The Ten Commandments ; Moses return to a crowd out of control <-- NOW US

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Yes you're correct. Nothing about the law has changed. However, you must remember, Gentiles were never under the law to begin with. Only the Israelites were. So what you're saying contradicts itself.

If the law has never changed then how did the Gentiles get put under it? It would have to change to do that. Gentiles were even forbidden from practicing many Jewish traditions. How am I to fulfill the law when I'm forbidden from even doing some of the things that would be needed?

For the people that were under the law, the law has not changed. However, I was never under Moses' covenant. I'm am not Jewish. Remember that the OT had more than one covenant! The law does not change! So tell me then, what has changed? If you say that anything has changed, then it is not biblical because the law does not change!

So it's not relevant to me if it has changed or not. I was a Gentile and therefore the law of Noah is the only law I was ever under and guess what? That hasn't changed!

Remember the covenant of Moses. The reward for it was not the afterlife. But following the Seven Laws of Noah was. And this is why Jesus repeats the commandments found in the Seven Laws of Noah.

But you have to remember this is an OT context. If you're bringing up the 10 Commandments you're bringing up the rules of the OT. These were the rules in the OT time. Gentiles followed the laws of Noah and the Israelites followed Moses' covenant. Now I ask you, has that changed? Did Jesus come to change the law? If not, then how am I under a new law? lol.

Actually, something did change. We changed. Our hearts changed. But not the law! Jesus changed us! Like a child that becomes an adult no longer has to go to school. The law has not changed! Children must still go to school. However, believers in Christ are like the adult that does not have to go to school!

Once Jesus came along the law was written on our hearts as predicted would happen in Jeremiah long before Jesus even came. We're not under a list of rules like the 10 commandments or Noah's law anyway. The only law am I under is the law that Christ has written upon my heart.
Jeremiah 31:31-34

That's right. According to Jeremiah we don't even need to be having this conversation for Christ has come!

As Jesus worked on the Sabbath and did not stone the Adulterer. He was teaching to work in the spirit of the law, not legality. The spirit of the law that is on our hearts. Not the legality of the law that is written in a book.

Tell me then if the law has never changed? How is it that Christians can eat bacon! lol. Do not call unclean what the Lord has made clean! Acts 10:15

Yes Jesus came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. But the law was a contract. What does fulfill mean? If I had a contract with you and I owed you money on that contract and I told you I was coming to your house to FULFILL it, then what would you assume I was preparing to do? You would assume I was coming to pay my debt and FULFILL the contract. That the debt would be paid! Tomorrow the contract would still exist, but there would be no work left to do! For the debt has been paid!

Only if I said I was coming to abolish the contract! That would mean I was preparing to destroy it and try to back out of it and abolish it like it never happened. But that is not what Jesus did. He did not abolish the law. He FULFILLED IT. It is fully filled. He paid all of our debts. The contract is fulfilled!

By trying to tie to me an OT law that I was never under, you're being dishonest. You're trying to make me pay a debt that has already been paid by Jesus! If Jesus wasn't good enough to pay the debt then surely I am not either. You ask me to pay a debt even when Jesus did not satisfy you in paying the same? That's IMPOSSIBLE!

My sins have been forgiven and the new law rests on my heart.

Also, those commandments that Jesus is giving are the same as the 10 Commandments but they also exactly the same as the seven laws of Noah. The Gentile's version and the seven laws of Noah were given FIRST. Yes I'm still under the seven laws of Noah. But that does not bind me to the entire Moses' covenant which I was never under. That was a different covenant.

You must remember what we think of as the 10 Commandments had already been given to Adam and Noah before Moses ever came!

Wow.

Okay well let's start slowly then. Let's forget about Sitchin and his sector for a moment. Yes, Babylon is where there were early farming communities, fine. But he oversteps in many ways, so we will forget about him for now.

Around 1600bc, the key event, was the Thera eruption. Do not waste time looking anywhere else for Abraham, because he did not come from the West, he came from the East, as did many people around that time, because of the GIANT BOOM which was the end of the Minoan civilization. So, this time period, begins the age of struggle in Egypt between Hyksos and Pharaoh. So, big boom, then Greece restructures and coastal communities deal with the invaders who are called by the boom (visible and heard for 100s of miles).

Then there was Ahmose, first of the 18th Dynasty Kings, and he kicked out the Hyksos. Then comes Abraham, who lets Sarah bunk with the Pharaoh. Then Isaac and Ishmaal are born. Then about 100 years later (after Hatseptsut the usurper died) there came Thutmose IV, the dreaming Pharaoh, and he cleared the Sphinx away and placed Yuya, aka Joseph of the bible, in charge of Egypt. Joseph's daughter, was Tiye, and her husband, Amenhotep III was the biblical Solomon. So Solomon and his lady, became the toast of the post-Thera post-Minoan regions of Greece. This is proven by all the scarabs found in Greece in which Amenhotep III (Solomon) is praising his wife, like never before. You know, like in the bible "Song of Solomon" where he's talking about how his lady's boobs are like wonderful little goats? Haha, he was a lover no doubt. Yes, for we see in the bible Solomon had gone bad by turning to "female goddess worship" and in the Amarna Letters we have proof that Amenhotep III had begun a revolutionary new system of "princess trading" instead of war. And also that he had failed to return a special goddess statue to one of his Kingly peers of the region.

The Amarna letters are the key to really understanding the time, and that none of the goofballs here will discuss the Amarna Letters while talking all day about Moses-this and Moses-that, it's absurd.

There are several key groups of texts which have come to light in the 20th Century:

1: The Amarna Letters
2: The (missing) papyrii from Tut's tomb
3: Dead Sea texts
4: Nag Hammadi texts

...All of these are shoddily discussed, and most of the crap in this thread is designed to ignore these.

