New Testament - can someone help please

[Phantasman]

Oh, but it is. What parts of this world were Christians told not to be a part of? First of all, they were never told to be part of its government. Governments serve a purpose and God permits them because some sort of order is better than total anarchy. Christ's disciples were commissioned to preach about his incoming Kingdom, and so the means to do that, even though difficult at times, had to be facilitated. He told us to obey the authorities, except when their laws violated God's. (Acts 5:29)

The Bible clearly identifies the ruler of this world as satan the devil. (1 John 5:19)
When Jesus was being tempted by him, he admitted that "all the kingdoms of the world" were his 'to give to whomever he wished'. (Luke 4:5-7) Jesus did not dispute his claim and it would not have been a temptation had it not been true. So no political meddling for Christ's disciples. They were to be completely neutral as Jesus was...he had more important things to do and so did they.

We could not be part of our nation's military either, because we are to be "at peace with all men". We cannot even train to kill other human beings. Our weapons are not fleshly, but spiritual. We cannot shed innocent blood. No wars today spare the innocent. The weapons used are indiscriminate. If we have blood on our hands, we cannot even pray and be heard by God. (Isaiah 1:15) We cannot condone the bloodshed even if we never engage in it ourselves. (Romans 1:32)
Would this answer the question as to why so many prayers seemingly go unanswered?

Secondly, we would not be part of this world's materialistic lifestyle, sacrificing the important things in life (spiritual pursuits and family time) for material gain and what money can buy. Slaving for riches is an opposite course to slaving for God. (Matthew 6:24; 1 Timothy 6:10) 'The love of money is the root of all evil', as this world demonstrates so clearly. People will sacrifice so much for money.

We need to earn a living, not furnish a lifestyle. Providing for our families does not require that we live in luxury. (1 Timothy 6:8; Proverbs 30:8)
Whatever is a modest standard of living in our country, that is what we should aim for.

Thirdly, we would not be part of the world's immoral standards. Be that sexual immorality (gay or straight) or in matters of honesty, integrity and trustworthiness in our employment, our marriage and in our everyday activities. Christian is as Christian does. It's about what we do, not just what we say. (James 2:26)



I think you have misunderstood me. We were talking about involving ourselves in the defense of our country, not in personally defending loved ones in our home or on the street. We would most certainly do that but without the use of deadly force, i.e. deliberately trying to kill an assailant. As I mentioned, when Jesus was confronted with violence, he fled the scene rather than confront the offenders. If we can do that to avoid a violent confrontation, then that is the best option. But if any person was being attacked, we would of course act to save that person if at all possible....at the same time trying to dodge the morons filming the event to post it on YouTube.

In the case of Peter taking off the ear of the High Priest's slave, Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword....but he also said that his attendants 'would have fought' if they were defending something earthly with God's sanction. (John 18:36) This is what ancient Israel did. So to correlate that with what Jesus taught regarding 'loving our enemies' we have to balance what he said with what he did and imitate his actions.



They were told to buy swords so that Jesus could demonstrate that, although they were armed, they would not retaliate with violence. If Jesus had meant the sword to be used in his defense, why would he rebuke Peter for doing so? Why would he say that two swords were enough to confront an armed mob? If the apostles had to go and procure those swords, it means that they were unarmed up until that point.



Please provide the actual law and we can investigate what it says. AFAIK the intention would be to neutralize the aggression or stop the attack. This being the case, if the aggressor was seriously harmed or killed in such a situation, his death would be accidental and not deliberate.

In Israel an person found guilty of manslaughter still had to pay a penalty. An unlawful death was still to be accounted for. (Genesis 9:5; Numbers 35:13-16)



I agree. A Christian will take a bullet for someone, but he would not fire one. (wasn't that Jesus' example?) Being unarmed, means that we would not be in a situation to make a rash decision to blow someone away if they were merely trying to steal a woman's handbag for drug money for example.

Trying to stop a criminal, if it meant more harm than good in the outcome, would accomplish nothing if it made you a murderer.

That would be my take on the situation.

Excellent synopsis of the flesh vs spirit in the teachings of Christ.

If Jesus said that the "flesh profits nothing" then why would a Christian protect his flesh by murdering another? It was this spiritual truth that the gnostics understood, and why they didn't physically fight the early catholic ideology that gained power, casted them as heretics and killed them for not converting to Catholicism. Arius at Nicaea being one of the many.

Jesus put no value on the flesh, even saying that to give it up for another, is the greatest gift. The gnostics knew this through the hidden knowledge (spirit) given to man once man understood and nurtured the seed (word of God).

Secret James:
And I answered and said to him: "Lord, do not mention to us the cross and the death, for they are far from you."
The Lord answered and said: "Truly I say to you, none will be saved unless they believe in my cross. But those who have believed in my cross, theirs is the Kingdom of God. Therefore, become seekers for death, just as the dead who seek for life, for that which they seek is revealed to them. And what is there to concern them? When you turn yourselves towards death, it will make known to you election. In truth I say to you, none of those who are afraid of death will be saved. For the Kingdom of God belongs to those who have put themselves to death. Become better than I; make yourselves like the son of the Holy Spirit."

If death is the beginning of true life with the Father, those who avoid or fear it are not of faith of the Spirit. They are of the physical (flesh) adorning their flesh with caskets for their dead and great garments to show those who see the flesh as pure and powerful.

Gospel of Philip:
Some are afraid lest they rise naked. Because of this they wish to rise in the flesh, and they do not know that it is those who wear the flesh who are naked. It is those who [...] to unclothe themselves who are not naked. "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Co 15:50). What is this which will not inherit? This which is on us. But what is this, too, which will inherit? It is that which belongs to Jesus and his blood. Because of this he said "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him" (Jn 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit. He who has received these has food and he has drink and clothing. I find fault with the others who say that it will not rise. Then both of them are at fault. You say that the flesh will not rise. But tell me what will rise, that we may honor you. You say the Spirit in the flesh, and it is also this light in the flesh. (But) this too is a matter which is in the flesh, for whatever you shall say, you say nothing outside the flesh. It is necessary to rise in this flesh, since everything exists in it. In this world, those who put on garments are better than the garments. In the Kingdom of Heaven, the garments are better than those that put them on.

1 Corinth:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Gnosis ( spiritual knowledge) is the cure to being spiritually discerned. Otherwise, men follows the path of the natural man.

Paul explains death the same way the gnosis does:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

 

[metis]

Oh, but it is.

Again, that's nonsense. You may not vote, but do you spend money? [economic institution]
have kids who go to school? [educational institution] go to the doctor? [medical institution] etc. The only thing that you're not a part of is voting because even the political institution has an effect on you even if you were to try and completely avoid it.

Our weapons are not fleshly, but spiritual. We cannot shed innocent blood.

First of all, if someone is attacking you and your family whom have done nothing wrong, I hardly would call the attackers "innocent".

Secondly, not to defend your family and other innocent people from attack, including war, is selfish, thus not "spiritual". It's basically saying that what you think about your own "salvation" trumps other people's lives. Torah, otoh, demands that we do our best to try and stop violence against the innocent even if it means we must use deadly force at last resort. The "Just War Theory" says much the same, and it also makes good theological sense.

Please provide the actual law and we can investigate what it says.

See here: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) Now, the info you request is not found in just one location, but most are covered in 285+ and 598+.

 

[Phantasman]

Paul states the the "false gospel" given to the Galatians is of the Jews (circumcised) trying to influence on a level of flesh (law, circumcision, foods). He says that Peter is to blame, succumbing to the Jews (Pharisee's).

Galatians 2:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles )

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. (Jews)

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. (not dead by the law, but to it)

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.


It was never instituted that the law (of the Jews) incorporate itself into the true Gospel. The law was flesh, Gospel spirit (love is spirit in which the law stood on but through Christ was fulfilled).

