When man tells God, you can't....

When man tells God, You can't tell me what to do.... it's like saying he/she was there in the very beginning telling God what to make/create and what not to make/create.
Your comparison doesn't sound right.
For example, rejecting the law of the land won't mean telling the authorities what to include and what not to include as laws, it is simply rejecting (i.e. disobeying).
 
I dunno, but whatever it is, is it the right one?
Just because I declare 2+2=4, it does not become "my" interpretation. I can take no credit for it.

I go back to the original history, culture, language, author, audience of a Biblical story, which means I cannot claim it as my interpretation either as I am merely reporting data.

Nor can I claim Literalness of the Bible as my own interpretation when all I am doing is reporting what was decided by Evangelicals in the 1970s. Same with "Rapture", same with Young Earth--both of which caused me to raise an eyebrow because these declarations only started up a few hundred years ago, not the thousands of years which then date back to Biblical times. I can also go back to the original language when someone suddenly declares that in the Bible, "earth" means the entire planet.

Think of it like this: Is it your interpretation that the United States won the American Revolution? Or are you merely reporting on data available to everyone? In the same way, I do not interpret the Bible, I merely report data available to everyone.
There is only one path that history took.

For the bible there are countless paths of understanding of it taken. How do you know that you're on the right path? Are all the paths valid? Or just yours?
 
When man tells God, You can't tell me what to do.... it's like saying he/she was there in the very beginning telling God what to make/create and what not to make/create.
So an invisible person is telling you what to do? Get some help. Soon.
GOD speaks through HIS Holy Word. And if you obey what HE says there one can very likely live longer and more contently, then if one rants and raves and becomes a creature of habits.
So god speaks through a book? Why can’t he do something better, and especially more convincing?
Nothing that JESUS did directly in front of the Pharisees and Sadducee was good enough for them. I don't see how anything at this point would be any different in your regard.
So you're saying that god couldn't come up with something convincing enough for me? Interesting. Am I smarter than god?
 
For the bible there are countless paths of understanding of it taken. How do you know that you're on the right path? Are all the paths valid? Or just yours?
We have already gone over all of that. Original author, original audience. And who claimed my path was valid?
 
Were you? Or do you mean "other" religious people--everyone but you?

Actually, funny thing, I was always the kid who didn't go along.

"Hey, Sister, why do Luke and Matthew have different sets of ancestors for Jesus? And they both trace him through Joseph, who wasn't his father?" WHACK!!!

Hey the bible says no graven images, what's up with all these statues? WHACK!!!

I realized it was all bullshit at an early age.
 
Actually, funny thing, I was always the kid who didn't go along.

"Hey, Sister, why do Luke and Matthew have different sets of ancestors for Jesus? And they both trace him through Joseph, who wasn't his father?" WHACK!!!

Hey the bible says no graven images, what's up with all these statues? WHACK!!!

I realized it was all bullshit at an early age.
As I said, you were a bright kid. You asked simple questions. Then jumped to a conclusion. Have you ever researched the questions you asked?
 
As I said, you were a bright kid. You asked simple questions. Then jumped to a conclusion. Have you ever researched the questions you asked?

Actually, I have.

The reason why the two gospels have different geneologies is those guys were making shit up, trying to draw a connection between Jesus and David. But since Jesus wasn't actually a real person, of course they weren't going to get their made up lists right.

As for graven images... Catholicism was built on the ruins of Paganism, and Pagans loved their statues, which is why they just replaced household Gods with Patron Saints.
 
Actually, I have.

The reason why the two gospels have different geneologies is those guys were making shit up, trying to draw a connection between Jesus and David. But since Jesus wasn't actually a real person, of course they weren't going to get their made up lists right.

As for graven images... Catholicism was built on the ruins of Paganism, and Pagans loved their statues, which is why they just replaced household Gods with Patron Saints.
Incorrect on both accounts. Once again the habit of thinking everyone (this time the authors) stupid, is clouding matters. Go back to graven images. Which graven images were considered unlawful and why? Have you considered the description of the Ark of the Covenant?

Ever do any genealogy?

