Who is a fan of Moses?

[eternal_spirit]

[eternal_spirit]

The poll is now open.

[eternal_spirit]

No he was a fraud & a control freak - all those laws sheesh & punishments for not obeying.

The law was man made nothing to do with God.

My votes...

[eternal_spirit]

The Written Law is another name for the Torah. The Oral Law is a legal commentary on the Torah, explaining how its commandments are to be carried out. Common sense suggests that some sort of oral tradition was always needed to accompany the Written Law, because the Torah alone, even with its 613 commandments, is an insufficient guide to Jewish life. For example, the fourth of the Ten Commandments, ordains, "Remember the Sabbath day to make it holy" (Exodus 20:8). From the Sabbath's inclusion in the Ten Commandments, it is clear that the Torah regards it as an important holiday. Yet when one looks for the specific biblical laws regulating how to observe the day, one finds only injunctions against lighting a fire, going away from one's dwelling, cutting down a tree, plowing and harvesting. Would merely refraining from these few activities fulfill the biblical command to make the Sabbath holy? Indeed, the Sabbath rituals that are most commonly associated with holiness-lighting of candles, reciting the kiddush, and the reading of the weekly Torah portion are found not in the Torah, but in the Oral Law.




The Torah also is silent on many important subjects. We take it for granted that the large majority of couples want their wedding ceremony to be religious, but the Torah itself has nothing to say concerning a marriage ceremony. To be sure, the Torah presumes that people will get married — "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24) — but nowhere in the Torah is a marriage ceremony recorded. Only in the Oral Law do we find details on how to perform a Jewish wedding.
Without an oral tradition, some of the Torah's laws would be incomprehensible. In the Shema's first paragraph, the Bible instructs: "And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart. And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and you shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise up. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes" (see Deuteronomy 6:4­8).
"Bind them for a sign upon your hand," the last verse instructs. Bind what? The Torah doesn't say. "And they shall be for frontlets between your eyes." What are frontlets? The Hebrew word for frontlets, totafot is used three times in the Torah — always in this context (Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18) — and is as obscure as is the English. Only in the Oral Law do we learn that what a Jewish male should bind upon his hand and between his eyes are tefillin (phylacteries).
Finally, an Oral Law was needed to mitigate certain categorical Torah laws that would have caused grave problems if carried out literally. The Written Law, for example, demands an "eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:24). Did this imply that if one person accidentally blinded another, he should be blinded in return? That seems to be the Torah's wish. But the Oral Law explains that the verse must be understood as requiring monetary compensation: the value of an eye is what must be paid.
For these three reasons-the frequent lack of details in Torah legislation, the incomprehensibility of some terms in the Torah, and the objections to following some Torah laws literally — an Oral Law was always necessary.



Strangely enough, the Oral Law today is a written law, codified in the Mishna and Talmud. Orthodox Judaism believes that most of the oral traditions recorded in these books dates back to God's revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai. When God gave Moses the Torah, Orthodoxy teaches, He simultaneously provided him all the details found in the Oral Law. It is believed that Moses subsequently transmitted that Oral Law to his successor, Joshua, who transmitted it to his successor, in a chain that is still being carried on (Ethics of the Fathers 1:1).
Given this chain of authority, one might wonder why the Mishna and Talmud are filled with debates between rabbis; shouldn't they have all been recipients of the same, unambiguous tradition? Orthodox teachers respond that the debates came about either because students forgot some of the details transmitted by their teachers, or because the Oral Law lacks specific teachings on the issue being discussed.
While Conservative and Reform Judaism also believe that some kind of Oral Law was always necessary to make the Torah comprehensible and workable, they reject the belief that most of the Talmud dates back to Moses' time. They are more apt to see the Talmud and the Oral Law as an evolving system, in which successive generations of rabbis discussed and debated how to incorporate the Torah into their lives. Thus, they feel more free than the Orthodox to ignore, modify, or change the Oral Law.
The differing views of Orthodox and Conservative Judaism on both the antiquity and binding nature of the Oral Law are one of the major, perhaps the major, issues separating them.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../Oral_Law.html

[edelweiss]

I don't think he ever existed



http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=164400

[charlesb]

Originally Posted by eternal_spirit

Did this imply that if one person accidentally blinded another, he should be blinded in return? That seems to be the Torah's wish. But the Oral Law explains that the verse must be understood as requiring monetary compensation: the value of an eye is what must be paid.