Also, I earlier made reference to Lorraine Evans' book "Kingdon of the Ark". Please notice as you read it, that the Ferriby Boats and all investigation of them, was thwarted. Like the main archaeologist who tried to help her said "Well there is just something about this subject that makes them tremendously uncomfortable and they just wish you would drop the whole thing." I am paraphrasing his quote from her book.

But if you will read her book and then read another Irish-aware researcher's book, one Andrew Collins and his "King Tut: The Exodus Conspiracy" you will see that the dude who opened Tut's tomb, claimed to have item #2 from the list above (they inventoried 'several papyrii' but none have ever been seen), and when his digging commission for the tomb was halted, he threatened to reveal "The true and scandalous account of the Hebrew's exit from Egypt!" He yelled this and his yelling was overheard, according to the author's detail and impeccably referenced work.

So yeah, two books written by regular Irish folks, attempting to find truth about 1350bc and the events around it. Regardless of their individual intent as authors or researchers, what they found was that there are some powers in these circles, that are very nervous about this time of "Moses". Perhaps that is why the Vatican has the obelisk of Thut-moses IV as the main totem in their worship circle at St. Peters? Why would they make such an item, the center of their fetish worship? I bet it's similar to the priests who beat themselves. I think they know Moses will be pissed and there are some who try to atone for that, in preparation for him to come back. As to, will he come back? I don't know, but I wouldn't want to be part of any established churches if he does.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
The Amarna letters are the key to really understanding the time, and that none of the goofballs here will discuss the Amarna Letters while talking all day about Moses-this and Moses-that, it's absurd.

I'm personally trying to get them to stop talking about Moses and realize that the 10 Commandments, in another form, had already been given to man long before Moses came and so therefore Moses is irrelevant lol.

Let us discuss Manetho, and his contemporary, Euhemerus, both of whom lived around 300bc. So one a Greek, and one an Egyptian.

Both of them could have been crypto-Jews also, since the Persian-Jerusalem temple of 570bc was founded on crypto-Judaism. This religion of crypto-judaism is founded on the lie that talmud was given along with Moses' Law, at Sinai. They try to say that talmud is from Moses. See my earlier comments about the split at Peor. Also, please note that in Encyclopedia Judaica, which most libraries have a copy of, says plainly under the heading "Phineas" that "Most rabbis agree he foreshadows the messiah" Why would they treat Moses' Levite priests so poorly as to equate Phineas the murderer, as their messiah?

The events at Peor, where Balaam the donkey rider shows up to intercede and talk to YHWH, is the pivot of the male vs female drama play of the last couple thousand years. So you can see that the crypto-talmudists of today try to cover over Peor, they cover over whomever's body they needed to hide, either Joshua or Moses, and they also try to say their spoken law, talmud, is as old and monotheistic as Moses himself. They equate talmud to the Octateuch.

Anyway, Lorraine Evans' book says plainly that Manetho used the term Achencres to refer to Akhenaten, and this is observed by his King list, which is sketchy, but which does show Achencres to be the 12.5 year King and the name is used for what appears to be Smenkare as well. It is my opinion that Smenkare was Nefertiti posing as a man, and that she did marry her daughter, to perpetuate this ruse, and to cover her man's retreat. The alternatives to this theory say that Smenkare was some gay dude? Total horse crap. Smenkare was simply Nefertiti dressed as a man, not some mystery Pharaoh who somehow inserted himself into the scene. No, this was a family affair, the whole 18th dynasty. Only a true queen like Sarah, could be seen as a suitable womb via which their dynasty would be refreshed, and surely a great and open-minded man like Abraham knew that.

So as per Lorraine Evans' book, Walter Bower who wrote the Scottichronicon around 1475 said that Scota was the daughter of Achencres, so there is more than circumstantial evidence of what she explains in her book. There is a discernible path of destruction waged against the true story of the Pharaoh Akhenaten aka Moses, by those who would erase him from history, or own his symbol, the Aten. This man suffered damnation from history until around the last century when the Amarna letters were found, and a dude named Napoleon decided to survey the area. Remember that it is a chick holding a torch over waters, that is the symbol for these societies and brotherhoods. So yes, ladies on the water, bring their wombs to other lands, where they then have babies. That's essentially the story of history.

I would say that based on what I have explained here, it is true that Achencres (Moses/Akhenaten's Greekified name) did not initiate monotheism, he really just ran with what his father had already started. His father called himself "the gleaming sun disc" and had a boat named "Aten Gleams" built for his sexy wife and he had hundreds of princesses in his harem, ruling without a single war campaign. Therefore it is he, who is the Sol-Amun of the bible, and so his kid (Achencres) simple made the sun disc itself, the symbol of his father's death cult. In essence, the Hebrew religion is the death cult of Amenhotep III and his faithful yet revolutionary Levite priests son, Akhenaten aka Achencres, aka Moses. What he did, was 1: raise up Amenhotep III to the godhead, a single sun disc., and 2: make the royal family the center of worship --instead of the evil theban priests. Oh and 3: he revealed the Hebrew language which had been hidden up to that time.

So the Ferriby boats are radio dated to 1350bc and that's when the exodous happened, and there's every reason to believe that Egyptians were seafarers as per Khufu's ship which was preserved in the Giza complex, and also the work of Thor Heyerdahl and RA 1 and II which were perfectly viable trans-oceanic crafts built from the actual reeds of Egyptian origin. So Ireland would have been no problem for them, particularly in Summer, and tracking the coasts.

Consider that Bower's Scottichronicon of around 1475 which mentions Scota and her father Achencres, is from the same time as Frankie Bacon and his "The New Atlantis". In this book he writes about how the New World will have some Hebrews living in it. No really, Francis Bacon, wrote in his book that when we reach the New World, we will have pseudo-Hebrews row out to us to greet us. SERIOUSLY. Why would he wager that? If you haven't read this book, I would suggest it.

