It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

David the lawbreaker

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Sorry i misunderstood. I though you meant, a gentile who had converted to Judaism. A gentile who converts to Christianity would be a Christian, ya. I think the others are called Jewish Christians or Judeo-Christians. I've also heard them referred to as Hebrew Christians

Timothy? Catholic

David, a sinner? If he was human, of course he was a sinner.

a reply to: WarminIndy


edit on 31-1-2015 by Ignatian because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2015 by Ignatian because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ignatian
Sorry i misunderstood. I though you meant, a gentile who had converted to Judaism. A gentile who converts to Christianity would be a Christian, ya. I think the others are called Jewish Christians or Judeo-Christians. I've also heard them referred to as Hebrew Christians

Timothy? Catholic



a reply to: WarminIndy



Ok, maybe Timothy got the Ash mark on his forehead also.

But back to the topic, David, sinner or not? Sinner. Forgiven? Yes.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The purpose of Jesus in highlighting this episode was to make the point that ritual infractions were not as serious as his critics thought.
If David could get away with taking the shewbread, there was no need to make a big issue out of minor work on the Sabbath.
A couple of points about the story have apparently escaped his notice.
He does not seem to spot that David was travelling on the Sabbath, which would have been even more useful for his argument than the taking of the bread.
And he also speaks of “those who were with” David, though they were not with him at the time.
In fact there is no real reason to believe that the “young men” even existed. The “rendezvous” was part of the false story which David was inventing to account for his travelling unaccompanied.
Matthew ch12 vv3-4



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

The purpose of Jesus in highlighting this episode was to make the point that ritual infractions were not as serious as his critics thought.
If David could get away with taking the shewbread, there was no need to make a big issue out of minor work on the Sabbath.
A couple of points about the story have apparently escaped his notice.
He does not seem to spot that David was travelling on the Sabbath, which would have been even more useful for his argument than the taking of the bread.
And he also speaks of “those who were with” David, though they were not with him at the time.
In fact there is no real reason to believe that the “young men” even existed. The “rendezvous” was part of the false story which David was inventing to account for his travelling unaccompanied.
Matthew ch12 vv3-4




But the purpose of traveling, wasn't it for a military campaign?

I know that even now, in the Israeli army that has observant Jews in it, they will only violate traveling on the Sabbath in the cause of war.

That was why the Yom Kippur war was intsigated on that day, because they felt the Jewish soldiers would not fight on the Sabbath, but they had to.

For some instances it had to be ok, like Jesus saying that if your cow is in the ditch, go get it out. Jesus, as a rabbi, was giving another opinion in regards to rabbinical opinion, which is what Judaism is based on, rabbinical opinion.

They say "ask 10 Jews a question, you get 11 answers". I would see that Jesus was using this example of David to make the point that you mentioned as a rabbi in the minyan.

I have no doubt Jesus was a rabbi, therefore as a rabbi He would have been in the synagogue during minyan and giving opinion that ultimately went against the other opinions of other rabbis.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
But the purpose of traveling, wasn't it for a military campaign?

This was his flight from Saul -(1 Samuel ch20)
So the statement in ch21 v2 ("the king has charged me with a matter") was not true. It was his cover story.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: WarminIndy
But the purpose of traveling, wasn't it for a military campaign?

This was his flight from Saul -(1 Samuel ch20)
So the statement in ch21 v2 ("the king has charged me with a matter") was not true. It was his cover story.



Well, he was hungry.

David also feigned being mad at the last part of it. He was running for his life, met the priest, the priest gave him day old bread and then David ran on, and pretended to be crazy.


10 And David arose and fled that day for fear of Saul, and went to Achish the king of Gath. 11 And the servants of Achish said unto him, Is not this David the king of the land? did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands? 12 And David laid up these words in his heart, and was sore afraid of Achish the king of Gath. 13 And he changed his behaviour before them, and feigned himself mad in their hands, and scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard. 14 Then said Achish unto his servants, Lo, ye see the man is mad: wherefore then have ye brought him to me? 15 Have I need of mad men, that ye have brought this fellow to play the mad man in my presence? shall this fellow come into my house?


He needed a cover story, he was running for his life.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
David also feigned being mad at the last part of it. He was running for his life, met the priest, the priest gave him day old bread and then David ran on, and pretended to be crazy.

Worse than that. It must have been seven-day old bread, since the bread was only changed on the Sabbath (the implication is that the priests themselves were routinely obliged to eat seven-day old bread).
Yes, I'm not suggesting that he was absolutely in the wrong, only that he wasn't conforming to all the details of the Law.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: WarminIndy
David also feigned being mad at the last part of it. He was running for his life, met the priest, the priest gave him day old bread and then David ran on, and pretended to be crazy.

Worse than that. It must have been seven-day old bread, since the bread was only changed on the Sabbath (the implication is that the priests themselves were routinely obliged to eat seven-day old bread).
Yes, I'm not suggesting that he was absolutely in the wrong, only that he wasn't conforming to all the details of the Law.


I would suppose then that there are acceptable reasons for not keeping the law in that way.

The priest did recognize him as king, so the priest was helping him, probably for fear of his own life at that point. He was kind of caught between the two kings so the choice he made then saved his own life.

That's why Jesus said that Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. There are some things that must have leeway, because it was the Pharisees who restricted the law so much that one could not even light a match to cook with.

I suppose that some Jews are in serious violation for smoking on the Sabbath. Oops, that's me....lol.

I am sure there are no Chasidic Jews smoking on the Sabbath..wait, yes, there are...lol. Jesus was making the point that some restrictions were just way overboard.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join