Behold, It Was Leah!

[josie_L]

Thanks! Wow! And guess what, God is NOT a man. It says so more than a couple of times in the Tanakh. And the Son of God is Israel, the People… declared by God as a fact. So, I guess that my reasoning IS worth gold!! tries not to let it go to her head

Where in the tanakh does it state this?

 

[simplynoone]

Where in the tanakh does it state this?

*What? That God is not a man? Hosea 11:9, Numbers 23:19, I Samuel 15:29

Or that the Son of God is Israel? Hosea 11:1, Exodus 4:22,23*

 

[josie_L]

*What? That God is not a man? Hosea 11:9, Numbers 23:19, I Samuel 15:29

Or that the Son of God is Israel? Hosea 11:1, Exodus 4:22,23*

Figured. Thanks.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Is Replacement Theology a theory brought up by a Jew? I wasn’t taught anything of this kind in my Catechesis class… neither in my years of studying my faith…

Oh my dear Lapell, how naive of you! Did you expect the Church to teach you about Replacement Theology? No, this was not brought up by a Jew, because when Paul brought it up, he was no longer a Jew. He had already apostatized from Judaism.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Also, you keep saying, “We Jews wrote the Bible”. Most of the writers were not even “Jews” since they were not then called so… just like there were Christians, according to you, only when they began being called Christians in Antioch! And as for the New Testament, Christians of Jewish origin wrote it, not Jews! So I doubt from your own reasoning that you are fully competent in discussing matters from the NT!!

Lapell, are you all right? You continue with your naivety. Israelites and Jews are the same. Regarding the writings of the NT, Christians started in the year 60 CE with Paul in Antioch. The gospels started coming out after the year 70 CE all the way up to the end of the First Century. Therefore, they were all Christians already. If I am not competent to discuss matters from the NT, how come you can’t refute them?

 

[ralphinal]

I am not trying to frustrate you, but this is where it is important to read and understand Jeremiah 31:27 because if this, Jesus’ enlightenment, was to lead to the New Covenant being produced, then this is what Jesus meant by saying blessed are those who become eunuchs for the kindgdom of God. Isaiah 56 says how the eunuchs could be joined back to Israel. He is not referring to marriage in and of itself… he is not advocating the single life here. It is a matter of understanding the prophecies as they are written to the People of Israel and not how the Gentiles want to interpret them.

Ok, can you explain to me the phrase eunuch for the sake of the kingdom, as you understand it?

Nothing is abolished including the command given to male and female to be fruitful and multiply.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The Catholic Church has the most beautiful teachings on human sexuality. Theology of the Body, etc.

 

[simplynoone]

Ok, can you explain to me the phrase eunuch for the sake of the kingdom, as you understand it?

Yes. In Jeremiah 31:27, the seed of the house of Israel and the house of Judah were to be spread throughout the Gentile Nations. Since Jesus was very specific quite a few times that he was calling to the Lost house of Israel, then it would stand to reason that by “Eunuch” he meant those who had mated with the Gentiles and not with their own People. In Isaiah 56, they are to join themselves back to Israel through conversion the same way as Gentiles must be joined to the covenant.

It has nothing to do with Jesus but with the command itself. WOuld God command something that is impossible? Yes or no

No… so, how do you reconcile that with believing that all things are possible through Jesus Christ your Lord? If that is true, then this command can not be said to be impossible and thus, your belief has negated your own attempt at logic.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The general command to creation was NOT included in the law of Moses. It is a general command to all creation. It is not specific to each of us, as the 10 Commandments are.

The Torah includes ALL 5 of the first books. It is the Laws given by God… the 10 commandments are applicable to Israel concerning their covenant with God. The 7 commands of God given in Genesis 9 are the ones applicable to His covenant with mankind.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The Catholic Church has the most beautiful teachings on human sexuality. Theology of the Body, etc.

