Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:

Yeshua(Jesus) Vs Moshe(Moses)

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 78
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: Jahcub I Sent: 7/14/2020 10:59:34 AM

Going to post what Yeshua has to say about Moshe and the Law soon, Yeshua was NOT against the Law that Moshe taught. No, what Yeshua was against was the false teachings and interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees.

First, however, I will post this article I found on usury in the Old Testament:

"What does the Old Testament say about Loans and Interest? Part 1

For much of church history, pastoral leaders believed the Old Testament taught that no interest should be charged on any loans. The care and protection for the Israelite working poor was the main rationale for such a prohibition that no interest should be charged on such loans. “If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him” (Exod. 22:25). Before we go too much further, let me state the obvious. What we are discussing here is the matter of loans that were offered to fellow Israelites who had the potential for paying the loan back. One doesn’t offer a loan to someone who has no means of paying it back; in that case one offers charity. The subject of charity is a different one with which the Old Testament makes provision through other means (e.g., gleaning [Lev. 19:9-10], sabbatical year [Exod. 23:10-11], and triennial tithes [Deut. 14:28-29]). The topic of this blog series is about lending, not charity.

As mentioned, for many years it was understood that the Old Testament taught a complete ban on any interest on loans. For example, Robert Maloney notes, “The Fathers saw the Old Testament prohibition [against usury] as still binding” and that “usury was incompatible with Christian love.” (“Teaching of the Fathers on Usury,” Vigiliae Christianae 27, 1973, 263, 242). Likewise Brenda Ihssen states, “One safely concludes that they [the Greek church fathers] did not consider usury to be either a moral, justifiable, or advantageous action, but in fact, almost unanimously argued against the practice” (They Who Give from Evil: The Response of the Eastern Church to Moneylending in the Early Christian Era [Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012], 188).

But a question came to my mind: what about loans for other purposes, such as productive loans for business? Was that excluded as well? So, I thought I would take another look at the relevant Old Testament passages to find out what the Old Testament says about loans and interest. A report of my study, with the details behind my comments here, are available in a 15,000-word article published in the December 2016 issue of Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, (vol. 59, pp 761-89), “Lending and Interest in the OT: Examining Three Interpretations to Explain the Deuteronomy 23:19--20 Distinction in Light of the Historical Usury Debate.”

I learned that a few matters may confuse the study of this issue. Firstly, for most of history of the term “usury” meant the same as “interest,” until about the eighteenth century, when “usury” began to mean excessive interest, as it does still today. So when reading historical records, when someone after the 1700s stated they are against “usury” they meant they were against excessive interest. For documents before that time, when some one agreed that “usury” should be banned, they usually meant they were against any interest, unless a clarification was made.

Another confusion relates to the Hebrew verb, nā;;š;;ak, (pronounced as NAHshock) that is translated as “to charge interest.” Earlier Hebrew lexicons (such as BDB) stated there was only one root and it meant both “to charge interest” and “to bite,” so charging interesting was like taking a bite, indicating a negative action. For example, Hillel Gamoran reported in 1971 that, “The most widely accepted view today is that neshek [the noun] was derived from the Hebrew root n sh k, ‘to bite,’ and referred to interest ‘bitten off’ or deducted before the loan was advanced” ("The Biblical Law against Loans on Interest," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 30 [1971], 131).

Yet more recent lexicons (such as the DCH, Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. D. J. A. Clines, 1994-2011, eight volumes) identify two separate roots for this homonym (i.e., they sound the same, e.g., “bare” and “bear”): root I is “to bite” (12 times in the OT, mostly of snake bites), and root II is “to charge interest” (verb used 5x in the OT). So there is no connection between charging interest and biting.

Finally, there are two different Hebrew terms that relate to our particular subject of lending. Lending with interest (nā;;š;;ak, root II, used 5x), already mentioned is the term used in Exodus 22:25 quoted above. The other term, lending with a pledge (nā;;šā;;, pronounced as NAHshah, 12x as a verb), appears, for example, in Deuteronomy 24:10, “When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not go into his house to collect his pledge.” It is this particular term, lending with a pledge, that appears in the economic crisis that is recorded in Nehemiah 5: 7, 10. Some English versions translate the verb as lending with interest (e.g., ESV, NASV,NIV). Rather, a better translation is offered by the NET Bible, “Each one of you is seizing the collateral from your own countrymen!” (Neh. 5:7).

