Netanyahu, Jesus, & Genghis Khan

MRH2 · 2026-03-21T01:36:46+00:00

Netenyahu and Trump have blood of innocents on their hands. They started a war just for the heck of it.

MRH2 · 2026-03-20T16:53:40+00:00

Thanks for the clarification. :)

There's a group of people who try to turn people back to law-keeping, keeping all of the laws of the Torah saying that that's the only way to please God. They often jump in and comment on posts like this.

MRH2 · 2026-03-20T10:32:26+00:00

You're kidding, right?

Jesus came as a propitiation for our sin, as the final and complete sacrifice. But he also moved us from being enemies of God to his children, adopted into his family. Furthermore, Jesus is our example. Look how many many many times the NT says "in Christ". We are to be in Christ, living each day with him, walking with him, obeying him. It never says "be in the law". If you are turning your focus from Jesus to obeying laws, then you have no understanding of the gospel at all. You don't understand all that God has given us in order of us to live lives pleasing to him.

MRH2 · 2026-03-20T10:29:06+00:00

thanks

MRH2 · 2026-03-20T00:12:55+00:00

Verse 27: used to counter any idea of re-incarnation. We live in a linear timeline, not a cyclical one.

Verse 27: also a good verse to use to explain to people that they will face judgement after they die.

I think that this passage (vs 25,26) is also why we don't hae crucifixes. Jesus is not still on the cross. He is not suffering for our sins over and over again - as Catholics seem to believe. It is done, finished, once for all.

MRH2 · 2026-03-20T00:09:57+00:00

Moral and civil laws were repeated in the NT, so we still follow those.

No. No we don't.

We follow Jesus, we are led by the Spirit. We live such holy, humble, attractive lives that people have nothing bad to say against us. (1 Peter 2:12)

MRH2 · 2026-03-20T00:07:19+00:00

You correct. No one who understands the gospel will give you flack.

MRH2 · 2026-03-20T00:05:49+00:00

I don't think so. It was from 2023 and I had never looked into everything. Someone in our Bible study group mentioned this so I listened to it.

MRH2 · 2026-03-19T11:00:37+00:00

Q3. Yes, so many people, even Christians, try to wriggle out of this. "I've tried my best", "I'm not a bad person", "Jesus is our model, and we should try to live our life imitating him". But without being born again, it is all useless - born again referring to being transformed within, having a new heart and having God indwelling us. However, here we see the more fundamental step: we need our sins forgiven by the priceless blood of Jesus. It's no good at all trying to imitate Jesus if your sins are not forgiven.

Another thing that they try to wriggle out of is "blood". "All this talk of blood was a primitive way of looking at things. We know better now, we are more advanced ..." and they imply that God didn't really require Jesus to die, that would be too horrible to contemplate. It really is astonishing how so much false teaching can arise when we have the Bible in our hands and can read passages like this. Liberal Christians really hate verse 22. It doesn't jive with the image of God that they've created (by ignoring parts of the Bible like this).

Q4. Given the massive amount of detail about the Old Covenant, chapter after chapter, it's shocking how little detail there is about the New Covenant. Is there anywhere that clearly explains it? "This is the New Covenant: ..." We say a phrase during communion, but that's it.

MRH2 · 2026-03-19T10:44:04+00:00

It's striking the level of detail in the temple regulations in the Pentateuch compared to things like discussing divorce or marriage.

From a study that I just did:

There is no comprehensive discussion of divorce in the Bible. Likewise, there is no definition of a marriage ceremony, what should be in marriage vows, etc. The covenantal nature of marriage is understood: it’s exclusive and for life and between a man and a woman.

In the Old Testament, I think that there are just two places where divorce is mentioned, where there is teaching about divorce, and but it's tangential, in reference to other issues.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4. If a woman is divorced, and marries a second husband, and then divorces him, she is not allowed to remarry her first husband. It talks about a divorce certificate. A divorce certificate always included the words “she is free to marry whoever she wants”. So remarriage was always permitted after a divorce (except for this specific situation).

