Behold, It Was Leah!

[simplynoone]

So, if the people are unable to bear children because of a biological defect, they are in violation of God’s command BY God’s own hand?

*They are not fulfilling the command of God to be fruitful and multiply if they do not actually fulfill it, whether they have a biological defect, or some other defect, or some other reason for not being fruitful and multiplying. And that is not God’s fault… He set into motion the Laws of Nature. So, it is as you said, in this case, a natural defect. Nature is not God, ya know.

So, are you going to continue with your line of questioning? said very respectfully*

 

[ralphinal]

*They are not fulfilling the command of God to be fruitful and multiply if they do not actually fulfill it, whether they have a biological defect, or some other defect, or some other reason for not being fruitful and multiplying. And that is not God’s fault… He set into motion the Laws of Nature. So, it is as you said, in this case, a natural defect. Nature is not God, ya know.

So, are you going to continue with your line of questioning? said very respectfully*

At first, no, but this intrigues me.

So, a person can be in a state of defiance of God EVEN if they did not choose to or even if it is not their fault?

Is this traditional Jewish thought?

 

[simplynoone]

At first, no,

Then why did you ask me to follow along? I was under the impression, based on your claim, that if I did, I would understand your view.

but this intrigues me.

Did my honesty and consistency startle you?

So, a person can be in a state of defiance of God EVEN if they did not choose to or even if it is not their fault?

*All I have said is that the command to be fruitful and multiply has not been fulfilled by any person who has not actually been fruitful and multiplied regardless of their reasons for not doing such. *

*If they have not fulfilled this command, they have not fulfilled the whole of the Law. *

Is this traditional Jewish thought?

It is basic common sense. A child can grasp a hold of this understanding. If I tell my son to make his bed and he does not do so, he has not obeyed the command I have given to him regardless of the excuse he may have for not obeying it. It is really quite simple.

 

[ralphinal]

Then why did you ask me to follow along? I was under the impression, based on your claim, that if I did, I would understand your view.

Did my honesty and consistency startle you?

*All I have said is that the command to be fruitful and multiply has not been fulfilled by any person who has not actually been fruitful and multiplied regardless of their reasons for not doing such. *

*If they have not fulfilled this command, they have not fulfilled the whole of the Law. *

It is basic common sense. A child can grasp a hold of this understanding. If I tell my son to make his bed and he does not do so, he has not obeyed the command I have given to him regardless of the excuse he may have for not obeying it. It is really quite simple.

If you tell your son to make his bed after you padlock the door shut, and he fails to make it, did he disobey?

 

[simplynoone]

If you tell your son to make his bed after you padlock the door shut, and he fails to make it, did he disobey?

*Yes. *

 

[ralphinal]

*Yes. *

Wow.

Ok, so I guess that you do not have an issue when Paul says that it is impossible to keep the law perfectly.

 

[simplynoone]

Wow.

Ok, so I guess that you do not have an issue when Paul says that it is impossible to keep the law perfectly.

*Paul said the Law was abolished and I do have an issue with that.

Listen, the problem is your mindset. You expect to get something out of observing the Law. Since you would rather think of all the excuses to not comply with it regardless of YOUR personal status but you still want what you have been made to think you will get, you claim someone else fulfilled it for you. The problem is this though: Jesus, according to you, did not ACTUALLY fulfill the Law.

Answer this with a strict yes or no. Did Jesus get married to fulfill the Divine command to be fruitful and multiply?*

 

[ralphinal]

*Paul said the Law was abolished and I do have an issue with that.

Listen, the problem is your mindset. You expect to get something out of observing the Law. Since you would rather think of all the excuses to not comply with it regardless of YOUR personal status but you still want what you have been made to think you will get, you claim someone else fulfilled it for you. The problem is this though: Jesus, according to you, did not ACTUALLY fulfill the Law.

Answer this with a strict yes or no. Did Jesus get married to fulfill the Divine command to be fruitful and multiply?*

And it comes back to this. Instead of discussing if a loving and merciful God would expect us to keep commands that we are PHYSICALLY unable to keep (for some, anyway), we are back to this. Well, I will answer this one.

Ready?

No. He did not marry. However, HE WAS FRUITFUL AND DID MULTIPLY.

All Christians are part of the Body of Christ. We are all one family, with Christ as the head. There is no need for blood offspring, we are his spiritual children.

