Christian Laws

quote:

---

childbirth made a woman 'unclean' because the original purpose of it was to pass on perfect human life. However, because of the inherited effects of sin, imperfect and sinful life was passed on to the offspring. This is why the offering was required...it was still an acknowledgment of the hereditary sin passed onto the child and reminded them of the need to be released from the sinful condition.

---

Please show justification for this mythology; and if you've learned anything about debating with me, you won't use the NT to justify this absurd position.Needless to say I don't think the OT supports your position and your mythology doesn't cover the disease issue. Stop making things up please.

quote:

---

but there is a consistent set of rules...its called the bible. I think what you have come to understand is that the church's of christendom do not apply the bible and do not teach the bibles standards.

​

The bible has been the same since the day it was written.

---

You know as well as I do the contents of the Bible are not consistent. Even Bible translations aren't consistent. Just read the accuracy and inerrancy forum. If the rules were consistent, you could list them easily, but you haven't. All you really shown is that Christians should be following the 613 Commandments the Jews follow today. What you have supplied so far is on that list or in the Oral Laws.When was the original Bible written? 700BC, 200BC, 100BC, 50AD, 70AD, 100AD, 150AD, 200AD...? You cannot show that any version of the Bible is the same as the day it was written.The Bible we have today is a compilation of manuscripts collected over hundreds of years that have been redacted and edited as necessary.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

what legal system did they live under?

---

Do you really want me to waste a post on answering that question? The laws of their respective civilizations or land they resided in.Civilizations had legal systems before Moses climbed the mountain.
Read Genesis carefully as a book and not as one-liners.Moses was cast into the desert because??? He broke an Egyptian rule.Think before you write please.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Thank you for the exchange Peg ...
Hope things are well down under. lol - I was not suggesting the prophetic traditions as a 'sect'. However, I am asserting that their religious parameters appear to be in stark contrast to the numerous brands of Yuhdaism and Christianity that have flourished over countless centuries. If Yeshua's Testimony is any indicator, there are distinctions to be made.The Hebraic Prophetic traditions were established through indigenous peoples who seem to have decided to serve their God honestly. As far as I am concerned, they were, indeed, not a sect. However, as I pointed out in Re: On manufacturing the emporer's new suits ... (Message 28 of thread God and the blind Tailor in forum Comparative Religions) ...

quote:

---

'Tradition' does not mean that nothing ever changes, as much as it may indicate that one generation sets standards by which the next might judge the value of an idea or practice before changing. This is an integral role played by the Original Testament prophetic traditions.

​

They may accordingly be the first practitioners recorded as employing what may now commonly be known as a unique form of critical theory.

---

The point being, it would seem, that the Prophets did not adhere to the doctrines of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes.So, the continuum of tradition inspired by way of the Prophets cannot often adhere to the dogmas associated within Yuhdaism.In the end, hence, the dogmas borrowed from her, by modern Christianity, are seldom supported by the Prophetic traditions. lol - where in the world did you come up with that gem? Are you sure it's not fugazi? Nevertheless, it seems to be an interesting perspective though ...If you don't mind me asking, is that why the first set of scrolls cast by Yirmiyahu and his scribe were vandalised and tossed in a fire by the acting king of Yuhdea?If that is the case, it is probably why he was thrown headlong into a cistern to rot, as well, I suppose. That culture, apparently, had a unique way of accepting things.Perhaps I'm being a tad presumptuous, yet ...I'm gonna venture and say that you haven't read The Books of the Prophets without your rose-colored glasses on, if at all ...Have you? The witness of the Prophets, as found within their booklets, are there for our discernment Peg. One can believe Moses sanctioned the Levitical regulations on the Father's behalf, or one can trust that they were later forgeries of a malignant nature. Both traditions are supported in 'The Bible'.I doubt you will be offended if I side with Yirmiyahu, which is obviously who Yeshua admonished, and suggest that the entirety of the Levitical meat packing laws, which is what they boil down to, were a form of rebellion. It seems well to draw a line there.If you contend the laws we have recorded in our bible were the actual regulations given to Moses by the Father and that they remained unaltered through the centuries, that is fine. However, as I pointed out, the Testimony of Yirmiyahu does not agree with you or anyone else who holds that position. Yeshua likely admonished that one would do well to search The Books of the Prophets because they were the only recorded Hebraic traditions that supported the specifics of His message. The Books of the Prophets contend that the Father desires mercy, not sacrafice, as did Yeshua HaMashiach's Gospel of the Kingdom.It seems the same cannot often be said about the Yuhdean trinity, made up of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, much less Babylonian Christianity and the likes. He referenced the ToRaH by the name that it had come to be accepted by. If you recall, it was also stated that nobody has ever seen the Father in the first place.As one begins to accept the words of the Prophets, that statement has the potential to disband most all of the authenticity afforded to the Mt.Horeb tradition.I'd rather trust Yeshua that Moses did not see the Father face to face, as well as Yirmiyahu, who asserts that Levitical regulations are malignant forgeries.However, I didn't come to this conclusion overnight. Why do you think Yeshua would attempt to address an issue that Yirmiyahu already addressed? Sorry Peg. I, although perhaps alone, feel you're more intelligent than that. Granted, the post was not focused on one thing.Anyway, bottom line, what I am suggesting is that the Prophetic traditions do not seem to hold to a sacfificial system at all.As a result, the Prophets were then often ridiculed and/or murdered accordingly, along with their peculiar traditions.That many contend Moses wrote the ToRaH, and that it has not undergone redaction since, proves this point.The fact that so many perceive the unjust murder of HaMashiach as 'Gospel' would seem to support that position as well.One LoveEdited 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 and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

