Meaning of "Us" in Genesis.

quote:

---

Salvation comes only by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

---

Belief is not a new invention of christianity, nor is faith and hope. Salvation comes either to all, eventually and via accumulated rectification, or from good deeds. And there can be no good deeds outside of the commandments - this is the only antidote against bad. It has nothing whatsoever to do with JC, one of many jews - not even a special one. You need something more than a name - and you have not yet put a single thing on the table to show what was special or unique about JC - did he have a new message - what is it? Did he do things others did not or more than others - what was that? You should be happy to know that their can be salvation for others independently of christianity - as your way deems that millions wont, because they are just not going to accept your way - as evidenced th last 2000 years: Millions gave their lives to uphold their beliefs. This means your advocation is far from good.

quote:

---

John 3:16 (KJV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

---

Why? Why would a good person who knows not JC and does not want to - not be saved? You have to imagine how you would respond - had you seen a million of your people perish, one of them being jesus - and a new religion asks of you to firget what you believe for 2000 years - this is the higher way of belief and thinking of Godliness - seeing the other side's views. If you cannot do what you ask of others - why ask it?What you have not included is the most essential factor: that more innocent humans were murdered in the name of Jesus that any other in geo-history. Not by Jesus, but in his name by his most fervent adherants. This is a fact even when disregarding Europe's last two worst centuries. Exclusivity is not God's way, and none should condone it. The salvation carot can blind and blackmail - it is based only on self interest. Love of god should have no inducements - else its not love but a motivated transaction. Do you love your parents subject to them leaving you an inheritance? So why do you think God would want this from you?

quote:

---

Man was already condemned in Adam.

---

No, man was not condemned. Death was pre-ordained, as with the fish, anmals, trees, stars, and everything which exists - and those items did not sin. Many blessed peoples arrived before JC, God revealed his law as never before or since, and made assurences and prophesies - all the OT prophess have come true. There has been no change to the world since christianity emerged - death, racism, villification continues more so than before. [quote] Jesus died that mankind might live. Be born of the Spirit.
I can name you some 30 religious groups who will never come to that point - even face death here and again after death opt for hell: the past has proven this - yet you demand it of them, and all it love and salvation? The only way this can be accepted is if the God of Sinai, who gave the law, reveals himself directly - with no agents. Then too, God would have to answer for a lot of things - because of the asect of Gd represents truth. This is what the jews demanded of Moses, and they got this revelation. Christians never demanded this of JC - they should have.I fully understand your belief is sincere, but that is not the issue. Its the other way around: you seem to think only christians have belief and others have not. I would be very fearful of condemning a good hindu, muslim or even a good athiest. The operable mode is not, to do unto others what is 'good unto you'. But:DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT IS HATEFUL TO YOU.And remember that christians rejected Islam - and vice verse. How can you demand of others what you could not do?Do you even realise, that if any jews supported you - they would still be called infidels by muslims - and that also equally applies if they followed Islam? This means which ever way the jews would have turned - they'd end up being the bad guys. Both of you cannot be right - you are both in contradiction of each other. Why not first saught yourselves out - then ask others to consider your cause? God gives us a choice - but christianity and islam does not!

