The Imperfect Mosaic Law 

@Iron Collapse Matthew 5: 21-48

Actually he says "You have HEARD

@Iron Collapse Correct. There is nothing sinful about the law but it cannot make men righteous. The new testament is the better hope brought by Jesus

It's not quite as simple as antitheses, really what he's doing is teaching his 'yoke' or how you bear the burden of the Torah. The Lord’s easy yoke is what he teaches in the Sermon. It is focused on meaning and application, rather than making a new law. For example, the Torah doesn't say hate your enemies, that was some kind of interpretation or application of other Torah teachers. The Lord’s yoke differs from theirs. The Lord does not reject the divorce law of the Torah, nor does he reject the Torah’s provisions limiting damages to the harm suffered. Nor does he reject the Torah’s take on murder and the death penalty, as the Torah restricts (prohibits) it by the two eye-witnesses rule and other safeguards that place it out of reach. The death penalty is really about political power used to repress angry words against the politically powerful. The Lord’s called those politically powerful fools, and his body was in danger of dishonorable disposal in gehenna, a fate he was saved from by Joseph. We really need to take care and the trouble to dig into the context and background of the applications of the Torah to understand the Sermon on the Mount.

Jesus is not contradicting the law in these passages. He is making the law even stricter for those that follow Him, to the point where the original laws will not even apply anymore. Mat 5: 21 You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ Jesus does not say that murder is okay now. He is making the rule even stricter by forbidding anger and hatred. Mat 5: 27 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ Jesus does not say adultery is okay now. He is making the rule even stricter by forbidding lust. Mat 5: 31 It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ He is not saying to forego the certificate. He is making the rule even stricter by making divorce forbidden. Mat 5: 33 Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ He is not saying that breaking oaths is okay now. He is saying that you should not be swearing on things that do not belong to you in the first place. Mat 5: 38 You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ He is not saying that judges should now judge unfairly. He is saying that, as the victim, you should not even take these things to the judge at all.

God had one law for the representative of humanity: Adam and Eve . And they failed. But He didn’t carry its punishment instantly. This showing both the severity and mercy of God.

God prepared Jesus to come

@@FringeWizard2 - the only law of prohibition was not to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The other laws were ‘go and multiply’ and ‘subdue the earth’ which were more of encouragements.

God is the perfect teacher after all! I think that better prepared thing is for us to walk alongside God, as companions, with dignity and life, on our own feet. Like a baby we crawled, but our Father and Mother helped us to stand up. We fell, we were bruised and cried, but then they consoled us and encouraged us to take the next baby step :)

@@I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid I have long wondered what does it truly mean to "subdue" the earth (the way God intended, obviously). The word used in Genesis is וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ What does it mean to "have dominion"? ( וּרְד֞וּ ) I'm wondering this now because we have obviously sinned and we are reaping what we sowed; because we are cruel and tyrannical to the earth and now it's groaning as in the pains of childbirth. The creation has been abused and it's decaying, and only the stubborn and stiff of neck believes we have not done this transgression.

You'd think an omniscient deity that understood that it's creation was "imperfect" would want to ensure this imperfect creation wouldn't indulge in something such as slavery and would...I don't know...maybe make laws against it, like it did with murder, bearing false witness, worshipping idols, etc. I guess omniscience has it's limitations?

@@epicurious6078 Or God is so omniscient, that He is literally able to voluntarily forfeit His complete interference in the lives of beings who He created with individuality and self-will, and yet still engineer HIStory and circumstances in the midst of them.

@@christianblack9426 "so omniscient" is redundant, it either IS or is NOT, just like it either interferes/intervenes or it doesn't.

@@epicurious6078 Being able to interfere or intervene, one can still NOT do so, if one chooses.

@@christianblack9426 your god doesn't have free will, only you do.

@@missouritravelers Bruh

@@missouritravelers How?

@@missouritravelers Ever hear of prohibition? Made consuming and selling alcohol illegal? People still drank, crime soared. It was better to regulate it not to outlaw it

How can God be responsible for our actions? He commands us to love our neighbors? When we do the polar opposite and mistreat other humans thats on us. Humanity has become narcissistic, we blame our evil on God

@@missouritravelers if you actually loved your neighbor would you do harm to them? it's very simple logic that apparently you can't comprehend, you just want to be argumentative....

He created a universe where the majority of all people who ever lived will spend eternity in agonizing torment... His most beloved creation, yet most will endure unimaginable suffering forever and ever. (I know some Christians don't subscribe to the mainstream hell doctrine, and don't believe that non-Christians go to hell forever. If that's you, forget what I said.)

@@Reignor99 That's because the majority of people would rather go to Hell than repent of what they've done, and admit that they're the bad guy. It is only right that their free will is respected, even if it pains us. However, should anyone be willing, the Lord will give new life and a new heart to even the most wretched and despicable sinners. I should know, because He saved me, and I was as dead as they come.

@@jonathandoe1367 "Majority of people would rather go to Hell than repent of what they've done" - That's blatantly untrue. I hate the pain I've cause others, and I strive to be better. I do not believe in your god, and I don't believe repenting to him actually does anything. Still, I loathe my maliciousness and strive to be better. Ted Bundy (serial killer) accepted Jesus into his heart before dying. According to your doctrine, I will suffer eternal agony while Bundy is frolicking in Heaven with you. This is why people think your god is a fictional monster. He is unjust, cruel, incompetent, and downright ridiculous.

@@Reignor99 You say that's it's untrue, and then you imply you would rather go to Hell than admit that you're just as bad as Ted Bundy. God is the righteous Judge, and He has the authority to decree that forgiveness is just. God is the One True King, and he the authority to issue pardons to any saint. Nonetheless, you have audacity to declare guilty innocent and the pardoned condemned. Actions have consequences. What do you think the consequences of impersonating a judge and rebelling against a king might be? The wage of sin is death, and you've already damned yourself, much as I once did, much as I do everyday. That's we need all need Jesus, because under the Law, we all would perish.

@@jonathandoe1367 I am NOT implying that I'd rather go to hell instead of admitting that I'm just as bad as Ted Bundy. I'm implying that your god is a _fictional_ monster, and I don't need to worry about your fictional hell either.

Or vice versa

​@@BUENOSDIAS77126 men abusing women was a much greater problem because men are more physically stronger

Do you mean Catholics and some other denominations?

Well, a lot of this is known by scholars, it just hasn’t trickled down to the general population yet.

@@InspiringPhilosophy Mr. Jones, I am just waiting for Dr. Josh Bowen to come after this video.

That's why more than earthly knowledge we need to spend time with the holy spirit! and he touches people God bless you all

Can the real god of the bible stop pedophiles?

Exodus 21:7 and leviticus 20:13 shows your god loves to murder and enslave kids. chrsitianity is terrorism

​@@mikebrigandi_feel free to elaborate

That means your God is a hypocrite and you just stated a contradiction. If your God is all knowing than he must make no mistakes as per the bible "God is not the author of confusion". Yet if God makes a contradictory mistake in bible that means either 2 things 1) Your God is not all knowing and is ignorant 2) bible is not from God. Pick anyone as you wish too.

