It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To Those That Condemn Homosexuality I Ask, Where Are Your Tassels!?

page: 16
14
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: infolurker




5 They called Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us! We want to have sex with them!”


All this is interpolation.


The editors of the popular “Living Bible” paraphrase do interpolate wording which unambiguously refers to homosexuality and identifies it as the sin of Sodom. These words have no basis in the Greek, as we shall see. They were inserted in the spirit of a true paraphrase which combines the Bible text with the paraphrasers’ interpretation to give the reader a pleasant reading experience free of intellectual puzzles. Source


Scholars seems to have narrowed down when they believe story of Sodom and Gomorrah evolved from a lesson in hospitality, commerce and trust into an anti-homosexual polemic.


The belief that God destroyed Sodom because of homosexuality is a late interpretation. It came into being 1700 years after the destruction of Sodom. No human author of the Old Testament linked Sodom with being gay. In fact, until the inter-testamental period, around 150 BC to AD 100, it is difficult to find any Jewish literature which links Sodom with homosexuality. Since the biblical text makes no mention of homosexuality, anti-gay commentators must read into the text, something the text does not say, in an attempt to make scripture say what they wish it said.
Moses, writing in Genesis 10:19, 13:10, 12, 13, 14:2, 8, 10-11, 12, 17, 21-22, 18:16, 20, 22, 26, 19:1, 4, 24, 28; Deuteronomy 23:17, 29:23, 32:32, and Ezekiel, writing in Ezekiel 16:46, 48-49, 53, 55-56, emphasize Sodom’s lack of hospitality, greed, idolatry, gluttony but neither author mentions gays or lesbians or gay sex or homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. The world must wait until the 163 BC-AD 93 time frame for extra-biblical Jewish writers to begin linking Sodom to particular kinds of same sex activity like pederasty and prostitution.
Source



Why is it, then, that the "sins of Sodom" have become the prototype for "sodomy"? Basically it is the result of the same kind of nationalistic fervour that we have seen much earlier. The Palestinian Jews and Jews of the Dispersion during the period from about 100 BC to AD 100, confronted by pagan Hellenistic "immorality" alien to them, deliberately foisted a homosexual misinterpretation upon the story. They began reacting against "the ways of the Gentiles" just as they had earlier reacted against "the ways of Canaan" and "the ways of Egypt."
Source


Another Source

Sorry for all the quotes, but I've already tried to explain, in my own words, what the Bible, and relevant texts, list as the sins of Sodom, and how homosexuality isn't among them.

Just for fun! This is probably what most Christians think!


Unfortunately, for scholars to make it work means that they don't pay attention to the actual meaning. In the KJV, the term "to know" in reference to human relationships ALWAYS means "intercourse". ALWAYS.

Genesis "And Adam KNEW his wife Eve". That means they had sex. It really is silly then to change horses in the middle of the stream just to fit a new meaning in.

Passages from other translations....

The Orthodox Jewish Bible

Bring them out unto us, that we may know them [carnally


Wycliffe Bible

and they called (to) Lot, and said to him, Where be the men that entered to thee tonight? (Where be the men who have entered into thy house tonight?) bring them out hither, (so) that we (may) know them, that is, by lechery against kind.


The Wycliffe was written almost 300 years EARLIER than the KJV

The Geneva Bible (1599)

Behold now, I have two [e]daughters, which have not known man:



Who crying unto Lot said to him, Where are the men, which came to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.


Remember what Mary said to Gabriel "I have not KNOWN any man" meaning that she had never had sex.

You can't change the meaning just to suit an agenda. Scholars can't even change the meaning because then it becomes intellectually dishonest.

The Latin Vulgate

prius autem quam irent cubitum viri civitatis vallaverunt domum a puero usque ad senem omnis populus simul 5 vocaveruntque Loth et dixerunt ei ubi sunt viri qui introierunt ad te nocte educ illos huc ut cognoscamus eos 6 egressus ad eos Loth post tergum adcludens ostium ait 7 nolite quaeso fratres mei nolite malum hoc facere 8 habeo duas filias quae necdum cognoverunt virum educam eas ad vos et abutimini eis sicut placuerit vobis dummodo viris istis nihil faciatis mali quia ingressi sunt sub umbraculum tegminis mei


Notice in the Latin, the two words cognoscamus (masculine) and cognoverunt (feminine) conveys the same meaning.

