Jonathan Drake
JoinedPosts by Jonathan Drake
-
32
The hypocrisy Jesus had towards the pharisees and sadducees
by adjusted knowledge init is no wonder the jewish leaders had ridiculous rules concerning the sabbath.
the following scripture alone should instill fear of those forsaking the sabbath.. (numbers 15:32-36)--"now while the sons of israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.
33and those who found him gathering wood brought him to moses and aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.
-
Jonathan Drake
Do you guys have some examples? -
12
Is 40 days without food the best choice?
by John Aquila inin chapter 4 of luke it says jesus went into the wilderness and he ate nothing but fasted forty days and forty nights..
now i dont know about any of you but i once got on a 5 day liquid diet and only lasted 2 days.
i was so hungry that even when i fell asleep i started dreaming a hot brunette was handing me a couple of slices of pizza.
-
Jonathan Drake
Just as a note on the topic of fasting - and I'm not trying to say this is what happened...
But! not every fasting period meant you literally ate absolutely nothing. It's been suggested by some that Christ essentially ate nothing but that he was able to eat whatever little edible things he found while out in about fasting. Anything he found would have been next to nothing and not taken away the pangs, but it's suggested he likely ate these things.
personally I'm not sure about this. I mean it says he ate NOTHING. But who knows, maybe it was an error in translation.
-
32
The hypocrisy Jesus had towards the pharisees and sadducees
by adjusted knowledge init is no wonder the jewish leaders had ridiculous rules concerning the sabbath.
the following scripture alone should instill fear of those forsaking the sabbath.. (numbers 15:32-36)--"now while the sons of israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.
33and those who found him gathering wood brought him to moses and aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.
-
Jonathan Drake
@village
i can see how it appears that way, but it's not a punishment for blaspheme. The statement made is that anyone who sins defiantly has blasphemed. The NASB makes this much clearer by making it, "but the person who does anything defiantly..." So it was considered blaspheme against God to flagarantly disregard gods law, like this man did.
i was hoping you'd ask about why they were ignorant as to what to do. So, technically - where the rule was to be, "cut off from his people" was not a death sentence. At this point I know what you're thinking probably, but bear with me.
In the book Daily Life in the Times of Jesus, Henri Daniel-Rops makes reference to this phrase and explains that it meant banishment and not death. When the Israelites settled they had cities to which these banished people were sent to live.
However, they weren't settled in the promised land here, they were in the wilderness. If they banished this man he would effectively die. So they didn't know what to do with him and remanded him into custody, after which God intervened and gave a verdict himself.
As to the Ten Commandments, I'll check out what you're referring to and reply in a PM so as to stay on topic.
-
32
The hypocrisy Jesus had towards the pharisees and sadducees
by adjusted knowledge init is no wonder the jewish leaders had ridiculous rules concerning the sabbath.
the following scripture alone should instill fear of those forsaking the sabbath.. (numbers 15:32-36)--"now while the sons of israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.
33and those who found him gathering wood brought him to moses and aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.
-
Jonathan Drake
"...but my point was that regardless of what we might believe. In this book that man saw all of those things, was given 10 rules by the being who did those things for him and he agreed to follow them."
What do you believe?
"Then he didn't. And he died, which he was told would happen if he broke them."
To my knowledge not all of the Ten Commandments were enforced with the death penalty. Was the Tenth Commandment, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:17 NIV) , enforced with the death penalty?
And no, he and those who arrested him were not told that breaking the Sabbath would lead to death as is clearly stated in the previously cited scripture:
"...and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him." Numbers 15:34 NIV
My beliefs are irrelevant. Either you believe the bible, and thus understand why he was killed. Or you don't, and its a story of a man snubbing an all powerful being and being killed for it.
Also, yes, the penalty was proscribed prior to his error.
Numbers 15:30, 31:
" 'But anyone who sins defiantly,whether native-born or alien, blasphemes the LORD, and that person must be cut off from his people. Because he has despised the LORD's word and broken his commands, that person must surely be cut off; his guilt remains on him.' "
Btw, if you want to get real technical about this im willing, because the scripture I've just quoted explains why they didn't know what to do with him. -
32
The hypocrisy Jesus had towards the pharisees and sadducees
by adjusted knowledge init is no wonder the jewish leaders had ridiculous rules concerning the sabbath.
the following scripture alone should instill fear of those forsaking the sabbath.. (numbers 15:32-36)--"now while the sons of israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.
33and those who found him gathering wood brought him to moses and aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.
-
Jonathan Drake
I'm not sure what that means, but my point was that regardless of what we might believe. In this book that man saw all of those things, was given 10 rules by the being who did those things for him and he agreed to follow them. Then he didn't. And he died, which he was told would happen if he broke them.
When we break the law today, we go to jail or get a fine. We are told this will happen before it happens. That's why when it does, nobody says, "aw man I didn't know THIS would happen!!"
Its no different, except in this case the man was told if he broke the law he'd die lol. It should be noted however, the man had every opportunity to show genuine repentance and he obviously did not. Nobody was ever put to death who repented of their error, whether they were a king or of the common folk.
-
32
The hypocrisy Jesus had towards the pharisees and sadducees
by adjusted knowledge init is no wonder the jewish leaders had ridiculous rules concerning the sabbath.
the following scripture alone should instill fear of those forsaking the sabbath.. (numbers 15:32-36)--"now while the sons of israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.
33and those who found him gathering wood brought him to moses and aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.
-
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake: "There is a significant different between these two events. In numbers the man purposely went out to work, and did work - he broke the sabbath."
And that justifies the execution? Such a 'god' is exactly what inspires dictatorial hearts like that of the Jehovah's Witness governing body.
