Is the Trinity wrong?

[mitzi]

I made a decision some years back to be Ish as I'm tired of battling the Esh. No caballero only hombre!

My Spanish is a little rusty - but good choice. Success in marriage does not come merely through finding the right mate, but through being the right mate. ~Barnett R. Brickner

"Conventional wisdom has proven that it is not so much about marrying the right person as being the right person. A corollary to this truism is that we need to model the behavior that we want to see in the other.

May God bless you, give you a long and happy married life and crown your efforts with success."

Amigo cuide!

Mitzi

[apostoli]

Hi mitzi,

My Spanish is a little rusty - but good choice. Success in marriage does not come merely through finding the right mate, but through being the right mate. ~Barnett R. Brickner

"Conventional wisdom has proven that it is not so much about marrying the right person as being the right person. A corollary to this truism is that we need to model the behavior that we want to see in the other.

May God bless you, give you a long and happy married life and crown your efforts with success."

Amigo cuide!

Mitzi

My Spanish is almost non existent, just enough to get by as a tourist (one of my Argentine friends begs me to refrain from attempting to speak the language ;-) Wasn't sure about the proper meaning of "cuide" (take care, look after) so I looked it up, and came across a phrase that may come in handy in future discussions on topics like ours. Taking a small liberty with scripture...

After creating Eve, God said to Adam: remember not to eat of that tree and...

cuida de que no lo haga -> make sure she doesn't do it

Amigo cuide

[mitzi]

Hi mitzi,

My Spanish is almost non existent, just enough to get by as a tourist (one of my Argentine friends begs me to refrain from attempting to speak the language ;-) Wasn't sure about the proper meaning of "cuide" (take care, look after) so I looked it up, and came across a phrase that may come in handy in future discussions on topics like ours. Taking a small liberty with scripture...

After creating Eve, God said to Adam: remember not to eat of that tree and...

cuida de que no lo haga -> make sure she doesn't do it

Amigo cuide

I can't help but think that Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and Romans 10:5-10 connects so very well together with the commandment that was given to Adam in the garden of Eden (or Gan Eden) - and then the law was given to Eve (Genesis 3:2).

Ezekiel 28:13.....

Adam in Genesis 2:4, was created from the dust of the ground then was given the commandment "not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17) then Eve was created (Genesis 2:21-22), according to Genesis 2 and not Genesis 1. (tee-hee, ) Then Deuteronomy 30:19 brings all of this together - to the verse "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach."

************************

Gracias a La Vida (Thank you to Life)

poem by Violeta Parra

Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto. - Thank you to life, which has given me so much.
Me ha dado el sonido y el abecedario. - It gave me sound and the alphabet.
Con él las palabras que pienso y declaro, - With them the words that I think and declare:
“Madre,” “amigo,”hermano,” y luz alumbrando - "Mother,” “Friend,” “Brother” and the light shining.
La ruta del alma del que estoy amando. - The route of the soul from which comes love.

[apostoli]

Hi mitzi,

came across a phrase that may come in handy in future discussions on topics like ours. Taking a small liberty with scripture...

After creating Eve, God said to Adam: remember not to eat of that tree and...

cuida de que no lo haga -> make sure she doesn't do it

I can't help but think that Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and Romans 10:5-10 connects so very well together with the commandment that was given to Adam in the garden of Eden (or Gan Eden) - and then the law was given to Eve (Genesis 3:2).

Some random thoughts...

I think the key is found at Romans 10:8 (Deut 30:14) "The word is...in your heart".

Imo, Adam & Eve were not under any punative law (such as Moses established) but under guidence. That is: God did not declare a penalty at Gen 2:16-17, but simply advised Adam of the consequence of a particular action...Just like commanding your child not to put their hand in the fire; "for if you do, you will burn yourself".

Commonly people read in the OT a tale of a punative God. I don't! I perceive him as a receptive one. Albeit, one who if rejected simply departs from the offender, leaving the offender to their own devices, but watching from afar ready to come to their aid, and waiting for them to have a change of heart (my association with my sons has been something like that). Such with Adam & Eve, for while in the presence of God and voluntarily accepting his guidence, their days would be long upon the land which YHWH had given them (cp. Ex 20:12). Whereas, by rejecting his advice, he withdrew, and in his absence they attained sorrow and ultimately physical death (cp. Rev 22:1-5. Wherever God's authority reins, the tree of life is located). I am drawn to this idea as it has been exemplified in my experience as a parent = One of my sons went through a troubled adolescence and through outside influences he turned from a good reliable kid to one who wanted release from faimly restraints. He ended up getting involved with drugs. After a time he developed a psychosis and though he was like a prodigal yo-yo, he ultimately ended up committing suicide when he was 30, as he had no life and only brought sorrow to all about him (being self obsessed he died friendless).

In regards to the "Law": When YHWH gave to Moses the aseret hadeevarim, I do not see it as "the ten demands" but as the "ten guidences" (or principles) = follow them and we will maintain a relationship with God. A thought I have had is: The NT says we are no longer under the "Law". I understand this as a reference to Moses' ordinances (Note Jesus attributes Moses law on divorce as being in opposition to God's desire, but Moses gave the ordinance because of the hardness of men's hearts).

___________________

In my youth one thing that always puzzled me is why Adam was punished for conforming to Genesis 2:24 and acting as "one flesh" with Eve - Mt 19:5-6 would indicate the concept was God's will. 1 Cor 11:3,7 gave me an insight. The idea of headship is one of parenthood. Which caused me to think futher upon vs24. When a man or woman leaves their parents and becomes as if one flesh with their spouse, does their parents' authority over them disolve? 1 Cor 11:3,7 would indicate that this is not true of males in respect of ultimate authority. By tradition, on marriage a woman leaves the authority of her parents, and (in theory) voluntarily becomes receptive to the leadership of her spouse. So I think Adam's sin was failure to perform the "Law of Love". As Eve's source he was responsible for her.

Ezekiel 28:13.....

Adam in Genesis 2:4, was created from the dust of the ground then was given the commandment "not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17) then Eve was created (Genesis 2:21-22), according to Genesis 2 and not Genesis 1. (tee-hee, ) Then Deuteronomy 30:19 brings all of this together - to the verse "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach."

A.Paul suggests that Moses' ordinances (and presumably those added to them) were too difficult and were beyond anyone's reach. The very fact that later law givers developed ways to get around Moses' rules demonstrates their deficiency.

An amusement: When I was a kid I worked in a pharmacy, and was well acquainted with a regular customer, the local Rabbi. One day he came into the shop and my boss exclaimed "Is that a leg of pork under your arm?". To which the Rabbi replied: "It was, but I blessed it, so now it is a chicken!" This Rabbi once explained to me (as a good Catholic boy) that Moses' ordinances were for his day, they were not set in concrete, but the decalogue is!

I came across an interesting webpage by what i assume is a Christian-Jew (Messianic?). i thought it worth quoting...

the Jewish sages maintain that though the LORD gave 613 commandments (Taryag mitzvot) to the Jewish people...all can be reduced to the principles found in the Ten Commandments.

Interestingly enough, the Scriptures themselves tend to distill the various commandments of Torah to more general principles that are fewer and fewer in number. For example, in Makkot 23b-24a a discussion goes from

1) an enumeration of the 613 commandments identified in the Torah to
2) David's reduction of the number to 11 (Psalm 15); to
3) Isaiah's reduction of the number to six (Isaiah 33:15-16); to
4) Micah's reduction to three (Micah 6:8); to
5) Isaiah's further reduction to two (Isaiah 56:1); to
6) the one essential commandment given by Habakkuk ("But the righteous shall live by his faith" (Habakkuk 2:4).

(It is enlightening to see how Rabbi Sha'ul (Paul) likewise distilled the various <I>mitzvot</I> to this same principle of faith Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, Hebrews 10:38)

http://www.hebrew4christians.net/Scr.../ten_cmds.html

according to Genesis 2 and not Genesis 1. (tee-hee, )

Many a textual critic has suggested that the two chapters are a collection of distinct (seperate) traditions. If I recall correctly they are designated J (the Jehovah (YHWH) group) & E (the El group). Most textual critics consider Genesis to have three or four sources. Whether Moses, Ezra or someone else did the merging is a mystery to me, but imu, the final form wasn't established until about 5 centuries before the advent of Christ and ater Ezra (though many think at the least Ezra did a Masorete).

Just did a quick check. Typing into google - Ezra redactor. Came up with this article from the "all knowing" wikipedia on Torah redactor. Worth a quick read...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah_redactor

Also worth a read is a cite from "Who wrote the Bible" by Richard Friedman's (Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia)
http://islamtomorrow.com/bible/Who_W...an.asp#return1

Peace

[mitzi]

Hi mitzi,

Some random thoughts...

I think the key is found at Romans 10:8 (Deut 30:14) "The word is...in your heart".

Imo, Adam & Eve were not under any punative law (such as Moses established) but under guidence. That is: God did not declare a penalty at Gen 2:16-17, but simply advised Adam of the consequence of a particular action...Just like commanding your child not to put their hand in the fire; "for if you do, you will burn yourself".

