Aaron and the golden calf

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LilyM said:
American bishops thank you - MY bishops here in Australia recognise the notes of the NAB Bible for the crud they are and don’t use the NAB at all!

My apologies to my lovely American brothers and sisters, but most of you would agree with me. And by the way, Bible notes are hardly infallible teaching in any event!
Click to expand...
So what does the vatican give for an interpretation of these verses?
Seriously curious…
 
myfavoritmartin said:
So what does the vatican give for an interpretation of these verses?
Seriously curious…
Click to expand...
I don’t think they offer a direct interpretation of this verse. As ‘estesbob’ mentioned in an earlier post, there’s a very, very small number of scripture passages for which infallible interpretations have been defined (and no, I don’t know which ones).
 
estesbob said:
you insist on giving us again and again and again your own personal interperation of a the same small handful of verses that you just know proves we are all liars.
Click to expand...
I gave you stats and how the american catholic bishops and most drs. of theology interpret that verse…How does the vatican???

No one would purposely worship idols or graven images and I didn’t accuse anyone of that…I am sharing some pretty easy to understand scripture when read for what they are, about how even God’s chosen people fell into this.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
I gave you stats and how the american catholic bishops and most drs. of theology interpret that verse…How does the vatican???

No one would purposely worship idols or graven images and I didn’t accuse anyone of that…I am sharing some pretty easy to understand scripture when read for what they are, about how even God’s chosen people fell into this.
Click to expand...
furthermore newadvent.org whom ignores defining ex. 32 does talk about the calves Jeroboam uses and here is what they have to say about the ones used at bethel and dan…

After the schism of the ten tribes, Jeroboam, fearing that the regular pilgrimages of the people of the northern kingdom to Jerusalem would endanger their political allegiance to himself, **resorted to the natural expedient of furnishing them with a substitute for the sanctuary of the Temple **(1 Kings 12); and he set up two golden calves, one in Bethel and the other in Dan.

Want me to carry on spelling this out for you?
 
myfavoritmartin said:
So what does the vatican give for an interpretation of these verses?
Seriously curious…
Click to expand...
:bigyikes: good Lord, what kind of monstrous Communistic-re-education program do you think the Vatican actually runs that they would give an ‘official interpretation’ of every single Bible verse? We are allowed to use our own perfectly functional brains to analyse some of them, thanks! …

… ok, now that I’ve got that rant out of the way, whether or not the Israelites thought the golden calf was Yahweh doesn’t matter in the slightest. Neither does that particular aspect of the verse.

See, God had not, at that point in history, become incarnate - not in physical form, or animal form for that matter. When He DID become incarnate, as Jesus Christ, all bets were off. People SAW God face-to-face when they looked into the face of Jesus Christ - and worshipped the form of the God-Man.

So certainly making images of Jesus cannot be anything other than acceptable. His physical form was itself an image, one that many people (such as the woman who anointed his feet) venerated.

As for images of Mary and the other saints - they’re noteworthy people, we have pictures and statues of noteworthy humans all over our towns and cities, if not in our own houses sometimes.

Anything else we may do in regard to the images, by way of kneeling or bowing and so on - are things that are still done today, for example, when one meets or receives a medal or knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II. Crowning Statues of Mary? Aren’t ALL Kings and Queens given crowns??? Presenting flowers? Every actor or actress or stage performer gets them at the end of a play or concert.

Point is, if Mary or the saints were still physically present we’d honour their own selves, and totally ignore the images. That’s the real test of whether we’re worshipping the images.
 
LilyM said:
:bigyikes: good Lord, what kind of monstrous Communistic-re-education program do you think the Vatican actually runs that they would give an ‘official interpretation’ of every single Bible verse? We are allowed to use our own perfectly functional brains to analyse some of them, thanks! …

… ok, now that I’ve got that rant out of the way, whether or not the Israelites thought the golden calf was Yahweh doesn’t matter in the slightest. Neither does that particular aspect of the verse.

See, God had not, at that point in history, become incarnate - not in physical form, or animal form for that matter. When He DID become incarnate, as Jesus Christ, all bets were off. People SAW God face-to-face when they looked into the face of Jesus Christ - and worshipped the form of the God-Man.

So certainly making images of Jesus cannot be anything other than acceptable. His physical form was itself an image, one that many people (such as the woman who anointed his feet) venerated.

As for images of Mary and the other saints - they’re noteworthy people, we have pictures and statues of noteworthy humans all over our towns and cities, if not in our own houses sometimes.