I am surprised you had no teachers of religion who could answer your questions. Were they unable? Or were they unwilling to waste class time when possibly your only goal was to disrupt class with a game of gotcha? Were you ever sincere in your questioning? I suspect you were at one time, but I could be wrong on that as well--me being one of the stupids. :)
 
For the bible there are countless paths of understanding of it taken. How do you know that you're on the right path? Are all the paths valid? Or just yours?
We have already gone over all of that. Original author, original audience. And who claimed my path was valid?
So everyone is sort of wandering around. That's why I say god should come and straighten everything out.
 
So everyone is sort of wandering around. That's why I say god should come and straighten everything out.
:) No, we are not wandering around, but I think that may be how you see yourself? As wandering from one course to another, not for the purpose of getting anywhere, but to discover reasons not to embark on any way?

As I (borrowing from many Rabbis) have said before: Love God, Love Your Fellowman. The rest is just commentary. Reading through the Bible, one may be drawn to how someone else solved a problem, or be inspired by the courage, beauty, and common-sense wisdom it contains. Gathering with fellow travelers is also a blessing bringing comfort and encouragement, and the sheer delight of praising and thanking God together.

It is not for everyone any more than diamonds are for everyone. However, unlike diamonds, it is there for everyone who wishes to draw upon it.

Or...think of all the different ways there are of making a cake, or trying to make a cake. Are all ways valid? Or, are there certain methods and ingredients that are common to all? Almost anyone can make a delightful cake, but sprinkle it with a few rodent droppings and the result may not be quite so pleasing.
 
So everyone is sort of wandering around. That's why I say god should come and straighten everything out.
:) No, we are not wandering around, but I think that may be how you see yourself? As wandering from one course to another, not for the purpose of getting anywhere, but to discover reasons not to embark on any way?

As I (borrowing from many Rabbis) have said before: Love God, Love Your Fellowman. The rest is just commentary. Reading through the Bible, one may be drawn to how someone else solved a problem, or be inspired by the courage, beauty, and common-sense wisdom it contains. Gathering with fellow travelers is also a blessing bringing comfort and encouragement, and the sheer delight of praising and thanking God together.

It is not for everyone any more than diamonds are for everyone. However, unlike diamonds, it is there for everyone who wishes to draw upon it.

Or...think of all the different ways there are of making a cake, or trying to make a cake. Are all ways valid? Or, are there certain methods and ingredients that are common to all? Almost anyone can make a delightful cake, but sprinkle it with a few rodent droppings and the result may not be quite so pleasing.
So interpreting the bible is like a cake, there are innumerable ways to bake it. And you stick to the flavours you like. Hmmm.
 
Incorrect on both accounts. Once again the habit of thinking everyone (this time the authors) stupid, is clouding matters. Go back to graven images. Which graven images were considered unlawful and why? Have you considered the description of the Ark of the Covenant?

Nope, never did. Point was, the bible was REALLY clear, no Graven Images. Period. Full Stop. But, man the Catholics love their saints.

Ever do any genealogy?

Yes, I have. I know who my Grandfather was. Jesus apparently didn't, according to Matt and Luke.

I am surprised you had no teachers of religion who could answer your questions. Were they unable? Or were they unwilling to waste class time when possibly your only goal was to disrupt class with a game of gotcha? Were you ever sincere in your questioning? I suspect you were at one time, but I could be wrong on that as well--me being one of the stupids.

Like I said, I am very analytical. If I see something that doesn't fit, I try to figure out why it doesn't fit. The problem were, the Nuns really were stupid. And mean. Not that I blame them. Here they were, locked up in this convent, frustrated lesbians every last fucking one of them, I'm sure they did go crazy after a while. The bad part was they unleased these nasty old hags on Children.

THANK GOD we had a gay liberation movement, so young Catholic Carpet Munchers didn't get trapped in this awful lifestyle.

As I've said, many times, I was done with your church after my mom died. Now it's just a target for my mockery.
 
Nope, never did. Point was, the bible was REALLY clear, no Graven Images. Period. Full Stop. But, man the Catholics love their saints.
You didn't answer the question. Why no graven images? Why would a nomadic people even want graven images? There is a reason. Nor did you answer the question about the Ark of the Covenant. Another question: Are there any photos of Jews? Why was the Ark, why are photos not covered under this law? So, no...not a full stop. Hint: Under which section was the Law placed?
 