Commonly people read in the OT a tale of a punative God. I don't! I perceive him as a receptive one. Albeit, one who if rejected simply departs from the offender, leaving the offender to their own devices, but watching from afar ready to come to their aid, and waiting for them to have a change of heart (my association with my sons has been something like that). Such with Adam & Eve, for while in the presence of God and voluntarily accepting his guidence, their days would be long upon the land which YHWH had given them (cp. Ex 20:12). Whereas, by rejecting his advice, he withdrew, and in his absence they attained sorrow and ultimately physical death (cp. Rev 22:1-5. Wherever God's authority reins, the tree of life is located). I am drawn to this idea as it has been exemplified in my experience as a parent = One of my sons went through a troubled adolescence and through outside influences he turned from a good reliable kid to one who wanted release from faimly restraints. He ended up getting involved with drugs. After a time he developed a psychosis and though he was like a prodigal yo-yo, he ultimately ended up committing suicide when he was 30, as he had no life and only brought sorrow to all about him (being self obsessed he died friendless).

In regards to the "Law": When YHWH gave to Moses the aseret hadeevarim, I do not see it as "the ten demands" but as the "ten guidences" (or principles) = follow them and we will maintain a relationship with God. A thought I have had is: The NT says we are no longer under the "Law". I understand this as a reference to Moses' ordinances (Note Jesus attributes Moses law on divorce as being in opposition to God's desire, but Moses gave the ordinance because of the hardness of men's hearts).

___________________

In my youth one thing that always puzzled me is why Adam was punished for conforming to Genesis 2:24 and acting as "one flesh" with Eve - Mt 19:5-6 would indicate the concept was God's will. 1 Cor 11:3,7 gave me an insight. The idea of headship is one of parenthood. Which caused me to think futher upon vs24. When a man or woman leaves their parents and becomes as if one flesh with their spouse, does their parents' authority over them disolve? 1 Cor 11:3,7 would indicate that this is not true of males in respect of ultimate authority. By tradition, on marriage a woman leaves the authority of her parents, and (in theory) voluntarily becomes receptive to the leadership of her spouse. So I think Adam's sin was failure to perform the "Law of Love". As Eve's source he was responsible for her.

A.Paul suggests that Moses' ordinances (and presumably those added to them) were too difficult and were beyond anyone's reach. The very fact that later law givers developed ways to get around Moses' rules demonstrates their deficiency.

An amusement: When I was a kid I worked in a pharmacy, and was well acquainted with a regular customer, the local Rabbi. One day he came into the shop and my boss exclaimed "Is that a leg of pork under your arm?". To which the Rabbi replied: "It was, but I blessed it, so now it is a chicken!" This Rabbi once explained to me (as a good Catholic boy) that Moses' ordinances were for his day, they were not set in concrete, but the decalogue is!

I came across an interesting webpage by what i assume is a Christian-Jew (Messianic?). i thought it worth quoting...

the Jewish sages maintain that though the LORD gave 613 commandments (Taryag mitzvot) to the Jewish people...all can be reduced to the principles found in the Ten Commandments.

Interestingly enough, the Scriptures themselves tend to distill the various commandments of Torah to more general principles that are fewer and fewer in number. For example, in Makkot 23b-24a a discussion goes from

1) an enumeration of the 613 commandments identified in the Torah to
2) David's reduction of the number to 11 (Psalm 15); to
3) Isaiah's reduction of the number to six (Isaiah 33:15-16); to
4) Micah's reduction to three (Micah 6:8); to
5) Isaiah's further reduction to two (Isaiah 56:1); to
6) the one essential commandment given by Habakkuk ("But the righteous shall live by his faith" (Habakkuk 2:4).

(It is enlightening to see how Rabbi Sha'ul (Paul) likewise distilled the various <I>mitzvot</I> to this same principle of faith Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, Hebrews 10:38)

http://www.hebrew4christians.net/Scr.../ten_cmds.html

Many a textual critic has suggested that the two chapters are a collection of distinct (seperate) traditions. If I recall correctly they are designated J (the Jehovah (YHWH) group) & E (the El group). Most textual critics consider Genesis to have three or four sources. Whether Moses, Ezra or someone else did the merging is a mystery to me, but imu, the final form wasn't established until about 5 centuries before the advent of Christ and ater Ezra (though many think at the least Ezra did a Masorete).

Just did a quick check. Typing into google - Ezra redactor. Came up with this article from the "all knowing" wikipedia on Torah redactor. Worth a quick read...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah_redactor

Also worth a read is a cite from "Who wrote the Bible" by Richard Friedman's (Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia)
http://islamtomorrow.com/bible/Who_W...an.asp#return1

Peace

Hi Apostoli:

Yes, that’s the key….”"The word is...in your heart”

Sorry to ask this question, but are you saying punative or punitive law, as in God made two punitive promises to Adam and Eve before their expulsion? The first being in Genesis 1, to be fruitful and multiple to fill the earth and subdue it (rule over it) and also not to eat from the tree of knowledge or they both will surely die?

Thank you for giving me some rather important messages to really think about and also my deepest sorrow goes out to you and your wife about your son. You know, it’s a very long and interesting journey/or walk we take from where we began, as children, to adulthood but in that walk we encounter the many deviations that are set into our path. Awhile back, and some years ago with faith, I realized (spiritually) that God directs us even in our pains (2 Corinthians 1:8 and 2 Corinthians 4:1-2), giving us His guidance and consolation through our prayers and through others, He participates actively with us in our joys – blessing our lives along the way, but on that walk/or even on that path we begin to grow both in a spiritual and emotional way- as we see our faith being developed (2 Corinthians 4:7) or perhaps being weakened (2 Corinthians 6:3-10). Even so, God is with us through those times.

In the story of Joseph (Yosef) but pointing toward the end of the book; Joseph didn’t hold hostility toward his brothers. So even the most painful as well as every joyful moment can be reunited to lead its way toward the ultimate goal “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:28). Sometimes we don’t see how God’s final plan (at that moment) becomes visible, yet. We have to trust God, as difficult as it may be: Mark 10:27 “Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

Some of us (also) develop qualities of leadership roles, as He (God) actively advances some people through the help of others to guide them, (For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. (Romans 11:29)), into the direction where He eagerly awaits them, in the end. (2 Corinthians 4:17) Literary the words of Apostle Paul become very real “let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us” *Hebrews 12:1-3*. The words in the book of Hebrews –are a commitment to that race, in a sense, we can be like King David’s or we are all be like Saul’s, either following God’s word or advancing ahead on our own without it? (Saul’s rebellion, 1 Samuel 15:19 and 1 Samuel 15:11). We can choose our own path…..but at what cost? The great prophet’s and Kings in the bible were instrumental to God’s plan for the Jewish people to lead the Gentiles eventually under the same umbrella. (Romans 11:20) As Christians, we are a branch that is connected onto the main truck of the tree, so within our own lives we play a very instrumental role, as well. We help the growth of others – that might be perhaps outside the faith trying to be lead into the same faith? (Romans 11:28-32) even as you’ve said we can accept His guidance or reject it, as we have the ability to choose.

Although Eve’s words to the serpent seemingly echo through our own choices “but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "? There are some lessons that seem to be painful in memory as others are very pleasant but God gives us a balance between the two, as in the beginning of creation. However, when this balance in our lives is thrown off we question the reasoning’s, but are they necessarily from God? In Exodus 4:6, Moses was told to put his hand back into his bosom again and as the Bible says, '...behold, it was turned again to his original flesh'. What was originally was sinful (in sight) can be made clean (in wholeness), the soul – Jesus tells us that. Nothing is impossible with God!

Love,
Mitzi!

[apostoli]

Hi mitzi,

Sorry to ask this question, but are you saying punative or punitive law

Just my atrocious spelling showing through

I meant punitive law. ie: Adj. 1. punitive - inflicting punishment; "punitive justice"

as in God made two punitive promises to Adam and Eve before their expulsion? The first being in Genesis 1, to be fruitful and multiple to fill the earth and subdue it (rule over it) and also not to eat from the tree of knowledge or they both will surely die?

I don't see Gen 1:28 as being punitive, especially as it is in this way that I perceive man as being corporally in the image of God = co-creators of God's family and co-rulers over the whole earth.

Genesis 1:27,28 So God created man in His [own] image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Also note: Noah received ba similiar instruction at Genesis 9:7. So I think it obvious that Genesis 1:27 is not a penalty for the events of Genesis 3.

__________________

An aside:

As a youth it occured to me that Eve was pretty thick, and the serpent's deception was totally subtle ie: Adam & Eve were already like God! Alternatively, Eve was totally conniving, she knew she was like God but wasn't contented, and so wanted to upsurp God's (and Adam's) authority over her. (cp. Gen 3:17a)

What I find interesting is that death is not mentioned in the punishments dished out at Genesis 3:14-19. In vs19 YHWH forcasts to Adam only, that "For dust you [are], And to dust you shall return". By imputation the same can be said of Eve, but God doesn't directly say so.