It was not the work he was put to death for, it was the flagrant disrespect toward God's law. In a world where a benevolent almighty being has taken your entire family and friends through a miraculous parting of a sea, fed you miraculously, punished the Egyptians miraculously in very dramatic ways? Hypothetically, you're in this situation and you saw all of this (which this man would have), and that God tells you not to do any work on one particular day, but to use that day for reflection. Would you listen?
-
67
Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?
by TerryWalstrom inthe purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
-
Jonathan Drake
In a book by Larry Hurtado which I'm currently reading he demonstrates why the hellenization of Jewish culture did not affect the view of Christ as God.
There are far too many things missing, and several facts. As an example, the Jewish culture was emphatically monotheistic. The Christian movement was persecuted very much for their apparent reverence for Christ alongside God because the Jews saw this as a gross blaspheme to God.
What was accomplished by the Christian movement is very significant. The movement first went to only Jews, and managed to convert them by the thousands. These were people who were devoutly monotheistic, and they knew the precarious position they put themselves in by accepting Christianity in the face of the Jewish religious leaders. They could have been charged with blasphemy like Stephen was - and stoned. But despite this they accepted Jesus, and did so all the while MAINTAINING their monotheism. They didn't view Christ as almighty God, they knew the difference. But they did reverence him along with God. anyway the point is, this development can owe no debt to the surrounding nations - it developed on its own merits.
Some argue that the inclusion of the Gentiles explains it, but it does not. Because history attests that it began with the Jews, and even in the bible we see Paul stating that he passed on what he was given - which he got from Peter in Jerusalem. So the source was always Jerusalem, and Jewish culture - it was never affected by the gentile mind of emperor worship.
Another point of fact is to suggest a cause and effect from the gentile nations necessitates that it not stop with just emperor worship. Why not include idols? But they never did this, not until well after Constantine. In fact, the Christians were persecuted by the gentile nations because they thought they were atheists since they had no idols anywhere, no gods to be found.
So it really doesn't hold up to scrutiny to suggest that the surrounding cultures were why any of it happened. Not only the bible, but also archeological finds suggest otherwise. Such as locations of Christian worship where only pictures of Old Testament prophets are found but no idols, which as I pointed out if they were going to accept emporer worship why not idolatry too?
anyway, I've typed way too much here.
-
8
Book study next week... was the Mosaic Law perfect?
by StarTrekAngel inbefore i get the "no it was not, because god does not exist and this is a writing of man", i am directing this discussion to those that either still believe, or need as many tools as possible to talk to a family member still in.. the purpose of my posting is to discuss what i believe to be a mistake on this book or, in the other hand, be corrected if i am not getting the entire picture.. in the book, chapter 19 "god's wisdon in a sacred secret", paragraph 10, it reads.... 10 second, the law thoroughly demonstrated mankinds need for a ransom.
a perfect law, it exposed the inability of sinful humans to adhere to it fully.
compare this with hebrews 7:11-12. jesus a priest like melchizedek11now if perfection was through the levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of aaron?
-
Jonathan Drake
The problem the watchtower has, and the error being made here, is that they don't see the difference between the mosaic law and the Ten Commandments. They are two different things.
The law from God, the ten commamdments, was perfect. It was something no man could adhere to as one of the commamdments was to not covet - something everyone does at one time or another. It was a law from God.
The Mosaic law on the other hand was MOSES covenant as the Christ (anointed one) with the Israelites. This was the covenant which Jesus undid. Being the messiah he was a Christ (anointed one) with much more authority than Moses. So he replaced Moses covenant with his own, but did not undue the Ten Commandments. He did however fulfill the Ten Commandments, which only he could do - perfect man fulfilled perfect law and replaced the faulty covenant (mosaic law) referenced in Heb 8:7.
EDIT: actually I should amend something. I guess there is technically no error here - scripturally yes, the mosaic law/covenant was imperfect and faulty.
-
32
The hypocrisy Jesus had towards the pharisees and sadducees
by adjusted knowledge init is no wonder the jewish leaders had ridiculous rules concerning the sabbath.
the following scripture alone should instill fear of those forsaking the sabbath.. (numbers 15:32-36)--"now while the sons of israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.
33and those who found him gathering wood brought him to moses and aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.
-
Jonathan Drake
There is a significant different between these two events. In numbers the man purposely went out to work, and did work - he broke the sabbath.
In Matthew the disciples we're just moseying along picking off heads of stalks of wheat and munching on them. They werent out their harvesting the field or something. It's more like you walking along munching on one of those little cans of Pringles or something
There is a pretty significsnt difference here. And this shows how insane the Pharisees rules had become. They considered the disciples actions "work" and it was not. They also had a rule for people that they should wash their hands up to the elbow before a meal, just washing your hands wasn't enough. The Pharisees were out of control, and there was a hug difference between the man chopping wood and the disciples picking grain heads.
I do see how it can LOOK like a contradiction though, it's a good find.
-
26
The Man Who Interviewed the Apostles
by TerryWalstrom inmeet papias.
if you had lived in the time of the living apostles of jesus would you have personally investigated stories about.
or, would you simply read whatever was written instead?.
-
Jonathan Drake
Also addressing the comment about matt 28. To say he didn't say that is an assumption without proof. We can say it's possible, but we'll never know for sure any more than we'll know for sure any of it happened.
The argument can therefore be made that the disciples may have thought he meant the Jews all over the diaspora who had moved and settled abroad - of which there were a great many. It is, actually, very probable this is what they thought and the reason why there was some descention about whether he meant this or if he meant Gentiles. This explains why when talking to Cornelias in acts 20 (it might be 19...?) Peter exclaims, "NOW I see that God is not impartial..." (Emphasis added), because until that point he was unconvinced that christs commission to them was about Gentiles and not just Jews all over the Roman Empire and settled in other lands abroad.