Moses and the Law

[Rose]

How can the Law that was given to the Jews through Moses…

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?
…be deemed infallible and trustworthy, when we find in those same Scriptures commands given from Moses - with no apparent rebuke from God - that are moral abominations?

Num.31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?...17) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
The above verse is a direct rebuke from Moses to the Jews for keeping all the women and male children alive, and a command from him to them to kill every male child, and every woman EXCEPT the virgins which they were to keep for themselves.

My first question is what is the difference between a male child, and a girl child as far as being corrupted by the pagan society they lived in? NONE, so that leaves only one answer as to why the girls were kept alive….SO THE MEN COULD RAPE THEM, using them for their own sexual pleasure….AND THIS WAS GIVEN AS A COMMAND BY MOSES?????

Rose

[Brother Les]

The 'pagans' were not 'brothers/neighbors/kinsmen' to the 'Israelites',they were dogs and to be treated as such. It is the same idealism of the 'israelis' of today against the Palistinians, the dogs are not human and can and should be used, abused, and then killed., this in the eyes of Torah Jews is mercy, which would be better that slavery. YHWH had 'Covenant' with (oc) 'Israel', the Pagans did not. That is one of the main issues with first century Jews in light of 'Gentiles' having Covenant with Jesus/Messiah, not by Torah, but by the Faith.....

'We' say 'works' bring nothing...., 'Israel' of the first century and before say,'works' bring everything.

[Rose]

The 'pagans' were not 'brothers/neighbors/kinsmen' to the 'Israelites',they were dogs and to be treated as such. It is the same idealism of the 'israelis' of today against the Palistinians, the dogs are not human and can and should be used, abused, and then killed., this in the eyes of Torah Jews is mercy, which would be better that slavery. YHWH had 'Covenant' with (oc) 'Israel', the Pagans did not. That is one of the main issues with first century Jews in light of 'Gentiles' having Covenant with Jesus/Messiah, not by Torah, but by the Faith.....

'We' say 'works' bring nothing...., 'Israel' of the first century and before say,'works' bring everything.

The reasons given that the "Pagans" were dogs and thus should be used, abused, and killed does not answer two very important questions.

1. If the "Pagans" were considered dogs, why were the women children kept and used sexually, thus producing offspring?

2. Why would Moses promote the sexual exploitation of children when the purpose of killing the "Pagans" was to eradicate them from the land? It seems pretty sick to me...:eek:


Rose

[Gil]

Good question Rose.

The male/female, spirit/soul concept runs though scripture like a flowing river.
It is the male spirit which is seen to be that which defiles ,corrupts the soul.
A male is born with the spirit of his father within him.
A female that has laid with another male has the spirit of her husband within her, as in marriage or the consummation thereof . They are then as one flesh.
Separate but one in the same spirit.
Female children that were virgins were still seen to be clean.
They could marry them, place then into concubines or use them as slaves. Whatever they wanted to.

Dogs? Paul also called the apostles James, John and Peter dogs when they were trying to mix Grace and Law.
One cannot serve two masters.
The old and new covenants had different Spirits behind them.
The one behind the letter of the Law, the Spirit of Man and his works and the other behind the Spirit of the Law whose works are of the Spirit ( Holy) .

Jehovah was an Elohim, both male and female.
The messenger (angel) of the Lord that spoke to Moses, and was going to kill
his son was the angel of death.
The Old covenant was of death not Life.

Gil

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good question Rose.

The male/female, spirit/soul concept runs though scripture like a flowing river.
It is the male spirit which is seen to be that which defiles ,corrupts the soul.
A male is born with the spirit of his father within him.
A female that has laid with another male has the spirit of her husband within her, as in marriage or the consummation thereof . They are then as one flesh.
Separate but one in the same spirit.
Female children that were virgins were still seen to be clean.
They could marry them, place then into concubines or use them as slaves. Whatever they wanted to.

Hey there Gil,

I understand that the spirit is often considered "male" and the body "female" - this is pretty standard association following the lines of the oriental "yin/yang." But where did you get the idea of the "spirit of the husband" being within the woman after consummation? That is a new idea to me.

All the best,

Richard

[Brother Les]

Gil

Paul also called the apostles James, John and Peter dogs when they were trying to mix Grace and Law.

Could you point out where Paul called James, John and Peter dogs. I don't recall reading about this. I have read where Peter says he and Paul agree on scripture, so what you say is new to me.


2Pe 3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation ; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you

[Enlightened]

This is a great question/topic which jogged my memory of a fantastic paper I read that discussed this event in great detail, which I thought was very in depth and well written.

Here it is http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html

I highly recommend reading it before debating further.

[Rose]

This is a great question/topic which jogged my memory of a fantastic paper I read that discussed this event in great detail, which I thought was very in depth and well written.

