I'm not talking about "cooking". You're side-stepping the issue.

The Exodus chapters I quoted CLEARLY established a precedent that GATHERING food on the Sabbath was forbidden. Not "cooking", but GATHERING.

And Jesus and his disciples were GATHERING food. Breaking the precedent CLEARLY established in Exodus.

You're confused. Gathering food is not what the pharisees were referring to in Matthew. That law in Exodus is the law God gave to Moses referring to manna only. You've confused 2 different laws. No wonder you're having a hard time. Read in Deuteronomy 23:24-25 and tell me what you think it says.

Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw [it], they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

Jesus and his disciples were:
a) hungry,
b) plucking ears of corn, and
c) eating it.

Obviously A isn't the issue.
Obviously C isn't the issue.
GATHERING the food is the ONLY OTHER THING that the bible says they were doing.

YOU claim "getting food" is not what the pharisees were referring to in Matthew, but then you DO NOT SAY WHAT you think they were referring to.

What do you claim they were referring to?


WRONG!
The "law in Exodus" doesn't even MENTION manna.
The APPLICATION of the law in the desert is specifically to a case of manna, but it never states anything about being SOLELY applicable to manna.

Quit making up stuff.
You KNOW I'm only going to ask you to prove your claims, and you KNOW you cannot do that.

Irrelevant. It makes no mention of the Sabbath. No mention of what is and is not allowable on the Sabbath.

It's talking about eating while travelling, when you have no food on you. It allows people to go into other people's fields and eat their crop to sate their hunger, which I would still consider stealing. The appropriate thing to do would be to FIND the owner of the field and ASK instead of just taking for your convenience.
But, getting back to the passage, it sets up guide-lines by which you can "snack", but don't "gather" food to take away with you. But considering it doesn't reference the Sabbath law at all, it's irrelevant.

I'ld be curious if travelling on the Sabbath is allowable in the first place. I haven't heard/read on that one, but I would guess not allowable ...

Now you are making stuff up. Your motive stinks. Your sole purpose is to prove the bible wrong and you will not do that because your motive is wrong. That incident in the desert is for the manna because when they tried to save it it got worms and rotted. You are trying to confuse me why combinging 2 different laws for 2 different incidents and you got caught and now you are going to throw a hissy fit and stamp your feet until I say you have won. We've been through your tactics before. You are not an honest person and you are demonstrating it again. You're dishonest.

David was allowed to eat the bread Jesus said. You refuse to acknowledge what Jesus was showing the Pharisees and you are a carbon copy of them. You will not accept that God puts physical needs above the law and that is the entire point of this passage in Matthew. The pharisees were just like you. They put carrying out the law above physical needs. God is walking through a wheat field with his disciples and he can do what he damn well pleases and you just can't accept that. Not my problem, yours.

Here is an example of your problem and why nothing I say or anyone else says is going to satisfy you. Here are your words:

"It's talking about eating while travelling, when you have no food on you. It allows people to go into other people's fields and eat their crop to sate their hunger, which I would still consider stealing. The appropriate thing to do would be to FIND the owner of the field and ASK instead of just taking for your convenience".

You have an argument with the word of God, not me. You state that your opinions are worth more than the Word of God. That is why you will never accept what it says and will remain confused. You are using your values and emotions over what it actually says. You state the appropriate thing to do ........

It doesn't matter what YOU think the appropriate thing to do is. It's the law and that is all that matters, not what you think.

Foundit66: "

I have a question for you. How many Sabbaths were there?

1) WHAT am I making up?
2) Your motive stinks. Your sole purpose is to prove the bible right and you will not do that because your motive is wrong.
See? Two people can make nonsensical statements...


No. THIS is a tactic of YOURS we have been through before.
You can't come up with a REAL answer to the argument, so instead you start going ad hominem and passive aggressive. You ignore my argument, you start accusing me of a "hissy fit", a tactic you have used over and over again...

And then you COMPLETELY FAIL to show where I was wrong.

The incident in the desert IS for the manna. That is correct.
My point is that the LAW regarding gathering food on the Sabbath WAS NOT JUST FOR the desert as YOU claimed. THAT is where you were wrong.

And isn't it interesting how they tried to gather more on NON-pre-Sabbath days, and it went wormy...
But when they gathered more on the day RIGHT BEFORE the Sabbath to save for the Sabbath, it WAS NOT wormy.

Indicating that part of the story is a demonstration of how God SPECIFICALLY didn't want them to store for any day BUT the Sabbath, and how he DID want them to store for the Sabbath.

I have made nothing up.
YOU are making things up in claiming that the law against gathering food on the Sabbath is only for the manna. It wasn't. The pharisees at the time KNEW that it wasn't.
I challenge you to find me ANYBODY, in a legitimate bible interpretation capacity, who states that it was just for the manna.

