Facts About Judaism

[irosie91]

there was ABSOLUTELY no reason for Mary to go to Bethlehem even if it was the ancestral land of Joseph. In those days and for thousands of years--PREGNANT jewish girls had their babies in the houses of their MOTHERS or other female relatives. They did not go off on a donkey on a long arduous journey whilst "HEAVY WITH CHILD" ---to unknown accommodations and no female relatives.
That part of the story never made sense to me.

.
so are the brave, mary.

they were itinerants, as was jesus to follow surly not the clan type of their prototype jewish culture. then or now.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.
no, they were not trying to conceal anything - your complaint is with the crucifiers and their 4th century fallacies they used to ingratiate themselves at the itinerants expense.
.
View attachment 387890
.
in fact they were blessed in their travel by three wise men guided by a star in the heavens.

the opening scene in itself is the liberation theology of innocence the 1st century was to witness before its tragic conclusion in darkness. by the sinners.

oh--you believe that BS too........ ---they stopped at a MOTEL and the nasty jew who owned the motel told them "UP YOURS"

mm

there was ABSOLUTELY no reason for Mary to go to Bethlehem even if it was the ancestral land of Joseph. In those days and for thousands of years--PREGNANT jewish girls had their babies in the houses of their MOTHERS or other female relatives. They did not go off on a donkey on a long arduous journey whilst "HEAVY WITH CHILD" ---to unknown accommodations and no female relatives.
That part of the story never made sense to me.

.
so are the brave, mary.

they were itinerants, as was jesus to follow surly not the clan type of their prototype jewish culture. then or now.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.
no, they were not trying to conceal anything - your complaint is with the crucifiers and their 4th century fallacies they used to ingratiate themselves at the itinerants expense.
.
View attachment 387890
.
in fact they were blessed in their travel by three wise men guided by a star in the heavens.

the opening scene in itself is the liberation theology of innocence the 1st century was to witness before its tragic conclusion in darkness. by the sinners.

When you try to be all things to all people’s and tell a tall tale you always end up tripping over your lies.... Your good book the New Testament does not specifically mention three wise men.. It uses possibly plural as in more then one but not three specifically.. Keep that in mind...

.

When you try to be all things to all people’s and tell a tall tale you always end up tripping over your lies.... Your good book the New Testament does not specifically mention three wise men.. It uses possibly plural as in more then one but not three specifically.. Keep that in mind...

.
the book of forgeries and fallacies obscures the truths of its recordings for uses by their false religion to reconstitute their meaning for what purposes are beneficial for them the same as all the documents of the desert religions - as have stated, there never were etched tablets by the Almighty as claimed by the jews through moses. in their book.

just supposing an illuminated star did bring to the location travelers of high regard to the birth of a certain person as factual is a significant recording and an opening scene as a sign from the metaphysical for future events that did occur. the attempted restoration of the religion of antiquity, liberation theology (generic) and the means for a freed spirit's admission to the Everlasting.

sorry folks it seems clear to me that CONSTANTINE
had an agenda when it came to christianity (and maybe paul and a few other people) WORLD RELIGION. Way back then all of Persia was ZOROASTRIAN and that religion also was in competition (of a sort---at least demographically, with Buddhism) to the east. The THREE WISE GUYS legend
was a draw gimmick. In fact the entire ---born in a
stable story, IMHO, is contrived. Does anyone know out there amongst us cyberbuddies. ----re census----
were there MASS population shifts to the "ancestral lands" ???

.

oh--you believe that BS too........ ---they stopped at a MOTEL and the nasty jew who owned the motel told them "UP YOURS"

.
that is the setting for the future events to learn from their ingratitude, not to repeat them - iro 91.
.

A bastard born out of wedding relations with a foreign Roman soldier is "liberation theology".
And the death of the bastard is "tragedy" in spite being the whole point of his mythological status.

.
yes, that is the point that for the centuries since has been your downfall, the desert religions and the separation from the Almighty's truly chosen example. for the cohesion necessary for an enlightened humanity.

what "truly chosen example"?

