|
|
Post by mystic on Jan 6, 2021 4:28:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 6, 2021 7:36:46 GMT -8
I like the IFCJ, but whenever reading their stuff you must keep in mind they are Rabbinical Jews. Those stories from the Talmud were meant to make a point- the same point her story about the violinist made. They were not meant to be taken literally, and in any event from our point of view Talmud is not scripture, nor is it equivalent to scripture.If you read Ex 3 from a mindset of that story being true, I can see how you might come to the conclusion that Moses was only called by chance. But our God des nothing by chance. He appeared to the man He wanted at the time He wanted. Let's look at the first six verses where Moses first meets his God, who is about to call him to his life's task: Exodus 3:1-6 (ESV) The Burning Bush
1 Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. When the Bible talks about the wilderness, it means desert. Barren, rough terrain, and sparse vegetation. A shepherd would take his flock great distances in search of pasture. And they can only stay in a place so long, because sheep are destructive when they eat. Therefore Moses would not have passed by this site many times as the story implies.
2 And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. So this was not something he would have seen many times even if it were true that the bush was burning there a long time. Also a bush that burns but does not burn up is a sight that would grab anyone's attention. It definitely got Moses attention: 3 And Moses said, “I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned.” He called it a "great sight," not the kind of thing you just pass by without notice, no matter who you are. 4 When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” Let's say God was patiently waiting there, burning His bush for days, weeks, months ... and let's say several pagans did walk by that bush. Some certainly would have stopped and looked at it. But God was looking for someone to lead His people out of bondage in Egypt. Would He have chosen a pagan? Even if it was one of Jethro's kin, would he have been able to convince the Hebrews to follow him out? No, there was only one man in that entire region of the Sinai Peninsula who God had prepared from infancy for this job. Moses. God did not randomly pick someone because he was curious. He appeared to Moses, spoke to Moses, but He chose Moses even before he was born. 5 Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” "Holy ground." Holy, kadosh, set apart, and only those who are set apart to Elohim may set foot on it; even then not wearing sandals that had trod where the unconsecrated had trodden. The gesture of removing the sandals was symbolic, but it had a lot of meaning. And that bush may have not burned, but my guess is that had a pagan run over there and said "What's this" he likely would have been burnt to ashes immediately. But God did not lay a trap to kill pagans. He did something that would grab the attention of the man He wanted and at the same time would be prima facie evidence he was talking to Almighty God:6 And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. Which was reflected in Moses reaction here.
Once again we see that context matters. When read from the context of a story from Jewish tradition, you get a distorted idea of what is happening. But read in context of the entire account of Moses life, and in the context of what the entire Bible tells us of God's character, as well as the geography of the region and the historical realities of a shepherd's life then you get a much clearer picture. There is nothing wrong with extrabiblical sources. And those midrashim (like the one in the link) can add understanding. But only if not taken as literal. They were never meant to be taken that way. They made a point, again like the story of the musician (although that probably did happen). But the point of a midrash is parallel to, never becoming part of the original story. It may add understanding to the story, but like a mirror it reflects on but does not become part of the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by mystic on Jan 7, 2021 5:32:30 GMT -8
Thanks. I think what led me to think Moses was not the pre-destined one was also because he refused to talk to Pharaoh himself, one would think God would have chosen a man who would obey his every command?
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 7, 2021 8:17:50 GMT -8
Thanks. I think what led me to think Moses was not the pre-destined one was also because he refused to talk to Pharaoh himself, one would think God would have chosen a man who would obey his every command?
So what good is there in all this speculation? Well, in every scenario there are lessons to be learned. Sometimes I think perhaps the biblical accounts are somewhat vague is so we will ponder the possible reasons and take to heart all the lessons therein, as opposed to only one set of lessons from the actual reason. But, that's my 'traditional' response to the conundrum. Make of it what you will. |
|
|
|
Post by mystic on Jan 9, 2021 5:54:29 GMT -8
Don't get me wrong, Moses has always been one of my top Prophets but I think at that time I cannot help but think that maybe Joshua might have been a better choice for this purpose.