What verse are you quoting in Exodus? This sounds like Exodus 3:14: Of course this is in the passage where God mysteriously appears to Moses in a burning bush. Though the bush was aflame in fire it was not burnt up. This is significant.The flamable bush and the burning flame co-exist together in union which both are preserved. Very interesting. I think it may be a symbol of the eventual incarnation of the eternal God in the created man in the Messiah Who is the real Divine Deliverer sent by God.If that is too much for the non-Christian, we can at least take it as an indication that Moses the man would be on fire with the Divine authority and holiness of God. Though a sinner he would not be destroyed but would lead the children of Israel.However, we believers in Jesus Christ cannot ignore the powerful testimony He bore and words He spoke. He even claimed the I AM for Himself, prompting some of the Jews to stone Him: Here we do have a problem. Jesus a man claiming to be the great I AM who was even before Abraham, let alone Moses. But is this a change in God for God was not a man?I am not sure how to answer this problem. I know that you do not believe that God changed. Yet the prophet Isaiah said that the child born would be called the Mighty God and the Son given would be called the Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6.Now if God changes not WHY would He have His prophet write that a born child, spending nine months in the flesh womb of a woman, being Himself flesh and blood, would be called Mighty God?And HOW could a Son be the Eternal Father?I anticipate that some would object that someone else, perhaps Hezekiah is refered to in Isaiah 9:6. That still does nothing to solve the problem of a born child being called Mighty God. The Mighty God is Jehovah. The proof being here: Can a little child curled up in the womb of a woman be called Mighty God? So the prophet of God tells us.Jesus not only said that He was the I AM. It may be easy to say. But He acted like Him. He behaved Himself as God come to us as a Man. The crowning achievement of this testimony was His resurrection from the dead after a cruel execution on the cross.Of course the Eternal Father cannot be ended. Of course the Mighty God cannot be destroyed. If ever a man acted like the great I AM THAT I AM it was Jesus of Nazareth.The other portion you quoted sounded to me like a reference to [b]Malachi 3:6: Some of us believe He is God-Man. But did God then change? It is a tough question.But I would ask the one who asks this. When God appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18 and had lunch with the patriarch - did that constitute a change for God? The rest of the chapter devulges how Abraham had a pleasant lunch with God in the heat of the day.Now did God change in this chapter of the Old Testament?Some have argued with me that one of those men was NOT Jehovah God at all. Rather they said that God appeared to Abraham apart from the three visitors. This makes no sense at all upon close examination. To believe this I must believe that Abraham was sitting and looking down and saw God. Then he would have lifted his eyes from looking at God and looked instead at the three men. Not only is this highly unlikely but it also calls for us the believer that Abraham looked up from seeing God, saw the three men, and LEFT the vision of God to run and meet the three men showing more respect for them, bowing his face to the ground."And Jehovah appeared to him bu tghe oaks of Mamre as he was sitting at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. AND HE LIFTED HIS EYES AND LOOKED, and there were three men ..."That God appeared to Abraham is the subject of what follows. How did God appear to Abraham? Abraham had to lift up his eyes from looking down and see the three men. The appearing of God had to be wrapped up in some way with the appearing of the men.Judging from the rest of the chapter and the 19th chapter, it was God plus two angels who came to visit Abraham.Did the great I AM change or not? I leave that for you to contemplate. All I know is that the New Testament tells us: I believe this the born child who is Mighty God and the given Son Who is the Eternal Father. Well, since God justified Abraham because of his believing in God, justification by faith would not be adding anything to the Old Testement. Would it? I say no, it would not be adding anything that was not already written there. [b]"And he [Abraham] BELIEVED Jehovah, and He [Jehovah] accounted it to him as RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Genesis 15:, my emphasis).Before LAW KEEPING = RIGHETOUSNESS we have Genesis 15:6 BELIEVING IN GOD = RIGHTEOUSNESS. So this is not adding anything to the Hebrew Scriptures.Abraham was justified because of his faith. And we have aleady seen that God placed the created man before the tree of life. So that God wants to dispense the divine and eternal life into man certainly is not adding anything to the Old Testament. Is it? I would say no, it is not adding anything that is not written there in Old Testament Scripture.Would it be to subtract anything to speak of justification by faith or the dispensing of God's life into man? Both the revelation of God dispensing life and man being justified by faith PRECEED the giving of the law of Moses on Mount Sanai. So to speak of theses original intentions of God is not to subtract. It is only to enumerate the matters of God in the sequence given to us in the Bible.If A + B + C + D + E is presented to me, and I point out that A + B + C PRECEEDS D + E, that is not to SUBTRACT D + E. There is no question that some ancients were pronounced righteous in the OT. One of the reasons was that they were forgiven. There sins were covered by their faith in the atoneing sacrifices prescribed in Leviticus of which Christ is the ultimate anti-type. He is the reality of all the old testament atoneing sacrifices.Being forgiven they were justified and declared righteous. But to be fair there were others who declared as righteous. But this must be taken on a relative scale.Look at it this way. You go into a pottery store. All the shelves have fallen over and all the pots are broken. Not one is left whole.Some are broken into 100 pieces. Some are broken into 30 pieces. Some are broken into 15 pieces. And some are broken into 10 pieces. Perhaps some are fortunate indeed. They are only broken into 2 or 3 pieces.Those broken in 2 pieces are less broken (or "more whole" ) then the ones broken in, say, 50 pieces. On a relative scale they are more whole. Yet the fact remains that they ALL are broken. Everyone of them is broken and none remain completely whole.This is the situation with mankind after the fall of Adam. Is it the New Testament that teaches this or the Old Testament itself? It is the Hebrew Bible which says so. The Apostle Paul only REMINDS us that this is what the Hebrew Scriptures taught: But Job was righteous. We all know that the man Job was righteous. Yes in a relative sense compared to his companions. That was until the more penetrating light of God shown deeper into his being. Then what did our "righteous" Job say? It only took him 42 chapters to come to the realization that he wasn't really that righteous after all.So we have to understand the ones declared righteous by OT Scripture in a comparative context. David was a man after God's own heart. Yet he said he was brought forth from the womb in inituity and in sin his mother conceived him. (See Psalm 51).Solomon confesses that God made man upright originally but all men have become subtle, tricky, and prone to seek out underhanded ways:"See, this alone have I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes." (Ecc. 7:29) In the final analysis we are all compared to the Son of God. Compared to the Son in Whom the Father is well pleased, we all fall short. We are all in trouble of judgement. Only Christ was perfect. He was not only righteous. He was GLORIOUS. All fallen men are not glorious and have all fallen short of the glory of God.So I agree that some here and there were definitely said to be righteous. But all were and are in need of justification because God's perfection is absolute. And only the Son of God was the one pleasing to the Father to the uttermost. So He is the spotless Lamb who is the end of the law to rightouesness to everyone who believes. This is what Scripture says. God has affixed a time in which He will judge the living and the dead by the man Jesus. That makes Jesus applicable to all human beings so far as the One before Whom we all must stand to be judged: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hi Joseph, I can name you some 34,000 religious groups that will never come to that point. That is beside the point.The "US" that made man in Genesis 1:26.Who walked and talked with the first man made the rules.The first man was commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He disobeyed and thus was separated from the presence of God as God can not have sin in His presence. All mankind was separated from God by this man's disobedience.Because you do not believe there was an "US" in Genesis you do not believe and accept Jesus as Messiah. I have many Jewish friends who have accepted Jesus as the Messiah. They are considered infidels by their family's and friend's. It makes no difference whether I am sincere or not. It makes no difference what I believe. The only thing that counts is what God says.God had aparantly set forth how offerings were to be made to Him when the first man was kicked out of the garden.
Cain offered the best he had. Able offered the best he had. God accepted what Abel offered but refused what Cain offered. Cain killed Abel thus saying God now you must accept what I offer. It didn't work that way then nor does it work that way now.If you want to please the "US" in Genesis 1:26 you have to do things the way he says. The innocent humans you are talking about were born again children of God who would not renounce their belief in Jesus and believe the way the Roman Catholic Church said you had to believe. There was between 5 million and 50 million of them.The "US" in Genesis 1:26 tells us in the OT: You talk about a good man, God says there is no such thing.So how do you propose that man pay for this sin and be allowed in the presence of God? As I understand from your posts, you are saying man can be good enough. God says otherwise.You believe in your good deeds and good works all you want too. Until you are willing to believe the "US" in Genesis 1:26 you are separated from God, and will be separated from God for all eternity.We will stand before the "US" of Genesis 1:26 and give an account of our lives and whether we have believed Him and accepted His WordYou do your good works believing your good works will square things with God and make you acceptable to Him.I do my good works to show to the world that I have received Jesus Christ as my personal savior not for reward.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