.

what "truly chosen example"?

.
of purity and innocence ....

is that the best you can do?

.

is that the best you can do?

.
that's all that mattered, the outcome was your doing.

what "outcome" was my doing? -----I haven't been out of my tiny residence for MONTHS

I am so glad that you get to experience breezewood

nothing new----long long ago as an undergraduate---a person from a nearby school used to seek me out
to discuss religion. He had been a divinity student
in a catholic college and "knew" the "magic numbers" in the talmud (?????)

I can't imagine you ever discussing religion. You are more of a politics person.

Also not surprised that that is what you compared breezewood to. smh.

Only because you don't see the connection between the two.
In Judaism the G-dly is in every aspect of life, politics and even religion.

The problem is when they confuse the two. One is worshiping the Creator. The other is worshiping the created. Politics and religion included.

I agree, when a religion associates divinity with the created it's essentially flawed,
as much as politics in which the politicians are venerated as divine is not the correct way.

However, there's a Torah commandment to set a government and king,
and if that is what you call worshiping the created, then your problem is with G-d's word, not people.

there was ABSOLUTELY no reason for Mary to go to Bethlehem even if it was the ancestral land of Joseph. In those days and for thousands of years--PREGNANT jewish girls had their babies in the houses of their MOTHERS or other female relatives. They did not go off on a donkey on a long arduous journey whilst "HEAVY WITH CHILD" ---to unknown accommodations and no female relatives.
That part of the story never made sense to me.

.
so are the brave, mary.

they were itinerants, as was jesus to follow surly not the clan type of their prototype jewish culture. then or now.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.
no, they were not trying to conceal anything - your complaint is with the crucifiers and their 4th century fallacies they used to ingratiate themselves at the itinerants expense.
.
View attachment 387890
.
in fact they were blessed in their travel by three wise men guided by a star in the heavens.

the opening scene in itself is the liberation theology of innocence the 1st century was to witness before its tragic conclusion in darkness. by the sinners.

oh--you believe that BS too........ ---they stopped at a MOTEL and the nasty jew who owned the motel told them "UP YOURS"

mm

there was ABSOLUTELY no reason for Mary to go to Bethlehem even if it was the ancestral land of Joseph. In those days and for thousands of years--PREGNANT jewish girls had their babies in the houses of their MOTHERS or other female relatives. They did not go off on a donkey on a long arduous journey whilst "HEAVY WITH CHILD" ---to unknown accommodations and no female relatives.
That part of the story never made sense to me.

.
so are the brave, mary.

they were itinerants, as was jesus to follow surly not the clan type of their prototype jewish culture. then or now.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.
no, they were not trying to conceal anything - your complaint is with the crucifiers and their 4th century fallacies they used to ingratiate themselves at the itinerants expense.
.
View attachment 387890
.
in fact they were blessed in their travel by three wise men guided by a star in the heavens.

the opening scene in itself is the liberation theology of innocence the 1st century was to witness before its tragic conclusion in darkness. by the sinners.

When you try to be all things to all people’s and tell a tall tale you always end up tripping over your lies.... Your good book the New Testament does not specifically mention three wise men.. It uses possibly plural as in more then one but not three specifically.. Keep that in mind...

.

When you try to be all things to all people’s and tell a tall tale you always end up tripping over your lies.... Your good book the New Testament does not specifically mention three wise men.. It uses possibly plural as in more then one but not three specifically.. Keep that in mind...

.
the book of forgeries and fallacies obscures the truths of its recordings for uses by their false religion to reconstitute their meaning for what purposes are beneficial for them the same as all the documents of the desert religions - as have stated, there never were etched tablets by the Almighty as claimed by the jews through moses. in their book.

just supposing an illuminated star did bring to the location travelers of high regard to the birth of a certain person as factual is a significant recording and an opening scene as a sign from the metaphysical for future events that did occur. the attempted restoration of the religion of antiquity, liberation theology (generic) and the means for a freed spirit's admission to the Everlasting.

sorry folks it seems clear to me that CONSTANTINE
had an agenda when it came to christianity (and maybe paul and a few other people) WORLD RELIGION. Way back then all of Persia was ZOROASTRIAN and that religion also was in competition (of a sort---at least demographically, with Buddhism) to the east. The THREE WISE GUYS legend
was a draw gimmick. In fact the entire ---born in a
stable story, IMHO, is contrived. Does anyone know out there amongst us cyberbuddies. ----re census----
were there MASS population shifts to the "ancestral lands" ???

