God's law; Your sons

This thread is the sequel to God's Law; Your daughters
In due course there will be one more thread in the "family law" theme.

DISRAELI
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

I was using the word "scribe" in the New Testament sense. One who studies the text and draws meaning out of it.

I wouldnt/wounded know about that is/as Christ crucified; (deemed a personal occurance to you). One that studies the 'New Testiment" is on their own as to its (your path); fallacies and contradictions. IT the 'new' wouldnt exist without the bootstrap of the Torah or older Yahweh/as/is/Enki; machinations. Why do you not realize your Mouthpeices are anything but demi-Gods at all? The Absolutem is God, and it is benevolent.

Instead of making a completely fresh start, he takes the customs that they’ve got already and allows time to change them in a gradual way.
He is prepared to deal with people in ways they can understand, before trying to lead them further.

I am the son of two schoolteachers and the grandson of a third.
I may have mentioned this before.
This provides me with a very accessible analogy for the way God approaches the question of giving laws to the people of Israel.
He behaves like a teacher.

A good teacher is always conscious of the capabilities and limitations of his pupils, and he tries to give them teaching at the appropriate level.
He talks to them in terms which they will be able to understand, and sets out to improve their understanding in gradual ways.
If their reading abilities have taken them to the end of the first of the “Janet and John” books, then he offers them the second book.
If their mathematical skills have taken them as far as adding up and “taking away”, then he might begin showing them how to multiply and divide.
What he’s not going to do is start scribbling Einstein’s equations on the blackboard.
Teaching is not about “zapping” people with instantaneous advanced knowledge (except in science fiction stories).
It is the slow and patient work of gradual training.

We find a similar patience in the way the God of Israel deals with his people.
Thus his intention for marriage was that “a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh” (Genesis ch2 v23).
Yet in the Old Testament laws he accepts, for the time being, the practice of divorce, which Jesus blames on “the hardness of their hearts” (Matthew ch19 v8).
And why does God allow them to fall short of the intended standard?
Because their minds are not yet ready for the intended standard.
They are still in training.

He finds this people living in a very patriarchal society, like all the other societies of the time.
Whatever he thinks about this, he does not try to change it at a stroke.
He modifies their behaviour gradually, beginning with mild restraints on the husband’s power.
He finds them loving their brothers and other kinsmen and encourages them to treat the rest of the nation in the same way.
However, they are not yet ready to extend the concept of “brothers” to the world at large, so that part of the training is postponed for a later stage.

In short, what we see in the laws of the Old Testament, and in the overall history of the Old Testament, is the slow and patient work of gradual training.
God does not “zap”. He teaches.

When modern critics are assailing the laws and the culture of the Old Testament, this is precisely what they are complaining about.
They don’t think God should have been giving his people this patient teaching.
They think he should have “zapped” them , instantly, to a state of spiritual maturity comparable to their own.
If they had been in God’s place (and they would certainly have done the job better) they would have “zapped”.

The God of the Old Testament is much more patient than they are.
He finds his people at the “cuh-ah-tuh-CAT” level of spiritual education, and he lifts them gradually.
A lot of work will be required before they can reach the kind of spiritual heights from which these critics can look down haughtily at the junior versions of themselves.
The fact that God is willing to undertake this slow and patient work is very revealing.
It shows us that God is a teacher.

