Jesus didn't wash his hands

[ViaCrucis]

I am baffled how nobody addressed BrainInVat's question, why Jesus did not take advantage and explained the germ theory, when he could.
And I am quite terrified by Sketcher suggesting that Jesus was not obliged to save innocent children dying from diseases, if he could. Suggesting that he knew better, just like any all-knowing god would, but he didn't intervene, is not the God having mysterious ways anymore. It is saddening.

Why you people cannot see BrainInVat's valid concerns? He is asking you why the omnipotent omniscient God, for communicating the most important message ever, would choose a book, now full of unclear foggy information, containing contradictions, and lacking a clear straightforward message, or commands if you will, such as "Hey guys, actually, this washing of hands is coincidentally a great idea, and here is how it actually works: you know, germs...", which would improve lives of people dramatically.

Surely God should know better, how to actually effectively and unambiguously communicate his most important message to all the people, right?
And all you give BrainInVat is your reinterpretations? More fog?
Or even accusations for picking a fight?
I am disappointed

Necro-threading. High five!

Personally I'm offended that Jesus didn't give humanity a free, limitless, and clean energy source. Do you know how much better off we'd be if we had had free clean electricity two thousand years ago? Do you know how many lives would have been saved by not having to rely on fossil fuels the last couple centuries? Our reliance on fossil fuel has been disastrous and destructive not only to human life but to the planet as well. Why didn't Jesus give us a magic box of unlimited clean energy? I mean He had every opportunity to explain the basic theories of all these things to warn us and provide us with a better energy source.

Le sad.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[klutedavid]

Mark 7:1-23

“Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, 2they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them.3(For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; 4and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.) 5So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, ‘Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?’ 6He said to them, ‘Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,
“This people honours me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.”
8You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.’
9 Then he said to them, ‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! 10For Moses said, “Honour your father and your mother”; and, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.” 11But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, “Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban” (that is, an offering to God)— 12then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, 13thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.’
14 Then he called the crowd again and said to them, ‘Listen to me, all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.’
17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18He said to them, ‘Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, 19since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20And he said, ‘It is what comes out of a person that defiles. 21For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, 22adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. 23All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.’ “

Luke 11:38 has something similar. So Jesus says you don’t need to wash your hands, but you need to kill children who speak ill of their parents. Apparently Jesus didn’t know about germ theory. He thought that illness is caused by sin. I supposed you Christians are going to tell me that Jesus didn’t mean that you don’t need to wash your hands just that it is more important to be moral than to wash your hands, but Jesus actually gives some very flawed reasoning as to why you don’t need to wash your hands.

Just some sound advice.

Let your kids play in the dirt, they will build resistance quickly to infection, they will have a greater immunity for the rest of their lives.

In ancient societies, social cohesion was critical to the survival of any society. Anyone who raised children that were rebellious, would create immense suffering in that society.
In the modern era, we have prisons where we can hold these dysfunctional people. In ancient societies they did not have prisons, so they had to execute these people.

 

[klutedavid]

I am baffled how nobody addressed BrainInVat's question, why Jesus did not take advantage and explained the germ theory, when he could.
And I am quite terrified by Sketcher suggesting that Jesus was not obliged to save innocent children dying from diseases, if he could. Suggesting that he knew better, just like any all-knowing god would, but he didn't intervene, is not the God having mysterious ways anymore. It is saddening.

Why you people cannot see BrainInVat's valid concerns? He is asking you why the omnipotent omniscient God, for communicating the most important message ever, would choose a book, now full of unclear foggy information, containing contradictions, and lacking a clear straightforward message, or commands if you will, such as "Hey guys, actually, this washing of hands is coincidentally a great idea, and here is how it actually works: you know, germs...", which would improve lives of people dramatically.

Surely God should know better, how to actually effectively and unambiguously communicate his most important message to all the people, right?
And all you give BrainInVat is your reinterpretations? More fog?
Or even accusations for picking a fight?
I am disappointed

Hello Ambience.

Depends on what you think is the most important information, that God would declare to humanity?

I agree that the Bible is a large and confusing book, so large that very few ever read it.

I disagree that washing your hands is vital information, whether you wash your hands or not. You will get sick and die anyway, ultimately death itself is the real enemy. I believe that the problem of death was adequately handled within the New Testament.

 

[Jake Arsenal]

You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

 

[amci]

So what is the explanation as to why there hasn't been divine revelation of previously unknown natural or technological knowledge?

I don't expect scriptural texts to provide me with this type of information, but that's only because scriptures have never been established to do so. Why is this type of information off-limits to the writers of scriptures?

 

[Jake Arsenal]

Apparently Jesus didn’t know about germ theory. He thought that illness is caused by sin. I supposed you Christians are going to tell me that Jesus didn’t mean that you don’t need to wash your hands just that it is more important to be moral than to wash your hands, but Jesus actually gives some very flawed reasoning as to why you don’t need to wash your hands.

