• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Dedicated Altar

Cap said:
The Noahide laws are coming after everyone. I see it as not about Torah or non Torah, but an attempt to take away from anyone's ability to follow God directly.
Click to expand...
True..... but, is there a reason Scripture is so specific about those two qualifies? Or, even more significantly, Ex. 31:17 says that Shabbat is a 'sign' (in all tour generations forever..).. And, Torah, according to Deut. 6:8 is a sign on your forehead... is that connected to Rev. 7:3 and the sign on the foreheads that seals the bone-servants? There seems to be a connection here.... just thinking out loud.
 
PeteR said:
True..... but, is there a reason Scripture is so specific about those two qualifies? Or, even more significantly, Ex. 31:17 says that Shabbat is a 'sign' (in all tour generations forever..).. And, Torah, according to Deut. 6:8 is a sign on your forehead... is that connected to Rev. 7:3 and the sign on the foreheads that seals the bone-servants? There seems to be a connection here.... just thinking out loud.
Click to expand...

I know we will get bogged down if we start trying to pick a part interpretations. I don't doubt the truth you see, but I also don't doubt the truth I see. The truth we are both looking for is God's Truth, so I think in this matter, when it comes to an outside force trying to take away both of our relationships with God we should unit against it for the well being of all that love God.

Your Sabbath and my Sabbath come from the heart and God is the judge of who is right or wrong. (Ill wager we are both wrong) But one thing we do know, there is a force after both of us.
 
This has happened. Intercessory prayer works both ways.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's see... how many ways did they break Torah?

1. The sacrifice was not done 'in the place I will show you' aka at the Temple or in the place of the Temple (likely in Yair David)
2. The sacrifice was not done by who it is supposed to be done. Levites.
3. The sacrifice was not done in the manner that it was to be done. I.e., they used lighter fluid, aka 'strange fire'... maybe was olive oil, but, still.... not cool.

Make no mistake, Scripture clearly teaches (Eze. 44) that there will be a future Temple that offers the 'fat and the blood' but this ain't it.

My expectation is that this indeed opened or widened a spiritual portal, particularly based on some of the language used, but not for the Holy One of Israel.

We are truly in the midst of strange days.
 
PeteR said:
Let's see... how many ways did they break Torah?

1. The sacrifice was not done 'in the place I will show you' aka at the Temple or in the place of the Temple (likely in Yair David)
2. The sacrifice was not done by who it is supposed to be done. Levites.
3. The sacrifice was not done in the manner that it was to be done. I.e., they used lighter fluid, aka 'strange fire'... maybe was olive oil, but, still.... not cool.

Make no mistake, Scripture clearly teaches (Eze. 44) that there will be a future Temple that offers the 'fat and the blood' but this ain't it.

My expectation is that this indeed opened or widened a spiritual portal, particularly based on some of the language used, but not for the Holy One of Israel.

We are truly in the midst of strange days.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and would also add that this is why I believe that it is important to understand the Law so that when the counterfeit comes along it can be recognized.

They do make claim that they are following the law, and that a gentile had to be the one to do the sacrifice and that it more reflected the position of Noah, but still I imagine thier law they come from is based on the talmud.
 
Cap said:
I agree with you and would also add that this is why I believe that it is important to understand the Law so that when the counterfeit comes along it can be recognized.

They do make claim that they are following the law, and that a gentile had to be the one to do the sacrifice and that it more reflected the position of Noah, but still I imagine thier law they come from is based on the talmud.
Click to expand...

Lev.17:1-7 or so clearly demonstrate that they are in gross violation of the Law and they are intentionally using a 'Gentile' to do what they know they cannot do. Further, by using the 'Gentile,' (who is actually a member of the house of Israel and may not understand that, but further damaging himself) they throw the individual participants under the bus. This is the Torah definition of 'how to be cut off from your people.'

Buckle up.
 
Cap said:
They do make claim that they are following the law, and that a gentile had to be the one to do the sacrifice and that it more reflected the position of Noah, but still I imagine thier law they come from is based on the talmud.
Click to expand...
It comes from Maimonedes (Rambam)'s Mishnah "Maaseh Hakorbanot" 19:16, which includes:
Gentiles are permitted to offer burnt offerings to God in all places, provided they sacrifice them on a raised structure that they build. It is forbidden to help them [offer these sacrifices] or act as agents for them, for we are forbidden to sacrifice outside [the Temple Courtyard]. It is permitted to instruct them and teach them how to sacrifice to the Almighty, blessed be He.
Click to expand...
That is worth pondering and dissecting a little. Basically, they know it is against Torah. So they know they cannot do it. However, they deliberately claim the right to "instruct them and teach them how". Hence this sacrifice - the Jews decided how it would happen, all of the details, but told the Gentiles to do it.

The Jews (by which I mean those specific ones who accept this) are trying to seize authority over all other religions, by claiming the right to instruct others in how to worship God, even if that contradicts Torah.

The context of that quote is also interesting. Maimonedes is saying that it is forbidden to offer sacrifices outside the temple - so what technically is a sacrifice? How can a Jew almost offer a sacrifice but break the law just enough so they aren't technically offering a valid sacrifice so it is ok to do outside the temple? So, for example, he argues that if a Jew does not offer his sacrifice on top of an altar, but just on a single stone, that's ok, as it's not a sacrifice if it's not on an altar. But if he says he's offering it to God, that's not ok. So he can only sacrifice it if he's not offering it to God... Or since the law is that three measures of wine or oil are to be poured out as an offering, if you offer slightly less than that, you can do it anywhere as it's not technically valid. And so on and so forth - a whole long list of ways to break the law "correctly". So breaking the law is ok provided you break the law clearly enough, to ensure you weren't actually following the law to begin with so are not technically breaking it... It's very convoluted logic, and could conceivably be used to justify all manner of things.
 
That is the question that first came to my mind also...
To give him the benefit of the doubt, Maimonedes could be calling any killing of an animal a "sacrifice", and saying it's ok to kill an animal to eat provided you don't intentionally "offer it to God" when you kill it. Incidentally, that would make halal slaughter illegal under the Noahide laws. Whether they'd actually enforce that or not is another matter though (the Noahide laws appear more aimed at Christians than Muslims).
But that's not necessarily what he's actually saying...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top