Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand

[Thomas II]

What I gather from what Mauro Biglino is saying is that the Bible is no evidence for "God"!...
I understand that some people might not agree with that...

 

[Thomas II]

David Lesak
Truthseeker, musician, designer/craftsman, Qigong practitioner, philosopherAuthor has 2.5K answers and 2.6M answer viewsUpdated 1y

"Well, without being an equally skilled scholar of Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek, it is difficult to make a definitive statement. That said, the very fact that he was actually chosen and employed by the Vatican for the purpose of translating the Bible speaks volumes as to his proficiency in these fields. Edit: Mauro was fired after having already translated 17 books from the Old Testament.
Please bear in mind the fact that in these conferences Mauro was speaking in Italian, and this lecture was simultaneously interpreted into Spanish. I translated this information into English, so there may be errors due to my not being a native Spanish speaker, although I am fluent in the language. I have so far been unable to find any English versions of these videos, although there are apparently English subtitles, and I would imagine transcripts also.
In the videos I have seen of Mauro Biglino’s 2019 conferences, Mauro used both the Bible itself and other direct Hebrew translations to demonstrate that all of the foundations upon which Christianity is built appear to be false, both in the Old and New Testament. In a nutshell, Mauro debunks all of the following:

1. The idea that the Old Testament has any theological content - Mauro demonstrates how the theological ideas were forced to fit into the Old and New Testament in order to promote their own dogma, and ultimately as a means to control people through religious dogma
2. The concept of the Creation in Genesis - Mauro demonstrates that the book of Genesis is not describing the Creation of the Universe or the world from nothing, but instead the genetic creation of different species by the Elohim
3. The ideas of immortality, eternity, an omnipotent eternal creator God - Mauro states that none of these concepts exist in Judaism
4. Adam and Eve as being two individuals rather than two races
5. Adam and Eve being the first humans - Mauro explains that there were humans before the Adamic race, but this new species would now share the DNA of the Elohim, and so benefit from many of their attributes such as living for 900 years, being far bigger and stronger and more intelligent. But they were still designed to be a slave race in service of the Elohim
6. The Garden of Eden as the paradise in the biblical representation - Mauro describes Eden as being more of a genetic laboratory
7. The existence and concept of original sin (foreign to Judaic belief), and therefore also the need for salvation (as well as presumably hell and purgatory)
8. The idea that Yahweh is the god who created all things from nothing - Mauro shows that Yahweh was no more than an Elohim commander, and the idea of creating something from nothing was absent from Judaic thought, and impossible to express in Hebrew
9. The idea that Israel was a nation - Mauro demonstrates that it was the descendance from Jacob’s bloodline which went on to become the Israelite family, and that the wars waged with the help of Yahweh were against members of the same family
10. The idea that the Old Testament was meant to have any great spiritual significance - Mauro states that it was only meant to be the story of the family of the Israelites, and their relationship with their commander Yahweh
11. The idea that Yahweh was a god at all - Mauro argues that Yahweh was the name of an individual commander who was given the charge of the Israelite family
12. The idea that the god of the Israelites was a loving god of mercy, who protects and gives salvation to all of mankind - Mauro demonstrates how Yahweh was in fact cruel brutal and merciless, inciting acts of genocide, killing women and children, and often failed to keep his promises, even to the people of Israel, who have been waiting for over 2000 years for some of these promises to be fulfilled
13. The erroneous representations of angelic beings such as Cherubim etc - Mauro explains that both the Old and New Testament are replete with descriptions of vehicles which fly in the skies, and explains that what Ezekiel saw were not just visions. Mauro also provides evidence that entities such as Gabriel were not supernatural beings, but flesh and blood beings with desires and needs
14. The idea of the existence of Lucifer or Satan in the Old or New Testament - Mauro explains that the correct translation was ‘adversary’, and that satan was not an entity, but a rôle - that of adversary
15. The Old Testament prophetically naming Jesus of the New Testament as the Jewish Messiah - Mauro states that the rabbi’s name was Joshua, but that he was never recognised as having a prophetic link with the Old Testament, and that he was no more important than any of the other Joshuas in the Old Testament
16. The immaculate conception - Mauro provides evidence of how the passages which described these events were mistranslated in order to reflect the theological ideology

