Laws of the Israelites

[robbyyoung]

If you insist that Moses, himself alone, was the author of certain 'charges, statutes, ordinances, and commandments', then he is guilty of lying.

Robby, how do you conclude from this that Moses was lying? A lie is deliberate deception. If Moses WROTE that God gave particular commands, because He THOUGHT that God had implanted these command into his mind, but was mistaken, he was not lying. I know some people today will say, "I lied" when they have merely uttered a falsehood that they THOUGHT was true. That is not lying.

Paidion, Moses been around for a long time and if he was mistaken, don't you think God would have corrected him???? I mean, come on dear brother, God literally killed people for less; Gen 38:9-10, Numbers 15:32-35, 2 Sam 6:1-7, etc... However, maybe these accounts aren't inspired either, just made up stories to reject as well. Why? Because they do not agree with whatever is so-called inspired. But that's our lot in life isn't it? Nobody is coming in our day, since the Apostolic Era, to set the record straight, is there?

If I showed you a 1000 verses you would reject all of them because you refuse to accept a God that troubles you. YOU now hold the key to what's acceptable behavior from God and can reject what YOU believe to be uninspired vs. inspired. Well how do you know what's inspired? Maybe the so-called inspired testimony is a BIG FAT LIE.

Robby, how do you know what's inspired? How do you know which books are inspired? Are Paul's letters inspired? Yes? I agree that they are. But that doesn't mean that every sentence he wrote was true. Clement was Paul's fellow worker in spreading the gospel. He wrote a powerful letter to the Corinthian church shortly after Paul and Peter's death. Was that inspired? It was widely read in the meetings of the early church along with the letters of Paul and Peter, even over two hundred years later. Eusebius, the church historian who was an overseer in Caesarea in 314, after having identified Clement as the friend of Paul, wrote concerning concening Clement's letter, "There is one acknowledged letter, great and admirable, which he wrote in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth, sedition having then arisen in the latter church. We are aware that this letter has been publicly read in very many churches both in old times, and also in our own day." So why do you not accept Clement's letter as inspired? Is it only because the Catholics who defined "the New Testament Canon" many years later, did not include it in their list?

Inspired writings are not necessarily without error. For example, Jude made it to the Catholic canon, and so it's also included in the Protestant one. Thus it is considered to be inspired. Yet Jude was in error in thinking that the Book of Enoch was written by the historic Enoch, "the seventh from Adam" as he called him.

Now we might be getting some where. This is exactly why I take the Full Preterist position. There are no more prophets/inspired men of God to rescue us from this arbitrary analysis (inspired vs. uninspired). These ancient copies of letters regard "The Past" and its people and culture. If the accounts are true, then they had the DIRECT source, but we will NEVER have a direct source that speaks to us as THEY did. No, we have their copies in a foreign language with no one to authenticate anything for over 2000 years and counting!

Paidion, you choose to listen to men 100's of years removed from the Apostolic Era to authenticate your opinions, and that's fine, why not? Opinions have been very popular post 70 AD, haven't they? Too bad that's how it's going to stay.

This is why God gave prophets to set the record straight.

According to the Old Testament, God also put a lying spirit in the mouth of some prophets:

What does this have to do with true prophets of God?

God Bless.

[Homer]

Jesus said:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

Jesus doesn't appear to know of any errors made by Moses or other prophets in their compiling of the Old Testament. Instead he endorses the minutest part of the law. He seems to be just fine with the laws (all of them) given by Moses and Joshua's conquest of Canaan. And make no mistake, the Jews, when speaking of the law, preceding "law" with the article, meant the entire Old Testament. They did not mean just the law handed down by Moses. Notice Jesus words:

Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? (John 10:34)

Interesting, isn't it, that Jesus refers to the law and quotes from a Psalm? It appears obvious that Jesus held in high regard all that is written by Moses and the Prophets, Genesis to Malachi.

Robby wrote:

However, maybe these accounts aren't inspired either, just made up stories to reject as well. Why? Because However, maybe these accounts aren't inspired either, just made up stories to reject as well. Why? Because they do not agree with whatever is so-called inspired. .

A bit off the mark there Robby. Its not because "they do not agree with whatever is so-called inspired" but because many of the things written by Moses and the Prophets do not agree with their perception of what God must be like. This seems no different than the tactic employed by the homosexual advocates.

As I have pointed out before, God did not repent and become a Christian.

[robbyyoung]

Robby wrote:

However, maybe these accounts aren't inspired either, just made up stories to reject as well. Why? Because However, maybe these accounts aren't inspired either, just made up stories to reject as well. Why? Because they do not agree with whatever is so-called inspired. .