I am nothing like the pharisees. I stay out of other people's business.
YOU are like the pharisees in that YOU are pointing out the sin of others while you ignore what the bible tells you...

And Jesus "showed" the pharisees NOTHING which mitigated his crime. NOTHING at all.
"David was allowed to eat..." has nothing to do with the situation.
EATING the food is irrelevant. That's not the sin.
GATHERING the food on the Sabbath is the sin.


The passage does not say that.
We've been over the interpretation of the passage, and you're adding things to it which are NOT there when you claim it says that.

Moreover, WHY wouldn't that rule apply to the Jews in the desert? That was an argument I pointed out the last time you tried this argument, and you couldn't address it then either...
If "physical need" gave people an out to gather food on the Sabbath, then WHY didn't it work for the Jews in the desert?


OMG. I just had tears stroll down my eyes laughing at that one...
NONE of this discussed "law" crap makes any sense. It's superficially restrictive with NO POINT. I don't believe in ANY of that requirement. I don't believe in putting YOUR law above physical needs. I don't even believe in putting YOUR law above sexual orientation, so why would you think I think your law should be put above physical needs???

I am pointing out how the Bible is INCONSISTENT. It's got ridiculously stringent requirements which Jesus FAILED to meet. And Christians mistakenly believe he DID meet all those requirements perfectly.

I don't give a crap about this law at all. I think it's stupid. If you're hungry on the Sabbath, go out and gather food. "God" didn't make that rule about the Sabbath. MAN did.

You just can't get where I'm coming from at all. And you're desparate to insult me, so you claim I'm like the pharisees...


I'm not saying he can't do "damn well" what he "pleases".
That's not my point.

My point is that the Bible (and Christian dogma) claims that the Messiah needed to have kept the law PERFECTLY, and he DID NOT do that.

THAT is the point YOU cannot accept.
It's not an issue of what Jesus "can do". It's an issue of what Jesus CAN'T DO if he's going to be able to claim he kept the law PERFECTLY.
Jesus COULD kill people if he wanted to. And if you believed he was God, it would be within his "right" to do so.
But that WOULD NOT mean that Jesus had "kept" the law perfectly.


Look in the mirror alias.
NOTHING I say is going to convince you that this isn't a Bible contradiction.

You just aren't prepared to see contradictions, and you'll put all sorts of words where they weren't before to avoid seeing it.


Oh for Pete's sake. It's a SIDE COMMENT about MY VIEW on what the Bible espoused. And YOU are using it as a means to SIDE-TRACK the issue, because YOU BLINDLY believe the bible and believe EVERYTHING in it is perfectly good.

Tell me. If it's the Sabbath, and you're walking around and you pass a grocery store, would it make sense for you to walk in and eat some grapes inside the store just because you're hungry?
And the only restriction would be that you didn't take any out with you when you left the store?

How about if you were passing a vine-yard? How about then?

That is ALL I am saying. I believe in a standard HIGHER than the bible espouses here.
The bible says that it's okay to walk into somebody elses crop and eat their food.
I think that's wrong. I think it's stealing.

YOU BLINDLY believe the bible, and you criticize me because I don't.


"the appropriate thing to do"?
Are you saying that I'm right?
That it would be APPROPRIATE to ask permission before eating somebody else's crops? As in not appropriate to just take it without asking?
Because the bible thinks it's appropriate that you DO NOT HAVE TO...

And you're throwing a fit because I think differently than the Bible?
Good GAWD man. You should have realized that POSTS ago...

And the truly funny part about all this? YOU CANNOT TAKE SOMEBODY QUESTIONING YOUR BELIEFS!!
You and Jefferson sit back and accuse me of taking it to "personally" when somebody attacks homosexuality.

But then here you and I are talking about bible contradictions, and you CANNOT TOLERATE any of my judgment on the Bible's statements. Instead of focusing on what I DID say with regards to contradictions, you're hung up on the fact that I have judged the word of the Bible in this spot.
Unbe-fricken-lievable!
Thou dost protest TOO LOUDLY. And you lack the capability to question yourself and realize that....


And to me, that comment of yours there demonstrates an incapability to question the bible and think for yourself.
If the bible says so, it's "appropriate" and you don't need to think for yourself any further because you've been told how to think.

I'ld find it a funny exercise in futility to quote you the Bible passages which let off a RAPIST from punishment if he marries the girl he raped after he pays the father a few shekels.
Tell me how "appropriate" that is. Tell me how that is "law" and how my judgment of that passage does not "matter".

I've cautioned you in the past about the "Socratic" approach of yours to try debating by asking leading questions.
It just doesn't work for our discussions here.

I see this question, and my honest response is to start with the age of the Jewish religion, multiply the number of years by 52, and that would be "how many sabbaths there were"....

Is that really what you're looking for?
If not, please stop with the "leading questions" approach. It's a waste of time.
Make your argument and move on.