metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
What is called the "Law" in scripture are the 613 Laws as found in Torah, and they can be found here: http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Law
- Thread starter Mattithyah
- Start date
Nothing can be more miserable than spending an eternity in hell. Thus God will kill whoever standing in His way for His salvation to reach more humans. That's the button line.
You use your human intelligence to judge, it's said in Genesis that "the same day you eat of it, the same day you shall surely die". Take it as a warning message before you apply your "logic" to judge the good or evil of God.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And should we do the same with humans who commit genocide, namely just tell them they're doing a fine job since they're doing God's will, according to your "logic"?
BTW, you might want to note what's written under my avatar-- I don't believe in your genocidal-maniac deity, nor any other deity for that matter.
Mattithyaw,
Please don't take this as an odium theologicum, but if you continue in your belief you will miss one of the main reasons that Jesus came to earth, and you cannot be saved, because you will still be under the Law of sin and death.
Please, please, meditate on the things I point out to you, from the Bible. I am a Biblist, I believe that ALL doctrine must come from the Bible.
First, The Mosaic Law Covenant was a De Benefit Esse, or interim Covenant!!! It was never meant to last forever, but only until the coming of the Messiah, Christ, Jeremiah 31:31-34. The Law was like a tutor, that would lead to Christ, Gal 3:19-25. At Hebrews 10:1-10 say that the Law Covenant was a shadow of things to come, which was Jesus, because the blood of goats and bulls could not take sins away from men, so Jesus came to give his life for us because his blood could take away sins completely, Hebrews 7:18,19,24,25.
Jesus came to earth to remove The Mosaic Law Covenant, because anyone under that Covenant is under a curse, because it requires a sinner to die for his sins, Gal 3:10-14. The Mosaic Law Covenant could not make anyone perfect, but faith in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus could, Hebrews 10:16-18.
Jesus, on the night before his death, instituted The New Covenant that superceded tha Mosaic Law Covenant, Luke 22:15-20, 1Cor 11:23-26. Consider Hebrews 8:6-13 where we are told of the much better Covenant based on the blood of Jesus.
Consider Romans 3:20, 7:5,6, 8:1-3. Notice too that Colossians tells us that the Mosaic Law was taken away, Colossians 2:13,14. Also showing that the Law was removed are verses 2:16,17, which says not to let anyone judge you about the sabbath. The Sabbath was a requirement under the Mosaic Law Conenant, Ex 31:14-17
Paul was a Jew, born under the Mosaic Laws, but he said that he was not under the Law, showing that it had ended Romans 6:14,15, 1Corinthians 9:20.
The truth is; unless you are a Jew you were never under the Mosaic Law Covenant, for it was only given to God's chosen people, the Jews, Deuteronomy 5:1-3 Ps 147:19,20. The Mosaic Law Covenant was not given to Gentiles, Romans 2:14,15.
Consider deeply what is written at 2Corinthians 3:2, then read the rest of this chapter, which tells about the ending of the Mosaic Law and how the Jews just cannot see, because they have a veil over their eyes whenever the Law of Moses is read.
Dear 12,
You seem to base your profession of faith on the false prophet Paul (Mt 7), the unknown writer of Luke, a supposed associate of Paul, a miss interpretation of Jeremiah 31, based on some unknown writer of Hebrews, who again, seems to be a close associate of the false prophet Paul. As for your reliance on the canon supplied by the Roman Catholic bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, in 367, who would be a foundational player of one of the harlots which sit on the beast (Rev 17), and in particular, an associate of the beast with two horns like a lamb (Rev 13) who was to deceive "those who dwell on the earth"/Constantine the emperor of Rome, who convened the Council of Nicaea, and established the Roman church. Your canon would be composed of the "good seed" of the "word of the kingdom", and the seed sown by the "evil one/enemy" (Mt 13:19) , the seed of the tares, which was done through your false prophet Paul.(Mt 13) They were mixed together and would remain so until the "end of the age", upon at which time the tares would be gathered out and cast into the furnace of fire. (Mt 13:40-42)
As for Paul, he was also known as "Favor" (Zechariah 14:10) whereas he taught the false gospel of grace (being in God's favor), and endeavored, as his brothers, Antiochus & Hadrian, "break my covenant which I had made with all the peoples", a covenant made with Abraham (father of the peoples/nations), which was the covenant of Circumcision, which applied to Abraham's servants as well as his kin. Keep in mind that the shepherd "Favor" was taken to "pasture the flock" doom to slaughter" (Zech 14:7). That "flock doomed to slaughter" is the flock which is founded on Peter (Zech 11:17), and Paul (Zech 11:10).
