Joshua, Moses, the Law and Redemption.

I was musing this morning while doing laundry and I think the Holy Spirit deposited a nugget into my mind. Follow me on this one for a sec...

Moses is synonymous with the Law. The "Promised Land" can be an allegorical reference to the Kingdom of God. Jesus is our Lord's Greek name, Yahshua is His Hebrew birth-name, which in English transliterates to "Joshua". So it's interesting to consider the Moses story. God would not let Moses lead His chosen people, the elect of God from eternity past to eternity future, into the promised land. Joshua was allowed to just take them and lead them right in.

Now, in reflecting on the gospel message how's this? The Law (Moses) will lead no one into the promised land (the Kingdom of God), but instead Jesus (Joshua) will lead God's people (the elect) into the promised land (the kingdom of God).

It's through Jesus, not the Law we're reconciled to God. It's by grace through faith, not works of the law. The only "laws" are the one's Christ gave and the apostles echoed.. the Law of Love. Love for everyone else, and love for God with all you've got. So, He is our Redemption, there is only one Savior, it's God.

The Moses and Joshua account in the OT is a good type and foreshadow of the gospel message according to the NT, yes, no, thoughts?

Where to start??? That I suppose depends on which of the thousands of different Christian sects one is speaking to. However since you mention redemption we'll orientate ourselves along the lines of original sin. Even the Vatican now accepts the basis of evolution, Benedict being not quite as firm on this on this point as his predecessor. Hence the hateful misogyny of the religious can be seen to have no basis, there was no temptation and therefore no original sin. Why therefore do we need to carry this idea of redemption, for what? Next, the question of Exodus can be briefly covered both in Egypt and Israel. No evidence of any Jews in Egypt in any numbers. The labour that built the pyramids were indigenous people. Their villages they resided in whilst constructing them are well documented. Zero evidence for a 'wandering' in the desert.

The actual books of the Old Testament have been also proven to be a mish mash of anachronistic forgeries and a rehash of earlier and other myth. Including the fact that history now also considers Moses a mythical figure. I doubt you could glean more than a handful of 'real' historical figures out of that book. In that I include your mythman in chief.

However if your looking for solid 24 carat forgeries the all time winner must be the New Testament. None of them actually witnesses to events that never happened in the first place! Often written centuries after the event. Nazareth did not even exist at the time he was supposed to be living there and even the bronze age settlement was not on that site but some distance away.

As to your idea that you should live by faith and not law you merely peddle the excuse for every religious horror that's ever taken place and given a pass card to every demigogue of political ideology that have after all only taken the Bible's advice of genocide and murder to your ideological enemies.

As to the idea of love being the mainspring of this supposed Jesus' teachings I'll have to quote what has no doubt been thrown at you before but any reply to this contradiction would be amusing.

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

It's oft quoted i know, however as a parent I would not want redeeming by such a monstrous figure should I be troubled enough to believe such errant nonsense in the first place.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Dear NOTurTypical,

I think you're right, the Holy Spirit has "nuggeted" you. Moses was allowed to see the promised land but not go into it. The prophets of the Old Testament were allowed to "see" the Kingdom, but not enter into it. Moses led the people as far as the very gate of the Kingdom, which is what the OT did.

I see your "nugget" not as a new truth, (and, no, you didn't claim it was) but as a new way of pointing out old truths that we haven't seen or have forgotten.

Stay open to the Spirit.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by goldentorch


You didn't state your opinion to the question in the OP, which I presume is "NO". Anyways, thanks for taking part in the discussion.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by goldentorch

 

You didn't state your opinion to the question in the OP, which I presume is "NO". Anyways, thanks for taking part in the discussion.

edit on 16-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

I would contend that I covered the question well enough with the part of my answer stating that law should be above faith and that the sort of reasoning you present has been carte blanche for biblical and secular despots.

Dear NOTurTypical,

I realise that I'm speaking to an elder brother in Christ, but I rely on your patience.

I find that opening the Bible or a book of meditations with a quiet and open heart makes it easier for me to be "nuggeted." I would guess that 9 times out of 10 I'm either blessed with a new insight, or a special peace. On rare occasions a vision is presented that teaches me something inspiring. The whole procedure goes usually 15 minutes to an hour, and it's the most valuable time I spend. I'm even more blessed by knowing a Christian woman I respect and we share these things between us. I understand a tiny bit of the Glory of God, and I am content.

**************************************

Hey, goldentorch. Mind a question or two?

None of them actually witnesses to events that never happened in the first place! Often written centuries after the event. Nazareth did not even exist at the time he was supposed to be living there and even the bronze age settlement was not on that site but some distance away.

That's a big claim. None of the Gospel writers knew Jesus? That seems to be different from the opinion of most Bible scholars. The general opinion is that all the Gospels were written between 45 AD at the earliest and 100 AD for the latest (John's), what was written at least two centuries after the event? I'd appreciate your source for these statements if you can find the time.