@@AntiFurryJihad and where are these contradictions?

⁠​⁠​⁠ If you watch the video. He is using the excuse of biblical slavery wasn’t slavery but bonded servitude. But when you make bonded servitude and extended to life and then subsequently make it heritable it replicates American colonial slavery. Second he assumes that laws for Hebrews and non Hebrews was applied the same. However Leviticus 25:44-46 differentiates Hebrew slaves from non Hebrew slaves so his assumption on equal treatment is incorrect. Exodus 21:16 Punishing kidnapping of slaves with death was to prevent loss of property (the slave) by the slave master not to protect the slave. Exodus 21:20-21 The slave master is only punished if the slaves dies within a day or two of slave’s beating. If slaves past two days died after beating then slave master is not punished. Also that rule was to stop slave masters from limiting inheritance to thier children. Exodus 21:26-27 The slave was let go due to a broken eye or tooth because the slaves were damaged goods at that point and were useless to the slave master. That rule saved slave masters money from maintaining recovery of the slave or be held liable for his death if he died within a day or two. Deutronomy: in case of the runaway slave. The runaway slave was running from being property from non Hebrew master. This rule let Israelites acquire allies from the already marginalized groups from the neighboring nations. Runaway slaves from non Hebrew masters had the best treatment. Runaway slaves from Hebrew master got their foots chopped of to prevent them from running away again. Paul view on slavery was kin to that of a parent and child relationship. It was a benign dictatorship. Wish was the most the Bible did for slaves is to treat slavery like how you treat your children. Not much improvement from the Old Testament slavery.

I’ll do one that will cover that issues this December.

@@InspiringPhilosophy Can't wait for it!

@@InspiringPhilosophy 24 “‘My servant David(AE) will be king(AF) over them, and they will all have one shepherd.(AG) They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees.(AH) 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived.(AI) They and their children and their children’s children will live there forever,(AJ) and David my servant will be their prince forever.(AK) 26 I will make a covenant of peace(AL) with them; it will be an everlasting covenant.(AM) I will establish them and increase their numbers,(AN) and I will put my sanctuary among them(AO) forever.(AP) 27 My dwelling place(AQ) will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people.(AR) 28 Then the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy,(AS) when my sanctuary is among them forever.(AT)’” This is End of days prophecy,Gods laws and decrees are are relevant for this(End of days)time. No new laws and decrees,but the same laws and decrees from Sinai. The laws and decrees are only for Israel. By the way....the covenant in Ez 37 is the new civenant from Jer 31.

@@InspiringPhilosophy If you're going to go with this narrative that the OT law was not perfect but the NT law was perfect. Then how are you going to deal with passages in the NT like the following: 1 (Ephesians 5:22) “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” 2 (Timothy 2:12) “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” 3 (Corinthians 11:4-5) Every man praying or prophesying having anything on his head dishonors his head. But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven." ?

@@InspiringPhilosophyhey ip thank you for this video I thought we hacked to live by every command and I had a pet dog and thought well one I’ll never be clean 2 everything I own will never be clean 2 I would never meant God, it kinda made me back away from the faith Ty so much to you and God for making and showing me this video series, one question does the law just remind us what sin is?😊

"Same as divorce: for the hardness of their hearts. He let's man discover that owning other humans is wrong." This is PURE nonsense. The logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is that Holy Trinity god should have just let men discover societal laws on their own, because we (developed Western countries) have much better laws than the 10 commandments and Law of Moses. We thought of better laws than a maximally knowing and wise god. Thus, the whole 10 commandments and Law Of Moses was completely unnecessary, because men would have discovered better laws on their own anyways. And this is supposed to be a maximally knowledgeable and wise god? LOL If Holy Trinity god has a plan for life, then you should reject it and make your own plan. I read the Bible. One thing is clear, when Holy Trinity god has a plan, people die and the plan doesn't work. For example, Holy Trinity god flooded the world, but the world still became evil, and he had to rain sulfur on Sodom & Gomorrah. Jesus died on the cross and nothing changed. Christians believe in a god who doesn't know what he is doing, but loves to destroy. It is your Bible.

@@JesusisKing134 provide evidence that a god exists otherwise you're just making an assertion.

@@JesusisKing134 " All morality comes from God" We can all make a source of morality. The real question is how can we prove it. You can't even show that your god exists outside your imagination.

@@francmittelo6731 i entirely disagree that complex law codes are better. Our current system is built on a ton of bad assumptions and faulty reasoning which makes it easy as shit to put a poor man in prison for petty larceny, but almost impossible to put a rich man in prison for murder. See Oj Simpson.

Nonsense. How do you know owning other humans is wrong? Where does it say that in the Bible. How self righteous of you

He goes on "Other examples of the moral putrefaction of the modern age... The abandonment of elderly - away from sight and mind - would have horrified the ancients. Many modern teenagers/adults are literally desensitised to levels of online debauchery that even the Marquis de Sade could hardly of dreamed up in his vilest moments... produced by damaged and broken slaves. Selfishness and individually focussed pleasure surely beyond anything before."

And in response to my querying the New being older than the Old Covenant "Yes, by which covenant was Abraham saved? In all Paul's examples of salvation by faith and grace, his key example is Abraham - before the Law. According to Jeremiah the new covenant was written into the very fabric of creation - so that only if the sun, moon and stars end would this gospel covenant be forgotten. That Biblical theme shows us that the new covenant is ... ever new! The old covenant was old because it was merely a temporary school teacher. Calvin is very helpful on this perspective on the new covenant."

And lastly "Yes, and Prof Walton seems to take it for granted that democracy is morally superior to monarchy. As an American he might be able to say that without hesitation, but here (UK).... surely he would be arrested and possibly executed for such a treasonous thought? 😆😂 It is hard to put a Biblical case for democracy... isn't it? Doesn't the Bible, from start to finish, have a basic expectation of something like monarchy... or possibly an anarchic collective in the Law or Judges with no King but Jesus? 🥳" This last post was somewhat tongue in cheek.

@@PatrickHutton Taking it a bit more seriously, I’d argue that democracy is NOT inherently morally superior. If he had done what his soldiers wanted and become King George I of America, the hypothetical rule of George would likely have been just as if not more moral than that which actually occurred under the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Then there’s all examples of voting fraud in democratic societies as well as the voters themselves flat out voting for immoral things. The US government was designed at its conception to do as little as possible as slowly as possible with power cut up between people and organizations in hopes of dealing with the problem with all governments: people.

@@PatrickHutton "Democracy, the god that failed" by Hoppe explains how monarchy > democracy, though it isn't ideal.

I’m going to do a video on Christian ethics in December.