The three key passages for our study against charging interest on loans, are in the Pentateuch: Exodus 22:25, Leviticus 25:35-37, and Deuteronomy 23:19-20. The key difference in the passages, and the source of the long controversy was based on the difference between Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25:35, which focuses the ban on interest to loans for the poor, where as Deuteronomy 23:19-20, excludes interest on loans to “your brother.” We will take up that aspect of the study in Part 2."

Messenger: Jahcub I Sent: 7/14/2020 11:01:20 AM

"What does the Old Testament say about Loans and Interest? Part 2

For most of the history of the church, church leaders understood that the Old Testament taught a complete ban on any interest on loans. As noted in Part 1, the subject of this study is the matter of loans to fellow Israelites who had the potential for paying the loan back, not the topic of charity to the poor. Three important passages in the Pentateuch or Torah guide the main teaching on loans and interest in the Old Testament (below, underlining is added to highlight the key factors; the different Hebrew terms are noted; see Part 1 for clarification about the verb “to charge interest” [nā;šak root II]; the noun “interest” [nešek] shares the same root, and also appears in these passages).

Exodus 22:25 [EVS]: “If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender [nō;ŝ;e’, participle] to him, and you shall not exact interest [nešek, noun] from him.”

Leviticus 25:35-37: “[35] If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you. [36] Take no interest [nešek] from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. [37] You shall not lend him your money at interest [nešek], nor give him your food for profit.”

Deuteronomy 23:19-20: “[19] You shall not charge interest on loans [nā;šak II, verb] to your brother, interest [nešek, noun] on money, interest [nešek] on food, interest [nešek] on anything that is lent for interest [nā;šak II, verb]. [20] You may charge a foreigner [nokrî] interest [nā;šak II, verb], but you may not charge your brother interest [nā;šak II, verb], that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.”

The source of the long controversy throughout much of church history was based on the difference between Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25: 35, which focuses the ban on interest to loans for the “poor,” whereas Deuteronomy 23:19-20 excludes interest on loans to “your brother.” Based on a study of the passage, the main question can be stated as indicting three possible interpretations:

#1. What is the intended scope of the interest ban in Deuteronomy 23:19-20:

(A) a total interest ban on all loans? (the traditional view held during the Patristic period and the Middle Ages of church history),

(B) an interest ban only on loans to fellow Israelites, but not to foreigners? (as explicitly stated in Deuteronomy 23:20), or

(C) an interest ban only on loans to the working Israelite poor (as explicitly stated in Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25:35-37)?

Additional relevant questions identify key matters to resolve:

#2. How do these three passages relate to each other? Does the later teaching of Deuteronomy 23:19-20 differ from and override the teaching of Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25:35-37 (the two passages that identify the working Israelite poor as the focus on the interest ban), or do these three Torah passages maintain some unified teaching about the topic of lending and interest?

#3. Is charging interest on any loan always wrong, or is charging interest wrong in some contexts and legitimate in other contexts, according to these three passages?

#4. Regarding Deuteronomy 23:19-20, what type of contrast is intended between “brother” (vv. 19, 20) and “foreigner” (vs. 20)?

As mentioned, three possible interpretations of Deuteronomy 23:19-20 offer a response to each of these questions, to be summarized briefly in this blog. The following labels suggested for each view intend to capture the key difference of understanding.

A. Ethnic status distinction implying a total usury ban. Deuteronomy 23:19 is viewed as offering the last word on the matter, different from the other two Torah passages. Within the covenant of the Israelite “brotherhood” community, charging any interest on a loan is always banned--that is the ideal. Passages in the rest of the OT confirm this blanket prohibition (e.g., Psalm 15: “who does not put his money out at interest”; Ezek 18:8 “does not lend at interest”).

Bruce Ballard states: “The Old Testament clearly condemns lending money or anything else at any interest at all ... If my exposition of the doctrine of usury is correct, then interest-taking is as much a sin as ever” (“On the Sin of Usury: A Biblical Economic Ethic,” Christian Scholar’s Review 24 (1994): 214, 227).

B. Ethnic status distinction implying a two-tiered ethic. Agreeing with the view “A,” an ethnic Deuteronomy 23:19 identifies the main teaching on the matter, but takes Deuteronomy 23:20 at face value. Those within the Israelite community must hold to a higher ethic and not charge interest on loans to each other. Yet Deuteronomy 23:20 does state that charging interest on loans to non-Israelites is legitimate, since one cannot expect “foreigners” to agree this higher ethic. In such a case, Israelites can comply the with usual business practice of that day.

