During the last year or so of attending church, I was still reluctant to ask probing questions for fear of 'rocking the boat'. In the back of each chair were suggestion/question cards, which anyone could fill out and turn in... I asked the same question, about a dozen times, and never received any type of response.
For debate:
Why would an all knowing and all loving God ever place favor towards one specific race, the Jews?
A Question Unanswered, When in Church...
Moderator: Moderators
-
POI
- Savant
- Posts: 6125
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 2189 times
- Been thanked: 1649 times
A Question Unanswered, When in Church...
Post #1In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6882
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 386 times
- Been thanked: 356 times
- Contact:
Re: A Question Unanswered, When in Church...
Post #81Peace to you,
I did not see where you commented on the words and example that Christ left us:
Do you not recall that Christ said we are to make ourselves LEAST (just as He did) and to serve ONE ANOTHER? Where does that leave room for any of us to enslave our brothers? Where is the love for your brother if you enslave your brother instead of setting him free (if indeed he was not free when you came to know him)?
Do you not recall that God desires mercy? Hosea 6:6; Matt 9:13
If you were to love your neighbor as yourself (brother in Christ or not, person of color or not), should you not try and help him if he has been oppressed? Or at least rejoice for him if he receives that help from somewhere else? Should you not rejoice if he is simply being afforded the same rights as any other 'white folk' person?
But notice that Christ did not enslave anyone. He came to SERVE. He told His disciples to SERVE. To make themselves LEAST.
But Israel refers to all Israel (Jews and Samaritans; all twelve tribes).
JW put up a definition of racism for you.
That is not racism.
Affirmative action is defined as a set of procedures designed to; eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future.
And though everyone except native Americans are foreigners to that land, you might want to take the following verses into consideration:
When a foreigner resides with you in your land, you must not oppress him. 34You must treat the foreigner living among you as native-born and love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
You are to divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. 22 You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the foreigners who dwell among you and who have children. You are to treat them as native-born Israelites; along with you, they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.
This is not racism. That is the point some of us are trying to get across on this thread. Instead of repeating what has been previously written, I am just going to link to the following two posts (the first of which responded indirectly to your comments):
viewtopic.php?p=1097702#p1097702
viewtopic.php?p=1096608#p1096608
A - The reason 'intermarriage' with other nations was forbidden had NOTHING to do with 'race'. It had to do with the worship of foreign gods and following the 'ways' of the nations around them instead of following the God of Israel and HIS Way.
B - So what? Are you suggesting that the children born from those marriages are not Israel? Before you answer, I will again bring to your attention the FACT that Joseph had children by His Egyptian wife. That those children - Manasseh and Ephraim in particular - were blessed. That Joseph was doubly blessed through them. Not cursed. Blessed.
That throws your theory right out of the water.
One man who had four wives. But remember, Joseph has an Egyptian wife and his children were blessed. Those children went on to have children. Never mind all the children that would have been begotten with 'intermarriage' (or something else) in Egypt over the course of 400 years.
See above (and the links to other posts on this thread addressing this matter).
Yes, due to His promise and love toward Abraham, based on Abraham's faith (and love) in God.
The verses are written in the bible... but what you have interpreted from those verses are mere claims.
Because the Northern Kingdom was scattered across the land by the Assyrians. Because Jews had to flee Jerusalem after the Temple fell. Some/many remained. But some/many scattered.
I don't think you're trying to enslave anyone. But racism against people of color cannot be justified with some far-fetched theory about Shem, Japeth and Ham, suggesting that black people are under a curse and 'white folk' are favored. That 'theory' is something some people used to justify enslaving and mistreating black people during the American slave trade is it not?
But since you admit that slavery did end with the end of the law, you must admit that what was done to African Americans was a terrible crime and wrong, and if a terrible wrong was done against one people by another people, should there not be reparations made?
I will repeat what I said in my previous post:
Well do you wish to be in the Church (the Body of Christ) or do you wish to be in the world? You have to live in the world as it is for now, but that does not mean you have to follow the decrees or ways of the world, rather than following the WAY (Christ), including following the example that He set in that we are to serve one another.
You already said that slavery ended with the end of the law, even though it was legal in the world. But the RIGHT thing to do, the thing from LOVE, the thing Philemon OUGHT to have done (as Paul directly said), was to FREE Onesimus. Regardless of the law of the world, the law of LOVE (the outstanding debt that we owe one another - black, white, free, slave, jew, gentile, male, female... and everything else) would set free the person who desires their freedom.
