# Why are Jesus and God so different?



## HawgJawl (Mar 7, 2011)

The Bible provides us with information about Jesus' character.  Jesus' life is to serve as THE example of how we are supposed to live.  Every aspect of Jesus' life documented in the Bible is relevant and we are supposed to study not only his teachings but also his actions, reactions, and decisions as examples to us all.  Jesus' example was "Do As I Do".

God also provides us with information about His character in the Bible.  Any information we have about God, it is safe to assume, God wanted us to have.  This was not information gathered by some nosey reported who viewed something that God never intended us to know, who didn't quite understand what he saw and then reported that information with some kind of bias.  If God relayed information about Himself to man, it was for a reason.  What are we to do with this information regarding God's character?  Are we to study His actions, reactions, and decisions?  I'm told "NO"!  God's example appears to be more like "Do As I Say, Not As I Do".

I'm continually being asked "Who are you to question or judge God?".

If God provided us with information about His actions, then why are we not supposed to try to understand them?  Wasn't it God's purpose in inspiring the Bible to give mankind a blueprint of how He wants us to act?  I'm certain that there are many things about God that we can't understand, but those things could easily be left out of the inspired scriptures.  I'm certain that everything that could possibly be known about God is not contained in one book.  So, we're left with the book containing exactly what God wanted us to know about Him.

It's fairly simple;
What human are not to attempt to understand, leave out of the divine inspiration for the Bible.  And anything that is relayed in divine inspiration for the Bible, is there for a reason.

Instead of asking me "Why do I question God's actions as they are detailed in the Bible?",  I ask you "Why do you not"?


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 7, 2011)

For starts...

God _WAYS _were made known to Moses,

His _ACTS _to the children of Israel.
Ps 103:7

Which do you prefer??


----------



## gtparts (Mar 7, 2011)

I believe God's complete revelation is quite sufficient to impress upon us how different spirit is from flesh, how holiness is so different from human nature. When we start to comprehend the role God has chosen for Himself (that only He can fill) and the role He intended for us, we begin to see how we are to relate to Him. Christ modeled how that relationship should look.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 7, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> The Bible provides us with information about Jesus' character.  Jesus' life is to serve as THE example of how we are supposed to live.  Every aspect of Jesus' life documented in the Bible is relevant and we are supposed to study not only his teachings but also his actions, reactions, and decisions as examples to us all.  Jesus' example was "Do As I Do".
> 
> God also provides us with information about His character in the Bible.  Any information we have about God, it is safe to assume, God wanted us to have.  This was not information gathered by some nosey reported who viewed something that God never intended us to know, who didn't quite understand what he saw and then reported that information with some kind of bias.  If God relayed information about Himself to man, it was for a reason.  What are we to do with this information regarding God's character?  Are we to study His actions, reactions, and decisions?  I'm told "NO"!  God's example appears to be more like "Do As I Say, Not As I Do".
> 
> ...



The only way I have to answer this question is, we are told to live our lives as Christ lead His life on this earth, we cannot humanize God in that sense in my opinion. God is all knowing in everything He does, if this is true, it would be hard to question His actions. Basically, the earthly life of Jesus, and God in His Holy sense cannot be compared. This is something, for everyone including myself who has not studied it, to read some good books on IMO. It would take alot to have an acceptable explaination for it all.



> Instead of asking me "Why do I question God's actions as they are detailed in the Bible?",  I ask you "Why do you not"?


There is nothing wrong with the questions you have, I have some of the same. I just pray you do not discount God because not all of your or my questions can be answered.


----------



## Israel (Mar 7, 2011)

As far as I can see...God doesn't mind being questioned at all.
Just be prepared for the questions he has for you.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 7, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> God also provides us with information about His character in the Bible.  Any information we have about God, it is safe to assume, God wanted us to have.  This was not information gathered by some nosey reported who viewed something that God never intended us to know, who didn't quite understand what he saw and then reported that information with some kind of bias.  If God relayed information about Himself to man, it was for a reason.  What are we to do with this information regarding God's character?  Are we to study His actions, reactions, and decisions?  I'm told "NO"!  God's example appears to be more like "Do As I Say, Not As I Do".



If you get this impression of God the Father, you need to read more of your OT.  He gives plenty of examples of His character....especially in and to the prophets.



			
				HawgJawl said:
			
		

> I'm continually being asked "Who are you to question or judge God?".



I don't think people are asking you that.  I think it is a statement...not a question.

The God I serve is an awesome God.  He demands respect.  I don't think it is wrong to question with a humble heart....but when you question with arrogance, you will be told the statement above.

Just like a child questioning the decision of their parent.  There a respectful way and a disrespectful way.




			
				HawgJawl said:
			
		

> I'm certain that there are many things about God that we can't understand,



I'd say that is the understatement of the century.




			
				HawgJawl said:
			
		

> It's fairly simple;
> What human are not to attempt to understand, leave out of the divine inspiration for the Bible.  And anything that is relayed in divine inspiration for the Bible, is there for a reason.


Isn't that how it already is?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 7, 2011)

The actions of God toward humans in the Old Testament, and the instructions God gave regarding how humans are to treat each other, do not seem consistent with the morals and ethics demonstrated by Jesus toward humans, and His instructions regarding how humans are to treat each other.  Shouldn't they be identical when coming from the same source?

As far as "questioning God", I don't mean that in the sense that I am wanting God to explain Himself to me.  I'm simply talking about studying how God acted or reacted in a situation that was given to us in scripture.  I don't see why those examples should be dismissed as irrelelevant and labeled as something that was never intended for us to try to understand.


----------



## Randy (Mar 7, 2011)

Personally I do not pray to God.  I personally believe I am not capable of talking to Him.  I pray to Jesus as He is the only way to God.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 7, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> The actions of God toward humans in the Old Testament, and the instructions God gave regarding how humans are to treat each other, do not seem consistent with the morals and ethics demonstrated by Jesus toward humans, and His instructions regarding how humans are to treat each other.  Shouldn't they be identical when coming from the same source?



Examples?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 7, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Examples?



I really would rather not get bogged down arguing specific verses of scripture.  That usually gets nowhere.

But, so that you don't think I'm avoiding your question, one of many examples would be the way God instructed Israel to treat their enemies, as addressed several times in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  Such as killing every living soul in the city including women and children and the elderly, except for the virgin girls who could be their slaves.

The New Testament message of love and compassion for all mankind does not seem consistent with that.

I'm not challenging the scripture.  I'm looking for the characteristics of God pertaining to love and compassion for all mankind.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 7, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I really would rather not get bogged down arguing specific verses of scripture.  That usually gets nowhere.
> 
> But, so that you don't think I'm avoiding your question, one of many examples would be the way God instructed Israel to treat their enemies, as addressed several times in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  Such as killing every living soul in the city including women and children and the elderly, except for the virgin girls who could be their slaves.
> 
> ...



Were they (those in the OT) given a chance to repent?

Look at how God deals with Lot and his family.  How could he save such a man?

What about Rahab?  He was merciful to her.  The people of Jericho had 6 days to repent/surrender.

What about Jonah and the people of Ninevah?

There are many examples of God's love in the OT.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 7, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> The Bible provides us with information about Jesus' character.  Jesus' life is to serve as THE example of how we are supposed to live.  Every aspect of Jesus' life documented in the Bible is relevant and we are supposed to study not only his teachings but also his actions, reactions, and decisions as examples to us all.  Jesus' example was "Do As I Do".
> 
> God also provides us with information about His character in the Bible.  Any information we have about God, it is safe to assume, God wanted us to have.  This was not information gathered by some nosey reported who viewed something that God never intended us to know, who didn't quite understand what he saw and then reported that information with some kind of bias.  If God relayed information about Himself to man, it was for a reason.  What are we to do with this information regarding God's character?  Are we to study His actions, reactions, and decisions?  I'm told "NO"!  God's example appears to be more like "Do As I Say, Not As I Do".
> 
> ...



Yours are very good questions and the questions do have answers.


I think that a good read so that many here will understand  what your talking about is Judges where the behaviour of the Hebrew tribes and their enemies is not unlike, in fact very similar, to the barbaric behaviours of some North American Native tribes in the 18th and 19th centuries; Specifically as  two examples ( there are others) the Navaho people and the Iroquois people.

I think that in a world ( in the post Egypt days) where cruel raids and genocides were a common interaction among the war lords and ethnic groups or tribes, God wisely did not make his chosen people overnight doves.
If He was to protect them He had to stamp out evil around His people. This is what He set out to do. This might seem cruel to us but there were rules of war we are told in Judges. For example, other peoples lands could not be claimed unless they attacked the Hebrew tribes. As well the cananites and others worshiped idols and we are told in judges that in those times people did according to their wills:  In those days  there was no king in Isreal; every man did what was right in his own eyes. Judges 21: 25 ( Read Judges) This was the world the Hebrews lived in. And many times they did what was right in their own eyes, just like their neighbours.

Basically God will nurture his people from stone age culture and onword. Along the way his people will progessively learn His will and purpose. More and more will be revealed to them via the prophets--both where they go wrong ( turn to idols) but also where they do righteously ( in faith with God).

As the Hebrew society evolves themes such as justice, good, evil, love, peace, religion , repentance, law and order will be taken up. All these themes will culminate in Jesus. He will be the "fulfillment"from full filled of all that was before his ministry. This fulfillment will result in one last blood sacrafice and a spiritual Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, and all the laws and themes  of the past will end up as Grace. The prize will no longer be war and bouty, but rather peace and bounty.

In this way from the days of an eye for and eye Isreal and Judah will  be turned right side up for Grace or for the example that is Jesus the Saviour and the prince of peace--of all--jews, gentiles, Navaho, Cananite, et al.

In the beginning it can be argued that God was no different than now or will be, but man's saber and then M-16-AK was once the fresh jawbone of a donkey. Man is a product of his times; asking what are, were and will be God's reasons for interactions against this backdrop is very rewarding in my view.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 7, 2011)

You had a valid observation. Reminds me of the "Marcionites" of the 1st and 2nd century. They asked; how could the wrathful, vengeful God of the Jews be the loving, merciful God of Jesus? Marcion maintained that these attributes could not belong to the one God, as they stand at odds with one another; hatred and love, vengeance and mercy, judgement and grace.  He concluded that there must in fact be two Gods; the God of the Jews, as found in the OT, and the God of Jesus, as found in the NT. The God of the Nt came into the world to save people from the God of the OT. This information taken from Bart erhman's, Lost Christianities, pg 104 +105. *I point this out only to verify that you are not alone in your observations.* I myself am aware of your point but I don't see it the same way but explaining myself would require laying a complete blueprint, which would require to much effort


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 7, 2011)

**k9** said:


> Jesus is God.
> 
> 1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


K9, Do you consider yourself Trinitarian or Oneness?


----------



## formula1 (Mar 8, 2011)

*Re:*



**k9** said:


> When we just accept the word of God by simple faith, then the word of God will say what it means to say.  Just understand that the word of God  won't fit your box.



True words from the heart!  Please allow me to add a few more scriptures:

1 Peter 1
To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood

2 Cor 13:14
14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Matthew 1:22-23 
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born,to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I Timothy 6:13-15
13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, 14 to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 8, 2011)

It honestly sounds to me like you're questioning God and His motives compared to Jesus and Jesus' motives.

I'm not so sure I've ever read one of your posts that was completely positive toward God and His greatness.  Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am I apologize.

Israel became God's chosen people.  All other nations of peoples were horrible, heathen people.  God deal with them as He decided to do.  There were a few people who dropped dead in the New Testament.

The sternness of Jesus in His gospel should not be missed.

The only resolution to your question can be found in the mind of a disciple of Christ.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 8, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> God wisely did not make his chosen people overnight doves.
> 
> If He was to protect them He had to stamp out evil around His people. This is what He set out to do.
> 
> ...




I only quoted the portions of your statement that are consistent with what I was brought up to believe.  That the entire world was filled with primitive savages with no concept of good and evil, and then there was God's chosen people.  I'm learning that the lines are not that clear.  It's not that black and white.  This concept of the savage world is not consistent with the story of Noah and the great flood.  The world was primitive and savage prior to the flood, but not immediately after the flood.

According to the timeline in the OT, the great flood occured about 2348 BC.  Following the flood, every person on earth was Noah and his immediate family.  Those people were chosen by God to survive and everyone on earth is a descendant of those chosen people.