Here it is http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html

I highly recommend reading it before debating further.

Thanks for providing the link, though I must say I was very disappointed in the amount of speculation that Glenn Miller did in his article, especially since it was done to try and justify the taking of innocent children to be used for sexual purposes, and I must say I was totally shocked at his closing statement: how could anyone say what was done to the Midianite children was neither cruel nor unfair, nor unwarranted...:eek:
"The removal of this exact sub-culture (without impacting the Moabites or the rest of the Midianites—for good or ill), while mercifully sparing a very large number of innocent young girls, yet without sparing the guilty Israelites, seems neither cruel nor unfair nor unwarranted, given the horrendously dehumanizing character of this crime, and given the unavoidable consequences of conflict upon children in the ancient world… Glenn Miller"

Let's not forget the children were the victims....can you imagine what those young girls must have felt....not only did they see their entire families wiped out, but then they were RAPED by their captors....yes I said RAPED, because there is no way any woman would ever willingly have any kind of relations with the men who had just killed off her entire family.

It saddens me deeply to see Christian men that feel the need to justify horrendous acts, just because they are recorded in the Bible.

Rose

[Gil]

Quote: Richard > [Hey there Gil,

I understand that the spirit is often considered "male" and the body "female" - this is pretty standard association following the lines of the oriental "yin/yang." But where did you get the idea of the "spirit of the husband" being within the woman after consummation? That is a new idea to me.

All the best,

Richard ]

Gil > It is kind of within the concept of marriage. That after the consummation of the marriage through sex the male and female spirit and soul become as one in the same spirit. A bonding together, the one to another.
The same if out of wedlock in terms of adultery.

In new covenant thinking, it is the Spirit which quickenth the individual body as well as the whole.
Quickenth is to make alive, that which was dead already.
The Spirit of Life is a spiritual seed that begins the forming, or transformation process.
You may see it better if you think of a natural seed that is planted in the ground.
After it is watered and heated to the right temperature it will germinate and begin to grow and develop into that which is to be made manifest.
Same with the egg within a woman's womb. The sperm of the male is which quickens the egg, that it may begin to be formed as a child within her womb.
The attributes of the male are within his seed including the spark of life.
The story begins with life being given to the Land/Earth as they were seen within their concept. The Land in this case is the female which forms that which is to have life within her womb that it may be made manifest.
The Life giver is God , and within his seed is life to be found.
It is after the fall that the Spirit of the flesh comes into being.

It may even follow the modern line of genetics, The male DNA and the female MTDNA.

It is all within the framework of the progression of thought, ideas and concepts of primitive man, ANE , Hebrew thought forms and the more advanced concepts of the Greek thought through Paul.
Modern science is more or less moving forward along the same lines as they
move backward into the unseen worlds that are within the microcosms of the material world.
This answer may not be entirely worded right but you should pick up the drift anyway.

Gil

[Gil]

Howdy Les,
Quote Les > [Could you point out where Paul called James, John and Peter dogs. I don't recall reading about this. I have read where Peter says he and Paul agree on scripture, so what you say is new to me.]


Gil > By association. I will have to give it more thought.
John was the thorn in Paul's side. His insistence of the Law to be followed.

The book of Revelation was called the revelation (apocalypse) of John.
The Law would be revealed for what it was through John.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ would come from Paul himself.
It was to be his ministry, not Johns.

2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

All of Philippians 3: and all of Revelation 22:

Isaiah says this concerning the sacrifices that were a part of the Law and its sin nature.

[ Isaiah 66:3 He that killeth an ox [is as if] he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, [as if] he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, [as if he offered] swine's blood; he that burneth incense, [as if] he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. ]

[ Philippians 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. ]

According to Paul, all those who followed after him and started chaos and disruption within his churches , of whose members ,whether they be circumcised or not circumcised, by bringing the Law back to the remembrance of his converts after he had given them the True Gospel of Grace and Mercy through Faith only without the Law and its works by man , Paul thought of them as dogs.
The Jerusalem three, James, John and Peter who were to bring all the manuscripts and writings together for canonization and it was Peter who would
convince John that Paul's writings be included. Either directly or through
those that they had sent as their messengers to follow up after Paul had been to the churches outside of Jerusalem and departed were trying to bring back the Law and attach Grace and Mercy unto it.
Grace + Law. Peter in the end before his death sided with Paul, in that the Gospel was Grace and Mercy through Faith only without the Law of the Old covenant.

In this chapter (Rev. 22:) we find the same reference to dogs, who loveth and maketh a lie.
To Paul, to mix Grace with the Law, was a lie.
They could not follow two masters.
Also in this last chapter :
Paul was the Angel (messenger) that Jesus had sent to the churches to give them the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He was hand picked for the job at hand.
Peter ,James and John were to spread the Gospel to the circumcised Jews.
They spent most of their time in Jerusalem with the church there.
Paul's greeting and salutation that he so often used in his writing even closes the last book.