Michael Guttman notes, “If an equal basis for trading between Israelites and foreigners was to be established it could be attained only in this way; that the restrictions of the release year and the law of interest, which were not binding on the stranger a priori, were also void for the Israelite in so far as trade with foreigners was concerned” (“The Term ‘Foreigner’ (נ;כ;ר;י;) Historically Considered,” HUCA 2 (1926): 7).

C. Economic status distinction implying a contrast between the poor and the merchant. This third view understands the contrast between “brother” and “foreigner” not as referring to an ethnic group, but one of a contrast between two situations: between the implied poor “brother” and the “foreigner” (Deut. 23:20) as trader or merchant. When the topic of lending is first mentioned in Deut. 15: 7, the focus is loans to the poor (the passage starts off very similarly to Lev. 25:35), “If among you, one of your brothers should become poor...” Thus, when the topic of lending is picked up again in Deut. 23:19-20, the focus on the poor brother is implied. And, most Deuteronomy commentators understand the term “foreigner” [nokrî] in Deut 23:20 as that of foreign trader or merchant.

Mark Biddle explains, “In fact, since most traders in the ancient Near East did business internationally, the permission to charge interest of ‘foreigners’ may be understood less as a form of ethnocentricity and more as drawing a distinction between lending to the needy in one’s community and credit as a component of commercial transactions” (Deuteronomy [Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2003], 252-53).

This concludes a brief summary of the three views of Deuteronomy 23:19-20. Table 1 below provides some of the proponents of each view. In Part 3, I will offer an evaluation of each view.

Table 1: Some proponents for each of the three views:

A. Ethnic status distinction implying a total usury ban.

Ambrose [d. 397], De Tobia [Tobit] 15.51.

Ballard, Bruce, “On the Sin of Usury: A Biblical Economic Ethic,” Christian Scholar’s Review, 24/2 (1994), 214, 218.

Bell, Daniel M. Jr., The Economy of Desire: Christianity and Capitalism in a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 163, 187, 191.

Boer, Roland, The Sacred Economy of Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2015), 157, 161 n36.

Mills, Paul and Michael Schluter, After Capitalism: Rethinking Economic Relationships, Cambridge: Jubilee Centre (2012), 18-19.

B. Ethnic status distinction implying a two-tiered ethic.

Gordon, Barry, “Lending at Interest: Some Jewish, Greek, and Christian Approaches 800 B.C. - 100 A.D,” History of Political Economy, 14.2 (1982), 409-12, 424.

Maloney, Robert, “The Background for the Early Christian Teaching on Usury,” S.T.D. Dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 1969, 68.

Neufeld, Edward, “The Prohibitions Against Loans at Interest in Ancient Hebrew Laws,” HUCA [Hebrew Union College Annual], 26 (1955), 366, 407.

Williams, Michael J., “Taking Interest in Taking Interest,” in MIshneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay, N . S. Fox, A. Glatt-Gilad, and Michael J. Williams, eds. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 129, 131.

Wright, Christopher, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 165.

C. Economic status distinction implying a contrast between the poor and the merchant.

Baker, David L., Tight Fists or Open Hands? Wealth and Poverty in the Old Testament Law (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 265, 263.

Biddle, Mark E., Deuteronomy (Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2003), 252-53.

Meislin, B. J. and Morris L. Cohen, “Backgrounds of the Biblical Law Against Usury,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 6.3 (1964), 264.

Stein, S., “The Laws on Interest in the Old Testament” The Journal of Theological Studies, 4 (1953), 162, 166.

(For further details see my article, “Lending and Interest in the OT: Examining Three Interpretations to Explain the Deuteronomy 23:19-20 Distinction in Light of the Historical Usury Debate,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 59, 2016, 761-89.)"

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 7/14/2020 5:05:16 PM

Thanks for sharing the article but I'm at a loss for the relevance.

The text in question is one I used to use all the time both as a Seventh Day Adventist and then as an Israelite. It's always interesting when people say "oh he's not a Rasta" because he's an atheist. But that concept comes from a limited view of God. Let me start with the law and move on to the bigger picture.

