But it's not you or me. It's Him who finds us. This is biblical. Believers can only sow the seed of the Gospel to others and wr ourselves cannot find Him. John 15:16
This is my favorite channel on RU-vid. It is so rare to find someone discussing religion and theology which I pretty much totally agree with. I have learned a LOT.
As much as I love this channel. Lovin this channel just because one agrees with it is not the most effective way of getting to truth and ridding self of errors...just saying😅
@@markp44288 Fair enough. To me some of these proposed alternatives often rattle just as much. And sometimes seems at odds with other parts. But indeed. All we can do is seek truth best we can with the help of Holy Spirit guiding.
Indeed this sort of teaching is missing from our church nowadays. Thank you for shedding the light on such a great topic. May The Lord Yahweh bless you
What is so wrong with using either Christ's terms or traditional Christian terms??? "Our Lord" is fine. This obcession with Hebrew trips into outright idol worship.
Hey, it's fine either way with me. I have my own reasons for using the Lord's name: Yahweh, here in this comment. May The Lord God, The Most High bless all of you.
I'm always thankful for the amount of time and research you put into these videos. If this is anything like the first two parts it should be very informing
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lbb4xwYj19g.html Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
The idea being that you cannot inflict a worse punishment then the act the criminal committed. The maximum punishment must be proportional to the crime, and not exceeding it.
Mike, in addition to the innovation of lex talionis being applied across classes in ancient Israelite law, it's also helpful to know that the function of the principle itself is to set a limit on the maximum amount of punishment that could be issued to the offender: the punishment may be less than the crime, but it may not exceed the crime (Raymond Westbrook, "A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law," vol. 1, p. 74).
and ends the blood feud concept. if a man kills your brother, the man who killed him is killed, not the assailant's brother, which then extended the pool of victims of the punishment crime to more and more people as we progress through the social punishment for an injury.
It's good to see someone using correct terminology for a change - God's people are indeed the Israelites, the 12 tribes of Israel - something you barely hear anymore since Zionists have acquired so much power over western culture. Hopefully you haven't fallen into the trap of believing the lie that "Jews" is a synonym for Israelites, because it' definitely isn't. That word doesn't even belong in translations of the bible, but almost no Christians ever study the matter, most just repeat the popular narrative. "Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a Jew, or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or Hebrew." -The Jewish Almanac, 1980, p3
I am beginning to understand. Attempting to overturn any system with a law results in more immorality. It’s like attempting to rip a bandage off a raw wound before it is healed. It causes more pain, more suffering, and exposes collective moral conscience to the potential infection of anarchy.
I've only seen the first one. But my goodness! Very well done. Lots of research put in and its great to hear other views apart from the traditional stuff we hear!
Very well done and interesting! Christine Hayes and Jean Bottero (among others) seem like credible and insightful sources, and I am want to learn more about their teachings! That is one thing I have always liked about your videos. They really help me find sources and expand my horizon. Once again, thanks for making this awesome series, and I am looking forward to your upcoming videos.
You can watch Christine Hayes lecture series at Yale on RU-vid. They are very informative as are those of Dale Basil Martin from Yale. His lectures are also available. God bless!
Tbh, I think some of Hayes’ insights are biased against the Bible. Such as Judaism being the product of paganism and polytheism. So I guess watch with caution.
@@hunterklise9337 Yes Hayes and Martin from Yale both have their biases (Martin is a gay "Christian") however there is still a wealth of knowledge within their lectures that is worth the watch. Discernment is of course important. God bless!
You emphasized the consistent theme Jesus taught during his ministry: Love for God and others. This wasn’t a new idea Jesus peddled. It was established in the Torah with Israel. I just released a video today: “Can a Loving God Condone Genocide?” Much of your research in this documentary coincides well with my thoughts. Thank you for all the time you put into presenting truth.
@@hunivan7672 read your bible. Jesus fits everything the Messiah is and supposed to be. So yes it's the most Jewish thing to do. Stop letting you understanding corrupt your mind
Very notable difference between the Torah and the Talmud. The Talmud has _tons_ of class distinctions that separate Jews from Gentiles (especially Christians, which the Talmud refers to as animals).