By saying Jesus is Almighty God we are not syaing that Jesus is not a man. The incarnation means that God became man.Actually God's eternal purpose is to be mingled with man. You did notice that the "child born" in Isaiah 9:6 shall be called "Mighty God" didn't you? And the "Son ... given" shall be called "Eternal Father".Jehovah is the Mighty God according to Jeremiah 32:18.
Jehovah is also God Almighty according to Exodus 6:2.Please look at the two passages from the 1901 American Standard Bible published by the Watchtower Society: This leaves no doubt that Jehovah God is discribed in the Bible as both Mighty God and God Almighty. So the "child ... born" being the "Mighty God" necessarily means that the child is also God Almighty.Jehovah God is also called "the mighty" in Deuteronomy 10:17. So the child being called Mighty God would mean that Jehovah has become a human child.The KJV translates Psalm 50 - "The Mighty God, even the Lord, hath spoken ..". This would also mean that the child called Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6 is the Lord God of Psalm 50.The Mighty God is the Almighty God. There is no difference. And John plainly teaches that the Word was God and that the Word became flesh (John 1:1,14). That would make Jesus Christ who came in the flesh the Almighty God incarnated. No. This is a central theme of the divine revelation of Scripture. Jesus can be the uniting of God and man. I think you should take the Bible for what it says and not come with this preconceived idea.If the Word who can be with God can also BE God (John 1:1) then the Word (who became flesh (verse 14), can be both God and man. Same statements above apply. If what you state was true then Jhn would have told us that the Word (who became flesh) can only be EITHER with God or God Himself. Since the Word is both with God and God mysteriously He can be both.We are not asked to be able to explain. We are commanded to believe.
Salvation is not to "whosoever can explaineth" but to "whosoever believeth". You believe that the Word who was with God was another God from the God with Whom He was ?But there is only one God and He knows of no other. But the New Testament knows of no other "a god". This is polytheistic to have two or more Gods. Granted, Satan is called the god of this age. But surely you do not believe that Jesus is that "god of this age".The New Testament says that to the beleivers in Christ there is only one God, the Father (1 Cor. 8:4). But we have to embrace that to see the Son is to see the Father for the Father lives in the Son and the "Son ... given" in Isaiah 9:6 shall be called "Eternal Father".Not only so but the Son is addressed as God in Hebrews 1:8: When John writes that the Word was God John is only underlying what Jesus Himself taught, for He said that He was the "I AM" which unmistakingly indicated to the Jews that He was saying He was the God who conversed with Moses:"And the Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am.

