Yahweh and Hitler? [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

10-09-2011, 03:08 PM

Has anyone ever noticed these similarities?

Here is a short list showing an eerie set of comparisons between the god of the Bible “Yahweh” and Hitler.

Yahweh

Picks a people and calls them chosen.
Deems other races inferior and commands their slaughter.
Applies one set of standards for his chosen people the Jews and another set for the Gentiles.

Hitler

Picks the Arian race and calls them chosen.
Deems the Jewish race inferior and commands their slaughter.
Applies one set of standards for his chosen people the Arians and another for the Jews.

Kinda scary!

Rose

Yes, I've thought of this close analogy that perpetuates due to peoples [christian zionist] indoctrinations about Israel. It's a false perspective perpetuated by the Zionists themselves and by the scofield reference bible. But they are not biblical nor reflect God's perspective.

Thus, I think it's your perceptions, false understandings and interpretations about God's perspective and temporary purposes with Israel that it is at fault; and not God's perspectives and temporary purposes.

Your accusations against God of being 'racist' are unfounded and a result of the dispensational interpretations. This is what I mentioned to Richard a few times.

Yahweh's choosing of a national Israel was temporal, and for temporary purposes while the knowledge about God and the proof of his entity, his freedom, his will and existence to a free-willed man was being developed; and it was stated by Yahweh himself to be not the good way [after Christ's coming][Is 65:2; Ez 36:21] Hebrews says If the 'first [national] covenant' had been faultless, there would have been no reason for the 'second'.. [the fulfillment of the everlasting covenant of Love and Mercy individually received, called "new" in contrast with the Mosaic 'old', first covenant.]

The 'latter days' of the God's temporary administration through the descendants of Jacob were even declared by Jacob himself in Gen 49. This refutes the idea of Israel being a superior race.

Contrary to your assertion, other races weren't 'inferior' but were influenced by Babylonian religions, which was then also the analogy of Jerusalem after the cross according to Revelation... Babylon the great [Jerusalem] has fallen....

Read Deut 9.

3Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee.

4Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee.

5Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

6Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people.

7Remember, and forget not, how thou provokedst the LORD thy God to wrath in the wilderness: from the day that thou didst depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this place, ye have been rebellious against the LORD.

8Also in Horeb ye provoked the LORD to wrath, so that the LORD was angry with you to have destroyed you.

9When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:

12And the LORD said unto me, Arise, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt have corrupted themselves; they are quickly turned aside out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten image.

13Furthermore the LORD spake unto me, saying, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:

14Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they.

26I prayed therefore unto the LORD, and said, O Lord GOD, destroy not thy people and thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed through thy greatness, which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand.

27Remember thy servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; look not unto the stubbornness of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin:

Chapter 10.

14Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

15Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.

16Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

17For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

See also Deut 8 and remember that it was prophesied by Moses that this people of the conditional, corporal law and way of retaining blessing and the land would be temporal and that they would be 'utterly destroyed'. Deut 4:25,26; Deut 31:29; Deut 32:20,29.

18But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day.

19And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish.

20As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God.

At the end of the national entity though, their race was shown not be 'inferior' either, nor the Romans superior... as Many, Many of the Jews believed in the creator God's incarnation and become the international 'nation' of all tongues, races, languages of the new everlasting covenant of Life subordinate to Jesus' freedom, instructions and the H.S.

In Rom 11:32 Paul says that he has counted all [peoples] including the jews of Israel at that time, equally in disobedience in order that he might have mercy on individuals of all races through the obedience OF FAITH.

Rose

10-09-2011, 04:15 PM

Yes, I've thought of this close analogy that perpetuates due to peoples [christian zionist] indoctrinations about Israel. It's a false perspective perpetuated by the Zionists themselves and by the scofield reference bible. But they are not biblical nor reflect God's perspective.

Thus, I think it's your perceptions, false understandings and interpretations about God's perspective and temporary purposes with Israel that it is at fault; and not God's perspectives and temporary purposes.

Your accusations against God of being 'racist' are unfounded and a result of the dispensational interpretations. This is what I mentioned to Richard a few times.

Yahweh's choosing of a national Israel was temporal, and for temporary purposes while the knowledge about God and the proof of his entity, his freedom, his will and existence to a free-willed man was being developed; and it was stated by Yahweh himself to be not the good way [after Christ's coming][Is 65:2; Ez 36:21] Hebrews says If the 'first [national] covenant' had been faultless, there would have been no reason for the 'second'.. [the fulfillment of the everlasting covenant of Love and Mercy individually received, called "new" in contrast with the Mosaic 'old', first covenant.]

The 'latter days' of the God's temporary administration through the descendants of Jacob were even declared by Jacob himself in Gen 49. This refutes the idea of Israel being a superior race.

Contrary to your assertion, other races weren't 'inferior' but were influenced by Babylonian religions, which was then also the analogy of Jerusalem after the cross according to Revelation... Babylon the great [Jerusalem] has fallen....

At the end of the national entity though, their race was shown not be 'inferior' either, nor the Romans superior... as Many, Many of the Jews believed in the creator God's incarnation and become the international 'nation' of all tongues, races, languages of the new everlasting covenant of Life subordinate to Jesus' freedom, instructions and the H.S.

In Rom 11:32 Paul says that he has counted all [peoples] including the jews of Israel at that time, equally in disobedience in order that he might have mercy on individuals of all races through the obedience OF FAITH.

The Bible clearly states that Yahweh commanded the Israelite to slaughter many different peoples for the sole reason that they were pagans and worshiped a different god. It has nothing to do with any false perception being perpetuated, it is the words written in the Old Testament that perpetuates this fact.

The Old Testament is worse than a slaughter house, it seems Yahweh's solution to any and every problem is to KILL,Kill, kill...starting with the Flood and continuing on until the destruction of Jerusalem. One would think the creator of the universe could come up with a better solution than killing. Yahweh sure didn't set a very good example for his children, he just followed right along with what all the pagan nations were doing - Killing - all the wars the Jews entered into they acted just like all the other peoples who go to war, kill, rape, and pillage! No difference from anyone else and they were supposedly commanded by Yahweh to do it.

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

10-09-2011, 05:27 PM

Yes, I've thought of this close analogy that perpetuates due to peoples [christian zionist] indoctrinations about Israel. It's a false perspective perpetuated by the Zionists themselves and by the scofield reference bible. But they are not biblical nor reflect God's perspective.

Thus, I think it's your perceptions, false understandings and interpretations about God's perspective and temporary purposes with Israel that it is at fault; and not God's perspectives and temporary purposes.

Your accusations against God of being 'racist' are unfounded and a result of the dispensational interpretations. This is what I mentioned to Richard a few times.

Yahweh's choosing of a national Israel was temporal, and for temporary purposes while the knowledge about God and the proof of his entity, his freedom, his will and existence to a free-willed man was being developed; and it was stated by Yahweh himself to be not the good way [after Christ's coming][Is 65:2; Ez 36:21] Hebrews says If the 'first [national] covenant' had been faultless, there would have been no reason for the 'second'.. [the fulfillment of the everlasting covenant of Love and Mercy individually received, called "new" in contrast with the Mosaic 'old', first covenant.]

That's all good as far as it goes, but the issue has absolutely nothing to do with Dispensationalism or Zionism. The problem is this:
Deuteronomy 2:33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
And this:
1 Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
And this:
Numbers 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
And ... well, you get the idea. WHY IS GOD SO ENAMORED BY VIOLENCE? Why does he seem to love to kill, Kill, KILL??? Why does he approve of taking 32,000 virgins as war booty and why does he order them to be distributed to the warriors as sex slaves??? These are the real questions. They have nothing to with Zionism or Dispensationalism.

The 'latter days' of the God's temporary administration through the descendants of Jacob were even declared by Jacob himself in Gen 49. This refutes the idea of Israel being a superior race.

Contrary to your assertion, other races weren't 'inferior' but were influenced by Babylonian religions, which was then also the analogy of Jerusalem after the cross according to Revelation... Babylon the great [Jerusalem] has fallen....

Read Deut 9.

Chapter 10.

Good points. The Bible is clear that the Jews were not "special" in and of themselves. But on the other hand, the Bible is equally clear that they had a very special relationship with God and that God was happy to destroy their "enemies" or whoever wasn't willing to just hand over their land to the invading Israelites.

Again, we must ask - what is the God of the Universe trying to teach us by repeatedly ordering genocidal murder?

See also Deut 8 and remember that it was prophesied by Moses that this people of the conditional, corporal law and way of retaining blessing and the land would be temporal and that they would be 'utterly destroyed'. Deut 4:25,26; Deut 31:29; Deut 32:20,29.

That's not an issue with Rose or I. We both understand Preterism and the conditional nature of the land promises. That's not the issue at all. The issue is that God ordered his people to become mass murderers of women and children. Have you ever taken a moment to consider what it would have been like to be an Israeli soldier? I can assure you it would utterly destroy your soul.

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

10-09-2011, 06:52 PM

The Bible clearly states that Yahweh commanded the Israelite to slaughter many different peoples for the sole reason that they were pagans and worshiped a different god. It has nothing to do with any false perception being perpetuated, it is the words written in the Old Testament that perpetuates this fact.

The Old Testament is worse than a slaughter house, it seems Yahweh's solution to any and every problem is to KILL,Kill, kill...starting with the Flood and continuing on until the destruction of Jerusalem. One would think the creator of the universe could come up with a better solution than killing. Yahweh sure didn't set a very good example for his children, he just followed right along with what all the pagan nations were doing - Killing - all the wars the Jews entered into they acted just like all the other peoples who go to war, kill, rape, and pillage! No difference from anyone else and they were supposedly commanded by Yahweh to do it.

Rose
You are free to believe as you wish and ignore that the mosaic covenant is declared by Yahway to be NOT THE GOOD WAY; a negative pattern and shadow of the future reality through the indwelling Spirit and declared to be temporal right in it's being given and declared.

You are correct in that they were like the other nations and that is brought out in the quotes from Deut above. It was prophesied that they would Perish just like the Egyptians....while those of the new covenant of the indwelling spirit would escape from the Egypt of Jerusalem as those who persued them perished.

The mosaic covenant would be 'until the seed came' about who and to the promise [from Eden] was made. The promise is a reversal of the personal spiritual separation from the approval, forgiveness, friendship and knowledge of his existence, his character, his Love that was incurred in ignorance about him in the original Garden. The anti-dote to ignorance is 'knowledge'. That's what John confirms in John 17:3.

You ignored the statements given right in the covenant and declaration which disprove your accusations of racism. You ignored the temporal choosing of the nation and covenant and for temporal purposes. This IS VERY MUCH perpetuating a false interpretation and false perspective of racism by refusing to consider how these verses alter your views.

You also made false statements and observations.

it seems Yahweh's solution to any and every problem is to KILL,Kill, kill...starting with the Flood and continuing on until the destruction of Jerusalem.

Jesus declared to the Pharisees that they were NOT of their father Abraham because they sought to Kill him. And that this, Abraham did NOT do. The instructions to Noah were ONLY towards capital punishment at that time. He who sheds life blood, shall have his life blood shed. And even these people only had the type and prophecy of the future 8th day of the new creation [of the indwelling Spiirt of experiential knowledge of God] They did not have the knowledge of the personal friendship and love of the Creator. This was not a 'kill, kill, kill since Noah as you declare.

It wasn't until Nimrod introduced his counterfeit seed of Eve and religious ritualistic practices which would enslave men against life, rob them of the freedom of it, knowledge of the reality of the Creator-Spirit through his incarnation [seed promised to Eve], that a counter-measure was raised. And yet it would be through the "negative" counter-measure [the mosaic national covenant] that the confirmation of the true seed promised to Eve would be confirmed.

God knows that we as individuals and peoples sometimes learn through negative experiences and examples. The mosaic way was NOT the good way. Nimrod's counterfeit virgin birth and ritualistic enslaving religions and domineering priesthoods etc. are not the way of blessed life and friendship from it's Creator. Personal justification by faith is the way of Abraham, and of the new creation within.

Again, as stated to Richard, your accusations against God are unfounded due to your mis-interpretations of the temporal nature and purposes of the national, mosaic covenant; set up as a babylonian style religion from people who were little different than the nations they dispossessed. That is confirmed in the giving of and words of the covenant. They were no different than the Egyptians who they escaped from. You noted that yourself. There is no racism to accuse God of.

You say that he could have done something other than the instructions of the mosaic law. But He did, and Abraham, Isaac, Israel walked the land as strangers and preachers of righteousness and justification via faith in the future seed, not Nimrod's religions. Abraham was told that through HIM would all nations of the earth be blessed. [Paul confirms in Romans that this blessing and freedom is via the justification by faith, and the forgiveness of the sin of disbelief, doubt and ignorance. And His faith, contrary to participation in self approving conditional religious ritualistic practices was accounted to him for righteousness.

They did not listen. They did not have faith in a Good God, his approval and Creation of Life, and his future seed to cancel the spiritual separation between the Creator and themselves but sought a 'blessing' of works and rituals by conditional self emasculating religion. They were partakers of an administration of death, just as the corporal, conditional mosaic covenant was an administration of 'spiritual' death as noted by Paul in 2 Cor 3.

If you want to be free to judge and evaluate God's ways, and the depth of his love of life created with a free will, a heart, soul and free intellect, then you also need to consider and permit his free will in the method of the proving of his existence, and his Good ways, his laws of life, his purposes and will through the gradual, progressive historical, physical communication of both positive and even negative ways.

This would even allow consideration of his permitting and even USING the negative ways [Garden, Nimrod's religions, mosaic covenant] in historical, physical events to develop proof of himself, his attributes and of His positive ways of LIFE and in interacting with the mind, intellect and free will [even free to rebel and disbelieve] of the man who he created.

For the law came by Moses; BUT grace and truth by Christ Jesus. Jesus never commanded his followers Or you to kill.

It's sometimes difficult to interact about historical records contained in the bible with people who pick and choose which historical aspects and accounts they believe, let alone weather they believe in the Creator of life at all, and the objective and progressive revelation of himself, his purposes, his positive ways through faith, individual friendship, freedom and joy in life.

I could see this getting into a lengthy argument and continuation of other similar threads. I'll not repeat already stated responses and verses.

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

10-09-2011, 07:20 PM

That's all good as far as it goes, . They have nothing to with Zionism or Dispensationalism.
I disagree with special regard to the opening post. Zionism, Dispensationalism, futurism all foster racism in a pro Israel way. Same with the erroneous teachings and axioms of the scofield bible which proclaim [in the present] that to bless Israel is to insure personal blessing. Rose stated that God elevated a race as 'chosen' without acknowledging the temporary and both the negative and positive purposes of that choosing. They were chosen as a tool and vehicle in order for all mankind to benefit in coming to the knowledge of the reality of the loving God and of friendship with Him.

And again, your missing the point that this is referred to and declared by God as NOT THE GOOD WAY. I dont' view them as 'commands' for righteousness, but permissions and instructions to their hardened, ignorant and disbelieving hearts that were still in disbelief about the Living Creator God. Recall, they fabricated a Golden calf while waiting for Moses.. and this after they had seen the plagues of Egypt, the healings from the serpent and other miraculous events. What if Moses was the power, and now he was gone??

It would however be through the maintenance of the corporal nation, the priesthood and prophets that the true coming of the seed of God would be proved, confirmed and repeatedly prophesied.

Good points. The Bible is clear that the Jews were not "special" in and of themselves. But on the other hand, the Bible is equally clear that they had a very special relationship with God and that God was happy to destroy their "enemies" or whoever wasn't willing to just hand over their land to the invading Israelites.
I disagree that they individually had a very special relationship with God. There may have been some or even many who held faith and understanding of the then future promise of the everlasting covenant of Love and Mercy that was given to mankind through Eve; [my covenant to Noah and Abraham]; to cancel the separation and ignorance between God/man. Abel sacrificed in that faith to that hope.

Those, like Daniel likely LONGED for the coming end of the mosaic covenant and became sick when it was announced to him that it would be yet for many days. In reading deut 30, without further details it would appear that the open exposure and indwelling of the heart would accompany the return from the Babylonian captivity. Daniel was given the additional 490 yr time-frame.

The conditional mosaic covenant was corporal as well as offering the promise and blessing of sustenance. It was like a carrot strung before the horse. They would never be able to perpetually fulfill and keep the covenant. This covenant and it's conditional promises would have been the only 'special relationship' that they would have corporally had.

They were given prophets to guide them during their temporary time and to remind them of it's latter end during the coming of the fulfillment of the seed of God and the indwelling of his Spirit and change. Even the prophets didn't always know what they were prophesying about.... but longed to look into their fulfillment.

The new covenant would be NOT LIKE and contrary to the principles of the old. So also it's instructions would be contrary, opposite and not like the Old.

Again, we must ask - what is the God of the Universe trying to teach us by repeatedly ordering genocidal murder?
Repeatedly is empty of support. You fail to acknowledge the temporary historical parameters of those instructions and the ending of those instructions 2000 yrs ago that were openly included right in the giving of the covenant and repeatedly referred to as 'not the good way' by God himself and the prophets. Are you an Israelite of the mosaic covenant by including yourself in US?

That's not an issue with Rose or I. We both understand Preterism and the conditional nature of the land promises. That's not the issue at all. The issue is that God ordered his people to become mass murderers of women and children. Have you ever taken a moment to consider what it would have been like to be an Israeli soldier? I can assure you it would utterly destroy your soul.

But you seem to neglect the awareness of the temporal nature and the immediate condemnation of those instructions. Jesus, God incarnate has come.. with a completely different and anti-antithetical set of instructions.

Your basis for condemning and criticism God for the mosaic covenant instructions is baseless as it was condemned by Him [though temporarily and negatively purposeful] to begin with. Moses didn't want any part of it and struck the rock twice.. . A peace-loving man would perhaps had left the nation. Paul declares it to have a glory of it's own, but that of a negative glory. You need to attempt to understand these comments about that way before criticizing and judging God for it.

The Israeli soldier is long since gone as are the limited knowledge of God and his purposes at that time. The new creation of individuals indwelt by his Spirit is here through the authority of the incarnation, his instructions about life and the indwelling of the Creator.

You asked;

Again, we must ask - what is the God of the Universe trying to teach us by repeatedly ordering genocidal murder?

I may have misunderstood the intent of the statement. There are questions of accusation, questions of disbelief, and questions of seeking. I read the first and you may have implied the last.

What could the God and creator of life be trying to teach [OR CONFIRM] post incarnate man [US] through a historical progressive revelation about himself that was partly through the ugliness, oppression and enslavement by and through those who participated in disbelief, ignorance, corporal and religious counterfeits, ritualistic religions, and even God administered temporary negatives of the positive way of the Living, Loving approval, and friendship with the Creator God of Life?

Is there a contrast of beauty prophesied in the children of the new way and of faith? Is 61. What about beating swords into plowshares? These are just the beginning of the contrast.

Not sure of prompt or continued interaction on this right now. Will monitor and catch up later.

Good to be chatting....Thanks.

Rose

10-10-2011, 09:30 AM

You are free to believe as you wish and ignore that the mosaic covenant is declared by Yahway to be NOT THE GOOD WAY; a negative pattern and shadow of the future reality through the indwelling Spirit and declared to be temporal right in it's being given and declared.

You are correct in that they were like the other nations and that is brought out in the quotes from Deut above. It was prophesied that they would Perish just like the Egyptians....while those of the new covenant of the indwelling spirit would escape from the Egypt of Jerusalem as those who persued them perished.

The mosaic covenant would be 'until the seed came' about who and to the promise [from Eden] was made. The promise is a reversal of the personal spiritual separation from the approval, forgiveness, friendship and knowledge of his existence, his character, his Love that was incurred in ignorance about him in the original Garden. The anti-dote to ignorance is 'knowledge'. That's what John confirms in John 17:3.

You ignored the statements given right in the covenant and declaration which disprove your accusations of racism. You ignored the temporal choosing of the nation and covenant and for temporal purposes. This IS VERY MUCH perpetuating a false interpretation and false perspective of racism by refusing to consider how these verses alter your views.

You also made false statements and observations.

Jesus declared to the Pharisees that they were NOT of their father Abraham because they sought to Kill him. And that this, Abraham did NOT do. The instructions to Noah were ONLY towards capital punishment at that time. He who sheds life blood, shall have his life blood shed. And even these people only had the type and prophecy of the future 8th day of the new creation [of the indwelling Spiirt of experiential knowledge of God] They did not have the knowledge of the personal friendship and love of the Creator. This was not a 'kill, kill, kill since Noah as you declare.

It wasn't until Nimrod introduced his counterfeit seed of Eve and religious ritualistic practices which would enslave men against life, rob them of the freedom of it, knowledge of the reality of the Creator-Spirit through his incarnation [seed promised to Eve], that a counter-measure was raised. And yet it would be through the "negative" counter-measure [the mosaic national covenant] that the confirmation of the true seed promised to Eve would be confirmed.

God knows that we as individuals and peoples sometimes learn through negative experiences and examples. The mosaic way was NOT the good way. Nimrod's counterfeit virgin birth and ritualistic enslaving religions and domineering priesthoods etc. are not the way of blessed life and friendship from it's Creator. Personal justification by faith is the way of Abraham, and of the new creation within.

Again, as stated to Richard, your accusations against God are unfounded due to your mis-interpretations of the temporal nature and purposes of the national, mosaic covenant; set up as a babylonian style religion from people who were little different than the nations they dispossessed. That is confirmed in the giving of and words of the covenant. They were no different than the Egyptians who they escaped from. You noted that yourself. There is no racism to accuse God of.

You say that he could have done something other than the instructions of the mosaic law. But He did, and Abraham, Isaac, Israel walked the land as strangers and preachers of righteousness and justification via faith in the future seed, not Nimrod's religions. Abraham was told that through HIM would all nations of the earth be blessed. [Paul confirms in Romans that this blessing and freedom is via the justification by faith, and the forgiveness of the sin of disbelief, doubt and ignorance. And His faith, contrary to participation in self approving conditional religious ritualistic practices was accounted to him for righteousness.

They did not listen. They did not have faith in a Good God, his approval and Creation of Life, and his future seed to cancel the spiritual separation between the Creator and themselves but sought a 'blessing' of works and rituals by conditional self emasculating religion. They were partakers of an administration of death, just as the corporal, conditional mosaic covenant was an administration of 'spiritual' death as noted by Paul in 2 Cor 3.

If you want to be free to judge and evaluate God's ways, and the depth of his love of life created with a free will, a heart, soul and free intellect, then you also need to consider and permit his free will in the method of the proving of his existence, and his Good ways, his laws of life, his purposes and will through the gradual, progressive historical, physical communication of both positive and even negative ways.

This would even allow consideration of his permitting and even USING the negative ways [Garden, Nimrod's religions, mosaic covenant] in historical, physical events to develop proof of himself, his attributes and of His positive ways of LIFE and in interacting with the mind, intellect and free will [even free to rebel and disbelieve] of the man who he created.

For the law came by Moses; BUT grace and truth by Christ Jesus. Jesus never commanded his followers Or you to kill.

It's sometimes difficult to interact about historical records contained in the bible with people who pick and choose which historical aspects and accounts they believe, let alone weather they believe in the Creator of life at all, and the objective and progressive revelation of himself, his purposes, his positive ways through faith, individual friendship, freedom and joy in life.

I could see this getting into a lengthy argument and continuation of other similar threads. I'll not repeat already stated responses and verses.

My opening post compares the command from Yahweh given to the Israelite's to slaughter pagan peoples (men, women, and children) merely because they worshiped other gods, with the command Hitler gave to slaughter Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc. merely because he thought they were inferior to the Arian race.

You have not provided any evidence to show that the comparison I stated is not true. All the justification you have given as to why Yahweh slaughtered all those pagan people matters not, only that it was done! Hence, my comparison stands.

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

10-10-2011, 11:58 AM

I disagree with special regard to the opening post. Zionism, Dispensationalism, futurism all foster racism in a pro Israel way. Same with the erroneous teachings and axioms of the scofield bible which proclaim [in the present] that to bless Israel is to insure personal blessing. Rose stated that God elevated a race as 'chosen' without acknowledging the temporary and both the negative and positive purposes of that choosing. They were chosen as a tool and vehicle in order for all mankind to benefit in coming to the knowledge of the reality of the loving God and of friendship with Him.

I totally agree that there's a mountain of mindless crap propagated by Christians Zionism, Dispensationalism, Scofield's Bible, etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum. But I still do not see how this has anything to do with Rose's observations. It matters not if Israel was "chosen" only for a time. The fact remains that God did choose them, and "God" commanded them to annihilate their "enemies" (aka the native inhabitants of the lands they were invading). Quibbling over words seems absurd in light of the gross immorality attributed to the God of the Bible. No jury would acquit Hitler if his lawyer used such arguments, so why use them in an effort to justify God? The real issue is this: Why does God love violence? He set up everything. He is responsible for all history. He set up the trap in the garden to force his innocent new creatures to sin and set the ball rolling for infinite iniquity, pain and suffering. And then he participated in it all himself, commanding murder and rape of the 32,000 virgins (Num 31) as well as the virgins captured after killing all the people of Jabeshgilead to replace all the women he killed in the tribe of Benjamin! What is going on in the Bible? Why does its God seem to be in love with violence? He wrote this screenplay. He actively participated in the crimes. They are entirely his responsibility.

And again, your missing the point that this is referred to and declared by God as NOT THE GOOD WAY. I dont' view them as 'commands' for righteousness, but permissions and instructions to their hardened, ignorant and disbelieving hearts that were still in disbelief about the Living Creator God. Recall, they fabricated a Golden calf while waiting for Moses.. and this after they had seen the plagues of Egypt, the healings from the serpent and other miraculous events. What if Moses was the power, and now he was gone??

I simply do not understand your argument here. When you first introduced this idea, you said:

Yahweh's choosing of a national Israel was temporal, and for temporary purposes while the knowledge about God and the proof of his entity, his freedom, his will and existence to a free-willed man was being developed; and it was stated by Yahweh himself to be not the good way [after Christ's coming][Is 65:2; Ez 36:21] Hebrews says If the 'first [national] covenant' had been faultless, there would have been no reason for the 'second'.. [the fulfillment of the everlasting covenant of Love and Mercy individually received, called "new" in contrast with the Mosaic 'old', first covenant.]
So let's look at the verses you cite:

Isaiah 65:2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;
What was the "way" in which they walked? You appear to be using this verse in an attempt to prove that GOD'S WAY WAS ITSELF EVIL in the OT! But that has absolutely nothing to do with that verse. The "way" in which the people walked was "not good" because it was CONTRARY to the way God commanded. We see the same problem with the other verse you cited:

Ezekiel 36:21 But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went.
We are not talking about the sins of Israel. We are talking about the SINS OF GOD.

Do you understand why this is a problem?

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

10-10-2011, 12:32 PM

My opening post compares the command from Yahweh given to the Israelite's to slaughter pagan peoples (men, women, and children) merely because they worshiped other gods, with the command Hitler gave to slaughter Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc. merely because he thought they were inferior to the Arian race.

You have not provided any evidence to show that the comparison I stated is not true. All the justification you have given as to why Yahweh slaughtered all those pagan people matters not, only that it was done! Hence, my comparison stands.

Rose
It may 'matter not' to you, but it may matter in the overall picture.

You said nothing of the above in your opening post. Here is the comparison.

Pick[ed] a people and call[ed] them chosen.
You imply that their chosen status was racist and elevated without considering the temporary and both positive and negative purposes of that 'choosing'.

The people of faith in God incarnation in Christ and his words are called the 'Chosen', the Holy Nation, royal priesthood...etc..These are the people of the circumcised and indwelt heart of the NEW covenant which is of all languages, tongues and nations. The instructions of Jesus for this people are contrary to those given by Moses. If anything, God is anti-racist.

Deem[ed] other races inferior and commands their slaughter.
You imply that they worshiped other God's while the Israelites (in general) worshiped and had personal faith in the living God. But in the giving of the covenant itself, God declares that the other races are NOT inferior and that they (the Israelites) in general were equally or moreso rebellious, stiffnecked, and disbelieving, and would eventually suffer the same fate and curses as that of the egyptians and of those they disposessed. He reminded them that God wished to destroy them...and that they had made a golden calf like they had seen in Egypt.

It is stated by Moses that they would worship God's their fathers [the Patriarchs] did not know and confirmed by the prophets that they also would suffer the fate of the Egyptians and the people of the babylonian religions they disposessed. Jerusalem is called 'babylon' the great in Rev. God sent them prophets, and the prophets were people of faith; but the general populace was not as evidenced from the ratio destroyed in the desolation.

You seem to imply that these other groups or races as you call them were peace-loving, innocent peoples who just happened to have a few quirky ways of religious practices. Why did they have extensive armies then? They likely had similar agenda's and religious commands as what the Israelites were given. Faulty foundations extend themselves to faulty and destructive practices and beliefs.

Applies one set of standards for his chosen people the Jews and another set for the Gentiles.
IF there is any truth to this [and there isn't] it would only have been applicable in the past, during the temporal time of their national covenant. There was no double standard. They suffered the same fate and slaughters as those who they dispossessed. He who lived by the sword, perished by the sword. God basically commanded, insured and instructed their [the Israelites] slaughter, failure, destruction and latter end when he gave them their conditional instructions. Eventually the kingdom is returned to the peoples of all languages, nations, tongues and races as it had been with Abel, Noah, Abraham, the Syrian.

I find it interesting that at the time of the birth of Christ, it was not the emissaries of the jews who brought him Gifts; but those from a foreign [gentile] land. They were looking for the king of the earth.

The verses given out of Deuteronomy refute and clarify several aspects of your OP and your misconceptions of God's previous administration through the jews of the temporal, negative mosaic covenant. As mentioned, those perspectives are perpetuated through the futurists, dispensational and zionists camps who perpetuate national Israel of the long ended mosaic covenant. The are not accurate statements in the present.

The other commentary to Richard further rebuts the commonly held mis-conceptions about God's administration through the past covenant with the Jews. It was temporary and it was negative. It's patterns and typology would positively affirm and confirm the true seed of God promised through Eve [and individually believed upon]. The ordinances and instructions were a tool [chosen] and used by God to confirm and verify his seed and the attributes and aspects of the positive everlasting individual covenant of love and Mercy. They were no different from those around them and in some ways were enslaved by themselves and the hopes of their religious laws, heritage or 'race'.

Again, it's sometimes difficult to value the time to interact with those who wish to have the freedom to choose which sections of scripture they accept as historical and true;[and then even which verses from those sections] and then also wish to have the freedom to condemn God in the perspective they glean from those selectively extracted verses. You come to these discussions like this in disbelief, judgment and accusations, not in faith, questioning and seeking. Repeating your statements while disreguarding counter-statements and verses that give answers do not make them true.

I said I wouldn't repeat verses, but I find myself repeating the rebuttal of concepts clarified by the verses.

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

10-10-2011, 02:14 PM

The real issue is this: Why does God love violence? He set up everything. He is responsible for all history. He set up the trap in the garden to force his innocent new creatures to sin and set the ball rolling for infinite iniquity, pain and suffering. And then he participated in it all himself, commanding murder and rape of the 32,000 virgins (Num 31) as well as the virgins captured after killing all the people of Jabeshgilead to replace all the women he killed in the tribe of Benjamin! What is going on in the Bible? Why does its God seem to be in love with violence? He wrote this screenplay. He actively participated in the crimes. They are entirely his responsibility.
You infer that he presently still loves violence. The opposite is true. The peoples of the preincarnation were still without the personal friendship, knowledge and love of God; but some held the future hope and faith of it. These are some of the results and effects of that ignorance, disbelief and disrespect. And again, these are the people of the negative covenant and rebellious heart.

I'll not try to explain and defend every aspect of the historical workings, permissions, and guidance of God. They are explained somewhat in previous responses and ignored. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob preached the righteousness by faith in the future seed and way of Peace in that land 400 or more yrs before.

The only other thing I can think to add at this time is to consider that God's way is via grace, love and truth indwelling and changing and freeing the heart through reasonable faith in his character and person. The time was coming and then was [in Christ] that true worshippers would worship in [inner Spirit] and in TRUTH. Truth demands evidence and knowledge.

The people of this era you spoke of were without that knowledge of truth, love and grace, but in future hope of it. God created man in his image, and part of that image is the freedom to express and manifest the heart, mind and soul. He did not intend him to live under conditional, oppressive rules, commands and so forth, but to live freely in only the constraints of the knowledge of His entity as Creator and his Love as reveled in his incarnation. But the development and Confirmation of that knowledge, truth and grace about God and his love, took time and included both positive and even negative elements to contrast and clarify the positive. The depth of the image and likeness of God within men's minds and the proving and education of his existence and positive ways may have demanded or permitted some of these negative ways before the new heavens, new Creation, and new Garden of the fulfilled 'new' covenant.

Men's mind in the first garden would have been in some ignorance, uncertainty and inexperience about God. I think Peter uses the word ignorance in one of his speeches in acts. [Acts 17:3] But now, in the prooving of his existence via his actual, physical incarnation, through the fulfillment of types and shadows that were part of the mosaic covenant, and through the instruction of the 'new prophet' men are without excuse of ignorance or of his positive ways of Life and Love through the heart change by their own approval, Love and adoption by God.

You say that they are all his responsibilty .. and partly rightly so.

But the Glory is in the new creation, new heavens, etc. and the anti-glory in the old garden. It is in the elements [not the rituals perpetuated by churches] and elementary principles of the new covenant of the education of the heart/life... not through the letter of the law or command.

I alluded to other aspects in the previous posts. Paul affirms some of the concepts in 2 Cor 3. And I could add verses from the aposltes and prophets in various places to support some of the concepts.

I know I'm not doing a good job of concisely communicating that God has established the historical evidence to provide support to faith in the positive indwelling of His spirit in a positive way of life. As the apostles said... all these things were an ensample for us...

5For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

I simply do not understand your argument here. When you first introduced this idea, you said:

Yahweh's choosing of a national Israel was temporal, and for temporary purposes while the knowledge about God and the proof of his entity, his freedom, his will and existence to a free-willed man was being developed; and it was stated by Yahweh himself to be not the good way [after Christ's coming][Is 65:2; Ez 36:21] Hebrews says If the 'first [national] covenant' had been faultless, there would have been no reason for the 'second'.. [the fulfillment of the everlasting covenant of Love and Mercy individually received, called "new" in contrast with the Mosaic 'old', first covenant.]
So let's look at the verses you cite:

Sorry; it's vs 31 in EZ 36.. sorry.

Ezekiel 36:31 Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.