Spirit trumps flesh.

 

[simplynoone]

And it comes back to this. Instead of discussing if a loving and merciful God would expect us to keep commands that we are PHYSICALLY unable to keep (for some, anyway), we are back to this.

*But, Ralph, I was discussing this. The Christians are the ones who say that God expects us to keep the commandments and because we can not do it for whatever reasons, God broke the Laws His own Self to send forth a man who did not actually fulfill the Law (according to the Church), but we can ignore this because “we” killed him and then God further broke the Laws to bring him back from the dead… of course, I must pause here and ask, where is he? What was the point for God to break so many Laws including the Law of Nature to bring him back from the dead if He is not even here to do anything to help anyone?

Certainly his teachings will do no good since he, Jesus, said to observe AND teach the Law of God and the prophets (matthew 5:17-19) that according to you we cannot even do and which, according to the Church, he did not even fulfill his own self. By the way, you obviously take the commands to be literal physical commands since our physically not obeying them is the reason we needed a Saviour to save us from eternal suffering… so, Jesus, if he was the fulfillment of the Law for mankind DID have to fulfill them physically since that was “the fall” according to the teachings of the Church.

Your words give away that you do not even believe the illusion that you have bought into… you just are refusing to look and see that I am right.

You continue to defend your position at all costs, even to the point of being hypocritical.

How so?

Your stance… again:

1. We were commanded to do such and such things by God.
2. We either would not or could not keep the Laws given.
3. You would consider me as one of the eternally condemned for not believing in a saviour whose birth, life, and resurrection not only were NOT the fulfillment of the Law of God, but in fact, BROKE the very Laws that we were commanded to keep or, according to the Church, suffer eternal punishment.

The faith that I am told I must buy into is not even grounded on anything… as you can see, it keeps one running in circles to even try and explain it. And so, God will punish me for not buying into it? The chances of that God actually keeping His word THIS time… well, one has just as much chance of tossing out a whole deck of cards and having the Queen of Hearts land on a table 10 feet away turned upright with the Queen saying “Glory Be! you are blessed!”

How is such a wishy washy God considered merciful and even more importantly, to even be trusted? Such parenting in the Real World would create a child who was full of anxieties, unfounded childish fears, complete lack of trust, and overwhelming guilt for even being born. Proof of this? Christians! *

 

[ralphinal]

*But, Ralph, I was discussing this. The Christians are the ones who say that God expects us to keep the commandments and because we can not do it for whatever reasons, God broke the Laws His own Self to send forth a man who did not actually fulfill the Law (according to the Church), but we can ignore this because “we” killed him and then God further broke the Laws to bring him back from the dead… of course, I must pause here and ask, where is he? What was the point for God to break so many Laws including the Law of Nature to bring him back from the dead if He is not even here to do anything to help anyone? *

You would do well to learn the nature of death and how man was created. The current laws of nature are not the same laws that governed Adam and Eve.

And the Church DOES NOT expect us to keep laws that we are physically unable to keep. In order for something to be a sin, we must know it is a sin, freely choose to commit, and then freely commit it. According to Catholic thought, a strile couple who never has a child does not break God’s command. They did not choose to disobey.

Certainly his teachings will do no good since he, Jesus, said to observe AND teach the Law of God and the prophets (matthew 5:17-19) that according to you we cannot even do and which, according to the Church, he did not even fulfill his own self. By the way, you obviously take the commands to be literal physical commands since our physically not obeying them is the reason we needed a Saviour to save us from eternal suffering… so, Jesus, if he was the fulfillment of the Law for mankind DID have to fulfill them physically since that was “the fall” according to the teachings of the Church.

Wow. OUr faith is just as grounded as yours. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I dare you to.

God has always kept his word, even when man did not deserve it. The more of your posts that I read, the more I get the feeling that your Judaism is almost like God set it into motion than just watches it unfold. Is that true? Do you believe that GOd can or does have a daily role in the universe?

 

[simplynoone]

You would do well to learn the nature of death and how man was created. The current laws of nature are not the same laws that governed Adam and Eve.

Now, why would I want to learn the Nature of Death? Again, may I recommend you to the Tanakh under the guidance of Proverbs 2:1-7. It could, if you are honestly seeking the Truth, open your eyes to the Law of God so that you too could behold the wonderful things contained therein. Never again will you be satisfied with putting your trust in death when you behold the Beauty of Life!