Abram was born about 1996 BC which would be 352 years after the flood.  When Abram was 99 years old, which would be 451 years after the flood, God made his covenant with Abram and changed his name to Abraham.  Isaac was born a year later.  

It had been 451 years since Noah's family was chosen by God, until God chose Abraham and his descendants to be the "Chosen People".  Not only was everyone on earth at that time, Abraham's "branch kin", but just how many other people could there have been on earth in that amount of time?

The concept of the primitive and savage cultures on earth doesn't work when you consider that they were all descendants of Noah's family and it had only been 451 years.  It also contradicts the concept that God had to slowly bring these savages into an understanding of what is good and right, when they all started with Noah, who was a good and righteous man.

As a side note, I'm having a difficult time determining exactly who the chosen people are.  Some places it says, the descendants of Abraham, and some places it says the descendants of Aaron, and some places it says everyone who lives with the Israelites and follows their laws.  It would be a whole lot easier if it were simply Noah's descendants.


----------



## Crubear (Mar 8, 2011)

When you get down to the very basics, there is no difference between the way God acts and Jesus. There can't be.

Everything Jesus taught was in the Hebrew (Old) Testament. Love God with all your heart, and treat others the way you want to be.

The reason God seems so harsh is becuase we are evaluating God with our understanding and using a 21st century yard stick. In the OT words meant something, and a covenant was (and is) a binding irrevocable contract. Abraham made a covenant with God that was binding to all the generations and included punishments for breaking it. The Hebrew were never punished for something they didn't do, and none deny they earned it. And God never stopped loving and forgiving them. EVER.

The Jesus we see in the Christian (New) Testament was the same God that Abraham knew. Jesus showed how much God still loves all of us and wants us to come to Him in a close relationship. Someday, Jesus will come back and show us what it means to have shared this relationship, and what it means to have ignored it.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 8, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> It honestly sounds to me like you're questioning God and His motives compared to Jesus and Jesus' motives.
> 
> I'm not so sure I've ever read one of your posts that was completely positive toward God and His greatness.  Maybe I'm wrong, and if I am I apologize.



Any scripture that I have spoken of in a critical manner has been because I do not believe that that specific scripture came from God.  There are several parts of Moses' law in the Old Testament that I personally believe came more from Moses than from God.  This is in no way critical of God.  It is critical of Moses.

What did Jesus say about the law of Moses?

Any time that Jesus spoke of God's law, it was the Ten Commandments.  Jesus added to love your neighbor as yourself.  Anytime Jesus spoke of the "law of Moses", some translations say "them of old time", he was contradicting those laws or changing or adding to them.  Jesus never spoke positively about or reinforced the laws when He spoke of the "law of Moses".  He only reinforced what He referred to as "God's law" which was always a part of the ten commandments (plus love thy neighor).

If the law came from God, then why would Jesus call it the law of Moses.  And why would Jesus make a distinction between "God's law" and the "law of Moses"?  The only reason that makes scense to me is that they weren't the same thing.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 8, 2011)

I think Jesus referred to God's law's to Israel as Moses Law because that's they way Israel had come to refer to them.  And because during that period of time, it was Moses that God had chosen to lead Israel.

God's law to Adam and Eve were not the same as God's law to Noah and his family.
God's law to Abraham was not the same of God's Devine or moral law to Israel.
And now, through Christ, God's law has become different.  More strict as I see it.  It has more to do with man's heart than it does with obedience apart from relationship.

God has brought mankind to this point.  It has been a progression.  But since Adam and Eve God has always shown a great amount of patience to His created.  And when God decided to, God has shown His willingness to unleash His Devine judgement and power.

Jesus wasn't contridicting the old law, Jesus was presenting the Law of Love.  This is the law we live by today.  No longer to we sacrifice an animal, now we are to give ourselves as a living sacrifice to God.  No longer does God's children give 10 percent.  Now, in this new relationship, we're to consider it all belonging to God.
No longer do we have a God that is far off.  We have a God that lives within us.  Really.  Nope, I can't explain it.  

It didn't happen because Jesus is different from God.  It's happened because God has, thru His Son, given us better access to Him.
Things changed.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 8, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Any scripture that I have spoken of in a critical manner has been because I do not believe that that specific scripture came from God.  There are several parts of Moses' law in the Old Testament that I personally believe came more from Moses than from God.  This is in no way critical of God.  It is critical of Moses.
> 
> What did Jesus say about the law of Moses?
> 
> ...



I think you are tripping over your own shoelases. Laws are internalized by people. The seeming difference in "God's law" and the "law of Moses" is perhaps this: The "Law of Moses" practiced by the people is not always "God's law" simply because people and societies subvert laws to their own designs and not for that which they were intended.

I suggest that the Law of Moses was used in this context for purposes to serve a theocracy and a theocracy under occupation and not the will of God, or the "Law of God. 

For example just as political factions can target and use the christian church today in order  to futher their agendas,  and even make the church believe that political initiatives are from the church's moral precepts, this is not the roll of the chruch in society. I suggest that the "law of Moses" was used similarly, and it was evident there was beneath the layers the "real or truth" or the Law of God.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 8, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Any scripture that I have spoken of in a critical manner has been because I do not believe that that specific scripture came from God.  There are several parts of Moses' law in the Old Testament that I personally believe came more from Moses than from God.  This is in no way critical of God.  It is critical of Moses.



Interesting.  That explains a lot though as to your views of the OT and scripture.

So...what are your thoughts on II Tim 3:16?

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 8, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I think Jesus referred to God's law's to Israel as Moses Law because that's they way Israel had come to refer to them.  And because during that period of time, it was Moses that God had chosen to lead Israel.
> 
> God's law to Adam and Eve were not the same as God's law to Noah and his family.
> God's law to Abraham was not the same of God's Devine or moral law to Israel.
> ...



The only "laws" that Jesus spoke of were the laws handed down by Moses to the Israelites.  Jesus never referred to any laws from Adam or Abraham.  The only exception I can think of is the ceremonial hand washing that his disciples did not obey, but it wasn't referred to as a "law", but a tradition.  Every "law" that Jesus spoke of could have fallen into one catagory and been called "God's law given to Moses" or "God's law" or "the law of Moses".   But Jesus called the ones He agreed with 'God's law" and the ones He disagreed with "the law of Moses".  There is a clear distinction.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 8, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> I think you are tripping over your own shoelases. Laws are internalized by people. The seeming difference in "God's law" and the "law of Moses" is perhaps this: The "Law of Moses" practiced by the people is not always "God's law" simply because people and societies subvert laws to their own designs and not for that which they were intended.
> 
> I suggest that the Law of Moses was used in this context for purposes to serve a theocracy and a theocracy under occupation and not the will of God, or the "Law of God.
> 
> For example just as political factions can target and use the christian church today in order  to futher their agendas,  and even make the church believe that political initiatives are from the church's moral precepts, this is not the roll of the chruch in society. I suggest that the "law of Moses" was used similarly, and it was evident there was beneath the layers the "real or truth" or the Law of God.



I think I agree with you here, if I correctly understand what you're saying.  

I can find at least 12 different times in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, that the Israelites turned against Moses, sometimes ready to kill him.  In Exodus 32:27, Moses ordered the Levites to kill about 3000 Israelites in order to regain control.  

In Exodus 18:32-24, Moses was judging arguments and settling cases every day from morning to evening.  The Israelites continually asked Moses for God's decisions on issues.  It became more than he could handle, so he empowered judges to assist him.  In order for the judges to actually take some of the burden away from Moses, he had to write down laws that were specific to the type of cases he heard everyday.  (Exodus 21)

Many of these laws had nothing to do with sin, but were guidelines for settling civil cases and domestic disputes.  (Exodus 21:33,   Exodus 22:14)


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 8, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Interesting.  That explains a lot though as to your views of the OT and scripture.
> 
> So...what are your thoughts on II Tim 3:16?
> 
> All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness?




I think we've addressed this before, but it all depends on what is classified as scripture.  If the definition of "scripture" is divinely inspired scripture, then I believe that divinely inspired scripture is in fact inspired divinely.

Writing such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the First Letter of Clement, and the Didache were also considered divinely inspired scripture until the Laodocia Council in 363 AD removed them from the Bible.  The Laodocia Council retained the 14 Apocryphia books, but they were removed in the late 1800's.  The problem I have with the "editing" is the criteria utilized to evaluate the various texts.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 8, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I think we've addressed this before, but it all depends on what is classified as scripture.  If the definition of "scripture" is divinely inspired scripture, then I believe that divinely inspired scripture is in fact inspired divinely.
> 
> Writing such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the First Letter of Clement, and the Didache were also considered divinely inspired scripture until the Laodocia Council in 363 AD removed them from the Bible.  The Laodocia Council retained the 14 Apocryphia books, but they were removed in the late 1800's.  The problem I have with the "editing" is the criteria utilized to evaluate the various texts.



So you don't believe that the current 66 books in the Bible is the inspired inerrant Word of God.

That is fine, just allows you to go around the Bible and disagree with any part you deem "uninspired."  So where do you stop?  How do you know what to believe?

Makes discussion and debate pointless because you have a base that is shifting and can be molded to anything you want it to be.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 8, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> So you don't believe that the current 66 books in the Bible is the inspired inerrant Word of God.
> 
> That is fine, just allows you to go around the Bible and disagree with any part you deem "uninspired."  So where do you stop?  How do you know what to believe?
> 
> Makes discussion and debate pointless because you have a base that is shifting and can be molded to anything you want it to be.



If the definition of the "Word of God" is words spoken by God, then my answer is No, I don't believe that every word in the Bible was spoken by God.  I believe that some of the words were spoken by Moses and some of the words were spoken by Paul, etc.

I believe that some of the "Words" came from God and some of the words came from man.  The issue at hand here is when a person, such as Moses, stated that a particular "law" came from God as opposed to coming from Moses.

Pretty much any law that Moses made, he said it was God's law.  Some of those laws are consistent with God's laws (the Ten Commandments) and Jesus later supported those laws.  Other laws from Moses were not supported by Jesus.  In Numbers 31, when Moses came up with a law saying that the priests must be given a percentage of the virgins captured in war (to be used as temple prostitutes), Moses of course said that this was God's law.  In Deuteronomy 21, when Moses came up with a law saying that parents were to have stubborn and rebellious sons stoned, Moses of course said that this law came from God.  I believe that these are laws that Moses authored and labeled as God's law, because all laws given by Moses were supposedly "God's law".  But I do not believe that laws such as these came directly from God.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 8, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Makes discussion and debate pointless because you have a base that is shifting and can be molded to anything you want it to be.



Even the most ardent "literal word" believers on this forum disagree on many topics due to their interpretation of scripture.  Interpretation makes for the same kind of shifting base you speak of.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 8, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Even the most ardent "literal word" believers on this forum disagree on many topics due to their interpretation of scripture.  Interpretation makes for the same kind of shifting base you speak of.



Right..but at least the base is there.  You have no base.


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 8, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Were they (those in the OT) given a chance to repent?
> 
> Look at how God deals with Lot and his family.  How could he save such a man?
> 
> ...



The Old Testament is the History of a people and the Relationship with God,
God is portrayed in the OT showing all his attributes, such as Love , Mercy, Compassion, but also his Justice and vengeance and wrath, God is a Complete Person not just a one legged Person but Fully Functional.

In the New Testament God shows himself in the Flesh and shows God's Physical Manifestation of his love for humanity, but remember when Yeshua got angry at the temple against the merchants he also showed his Justice and wrath.


----------



## farmasis (Mar 8, 2011)

Sorry to but in here...but I have got this question often..usually from skeptics who really know little of the Bible...absoluetly no offense to HawgJawl and i do not mean to apply that to you.

But...the "horrible" things that make up the image of God in the OT are usually directed to those enemies of Israel. Jesus is viewed as a pacifist from the stories mostly told of him. People get the wrong idea of the peaceful Jesus they see in the NT.

However, Jesus' time on earth was for a specific purpose and he humbled himself to be a servant...but I assure you, that is NOT the Jesus that most of earth will see.

Does this sound more like the God of the OT?

 <SUP id=en-NKJV-31026 class=versenum>*12*</SUP> His eyes _were_ like a flame of fire, and on His head _were_ many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. <SUP id=en-NKJV-31027 class=versenum>*13*</SUP> He _was_ clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. <SUP id=en-NKJV-31028 class=versenum>*14*</SUP> And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. <SUP id=en-NKJV-31029 class=versenum>*15*</SUP> Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. (Rev. 19)

   <SUP id=en-NASB-17889 class=versenum>*4*</SUP>But with righteousness He will judge the poor,
         And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth;
         And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
         And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked. (Is. 11)

    <SUP id=en-NASB-13955 class=versenum>*9*</SUP>'You shall break them with a rod of iron,
         You shall shatter them like earthenware.'" (Ps 2)


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 8, 2011)

Yep.