Yes, I have. I know who my Grandfather was. Jesus apparently didn't, according to Matt and Luke.
What is the Hebrew word for `Grandfather'? That is right--there is no such word. All descendants, whether son, grandson, great-great-great-great-great grandchild were all known as "Son of...." Also, not every person was as notable as some, and their names are lost to us. So, a "Son of David" for example could mean any and all of his descendants.

Also, at that time, Genealogies were used as a prologue to the story being told about the current person. Matthew and Luke wished to provide background and setting for the story of Jesus. Each person mentioned had a story associated with them as well. Did you do any research of any of the people mentioned in the genealogies? Or, did you stop after comparing names?
 
Like I said, I am very analytical. If I see something that doesn't fit, I try to figure out why it doesn't fit.
I don't see you trying very hard. I readily agree there are many places people are thinking, "That really doesn't seem to fit." The question I investigate and research is, "How does this fit?" There can be any number of very interesting reasons. No one has to believe in God to at least make an attempt to learn and understand how people of a different era communicated. Each name in a genealogy told a story, and presented some history that was well-known to people of that era.

Your answer to your question of, Why doesn't if fit, always seems to be people are stupid and they made it all up. Instead, they are simply better historians with better memories than we have today. They had to be--they didn't have the resources to pen lengthy prologues and accounts. Nor did many people have the resources to buy such material even had they been widely available.
 
So interpreting the bible is like a cake, there are innumerable ways to bake it. And you stick to the flavours you like. Hmmm.
More or less. The first part is being humble enough to know that not all the commentary in the Bible is about you. Start with the main ingredients (love of God, love of fellowman). In the cake analogy it would be start with flour and sugar. From thereon you are your own creator of self (or the cake).
 
Continuation from my post on page 5 ...

Since we are eternal beings, God could not create our intelligence and thus did not create us ex nihilo or perfect. In order for us to progress, we are given free will to choose. In the pre-mortal existence, we chose to come to this earth in a fallen state and experience good and evil, good times and difficult times, all to help us progress as children of God by learning to choose good over evil. As imperfect beings, God knew that we would make mistakes that would make it unjust for us to return to God's presence. For this reason God had a plan of salvation that could save us from our mistakes. Once we committed sin we lost the ability to return to God since no unclean thing can dwell in his presence.

The genius of God's plan was to have a being who is infinite and eternal who never sins come to this earth. While on this earth he would teach mankind to repent of their sins and show them the way to return to our Heavenly Father. He would then voluntarily take upon himself the pain and suffering of the sins of all mankind. This pain and suffering was likely executed through Satan and his minions. No mortal man would have been able to go through this pain and suffering. This is why it needed to be an infinite and eternal being. Jesus, as the Only Begotten of Father in the flesh, was an infinite and eternal being. As the son of Mary, Jesus had the ability to lay down his life of his own choosing. No man could take his life from him:

John 10:17-18
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

As part God and part man, Jesus was infinite and eternal and did no sin, but also was able to lay down his life if he so chose to do so. Now for the genius of God's plan. Jesus as an infinite and eternal being who did not sin never deserved the pain and suffering that he received. He was a lamb without blemish. Surely it was unjust that Jesus suffer and die since he was a sinless being who was infinite and eternal. God the Father, being a just God, would of a necessity need to recompense the Christ for the unjust punishment that he received. Also God would of a necessity need to recompense the Christ to the extent of the punishment he received. What do you think God's recompense to the Christ was? Because Jesus born the pain and suffering for the sins of all mankind, our Father in Heaven granted him the recompense of having the power to forgive mankind of the sins they commit under one condition. What do you think that condition is?

Matthew 4:17
17 From that time Jesus began to
preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

The condition placed upon us is that we repent of our sins. As long as mankind will change his/her behavior from sin to righteousness, Jesus will grant us forgiveness of sin. If we are to inherit the kingdom of God, we must learn to live the law of the celestial kingdom of God. The demands for justice to be given to the unjustly punished Christ overpowereth the demands of justice for our individual sins because a price was paid for them by the Christ and mercy to the repentant sinner encircles him/her in the love of God. Salvation if a free gift to all if we just repent of our sins. Jesus was given the power to forgive sins, but he was also given the power to bring about the resurrection of all mankind. Everybody will receive the free gift of the resurrection to never die again. We become immortal through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. However, if we want to live again in the presence of God, we must learn to live a celestial law and repent of our sins. Otherwise, we will be saved into a lesser kingdom. Only those who commit the unpardonable sin and become a son of perdition, will not be saved into a kingdom of glory.