Can you tell me more about this "germ theory"?

 

[Jake Arsenal]

Nobody has responded to the fact that Jesus said that children who do not honor their parents should be killed.

He was correct. Here is the section of the Law Jesus is referencing. The washing of hands before a meal was not in the Law but stoning children that revile their parents was in the Law.

Deuteronomy 21
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

 

[amci]

Can you tell me more about this "germ theory"?

BrainInVat hasn't logged on in 7 years.

Germ theory is the idea that most types of diseases are caused by microorganisms (bacteria, viruses, etc.). Humans didn't know about this until the late 19th century. BrainInVat was saying that if Jesus, being God, knew about the usefulness of hand-washing for preventing the spread of disease, he should have made that understood to people to whom he preached.

 

[Jake Arsenal]

BrainInVat hasn't logged on in 7 years.

Germ theory is the idea that most types of diseases are caused by microorganisms (bacteria, viruses, etc.). Humans didn't know about this until the late 19th century. BrainInVat was saying that if Jesus, being God, knew about the usefulness of hand-washing for preventing the spread of disease, he should have made that understood to people to whom he preached.

The problem here is context:
First off, they were discussing sin not health.
Secondly, my point to the OP was that "germ theory" is exactly what its name implies.

 

[amci]

The problem here is context:
First off, they were discussing sin not health.

True. I asked the question more directly in a post above. Should I repost my question as a new topic?

Secondly, my point to the OP was that "germ theory" is exactly what its name implies.

??

 

[Par5]

Hello Ambience.

Depends on what you think is the most important information, that God would declare to humanity?

I agree that the Bible is a large and confusing book, so large that very few ever read it.

I disagree that washing your hands is vital information, whether you wash your hands or not. You will get sick and die anyway, ultimately death itself is the real enemy. I believe that the problem of death was adequately handled within the New Testament.

You are correct in saying that the bible is a large and confusing book, a book that I have read, but have been told countless times by Christians that to understand it I have to be possessed by the holy spirit.
Often I have heard Christians state, The bible clearly says...." only to be told when I read something that the bible clearly says, "Oh I know that's what it says, but that's not what it means."
The writers of the books of the bible were supposedly inspired by their god, so you would think that there would not be so many inconsistencies and what Christians refer to as "difficulties" within the book.
Christians are also divided as to which one of the many versions of the bible they should read, and on that point, I would like to ask Christians what it is that decides them which bible version to read.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So what is the explanation as to why there hasn't been divine revelation of previously unknown natural or technological knowledge?

I don't expect scriptural texts to provide me with this type of information, but that's only because scriptures have never been established to do so. Why is this type of information off-limits to the writers of scriptures?

A human author can only pen what they know. The writers of the books of the Old Testament frequently use language about the nature of the universe which corresponds to how people in the ancient near east understood the universe--a stationary earth resting on pillars and foundations, with a solid dome or "firmament", with the celestial bodies going about the earth. There's no reason to think they thought any different about the natural world than most of their contemporaries.

The Bible isn't magic. It's a collection of many texts, penned by many different authors, from different times in history; consisting of many different forms of literary genre--which are all received together as the Christian Bible through a general shared consensus and confession by the Church down through the centuries.

The point of the Bible in Christianity is Jesus, not science, not even history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[amci]

...
The writers of the books of the Old Testament frequently use language about the nature of the universe which corresponds to how people in the ancient near east understood the universe--a stationary earth resting on pillars and foundations, with a solid dome or "firmament", with the celestial bodies going about the earth. There's no reason to think they thought any different about the natural world than most of their contemporaries. ...
It's a collection of many texts, penned by many different authors, from different times in history; consisting of many different forms of literary genre--which are all received together as the Christian Bible through a general shared consensus and confession by the Church down through the centuries.

The point of the Bible in Christianity is Jesus, not science, not even history.

As would be expected. But why is that what should be expected? Why not drop a hint or quick summary of some information about the workings of the natural world? Why Jesus fullstop? Why not Jesus AND other things? Why not Jesus as revealer of other things? It seems like it would be spiritually beneficial to have an understanding of neuroscience, ecology, and the earth's place relative to the rest of cosmos that goes beyond the understandings of the Hellenistic era. These are relevant to behaving morally and understanding what the material world is.

A human author can only pen what they know.
...
The Bible isn't magic. ...

Putting aside the term "magic", in your view, what is divine revelation exactly if there is no new knowledge that is being revealed? If there is such a thing as revelatory knowledge, then scriptures that record the direct revelation or a human response to it would be records of new knowledge that human authors didn't have before.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As would be expected. But why is that what should be expected? Why not drop a hint or quick summary of some information about the workings of the natural world? Why Jesus fullstop? Why not Jesus AND other things? Why not Jesus as revealer of other things? It seems like it would be spiritually beneficial to have an understanding of neuroscience, ecology, and the earth's place relative to the rest of cosmos that goes beyond the understandings of the Hellenistic era. These are relevant to behaving morally and understanding what the material world is.