​

So they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple. (John 8:57-59) [/qs]They understood Him to be teaching that He, as a man, was the great "I AM WHO I AM" of Exodus 3:14. Being a man so stating this, of course they immediately picked up stones to execute Him for blasphemy.But let is consider the passage of the burning bush in Exodus 3. This saying "I AM WHO I AM" came out of the burning thornbush. This is very significant in its symbolism.Moses was drawn aside to see a thorn bush which was burning but was not consummed. The fire and the bush were mingled together to form this unusual sight. Moses was surprised that the flame and the thornbush could be united without the thornbush being burnt up: Moses had probably seen many burning bushes in the desert. He never saw this great sight of a thornbush burning but NOT being consummed. This was a mingling of fire and thronbush in harmony, in union, in blending, in coinherance, in mutual interpenetration.This was a type of God incarnated in man. You know that the thorns were a symbol of the curse from Adam's fall. And Jesus came "in the likeness of the flesh of sin" (Rom. 8:3). Jesus came in the likeness of a fallen man yet without the sin of fallen man.This incredible sight of the thornbush burning was the symbol from which Jehovah spoke to Moses: Moses was afraid to look upon God, Jehovah in the midst of the bush. But verse 2 says "And the Angel of Jehovah appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a thournbush."The Angel, the Messenger of Jehovah is interchangeably used with Jehovah God in this passage. In the same way the Word was with God and the Word was God. In the same way the Father is the only God and the Son is God with the throne forever and ever.This burning thornbush which did not destroy itself was a symbol of the mingling of God and humanity. It certainly points to Jesus in the New Testament, the child who shall be called Mighty God and the Son Who shall be called Eternal Father. I will discuss this in another post. But consider the wonderful sight that Moses saw and its spiritual significance to Scripture. Moses late in life refered to God as the one who dwelt in a thornbush He blessed the tribes of Israel with - Now Moses could have thought of many other discriptions of God to bless here. It is significant that he recalled this phenomenon. God had appeared to him as a fire burning in a thornbush and the thornbush had not been burnt up as fuel.God and man are to be mingled together. Rather than it meaning the destruction of man the two Divinity and Humanity would unite in the will of God. That is all the comment I will make in this post.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Thanks for the exchange sista Peg ... brutha jay.
Hope all is well with you & yours ... However, by saying Yeshua is Almighty God, one would not be necessarily indicating that Jesus was a human. More to the point, perhaps ...It seems, a possibility of living the life and decisions of Yeshua are often overlooked when one imagines HaMashiach was/is/to be the Father/Almighty God.To live this life was the disciples task. Where do you find the word 'incarnation' in the bible brutha jay? I am only pulling up John 1:14, John 8:56 and Romans 7:4.All of these are ambiguous and none of them seem to indicate magic. Not for nothin', but the Father and Son are not obscure. Do we all agree that the process started a long, long time ago? Well before HaMashiach arrived on the scene in the flesh. In the beginning. This seems to relate to the reoccuring theme found within the booklet dedicated to the name of John, particularly John 10:30 ...

quote:

---

[My] Father and I are one.

---

In John 16:25 we read that Yeshua, while speaking through parables and riddles for a season, will soon arrange 'a time ... when [He] will no longer speak ... in obscure figures, but will tell ... plainly about the Father'.At this point, HaMashiach reveals that 'you will ask in [His] name, and [He] do[es] not say that [He] will ask the Father on your behalf'.That's right - Yeshua will not say that He is going to make requests on behalf of 'jesus groupies'. lol - does that seem a lil' awkward?It shouldn't, because there is a reason, we are told, that such a request on Yeshua's behalf is, apparently, most unnecessary.You see, the thing is, we're told 'the Father Himself loves you'. Why does the Father love 'you', one may ask? Easy, 'because you have loved [Yeshua] and have believed that [He] came from God'.No sacrifice involved. Rather, just a bit o' mercy on behalf of those who belief.Perhaps, to the point, the disciples believed Yeshua 'came from God'.Note - no disclosure that disciples believed HaMashiach was God.Certainly, there's no magic or mystery in that.Perhaps that is why the disciples exclaimed ... [quote]'Look, now [HaMachiach] [is] speaking plainly and not in obscure figures of speech!Now we know that [HaMashiach] know[s] everything and do[es] not need anyone to ask [Him] anything.Because of this we believe that [HaMashiach] [has] come from God.' [/quote]In this instance, the disciples believed Yeshua was The Anointed One ...Not necessarily because of a virgin birth.Not necessarily because of a resurrection.Yet, because they felt HaMashiach had all the answers.Again, no magic.Simply love.One LoveEdited 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 and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