If that is too much for the non-Christian, we can at least take it as an indication that Moses the man would be on fire with the Divine authority and holiness of God. Though a sinner he would not be destroyed but would lead the children of Israel.

---

Moses would be on fire if that was the intention. The aspect of sinning is misunderstood by most. It only applies to how one behaves *after* the sin; here, sin becomes an exit valve to save. Those who never sin - are not saveable or possess any merit whatsever: there is a saying by the sages, that one who has total good luck for seven years should be very weary. The other factor concerning sin is it cannot be dislodged from the sinner and become cleansed by another ['ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH SHALL PAY']; this only applies to good tidings on behalf of the other which can be passed on, as in the merit of a rightious person. But sin is only cleansed when the sinner repents and when that person he sinned against is appeased: in the absence of this one cannot beget cleansing by approaching the divine. Of course, conditions apply. Thus the saying:'WHERE A REPENTENT SINNER STANDS - THE MOST RIGHTIOUS CANNOT'

quote:

---

Before Abraham came into being, I am.

---

In all cases, whenever a belief antithesis factual historical truth - it looses crediblility. A belief can be without proof, but not when there is antitheitcal proof.I see that muslims address Moses as a muslim - qualifying it with 'BY BELIEF'. What is wrong with this? There is no question that muslim rever Moses, so this is not the issue. But there are two other factors here which impact.1. That the statement contradicts the historical factor [Islam never existed for 2100 years after Moses]; and there is no mention of Moses' Hebrrew ethnicity in that statement - making it a sort of lie-by-omission.2. The other factor is the term 'by belief' itself: the pre-islamic peoples never followed any of the beliefs of Moses for 2000 years.This applies to all other instances where the term BELIEF is used. If it contradicts known, historical factors - then the term belief cannot be the transcendent factor. This is why the first moral/ethical command from Sinai referred to honesty. Thus it must also be seen to be true, with no instances of prevailing antithesis, before using the term BELIEF.It is very easy to use the term belief and get away with anything one wants - thus the need to be extremely careful not to dent truth. Here, being a stiff-necked for truth becomes a virtue. We find that the ancient Hebrews never accepted Moses' word per se - they insisted Moses cannot talk for the Creator - even when great miracles were shown. The hebrews were right - because when they did get proof - there has never been any who have equalled their beliefs. The demand for verification by the hebrews was fully vindicated: Moses was asked to stand down among the people when the revelation was made at Sinai.This may sound very sever today and can upset some, specally when we see a 2000 year belief by christians almost totally based on belief - yet being totally genune and sincere. But there is another aspect to this - it is also the strongest proof to uplift christian beliefs - because in the end, truth cannot be weakened, and remains the first priority. If its quest does not precede belief - the belief suffers. If one sees another raising an issue, but genuinely based on the pursuit of truth - then that is one's best friend. It is far better to have an honest disagreement - thn a dishonest agreement.'A FALSEOOD AND THE HOLY ONE CANNOT ABIDE TOGETHER'

quote:

---

It makes no difference whether I am sincere or not. It makes no difference what I believe. The only thing that counts is what God says.

---

Correct. And there is nothing which can replace what God says, and there is nothing one can put forth of what God said, than what God said in the opening words of The Ten Commandments. Anything which contradicts this - on any level - cannot be what God said.The point here is not to discredit anyone else - but that those who uphold this premise - must be respected to the fullest exent, even when it may appear to contradict what another believes. Because it is also 100% sincere and genune, for the lingest period of time, and had to sustain itself against far greater opposition than anyone else.Interestingly,the first two words of the spoken word of God - in OPEN form before a multidue of millions - are not in Hebrew but ancient Egyptian [ANO CHI/I AM]. The reason is because the Pharoah did not speak Hebrew, but declared himself divine. Those two words were addressed to the Pharoah. At that time, the egyptian nation sincerely believed the pharoah to be divine, and the Hebrews were seen as non-believers, and thus persecuted. The ancient egyptians were not punished because of wrong belief - because they genuinely held those beliefs and would have been innocent of the charge; they were punished for other reasons, such as disrespect for other humans, slavery, brutality, genocide, etc.We learn from this, no one can be castigated only for possessing a wrong belief or one which is seen as wrong; and no one can be saved and glorified for any particular belief - even if that belief is eventually proven to be true and correct, even if it is the only true and correct one.It appears strange that christians would point fingers at those who have another belief - solely by that factor. This becomes even more strange when we find that two religions [NT & Quran] not only contradict the precedent OT - but they also contradict each other. Here, forebearence must rule - not self esteem, because there are blatant deficiencies, and this cannot be blamed on its victims.

