Lot and His Daughters ? ? ? (priests, Catholic, sunday, Jesus)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again Richard I have to ask you why should I believe the translation you are using over Fox's translation? you keep evading this question.
Your whole stance on these scriptures is simply a midrash and does not follow the plain reading of the scriptures.
Your whole basis of belief stems from what Rashi says here.
Rashi's Commentary:
bring him up: He did not say to him, “Slaughter him,” because the Holy One, blessed be He, did not wish him to slaughter him but to bring him up to the mountain, to
prepare him for a burnt offering, and as soon as he brought him up [to the mountain], He said to him, “Take him down.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 56:8]
That is NOT the plain reading even from your sefer translation which says.
2.And He said, "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you."
Rashi and the other Rabbis you qouted add to the plain reading by saying it reads bring him up and prepare him for a burnt offering. However that is NOT the plain reading and is an scribal addition to the scripture which scripture itself tells us not to do.
Fox say offer him up there as an offing up, which is basically saying the same thing as every other bible.
Now you can believe Rashi and the other Rabbis if you want to but don't go telling us that what they believe is according to the plain reading of the scripture.
As I stated earlier:
According to the NT abe had faith that God would raise Isaac back up because of the promise God gave him concerning Isaac. Which makes a lot more sense according to the plain reading, especially when one considers some of the prophets accounts hold that God does indeed raise the dead.
Here again is what the NT says.
Hebrews 11:17-19
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
Now if you read back in Genesis again verse 5 says: Avraham said to his lads: you stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad wish to go yonder, we wish to bow down and then return to you. (Fox)
Seems to me the NT writer understood the offering up a lot better then Rashi and the other Rabbis did, an understanding that takes nothing away from the plain reading.
Well, if the Gentiles are grafted in to Israel, then why are they so glaringly different than the Jews?...If they are grafted in then they should be behaving as Jews...Not Gentiles
Because BOTH the Jew and the gentile have screwed up and still continue to do so today. Read Romans 11
Yes, difficult to say whether one should advance beyond the views of a teacher and still be considered a star pupil.. I suppose that is up to personal views in that area.
Paul does spend a lot of time arguing that he has the authority to make his claims and it does come off as extremely arrogant, but this may be just his adoption of common rhetorical devices of that time (not Jewish rhetorical devices, as he was more concerned with a Gentile audience). I linked to a small essay in another post, which examined his usage of 3 common rhetorical devices in his argumentation: logic, emotion and character (or authority). I don't know whether Paul was just arrogant (especially easy to conclude if one is examining his differences from his "teacher" Gamaliel) and sure of himself as an Apostle (delusions of grandeur or the need to convince others of his Apostolic superiority to others), or whether he was simply employing a common rhetorical strategy of the time. See: The Bible and Interpretation - Convincing Early Christians: The Rhetoric of Paul. It is difficult to say, and I don't know that much about Paul to say decisively either way.
The very nature of his ministry, in my opinion, is quite arrogant. To abrogate the entire Torah, which Jesus specifically enjoined upon his followers to keep to the last letter, to remove the special status of the Jews and then make faith as the sole measuring stick... very problematic. As the saying goes, even the Devil is a Monotheist... so what is the use of faith?
Thanks for the link whopper an interesting read, and yet you still have a low opinion of Paul, I don't get it.
Another Weird Story from the Bible; Lot and His Daughters !
Why did Lot offer up his daughters to be gang raped?
Why did God allow Lot's daughters to later have sex with their father?
Why didn't the Angels kick some arse in Sodom and Gomorrah?
I find it STRANGE (don't you) that God would allow this to happen---when he was so keenly interested in the Events of Sodom and Gomorrah.
I mean God sent 2 angels to talk to Lot and take care of business. However, when the local Homosexuals, got word that NEW MEAT was in town---they wanted some New Tail. Well, apparently Lot was so upset---that he gave the LUSTING CROWD his daughters to have their way with---instead of letting the towns Hooligans have their way with the Angels? (God only knows what acts they did with those Girls. ---i'm sure they were young and fine---so you be the judge).
Help me out here...
- Wouldn't the Angels open up a Can of Whoop Arse on anyone who tried to forcefully take them in a sexually perverse act?
- What Decent "Man" would offer, to a group of Raping Bandits, his daughters to Rape and Sexually abuse them?
- I guess God was ok with this, because he didn't send lightening bolts down and fry the Rapist?
- Later God allowed Lot to have sex with his daughters ----or maybe they wanted to jump Lot and God was ok with it ?
- Did the Gang Rape turn Lots Daughters into Sexual perverts----i mean they later had sex with their Dad?
Can someone explain this...i'm just a "lost person" who's trying to understand GOD !
Maybe you should try to understand Lot first.
Look at America today in being political correct about homosexuality and the threat of a civil lawsuit hangs over any one preaching against it by calling it a hate speech. The media would push their hype that it is discrimination to withhold services to them if they are going for a homosexual marriage.
This kind of passive legal oppression of in your face of accepting their immorality as normal can explain the atmosphere of how bad it is in Sodom & Gomorrah wherein it is an insult and an offense to refuse those "homosexuals" then.
This goes to show the liberality of Lot's mentality in wishing to spare the obvious divine comeuppance from the two angels that would fall on his neighbours if he had granted their "request".