So why is it that concerning Mary and Jesus it is “taboo” for them to be married and to have had intimate relations with their spouses? It is so ridiculously taboo that the Church has convinced you that Mary NEVER had sex yet conceived a child. This is against the Law of God and in this case, it is VERY much a violation of common sense!!!

 

[ralphinal]

Yes. In Jeremiah 31:27, the seed of the house of Israel and the house of Judah were to be spread throughout the Gentile Nations. Since Jesus was very specific quite a few times that he was calling to the Lost house of Israel, then it would stand to reason that by “Eunuch” he meant those who had mated with the Gentiles and not with their own People. In Isaiah 56, they are to join themselves back to Israel through conversion the same way as Gentiles must be joined to the covenant.

Good, so Jews who married Gentiles are more blessed than other Jews…

No… so, how do you reconcile that with believing that all things are possible through Jesus Christ your Lord? If that is true, then this command can not be said to be impossible and thus, your belief has negated your own attempt at logic.

Wrong again. All things being possible does not mean that people who are incapable of having babies will have babies just because they want to have babies. What it means is that there is ALWAYS hope.

Again, if God made someone incapable of having a child, is God forcing them to violate a commandment?

The Torah includes ALL 5 of the first books. It is the Laws given by God… the 10 commandments are applicable to Israel concerning their covenant with God. The 7 commands of God given in Genesis 9 are the ones applicable to His covenant with mankind.

Ok.

So why is it that concerning Mary and Jesus it is “taboo” for them to be married and to have had intimate relations with their spouses? It is so ridiculously taboo that the Church has convinced you that Mary NEVER had sex yet conceived a child. This is against the Law of God and in this case, it is VERY much a violation of common sense!!!

It is called a miracle. In your attempt to flee from it, you have limited God.

It is not taboo. It is a fact that Jesus was not married. It is a fact that the “Brothers and sisters” of JEsus are never called Mary’s children. It is a fact that one of the last acts performed by Jesus on the Cross was giving Mary to John to care for. That, by Jewish law, would have been a MAJOR issue.

 

[simplynoone]

Good, so Jews who married Gentiles are more blessed than other Jews…

Isaiah 56 says so. But, let us not forget this is in accordance with Jeremiah 31 and also, there is Divine direction to consider as well, Deuteronomy 30. I can not say today whether a Jew should marry a non Jew… I think the way it works today is that the non Jew must first become Jewish. Remember, God had already scattered Israel and Judah was about to lose their home as well.

Wrong again. All things being possible does not mean that people who are incapable of having babies will have babies just because they want to have babies. What it means is that there is ALWAYS hope.

*What the text says is that ALL things are possible through Jesus Christ (your) Lord. It does not say all things are hopeful through Jesus Christ (your) Lord.

In other words, you agree there is either an error in the text or you believe there are things that are not really possible. Remember, what I was replying to was your statement of, would God command things that are IMPOSSIBLE? If a VIRGIN can conceive, surely the faith (that is said to be able to move mountains) should be strong enough for a couple to conceive a child regardless of the circumstances, right? Thus, God did not give a command that is impossible to obey given that you were handed faith to move mountains and told that all things are possible.

Seems like quite a dilimna to me personally. But I am open to hearing your explanation of it.*

Again, if God made someone incapable of having a child, is God forcing them to violate a commandment?

*How is it God’s fault that someone is incapable of having a child?

By the way, God NEVER forces anyone to do anything against their will. *

It is called a miracle. In your attempt to flee from it, you have limited God.

*Now, that truly is an impossibilty. There is no way I can limit God. I can only limit myself.
And if you believe in THAT miracle, why are you even asking me if God would command of us the impossible. Again, If a virgin is capable of conceiving, then it is not impossible for ANY couple OR even single person to conceive a child; therefore you have no excuse to cling to.
If a virgin gave birth, then it is true that ALL things ARE possible and it must be lack of faith that keeps ALL these things from actually happening; thus the blame still lies with man and not with God for our not fulfilling the command.