I don't see the point of this sentence or how it is more to any point I have been making. I don't have to imagine that Jesus is God manifested in the flesh. I only have to believe what the Bible says.The Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1). And the Word became flesh (verse 14). Imagination is not requested. Belief is. As I wrote to Purpledawn, the life of Christ is made available to man since Christ became "a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) to dispense Himself into those who receive Him. It is not necessary that I find the word "incarnation" in the Bible. That I find the fact of it is.And of the verses you submit I see John 1:14 clearly relevant to that fact. I refered to John 8:58 not 46, as Jesus indentifying Himself as the great I AM Who was revealed to Moses in Exodus 3. I don't think I said anything about Romans 7:4. They are not ambiguous, especially given the whole teaching of the New Testament. And I never claimed that they indicate "magic".And that Isaiah prophesied that a human child born is the Mighty God is not obscure. And though it is paradoxical that the Son given is the Eternal Father, and though He is described as "Wonderful" He is nonetheless "unto us" for our experience and enjoyment.Magic has at no time been mentioned by me in speaking about the incarnation. When God created man and placed man before the tree in the midst of the garden, the tree of life, I firmly believe that this revealed His purpose that man and God would be united and mingled together.Since the last Adam became a life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) only after the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps we should consider that only by this time had the way been clearly paved for God to be dispensed into man as life giving Spirit.The Spirit which the disciples were to receive, John said was not yet until Jesus had been glorified: Jesus was glorified when He was resurrected from the dead (Luke 24:26; John 12:16,23) At that time the eternal Spirit Who was there in Genesis no longer was with divinity only. But the eternal Spirit included the incarnated and resurrected man Jesus as life giving Spirit. This life giving Spirit is dispensed into the innermost being of those who receive Jesus.And it is by means of the dispensing and permeating of this life giving Spirit Whom the last Adam became, that God and man can be mingled.This passage relating to those who are joined to the Lord clearly indicates a mingling of God and man which begins in the human spirit, the innermost being: In other words being joined to the Lord Jesus means that the Holy Spirit and the human spirit have become united to become "one spirit" within the believer. This permeation of the life giving Spirit, the Holy Spirit within man is to saturate his whole being. Eventually he is "swallowed up in life". The Divine life of God swallows up man so that man is deified. In Christ's salvation man is divinized. This is the mingling of God and man.The mingling does not make any individual fully express God in man. But as a collective and aggregate Bride the millions of deified and divinized humans corporately express that which matches Jesus Christ the God-man. That is precisely why in the end of the Bible you have a marriage between Christ and His Bride or His Wife the New Jerusalem.The saved, redeemed, sanctified, conformed, transformed, resurrected, and glorified saints match Jesus so as to collectively marry Him, so to speak, to share a living together for eternity.God's eternal purpose is to mingle with man to provide a counterpart for Christ the Godman. Another way of expressing it in the New Testament is the He is to be the FIRSTBORN among many brothers: God wants to mass produce sons of God.The rest of your comments seem to be reference to the distinction between the Father and the Son. We believe that they are distinct but not separate. One lives in the Other. They coinhere.Your reference to "magic" I find irrelvant. However the Triune God is very mysterious. I never refer to His being or acts as "magic". Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hi Bailey, Yes i agree with that. The purpose of the prophetic writings was often to bring the wayward isrealites back to pure worship. The people often diverted from their path of worship, and God sent the Prophets to warn them when they were going the wrong way.
Pauls words testify to this at Hebrews 1:1-2 "God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets" the reason the prophets did not adhere to these sects is because the prophets were mostly sent to oppose to the priestly ruling classes when they weren't adhering to the Law. This is why the prophets were often killed and persecuted by the leaders of Isreal. Thats why Jesus said "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her" (matthew 23:37)
Its also the reason jesus was put to death by them, he opposed them and pointed out their error when it came to Gods law and they believed they were above the law. I think you will see by my comment above that we are on the same page. The reason why I said the the prophets were accepted by ALL is because the books of the prophets WERE accepted as inspired scripture. Josephus showed in his writings that each book of the prophet was a part of the 'inspired collection' of writings and was in use at the temple in jerusalem in his day (first century CE) if you could provide the verses you are referring to, i can explore that. no issue with that. Moses did not see God face to face and i dont believe he wrote anything to the contrary. He actually writes in Exodus 3 that it was Gods angel who appeared to him in the thornbush. Also in Exodus 34 where Moses was on the mountain and 'saw Gods glory'...the account actually says that God came down in a 'cloud' So nowhere does Moses claim to have actually SEEN God himself.
Can you provide the scriptures you are using where it apparently says he sees God face to face? Thats better, short and pithy the way i like it lol.but, i have to disagree with you on that point. The prophets were isrealites who were bound by the same mosaic law as everyone else. So, just like jesus, they had to abide by the same requirements of the sacrificial system.It sounds like you are reasoning that when the prophets wrote things like 'i have taken no delight in you're whole burnt offerings' (isaiah 1:11) you are assuming that the prophets were against the sacrificial system. This is not the case. The prophets were sent to urge the isrealites to follow the regulations set down for them in the mosaic law...those regulations included the sacrifices.
______________________________
Malachi 3:7 "From the days of YOUR forefathers YOU have turned aside from my regulations and have not kept [them]. Return to me, and I will return to YOU"
_______________________________
Nehamiah 9:26 "However, they became disobedient and rebelled against you and kept casting your law behind their back, and your own prophets they killed, who bore witness against them to bring them back to you; and they went on committing acts of great disrespectThe 'law' they kept casting aside was the Mosaic Law with all that it entailed. So the Prophets job was to warn the nation to get back to the mosaic law or experience Gods wrath.