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.

This messenger was Paul , not John.

Revelation 22:15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Revelation 22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen

My memory isn't the best anymore as to where my thoughts had been formed.
Maybe I can come up with a better answer.

Gil

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This is a great question/topic which jogged my memory of a fantastic paper I read that discussed this event in great detail, which I thought was very in depth and well written.

Here it is http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html

I highly recommend reading it before debating further.
Thanks for the link. I was reading that article a couple days ago because it came up third in my Google search for "Midianites in the Bible."

I can see why you might think this article is "fantastic" because it is very well documented with lots of footnotes, and it definitely succeeds in putting the best possible "spin" on an extremely offensive passage of Scripture. But I think a close review reveals it is not really a successful apologetic.

I'll write more after I finish reviewing the article.

Richard

[Clifford]

Thanks for providing the link, though I must say I was very disappointed in the amount of speculation that Glenn Miller did in his article, especially since it was done to try and justify the taking of innocent children to be used for sexual purposes, and I must say I was totally shocked at his closing statement: how could anyone say what was done to the Midianite children was neither cruel nor unfair, nor unwarranted...:eek:
"The removal of this exact sub-culture (without impacting the Moabites or the rest of the Midianites—for good or ill), while mercifully sparing a very large number of innocent young girls, yet without sparing the guilty Israelites, seems neither cruel nor unfair nor unwarranted, given the horrendously dehumanizing character of this crime, and given the unavoidable consequences of conflict upon children in the ancient world… Glenn Miller"

Let's not forget the children were the victims....can you imagine what those young girls must have felt....not only did they see their entire families wiped out, but then they were RAPED by their captors....yes I said RAPED, because there is no way any woman would ever willingly have any kind of relations with the men who had just killed off her entire family.

It saddens me deeply to see Christian men that feel the need to justify horrendous acts, just because they are recorded in the Bible.

Rose

Rose,

From your response it looks like you didn't read much of his article or only skimmed through it. In the beginning of the article he explained that that nowhere in the text does it say that the girls were used as sex slaves. In fact in was NOT the custom of the Hebrews at that time to have sex slaves as did the Romans and Greeks. So saying they were used as sex slaves is an assumption read into the text.

All the men and women were killed because they had participated in the unprovoked hostility towards the Israelites. The men and women were both complicit in trying to seduce the Israelites and turn them away from the Lord. So God's judgment fell not only on them but also on the Israelite men who had been seduced and turned away from God.

As Glenn Miller explained the killing of the boys was done because the Israelites at the time did not have the means to support many more people because of their nomadic lifestyle of the time and also because when they got older they could turn against the Israelites and aid their enemies. The young girls did not pose such a threat.

Anytime peoples engage in war awful things happen and this case was no exception. I thought Glenn Miller provided a good explanation of the cultural and historical context of this event and how it was not as cruel as people try to make it out to be.

Clifford

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Rose,

From your response it looks like you didn't read much of his article or only skimmed through it. In the beginning of the article he explained that that nowhere in the text does it say that the girls were used as sex slaves. In fact in was NOT the custom of the Hebrews at that time to have sex slaves as did the Romans and Greeks. So saying they were used as sex slaves is an assumption read into the text.

Hey there Clifford,

That article is totally fallacious. I am in the process of writing a full rebuttal. He ignored parallel passages in Judges that show his assertions are utterly ridiculous. In Judges 21, Israel raided Jabesh-Gilead and killed everyone, men, women, and children, except the virgins for one purpose and one purpose only - to acquire "wives" (aka sex-slaves) for the tribe of Benjamin. Exactly the same words are used in the parallel passages of Judges 21 and Numbers 31:

Judges 21:6 And the children of Israel grieved for Benjamin their brother, and said, "One tribe is cut off from Israel today. 7 "What shall we do for wives for those who remain, seeing we have sworn by the LORD that we will not give them our daughters as wives?" 8 And they said, "What one is there from the tribes of Israel who did not come up to Mizpah to the LORD?" And, in fact, no one had come to the camp from Jabesh Gilead to the assembly. 9 For when the people were counted, indeed, not one of the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead was there. 10 So the congregation sent out there twelve thousand of their most valiant men, and commanded them, saying, "Go and strike the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead with the edge of the sword, including the women and children. 11 "And this is the thing that you shall do: You shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman who has known a man intimately." 12 So they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead four hundred young virgins who had not known a man intimately; and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
Compare this with the command from Moses in Numbers 31:

Numbers 31:17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 "But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.
So there it is. All of the arguments invented by Glenn Miller that supposedly proved that the young virgins were not taken for sex-slaves (aka "wives") are proven false by counter example. His entire article is riddled with absurdities like this.

