Do these commands.....

Alex P said:
But without a shpherd a sheep will be a sheep and do what it pleases lol...
Click to expand...
The Bible often alludes to the traits of sheep, describing them as readily responding to a shepherd’s affection (2 Samuel 12:3), unaggressive (Isaiah 53:7), and defenseless. (Micah 5:8) mee likes sheep



Sheep do not ‘just take care of themselves’ as some might suppose.

They require, more than any other class of livestock, endless attention and meticulous care To survive, these helpless creatures need a caring shepherd.Ezekiel 34:5.



 
Quahom1 said:
In reality Alex, that procedure is still used today...and quite effective, both on sheep (literally) and on man (figuratively).

When my sons needed disciplining, I did it, then held them close and cried with them. They never feared me, and they didn't often make the same mistake twice...
Click to expand...
Quahom1, did the tears of your wayward sheep have anything to do with this?

Quahom1 said:
The sheep you are talking about, I suspect are the same as the wayward sheep, who would not come when Jesus called. So Jesus left the flock in search of that wayward sheep, found him, then "Broke his legs" , put the hobbled wayward sheep around His shoulders and carried him back to the flock. Then Jesus kept that injured sheep on His shoulders while the legs healed, and the sheep became used to the scent and voice of Jesus the shepard. Once the legs were healed, that particular sheep never left the shepard's side again.
Click to expand...

I had images of a Stephen King novel when I read that here.
 
mee said:
mee likes to listen to the shepherds voice (Jesus):) mee likes being a led sheep , and mee likes to have food from the shepherd . and most of all mee likes doing what the shepherd asks.

thats why mee likes being with the LITTLEFLOCK of 144,000 ,And the numberless GREAT CROWD ,And it is good that the 2 flocks have the same shepherd to lead them.

and all of those sheep are in perfect unity and purpose doing the will of GOD.


mee likes being and working along with the 2 flocks of sheep .



but the goats want to do things their way.:( mee likes to do things the way a sheep does things , and it is protection indeed.

mee has a really loving and tender shepherd and it is very good , especially when making known GOODNEWS

MATTHEW 24;14 daniel 2;44 matthew 28;19-20 mee likes to GO with Jesus sheep
Click to expand...


*yawns*

Cyberpi: Misery right?
 
Alex P said:
Cyberpi: Misery right?
Click to expand...
Misery it is. "God I love you," she says with ecstacy in her face. But I understand in the book she cuts off his foot with an axe and cauterizes it with a blowtorch.

Quahom1, the parallels are interesting. Annie is a loving moderator just trying to get the right words from an author. She wants a proper ending for her rose garden viewpoint, and she has standards to enforce. She goes into a fit by her author's use of profanity. When they argue and she just does not like his words... she lovingly amputates his thumb.
 
Quahom1 said:
Watch what you take in, it can turn one's brain to mush.
Click to expand...
It is not what goes into the brain that defiles a person, but what comes out.

Quahom1 said:
I suppose. But they are fine rams now, and they watch out for your back too...lol

all in all not too shabby.
Click to expand...
Like dad, like son. Your kids do not watch my back. If they do I suspect they would leave the militarying for the militant.
 
cyberpi said:
It is not what goes into the brain that defiles a person, but what comes out.

Like dad, like son. Your kids do not watch my back. If they do I suspect they would leave the militarying for the militant.
Click to expand...
Your crassness supercedes even my wildest expectations. Enjoy your mud...
 
cyberpi said:
Misery it is. "God I love you," she says with ecstacy in her face. But I understand in the book she cuts off his foot with an axe and cauterizes it with a blowtorch.

Quahom1, the parallels are interesting. Annie is a loving moderator just trying to get the right words from an author. She wants a proper ending for her rose garden viewpoint, and she has standards to enforce. She goes into a fit by her author's use of profanity. When they argue and she just does not like his words... she lovingly amputates his thumb.
Click to expand...