Matthew 5:17-20 King James Version (KJV)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This was always interpreted that he was against the PENALTY of the law, being that he took the place of the sacrificial lamb that paid the price on the person's behalf. So understand I MADE this argument for YEARS. However, that was really before I started REALLY learning the law. And we can talk about specifics of the law because I still enjoy discussing it. But it my position right now that Yeshua was trying to reform his people and probably would have changed the law if he had actually been able to fulfill the messianic prophecy and become the messiah (king). I believe he understood that it was their adherence to the law that had led them away from love and brotherhood and community. It was a society of blame and punishment. He told stories about mercy and forgiveness! See... you and I... we didn't grow up seeing the law being enforced. We grew up seeing a Christian cherry-picked society where whatever sins you commit you just privately ask God for forgiveness. But we also benefited from seeing the church lose its power. We didn't see the Inquisitions. We didn't fight in the Crusades. We didn't have to live as slaves which was LEGAL in the law. So we're not seeing the same world that Yeshua would have grown up in. And he wasn't even seeing the same world that Israelites had been in before Rome stepped in. We see the results of a course correction that GENTILES made, after never accepting the law, only what Paul said about idolatry and such. But gentiles weren't considering themselves under the law if they weren't considering themselves as Israelites.

Problem... YHWH considered his people to be a nation and Yeshua said that he would be the vine in which gentiles could be "grafted in". So the idea that they were just gentiles really doesn't fly. It was only used, legalistically speaking, to excuse them from a true conversion. That's why there was a disagreement between Paul and the ACTUAL disciples (since Paul was not an actual disciple and never actually met Yeshua alive or dead).

So not only did the gentiles not keep the law, they also developed separation of church and state. The laws of Moses were the laws of a state... a nation. Rome had its own laws. England, the US, France, Canada, Jamaica, wherever we ended up, those places have their own civil laws and liberties. So I'm saying...

We REALLY DO NOT KNOW what it was like when they truly were "UNDER" the law.

It was not only barbaric but if someone didn't like you they could hire people to be witnesses and say they saw you breaking the law. That's why there had to be a commandment against bearing false witness; an indication that it was already a problem.

As for more spiritual laws... I'm not totally convinced that all of the laws were equally applicable to the whole nation. It makes more sense that there were laws of cleanliness and holiness that only applied to the Levites (thus Leviticus) because it was their job to be holy and were "Set apart" (definition of holy) from the people in order to fulfill priestly obligations. I'm sure you know that there was always a chance (according to the bible) that the priest wouldn't live if he went into the most holy place unclean. That's why the put bells on him and attached a rope so they could pull out his body.

But if you wanted to argue all the law applied equally to everyone I wouldn't bother fighting it. Again, the problem is that these laws failed to make the Israelites actually spiritually more enlightened people. It made many give up and it made those who didn't into lawyers. And no one really respects lawyers for a reason.

That's why they needed reform. As much as they could complain about Rome they were in that mess for a reason. You might say that the reason was because they were sinful and stiff-necked. But why? Wasn't the law always about love? So why were they fighting other nations? And how did they have weapons to fight the Amorites and Philistines when they practically had just left being slaves?

I believe Yeshua knew that it wasn't working. The system itself wasn't working. The people were already divided into different sects. Rome didn't do that. Their disagreements over their religion did that.

Moses ruled by force. Brutal dictators use barbaric methods like cutting someone's hand off to make everyone else afraid. If you read careful, Moshe pushes the blame or justification of this on Jah while still conforming to the same authoritarian standards. He simply gives Jah the credit.

So from the beginning... when the people didn't even know Jah Moshe said that if it wasn't for him Jah would have killed them all. That's fear. When people are afraid they give someone else their power/freedom in exchange for security. So the murmurs and complaints were replaced by fear and suffering as they were made to wander the desert for 40 years just to kill off a generation. But when we read this, we have zero sympathy for the people. Because that's how the story goes and we're made to fear "God" and in that fear we give our silent CONSENT.

This man butchered his people and said Jah told him to do it. In reality it was to solidify his rule; his sole authority. Moshe wasn't a poor boy from some orphanage that pulled a sword from a stone. He was trained by the priests of Kemet, in science, chemistry, and most likely politics. He knew how to rule. And when the people acted like sheep that were wandering away from him he used his military arm to scare them back in line. But so that he didn't seem like a dictator who should be overthrown, he told them that Jah was the one who was in command and he was just his humble servant relaying his messages.

