TEC Documentary hypothesis

by mP 302 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

PSacramento

Levicitus 19:18 says exactly the same thing in th Torah and yet slavery and rape of virgins were permitted and sanctioned by the law.
Where is it stated that rape was permitted in the Torah?
There are penalties for rape and even for seduction and they go hand-in hand:
Exodus 22:16-17 states,
“When a man seduces a virgin who was not promised in marriage, and he has sexual relations with her, he must certainly pay the bridal price for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must pay an amount in silver equal to the bridal price for virgins.“
Dueteronomy 22:28-29,
“If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, the man who raped her must give the young woman’s father 50 silver shekels, and she must become his wife because he violated her. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives.“
Now,, of course to US this seems quite a bit odd and disturubing but none of that equal rape being permitted anymore than our laws now that punish rape with a limited Jail time.
We don't view OUR laws as, "well, since I only get 5 years in jail with room and board, rape is permissible" do we?
As for Jesus coming only for Israel, yes that is clear and what is also clear is that His Apostles were to preach to "everyone else" ( to the ends of the earth...).

tec

I noticed in your answer, you failed to quote or even mention a single scripture. Actually the gospels mention jesus tax directions more than twice, its closer to a dozen.

If you know you bible as well as you suggest, then I should not have to, should I. You know what is written in there, then you know that these things are written in there. And even if it were a dozen times (why don't you quote those times to show us that is true?), that is a drop in the bucket compared to all else He taught of the Kingdom, His Father, love, clarifying things of the law, and faith.

I am not going to answer the same questions over and over again. Especially not when you do not answer any of mine. I waited to respond to your most recent comments, thinking that you would not avoid the specific questions and comments I made to you... but you have. You answer those, and you might have the answers you are looking for.

mP: Matt 5:17-19. We have been over this before. You claimed that time, that perfect didnt mean perfect.

I did no such thing. There is no 'perfect' in any version that i can find. Having a purpose does not make something perfect. Being useful does not mean something is perfect. Now, most versions say that He came to fulfill the law and prophets, but the one below spells that out a bit better.

Matt 5:17-18 "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

The prophets pointed to Christ, and the law was a tutor until Christ came. We do not look 'back' at something that did not save. We look at the one who DOES save.

Romans 10:4

"For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God." NLT

"Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." NIV

Galatians 3:24 "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith."

You should read the whole of Galatians 3. Lots about the purpose of the law in that.

For 1850 years we had slaves in Christian Europe because Jesus didnt make a clear statement. Today we have slavery in ALL chrsitian religion because Jesus didnt say a word AGAINST pedophilia.

No. We had slaves because those 'christians' did not listen to Christ.

When you leave loopholes like that, evil men take advantage them.

Men who want to justify their actions will find a loophole in anything.

How many straightforward teachings of Christ do men (and religion) ignore; and search other places in the bible to justify their own needs/desires?

hats why religion is always behind and society which is not religious is first. Today society has banned pedophilia and tries to fight it, and the last places trying to hide pedophiles is religion of course.

Well, a) I am not defending religion. Christ is not religion. What men do in religion is upon them. And b) Pedophiles seek out places that will put them in positions of trust with children. Such as religion, boy scouts, etc,etc.

He was too dumb to know these would be major problems and pain for 2000 years. The other half is of course he didnt care.

Both false. Both total supposition, based on what you want to believe.

You can make up your admiring claims thats yoru choice but it doesnt change the fact you cant produce a sciprture that says exactly what im after. Instead you must make stuff up.

I have made nothing up. You have to ignore all the things that dispute your claims... to the point that you will not answer the questions or comments that have been made to you, because the answer is not in 'tune' with your conclusions.

THis is bogus, if Jesus and God didnt punish us with the debt of Adam we wouldnt need any saving. Imagine a bank repeated this nonsense today, and assigned you a debt for someone on the other side of the country and then in their kindness cancelled half the debt. Thats utter bullshit.

They did NOT punish us. We came from Adam... after the fall, meaning in the form that he had been given. These vessels with sin and death in them. (which actually acts as protection so that sin and death do not have to permeate the spirit within these vessels - who we truly ARE) The alternative is that we are not born at all. This is an entirely separate conversation though.

Who exactly did he show mercy too ? He certainly didnt care about the poor barstard slaves.

The sinners (whom he forgave and called to be his disciples), the outcasts of society (whom he loved and socialized with), those who persecuted him (whom he forgave and asked forgiveness for on the cross), the weak, the downtrodden, the oppressed. The servent whose ear Peter sliced. The lepers who he healed. The woman caught in adultery and brought to him to be stoned. Etc, etc. He came to set people FREE.

Why are you distracting attention from the real question and trying to cry and pretend that everybody is picking on you ?

I have answered the real question. It is just not an answer that you want to hear.

But I have not cried and pretended that everyone is picking on you. I do think that is a good example of how you see only what you want to see.

Where are the scriptures to back your assertions ? Is it honest to make claim and tell stories but when it comes to showing a single scripture you fail on all accounts ?

Surely you know your bible, since you make such condmenations of the people in the bible? Not sure why you need me to show you what you must know is in there, already.

