FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-22-2005, 09:08 AM   #51
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: North West usa
Posts: 10,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magus55
Actually, the pharisees misinterpreted that law. Jesus taught that the Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath. Its absurd to let people go hungry or die, just because its the Sabbath. And God made the law, so I think He knows what He can and can't do.
This sounds allot like "I did not have sex with that woman". So I guess that under the Law, Clinton didn't commit a sin, since he did not "lay with a woman". A god having to equivocate just seems kind of weird.

Let's show some more verses that talk of the Sabbath and the rules:

Exodus
20:10
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt
not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor
thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy
gates:

31:15
Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest,
holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall
surely be put to death.
35:2
Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you
an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein
shall be put to death.
35:3
Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.
Le 23:3
Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest,
an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of
the LORD in all your dwellings.

Numbers:
15:32
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man
that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day
.
15:33
And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and
Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
15:34
And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done
to him.
15:35
And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all
the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
15:36
And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him
with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Deuteronomy:
5:13
Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:
5:14
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt
not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant,
nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle,
nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy
maidservant may rest as well as thou.

Ok, I've included a few more verses on what the Law says. Now exactly how were the Pharisees "misinterpreting the Law"? This law, though I would consider it very anal, it seams pretty clear. First it is claimed within the Gospels that Jesus fasted, so you comment that "It's absurd to let people go hungry or die, just because its the Sabbath" is absurd in itself. One does not die from not eating one day. Second we have your own canon that says that it is a death sentence to violate this Law, so dieing is hardly a bid deal. If one cannot even pick up wood for a fire, or even start a fire, certainly picking ears of corn is of the same category. Writings (The Law of the Prophets) purported to be of Moses, even required the people to pick up manna for the next day, so they wouldn't violate the Sabbath. If walking outside and picking up free bread is too much work for the followers of Yahweh, then explain in detail why it would be ok to pick ears of corn out of a field.

If one is going to claim Jesus was sinless, does one not have to use the criteria for regular humans? And should not those rules be reasonably understandable? So this earthly version of god, would have to be judged by these standards, or it has no meaning. You are retrojecting the Christian faith on the Laws of Yahweh. Jesus has to be judged in terms of the existing Law, not what he changes it to, or again it makes no sense. Anyone can claim they have never sinned if they get to make their own rules up on the fly. If you said that the writers of the Law were mere humans, or we no longer have a clear picture of what Yahweh's intent was within the Law, you at least would have a leg to stand on.
funinspace is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 09:23 AM   #52
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili
. . . and Catholic tradition is based on reality. The Assumption of Mary is to be compared with the Ascension of Jesus but to whom the woman was added. The Assumption of Mary makes heaven complete for without her the city of God would not be part of heaven: "The woman you saw is the great city which has sovereignty over the kings of the earth." That is to say, Mary is the city of God in each person to the same extent they have aboriginal heritage in God = basis for the veneration of Mary which includes whispering adorations).
And in the nineteenth century Mary was made mother of God.

Xianity is meant to worship all the aspects of god, which now seems to have a significant female aspect.

If the Pope is Christ's representative on earth, should there also be an equal female representative of Mary, equal to the Pope??

If heaven is complete with Mary, surely we are incomplete on Earth without a representative of her?
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 12:51 PM   #53
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 6,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valz
That is why the Hail Mary says: Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of death. Amen.


Valz
Why not the sinners in Catholic purgatory? It would seem to me they are in real need of prayers since that's one of the ways to cut back on their days of suffering.
John A. Broussard is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 08:10 PM   #54
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle
And in the nineteenth century Mary was made mother of God.

Xianity is meant to worship all the aspects of god, which now seems to have a significant female aspect.

If the Pope is Christ's representative on earth, should there also be an equal female representative of Mary, equal to the Pope??

If heaven is complete with Mary, surely we are incomplete on Earth without a representative of her?
Could be, is that Catholic theology?