.

oh--you believe that BS too........ ---they stopped at a MOTEL and the nasty jew who owned the motel told them "UP YOURS"

.
that is the setting for the future events to learn from their ingratitude, not to repeat them - iro 91.
.

A bastard born out of wedding relations with a foreign Roman soldier is "liberation theology".
And the death of the bastard is "tragedy" in spite being the whole point of his mythological status.

.
yes, that is the point that for the centuries since has been your downfall, the desert religions and the separation from the Almighty's truly chosen example. for the cohesion necessary for an enlightened humanity.

what "truly chosen example"?

.

what "truly chosen example"?

.
of purity and innocence ....

is that the best you can do?

.

is that the best you can do?

.
that's all that mattered, the outcome was your doing.

what "outcome" was my doing? -----I haven't been out of my tiny residence for MONTHS

I am so glad that you get to experience breezewood

nothing new----long long ago as an undergraduate---a person from a nearby school used to seek me out
to discuss religion. He had been a divinity student
in a catholic college and "knew" the "magic numbers" in the talmud (?????)

I can't imagine you ever discussing religion. You are more of a politics person.

Also not surprised that that is what you compared breezewood to. smh.

Only because you don't see the connection between the two.
In Judaism the G-dly is in every aspect of life, politics and even religion.

The problem is when they confuse the two. One is worshiping the Creator. The other is worshiping the created. Politics and religion included.

I agree, when a religion associates divinity with the created it's essentially flawed,
as much as politics in which the politicians are venerated as divine is not the correct way.

However, there's a Torah commandment to set a government and king,
and if that is what you call worshiping the created, then your problem is with G-d's word, not people.

You can tell what people worship by their behaviors.

I know what you did there and that's you putting your religion above God.

You aren't God. You don't speak for God.

You know nothing.
Strawman fallacies is all you capable of?

If you are going to attack someone else's faith, you shouldn't be a coward about it.

Talking about serving the created...

Is it cowardly to call at your worship of a dead bastard?

Now look who's trolling.

This is you not serving G-d. This is you serving yourself. This is you worshiping the created. Same sin as Adam.

I love it when cowards attack the faith of others behind the safety of a keyboard.

But does that excuse your worship of a dead guy?

Do answer.

Yoar still doing it.

Still, does that excuse your worship of a dead guy?

You are demonstrating your desperation and insecurity of your beliefs with every post.

I am secure in my beliefs and cannot be harmed by your attacks on my faith. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

So if you miraculously saw that dead guy walk the street,
you'd still bow down, pray to and worship him?

What you intend for evil, G-d is using for good.

That doesn't address my post.
Keep ducking my question...

Rabbi Toba Spitzer offers you his advice...

Overcoming Anger

www.dorsheitzedek.org

Toba Spitzer is a female,
and you still fail to address my question.

Use your anger towards Christians as a wonderful doorway into spiritual practice. There is a quality of discernment that you need when dealing with your anger. Acting from a place of anger is rarely, if ever, productive.

I'm not angry,
merely asking how your comments about "worshiping the created",
fit your worship of a dead guy. And for some reason you've been unable to answer.

So you say, but happy people don't go begging others to fight them.

One approach to dealing with your anger comes from the Jewish tradition of Mussar, which teaches the cultivation of positive qualities and ways of dealing with negative qualities. There are a few specific middot, or qualities, that can foster as antidotes to your anger.