If you read Galatians, you'll see who was to blame for the false gospel>

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.


If you learn about the Incident at Antioch, you'll see that the outcome is left to the reader. Gnosis teaches Paul was correct. Orthodoxy see's Peter side.

My view is that the flesh profits nothing, and there is too much relasing us from the law, carving up the flesh (as being beneficial for spirit) and what goes into the mouth doesn't defile a man but what comes out of it. Eating only fish on Fridays? Never understood that. Same with Lent.

Just my perspective.

 

[metis]

Eating only fish on Fridays?

It's "brain food", so maybe give it a chance to work on ya.

It's a form of "fasting", which indeed is found in both testaments.

Same with Lent.

Again, it's a 40 day time period of partial fasting, done as a reminder of what life would be like without God and Jesus.

 

[Deeje]

If death is the beginning of true life with the Father, those who avoid or fear it are not of faith of the Spirit. They are of the physical (flesh) adorning their flesh with caskets for their dead and great garments to show those who see the flesh as pure and powerful.

The big picture, as I understand it, begins with God placing representatives of himself on this earth. Mortal creatures of flesh and blood were to fill this planet with their "kind". Man alone was to have all these creatures "in subjection", and God's instruction to humans, 'made in his image' was to "subdue" the earth outside of Eden to eventually spread the boundaries of their paradise home to encompass the whole earth.
With that in mind, we have to ask what was God's purpose for us in the beginning?

In order to fulfill his commission to be Earth's caretaker, man was given free will to evaluate circumstances and act accordingly as his God would expect him to do.

The first humans were set up to accomplish their task with everything they needed to easily do as they were instructed. All that was required of them was obedience. Not difficult at all if they simply followed the Creator's instructions. They were set on a path to a wonderful life of satisfying work and enormous pleasure and enjoyment in the task ahead of them.

So what went wrong? Unknown to them, was a Cherub, (a high ranking guardian angel posted in Eden to oversee their progress,) was entertaining some rebellious thoughts.
This free willed spirit began at some point to envy the worship that these lower creatures would give to God. Before the creation of man, there were none who could give him what he wanted....worship. His fellow angels were his equal, so at best he could be their leader, but not their god. Tempting humans away from the commission God had set for them, he separated them from God so that he could lead them in an opposite direction.

God responded by allowing the rebels to carry on with their choices so that he could provide all of his intelligent children with a powerful object lesson.....abuse of free will by disobedience to the Creator will always result in a bad outcome. The Bible is the record of that history.

God could have just snuffed out the rebels and started again, but what would that have proven? Only that God is more powerful. Satan never challenged God's power, but cleverly planted seeds of doubt about his motives. The only way to establish the truth was to show them the result of this rebellion and establish the Creator as rightful Universal Sovereign over all his creation.

There were millions of spirit sons observing closely God's response to this situation. What was to prevent another "satan" from picking up where the "original serpent" left off? The issues raised in Eden had to be settled once and for all.....was God a liar? Does he keep beneficial knowledge from his children? Was the knowledge he kept from them something that would make them "like God"? Does he have the right as Sovereign to set reasonable limits to their use of free will?

Only time would prove that God's way was right. When words don't work, experience teaches in a much more effective way. Painful lessons are not easily forgotten.

With this in mind, we have to ask why Christians have an expectation of going to heaven at all? Since it was never in God's original purpose for humans to live anywhere but here on earth, what is the purpose of Jesus taking faithful ones to heaven?

Is this something that was offered to all faithful ones who lived and died in pre-Christian times? What did they look forward to?

Have you ever explored the possibilities of a different scenario in Eden? As free willed beings, each could have made a different decision.

1) What if satan had never rebelled and tempted the woman?

2) What if satan's temptation to the woman had failed? What if she had rejected his offer?

3) What if Adam had rejected his wife's offer?

What do you think might have transpired in any of those scenarios?

Rebellion by all three is the reason why Christ had to come to earth to rescue Adam's children from the consequences of his actions. If those actions had never taken place, Jesus' sacrifice would never have been required.....so what would that have meant for the human race?

What are your thoughts?

 

[Deeje]

Again, that's nonsense. You may not vote, but do you spend money? [economic institution] have kids who go to school? [educational institution] go to the doctor? [medical institution] etc. The only thing that you're not a part of is voting because even the political institution has an effect on you even if you were to try and completely avoid it.

You miss the point metis. I gave you the direct ways in which Jesus told us to be no part of this world. We pay taxes like everyone else....probably more than anyone else because we conduct our business honestly in God's sight. Those taxes pay for our children's education and provide hospitals and other services to which all citizens are entitled. We have no say in how our tax money is spent, just as the disciples in Jesus day didn't not dictate to Rome how taxes were spent. We don't vote because we believe all human governments are under the control of the devil. (1 John 5:19) A vote for them is a vote for satan's system and if you are responsible to putting someone in office, you have to accept responsibility for what they do in that capacity. That is how we view things.

First of all, if someone is attacking you and your family whom have done nothing wrong, I hardly would call the attackers "innocent".

Again, if you are talking about personal attacks, we have already covered that. In a war situation, unless you are part of the military, you will be at the mercy of what transpires like everyone else. Each will have to protect themselves and their families as best they can. But how can you protect yourself from bombs, missiles and nuclear weapons?

Secondly, not to defend your family and other innocent people from attack, including war, is selfish, thus not "spiritual". It's basically saying that what you think about your own "salvation" trumps other people's lives. Torah, otoh, demands that we do our best to try and stop violence against the innocent even if it means we must use deadly force at last resort. The "Just War Theory" says much the same, and it also makes good theological sense.

Again, it is how you choose to do so. Being defensive is not the same as being in the offensive. There are ways to defend yourself and your family without being aggressive. Sometimes we have no choice but to surrender if the enemy is victorious and overtakes the nation's defenses to fend off attacks. Look at what happened in Nazi Germany. Where was God in those times? Was he answering the prayers of the Jews? Were "Christian" churches at the forefront of helping them? Or did they side with their government? Supporting your nation's government when it is clearly in the wrong is patriotism run amok. This is why Christians can be no part of the world's political system or its agendas. Propaganda is what makes people think their government is in the right, when the opposite is true.

Nations lose wars and the victims are just as vulnerable as we would be in that circumstance. The first Christians had to endure severe persecution in Rome, even being placed in the arenas to be torn apart by wild animals for the entertainment of the Emperor and his citizens. They were given the option of renouncing their faith and being able to walk free...they chose death, just as many faithful Christians did under Hitler's regime....these were given the same option. It is something satan and his minions demand. The fear of death is a powerful weapon because satan has created horror stories around it. There is nothing to fear in death...nor is it the permanent cessation of life.

See here: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) Now, the info you request is not found in just one location, but most are covered in 285+ and 598+.

I have looked at these but I am not quite sure which ones you believe apply to what we are discussing. Can you be specific about which laws applied to a Jewish response to unlawful aggression?

 

[Phantasman]

The big picture, as I understand it, begins with God placing representatives of himself on this earth. Mortal creatures of flesh and blood were to fill this planet with their "kind". Man alone was to have all these creatures "in subjection", and God's instruction to humans, 'made in his image' was to "subdue" the earth outside of Eden to eventually spread the boundaries of their paradise home to encompass the whole earth.
With that in mind, we have to ask what was God's purpose for us in the beginning?

In order to fulfill his commission to be Earth's caretaker, man was given free will to evaluate circumstances and act accordingly as his God would expect him to do.

The first humans were set up to accomplish their task with everything they needed to easily do as they were instructed. All that was required of them was obedience. Not difficult at all if they simply followed the Creator's instructions. They were set on a path to a wonderful life of satisfying work and enormous pleasure and enjoyment in the task ahead of them.