Having read some of it to debate with antisemites, I doubt it said "animals". But you're right in saying the rabbis did not have a favorable view of Christians.
One of my favorites channels in RU-vid! I'm thinking more and more about considering christianity, but I still have some important questions Is there a way for me to have a discussion on private or else about that?
The question of a wise law is not just “what is the right thing to do?” It is also, “given the entirety of society, how would people who oppose this potential law react? Would it cause more chaos? More violence? More rebellion? More disorder? Could this potential law only benefit few individuals rather than also the ongoing trajectory of progress in collective moral conscience?”
Sorry to brother, but I was wondering if I could please ask you a question atheist bring up that causes doubts “why doesn’t Jesus reveal himself to all other religions? Atheist say “it’s for the same reason Apollo, Zeus, Vishnu don’t reveal themselves to other religions, because they are all invented by local people” as a Christian how do I respond to this? Thank you for your time
@@InspiringPhilosophy I wouldn’t say it helped 100% but this was very helpful, I have watched that video for granted but never have I reflected on it. Thank you for your time and ministry not only has this saved and grew my faith, but I think might have inspired me to go into religious studies in the future.
Not trying to intrude. Matthew 13:10-15 , may help. Also think of the wheat and tares , not all are seed planted by God . Ultimately, it’s God’s narrative on how he chooses to reveal truths. We should not expect God to act according to how we or others think he should .
The main issue is about invention and not revelation. Jesus is not like any of the other gods or idols. He is not an invention. There is enough evidence for Him in scared and secular history. That's a major point to consider.
Joshua Dunford The election of Israel was intended to enlighten the world. To be a light to the nations. So the redemption of the world depends on Israel being separate. The aim of Jesus therefore was to restore Israel. When Israel fulfilled her calling as a holy and priestly people, the kingdom would come. It is in that context that we can understand his statements, for example: repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. The (eternal) Torah was also revealed to other peoples, but more pregnant or more meaningful to Israel, just to enlighten or elevate the peoples and ultimately to heal the world. This can be related to all that is good and true and beautiful. Notice this statement: ‘this was the true light which enlightens all who come into the world.’ (John 1:9) So it says unmistakably that everyone is enlightened (at birth) by the Torah.
IP great job on the video! One day I hope to convince you that the Torah has not been done away with but is still the perfect set of instructions for man to live in shalom with God and man. Yah willing I will be starting a channel to do just that within the next six months. Again, great job and may God bless you and your loved ones with health and prosperity.
Hey IP, i have an idea. Could you do a series about “analyzing the thoughts of scientists about God”. Such as Einstein, Stephen Hawkins etc… I don’t know if you did any of those but it would be interesting, specially about Einstein’s view on the subject.
Wonderful and important video, very well done! I just want to add the consideration that other cultures throughout history have independently come to similarly humane (or even much more liberal) moral conclusions to the Torah, however, so I would not say the Torah was necessary for building a better world, that seems like far too strong a claim-although the Torah certainly seems revolutionary for its specific cultural context in the ancient near-east. For example, the cosmopolitanism and agápe of Stoicism, the impartial caring of Mozi, and the non-violence and respect for all non-human as well as human life of the Jains contain moral revolutions of comparable value (or greater, depending on one's perspective). Also, morality was conceived of as a private, and not simply public, matter in ancient China with Kongzi, for example.
As a Chinese I can affirm that Kongzi is no compare to the Torah. Kongzi's view of morality is relation- and class- orientated. And maintaining class hierarchy is utmost inportant to him. His whole life mission is to urge people to respect those who are in higher classes than themselves, ultimately the royalties. To maintain this balance is by upholding outward etiquette and inward restrain, not love and fairness as the Torah teaches.
"...and have put on the new self, which is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created it- a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, and free, but Christ is all, and in all. Col 3: 10-11 And: "Take care not to practice your righteousness in the sight of people, to be noticed by them, otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and the streets so that they will be praised by people. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing so that your charitable giving will be in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. And when you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they will be seen by people. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But as for you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door, and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." Matt 6: 1-6
Great video IP! I have one question though. When it came to foreigners in Ancient Israel, I heard there are two different types: foreigners who embraced The LORD and those who didn’t embrace The LORD. So do the laws for protection in the Torah (e.g. Exodus 22:21, Numbers 15:15) only apply to foreigners who worshiped The LORD?