Hi Joseph, What was the Laws, Statutes, Charge, and Commandments that Abraham obeyed? Gen. 26:5What was the Commandments and Statutes Moses talked about in Exodus 15:26?What was the Commandments and Laws God asked Moses about in Exodus 16:28?All this was prior to the ten commandments being given.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

GEN. 26/5 because that Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.'

---

Abraham was given ten tests - the last one of offering his son. Aside from the tests, there were already some commandments, but these were yet to be officialised to the world, which occured at Sinai. These are someties referred to as the Noachic laws, which were expanded with Abraham, and included Monotheism [One God]; not to consume a live animal; forbiddence of adultry; circumcision - which refers to the promise of a homeland. The harkening refers to Abraham told to leave/abandon his homeland, community and its prevailing beliefs - and for a destination unknown and unspecified: he was only told to go to the next town and then will be told further where to go. The statute refers to listening to his wife - even as it was a grevious thing ['And Abraham grieved] what Sarah asked of him - thus the statute, 'WHATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT'/ Gen. This means a man must respect his wife's word more than anything - because even the great Patriach was told, IOW, his wife, a prophetess in her own right, saw further than him what was God's will. This also places an ironic implication re the percieved sin of Eve.The same occured with Rebecca, who over-turned Isaac's role by switching her twin sons' positions concerning the prime blessing of spiritual rather than wealth and power. This was also against the prevailing law which gave this right to the first born [Jacob emerged 7 seconds after Esau, clinging to his heel; Yakov means the heel]. It is a commendable mark of the OT which openly describes and acknowledges this occured by a percieved deciet - this is no candy coated document which shies away from any deficiencies of the Hebrews. But Rebecca was fully vindicated - by Isaac and by Esau, and but for her singular action, there would be no Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Thus Rebecca saw further than Isaach of God's will. Thus the ultimate power is vested in the woman - the final and epitomy of creation, with the vessel of life in her bossom - which represents the future of humanity: obviously, the insight of the future must be placed where it is most required. Rebecca again shows the woman's spiritual insight transcends that of man.So by this time, the factor of Monotheism, in the face of a world pervasive of polytheism, became a most dangerous and existential factor - making physical life and spiritual life in total contradiction of each other. In this sense, both christianity and Islam owe heaps to the Jews for remaining steadfast of it - and this must be placed foremost in the consideration how they reacted to early christianity. One must ask themselves how they would react, had they been as jews for 2000 years, putting life and nation on the line on nemerous instances before christianity emerged. This consideration must be made with its primal premise being HONESTY - which makes belief nullified without it. When one considers the matter - Jews would have been wrong and bad which ever way they turned, to christians or to Islam - two contradicting doctrines. Thus it is upto the contradictng parties to first get their act together - before they can present a legitimate belief to others. The second factor applicable is the respect of another belief: the aspect of respect having no merit when applied only to one's neighbour. Therein is the rub. In the end - all have encumberences to recitify!

quote:

---

EX. 15/26. 26 and He said: 'If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in His eyes, and wilt give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases upon thee, which I have put upon the Egyptians; for I am the LORD that healeth thee.' {S}

---

That Abraham passed the abve mentioned conditions, is seen from the first words spoken to Moses in the burning bush episode. Moses was told, I AM THE GD OF ABRAHAM. Thus Abraham was vindicated, and simultainiously Moses was shown God is transcendent of time and space: Abraham lived 400 years before Moses, and in another country - and here we also find the covenant ratifed with 'I A THE LRD I HVE NOT CHANGED'.

quote:

---

28 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'How long refuse ye to keep My commandments and My laws?

---

This refers to the then barbaric, rebelious, slave mentality the Hebrews were reduced to; the sages have said that had they not been saved at this time - they would have forgotten their past beliefs - this shows God is omniscient and understnds the meaning of time is of the essence. The 'ye' does not apply to Moses but the people. The mesage here is, that God considers the nature of man and his situation. Here, one must consider what the sabbath law entailed: it was totally alien not just for slaves - who had no day of rest in Egypt, but it would have been alien to anyone in any generation, the meaning of 'NO WORK OF ANY MANNER' being an enigma to determine even today: have a go! That is why it appears strange that the NT picked on rowdy money changers and neglected the plight of the Jews before Rome. In contrast, neigher God nor Moses forsaked these rowdy Hebrews.But without question, all that occured with Abraham was alligned with its culmination at Sinai.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