I don't have an answer for you. For me it's pretty satisfactory that the Bible is what it is, rather than being something else. Had the Bible had all the answers to my math problems, I'd probably have done better at math in school.

Putting aside the term "magic", in your view, what is divine revelation exactly if there is no new knowledge that is being revealed? If there is such a thing as revelatory knowledge, then scriptures that record the direct revelation or a human response to it would be records of new knowledge that human authors didn't have before.

I first would define revelation as encounter--the encounter between God and man. That chief encounter, and the chief revelation of God, is Jesus, the Word made flesh. The Bible is revelation because it presents and records the encounter between God and man in the story and history of Israel--leading up to and pointing toward what happened when a virgin woman named Mary conceived and bore a Child.

That is, revelation is chiefly personal rather than propositional; the Bible isn't a collection of revealed propositions; but rather the unfolding narrative, story, and drama of God's personal encounter with the world--made fully manifest and realized in Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[amci]

I don't have an answer for you.

Okay.

For me it's pretty satisfactory that the Bible is what it is, rather than being something else.

It's not the content of the Bible for which justification is being asked. God has the opportunity to add to the set of revealed knowledge at any time.

I first would define revelation as encounter--the encounter between God and man. That chief encounter, and the chief revelation of God, is Jesus, the Word made flesh. The Bible is revelation because it presents and records the encounter between God and man ...

That is, revelation is chiefly personal rather than propositional; the Bible isn't a collection of revealed propositions; but rather the unfolding narrative, story, and drama of God's personal encounter with the world--made fully manifest and realized in Jesus Christ.

I don't understand distinctions you are making or what they are explaining about revelation. The things you've said describe content of revelation or implicit vs. explicit knowledge. There are still meanings of (and thus propositions of) sentences within a narrative context. If the mode of communication includes 'sentences with meanings', then, for the most part, the type of information communicated depends on the sentences chosen. Is God under an obligation to stick to genre conventions?

I am drifting too far from the topic of the thread.

 

[renniks]

Mark 7:1-23

“Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, 2they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them.3(For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; 4and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.) 5So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, ‘Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?’ 6He said to them, ‘Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,
“This people honours me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.”
8You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.’
9 Then he said to them, ‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! 10For Moses said, “Honour your father and your mother”; and, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.” 11But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, “Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban” (that is, an offering to God)— 12then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, 13thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.’
14 Then he called the crowd again and said to them, ‘Listen to me, all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.’
17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18He said to them, ‘Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, 19since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20And he said, ‘It is what comes out of a person that defiles. 21For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, 22adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. 23All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.’ “

Luke 11:38 has something similar. So Jesus says you don’t need to wash your hands, but you need to kill children who speak ill of their parents. Apparently Jesus didn’t know about germ theory. He thought that illness is caused by sin. I supposed you Christians are going to tell me that Jesus didn’t mean that you don’t need to wash your hands just

that it is more important to be moral than to wash your hands, but Jesus actually gives some very flawed reasoning as to why you don’t need to wash your hands.

He didn't wear a mask either.
But you are really missing his point.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Okay.



It's not the content of the Bible for which justification is being asked. God has the opportunity to add to the set of revealed knowledge at any time.

So something like why hasn't God called a prophet to explain how the internal combustion engine works? Again, no clue; but also again, I just don't see that as particularly important. I view history as the unfolding of the human story--and part of that story are the discoveries and advancements we've made along the way. Empowered by reason and curiosity to examine the world around us, inquire, to discover, and learn.

If I was able to ask the Almighty questions about any number of topics and get an answer, I'd do that. Why did my mom have to die of breast cancer when I was younger? Why did my dad have to be taken from us due to medical complications? Why do children have to suffer?

I don't understand distinctions you are making or what they are explaining about revelation. The things you've said describe content of revelation or implicit vs. explicit knowledge. There are still meanings of (and thus propositions of) sentences within a narrative context. If the mode of communication includes 'sentences with meanings', then, for the most part, the type of information communicated depends on the sentences chosen. Is God under an obligation to stick to genre conventions?

God didn't write the Bible, human beings did. And while no, genre-defying work is quite possible by human authors, there is still the fact that the books which comprise the Biblical Canon generally do fall into fairly well defined literary genre.

The Psalms are psalms, that's what they are. The Gospels are Gospels, not biographies. The letters of the Apostles are letters, personal correspondence.

I said revelation is personal, not propositional; because revelation about God is not "God is this, this, and that"--God is never defined in the Bible; the ways we talk about God are reflections upon encounter with God.

After you meet someone, what was your impression of them? That's how Scripture talks about God, and how the Church historically talks about God. Christianity doesn't even have an answer to the question of what God is, other than to say that God is God--He is Himself. The Divine Essence is inherently and intrinsically unknowable and ineffable.

I am drifting too far from the topic of the thread.

-CryptoLutheran