Isaiah 65:2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;

What was the "way" in which they walked? You appear to be using this verse in an attempt to prove that GOD'S WAY WAS ITSELF EVIL in the OT! But that has absolutely nothing to do with that verse. The "way" in which the people walked was "not good" because it was CONTRARY to the way God commanded. We see the same problem with the other verse you cited:

No, I disagree; The context of both Is 65 and EZ 36:31[sorry bout that] is the time of the New covenant as administered by Christ. The way then that is NOT GOOD is the conditional, corporal way of the mosaic covenant. The writer of Hebrews affirms: If that way had been 'good', there would have been no need of a 'new' way through the new prophet Christ. Jeremiah 31 confirms that the new covenant would be NOT LIKE the mosaic covenant. The blessing of life is to the people of the 'latter son' or latter covenant of Grace, not law.

We talked about 2 Peter 3 referring to the 'elements' and elementary principles of the mosaic covenant burning up in judgment [from Deut 32]. What are the contrasting Elements and elementary principles of the Everlasting covenant [called New in contrast with the mosaic] which are 'forever'. Peter even encourages them that if all these previous elementary principles and historical workings of God are to be dissolved and burned up... what manner of people should we of the new covenant be?....

And by prophesying the latter end of the mosaic covenant way right in the giving of the covenant, Moses was implying its temporal neccessity, but negative, contrasting purposes.

The mosaic covenant was presented as not good and the administration of death right in it's giving; or else there would have been no need for the new prophet.

Though I think it's a very important topic; as stated to Rose, this could generate into a repeating of things already covered here and in other threads and seemingly being ignored here. Not sure of prompt or continued interaction on this right now.

Thanks though for the topic, opportunity for attempted explanation and discussion.

Richard Amiel McGough

10-10-2011, 04:00 PM

The real issue is this: Why does God love violence? He set up everything. He is responsible for all history. He set up the trap in the garden to force his innocent new creatures to sin and set the ball rolling for infinite iniquity, pain and suffering. And then he participated in it all himself, commanding murder and rape of the 32,000 virgins (Num 31) as well as the virgins captured after killing all the people of Jabeshgilead to replace all the women he killed in the tribe of Benjamin! What is going on in the Bible? Why does its God seem to be in love with violence? He wrote this screenplay. He actively participated in the crimes. They are entirely his responsibility.
You infer that he presently still loves violence.

What happened to the supposedly eternal and unchanging nature of God? Most Christian argue that there would be no objective morality at all if not for God's unchanging Moral Law. Are you admitting that God used to love violence, but has reformed his wicked ways?

You infer that he presently still loves violence. The opposite is true. The peoples of the preincarnation were still without the personal friendship, knowledge and love of God; but some held the future hope and faith of it. These are some of the results and effects of that ignorance, disbelief and disrespect. And again, these are the people of the negative covenant and rebellious heart.

Abraham lived before Christ. He was called the "Friend of God." David spoke frequently of "the personal friendship, knowledge and love of God." And so did many other OT saints. Your doctrines seem very unusual to me. I doubt many Christians would agree with your interpretation of the religion. And this always makes me wonder - if you need to make up your own religion out of the tattered rags of a false Christianity, why bother?

I'll not try to explain and defend every aspect of the historical workings, permissions, and guidance of God. They are explained somewhat in previous responses and ignored. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob preached the righteousness by faith in the future seed and way of Peace in that land 400 or more yrs before.

Did I miss or ignore a post where you attempted to explain why God commanded his people to become genocidal murders and mass rapists? If so, please point me to it. I would be most interested in an answer, since I've never seen one yet that was valid.

The only other thing I can think to add at this time is to consider that God's way is via grace, love and truth indwelling and changing and freeing the heart through reasonable faith in his character and person. The time was coming and then was [in Christ] that true worshippers would worship in [inner Spirit] and in TRUTH. Truth demands evidence and knowledge.

Grace, love and truth? What does that have to do with the topic of this thread? Was there any grace, love or truth for those 32,000 virgins raped by the very men who killed their moms and dads and families and friends and even their puppy dogs?

I really don't think you appreciate the issues we are discussing. All the nice high sounding words only exacerbate the problem by increasing the contrast between the "good God" and the "evil God."

The people of this era you spoke of were without that knowledge of truth, love and grace, but in future hope of it.

Not one of those people would agree with you on this point. They speak of nothing but the present reality of the "knowledge of truth, love and grace" that they have in Christ.

God created man in his image ...

Well, I guess that explains the murderous rampage of human history.

God created man in his image, and part of that image is the freedom to express and manifest the heart, mind and soul. He did not intend him to live under conditional, oppressive rules, commands and so forth, but to live freely in only the constraints of the knowledge of His entity as Creator and his Love as reveled in his incarnation. But the development and Confirmation of that knowledge, truth and grace about God and his love, took time and included both positive and even negative elements to contrast and clarify the positive. The depth of the image and likeness of God within men's minds and the proving and education of his existence and positive ways may have demanded or permitted some of these negative ways before the new heavens, new Creation, and new Garden of the fulfilled 'new' covenant.

None of those words help me understand anything about why God would command his people to become murderous genocidal maniacs.

You say that they are all his responsibilty .. and partly rightly so.

But the Glory is in the new creation, new heavens, etc. and the anti-glory in the old garden. It is in the elements [not the rituals perpetuated by churches] and elementary principles of the new covenant of the education of the heart/life... not through the letter of the law or command.

I alluded to other aspects in the previous posts. Paul affirms some of the concepts in 2 Cor 3. And I could add verses from the aposltes and prophets in various places to support some of the concepts.

I know I'm not doing a good job of concisely communicating that God has established the historical evidence to provide support to faith in the positive indwelling of His spirit in a positive way of life. As the apostles said... all these things were an ensample for us...

Granted, Paul referred to the OT as a "Ministration of Death." And if there is going to be any biblical answer, it probably will come along these lines. But I have yet to see anything convincing from anyone (including the entire body of all Christian apologists), not just you.

Sorry; it's vs 31 in EZ 36.. sorry.
Ezekiel 36:31 Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations. [INDENT]Isaiah 65:2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;

No, I disagree; The context of both Is 65 and EZ 36:31[sorry bout that] is the time of the New covenant as administered by Christ. The way then that is NOT GOOD is the conditional, corporal way of the mosaic covenant. The writer of Hebrews affirms: If that way had been 'good', there would have been no need of a 'new' way through the new prophet Christ. Jeremiah 31 confirms that the new covenant would be NOT LIKE the mosaic covenant. The blessing of life is to the people of the 'latter son' or latter covenant of Grace, not law.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are talking about at all. The ways that were not good are explicitly stated to be the sins of the people. This has absolutely nothing to do with God committing moral abominations. I don't see how your comments relate to this issue at all, unless you are saying that God is NOT GOOD by nature, and that he only recently (at the cross) reformed his character.

I think we would make a lot more progress if you simply addressed this issue head on. State your view - were the commands of God wicked or not? If not, why not? If murder is wrong, why did God order his people to do it on such a grand scale? What about the taking of the 32,000 sexy virgins? Why did God appear to love violence so much that he ordained it throughout human history?

Though I think it's a very important topic; as stated to Rose, this could generate into a repeating of things already covered here and in other threads and seemingly being ignored here. Not sure of prompt or continued interaction on this right now.

Thanks though for the topic, opportunity for attempted explanation and discussion.
You are most welcome! I agree it is a very important topic, but I really don't think you have said a word that addresses it as yet. I hope you do. And if you have and I missed it, I apologize most sincerely and trust that you will point me to the post that I missed.

Great chatting!

Richard

TheDivineWatermark

10-10-2011, 08:18 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

10-10-2011, 09:35 PM

If a man entered your home, unbeknownst to you, and raped your wife before pulling out a knife to slit her throat, and at that point, just as he is putting the knife to her throat to murder her, you walk in and discover this.
Your gun happens to be located right near you, so you pull it out.

Are you justified ("just") in pulling the trigger (thus killing the man), in order to put a stop to this evil man's deed (and the destruction of your beloved wife)?
Or do you consider "pulling the trigger" on this man "an evil atrocity"?

Nowhere does the Bible say that He commanded the Israelites to rape the young virgins. You are "reading that into the text" in order to attribute to God "unjust" things... the very thing you accused the "article writer" of (in HIS thoughts on the matter), which I posted the other day.

It is not "murder" to "kill" someone in order to preserve your wife.
Or would you let them?
Self defense is fully justified. It is also utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. God ordered them to go and murder everyone. They were not under any kind of attack. There is not any hint of any violence on the part of the Midianites. And neither did the old men, the women, and the babies were no threat of the kind you used in your imaginary scenario. And besides, the Israelites were the invaders! You doing the very thing you accused me of, in spades.

You are correct that the text does not explicitly state "rape" but is that not the logical implication of capturing 32,000 virgins and distributing them to the soldiers?
Numbers 31:25 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 26 "You and Eleazar the priest and the heads of the fathers' households of the congregation, take a count of the booty that was captured, both of man and of animal; 27 and divide the booty between the warriors who went out to battle and all the congregation.
So what are you saying, that the soldiers would not have had sex with the virgins taken as war booty? Or that all those traumatized young women would willingly "marry" the solders who murdered their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, neighbors and friends? Your accusation that I was "reading this into the text" as if the implication were not actually there is absurd.

And most disturbing of all is that you focused on the one minor point you could contest (straining at a gnat) while overlooking the gross immorality of the entire event (swallowing a camel). God was not ordering them to "protect themselves." They were INVADING the land already occupied and murdering all the inhabitants to do so.

This is what blows my mind. Christians claim that God is the foundation of morality and that the Bible is the very Word of God, but cannot admit what it plainly states he did. Please read my previous posts and answer why God seems to love VIOLENCE so much. That's what I would like to know. He didn't have to make the world this way. He must have desired it to be filled with bloodshed from the beginning. It's all his design, right? So where is the love, grace, and mercy in all the blood and murder that he supervised and commanded?

And besides all this - if the Midianites were a real threat to "God's wife" Israel why did God debase and brutalize his people by commanding them to become merciless genocidal murderers? Why didn't he do it himself? Why did he choose to look like any other Bronze age tribal war god? These are the questions that must be answered.

Rose

10-10-2011, 10:08 PM

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

10-10-2011, 10:37 PM

I hope you do. And if you have and I missed it, I apologize most sincerely and trust that you will point me to the post that I missed.

Great chatting!

Richard
I do think you missed it and ignored much of it; especially the primary responses to Rose's OP. Perhaps your incapable of comprehending the temporary, preceding and teaching, but opposite nature of the mosaic covenant against the Everlasting covenant since you don't' believe in the Deity and authority of the administrator of the Everlasting way of Life [of which the mosaic covenant was NOT.] And I don't have time or interest to go line for line through this most recent exchange.

I don't have a more concise or better attempt at communicating it at this time. Perhaps one will formulate in the next few days or weeks. Many words I wrote have meaning to me, but would possibly be dismissed, ignored or not have meaning to you. I covered alot of thought and perspectives that cannot really be interacted with. If your interested, you'll have to sift back through the posts to glean the explanation. As truthseeker stated; likely God is the only one who can answer those questions progressively to your individual heart and mindset; if asked in faith.

And again, it's difficult to understand your stated belief in the historical reality of some of the OT; but then declare that the teachings and historical miracles of Jesus never happened. Neither did the red sea crossing or the plagues upon Egypt. But yet you ignore his proclamation of this being "not the good way"; in service to the Everlasting covenant; and preceding the full revelation of himself in knowledge.

Though this doesn't address the questions; How do you declare that these particular instructions by Moses were historical instructions [and in the formation time of the population of the nation] and then declare that other things were not historical occurrences?

It seems that your extracting certain things from areas of scripture [which you dont' believe is accurate] in order to formulate a theological perspective and [using that theology] instigate an endless hypothetical rant against 'the god of the bible' while limiting the answers and explanations about your theological perspective to those particular instructions alone.

And at the same time; supporting a Govt/religious machine that over the last 150 yrs has been involved in wars involving the deaths of countless millions.

Forgive me if I don't have further time right now for the games.

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

10-10-2011, 10:59 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

10-10-2011, 11:13 PM

Ezekiel 36:31 Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.

Isaiah 65:2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;

I'll give this another try. Both these chapters are prophesying the time of the individualized new covenant through personal faith in the incarnation and teachings of Christ which principles are contradictory to the conditional, temporal, corporal instruction and blessing of Moses. Faith in Christ's teachings of Himself being God incarnate effect a change and freedom in the heart. From that change in the heart is the life changed.

Both these chapters are time-stamped for the first century.

The 'not good' way is not talking about sins against the law; but the not good way of the basic character and principles of the law as a conditional, corporal means of continued 'blessing'. It was prophesying the post Christ, new covenant generation. Those who followed the law of Moses followed the way that was not good. They would have their lives demanded of them. {Deut 18:15-18; Acts 3:22-24] I gave supporting scriptures before, from Hebrews and 2 Cor 3, and Jer 31.
I have no idea where you got that idea (highlighted blue). Could you cite a a published commentator who might give a better explanation? I simply do not follow your logic, and as far as I can tell, you have not provided any. The text is plain - the way that is "not good" refers to the people who were not conforming to the Law which Paul stated is "holy, and good, and just."

And I still don't see how any of this could relate to the problems of the moral abominations attributed to God in the OT. It seems like you are just ignoring this point. I've repeated it in every post yet you have never touched it.

What is your opinion about God ordering the murder of all the Midianites, and the subsequent taking of the 32,000 virgins and their distribution to the soldiers? Does this mean nothing to you?

All the best,

Richard

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

10-11-2011, 01:38 PM

I have no idea where you got that idea (highlighted blue). Could you cite a a published commentator who might give a better explanation? I simply do not follow your logic, and as far as I can tell, you have not provided any. The text is plain - the way that is "not good" refers to the people who were not conforming to the Law which Paul stated is "holy, and good, and just."

I'll write this for clarification for others who may be following along and possibly a final comment. You've already inferred that you don't believe that these events or instructions by Moses happened.

Pauls statement in Rom 7:12 has contextual understanding and is not a declaratory statement in it's own. Rom 7:4-11 alone clarifies 7:12. This seems to be a common practice [of you, but not only of you] to extract verses from their context and to codify doctrines from the 'letters' rather than the spirit and intent. The same interpretive practice is noted in your opinion of Ez 36;31 and the 'not good way'

Paul also called the law, the administration of death. In Gal 4 he declares the law to be slavery. The implications are that the law WAS holy, just and good for it's intended purposes of revealing the un-fulfillment of the life still in separation from a spiritual friendship/ adoption / love with the Creator.

The answer of 'the not good way' of EZ 36 and Is 65 being a reference to the mosaic conditional, corporal law is in the context of their chapters. Check the commentators on your own. You yourself noted that EZ 37 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34941&postcount=3) is a reference to the new covenant.

Ez 36; 6-32 is an overlay of Deut 30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut30:1-14;%20%20Ez%2036:6-32%20&version=KJV) with additional information and clarification being given. Daniel in 9:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dan%209:11-15&version=KJV) declares the Babylonian captivity to be curse of the law of that was prophesied by Moses (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%2028:15&version=KJV)to occur within the temporary time given for the nation. Ezekiel and Daniel are prophesying from within that captivity.
Daniel confesses "]those sins ( due to their prophesying towards another 500-600 yrs in the future.

The middle part of EZ36:16-32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ez%2036:%2016-32&version=KJV), especially 24-32 talk of sometime in the future [from the perspective of those in the captivity] there would come a change and indwelling of the heart with the spirit of God. This was likened to God redeeming his name for the atrocities you mention. Deut 30:6-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%2030:6-9&version=KJV) also has these same words and language of Ez 36:24-32. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ez%2036:24-32&version=KJV)

Neither Deut 30 or EZ 36 gives any time frame for the coming change of the heart and soul. [via the seed of God promised to Eve and the cancellation of the law of sin/death]. They both though read of some time of prosperity before that time. Only after Daniel confesses the sin in Chapter 9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dan%209:3-19&version=KJV) as required in Deut 30 is the time frame of 490 yrs given (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dan%209:3-19&version=KJV) between vs 5 and 6 of Deut 30 and between vs15 and 24 of Ez 36 and until the everlasting, new covenant and the latter end judgment upon the mosaic.

Ezekiel 36:31 is in the context of the time of the new covenant of vss 24-32. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=EZ%2036:24-32&version=KJV) The 'new covenant way' is not of conditional submission to outward laws but of freedom of personal expression and growth of a changed heart through the forgiven, adopted, empowered, and Loved heart and soul. The new covenant instruction of Jesus is NOT the way of corporal wars and killing but opposite.

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
29I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.
30And I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that ye shall receive no more reproach of famine among the heathen.
31Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.
32Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel.

Those individuals who would receive the unconditional love of God and the new heart, new spirit, cleansing from filthy idols...would reflect on their ways of the mosaic covenant and Loathe themselves for their abominations and participation in it.

Recall 2 Peter 2, where to return to principles and elements of the mosaic covenant is like a dog returning to his vomit. And in 2 Pet 3, he asks them of what manner of men they should be, seeing that all these ways and elements are to be dissolved. They should not be participating in those elements or principles; but loathing them. They are abominations to the elementary principles of the Everlasting covenant of faith in the reality of the Creator of Life. In Is 66, (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Is%2066:1-3&version=KJV) to participate in the mosaic covenant ordinances [after the reality of Christ] is called an abomination.

Beginning in vs 33 of EZ36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=EZ%2036:33-38&version=KJV) he says that those people at the time of the cleansing of the heart [first century; new covenant] would [U]also be caused to inhabit the land. [After the 2nd desolation of Jerusalem] The following verses of Ez 36 include that this is a testimony to the nations around them.

Is 65,66,1 61 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Is%2061:3-6&version=KJV) and others are associated with the same first century time of the New Covenant and dissolution of the mosaic.
Here below; the intent and historical fulfillment of vs 3-6 after the desolation of the temple utterly refutes any dispensationalists "GAP" in vs 2. Verse 4 connects with vs 33 of Ez 36.

1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, [ASHES OF THE temple and old way] the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.
4 And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolation's, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations.
5 And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.
6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

Thus the 'way that is not good' in Is 65:2 is the way, instructions and foundational principles of the mosaic covenant and similar Babylonian systems of disbelief, rebellion, conditional works & rituals...and trust in their false priests...etc...

Paul quotes Deut 30/Ez 36 and Is 65: in Rom 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:5-8;%2020-21&version=KJV)as one of the several confirmations of the circumcision/indwelling of the heart coming through faith in Christ.

Thus, for those people who would be in the generation that would experience the circumcision and indwelling of God's Spirit, the Not good way would refer to the mosaic covenant ways, and principles.

This is repeatedly confirmed by Jesus and the apostles. There is a personal restoration to an [now] Unconditional, unbreakable edenic friendship with the Spirit and Love of the Creator through the work of the seed of God and through faith in Him. I'll not go into the depth of these confirmations and comments by the apostles. We're in the 8th day...and the new creation; new Garden..

And I still don't see how any of this could relate to the problems of the moral abominations attributed to God in the OT. It seems like you are just ignoring this point. I've repeated it in every post yet you have never touched it. This was the time of the effects of Nimrod's counterfeit, usurping, disbelieving and enslaving influence in the land. God has created man generally free to operate his life on foundations of faith in the reality of God; in His work and being .... or absence of those foundations and experience the effects of those choices. This is a basic axiom of God and life. The freedom of your mind and your beliefs are part of your own destiny and experience.

The foundations of Nimrod and Babylon [and perhaps other diversions] manifest themselves in conditional, corporal religions and eventually in warring cities and nations, even of the Egyptians which would have influenced the descendants of Israel. While still giving people over to their beliefs, disbelief and wrong foundations, he raised up a nation within the same conditional, corporal foundations of disbelief possibly to hold the growth of those religions in check and to provide a means through which the true seed of God [Gen 3:15] and of positive life would come, be verified and confirmed.

It was also before the coming of the seed of God incarnate [which you don't' believe] and thus individual men were still within the law of sin, death and fear from God and in some ignorance about his His reality, his character and love. Remember again the Israelites formed the golden calf in disbelief to worship the Egyptian God AFTER they were delivered out of Egypt by the God of nature.

I recently read of a recently found stone record of the account of a battle against Israel after the time of David and just before the babylonian captivity. I can't recall the details or who it was about. But the king of that city or nation declared that his God had given them the victory and that the nation should celebrate the proving of their following the right ways, and the right God over Israel's God. This was another babylonian conditional style religious govt. Within a few years of that victory, this city somewhere east of Jordan was wiped out by the Babylonians just before the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem. It was almost as if reading a mosaic covenant biblical account.

We also take note that in Deut 32, God declares that if it were not that the Romans would declare that their God's had won them the victory over Judea; he would have made their remembrance be no more. But Titus even testified that there was no honor in a victory over a nation who's own God had turned against them.

What is your opinion about God ordering the murder of all the Midianites, and the subsequent taking of the 32,000 virgins and their distribution to the soldiers? Does this mean nothing to you?
There is a historical and religious context to these events and times. Perhaps God foreknew that the Israelites of the temporal and Babylonian nation were going to need additional cannon fodder [male children] in the yrs to come. Or a greater population to inhabit the land. Or perhaps he knew that they had been inbreeding for about 400yrs and that new stock was needed to keep the race healthy. Your implications of 'sex slaves' is not in the text; though possibly interpreted and twisted this way by racist superioristic minds in the talmud. The females were from infants through puberty or whatever age and time was there individual experience.

This was the formation time of the negative nation and babylonian style rituals; but who's particular rituals given by God would confirm and help verify the seed of God. The nation would be elevated and administered to by God for the purpose of magnifying Christ to all peoples of all the world. After that occurrence, the nation dissolved, and is no more.

There is plenty to read in these last several posts. It's likely that you'll ignore, reject or gloss over much of it and that you'll have to find your own answers as it seems you repeatedly seek answers in disbelief and condemnation.

With the new words, new wine, new heavens[ordinances and teachings, of grace, love and truth of the new prophet of Deut 18, along with the promise of the new covenant of Jer 31 being declared to be NOT like the mosaic covenant, all the foundational principles of the law of Moses is judged as 'not good' [except for it's intended temporal purposes] is removed and called faulty, inferior. You can't 'condemn' God for the way which he himself condemns and calls inferior, though with a temporary purpose[s]

CWH

10-14-2011, 07:26 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

10-14-2011, 09:03 AM

It's ironic that someone does not believe in the Flood, God, the Creation of the world, Jesus miracles etc. but believe deeply the words in OT that God ordered the killing of all men and women and children mercilessly except 32,000 virgins to be kept as sex slaves. Sounds like a scam to discredit God.

God forgive them for they know not what they are doing. Amen. :pray:
Come on man, use your head. I'm not discrediting God in any way at all! I'm discrediting the things the Bible says about God. Pretty simple stuff. Your arguments will remain meaningless as long as you refuse to deal with what I'm actually saying. This has been explained to you many times. How is it that you continue to repeat the same moronic error?

CWH

10-14-2011, 10:50 AM

Come on man, use your head. I'm not discrediting God in any way at all! I'm discrediting the things the Bible says about God. Pretty simple stuff. Your arguments will remain meaningless as long as you refuse to deal with what I'm actually saying. This has been explained to you many times. How is it that you continue to repeat the same moronic error?

If you are not discrediting God, then SAY GOOD THINGS ABOUT GOD! Just one is enough. I have been saying this to you many times out of brotherly love but you stubbornly refused, you do not know what you are doing:

Mark 12:29 Jesus answered him, 'The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. 30 And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’[e] This is the first commandment.[f] 31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no other commandment greater than these.'
32 So the scribe said to Him, 'Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. 33 And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul,[h] and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.'
34 Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, 'You are not far from the kingdom of God.'

God forgive them, they know not what they are doing. Amen. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

10-14-2011, 10:57 AM

If you are not discrediting God, then SAY GOOD THINGS ABOUT GOD! Just one is enough. I have been saying this to you many times out of brotherly love but you stubbornly refused,

I have not refused. You just don't understand plain English. You are confusing your idea of the "the God of the Bible" with the idea of "God." I've explained this a dozen times but you just can't understand.

I haven't said a single word for or against "God" because I don't know anything about any "God." Sure, there might be a God, but if there is, I don't know anything about him or her or it or them (Trinity?) or whatever. So what do you want? Do you want me to lie and say that I know things I don't know?

CWH

10-14-2011, 11:27 AM

I have not refused. You just don't understand plain English. You are confusing your idea of the "the God of the Bible" with the idea of "God." I've explained this a dozen times but you just can't understand.

I haven't said a single word for or against "God" because I don't know anything about any "God." Sure, there might be a God, but if there is, I don't know anything about him or her or it or them (Trinity?) or whatever. So what do you want? Do you want me to lie and say that I know things I don't know?

What I want you to do is simple, ask yourself the following questions:
1. What do I gain by saying negative things about God even though I am not sure if God exist?
2, What do I gain by saying positive things about God even though God may not exist?
3. What if God really exist?

This is related to the analogous questions of:
1. What do I gain by saying negative things to a girl who could be my potential wife?
2, What do I gain by saying positive things to a girl who could be my potential wife?
3. What if this girl turn out to be my future wife?

God Blessings to all. Amen.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

10-14-2011, 11:52 AM

What I want you to do is simple, ask yourself the following questions:
1. What do I gain by saying negative things about God even though I am not sure if God exist?

Dude! GROW A BRAIN! I have told you over and over and over again that I am not saying anything negative about God.

How is it possible that you still don't understand? I have not been saying a word for or against any God. I have only been pointing out that the Bible says bad things about God and so should not be believed.

3. What if God really exist?

If God really exists, then he/she/it/they either does/do or does/do not want us humans to have an accurate understanding of him/her/them from a book. Given the massive confusion in all religious texts, it seems evident to me that he/she/it/they does/do not care what we believe about the books supposed written by/about him/her/them.

CWH

10-14-2011, 12:58 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

10-14-2011, 01:20 PM

I'll write this for clarification for others who may be following along and possibly a final comment. You've already inferred that you don't believe that these events or instructions by Moses happened.

The historicity of the events has nothing to do with whether or not your interpretation is supported by what is written. My problem with your arguments is that they do not cohere with what the Bible actually states.

Pauls statement in Rom 7:12 has contextual understanding and is not a declaratory statement in it's own. Rom 7:4-11 alone clarifies 7:12. This seems to be a common practice [of you, but not only of you] to extract verses from their context and to codify doctrines from the 'letters' rather than the spirit and intent. The same interpretive practice is noted in your opinion of Ez 36;31 and the 'not good way'

Tossing out unsupported accusations does not help the conversation. And besides, you are the one doing what you accuse me of. You are taking two verses out context and twisting them around to say the opposite of what they mean. It's so outrageously absurd that you have to degrade yourself to name-calling. I asked for a single published scholar who would agree with your interpretation and you refused. And for good reason - your interpretation is patently absurd. Let's look at it again:

Isaiah 65:2 2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;
What is the "way" that is "not good"? The text says it is the "way" that is "after their own thoughts." The context then goes on to castigate them for all kinds of sins against the law of God. Your argument directly contradicts the plain and obvious meaning of the text.

Furthermore, your interpretation depends upon your assertion that "these chapters are time-stamped for the first century" which is not entirely accurate. Yes, they have applications to the events of the first century (which is why Paul quoted Isa 65:2) but that does not mean that they did not have any meaning to their original audience.

Now you are correct that the Law was "not faultless" (Heb 8:7) but that does not justify your twisting of that text to say the opposite of what it plainly states. Nowhere do any Biblical authors state that the Law of God given in the OT was "not good." But even if they did, it would not justify twisting Isaiah 65:2 to say the opposite of what it says.

Paul also called the law, the administration of death. In Gal 4 he declares the law to be slavery. The implications are that the law WAS holy, just and good for it's intended purposes of revealing the un-fulfillment of the life still in separation from a spiritual friendship/ adoption / love with the Creator.

It is the context of Romans 7 that proves your error. Paul never said the law itself was slavery. On the contrary, Paul repeatedly said the law was good, and that it was SIN that brought people into bondage because of the righteous law. Here is the context:

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. [Here Paul directly contradicts your entire thesis.] 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? God forbid. >>>But sin<<<, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good [THE LAW IS GOOD!]; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
It's all about the interaction between sin and law. The law itself is GOOD GOOD GOOD accordign to Paul and the entire Bible.

The law brings people into slavery because of their sin, and it was incapable of fixing that problem, and so the gospel was needed. But that says nothing about the law itself being bad or "not good." On the contrary, Paul again confirms that "we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners." This is is the uniform testimony of the entire Bible. The Bible states that the law is good and altogether righteous.

The answer of 'the not good way' of EZ 36 and Is 65 being a reference to the mosaic conditional, corporal law is in the context of their chapters. Check the commentators on your own. You yourself noted that EZ 37 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34941&postcount=3) is a reference to the new covenant.

"Check the commentators on your own" - what a rude way to admit your interpretation has no support by anyone who has ever read the Bible!

And the fact that a passage contains a prophecy of the New Covenant does not justify reversing its meaing.

Ez 36; 6-32 is an overlay of Deut 30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut30:1-14;%20%20Ez%2036:6-32%20&version=KJV)with additional information and clarification being given. Daniel in 9:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dan%209:11-15&version=KJV) declares the Babylonian captivity to be curse of the law of that was prophesied by Moses (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%2028:15&version=KJV)to occur within the temporary time given for the nation. Ezekiel and Daniel are prophesying from within that captivity.
Daniel confesses "]those sins (http://Deut 30:1-3.[/COLOR] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2030:1-3&version=KJV) The first parts of Ez 36:8-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=EZ%2036:8-15&version=KJV)refer to the return from the babylonian captivity just as Deut 30:3-5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut30:3-5&version=KJV) does.

Sure, that all makes sense. And when Daniel was confessing his sins he was confirming that the God's law was RIGHTEOUS and they were the sinners, which is why they were subjected to the curse:

Daniel 9:11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law [which is good], even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him [and his law].
This fits perfectly with what Paul said about the law. The law was GOOD but sin made it deadly to the sinner. Very simple stuff. I have no idea how you could fail to understand this. It's written explcitly in Romans 7 and many other places. It is SIN against the law, not the law itself, that is "not good."

Remember, Deut 30 was prophesied 1000 yrs earlier than Daniel and Ezekiel and in very general terms. Ez 36, Daniel, and Jeremiah prophesy additional information about the New covenant. This was called "my" covenant to Noah and Abraham. EZ 36 , Dan 9 and Jeremiah still use general sometimes poetic language due to their prophesying towards another 500-600 yrs in the future.

The middle part of EZ36:16-32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ez%2036:%2016-32&version=KJV), especially 24-32 talk of sometime in the future [from the perspective of those in the captivity] there would come a change and indwelling of the heart with the spirit of God. This was likened to God redeeming his name for the atrocities you mention. Deut 30:6-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%2030:6-9&version=KJV) also has these same words and language of Ez 36:24-32. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ez%2036:24-32&version=KJV)

Neither Deut 30 or EZ 36 gives any time frame for the coming change of the heart and soul. [via the seed of God promised to Eve and the cancellation of the law of sin/death]. They both though read of some time of prosperity before that time. Only after Daniel confesses the sin in Chapter 9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dan%209:3-19&version=KJV) as required in Deut 30 is the time frame of 490 yrs given (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Dan%209:3-19&version=KJV) between vs 5 and 6 of Deut 30 and between vs15 and 24 of Ez 36 and until the everlasting, new covenant and the latter end judgment upon the mosaic.

I have no problem with any of that.

Ezekiel 36:31 is in the context of the time of the new covenant of vss 24-32. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=EZ%2036:24-32&version=KJV) The 'new covenant way' is not of conditional submission to outward laws but of freedom of personal expression and growth of a changed heart through the forgiven, adopted, empowered, and Loved heart and soul. The new covenant instruction of Jesus is NOT the way of corporal wars and killing but opposite.

Correct. But that does not justify your assertion that Ezekiel was saying that the law was "not good." The people loathed themselves when they saw that they failed to keep the commandments of God good law, as it is written:

Ezekiel 36:31 Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.
Or what? Are you saying that obeying the commandments is here being refered to as "iniquities and abominations?" Your interperation makes no sense whatsoever. God is OBVIOUSLY talking about "iniquities and abominations" that were contrary to his law. It is the GOOD LAW that condemns SIN. You are saying that the Law itself was "not good." If that were true, then it could not convict anyone of sin. That's the whole point of Romans 7 where Paul says the law is good, and then asks how it is that the "good law" could be the casue of death in him. It seems like its all written in neon signs. I can't understand how you could miss this.

Those individuals who would receive the unconditional love of God and the new heart, new spirit, cleansing from filthy idols...would reflect on their ways of the mosaic covenant and Loathe themselves for their abominations and participation in it.

I don't see any evidence of that in the Bible. Paul never once "loathed" himself because he had lived righteously under the law. Sure, he counted that kind of righteousness to be "crap" because it did not bring him the righteousness of Christ, but that's not the same as saying the he felt guilty for participating in the law.

Recall 2 Peter 2, where to return to principles and elements of the mosaic covenant is like a dog returning to his vomit.

Yes, of course. But again, that does not say that the law was "not good." It's only "not good" for a person to repudiate Christ by going back to the law.

And in 2 Pet 3, he asks them of what manner of men they should be, seeing that all these ways and elements are to be dissolved. They should not be participating in those elements or principles; but loathing them. They are abominations to the elementary principles of the Everlasting covenant of faith in the reality of the Creator of Life. In Is 66, (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Is%2066:1-3&version=KJV) to participate in the mosaic covenant ordinances [after the reality of Christ] is called an abomination.

I'm not sure that's true. Paul was willing to play around with obedience to the law in Acts (which gives much ammo for the Messianic "Torah keepers"). But if it is true, it is true only in the context of repudiating Christ by going back to types and shadows. It does not imply that the types or shadows were themselves "not good."

Beginning in vs 33 of EZ36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=EZ%2036:33-38&version=KJV) he says that those people at the time of the cleansing of the heart [first century; new covenant] would [U]also be caused to inhabit the land. [After the 2nd desolation of Jerusalem] The following verses of Ez 36 include that this is a testimony to the nations around them.

Is 65,66,1 61 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Is%2061:3-6&version=KJV) and others are associated with the same first century time of the New Covenant and dissolution of the mosaic.
Here below; the intent and historical fulfillment of vs 3-6 after the desolation of the temple utterly refutes any dispensationalists "GAP" in vs 2. Verse 4 connects with vs 33 of Ez 36.

1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, [B][ASHES OF THE temple and old way] the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.
4 And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolation's, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations.
5 And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.
6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

Thus the 'way that is not good' in Is 65:2 is the way, instructions and foundational principles of the mosaic covenant and similar Babylonian systems of disbelief, rebellion, conditional works & rituals...and trust in their false priests...etc...

I see nothing that supports the word "thus." Isaiah 65:2 condems sin against God's law. It is the law that defines sin and the reason for the gospel. Your argument destroys the entire basis of the new covenant. If the Law was "not good" then it could not convict of sin.

