A Few Words About Christian Self-Righteousness

[BULLDOG]

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.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Jesus was the most notable liberal I have ever heard of.

it never ceases to amaze me how liberals try to make Jesus like them rather than trying to be like Jesus.

This thread is about those who pretend to be like Jesus!

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

And yet abortion was so popular back then that it wiped out the entire species of plants that actually induced abortions naturally.

It is entirely possible that Jesus was well aware of this natural abortificant but never mentioned it because it was something that women only obtained from the local apothecary when necessary and there were no laws (moral or otherwise) against her having one.

In fact I am having a hard time recalling a single passage in the NT where women are condemned for having abortions. On the other hand there is at least one instance in the OT where God ordered the Israelites to commit abortions.

So no, I disagree that Jesus would have been opposed to abortions since the OT appears to condone them.

 

[BluePhantom]

I have to be very brief here because I have a meeting, but in response to posts #61 and #63 I would say that we don't know what Jesus would say about abortion because He never addressed it. You two are pointing to Old Testament verses, particularly Numbers 5, which is reasonable. However, we cannot simply say that Jesus would have adopted that point of view. Again, He disagreed with the Pharisaic view of the Sabbath in Mark 2:27 as well as in other places (sorry I am really rushing here and have been really busy).

We could just as realistically look at apocryphal sources to get a perspective. While not in the Bible or from the lips of Jesus, they do provide us with the point of view of the early Christian movement and Jewish belief in ancient times. In the Epistle of Barnabas (ca 70-135 CE), for example, it is written, "...Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born..." (Bar. 19:5) In the Didache, or Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, from the 2nd Century CE, it is written, "2:2 Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not have illicit sex; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not practice witchcraft; you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor." (Did. 2:2) And Flavius Josephus wrote in Against Apion, "...The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind..." (Josephus, Against Apion, 2:25)

So while not the words of Jesus, Himself....these verses are clearly against the practice of abortion and indicate that the common belief among the early Christian community was likewise. Sorry, I really have to bolt.


The Epistle of Barnabas translation J.B. Lightfoot

The Didache - The Complete Text

Against Apion by Flavius Josephus

 

[Derideo_Te]

I have to be very brief here because I have a meeting, but in response to posts #61 and #63 I would say that we don't know what Jesus would say about abortion because He never addressed it. You two are pointing to Old Testament verses, particularly Numbers 5, which is reasonable. However, we cannot simply say that Jesus would have adopted that point of view. Again, He disagreed with the Pharisaic view of the Sabbath in Mark 2:27 as well as in other places (sorry I am really rushing here and have been really busy).

We could just as realistically look at apocryphal sources to get a perspective. While not in the Bible or from the lips of Jesus, they do provide us with the point of view of the early Christian movement and Jewish belief in ancient times. In the Epistle of Barnabas (ca 70-135 CE), for example, it is written, "...Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born..." (Bar. 19:5) In the Didache, or Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, from the 2nd Century CE, it is written, "2:2 Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not have illicit sex; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not practice witchcraft; you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor." (Did. 2:2) And Flavius Josephus wrote in Against Apion, "...The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind..." (Josephus, Against Apion, 2:25)

So while not the words of Jesus, Himself....these verses are clearly against the practice of abortion and indicate that the common belief among the early Christian community was likewise. Sorry, I really have to bolt.


The Epistle of Barnabas translation J.B. Lightfoot

The Didache - The Complete Text

Against Apion by Flavius Josephus

Which begs the obvious question, why were those texts edited out?

If abortion was as you say at the time why did none of them survive in the current Bible?

Could it be because those were not commonly held views but rather the views of the fringes instead?

If so that would be on a par with the same views commonly held today.

World Publics Reject Criminal Penalties for Abortion - World Public Opinion

 

[BluePhantom]

I have to be very brief here because I have a meeting, but in response to posts #61 and #63 I would say that we don't know what Jesus would say about abortion because He never addressed it. You two are pointing to Old Testament verses, particularly Numbers 5, which is reasonable. However, we cannot simply say that Jesus would have adopted that point of view. Again, He disagreed with the Pharisaic view of the Sabbath in Mark 2:27 as well as in other places (sorry I am really rushing here and have been really busy).