And again, Joseph had an Egyptian wife (and Egypt is written to have come from Ham is it not?) with whom he had children. Mannaseh and Ephraim were both blessed. Mannaseh is even listed as one of those 12 tribes in Revelation, sealed before the tribulation.
Peace again to you and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
I did not see where you commented on the words and example that Christ left us:
Do you not recall that Christ said we are to make ourselves LEAST (just as He did) and to serve ONE ANOTHER? Where does that leave room for any of us to enslave our brothers? Where is the love for your brother if you enslave your brother instead of setting him free (if indeed he was not free when you came to know him)?
Do you not recall that God desires mercy? Hosea 6:6; Matt 9:13
If you were to love your neighbor as yourself (brother in Christ or not, person of color or not), should you not try and help him if he has been oppressed? Or at least rejoice for him if he receives that help from somewhere else? Should you not rejoice if he is simply being afforded the same rights as any other 'white folk' person?
But notice that Christ did not enslave anyone. He came to SERVE. He told His disciples to SERVE. To make themselves LEAST.
Jews refer to Jews (Benjamin and Judah).RIP wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 5:24 am [Replying to tam in post #67]
Yes, the term 'Jews' originated with the captivity of the Southern Kingdom by Babylon. But just like it had come to refer to any Iraelites taken in that captivity, be it Benjamin or Levi, so it has come to refer to all who are of Israel. Paul so uses it in (Rom. 3:1-2. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or What profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."
But Israel refers to all Israel (Jews and Samaritans; all twelve tribes).
Distinction is not racism.This does not change the emphasis of (Deut. 7:6) that the Jews, or Israelites, were favored, and chosen "above all people that are upon the face of the earth." You say such a distinction is not racism. Was Jesus recognition of such a distinction racism in (Matt. 15:24-28) where he called the Canaanite woman a dog?
JW put up a definition of racism for you.
Understand, distinction of races comes from God. And I am not saying racism is wrong.
That is not racism.
So then what is your problem with affirmative action (or anything similar to that)? Those programs are meant to help right the wrongs that have been done by one group ("white folk") to another group.It is not wrong to recognize the race one comes from and do what he can to favor that race. That is right and natural. It doesn't give any the right to do a wrong to another of a different race, but it certainly gives one the right to favor his own race.
Affirmative action is defined as a set of procedures designed to; eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future.
And though everyone except native Americans are foreigners to that land, you might want to take the following verses into consideration:
When a foreigner resides with you in your land, you must not oppress him. 34You must treat the foreigner living among you as native-born and love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
You are to divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. 22 You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the foreigners who dwell among you and who have children. You are to treat them as native-born Israelites; along with you, they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.
God's chosing of the Jews above all peoples and favoring them above all peoples, is not wrong but it certainly today would be considered racism.
This is not racism. That is the point some of us are trying to get across on this thread. Instead of repeating what has been previously written, I am just going to link to the following two posts (the first of which responded indirectly to your comments):
viewtopic.php?p=1097702#p1097702
viewtopic.php?p=1096608#p1096608
YOU are the one calling it racism.The distinction He made between Jew/Israel and Gentile is not wrong. In other words, what God does is right. And when He chooses one over the other, it is right. It doesn't bother me if one wants to call it racism.
As to Jews/Israel being black or whatever other race, it is only due to intermarriage which was forbidden.
A - The reason 'intermarriage' with other nations was forbidden had NOTHING to do with 'race'. It had to do with the worship of foreign gods and following the 'ways' of the nations around them instead of following the God of Israel and HIS Way.
B - So what? Are you suggesting that the children born from those marriages are not Israel? Before you answer, I will again bring to your attention the FACT that Joseph had children by His Egyptian wife. That those children - Manasseh and Ephraim in particular - were blessed. That Joseph was doubly blessed through them. Not cursed. Blessed.
That throws your theory right out of the water.
The Jews/Israel were not black. They came from one man, Jacob, who was Syrian. (Deut. 26:5)
One man who had four wives. But remember, Joseph has an Egyptian wife and his children were blessed. Those children went on to have children. Never mind all the children that would have been begotten with 'intermarriage' (or something else) in Egypt over the course of 400 years.