The rules and system all Eventually broke down due to worshipping false gods and idols. Mosaic law works great but when people take God out of it.....it just turns to mush
@@InspiringPhilosophy You should, although homosexuality isn’t the biggest objection to Christianity logically, I would say it’s the biggest objection because of the culture we live in.
@Inspiringphilosophy Hey IP one Question Is There any Textual variation or Cristism on Love your Enemies Matt5 and Luke 6 that Jesus taught ? This is just my personal doubt , not Something I've heard somewhere and Awsome Video man it really Changes my Perspective on the Torah
Basically. On a tangential note, indentured servitude existed for a period in the British colonies (after the enslavement Europeans was illegalized), but was soon abolished. One might postulate that humans have innovated increasingly ethical arrangements of labour, and so some shortfalls of the past may be caused more by ignorance than malice, and that the Bible represents a significant step in getting where we are today. Does alot to challenge chronological snobbery about the early ancient period, wouldn't you say? Also, can tantamount be used without a following proposition? I haven't seen it used that, way, so I couldn't attest to it. Unless it was a typo, I find that to be an interesting choice of words.
@@jonathandoe1367 👍👍 The Hebrews might have been very ahead in adopting the Fair Labour Best Practices, comparable to other societies "Slavery" to them was actually "Employment".
Somehow you still seem to have missed the point and the genius of the Torah in addressing political status and power, rather than the nuts and bolts of rights and remedies. The Torah's revelation and teaching are that all men are made in the image of God and are sons of God and are legal and political equals. A man's economic and social status does not add or detract from his legal and political status as a son of God, and as bearing the image of God. This legal and political equality is expressed in a number of ways: 1. Man is made in the image of God male and female, that is each male with his one female. This is the social, political and sovereign unit, the individual household made when a man forsakes his father and mother, holds fast to his one wife, and the two become one flesh, one family, one social and political unit, along with their children until they too forsake them and create their own units. This policy and structure counteract dynasty-building, name-building, empire-building, and the accumulation of multiple women to the more politically powerful and economically superior men. 2. Man's social, political and legal status, in particular his right to life, is protected, regardless of a) his social and economic downfall in status and b) his offences and crimes. Concerning the man's social and economic status, if a man becomes poor and is sold as a slave, he remains legally and politically sovereign, and for this reason, the Torah protects his rights and limits his time of service to six years. If his master breaks his eye or tooth, he goes free without working the 6 years, which means he maintains his rights and status as a son of God and as in the image of God, and that his slavery status is merely an economic status, not a political one. Ex. 21 in particular addresses a wide range of slavery situations for both men and women, and shows that the slavery status of men and women was both limited to 6 years and would frequently be much less, and that marriage was honoured and respected as both men and women went into slavery and came out. The unmarried daughter sold by her father comes into the master's house unmarried, but the point and terms of the transaction are for her to be given as a wife to the master's son, or, failing that, one of his male servants or some other eligible man. If she is so betrothed, the master must treat her as a daughter, i.e. he emancipates her and gives her as a free woman wife, with her own wedding present, her own estate in the marriage, as he would for his daughter. She does not serve for six years: because she is betrothed and because marriage is for life, that fulfils the bargain. But if he fails to betroth her to his son, because he finds something wrong with her, or because he doesn't like her, he has some further options, or he breaks the deal, triggering remedies for the woman and her family. If he neglects her needs and rights, she goes free immediately, without payment of money, and without working 6 years. If he betroths her to one of his male servants, she serves her 6 years, and so does he, and their freedom dates will not coincide, so one will go free before the other. But this is not the breaking of the marriage, this is the counting of time and money. With one free, his wages and her time go to free her faster, and then they are both free. A proper analysis of the Torah shows that the economic rise and fall is accommodated, the fall is limited to 6 years and with remedies for neglect and abuse, and the rights and political and legal status of all, and the sanctity of marriage must be honoured by all. There is no divorce or polygyny in this text, notwithstanding popular misreadings. Concerning the man's