Mat. 19:8 doesn't mean what IP assumes it means. Hard heartedness is not sin and the law doesn't condone sin or set the wrong standard or contradict the Lord’s teaching. The situation that the law addresses is when a man marries (betrothed himself to) a woman and then discovers something wrong with her so, instead of proceeding with the wedding he divorces her, I.e. breaks off the betrothal. Then, he could renegotiate and reconcile and remarry her, but he doesn't, and she marries another man. Hence, the scenario that the law addresses is stubbornness, the man rejects the woman and he doesn't change his mind. Hard heartedness doesn't mean anything more than stubbornness. So, the law addresses that stubborn scenario by restricting the defiled woman from being passed forward and then back to the original husband, after an intervening marriage contract is made with the second husband. She can be passed forward without limits, and she can return to the original husband as long as she doesn't contract a subsequent marriage. But, once the marriage is confirmed by the wedding or consummation, divorce is prohibited, as 'she is his woman, he may not divorce her all of his days' (Deut. 22) or, as the Lord put it, what God has joined together, let not man separate.

@@hillaryfamily You raise some good points there. Sorry that it has taken me so long to respond to your comments, but I wanted to go away and make sure that I had fully re-read the passages again. However, I disagree with you. I'm pretty sure that God throughout the Old Testament punishes Israel for their hard-heartedness, stubborness or stiff-necked-ness. We see in Exodus 33 that this stubborness leads God to say that he will abandon Israel, which is only averted by Moses. In 2 Kings 17 Israel's refusal to repent from all of their sins (alongside the sins themselves) leads to the exile of Israel (the northern kingdom). The same is said of Zedekiah and Judah in 2 Chronicles 36:11-14. In Deteronomy 31:27 Moses himself calls Isarel stiff-necked and rebellious towards God. If stubborness, stiff-necked and rebelliousness all refer to similar ways of engaging (or not engaging) with God in the biblical text, then Israel has clearly been punished for being these things. Coming onto what you say about marriage in Deuteronomy 22, this seems to be in relation to the specific situation of a husband making up charges against his wife to divorce her rather than a carte blanche statement about marriage generally, so I'm not sure it should be used in that way. This situation would be seen as a complete vindication of the wife and not allowing the husband to get what he wanted. Although it does seem to be a raw deal for the wife! I think it is rather telling that Jesus himself did not refer to that verse in this discussion on divorce, as it would fit perfectly with what he is saying here, but instead refered to Genesis 2 and said "what God has joined together let no-one separate." Finally and probably most relevantly, in Deuteronomy 24, which is seemingly what the discussion in Matthew 19 is referencing, it talks about the wife being already in the husband's house. If they are merely bethrothed rather than married this seems like it violates Israelite marriage customs, at least by the time of Jesus if not earlier. My understanding of Jewish wedding customes would be that as you point out, first comes the betrothal and then comes the wedding where the bridegroom would come and take the bride to the house that he lived in (whether he had built it or it was part of his family home). This was where the marriage would have been legalised. But what we see in Deuteronomy 24 is that the wife is already in the husband's home "...sends her out of his house..."(NRSV) ,you have to be in someone's house to be sent out of it, and therefore she should be considered fully married and not betrothed. Therefore, we should understand that this passage on divorce applies to fully married women not betrothed ones.

@@TheSmackerman thanks for taking the time to study the texts and issues. I think I can follow your line of thinking and understand how you got to where you got to. Regarding hard heartedness, the term simply means stubbornness. If the stubbornness is to rebel and to sin, it is obviously a bad thing, but to assume that this was what was in view here is to beg the question. David Instone-Brewer does address a wide range of possible explanations in his book, which I disagree with his conclusions greatly. All things considered, we simply cannot determine solely from the term what it refers to, we have to analyze the context and usage and try to pick the option that makes the most sense. I think the right option is based on a proper legal analysis of Deut. 24:1-4, which deals with quite a narrow scenario of two subsequent marriages, the second of which ends by death or divorce, and the woman and the first husband wish to remarry, which the law prohibits. The marriage and divorce laws in Deut. 22 and 24:1-4 need to be read in harmony and with an adequately comprehensive analysis of the different facets of the marriage process and the resulting status. The marriage process has two different issues in Deut. 22, in one case the woman committed virginity fraud, allegedly. The case has a binary result: either the man can quietly and properly prove his case against the woman, in which case his remedy of divorce is allowed. But the law restricts this remedy to a very limited window of time, facts, evidence and the man's good conduct in the manner he seeks the remedy. Otherwise, the wedding and consummation process has great power and gives the wife a lawful marriage, i.e. binds her to her husband so that she is his woman and he may not divorce her all of his days. This result applies even if she is guilty of virginity fraud, but the man proceeds improperly, or out of time, or without being blameless in his manner of seeking the remedy. The upshot of the law is to establish the power of the wedding to confirm the legal status and security of the marriage, and to close the door to later claims that the woman (or man) have failed to obtained this status. The door is closed, and the window closes quickly and can only be passed through in the most limited of conditions, safeguarding the security of marriage obtained by the wedding or consummation. The second case is a remedial marriage contract for the woman who 'forgot' to negotiate the contract before she has sexual relations with the man. The law provides the proper minimum terms for a marriage: the woman’s bride price, and her status as wife, and the security of the post-wedding and post-consummation state: 'he may not divorce her all of his days.' Without a betrothal period, there is no possibility of betrothal fraud, and therefore no possibility of divorce at all, to separate those God has joined together. Deut. 24:1-4 doesn't change this policy. The scenario is parallel to the case in Deut. 22:13-21 with important differences. 1. A man, 2. Takes a woman, 3. And marries her (betrothal period starts) in one case, but in the other case he goes into her, I.e consummated the marriage, 4. Then she doesn't find favour in his eyes. The difference is in stage 3 or scenario fact 3, between the two cases. Since the marriage and wedding customs were to have a betrothal period, permissive of divorce, divorce with apparent approval is presumptive of being in that stage. The post-wedding (or post-consummation) stage is not permissive of divorce, per Deut. 22 and Gen. 1:27 and Gen. 2:24, so we should not presume that the Deut 24:1-4 divorces are in this stage, and the text doesn't suggest that the wedding had taken place, or that the man had gone into the woman.

@@TheSmackerman Regarding the 'house' language in Deut. 22:21 and 24:1-4. Care is required with the descriptor ‘in her father’s house’ Deut. 22:21 and ‘sends her out of his house’ Deut. 24:1-4 because these are best interpreted not as the physical house, but the ‘house’ of marital status. The point of the description ‘whoring in her father’s house’ is that the whoring happened before the father betrothed his daughter to the man, and that it is only for those conditions that the man could claim relief as a mistaken transaction (see Mishnah Ketubot 1:6). In the same way, the point of the divorces in Deut. 24:1-4 are to send the woman not out of his physical house, but his marital status ‘house.’ In Deut. 20:7 the man who betrothed a woman but hadn’t taken her was sent back to his ‘house’ to take her in the sense of celebrate the wedding and consummate the marriage. However, the term ‘house’ is not used in a consistent way: it all depends on the context, so the above analysis is not based on linguistic consistency concerning the term ‘house’ applied to a betrothed woman, instead it is based on the specific context of these two passages. The case of YHWH’s ‘house’ and Israel’s coming into that ‘house’ in the consummation of her marriage to YHWH is complicated by the fact that Israel had multiple houses and lands, in the form of the tabernacle in the wilderness, the promised land of Canaan, the Solomonic temple, the Second Temple, and the Messianic temple (the body of Christ) and the New Jerusalem in the ‘heavenly country’ (Heb. 11:6). The most appropriate analysis is that YHWH gave Israel, as his betrothed bride, various betrothal presents, including clothing, washing water, jewelry, food, and even children (Ez. 16), which represent and include the tabernacle, the priesthood, the land of Canaan, and the Solomonic temple, and ‘the children of Israel’ i.e. the population increase, as part payments of the bride-price. Israel then misused these betrothal presents and committed adultery and prostitution, and then YHWH divorced her. Israel’s true rest and her true wedding feast are reserved for the New Covenant, when YHWH would betroth Israel to himself a second time (Hos. 2), and this time it would proceed to a wedding ceremony at the great feast (Is. 25:6-8; 62:4-6), when YHWH would judge Israel again (Is. 65:13-15; Mat. 8:10-12). Then, Israel would be the true and pure bride, enter her true rest in the true heavenly country, and dwell in the true marital house of YHWH at her consummation (Heb. 4).

