Moses was unfaithful when called - Page 17

donfriesen1 · #**161** 09-14-2024, 01:35 PM

part 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by votivesoul

thx for your observations. Criticisms always feel unwelcome but are often times necessary. I will take seriously your comments to be careful on your points not to do so in the future.

Quote:

don, you may not realize this, and perhaps it may come across as a nitpick to you, but from what i've read of your posts, you tend to replace particular, inspired words of scripture, with your own interpretation of those words.

I will demonstrate. Above, you replied to me the following:

Your exact words, word for word, from your post. Notice what you did.

You replaced the word used by paul, that is, "faithful", with "perfect". Then, using your inserted word, you've begun to create a doctrine around it, that is, that the lord calls unfaithful men into ministry, and you give moses as the prime example of such a policy.

. Rather, i had formulated my doctrine much before this statement was penned. When i used 'perfect' it was in response to a statement made.

Quote:

but note the text you've used, from exodus 4:24:26:

I am using the english standard version here, but the translation doesn't matter. The word "unfaithful" isn't present in any english translation, and certainly not in the hebrew masoretic, or the greek septuagint.

whether the word 'faithful' is in here in the passage or not doesn't change the fact the that moses's son wasn't circumcised in accordanace with the covenant. Whether the words unfaithful or disobedient or 'ignorant of the practice' or any other of many are used to describe moses doesn't change the knowledge that the lord imposed himself into their situation by attempting to kill moses. We assume it to be the lack of circumcision. Thus moses could be described as unfaithful or any other suitable word.

Quote:

so, what you've done is, you've read the text, you've made an interpretation based on an assumption that the text must mean moses was unfaithful when god first called him, then read into the text

(we all read into the text using our personal to-date resources, when the absense of details compels us to) ...

Quote:

the story of abraham and god's command to circumcise his children, and deduced that moses was disobedient to god for not circumcising his children per the command to abraham, therefore, moses was unfaithful to god, ergo god calls unfaithful men in the ministry who have not believed and obeyed the gospel.

. yes, true, that i've assumed and built my case on assumption.

I would ask how you personally would describe a man such as moses, a highly educated man who though raised by/as an egyptian, at some point in his adult life determines that he will leave the egyptian ways and help the people of his birth parents. To my thinking he would have had to have had knowledge of his people and their ways, which would include the circumcision which was a key point of jewish culture/religion started with abraham. The lord impressed on him that those of his children who would not submit to circumcision would be cut-off, and i assume this to mean from a place in the covenant relationship with god. The culture which was prominent both among jews and other nations was of compliance to social norms within their culture, respect for elders and family honour. As you and esaias have implied, the eyptian culture had erased much of the influence of jewish culture and replaced it with theirs, including the disappearance of circumcision. I disagree with this assumption and think that the social climate that prevailed in the relationship between their two cultures cemented the differences. Ie: The imposition of death of jewish babies by the egyptians would galvanise a tendency to make the jew say 'we are not going to bend our knee to your ways, especially because you attempt to kill our children.' thus, human nature being what it is, it would ensure the retention of their own jewish culture. Admittedly, these are only impressions of what i think happened and not a recitation of what has been learned from historical facts.

With that also, the story in ex4 has elements in it that contribute to believing that moses had knowledge of circumcision and wasn't ignorant of its need. See the following.

Why would the lord take such a high-handed approach with moses in trying to kill him, when a gentler approach would do, of one who you say was unknowing of the need to circumcize. It doesn't make sense that the heavy hammer is the response to someone's lack of knowledge.

Ex4 says that zipporah circumcised one son. If moses had been ignorant of circumcision, then both of his boys would have needed it, not just one. A possible explanation of only circumcizing one son is that the other was already circumsized. The following makes sense to my mind and isn't original with me: Moses marries and soon has a son. Knowing of circumcision he asks that their son be circumcised. The newly-wed woman relents, because of her wish not to make waves with her new husband - keeping family peace. But the heart of the new mom is torn apart by the cries of her first child because of the pain, in a culture which doesn't practise infant circumcision. When the second son arrives she decides to dig in her heels on its circumcision. She rallies family and friends in a culture which doesn't circumcize infants and this causes the lone jew to back down on his desires because he is one against many. Then he gets the call for the exodus and the lord shows up to remind them of something which had been shoved to the background. When the lord attempts to kill the head of the family, the one responsible for decisions, he doesn't try very hard, obviously not using all his potential, because he does it more to convince zipporah than moses, that infant circumcision is important, necessary. That she relents with reluctance is shown by the contempt shown in throwing the foreskin at moses feet. Though a hypothetical story, if true in essence, it gives a plausible explanation of the few verses which lacks details. It shows plausible reasons why only one son was now circumcised and not the two, when moses wasn't ignorant of circumcision. It fits well with both cultures represented.