Axe to the foot? That must be in the book (Big fan of King.....'s movies lol) In the film she hobbles him... What white slave masters used to do to their slaves.... Sledge hammer to the ankle with the aid of a block of wood... All in all a very painful experience I reckon it would be up there almost with kneecapping.
 
It seems that I overlooked post# 6 in the thread, which was Ahanu's. Ahanu's suggesting that Jesus was a revisionist. He mentions two gospels where Jesus talks about loving enemies. To him the 'Genocidal God' of Joshua is out of sync with the God who Jesus talks about.
Ahanu said:
Matthew 5:43-45 “You have heard how it was said, “You will love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say this to you: Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he causes his sun to rise on the wicked as well as on the good, and he sends down his rain on the just and the unjust” .

Jesus said: “But I say this to you. . .” This is Jesus’ authority and revision.

Luke 6:35 "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish."
Click to expand...

I think that the illusion of irony does not come from Jesus but from the Ten Commandments, which forbid murder. Murder is forbidden to individuals whether the person is foreign or alien, and war (against Amalek) is the only exception. In saying God is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish Jesus is commenting upon Jonah, Amos, Isaiah, and many items in the law which refer to orphans, widows, neighbors, etc. Jesus was merely bringing out those things which people need to be reminded of from time to time. What he said was true: God does cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

Jesus never talks about breaking the leg of a lamb, although it is analogous to the prodigal son story. The lamb is the prodigal son, and the broken leg that heals is the realization that he would have been better off with his father. Within us is the need for family, but I would not call it a cruel need. Its just a need. Breaking the leg of the lamb is an analogy Leviticus 19:17 "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason with your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of him."

Amalek Numbers 24:20 And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable, and said, Amalek was the first of the nations; but his latter end shall be that he perish for ever.
Sometimes when something appears ironic, I look closer to find out if it really is. There is a seeming irony in the Bible that surrounds Amalek (who Ahanu mentioned). God will wipe out Amalek's name from remembrance, but also Israel will war with Amalek from generation to generation! The 'Name' of Amalek is a reference to all those who are of Amalek's household, but his household was almost if not completely wiped out. Without actually speaking the word, Jesus commented upon Amalek, who is the archetype of the unbeliever. Amalek appears in the parable of the Wheat and the Tares, among others. Since we cannot tell who is or is not an unbeliever, we make war upon Amalek within ourselves.
 
Netti-netti said:
Stoning for blasphemy here:
BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: Leviticus 24:10-16
Click to expand...
A really good point, and to clarify: I've suggested that Amalek is representative of all those who are stoned, executed, won't believe, etc. Stoning was a commandment and so was war with Amalek for all generations. The two are related. Amalek is a question that is intended to be continually asked. "Who is Amalek?" And then: "Is it me?" Ciberpi brought up Matt 3:9, which is one of the ways Jesus taught that the faithful are children born of God and not by the will of any man. The fact that Abraham couldn't have children without a miracle is symbolic of this. The stones thrown during a stoning are partially for encouraging others not to break the laws, purging Israel. In that sense perhaps they raised up children to Abraham, but I don't think that was what Jesus was referring to. He may have been hinting at a continuation of exile. In that I do see the breaking of a lamb's leg in order to save it.

Ezekiel 36:26 "...nd I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh...."
Deut 30:4-6 ... will gather you, and from there he will fetch you;...bring you into the land which your fathers possessed... make you more prosperous...will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring...
 
Dream:
In the parable of the two sons, the one son chooses to leave and the father lets him leave. He doesn't break his ankles. Had the father broken his feet to keep him home, then it would have been an entirely different story. That the father lets him leave when he wanted to, and rewarded him when he returns... is NOT a matter of breaking the son's feet. Quite the opposite.

This matter of stoning to teach is a bit skewed too. In one way... God kills everything living here. Each and every one, good and evil alike have died. What flesh here won't die as a result of God's design? Viewed another way though: nothing here dies.

