Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on January 13, 2010, 01:39:58 PM
-
Psalms 99:6. Moses and Aaron were among His priests....
So, is Moses a priest then?
Also how was Moses rules on the Judge-ness? Since he Judged all of Israel?
-
Aaron is already a priest, but I agree, this seems to definitely confirm that Moses is a priest as well.
-
RR: Attempting to give Moses every identifier, ever. Sadly, I don't think he can gain female or Angel
-
Hey, somebody at one time brought up the thought of eunuchs being an identifier, so maybe if there was a card created to give a male hero the indentifier of eunuch, then he would be half way there! ;D
-
Also how was Moses rules on the Judge-ness? Since he Judged all of Israel?
Moses was officially ruled not to be a Judge.
-
Moses was officially ruled not to be a Judge.
Let me guess who ruled that... oh I don't know a JUDGE? Those judges are such an elitist group, not allowing others in to join their party, no matter how qualified.
-
Moses was officially ruled not to be a Judge.
Let me guess who ruled that... oh I don't know a JUDGE? Those judges are such an elitist group, not allowing others in to join their party, no matter how qualified.
I left the party. ;)
But not necessarily for that reason, although I use the Bible to overrule any game rule when I judged tournaments.
-
Also how was Moses rules on the Judge-ness? Since he Judged all of Israel?
Moses was officially ruled not to be a Judge.
May I ask why?
-
Moses was officially ruled not to be a Judge.
Let me guess who ruled that... oh I don't know a JUDGE? Those judges are such an elitist group, not allowing others in to join their party, no matter how qualified.
LOL. I for one WANT Moses to be a Judge. I was outvoted. It was decided to treat the Judges only in the familiar historical sense, as those who led Israel while they were in the Promised Land. Moses never made it that far...
However, I think we could expand the definition to include the leaders from the Exodus to the crowning of Saul. That would include Moses, Joshua, Othniel, Deborah, etc.
As for Moses being a Priest, he certainly was in some sense: the Bible says so, and he was a mediator between God and man. However, he was not technically in the priestly line. I don't think he performed any sacrifices, either. But in my mind, he's as much a priest as Melchizedek and Priests of Christ. So I'm happy either way.
-
Also how was Moses rules on the Judge-ness? Since he Judged all of Israel?
Moses was officially ruled not to be a Judge.
May I ask why?
Judges
Samson’s Sacrifice says that if “used by a judge, negate and discard ….” Judges ruled over Israel after they crossed the Jordan River and arrived in Canaan but before the era of the kings. Their history is recorded in the book of Judges.
This is how judges are defined in Redemption. So they started with Joshua, and ended when Saul became king.
Also as far as his priesthood is concerned:
Priest
A priest is one who is duly authorized to minister in sacred things, particularly to offer sacrifices at the altar, and who acts as mediator between men and God. Priests are in charge of sacrifice and offering at worship places, particularly the tabernacle and Temple. Other functions are blessing the people, determining the will of God, and instructing the people in the law of God. The office of priest is hereditary.
Moses wouldn't fit this definition, but as Bryon pointed out, neither would Melchizedek, Priests of Christ, or Saint Patrick, yet they are Priests.I guess it'll ultimately be up to Rob.
-
Also how was Moses rules on the Judge-ness? Since he Judged all of Israel?
Moses was officially ruled not to be a Judge.
May I ask why?
Because they were afraid someone would argue from Acts 24:10 that a converted Governor Felix should be a Judge. ;)
-
Shouldn't he ;)
-
RR: Attempting to give Moses every identifier, ever. Sadly, I don't think he can gain female or Angel
well, technically there could be an O.T. and a N.T. Moses, but there couldn't be both in one card, so...
-
RR and I tried to get an Angel Identifier based on Transfig, lol.
-
RR: Attempting to give Moses every identifier, ever. Sadly, I don't think he can gain female or Angel
well, technically there could be an O.T. and a N.T. Moses, but there couldn't be both in one card, so...
I actually was trying to get him to be both at one time.
A priest is one who is duly authorized to minister in sacred things, particularly to offer sacrifices at the altar, and who acts as mediator between men and God. Priests are in charge of sacrifice and offering at worship places, particularly the tabernacle and Temple. Other functions are blessing the people, determining the will of God, and instructing the people in the law of God. The office of priest is hereditary.
Actually, Moses COULD do all that, I'm not 100% sure on the sacrifices/offerings, but the rest he DID do.
-
I was referring to the sacrifices and offerings, which were clearly described as the duties of Aaron/Aaron's sons.
-
As for Moses being a Priest, he certainly was in some sense: the Bible says so, and he was a mediator between God and man. However, he was not technically in the priestly line. I don't think he performed any sacrifices, either. But in my mind, he's as much a priest as Melchizedek and Priests of Christ. So I'm happy either way.
So can he be reprinted to be Yellow/Teal so I can have a FBTN in my Teal deck? Pretty please? :P
-
So can he be reprinted to be Yellow/Teal so I can have a FBTN in my Teal deck? Pretty please? :P
I vote no.
-
i vote yes. :)
-
I vote YES.
-
Colbert: "No."
Carell: "Yes."
Colbert: "No."
Carell: "Yes."
Colbert: "No."
Carell: "YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!"
-
Wait, wait, wait! We have to have the Green/Gold Prophet/Judge version first! You know, the one that can use ALL the plagues with Moses' Rod. :)
THEN we can make the Green/Gold/Teal version only available with a $100 purchase from Covenant Games. :)
-
Wait, wait, wait! We have to have the Green/Gold Prophet/Judge version first!
THEN we can make the Green/Gold/Teal version only available with a $100 purchase from Covenant Games. :)
Could we buy a $100 worth of Moses' in order to get a Moses?
-
Also, what was the final say on Moses gaining the royalty identifier? (He was legally a prince of Egypt)
-
What Moses was when printed: O.T., Male, Human
What Moses should be: Judge, Prophet, Priest, Royalty, Musician, O.T., N.T., Human, Male
-
He should just be reprinted as a multi-color hero with the special ability "Negate special abilities of all of opponent's cards in play and set-aside as long as Moses is in play. If this ability would be negated, discard X cards in opponent's territory instead.
X = number of Moses's identifiers - number of identifiers on blocking character
-
I was think the exact same thing nice job Arch
-
Maybe they should make a promo of Moses the way he should be. with at least the Judge and Prophet Identifiers as IMHO they are the most striking features of Moses. Yeah he may have done some of the other things, he was primarily the judge/prophet for Israel at the time. It may important to note he was royalty. David (Red/Green) is not royalty because he wasn't at that point, Moses was no longer at that point Royalty. Musician is dubious but I believe he was already ruled a musician, here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16370.15). Priest is arguable but I do not care if he is, but he should be a Priest to be consistent with the mentioned cards (Melchizedek, Priests of Christ, or Saint Patrick). Just my :2cents:.
-
how did i miss this goldmine of a topic?!
i just built a gold/teal offense, black defense deck today, ohhh this just makes my deck all the better ;D
-
Er, Korunks, *ALL* copies of David count as being Royalty, Musician, and Prophet. Just like Paul is still considered a Pharisee. It's not a matter of when it's a matter of it was at some point in their lifetime.
-
Wait, wait, wait! We have to have the Green/Gold Prophet/Judge version first! You know, the one that can use ALL the plagues with Moses' Rod. :)
THEN we can make the Green/Gold/Teal version only available with a $100 purchase from Covenant Games. :)
I'll just buy teal paint ;)
-
Er, Korunks, *ALL* copies of David count as being Royalty, Musician, and Prophet. Just like Paul is still considered a Pharisee. It's not a matter of when it's a matter of it was at some point in their lifetime.
I was unaware of this since David was ruled not to be able to use Promised land an unlimited amount of times. I guess I assumed that was because he wasn't royalty. So "David" is royalty, but not a king? That makes even less sense than what I thought the ruling was. Then by all means lets make Moses "everything".
-
That ruling is because "King David" is a specific card, not a notion of the kingship of David.
-
IMHO, the Bible > the REG. I think the REG conditions for having a certain identifier should only apply if the Bible doesn't explicitly state that that character did, in fact, hold that identity, which in this case, it does.
:2cents:
-
IMHO, the Bible > the REG. I think the REG conditions for having a certain identifier should only apply if the Bible doesn't explicitly state that that character did, in fact, hold that identity, which in this case, it does.
:2cents:
I agree, which is why I posted this :D and made more trouble! GOODIE!
-
Making people look to the Bible is never trouble. :)
I'm very glad about threads like this. It is one of the most exciting things about Redemption: discovering things from the Bible that I had never noticed before. :)
-
Sooo...can has O.T. Prophet Judge Musician Royalty Priest Moses?
-
O.T. / N.T. is determined by verse on card (or by rule in the case of a Josephus or nonexistent reference). See Gabriel/Gabriel and Michael/Michael.
Other identifiers are all OK with me. But, I think that Rob needs to OK the Judge label since that was ruled the other way at last vote.
IMO, a Gold/Green/Purple/White/Teal Moses with all those identifiers listed would be very, very cool. :)
-
Hey,
IMO, a Gold/Green/Purple/White/Teal Moses with all those identifiers listed would be very, very cool. :)
If that card was ever printed, it would immediately be number 1 on my "list of cards I wish we would ban" list.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Don't forget he's fbtn!