So what went wrong? Unknown to them, was a Cherub, (a high ranking guardian angel posted in Eden to oversee their progress,) was entertaining some rebellious thoughts.
This free willed spirit began at some point to envy the worship that these lower creatures would give to God. Before the creation of man, there were none who could give him what he wanted....worship. His fellow angels were his equal, so at best he could be their leader, but not their god. Tempting humans away from the commission God had set for them, he separated them from God so that he could lead them in an opposite direction.

God responded by allowing the rebels to carry on with their choices so that he could provide all of his intelligent children with a powerful object lesson.....abuse of free will by disobedience to the Creator will always result in a bad outcome. The Bible is the record of that history.

God could have just snuffed out the rebels and started again, but what would that have proven? Only that God is more powerful. Satan never challenged God's power, but cleverly planted seeds of doubt about his motives. The only way to establish the truth was to show them the result of this rebellion and establish the Creator as rightful Universal Sovereign over all his creation.

There were millions of spirit sons observing closely God's response to this situation. What was to prevent another "satan" from picking up where the "original serpent" left off? The issues raised in Eden had to be settled once and for all.....was God a liar? Does he keep beneficial knowledge from his children? Was the knowledge he kept from them something that would make them "like God"? Does he have the right as Sovereign to set reasonable limits to their use of free will?

Only time would prove that God's way was right. When words don't work, experience teaches in a much more effective way. Painful lessons are not easily forgotten.

With this in mind, we have to ask why Christians have an expectation of going to heaven at all? Since it was never in God's original purpose for humans to live anywhere but here on earth, what is the purpose of Jesus taking faithful ones to heaven?

Is this something that was offered to all faithful ones who lived and died in pre-Christian times? What did they look forward to?

Have you ever explored the possibilities of a different scenario in Eden? As free willed beings, each could have made a different decision.

1) What if satan had never rebelled and tempted the woman?

2) What if satan's temptation to the woman had failed? What if she had rejected his offer?

3) What if Adam had rejected his wife's offer?

What do you think might have transpired in any of those scenarios?

Rebellion by all three is the reason why Christ had to come to earth to rescue Adam's children from the consequences of his actions. If those actions had never taken place, Jesus' sacrifice would never have been required.....so what would that have meant for the human race?

What are your thoughts?

I applaud the JW seeking in spiritual, but they still use the OT to cloud their spiritual understanding. Like blood transfusions (as of some importance to deny). Seeing physical blood is not the same as Jesus termed blood. To drink his blood is to spiritually consume the Holy Spirit. Eating his flesh is to consume the truth he spoke.

This is "the Word became flesh" that we are to eat. The "bread" from Heaven. Fleshly blood is flesh (material) that has no importance, except to OT followers.

I have thought of Eden scenario's. How about this one. Adam eats the fruit first.

Gnosis teaches that the spark of life hid in the rib of Adam and was transferred into Eve to avoid being detected by the creator god (demiurge). It was Eves wisdom that saw the truth in the Tree of Life, and Jesus was in the tree to give man the spirit, since he was a slave as the animals were (naked and ignorant). The knowledge the spirit gave them opened their eyes to truth (of the true God whom is spirit).

The spirit given us saves the soul (given by another). It is what the Gospel means.

Reread it again:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. (Adam transgressed above the flesh by receiving the spirit).
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

Women have paid a high price through patriarchy ideologies. Out of all Gospel taught religions, I only find the gnostics to see women and men spiritually the same. And women (Like Thekla with Paul) taught as well as the 6 women who followed Christ throughout his ministry. Patriarchy denies it, I accept it.

Spirit is not affected by gender, races, age, etc. that is flesh.

(22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom."
They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."- Thomas

 

[Deeje]

I applaud the JW seeking in spiritual, but they still use the OT to cloud their spiritual understanding. Like blood transfusions (as of some importance to deny).

I once thought that this was a dangerous doctrine before I became a Witness myself. It made no sense to me that JW's could refuse blood transfusions and put their lives at risk. But I soon came to realize that blood transfusions do not necessarily save lives. Doctors in the field of blood management for their patients are now realizing the dangers involved with this common procedure. In the OT, the laws governing the consumption of blood were so serious that they carried the death penalty. Blood is sacred to God and not something to be shared with others. Saline is a safer alternative to blood as it expands the volume in the veins and arteries whilst allowing the bone marrow to make up the red cells, which it does rapidly with the use of EPO. There are less complications and shorter hospital stays because the patient recovers more quickly without blood.

Hospitals dedicated to bloodless medicine have sprung up all over the world and doctors will acknowledge that it was JW patients refusing blood that led them to see that it wasn't as good as they had once thought....in fact it increases morbidity and often leads to death.

Seeing physical blood is not the same as Jesus termed blood. To drink his blood is to spiritually consume the Holy Spirit. Eating his flesh is to consume the truth he spoke.

This is "the Word became flesh" that we are to eat. The "bread" from Heaven. Fleshly blood is flesh (material) that has no importance, except to OT followers.

There is the symbolic as well as the physical aspects in OT scripture. The blood of the Christ redeemed or bought back Adam's children from the debt he left for them. This freed them from slavery to sin and death. The blood sacrifices in Israel pointed to the ultimate sacrifice of the Christ. Once he offered his life, animal sacrifices were no longer necessary.

I have thought of Eden scenario's. How about this one. Adam eats the fruit first.

It is my belief that the reason why the devil did not target the man is that Adam was more educated than his new wife and over a long period of time, had developed a closer relationship with his God. He would more likely have told the devil what Jesus did....."go away satan....this is what God said".....
The devil targeted the woman to get to the man. His tactic was to divide and conquer....something tacticians still use because it is so successful. Satan made Adam choose between his love for God and his love for his wife. Divided loyalties are a trap.

So the question was, if the first humans had rejected the devil's offer, would Christ's sacrifice have been necessary? Would any humans have gone to heaven if Jesus had no role in their lives as redeemer? Where did God plan for humans to live forever initially?

 

[metis]

You miss the point metis. I gave you the direct ways in which Jesus told us to be no part of this world... A vote for them is a vote for satan's system and if you are responsible to putting someone in office, you have to accept responsibility for what they do in that capacity.

There simply is not a single statement from Jesus that says not to vote or not to get involved politically. None. Nada. Nyet. Matter of fact, the 613 Laws show you that God not only allows for government, there are Laws from Him that specific the limitations for the leaders. If the political institution and our involvement in it is somehow morally reprehensible, then why did God provide those Laws to begin with?

Also, one simply cannot logically or scripturally claim that they are not part of this world when they very much are part of this world in most areas. Just because you don't vote doesn't mean that you are much less part of this world than most people here, so what your JW leaders have done is to convince you that simply because you don't vote you're "not part of this world".

Being defensive is not the same as being in the offensive. There are ways to defend yourself and your family without being aggressive.

Which is a microcosm of what takes place between countries. What sense would it make if God allows you to use defensive measures for protecting your innocent family versus using defensive measures for protecting your society? It's the same with size being the only difference. Whether it's a criminal that threatens your family or a war that threatens you family, the end result is the same if you don't try and defend them. The "Just War Theory" was a serious attempt to deal with this issue, and both theologically and logically it makes sense.

I have looked at these but I am not quite sure which ones you believe apply to what we are discussing. Can you be specific about which laws applied to a Jewish response to unlawful aggression?

You gotta be kidding. All those Laws that deal with the issue of war you cannot see? The fact that it tells us what is and isn't allowed in war you cannot see? I really wish you were joking because it's right there smack-dab in front of you with the link I provided you.

More and more with what we see coming from the JW's is that they really only pick & choose which verses in the Bible they choose to believe, thus ignoring the rest.