I have lived for over 40 years now and I know that just as I have seen it, you have also seen men claim that God spoke to them and gave them a sermon, a song, etc. etc. And those men join the ones on TV and the ones in other religions and NONE OF THEM speaks with the same command and authoritarianism telling any of them which is the true religion and the true church with might and miracles to prove it. And you know it. And it would be one thing I'd be willing to over look if they weren't KILLING each other as well.

Millions of people die while they all pretend that the very SAME GOD told them all to fight.

This is irreconcilable. This is dread.

And so, to me, the story as we know it is an impossible paradox that exposes the politricks of humanity in its race for power and wealth. Moshe had power and wealth. Like a king, his family gained great power and wealth. He had means, motive, and opportunity. All we have to do is take a really good look at him and his brother and see the TRUTH.

That wasn't... Jah.

A wise man said that if you live by the sword you will die by the sword. Israel lived by the sword. The Israelis, much like the North Americans, came in to take over, talking about "manifest destiny". This is nothing new. Whenever man wants to take a little bit he says "I want". Whenever man wants to take a lot he says "God wants". Do you get it?

Sizzla said: I have no white god. Don't teach me anything wrong. Would a white god save me from white man's oppression?

One of the biggest Rasta influences in my life said that and it's true.

Jah is "I am". When the Europeans said God, it was themselves they were talking about. And when they gave us their God to worship it was THEY that wanted our worship and THEY who "save us" from THEY who is also our ha Shatan (the adversary).

MAN plays the parts of good and evil; of the just God and of the devil.

I am not here to corrupt your faith in anyway. One of the people I respect most on this forum (Cedric) defended Moshe to the point of this revelation of God being "I am". And Cedric is right. This philosophy agrees with all my studies. We are God. We divide like cells. And like cells we multiply. We have been on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years because "we as the I" are immortal and everlasting. But this is esoteric. This is secret. Because how can you control the masses if the masses know who they are?

If the Israelites could defeat the Philistines they thought it must mean that their God was greater. But if their God had all these magical powers why did they have to fight at all? Unless, they were the living power of their God.

There are parts of the law that good. I'm not arguing that it's total trash. I'm saying it is what they knew at the time and it lacked the ability to evolve along with humanity; along with "the God". And because of that the morality of the godless surpassed them. Still today there are many churches that are racially divided. Why? Because they are slower to change than society around them. Because they are holding on to ideas that are outdated but given weight because they're old and the people are "Conservatives".

Babylon system is composed of a composite of all of these people working against God; working against humanity because if you are working against black people how can you be working for humanity? If you are working against white people how can you be working for humanity? All attempts to work against humanity can only succeed for a season because humanity will always evolve to fight those people to solve the problems that they create. We are God fighting against the impurities, imperfections, and UNCLEANLINESS in our own body.

Yeshua was the law because he represented what the law was meant to be...


But if the word of God is corrupt because God (the people) are corrupt then you need a new word. And Yeshua was that new word made flesh, dwelling among us, but he was the upgrade designed to reform humanity in that time. He told us to follow him; follow in his footsteps. We must be the reformers. We must be the ones to change the system. The Word is our OS (our Operating System). The law is a physical manifestation of that. But that school master (As Paul put it) got old. We have to graduate; learning the lessons it taught but going FURTHER.

In science, we build on the discoveries of the past which is knowledge. Religion should build on the WISDOM of the past. But you cannot get stuck in the past and think to judge the future! That's why you can call me arrogant but no slave master can judge me. And no law that establishes a slave master can judge me either. I am above that law. YOU... are above that law. We learned from it. And it is our responsibility to correct that error in judgment and create a better future. But the God who created slavery isn't here now creating that better future. It's up to us to do that.

It's up to us to evolve.

Messenger: Jahcub I Sent: 7/15/2020 10:21:12 PM

JAH is One. Moshe and Yeshua are One with JAH. Both Yeshua and Moshe taught what was necessary for the trod in their times. The Israelites in Moshe's time had lost their way, and Moshe showed them the way back to JAH. The Israelites in Yeshua's time had lost their way, and Yeshua showed them the way back to JAH.

One question: If Moshe only wanted to rule the Israelites, if Moshe was all about controlling and having power over the people; then why did Moshe not enter the promised land? Why did he decide to stay in the desert and not become the ruler/dictator of the Israelites? Your claims don't seem to fit.

