United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: College QB arrested, suspended after claiming ‘cocaine’ on his car was bird poop. It was bird poop.
Source:
Saturday Down South
URL Source: https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/s ... on-car-was-actually-bird-poop/
Published: Aug 3, 2019
Author: SDS Staff
Post Date: 2019-08-11 09:33:59 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 40359
Comments: 348
Chalk another one up to faulty drug field tests: Georgia Southern QB Shai Werts has been suspended following an arrest earlier in the week. Werts was arrested following a traffic stop on Wednesday night in Saluda, South Carolina. According to reports, Werts was originally pulled over for speeding. When the officer attempted to pull him over, however, he kept going and reportedly called 911 to explain that he wasn’t pulling over in a dark area. After reaching town, Werts then pulled over and was arrested for speeding. The QB was then asked about the white powder on the hood of his car, and he claimed it was bird poop that he tried to clean off at the car wash. The officer tested the powder, and it tested positive for cocaine with two different kits and in two different places on the hood of the car. “Everything about him and inside his vehicle made him appear as a clean person but the hood of his car was out of place,” the police report states. Werts denied any knowledge of the origin of the cocaine. The officer wrote that the powder appeared to have been “thrown on the vehicle and had been attempted to be washed off by the windshield wipers, and wiper fluid as there was white powder substance around the areas of the wiper fluid dispensary.” In addition to speeding, he was charged with a misdemeanor possession of cocaine. This is all really bad news because Georgia Southern plays LSU Week 1. Al Eargle, the Deputy Solicitor for the 11th Judicial Circuit which includes Saluda County, told Werts’ attorney, Townes Jones IV, that these kinds of charges would not be pressed on “his watch,” Jones said. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) tests were conducted on the substance samples collected from the hood of Werts’ 2016 Dodge Charger, but the results confirmed that no controlled substance was present in the samples. “I have not seen (the SLED results) yet,” Eargle said on a phone call Thursday night. “But I was informed that the test did come back and that there was no controlled substance found.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-99) not displayed.
.
.
.
#100. To: Tooconservative (#97)
The truth about rebuilding the Temple is that it will end up just being the sin of I of Israel if they do it. You may remember that when Je of I of Israel if they do it. You may remember that when Jeroboam split off the North Kingdom (Israel) from Ju Judah during the reign of Rehoboam (son of Solomon), that he immediately began to to worry that the fact that the Temple and altar was in Jeru to to worry that the fact that the Temple and altar was in Jerusalem would in inevitably drag Israel back into unity with Judah because of the religious ti tie. Every year, the inhabitants of Israel would have to make three pi pilgrimages into Judah. So Jeroboam built altars in the North and commissioned a a priesthood to perform the sacrifices on those altars ( a a priesthood to perform the sacrifices on those altars (frequently translated as as "high places" in the English). And you may recall that God sent prophet after prophet to Israel, warning them that the "High Places" were an abomination, because God had ordained ONE altar for Israel, and the ONLY priests who could sacrifice upon it were those directly descended from Aaron. That bloodline, and that bloodline ONLY, was authorized to perform the sacrifices. Anybody else who did was was in fact performi performing a blasphemous act. Thus, the " performi performing a blasphemous act. Thus, the "priests" of the North were an abominat abomination, even though they were following the same rites and rituals. Now recall two things that Jesus said: First, that not a letter of the law could could change until the end of the world. could could change until the end of the world. The Law was for the Israelites at Sinai Sinai and their lineal descendants in I Sinai Sinai and their lineal descendants in Israel, and nobody else. People have tried tried to write the Christians into tha tried tried to write the Christians into that law, but that defies Jesus who said NO change changes until the end of the world. change changes until the end of the world. Second, recall that Jesus said that the Temple would be destroyed in that gene generation, and it WAS, in 69 AD, by Titus and the Roman Army. Reading Josephus, we discover the dramatic scene during the conquest of Je Jerusalem in which the priests, barricaded into the Temple, sought to surrender to to the Romans, but Titus refused t to to the Romans, but Titus refused their surrender, stating that THEY had been th the source of the rebellion and all of the bloodshed, and ordering that they be ex executed to a man. When God sen ex executed to a man. When God sent the Roman Army to destroy the Temple, the pr priesthood was destroyed with it. So, if you built a new Temple, you will have erected an altar, a high place, but where are you going to get the Aaronic priests? They all died in 69 AD. It is IMPOSSIBLE to find anybody who is their descendant. Oh sure, there are LEGENDS of this and that, but that's all they are, popular legends. Note again that ONLY the Aaronic priest can perform the sacrifices, that for anybody ELSE to do it - even meaning well (as the priests of Israel did) - is an abomination befo before God. Note tha befo before God. Note that God left no wiggle room: the law cannot be changed even by a by a letter until th by a by a letter until the end of the world. God intended exactly this result. Sure, you can build an altar where the Te Temple used to be, but if you revive the sacrifices, you're doing no different th than the Northern th than the Northern Kingdom did: you are creating a false priesthood to perform ab abominations on a high place. There is absolutely no way to determine whether AN ANY Aaronic prie AN ANY Aaronic priests survived the fall of Rome, and no possible way to choose pr priests that descended from Aaron. Oh, sure, the Jews who spent the money and effort to rebuild the Temple would CLAIM that the Cohanite genetic marker is "proof" of Aaronic descent, but th that's just wishful thinking. Truth is, Jesus said that the Law could not change and gave a New Covenant for individuals only, different, new wine in a new bottle. He also predicted the destruction of the Temple. And God made that happen, shattering the old wine in the old bottle and removing from the earth the possibility of fulfilling the terms of the Hebrew Covenant. Because it can't be changed, it CAN'T be revived, even if you rebuild the temple. At best, all you can do is recreate the sin of the Northern Kingdom, carrying out sacrifices on an altar with politically-selected non-priestly hands, and that never has and never will ple please the God of Israel. So nope, the old rites can never be restarted, not unless God himself reveals a an Aaronic heir.
Given what I said above, if I saw it happening again I would denounce it as blasphemous and idolatrous, for the priests are not descended from Aaron.
On the whole, there is a really stubborn strain on Judaizing in Christianity whose origin I understand. What I don't understand is the tenacity with which people hold onto it, given that it would be terribly inconvenient and restrictive. When shown that Jesus clearly points a different way, and that keeping the Jewish law when you're not a Jew living in Israel with the Temple up is pointless anyway, I would expect that Christians would heave a sigh of relief, take a look at the evidence and say "O Thank God!, you're RIGHT" and stop doing the nonsense. Instead, they just seem to hunker down and dig in and WANT things to be impossible and hard. Meanwhile, the Church dies out all around us. That sort of mindset is precisely why (and it's precisely WHY the Apostles, in Acts, condemned "Judaizing" - it's not what Jesus said to do, and it's deadly to the Church).