 

[Phantasman]

I once thought that this was a dangerous doctrine before I became a Witness myself. It made no sense to me that JW's could refuse blood transfusions and put their lives at risk. But I soon came to realize that blood transfusions do not necessarily save lives. Doctors in the field of blood management for their patients are now realizing the dangers involved with this common procedure. In the OT, the laws governing the consumption of blood were so serious that they carried the death penalty. Blood is sacred to God and not something to be shared with others. Saline is a safer alternative to blood as it expands the volume in the veins and arteries whilst allowing the bone marrow to make up the red cells, which it does rapidly with the use of EPO. There are less complications and shorter hospital stays because the patient recovers more quickly without blood.

Hospitals dedicated to bloodless medicine have sprung up all over the world and doctors will acknowledge that it was JW patients refusing blood that led them to see that it wasn't as good as they had once thought....in fact it increases morbidity and often leads to death.



There is the symbolic as well as the physical aspects in OT scripture. The blood of the Christ redeemed or bought back Adam's children from the debt he left for them. This freed them from slavery to sin and death. The blood sacrifices in Israel pointed to the ultimate sacrifice of the Christ. Once he offered his life, animal sacrifices were no longer necessary.



It is my belief that the reason why the devil did not target the man is that Adam was more educated than his new wife and over a long period of time, had developed a closer relationship with his God. He would more likely have told the devil what Jesus did....."go away satan....this is what God said".....
The devil targeted the woman to get to the man. His tactic was to divide and conquer....something tacticians still use because it is so successful. Satan made Adam choose between his love for God and his love for his wife. Divided loyalties are a trap.

So the question was, if the first humans had rejected the devil's offer, would Christ's sacrifice have been necessary? Would any humans have gone to heaven if Jesus had no role in their lives as redeemer? Where did God plan for humans to live forever initially?

Perspective.

Blood is material as is water and fire. The material will die in time. All material will seek to exist since it is perishable. Christ taught imperishable. Material blood has no importance since it is not of spirit. To drink blood of Christ, and his shedding for us to drink, has nothing to do with corpuscles, but with the spirit, that makes us (and him) alive. John 6:63 Romans 8:11 .

Had Adam been wiser than Eve, he would not have listened to Eve, but to (the lying) God. Jesus worked on the one who was wiser, knowing Adam would follow.

It comes down to whether one see's two (gods) or one in the OT. The pure God of love would not slaughter man (IMO), and Jesus teaches of Father (spirit) who saves us from the god who created the imperfect material (flesh).

Perfection can only be obtained in the spiritual (understanding) and not the material which is flawed from the beginning.

The world came about through a mistake. For he who created it wanted to create it imperishable and immortal. He fell short of attaining his desire. For the world never was imperishable, nor, for that matter, was he who made the world. For things are not imperishable, but sons are. Nothing will be able to receive imperishability if it does not first become a son. But he who has not the ability to receive, how much more will he be unable to give?- Gospel of Philip

The question then becomes, do I believe the words that came thousands of years before Christ when the "Spirit that leads you to all truth" was not yet given, or to those who (say) they received it after Christ gave it and wrote what it revealed to them.

Seeing both, I find the spiritual gnosis defining the Gospel of Christ much more spiritual and acceptable.

 

[Deeje]

There simply is not a single statement from Jesus that says not to vote or not to get involved politically. None. Nada. Nyet. Matter of fact, the 613 Laws show you that God not only allows for government, there are Laws from Him that specific the limitations for the leaders. If the political institution and our involvement in it is somehow morally reprehensible, then why did God provide those Laws to begin with?

I am always amazed at how justification leads people to believe things that are not true.

If you believe the early church fathers, as I know most in Christendom do, then here is a couple of quotes that should put that to bed.

"Early Christians refused to serve in the Roman army, in both the legions and auxilia, considering such service as wholly incompatible with the teachings of Christianity. Says Justin Martyr, of the second century C.E., in his “Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew” (CX): “We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,
—our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 254)

In his treatise “The Chaplet, or De Corona” (XI), when discussing “whether warfare is proper at all for Christians,” Tertullian (c. 200 C.E.) argued from Scripture the unlawfulness even of a military life itself, concluding, “I banish from us the military life.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1957, Vol. III, pp. 99, 100.

Other writers concur with this finding.....

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333)

“It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” (The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276)

“In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity.” (A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382)

“The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.” (Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125)

“The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” (The New World’s Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131)

“The Christians . . . shrank from public office and military service.” (Editorial introduction to “Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177,” in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246)

“While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. I, p. 416."

Do you need more?

The "government" that God allowed for when the law was given, was for the governing of his own people by those appointed to lead them. These ones acted as God's representatives. Their military were also acting as God's executional forces, with his permission and sanction. Only later when the people wanted to be like the other nations and have a fleshly king, did they suffer the consequences of that decision. Israel's kings were an awful mix of good and evil....the people either prospered or suffered depending upon who was leading them, and we know their undeniable record of disobedience to their God.

Those laws applied to Israel, not to Christians who were to follow Jesus' example. Christ ended the old law along with the old covenant. He instituted a new law with a new covenant.

According to James, those who want to be 'friends with this world' (supporting their governments and consenting to bloodshed in order to stay in their good books) are called "Adulteresses" and he goes on to say..."do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is making himself an enemy of God." (James 4:4) Blending of church and state is a form of spiritual adultery. Trying to keep the world as your friend will make you an enemy of God.

The apostasy that Jesus and his apostles foretold meant that Christians no longer followed the teachings of the Christ. That is why you will see "Christians" serving in the military in later centuries....but not in the earliest times.

Also, one simply cannot logically or scripturally claim that they are not part of this world when they very much are part of this world in most areas. Just because you don't vote doesn't mean that you are much less part of this world than most people here, so what your JW leaders have done is to convince you that simply because you don't vote you're "not part of this world".

We are as much a part of this world as Jesus and his disciples were. They earned a living with their own hands (most were fishermen. Paul was a tentmaker) and they enjoyed family life without being a part of the Roman world with its governance and hedonism.
Do you imagine that the Jews of that time would have voted for a Roman government? The Zealots were looking to overthrow them.
Christians see themselves in much the same way. We feel like foreigners in this world......governed by people who don't care about what is important to us.

Which is a microcosm of what takes place between countries. What sense would it make if God allows you to use defensive measures for protecting your innocent family versus using defensive measures for protecting your society? It's the same with size being the only difference. Whether it's a criminal that threatens your family or a war that threatens you family, the end result is the same if you don't try and defend them. The "Just War Theory" was a serious attempt to deal with this issue, and both theologically and logically it makes sense.

Metis, you are free to believe whatever you like about self defense. If it makes sense to you, then that is one thing....but does it make sense to God? You must understand that there is no such thing as a "just war" in today's world. God has not sanctioned a war since the days when Israel was defending their God-given land. His people don't own that land anymore....nor any other piece of dirt, so there is nothing to fight for. Our weapons are not fleshly remember?

People do not fight physical wars today over anything that pertains to God or his worship. Have you not noticed that spiritual values continue to be eroded away and will continue to be until they are taken away completely. This is what the Bible foretold. We can see it.

 

[Deeje]

Had Adam been wiser than Eve, he would not have listened to Eve, but to (the lying) God. Jesus worked on the one who was wiser, knowing Adam would follow.

I am not sure what you mean here? If Adam had been obedient to his rightful sovereign and had demonstrated respect for what belonged to him, we would not be in this mess. It was certainly not what God purposed at the beginning. He gave mankind a wonderful start. He was extremely generous to them as any loving father should be.....and yet it wasn't enough. They had the prospect of unending life in their mortal flesh....but they blew it by believing "the father of the lie".

Who is "the lying God"? I don't understand what you mean by that.