But that's not what I'm asking,
why are you ducking my question?

he wants to represent you as HATING CHRISTIANS because you do not "accept jesus as THE SAVIOR"----if this converstation took place between you and a muslim------your not "accepting muhummad as the final prophet" would mean you HATE MUSLIMS

.

he wants to represent you as HATING CHRISTIANS

.
so what about moses and their phony 10 commandments ... who's hating who.

"moses" and THEIR phony 10 commandments"??
your sunday school "person" told you that MOSES is
a plural?

 

[BreezeWood]

there was ABSOLUTELY no reason for Mary to go to Bethlehem even if it was the ancestral land of Joseph. In those days and for thousands of years--PREGNANT jewish girls had their babies in the houses of their MOTHERS or other female relatives. They did not go off on a donkey on a long arduous journey whilst "HEAVY WITH CHILD" ---to unknown accommodations and no female relatives.
That part of the story never made sense to me.

.
so are the brave, mary.

they were itinerants, as was jesus to follow surly not the clan type of their prototype jewish culture. then or now.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.
no, they were not trying to conceal anything - your complaint is with the crucifiers and their 4th century fallacies they used to ingratiate themselves at the itinerants expense.
.
View attachment 387890
.
in fact they were blessed in their travel by three wise men guided by a star in the heavens.

the opening scene in itself is the liberation theology of innocence the 1st century was to witness before its tragic conclusion in darkness. by the sinners.

oh--you believe that BS too........ ---they stopped at a MOTEL and the nasty jew who owned the motel told them "UP YOURS"

mm

there was ABSOLUTELY no reason for Mary to go to Bethlehem even if it was the ancestral land of Joseph. In those days and for thousands of years--PREGNANT jewish girls had their babies in the houses of their MOTHERS or other female relatives. They did not go off on a donkey on a long arduous journey whilst "HEAVY WITH CHILD" ---to unknown accommodations and no female relatives.
That part of the story never made sense to me.

.
so are the brave, mary.

they were itinerants, as was jesus to follow surly not the clan type of their prototype jewish culture. then or now.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.
no, they were not trying to conceal anything - your complaint is with the crucifiers and their 4th century fallacies they used to ingratiate themselves at the itinerants expense.
.
View attachment 387890
.
in fact they were blessed in their travel by three wise men guided by a star in the heavens.

the opening scene in itself is the liberation theology of innocence the 1st century was to witness before its tragic conclusion in darkness. by the sinners.

When you try to be all things to all people’s and tell a tall tale you always end up tripping over your lies.... Your good book the New Testament does not specifically mention three wise men.. It uses possibly plural as in more then one but not three specifically.. Keep that in mind...

.

When you try to be all things to all people’s and tell a tall tale you always end up tripping over your lies.... Your good book the New Testament does not specifically mention three wise men.. It uses possibly plural as in more then one but not three specifically.. Keep that in mind...

.
the book of forgeries and fallacies obscures the truths of its recordings for uses by their false religion to reconstitute their meaning for what purposes are beneficial for them the same as all the documents of the desert religions - as have stated, there never were etched tablets by the Almighty as claimed by the jews through moses. in their book.

just supposing an illuminated star did bring to the location travelers of high regard to the birth of a certain person as factual is a significant recording and an opening scene as a sign from the metaphysical for future events that did occur. the attempted restoration of the religion of antiquity, liberation theology (generic) and the means for a freed spirit's admission to the Everlasting.

sorry folks it seems clear to me that CONSTANTINE
had an agenda when it came to christianity (and maybe paul and a few other people) WORLD RELIGION. Way back then all of Persia was ZOROASTRIAN and that religion also was in competition (of a sort---at least demographically, with Buddhism) to the east. The THREE WISE GUYS legend
was a draw gimmick. In fact the entire ---born in a
stable story, IMHO, is contrived. Does anyone know out there amongst us cyberbuddies. ----re census----
were there MASS population shifts to the "ancestral lands" ???

.

oh--you believe that BS too........ ---they stopped at a MOTEL and the nasty jew who owned the motel told them "UP YOURS"

.
that is the setting for the future events to learn from their ingratitude, not to repeat them - iro 91.
.