misconduct, and his crimes, even his murder, the man remains marked by God, as Cain was, that he may not be killed to avenge the blood of the man he slew. Michael Jones has got the Torah on the death penalty all wrong. Death is the currency of political power, and political power accumulation in particular, which is what the Torah's polemic is against. To murder a man, made in the image of God, is to grieve God and make God angry. But to put the murderer to death is to grieve God and make God angry sevenfold. This applies even if the murder is not 'male and female' but is 'male and females' like Lamech. He is still in the image of God, nonetheless, and may not be put to death. This means that a woman, and a woman of irregular marital status, and an unmarried woman, and an unmarried man are likewise in the image of God and may not be put to death for their crimes, even murder. The Torah's specific provisions and teachings on the death penalty have been grossly misconstrued. The Torah teaches that the death penalty for murder is ethical, morally right and just. But it also puts it out of reach -- because the Torah's point is not morality or ethics or justice, but political wisdom, particularly concerning political power. The two eye-witnesses rule puts the death penalty beyond reach. It sets up the Torah's teaching, that the land pollution with human blood is an accumulating problem, as unsolved murders and unavenged murders pile up. But the bulk of the human blood shed on the land is not 'private' murder, rather it is political murder. As the political murder problem was addressed by the flood of water, the later political murder problem would be addressed by a flood of men of war (Gen. 9:5-6; Is. 28; Dan. 9:24-27; Mat. 7:24-27; Rev. 12). The beasts would again rise on the land, and fill the land with blood. The blood of God's servants would accumulate on the land, and in Israel's last days, he would send beasts to destroy Israel, to avenge their blood, at the killing of Israel, the beast, to atone for God's land and his people, as set out in Deut. 32. Israel's political journey away from Torah, breaking the covenant, appointing a king, would lead to her becoming the beast, she would return to Egypt, and she would become the dragon of Is. 27, to be put to death by YHWH, Is. 65:13-15. Israel's political journey into the wilderness of the exile and back to the land after the exile, would lead to the 70 sevens, when Israel would become re-established as a political body, and as a religious body, with her anointed ones (legitimate political leaders or governments) and her temple and her city and her walls, in Dan. 9. But this would lead to 62 sevens of trouble, followed by one seven of rebellion, when a rebel figure would cut off the last anointed one (the last legitimate, appointed political leader or government of Second Temple Israel), and would rise up to make a covenant with death (Is. 28), which covenant would be broken, when the rebel government fell, and Israel, Jerusalem and the Second Temple would fall. The Lord said that this was when Deut. 32 would be fulfilled, in Mat. 23:29-38. This would be when those who took up the sword would die by the sword. This would be when the murderers would be repaid and their city burned (Mat. 22:7). This would be the sign that that old political order of rejecting Torah would be destroyed as the Fourth Beast (Dan. 7), and the power of the holy people was completely shattered (Dan. 12:7). Then the kingdom built without hands would replace the kingdom built with hands. The death penalty was never practiced pursuant to the law of Moses. There is no case in the bible from start to finish where A murders B, A is tried pursuant to the law of Moses, and when all the hurdles of Torah for the resort to the death penalty are duly passed (witnesses, trial, etc.), when the death penalty is given as the sentence, and when the death penalty is actually carried out in accordance to Torah. Not one case! And there are plenty of cases where A murders B and it isn't applied. The death penalty in the Torah and the Gospel is the epitome of political power aggregation and use. We serve the one who was put to death, not for murder, but for calling his political enemies fools (Mat. 5:21-26; 23:17). We serve the one who was the victim of the death penalty, and Christians have opposed the death penalty for centuries from the beginning. The Lord's death is our example of how political power aggregation works (1 Pet. 2). Jesus Christ abolished death, and so did Moses. Jesus Christ came to make us brothers, to make us legal and political equals, male and female, and so did Moses. The Torah is a whole lot more than polemic against specific cruel practices: it is a polemic against the institutional structure of cruelty: patriarchy, dynasty, statism, empire, and polygyny. Until we can read the Torah politically, and in terms of power, we will continue to miss its point and its application. Legal wisdom is good, political-power wisdom is better still.
Very interesting ideas in your comment, well worth the read. What about the boy in Exodus who was executed for profaning the Sabbath? Wouldn't that be a case for the death penalty being carried out in accordance to Torah?
