Moses

[KeeperofSecrets]

In the book of Exodus, it talks about the ten plagues, and the last one being about the "first born" deaths.

Later on in the books of Moses, it talks about how Moses people have to give up their first borns.

Now is this because in actuality these visitors were just knowledged of certain things and events and used them to pursway these people that they actually caused a natural disaster, or did the visitors actually cause such destruction and their actions were not able to be undone? Such as radiation poisioning?

Because to me it is doubtful these visitors were god, because they fought with tools back against an advanced civilization.

If this visitor is considered really god, than how come he could not protect Moses people from the plague? They only knew the basic's of seperation and contamination it appears!

Also, why does it seem like Moses is described as disappearing from a time from his people and than coming back different?

And if Moses is such a understanding person as their god at present was considered, than why such a very terrible and harsh thing to not just give up your first born, but to slaughter thousands of the first sons to prove a point about idolizing false gods?

This is from memory{ If it stands corrected go for it....but I remember reading about they "Moses People" would stand out from all other <u>mankinds</u> , and it did mention being taught skills that would make them more advanced than all mankinds. } This sounded like a forever on the earth thing! So just who are these mankinds and where are they now?

If god is said to be of a supreme being, all knowing, than what would god need to learn for? If god is supreme than would he be beyond human failings such as greed, ego, the putting of one beneath another instead of an equal? If this is a belief than why is god mentioned as jealous, as putting people beneath him, as having an ego and I am above, when it is mentioned also into reverences of only man is capable of such failings?

 

[outhouse]

Moses has no historicity, and this part of the bible should be looked at as theology written through mythology.

my point, dont read to deep into it because real history so far, doesnt apply.




its best to understand what they were trying to teach in the lessons provided. As its not history

 

[Levite]

In the book of Exodus, it talks about the ten plagues, and the last one being about the "first born" deaths.

Later on in the books of Moses, it talks about how Moses people have to give up their first borns.

Now is this because in actuality these visitors were just knowledged of certain things and events and used them to pursway these people that they actually caused a natural disaster, or did the visitors actually cause such destruction and their actions were not able to be undone? Such as radiation poisioning?

Because to me it is doubtful these visitors were god, because they fought with tools back against an advanced civilization.

If this visitor is considered really god, than how come he could not protect Moses people from the plague? They only knew the basic's of seperation and contamination it appears!

Also, why does it seem like Moses is described as disappearing from a time from his people and than coming back different?

And if Moses is such a understanding person as their god at present was considered, than why such a very terrible and harsh thing to not just give up your first born, but to slaughter thousands of the first sons to prove a point about idolizing false gods?

This is from memory{ If it stands corrected go for it....but I remember reading about they "Moses People" would stand out from all other <u>mankinds</u> , and it did mention being taught skills that would make them more advanced than all mankinds. } This sounded like a forever on the earth thing! So just who are these mankinds and where are they now?

If god is said to be of a supreme being, all knowing, than what would god need to learn for? If god is supreme than would he be beyond human failings such as greed, ego, the putting of one beneath another instead of an equal? If this is a belief than why is god mentioned as jealous, as putting people beneath him, as having an ego and I am above, when it is mentioned also into reverences of only man is capable of such failings?

The plague of the firstborn is a retribution narrative. The firstborn of the Egyptians died because the Egyptians had put to death the sons of the Hebrews who were enslaved.

However, that retribution itself comes with a price. The price is that from that point on, all Jewish firstborn are automatically dedicated to the service of God: if their parents do not wish to give them to the priests for service to God, they may redeem the firstborn for a token sum. But they must redeem the children as a memorial to the plague of the firstborn, and what God did to enact retribution on behalf of the Israelites: so that they always recognize that bloodshed does not truly make amends for bloodshed.