All the best,

Richard

[Clifford]

Hey there Clifford,

That article is totally fallacious. I am in the process of writing a full rebuttal. He ignored parallel passages in Judges that show his assertions are utterly ridiculous. In Judges 21, Israel raided Jabesh-Gilead and killed everyone, men, women, and children, except the virgins for one purpose and one purpose only - to acquire "wives" (aka sex-slaves) for the tribe of Benjamin. Exactly the same words are used in the parallel passages of Judges 21 and Numbers 31:

Judges 21:6 And the children of Israel grieved for Benjamin their brother, and said, "One tribe is cut off from Israel today. 7 "What shall we do for wives for those who remain, seeing we have sworn by the LORD that we will not give them our daughters as wives?" 8 And they said, "What one is there from the tribes of Israel who did not come up to Mizpah to the LORD?" And, in fact, no one had come to the camp from Jabesh Gilead to the assembly. 9 For when the people were counted, indeed, not one of the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead was there. 10 So the congregation sent out there twelve thousand of their most valiant men, and commanded them, saying, "Go and strike the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead with the edge of the sword, including the women and children. 11 "And this is the thing that you shall do: You shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman who has known a man intimately." 12 So they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead four hundred young virgins who had not known a man intimately; and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
Compare this with the command from Moses in Numbers 31:

Numbers 31:17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 "But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.
So there it is. All of the arguments invented by Glenn Miller that supposedly proved that the young virgins were not taken for sex-slaves (aka "wives") are proven false by counter example. His entire article is riddled with absurdities like this.

All the best,

Richard

Hi Richard,

You are making several false assumptions. First off Judges 21 is not a parallel passage to Numbers 31. They are in a different historical and cultural setting. Numbers 31 took place against the Midianites many years earlier while Judges 21 is an inter-tribal conflict among the Israelites. This is not even close to a parallel passage. Secondly,you
are reading into the text. Its says nothing about sex slaves. That is just your assumption that has no basis from the text. In fact, the Benjamite men had no wives and were looking to acquire wives for themselves. So when the opportunity presented itself they took those women as wives. To me a sex slave would be when you already had a wife and were acquiring other women for sex, like a king building a harem. In this case these wives the Benjamites got for themselves would be no more of a sex slave then if they got wives by the customary means in those days, by arranged marriages. Now I am not saying what they did was right, but your assumption they were acquired as sex slaves has no basis from the text.

Thirdly, the whole mission did not originate for the purpose of acquiring wives, but because the Israelites had taken an oath that whichever tribe did not assemble before the Lord at Mizpah would be put to death.

Another point to keep in mind is that nowhere in Judges 21 does God tell them to go to Jabesh Gilead and kill all the people there and take the virgin women as wives. So this whole episode does not have divine sanction so you can't argue that it is another instance of some cruelty that God sanctioned or told the Israelites to do.

Take care,

Clifford

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

You are making several false assumptions. First off Judges 21 is not a parallel passage to Numbers 31. They are in a different historical and cultural setting. Numbers 31 took place against the Midianites many years earlier while Judges 21 is an inter-tribal conflict among the Israelites. This is not even close to a parallel passage.

Hey there Clifford,

I was using the word "parallel" in the sense of two texts that speak of similar events, using many of the same words. Obviously, I was not suggesting that they were "parallel" accounts of the same event! This is how the word is commonly used in Biblical commentaries. For example, in D. I. Block's commentary on the rape of the concubine in Judges 19 in the New American Commentary, he noted that it "presents a remarkable parallel to Genesis 19." He then went on to present the text of Genesis 19 in parallel with the text of Judges 19.



Secondly,you are reading into the text. Its says nothing about sex slaves. That is just your assumption that has no basis from the text. In fact, the Benjamite men had no wives and were looking to acquire wives for themselves. So when the opportunity presented itself they took those women as wives. To me a sex slave would be when you already had a wife and were acquiring other women for sex, like a king building a harem. In this case these wives the Benjamites got for themselves would be no more of a sex slave then if they got wives by the customary means in those days, by arranged marriages. Now I am not saying what they did was right, but your assumption they were acquired as sex slaves has no basis from the text.

The Benjaminites need wives because all Israel had joined together to slay every man, woman and child of that tribe. All were killed except for 600 warriors who had escaped the battle. After killing all the women of Benjamin, Israel realized that the tribe would go extinct because they had made a vow to God to never give their daughters to Benjamin. Then they came up with a plan. They had also made a vow to kill anyone who failed to attend their assembly before the Lord in Mizpah. They checked and found that the town of Jabesh-Gilead had failed to attend, so they sent 12,000 men to kill every man, woman, and child of that Israelite town, except, of course, the virgins which they took for the express purpose of giving wives to Benjamin, to replace the women they murdered days earlier.