Luther Bible

5 und forderten Lot und sprachen zu ihm: Wo sind die Männer, die zu dir gekommen sind diese Nacht? Führe sie heraus zu uns, daß wir sie erkennen. 6 Lot ging heraus zu ihnen vor die Tür und schloß die Tür hinter sich zu 7 und sprach: Ach, liebe Brüder, tut nicht so übel! 8 Siehe, ich habe zwei Töchter, die haben noch keinen Mann erkannt, die will ich herausgeben unter euch, und tut mit ihnen, was euch gefällt; allein diesen Männern tut nichts, denn darum sind sie unter den Schatten meines Daches eingegangen.


erkannt, erkennen (both masculine and feminine congigations).

No matter the language, the meaning is continually the same. To know means sexual intercourse. I have offered Bible translations previous to the KJV.

And now, Louis Segond in French...

Mais Lot les pressa tellement qu'ils vinrent chez lui et entrèrent dans sa maison. Il leur donna un festin, et fit cuire des pains sans levain. Et ils mangèrent. 4 Ils n'étaient pas encore couchés que les gens de la ville, les gens de Sodome, entourèrent la maison, depuis les enfants jusqu'aux vieillards; toute la population était accourue. 5 Ils appelèrent Lot, et lui dirent: Où sont les hommes qui sont entrés chez toi cette nuit? Fais-les sortir vers nous, pour que nous les connaissions.


Even in French, the passage obviously means sexual intercourse. couchés you should remember from the Lady Marmalade song "voulez-vou couchés avec moi, c'est moi?". And the word connaissions....cognates connaitre

(transitive) to know (of), to be familiar with (a person, place, fact, event) (transitive) to know, to experience (glory, hunger, problems etc.) (transitive, archaic) to know (sexually) (pronominal) to be knowledgeable (en about)


Latin, French, and English all agree, the passage means to have sex.




posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy




Unfortunately, for scholars to make it work means that they don't pay attention to the actual meaning. In the KJV, the term "to know" in reference to human relationships ALWAYS means "intercourse". ALWAYS.


Yes, they did, and no, it doesn't.


yaw-dah' Verb
Definition
to know
(Qal)
to know 1a
to know, learn to know 1a
to perceive 1a
to perceive and see, find out and discern 1a
to discriminate, distinguish 1a
to know by experience 1a
to recognise, admit, acknowledge, confess 1a
to consider
to know, be acquainted with
to know (a person carnally)
to know how, be skilful in
to have knowledge, be wise
(Niphal)
to be made known, be or become known, be revealed
to make oneself known
to be perceived
to be instructed
(Piel) to cause to know
(Poal) to cause to know
(Pual)
to be known
known, one known, acquaintance (participle)
(Hiphil) to make known, declare
(Hophal) to be made known
(Hithpael) to make oneself known, reveal oneself

King James Word Usage - Total: 947
know 645, known 105, knowledge 19, perceive 18, shew 17, tell 8, wist 7, understand 7, certainly 7, acknowledge 6, acquaintance 6, consider 6, declare 6, teach 5, miscellaneous 85
www.biblestudytools.com...



"Ya,da" is a Hebrew verb which is commonly translated as "know." Its meaning is ambiguous. It appears 943 times elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Usually it means "to know a fact." In only about a dozen of these cases does it refers to sexual activity; in these instances, the sexual meaning is always obvious. The text generally talks about a man "knowing" a woman and of her conceiving a child as a result of the "knowing." With the possible exception of this verse, aAll such references involve heterosexual relationships.

It is not clear whether the mob wanted to:

Gang rape the angels. This was a common technique by which men, particularly enemies, were humiliated in that society.

Engage in consensual homosexual sex with the angels: This may the interpretation of the NIV translators. They wrote very clearly that the intent was to "have sex with them." People "having sex" with each other normally implies mutual consent.