Amen! Beautifully said. For me, raising the bar means removing the unnecessary and improving what is important like the Ten Commandments.

Well, God had to work with our mess on earth, so the law reflects that. But really the OT sets up the appearance of the Messiah and the age to come, the time of perfection. He came once already and now we know what perfection really looks like. And when he comes again this mess will get thrown into the bin for good. People get hung up on the law as if this was somehow a completed statement, when really, the completed statement is Christ and the promises of what is to come.

🤡

Sorry for having to wait 2 years for a reply. About your question, if we are to agree that the Mosaic law was at partially, or even completely, made by the Israelites , then naturally God wouldn't be punishing them for not completely obeying it, given it wasn't his complete command.

Jesus was the plan from the beginning to save us. God knew that the law could not save us and could only be used as a guide for people to keep their faith until Jesus came and saved us all from our sins.

@jamievans38 Good idea. I think it could work in tandem with my idea in certain interpretations.

Because the law was designed not to make the Israelites morally perfect. It was designed to make them aware of the fact that they are sinners and are spiritually dead no matter how close to perfect that they keep the law. Ttherefore we should not rely on the law itself for righteousness. They should depend on God Himself for righteousness. Ravi Zacharias put it this way, "Jesus did not come into this world to make bad people good. He came into this world to make dead people live." The law is designed to show you how much of a sinner you are so that you may rely on God to give you eternal life. This is Christianity is the only worldview that says that you do NOT get into Heaven for being good. You get into Heaven for simply following Christ.

I agree. Admitting that the Torah is not the perfect infallible moral standard is a huge step for Christianity. One can accept Jesus without necessarily needing to accept the Torah as a perfect authority.

Yes, I think allowing oppressive laws to exist because you don't wanna negotiate with your people to be a bad thing.

god didn't want to tell the poor israelities that it is wrong because he didn't want to force them :( but the slaves who got enslaved are perfectly okay

Slavery isn't immoral

@@Wartenss 🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮 somebody STINKS 0/10 rage bait

@@EricDillingham How is it immoral(this is not rage bait, learn to accept that other opinions exist)?

Ain't that a good thing though

Did you watch the video? God was working with people who were not ready to be given perfect moral laws, and god was not going to force these people to change overnight. God gave them rules that began to slowly structure society until Jesus came to deliver the new covenant.

@@lokieleven2694 Yeah I understood that and that is a good point, but it seems at times that some laws were meant to be changed overnight while some not so much, especially the ones about slavery, and I've heard the arguments when talking about slavery being "condoned" and it makes me think that something so big should've definitely been something changed overnight. I suppose I'll keep watching more videos on it.

​@@joseisrael6260making slavery go away overnight is only possible by violating free will. Without violation of free will, you need humanity to realize on its own and that takes a very long time. Think about the people of our world who wants to abolish capitalism? Do you just follow through with their plan? Surely you'd think abolishing capitalism overnight will bring untold amount of chaos and violence. Same goes for slavery at that time. Remember, slavery was normal for thousands of years, people think freeing all slaves overnight will bring about heavy economic and political collapse. And people at that time had very little class consciousness, even lesser than people of today. They didn't even know slaves and slave owners had diametrically opposing interest much like proletariat and borguoise of today.

You haven't even watched it yet. I address that verse.

@@InspiringPhilosophy I didn't know if you were going to address it or where you were going to go with this video. Thought it was relevant scripture nonetheless

@@InspiringPhilosophy my questions about his theory is that basically as culture progresses then we need to change our morals to fit the culture not the bible. so say hypothetically 300 years from now being a pedophile is morally correct in that culture does that mean its Good? I mean I get what he's saying but there becomes this line or something. the bible says were not supposed to be in the world so when the world goes down a path like my example are Christians supposed to sit back and say its our culture now? something about this theory doesn't sound right but maybe I'm not understanding it correctly. the new testament seems to teach us to be more like Christ so I'm going down that road. through sanctification I guess the holy spirit is the difference between the OT and the NT that's the only thing I can see reconciling this theory if its correct. what's your thoughts or has john Walton said anything about that in his books?

@mysotiras10 There's no evidence that the Psalmist is speaking outside of the spirit. You're just saying that

@mysotiras10 The proverb you quote isnt scripture btw. Paul denoted when he was speaking outside the spirit. Psalmists do not

“By what standard?”

@@geoffrobinson what do you mean

Its called EMPATHY.

@@jeffphelps1355 all this judgement is taking place without an objective standard

@@aGoyforJesus it is comical to see atheist who have no standards judging God that gave us standards

This is the perfect example of CONFIRMATION BIAS.

@flylikeabird_2065 how are questions confirmation bias? You have demonstrated a perfect example of projection. And I am asking these questions based on what actually happened. God has a chosen people and he didn't choose others... he has favorites. That's in the book, that's a fact. If I have 2 friends and I have chosen 1 as a special one to me, then I have a favorite....just like God.

This is only the case if you believe God never wanted the Torah to spread to the Gentiles, which is infortunately wrong but 99% of Christians believe this

@@Spektor211 Sorry not you. the vid lol

@@flylikeabird_2065 oh. Hahahah. Sorry. And yes. I agree. I feel silly. Sorry

Well now IP has given us another route to apologetic.

"Doulos" is Greek; the OT is mostly Hebrew. The usual Hebrew form is is 'ebed. (The "b" is pronounced as a "v." Enjoy!) The Greek refers to being bound; the Hebrew refers to serving. While there are mitigating factors, IP's basic point is sound: the Torah really wasn't meant as the perfect law code; it was mostly intended to make our rebellious nature obvious while providing some restraint. The solution to the moral problem is the transformative power of Jesus' spirit within us, especially once we have been conformed to his nature in the resurrection.

Well, no. It is true that Israelites couldn't keep fellow israelites as slaves, which is what your passage suggests. Other parts of the laws in the old testament make it clear that you can buy slaves from other countries and keep them forever... And that you can be born into slavery. This part is exactly the same as the north American slave trade. The slaves are granted som rights, though. While the masters are allowed to beat them up, they aren't allowed to kill them. Furthermore if the master accidentally blinds his slave through a beating or knocks out teeth, he has to let the slave go.

