1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What the Bible says vs how to understand it

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Mogget, Apr 10, 2012.

  1. Eww

    Eww Guest

    Ahem. If you are not a Jew, why do you even bother to read the Jewish Law? That is what is being discussed here. It is not for anyone except Jews. Look at the Gospels. Jesus said nothing about gay people. Nothing.
     
  2. Mogget

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,397
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    New England
    Jesus was, in the opinion of most modern biblical scholars, a Torah-observant Jew (which meant something rather different in the Second Temple era than it does in modern Rabbinic Judaism) and is generally believed to have supported the observance of the Torah as understood by the Pharisees (many NT scholars think Jesus was a Pharisee, actually, based on his insistence in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere on keeping the Torah even more strictly than the Pharisees: Matthew 5:20 "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.").

    The point being, Jesus didn't want to abolish (or "fulfill") the Torah, he wanted to reform it and make it even more strict. That's why the Sermon on the Mount has the common refrain "You have heard it said (that the law says thus), but I say unto you, you must not even think (of things leading to the breaking of that law").

    The idea that Jesus did away with the Jewish covenant was Paul's, and a very brilliant one at that. I have nothing against it, I should add, but the opinion of most scholars is that it wasn't Jesus' idea. And even Paul never says that Jews aren't obligated to keep the Torah, he just says that Gentile converts aren't. It wasn't until after the destruction of the Temple and the schism between proto-rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity that the notion that no Christians, even Jewish Christians, had to follow the Torah came about.
     
  3. Eww

    Eww Guest

    Jesus did not exist. There is zero proof of that. Someone somewhat famous with that name might have existed - we just do not know. If he did and was a rabbi, how did he invent Christianity? The proper logic here is too much for religious people who want myth and not facts.
     
  4. Pseudojim

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    It's fairly historically established that jesus the man did exist. Technically speaking, you can't prove that atilla the hun, or genghis khan, or charlemagne, or queen elizabeth the first actually lived either, but they're established historical certainties.
     
  5. Mogget

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,397
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    New England
    The evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus is largely circumstantial, but the majority of biblical scholars do believe he existed. In the nineteenth century this was more heavily debated, from what I understand. Essentially, although there is no historical documentation of Jesus, it is generally believed that in order for the Jesus legend to have made the impact it did in the space of time that it did, there would have to have been a historical figure around whom the legends were based.
     
  6. Eww

    Eww Guest

    Well I'm sorry, but this is what happens when you read only the Christian view. Yes, I admit a man named Jesus probably existed. There were many with that name. As to the legend, which you just basically admitted he probably is, he is a combination of Hercules, Apollo and Mithras. Sorry, but comparing Jesus to Genghis Khan is a bit like comparing a unicorn to a horse or goat.
     
  7. Pseudojim

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    hehe, you don't know me very well :icon_wink
     
  8. Mogget

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,397
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    New England
    This isn't just the Christian view. Many biblical scholars are not Christian. There's a lot, and I mean a lot, of Jewish NT scholars (Paula Frederiksen and Amy Jill-Levine to name two) and some atheist ones as well (Bart Ehrman being one of the best known). All three have written books on the historical Jesus and trying to work out who he was based on the NT writings.

    I'm not saying there definitely was a historical Jesus, just that the consensus among the people best qualified to judge the question, NT scholars, is that he did exist. It's widely agreed that there was historical Galillean named Yeshua who preached and healed (this was pretty common in the Second Temple Era, miracle workers were a dime a dozen), was accused of being a traitor to the Roman empire and was crucified (only traitors and rebels were crucified, and Pilate crucified people all the frickin' time), and after his death his followers had an experience that they interpreted as resurrection.
     
  9. Christiaan

    Christiaan Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    1
    Self-enlightenment.

    Why? The arguments they make in the Gospels concerning Jewish law are poppycock. If you actually look up the passages they reference, they are so wrong sometimes. They will take something completely out-of-context. What makes the Gospels interesting is that it highlights the political divisions and issues of the time period. If you read anything these guys say about Jewish Law, make sure that you look back on the bits of it they are referencing. If they reference Hosea, look up the Book of Hosea. If they reference Isaiah, look up the relevant passage in Isaiah. The Gospels have some interesting perspectives on Jewish law, but they are worse than useless unless you are willing to form a perspective of your own, which takes time.

    What I find truly disturbing is the habit Christians have of thinking they are obligated to hold the same opinions, on everything, as the dudes who wrote the New Testament. If Paul the Apostle had gone through his whole life and never questioned authority or thought for himself, he would have remained a Pharisee until the day he died. Paul is done better justice if we take him to be the fallible, heroic man he was and accept him for that.

    Unfortunately, people are morally lazy. They want some simple roadmap to good moral conduct, and it's not as easy as that. Real life throws you complicated circumstances that there is no rule book to help you deal with. When you are in a morally complicated situation, you aren't going to find the answers in the Bible. You aren't going to find them in a book of law. You are just going to have to make a call and live with the consequences. Asking someone else to do your thinking for you is sloth, and I consider it debased.

    So it's not relevant at all whether Paul actually railed against homosexuality in general, and not just some specific perverse behavior particular to the noble class of his day. If he did, he was wrong. The reality is that gay people live in a concentration camp the size of a planet, and this must change. You don't need divine inspiration to realize that it's wrong.
     
  10. Eww

    Eww Guest

    A New Testament scholar is essentially akin to a Greek mythology scholar. I have never encountered one who tries shoving Diana or Zeus down my throat. (I wouldn't mind Apollo I guess ;0)

    Someone said "you don't need divine inspiration to know it's wrong" and I think that is brilliant. The whole thing is wrong. Someone here argues for the New Testament only as a way to read about Jesus like it's, well, gospel, and in the same sentence says they get the Jewish Law all wrong.

    Exactly. They get it ALL, all wrong. Aside from my colleague Simcha, who found what may be the tomb of Jesus (complete with his remains, I might add) no one has offered anything remotely like a logical explanation of who he was, what he was doing or anything like that.

    Also, there is no proof that the 'Teacher of Light' of the Essenes was identified with Jesus. That is the problem here - you can make him into anyone you like. And the posts I'm reading here prove that point.