__________________

Another aside:

Have a close read of Gen 5:1-2 "This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created." (NKJV)

Notice it is only Adam (the man) that is created in the image of God, nothing is said about the woman being in God's image, she just becomes included in "mankind". Thus vs3 "And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image..." but then we read vs4 "After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters". So it would seem that the other sons and daughters were not in Adam's (thus God's) image. Considering this with Genesis 6:5 this seems the case...However, Genesis 6:9 would indicate otherwise...but then again all mankind via Noah are figured from Seth (all adam's other offspring having perished in the flood).

Have you thought upon this?

nb: The NLT & GWT are the only versions out of 20 I checked which renders "them" in vs1. I think this is pure distortion for the sake of political correctness. The LXX renders auton (him) here, and autons (them) in vs2.

Although Eve’s words to the serpent seemingly echo through our own choices “but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "?

I have read some elaborate interpretations and speculations on Genesis 3:3. The most remarkable highlight Eve's addition to God's instruction to Adam at Genesis 2:16-17 ie: "you must not touch it".

One imaginative interpreter suggests that the serpent demonstrated the falacy of Eve's premise by touching the fruit as he responds "you won't surely die". This particular author goes on to suggest that the serpent without Eve knowing, then went and ate from the tree of life. Just proves how thick Adam and Eve were (or they didn't know the tree of life existed, or know where it was).

Thinking on it. Eve's addition is logical. What if the fruit fell to the ground. Could she pick it up? If yes, then she might mix it with other fruit and Adam might accidently eat it. Possibly Adam didn't trust Eve and added the clause as a precaution. Ah! The mind boggles with speculations

I guess you might point to Romans 5:12 "just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" and/or 6:23 "For the wages of sin [is] death" and see it as a penalty, whereas "the gift of God [is] eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" is a reward. I see both as consequences. Consider Jesus' words in John's gospel "the Father judges no one" (Jn 5:22) and "And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world." (Jn 12:47). For a penalty to be applied, it has to be delivered by the one who judges ie: we condemn ourselves.

No carrots, no sticks, merely choice.

_____________

As I remarked in a previous post I don't read Hebrew and am dependent on others for its interpretation. In my understanding of Genesis 2:17, God is not passing sentence or applying a penalty (neither Adam nor Eve were executed = מֹ֥ות יוּמָֽת׃ verses מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת). I understand the text as not declaring punishment but outcome. From a brief look at the lexicon the Hebrew phrase מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת rendered "surely die" in the early chapters of Genesis, changes to מֹ֥ות יוּמָֽת׃ and is rendered "surely be put to death" from Genesis 26 onwards. The two Hebrew phrases almost look the same to me but I guess there is a subtle difference...
http://www.blueletterbible.org/searc...urely%2A&t=KJV

I checked the LXX and at Gen 2:17 we read מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת׃ = θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε (to death.shall die.) Whereas Genesis 26:11 reads מֹ֥ות יוּמָֽת׃=θανάτου ἔνοχος ἔσται (to death.liable.will be.) Exodus 19:12 מֹ֥ות יוּמָֽת׃ = θανάτῳ τελευτήσει (by death.he will come to an end.) Exodus 21:12 מֹות יוּמָֽת׃ = θανάτῳ θανατούσθω (by death. let him be put to death) etc

Thank you for giving me some rather important messages to really think about and also my deepest sorrow goes out to you and your wife about your son. You know, it’s a very long and interesting journey/or walk we take from where we began, as children, to adulthood but in that walk we encounter the many deviations that are set into our path. Awhile back, and some years ago with faith, I realized (spiritually) that God directs us even in our pains (2 Corinthians 1:8 and 2 Corinthians 4:1-2), giving us His guidance and consolation through our prayers and through others, He participates actively with us in our joys – blessing our lives along the way, but on that walk/or even on that path we begin to grow both in a spiritual and emotional way- as we see our faith being developed (2 Corinthians 4:7) or perhaps being weakened (2 Corinthians 6:3-10). Even so, God is with us through those times.

Thankyou mitzi for your kind thoughts

There is a long story full of sadness leading up to the finale that I related. A few years beforehand I had an accident and was partially crippled for a time, my youngest son was in and out of hospital with Leukemia, my mum was sick, then my girlfriend left me because of my 2nd eldests psychosis, then mum died, a month later my youngest son died, my employer retrenched 20,000 people worldwide including me, and finally the 2nd eldest died. I don't remember praying (verbalising) at anytime - life is my prayer. Strange thing is all these events just made me stronger in my faith in the promise.

How true it is "God is with us through those times" - even if you don't call out to him!

Consciously I didn't call out, I don't remember praying, but even still he heard my heart beating and so I found he finds you - if in your heart of hearts you want to be found.

...we can be like King David...

I'm not ignoring all else you say but David is an interesting subject for me. Here we have a man that broke all of the last five commandments and a sum of Moses ordinances, an elitist who used his status as King to satisfy his lusts, coveting, raping, murdering, but I guess in his heart of hearts he sought God, for it was he who God chose to establish Jerusalem as the centre of worship, and the symbol of solidarity for God's chosen people. There is an irony in that, but from my reading, David repented of his sins and was rewarded (even though his household was cursed because of his sins).

Peace

[mitzi]

Hi mitzi,

Just my atrocious spelling showing through

I meant punitive law. ie: Adj. 1. punitive - inflicting punishment; "punitive justice"

I don't see Gen 1:28 as being punitive, especially as it is in this way that I perceive man as being corporally in the image of God = co-creators of God's family and co-rulers over the whole earth.

Genesis 1:27,28 So God created man in His [own] image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Also note: Noah received ba similiar instruction at Genesis 9:7. So I think it obvious that Genesis 1:27 is not a penalty for the events of Genesis 3.

__________________

An aside:

As a youth it occured to me that Eve was pretty thick, and the serpent's deception was totally subtle ie: Adam & Eve were already like God! Alternatively, Eve was totally conniving, she knew she was like God but wasn't contented, and so wanted to upsurp God's (and Adam's) authority over her. (cp. Gen 3:17a)

What I find interesting is that death is not mentioned in the punishments dished out at Genesis 3:14-19. In vs19 YHWH forcasts to Adam only, that "For dust you [are], And to dust you shall return". By imputation the same can be said of Eve, but God doesn't directly say so.

__________________

Another aside:

Have a close read of Gen 5:1-2 "This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created." (NKJV)

Notice it is only Adam (the man) that is created in the image of God, nothing is said about the woman being in God's image, she just becomes included in "mankind". Thus vs3 "And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image..." but then we read vs4 "After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters". So it would seem that the other sons and daughters were not in Adam's (thus God's) image. Considering this with Genesis 6:5 this seems the case...However, Genesis 6:9 would indicate otherwise...but then again all mankind via Noah are figured from Seth (all adam's other offspring having perished in the flood).

Have you thought upon this?

nb: The NLT & GWT are the only versions out of 20 I checked which renders "them" in vs1. I think this is pure distortion for the sake of political correctness. The LXX renders auton (him) here, and autons (them) in vs2.


I have read some elaborate interpretations and speculations on Genesis 3:3. The most remarkable highlight Eve's addition to God's instruction to Adam at Genesis 2:16-17 ie: "you must not touch it".

One imaginative interpreter suggests that the serpent demonstrated the falacy of Eve's premise by touching the fruit as he responds "you won't surely die". This particular author goes on to suggest that the serpent without Eve knowing, then went and ate from the tree of life. Just proves how thick Adam and Eve were (or they didn't know the tree of life existed, or know where it was).

Thinking on it. Eve's addition is logical. What if the fruit fell to the ground. Could she pick it up? If yes, then she might mix it with other fruit and Adam might accidently eat it. Possibly Adam didn't trust Eve and added the clause as a precaution. Ah! The mind boggles with speculations

I guess you might point to Romans 5:12 "just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" and/or 6:23 "For the wages of sin [is] death" and see it as a penalty, whereas "the gift of God [is] eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" is a reward. I see both as consequences. Consider Jesus' words in John's gospel "the Father judges no one" (Jn 5:22) and "And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world." (Jn 12:47). For a penalty to be applied, it has to be delivered by the one who judges ie: we condemn ourselves.

No carrots, no sticks, merely choice.

_____________

As I remarked in a previous post I don't read Hebrew and am dependent on others for its interpretation. In my understanding of Genesis 2:17, God is not passing sentence or applying a penalty (neither Adam nor Eve were executed = מֹ֥ות יוּמָֽת׃ verses מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת). I understand the text as not declaring punishment but outcome. From a brief look at the lexicon the Hebrew phrase מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת rendered "surely die" in the early chapters of Genesis, changes to מֹ֥ות יוּמָֽת׃ and is rendered "surely be put to death" from Genesis 26 onwards. The two Hebrew phrases almost look the same to me but I guess there is a subtle difference...
http://www.blueletterbible.org/searc...urely%2A&t=KJV

I checked the LXX and at Gen 2:17 we read מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת׃ = θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε (to death.shall die.) Whereas Genesis 26:11 reads מֹ֥ות יוּמָֽת׃=θανάτου ἔνοχος ἔσται (to death.liable.will be.) Exodus 19:12 מֹ֥ות יוּמָֽת׃ = θανάτῳ τελευτήσει (by death.he will come to an end.) Exodus 21:12 מֹות יוּמָֽת׃ = θανάτῳ θανατούσθω (by death. let him be put to death) etc

Thankyou mitzi for your kind thoughts

There is a long story full of sadness leading up to the finale that I related. A few years beforehand I had an accident and was partially crippled for a time, my youngest son was in and out of hospital with Leukemia, my mum was sick, then my girlfriend left me because of my 2nd eldests psychosis, then mum died, a month later my youngest son died, my employer retrenched 20,000 people worldwide including me, and finally the 2nd eldest died. I don't remember praying (verbalising) at anytime - life is my prayer. Strange thing is all these events just made me stronger in my faith in the promise.