Paul quotes Deut 30/Ez 36 and Is 65: in Rom 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:5-8;%2020-21&version=KJV)as one of the several confirmations of the circumcision/indwelling of the heart coming through faith in Christ.

Thus, for those people who would be in the generation that would experience the circumcision and indwelling of God's Spirit, the Not good way would refer to the mosaic covenant ways, and principles.

The "not good way" is the way of sin contrary to God's law which kills the sinners. That's why they needed the gospel. Your interperation destroys all the meaning of the text.

This is repeatedly confirmed by Jesus and the apostles. There is a personal restoration to an [now] Unconditional, unbreakable edenic friendship with the Spirit and Love of the Creator through the work of the seed of God and through faith in Him. I'll not go into the depth of these confirmations and comments by the apostles. We're in the 8th day...and the new creation; new Garden..

That's all good. But it doesn't confirm your interpretation at all.

Well, I need to split this response because I have surpassed the limit of 20,000 characters! It unfortunate that you don't realize less is more. If your arguments were true, you could present them in just a paragraph or two. There is no need for these long rambling disertations. It makes it very difficult to clear out the clutter to see the truth.

Richard Amiel McGough

10-14-2011, 01:20 PM

Continued ...

And I still don't see how any of this could relate to the problems of the moral abominations attributed to God in the OT. It seems like you are just ignoring this point. I've repeated it in every post yet you have never touched it.
This was the time of the effects of Nimrod's counterfeit, usurping, disbelieving and enslaving influence in the land. God has created man generally free to operate his life on foundations of faith in the reality of God; in His work and being .... or absence of those foundations and experience the effects of those choices. This is a basic axiom of God and life. The freedom of your mind and your beliefs are part of your own destiny and experience.

The foundations of Nimrod and Babylon [and perhaps other diversions] manifest themselves in conditional, corporal religions and eventually in warring cities and nations, even of the Egyptians which would have influenced the descendants of Israel. While still giving people over to their beliefs, disbelief and wrong foundations, he raised up a nation within the same conditional, corporal foundations of disbelief possibly to hold the growth of those religions in check and to provide a means through which the true seed of God [Gen 3:15] and of positive life would come, be verified and confirmed.

I'm sorry, but I did not detect any explanation of why God would order his people to become merciless mass murderers.

It was also before the coming of the seed of God incarnate [which you don't' believe] and thus individual men were still within the law of sin, death and fear from God and in some ignorance about his His reality, his character and love. Remember again the Israelites formed the golden calf in disbelief to worship the Egyptian God AFTER they were delivered out of Egypt by the God of nature.

It doesn't matter what I "believe" - we're talking about the logical justification of your interpretation of the text.

I still do not detect any answer to the question. If God is good, why would he want to corrupt and pervert and brutalize his people by ordering them to become merciless mass murderers?

And another question I've repeatedly asked without answer: Why does the God of the OT appear to be so absolutely enamoured by VIOLENCE? What does he get out it? What is its "good purpose?" And why has it continued for 2000 years after he supposedly changed his wicked ways?

I recently read of a recently found stone record of the account of a battle against Israel after the time of David and just before the babylonian captivity. I can't recall the details or who it was about. But the king of that city or nation declared that his God had given them the victory and that the nation should celebrate the proving of their following the right ways, and the right God over Israel's God. This was another babylonian conditional style religious govt. Within a few years of that victory, this city somewhere east of Jordan was wiped out by the Babylonians just before the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem. It was almost as if reading a mosaic covenant biblical account.

I've read things like that. Senacherib's prism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_and_Sennacherib_Prisms). It shows how Yahweh looks like any other Bronze age tribal war god.

What is your opinion about God ordering the murder of all the Midianites, and the subsequent taking of the 32,000 virgins and their distribution to the soldiers? Does this mean nothing to you?
There is a historical and religious context to these events and times. Perhaps God foreknew that the Israelites of the temporal and Babylonian nation were going to need additional cannon fodder [male children] in the yrs to come. Or a greater population to inhabit the land. Or perhaps he knew that they had been inbreeding for about 400yrs and that new stock was needed to keep the race healthy.

Makes me like Yahweh all the less. But at least you are trying to give some sort of explanation. Do you now realize why it is rational for me to reject this vision of God? Can you give any good reason why anyone should believe the God of the Bible is the true God?

Your implications of 'sex slaves' is not in the text; though possibly interpreted and twisted this way by racist superioristic minds in the talmud. The females were from infants through puberty or whatever age and time was there individual experience.

Wrong. The implication most certainly is in the text. Indeed, it's all but spelt out explicitly. You send out the army to kill everyone, capture the virgins, and distribute them to the fucking soldiers! Why do I have to spell it out????

There is plenty to read in these last several posts. It's likely that you'll ignore, reject or gloss over much of it and that you'll have to find your own answers as it seems you repeatedly seek answers in disbelief and condemnation.

Nope - I didn't ignore nor gloss over. I answered with massive volumes of Scripture that totally contradict your strange interpretation which is so idiosyncratic you can't find any support for it anywhere in the millions of contradictory opinons that have been published in the last 2000 years. You've accomplised a rare thing - you've invented a new doctrine that apparently has never been seen before in the history of the world. :thumb:

With the new words, new wine, new heavens[ordinances and teachings, of grace, love and truth of the new prophet of Deut 18, along with the promise of the new covenant of Jer 31 being declared to be NOT like the mosaic covenant, all the foundational principles of the law of Moses is judged as 'not good' [except for it's intended temporal purposes] is removed and called faulty, inferior. You can't 'condemn' God for the way which he himself condemns and calls inferior, though with a temporary purpose[s]
Wrong. The "foundational principles" like "Have no god before Me" have not been shown to be "not good."

And again you have repeated your error. God never once said his law was "not good." Not once. And Paul repeatedly stated that the OT law was good. Your argumnet has no biblical foundation whatsoever.

Richard Amiel McGough

10-14-2011, 02:21 PM

Dude! GROW A BRAIN! I have told you over and over and over again that I am not saying anything negative about God.

How is it possible that you still don't understand? I have not been saying a word for or against any God. I have only been pointing out that the Bible says bad things about God and so should not be believed.

If God really exists, then he/she/it/they either does/do or does/do not want us humans to have an accurate understanding of him/her/them from a book. Given the massive confusion in all religious texts, it seems evident to me that he/she/it/they does/do not care what we believe about the books supposed written by/about him/her/them.

Say what ever you want and call me names, I don't bother; you are wasting your breath.

Yes, I know I'm "wasting my breath." We have an old saying "Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It won't work, and it annoys the pig." This seems to be a modern rendition of the Biblical admonition not to throw your pearls before swine.

I just don't understand why you persist in such absurd statements. I explained your erorr a dozen times, and then you repeated it right after my last explanation! It's just nuts! You accuse me of saying bad things about the True God when all I have done is question the descriptions of God given by the Bible. You don't seem to understand this no matter how many times I repeat it. Wasting my breath indeed.

If God doesn't exist, why are we here in this forum?

Our being here has nothing to do with whether or not God really exists. That's an open question. And that's one reason folks are here - to discuss that question, along with many others. Everyone is here for their own reasons. I enjoy the conversation, but it would be a lot better if you elevated the intelligence of your responses. You know you often write stupid stuff. I get the impression you are just writing crap because you don't care about God or anything. If you really cared about God, why don't you try to honor him by using the brain that he gave you?

I have said umpteen times why God seems to be not caring or not intend to let us know His secrets. Would a teacher want to let her students know everything or is it better to let them learn through experiential learning as after all the true answers will be finally revealed to them. As long as the students apply the important fundamentals they will pass regardless of the answers that they generated.

Of those "umpteen times" have you ever explained why I should believe that a God who orders people to become merciless mass murderers should be considered good? If so, I'm sorry I missed it. Please repost it. I'm sure it would be very enlightening.

Looks like you never understand what I am talking about. This is the fundamentals:

Mark 12:29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. 30 And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’[e] This is the first commandment.[f] 31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no other commandment greater than these.”
32 So the scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. 33 And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul,[h] and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
34 Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”

Why do you think I don't understand that? I understand it perfectly. It just doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about. This thread compares God's actions with those of Hitler. Do you see the similarity? If so, why should I believe in a God who acts like Hitler?

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

10-14-2011, 04:08 PM

We have a disagreement of interpretation, perspective and opinion. [period]

It is due to just as Paul said, interpreting the words and letters rather than the Spirit [the intent of the words]. You did the same thing again in your statement about Rom 7:7 without including 8-11 in the context.

The epistles and letters were not written to be de-codified into declaratory statements, but as explanations, teachings and letters of education and insight.

You did the same with Isaiah 65. The inclusion of the description of new heavens and earth in the chapter time stamps it to the first century; just as Deut 32 is exclusively referring to that last generation. [yet eternal principles are established]

The mosaic covenant was indeed corporal and multi-generational in it's conditions, temporary time limits and effects. By contrast, when presenting the New covenant, Jeremiah declared that no longer would they have a saying that a man's teeth would be set on edge because his great-great grandpa ate sour grapes... [or whatever]. The new covenant is a restoration to [B]individual accountability, not corporal accountability, AND contains the remedy of individual "sin", and freedom from personal separation from the Father/Lover.

Thus Isaiah would indeed have been prophesying to the end of the mosaic covenant as 'not the good way' from it's inception [as even declared as such by Moses] and un-keepable. Many of those within the mosaic covenant would have already been testifying to those truths in their times, even before Isaiah prophesied.

This is magnified and confirmed by personally and experientially knowing the positive elements [new heavens] of the New Covenant. This is so utterly obvious to me that I must question if you being disingenuous in your lack of agreement.

I dont' have any more time for this discussion. I won't be strung out to repeat or clarify your lack of understanding in disbelief and rebellion.

The post's I made support and satisfactorily refute and clarify [to my mind] the accusations made against God's historical ways prior to the incarnation while working with unregenerate, unbelieving, rebellious peoples. They helped prove and verify his entity as a Spirit and his powers as supernatural to a doubting, rejecting, denying, rebellious, insecure, counterfeit religiously influenced world and people.

The israelites were not chosen for their favor; but if anything for their similarity with any other peoples. This was detailed in Deuteronomy chapter 8:19-20 and chapter 9 as previously noted. Individuals such as Abraham and Jacob/Israel, David, the prophets and many others had personal experience with God that would have been dis-similar to others who were strictly of the mosaic, Babylonian style religious covenant.

I believe I did a pretty good job of explaining how these things could be in the previous posts. Thanks for the discussion. If they have not answered your questions, or persuaded you, it's likely that they may help and be thought provoking to others who may read them later and who may be closer to the same understanding and enlightenment that I am at this present time.

If I take a break, it's not due to this thread or interaction with you.
Thanks again.

Beck

10-14-2011, 04:45 PM

Has anyone ever noticed these similarities?

Here is a short list showing an eerie set of comparisons between the god of the Bible 'Yahweh' and Hitler.

Yahweh

Picks a people and calls them chosen.
Deems other races inferior and commands their slaughter.
Applies one set of standards for his chosen people the Jews and another set for the Gentiles.

Hitler

Picks the Arian race and calls them chosen.
Deems the Jewish race inferior and commands their slaughter.
Applies one set of standards for his chosen people the Arians and another for the Jews.

Kinda scary!

Rose

Rose are you indicating that the Gentiles aren't apart of God's chosen? An royal priesthood an holy nation which in times past not a people, but now are the people of God (1 Peter 2:9-10).

Can you describe that set of standard for his chosen compared to the Gentiles?

Richard Amiel McGough

10-14-2011, 05:07 PM

Hey there ED70AD, :yo:

We have a disagreement of interpretation, perspection and opinion. [period]

It is due to just as Paul said, interpreting the letter of the law, 'the words' rather than the Spirit [the intent of the words]. The epistles and letters were not written to be de-codified into statements, but as explanatory. You did the same thing again in your statement about Rom 7:7 without including 8-11 in the context.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not "de-codifying" anything. I merely pointed out that Paul explained himself in context that the law is good, and that it was sin that caused the bad reaction in the sinner (death). He was explicit. He repeated himself. First he said that the law is "good" and then he asked how that which is good (the law) could cause death. You have not addressed what Paul wrote. You merely make empty assertions about "letters" vs. "intent" that have no practical meaning in this discussion. You have not answered any of the hundreds of statements in the Old and New Testaments that declare the law to be good, righteous, holy, perfect, and so forth. How is it possible that you think you can use those two verses to deny the plain meaning of hundreds of verses that explicitly declare the law to be good? I am particulary mystified by the fact that those verses don't even say what you claim! They say NOTHING about the LAW. On the contrary, they explictily speak of the Jews who were VIOLATING the LAW.

And stranger still is the fact that you cannot even address the facts that I have provided. This is profoundly mystifying. The text could be no plainer, yet you can't even see why someone might disagree with your stange and idiosyncratic interpretation.

You did the same with Isaiah 65. The inclusion of the description of new heavens and earth in the chapter time stamp it to the first century; just as Deut 32 is exclusively referring to the last generation. [yet eternal principles are established]
I did not such thing. I explained that your idea of a "time stamp" does not justify the changing of the meanings of words that are determined by context. And besides, your concept is entirely incoherent. The LAW is what defines SIN. There is not a verse in the Bible that says the LAW is "not good." The Bible repeatedly states that the law is good and righteous. And besides all that, those verses are explicitly condemning the SINS AGAINST THE LAW of the Jews, whether time stamped in the time they were written or in the first century after the new covenant was enacted.

You just don't understand. The LAW is condemns SINNERS who violate the LAW and that's why we needed a Gospel. If the LAW were "not good" then there would be no such thing as "sin" and Christ would not have needed to die.

The mosaic covenant was indeed corporal and multi-generational in it's conditions, time limits and effects. By contrast, when presenting the New covenant in contrast, Jeremiah declared that no longer would a man's teeth be set on edge because his great granpa ate sour grapes... [or whatever]. The new covenant is a restoration to individual accountability, adn the remedy and freedom of individual sin; not corporal accountability. [B]Thus Isaiah would indeed have been prophesying to the end of the mosaic covenant as 'not the good way' and un-keepable and many of those within the mosaic covenant would have already been testifying to those truths in their times, even before Isaiah prophesied. This is magnified and confirmed by personally and experientially knowing the positive elements [new heavens] of the New Covenant. This is so utterly obvious to me that I must question if you being disingenuous in your interpretations and lack of agreement.

There was plenty of "personal accountability" under the OT law. That's all Paul ever talked about. Yes, there was also corporal accountability, but that was because there was a theocracy. Thus your "thus" (highlighted red) does not follow. You are merely asserting that Isaiah was prophesying against the law, but you have given no proof, or even any evidence. You are merely asserting your opinion as if it were "self-evident" and you can't even find one commentator in the history of the word who agrees with you! So you go on and on making more empty assertions and ignore all the explicit facts that I have presented that prove your error. I just don't get it. How can you fail to see that your statements directly contradict what is plainly written? Paul explicitly stated and repeated that the law was good. But you reject his words with no reason whatsoever.

I dont' have any more time for this discussion. I won't be strung out to repeat or clarify your lack of understanding in disbelief and rebellion.
The post's I made support and satisfactorily refute and clarify [to my mind] the accusations made against God's historical ways prior to the incarnation while working with unregenerate, unbelieving, rebellious peoples. They helped prove and verify his entity as a Spirit and his powers as supernatural to a doubting, rejecting, denying, rebellious, insecure, counterfeit religiously influenced world and people.

You don't have time because you dont' know how to express yourself with simpliclity and clarity, and you can't do that because there is no way to defy truth without burying it under a mountain of words. The text is plain - the entire Bible says that the law is good, and Paul explains that it is sin, not the law, that causes the problem. I explained this a dozen ways to you in my last post, but you didn't understand.

Again, if there were any truth in you radical interpretation, why can't you find a single commentator who has seen the same thing?

How is it possible that you don't understand that you have not even touched, let alone answered, the primary biblical arguments against your interpretation?

The israelites were not chosen for their favor; but if anything for their similarity with any other peoples. Individuals such as Abraham and Jacob/Israel, David, the prophets and many others had personal experience with God that would have been dis-similar to others who were striclty of the mosaic covenant.

Agreed. But so what? This has nothing to do with the primary point we are discussing. THIS IS WHY YOU DON"T HAVE TIME TO ANSWER - you go off on all sorts of rabbit trails and irrelevant digressions so the main point is lost. We should simply focus on your one assertion that we are discussing - do those verses imply that the law itself was not good? The answer is obvious. The text plainly states that they were sinning against the Law.

I believe I did a pretty good job of explaining how these things could be in the previous posts. Thanks for the discussion. If they have not answered your questions, or persuaded you, it's likely that they may help and be thought provoking to others who may read them later and who may be closer to the same understanding and enlightenment at this present time.

If I take a break, it's not due to this thread or interaction with you.
Thanks again.
Understood. I often take breaks too. That's the beauty of communicating in forums. The conversation will be waiting right where it left off in a year from now.

All the best,

Richard

Rose

10-14-2011, 05:15 PM

Rose are you indicating that the Gentiles aren't apart of God's chosen? An royal priesthood an holy nation which in times past not a people, but now are the people of God (1 Peter 2:9-10).

Can you describe that set of standard for his chosen compared to the Gentiles?
Hi Beck,

In my comparison I was speaking strictly of how Yahweh was portrayed in the Old Testament, which is far different than the God Jesus called father in the New Testament.

All the Best,
Rose

heb13-13

10-14-2011, 09:53 PM

Hi Beck,

In my comparison I was speaking strictly of how Yahweh was portrayed in the Old Testament, which is far different than the God Jesus called father in the New Testament.

All the Best,
Rose

Hi Rose,

Not sure your Jesus is the same one as the one in the NT. Looks like Jesus in the NT did not have any arguments with the God of the Old Testament. Why have we never heard anything negative from Jesus about the God of the OT? Never once! If not, why not? He quoted many, many OT books, but never once tried to tell us that something was written incorrectly about God in those books. The silence of Jesus on this, sounds like a thunder clap.

And what about this?

Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Mat 10:15

But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. Luk 10:14-15

And for those that really like Jesus because he is so nice and believe Satan is a pagan superstition: "And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven" Luke 10:18

Jesus believes in superstitions?

Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven. Luke 10:19-20

Over all the power of the enemy?

It is very easy to attack writings about God in the OT when you dismiss the existence of Satan, demons, powers and principalities. It's like God is just battling men. Wow! How unfair is that. I would agree with you.

Then it just looks like God's people mercilessly killing others. And if you don't see that these other nations were not driven by the powers of darkness to wipe out God's people then the God of the OT becomes an easy target for potshots.

When you don't see Satan at work, you only see God as loving violence and bloodthirsty.

Also, you need to study land and boundaries and God's purposes for creating a nation and what it took to preserve it. The giving of land and declaring boundaries all has spiritual implications today to YOUR LAND. And that no enemies should live within the boundaries then and YOUR BOUNDARIES, now.

What is your land today? What does it take to protect it? Are there enemies that need to be driven out? Can you play nice, nice with them?

Israel understand little to nothing about God. Much like many today. Why, did God say that these nations could not dwell in their land?

They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee. Exo 23:33

Richard, their gods and idols were representative of real demons and powers of darkness, that drove these nations continuously to wipe out God's people.

But the reasons for the preservation of a people in which Jesus would come from will make no sense to you if you continue to believe that Satan does not exist.

This is just scratching the surface Richard. There is much more, but just something for you to think about.

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:5

Think of it back then like Pol Pot in Cambodia, or Idi Amin in Uganda, or Stalin or Mao Tse Tung. No knowledge of God and driven by demons 100%.

I won't post the whole chapter, but you really should read Deuteronomy 29.

I realize you are looking for answers, but in looking for them, everything has to be on the table. And that means that Satan and demon powers are real. Can't take those off the table and go into the courtroom to prosecute Yahweh.

If we walk after the imagination of our own heart, then anything goes. We can bring God down to our level and compare Him to men but it is not a good comparison because God sees things in the spiritual realm that drive and influence men that we don't see.

We need the Spirit with the Word, Richard. Trying to understand and reconcile the things in the Bible without the Spirit has the potential for driving anyone mad.

All the best,
Rick

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

10-15-2011, 02:39 AM

You merely make empty assertions about "letters" vs. "intent" that have no practical meaning in this discussion.

There is a difference between the hermeneutic of extracting statements and sentences [letters] of Pauls writings from their contextual meanings and intentions;[their spirit of intent] versus seeking to understand the intended meaning and "Spirit" of those words as gleaned and clarified from the surrounding context and further clarified by other writings of the same author and other apostles.

There is also the element of the aide of the Holy Spirit in interpretation and understanding by believers alone indwelt and freed by his Spirit.
4But 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.
The text could be no plainer, yet you can't even see why someone might disagree with your stange and idiosyncratic interpretation.

There is not a verse in the Bible that says the LAW is "not good." The Bible repeatedly states that the law is good and righteous.
The INTENT of Pauls discourse in Rom 7, must be gleaned and understood from an inductive study of the surrounding verses and chapters; not by making declaratory statements from single verses.

For ONE example:

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.

6But 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.

If the law is holy, just and good; then why are believers delivered from the law? and why did the law bring fruit unto death before Spiritual rebirth?

Then he asks the rhetorical question; 7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? [I.E. was it an error from God?]
Why would this question even be asked if Pauls readers would not rightly get that opinion from reading things previously stated.

Then he answers that the law WAS holy, just and good FOR IT"S PURPOSES of exposing the fruit of death while in absence from Spiritual friendship and approval from HIM in our Humanity. [while in the flesh and before Christ's incarnation as stated in vs 5]

God forbid. Nay, I [as an unbeliever and unregenerate] had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law [of Moses, to the Israelites] had said, Thou shalt not covet.

He's talking about his old man and before his belief in Christ which sets free from the law of sin and death of life [and sets free from Mosaic law].

There are other aspects of life to attain to; and as noted, I've expressed my understandings in previous answers and posts.

Is 65 and 66 are post cross; post physical, historical incarnation chapters. Participation in the ordinances and hopes of the mosaic covenant especially after the freedom of the indwelling Spirit of the living God in the new covenant was not the good way. This is similar to vs 3 in chapter 66. To sacrifice a lamb is likened to cutting the head off of a family dog.

Additionally, It never was the good way, as was indicated in the covenant; they would eventually suffer the same fate as those in Egypt. Duet 8:20,21.

Richard Amiel McGough

10-15-2011, 08:13 AM

The text could be no plainer, yet you can't even see why someone might disagree with your stange and idiosyncratic interpretation.

There is not a verse in the Bible that says the LAW is "not good." The Bible repeatedly states that the law is good and righteous.
The INTENT of Pauls discourse in Rom 7, must be gleaned and understood from an inductive study of the surrounding verses and chapters; not by making declaratory statements from single verses.

For ONE example:

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.

6But 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.If the law is holy, just and good; then why are believers delivered from the law? and why did the law bring fruit unto death before Spiritual rebirth?

Paul plainly answers your questions. The Law, which he again plainly and repeatedly states is good, brought about death because of sin. He explained everything with perfect clarity and precision. Why do you ignore what he said?
Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. 13 Has then what is good [the law] become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good [the law], so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Three times Paul repeated that the law was "good" and he said it was "spiritual" which is obviously "good" in his letters. Nothing could be plainer. The problem is the interaction between sin and the law.

Why have you not once mentioned (as far as I recall) any relation between sin and the law? You seem to be completely ignoring the meaning of this entire chapter of Romans.

Then he asks the rhetorical question; 7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? [I.E. was it an error from God?]

Why would this question even be asked if Pauls readers would not rightly get that opinion from reading things previously stated.

This question was asked because people like you are confused about the relation between sin and the law. People then, like you now, got confused and thought that it was the law itself that was "not good" because it caused death in sinners. So Paul asked the question to give himself an opportunity to answer it, just like in other places in his letters (e.g. Rom 3:1, 6:1, 11:1).

Then he answers that the law WAS holy, just and good FOR IT"S PURPOSES of exposing the fruit of death while in absence from Spiritual friendship and approval from HIM in our Humanity. [while in the flesh and before Christ's incarnation as stated in vs 5]

Now you are making up things and changing Scripture. There is no verb in Romans 7:12. The words "holy, and just, and good" are simply in apposition to "the law and commandment." There is no implication of any "past tense." You just made this up. And that's a no-no. :nono:

And we know you are wrong anyway because Paul REPEATS that the law is good three times in the text of Romans 7. Why do you ignore what it plainly states? And then Paul repeated that the law is "good" again in 1 Timothy, and explicitly makes the same connected between it and sin as in Romans 7 -
1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners
I am utterly mystified why you reject the unified testimony of the entire Bible on this point.

God forbid. Nay, I [as an unbeliever and unregenerate] had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law [of Moses, to the Israelites] had said, Thou shalt not covet.

He's talking about his old man and before his belief in Christ which sets free from the law of sin and death of life [and sets free from Mosaic law].

Yes, Paul was talking about the effect of the law when he was a sinner. But not only that, for he also said that as a believer he had "died to the law." I don't see how any of this supports your case that the law was itself "not good." Paul repeatedly explains that the law is good and that it was SIN that causes death because of the law.

There are other aspects of life to attain to; and as noted, I've expressed my understandings in previous answers and posts.

Is 65 and 66 are post cross; post physical, historical incarnation chapters. Participation in the ordinances and hopes of the mosaic covenant especially after the freedom of the indwelling Spirit of the living God in the new covenant was not the good way. This is similar to vs 3 in chapter 66. To sacrifice a lamb is likened to cutting the head off of a family dog.

The fact that those passages contained prophecies of the New Covenant does not obviate the plain meaning of the text, especially when it contradicts the unified testimony of the New Testament.

Additionally, It never was the good way, as was indicated in the covenant; they would eventually suffer the same fate as those in Egypt. Duet 8:20,21.
Scripture totally disagrees with you, and so do I.

All the best.

Beck

10-15-2011, 10:28 AM

Hi Beck,

In my comparison I was speaking strictly of how Yahweh was portrayed in the Old Testament, which is far different than the God Jesus called father in the New Testament.

All the Best,
Rose

Okay, I guess that's why you used Yahweh. I was not so much thinking of Yahweh, but maybe someone he used and would compare them to Hitler. Do you see anyone to compare?

Richard Amiel McGough

10-15-2011, 11:16 AM

Hi Rose,

Not sure your Jesus is the same one as the one in the NT. Looks like Jesus in the NT did not have any arguments with the God of the Old Testament. Why have we never heard anything negative from Jesus about the God of the OT? Never once! If not, why not? He quoted many, many OT books, but never once tried to tell us that something was written incorrectly about God in those books. The silence of Jesus on this, sounds like a thunder clap.

Hi Rick, :yo:

Thanks for the very thoughtful and deep post. I really appreciate that you are taking time to think deeply about these issues and work with me on them.

You bring up a very interesting question - Why did Jesus never say anything negative about the God of the Old Testament? His silence on this issue is indeed as striking as a "thunderclap" for those who accept him as God incarnate and the Bible as his inerrant Word.

The first thing to note is that we are recapitulating Christian history. The apparent difference between the character of God in the Old and New Testaments caused many to ask how they could be the same. In its most extreme case, this led to the heresy of Marcion who rejected the entire OT and much of the NT and said that the God of the OT was not the true God at all. I think it is important to understand that Marcion was probably not so much trying to make up a new religion as he was trying to resolve the apparent contradictions. Unfortunately, his solution was absurd since it is logically impossible to separate the two testaments. Without the Old, there would be no New.

So I agree with you! Jesus fully endorsed the character and commands of God in the OT. Indeed, he amplified them in the NT, declaring a new doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell (according to the plain reading and the orthodox Christian interpretation, anyway). But does this help or hinder our attempt to understand and believe the Bible? In my case, it hinders things greatly. How can I consider Jesus to be an authentic "moral authority" if he endorses mass genocidal murder and the kidnapping of 32,000 virgins and their distribution to the soldiers who murdered their moms and dads and little brothers and neighbors? You say the only way to resolve this "apparent contradiction" between God's actions and authentic morality is to understand that God was really battling Satan and his demons. OK - I'll address that answer below.

And what about this?

Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Mat 10:15

But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. Luk 10:14-15

And for those that really like Jesus because he is so nice and believe Satan is a pagan superstition: "And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven" Luke 10:18

Jesus believes in superstitions?

Did Jesus believe in superstitions? Yes, without a doubt. He believed in superstitions and myths common to the ignorant people of the first century. He believed that demons were real, could cause diseases, possess people and be cast out. He believed in the Creation myth, Adam and Eve, the Flood, and the story of Jonah, to name just a few. I do not know of anything that indicates he had knowledge beyond the mythology of his age. Yes, his morality was generally very high, but even that is tarnished by his uncritical acceptance of the moral abominations attributed to God in the Old Testament.

Richard, their gods and idols were representative of real demons and powers of darkness, that drove these nations continuously to wipe out God's people.

But the reasons for the preservation of a people in which Jesus would come from will make no sense to you if you continue to believe that Satan does not exist.

This is just scratching the surface Richard. There is much more, but just something for you to think about.

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:5

Think of it back then like Pol Pot in Cambodia, or Idi Amin in Uganda, or Stalin or Mao Tse Tung. No knowledge of God and driven by demons 100%.

I won't post the whole chapter, but you really should read Deuteronomy 29.

I realize you are looking for answers, but in looking for them, everything has to be on the table. And that means that Satan and demon powers are real. Can't take those off the table and go into the courtroom to prosecute Yahweh.

OK - So your basic argument is that everyone in the land of Canaan were "driven by demons" and that is why they all had to be killed? Nice solution - but where does the Bible offer that as an explanation? And if it were true, why would God want 32,000 demon possessed virgins to be distributed to his soldiers and priests? And why did God want to brutalize his people by commanding them to become merciless genocidal maniacs? Do you have any idea what that does to the human soul? It KILLS it! Why didn't he just drive them out himself? And besides all this, why does Yahweh appear to act just like any other ill-tempered Bronze age tribal war god? I'm sorry, but your explanation seems to be an entirely unbelievable ad hoc speculation that would not convince anyone but those who are desperate to believe regardless of the evidence.

Here's the problem: The moral atrocity of commanding the mass murder of woman and children, coupled with the capture and distribution of 32,000 virgins demands an answer of equal moral weight. The Bible offers no such answer, and your speculations simply do not help.

So tell me this: Given that there is no compelling explanation for this moral abomination, do you think I am wrong to reject the Bible on this count? If so, why? What am I refusing to do or believe that would make me morally culpable for rejecting the Bible as failing to accurately represent the true God who would never command a moral abomination?

If we walk after the imagination of our own heart, then anything goes. We can bring God down to our level and compare Him to men but it is not a good comparison because God sees things in the spiritual realm that drive and influence men that we don't see.

We need the Spirit with the Word, Richard. Trying to understand and reconcile the things in the Bible without the Spirit has the potential for driving anyone mad.

All the best,
Rick

There is a fundamental error in your reasoning. We have no means of coming to any logical conclusions other than using our own "imagination." How do you know that your opinion of the Bible is correct? How do you know that the Koran is wrong? You are using your own reasoning abilities. Without that, you can't make any rational choices. Many people truly believe that they have the "Spirit" and they violently disagree amongst themselves. Having the "Spirit" means nothing when it comes to evaluating truth claims. Suppose it is true, and you must have the Spirit, but you are deceived and only think you have the Spirit. What then are you supposed to do?

The "madness" comes from trying to justify the unjustifiable. There's a well known Universalist (Charles Slagel) who testifies that the doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell drove him literally insane. He was hospitalized. And I truly believe that is the only possibility if a person with a living human heart literally believes in that pernicious doctrine. If you believe in it, you either live in a state of cognitive dissonance, have a dead heart of no compassion, or you simply go insane. I spent many years as a Christian in the state of cognitive dissonance until I finally realized I just could not believe it and tried to work out solutions along the lines of annihilationism. I finally settled on Christian Universalism as giving God the greatest glory just before I quit the religion altogether, having realized I no longer fit the definition of a "Christian."

Thanks again for working with me on these difficult issues,

Richard

Bob May

10-15-2011, 12:54 PM

Hi Rick, :yo:

Thanks for the very thoughtful and deep post. I really appreciate that you are taking time to think deeply about these issues and work with me on them.

You bring up a very interesting question - Why did Jesus never say anything negative about the God of the Old Testament? His silence on this issue is indeed as striking as a "thunderclap" for those who accept him as God incarnate and the Bible as his inerrant Word.

So I agree with you! Jesus fully endorsed the character and commands of God in the OT. Indeed, he amplified them in the NT, declaring a new doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell (according to the plain reading and the orthodox Christian interpretation, anyway). But does this help or hinder our attempt to understand and believe the Bible? In my case, it hinders things greatly. How can I consider Jesus to be an authentic "moral authority" if he endorses mass genocidal murder and the kidnapping of 32,000 virgins and their distribution to the soldiers who murdered their moms and dads and little brothers and neighbors? You say the only way to resolve this "apparent contradiction" between God's actions and authentic morality is to understand that God was really battling Satan and his demons. OK - I'll address that answer below.

Did Jesus believe in superstitions? Yes, without a doubt. He believed in superstitions and myths common to the ignorant people of the first century. He believed that demons were real, could cause diseases, possess people and be cast out. He believed in the Creation myth, Adam and Eve, the Flood, and the story of Jonah, to name just a few. I do not know of anything that indicates he had knowledge beyond the mythology of his age. Yes, his morality was generally very high, but even that is tarnished by his uncritical acceptance of the moral abominations attributed to God in the Old Testament.

These discussions always dovetail into many subjects.
The law is holy.
Not one jot or tittle will be changed until all be fullfilled.
It was on the cross so the law has changed for those who bleive what happened on the cross.
There are different uses of the law.
1. To bring us rules to follow in order for mankind to survive.
without it the ungodly and strong would kill off everyone else.
2. To bring everyone guilty before God.
Being that it is unattainable we can only come to the conclusion that we are guilty.
3. To bring us to Christ. Again, if it is unattainable the only hope we have of righteousness is imputed righteousness. He fulfilled the law and as our "champion" it counts for us.
4. Paul refered to the law as the "oracles of God. They speak.

To call what Jesus believed superstition is to imply he was wrong in his beliefs.
This goes to our "description or "doctrine". Is it large enough to encompass what Jesus was teaching or does our description have to change to understand what he was saying?
I think the latter.

OK - So your basic argument is that everyone in the land of Canaan were "driven by demons" and that is why they all had to be killed? Nice solution - but where does the Bible offer that as an explanation? And if it were true, why would God want 32,000 demon possessed virgins to be distributed to his soldiers and priests? And besides all this, why does Yahweh appear to act just like any other ill-tempered Bronze age tribal war god? I'm sorry, but your explanation seems to be an entirely unbelievable ad hoc speculation that would not convince anyone but those who are desperate to believe regardless of the evidence.