​@@zairogamerxs I personally feel that foreign salve had more rights than you describe. Deuteronomy 23:15: The Isrealites are commanded not to return slaves to the masters whom seek refuge by running away. Exodus 21:21: The master is punished if the injury is not recoverable in a few day's time Exodus 23:9: The Isrealites were reminded that they were once foreigners and not to oppress other foreigners. Also, why cant the foreign slave be in debt that they need to sell themselves to pay for their debt?

@@zairogamerxs Yes: we need a mediating position on the mediating position. The Torah was not intended to be perfect, but it definitely was an improvement on what surrounding civilizations had. So it still points toward a superior Lawgiver.

Dodgy indeed.

@BuddyTheRookie The issue you have there is that then you must be of the opinion that slavery is morally permissible.

​@BuddyTheRookie Literally not true. Jubilee explicitly only applied to Jewish slaves. Other slaves were kept for life and are inherited by the children of the slave owner up their death. The children of slaves were even born into slavery and would serve for life. Leviticus 25:46: "You may even pass these foreign slaves on to your children after you die. You can make them slaves *forever*. But you must not rule cruelly over your own brothers, the Israelites." Jewish slaves should be treated well and are released after 7 years. Foreign slaves can be bought and sold, even as children, and serve for life and are inherited as property. The bible also makes it explicitly clear that beating yours slave is fine, as long as they don't die or their vision is damaged Exodus 21:20-21: "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Lastly, it's typical apologetics to try and argue that Middle eastern slavery was different from American slavery, but it really wasn't. You were property of someone else, forced to work against your will and without compensation. Robbed of all human digenites and free will. I'm guessing that you're just misinformed though and not actually this malicious.

@BuddyTheRookie Are you saying that the Old Testament view of slavery is more moral than the modern view of slavery?

@BuddyTheRookie You are coming off as a loon given your referencing a social issue as opposed to slavery.

-Exodus 22:28-29 "The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me. 30 Likewise you shall do with your oxen and your sheep." casually saying to slaughter to him their firstborn like they slaughter cattle -1 Samuel 15 Jehovah commands to kill men, women and babies -Ezekiel 9:4-6 Jehova: "slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women" -Isaiah 13:16-18 "Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;Their houses will be plundered And their wives raped." no comments here -Jeremiah 19:16-18 "And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters" -Numbers 31:14-16 Moises the chosen one of god killing defenseless hostages and using the girls who have not seen baron as slaves, and you can imagine what kind of slaves. -Exodus 32:27-29 again Moses the murderer

Yeah there are even some articles from 'The Bible Project' that shows a deep dive into violence in the Bible. Check that out if you can RadicalOne1912

@@sdhappyprince Not really, the argument is far more nuanced than that, and like I said it is a useful(i.e. good, though I avoided using that term for a reason)argument, but it's been gone over countless times, and so I hope to get more out of this video(still haven't watched, just got home late at night) I don't really care to spend my time to argue with a stranger on the internet about it though, so we can both just hold our peace. :)

Lets then follow the logical conclusion of "All forms of slavery are immoral and any moral law must ban it". This is not intended to be a straw man argument but rather a serious analysis. What about prison? Prison is a form of slavery. What do we do to convicted rapists and murderers? If prison is banned then we must either let them go or execute them. How about refugee camps? It is a form of slavery as the refugees don't have the freedom to move around as they see fit. We must therefore reject all refugees. What about child support? The state is forcing a person to work for someone else and will throw them in prison if they don't comply adequately. Prisoners of war? Again we must either execute them or release them immediately. Its not that "their slavery was inherently different than ours". Its they call slavery what we call something else.

@@tytyyea1 Haha, I appreciate you doing the work for me! I would have described it a little differently, starting with the rhetorical question "what makes slavery bad?" and point out the missing criteria, but the conclusion is still the same.

@@tytyyea1 Well, I would definitely argue that prison is NOT a form of slavery. It is merely punishment and a way of preventing crime. Nobody owns the people in prison and no person in particular can treat the people in prison however they want. The most important difference is that everyone knows beforehand how to stay out of prison and that the same rules apply to everyone. If you still consider prison a form of slavery then that is not an issue... Because what we call it isn't that important anyway. The thing about the old testament is that the version of slavery presented seems significantly worse than prison. From the laws of the old testament it is clear that a person can be born into slavery and remain a slave for life. It is furthermore clear that the master is allowed to beat the slave(including severe beatings) and certain passages suggest that it is a common practice. The slave has a few rights, though. The master can't kill the slave - although one verse seemingly suggests that killing your slave is acceptable if they survive the beating initially, but die after a few days. Furthermore, if the master accidentally blinds the slave through a beating or knocks out teeth, he needs to let the slave go. Despite the fact that the slaves have rights, this doesn't seem moral. I really really think apologists should take a stance resembling that of IP. When people claim that slavery in the bible isn't "real slavery" it can come off as being disingenuous, because it certainly seems like "real slavery" when you read the laws.

Sabbath and I clean meats and the feast etc

Imagine in modern day that a rambling prophet gives this law that calls for the total abolishment of capitalism and replace it with a whole new economic system that is beyond capitalism. How would you react? Most people will say this guy is dumb, naive, or even an extremist. Nobody will listen to what he has to say because everyone thinks this is a lunatic speaking. Capitalism has been around for hundreds of years and now this lunatic thinks him and his God can just abolish it? So in order for this rambling prophet to even be listened and get some followers, he needs to tone down his challenge to the status quo. Instead of calling for abolishment of capitalism, he instead calls for the better treatment of workers by capitalist class, but by still maintaining the necessity of the status quo of gross wealth inequality. Now he sounds less naive, stupid, and extreme and have a better chance getting following. Now replace capitalism with slavery. Does this not make sense? Remember that slavery in the antiquity has been around for thousands of years, possibly longer, compared to capitalism's few hundred. Institution of slavery was significantly more entrenched into society than institution of capitalism of our time. So that's why there's practically zero reason for God to give perfect mosaic law because most people are too used to the status quo and were incapable of imagining its abolishment, exactly like in our own era.

​@@richhornie7000I'm not really so convinced by this analogy for the reason that God would theoretically be much more capable (being omnipotent and all) of instigating radical changes within a society compared to the prophet in your analogy who's still an ordinary human. The idea of an omnibenevolent entity being an incrementalist is a bit strange to me personally.

@@yee2631 I am not too sure what you suggest God does in this case though. Should God just violate free will of slave owners by changing their hearts directly? Maybe just give them the perfect moral code which we can be sure slave owners at that time, completely devoid of consciousness that modern humans have, will never follow through. The incrementalist change kinda has nothing to do with God's omnipotence and everything to do with how slowly human moral consciousness develops. Took thousands of years for humanity to realize slavery was bad, even though it should be so goddamn obvious. Same goes for today's morality. Vast majority of humans still believe that eating meat for example is moral. Vast majority of humans still defend capitalism with all the extreme exploitation and the extreme wealth inequality it entails alongside catastrophic environmental destruction that comes with it. In a lot of ways, we humans are nowhere near as moral as we would like to believe ourselves to be.