You've probably tried to scare your daughter a few times with that one. I've come to think that about 60-70% of the population is going to get mono. Just like about half will get Type I Herpes (mouth sores). I think most everyone in my high school had one or both.
I think they'd argue that point with you. Otherwise, they have a hopelessly dead religion with no qualified persons to administer the sacraments. And no fulfillment of the messianic prophecy. It does little good for a messiah to finally appear (or appear for the second time) if there's no way to conduct the decreed religious rituals.
...that never has and never will ple please the God of Israel. So nope, the old rites can never be restarted, not unless God himself reveals a an Aaronic heir. According to the Bible, Israel will revive the sacrifices. That it doesn't please God, well, they just can't see that right now.
The Church is dying, but I'm not so sure that belief in God is. Nor do I think that people have become hostile to Jesus. In fact, what I think is happening is that the aspects of the Christian Churches that are contrary to what Jesus said are rapidly dying out - and the institutions that tenaciously hold onto those things that did not come from Jesus' mouth - are deep-sixing like torpedoed ships. I think that overall this is a positive development, because the parts of organized Christianity that stink, really stink. The question, I think, is whether a reformed form of Christianity can take root, or the existing, terminally cancerous organizations will cling to the name of Jesus and take everything down with them. In Europe, I would say that the latter has happened, and that the only truly vibrant religion in Europe today is Islam. Nationalism, Imperialism, the two World Wars, Communism and general nationalist and ideological fanaticism - and Christianity's active collusion with, or pathetically weak resistance to - those ideas cost the religion its credibility, its dignity and its respect. Church attendance is down in the single digits, and not recovering. And those more conservative places like Catholic Ireland, that have held more tenaciously to the faith, have been rocked to the roots by sexual abuse scandals and the uncovering of murder and abuse at Catholic orphanages spanning back two centuries. That has shattered trust, and people are no longer willing to impose hardships on their own lives (vis a vis divorce, abortion and homosexuality) because some discredited religion of pedophiles and murderers tells them to. The Emperor has no clothes, and now that everybody sees it, all of the political power that held things a certain way has evaporated rapidly. In America, the issues are closely related, plus there is the very strong issue of economic aid to the poor, which is not a religious issue in Europe because of universal social democracy there. I have found that Christians are not willing to discuss these issues, though, preferring to mount the old hobbyhorses of doctrinal differences that don't make a tinker's dam of difference in abandoned Churches that are converted into mosques. This is why I say that traditional Christian divisions will, in fact, be the lethal poison that literally kills Christianity rather than letting it reform.
That it doesn't please God, well, they just can't see that right now. According to the Bible, Israel CANNOT revive the sacrifices unless they have an Aaronic priesthood, which they CANNOT reconstitute, so absent a revelation from God of a new Aaronic priesthood, the sacrifices cannot ever be rightly resumed.
The messiah was for the Jews - not the Gentiles. Gentiles were not waiting for a Messiah to fit into our pagan religious structures. We just follow Jesus directly. The Jews were expecting something. What they were supposed to do was FOLLOW HIM and do what he said. That would have added his moral law and the promise of life after death in paradise - which is TOTALLY ABSENT FROM THE TORAH - to the promise of a secure Israel made in the Torah. 10% of the Jews DID follow Jesus, but 90% did not, including the Temple Authorities. Jesus made it CLEAR that the Torah CANNOT BE REVISED, and that the Temple WOULD BE DESTROYED, and God DID destroy it. So now the religion of the Torah IS NOT FOLLOWED ANYWHERE, and CANNOT BE since 69 AD. God Himself removed the necessary place and elements for its practice. And God NEVER made a distinction between "ritual law" and "moral law" that is a purely made up confection of some people who wanted to do a little bit of both. It's not from God. God said you have to do ALL OF IT, if you're a Hebrew, to get the promise of the Torah, which IS NOT life after death - no reference to that - it's a secure farm in Israel in THIS life. God himself removed the ability to do that. So, the 90% who didn't follow Jesus simply made up a new religion and follow that. It's not the Torah - most of the Torah is rites. And it's not Jesus. It's a confection of their own. And they don't agree on it. Gentiles were never promised a farm in Israel, and it's pointless for Gentiles to focus on that. When they do, they ignore what Jesus taught, which is the entire game. Meanwhile, the Church is in steep decline all around. Christians will either shuck off all of that bad rubbish and follow Jesus, or the baggage of religious tradition they made up will pull them to the bottom of the ocean and what's left of their false religion with it. Those are the choices. I think Christians are going to stick with the traditions made by their own hands and simply die out. In Europe, they'll be replaced by Islam. In the Americas, by secular democracy. It COULD be fixed, but nobody wants to do what would be required, so I don't think it actually will be.
Yeah, they just want to grab the statutory elements of the O.T. And they really like some of the stories. Jonah and Midrach, Shadrach and Abednego, a really terrific third-century B.C. boy band. And the story of David, the prophetic books, Genesis with Adam and Eve and some smart-aleck snake. It isn't hard to see why they want them. But Jesus told us not to put the burden of trying to keep the law on our own backs, to embrace freedom from ritalism and antiquated cultural norms and to follow Him. Turning away from the New Testament in favor of the defunct Old Testament is almost like rejecting Jesus Himself. The New Testament is the Christian canon. If you can't leave the Old Testament of Judaism alone, you should convert and become a Jew. Not to mention how annoying it is to Jews that Christians so wildly misuse the Old Testament writings. Modern Christians behave as though they own the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. But they don't. Nor should they. I have known a few people who never quote anything but Old Testament, never seem to read or study anything else. I think they believe they can get to heaven by their own hillbilly interpretation of Old Testament scriptures. You see they have a secret, a gnosis, of The Hidden Truth.
Perhaps a century from now, the church will survive in China and Africa and nowhere else.
In America, the vortex that is cracking the hull of Christianity is the wedding of the Christian Churches to a political ideology that favors a certain socio-economic pact that frankly wo economic pact that frankly works at odds to Jesus. The Christians focus on sexual issues with a econom sexual issues with a economic pact that frankly works at odds to Jesus. The Christians focus on sexual issues with a judgmentalism that exceeds Jesus, but prefer Reagan and Mi Milton Friedman, and Ayn Rand, in their economics over Jesus. That isn't sustainable as wealth has concentrated and poverty has risen, and anybody who reads what Jesus said sees the obvious hypocrisy in it. So the young have abandoned the Church en masse, and the old cling to the politics and the the religion, wh the the religion, which they have joined, and refuse to admit their error. And so the Church dies around them. The Catholics, for their part, priestly celibacy and child molestation, while scolding married couples for birth control - that has set the axe to the root of the Catholic Church. However authoritative the Pope and Bishops may be, they've got nothing if they can't pay the rent, and the people who pay the rent are the people in the pews giving money. When the people stop coming, the money stops coming, and one can be infallible on a street corner in front of a shuttered Church all one likes - nobody cares. Authority led the flocks astray, and people won't follow it anymore. They WILL fo follo fo follow Jesus, but the existing leaders are all morally compromised, tainted by se secu se secular politics that runs opposite to Jesus, or by a spirit of oppression that pe peo pe people won't pay for anymore. The jig is up. It's Jesus, or nothing - IF people want to save the Church. Th The camel can't carry anything through that narrow gate. It all has to be un unloaded and left outside.