Anything else we may do in regard to the images, by way of kneeling or bowing and so on - are things that are still done today, for example, when one meets or receives a medal or knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II. Crowning Statues of Mary? Aren’t ALL Kings and Queens given crowns??? Presenting flowers? Every actor or actress or stage performer gets them at the end of a play or concert.

Point is, if Mary or the saints were still physically present we’d honour their own selves, and totally ignore the images. That’s the real test of whether we’re worshipping the images.
Click to expand...
So Christ was here before Peter told cornelius not to bow to him (Act 10:25, 26 ) because he was only a man, so what gives?
Are you also saying we can ignore God’s commands NOW?
 
myfavoritmartin said:
furthermore newadvent.org whom ignores defining ex. 32 does talk about the calves Jeroboam uses and here is what they have to say about the ones used at bethel and dan…

After the schism of the ten tribes, Jeroboam, fearing that the regular pilgrimages of the people of the northern kingdom to Jerusalem would endanger their political allegiance to himself, **resorted to the natural expedient of furnishing them with a substitute for the sanctuary of the Temple **(1 Kings 12); and he set up two golden calves, one in Bethel and the other in Dan.

Want me to carry on spelling this out for you?
Click to expand...
This should be enuff to make one take pause!
 
myfavoritmartin said:
So Christ was here before Peter told cornelius not to bow to him (Act 10:25, 26 ) because he was only a man, so what gives?
Are you also saying we can ignore God’s commands NOW?
Click to expand...
Cornelius was WORSHIPPING Peter, not just bowing to him. Clearly he thought Peter was MORE THAN a man, hence Peter’s comment.

And there are plenty of examples, for example, of Jacob bowing SEVEN TIMES to his brother Esau and so on - was that worship? How about when Esther bowed to the King her husband?

Besides which, you ignore the commands against eating pork and some seafoods quite happily don’t you? How about the command to be circumcised? Or the one forbidding the use of two different types of fibre in any fabric?

And if you met Queen Elizabeth II, or even your own President, would you refuse to bow in greeting? And if it was protocol to kneel (for example Queen Elizabeth wanted to give you a knighthood) would you refuse that too? Get real!
 
myfavoritmartin said:
So Christ was here before Peter told cornelius not to bow to him (Act 10:25, 26 ) because he was only a man, so what gives?
Are you also saying we can ignore God’s commands NOW?
Click to expand...
LilyM said:
Cornelius was WORSHIPPING Peter, not just bowing to him. Clearly he thought Peter was MORE THAN a man, hence Peter’s comment.

And there are plenty of examples, for example, of Jacob bowing SEVEN TIMES to his brother Esau and so on - was that worship? How about when Esther bowed to the King her husband?

Besides which, you ignore the commands against eating pork and some seafoods quite happily don’t you? How about the command to be circumcised? Or the one forbidding the use of two different types of fibre in any fabric?

And if you met Queen Elizabeth II, or even your own President, would you refuse to bow in greeting? And if it was protocol to kneel (for example Queen Elizabeth wanted to give you a knighthood) would you refuse that too? Get real!
Click to expand...
Here is an example: 😃

http://z.about.com/d/christianity/1/0/H/altarcall.jpg

src from this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2319073#post2319073
 
myfavoritmartin said:
furthermore newadvent.org whom ignores defining ex. 32 does talk about the calves Jeroboam uses and here is what they have to say about the ones used at bethel and dan…

After the schism of the ten tribes, Jeroboam, fearing that the regular pilgrimages of the people of the northern kingdom to Jerusalem would endanger their political allegiance to himself, **resorted to the natural expedient of furnishing them with a substitute for the sanctuary of the Temple **(1 Kings 12); and he set up two golden calves, one in Bethel and the other in Dan.