@@richhornie7000 @richhornie7000 the difference between slavery and the other things you mentioned is the fact that we can easily end slavery with God simply saying slavery is forbidden. If slave masters still had slaves the pious followers of God would simply revolt and demand an end to slavery. The issue with the other things is that if we end capitalism tomorrow the whole world will end because all the trade will be destroyed countries that relied on food imports will go hungry and millions of people will die. The reason why we still eat meat is because if we stop we don't have the infrastructure to supplier sells with enough protein to survive sure we have nots and other types of vegan foods like tofu but there's not enough Supply that would stop the demand it has to stop slowly. Another scenario would be like if slave masters refused to get their slaves they have it in secret or hide them like how thieves hide from the authorities and hide their Treasures that they steal from people. It wouldn't stop all slave masters I'm not saying that but it would have signified to the rest of the world that slavery was not okay by the god of abraham and that slave masters would have to fear going to hell and fear the Wrath of the one true God we're not suggesting that old slavery would go away or suggesting that most slavery would go away because God demanded it.

@@yee2631 what's the main issue I have with this channel is the fact that they try to morally grandstand on Christianity and try to change the meaning of stuff and trying to get Christianity in the basket light instead of taking for it for what it actually is. Christianity from the day of Jesus has changed so much that these people can't even keep track of what's going on and will try to save the most dumb stuff possible and speak for as long as possible so that it bores its audience away from watching the whole video and those who actually do watch the video realize that he basically said nothing and went in circles for like 20 minutes. And look I'm saying this as somebody who truly does love God and the Mosaic law but you cannot justify some of the stuff that is in the Old Testament and it does not make sense for the great creator of the universe who is the most loving and generous the embodiment of good itself God to ever sign off on any of the stuff that's in this Old Testament. Regardless of time God should always have a stainless record

It’s a good question to ask. And you make a wise point regarding the historical context of the persecution of the Jews and Christians at the hands of the Romans. But it’s also worth noting something else from that historical context: slave revolts in Rome were not a rare occurrence. The third Servile War had ended only 70 years before the times of Jesus Christ. And in 10 AD, the Roman government passed a law that if a man was found killed by one of his slaves, all of the slaves under his roof were to be tortured and executed. Slave mutiny was taken extremely seriously in those days. Paul and the apostles were thus careful about overt condemnations of slavery, which held the potential to start an uprising or gaining the wrath of the Romans. The potential for a slave uprising would not only run contrary to the life of peace they promoted in their writings, but also give the Romans reason to move to far heavier oppression and persecution sooner, since the writings could then be said to be inciting insurrection. Rather, by establishing that there is “neither slave nor free” in the body of Christ and thus bringing about places where slave and master were completely equal (and even where the slave may have greater authority than his master should he become a bishop; some of the early popes were former slaves themselves), Paul was building the foundation for slavery’s weakening and eventual abolition in the long term. And given how long it has taken for the world to generally agree that slavery is wrong (and it still happens today, sadly, between human trafficking and other abominable practices), I wouldn’t consider it a leap to say that humanity simply wasn’t yet ready to give up slavery at the time of the New Testament writers. Similar to how Moses permitted divorce to the Israelites knowing that they weren’t ready for law that forbade divorce. However, the New Testament’s lack of pronounced condemnation of slavery differs from the Law of Moses’s direct commands pertaining to divorce. The former implicitly encourages those who are willing to listen to leave slavery behind, the other completely permits divorce under certain circumstances. But what’s especially worth noting is that the NT does actually condemn slavery. 1 Timothy 1:9-11 illustrates it clearly. Paul lists slavers among those that the law testifies against, right alongside adulterers and murderers. The logical conclusion is that if slavers are condemned based on their willingly being slavers, then their business is condemnable, and those who partake in it partake of that sin. I’m not sure if I addressed your points fully, but this is the stance I’ve read on the issue. Hope this helps answer some of your questions!

So which one is right according to the Bible, allowing divorce or forbidding divorce? Now we have the entire Bible, Jesus' teachings are the standard for the generations from then on. If someone accuses the OT of something, you can refer to this video and comfortably use the NT as the ultimate standard.

lmao yes, this does call some nutty Protestant doctrines into question

I agree JD. it really feels like tossing out the Torah and playing loose with the NT. Honestly though I find it odd that IP just dismisses or discounts the different apologetics used to explain the slave laws +, since as far as I'm aware, those explanations are pretty sufficient to explain those cases.

@@Mouthwash019283 I'm not sure which "Protestant" doctrine you're referring to my disrespectful friend. I'm not aware that I've appealed to any uniquely Protestant doctrine. I think what I've said would hold for anyone who thinks the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative. If you're Catholic, I don't think you want to start comparing the relative nuttiness of our doctrine but you do you. :)

@@JD-np5xq It undermines the perspicuity of scripture demanded by Sola Scriptura (and some ethical doctrines involving the judiciary or rules of war - apparently John MacArthur thinks that the book of Samuel endorses the death penalty for all time). I'm Jewish, perhaps you want to tell me to abandon our manmade traditions and keep the direct commandments of the Torah. Well, manmade or not, I don't think we're better off cutting off women's hands!

The context of Romans 3:8 shows that "why not do evil that good may come?" means "why shouldn't I just sin freely if that means that it will show off God's goodness by his forgiveness of that sin". It's not referencing a consequentialist moral framework. So it's a completely different argument than being made in this video.

Now that we indeed can follow these Laws and are not in a time period which we would not even consider the objective morality, we have no excuse. Back then though, it had to be that way for the good of Israel and man kind.

I could've sworn Jesus said he came to uphold the law and not to abolish it....you don't revise that which you're trying to uphold.

You forget that Christians (Christ-followers) have the Holy Spirit, while the ancient Jews didn't (with a few notable exceptions). So, indeed, Christians can be held to higher standards as they have the very Spirit of God within them.

@@acem82 being held to a higher standard is not the same as actual achieving that standard. Though i agree that Christians should be held to a higher standard. We hope to enter the presence of the almighty after all.

Because of progressive revelation it is true that we receive more information by God over time. therefore the ethical code Jesus delivers is much higher than Moses. It is much higher because we have a heart that desires that desires obedience. When there is a change in priesthood there is a change in law.

Keep worrying! Ask yourself why a god should need to make compromises, why he couldn't have granted the Israelites the gift of a freedom from stubbornness instead.

@@user78994 Why should I worry?

@@user78994 freedom is being able to be stubborn..?

I agree with you. If god is all-knowing then it means he intentionally allowed misinformation to spread. That contradicts his “loving” nature

There is a rule in ancient world "If you don't enslave, you'll be enslaved" Wonder why Zoroastrians are less and have no countries of their own today. Because of prohibition on slavery.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3x6aOBqc9d0.htmlsi=QeBeg1Lpr9WRQbW0 only Jesus is the way, ill have faith in historical accounts rather than mythology. this video is very dodgy yes, don't use it to justify your faith in the wrong person

I dee the better here to mean Christ.