This has a bearing on the question of whether these laws can be changed.
We find in the classroom that lessons vary according to the age and circumstances of the pupils.
The books used in the infants’ class are not the books used in the university lecture hall.
I’ve heard a physics graduate complaining that he had to re-learn the laws of physics at every stage in his education.
In the same way, the guidance which God gives to his people might be expected to change according to the level of their understanding as well as the condition of their society.
And the fact that these laws are so closely bound up with the needs of a particular kind of society is another reason for regarding them as temporary.
They can only be “God’s laws”, if at all, for a period in Israel’s history, rather than for all time.
The details of the laws might be variable, as long as the principles which lay behind them were respected.
In other words, as Paul might put it, the letter of the Law would be less binding than the spirit of the Law.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Being the Son of two school teachers says it all. You are speaking of the primer book, John and what? That would be "Dick, Jane and Spot the Dog" something is amiss here in not only your nomenclature but your idea format that God is a lawmaker (those persons/entities are nothing but demi-gods full of themselves). Im going to ask you once more this: Why if mankinds laws as efficent and far reaching as they are need a God Law overlay. The Demigods put the speed limits for travel in place all over the world. Now as in excess of too many laws God decides its not enough and has to exact even more stringent laws. IVE HAD ENOUGH OF LAWS. I WANT FREEDOM TO "DO AS I WILT BY THE WHOLE OF THE LAW". I am in charge of my soul progression not you and your prophetilizing; you are A YOKE; dragging oxen into a place of abysmal thoughtforms, nowhere near a nirvana Kether state of consciousness.

vethumanbeing
Im going to ask you once more this: Why if mankinds laws as efficent and far reaching as they are need a God Law overlay.

What makes you think that mankind's laws are efficient? As ways of getting people to behave well towards each other, they're not efficient at all, as the history of human life shows.
The laws offered in the OT try to improve on the ideals which underlie them. The next stage, in the NT, tries to take us beyond the laws to the ideals themselves.
But "absolute freedom" does not work, because your freedom to chop off your neighbour's head with an axe clashes with his freedom not to have his head cut off with an axe. Something has to give way.

You are speaking of the primer book, John and what? That would be "Dick, Jane and Spot the Dog" something is amiss here in not only your nomenclature but

No, there is nothing wrong with my nomenclature. I learnt to read on "Janet and John" books.
That comment gives away the real narrowness of your horizons; it simply doesn't occur to you that different schools in different times and places might be using different books.

reply to post by DISRAELI


I always thought that these laws were created because the early Jewish community was learning to live as a community after 400 years in Egypt and subject to Egyptian laws. It takes a while for people to psychologically come out of one system to live under another, or creating another. It took over 100 years from the time of the first British colony to the American Revolution, it didn't happen overnight. But the Mayflower Compact was designed for those of the Plymouth Colony and didn't apply to those at Jamestown.

The House of Burgesses was designed for early intra-continental laws, but many British men in the American colonies were still represents in the House of Commons and still went back and forth across the Atlantic to fulfill their duties. We have to put ourselves into the shoes of the early Jewish community and understand through their eyes that they were slaves and now were no longer slaves. They still carried with the the same mentality and psychology, so time would have to be taken until gradually the community no longer expresses their former status.

While the laws may seem overbearing at times, it was all designed for the purpose of people learning to live together.

reply to post by WarminIndy

I think it's possible that the basic stratum of these laws is even older than the escape from Egypt, at least in areas where the customs are common with other societies.
There are parallels with Babylonian law, which under this topic include nearly-equal division of inheritance and the authority given to fathers.
The parallels suggest that these threads in the law go back to a time when the ancestor of Israel was "a wandering Aramaean", as Deuteronomy puts it.
Perhaps it's a mistake to think of the Israelites in Egypt as living under the Egyptian legal codes. They might have done if they were in the heart of the country and getting assimilated, but if they were a semi-autonomous community at the edge of Egypt they could have continued to live under the customs they brought in from their previous environment.
Then the contribution of "Sinai" would be to tweak the laws by adding improvements which started to lift them above the customs of other peoples.

DISRAELI
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I think it's possible that the basic stratum of these laws is even older than the escape from Egypt, at least in areas where the customs are common with other societies.
There are parallels with Babylonian law, which under this topic include nearly-equal division of inheritance and the authority given to fathers.
The parallels suggest that these threads in the law go back to a time when the ancestor of Israel was "a wandering Aramaean", as Deuteronomy puts it.
Perhaps it's a mistake to think of the Israelites in Egypt as living under the Egyptian legal codes. They might have done if they were in the heart of the country and getting assimilated, but if they were a semi-autonomous community at the edge of Egypt they could have continued to live under the customs they brought in from their previous environment.
Then the contribution of "Sinai" would be to tweak the laws by adding improvements which started to lift them above the customs of other peoples.