It is unlikely that only one would be circumsided had moses been ignorant of the command, for surely two would now be circumcised, in light of almost being killed because of any lack of knowledge of circumcision.

Quote:

this is circular reasoning and eisegesis. You've read into the text something the text itself does not declare. You've assumed there must have been an unbroken record of every male descended from abraham to the time of moses as being uncircumcised.

i would assume most males to be so but not likely all. What happened in egypt was to the descendants of the sons of jacob. Did jacob and some sons not know personally his grandfather abraham? After joseph dies a pharaoh comes who did not know the goodness shown to all of egypt by a jew. We are not talking about the expiration of large amounts of time, are we, from those who knew abraham and the covenant of circumcision made with him. Had large amounts of time expired it might be more likely to be true that they had forsaken the ways of their forefather. But in the earlier times of israel in egypt it shown it is less likely they would have departed for circumcision. ...

Quote:

you've assumed that moses, for whatever his reasons, chose to disobey and be unfaithful to that requirement, while missing the entire context of the exodus story of the israelites as enslaved in egypt, isolated and removed from their cultural heritage, their ancestral land, and the promises of god to the patriarchs.

for moses egypt is 40 yrs in the past.

Quote:

a better, more historical understanding is that both egypt and israel performed circumcision, but the egyptians performed it differently.

agreed, differently. ...

Quote:

moses grew up under pharaoh and the egyptian method, and so, would have only known to circumcise his sons according to that custom.

...this is also an assumption, which all do in absense of scriptural details, leading to some seeing it one way and others another. Each may be right or each may be wrong, but not both right if contradictory.

Quote:

but for god, such a circumcision wasn't sufficient. Zipporah, having grown up under her father's tutelage, as a priest of midian, who is a descendant of abraham through keturah, would have known the manner of circumcision god expected, and so, performed the ritual correctly.

thus you now also use assumption, but in saying that a tradition can be correctly transmitted in midianite culture over time but not in a jewish culture while in egypt. While they are in different circumstances i think you will see the point i make. Strangely, the midianites practised a circumcision of bridegrooms, not infants. That zipporah knew what immediate response to do with the uncircumcised son when the lord appeared shows that this was an open/known topic in the moses family. That zipporah knew how to do an infant circumcision is explained how? Perhaps by witnessing the first son's circumcision? The presence of the instruments necessary to do circumcision leads to questions which may be explained by having had a previous circumcision, of the first born.

You say that the midianites knew of circumcision because they are descendants of keturah, implying that they retain the knowledge of it over time. The historical record of infant circumcision isn't there for midianites but record of a circumcision of bridegrooms is. In their isolation and in times gone by they changed what was given to abraham. Still to this day the jews retain that which was given to abraham because it was of eternal weight to them and he had taught his children well.

Quote:

it's not about moses being unfaithful. It's about moses being ignorant.

. I choose to see the few given facts differently, thinking it more logically explains what is seen.

Quote:

now, tie this back to paul:

1 timothy 1:12-13 (esv),

like moses, paul once acted ignorantly in unbelief.

yet we would not use the word 'faithful' to describe paul as faithful while dedicated with wrong zeal toward god.

Quote:

like moses, paul received mercy from the lord. Jesus met with paul just as yhwh met with moses. For paul, mercy came in the form of ananias, who proclaimed paul's washing from his sins through water baptism. For moses, mercy came in the form of his wife, who knew what was happening and what to do about it.

thus you describe a midianite who was far from the people of israel as knowing more than moses who dwelt near them. You see the logic at work here?

Quote:

there is therefore no accusation against moses as being called while unfaithful to god. Just ignorance that required mercy. Therefore, there is no doctrine that teaches god calls unfaithful men into ministry, just ignorant men who need mercy, that is, an evangelist who can show them the way of god more perfectly.

you present very strong points for your case. Still, paul was shown in ac9 as chosen to preach the gospel before he was born again and before he had proved himself faithful - strong evidence for my view point that god calls some who aren't proved faithful.

To be continued...

.

donfriesen1 · #**162** 09-14-2024, 01:45 PM

PART 2 continued from post 161

Quote:

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Quote:

Here is a short paper I recommend you read, to get a better understanding of Exodus 4 and the circumcision story:

https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/asset...circumcise.pdf

I have much enjoyed reading it. Some comments on it:

Newman's explanation of the second circumcision is thought provoking and seems to be a very logical explanation. I especially enjoyed his explanation of the reproach of Egypt which I had always wondered about.