Now this is what Yeshua had to say about Moshe and the Law:

Mark 7:5-13
"Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."

Messenger: Jahcub I Sent: 7/16/2020 12:11:11 AM

It wasn't the Law that Moshe taught that Yeshua was against. It was the law of the Pharisees that Yeshua was against. The law of the Pharisees is that Babylonian Talmud junk.

The Falashas don't practice that junk. They are true Israelites.

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 7/16/2020 2:31:55 PM

One question: If Moshe only wanted to rule the Israelites, if Moshe was all about controlling and having power over the people; then why did Moshe not enter the promised land? Why did he decide to stay in the desert and not become the ruler/dictator of the Israelites? Your claims don't seem to fit.

Who said he decided this? Jahcub... how do I say this? This is propaganda. Moshe already had ultimate power over the people. He was already their ruler. He simply wasn't a "king". What is a king? A king is usually one who inherits rule by birthright. It was a defacto monarchy. Moshe simply told them that God told him to lead them. And then God told him to give them laws. And God told him to tell them to fight. And God told him... do you get the point? Moses simply capitalized on their beliefs. He exploited the belief he himself created, by introducing them to a volcano, made them believe the volcano was a powerful god, and then told them that he alone was in communication with this god. Are you telling me that Jah couldn't have used an audible voice that everyone could hear? You don't believe that.

Moshe created an illusion that he alone was in control of. Everyone in his family was literally deceitful. The story says his mom helped him survive by deceiving pharaoh's daughter. Pharaoh constantly thought Moshe was trying to deceive him. What we're reading is the sanitized version of events that Moshe also was in control of. Anything that happened, Moshe simply create a story to justify why it happened. All he had to do was use the same "God did it" logic that all creationists use. In other words, anything a person can't explain... "god did it". Giving God the credit (or blame) allows humans to escape responsibility for what they themselves do. So if Moshe decided to kill those people there wasn't any commandment that he broke.... it wasn't MURDER... because all he had to say is "God told me to do it". Thou shalt not stead? But Moshe told the Israelites to "borrow" gold from the Egyptians on their way out. We both know that such "borrowing" is actually stealing.

What I'm trying to show you here is that there is a pattern; not just with Moshe but also others. Moshe didn't want or need to be king. Kings were human. Kings could be corrupt and petty. Look at Saul. Is he the hero of the story or is it David? And because David won the writers simply say God was on David's side. They loved David. Why? Because they hated Saul. I love Joe Biden but only because I hate Trump. It's politics. They heaped praise on David and considered him a good king. But was he? Moshe avoided all that by literally crediting God with all his decisions. So he had the authority of a king but none of the blame. If Moshe had hurled a spear at David he would have said God told him to do it.

So if you understand the pattern... and we can definitely talk about the atrocities of Moshe

then you can see why Moshe didn't make it to the promised land. In Deuteronomy 34 it tells us that Moshe was 120 years old. But because his legacy was established as this "chosen voice of God" the political explanation wasn't that he died of old age or had a heart attack or stroke. The political explanation is that God punished him for some small trivial thing he did that God didn't like. But according to Deuteronomy he wasn't weak and his eyes weren't dim. So it's trying to preserve his legacy as an extraordinary man. But his time was up. He was, according to the book, 120 years old.

Was he really that old? Who knows. I know David didn't personally kill thousands of people. Some things the bible says are lies because the people telling the lies aren't even aware that their words are going to end up in a holy book. And just as history texts books often leave out information and try to tell the most positive story of the country's history as possible, when you get older you can always find out that things weren't exactly as they were presented.

So I have no more expectation for Deuteronomy to be honest about Moses's death. Suffice it to say that if he were younger he probably would have entered the "Promised Land" (that was already occupied and was in reality land they were about to try to steal from its natives but of course that, like all other morally questionable or ambiguous situations, is simply blamed, once again, on God) no problem. But he wasn't young. He had ruled them for a long time at this point. The fact that it says he wasn't weak means the writer understood the political implications it would have if people thought of him as weak. So no, he couldn't just have a normal death. They had to keep up the appearance that he was God's chosen one.

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 7/16/2020 3:24:34 PM

Jahcub: It wasn't the Law that Moshe taught that Yeshua was against. It was the law of the Pharisees that Yeshua was against. The law of the Pharisees is that Babylonian Talmud junk.