Mauro states that the Old Testament as written in Hebrew and Aramaic has no theological content, but the theologians forced their own ideas upon the Old Testament, manipulating the translation to fit in with their own ideas and beliefs.
What Mauro actually says and demonstrates is that the God of the Bible is only the governor of the people of Israel, but he makes it very clear that he is in no way challenging the existence of God the Creator, and the possible existence of the spiritual kingdom.
Nonetheless Mauro quotes Pope Francisco, ‘To make war in the name of God is blasphemy and satanic.´- therefore, Mauro states that since the Old Testament is primarily concerned with inciting the people of Israel to wage war on its enemies in the name of God, then the Bible itself was satanic, since the Old Testament only speaks of wars carried out in god’s name! Mauro goes on to describe the Old Testament as a ‘book of war, in which an entity called ‘Yahweh’ is an Elohim governor assigned a single Hebrew family, the Israelite family - not a nation - and together with this family spends many years trying to exterminate rival families - the Semites, who were actually members of the same family!
He goes on to quote from Joshua 10:28 - 40, in order to further illustrate his point. Furthermore, Mauro goes on to state that once the theological and allegorical filters are removed, the Psalms of David are nothing but war songs. And the only salvation offered is in respect of the family of Israel against her enemies.
He then states that in Judaism there is no word for ‘God’, nor ‘Create’, nor particularly for the concept of ‘Creation out of nothing’.
However, having watched several videos of talks he has given on the subject, something which surprised me was his ability to demonstrates his arguments very convincingly without recourse to anything but the already existing translations of the Bible.
At the beginning of the discourse he actually invited the audience to stop his discourse if at any point he made direct use of any of his own translations. In fact, on the one occasion in which he broke this rule, he in fact called himself out, admitting the the audience could have curtailed the rest of the discourse had they picked up on it - which nobody did.
Mauro stated that all he was going to do was quote directly from the Bible, in order to show what it did and did not say, and he invited members of the audience to read the version appearing in their Bibles, after which he quoted from an official direct Hebrew translation - demonstrating how very different these translations were from the actual Hebrew meaning.
But the key, as I understand it, was the necessity to substitute various Hebrew terms and provided the following list of Hebrew terms we needed to substitute in order to understand what was originally intended:
1. God - Elohim (a plural noun, using a plural verb form)
2. Almighty. - Elyon
3. Lord, Eternal - Yahweh
4. Spirit. - Ruach
5. Glory. - Kavod
He explains that since it is impossible to accurately translate these Hebrew names, that it is better to simply use them as they stand. Mauro explains that ‘Yahweh’, a name, has been translated as ‘the Eternal’ The 91 repetitions of the word ‘Olam’ are translated as ‘Eternity’, which does not exist either in Hebrew. Where ‘I am the omnipotent God’ appears in Genesis, in Hebrew it says ‘I am El Shaddai’, which means ‘I am Lord of the Steppes.’
He went on to explain the when substituting the original Hebrew names for these entities, that it becomes clear that the Bible is not referring to one omnipotent God, but instead to several distinct entities - none of which were omnipotent nor God, since neither of these exist in Hebrew, nor in Judaism.
But surprisngly, Mauro was also able to demonstrate that the Bible never actually mentions the Creation, in the universal sense, nor does it mention the concept of ‘original sin’, nor does it make any specific prophetic reference to the New Testament Jesus in the Old Testament. He also very ably demonstrates that the Elohim only actually presided over one people - the family of the Israelites, and not over all people, and the Old Testament is their story, and is not meant to be any sort of spiritual work, nor any of what the theologists made it appear.
So my feeling is that Mauro is not lying about this. His premise is simply that what the Bible says in the original Masoretic texts is what should be reflected in the actual Bible, and that any present or future translations of this book should not be allowed to distort that meaning in order to comply with the theological beliefs theologists want the Bible to reflect - as according to Mauro has been the case up till now.
Perhaps he is asking a lot to expect these erroneous translations to be removed from future editions of the Bible, but it does seem that there is a consensus of opinion among the eminent contributors who engaged in debating these matters with Mauro that these need to be changed in line with Mauro’s new translations.
But the key here is that these are the very concepts refuted by the Jewish authorities which form the basis for the entire Christian religion, so I feel that there is far too much at stake for the powers that be to ever allow this to come to fruition. But Mauro continues to lecture on these subjects and write books which go way beyond anything I have mentioned in this short appraisal of Mauro’s work.
But you have to take your hat off to a man who has the courage of his conviction."