It comes down to whether one see's two (gods) or one in the OT. The pure God of love would not slaughter man (IMO), and Jesus teaches of Father (spirit) who saves us from the god who created the imperfect material (flesh).

As the Creator, he has the sole right over who lives and who doesn't. It is not for man to question the one whose justice we reflect, albeit imperfectly at present.

We are material beings who live on a material planet in a material universe. This is our reality and the Bible, as God's communication with us, is the source of information about God's dealings with humanity whom he placed here on this planet. There was never an intention on God's part originally, for any human to go to heaven. It was the disobedience of the first humans under influence from a rebellious third party that brought us to this point in our history. The stated conclusion of it all is in sight.

It was not imperfect flesh that God created....the first humans were perfect in every respect.....they just needed to learn how to drive free will. They hit a wall and God is now in damage control. The Bible is a book of experiences. It is about God's expectation of his human children and their exercise of free will, in spite of what the world alienated from him is doing. This life is a test.....and if we pass, it will mean a reward. If we don't, it will mean the end of our existence. It is not more complicated than that IMV. We either learn the lesson...or we don't.

Perfection can only be obtained in the spiritual (understanding) and not the material which is flawed from the beginning.

We are stuck in our flesh. It is the only life we know. Spiritual understanding is granted by God, but that does not mean that all spiritual knowledge comes from him. The rebel spirit in our midst is a master deceiver. He will manage to lead the majority of mankind away from the truth. (Matthew 7:13-14)...even those who call Jesus their "Lord" will be in for a rude shock. (Matthew 7:21-23)

The world came about through a mistake. For he who created it wanted to create it imperishable and immortal. He fell short of attaining his desire. For the world never was imperishable, nor, for that matter, was he who made the world. For things are not imperishable, but sons are. Nothing will be able to receive imperishability if it does not first become a son. But he who has not the ability to receive, how much more will he be unable to give?- Gospel of Philip

You really believe that the Creator is an inept failure? Oh dear....what is the basis for you to believe that?

There was no mistake in any part of it. God did not make any mistakes in our creation unless you think free will was a mistake? To be made in God's image was to reflect his qualities....one of which is the ability to make choices of one's own volition. Would you enjoy life with sentience and human intelligence if you had no choices....what if they were all made for you like a program that came with birth? You would eat the same things day in and day out....you would drink only water and reproduce your kind without all the human elements that make us unique in the world. Does that sound appealing? It doesn't to me. I value those choices.

If God has the feelings that we have, then he has the full gamut of our emotions because we get them from him. He can be loving and generous....kind and gentle.....but if you stir up his anger, then look out! His justice will be served regardless of any sentimentality or justification on our part. His justice is tempered with mercy, which means we will get what we deserve. Mercy has to be warranted from his perspective, not ours.

The question then becomes, do I believe the words that came thousands of years before Christ when the "Spirit that leads you to all truth" was not yet given, or to those who (say) they received it after Christ gave it and wrote what it revealed to them.

Seeing both, I find the spiritual gnosis defining the Gospel of Christ much more spiritual and acceptable.

The coming of the Messiah was promised as soon as humans abandoned their God in Eden, so the whole of scripture reflects his coming in the flesh. He existed long before that arrival however. Which is why I accept the whole of scripture as inspired of God.....Its about Paradise lost to Paradise regained....one story. That is what makes logical sense to me.

Of course you are as free as I am to entertain your own views. I find them a little 'other worldly' and not in accord with what I recognize as scripture, but hey....we are all given the right of choice to believe whatever we wish.
We just have to know that there are consequences in our choices, whether we acknowledge them or not.

 

[Phantasman]

I am not sure what you mean here? If Adam had been obedient to his rightful sovereign and had demonstrated respect for what belonged to him, we would not be in this mess. It was certainly not what God purposed at the beginning. He gave mankind a wonderful start. He was extremely generous to them as any loving father should be.....and yet it wasn't enough. They had the prospect of unending life in their mortal flesh....but they blew it by believing "the father of the lie".

Who is "the lying God"? I don't understand what you mean by that.



As the Creator, he has the sole right over who lives and who doesn't. It is not for man to question the one whose justice we reflect, albeit imperfectly at present.

We are material beings who live on a material planet in a material universe. This is our reality and the Bible, as God's communication with us, is the source of information about God's dealings with humanity whom he placed here on this planet. There was never an intention on God's part originally, for any human to go to heaven. It was the disobedience of the first humans under influence from a rebellious third party that brought us to this point in our history. The stated conclusion of it all is in sight.

It was not imperfect flesh that God created....the first humans were perfect in every respect.....they just needed to learn how to drive free will. They hit a wall and God is now in damage control. The Bible is a book of experiences. It is about God's expectation of his human children and their exercise of free will, in spite of what the world alienated from him is doing. This life is a test.....and if we pass, it will mean a reward. If we don't, it will mean the end of our existence. It is not more complicated than that IMV. We either learn the lesson...or we don't.



We are stuck in our flesh. It is the only life we know. Spiritual understanding is granted by God, but that does not mean that all spiritual knowledge comes from him. The rebel spirit in our midst is a master deceiver. He will manage to lead the majority of mankind away from the truth. (Matthew 7:13-14)...even those who call Jesus their "Lord" will be in for a rude shock. (Matthew 7:21-23)



You really believe that the Creator is an inept failure? Oh dear....what is the basis for you to believe that?

There was no mistake in any part of it. God did not make any mistakes in our creation unless you think free will was a mistake? To be made in God's image was to reflect his qualities....one of which is the ability to make choices of one's own volition. Would you enjoy life with sentience and human intelligence if you had no choices....what if they were all made for you like a program that came with birth? You would eat the same things day in and day out....you would drink only water and reproduce your kind without all the human elements that make us unique in the world. Does that sound appealing? It doesn't to me. I value those choices.

If God has the feelings that we have, then he has the full gamut of our emotions because we get them from him. He can be loving and generous....kind and gentle.....but if you stir up his anger, then look out! His justice will be served regardless of any sentimentality or justification on our part. His justice is tempered with mercy, which means we will get what we deserve. Mercy has to be warranted from his perspective, not ours.



The coming of the Messiah was promised as soon as humans abandoned their God in Eden, so the whole of scripture reflects his coming in the flesh. He existed long before that arrival however. Which is why I accept the whole of scripture as inspired of God.....Its about Paradise lost to Paradise regained....one story. That is what makes logical sense to me.

Of course you are as free as I am to entertain your own views. I find them a little 'other worldly' and not in accord with what I recognize as scripture, but hey....we are all given the right of choice to believe whatever we wish.
We just have to know that there are consequences in our choices, whether we acknowledge them or not.

If the true God made heavens, earth and man, he fell short . It was all created perishable (so he lied when he said that to eat of this knowledge would kill man). Man is "saved" from this imperfect Aeon by the God from Heaven within the (true) perfect Aeon. The perfect Aeon was described by Jesus as the "kingdom of God", which we seek because we cannot see it, but it is here because it is in spirit, not material. The worm and rot is this Aeon, not the perfect imperishable one Jesus spoke of.

The world (people) subscribe to the material things created by another, and this includes the many churches who teach the ways of flesh as the Jews believed. The very thing that the Jews killed Jesus for was saying that he was the son of God. But they were ignorant, because he was the son of God teaching us to be sons of God as well.

To be a son, you must give up the flesh (from the creator god) to become spirit to the God of spirit. "The flesh profits nothing", the spirit makes you alive. (John 6).

You give up the parents of flesh, for your spiritual parents. You are born again of new parents, the Father (God) and the Holy Spirit (mother). Ignorance see's Mary as Jesus mother because she is flesh. We become sons of God when we see our real mother in spirit,

Luke:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Matthew says it, but orthodoxy doesn't see it:

46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Gnosis explains it better:

Thomas:
101) <Jesus said,> "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not love his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. For my mother [...], but my true mother gave me life."