Interrogate them. They may have been concerned that the strangers were spies who were sent to the city to determine its defensive fortifications.
www.religioustolerance.org...



Yãdhà has two meanings: "to know" and "engage in coitus." Of 943 times yãdhà is used in the Old Testament, only ten times is it used to mean sexual intercourse, and all of these are heterosexual coitus. The Old Testament uses the word shãkhabh to mean homosexual acts and bestiality.

Lot was a resident alien in Sodom. When Lot invited strangers into his home, the townspeople approached Lot and demanded "Bring them out unto us, that we may know them (yãdhà)." Judging from the biblical references we've just discussed, it seems the townspeople were asking to get to know the credentials and intentions of strangers in their city.www.libchrist.com...


Yada, Yada, Yada.........



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


And this is the basis for my belief that Jews are entitled to the same healing and blessings today, because they are the sons and daughters of Abraham, meaning Father Abraham.

To me, this completely disqualifies Replacement Theology and Dispensationalism, because Jesus said she was to have the same healing and blessing.

I cannot take that away from them and any Christian who does is not in understanding.

I've been reading the dialog that you have been having with Windword about the word know. In many respects it does in fact mean to have intimate knowledge of, be it sex or be it culturally immersed in, or be it a longstanding acquaintance with, so much so that testimony as a character witness would be credible.

From what you've written above, I very much believe you when you say that you were not raised with Replacement Theology or with Dispensationalism, and probably not even Liberal Theology.

Neither Replacement nor Dispensationalism seeks to take anything away from Jews. They concern Israel people as a collective group and its relationship to a covenanting deity. Think covenant as a marriage. Again, intimate relationship.

The only question, the real question that divides these two positions is this:

If Jesus as the Christ is the only way to the Father, then what kind of relationship exists between non believers and the Father?

This brings up many corollary questions.

1) If the Christ is married to the Church (Jewish believers and Gentile believers) then what happened to the marriage between the Israelite people and their covenanted marriage partner?

2) Do Christian Gentiles have one husband, yet Christian Israelites have two?

3) If a woman is divorced from her husband and she goes and marries another while her ex still lives is she an adulteress?

4) Who has to die in order for this to make sense?

These are the sorts of questions that are grappled with.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Windword and I have reached a point in ATS communication that we have discovered how to still be civil to each other. It wasn't always like that with us. But I appreciate Windword, she certainly invests a lot of time into what she believes is right. Yes, dialogue is a good word, we aren't fighting each other so it's all good.

You asked this:


If Jesus as the Christ is the only way to the Father, then what kind of relationship exists between non believers and the Father?


I can tell you my thinking on that, but other Christians might disagree with me. At that time when Jesus came to the Jews and said "I have come for the lost of the house of Israel" He wasn't rejecting them at all when they rejected Him, because all scripture must be fulfilled, including "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled". He doesn't reject them now.

The way to the Father before Jesus was through keeping mitzvots and sacrifice. All the prophets under the law still had access to the Father, but the Gentile church was grafted into that vine. Here is a song that I really like that expresses that, Jew and Gentile by Joel Chernoff



And just recently there has been a new understanding coming from the worldwide Jewish community that really does show their acceptance of Gentiles from Jerusalem Post.

If you marry one of us, you're a Jew


How did they become Jewish? Many married Jews. Others have Jewish grandparents or more distant Jewish ancestry and are reclaiming their roots. Some do call themselves fully Jewish, but many say they are “partially Jewish,” a newly burgeoning group first documented in the Jewish Community Study of New York: 2011.


Judaism is a religion of community. And as Jesus was living in that time when Judaism was very much a community, Jesus was showing that the very first ancient Jews had established the relationship with the Father, with the prophetic message of Moshiach to be a Savior to come. That is why Paul said in Hebrews that all that was before were types and shadows. Joseph was a type and shadow of Moshiach, his new name was Zaphathenia, Savior of his people, before Judaism existed as a religion.

Jesus was now saying that you don't need a high priest, He is now the High Priest. You don't need a king, He is now the King. You don't need more sacrifice, because now He is the sacrifice. And that was the way they before came to the Father.