3.3K views
View upvotes

16

 

[DBT]

Like Kipling's Just So stories. Why a leopard has spots, how the elephant got a long trunk, why the camel has a hump, etc.

They were never intended to be taken literally.

Yet the gods were taken literally, temples were built, sacrifices offered and prayers sent.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

David Lesak
Truthseeker, musician, designer/craftsman, Qigong practitioner, philosopherAuthor has 2.5K answers and 2.6M answer viewsUpdated 1y

1. The idea that the Old Testament has any theological content - Mauro demonstrates how the theological ideas were forced to fit into the Old and New Testament in order to promote their own dogma, and ultimately as a means to control people through religious dogma
   1. So Geneisis 50:20, the decalogues, entire book of Leviticus... no theology?
2. The concept of the Creation in Genesis - Mauro demonstrates that the book of Genesis is not describing the Creation of the Universe or the world from nothing, but instead the genetic creation of different species by the Elohim
   1. I believe this is indeterminate. The question at hand is if the chaotic mess was created by Yahweh and then shaped... or whether Yahweh came to the pre-existing chaos and made order from it. However, I don't believe there is any reliable way to actually know the intent.
3. The ideas of immortality, eternity, an omnipotent eternal creator God - Mauro states that none of these concepts exist in Judaism
   1. Wait what? Immortality? The Tree of Life?
4. Adam and Eve as being two individuals rather than two races
   1. This is a stretch! A huge one. In fact, I've never heard this before.
5. Adam and Eve being the first humans - Mauro explains that there were humans before the Adamic race, but this new species would now share the DNA of the Elohim, and so benefit from many of their attributes such as living for 900 years, being far bigger and stronger and more intelligent. But they were still designed to be a slave race in service of the Elohim
6. The Garden of Eden as the paradise in the biblical representation - Mauro describes Eden as being more of a genetic laboratory
   1. I ponder Dana Carvey's George HW Bush impersonation and the whole "Wouldn't be prudent" gag... something President George HW Bush NEVER said. Does the New Testament even claim it was "paradise"? A clear reading of the text implies it is a garden where things grow, but it needs to be tended to. A quasi-paradise, but man is a servant in the Garden, not a guest.
7. The existence and concept of original sin (foreign to Judaic belief), and therefore also the need for salvation (as well as presumably hell and purgatory)
   1. Duh! But it needs to be noted that the terminology for serpent is a literal snake, not a metaphor. Really, the story makes a lot more sense when you read it that way.
8. The idea that Yahweh is the god who created all things from nothing - Mauro shows that Yahweh was no more than an Elohim commander, and the idea of creating something from nothing was absent from Judaic thought, and impossible to express in Hebrew
9. The idea that Israel was a nation - Mauro demonstrates that it was the descendance from Jacob’s bloodline which went on to become the Israelite family, and that the wars waged with the help of Yahweh were against members of the same family
10. The idea that the Old Testament was meant to have any great spiritual significance - Mauro states that it was only meant to be the story of the family of the Israelites, and their relationship with their commander Yahweh
    1. No argument here, except I'd add that in general, the book reads like a "If we are the chosen people...?"
11. The idea that Yahweh was a god at all - Mauro argues that Yahweh was the name of an individual commander who was given the charge of the Israelite family
    1. This seems like a stretch.
12. The idea that the god of the Israelites was a loving god of mercy, who protects and gives salvation to all of mankind - Mauro demonstrates how Yahweh was in fact cruel brutal and merciless, inciting acts of genocide, killing women and children, and often failed to keep his promises, even to the people of Israel, who have been waiting for over 2000 years for some of these promises to be fulfilled
    1. Well, a 5 year could demonstrate that. The whole Jesus thing was a massive plot twist, seeing God in the Tanakh is quite the dick.
13. The erroneous representations of angelic beings such as Cherubim etc - Mauro explains that both the Old and New Testament are replete with descriptions of vehicles which fly in the skies, and explains that what Ezekiel saw were not just visions. Mauro also provides evidence that entities such as Gabriel were not supernatural beings, but flesh and blood beings with desires and needs
    1. ???
14. The idea of the existence of Lucifer or Satan in the Old or New Testament - Mauro explains that the correct translation was ‘adversary’, and that satan was not an entity, but a rôle - that of adversary
    1. Not much of an adversary.
15. The Old Testament prophetically naming Jesus of the New Testament as the Jewish Messiah - Mauro states that the rabbi’s name was Joshua, but that he was never recognised as having a prophetic link with the Old Testament, and that he was no more important than any of the other Joshuas in the Old Testament
16. The immaculate conception - Mauro provides evidence of how the passages which described these events were mistranslated in order to reflect the theological ideology
    1. This is a bit silly. They lied about a virgin birth being part of the prophecy. Isn't that admitting the virgin birth happened. I mean, that'd be a BIG deal. While physically possible, is isn't that likely and would carry substantial significance.