Here's the problem: The moral atrocity of commanding the mass murder of woman and children, coupled with the capture and distribution of 32,000 virgins demands an answer of equal moral weight. The Bible offers no such answer, and your speculations simply do not help.

So tell me this: Given that there is no compelling explanation for this moral abomination, do you think I am wrong to reject the Bible on this count? If so, why? What am I refusing to do or believe that would make me morally culpable for rejecting the Bible as failing to accurately represent the true God who would never command a moral abomination?

My compelling explanation:
There was no moral abomination.
The "Promised Land" is the "land that was promised to Jacob. It is an awareness that he came to when seeing that ladder set up. "Surely the lord is in this place and I knew it not."
The cities, giants and people of that "land" are ways of thinking that have to be destroyed in order for us to stay in the mindset that Jacob experienced as a glimse of a promise.
Those are the battles.
God is not killing people, he is helping to kill mental blocks to our spiritual illumination.
He does it by changing our description of this world and those that we are as yet unaware of.

Ga 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Ga 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Ga 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

When spirit (man) mixes with soul (woman) it gives birth to a description of the world.
So who were the sons of God that influenced the souls (daughters of men?)
Fallen angels.
The outcome are giants who are still being battled against in the book of Joshua and the stories of David.

If the stories of Isaac and Ishmael were allegories, what are their offspring but more allegorical figures?
The entire book is about mind and awareness and blocks to our growing in awareness.
The Spirit is real. Demons are real. Angels are real.
Which do you want influencing your thinking, your doctrine and your description of what Reality is?
The Spirit leads to life.
The demons lead us down paths that lead to death.

There is a fundamental error in your reasoning. We have no means of coming to any logical conclusions other than using our own "imagination." How do you know that your opinion of the Bible is correct? How do you know that the Koran is wrong? You are using your own reasoning abilities. Without that, you can't make any rational choices. Many people truly believe that they have the "Spirit" and they violently disagree amongst themselves. Having the "Spirit" means nothing when it comes to evaluating truth claims. Suppose it is true, and you must have the Spirit, but you are deceived and only think you have the Spirit. What then are you supposed to do?

You think it is difficult now, wait until you start seeing spirits.
If the people dissagreeing with each other are having violent dissagreements they are still being influenced by Amelekites. (Warlike thoughts)

The "madness" comes from trying to justify the unjustifiable. There's a well known Universalist (Charles Slagel) who testifies that the doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell drove him literally insane. He was hospitalized. And I truly believe that is the only possibility if a person with a living human heart literally believes in that pernicious doctrine. If you believe in it, you either live in a state of cognitive dissonance, have a dead heart of no compassion, or you simply go insane. I spent many years as a Christian in the state of cognitive dissonance until I finally realized I just could not believe it and tried to work out solutions along the lines of annihilationism. I finally settled on Christian Universalism as giving God the greatest glory just before I quit the religion altogether, having realized I no longer fit the definition of a "Christian."

Jesus cast out demons and went to his own death willingly. He stood before the most powerful men of his day and called them vipers and hypocrites.
He said things like, judge not according to the appearance of things. He said I am the light, I am the bread of life that comes down from heaven. He went into the wilderness and talked to Satan. He came out and opened the book to Isaiah and proclaimed that the scripture was fulfilled.
He gave up the Ghost on the cross after saying "Forgive them father, they know not what they do."

Crazy talk???

The cognitive dissonance is caused by trying to fit the law and Grace together harmoniously.
It cannot be done, they are incompatable. Mutually exclusive.

If eternal conscious torment is the end result of being under the law and the Father sent His son, and the Holy Scriptures to show us how to get out from under the law, why would you believe God or the Scriptures are the problem?

After we get out from under the law the "accuser" has no more power to accuse us. Because all things are lawful for us but all things are not expedient. We are no longer bound by the law.
After we get out from under the law it gradually becomes more apparent that the law becomes the "oracles of God" to us. Speaking of both Jesus and us as fellow heirs.

Ps 119:18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
Ps 119:19 I am a stranger in the earth: hide not thy commandments from me.

Why did David need his eyes opened in order to see those "wonderous things?" And why was he a stranger in the earth?

Charles Slagel might have done better to look to himself. To find what Scripture has to say about getting out of the eternal conscious torment. Then he could have helped those who were headed towards it.

Insanity might not be such a bad thing if it brings us to the end of ourselves. It might even be inevitable by the standards of carnal man's definition of insanity.
Trying to mix two realities law and grace ends up with a choice.
It is one or the other.
There are certain forks in the road in the Old Testament. Signified by two brothers being born. Each is a choice we have to make. One gets the blessing the other doesn't. One gets the inheritance, the other doesn't.
One has a lot more changes in his worldview to come. The other doesn't.

All the best,
Bob

Richard Amiel McGough

10-15-2011, 01:25 PM

These discussions always dovetail into many subjects.

You got that right!

Every topic touches every other. That's what's so fascinating about it all. But it also can be a big problem for those who think that every statement in the Bible is "true" and must be "logically coherent" with every other statement. It seems to me that there are real, authentic, irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible. And anyone who thinks the Bible is really the "Word of God" should admit this, since that is the only way they can truly honor the Bible as "God's Word." The folks who deny what the Bible plainly states and try to "fix it" make God look like a fool who didn't know how to communicate properly. The highest view of Scripture would be to accept it as God gave it, but very few do that, especially those who claim it is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." How ironic is that?

To call what Jesus believed superstition is to imply he was wrong in his beliefs.
This goes to our "description or "doctrine". Is it large enough to encompass what Jesus was teaching or does our description have to change to understand what he was saying?
I think the latter.

Is there a reason we should believe the Bible is inerrant? If not, then why should we believe its record of Jesus is perfect?

And why should we contort our reasoning to conform to the Bible? What if our understanding is wrong, and so we end up contorting our reasoning to fit our erroneous idea of what the Bible is really saying? How then does the Bible get us out of this hermeneutical trap?

My compelling explanation:
There was no moral abomination.
The "Promised Land" is the "land that was promised to Jacob. It is an awareness that he came to when seeing that ladder set up. "Surely the lord is in this place and I knew it not."
The cities, giants and people of that "land" are ways of thinking that have to be destroyed in order for us to stay in the mindset that Jacob experienced as a glimse of a promise.
Those are the battles.
God is not killing people, he is helping to kill mental blocks to our spiritual illumination.
He does it by changing our description of this world and those that we are as yet unaware of.

OK - your "compelling explanation" is that the book of Numbers is not a historical narrative. There were no literal virgins taken captive. Nice solution except one problem - if the historical narrative of Numbers is not true history, why should I believe the historical narrative about Jesus is true? Maybe Jesus is just a symbol of "higher consciousness" and his death on the cross was just a symbol of overcoming temptations (dying to the flesh) etc. Nothing really happened ....

Ga 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Ga 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Ga 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

When spirit (man) mixes with soul (woman) it gives birth to a description of the world.
So who were the sons of God that influenced the souls (daughters of men?)
Fallen angels.
The outcome are giants who are still being battled against in the book of Joshua and the stories of David.

Are those literal or figurative fallen angels?

If the stories of Isaac and Ishmael were allegories, what are their offspring but more allegorical figures?
The entire book is about mind and awareness and blocks to our growing in awareness.
The Spirit is real. Demons are real. Angels are real.
Which do you want influencing your thinking, your doctrine and your description of what Reality is?
The Spirit leads to life.
The demons lead us down paths that lead to death.

OK - the virgins are symbolic, the slaughtered men, women, and children are symbolic, but the ethereal "angels" and "demons" are literal? I can't say I find that very "compelling."

You think it is difficult now, wait until you start seeing spirits.
If the people dissagreeing with each other are having violent dissagreements they are still being influenced by Amelekites. (Warlike thoughts)

I don't think appealing to a room full of psychiatric patients hallucinating spirits is gonna help anyone resolve this problem with the Bible.

Like I said - any solution to this problem demands an answer of equal moral weight. These kinds of speculations about "spirits" don't carry any weight at all in my book.

Jesus cast out demons and went to his own death willingly. He stood before the most powerful men of his day and called them vipers and hypocrites.
He said things like, judge not according to the appearance of things. He said I am the light, I am the bread of life that comes down from heaven. He went into the wilderness and talked to Satan. He came out and opened the book to Isaiah and proclaimed that the scripture was fulfilled.
He gave up the Ghost on the cross after saying "Forgive them father, they know not what they do."

Crazy talk???

The cognitive dissonance is caused by trying to fit the law and Grace together harmoniously.
It cannot be done, they are incompatable. Mutually exclusive.

No, it's not crazy talk. But nothing you have written helps resolve the cognitive dissonance caused by attributing moral abominations to God.

If eternal conscious torment is the end result of being under the law and the Father sent His son, and the Holy Scriptures to show us how to get out from under the law, why would you believe God or the Scriptures are the problem?

For a hundred reasons. First and foremost, it is an eternal evil to condemn a soul to eternal conscious torment. Second, not everyone gets a chance to hear the Gospel, what happens to them? Third, what about the children? Do they automatically go to heaven for being young? That's not fair. It is fundamentally unjust to punish someone for eternity for finite crimes, especially when we were born into a corrupt world by no choice of our own. And besides all that, what GOOD comes from causing a soul eternal torment? Etc.m etc., etc., ... and so on and on forever and ever. There are endless problems with the doctrine of hell. I am frankly stunned that you believe in it since you have reinterpreted most of the rest of the Bible, why would you keep this abominable doctrine?

After we get out from under the law the "accuser" has no more power to accuse us. Because all things are lawful for us but all things are not expedient. We are no longer bound by the law.
After we get out from under the law it gradually becomes more apparent that the law becomes the "oracles of God" to us. Speaking of both Jesus and us as fellow heirs.

How does that differ from me making up my own ideas?

Charles Slagel might have done better to look to himself. To find what Scripture has to say about getting out of the eternal conscious torment. Then he could have helped those who were headed towards it.

That would have solved NOTHING. His concern was for those who were damned - for those whom God hates with an everlasting hatred. Such thoughts would drive any man with a living heart utterly insane. God becomes the Devil to the person who is trapped forever in his evil domain of hell.

Insanity might not be such a bad thing if it brings us to the end of ourselves. It might even be inevitable by the standards of carnal man's definition of insanity.
Trying to mix two realities law and grace ends up with a choice.
It is one or the other.
There are certain forks in the road in the Old Testament. Signified by two brothers being born. Each is a choice we have to make. One gets the blessing the other doesn't. One gets the inheritance, the other doesn't.
One has a lot more changes in his worldview to come. The other doesn't.

All the best,
Bob
I don't see how this has anything to do with "Law vs. Grace." But thanks for your input. You introduced many interesting spins on these questions.

All the best,

Richard

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

10-15-2011, 02:14 PM

Scripture totally disagrees with you, and so do I.

All the best.
Let me know when you have your next lamb sacrifice. Why are you not participating? Why did the church cease participation?

Why was it now an abomination and sin to continue in sacrifice [Is 66:2-4] as if to trample the blood of the [new]covenant under foot.? Heb 10.

This perspective below of the law I am in agreement with; and is the same perspective of what I was saying that Paul is saying in Rom 7.

1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; [For it's intended purposes]

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, [justified by faith] but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners [the disbelieving and those unjustified by faith]
Don't the articles of separation of church and state attest to this perspective above.? Except that institutionalized, corporal "church" has sold and indoctrinated itself as subordinate to and not separate from some of the aspects of the agnostic 'state'; rather than maintaining the free dominion of the kingdom of God and the Goodness of the Creator to those of the obedience of faith. Rom 13 and others being misinterpreted. Or they have sold themselves over and enslaved themselves to a new manifestation of conditional/corporal mosaic covenant principles/foundations in seeking blessing conditionally through obedience to new "church laws"; which are NOT the new covenant. The new covenant is anti-thetical to the mosaic as Jeremiah states... "Not like."

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.

6But now we are [B]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.

Thanks for the additional verses; especially vs 9; They explain things better than I.

Paul may be referring to a different aspect of the law [the 10 commandments] in Rom 7 than of what is being referred to as not the good way in Is 65 and EZ 36; but even if so, they are part of the same.

This below is the part of the discussion and interpretation [along with Rom 7] that I feel worth discussing and countering.

Your interpreting Isaiah 65:2 to mean that in the generation of and after the prophet of Grace and Truth; [the incarnate creator and lover of life] after the teachings, words, works and manifestations of Christ; after the cross and indwelling of the believing with the Spirit with Power; that their failures and sins in not keeping the elements of the law is the way that WAS NOT GOOD and that they should be trying harder to keep the mosaic law???

The opposite perspective is represented in the chapter and in the following chapter, and other chapters; [Jer 31 says the NC would Not like the 'mosaic covenant' LAW] This was explained by the apostles in 2 Peter 2 and Heb 10; in Colossians; in Gal 4; and confirmed in the events of the church which separated from the house and practices of Israel.

Let me know when you have your next lamb sacrifice since you claim that the law is unclarifyingly declared and defined as Holy, Good, Just.

1 I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.

The contrast between vs 1 and 2 is the contrast between gentile peoples in all humanity;[of all languages, peoples, tongues] and the sectarian, racist [vs 5] former mosaic covenant nation of Israel. who walked in a way that [especially after the cross] was NOT GOOD; though it had temporal purpose until that time.

2I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;

3A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;
4Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
5Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.
6 Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom,
7 Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the LORD, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.

8Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine [of the new prophet] is found in the cluster, [among the house of Israel] and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.
9And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.
10And Sharon shall be a fold of flocks, and the valley of Achor a place for the herds to lie down in, for my people that have sought me.

11But ye are they that forsake the LORD, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number.

12Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.
13Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, my servants [Christians who believed in Jesus] shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: [Recall the famines inside the cities during the seiges] behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed: [Is 66:5]
14Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit.
15And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:
16That he who blesseth himself in the earth [in his humanity in 'Jacob'; not in the law of Moses] shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.
17For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [his heart still under law, not grace and truth through faith; ITim 1:9] being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
21And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.
24And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
25The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

P.S. Egypt also had a similar system of about 20-25 commandments as civil/religious law. Several were almost word for word alike. They resulted in the enslavement of others.

Other explanations and ideas were stated previously. Again; there are other aspects of life to attain to; though these are important also; especially for those who may be reading and following along.

Bob May

10-15-2011, 05:33 PM

You got that right!

Every topic touches every other. That's what's so fascinating about it all. But it also can be a big problem for those who think that every statement in the Bible is "true" and must be "logically coherent" with every other statement. It seems to me that there are real, authentic, irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible. And anyone who thinks the Bible is really the "Word of God" should admit this, since that is the only way they can truly honor the Bible as "God's Word." The folks who deny what the Bible plainly states and try to "fix it" make God look like a fool who didn't know how to communicate properly. The highest view of Scripture would be to accept it as God gave it, but very few do that, especially those who claim it is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." How ironic is that?

I believe most of the contradictions to be reconcilable. But not without realizing that there are two realities at work here.
And that to read it as given by God necessitates the recognition of these two views of reality. Because that is how it was written.
Logic that does not account for both sides of this reality is necessarily based upon a faulty foundation.

Is there a reason we should believe the Bible is inerrant? If not, then why should we believe its record of Jesus is perfect?

To turn that around, I don't see any reason to believe that it is in error.
The bible itself says that the Old Testament is allegory. Shadows of things to come and figures, types etc.
Better to look to myself as the one who is not understanding it than to take out all of the parts I do not understand.
I will wait and see what more reveals itself knowing that it has not ceased to amaze me in this respect for over 30 years now.

And why should we contort our reasoning to conform to the Bible? What if our understanding is wrong, and so we end up contorting our reasoning to fit our erroneous idea of what the Bible is really saying? How then does the Bible get us out of this hermeneutical trap?

My reasoning came pre-contorted, thank you! Any change in my viewpoint caused by understanding of the bible has resulted in vast improvement.
Besides, what is wrong with changing our viewpoints? If we are wrong, we can always change back. Right?

OK - your "compelling explanation" is that the book of Numbers is not a historical narrative. There were no literal virgins taken captive. Nice solution except one problem - if the historical narrative of Numbers is not true history, why should I believe the historical narrative about Jesus is true? Maybe Jesus is just a symbol of "higher consciousness" and his death on the cross was just a symbol of overcoming temptations (dying to the flesh) etc. Nothing really happened ....

Again, it is a case of believing the bible. The New Testament states in no uncertain terms that the Old is full of Types, shadows, allegory, etc.
It also states that Jesus actually came.
Why would I believe otherwise. As I understand it even his enemies in the first century writings didn't dispute his existence. Just who they believed he was.

Are those literal or figurative fallen angels?

Bob> When spirit (man) mixes with soul (woman) it gives birth to a description of the world.
So who were the sons of God that influenced the souls (daughters of men?)
Fallen angels.
The outcome are giants who are still being battled against in the book of Joshua and the stories of David.

Literal, but spiritual beings.

OK - the virgins are symbolic, the slaughtered men, women, and children are symbolic, but the ethereal "angels" and "demons" are literal? I can't say I find that very "compelling."

And yet that is what the bible teaches. And yet sometimes the angels could manifest solidly. Didn't one kick Peter in the side to wake him up and weren't they mistaken for flesh and blood human beings at times?
If the Promised land is symbolic of reaching the awareness of the Kingdom of Heaven,.. a higher state of consciousness, (which I believe it is) then it makes perfect sense that the inhabitants which need to be removed or destroyed are barriers to fully achieving that higher state of consciousness.
That higher state of consciousness which was promised to the spiritual seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are.
Those barriers would be wrong thinking and doctrine.

I don't think appealing to a room full of psychiatric patients hallucinating spirits is gonna help anyone resolve this problem with the Bible.

Yet how many of those patients are there because of a fear of not being perfect? Or guilt of not living up to the law? Or hearing voices accusing them.
Or "hyper-active" consciences?
Many would be set free (both spiritually and literally) if they knew of the difference between law and Grace.

Like I said - any solution to this problem demands an answer of equal moral weight. These kinds of speculations about "spirits" don't carry any weight at all in my book.

Your moral dilemna is only caused by your believing God actually ordered the physical slaughtering of human beings. There is no moral argument needed if that is not the case.

No, it's not crazy talk. But nothing you have written helps resolve the cognitive dissonance caused by attributing moral abominations to God.

Then stop attributing it to Him. I have given you a reasonable alternative.

For a hundred reasons. First and foremost, it is an eternal evil to condemn a soul to eternal conscious torment. Second, not everyone gets a chance to hear the Gospel, what happens to them? Third, what about the children? Do they automatically go to heaven for being young? That's not fair. It is fundamentally unjust to punish someone for eternity for finite crimes, especially when we were born into a corrupt world by no choice of our own. And besides all that, what GOOD comes from causing a soul eternal torment? Etc.m etc., etc., ... and so on and on forever and ever. There are endless problems with the doctrine of hell. I am frankly stunned that you believe in it since you have reinterpreted most of the rest of the Bible, why would you keep this abominable doctrine?

What if, because of the fall, we have put ourselves into this mess against God's express wishes and warnings?
And what if because of eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, hell really exists?
And what if God has made a way for us to come home, which has been available, for the last 2000 years but because we are so far fallen we cannot or will not listen to or answer the call?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob May
After we get out from under the law the "accuser" has no more power to accuse us. Because all things are lawful for us but all things are not expedient. We are no longer bound by the law.
After we get out from under the law it gradually becomes more apparent that the law becomes the "oracles of God" to us. Speaking of both Jesus and us as fellow heirs.

How does that differ from me making up my own ideas?

Because one is biblical and the other is just making things up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob May
Charles Slagel might have done better to look to himself. To find what Scripture has to say about getting out of the eternal conscious torment. Then he could have helped those who were headed towards it.

That would have solved NOTHING. His concern was for those who were damned - for those whom God hates with an everlasting hatred. Such thoughts would drive any man with a living heart utterly insane. God becomes the Devil to the person who is trapped forever in his evil domain of hell.

An awareness of Grace would be of great value. It would keep the person from being trapped there in the first place. A person with an understanding of Grace could not be condemned by anyone. By any voices or any thoughts of condemnation real or imagined.

Ro 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Ro 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Ro 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

Ga 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Ga 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

I don't know if there is an eternal conscious torment or not. But if there is my best guess would be that the person who goes there would get there by rejecting the free gift of Grace.
Just my opinion.

I don't see how this has anything to do with "Law vs. Grace." But thanks for your input. You introduced many interesting spins on these questions.

All the best,

Richard

You too Richard.

heb13-13

10-16-2011, 10:53 AM

Hi Richard, :yo:

Top of the morning to you, my friend. Ok, got a few responses and one or two questions. (understatement)

You say:
So I agree with you! Jesus fully endorsed the character and commands of God in the OT. Indeed, he amplified them in the NT, declaring a new doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell (according to the plain reading and the orthodox Christian interpretation, anyway). But does this help or hinder our attempt to understand and believe the Bible? In my case, it hinders things greatly. How can I consider Jesus to be an authentic "moral authority" if he endorses mass genocidal murder and the kidnapping of 32,000 virgins and their distribution to the soldiers who murdered their moms and dads and little brothers and neighbors? You say the only way to resolve this "apparent contradiction" between God's actions and authentic morality is to understand that God was really battling Satan and his demons. OK - I'll address that answer below.

Did Jesus believe in superstitions? Yes, without a doubt. He believed in superstitions and myths common to the ignorant people of the first century. He believed that demons were real, could cause diseases, possess people and be cast out. He believed in the Creation myth, Adam and Eve, the Flood, and the story of Jonah, to name just a few. I do not know of anything that indicates he had knowledge beyond the mythology of his age. Yes, his morality was generally very high, but even that is tarnished by his uncritical acceptance of the moral abominations attributed to God in the Old Testament.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I would assume that you think Paul also believed in superstitions.

Let's take a quick look at Paul's curriculum vitae.

"Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" (Php 3:4-6).

I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day" (Acts 22:3).

Did Paul have a vision of Christ on the Damascus Road? Did he hear Jesus Christ speak audibly to him? Do you believe Paul was caught up to the third heaven? And is the following all just a bunch of superstition?

""For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Eph 6:12).

Did these guys (powers of darkness) just show up in Paul's time? Where were they in the OT? Or is Paul superstitious, too? Was this just a general malady of everyone in those days? Is everything just a battle between God and man and Satan is used in the NT as a euphemism for "bad vibes and thoughts?" Just trying to get a handle on things here, not trying to be condescending.

OK - So your basic argument is that everyone in the land of Canaan were "driven by demons" and that is why they all had to be killed? Nice solution - but where does the Bible offer that as an explanation? And if it were true, why would God want 32,000 demon possessed virgins to be distributed to his soldiers and priests? And why did God want to brutalize his people by commanding them to become merciless genocidal maniacs? Do you have any idea what that does to the human soul? It KILLS it! Why didn't he just drive them out himself? And besides all this, why does Yahweh appear to act just like any other ill-tempered Bronze age tribal war god? I'm sorry, but your explanation seems to be an entirely unbelievable ad hoc speculation that would not convince anyone but those who are desperate to believe regardless of the evidence.

Here's the problem: The moral atrocity of commanding the mass murder of woman and children, coupled with the capture and distribution of 32,000 virgins demands an answer of equal moral weight. The Bible offers no such answer, and your speculations simply do not help.

So tell me this: Given that there is no compelling explanation for this moral abomination, do you think I am wrong to reject the Bible on this count? If so, why? What am I refusing to do or believe that would make me morally culpable for rejecting the Bible as failing to accurately represent the true God who would never command a moral abomination?

I don't think you are wrong to reject the Bible on that count? The way you believe and characterize things? No. But, I am reading this account and I see that there is much more to it than Numbers 31, alone. I will have additional info for you to add to my previous statements regarding the powers of darkness being a significant force behind these pagan nations desiring to destroy Israel.

There is a fundamental error in your reasoning. We have no means of coming to any logical conclusions other than using our own "imagination."

God gives revelation and illumination so that we are not left to our imagination. Yes, He uses our imagination our mind and all the faculties that He created us with. Imagination is not bad in itself, only how it is used. But, He reveals truth to our mind by illuminating our spirit with His revelation.

How do you know that your opinion of the Bible is correct?

It is a walk of faith, isn't it Richard? Many things I have "proven", but many things are left to be proven. What I believe is true, I act on. People don't act on things they believe are false. If I was told to invest in a company that I believed was a failure, I would not invest. Of course, I could be wrong, and the results will be known, someday. We invest our lives each day, by faith regarding what we BELIEVE. Yet, at the same time that I believe and act on what I consider truth, I want to keep a teachable spirit and open mind so that I am in a position to receive more and more truth (illumination) to dispel any deception that I have. Truth is very corrective.

Jesus said, "you reap what you sow." He has given us several means of determining truth. It is the result of believing and acting on His Word. It is the outcome of our faith in the here and now and later in the hereafter. The results of acting on His Word. When I first believed His Word, I received the Spirit of God and was changed inside. I became a "new creature." This was a tangible result of acting on His Word by faith. The many addictions I had, I could not possibly break free from. But, He just sent His word and healed me, instantaneously. And it's not just outward addictions but matters of the heart that I was in bondage too. To be plain...it worked, He works!! Each step of the way in my faith I discover what works as I believe and act. I also learn what does not work, when I don't believe and act. Many things I have learned the hard way (who doesn't?).

And we cannot discount the Spirit of Truth which He has sent.

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come" (John 16:13).

How do you know that the Koran is wrong? You are using your own reasoning abilities. Without that, you can't make any rational choices. Many people truly believe that they have the "Spirit" and they violently disagree amongst themselves. Having the "Spirit" means nothing when it comes to evaluating truth claims. Suppose it is true, and you must have the Spirit, but you are deceived and only think you have the Spirit. What then are you supposed to do?

I have read a lot of the Koran and to be honest, it does not witness in my heart to truth. I don't know that it is right. It does not evoke faith in me. I cannot believe something that rings false and does not bear witness to the Spirit that is in me. And I know Muslims, I work for one. She is a very nice lady and is always asking me questions about Jesus. Her biggest stumbling block is why God "had to kill His Son." I am a contractor and she has kept me on her staff for 3 years. We have a great relationship and talk about "religion" all the time. She has lots of questions. Why does God allow evil in the world? Why doesn't He just stop all the evil. Why do horribly perverted things happen to children? At the same time, she hates Israel and wants them wiped out. She is very political and despises Republicans. She feels that she has a good heart, believes in socialism and wants everyone to be happy except the Jews. She cannot possibly fathom God keeping her out of heaven because she is "such a good person."

So, I can observe the fruit of those that love the Koran and other philosophies. On the other hand, they also observe the fruit of those who say they love the Bible and follow Jesus. Unfortunately, the fruit on both sides is very bad, isn't it? All I can do is take care of my own testimony and walk in the light that I have and walk in love among all men. If the entire Christian world went one way, I would still only be able to walk in the way that I am convinced of.

Now, with that said, many people have faith in it (Koran) and are very zealous and it rings of "truth" in them. They have been taught about it since they were 2 years old. As I said previously, Paul was zealous and thought he was defending God also, by persecuting the Christians, but he was given a revelation of the truth which changed him. Yes, I am using my reasoning abilities as we are supposed to. But, not just reasoning abilities alone. I have been given revelation and illumination and so like Paul, I "SEE".

"And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;" (Acts 26:15-16)

If the Lord does not "appear" to us, we will not "SEE". What we "see" is what we act on in life. Would you not agree? But this life of faith is very interesting and it is ever moving and we are ever changing in what and how we see. (From faith to faith and glory to glory). The bottom line in this walk of faith and what is foundational for me is Jesus Christ being the express image of the Father. Everything in my life is built upon His mercy and grace. "Freely you have receive, freely give."

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" (Heb 1:3)

The "madness" comes from trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Or maybe the "madness" comes from believing that the greatest and most perfect "good" in the universe is really horrible and evil because we just don't understand. And if we don't understand then we try to create the reason WHY, because we have all been born wanting to know WHY. And the only reason we come up with our own "imagination", is insanity and we turn against God because we have stumbled at His word.

As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (Rom 9:33)

Maybe the key for our continuance in the faith is to keep from being offended by God which causes us to stumble (not trust Him). I can't "imagine" life without God. Actually, I can, because I have a memory. Suffice to say, my life would be pretty bad if not over.

There's a well known Universalist (Charles Slagel) who testifies that the doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell drove him literally insane. He was hospitalized. And I truly believe that is the only possibility if a person with a living human heart literally believes in that pernicious doctrine. If you believe in it, you either live in a state of cognitive dissonance, have a dead heart of no compassion, or you simply go insane. I spent many years as a Christian in the state of cognitive dissonance until I finally realized I just could not believe it and tried to work out solutions along the lines of annihilationism. I finally settled on Christian Universalism as giving God the greatest glory just before I quit the religion altogether, having realized I no longer fit the definition of a "Christian."

I have some questions for you Richard? Will God ever allow a rebellion in heaven again, or will heaven be populated ONLY by people that gladly welcome and come under His authority? Will God allow people who have never partaken of the Tree of Life, to be in heaven? Do you believe all people go to heaven? Those who do not love His authority in their lives as well as those who do love His authority in their lives? (Sorry, I just realized that you believe in annihilationism).

But maybe you are right? Maybe the following verse is annihilationism.
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Rev 21:8

Is this where the doctrine of annihilationism comes from? I don't know, just asking. This second death is considered annihilationism?

And, if annihilationism is the answer, why does God have to wipe away all tears? What would anyone be sorrowful about?

"He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it"(Isa 25:8)

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (Rev. 21:4)

More questions I have about annihilationism is why embrace the cross in this life? Why be self-sacrificial? Why not "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die." Why not enjoy the flesh to it's fullest? Why do we have punishment in this life? Where did we get that from? Why don't we just sentence all transgressors to community service? Or, why don't we just annihilate them? To be sure, some are locked up for good and some are "annihilated" from this earth. Are they redeemable? Some may not be. Would you just believe in the death penalty for all those that are judged unredeemable? Do annihilationists believe in annihilating that which is not redeemable? How do they determine if one is not redeemable?

Thanks again for working with me on these difficult issues,

Yes, I grant you, these are not easy issues. This is quite a fascinating discussion.

And thanks for the opportunity earlier to correct a misstatement. I am sure I will have more. :winking0071:

All the best,
Rick

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

10-16-2011, 12:04 PM

Let me know when you have your next lamb sacrifice. Why are you not participating? Why did the church cease participation?

Why was it now an abomination and sin to continue in sacrifice as if to trample the blood of the [new]covenant under foot.? Heb 10.

We agree on this point. It would be an "abomination" because it would be a denial that Christ was the "final sacrifice" that fulfilled the law. But this does not mean that the law itself had become "not good." But even if it did, that still would not justify your idiosyncratic interpretation of Isaiah 65:2 where God is obviously condemning the Jews for violations of his law, not for obeying it!

This perspective below of the law I am in agreement with; and is the same perspective of what I was saying that Paul is saying in Rom 7.

1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; [For it's intended purposes]

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, [justified by faith] but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners [the disbelieving and those unjustified by faith]

We are in agreement on this point as far as I can tell. But now it seems you are contradicting yourself. First you say that the law is "not good" and now you admit that the law is good. The Bible plainly and repeatedly states that the law is good, both before and after the cross. There's no way around this fact, and its denial leads to the all sorts of confusion because the law defines sin which defines the gospel. It all falls apart if you deny that God's law was and is actually "good." And besides all that, its very weird indeed for a Christian to assert that the Law of God is "not good."

Don't the articles of separation of church and state attest to this perspective above.? Except that institutionalized, corporal "church" has sold and indoctrinated itself as subordinate to and not separate from some of the aspects of the agnostic 'state'; rather than maintaining the free dominion of the kingdom of God and the Goodness of the Creator to those of the obedience of faith. Rom 13 and others being misinterpreted. Or they have sold themselves over and enslaved themselves to a new manifestation of conditional/corporal mosaic covenant principles/foundations in seeking blessing conditionally through obedience to new "church laws"; which are NOT the new covenant. The new covenant is anti-thetical to the mosaic as Jeremiah states... "Not like."

I think those issues are too far afield for this conversation. If you want to pursue them, you should probably start another thread. I have yet to find an answer to the main issue - How can we call God "good" if he orders the murder of an entire people except for 32,000 sexy virgins who are distributed amongst the soldiers and priests?

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.

6But now we are [B]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.
Thanks for the additional verses; especially vs 9; They explain things better than I.

Paul may be referring to a different aspect of the law [the 10 commandments] in Rom 7 than of what is being referred to as not the good way in Is 65 and EZ 36; but even if so, they are part of the same.

I don't see how those verses help your case, unless you are choosing to misinterpret "delivered from the law" as if it implied the law was "not good." But that would be very foolish. The phrase "delivered from the law" means "delivered from the bad effects of the law cause by our sin" as Paul explains in context. You should know that your interpretation is false because Paul repeatedly states - [I]in the same context - that the law is good.

This below is the part of the discussion and interpretation [along with Rom 7] that I feel worth discussing and countering.

Your interpreting Isaiah 65:2 to mean that in the generation of and after the prophet of Grace and Truth; [the incarnate creator and lover of life] after the teachings, words, works and manifestations of Christ; after the cross and indwelling of the believing with the Spirit with Power; that their failures and sins in not keeping the elements of the law is the way that WAS NOT GOOD and that they should be trying harder to keep the mosaic law???

We need to understand that the prophecy was written in the context of the Old Covenant and used the images of the Old Covenant as symbols of the New. This is just like the symbol of the Levitical priesthood offering sacrifices in the vision of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48. Under the Old Covenant, the concept of "obeying God" was communicated by "obeying the law." And when this symbol is used in a prophecy concerning the New Covenant, it means the same thing - "obeying God" - but in the New Covenant this means justification through faith rather than the works of the law.

As you can see, there is nothing that suggests that the law itself is "not good." Such a concept is radically contrary to everything in the Bible.

So maybe we agree, and are just tangled up in words. In the context of the New Covenant, seeking to "obey God" by obeying the OT law and actively disobeying the Gospel is certainly a way that is "not good."

The opposite perspective is represented in the chapter and in the following chapter, and other chapters; [Jer 31 says the NC would Not like the 'mosaic covenant' LAW] This was explained by the apostles in 2 Peter 2 and Heb 10; in Colossians; in Gal 4; and confirmed in the events of the church which separated from the house and practices of Israel.

I agree. But in what way was the NC "not like" the OC? I don't think the correct answer is to say that the OC was "not good" and the NT "good." The Bible never says the OC was "not good" and it repeatedly states it was "good" and "righteous" and "perfect" and so on and so forth.