@@holysmokes4493 That is an interesting possible counter-example, but there are a few things to consider when reading that story in Num 15:32-36. The most obvious notable feature is that we have to go far from the case of murder, for which no penalty substitution was theoretically allowed, to the case of Sabbath-breaking by picking up sticks. If the death penalty for doing some casual work on the Sabbath has to be resorted to, to support the notion that the death penalty was not only available, but was supposed to actually be practiced, then we should expect plenty of cases and historical evidence of the death penalty for murder, after passing the procedural requirements of Torah, to exist. But the historical evidence is that even for murder the death penalty was theoretical. Now, we need to take care as to what we (or I) am claiming here. We are not claiming that the death penalty was not practiced in the ANE context, even by the Israelites, even after Torah was given. The cultural and historical context is full of polygyny, idolatry, dynasty building, monarchy, war lords, and taxes and wars and prostitution and all kinds of corrupt practices. Abram was basically a war-lord, involved in international wars, Gen. 14. As well as being a polygynist, in some sense. And Jacob had household idols / gods, and had children by four women living at the same time. And even after Torah was given, many of these practices continued, even though they violated Torah. So, obviously, the death penalty, both as a political weapon and practice, as well as a remedy for crimes including murder surely existed. The claim we are making is that the Torah addresses that context by putting insurmountable barriers in the way of the avenger of blood, and that it does so for policy reasons, concerning political power and structure. The literary purpose and structure of the context of Num. 15 is probably not to recount the regular legal procedure and practice of Ancient Israel under Torah in its final form. The most natural explanation is to demonstrate the category of high-handed sins referred to in Num. 15:22-30. Picking up sticks on the Sabbath is not to be categorised as an unintentional sin, rather, it is to be categorised as a high-handed sin, which has no remedy by making offerings. The main point of the author(s) seems to be that honouring the Sabbath is something that is to be regarded as an essential part of being a member of the covenant community, rather than an optional procedure to observe like free-will offerings. The Sabbath-breaker is cut off from the community and cut off from life, because, in the context of the covenant community, he is deemed to know the Sabbath requirement and to have violated it intentionally, and so the Torah offers him no remedy, no mercy, no path back to YHWH's favour. In practical terms, this is a very long way from actually practicing the death penalty for Sabbath-breakers, particularly when even murderers were spared. This all feeds into the same story of sins that have no remedy or which weren't remedied, and for which Christ was to come to remedy. Murder has no remedy, other than the life of the one who shed his brother's blood, which for good reasons (the Torah's policy) and for bad reasons (political power aggregation in violation of Torah), were not remedied in a timely manner. High-handed sins likewise had no remedy. The result was that Israel broke the covenant, and was divorced by YHWH before her wedding, meaning that she failed to enter into her true rest in the marital house of YHWH. The Sabbath violations were accumulated, rather than atoned for, and were paid for in the exile, when the land enjoyed the Sabbaths that Israel failed to honour (2 Chron. 36:21). It is only in Christ that Israel could enter into her Sabbath rest (Heb. 4), through the re-betrothal of Hos. 2, under the new covenant of Ez. 37, which betrothal this time was not broken off, but rather was consummated by the wedding feast (Is. 25:6-8), when the old Israel was put to death (Is. 27; 65:13-15), and when 'the sons of the kingdom were thrown into outer darkness (Mat. 8:10-12), and when 'the king was angry and he sent his troops to destroy those murderers and burn their city' (Mat. 22:7) and when he judged the prostitute Israel, to avenge the blood of his servants (Mat. 23:29-38; Rev. 19:1-9).
@@hillaryfamily Thanks for the response! I can't believe that I forgot that that incident was in Numbers! I have to say though, that this interpretation of the Law is one I'm deeply unfamiliar with, but it's quite compelling albeit strange and a little confusing. Do you have any books that you would recommend so that I can learn more about this? I find this extremely intriguing.