.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 8, 2011)

farmasis said:


> Sorry to but in here...but I have got this question often..usually from skeptics who really know little of the Bible...absoluetly no offense to HawgJawl and i do not mean to apply that to you.
> 
> But...the "horrible" things that make up the image of God in the OT are usually directed to those enemies of Israel. Jesus is viewed as a pacifist from the stories mostly told of him. People get the wrong idea of the peaceful Jesus they see in the NT.
> 
> ...



Fiery sword, golden chariot, gauntlets, battle worn tunic?


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 9, 2011)

farmasis said:


> Sorry to but in here...but I have got this question often..usually from skeptics who really know little of the Bible...absoluetly no offense to HawgJawl and i do not mean to apply that to you.
> 
> But...the "horrible" things that make up the image of God in the OT are usually directed to those enemies of Israel. Jesus is viewed as a pacifist from the stories mostly told of him. People get the wrong idea of the peaceful Jesus they see in the NT.
> 
> ...



With all respect I do not agree with the your view that Jesus has a "waring side". I think that the whole ministry of Jesus was such that grace was better at achieving justice than breaking things and using an army sword. The world was/is full of foolish leaders who knew/know when to physically break and burn other people's assets--because Jesus had an issue (s) with the merchants of religion. 

And once more, Jesus thought his deciples that his teachings were expressed in parables and He explains why? I believe He explained that those who would understand his meaning via parables were like minded and ready as He was because they were "spiritually or biblically literate".

 Matt. ch 13:  11To you it has been given to know the secrets and mysteries of the kindgom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

 12 For whoever has spiritual knowledge, to him will more be given and he will be furnished richly so that he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

Now what does it mean to be biblically literate or have spiritual knowledge in this case ? It mean the ability to understand parables.

I suggest  that when we read   9'You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like earthenware.'" (Ps 2)
we are not talking about a rod of iron from so and so grade steel, nor when we talk about the shatter them like earthenware are we talking about the splitting and explosion of a crainium from the force of blunt force. We are talking about spiritual matters here, not worldly matters.

The words "as"and "like" spin the wordly meanings of  our spiritual communications. This should be understood even when these words are not present in scripture such as Revelation or the Appocalypse. Poetry and parables are about meaning other than the usual words express, and yet useing usual words. Why is this so? Because of our "fall" and all that follows from its spiritual meaning. A spiritual reading of scripture rights the world right side up. The usual wordly and shadowy words and meanings are flipped into the "light".

Therefore we can well read that the sword is grace and judgement is made depending that parables are understood or not understood at all. I suggest that a reading of scripture that will make Jesus' return an act of war is a worldy reading and the apostles the most stupid cult followers that walked the face of the earth, especially long winded Saint Paul a first class cracked pot. For all his musings on grace, patience and love...no wonder they hung the carpetbagger by the heels.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 9, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Fiery sword, golden chariot, gauntlets, battle worn tunic?



USMC, F-18 Hornet, Semper Fidelis, both world wars and many other actions before and since.

Saints, the cross, grace, the church since the Pentacost.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 9, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Right..but at least the base is there.  You have no base.



If the belief that every "law of Moses" came directly from God is what is required to possess this BASE you speak of, then I suppose I don't have this great base that the Pharisees had.  The Pharisees believed every word of Moses' law and put their faith in it.  They used the "law of Moses" to try to kill Jesus every time Jesus taught or acted or answered one of their trick questions contrary to the "law of Moses".  

Jesus spoke against many of the "laws of Moses" and acted contrary to many of them.  Jesus fully supported the Ten Commandments and called them God's law, but did not support many of the other laws of Moses and did not refer to them as "God's law".  In fact, he sometimes did not refer to them as a law at all.  He said that you have heard it said by them of old... But I say...

It appears that Jesus did not possess this great BASE you speak of.  Was Jesus contradicting God's law here, or man's law?

Did an omnipotent God make several bizarre laws and clearly state that these laws are permanent and for all future generations forever, and then send His son to come and contradict those laws?  Or were they man's laws?

When evaluating the "laws of Moses" there are two extremes, and much ground in between.  On one extreme, I could view them as the Pharisees did and put my faith into them.  On the other extreme, I could view them as Jesus did, as things said by them of old, and speak contrary to them.

Should I try to be more like Christ or a Pharisee?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 9, 2011)

Lowjack said:


> The Old Testament is the History of a people and the Relationship with God,
> God is portrayed in the OT showing all his attributes, such as Love , Mercy, Compassion, but also his Justice and vengeance and wrath, God is a Complete Person not just a one legged Person but Fully Functional.
> 
> In the New Testament God shows himself in the Flesh and shows God's Physical Manifestation of his love for humanity, but remember when Yeshua got angry at the temple against the merchants he also showed his Justice and wrath.



Pretty much everything we read of God in the first 5 books of the Bible came from Moses.  And it could be argued that the rest of the Old Testament is based heavily on what Moses wrote.

I see so many reasons to question the validity of SOME of the things that Moses wrote.  Jesus did not support SOME of the things that Moses wrote.  If some of the things that Moses attributed to God, were actually more from Moses, then how much of our image of God came from Moses more than from God?

This is what I struggle with.  I'm not trying to prove a point here.  I'm simply trying to express my inner turmoil.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 9, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> If the belief that every "law of Moses" came directly from God is what is required to possess this BASE you speak of, then I suppose I don't have this great base that the Pharisees had.  The Pharisees believed every word of Moses' law and put their faith in it.  They used the "law of Moses" to try to kill Jesus every time Jesus taught or acted or answered one of their trick questions contrary to the "law of Moses".
> 
> Jesus spoke against many of the "laws of Moses" and acted contrary to many of them.  Jesus fully supported the Ten Commandments and called them God's law, but did not support many of the other laws of Moses and did not refer to them as "God's law".  In fact, he sometimes did not refer to them as a law at all.  He said that you have heard it said by them of old... But I say...
> 
> ...



You have a warped view of what Christ taught, what the OT taught and what the Pharisees taught if you can't see the similarities between the first two and the differences between the first two and the last.

Moses never taught anyone to put their faith in the law.  Read the book of Hebrews...if you believe it to be scripture...and see what it says about how these OT Saints were saved from their wretched sinfulness.  I'll give you a hint....it wasn't the law


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 9, 2011)

Moses spoke of Christ, the witness is by faith.  If you view the law for the rules alone, you'll miss the ultimate message. 

2 Corinthians 3:14-16

 <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-28852">14</sup> But their minds were  blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the  reading of the Old Testament, because the _veil_ is taken away in Christ. 
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-28853">15</sup> But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-28854">16</sup> Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 9, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> The only "laws" that Jesus spoke of were the laws handed down by Moses to the Israelites.  Jesus never referred to any laws from Adam or Abraham.  The only exception I can think of is the ceremonial hand washing that his disciples did not obey, but it wasn't referred to as a "law", but a tradition.  Every "law" that Jesus spoke of could have fallen into one catagory and been called "God's law given to Moses" or "God's law" or "the law of Moses".   But Jesus called the ones He agreed with 'God's law" and the ones He disagreed with "the law of Moses".  There is a clear distinction.



But you don't get to pick and choose!  If you can't believe God's will was delivered through Moses, how can you believe God's will was delivered through His Son?
You can't just pull problems out of the air.
You're understanding of a difference between 'God's law' and 'the law of Moses' doesn't exist.  I don't know if this is something that has crossed your mind or if it's something of someone elses that you've read but it's just not so.

The problem with the Pharisee's was with their attitude and their picking and choosing.
Saul had an understanding of all the scriptures that dealt with the coming Messiah, but he did not accept them.  So he 'made' the scripture says something that would justify his not believing in the man Jesus.  Then when Jesus appeared to Saul (Paul), he finally accepted what had already been written.

I pray we all, including you, will accept what is written rather than the things our mortal brains can congure up.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 9, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> If the definition of the "Word of God" is words spoken by God, then my answer is No, I don't believe that every word in the Bible was spoken by God.  I believe that some of the words were spoken by Moses and some of the words were spoken by Paul, etc.
> 
> I believe that some of the "Words" came from God and some of the words came from man.  The issue at hand here is when a person, such as Moses, stated that a particular "law" came from God as opposed to coming from Moses.
> 
> Pretty much any law that Moses made, he said it was God's law.  Some of those laws are consistent with God's laws (the Ten Commandments) and Jesus later supported those laws.  Other laws from Moses were not supported by Jesus.  In Numbers 31, when Moses came up with a law saying that the priests must be given a percentage of the virgins captured in war (to be used as temple prostitutes), Moses of course said that this was God's law.  In Deuteronomy 21, when Moses came up with a law saying that parents were to have stubborn and rebellious sons stoned, Moses of course said that this law came from God.  I believe that these are laws that Moses authored and labeled as God's law, because all laws given by Moses were supposedly "God's law".  But I do not believe that laws such as these came directly from God.



You take great liberties with the scriptures.
Especially with your final assumptions concerning Numbers 31.  That's one of the reasons you have such difficulty with the scripture.
If you're ever going to accept the scriptures fully, you're going to have to take them as they are without putting your rational or someone elses into it.
You're confusing and cluttering your brain.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 9, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Even the most ardent "literal word" believers on this forum disagree on many topics due to their interpretation of scripture.  Interpretation makes for the same kind of shifting base you speak of.



Truthfully, most all disagreements come because we've made the scripture more about "us" rather than God.
The scripture never changed, yet one day Paul didn't believe what it said about Christ, and the next day he completely understood.

"Interpretation of scripture".  The Pharisees were fantastic scripture interpreters. And they did it in ways that best suited them.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 9, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> With all respect I do not agree with the your view that Jesus has a "waring side". I think that the whole ministry of Jesus was such that grace was better at achieving justice than breaking things and using an army sword. The world was/is full of foolish leaders who knew/know when to physically break and burn other people's assets--because Jesus had an issue (s) with the merchants of religion.
> 
> And once more, Jesus thought his deciples that his teachings were expressed in parables and He explains why? I believe He explained that those who would understand his meaning via parables were like minded and ready as He was because they were "spiritually or biblically literate".
> 
> ...



At the judgment, Jesus will be all that He said He will be!
It cannot be sugar coated.
For the disciple, it will be the greatest, most loving day ever.
For the one who refused Christ, it will not.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 9, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Pretty much everything we read of God in the first 5 books of the Bible came from Moses.  And it could be argued that the rest of the Old Testament is based heavily on what Moses wrote.
> 
> I see so many reasons to question the validity of SOME of the things that Moses wrote.  Jesus did not support SOME of the things that Moses wrote.  If some of the things that Moses attributed to God, were actually more from Moses, then how much of our image of God came from Moses more than from God?
> 
> This is what I struggle with.  I'm not trying to prove a point here.  I'm simply trying to express my inner turmoil.



What if you could just accept it all????
What if you could just trust that God has the power to make sure that you and I got everything in the writtings that we need?
And what if I don't believe in all of it.  Does that then become an excuse to not believe in any of it?  Or might it be an excuse to then use the scripture in any way I need to use it.

Seek the higher things.
Seek the things that you and I need in our lives today.
Seek the things that will make me and you become more like Jesus Christ.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 9, 2011)

Matthew 5:31-32    You have heard that the law of Moses says, "A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a letter of divorce."  But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery.  And anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Matthew 19:7-9    "Then why did Moses say a man could merely write an official letter of divorce and send her away?" they asked.  Jesus replied, "Moses permitted divorce as a concession to your hard-hearted wickedness, but it was not what God originally intended. And I tell you this, a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery - unless his wife has been unfaithful."

Mark 10:3-6    "What did Moses say about divorce?"  Jesus asked them.  "Well, he permitted it," they replied. "He said a man merely has to write an official letter of divorce and send her away."  But Jesus responded, "He wrote those instructions only as a concession to your hard-hearted wickedness. But God's plan was seen from the beginning of creation, for 'He made them male and female'."

When Jesus spoke of the divorce law of Moses, he referred to it as what Moses said, what Moses permitted, or what Moses wrote.  That is drastically different than saying that God permitted divorce.  

Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce because of the Israelite's hard-hearted wickedness.  That is drastically different than saying that God tailored His rules to conform to their wickedness.