It doesn't matter what 'race' Abraham was from. Abraham was not chosen based upon his race. Abraham was chosen based upon his FAITH.And Isaacs wife, Rebekah, was Syrian. (Gen. 25:20) All of which connects Abraham and Sarah to Syria.
We are not just talking about 'noting a distinction' between the races. We are talking about choosing and favoring a race above another.
See above (and the links to other posts on this thread addressing this matter).
Racism is wrong. See the definition provided by JW. You are wrong about the reason God chose Israel.We are talking about Jesus calling the Gentiles dogs. Again, I am not saying racism is wrong.
As to the 144,000, yes it was from 12,000 of each tribe of Israel. My point being the distinction between the Jews/Israel and the Gentiles and that God chose and sealed the 144,000 Jews/Israel to preserve them.
Yes, due to His promise and love toward Abraham, based on Abraham's faith (and love) in God.
See above.That God is saving many Gentiles doesn't change that. God didn't choose so many Gentiles to seal and preserve alive during the Tribulation.
Concerning (Acts 16:6-10) and (Gen. 9:24-27) it is not a 'claim'. It is Scrpture.
The verses are written in the bible... but what you have interpreted from those verses are mere claims.
They call into question your claim that Europe (or any other nation) is a "Christian nation".And (Matt.22:14) and (Matt. 7:21-23) changes nothing I have said.
Concerning the Jews/Israel scattered all over the world...how do you know?
Because the Northern Kingdom was scattered across the land by the Assyrians. Because Jews had to flee Jerusalem after the Temple fell. Some/many remained. But some/many scattered.
I'm not basing my statement on what any Jew or Israelite claims about their ancestry. I am basing it on the account given in what is written, as explained above.There is no Jew/Israelite alive today that can prove which tribe of Israel he came from.
I don't know why you think I am trying to 'enslave' anyone.
I don't think you're trying to enslave anyone. But racism against people of color cannot be justified with some far-fetched theory about Shem, Japeth and Ham, suggesting that black people are under a curse and 'white folk' are favored. That 'theory' is something some people used to justify enslaving and mistreating black people during the American slave trade is it not?
Every yoke is every yoke.And no, (Is. 58:6) does not negate the slavery that God instituted. (Lev. 25:45-46) But that slavery did end with the end of the Law.
But since you admit that slavery did end with the end of the law, you must admit that what was done to African Americans was a terrible crime and wrong, and if a terrible wrong was done against one people by another people, should there not be reparations made?
Not because of their skin color.Concerning (Rom. 1:16) and (Acts 17:1-2), yes, because the covenant was with the Jews/Israel. And why was it with the Jews/Israel? Because God chose them above all peoples of the earth and favored them. (Deut. 7:6)
Again, that had nothing to do with skin color.The point I have made and am making is that just because we who are part of the Church, in Christ, are one in Christ, does not change the distinctions in race. Just like Paul went to the Jew first and then to the Gentile.
My point in (Philemon) was that Paul still recognized Onesimus as a slave. In other words, just because Onesimus became Christian didn't change his place in the world. Paul sought his freedom, yes. But the fact that he sought his freedom legally, proves my point. In other words, just because we who are Christian are in Christ doesn't change our position in the world.
I will repeat what I said in my previous post:
Well do you wish to be in the Church (the Body of Christ) or do you wish to be in the world? You have to live in the world as it is for now, but that does not mean you have to follow the decrees or ways of the world, rather than following the WAY (Christ), including following the example that He set in that we are to serve one another.
You already said that slavery ended with the end of the law, even though it was legal in the world. But the RIGHT thing to do, the thing from LOVE, the thing Philemon OUGHT to have done (as Paul directly said), was to FREE Onesimus. Regardless of the law of the world, the law of LOVE (the outstanding debt that we owe one another - black, white, free, slave, jew, gentile, male, female... and everything else) would set free the person who desires their freedom.
So some men claim. But neither Christ nor the apostles nor Paul ever mention it or even act as if the theory you are espousing is known, much less that it is true.And (Gen. 9:24-27) concerns everyone in the world.
And again, Joseph had an Egyptian wife (and Egypt is written to have come from Ham is it not?) with whom he had children. Mannaseh and Ephraim were both blessed. Mannaseh is even listed as one of those 12 tribes in Revelation, sealed before the tribulation.
Peace again to you and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
- Non-religious Christian spirituality
- For Christ (who is the Spirit)
- For Christ (who is the Spirit)
Re: A Question Unanswered, When in Church...