How true it is "God is with us through those times" - even if you don't call out to him!

Consciously I didn't call out, I don't remember praying, but even still he heard my heart beating and so I found he finds you - if in your heart of hearts you want to be found.

I'm not ignoring all else you say but David is an interesting subject for me. Here we have a man that broke all of the last five commandments and a sum of Moses ordinances, an elitist who used his status as King to satisfy his lusts, coveting, raping, murdering, but I guess in his heart of hearts he sought God, for it was he who God chose to establish Jerusalem as the centre of worship, and the symbol of solidarity for God's chosen people. There is an irony in that, but from my reading, David repented of his sins and was rewarded (even though his household was cursed because of his sins).

Peace

Hi Apostoli:

True. (with a period - and so agreed) but the interesting take on this chapter is that David, when confronted by Nathan, acknowledged and also confirms Nathan's allegations of the wrong ""I have sinned against the LORD." (And as you've noted, 'but I guess in his heart of hearts he sought God)

Also, didn’t you convey another question to the board?

“Why was this so? What would have happened if they had confessed their sin and repented? After all the testimony of the OT & NT is one of repentance and forgiveness. My first response to these of my thoughts is that Adam & Eve having had a personal relationship with God chose to forsake it = they maintained their original motivation = they wanted to be equal to God, which implies they wanted to be independent of God..”

"David tried to cover his sin by bringing her husband Uriah home from battle so Uriah could lie with her as to think it was his baby. How many times did David ask Uriah to tend to his wife Bathsheba? In some way I think David had acted out of anger with Bathsheba’s husband because he tried to save both Bathsheba and the baby from any harm – to save Bathsheba (because he slept with her) and the child (a child born out of wedlock). Don’t we read this further on that David in response pleads to God, fasts, and sleeps on the ground in order to attempt to sway the verdict? (II Samuel 12:16)

If scripture doesn’t sound the alarm about this incident it should….We read in Matthew 26:42, Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42, in the end it is God's will (not ours) as Jesus acknowledges this in scripture " 2"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.""


…and in David’s case, Nathan delivers the judgments sent by God “but because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die." If to compare with the passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke, David (also) consoles God to take away this judgment (“take this cup from me”), 2 Samuel 12:21, “His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!" 22 He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

If David story is a depiction of anything it should be judgment with compassion.

....In Genesis 2:16; And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

With Adam & Eve – neither one died but the both of them were expelled from the Garden of Eden but with God’s judgment/verdict also comes the compassion in the law. So within that split moment when both had sinned, God sent forth the redeemer to save us. Matthew 24:22… “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”


***********************************************************************************

... Another issue was Joab:

Joab was a nephew of King David, the son of David's sister Zeruiah. He was, overall, a very loyal and successful battle commander for David, although David seems to have merely tolerated Joab because of his military usefulness (Joab had very little political or diplomatic skill, he was just very good at winning wars - "elections" were won back then, as still happens today, not by who got the most votes, but by who had the deadliest army) than liked him as a friend or nephew. Joab's dedication did not extend to his cousin Solomon however; Joab favored David's other son, Adonijah, to succeed David - a botched, but understandable (because Adonijah was the elder brother of Solomon) choice that cost Joab not only his high position in the kingdom, but his life. (LINK)

So Nathan knew all about David's sin before he approached him with it, 2 Samuel 12:7 "Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.' 11 "This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' THE Most Important Part of the Script " 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD."

Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die"

So now we can return back to Genesis 3 - When both Adam and Eve were confronted by God; did either one acknowledge their sin of disobedience? Nope. If you read Ezekiel 28:13.....the passage has the same equivalency of giving everything to the both of them as in David's story, isn't this true? But what makes the two stories different? .......David acknowledges his sin when confronted with it...(when thinking about these verses, I have to ask this question: so which is worse being confronted by Nathan or In the Garden, being confronted by God? ..the judgments were both sent by God, but being confronted by God (Himself)...would be immeasurable )

Turn to John 9:

Forgiveness" and or "pardon" was needed even to sinners. Jesus had released "redeemed" the sinner from his chain/exile to bring the transgressors/sinner back to life! But all sinners "acknowledged" the sin - and - asked Jesus to cure them: Jesus Heals Ten Lepers,Luke 17:11 - 19
Jesus healed ten lepers, so how many came back? One healed leper came back to thank Jesus.


Also, John 9:32, In this passage at the end (and it just makes me smile) The man answered and said to them, “Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know where He is from; yet He has opened my eyes! 31 Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him. 32 Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. 33 If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing.” 34 They answered and said to him, “You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?” And they cast him out.

35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, “Do you believe in the Son of God?”
36 He answered and said, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?”
37 And Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you.”
38 Then he said, “Lord, I believe!” And he worshiped Him.
39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.”
40 Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, “Are we blind also?”
41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.

*******************

In the last passage what is being confirmed? But now you say "We see" Therefore your sin remains. See also Luke15:15.

[apostoli]

Hi mitzi,

Sorry if I seem contrary below, it is not my intention...

True. (with a period - and so agreed) but the interesting take on this chapter is that David, when confronted by Nathan, acknowledged and also confirms Nathan's allegations of the wrong ""I have sinned against the LORD." (And as you've noted, 'but I guess in his heart of hearts he sought God)

Also, didn’t you convey another question to the board?

Ages ago. I vaguely remember questioning some text and whether David appointed himself (or acted as) High Priest, or thought himself God in some way. Just checked TWEB's index of threads I started.

Found it: July 2009 - Unorthodox Theology 201 » David's view of himself as God on earth. It didn't progress at all, only one participant = RBerman. In my last post there I asked "What is your explanation for the two occurances of David apparently acting in a priestly role that I quoted from scripture in my previous post?" to which he replied "Good question. I'll study that!" and that was the end of discussion.

Imo, we should always do a Berean and ask the hard questions. Guess a lot of people don't share that view.

I forget what prompted me to start that thread. I think at the time i was reading some Jewish scholar and the rise of what's called the temple cult, and the various King,Levite,Priest conflicts that ensued for generations. Often I'll read some quip by some accademic, and if it rings true, it sets me off on some research.

One thing that has always been niggling me at the back of my mind is that historically, God's chosen people went into greater decline the minute they wanted a king (other than YHWH) over them, and moreso once the tabernacle was established. David may have consolidated his empire (which quickly fragmented) but by centralising worship he also withdrew YHWH from the people. Consider YHWH's words at 2 Sam 7:5-7.

Third temple people probably find my thoughts offensive, but if they are Christian I'd point them to Revelation 21:22 that says God & the Lamb are the temple (cp. John 4:21-24).

I find it curious that Ultra Religious Jews mantra away at Herod's wall. The very man they accredit as institutionalising corruption in Israel. There seems an irony in that, but it does indicate a temple cult is alive and well.

I could ramble away for ages on this subject, waiting for people to highlight faults in my thinking, but I'll resist, as in my experience people are too quick to find offense and attack rather than do a Berean...

"David tried to cover his sin by bringing her husband Uriah home from battle so Uriah could lie with her as to think it was his baby. How many times did David ask Uriah to tend to his wife Bathsheba?

As God cursed David and his household because of his actions, we get a fair idea of David's motivation (2 Sam 12:7-11). YHWH's intent is that David be publicly humiliated (2 Sam 12:12), so I don't think it profitable to go against YHWH by romancing about David.

Thus, because of the curse, I have a rather low view of David the King (the jury is still out on David the man).

Under the law he and Bathsheba should have been stoned for adultery, so he was protecting Bathsheba in that way. Hey, noone would dare attempt to enforce the law on the man they worshipped alongside God (1 Chron 29:20), especially one that controlled and had the loyalty of the armies, so David was safe.

In some way I think David had acted out of anger with Bathsheba’s husband because he tried to save both Bathsheba and the baby from any harm

Well, David is seen to be quick tempered, but in my perception he was politically motivated. Not good to have a barstard claimant to the throne around.

But I do perceive a positive side to David here - he could have just had her pregnancy terminated, there were ways even then...so despite his blood thirstness (YHWH's accusation not mine ) he must have had some respect for life when it was his own flesh and blood.

to save Bathsheba (because he slept with her) and the child (a child born out of wedlock).

I vaguely remember having a discussion with someone (at some time) concerning temple law and mamzers (?) - had a thing and remember some dude was arguing that Jesus is the reincarnated/reborn child of David & Bathsheba. As I recall, my argument was God terminated the child to prevent him from ever attempting to make a claim to the throne. Also I suggested, that under Jewish law, as a mamzer, it had no legal claim to the throne.