Jesus disagreed with the divorce law of Moses.  That is drastically different than saying that God has changed His mind and is now changing the rules.

These two views on the divorce law are in direct opposition to each other, and Jesus states that clearly.  Jesus makes it clear that God's view of marriage is the same as it was in the beginning and it has not changed.  Moses made a law as a concession to their hard-hearted wickedness.  Jesus makes it clear that God did not author that law.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 9, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Matthew 5:31-32    You have heard that the law of Moses says, "A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a letter of divorce."  But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery.  And anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
> 
> Matthew 19:7-9    "Then why did Moses say a man could merely write an official letter of divorce and send her away?" they asked.  Jesus replied, "Moses permitted divorce as a concession to your hard-hearted wickedness, but it was not what God originally intended. And I tell you this, a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery - unless his wife has been unfaithful."
> 
> ...



OK this is the deal. Lots of folks that air their problemo on Jerry Spinger should divorce.(Moses) You my friend since you can FBI scripture with the keen eye of a lawyer, you may never divorce...ever... no excuse.(Grace School of Hard Knocks.) Case closed. Amen. All rise.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 9, 2011)

The point is not whether it is alright to divorce.

A.    Jesus was lying in Matthew 5 & 19 and Mark 10, and Moses told the truth about God permitting this type of divorce.

B.    Jesus told the truth about God's view of this type of divorce and Moses was lying when he said that God permitted this type of divorce.

C.    Try to warp my mind in such a way that I can believe Jesus' side of the conflicting views and at the same time accept the opposite view that Jesus spoke against, just so I can say that there is no way that a human such as Moses could ever say something came from God when it actually didn't.


----------



## formula1 (Mar 9, 2011)

*Re:*



Ronnie T said:


> What if you could just accept it all????
> What if you could just trust that God has the power to make sure that you and I got everything in the writtings that we need?
> And what if I don't believe in all of it.  Does that then become an excuse to not believe in any of it?  Or might it be an excuse to then use the scripture in any way I need to use it.
> 
> ...



Great words!

It is the hardest thing to do, to 'Let go and trust God', but it is the only way to find Him. This is what is meant we as Christians say to you, it costs you everything! Self must die. You must decide if you can pay that price!  

I can only say that I am a living witness of its worth!

Psalm 37:5
Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him, and he will act.

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,and do not lean on your own understanding.

Luke 14:28
For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 9, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> The point is not whether it is alright to divorce.
> 
> A.    Jesus was lying in Matthew 5 & 19 and Mark 10, and Moses told the truth about God permitting this type of divorce.
> 
> ...



What exactly does the "Law of Moses" say concerning a Jewish couples divorce??

It doesn't say what you insinuate.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 9, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> What exactly does the "Law of Moses" say concerning a Jewish couples divorce??
> 
> It doesn't say what you insinuate.



One example:

Deuteronomy 24:1-2     When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.  And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

This is different than finding out that she was not a virgin, or a wife commiting adultery, in which case she must be tried and stoned.  Deuteronomy 22:13-24


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 9, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> One example:
> 
> Deuteronomy 24:1-2     When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.  And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
> 
> This is different than finding out that she was not a virgin, or a wife commiting adultery, in which case she must be tried and stoned.  Deuteronomy 23:13-24



The uncleanness (unpure) was the original intent of the law.
As in the other cases, Jesus made it very clean how the people had misused God's intent of the law and Jesus prescribed even more compelling commandments from God.
Even to look at a woman with thoughts of adultery would be the same as adultery.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 9, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> The uncleanness (unpure) was the original intent of the law.
> As in the other cases, Jesus made it very clean how the people had misused God's intent of the law and Jesus prescribed even more compelling commandments from God.
> Even to look at a woman with thoughts of adultery would be the same as adultery.



I don't understand what you mean.

In Deuteronomy - Chapter 22, Moses addresses a new bride who is found to be "unpure" and the procedure to follow in that case.  Moses goes on to address an unfaithful wife and the procedure to follow in that case.  Which leads into Chapter 24, where this is written.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 9, 2011)

The punishment for a new bride being "unpure" was death by public stoning.  The punishment for a wife being unfaithful was death by public stoning.

Deuteronomy 24:1-2 can't be addressing either of those instances because there is NO punishment.  There is simply a divorce and she can marry another man.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 9, 2011)

I don't know all there is to know about Jewish marriage ritual but I've read that after a rather long engagement the couple actually became "married" in the marital bed.
When Joseph learned that Mary was with child he planned to simply break the engagement rather than submit Mary to what would come from the local community.

If a husband learned, in the marital bed, that she was not the virgin she claimed to be, he wouldn't have to stay with her.
If her family would produce proof of her virginity (possibly blood) the marriage would count and he would not be permitted to leave her.

If he married the virgin, but later learned that she had committed adultery after the marriage, there would be a stoning.


----------



## Lowjack (Mar 9, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Pretty much everything we read of God in the first 5 books of the Bible came from Moses.  And it could be argued that the rest of the Old Testament is based heavily on what Moses wrote.
> 
> I see so many reasons to question the validity of SOME of the things that Moses wrote.  Jesus did not support SOME of the things that Moses wrote.  If some of the things that Moses attributed to God, were actually more from Moses, then how much of our image of God came from Moses more than from God?
> 
> This is what I struggle with.  I'm not trying to prove a point here.  I'm simply trying to express my inner turmoil.



Can You Quote just one that Jesus did not support ?


----------



## gtparts (Mar 9, 2011)

It might be useful for some on here to think about this one thing before studying the Bible without a little more training. 

The Bible is the inspired word of God. It does not mean that every word, even in the original transcripts (and, by this, I don't mean to imply meticulously rendered copies are excluded) was dictated by God and recorded exactly word for word. While, indeed there are direct attributions throughout the OT and NT to verbatim contributions of God, the Father, and God, the Son, there is a tremendous amount of Scripture that carries the original thoughts of the various writers, either directly or stylistically. Even so, it is still inspired, whether in content or intent. It bears the authorization of Almighty God.

Secondly, it might be helpful to read Deut. 1-12 in its entirety. For clarity, it might be helpful to read it in the NLT translation. (Yes, I mean the first twelve chapters.) There is a style that aids in teaching information and concepts. It is called repetition. It is used frequently, particularly in the OT, to emphasize the importance of what is being recorded. If you suffer through all 12 chapters, including the repetitive portions, you will find to whom the book of Deuteronomy was written, specifically, and why.  It was not written to guide the actions of Christians, nor the actions of all Jews, nor the actions of all Israelites, not even all the Israelites waiting to go into Caanan with Joshua. 

Here is some help.

Deut. 1:1-5
 1 These are the words that Moses spoke to all the people of Israel while they were in the wilderness east of the Jordan River. They were camped in the Jordan Valley near Suph, between Paran on one side and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Di-zahab on the other.

 2 Normally it takes only eleven days to travel from Mount Sinai to Kadesh-barnea, going by way of Mount Seir. 3 But forty years after the Israelites left Egypt, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses addressed the people of Israel, telling them everything the Lord had commanded him to say. 4 This took place after he had defeated King Sihon of the Amorites, who had ruled in Heshbon, and King Og of Bashan, who had ruled in Ashtaroth and Edrei.

 5 While the Israelites were in the land of Moab east of the Jordan River, Moses carefully explained the Lord’s instructions as follows.

Is the picture a little clearer?

The, in 

Deut. 4:44-46
44 This is the body of instruction that Moses presented to the Israelites. 45 These are the laws, decrees, and regulations that Moses gave to the people of Israel when they left Egypt, 46 and as they camped in the valley near Beth-peor east of the Jordan River. 

Okay. But there is more.

Deut. 5:1-5
 Moses called all the people of Israel together and said, “Listen carefully, Israel. Hear the decrees and regulations I am giving you today, so you may learn them and obey them!

 2 “The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Mount Sinai. 3 The Lord did not make this covenant with our ancestors, but with all of us who are alive today.

Yes, I did the underlining for your benefit.

Deut. 6:1-3
 “These are the commands, decrees, and regulations that the Lord your God commanded me to teach you. You must obey them in the land you are about to enter and occupy, 2 and you and your children and grandchildren must fear the Lord your God as long as you live. If you obey all his decrees and commands, you will enjoy a long life. 3 Listen closely, Israel, and be careful to obey. Then all will go well with you, and you will have many children in the land flowing with milk and honey, just as the Lord, the God of your ancestors, promised you.


Underlining, yep, mine.

One more.

Deut. 11:1-7
 “You must love the Lord your God and obey all his requirements, decrees, regulations, and commands. 2 Keep in mind that I am not talking now to your children, who have never experienced the discipline of the Lord your God or seen his greatness and his strong hand and powerful arm. 3 They didn’t see the miraculous signs and wonders he performed in Egypt against Pharaoh and all his land. 4 They didn’t see what the Lord did to the armies of Egypt and to their horses and chariots—how he drowned them in the Red Sea as they were chasing you. He destroyed them, and they have not recovered to this very day!

 5 “Your children didn’t see how the Lord cared for you in the wilderness until you arrived here. 6 They didn’t see what he did to Dathan and Abiram (the sons of Eliab, a descendant of Reuben) when the earth opened its mouth in the Israelite camp and swallowed them, along with their households and tents and every living thing that belonged to them. 7 But you have seen the Lord perform all these mighty deeds with your own eyes!

I know it is easy to become confused about things we learned or thought we learned (correctly or incorrectly) many years ago. That is why it is wise to reread often, for clarity and correction, what we think we know like the back of our hand. 

Well, if you have followed this far, reading 12 chapters without cheating, it really wouldn't hurt to read the whole book of Deuteronomy.... and maybe a few others. I understand it is a great habit to form.

Grace and peace to you all.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 10, 2011)

Lowjack said:


> Can You Quote just one that Jesus did not support ?



Look at posts #47,  #49,  #52,  and #55.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 10, 2011)

**k9** said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> he has questioned the  word of God, instead of receiving the word of God?
> 
> ...



I'm not questioning the Word of God,  I'm questioning the word of Moses.  There is a huge difference.  I don't ever remember being called to be more Moses-like.  When Jesus Christ disagrees with Moses, I have no reservations in deciding which one I will side with.

I received my Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior on April 13th, 1980.  I was baptized (submerged) in a muddy creek and afterwards became a member of a Southern Baptist Church.  I'm not incapable of understanding what you suggest can only be understood by members of the club.


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 10, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I received my Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior on April 13th, 1980.  I was baptized (submerged) in a muddy creek and afterwards became a member of a Southern Baptist Church.  I'm not incapable of understanding what you suggest can only be understood by members of the club.



Phew...as long as your on the church roll somewhere, you're good to go.

Question away...question away.


In all seriousness....you say that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior.  How do you know who Jesus Christ is if you don't believe the Bible...or only certain parts of it?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 10, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Phew...as long as your on the church roll somewhere, you're good to go.
> 
> Question away...question away.
> 
> ...



Moses claiming that his ruling in a civil case came directly from God as opposed to saying it came from him, the leader of the Israelites, in no way hinders my personal relationship with God or Jesus Christ.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 10, 2011)

From reading this forum for a few years prior to ever posting here, I've seen that there is some disagreement as to what specifically is required to be a Christian.  I think most on here agree that you must believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior and is the resurrected son of God.  Baptism is sometimes debated as to exactly where it stands in the salvation process.  But what interests me is the role that some of you see the Bible playing in salvation.

Did Jesus say somewhere that in order for you to be saved and live a life that is pleasing to God, that you must believe that every word written in the Bible came directly from God.  Is that a requirement for salvation?  Is it required that you read the Bible or own a Bible or even know that the Bible exists?


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 10, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Moses claiming that his ruling in a civil case came directly from God as opposed to saying it came from him, the leader of the Israelites, in no way hinders my personal relationship with God or Jesus Christ.





HawgJawl said:


> From reading this forum for a few years prior to ever posting here, I've seen that there is some disagreement as to what specifically is required to be a Christian.  I think most on here agree that you must believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior and is the resurrected son of God.  Baptism is sometimes debated as to exactly where it stands in the salvation process.  But what interests me is the role that some of you see the Bible playing in salvation.
> 
> Did Jesus say somewhere that in order for you to be saved and live a life that is pleasing to God, that you must believe that every word written in the Bible came directly from God.  Is that a requirement for salvation?  Is it required that you read the Bible or own a Bible or even know that the Bible exists?