BTW, Rabbi Laitman man, he comes up with some very heavy stuff!
I think that's very accurate that if there was only one religion called love it would have been the best scenario.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 9, 2021 11:36:08 GMT -8
Don't get me wrong, Moses has always been one of my top Prophets but I think at that time I cannot help but think that maybe Joshua might have been a better choice for this purpose. BTW, Rabbi Laitman man, he comes up with some very heavy stuff! I think that's very accurate that if there was only one religion called love it would have been the best scenario.
Dr. Laitman does come up with some good stuff, but while the Chassidim are focused a lot on self improvement, Dr. Laitman can seem at times to focus on nothing else. So he sounds deep because a.) he can be very, and b.) when you always come off as a self help guru, you'll probably always sound deep. I used to listen to him and read his stuff, but it got kind of repetitive.
Ther is a religion that expresses God's perfect love for the world. Man on the other hand wants his religion to be about his idea of how things should be. And we got religions that run the gamut from hate to love, some even calling themselves Christian and Messianic, thus claiming theirs is the view of our loving Creator. But of the two extremes, the scariest to me is when men pervert the term love. |
|
|
|
Post by mystic on Jan 11, 2021 5:05:59 GMT -8
Yeah good point that Joshua had a one on one tutor for a very long time to fully prepare him for his mission.
Since I am new to Dr. latiman's readings I guess I haven't yet come across anything repetitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by mystic on Jan 13, 2021 5:36:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 13, 2021 11:29:12 GMT -8
Couple of points. First the idea he had a speech impediment comes up. This idea comes not from the Bible (at least not directly), but from the writings of Rashi and Ibn Ezra, who had differing opinions on what that (supposed) impediment was. Exodus 4:10 only states “Please, O Lord, I have never been a man of words…. I am heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue.” That just tells us he does not consider himself to be a good public speaker. It doesn't give any details, and adding these details to scripture is dangerous, as again they may lead us to false theological conclusions. Part of context is considering the source, and as I said while I like the IFCJ and enjoy their insights, always in the back of my mind is the knowledge they are from Rabbinical Judaism. This could color anything they say.
The next point is an error common to both Judaism and Christianity. 1 Samuel 17 tells the story of David and Goliath. Of David we are told "13 The three oldest sons of Jesse had gone to follow Saul to the battle. The names of his three sons who went to the battle were Eliab the firstborn, next to him Abinadab, and the third Shammah. 14 David was the youngest. And the three oldest followed Saul. 15 But David occasionally went and returned from Saul to feed his father’s sheep at Bethlehem." And "33 And Saul said to David, “You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.”" Where there does it give David's age? Just because he was the youngest does not mean he was a small boy. And the term translated "youth" is נַעַר na‛ar, which can mean a young man, one in early adulthood. It's more likely he was a young man who stayed behind because his father needed one son to stay and help.
We are told a few verses later "38 So Saul clothed David with his armor, and he put a bronze helmet on his head; he also clothed him with a coat of mail. 39 David fastened his sword to his armor and tried to walk, for he had not tested them. And David said to Saul, “I cannot walk with these, for I have not tested them.” So David took them off." It would be preposterous, nay absolutely stupid to try to put the armor of a grown man on a small boy and send him out to fight. And Saul was a man of stature (a big man) as I recall. So David must also have been big enough he needed the extra large armor of Saul. Otherwise they'd have found something that fit him better. And what was the reason David took the armor off? "For he had not tested them." Even today we send our young men going into the military through boot camp. Part of what they do there is harden them into carrying the extra weight of their field/combat gear. Also how to wear and use it properly. It's awkward and takes practice to get used to wearing it. David had not "tested" it. The KJV says he had not "proved" it; probably a little better translation. The term used is נָסָה nâsâh, loosly to try it out. He wasn't used to wearing armor.