The Falashas don't practice that junk. They are true Israelites.

Again... I made the same argument as a believer. Nothing new. However, it wasn't the Talmud that was being used against the woman caught in adultery. It was the 10 commandments and the judgments. As you know the commandments are in Ex 20. In Ex 21 is where it dictates slavery and how the children of a slave can be property of the master. It also (v7-10) talks about how a man could have multiple wives (as Moshe did) as long as he took care of the previous ones to the same degree they were accustomed to.

When Yeshua was asked about marriage in heaven it was a trick question based on this.

Matthew 20:30

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

So this was a clear and clever dodge because they wanted him to take a position for or against plural marriage as it was legalized by Moshe.

The problem you're going to face trying to figure this out is understanding the battle between the Pharisees and Yeshua. They weren't trying to stone Yeshua for breaking their own laws (the traditions of the elders of the tribe of Judah). They could and did chastise him for that (not making his disciples wash their hands) but that was essentially a cleanliness law similar to a woman being on her period. Certain activities simply made you unclean and so they were trying to be health conscious and mandate better hygiene. That wasn't punishable by death so even though they argued about it there was nothing they could do to him about it. However, if they could use blasphemy (John 10:33) then that would be a different story.

Yeshua was well versed in the law but more than that he also understood Israelite politics. He knew his opposition. And he knew that their entire religion was based on Moshe and his miracles. But that doesn't mean everyone liked it or that everyone agreed.

Again... if you lived under the Moshe regime you COULD NOT OPENLY DISSENT. If you were discovered you could be stoned.

Deuteronomy 13:5
Deuteronomy 17:7
Deuteronomy 17:12
Deuteronomy 21:21
Deuteronomy 22:21
Deuteronomy 24:7

Everyone who worshiped the golden calf was forced to drink it. Then many of them were killed. This was not a climate in which people were free to believe whatever they wanted. So most of the disagreements had to be hidden in the "interpretation" of the law.

Perfect example?

Who is your neighbor?

If we consult the dictionary it says:

a person living near or next door to the speaker or person referred to.

And this is accurate. Moshe wrote about "thy neighbor" but also waged wars and took women as spoils. He also allowed usury to be charged to the "stranger" because there was always a separation in the law between Israelite and gentile. This is why the Samaritans were treated like dogs and why the woman who spoke to Yeshua talked about scraps from the master's table. He point was that love and how people treated each other shouldn't be bound by vicinity or even place of birth. This is why the story of the good Samaritan is important. This was, against Moshe, a new teaching.

These little arguments from Yeshua could never directly contradict Moshe, because again, that was the foundation of their religion. But he could try to change the definition of neighbor.

So when you look at Moshe and what he allowed, it's not the same thing as the disciples were told. "Husband to one wife" for example. But you could argue that was for rabbis or leaders of a congregation. But it is clear to me that Yeshua wanted to reform the people, in part by subverting the role, rule, authority of Moshe. As you said, Moshe was for his time. If you want to believe that I'm fine with that. Because at the end of the day it means that while we both agree that it is good to honor your parents, we'd probably both disagree that dishonoring your parents should be a death sentence where dishonoring could be interpreted as anything that would embarrass them.

But it is my argument, not that they fell away from Moshe's good laws, but rather that Moshe's laws resulted in what they became and it very nearly destroyed them.

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 7/16/2020 4:19:00 PM

from your article:

Deuteronomy 23:19-20: “[19] You shall not charge interest on loans [nā;;šak II, verb] to your brother, interest [nešek, noun] on money, interest [nešek] on food, interest [nešek] on anything that is lent for interest [nā;;šak II, verb]. [20] You may charge a foreigner [nokrî] interest [nā;;šak II, verb], but you may not charge your brother interest [nā;;šak II, verb], that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.”

Let me also say that Moshe's setup of Israelite vs gentile is wrongheaded and leads to other nations treating them like they treat other nations. Jews today are feared and hated by other Europeans in part because of this Jew vs gentile relationship.

And then Christians, even they, adopt a form of this by trying to limit "neighbor" and "brother" to their fellow believers. And then this can also be further limited to denominations. This is definitely not "ONE LOVE". And that's why the one love message is so important. And it goes back to something Yeshua said about how it was easy to love your friends and family. Love is proven when you love your enemies. That is the kind of love that is healing and transformative.

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 78

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I