You raise a good question....and it is one that I can't answer.

What I can answer is if you can pick and choose what verses you believe out of the Bible, you can come up with any god you want and any jesus you want.  That is a false gospel.

So...where does one draw the line?  What does "making Jesus your personal Lord & Savior" really mean?  To some, it is a list of do's and don'ts.  To others, it is an aisle they walked and a prayer they prayed.  

To me...it is the acknowledgement of my own sinfulness, my need for a savior from that sin, that Christ's death & resurrection paid the penalty for that sin and that I live to please Him day in & day out.

And yes, I do believe that all 66 books of the Bible are the inerrant infallible Word of God.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 10, 2011)

First, I think it is relevent to consider that Moses is the one who wrote the verse that says that God spoke to Moses face to face.

Exodus 18:13-24  tell us that Moses judged arguments and settled cases every day from morning until evening.  Israelites continually asked Moses for God's decisions on issues.  It became more than he could handle so he empowered judges to help him.

Exodus 21, 22, and 23  detail some of the laws that Moses handed down to the judges so that they could take some of the case load off Moses.  This is very much like the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on an issue and handing the ruling down to the lower courts as a guideline.  The lower courts then follow the Supreme Court's ruling on that issue on all future cases and the Supreme Court never has to utilize it's time addressing the same old issue over and over.  Only new issues that have never been addressed before by the Supreme Court are forwarded up the ladder.  Moses acted as the supreme court and wrote down his rulings to the judges on the issues that he was hearing daily.

Exodus 21:33-34   And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an (donkey?) fall therein; The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.

Exodus 22:14    And if a man borrow ought of his neighbor, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.

These are examples of the civil (property) cases that Moses was hearing daily and wished to delegate to the lower judges.  These "case laws" have nothing to do with sin. 

It is important to note that the Israelite were not asking for Moses' decision of these cases.  They were asking for God's decision.  And that is what Moses gave them.  Every decision on every case was labeled as "God's law".  I'm not blaming Moses for doing this.  He was having an extremely difficult time maintaining control over the Israelites.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 10, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> You raise a good question....and it is one that I can't answer.
> 
> What I can answer is if you can pick and choose what verses you believe out of the Bible, you can come up with any god you want and any jesus you want.  That is a false gospel.
> 
> ...



Is it possible for someone to be saved without a Bible at all.


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 10, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> So...where does one draw the line? What does "making Jesus your personal Lord & Savior" really mean? To some, it is a list of do's and don'ts. To others, it is an aisle they walked and a prayer they prayed.
> 
> To me...it is the acknowledgement of my own sinfulness, my need for a savior from that sin, that Christ's death & resurrection paid the penalty for that sin and that I live to please Him day in & day out.
> 
> And yes, I do believe that all 66 books of the Bible are the inerrant infallible Word of God.


 
Well said.  

Philippians 3:7-9


----------



## rjcruiser (Mar 10, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Is it possible for someone to be saved without a Bible at all.



Re-read this post.



rjcruiser said:


> You raise a good question....and it is one that I can't answer.
> 
> What I can answer is if you can pick and choose what verses you believe out of the Bible, you can come up with any god you want and any jesus you want.  That is a false gospel.
> 
> ...


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 10, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Is it possible for someone to be saved without a Bible at all.



There was no Bible (as we know it today) for the first couple of centuries, and lots of people got saved.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 10, 2011)

A person needs the information of the Gospel.  Whether they receive it from another person (hear it) or they receive it from it's written form, they must have the message of the gospel before any person can believe in Jesus Christ.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 10, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I think Jesus referred to God's law's to Israel as Moses Law because that's they way Israel had come to refer to them.  And because during that period of time, it was Moses that God had chosen to lead Israel.
> 
> God's law to Adam and Eve were not the same as God's law to Noah and his family.
> God's law to Abraham was not the same of God's Devine or moral law to Israel.
> ...



I want to ask you to browse the above one more time.

I don't think Jesus ever had negative comments to make about Moses interjecting incorrect commands.
I believe Jesus is merely showing and calling God's children to a higher standard.

Remember that Jesus said:  "You have heard that you shall not murder, but I say if you hate your brother you are guilty of murder already.
Jesus wasn't saying the command to not kill had been missused.  Jesus was calling mankind to a higher level of commitment.

And, again, I believe that's what Jesus' teaching concerning divorce are also doing.
In my mind, Jesus never "calls out" Moses for commanding something that he should not have".

I don't see it.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 10, 2011)

When Jesus stated in Matthew 19:8 and Mark 10:5  that Moses permitted divorce as a concession to their hard hearted wickedness, I truly can't understand how any of you can interpret that to mean that God permitted divorce as a concession to their hard hearted wickedness.

God does not make concessions to try to accommodate man's wickedness.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 10, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> When Jesus stated in Matthew 19:8 and Mark 10:5  that Moses permitted divorce as a concession to their hard hearted wickedness, I truly can't understand how any of you can interpret that to mean that God permitted divorce as a concession to their hard hearted wickedness.
> 
> God does not make concessions to try to accommodate man's wickedness.



Do you remember that Moses wasn't allow to cross over into the promised land?

Remember why?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 11, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Do you remember that Moses wasn't allow to cross over into the promised land?
> 
> Remember why?



Moses was supposed to take his staff and command the rock at Kadesh or Meribah, whichever one it was, to pour out water.  Instead, Moses struck the rock twice with his staff.  God told Moses that since he did not trust God, he would not be permitted to lead the Israelites all the way into the Promised Land.

But, what does that have to do with the incorrect concept that God changed his rules to allow things that were against his original plan as a concession to accommodate man's hard hearted wickedness?  (Mark 10:5-9)


----------



## gtparts (Mar 11, 2011)

HawgJawl,

I believe it is rather clear that Jesus (in Mark 10:1-12) was correcting some of the erroneous thinking that had arisen out of a ruling made by Moses during the desert wanderings of the Israelites. He ( Jesus) explains why the ruling was originally given, that it was not intended to license divorce for any reason other than infidelity, was a concession to the otherwise callous treatment of estranged wives, and that God intended marriage to be a permanent union from the beginning. Then, he (Jesus) expands this understanding by stating to the disciples how God, the Father considers post-divorce sexual relations.  

It's not about Moses getting it wrong; it's about God's people getting it wrong.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 11, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Moses was supposed to take his staff and command the rock at Kadesh or Meribah, whichever one it was, to pour out water.  Instead, Moses struck the rock twice with his staff.  God told Moses that since he did not trust God, he would not be permitted to lead the Israelites all the way into the Promised Land.
> 
> But, what does that have to do with the incorrect concept that God changed his rules to allow things that were against his original plan as a concession to accommodate man's hard hearted wickedness?  (Mark 10:5-9)



If Moses had done such a grevious thing as minimizing His command concerning divorce, wouldn't God have immediately condemned him?


----------



## farmasis (Mar 12, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> God does not make concessions to try to accommodate man's wickedness.


 
I am so glad that statement is not true!

*<SUP>6</SUP>* But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. 

 <SUP id=en-NIV-30100 class=versenum>*7*</SUP> For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. <SUP id=en-NIV-30101 class=versenum>*8*</SUP> But God found fault with the people and said<SUP class=footnote value='[b]'>[b]</SUP>:    “The days are coming, declares the Lord, 
   when I will make a new covenant 
with the people of Israel 
   and with the people of Judah. 
<SUP id=en-NIV-30102 class=versenum>*9*</SUP> It will not be like the covenant 
   I made with their ancestors 
when I took them by the hand 
   to lead them out of Egypt, 
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, 
   and I turned away from them, 
            declares the Lord. 
<SUP id=en-NIV-30103 class=versenum>*10*</SUP> This is the covenant I will establish with the people 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. 
<SUP id=en-NIV-30104 class=versenum>*11*</SUP> No longer will they teach their neighbor, 
   or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ 
because they will all know me, 
   from the least of them to the greatest. 
<SUP id=en-NIV-30105 class=versenum>*12*</SUP> For I will forgive their wickedness 
   and will remember their sins no more.”<SUP class=footnote value='[c]'>[c]</SUP> (Hebrews 8)


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 13, 2011)

gtparts said:


> HawgJawl,
> 
> I believe it is rather clear that Jesus (in Mark 10:1-12) was correcting some of the erroneous thinking that had arisen out of a ruling made by Moses during the desert wanderings of the Israelites. He ( Jesus) explains why the ruling was originally given, that it was not intended to license divorce for any reason other than infidelity, was a concession to the otherwise callous treatment of estranged wives, and that God intended marriage to be a permanent union from the beginning. Then, he (Jesus) expands this understanding by stating to the disciples how God, the Father considers post-divorce sexual relations.
> 
> It's not about Moses getting it wrong; it's about God's people getting it wrong.



Look back at post #53.
Read Deuteronomy 22-24.
There was NO divorce for infidelity.  There was public stoning.  This law did not replace the law for public stoning for infidelity.  This law existed with and among the other laws calling for public stoning for infidelity.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 13, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> If Moses had done such a grevious thing as minimizing His command concerning divorce, wouldn't God have immediately condemned him?



Our information concerning God's relationship with Moses comes from Moses.  If I question the credibility of Moses' writings, I don't consider another part of Moses' writings as a valid template.  In other words, if one part of a particular text is incorrect, then another part of the same text would not serve as a reasonable standard for proof.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 13, 2011)

farmasis said:


> I am so glad that statement is not true!
> 
> *<SUP>6</SUP>* But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.
> 
> ...



Do you view this as a one-time thing, or should we expect that God will change his rules again in the near future as a concession to our hard-hearted wickedness?


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 13, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Our information concerning God's relationship with Moses comes from Moses. If I question the credibility of Moses' writings, I don't consider another part of Moses' writings as a valid template. In other words, if one part of a particular text is incorrect, then another part of the same text would not serve as a reasonable standard for proof.


 
So I guess that means you have no regard for the words and ministry of our Lord then, either.

Christ Himself said Moses spoke of Him, among other times He quoted Moses' text directly.  Then there was the transfiguration, Jesus, Moses and Elijah.  If old Mo was "invalid" I doubt he would have such a divine moment in Christ's ministry.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 14, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> So I guess that means you have no regard for the words and ministry of our Lord then, either.
> 
> Christ Himself said Moses spoke of Him, among other times He quoted Moses' text directly.  Then there was the transfiguration, Jesus, Moses and Elijah.  If old Mo was "invalid" I doubt he would have such a divine moment in Christ's ministry.



I'm not lumping everything that Moses did and said into one pile and saying that it is all or nothing.  I do question whether Moses served as a puppet or a translator and spent everyday from morning until evening relaying word for word what God was whispering into his ear.  I believe that Moses made SOME decisions on his own, especially the ones regarding property rights (that the ones I mentioned earlier) that have absolutely nothing to do with sin.  However, every single ruling Moses made, including the ones that had nothing to do with sin, Moses stated that they were God's law.  But it's understandable that Moses called them God's decisions because that is what the Israelites came to Moses to get (God's decision, not Moses' decision).

If Moses was relaying exactly, word for word, what God said, then wouldn't those words be more important or at least as important as what Jesus said?  Why do you think it is that the folks who publish the red-letter versions of the Bible don't put those words that supposedly came straight from God, the Father, in red letters?


----------



## gtparts (Mar 14, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Look back at post #53.
> Read Deuteronomy 22-24.
> There was NO divorce for infidelity.  There was public stoning.  This law did not replace the law for public stoning for infidelity.  This law existed with and among the other laws calling for public stoning for infidelity.



Then you have answered your own question. The passage in Mark 10 is not addressing the issue of infidelity, but concerning divorce, permitted by Moses for such frivolous reasons as " She scrambled my eggs when I wanted them over - easy." or "She spends too much time at the well talking with the other women."

If you want to talk about infidelity, you'll find this in John.
*John 8*

*A Woman Caught in Adultery*

   Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-26348">2</sup> but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-26349">3</sup>  As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees  brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her  in front of the crowd. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-26350">4</sup> “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-26351">5</sup> The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”
 <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-26352">6</sup>  They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use  against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his  finger. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-26353">7</sup> They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-26354">8</sup> Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.
 <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-26355">9</sup>  When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning  with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd  with the woman. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-26356">10</sup> Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”
 <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-26357">11</sup> “No, Lord,” she said.
   And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

So, Moses' ruling was God's just punishment for adultery. Jesus did not say that Moses (or the Father) was wrong about stoning being the proper punishment for adultery. He merely called upon those who were truly righteous (innocent) to carry out the execution. Jesus is the ultimate earthly revelation of the nature of God. 

