|
|
Post by jimmie on Apr 12, 2011 9:39:02 GMT -8
Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.
Hard cases make bad law. If the murder (abortion) of unborn children is allowed because the chid might effect the health of the mother, then there is no place to draw the line as to when abortion should be illegal. We as God’s people are instructed to choose life so that both we and our seed may live. If abortion (death) of the seed is chosen in order to avoid some perceived threat to the mothers life, then the seed can’t live and our lives are put into jeopardy before the One who is able to destroy both body and soul.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 29, 2011 14:01:56 GMT -8
Kind :4327. miyn, meen; from an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort:--kind.
Can “after his kind” broaden the meaning of a listed unclean bird? Wouldn’t a bald eagle be unclean because it is the same kind of bird as the listed eagle. If so then why is a goose clean when a swan is not? They are the same kind of bird. How does the Jewish Traditions teach us to determine if a newly discovered species is clean or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 15, 2011 9:47:30 GMT -8
The unclean birds listed in Leviticus can loosely be grouped in the following groups:
CARRION EATERS: vulture, ossifrage, kite, gier eagle
BIRDS OF PREY: raven, eagle, owl, night hawk, hawk, little owl, great owl, osprey
BROOD PARASITISM : cuckoo
WATER FOWL:
' DIVING BIRDS: cormorant
' SWIMMING BIRDS: swan, pelican
' WADING BIRDS: stork, heron, lapwing
FLYING MAMMAL: bat
Since geese would fall into the same grouping as the swan, it appears to be unclean. In the modern grouping, the swan and goose belong to the same family (Anatidae) and sub-family (Anserinae). Thus hybridization between swans and geese may be achieved. The breast meat of goose and duck is bark as opposed to white as in the chicken and turkey. As far as I am concerned, that renders them useless for eating.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jan 26, 2011 15:19:19 GMT -8
The "Restoration Study Group" meets the third Sabbath of each month at the Fort Smith Public Library at 3201 Rogers Avenue.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jan 24, 2011 14:14:19 GMT -8
How about that for a coincidence. As y’all know, I don’t know any Hebrew. Since joining this forum, I have decided that knowing a little Hebrew want kill me. So my first thought was to translate the names of people and places since they are transliterated in the KJV. Most of the names that I have studied are very interesting. Thanks for the post.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jan 24, 2011 14:12:57 GMT -8
very interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jan 4, 2011 15:07:28 GMT -8
David, If I understand the article which you linked to above correctly, there were good and bad Pharisees which in turn produced good and bad oral law. The good oral law is that which Jesus and his followers lad down (the new testament?) and the bad oral is the one in which the Pharisees said that if you read the new testament you will have no part in the Kingdom of God. Is that it in a nut shell?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jan 3, 2011 10:43:35 GMT -8
CHAPTER XXIV.
1. REGULATIONS CONCERNING A MAN WHO IS OVERTAKEN BY DUSK ON THE EVE OF SABBATH WHILE TRAVELLING, AND CONCERNING FEEDING OF CATTLE.
MISHNA: One who (on the eve of Sabbath) is overtaken by the dusk on the road must give his purse to a Gentile (while it is yet day). If there is no Gentile with him, he must put it on the ass. As soon as he arrives at the outmost court (dwelling of the first town or village he reaches), he must take off all such things as may be handled on the Sabbath; and as for the things which must not be handled he must loosen the cords, so that they fall off themselves.
Why does the Talmud (oral law) allow the breaking of the sabbath?
Deut 5:14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
The Gentile nor the ass should bare the burden if the man himself can’t.
Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
Now concerning your insistence that the oral law has some valid points. So does my science book but I will not elevate it to God’s word.
Every thing that I know about the oral law is an attempt to circumnavigate or adds to the Law of God. Like selling your land to a gentile and renting it back on the Sabbath year of rest, selling your yeast factory to a gentile during Passover. Non-believers should not be necessary for believers to be righteous. Not eating milk and meat at the same meal when you are only told not to soak a kid in its’ mothers milk.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Dec 29, 2010 14:28:28 GMT -8
John 5:10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.