They knew that Abraham came to the Father, to establish God as the Father, that is why Abraham had a covenant because the covenants were by blood. And that is why marriage was a covenant, because of the shedding of blood. And that is why gay relationships were not acceptable to them, because the ultimate sign of covenant between a husband and wife was through shedding of blood. In fact, in those days it was common practice to show the bloody sheet to prove the virginity of the wife. And it sealed the covenant.

As the Gentile bride could not be and never be a virgin, Jesus then took that upon Himself, by the shedding of His own blood. So to answer the question:

1: Gentiles are then made Jewish, according to the Jewish context of the OT, even if they don't think so, but now that is changing according to Jerusalem Post, if you marry one of us, you are one of us. So then, by virtue of the same covenant, there is one bride.

2: One husband. Maybe the Gentiles don't want the Jewish husband. That's why they think their husband is Greek.

3: In Jewish marriages there is called a get divorce which simply means that unless he gives that to her he has not nullified his requirement for providing for her. She negotiated the ketubah which dictated her rights in a marriage. It was never to speak against her, but a requirement for him to provide for her.


A get (/ɡɛt/; Hebrew: גט‎, plural gittin גיטין) is a divorce document in Jewish religious law, which must be presented by a husband to his wife to effect their divorce. The essential part of the get is very short; the text is "You are hereby permitted to all men", which means that the wife is no longer a married woman and that the laws of adultery no longer apply. The get also returns to the wife the legal rights that a husband holds in regard to her in a Jewish marriage.


I have seen the videos of Jewish men on 9/11 who were trapped in the buildings who called their wives to give them the get divorce, because it completely freed her for the expectation of emotional release, that she no longer had to be emotionally connected to him. And it is the get divorce Jesus was talking about. He was shaming the men into doing the right thing by their wives.

4: I am not quite sure what you meant by that question. Do you mean stoned for adultery?

ETA: I have proven Sephardi ancestry and Spain has recently apologized for the forced expulsion of Jews and have offered dual citizenship to those of Sephardi ancestry. I also have some Ashkenazi. By that article, I can claim to be part Jewish and be accepted, now. It was not always like that.
edit on 5/7/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy
From what you wrote, I would have to conclude that you are a Liberal, in that community of people with people relationship is the primary function of religion. Moreover, the function of the deity is to facilitate this community of understanding. Well done!


Too bad the Jerusalem Post article is an opinion piece rather than an actual pronouncement from the OT deity.

Which brings us right back to the subject of this thread. People cherry pick the Old Testament to construct a Liberal Deity and then pretend that that deity they have constructed is the same deity portrayed in the Old Testament. Then monotheism is not monotheism, because the two deities are not identical the one with the other.

If you prefer the Liberal Deity then by all means be married to the Liberal Deity. Just quit pretending that you can be married to both. The Fundamentalist Deity may just have a serious problem with that.

Personal anecdote:

My ex-wife married a Jewish man. He then legally adopted her two sons from her second marriage, two boys who I bore the burden of raising. When the adoption was final, sealed and all, he said to the two boys, "You know what this means? Now you can join the IDF."



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena


Personal anecdote:

My ex-wife married a Jewish man. He then legally adopted her two sons from her second marriage, two boys who I bore the burden of raising. When the adoption was final, sealed and all, he said to the two boys, "You know what this means? Now you can join the IDF."


LOL, what a funny guy that man. No, they could not unless they were bar-mitzvahed, he knows that.

I think I should say that God is just way more than I can explain. I would be foolish to even attempt to think I can. I accept that God is much greater in personality and attributes than my limited understanding can perceive, therefore I have no problem accepting that what we know of God from the OT is just very little.

I am of the belief that God has revealed Himself to all people but only in parts, so that people would seek after Him. Some worship certain attributes and have deified attributes.

I do believe the Rig Vedas of the Vedic Age before Hinduism expresses the same God. The way they call Him is "The ONE". And the Jews also have said that in "the God of the whole earth". It would be arrogant of me to presume that God has only appeared to one people.

When people say Yaweh is the name of God, I really think that they don't understand that the four letters really say "I AM that I AM". To me, that means The God that IS. I don't understand fully, but I accept that God IS.

