Amalek

[johnd]

I will introduce another pov:

Exodus 17
1 And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, after their journeys, according to the commandment of the LORD, and pitched in Rephidim: and there was no water for the people to drink.
2 Wherefore the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink. And Moses said unto them, Why chide ye with me? wherefore do ye tempt the LORD?
3 And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?
4 And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me.
5 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go.
6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
7 And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?
8 Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
9 And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.
10 So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill.
11 And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.
12 But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.
13 And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.
14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
15 And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi:
16 For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.

The chapter begins with the revitalization of life through the giving of water in the desert from striking the rock (John 7:37-39). Christ is the Rock that was struck (1 Corinthians 10:4 / Isaiah 52:13- 53:12).

Further the title of Jesus is mentioned in "Massah" add YAH and you have Messiah... The name of Jesus is found in "Joshua" which is essentially the Greek form of the Anglicanized Latin Iesous.... and in Jehovahnissi (Jehovah Shua being Jesus' name).

Also, in the underlined you have an interesting acting out prophecy depicting Mount Calvary / Golgotha where upon the saviour was between two men on the hill top overlooking the battle below with his hands outstretched as were most likely the other two who used one hand each to hold up Moses' hands.

predictive prophesy snap shot of the crucifixion.

So, Amalek is what... unbelief?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

predictive prophesy snap shot of the crucifixion.

So, Amalek is what... unbelief?

Shalom. What is your view of Zech 13:5?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Zechariah 13:5 And he says 'Not a-prophet I, man tilling ground/0127 'adamah I, that adam he-caused-me-to-acquire/07069 qanah from youths of me".
And he says to him: "what the smitings/04347 makkah, these, between hands of you"? And he says "which I was smitten/05221 nakah House of lovers/0157 'ahab of me".

 

[GeratTzedek]

JohnD:

I suppose 12 pages of posts is a lot to expect a late comer to read!

Amalek was one of Israel's adversaries in early biblical times. But there was something different about the Amalekites that set them apart from all of Israel's other foes: The Amalekites were essentially a terrorist culture, meaning they targeted the innocent. The would not confront Israel in battle. Rather, the Amalekites would lie in wait for stragglers as Israel moved through the land: the old, the sick, the women and children. Rather than fighting Israel's soldiers, the Amalekites targeted those who quite specifically were not fighters and could not fight. For that reason, HaShem told Israel NOT TO FORGET how the Amalekites terrorized them as the left Egypt and moved into Canaan. HaShem gave quite a different instructions regarding the Amalekites than ANY OTHER enemy -- the Amalekites were to be killed down to the very last woman and child, and none of their goods or gold or livestock was to be taken or profited from.

Amalek has come to mean those who fulfill BOTH of the following criteria:
1. They seek the destruction of the Jews
2. They target the innocent.

Hitler and the nazis, for example, meet both of those criteria, and are considered the "Amalek" of the 20th century.

Hamas would be an example of a current group which meets both these criteria.

 

[mikkyo]

Hamas would be an example of a current group which meets both these criteria.

So in the same way the Jews dealt with the Amalkelites, are you willing to deal with the Palestinians in the same manner? Would you join the Israeli army and go on a campaign of eradicating every single Palestinian? Are you prepared to ravage their women, chop off their children's heads, and kill off the disabled elderly? It was done in the Old Testament, so is it ok to do it now? Yes or no. Let's just get to the point of your OP.

 

[Ramona]

I see y'all have been busy as lil beavers since last night. Anyone care to summarize the last 9 pages for me, or have we not made much progress beyond things like "you're evil!" and "Nuh-uh, you're evil-er," and so on?

 

[sidhe]

I'm wondering who in this thread cheers for Paul-Muad'dib Atreides in Dune...

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I'm wondering who in this thread cheers for Paul-Muad'dib Atreides in Dune...

Eh?

Paul was bogged down by the determinism his "gift" brought him. His son had to finish the job properly.

 

[sidhe]

Eh?

Paul was bogged down by the determinism his "gift" brought him. His son had to finish the job properly.

I'm more referring to the socio-political atmosphere of the thing.

By all means, the Harkonnen were the legal holders of Arrakis, put in place by the Emperor, after a legal war against the Atreides. Paul becomes a legend of cruelty, terror, and violence against all things Harkonnen or Corrino.