Jesus acknowledged the justice of capital punishment for adultery; He showed wisdom and compassion; He granted forgiveness and grace.  

If you see something else there,perhaps, you need to look again.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 14, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Then you have answered your own question. The passage in Mark 10 is not addressing the issue of infidelity, but concerning divorce, permitted by Moses for such frivolous reasons as " She scrambled my eggs when I wanted them over - easy." or "She spends too much time at the well talking with the other women."
> 
> If you want to talk about infidelity, you'll find this in John.
> *John 8*
> ...



Since God's law, prior to Christ, was capital punishment for infidelity, and God's law did not permit divorce for "cooking eggs wrong or talking too much at the well", then which one of these statements is more true?

(A)     Moses permitted divorce as a concession to the Israelites' hard-hearted wickedness.

or

(B)      God permitted divorce as a concession to the Israelites' hard-hearted wickedness.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 14, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Our information concerning God's relationship with Moses comes from Moses.  If I question the credibility of Moses' writings, I don't consider another part of Moses' writings as a valid template.  In other words, if one part of a particular text is incorrect, then another part of the same text would not serve as a reasonable standard for proof.



Then I plead for God's mercy on your behalf.
And God is merciful.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Mar 14, 2011)

Without FAITH it is impossible to please God.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 14, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Since God's law, prior to Christ, was capital for infidelity, and God's law did not permit divorce for "cooking eggs wrong or talking too much at the well", then which one of these statements is more true?
> 
> (A)     Moses permitted divorce as a concession to the Israelites' hard-hearted wickedness.
> 
> ...



".....then which one of these statements is more true?"

There are degrees of truth????? Did you really type that??? (insert pic of incredulity on the face of the AFLAC duck, upon hearing Yogi Berra)

I am sorry, but both are examples of God's mercy and grace. I think you know that.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 14, 2011)

gtparts said:


> ".....then which one of these statements is more true?"
> 
> There are degrees of truth????? Did you really type that??? (insert pic of incredulity on the face of the AFLAC duck, upon hearing Yogi Berra)
> 
> I am sorry, but both are examples of God's mercy and grace. I think you know that.



Read back over this entire thread and look at how difficult it is to get a straight answer.  No matter how I state the question, some of you search for a reason to not directly answer it. 

Here are the two scenerios:

God specifically instructed Moses to permit divorce for something other than the woman's infidelity or not being a virgin, or

God did not specifically instruct Moses to permit divorce for something other than the woman's infidelity or not being a virgin.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 14, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Read back over this entire thread and look at how difficult it is to get a straight answer.  No matter how I state the question, some of you search for a reason to not directly answer it.
> 
> Here are the two scenerios:
> 
> ...



Why didn't you state it that way to start with?

Since Moses allowed divorce, I'd have to say he got his instructions from God. Was that the way God intended for it to be?  Obviously not, if we trust what Jesus said. 

It seems quite apparent that God makes the rules, we have a terrible time keeping them, and God sometimes amends the immediate consequences to give us time to repent and come around to His way. 

Mercy is not receiving the full and rightful punishment we have earned for our sin. Grace is receiving the blessings that we have not earned and do not deserve. 

What's your point? Do you have a problem with mercy or grace? Do you not see how much better the New Covenant is than the Old Covenant?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 14, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Matthew 5:31-32    You have heard that the law of Moses says, "A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a letter of divorce."  But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery.  And anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
> 
> Matthew 19:7-9    "Then why did Moses say a man could merely write an official letter of divorce and send her away?" they asked.  Jesus replied, "Moses permitted divorce as a concession to your hard-hearted wickedness, but it was not what God originally intended. And I tell you this, a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery - unless his wife has been unfaithful."
> 
> ...



You ask why I didn't say it like that before?
You ask what my point is?
This is what I posted all the way back at post #45.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 14, 2011)

> Moses made a law as a concession to their hard-hearted wickedness. Jesus makes it clear that God did not author that law.



Why do you assume that Moses did this without God's express permission or direction? How do the words of Jesus support the idea that God wasn't the author of Moses' ruling? The Bible gives us this information.

1) God did not intend for divorce to be permissible, ever!

2) Because humans chose to live contrary to God's rules, God, in the best interest of the desert-wandering Israelites permitted divorce for just cause, to relieve the the bitterness and social discord of His people. (Apparently, divorced or together, behaving ungodly is destructive. Imagine that!)

3) Jesus reinforces God's basic opposition to living outside of His intent.

How is it that God makes a modification for a specific purpose and you want to accuse Moses of "going off the reservation"? Jesus did not refute the ruling given by God to Moses. He explains why the modification was given and then reinforces God's original intent.

You seem to be reading more into this than is written.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 14, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Because humans chose to live contrary to God's rules, God, in the best interest of the desert-wandering Israelites permitted divorce for just cause, to relieve the the bitterness and social discord of His people.



So, when people are stubborn and refuse to follow God's rules, then God will eventually give in to man's "hard-hearted wickedness" and God will change His rules to be more consistent with what man wants to do.

Isn't it about time for God to change His rules again?  The majority of people today are living "contrary to God's rules".  Wouldn't it be in the "best interest" of man for God to change the rules again now?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> So, when people are stubborn and refuse to follow God's rules, then God will eventually give in to man's "hard-hearted wickedness" and God will change His rules to be more consistent with what man wants to do.
> 
> Isn't it about time for God to change His rules again?  The majority of people today are living "contrary to God's rules".  Wouldn't it be in the "best interest" of man for God to change the rules again now?



I my opinion, God reveals Himself through the culture during a given time period. I believe there is a chance God lets us fall on our face to teach us. Everyone wants to be able to get divorced whenever and for whatever, and God says go ahead, dont listen to me...... and then everyone is miserable and on there fourth marriage when they're 55 years old. I guess what I'm trying to say is God didnt change His rules, just maybe pulled them aside to show He was right all along?


----------



## gtparts (Mar 14, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> So, when people are stubborn and refuse to follow God's rules, then God will eventually give in to man's "hard-hearted wickedness" and God will change His rules to be more consistent with what man wants to do.


Now, why would you jump to that conclusion? God makes an accommodation for a particular situation and you think He is has some obligation to continue doing so?? For everybody?? Just because God doesn't slap folks back into line immediately doesn't mean they get off scot-free.







HawgJawl said:


> Isn't it about time for God to change His rules again?  The majority of people today are living "contrary to God's rules".  Wouldn't it be in the "best interest" of man for God to change the rules again now?



See, there you go again! Do you think this stuff through before you post? Why would you assume God will ever let sin slide? Brother, there will be an accounting day for those who have not repented and received forgiveness from holy God. The sovereign Lord can express mercy to one without being obligated to do so for another. He may just be delaying punishment. Just remember, the hardness of ones heart can be the cause for eternal separation from God. Hatred toward a spouse or ex-spouse will, no doubt, be the undoing of many.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Everyone wants to be able to get divorced whenever and for whatever, and God says go ahead, dont listen to me...... and then everyone is miserable and on there fourth marriage when they're 55 years old. I guess what I'm trying to say is God didnt change His rules, just maybe pulled them aside to show He was right all along?



If God's goal was to teach man a lesson about divorce, do you think God succeeded or failed in what He attempted to do?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 15, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Now, why would you jump to that conclusion? God makes an accommodation for a particular situation and you think He is has some obligation to continue doing so?? For everybody?? Just because God doesn't slap folks back into line immediately doesn't mean they get off scot-free.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is a huge difference between God "showing mercy for someone who is violating God's law and sinning" and changing the rules so that the act is no longer a sin.  If the rules are changed so that the act is no longer a sin, there is no punishment "down the road" for the act and no mercy is needed because the act was no longer a sin.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> If God's goal was to teach man a lesson about divorce, do you think God succeeded or failed in what He attempted to do?



I think man failed.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I think man failed.



You didn't say that "MAN" was trying to do something, you said that "GOD" was trying to do something.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> So, when people are stubborn and refuse to follow God's rules, then God will eventually give in to man's "hard-hearted wickedness" and God will change His rules to be more consistent with what man wants to do.
> 
> Isn't it about time for God to change His rules again?  The majority of people today are living "contrary to God's rules".  Wouldn't it be in the "best interest" of man for God to change the rules again now?



Who would be the arbiter of an amendment?   How would it get inserted into the original document?

I guess the Pope is kind of an arbiter.  The RCC adopted a policy that acknowledges science's discoveries about the age of the Earth and the process of evolution.  How do they get everyone else on board?


----------



## gtparts (Mar 15, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> There is a huge difference between God "showing mercy for someone who is violating God's law and sinning" and changing the rules so that the act is no longer a sin.



I agree, but there is no indication that God's view on marriage or divorce has in any way changed..... just in the way He dealt with it for Israel during the exodus. Marriage is still the way in which a man and a woman are intended to live together. Divorce is still contrary to the will of God (so are a host of things that we do daily). God will still deal with sin. Those who may have been granted a bill of divorcement, "because of the hardness of their heart", still had to face up to their sin. They didn't get a free pass on the sin issue.




HawgJawl said:


> If the rules are changed so that the act is no longer a sin, there is no punishment "down the road" for the act and no mercy is needed because the act was no longer a sin.



"IF" the rules are changed so that the act is no longer a sin.....

If the rules are modified and the act is still sin, then   there is punishment "down the road" for the act and mercy is needed, even forgiveness.

The Pharisees who posed the question to Jesus were seeking to do exactly what you are doing..... trying to put Jesus in a position to refute Moses, who was highly revered as a patriarch, or to refute God. Either way, they would have a reason to further accuse and attack Jesus. Jesus didn't choose sides.... there was only one side.

First of all, Moses had no authority of his own,... only what God had given him. Second, the ruling on divorce was, therefore, from God. It did not alter the nature of sin or judgment. The accommodation was made to protect and preserve the Israelites while in the desert. The reality is that a perfect law always results in problems when applied to imperfect people. Always!! 

God did not scrap His perfect law, but allowed them to implement an imperfect solution to a difficult, human situation. 

Why is it such a struggle for you to grasp?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 15, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Why is it such a struggle for you to grasp?



Why is it such a struggle for you to consider the possibility that Moses wasn't perfect?


----------



## gtparts (Mar 15, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Why is it such a struggle for you to consider the possibility that Moses wasn't perfect?



I don't struggle with that... never have. I readily accept that Moses wasn't perfect. 

Now, I've answered your question. Please do me the courtesy of answering mine.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2011)

gtparts said:


> I agree, but there is no indication that God's view on marriage or divorce has in any way changed..... just in the way He dealt with it for Israel during the exodus. Marriage is still the way in which a man and a woman are intended to live together. Divorce is still contrary to the will of God (so are a host of things that we do daily). God will still deal with sin. Those who may have been granted a bill of divorcement, "because of the hardness of their heart", still had to face up to their sin. They didn't get a free pass on the sin issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is there any condition today that might warrant an "imperfect solution" to be implemented; taking current cultural issues into account, of course?


----------



## gtparts (Mar 15, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Is there any condition today that might warrant an "imperfect solution" to be implemented; taking current cultural issues into account, of course?



I think it is obvious that man is always coming up with imperfect solutions. If you are asking if God has any intent to permit imperfect solutions, He allows us the attempt at solving our own problems. Some days we do slightly better than others. If you are looking for specifics, I am not a prophet.


----------



## Ole Crip (Mar 15, 2011)

60 seconds with God...





For the next 60 seconds,

set aside whatever you're doing and

take this opportunity!

Let's see if Satan can stop this.





THE

(SCIENTIFIC) DEATH OF JESUS

At the age of 33, Jesus was condemned to the death penalty.

At the time crucifixion was the "worst" death. Only the worst criminals condemned to be crucified. Yet it was even more dreadful for Jesus, unlike other criminals condemned to death by crucifixion, Jesus was to be nailed to the cross by His hands and feet.







Each nail was 6 to 8 inches long.

The nails were driven into His wrist.

Not into His palms as is commonly portrayed.

There's a tendon in the wrist that extends to the shoulder.

The Roman guards knew that when the nails

were being hammered into the wrist,

that tendon would tear and break, forcing Jesus

to use His back muscles to support himself

so that He could breathe. 

Both of His feet were nailed together.

Thus He was forced to support Himself on the single nail

that impaled His feet to the cross.

Jesus could not support himself with His legs

because of the pain, so He was forced to alternate

between arching His back then using his legs

just to continue to breathe.