@@holysmokes4493 Nice to hear your interest, and I am sorry if my presentation is confusing -- there are a lot of elements where I take a different approach from the 'traditional' one and taken together it challenges a lot of the assumptions about what the bible is talking about and what it's saying, and what meaning or significance we should take from specific texts. The accumulation of these differences adds up to quite a different picture, one that makes a lot of sense to me but that is hard to communicate on one issue without needing to address several others! The legal-political analysis of the Torah and the Gospel -- in harmony, as a story, as Israel's story as a nation and as a political concept realised anew, and in fulfillment in Christ and in his coming at the fall of the Second Temple -- isn't something I can refer you to other authors concerning, because it seems to be drawn together by me from a range of sources, none of which give a complete or consistent picture or theory. So I'll have to refer you to my own writings, where I attempt to connect the dots in a coherent and sound manner. If you google the following titles, you should find my papers: "Insights from the New Creation into the Creation Stories" "Man's War for Dominion over the Beasts" "Typological Fulfilment of the Civil Law of Moses" My political and theological analysis is based on a number of sources, particularly: John Walton's books (dealing with creation and Torah and monsters, spirits, demons and beasts etc. Walton's political content is generally of good quality, but of insufficient quantity and development into applications, so he provides more of a background and general approach. However, he misreads the Torah as accepting polygyny, post-wedding divorce, patriarchy and some other stuff that the Torah is better understood as a polemic against rather than an accommodation of) Don K Preston's books and videos (dealing with the new creation, the eschatological narrative and the fall of the Second Temple as the time of the consummation, the second coming and the resurrection etc.) Adam Maarschalk's studies identifying the beast of Revelation (as the Zealots, rather than Rome) Early Christianity political studies, views and practices (pacifism, non-resistance, against the death penalty etc.) Christian anarchism ideas and materials (addressing and developing the claim that the Christian teaching is hostile to the concept and practice of statecraft and taxation, and doesn't endorse it at all).
@@hillaryfamily I suspected that you're a scholar. I'm currently looking at "Man's War for Dominion over the Beasts" and I can tell that I'm going to have to sit down for a while to read and ponder all of this. It's really good stuff so I'm a bit excited. Thanks again for taking the time to patiently answer my questions. I'm going to enjoy reading these papers.
I appreciated this one. However, the notion that the Torah wasnt actual law, but merely principles by which the Jews live seems unlikely for several reasons. If what is meant is that it was not supposed to be for the whole world OK. But is he saying that the Jews didn't actually regard this as law by which the community was governed?
That is his claim and his claim is quite unbiblical. And the law was made for the world there’s actually a prophecy on this ; Isaiah 2:2-3 “And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say, come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.”
Hey, I'm a big fan of your apologetics. How do you resolve the prophecy of three days and three nights corresponding to Friday and Sunday? 1 1 2 Friday night, Saturday, Saturday night That's 1 day and two nights.
To the Jews at the time, even if something took only part of a day they considered it as taking a whole day. It does not mean 3 literal 24 hour days. Hope this helps brother.
@@procyon6370 People are still asking this in 2021? The way Jews tracked the day and night cycle back then was different to how we measure it today. In ancient Israel, a new day officially began at sundown. So Good Friday actually began on our Thursday and Saturday began Friday etc. That's why Jews to this day still begin their Saturday Sabbath on Fridays at sunset, even though it's technically Friday in our way of doing things. Problem solved.
Yes, the Jews do start the day at sunset. That doesn't change the fact that the phrase "three days and three nights" implies a 3 periods of daylight and 3 periods of night, "day" meaning daylight hours, not the full 24-hour day. If he had meant that, he wouldn't bother to say the nights, and even if he did, only 1 and a half days would have passed by Sunday morning.
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lbb4xwYj19g.html Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
@@Contagious93812 It is hilarious how Atheist's and nonbelievers are supposed to be more evidence seeking type and yet the ammount of baseless assertions I have gotten from them is embarrasing.
Might regret asking, purely curious... but id love to hear your (hopefully positive, but perfectly fine with it being a negative view, because it really is awesome) analasys... of the book of mormon... idk if you've ever talked about it before, but the story of the nephites and (from what ive gathered) the essential populating of the americas is a pretty wild ride. If you've never opened yourself to it, whether it just hasnt happened yet, or you've been taught to give it no value as scripture... or you've read it and came to your own conclusions. Now im definitely not some fanatic trying to save you or anything here. Im actually an inactive member who was baptised at 8 n everything, but drifted from religion in my teens, now im a 27 year old heavy smoker, with a trainwreck of a life, a ruined marriage, a young son in a broken family, and a world of fear and self doubt... wondering if i've screwed up more than i can recover from before i die n whatnot lol just your typical human i guess.. Im just genuinely curious and interested in hearing you share your perception of the book...