Some hits, some miss. I think he is stretching a bit here.

 

[Thomas II]

David Lesak
Truthseeker, musician, designer/craftsman, Qigong practitioner, philosopherAuthor has 2.5K answers and 2.6M answer viewsUpdated 1y

1. The idea that the Old Testament has any theological content - Mauro demonstrates how the theological ideas were forced to fit into the Old and New Testament in order to promote their own dogma, and ultimately as a means to control people through religious dogma
   1. So Geneisis 50:20, the decalogues, entire book of Leviticus... no theology?
2. The concept of the Creation in Genesis - Mauro demonstrates that the book of Genesis is not describing the Creation of the Universe or the world from nothing, but instead the genetic creation of different species by the Elohim
   1. I believe this is indeterminate. The question at hand is if the chaotic mess was created by Yahweh and then shaped... or whether Yahweh came to the pre-existing chaos and made order from it. However, I don't believe there is any reliable way to actually know the intent.
3. The ideas of immortality, eternity, an omnipotent eternal creator God - Mauro states that none of these concepts exist in Judaism
   1. Wait what? Immortality? The Tree of Life?
4. Adam and Eve as being two individuals rather than two races
   1. This is a stretch! A huge one. In fact, I've never heard this before.
5. Adam and Eve being the first humans - Mauro explains that there were humans before the Adamic race, but this new species would now share the DNA of the Elohim, and so benefit from many of their attributes such as living for 900 years, being far bigger and stronger and more intelligent. But they were still designed to be a slave race in service of the Elohim
6. The Garden of Eden as the paradise in the biblical representation - Mauro describes Eden as being more of a genetic laboratory
   1. I ponder Dana Carvey's George HW Bush impersonation and the whole "Wouldn't be prudent" gag... something President George HW Bush NEVER said. Does the New Testament even claim it was "paradise"? A clear reading of the text implies it is a garden where things grow, but it needs to be tended to. A quasi-paradise, but man is a servant in the Garden, not a guest.
7. The existence and concept of original sin (foreign to Judaic belief), and therefore also the need for salvation (as well as presumably hell and purgatory)
   1. Duh! But it needs to be noted that the terminology for serpent is a literal snake, not a metaphor. Really, the story makes a lot more sense when you read it that way.
8. The idea that Yahweh is the god who created all things from nothing - Mauro shows that Yahweh was no more than an Elohim commander, and the idea of creating something from nothing was absent from Judaic thought, and impossible to express in Hebrew
9. The idea that Israel was a nation - Mauro demonstrates that it was the descendance from Jacob’s bloodline which went on to become the Israelite family, and that the wars waged with the help of Yahweh were against members of the same family
10. The idea that the Old Testament was meant to have any great spiritual significance - Mauro states that it was only meant to be the story of the family of the Israelites, and their relationship with their commander Yahweh
    1. No argument here, except I'd add that in general, the book reads like a "If we are the chosen people...?"
11. The idea that Yahweh was a god at all - Mauro argues that Yahweh was the name of an individual commander who was given the charge of the Israelite family
    1. This seems like a stretch.
12. The idea that the god of the Israelites was a loving god of mercy, who protects and gives salvation to all of mankind - Mauro demonstrates how Yahweh was in fact cruel brutal and merciless, inciting acts of genocide, killing women and children, and often failed to keep his promises, even to the people of Israel, who have been waiting for over 2000 years for some of these promises to be fulfilled
    1. Well, a 5 year could demonstrate that. The whole Jesus thing was a massive plot twist, seeing God in the Tanakh is quite the dick.
13. The erroneous representations of angelic beings such as Cherubim etc - Mauro explains that both the Old and New Testament are replete with descriptions of vehicles which fly in the skies, and explains that what Ezekiel saw were not just visions. Mauro also provides evidence that entities such as Gabriel were not supernatural beings, but flesh and blood beings with desires and needs
    1. ???
14. The idea of the existence of Lucifer or Satan in the Old or New Testament - Mauro explains that the correct translation was ‘adversary’, and that satan was not an entity, but a rôle - that of adversary
    1. Not much of an adversary.
15. The Old Testament prophetically naming Jesus of the New Testament as the Jewish Messiah - Mauro states that the rabbi’s name was Joshua, but that he was never recognised as having a prophetic link with the Old Testament, and that he was no more important than any of the other Joshuas in the Old Testament
16. The immaculate conception - Mauro provides evidence of how the passages which described these events were mistranslated in order to reflect the theological ideology
    1. This is a bit silly. They lied about a virgin birth being part of the prophecy. Isn't that admitting the virgin birth happened. I mean, that'd be a BIG deal. While physically possible, is isn't that likely and would carry substantial significance.