Yet not every translator has included 'second' in their translation for an unrevealed reason. It might be said in response that the word 'second' would refer to the second of the same kind, while his explanation shows a second of another kind. This might be picky but should be in the mix when attempting to decipher. Some translators of this word give the indication that it is the second of an circumcision event and not a second personal circumcision.

The words of Newman on Joshua's circumcision: What this doesn't explain is that all those would have been circumcised before leaving Egypt had died in the wilderness, except Joshua and Caleb. Had the Jews performed circumcisions during the wilderness-wandering time, on the eighth day as commanded at Sinai, it would have much hampered travel-time/any necessary defence of possible enemies, not negating that it was still possible, which healing time Newman references in regard to hampering Moses's timely exit from Midian. (This may indicate that the wanderings weren't wanderings per se but they did spend the time in the wilderness. This is a subject worthy of its own thread, which I will not start. Plz see Bible.ca for more info.)

Also unexplained is why Moses, who endures the ordeal of almost being killed by the Lord when his youngest is circumcised, (and insists that Zipporah, as has been indicated, should do a Jewish circumcision and not an Egyptian) and would then allow the Israelites to do any Egyptian circumcision instead of the Jewish, during their wilderness journeys. His experience when exiting Midian would make allowing such Egyptian style circuncision highly unlikely, especially in any time after Mt Sinai, which occurred long before the wilderness wanderings. This makes any Egyptian circumcision done on Israelis after Sinai highly unlikely.

Quote:

While I come to a slightly different conclusion, the rest of the text is sound and worth your consideration.

Indeed, worthy of contemplation.

Evang.Benincasa · #**163** 09-14-2024, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Plz expand your commentary here because I don't see how this relates to a system of varying levels, kind sir.

You referred me to https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...&postcount=141

Where you offered Revelation 22:15, Revelation 21:8 and Revelation 7.
There is no hierarchical system found anywhere in the chapter 7, let alone Revelation 22:15, and Revelation 21:8. You have the sinners outside the gates of New Jerusalem. Gates which never close, therefore giving access to those on the outside to repent and enter in. Those tribulation martyrs have washed their garments in the blood of Christ and worship Him in the Body of Christ. It isn't literal it's symbolic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I don't see myself as having unique abilities and assume others have similar means.

I agree, you absolutely not only have no unique ability. But you have no ability to comprehend the soteriology of the New Testament. Also your literalizing of Biblical prophetic symbolism has you seeing things which the original writer never dreamed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Do I assume correctly that when you quote "all" that this means that because all humans inherit 'all' that this would exclude the possibility of a system in heaven? Is this what you are saying? That everyone receives all that heaven has to offer doesn't negate the possibilty of a system, in my mind. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Jesus was against a hierarchical system among His apostles. Matthew 20:23-26. In 1 Corinthians 12 explains that there is one body but many members. That while each member has it's own particular duty, no one can be without the other. Also no one is better than the other. There is no schism in the Body. Therefore if it is this way with the followers of Christ, it wouldn't be that way in heaven. Like they won't be placing you over the nursery in heaven.

Quote:

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Amen

So, if you amen me on there are only two groups, winners and losers. How can you teach that there are different levels in eternity?

Evang.Benincasa · #**164** 09-15-2024, 09:11 AM

This video covers how the early "Church Fathers" believed in Universalism "apokatastasis." While some search the through history to find "early Christians" who agree with their doctrines. You'll find that these early Christians had some Gnostic views, which went from mild to wild. Don, isn't an anomaly in Pentecostalism, or in Christianity. It's not like these individuals were face on the floor in a prayer room and gained a tear, n snot soaked revelation. They draw conclusions by reading certain passages out of context. Just like early heretics "church fathers" did the same.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwrmoB8JGsI&t=946s

Amanah · #**165** 09-15-2024, 10:07 AM

That video is eye opening.

Evang.Benincasa · #**166** 09-15-2024, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amanah

That video is eye opening.