The numerous out-of-place and time anachronisms prove it to be a 19th century document. It is not ancient. Joseph Smith made that all up. He did, of course, plagiarize large portions of it.
I must disagree with you...the moral law that God gave to Israel is for all people at all times in all places and for all circumstances. For example, in Genesis 4, God confronts Cain after his murder of Abel and judges him. In Genesis 9:6, God reinforces the wrongness of murder by decreeing that murder is to be punished by death. Then in Exodus 20, God gives the Sixth Commandment, “You shall not murder.” Jesus then expands on this in the Sermon on the Mount by declaring that if we even hate someone, we are murderers in our hearts. While the ceremonial laws regulating sacrifices and Temple worship might be limited to the Jewish nation, together with the civil laws that applied to the nation of Israel during Old Testament times, the moral laws are universal in nature.
If the “ceremonial laws” are exclusive to the Jewish people, then what is the heavenly tabernacle that Moses saw? I mean if it is in heaven that means it existed before men. At least separate from Jews
@Pedro Cavalcanti I don't know a lot about the Talmud beyond the Christian standpoint. I've read that the Talmud says that Jesus is burning is hell is urine and excrement and Mary had Jesus after being raped by pantera. It talks about none jews being of the same soul as an animal. Comparing us to dogs. I've also heard that Talmudic scalars aren't aloud to associate with jews that aren't Talmudic scalars themselves. I feel offended at some of the things in the Talmud but it's not my culture so I don't really understand the Talmud the same way same jews might.
@@hensen5309 There is trainloads of garbage (lies) that anti-Semites claim it contains. They so remind me of false religions who cherry pick certain lines and then twist it then dramatize it out of context and proportion. I believe NOTHING on the internet, it is so full of lies and rotting filth. Also I see some really deranged or mentally questionable people who throw a ton of cut/paste into huge long posts, all which say and prove nothing. I stick with trusted scholars like Dr Michael Heiser who I was lead to by the Holy Spirit.
Talmudic(as in modern) Judaism is really weird. The rabbis who discuss stuff in the Talmud place massive focus on ritual rather than meaning and intent. They couldn't care less if you worship satan if you just did the worship rituals the way they want, but they would be angry if you did the rituals in a way they don't want to worship God. Talmud has been kept untranslated into English for a long time. Sefaria has a pretty good Talmud translation project going on and it's free. There's some really weird stuff in it that I've noticed like Mishnah Niddah 5.
Doesn't "lord" in Hebrew mean "ba'al" who was one of the false gods of the ancient world in Sumer and Babylonia? It also means master. YHWH wants a relationship with us, a father son relationship, not a master servant relationship. Why was "lord" entered into the Holy Bible when its a name for one of YHWH's enemies...? Also, the word "god " is only a recent term as in, its only about 1400 or so years old. It was used by germanic pagans to refer to the dark spirits that they revered. I think it comes from the word "goth". 🤔
What is Romans 5 19? Verse 19 is similar: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Through the sin of Adam, everyone was made a sinner.... as we can clearly see in this verse we are born sinners after Adam and Eve...even if we try to act according to mosaic law.. we cannot act accordingly as we are already sinful...so as in this verse..John 3:16 is probably the most well-known Bible verse: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”...we can u derstand that...“For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”..so as we are followers of Christ now...we are to follow these two commandments as we are living under Jesus grace and our faith on him...and the commandments are...Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets...and i you guys are still confused read this verses..In 2 Corinthians 5:7, the apostle Paul says, “We live by faith, not by sight” (NIV). The ESV says, “We walk by faith, not by sight.” By “we,” he's talking about followers of Jesus....“For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14), responding with an emphatic, Amen! The law is a great burden, one that you and I could not fulfill. Praise God that we are under his grace!....For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth....Galatians 2:21 Amplified Bible (AMP) I do not ignore or nullify the [gracious gift of the] grace of God [His amazing, unmerited favor], for if righteousness comes through [observing] the Law, then Christ died needlessly. [His suffering and death would have had no purpose whatsoever.]”