We could just as realistically look at apocryphal sources to get a perspective. While not in the Bible or from the lips of Jesus, they do provide us with the point of view of the early Christian movement and Jewish belief in ancient times. In the Epistle of Barnabas (ca 70-135 CE), for example, it is written, "...Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born..." (Bar. 19:5) In the Didache, or Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, from the 2nd Century CE, it is written, "2:2 Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not have illicit sex; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not practice witchcraft; you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor." (Did. 2:2) And Flavius Josephus wrote in Against Apion, "...The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind..." (Josephus, Against Apion, 2:25)

So while not the words of Jesus, Himself....these verses are clearly against the practice of abortion and indicate that the common belief among the early Christian community was likewise. Sorry, I really have to bolt.


The Epistle of Barnabas translation J.B. Lightfoot

The Didache - The Complete Text

Against Apion by Flavius Josephus

Which begs the obvious question, why were those texts edited out?

If abortion was as you say at the time why did none of them survive in the current Bible?

Could it be because those were not commonly held views but rather the views of the fringes instead?

If so that would be on a par with the same views commonly held today.

World Publics Reject Criminal Penalties for Abortion - World Public Opinion

I actually have time to talk now. Actually they were not edited out because they were fringe views. Both the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas were extremely popular in early Christianity and represent what most believe to be the standard viewpoints of the early Christian movement. In fact Barnabas was included in the canon of Codex Sinaiticus along with the Shepherd of Hermas. They were rejected for other reasons, mainly having to do with doubts about their apostolic authorship. Barnabas and the Didache are clearly pseudepigraphic, and the Shepherd was probably removed because it is very similar to Revelation in its use of visions and symbolism. It was hard enough getting one apocalypse in there (Revelation) let alone two.

And, of course, Josephus was not a Biblical author, but a Jewish historian commenting on the Law as it pertained to abortion. Thus, there would obviously be no editing. I can see making argument to get around apocrypha or the Old Testament or other Biblical sources, but boy it's going to be tough to get around Josephus.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have to be very brief here because I have a meeting, but in response to posts #61 and #63 I would say that we don't know what Jesus would say about abortion because He never addressed it. You two are pointing to Old Testament verses, particularly Numbers 5, which is reasonable. However, we cannot simply say that Jesus would have adopted that point of view. Again, He disagreed with the Pharisaic view of the Sabbath in Mark 2:27 as well as in other places (sorry I am really rushing here and have been really busy).

We could just as realistically look at apocryphal sources to get a perspective. While not in the Bible or from the lips of Jesus, they do provide us with the point of view of the early Christian movement and Jewish belief in ancient times. In the Epistle of Barnabas (ca 70-135 CE), for example, it is written, "...Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born..." (Bar. 19:5) In the Didache, or Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, from the 2nd Century CE, it is written, "2:2 Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not have illicit sex; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not practice witchcraft; you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor." (Did. 2:2) And Flavius Josephus wrote in Against Apion, "...The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind..." (Josephus, Against Apion, 2:25)

So while not the words of Jesus, Himself....these verses are clearly against the practice of abortion and indicate that the common belief among the early Christian community was likewise. Sorry, I really have to bolt.


The Epistle of Barnabas translation J.B. Lightfoot

The Didache - The Complete Text

Against Apion by Flavius Josephus

In Mark 23-28, he certainly didn't disagree with any part of the law, but only in the hard unyielding interpretation of the Pharisaic view. He quoted the precedent of David eating the consecrated bread when he and the people with him were hungry and in need of food. Again explaining the law in ways they had not thought about. His logic was unquestionable or they would have accused him of blasphemy. He did that several times, and they got more pissed off each time. I haven't found any examples where Jesus actually disagreed with Mosaic law, but several where he demonstrated that the law wasn't the harsh unyielding cudgel that the Pharisees used to keep the people in line. If you can show me even one example of him saying an existing law is wrong instead of saying the interpretation of the law is wrong, your claim would have more credibility.

 

[BluePhantom]

I have to be very brief here because I have a meeting, but in response to posts #61 and #63 I would say that we don't know what Jesus would say about abortion because He never addressed it. You two are pointing to Old Testament verses, particularly Numbers 5, which is reasonable. However, we cannot simply say that Jesus would have adopted that point of view. Again, He disagreed with the Pharisaic view of the Sabbath in Mark 2:27 as well as in other places (sorry I am really rushing here and have been really busy).