I should have been more specific... What laws did Abel or Noah or Abraham abide by? What civilisation did they belong to?

Leviticus 12:7 "This is the law about her who bears either a male or a female. 8But if she cannot afford enough for a sheep, she must then take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering, and the priest must make atonement for her, and she must be clean.’"This law requirement clearly shows that a pregnant woman was to make a sin offering after giving birth. This isnt because its sinful to have a child obviously for God purposed that humans do this in line with his will.What other explanation is there that God would require a sin offering if it didnt have anything to do with sin?Psalm 51:5 "Look! With error I was brought forth with birth pains,
And in sin my mother conceived me"The idea of inherited sin is shown in this psalm and the only explaination for the requirement of a sin offering is due to the inherited sin that is passed from parents to child.If you really believe that there is a 'spirit behind the law', then you might need to look a little harder for it.

why? and in what way? There has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.He is called 'Mighty God', not 'Almighty God' neither did he ever think of himself as God Almighty. He spoke of his Father as 'the only true God'In the Scriptures, the word 'god' can mean 'mighty one' or 'strong one.' Just to qualify that, Judges in Israel were called 'gods'. In speaking about the judges of Isreal Psalm 82:6says "I myself have said, 'YOU are gods, And all of YOU are sons of the Most High"So the fact that the King of Gods Heavenly kingdom should be called a 'mighty god' does not seem so strange. just a side point. the JW's were not the publishers of this bible. They purchased the use of the plates for printing in the 40's because of its rendering of the Tetragrammaton (the divine name Jehovah), rather than LORD as it appears in other bibles. depends how the translators have rendered the greek text and if they have used the correct literary device of the 'definite article' in their translation. The greek manuscripts where the translations are made, do have the definite article and some translators have chosen to include it.
here is what happens when translators KEEP the definite article as written in the greek text:

quote:

---

and the word was a god
The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London. 1808

​

and a god was the Word
The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.1864

​

and the Word was divine
The BibleAn American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.1935

​

and the Word was a god
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures,
Brooklyn. WT Society 1950

​

and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,Gttingen, Germany.1975

​

and godlike sort was the Logos
Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.1978

​

and a god was the Logos
Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jrgen Becker, Wrzburg, Germany.1979

---

before you debate this, please let me explain about the definite article.
In English we the definite articles - the, an, a.
In Koine Greek, they have only 1 - ho. equivelant to 'the'Now in john 1:1 the literal verse reads (definite article in bold)1.EN_____ARKHEI______EN______HO_____LOGOS,___KAI___HO__LOGOS
2.IN___BEGINNING ____WAS_____ THE____ WORD,___ AND___THE___WORD3.EN_____PROS___TON_THN,__________KAI____THS___EN___HO___LOGOS.
4.WAS____WITH___THE_GOD,__________AND____GOD___WAS__THE__WORD.5.HOUTOS_____EN_______EN_____ARKHEI ______PROS____TON_THN.
6.THIS ______WAS_____IN_____BEGINNING____WITH_____THE_GOD.the omission of the definite article 'the' before the 2nd occurance of god/theos in line 4, makes 'god' an adjective. It is describing the nature of the Word rather than identify of the person. IOW 'the word was of divine nature or he was divine'/Jesus was of divine nature'.Do you see whats happening in the 4th line?
there is a clear distinction between 'THE GOD' and 'GOD THE WORD'
These are two distinct gods being spoken of here. The Word is said to be 'WITH' The God, not The Word IS The God.besides this, i want you to consider this. If the nature of God is that of a 'trinity' the 3 Godheads in 1, then this verse is really saying that...THE WORD was with THE TRINITY.this implies that the Godhead is actually 4 in one because the word is with the trinity, not part of the trinity.I would like to discuss some of the scriptures you used, but i'll leave it for a new post, this one is as long as its gonna get. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : trying to get my greek and english to line up. not easy Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : just tidying up again. Edited by Peg, : last time, promise.