Lev 24:19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;

The answer would seem to depend on the degree of causation. If intentional, the law should take effect as intended. If accidental, the degree of causation is diminished, even nullified if there was culpable behaviour on the part of the injured, so the full force of the law might not apply. That was for the judges to determine.

The law of Moses of morality formed the basis of most European law till the 19th century, and in economic terms, still applies in terms of rebtributive justice, except its now wholly economic.

Like it or not, the law of Moses is the foundation of law, except that in terms of sexual morals, it has been abandoned.

Anyone who disagrees with it is not coming anywhere near my wife.

[ragnarok]

I used to like Remi Moses. A good, hard-tackling midfielder, he was, and a local lad.

[edelweiss]

[eternal_spirit]

Originally Posted by charlesb

Lev 24:19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;

The answer would seem to depend on the degree of causation. If intentional, the law should take effect as intended. If accidental, the degree of causation is diminished, even nullified if there was culpable behaviour on the part of the injured, so the full force of the law might not apply. That was for the judges to determine.

So the most severe punishment back in the day would be an eye for an eye etc (literally)? a lesser punishment may be a fine or some form of compensation money or otherwise?
Or thrown out of court.

The law of Moses of morality formed the basis of most European law till the 19th century, and in economic terms, still applies in terms of rebtributive justice, except its now wholly economic.

No way is the whole of law derived from religious Mosaic law. Parts of it are.

Take the Jewish Sabbat laws they are highly illogical & that Kosher nonsense. They only apply to Jews.
Fairly long winded (standard for Judaic topics)

But to give an idea of how stupid the laws are, superstitious rot - note this is just laws concerning the Sabbat (Saturday)
Saturn-day
First two the rest at the link
http://www.ou.org/chagim/shabbat/thirtynine.htm

from the book "SABBATH Day of Eternity" by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (available separately, or included in the "The Aryeh Kaplan Anthology II," published by the NCSY (National Conference of Synagogue Youth)) Division of the Orthodox Union.