I find it interesting that as my mtDNA is T2b, known to arise in Aram, hence my mother was a wandering Aramean, that even though I don't come from the core group of what later became the Jews, I still ultimately have the same maternal ancestry.

I, somehow, have managed to accumulate an understanding of Levant religion outside of the modern prescribed definitions. Therefore, ultimately, these laws were designed in such a way as to protect a fledgling group that were no longer simple sheepherders. We know that Aram was not only a sheepherding society, but advanced. There must have been consistent ideas about legal issues even while Moses was in Midian, as his father-in-law Jethro had been a priest of Midian.

That indicates a knowledge of law, because the priests kept legal authority in those days, reporting to the king, or pharaoh as in Egypt. However, as Israel didn't have a king yet, only a charismatic leader, then the authority was an agreed consensus that the judges would exercise authority. By the time of Saul and David, the people wanted a king like their neighbors. What was priestly law, executed by the judges, and encompassing four tribes now, the Levites as priests and Danites as judges, then Saul was a Benjamite and David was a Jehudite.

That left 8 other tribes subject to the laws of the Levites, executed by the Danites, ruled by the Benjamites and then given a temple by the Jehudites. Clearly this was a departure for them. And everyone was aware in Egypt as to what tribe they belonged to because of the early censuses by Moses, then Jethro recommends that 70 men were to be placed as judges to alleviate the great amount of stress to Moses. As Moses is merely called a "law giver" and not a "law executioner", then anything he felt as a proper law would have to either be accepted as absolute law or agreed as absolute law.

Apparently even though the laws were given, at times those laws were violated. Samson, a Danite and judge, broke the laws he was to judge. I think that since the Danites have been lost to history, the Jehudites split the kingdom, the Benjamites remained in Israel and most Jews we know today claim descendancy from Levites, then there can be no execution of the laws today. That's how I see it. And if the Levites are keepers, or those expected to interpret laws, then any influence outside of the original laws could find their way into modern Judaism, as there is nothing to stop it. Hence, the rabbinical councils. While those are agreed that they should be followed, as there are no Danites, then the Levites aren't to be held to enforcing Judaic law.

It gets confusing, but as the Danites are no longer available to judge, then it is left up to just the Levites. What would happen tomorrow if a large group of Danites suddenly appeared and said "by the law of Moses we are here to resume our roles as judges"?

WarminIndy
DISRAELI
reply to post by WarminIndy

WarminIndyIt gets confusing, but as the Danites are no longer available to judge, then it is left up to just the Levites. What would happen tomorrow if a large group of Danites suddenly appeared and said "by the law of Moses we are here to resume our roles as judges"?

Chinese nationalistic communists may have a strong response to that resumation as Danites becoming the universal 'law' interpreters.

DISRAELI

vethumanbeing
Im going to ask you once more this: Why if mankinds laws as efficent and far reaching as they are need a God Law overlay.

DISRAELIWhat makes you think that mankind's laws are efficient? As ways of getting people to behave well towards each other, they're not efficient at all, as the history of human life shows.

So if 'gods' laws are imperfect now; and mankind continues to brutalize itself with police enforcement (extra laws), what makes you think God as a benevolent being is going to step in now? Who created these laws for mankind? not the Absolutum, but those that chose to take up the power. Demi-gods Yahweh and Posiden (enlil and enki).

DISRAELI The laws offered in the OT try to improve on the ideals which underlie them. The next stage, in the NT, tries to take us beyond the laws to the ideals themselves. But "absolute freedom" does not work, because your freedom to chop off your neighbour's head with an axe clashes with his freedom not to have his head cut off with an axe. Something has to give way.

Absolute freedom is not meant as taking effective action (to gain) against the fellow human; it only describes 'Freewill' given to the human to make choices for itself without a Gods permission (it has nothing to do with state/religion governments overriding this God given tenent to all).