Some hits, some miss. I think he is stretching a bit here.

Over all, not bad...YHWH was just a commander of the Elohim, not GOD, is a hit...
What were the "miss" ones in your opinion?

 

[Learner]

I mentioned this on May 1...

Acts 5 : Ananias and Sapphira story...The apostle Peter berates Ananias for “lying not to humans but to the Holy Spirit” (5:3), and Sapphira for “putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test” (5:9). Upon hearing the apostle’s rebuke, Ananias and Sapphira each die in turn, suddenly and on the spot...WTF!

Kind of harsh to kill the old couple for their "greed"...

Also, how were they killed?...Acts 5 only mentions that they died suddenly and on the spot...
And they were buried in a hurry...

'Lying not to humans but to the Holy Spirit', does coincide with the biblical narrative that's written of consequences, when 'offending or grieving the Holy Spirit.

Acts 5​

King James Version​

5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

Fear upon all churches would be a sad irony, if hearing upon things like of those, who "swear boldly on their lives" a duty to keep true to their covenants, in a manner of speaking "Crossing their hearts & hoping to die etc.."


Ecclesiastes 5

5 Be very careful when you go to worship God. It is better to listen to God than to give sacrifices like fools. Fools often do bad things, and they don’t even know it. 2 Be careful when you make promises to God. Be careful about what you say to him. Don’t let your feelings cause you to speak too soon. God is in heaven, and you are on the earth. So you need to say only a few things to him. This saying is true:

4 If you make a promise to God, keep your promise. Don’t be slow to do what you promised. God is not happy with fools. Give God what you promised to give him. 5 It is better to promise nothing than to promise something and not be able to do it. 6 So don’t let your words cause you to sin. Don’t say to the priest,[a] “I didn’t mean what I said.” If you do this, God might become angry with your words and destroy everything you have worked for. 7 You should not let your useless dreams and bragging bring you trouble. You should respect God.

 

[Learner]

https://www.gotquestions.org/Ananias-and-Sapphira.html

"The story of Ananias and Sapphira is found in Acts 5, and it is a sad story, indeed. It actually begins at the end of chapter 4 with the description of the early church in Jerusalem, a group of believers so filled with the Holy Spirit that they were of one heart and one mind. Great power and grace were on the apostles, who preached and testified of the risen Savior. So knit together were the hearts of the people that they held all their possessions loosely and willingly shared them with one another, not because they were coerced but because they loved one another. Those who sold land and houses gave of their profits to the apostles, who distributed the gifts to those in need.