But you have never shown us where it says that he must be married to be a rabbi. Surely in the hundreds of laws in the Bible, that one is there. Further, you have not shown us where it says that a rabbi must have children. Sure, you have the “be fruitful and multiply” command, but if there are people who are born who cannot keep it, it cannot be a requirement.

*I have shown very clearly where it is that says Jesus must be married and have children if Matthew 5:17-19 is to be believed. Just like when Moses “killed the Egyptian” (that is to say, the illusion) before the Children’s (of Israel) eyes, instead of being grateful they were angry at him and refused to believe the Truth he clearly put before them in hopes to show them freedom. They chose rather to keep their eyes shut tight and continue in the illusion that kept them under the oppression they so desperately were wanting to be freed from. Ironic, no? This, what you said above, is no less ironic than that account. *

I just see the massive hole in your position: God cannot create someone who has no choice but to sin.

Huh? Yes, God could have created robots… I did not say that He could not. But, He created us with free will and He gave us Laws to guide us. Thus, if He breaks those Laws, there is no hope for solid guidance. I put my hope and my trust in His Laws for there it is I have found stability of Life. Besides, free will is not truly free when one is bombarded with guilt for even being born.

Actually, that is not my position at all. Here is my position

1. God wanted a relationship with man
2. Man fled from God

Adam did not flee from God. Go back and read the story again.

1. God chose a man with whom to reconnect, through whom all the world will know of God.

*God declared His Chosen… it is the People of Israel and you are right; it is through the Tanakh and their story that we learn about God’s Laws, His ways, and His Judgments. *

1. Man’s family continues to follow God.
2. God preserves this family through hard times,
3. God chooses a man to lead his people from slavery.
4. People refuse to abandon slave mentality and sacraficial system

*God was not requiring them to abandon the sacrificial system… He was teaching them through the sacrificial system. He put up boundaries on it so that they were not sacrifices the way the heathens did (flesh and blood human sacrifice was NOT on that list of acceptable sacrifices).

What they did wrong is that they relied on the sacrifices to atone for their sins ahem … at least in their case, it wasn’t a human being whose blood they shed on the alter to their God.*

1. God sets up system to ween his people from slave mentality
2. Christ sent into world
3. Christ tells of the new way of having a relationship with God.

Yes, Matthew 5:17-19… so why are many not paying heed to his words, but rather only to his blood that they think will cover their sins so they can gain eternal life. Do you not see how selfish that mentality is?

1. Christ fulfills all of the Law in one, final sacrafice

*This is not true. You will not find within the Laws of God the condoning of the sacrifice of one man for their sins of another individual person, let alone the sins of mankind. It is not there.

The illusion again is preferred over Truth.*

Now, if you choose to disobey God when you know what he teaches, it is a sin.

I do not disagree with this very last statement in the least. However, one must have the knowledge, else they are still living in the garden of their ignorance and have not bothered to know the Truth about Life.

Think about this: if Jesus was not the final offering, where is the Temple?

*The Romans destroyed it. *

Wow. OUr faith is just as grounded as yours. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I dare you to.

God has always kept his word, even when man did not deserve it. The more of your posts that I read, the more I get the feeling that your Judaism is almost like God set it into motion than just watches it unfold. Is that true? Do you believe that GOd can or does have a daily role in the universe?

Honestly, you are going to have to explain what you are talking about in the above. I do not think you understood what it is I said. Are you agreeing that your faith IS like throwing out a deck of cards and the Queen of Hearts landing upright on a table 10 ft. away saying “Glory Be! You are blessed!”?? Whilst I agree, I am surprised you would AND be fine with it.

 

[simplynoone]

***correction: insert and hoping … the Queen of Hearts lands … blah blah!

By the way, since you serve the God who broke the Laws to bring forth a baby of a virgin, if you can achieve the above feat, that is to say throwing out a deck of cards, have the Queen of Hearts land upright on a table 10 feet away saying “Glory Be! You are blessed!”… then I am sold on your faith. I will still walk in the ways of My God, but I will never post on this forum again for truly your God, though He can not be trusted, is a God that exists. Of course, I am more trusting of the God whose ways I can trust… His promises have been kept, thus leaving me without questions as to whether or not He exists and He does it all without being deceitful or repenting of His Ways to stoop to man’s ways. And thank His goodness for that because I found man to be rather selfish in their willingness to abuse others for their own gain*.

