Originally Posted by foundit66

Talk about your "pot calling the kettle black" moments...

But regardless, I am just INTERPETING what the Bible says. Same as you.
You don't like my interpretation, but you cannot show ANYTHING WRONG with it.



A LOT of what you refer to as "dishonesty" with regards to my arguments just boils down to you being INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING what I'm saying with simple English.

Let's go over this again...
Jesus's response, because you keep CLAIMING what jesus supposedly "explicitly told", but you habitually FAIL to actually prove it by quoting your scripture...

Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Mat 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

It clearly references history regarding what "David did". It states David "hungered" and that David "ate the shewbread".
But notice the next passage where it EXPLICITLY STATES "was not lawful for him to eat"??
Does that sound like what David did was Okay?
It sounds pretty damn clear to me that he was doing something "not lawful"...

But moving on, my argument goes even further.
IF it was lawful to gather food on the Sabbath based SOLELY on hunger, then WHY was it unlawful for them to gather manna in the desert on the Sabbath?
And before you go in again with your UNSUBSTANTIATED claims that the "gathering food" was only applicable to the desert / manna situation, you're going to HAVE TO PROVE your claim. Because NO Bible passage I have ever seen claims that the "no gathering food on the Sabbath" claim was applicable only in the desert.
And moreover, it's pretty damn clear by the Pharisees discussion that IT WAS STILL APPLICABLE in that time.

Got it?



I am USING common sense interpretation to point out the flaws in the Bible.
The STATEMENTS OF THE BIBLE ITSELF to prove a point about the Bible.

THAT is what I am doing.
Got it?



I haven't "trapped" you in anything.
I'm talking about the BIBLE. You're taking this WAYYY too personal, as at best I'm talking about your INTERPRETATION of the bible.

Regardless, I've already pointed out that I DO NOT think like the pharisees at all. The pharisees were all about rules and regulations and applying them to others. I want you to take the "rules and regulations" that YOU want to apply to others, and keep them to yourself.
The pharisees were so caught up in applying the laws to others that they didn't see the bigger picture. Like you, who demonstrate that you want to apply the laws to others, but refuse to address what the LAW SAYS TO YOU...



Try THINKING about this for a minute.
If Jesus DID NOT break the law, then WHY was he talking about "mercy" in the first place?
You need mercy IF YOU BREAK the law. But you claim that Jesus didn't break the law...
Does that make sense?

And going a step further, Jesus DID break the law that was applicable TO THE PEOPLE. If, as you argued, Jesus did not break the law because Jesus is above the law, then Jesus DID NOT KEEP the law as the bible states that he had to have in order to be the messiah.

Jesus was supposed to have kept the law that the rest of us COULDN'T have kept, because we violate the law. But if Jesus just ignored the law and was above it, then he DID NOT keep the law that the rest of us supposedly had applying to us.



1) You're attempting to change the subject TO THE IRRELEVANT. The bible EXPLICITLY notes that THIS DAY that Jesus and his disciples gathered grain was the sabbath day. I don't need to know all the back story on the sabbath for my argument.
Everything

2) You can continue the discussion with Dylan if you want, but I think you just proved that you can't. I never claimed to be an expert on the Sabbath. I didn't need to be.
But for you to criticize me because I don't know, and then get slammed like you just were?
That's just plain a work of art. Irony in perfection, and you probably don't even realize it.

3) And it is patently HILARIOUS how you criticize me for not knowing more about the Sabbath (and hypocritical too) when YOU DO NOT know enough about the Hebrew LAW pertaining to the Sabbath. If you did, you would KNOW what the pharisees were talking about with regards to what sin Jesus and his disciples were committing. Instead, you argue that it was only applicable to the manna in the desert, which IS NOT what Hebrew tradition held for CENTURIES after the manna in the desert.