(99) The disciples said to him, "Your brothers and your mother are standing outside."
He said to them, "Those here who do the will of my father are my brothers and my mother. It is they who will enter the kingdom of my father."

Jesus brought a sword. See it. If the Law says honor mother and father, Jesus showed it to be spiritual, not fleshly. The sword separates the two in understanding.

Luke:
49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?(the teaching of John the baptist)

50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! (Jesus speaks of the Spirit, his mother within him, the Holy Ghost of fire baptism).

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

The orthodox see Mary as mother of God. Gnosis teaches she is not. Marys "flesh profits nothing". Jesus knew who his (real) mother was, as well as the sons of God. Don't be fooled by the flesh.

 

[Phantasman]

I am not sure what you mean here? If Adam had been obedient to his rightful sovereign and had demonstrated respect for what belonged to him, we would not be in this mess. It was certainly not what God purposed at the beginning. He gave mankind a wonderful start. He was extremely generous to them as any loving father should be.....and yet it wasn't enough. They had the prospect of unending life in their mortal flesh....but they blew it by believing "the father of the lie".

Who is "the lying God"? I don't understand what you mean by that.



As the Creator, he has the sole right over who lives and who doesn't. It is not for man to question the one whose justice we reflect, albeit imperfectly at present.

We are material beings who live on a material planet in a material universe. This is our reality and the Bible, as God's communication with us, is the source of information about God's dealings with humanity whom he placed here on this planet. There was never an intention on God's part originally, for any human to go to heaven. It was the disobedience of the first humans under influence from a rebellious third party that brought us to this point in our history. The stated conclusion of it all is in sight.

It was not imperfect flesh that God created....the first humans were perfect in every respect.....they just needed to learn how to drive free will. They hit a wall and God is now in damage control. The Bible is a book of experiences. It is about God's expectation of his human children and their exercise of free will, in spite of what the world alienated from him is doing. This life is a test.....and if we pass, it will mean a reward. If we don't, it will mean the end of our existence. It is not more complicated than that IMV. We either learn the lesson...or we don't.



We are stuck in our flesh. It is the only life we know. Spiritual understanding is granted by God, but that does not mean that all spiritual knowledge comes from him. The rebel spirit in our midst is a master deceiver. He will manage to lead the majority of mankind away from the truth. (Matthew 7:13-14)...even those who call Jesus their "Lord" will be in for a rude shock. (Matthew 7:21-23)



You really believe that the Creator is an inept failure? Oh dear....what is the basis for you to believe that?

There was no mistake in any part of it. God did not make any mistakes in our creation unless you think free will was a mistake? To be made in God's image was to reflect his qualities....one of which is the ability to make choices of one's own volition. Would you enjoy life with sentience and human intelligence if you had no choices....what if they were all made for you like a program that came with birth? You would eat the same things day in and day out....you would drink only water and reproduce your kind without all the human elements that make us unique in the world. Does that sound appealing? It doesn't to me. I value those choices.

If God has the feelings that we have, then he has the full gamut of our emotions because we get them from him. He can be loving and generous....kind and gentle.....but if you stir up his anger, then look out! His justice will be served regardless of any sentimentality or justification on our part. His justice is tempered with mercy, which means we will get what we deserve. Mercy has to be warranted from his perspective, not ours.



The coming of the Messiah was promised as soon as humans abandoned their God in Eden, so the whole of scripture reflects his coming in the flesh. He existed long before that arrival however. Which is why I accept the whole of scripture as inspired of God.....Its about Paradise lost to Paradise regained....one story. That is what makes logical sense to me.

Of course you are as free as I am to entertain your own views. I find them a little 'other worldly' and not in accord with what I recognize as scripture, but hey....we are all given the right of choice to believe whatever we wish.
We just have to know that there are consequences in our choices, whether we acknowledge them or not.

I just don't see man ever had paradise. Living, breathing, eating, drinking, pooping like the animals did, is not paradise to me. It's imperfection that would get sickening after a few millennia.

If one relives the OT, they become blind to the Word as the Jews did. Orthodoxy follows the OT. Christians follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus said to teach the Gospel he died to bring us, not the books of the followers who killed him.

Christs perfection that we seek is no where in the OT. Had it been, Christ died in vain.
Galatians:
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

You seem to believe Moses as truth. But Jesus is truth, not Moses.

John:
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

John 6:32:
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

I don't see how anyone can follow Moses once Jesus came. He didn't get what he wrote from heaven, where God is.

 

[Deeje]

Thank you for sharing your views but I see them as a very twisted interpretation of the 'scripture' you use.

I just don't see man ever had paradise. Living, breathing, eating, drinking, pooping like the animals did, is not paradise to me. It's imperfection that would get sickening after a few millennia.

You have something against breathing, eating and drinking? I find them to be very pleasurable.

Things that make us like the animals, we all hold in common, but even defecating can fertilize the soil and benefit growth of new vegetation, which in turn feeds other living things. The only difference we had in our creation was our free will and our intellectual capacity....reflecting the qualities and moral capacity of our Maker. We were put here as his representatives to care for this planet and all the life that shares existence here.

When does one ever tire of God's creation? The variety of landscapes, seascapes and mountain views never cease to inspire us. We want to experience and enjoy them as often as possible.

The creatures and habitats we share this planet with would take many lifetimes to explore and study. Our natural curiosity and thirst for knowledge will never be satisfied, especially if all of our abilities and intellectual capacity are restored as I believe they will. The fall took more away from humanity than most people imagine.

It is man who has messed up his home, believing that he could do a better job by relying on his own abilities and ideas. Look at the mess he has made! This is not what God purposed for us in the beginning.

If one relives the OT, they become blind to the Word as the Jews did. Orthodoxy follows the OT. Christians follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus said to teach the Gospel he died to bring us, not the books of the followers who killed him.

You assume that the OT was just for Jews?

It is about Abraham's descendants for sure, but the lessons are there for all of us who accept Jesus as the "Christ". These were the scriptures that Jesus read and taught. His coming was prophesied in them and he abided by the law of Moses who spoke of a prophet greater than himself who was to come. Jesus was that prophet.

Jesus also said that he relied on what was written in the Hebrew Scriptures. When answering the devil's temptations, he referred back to God's word each time, saying "it is written".

The apostle Paul said that "all scripture is inspired of God and beneficial...." (2 Timothy 3:16) because the only scripture they had was the OT, I am of the opinion that you are being rather short sighted in your belief.

Christs perfection that we seek is no where in the OT. Had it been, Christ died in vain.

The OT sets the stage and gives us all the reasons why Messiah had to come. Without that knowledge, we are left wondering what it's all about. The perfection of Jesus was brought about by the manner of his birth. He was a son of God, not a son of Adam. The first Adam messed things up...the "last Adam" came to give humanity back what was stolen from them. The lessons learned in the process are beneficial to all Bible students if they understand how it all fits in the big picture.

What is you big picture?

You seem to believe Moses as truth. But Jesus is truth, not Moses.

Why do you separate them as if its a choice to believe one or the other? No such choice exists as far as I can see. Both are God's servants. Each had a role to play and did so as God directed. God's purpose could not have gone ahead without the obedience of each one in his own capacity.

I don't see how anyone can follow Moses once Jesus came. He didn't get what he wrote from heaven, where God is.

Again, how can you not understand that Moses' role in the outworking of God purpose was vital in Jesus' mission to the Jews.....Jesus said that "salvation originates with the Jews" but it did not end with them. God had a covenant to honor and it did not rely on the faithfulness of his chosen nation to accomplish it. Accepting the Christ did not mean abandoning the very scripture that explained his role as redeemer and savior.