VHB
You are speaking of the primer book, John and what? That would be "Dick, Jane and Spot the Dog" something is amiss here in not only your nomenclature but

DISRAELINo, there is nothing wrong with my nomenclature. I learnt to read on "Janet and John" books.That comment gives away the real narrowness of your horizons; it simply doesn't occur to you that different schools in different times and places might be using different books.

No idea here. Janet, Sally or John with their pet armadillo/muskrat/parakeet is ok with me (as long as the devil didnt write those primers).

vethumanbeing
Absolute freedom is not to action against the fellow human;

Not acting against fellow-humans is the real essence of God's law, as taught to us by Jesus; "You shall love your neighbour as yourself".
So you are living by "God's law" after all.

DISRAELI

vethumanbeing
Absolute freedom is not to action against the fellow human;

Not acting against fellow-humans is the real essence of God's law, as taught to us by Jesus; "You shall love your neighbour as yourself".
So you are living by "God's law" after all.

Of course I am (the golden rule). Im not in disagreement with you; Im just learning your style of thought and writing and would expect the same from you if you had questions which you certainly do as to my style of expression. Id be interested to hear your comment to warminIndy; was it Abraham that had the two sons that split off to make Judaism and Islam into the religions they are today?

reply to post by vethumanbeing

The descent of Israel is traced through Isaac, son of Abraham and Sarah.
His other main son, Ishmael, is supposed to be the ancestor of the Arabs.

DISRAELI
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

The descent of Israel is traced through Isaac, son of Abraham and Sarah.
His other main son, Ishmael, is supposed to be the ancestor of the Arabs.

As this is a truism, why are Abraham's sons fighting today within the confines of dogmatic principles including land grabs, vitriolic hatred; any idea why the brothers dislike each other so much as to drag millions of believers of their different faiths into a quagmire of discontent? What if Jesus had two sons that formed different belief systems and now have turned upon one another (Cain and Able, Enlil and Enki) (Set and Osiris, Isaac and Ishmail) type of senario? Why the pattern of deception and betrayal OVERLAY architype to this day repeated through time/history? Why is religion a bane of contempt as in have started most of the worlds deadliest conflicts.

reply to post by vethumanbeing


Let's just examine for a moment here what you are accusing the sides of

1:Both are involved in land grabbing.
2:Both are at war with each other.

For a quick historical lesson as the first is Arab propaganda and the second, is Arab propaganda. Historically there was a land called Israel, from the 1st to the 7th Centuries it was called Israel by the Jews and Palestine by the Romans. Calling it Palestine today doesn't change the fact it was still called Israel.

The Arabs invaded in the 7th Century, imposing Islamic rule in a country that already comprised of Christians, Jews and Samaritans. This is true from their own writings. The imposing of Islam and Arabization of the area are celebrated and those people called Palestinians are merely descendants of Christians and Jews and Samaritans already existing in the area.

While the Jews were exiled many times, no one can deny that some Jews have remained in Israel. After the Jews went to other areas during this forced expulsion and then forcibly removed from other countries, not even because they were violent, but because they simply didn't fit in, the Jews finally determined that they should return home. What is not fair about that?

The current state of Israel is not a land grab, and Palestinians are called Palestinians by the Balfour Declaration, regardless of whether they were Jews or Christians. Ethnically, they are not Arab, they know this also. No one could accuse Israel of going to Saudi Arabia in land grabs, so why are the Arabs in Israel?

They, in their own writings, have made it very clear that the Jews were in Israel when they invaded. So who is guilty of land grabbing? Sometimes you have to consider if something is true historically, and historically it equates to a lie on the part of the Arabs to say propose Israel is guilty. What is Israel fighting over? A small piece of land connected to Israel, nothing more. Why are the Arabs staying? The same reason they choose to stay anywhere, including Central Asia.

reply to post by WarminIndy


So, Ishmael won as far as land ownership, yet remain isolated in strongholds/strident ridgid belief systems; Isaac won as far as intellect, banking/allopathy, lawmaking goes flexable: (westernized considerations here as more diversified in having the ability to adapt and merge into first world rather than third world populaces).

vethumanbeing
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

So, Ishmael won as far land ownership, Issac won as far as intellect, banking/allopathy goes, lawmaking goes (westernized considerations here as more diversified in having disseminated into the world populace).

