Latest Entries »

Print Friendly

For this Torah Portion, I look specifically at Deuteronomy 6.16-19.

In this essay, I will discuss that trying the LORD should be understood with Moses’ appending phrase “as you did as Massah.”

I will again discuss that while this portion is Torah, and Torah is equated with law and commandments, that the Torah contains tones that seem to come directly from Moses as a person, the elder statesman.

I will discuss that Moses is exhorting Israel to remain faithful to Jehovah in order to find success, and I will discuss that there is a long history of trying to understand what is right in the sight of the LORD.

Here is the discussion: Deuteronomy 6.16-19.

Share
Print Friendly

For this Torah Portion, I look specifically at Deuteronomy 6.13-15.

In this essay, I will discuss that while this portion is Torah, and Torah is equated with law and commandments, that the Torah contains tones that seem to come directly from Moses as a person, the elder statesman.

I will discuss that Moses is strongly urging Israel to remain faithful to Jehovah or risk losing their blessings.

I will also discuss that, contextually, Moses is not focusing on monotheism.

Here is the discussion: Deuteronomy 6.13-15.

Share

Tao Te Ching, Chapter 55

Print Friendly

My comments and thoughts regarding Tao Te Ching, Chapter 55 are now available.

Blessings and Shalom

Share

Deuteronomy 6.10-12

Print Friendly

For this Torah Portion, I look specifically at Deuteronomy 6.10-12.

In this essay, I will discuss that the Nation of Israel were the recipients of God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I will discuss that Moses is strongly urging Israel to remain humble and faithful in order to retain the blessings of the land.

Here is the discussion: Deuteronomy 6.10-12.

Share

Deuteronomy 6.4-9

Print Friendly

For this Torah Portion, I look specifically at Deuteronomy 6.4-9.

In this essay, I will discuss the Shema, looking at some details and giving my thoughts about what Moses wanted Israel to do in order to remain faithful to Jehovah.

I will also briefly discuss some aspects of the Shema and whether or not, in context, sets a foundation for monotheism.

Here is the discussion: Deuteronomy 6.4-9.

Share

Discussing My Counterpoint – Part Seven

Print Friendly

In Discussing My Counterpoint – Part Seven, I address the Respondent’s third reply to my counterpoint, they said:

I brought up the blameless reference to show the way you earlier used it and ‘apt to teach’ would indicate one is not necessarily sinful even if not blameless. We are agreed on that. I acknowledge the requirement that church officers are mandated to be monogamists.

RH: “Is it more of a directive? I have to answer, no, because the word ‘directive’ insinuates, connotes, denotes: an order, or an edict, or a mandate, or a requirement. Nowhere does Scripture require, mandate, order a man to be only monogamous.”

Respondent: My view is that 1 Corinthians 7:2 could be that verse! I don’t know Greek but I understand “let … ” in Scripture in many such context to indicate a directive e.g. “let not man put asunder.” At times, LET denotes a request or permission but mostly it is an imperative. It could also mean rent [e.g. Matthew 21:41] or send down [e.g. Mark 2:4, Luke 5:5]

Paul was not inspired to write: “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man be married, and let every woman have a husband.” I once alluded to singularity noting seed vs seeds in Galatians 3:16. Now I am alluding also to “OWN.” It connotes possessive/exclusive or better still personalization. This is harmonious with the permissible inference from Genesis 2 that ‘one man + one woman for life’ is God’s intent. Jesus went back to creation and the NT promotes/records only monogamy to take us back to God’s original plan.

In the link are my original comments, along with some added and extensive thoughts from me in my Post Segment Review: Discussing My Counterpoint – Part Seven.

Share

Discussing My Counterpoint – Part Six

Print Friendly

In Discussing My Counterpoint – Part Six, I address the Respondent’s third reply to my counterpoint, they said:

RH: “for some reason a polygamous man loses his ability to be called ‘blameless’ that alone ‘disqualifies’…”

Respondent: If a man is not blameless by virtue of being a polygamist then God has laid something at his charge. The ‘blameless’ term may pertain to another thing or be viewed on its own rather than as qualifying the other attributes stated. If one is blameable for violating the other enumerated qualities (e.g. patient, apt to teach, husband of one wife…) then it could possibly tantamount to sin but not necessarily?

RH: “I can accept that ‘each man have his own wife’ *suggests* monogamy, and may actually be interpreted as directly encouraging monogamy, but encouraging toward monogamy is *not* condemnation and is *not* prohibition of polygamy.”

Respondent: If interpreted that way then it is weightier than just a suggestion:
“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”
It more of a directive than ‘you don’t have to marry but if you do in other to avoid immorality, have your OWN spouse: don’t engage in sex outside of marriage AND don’t take or share another person’s spouse. Otherwise, Paul could have simply stated: “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man be married, and let every woman have a husband.”

In the link are my original comments, along with some added and extensive thoughts from me in my Post Segment Review: Discussing My Counterpoint – Part Six.

Share
Powered by WordPress | Theme: Motion by 85ideas.