-
Hey,
IMO, a Gold/Green/Purple/White/Teal Moses with all those identifiers listed would be very, very cool. :)
If that card was ever printed, it would immediately be number 1 on my "list of cards I wish we would ban" list.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
You posses such a list? Also I agree. A hero with access to all the best battlewinners in the game, and you don't have to do anything funny with conversion and such. Plus he fought an earthly battle right ;) So we could give him a weapon, and we could give him like 1/1 stats that way he can have initiative too ;)
Riiiiiiiiight.
-
just play the triple brigade prevent sa ls and you are straight XD
-
Sooo...can has O.T. Prophet Judge Musician Royalty Priest Moses?
O.T. / N.T. is determined by verse...Rob needs to OK the Judge label...Other identifiers are all OK with me.
So Bryon confirms that Moses is an OT Prophet, Musician, Royalty, Priest. Awesome!!!
-
WOOT! Now I can do crazy silly The silver trumpets bands! Who needs gathering?
-
WOOHOO!!!
MY TEAL/GOLD WILL DOMINANT YOU ALL!!!!!
-
Throw Moses, silver trumpet, and Cov w/ Moses in a teal deck, and he is SET! I'm lovin it.
-
what about table of showbread anybody?
-
Throw Moses, silver trumpet, and Cov w/ Moses in a teal deck, and he is SET! I'm lovin it.
Don't forget table of showbread!
-
Table of Showbread
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: On activation, place a good O.T. Enhancement from hand on this card. Your Priest may use that Enhancement as if played from hand, regardless of brigade. If this card is deactivated, return contents to hand. • Identifiers: OT, Tabernacle Item, Temple Item • Verse: Exodus 25:30
gotcha RR
-
this is seriously insane!!!
-
so is moses officially a priest then?
-
Hey,
so is moses officially a priest then?
I'd say no. The requirements for being considered a priest for characters that were Israelites are different than the requirements for characters that were not Israelites. Characters that were not Israelites are considered priests if they are referred to as a priest in the Bible (or I guess in history considering Saint Patrick). Israelites on the other hand had to be involved in the offering of sacrifices.
So while Psalm 99:6 would be adequate to categorize a non-Israelite as a priest, it does not qualify Moses. (We have a similar double standard for Prophets. Good prophets had to convey a message from God, but Evil prophets didn't, they only have to be referred to as a prophet.)
At least that's my perspective on the issue.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Your perspective is invalid because I don't like it.
-
so bryon: yes, maly: no...whats the verdict?
-
Bryon is far more official than Malay, but he didn't exactly give a ringing affirmative.
-
awesome, another ruling lost in limbo...maybe it can be roommates with the new REG.
-
Uhm. I have the clincher.
Leviticus 8:28. Then Moses took them from their hands and burned them on the altar on top of the burnt offering as an ordination offering, a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the LORD by fire.
Moses DID offer burnt offerings. Now, I admit he did not do it continually as Aaron did, but he DID offer burnt offerings.
-
The evidence is compelling.
-
Uhm. I have the clincher.
I'm not sure how clincheriffic that is...
Saul remained at Gilgal, and all the troops with him were quaking with fear. He waited seven days, the time set by Samuel; but Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and Saul's men began to scatter. So he said, "Bring me the burnt offering and the fellowship offerings." And Saul offered up the burnt offering. Just as he finished making the offering, Samuel arrived, and Saul went out to greet him.
-
Uhm. I have the clincher.
I'm not sure how clincheriffic that is...
Saul remained at Gilgal, and all the troops with him were quaking with fear. He waited seven days, the time set by Samuel; but Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and Saul's men began to scatter. So he said, "Bring me the burnt offering and the fellowship offerings." And Saul offered up the burnt offering. Just as he finished making the offering, Samuel arrived, and Saul went out to greet him.
Difference between the two. Moses was in the right (No rebuke came to him for that.) Saul was not(Was very rebuked).
-
well, technically there could be an O.T. and a N.T. Moses, but there couldn't be both in one card, so...
We could have a Moses reprint with two scripture references in the box, one OT and one NT...giving us our first card with multiple scripture references. ;)
-
well, technically there could be an O.T. and a N.T. Moses, but there couldn't be both in one card, so...
We could have a Moses reprint with two scripture references in the box, one OT and one NT...giving us our first card with multiple scripture references. ;)
Moses/Moses!
Moses starts out as a Green/Gold OT Prophet Judge. 8/8
"When this character is defeated in battle set this card aside for three turns. Upon return he turns into Moses! Negate all special abilities on characters and enhancement cards except this one"
Moses! Purple/White NT hero 3/4
"May band to Elijah. When this card is defeated remove it from the game. Holder may discard one good card from hand to convert a hero to a different brigade(except silver)"
-
Difference between the two. Moses was in the right (No rebuke came to him for that.) Saul was not(Was very rebuked).
How does King Solomon fit into this...
On that same day the king consecrated the middle part of the courtyard in front of the temple of the LORD, and there he offered burnt offerings, grain offerings and the fat of the fellowship offerings, because the bronze altar before the LORD was too small to hold the burnt offerings, the grain offerings and the fat of the fellowship offerings.
-
if Moses is a priest, could you also use Perpetual Priesthood to search for him in deck and band him into battle?
Perpetual Priesthood:You may exchange this card with a Priest in draw pile. Cannot be interrupted.
-
Yes it would.
@EMJ Hm... good point but even so, what does it take to be a "priest" then? I mean the bible saying you are isn't good enough seemingly(according to Maly).
-
well, technically there could be an O.T. and a N.T. Moses, but there couldn't be both in one card, so...
We could have a Moses reprint with two scripture references in the box, one OT and one NT...giving us our first card with multiple scripture references. ;)
Moses/Moses!
Moses starts out as a Green/Gold OT Prophet Judge. 8/8
"When this character is defeated in battle set this card aside for three turns. Upon return he turns into Moses! Negate all special abilities on characters and enhancement cards except this one"
Moses! Purple/White NT hero 3/4
"May band to Elijah. When this card is defeated remove it from the game. Holder may discard one good card from hand to convert a hero to a different brigade(except silver)"
add a Teal to that OT one. and White, since he's a musician.
-
what does it take to be a "priest" then? I mean the bible saying you are isn't good enough seemingly(according to Maly).
I'll go with the Bible (and Bryon) over Maly. The Bible says Moses is a priest. The Bible says that Moses made an offering to the Lord (and didn't rebuke him for it). I think this is clear cut really.
-
Agreed.
-
First, I am no more official than Tim, who is a playtester the same as I am. When I started playing Redemption in June of '98, I saw a picture online of Tim holding up prizes he'd already won at tournaments. When I have questions about the game, Tim is one of the first places I go for advice. I respect his opinion very highly.
Second, I think that Rob will tend toward following that the Bible calls Moses a priest. However, he does sometimes like systems like Tim describes. So, I don't know for certain which way Rob will decide.
-
First, I am no more official than Tim, who is a playtester the same as I am.
Actually I thought that Tim was NOT a playtester.
When I have questions about the game, Tim is one of the first places I go for advice. I respect his opinion very highly.
I do as well. However, after several years of experience on this forum, I have seen countless rulings. And I have seen things go differently than Tim though quite a few times. I think there was only 1 time EVER that something went differently than you thought.
-
nothing is official til rob has a say in it
-
@EMJ Hm... good point but even so, what does it take to be a "priest" then?
Scripture talks about two priestly lines--the Levitical line--which would be all the folk doing the daily practice of sacrifices outlined in the last four books of the Pentateuch--and the line of Melchizedek. I would go with this definition which is in pretty close accord with the definition of priests used currently in the game (with the exception of St. Patrick who should be out, IMO).
The problem I have is Moses falls into neither of these lines, and the definitions you are offering seem to me to be overly broad. In addition to King Solomon, Cain, Abel, Noah, and Abraham also offered burnt offerings. I don't think anyone would classify any of those characters as priests. So occasional sacrifice doesn't strike me as being sufficient.
I mean the bible saying you are isn't good enough seemingly(according to Maly).
The Bible also says all NT believers are priests.
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
From an interpretive standpoint this passage would seem to be at least as clear-cut as the verse of poetry you offered from Psalms. Would you really argue that every NT hero should be a priest?
The Bible says Moses is a priest.
All NT believers are priests under this definition.
The Bible says that Moses made an offering to the Lord (and didn't rebuke him for it).
Even if we limit ourselves to burnt offerings, Cain, Abel, Noah, Abraham, and King Solomon are priests under this definition.
-
While I will give you King solly on the late point, the others did not do it at the temple/tabernacle which is where the priests specifically ministered. Either way I'm fine but seems a bit odd that Moses could go into the areas reserved for priests only while others couldn't. It may be cuz he was the leader of the people at the time. I don't know.
-
"But even the playtester Bryon, when he was disputing with Tim about the identity of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, 'First, I am no more official than Tim, who is a playtester the same as I am. When I started playing Redemption in June of '98, I saw a picture online of Tim holding up prizes he'd already won at tournaments. When I have questions about the game, Tim is one of the first places I go for advice. I respect his opinion very highly.'"
Jude 9 (RPV--Redemption Playtesters Version)
Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;D
-
"But even the playtester Bryon, when he was disputing with Tim about the identity of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, 'First, I am no more official than Tim, who is a playtester the same as I am. When I started playing Redemption in June of '98, I saw a picture online of Tim holding up prizes he'd already won at tournaments. When I have questions about the game, Tim is one of the first places I go for advice. I respect his opinion very highly.'"