A bastard born out of wedding relations with a foreign Roman soldier is "liberation theology".
And the death of the bastard is "tragedy" in spite being the whole point of his mythological status.

.
yes, that is the point that for the centuries since has been your downfall, the desert religions and the separation from the Almighty's truly chosen example. for the cohesion necessary for an enlightened humanity.

what "truly chosen example"?

.

what "truly chosen example"?

.
of purity and innocence ....

is that the best you can do?

.

is that the best you can do?

.
that's all that mattered, the outcome was your doing.

what "outcome" was my doing? -----I haven't been out of my tiny residence for MONTHS

I am so glad that you get to experience breezewood

nothing new----long long ago as an undergraduate---a person from a nearby school used to seek me out
to discuss religion. He had been a divinity student
in a catholic college and "knew" the "magic numbers" in the talmud (?????)

I can't imagine you ever discussing religion. You are more of a politics person.

Also not surprised that that is what you compared breezewood to. smh.

Only because you don't see the connection between the two.
In Judaism the G-dly is in every aspect of life, politics and even religion.

The problem is when they confuse the two. One is worshiping the Creator. The other is worshiping the created. Politics and religion included.

I agree, when a religion associates divinity with the created it's essentially flawed,
as much as politics in which the politicians are venerated as divine is not the correct way.

However, there's a Torah commandment to set a government and king,
and if that is what you call worshiping the created, then your problem is with G-d's word, not people.

there was ABSOLUTELY no reason for Mary to go to Bethlehem even if it was the ancestral land of Joseph. In those days and for thousands of years--PREGNANT jewish girls had their babies in the houses of their MOTHERS or other female relatives. They did not go off on a donkey on a long arduous journey whilst "HEAVY WITH CHILD" ---to unknown accommodations and no female relatives.
That part of the story never made sense to me.

.
so are the brave, mary.

they were itinerants, as was jesus to follow surly not the clan type of their prototype jewish culture. then or now.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.
no, they were not trying to conceal anything - your complaint is with the crucifiers and their 4th century fallacies they used to ingratiate themselves at the itinerants expense.
.
View attachment 387890
.
in fact they were blessed in their travel by three wise men guided by a star in the heavens.

the opening scene in itself is the liberation theology of innocence the 1st century was to witness before its tragic conclusion in darkness. by the sinners.

oh--you believe that BS too........ ---they stopped at a MOTEL and the nasty jew who owned the motel told them "UP YOURS"

mm

there was ABSOLUTELY no reason for Mary to go to Bethlehem even if it was the ancestral land of Joseph. In those days and for thousands of years--PREGNANT jewish girls had their babies in the houses of their MOTHERS or other female relatives. They did not go off on a donkey on a long arduous journey whilst "HEAVY WITH CHILD" ---to unknown accommodations and no female relatives.
That part of the story never made sense to me.

.
so are the brave, mary.

they were itinerants, as was jesus to follow surly not the clan type of their prototype jewish culture. then or now.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.

Trying to conceal a bastard's identity is not bravery.

.
no, they were not trying to conceal anything - your complaint is with the crucifiers and their 4th century fallacies they used to ingratiate themselves at the itinerants expense.
.
View attachment 387890
.
in fact they were blessed in their travel by three wise men guided by a star in the heavens.

the opening scene in itself is the liberation theology of innocence the 1st century was to witness before its tragic conclusion in darkness. by the sinners.

When you try to be all things to all people’s and tell a tall tale you always end up tripping over your lies.... Your good book the New Testament does not specifically mention three wise men.. It uses possibly plural as in more then one but not three specifically.. Keep that in mind...

.

When you try to be all things to all people’s and tell a tall tale you always end up tripping over your lies.... Your good book the New Testament does not specifically mention three wise men.. It uses possibly plural as in more then one but not three specifically.. Keep that in mind...