Don’t we read this further on that David in response pleads to God, fasts, and sleeps on the ground in order to attempt to sway the verdict? (II Samuel 12:16)

This is in regard to Natham's prophecy that "David wouldn't die but the child would". Again David belatedly feeling remorse - never considering the consequences of his actions. Yes he put on a display while the child was dieing, but when the child died it was business as usual, though I think inwardly he was sad "now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me" (2 Sam 12:18-23).

2 Sam 12:24 is pretty revealing. Though he consoled Bathsheba he couldn't contain his sex drive.

If scripture doesn’t sound the alarm about this incident it should….

And it does! 2 sam 12:7-14.

We read in Matthew 26:42, Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42, in the end it is God's will (not ours) as Jesus acknowledges this in scripture " 2"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.

I'm sorry, I don't see the connection with David, even given what you say below. David was never in a position of personal threat or was required to self sacrifice, Jesus was and did...

…and in David’s case, Nathan delivers the judgments sent by God “but because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die." If to compare with the passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke, David (also) consoles God to take away this judgment (“take this cup from me”), 2 Samuel 12:21, “His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!" 22 He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

Jesus wasn't under judgement, he was willing to lay down his life. David was under judgement and feared for his life. Notice Nathan's prophecy that David wouldn't die but the child would.

Having lost two sons I can relate to David's reaction: while alive do what you can to save them. Once dead, there is nothing left to do.

An old saying: Those who mourn shed one tear for the departed and multitudes for themselves. Whats the point? When my youngest Son died it occurred to me that I should be happy not sad. But then again, I believe there will be a resurrection.

If David story is a depiction of anything it should be judgment with compassion.

In regards to the child, YHWH was full of compassion for had it lived its life would have been hell. As for David, not a lot of compassion in YHWH's edict & curse. Though YHWH did spare David's and Bathsheba's lives, he did so, so their lives would be full of sorrow (to fulfill the curse), and I guess encourage them to continued repentence.

....In Genesis 2:16; And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

With Adam & Eve – neither one died but the both of them were expelled from the Garden of Eden but with God’s judgment/verdict also comes the compassion in the law. So within that split moment when both had sinned, God sent forth the redeemer to save us. Matthew 24:22… “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”

Both eventually died. The Hebrew & LXX (Greek) don't indicate that they'd die immediately or be executed. And until they died their days were hard. The compassion is one of chastening. Got to be cruel to be kind in the case of some people.

... Another issue was Joab:

Joab was a nephew of King David, the son of David's sister Zeruiah. He was, overall, a very loyal and successful battle commander for David, although David seems to have merely tolerated Joab because of his military usefulness (Joab had very little political or diplomatic skill, he was just very good at winning wars - "elections" were won back then, as still happens today, not by who got the most votes, but by who had the deadliest army) than liked him as a friend or nephew. Joab's dedication did not extend to his cousin Solomon however; Joab favored David's other son, Adonijah, to succeed David - a botched, but understandable (because Adonijah was the elder brother of Solomon) choice that cost Joab not only his high position in the kingdom, but his life. (LINK)

Just fulfillment of YHWH's curse on David's household.

So Nathan knew all about David's sin before he approached him with it

Well he was a prophet. And besides nothing would have been secret in court - David sent for Bathsheba, and then there was the letter to Joab to have Uriah put in harms way; scribes, messengers, servants etc would have gossiped.

2 Samuel 12:7 "Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.' 11 "This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' THE Most Important Part of the Script " 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD."

Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die"

This part of Nathan's response has to be taken into context. The sin taken away was unto death (As A.John says there are sins not unto death). But given YHWH's curses on David he didn't get off scott free.

Where we'd agree: David's repentence had a lot to do with YHWH's response. I might even speculate that the things David did were motivated by the mind rather than his heart, and YHWH read David's heart of hearts and forgave him, but found it necessary to clean up his thinking.

So now we can return back to Genesis 3 - When both Adam and Eve were confronted by God; did either one acknowledge their sin of disobedience? Nope.

Very true. They passed the buck.

If you read Ezekiel 28:13.....the passage has the same equivalency of giving everything to the both of them as in David's story, isn't this true?

Sorry, I don't see any equivalency. Maybe Ezekiel 28:15 "Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee'.

But what makes the two stories different? .......David acknowledges his sin when confronted with it...(when thinking about these verses, I have to ask this question: so which is worse being confronted by Nathan or In the Garden, being confronted by God? ..the judgments were both sent by God, but being confronted by God (Himself)...would be immeasurable )

Well... I see it the opposite way. Even after Adam & Eve sinned, God took care of them = made them clothes. Poor old David would have been in constant fear of the unknown. For his view would have been of a capricious God who strikes men down even when their intentions are good (cp. 2 Sam 6:6-7). 2 Sam 6:8&9 are insightful "And David became angry because of the LORD's outbreak against Uzzah; and he called the name of the place Perez Uzzah {Literally Outburst Against Uzzah}...And David was afraid of the LORD that day..."

Turn to John 9

If you have a close read of the Gospels you'll note that Jesus never directly identified himself to the Jews as the Christ, even when asked directly, for them (including the disciples) it had to be revealed/perceived (there was a Jewish tradition that required this). However, he did directly reveal himself to one person, a Samaritan woman - the Samaritan's anticipated the coming of the Messiah - we read a little later that there then occured a mass recognition by the Samaritans of who Jesus was (John 4).

The man who had been born blind is asked by Jesus "Do you believe on the Son of God?" The man's response is enlightening.

In John 9 there is no mention of the man having sinned or was being forgiven. the exact opposite Jhn 9:1-3 "And as [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man which was blind from [his] birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Forgiveness" and or "pardon" was needed even to sinners.

That is true.

Jesus had released "redeemed" the sinner from his chain/exile to bring the transgressors/sinner back to life! But all sinners "acknowledged" the sin - and - asked Jesus to cure them: Jesus Heals Ten Lepers,Luke 17:11 - 19 Jesus healed ten lepers, so how many came back? One healed leper came back to thank Jesus.

In Luke the one that returned to Jesus was a Samaritan. That is insightful in itself...

Also note that there is no mention of sinners repenting or being forgiven. The lepers pleaded that Jesus have mercy on them, Jesus then said "Go, show yourselves to the priests. And so it was that as they went, they were cleansed." So, as with John 9, the event was for a witness "that the works of God should be made manifest in him", but also note what Jesus says to the Samaritan "Your faith has made you well."

Also, John 9:32, In this passage at the end (and it just makes me smile) The man answered and said to them, “Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know where He is from; yet He has opened my eyes! 31 Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him. 32 Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. 33 If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing.” 34 They answered and said to him, “You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?” And they cast him out.

Makes me smile as well.

Especially the Pharisees view of the origin of sin. On first glance it seems implausable that they saw nothing special about Jesus' healing powers. Historically that is understandable as there had been and were travelling healers & magi around doing "miracles". The religious leaders opinion of Jesus is enlightening "Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?" (John 8:48).

I find echoes of Pharoah, his blindness and hardening heart in the Jewish leaders' perception of Jesus. The common people could see the uniqueness, why not they?

35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, “Do you believe in the Son of God?”
36 He answered and said, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?”
37 And Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you.”
38 Then he said, “Lord, I believe!” And he worshiped Him.
39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.”
40 Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, “Are we blind also?”
41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.

*******************

In the last passage what is being confirmed? But now you say "We see" Therefore your sin remains. See also Luke15:15.

cp. Isaiah 6:10;44:18 (15-22) & Jn 12:40.

Peace

[Rainbow Brite]

I vaguely remember having a discussion with someone (at some time) concerning temple law and mamzers (?) - had a thing and remember some dude was arguing that Jesus is the reincarnated/reborn child of David & Bathsheba. As I recall, my argument was God terminated the child to prevent him from ever attempting to make a claim to the throne. Also I suggested, that under Jewish law, as a mamzer, it had no legal claim to the throne.

Not to divert your discussion but since that was me you mentioned, I feel comfortable clarifying a couple points about my position:

1. Reincarnation is same spirit, different body. My position here is resurrection, same spirit and body.

2. Jesus atones for the "sour grape" starting from Adam 1Corinthians 15:22, thus no more sins of the fathers on children including mamzer status, Jeremiah 31:29-31. Thus he also atoned for himself, though he committed no sins of his own.

So yes the Father caused the child to die in part not to brand him forever a mamzer without a throne, but so he could be resurrected and claim his throne and make atonement for everyone, including himself for sins of his father David. In all this, Solomon and his line were simply a false start, and Jesus is the true recipient of 2Samuel 7:12-13.

In addition to the number of other reasons I have for that belief, this is what I would expect from a just and merciful God, ultimate redemption for the innocent child getting the throne he deserved all along.

Rather than the usual image of, God caused the innocent little baby to die, but lustful murderous David was allowed to live so that idolatrous Solomon could receive the Messianic promise instead. Which just doesn't add up, to me.

PS: If you want to discuss it more I would prefer to do it another time so as not to hijack this thread with it. Left as is, I think it is appropriate to see that my position isn't misrepresented, and I've done so, without need to go further right now. Thanks.

