by Gill 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Why do Christians gets so overly defensive over basic historical facts?
Because, the facts are from secular sources and we all know that you can't trust "Satan's worldly historian", it's a conpiracy against Christians. The bible is the truth so stop trying to confuse them with historical fact.
Doug Mason - Many good points! The majority of 'believeing' christians of today are however ignorant of the amalgamations that took place in history. They see the early Jewish nation as the ONLY GOOD nation at the time and cannot accept that the laws that they praise so highly were an influence from other nations that stretched even furthur back into the mists of time. Should they study history, they would either be surprised and even perhaps pleasantly surprised to understand that human nature is basically good, OR they would reject it as false and lies.
Anti-Christ - Oh Yes! The old problem of 'Satan's World' and his never ending mission to mislead the human race!
Should they study history, they would either be surprised and even perhaps pleasantly surprised to understand that human nature is basically good,
Gill, it seems like you're saying that Christians need to study history to find truth. This is not true. I can falsify your statement above with just a few questions. Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything? How about looked with lust at a married woman or at any woman while married? Ever done that? What does that make you? It makes you a liar, a theif and an adulterer. That's just three of the ten commandments. How many other commandments have you broken?
Gill you are not good and you are going to hell.
Perry -
Perry - Ad Hominem attack to try to nulify my point!
I was wondering if you read and understood the original Topic?
Gill, very good topic! In the course of my research I came upon this, and was truly amazed when I found out that others before them had laws that benefitted humanity, and Jehoover had nothing to do with it. I hope the christians, jews and muslims will someday take the blinders off and research their religions and find out that there is no CHOSEN people, we are all just people trying to have a good life and survive in this world, I hope I am hereto see that day, if not in this body maybe in the next.
IC
Perry - Ad Hominem attack to try to nulify my point!
Gill, do you even know what an ad hominem attack is?
You made the statement that you are basically good. I asked you questions to determine it's truthfulness. Your lack of defense is probably a confirmation that you know that you are a liar and a thief.... not to mention your lusts. Yet, you try to hold an overall concept of yourself as 'good", which of course is the opposite of the lying, thieving and adulteries that you are guilty of.
You suffer from a psychological condition known as cognitive dissonance. It means hold two conflicting "truths" in your mind at the same time. You believe you are good while at the same time knowing your actual guilt. Sin is degenerative. In its later stages, the corruption you currently suppress is embraced and people actually receive an internal enjoyment from their lies, adulteries, thefts, blasphemies etc.
Your interest in Law is admirable. Many don't care about it at all. Here's a question for you:
If laws have no punishment, could they be considered laws?
You seek to muddy the waters by implication.
1.Hammurabi's Code was "tainted" with polytheism and this makes it "inferior" to the Law of Moses seems to be what you are asserting.
Early Semitic religion was just as polytheistic as the surrounding areas. "Let us make man in our image...."
Elohim is plural. (Not the plural of excellence.) EL was god. Even the name Allah is a variant of El. (El-ah)
The convergence of Semitic religious views with Egyptian religious exposure produced modifications in the way the emerging tribes considered their specific tribal El. (Remember too that Ahkenaton was a monotheist pharoah).
The transformation of Semitic/Jewish religion can be seen even in the name of Moses.
Moses is an Egyptian religious name.
The name
Moses is related to common Egyptian names like Amenmose, Ramose and
Thutmose,* which are formed of a god’s name followed by mose.5 These
compound names mean something like "Amen is born" or "Born of Amen" or
"The offspring of Ra" or "The child of Thoth." When the name Mose
appears by itself, as it occasionally does in Egyptian, it simply means
"the Child" or "the Offspring."6 But in Egyptian, Mose most frequently
appears along with the name of a god as part of a compound name.
Most likely of all, the name Moses (assuming that he originally had a
longer name) is short for Ramose, a popular name related to the name of
the reigning pharaoh, Ramesses II.**—would also mean "Ra is born," but
his name is normally written R‘-ms-sw (roughly, Ramessu) and means
"Ra-fashioned him," using another meaning of the verb msi, that is, "to
fashion, form." The two senses of the verb are related, however, in that
Egyptians thought of the fashioning of a divine statue as equivalent to
the god being born.) It was a common custom among the Egyptians to
rename foreign slaves or captives after the pharaoh. ( edofolks.com)
2.
Thus, whereas Hammurabi’s “Law Code” creates a sort of direct covenant between Hammurabi and his human subjects, the laws of the “Decalogue” create a direct covenant between God and his human subjects.
Then why are we calling it the Mosaic Law or the Law of Moses in the same way we are calling it the law of Hammurabi?
3.
The arrangement of the “Decalogue” suggests that the most important relationship human beings have is not the relationship they have with other human beings, but instead the relationship they have with God. Intentionally or inadvertently, Hammurabi’s “Law Code” neglects to discuss the relationship between human beings and the polytheistic gods identified in its introduction, and focuses entirely on how humans should conduct themselves vis-Ã -vis other human beings.
Hammurabi's code is secular in purpose and intent. As such it was highly practical for adjudicating.
The Moses-attributed version is ONLY practical in its secular section. It is the religious portion of this law which causes all of the legal problems in current modern day society! This makes Hammurabi's Laws a better foundational underpinning for modern law than Moses bifurcated version.
If your post was intended to make the Bible version of God's "perfect" law shine in contrast to Hammurabi's Code; it has failed miserably to produce that effect.
Perry - Grow Up!
Terry - Could you just confirm whether your post is intended for me or Perry, please.
What's making me laugh so much, is that people claim they can interpret the bible which was written hundreds upon hundreds of years ago in a foreign and ancient tongue, and yet I write a 'topic' as simply as possible to make it as understandable in intention as possible and I have Perry accussing me not far off from being evreything unpleasant possible....and I'm not too sure who Terry is aiming his post at....sorry Terry! I'm sure you'll get back to me on that.
Perry! I'm not taking offense at your unpleasant tone. I'm sure you can't 'help it'.
All Ancient Law Codes were not Created Equal
Van A. Mobley
I was addressing my comments to Van A. Mobley. (Could be like Art Vandalay!)
The article is clearly an apologist trying to rehabilitate the Law of Moses vis a vis Hammurabi.
The idea that Western Law and Society are founded upon the Ten Commandments, for instance, is so ludicrous as to be jaw-droppingly inane. Yet, if enough people insist at the top of their voice and multifarious writers continue to support the idea it will (already has) appear plausible.
For one thing, if we simply accept the Bible version of the Law and the exact words given by the author of the Law to the exact people of the covenant (the Jews) there can be no mistake about universality of intention.
Further, (and theologically) it cannot be underestimated what damage the Ten Commandments does to the New Covenenant of Jesus with his kingdom members.
Exactly what LAW did Jesus "fulfill"?