I do not believe it is an error to use the term "sex-slave" to identify a woman who was seized by force and given to a man as "wife" against her will. But if you find this term not sufficiently accurate, that's fine. Suggest another. But don't try to cover up the gross crime committed against those 600 women. And don't forget that God is complicit in all these crimes because Israel inquired of him, asking if they should attack Benjamin, and God not only said "Yes" but also said that he would deliver Benjamin into their hands. This means that God approved of the murder of every man, woman, and child in the tribe of Benjamin. What was there crime?



Thirdly, the whole mission did not originate for the purpose of acquiring wives, but because the Israelites had taken an oath that whichever tribe did not assemble before the Lord at Mizpah would be put to death.

That is not correct. The whole mission began because the concubine was murdered by "sons of Belial" and the tribe of Benjamin refused to turn over the criminals. Israel responded by killing every man, woman, and child of Benjamin except the 600 soldiers that escaped to the rock of Rimmon. Then Israel realized that the tribe of Benjamin would go extinct if they could not find wives for them, since they just killed all their wives and had made another vow to not give any of their own daughers to Benjamin as wives. THAT'S when they remembered the vow to kill anyone who had not assemble before the Lord at Mizpah. But they did not obey their oath to kill everyone. No ... they killed everyone except the virgins, and the reason given was that they needed the virgins for wives to give to Benjamin. But there were not enough (only 400). They needed another two hundred which the stole from the folks living in Shiloh.



Another point to keep in mind is that nowhere in Judges 21 does God tell them to go to Jabesh Gilead and kill all the people there and take the virgin women as wives. So this whole episode does not have divine sanction so you can't argue that it is another instance of some cruelty that God sanctioned or told the Israelites to do.

Take care,

Clifford
Granted, God did not give a command to attack Jabesh-Gilead. But the people knew that he is God and that he was perfectly able to express his will, and they had two precedents to guide their actions. First, they had knowledge of Numbers 31, which D. I. Block suggests may have given them an excuse to violate the "cherem" law which demanded that they kill every man, woman, and child without exception, so that they could keep the virgins. Second, God had just recently approved their murder of every man, woman, and child of the tribe of Benjamin. God's silence, especially in this context when he was actively communicating with them, can be seen as nothing short of full approval.

I know these are ugly facts, but we cannot turn our eyes from truth in an effort to protect the "truth" of the Bible! We must remove the blinders and look at the reality of what the Biblical record frankly states.

All the best,

Richard

[Moses]

I know these are ugly facts, but we cannot turn our eyes from truth in an effort to protect the "truth" of the Bible! We must remove the blinders and look at the reality of what the Biblical record frankly states.

This is an excellent point.
I would take it one step further though. Not only can we not turn our eyes from the 'truth' of the bible...but we can't turn our eyes from the 'truth' about God (and his nature and actions).

We can't hide from the 'ugly facts' about God...If we simply see God on our terms rather then as he is revealed in tota scriptura (old and new testaments), then we our forming our own God (idolatry).

Here is an example.
Some people, in the name of 'god', protest against capital punishment. I once heard someone say about such people "what...do they actually think they are nicer then God"

Perhaps such people are hiding their eyes from the 'ugly facts', not only about the bible, but about God himself.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

From Clifford:


From your response it looks like you didn't read much of his article or only skimmed through it. In the beginning of the article he explained that that nowhere in the text does it say that the girls were used as sex slaves. In fact in was NOT the custom of the Hebrews at that time to have sex slaves as did the Romans and Greeks. So saying they were used as sex slaves is an assumption read into the text.

I subscribe to this partial explanation.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

From Clifford:


From your response it looks like you didn't read much of his article or only skimmed through it. In the beginning of the article he explained that that nowhere in the text does it say that the girls were used as sex slaves. In fact in was NOT the custom of the Hebrews at that time to have sex slaves as did the Romans and Greeks. So saying they were used as sex slaves is an assumption read into the text

I subscribe to this partial explanation.
What should we call it when a virgin has her entire family and tribe slaughtered before her eyes and is then taken to be sexually used by her captors if not a "sex slave"?

[Jahvoh]

My first reply / comment to a thread upon viewing this, and I found it intensely interesting that the Father is not being mentioned as judge of the matter, and the opinions of all who have posted thus far, under this relative topic of "Moses and the LAW".

It would seem a breach of contract between those that are written to have killed the men, women, boys while saving the young girls who had not known any man would be looked upon by the Father as having committed Blasphemy,
-by way of coveting / wanting "wives" and or alleged "servants" / "concubines" while also breaching the command "Thou shalt not kill", and so the question of - if it was "right" or "wrong" is already answered when placed against the will of God, who even commanded not to eat of the fruit of knowledge.