Two members of this group were Ananias and his wife, Sapphira; they also had sold a field. Part of the profit from their sale was kept back by the couple, and Ananias only laid a part of the money at the apostles’ feet. However, Ananias made a pretense of having given all the proceeds. This hypocritical show may have fooled some, but not Peter, who was filled with the power of the Spirit. Peter knew instantly that Ananias was lying—not just to him but to God—and exposed his hypocrisy then and there. Ananias fell down and died (Acts 5:4). When Sapphira showed up, she, too, lied to Peter and to God, saying that they had donated the entire proceeds of the sale of the land to the church. When her lie had been exposed, she also fell down and died at Peter’s feet.

Some speculate that these two deaths were from natural causes. Perhaps Ananias died from shock or guilt, but Peter pronounced Sapphira’s death before she died, and the coincidental timing and place of their deaths indicate that this was indeed God’s judgment. The question is why. Why would God kill two people for lying?

God’s reasons for bringing about the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira involve His abhorrence of sin, the hypocrisy of the couple, and the lesson for the rest of the church, both then and now. It can be easy today to gloss over the holiness of God, to forget that He is righteous and pure and that He hates sin wholeheartedly. This particular sin of hypocrisy in the church was dealt with swiftly and decisively.

Were Ananias and Sapphira saved? We believe they probably were. Their story is told in the context of the actions of “all the believers” (Acts 4:32). They knew of the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3), and Ananias’s lie could have been an earlier promise that he would give the whole amount of the sale to the Lord. But the best evidence that they were children of God may be that they received discipline: “If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all” (Hebrews 12:8; see also 1 Corinthians 5:12). Ananias and his wife had conspired to garner the accolades of the church; but their conspiracy led to the sin unto death.

The case of Ananias and Sapphira illustrates the fact that even believers can be led into bold, flagrant sin. It was Satan that had filled their hearts to lie in this way (Acts 5:3) and “to test the Spirit of the Lord” (verse 9). Covetousness, hypocrisy, and a desire for the praise of men all played a part in their demise.

The sudden, dramatic deaths of Ananias and Sapphira served to purify and warn the church. “Great fear seized the whole church” (Acts 5:11). Right away, in the church’s infancy, God made it plain that hypocrisy and dissimulation were not going to be tolerated, and His judgment of Ananias and Sapphira helped guard the church against future pretense. God laid the bodies of Ananias and Sapphira in the path of every hypocrite who would seek to enter the church.

Furthermore, the incident involving Ananias and Sapphira helped to establish the apostles’ authority in the church. The sinners had fallen dead at Peter’s feet. It was Peter who had known of the secret sin and had the authority to pronounce judgment in the church (see Matthew 16:19). If the hypocrisy of Ananias and Sapphira had succeeded in fooling Peter, it would have severely damaged the apostles’ authority.

The sad story of Ananias and Sapphira is not some obscure incident from the Old Testament regarding a violation of Mosaic Law. This occurred in the first-century church to believers in Jesus Christ. The story of Ananias and Sapphira is a reminder to us today that God sees the heart (1 Samuel 16:7), that He hates sin, and that He is concerned for the purity of His church (1 Corinthians 11; 1 John 5). As Jesus told the compromising church in Thyatira, “All the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds” (Revelation 2:23)."



Yet Peter denied Jesus three times...

Peter being afraid of people who would do evil harm against him, is 3 times, not offensive to the Holy Spirit.

 

[steve_bank]

You know what the ancient Hebrews used to say, 'Its Yahweh or the highway'.

 

[Learner]

30 Jephthah made a promise [...]

So that became a practice in Israel. 40 Each year the young women of Israel go away for four days. They do it in honor of the daughter of Jephthah. He was from the land of Gilead.

Jephthah winning the battle implies that God wants him to sacrifice his daughter. And God (or his angel) didn't stop Jephthah from going through with it....

