BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 97,315
- 33,192
- 2,250
You might want to re-read Numbers 5. Instructions for a man who thinks his wife has been fooling around sure sounds like an abortion to me.
I am very well aware of Number 5 and I agree with you. I have used that chapter several times in discussions myself. However, Jesus did not always agree with the ancient ways and interpretation of Torah. 'Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath', the woman taken in adultery in John (which granted was added centuries later but reveals a lot about the traditional view of Jesus' attitude in some respects)...lots of places where Jesus said 'you have heard this, but I tell you this'. One would have to go a lot further than quoting Number 5 to make me believe Jesus would approve
Jesus himself said he wasn't here to change the law, but to fulfill it. The situation of the woman caught in adultery had nothing to do with abortion, and you are stretching pretty hard to try to associate the two completely different subjects. I suspect you already know that, but are just grabbing for something to say. What exactly did Jesus say or do to make you believe abortion is wrong in every situation? I'm not talking about late term abortion after the fetus is fully formed and viable separate from the mother. That was outlawed a long time ago.
I am not trying to equate the woman taken in adultery with abortion. I was providing an example wherein the Law said to do one thing and Jesus rejected that and instead taught something else. There are many times in the gospel accounts where Jesus did that. So, simply because Numbers 5 discusses what appears to be an abortion (and I would agree that it is), it does not demonstrate that Jesus would have agreed with that. He may have or may not have. The Bible, obviously, does not record his position on abortion so we are left to speculate.
Jesus didn't reject the law. If he would have, they wouldn't have listened to him anyway. They saw him as a teacher, not as someone with the authority to change any law. He merely pointed out the fact that they were all sinful as well. It was their decision that they were not worthy to stone her because of their own sin. How is that rejecting any law? How is that substituting anything? At least you admit that your religious beliefs on abortion are speculation of what you think Jesus might have thought, You just haven't shown any reason to believe he would support what you think about it.
Actually I am pro-choice. I just don't think Jesus would agree. If for no other reason there is self-preservation. As I am sure you are aware, without children, especially sons, there was no one to take care of you in your old age. This is why when a man died without leaving his wife a son it was the brother's responsibility to give her one. Without a son, the woman would become a beggar or perhaps even be forced into prostitution or other such extreme measures to survive in her old age. The mortality rate, especially for children, was also very high, so the best way to propagate the species and protect yourself in old age was to have lots of children. If not for moral reasons, there are practical reasons why peasants in antiquity needed to reproduce. Jesus would have been aware of that just as we are today. Thus, I argue he would have opposed abortion partly on this premise.
As far as how people saw Jesus...well that kind of depends on which gospel you read. In Mark and Luke I would agree that he was seen more as a teacher or a philosopher. In Mathew and John...no he is depicted quite differently in those gospels. Matthew depicts him as having the authority to interpret Torah by himself similar to a 1st century Moses. in John he is simply God and therefore has the divine authority to do whatever
You are correct that of writers in the bible saw Jesus as much more than an ordinary man. The people who were about to stone that woman did not. If he had told them the law was wrong and they should substitute anything he might say, they would have probably killed him on the spot for blasphemy. Instead, he referred to the teachings of the Torah to shame them into walking away. That was part of his genius, and why so many hated him so much. He never said anything contrary to the law as it was believed in that time. He merely pointed out things in ways that they had never thought of to expose their hypocrisy.
Much of the Mosaic law had nothing to do with spiritual things, but were just things that were necessary for the safety and advancement of society at that time. I don't think God really hated pork, but in a non refrigerated community, the meat was dangerous to eat. The admonition to the brother of a dead husband to have a child with the widow was probably for the reason you mentioned. Refrigeration solved the pork problem, and world population and the way widows are treated solved the absolute need for every woman to have at least one son.
It's easy to meander off subject when discussing religion, but back to the subject. I don't think anybody is advocating abortion of viable fetuses except in the very rare and tragic case of the baby or the mother. I just haven't seen any evidence, medical, or spiritual, that an early term fetus is an actual person.