Yes, while we assume these individuals were closer to truth. They themselves misinterpreted the scriptures based on ecclesiastical emotions. Taking verses out of context, literalizing that which is symbolic, and symbolizing that which is literal. Most of these individuals were Trinitarian, or didn’t believe that Christ was divine. Take for instance Didymus the Blind. Supposedly had the entirety of scripture memorized? Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. We are speaking of the 4th Century AD. Yet, his name Didymus is Aramaic for twofold. Was he doubly blind? Not only physically but also spiritually? Yet, that is a bit harsh on my part. We must always remember that the winners write our history. Revisionists are scorned and hated, until what they teach becomes common. Talmudic Rabbis teach universalism. The Talmud's assertion that righteous individuals from all nations share in the world to come (Sanhedrin 105a). Instead of the Christians being the ones in the Celestial City looking out on the leaf munching Goyim. It’s the Rabbis sitting at the banquet tables, as kings and priest ruling over the righteous Goyim.

jediwill83 · #**167** 09-15-2024, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

This video covers how the early "Church Fathers" believed in Universalism "apokatastasis." While some search the through history to find "early Christians" who agree with their doctrines. You'll find that these early Christians had some Gnostic views, which went from mild to wild. Don, isn't an anomaly in Pentecostalism, or in Christianity. It's not like these individuals were face on the floor in a prayer room and gained a tear, n snot soaked revelation. They draw conclusions by reading certain passages out of context. Just like early heretics "church fathers" did the same.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwrmoB8JGsI&t=946s

So I cant wear my Hawaiian shorts to the BBQ?

Evang.Benincasa · #**168** 09-15-2024, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jediwill83

So I cant wear my Hawaiian shorts to the BBQ?

You didn’t watch the video? If you did you would’ve found out you could come to the BBQ wearing nothing but seasoning.

jediwill83 · #**169** 09-15-2024, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You didn’t watch the video? If you did you would’ve found out you could come to the BBQ wearing nothing but seasoning.

Didnt watch the entire thing but I will definitely bookmark it for later watch.

So, are enternal conscious torment folks compromisers away from the original intent of the founding doctrines?

It seems that there is a slippery slope where the more harsh the doctrine is, the more "Godly" it is.

Im simply interested in the Truth and have no interest in someone turning up the thermostat in ways the Lord didnt intend so I can get some extra extra holy bonus points.

Ive heard Universalism bantered about in various circles and yes, it being promoted by early Church fathers, to me that sticks out.

Why the change?

New revelation?

Jesus wasnt as nice as we thought He is?

What gives besides being HEAVILY relied upon in a very unbalanced way to make folks make emotional decisions?

I honestly cant tell you the last time I either did or didnt do something intentionally with avoiding eternal conscious torment burning in a lake of fire in mind.

Its never on my list of motivations and I see no sense in adding it now to put a heavier weight on me than I should bare.

I don't serve a Father that has His finger on the "Smite" button every time I step out the door.

Chastisement...oh yes Ive expereinced that a plenty but it was never to destroy me and it wasnt sadistic.

I think throwing "Trinitarian" at the early saints is basically a fruit of the poison tree mindset and its an easy way to dismiss other doctrines and contexts that they held.

Im just not so quick to walk past things like this and speed my pace while looking away.

Ill either be convinced one way or another...but its not going to be through fear.

Evang.Benincasa · #**170** 09-15-2024, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Didnt watch the entire thing but I will definitely bookmark it for later watch.

So, are enternal conscious torment folks compromisers away from the original intent of the founding doctrines?

It seems that there is a slippery slope where the more harsh the doctrine is, the more "Godly" it is.

Im simply interested in the Truth and have no interest in someone turning up the thermostat in ways the Lord didnt intend so I can get some extra extra holy bonus points.

Ive heard Universalism bantered about in various circles and yes, it being promoted by early Church fathers, to me that sticks out.

Why the change?

New revelation?

Jesus wasnt as nice as we thought He is?

What gives besides being HEAVILY relied upon in a very unbalanced way to make folks make emotional decisions?

I honestly cant tell you the last time I either did or didnt do something intentionally with avoiding eternal conscious torment burning in a lake of fire in mind.

Its never on my list of motivations and I see no sense in adding it now to put a heavier weight on me than I should bare.

I don't serve a Father that has His finger on the "Smite" button every time I step out the door.

Chastisement...oh yes Ive expereinced that a plenty but it was never to destroy me and it wasnt sadistic.

I think throwing "Trinitarian" at the early saints is basically a fruit of the poison tree mindset and its an easy way to dismiss other doctrines and contexts that they held.

Im just not so quick to walk past things like this and speed my pace while looking away.

Ill either be convinced one way or another...but its not going to be through fear.

Universalism “ apokatastasis” means God returns everything to its original state.
Which means everyone including Satan, and demons. All is restored to a pristine condition.

Wether you want it or not no effort on your part.

You get a pass to Heaven.