 

[Lapell]

Thanks! Wow! And guess what, God is NOT a man.

Ahem! That God Himself is not a man, I don’t have a problem with it, really! But if God is all-powerful as we say He is, if He decides to become a man, can’t He become one? He would still be a divine person, and not a human person at all, even though He would take on the outside look of a man… Can He or can’t He?

 

[Lapell]

Would you say that you thoroughly know God and that nothing about Him is left unknown to you? How can you say how God should or should not be as God? I certainly don’t think it would be wise of me (or of anyone else for that matter) to tell the Almighty how to be the Almighty…

 

[simplynoone]

Ahem! That God Himself is not a man, I don’t have a problem with it, really! But if God is all-powerful as we say He is, if He decides to become a man, can’t He become one? He would still be a divine person, and not a human person at all, even though He would take on the outside look of a man… Can He or can’t He?

*To be clear, you are asking me if God can become a man, right?

If so, the answer is emphatically no.*

 

[simplynoone]

Would you say that you thoroughly know God and that nothing about Him is left unknown to you? How can you say how God should or should not be as God? I certainly don’t think it would be wise of me (or of anyone else for that matter) to tell the Almighty how to be the Almighty…

*Is this directed toward me? I will assume so and if not, then just disregard if you wish.

God <---- Infinite knowlege… to say there is nothing left unknown would mean I have nothing left to learn and what would be the point of me existing if I knew everything and had nothing left to learn? Basically, I do not know for sure, but it would seem to me that if I knew everything about infinite knowledge, I would have cancelled myself out from existence, no?

Your next question… I do not understand it.

And to your statement: okay. I will not argue that necessarily, but certainly we can, through the Nature of Reasoning figure out that Jesus is not God. He was not God… else, we have lost all stability in trying to decipher if, say, Horus was also God… or any of the many other claimed to be mangods. How many times DID God come in the form of man? And what is the purpose of His having done so?

That a man would be God is not something that can be speculated on using the Hebrew Scriptures. It must be that this idea came from somewhere else… mythology, perhaps?*

 

[Lapell]

*Is this directed toward me? I will assume so and if not, then just disregard if you wish.

God <---- Infinite knowlege… to say there is nothing left unknown would mean I have nothing left to learn and what would be the point of me existing if I knew everything and had nothing left to learn? Basically, I do not know for sure, but it would seem to me that if I knew everything about infinite knowledge, I would have cancelled myself out from existence, no?

Your next question… I do not understand it.

And to your statement: okay. I will not argue that necessarily, but certainly we can, through the Nature of Reasoning figure out that Jesus is not God. He was not God… else, we have lost all stability in trying to decipher if, say, Horus was also God… or any of the many other claimed to be mangods. How many times DID God come in the form of man? And what is the purpose of His having done so?

That a man would be God is not something that can be speculated on using the Hebrew Scriptures. It must be that this idea came from somewhere else… mythology, perhaps?*

The point of mythology, from my understanding, has been that men made their gods, not that “the gods” had revealed themselves to man! And so, Horus was a product of the imagination of some people accepted by other people, and not an actual person. O.K.?

 

[Lapell]

God <---- Infinite knowledge… to say there is nothing left unknown would mean I have nothing left to learn and what would be the point of me existing if I knew everything and had nothing left to learn? Basically, I do not know for sure, but it would seem to me that if I knew everything about infinite knowledge, I would have cancelled myself out from existence, no? *

Or… you would have to be of infinite knowledge yourself… God!

 

[simplynoone]

The point of mythology, from my understanding, has been that men made their gods, not that “the gods” had revealed themselves to man! And so, Horus was a product of the imagination of some people accepted by other people, and not an actual person. O.K.?

*Right… Horus was a product of the imagination based on actual member of the royal line. Not any different than what the same cultural type did with Jesus… only Jesus was actually ONE of the sons of God… just not in the mystical sense that it was made out to be. Make everyone believe he was the only one and the Son of God that is with us now gets abused, pushed aside, and ignored when they try to share the Truth with you. * :imsorry:

 

[simplynoone]

Or… you would have to be of infinite knowledge yourself… God!

*And they say I AM the stubborn one with the vivid imagination. This is fine… just know that it is not supported in the Tanakh. It is NT mythology with nothing whatsoever to do with the Jewish. *