Dylan did JUST THAT with a variety of bible passages. I'm not going to requote what he said, because it would be redundant, and you're probably not going to address it anyways...
Also look at his wikipedia reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/39_cate...ted_on_Shabbat
The Jewish interpretation of that commandment established a LONG LIST of things which constituted "work". One of those items on that list WAS GATHERING FOOD on the Sabbath.
This fact WAS CONFIRMED in the desert, with the passages I quoted, when Moses EXPLICITLY stated that to respect the Sabbath day they COULD NOT gather food on the Sabbath. MOSES directly establishing MOSAIC LAW.
And the icing on the cake is that God confirmed it with his actions.

Originally Posted by alias

And Jesus said that he desired Mercy over sacrifice.

Originally Posted by alias

He told the Pharisees (yourself included) that if THEY UNDERSTOOD WHAT THIS MEANS, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE COMDEMNED THE GUILTLESS.

Originally Posted by alias

Jesus calls them guiltless and you call them lawbreakers. You are a Pharisee. Jesus said they were guiltless after the Pharisees condemned them. Why?

Originally Posted by foundit66

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is the contradiction between:
a) Jesus breaking the law on gathering food on the Sabbath, and
b) the bible proclaiming that Jesus kept the law perfectly.

If you have something specific with reference to a or b, then say it.
Otherwise, you're distracting from the issue.



The pharisees condemning Jesus is irrelevant as well.
If the Bible had stated that he committed this violation of the Sabbath law, and the pharisees weren't present, it would not matter. It would STILL be an example of him not keeping the law perfectly.



1) Again, don't ask leading questions. It's a pointless exercise.
ESPECIALLY ones as vague as "why?" My first and honest response is just going to piss you off.
My response is that Jesus was trying to distract from the transgression.
NONE of what Jesus said explains how they can be called "guiltless" when they all CLEARLY BROKE THE LAW.
From my perspective? Throw the law out. It's stupid. But that's not a biblical perspective.

2a) You're REALLY getting off on calling me a pharisee, aren't you.
It's kind of funny, because I believe in NONE of what they are complaining about in the first place. If I had been there with my current beliefs, I would have rolled my eyes at the pharisees and went on my way.
My point IS NOT to condemn them. Do you GET THAT???
I'll say it again. My point IS NOT to condemn them.
It's just plain not.
My point is the BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION.
I could give a rat's ass as to who gathers food on the Sabbath....

But continue to call me a "pharisee" if you please. It's just another way that you are avoiding the central issue of this debate...

2b) Just out of curiousity, if I plea "no contest" to the "you are a pharisee" rap, will you stop trying to distract from the issue with it?
It's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Originally Posted by hevusa

Are we done debating about fiction yet fellows?

Originally Posted by alias

Yeah, you can end it. He aint gonna admit it.

Originally Posted by alias

You can't answer the question can you?

Originally Posted by alias

See how dishonest you are?

Originally Posted by alias

You keep saying they broke the law like the Pharisees did, and Jesus keeps telling you (foundit66) that he desires Mercy over Sarifice, and that if you understood what this meant you would not condemn the innocent.

Originally Posted by alias

You got your answer right from Jesus and you can't stand it so you wont address it. You are the dishonest one. The answer is right there. You are putting the law over God.

Originally Posted by alias

There is no contradiction. The only contradiction is in your head. Jesus gave the reason to allow it and you can't address it.

Originally Posted by alias

Yeah, you can end it. He aint gonna admit it.

Originally Posted by hevusa

You haven't really explained it very well either.

Originally Posted by foundit66

Earlier you asked me to only ask you one question at a time. I have been trying to stick to that.

Now I am going to ask you for something. DO NOT ask questions in order to try to make an argument. If you have an argument, MAKE IT without asking leading questions, because you keep ignoring my responses and pretending that I am not answering your questions.

I told you earlier that you aren't going to agree with or like the majority of my answers, so the Socratic method is just a REALLLLLYYY bad idea for a debating tool here.

You have a point? MAKE it EXPLICITLY...

And one other food for your thoughts?
OTHER PEOPLE who read this conversation aren't going to know what you're referring to when you ask leading questions which you yourself don't answer...