Post #82[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #78]
No thanks. Give me what you say. Don't send me to what others say. If you don't know what you're talkling about, then admit it and move on.
Rip
No thanks. Give me what you say. Don't send me to what others say. If you don't know what you're talkling about, then admit it and move on.
Rip
Re: A Question Unanswered, When in Church...
Post #83[Replying to tam in post #81]
Your comments are repetitious. And my answers to you would be equally repetitious.
So, let's make it short. Is (Gen. 9:24-27) Scripture? Is it the Word of God or just theory?
Rip
Your comments are repetitious. And my answers to you would be equally repetitious.
So, let's make it short. Is (Gen. 9:24-27) Scripture? Is it the Word of God or just theory?
Rip
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6882
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 386 times
- Been thanked: 356 times
- Contact:
Re: A Question Unanswered, When in Church...
Post #84Peace to you,
The verses are written in the bible... but what you have interpreted from those verses are mere claims.
See also where I wrote:
As for any repetition in my post, the only things repeated were things you did not respond to. Such as the words and instructions from Christ... and the following things:
And there are reasons that Abraham, and then Isaac, and then Israel were chosen:
viewtopic.php?p=1097702#p1097702
viewtopic.php?p=1096608#p1096608
(also the following: You already said that slavery ended with the end of the law, even though it was legal in the world. But the RIGHT thing to do, the thing from LOVE, the thing Philemon OUGHT to have done (as Paul directly said), was to FREE Onesimus. Regardless of the law of the world, the law of LOVE (the outstanding debt that we owe one another - black, white, free, slave, jew, gentile, male, female... and everything else) would set free the person who desires their freedom.)
Peace again to you and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
I responded to your use of Gen 9:24-27:RIP wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 2:53 pm [Replying to tam in post #81]
Your comments are repetitious. And my answers to you would be equally repetitious.
So, let's make it short. Is (Gen. 9:24-27) Scripture? Is it the Word of God or just theory?
Rip
The verses are written in the bible... but what you have interpreted from those verses are mere claims.
See also where I wrote:
I don't think you're trying to enslave anyone. But racism against people of color cannot be justified with some far-fetched theory about Shem, Japeth and Ham, suggesting that black people are under a curse and 'white folk' are favored. That 'theory' is something some people used to justify enslaving and mistreating black people during the American slave trade is it not?
So some men claim. But neither Christ nor the apostles nor Paul ever mention it or even act as if the theory you are espousing is known, much less that it is true.
As for any repetition in my post, the only things repeated were things you did not respond to. Such as the words and instructions from Christ... and the following things:
A - The reason 'intermarriage' with other nations was forbidden had NOTHING to do with 'race'. It had to do with the worship of foreign gods and following the 'ways' of the nations around them instead of following the God of Israel and HIS Way.
B - So what? Are you suggesting that the children born from those marriages are not Israel? Before you answer, I will again bring to your attention the FACT that Joseph had children by His Egyptian wife. That those children - Manasseh and Ephraim in particular - were blessed. That Joseph was doubly blessed through them. Not cursed. Blessed.
That throws your theory right out of the water.
But remember, Joseph has an Egyptian wife and his children were blessed. Those children went on to have children. Never mind all the children that would have been begotten with 'intermarriage' (or something else) in Egypt over the course of 400 years.
And again, Joseph had an Egyptian wife (and Egypt is written to have come from Ham is it not?) with whom he had children. Mannaseh and Ephraim were both blessed. Mannaseh is even listed as one of those 12 tribes in Revelation, sealed before the tribulation.
And there are reasons that Abraham, and then Isaac, and then Israel were chosen:
See also the following links to posts in this very thread:It doesn't matter what 'race' Abraham was from. Abraham was not chosen based upon his race. Abraham was chosen based upon his FAITH.
viewtopic.php?p=1097702#p1097702
viewtopic.php?p=1096608#p1096608
(also the following: You already said that slavery ended with the end of the law, even though it was legal in the world. But the RIGHT thing to do, the thing from LOVE, the thing Philemon OUGHT to have done (as Paul directly said), was to FREE Onesimus. Regardless of the law of the world, the law of LOVE (the outstanding debt that we owe one another - black, white, free, slave, jew, gentile, male, female... and everything else) would set free the person who desires their freedom.)
Peace again to you and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
- Non-religious Christian spirituality
- For Christ (who is the Spirit)
- For Christ (who is the Spirit)
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 23438
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 930 times
- Been thanked: 1349 times
- Contact:
Re: A Question Unanswered, When in Church...