Jude 9 (RPV--Redemption Playtesters Version)
Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;D
So which one is Michael? :D
-
Well, I guess that depends on who turns out to be correct...
-
Even if we limit ourselves to burnt offerings, Cain, Abel, Noah, Abraham, and King Solomon are priests under this definition.
Cain, Abel, Noah, and Abraham all gave their offerings merely for themselves or their own families. That is quite a different thing than giving an offering for all the people of Israel as the Moses and the other priests did. I would also rule out King Solomon because he was from the tribe of Judah. But Moses was a Levite. He is called a priest in the OT, and he did what OT priests were supposed to do (give an offering to God for the people of Israel).
As for NT Christians all being priests, I think the point of that is that we can come to God personally (with Christ as mediator) without needing to have another person (like OT priests) as mediator. It does NOT mean that we become necessary mediators (like OT priests) for other people.
-
FTR, I agree with you Prof, but I'm not sure what your explanation means for PoC...
-
Cain, Abel, Noah, and Abraham all gave their offerings merely for themselves or their own families.
I don't think Cain, Abel, and Noah had too many other people to give offerings for even if they wanted to... ;)
-
FTR, I agree with you Prof, but I'm not sure what your explanation means for PoC...
I think PoC gets in based on being Teal if for no other reason.
I don't think Cain, Abel, and Noah had too many other people to give offerings for even if they wanted to... ;)
I thought of that as I was posting, and I was hoping no one would catch it :) But the point remains that they weren't offering for the people of Israel, since Israel (Jacob) wasn't even born yet.
-
cain tried to give a good sacrifice but he wasn't abel
-
cain tried to give a good sacrifice but he wasn't abel
You're on fire (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=12349.msg303039#msg303039) today :)
-
naw, but if i was i would be a fireman ;)
-
Cain, Abel, Noah, and Abraham all gave their offerings merely for themselves or their own families.
What are you talking about? Noah's offering was made for every single person in the entire world. ;)
-
no, uhhh, Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for every single person in the entire world, emjaybee
-
Raven, Noah made a sacrifice for His family, the only people still on the planet at that point. ;)
-
ik i was just saying :)
-
Even if we limit ourselves to burnt offerings, Cain, Abel, Noah, Abraham, and King Solomon are priests under this definition.
Cain, Abel, Noah, and Abraham all gave their offerings merely for themselves or their own families. That is quite a different thing than giving an offering for all the people of Israel as the Moses and the other priests did. I would also rule out King Solomon because he was from the tribe of Judah. But Moses was a Levite. He is called a priest in the OT, and he did what OT priests were supposed to do (give an offering to God for the people of Israel).
As for NT Christians all being priests, I think the point of that is that we can come to God personally (with Christ as mediator) without needing to have another person (like OT priests) as mediator. It does NOT mean that we become necessary mediators (like OT priests) for other people.
and Job.
-
I think a better definition for "Priest" would be:
"Those who are called Priests in the Bible before the tearing of the veil, heroes with 'Priest(s)' in the title, and St. Patrick."
Gets away from the sticky situation that could possibly include Job, Saul, etc. while including all the cards that are obviously Priests.
-
I think a better definition for "Priest" would be:
"Those who are called Priests in the Bible before the tearing of the veil, heroes with 'Priest(s)' in the title, and St. Patrick."
Gets away from the sticky situation that could possibly include Job, Saul, etc. while including all the cards that are obviously Priests.
What if more Church saints are made?
-
I don't think they will be, but if they are change "and St. Patrick" to "and those ordained by the post-apostolic Church as Priests."
-
Hey,
We could have a Moses reprint with two scripture references in the box, one OT and one NT...giving us our first card with multiple scripture references. ;)
We already have a card with multiple scripture references. Philosophy has a good reference and an evil reference.
Actually I thought that Tim was NOT a playtester.
Rob was kind enough to add me as a playtester a couple weeks ago. (Apparently the "moderator" title when applied to local moderators supersedes the "playtester" title below my name on the left of the screen.)
I do as well. However, after several years of experience on this forum, I have seen countless rulings. And I have seen things go differently than Tim though quite a few times. I think there was only 1 time EVER that something went differently than you thought.
That has a little to do with the fact that I speak my opinion on things more often than Bryon does. (Although, as you mentioned, when Bryon speaks in an official manner he is virtually never wrong.) Bryon usually does a very good job of saying "I'm not sure about this" or "This is just my opinion" when he's not speaking officially. I got the impression from his comments in this thread that he wasn't speaking officially despite the uncharacteristic absence of a disclaimer.
Gets away from the sticky situation that could possibly include Job, Saul, etc. while including all the cards that are obviously Priests.
Is Moses "obviously" a priest? When the priests set was printed the playtesters said they were reprinting all of the priests that had previously been printed as teal heroes. Moses didn't get reprinted. If he was obviously a priest he should have been.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Rob was kind enough to add me as a playtester a couple weeks ago. (Apparently the "moderator" title when applied to local moderators supersedes the "playtester" title below my name on the left of the screen.)
it actually says 'playtester' when you click on your profile, i noticed this about a week ago.
Is Moses "obviously" a priest? When the priests set was printed the playtesters said they were reprinting all of the priests that had previously been printed as teal heroes. Moses didn't get reprinted. If he was obviously a priest he should have been.
probably not obvious, as this is the first time i've ever heard mentioned the possibility, but that doesnt mean he could have been overlooked for priests, which seems to be the case.
-
Bible says Moses was a Priest, Moses was a Levite, Moses went into "priests-only" areas, Moses offered sacrifices for the Children of Israel, sounds pretty obvious now that we have the previously-overlooked information.
-
Considering what happened to the Egyptians:
Moses 8/8 Gold Hero
"Choose one evil civilization. This character ignores and utterly annihilates all characters of that civilization, regardless of protection. Cannot be negated."
-
Moses
8/8 Teal/Gold/White/Purple/Green Hero
-Priest, Judge, Musician, Egyptian Royalty, Prophet-
"Hax to cross water, and /t Egypt .kill. Identifiers are l33t."
-
Moses
8/8 Teal/Gold/White/Purple/Green Hero
-Priest, Judge, Musician, Egyptian Royalty, Prophet-
"Hax to cross water, and /t Egypt .kill. Identifiers are l33t."
you forgot to add a cannot be negated.
-
Rob was kind enough to add me as a playtester a couple weeks ago.
Wow, congratulations. To be a playtester is an honor, a privilege, and a great responsibility. You are very deserving of this appointment, and I know you'll do a great job. I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned on the forum until now.
Bible says Moses was a Priest, Moses was a Levite, Moses went into "priests-only" areas, Moses offered sacrifices for the Children of Israel, sounds pretty obvious now that we have the previously-overlooked information.
+1
-
Bible says Moses was a Priest, Moses was a Levite, Moses went into "priests-only" areas, Moses offered sacrifices for the Children of Israel, sounds pretty obvious now that we have the previously-overlooked information.
+1
+1 The Bible is quite clear; I can't see how this will go the other way.
-
so do we have an official ruling?
-
so do we have an official ruling?
Moses is a female NT Babylonian.
-
I thought he was a Philistine... ::)
-
He was definitely from Rome.
-
no no no he was a greek
-
no no no he was a greek
Greece wasn't even around during Moses' time. obviously Roman.
-
I just figured he should have every identifier.
-
Bible says Moses was a Priest, Moses was a Levite, Moses went into "priests-only" areas, Moses offered sacrifices for the Children of Israel, sounds pretty obvious now that we have the previously-overlooked information.
Notice the Glow. It was mentioned very early in this thread that Moses was not directly from the priestly line. I would like to note that He was. Aaron and his sons were in the line for the High Priesthood. If you look at the other Levite (men) they were all priests in some sense. I guess you would say that someone who offered inscence in the temple in the new testament wasn't a priest unless he was the High Priest if we use that logic (obviously reffering to the father of John the Baptist).
I am not ripping the person who made the comment, just mentioning the point.
-
on a side note, was it ever decided what a musician is technically? Moses should mos def be one.
-
Bible says Moses was a Priest, Moses was a Levite, Moses went into "priests-only" areas, Moses offered sacrifices for the Children of Israel, sounds pretty obvious now that we have the previously-overlooked information.
This information was not only previously overlooked by Cactus but within Jewish and Christian traditions in general. Judaism treats Aaron as the first Priest, specifically the first Kohen ha-Godal (high priest), In Hebrews the comparison between the priesthood of Christ and the Levitical priesthood uses Aaron as the example of the Priesthood (Hebrews 5:4). The Catholic catechism specifically equates the Catholic priesthood as the NT version of the priesthood established by Aaron and his sons (which also explains St. Patrick).
All I'm saying is that there are good reasons why Aaron is viewed as the first of the Levitical line of Priests, and these reasons have nothing to do with simply overlooking obvious information.
-
Hey,
It was mentioned very early in this thread that Moses was not directly from the priestly line. I would like to note that He was. Aaron and his sons were in the line for the High Priesthood. If you look at the other Levite (men) they were all priests in some sense.