We could just as realistically look at apocryphal sources to get a perspective. While not in the Bible or from the lips of Jesus, they do provide us with the point of view of the early Christian movement and Jewish belief in ancient times. In the Epistle of Barnabas (ca 70-135 CE), for example, it is written, "...Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born..." (Bar. 19:5) In the Didache, or Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, from the 2nd Century CE, it is written, "2:2 Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not have illicit sex; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not practice witchcraft; you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor." (Did. 2:2) And Flavius Josephus wrote in Against Apion, "...The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind..." (Josephus, Against Apion, 2:25)

So while not the words of Jesus, Himself....these verses are clearly against the practice of abortion and indicate that the common belief among the early Christian community was likewise. Sorry, I really have to bolt.


The Epistle of Barnabas translation J.B. Lightfoot

The Didache - The Complete Text

Against Apion by Flavius Josephus

In Mark 23-28, he certainly didn't disagree with any part of the law, but only in the hard unyielding interpretation of the Pharisaic view. He quoted the precedent of David eating the consecrated bread when he and the people with him were hungry and in need of food. Again explaining the law in ways they had not thought about. His logic was unquestionable or they would have accused him of blasphemy. He did that several times, and they got more pissed off each time. I haven't found any examples where Jesus actually disagreed with Mosaic law, but several where he demonstrated that the law wasn't the harsh unyielding cudgel that the Pharisees used to keep the people in line. If you can show me even one example of him saying an existing law is wrong instead of saying the interpretation of the law is wrong, your claim would have more credibility.

It's a reasonable argument, and to a large extent I would agree. The Pharisees certainly built a "hedge around the Law" (I assume you know what that refers to) and I would definitely agree that Jesus essentially told them they need to chill the hell out quite frequently. But I would argue two things:

a) The Law, or any concept, is only applicable to the degree that it reflects the current norms of society. In other words, the Pharisees were the primary interpreters of the Law in 1st Century Judea. Thus, the Law was what they said it was because that was what would represent the application of the law in any meaningful way. The apologetic view is that Jesus 'got the Pharisees back on track' and there is merit to that argument. However, Jesus also rejected the practical and traditional application of the Law and, therefore, rendered the norms of society irrelevant.

b) It is completely understandable that some concepts that applied 2,000 years ago when Jesus lived are no longer meaningful to us today. Society has evolved, technology has advanced, and there is no need to do things such as worry about whether Nero will rise again as is suggested in Revelation, as a singular example. Similarly, Torah was at least 2,000 years old, probably older, when Jesus was alive. Similarly, there were certain concepts and principles in Torah that had become antiquated by the time of Jesus. One was stoning. Torah instructs stoning for several offenses, but by Jesus' time that wasn't done anymore. The point of the story regarding the woman taken in adultery was a trap. They said 'well you say to follow Torah and Torah says we should stone this woman'. If Jesus said not to stone her then he was violating Torah, but if he said to stone her he was endorsing a horrific course of action that had been abandoned long ago and would be viewed as barbaric by society. His solution was sneaky and magnificent, but that's not the point. According to Torah she should have been condemned and stoned, yet Jesus said "...neither do I condemn you" in violation of Torah's instructions.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have to be very brief here because I have a meeting, but in response to posts #61 and #63 I would say that we don't know what Jesus would say about abortion because He never addressed it. You two are pointing to Old Testament verses, particularly Numbers 5, which is reasonable. However, we cannot simply say that Jesus would have adopted that point of view. Again, He disagreed with the Pharisaic view of the Sabbath in Mark 2:27 as well as in other places (sorry I am really rushing here and have been really busy).

We could just as realistically look at apocryphal sources to get a perspective. While not in the Bible or from the lips of Jesus, they do provide us with the point of view of the early Christian movement and Jewish belief in ancient times. In the Epistle of Barnabas (ca 70-135 CE), for example, it is written, "...Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born..." (Bar. 19:5) In the Didache, or Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, from the 2nd Century CE, it is written, "2:2 Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not have illicit sex; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not practice witchcraft; you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor." (Did. 2:2) And Flavius Josephus wrote in Against Apion, "...The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind..." (Josephus, Against Apion, 2:25)

So while not the words of Jesus, Himself....these verses are clearly against the practice of abortion and indicate that the common belief among the early Christian community was likewise. Sorry, I really have to bolt.