That's false. Jephthah made a covenant with God. Like Job, was a special individual, known to God, who could overcome what's is to be put before them, and succeed!

I'd fail myself like many... it's not a task for the likes of you or me, honouring the covenant...God would know this! These were written in the bible for the benefit of believers.

HAW!

I mean, the amazing thing is that you just aim right in on Jephtah's "sacrifice" and keeping his "covenant", when in reality, the hero of the story isn't him. It isn't even about him. ...

If I aim in on Jephtah's sacrifice, as you put it... you might be amazed to know, that was the intention. I willingly chose to talk about that specific thing.

...

Hmmm....

Jephtah's so vain,
you probably think the scripture's about him,
don't you... don't you....

I can play slide guitar with those lyrics.

It is about his daughter and Hebrew custom. But you know, please keep lecturing us about the Tanakh. I'm learning soooo much from what little you seem to appreciate from it. The misogyny in this story is also quite overpowering.

I use simple language, but still... just be easy on yourself, learn one step at a time.

Jephtah's Daughter: Oh... woe is me... I'm not going to get married.
Friend: Your Dad is going to burn you in a ritual sacrifice Jephtah's daughter.
Jephtah's Daughter: I know, it is awful, I'm never going to get married.
Friend: Jephtah's daughter, isn't getting burn to death worse?
Jephtah's Daughter: *sigh* no marriage for me... Jephtah's daughter.
Another Friend: Dude, why didn't you ever get a name?
Jephtah's Daughter: Only if I could have been married and been "*insert name's* Wife".

What key is that in?

 

[Learner]

You know what the ancient Hebrews used to say, 'Its Yahweh or the highway'.

Hey steve, nice one. I'd like to use that to have a laugh with the other Christians in pub. I Just need the verse. Cheers in advance mate.

 

[Thomas II]

https://www.gotquestions.org/Ananias-and-Sapphira.html

 

[Thomas II]

https://www.gotquestions.org/Ananias-and-Sapphira.html

"The story of Ananias and Sapphira is found in Acts 5, and it is a sad story, indeed. It actually begins at the end of chapter 4 with the description of the early church in Jerusalem, a group of believers so filled with the Holy Spirit that they were of one heart and one mind. Great power and grace were on the apostles, who preached and testified of the risen Savior. So knit together were the hearts of the people that they held all their possessions loosely and willingly shared them with one another, not because they were coerced but because they loved one another. Those who sold land and houses gave of their profits to the apostles, who distributed the gifts to those in need.

Two members of this group were Ananias and his wife, Sapphira; they also had sold a field. Part of the profit from their sale was kept back by the couple, and Ananias only laid a part of the money at the apostles’ feet. However, Ananias made a pretense of having given all the proceeds. This hypocritical show may have fooled some, but not Peter, who was filled with the power of the Spirit. Peter knew instantly that Ananias was lying—not just to him but to God—and exposed his hypocrisy then and there. Ananias fell down and died (Acts 5:4). When Sapphira showed up, she, too, lied to Peter and to God, saying that they had donated the entire proceeds of the sale of the land to the church. When her lie had been exposed, she also fell down and died at Peter’s feet.

Some speculate that these two deaths were from natural causes. Perhaps Ananias died from shock or guilt, but Peter pronounced Sapphira’s death before she died, and the coincidental timing and place of their deaths indicate that this was indeed God’s judgment. The question is why. Why would God kill two people for lying?

God’s reasons for bringing about the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira involve His abhorrence of sin, the hypocrisy of the couple, and the lesson for the rest of the church, both then and now. It can be easy today to gloss over the holiness of God, to forget that He is righteous and pure and that He hates sin wholeheartedly. This particular sin of hypocrisy in the church was dealt with swiftly and decisively.

Were Ananias and Sapphira saved? We believe they probably were. Their story is told in the context of the actions of “all the believers” (Acts 4:32). They knew of the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3), and Ananias’s lie could have been an earlier promise that he would give the whole amount of the sale to the Lord. But the best evidence that they were children of God may be that they received discipline: “If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all” (Hebrews 12:8; see also 1 Corinthians 5:12). Ananias and his wife had conspired to garner the accolades of the church; but their conspiracy led to the sin unto death.

