It is you who has both made a false comparison and taken it out of context. The Cherubim you speak of was not being "honored" in this context. And Aaron and Israel were not trying to worship false gods. They were trying to worship the God that brought them out of Egypt. That golden calf represented The one true and living God. It is in the context of the Exodus passage idolatry.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Shroud of Turin
- Thread starter Alive in Christ
- Start date
- Status
It is you who has both made a false comparison and taken it out of context. The Cherubim you speak of was not being "honored" in this context. And Aaron and Israel were not trying to worship false gods. They were trying to worship the God that brought them out of Egypt. That golden calf represented The one true and living God. It is in the context of the Exodus passage idolatry.
BillySunday1935
New Member
Rev - please go back and look at my post again as I've added some additional material while you were responding to it.
Born_in_Crewe
Member
To be honest, I'm not sure about the Shroud of Turin but I don't think it matters what you believe about the Shroud as long as you believe in the actual story of the resurrection.
BillySunday1935
New Member
That's a complete stretch there, Rev. Lets look at the entire passage:
Exodus 32:1-5
1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."
Delayed. They waited perhaps about a month, with some patience; and then, becoming seditious, assembled against Aaron, and extorted from him a compliance with their impious request. He was thus guilty of a grievous crime, though the violence might extenuate it in some degree. (Salien.) --- He was not yet ordained high priest, chap. xl. 12. (Haydock) --- Gods. Aaron gratified their request by the golden calf. They had the pillar to conduct them, but they wanted something new. They speak with contempt of Moses. (Menochius)(http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id410.html)
2 Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." 3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."
Notice the plural "gods" here...also, look at the context of the culture from which they had recently left.
Received them, "in a purse, (as Gideon did afterwards, Judges viii. 25,) he made a molten calf." (Jonathan) --- Perhaps he engraved on it the peculiar marks of the Egyptian idol, Apis; a square white spot on the forehead, and a crescent upon the side. For it is generally believed, that this calf was designed to imitate that object of worship, to which the Hebrews had been too much accustomed. (Acts vii. 39, 41.; St. Jerome in Osee iv.) The Egyptians adored not only the living ox, but also its image, which they kept in their temple. (Porphyr. Abst. ii. Mela. i. 8.) Some of the fathers think, that the head of a calf only appeared. (St. Ambrose; Lactant., &c.) The rest of the figure was perhaps human, as Osiris was represented with the head of an ox, as well as Astarte and Serapis. (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id410.html)
5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD."
The Lord. The most sacred name of God is prostituted, (Judges xvii. and xviii.; Wisdom xiv. 21,) and an altar is erected to this idol; though some pretend, that Aaron meant God to be adored under this similitude. His weakness was unaccountable, and God would have slain him, had not Moses interceded, Deuteronomy ix. 20. Those who undertake to justify him, enter not into the sentiments of God; and the offender himself pleads no excuse, but the violence of the people, ver. 23. (Salien.) --- To-morrow, when the 40 days expired, and Moses returned arrayed in terrors. (http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id410.html)
6 So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.
They offered, by the hands of Aaron, to whom the Septuagint refer all this. "He offered," &c., appearing at the head of the idolaters. A Lapide insinuates, that he wished to supplant his brother in the supreme command; and after a faint resistance, became the promoter of idolatry, to ingratiate himself with the people. The Scripture lays not this, however, to his charge. (Calmet) --- To eat of the victims. --- To play, dancing and singing in honour of their idol, probably with many indecent gestures, as was customary on such occasions among the nations of Chanaan. (Haydock) --- Tertullian (de jejunio) understands impure play. The word means also to dance, and to play on instruments of music. Ludere quæ vellem calamo permisit agresti. (Virgil, Ec. i) (Calmet) --- Sulpitius says, the people abandoned themselves to drunkenness and gluttony, or debauchery, vinoque se & ventri dedisset. (Haydock) --- They might get wine from Madian. (Salien.) --- Foolish mirth is the daughter of gluttony, and the mother of idolatry. (St. Gregory, Mor. xxxi. 31.) (Worthington)(http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id410.html)
7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.'
Thy people. They are not worthy to be styled my people; and thou didst ratify the covenant with me, in their name, and as their interpreter. They have sinned, giving way to idolatry in thought, word, and deed.(http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id410.html)
Clearly, they were not making an idol to God almighty - they were making an idol to gods.
