The Moral Failings of Christianity - Slavery

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dibble, did you see my reply in regard to Pharaoh's dream?

not only am I pumped about the significance of this verse, but you should be impressed by how integrated the bible is, even though it has over dozens authors spanning thousands of years. 

Also, by now it should be obvious that following the 2 witnesses rule actually helps place the reader into the persona of the biblical characters of faith.  In other words, always chasing the wind by attempting to make conclusions based off of single verses, leads to conclusions that keeps the reader from understanding the lives, attitudes, and teachings of the Apostles.  They weren’t a bunch of secluded monks wearing robes and only seen conducting a bunch of ceremonial nonsense, rather they were ordinary people walking down Main Street and preaching a message that directly ministers to daily life in order to meet every need.
John 10:10 “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”

That’s what I thought was praiseworthy about the Thanksgiving service I posted, it was a perfect example of encouraging and supporting someone who was experiencing life.  It wasn’t a message that needed to mention the name of Jesus every other word, it wasn’t a message that required a large scale religious ceremony with prearranged acts that allowed a certain unemotional detachment; rather it simply unabashedly stooped down into the midst of the problem, confronted and acknowledged the reality of the pain, shared the vulnerability of being human, and met the need. 

And that is exactly what Christ did.  He didn’t perform some aloof ceremony; rather he clothed himself in flesh and ministered to people within their daily lives while sharing the humanity of their moments.  He placed himself in their shoes and provided for them the means to conquer life’s pitfalls.  And it was the Pharisees who basically told Jesus, “Hey, you’re too unabashedly involved.  Your willingness to stoop down to their level invades their space and our comfort level.  Instead, you should be focused on performing detached ceremonies.”

[John Dibble]

Yes, I saw your response. I didn't feel there was anything I needed to respond to. Again, I think you need to beware of confirmation bias and talk to your pastor or someone else who is studied in the bible and get some outside opinions before you just draw conclusions.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, I saw your response. I didn't feel there was anything I needed to respond to. Again, I think you need to beware of confirmation bias and talk to your pastor or someone else who is studied in the bible and get some outside opinions before you just draw conclusions.

huh?  after we've talked all these years, you now telling that my interpretation is biased and I need to go talk with someone who is schooled in the bible?

then what your is interpretation of Gen 41:32?  Did not Joseph explicitly state the reason God told the matter to Pharaoh in two different dreams was to establish that the "matter had been firmly decided by God"?  How does that not dovetail with the rest of the bible's command that "every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses"?

And why would I now need to go talk with my pastor?  I didn't invent the practice to establish doctrine only when confirmed by two or three witnesses...in fact, it's a pretty wide spread practice.  And it is hard not to notice it is taught in scripture since the idea of "two or three witnesses" is brought up over and over again in the New Testament and was used both by the unbelieving Jews and Christ himself.

So, I wasn't arguing the concept of using "two or three witnesses", rather I was just in awe to find such an explicit explanation within Genesis.

[John Dibble]

Yes, I saw your response. I didn't feel there was anything I needed to respond to. Again, I think you need to beware of confirmation bias and talk to your pastor or someone else who is studied in the bible and get some outside opinions before you just draw conclusions.

huh?  after we've talked all these years, you now telling that my interpretation is biased and I need to go talk with someone who is schooled in the bible?

No, I'm telling you that your new-found interpretation of this particular passage might be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I already told you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since this being is an interpretation issue and I would assume you would like your interpretation to be the correct one, getting a second opinion is just a good idea, don't you think? And if you're going to get a second opinion, shouldn't it be from someone like your pastor whose opinion you respect and who I would assume has gone through seminary and studied the Bible extensively? Or do you feel there's someone else I should recommend you go to in order to get another believer's interpretation?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, it sounds to me like you're trying to link the passage to that concept in such a way that to me doesn't seem to mesh up properly. It just doesn't seem to me the two have anything to do with one another for reasons I've already explained.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No, I'm telling you that your new-found interpretation of this particular passage might be.

this isn't a new found interpretation of mine, as if I am interpreting the statement differently than I used to, I just never paid attention (or can't remember paying attention) to what Joseph said about the significance of Pharaoh having two separate drems.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I already told you.

But, didn’t me citing all the other translations of that verse show that Joseph was clearly referring to the two separate dreams and not the two separate groups of cows or the two separate groups of stalks?

“32The reason the dream was given to Pharaoh in two forms is that the matter has been firmly decided by God, and God will do it soon.” (NIV)

“32And the doubling of Pharaoh’s dream means that the thing is fixed by God, and God will shortly bring it about” (ESV)

“32And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.” (KJV)
The dream of 7 fats cows followed by 7 skinny cows is NOT a redundant in itself, for they represent two different things:  seven bountiful years followed by seven years of famine.  Same goes for the dreams of stalks, the two groups of stalks represent seven bountiful years followed by seven years of famine, and therefore are not redundant.
So, clearly, Joseph is referring to the redundancy of the two separate dreams – God gave Pharaoh the same message twice by having him dream two separate dreams of the same upcoming series of events.

How can you disagree with that?

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since this being is an interpretation issue and I would assume you would like your interpretation to be the correct one, getting a second opinion is just a good idea, don't you think? And if you're going to get a second opinion, shouldn't it be from someone like your pastor whose opinion you respect and who I would assume has gone through seminary and studied the Bible extensively? Or do you feel there's someone else I should recommend you go to in order to get another believer's interpretation?

1)    I already know what my pastor believes regarding the law of two or three witnesses.
2)   Please check any and every bible commentary that expounds upon Gen 41:32, you’re sure to find the vast majority of them, if not all of them, agreeing that Joseph is referring to the two separate dreams.


---

Well, it sounds to me like you're trying to link the passage to that concept in such a way that to me doesn't seem to mesh up properly. It just doesn't seem to me the two have anything to do with one another for reasons I've already explained.

We were previously talking about building doctrines only if there are two or three witnesses from the word of God, and here is Joseph stating that God repeats a matter twice to that the intended audience can be sure of the teaching.  The two seems to mesh completely to me.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

What happened to this series? I'd like to see another.

[John Dibble]

What happened to this series? I'd like to see another.

Sorry, I haven't had time to compile another - they take a while to write up. I'll see about doing the next one soon.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What happened to this series? I'd like to see another.

umm...scroll up to the last few posts by me and Dibble in this thread - the light and space of the interwovenness of scripture really put the zap on his head, even to the point of denying the obvious.

[afleitch]

No. He probably just got bored of you. We all do. Having 'the last words' doesn't mean that you've 'won' anything.