Doctrine and Covenants 45:3-5
3 Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—
4 Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;
5 Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life.

God the Father and Jesus Christ care enough about the advancement of our beings that they have made great sacrifices for us so that we might have a greater existence in the eternities and greater joy and happiness in the worlds to come.
 
ou didn't answer the question. Why no graven images? Why would a nomadic people even want graven images? There is a reason. Nor did you answer the question about the Ark of the Covenant. Another question: Are there any photos of Jews? Why was the Ark, why are photos not covered under this law? So, no...not a full stop. Hint: Under which section was the Law placed?

Why do you need "Graven Images" now, of dead saints to pray to?

I don't see you trying very hard. I readily agree there are many places people are thinking, "That really doesn't seem to fit." The question I investigate and research is, "How does this fit?" There can be any number of very interesting reasons. No one has to believe in God to at least make an attempt to learn and understand how people of a different era communicated. Each name in a genealogy told a story, and presented some history that was well-known to people of that era.

Again, the problem with you bible thumpers is that you try to pretend the bible doesn't say what it clearly says if it doesn't fit into your narrative. There's no reason for Jesus to have TWO DIFFERENT PATERNAL GRANDFATHERS, unless no one really knew what his grandfather's name was, and they were JUST MAKING IT UP. They knew his father was Joseph because his name was Jesus ben-Joseph. (Or Yeshua ben Yosef). But that's probably all they knew about him.

Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is often the right one.

Your answer to your question of, Why doesn't if fit, always seems to be people are stupid and they made it all up. Instead, they are simply better historians with better memories than we have today. They had to be--they didn't have the resources to pen lengthy prologues and accounts. Nor did many people have the resources to buy such material even had they been widely available.

Actually, they weren't good historians at all. Matthew and Luke both Cribbed off the Gospel of Mark (who didn't know Jesus personally) and copied 97% of his text into their gospels. But since Mark didn't go into Jesus birth or ancestry and didn't feel a need to link him to the David Myth, he didn't bother with that part.

Matthew and Luke did, and had to come up with very convoluted ways to put Mary's Baby Bump in Bethelhem, even though Jesus was from Galilee.

So Matt's version- Joseph (son of Jacob) lived in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great. Herod was told by the Magi that a new King was born, so he ordered all the babies killed (Something not recorded by ANY other historian or Gospel writer, and sounds largely cribbed from the Moses story). Joseph Fled to Egypt and then settled in Galilee. Since we know Herod died in 4 BCE, this would have had to happened in 6-4 BCE.

Luke's Version Joseph (son of Heli) lived in Galilee, but when Publius Quirinius ordered a Census of the newly acquired province of Judea, all the people who descended from David had to return to their ancestral home. (The Romans did not actually conduct censuses like this) So that's how you get the silly story of no room in the in and Jesus being born in a manger.

(My theory was little Jesus just kept leaving the door open as a child, and his mother screamed, "JESUS, WERE YOU BORN IN A BARN?!" It makes as much sense as either of the silly bible stories and it's a lot funnier.)

Now, yes, these are myths, and myths have a purpose in a religion. But myths aren't true.

The thing is, if Jesus were just a dude who told us to be nice to each other, none of these myths, none of these fucking fairy tales about walking on water or coming back from the dead, would you really care what he had to say?
 
Why do you need "Graven Images" now, of dead saints to pray to?
Back in Biblical times, the reason people made and bought graven images is because they were thought to contain the power of that image, and were being worshiped. The Commandment was only one God, so no other gods, meaning no graven images were to be worshiped. (No one was worshiping the cherubs engraved on the Ark.)

Statuary as art work or a portrait of an person, animal, or thing and not something that is worshiped due to presumed inherent power. Using a candle or object to focus one's attention on a prayer is quite different from worshiping said object, or believing said object has power. No one needs statuary any more than anyone needs a portrait of a loved one. For some, needed or not, they are still nice to have.
 

Forum List

Back
Top