You don't get off that easy. In Message 195 you stated: (bold for emphasis) Leviticus does not support your statement and neither does the Psalm 51. The writer is referring to himself, not all of mankind.

quote:

---

What other explanation is there that God would require a sin offering if it didnt have anything to do with sin?

---

Remember, God didn't require sin offerings. Jeremiah 7:32

quote:

---

If you really believe that there is a 'spirit behind the law', then you might need to look a little harder for it.

---

There's always a spirit or reason behind a law. Sometimes these get lost over time and people manipulate the law (such as lawyers) by zeroing in on the letter of the law.I'm going to answer Message 203 here instead of wasting another post on your feigned density.

quote:

---

I should have been more specific... What laws did Abel or Noah or Abraham abide by? What civilisation did they belong to?

---

Did you read through the OT?
They belonged to the civilizations that governed them.
They abided by the laws of those civilizations. Ancient Law CodesIt's in your ball court to show me that the world had no rules, or laws what so ever before Moses received the commandments.BTW, what does this have to do with the lack of Christian laws?Edited by purpledawn, : Msg #

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Thanks for the exchange Peg.
Hope things are going good. At least I'm not alone on that one - lol There seems to be a distinction between choosing the wrong path and being given directions that are not accurate. Again, I can provide verses if you want, but 'the people often diverted from their path of worship' because the religious leaders in charge of the formal institution were leading them astray.While the Prophets gently guided the flock, they also chastened the devious, or naive, shepherds. Those words attributed to uncle Paul do not appear to support an assertion that 'people often diverted from their path of worship', and so, 'God sent the Prophets to warn them when they were going the wrong way'. Not that I disagree entirely. Yet, it seems, the verse simply implies that the Father spoke to the ancient religious leaders of the various brands of Yuhdaism through Prophets. Nothing about why or what was spoken though ...This is being addressed only to discourage us from loose quote mining - that's like hockin' pyrite to a pawn shop - lol. The issue seems to be more than one of adherence to ToRaH. The governing priestly castes were employing scribes to alter the very text of the ToRaH scrolls. This, again, is what Yirmiyahu explains in his booklet. As you've cited, the Prophets were often murdered, or driven out through ridicule, as they pointed out the deceit and vanity of the evolving theocratic monarchy. The reason I'm establishing that they were not accepted is because, well, they weren't. However, they often became accepted through the dedication and perseverance of honest practitioners. Now, while the 'inspired writings' did become canon, I am fairly certain this was much to the chagrin of the variant ruling sects.Yet, as they realized that the various messages delivered by the Prophets could not be suppressed, they decided to distort them, which is a practice that still continues to this day. A perfect example is this debate. One debater is suggesting that ToRaH was not altered by the scribes, and another is asserting the opposite. While one debater is supported by the traditions of the 'ruling sect' of Yuhdaism, the other debater is supported by the Prophetic tradition.Again, the bottom line, the various traditions associated within Yuhdaism and its younger sister, Christianity, were, and still are, formed through a process of selection and selective nullification, with the process of nullification submerged under the weight of polemical argument.Considering this, it should come as lil' surprise that a buffet with 17 billion forms of Abrahamic religion has been spread out for us ...As I said in Message 186 ...

quote:

---

The Books of the Prophets effectively lend us assistance towards discerning the forms of contradiction that have come down to us in The Bible, as they present variant records of both historical events, and doctrines, which, on examination, prove to be mutually exclusive.