 

[KeeperofSecrets]

Moses has no historicity, and this part of the bible should be looked at as theology written through mythology.

my point, dont read to deep into it because real history so far, doesnt apply.




its best to understand what they were trying to teach in the lessons provided. As its not history

So you don't believe that Moses is real, and this is just a story and so it was written for entertainment only purposes? Well I don't think its been given the justice it deserves. Some producer out there keeps passing up a good fictional story if it is a myth and "Battle Los Angeles" look out.

All myth and stories from the past have historical value, even if it is to portray their stories from that culture, but I understand what your meaning is, it is to you considered not an actual event. So are you absolutely sure its not an actual event, like say Atlantis is considered not an actual event?

 

[KeeperofSecrets]

The plague of the firstborn is a retribution narrative. The firstborn of the Egyptians died because the Egyptians had put to death the sons of the Hebrews who were enslaved.

However, that retribution itself comes with a price. The price is that from that point on, all Jewish firstborn are automatically dedicated to the service of God: if their parents do not wish to give them to the priests for service to God, they may redeem the firstborn for a token sum. But they must redeem the children as a memorial to the plague of the firstborn, and what God did to enact retribution on behalf of the Israelites: so that they always recognize that bloodshed does not truly make amends for bloodshed.

Oh, so your belief is that it was the Jewish who were the people of Moses! Your take is that god was the one to save these people and that the deaths of the first borns were caused by him for retribution.

Yet don't you think it odd, that god says to Moses, I am a stranger, a visitor who saved you? It also mentions something else about old god and speaks in relationship of father of your fathers, and than talks about the new god once he is not around?

So if bloodshed does not truely ammends bloodshed , than why the blood covenant? The spraying of blood on Moses and his son, is bloodshed. What about the blood spilt from all those thousands of men Moses killed, will there be retribution for their lives as well?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you don't believe that Moses is real, and this is just a story and so it was written for entertainment only purposes?

So in your world there are but two possibilities: historical accuracy and entertainment. Perhaps you should give it some more thought ...

 

[outhouse]

So you don't believe that Moses is real, and this is just a story and so it was written for entertainment only purposes? Well I don't think its been given the justice it deserves. Some producer out there keeps passing up a good fictional story if it is a myth and "Battle Los Angeles" look out.

All myth and stories from the past have historical value, even if it is to portray their stories from that culture, but I understand what your meaning is, it is to you considered not an actual event. So are you absolutely sure its not an actual event, like say Atlantis is considered not an actual event?

moses was written for theology, told through mythology.

there could have been a slight historical core, but the legend as its told never happened . it was told in allegory to teach morals and lessons that reflected the cultural needs, and the legend evolved and was redacted over centuries, as the cultures changed around the legend

its factual Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites that slowly settled the highlands after 1200 bC.

 

[Levite]

Oh, so your belief is that it was the Jewish who were the people of Moses! Your take is that god was the one to save these people and that the deaths of the first borns were caused by him for retribution.

Whether I believe that to be literally true or not, that is the narrative as written, and that is the language and the imagery in which the Jewish tradition has always discussed it.

Whether it is literally and historically factual is actually entirely secondary to the theological and homiletical lessons the story is intended to convey.

Yet don't you think it odd, that god says to Moses, I am a stranger, a visitor who saved you? It also mentions something else about old god and speaks in relationship of father of your fathers, and than talks about the new god once he is not around?

That is not, in fact, what the text says. It simply isn't.

In any case, God is not a stranger to the Israelites, however the particular name YHVH is new to them at that time; and because of the suffering of enslavement, the people have become theologically and psychologically estranged from God. Prior to that time, they had used different names for God; and even when they do not believe that God will save them from the midst of their suffering, they still cry out to Him.

So if bloodshed does not truely ammends bloodshed , than why the blood covenant? The spraying of blood on Moses and his son, is bloodshed. What about the blood spilt from all those thousands of men Moses killed, will there be retribution for their lives as well?

The blood of the covenent of circumcision is in no way related to or analogous to blood shed in vengeance. It serves completely different purposes, and it is done out of vastly different motivations, and circumcision does not end in death, or even serious injury. The two phenomena are utterly unrelated.