From the point of view of the Empire, Paul-Muad'dib was a terrorist. He didn't fight fairly, didn't obey the rules of engagement, and targeted innocents if he had to, as he saw none as innocent in the battle. Putting aside his unique gifts, he used the religion of the Fremen to turn them into a force set on claiming their land and overthrowing their oppressors.

Because we see the story from his perspective, we cheer for him. I just think that's the case in most things. People don't do atrocious things for no reason. In their mind, at least, they're justified. That's the case in all sides in a conflict, I'm not targeting anyone here, just that folks do what they think is right. Very few people act in a way they hold as personally evil.

 

[GeratTzedek]

I see y'all have been busy as lil beavers since last night. Anyone care to summarize the last 9 pages for me, or have we not made much progress beyond things like "you're evil!" and "Nuh-uh, you're evil-er," and so on?

You forgot, "And YOU are the evilest one of all!"

 

[Ramona]

You forgot, "And YOU are the evilest one of all!"

Oh, I didn't forget. I omitted it on purpose, because I AM the evilest one of all!

 

[GeratTzedek]

Ah here is the verse about Amalek always being in every generation:
Exodus 17:16 For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.

I knew it was in there somewhere! Hehehehe

 

[GeratTzedek]

Oh, I didn't forget. I omitted it on purpose, because I AM the evilest one of all!

:o Oh, my oversite!

hehehehe

 

[GeratTzedek]

Goyishepofkishegopi what? Just because Israel does not use suicide bombers concludes they are not contributing to terrorism?

Listen carefully (for the umpteenth time): Israel does not TARGET INNOCENTS. There are many ways to target innocents, not just suicide bombers, but Israel does none of them. Israel has a policy opposed to the targeting of innocents.

THAT is why Israel is not terrorist. Room for improvement? Certainly. But Israel simply doesn't meet the criteria for terrorism.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I'm more referring to the socio-political atmosphere of the thing.

By all means, the Harkonnen were the legal holders of Arrakis, put in place by the Emperor, after a legal war against the Atreides. Paul becomes a legend of cruelty, terror, and violence against all things Harkonnen or Corrino.

From the point of view of the Empire, Paul-Muad'dib was a terrorist. He didn't fight fairly, didn't obey the rules of engagement, and targeted innocents if he had to, as he saw none as innocent in the battle. Putting aside his unique gifts, he used the religion of the Fremen to turn them into a force set on claiming their land and overthrowing their oppressors.

Because we see the story from his perspective, we cheer for him. I just think that's the case in most things. People don't do atrocious things for no reason. In their mind, at least, they're justified. That's the case in all sides in a conflict, I'm not targeting anyone here, just that folks do what they think is right. Very few people act in a way they hold as personally evil.

Isn't there some kind of bonmot about all "freedom fighters" being someone else's terrorists? I seem to remember something along those lines.

 

[GeratTzedek]

So in the same way the Jews dealt with the Amalkelites, are you willing to deal with the Palestinians in the same manner? Would you join the Israeli army and go on a campaign of eradicating every single Palestinian? Are you prepared to ravage their women, chop off their children's heads, and kill off the disabled elderly? It was done in the Old Testament, so is it ok to do it now? Yes or no. Let's just get to the point of your OP.

I didn't say one way or the other. I have not made a decision. I am bothered by the issue. That is why I began the thread.

 

[Ramona]

:o Oh, my oversite!

hehehehe

i r big skarey monstar.

raaaaaaaaaaaaaaawr!

 

[GeratTzedek]

Isn't there some kind of bonmot about all "freedom fighters" being someone else's terrorists? I seem to remember something along those lines.

Yes, I've heard that one. One of the most stupid things the left says.

 

[GeratTzedek]

i r big skarey monstar.

raaaaaaaaaaaaaaawr!

LOL.

You know, for some reason, you reminded me of last night's Simpson's episode, in which the Gollum was the primary event.

You ain't made o' mud are you?

 

[Vene]

Yes, I've heard that one. One of the most stupid things the left says.

Says the woman living in a country founded by traitors.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Says the woman living in a country founded by traitors.

LOL. Good one.