Want me to carry on spelling this out for you?
Click to expand...
Yes, because it tells you what was sinful. Keep reading 1 Kings 12:
And he put one in Bethel, the other in Dan. 30 This led to sin, because the people frequented these calves in Bethel and in Dan. 31 He also built temples on the high places and made priests from among the people who were not Levites.
Click to expand...
The people were sinful because they went to Bethel and Dan to worship God, rather than Jerusalem as was commanded. Of course, the high places and the new priesthood was sinful, but it specifically says "because the frequented Dan and Bethel.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Yes, the israelites made it for that purpose. AND it angered God, read the next few paragraphs…
Have you read through this thread… Also are you familiar with exo20:3-4? Mock all ya want zooey. Furthermore, these warnings are for things of spiritual nature, NOT family photos etc. Have ya read the OT?
Click to expand...
Yes, Martin, I have read the Old Testament. I was reading the OT before you were:D potty-trained.
myfavoritmartin said:
CM,
Tell me if I am determining that even though hitler claimed to be a Christian he was a bad fruit!
Click to expand...
http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif What is the name of that Internet Rule? The one that says, if any discussion goes on long enough, someone will bring Hitler into it…
myfavoritmartin said:
I shouldn’t need to say one way or the other, if what I say though feels bothersome to you or maybe some whom read this then a deeper study and evaluation of what they’re doing may be in order.
Click to expand...
Bothered? Bothered?? Heck, no!! I’m positively convulsed with laughter, but thanks for your :cool: concern.
myfavoritmartin said:
This is funny, the israelites didn’t expect the golden calf to grant anything, they didn’t believe it was anything other than a visual symbol for there feeble minds to connect with God…
Click to expand...
Feebleminded, were they? ***NOT! ***When did you, oh:rolleyes: reader of hearts & minds, divine this bit of lore? Because its not in the Bible, yean. The Bible says they asked Aaron to “make them a god”…Not a “symbol of God”, ye mind! “Make us a god”.
myfavoritmartin said:
I gave you stats and how the american catholic bishops and most drs. of theology interpret that verse…How does the vatican???
Click to expand...
:doh2:Somehow, I suspect that the Vatican has bigger fish to fry,than interpreting what is all ready plain on the face of it, to any sensible person.
It says, they wanted their Egyptian worship back.
No one would purposely worship idols or graven images and I didn’t accuse anyone of that…
Click to expand...
How, pray tell, do you http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/5.gif"accidentally worship"??? Worship being an act of deliberation…
I am sharing some pretty easy to understand scripture when read for what they are, about how even God’s chosen people fell into this.
Click to expand...
Can’t be **too **easy to understand…judging by :whistle: present company…
 
Church_Militant said:
Exactly!

It sure looks like someone’s agenda is hanging out…
Click to expand...
http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/2.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/paranoid/1.gif [SIGN]http://bestsmileys.com/paranoid/2.gifRun away!! http://bestsmileys.com/paranoid/2.gifRun away!!!http://bestsmileys.com/paranoid/2.gif[/SIGN]
LilyM said:
American bishops thank you - MY bishops here in Australia recognise the notes of the NAB Bible for the crud they are and don’t use the NAB at all!

My apologies to my lovely American brothers and sisters, but most of you would agree with me. And by the way, Bible notes are hardly infallible teaching in any event!
Click to expand...
Ah,🙂 Lily, my friend!! Methinks our Martin has been hanging out with Cyrus Scofield…One of whose followers has told me, **“If it’s in the Scofield Bible, it’s inspired!!”🤷 **
No distinction being made, you see, between the text, and the wee notes by the late Pastor Scofield (Private, CSA).🤷
In my dispensationalist days, I had recourse to the Scofield Bible many a time. I even earned my meager few college credits in studying the Scofield Bible, through Moody Bible Institute.
What I never did, probably because I had had a sensible enough upbringing to prevent it, was to mistake Private Scofield’s writings as being inspired by God the Holy Spirit…
 
Zooey said:
Methinks our Martin has been hanging out with Cyrus Scofield…One of whose followers has told me, "If it’s in the Scofield Bible, it’s inspired!!"🤷
No distinction being made, you see, between the text, and the wee notes by the late Pastor Scofield (Private, CSA).🤷
In my dispensationalist days, I had recourse to the Scofield Bible many a time. I even earned my meager few college credits in studying the Scofield Bible, through Moody Bible Institute.
What I never did, probably because I had had a sensible enough upbringing to prevent it, was to mistake Private Scofield’s writings as being inspired by God the Holy Spirit…
Click to expand...
Oh I’m just waiting for him to come out with something like ‘if the KJV was good enough for St Paul it’s good enough for me’ 🤷 :rotfl:
 
Zooey said:
Yes, Martin, I have read the Old Testament. I was reading the OT before you were:D potty-trained.
Click to expand...
Doubtful.
Zooey said:
Feebleminded, were they? ***NOT! ***When did you, oh:rolleyes: reader of hearts & minds, divine this bit of lore? Because its not in the Bible, yean. The Bible says they asked Aaron to “make them a god”…Not a “symbol of God”, ye mind! “Make us a god”.
Click to expand...
Methinks maybe ye should learn to play connect the dots, since apparently your interpretter didn’t feel it necessary to interpret this verse…If ya read it slowly and completely all I’ve said makes sense
Zooey said:
Somehow, I suspect that the Vatican has bigger fish to fry,than interpreting what is all ready plain on the face of it, to any sensible person.
Click to expand...
Based on this comment can I assume you are not sensible?
Zooey said:
Can’t be **too **easy to understand…judging by :whistle: present company…
Click to expand...
YOU too are a very charitable lass!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top