So, from the beginning, they were (all of hem) not worthy (as even still none are), without salvation, (since salvation did not exist as a path nor promise until the New Testament by the only one that claimed himself to be God that did not write of himself nor compose any writ of the bible except as it was witnessed)
and the Father (through his son Jesus Christ) did say, "If I speak on my own behalf, what I say can not be accepted as true."

The last sentence I put, is proven, as the Father Creator written to have said, "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Which is written as Old Testament to show the first contract with mankind, that was breached.

[Timmy]

Hello J,

Finding your post interesting, perhaps you might find interesting the considerations of this one right here: Little Barefooteded Timmy.
My first reply / comment to a thread upon viewing this, and I found it intensely interesting that the Father is not being mentioned as judge of the matter, and the opinions of all who have posted thus far, under this relative topic of "Moses and the LAW".
First, Moshe is not the ultimate, as in Law giver, but only a spokesperson, and just like every other human, human as well.

Second, what makes one think that Avi El Ain Sof would bow to the human condition being so holy and seperate from integration into world woes save through the Son?

In reference for thought, reference to Yeshua's dealings is spoken of from Yochanan 5:

"17 But יהושע answered them, 'My Father works until now, and I work.' 18 Because of this, then, the Yehudim were seeking all the more to kill Him, ‘because not only was He breaking Shabbat, but He also called Elohim His own Father, making Himself equal with Elohim.’
19 Therefore יהושע responded and said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son is able to do none at all by Himself, but only that which He sees the Father doing, because whatever He does, the Son also likewise does. 20 'For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all that He Himself does. And greater works than these He is going to show Him, in order that you marvel. 21 'For as the Father raises the dead and makes alive, even so the Son makes alive whom He wishes. 22 'For the Father judges no one, but has given all the judgment to the Son, 23 that all should value the Son even as they value the Father. He who does not value the Son does not value the Father who sent Him. 24 'Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me possesses everlasting life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 25 'Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of Elohim. And those having heard shall live. 26 'For as the Father possesses life in Himself, so He gave also to the Son to possess life in Himself, 27 and He has given Him authority also to do judgment, because He is the Son of Adamah."



It would seem a breach of contract between those that are written to have killed the men, women, boys while saving the young girls who had not known any man would be looked upon by the Father as having committed Blasphemy,
-by way of coveting / wanting "wives" and or alleged "servants" / "concubines" while also breaching the command "Thou shalt not kill", and so the question of - if it was "right" or "wrong" is already answered when placed against the will of God, who even commanded not to eat of the fruit of knowledge.
Torah text never says not to kill, but to do no murder.

Now you can look to the meaning of what the word "murder" meant at the time which that was written, or make up your own ideas based on your current cultural context; because, of course, our own altercating sifting shiftless culture is requisite to worldwide cultural standards of not only the past, but the present and future as well....right?

You are saying "Blasphemy" when the word should be "Abomination."

Now, to draw notions through a standard of judgement without a basis in something absolute, is like expecting the wind not to shift direction. It is plainly unpredictable and holds no fixed direction.


So, from the beginning, they were (all of hem) not worthy (as even still none are), without salvation, (since salvation did not exist as a path nor promise until the New Testament by the only one that claimed himself to be God that did not write of himself nor compose any writ of the bible except as it was witnessed)
and the Father (through his son Jesus Christ) did say, "If I speak on my own behalf, what I say can not be accepted as true."
Salvation did exist as both a path and promised long before the New Testament. . .

...and regarding the Father/Son not writing anything Him self(s)...would you bother writing a book you can get others to do for you?


The last sentence I put, is proven, as the Father Creator written to have said, "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Which is written as Old Testament to show the first contract with mankind, that was breached.

Now how does the above constitute a breach of contract?
Adamah was created a Son of God.
With God a thousand years is as a day.
Now God only said "In the day that you eat" not before or after.
(930 years is within the thousand years is as a day timeframe.)

Cynarchastically,

Little Barefoot Timmy

p.s. ...and mayhaps you can reveal what is up with this mistaken notion that just because something is stated in scripture, some manimals automatically ASSUME that this is the will, the way, and are the very words of God???????????

[Jahvoh]

Thank you Timmy
"Senior Member"

I am grateful for your reply and constructed / echoed words of knowledge.

Let me not claim myself as void of a timber in my eye, that I attempt to remove anyone else's.

I can only navigate by my understanding as I perceive it.
I have not spoken on my own behalf, but I have written it upon this forum, and all that makes me *think, is the energy I have been designed / allowed to use to express myself.

I had not considered the subject matters you have presented, and I am grateful that I would have such in me to provoke you to reply.

Thank you for your judgement and knowledge to reason.
We are placing, reading, learning by consent of our own being to understand the Creator as children we are.

I was only attempting to navigate to know truth by seeking it and it seems that all things point to allegations of many men who put words that point to the creator as the source of it all.