So if Bacon said that Hebrews of some kind would be in America "The New World", and a devout monk like Bower says that a princess from the time of the "Hebrew Exodus" came to Ireland with her retiniu and became high Kings, then we can see that there are competing branches which would like to shape this historical event. Several branches are saying that the Hebrews and/or the Egyptians from 1350 bc did head East, but only Bower has a story that makes sense.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Around 1600bc, the key event, was the Thera eruption. Do not waste time looking anywhere else for Abraham, because he did not come from the West, he came from the East, as did many people around that time, because of the GIANT BOOM which was the end of the Minoan civilization.

I reversed the direction there. I meant to say that Abraham came from the West. But Thera could have been the boom that attracted the Hyksos invaders, and then Abraham's people were in Canaan and Byblos along the coast. In any case, there was some sort of relationship between Abe and the Pharaoh that made them equals, not to mention that Sarah was the type of woman never before seen, I would use the term "white" but perhaps that's not right? In any case, there was something about Sarah, not sure what it was, but something about her that would make one man kill another for her.

I am reminded of some blonde/red haired mummy from 3500 years ago somewhere that was buried with a stash of kind bud. Haha, don't know who THAT guy was but I bet he was awesome to party with!

Anyway, what made Sarah, the sort of woman a Pharaoh would have to posses and would kill her husband to have her? Seriously, being hot, is not enough. Now if you consider that the talmud says that Abraham's kid looked nothing like him, then things get interesting. "Miraculously" Sarah gives birth to Isaac who looks nothing like Abe. Well than of course the Isaac > Jacob > Joseph > Tiye connection means that Tiye was Sarah's distant grandaughter, hence, a "Hebrew" whatever that meant priot to the exodus. We see also that her father (Isaac's grandson Yuya/Joseph) has a very distinct and aqualine looking mummy with stark white hair, very unusual also are his coffins, which are devoid of the traditional Egyptian gods, hence, he was the man Joseph, the great man who saved Egypt in his day, and who was also related to the family, hence qualifying his daughter to marry Amenhotep III, which two then fathered Akhenaten. His wife Nefertiti was probably the child of one of Tiye's brothers or sisters, I would imagine, but she is a true enigma in this story.

Anyway, again, what makes a woman in history, the sort of woman that a King will kill another King, to posses? Hmm. I wonder if Sarah looked anything like Nefertiti? Ah yes, and now consider who owns Nefertiti? That's right, Germany, home of Interpol, is the site of the world's greatest bust grabbing, not some TSA airport chick.

Hitler himself said she was his favorite lady. Nefertiti I mean. And if she was a daughter of one of Yuya's kids, then she was also related to the biblical Sarah.

reply to post by tinfoilman


well you can try and spin it how ever you want.
but before i go any further,let me first let me say i understand being saved by grace, which i am, and i also understand that i am free from the dietary laws,and maybe some of the punitive aspects i'm not 100% clear as to what applies. but the morals and ethics of the mosaic laws i'm not free to pick and choose which ones i keep. we as Christians should strive to keep them just as Jesus did. if not in deed,at least in our hearts.

now see this from your own link:

The Noachide Laws comprise the six laws which were given to Adam in the Garden of Eden, according to the Talmud's interpretation of Gen 2:16,[9] and a seventh one, which was added after the Flood of Noah. Later, at the Revelation at Sinai, the Seven Laws of Noah were re-given to humanity and embedded in the 613 Laws given to the Children of Israel along with the Ten Commandments, which are part of, and not separate from, the 613 mitzvot. These laws are mentioned in the Torah. Acc

Your Link From Earlier Post
notice this sentence

. Later, at the Revelation at Sinai, the Seven Laws of Noah were re-given to humanity and embedded in the 613 Laws given to the Children of Israel along with the Ten Commandments, which are part of, and not separate from, the 613 mitzvot.

now notice these key words:

were re-given to humanity

key word: humanity. re given to humanity, not just Israelites. now i know that your gonna try to say this is two different things , there are some who will see it as the same thing.

which are part of, and not separate from, the 613 mitzvot

key words: not separate, i will not put the definition of separate up, i'm sure you know what it means.

this also from your link

Christianity has incorporated the Decalogue. The only Noahide law that is not part of the standard moral teaching of mainstream Christianity is the prohibition against eating the flesh of an animal while it is still alive (number 6 above), about which Christianity is silent. Acts and the Pauline epistles make clear that the Jewish dietary laws are not binding on Christians. The 18th-century Rabbi Jacob Emden proposed that Jesus, and Paul after him, intended to convert the Gentiles to the Noahide laws while allowing the Jews to follow full Mosaic Law.[30]

notice this word

Decalogue

here are two links

this one just for reference, showing the word is used for the ten commandments.

Decaloge

this link shows how the three abrahamic religions, scholars, denominations, and others view the commandants.

Ten Commandments

i think it plain to see that the predominant christian view is, that the ten commandments still hold for us. and that if we truly love the lord, and if our spirit abides in him and we have his word on our hearts, his spirit abides in us, ie the holy spirit.
Jesus was the new covenant, ie the new contract, or the blood sacrifice for our sins. another way to put it, he was a mediator between God and man, be he israelite or gentile. The law still holds true. and just as the priests used to sacrifice a lamb on the alter and offer the blood, so Jesus is our lamb and his blood is our offering. God knew man could not keep his laws, so he sent Jesus to be the final blood offering.ie the sin offering. now he was the sin offering that was for unintentional sins. there is intentional sin for which there is no forgiveness.

see this link for a description of intentional / unintentional sins. it's not the best i've seen but it will show you what i'm talking about.