‡ Peace ‡
Last edited by a moderator:
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,
And this makes my point. Thanks
BillySunday1935
New Member
Well, that presupposes that Israel understood the concept of the Trinity which they did NOT! Nice try.
Hardly. You completely ignored the scriptural anlysis based upon the culture from whence they came (Egypt). Sweet...
Last edited by a moderator:
It is not significant. The previous culture may have lead them to use a calf but it fails to be compelling that they were trying to worship anyone but the one true and living God. What you ignored is that God had just done some mighty miracles in their lives and they were most likely not going to just set Him aside so easily.
So I have now clarified the context for you.
I clarified the plural sue of the word Gods.
I pointed out the use of the word Lord Capital L.
Aside from some speculation as to their intentions based on the culture they came out of you have nothing left. Let us not forget they worshiped God even in Egypt.
BillySunday1935
New Member
Yet they did just that!
And that would be within your (or perhaps someone else's) interpretation of the passages.
And I showed you that they had no understanding of the Trinity at that point.
And I pointed out the use of the lowercase "g" in "gods".
So you say. However, if you wish to honestly address my points rather than do drive-by postings, then I just might.
Let us not forget that some of them also worshiped Egyptian Gods, many of whom they brought with them out of Egypt.
‡ Peace ‡
Ah well. Since this is a dishonest characterization I will leave you to yourself.
BillySunday1935
New Member
Look - I've already answered this question multiple times and I'm not going to waste my time with it again. Deal with it!
Don't you see, Ann...we can invent new words, and as long as the person that creates the doctrine is far enough up the spiritual totem pole...it's all good!
You might not be able to worship a piece of wood, but you can genuflect, or is it venerate/adorate/gesticulate//germinate/pontificate/rastafarianate/nothanksIjustate -- and that's just fine. As long as Pops says its fine...
Hence the gist of the problems. When one adds to the book that God said not to add to...one encounters lots of problems...not the least of which is that you just can't nail down an objective standard of truth.
I provided the "scientific data" Billy. You won't accept it. I showed to you how it falls outside the realm of science and therefore cannot be provided. The onus is on Lori, Billy, et. al. to prove Calvin's statement wrong. They have not scientific data to do so. Why? There is no way to do so. The work you referred to is flawed from the beginning. It is not logical. It is outside the realm of true science. You refuse logical statements.
"There is no such quantity of "fragments of the cross of Jesus" on this earth plenteous enough to build a ship (or mansion)."
It is a universal negative.
You cannot prove a universal negative wrong. It falls outside the realm of logic.
How are you going to do that Billy? It is impossible.
BillySunday1935
New Member
I'm not arguing with Calvin - I doesn't matter to me what Calvin said. I am holding you to what you wrote. Calvin isn't here - you are. YOU made a statement as fact never quoting Calvin. You just threw it out as fact and when asked to show some evidence in support of it, you start bringing in Calvin and this other garbage in an attempt to obfuscate the issue.
There's no universal negative in your posting as indicated below:
No, DHK - I didn't know that. You wrote this garbage not me.
‡ Peace ‡
BillySunday1935
New Member
Well, at least we/they know what those words mean. And if I were Ann, I would find out what they mean before building a completely nonsensical argument based upon ignorance, arrogance, and a complete lack of intellectual rigor.
50,000 comedians out of work and you gotta try your hand at stand-up.
I think the above statement was meant for Martin Luther...
1. Sola Scriptura state that scripture is the SOLE authority regarding faith and morals for the Christian.
2. Nowhere in scripture does scripture say that about itself.
3. Hence, Sola Scriptura is false.
There's my objective standard of truth...
Fear not rbell.:smilewinkgrin:
Your opinion may say "it is garbage," but that is simply opinion.
To prove it wrong, you would have to state it as a universal negative, and it would be impossible to prove it wrong. That is my point which I have made three times (at least now), but you don't seem to get that. If you can prove it wrong using scientific data then please do so. I would like to see your evidence.
Not very objective.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
This verse is as applicable in the NT as it is in the OT.
If applied correctly we would conclude there is no light in you for you believe not in sola scriptura, that you do not speak according to "this word."
- Status