The Epistle of Barnabas translation J.B. Lightfoot

The Didache - The Complete Text

Against Apion by Flavius Josephus

In Mark 23-28, he certainly didn't disagree with any part of the law, but only in the hard unyielding interpretation of the Pharisaic view. He quoted the precedent of David eating the consecrated bread when he and the people with him were hungry and in need of food. Again explaining the law in ways they had not thought about. His logic was unquestionable or they would have accused him of blasphemy. He did that several times, and they got more pissed off each time. I haven't found any examples where Jesus actually disagreed with Mosaic law, but several where he demonstrated that the law wasn't the harsh unyielding cudgel that the Pharisees used to keep the people in line. If you can show me even one example of him saying an existing law is wrong instead of saying the interpretation of the law is wrong, your claim would have more credibility.

It's a reasonable argument, and to a large extent I would agree. The Pharisees certainly built a "hedge around the Law" (I assume you know what that refers to) and I would definitely agree that Jesus essentially told them they need to chill the hell out quite frequently. But I would argue two things:

a) The Law, or any concept, is only applicable to the degree that it reflects the current norms of society. In other words, the Pharisees were the primary interpreters of the Law in 1st Century Judea. Thus, the Law was what they said it was because that was what would represent the application of the law in any meaningful way. The apologetic view is that Jesus 'got the Pharisees back on track' and there is merit to that argument. However, Jesus also rejected the practical and traditional application of the Law and, therefore, rendered the norms of society irrelevant.

b) It is completely understandable that some concepts that applied 2,000 years ago when Jesus lived are no longer meaningful to us today. Society has evolved, technology has advanced, and there is no need to do things such as worry about whether Nero will rise again as is suggested in Revelation, as a singular example. Similarly, Torah was at least 2,000 years old, probably older, when Jesus was alive. Similarly, there were certain concepts and principles in Torah that had become antiquated by the time of Jesus. One was stoning. Torah instructs stoning for several offenses, but by Jesus' time that wasn't done anymore. The point of the story regarding the woman taken in adultery was a trap. They said 'well you say to follow Torah and Torah says we should stone this woman'. If Jesus said not to stone her then he was violating Torah, but if he said to stone her he was endorsing a horrific course of action that had been abandoned long ago and would be viewed as barbaric by society. His solution was sneaky and magnificent, but that's not the point. According to Torah she should have been condemned and stoned, yet Jesus said "...neither do I condemn you" in violation of Torah's instructions.

This might not be strictly on subject, but I'm enjoying the discussion. It's been a few years, but I've done a little research on this. I'm pretty sure stoning had not been abandoned. When Steven was stoned, they would have probably have used another kind of capitol punishment if stoning had been long abandoned. Either way. the stoning could be stopped at any time until the accused was dead if new evidence was produced, or if the accusers dropped their accusation. It was quite common for stonings to be delayed at the last possible moment or even completely stopped. Also, there was a specific pattern to be followed with stoning. The accusers were responsible to carry out the execution. The first pushed the condemned into the pit. If death didn't occur from the fall, he was the first to drop the first heavy stone on the condemned's chest. If he still was not dead, the next accuser took a turn. Only after the first two accusers tried to kill them and failed, did the rest of the congregation join with smaller stones. Jesus asked her where her accusers were, indicating there was no one to perform the stoning. He was under no obligation to accuse her of anything unless he witnessed it himself. He didn't say she was forgiven, (even though he did tell someone else that later), so he only followed standard procedure and didn't violate Torah instruction at all.

 

[BluePhantom]

I have to be very brief here because I have a meeting, but in response to posts #61 and #63 I would say that we don't know what Jesus would say about abortion because He never addressed it. You two are pointing to Old Testament verses, particularly Numbers 5, which is reasonable. However, we cannot simply say that Jesus would have adopted that point of view. Again, He disagreed with the Pharisaic view of the Sabbath in Mark 2:27 as well as in other places (sorry I am really rushing here and have been really busy).

We could just as realistically look at apocryphal sources to get a perspective. While not in the Bible or from the lips of Jesus, they do provide us with the point of view of the early Christian movement and Jewish belief in ancient times. In the Epistle of Barnabas (ca 70-135 CE), for example, it is written, "...Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born..." (Bar. 19:5) In the Didache, or Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, from the 2nd Century CE, it is written, "2:2 Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not have illicit sex; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not practice witchcraft; you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor." (Did. 2:2) And Flavius Josephus wrote in Against Apion, "...The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind..." (Josephus, Against Apion, 2:25)

So while not the words of Jesus, Himself....these verses are clearly against the practice of abortion and indicate that the common belief among the early Christian community was likewise. Sorry, I really have to bolt.