Moses was not part of the priestly line. The priestly line (all of the priests that functioned under the Law) was Aaron and all of his descendants. Moses does not fit that requirement. Yes Moses was a Levite, but not all Levites were priests. The tribe of Levi was dedicated for service to God, but that service was not exclusively as priests. Chenaniah and Jeiel are two examples of Leites that were not priests; Moses would be a third example.
When I read Psalm 99:6 the mention of Moses and Aaron strikes me as a complementary statement. Aaron being a "representative" of the Levitical Priesthood, Moses being a "representative" of the Priesthood of all Believers. Together representing the entire nation of Israel.
From my understanding, that then means that Moses is only being called a priest as part of the priesthood of all Believers which does not qualify him as a priest as far as Redemption is concerned.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
From my understanding, that then means that Moses is only being called a priest as part of the priesthood of all Believers which does not qualify him as a priest as far as Redemption is concerned.
But at that time there was no "Priesthood of all believers". It was you're a priest, or you aren't.
-
But at that time there was no "Priesthood of all believers". It was you're a priest, or you aren't.
Yeah, you're right. Redemption was so much easier to make rulings for in those days. ;)
-
Hey,
It was mentioned very early in this thread that Moses was not directly from the priestly line. I would like to note that He was. Aaron and his sons were in the line for the High Priesthood. If you look at the other Levite (men) they were all priests in some sense.
Moses was not part of the priestly line. The priestly line (all of the priests that functioned under the Law) was Aaron and all of his descendants. Moses does not fit that requirement. Yes Moses was a Levite, but not all Levites were priests. The tribe of Levi was dedicated for service to God, but that service was not exclusively as priests. Chenaniah and Jeiel are two examples of Leites that were not priests; Moses would be a third example.
When I read Psalm 99:6 the mention of Moses and Aaron strikes me as a complementary statement. Aaron being a "representative" of the Levitical Priesthood, Moses being a "representative" of the Priesthood of all Believers. Together representing the entire nation of Israel.
From my understanding, that then means that Moses is only being called a priest as part of the priesthood of all Believers which does not qualify him as a priest as far as Redemption is concerned.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Sounds good. So that means Priests of Christ and St. Patrick can now be removed from the priest list which should make things easier.
-
Hey,
From my understanding, that then means that Moses is only being called a priest as part of the priesthood of all Believers which does not qualify him as a priest as far as Redemption is concerned.
But at that time there was no "Priesthood of all believers". It was you're a priest, or you aren't.
3 Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ... 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
"you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation"
But with God setting apart (Making holy) the priests that second part seems unnecessary, but that may just be me.
-
Hey,
Moses was not part of the priestly line. The priestly line (all of the priests that functioned under the Law) was Aaron and all of his descendants. Moses does not fit that requirement. Yes Moses was a Levite, but not all Levites were priests. The tribe of Levi was dedicated for service to God, but that service was not exclusively as priests. Chenaniah and Jeiel are two examples of Leites that were not priests; Moses would be a third example.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Not trying to argue but I found this tonight -
Jos 18:6 Ye shall therefore describe the land into seven parts, and bring the description hither to me, that I may cast lots for you here before the LORD our God.
Jos 18:7 But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the LORD is their inheritance: and Gad, and Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh, have received their inheritance beyond Jordan on the east, which Moses the servant of the LORD gave them.
There is more in scripture to back up my stand, but it would take far more time and space to present it than here. I would have to delve into biblical Hebrew and contextual verbage and the like.
I will say in Tim and anyone elses defense on the issue, the english translations of scripture do lead one to believe that the "Priesthood" as a whole was simply for Aaron and his sons. I will defer to that in my statements because Redemption is challenging enough without every Levite after Exodus becoming a priest overnight.
-
It wouldn't be every levite. The Bible said he was a priest. The bible said Miriam was a prophetess but there was no huge discussion about it. The Bible said it and that was that.
-
It wouldn't be every levite. The Bible said he was a priest. The bible said Miriam was a prophetess but there was no huge discussion about it. The Bible said it and that was that.
The Bible says all of Israel are priests
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
The Bible also says that all New Testament believers are priests
5. Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
9. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
Are you arguing for Redemption game play purposes that all OT Israelites and everyone from the New Testament should be given the identifier as priest? If not, what differences do you see between the passage taken from Psalms and the passages taken from Exodus or 2 Peter? (I'm not arguing with you, I am asking for an explanation.)
-
on a side note, was it ever decided what a musician is technically? Moses should mos def be one.
-
on a side note, was it ever decided what a musician is technically? Moses should mos def be one.
It can certainly be argued that Moses was an instrument. ;)
-
what differences do you see between the passage taken from Psalms and the passages taken from Exodus or 2 Peter?
I think the difference is that it picks out Moses as a specific person to call him a priest. It is true that the entire nation of Israel were priests in the sense that God was trying to use them as a nation to draw other nations to Himself. However, there were also specific people within the nation of Israel who were designated as priests in a special way (Levites). The passages that you bring up are referring to the former, and I think the passage that points out Moses is referring to the latter.
The Bible never says that many OT and NT people are priests by name, but it does Moses. And I think that's important.
-
on a side note, was it ever decided what a musician is technically? Moses should mos def be one.
It can certainly be argued that Moses was an instrument. ;)
:rollin: :rollin: :rollin:
-
what differences do you see between the passage taken from Psalms and the passages taken from Exodus or 2 Peter?
I think the difference is that it picks out Moses as a specific person to call him a priest.
I grant that you interpretation is possible, but SirNobody's interpretation posited above--that Moses was used in Psalms as an representative archetype of the general priesthood of believers--also strikes me as possible. So the question becomes "Which interpretation is correct?"
To be honest, I would be much more comfortable with the interpretation the pro-Moses-as-priest faction were putting forward if any part of Jewish (or Christian) tradition held that Moses was a (good) priest. I can point to any number of places in both traditions where Aaron is called the first high priest. Do you have anything that you can point to along those lines that supports your interpretation? (And if Aaron is the first high priest, wouldn't that at minimum preclude Moses from being a high priest?)
-
I think we need more clearly defined qualifications for priesthood in Redemption. ... In fact, we probably need more clearly defined qualifications for quite a few identifiers.
-
(And if Aaron is the first high priest, wouldn't that at minimum preclude Moses from being a high priest?)
But no one is saying he was the HP, just A priest.
-
(And if Aaron is the first high priest, wouldn't that at minimum preclude Moses from being a high priest?)
But no one is saying he was the HP, just A priest.
I'm just trying to be proactive and cut off the argument that if Moses is a priest at all he must obviously have been a high priest,
-
The metaphorical language argument only addresses one of the three points that we are bringing up to show that Moses should be a Priest, id est, the Bible specially called him a Priest, and even then, not well.
Are you saying that the whole of Israel was wandering around in the priests-only areas and that anyone in Israel could make sacrifices for the people? You are, but I'm more asking if you want to retract your argument as to why Moses isn't a Priest.
-
Are you saying that the whole of Israel was wandering around in the priests-only areas and that anyone in Israel could make sacrifices for the people?
On the altar of the LORD that he had built in front of the portico, Solomon sacrificed burnt offerings to the LORD, according to the daily requirement for offerings commanded by Moses for Sabbaths, New Moons and the three annual feasts—the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles.
So either King Solomon was a priest, Scripture is false and Solomon did not offer the ritual sacrifices, or your argument that only priests can offer sacrifices for the people is incorrect. I would choose the third option; which of these three options do you support?
As to Moses wandering in priests only areas, we know the LORD spoke to Moses face to face as a man speaks to a friend. This suggests that Moses had a unique relationship with Lord when it comes to his personal interactions with God. I am not certain why a person who saw the back parts of God directly would require the title of priest to enter the temple.
You are, but I'm more asking if you want to retract your argument as to why Moses isn't a Priest.
Like I said I would be more than willing to retract my arguments against if you can point me to anything in the Jewish or Christian thought that claims Moses was a priest. If there is nothing in these traditions that supports the claim that Moses was a priest, why do you think that might be?
-
Moses was found in a place where only priests were allowed to go. Just because he had a special relationship with God doesn't mean he could break the laws that God gave to his people. Where does it say that anyone other than a priest was ever allowed in "priests only" areas?
-
I've been in a Women's bathroom before. I guess that makes me a woman. Now Saint of Virtue is more useful.
-
I've been in a Women's bathroom before. I guess that makes me a woman. Now Saint of Virtue is more useful.
sweet! I'm defly building a SoV deck now
-
I've been in a Women's bathroom before. I guess that makes me a woman. Now Saint of Virtue is more useful.
im not even going to ask what you were doing in a womens bathroom.
-
I've been in a Women's bathroom before. I guess that makes me a woman. Now Saint of Virtue is more useful.
im not even going to ask what you were doing in a womens bathroom.
I go there all the time for work... to clean... they keep theirs really clean...
-
I've been in a Women's bathroom before. I guess that makes me a woman. Now Saint of Virtue is more useful.
Don't tell your wife.
Also to my knowledge there is no law saying a man can not walk into a woman's restroom (Though it is socially unacceptable) where as you even TOUCHED the outer WALL of the tabernacle you were to be put to death!
I have to say though, I really don't get WHY this is so debated. We took miriam being a prophet at face value, yet there is nothing to prove her prophetness besides it saying she was.
-
But God didnt say you couldn't go into a women's bathroom, its a little different when God makes it a law
-
I have to say though, I really don't get WHY this is so debated. We took miriam being a prophet at face value, yet there is nothing to prove her prophetness besides it saying she was.