I am not one who would cherry pick the Bible just to point to a god that I think my understanding fits. I don't deify only some attributes, and that has been the failure of many religious people. But I have come to know God, in my limited capacity to know, from the Bible and my personal experience.

Other Christians might say that Yaweh is the name for God and then leave it there. Yaweh simply means "I AM that I AM" Therefore, to me, God has been revealed to all people in all times and in all places, past, present and future.

But through my Jewish views of Messianic prophecy, that is how I came to understand the moral expectation for how I live my life and how I treat others. I also believe that Jesus has appeared, not as the Jewish one sent to just Israel, but for all people and has been revealed according to their own cultural and societal understandings. There are not different Jesus' only one Jesus that has been sent for all people. Some like His message of love, some like His message of hope. But all have been shown one thing, and that is peace.

Even the Mayans in their Quetzlcoatl, the one who stood on the sea and said He was coming back, that was the same Jesus. Even the Mohawk who say Peacekeeper, who said He was coming back, that was the same Jesus.

If Jesus said that He has sheep of a different fold, then I conclude they are as well. After all, the Bible does say that in heaven are "Those from every nation, tribe and tongue".

And that is my belief. It may seem liberal or unorthodox, but I put it all together to say "Jesus has been everywhere for all people". But the Bible is how I came to know God. That is why I am a Christian.

I don't think you know much about me, I didn't grow up in a family that was very good about going to church so we went less often. That is why I remember the sermons that I do, because they were remarkable to me. In my whole childhood, I probably went to church 4 years. I really didn't go to church that much until I was an adult and married. In fact, in my whole childhood I had never heard the word Pentecostal and then when I was older and people were asking me where I went, I said "well, this is what we do" and people said "Oh, you're one of those Pentecostals" but never, ever, ever in my life had I ever seen anything like what they do in those Pentecostal churches, and I think we couldn't classify as Charismatic or Pentecostal that way, because to me Pentecostalism is an experience shared across denominational lines.

I don't really know this Pentecostalism as in a denomination. Perhaps the church that we did go to when we went must have been unusual, because it didn't preach Pentecostalism like that. I think maybe that we could be classified as Christian Mysticism, from the old meaning of mysticism. Meaning that we seek to understand God inwardly.

I once took a test for fun on one of those online religious sites. Every time I took it, always it said Orthodox Quaker, so I called my sister to take it and she got the same result. Then my brother took it and he got Pentecostal. So there must be something about the Orthodox Quaker that I identify with.....lol. But that's me. I hope that helps you understand more of my position.

ETA: I just took another online test and my top result once again is Orthodox Quaker. LOL.

I have never been in a Quaker church.

edit on 5/7/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


I have never been in a Quaker church.

I was in one back in 1974, in the Osage Nation, in Oklahoma. But I was just there to do some carpet work.

I did meet quite a few Quakers in the 2000s. They and the Unitarians were the main sponsors of the local peace movement.

Now this is where I may disappoint many people by relenting and saying you're OK. Even though I am a polytheist, I do believe that the societal function of religion is community building and nurturing, and that the gods are involved in that. To nail the divine down to concrete codes and unalterable rituals is, ..., well it's as bad as putting fairies in a bottle and putting a cork in the mouth. It's just plain mean.

You just may be like a Quaker, but then labels are labels.


ETA

Thank you for the stimulating dialog. I now have an idea for another fiction story.

edit on 7-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena

a reply to: WarminIndy



Now this is where I may disappoint many people by relenting and saying you're OK. Even though I am a polytheist, I do believe that the societal function of religion is community building and nurturing, and that the gods are involved in that. To nail the divine down to concrete codes and unalterable rituals is, ..., well it's as bad as putting fairies in a bottle and putting a cork in the mouth. It's just plain mean.



Not only mean, but impossible.

You know, I never would have though before that there were anything such as fairies, and since I don't know everything there is to know about the spiritual, after seeing this I had to then think there just may be little people of legends.

I'm still on the fence about alien abductions though, but I would never say people were lying about that. I think if they experienced something I didn't, I would not just pass them off.