Intentional / Unintentional Sins

so after reading this link, i pose this question, is it a sin to only keep the seven laws of noah in your heart, and disregard the other five commandments?

there is debate as to what Jesus and paul were teaching as far as the law. some believe that they were teaching
more about the dietary laws. others say that they also included mosaic law. i guess it depends on what side of the fence your standing on. a side note, many believe that the dietary laws were given for a health standpoint, and not as for sins of the heart.

or as per your example of Jesus working on the sabbath, i don't recall Jesus working, maybe i missed that part, i do remember him writing in the dirt. now if your were talking about teaching on the sabbath, Jesus was considered a rabbi among some, and others a high preist, so him teaching on the sabbath would not have been work.he would have been teaching which is lawful, he would have been doing his priestly duties which is lawful, or at the very least doing good works by teaching.
"wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days" matthew 12:12. work means things that are profitable, for your life, and your way of making a living.
also from your link

"Remember [zachor] the Sabbath day and keep it holy" (the version in Deuteronomy reads shamor, "observe") The seventh day of the week is termed Shabbat and is holy, just as God ceased creative activity during Creation. The aspect of zachor is performed by declaring the greatness of the day (kiddush), by having three festive meals, and by engaging in Torah study and pleasurable activities. The aspect of shamor is performed by abstaining from productive activity (39 melachot) on the Shabbath.

did you notice this:

and by engaging in Torah study

now these questions, is teaching the torah/ law not helping people to study?, and doing good deeds? so was Jesus working, or studying or both?

or this:

The aspect of shamor is performed by abstaining from productive activity

and here is one more link that is right on your example of the adulteress woman,this is one of the better commentaries that i have come across.
John 7 - IVP New Testament Commentaries
this from above link:

This situation is apparently just an attempt to entrap Jesus (v. 6). If he is lax toward the law, then he is condemned. But if he holds a strict line, then he has allowed them to prevail in their ungodly treatment of this woman and has opened himself up to trouble from the Romans, for he will be held responsible if the stoning proceeds. The leaders of Israel are putting God to the test in the person of his Son, repeating the Israelites' historical pattern on more than one occasion in the wilderness at Meribah and Massah (Ex 17:2; Num 20:13; cf. Deut 6:16; Ps 95:8-9; 106:14).

you should read the whole thing, some good insight.
oh, and this from same link

Furthermore, his writing echoes an Old Testament passage, thereby turning it into a symbolic action (Jeremias 1972:228): "O Lord, the hope of Israel, all who forsake you will be put to shame. Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water" (Jer 17:13). Here "written in the dust" probably means the opposite of being written in the book of life (Ex 32:32; Dan 12:1); those who have turned away are consigned to death because they have rejected the one who is the source of the water of life. Thus it appears that Jesus is associating his opponents with those whom God condemns for forsaking himself and whom he consigns to death. The judgment that they suggest Jesus execute on this adulterous woman is in fact the judgment that he visits upon them for their rejection of him--the one who has offered them God's living water (7:38-39). In rejecting Jesus, they are forsaking God, and thereby committing a most shameful act. Adultery is shameful, certainly, but they themselves are acting in a shameful way worthy of death.

now Jesus did not condemn her.

Jesus grants pardon, not acquittal, since the call to leave off sinning shows he knew she was indeed guilty of the adultery.

did you see that, he pardoned her from execution, he did not acquit her of her sin. now don't say she was a israelite and not gentile, remember God allowed gentiles that wanted to follow him to live among the israelites, so long as they followed his laws. also for those who would keep his laws in their hearts.
now to the point about bacon, maybe you should have taken a look here:
Mark 7: 1-23
and
Matthew 15: 1-20
these verses have it all, this is where Jesus declared all food clean, and yes i can see that, he also addresses the state of mans heart and how sin comes from it, and touches on some of the commandments
you know i think i'm gonna stop now, i could continue, but i think its time to show a little mercy there is one more link that i'm gonna make.
For Whom Was God Law Intended

When God promulgated His moral will through the Mosaic law, how much of mankind did He consider accountable to keep that law? From Paul's standpoint the answer was obvious: "Now we know that whatever things the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped and all the world maybe brought under the judgment of God" (Romans 3:19), God declared His righteous standards to Israel, and through Israel to all the world, thereby stopping every mouth and bringing all men, Jew and Gentile alike, under judgment. "Whatever things the law says," therefore, it says to the whole of mankind. Precisely for this reason Paul could "lay to the charge both of Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.... There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (vv. 11,23).

One of the most conspicuous illustrations that Gentiles were condemned for breaking the law of Moses comes from a time long before Muses lived or delivered God's law from atop Mount Sinai -- which only drives home the truth that the same moral code published by Moses is clearly known by all men, whether they are exposed to the written books of Moses or not. Even the conduct of Gentiles who lived prior to Moses was condemned by God according to the standards which He would later reiterate through Moses.

During the historical period when God specifically revealed His statutes through Moses, the Lord clearly declared that He would, at that very time, bold the Gentile tribes of Palestine accountable to the same law Moses brought to the Israelites. That is, Gentiles would be condemned for not keeping the law of Moses.

i think the every Christian should read this paper, lots of passages to back his stance and counter the guyson the other side of the fence and Dr. Geisler's for who this paper was written to counter his claims

Along the way to reaching his conclusion that modern civil legislation should be neither secular nor specifically Christian, Dr. Geisler used the following premise as a stepping stone: "Nowhere in the Bible are Gentiles ever condemned for not keeping the law of Moses." According to him, the Mosaic law was intended only for Israel, and on that basis he categorically declares "God no more holds today's governments accountable to His Divine Law to Israel than present residents of Massachusetts are bound by the Puritan laws at Plymouth." Such an idea finds popularity with many people today for its usefulness in dismissing the obligation of modern civil magistrates to enforce specific scriptural commands which are not to our liking.

Continuing in the spirit of the Bereans, we want to examine the scriptures of the New Testament as well, wondering whether it is safe to subscribe to Dr. Geisler's published opinion that "Nowhere in the Bible are Gentiles ever condemned for not keeping the law of Moses." The preaching and ministry of John the Baptist belie such an idea. For instance, in Mark 6:18 John explicitly condemned the Gentile, Herod, for his violation of the law of Moses, in particular for transgressing the Mosaic law's restrictions on the degrees of acceptable marriage. Herod Antipas was a Gentile (an Idumaean) who married the wife of his half-brother, Philip. John the Baptist openly confronted this sin by declaring "it is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife" -- thus doing the very thing that Geisler says is never done in the Bible, namely condemning a Gentile for not following the law of Moses. John's words are pointed that Herod's behavior is contrary to what is "lawful," despite the fact that he was a Gentile,

well i think that i have made my point, and like i said opinions vary about this, and it depends on which side of the fence your standing on.
for me i think it is a sin to pick and choose which commandments, you keep on your heart and mind.
and in doing so i believe it also show a from of arrogance, LOL
sorry just had to do that.


had to pull one of my links, it was one of those that like to predict a date as to when Jesus will return,and Jesus plainly states no man knows not even the son. i don't know how i missed the first time.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


I think you missed the most important quote from that link. You better look again.

en.wikipedia.org...

According to Judaism, any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as a Righteous Gentile, and is assured of a place in the world to come

These laws are mentioned in the Torah. According to Judaism, the 613 mitzvot or "commandments" given in the written Torah, as well as their reasoning in the oral Torah, were only issued to the Jews and are therefore binding only upon them!!!!!

Historically, some rabbinic opinions consider non-Jews not only not obligated to adhere to all the laws of the Torah, but are actually forbidden to observe them.[13] The Noachide Laws are regarded as the way through which non-Jews can have a direct and meaningful relationship with God, or at least comply with the minimal requisites of civilization and of divine law.

Yes, the 10 commandments were re-given to the Jews. That did NOT MEAN THE REVERSE. That the other laws being given to the Jews were for everyone. It says right in the Bible and specifically spells it out multiple times that the Mosaic law is a special law ONLY for the Israelites. If you actually read the whole Bible from front to back you CANNOT miss it.

This is not something I'm making up from reading in-between the lines. If you read the Bible it says right in it, that's the way it is supposed to be read and is the general consensus among Jews and Scholars lol. Just because you didn't know about it, doesn't mean it's wrong. Just look into it.

The stuff you wrote isn't relevant and you didn't answer my questions. Yes the Seven Laws of Noah were given to the Israelites separate in the form of the 10 Commandments . That's why I'm still under them. Because they had already been given earlier. The Seven Laws of Noah and the 10 Commandments are the same. Everyone is under them. However, the Mosaic law entails more than JUST the 10 Commandments and not everyone is under the Mosaic law.

That's why it's not a sin for me to wear clothing made of two different fabrics. I don't pick and choose which commandments I follow. I follow all seven of the commands that I'm still under. The Seven Laws of Noah.

If you believe people are still under the OT law then you have to answer these questions for your theory to be correct. Questions you didn't answer in your last reply. Or, you must admit you were wrong.

What changed to put Gentiles under the Mosaic law when they weren't under it before?
Why can Christians have pork when that's forbidden by the OT law?
(You did not answer this. The OT bans pork and you claim that the law has not changed. If it has not changed then how can Christians have pork?) The law would have to change for that. But Gentiles weren't banned from eating pork.

All you did was post links to the section of the Bible that tells us that Pork isn't banned anymore. However, what you have failed to do, is explain how that's possible. I know it isn't banned. Explain why,

Why can Christians wear clothes made from two different fabrics?
Why don't Christians have to be physically circumcised?
Why don't Christians have to purify themselves with the ashes of a red Heifer after coming into contact with a corpse?
How come Christians can be in contact with things that women on their period have touched and not be considered "unclean"?

And the list goes on and on. 613 of them. If you believe you're still under the OT law, then that means you follow them all and can recite them by memory right? You probably don't even know them all do you? If you don't know them all, you can't be following them correctly and therefore how can you call yourself a Christian?

Also, the most important one. Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

According to this if you believe that people are still under the OT then you either kill every homosexual you meet, or you at least support the death penalty for homosexual acts. Do you not? If you don't then how do you explain that? The Seven Laws of Noah simply state it's forbidden, but you don't have to kill homosexuals. The NT says it's forbidden but you don't have to kill homosexuals.

Only the Mosaic law states you have to kill them! If you believe people are still under the OT, then you must explain why you have never murdered a homosexual?

How you can follow the law without following it?

If you cannot answer these questions than that means your view of the Bible must be wrong. My reading of it explains all these things. Because I'm under the Seven Laws of Noah and the NT, but NOT under all the rules of the Mosaic law.

Since my reading of the Bible is the only one that makes any sense. It's the one that must be correct lol.

EDIT: Also, you totally miss Paul's point. As you'll see, he even says, God brought it to Israel first. Then the whole world. Showing what I'm am saying to be true. The Mosaic law was given only to the Israelites first.

But when Paul talks about the Law he's talking about it in a negative context. Do you know what God's righteous standards means for us? Do you know what bringing the whole law to all of us mean?

It means judgment, and death. When Paul talks about the law he's talking about how it's going to bring condemnation on anyone that follows it lol. That there is no salvation through the law, there is no salvation through works.

Then Paul writes that it is by Christ and faith. That is the only way. Not the law. You must read all of Paul's books to see what he thinks of the law. He calls it a death sentence!

EDIT:
Also, show me in the Bible where prior to Moses someone was punished for breaking the Mosaic covenant before it was given to man like you claimed? I see no citation.

EDIT 2:
Notice this! en.wikipedia.org...
The Decalogue, also known as the Ten Commandments, is a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to the Abrahamic religions, was given by God to the people of Israel.

I AM NOT FROM ISRAEL! I'm not an Israelite! lol. I am a GENTILE! The OPPOSITE!

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Okay I see what you're talking about. Herod marrying his brother's wife. Not against the Mosaic law.

Deuteronomy 25:5
“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her."

It wasn't against the Mosaic law to take your brother's wife. In some cases it was mandatory. However, that law was only for the Israelites so only the Israelites could take their brother's wife. What Herod was doing was unlawful for two reasons.