In the strict definition Christian-ity is a condition of being wherein we are beyond worship. If modern Christians wish to worship a female that would be their choice.

The pope is the vicar of Christ by virtue of Rome being the bride of Christ. See, the problem really is that we have Rome and since Rome doesn't just go away overnight we better have a pope. Remember here that we have aboriginal heritage in Rome and are asked to become her groom in a divine marriage of true minds.
Chili is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 08:20 PM   #55
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,043
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magus55
Its absurd to let people go hungry or die, just because its the Sabbath.
There has never been anything wrong with healing the dying on Shabbat. But that's not what Jesus and the merry troupe did; what they were doing was more akin to pitching a circus tent and making a living from the crowds they attracted. Making a living -> working -> not allowed on Shabbat.

The violation had nothing to do with healing.
Wallener is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 08:25 PM   #56
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,043
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mageth
Wasn't some poor guy in the OT killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath????
Before we can argue the severity of the punishment, we need to understand the severity of the crime. They were in the middle of Sinai - there weren't exactly a whole lot of sticks laying around - and the "poor guy" snuck out of the camp to gather up a precious resource while nobody was looking. Hoarding, stealing, call it what you want, it was behavior highly detrimental to the community and quite possibly fatal to individual members of the community.
Wallener is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 09:57 PM   #57
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallener
There has never been anything wrong with healing the dying on Shabbat. But that's not what Jesus and the merry troupe did; what they were doing was more akin to pitching a circus tent and making a living from the crowds they attracted. Making a living -> working -> not allowed on Shabbat.

The violation had nothing to do with healing.
Actually, the Pharisee's did ridicule Jesus for healing a man on the Sabbath. Read Mat 12. First, Jesus argues against the Pharisee's for not allowing food to be harvested for the hungry. Jesus says that human need is far more important than some ritual. Regarding the healing, Jesus said it is ok to do good on the Sabbath. He also says that He is Lord of the Sabbath - meaning he knows very well whether the sabbath is being broken. The Pharisees were being overbearing with the Sabbath rules, and misinterpreting them at the cost of the well being of others. Jesus points out the error in their understanding.
Magus55 is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 10:26 PM   #58
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 6,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magus55
The Pharisees were being overbearing with the Sabbath rules,
But don't all religions do this. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses' are quite willing to let a child die rather than allow a blood transfusion because of some obscure bible passage interpreted as forbidding it.
John A. Broussard is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 10:52 PM   #59
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,043
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magus55
...the Pharisee's did ridicule Jesus for healing a man on the Sabbath.
Taken completely out of context. What they were objecting to was Jesus pitching a circus tent and charging admission on a Shabbat. Jesus was not "doing good", he was earning his living. IE, he was working. Which, of course, means he wasn't sinless and, therefore, could not possibly be messiah.

The reason you can't go into someone else's field and take food on Shabbat is exactly the same as the reason you can't go into a Piggly Wiggly outside shopping hours and help yourself to a meal.

Quote:
Jesus points out the error in their understanding.
For sure. Just like he "points out the error" when they take him for task for not washing his hands while eating finger food from a communal plate. They all got e. coli afterwards, but hey, Jesus really stood up to The Man that time!
Wallener is offline  
Old 04-22-2005, 10:55 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John A. Broussard
In looking up the basis for the belief that Mary ascended bodily into heaven, I've been able to trace it back to 5th Century sources, but I haven't been able to find a connection between those and the bible. Does anyone know of any justification, however remote and strained the connection may be, between this infallible dogma of the Catholic church and the scriptures?
Sheez, you guys! Nothing like sticking to the topic!

John,
I go to a Catholic University. In fact, I'm being taught Latin by a bunch of Jesuits. Real slave drivers, let me tell you. I can check on this for you. Maybe I can come up with some source material. It would help to know what your 5th century source is. What's your interest in this, if you don't mind me asking?
arricchio is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:44 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.