Post #85I say ...RIP wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 2:41 pm [Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #78]
No thanks. Give me what you say.
God does not treat people unfairly because they have a dark skin pigmentation.
GOD favored a lighter skinned race not because of their skin pigmentation but because he made a promise to a faithful man Abraham.
JWJesus came to procure blessing to all mankind regardless of tbeir skin pigmentation. And while he (Jesus) was charged to minister only to the decendents of Abraham, he commissioned his followers to open that message to people of all skin pigmentations. Whether they accepted or not would come down to exposure to that message and heart condition rather than the shade of their skin.
RELATED POSTS
Were people with black skin cursed?
viewtopic.php?p=857317#p857317
Deuteronomy 14:21 : Did the Mosaic law promptes mistreatment of foreigners?
viewtopic.php?p=1039287#p1039287
Did Jesus come to die only for his follow Jews?
viewtopic.php?p=1039788#p1039788
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
AquinasForGod
- Guru
- Posts: 1073
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
- Location: USA
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 77 times
Re: A Question Unanswered, When in Church...
Post #86I am not sure how much more clear I can make my position. Accidental properties are things like our hair color, race, ethnicity, etc. God did NOT choose Abraham or Israel based on accidental properties. For some reason, you keep claiming I think he does.POI wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 12:06 pmIf this claimed god places any type of favor at all, (higher or lower), based upon attributes the human cannot control, then this agency is suspect to even exist. Why? This concept appears more man-made alone. We humans do this all the time.AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 11:29 pmAnd why? Not based on accidental properties like you keep stating.POI wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 10:30 pmSo it wasn't you, who stated: "He actually made it harder for the descendants of Abraham."?.?.?.?AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 10:19 pmI am unsure why I am not being understood. I have stated several times that God is not doing so based on accidental properties but based on all the choices they make through all of time.POI wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 9:51 pmOh, but you did. I pointed out where.
God, making it easier/harder, based upon attributes the human has no control over, seems more like a human invented concoction. And not something an all-powerful-universe-running-agency would likely introduce.AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 9:35 pm
I did not say why God made it more difficult for his chosen people.
Such a God would be benign to ethnicity, bloodline, etc, and only judge based upon merit/character alone... Ethnicity/bloodline/etc would not even be a factor. Such a God would have the exact same standards for all humans.
-
POI
- Savant
- Posts: 6125
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 2189 times
- Been thanked: 1649 times
Re: A Question Unanswered, When in Church...
Post #87I'm not sure how much more clear I can be. Why do you keep hyper-focusing on Abraham? I'm speaking about more than just one dude. For example, as I stated prior, why does God say this?AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 8:21 pm I am not sure how much more clear I can make my position. Accidental properties are things like our hair color, race, ethnicity, etc. God did NOT choose Abraham or Israel based on accidental properties. For some reason, you keep claiming I think he does.
"but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.". Isn't this command alone, applying favor for properties humans cannot control? The answer is YES.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
Re: A Question Unanswered, When in Church...
Post #88[Replying to tam in post #84]
I didn't ask if (Gen. 9:24-27) was in the Bible. I asked if it was the Word of God? And you have done nothing to explain what it means. All you have done is tell me I am wrong. Was God wrong in giving Ham no blessing and cursing his descendants and making them slaves to Shem and Japheth? You want to call this a 'theory'. So give me your theory as to what (Gen. 9:24-27) means.
As to Christ or Paul not mentioning, so? Paul certainly played it out when the Holy Spirit forbade him twice to go to certain places and sent him to Europe. (Acts 16:6-10) Jesus certainly played it out calling the Canaanite woman a dog. (Matt. 15:26).
Intermarriage between other people's had everything to do with race. Different peoples. Of course because the different peoples were not of Shem, they would naturally turn to other gods. And you have contradicted yourself. You say the law not to intermarry had to do with only the worship of false gods. You then use Joseph and Asenath to prove their children as two tribes of Israel. And she was the daugthter of a priest of a false god. (Gen. 41:45)
To answer: The law forbidding intermarriage was not yet in place. Israel, as a nation did not yet exist. Joseph was a prisoner but elevated by Pharoah. Pharoah gave him his wife. Not God. Yes, the two children of Joseph would be blessed because of Joseph. Not because of Asenath. You see the same thing with Ruth. She was a Moabite who married a Jew/Israeltie. And she was blessed to be in the genealogy of David and Jesus. (Matt. 1:5-6) As a people the Egyptians were still under the curse just as the Moabites would be.