1. He was a Gentile and therefore that rule did not apply to him. He couldn't take his brothers wife.

2. His brother was still alive and she was not properly divorced.

The Gentile rules for marriage were given in Genesis. One man one women like Jesus re-states in the NT.
Matthew 19:4-6

This was already included in the sexual immorality parts of the Seven Laws of Noah in the first book of the Bible.

The law Herod was breaking wasn't part of the Mosaic law. He was just breaking God's law in general. That law even applies to the Gentile.

Remember, even though Gentiles are not under the Mosaic law, that didn't mean they were under no law at all. They still have to follow the Seven Laws of Noah which already ban that type of sexual immorality.

reply to post by smallpeeps

Maybe you mean this one?


Santorini Volcano Erupts: 1500 BC

Which happened aprox. 3600 yrs ago

Which happens to be the time of the passing of the kingship from Joseph to Moses ,,aprox.,,,1589 b.c

And Santorini is newly active again,,

And some same their is supposed to be signs of this "passing of the crown" in the heavens even,,,now in this generation,, but that is just the story i heard.

All 3600 yrs ago,,, amazing.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie

Inasmuch as the Jews had their own distinct jurisdiction, it would have been unwise to reveal their laws to the Gentiles, for such knowledge might have operated against the Jews in their opponents' courts. Hence the Talmud prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah

Resh Laḳish (d. 278) said, "A Gentile observing the Sabbath deserves death" (Sanh. 58b). This refers to a Gentile who accepted the seven laws of the Noachidæ, inasmuch as "the Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel alone,"

jewishencyclopedia.com...

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


I was reading this link you posted, For Whom Was God's Law Intended? By Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen.
www.reformed.org.../ethics/whom_law_intended.html

Whoever wrote this, has no idea what they're talking about and has apparently never read the Bible.

Most of their arguments are based on judging people for moral things that were already banned by the Seven Laws of Noah before Moses was even born. I don't have time to go over everything, but here's the most glaring example.

Just what kind of argumentation would Dr. Geisler utilize to prove from nature alone that homosexuality, or idolatry, or adultery, etc. are immoral? Trying to get specific answers to such crucial questions from Dr. Geisler is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

They're implying that the only reason these things are immoral is because they're banned by the Mosaic law, but that's absurd. All these things were already banned by the Seven Laws of Noah and there is no need for Mosaic law to explain why these things are immoral.

The first law is Prohibition of Idolatry. You cannot worship other Gods. And the fourth one is sexual immorality and it explains to us in Genesis that sex is to between a man and a women only, and those two should be one flesh and partners for life.

If Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen can't find where Idolatry, murder, theft and such is immoral in the Bible before the Mosaic law is given then he has never read page 1!

Why did Cain go to nod? Because he MURDERED Able. Long before Moses was ever born lol. But if you will notice, Cain was not killed for it and instead was sent to nod because even though murder was immoral, God had not yet given the penalty for it, so Cain was spared.

THIS IS CHAPTER 4. THIS GUY NEVER EVEN GOT TO THE 4TH CHAPTER OF THE BOOK! THIS GUY DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THE STORY OF CAIN AND ABLE? Do you really want to trust what he has to say about the Bible?

However, the penalty would soon be given long before Moses was ever born.
Genesis 9:6 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

They clearly already knew that Idolatry was wrong also.

Genesis 35:2 "Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments:"

They clearly knew that theft and lying and deceit was wrong.
Genesis 31:7 'Yet your father has deceived me and changed my wages ten times, but God did not allow him to hurt me.'

Genesis 31:19 "And Laban went to shear his sheep: and Rachel had stolen the images that were her father's."

And these laws go for everyone. Again, to not be under the Mosaic law does not mean any law at all.

This is all in Genesis before Moses was ever born. Like I said, If this guy can't find where this stuff was immoral in the Bible before Moses came then he's NEVER READ THE FIRST BOOK! How can you trust that what someone is saying is biblical if they've never read GENESIS?

Be careful and watch for people like this.

Originally posted by StripedBandit
What seemed more significant to me while watching was the horned bull/ram thing that Moses smoted with the tablet.
That thing looked like Baphomet to me. 20 bucks says Cecil Demille was in the Bohemian Club or something of the like.

Not Baphomet...
That was the golden calf. The people got tired of waiting for
Moses return and basically were bored...perfect fodder for someone
to talk 'em into something...just to keep them busy...yep...just like those today...

reply to post by smallpeeps



Great post and point of view. S&F

Thank you

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by smallpeeps

 

Maybe you mean this one?

Santorini Volcano Erupts: 1500 BC

Which happened aprox. 3600 yrs ago

Yes, Santorini is the current name of the city near the caldera. I think we can fairly attribute the data below to the same eruption.

If you look at the Minoan culture, it is fairly easy to see they were a lusty and half dressed people. Losing them in the area, would cause a power vacuum. This vacuum was filled by the Hyksos who were then cast out by Ahmose. After that, during the reign of Thutmose III, Abraham and his wife Sarah came to Egypt. Thutmose III is Isaac's father, and as I mentioned, the talmud writers (sometimes useful) have preserved the fact the "Nobody thought the kid was Abraham's child because he didn't look anything like him. But when the people mentioned this, suddenly the infant's clothes changed to look just like what Abraham was wearing and the people exclaimed 'Heis Abaraham's son!'" ...See Osman "The Hebrew Pharaohs of Egypt" on pg. 24 where he quotes this (I have paraphrased here) from "The Babylonian Talmud" by Rabbi Dr. I Epstein.

Also not that Abe prayed "If only Ishmael could have your blessing!" which lends credence to the above, as Ishmael, born of the Egyptian princess Abe got in return for Sarah, was his son born of his own body. Note also that the Mohammedans like to claim that it was Ishmael, who was to be sacrificed by Abe, and not Isaac. Why would they be so desirous to claim this? Well, Osman says it is because the sacrificing was seen as an honor. I agree with him, and though Osman says "But sacrificing your son to God was not a tradition of the area at that time." ...Well here he and I differ.