Let me know when you have your next lamb sacrifice since you claim that the law is unclarifyingly declared and defined as Holy, Good, Just.

This displays your fundamental misunderstanding. The fact that the Law is no longer in effect does not mean that it is "not good."

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

10-16-2011, 12:45 PM

I believe most of the contradictions to be reconcilable. But not without realizing that there are two realities at work here.
And that to read it as given by God necessitates the recognition of these two views of reality. Because that is how it was written.
Logic that does not account for both sides of this reality is necessarily based upon a faulty foundation.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I am guessing that the "two realities" refer to the "literal" vs. the "alegorical." And if so, then I'm sorry, but that's no solution at all because it the NT speaks of the OT not as only alegory. Sure, there is plenty of alegory, there can't be any alegory if there are no facts. You are denying that the OT is facual while trying to retain it as "alegory." You are saying there was no Moses, there were no Amelekites, there were no Jews?!? The entire OT is just a total fiction?

If that is not what you meant, then you admit that there is much factual history in the OT, and you have merely chosen to cherry pick which parts you like (and accept as "real") and which parts you don't (and reject as "alegory"). That's fine ... you can do what you want, but you best understand that you have not given any reason anyone should think that you are correct.

Is there a reason we should believe the Bible is inerrant? If not, then why should we believe its record of Jesus is perfect?

To turn that around, I don't see any reason to believe that it is in error.
The bible itself says that the Old Testament is allegory. Shadows of things to come and figures, types etc.
Better to look to myself as the one who is not understanding it than to take out all of the parts I do not understand.
I will wait and see what more reveals itself knowing that it has not ceased to amaze me in this respect for over 30 years now.

Your "turning it around" looks like dodging the question to me.

And there are many reason to think there are errors in the Bible. Too many to bother repeating here.

And your idea that "the Old Testament is allegory" seems to imply that it is nothing but allegory, and that's absurd (as pointed out above). If it is nothing but allegory, then there were no Israelites, no Moses, no creation of the universe, no flood, nothing but made up stories. Is that really what you believe?

My reasoning came pre-contorted, thank you! Any change in my viewpoint caused by understanding of the bible has resulted in vast improvement.
Besides, what is wrong with changing our viewpoints? If we are wrong, we can always change back. Right?

Pre-contorted! Ha! I love it! :hysterical:

But there is a problem - if you began with "contorted reasoning" how do you know it is not contorted still? It seems rather so to me (not to be judgmental, just speaking truth). And how has the Bible helped? It seems to have added to the contortion. Indeed, that was my original point - why should we try to contort our reasoning to fit the Bible? Why not just go with what our intelligence and intuition tell us? Besides, that's what you've really done. You have contorted the Bible to fit your own ideas!

But I agree - we can always change our minds. I've pretty much made that a daily practice.

OK - your "compelling explanation" is that the book of Numbers is not a historical narrative. There were no literal virgins taken captive. Nice solution except one problem - if the historical narrative of Numbers is not true history, why should I believe the historical narrative about Jesus is true? Maybe Jesus is just a symbol of "higher consciousness" and his death on the cross was just a symbol of overcoming temptations (dying to the flesh) etc. Nothing really happened ....

Again, it is a case of believing the bible. The New Testament states in no uncertain terms that the Old is full of Types, shadows, allegory, etc.
It also states that Jesus actually came.
Why would I believe otherwise. As I understand it even his enemies in the first century writings didn't dispute his existence. Just who they believed he was.

I don't think you believe the Bible at all. It says things that you deny and change into other things. Case in point - the genocides are interpreted as the killing of ideas. The Bible doesn't say that anywhere. So where did the idea come from? Oh gee ... let me think ... that's a hard one ... I GOT IT! The ideas that you claim are "in the Bible" actually came from your own head! Imagine that ... who woulda thunk, eh?

OK - the virgins are symbolic, the slaughtered men, women, and children are symbolic, but the ethereal "angels" and "demons" are literal? I can't say I find that very "compelling."

And yet that is what the bible teaches. And yet sometimes the angels could manifest solidly. Didn't one kick Peter in the side to wake him up and weren't they mistaken for flesh and blood human beings at times?
If the Promised land is symbolic of reaching the awareness of the Kingdom of Heaven,.. a higher state of consciousness, (which I believe it is) then it makes perfect sense that the inhabitants which need to be removed or destroyed are barriers to fully achieving that higher state of consciousness.
That higher state of consciousness which was promised to the spiritual seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are.
Those barriers would be wrong thinking and doctrine.

Oh yes ... it all makes "perfect sense" to someone who forgets about the historical context of the OT. Your interpretation that there were no vigins also implies that there were no Midianites and no Moses, no Israel, and by extension, no God named Yahweh! In other words, you interpretation denies the reality of the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments.

I don't think appealing to a room full of psychiatric patients hallucinating spirits is gonna help anyone resolve this problem with the Bible.

Yet how many of those patients are there because of a fear of not being perfect? Or guilt of not living up to the law? Or hearing voices accusing them.
Or "hyper-active" consciences?
Many would be set free (both spiritually and literally) if they knew of the difference between law and Grace.

I know one that ended up there as a result of believing in the doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell.

Like I said - any solution to this problem demands an answer of equal moral weight. These kinds of speculations about "spirits" don't carry any weight at all in my book.

Your moral dilemna is only caused by your believing God actually ordered the physical slaughtering of human beings. There is no moral argument needed if that is not the case.

That's right. And if that's not the case, what other things stated as fact in the Bible are not the case? As noted above, your "solution" implies there is no historical reality to the entire OT. And that destroys the meaning of the New.

No, it's not crazy talk. But nothing you have written helps resolve the cognitive dissonance caused by attributing moral abominations to God.

Then stop attributing it to Him. I have given you a reasonable alternative.

I'm not the one attributing it to him. Its the BIBLE that says God did those abominable things.

And no, you have not given me anything lke a "reasonable alternative." Your solution makes no sense at all because you have rejected the historical reality that is the foundation of Christianity.

For a hundred reasons. First and foremost, it is an eternal evil to condemn a soul to eternal conscious torment. Second, not everyone gets a chance to hear the Gospel, what happens to them? Third, what about the children? Do they automatically go to heaven for being young? That's not fair. It is fundamentally unjust to punish someone for eternity for finite crimes, especially when we were born into a corrupt world by no choice of our own. And besides all that, what GOOD comes from causing a soul eternal torment? Etc.m etc., etc., ... and so on and on forever and ever. There are endless problems with the doctrine of hell. I am frankly stunned that you believe in it since you have reinterpreted most of the rest of the Bible, why would you keep this abominable doctrine?

What if, because of the fall, we have put ourselves into this mess against God's express wishes and warnings?

When did "God" ever give any "warnings?" You say that the OT is allegory. None of it really happened.

And besides, there's still nothing GOOD about hell. So why would God create and sustain an eternal evil?

And what if because of eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, hell really exists?

Oh great! First you allegorize the entire OT and say those 32,000 virgins didn't really exist, and now you literalize hell as really existing. I trust you can understand why I find nothing "compelling" about your "alternatives." They are just made up by you to suit your own personal ideas. If I were to accept your methodology, I'd make up a much better religion than yours. I'd make hell enitrely allegorical and a warning for those who need it, and teach that everyone goes to heaven (since there are verses that support that view). But I have no reason to make up my own patchwork religion out of the tattered rags of Christianity.

This is what I don't understand. You have given yourself total freed to make up whatever you want. Why then are you not being more creative and making a better religion?

How does that differ from me making up my own ideas?

Because one is biblical and the other is just making things up.

What makes it "Biblical?" It looks like you are just making things up to me.

But hey ... I'm glad we can talk about these things. Thanks for taking your time to help me work through these ideas. It is very much appreciated.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

10-16-2011, 02:34 PM

Hi Richard, :yo:

Top of the morning to you, my friend. Ok, got a few responses and one or two questions. (understatemet)

...

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I would assume that you think Paul also believed in superstitions.

Let's take a quick look at Paul's curriculum vitae.

"Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" (Php 3:4-6).

I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day" (Acts 22:3).

Did Paul have a vision of Christ on the Damascus Road? Did he hear Jesus Christ speak audibly to him? Do you believe Paul was caught up to the third heaven? And is the following all just a bunch of superstition?

""For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Eph 6:12).

Did these guys (powers of darkness) just show up in Paul's time? Where were they in the OT? Or is Paul superstitious, too? Was this just a general malady of everyone in those days? Is everything just a battle between God and man and Satan is used in the NT as a euphemism for "bad vibes and thoughts?" Just trying to get a handle on things here, not trying to be condescending.

Dude! You got it! You nailed the problem on its head (highlighted red). Where did all those ideas of heaven, hell, demons, Hades, Tartarus, the underworld, angels and Satan all come from? We know they did not come from the OT ... or not directly anyway. And we know that many of them were common supestitions amongst the general population of first century Palestine. For example, Tartarus was the place that the pagan god Zeus imprisoned the mythological Titons who had rebelled against him. This myth was directly incorporated into Scripture by Peter:

2 Peter 2:4 For if God (Zeus) spared not the angels (Titans) that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus!], and delivered them into chains (just like the Titans) of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
The word "Tartarus" is found nowhere else in the entire NT. That means that if we want to know what Peter was saying, we MUST read the pagan mythology and use it to interpret the Bible. Adam Clarke provided this ridiculous and vain attempt to "explain" the presence of Greek mythology in the Bible (source (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=2pe&chapter=002)):

"The ancient Greeks appear to have received, by tradition, an account of the punishment of the 'fallen angels,' and of bad men after death; and their poets did, in conformity I presume with that account, make Tartarus the place where the giants who rebelled against Jupiter, and the souls of the wicked, were confined. 'Here,' saith Hesiod, Theogon., lin. 720,1, 'the rebellious Titans were bound in penal chains.'
So no matter how you cut it, we must conclude that the Bible really does incoroporate pagan mythology in its "inspired" text. It seems, entirely obvious that Peter and Paul and all the biblical authors believed in varous aspects of pagan mythologies and superstitions.

We see the same thing in Jude who quotes the apocryphal book of Enoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch) which is filled with pagan mythology and all sorts of ideas that were incorporated into the NT worldview.

And the book of Enoch brings up another can of worms - it is accepted as "canonical" by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church! So how is a Christian supposed to know what belongs in the canon and what does not? All we have are competing arguments of varying degrees of cogency made up by mere mortals. But that doesn't really matter because the Bible is absolutely insufficient to settle any disputes between beleivers because folks have no choice but to interpret things for themselves, and that rarely leads to any large-scale agreement.

And there are many other pagan concepts prominent in the Bible. John personified the two Greek gods Thanatos and Hades (Death and Hell) in Revelation 6 just like the pagan mythology would.

And what about the "seven-headed dragon" rising out of the sea? It comes straight out of ancient Mesopotamian mythology from the 3rd millennium BCE! Check this wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan), and these excepts (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yCkRz5pfxz0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dictionary+of+Deities+and+Demons+in+the+Bible&source=bl&ots=aFsweXp22u&sig=dztd0T9lrsBte41nWVfAQhwNjkk&hl=en&ei=Hf4GTIrpK9CHcdfghLYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Leviathan&f=false) from the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. For example:

A seven-headed serpent (mus-sag-imin) partly overcome by an anthropomorphic hero or god is attested as early as the third mill. BCE in Mesopotamian iconography (H. FRANKFORT, Stratified Cylindedr Seals from hte Diyala Region [OIP 72, Chicago 1955] 37. pl. 47:497) and texts, but later survives in the textual records only, until he reappears in the Greek Hydra tradition from the 6th century on.
A seven-headed serpent? DOES THAT RING ANY BELLS? It's just the Greek myth of the Hydra! (http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/hydra.htm) Which usually had seven or nine heads.

http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/images/Hydra.gif

This is a most amazing insight when you finally see it.

So like I said, you really hit the nail on the head when you asked Where did all these ideas come from? How are we supposed to understand the fact that the Bible is saturated with pagan mythology? Should we believe that God was guiding the development of ideas in the pagan/Jewish middle east so that he could incorporate some of them in his book, while instructing us (through his Spirit) to reject all the others that are inextricable interwoven with the ones he included in the Bible?

There are HUGE problems with pagan mythology in the Bible. Rose started a thread on this topic called Greek Mythology in the Bible? (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2081). Your comments would be most welcome there.

OK - So your basic argument is that everyone in the land of Canaan were "driven by demons" and that is why they all had to be killed? Nice solution - but where does the Bible offer that as an explanation? And if it were true, why would God want 32,000 demon possessed virgins to be distributed to his soldiers and priests? And why did God want to brutalize his people by commanding them to become merciless genocidal maniacs? Do you have any idea what that does to the human soul? It KILLS it! Why didn't he just drive them out himself? And besides all this, why does Yahweh appear to act just like any other ill-tempered Bronze age tribal war god? I'm sorry, but your explanation seems to be an entirely unbelievable ad hoc speculation that would not convince anyone but those who are desperate to believe regardless of the evidence.

Here's the problem: The moral atrocity of commanding the mass murder of woman and children, coupled with the capture and distribution of 32,000 virgins demands an answer of equal moral weight. The Bible offers no such answer, and your speculations simply do not help.

So tell me this: Given that there is no compelling explanation for this moral abomination, do you think I am wrong to reject the Bible on this count? If so, why? What am I refusing to do or believe that would make me morally culpable for rejecting the Bible as failing to accurately represent the true God who would never command a moral abomination?

I don't think you are wrong to reject the Bible on that count? The way you believe and characterize things? No. But, I am reading this account and I see that there is much more to it than Numbers 31, alone. I will have additional info for you to add to my previous statements regarding the powers of darkness being a significant force behind these pagan nations desiring to destroy Israel.

Well I hope you see that I am entirely open to have my mind changed with logic and facts.

There is a fundamental error in your reasoning. We have no means of coming to any logical conclusions other than using our own "imagination."

God gives revelation and illumination so that we are not left to our imagination. Yes, He uses our imagination our mind and all the faculties that He created us with. Imagination is not bad in itself, only how it is used. But, He reveals truth to our mind by illuminating our spirit with His revelation.

But how does that help? Show me a room full of 20 people who believe that they are "filled with the Spirit" and I'll show you 20 people who violently disagree with each other on more than a few things that the Bible teaches.

How do you know that your opinion of the Bible is correct?

It is a walk of faith, isn't it Richard? Many things I have "proven", but many things are left to be proven. What I believe is true, I act on. People don't act on things they believe are false. If I was told to invest in a company that I believed was a failure, I would not invest. Of course, I could be wrong, and the results will be known, someday. We invest our lives each day, by faith regarding what we BELIEVE. Yet, at the same time that I believe and act on what I consider truth, I want to keep a teachable spirit and open mind so that I am in a position to receive more and more truth (illumination) to dispel any deception that I have. Truth is very corrective.

I have friends who regularly get "words from God." They still don't understand why he told them to consolodate all their savings and invest them in the stock market a few weeks before the great crash of 2008. I'm not making this up. It really happened. That woman has been getting "words from the Lord" for decades. This is the problem with your "beliefs." There is no way to test them against reality. When your beliefs fail to match reality, you just make up excuses. The only way out of such a trap - which is the same trap that traps Muslims, Hindus, and even other folks like far-right or far-left ideologues - is to think and test your beliefs against REALITY.

Jesus said, "you reap what you sow." He has given us several means of determining truth. It is the result of believing and acting on His Word. It is the outcome of our faith in the here and now and later in the hereafter. The results of acting on His Word. When I first believed His Word, I received the Spirit of God and was changed inside. I became a "new creature." This was a tangible result of acting on His Word by faith. The many addictions I had, I could not possibly break free from. But, He just sent His word and healed me, instantaneously. And it's not just outward addictions but matters of the heart that I was in bondage too. To be plain...it worked, He works!! Each step of the way in my faith I discover what works as I believe and act. I also learn what does not work, when I don't believe and act. Many things I have learned the hard way (who doesn't?).

I understand what you mean, and appreciate your fervent faith. But your claims are not really true. Jesus does nothing that can be proven as fact. All you have been doing is mapping your feelings and experiences onto your idea of "Jesus." Is there any way to prove any objective reality to any of this? I think not. It's all subjective. No different than the Mormon who gets the "burning in the bosom." And as such, it is not a "firm foundation" for life.

The "madness" comes from trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Or maybe the "madness" comes from believing that the greatest and most perfect "good" in the universe is really horrible and evil because we just don't understand. And if we don't understand then we try to create the reason WHY, because we have all been born wanting to know WHY. And the only reason we come up with our own "imagination", is insanity and we turn against God because we have stumbled at His word.

I'm not the one who said God did those despicable things! It is the BIBLE that makes those claims. And neither am I the one who says such things are despicable. It is the universal moral law that says they are wrong.

There is nothing "good" about many of the actions attributed to God in the OT. That's the problem.

There's a well known Universalist (Charles Slagel) who testifies that the doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell drove him literally insane. He was hospitalized. And I truly believe that is the only possibility if a person with a living human heart literally believes in that pernicious doctrine. If you believe in it, you either live in a state of cognitive dissonance, have a dead heart of no compassion, or you simply go insane. I spent many years as a Christian in the state of cognitive dissonance until I finally realized I just could not believe it and tried to work out solutions along the lines of annihilationism. I finally settled on Christian Universalism as giving God the greatest glory just before I quit the religion altogether, having realized I no longer fit the definition of a "Christian."

I have some questions for you Richard? Will God ever allow a rebellion in heaven again, or will heaven be populated ONLY by people that gladly welcome and come under His authority? Will God allow people who have never partaken of the Tree of Life, to be in heaven? Do you believe all people go to heaven? Those who do not love His authority in their lives as well as those who do love His authority in their lives? (Sorry, I just realized that you believe in annihilationism).

I don't believe in heaven or hell. I explored annihilationism as a possible solution but decided to go with Christian Universalism because it gave God more glory. Then I discovered that I no longer fit the definition of "Christian" so I quit calling myself one.

I don't have any knowledge of the afterlife and I have no speculations of sufficient cogency to prefer one over the other.

Well now - that was quite a lot of posting! Thanks for working with me on these issues.

Have a great day!

Richard

heb13-13

10-16-2011, 07:09 PM

heb13-13

10-16-2011, 08:41 PM

[QUOTE]

I don't see it as rapes but they were given as wives to the Israelites. If the 32,000 virgins resented to such a treatment knowing with hatred that the Israelites killed their parents, families, friends, why didn't they resisted and be killed and mass suicide in protest?.... or perhaps they saw the God's people better than their current tribes and willingly marry the Israelites....or perhaps they realized that the God of Israel is the true God and wished to be pardon of their sins so that they and their generations were eligible to be in the kingdom of heaven.... or perhaps by marrying the Israelites as ordained by God, their lives would be spared and with the assurance that their evil sinful parents, friends, families that were killed would be pardon of their sins and their children born with the Israelites will not be as sinful? What I am saying here is that there are many reasons or speculations as to the 32,000 virgins that were kept for good moral reasons. Why do you always, always, always, always see it in the negative light that God is an immoral monster?

One reason that they were saved is because all the men were killed and they would not survive on their own. No one to take care of them. Plus, they did not "go a whoring" and were innocent. I'm going to write more about the Midianites when I get some time. It goes back before Numbers 31.

Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

10-16-2011, 09:16 PM

One reason that they were saved is because all the men were killed and they would not survive on their own. No one to take care of them. I'm going to write more about the Midianites when I get some time. It goes back before Numbers 31.

Rick
That doesn't make any sense. Why kill everyone except the virgins? What is it about virgins that made them eligible for salvation whereas all the others had to be killed, including all the male babies?

Richard Amiel McGough

10-16-2011, 10:31 PM

Dude! You got it! You nailed the problem on its head (highlighted red). Where did all those ideas of heaven, hell, demons, Hades, Tartarus, the underworld, angels and Satan all come from? We know they did not come from the OT ... or not directly anyway.

Jesus qualified much of the OT beliefs. Give me a reason not to believe every word that came out of the Son of God's mouth. The argument about superstition does not do it.

Hey there Rick, :yo:

There is an old saying: "You can't use logic to argue a person out of a position that was accepted without logic."

Did you conclude that Jesus was the Son of God using only logic? Of course not. You said so yourself. Indeed, you lamented the fact that I was too logical and said that my only hope was to have a "Damascus road" experience that would take me somewhere beyond logic.

So please don't pretend you are looking for any "reasons" you should or should not "believe every word that came out of the Son of God's mouth."

But then again, I think you should at least be informed of one rather salient fact: the Bible does not even tell us the actual words that Jesus spoke! First, there is the fact that he probably spoke Aramaic, and if that's true all we got in the Bible is a Greek translation of the original Aramaic. Second, and more importantly, the Bible gives contradictory reports about what Jesus actually said! So there is no way for anyone to know precisely what words actually proceeded from the mouth of Christ. I brought up this problem about 18 months ago in a thread called What did Jesus really say? (http://biblewheel.com/forum/biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1550). No one, of course, was able to offer any viable solution.

And we know that many of them were common supestitions amongst the general population of first century Palestine. For example, Tartarus was the place that the pagan god Zeus imprisoned the mythological Titons who had rebelled against him. This myth was directly incorporated into Scripture by Peter:
2 Peter 2:4 For if God (Zeus) spared not the angels (Titans) that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus!], and delivered them into chains (just like the Titans) of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
So no matter how you cut it, we must conclude that the Bible really does incorporate pagan mythology in its "inspired" text. It seems, entirely obvious that Peter and Paul and all the biblical authors believed in varous aspects of pagan mythologies and superstitions.

Or, you could say that the preponderance of evidence suggests that pagan mythology incorporates much truth. And why not. God reveals Himself to people all the time.

I would not say the preponderance of scripture is full of pagan superstition, but rather the other way around. Jude and Peter quote one verse in Enoch. Who says the Book of Enoch did not have some truth in it? It most likely did.

Sure, you could say that. And I suppose you could believe it. But I doubt that you could give any compelling reason why anyone else should believe it. If the Bible is filled with the common mythology of the times in which it was written, we need to admit that fact. For example, you are not going to argue that there really is a solid dome "firmament" holding up the waters that are "above" are you?

Don't you see the pattern that is emerging? The creation story "just happens" to be based on the ancient cosmology of a three-tiered universe. The God of the OT "just happens" to look and act like any other ill-tempered Bronze age tribal war God. The NT "just happens" to be filled with pagan mythology that was common as dirt in the first century. It doesn't matter how well you can convince yourself to ignore these facts. You need to give the folks reading your answers reasons they should believe you.

The Bible looks like what we would expect from the ancient people who wrote it. If God wanted it to look divine, he could have made it so. He certainly doesn't need you or anyone else trying to create explanations for him. The highest view of Scripture is to accept it as given. It makes God look like a fool when mere humans try to "fix" his book and make it look other than it really is.

And there are many other pagan concepts prominent in the Bible. John personified the two Greek gods Thanatos and Hades (Death and Hell) in Revelation 6 just like the pagan mythology would.

Still does not prove that many cultures were not given an element of truth and are interpreting it through their "darkened" mind. And again, if Jesus cannot be trusted implicitly regarding everything that came out of His mouth, then He can't be trusted at all. And if He lied, then He is not the sinless sacrifice. Obviously, there are many that believe this, but I do not. It's good to be able to trust. Much better than having to have ALL the answers.

You are absolutely correct. It does not "prove" it because it's impossible to "prove" such things. But it certainly does show that the overwhelming weight of evidence is on the side of the skeptic who says that the Bible is, in the main, a typical book filled with human mythology, errors, and superstitions. Personally, I think there is more to it since I have the evidence of the Bible Wheel and other things, but that doesn't mean that I should deny the facts that seem so obvious. Apparently, belief in the Bible makes it almost impossible for a person to retain their intellectual integrity. (No offense intended - I'm not talking about you personally. It's just a general fact that I have noticed, especially amongst Christian apologists. I'm sure you've noticed it too.)

Well I hope you see that I am entirely open to have my mind changed with logic and facts.

I believe your mind is open but it won't be changed by some man reasoning with you. I don't know anyone that could top your logic and reason. A very precarious place to be in I would think. You need a revelation of God, a sign, a Damascus road experience. Your path so far seems to be built with the materials of reason and logic.

I had a number of experiences that would be classed along the lines of Paul's "Damascus road" though certainly not quite so dramatic (God never struck me blind for three days). So the problem has nothing to do with "logic" per se, or with a lack in "spiritual experiences" that I interpreted as coming from God.

The problem is with the reality of what is in the Bible.

"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?"(John 6:29-30)

I don't know Richard if you will get that sign, but I will pray that you do.

As I said, I've had more than enough if all it took to believe were "signs." And plenty of Mormon's will tell you about the "signs" God gave them that convinced them of the truth of Mormonism (burning in the bosom). And on and on - the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists all have "signs." That's why Hank Hanegraaff says that faith must be based on logic and facts, not deceptive subjective things like feelings and signs.

But how does that help? Show me a room full of 20 people who believe that they are "filled with the Spirit" and I'll show you 20 people who violently disagree with each other on more than a few things that the Bible teaches.

I meet on a regular basis with people that "hold fast to the Head." They all have many beliefs that differ. We call these the "non-essentials." The "essentials" we major on. We don't minor on the non-essentials. We have learned to "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." And what is the "glue" that holds us all together? The Head! Jesus Christ.

Ah ... that's great! You have found the one true church where everyone agrees on the "essentials." All you need to do now is give your group a name. I can assure you in about week there will be a new Reformed One True Church split from your group after the "Spirit" guides one of the "True Believers" into some "deeper understanding" of an "essential doctrine." That's how it's been for 2000 years with every group that thought they had the "final word" on the "essential doctrines" of the faith. Or what do you think caused the hundreds of denominations in Protestantism?

I understand what you mean, and appreciate your fervent faith. But your claims are not really true. Jesus does nothing that can be proven as fact. All you have been doing is mapping your feelings and experiences onto your idea of "Jesus." Is there any way to prove any objective reality to any of this? I think not. It's all subjective. No different than the Mormon who gets the "burning in the bosom." And as such, it is not a "firm foundation" for life.

The more I talk to you the more grateful I am for "childlike" faith. We cannot ever hope to "touch" God or understand Him with reason and logic. If God could only be reached by reason and logic, I suppose only intellectuals would be saved. But God has made it possible for all men regardless of their level of education to reach Him. God has given every man a measure of faith. Faith moves Him, not intellectualism.

Here is an interesting article. Have you seen it?
It is titled, "Is God a Moral Monster."

Here is the page it is on.
http://www.mpowerministries.co.za/in...d=14&Itemid=66 (http://www.mpowerministries.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=14&Itemid=66)

So now you are dismissing my problems with the Bible as mere "intellectualism?" I'm sorry, but that's not right. Not right at all. We are not talking about mere intellectual problems. We are talking about moral abominations that are attributed to the Most High God! And I am not relying on "intellectualism" at all. I am open to miracles and mysteries of God. You are starting to sound desperate because you can't find any logic to support your position.

And thanks for the link. I haven't seen that one. I was going to write a scathing review of the book of the same title, but it was so poorly argued I figured it wasn't worth the effort. I'll take a look at that page and get back to you.

I'm not the one who said God did those despicable things! It is the BIBLE that makes those claims. And neither am I the one who says such things are despicable. It is the universal moral law that says they are wrong.

There is nothing "good" about many of the actions attributed to God in the OT. That's the problem.

Richard, can I ask you a personal question? Did any Biblical Scholars endorse your book? Did you receive any accolades from leading Biblical Scholars? Were you looking for any? Were you disappointed? What was the general reception of your book like? I am not talking about the little guys like me who bought your book and wrote and told you what a blessing it was. I am speaking about men of letters and Biblical education, the guys that supposedly matter. How did they receive your book?

What's your point? You think I rejected Christianity merely because Christians didn't like my book? I hope not - since that would be a very rude suggestion. And besides, it's totally wrong. If I believed Christianity I would hold to it hell or high-water.

But in answer to your question: Nope. I did not get any intelligent criticism (pro or con) from any "Biblical Scholars." And every attempt to share my discoveries with Christians on forums like the godless pit of mindless mocking morons known as TheologyWeb.com failed miserably. But they did help me see how Christianity corrupts both the morals and the minds of those who profess it. So I guess they had their role to play. Just like Ergun Caner who has been lying from the pulpit for ten years and still has support from famous Christian apologists like Norm Geisler and John Ankerberg, not to mention the fact that the entire leadership of Liberty U covered up for him, as did many FUNDAMENTALIST Christians churches and "ministries." Oh .. and let's not forget the 80 million dollars brainwashed Christians gave Harold Camping during the five years from 2005 to 2009. And the famous evangelist, healer, and all-around adulterous lying conman Todd Bentely who was lauded by hundreds of thousands of brainwashed Christians from all over the planet. I could continue, but you get the idea. There are not enough bits in cyberspace to catalog all the gross puke that is passed off as "Christianity." It is corrupt from head to toe. And the reason? Because people are taught that "belief" is a "virtue." Logic shmogic. Just believe! See what it does to the human soul! Such belief creates suicide bombers and Harold Camping followers! Is that what you are advocating? It is if you say that we need to toss logic and look for a subjective "sign" like the Mormon "burning in the bosom" or the Catholic "bleeding statue of the Holy Mother" or what?

I don't believe in heaven or hell. I explored annihilationism as a possible solution but decided to go with Christian Universalism because it gave God more glory. Then I discovered that I no longer fit the definition of "Christian" so I quit calling myself one.

I know many people that don't fit the description of a Christian and I wish they would stop calling themselves one, too. :winking0071:

Yeah - we agree there. But I really don't think the problem is with the fakers who know they are faking. The real problem is with those who really believe they've "got the Spirit" and mistake their own imaginations for the very "Word of God." That's what they all do, you know. They imagine things and think they got a "Word from the Lord."

I don't have any knowledge of the afterlife and I have no speculations of sufficient cogency to prefer one over the other.

Jesus has knowledge of the afterlife. The Bible has knowledge of it. But then you would have to trust both of them, right.

What's there to "trust?" The Bible is not the most coherent of books, you know. Different people read it and come up with different ideas about the "afterlife." You've got yours and you think that yours is the "absolute truth" and the "only possible interpretation?" If not, then you know that you cannot commend the Bible to me as if it had the answer since you must admit that different people read it differently.

Richard we are totally helpless, to come to a knowledge of the truth and of the scriptures except as God reveals it to us by His Spirit. He speaks from the realm of the Spirit, into the realm of the earthly and the carnal. He speaks from the realm of eternity, into the realm of the finite. There is no linguist on earth today, nor has there been in any other day, that can bridge that gulf. You will not be the first one or the last one that tried. But in attempting to bridge that gulf without reliance on the Spirit of God, you can only hope to confuse things at best.

Say what? If I am "totally helpless" then I have no ability, let alone responsibility, in this matter at all. So why waste your breath (or rather fingers) explaining all this to me? God has not chosen to reveal his truth to me. It's a little odd that he revealed the Bible Wheel with giving me any faith, but hey, it's his show, he can do what he wants. Maybe he gets more glory by using an unbeliever to reveal the supernatural structure of his word. What do I know about such things? :confused2:

Well now - that was quite a lot of posting! Thanks for working with me on these issues.

It sure was!!

God's best to you,
Rick

All the best to you too!

heb13-13

10-16-2011, 10:42 PM

That doesn't make any sense. Why kill everyone except the virgins? What is it about virgins that made them eligible for salvation whereas all the others had to be killed, including all the male babies?

Hi Richard,

It looks to me like those that had “known men” were those that played the whore with Israel. (Numbers 25:1-5)

The Sin of Peor
1 While Israel remained at Shittim, the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab.
2 For they invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods.
3 So Israel joined themselves to Baal of Peor, and the Lord was angry against Israel.

Israel suffers because of this.
4 The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people and execute them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.”
5 So Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Each of you slay his men who have joined themselves to Baal of Peor.”

And read Numbers 25:11-18.

Leaving the virgins to their own fate would mean certain death for many if not all of them since the Midianite men were dead.

6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;

8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. (Num 25:6-9)

The virgins had not played the whore. It was the mercy of God to spare their life and take care of them. They were innocent. They would not bring any plague on Israel. The male babies were probably killed because of potential generational retribution and because the babies were of Midianite seed. They would end up being outcasts when they grew up and would vex Israel.

You are majoring on the fact that they were virgins and are assuming they were kept as sex slaves. The fact is they were saved because they had not played the whore. They were probably either married or used as servants.

(31:14-18) "Have ye saved all the women alive?"

The phrase “all women” should be understood as meaning all that had known men, (i.e., participated in playing the harlot with Israel.)

The Israelites themselves were severely punished for having committed whoredom with the Midianites, see Numbers 26:9.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Some interpret this verse as giving these women as sex slaves. However, we can interpret this verse that they could marry these "women children", no doubt after they had come to a marriageable age. Or we can simply read it that these children could be used as servants.

28 And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:

The persons mentioned in verse 28 are the captured Midianites which had not known men, and young children.

29 Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.

Regarding verse 29, the women that had not known men were not guilty of the crime of the other Midianites so they were not punished.

The heave offering of 1 in 500 was not human sacrifice. That is not what a heave offering is. They were given to the priests as servants not sacrifices.

Read about Moab and his desire to curse and destroy Israel, God's chosen people through which He would bring His testimony to men (Jesus).

Numbers 22:
3 And Moab was sore afraid of the people, because they were many: and Moab was distressed because of the children of Israel.

4 And Moab said unto the elders of Midian, Now shall this company lick up all that are round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field. And Balak the son of Zippor was king of the Moabites at that time.

5 He sent messengers therefore unto Balaam the son of Beor to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying, Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me:

6 Come now therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people; for they are too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite them, and that I may drive them out of the land: for I wot that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed.

Here is the rest of Numbers 25.

Num 25:6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

Num 25:7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;

Num 25:8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

Num 25:9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

Num 25:10 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Num 25:11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.

Num 25:12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:

Num 25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

Num 25:14 Now the name of the Israelite that was slain, even that was slain with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a chief house among the Simeonites.

Num 25:15 And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he was head over a people, and of a chief house in Midian.

Num 25:16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Num 25:17 Vex the Midianites, and smite them:

Num 25:18 For they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a prince of Midian, their sister, which was slain in the day of the plague for Peor's sake.

Why Was God So Harsh on Israel and the Midianites?
God dealt very harshly because it was through the people of Israel that the Messiah would later come. Ever since Cain, Satan continually tried to thwart God in his opposition to Him and His people. He tried to make the people of God fall into false worship and through intermarriage with other people who worshipped demons (idols) tried to destroy the messianic line thereby making the promises of God of no effect and destroying the lineage by which the Messiah would come. If Satan could accomplish this, man could not be delivered from him. That is why God was very harsh regarding idolatry and the combination of sexual sin and idolatry were an even stronger bondage and entanglement to the men of Israel.

