Atheists..... throwing the baby out with the bath water ?

by snare&racket 403 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tec

  Do you agree that Jesus respected the law, as was, up to the point of the new covenant? He said he did. Do you accept that?

  I agree that he respected that law as it was meant... not necessarily as it was written. I think THAT is what he said. I will show you why I think this, in his own words:

  First:

  Matt 19: 8,9 "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife...."

  A - Moses (not God) gave them that command (that they could send their wives away with a certificate of divorce). B - He gave them that command because of their own hard-heartedness. THEY were not willing to do any better. C - This was NOT God's law OR intention. D - Then Christ speaks what IS the truth.

  Second:

  Christ also said Woe to you Scribes and keepers of the law. Why would He say that? What could a scribe be doing that would bring woe upon Himself?

  Third:

  This ties in to both the first and second point. Christ teaching and correcting the things considered to be the law:

  You have heard it said... but I tell you...

  Such as Matthew 5: 38

  You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

  Does that mean that he is changing the law? He said that he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law. So is he changing it here... or as in the case with Moses above... is he shedding light on the truth of what it was meant to be in the beginning, from God?

  These are things that I see and hear and apply to my understanding of Christ and His Father.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  tec

  Yes we can say for a certainty nobody today would know anything about Jesus of Nazareth.

  Well, you can be certain about that if you choose.

  I say that no one knows what could have been... because no one lives the timeline of what could have been. Only what IS.

  You say you accept Matthew's account of the virgin birth. You have chosen to give credibility to that particular piece of data. When we look at the text more carefully we find that Matthew based this on a mistranslation in the Septuagint.

  That is one theory out there. Yes, I have heard it. Which is why I said that I can accept it... unless something else comes along to show that it was meant as purity or something else. Like I said earlier. I'm really not concerned about it. Because it is not reflective on anything Christ taught or did. He had nothing to do with his virgin (literal or symbolic) birth.

  So why do you choose to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? The real meaning behind the myth is the subjugation of women and the male fear of female sexuality. The ultimate woman is a virgin mother!

  Well, Christ didn't seem to advocate the subjugation of women. He even told Martha that Mary had made the better choice. (listening to His teachings, over cleaning and serving the menfolk)

  There is no useful data at all about Jesus in any extra-biblical source and the data in the bible is frequently contradictory, historically impossible and sometimes shows him to be an arrogant prick.

  Easy to make a statment like that without giving a specific that I can respond to.

  Where do you get your version of Jesus from if not from cherry picking the bible?

  I've answered this question many times already.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  Okay-----so let's move onto something he did not mention and offer an enlightened view.

  I disagree with what you said by the way. He repeatedly said he was in agreement with the law, and yes he was introducing a new way, but he didn't seem to be editing what had already been written, just showing how he would change it. But forward. Okay. No more tooth for tooth--your take is that it was never meant to be that way---my take is that he was showing how the new way would be.

  Why do you suppose that the law that Jesus supported, and did not edit (in this case anyway) made it a more serious crime (deserving of death) to rape a married woman than it was to rape a virgin? Jesus gave no indication that he disagreed with this. A man who raped a married woman was sentenced to death. A man that raped a virgin paid a fine and there was the option of marrying his victim.

  Does this seem like a contradiction of Christ to you---and don't push it off like it is unimportant, because it was not unimportant to the virgins in past years. In fact their entire lives were ruined if their father chose the marriage option, and they were raped for the rest of their lives. Now that is not to say that Jesus condoned rape, but he did not concern himself with the pain the law imposed on victims. And Jesus repeatedly said he was in agreement with the law.

  I need you to be specific here. Apparently he was more concerned about divorce, as that is what he brought up.

  NC
• 

  tec

  I disagree with what you said by the way. He repeatedly said he was in agreement with the law, and yes he was introducing a new way, but he didn't seem to be editing what had already been written, just showing how he would change it. But forward. Okay. No more tooth for tooth--your take is that it was never meant to be that way---my take is that he was showing how the new way would be.

  Okay, lets try this. Why do you think he was introducing a new way over what was intended from the beginning. His words on Moses giving a law were very clear that it was NOT like that in the beginning. Those are the words that are written. So I have precedent for what I see. What is your precident that He was introducing a new way instead of correcting the misunderstanding and misapplications of the original way?

  Why do you suppose that the law that Jesus supported, and did not edit (in this case anyway) made it a more serious crime (deserving of death) to rape a married woman than it was to rape a virgin? Jesus gave no indication that he disagreed with this. A man who raped a married woman was sentenced to death. A man that raped a virgin paid a fine and there was the option of marrying his victim.