The Epistle of Barnabas translation J.B. Lightfoot

The Didache - The Complete Text

Against Apion by Flavius Josephus

In Mark 23-28, he certainly didn't disagree with any part of the law, but only in the hard unyielding interpretation of the Pharisaic view. He quoted the precedent of David eating the consecrated bread when he and the people with him were hungry and in need of food. Again explaining the law in ways they had not thought about. His logic was unquestionable or they would have accused him of blasphemy. He did that several times, and they got more pissed off each time. I haven't found any examples where Jesus actually disagreed with Mosaic law, but several where he demonstrated that the law wasn't the harsh unyielding cudgel that the Pharisees used to keep the people in line. If you can show me even one example of him saying an existing law is wrong instead of saying the interpretation of the law is wrong, your claim would have more credibility.

It's a reasonable argument, and to a large extent I would agree. The Pharisees certainly built a "hedge around the Law" (I assume you know what that refers to) and I would definitely agree that Jesus essentially told them they need to chill the hell out quite frequently. But I would argue two things:

a) The Law, or any concept, is only applicable to the degree that it reflects the current norms of society. In other words, the Pharisees were the primary interpreters of the Law in 1st Century Judea. Thus, the Law was what they said it was because that was what would represent the application of the law in any meaningful way. The apologetic view is that Jesus 'got the Pharisees back on track' and there is merit to that argument. However, Jesus also rejected the practical and traditional application of the Law and, therefore, rendered the norms of society irrelevant.

b) It is completely understandable that some concepts that applied 2,000 years ago when Jesus lived are no longer meaningful to us today. Society has evolved, technology has advanced, and there is no need to do things such as worry about whether Nero will rise again as is suggested in Revelation, as a singular example. Similarly, Torah was at least 2,000 years old, probably older, when Jesus was alive. Similarly, there were certain concepts and principles in Torah that had become antiquated by the time of Jesus. One was stoning. Torah instructs stoning for several offenses, but by Jesus' time that wasn't done anymore. The point of the story regarding the woman taken in adultery was a trap. They said 'well you say to follow Torah and Torah says we should stone this woman'. If Jesus said not to stone her then he was violating Torah, but if he said to stone her he was endorsing a horrific course of action that had been abandoned long ago and would be viewed as barbaric by society. His solution was sneaky and magnificent, but that's not the point. According to Torah she should have been condemned and stoned, yet Jesus said "...neither do I condemn you" in violation of Torah's instructions.

This might not be strictly on subject, but I'm enjoying the discussion. It's been a few years, but I've done a little research on this. I'm pretty sure stoning had not been abandoned. When Steven was stoned, they would have probably have used another kind of capitol punishment if stoning had been long abandoned. Either way. the stoning could be stopped at any time until the accused was dead if new evidence was produced, or if the accusers dropped their accusation. It was quite common for stonings to be delayed at the last possible moment or even completely stopped. Also, there was a specific pattern to be followed with stoning. The accusers were responsible to carry out the execution. The first pushed the condemned into the pit. If death didn't occur from the fall, he was the first to drop the first heavy stone on the condemned's chest. If he still was not dead, the next accuser took a turn. Only after the first two accusers tried to kill them and failed, did the rest of the congregation join with smaller stones. Jesus asked her where her accusers were, indicating there was no one to perform the stoning. He was under no obligation to accuse her of anything unless he witnessed it himself. He didn't say she was forgiven, (even though he did tell someone else that later), so he only followed standard procedure and didn't violate Torah instruction at all.

You bring up many points that I am not aware of. Can you provide some links to support your explanation? It's not that I doubt you so much as we are entering a very specific topic regarding history that I would like to research more thoroughly prior to responding. It was my understanding that stoning had become antiquated. I could certainly be wrong.

One thing to keep in mind about that story though is that it was added to the gospel of John centuries after John was written. People discuss it because it is one of the major stories that we use to identify the character of Jesus and is one of the most loved stories in the Bible regardless of its historical accuracy. It could be....I am just tossing this out there as more of a brainstorm....that stoning was abandoned by the time the story was actually written (which was like the 4th or 5th century if I recall) as opposed to the actual time of Jesus. You are absolutely correct about Paul endorsing the stoning of Stephen and thus, according to Paul, the practice was still in use. But the story would make more sense, as far as the trap is concerned, when viewed from the perspective of a 4th or 5th century author.