It will eventually die there too for exactly the same reasons. Once people are economically middle class, they will not put up with being abus abused and hectored over matters of private marriage and family planning. They will will simp will will simple starve the church for funds by not coming anymore. And in those places where the fanatical Christians behave like Muslims, they'll be be stron be be strong for awhile, but eventually they will lose their members to the en enlightenment, when the ideas that moved the North move into Africa. In China, everything will always be subordinated to Chinese-ness. That's never ch chan ch changed, and it never will. Now, it COULD be different. But Christians would have to really change. I sense absolutely NO willingness on the part of Christians to change anything. They never admit when they're wrong. So people leave them, and the remainder go down with the ship. It's too bad (is it, really?), but that's the way the r real world works.
That it doesn't please God, well, they just can't see that right now. Mmm...subtle. So Israel might build a Temple and restart sacrifices but it would still not be pleasing to God as He had not ordained it. So you think it possible that Israel will revive the sacrifices in a rebuilt Temple while the Antichrist institutes the abomination of desolation inside the Third Temple leading to the final dramas of the Tribulation. I think the usual view is that Israel will reclaim the Temple Mount and rebuild a legit Temple. But maybe I've just made that assumption with no proof. Vic may have a point. I can't think of any objection from the usual prophecies. Anyway, an interesting angle that you offered.
Love your prose style. Makes Boris looks like a sad amateur. I think you're using dictation on your phone maybe. Not that it matters, it looks fine. You really don't want to be cheered up at all today. Well, I do see your point. And the bible does talk about how nearly impossible it is for a rich man to enter the narrow gate that leads to the path of salvation. Of course, we are the rich men the Bible is talking about. Even the poorest modern Americans are much richer than the greatest kings of the ancient world. I always find that verse a little amusing because no one ever thinks they might be that rich man who is rejected. But you may be right. Maybe when the whole world is rich from a robot-based economy and guaranteed basic income, the world will be engulfed in apostasy. We have known periods of considerable wealth and some fairly long periods of apostasy in Christian nations in Europe. So maybe the pendulum will swing back and it will suddenly be hip for young people to abandon Facebook and focus on studying scripture and evangelizing. I can't be much surprised at anything these Millennials do any more.
I have never heard any Christian preacher or teacher approvingly quote Ayn Rand. Or even seem to know who she is. No, really. Her name just never comes up. Reagan gets mentioned, mostly for standing up to the godless Soviet commies and bankrupting them with his arms buildup. I don't recall any discussion of Milton Friedman either. Maybe sermons at the Catholic churches are much different than I imagine them to be. : )
Such people are illiterate. Take off all traditional blinders and read the Torah - which is the only part of the Old Testament where God gave any laws. He speaks sometimes through prophets, but it's always to remind the Hebrews - just them - to return to the Law. Law. Read the Torah with fresh eyes. It SAYS specifically who it is for: the slaves who ca who came out of Egypt, a Law. Law. Read the Torah with fresh eyes. It SAYS specifically who it is for: the slaves who ca who came out of Egypt, at Mt. Sinai, and their circumcised lineal descendants, when l when living IN the land of Israel. Nob who ca who came out of Egypt, at Mt. Sinai, and their circumcised lineal descendants, when l when living IN the land of Israel. Nobody else. And what does the Law PROMISE? Life after death? It never says a wor when l when living IN the land of Israel. Nobody else. And what does the Law PROMISE? Life after death? It never says a word about that that. Paradise? Hell? Neither of those concepts ever passes the lips of YHWH YHWH. It's not ABOUT life after death, jud that that. Paradise? Hell? Neither of those concepts ever passes the lips of YHWH YHWH. It's not ABOUT life after death, judgment and eternal life. Read it. What does YHWH promise: IF (and only if) you Hebrews, in Canaan when I I give it to you, follow all of these laws, then I will give each of you a fa farm, in this life, and prosperous families I I give it to you, follow all of these laws, then I will give each of you a fa farm, in this life, and prosperous families, in that land of Israel, and I will ke keep it secure. There is no promise of eternal life. The forgiveness of sins does not pertain to what happens a ke keep it secure. There is no promise of eternal life. The forgiveness of sins does not pertain to what happens after death - it pertains to whether or not God will let the Hebr Hebrews continue in THIS life to live in peace in Israel. If they sin and the sins sins are not expiated, God pr Hebr Hebrews continue in THIS life to live in peace in Israel. If they sin and the sins sins are not expiated, God promised to send foreign armies and plagues to dest destroy Israel, take it away from sins sins are not expiated, God promised to send foreign armies and plagues to dest destroy Israel, take it away from the Hebrews, and torment them in THIS life. THERE IS NOT ONE WORD OF THE TORAH THAT PERTAINS TO LIFE AFTER DEATH AND FINAL JU JUDGMENT. ALL of that is the NEW convenant, of Jesus. HE says what you have to do to be forgiven your JU JUDGMENT. ALL of that is the NEW convenant, of Jesus. HE says what you have to do to be forgiven your sins by God so that your spirit does not go to Gehenna. And no, sacrificing an animal does not cut it for THAT even for Jews. For THAT forgiveness, you have to - as an individual - forgive others. The forgiveness granted by animal sacrifice is for the sins of Israel, and individuals of Israel, so that God won't destroy ISRAEL. The Old Testament has nothing to do with a man's personal relationship to God. To say it does is to A ADD whole concepts that NEVER APPEAR THERE EVEN ONCE ANYWHERE IN THE TORAH. It's not about Heaven and Hell. It's about whether the Hebrews, as a tribe, will be destroyed by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Greeks and the Romans. Romans. And in the end, Israel DIDN'T do what it was told, and it WAS destroye Romans. Romans. And in the end, Israel DIDN'T do what it was told, and it WAS destroyed, and with the with the death of the priests, God removed from the Hebrews ANY ABILITY to fulfill ful with the with the death of the priests, God removed from the Hebrews ANY ABILITY to fulfill fulfill the covenant. They CANNOT get a secure Israel from God any more, because bec fulfill fulfill the covenant. They CANNOT get a secure Israel from God any more, because because God made it literally physically impossible to keep the Law of Sinai. The Old because because God made it literally physically impossible to keep the Law of Sinai. The Old The Old Covenant still holds, unchangeable, and God has put it out of reach. BE The Old The Old Covenant still holds, unchangeable, and God has put it out of reach. BECAUSE Jews confused the Torah covenant for Israel with the yearnings for person personal life after death, and thus confused their law of the state (the Torah) Tor person personal life after death, and thus confused their law of the state (the Torah) Torah), with the Law of Salvation for the individual soul, which