---

I have provided them for your convenience numerous times, one such as Yermiyah's plea ... Hoshea's metaphors (Message 144 of thread If the Bible is metaphorical then perhaps so is the God of the Bible in forum Bible Study). It won't matter if you trust priestly interpretations over plain text though.If you would, be an honest and dedicated laborer, as you may desire to be, and read the booklet dedicated to the name of Yirmiyahu. If you are still unable, after making an earnest attempt, to locate the material that establishes this specific point of debate, I will assist you. Chances are though ...You'll find much more than you set out to. No. I have not asserted that such a verse exists and, honestly, it would not matter if one did. Regardless, that is irrelevant to the point of debate, as, even if the Father, Himself, indeed chiseled out the various commandments and stuck 'em in Moses pocket after crumpets and tea, it does not prevent the fact that the written ToRaH was later redacted and edited to accomodate the desires of the Earthly Priests and Rulers of the various sects of Yuhdaism.This is a major theme that the Prophets' continually drive home. lol - oh, no ... are you an O'Reilly fan? No spin ... pfsst - lol Yes, I see we do not hold to the same tradition here. I would say the Prophets, along with the rest of those who become lucky enough to entertain existence, are bound to Yeshua's interpretation of ToRaH, which is guided by a merciful spirit. This spirit of mercy cannot be forged.What you refer to as the 'mosaic law' was a written ToRaH that could be redacted and edited as necessary in order to accomodate the wishes of the priestly castes. These revisions are frequently referred to as 'human commandments' and 'doctrines o' demons', but they did assist greatly in boosting Yisrael's economy. As I am only a heathen, both Yirmiyahu and HaMashiach explain this better than I.One may, of course, have to welcome common sense with open arms too, which seems to be, often, frowned upon. The requirements of ToRaH are to teshuva and emunah the Father. All I can say at this point is, perhaps, read and study the Prophets' booklets without preconcieved ideas Peg. Be guided by the spirit of ToRaH and not the doctrines of men. This is how Yeshua, the Prophets and early Mashiach's behaved.
It seems too bad that so many perform otherwise. I am not assuming anything. I am making an earnest effort to follow the plain text of the Prophetic booklets and subsequently discarding various jewish and christian dogmas that do not correlate therein from the spirit of my tradition. Keep in mind, I'm not a 'jew' or a 'christian'. I'm just a weary pilgrim.That is the case. The Prophets were sent for various reasons. As I've stated, the Prophets were not charged to simply 'urge the israelites to follow the regulations set down for them in the mosaic law' whose 'regulations included the sacrifices'. More importantly, the Prophets challenged the 'lying pens of the scribes', as brutha Yirmi might say. Again, in the end of the matter, the religion of HaMashiach shines light on the religious parameters involved in the prophetic traditions.They do not ever appear to accept 'magic blood rituals' in order to sustain the economy, much less, attain continuous living.Instead, with the reality of persecution and the threat of death looming all around them, they turn and trust the Father.I have to run some errands now, but thank you for your time and energy. As far as I'm concerned, it's priceless.One LoveEdited 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 and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