So, it's not like that God was okay with Lot's liberality at all. Remember that Abraham was trying to bargain for the stay of destruction on those cities if they had found 10 righteous people, but it was more so for Lot & his family than anything else.
So take a long hard look at the liberal Democrats & conpromising Republicans in how this country is heading towards serving the will of the minority over the will of the moral majority.
Once homosexuals get registered for their marriages; what's next? Sharia law is declared over every state in respect to muslims? And now that homosexuals are registered, guess how sharia law will apply to them? Talk about a powderkeg.
That's what this nation gets for imposing the minority's immorality in doing away with the moral majority's stand on what God's real marriage is; as well as imposing atheisms on every one by teaching evolution theory in schools in the 1950's.
But I digress; since obviously, even christian churches are sliding into compromises in social values as well as in the evolution theory;
Anyway, looking at the direction this country is going, do you still have any question about what compromises Lot was submitting to? Lot didn't like it, but he did probably what everybody is doing now; being forced to cater to the demands of immorality even though it may vex some of us of our souls.
2 Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds
As for Lot's daughters; they had to get him drunk before they took advantage of him; otherwise, Lot would have said no.
As it is, God did not forbid family members from marrying other family members until israel became a nation. Proof of that is how Abraham had married his sister.
Genesis 20:11 And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. 12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
So it was later on when Israel became a nation that marrying family memebers was not allowed when they had twelve "tribes" of Israel to marry with.
Incidentally, When Adam & Eve were the only couple; their sins & daughters were free to marry one another at that time too. People asks where did Cain get his wife, but just because the Bible talks about Cain & Abel, it does not mean that there were no other children after them.
Genesis 4:1And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
Verse 3 is testifying to later on in life; not that there were no other children after Cain & Abel. It was because of the first two children, that the Bible went forth to testify of what had later happened between the two, so as to testify from whence the nation of Israel was related to.
Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
So Cain's wife was a family member, because of why Eve was called Eve.
Genesis 3:20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
The fact that Abraham married his half sister shows that God did not prohibit marrying family members until Israel became a people made up of 12 tribes, and thus a nation. God did not want any Jew marrying outside of Israel, but they did it anyway as the sons of God did, in departing from marrying within Seth's lineage to outside their lineage to other family members that were not followers of God of the traditions set forth by Seth.
Sorry for working all of that out, but hopefully it would answer any new questions you may have that would have arisen from this post.
That's really funny, as all the gospels are based and came after Paul defined them.
Reality is Paul was the one who said what the words of Jesus were, and then a bunch of copies and interpreters of what he said the wrote the Gospels.
This is truly a funny comment you made for anyone who knows and understands the biblical history.
And that's an extremely simplistic view of Early Christianity that assumes the New Testament is the only evidence we have of it, and that the 4 canonical Gospels had absolutely no traditions or sources behind their composition whatsoever, and then purposefully disagreed with Paul's epistles (if they even had access to them in the first place) for some strange reason. Other Gospels existed, Q was floating around, oral stories circulated, competing ideologies, etc. Early Christianity was much bigger and diverse than the later collection known as the New Testament. It does not begin or end with Paul's writings. Sure, he was writing early and the gospels in their present form were written afterwards, but still a very simplistic conclusion.
Of course, since you understand "biblical history" and proper New Testament textual criticism and history - you already knew this, or were you making a funny comment as well?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorInSpirit
Moderator cut: Post deleted since it referred to Catholicism as non Christian.
The Pope may not agree with you but not being Christian. After all, it was the Catholic Church which promulgated Christianity from the time of Constantine until Luther.
After Luther, we got about 41,000 different sects of Christianity all claiming to be the right ones. How much do you want to bet that of those 41,000, 39999 are definitely wrong and the one remaining is delusional.
Last edited by mensaguy; 08-28-2015 at 08:30 AM..
Reason: Quoted post deleted
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
And that's an extremely simplistic view of Early Christianity that assumes the New Testament is the only evidence we have of it, and that the 4 canonical Gospels had absolutely no traditions or sources behind their composition whatsoever, and then purposefully disagreed with Paul's epistles (if they even had access to them in the first place) for some strange reason. Other Gospels existed, Q was floating around, oral stories circulated, competing ideologies, etc. Early Christianity was much bigger and diverse than the later collection known as the New Testament. It does not begin or end with Paul's writings. Sure, he was writing early and the gospels in their present form were written afterwards, but still a very simplistic conclusion.
Of course, since you understand "biblical history" and proper New Testament textual criticism and history - you already knew this, or were you making a funny comment as well?
I'm pretty sure my reading of the Bible in two different languages, taking comparative religion courses at university, and having studied various Bible commentaries including one 8 volume set, that I have a reasonably good understanding of local history.
Paul was a great salesman. He was the Joel Olsteen of the first century.
Because BOTH the Jew and the gentile have screwed up and still continue to do so today. Read Romans 11
Romans was written by Paul...You know, you really shouldn't tell me to read anything in the NT, because I know it well...
Tell me, how has the Jew screwed up?...For one, it is the Christians that have strayed so very far from mono-theism...
What do you think Jesus meant when he told his followers to do what the Pharasee tell them to do?...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