Yeah? *

It is not taboo. It is a fact that Jesus was not married. It is a fact that the “Brothers and sisters” of JEsus are never called Mary’s children. It is a fact that one of the last acts performed by Jesus on the Cross was giving Mary to John to care for. That, by Jewish law, would have been a MAJOR issue.

*Where does it say in the gospels that Jesus was not married? If it does not say these things that you are claiming, then you do NOT know for sure.

Thus, what is the difference between your speculating and our speculating? At least ours has a great deal of evidence to back it up.

If you are not going to own up to yours being speculation as well, then show me where it is written in the gospels that they were not married. *

 

[ralphinal]

Isaiah 56 says so. But, let us not forget this is in accordance with Jeremiah 31 and also, there is Divine direction to consider as well, Deuteronomy 30. I can not say today whether a Jew should marry a non Jew… I think the way it works today is that the non Jew must first become Jewish. Remember, God had already scattered Israel and Judah was about to lose their home as well.

So, if it is better for Jews to marry non-Jews, why did Jews not marry non-Jews? Why in more insulated societies?

*What the text says is that ALL things are possible through Jesus Christ (your) Lord. It does not say all things are hopeful through Jesus Christ (your) Lord.

In other words, you agree there is either an error in the text or you believe there are things that are not really possible. Remember, what I was replying to was your statement of, would God command things that are IMPOSSIBLE? If a VIRGIN can conceive, surely the faith (that is said to be able to move mountains) should be strong enough for a couple to conceive a child regardless of the circumstances, right? Thus, God did not give a command that is impossible to obey given that you were handed faith to move mountains and told that all things are possible.
*
And no one has ever told the mountain to be uprooted into the ocean. If you have faith that strong, you do not need to test it. There is no issue with the text. You are saying that if a Christian has faith and has a leg amputated, then Jesus will let him grow a new leg. That is NOT the intent of the passage.

Seems like quite a dilimna to me personally. But I am open to hearing your explanation of it.

Here is the passage in question

• 10I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. 11I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13I can do everything through him who gives me strength. *

Clearly, Paul IS talking about being able to endure everything through Christ. It is not about performing miracles, though that may be part. It is about being able to endure until the end.

*How is it God’s fault that someone is incapable of having a child?

By the way, God NEVER forces anyone to do anything against their will. *

If God made them unable to conceive, it is His fault, right? And, you are saying that GOD REQUIRES people to be married and reproduce. If they are homosexual or never find the right one, what now? What if a gay man or woman wants to be a rabbi?

*Now, that truly is impossibilty. There is no way I can limit God. I can only limit myself.
And if you believe in THAT miracle, why are you even asking me if God would command of us the impossible. Again, If a virgin is capable of conceiving, then it is not impossible for ANY couple OR even single person to conceive a child. If it happened once, it is possible for it to happen again, thus there is no excuse for you to be clinging to. If a virgin conceiving happened, then it is true that ALL things ARE possible and perhaps it is your lack of faith that keeps ALL these things from happening.

Yeah? *

Nope. No miracle can be performed that is not because of God. It is not a man who does it, but God.

*Where does it say in the gospels that Jesus was not married? If it does not say these things that you are claiming, then you do NOT know for sure.

Thus, what is the difference between your speculating and our speculating? At least ours has a great deal of evidence to back it up rather than just the word of some men who have/are surrounded by fame and wealth (speaking of the men at the “headquarters” of the RCC). *
Nope. See, we have several things going for us on this. First, it never says it. True, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but there is more. Tradition from the EARLIEST times says that he was not married. What does that mean? The Apostles never taught he was married. If they had, we would know it today. Unless you think that the anti-marriage people destroyed all the proof.

If you are not going to own up to the 2nd and continue to insist that they were NOT married, then show me where it is written in the gospels that they were not married.

No need. YOU are the one asserting that WE are wrong. YOU must proove it. We hold the position of denfense. It is not up to us to show that we are right.