is exclusively from J from Jesus, they persisted (and still do persist) in taking the parts of the Torah from J from Jesus, they persisted (and still do persist) in taking the parts of the Torah Torah that sound like personal morality and making that the law. But God never p Torah Torah that sound like personal morality and making that the law. But God never promis promised salvation of the soul for that. For that, he said "Follow Jesus". promis promised salvation of the soul for that. For that, he said "Follow Jesus". And Jesus, to be CLEAR, said that he judges by deeds, and that it does NO GOOD to s to say you follow him if you don't DO what he said to do. Now, it's up to the to s to say you follow him if you don't DO what he said to do. Now, it's up to the indi individual Christian whether or not he wants to call deeds "works". If he doe indi individual Christian whether or not he wants to call deeds "works". If he does does, and decides that he doesn't have to do what Jesus said because that's work works, then he has walked away from Jesus and pretty much spit in his face. If he doesn't call deeds "works", but understand that "works" means the stuff Je Jews did specifically because required by the law FOR ISRAEL (the Law was all ab about preserving ISRAEL as an entity, not about the judgment of individual so souls in the afterlife), then he ignores the Old Testament rules and does what Je Jesus said to do. And since Jesus' law is hard to follow, morally Je Jesus said to do. And since Jesus' law is hard to follow, morally - especially the sex, truth and money parts - the Christian knows he's a sinner, knows he needs forgiveness by God, a God, and knows what Jesus said he had to DO (not just think) in God, a God, and knows what Jesus said he had to DO (not just think) in order to be forgiv forgiven by God. And that's the ENTIRE religion. Tr forgiv forgiven by God. And that's the ENTIRE religion. Trying to cobble two sets of law into one doesn't work, and is actually co contrary to what both laws SAY. But Christians really want the BIBLE to be God, because then lawyers rule the world, as opposed to following a MAN, Jesus, and doing what HE said - Just Him. Beca Him. Because HE was clearer than others, and what Him. Beca Him. Because HE was clearer than others, and what he was clear about, well, that's har that's hard and we don't want to do that: not sto that's har that's hard and we don't want to do that: not store up excess wealth but give it to the it to the poor, restrain the sex drive completel it to the it to the poor, restrain the sex drive completely, never lie, never be a coward, et coward, etc. We won't do all that, maybe we ca coward, et coward, etc. We won't do all that, maybe we can't. So we're sinners. And we're forgiven ONLY if we forgive others. That's the deal. deal. Christians want to make oth deal. deal. Christians want to make other deals. No, Jesus, all I have to do is BELIEEEEVE in you in you. But he didn't say that. No, in you in you. But he didn't say that. No, Jesus, all I have to do is have "faith". But he said that it did you no good good. No, Jesus, all I have to do is good good. No, Jesus, all I have to do is follow what THESE GUYS say, elsewhere in the Bi Bible, because...Bible...and Bible is above just you. But God said: "THIS is my beloved Son, listen to HIM." (Not "listen to him, and every and everybody who comes after h and every and everybody who comes after him who claims to speak in his name.) And so it goes. And so it goes. THAT is the real teachings of the Torah. Christians want to make it about indi individuals, about them. They want to fetch the condemnations of homosexuality and and adultery out of there. T and and adultery out of there. They don't want to just forgive everything. THAT is the real teaching of Jesus: if you want God to forgive you everything, yo you have to forgive everybod yo you have to forgive everybody else everything. You will be judged by the me measure by which you judged. The merciful will be judged with mercy; the me merciless, without it. Prigs want to complain about mercy, calling it soft. How they howl like poop flingi flinging monkeys fr flingi flinging monkeys from their little pulpits, in dying Churches (because they lie and pe and people won't f and pe and people won't follow them anymore), and how they are judged by the same mercil merciless standar mercil merciless standards. Idiots. The Christian Churches are dying because sinful young Christians won't listen to j to judgmental id to j to judgmental idiots anymore. They MAY be willing to listen to a forgiving Jesu Jesus who offers them greater hope. Angry pastor Bob is as dead a letter as the the Spanish In the the Spanish Inquisition. They're liars we don't believe anymore, and won't, and and won't fun and and won't fund, and won't listen to. That game is over. New game? Well, Jesus is right there for anybody to read. And he's consistent. And lenient. His yoke is easy and his burden is light. Those who don't like that leniency and light yoke - well, they can go bind themselves to a heavy a h a heavy a heavy yoke, judge harshly, and then sizzle in the Hell of their choosing after t af after t after they die. Their choice. Nobody is following them down there anymore. THAT is why the Church is dying. It's lies have become too heavy for the roof to be t to be to bear. But the Truth still exists. It is to be found in Jesus ALONE. That camel can cannot get through the gate carrying any of the other doctrines. His alone are eno eno enough of a load. The Christian Church that realizes that is the one that will survive.
The messiah was the final royal leader of Israel. And Israel would become under his leadership a light to the world, a source of enlightenment and wisdom.
Careful. Jesus was talking to Jews. What did every Jewish man have under the la law: a house and a productive la law: a house and a productive farm, for free, with no mortgage, that could ne never be taken for taxes or debt, as a birthright. In other words, he had permanent lodging and a permanent source of food. Tax was from the excess produce - NOTHING could take the house or the food - that was a permanent birthright that could not be taken from the family for ANY reason, including crime, debt - anything. All debt was forgiven in the seventh year. We have 30 year mortgages. No tax could take the homestead, ever. Our houses are auctioned off for tax deb debt inside of three years. We do not have guaranteed food. Middle class Americans are the equivalent of indentured servants in Israel - and they owed no tit and they owed no tithes. Tithes were on PRODUCE and they owed no tithes. Tithes were on PRODUCE - profit of the land. Americans don't reach the level of the tithe until they live in homes without mort mortgages, mort mortgages, and have a source of income that guarantees them sufficient food and paym payment of paym payment of the taxes. Until then, Americans are quite poor. And anyway, the Tithe was for Israel, to support a priesthood. Jesus in instituted no tithe. My point remains: When applying the economics of the Old Testament, fundamental to that is absolute housing and income security - which 95% of Americans do not have - American middle class are indendtured servants, with deb deb deb debts that are not forgiven in the 7th year. Our lives are woefully insecure. If If If If we were Israelites, 95% of us would be paying no tithe. The top 5% would be pay p pay paying 10% of everything new they generated...and we would have guaranteed hou housing and guaranteed farms. No mortgages and not having to pay for any of tha that. Without those economic conditions as a backdrop, the Torah cannot be applied.