See, I believe the reason the Mohammedans claim Ishmael to have been the sacrifice, is because they know that secretly, this practice of son-sacrifice, was done by some tribes. It is my theory, as I have explained elsewhere on ATS, that Moses wrote his Torah, to make a bunch of laws, and thereby convince his ancestors to stop the practice of killing their children as sacrifices. Think about it, because why would Abe's God ask him to do this? You see, there are ghosts of the past, and Moses had to deal with these.

Yes, because if Moses/Akehnaten shows up and says "Stop killing these kids as sacrifices, worship my God, the true God of your forefather Abraham!" well, he has to put some oomf behind it. The reason is simple: When mothers and fathers have sacrificed their beloved children, it is nearly impossible to get them to change, because one grave error like that can snowball into generations of dead kids, for their God, you see? So Moses was awesome because he loved kids and he had to find a way to convince these people that his way (that of many laws but no child sacrifice) was best. So that is why he went up to the mountain, and came down with inscribed tablets. I am saying that he probably carved them himself, as it is known that Akhenaten was a master sculptor. So he came down with the tablets "written with God's finger" and he had hoped that this would stop Jethro's people from their heinous practice of child sacrifice. That is my opinion.

To support this image of Akhenaten as Moses, carving tablets up there to make up a bunch of rules and thereby try and wrangle these crazy tribes, Consider Jesus' only ritual which he instituted: the Last Supper. Notice that he says "this means my body", and "this means my blood" when he gave them bread and wine? Yes, you see as Robert Graves describes, it was common in ancient Greece, for the King to be killed at the height of the year, and his prince, or his tanist, would take himplace and then also be killed ritualistically. Therefore Jesus, who was both Hebrew and Greek (I believe he was the son of Alexander Helios, grandson of Cleopatra and Marc Antony), was creating a ritual, just like Moses. A ritual of PRESERVING life, not taking it. Jesus passing the bread, and Moses passing the tablets, was very similar action. Both were designed to replace human sacrifice.

Well anyway, the key is Amenhotep III, the biblical Sol-Amon, the Sun King. He actually called himself the Sun King, dude had a huge ego apparently, but a good heart. During 30 years of reign, he never once waged a campaign of war. The Amarna letters which explain so much about this system of "princess trading as government" were only discovered in 1887 by accident, and this was a miracle for our time, as was the finding of Tut's tomb and Yuya and Tuya's mummy. Once we found Joseph/Yuya, this should have all ended, but no, they managed to wring WW2 and the Bolshevik Holodomor starving of millions out of this Hebrew/Aten power which these priests compete for. It is their competition for the Aten of Moses that caused these horrible events, and the truth about Moses would have prevented them. That is why the truth is veiled and prevented.

What a shame that miracles like these findings couldn't stop this horrible bloodlust but eventually when all is revealed, the Judeans, The Mohammedans and the Christians, will all sit down and re-learn their history. The missing papyrii from Tut's tomb, when revealed, will surely change everything we think we know about these matters.

en.wikipedia.org...

Another method used to establish the date of eruption is tree-ring dating. Tree-ring data has shown that a large event interfering with normal tree growth in North America occurred during 1629–1628 BCE.[31] Evidence of a climatic event around 1628 BCE has been found in studies of growth depression of European oaks in Ireland and in Sweden.[32] Bristlecone pine frost rings also indicate a date of 1627 BCE, supporting the late 1600s BCE dating.

reply to post by tinfoilman

I don't need to follow them. I'm not bound by them. I am bound by the Seven Laws of Noah

I never knew about those either, very interesting, it's hard to deny that the world would be a better place if everybody followed those simple laws. Some would say they are too restrictive. Too them I say is a red light on a busy street in busy city too restrictive as well? Or is it for you and the people around you personal safety?

Respect the ten commandments? Try three.
I like George Carlin's take on the ten Commandments. He breaks it down to three.

Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie. & Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you. Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

The whole breakdown here

About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.

George Carlin The Ten Commandments Broken Down.

RIP

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

I don't need to follow them. I'm not bound by them. I am bound by the Seven Laws of Noah

I never knew about those either, very interesting, it's hard to deny that the world would be a better place if everybody followed those simple laws. Some would say they are too restrictive. Too them I say is a red light on a busy street in busy city too restrictive as well? Or is it for you and the people around you personal safety?

edit on 24-7-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

Too restrictive? Don't fear, if you accidentally break one you can ask for forgiveness and just not do it again. Well if you believe in Jesus anyway. Basically you can sum it up like this. All the moral laws in the Bible apply to everyone.

God doesn't have two different moral laws or two different moral standards. You can't kill because it's immoral and so that applies to everyone.

But Moses' laws had many restrictions beyond the basic moral laws. They had holiness codes and priestly codes too. And Gentiles were considered un-holy and un-priestly at the time lol.

They didn't really have to do with morality except. Sin is sometimes defined as to miss the mark, or to miss the mark of your agreement. Sometimes you wouldn't have really broken any moral law, except that you had agreed not to do it, so it becomes immoral. Not only that, but you had promised God. But other things like murder or theft are always immoral and those rules apply to everyone.

In the Bible God had another set of restrictions for the Jewish people. It wasn't a different set of rules, it was an additional set of rules that you sometimes had to follow.

For whatever reason, he wanted the Israelites to be more special and holy than normal people. He actually wanted them to be a whole nation of priests. The book of Leviticus where many of these restrictions are given, is a reference to the Levite priests of Israel.

It was not just for the Levites though. However, some people think that means Leviticus is for everyone. This is a misunderstanding due to not understanding the covenant that God made In Exodus. Leviticus can literally translate to "And He called" or "The calling" like when people that convert say they get the "calling" to be a priest or a pastor. Many of those extra restrictions were just for the Israelites because their entire society had to live up to a priestly standard. Not just the Levite priests as you'll see in Exodus.
Exodus 19:3
"3 And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”"

So people got confused. How can the book for priests apply to everyone? Well it didn't apply to everyone. Only Priests. It was a priestly code for priests beyond just the simple moral laws that Gentiles had to follow.