Red'Rocks, this statement is false. Miriam has been established as a prophetess in both the Jewish and Christian traditions. So deciding that Miriam was a prophet is confirming existing tradition. I know of no similar tradition for Moses that supports the identification of Moses as a priest. If you have something along that line, please pass it along. If such support doesn't exist, why do you think that is?
To answer in general WHY this is an issue (beyond the specific case)... I am more than a little leery of cases where people come up with interpretations of Scripture that no one has ever managed to see before.
-
Okay maybe I'm missing it but it saying he is a priest flat out seems to need very LITTLE interpretation. Also tradition does not make something RIGHT. I may be wrong and if shown any biblical evidence that Moses is indeed NOT a priest, I will back down but at the moment we have tradition vs black and white text from the word of God.
-
Okay maybe I'm missing it but it saying he is a priest flat out seems to need very LITTLE interpretation. Also tradition does not make something RIGHT. I may be wrong and if shown any biblical evidence that Moses is indeed NOT a priest, I will back down but at the moment we have tradition vs black and white text from the word of God.
+1. pretty clear to me.
-
Okay maybe I'm missing it but it saying he is a priest flat out seems to need very LITTLE interpretation.
Apparently it does take a bit of interpretation because the black and white text from the word of God says that all of Israel are priests. The black and white text from the word of God says that all NT believers are priests. Are you actually arguing that the Redemption play definition should be that all Israelites and all NT characters should be given the identifier of priest?
Also tradition does not make something RIGHT.
I agree that tradition does not make something RIGHT. What tradition does is to make clear the consensus (and the significant minority positions) on the correct interpretation of Scripture. In short, if an interpretation is backed by solid tradition it is much, much, much more likely to be correct than a brand new interpretation. Right now the item you believe is completely self-evident somehow escaped mention during four millenia of Jewish study and commentary on the OT, despite the fact that they contain extensive discussions of Moses, Aaaron, Miriam, and the priesthood.
I may be wrong and if shown any biblical evidence that Moses is indeed NOT a priest, I will back down but at the moment we have tradition vs black and white text from the word of God.
I don't know what type of evidence you are looking for. The fact that the author of Hebrews uses Aaron as the archetype of OT priest as opposed to Moses strikes me as evidence that Moses was not a priest in the sense that Jewish readers near 30 AD would expect.
-
[Moses being a priest] somehow escaped mention during four millenia of Jewish study and commentary on the OT, despite the fact that they contain extensive discussions of Moses, Aaaron, Miriam, and the priesthood.
According to this author, (http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/5/4/391?ck=nck) Moses was not spoken of as a priest because he was so big a character that he "broke out of every delimiting frame of reference", and because the definition of "priest" was later restricted to the "descendants of Aaron". However the author does agree that Moses IS a priest, despite this Jewish tradition.
For those of you who wonder if this author knows what he is talking about...check here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._F._Bruce)
-
Okay maybe I'm missing it but it saying he is a priest flat out seems to need very LITTLE interpretation.
Apparently it does take a bit of interpretation because the black and white text from the word of God says that all of Israel are priests. The black and white text from the word of God says that all NT believers are priests. Are you actually arguing that the Redemption play definition should be that all Israelites and all NT characters should be given the identifier of priest?
Not to be rude, but it seems to me like you are not putting all the arguments together. Sure, the Bible might imply that all of Israel are priests, but it's quite obvious that not all of them were in priests-only areas, or else the very existence of those areas is pointless. However, the Bible pretty clearly states that Moses was in a priests-only area (and was not put to death or anything :P). Combine this with the fact that the Bible actually calls Moses a priest, and that seems like nearly irrefutable evidence to me.
Apparently not, though. ;)
-
Apparently it does take a bit of interpretation because the black and white text from the word of God says that all of Israel are priests. The black and white text from the word of God says that all NT believers are priests. Are you actually arguing that the Redemption play definition should be that all Israelites and all NT characters should be given the identifier of priest?
Verses stated for those points:
(Hebrews 5:4): Is talking about Jesus, and the funny thing is, note which ORDER he is from. Not Aaron's line, Nor either of his sons. (Verse 10) "10. and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek."
Melchizedek, the priest who was NOT from Aaron's line.
(Exodus 19:3-6) While I can NOT refute this saying that he said to the Israelites to form a nation of priests, the AND bugs me, considerably. Because Priests are already set apart(Holy) so why would a nation of priests need to be a "Holy nation". I guess you COULD be evil priests but this was given as a command, I'm pretty sure God didn't mean for them to be evil priests so he tagged the addendum on to be holy. Also, the levites were a part of Israel.
Honestly, if you want to make them priests it is fine with me, I am just calling for consistency.
(Revelation 20:6) (I think this is the "NT Priests" verse everyone has been calling upon)
"1. And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3. And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up , and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled : and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image , neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished . This is the first resurrection.
6. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."
Okay, I will let allow ANY NT believer be a Priest, after the end of the world.
-
Okay, I will let allow ANY NT believer be a Priest, after the end of the world.
Depending, of course, on your interpretation of Revelation...but that's a whole other can of worms...
-
Okay, I will let allow ANY NT believer be a Priest, after the end of the world.
Depending, of course, on your interpretation of Revelation...but that's a whole other can of worms...
Yes, yes it is but the point is still there. That is talking about the millennial kingdom.
-
Hey,
(Revelation 20:6) (I think this is the "NT Priests" verse everyone has been calling upon)
I Peter 2:9 is the verse I've alluded to.
"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
FWIW, I specifically cited both 1 Peter 2:5,9 back at the beginning of this discussion.
And Moses and the priests the Levites spake unto all Israel, saying, Take heed, and hearken, O Israel; this day thou art become the people of the LORD thy God.
Note the distinction made between Moses and the priests of the Levitical line.
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
The author of Hebrews pretty much states that the Levitical priesthood started with Aaron. (Just for completeness note that Scripture discusses two and only two (holy) priestly lines--the order of Melchizedek and the order of Aaron.)
Not to be rude, but it seems to me like you are not putting all the arguments together.
Not to be rude, but it seems to me that no one is even attempting to answer the objections that have been raised (repeatedly).
The Talmud and the Midrash devote countless words to the priesthood and the family relationship of Moses, Miriam, and Aaron and reject the identification of Moses as a priest. (See, for example, Why Moses Did Not Become a Priest (http://www2.jrf.org/recon-dt/dt.php?id=73), which provides a layman's discussion of Moses as priest in the Jewish tradition.)
Combine this with the fact that the Bible actually calls Moses a priest, and that seems like nearly irrefutable evidence to me.
If this really is "nearly irrefutable evidence" doesn't it strike you as a bit strange that millenia of Jewish tradition and orthodox Christian belief speak against this identification? Doesn't that strangeness give you a bit of pause?
-
OT Priests: Aaron & sons, Melchizedek
NT Priests: Priests of Christ, St. Patrick
The question boils down to this: Does the Bible calling Moses (by name) a priest really mean "priest" in the same sense we use it in Redemption?
That is Rob's call.
-
If this really is "nearly irrefutable evidence" doesn't it strike you as a bit strange that millenia of Jewish tradition and orthodox Christian belief speak against this identification? Doesn't that strangeness give you a bit of pause?
In as much as I've seen people claiming to be wiccans being burnt at the stake recently.
That is Rob's call.
Waiting game time! But I'm okay with that ^_^
-
no one is even attempting to answer the objections that have been raised (repeatedly).
Actually, I attempted to answer you objections here. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19336.msg305130#msg305130) I just got ignored :)
doesn't it strike you as a bit strange that millenia of Jewish tradition and orthodox Christian belief speak against this identification?
Yes, it is a bit strange that others haven't picked up on this before. But that doesn't make it wrong either.
-
doesn't it strike you as a bit strange that millenia of Jewish tradition and orthodox Christian belief speak against this identification?
Yes, it is a bit strange that others haven't picked up on this before. But that doesn't make it wrong either.
I'm sure there are a few religions and groups somewhere that see Moses as a priest. Just because the religions that don't are some of the biggest, doesn't necessarily mean anything at all.
-
doesn't it strike you as a bit strange that millenia of Jewish tradition and orthodox Christian belief speak against this identification?
Yes, it is a bit strange that others haven't picked up on this before. But that doesn't make it wrong either.
I'm sure there are a few religions and groups somewhere that see Moses as a priest. Just because the religions that don't are some of the biggest, doesn't necessarily mean anything at all.
But even if they exist, those aren't the religions on which our beliefs, or this game, is based. What it really comes down to is how Priest will end up being defined for Redemption purposes; whether it will be similar to the definition for King (where Biblical reference to being a King is enough, like for KoT) or whether it will be more than that. I'm pretty sure all the arguments have been laid out, now Rob just has to decide.
-
But even if they exist, those aren't the religions on which our beliefs, or this game, is based.
Lol, I don't know about you, but the details of Moses' life is not a basis of my religion. If I were to learn that there were irrefutable proof that someone other than Moses had brought the Ten Commandments down from the mount, I might be a little confused, but I would still be a Christian.
However, if I learned that Jesus never actually rose from the dead, or performed any of those miracles...well, that's what I would call a basis of my religion.
I'm just trying to say, we aren't making any life-altering decision here. Calling Moses a priest for Redemption purposes shouldn't make anyone kill themselves. Of course, I agree it's simply Rob's call now, but I'd like to take off some of the pressure if possible.