Interesting...I have several thoughts but I would like to hear yours

 

[BULLDOG]

I have to be very brief here because I have a meeting, but in response to posts #61 and #63 I would say that we don't know what Jesus would say about abortion because He never addressed it. You two are pointing to Old Testament verses, particularly Numbers 5, which is reasonable. However, we cannot simply say that Jesus would have adopted that point of view. Again, He disagreed with the Pharisaic view of the Sabbath in Mark 2:27 as well as in other places (sorry I am really rushing here and have been really busy).

We could just as realistically look at apocryphal sources to get a perspective. While not in the Bible or from the lips of Jesus, they do provide us with the point of view of the early Christian movement and Jewish belief in ancient times. In the Epistle of Barnabas (ca 70-135 CE), for example, it is written, "...Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born..." (Bar. 19:5) In the Didache, or Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, from the 2nd Century CE, it is written, "2:2 Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not have illicit sex; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not practice witchcraft; you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor." (Did. 2:2) And Flavius Josephus wrote in Against Apion, "...The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind..." (Josephus, Against Apion, 2:25)

So while not the words of Jesus, Himself....these verses are clearly against the practice of abortion and indicate that the common belief among the early Christian community was likewise. Sorry, I really have to bolt.


The Epistle of Barnabas translation J.B. Lightfoot

The Didache - The Complete Text

Against Apion by Flavius Josephus

In Mark 23-28, he certainly didn't disagree with any part of the law, but only in the hard unyielding interpretation of the Pharisaic view. He quoted the precedent of David eating the consecrated bread when he and the people with him were hungry and in need of food. Again explaining the law in ways they had not thought about. His logic was unquestionable or they would have accused him of blasphemy. He did that several times, and they got more pissed off each time. I haven't found any examples where Jesus actually disagreed with Mosaic law, but several where he demonstrated that the law wasn't the harsh unyielding cudgel that the Pharisees used to keep the people in line. If you can show me even one example of him saying an existing law is wrong instead of saying the interpretation of the law is wrong, your claim would have more credibility.

It's a reasonable argument, and to a large extent I would agree. The Pharisees certainly built a "hedge around the Law" (I assume you know what that refers to) and I would definitely agree that Jesus essentially told them they need to chill the hell out quite frequently. But I would argue two things:

a) The Law, or any concept, is only applicable to the degree that it reflects the current norms of society. In other words, the Pharisees were the primary interpreters of the Law in 1st Century Judea. Thus, the Law was what they said it was because that was what would represent the application of the law in any meaningful way. The apologetic view is that Jesus 'got the Pharisees back on track' and there is merit to that argument. However, Jesus also rejected the practical and traditional application of the Law and, therefore, rendered the norms of society irrelevant.

b) It is completely understandable that some concepts that applied 2,000 years ago when Jesus lived are no longer meaningful to us today. Society has evolved, technology has advanced, and there is no need to do things such as worry about whether Nero will rise again as is suggested in Revelation, as a singular example. Similarly, Torah was at least 2,000 years old, probably older, when Jesus was alive. Similarly, there were certain concepts and principles in Torah that had become antiquated by the time of Jesus. One was stoning. Torah instructs stoning for several offenses, but by Jesus' time that wasn't done anymore. The point of the story regarding the woman taken in adultery was a trap. They said 'well you say to follow Torah and Torah says we should stone this woman'. If Jesus said not to stone her then he was violating Torah, but if he said to stone her he was endorsing a horrific course of action that had been abandoned long ago and would be viewed as barbaric by society. His solution was sneaky and magnificent, but that's not the point. According to Torah she should have been condemned and stoned, yet Jesus said "...neither do I condemn you" in violation of Torah's instructions.