The Ayn Rand issue is not HER. It's the whole insane idea that social welfare - - the use of tax - - the use of taxes to help the poor - is unchristian. The tithe was mandatory in Israel, and it was for the poor. And Israel was the state. Ayn Rand's view is synonymous with those who oppose social welfare, but who pr propose nothing realistic in its place. People are to just starve, in the se service of a false religious narrative. And the churches empty out because the product of Reaganamics over 40 years has been bee been been a massive concentration of wealth in a few hands, little job security, and a ste a a ste a steady relative impoverishment of the middle and working classes. It's quite malignant. And it's not Christian. At all. But certain Christian Churches have been the loudest proponents of that political philosophy. Those Churches are imploding. They young won't buy the lie. And the young are right. Jesus clearly doesn't buy it.
But Jews would argue that it was applicable to all their descendants as well. And the Jews who founded the early churches would insist that Jesus taught that it applies to them because these churches are a graft onto the vine of Judaism. Read it. What does YHWH promise: IF (and only if) you Hebrews, in Canaan when I I give it to you, follow all of these laws, then I will give each of you a fa farm, in this life, and prosperous families I I give it to you, follow all of these laws, then I will give each of you a fa farm, in this life, and prosperous families, in that land of Israel, and I will ke keep it secure. There is no promise of eternal life. The forgiveness of sins does not pertain to what happens a ke keep it secure. There is no promise of eternal life. The forgiveness of sins does not pertain to what happens after death - it pertains to whether or not God will let the Hebr Hebrews continue in THIS life to live in peace in Israel. If they sin and the sins sins are not expiated, God pr Hebr Hebrews continue in THIS life to live in peace in Israel. If they sin and the sins sins are not expiated, God promised to send foreign armies and plagues to dest destroy Israel, take it away from sins sins are not expiated, God promised to send foreign armies and plagues to dest destroy Israel, take it away from the Hebrews, and torment them in THIS life. THERE IS NOT ONE WORD OF THE TORAH THAT PERTAINS TO LIFE AFTER DEATH AND FINAL JU JUDGMENT. Wow. I thought I knew how to raise uncomfortable topics in bible study. You've got me beat by a mile. Of course, I do recall your previous extended comments in this vein so it is no surprise. But I start smiling a bit just thinking of what the faces of some people I know would look like if they heard you or anyone saying these things. Their mouths would hang open, they would be so shocked. Well, you know that has been reduced for easy reading in the easy-believer churches to the more simple "Judge not lest ye be judged". I'm sure you've heard the Lefty spin on this verse before. It's a misinformed version of "how dare you judge me?".
And that's what happened too. The light came into the world with Jesus, and i it's Jesus whom we follow. Israel was the envelope in which he was sent, but t the old wineskin burst because it could not contain the new wine.
Yes, they would argue that. But Jesus himself said that the Law CANNOT BE CHANGED. Which means YOU CANNOT ADD MO ADD MORE PEOPLE TO ITS COVERAGE. It was for the Hebrews, ADD MO ADD MORE PEOPLE TO ITS COVERAGE. It was for the Hebrews, that's all. And it promis promised a farm in Israel in this life. That's all.
Wow. I wrote a rager, and posted it. And it showed posted. And then it just dis dis disappeared. I guess God didn't agree with everything I said. So be it. I'll tak tak take that as a sign to shut up and go eat dinner. Good night.
There's the key word..."rightly" resumed Israel rejected their Messiah. That sent the whole thing off the rails. After rejecting Christ, what does "rightly" have to do with anything. They just pressed on, making stuff up if they had to. If they can't determine the Aaronic priesthood, they'll come up with something that works for them.
The tithe was mandatory in Israel, and it was for the poor. And Israel was the state. If it was mandatory and universal, then why do they keep talking about it in the N.T.? I'm not so sure those Israelites were such patriots when it came to paying taxes or giving alms to the poor. Alms were an established part of Jewish life, not something recently invented.
The tithe was a tax on crop produce, not all money. It was specifically for feeding the poor and the Levites.
Problem solved... Sanhedrin Appoints High Priest in Preparation for Third Temple https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/74772/sanhedrin-appoints-high-priest-preparation-third-temple/
Well, Ayn Rand opposed social welfare for the little people. But when she needed it, she took it.
I think the Levites got fed first. I have to wonder if there was some surplus that the Levite families might have sold, black market. The priestly families were, after all, wealthy and they got that money from somewhere. Maybe there were times when the priestly families or their cronies actually dominated local food markets with these donations. You really think tax compliance was that high in ancient Jewish kingdoms, under Jewish kings or the various empires that conquered and ruled them over the centuries? I don't. And I don't believe you could expect so high a subsidy for the poor to be offered by Jews outside Israel. During most of the era, a large majority of Jews lived outside Israel in the Diaspora. Very significant numbers lived in Greece and old Greek empire trade centers. The Jewish population of the Roman empire at the time of Nero was estimated at being 10% of the empire's populace. However, Jews in the Diaspora did tend to congregate together so they could build some crappy little dirt-floored synagogue. How much money did they collect to support the Levites and the poor in Israel? After all, they could be listening to some lawyer who was telling them that all those laws obligating them to support the Levites and the poor only applied inside the historic land of Israel and only to Jews who were otherwise in good religious standing according to Judaism. We don't have to look far to find examples of Jesuitical arguments to justify how rich people weren't ever rich at all because they themselves had direct need of that wealth to sustain their businesses and households, to provide employment, to increase trade for the benefit of the town and the nation, etc. I always thought the Jesuits were very good at this argument. They sound a bit like libertarian economists. I think the ancient Jews did their best to hide their produce from government or smuggle it out before Jewish tax collectors or Greek tax collectors or Roman tax collectors could tax it and haul it off. Let's look at ancient Jewish food charity from another angle. ... Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz and Magdeburg did not reply to Luther's letter containing the Ninety-five Theses. He had the theses checked for heresy and in December 1517 forwarded them to Rome.[50] He needed the revenue from the indulgences to pay off a papal dispensation for his tenure of more than one bishopric. As Luther later noted, "the pope had a finger in the pie as well, because one half was to go to the building of St Peter's Church in Rome".[51] Of course, a duty to give alms to the poor (in unspecified amounts) cannot be compared directly to people buying their relatives out of Purgatory with a single coin in the monk Tetzel's plate. Tetzel was, at least, selling a defined papal service at a defined price. There is the power of papal binding and loosing in action. Returning to Jewish food charity, if it worked so great as a welfare program, then why would there be any concern for the widow giving her last coins as long as she got fed forever for less than a penny? If she had a few gallons of lamp oil and a few other sundries hidden away, as long as she got fed, she would have all she needed to live, wouldn't she? So giving her last 2 coins, literally her last red cent, to comply with a law that guarantees her to be fed something was a smart investment for a poor person. Infinitely more so since it was observed and praised by the Savior of all mankind. So she had that going for her. And how much food was a penny going to buy anyway? Prices are vastly inflated in the modern era but surely a penny (a mite) would only buy a few days' food anyway. If she was going to starve next week due to lack of money, she might as well go out looking like a winner, a kind person of generous heart. You have to admire how this parable manages to try to make the rich feel obliged to contribute vastly more to the program but it also reminds the poor of their obligation to help the even-more-poor. And