencing is likely the 'documentary hypothesis' and it derives from a form of source criticism such as literary analysis1 or literary criticism2, not to be confused with, or mistaken for, pagan/mysticdogma3 ...
If you are so inclined, be encouraged to take a moment and peruse the theological application I have have provided for you from an apologetic institution.
I hope you can pay special attention to the information regarding 'Stylistic Differences' within the third portion of the blockquote ...
Quartz Hill School of Theology writes:
Literary Criticism
We have examined, briefly, the tool called Textual criticism ....
Literary Criticism attempts to describe the various literary strata, or layers, of a document. The Biblical books were authored and edited. Like any other material.
The task of literary criticism is to unravel these strata and to thereby understand the purpose of the author and the editors (or redactors) of the text ....
In particular, literary criticism describes various phenomenon found in the text, such as:
1. Doublettes. A doublette is a story that occurs twice. In Genesis there are two accounts of creation (in Genesis 1 and 2). There are two accounts of the flood (in Genesis 6-9, intertwined!). There are two accounts of Jesus' birth (in Matthew and Luke). There are 4 accounts of the resurrection (in the Gospels). These are called, by literary students, doublettes because they "double" the story or repeat it.
2. Commentary. In many Biblical texts there are comments made upon the text and these comments have become incorporated into the text itself. Whenever, for instance, you read in the New Testament that "x, being interpreted, is y", you have stumbled across a piece of commentary.
3. Stylistic Differences.The literary critic seeks to uncover different authorial hands in a document by noticing stylistic and vocabulary differences. For example, the author of Revelation writes in a completely different style than the author of 1 John. Their vocabularies and syntax are utterly different. Literary critics call notice to the differences and suggest that they arise because the authors of these documents are different people.
4. Chronological Varia. In some parts of the Bible one can read such phrases as "what were formerly called "seers" are now {called "prophets"".} This indicates to literary critics that the author wrote "seer" but when the document was edited the word "seer" had become obsolete and so the newer word "prophet" was inserted in its place.
These literary clues lead many to unravel these strands and discover a whole world of literary activity within the Biblical materials. The method of literary criticism is an important tool in Biblical studies simply because it allows us to unravel the threads and see the individual strands which make up the documents of the Bible ....
When the critic asks these questions he or she is not simply trying to tear the Bible apart. Rather, he or she is trying to understand the text as it is. This is, as one might suppose, a very important part of understanding the Bible!
Accepting the potential that learning about literary analysis seems to offer, towards studying the roman scripture text collection, may prove rewarding.
Here's to hoping those who look towards Joshua may embrace the spirit of truth - yes, even the holy spirit, rather than the dogmas of their ancestors.
In the name of Brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
1ie. secular application
2ie. theological application
3Wikipedia, 2009: Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. The term derives from Greek "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"[1] and that from (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine".[2] The plural is either dogmas or dogmata , from Greek .
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
Edited by Bailey, : pnct.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
™ Version 4.2