A bit off the mark there Robby. Its not because "they do not agree with whatever is so-called inspired" but because many of the things written by Moses and the Prophets do not agree with their perception of what God must be like.

Hi Homer,

The "they" in question, I was referring to, are the scriptures. Here's my quote, emphasis underlined:

"Paidion, Moses been around for a long time and if he was mistaken, don't you think God would have corrected him???? I mean, come on dear brother, God literally killed people for less; Gen 38:9-10, Numbers 15:32-35, 2 Sam 6:1-7, etc... However, maybe these accounts aren't inspired either, just made up stories to reject as well. Why? Because they do not agree with whatever is so-called inspired. But that's our lot in life isn't it? Nobody is coming in our day, since the Apostolic Era, to set the record straight, is there?"

I wasn't referring to the arbitrators of God's Word/historical record which was left behind.

God Bless.

[Paidion]

Paidion, Moses been around for a long time and if he was mistaken, don't you think God would have corrected him???? I mean, come on dear brother, God literally killed people for less; Gen 38:9-10, Numbers 15:32-35, 2 Sam 6:1-7, etc.

This is the very question we are discussing, whether or not God killed people, and whether or not those who wrote that He did, were mistaken in interpreting deaths as God's doing.

The Son of God was the EXACT IMPRINT of the Father's essence. Jesus didn't kill anyone or instruct His disciples to kill anyone. Why not?—since He is exactly like His Father.

By the way, do you think God still kills people in our day? And if not, why not? There are plenty of religious people out there who are claiming that God sends earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, etc. in order to punish people. Many claim that the Holocaust was God's punishment of the Jews.

Paidion, you choose to listen to men 100's of years removed from the Apostolic Era to authenticate your opinions, and that's fine, why not? Opinions have been very popular post 70 AD, haven't they?

Robbie, Clement's letter to the Corinthians was not 100s of years removed from the Apostolic Era. Clement was Paul's fellow labourer in the gospel!
(Philippians 4:2,3). Paul wrote of "the rest of my fellow workers," but he named only one of them—Clement. So Clement must have become an important person in spreading the gospel. He was born in 30 A.D. and died in 100 A.D. He wrote his letter during a persecution. Some think he wrote it during Nero's persection, and others during the reign of Domitian, and set the date of writing about 90 A.D. If the latter date is correct, then he must have known about the rapture and the second coming of Christ in 70 A.D., but he didn't mention a thing about the events of 70 A.D. in his letter to the Corinthians.

In any case, you haven't answered by question about Clement's letter. Do you accept it as inspired or not? And if not, on what basis? And on what basis do you accept the NT writings as inspired? The Septuagint was the Bible of the writers of the New Testament. It included what Protestants call "The Apocrypha" and Catholics and Orthodox call "The Deuterocanonical Books." Clement made a statement that by ungodly envy, death itself entered into the world. He got that from Wisdom 2:24 where it is written, "Through the devil's envy death entered the world." This is one of the "apochyphal" books which formed part of the Septuagint. The only Bible that Clement as well as the NT writers possessed was the Greek Septuagint. All of them quoted the OT from the Septuagint. So my next question is do you regard "The Apocrypha" (part of the Septuagint" as inspired? And if not, why not? On what basis do you reject it? Clearly the NT writers did not reject the Septuagint. They all used it in their quotations from the OT. The Masoretic text which forms the basis of the OT of your Bible was started in the fourth century and wasn't completed until the eighth.

[psimmond]

Paidion wrote: This is the very question we are discussing, whether or not God killed people, and whether or not those who wrote that He did, were mistaken in interpreting deaths as God's doing.

The Son of God was the EXACT IMPRINT of the Father's essence. Jesus didn't kill anyone or instruct His disciples to kill anyone. Why not?—since He is exactly like His Father.

By the way, do you think God still kills people in our day? And if not, why not?

Paidion, I really appreciate what you have to say here. Every Christian I know is afraid to touch this stuff with a ten-foot pole. It seems hypocritical to reject Calvinism because it paints God as evil but to accept without question OT verses that do the same. And I didn't know about Clement's letter; I'll have to look into that.

[robbyyoung]

Paidion, Moses been around for a long time and if he was mistaken, don't you think God would have corrected him???? I mean, come on dear brother, God literally killed people for less; Gen 38:9-10, Numbers 15:32-35, 2 Sam 6:1-7, etc.