I am with limited compartmentalized information and restricted to a region / tradition / place with limited bandwidths in which to express myself in that light as I would judge myself -- thus others.

If this is not the condition of all men then it would not surprise me to see I am deceived myself again.
The only consolation is wisdom retained as I survive in this life.

As for your question "would you bother writing a book you can get others to do for you?"
I would say, "Yes"
Since by my experience and knowing of my fellow brothers, that it is a mess to witness all that has been left for us to read what they have written, what is alleged to be already written upon our heart to discover.

A Word has begot words as is alleged a virgin begets a child in a story, and learning words from a parent / teacher / brother which are often in conflict of being defined such as in Legal Fiction vs alleging a real truth, all still comes to require "acceptance" / "contract agreement".

Assuming one knows the definition of words does not bring confidence that one would know the first word that begot all of them born until now.

Do you find comfort when a contrasting definition of a word or group of words is presented to you as more valid against another or previous version you thought to know? Words that change or remove words you adopted as your own?

I apologize for editing my first reply, but I was only just awoke from sleep. Thank you for the option to edit this post.
Peace.

[Lotus Feet]

How can the Law that was given to the Jews through Moses…

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?
…be deemed infallible and trustworthy, when we find in those same Scriptures commands given from Moses - with no apparent rebuke from God - that are moral abominations?

Num.31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?...17) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
The above verse is a direct rebuke from Moses to the Jews for keeping all the women and male children alive, and a command from him to them to kill every male child, and every woman EXCEPT the virgins which they were to keep for themselves.

My first question is what is the difference between a male child, and a girl child as far as being corrupted by the pagan society they lived in? NONE, so that leaves only one answer as to why the girls were kept alive….SO THE MEN COULD RAPE THEM, using them for their own sexual pleasure….AND THIS WAS GIVEN AS A COMMAND BY MOSES?????

Rose

Did Moses write the Torah? The Torah itself proves that he didn't. How can one write about what happened after one is dead? The NT mentions mentions a 'Book of Moses', just like it mentions the 'Gospel of Peace'. Is the Gospel of Peace found in the bible? No. Nor is the Book of Moses, in my humble view. However, how much of what is in the Torah came from Moses? The Druze also know that Moses had a spiritual teacher in Egypt.

Moses did not circumcise the children for 40 years, Joshua did, after that the bible tells you that Israel did not receive any more manna from heaven.

Would a true Prophet of the LORD God command anyone to harm another? No.

Graves of British men were destroyed in Afghanistan in the last few days.

The LORD's creation responds. 37 dead in a SNOW Avalanche in Northeast Afghanistan today.

20 houses destroyed by the snow. 20 is the number of judgement.

Snow is also the sign of the prophet of the LORD.

Northeast is the healing teacher.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=27116#post27116) How can the Law that was given to the Jews through Moses…
John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

…be deemed infallible and trustworthy, when we find in those same Scriptures commands given from Moses - with no apparent rebuke from God - that are moral abominations?
Num.31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?...17) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

The above verse is a direct rebuke from Moses to the Jews for keeping all the women and male children alive, and a command from him to them to kill every male child, and every woman EXCEPT the virgins which they were to keep for themselves.

My first question is what is the difference between a male child, and a girl child as far as being corrupted by the pagan society they lived in? NONE, so that leaves only one answer as to why the girls were kept alive….SO THE MEN COULD RAPE THEM, using them for their own sexual pleasure….AND THIS WAS GIVEN AS A COMMAND BY MOSES?????

Rose

Did Moses write the Torah? The Torah itself proves that he didn't. How can one write about what happened after one is dead? The NT mentions mentions a 'Book of Moses', just like it mentions the 'Gospel of Peace'. Is the Gospel of Peace found in the bible? No. Nor is the Book of Moses, in my humble view. However, how much of what is in the Torah came from Moses? The Druze also know that Moses had a spiritual teacher in Egypt.

Moses did not circumcise the children for 40 years, Joshua did, after that the bible tells you that Israel did not receive any more manna from heaven.

Would a true Prophet of the LORD God command anyone to harm another? No.

Graves of British men were destroyed in Afghanistan in the last few days.

The LORD's creation responds. 37 dead in a SNOW Avalanche in Northeast Afghanistan today.

20 houses destroyed by the snow. 20 is the number of judgement.

Snow is also the sign of the prophet of the LORD.

Northeast is the healing teacher.

Hi Lotus Feet,

It really doesn't matter who wrote the Torah, what matters is who the Bible says God gave the Law to...and that was Moses. Even Jesus says that Moses gave the Law, so I think that pretty much settles the matter.

Rose

[Timmy]

Hallo Jahvoh!

Don't you think you are overdoing it just a bit in the kudos department regarding this Timmy rascal????