If you read my post carefully you will see that I anticipated this old objection. I proved to you that Jehovah God is called both Mighty God and Almighty God.It is true that His Father is the only true God. But the only true God is on a journey to be dispensed INTO man. To make this "journey" God became a man and the man became a life giving Spirit.So the obedient and humble Son of God exalted His Father on the road to God being dispensed into man. The Apostle John is not saying ANYTHING that Jesus did not teach. God is about dispensing Himself as eternal life into man. Those communicable attributes of Himself He intends to dispense into man that man might live in God and God in him.What does the word "this" refer to in 1 John 5:22? [T]his refers to God in whom the discples are, and His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. This is the true God AS eternal life to man.This is not the raw God but the God Who has been processed through incarnation, death, and resurrection. To say that the Word became flesh is a kind of process. To say that the last Adam became a life giving Spirit is also a kind of process.In His economical move the Triune God compounded the man Jesus into the eternal Spirit Who is God. And He dispenses the man Jesus as the life giving Spirit into man. This man is God become flesh. And this man as the last Adam "became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)The apostles are in Him. The believers are all in Him, those who are received Him and have been redeemed by His precious blood.The only true God and His Son are the true God and eternal life and man is to be put IN Him.Did you not read it? It is all about God dispensing Himself in Christ into His people that God and man may be mingled together. He retains the headship of this relationship. I assure you that the more you exalt the man Jesus the happier the Father will be. For He is mysteriously the Father anyway.If the prophet Isaiah said He is called Wonderful Counselor it must because He IS that which He is called. If He is called Prince of Peace it must beceause He IS that which He is called.And if He is called Mighty God, and Jehovah is the Mighty God then the little born child must be Jehovah the Mighty God. And if He is called Eternal Father than He must be the Eternal Father.I cannot explain this. But He must be that which He is CALLED. No? If He is NOT the Wonderful Counselor than He should not be called the Wonderful Counselor, And if He is not the Prince of Peace then He should not be called the Prince of Peace. And if He is not the Mighty God then He should not be called the Mighty God. And if He is not the Eternal Father then He should not be called Eternal Father.He must be that which He is CALLED.I am not called to be able to explain. I am called to believe. I will probably come back to that objection latter. I'll return to this latter most likely. Thanks for that information. And they most likely stopped using it (an excellent translation) because it negated their theology of making Jesus a created angelic being rather than Jehovah God Himself become flesh.They replaced it didn't they? They replaced it with their New World Translation tailor made to push their polytheistic beliefs in two gods in John 1:1 - God and the Logos as an inferior god. I was told by a Dr. Eugene Van Ness Goetchuis, author of the book The Language of the New Testament, a basic NT Greek introductory course for seminary, that "a God" was by far the less likely rendering of John 1:1.I do not read and write fluently New Testament Greek. I was tutored in it long ago with others under Dr. Goetchuis and if you argued with this scholar about it I think you would not get far.I don't mean to be a credentialist on you. But the translation And the Word was God is very well established among scholars who do read and write ancient NT Greek.Do you read and write NT Greek fluently yourself ? I do not read Greek very well. And I will not immediatly comment on these remarks.But I will say this. You are using polytheistic belief to argue against the belief in the Trinity. And for me Trinity does not mean three Gods but one Triune, one three-one God.So you directly contradict all the utterances of Jehovah that there is only He as God. Those statements which I quoted must be untrue for you to assert that there was God Almighty and another God Logos = TWO Gods.We who follow the more accepted translation of John 1:1 do not accept the ancient belief in polytheism. You have a pantheon of Gods there. And this is far more ancient Egyptian and ancient Babylonian than the Word being God and becoming incarnated.Etenal life should be expected to be a Divine Life beyond what we would normally comprehend with our limited minds.What I see in the more accepted translation of John 1:1,14 is that as long as God was the Word was. So that there was no time when God was but His Word was not.The book of Hebrews, in drawing from the typology of Melchesedek, says that the Son of God was "without beginning of days." This would mean without a start. See Hebrews 7:3. This would agree with the Word being WITH GOD and being God.But I will move on here.Jesus identified Himself as the God of the Old Testament here in Matthew also: It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young (Isaiah 31:5; Deut. 32:11-12). Hence when Jesus said, "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings," He indicated that He was God Himself.The incarnation of God as man is also strongly indicated in the passage because after this He says: So in this passage Jesus indicates that He is Jehovah God of the Old Testament plus He comes in the new testament age in the name of the Lord.This would agree with the Word being with God, being God, and becomming flesh, the only begotten Son declaring God whom no man has ever seen.My God is the man Jesus now and for eternity.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Peg, consider this comparisons between YHWH and Jesus summarized below. The purpose is to demonstrate that the Son Jesus is the incarnation of God Almighty.Copied by Permission from Christian Thinktank Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

purpledawn, the bible was written for ALL of mankind, the psalmists were writing under inspiritation as a means of teaching through songs. Have you never heard of a song that teach's important lessons to those who hear it.The american national anthem was written a long time ago, do you assume it was only intended for those who wrote it? You may need to read the context of Jeremiah 7. This is talking about 'human' sacrifices, not animal sacrifices. It seems that some Israelites had adopted this demonic practice from the cannanites.

quote:

---

Psalm 106:35-38 says: "They went mingling with the nations and took up learning their works. And they kept serving their idols, and these came to be a snare to them. And they would sacrifice their sons and their daughters to demons. So they kept spilling innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land came to be polluted with bloodshed.

---

Jeremiah was sent to condemn these sorts of sacrifices.
Jeremiah 7: 30-31 says "They have set their disgusting things in the house upon which my name has been called, in order to defile it. And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart."You really would do well to read these scriptures in context. and i asked you specifically for the name of the civilisation that governed Noah and his sons. tell me first what civilisation noah was governed by and i will tell you what it has to do with christian laws.