 

[simplynoone]

So, if it is better for Jews to marry non-Jews, why did Jews not marry non-Jews? Why in more insulated societies?

It is the mentality that you are not grasping onto in order to understand. I do not know where you live, but in most western civilizations, collective identity is not all that important. To the Jews, especially the Jews, religious identity along with cultural identity is VERY important. This is why Jesus said they were blessed. Because they lost their identity and were submissive (obedient) enough to come back via the entrance of a Gentile not to mention the knowledge that would be brought back from having been out among the Gentile nations.

And no one has ever told the mountain to be uprooted into the ocean. If you have faith that strong, you do not need to test it. There is no issue with the text. You are saying that if a Christian has faith and has a leg amputated, then Jesus will let him grow a new leg. That is NOT the intent of the passage.

*No, I am saying that if you believe that a virgin actually gave birth to a child, then their is no excuse for other miracles (especially those of a lesser intensity) to take place and according to the faith of the christians, well… it is all in the faith. How much do you really believe in God?

Me? I put my full trust in Him because I know that He will not work outside of His Laws. I have the grounding point. You do not if you believe that a baby was born from a mother who was not impregnated with the seed that comes from a man. Therefore, anything really is possible in your belief and that you do not actually believe everything is possible only goes to show that your logic is flawed. *

Clearly, Paul IS talking about being able to endure everything through Christ. It is not about performing miracles, though that may be part. It is about being able to endure until the end.

*You have not negated my point in the least. Let me try to break this down so that you can understand.

1. You asked if God would command the impossible.
2. Your reasoning for the question is that there are couples who can not conceive thus can not fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply.
3. You believe in a God that brought forth a baby from a woman not impregnated by a man.
4. Therefore, it is not impossible for any couple or individual woman to fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply.
5. Ephesians 6:16 I am throwing a dart at your faith. If it is possible for a virgin to conceive without a man, then there is no excuse that a couple can not bring forth as well if their God is the same God that brought forth the baby from the virgin.

If God is going to punish someone for breaking the Law, then why did He break it His own self by bringing forth a baby from a virgin? You say that it is God’s fault we can not keep the Laws and so HE breaks the Laws with the virgin birth to have them fulfilled for you, though they weren’t fulfilled for you if Jesus was not married. See, there is no stability within your line of thinking. In your view, God breaks Laws and but man can not. He is very sneaky, this God you serve.

From my perspective, this is really not even an issue. So, I am only obliging it because you asked. What do I believe? Man breaks Laws and God does not. A baby was not born of virgin. Jesus had a mother and father. If I am wrong, then this creation he has started is pointless and there is nothing to trust anyway. Malachi 3:6 can be tossed out the window as I wait for the ticking time bomb to go off. However, I know I am not wrong. *

If God made them unable to conceive, it is His fault, right? And, you are saying that GOD REQUIRES people to be married and reproduce. If they are homosexual or never find the right one, what now? What if a gay man or woman wants to be a rabbi?

Well, you are the ones who are so set on man being perfect and since we can’t be then either we believe in the God who breaks His own Laws or we are punished. So, this is your dilimna and not mine. You answer this one to me. You say Jesus fulfilled the Law for you, but if he was not married, then technically he didn’t and so, you might WANT to think about what you asked here above.

No need. YOU are the one asserting that WE are wrong. YOU must proove it. We hold the position of denfense. It is not up to us to show that we are right.

*I have shown you the evidence that they were married. I am fine with your position of Jesus not being married… it does not shake what I know to be true. It only has shaken the whole foundation of your faith since he did not technically fulfill the Law for all of you. You are the ones insisting that man MUST fufill the Law and since man CAN’T do it, Jesus did. If he did, then that proves my point… he was married, was fruitful, and multiplied.