Grace and mercy to all,
Rick

Rose

10-17-2011, 08:52 AM

Leaving the virgins to their own fate would mean certain death for many if not all of them since the Midianite men were dead. Then why didn't they just kill all the virgins too?

The virgins had not played the whore. It was the mercy of God to spare their life and take care of them. They were innocent. They would not bring any plague on Israel. The male babies were probably killed because of potential generational retribution and because the babies were of Midianite seed. They would end up being outcasts when they grew up and would vex Israel. Why would god want to take care of the virgins and not the male babies, they could have been turned into eunuchs and made slaves like was common at that time.

You are majoring on the fact that they were virgins and are assuming they were kept as sex slaves. The fact is they were saved because they had not played the whore. They were probably either married or used as servants. Many of the married women who had virgin daughters would not have "played the whore" (as you say) either, so why were they killed? Besides it was the Israelites who went whoring after the Midiantites, because the Midiantes invited them to worship and sacrifice to their gods and the Israelite men lusted after the women. In Num.25 it says god is angry at the Israelites, not at the Midianites.

The Israelites themselves were severely punished for having committed whoredom with the Midianites, see Numbers 26:9. Obviously they weren't punished nearly as severely as the Midianites...besides it says that the Israelites went whoring after the Midianites.

Some interpret this verse as giving these women as sex slaves. However, we can interpret this verse that they could marry these "women children", no doubt after they had come to a marriageable age. Or we can simply read it that these children could be used as servants. The definition of a slave is someone who is taken against their will. Can you imagine what it would be like to witness your whole family slaughtered and then taken and given to the man who just killed your entire family to be his wife? It is outrageous to think that this young virgin is anything but a "sex slave", she was singled out for the sole reason of being a virgin girl. If as you say the children could be used as servants then why weren't the male children made eunuchs and also used as servants?

Regarding verse 29, the women that had not known men were not guilty of the crime of the other Midianites so they were not punished. Like I said before, many of the married women and male children were also not guilty of the "so called" crime of whoredom.

Grace and mercy to all,
Rick

Hi Rick,

It is hard for me to believe the level you are stooping to to defend the moral abominations attributed to Yahweh!

I have answered in red some of your justifications.

All the Best,
Rose

heb13-13

10-17-2011, 09:01 AM

heb13-13

10-17-2011, 09:09 AM

Hi Rick,

It is hard for me to believe the level you are stooping to to defend the moral abominations attributed to Yahweh!

I have answered in red some of your justifications.

All the Best,
Rose

Hi Rose,

I already answered your questions in red. Particularly about the male children.

All the best to you, too.
Rick

Bob May

10-17-2011, 10:28 AM

I'm not sure what you mean, but I am guessing that the "two realities" refer to the "literal" vs. the "alegorical." And if so, then I'm sorry, but that's no solution at all because it the NT speaks of the OT not as only alegory. Sure, there is plenty of alegory, there can't be any alegory if there are no facts. You are denying that the OT is facual while trying to retain it as "alegory." You are saying there was no Moses, there were no Amelekites, there were no Jews?!? The entire OT is just a total fiction?

If that is not what you meant, then you admit that there is much factual history in the OT, and you have merely chosen to cherry pick which parts you like (and accept as "real") and which parts you don't (and reject as "alegory"). That's fine ... you can do what you want, but you best understand that you have not given any reason anyone should think that you are correct.

That is not what I mean. I was refering to natural man vs. spiritual man. Two realities. Two ways of percieving the world.
Allegory serves a purpose. It points us in a direction. Toward the spiritual. Allegory is a story hidden within a story.
That is what our existence is here on this earth. Two descriptions of reality.
There are two realities pointed to in scripture. Law vs. grace. Cause and effect vs. reaping where we have not sown.
A person who has only experienced the first has no idea of the second.
A person who has experienced both understands both because they had to go through the first to get to the other.

I am not saying the entire OT is a total fiction. I am saying that the important thing is the story behind the story.
Whether Moses actually lived is not as important to me as the parallels to my life that are shown in the stories concerning him.
Same with the Amalekites.
Jesus came to show the true nature of God. If God's nature in the OT seems to not show the true nature as expressed in the nature of Jesus, then the OT story is hiding something.
If it does not make sense, look deeper. Don't throw the whole thing out.
If you see that as "cherry picking" that's fine.

Your "turning it around" looks like dodging the question to me.

Originally Posted by RAM
Is there a reason we should believe the Bible is inerrant? If not, then why should we believe its record of Jesus is perfect?

OK lets turn it back around.
Because if you believe it is full of errors, you will miss out on what it is telling you. Because there is nowhere to draw the line on where it may be wrong and where it is telling you something you do not yet understand.
If you approached a math book with that attitude you would not even finish the book.

Whereas if you believe it is inerrant you will continue to look at it as describing something you are not yet aware of. So you will be open to the deeper meanings that are there.

Besides, I have already mentioned that it has proven itself true on more occasions than I can count. (As it has for you in your writing the Bible Wheel book.)
What I cannot fathom is the doubt you are showing.
I can only think that it is serving a purpose. I have learned a lot in our discussions and disputations.

And there are many reason to think there are errors in the Bible. Too many to bother repeating here.

OK

And your idea that "the Old Testament is allegory" seems to imply that it is nothing but allegory, and that's absurd (as pointed out above). If it is nothing but allegory, then there were no Israelites, no Moses, no creation of the universe, no flood, nothing but made up stories. Is that really what you believe?

No, not at all. I believe there was a flood, Creation, Israelites, Moses, etc., etc.
It is what I think they are that would be the question here.

Pre-contorted! Ha! I love it! :hysterical:

Yeah, twisted. That is the Natural or carnal man.
We only think it is the norm because it is.

But there is a problem - if you began with "contorted reasoning" how do you know it is not contorted still? It seems rather so to me (not to be judgmental, just speaking truth). And how has the Bible helped? It seems to have added to the contortion. Indeed, that was my original point - why should we try to contort our reasoning to fit the Bible? Why not just go with what our intelligence and intuition tell us? Besides, that's what you've really done. You have contorted the Bible to fit your own ideas!

Our intelligence is based on knowledge and our past experience. And what you call intuition is, as I understand it, thoughts that come to our minds from outside of ourselves.
So what is the source of those thoughts and experience?
By their fruits you shall know them.

If I have thoughts that lead to life and faith and peace and freedom and everything else that fits with the description of the New Covenant, I accept them.
If I have thoughts that tend toward doubt, death, self condemnation etc., that fit the Old Covenant, I reject them.

But I agree - we can always change our minds. I've pretty much made that a daily practice.

Not a bad practice.

I don't think you believe the Bible at all. It says things that you deny and change into other things. Case in point - the genocides are interpreted as the killing of ideas. The Bible doesn't say that anywhere. So where did the idea come from? Oh gee ... let me think ... that's a hard one ... I GOT IT! The ideas that you claim are "in the Bible" actually came from your own head! Imagine that ... who woulda thunk, eh?

I'm not the one questioning the bible.
Ex 17:16 For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.

http://qumran.com/For_a_Better_Understanding/amalek.htm

Oh yes ... it all makes "perfect sense" to someone who forgets about the historical context of the OT. Your interpretation that there were no vigins also implies that there were no Midianites and no Moses, no Israel, and by extension, no God named Yahweh! In other words, you interpretation denies the reality of the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments.

No, the allegorical interpretation is what Paul used. It does not deny the entire bible at all it illuminates it.
The New Testament/Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old. The Old was written as types, shadows and allegory.
Is that not biblical?

I know one that ended up there as a result of believing in the doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell.

Bob> Your moral dilemna is only caused by your believing God actually ordered the physical slaughtering of human beings. There is no moral argument needed if that is not the case.
[/quote]

That's right. And if that's not the case, what other things stated as fact in the Bible are not the case? As noted above, your "solution" implies there is no historical reality to the entire OT. And that destroys the meaning of the New.

The New fulfills the Old. The letter killeth.
I had the advantage of first studying the bible as written. Allegorically.
Reading the OT as allegory removes a lot of the problems with seeing God as some kind of blood thirsty Tyrant which seems to be your problem with the bible.
The New testament says that at least some of the stories are allegorical.
So we are left with few choices.
So, either God is bloodthirsty, the bible is wrong, or the Old testament is allegorical (which Paul believed was the case.)

Along with the bible being allegorical also comes the idea that it is still inerrant. Because it is not a book about fact, it is a book of Truth.
And the Truth is that God loves His creatures and wants them to return home.

I'm not the one attributing it to him. Its the BIBLE that says God did those abominable things.

Only if you read the OT literally.

And no, you have not given me anything lke a "reasonable alternative." Your solution makes no sense at all because you have rejected the historical reality that is the foundation of Christianity.

Your reason is faulty because you take allegory and try and make it actual history.
My alternative is biblical.

When did "God" ever give any "warnings?" You say that the OT is allegory. None of it really happened.

Ge 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

And besides, there's still nothing GOOD about hell. So why would God create and sustain an eternal evil?

Maybe it is a case of this relative world we have fallen into. Cause/effect etc.
If there is good there has to be bad. If there is growth there has to be decay etc.
I don't really know. All I know is that we are given a choice.

Oh great! First you allegorize the entire OT and say those 32,000 virgins didn't really exist, and now you literalize hell as really existing. I trust you can understand why I find nothing "compelling" about your "alternatives." They are just made up by you to suit your own personal ideas. If I were to accept your methodology, I'd make up a much better religion than yours. I'd make hell enitrely allegorical and a warning for those who need it, and teach that everyone goes to heaven (since there are verses that support that view). But I have no reason to make up my own patchwork religion out of the tattered rags of Christianity.

This is what I don't understand. You have given yourself total freed to make up whatever you want. Why then are you not being more creative and making a better religion?
What makes it "Biblical?" It looks like you are just making things up to me.

What have I made up?

But hey ... I'm glad we can talk about these things. Thanks for taking your time to help me work through these ideas. It is very much appreciated.

All the best,

Richard

Right back at you, Have a great day.
Bob

Rose

10-17-2011, 03:13 PM

Hi Rose,

I already answered your questions in red. Particularly about the male children.

All the best to you, too.
Rick

Hi Rick,

You didn't address the specific issue I brought up in response to your reason of why all the male children were killed...you said "The male babies were probably killed because of potential generational retribution and because the babies were of Midianite seed." My response was that if God could use the virgins who were of Midianite seed for servants and slaves, why couldn't he also use the male children if they were made eunuchs?

All the Best,
Rose

heb13-13

10-17-2011, 04:03 PM

Hi Rick,

You didn't address the specific issue I brought up in response to your reason of why all the male children were killed...you said "The male babies were probably killed because of potential generational retribution and because the babies were of Midianite seed." My response was that if God could use the virgins who were of Midianite seed for servants and slaves, why couldn't he also use the male children if they were made eunuchs?

All the Best,
Rose

Hi Rose,

The thing about men is that that they grow up and want revenge for what was done to their tribe. First the Midianite men would have been outcasts and felt it and then revenge would have burned in their hearts.

You may want to look at this link. It has some good material. Maybe there is a better answer here for you.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html

All the best,
Rick

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

10-17-2011, 04:27 PM

I maintain the perspectives of what I wrote.

I understand them to be in agreement with the intent of what Paul wrote and without taking single verses [or particular sections] from his dialogue, explanations and instructions which was written to those, like him, who had already been freed from the law in their inner spirit [delivered from the law] via adoption as sons through faith.

As quoted from 1 Cor; the natural man cannot accept or understand the things of the man reborn and freed by the Spirit. Thus it's not too surprising that we have these disagreements about interpretation.

As you can see, there is nothing that suggests that the law itself is "not good." Such a concept is radically contrary to everything in the Bible.

There is I believe, some confirming evidence and help in what Paul wrote by revealing the difference between Moses and Paul's attitudes. Moses would have known the fruits and manifestations of both covenants. He was told to make the mosaic covenant as a 'Pattern" and "shadow" of the real covenant. Moses struck the rock twice. In my understanding he was signifying his preferential association with the manifestation of the second way [chronologically speaking,] of Grace and truth; I.E. the blessing to the second son; I.E. Isaac over Esau in Gal 4 etc. We can't have a historical second covenant without the historical first, mosaic covenant.

God declared that Moses would not enter the promised land because he did not glorify him in the way of law. Moses was buried OUTSIDE of the land of the temporary, inferior, Babylonian style covenant, BUT in the area of the everlasting covenant people... [the post incarnation nations who found him and those of the jews who escaped from Egypt {Judea}].

Paul, on the other hand, in 2 Cor 3; (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%203:%205-11&version=KJV) is very careful to give glory to the former mosaic covenant law for it’s purposes of being a Negative/contrasting 'administration of death'. It had a positive purpose in being a contrasting negative way of the positive reality. He says it this way.
10 For even that which was made glorious [the Mosaic Covenant ] had NO glory in this respect, by [comparing] reason of the positive glory that excelleth.

Speaking of the more individually applicable [10]commandments; it is the same principle. To those who believe, the negative [thou shalt not] law speaks contrary to the positive spirit of Freedom and Life through the points it addresses. Going though your life seeking to 'not covet' in order to appease and seek approval from God is a negative, enslaving way and counterproductive of the way of freedom and power found in the creators abundance of personal gifts and life within and through individual adoption, justification and very real friendship with HIM IN ones HUMANITY. It's like the old analogy of 'don't look at the pink elephant". So the individual laws, [the commandments] like the corporal law have negative purposes of contrasting the positive life of friendship with God.
Paul explains this in saying.....in vs 7 that even though we are 'delivered' from the law,[vs 6] the law is good, holy and just, [if used lawfully, I Tim 1:8] for it's purpose of pointing out negative traits of the natural, disbelieving man which are overcome in the power of the Spiritual man.

"The law is good, holy and just [to the believer]; NOT because the believer is to 'conditionally' seek attainment to it's obedience [as the Jews of Romans 10] BUT only because AS PAUL SAYS; I would not have known what coveting was, except it had said... thou shalt not covet. Paul, like other believers, in his personal life, through the Spirit of Christ has dominion of the law, not enslaved to it. The man walking in the approval and adoption of his life by faith as a son of God [when abiding and receiving in His spirit] does not "Covet" or steal...etc... He/she has been adopted and approved by God and has access to the throne of Grace, the power, instruction and love of the Creator. This is consistent with the surrounding context of Pauls words in Rom 6,7,8.

No where does Paul declare that the law is holy just and Good as a stand alone declaration, including Rom 7:7. That would contrast with John 1:17 where the law came by Moses BUT Grace and truth by Christ Jesus. And it would contradict his discourse in 2 Cor 3 where the law is the administration of death as opposed to the vibrancy, fruitfulness and abundance of LIFE. Thus, the supposed declaratory statement of Rom 7:7 and I Tim MUST BE [and IS] clarified by the surrounding verses to mean that the law is holy, just and good for it's purposes. The verses in I Tim add great clarification as does the chapter of 2Cor 3.

It is applicable again to note that Paul is not the author or writer of new law of the New covenant. [contrary to dispensationalists and codified interpretations]. Paul interprets, encourages, explains and comments from the experience of the superseding Spirit and Person of Christ as well as drawing out the same message from the OT prophets. God calls that which is [‘sinners’] as though they were not.[righteous][through the righteousness that is solely by faith]. This is the Law of the Creator, whose opinion and judgment is the only one that matters.

There's no way around this fact, and its denial leads to the all sorts of confusion because the law defines sin which defines the gospel. It all falls apart if you deny that God's law was and is actually "good."

I disagree with your concept of what defines "sin" to humanity. "Sin against the law of Moses or the commandment IS NOT what defines the Gospel. [the good news] Your elevating 'the law' as the good news and the standard. Jesus’s instructions and words superseded the law. We are not "justified" by faith in God's giving of the law of commandment. That is what the Israelites told Moses in Deut 5. Nor are we justified of faith in Christ’s death to save us from offenses to that law. And perhaps this is why your misinterpreting Rom 7:7. "Sin" is disbelief, rejection, rebellion against faith in the very real and living entity and character of God; his Creation of humanity and his relational Love with individuals. The GOOD NEWS” is that the seed of Eve, the incarnate reality of the Creator, has really and physically come, and his message is in FAVOR OF Organic and spiritually, supernaturally empowered [not legalized] positive LIFE. Christ as the creator incarnate is the antidote of ignorance, inexperience and disbelief about the reality of God and his love. Your magnifying Moses of the negative, contrasting covenant which was given temporarily to those in rebellion, disbelief, still in ignorance and in Babylonian influence. "Disbelief", doubt, fear & rebellion manifest and fruited itself in ways which at that time needed contained by the law. But as Paul affirms; the law was not made for the righteous .

John 1:17; For the law came by Moses; but GRACE AND TRUTH via Christ Jesus. Jesus' new instructions, like the Sermon on the Mount, were contrasting to the superior-istic, condemning racist law. If the law would bring positive life, there would have been no need for new instructions of another prophet as God explains through Moses in Deut 5 and 18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%205:23-32,%2018:15-19,%20Acts%203:22-24&version=KJV) and as Hebrews (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb%208:7-8&version=KJV) teaches concerning the faultiness of the mosaic covenant. See also ch 9.

Jacob was adopted, approved and given power as a son of God in his organic human state; long before 'the law'. He is one of the fore-type of the laws of everlasting covenant. [Ps 105:1-10] Abel was approved for his sacrifice in faith to the future sacrifice, not for his slavery in subordination to the curse.

John tells us in 1:12,13 that even those who believed on his name [character of goodness of the Creator of life and his ability and power of restoring friendship with Him] were [are] given the right to become his children and have access to his grace.

Paul declares that 'while we were yet "sinners" [human beings] Christ died for [loved] us, thereby removing the law and nailing it to the tree. {Eph 2:15}.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. [PERIOD] He didn't add the works of the law to this. The OBVIOUS response of this faith is to study and hear what the Good Creator has to say and instruct in his coming. At the end of chapter 6 the apostles state in subordination and confession....... where shall we go....only you have the words of eternal [spiritual and positive] life.

After Peters heart confession that He was the Christ; the son of the living God.. [Creator, Life-maker]. Jesus declared that he was 'blessed' because heaven and earth had not revealed it to him, but his father in heaven.... The 'church' of individuals is built upon this heart/mind belief in Christ as incarnation of the Good, living, Creator God, [PERIOD] and in the Good Name and character of his GOOD, positive ministry, words and works of spiritual LIFE that are in approval of and help of Life.

You, by your own statements are at this time of your life outside of this heart confession and belief, And is often the case, in a state of seeking of self approval and justification by approving the law as 'good' holy, righteous in and of it's own self. And yet you are presently pricked concerning the reality and power of the living, Creator God by knowing how various prophesies were made in previous millennium and centuries were actually fulfilled in living history.

Paul affirms that the 'not good way' of Is 65:2 is seeking obedience to the law.

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, [B]even the righteousness which is of faith.
31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32Wherefore? Because they sought it [B]not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. [who are delivered from the law Rom 7:6]
5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8But what saith it? The word [Christ] is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.[given an individual eternal friendship, approval and love with the Creator]

19But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.[who follow the 'gainsaying' conditional way that is not good].

And besides all that, its very weird indeed for a Christian to assert that the Law of God is "not good."
I think judaic-christianity has given and IS the wrong concept of "BEING" a Christ's one and follower, reciver of the way to friendship with the creator. [John 17:3]. The mis-indoctrination of what he taught on the sermon from the mount in Matt 5 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2014)is part of believers mis-subordination to the continuation of mosaic law.

So maybe we agree, and are just tangled up in words. In the context of the New Covenant, seeking to "obey God" by obeying the OT law and actively disobeying the Gospel is certainly a way that is "not good."

Exactly. at least we agree on the point that seeking to obey the mosaic covenant law is the Way that is not Good in contrast with the obedience and justification of faith in the entity and goodness of God. This is exactly what is referred to in Is 65:2 as Paul confirms in Rom 10. [to which you may still disagree] Jesus had already come in Is 61 and is presented as already incarnate saying 'behold me' behold me in vs Is 65:1. The conditional /corporal WAY of seeking blessing from the Creator is NOT the GOOD, eternal WAY of LIFE and friendship with the Creator/Lover; though it had good temporary anti-thetical and fore-casting purposes.

It was good for it's purposes, but it is NOT the good WAY of life in being unconditionally accepted by Him; especially revealed after the incarnation.

I agree. But in what way was the NC "not like" the OC?
I noted them several times in previous posts both in other threads and in this one. Part of the hints in Hebrews, and in 2 Cor and especially in Jer 31 where it and some contrasts are given. Contrasting traits are also noted in other places where circumcision and indwelling of the heart is prophesied; such as Ez 36.

The OC was conditional upon every member doing all contained in the law[s], it pertained to national material blessings, it was prophesied to be temporary through their fore-known failure in it, it was a shadow, a pattern, a negative and contained for-types of the future covenant. It was breakable and bi-lateral. It was a Babylonian style appeasement ‘religion’.

The everlasting covenant of Spiritually born friendship and physical life from the Creator {New in contrast against the mosaic] is opposite.
It is unilateral through the willful action of Creator God in the incarnation. [I will, both in Gen 3:15 and Jer 31 etc.]
It is conditioned only by faith in his entity as positive and good Creator of Life and in his incarnation as part of that Good, Loving Character.
It restores individual accountability for ones soul and immediately offers the remedy of forgiveness of individual sin against the garden separation which was though disbelief, misinformation and ignorance. Once entered into, I believe it is unbreakable through the sealing and indwelling of the spirit of Truth.
It is everlasting [including subsequent generations of the spiritual seed like Jacob/Israel the individual].
It is non-militant [plowshares into swords; wolf and lamb] because it asserts that life and all the diversity and depth of living is a divine, holy, manifestation and the good will of the Creator and that it belongs to HIM.

The historical physical establishment and the elements and principles of the new Covenant, are I believe the reasons behind the articles of individual religious liberties, and the respecting of other basic individual rights and freedoms of life that exist and are recognized in the Dec of Independence; State Constitutions, Federal Religious liberties act, and similar documents in the U.N. As rightly stated; it is Creator God who ordains those separate rights and man who recognizes them. It's unknown if they would exist and continue if not for the power and fear in which they were established and through which they would be retained if they were encroached upon.

This question about the contrasting principles of the covenants is a good question to test seeking answers FROM GOD in faith rather than "opinion" from others. This will occur if you are seeking these answers in faith from your own heart's inquest and for your own life to glorify Him in contrast with debate and argument against others.

This is a key to note in seeking requests from Him, as John confirms in I John..if our hearts do not condemn us... that we are promised answers and knowledge when they are from pure intents of our hearts....

Richard Amiel McGough

10-17-2011, 04:50 PM

Hey guys, [heb13-13, Bob May, EndtimesDeut]

I'm an independent software engineer and I got new contract last week, and have been swamped with work today so that's why I haven't had a chance to answer your posts. I hope I should be able to get to them this evening. You guys have written lot's of very interesting things for me to think about. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring ya'all!

:thumb:

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

10-17-2011, 05:52 PM

But even if it did, that still would not justify your idiosyncratic interpretation of Isaiah 65:2 where God is obviously condemning the Jews for violations of his law, not for obeying it
This was covered before very clearly in the previous post where the first two verses of Is 65 are commented upon. The contrast between these two verses is not only noticed by me; but is outlined in the end of Romans 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:20-21&version=KJV) which is a summary of the earlier context of the contrast of obedience of faith in Christ with disobedience of participation and faith in Moses law (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:3-6&version=KJV) in chapter 10. This is the exact same contrast which you said that you agreed with.

Paul’s quote, as well as the very context of chapter 65 agrees that the time context of Is 65 is post cross; post fulfillment of the everlasting covenant foundations and establishment. He, the seed of Creator God promised to Eve for all mankind has been found by the Gentiles who sought him not. But to racist, Israel [at that time] he says that all day long he has stretched out his Open arms saying [like to the nations] “Behold me….Behold me…. See me with your eyes, physically hold me. These words express the time of his incarnation.

But they erroneously attempted to continue to follow the obedience and way of the mosaic law; the WAY that was not Good; though with temporal purposes. This is what Paul is saying in the first part of Romans chapter 10. Isaiah 1 and 2 are used to summarize the chapter. They followed after the way of Moses which was not the Good way of Life which is the obedience of faith. It’s interesting how Paul summarizes Is 65:2b [which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;] as ‘a gainsaying people’ in Romans 10:21. This summarizes the way of seeking blessing and gain ‘conditionally’ through appeasement or attainment of the rituals or religious law.

Do you remember the high school flick.. "the lottery" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIm93Xuij7k). part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMhV3fwx5Sg) This expressed the foolish extended fruit of the foundation of seeking conditional appeasement of and blessing from God. Gotta kill someone each year to appease the God's of the corn harvest.

Aside from Pauls confirming explanations; there is a confirming test which we could apply to determine if in Isaiah 65, the Israelites are being chided for disobedience against Moses law or for continued obedience or even partial obedience in it.

In the chapter it talks of a new wine from within the cluster and because of that new wine, he would not destroy them all. Vs .8. In vs 12 he says that they would be numbered to the sword due to their support and manipulations of warfare [vs 11] and who forget his holy mountain. The holy mountain is at this time revealed as the everlasting 'new' covenant and the words and teachings of Christ.[they pertain to the sanctity, holiness and divinity of life] Recall Revelation 13:10 that says; that they who kill by the sword must perish by the sword.

The test is that if God is chiding and punishing these people for not being obedient to the corporal law of Moses; then those who escape from the cluster and who are not destroyed would be those who were able to keep the law of Moses in every aspect. They would be the holiest of the priests.

But we understand and know from History that, the opposite is true. Those who received Jesus and departed from the participation's of the covenant, who left the priests and the law; were the new wine from within the cluster. It was those who’s righteousness through faith superseded that of the Pharisees.

Hebrews then supportingly comments; If the first way had been faultless there would have been no need for another. In calling the covenant 'new' he was declaring the old as faulty. This 'old' refers to the mosaic covenant from the time of coming out of Egypt, crossing the Jordan and onwards. Merely having the law didn’t provide blessing, but keeping every commandment gave a blessing that was even fore-known and prophesied to be temporal. It was not based on faith in the living, loving, Creator God; but based on a Babylonian style ritualistic ‘religion’ of disbelief.

Again, I have no reservations about interpreting and understanding the 'way that is not Good” in Isaiah 65 as the mosaic covenant 'national' way of works and disbelief [especially after the fulfillment of it’s types by God] It's over abundantly clear to me and confirmed in the context of the chapter and the following chapter and by the context of Pauls referral to it in Romans 10. Moses prophesied that they would eventually suffer the same plagues as Egypt; would be ‘utterly destroyed’ and have a ‘latter end’ of God’s oversight and association of the covenant and the temporary nation it established. It was like a Babylonian conditional appeasement religion. It was empty of continual, perpetual blessing and called the administration of death by Paul; called ‘faulty’ and in-efficacious in Hebrews. The way of eternal and spiritually empowered life is through faith and justification by faith in the reality of his entity and the experiential knowledge of that entity through Christ. [period]. John 6:29 again; Jesus answered and said unto them, this is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. [Period] The OBVIOUS response to that faith is to hear what he teaches, to study and reflect on fulfilled prophecies concerning HIS [new covenant] people; and to grow experientially in the relational status of being a son of God.

But you don’t’ believe the accounts of Jesus are accurate, nor the events of drawing the jews out of Egypt, or the giving of the commandments??; but you believe and condemn the broadening of the gene pool by saving 32,000 procreators even though you likely don’t believe that account to be accurate or to have historically occurred. Can you see how It would seem to me to be somewhat illogical and debasing to be in continued and repeated explanation and discussion with you on these issue.

There is a law of accountability and restitution that was expressed after the flood; though still in the age of ignorance and inexperience of God, that he who sheds blood, of his blood shall be shed. In a previous post, I mentioned that an axiom of the Creator seems to be, that we [mankind] are allowed freedom to experience the fruit and frustrations of whatever beliefs, or disbeliefs and practices that we hold and allow. I believe that this axiom and freedom remains to this day; though held in check by the evidence and ministry of the incarnation. There is a law of cause and effects and a law of action and reaction in science and physics.

Under this axiom; the accountability and restitution of the murderous killings, as you call them, of the Midianites is billed to Nimrod and his influence of disbelief, rebellion, usurping counterfeits, self worship, and whatever else motivated him. Or it could be billed to the Midianites themselves who were warring, disbelieving peoples [likely influenced by Nimrod].

There are better answers on the other thread.

Richard Amiel McGough

10-17-2011, 08:09 PM

Hi Richard,

It has been an interesting discussion for sure.

What I have learned so far:

1. The Bible is not completely the Word of God
2. The Holy Spirit is fake (really just our own emotions and feelings)
3. Nothing substantial and true can be known by faith
4. Nothing unseen can be proven (by logic and reason)
5. There are no true disciples of Jesus Christ. Everyone is a fraud that believes the God of the Bible and Jesus of the Bible.
6. Jesus Christ believed in superstitions and propagated them
7. Paul and Apostles did the same (as #6)
8. The God of the Bible is immoral.
9. The God of the Bible is male chauvinist pig
10. The God of the Bible is bloodthirsty and approves of rape and racism
11. Everyone that believes the Bible has no compassion or love because they believe in hell and eternal torment. (Daniel 12:2)

Good evening Rick, :yo:

I like your organized style. And I'm glad you invited me to refine your points a bit since most of them display a gross misunderstanding of my position. It's very helpful for you to state your perception of my position so I can see how I have failed to communicate clearly. Thanks! :thumb:

1. The Bible is not completely the Word of God
That depends upon what you mean by "the Word of God." If you mean "the inerrant and infallible Word of God" then yes, it is obviously not that. But there is no reason it could not be "God's Book" - a kind of "divine historical novel" that God designed with great precision to communicate exactly as he intended. That's called a "high view" of Scripture, and it contrasts strongly with the view held by people who claim to believe the Bible is "God's inerrant Word." They say that and then go about trying to "fix it" as if it were a incoherent book written by an idiot who didn't have clue how to communicate. In practice, the folks who assert the Bible is the "very Word of God" are the very ones least likely to accept what it actually states! How's that for irony?

2. The Holy Spirit is fake (really just our own emotions and feelings)
I never said anything like that (as you noted at the end of your post). But you and I both know that there are plenty of "fake" spirits out there and that's why Christians are admonished to "test the spirits." Unfortunately, the test suggested in Scripture doesn't actually work at all. Every lying con-man posing as a Christian declares that Jesus is Messiah and came in the flesh. So how is a person supposed to know if they have the "real" Holy Spirit or if they are totally deluded like all the Benny Hinns and most people on TBN, and most Catholics (according to you) etc. and so on and so forth? I'm a little disappointed by your simplistic take on the things I have been saying. Your statements totally miss my points. I never said the Holy Spirit was "fake."

3. Nothing substantial and true can be known by faith
I never said that either. But the things that can be known by faith cannot be proven with logic, and therefore will not help resolve the issues we are discussing. Again, you are misrepresenting the points that I have been making. This kinda frustrates me because I try to write with great clarity and intelligence, but then I get these kind of responses that are nothing more than empty caricatures.

4. Nothing unseen can be proven (by logic and reason)
Again, I never said any such thing! I use logic every day to prove things that can't be seen. That's how I prove electrons, and protons, and the mathematical law of gravity (which can't be seen).

5. There are no true disciples of Jesus Christ. Everyone is a fraud that believes the God of the Bible and Jesus of the Bible.
Again, I have never said that! You are totally misrepresenting me. I don't understand why you think this is the right thing to do. And besides, we both know that the Christianity is filled with fakes. I have no way to know whether their are a few "true disciples" scattered here or there.

6. Jesus Christ believed in superstitions and propagated them
Yes, that seems pretty obvious.

7. Paul and Apostles did the same (as #6)
Yes, of course.

8. The God of the Bible is immoral.
Obviously.

9. The God of the Bible is male chauvinist pig
Yep. He's not even kosher!

10. The God of the Bible is bloodthirsty and approves of rape and racism
Yes on the first two, but no evidence that he's a racist. He approved of Moses taking a black women as wife.

11. Everyone that believes the Bible has no compassion or love because they believe in hell and eternal torment. (Daniel 12:2)
You missed the third option - cognitive dissonance - which probably describes the vast majority of people. Most Christians just live with the contradictions that they have been taught.

Speaking of Daniel 12:2, "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame andeverlasting contempt."

Do Preterists believe that the Resurrection has already come? Did it come in 70AD? If so, why was the Apostle John not taken? Why was he left on earth?

The issue is not what "Preterists" believe, its what the Bible says. And the Bible connects the "coming" of the Messiah in 70 AD with the resurrection. So folks have very few options:
Reject the Bible as false.
Say the resurrection happened just like the Bible says.
Try to separate the "comings" so that some of the passages speak of 70 AD and others speak of an event 2000+ years in the Future.
It seems to me that the only two viable options are numbered less than the cubed root of 27.

Continuiing...

12. Satan and demons are superstitions and don't really exist.
Correct. Though there could be "forces" that are symbolized by them I suppose. But I have no reason to believe in spooks and ghosts and demons and a big bad devil ...

13. Creation, the Flood, Jonah and many other stories in the Bible are just that, "stories", made up by men to illustrate a point or two.
Maybe. Or they are elements in a divine historical novel that have profound meaning but are not literal historical events. I don't know ... but I do know that they are not literal history.

14. Belief in the Bible does not allow one to retain their personal integrity.
I never said that. It is belief in the Bible as the inerrant and infallible Word of God that corrupts the minds and morals of anyone who holds those beliefs.

15. God cannot be known by faith.
I never said anything like that. I said that you cannot prove God with logic if he can be known only through faith.

16. God does not as a general rule, answer prayers.
Now that's a direct quote of something I've written many times. Well done!

17. A "Good God" would not have a hell to send people to.
You got that right!

Ok, well, that's a lot to learn in just under 100 posts. I definitely feel sufficiently stimulated. :winking0071:

It looks like we've got a few things to talk about.

Why don't we all just become Atheists? Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we are annihilated.

Why not indeed. You are already an atheist relative to 99.999% of all gods ever proposed by the human race. Why not complete the set?

There are two meanings to the word "atheist."
A person who does not have a belief in any God.
A person who denies there is a god.
Definition 1 describes a person who honestly states that he does not believe in what he does not know.
Definition 2 describes a person who claims to have knowledge that he probably doesn't have. No one really knows if there is or is not a god.

I don't call myself an atheist even though I fit definition #1 because there is too much confusion around the definition. I don't claim to know there is no God - indeed, I'm inclined to think there might be a God though I have no knowledge that there is.