[mitzi]

Hi mitzi,

Sorry if I seem contrary below, it is not my intention...

Ages ago. I vaguely remember questioning some text and whether David appointed himself (or acted as) High Priest, or thought himself God in some way. Just checked TWEB's index of threads I started.

Found it: July 2009 - Unorthodox Theology 201 » David's view of himself as God on earth. It didn't progress at all, only one participant = RBerman. In my last post there I asked "What is your explanation for the two occurances of David apparently acting in a priestly role that I quoted from scripture in my previous post?" to which he replied "Good question. I'll study that!" and that was the end of discussion.

Imo, we should always do a Berean and ask the hard questions. Guess a lot of people don't share that view.

I forget what prompted me to start that thread. I think at the time i was reading some Jewish scholar and the rise of what's called the temple cult, and the various King,Levite,Priest conflicts that ensued for generations. Often I'll read some quip by some accademic, and if it rings true, it sets me off on some research.

One thing that has always been niggling me at the back of my mind is that historically, God's chosen people went into greater decline the minute they wanted a king (other than YHWH) over them, and moreso once the tabernacle was established. David may have consolidated his empire (which quickly fragmented) but by centralising worship he also withdrew YHWH from the people. Consider YHWH's words at 2 Sam 7:5-7.

Third temple people probably find my thoughts offensive, but if they are Christian I'd point them to Revelation 21:22 that says God & the Lamb are the temple (cp. John 4:21-24).

I find it curious that Ultra Religious Jews mantra away at Herod's wall. The very man they accredit as institutionalising corruption in Israel. There seems an irony in that, but it does indicate a temple cult is alive and well.

I could ramble away for ages on this subject, waiting for people to highlight faults in my thinking, but I'll resist, as in my experience people are too quick to find offense and attack rather than do a Berean...

As God cursed David and his household because of his actions, we get a fair idea of David's motivation (2 Sam 12:7-11). YHWH's intent is that David be publicly humiliated (2 Sam 12:12), so I don't think it profitable to go against YHWH by romancing about David.

Thus, because of the curse, I have a rather low view of David the King (the jury is still out on David the man).

Under the law he and Bathsheba should have been stoned for adultery, so he was protecting Bathsheba in that way. Hey, noone would dare attempt to enforce the law on the man they worshipped alongside God (1 Chron 29:20), especially one that controlled and had the loyalty of the armies, so David was safe.

Well, David is seen to be quick tempered, but in my perception he was politically motivated. Not good to have a barstard claimant to the throne around.

But I do perceive a positive side to David here - he could have just had her pregnancy terminated, there were ways even then...so despite his blood thirstness (YHWH's accusation not mine ) he must have had some respect for life when it was his own flesh and blood.

I vaguely remember having a discussion with someone (at some time) concerning temple law and mamzers (?) - had a thing and remember some dude was arguing that Jesus is the reincarnated/reborn child of David & Bathsheba. As I recall, my argument was God terminated the child to prevent him from ever attempting to make a claim to the throne. Also I suggested, that under Jewish law, as a mamzer, it had no legal claim to the throne.

This is in regard to Natham's prophecy that "David wouldn't die but the child would". Again David belatedly feeling remorse - never considering the consequences of his actions. Yes he put on a display while the child was dieing, but when the child died it was business as usual, though I think inwardly he was sad "now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me" (2 Sam 12:18-23).

2 Sam 12:24 is pretty revealing. Though he consoled Bathsheba he couldn't contain his sex drive.

And it does! 2 sam 12:7-14.

I'm sorry, I don't see the connection with David, even given what you say below. David was never in a position of personal threat or was required to self sacrifice, Jesus was and did...

Jesus wasn't under judgement, he was willing to lay down his life. David was under judgement and feared for his life. Notice Nathan's prophecy that David wouldn't die but the child would.

Having lost two sons I can relate to David's reaction: while alive do what you can to save them. Once dead, there is nothing left to do.

An old saying: Those who mourn shed one tear for the departed and multitudes for themselves. Whats the point? When my youngest Son died it occurred to me that I should be happy not sad. But then again, I believe there will be a resurrection.

In regards to the child, YHWH was full of compassion for had it lived its life would have been hell. As for David, not a lot of compassion in YHWH's edict & curse. Though YHWH did spare David's and Bathsheba's lives, he did so, so their lives would be full of sorrow (to fulfill the curse), and I guess encourage them to continued repentence.

Both eventually died. The Hebrew & LXX (Greek) don't indicate that they'd die immediately or be executed. And until they died their days were hard. The compassion is one of chastening. Got to be cruel to be kind in the case of some people.

Just fulfillment of YHWH's curse on David's household.

Well he was a prophet. And besides nothing would have been secret in court - David sent for Bathsheba, and then there was the letter to Joab to have Uriah put in harms way; scribes, messengers, servants etc would have gossiped.

This part of Nathan's response has to be taken into context. The sin taken away was unto death (As A.John says there are sins not unto death). But given YHWH's curses on David he didn't get off scott free.

Where we'd agree: David's repentence had a lot to do with YHWH's response. I might even speculate that the things David did were motivated by the mind rather than his heart, and YHWH read David's heart of hearts and forgave him, but found it necessary to clean up his thinking.

Very true. They passed the buck.


Sorry, I don't see any equivalency. Maybe Ezekiel 28:15 "Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee'.

Well... I see it the opposite way. Even after Adam & Eve sinned, God took care of them = made them clothes. Poor old David would have been in constant fear of the unknown. For his view would have been of a capricious God who strikes men down even when their intentions are good (cp. 2 Sam 6:6-7). 2 Sam 6:8&9 are insightful "And David became angry because of the LORD's outbreak against Uzzah; and he called the name of the place Perez Uzzah {Literally Outburst Against Uzzah}...And David was afraid of the LORD that day..."

If you have a close read of the Gospels you'll note that Jesus never directly identified himself to the Jews as the Christ, even when asked directly, for them (including the disciples) it had to be revealed/perceived (there was a Jewish tradition that required this). However, he did directly reveal himself to one person, a Samaritan woman - the Samaritan's anticipated the coming of the Messiah - we read a little later that there then occured a mass recognition by the Samaritans of who Jesus was (John 4).

The man who had been born blind is asked by Jesus "Do you believe on the Son of God?" The man's response is enlightening.

In John 9 there is no mention of the man having sinned or was being forgiven. the exact opposite Jhn 9:1-3 "And as [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man which was blind from [his] birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

That is true.

In Luke the one that returned to Jesus was a Samaritan. That is insightful in itself...

Also note that there is no mention of sinners repenting or being forgiven. The lepers pleaded that Jesus have mercy on them, Jesus then said "Go, show yourselves to the priests. And so it was that as they went, they were cleansed." So, as with John 9, the event was for a witness "that the works of God should be made manifest in him", but also note what Jesus says to the Samaritan "Your faith has made you well."

Makes me smile as well.

Especially the Pharisees view of the origin of sin. On first glance it seems implausable that they saw nothing special about Jesus' healing powers. Historically that is understandable as there had been and were travelling healers & magi around doing "miracles". The religious leaders opinion of Jesus is enlightening "Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?" (John 8:48).

I find echoes of Pharoah, his blindness and hardening heart in the Jewish leaders' perception of Jesus. The common people could see the uniqueness, why not they?

cp. Isaiah 6:10;44:18 (15-22) & Jn 12:40.

Peace

Hi Apostoli:

Well at least I spelled your thread name correctly. because everything from that point has been incorrect. I'm not one to butcher up a post - at least not thoroughly. But I will make some corrections to a couple of thoughts on the subject of King David - >>>In the Exodus, Moses was not a king but a prophet and yet he was the closest man to God which (if we read) had the authority to relay God’s word to the Israelite-as well as set up a judicial system of laws (Halacha - Moshe miSinai); and establish a priesthood (The high priests, like all Jewish priests, belonged to the Aaronic line.) and even to announce God's punishments for violations toward the commandments, however, see Precedence in law, and he (Moses) tries to argue for the justification of the Israelites sins.

“Precedence in law is a very powerful argument. If the defense can show that another judge had ruled in a similar case to acquit, rather than to convict, it is possible that the judge will take such a ruling into account and do the same. It is even more powerful if the defense can show that the very same judge hearing the present case set the precedence. In the Torah there is another moment when man argued against G-d's intended punishment. In the story of Sodom, Avraham brilliantly argues on behalf of leniency, and G-d openly agreed that He would be lenient if Avraham's argument could be substantiated. Unfortunately for the Sodomites, Avraham could not find 10 righteous people to win his case. Yet, Avraham valiantly attempted their defense, in spite of the overwhelming evidence against them. Moshe could have taken heart from that precedent to know that G-d is in essence a compassionate and merciful judge. However, there was one problem. The reason why Avraham lost the case was because he too was arguing before the Heavenly Tribunal. Although his argument had merit, nevertheless, the judge knew with absolute certainty that there were not 10 righteous men. If so, Moshe was in the very same situation. If G-d Himself says, "Go down because your nation has worshipped an idol", and all are to blame, it does not leave much room to maneuver!” LINK


Sin can be viewed as incurring a debt which is too big for us to pay back. The good news is that Jesus has paid the debt on our behalf and if we accept His offer of forgiveness, it becomes effective. Jesus will plead our case before God, as he is our Messiah (King) and Redeemer, who has saved many people. The two words are: Repent and believe. When Jesus began his public ministry, he began to preach and say Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand. Matthew 4:17 and in the 'Lords Prayer' contains the couplet to forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. Matthew 7:12, 14-15. In the book of Wisdom, read chapter 10,11,12, and 13 all.