There is also a difference between vengeance and capital punishment under the law for specific crimes, or between vengeance and warfare. In both of those latter cases, we are discouraged from shedding such blood too much, but it is understood that there are situations where it is necessary and justifiable. Whereas in the former case, we are taught that vengeance is always undesirable and not generally justifiable.

Or so, at least, our interpretive and legal/philosophical traditions teach.

 

[KeeperofSecrets]

So in your world there are but two possibilities: historical accuracy and entertainment. Perhaps you should give it some more thought ...

Actually if you read about my world, I do not seperate myself from my environment, and that includes all that it contains in possibilities, including my faults. I accept my other parts of I'd and its ego. It I came across as knowing than its a humble apology.

It seems that my quest is to understand ones logic in their belief systems and what their based on and see their parts and reflect myself, yes my faultering views on those things.

Such as how Moses lost face with god. His ego got in the way, yes, but also didn't god say he wasn't able to be there and had left angels at that point in time? Sounds to me suspiciously like a visitor (someone consider of mankind) and not of god creator of everything.

I do not hide my belief and try to be up front about them. No trickery, my intent is clear.

 

[KeeperofSecrets]

Whether I believe that to be literally true or not, that is the narrative as written, and that is the language and the imagery in which the Jewish tradition has always discussed it.

Whether it is literally and historically factual is actually entirely secondary to the theological and homiletical lessons the story is intended to convey.



That is not, in fact, what the text says. It simply isn't.

In any case, God is not a stranger to the Israelites, however the particular name YHVH is new to them at that time; and because of the suffering of enslavement, the people have become theologically and psychologically estranged from God. Prior to that time, they had used different names for God; and even when they do not believe that God will save them from the midst of their suffering, they still cry out to Him.



The blood of the covenent of circumcision is in no way related to or analogous to blood shed in vengeance. It serves completely different purposes, and it is done out of vastly different motivations, and circumcision does not end in death, or even serious injury. The two phenomena are utterly unrelated.

There is also a difference between vengeance and capital punishment under the law for specific crimes, or between vengeance and warfare. In both of those latter cases, we are discouraged from shedding such blood too much, but it is understood that there are situations where it is necessary and justifiable. Whereas in the former case, we are taught that vengeance is always undesirable and not generally justifiable.

Or so, at least, our interpretive and legal/philosophical traditions teach.

I'm sorry but I'm going from memory and don't have a verse to give you currently. It isn't something that pops up in google for a fast reverence either. It like shifting through alot of different parts of an accounting and details makes it difficult for a quick scan. If this is a fictinal story like some believe, they sure went into some boring unneccesary details to the story, such as births and names of people that have very little to do with depicting a fictional story line. I mean by giving detailed names, that is. I mean keep it at numbering people would of been enough.

That is why I believe this story by the writter to be a dipiction of some actual occurance and not fictional.

When I was reading, memory was on Moses people encountering another people, they were said to be left alone, think possibly giants, and talks about in the future there will be a reason for this. Like there will be a war between giant people and other mankind. Starts with a G. the people mentioned. Anyways I have very little time to search for the answers right now, so it will be over the weekend before I get back with you on this. Could be I got it wrong or mixed up. It went something like God said to Moses," didn't I save you and your people, a visitor, a stranger", and talks about how to treat these people.

My belief is this was a visitor and not god, and alot of details seem to me to back up this suspicion.

Such as the big deal about them being clothed, lol.

 

[outhouse]

If this is a fictinal story like some believe

because its theology written in mythology, doesnt mean the original authors, compilers and redactors thought it didnt happen.

it could be based on oral traditions compiled by different geographic locations.

it probably isnt fiction

 

[outhouse]

My belief is this was a visitor and not god, and alot of details seem to me to back up this suspicion.

what are you talking about?

any chance you could quit beating around the bush with your original intent, and spit it out?