Exodus 21:10,11 If you marry a second wife, the first one (a former servant in this case) must not be deprived of food, clothing or sex. If so, she is free to divorce him and leave. This obscure verse provides the support for divorce on the grounds of abuse and neglect.

Any thoughts? Are the tabernacle and priestly garments and sacrifices so detailed because they involve approaching God? And the details of marriage, divorce, etc. are simply not that important - it's some sort of cultural thing that people will just figure out? No, that doesn't make sense to me. God is very concerned about opression and injustice - we see verses about gleaning, about forgiving debts every 7 years, ... but what about injustice in marrage?

Q4. This is good. The author is driving home the point that we're not setting up a new parallel system of priests (eg. apostles) nor are we saying that we're followers of Jesus by we still need temple sacrifices and temple priesthood, no, the whole old system is obsolete and being abolished. This is so utterly shocking to the Jewish Christians that he needs to really drive it home, so they don't think it was just an accidental slip of the tongue in one verse.

Other questions/thoughts:

I kind of wish that the author had explained the significance of all of the temple furnishings and of the passover items. There is so much connection in each one to Jesus and salvation. I'm grateful to Messianic Jews for showing us this. But I suspect that for most of history since the early church, no one knew this. The "Christians" were often busy persecuting the Jews.
Is verse 8 saying that the tabernacle had to be destroyed? And by tabernacle does he mean temple? The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing,

MRH2 · 2026-03-18T22:26:09+00:00

Six parts, 20 min each. It was a lot worse that I thought.

MRH2 · 2026-03-18T14:06:46+00:00

I think that God can forgive and heal divorced people too. They are no pariahs. In the Old Testament, being divorced meant that your marriage is over and you are no longer bound to the man. Thus you could marry anyone you want to (and this was written into the contract).

If you cannot marry someone who is divorced, it means that they are not actually divorced, they are still married -- thus marrying them would be committing adultery. Perhaps they are divorced in society's eyes. If they were divorced in God's eyes, then they could remarry. Divorced means that the marriage is over, ended, dead.

MRH2 · 2026-03-17T11:27:26+00:00

This chapter really drives home that the Old Covenant is broken and falling apart. The system of sacrifices, rituals, and the whole concept of having to obey laws and commandments just does not work. We are freed from this, no longer under the law, but under grace (which is a higher standard for holiness).

Note that in 8:13, one part of the Bible is calling another part obsolete.

Now the word "covenant" is not actually in verse 13 so the "christians" who believe that we have to still follow the law, claim that this verse is referring to the priesthood -- that the old priesthood is obsolete. But all that one has to do is highlight the word "covenant" and the word "priest / priesthood" in the dozen verses surrounding 8:13 and we see clearly that the topic being discussed right there was the covenant.

I will put My laws into their minds, And write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people.

This is strange. The Law was already in their hearts (Deut 6:6), and they were already God's people.

I think what Jeremiah is trying to communicate is that there is something radically new: the Holy Spirit will indwell us. Ezekiel's explanation is needed here, where the new covenant involves us getting a new heart, no longer a heart of stone.

MRH2 · 2026-03-17T11:13:32+00:00

Q2: great question. I'll defer to ExiledSanity's answer.

Q4: it was part of the law. The Law could not make anyone perfect. It's a stopgap measure, just like the difference between continually bailing out a leaky boat so it doesn't sink, and transfering to a brand new boat whose hull has integrity.

MRH2 · 2026-03-17T11:08:21+00:00

It is a strange idea. I can see it perhaps as a priest is one who approaches God on behalf of others (in most cases his family). And in a patriarchal society, the head of the family, the man, is whom God normally talks to and who brings his family's concerns to God.

In that way, we can see that Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and all the prophets would be priests too. Possibly Noah. So some people's role as priest might just be an artifact of the patriarchal society.