"1 But thou, our God, art gracious and true, patient, and ordering all things in mercy. 2 For if we sin, we are thine, knowing thy greatness: and if we sin not, we know that we are counted with thee. 3 For to know thee is perfect justice: and to know thy justice, and thy power, is the root of immortality. "

…and in David’s case, Nathan delivers the judgments sent by God “but because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die." David doesn’t argue with the verdict he consoles with God to remove it - If we were to compare this passage with the passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke, David (also) like Jesus tries to console with God to take away this judgment (as if to say: “take this cup from me”), 2 Samuel 12:21.

In Matthew 26:42, Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42, and toward the end of these chapters, it is God's will (not ours) as Jesus acknowledges this in scripture " 2"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."" As “if” to say I leave you with the final verdict – knowing that this will only be for the betterment of something greater – AS to compare with another book – and passage; In the story of Joseph (Yosef) as to point toward the end of the book; Joseph didn’t hold hostility toward his brothers. So even the most painful as well as every joyful moment can be reunited to lead its way toward the ultimate goal “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:28). Sometimes we don’t see how God’s final plan (at that moment) becomes visible, yet. We have to trust God, as difficult as it may be: In Mark 10:24-26 it states “first” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?" Mark 10:27 “Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

If David story is a depiction of anything it should be judgment with compassion.


John 1:17

“For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”

Returning back to the first thought:

Forgiveness" and or "pardon" was needed even to sinners. Jesus had released "redeemed" the sinner from his chain/exile to bring the transgressors/sinner back to life! But all sinners "acknowledged" the sin - and - asked Jesus to cure them: Jesus Heals Ten Lepers, Luke 17:11 – 19 “Jesus healed ten lepers, so how many came back? One healed leper came back to thank Jesus.” And in Mark 10:48, “Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"

[mitzi]

INAUGURAL LECTURES
Commendation and division of Sacred Scripture
by
Thomas Aquinas
translated by Ralph McInerny
in Thomas Aquinas, Selected Writings (Penguin, 1998)

revised and html-edited by Joseph Kenny, O.P.

This might give you and also some others some insight....please read this article. There are other articles on this subject but for now I will give you this one

[apostoli]

Hi mitzi,

Had to read through your post several times, as you lost me along the way...I'm not sure what you are trying to express. My guess is God is compassionate, and he deals with us according to the level of our faith & repentence (?)

>>>In the Exodus, Moses was not a king but a prophet and yet he was the closest man to God which (if we read) had the authority to relay God’s word to the Israelite

Have a close read of Exodus 19&20. The Israelites just couldn't handle God speaking directly to them. Exd 20:19 "Then they said to Moses, "You speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die."

An interesting interpretation of this suggests that the Israelites wanted Moses to find loopholes in the commandment YHWH had just delivered directly to the people.

-as well as set up a judicial system of laws (Halacha - Moshe miSinai);

Most of which (if not all,, including the dietry laws) broke YHWH's commands to Noah & all mankind = Genesis 9:3-5. Possibly this was justified because of the hardness of his peoples heart/s.

and establish a priesthood

I have often wondered how much Moses' father in law influenced the establishment of the priesthood.

The high priests, like all Jewish priests, belonged to the Aaronic line.

Thats true. Exodus 29:44 etc

and even to announce God's punishments for violations toward the commandments

God's or Moses' ? Jesus indicates Moses' thinking eg: Mark 10:5

, however, see Precedence in law, and he (Moses) tries to argue for the justification of the Israelites sins.

I wasn't overly impressed with Rabbi Tendler 's article. More holes in it than a rusty bucket, but there was an element of truth in it.

Precedence in law is a very powerful argument.

It is what is known as the Nuremburg defence. In true legal prudence, precedence is overridden by many things (change in social values, change in law, new science etc) eg: the death penalty is not enforced in many countries even though there is plenty of past precedence.

But if we are to argue precedence, Moses isn't a roaring success...he was most innovative though...for instance:

YHWH, the law giver and judge decreed (Genesis 9)...Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.

Moses put limitations on what could be eaten. Might have been prudent at the time for the sake of public health policy but he overrode God's decree.

Sin can be viewed as incurring a debt which is too big for us to pay back.

Nice viewpoint

The good news is that Jesus has paid the debt on our behalf and if we accept His offer of forgiveness, it becomes effective.

Another good point.

Jesus will plead our case before God, as he is our Messiah (King) and Redeemer, who has saved many people.

Have a read of John 14:6,26; 15:26; 16:7. The paraklētos is often vaguely translated. Basically the word refers to a defence attorney. At Romans 8:26 it is said of the Spirit that he intercedes for us, so according to the NT it is the Spirit that now pleads our case before God.

The two words are: Repent and believe. When Jesus began his public ministry, he began to preach and say Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand. Matthew 4:17 and in the 'Lords Prayer' contains the couplet to forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. Matthew 7:12, 14-15. In the book of Wisdom, read chapter 10,11,12, and 13 all.

"1 But thou, our God, art gracious and true, patient, and ordering all things in mercy. 2 For if we sin, we are thine, knowing thy greatness: and if we sin not, we know that we are counted with thee. 3 For to know thee is perfect justice: and to know thy justice, and thy power, is the root of immortality. "

…and in David’s case, Nathan delivers the judgments sent by God “but because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die." David doesn’t argue with the verdict he consoles with God to remove it - If we were to compare this passage with the passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke, David (also) like Jesus tries to console with God to take away this judgment (as if to say: “take this cup from me”), 2 Samuel 12:21.

Sorry I see no comparison. David was under punishment, Jesus wasn't. Jesus could have walked away but being obedient to his Father he didn't. David had no choice but accept his punishment (the curse on his household).

In Matthew 26:42, Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42, and toward the end of these chapters, it is God's will (not ours) as Jesus acknowledges this in scripture " 2"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."" As “if” to say I leave you with the final verdict

The Father does not judge anyone = John 5:22, so no verdict. People condemn themselves = John 12:48.

The cup that Jesus refers to isn't his death, he knew he had the power to lay his life down and take it up again (John 10:17). The cup Jesus referred to, imu, was the manner of his death and the condemnation it would bring on those who instigated it. Some commentators hold that the cup is his becoming sin and therefore rejected by God, but I don't think so as he didn't see corruption and instead was raised from the dead.

– knowing that this will only be for the betterment of something greater – AS to compare with another book – and passage; In the story of Joseph (Yosef) as to point toward the end of the book; Joseph didn’t hold hostility toward his brothers. So even the most painful as well as every joyful moment can be reunited to lead its way toward the ultimate goal “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:28). Sometimes we don’t see how God’s final plan (at that moment) becomes visible, yet. We have to trust God, as difficult as it may be

Thats true, but I don't see the connection with our earlier discussion.

In Mark 10:24-26 it states “first” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?" Mark 10:27 “Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

If David story is a depiction of anything it should be judgment with compassion.

(?)

Premise; God is compassionate. Therefore all things he does is with compassion.

John 1:17 “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”

Which indicates the invalidity of Moses' ordinances (no grace and no truth).

Returning back to the first thought:

Forgiveness" and or "pardon" was needed even to sinners. Jesus had released "redeemed" the sinner from his chain/exile to bring the transgressors/sinner back to life! But all sinners "acknowledged" the sin - and - asked Jesus to cure them: Jesus Heals Ten Lepers, Luke 17:11 – 19 “Jesus healed ten lepers, so how many came back? One healed leper came back to thank Jesus.”

And that one was a Samaratian. As I remarked previously: there is significance in that fact.

And in Mark 10:48, “Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"

Different person, different event. I'm guessing your point is that the Lepers in Luke called out for mercy, as does blind Bartimaeus in Mark. Have a read of Luke 17:19 and Mark 10:52 and note that Jesus says respectively to the Samaritan and Bartimaeus "your faith has cured you"

Peace

ps. Thanks for the link to Aquinas. One remark of his I found not exact "For the divine law was given to the Jewish people through a mediator". Exodus 20 clearly has YHWH delivering the law personally to the Israelites but they couldn't bear his voice, so pleaded with Moses to "speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us" (vs19). in the light of other scripture I think there is a lot to glean from this verse...

[mitzi]

Hi mitzi,

Had to read through your post several times, as you lost me along the way...I'm not sure what you are trying to express. My guess is God is compassionate, and he deals with us according to the level of our faith & repentence (?)

Have a close read of Exodus 19&20. The Israelites just couldn't handle God speaking directly to them. Exd 20:19 "Then they said to Moses, "You speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die."

An interesting interpretation of this suggests that the Israelites wanted Moses to find loopholes in the commandment YHWH had just delivered directly to the people.