The case of Ananias and Sapphira illustrates the fact that even believers can be led into bold, flagrant sin. It was Satan that had filled their hearts to lie in this way (Acts 5:3) and “to test the Spirit of the Lord” (verse 9). Covetousness, hypocrisy, and a desire for the praise of men all played a part in their demise.

The sudden, dramatic deaths of Ananias and Sapphira served to purify and warn the church. “Great fear seized the whole church” (Acts 5:11). Right away, in the church’s infancy, God made it plain that hypocrisy and dissimulation were not going to be tolerated, and His judgment of Ananias and Sapphira helped guard the church against future pretense. God laid the bodies of Ananias and Sapphira in the path of every hypocrite who would seek to enter the church.

Furthermore, the incident involving Ananias and Sapphira helped to establish the apostles’ authority in the church. The sinners had fallen dead at Peter’s feet. It was Peter who had known of the secret sin and had the authority to pronounce judgment in the church (see Matthew 16:19). If the hypocrisy of Ananias and Sapphira had succeeded in fooling Peter, it would have severely damaged the apostles’ authority.

The sad story of Ananias and Sapphira is not some obscure incident from the Old Testament regarding a violation of Mosaic Law. This occurred in the first-century church to believers in Jesus Christ. The story of Ananias and Sapphira is a reminder to us today that God sees the heart (1 Samuel 16:7), that He hates sin, and that He is concerned for the purity of His church (1 Corinthians 11; 1 John 5). As Jesus told the compromising church in Thyatira, “All the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds” (Revelation 2:23)."



Yet Peter denied Jesus three times...

Peter being afraid of people who would do evil harm against him, is 3 times, not offensive to the Holy Spirit.

https://characterofgod.org/ananias-sapphira/

 

[Thomas II]

 

[James Brown]

I can't help but wonder if donations to the church went up or down after the A&S incident.

I have an idea, but I suspect someone else will reflexively take the opposite position.

 

[Thomas II]

I can't help but wonder if donations to the church went up or down after the A&S incident.

I have an idea, but I suspect someone else will reflexively take the opposite position.

They had a temper...And not just Peter...John and James were known for being aggressive and insensitive...Their nickname was "Sons of thunder." On one occasion, when the people in a village of Samaria were not responsive to the message of Jesus, it was James and John who wanted to call down fire from heaven on them (see Luke 9:54).

"54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? 55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, 'Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.'

Peter scared the shit out of Ananias and Sapphira...and they were buried in a rush too...Why the rush?

Even Jesus shows temper with the temple money lenders, so much that it had him killed...

 

[DBT]

What about otherwise apparently normal people in this day and age who feel that they have a relationship with God, that God talks to them, protects and guides them?

It seems that not a lot has changed.

 

[excreationist]

What about otherwise apparently normal people in this day and age who feel that they have a relationship with God, that God talks to them, protects and guides them?

It seems that not a lot has changed.

Normally this doesn't involve a spoken voice.... BTW "God" (or a hallucination) dictating "Conversations with God" is similar to some people in the Old Testament....
0:49

 

[Elixir]

Even Jesus shows temper with the temple money lenders, so much that it had him killed...

Let us all take heed from that lesson! Don't be fucking with the money peeps.
Oh wait... THAT is morality in bible stories I don't understand?
Still not clear anyhow - is this about bible stories I don't understand, or morality that I don't understand?

 

[steve_bank]

You know what the ancient Hebrews used to say, 'Its Yahweh or the highway'.

Hey steve, nice one. I'd like to use that to have a laugh with the other Christians in pub. I Just need the verse. Cheers in advance mate.

According to the 10 Commandments trivializing the name and invocation of god in any but a serious manner is a serious offense.

An offense against god.

Christaians preach the Hebrew scriprture but do not act in accordance with the Heberew scripture.

 

[steve_bank]

God and Jesus are the ultimate imaginary friends.

If you see and hear imaginary friends you would be directed to a menta health professional. Imagining god and Jesus and hearing them speak to you is called religion.