11 He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk.
Either Jesus told this man to brake the law, which he expressly said that he did not come to do, or the Jews had an oral law that Jesus disregarded because is was no law. If the first case is true, then you and I should look for a different savior. If the second case is true then you must admit that the Jews added an oral law and made it equal to God’s Law and thus added more than a jot or tittle.
The Talmud was added to build a wall of seperation between the Jews and Gentile. Thus cutting off salvation to the Gentile and preventing the Jew from doing his duty seeing that salvation is of the Jews. But Jesus destroyed that wall. Praise be to God.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Dec 22, 2010 11:03:13 GMT -8
Matt 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
It appears to me that Jesus took issue with quite a bit of the oral “law” or traditions of men. Though he kept the Law of God the scribes and Pharisees still found fault in him through their oral law and traditions.
Matt 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Jews add to God’s word while Christians take away form it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Dec 15, 2010 10:08:03 GMT -8
Matt. 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Doesn’t this verse say that Joseph was not responsible for fathering Jesus?
Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Didn’t Mary just say that Joseph was Jesus’s father? Do we have a contradiction here, or does the word “adoption” mean anything? Joseph adopted Jesus making Jesus the physical, flesh and blood son of Joseph and thus of the seed of David.
Luke 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Jesus doesn’t seem to be confused about who his Father is.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Dec 14, 2010 15:03:06 GMT -8
Well, it is similar (not the same) to how I can be of the seed of Abraham. I am of the spiritual seed of Abraham not the physical seed. But with Jesus it is the other way around.
If the Complete Jewish Bible is your preference, then by all means use it. My “P.S.” was a statement of how I perceive things. To appeal to multiple translations, carries no weight with me. I was not implying that you had an ulterior motive in doing so.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Dec 14, 2010 10:20:11 GMT -8
Matt:1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Can you explain how Jesus was the physical son of Joseph and thus of the natural seed of David instead of the spiritual seed of David?
P.S. Please use only one translation when conversing with me. I find multiple translations very confusing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Dec 13, 2010 10:05:11 GMT -8
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
It is because David had to repent (tanakh) that I came to the conclusion. He came up short of the glory of God. Since we all have sinned we need a sinless Messiah, who God sent in the form of a man. The Messiah, Jesus Christ, died in my stead. Something that David (or is fleshly decedents) could not do.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Dec 8, 2010 9:59:23 GMT -8
Born of a virign-therefore no tribal status. Judg. 30:3 And his mother's brethren spake of him in the ears of all the men of Shechem all these words: and their hearts inclined to follow Abimelech; for they said, He is our brother. Shouldn’t Abimelech have been counted as part of the tribe of Manasseh, instead of Shechem his mothers people. Jephthah was also rejected of his brethren because his mother was an harlot. (See Judges 11) Apparently tribal status does not always come from the father. And if I remember history correctly, there have been Rabbinic decrease that allowed the children of Jewish women raped by invading armies to be full members of the Jewish people. I don’t think your statement that “Tribal status comes form the father.” is always true. We also need to consider the leverite marriage. David’s linage was incapable of producing the Godly Seed to set on the throne for ever. So God stood in for him in a way in order that the Godly seed could be brought forth. Matt 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Tonga, forgive me for referring to the new testament. But I don’t think that this passage says anything that you don’t believe. Just because someone is the seed of Abraham doesn’t mean that they will act like. And some one not of the seed of Abraham can act as if he were through God’s intervention. So then God can raise up seed of David by this woman Mary. And just a personal observation on the virgin birth. There are quit a few scientifically documented instances of Parthenogenesis or virgin births among animals. And man has manipulated quite a few plants into producing vegetables through parthenogenesis. If you have eaten a hot house cucumber, it most likely was produced by parthenogenesis. If it happens in nature and man can cause it, why couldn’t God have done it. |
|