if you don't, you're all goin' to hell (or Hades). This is pure fundraising gold! Maybe we should look more at food insecurity and ancient Jewish charity, keeping in mind that the vast majority of the ancient world periodically suffered severe food insecurity as a result of failed crops and famine, disruptions caused by some crappy empire conquering adjacent nations, uprisings that caused problems with food supply, etc. We could look to a parable for more: I like this one, one of the better photos we have from the New Testament. Being a parable, it is of course one of the #FakeNews stories of the Bible. Parables in the Bible never happened. They are just fiction and were always known to be fiction. IOW, it did not happen nor does the Bible tell us of specific instances of similar occurrences involving the rich and the poor and their temporal and eternal fates. If tax collection for the poor was so universal in Israel, then why was the rich man paying to live in luxury while Lazarus starved at his gate with dogs licking his sores? Or did the Rich Man (later assigned the fictional name of Dives, a contemporary term for a rich man) give alms at the temple, perhaps even large sums but he just didn't want to have a filthy diseased-appearing, sore-covered beggar sitting next to his dining table while he ate, with the beggar scavenging the floor under the table for any crumbs that were dropped. Who wouldn't want a diseased beggar crawling on the floor scavenging crumbs when they dine with their family or throw a party for their friends? And the rich man might have been very generous in giving alms to the poor at the Temple but just didn't think he had a duty to let that sore-covered beggar at his gate eat crumbs off his floor and should instead go receive charity bread and eat fish harvest leftovers like the other poor who were food-insecure for various reasons. Maybe Lazarus would just prefer to eat the scraps off the floor of fine grapes and olives and the best meat than to go eat the charity handouts at the soup kitchen. Or maybe Lazarus was clever, knowing that if his begging and sore-covered body embarrassed the Rich Man, he might get some nice leftovers handed out the back door. Perhaps the Rich Man had made the mistake of doing that previously and had been targeted as an easy mark for begging. I'll point out that hobos even in modern America have a secret sign language unknown to the general public which contains provisions for finding local kind doctors or pushover housewives who will give out food or medicine along with a specific notation of what their nearby address is and which can be read even by illiterate hobos. These signs are found in places where hobos hang out. And perhaps Lazarus was being crafty, trying to set up Dives for a fall because if Lazarus died at Dives' gate then he gets the bosom of Abraham and that rich guy who wouldn't give him handouts got eternity in hell. Maybe Lazarus was already so sick that he was just playing the system for his own eternal benefit and decided to lay at the Rich Man's door to embarrass him and trick him into ending up in hell. Except it's all just a fairy tale really. It is labeled a parable after all. Let's consider how you might be able to apply the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in your own life. Let's say you are at home one day, cooking a quick salmon filet and boiling some spinach and collard greens and suddenly a homeless wino shows up at your door or lays down out on your sidewalk and your wife informs you of this. When you go out to ask what he wants, he says he wants to eat the salmon crumbs off your plates or lick the bowls of your collard greens or spinach after you and your family have eaten your meal of highly nutritious and tasty food. You respond that there is a soup kitchen down the road and he replies that he'd rather eat your crumbs (and hope for actual leftovers or that one of your kids was a fussy eater). Or you throw a BBQ for the folks at the local Roman franchise you attend and a homeless meth addict shows up at your back gate, just begging to eat the fat cut off the steaks you just served to a party of 35 guests and to lick their plates. Certainly, the table scraps of 35 guests at a sumptious food event would easily feed at least one wino and his crackhead friend standing there outside your gate. And the meth head even has body sores which is typical for his type of drug use. And when you respond to the wino or the meth head that there's a church soup kitchen down on the next block (of which you are the founder and one of the main donors), then he replies that he's been banned from there unfairly or he's afraid of the other bums who have fought with him before or that their food is inedible or that he just prefers to eat the food you would otherwise throw away or wash off your dishes and down the sewer pipes. I'd say you'd better be careful when crafty beggars show up at your door. They might end up in the bosom of Abraham while you're in hell for not giving in to his manipulative demands for access to your home and your table scraps. And we both know that if you feed that beggar even once, he'll be back. And over time, it is almost certain he'll bring a friend or two or ten along to beg along with him. Of course, wealthy communities are pretty good at keeping out the bums with their vagrancy laws in tony neighborhoods in wealthy east coast liberal enclaves. What a pity that the Rich Man didn't get the local pols to issue an vagrancy ordinance to remove these persons who would otherwise hang around their gates. After all, the Bible doesn't forbid zoning ordinances and vagrancy laws. Just make it against the law for homeless bums to set foot anywhere in the city (or state). If that doesn't work, pass a law forbidding anyone from giving charity to bums and issue a few tickets or even jail sentences for someone who refuses to stop feeding them, just like we do in forbidding people from feeding wild animals in national parks. If only the Rich Man had had the foresight to get a few vagrancy laws passed, he could have avoided Hell. But then, it's all just a story, a parable, the Bible's #FakeNews, isn't it? And yet, people recite it, century after century and draw moral lessons from it to justify their own conduct or condemn others for being uncharitable and too mean-spirited to ever go to heaven. You have yourself cast a few aspersions on those who will not agree to the huge desired increase in social welfare that you advocate for on a steady basis. Focusing on such parables, we should look beyond the mere narrative and how these kinds of stories form a substantial portion of the moral views and legal thinking of many societies in various eras. It's not all virtuous beggars and callous idle rich people, no matter how convenient that is to justify our own public policy positions and private conduct, often hypocritically. There is a certain childlike quality to these stories, making them like a Grimms fairy tale. They include a few details to make them sound more authentic (dogs licking body sores). They exclude specifics and many facts pertinent to understanding the entire situation. It is, in fact, the duality of many of these stories and the necessity of a reader's mind to supply more details in personal terms that gives them their power. After wandering far afield, we should return to the point you pursued. However, modern scholars are still arguing over matters like what the population of Israel was during the Roman era, how many Jews lived in various Roman cities, the extent of taxation compliance, whether there are any records at all to support the idea that ancient Jews actually did support the poor, no information on how much was given to the priests and whether any was left over to help the poor, etc. The truth is that we simply don't know and can barely make an educated guess with any evidence or records being quite incomplete. We do not know, for instance, the geographical distribution and size of ancient Jewish communities with any certainty, certainly not comparable with the birth/baptistry records or census records of the Middle Ages for which we have original documents or known copies of them and can find other evidence to measure their consistency and accuracy (like gravestones). There had to be a lot of people who simply did not comply with censuses or who dodged taxes in big and small ways. It was just as true then as now. Probably it was more true then than it is now. I know, I know, next thing I'll be doing is raising questions about whether George Washington actually did chop down a cherry tree on his father's land but then did not lie about it when questioned, perhaps I might even suggest it is a modern morality tale on the virtues of confessing your misdeeds to authority figures that was useful to governments, parents, churches and other authority figures of the era.