Most of which (if not all,, including the dietry laws) broke YHWH's commands to Noah & all mankind = Genesis 9:3-5. Possibly this was justified because of the hardness of his peoples heart/s.

I have often wondered how much Moses' father in law influenced the establishment of the priesthood.

Thats true. Exodus 29:44 etc

God's or Moses' ? Jesus indicates Moses' thinking eg: Mark 10:5

I wasn't overly impressed with Rabbi Tendler 's article. More holes in it than a rusty bucket, but there was an element of truth in it.

It is what is known as the Nuremburg defence. In true legal prudence, precedence is overridden by many things (change in social values, change in law, new science etc) eg: the death penalty is not enforced in many countries even though there is plenty of past precedence.

But if we are to argue precedence, Moses isn't a roaring success...he was most innovative though...for instance:

YHWH, the law giver and judge decreed (Genesis 9)...Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.

Moses put limitations on what could be eaten. Might have been prudent at the time for the sake of public health policy but he overrode God's decree.

Nice viewpoint

Another good point.

Have a read of John 14:6,26; 15:26; 16:7. The paraklētos is often vaguely translated. Basically the word refers to a defence attorney. At Romans 8:26 it is said of the Spirit that he intercedes for us, so according to the NT it is the Spirit that now pleads our case before God.

Sorry I see no comparison. David was under punishment, Jesus wasn't. Jesus could have walked away but being obedient to his Father he didn't. David had no choice but accept his punishment (the curse on his household).

The Father does not judge anyone = John 5:22, so no verdict. People condemn themselves = John 12:48.

The cup that Jesus refers to isn't his death, he knew he had the power to lay his life down and take it up again (John 10:17). The cup Jesus referred to, imu, was the manner of his death and the condemnation it would bring on those who instigated it. Some commentators hold that the cup is his becoming sin and therefore rejected by God, but I don't think so as he didn't see corruption and instead was raised from the dead.

Thats true, but I don't see the connection with our earlier discussion.

(?)

Premise; God is compassionate. Therefore all things he does is with compassion.

Which indicates the invalidity of Moses' ordinances (no grace and no truth).

And that one was a Samaratian. As I remarked previously: there is significance in that fact.

Different person, different event. I'm guessing your point is that the Lepers in Luke called out for mercy, as does blind Bartimaeus in Mark. Have a read of Luke 17:19 and Mark 10:52 and note that Jesus says respectively to the Samaritan and Bartimaeus "your faith has cured you"

Peace

ps. Thanks for the link to Aquinas. One remark of his I found not exact "For the divine law was given to the Jewish people through a mediator". Exodus 20 clearly has YHWH delivering the law personally to the Israelites but they couldn't bear his voice, so pleaded with Moses to "speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us" (vs19). in the light of other scripture I think there is a lot to glean from this verse...

Hi Apostoli:

I was hoping you would write back - I'm sorry if the post wasn't understandable because I wrote another and I hope this comes out clearer. - sometimes it's difficult to get everything
that you want to say, out on paper - somethings are easy to explain and others just aren't.

Well, I hope you read part of the previous article, ”Commendation and division of Sacred Scripture”. Your condemnation of David is somewhat blindly thought out, from what I read (sorry) and also I'm coming into scripture with that approach - that is, David's sin wasn't dealt with lightly - and from reading Thomas Aquinas, his approach was that King David was a King to judge the people, according to the Mosaic laws, to quote "The binding is the command of a king who can punish transgressors. Proverbs 20:2: ‘As the roaring of a lion, so also is the dread of a king." - even His enemies viewed David's relationship with God as close - the position he (David) put himself in wasn't favorable with God or with Nathan, because of the fact that God previously withdraws his favour from Saul, king of Israel, and sends the prophet Samuel to seek a new king for his people. - So, No....David isn't everyone's favorite person at that time.

..... Quoting you: "As God cursed David and his household because of his actions, we get a fair idea of David’s motivation (2 Sam 12:7-11). YHWH's intent is that David be publicly humiliated (2 Sam 12:12), so I don't think it profitable to go against YHWH by romancing about David."

Hmmm, I'm not romanticizing David’s sin or how he approaches God to spare the child – but considering there are several passages that could bring this particular punishment to light, I would stress looking into Nehemiah 9:26-28. The whole point of that chapter is seeing how God continues to forgive and to have mercy on man after the punishment of their sins.

In the book of Wisdom, the Wisdom of God (His Spirit) continually sets man on the right path with God –:1. “She preserved him that was first formed by God, the father of the world, when he was created alone, 10:2. And she brought him out of his sin, and gave him power to govern all things.”
Even in the passages out of the Exodus 32:30-35 and Numbers 14:20-24 we read the punishment of the Gold calf and forgiveness that God brings by the words Moses spoke, being mediator, between the Israelites and God, as He said: “You have committed a grave sin. I will go up to the Lord, then; perhaps I may be able to make atonement for your sin.”

Now when reading of II Samuel 12 does anything differ than the sin of the Golden Calf? As Idolatry - is categorized as adultery (Deut. 5:9) – In Numbers, “Pardon, then, the wickedness of this people in keeping with your great kindness, even as you have forgiven them from Egypt until now.” and (Hosea 5:5) Hosea 5:1 Hear ye this, O priests; and hearken, ye house of Israel; and give ye ear, O house of the king; for judgment is toward you, because ye have been a snare on Mizpah, and a net spread upon Tabor.

Ephraim (Israel) was not hidden from God in that He knew all about their wickedness, even though much of it was done secretly. We are reminded of Ezekiel’s vision (Ezek. 8:7-12). He was told to dig a hole in the Temple wall, and when he looked in, he saw a secret room and the Sanhedrin with heathen idols all over the wall. While outwardly pious before the people, the Sanhedrin was secretly and inwardly irreverent and idolatrous.

As I recall: God would bless them with prosperity in the land promised to the fathers, so long as they kept the law revealed through Moses; otherwise they would come under the curses of the covenant. So what was David’s sin? And what was his punishment? Every sin that David had committed was recommitted at another point – and the punishment was not very far away.
Nathan (the prophet) comes over to David (as his King) and tells him of the Richman and the Poor man - Furious at what he hears, King David, declares, "As God lives, the one who has done this deserves death." Responds the prophet, "You are that man!" David is humbled. "I have sinned before God," Jesus said (and I want to bring this passage up) - “7I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.”

Forgiveness and Pardon is something that Nehemiah asked, he begins the prayer with "let your ear be attentive and your eyes open to hear the prayer your servant is praying before you day and night for your servants, the people of Israel. I confess the sins we Israelites, including myself and my father's house, have committed against you. 7 We have acted very wickedly toward you. We have not obeyed the commands, decrees and laws you gave your servant Moses."

When I made the comparison between King David and Jesus, it was within their consoling God – to spare the life of a child/ and with Jesus, He consoles with God to spare not only the Apostles but for Jerusalem….The righteous person can plead for sins of another just as King David (as he still retained his Kingship) would plead for the life of his own son because the relationship between the two are comparable with God and the Jewish people. ( Father and Son - Proverbs 3:11-12 “My son, do not despise the LORD's discipline and do not resent his rebuke, because the LORD disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in.” See Luke 19: 41-44 : As Jesus drew near to the city of Jerusalem he wept over it saying "If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace!! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side and level you and your children to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

This event of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem shows us the compassionate side to Jesus nature. He knows full well what her destiny is, in the time after he will be put on trial and sentenced to death by the people. Jesus is not only moving to the climactic point of his earthly ministry, he is a man riding to his death and knows this all too well. But that is not what Jesus is weeping about. He is weeping over the people not knowing the things which would bring them peace. He knows from what he said in Luke 21:22 that these are the days of vengeance. God’s judgment will soon come upon them to Annihilate the city and all who dwell in her. For when they reject Him as their King and deliver him up to the gentiles to put him to death, then their fate will be sealed. Jesus was in the unique position of knowing what would happen to Jerusalem forty years after his death in Jerusalem.

David (and not romancing the story) is a King...Nathan (the prophet) is telling him that his position (authoritative position) could get him killed for misusing his position of authority, even though and comparing this to Moses' position, Moses did not commit the same offense as David but He was not allowed to cross into the promise land - because He disobeyed God (see him as a Prophet to the Jewish People - and Mediator between God and the Israelites) Because Moses struck the rock, instead of speaking to it, God did not allow Moses to enter the Promised Land. See Deuteronomy 34:4 "This is the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your seed.’ I have caused you to see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.”. Though he could not set foot in the Promised Land, God allowed him to see it.", as David could not build the temple - but Solomon . "(2 Samuel 7:1-2). Now God prevented David [from building the Temple], because He said: "For you have shed much blood upon the earth in My sight"

[mitzi]

Sorry Apostoli:

I'm in a really rush for time - so I'm going to write back to tomorrow or late, late tonight. If there are any mistakes - I'll read them later.

Thanks
Mitzi

[Rainbow Brite]

The Father does not judge anyone = John 5:22, so no verdict. People condemn themselves = John 12:48.

Other Christians here say that those who receive grace and mercy are not under judgment, but those who are condemned are judged by Jesus to damnation.

However both views seem a little off, since doesn't the following indicate that Jesus judges both good and evil?

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.