And this is why some of us pay attention to what else God has said, for example here: Exactly. This is why some of us revere the promise of God to establish a new covenant with the house of Israel according the the prophecy of Jeremiah. The full extent of appreciation of the words of God demand that we respect His promise to establish after the old covenant a new covenant. "I AM THAT I AM" in the book of Exodus were far from the "first" two words spoken by God. Before He said this He said "Let Us make man in our image ..." in Genesis. And before that He said "Let there be light ..."Why do you say that "I AM" were the first of His words? This may be true incidently. However the directions of God was that this was the name that Moses was to tell the Israelites Who had sent him [Moses] to deliver them from Pharoah: I sense that you do love the word of God. I encourage you to be careful to check your facts in your debating Christians. This name "I AM" was given primarily for the sake of "the children of Israel" according to the passage. God made Himself known to the Egyptians through the ten signs which He had Moses perform as judgments. They grew encreasingly severe. They encreased in severity until the last sign caused the firstborn of Egypt to die if they did not heed the warning to place the blood upon the doorpost.The judging angel of death would passover ANY house that had the blood upon the lintel. So the believing Egyptions by that time seemed to be held responsible for recognizing that the God of Moses was God.We are told that they left Egypt a "mixed multitude" (Exo. 12:38). So we know that some of the Egyptians heeded the divine warning of the passover. Whether they went into the houses of Jews or protected their own homes with the blood, I am not sure. However, some of the Egyptians who obeyed the warning of Moses had their firstborn sons spared. They left Egypt with the Hebrews as a mixed multitude.Once again. I encourage you to check your biblical facts carefully, especially if you feel you have something with which to educate Christians, (or anyone for that matter). You're a little freewheeling and loose with some of your biblical information. Others have asked you to tighten up I think. As I pointed out, by the time of the tenth plague God did appear to hold the Egyptians responsible. Otherwise I do not think that ANY Egyptian would have participated in the leaving Exodus.Do you think that there is a problem with this logic? It was actually the stubburness of Pharoah which caused the misery of his countrymen. Before you accuse, get your biblical facts right, please. Otherwise you become guilty of the very charge that you are trying to level at Christians. Be careful of your biblical FACTS IamJoseph in your debates with Christians.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Indeed, days are coming, declares Jehovah, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by their hand to bring them from the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was their Husband, declares Jehovah.

---

Grammer was introduced in the OT. Focus on words such as:'DECLARES JEHOVA''WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH''WHEN "I" WILL''MY COVENANT'Those words cannot be related to JC or Mohammed: it would make no sense to the people it addressed, 2600 years earlier [HE SPEAKETH IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLES]. Would you accept a directive today - but which applies 3000 years in the future? A new covenant will indeed come, and these cannot be made via percieved agents. Christians must know this - else they would not have rejected Mohammed and looked to JC for affirmation. It means the new covenant's veracity can only be made with the inclusion of the aforesaid House of Judah - at least that they are addressed also - in OPEN form and directly. Heaven knows this - they are stiff-necked and never accepted Moses w/o a OPEN AND DIRECT revelation. Heaven also knows they are fastedious once impressed. However, neigher christians nor muslims will want to hear of such a view. Tell me about it! But I say it as a valid held belief for the longest period of time, and with the history f the greatest defense of belief - as was seen against Mighty Rome.

quote:

---

which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares Jehoavah: I will put My law ion their inward parts and write it upon their hearts;

---

The law will be put in the hearts of the house of Israel.In fact this in its time related to the Babylon destruction - when there was a horrific Exile - and Jeremiaya comforted them it will not be forever. The people were returned - babylon was not. If one has a pre-concieved idea and is only inclined for all things to meet that end point - they cannot be assumed to interpret Jeremaiya with an arms length purity: there is a judicial commandment requiring an arms length - even accepted in law courts today - and there is no question both christianity and islam have a motive to read otherwise. An error was thus also made with Isaiah. I say - there is at least an equal chance, the jewish interpretation is the valid one here - or that it must be considered as being one of the valid ones. Dismissing it out of hand is hardly credible. It is the cause of all religious conflict today.The new covenant is also about the end of days - and the criteria for a messiah must be seen not selectvely, but in all of jeremiaya and isaiah texts applying. Be assured the resurrection, applied to all humanity - does not relate to the messiah himeself. What is signified there is - humanity will experience a Sinai mode revelation - this time unto all humanity. And we should not accept or expect anything less. It is not about christians, muslims or jews any more - it is for all humanity and for all life in general. Humanity must agree to reject any covenant made to any one people and not in OPEN form - our defense f it is to avoid the history which destroyed millions and created chaos. We have to fight not for our preferred wish list - but to save all - this is the Abrahamic way - and why he was blessed more than Noah - who did NOT strive with Heaven to save humanity. I tell you this even as the world at large disdain the so-called chosen aspect of the OT: I agree with them. Perhaps its a test. I do NOT want to be saved and humanity at large foresaken.

quote:

---

"I AM THAT I AM" in the book of Exodus were far from the "first" two words spoken by God. Before He said this He said "Let Us make man in our image ..." in Genesis. And before that He said "Let there be light ..."

​

Why do you say that "I AM" were the first of His words?