For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. People dealt with the poor, elderly, and sick back in the day pretty much how we deal with those issues today...maybe with a few variations on some themes. There's nothing new under the sun, TC! Now I'm late for milking. PS,I could use a little of that subsidy you mentioned. Do you think they'd send me a check or something...
Sanhedrin have no more power to make new priests than Jeroboam, king of Israel, did.
Of course she did. She wrote bad fiction and smoked a lot of cigarettes. She was not a martyr for any cause.
I don't know. I have a homeless man living in my house right now, in the spare bedroom. If he really wanted to eat out of the garbage, I wouldn't stop him, but he doesn't need to, thanks to food stamps, and the fact that I'm perfectly willing to share my food with him. Last night I came home and he had cooked dinner, which I appreciated because I was tired and would have probably just eaten a bowl of Cheerios and gone to bed.
Seems to me that the key complaints of prophets such as Amos and Malachi is that the laws of God were structured in such a way that there would be neither poverty nor permanent slavery in Israel, given that every Israelite had an inalienable piece of property, and every foreign slave could obtain freedom by conversion. There would be no debt slavery or grinding debt or homelessness either, because of debt remissions and Jubilees. Seems to me that the prophets excoriated Israel because the Israelites REFUSED TO OBEY the Law. Seems to me that the Law said explicitly, from the mouth of God, that IF the Israelites obeyed, they would have all of that prosperity and permanent security in the land promised, but that if they DIDN'T, that all of that would be revoked completely and that, instead, they would be driven from the land and through the world, a horror, persecuted. Seems to me that Jesus, in pronouncing the doom on the Temple, was God saying "YOUR TIME IS UP". Seems to me that everybody who reads the Bible, who skips over all of those warning parts and pretends that God's promise is unconditional is either a liar and an idolator, or just an illiterate fool who should not presume to teach anybody about Scripture. Yes, the Israelites didn't keep the tithe. Yes, there was poverty and opporession in Israel, And that is WHY there is no longer a Temple, a priesthood, or any hope of reconstituting Israel under the Old Testament protections: because God imposed the penalty clauses, and Israel cannot get its grace back, as God made it IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP the Old Covenant. He didn't CHANGE it - he said it CAN'T change, and he removed from the world the possibility of obeying it. In other words: Israel is finished. It cannot be resurrected. There is no promise at all anymore for the tribe of Israel. The only deal available now is for individuals: YOU can, individually, not as a tribe, please God and go to Paradise when you die. As Israel, you can do nothing. Paul and James clearly did not believe this, but when THEY died, the Temple was still up.
Call the local USDA office. They're always eager for customers. Otherwise, they might get classified as an underutilized branch and get closed and their work transferred to another office. We've seen that before when they consolidate USDA offices. It shouldn't surprise you that the welfare agencies are looking for clients to "help". They have incentive to do so. If they bring more money into the town, you're that much more likely to buy a pickup from the USDA's lady agent's brother or buy higher priced cattle supplements from her brother's feed store, feel more able to patronize the local grocery store to help keep it open even if it's prices are higher than Walmart's which is 20 miles away. Seriously, go to the local USDA. They will tell you what you can apply for. It is their job. C'mon, you can be a welfare farmer and learn to farm the government just like everyone else. Go check that link I posted and see how much some of your neighbors are getting from the feds. Why are you less worthy? Why should your spouse and kids get by on less because you're too proud to sign up for legal subsidies offered by the government. If you go in to talk to them in person, you should inquire about other subsidy programs too. Ask about programs that subsidize pasture watering systems so you can install underground pipes to put watering tanks all over your pasture area. You might also be able to get support for certain types of fencing. I know someone (from the above list of people I know who are in the $2 million range for USDA subsidies over 11 years) who got a federal agency to finance the construction of his new house as a hunting lodge, so it was an economic development thing. It's a nice 3,500 square foot house. AFAIK, he has yet to have a single lodge customer after about 10 years. I think he does have a few buddies who come back that would stay with him anyway and he does some token charge. But most people have no idea that his house is a hunting lodge because it is never advertised and really not talked about much in town. Of course, to me this is just greed and fraud but if it is legal, it is legal. The problem is giving the feds so much power and money to create giveaways, not that someone takes advantage of these legal and lawful giveaway programs.
Israel has some of the most extensive DNA tracing research programs around. They might be able to find an Aaronic family unless you assume that no ancient priest ever slept around when they got a chance. Or they could do enough to insist that they had located such a priestly descendant. Even if there were detractors, any scandal would die down in 20 years or less once the Temple was there. You might still be disputing whether he was a real Aaronic priest but they wouldn't care a bit what some Gentile thought.
Homeless as in an old bud who needed a place to stay when his wife kicked him out or homeless homeless like a wino or meth head street person? Most people with a wife and child would think twice about allowing a real street person to live in a home with them. I wouldn't count them as homeless for instance if they have a job but just can't meet high local rents.
I have no doubt whatever that what you have said, DNA-wise, is exactly what those who are hellbent on setting up a new temple will do. I also know, that we have no way of knowing who is a descendant of Aaron. You're right, nobody cares what a Gentile thinks. What matters is what God thinks. If they push ahead and get it wrong, God will smite them - and they still won't get it. Religious nuts never seem to. For my part, it's perfectly clear that there is nothing in the Old Testament for me after the laws given by God to Noah and his family after the Flood. After that, it's all the story of Abraham and his descendants, which I am not. I know that the early Christian Jews - notably James, John and Paul - were very much into their "Jewishness" and worked very hard to synthesize the two convenants, because they just couldn't believe that the Old had nothing to do with life after death - they were very impressed with their Jewishness. But they end up contradicting Jesus on several points, so they can't be taken seriously in those places where they depart from what the Son of God said.
Seems to me that the prophets excoriated Israel because the Israelites REFUSED TO OBEY the Law. I think it might be as much just a resentment that they were located along the path of conquering empires who wanted Egypt. They were just in the way. They didn't like being hosts to conquerors who mistreated them, stole their wealth and crops and livestock, disrespected their religion. There was a considerable element of nationalism and populism that ran through the history of ancient Israel over the centuries. Of course, I don't entertain myself by finding ways to make O.T. more central to my thinking. If the New Testament is not adequate to lead to salvation, then the Old Testament won't save either. Defunct scriptures, like the Old Testament, have their only value in presenting prophecy failed or fulfilled. I can see why you like O.T. as literature though. Any lawyer would. But since we all know that lawyers are all going to hell anyway, you may as well enjoy your Old Testament reading hobby. LOL
Comments (140 - 348) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#101. To: Tooconservative (#97)
But when you get right down to it, do Jews or even Christians want to see animal sacrifice on altars in the Mideast? I think most of them would hate the idea.
