Originally Posted by foundit66

You're missing the point, or trying to avoid it desparately.

God CAN do whatever he damn well pleases. He could in fact actually have told us "Believe in me, repent of your sins, and you'll be saved" and not even send Jesus, couldn't he have?

But instead, he chose to sadistically send down his "Son" to be human, or whatever half-breed cyborg your religion teaches, to be tortured and killed.

But we're getting off track here.
It's a CENTRAL POINT to the Christian dogma that Jesus KEPT the law, and that he HAD TO keep the law in order to fulfill the Old Testament contract. So that a new contract could be made.

But Jesus DID NOT keep the law perfectly. And choosing to ignore the law demonstrates that the dogma is flawed. The 'requirement' that Christians taught that Jesus had to keep the law perfectly and that he did keep the law perfectly is wrong.

So, avoid this with insults if you please, but it's not going away.
It's not "meandering".
If you have no real answer, then be honest enough to admit it.
Or be Christian and obfuscate...
The choice is yours...

Originally Posted by alias

You are the one making shit up in this conversation about what God should or could have done, not me pal. You are the one meandering all over the place with your ramblings, not me. I am the one trying to remind you all the time to stay on topic and focused. The only one throwing insults is you insulting God.

Originally Posted by alias

Read Matthew 12: 2-8 again. Jesus mentions David in that passage. David ate the shewbread when he was hungry. Then Jesus says that he desires mercy instead of sacrifice. A man's hunger is to be satisfied before satisfying the law.

Originally Posted by foundit66

What are you claiming I am making up?
Please be specific.
I am more than prepared to back up my statements on Christian dogma and what it teaches.



And you criticize me for making things up?
Jesus does reference David. That is true.
But NOWHERE does he state that hunger displaces the law. That is what you are MAKING UP about his statements.

But along those lines, weren't the Jews in the desert "hungry" as well?
If hunger mitigates violation of the Sabbath law, why didn't it mitigate it for them as well?

Originally Posted by foundit66

What are you claiming I am making up?
Please be specific.
I am more than prepared to back up my statements on Christian dogma and what it teaches.



And you criticize me for making things up?
Jesus does reference David. That is true.
But NOWHERE does he state that hunger displaces the law. That is what you are MAKING UP about his statements.

But along those lines, weren't the Jews in the desert "hungry" as well?
If hunger mitigates violation of the Sabbath law, why didn't it mitigate it for them as well?

Originally Posted by alias

Stuff like this meandering rhetoric....."You're missing the point, or trying to avoid it desparately.

Originally Posted by alias

That has nothing to do with the discussion.

Originally Posted by alias

Yes the Jews were hungry and God gave them manna from heaven to eat.

Originally Posted by Alias

I am not making stuff up. What does Matthew 12:7 mean to you.

Originally Posted by foundit66

That's not the point.
The point is that if "hunger" gives people an out for violating the work on the Sabbath rule, then WHY didn't it give the Jews in the desert an out to "work" on the Sabbath?

Those bible passages CLEARLY established that it would have been a violation of the Sabbath law for them to gather food on the Sabbath. And that was just PICKING IT OFF THE GROUND!
They would have been hungry when they did that, yes?

WHY didn't it give those Jews an "out" to work on the Sabbath?

Originally Posted by foundit66

That's not the point.
The point is that if "hunger" gives people an out for violating the work on the Sabbath rule, then WHY didn't it give the Jews in the desert an out to "work" on the Sabbath?

Those bible passages CLEARLY established that it would have been a violation of the Sabbath law for them to gather food on the Sabbath. And that was just PICKING IT OFF THE GROUND!
They would have been hungry when they did that, yes?

WHY didn't it give those Jews an "out" to work on the Sabbath?



Mat 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple.
Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Verse 6. He's talking about himself. How he, Jesus, is greater than the places of worship where the pharisees teach.
Verse 7. He's pointing out that the pharisees don't recognize that Jesus is great. And that if they had recognize Jesus is great and believe in him, then God will show them mercy. This is a central tie-in to the whole Christian dogma on "Believe in Jesus and you will be saved".
He's also saying that if they recognized Jesus as son of god, then they wouldn't be "condemning" him. He proclaims he is "guiltless", even though he has been caught red-handed in the cookie jar.

Originally Posted by alias

First things first. You didn't answer my last question.
What does Matthew 12:7 mean?

Originally Posted by foundit66

Actually, I did.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in that it's in the very next post after the one you are now responding to.

But now, back to my issue...
That's not the point.
The point is that if "hunger" gives people an out for violating the work on the Sabbath rule, then WHY didn't it give the Jews in the desert an out to "work" on the Sabbath?

Those bible passages CLEARLY established that it would have been a violation of the Sabbath law for them to gather food on the Sabbath. And that was just PICKING IT OFF THE GROUND!
They would have been hungry when they did that, yes?

WHY didn't it give those Jews an "out" to work on the Sabbath?