Peace,

tammy

tec

Yes I've heard of witchhunts...they were conducted by some of the faithful followers of the Jesus myth.
Not if they were following him, they would not have been.
But witchhunts, slander, libel, etc... these are conducted by anyone with a grudge or something to hide, even if there is no basis. That is why it is called slander, or libel. Yes? That is what it has to do with what you said. People can find fault where there is no fault, and then others who want to, listen to those liars and slanders.
Just because some people are obsessed with myths and believe they are true does not make it so or that someone who they can't prove even exists is being slandered.
At least it makes more sense that someone who at least believes in Christ would be obsessed with him... over someone who thinks he is a myth being obsessed over him.
So tell me which part of the law regarding rape and slavery he condemend? And don't make stuff up, just use the text.
Stop looking backward and look at Him. You will find your answers in Him.
As to the rest of your accusations, I am done explaining myself to you.
Oh, but I will say that it is not judging to call someone dishonest, if they are lying about you or someone else. It is called defending.
True, though, that I cannot know mP's motives. Unless he makes them clear, himself. So I should have refrained from mentioning motives. Just as mP should refrain from making statements about Christ's motives, since mP does not know Christ, made clear by his many accusations.
Peace,
tammy
PSacramento

Maybe it is time to get back to the OP and discuss the validity of the multiple source hypothesis...
OnTheWayOut

Where is it stated that rape was permitted in the Torah?
Judges 21:
15 The people grieved for Benjamin, because the Lord had made a gap in the tribes of Israel. 16 And the elders of the assembly said, “With the women of Benjamin destroyed, how shall we provide wives for the men who are left? 17 The Benjamite survivors must have heirs,” they said, “so that a tribe of Israel will not be wiped out. 18 We can’t give them our daughters as wives, since we Israelites have taken this oath: ‘Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to a Benjamite.’ 19 But look, there is the annual festival of the Lord in Shiloh, which lies north of Bethel, east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.”
20 So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, “Go and hide in the vineyards 21 and watch. When the young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you seize one of them to be your wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Do us the favor of helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war. You will not be guilty of breaking your oath because you did not give your daughters to them.’”
23 So that is what the Benjamites did. While the young women were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.
Numbers 31:
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord ’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 20:
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.
Zechariah 14:

A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls.
2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.
If you want to make justifications for each of these, they have been heard before. The fact remains that God condones such actions instead of preventing or even just condemning them.
jgnat

Back to the multiple source hypothesis, I found this:
http://www.theopedia.com/Synoptic_problem
I was brought up on the idea that the four gospels serve as witnesses to each other, and that their varying accounts are what one would expect from different eye-witnesses to an event.
This idea breaks down when entire sections of text are identical in word and form. This suggests rather than one is copied from the other. If this is more likely, then the four gospels would no longer serve as validating witnesses.
PSacramento

OTWO,
Where in those passages is rape permited?
IN Judges we have:
23 So that is what the Benjamites did. While the young women were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.
No rape BUT what may be viewed as "wife-to-be napping"?
In Numbers:
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord ’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
They are told to kill those that have followed Balaam and are not virgins but to keep the virgins for themselves and, base don the Law, to marry them supposedly.
Deutronomy:
14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.
Again, it implies plunder and the taking of captives inbto one household.
Zech:
A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls.
2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.
THis is a waring of what will happen to Israel, the consequences.
None of these state permission to rape.
Now, THAT said, there is no doubt that these passages present diffculties because, in them, women ( and children) are being treated in a tyical fashion as "spoils and plunders of war" ands that is NOT soemthing that we expect from God to be condoned, so it is quite correct for us to view these passages as "difficult" to say the least.
PSacramento

Back to the multiple source hypothesis, I found this:
http://www.theopedia.com/Synoptic_problem
I was brought up on the idea that the four gospels serve as witnesses to each other, and that their varying accounts are what one would expect from different eye-witnesses to an event.
This idea breaks down when entire sections of text are identical in word and form. This suggests rather than one is copied from the other. If this is more likely, then the four gospels would no longer serve as validating witnesses.
Have you read:
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
Richard Bauckham Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels Craig A. Evans
Pistoff

We can only say that in the opinion of the redactor or editor of the Bible, God condoned it.
There is no evidence God authored the Bible, and lots to say it is a collection of heavily redacted stories by authors with an agenda and a viewpoint.
To say God himself approves of rape illustrates the stupidity of the tone of this thread, which has mP and Entirely Possible positing that Jesus approved of rape, racism and slavery because they don't see the words they want to see. Instead they would have us believe that a community of followers who had high ethics (I am speaking of the ideas contained in early Pauline writings, considered genuine by secular scholars, not the pastorals), including the inclusion of women, equality among members and sharing of property sprang up from a racist slavery approving misogynist.
This is an extreme, unlikely and unfounded position.
The following that built up around Jesus is consistent with his ideas being at least partially revolutionary religiously, and maybe politically, ergo his death at Roman hands.
The same old same old is not revolutionary.
PSacramento

We can only say that in the opinion of the redactor or editor of the Bible, God condoned it.
QUite correct.
That said, we must try to understand WHY he/they would have believed that to be so.

TEC Documentary hypothesis

Share this