  See, his lack of referencing something does not mean he supported it. If Christ had to correct every single false teaching or matter of the law that was given to a people who could not follow the basic law - love God and neighbor... then how long do you suppose that might have taken?

  Instead of wasting all that time and combing through every written word... He simply taught the truth - by deed AND word. Teachings that, if heard and understood, answer all those questions on their own. Love neighbor... means don't rape her; married or not.

  Does this seem like a contradiction of Christ to you---and don't push it off like it is unimportant, because it was not unimportant to the virgins in past years. In fact their entire lives were ruined if their father chose the marriage option, and they were raped for the rest of their lives. Now that is not to say that Jesus condoned rape, but he did not concern himself with the pain the law imposed on victims.

  There is no contradiction unless you think he supported every law that was written down (even though the scribes had handeld it falsely).

  And Jesus repeatedly said he was in agreement with the law.

  Apparently not so with the law on divorce? Can you learn something from that one specific e x ample of the law they had NOT being the law as it was meant, from the beginning?

  I need you to be specific here. Apparently he was more concerned about divorce, as that is what he brought up.

  No. That is what THEY brought up to Him. They asked Him that question. He taught the truth - in word and deed (by what he taught and how he acted). But they asked questions, mostly like what you're doing, in asking questions about things that had been taught a certain way and things they thought were imporant. Things they didn't realize were answered in the first two commandments and the golden rule. Christ even said that all the law could be summed up in those. So either no one asked about the rape law... or no one recorded his answer (and not all that he taught is recorded). In either case, the answer to ALL of those questions is in 'love neighbor as self'; do no harm; show mercy; treat others as you wish to be treated.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  N.drew

  I have returned!

  Yoga was good.

  It is possible Deuteronomy 3 is about justice. It is obvious that Bashan and his men were "utterly destroyed" by the order of Yahweh. But the account goes on to say Sihon the King of the Amorites was also defeated by Israel along with all the men, women, children and all the animals. It is not so clear that Israel defeated Sihon at the order of Yahweh. Could it be that it was Bashan and his men that destroyed the city of the Amorites? I don't know Hebrew. But for thousands of years it has been understood (by some pretty heavy weights) that it is Jah that ordered the destruction of the children and animals of Sihon. But I think it was Bashan that did it. See for yourself.

  Deuteronomy 3: 1-7
• 

  NewChapter

  His words on Moses giving a law were very clear that it was NOT like that in the beginning.

  Of course it wasn't that way from the beginning. But neither was the law of Moses. So it had been that way for thousands of years. God did nothing to set the record straight, if it was wrong.

  See, his lack of referencing something does not mean he supported it. If Christ had to correct every single false teaching or matter of the law that was given to a people who could not follow the basic law - love God and neighbor... then how long do you suppose that might have taken?

  True. I suppose it is only a question of priorities. Divorce ranked higher on his list than rape. And I translate virgin to mean any woman or child that had not had sex. So thinking it could have included child rape is particularly distasteful. But I get it---he worried about divorce.

  That is what THEY brought up to Him

  Perhaps rape and child rape was not a priority for them either.

  I can see that you have managed to make it all okay, or to explain it away to your satisfaction. I could bring up more of the brutal, horrific law, that this god allowed his chosen, favored people to suffer under for thousands of years, but you have it covered. There is no more to say really. Jesus said he agreed with the law---but because he talked about divorce, you have concluded that he had an entirely different law in mind. Since there is no record of this other law he referenced, we cannot discuss it.

  For myself, I am very happy to chuck it all. Jesus does not share my priorities.

  NC
• 

  N.drew

  NewChapter is Jesus real to you or not?

  If you believe he is not a real historical figure, then why are you badgering Tammy?
• 

  poopsiecakes

  So Tec, I'm curious - why would Jesus say in order to follow him you must hate your mother, father etc. if he wanted it to be interpreted? That's a black and white statement and he wasn't quoted as qualifiying that statement and prefaced it by saying this: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household". It's possible to twist this to mean something else but it doesn't change the fact that if you believe he said it then he meant it, no?

  And every prayer of yours has been answered? Every one? Really?

  I think it gets a wee bit dangerous when you try to explain that you believe some parts of the bible based on Christ and can discard other parts based on Christ because it leads people like me to pick that apart a little.
• 

  N.drew

  I am sure the command to "hate one's mother and father" is the reversal of "the world hates you". That's what it means. If you do not hate your father mother ect ect then you will be loving the world. "Do not love the world". The world does not go toward peace. The Prince of Peace we listen to. If we listened to our mother or father ect ect we would be siding with the haters of the Prince of Peace.
• 

  poopsiecakes

  That's what it means.

  But that's not what he said...