KBC1963
Active Member
There is a difference between causing something and not lifting a finger to prevent it. God promised to protect his people if they would obey him.....
KBC1963
Active Member
You may want to review the actual words of the scriptures you referenced.
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them After those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws on their heart, And upon their mind also will I write them; [then saith he,]
17 And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
God didn't at all say he was taking his laws away but it does state in plain words that he will place HIS LAWS in their hearts and minds. His laws are the 10 initial commandments that all other laws such as those considered Mosaic laws were based on. So tell me what exactly are HIS LAWS? Pls. define them all since he asserts there is more than one by the plural use of laws.
You should also consider what the holy of holies is representative of and why the ark with the ten commandments was stored there.
Hebrews 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
If I stand by and let an innocent child die when I could have easily stopped it, am I really "moral"?
Secondly, using your approach, every group that has been a victim of genocide must be at fault, right? And you approach can also be applied at the personal level, namely that every child who dies prematurely must be guilty of something, whereas God pretty much disowned them, right?
KBC1963
Active Member
That would depend on whether you could bring him back to life
metis said:
If there was no free will to commit a genocide then no one could give a commitment by their own free will and to prevent every evil thing would also prevent people from seeing the end results of evil. So in the end he who can create life can reverse the ultimate effects of evil committed by free will, unlike those who use their free will to perform the evil. Thus, even the children you hope to rest your argument on can be given another life at any time the creator deems fit since in fact the creator made them in the first place.
Christ and the apostles didn't deserve their fate but it was not God that harmed them so should we hate God for not stopping the atrocity or hate the evil that ultimately caused the acts to occur? and really what is evil? God says the only sins existing are where free willed creations that he caused to exist has by themselves determined not to obey his laws of liberty.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Then Jesus and the apostles must have done something terribly wrong if God had them die, according to to what you had previously posted? Sorry, but I simply do not buy that in any way as it turns God into some sort of genocidal maniac. Even if God brought all of the innocents back to life, He certainly would be setting a terrible example for the rest of us. Believe what you want, but I certainly don't believe in any such deity that would do that.
KBC1963
Active Member
Christ was allowed to give his life for those who had sinned in order to remove death as the only possibility for everyone and he told the apostles that they should follow his ways if they were to be considered his brother or sister, mother, father.... and that they should look forward to a world without evil. Would you give your life for someone you love? would you give it for someone you don't know? Each of us possesses free will and we show our will in our actions and words. How good of an example would you make if you gave your life for others who didn't deserve it.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You are evading the point, which is why would you worship a deity that's a homicidal maniac if one interprets the scriptures literally? What Jesus did or didn't do doesn't change what you believe in regards to God's supposed actions.
Secondly, if you truly believe in "free will", which I do btw, then how can you believe in a deity that denies "free will" by having that deity killing myriads of people, including children? How can God supposedly force people to kill others and still believe in "free will"?
OTOH, I would suggest that there's another way to look at these scriptures, which I believe makes more sense.
KBC1963
Active Member
what if one interprets the scriptures literally and doesn't see a homicidal maniac? suppose you are not aware of some information that would change your interpretation?
If you are a creator of life how could you be faulted for ending it if it doesn't satisfy your intent? as long as you have the power to create life then you can at any point recreate each and every one of those lives that you created to begin with so there is never an absolute loss until you decide to end them and choose never to recreate.
Keep in mind that you could not form your argument if you were not created to begin with.
metis said:
ok
metis said:
how does he force people to kill? in every event I'm aware of he has only given a command, I don't recall any reference to him taking over their own individual will to cause them to do what they would not have done otherwise.
metis said:
ok. let's hear about it then.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I'll just deal with this question since the others I have already dealt with.
In the study of the evolution of language, we can typically get an idea of when X was written, also when put into the context of the events that they supposedly cover. Even though the Torah supposedly covers events that may (or may not) have occurred somewhere around 1300 b.c.e., the writing style indicates a much later writing, with Dt. being the most recent. What this pretty much tells us is that these narratives were carried orally, possibly for several centuries, before being written-- at least in the form we now see them (some could and probably was written down earlier, but unfortunately we don't have any of those documents).
So, what we have are oral traditions being written down much later, and what probably happened, imo, is the placement of God into these events, correctly or incorrectly. People do this all the time even today. How many times do we hear people talking about how God saved them whereas others were killed, let's say in a plane crash.
For these early Jewish/Hebrew writers to place God into previous major events would make a great deal of sense, but the problem is that this would be a very imprecise art. Therefore, the idea of a "vengeful God" smiting Israel's enemies would be a logical thing for them to write, but...
We gotta remember, all scriptures in all religions are very subjective.