Imagine the struggle, the pain, the suffering, the courage. 

Jesus endured this reality for over 3 hours.

Yes, over 3 hours!

Can you imagine this kind of suffering?

A few minutes before He died,

Jesus stopped bleeding.

He was simply pouring water from his wounds.

From common images, we see wounds to His hands

and feet and even the spear wound to His side...

But do we realize His wounds were actually made in his body.

A hammer driving large nails through the wrist,

the feet overlapped and an even large nail

hammered through the arches,

then a Roman guard piercing His side with a spear.

But before the nails and the spear,

Jesus was whipped and beaten.

The whipping was so severe that it tore the flesh from His body.

The beating so horrific that His face was torn

and his beard ripped from His face.

The crown of thorns cut deeply into His scalp.

Most men would not have survived this torture. 



He had no more blood to bleed out,

only water poured from His wounds.

The human adult body contains about 3.5 liters

(just less than a gallon) of blood.

Jesus poured all 3.5 liters of his blood;

He had three nails hammered into His members;

a crown of thorns on His head and, beyond that,

a Roman soldier who stabbed a spear into His chest.

All these without mentioning the humiliation

He passed after carrying His own cross for almost 2 kilometers,

while the crowd spat in his face and threw stones

(the cross was almost 30 kg of weight, only for its higher part,

where His hands were nailed).

Jesus had to endure this experience,

so that you can have free access to God.

So that your sins could be "washed" away.

All of them, with no exception!

Don't ignore this situation.





JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR YOU!





For you, who now read this e-mail.

Do not believe that He only died for others

(those who go to church or for pastors, bishops, etc).

He died for you! It is easy to pass jokes

and false witness statements by e-mail,

but when it comes to God,

sometimes you feel ashamed to forward to others

because you are worried of what

they may think about you.

Accept the reality, the truth that

JESUS IS THE ONLY SALVATION FOR THE WORLD.





God has plans for you, show all your friends what

He experienced to save you.

Now think about this!

May God bless your life!





60 seconds with God...





For the next 60 seconds, set aside what you're doing

and take this opportunity!

Let's see if Satan can stop this.

All you have to do is:

1. Simply pray for the person who sent

this message to you:

2. Then, send this message to 10 people...

More if you wish.

3. 10 people will pray for you and you will make

that many people pray to God for other people.

4. Take a moment to appreciate the power of God

in your life, for doing what pleases Him.

If you are not ashamed to do this, please,

follow Jesus' instructions. He said (Matthew 10:32 & 33):

"Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others,

I also will acknowledge before My Father in heaven;

but whosoever denies Me before others,

I also will deny before My Father in heaven."

If you believe, send this message...

But send it only if you believe in

Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

Yes, I love God.

He is my source of life and my Savior.

He keeps me alive day and night.

Without Him, I am nothing, but with Him

"I can do all things through Him who strengthens me."

Philippians 4:13.

This is the simple proof.

If you love God and you are a believer

and trust in salvation through Jesus Christ,

send this to all those you love.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 15, 2011)

gtparts said:


> I don't struggle with that... never have. I readily accept that Moses wasn't perfect.
> 
> Now, I've answered your question. Please do me the courtesy of answering mine.



What I am struggling with is the concept that under the old covenant with the Israelites, God's law and sin are two totally different things that can be separated.  The purpose of God's law was to specifically define what was a sin against God.  If an action was a violation of God's law, then by definition it was a sin against God.  If God's law specifically permitted an action, then by definition it was not a sin against God.

The law in question specifically permits a certain type of divorce.  

If the law is "God's law" then this type of divorce by definition is not a sin.

If the law was just "Moses' law" then we have no conflicts with God changing the law and then Jesus changing it back.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 15, 2011)

gtparts said:


> The Pharisees who posed the question to Jesus were seeking to do exactly what you are doing..... trying to put Jesus in a position to refute Moses, who was highly revered as a patriarch, or to refute God. Either way, they would have a reason to further accuse and attack Jesus. Jesus didn't choose sides.... there was only one side.
> 
> First of all, Moses had no authority of his own,... only what God had given him.



These statements illustrate the mindset I've been talking about.  There was only one side.  God, Jesus, and Moses.  There is no possibility that Moses could have ever done anything on his own.  Moses had no authority but what God had given him.  Does that mean that there was no possible way that Moses could have ever done anything on his own and simply claimed it was from God?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 15, 2011)

Moses wrote numerous laws for the Israelites.  Moses claimed that every one of the laws were relayed to him by God, and that he spoke to God face-to-face.  Some of these laws permitted (in certain instances) actions such as murder, rape, kidnapping, slavery, battery, theft, and so on.  

If we choose to believe that God spoke directly to Moses and told him to write every single one of these laws, then we have to work extremely hard to justify why those acts were alright at one point for one set of people but aren't alright anymore.

If we choose to believe that at least a few of the laws that Moses wrote, came more from Moses than from God, then we have no conflicts or contradictions, other than a few things that Moses wrote about himself.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 15, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> You didn't say that "MAN" was trying to do something, you said that "GOD" was trying to do something.



Man was part of the equation, he failed.


----------



## farmasis (Mar 15, 2011)

Many laws given to Moses was for a particular people at a particular time.
If any of them confuse us, we can find reaffirmation of those in effect today in the NT.

But, in Deuteronomy 24...where does it say a person can divorce for whatever reason? It doesn't. 
It says that IF a man no longer finds a woman pleasing to him and gives her a certificate of divorce and sends her out, he may not marry her again if she remarries. It basically is forbidding the remarriage of the original. It is not condoning divorce.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2011)

gtparts said:


> I think it is obvious that man is always coming up with imperfect solutions. If you are asking if God has any intent to permit imperfect solutions, He allows us the attempt at solving our own problems. Some days we do slightly better than others. If you are looking for specifics, I am not a prophet.



So you are not a prophet but what if someone else is?  What if some Christian geneticist said:  "God told me that we should allow stem cell research, yea, it is a gift from Him and spake to me in a vision and told me how we should do it."  

There is precedence for such a thing, isn't there?


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 15, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Moses wrote numerous laws for the Israelites.  Moses claimed that every one of the laws were relayed to him by God, and that he spoke to God face-to-face.  Some of these laws permitted (in certain instances) actions such as murder, rape, kidnapping, slavery, battery, theft, and so on.
> 
> If we choose to believe that God spoke directly to Moses and told him to write every single one of these laws, then we have to work extremely hard to justify why those acts were alright at one point for one set of people but aren't alright anymore.
> 
> If we choose to believe that at least a few of the laws that Moses wrote, came more from Moses than from God, then we have no conflicts or contradictions, other than a few things that Moses wrote about himself.



Hawgjawl,

Of all the selfproclaimed Christians I've ever known, and I've known a lot of them, you have to be the most devisive I've ever seen.  
You're devisive on all levels and are totally, completely blind to it.  You'll never believe me.  You're convince your not.  But you, brother, are devisive.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 16, 2011)

farmasis said:


> Many laws given to Moses was for a particular people at a particular time.
> If any of them confuse us, we can find reaffirmation of those in effect today in the NT.
> 
> But, in Deuteronomy 24...where does it say a person can divorce for whatever reason? It doesn't.
> It says that IF a man no longer finds a woman pleasing to him and gives her a certificate of divorce and sends her out, he may not marry her again if she remarries. It basically is forbidding the remarriage of the original. It is not condoning divorce.



Jesus said that from the beginning, God never intended for man to divorce.  Moses said that infidelity lead to stoning, not divorce.  Moses said that not being a virgin lead to stoning, not divorce.

Then later, Moses said that a scenerio existed where divorce was permitted, other than infidelity or not being a virgin, and the woman was free to marry another man.

Jesus said that law was wrong and was not what God wants or ever intended.

Jesus was either disagreeing with Moses or God.
I prefer to believe that Jesus was disagreeing with a law that Moses made "as a concession to the Israelites hard hearted wickedness".

If you haven't read the entire thread (I know its long), please look back at posts:
45
47
50
53
76
86
104


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 16, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Hawgjawl,
> 
> Of all the selfproclaimed Christians I've ever known, and I've known a lot of them, you have to be the most devisive I've ever seen.
> You're devisive on all levels and are totally, completely blind to it.  You'll never believe me.  You're convince your not.  But you, brother, are devisive.



You could view me as being the opposite and simply trying to be consistent with Biblical theories.  People can easily offer a seemingly solid explanation for any one given Biblical question.  Where it becomes more difficult is making certain that every individual theory in no way ever contradicts another theory.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 16, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> You could view me as being the opposite and simply trying to be consistent with Biblical theories.  People can easily offer a seemingly solid explanation for any one given Biblical question.  Where it becomes more difficult is making certain that every individual theory in no way ever contradicts another theory.



Personally, if I were you I would leave this 'gospel of devisiveness' of yours behind and move on to the Gospel of Christ or Lord.
Figuring our a law that never applied to you and was never intended for you serves zero.  And on top of all that, there's nothing to figure out.

If you really need some serious answers do a google search.  There's been plenty written over the past centuries to quieten the devisive voices.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 16, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Personally, if I were you I would leave this 'gospel of devisiveness' of yours behind and move on to the Gospel of Christ or Lord.
> Figuring our a law that never applied to you and was never intended for you serves zero.  And on top of all that, there's nothing to figure out.
> 
> If you really need some serious answers do a google search.  There's been plenty written over the past centuries to quieten the devisive voices.



Like I've said before, most of my questions can be easily satisfied with one simple answer:  "That part came more from man than from God".


----------



## farmasis (Mar 16, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Jesus said that from the beginning, God never intended for man to divorce. Moses said that infidelity lead to stoning, not divorce. Moses said that not being a virgin lead to stoning, not divorce.
> 
> Then later, Moses said that a scenerio existed where divorce was permitted, other than infidelity or not being a virgin, and the woman was free to marry another man.
> 
> ...


 
I do not find an OT verse where Moses said a man can divorce for those exceptions. Moses did say that IF a man did such and such..but not that it is Ok to do so.

In other words, a law may be written like: If a driver runs a red light and causes an accident, then the driver must pay all liability costs to fix the car and medical bills. 

Does that mean the law says it is Ok to run a red light?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 16, 2011)

farmasis said:


> I do not find an OT verse where Moses said a man can divorce for those exceptions. Moses did say that IF a man did such and such..but not that it is Ok to do so.
> 
> In other words, a law may be written like: If a driver runs a red light and causes an accident, then the driver must pay all liability costs to fix the car and medical bills.
> 
> Does that mean the law says it is Ok to run a red light?



If the one I quoted from Deuteronomy isn't clear enough, look at the quotes from Matthew and Mark, in post #45.  They might make it clearer that it was permitted "by Moses".


----------



## farmasis (Mar 16, 2011)

There is nothing in those verses saying Moses allowed divorce for any reason other than adultery.

Mark 10---
*<SUP>2</SUP>* The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce _his_ wife?” testing Him. 
<SUP id=en-NKJV-24588 class=versenum>*3*</SUP> And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” 
<SUP id=en-NKJV-24589 class=versenum>*4*</SUP> They said, “Moses permitted _a man_ to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss _her._” 
<SUP id=en-NKJV-24590 class=versenum>*5*</SUP> And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. <SUP id=en-NKJV-24591 class=versenum>*6*</SUP> But from the beginning of the creation, God _‘made them male and female.’_<SUP class=footnote value='[a]'>[a]</SUP> <SUP id=en-NKJV-24592 class=versenum>*7*</SUP> _‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,_ <SUP id=en-NKJV-24593 class=versenum>*8*</SUP> _and the two shall become one flesh’_;<SUP class=footnote value='[b]'>[b]</SUP> so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. <SUP id=en-NKJV-24594 class=versenum>*9*</SUP> Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” 
<SUP id=en-NKJV-24595 class=versenum>*10*</SUP> In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same _matter._ <SUP id=en-NKJV-24596 class=versenum>*11*</SUP> So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. <SUP id=en-NKJV-24597 class=versenum>*12*</SUP> And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

nothing there is different than Deut. 24. Moses permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts..because man could not remain faithful. Moses did not come up with this on his own and Jesus backs it up twice here. God allowed this provision to preserve the sanctity of what he created.