-
no one is even attempting to answer the objections that have been raised (repeatedly).
Actually, I attempted to answer you objections here. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19336.msg305130#msg305130) I just got ignored :)
At least it wasn't a pre-ignore. ;)
Whatever the decision is, it needs to be consistent and straightforward. We have many characters hanging in the balance: Moses, St. Patrick, Priests of Christ, Jethro, and some evil priests.
-
At least it wasn't a pre-ignore. ;)
Cute :)
-
According to this author, (http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/5/4/391?ck=nck) Moses was not spoken of as a priest because he was so big a character that he "broke out of every delimiting frame of reference", and because the definition of "priest" was later restricted to the "descendants of Aaron". However the author does agree that Moses IS a priest, despite this Jewish tradition.
This is an excellent argument, and one that I have a great deal of sympathy towards. Also in the link I gave it is worth noting that Jewish tradition holds that Moses was given dispensation to perform some priestly duties for a limited time. It was the title of priest that was withheld from Moses and Moses's descendants inherited no title of any sort.
(For the record, I wasn't ignoring you; I missed this post entirely. I'm limiting myself to one post a day so if I miss something, it takes a while to get back to it.)
doesn't it strike you as a bit strange that millenia of Jewish tradition and orthodox Christian belief speak against this identification?
Yes, it is a bit strange that others haven't picked up on this before. But that doesn't make it wrong either.
No, it doesn't make it wrong. As I said before, it merely makes it much, much, much more likely to be wrong. If we are going to throw out tradition (I understand this is not the Prof's position) than let's go back to discussing Arianism or whatever as a valid option for Christians. After all even the worst heresies (and "Moses == priest" is not heresy) are usually based on a previously unseen interpretation of Scripture, and it is merely Church tradition that defines those ideas as heretical. In this age of counterfeits I remain leery of novel interpretations of Scripture that stand in sharp contrast with tradition.
The question boils down to this: Does the Bible calling Moses (by name) a priest really mean "priest" in the same sense we use it in Redemption?
That is Rob's call.
Just to be clear--I am fine with this ruling going either way. If Rob rules "yay" there are solid reasons for that ruling, and we gain a most excellent gold priest. If Rob rules "nay" that ruling would be well within the mainstream of Christian thought, and things stay status quo which is already quite excellent.
-
Moses's descendants inherited no title of any sort.
Though they were NOT given the title of priest.
1st Chron. 23:14. The sons of Moses the man of God were counted as part of the tribe of Levi.
They were given to be a part of Levi, which was the portion of Israel set apart for God.
Relevance in this discussion? None but an interesting fact none the less.
-
this author, (http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/5/4/391?ck=nck) [says] Moses IS a priest, despite this Jewish tradition.
This is an excellent argument...I'm limiting myself to one post a day
Thanks, and that's an interesting limit on yourself. Is it just for a while, or will you be doing that indefinitely? I will personally miss having more of your input on the forum than that.
let's go back to discussing Arianism or whatever as a valid option for Christians...it is merely Church tradition that defines those ideas as heretical.
Firstly, you are correct that I do not support throwing out church tradition. It is 1 of the 4 ways of determining truth by way of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (which I like). Secondly, Arianism is heretical based on scripture, not just Church tradition. John 1:1 says that the Word (Jesus) was with God (the Father) "in the beginning". Arianism says that Jesus was created by God the Father and therefore was not eternal. The Bible clearly shows this to be heresy.
-
This is an excellent argument...I'm limiting myself to one post a day
Thanks, and that's an interesting limit on yourself. Is it just for a while, or will you be doing that indefinitely?
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant in individual threads such as this one where most of my posts serve mainly to reiterate and amplify previously posted material.
Secondly, Arianism is heretical based on scripture, not just Church tradition.
That is an interesting take, given that Arius was declared a heretic in 320, his excommunication was revoked (and Athanasius was deposed) by Church Synod in 335, and Arianism was re-banned in 380. Do you think that it was the words of John 1:1 that changed between 335 and 380, or was it the interpretation of that passage that changed in this period? (To make clear my position, I believe that divine revelation was required to make clear to the church the correctness of the orthodox trinitarian interpretation. This interpretation then became part of the orthodox Christian religious tradition.)
-
Do you think that it was the words of John 1:1 that changed between 335 and 380, or was it the interpretation of that passage that changed in this period?
I of course do not think that the Bible changed. I do think that the percentage of people in the 300's AD who even had the ability to READ the Bible was very low. I also think that many of the religious leaders of that time period who could read, also had hidden agendas for political power and wealth. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me that a small group of people would be led astray from what is clear in a simple reading of scripture. It also doesn't surprise me that the church as a whole realized the error of this teaching and declared it a heresy. Their decision was based on the Bible, and that is where our decisions should be made as well.
-
Have we received official word from Rob or similar on Moses' identifiers? Sorry if we did and I missed it.
~Cameron
-
Have we received official word from Rob or similar on Moses' identifiers? Sorry if we did and I missed it.
The official word is that things stay as they are in the REG until/unless we hear otherwise.
-
Have we received official word from Rob or similar on Moses' identifiers? Sorry if we did and I missed it.
~Cameron
so do we have an official ruling?
Moses is a female NT Babylonian.
-
Exodus 3:1. Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.
Moses even married into a priestly family.
exodus: 18:12. Then Jethro presented a burnt offering and gave sacrifices to God. As Jethro was doing this, Aaron and the leaders of Israel came out to meet him. They all joined him in a sacrificial meal in God's presence.
Yeah so, any chance on getting an answer?
-
Exodus 3:1. Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.
Moses even married into a priestly family.
exodus: 18:12. Then Jethro presented a burnt offering and gave sacrifices to God. As Jethro was doing this, Aaron and the leaders of Israel came out to meet him. They all joined him in a sacrificial meal in God's presence.
Yeah so, any chance on getting an answer?
While Rob is at it would you like an additional official ruling as to whether Jethro should also be considered a Priest?
-
Back to the judge issue, even Jesus called it Moses' Seat:
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat." - Matthew 23:2
Which also begs the question: can I place a converted Pharisee on Judge's Seat?
-
Back to the judge issue, even Jesus called it Moses' Seat:
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat." - Matthew 23:2
Which also begs the question: can I place a converted Pharisee on Judge's Seat?
there are Pharisees who were not evil. Paul being one of them. Nicodemus. gamaliel.
I would say no.
-
Back to the judge issue, even Jesus called it Moses' Seat:
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat." - Matthew 23:2
Which also begs the question: can I place a converted Pharisee on Judge's Seat?
there are Pharisees who were not evil. Paul being one of them. Nicodemus. gamaliel.
I would say no.
So you are saying "no" to Jesus? :o
But seriously, if we want to make sure anything truly follows the Bible then anything Jesus said should be a good start.
-
Back to the judge issue, even Jesus called it Moses' Seat:
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat." - Matthew 23:2
Which also begs the question: can I place a converted Pharisee on Judge's Seat?
there are Pharisees who were not evil. Paul being one of them. Nicodemus. gamaliel.
I would say no.
So you are saying "no" to Jesus? :o
But seriously, if we want to make sure anything truly follows the Bible then anything Jesus said should be a good start.
but seriously, the way judge is ruled, it's rulers from the promised land until the age of kings. that's it. nothing else. Even Judge Judy wouldn't be considered a judge based on Redemption's standards.
-
And unfortunately, that stupid definition rules out Moses (for the time being) even though the verse for Judge's Seat is TALKING ABOUT MOSES! PLEASE, guys, get on the ball here.
-
Hey,
And unfortunately, that stupid definition rules out Moses (for the time being) even though the verse for Judge's Seat is TALKING ABOUT MOSES! PLEASE, guys, get on the ball here.
John isn't a John Hero. Luke isn't a Luke Hero. And Moses can't go in Judge's Seat. Counter-intuitive things happen. It's a game, not a reenactment.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
If it becomes just a game, it will die.
-
Yes, but those are problems with what is printed on the card, and would require errata to fix. The problem with Moses is that the arbitrary and easily changed definition of a Judge rules out the the person Judge's Seat is talking about. Nothing would have to be changed on any printed card.
-
Hey,
Yes, but those are problems with what is printed on the card, and would require errata to fix. The problem with Moses is that...
What I'm saying is that none of them are actually "problems." They only appear to be problems to you because of your expectations. We try not to change things is there isn't actually a problem.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Well, how some define "problem" seems to be different.
-
STAMP is a problem*!
*problem (noun) - really nice guy
-
:rollin:
I think I'm more of a...
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FThorn%2520in%2520the%2520Flesh%2520%28P%29.gif&hash=cfd2fad05151888ea684722e321cce3658c08102)
-
that card is worthless against my undefeated Strength in Weakness deck.
-
Well, how some define "problem" seems to be different.
Truth.
-
John isn't a John Hero. Luke isn't a Luke Hero.
BUT Luke isn't mentioned in Luke and In John, John is just given in a list otherwise he is called "loved" rather than John. Moses is called a judge and a priest.
-
Moses is called a judge and a priest.
Moses is not called a judge. It says he judged the people.
This difference between role and title is precisely the reason no one think Governor Felix should be a judge despite this...
Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself:
-
Ah, I see. Okay, even so it does say the latter of my argument ;)
-
Moses is called a judge and a priest.