I also grew up in a haunted house, which most Christians until a few years ago would not admit was real or possible. I just don't understand how they can claim to believe in a supernatural God and then deny a supernatural realm. It didn't make sense to me.

Good and evil are on that side, sometimes people think there is no evil at all.

BTW, my brother is a Celtic Pagan and we get along well.

We are on this side, we only get a tiny glimpse of that other side. As Paul said "we look through a glass darkly", Plato said the same thing in The Republic, Paul knew enough to tell the Epicurians "even as your own poets have said".


Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.


Even Paul says that God was for all people in all places at all times. And all of us are His offspring. Maybe some Christians forgot that and in their zeal, hurt a lot of others.

I asked my mother one time what this verse meant.

Micah4: 4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it. 5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.


I choose to walk in the name of the God that I know. I can say nothing to you about what you walk in, because it has been established for you to sit under your own tree and not be afraid. Nothing can take that from you. I would be cherry picking if I left that out.



edit on 5/7/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: arpgme


Jesus never said homosexuality was a sin. Christians try to back up their bigotry with the torah ("old" testament) and Paul's letters. Anything but Jesus's actual teachings.

Do you mean like -- KJV Bible
Matthew_5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
if He did not change the law then it still must be His law. Right?



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: arpgme


Jesus never said homosexuality was a sin. Christians try to back up their bigotry with the torah ("old" testament) and Paul's letters. Anything but Jesus's actual teachings.

Do you mean like -- KJV Bible
Matthew_5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
if He did not change the law then it still must be His law. Right?


Right.

I concur.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

To go with that interpretation then every Christian should still be following the Law, which is the Pentateuch/Torah. Why then is the Sabbath no longer properly observed? Why are the rituals outlined in Leviticus discarded if you are all to follow "the law"? Following 'The Law" contradicts vast swathes of the NT, almost all of Pauline Doctrine, Galatians... and on and on

Furthermore, Christs birth, teachings Resurrection and finally his Ascension ARE, per the prophecies, fulfillment of the law thus negating the need to maintain the law and only follow HIS teachings. You can't have it both ways.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: arpgme


Jesus never said homosexuality was a sin. Christians try to back up their bigotry with the torah ("old" testament) and Paul's letters. Anything but Jesus's actual teachings.

Do you mean like -- KJV Bible
Matthew_5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
if He did not change the law then it still must be His law. Right?


Incorrect...

read the first reply in the thead...

Jesus did not endorse the 613 laws as a whole... which means it wasn't the law he was speaking of...

Many so called "laws" were overturned when Jesus came...




edit on 7-5-2015 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy



I asked my mother one time what this verse meant.

Micah4: 4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it. 5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.


I choose to walk in the name of the God that I know. I can say nothing to you about what you walk in, because it has been established for you to sit under your own tree and not be afraid. Nothing can take that from you. I would be cherry picking if I left that out.

Thank you for the sentiment.

But unfortunately the passage you quote is present tense, from the perspective of the prophet. A more literal translation:

4 Each of them will sit under his vine
And under his fig tree,
With no one to make them afraid,
For the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken.
5 Though all the peoples walk
Each in the name of his god,
As for us, we will walk
In the name of the Lord our God forever and ever.
NASB

Under the fig tree are the people of the nations who have submitted to the one world government Theocracy with its capital and throne in Jerusalem. Peace is promised to the submissive.

The people walking in the names of their own gods, that's now before the peace, before the One World Theocracy mentioned in the first 3 verses of Micah 4.

What of the non-submissive? Malachi seems to mention some ashes underfoot.

I'm going to have to bring out the big guns. Neil Diamond. One for you and one for me. Perhaps we may appreciate each other's songs.






edit on 7-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: WarminIndy

To go with that interpretation then every Christian should still be following the Law, which is the Pentateuch/Torah. Why then is the Sabbath no longer properly observed? Why are the rituals outlined in Leviticus discarded if you are all to follow "the law"? Following 'The Law" contradicts vast swathes of the NT, almost all of Pauline Doctrine, Galatians... and on and on

Furthermore, Christs birth, teachings Resurrection and finally his Ascension ARE, per the prophecies, fulfillment of the law thus negating the need to maintain the law and only follow HIS teachings. You can't have it both ways.