As a dad, I recognize that just as my body was given to me, that much of what my children have were NOT given by me. It is not for me to take. I didn't design and give my children feet... God did. So I will not break them. If I am an employer, what right do I have to fire someone else's employee? As a parent, what right do I have to break the ankles of someone else's child? If I am to raise children of God, and God wants to break the ankles that he gave them, then that is his choice... not mine. If God truly asked me to break the ankles of my children... crap... then I would be living the story of Abraham.

In the parable of the two sons the father did not pre-bribe the son and he did not punish the son. Any reward in returning looked more like an unexpected surprise after the son had punished himself.

Luke 15:5-7 And when he had found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying, "Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost." I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

That repentance there is by the choice or will of the lamb. The rejoicing is the will and choice of the shepherd.
 
cyberpi said:
Dream:
Had the father broken his feet to keep him home, then it would have been an entirely different story. That the father lets him leave when he wanted to, and rewarded him when he returns... is NOT a matter of breaking the son's feet. Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. The breaking of a lamb's leg is an extrapolation that comes from outside of the actual parables of Jesus, nor does it appear in Scripture either as far as I can tell. Discipline appears all over the place though. Probably 'breaking the lamb's leg' is a poor model of the exile, too.
This matter of stoning to teach is a bit skewed too. In one way... God kills everything living here. Each and every one, good and evil alike have died. What flesh here won't die as a result of God's design?
Click to expand...
The main thing is that Jesus talked about stones turning into children for Abraham, which sounds like a reference to exile (Ezekiel 36:26, Deut 30:4-6) The main issue of Jesus' day was probably their political situation in which their territory was being occupied by the Romans. Its weak to say Jesus was alluding to stoning at all, so I don't think he was saying that. Stoning deterred people from doing certain things, and I was just teasing the word 'teaching' out of such ~deterrent~.

What flesh here won't die as a result of God's design? Viewed another way though: nothing here dies.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you're saying that since all people die...something or other, but I'm not sure.

If God truly asked me to break the ankles of my children... crap... then I would be living the story of Abraham.
Click to expand...
Yes. I doubt God would command you to do that and actually make you follow through with it. Also, I've just noticed that the pageant between Abraham and Isaac was repeated whenever an Israelite had a firstborn son. He was required to symbolically 'Sacrifice' his son through payment of holy money for the tabernacle, but the sons were never actually killed. (Exodus 13:13) They didn't really kill their sons, but it was all part of some kind of lesson. I wonder if they actually tied up the son as part of the ceremony?
 
Dream said:
That makes sense. The breaking of a lamb's leg is an extrapolation that comes from outside of the actual parables of Jesus, nor does it appear in Scripture either as far as I can tell. Discipline appears all over the place though. Probably 'breaking the lamb's leg' is a poor model of the exile, too.
The main thing is that Jesus talked about stones turning into children for Abraham, which sounds like a reference to exile (Ezekiel 36:26, Deut 30:4-6) The main issue of Jesus' day was probably their political situation in which their territory was being occupied by the Romans. Its weak to say Jesus was alluding to stoning at all, so I don't think he was saying that. Stoning deterred people from doing certain things, and I was just teasing the word 'teaching' out of such ~deterrent~.

It sounds like you're saying that since all people die...something or other, but I'm not sure.

Yes. I doubt God would command you to do that and actually make you follow through with it. Also, I've just noticed that the pageant between Abraham and Isaac was repeated whenever an Israelite had a firstborn son. He was required to symbolically 'Sacrifice' his son through payment of holy money for the tabernacle, but the sons were never actually killed. (Exodus 13:13) They didn't really kill their sons, but it was all part of some kind of lesson. I wonder if they actually tied up the son as part of the ceremony?
Click to expand...
It was called setting man's mind up for the ulitmate sacrifice that was to come. We had to understand the anguish of giving up a cherished one for the sake of others, that we also cherish...as the Father was about to do. So God set man up to ponder the same issue, so that we would even begin to understand what and who was going to be sacrifice and for "whom" that sacrifice would take place...

clear as distilled water (mixed with mud).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top