Moses is not called a judge. It says he judged the people.
This difference between role and title is precisely the reason no one think Governor Felix should be a judge despite this...
Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself:
Governor Felix is not a judge in Redemption because Redemption defines "judge" as "a leader of Israel from the promised land to the era of the kings."
Some would prefer to change that to "a leader of Israel from the Exodus to the era of the kings" so that it would include Moses.
We don't have to look at who was actually called a "judge" in the Bible. If you disqualify Moses simply because the Bible says he "judged Israel," then you also have to disqualify Shamgar, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon. All those references merely say so and so "judged Israel," which is the same verb used to describe what Moses did, right? (I don't know Hebrew, so maybe you could help me out there).
And we don't make a distinction between role and title for prophet, so we won't likely do it for judge either. We just use the "leader" definition, and limit the time frame so as not to include kings on the latter end and patriarchs on the front end.
-
Governor Felix is not a judge in Redemption because Redemption defines "judge" as "a leader of Israel from the promised land to the era of the kings."
Which was precisely my point. Finding Scripture that says "XYZ judged Isreal" does not mean XYZ is considered a Judge in Redemption. Redemption limits that identifier to people who held the title of Judge.
We don't have to look at who was actually called a "judge" in the Bible. If you disqualify Moses simply because the Bible says he "judged Israel," then you also have to disqualify Shamgar, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon. All those references merely say so and so "judged Israel," which is the same verb used to describe what Moses did, right? (I don't know Hebrew, so maybe you could help me out there).
Right. The difference being that Shamgar, Tola, Hair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon "judged Israel" in a book that is named, conveniently enough, Judges. Judges is a historical book and contains the exploits of the people whom the Lord raised up to deliver Israel from captivity after the people had fallen into idolatry and wickedness. This definition is in accordance with both Christian and Jewish tradition as to who is a Judge.
If someone really wants to argue with the Redemption definition of Judge, trying to push things back to Moses is the wrong way to do it, IMO. Forget about Moses, there is almost no support for naming Joshua a judge either in tradition or Scripture (especially given that Judges begins "And it came to pass after the death of Joshua,..."). But he is another gold brigade hero from about the right time so it appears they decided to throw him in as a bonus Judge. I don't really have an issue with that because Redemption is just a game--not a lecture series in Biblical history.
-
Eli and Samuel are judges, too, and they are not in the book called "judges."
My point is that if you are going to call Joshua a judge, you should expand the definition and call Moses a judge, too.
Otherwise, you could be more strict with the definition and not include Joshua.
But being found in the book of Judges should not have anything to do with it, since we all agree with calling Eli and Samuel judges.
-
moses also just wrote one song, i dont count that as a musician, if i wrote one song, i wouldn't be considered a musician.
so, Daniel Powter isn't a musician?
-
Eli and Samuel are judges, too, and they are not in the book called "judges."
I was trying to point out a difference between Joshua and the people that you mentioned. Not the sole difference, not the major difference, but a relatively large distinction nonetheless.
My disagreement with Joshua being considered a judge is not that he wasn't in the book of Judges. It was that Joshua does not fit the pattern of judges outlined in Judges 2. The judges are a specific archetype that presages one aspect of the Christ similar to what the role of prophet does. It is also a role that is particularly ill-fitting when placed on the character of Joshua, which is why Joshua is not traditionally considered a judge.
But once again, Redemption is a game, and it doesn't matter a great deal. Keep Joshua as a judge if you wish and add Moses as a judge if you want, but don't confuse Redemption definitions with theology.
-
Thank you for pointing me to Judges 2. That passage in Judges 2 is actually the strongest reason I have seen to shrink the definition of Judge in Redemption to exclude Joshua as a Judge (and then, of course, to not include Moses).
From a game design standpoint, Moses and Joshua can still remain Gold, as that can be the color of the leaders of Israel from Exodus to the crowning of Saul, of which the Judges are the major part.
-
We don't have to look at who was actually called a "judge" in the Bible. If you disqualify Moses simply because the Bible says he "judged Israel," then you also have to disqualify Shamgar, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon. All those references merely say so and so "judged Israel," which is the same verb used to describe what Moses did, right? (I don't know Hebrew, so maybe you could help me out there).
H8199
שׁפט
shâphaṭ
BDB Definition:
1) to judge, govern, vindicate, punish
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to act as law-giver or judge or governor (of God, man)
1a1a) to rule, govern, judge
1a2) to decide controversy (of God, man)
1a3) to execute judgment
1a3a) discriminating (of man)
1a3b) vindicating
1a3c) condemning and punishing
1a3d) at theophanic advent for final judgment
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to enter into controversy, plead, have controversy together
1b2) to be judged
1c) (Poel) judge, opponent-at-law (participle)
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 2443
This is a direct quote from the Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew dictionary for every word, in the book of Judges, for Judged, Judge, Judges ect.. The word pictures in this entemalogical root are very interesting to me in the ancient understanding of the language. The letters are (from right to left) Shin-Pey-Tet. Shin is teeth or destruction. Pey is a mouth or to speak. Tet is a snake or surrounding. So with the center letter (pey) driving the word, it means, To speak destruction all around. I find that as an interesting definition, considering that the decision of a judge would most likely speak destruction of some form to the guilty party.
I find it interesting that everyone seems to want Moses to be a Judge for Judges seat, it would be much better with Eli in the hot seat and moses to attack if you ask me.
-
I find it interesting that everyone seems to want Moses to be a Judge for Judges seat, it would be much better with Eli in the hot seat and moses to attack if you ask me.
One thing I can see being useful if Moses were a judge is the usability of Ehud's Dagger. Other than that...I don't really see many benefits.
-
Let's go to the source: Judges 2:16-19.
16 Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.
17 And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so.
18 And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.
19 And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way.
There's a tendency for any reader to read these lines and feel it's a direct result of the lawlessness that existed right after Joshua's death. However, they could also describe the general condition of Israel and the reason for a need for a judge at any time after the Exodus. This scripture fits the time of Moses and Joshua just as it fits all of the judges in the book of Judges, as well as Eli and Samuel. Look closely at the description of a judge: "...the Lord was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge...". Moses and Joshua fit this biblical description of God's judge. Obviously, the Lord was not with Governor Felix or Pharisees so they do not fit this description. Once King Saul arrives, the Lord seems to divide up the duties of a judge to priests, prophets and kings.
-
There's a tendency for any reader to read these lines and feel it's a direct result of the lawlessness that existed right after Joshua's death.
There is a tendency to read those lines in that way because Judges 2:8-10 specifically state that all this happens after the death of Joshua. Specifically starting a generation after the generation that buried Joshua.
-
Daniel Powter in fact has three studio albums, containing a combined total of 34 songs. Although no one has ever heard any of his songs excpet "Bad Day". :)
-
Daniel Powter in fact has three studio albums, containing a combined total of 34 songs. Although no one has ever heard any of his songs excpet "Bad Day". :)
so, maybe Moses had three albums, but we only know of one song ;)
-
There's a tendency for any reader to read these lines and feel it's a direct result of the lawlessness that existed right after Joshua's death.
There is a tendency to read those lines in that way because Judges 2:8-10 specifically state that all this happens after the death of Joshua. Specifically starting a generation after the generation that buried Joshua.
So how do you explain verses 1-5? Disobedience, lawlessness, forsaking the Lord...the Israelites did this in the wilderness and prior to Joshua's death. The conditions were the same then and two genrations after Joshua. Furthermore, verses 16-19 cover a period of time for all of the judges, not just the time right after Joshua's death, so it very well could have covered Moses' and Joshua's time. Commentaries differ. But one thing is for sure: Moses and Joshua should be stuck together, either both as judges or both not.
Personally, I like to look back at the whole Bible when I see situations like this. To me, "judge", as role and title, originated out of Moses like Eve originated out of Adam. Moses is more a judge than all the other "clones". Jesus said it was Moses' Seat. He represents the Law in the transfiguration. Put all the judges together in the Bible and they still would not equal Moses as judge as to all he perfomed in that capacity.
-
Moses was not a judge by the definition we use for Redemption. Moses did often function as a judge "on the side" after crossing the Red Sea, and was very quickly moved out of that role. But that is beside the point - the definition we have for Judge excludes him.
Moses was also not a priest. Aaron and his sons were called to that role. We defined how we categorize priest and Moses does not fit that definition.
I did not read all the posts because they are numerous and the current definitions are pretty clear about how Moses relates to them. If we were to change the definitions, I agree there are passages that indicate he may have dabbled in many roles. Moses was a very special man, a very special leader. However, definitions could be altered to get any outcome you would like. At some point we have to plant some roots. Unless Rob wants to change the definitions, I think the categories and who is in them will stay where they are.
Mike
-
Daniel Powter in fact has three studio albums, containing a combined total of 34 songs. Although no one has ever heard any of his songs excpet "Bad Day". :)
so, maybe Moses had three albums, but we only know of one song ;)
i think the bible would say if he wrote more then one song.
Considering the way ancient and bibilical Hebrew were handed down, and in many cases still are today, each of the 5 books of the bible that Moses wrote could be considered a song book. The Torah portions are sung in Synagogues and Yeshivas each week. They were handed down from father to son by singing them (we all know you remember a song more than a speech). I am not saying that Moses is a musician, if we say that he is then we have to say that his sister Miram is. She led the women of Israel in a dance with a tamborine after the crossing of the red sea if I remember the story right.