But it did apply to all the Israelites because not just their priests had to live to that holy standard, but the ENTIRE congregation (the Jewish people) had to live to this higher standard too. They were supposed to be an ENTIRE nation of priests. Not just the Levites. That's why they all had to follow every code in Leviticus and they agreed to do so. They made a covenant with God, which means, made an agreement with God. They made this agreement so that they would be given the holy land as a reward.

But the standard is REAL high. In fact it's so high that according to the Bible the only one that ever actually pulled it off entirely was God himself. That is Jesus. That the Bible shows us that the only one that can live up to all God's standards is God himself.

But Jesus saved us from that, and paid any debts of breaking it for us, and so if you believe in Jesus we're all saved by grace. We're not damned to condemnation for falling short of God's standards. But if you try to get into Heaven by living up to God's standard you'll fail and be damned. Only God stands up to God standards and so the best thing to do is just admit that your not God and you need Jesus's pardon on the matter lol.

But Jesus tells us that the morals laws are the same. We still can't kill or murder or steal or cheat and so forth or we'll be called the least in Heaven. But many of the crazy restrictions found in the Mosaic law, Gentiles don't have to follow because we weren't meant to be part of the priestly congregation. Weren't even allowed to enter the temple!

They weren't meant for us. We weren't even ALLOWED to practice many of them. The Jewish Interpretation says that Gentiles observing the Sabbath deserve death! That it wasn't meant for us.

How am I to live up to the standard of the Mosaic law if I am FORBIDDEN from doing one of the most important rules? Keeping the Sabbath? lol. Obviously there has been a massive misunderstanding of the Bible.

You could write a book about just that.

Modern day secular society has something similar. We have moral laws that will always be wrong. Theft, murder, adultery and so forth. But we also have regulations that aren't necessarily immoral in themselves. The Bible is about man making agreements with God. Secular society is about man making agreements with man.

The reason we don't run a red light is because as a society we promised each other we wouldn't. I don't want to be killed in an intersection because some other guy didn't stop. Neither doesn't the other guy. So we both agree that we won't run red lights, and then we can both use the intersection.

If I cross the light and don't kill anyone have I really done anything immoral? Yes, because I agreed not to. I promised when I got my license. However, once cars are driven by computers, one day far in the future, what if they get rid of traffic lights?

Do I still have to stop everytime someone shines a red light at me? No. I don't have to stop at red lights anymore. That would be a superstition. Once the regulation no longer servers a purpose it doesn't need to be followed.

But some laws are forever immoral, like murder. However, the Mosaic law serves no purpose anymore. I don't need to follow a bunch of regulations to becomes a priestly holy person. Jesus died on the cross for me and I am made holy and clean by his blood when he paid the debt for me.

The Lord has already washed all my sins away. To keep following a bunch of priestly regulations in this day and age trying to become holy would be a mockery of Jesus' sacrifice. Not eating bacon so I don't become unclean would be a mockery of Jesus who has already made me clean.

Not wearing clothes of two different fabrics to humble myself because the pagans used multiple fabrics as a status symbol in their idolatry serves no purpose. I am already made humble by Jesus and so forth.

reply to post by Ben81


Even if we're behaving like that crowd we're still a thousand times better behaved than the murdering psycopath of a God found in the Old Testament... for what that's worth

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Ah yes, and now consider who owns Nefertiti? That's right, Germany, home of Interpol, is the site of the world's greatest bust grabbing, not some TSA airport chick.

Damn not even a chuckle for my little "bust grabbing" pun there?

Haha, get it? Bust grabbing?

Anyway... When's Nefertiti going home to Egypt? I heard Zahi Hawass wanted her back but Interpol said they cannot release her until she is cleared of all conspiracy charges in relation to the recent Anonymous hacks. Also I think they are upset that she never talks to them. She just sits there all lovely, enigmatic, as if she has a secret to tell. A scandalous secret about herself and her daughter Meritaten. Haha. It really is the ladies of history who bring the charm.

Hmm, today there is a film opening, I suggest you go see it, with all friends and family.

It is called "Ironclad". It is about the seige of Rochester castle, in 1215, the first war of the Barons.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

In the movie, there is a character, and he is an important person in history, or so the story goes. 1215 is when King and Pope went against Barons, coiners of specie.

en.wikipedia.org...

He died on 1 May 1236, at Offington, Leicestershire, and was buried at Newstead Abbey and "his heart under the wall, opposite the alter at Belvoir Castle".[1] He was succeeded by his son, another William d'Aubigny, who died in 1247 and left only daughters. One of them was Isabel, a co-heiress, who married Robert de Ros, 1st Baron de Ros (c. 1212-1301), thus adding the Aubigny co-guarantor of the Magna Carta to the pedigree of George Washington, 1st president of the USA.

Note the part about George Washington and his pedigree. Pedigree, via daughters?

But in relation to this thread, did Moses have daughters? And if so, does that mean anything? And if it has meaning as to claims, then, what is that meaning? From where does authority derive? Only by studying as families, and groups of families, can these things be understood.

Anyway, go see the movie then come back and discuss commandments from your King, or my King, or any King. Or the UN, if that is your pseudo-King. Let's dispense with the nonsense, we need to think our way out of this scenario, and only propaganda from Hollwodd, can help us. After this movie, go watch the two Bill and Ted films, at home, in the comfort of your own home. Then having viewed this trilogy, your family will be ready to face the coming years with a good understanding of history, and what really matters. Question further: Why didn't Bill and Ted go get any religious figures? Hmm, I think they are trying to do Bill and Ted: Part Three, can we get them to use the circuits of time to visit Tut's tomb? Haha.