If he was not married, then the whole of the NT falls apart since the Law was NOT fulfilled fully by him for mankind. Perhaps a better understanding of the beginning would help you to see the Light. I recommend Proverbs 2:1-7 to help you get started.*

 

[ralphinal]

It is the mentality that you are not grasping onto in order to understand. I do not know where you live, but in most western civilizations, collective identity is not all that important. To the Jews, especially the Jews, religious identity along with cultural identity is VERY important. This is why Jesus said they were blessed. Because they lost their identity and were submissive (obedient) enough to come back via the entrance of a Gentile not to mention the knowledge that would be brought back from having been out among the Gentile nations.

*No, I am saying that if you believe that a virgin actually gave birth to a child, then their is no excuse for other miracles (especially those of a lesser intensity) to take place and according to the faith of the christians, well… it is all in the faith. How much do you really believe in God?

Me? I put my full trust in Him because I know that He will not work outside of His Laws. I have the grounding point. You do not if you believe that a baby was born from a mother who was not impregnated with the seed that comes from a man. Therefore, anything really is possible in your belief and that you do not actually believe everything is possible only goes to show that your logic is flawed. *

*You have not negated my point in the least. Let me try to break this down so that you can understand.

1. You asked if God would command the impossible.
2. Your reasoning for the question is that there are couples who can not conceive thus can not fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply.
3. You believe in a God that brought forth a baby from a woman not impregnated by a man.
4. Therefore, it is not impossible for any couple or individual woman to fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply.
5. Ephesians 6:16 I am throwing a dart at your faith. If it is possible for a virgin to conceive without a man, then there is no excuse that a couple can not bring forth as well if their God is the same God that brought forth the baby from the virgin.

If God is going to punish someone for breaking the Law, then why did He break it His own self by bringing forth a baby from a virgin? You say that it is God’s fault we can not keep the Laws and so HE breaks the Laws with the virgin birth to have them fulfilled for you, though they weren’t fulfilled for you if Jesus was not married. See, there is no stability within your line of thinking. In your view, God breaks Laws and but man can not. He is very sneaky, this God you serve.

From my perspective, this is really not even an issue. So, I am only obliging it because you asked. What do I believe? Man breaks Laws and God does not. A baby was not born of virgin. Jesus had a mother and father. If I am wrong, then this creation he has started is pointless and there is nothing to trust anyway. Malachi 3:6 can be tossed out the window as I wait for the ticking time bomb to go off. However, I know I am not wrong. *

Well, you are the ones who are so set on man being perfect and since we can’t be then either we believe in the God who breaks His own Laws or we are punished. So, this is your dilimna and not mine. You answer this one to me. You say Jesus fulfilled the Law for you, but if he was not married, then technically he didn’t and so, you might WANT to think about what you asked here above.

*I have shown you the evidence that they were married. I am fine with your position of Jesus not being married… it does not shake what I know to be true. It only has shaken the whole foundation of your faith since he did not technically fulfill the Law for all of you. You are the ones insisting that man MUST fufill the Law and since man CAN’T do it, Jesus did. If he did, then that proves my point… he was married, was fruitful, and multiplied.

If he was not married, then the whole of the NT falls apart since the Law was NOT fulfilled fully by him for mankind. Perhaps a better understanding of the beginning would help you to see the Light. I recommend Proverbs 2:1-7 to help you get started.*

All of it comes down to that last bit. If man must be married and reproduce to keep the law (your statement, not mine), then God himself has made people who are unable to keep the law.

Show me how that statement is false.

 

[simplynoone]

All of it comes down to that last bit. If man must be married and reproduce to keep the law (your statement, not mine), then God himself has made people who are unable to keep the law.

Show me how that statement is false.

*Let me, again, clear up my view for you. I am not the moving target here. Mine is quite simple.

Jesus fulfilled the Law for himself, not mankind.
Jesus’ wife was Mary Magdalene.

Man breaks Laws, God does not.