This is the very question we are discussing, whether or not God killed people, and whether or not those who wrote that He did, were mistaken in interpreting deaths as God's doing.

The Son of God was the EXACT IMPRINT of the Father's essence. Jesus didn't kill anyone or instruct His disciples to kill anyone. Why not?—since He is exactly like His Father.

By the way, do you think God still kills people in our day? And if not, why not? There are plenty of religious people out there who are claiming that God sends earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, etc. in order to punish people. Many claim that the Holocaust was God's punishment of the Jews.

Paidion, you choose to listen to men 100's of years removed from the Apostolic Era to authenticate your opinions, and that's fine, why not? Opinions have been very popular post 70 AD, haven't they?

Robbie, Clement's letter to the Corinthians was not 100s of years removed from the Apostolic Era. Clement was Paul's fellow labourer in the gospel!
(Philippians 4:2,3). Paul wrote of "the rest of my fellow workers," but he named only one of them—Clement. So Clement must have become an important person in spreading the gospel. He was born in 30 A.D. and died in 100 A.D. He wrote his letter during a persecution. Some think he wrote it during Nero's persection, and others during the reign of Domitian, and set the date of writing about 90 A.D. If the latter date is correct, then he must have known about the rapture and the second coming of Christ in 70 A.D., but he didn't mention a thing about the events of 70 A.D. in his letter to the Corinthians.

In any case, you haven't answered by question about Clement's letter. Do you accept it as inspired or not? And if not, on what basis? And on what basis do you accept the NT writings as inspired? The Septuagint was the Bible of the writers of the New Testament. It included what Protestants call "The Apocrypha" and Catholics and Orthodox call "The Deuterocanonical Books." Clement made a statement that by ungodly envy, death itself entered into the world. He got that from Wisdom 2:24 where it is written, "Through the devil's envy death entered the world." This is one of the "apochyphal" books which formed part of the Septuagint. The only Bible that Clement as well as the NT writers possessed was the Greek Septuagint. All of them quoted the OT from the Septuagint. So my next question is do you regard "The Apocrypha" (part of the Septuagint" as inspired? And if not, why not? On what basis do you reject it? Clearly the NT writers did not reject the Septuagint. They all used it in their quotations from the OT. The Masoretic text which forms the basis of the OT of your Bible was started in the fourth century and wasn't completed until the eighth.

Hi Paidion,

I'm at work so I'll briefly respond to some of your post and resume later on the rest. God and Jesus killing is a fact, based on scripture. Here, why don't you explain this:

Luke 19:26-27
Matt 22:6-7

God Bless.

[Paidion]

Here, why don't you explain this:
Luke 19:26-27
Matt 22:6-7

There is nothing to explain. Each of the passages is a part of a parable that Jesus gave. How the parable is understood and applied is open to question.

[robbyyoung]

Here, why don't you explain this:
Luke 19:26-27
Matt 22:6-7

There is nothing to explain. Each of the passages is a part of a parable that Jesus gave. How the parable is understood and applied is open to question.

LOL... Of course they're parables. Parables about Jesus and God killing the unbelieving Jews during the period of the end of the age. So the God and Jesus you have boxed yourself into believing, from Jesus' own mouth, disagrees with your conclusions about His judgements which includes killing people. Like I said before, It doesn't matter what anybody says or shows you in these historical documents, YOU WILL craft a way to dismiss it and keep believing whatever tickles your ear. Don't get me wrong, you are free to do whatever makes you happy and content, but truth will not budge one-inch. But like Pilate said, "Truth, what is truth?"

God Bless.

[psimmond]

robbyyoung,
God regulates slavery, misogyny, and polygamy, and gives a legal system that left little room for compassion and mercy and you accept it without question because "the alternative is unthinkable."

Why is the alternative unthinkable? If I come to the decision that God really didn't tell the soldiers to run the babies through with swords and keep the pretty virgins for themselves, does that make God less holy or righteous? What if it actually pleases God that I don't pin what most people perceive as ugliness on him, as so many have done?

What if on Judgment Day God says,
"Robby, just so you know, I didn't do those barbaric things. But I understand why you believed that I did."
or maybe
"Robby, just so you know, I didn't do those barbaric things. And frankly, I 'm surprised you went your whole life believing I would."

Of course, maybe you're right and I'm wrong. And maybe I'll get called on the carpet...that's why I'm wrestling with this.

[Paidion]

I have just discovered Derek Flood's book Disarming Scripture. I am quite excited about it. You can look into the book at Amazon. It is totally relevant to this discussion.
He says we ought to read the Old Testament as Jesus and Paul read it.