In order to present some idea of Sabbath rest, we will here outline the thirty-nine categories of ritual work. This is only the barest of outlines, and is meant to present the spirit, rather than the details of the law. For the latter, the appropriate codes should be consulted.
These are the thirty-nine categories:
THE CATEGORIES
In order to present some idea of Sabbath rest, we will here outline the thirty-nine categories of ritual work. This is only the barest of outlines, and is meant to present the spirit, rather than the details of the law. For the latter, the appropriate codes should be consulted.
These are the thirty-nine categories:
1. Carrying
This category involves carrying in a public place.
This is one of the few categories of work that is actually mentioned in the Torah. It is also the very first type of work that was prohibited.
As we discussed earlier, the initial commandment of the Sabbath was given in connection with the Manna. But what possible type of work was involved in gathering a portion of Manna for one's family? Obviously, this is carrying. Thus, when Moses told the people (Ex. 16:29), "Let no man leave his place on the seventh day," he was telling them that they could not carry the Manna. (Note 1)
The Torah also gives an account of a man who was put to death for gathering wood on the Sabbath. Here again, according to some commentators his violation of the Sabbath involved carrying. (Note 2)
In a third place, the Prophet Jeremiah specifically warns his people not to carry on the Sabbath. He says (Jer. 17:21-22), "Take heed and carry no burdens on the Sabbath ... Also do not carry any burden out of your houses on the Sabbath." (Note 3)
Carrying is really the prototype of all other types of Sabbath work. (Note 4) As mentioned earlier, the definition of such work is any act where man demonstrates his mastery over nature. But the first act by which man demonstrates such mastery is by taking things from nature and carrying them where he needs them. This was the deed of the man gathering wood. Therefore, if we are to relinquish our mastery over nature, the first requirement is that we not carry anything away.
In a sense, by not carrying, we also relinquish our ownership of everything in the world. A main sign of ownership is that one may take something wherever he pleases. On the Sabbath, we give up something of this ownership. Nothing may be removed from the house. When a man leaves his house, he may carry nothing but the clothing on his back. It is G-d, not man, who owns all things.
This category absolutely forbids all carrying in the street. Even such trivial things as a key or a handkerchief must be left at home. Certainly pocketbooks, purses, wallets and key-chains may not be carried. The only thing one may carry outdoors are things that are actually worn.
We can get some idea how serious carrying on the Sabbath is from the following law. When Rosh HaShanah falls on the Sabbath, the Shofar is not sounded. This was legislated by the Sanhedrin for a most interesting reason. Suppose that a synagogue has only one Shofar, and it became lost or damaged. Imagine the embarrassment and breach of ceremony involved in not being able to sound the Shofar on this most solemn day of Rosh HaShanah. How great the temptation to carry a replacement Shofar from another synagogue or from someone's home! But this would involve a gross violation of the Sabbath. To avoid this problem the Sanhedrin decreed that the Shofar never be sounded on the Sabbath at all.(Note 5)
Carrying in a private home is permitted on the Sabbath. It is only in a public domain that it is forbidden.
The spirit of the law, however, forbids the carrying or handling of unnecessary objects, even indoors. The Sanhedrin therefore legislated the categories of Muktza, things which may not be handled on the Sabbath. These include such useless things as pebbles and stones. They also include things which may not be used on the Sabbath, such as pencils, candles and money. (Note 6)
The spirit of the law also forbids the transfer of ownership, even inside a building. The Sanhedrin legislated a prohibition against all forms of buying, selling, trading and other commerce for a variety of reasons. The Sabbath must be a day when all business stops. (Note 7)
It is interesting to note that the prohibition against commerce is one of the few types of legislation actually recorded in the Bible. Thus, we find (Nechemiah 10:32), "If the (non-Jewish) natives of the land bring any goods or food to sell on the Sabbath day, we will buy nothing from them on the Sabbath or on any holy day." (Note 8)
BACK TO TOP
2. Burning
This involves making a fire or causing anything to burn.
Even throwing a toothpick into a fire is considered a violation of the Sabbath under this category.
This is another category of work mentioned specifically in the Torah, as we find (Ex. 35:3), "You shall not light a fire at home on the Sabbath day." (Note 9)
The use of fire is one of the prime ways in which man demonstrates his mastery over nature. Indeed, the use of fire is one of the cornerstones of human civilization. It is fire that allows man to extract energy, his most basic requirement, from nature. Thus, in a sense, it is also a prototype of Sabbath work. (Note 10)
Obviously, this category forbids such acts as striking a match or turning on a stove.
It also prohibits smoking on the Sabbath.
An automobile engine works by burning gasoline. Turning on the ignition and stepping on the accelerator causes it to burn. It is therefore forbidden to drive a car on the Sabbath.
Heating a piece of metal so that it glows is also in the category of burning.(Note 11) When an electric light is turned on, its filament is heated white hot, producing light. This is therefore forbidden on the Sabbath.
In general, any use of electricity violates the spirit of the Sabbath, since it involves extracting energy from nature. According to many authorities, electricity has the same status as fire with regard to the Sabbath. In any case, the practice of all observant Jews is to avoid turning any electrical appliance on or off. Since a telephone also works by electricity, it also should not be used. (Note 12)

Like it or not, the law of Moses is the foundation of law,except that in terms of sexual morals, it has been abandoned.

Anyone who disagrees with it is not coming anywhere near my wife.

I may disagree but assure you I have no intent towards your wife. Besides child brides were considered moral in the past.

Unless you're referring to adultery as immoral.

Originally Posted by ragnarok

I used to like Remi Moses. A good, hard-tackling midfielder, he was, and a local lad.

Man Utd of course.

[eternal_spirit]

Basically Mosaic law on circumcision applies only to Jews (Torah Old testament)

Christians who follow the New Testament (new covenant through the sacrifice of Jesus) & do not circumcise.

Old tetasment verses (Jewish Torah)
Genesis 17:10 (Genesis 17:10-14) This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
Acts 16:3
Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Romans 2:25
Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.


New Testament (Christian Bible)
1 Corinthians 7:18-19
Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.
Galatians 5:2
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.


Circumcision was connected with the Mosaic Law. Those who were circumcised in Old Testament times were considered part of Israel: they could participate in the Passover (Ex 12:43-49) and were required to keep the Law (Gal 5:3). Jesus' death and resurrection fulfilled the obligations of the Law and thus freed people from its rituals and external regulations (Lk 22:20, Heb 8:6-13, 9:15), so circumcision is no longer required. Not only Paul, but Peter, James and the other apostles and leaders agreed to make this official doctrine (Acts 15). Their decision was not arbitrary, but was based on Peter's vision from God and observation that the Holy Spirit was given to the uncircumcised (Acts 10:1-11:18). Is Paul's teaching on circumcision contradictory? Paul knew that circumcision was only an external sign that didn't mean anything in and of itself (Rom 2:28-29). Since the New Covenant was now in effect, circumcision was no longer a command, hence 1 Corinthians 7:19 isn't a contradiction. However, if Christian men were circumcised because they believed they had to obey the Mosaic Law in order to be saved, they were effectively saying Christ's sacrifice was not enough to save them.