I know, the story sounds better that a little boy went out to face the giant and through God's power he won. But the truth is the truth, and that story is absurd. And it misses the point. An unarmored and untrained young man had the courage and the righteous indignation to face a very large, very well equipped and very well trained enemy. Why do we need Sunday School pictures of a 10 yr old boy and a sling facing a towering giant who looks like he just climbed down the bean stalk in full armor? But these things are ingrained in us in teachings and pictures and even in popular culture to the point it is hard to even think we should question them. Question everything! !f true and you diligently seek truth, it will stand the test. If not, find the real meaning.
I'm not attacking either Rabbinical Judaism or Christianity here. I once believed what I was told about these stories and others. But as Meshiachim we are called to a higher understanding. One of truth as found in scripture, not just in the teachings of men about scripture.
There is another truth that is lost in this story. In the time of Saul Israel was still a very poor nation. The Philistines on the other hand controlled the Philistine plain which had several major trade routes both north to Mesopotamia and south to Egypt, and east-west routes to the coast and the wealth of the Mediterranean. They could afford a trained standing army and the best weapons and armor due to the wealth those routes brought them. Very few of the Israelites would have had full armor. They were farmers and shepherds called up as militia. It is implied they were cowards for not fighting Goliath. But for them to stand facing a superior fighting force, well armed and better trained was not an act of cowardice. And not going 1 on 1 with Goliath was just plain good sense; unless you are chosen of God. And God chooses those He wants in different ways. Some He speaks to from a bush. Others He just gives such a sense of what is kadosh they literally must act when that is profaned. But both these men He prepared from their infancy for the job He wanted them to do. Moses was raised in Pharaoh's court, and David was a shepherd where he faced many larger, fiercer foes and was victorious over them. He knew the same God that was with him when he faced the lions and bears would be with him when he faced Goliath.
|
|
|
|
Post by mystic on Jan 14, 2021 5:26:58 GMT -8
He knew the same God that was with him when he faced the lions and bears would be with him when he faced Goliath. As I had stated before, I don't know where the ifcj comes up with some of the things they write which is not in the Bible but just like Christ I think it is correct that God sometimes chooses less than perfect people to do his works. I take 2 things from David's life which separates him from most. His absolute faith and confidence in God which is why he was able to defeat Goliath and not any special physical abilities. Next is the fact that he knew how to worship God better than most. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 14, 2021 9:24:53 GMT -8
As I had stated before, I don't know where the ifcj comes up with some of the things they write which is not in the Bible but just like Christ I think it is correct that God sometimes chooses less than perfect people to do his works. I take 2 things from David's life which separates him from most. His absolute faith and confidence in God which is why he was able to defeat Goliath and not any special physical abilities. Next is the fact that he knew how to worship God better than most.
As to the IFCJ, they get those things from the Talmud, which is where most Jewish tradition comes from. You'll get some of that from Liatman too. Just take the lessons from it but don't take it too seriously otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by mystic on Jan 15, 2021 4:24:09 GMT -8
I read the Talmud and never saw a lot of the things the IFCJ mentions so I don't know where they get it which is why I had asked in a previous thread about their sources. No I don't take everything they say seriously which is why I ask here on some of those things.
|
|
portion, we read that Moses perceived a burning bush that, inexplicably, was not consumed by the fire. According to Jewish tradition, Moses wasn’t the first person to pass by that supernatural sight, but he was the first to take notice of it. As Scripture tells us, it was only after Moses went to check out the burning bush that God spoke to him. Only once he paused to behold the unusual sight did Moses encounter God.
portion, we read that Moses perceived a burning bush that, inexplicably, was not consumed by the fire. According to Jewish tradition, Moses wasn’t the first person to pass by that supernatural sight, but he was the first to take notice of it. As Scripture tells us, it was only after Moses went to check out the burning bush that God spoke to him. Only once he paused to behold the unusual sight did Moses encounter God.