New Testament slavery is Christian being in slavery not owning them

“Slaves, obey your human masters ” - Jesus (Col 3:22)

Paul tells a Christian to free his slave. The ethics of christ have no room for slavery

​@@mbontoiThat was Paul that said that. You're taking it out of context as well. Paul wanted slaves to be freed and made it extremely clear during the onesimus situation

@@rayzas4885 where

And he says the scribes were lyers.😅

One guy called Islam Critiqued talked about this on his channel he even quoted what scholars and historians say it was a good video that explains this

@@Musathekafir thank you so much for your answer, do you happen to have the link to the video or know the title by any chance? It would help a lot🤲

Leviticus 25: 44-46 KJV - 44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. What do you say about this then? Did Moses make this up? Was this not from God? Was it a temporary command? And why do we see slavery being OKd in the New Testament by the Apostles, men who encountered the risen Messiah?

@@Pedant_Patrol Jesus did say “you have Moses as your accuser” and it was said to Moses “You will be a God to this people” so Moses is the accuser of the brethren and being allowed to speak as a God he gave them a law beyond the Ten Commandments God wrote out with his own finger on tablets of stone.

@@Blemiz- Are you saying that the rest of the Torah, beyond the Ten Commandments, was not given by Yahweh? Cause that's what it sounds like to me.

@@Pedant_Patrol inspiration is quite different than dictation so in a sense yes. Also God is a mirror and becomes relatable to us where we are and comes through the filter of where we are in our own personal growth. God have man permission in the garden to rule and reign, and he gave Moses permission to be God to the people. Every time Moses smote God would threaten to smite with his strength and Moses would beg him not to. God was showing Moses that smiting was not appropriate by doing the same or threatening to do the same. This helped get through to Moses and soften his heart progressively…however just like Egypt didn’t leave the people’s heart, smiting was not completely rooted out of Moses heart and his final test was failed when he smote the rock. God seems to change even though he is unchangeable because he is a mirror and relating to us where we are met by him.

@@Blemiz- Thanks for your response. This is a good example of my fundamental problem with this slippery-slope reasoning. I earlier shared with you a passage from Leviticus 25, and at the beginning of this passage we find the words, "And the LORD spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying," - but yet you say to me this was mere inspiration. That is clearly not the case. These laws about slavery were dictated to Moses by Yahweh, they are not something that he (Moses) made up or added. Moses himself teaches that we are not to add to the Torah one bit (Deuteronomy 4: 2 and Deuteronomy 12: 32). I don't think there is any way around it - Yahweh condones slavery, and Scripture furthermore tells us that His counsel does not change (Psalm 33: 11), and that the Torrah is righteous (Deuteronomt 4: 8). The question for us is whether we will accept what the word says, or condemn Yahweh because of our modern sensibilities.

Wait, what?! Where?! Please don't say Numbers

@@armellebiampamba4257 lol forgot. I don't think it allowed it but it never prohibits it.

@@chubbyclub2502 the Bible if I remember correctly never gives an age for marriage. Probably because there was no need to at the time. But if I remember the only time child marriage is implied is a chapter of numbers but they refer to the girls as children so that probably would more likely mean they were kept as POW servants/slaves and when they grew could marry but I doubt they were given in marriage to grown men especially since even back then it was quite barbaric to sleep with a child

@@armellebiampamba4257 ah you take that route for that verse. My route is to point out Moses not God commanded this. I saw a Muslim argue against your explanation by saying the word explicitly implies sex.

@@chubbyclub2502 oh. You're right. Upon further reading, it shows Moses commanded that. I don't know how I missed that. That would explain at least why the Torah is not God's perfect law because if it does imply sex and not marriage that means it directly goes against some previously stated commandments against sleeping with women before marriage. Even if it explicitly means sex that wouldn't necessarily make it God's perfect, universal law

You are pretty

@@jamesellis701 oh. Thank you

Yeah, IP is definitely whitewashing this problem to suit his antiOT agenda. God himself said "yeah go and buy slaves from the nations as much as you want, but dont have fellow Israelites for slaves for I am their Lord, you should free them". But I dont think that the Jewish Law allowed some horrible mistreatments of slaves like killing them or abusing them, but still they treated them as a property that could be sold

Someone didn't watch the video...

@@alexwr yes the point of the video is God allowed them to do morally abhorrent things like genocides slavery polygamy death penalty by stoning etc. Because they were stupid (morally and intelectually incapable to hear that those things are so abhorrent and disgusting)...

I think they are still bad, but bad things are not always the same as evil things

@@marvalice3455 Thanks for sharing. I'm honestly not sure what I think of it. If society offers the poor good alternatives to voluntary slavery than most people would not sell themselves into servitude. With that in mind I'm not sure if the ban on such a practice is a good thing, since it could prevent greater evils. As for slavery with prisoners of war, although it may be bad, it was done to prevent acts of vengeance and terrorism. And if the alternative would be the execution of all prisoners of war, I could see why some conquered people would prefer slavery to that. Life is complex. I'm not saying that we should do these things now. But I also think that judging our ancestors from the comfort of our modern lives is a potentially dangerous thing to do. Only God knows for sure I suppose.

It is really weird how he didn't at all look into distinction of ritual/ceremonial law and moral law in the old testament and then seems to just throws it all out the window as obsolite, which I think is wrong. Paul even says that the law and commandments are good and that it was made to identify sin.

@@padmad3832 Yes I agree. Apologetics should be done in a way that offers respect to the opponent, while at the same time being careful not to pander to them. It seems too common in contemporary apologetics to pander to the accuser and be dismissive of our ancestors wisdom. There is no need for it.

Other than evolution, I wouldn't take anything he says very seriously. He's getting called out by other atheists for numerous errors in philosophy and history: greatdebatecommunity.com/2020/11/14/original-and-unchangednope/ historyforatheists.com/2020/07/aron-ra-responds-badly/

Usually, you just point to where it reaffirms them in the New Testament, which is the covenant we are held to now. Thus, they still apply, and will continue to do so until the Second Coming. Hope that helps. Take care! :)

@@jonathandoe1367 I second that!

@@sdhappyprince are you my judge? No? Don’t worry about what I remember. My relationship with the Most High is between he and I. I look to him and am not concerned with man no matter what they profess their faith is and no matter what sin he’s trying to judge me for. You don’t know me. I answered the question as it was posed, that is my understanding. I see no need for further communication because we are total strangers and none of this is personal.

@@sdhappyprince did I misunderstand? What else do I think total stranger?

Tell me more, this is fascinating.

@@sdhappyprince That quote directly has to do with Cain killing Able who was his brother, not strangers?

​@@sdhappyprince This quote suggests that the origen believed the Seraphim, "angles” are revealed this knowledge because of their anointed status as Son of God and the Holy Spirit. Sons of God, Bene elohim, are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies, as in seraphim, or cherubim. Jewish angelic hierarchies. It only refers to a few as "Sons of God” The term "son of God" is used in the Hebrew Bible as another way of referring to humans with special relationships with God. You’re using that term as a new age “Christian” way speaking as Jesus was said to, which is a mistranslation. I believe we are all parts and parcels of God. It’s a much more intricate way of saying that we are all God's children, or "Sons of God” Although, with logic you must also believe in original sin. Everything written in the scriptures is not cohesive . From Genesis 4: "The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. “… Why do you think God so unappreciative? I personally would rather have a piece of fruit than a piece of murdered dead flesh, but that me. I don’t believe that one needs to kill another spirit soul to remain satisfied with God, but this is the Lords actions which seem to have triggered his grandson for not killing, or giving equally in His eyes? From Genesis 4:1-9 Adam[a] made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.[b] She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth[c] a man.” 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 And Abel also brought an offering-fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. 6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” 8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.”[d] While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. 9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”... “I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” This whole story revolves around killing. I personally prefer a much philosophical spiritual outlook.