-
I don't think moses is a pirest.... why? you may ask? cause, the bible never said anything about him being a priest
Cept all the scripture in this thread.
-
DMM,
Yes the Synagogue is the Jewish houses of worship (as well as where Jesus worshipped). Also included in that group is the Messianic Jewish Synagogue where I am Congregational Leader. Granted, we only sing the Portions on special occasions (bar/bat mitzvah, ect.). Yet my comment was regarding the fact that, when Moses wrote the Pentatuch (Torah), they would have been sang, and were sang for Hundreds of years after.
I don't know what you meant by "if so, that would explain it", but I don't think you have anything against the Jewish People. I don't assume that about anyone.
-
but seriously, the way judge is ruled, it's rulers from the promised land until the age of kings. that's it. nothing else. Even Judge Judy wouldn't be considered a judge based on Redemption's standards.
moses also just wrote one song, i dont count that as a musician, if i wrote one song, i wouldn't be considered a musician.
so, Daniel Powter isn't a musician?
:rollin: :D :D :D :rollin:
I respectfully recommend at least one of these posts to Prof's Favorite Forum Quotes. :)
-
Just wanted to make sure you understand that I would never make the accusation that you or anyone else was an anti-semite unless it was clear by your posts. Even then, I would never make it publicly. (I might PM something like that to you, but never on the forum)
-
There's a tendency for any reader to read these lines and feel it's a direct result of the lawlessness that existed right after Joshua's death.
There is a tendency to read those lines in that way because Judges 2:8-10 specifically state that all this happens after the death of Joshua. Specifically starting a generation after the generation that buried Joshua.
So how do you explain verses 1-5?
Verses 1-5 are background given to explain why the office of judge became a necessity in that that Joshua did not drive all the foreign nations out of the land. The consequences of this are discussed in verse 14 where it notes that Israel would be taken captive by the remnants of these same tribes, and in verse 16 we have "Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them." The chapter concludes by pointing out that the reason God did not remove these tribes from the land was because of Israel's persistent unfaithfulness.
Disobedience, lawlessness, forsaking the Lord...the Israelites did this in the wilderness and prior to Joshua's death.
How do you reconcile this claim with verse 7, "And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the LORD, that he did for Israel?" It is worth noting that the description of the faithful generation in this verse also stands in direct contrast to the evil generations that followed, who "knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel."
Furthermore, verses 16-19 cover a period of time for all of the judges, not just the time right after Joshua's death, so it very well could have covered Moses' and Joshua's time
On what basis are you making this claim? Up until this point the book of Judges had been following a chronological narrative. We have verses 1-5 talking about Joshua not driving all foreign tribes from the land. We have the verses 6-9 that talk of an age of faithfulness to the Lord from the possession of the land through the passing of the generation following Joshua. Then verses 10-15 talk about Israel worshiping Baalim, Baal, and Astaroth (gods not of Egypt or the wilderness, but specifically of the land) and the Lord's anger leading to Israel's captivity.
I am unsure--given what unfolded in verses 1-15--why you feel verses 16-19 are unmoored in time and aren't simply meant to be read as the next phase of the saga. Do you have any commentary by other writers that supports your interpretation?
I am not saying that you can't argue that Joshua (and Moses) were both Judges. I am merely pointing out that evidence in favor of your claim would need to be found elsewhere because it is lacking in Judges chapter 2.
-
My thoughts...
From a gameplay standpoint, Moses should be something. For such an important figure in Biblical history to be "identifier-less" (for lack of a better term) would be silly. That being said, I'm not sure Moses should be everything (despite RR's valiant efforts). So we should ask ourselves what makes the most sense for Moses to be. Scripture clearly shows that he was a prophet and a leader of Israel (essentially a judge). It also indicates that he was at different times royalty (in Pharaoh's court), a quasi-priest who performed priestly duties on occasion and a musician (Moses' song). However these previous three roles were not something that carried through his entire life, they were temporary seasons of his life.
I believe it would make the most sense to call him a Prophet and a Judge as he is already in the Judges brigade and we have a card (Judge's Seat) that refers to him in that role. This would also mean labeling Joshua as a judge, but fortunately he is also in the Judges brigade of Gold.
-
I'm trying to follow your first and second paragraphs but they seem to contradict each other. In the first Joshua fails to drive out all the foreign nations, and there are dire consequences in verse 14. But then in the second you describe Joshua and his generation as a faithful one.
If we read verses 16-19 as a chronological narrative we end up with God raising up all the judges at once, sort of a Superfriends group, to deliver the thankless people as they ignore their judges. Apparently, God was with only one of the judges (Superman??) because when that one judge finally dies, they all enter into lawlessness.
Doesn't sound right to me. It sounds more like a summary of how the entire judges period transpired. Thus, although the scripture is placed where intuitively one would surmise that it's in response to the perverse generation described before it, the summary notation would indeed descibe the times in the wilderness with Moses as well as with Joshua's "faithful" generation.
Either way, as I said before Moses and Joshua are joined at the hip in this issue: both judges or both not.
And as for the question of priest, I need to read some more but I am currently leaning toward Moses is a priest, and if not, then others drop out too, like Jethro and Priests of Christ. Either you go with Aaronic only, or you add in the extras.
-
Thus, although the scripture is placed where intuitively one would surmise that it's in response to the perverse generation described before it, the summary notation would indeed descibe the times in the wilderness with Moses as well as with Joshua's "faithful" generation.
That's a nice thought, STAMP. Once again I ask if you can point me to any commentator who agrees with your interpretation that Judges 16-19 is talking about the Egyptian captivity, the time in the wilderness, or the taking of the land.
Once again this entire argument does not touch on the bigger question of whether or not Joshua and Moses should be considered Judges; it merely reflects on the suitability of using Judges 2 to argue that point. One passage that does seem to touch on the larger issue is Acts 13:17-21. How do people factor Paul's version of history into their arguments?
The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it. And about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness. And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he divided their land to them by lot. And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.
Young's literal translation renders Acts 13:20 as "And after these things, about four hundred and fifty years, He gave judges -- till Samuel the prophet;"
-
And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves. -Ex 18:25-26
It appears from the scriptures that Moses wasn't a fly by judge but more like a supreme court justice. Many judges were established by Moses through the inspired direction of Jethro. Moses was to be the judge of last appeals. This freed up the majority of his time to be the prophetic leader for Israel.
I would vote that he be identified as a judge and a prophet, because that was the role he fulfilled for God.
-
I don't think moses is a pirest.... why? you may ask? cause, the bible never said anything about him being a priest
Cept all the scripture in this thread.
uhm, who was among who's priest exactly?? it said "moses and aron where among his priests..." it never said moses was the priest, it just said where among "his priests" which doesn't have anything to do with moses being one.
"Among his priests" is the equivalent of belonging to the group.
-
uhm, who was among who's priest exactly?? it said "moses and aron where among his priests..." it never said moses was the priest, it just said where among "his priests" which doesn't have anything to do with moses being one.
"Among his priests" is the equivalent of belonging to the group.
Yeah, it's not like Moses was just hangin' around. "What's shakin' Ithamar, mi sobrino!"
-
Well it's a moot point now, but...
Thus, although the scripture is placed where intuitively one would surmise that it's in response to the perverse generation described before it, the summary notation would indeed descibe the times in the wilderness with Moses as well as with Joshua's "faithful" generation.
That's a nice thought, STAMP. Once again I ask if you can point me to any commentator who agrees with your interpretation that Judges 16-19 is talking about the Egyptian captivity, the time in the wilderness, or the taking of the land.
Once again this entire argument does not touch on the bigger question of whether or not Joshua and Moses should be considered Judges; it merely reflects on the suitability of using Judges 2 to argue that point.
I'll have to check eSword when I'm studying at home this weekend. I do apologize though because I had not intended on arguing Judges 2 to support Moses and Joshua as judges. Rather I was looking at that scripture as an exclusionary factor. Upon further review I don't see enough to overturn what other scripture tells us of Moses and Joshua.
One passage that does seem to touch on the larger issue is Acts 13:17-21. How do people factor Paul's version of history into their arguments?
The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it. And about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness. And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he divided their land to them by lot. And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.
Young's literal translation renders Acts 13:20 as "And after these things, about four hundred and fifty years, He gave judges -- till Samuel the prophet;"
It appears if we use Paul as the authoritative source then we throw out Samuel and his sons in addition to Moses and Joshua. Paul was tops in his Pharisee class so I would lend a lot of credence to when he refers to the time of judges.
But again, the point is moot. :)
-
But again, the point is moot. :)
I think we would both agree that spending some time in the Word is rarely moot--even if Rob has made a final ruling for the game. ;)
I find Judges to be one of the saddest and most realistic studies of human nature. After reading through the cycles of increasing lawlessness (ending with the brutal story of the Levite's concubine and the war on the Benjamites), the entire book gets summed up in its final verse.
In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
That's some good stuff.
-
But again, the point is moot. :)
I think we would both agree that spending some time in the Word is rarely moot--even if Rob has made a final ruling for the game. ;)
I find Judges to be one of the saddest and most realistic studies of human nature. After reading through the cycles of increasing lawlessness (ending with the brutal story of the Levite's concubine and the war on the Benjamites), the entire book gets summed up in its final verse.
In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
That's some good stuff.
I completely agree. :)