.
the book of forgeries and fallacies obscures the truths of its recordings for uses by their false religion to reconstitute their meaning for what purposes are beneficial for them the same as all the documents of the desert religions - as have stated, there never were etched tablets by the Almighty as claimed by the jews through moses. in their book.

just supposing an illuminated star did bring to the location travelers of high regard to the birth of a certain person as factual is a significant recording and an opening scene as a sign from the metaphysical for future events that did occur. the attempted restoration of the religion of antiquity, liberation theology (generic) and the means for a freed spirit's admission to the Everlasting.

sorry folks it seems clear to me that CONSTANTINE
had an agenda when it came to christianity (and maybe paul and a few other people) WORLD RELIGION. Way back then all of Persia was ZOROASTRIAN and that religion also was in competition (of a sort---at least demographically, with Buddhism) to the east. The THREE WISE GUYS legend
was a draw gimmick. In fact the entire ---born in a
stable story, IMHO, is contrived. Does anyone know out there amongst us cyberbuddies. ----re census----
were there MASS population shifts to the "ancestral lands" ???

.

oh--you believe that BS too........ ---they stopped at a MOTEL and the nasty jew who owned the motel told them "UP YOURS"

.
that is the setting for the future events to learn from their ingratitude, not to repeat them - iro 91.
.

A bastard born out of wedding relations with a foreign Roman soldier is "liberation theology".
And the death of the bastard is "tragedy" in spite being the whole point of his mythological status.

.
yes, that is the point that for the centuries since has been your downfall, the desert religions and the separation from the Almighty's truly chosen example. for the cohesion necessary for an enlightened humanity.

what "truly chosen example"?

.

what "truly chosen example"?

.
of purity and innocence ....

is that the best you can do?

.

is that the best you can do?

.
that's all that mattered, the outcome was your doing.

what "outcome" was my doing? -----I haven't been out of my tiny residence for MONTHS

I am so glad that you get to experience breezewood

nothing new----long long ago as an undergraduate---a person from a nearby school used to seek me out
to discuss religion. He had been a divinity student
in a catholic college and "knew" the "magic numbers" in the talmud (?????)

I can't imagine you ever discussing religion. You are more of a politics person.

Also not surprised that that is what you compared breezewood to. smh.

Only because you don't see the connection between the two.
In Judaism the G-dly is in every aspect of life, politics and even religion.

The problem is when they confuse the two. One is worshiping the Creator. The other is worshiping the created. Politics and religion included.

I agree, when a religion associates divinity with the created it's essentially flawed,
as much as politics in which the politicians are venerated as divine is not the correct way.

However, there's a Torah commandment to set a government and king,
and if that is what you call worshiping the created, then your problem is with G-d's word, not people.

You can tell what people worship by their behaviors.

I know what you did there and that's you putting your religion above God.

You aren't God. You don't speak for God.

You know nothing.
Strawman fallacies is all you capable of?

If you are going to attack someone else's faith, you shouldn't be a coward about it.

Talking about serving the created...

Is it cowardly to call at your worship of a dead bastard?

Now look who's trolling.

This is you not serving G-d. This is you serving yourself. This is you worshiping the created. Same sin as Adam.

I love it when cowards attack the faith of others behind the safety of a keyboard.

But does that excuse your worship of a dead guy?

Do answer.

Yoar still doing it.

Still, does that excuse your worship of a dead guy?

You are demonstrating your desperation and insecurity of your beliefs with every post.

I am secure in my beliefs and cannot be harmed by your attacks on my faith. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

So if you miraculously saw that dead guy walk the street,
you'd still bow down, pray to and worship him?

What you intend for evil, G-d is using for good.

That doesn't address my post.
Keep ducking my question...

Rabbi Toba Spitzer offers you his advice...

Overcoming Anger

www.dorsheitzedek.org

Toba Spitzer is a female,
and you still fail to address my question.

Use your anger towards Christians as a wonderful doorway into spiritual practice. There is a quality of discernment that you need when dealing with your anger. Acting from a place of anger is rarely, if ever, productive.

I'm not angry,
merely asking how your comments about "worshiping the created",
fit your worship of a dead guy. And for some reason you've been unable to answer.