Matt 5---
*<SUP>31</SUP>* “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ <SUP id=en-NKJV-23263 class=versenum>*32*</SUP> But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality<SUP class=footnote value='[e]'>[e]</SUP> causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

Obviously people were divorcing for other reasons than originally given...just like today. Jesus once again reaffirms the only reason for divorce perimtted by God and Moses.

matt 19---
 <SUP id=en-NKJV-23761 class=versenum>*2*</SUP> And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.
<SUP id=en-NKJV-23762 class=versenum>*3*</SUP> The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for _just_ any reason?” 
<SUP id=en-NKJV-23763 class=versenum>*4*</SUP> And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made<SUP class=footnote value='[a]'>[a]</SUP>_them_ at the beginning _‘made them male and female,’_<SUP class=footnote value='[b]'>[b]</SUP> <SUP id=en-NKJV-23764 class=versenum>*5*</SUP> and said, _‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and_ _the two shall become one flesh’_?<SUP class=footnote value='[c]'>[c]</SUP> <SUP id=en-NKJV-23765 class=versenum>*6*</SUP> So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” 
<SUP id=en-NKJV-23766 class=versenum>*7*</SUP> They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 
<SUP id=en-NKJV-23767 class=versenum>*8*</SUP> He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. <SUP id=en-NKJV-23768 class=versenum>*9*</SUP> And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,<SUP class=footnote value='[d]'>[d]</SUP> and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” 


once again...The pharisees asked directly if they can divorce for any reason. Jesus answers by saying when married, you should stay married. They asked why Moses allowed a divorce certificate and again Jesus explains why this was given and again only for adultery.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 17, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> These statements illustrate the mindset I've been talking about.  There was only one side.  God, Jesus, and Moses.  There is no possibility that Moses could have ever done anything on his own.  Moses had no authority but what God had given him.  Does that mean that there was no possible way that Moses could have ever done anything on his own and simply claimed it was from God?



Why would you take one situation and try to make application to every other situation. Moses did many things on his own. The "one side" is the agreement of the Father and Son. Moses is a follower and worshiper of Jehovah. Reread the Mark passage. Jesus is not taking Moses to task for the ruling made in the desert of Sinai. It served a specific purpose for those Israelites during that period of wandering.

You ask, " Does that mean that there was no possible way that Moses could have ever  done anything on his own and simply claimed it was from God?" 
I'd have to say that it is possible but highly unlikely. God takes great exception to men doing what they decide to do and laying it off to "God told me to."


----------



## farmasis (Mar 17, 2011)

gtparts said:


> You ask, " Does that mean that there was no possible way that Moses could have ever done anything on his own and simply claimed it was from God?"


 
That sets up a slipperly slope, doesn't it.

If we find exception to something, we can cut it out and say that might not have been from God. We have to either believe the Bible or we don't.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 17, 2011)

If there's a problem God usually dealt with it immediately and if it was a problem He thought we needed to know about I have to assume God would make sure we knew.
Such as the Moses striking the rock deal.
Christians do not normally place a lot of focus on which verses might show error.  
Personally, if I can't trust all God's word, I wouldn't trust any of it.  Faith.  Belief.  Trust.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 18, 2011)

farmasis said:


> That sets up a slipperly slope, doesn't it.
> 
> If we find exception to something, we can cut it out and say that might not have been from God. We have to either believe the Bible or we don't.



The question that was asked of me was not concerning the the truth of the Bible, but rather my opinion of whether it was possible for Moses to represent something as being "from God", when it was really not. I responded that I thought it possible, but highly unlikely. We know Moses was not perfect, after all, he killed an Egyptian and hid the body and later he stuck a rock when he was told by God to speak to it. It remains, did he ever represent any of his own thoughts as coming from God when they were not? Again, I don't believe so, since we have no record of God "getting on to" Moses about doing so. Is it possible? Just because we have no record of Moses doing so, does not mean it wasn't possible.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 21, 2011)

farmasis said:


> There is nothing in those verses saying Moses allowed divorce for any reason other than adultery.
> 
> Mark 10---
> *<SUP>2</SUP>* The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce _his_ wife?” testing Him.
> ...



Since there is no question that the punishment for the wife who committed adultery is public stoning, then in your explanation of the divorce that Moses permitted, at what point exactly was this stoning supposed to occur?  Moses permitted the man to give his wife a written divorce and she was free to marry another man.  How long after the next wedding was she allowed to live before the stoning?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 22, 2011)

According to the set of laws Moses gave and said came from God;

Find out your new bride is not a virgin = public stoning for her.
Find out your wife committed adultery = public stoning for her.
"Scenerio X" = give your wife a written bill of divorce and she can marry another man.

"Scenerio X" can not possibly = adultery or not a virgin, because the dead corpse of the woman who was publically stoned would have no need for a written bill of divorce and would most likely find it difficult to find another man to marry.

Therefore, "Scenerio X" is something other than adultery or not being a virgin.  Moses permitted "Scenerio X" as a concession to the hard hearted wickedness of the Israelites.

In the books of Matthew and Mark, Jesus dissagreed with "Scenerio X" as being an acceptable justification for divorce.  Jesus said that "Scenerio X" was not what God had intended.

Moses said that divorce for "Scenerio X" was permitted by God.
Jesus said that divorce for "Scenerio X" was not permitted by God.

The only reasonable explanation for this dissagreement is that Moses permitted divorce for "Scenerio X" as a concession for the Israelites hard hearted wickedness, but God did not.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 22, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> According to the set of laws Moses gave and said came from God;
> 
> Find out your new bride is not a virgin = public stoning for her.
> Find out your wife committed adultery = public stoning for her.
> ...



Not! No it is not the only reasonalble explanation! If Moses Hamilton who was a sargent for the 1st Maine Volonteers at Chancellorsville had said to his corporal, " Corporal Hainy Christian, the rebs are running four abreast at us in the field behind you.  Check social media and wiki for an algoritm on the best course of action out of this bean line."
Corporal Christian would of well spit his tobbacco in the sargent's eye.

Different times call for different remedies.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 22, 2011)

Are you suggesting that an omniscient God changed his mind from what He had intended from the beginning?


----------



## farmasis (Mar 24, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Since there is no question that the punishment for the wife who committed adultery is public stoning, then in your explanation of the divorce that Moses permitted, at what point exactly was this stoning supposed to occur? Moses permitted the man to give his wife a written divorce and she was free to marry another man. How long after the next wedding was she allowed to live before the stoning?


 
When was David stoned?
When was Bathsheba stoned?
When was Gomer stoned?

Also, can you commit adultery without sex?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 25, 2011)

farmasis said:


> When was David stoned?
> When was Bathsheba stoned?
> When was Gomer stoned?
> 
> Also, can you commit adultery without sex?



Whether or not all laws were enforced fairly and equally is a different subject.  We're not talking about what punishment actually occurred in some example well after Moses was the judge.  We're talking about the wording of the law as it was written by Moses, the intent of the law, not the actual execution of it.

In the set of laws, there is a specific punishment for a wife who commits adultery (public stoning).

In the set of laws, there is a specific punishment for a new bride found to not be a virgin (public stoning).

In the set of laws, there is a different law that provides no punishment whatsoever, but allows a letter of divorce and the wife can marry another man.  This law did not replace the law of stoning the adulterous wife.  It existed at the same time along side the other laws.

Some people on this forum are suggesting that the justification for the letter of divorce is an adulterous wife.  It should be clear to anyone with basis reasoning skills that the adulterous wife is dealt a punishment (stoning) and not the freedom to remarry.  Therefore the justification for the divorce had to be something other than a violation that is specifically addressed in another law.  Something that deserves no punishment, but to the contrary, deserves the freedom to remarry.  The lack of punishment and the freedom to remarry would indicate that the wife in fact did not commit any violation whatsoever.  It would indicate that she was innocent of anything that she could be charged with, and the husband just didn't want her anymore.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 25, 2011)

Hawg, I'm afraid you might have to have some electric shock treatment in regards to this subject.

In the grand scale of things, what is it you wish to prove?
What is the point?


----------



## farmasis (Mar 25, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Whether or not all laws were enforced fairly and equally is a different subject. We're not talking about what punishment actually occurred in some example well after Moses was the judge. We're talking about the wording of the law as it was written by Moses, the intent of the law, not the actual execution of it.
> 
> In the set of laws, there is a specific punishment for a wife who commits adultery (public stoning).
> 
> ...


 
The law from Deut. 24 is NOT give a woman a bill of divorce if you find a fault of any reason.
The law from Deu 24 says that IF a man gives a woman a bill of divorce then a man may not remarry her.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 25, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Hawg, I'm afraid you might have to have some electric shock treatment in regards to this subject.
> 
> In the grand scale of things, what is it you wish to prove?
> What is the point?



Seems to me that he wants to be as sure as he can about what he believes in.  Shouldn't we all?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 25, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> Not! No it is not the only reasonalble explanation! If Moses Hamilton who was a sargent for the 1st Maine Volonteers at Chancellorsville had said to his corporal, " Corporal Hainy Christian, the rebs are running four abreast at us in the field behind you.  Check social media and wiki for an algoritm on the best course of action out of this bean line."
> Corporal Christian would of well spit his tobbacco in the sargent's eye.
> 
> Different times call for different remedies.



 Good post!


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 25, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Hawg, I'm afraid you might have to have some electric shock treatment in regards to this subject.
> 
> In the grand scale of things, what is it you wish to prove?
> What is the point?



The point is that Moses wrote a law permitting divorce.  This law permitted divorce for something other than adultery (because adultery was punished by stoning as opposed to being rewarded with permission to remarry).
Jesus later stated that this type of divorce that Moses permitted is not alright with God and was not what God intended from the beginning and that Moses only permitted it as a concession for the hard hearted wickedness of the Israelites.  Therefore, the law permitting divorce was from Moses and not from God.

How do you interpret John 5:43-45?

For I have come to you representing my father, and you refuse to welcome me, even though you readily accept others who represent only themselves. No wonder you can't believe! For you gladly honor each other, but you don't care about the honor that comes from God alone. Yet it is not I who will accuse you of this before the father. Moses will accuse you! Yes, Moses on whom you set your hopes.

Jesus indicates here that the message He is delivering and the message that Moses delivered is different and if you set your hopes on getting to heaven through Moses, then you'll need to see Moses about that in heaven.  Jesus states that He will not be judging you based upon Moses' law.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 25, 2011)

farmasis said:


> The law from Deut. 24 is NOT give a woman a bill of divorce if you find a fault of any reason.
> The law from Deu 24 says that IF a man gives a woman a bill of divorce then a man may not remarry her.



The books of Matthew and Mark make it clear that Moses permitted divorce for reasons other than adultery as a concession to the hard hearted wickedness of the Israelites.


----------



## farmasis (Mar 25, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> The books of Matthew and Mark make it clear that Moses permitted divorce for reasons other than adultery as a concession to the hard hearted wickedness of the Israelites.


 
I say they do not make that clear and already stated why so we will just have to part on this as friends and not make another circle.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 25, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> The point is that Moses wrote a law permitting divorce.  This law permitted divorce for something other than adultery (because adultery was punished by stoning as opposed to being rewarded with permission to remarry).
> Jesus later stated that this type of divorce that Moses permitted is not alright with God and was not what God intended from the beginning and that Moses only permitted it as a concession for the hard hearted wickedness of the Israelites.  Therefore, the law permitting divorce was from Moses and not from God.
> 
> How do you interpret John 5:43-45?
> ...



And I agree with you.  Jesus raise the bar considerably in regard to all commandments.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 25, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> And I agree with you.  Jesus raise the bar considerably in regard to all commandments.



What do you make of John 5:43-45?
Serious question.
Is Jesus being sarcastic and facetious here or do you believe that Moses will actually be doing any judging in the afterlife?


----------



## farmasis (Mar 25, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> What do you make of John 5:43-45?
> Serious question.
> Is Jesus being sarcastic and facetious here or do you believe that Moses will actually be doing any judging in the afterlife?


 
Personally, I believe that Jesus did not abolish the law (let's focus on the 10 commandments and such and not food laws, etc). However he has recieved the punishment for us and we are justified by him. So, if charges are brought before believers it is Jesus who will testify for us that he has paid that sin debt. But, if you are not a believer you would be judged by the law such as the law from God through Moses.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 26, 2011)

gtparts said:


> You ask, " Does that mean that there was no possible way that Moses could have ever  done anything on his own and simply claimed it was from God?"
> I'd have to say that it is possible but highly unlikely. God takes great exception to men doing what they decide to do and laying it off to "God told me to."



What type of action from God would you expect to see if someone today did something and falsely stated that God told them to do it?


----------