So far, what I have of your stance is:

Jesus fulfilled the Law for all of mankind.
Jesus’ birth into the world broke the Laws of Nature.
Jesus did not fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply (which he would have to be married to do so since he was a religious Jew).
God breaks Laws and so does man, but man will be punished for in hell for breaking the Laws that God gave… but God broke them to save us by sending Jesus who actually did not fulfill the Law for mankind since one of the commands is to be fruitful and multiply. <— your stance (i think), certainly not mine. :blackeye:

If you need me to clear up my view, then I will do so… just let me know where; but do not expect ME to clear up your views because I can not do so. I do not know how to clear up a view that is so full of holes.*

 

[ralphinal]

*Let me, again, clear up my view for you. I am not the moving target here. Mine is quite simple.

Jesus fulfilled the Law for himself, not mankind.
Jesus’ wife was Mary Magdalene.

Man breaks Laws, God does not.

So far, what I have of your stance is:

Jesus fulfilled the Law for all of mankind.
Jesus’ birth into the world broke the Laws of Nature.
Jesus did not fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply (which he would have to be married to do so since he was a religious Jew).
God breaks Laws and so does man, but man will be punished for in hell for breaking the Laws that God gave… but God broke them to save us by sending Jesus who actually did not fulfill the Law for mankind since one of the commands is to be fruitful and multiply. <— your stance (i think), certainly not mine. :blackeye:

If you need me to clear up my view, then I will do so… just let me know where; but do not expect ME to clear up your views because I can not do so. I do not know how to clear up a view that is so full of holes.*

Step back. I am not asking about JEsus in this case. This is in general

True or False: Everyone who desires Marriage does marry.

True of False: Everyone who wants to have children has children

 

[simplynoone]

Step back. I am not asking about JEsus in this case. This is in general

True or False: Everyone who desires Marriage does marry.

True of False: Everyone who wants to have children has children

*Oh… well, in that case, I guess I am out. I am not interested in discussing everyone else. Whether or not everyone else is/not married is not as interesting considering they are not being declared God, having their “image” paraded around on a cross, claimed to be born of a virgin, and/or having their Love replaced with the selfish desires of another people whilst their identity is stripped from them. shrugs (BTW, False and false… you will not get anywhere with me concerning the topic at hand going this route). *

 

[ralphinal]

*Oh… well, in that case, I guess I am out. I am not interested in discussing everyone else. Whether or not everyone else is/not married is not as interesting considering they are not being declared God, having their “image” paraded around on a cross, claimed to be born of a virgin, and/or having their Love replaced with the selfish desires of another people whilst their identity is stripped from them. shrugs (BTW, False and false… you will not get anywhere with me concerning the topic at hand going this route). *

Actually, this IS valid and relevent to the point at hand. If you will follow along, you will understand why.

Now, if it is true that not everyone who desires marriage will marry, and not everyone who wants children will have them, are ALL of those who do not marry or do not have children in violation of God’s commandment?

 

[simplynoone]

Actually, this IS valid and relevent to the point at hand. If you will follow along, you will understand why.

Now, if it is true that not everyone who desires marriage will marry, and not everyone who wants children will have them, are ALL of those who do not marry or do not have children in violation of God’s commandment?

*Yes. *

 

[ralphinal]

*Yes. *

So, according to you, a person who seeks for a spouse and truly intends to marry, but never does, is in violation of God’s command?

And, a couple who tries for DECADES to conceive but does not is in violation of God’s command?

 

[simplynoone]

So, according to you, a person who seeks for a spouse and truly intends to marry, but never does, is in violation of God’s command?

And, a couple who tries for DECADES to conceive but does not is in violation of God’s command?

No, not according to me. God said to male and female, Be fruitful and multiply. This is a command of God. So, if one is not fruitful and does not multiply, they have not fulfilled the command of God… whatever the excuse or whatever the reason. Nature of Reason!

 

[ralphinal]

No, not according to me. God said to male and female, Be fruitful and multiply. This is a command of God. So, if one is not fruitful and does not multiply, they have not fulfilled the command of God… whatever the excuse or whatever the reason. Nature of Reason!

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?