Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 26, 2010, 12:52:48 AM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on January 25, 2010, 11:29:32 PM

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.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on January 25, 2010, 11:29:32 PM

no one is even attempting to answer the objections that have been raised (repeatedly).

Actually, I attempted to answer you objections here.  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.

According to this author, 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.)

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on January 25, 2010, 11:29:32 PM

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.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 25, 2010, 08:44:44 AM

this author, [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.

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.

The official word is that things stay as they are in the REG until/unless we hear otherwise.

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?

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?

Quote from: STAMP on March 08, 2010, 11:43:30 AM

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?   


But seriously, if we want to make sure anything truly follows the Bible then anything Jesus said should be a good start. 

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.

If it becomes just a game, it will die.

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

STAMP is a problem*!




*problem (noun) - really nice guy