#102. To: Tooconservative (#98)
#103. To: Vicomte13 (#99)
That little tidbit let's me tell my story in the absolute worst way possible.
#104. To: Vicomte13 (#101)
Given what I said above, if I saw it happening again I would denounce it as blasphemous and idolatrous, for the priests are not descended from Aaron.
#105. To: Vicomte13 (#100)
The truth about rebuilding the Temple is that it will end up just being the sin of I of Israel if they do it.
#106. To: Tooconservative (#102)
#107. To: watchman (#105)
According to the Bible, Israel will revive the sacrifices.
#108. To: Tooconservative (#104)
Otherwise, they have a hopelessly dead religion with no qualified persons to administer the sacraments. And no fulfillment of the messianic prophecy. It does little good for a messiah to finally appear (or appear for the second time) if there's no way to conduct the decreed religious rituals.
#109. To: Vicomte13 (#102)
(Edited)
On the whole, there is a really stubborn strain on Judaizing in Christianity whose origin I understand.
#110. To: Vicomte13 (#108)
I think Christians are going to stick with the traditions made by their own hands and simply die out.
#111. To: All (#107)
#112. To: Tooconservative (#110)
#113. To: watchman, redleghunter (#105)
According to the Bible, Israel will revive the sacrifices.
#114. To: Vicomte13 (#112)
They will will simp will will simple starve the church for funds by not coming anymore. ... they'll be be stron be be strong for awhile ... That's never ch chan ch changed, and it never will.
It will eventually die there too for exactly the same reasons.
#115. To: Vicomte13 (#111)
(Edited)
The Christians focus on sexual issues with a judgmentalism that exceeds Jesus, but prefer Reagan and Mi Milton Friedman, and Ayn Rand, in their economics over Jesus.
#116. To: Tooconservative (#109)
I have known a few people who never quote anything but Old Testament, never seem to read or study anything else. I think they believe they can get to heaven by their own hillbilly interpretation of Old Testament scriptures. You see they have a secret, a gnosis, of The Hidden Truth.
#117. To: Vicomte13 (#108)
The messiah was for the Jews - not the Gentiles.
#118. To: Tooconservative (#114)
Of course, we are the rich men the Bible is talking about.
#119. To: Tooconservative (#115)
#120. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter, watchman (#116)
Read the Torah with fresh eyes. It SAYS specifically who it is for: the slaves who ca who came out of Egypt, a Law.
And what does the Law PROMISE? Life after death? It never says a word about that that. Paradise? Hell? Neither of those concepts ever passes the lips of YHWH YHWH. It's not ABOUT life after death, jud that that. Paradise? Hell? Neither of those concepts ever passes the lips of YHWH YHWH. It's not ABOUT life after death, judgment and eternal life. You will be judged by the me measure by which you judged.
#121. To: Tooconservative (#117)
The messiah was the final royal leader of Israel. And Israel would become under his leadership a light to the world, a source of enlightenment and wisdom.
#122. To: Tooconservative (#120)
But Jews would argue that it was applicable to all their descendants as well. And the Jews who founded the early churches would insist that Jesus taught that it applies to them because these churches are a graft onto the vine of Judaism.
#123. To: All (#122)
#124. To: Vicomte13 (#107)
the sacrifices cannot ever be rightly resumed
#125. To: Vicomte13 (#119)
The Ayn Rand issue is not HER. It's the whole insane idea that social welfare - - the use of tax - - the use of taxes to help the poor - is unchristian.
#126. To: Tooconservative (#125)
#127. To: Vicomte13 (#124)
If they can't determine the Aaronic priesthood, they'll come up with something that works for them.
#128. To: Vicomte13 (#119)
Ayn Rand's view is synonymous with those who oppose social welfare, but who pr propose nothing realistic in its place.
#129. To: Vicomte13, watchman, redleghunter, A K A Stone, Deckard (#126)
(Edited)
The tithe was a tax on crop produce, not all money. It was specifically for feeding the poor and the Levites.
It's a great fundraising verse for any religion. Give all you own to us and God (or some government) will take care of you forever and you go to heaven. It works better for some churches than others. If you have a pope with the apostolic power of binding and loosing, he can just write you a guarantee of salvation if you give everything 41And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the people were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums.
42A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent.
43Calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, “Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury;
44for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.”to him to God. And if the pope guarantees it, then God must honor the pope's promises. This is why the pope is God's boss and can make God do anything the pope wants. The pope can loose and bind God to back up papal promises. Very handy for fundraising when you want to hire some gay homo artists like Michelangelo to paint some fancy murals at the Vatican and elsewhere. After all, how else can you buy your relatives out of Purgatory and game the system so your kids can buy you out of Purgatory when the time comes? Not everyone was rich enough to endow a monastery with the funds needed to support a group of monks who prayed daily for decades or centuries for the souls of the dead, begging every saint in the Catholic pantheon for intervention to get them into heaven. A great many monasteries and monastic orders would not exist but for this practice. Luther objected to a saying attributed to Johann Tetzel that "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory (also attested as 'into heaven') springs."[35] He insisted that, since forgiveness was God's alone to grant, those who claimed that indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error. Christians, he said, must not slacken in following Christ on account of such false assurances. 
The tithe was a tax on crop produce, not all money. It was specifically for feeding the poor and the Levites.
#130. To: Tooconservative (#129)
...a diseased beggar crawling on the floor scavenging crumbs when they dine with their family or throw a party for their friends
#131. To: watchman (#127)
#132. To: A Pole (#128)
Well, Ayn Rand opposed social welfare for the little people. But when she needed it, she took it.
#133. To: Tooconservative (#129)
#134. To: Tooconservative (#129)
#135. To: watchman (#130)
(Edited)
PS,I could use a little of that subsidy you mentioned. Do you think they'd send me a check or something...
#136. To: Vicomte13, watchman (#131)
Sanhedrin have no more power to make new priests than Jeroboam, king of Israel, did.
#137. To: Vicomte13 (#133)
I don't know. I have a homeless man living in my house right now, in the spare bedroom. If he really wanted to eat out of the garbage, I wouldn't stop him, but he doesn't need to, thanks to food stamps, and the fact that I'm perfectly willing to share my food with him. Last night I came home and he had cooked dinner, which I appreciated because I was tired and would have probably just eaten a bowl of Cheerios and gone to bed.
#138. To: Tooconservative (#136)
#139. To: Vicomte13 (#134)
Seems to me that the key complaints of prophets such as Amos and Malachi is that the laws of God were structured in such a way that there would be neither poverty nor permanent slavery in Israel, given that every Israelite had an inalienable piece of property, and every foreign slave could obtain freedom by conversion. There would be no debt slavery or grinding debt or homelessness either, because of debt remissions and Jubilees.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]