In this case circumcision was an outward sign of their not trusting Christ. Paul told these men that circumcision would only help them if they could subsequently obey the entire law, for they were now depending on their own deeds to save them, not Christ. Reading Galatians 5:2 in context (Gal 5:2-6) makes this clear.
If Paul warned the Galatians not to have themselves circumcised in order to please Jews (Gal 6:12), why did he have Timothy circumcised for seemingly the same reason? Most likely, Paul's goal was to make his and Timothy's evangelism among the Jews easier.



The Jews would consider Timothy a Gentile because he was uncircumcised and his father was a Gentile, which meant they would not associate with him (Acts 10:28). Since these Jews were not yet Christians, and since Timothy understood that his salvation was through Christ and not through circumcision or obeying the law, Paul didn't have the same reasons to be concerned about it that he did with the Galatians. Circumcision ultimately meant nothing, so there was no harm in Timothy's doing it for the purposes of removing obstacles to evangelism (cf. 1 Cor 9:20-21).

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/circumcision.html
...............................


...................................




The Law had three aspects and 613 commands. The moral law was the commandments and Decalogue. The ceremonial law was about the tabernacle, feasts, priesthood, circumcision, sacrifices, etc. All pointed forward to Christ. The civil law was about such things as sanitation, crops, quarantine, diet, lawsuits, and crime.
The Law was a unit. To keep the Law, one had to keep all of it. Breaking one command made a person guilty:

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" (Gal. 3:10).

"For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law" (Gal. 5:3).

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (Jas. 2:10).

The Law was a rule of life, not a way of salvation. Neither Moses nor any other Jew was ever saved by keeping the Law. Abraham was saved by faith before the Mosaic Law was even given: "And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness" (Gen. 15:6). Moses was saved by faith in God's promises of blessing, and in his promises of forgiveness through sacrifice:

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul" (Lev. 17:11).

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22).

The shedding of the blood of animals pointed forward to the death of Christ, the per fect sacrifice for sin. Like Abraham, Moses was saved by grace, through faith in the promise of Messiah to come. But Moses proved, demonstrated, and gave evidence of his salvation by attempting to keep the Mosaic Law which was God's rule of life for Israel.





http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/ja...ld.Rom.16.html

[edelweiss]

Quite interesting stuff as well

Originally Posted by whale

Not sure I trust Michael tsarion, but here is some intersting stuff if true:

Moses - (drawer of the waters) - a name that implies the moon, is a fictive front for the concealed Solar personality - in other words - Akhenaton

Manetho states that Moses received his priestly education and learned all the wisdom of the Egyptians in the city of Heliopolis, in the Delta, the Biblical city of On...the House of the Sun - Godfrey Higgins

Jews believe and state openly that Moses was the author of the Hebrew Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament). He is also known to be the disseminator of the hidden Oral Tradition, that eventually inspired the Babylonian Talmud. But, as the great Sigmund Freud pointed out, and as we re-assert - MOSES WAS AKHENATON - the Bible is not a Jewish tome, but an Egyptian one. This is the great secret that has been kept from humankind for so long. The generations of alteration and re-editing by Josephus and Bacon and others has merely assisted in this truth being kept hidden. But when we understand the true identity of this Moses, we understand also the true authors of the Bible. This is the real reason why Bibles can be found on Masonic altars. It is not because Masons are Christians, but because they are Atonists, as are all Christians and Jews, regardless of what false notions the Vatican spin-doctors have connived and enforced. http://www.irishoriginsofcivilizatio...k2_chap41.html

The Ten Commandments of the Druids were almost identical with those given by God to Moses - Richard Kelley Hoskins http://www.irishoriginsofcivilizatio...symbolism.html

Terms such as Israel, Israelite, Jew, Judite, Yahud, Jehovah, Adonai, Aton, Amen, Elohim, Christ, Jesus, Messiah, Joshua, Isaac, David, Solomon, Moses, and so on, were originally Druidic or Aryan appellations. Some of these terms were titles denoting senior members of Druidic colleges. These terms were plagiarized and deliberately mistranslated to obscure the facts about the origins of religion. http://www.irishoriginsofcivilizatio...symbolism.html