---

That was the first 'OPEN' form revelation [the words I used previously] - this never happened before or since. The follow up revelation must thus only be in that mode - else everyone will demand their own preferred savior and wish list - and the chaotic cycle will continue - thus it will not be revelation to save but one which destroys only - as is the case today - each wants to negate and disdain the other. The three M/E religions have caused enough chaos and calamity - we have to consider a better mode for humanity notto repeat that horrific history again. Even if a Messiah tepts us here. We are not robots, but one who must make choices - else there is no merit.The 'I AM' was first made in the book of Exodus. The other previous revelations are written as retrospectives of their space-times - and none of them were OPEN revelations - meaning in the sight of millions, and not shrouded. The OPEN transcends all shrouded revelations. The return of Israel must thus be seen as the only OPEN revelation the last 2000 years, even if it reverses certain beliefs - it occured in the sight of millions, and it should be acknowledged as such - even if this is percieved as a negative from another's religious pov. We can see from the opposition of it - why only a Sinai type revelation will satisfy. One can say, these are tests unto humanity.

quote:

---

I sense that you do love the word of God. I encourage you to be careful to check your facts in your debating Christians. This name "I AM" was given primarily for the sake of "the children of Israel" according to the passage.

---

My friend, I am giving you the other side of the coin, and as I said before, an honest disagreement beats a dishnest agreement. Christians, like all of us, are first bound to truthfulness - this overides all subsequent beliefs - else that that is a wrng belief. And this means it will stand even when it is not a preferred truth.The 'I AM' is infact what you call JEHOVA. There is no such word as jehova, it is an abbreviation of the 13 Attributes disclosed to Moses [the cleft of the mount episode], which is the ineffable name - an entire sentence, including attributes such as mercy, forgiveness, longsffering, truth and MY JUSTICE SHALL NOT SUFFER. The abbreviation was devised so as not to take the name in vain. Later, christianity gave phonation to the 'abbreviation' of the hebrew I AM THAT I AM. Its like pronouncing FBI [FED BUR OF INVESTIGATION] as fbi. You fbi'ed the name. Its ok - it was done with a genuine intention. The NT should have been written in Hebrew - its what jesus spoke, and there are certain aspects to the OT which cannot be understood via the latin-then-english translation. Specially not if it is interpreted according to christianity's end point for any validity: you see how Islam's interpretation is again a variant from both the OT and the NT. And where do we go from here?

quote:

---

They left Egypt with the Hebrews as a mixed multitude.

---

No contest. In fact, Pharoah himself was spared, and he ended up renouncing his kingship and went on to spread the word of God. So did some of his priests, such as Jetro, who became Moses' father in law later. I am not speaking for or against any side - just giving you another held valid view. It is obvious all cannot be correct, yet all have the same fervent and unshakable beleoefs they are solely correct. Here, the pursuit of truthfullness only applies when it becomes grevious to bear. Yet there must be a light at the end of the tunnel - even if truth becomes grevious. You must agree - all cannot be equally right!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

IAJ, I tried to find out from the Bible if it says that Pharoah died or not in the Red Sea. So far I have not been able to determine definitely one way or another.From where do you get your information that Pharoah was spared and went to spread the faith of the Hebrews? I never heard that.Understand that I believe it is probable that some Egyptians did make Yahweh's acts known to the world. And the conspicious absence of this account from Egypt's own history suggest possibly the royal embaressment of seeing Pharoah and his kingdom so sorely defeated by the diety of thier slaves.Of course I knew that in the motion picture The Ten Commandments Pharoah is spared. But I never get my biblical facts from movies. I check the Bible.I am pretty sure that Jethro was NOT one of Pharoah's priests.Jethro was the father-in-law of Moses. But his relationship with Moses was amiable before the Exodus. Jethro's relationship with Moses preceeded the plagues and the Exodus which plagues were not directed towards the Midianites.Jethro was a priest of Midian (Exodus 3:1) with whom Moses was aquainted in the 40 years of his life before he returned to be God's savior to the Israelites in Egypt. Am I correct?I will have to take up the matter of Jeremiah's prophecy of the new covenant latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I am sure you are well read, however, there is the oral law, derived directly from Moses, and later put to writings - the long queues in the deserts, refered to in the OT, of the Hebrews asking Moses for further explanations of laws given intermittently - refers to the oral laws. This was not taken on board by christianity, due to its variant views. These are contained in books called the Medrash and the Talmud - both writings banned by the medevial church.The Pharoah lived to a ripe old age, and Jetro was a priest in the phaoroh's kingdom, under a different name, before meeting Moses - he converted to the Hebrew religion when he visited Moses and brought Moses' wife along. One of the 613 Commandments was introduced by Jetro - namely the law of delegations, which applies to captains of 10,000, 1000 and 100.To summarise my point re 'US' - I cannot help feel this is held by christianity to ratify the trinity and divine man, being a retrospctive conclusion. If it becomes ratified or negated - it destroys at least two of the three religions. Eg: if the NT core doctrine is negated - both christianity and islam fall - because Islam backs 50% of the NT; if it stands - than Judaism and Islam fall. Scary, is it not?The entire body of the OT texts focuses very clearly in a mode which has a problem with the NT - I believe a core dfference was placed to seperate these religions and form an additional, new one. It does not allign with the OT - but this is fine, and it only means christianity is another path to the Godhead. No two religions can be the same, and it does not mean a variance makes one wrong. If the doctrines of the NT were accepted in Judaism, there would be no christianity, and millions of Europeans would still be clinging to Hellenism or Romanism. So a belief system came here, as a mysterious compulsion, in accordance with what the peoples could allign with. Both are Godly inclined. But if the variance was not strong, there would not be the new religion, thus it had to be irreconsiliable.I believe none of the early adherants of those religions knew what the cnsequences of ther beliefs and writings would entail in the future.The difficulty arose when christianity made conditions it is the only right way and said too many false and incorrect reportings of Judaism, including deicide, blood libels, the Protocols, etc. These false stories are now pervasive in the muslim world - and it is the task of christians to correct it - because it came from European christianity. All have been proven false - but those days of bad things are slowly being erased, and christianity is pointing in a mode where it looses its insecurity of tolerating other beliefs. Attracting a convert must be only via example, with no inducements - and must be made difficult in the beginning before accepting one: we learn this from the book of Ruth. Three tests must be applied to determine if it is genuine, and leaving the religion must be also made easy. lse the truthful path becomes weakened, and size alone will not matter.Christianity and judaism have more in common than any other two religions, representing the twins Esau and Jacob, christianity being an offshoot of its mother religion, Judaism. The reason is, aside from variant interpretations, christianity did not do a cut and paste job on the OT, and took it in tact - in accordance with the law not to add or subtract. Amazingly, the same core factor of variance emerged with Islam - and these variances are seen with Islam and both christianity and Judaism - and clearly all three are irreconsilable. Thus there is a mysterious force operating here, and the exacting, clinical cuts do not appear man made: if these core variances are forcibly removed, they negate the religion/s. A fulcrum core factor was placed, it appears purposely from the power that be - and none are to be balmed for this. Both are genuine.The applicable factor, whether our egos like it or not, is the prophesy, ABRAHAM SHALL BE THE FATHER OF MANY NATIONS. If revelation stopped with christianity or islam - there word 'MANY' would loose its credibility. Consider that 'MANY DAYS' in the desert, refered to in the OT, was 40 years for the Hebrews. The term Brahman is also alligned with Abraham; Consider the verse: 'And Abraham sent gifts [of knowledge] eastward'. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