Not to be compassionless for you, Richard. On the contrary, I can certainly look around at "Christianity" today and see how you have arrived at your position. I really mean that. Many have become cynical and jaded and left Christianity. It's as phony as a 3 dollar bill and it seems that many are being taken advantage of. Jeremiah and Ezekiel talk a lot about this. And yes, the Bible can be very difficult. Even the writer of 2 Peter admits this.

I very much appreciate your compassion. Thank you. :anim_32:

On my 17 points above, feel free to correct them. I think I may misjudge you on number 2. Not sure if I have seen you say the Holy Spirit is fake. Do you believe that or do you just believe that no one can prove they have the indwelling Spirit of God? I think maybe the latter.

All the best,
Rick
Thanks again for noting that you didn't quite get my points right. That really helps.

Great chatting!

Richard

heb13-13

10-17-2011, 09:41 PM

Good evening Rick, :yo:

I like your organized style. And I'm glad you invited me to refine your points a bit since most of them display a gross misunderstanding of my position. It's very helpful for you to state your perception of my position so I can see how I have failed to communicate clearly. Thanks! :thumb:

Hi Richard,

I'm glad I asked you to correct my misunderstandings, too! I read your corrections and will most definitely make note of them. This is a good levelset for me and you should not take it the way you did. I would say that you write with much clarity and it was obviously my error in perception and understanding. I'm not always at "rest" when reading the forum and am usually doing one or two other necessary things (like earning a living) at the time. But, that is my area to fix. I see that I have been grossly wrong on some points and I will try to make adjustments in how I read and understand. I very much appreciate your forbearance and patience with my misperceptions.

It looks like we've got a few things to talk about.

Of course, there is so much more. I do want you to know that I respect your beliefs and don't purposely dishonor you and for the times I have, I apologize.

Why not indeed. You are already an atheist relative to 99.999% of all gods ever proposed by the human race. Why not complete the set?

Well, I guess you are right in that respect. But, I don't think I will be "completing the set." :)

There are two meanings to the word "atheist."
A person who does not have a belief in any God.
A person who denies there is a god.
Definition 1 describes a person who honestly states that he does not believe in what he does not know.

Definition 2 describes a person who claims to have knowledge that he probably doesn't have. No one really knows if there is or is not a god.

I don't call myself an atheist even though I fit definition #1 because there is too much confusion around the definition. I don't claim to know there is no God - indeed, I'm inclined to think there might be a God though I have no knowledge that there is.

There are things I know Richard, but I cannot prove them to others. Herebyknow we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. (1John 4:13)

There are things in God's Word I have proven yet cannot make others know them. My life, like everyone else's is on a collision course with ultimate reality. We will all find what is behind curtain number 1, number 2 or number3. Right?
I'm also not an apologist and I guess by now you have found that out. :yo:
I never concerned myself with that and I just need to go back to my comfort zone and leave some of those threads alone. I'm a fish out of water when trying to be an apologist for God. I am here to fellowship with believers who want to know God through His Son Jesus Christ. I know they are here because I have read many posts. I am also here to learn and I have already learned a great deal. It's commendable that you don't ban those that disagree with you like other forums do.
I very much appreciate your compassion. Thank you. :anim_32:
Thanks again for noting that you didn't quite get my points right. That really helps. (Yeah, I obviously missed some big time, :eek: and thanks again for the clarification and all the time you put into explaining yourself).

Many blessings to you and Rose,
Rick

Great chatting!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

10-17-2011, 10:26 PM

heb13-13

10-18-2011, 04:42 AM

Great post my friend!

I agree completely - let's take a break from too much confrontational discourse - trying to prove this or that - and take a little while to chat and get to know each other.

Of course, it's totally fine if we find ourselves embroiled in the midst of a debate, since those things happen, and they can be both enjoyable and enlightening. But it's good to consciously cool down and take breather for a while. We both know the issues will there whenever we feel like attacking them again.

And besides, we both have to make a living. It looks like I'm gonna be a little busier than usual for the next week or maybe longer. We'll see.

So have a great day!

Enjoy the inner sunshine (or in your mode of understanding "ultimate reality", the inner Sonshine!).

:sunny:

Hey Richard,

I'm with you on that one. (take a break,,,chat, etc.) :anim_32:

Glad you got some extra work. I know what it is like to be an independent contractor. When one gig winds up you have to be looking for your next one (actually before it winds up).

Take care,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

10-18-2011, 08:30 AM

Hi Rose,

The thing about men is that that they grow up and want revenge for what was done to their tribe. First the Midianite men would have been outcasts and felt it and then revenge would have burned in their hearts.

You may want to look at this link. It has some good material. Maybe there is a better answer here for you.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html

All the best,
Rick
If the young girls could be assimilated into the Israeli culture, why not the young boys? If the young boys would seek revenge, why not the young girls? I see no justification for the assymmetry of your answer.

Unfortunately, we all know the assymetry of the treatment of the Midianite young people is based on the assymetry of the desires of men. They desired the young virgins as sexual objects. They had no such desire for the young boys. Therefore, they killed the young boys and enslaved the virgins. This seems just a little too obvious.

Furthermore, your answer ignores the prima facie evidence that Bronze age soldiers would typically rape and pillage their victims. Morality was not as well-developed as today (no Geneva convention). Why should we think the ancient Israelis were any different? The appeal to the "law" that God had given them doesn't work because the Israelis weren't obeying even the most basic element of the law - circumcision - during the exodus.

Joshua 5:4 And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the people who came out of Egypt who were males, all the men of war, died in the wilderness along the way, after they came out of Egypt. 5 For all the people who came out were circumcised, but all the people who were born in the wilderness along the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised. 6 For the sons of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, that is, the men of war who came out of Egypt, perished because they did not listen to the voice of the LORD, to whom the LORD had sworn that He would not let them see the land which the LORD had sworn to their fathers to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey.
How is it possible that God led the Israelites for 40 years though the desert, giving many direct commands through Moses, but never once chastised them for continuously and blatantly disobeying his most fundamental commandment that defined the covenant?

And what about God being true to his own word? He exclicitly declared that "the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant" (Genesis 17:14). Why didn't God enforce his law, but rather chose to overlooked it in complete silence for a span of 40 years?

heb13-13

10-18-2011, 08:49 AM

If the young girls could be assimilated into the Israeli culture, why not the young boys? If the young boys would seek revenge, why not the young girls? I see no justification for the assymmetry of your answer.

Unfortunately, we all know the assymetry of the treatment of the Midianite young people is based on the assymetry of the desires of men. They desired the young virgins as sexual objects. They had no such desire for the young boys. Therefore, they killed the young boys and enslaved the virgins. This seems just a little too obvious.

Furthermore, your answer ignores the prima facie evidence that Bronze age soldiers would typically rape and pillage their victims. Morality was not as well-developed as today (no Geneva convention). Why should we think the ancient Israelis were any different? The appeal to the "law" that God had given them doesn't work because the Israelis weren't obeying even the most basic element of the law - circumcision - during the exodus.

Joshua 5:4 And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the people who came out of Egypt who were males, all the men of war, died in the wilderness along the way, after they came out of Egypt. 5 For all the people who came out were circumcised, but all the people who were born in the wilderness along the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised. 6 For the sons of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, that is, the men of war who came out of Egypt, perished because they did not listen to the voice of the LORD, to whom the LORD had sworn that He would not let them see the land which the LORD had sworn to their fathers to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey.
How is it possible that God led the Israelites for 40 years though the desert, giving many direct commands through Moses, but never once chastised them for continuously and blatantly disobeying his most fundamental commandment that defined the covenant?

And what about God being true to his own word? He exclicitly declared that "the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant" (Genesis 17:14). Why didn't God enforce his law, but rather chose to overlooked it in complete silence for a span of 40 years?

Hi Richard,

I just don't see it that way. The Israeli men just saw what happened (plague) when they broke the law and fornicated with the Midianite women. There is no way after 24,000 died that they are going to turn around and rape the virgins, many of which were little girls (women children). Still, the virgins were innocent and were not allowed to die out in the wilderness by themselves since all the men were dead. You can look at it as mercy or sexual gratification with sex slaves. Obviously, there are two camps.

I still stand by what I think about the little boys. They were the seed of the Midianites and could produce more Midianites and rise up against Israel. Otherwise, why kill little boys? If you are going to kill little boys then why not kill the little girls, too. Plus, there is the "sins of the father visited upon future generations" at work here, too. Obviously, the little girls were not going to grow up and become a force of Amazons and rise against Israel.

Why did they not kill the little girls after they were finished with them? Why would they allow them to inhabit their camp for years and years being known as defiled whores? No, they were either used as servants or were given in marriage. The other stuff makes no sense to me, whatsoever. Remember, Moses himself was married to a Midianite and though Miriam did not approve (she was ironically turned white), God obviously approved.

The virgin little girls were not deemed a threat but the little boys were.

I don't know the answer to this but revenge seems to dispel more easily in the women's heart if they are loved and taken care of and treated nicely. And, we don't know what their quality of life was under the Midianite men. But, I see nothing in the Bible that implies they were taken as sex slaves for the soldiers. If they were, they would have been discarded as refuse, afterwards and we see nothing about that, either.

All the best,
Rick

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

10-18-2011, 09:41 AM

Hi Rose,
You may want to look at this link. It has some good material. Maybe there is a better answer here for you.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html
All the best,
Rick
Thanks Rick for the research and background study.
At the bottom of this article are two more links.
http://www.christianthinktank.com/midian.html
And;
http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/midianite.htm
From the first link you quoted.

Secondly, the accusation that these girls were for 'sex slave' purposes contradicts what we know about the culture and about the event.

1. Most girls were married soon/immediately after they began menstruating in the ANE (circa 12 years of age), and since infant and child mortality was so high, [B]the average age of the girls spared would have been around 5 years of age or slightly lower (life expectancy wasn’t a straight line, with childhood risks so high). Of all the horrible things ascribed to Israel in the OT, pedophilia is the one conspicuous omission. That these little kids would have been even considered as ‘sex slaves’ seems quite incongruent with their ages.

Part of the background includes that the Midianites had stemmed from or adopted the influence of Nimrod who's ways of rebellion and disbelief would not result in the positive ways of truth and life the Creator designed for it for mankind. The Israelites miraculous experiences, knowledge, and truth of one Creator God would be a threat to leaders [govts] of these peoples and their religions. It seems that the jealousies, false foundations, and insecurities of the other nations is as much what prompted the altercations.

It seems that Balaam did not directly support Balack's call for war against the Israelites, but indirectly masterminded a way to weaken their ranks possibly with the hopes of rendering them idolaters and powerless from God.

Moses asks Jethro's son to be their guide in the desert and offers to share the good things that God does (Num 10:29-32). Up to now everything is going well between the Israelites and the Midianites. The Israelites were no threat to the Midianites as they just wanted to pass through the land (Num 21:22).

What went wrong?

We get the start of the answer in Num 22:4

The leaders of the Midianites join with the Moabites to pay Balaam to curse God's people.

(Num 22:4-7 NIV) The Moabites said to the elders of Midian, "This horde is going to lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field." [An EXCUSE, since they wished to pass through] So Balak son of Zippor, who was king of Moab at that time, {5} sent messengers to summon Balaam son of Beor, who was at Pethor, near the River, in his native land. Balak said: "A people has come out of Egypt; they cover the face of the land and have settled next to me. {6} [B]Now come and put a curse on these people, because they are too powerful for me. Perhaps then I will be able to defeat them and drive them out of the country. For I know that those you bless are blessed, and those you curse are cursed." {7} The elders of Moab and Midian left, taking with them the fee for divination. When they came to Balaam, they told him what Balak had said.

Why was Balaam killed - didn't he bless Israel?

Balaam did follow God's instructions and blessed Israel instead of cursing it as Balak, the Moabite king, wanted him to (Num 24:10-11 - see ch. 22-24 for the whole story). However, following God was not habitual for Balaam: he often practiced sorcery (24:1) and in fact it was his idea to bring destruction on Israel by having the women lure the Israelites into sexual immorality and idolatry (31:15-16, Rev 2:14).

This would have required several thousand (maybe even over 10,000) foreign women, to have precipitated and effected such a large scale apostasy, in such a short period of time. And these women would have had to have traveled deliberately to do just this…

And it is here at this point that the treachery of the Midianites becomes visible in the narrative: this was deliberate strategy on the part of the Midianite leadership to use ‘sex’ as a weapon, and have Israel abandon the protection and life-source of their God.

The three articles go into alot of depth and background study in the scriptures and in other sources. Thanks very much again.

Again, there are questions of disbelief and condemnation, and questions of belief, genuine seeking and faith.

----------------------------------------------------------------

As a side note; In the reading of these articles an answer to another personal question that I was having may have surfaced.

It had wondered me where the apostles got their source of authority for the prophecies of a 'falling away' and apostacy before the 'end'. Many of us here believe 'the end' to be referring to the end of the mosaic covenant and the end of every rule and dominion including that of the Roman empire and other systems of unbelieving Govts.

It is my belief that the apostles letters were written to the original 30-70 AD audience and did not forecast and prophecy events beyond the end of the first century; even really beyond 70AD.
This perspective is contrary to the codified [forced?] interpretations of some of the surviving [censored?] writings of the ECF's and contrary to the perspectives of the dispensational futurists [among many others] who source their interpretations and authority from the ECF's. The apostles interpreted, commented, explained and clarified things from the OT and Jesus.

In at least 2 of the articles, this event with the Midianites is likened to the event of fabricating the golden calf and worshiping the idols of Egypt. The Midianite occurrence is at the latter end of the 40 yrs while the Golden Calf of the Egyptians is at the beginning. There doesn't seem to be much 'idolatry' in between, which the two articles also mention.

I'm introduced to the thought that this account of the Midianites; Balak and Balaam at the latter end of the 40 yrs of wandering in the wilderness and just before crossing Jordan, is the source for the apostles authority and foreknowledge that before the end there would come a latter day [65-70AD] falling away and apostacy to the roman/judean co-operative and political belief systems. The apostles had earlier separated from the idols of the mosaic covenant and the instructions of Moses which could be paralleled to the early idolotry after leaving egypt. The second apostacy would be the giving of alliance and allegience to the religious/political system of Rome which would be the latter apostacy and falling away of the gentile christians.

.

This would be the test for the believers in the nations to come separate from Roman authority and paganism as well as there being a continued pressure within mosaic covenant Judea.

Maybe we'll start a thread sometime to explore the similarities and of the lessons and instructions intended.

Thanks for this topic if only for this reason and answer.

Beck

10-18-2011, 10:23 AM

Hi Richard,

I just don't see it that way. The Israeli men just saw what happened (plague) when they broke the law and fornicated with the Midianite women. There is no way after 24,000 died that they are going to turn around and rape the virgins, many of which were little girls (women children). Still, the virgins were innocent and were not allowed to die out in the wilderness by themselves since all the men were dead. You can look at it as mercy or sexual gratification with sex slaves. Obviously, there are two camps.

I still stand by what I think about the little boys. They were the seed of the Midianites and could produce more Midianites and rise up against Israel. Otherwise, why kill little boys? If you are going to kill little boys then why not kill the little girls, too. Plus, there is the "sins of the father visited upon future generations" at work here, too. Obviously, the little girls were not going to grow up and become a force of Amazons and rise against Israel.

Why did they not kill the little girls after they were finished with them? Why would they allow them to inhabit their camp for years and years being known as defiled whores? No, they were either used as servants or were given in marriage. The other stuff makes no sense to me, whatsoever. Remember, Moses himself was married to a Midianite and though Miriam did not approve (she was ironically turned white), God obviously approved.

The virgin little girls were not deemed a threat but the little boys were.

I don't know the answer to this but revenge seems to dispel more easily in the women's heart if they are loved and taken care of and treated nicely. And, we don't know what their quality of life was under the Midianite men. But, I see nothing in the Bible that implies they were taken as sex slaves for the soldiers. If they were, they would have been discarded as refuse, afterwards and we see nothing about that, either.

All the best,
Rick

Hi Rick,

You make a good argument, but I was thinking would the Israelites be in keeping the women of the Midianties according to their customs and laws found in Deu.20:14 and Deu.22:29

heb13-13

10-18-2011, 10:35 AM

Hi Rick,

You make a good argument, but I was thinking would the Israelites be in keeping the women of the Midianties according to their customs and laws found in Deu.20:14 and Deu.22:29

Hi Beck,

Yes, I thought for sure that I cited those scriptures. Apparently not. I am getting confused with all these threads.

"Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days" (Deu 22:29).

Rick

Rose

10-18-2011, 03:16 PM

Hi Beck,

Yes, I thought for sure that I cited those scriptures. Apparently not. I am getting confused with all these threads.

"Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days" (Deu 22:29).

Rick

Hi Rick,

The verse you quoted is a very good example of the status of women in the Bible...they were considered property which was condoned by Yahweh. Here is the complete verse.
Deut. 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas)on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

In the verse above we see the Hebrew word taphas used for "lay hold", that word means to catch, seize, or take hold of...in other words if a man rapes a woman who is a virgin his punishment is to pay the virgins father 50 shekels because he has defiled the fathers property, and then the man is required to marry the woman he rapes and she can never be free from him :eek:

And you wonder why I think the Bible is biased toward the male?

Rose

heb13-13

10-18-2011, 03:45 PM

Hi Rick,

The verse you quoted is a very good example of the status of women in the Bible...they were considered property which was condoned by Yahweh. Here is the complete verse.

Deut. 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas)on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

In the verse above we see the Hebrew word taphas used for "lay hold", that word means to catch, seize, or take hold of...in other words if a man rapes a woman who is a virgin his punishment is to pay the virgins father 50 shekels because he has defiled the fathers property, and then the man is required to marry the woman he rapes and she can never be free from him :eek:

And you wonder why I think the Bible is biased toward the male?

Rose

Hi Rose,

You might have me confused with someone else. Did I say, I wondered why you thought "the Bible is biased toward the male?" I don't recall that.

Rick

Rose

10-18-2011, 04:23 PM

Hi Rose,

You might have me confused with someone else. Did I say, I wondered why you thought "the Bible is biased toward the male?" I don't recall that.

Rick

Hi Rick,

I just added that last line as a general thought not specifically addressed to you. Your quotation of Deut. 22 just brought those thoughts to mind, I wasn't meaning to particularly pick on you...:winking0071:

Rose

heb13-13

10-18-2011, 05:23 PM

Hi Rick,

I just added that last line as a general thought not specifically addressed to you. Your quotation of Deut. 22 just brought those thoughts to mind, I wasn't meaning to particularly pick on you...:winking0071:

Rose

:specool:

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

11-14-2011, 05:56 PM

Hi Peoples.
I've reflected on this topic a few days/weeks.

In response to the OP, I had mentioned that it is the false interpretations of dispensationalist/zionist that elevates genetic or national mosaic covenant "israel" to an superior rank above that which was temporarily and negatively intended by the giver of the covenant and the temporary purposes of the nation and it's inferior covenant. It is not Yahweh...... God himself who is or was 'racists' nor was the law his everlasting way.

If the analogy of Hitler to Yahweh is corrected to be an analogy of Hitlers [supremist race] and the erroneous dispensational, judaic, zionists interpretations of the elevation of mosaic law and supremacy or continuation of genetic or national "Israel", then who, in this analogy would have to be considered as "hitlers henchmen"??.

In August 7th of 1933, Samuel Untermyer made a speech boycotting (http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html) Germany in which he proclaimed the Jews as the "Aristocrates of the World"; I.E. a superior race. Sweet Liberty (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/hoax/unt.htm)has a few other influences of this Samual Untermyer including an influence over Cyrus Scofield and the Scofield Reference Bible (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/hoax/scofield.htm).

After the 2 world war Benjamin Freedmen (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm)noted similar concepts in his expose of the jewish influence and manipulations of the wars of Europe.

And in the present time, we see advirtizements on "Christian" tv stations for books which describe the humanitarian influence of prominent jewish poeple though history in an seeming attempt to elevate their discoveries above others. And we have the continual false futurists, Israel elevating interpretations of Rosenberg, Lahaye, Jefferies; Jeremiah....etc etc.. etc..

Thus, who, if the analogy is corrected to refer to the false zionist/dispensational interpretaions, have to be alluded to as Hitlers [supreme race, rather than all race of faith] mentality.???

Rose

11-14-2011, 07:39 PM

heb13-13

11-14-2011, 08:26 PM

Since we are calling the Hebrews "God's henchmen", does that would mean that non-Hebrews are Satan's henchmen?

Rick

Rose

11-14-2011, 09:03 PM

Since we are calling the Hebrews "God's henchmen", does that would mean that non-Hebrews are Satan's henchmen?

Rick

Hi Rick,

Well the parallelism doesn't quit fit since the comparison is between Yahweh and Hitler. The Old Testament is filled with Yahweh commanding the Hebrews to slaughter pagans, but there is not one case of Satan commanding the Gentiles to kill anyone.

Rose

heb13-13

11-14-2011, 09:13 PM

Hi Rick,

Well the parallelism doesn't quit fit since the comparison is between Yahweh and Hitler. The Old Testament is filled with Yahweh commanding the Hebrews to slaughter pagans, but there is not one case of Satan commanding the Gentiles to kill anyone.

Rose

Hi Rose,

That's only because you don't see him commanding people to attack the Hebrews. Satan's main deception is making people believe that he does not exist. He operates in "darkness". Do you know who wanted all the baby boys killed in Pharoah's time? And for what reason? Do you know who commanded all the baby boys to be killed in Bethlehem? What was the reason that these babies were to be killed? Why don't you think that nations that sacrificed humans to their idols would not be commanded by Satan to kill others?

Do you think that God is the one behind all these evil things (Pharoah and Herod)?

Why didn't Satan deceive Adam and Eve openly rather than cloak himself behind one of God's creations?

I'm sure you have an answer for this verse.

"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?" Acts 5:3

You don't think he "fills" people's hearts (minds) with temptations and commands?

Oh well, it's probably no use talking about Satan. You don't believe he exists anyway.

Blessings to you,
Rick

P.S. Love that autosave feature.

Rose

11-14-2011, 09:31 PM

Hi Rose,

That's only because you don't see him commanding people to attack the Hebrews. Satan's main deception is making people believe that he does not exist. He operates in "darkness". Do you know who wanted all the baby boys killed in Pharoah's time? And for what reason? Do you know who commanded all the baby boys to be killed in Bethlehem? What was the reason that these babies were to be killed? Why don't you think that nations that sacrificed humans to their idols would not be commanded by Satan to kill others?

Do you think that God is the one behind all these evil things (Pharoah and Herod)?

Why didn't Satan deceive Adam and Eve openly rather than cloak himself behind one of God's creations?

I'm sure you have an answer for this verse.

"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?" Acts 5:3

You don't think he "fills" people's hearts (minds) with temptations and commands?

Oh well, it's probably no use talking about Satan. You don't believe he exists anyway.

Blessings to you,
Rick

P.S. Love that autosave feature.

Hi Rick

First off I am only speaking of what the Bible actually says...and nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that Satan commanded anyone to slaughter anyone else. Even in the Garden story it is Yahweh who says that if Adam and Eve eat of the tree of Knowledge they will die; the serpent only tempts Eve and tells her they won't die if they eat of the fruit.

You are right, I don't believe in Satan, but I don't mind speaking of him in a biblical context :winking0071:

All the Best,
Rose

heb13-13

11-14-2011, 09:54 PM

Hi Rick

First off I am only speaking of what the Bible actually says...and nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that Satan commanded anyone to slaughter anyone else. Even in the Garden story it is Yahweh who says that if Adam and Eve eat of the tree of Knowledge they will die; the serpent only tempts Eve and tells her they won't die if they eat of the fruit.

You are right, I don't believe in Satan, but I don't mind speaking of him in a biblical context :winking0071:

All the Best,
Rose

Well, you have piqued my curiosity. So speaking in a biblical context, who is Satan here that Paul is referring to?

2Cor 11:13
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

2Co 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

2Co 11:15
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Thanks,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

11-14-2011, 10:18 PM

Well, you have peaked my curiosity. So speaking in a biblical context, who is Satan here that Paul is referring to?

2Cor 11:13
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

2Co 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

2Co 11:15
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Thanks,
Rick

I'd say he was talking about false teachers.

And one friend to another, you may enjoy the homonym of the day: piqued! :cool3:

You can't be too careful - folks have been known to throw ad hominems because of bad homonyms!

heb13-13

11-14-2011, 10:36 PM

I'd say he was talking about false teachers.

And one friend to another, you may enjoy the homonym of the day: piqued! :cool3:

You can't be too careful - folks have been known to throw ad hominems because of bad homonyms!

LOL. Thanks Richard. I fixed that. I have been know to be quite dyslexic in my writings, too.

Well, I had already guessed what your answer would be.

If there is no Satan then that changes everything. Yahweh, Jesus and the Apostles are all evil, merciless, mean, deranged men. Not to mention crazy.

All the best,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

11-15-2011, 12:13 AM

LOL. Thanks Richard. I fixed that. I have been know to be quite dyslexic in my writings, too.

Well, I had already guessed what your answer would be.

If there is no Satan then that changes everything. Yahweh, Jesus and the Apostles are all evil, merciless, mean, deranged men. Not to mention crazy.

All the best,
Rick
I've noticed an increasing habit of consistently interchanging homophones like their/there, no/know, hear/here, etc. The strange things is that I consistently do it and I notice other people do too.

But as for using those verses as "proof texts" for Satan - just look at what they say:
2Cor 11:13
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

See? Paul was talking about false teachers.

2Co 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

What does that mean? What was Paul talking about? When was Satan transformed into an angel of light? How are we supposed to really know what he meant?
2Co 11:15
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

And there he goes again, talking about false teachers. I don't understand why you didn't accept my answer. It seems pretty straight forward really.

Great chatting!

Richard

heb13-13

11-15-2011, 08:06 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

11-15-2011, 12:41 PM

Hi Richard,

Let me explain why I don't accept that Satan is a superstitious myth. If I did accept him as a myth, I would have to accept the Holy Spirit as myth, too.

Why does the Bible talk about a "Holy" Spirit? Could it be because there are "unholy" spirits? Why do we need to know the distinction?

Zec 13:2
And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.

Mar 1:26
And when the unclean spirithad torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.

If men can yield themselves to the Holy Spirit, then why would they not also have the choice to yield themselves to an unholy or unclean spirit?

Hey there Rick, :tea:

The fact that there can be a "Holy" Spirit of God says nothing about the literal existence demons called "unholy spirits." But of course, the Bible is filled with mythologies common to the ignorant people living thousands of years ago, so we should not be surprised if they got assumed that there were demons in the world causing diseases and madness and all sorts of other kinds of maladies. But we have some pretty good reasons to reject those old superstitions. For example, there is no reason to think that penicillin works by "driving out the demon of disease." But the fact that they were wrong about demons does not imply that they were wrong about everything.

So it really comes down to this - should I base my beliefs about the existence of metaphysical entities on a book filled with ancient mythologies or on evidence that I can test for myself?

Many Christians have struggled with the conflict between Science and Scripture by reinterpreting the latter. Indeed, you have done this too. You don't believe in a literal solid dome supporting the waters that are "above." You don't believe the earth is roughly ten thousand years old, right? So why hold to beliefs about demons?

The Holy Spirit produces fruit that man cannot produce. It is impossible to walk the Christian walk in our own strength. Without the Holy Spirit, men will give up or become one that takes advantage of others.

I understand that you believe this, but is there any evidence supporting your belief? It sounds like pure assertion to me. I've never seen any correlation between human character and religion. There are mystical Muslims every bit as peaceful and loving, if not more so, than many Christians.

Gal 5:5
For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

We have no hope without the Spirit of God. Absolutely impossible to be a Christian and we see what happens when people try to walk the Christian walk without intimacy with (Spirit-filled) God.

How did you determine if a person did or did not have "intimacy" with God? Again, your words sound like story-telling. Are they based on any evidence? Do you really believe that all people except a secret unidentifiable class of True Christians (the Crypto-Elect) are incapable of doing any good? If that is what you believe, can you give any reason to believe it?

And the Unholy Spirit produces his own fruit. Yes, Satan masquerades (demons, unholy spirits) and he can look like a real nice chap sometimes. Even a very "loving", "concerned" religious guy. But his fruit is always rotten and he will always draw men away from Jesus Christ.

But you only know after the fact. So you take 1000 people and group them according to their "fruit." Will you find any correlation with the religion they profess? I doubt it. Therefore, your criterion of "fruit" does not distinguish Christians from anyone else and you believe seems to be unjustified.

Our flesh nature is the nature of Satan, too. When Adam and Eve fell, they yielded themselves up to the unholy spirit of the serpent. Their flesh nature then took on the nature of Satan.

:stop: Where did you get that idea? There is nothing in the Bible that says the "nature" of their flesh was "changed" by the fall at all, let alone into the nature of "Satan." You really should check out my thread called Sin Nature - the phlogiston of Christian theology? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?13-Sin-Nature-the-phlogiston-of-Christian-Theology) where I make my case that there ain't no such thing.

These works of the flesh are the manifested nature of Satan in men.

Gal 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

Gal 5:20
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

John 8:44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: (draws men away from Christ to himself) for he is a liar, and the father of it.

I can write more later, but need to go.

Have a great day,
Rick

Yes, I agree that the "flesh" unguided by the Spirit leads to all those sins. And I think that "Satan" is a fine symbol for "sin and wickedness" in general. But literalizing the metaphor of evil leads to error, I believe.

Great chatting, my friend!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

11-15-2011, 12:51 PM

Surfing for something else and found this page which is very relevant to our conversation. It's from the homepage of www.RealDevil.info: (http://www.RealDevil.info:)
A Radical Challenge

The Real Devil analyzes Bible teaching about the devil, satan and demons, concluding that 'satan' ['adversary'] and 'devil' ['false accuser'] do not refer to a personal satan, dragon, or spirit being; but rather to any opposing force, and often to the power of sin and evil. Satan doesn't exist as a personal being- but rather the human heart, we ourselves, are the ultimate source of sin.

Colossal Implications

This means that Angels don't sin; that the death of Jesus overcame the power of sin within us; that there is nobody else to blame for sin apart from ourselves. The problem of the origin of evil is massive; so huge that many have taken a 10 cent answer to the million dollar question, blaming it on a legendary, fictional being. But the Bible is silent as to the existence of such a being. If God is alone as the source of all power and creation- whence, then, the evil that fills our lives and world? How are we to understand, cope with and overcome sin and evil? No serious searcher for truth, no Bible student of integrity, will fail to be stimulated by this study- even if they initially struggle with some of the conclusions. Either read through, or have a look at the contents (http://www.realdevil.info/devilcontents.htm) and dip in to what interests you- and remember, these studies are also available as MP3 audio files.

heb13-13

11-15-2011, 04:00 PM

Hey there Rick, :tea:

The fact that there can be a "Holy" Spirit of God says nothing about the literal existence demons called "unholy spirits." But of course, the Bible is filled with mythologies common to the ignorant people living thousands of years ago, so we should not be surprised if they got assumed that there were demons in the world causing diseases and madness and all sorts of other kinds of maladies. But we have some pretty good reasons to reject those old superstitions. For example, there is no reason to think that penicillin works by "driving out the demon of disease." But the fact that they were wrong about demons does not imply that they were wrong about everything.

So it really comes down to this - should I base my beliefs about the existence of metaphysical entities on a book filled with ancient mythologies or on evidence that I can test for myself?

What do you think about the Holy Spirit? Do you regard it as a "metaphysical entity"? Do you consider that it can be "tested"?

Many Christians have struggled with the conflict between Science and Scripture by reinterpreting the latter. Indeed, you have done this too. You don't believe in a literal solid dome supporting the waters that are "above." You don't believe the earth is roughly ten thousand years old, right? So why hold to beliefs about demons?

Because they are real? Have you never seen a demon manifest? That is when the metaphysical becomes real. Have you never seen the Holy Spirit manifest? Again, the "metaphysical" becomes real.

I understand that you believe this, but is there any evidence supporting your belief? It sounds like pure assertion to me. I've never seen any correlation between human character and religion. There are mystical Muslims every bit as peaceful and loving, if not more so, than many Christians.

I am sure you are right. Most Christians exhibit the flesh nature of Satan.

How did you determine if a person did or did not have "intimacy" with God? Again, your words sound like story-telling. Are they based on any evidence? Do you really believe that all people except a secret unidentifiable class of True Christians (the Crypto-Elect) are incapable of doing any good? If that is what you believe, can you give any reason to believe it?

Many ways to test the spirits and tell if someone "knows" the Lord, but then I have a story to tell you where someone was betrayed after 20 years by a close brother. You never really know what might "turn" a man away from Christ, do you? It is very interesting and I will tell you about soon.
2Ti 2:19
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

:stop: Where did you get that idea? There is nothing in the Bible that says the "nature" of their flesh was "changed" by the fall at all, let alone into the nature of "Satan." You really should check out my thread called Sin Nature - the phlogiston of Christian theology? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?13-Sin-Nature-the-phlogiston-of-Christian-Theology) where I make my case that there ain't no such thing.

No, what I mean is the flesh nature (works of the flesh) exhibit the nature of Satan. Remember we are either conformed to the image of Christ or the image of Satan depending on who our Father is. Jesus told the pharisees that their father was the devil and they certainly behaved like the Devil's children. I read your phlogiston, by the way. Very good. I don't believe in two natures, either.

Yes, I agree that the "flesh" unguided by the Spirit leads to all those sins.

So, you do believe in the "metaphysical" spirit! How did you verify it? Or maybe I should ask, what is it that you actually believe about the Holy Spirit?

And I think that "Satan" is a fine symbol for "sin and wickedness" in general. But literalizing the metaphor of evil leads to error, I believe.

Jesus and the Apostles never said Satan was a metaphor. Are you saying that He was talking to himself, when he was in the desert for 40 days? Why didn't Peter say to Ananias and Sapphira, "why has sin filled your heart" instead of being so dramatic and saying "why has Satan filled thine heart"? Maybe because they receive a spirit of lust and greed. When Jesus told the Pharisees "You are of your father the Devil", they must have thought Jesus was crazy. I can see it now, they start asking each other if they know of someone named "Devil". "Hey, do you know who he is talking about"? Actually, they knew who the Devil was and were quite incensed. So you think He was really saying "you are of your father, the sin" or "the flesh". Why didn't Jesus just say "you love to live in the flesh" or "You love sin", instead of "you are of your father the devil"?

It doesn't make sense for Jesus and the Apostles to get so dramatic. Reminds me of many of today's preachers. You want to see demons in action? Watch TBN.

Great chatting, my friend!

Richard

Yes, it is always very interesting.

Rick

heb13-13

11-15-2011, 04:47 PM

Rose

11-15-2011, 05:51 PM

Hi Richard,

Each person must repent of their own sin. In other words I cannot repent for your sin.