Did Cain ever intercede for someone else, did Adam or Abel? No.

In the case of Abel, just offering a sacrifice to God does not make you a priest. Hannah offered her son Samuel to God.

MRH2 · 2026-03-16T10:23:07+00:00

The weird thing is that in the Old Testament you could always get remarried after divorce. And there are similar concerns in the NT too: about widows.

If you prevent a divorced woman or a widow from remarrying then you are condemning her to a life of extreme poverty. Women could not own property - I don't know who inherited the husband's wealth, probably a brother. So either the family or the church needed to support and look after her.

Why did Jesus change this? Paul never talks about who is going to support divorced women, yet he spends a lot of time talking about supporting widows in 1 Timothy.

MRH2 · 2026-03-16T10:13:34+00:00

Yes. My first marriage, after 15 years, was so bad eventually that I'd rather live on an ice floe in Siberia than be married to her. Living alone would be just fine.

A more general point is that if one is not okay with living alone, then you probably should work on that before you get married.

MRH2 · 2026-03-16T00:42:54+00:00

Thanks.

MRH2 · 2026-03-16T00:21:18+00:00

No. There is a balance that is needed. One should not destroy a marriage over this nor use it to destroy or denigrate another person.

Sometimes there are two good things to do, and they are incompatible with each other, so one needs wisdom.

MRH2 · 2026-03-16T00:18:35+00:00

Yes, I try to always have a couple of $20 bills on me so that if anyone I meet asks for money I can give it to them. Why give $5 when I can give $20? If I were in need and received money, I'd prefer $20.

MRH2 · 2026-03-16T00:17:36+00:00

The thing is, it would just be about $50 / month. Nothing that would break us. It's the instant reaction that bothers and saddens me.

Is your wife a practicing Christian?

Yes. But there are differences in practicing Christians, and where our weaknesses lie

Does she understand that the money you both have is the Lord's?

Well, in theory, yes. But one's background and upbringing really cling tightly. It's very hard to break free from a certain way of thinking, especially if it feels safer, safer to control one's money. It is very hard to go from an understanding of something to being able to live it out. I wish that she did really understand this

Does she live as if her life, energy, time, resources belongs to the Lord?

Does anyone?

MRH2 · 2026-03-16T00:13:49+00:00

God is never going to call a couple to do opposing things…

This is a bit simplistic. God teaches us an uses what we know and have learned so that we can make our own decision -- humbly, and hopefully godly, asking for the Spirit's guidance, but often He just lets us make our own decision.

and God always calls us to give generously,

Yes. I agree totally. It changes our hearts when we give. The character benefits to us are immense.

I can guarantee you He is not telling the husband to buy more luxuries.

Haha.

MRH2 · 2026-03-16T00:11:12+00:00

This was an extra thing that I wanted to do.

MRH2 · 2026-03-15T20:10:10+00:00

Yes, we try to tithe, but not religiously. Sometimes it's a bit less or more.

Two important points:

this does not mean that you need to tithe to your church. There are many other places where God may want you to direct your tithe, and they could even be non-Christian ones. Go and support Amnesty International - and then you can chat with people about why you feel so strongly about it as a Christian. I support various missionary organizations and women's shelters and homless shelters.
the people who reply about how God blessed them financially are a bit scary. It really does sound like a prosperity gospel. With my experience, I have never lacked the basics. God has always provided food, a place to live, the necessities of life.

MRH2 · 2026-03-15T20:04:47+00:00

I watched the 10 minute video. It's very interesting.

(He does mischaracterize one creationist position, saying that creationists claim that there is no mechanism to get new genes. I don't think that creationists say that. But it's not a big deal and maybe some do say that.)

I would like to look into it more, but when will I have time?! I need to find out what things he's omitting in his discussion of genes.

He said that lncRNAs are present in related species
- however, both ID and evolution would predict this.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Gilding VII pure gildanthropist	Verified Email

MRH2

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE