Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Luke's account is the actual event of Christ's birth in the manger.
btw, been saved since 1997.
Bring your newspapers and fly swatters folks, we're going to war!
Slow reply due to the unfolding crisis in Paris.I come at from kind of the other side. For years I had this kind of on-going conversation with someone 'on the other side' so to speak. While I found it somewhat amazing I figured millions and millions of religious people around it could not be that uncommon, right? Last spring things kind of changed though. I got this BLAM! - "Go read the OT". So I did. And I say, "Wow, this is the guy who has been speaking to me all these years." So I have been reading the OT, read Job like two dozen times, since then. I have learned a whole bunch about all kinds of stuff religious. This time last year I could not even tell you what a bible was more than it was a religious book. I have no clue as to what this all means. OMG, if someone would have told me this time last year that I would be a radical religious nut I would have laughed mao, it still makes me laugh actually. Probably the one thing that gets me the absolutely most about this is that apparently even with all these really religious people talking with God is not that common. It's OK though, because no one takes me serious, just as well. So if anyone asks me why I believe in God I say, "Because he told me to." and I definitely fear God, and not in some abstract way either.I believe that it is a perfectly logical conclusion that that is what it says. Especially given how far the text has travelled. While I agree there is a risk that one writes their own bible when trying to figure out what it says but at the same time the text of the bible exists in something like a six dimensional space. One can not look at a page of the bible and see the word of God. I can not even think of a good way to explain it without writing a book and even that would fail. Let's just say the word of God is larger than the human mind can expand. So in a way one does have to create their own bible but for each topic of the bible. Thousands of new bibles could be written out of the single bible just by creating a new bible on each concept without corrupting the word of God at all. I realize this make not be making much sense but if it did it would not be religion, right? Some people say, "Well why does God just not talk to us?" The Bible, OT, is his word. A single written paragraph can have a hundred meanings whereas a spoken paragraph probably has one, maybe two. Anything God could possibly say we would probably misunderstand, that is why he wrote it down. I think I will stop here and you can ask questions if you have any.I speak only for the OT. If one wants to find impossibilities and contradictions in the Bible it is not hard to do. If one reads the Bible and seeks wisdom and understanding one will find it. It might be said however, "Well but you need this 'faith' stuff before you start." Not so. At least no more than any scientist has when following an initial hypothesis. Any scientist who seeks to disprove a hypothesis and will take the first excuse they get is sure to succeed and will remain convinced they have succeed even after all the evidence in the world comes in behind them.
For example: Is it possible that all plants were created on the third day and that these plants would populate the earth but they were not actually planted until after it rained and there was a man to till the ground? I do not know but perhaps there is not a contradiction after all.
I get your point. Is it possible that plants were created on the third day and onward as you suggest? Sure anything is possible. But I think there is a danger there and I see most Christians try to reconcile differences between accounts and contradictions within the Bible by kind of "writing their own Bible". What you just described is possible, I suppose, but that's not what it says in either account. This is really common with the dramatically different birth accounts in Matthew and Luke where in one version there is a census and Joseph and Mary originally lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for the census, and in the other version Joseph and Mary originally (at least presumably) lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, and settled in Nazareth because it still wasn't safe in Bethlehem.
So there are two dramatically different accounts and because some Christians are really touchy about the Bible not being 100% accurate they try to cram the two together and argue that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census, then fled to Egypt, then RE-settled in Nazareth. Well...LOL...it's a clever way to weasel one's way through it, the problem is that it's not what either account says. So in essence in order to explain it they create their own gospel instead of simply saying "well Matthew says this and Luke says something else and we don't really know what happened." and just let it be that.
From my personal opinion it's best to say "well according to Matthew this happened" and "according to Luke that happened" and when someone asks what really happened we just shrug our shoulders and say "beats me". That's ok for me because I don't care where He was born. It's what He represents that is important and for all I care he could have been born in Tallahassee. I understand that it is important for Him to have been born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill prophecy. For me I just say "well the prophecy was wrong as most of them are" and I am good with that. But for a literal interpreter of the Bible who believes that the Bible is 100% historically accurate that's a tough pill to swallow.
I think we are in a sort of agreement. I tend to view the Bible from a very different perspective. I think that the first time it was written down it may have been the word of God, but there is absolutely no denying that it has evolved over countless centuries and thus what was once the word of God has become the word of man. That's how I see it and even that has some nuances attached. I understand completely about the Bible existing in "six dimensional space" and writing a book. I have considered many times writing a book and the main question I ask myself is "where on earth do I start?" LOL. On the other thread (the myths of the Bible) we discussed YHWH and again it's something that cannot be explained...that's what I was really trying to get across. YHWH reminds me of the Tao Te Ching chapter 1 where it says "The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." Just like Lao-Tzu was trying to explain to the Eastern mind...."the way", "God", "YHWH"...whatever name you choose to describe it will not do it justice. It's just too big for mortal comprehension. That's also why the Hebrews did not use YHWH in the spoken word...that name was at the same time too powerful and yet did not do justice to the concept.
I giggle a bit when Ninja for example tells me that "non-believers cannot understand". He assumes I am not a believer because I do not accept what I am told by others to believe. I actually go research it myself instead of just accepting what a priest, or pastor, or scholar, or professor tells me on blind faith. I try to do deep research in order to draw my own conclusions and be able to base those conclusions on something solid. Indeed, I am a firm believer...I have just drawn different conclusions based on a lifetime of study on languages, history, ancient cultures, ancient politics and civilizations, archaeology, science, rhetoric, and how all that relates to scripture.
I personally don't think we should write our own Bible, but I do believe we should try our best to seek the truth of scripture and commune with God and base a personal relationship with Him upon what we can agree on. To some that seems blasphemous, but when you really think about it...how many people treat God as well as they treat themselves? Or their wife? Or their friend? Or their neighbor? So I think it's fair to say to God "we can agree on this" and it will be ok with God because God knows that's all you can give. So writing our own Bible? No I can't buy into that. But creating your own relationship with God...even creating you own personal religion based on that relationship with God. That I can agree with because the concept is far too vast and awesome for us to comprehend on God's level of understanding.
So my only question would be....what do you think about that? LOL
Well calm down. LOL. Seriously though. Fanatical burnout is a very common thing. If I understand you correctly you have a new fire and passion and are perhaps a new Christian and that's great. Go with it. But be careful. I would encourage you to not go overboard. Don't be afraid to draw your own conclusions. Don't be afraid to reject traditional views, or reject scholarship but neither don't be afraid to accept them. Great things are happening with Christianity and scholarship. Technology is allowing us to understand things that haven't been understood for centuries simply because we have the ability to crunch it all down better now than at any time before and science, philosophy, and religion are beginning to merge. My brother is theoretical physicist. As theoretical and philosophical as I am, that's how scientific my brother is. Put it this way...I had a shirt made for him that says "well actually yes...I AM a rocket scientist". He was nominated for a Nobel Prize in physics. He didn't win, but at least he was nominated. The guy is a brilliant scientist. Even he concedes that advances in M-Theory, our understanding of the Big Bang, etc lead us toward a place where science, philosophy, and religion begin to merge. It's an extremely exciting time.
Critical scholarship is something that is often rejected by Christians. Most tend to misunderstand I think and it tends to threaten their faith. For me the study of critical scholarship has enhanced my faith because it seems to me that if the Bible is the word of God we ought to get it right so we are doing what GOD suggests and not what MAN suggests that may be wrong. A great example would be the snake handlers in the Ozarks who demonstrate their faith by handling and kissing poisonous snakes. They do so because in the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark it says that those who have faith can overcome a venomous bite from a snake (paraphrased). The problem is those verses were added centuries later by an unknown scribe. In the original copies of Mark the women go to the tomb of Jesus, Jesus speaks to them, and it says they do nothing for they were afraid and right there it ends. No more. A few centuries later someone said "well wait...that can't be the end. There has to be something more than that." and so the last 12 verses were added to give it a better ending and that's why guys in the Ozarks are always being rushed to the hospital after a snake bite. I really wish someone would tell them in the ambulance that the verses they are relying on were never in the original texts and they should stop kissing rattlesnakes. They might also add in that God gave us common sense for a reason.
So critical scholarship is good and I urge you to read it and take it how you will. I am still waiting for Ninja to respond to my challenges on the Bible's 100% accuracy. Perhaps I should ask him to prove it by French kissing a rattlesnake. Nah...that's too cruel. LOL
Slow reply due to the unfolding crisis in Paris.I come at from kind of the other side. For years I had this kind of on-going conversation with someone 'on the other side' so to speak. While I found it somewhat amazing I figured millions and millions of religious people around it could not be that uncommon, right? Last spring things kind of changed though. I got this BLAM! - "Go read the OT". So I did. And I say, "Wow, this is the guy who has been speaking to me all these years." So I have been reading the OT, read Job like two dozen times, since then. I have learned a whole bunch about all kinds of stuff religious. This time last year I could not even tell you what a bible was more than it was a religious book. I have no clue as to what this all means. OMG, if someone would have told me this time last year that I would be a radical religious nut I would have laughed mao, it still makes me laugh actually. Probably the one thing that gets me the absolutely most about this is that apparently even with all these really religious people talking with God is not that common. It's OK though, because no one takes me serious, just as well. So if anyone asks me why I believe in God I say, "Because he told me to." and I definitely fear God, and not in some abstract way either.I believe that it is a perfectly logical conclusion that that is what it says. Especially given how far the text has travelled. While I agree there is a risk that one writes their own bible when trying to figure out what it says but at the same time the text of the bible exists in something like a six dimensional space. One can not look at a page of the bible and see the word of God. I can not even think of a good way to explain it without writing a book and even that would fail. Let's just say the word of God is larger than the human mind can expand. So in a way one does have to create their own bible but for each topic of the bible. Thousands of new bibles could be written out of the single bible just by creating a new bible on each concept without corrupting the word of God at all. I realize this make not be making much sense but if it did it would not be religion, right? Some people say, "Well why does God just not talk to us?" The Bible, OT, is his word. A single written paragraph can have a hundred meanings whereas a spoken paragraph probably has one, maybe two. Anything God could possibly say we would probably misunderstand, that is why he wrote it down. I think I will stop here and you can ask questions if you have any.I get your point. Is it possible that plants were created on the third day and onward as you suggest? Sure anything is possible. But I think there is a danger there and I see most Christians try to reconcile differences between accounts and contradictions within the Bible by kind of "writing their own Bible". What you just described is possible, I suppose, but that's not what it says in either account. This is really common with the dramatically different birth accounts in Matthew and Luke where in one version there is a census and Joseph and Mary originally lived in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for the census, and in the other version Joseph and Mary originally (at least presumably) lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, and settled in Nazareth because it still wasn't safe in Bethlehem.
So there are two dramatically different accounts and because some Christians are really touchy about the Bible not being 100% accurate they try to cram the two together and argue that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for the census, then fled to Egypt, then RE-settled in Nazareth. Well...LOL...it's a clever way to weasel one's way through it, the problem is that it's not what either account says. So in essence in order to explain it they create their own gospel instead of simply saying "well Matthew says this and Luke says something else and we don't really know what happened." and just let it be that.
From my personal opinion it's best to say "well according to Matthew this happened" and "according to Luke that happened" and when someone asks what really happened we just shrug our shoulders and say "beats me". That's ok for me because I don't care where He was born. It's what He represents that is important and for all I care he could have been born in Tallahassee. I understand that it is important for Him to have been born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill prophecy. For me I just say "well the prophecy was wrong as most of them are" and I am good with that. But for a literal interpreter of the Bible who believes that the Bible is 100% historically accurate that's a tough pill to swallow.
I think we are in a sort of agreement. I tend to view the Bible from a very different perspective. I think that the first time it was written down it may have been the word of God, but there is absolutely no denying that it has evolved over countless centuries and thus what was once the word of God has become the word of man. That's how I see it and even that has some nuances attached. I understand completely about the Bible existing in "six dimensional space" and writing a book. I have considered many times writing a book and the main question I ask myself is "where on earth do I start?" LOL. On the other thread (the myths of the Bible) we discussed YHWH and again it's something that cannot be explained...that's what I was really trying to get across. YHWH reminds me of the Tao Te Ching chapter 1 where it says "The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." Just like Lao-Tzu was trying to explain to the Eastern mind...."the way", "God", "YHWH"...whatever name you choose to describe it will not do it justice. It's just too big for mortal comprehension. That's also why the Hebrews did not use YHWH in the spoken word...that name was at the same time too powerful and yet did not do justice to the concept.
I giggle a bit when Ninja for example tells me that "non-believers cannot understand". He assumes I am not a believer because I do not accept what I am told by others to believe. I actually go research it myself instead of just accepting what a priest, or pastor, or scholar, or professor tells me on blind faith. I try to do deep research in order to draw my own conclusions and be able to base those conclusions on something solid. Indeed, I am a firm believer...I have just drawn different conclusions based on a lifetime of study on languages, history, ancient cultures, ancient politics and civilizations, archaeology, science, rhetoric, and how all that relates to scripture.
I personally don't think we should write our own Bible, but I do believe we should try our best to seek the truth of scripture and commune with God and base a personal relationship with Him upon what we can agree on. To some that seems blasphemous, but when you really think about it...how many people treat God as well as they treat themselves? Or their wife? Or their friend? Or their neighbor? So I think it's fair to say to God "we can agree on this" and it will be ok with God because God knows that's all you can give. So writing our own Bible? No I can't buy into that. But creating your own relationship with God...even creating you own personal religion based on that relationship with God. That I can agree with because the concept is far too vast and awesome for us to comprehend on God's level of understanding.
So my only question would be....what do you think about that? LOL
Well calm down. LOL. Seriously though. Fanatical burnout is a very common thing. If I understand you correctly you have a new fire and passion and are perhaps a new Christian and that's great. Go with it. But be careful. I would encourage you to not go overboard. Don't be afraid to draw your own conclusions. Don't be afraid to reject traditional views, or reject scholarship but neither don't be afraid to accept them. Great things are happening with Christianity and scholarship. Technology is allowing us to understand things that haven't been understood for centuries simply because we have the ability to crunch it all down better now than at any time before and science, philosophy, and religion are beginning to merge. My brother is theoretical physicist. As theoretical and philosophical as I am, that's how scientific my brother is. Put it this way...I had a shirt made for him that says "well actually yes...I AM a rocket scientist". He was nominated for a Nobel Prize in physics. He didn't win, but at least he was nominated. The guy is a brilliant scientist. Even he concedes that advances in M-Theory, our understanding of the Big Bang, etc lead us toward a place where science, philosophy, and religion begin to merge. It's an extremely exciting time.
Critical scholarship is something that is often rejected by Christians. Most tend to misunderstand I think and it tends to threaten their faith. For me the study of critical scholarship has enhanced my faith because it seems to me that if the Bible is the word of God we ought to get it right so we are doing what GOD suggests and not what MAN suggests that may be wrong. A great example would be the snake handlers in the Ozarks who demonstrate their faith by handling and kissing poisonous snakes. They do so because in the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark it says that those who have faith can overcome a venomous bite from a snake (paraphrased). The problem is those verses were added centuries later by an unknown scribe. In the original copies of Mark the women go to the tomb of Jesus, Jesus speaks to them, and it says they do nothing for they were afraid and right there it ends. No more. A few centuries later someone said "well wait...that can't be the end. There has to be something more than that." and so the last 12 verses were added to give it a better ending and that's why guys in the Ozarks are always being rushed to the hospital after a snake bite. I really wish someone would tell them in the ambulance that the verses they are relying on were never in the original texts and they should stop kissing rattlesnakes. They might also add in that God gave us common sense for a reason.
So critical scholarship is good and I urge you to read it and take it how you will. I am still waiting for Ninja to respond to my challenges on the Bible's 100% accuracy. Perhaps I should ask him to prove it by French kissing a rattlesnake. Nah...that's too cruel. LOL
I was quite baffled by one aspect of God insisting I go read the OT. There was no fire and passion. There was not really any emotion in it at all. There are times when it is tough and times when it is a little amusing but there is nothing like a burning flame of passion in me. It is all extremely logical. However I think that hoping to find God through research is like trying to understand the bible by parsing the text. I would love sit down with someone who was an expert bible scholar and go over a few things but that will probably wait for a while longer. It is frustrating to read verse by verse and then a chapter and then another chapter and everything be going OK and the read a verse and be like, "Ah, come on! That does not even make any sense!" Sometimes later it makes perfect sense and I do not see why it did not before and others still makes no sense. I have no idea if next time I read it if I will feel stupid for not understanding it or if it will still be nonsense. The bible is just like that. It is the act of reading the bible itself which is the fundamental piece. I also have the benefit of guidance from the source. One example of something I read and I wondered if there was some deep philosophical meaning to it was the bible kept referring to "covering one's feet". While it can be a time of great philosophical thought it is also of great practical purpose.
It means to take a crap.Slow reply due to the unfolding crisis in Paris.I come at from kind of the other side. For years I had this kind of on-going conversation with someone 'on the other side' so to speak. While I found it somewhat amazing I figured millions and millions of religious people around it could not be that uncommon, right? Last spring things kind of changed though. I got this BLAM! - "Go read the OT". So I did. And I say, "Wow, this is the guy who has been speaking to me all these years." So I have been reading the OT, read Job like two dozen times, since then. I have learned a whole bunch about all kinds of stuff religious. This time last year I could not even tell you what a bible was more than it was a religious book. I have no clue as to what this all means. OMG, if someone would have told me this time last year that I would be a radical religious nut I would have laughed mao, it still makes me laugh actually. Probably the one thing that gets me the absolutely most about this is that apparently even with all these really religious people talking with God is not that common. It's OK though, because no one takes me serious, just as well. So if anyone asks me why I believe in God I say, "Because he told me to." and I definitely fear God, and not in some abstract way either.I believe that it is a perfectly logical conclusion that that is what it says. Especially given how far the text has travelled. While I agree there is a risk that one writes their own bible when trying to figure out what it says but at the same time the text of the bible exists in something like a six dimensional space. One can not look at a page of the bible and see the word of God. I can not even think of a good way to explain it without writing a book and even that would fail. Let's just say the word of God is larger than the human mind can expand. So in a way one does have to create their own bible but for each topic of the bible. Thousands of new bibles could be written out of the single bible just by creating a new bible on each concept without corrupting the word of God at all. I realize this make not be making much sense but if it did it would not be religion, right? Some people say, "Well why does God just not talk to us?" The Bible, OT, is his word. A single written paragraph can have a hundred meanings whereas a spoken paragraph probably has one, maybe two. Anything God could possibly say we would probably misunderstand, that is why he wrote it down. I think I will stop here and you can ask questions if you have any.
I think we are in a sort of agreement. I tend to view the Bible from a very different perspective. I think that the first time it was written down it may have been the word of God, but there is absolutely no denying that it has evolved over countless centuries and thus what was once the word of God has become the word of man. That's how I see it and even that has some nuances attached. I understand completely about the Bible existing in "six dimensional space" and writing a book. I have considered many times writing a book and the main question I ask myself is "where on earth do I start?" LOL. On the other thread (the myths of the Bible) we discussed YHWH and again it's something that cannot be explained...that's what I was really trying to get across. YHWH reminds me of the Tao Te Ching chapter 1 where it says "The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." Just like Lao-Tzu was trying to explain to the Eastern mind...."the way", "God", "YHWH"...whatever name you choose to describe it will not do it justice. It's just too big for mortal comprehension. That's also why the Hebrews did not use YHWH in the spoken word...that name was at the same time too powerful and yet did not do justice to the concept.
I giggle a bit when Ninja for example tells me that "non-believers cannot understand". He assumes I am not a believer because I do not accept what I am told by others to believe. I actually go research it myself instead of just accepting what a priest, or pastor, or scholar, or professor tells me on blind faith. I try to do deep research in order to draw my own conclusions and be able to base those conclusions on something solid. Indeed, I am a firm believer...I have just drawn different conclusions based on a lifetime of study on languages, history, ancient cultures, ancient politics and civilizations, archaeology, science, rhetoric, and how all that relates to scripture.
I personally don't think we should write our own Bible, but I do believe we should try our best to seek the truth of scripture and commune with God and base a personal relationship with Him upon what we can agree on. To some that seems blasphemous, but when you really think about it...how many people treat God as well as they treat themselves? Or their wife? Or their friend? Or their neighbor? So I think it's fair to say to God "we can agree on this" and it will be ok with God because God knows that's all you can give. So writing our own Bible? No I can't buy into that. But creating your own relationship with God...even creating you own personal religion based on that relationship with God. That I can agree with because the concept is far too vast and awesome for us to comprehend on God's level of understanding.
So my only question would be....what do you think about that? LOL
Well calm down. LOL. Seriously though. Fanatical burnout is a very common thing. If I understand you correctly you have a new fire and passion and are perhaps a new Christian and that's great. Go with it. But be careful. I would encourage you to not go overboard. Don't be afraid to draw your own conclusions. Don't be afraid to reject traditional views, or reject scholarship but neither don't be afraid to accept them. Great things are happening with Christianity and scholarship. Technology is allowing us to understand things that haven't been understood for centuries simply because we have the ability to crunch it all down better now than at any time before and science, philosophy, and religion are beginning to merge. My brother is theoretical physicist. As theoretical and philosophical as I am, that's how scientific my brother is. Put it this way...I had a shirt made for him that says "well actually yes...I AM a rocket scientist". He was nominated for a Nobel Prize in physics. He didn't win, but at least he was nominated. The guy is a brilliant scientist. Even he concedes that advances in M-Theory, our understanding of the Big Bang, etc lead us toward a place where science, philosophy, and religion begin to merge. It's an extremely exciting time.
Critical scholarship is something that is often rejected by Christians. Most tend to misunderstand I think and it tends to threaten their faith. For me the study of critical scholarship has enhanced my faith because it seems to me that if the Bible is the word of God we ought to get it right so we are doing what GOD suggests and not what MAN suggests that may be wrong. A great example would be the snake handlers in the Ozarks who demonstrate their faith by handling and kissing poisonous snakes. They do so because in the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark it says that those who have faith can overcome a venomous bite from a snake (paraphrased). The problem is those verses were added centuries later by an unknown scribe. In the original copies of Mark the women go to the tomb of Jesus, Jesus speaks to them, and it says they do nothing for they were afraid and right there it ends. No more. A few centuries later someone said "well wait...that can't be the end. There has to be something more than that." and so the last 12 verses were added to give it a better ending and that's why guys in the Ozarks are always being rushed to the hospital after a snake bite. I really wish someone would tell them in the ambulance that the verses they are relying on were never in the original texts and they should stop kissing rattlesnakes. They might also add in that God gave us common sense for a reason.
So critical scholarship is good and I urge you to read it and take it how you will. I am still waiting for Ninja to respond to my challenges on the Bible's 100% accuracy. Perhaps I should ask him to prove it by French kissing a rattlesnake. Nah...that's too cruel. LOL
I was quite baffled by one aspect of God insisting I go read the OT. There was no fire and passion. There was not really any emotion in it at all. There are times when it is tough and times when it is a little amusing but there is nothing like a burning flame of passion in me. It is all extremely logical. However I think that hoping to find God through research is like trying to understand the bible by parsing the text. I would love sit down with someone who was an expert bible scholar and go over a few things but that will probably wait for a while longer. It is frustrating to read verse by verse and then a chapter and then another chapter and everything be going OK and the read a verse and be like, "Ah, come on! That does not even make any sense!" Sometimes later it makes perfect sense and I do not see why it did not before and others still makes no sense. I have no idea if next time I read it if I will feel stupid for not understanding it or if it will still be nonsense. The bible is just like that. It is the act of reading the bible itself which is the fundamental piece. I also have the benefit of guidance from the source. One example of something I read and I wondered if there was some deep philosophical meaning to it was the bible kept referring to "covering one's feet". While it can be a time of great philosophical thought it is also of great practical purpose.
Well the feet was sometimes a euphemism for the genetalia in ancient Hebrew culture. Sometimes it just meant the feet of course but sometimes it meant the penis. For example when the woman washed and anointed Jesus' feet, it was almost certainly referring to his actual feet. When David told Uriah to go home and wash his feet, on the other hand, it wasn't his feet he was suggesting Uriah should get wet.
Washing the feet or covering the feet was a convention that the Hebrews used in their writing to make a point in such a way as would be familiar to the reader. Another example would be finding a wife at the well. It seems that in ancient times when you wanted to find a wife you just went to the well and waited for one to show up. It happens over and over in the Bible, but that's a convention to set a familiar scene that one would expect will get twisted at the end. It would be similar to us today saying "so a guy walks into a bar..."
So in regards to covering the feet...it just depends on the scene and the context. Usually you can figure it out by what else is being described but sometimes the author will use the convention as a pun so it suggests a double meaning as well.
That might help you.
When Jesus was a child, he disappeared and was finally found by his parents arguing with learned rabbi's about scripture in the temple, and were amazed at this.
One has to wonder why they were so amazed, since,
1. Angels had appeared to sheppard's announcing the birth of Christ
2. Wise men, or kings, or astronomers (the bible is not clear about that) followed a star in the sky to the very manger of Jesus' birth, bearing gifts for the newborn king
3. Mary, and an angel had convinced joseph that Mary had been impregnated by god, and was a virgin.
One has to wonder if Mary and Joseph had a short attention span.
It means to take a crap.
OMG!!! Can I play?!? So you are Christ? Great to meet you. YWHW talks to me. Can I pass any messages along for you?So next year when you are still saying all that crap and we refer to this post where you say you will be dead next month, will you humble yourself and come to Christ and cease to proclaim yourself God
I am the Christ where all God's people exist.
I looked it up on Google or biblehub or something. I remember it most prominently from Saul going into the cave and David cutting his skirt. Saul must have been in some deep philosophical thought not to have noticed that one.It means to take a crap.
That is an explanation I have never run across. Can you provide a source for that? I would like to see what that is all about
I looked it up on Google or biblehub or something. I remember it most prominently from Saul going into the cave and David cutting his skirt. Saul must have been in some deep philosophical thought not to have noticed that one.It means to take a crap.
That is an explanation I have never run across. Can you provide a source for that? I would like to see what that is all about
OMG!!! Can I play?!? So you are Christ? Great to meet you. YWHW talks to me. Can I pass any messages along for you?So next year when you are still saying all that crap and we refer to this post where you say you will be dead next month, will you humble yourself and come to Christ and cease to proclaim yourself God
I am the Christ where all God's people exist.
I did? What was it?OMG!!! Can I play?!? So you are Christ? Great to meet you. YWHW talks to me. Can I pass any messages along for you?So next year when you are still saying all that crap and we refer to this post where you say you will be dead next month, will you humble yourself and come to Christ and cease to proclaim yourself God
I am the Christ where all God's people exist.
You already have passed me a message and I understand it very well.
I did? What was it?OMG!!! Can I play?!? So you are Christ? Great to meet you. YWHW talks to me. Can I pass any messages along for you?So next year when you are still saying all that crap and we refer to this post where you say you will be dead next month, will you humble yourself and come to Christ and cease to proclaim yourself God
I am the Christ where all God's people exist.
You already have passed me a message and I understand it very well.
What gave you that idea? Sure I am. Were you under a different name?I did? What was it?OMG!!! Can I play?!? So you are Christ? Great to meet you. YWHW talks to me. Can I pass any messages along for you?So next year when you are still saying all that crap and we refer to this post where you say you will be dead next month, will you humble yourself and come to Christ and cease to proclaim yourself God
I am the Christ where all God's people exist.
You already have passed me a message and I understand it very well.
That you're not interested in learning who you are in God.
this is a classic post. I love it. Sure Jesus does too. ?According to the bible those who are christians and believe Christ is the son of God, which I do will be saved. Which i do. So.. It also says it will just happen. the Believers will vanish to the kingdom of heaven. We wont know it till it happens. So I don't worry about this and you all can go to hell.
this is a classic post. I love it. Sure Jesus does too. ?According to the bible those who are christians and believe Christ is the son of God, which I do will be saved. Which i do. So.. It also says it will just happen. the Believers will vanish to the kingdom of heaven. We wont know it till it happens. So I don't worry about this and you all can go to hell.