Its all allegory unless you read it with secular history, then being a son of god before creation you will be blind under the sun repeating outside shadows. Neville Goddard teaching would waken you up or blind you more.
Well, if Russell Gmirkin is right, then the Hebrew Bible was written much later and its laws based on Plato's Laws. This would indicate that the Mosaic Law is not in fact "revolutionary" but based on Greek tradition.
That is a fringe view, and for good reason. Check out someone like David Carr, who is more knowledgeable on the topic. Also, Gmirkin makes a lot of similar errors I discuss here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mp3HpDOOWS8.html
From Moraney's perspective, "Adam and Eve" were in fact two human tribes that were created. I know the Bible refers to "Adam" as a singular person. This is not accurate. According to Moraney, there was a race of human beings prior to the Sumerians called the "Annunites", and they were named after the chief scientist who the Sumerian's called the "God" Anu. The name of "A-dam", as far as these people were concerned, was originally "Anu-dam". That word meant workers in the mines. Like everything else, we get the "Cliff notes" version of what really was the case.
Kali, like all the Ubaid Deities was a flesh and blood being. She, Kalimaath or Kali Marg, was a daughter of Lilith and Samael, son of Anu, who appears in the Aryan pantheon as Ahura Mazda and in Iran as the Medean god Zoroaster. Anu himself was the god who gave his name to the Tuatha de Danaan and as Sitchin has suggested the definition of the word god itself is ’descended of Anu’. Based on the spelling ’Tuatha de Danaan’, some have suggested that these Irish elven folk derived their name from an Irish mother goddess named Dana. If they had checked the earlier spelling - Tuadha d’Anu (Tribe of Anu) - they would have discovered that the Scythian Sidhe were the sons and daughters of Anu and the Ubaid gods and goddesses.
Blessed is your name now and forever ANU. O Prince of the gods, whose utterance ruleth over the obedient company of the gods; Lord of the horned crown, which is marvellously splendid; thou travellest hither and thither on the raging storm; thou standest in the royal chamber to be admired as a king. At thy word the gods cast themselves on the ground in a body like a reed on the stream; they command blows like the wind and causes food and drink to thrive; at the word the angry gods turn bck to their habitations May all the gods of heaven and earth appear before thee with gifts and offerings; may the kings of the countries bring to thee heavy tribute; may men stand before thee daily with sacrifices, prayers, and adorations.
@@manuelsanchezdeinigo3959 I was gonna leave this very message for you 🤣 Look into the mirror and say it to the image you see. If you think the Law of Moses includes the rainbow promise to Noah, you must be a newbie at exegesis.
"just a set of scripture " ??? Look up the word scripture in your dictionary. Yes Christ did change the world. And it is the Scriptures that teach us of Him.
Cognitive Dissonance comes to the mind first. The first statements truth would mean nothing if not for the purpose, promise and prophesies of the messiah given by God to Moses , which is the Torah. The foundation of all true scripture and a shield against the false .
So 3000 years ago the Israelites had better laws than anyone before or since.....obviously because God isn't real and we are "evolving" Only half my comment makes sense.
@Pedro Cavalcanti We are de evolving since the creation. Our laws are also way lamer than the mosaic laws. Mine wasn't an argument for atheism but against......no rational argument can be made for atheism. Maybe I should be less sarcastic. God bless
Sumeru was title of Orion where our Gods R from title of Tuadhe d'Anu means the Race of the Anu Gods The ancient White Race ,the modern White Europeans were People of the Anu Gods which R the same Anu or Anunnaki Gods the Ari and of Ireland the Aryish
You are of your father the devil (Yahweh)and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. John 8: 44.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Son of Anu is Jesus but we all belong to Jesus who is son of Anu then we also his children. Understand. Anu is the most high on sits on his everlasting throne. But he kill you not because there is no evil in him. The ine who kills is Yahweh because he was killer from ancient times since he killed our mother Tiamat. Dragon is Yahweh and a bear and a lion, an animal ready to eat you alive. Read your Bible.