It was seriously wondered how you would interpret the response given. There was sensed here an unsurety throughout what was in your text. i was wondering where the thoughts came from. Then again, it was wondered if your post comprised a kind of cat and mouse game to bring into view the wavering reflections rippling over the surface of this consciousness.

Either way, right or wrong, game or no, the thoughts presented were thought to be a bit too 'matter of fact' STS. It was hoped they would at least rattle notions put forth, yet there was no desire to start a :snowfight: and it certainly there was never intended to be:sFi_flamethrower:ing.

Mayhaps this might just be another one of "those times" being that lil' Timmy is due for an alignment due to the flux of cranial activity warping parameters of normality...again again.

Curiousity kills the cat, yet if eight lives have not yet been expended, the ka resides unhindered still.

Thank you for your ameniability.


Thank you Timmy
"Senior Member"

I am grateful for your reply and constructed and echoed words of knowledge.

Let me not claim myself as void of a timber in my eye, that I attempt to remove anyone else's.
Well, that makes at least two of us then.


I can only navigate by my understanding as I perceive it.
I have not spoken on my own behalf, but I have written it upon this forum, and all that makes me think, is the energy I have been designed or allowed to do it.

I had not considered the subject matters you have presented, and I am grateful that I would have such in me to provoke you to reply.

Thank you for your judgement and knowledge to reason. We are placing, reading, learning by consent of our being to understand the Creator as children we are.

I was only attempting to navigate to know truth by seeking it and it seems that all things point to allegations of many men who put words and point to the creator as the source of it all.

I am with limited compartmentalized information and restricted to a region / tradition / place with limited bandwidths and express myself in that light as I would judge myself and thus others.

If this is not the condition of all men then it would not surprise me to see I am deceived myself again. The only consultation is wisdom retained as I survive it. For everything there is a season, even as a time and purpose exists for all things happening under the blue skies.
You sound like someone put you up to this, yet you state it in such a way so as to show that though interested, you do not have all the facts yet.

This also makes at least two of us again. i and you and he and she and we all are all together inthe department of deception. We are all decieved and we try to make ways to self-decieve ourselves further to carry on with our own take on reality.

Each of us expresses ourselves based on the current knowledge that seems to illumine our understandings. It is wisdom to always question everything, and moreso our selfs in relation to things advocated. Knowledge is not fact, but rather our own perception of what seem to be fact. None of us truly realize how thin the ice is beneath our feet til' the bottom falls out, and aspirations to mountain ranges of knowledge is frought traversing slippery slopes (to say the least).


Those who understand dark sayings
As what the upright learn:
Is that those believing just one lie
tell many in return.




As for your question "would you bother writing a book you can get others to do for you?"
I would say, "Yes" since by my experience and knowing of my fellow brothers, that it is a mess to witness all that has been left for us to read what they have written, what is alleged to be already written upon our heart to discover.
As for a mess? Here, regarding scripture, it is considered potpuorri, where a big mix makes for one certain fragrance. We can take the fragrance for what it is through a compilation of many little pieces parts
OR
we could end up confused as to what it all means by picking and choosing ideations derrived by only looking at things from whatever side of the elephant we are viewing it from. Each of us has our own unique perspective, however the blind man has to feel his way about the pachyderm and never really sees things like one with eyes wide open...but he smells the fragrance better than most.


A Word has beget words as is alleged a virgin, and learning words from a parent / teacher / brother which are often in conflict of being defined such as in Legal Fiction vs alleging the truth, all still comes to requires "acceptance" / "contract agreement", and assuming one knows the definition of words does not bring confidence that one would know the first word that begot all of them born until now.
You are talking Timmy's language being a linguistic mathematician out of sorts. Spermology leads to etymology leads to current usage leads to syntax leads to context...and the wheel turns. There is so much to get confused about in such a short space of existence it's a wonder the zeitgeist exists at all as it is today...or NOT.


Do you find comfort when a contrasting definition is presented as more valid against another, that you adopted as your own?

No, as i do not adopt any ideas as my own, and it really is a fools gambit to assume such case scenario is possible at all.

The mind is a forest. Where and when the wild animals come from and go to is speculative at best. . .though some see beyond the see and be seen.

Holding an appropriate attitude of giving, being ever capable to recieve whatever thoughtimals appear lends capability to grapple with the fiercest and most feral of wyld thayngz without throttling thyself in the process.

Severity leads to a barren desert(ed) mind and volition towards further exploration will fade walking right along beside this way.

Timmy searches in finding congruency by understanding both the upright and the averse are two sides of one coin...and also knowing there are more than five sides to every coin.

Painting deserts under a big blue sky in quest for the octave in all things
with head in the clouds and feet planted firmly on the ground,

Little Barefoot Timmy

p.s. Moshe did not write the Torah