I'm not going to concede to points about the intellect of Arabs as there are many intelligent and intellectual Arabs. Neither am I going to promote the world wide conspiracy theories about Jewish bankers, as many Jewish people are not that wealthy.

The only thing the Arabs have managed to procur is sympathy, that's all.

WarminIndy
veteranhumanbeing
reply to post by WarminIndy

VHBSo, Ishmael won as far land ownership, Isaac won as far as intellect, banking/allopathy goes, lawmaking goes (westernized considerations here as more diversified in having disseminated into the world populace).

WarminIndyI'm not going to concede to points about the intellect of Arabs as there are many intelligent and intellectual Arabs. Neither am I going to promote the world wide conspiracy theories about Jewish bankers, as many Jewish people are not that wealthy.The only thing the Arabs have managed to procur is sympathy, that's all.

The question remains unanswered: Why are Abrahams Sons Ishmael and Isaac at odds with each other, created two distinct and separate belief systems only to drag millions of hapless people into a personal vendetta in this modern age (or is it not so modern to some of them trying to hang onto old outdated traditions). What is the prime reason for the instant hatred between two Semetic tribes connected by a common Grandfathers blood? Hatfields and McCoys fueding is not the answer (someone must know the origin of this conflict); and why does one (the Koran) acknowledge Jesus as a great Prophet and the other dismiss him? Do you not see the backwards unreasoning of this; and as long as we are speaking of Gods law regarding his Sons (DISRAELI), apparently Abraham (as god) cannot control his own sons or their effect upon future civilizations impacted/aftermath (or could not see into the future and what god does not have that ability).

reply to post by vethumanbeing


For your statement to be true, can you show us evidence of Isaac's part in the feud other than the tiny sliver of land known as Israel? I think you have underestimated the history of the area and bought into the idea that Ishmael and Isaac are at war, no, one side is at war, the other side is being defensive. Then you fall onto the Palestinian problem, but can you show me evidence of Isaac troubling the sons of Ishmael anywhere else? Ishmael is disturbing people everywhere.

First of all, it's merely a claim that Ishmael was the father of the Arabs. There were Jews and Christians living in Saudi Arabia long before Mohammed. They weren't warring at that time as sons, the conflicts were tribal among Arabs.

The first mention of Ishmaelites in the Bible is actually when Joseph was sold by his brothers. Those Ishmaelites were going down into Egypt, as Sheckem was a trade city along that route. It doesn't imply that they came from Saudi Arabia, but given a thousand year gap, perhaps Ishmaelites went to Saudi Arabia, we don't know but there may have been some. At this time, they were not at war with each other. So the war came later.

When did the war start? In the 7th Century and not before that. And it was a one-sided war, as Israel didn't go into Saudi Arabia but rather Saudi Arabia came to Israel. Can you see the defensive position now taken? This was the beginning of the Crusades, which had nothing to do with Isaac, but the Catholic church deeming Israel worthy of being defended. It was a very hasty and not well-executed idea. But after that, with the Ottoman Empire, still no war between Isaac and Ishmael. Jump ahead several hundred years to Spain, still no war. So when did the war start?

It never started, to say there is a war is really a misnomer. It is a conflict that has been mainly one-sided since the Balfour Declaration. There have been no highjackings of commercial airliners by Israelis. There have been no suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia by Israelites. But there were two wars, The 6 Day War and the Yom Kippur War, in which both conflicts were in one area. So then who declared war on whom?

Isaac has taken a defensive position and why shouldn't he? Isaac isn't chasing Ishmael and never has. The "ancient" conflict is not ancient. Don't fall for the propaganda.

There is now a "family law" group of threads covering four topics (which are divided in this way partly to bring each theme within the 7500 character limit which ATS demands).

Your wife
Your daughters
Your sons
Your family's land