 

[KeeperofSecrets]

Sorry the forum or connection is suddenly acting up so I'm trying the quick reply. I am not beating around the bush, but going straight to the point. I believe that God mentioned in Exodus is not god, but a visitor.

 

[Shermana]

Later on in the books of Moses, it talks about how Moses people have to give up their first borns.

It doesn't really say that, it says that a "redemption price" (a few Shekels) must be paid for them and that they are consecrated.

 

[outhouse]

Sorry the forum or connection is suddenly acting up so I'm trying the quick reply. I am not beating around the bush, but going straight to the point. I believe that God mentioned in Exodus is not god, but a visitor.

then describe this visitor, anything with credibility beyond personal perception here?


been watching ancient aliens lately

 

[KeeperofSecrets]

I believe I did what came here to do and that is to prove a point about freedom even in a religious forum that speaks about love, compassion, freedom is the ultimate thing one can give. Freedom to speak, and freedom to be heard is not a never ending dead end with the tweekers that keep making up these false sites for me to toy around and play with me. hahaha! guess your a control freak that wants to fight boredom and I end up obliging by being an idiot and thinking I'll actually be able to talk freely with the public instead of a vindictive person such as yourself. Player... I'm getting the ability to cut you from my life. Th is week I found out how you took over my netbook and android. I know your m.o. and graphics for the style of your obsessive compulsive disorder and critism, player. and for the graphics, it is allowed you just don't want me here so you don't have the time to play me , just block, how compassionate, and what were you planning to do with my dead body once you got me dead? take over here at the homey... are you just evil following me around because you can not handle the truth of what I am? denial will get you no where scum bag scammers picking on a poor individual like a vulture who thinks I have anything left to pick at. go back to your caves....

 

[outhouse]

these are all personal issues which have nothing to do with this website/forum

take it elsewhere


tips


dont use wifi or your activities are visible

get a good firewall

get a good anti virus


clean your infected pc, and check for rootkits

 

[KeeperofSecrets]

Spirit

I am so angry and tired to the point that decided to do a childish thing and offering up my blood as a payment for action and a promise my soul for your death. But you don’t have to worry since you’re a” none believer” in anything supernatural, But if anyone could wish more for your pain than it is me.


That you talk with me means your the one responsible.

 

[outhouse]

you have faulty reasoning, you best look elsewhere to blame youe personal issues

 

[Levite]

When I was reading, memory was on Moses people encountering another people, they were said to be left alone, think possibly giants, and talks about in the future there will be a reason for this. Like there will be a war between giant people and other mankind. Starts with a G. the people mentioned. Anyways I have very little time to search for the answers right now, so it will be over the weekend before I get back with you on this. Could be I got it wrong or mixed up. It went something like God said to Moses," didn't I save you and your people, a visitor, a stranger", and talks about how to treat these people.

My belief is this was a visitor and not god, and alot of details seem to me to back up this suspicion.

Such as the big deal about them being clothed, lol.

I really have no clue what you are referring to.

There is certainly some midrash about some peoples that the Israelites encountered that had giants among them, but the language as used in the Torah text itself can be-- and often is-- interpreted as idiomatically describing them as particularly mighty or aggressive, rather than as literal giants in stature.

But the only time that these people come up as a topic of debate is the incident where Moses sends spies to reconnoiter the land of Canaan, and when they return, ten out of twelve are disheartened by the might and power of the Canaanite peoples. For this apparent lack of faith in God's ability to help the Israelites overcome even seemingly more powerful foes, that entire generation is consigned to grow old and die off in the wilderness, so that it is their children who actually enter and inherit the land.

But there is nothing about a war between giants and other humankind, nothing about God being a stranger (though there are many commandments where God tells us to be kind and compassionate to foreigners among us, because we were once strangers in a land not our own, where we had been treated badly). And I really don't know what you're referring to about the clothing....

It sounds to me like you are mixing up a number of elements of different narratives, and conflating them with elements of various midrashim, and possibly ideas from other traditions or texts....