The founder of Atonism was Pharaoh Akhenaton (Amenhotep IV). He appears in Jewish history as Moses, Zadok, and Melchizedek. He was not an enlightener, as ninety eight percent of the world's writers and historians apparently imagine. On the contrary, Akhenaton was a megalomaniac who ravaged Egypt and violently destroyed its many marvels. He was finally ousted from power and expelled from the country. As researcher Ralph Ellis has shown, the rise of Akhenaton's monotheistic beliefs and warped brand of solar theology coincided with an important astrological phenomenon, namely, the precessional transition of the sun out of the house of Taurus into Aries. http://www.irishoriginsofcivilizatio...symbolism.html

As far as we can judge with hindsight, the goal of the strategy was the complete substitution of the ruling class of the Roman Empire with the descendants of the priestly family that had survived the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. This was achieved in less that three centuries, by which time all the ancient religions had been eliminated and substituted with Christianity, and the primitive Roman nobility had been virtually annihilated and replaced by members of the family of priestly origin that had accumulated all the power and wealth of the Empire - Flavio Barbiero (The Secret Society of Moses)

The supreme head of the Mithraic organization was called the pater partum, or pope, and he resided in Rome in the Vatican grotto - Flavio Barbiero (The Secret Society of Moses)

The god Pan with the hooves and horns of the goat. Pan is yet another variation of the original forest god. Michelangelo depicted his Moses with goat horns. Did the great sculptor know that the horns symbolized godliness and wisdom? Was he letting us know that Moses, the great leader of the "Israelites" was, like his people, from the West?

Michelangelo's depiction of the Israelite Moses with goat horns, signifying the ancient god of the Aryans and Scythians. Let us remember the passage in Samuel (16:1-13), which reads: Zadok the priest took a horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. So, we see that kings of the ancient world, as well as Messiahs, were anointed with oil from a sacred horn.

Furthermore, Benjamin Franklin's code name was "Moses." His personal design for the American one-dollar-bill depicted the Israelites leaving Egypt during their exodus. (For more information on this, refer to Volume One, chapter forty two, and to our DVD entitled The Irish Origins of Civilization.)


Melchizedek: Like so many Biblical characters (Enoch, Abraham, Noah, David, Solomon, Joseph of Arimathea, and Jesus, and so on), he was based on the archetype of the Druid. Note the artist's incorporation of the tree and portal, which cryptically refer to Amenism and Druidism. Melchizedek is traditionally connected to the Tribe of Shem, which was made up of fair-skinned types. The word Shem is, however, probably a poor rendition of Khem, meaning Egypt, or of Shmn, meaning Hermopolis, the great city in Egypt. We believe Melchizedek, as he appears in the Bible, truly signifies Pharaoh Akhenaton, king of the Atonists. It might even signify Aton himself. As such, it serves the same purpose as the name Moses. And just as it is clear that there was no such man as Moses, as portrayed in the Old Testament stories, so we can assume there was no such entity as Melchizedek, as the Bible portrays him. Both fictive characters serve as place-holders for another who is not named. Those initiated into the mysteries, the higher members of the Church and the secret societies, know who is signified by these, and other, pseudonyms. In the painting, the figure of Melchizedek bears a solar halo and holds what appears to be a sun symbol, but which is, according to the Bible, an offering of bread. Abel holds the lamb which symbolizes Aries, the sign most sacred to Atonists. The central table is designed to appear like a cube. It is the ashlar, or altar, of Masonry. The ninety-degree "rules" at the base of the "table" also signify the Masonic fraternities.


The name Moses refers to a fictional character and not to a real individual. It is a fictive reference to Atonist Pharaoh Akhenaton. After Akhenaton's fall, his ideological and biological descendents found new homes and bastions of power in lands outside Egypt. It is our belief that the chiefs of Akhenaton's solar cult were welcomed by certain elite families in many countries, including Britain, Greece and Italy.

In Greek history we find mention of a semi-mythical character known as Musaeus. This name is probably a variant of Moses, and most likely denotes a descendent of Akhenaton, that is, a chief of Aton. This link with the Old Testament Moses was emphasized by several historians of antiquity, including the second century Jewish historian Artapanus of Alexandria, himself of Egyptian descent:

Artapanus in particular claimed that Moses stood behind the figure of the Greek Musaeus, the Egyptian Hermes-Thoth - B. E. Colless (Divine Education)

If, like the name Moses, Musaeus was a title rather than a personal name, we may credibly assume that other pseudonyms for Akhenaton can be found in history as well as in mythology. This is certainly the case with the Hebrew name Manasseh, which denotes one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Remove the letters "n" and "h" and we are left with Masse, which closely approximates the name Moses.