Each person must:

1) receive truth which will expose the sin (deception) in their life
2) once truth is received and deception exposed then one can understand how they gave ground to that sin
3) they must repent of their own sin and not give ground to it again.

With this in mind. If the Devil is a metaphor for sin, then how can one cast out the sin in another person?

Act 16:16
And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

Act 16:18
And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

Since we cannot cast sin out of someone else, what is Paul casting out of this woman?

Thanks in advance,
Rick

Hi Rick

My questions to you in response to your three statements of what each person must do:

1) receive truth which will expose the sin (deception) in their life. How does one know they have received the truth? Every Christian who has received an interpretation of what the Bible means will tell you they have the truth, but they are using their own understanding to discern that. The same holds true for what may or may not be a sin in someones life.

2) once truth is received and deception exposed then one can understand how they gave ground to that sin. Again the question is how does one know for sure that what they think the truth is isn't a deception, especially concerning personal things? There are as many variations of the "truth" as there are Christians and what is a sin in one denomination may not be a sin in another.

3) they must repent of their own sin and not give ground to it again. What if what they are repenting of is actually not a sin and they have been deceived into thinking it is a sin by another deceived Christian? We must remember that everyone who has ever started a new denomination has done so because they have thought that they received a true interpretation. It all comes down to using our own minds to decide what is right or wrong by using the Golden Rule, "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you".

All the Best,
Rose

heb13-13

11-15-2011, 07:05 PM

Hi Rick

My questions to you in response to your three statements of what each person must do:

1) receive truth which will expose the sin (deception) in their life. How does one know they have received the truth? Every Christian who has received an interpretation of what the Bible means will tell you they have the truth, but they are using their own understanding to discern that. The same holds true for what may or may not be a sin in someones life.

2) once truth is received and deception exposed then one can understand how they gave ground to that sin. Again the question is how does one know for sure that what they think the truth is isn't a deception, especially concerning personal things? There are as many variations of the "truth" as there are Christians and what is a sin in one denomination may not be a sin in another.

3) they must repent of their own sin and not give ground to it again. What if what they are repenting of is actually not a sin and they have been deceived into thinking it is a sin by another deceived Christian? We must remember that everyone who has ever started a new denomination has done so because they have thought that they received a true interpretation. It all comes down to using our own minds to decide what is right or wrong by using the Golden Rule, "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you".

All the Best,
Rose

Hi Rose,

I don't have any problem with you answering my questions with questions but before I get into your new questions would you mind answering my other questions. (Whew! I'm tongue-tied now). :D

So, here it is again.

Each person must repent of their own sin. In other words I cannot repent for your sin.

With this in mind. If the Devil is a metaphor for sin, then how can one cast out the sin in another person?

Act 16:16
And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

Act 16:18
And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

Since we cannot cast sin out of someone else, what is Paul casting out of this woman?

Thanks again,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

11-15-2011, 07:08 PM

What do you think about the Holy Spirit? Do you regard it as a "metaphysical entity"? Do you consider that it can be "tested"?

We have been talking about the existence of Satan within the context of Christianity. I was trying to explain how a person could be a Christian who believes in the Holy Spirit but not a literal Satan.

As for my own beliefs, they are up in the air, as you might have noticed. :winking0071:

But if there is a God, I would think of the Spirit of that God as having an aspect that we humans call "holy." But what does that really mean? I'm not sure. The real meaning of the idea of "holy" is not that clear. In one sense, it's just means "separated" for some purpose. Things are "holy" if they are wholy devoted to God. But that doesn't tell us much about what the word really means, especially if we are talking about the "Holy" Spirit which is simply identified as the "Spirit of God" in the Bible.

Many Christians have struggled with the conflict between Science and Scripture by reinterpreting the latter. Indeed, you have done this too. You don't believe in a literal solid dome supporting the waters that are "above." You don't believe the earth is roughly ten thousand years old, right? So why hold to beliefs about demons?
Because they are real? Have you never seen a demon manifest? That is when the metaphysical becomes real. Have you never seen the Holy Spirit manifest? Again, the "metaphysical" becomes real.

No, I can't say that I've ever seen a demon "manifest." What do you mean by that? Physical manifestation that could be measured with scientific instruments? Or are you talking about a subjective feeling the like the hairs rising on your back like the "heebie jeebies?"

None of the feelings I associate with the Holy Spirit are unique to that experience. The "Holy Ghost Bumps" as I used to call them happen when I listen to really movng music or have some profound insite into reality.

I am sure you are right. Most Christians exhibit the flesh nature of Satan.

What do you mean by that? Satan is supposedly a fallen spirit. How can he have a "flesh nature?" And what is a "flesh nature" anyway? Is it not merely the physcial vs. the spirit?

Many ways to test the spirits and tell if someone "knows" the Lord, but then I have a story to tell you where someone was betrayed after 20 years by a close brother. You never really know what might "turn" a man away from Christ, do you? It is very interesting and I will tell you about soon.
2Ti 2:19
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Yes, God knows everything, but we don't. You have been talking about things that we humans are supposed to be able to know, such as if we have the truth or not. Is there a difference between a believing faithful Muslim vs. a believing faithful Christian vs. a believing faithul Catholic vs. a ... you get the idea. Appealing to the idea that God knows the true believers is no different than talking about Allah knowing who are the true Muslims.

Jesus and the Apostles never said Satan was a metaphor. Are you saying that He was talking to himself, when he was in the desert for 40 days? Why didn't Peter say to Ananias and Sapphira, "why has sin filled your heart" instead of being so dramatic and saying "why has Satan filled thine heart"? Maybe because they receive a spirit of lust and greed. When Jesus told the Pharisees "You are of your father the Devil", they must have thought Jesus was crazy. I can see it now, they start asking each other if they know of someone named "Devil". "Hey, do you know who he is talking about"? Actually, they knew who the Devil was and were quite incensed. So you think He was really saying "you are of your father, the sin" or "the flesh". Why didn't Jesus just say "you love to live in the flesh" or "You love sin", instead of "you are of your father the devil"?

It doesn't make sense for Jesus and the Apostles to get so dramatic. Reminds me of many of today's preachers. You want to see demons in action? Watch TBN.

Oh, it makes plenty of senes that Jesus would be so "dramatic." How often do you see a person walking around with a plank of wood in his eye? Hyperbole is veru common in the teaching of Christ and the Apostles.

Jesus never said anything was a "metaphor." This point seems kinda silly.

As for what he experienced during the "Temptation" - I see no reason it could not have had something to do with his own response to temptations presented in a vision. I see no reason there had to be a literal, personal devil "tempting" him.

And when Peter asked "Why has Satan filled your heart?" I see no reason it could not speak of the sin that entered their hearts.

And called the Jews who opposed him "sons of the devil" actually proves he was not talking about a literal "Satan" unless you are advocating the Serpent Seed doctrine.

Great chatting!

Richrd

heb13-13

11-15-2011, 07:12 PM

We have been talking about the existence of Satan within the context of Christianity. I was trying to explain how a person could be a Christian who believes in the Holy Spirit but not a literal Satan.

As for my own beliefs, they are up in the air, as you might have noticed. :winking0071:

But if there is a God, I would think of the Spirit of that God as having an aspect that we humans call "holy." But what does that really mean? I'm not sure. The real meaning of the idea of "holy" is not that clear. In one sense, it's just means "separated" for some purpose. Things are "holy" if they are wholy devoted to God. But that doesn't tell us much about what the word really means, especially if we are talking about the "Holy" Spirit which is simply identified as the "Spirit of God" in the Bible.

No, I can't say that I've ever seen a demon "manifest." What do you mean by that? Physical manifestation that could be measured with scientific instruments? Or are you talking about a subjective feeling the like the hairs rising on your back like the "heebie jeebies?"

None of the feelings I associate with the Holy Spirit are unique to that experience. The "Holy Ghost Bumps" as I used to call them happen when I listen to really movng music or have some profound insite into reality.

What do you mean by that? Satan is supposedly a fallen spirit. How can he have a "flesh nature?" And what is a "flesh nature" anyway? Is it not merely the physcial vs. the spirit?

Yes, God knows everything, but we don't. You have been talking about things that we humans are supposed to be able to know, such as if we have the truth or not. Is there a difference between a believing faithful Muslim vs. a believing faithful Christian vs. a believing faithul Catholic vs. a ... you get the idea. Appealing to the idea that God knows the true believers is no different than talking about Allah knowing who are the true Muslims.

Oh, it makes plenty of senes that Jesus would be so "dramatic." How often do you see a person walking around with a plank of wood in his eye? Hyperbole is veru common in the teaching of Christ and the Apostles.

Jesus never said anything was a "metaphor." This point seems kinda silly.

As for what he experienced during the "Temptation" - I see no reason it could not have had something to do with his own response to temptations presented in a vision. I see no reason there had to be a literal, personal devil "tempting" him.

And when Peter asked "Why has Satan filled your heart?" I see no reason it could not speak of the sin that entered their hearts.

And called the Jews who opposed him "sons of the devil" actually proves he was not talking about a literal "Satan" unless you are advocating the Serpent Seed doctrine.

Great chatting!

Richrd

Ok then, what about my question to Rose? What was Paul casting of that woman?

Thanks,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

11-15-2011, 07:18 PM

Hi Richard,

Each person must repent of their own sin. In other words I cannot repent for your sin.

Each person must:

1) receive truth which will expose the sin (deception) in their life
2) once truth is received and deception exposed then one can understand how they gave ground to that sin
3) they must repent of their own sin and not give ground to it again.

With this in mind. If the Devil is a metaphor for sin, then how can one cast out the sin in another person?

Act 16:16
And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

Act 16:18
And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

Since we cannot cast sin out of someone else, what is Paul casting out of this woman?

Thanks in advance,
Rick

Yes, that is a good example of how it seems that the Bible teaches there are literal demons. But the Bible also teaches other things that are not true, such as the earth having pillars, and a dome and all that. So we can't base our beliefs merely on what we think the Bible says about the nature of reality. And if you say that you do, then you will open yourself to charges of inconsistency since the Bible says many things that you don't actually believe.

But Christians who fell a need to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture can do so in this case like any other. They simply have to reinterpret the verse to fit their view of reality. It's just like the sold dome "firmament" that's holding up the waters that are above. People back then really believed there was such a dome. You don't, so you reinterpret the Bible to fit your beliefs. Shocking, isn't it? After all these years thinking that you have been basing your beliefs on the Bible, you find that you are basing your interpretation of the Bible on your beliefs? Of course, it is a complex inteplay between your beleifs vs. what the Bible "really" says.

I'm glad to be working with you on this.

Richard

heb13-13

11-15-2011, 09:18 PM

Yes, that is a good example of how it seems that the Bible teaches there are literal demons. But the Bible also teaches other things that are not true, such as the earth having pillars, and a dome and all that. So we can't base our beliefs merely on what we think the Bible says about the nature of reality. And if you say that you do, then you will open yourself to charges of inconsistency since the Bible says many things that you don't actually believe.

Hi Richard,

Your reasoning powers never cease to amaze me. I guess you probably could say the same thing about me.:winking0071: First Rose says that she will only deal with what is written in the Bible. For our discussion it happens to be the Old Testament and she does not see any mention of demons. But there is a mention of demons many times in the New Testament however the way you handle that is to say they are either a metaphor for sin or evil. But, in the case of Paul actually casting out a "demon" you say that because the Bible teaches "many things that are not true", then you reserve the right to say that something is not true if you cannot explain it. And in this case, Paul casting out a demon, is simply not true (or cannot be explained).

But Christians who fell a need to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture can do so in this case like any other. They simply have to reinterpret the verse to fit their view of reality. It's just like the sold dome "firmament" that's holding up the waters that are above. People back then really believed there was such a dome. You don't, so you reinterpret the Bible to fit your beliefs. Shocking, isn't it? After all these years thinking that you have been basing your beliefs on the Bible, you find that you are basing your interpretation of the Bible on your beliefs? Of course, it is a complex inteplay between your beleifs vs. what the Bible "really" says.

The Bible did not say what was holding up the waters above the firmament. Many postulate, but there is no proof.

Gen 1:7
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Some believe it refers to a vapor canopy that existed in pre-flood days, creating a tropical greenhouse effect for the beautiful environment of the planet. Those that hold this view believe that the vapor canopy collapsed at the time of the flood, explaining the tremendous volume of water that was dumped on the earth. They would see the statement of Gen 7:11, "and the windows of heaven were opened," as proof of this veiw concerning the "waters above the firmament."

There is no way to prove this. The volume of water necessary for the universal flood of Genesis does not need to come from a torrential rainfall. Perhaps the "waters above the firmament" are the same as a later reference to the rain God brings (Psalm 148:4, 104:13). But before the rain ever came upon the planet, God placed "waters above the firmament." What is meant by this we cannot say with certainty. Bible believers remain confident of this one fact - there were "waters above the firmament"!

There are many things we don't understand but to discount something as not being true or is a myth and superstition seems the wrong way to go about trying to understand something.

I'm glad to be working with you on this.

Richard

Regarding Satan and Sin. Why do people do what they do? That is a fundamental question. The temptation of Adam and Eve resulted in their fall. Their fall was a plunge into moral and spiritual depravity and a new attitude of selfishness and rebellion against the God Who made them. What caused all this to happen when everything seemed so special and wonderful in the garded of Eden.

God was not the cause of Adam and Eve's temptation, either. James 1:13-15 makes this point quite clear:

Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

The Bible tells us in Hebrews 6:18 that it is impossible for God to lie. God does not sin and neither does He tempt any human being to sin.

Man was not the cause of the temptation. Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil (according to the opening verses of Genesis 3) until they ate of the fruit of the tree. Romans 5:12 tells us that sin "entered" the world through the disobedience of Adam. That implies that the cause was someone or something other than Adam himself. I am not trying to get Adam "off the hook." He sinned, and that is clear. However, he is not the cause of his own temptation and neither is Eve the cause (though some men like to believe that the woman is responsible for the temptation!). Eve was tempted, but she is not the cause of her own temptation.

The devil was the original cause of the temptation. Genesis 3 does not mention the Devil or call him by his name Satan. It refers to a Serpent. Second Corinthians 11:3 states that the "serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty" and Revelation 12:9 speak of "the great dragon" that was cast out of heaven and calls him "that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth and his angels were cast out with him."

The deceiver of the whole world is the devil or Satan. The fact that he appeared as a beautiful animal and talked to Eve is no surprise. He is able to transform himself into various forms, including human appearances, in order to accomplish his wicked schemes (2 Cor 11:13-15). Ephesians 6 speaks of the "wiles of the devil" (v. 11) and of the "fiery darts of the enemy" (v. 16).

Jesus calls Satan a "murderer" and a "liar" (John 8:44). The apostle John says, "He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning" (1 John 3:8). Paul calls him the "god of this age" who blinds us to the truth of the gospel (2 Cor 4:4) and the "prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:2). The Bible tells us that the result of his work is that we seek to fulfill the desires of the flesh and the mind.

While we are all responsible for the choices we make in life, and are thus accountable to God, the temptations are the work of the enemy, the devil. He will bait us and entice us with a multitude of attractive and alluring sights and activities. He deceives us into thinking that these things are not harmful or destructive. But never forget, he is also called "Abaddon" -- the Destroyer (Rev 9:11), and his motive is to ruin your life and not to bless you.

The ability to become a Christian is based on the power of God to "turn the lights on" so to speak. The importance of God creating the light is emphasized by the apostle Paul:

2Co 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

The same God who spoke light into existence can do the same in the human heart.

I hope you find all the "evidences" that you are seeking.

Blessings to you,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

11-16-2011, 02:35 AM

Hi Richard,

Your reasoning powers never cease to amaze me. I guess you probably could say the same thing about me.:winking0071:

Ah, crap man! You are making both of us blush with such comments! <snicker>

But yeah, I love your rationality. And your passion. I can relate to both.

First Rose says that she will only deal with what is written in the Bible. For our discussion it happens to be the Old Testament and she does not see any mention of demons. But there is a mention of demons many times in the New Testament however the way you handle that is to say they are either a metaphor for sin or evil. But, in the case of Paul actually casting out a "demon" you say that because the Bible teaches "many things that are not true", then you reserve the right to say that something is not true if you cannot explain it. And in this case, Paul casting out a demon, is simply not true (or cannot be explained).

I can see why you might feel dizzy! :dizzy: I didn't mean to make your head spin. The first thing to know is that Rose's posts are independent from mine. Often I don't know she posted for maybe a day because we often don't talk about it. So if you think her thoughts are mine, you might be mistaken. And that can make for a lot of confusion. But we are all independent thinkers, even Rose and me. That's why love is so imporant. It transcends our differences.

The Bible did not say what was holding up the waters above the firmament. Many postulate, but there is no proof.

Gen 1:7
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Some believe it refers to a vapor canopy that existed in pre-flood days, creating a tropical greenhouse effect for the beautiful environment of the planet. Those that hold this view believe that the vapor canopy collapsed at the time of the flood, explaining the tremendous volume of water that was dumped on the earth. They would see the statement of Gen 7:11, "and the windows of heaven were opened," as proof of this veiw concerning the "waters above the firmament."

There is no way to prove this. The volume of water necessary for the universal flood of Genesis does not need to come from a torrential rainfall. Perhaps the "waters above the firmament" are the same as a later reference to the rain God brings (Psalm 148:4, 104:13). But before the rain ever came upon the planet, God placed "waters above the firmament." What is meant by this we cannot say with certainty. Bible believers remain confident of this one fact - there were "waters above the firmament"!

There are many things we don't understand but to discount something as not being true or is a myth and superstition seems the wrong way to go about trying to understand something.

Personally, I can't understand why you would want to entertain such speculative scenarios, but that's OK, we all have our points of view.

But my point stands - there are things in the Bible that seem superstitious, mythological, falacious, and all that. Or do you deny this point? Do you think that the Bible really is completely consistent with modern science?

Regarding Satan and Sin. Why do people do what they do? That is a fundamental question. The temptation of Adam and Eve resulted in their fall. Their fall was a plunge into moral and spiritual depravity and a new attitude of selfishness and rebellion against the God Who made them. What caused all this to happen when everything seemed so special and wonderful in the garded of Eden.

God was not the cause of Adam and Eve's temptation, either. James 1:13-15 makes this point quite clear:

Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

The Bible tells us in Hebrews 6:18 that it is impossible for God to lie. God does not sin and neither does He tempt any human being to sin.

First, you are making a huge unjustified assumption about the Bible. You are assuming that it is "The Word of God' whereas there is no place in the Bible it says this. So then you say that anything written in the Bible (and properly understood, of course) is the very "WORD OF GOD." But it is that little parenthetical comment (and properly understood) that is the fly in the ointment! Who is doing the "understanding?" You and I and everyone else. There is no "God" doing the "undertanding" for us, as far as anyone can tell, anyway.

Second, you can bounce James 1:13 off of Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am." And then you can argue about the meaning of "tempt" in James vs. Genesis. But then you suddenly realize that you are admitting that there is no simple or single meaning to the text. It's meaning must be debated. There are many possibilities. That's what's been happening to me. I'm seeing that there is a much wider range of possibilities than I used to think ...

Man was not the cause of the temptation. Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil (according to the opening verses of Genesis 3) until they ate of the fruit of the tree. Romans 5:12 tells us that sin "entered" the world through the disobedience of Adam. That implies that the cause was someone or something other than Adam himself. I am not trying to get Adam "off the hook." He sinned, and that is clear. However, he is not the cause of his own temptation and neither is Eve the cause (though some men like to believe that the woman is responsible for the temptation!). Eve was tempted, but she is not the cause of her own temptation.

The devil was the original cause of the temptation. Genesis 3 does not mention the Devil or call him by his name Satan. It refers to a Serpent. Second Corinthians 11:3 states that the "serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty" and Revelation 12:9 speak of "the great dragon" that was cast out of heaven and calls him "that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth and his angels were cast out with him."

The deceiver of the whole world is the devil or Satan. The fact that he appeared as a beautiful animal and talked to Eve is no surprise. He is able to transform himself into various forms, including human appearances, in order to accomplish his wicked schemes (2 Cor 11:13-15). Ephesians 6 speaks of the "wiles of the devil" (v. 11) and of the "fiery darts of the enemy" (v. 16).

Wow ... the way you tell the story makes it all the less believable. No offense, but it just doesn't sound real to me. Maybe I can say it more clearly tomorrow.

Jesus calls Satan a "murderer" and a "liar" (John 8:44). The apostle John says, "He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning" (1 John 3:8). Paul calls him the "god of this age" who blinds us to the truth of the gospel (2 Cor 4:4) and the "prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:2). The Bible tells us that the result of his work is that we seek to fulfill the desires of the flesh and the mind.

I think your citation of 1 John 3:8 is pretty good. But 2 Cor 4:4 is not so good since some Christians (Calvinists) see the "God" in that verse as the true God.

But in general, I think that the Bible does clearly teach that demons are real. And that's one reason I think it is wrong. There may be "vortices" in the mnd that account for what once were called "demons" but if so, I stil have no need to "believe" in the metaphysical beings you call "demons."

While we are all responsible for the choices we make in life, and are thus accountable to God, the temptations are the work of the enemy, the devil. He will bait us and entice us with a multitude of attractive and alluring sights and activities. He deceives us into thinking that these things are not harmful or destructive. But never forget, he is also called "Abaddon" -- the Destroyer (Rev 9:11), and his motive is to ruin your life and not to bless you.

The ability to become a Christian is based on the power of God to "turn the lights on" so to speak. The importance of God creating the light is emphasized by the apostle Paul:

2Co 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

The same God who spoke light into existence can do the same in the human heart.

I hope you find all the "evidences" that you are seeking.

Blessings to you,
Rick

Well, if the ability to become a Christian depends upon God choosing to do something, there's nothing we can do, eh?

Great chatting,

Richard

RC Christian

11-16-2011, 11:48 PM

Too myopic? Are you saying that Rose should have compared Yahweh with all the murderous tyrants of history?

Yes! Every last one of them, damn it! Rose needs to quit cherry-picking her diabolical comparisons! Comments like that just slay me!

Actually, I was thinking about another and somewhat different similarity:

Hitler destroyed lots of Jews...

Yahweh...destroyed lots of Jews...especially when crazy old David wanted to start counting heads...whoa!!! Baaddd idea!

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

11-19-2011, 02:44 PM

In keeping with the parallels I drew in the opening post between Yahweh and Hitler, I would have to answer your question by saying that since Hitlers henchmen were the people of the German army who carried out his commands, than Yahweh's henchmen would be the Hebrews who carried out Yahweh's commands.

Rose
Yes, I would disagree with your comparison and parallel.

It was exposed in the discussion in this thread that God called the temporary mosoaic covenant and the temporal [racists] nation the 'way that was not good' and that the everlasting covenant established from Creation and before the mosaic covenant was international and non-racist.
There furthermore was specific reasons for the examples you gave and asked about which were discussed and studied in the links that the one fellow gave in this thread.

There was much commentary on this topic with Richard even using Pauls quotes from Is 65 to show that Paul taught this same way. The "new fulfilled everlasting covenant' [new to them] is not militant, but contrarily 'NOT LIKE" the mosaic covenant.

But at the same time, and as I tried to explain in the first few responses to you in this thread, it is the present dispenstional/zionist/futurist false and MIS-interpretations that still elevate some form of national or ethnic Jewishness or Israel to a superior race, or nation status...[not that they individually would be any inferior]..... Using Your analogy, it is the futurist camps, NOT YaHwey/Jesus, who STILL pine for and promote war, killing and the superiority and restoration of the jewish pre-minence. They, along with the futurist bible colleges; would be [in comparative parallel with your using 'Hitlers' example] the 'henchmen' or diseminators of such superiorist perspectives . The preterists know differently.

Renald Showers futurist interpretations and commentaries on Daniel, such as 'a most high God' fit into this category.

CWH

11-19-2011, 06:02 PM

Yes, I would disagree with your comparison and parallel.

It was exposed in the discussion in this thread that God called the temporary mosoaic covenant and the temporal [racists] nation the 'way that was not good' and that the everlasting covenant established from Creation and before the mosaic covenant was international and non-racist.
There furthermore was specific reasons for the examples you gave and asked about which were discussed and studied in the links that the one fellow gave in this thread.

There was much commentary on this topic with Richard even using Pauls quotes from Is 65 to show that Paul taught this same way. The "new fulfilled everlasting covenant' [new to them] is not militant, but contrarily 'NOT LIKE" the mosaic covenant.

But at the same time, and as I tried to explain in the first few responses to you in this thread, it is the present dispenstional/zionist/futurist false and MIS-interpretations that still elevate some form of national or ethnic Jewishness or Israel to a superior race, or nation status...[not that they individually would be any inferior]..... Using Your analogy, it is the futurist camps, NOT YaHwey/Jesus, who STILL pine for and promote war, killing and the superiority and restoration of the jewish pre-minence. They, along with the futurist bible colleges; would be [in comparative parallel with your using 'Hitlers' example] the 'henchmen' or diseminators of such superiorist perspectives . The preterists know differently.

Renald Showers futurist interpretations and commentaries on Daniel, such as 'a most high God' fit into this category.

What are you talking about?
Futurists do not support wars and killings, in fact, we want them to end. Did Jesus supported wars, destructions and sufferings just because He talked about them in Matthew 24 and in other parts of the Gospels? So were the apostles and OT prophets. Mind you, Jesus, the apostles and all prophets were Futurists.

Wars, killings, crimes, evils, sufferings has been occurring since the time of Adam and Eve, when will they ever end? This is a reality...or are we supposed to deceive ourselves, "There is peace, peace, peace, world peace since Adam and Eve till now"? It is better to face reality and deal with the problems than to live in a world of self-fulfilling prophesies.

Of course, wars, evils, crimes, suffering, pain will one day end but not through human hands. Unlike some people who believe and perhaps wish sin will never end, futurists believe sin will also one day end forever but only with God's intervention.

May God, grant us Peace and Grace. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

11-19-2011, 08:51 PM

Mind you, Jesus, the apostles and all prophets were Futurists.

That's cute, but it's not exactly true.
Luke 4:17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: 18 "The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; 19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD." 20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

And the Apostles frequently said that the prophecies had been fulfilled back then in the first century, just like all good Preterists:

Matthew 1:22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."
Matthew 2:14 When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, 15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son."
Matthew 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying: 18 "A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, Refusing to be comforted, Because they are no more."
Matthew 4:13 And leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, 14 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: 15 "The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles: 16 The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, And upon those who sat in the region and shadow of death Light has dawned."
Acts 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 "Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; 17 "for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry."
Acts 3:14-18 14 "But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 "and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses. 16 "And His name, through faith in His name, has made this man strong, whom you see and know. Yes, the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. 17 "Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 "But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.
Acts 13:26 "Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this salvation has been sent. 27 "For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him. 28 "And though they found no cause for death in Him, they asked Pilate that He should be put to death. 29 "Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb. 30 "But God raised Him from the dead. 31 "He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people. 32 "And we declare to you glad tidings -- that promise which was made to the fathers. 33 "God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.' 34 "And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: 'I will give you the sure mercies of David.'

Jesus, the Apostles, and the Bible are all "Preterists" with respect to the coming of Messiah. The only "Futurist" part left has to do with highly speculative and disputable things about the meaning of a supposed "Second Coming" which is not even mentioned in Scripture. The main and the plain things have obviously been fulfilled. So there is no place to insert a "Futurism" into the Bible. John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecies of the Elijah who was to come, so Futurists deny the Bible and say that John didn't "really" fulfill that prophecy not realizing that they are denying the primary fact that proved Christ was Messiah. This is just one example of how Futurism destroys the testimony of Scripture.

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

11-20-2011, 01:41 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------

As a side note; In the reading of these articles an answer to another personal question that I was having may have surfaced.

It had wondered me where the apostles got their source of authority for the prophecies of a 'falling away' and apostacy before the 'end'. Many of us here believe 'the end' to be referring to the end of the mosaic covenant and the end of every rule and dominion including that of the Roman empire and other systems of unbelieving Govts.

It is my belief that the apostles letters were written to the original 30-70 AD audience and did not forecast and prophecy events beyond the end of the first century; even really beyond 70AD.

In at least 2 of the articles, this event with the Midianites is likened to the event of fabricating the golden calf and worshiping the idols of Egypt. The Midianite occurrence is at the latter end of the 40 yrs while the Golden Calf of the Egyptians is at the beginning. There doesn't seem to be much 'idolatry' in between, which the two articles also mention.

I'm introduced to the thought that this account of the Midianites; Balak and Balaam at the latter end of the 40 yrs of wandering in the wilderness and just before crossing Jordan, is the source for the apostles authority and foreknowledge that before the end there would come a latter day [65-70AD] falling away and apostacy to the roman/judean co-operative and political belief systems. The apostles had earlier separated from the idols of the mosaic covenant and the instructions of Moses which could be paralleled to the early idolotry after leaving egypt. The second apostacy would be the giving of alliance and allegience to the religious/political system of Rome which would be the latter apostacy and falling away of the gentile christians.

Thanks for this topic if only for this reason and answer.

For a further note of confirmation; I've come to the observation that in 2 Peter 2; the chapter just before 2 Peter 3; Peter talks about this same Balaam in the context of the falling away before the judgment.

Bingo.......

Richard Amiel McGough

03-25-2012, 02:28 PM

Hi Rick, :yo:

In the other thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2942-God-gave-David-multiple-wives&p=42500#post42500) you mentioned that you thought that you had given a "good explanation" of the 32,000 virgins in the post quoted below and when I checked, I found that I did not answer it. So now I am rectifying that situation.

Hi Richard,

It looks to me like those that had 'known men' were those that played the whore with Israel. (Numbers 25:1-5)

The Sin of Peor
1 While Israel remained at Shittim, the people [ISRAELITES] began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab.
2 For they invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods.
3 So Israel joined themselves to Baal of Peor, and the Lord was angry against Israel.

The virgins had not played the whore. It was the mercy of God to spare their life and take care of them. They were innocent. They would not bring any plague on Israel. The male babies were probably killed because of potential generational retribution and because the babies were of Midianite seed. They would end up being outcasts when they grew up and would vex Israel.

You are majoring on the fact that they were virgins and are assuming they were kept as sex slaves. The fact is they were saved because they had not played the whore. They were probably either married or used as servants.

I see nothing that suggests the virgins were any different from the other Midianites except in the one fact that they had not had sex. And if they were "innocent" then so were the little boys that were killed. And what about the murder of all the Canaanite children? Weren't they as "innocent" as the virgins in Numbers 31? You argument does not seem to be consistent. It seems like ad hoc special pleading.

The phrase "playing the whore" was descriptive of the ISRAELITES, not the Midianites. And its primary reference is not to sexual intercourse but rather idolatry (bowing down to other gods).

I call the captive virgins "sex slaves" because they had no choice in the matter. They were kidnapped and given to the soldiers just like the virgins of Jabesh-Gilead were kidnapped and given to the 600 surviving soldiers of Benjamin after God participated in the murder of every other man, woman, and child of that tribe.

It makes no sense to argue that the female Midianites could be successfully integrated into Israeli life but not the boys.

And what about the fact that God expressly forbade marriage with the people of the land (which includes Midianites)?

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Some interpret this verse as giving these women as sex slaves. However, we can interpret this verse that they could marry these "women children", no doubt after they had come to a marriageable age. Or we can simply read it that these children could be used as servants.

It's not so easy to avoid the implication that they were taken to be wives. When Israel killed all the men, women, and children of Jabesh-Gilead, they did it for the express purpose of acquiring wives.

Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

Judges 21:12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

Almost exactly the same Hebrew phrase is used in both cases, and it does not appear anywhere else in Scripture. It seems pretty clear that the motivations were the same in both cases. The scenes were very similar - KILL EVERYONE EXCEPT THE VIRGINS. Indeed, some scholars think that the episode in Numbers 31 may have been the precedent for Judges 21.

29 Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.

Regarding verse 29, the women that had not known men were not guilty of the crime of the other Midianites so they were not punished.

The heave offering of 1 in 500 was not human sacrifice. That is not what a heave offering is. They were given to the priests as servants not sacrifices.

I never said it was human sacrifice.

You insistence that the virgins were "innocent" relative to everyone else that was murdered has no foundation in the text, or in logic by my estimation.

Read about Moab and his desire to curse and destroy Israel, God's chosen people through which He would bring His testimony to men (Jesus).

Numbers 22:
3 And Moab was sore afraid of the people, because they were many: and Moab was distressed because of the children of Israel.

4 And Moab said unto the elders of Midian, Now shall this company lick up all that are round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field. And Balak the son of Zippor was king of the Moabites at that time.

5 He sent messengers therefore unto Balaam the son of Beor to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying, Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me:

I don't see how that would justify genocide and the taking of the virgins. Just think about this for a minute. Every moral fiber in your soul screams that those actions are morally abominable. The only reason you are trying to justify them is to rescue your dogma about God and the Bible. This is why the Bible is not a moral guide. It actually encourages moral corruption by forcing people to justify the unjustifiable. It destroys any hope for the "moral highground" so coveted by Christians. It's like when William Lane Craig said that God had done no wrong when he killed the Canaanite children because "they all go to heaven." That logic also justifies abortion, one of the favorite moral points Christians like to focus upon.

And this demonstrates another problem with your thesis - why didn't God save the "innocent children" of the Canaanites and all the other communities he ordered destroyed? Your argument appears to be ad hoc - just made up for the "special case" of Numbers 31. But it's not consistent with the rest of God's actions in the OT.

Why Was God So Harsh on Israel and the Midianites?
God dealt very harshly because it was through the people of Israel that the Messiah would later come. Ever since Cain, Satan continually tried to thwart God in his opposition to Him and His people. He tried to make the people of God fall into false worship and through intermarriage with other people who worshipped demons (idols) tried to destroy the messianic line thereby making the promises of God of no effect and destroying the lineage by which the Messiah would come. If Satan could accomplish this, man could not be delivered from him. That is why God was very harsh regarding idolatry and the combination of sexual sin and idolatry were an even stronger bondage and entanglement to the men of Israel.

You present Satan as if he were an equal match to God who could force God to command genocide as the only solution. If that's the case, then Satan won by making God look worse than him! The Bible doesn't attribute any genocide to Satan - now that's a disturbing thought. A lot of bad things are said about Satan, like he was a "murderer from the beginning" but when we read the Bible, it turns out that God is the great killer of humans! He flooded the whole planet. He participated in the murder of the entire tribe of Benjamin. He killed 70,000 Israelites because David took a census. It's ironic, but I must say that God makes Satan look pretty good!

I tell you the truth when I say that I cannot imaging a greater damage to the Christian message than the attempt to justify the actions of God in the OT.

All the best,

Richard