Some Christians do keep the Sabbath on Friday night-Saturday night. Some keep it Saturday night-Sunday morning.

The point is, as the Bible does not say Friday, Monday or Wednesday, only that one should honor a day of rest. Jesus told them the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

When I am with Jews or Messianic Jews, I will respect their moment of honoring the Sabbath.

Some traditions can place burdens on people, and that is what Jesus came to free us from, the burden of the law. We still keep the Sabbath, some keep it on those days, some other days. Whatever is your day of Sabbath, just keep it, meaning just honor the day of rest. The law is still in effect. I would say that "thou shalt not kill" is a pretty good law to keep.

But you are referring to the 10 commandments. Those are not the 613 laws of Moses.

The 10 commandments simply say "remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy". In other words, just have a day set apart for rest and relaxation. The burden came about with rabbis who then dictated what one could do, and it became ridiculous.

The 10 commandments also say "covet not thy neighbor's wife". That kind of indicates that the expectation was man/woman marriage relationships are to be honored.

It's not the law we are redeemed from, it is the curse of the law. That's what law does, it brings a burden or it brings a blessing. That is why Paul also said "The law is a schoolmaster, to bring us to grace".

And we do keep the law in Christ, who administers as the High Priest for us. Did you know, there are Jews who eat pork and shellfish. The point is, Jesus fulfilled the law, that we are no longer under the burden of the endless man made traditions. Jesus said "Go ye therefore into all the world, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world".

Therefore, as a Christian, the command is to observe all things whatsoever He has taught us. Do we keep the law? Yes, we do. In Christ alone.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

The NT does condemn homosexuality as well, but putting the bible aside, show me a pair of homosexuals who can naturally produce a child (without any unnatural genetic modification), and I will accept homosexuality as a natural state of being.


I have a stepbrother who's a meth head who can't stop having meth addicted babies with his meth addicted girlfriend. Babies and kids they don't take care of, feed, clean or send to school. Just because you can procreate doesn't mean you should.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Neil Diamond is Jewish. I like Neil Diamond and not because he is Jewish.

I believe that time is circular and events are replayed throughout history. Yes, present tense, even as Isaiah prophesied in present tense "Unto us a son is born, unto us a son is given, and he shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace".

A son IS given. And he shall be called.

The NASB is a Catholic Bible.

The Orthodox Jewish Bible says

4 But they shall sit every man under his gefen (vine) and under his te’enah (fig tree); and none shall make them afraid; for the mouth of Hashem Tzva’os hath spoken. 5 For Kol HaAmmim will walk every one b’shem Elohav, and we will walk b’shem Hashem Eloheinu l’olam va’ed.


The earlier Douay Rheims Catholic Bible

4 And every man shall sit under his vine, and under his fig tree, and there shall be none to make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken. 5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god: but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.


All nations have now come to Jerusalem because a baby born in Zion, then as a man, stood on the Mount of Olives and in the temple and proclaimed "This day has this scripture been fulfilled in your hearing".

Think about the spiritual meaning of this.
The theocratic government has already been in place. But it isn't a kingdom of this world. Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world". That is the kingdom I have a place in now.




posted on May, 7 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Doesn't it make you wonder why he wasn't ever actually called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace... Or Emanuel for that matter




posted on May, 7 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: WarminIndy

Doesn't it make you wonder why he wasn't ever actually called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace... Or Emanuel for that matter



He's not wonderful to you? Is He not your counselor?

And there are many more names He was called....

Prophetic names

Emmanuel, God with us.

Revelation "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with man".

I say yes, but you have to know Jesus to know how He was, is and will be called.


edit on 5/7/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

That not the point...

No one called him any of those names... Most especially Everlasting Father...

He probably would have slapped someone who even suggested such a name




posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon
Hey Akragon,

Figured I say Hi.

I took a two year break from ATS to clear my head. Does it seem to you that only about a third the number of people posting as there were 2 years ago?

And to stay on topic, has anyone shown their tassels yet?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join