So you say, but happy people don't go begging others to fight them.

One approach to dealing with your anger comes from the Jewish tradition of Mussar, which teaches the cultivation of positive qualities and ways of dealing with negative qualities. There are a few specific middot, or qualities, that can foster as antidotes to your anger.

But that's not what I'm asking,
why are you ducking my question?

he wants to represent you as HATING CHRISTIANS because you do not "accept jesus as THE SAVIOR"----if this converstation took place between you and a muslim------your not "accepting muhummad as the final prophet" would mean you HATE MUSLIMS

.

he wants to represent you as HATING CHRISTIANS

.
so what about moses and their phony 10 commandments ... who's hating who.

"moses" and THEIR phony 10 commandments"??
your sunday school "person" told you that MOSES is
a plural?

.

"moses" and THEIR phony 10 commandments"??
your sunday school "person" told you that MOSES is
a plural?

.
- the latent impression they were a metaphysical aberration, who would have guessed. a fanciful mortal non the less.

 

[ding]

^ can someone translate this please?

 

[Taz]

^ can someone translate this please?

He's saying that like you, he has no clue what he's talking about and can't back it up either with a proper link.

 

[Lipush]

What a nice thread. Many Meshugenes to talk with.

 

[ding]

^ shmuck

 

[ding]

^ can someone translate this please?

He's saying that like you, he has no clue what he's talking about and can't back it up either with a proper link.

Dude, you've become a one trick pony.

 

[ESay]

Can someone explain (or give own version of) what Ezekiel means in these verses (20:25-26):

25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

What statutes are meant 'bad'? And doesn't the verse 26 derogate the sacrifices?

Thanks in advance.

 

[fncceo]

Can someone explain (or give own version of) what Ezekiel means in these verses (20:25-26):

25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

What statutes are meant 'bad'? And doesn't the verse 26 derogate the sacrifices?

Thanks in advance.

What that means to you is totally your concern.

 

[Moonglow]

^ can someone translate this please?

A quantum physics ether vacuum.

 

[Moonglow]

What a nice thread. Many Meshugenes to talk with.

A couple of them are certified..

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Can someone explain (or give own version of) what Ezekiel means in these verses (20:25-26):

25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

What statutes are meant 'bad'? And doesn't the verse 26 derogate the sacrifices?

Thanks in advance.

You have to read it in context of what He said before. He turned them over to the gods they were worshiping because they were killing their own first born.


I took them out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live... But the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, nor were they careful to observe My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live... So I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the wilderness. But I withdrew My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. Also I swore to them in that wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands, because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes and had profaned My Sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers. I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live; and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the Lord...

Will you defile yourselves after the manner of your fathers and play the harlot after their detestable things? When you offer your gifts, when you cause your sons to pass through the fire, you are defiling yourselves with all your idols to this day

 

[ESay]

Can someone explain (or give own version of) what Ezekiel means in these verses (20:25-26):

25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

What statutes are meant 'bad'? And doesn't the verse 26 derogate the sacrifices?

Thanks in advance.

What that means to you is totally your concern.

What was the reason of this highly meaningless post?

 

[ESay]

Can someone explain (or give own version of) what Ezekiel means in these verses (20:25-26):

25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

What statutes are meant 'bad'? And doesn't the verse 26 derogate the sacrifices?

Thanks in advance.

You have to read it in context of what He said before. He turned them over to the gods they were worshiping because they were killing their own first born.


I took them out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live... But the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, nor were they careful to observe My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live... So I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the wilderness. But I withdrew My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. Also I swore to them in that wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands, because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes and had profaned My Sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers. I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live; and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the Lord...

Will you defile yourselves after the manner of your fathers and play the harlot after their detestable things? When you offer your gifts, when you cause your sons to pass through the fire, you are defiling yourselves with all your idols to this day

I have to disagree with you. In the Numbers (if I remember correctly), God says that this rule doesn't include humans' newborns.

 

[Bobob]

Can someone explain (or give own version of) what Ezekiel means in these verses (20:25-26):

25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

What statutes are meant 'bad'? And doesn't the verse 26 derogate the sacrifices?