IAJ, I believe that this refers to the the New Testament which is the new covenant enacted by Jesus Christ Who is its executor. Concerning this I have much to say.I have absolutely nothing to say to you about Mohammed. You are now speaking with a disciples of Jesus. So do not expect me to defend Islam.Now one thing that puzzles me is that you say the prophecy would make no sense to the people then. That to me makes no sense. Then you might as well say that NO prophecy of God made sense to the contemporary people.You might as well say that all the prophetic promises that God told Abraham made no sense to Abraham. That is absurd. I will grant you that they did not understand all the details. I will grant the neither did Abraham clearly know HOW God was going to accomplish the birth of a son from a childless couple, or how He would secure the land of Canaan for the Hebrews. But he UNDERSTOOD the basics of the promise.For you to say that the prophecy of Jeremiah would make no sense to the audience of Jeremiah is absurd. They had a general idea of a genral promise of God that the old covenant enacted at Sinai would be superceeded by some "new covenant" which was to come.That much they understood. Why could they not understand that?They probably understood that this new covenant would consist of four parts:1.) God will put His law into their hearts. And according to this inward installation of His law they would be His people.Now they must have had an idea that God would do something so that there was more of a subjective, inward, and intimate inclination to obey God.I will grant you that they did not know HOW God was going to do this or perhaps what it would be like. But I do not go along with you that the prophecy made no sense. It made sense because they knew that their WAS a problem with thier wayward hearts. Otherwise they would not have been disciplined to be carried off to Babylon if there were no problem with their heart and God's law.2.) No longer will each teach his neighber to know the Lord. For all shall have a inward and subjective knowledge of God -"... for all of them shall know Me, from the little one among them to the great one among them." Social status has nothing to do with this new inward knowledge of God. All ranks of people will know God inwardly in their hearts having no need to be taught outwardly and objectively only to know the Lord. As the priest so it will be with the carpenter, shepherd, school child, young woman, etc ... all of them shall know Me.Do you recall how Moses told Joshua that he desired that ALL the people of the camp of Israel could prophecy and that God would put His Spirit upon all of them? So it was an age old aspiration of the man of God that God would bless every level of status of the people with an intimate encounter with the Spirit of God.The new covenant is therefore really God intending to go back to His original purpose for Israel. He had wanted them all to be a kingdom of priests. Because of their overall failure He had to secure the tribe of Levi. He had to restrict the blessing to a single tribe which was orginally intended for the whole nation.The new covenant is God coming back to His original desire. Man was placed before the tree of life so that God might dispense His life into man.This dispensing of the life of God into man is the writing of His law in their hearts and inscribing it on their inward parts. Only what is LIVING can be written on the inward parts of living people.4.) According to this new covenant the sins of the people would be remembered no longer. This covenant not only causes God to forgive sins but to forget them. He would simply not remember thier sins."... for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sins I will rememver no more." When God forgets something it is really gone forever. It is cast into the sea of His forgetfulness. This new covenant insures that the sins of the people will be fully forgiven and divinely FORGOTTEN forever by God.Perhaps I will show why we Christians are sure that this is the new covenant enacted in the blood of Christ and in the imparting of the Spirit of Christ in the New Testament Gospel.All four elements of the prophesied new covenant are clearly and strongly taught in the New Testament.The new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah is the impartation of the Son of God as the life giving Spirit - [b]"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45).[/qs] This covenant did indeed come to the house of Israel. But only a remnant now believe and the message went out to the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles is finished. Then Israel will turn to the Messiah Whom they largely missed.Jesus enacted the new covenant in His death and resurrection: Today God can forget our sins totally. He does so not because He is loose and permissive about our sins. It is because on the cross of Jesus Christ our sins were judged by God. Justice has prevailed against our sins. Justice has been imputed on man's behalf in the death of Christ.If we receive this plan of salvation it is as if God says " Your sins? I don't even remember your sins any longer. The problem of your sins was dealt with 2,000 years ago in Calvary where the Son of God, Jesus Christ, poured out His blood for your atonement."I'll write more latter, the Lord willing.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Now one thing that puzzles me is that you say the prophecy would make no sense to the people then. That to me makes no sense. Then you might as well say that NO prophecy of God made sense to the contemporary people.