I already showed you that Abraham is linked to Shem. And Israel is linked to Abraham. And He did choose Israel over all other people on the earth. So Abraham's race did play a role in God's choice. He had to be of Shem where the blessings were given. So, no, Abraham was not just chosen because of his faith.
Again, the point I made in the book of Philemon was that the slavery status of Onesimus in the world did not change just because he became Christian. He now had a new slave owner, God, because he was in Christ. But in the world he still remained a slave and Paul sought his freedom legitimately. In other words, (Gen. 9:24-27) is not describing our position in the church. It is describing how God views all mankind in their divisions. And those are based on Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Rip
I didn't ask if (Gen. 9:24-27) was in the Bible. I asked if it was the Word of God? And you have done nothing to explain what it means. All you have done is tell me I am wrong. Was God wrong in giving Ham no blessing and cursing his descendants and making them slaves to Shem and Japheth? You want to call this a 'theory'. So give me your theory as to what (Gen. 9:24-27) means.
As to Christ or Paul not mentioning, so? Paul certainly played it out when the Holy Spirit forbade him twice to go to certain places and sent him to Europe. (Acts 16:6-10) Jesus certainly played it out calling the Canaanite woman a dog. (Matt. 15:26).
Intermarriage between other people's had everything to do with race. Different peoples. Of course because the different peoples were not of Shem, they would naturally turn to other gods. And you have contradicted yourself. You say the law not to intermarry had to do with only the worship of false gods. You then use Joseph and Asenath to prove their children as two tribes of Israel. And she was the daugthter of a priest of a false god. (Gen. 41:45)
To answer: The law forbidding intermarriage was not yet in place. Israel, as a nation did not yet exist. Joseph was a prisoner but elevated by Pharoah. Pharoah gave him his wife. Not God. Yes, the two children of Joseph would be blessed because of Joseph. Not because of Asenath. You see the same thing with Ruth. She was a Moabite who married a Jew/Israeltie. And she was blessed to be in the genealogy of David and Jesus. (Matt. 1:5-6) As a people the Egyptians were still under the curse just as the Moabites would be.
I already showed you that Abraham is linked to Shem. And Israel is linked to Abraham. And He did choose Israel over all other people on the earth. So Abraham's race did play a role in God's choice. He had to be of Shem where the blessings were given. So, no, Abraham was not just chosen because of his faith.
Again, the point I made in the book of Philemon was that the slavery status of Onesimus in the world did not change just because he became Christian. He now had a new slave owner, God, because he was in Christ. But in the world he still remained a slave and Paul sought his freedom legitimately. In other words, (Gen. 9:24-27) is not describing our position in the church. It is describing how God views all mankind in their divisions. And those are based on Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Rip
Last edited by RIP on Thu Nov 03, 2022 4:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 23438
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 930 times
- Been thanked: 1349 times
- Contact:
Re: A Question Unanswered, When in Church...
Post #89You are wrong; Ham was not cursed , Canaan was cursed and the descendents of CANAAN were not dark skinned.
RELATED POSTS
Were people with black skin cursed?
viewtopic.php?p=857317#p857317
Deuteronomy 14:21 : Did the Mosaic law promptes mistreatment of foreigners?
viewtopic.php?p=1039287#p1039287
Did Jesus come to die only for his follow Jews?
viewtopic.php?p=1039788#p1039788
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
Re: A Question Unanswered, When in Church...
Post #90JWJesus came to procure blessing to all mankind regardless of tbeir skin pigmentation. And while he (Jesus) was charged to minister only to the decendents of Abraham, he commissioned his followers to open that message to people of all skin pigmentations. Whether they accepted or not would come down to exposure to that message and heart condition rather than the shade of their skin.
[/quote]
Yes, it is/was always God's intention that all families of the earth be blessed. (Gen. 12:1-3) But it would be done through the lineage, the race chosen by Him. Thus to Shem was the blessing given. Thus Abraham would be of Shem. And Israel would be of Abraham. And all peoples brought into the Church are linked to Abraham through the New Covenant. (Gal. 3:7)
Just because the Church consists of all peoples and nations, doesn't change the condition of all peoples in the world under (Gen. 9:24-27).
Rip