As to your idea that you should live by faith and not law

What law do you believe we should be living under? The Law of the Old Testament? The fulfilled law of the New Testament? I'm confused here. Help me out?

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

This one? Just my opinion, but I see it as similar to the plucking out the eye verse. He's warning us not to love anything more than Jesus and to be prepared to lose them if necessary. I don't think it's monstrous, just a matter of getting our priorities straight.

Best wishes,
Charles1952

Originally posted by goldentorch

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by goldentorch

 

You didn't state your opinion to the question in the OP, which I presume is "NO". Anyways, thanks for taking part in the discussion.

edit on 16-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

I would contend that I covered the question well enough with the part of my answer stating that law should be above faith and that the sort of reasoning you present has been carte blanche for biblical and secular despots.

Why should the Law be above grace through faith? What is your theological basis for saying so?

reply to post by goldentorch

\As to the idea of love being the mainspring of this supposed Jesus' teachings I'll have to quote what has no doubt been thrown at you before but any reply to this contradiction would be amusing.


Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.


It's oft quoted i know, however as a parent I would not want redeeming by such a monstrous figure should I be troubled enough to believe such errant nonsense in the first place.

That quote simply means do not seek the phyiscal world... or the pleasures of the flesh

It does not mean hate your parents or children...

reply to post by NOTurTypical


As I do not believe it is obvious that I take a critical view. In this I have a tendency to argue how it has been used not singular subjective reasonings. One of the most glaring examples of course would be the Vatican's Simony and the Sale of indulgences, one can be seen then to be back in grace and favour. On the other side of the theological argument wasn't the Reformation about certain Christians desiring a return to 'God's' laws? Trying to put myself into the theological position aren't 'God's' laws written by the imaginary man himself and faith designed by man. As to the point I made earlier some man decides you are practising one of the numerous faiths and can permit in principle the overriding of 'God's' laws. This very question in itself has caused unimaginable bloodshed in both the theocratic and secular arenas for too long.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by goldentorch

 

\As to the idea of love being the mainspring of this supposed Jesus' teachings I'll have to quote what has no doubt been thrown at you before but any reply to this contradiction would be amusing.


Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.


It's oft quoted i know, however as a parent I would not want redeeming by such a monstrous figure should I be troubled enough to believe such errant nonsense in the first place.

That quote simply means do not seek the phyiscal world... or the pleasures of the flesh

It does not mean hate your parents or children...

Then why not say that? There are other places in that book that say such things unambiguously. If theists are to use allegory as a defence cannot those of us that do not believe see the whole book as myth and allegory?

reply to post by charles1952

I realise that I'm speaking to an elder brother in Christ, but I rely on your patience.

Probably not actually, I'm young, but I thank you anyways. Your posts reflect a brother in Christ who has passed on from the milk as well. ha

Originally posted by goldentorch
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

As I do not believe it is obvious that I take a critical view. In this I have a tendency to argue how it has been used not singular subjective reasonings. One of the most glaring examples of course would be the Vatican's Simony and the Sale of indulgences, one can be seen then to be back in grace and favour. On the other side of the theological argument wasn't the Reformation about certain Christians desiring a return to 'God's' laws? Trying to put myself into the theological position aren't 'God's' laws written by the imaginary man himself and faith designed by man. As to the point I made earlier some man decides you are practising one of the numerous faiths and can permit in principle the overriding of 'God's' laws. This very question in itself has caused unimaginable bloodshed in both the theocratic and secular arenas for too long.

Okay, sounds like you have a problem with Catholicism. I do to, in one afternoon a single pope murdered more Christians than died in the entire persecution under Rome for 200 years.

reply to post by Akragon


Yeah, it means Christ should be above everyone.

reply to post by goldentorch

Then why not say that? There are other places in that book that say such things unambiguously. If theists are to use allegory as a defence cannot those of us that do not believe see the whole book as myth and allegory?

Often-times it's context. Christ refused to teach in public in anything but parables after the Pharisees insulted the Holy Spirit. And in this particular passage it's inconsistent with the rest of Christ's message to love everyone as oneself. It's a hint there is something deeper than the text itself. A good indicator it's allegory or metaphorical. Not literally "hate" them, He had previously said if any man hated his brother he committed murder in his heart. So He certainly wasn't teaching men to be murderers in God's sight.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So that'll be contradiction then?

Originally posted by goldentorch

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by goldentorch

 

As to the idea of love being the mainspring of this supposed Jesus' teachings I'll have to quote what has no doubt been thrown at you before but any reply to this contradiction would be amusing.


Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.


It's oft quoted i know, however as a parent I would not want redeeming by such a monstrous figure should I be troubled enough to believe such errant nonsense in the first place.