It then appears that in the Masoretic Text the name of Moses was changed to Manasseh - Flavio Barbiero (The Secret Society of Moses)

This link between the prophet Moses (Akhenaton) and the tribe of Manasseh is most significant given the fact that the emblem of the tribe is to be found on the American one dollar bill. It is the famous eagle with its arrows. http://www.irishoriginsofcivilizatio...symbolism.html

marks of aton http://www.taroscopes.com/miscellano...ksofaton1.html

[eternal_spirit]

Reads alot like Alan Watt the Scots views (Alan WATT) not the other man Watts.

[charlesb]

Originally Posted by eternal_spirit

So the most severe punishment back in the day would be an eye for an eye etc (literally)? a lesser punishment may be a fine or some form of compensation money or otherwise?
Or thrown out of court.

That's what I would have expected. For instance, a man who killed someone accidentally could flee to a designated city of refuge and escape justice.Jos 21:13 etc.

No way is the whole of law derived from religious Mosaic law. Parts of it are.

I said the moral or retributive law. I excluded the ceremonial law.

Take the Jewish Sabbat laws they are highly illogical & that Kosher nonsense. They only apply to Jews.

They don't actually apply at all, as they and justification by law were abolished for all by New Covenant cf epistle to the Galatians.

It is interesting to note that the prohibition against commerce is one of the few types of legislation actually recorded in the Bible. Thus, we find (Nechemiah 10:32), "If the (non-Jewish) natives of the land bring any goods or food to sell on the Sabbath day, we will buy nothing from them on the Sabbath or on any holy day." (Note 8)

As Christ said, the sabbath was made for man, and prhibition of commerce is one area where the Sabbath law can be put to good use.

An automobile engine works by burning gasoline. Turning on the ignition and stepping on the accelerator causes it to burn. It is therefore forbidden to drive a car on the Sabbath.

Only to those still living under the Old Covenant and seeking justification by works.

Besides child brides were considered moral in the past.

I don't find them per se immoral. Heck, if you found them immoral you'd be condemning the totality of mankind as immoral for the past 100,000 years except the last century. Rather, it is immoral to be adulterous or promiscuous.

Many people think that a woman who sleeps with someone else isn't bound in law to the partner, but if in fact it happens with parental consent, tacit of express, then it amounts to one of two things (a) it is de facto prostitution if there is no parental consent to marriage, or (b) it equates to the biblical concept of betrothment, and so "as good" as marriage, if there is parental consent to marriage. The couple are bound to get married in law. (cf Exodus, Deu 22:28).

It is interesting to note that there is no age of consent in the law of Moses. That is because marriage was a contract and contracts were for individuals to entertain. The age of consent only arose to protect children from ill effects of child prostitution. In a society where there is no prostitution, there is no need for an age of consent.

[octopusrex]

Law has nothing to do with God. Maybe some good shrooms and some basic hygene for desert dwelling sheep herders. But gimme a break. Idolatry?

[edelweiss]

The lizards are definitely fans of "Moses"


http://forum.davidicke.com/showthrea...post1059880449

[logos880]

Originally Posted by octopusrex

Law has nothing to do with God. Maybe some good shrooms and some basic hygene for desert dwelling sheep herders. But gimme a break. Idolatry?

Apart from God, how can there be law?? Without a standard of measurement everything is relative.

[charlesb]

Originally Posted by octopusrex

Law has nothing to do with God. Maybe some good shrooms and some basic hygene for desert dwelling sheep herders. But gimme a break. Idolatry?

Really? Stop showing your ignorance and your true nature.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Psa 1:1 Blessed [is] the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

Psa 1:2 But his delight [is] in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

[edelweiss]

Originally Posted by charlesb

Really? Stop showing your ignorance and your true nature.

Moses is a horned god. Why?

[charlesb]

Originally Posted by edelweiss

The lizards are definitely fans of "Moses"


http://forum.davidicke.com/showthrea...post1059880449

No way. The lizards rejected Moses long long ago. In fact, Moses is long forgotten by them. That diagram is just BS.

[edelweiss]

Originally Posted by charlesb

No way. The lizards rejected Moses long long ago. In fact, Moses is long forgotten by them.

But they are still worshipping the horned one, aren't they?