Because it's ambiguous!
Oh?
Do not makeup your face as you did at your friends house.
Ambiguous or not?
Posted on 12/25/2022 3:02:47 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Luke 4:12
RE: I find it strange that the WHOLe sentence is very seldom quoted,
The occasion where the Israelites tested God at Massah ( as you indicate) is found in Exodus 17. Let us remember, that this was AFTER the 10 supernatural plagues visited on Egypt, after passover, after the parting of the Red Sea, after being guided by God’s pillar of cloud and fire by day and by night, after God fed them in the wilderness with Manna.
As God was leading Moses and His people toward the Promised Land, they camped at a place where there was no water. The Israelites’ immediate reaction was to grumble against God and quarrel with Moses (Exodus 17:1–3). Their lack of trust in God to take care of them is evident in their accusations toward Moses: “They said, ‘Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to make us and our children and livestock die of thirst?’” (Exodus 17:3). The Israelites were obviously in a situation where they needed God to intervene.
The point at which they tested God, though, is when doubt and fear overtook them and they came to the conclusion that God had abandoned them (see Exodus 17:7). They questioned God’s reliability because He was not meeting their expectations.
RE: Most of the time Jesus says, let’s keep this between you and me.
To me, it was a matter of timing.
At that time, Jesus did not want people just focusing on the miracles He performed, but rather the message He proclaimed and the death He was going to die.
For example, after healing a man of leprosy (Mark 1:41-42), “Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: ’see that you don’t tell this to anyone...’” (Mark 1:43-44).
It would seem that Jesus would want everyone to know about the miracle. But Jesus knew that publicity over such miracles might hinder His mission and divert public attention from His message.
Mark records that this is exactly what happened. In this man’s excitement over his being miraculously healed of leprosy, he disobeyed. As a result, Christ had to move His ministry away from the city and into the desert regions (Mark 1:45) “As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to Him from everywhere.”
But in some cases, Jesus DID use His public miracles as a way of telling people to believe in Him ( see John 10: 36-38 ).
Re. "if":
Yes, usage of the word "if" rather than just giving a "yes/no" answer or stating facts does suggest equivocation. Using "if" provides "wiggle room," which I don't like.
[...] don’t know why you would say that the word of God is confusing when it clearly teaches [...]
Yes, you're right: There is no confusion about the meaning of the Word of God! No theologians or Biblical scholars have any disagreements about that! No experts have ever quibbled about, e.g., the placement of a single comma - which can totally change the meaning of a given verse. (E.g., the Jehovah's Witness claim Christ said to the Good Thief on the cross next to him: "Verily I say to you this day, you shall be in Heaven with me..." rather than "Verily I say to you, this day you shall be in Heaven with me...") All scholars are in total agreement about the meaning of the Word of God!
/mordant sarcasm
Yet in the subsequent paragraphs of your response, you admit that there is indeed confusion and dissent.
You recommend "study" to "gain satisfactory knowledge." But the average Joe can never hope to attain even a fraction of the arsenal of knowledge (or pseudo-knowledge) that, e.g., the Mormons have accumulated over more than a century to bolster their (in my humble opinion - which I, as a layperson, can't hope to actually prove) false interpretation of the Bible. How can I hope to compete and win against an established organization that has had literally hundreds of years to refine and polish their (false) doctrines?
In the realm of Science & Technology - in contrast - the "proof is in the pudding." Either a rocket successfully launches, or it fails. Either a space probe successfully swings by Pluto, or it fails to do so. In that realm, we laymen can thus rely upon the simple evidence of our eyes and ears to determine whose interpretation of physical laws is correct.
(The court is still out on the issue of, e.g., Global Warming - i.e., in this instance, the issue is too complex AND doesn't permit experimentation. "Reproduceability" is unfortunately out of the question because we have only one Earth, and therefore can't conduct a "controlled experiment.")
I don’t understand your question regarding “which version” of the Bible.
Your counter-arguments aren't valid, because the various translations do, indeed, depart from each other on important points. We laymen thus have no means of determining which version to accept and rely upon. As pointed out above, the JW version (due to the [mis-]placement of a single comma) is used to bolster their arcane interpretation and subsequent bizarre theology. The Mormons likewise have a translation that in subtle fashion bolsters their sect.
I re-iterate: Unlike in the real world, where we can determine which faction correctly interprets reality by successfully landing on the Moon - in the realm of theology, where we have only 1) sacred scriptures and 2) miracle-working to determine if a given prophet is true, the laymen cannot rely on "1" - and "2" (miracles) don't happen any more.
Regards,
And what can we moderns thus infer from this cessation of miracles? What is the import of that observation? What does, e.g., the Bible say about that?
Regards,
I would remark, "This 'thing' - whatever it is - is apparently incapable of reproducing!"