Thank you

@@TheTarnished6437 I have watched it and why would a video based on an opinion and guesswork change anyone's opinion? After all, this is just one of hundreds of view of heaven and hell. If a person satisfies one God's merit for heaven but another God's merit for hell, where do they end up?

Surely you must believe he created everything about us. How can “luck” have anything to do with it? Surely it couldn’t have been any other way.

@@shankz8854 - we’re all human in our limited expressions.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

And your point is?

Not really, do they also state that their scriptures are inherently imperfect and that their gods planned and did the same way?

@@j.gstudios4576 his point is, we could justify any religion using this method.

@@magnificentuniverse3085 Only if this idea is supported in said religious scriptures.

It can be applied to other religious texts if they also show that the God of that text compromised with the people. However that's on a text by text basis, it's not a logic that can just be applied to every single religious text. The text itself has to show us that the laws it mentions were never meant to be considered perfect, but rather contextual. IP provides passages that clearly show that to be the case with the Torah, but you need examples.

How?

I’m not sure if “bunker buster” is a good thing.

@@InspiringPhilosophy Well it’s effective. Let’s say that then.

Dividing the law into moral, civil and ceremonial can't explain why children could inherit their parents slaves FOR LIFE. Either, you accept that such slavery is okay, or you take this approach, namely that it wasn't an ideal system for all time. I don't see how any other way would work. People today don't interpret the Bible within its cultural context, but rather take the context of our world into interpretation, that the Torah was an ideal perfect law for all time.

@@x-popone6817 As stated, my comment was outside the scope of your argument. But since it is so important, I will briefly follow up. Careful reading of the context is why the three-fold division of the law is so helpful. We must know not only the cultural context, but the context of the Scriptures given. Take your comment, for instance. Slaves for life could only happen: 1) From the nations devoted to destruction. (See Lev. 25:44-46) 2) If the slave was an Israelite and wanted to stay in the household. For an Israelite, every jubilee the slaves were supposed to be set free, regardless if they had purchased their freedom back or not. Involuntary slavery was never going to stay permanent- for Jew or Gentile. Once the New Covenant was administered, we can distinguish this temporary civil arrangement for the nations devoted to destruction. For more on this, please read this article: www.lambsreign.com/blog/in-which-no-quarter-november-immediately-gives-quarter Second, we tend to have in mind slavery as the kind in American history or in other parts in the world. Except for the nations devoted to destruction (again, a temporary ordinance), the slavery in context was to pay off debts and regain freedom. Exodus 21:16 makes it explicit that the slavery we are familiar with (kidnapping) was punishable by death (to the person who did the enslaving). I hope that was helpful in clarifying this position.

@@Mattchew2232 I know that it wasn't like the American slave trade. But my point is that it can't be fully explained without appealing to the fact that it was a temporary system and not an ideal one for all time. You even say yourself, "Involuntary slavery was never going to stay permanent..." That just supports my point. You have to interpret it as a temporary system or else you can't explain why God allowed it during that time. There are many things in the Torah which we don't have to keep today, so why can't you take this a step further and conclude that it wasn't an ideal system for all time? It was just a temporal system which was supposed to make Israel a light to the nations WITHIN that culture.

@@x-popone6817 I can't take it a step further because we have to let Scripture interpret Scripture. Scripture stipulates that involuntary slavery was not going to be permanent. The New Covenant Scriptures quote the law as authoritative. The "law" has to mean something. That is one fatal flaw in this video. Michael Jones tried to circumvent what Psalms like 119 and 19 say about the perfection of the law. However, James 1:25 calls the law "... the perfect law, the law of freedom". Paul quotes parts of the ten commandments in Ephesians. Would any Christian say it was temporal that children should obey their parents? Many moral commandments are not listed in the New Testament, but are abiding (see 1 Cor 5- "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and the kind of sexual immorality that is not even tolerated among the Gentiles-a man is sleeping with his father’s wife." He almost certainly has Lev 18 in mind). Remember, as I stated above, God judged the nations surrounding Israel who were not even given the law because they violated those moral principles listed in that chapter. Would you say those things were not ideal laws and should not be permanent? Scriptures does specify what parts of the law are fulfilled, and therefore were temporary. Hebrews speaks of how the ceremonial laws were all a costume party before the arrival of Christ. The shadows naturally go away when the reality comes. "Don't call unclean what I have made clean." Basically, are verses like Romans 8:7 ("The mindset of the flesh is hostile to God because it does not submit to God’s law. Indeed, it is unable to do so.") and James 1:25 meaningless? There are so many references to the law of God. What does that mean? I think a lot of the confusion arises in how we are not "under" the law anymore for righteousness and seeing how it is fulfilled in Christ, versus a total doing away of the law. Romans 3:31 states "Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not! On the contrary, we uphold the law." In my view, you either are upholding the fulfilled law of Christ (and the Son of God *gave* that law to Israel), or you are completely redefining what the law means. Scripture doesn't let you do the latter.

@@Mattchew2232 I would argue that you can take it a step further. It seems like you've been brought up with the idea that the Torah was an ideal system for all time, even though, as Michael pointed out, isn't necessary. I wasn't brought up a Christian, so I don't have these biases that make me not able to see other views. I never said the Old Covenant can't overlap with the New Covenant. Of course, some laws in the OT will abide. But that doesn't mean it, as a whole, is applicable to us today or that it was an ideal system for all time. It's just that they are repeated in the New Covenant. It seems like this is your misunderstand of Michael's point. In his debate with AronRa, he pointed this out, that they can overlap. As for James 1:25, I'd say that we have to interpet it through the lens of the fact that it wasn't an ideal system for all time, as this video showed. It probably is very similar to Psalms 119 and 19, which he went over in the video. Also, the New Testament Scriptures never say anything about not being able to inherit slaves for life. This points to the fact that we have to conclude it wasn't an ideal system for all time. Furthermore, Jesus said the Old Testament law will be abolished (1. The law will not pass until all is fulfilled. 2. Jesus said to fulfill the scriptures... it is finished. 3. The law is old and passing away, Hebrews.) Again, the passages you quoted have to be interpret through the lens Michael provided in the video, supported by evidence. But to address them specifically, Romans 8:7 doesn't specifically say OT law. It could mean law in general, as in morality. James 1:25 could just mean the same as Psalms, that it was perfect for the time, within their culture, or the Greek word isn't as strong. Romans 3:31 could just mean that we don't forgot the law. It served its purpose and still has some truth to it. Of course, what I just said is possibility, not necessarily probability (in isolation), but I think with the context Michael provided, we have to interpret it like I did.

Did you even watch the video?