The prophets tell us that THE SCRIBES HAD CHANGED THE GOD'S LAW

[metis]

God knew what He would do before Moses made any realization.

That's actually quite an assumption. According to the scriptures, God often asks questions or states there is something He didn't know, such as His telling Samuel that He didn't know Saul, whom He chose as king, was going to turn out to be quite an s.o.b.

 

[CMike]

But see the minor difference between the two words isn't the issue. The similarity between them is.

The issue is whether or not an all-knowing, righteous God can change/reconsider Himself- from one will, to another, according to the lesser knowledge of His own creation.

In this case, God reconsiders the righteousness of His own word, for the righteousness of Moses' word.

The presentation is off. God knew what He would do before Moses made any realization. In actuality, both words are inaccurate.

If G-D will never change his mind what's the point of prayer?

 

[Sleeppy]

If G-D will never change his mind what's the point of prayer?

To understand yourself in relation to God's will.. And to better understand God's will.

 

[Sleeppy]

That's actually quite an assumption. According to the scriptures, God often asks questions or states there is something He didn't know, such as His telling Samuel that He didn't know Saul, whom He chose as king, was going to turn out to be quite an s.o.b.

How had Daniel interpreted the Babylonian king's dream, though it had not been told?

How do the prophets see future events, detail by detail?

No one's quite ready to call all of it guesswork. Instead there are millions clinging to each word- even each letter. Language itself, including Hebrew, is a result of and based on human perception. It becomes inadequate in many instances, which is why we trade words now.

 

[CMike]

To understand yourself in relation to God's will.. And to better understand God's will.

So according to you G-d answers no prayers?

It's all about understanding yourself?

 

[Shermana]

So according to you G-d answers no prayers?

It's all about understanding yourself?

Well he certainly doesn't answer the prayers of "those who turn a deaf ear to the Law".

 

[Sleeppy]

So according to you G-d answers no prayers?

It's all about understanding yourself?

Not only does God answer all prayers, He answers every noun and every verb.

 

[Levite]

Not only does God answer all prayers, He answers every noun and every verb.

Does he also answer adjectives? How about gerunds?

 

[Shermana]

I hear he doesn't respond if you end a sentence with a preposition.

 

[Sleeppy]

Does he also answer adjectives? How about gerunds?

If He uses them.

 

[Porque77]

Well he certainly doesn't answer the prayers of "those who turn a deaf ear to the Law".

He doesn't answer the prayers of those who turn a deaf ear to the Law. But, which Law?... :

The Old Testament commandments that Jesus Christ abolished?... Or the commandments that Jesus Christ teached us in the Gospel?

The Law that must be heard and followed, since always and forever, are commandments that Jesus taught us in the Gospel, because these commandments are the true Law that God gave from the beginning.

The Gospel teaches us the true Law that God gave to Moses, because Jesus Christ tells us that this is the Law and the Prophets:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7: 12)

 

[metis]

How had Daniel interpreted the Babylonian king's dream, though it had not been told?

How do the prophets see future events, detail by detail?

No one's quite ready to call all of it guesswork. Instead there are millions clinging to each word- even each letter. Language itself, including Hebrew, is a result of and based on human perception. It becomes inadequate in many instances, which is why we trade words now.

Well, some here may not like this, but here it goes.

There's a study of the evolution of language that's called "glottochronology", and when we use this along with other indications what we often see is something different than what we might have originally believed.

So many of the books were written much later than the events they cover, so often we see "predictions" whereas all of the events had already happened. The book of Daniel is just one example because it actually has a relatively late writing as compared to the events being covered.

Is this lying? No. What the author(s) are doing is to attach God to past events, whether that be done correctly or not isn't the important issue. What is important, at least as far as I'm concerned, is what are the general morals and values that we can derive from these narratives. In this vein, whether the narrative is objectively accurate or not isn't really that important, but what we can learn from that narrative that might be applicable today is.

 

[Porque77]

I believe that the Law of God - this is the guiding star that points to a human pilgrim way to the Kingdom of Heaven. The value of the Law of God is not reduced over the centuries. On the contrary, the more life gets complicated conflicting human opinions, the more a person needs in a clear and authoritative guide Commandments of God.

Hello, John. That clear and authoritative guide Commandments of God is only the commandments that Jesus Christ taught us in the Gospel, not the Old Testament commandments that Jesus Christ abolished.

Jesus Christ abolished many Old Testament commandments because those commandments weren't the true God's Law, because Jesus did not come to abolish the law of God. He unveiled us the true Law that God had given to Moses, because He said that this is the Law and the prophets:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7: 12)

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Well, some here may not like this, but here it goes.

There's a study of the evolution of language that's called "glottochronology", and when we use this along with other indications what we often see is something different than what we might have originally believed.

So many of the books were written much later than the events they cover, so often we see "predictions" whereas all of the events had already happened. The book of Daniel is just one example because it actually has a relatively late writing as compared to the events being covered.

Is this lying? No. What the author(s) are doing is to attach God to past events, whether that be done correctly or not isn't the important issue. What is important, at least as far as I'm concerned, is what are the general morals and values that we can derive from these narratives. In this vein, whether the narrative is objectively accurate or not isn't really that important, but what we can learn from that narrative that might be applicable today is.

I've said it before, something that is written after the fact is not a prophecy...

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hebrew is doubtful given that it runs backward.


Bruce

 

[Brickjectivity]

Jesus would never abolish the law of Moses, because it would be evil to do that. The reason that he can summarize the law is that the laws all work together. The laws themselves invite summary, particularly the 10 Commandments do. Everything in the laws, even which animals are sacrificed, teaches something about how to treat other people with consideration. Jesus would not abolish the laws or any good thing for that matter. Even if the laws were weak in some way, "A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice" (Isaiah 42:3) It would be unfaithfulness if he abolished Moses laws.

 

[roger1440]

Not only does God answer all prayers, He answers every noun and every verb.

Where are you getting this from? Can you quote a verse please?

 

[Sleeppy]

Where are you getting this from? Can you quote a verse please?

I can quote several..

But quotations aren't more important than experiences.

Have you experienced something contrary?

 

[Sleeppy]

Well, some here may not like this, but here it goes.

There's a study of the evolution of language that's called "glottochronology", and when we use this along with other indications what we often see is something different than what we might have originally believed.

So many of the books were written much later than the events they cover, so often we see "predictions" whereas all of the events had already happened. The book of Daniel is just one example because it actually has a relatively late writing as compared to the events being covered.

Is this lying? No. What the author(s) are doing is to attach God to past events, whether that be done correctly or not isn't the important issue. What is important, at least as far as I'm concerned, is what are the general morals and values that we can derive from these narratives. In this vein, whether the narrative is objectively accurate or not isn't really that important, but what we can learn from that narrative that might be applicable today is.

It's definitely not intentionally malicious. But it achieves enough malice in its deceit.

Many people are distracted by these narratives. Muhammad, to the point that he completed the lie caused by deceit. They believe in things helping, and causing the inaccuracy we live with to this day.

How do certain other Jews react to what you believe?

 

[metis]

It's definitely not intentionally malicious. But it achieves enough malice in its deceit.

Many people are distracted by these narratives. Muhammad, to the point that he completed the lie caused by deceit. They believe in things helping, and causing the inaccuracy we live with to this day.

Which "deceit" are you referring to? Please explain.

How do certain other Jews react to what you believe?

Varies. The more orthodox tend not to like this approach, but I do know of some who do. Within more liberal circles, my view is not at all unusual. Since we do not have a creed we must adhere to, it's pretty much left up to the individual as far as belief is concerned.