---

I meant, alligning Jeremaiya and Isaiah with Jesus, to the people of Jeremaiya and Isaiah's space-time, would not have made any sense. I did not mean this would not make sense to the people in Jesus' space-time. Obviously it did and continues, and I agreed it is pursuent to a mysterious compulsion, and not a made made inducement. IOW, one can believe the genuineness of a peoples' faith - without believing in that faith. Its like one can respect another's love for their parents - without having the same, equal love of that person's parents. This shows that respect transcends the love and is its foremost precedent factor.

When we read, Gen 1: 26 And Elohim said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule etc.
There are four plural words in that verse: Us, Our, Our and them.
Three of the words are emphasized with capitals for a reason.I believe this is the sixth (day means yom, day or eon of time) making of the wonderful indigenous folks of all the lands of the earth, these people were made in a multitude of images and didn't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and lived exactly as their blessing says in Gen 1: 26 to 31. They ate of virtually anything they could, and only took what they needed, and looked after the earth, so it could sustain them.
Very much unlike Adams decendants who have taken more than they need and made a mess of the earth today known as Environmental DevastationI also believe the indigineous people didn't die in the flood, as it was not a world wide event. I believe the flood was only in the Mesopotamia region between the mountains of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Israel, Midian and Arabia and across where I believe the flood, when high enough, breached the Straits of Hamaz and flowed into the Persian Gulf.When we read Gen 2: 7 you will find that Adam was given a blessing called "the Breath of Life". And as we know he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, a curse that his decendants also inherited, and as we know the evil outnumbered the good, so the Almighty Yahweh decided to deal with the doers of evil, with a Flood. The Ark was made and loaded up. Did it have every creature on the face of the whole earth aboard, such as Anacondas, Polar Bears and Kangaroos? No, there are up to four million different animal species on the whole earth. There is no way known, in excess of ten million creatures, are going to fit on the Ark.The creatures that went on the Ark were the creatures of the Mesopotamia area. You will also find many instances were the Word says "all of the earth" but only means an area of the earth.
A good example is Luke 2: 1. I'm sure Caesar Augustus didn't count the American Indian or the Australian Aboriginal. He counted the people under his authority, only.And getting back to the Breath of Life blessing of Adam, you will find in Gen 7: 22 that the only people that died in the Flood were the ones that had "the breath of life". The indigenous folk that were created during the sixth eon of time were spared from the great flood, as they mainly lived outside the flood zone, and lived on, as did Noah, his wife, his three sons and their three wives.The decendants of Noah including the 12 Tribes of Yisrael have now spread around the earth to become the fullfillment of prophesy "They shall become Many Nations".

Hello Howard Shaw,Welcome to EvC Forum.

quote:

---

I believe this is the sixth (day means yom, day or eon of time) making of the wonderful indigenous folks of all the lands of the earth, these people were made in a multitude of images and didn't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and lived exactly as their blessing says in Gen 1: 26 to 31. They ate of virtually anything they could, and only took what they needed, and looked after the earth, so it could sustain them.
Very much unlike Adams decendants who have taken more than they need and made a mess of the earth today known as Environmental Devastation

​

I also believe the indigineous people didn't die in the flood, as it was not a world wide event. I believe the flood was only in the Mesopotamia region between the mountains of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Israel, Midian and Arabia and across where I believe the flood, when high enough, breached the Straits of Hamaz and flowed into the Persian Gulf.

---

You are more than welcome to your beliefs, but without any Biblical support for them, aren't you just making stuff up?

quote:

---

I also believe the indigineous people didn't die in the flood, as it was not a world wide event.

---

Its pretty straight forward that the Bible claims that "everything" died.

quote:

---

When we read Gen 2: 7 you will find that Adam was given a blessing called "the Breath of Life". And as we know he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, a curse that his decendants also inherited, and as we know the evil outnumbered the good, so the Almighty Yahweh decided to deal with the doers of evil, with a Flood. The Ark was made and loaded up. Did it have every creature on the face of the whole earth aboard, such as Anacondas, Polar Bears and Kangaroos? No, there are up to four million different animal species on the whole earth. There is no way known, in excess of ten million creatures, are going to fit on the Ark.

---

Genesis doesn't claim that Noah brought every species onto the ark.... Please support this Biblically so I know that you're not just making it up.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : 2 typos