KBC1963
Active Member
Your greater problem for your line of reasoning is how you would explain the texts that show that the jews continuously disobeyed the desires of their God and eventually ended up spread out among all peoples and ceased being a nation. The Egyptians are a good example of how a people skewed their recorded history to show what they wanted others to perceive about them. If the jews were performing a skewing of their actual history like the Egyptians did to make it look like something it is not then there would be no rationale for keeping those parts that showed them to be any less than what their God wanted them to be. You run into a logic wall.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
A constant theme in Torah focuses in on our relationship with the Law, whereas if we kept it carefully, good things happened, but if we didn't, bad things happened. Actually, almost all religions have a variation of themes like this, including Christianity.
However, what you wrote above really does not deal with what I wrote in my previous post, but I thought I'd respond to it anyway.
KBC1963
Active Member
You implied that the jews were writing their own history to their benefit and I pointed out how that does not follow logically from the evidence at hand.
Ken Brown
Well-Known Member
Shabbat Shalom KBC, I thought this thread had died and hadn't checked it for a while. I'm not certain you had posted this to me, but I would like to ask you or Richard Anthony which "law" Paul was referring to that "ye also are become dead to the law" & "we are delivered from the law" in his writing to the Romans:
Romans 7:4 - 7:13
(4) Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Messiah; that ye should be married to another, [even] to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto Elohim.
(5) For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
(6) But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.
(7) What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? Elohim forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
(8) But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead.
(9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
(10) And the commandment, which [was ordained] to life, I found [to be] unto death.
(11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew [me].
(12) Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
(13) Was then that which is good made death unto me? Elohim forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
It appears you want to separate, or make a distinction between the Law of Elohim (The Testimony-10 Commandments) from the Law of Moses, so is "Thou shalt not covet" part of the Law of Elohim, or a part of the Law of Moses? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.
KBC1963
Active Member
It was contained in both.
The ten commandments are GOD's laws of liberty. The book of the law written by Moses has all the ten commandments in it and every one of the other laws that were subsequently defined and based on the original 10. The difference between the tablets that contained GOD's laws of liberty and Moses book of the law was that the book of the covenant also defined how sin was to be dealt with. Note this verse;
Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace...
The 10 commandments didn't contain ordinances it was simply his law. How the breaking of his laws was satisfied by the Jews under the covenant was entirely contained within the book of the law which prescribed not only the various laws that were founded upon the ten commandments but also contained the rules / ordinances for how to pay the debt for breaking the laws. Note also this reference;
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
The 10 commandments has no curse written in it. The works of the law were the actions prescribed by Moses in the book of the law to pay (temporarily) the penalties for sin. Consider these references as well;
Galatians 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
the 10 commandments were not added because of transgression because of course without a law to break what could be transgressed?.... The law of Moses was added because of the transgression of the 10 commandments and as you can plainly see in the above verse it was this law that was added until "the seed should come to whom the promise was made"
Deut 29:1 These are the words of the covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.
Deut 29:21 ....according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law:
Deut 31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
Deut 31:25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
Deut 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
The Mosaic law or book of the law was another covenant between God and his people that prescribed how to observe the law and deal with the consequences of transgressing it. This book was put in the side of the ark as a symbol for how it was to be treated in the future. It was not intended to be the final answer for saving Gods people but rather a temporary one. Christ's entire existence was to provide that alternative method of payment for those who broke his fathers laws which means of course that the old testament book of the law would have to end and a new covenant made. In the new covenant God makes with man he still has his same foundational laws but he changes how breaking those laws will be paid for. Note these verses about God's laws in the new covenant;
Hebrews 8:6-10 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people...
Take note that the new covenant was necessary not because of a problem with God's laws but rather it was a problem with the promises written in the book of the law. God saw that it was not enough for people to simply follow his laws outwardly and go through the motions of the offerings to satisfy the payment required for not obeying his laws so his solution was to take those same laws and put them in the minds and hearts of the people and if they should err in following them then they could come before their new high priest "Christ" to be forgiven their trespasses against his fathers laws. Without laws to transgress there would be no need for a mediator between us and God and people could literally do or think whatever they want without regard for any punishment so, when God says he will put his laws in our minds and hearts his intention is that if we love him we will do our best to follow them otherwise what sense would there be for them to exist?
Last edited:
Dear kb,
Your whole premise is based on the foundation of Paul, who is nothing but a fulfillment of the false prophet described in Mt 7. There is a "costly cornerstone for the foundation" but it isn't the new "covenant with death" established by the false prophet Paul, in which his followers, "concealed ourselves with deception".(Is 28:15).
Isaiah 28:16,"Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.