(Grant me that I am permitted to take the watch into a lab and observe it long enough - to place it on growth media, etc. - to come to this conclusion.)
The mere fact that it cannot reproduce itself - that it thus lacks one of the basic properties or earmarks of life - is already a strong indication that it is a mere artifact, i.e., that it was MADE.
Whereas: A living organism is far more likely to be the product of countless generations of evolution over billions of years.
Regards,
Is your "test" relevant or truly applicable, in today's world?
Do we have examples of miracle-workers walking around today, spouting teachings that are (according to you) either "in accordance with" or "contrary to" God's word?
1. Please cite examples of miracle-workers whose teachings are contrary!
2. Please cite examples of miracle-workers whose teachings are in accordance!
How can I otherwise test your "test" to determine if your test is valid - if there aren't any concrete examples of 1 and 2?
Regards,
Because it's ambiguous!
Does it mean:
"Do not test the LORD! To be clear: By 'test,' I mean ONLY doing that thing you did at Massah!"
OR
""Do not test the LORD in the manner in which you tested Him at Massah! Other tests - differing from the test at Massah - are perfectly acceptable, however."
The problem with relying upon scripture which is not susceptible to Q&A! The problem with not being able to ask "Wait a minute! What exactly do you mean by that?"
Regards,
Never said that that "proves" that none of them is correct. Rather, it merely supports the standpoint that anyone claiming to have THE answer is probably talking out of his hat. It supports the standpoint that one should therefore be very skeptical. It supports the policy of not saying, "Well, of course the religion *I* grew up with just *happens* to be the only correct one!"
Secondly, it is also false to presume that there exists “thousands” of creation stories. In reality, as has been astutely pointed out: “When it comes to the truly Big Questions, there are very few men (or women) in the room.”
"Objection, Your Honor! Counsel assuming facts not in evidence!"
Your claiming that it was an "astute" observation does not make it so. Else I could, with equal validity, point out: "When it comes to the truly Big Questions, there are literally thousands in the room."
Regards,
Please don't be coy! Spit it out! What is the answer to this?
In answering, please consider (differentiate between) the two cases you mention: 1. Public miracles, and 2. When Christ requested discretion.
What was the ostensible purpose of "1" - and what can we conclude from that?
What was the ostensible purpose of "2" - and what can we infer from that?
Seriously: I think it reasonable to completely ignore "2" - If Christ's requests had only been honored, we'd never have learned about those private miracles! They became publicized AGAINST His wishes!
Regards,
I hereby ask you to try to believe in fairies (I mean: Like Tinkerbell).
Do the experiment! Apply the scientific method!
Results?
Now try to believe in Thor!
Now try to believe in Jupiter!
Now try...
See where I'm going?
Regards,
Do they have before and after photos, where the scarred cornea became clear, or the cataracts disappeared? That would be a miracle.
Indeed, remember Christ cured a lot of blind people, but the only blind person that impressed everyone was the man who was born blind...even back then, they were aware that ordinary miracles happened all the time, at pagan shrines or by charlatans, but a man who was born blind was a big miracle.
Most miracles I have seen could be attributed to coincidence or a rare natural cure. I have no problem with this: God works through coincidences. For example, an Indian lady awoke from a two year coma the week after her family held a novena asking God to cure her. But the doctors said it was because she had received a medicine to prevent influenza, that they just happened to give her that week.
When I worked in Africa, sometimes I had to leave for vacation or meetings: the sisters assured me that God knew I was away, so if something happened it was his will.
And sometimes we'd have a medical emergency five minutes after I came back, or five minutes before I was scheduled to leave, and the one patient who died during transfer had a condition that would have been fatal even if I was there.
so were these things coincidence, or just God doing little miracles?
‘If’ they want to describe something vague and not indicate that is vague, then these fuzzy words work.
Kinda red colored, around 8ish, fewer were noted - all fuzzy.
Fire Engine Red, 8:11 PM, 14 less than the 23 they had yesterday - all precise.
Footnotes
Luke 4:12 Deut. 6:16
Many places in the NT, when OT verses are alluded to, the exact quote is not used.
I have no idea why.
Gideon seemed to have some ‘doubt’, and he tested God in the matter TWICE!
JW problems are MUCH greater than mere comma placement!
;^)
How much more?
Agreed!
But my point stands! How can I determine what "contradicts the Word of God" if I have nothing but specious, suspicious, error-ridden, agenda-driven, redacted, and revised documents at my disposal?
And how can I determine if a "miracle-worker" is demonic or not if you don't first produce a gen-u-wine "miracle-worker" for me to test?
Regards,
Because it's ambiguous!
Oh?
Do not makeup your face as you did at your friends house.
Ambiguous or not?
Request? or Command?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.