The Jews did not live up to their end of the bargain and so once God had produced the promised seed, he no longer viewed Israel as his chosen nation. (Matthew 23:37-39) His rejection of them does not include rejecting the scripture that God gave them. We need "all scripture" to guide us in our beliefs.

Much of what you say makes no sense to me. sorry.

 

[metis]

I am always amazed at how justification leads people to believe things that are not true.

If you believe the early church fathers, as I know most in Christendom do, then here is a couple of quotes that should put that to bed...

I'm gonna stop here because all you are doing is playing a disingenuous game here. The Law was not made by the "early church fathers" but is found in the 613 Commandments as found in Torah that I linked you to! Can you be any more dishonest, Deeje? I post a link that clearly shows what they are and where they are in Torah, and yet you come back with the above!!!

Unbelievable. No, on second thought, all too believable as you've done this before.

 

[Phantasman]

Thank you for sharing your views but I see them as a very twisted interpretation of the 'scripture' you use.



You have something against breathing, eating and drinking? I find them to be very pleasurable.

Things that make us like the animals, we all hold in common, but even defecating can fertilize the soil and benefit growth of new vegetation, which in turn feeds other living things. The only difference we had in our creation was our free will and our intellectual capacity....reflecting the qualities and moral capacity of our Maker. We were put here as his representatives to care for this planet and all the life that shares existence here.

When does one ever tire of God's creation? The variety of landscapes, seascapes and mountain views never cease to inspire us. We want to experience and enjoy them as often as possible.

The creatures and habitats we share this planet with would take many lifetimes to explore and study. Our natural curiosity and thirst for knowledge will never be satisfied, especially if all of our abilities and intellectual capacity are restored as I believe they will. The fall took more away from humanity than most people imagine.

It is man who has messed up his home, believing that he could do a better job by relying on his own abilities and ideas. Look at the mess he has made! This is not what God purposed for us in the beginning.



You assume that the OT was just for Jews?

It is about Abraham's descendants for sure, but the lessons are there for all of us who accept Jesus as the "Christ". These were the scriptures that Jesus read and taught. His coming was prophesied in them and he abided by the law of Moses who spoke of a prophet greater than himself who was to come. Jesus was that prophet.

Jesus also said that he relied on what was written in the Hebrew Scriptures. When answering the devil's temptations, he referred back to God's word each time, saying "it is written".

The apostle Paul said that "all scripture is inspired of God and beneficial...." (2 Timothy 3:16) because the only scripture they had was the OT, I am of the opinion that you are being rather short sighted in your belief.



The OT sets the stage and gives us all the reasons why Messiah had to come. Without that knowledge, we are left wondering what it's all about. The perfection of Jesus was brought about by the manner of his birth. He was a son of God, not a son of Adam. The first Adam messed things up...the "last Adam" came to give humanity back what was stolen from them. The lessons learned in the process are beneficial to all Bible students if they understand how it all fits in the big picture.

What is you big picture?



Why do you separate them as if its a choice to believe one or the other? No such choice exists as far as I can see. Both are God's servants. Each had a role to play and did so as God directed. God's purpose could not have gone ahead without the obedience of each one in his own capacity.



Again, how can you not understand that Moses' role in the outworking of God purpose was vital in Jesus' mission to the Jews.....Jesus said that "salvation originates with the Jews" but it did not end with them. God had a covenant to honor and it did not rely on the faithfulness of his chosen nation to accomplish it. Accepting the Christ did not mean abandoning the very scripture that explained his role as redeemer and savior.

The Jews did not live up to their end of the bargain and so once God had produced the promised seed, he no longer viewed Israel as his chosen nation. (Matthew 23:37-39) His rejection of them does not include rejecting the scripture that God gave them. We need "all scripture" to guide us in our beliefs.

Much of what you say makes no sense to me. sorry.

Thank you for sharing your views but I see them as a very twisted interpretation of the 'scripture' you use.



You have something against breathing, eating and drinking? I find them to be very pleasurable.

Things that make us like the animals, we all hold in common, but even defecating can fertilize the soil and benefit growth of new vegetation, which in turn feeds other living things. The only difference we had in our creation was our free will and our intellectual capacity....reflecting the qualities and moral capacity of our Maker. We were put here as his representatives to care for this planet and all the life that shares existence here.

When does one ever tire of God's creation? The variety of landscapes, seascapes and mountain views never cease to inspire us. We want to experience and enjoy them as often as possible.

The creatures and habitats we share this planet with would take many lifetimes to explore and study. Our natural curiosity and thirst for knowledge will never be satisfied, especially if all of our abilities and intellectual capacity are restored as I believe they will. The fall took more away from humanity than most people imagine.

It is man who has messed up his home, believing that he could do a better job by relying on his own abilities and ideas. Look at the mess he has made! This is not what God purposed for us in the beginning.



You assume that the OT was just for Jews?

It is about Abraham's descendants for sure, but the lessons are there for all of us who accept Jesus as the "Christ". These were the scriptures that Jesus read and taught. His coming was prophesied in them and he abided by the law of Moses who spoke of a prophet greater than himself who was to come. Jesus was that prophet.

Jesus also said that he relied on what was written in the Hebrew Scriptures. When answering the devil's temptations, he referred back to God's word each time, saying "it is written".

The apostle Paul said that "all scripture is inspired of God and beneficial...." (2 Timothy 3:16) because the only scripture they had was the OT, I am of the opinion that you are being rather short sighted in your belief.



The OT sets the stage and gives us all the reasons why Messiah had to come. Without that knowledge, we are left wondering what it's all about. The perfection of Jesus was brought about by the manner of his birth. He was a son of God, not a son of Adam. The first Adam messed things up...the "last Adam" came to give humanity back what was stolen from them. The lessons learned in the process are beneficial to all Bible students if they understand how it all fits in the big picture.

What is you big picture?



Why do you separate them as if its a choice to believe one or the other? No such choice exists as far as I can see. Both are God's servants. Each had a role to play and did so as God directed. God's purpose could not have gone ahead without the obedience of each one in his own capacity.



Again, how can you not understand that Moses' role in the outworking of God purpose was vital in Jesus' mission to the Jews.....Jesus said that "salvation originates with the Jews" but it did not end with them. God had a covenant to honor and it did not rely on the faithfulness of his chosen nation to accomplish it. Accepting the Christ did not mean abandoning the very scripture that explained his role as redeemer and savior.

The Jews did not live up to their end of the bargain and so once God had produced the promised seed, he no longer viewed Israel as his chosen nation. (Matthew 23:37-39) His rejection of them does not include rejecting the scripture that God gave them. We need "all scripture" to guide us in our beliefs.

Much of what you say makes no sense to me. sorry.

I know it makes no sense to you or most. I saw it the way you see it for over 25 years. See the narrow path. Seek being chosen out of the many who are called.

The words I posted were Jesus words. Not mine. Moses didn't get his bread (what filled him with knowledge) from heaven. Yet, like the Jews, the Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, etc. you fight to listen to him and the fathers of Jewish beliefs.

Luke:
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Didn't the devil use the OT to tempt Jesus? See that the "bread" from Moses didn't save the Jews, as Jesus said. You read and say "there is no mystery, because it's plain to me". Are you seeing without seeing? Hearing without understanding? The Holy Spirit told us who to listen to.

Luke, Matthew, Mark:
30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:

31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

32 But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.

33 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.

34 While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud.

35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

36 And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.

The Holy Spirit is speaking. Not Isaiah. Not Moses. But Jesus. Yet they saw with "eyes", heard with "ears" yet didn't understand.

John 6 is crystal clear:
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

To follow the fathers of the Jews is death, just as it was for the Jews. And the orthodox church fathers are teaching the same thing, because they deny man from seeking the truth by what they see (and don't understand).

Thomas:
(39) Jesus said, "The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."