Thanks in advance.

What that means to you is totally your concern.

What was the reason of this highly meaningless post?

The only Ezekial that I know plays for the Dallas Cowboys and is out with the Covid.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Can someone explain (or give own version of) what Ezekiel means in these verses (20:25-26):

25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

What statutes are meant 'bad'? And doesn't the verse 26 derogate the sacrifices?

Thanks in advance.

You have to read it in context of what He said before. He turned them over to the gods they were worshiping because they were killing their own first born.


I took them out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live... But the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, nor were they careful to observe My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live... So I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the wilderness. But I withdrew My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. Also I swore to them in that wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands, because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes and had profaned My Sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers. I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live; and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the Lord...

Will you defile yourselves after the manner of your fathers and play the harlot after their detestable things? When you offer your gifts, when you cause your sons to pass through the fire, you are defiling yourselves with all your idols to this day

I have to disagree with you. In the Numbers (if I remember correctly), God says that this rule doesn't include humans' newborns.

I dont understand what you're talking about.

He specifically said He spared Israel's firstborn.
Judah and Israel (they are not the same) were always drawn to the paganism of the nations around them.

They went so far as to SACRIFICE THEIR FIRSTBORN.

God HATED this and turned them over to do as they please but they were punished for it. HE GAVE THEM WHAT THEY WANTED, but there were consequences.

Today lots of young women SACRIFICE THEIR FIRSTBORN TO "CHOICE"

We better pay attention

 

[Meriweather]

Can someone explain (or give own version of) what Ezekiel means in these verses (20:25-26):

25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

What statutes are meant 'bad'? And doesn't the verse 26 derogate the sacrifices?

I try and keep in mind at that time people truly believed that both good and evil came from God. Today many of us see good as being from God and evil not of God.

 

[ESay]

Can someone explain (or give own version of) what Ezekiel means in these verses (20:25-26):

25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

What statutes are meant 'bad'? And doesn't the verse 26 derogate the sacrifices?

Thanks in advance.

You have to read it in context of what He said before. He turned them over to the gods they were worshiping because they were killing their own first born.


I took them out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live... But the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, nor were they careful to observe My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live... So I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the wilderness. But I withdrew My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. Also I swore to them in that wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands, because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes and had profaned My Sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers. I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live; and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the Lord...

Will you defile yourselves after the manner of your fathers and play the harlot after their detestable things? When you offer your gifts, when you cause your sons to pass through the fire, you are defiling yourselves with all your idols to this day

I have to disagree with you. In the Numbers (if I remember correctly), God says that this rule doesn't include humans' newborns.

I dont understand what you're talking about.

He specifically said He spared Israel's firstborn.
Judah and Israel (they are not the same) were always drawn to the paganism of the nations around them.

They went so far as to SACRIFICE THEIR FIRSTBORN.

God HATED this and turned them over to do as they please but they were punished for it. HE GAVE THEM WHAT THEY WANTED, but there were consequences.

Today lots of young women SACRIFICE THEIR FIRSTBORN TO "CHOICE"

We better pay attention

Yes, now I seem to understand what you mean.Thank you.

 

[ESay]

Can someone explain (or give own version of) what Ezekiel means in these verses (20:25-26):

25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

What statutes are meant 'bad'? And doesn't the verse 26 derogate the sacrifices?

I try and keep in mind at that time people truly believed that both good and evil came from God. Today many of us see good as being from God and evil not of God.

Can someone explain (or give own version of) what Ezekiel means in these verses (20:25-26):

25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

What statutes are meant 'bad'? And doesn't the verse 26 derogate the sacrifices?

I try and keep in mind at that time people truly believed that both good and evil came from God. Today many of us see good as being from God and evil not of God.

And from whom does evil come from? Satan?

 

[Meriweather]

And from whom does evil come from? Satan?

Mankind seems to be able to accomplish evil without supernatural assistance. We are all too willing to settle for less than the ideal.