That quote simply means do not seek the phyiscal world... or the pleasures of the flesh

It does not mean hate your parents or children...

Then why not say that? There are other places in that book that say such things unambiguously. If theists are to use allegory as a defence cannot those of us that do not believe see the whole book as myth and allegory?

Of course you can... You can see the book whatever way you like... a story, a myth...

You might notice that Jesus spoke a lot in parables and allegory as you said...

10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.



I was just telling you what it meant... obviously if one hates his children and parents you break his commandments...

Originally posted by goldentorch
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So that'll be contradiction then?

Yes, a purposeful one. I believe for emphasis, not necessarily doctrine.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I'm going to have to agree to disagree on this one. What if i were to say to you it's both? Think hard on this. Jesus said he didn't come to do away with the old law, but to fulfill it. The atypical christian doctrine believes that to "fulfill" means to negate or "do away with" which Jesus said he did not come to do. Perhaps then, we can say that when Jesus fulfilled the law, he manifested them into himself?

During Christ's ministry he preached the 10 commandments constantly, this was what summed up his message of how to love your enemies and neighbors and your God at the same time. While on trial the Sanhedrin asked him "What are the 2 greatest commandments of the law?" to which Jesus replied "The first and greatest of the commandments is to love the LORD (Yahweh) your God with all your mind, all your heart and all your strength. The second of the 2 greatest commandments is to love your neighbor as you love yourself".

Now when we take a look at what Jesus said, the first 4 commandments of the 10 commandments is how you show love for your God and the last 6 of the commandments shows how you show love for your neighbor. Do you think the Decalogue is no longer in play? It's what he taught himself. This also brings up the issue of Saturday Sabbath v Sunday Sabbath. The saturday sabbath was established at the foundation of the world to be the sabbath forever and nowhere in the bible will you see Jesus say he changed the sabbath, not even in Revelation and Jesus is the creator, because he says the sabbath is his day here. The sabbath day is the Lord's Day, not Sunday the day he was resurrected on which is a tradition of the catholics made into law by Constantine and Eusebius.

Who is Jesus to claim the sabbath is his day? What authority does he have to say this?

John 8:56-59

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Who is Jesus to say he desires mercy and not sacrifice? What authority does he have?

Mattew 12:1-8

1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
2But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Today we celebrate pagan holidays and feastdays, when for 300 years before Constantine Christians celebrated their holidays on the jewish feastdays, both gentiles and jews alike until Constantine. We celebrated the sabbath from dusk friday to dusk saturday. Our months are named after pagan gods, and our days are named after pagan gods and we wonder why heaven is silent and we cannot work miracles like we should. Yahweh commanded in the Torah to never utter the name of a pagan god and we do it everyday even subconciously.

If the laws are no longer in effect then why can homosexuals not be christians? Why can we not kill ourselves so we can leave this world behind? Why do we still subconciously fear and cling to the old laws if we are no longer bound by them? Because of this:

Hebrews 8:10

10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Hebrews 10: 16-18

16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.



Jeremiah 31:33

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Shall we then hold onto these pagan holidays, months and days and then be able to say we love our God? I have wrangled with this for 3 weeks. If Christ is our King should be not be the template we model ourselves after? If he would hold to the law should we not? Or do we have a license to sin?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by goldentorch

 

Then why not say that? There are other places in that book that say such things unambiguously. If theists are to use allegory as a defence cannot those of us that do not believe see the whole book as myth and allegory?

Often-times it's context. Christ refused to teach in public in anything but parables after the Pharisees insulted the Holy Spirit. And in this particular passage it's inconsistent with the rest of Christ's message to love everyone as oneself. It's a hint there is something deeper than the text itself. A good indicator it's allegory or metaphorical. Not literally "hate" them, He had previously said if any man hated his brother he committed murder in his heart. So He certainly wasn't teaching men to be murderers in God's sight.

edit on 16-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Indeed he was not teaching hate. In my opinion he was teaching to come out and be seperate from those who chose not to follow him to "come out from babylon and be seperate" as it were. That they needed to turn their backs on the things of this world and it's material concerns and more towards the concerns of God.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Want a little bit more to go with your thought? I was thinking the same thing a few years back too Here is some scripture found only in the advanced revelation of the KJV that teaches your "thoughts"

Acts 7:44-45
44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with JESUS into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; "

Notice the advanced revelation of the Authorized Text provided the name of Jesus in place of Joshua? It shows Joshua was a type of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, And with this being true.....it also shows you the first 10 chapters of the book of Joshua are a for runner and type of the second advent of Jesus Christ. Read the first 10 chapters and then compare it to Rev 19 and Zech 14:3, & Hab 3:11 & Isa 28:14-21

All the "new" bibles change the word into Joshua thus killing the type being shown from God by the KJV text. That Bible is full of this stuff! I love it