Matthew:
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

The veil was opened. The priests lost their power to dictate. Nicaea had no spiritual right to replace it, and give you their Gospel as what is and isn't truth from heaven. The Gospel clearly says not to follow doctrines of men. Yet most do.

 

[Deeje]

I'm gonna stop here because all you are doing is playing a disingenuous game here. The Law was not made by the "early church fathers" but is found in the 613 Commandments as found in Torah that I linked you to! Can you be any more dishonest, Deeje? I post a link that clearly shows what they are and where they are in Torah, and yet you come back with the above!!!

Unbelievable. No, on second thought, all too believable as you've done this before.

Oh dear metis...here we go again. You have played this game before too. You said (and I quote)...."There simply is not a single statement from Jesus that says not to vote or not to get involved politically. None. Nada. Nyet."

I answered you by furnishing statements from the early church fathers and from respected historians that your statement was incorrect. The early Christians did not participate in politics nor did they serve in the military because of what Jesus taught. You ignored them all to tell me I am playing "a disingenuous game"...well, I am sure one of us is.

You said..."Matter of fact, the 613 Laws show you that God not only allows for government, there are Laws from Him that specific the limitations for the leaders. If the political institution and our involvement in it is somehow morally reprehensible, then why did God provide those Laws to begin with?"

I pointed out that the 613 laws were about Israel's government, which was essentially a theocracy. (separate from any other government on earth) God was their ruler, (or should have been) and he was represented by those appointed to govern the people and lead them in worship.

The line of kings and the line of the priests were kept separate in Israel, were they not? A king could not be a priest and a priest could not be a king because separate tribes produced them. This was the case for as long as Israel were God's chosen nation. It was a deliberate separation of 'church and state'. Giving men power over others always corrupts them...to which history will attest.

Once the Messiah came, and Gentiles were accepted into the Christian arrangement, they had a new King, appointed by God himself...his own faithful and trusted son, who would rule in no earthly kingdom, but one in heaven that is beyond corruption. They also were under a new covenant with a new set of laws. In the law of love, there was no sanction for violence.

God chose from among faithful and obedient mankind those who would assist Christ in delivering God's rulership to earth's redeemed inhabitants, (Revelation 20:6; Revelation 14:1-5) but not until he had crushed all opposing rulerships out of existence. (Daniel 2:44) How does he approve of these rulerships if he is going to destroy them? 1 John 5:19 tells us who is ruling this world and why he has to rid the earth of this evil influence.

These accusations of dishonesty are getting old metis.....read what I reply and see that I have dodged none of your questions. It is you who is ignoring my answers. Time for you to be honest I think.

 

[Deeje]

The words I posted were Jesus words. Not mine. Moses didn't get his bread (what filled him with knowledge) from heaven. Yet, like the Jews, the Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, etc. you fight to listen to him and the fathers of Jewish beliefs.

The words you posted might have been Jesus' words, but you have given them your own meaning. Moses got his knowledge from the same source as Jesus did. I listen to Moses and the prophet that God raised up that was to be 'like him'.

"Jehovah your God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to him".
God said to Moses....."I will raise up for them from the midst of their brothers a prophet like you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him. 19 Indeed, I will require an account from the man who will not listen to my words that he will speak in my name." (Deuteronomy 18:15; 18-19)

"Jesus—A Prophet Like Moses
Here are some of the ways in which Jesus proved to be like Moses:

• Moses and Jesus both escaped the wholesale slaughter of male infants as ordered by the ruler of their time.—Exodus 1:22; 2:1-10; Matthew 2:13-18.
  
  
• Moses was called out of Egypt with Jehovah’s “firstborn,” the nation of Israel. Jesus was called out of Egypt as God’s firstborn Son.—Exodus 4:22, 23; Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15, 19-21.
  
  
• Moses and Jesus both fasted for 40 days in wilderness locations.—Exodus 34:28; Matthew 4:1, 2.
  
  
• Moses and Jesus were exceptionally meek and humble.—Numbers 12:3; Matthew 11:28-30.
  
  
• Moses and Jesus both performed miracles.—Exodus 14:21-31; Psalm 78:12-54; Matthew 11:5; Mark 5:38-43; Luke 7:11-15, 18-23.
  
  
• Moses and Jesus both served as mediators of covenants between God and His people.—Exodus 24:3-8; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6; Hebrews 8:10-13; 12:24."

Moses—How His Life Affects You — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

The similarities are not coincidental.

The Gospel clearly says not to follow doctrines of men. Yet most do.

The Bible is not the "doctrines of men". Jesus showed how important the Hebrew scriptures were in telling us about God's purpose and how it has gradually unfolded over time. It was these who informed God's people that Messiah was coming and when to expect him. The Pharisees interfered with the scriptures by putting their own spin on the words. This is what Jesus condemned, not the words themselves. We cannot pick and choose the parts of the Bible we will accept and then reject what disagrees with our own view. Unfortunately, I see you doing the same thing.

If the Bible is the word of God and he has preserved it down to our day to instruct and guide us in our course, then we must accept all of it...or none.

You are entitled to your view, but I completely disagree with it.

 

[Phantasman]

The words you posted might have been Jesus' words, but you have given them your own meaning. Moses got his knowledge from the same source as Jesus did. I listen to Moses and the prophet that God raised up that was to be 'like him'.

"Jehovah your God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to him".
God said to Moses....."I will raise up for them from the midst of their brothers a prophet like you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him. 19 Indeed, I will require an account from the man who will not listen to my words that he will speak in my name." (Deuteronomy 18:15; 18-19)

"Jesus—A Prophet Like Moses
Here are some of the ways in which Jesus proved to be like Moses:

• Moses and Jesus both escaped the wholesale slaughter of male infants as ordered by the ruler of their time.—Exodus 1:22; 2:1-10; Matthew 2:13-18.
  
  
• Moses was called out of Egypt with Jehovah’s “firstborn,” the nation of Israel. Jesus was called out of Egypt as God’s firstborn Son.—Exodus 4:22, 23; Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15, 19-21.
  
  
• Moses and Jesus both fasted for 40 days in wilderness locations.—Exodus 34:28; Matthew 4:1, 2.
  
  
• Moses and Jesus were exceptionally meek and humble.—Numbers 12:3; Matthew 11:28-30.
  
  
• Moses and Jesus both performed miracles.—Exodus 14:21-31; Psalm 78:12-54; Matthew 11:5; Mark 5:38-43; Luke 7:11-15, 18-23.
  
  
• Moses and Jesus both served as mediators of covenants between God and His people.—Exodus 24:3-8; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6; Hebrews 8:10-13; 12:24."

Moses—How His Life Affects You — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

The similarities are not coincidental.



The Bible is not the "doctrines of men". Jesus showed how important the Hebrew scriptures were in telling us about God's purpose and how it has gradually unfolded over time. It was these who informed God's people that Messiah was coming and when to expect him. The Pharisees interfered with the scriptures by putting their own spin on the words. This is what Jesus condemned, not the words themselves. We cannot pick and choose the parts of the Bible we will accept and then reject what disagrees with our own view. Unfortunately, I see you doing the same thing.

If the Bible is the word of God and he has preserved it down to our day to instruct and guide us in our course, then we must accept all of it...or none.

You are entitled to your view, but I completely disagree with it.

"Then Jehovah said to Moses: “Stretch out your hand over the sea so that the waters may come back over the Egyptians,"

Murderer. Doesn't even follow his own commandment.

Moses miracles were destruction, Jesus miracles gave life abundantly.

I do not see Moses anything like Jesus. But the Jews and Muslims see him over Jesus. And they are murderers also.

The orthodox murdered heretics. Burned witches. Go figure.

Not for me, my friend. You come to God the Father by only one. And it's not Moses. Jesus said that as well, whether you want to take it that way or not.