This might not be strictly on subject, but I'm enjoying the discussion. It's been a few years, but I've done a little research on this. I'm pretty sure stoning had not been abandoned. When Steven was stoned, they would have probably have used another kind of capitol punishment if stoning had been long abandoned. Either way. the stoning could be stopped at any time until the accused was dead if new evidence was produced, or if the accusers dropped their accusation. It was quite common for stonings to be delayed at the last possible moment or even completely stopped. Also, there was a specific pattern to be followed with stoning. The accusers were responsible to carry out the execution. The first pushed the condemned into the pit. If death didn't occur from the fall, he was the first to drop the first heavy stone on the condemned's chest. If he still was not dead, the next accuser took a turn. Only after the first two accusers tried to kill them and failed, did the rest of the congregation join with smaller stones. Jesus asked her where her accusers were, indicating there was no one to perform the stoning. He was under no obligation to accuse her of anything unless he witnessed it himself. He didn't say she was forgiven, (even though he did tell someone else that later), so he only followed standard procedure and didn't violate Torah instruction at all.

You bring up many points that I am not aware of. Can you provide some links to support your explanation? It's not that I doubt you so much as we are entering a very specific topic regarding history that I would like to research more thoroughly prior to responding. It was my understanding that stoning had become antiquated. I could certainly be wrong.

One thing to keep in mind about that story though is that it was added to the gospel of John centuries after John was written. People discuss it because it is one of the major stories that we use to identify the character of Jesus and is one of the most loved stories in the Bible regardless of its historical accuracy. It could be....I am just tossing this out there as more of a brainstorm....that stoning was abandoned by the time the story was actually written (which was like the 4th or 5th century if I recall) as opposed to the actual time of Jesus. You are absolutely correct about Paul endorsing the stoning of Stephen and thus, according to Paul, the practice was still in use. But the story would make more sense, as far as the trap is concerned, when viewed from the perspective of a 4th or 5th century author.

Interesting...I have several thoughts but I would like to hear yours

I don't blame you for wanting a little more than "he said" and I have been wrong more than a few times. On this particular subject, I'd much rather get it right than to keep believing something that just ain't so. Like I said, it's been a while since I went through all of that, but I'll try to find some of my old research material. It might help if you understood my particular philosophy on the Bible. I believe the bible is mostly true even if some of it never really happened. That is to say that the stories are mostly a correct representation of what the original writers actually believed. They might have misunderstood what they were told about the things they write, or they might have been told totally inaccurate information, but for the most part, they wrote the truth as they saw it. It was much later, when the church realized how well it could be used as a tool to control the people that the really big changes were made.

 

[BluePhantom]

I have to be very brief here because I have a meeting, but in response to posts #61 and #63 I would say that we don't know what Jesus would say about abortion because He never addressed it. You two are pointing to Old Testament verses, particularly Numbers 5, which is reasonable. However, we cannot simply say that Jesus would have adopted that point of view. Again, He disagreed with the Pharisaic view of the Sabbath in Mark 2:27 as well as in other places (sorry I am really rushing here and have been really busy).

We could just as realistically look at apocryphal sources to get a perspective. While not in the Bible or from the lips of Jesus, they do provide us with the point of view of the early Christian movement and Jewish belief in ancient times. In the Epistle of Barnabas (ca 70-135 CE), for example, it is written, "...Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born..." (Bar. 19:5) In the Didache, or Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, from the 2nd Century CE, it is written, "2:2 Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not have illicit sex; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not practice witchcraft; you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor." (Did. 2:2) And Flavius Josephus wrote in Against Apion, "...The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind..." (Josephus, Against Apion, 2:25)

So while not the words of Jesus, Himself....these verses are clearly against the practice of abortion and indicate that the common belief among the early Christian community was likewise. Sorry, I really have to bolt.


The Epistle of Barnabas translation J.B. Lightfoot

The Didache - The Complete Text

Against Apion by Flavius Josephus

In Mark 23-28, he certainly didn't disagree with any part of the law, but only in the hard unyielding interpretation of the Pharisaic view. He quoted the precedent of David eating the consecrated bread when he and the people with him were hungry and in need of food. Again explaining the law in ways they had not thought about. His logic was unquestionable or they would have accused him of blasphemy. He did that several times, and they got more pissed off each time. I haven't found any examples where Jesus actually disagreed with Mosaic law, but several where he demonstrated that the law wasn't the harsh unyielding cudgel that the Pharisees used to keep the people in line. If you can show me even one example of him saying an existing law is wrong instead of saying the interpretation of the law is wrong, your claim would have more credibility.

It's a reasonable argument, and to a large extent I would agree. The Pharisees certainly built a "hedge around the Law" (I assume you know what that refers to) and I would definitely agree that Jesus essentially told them they need to chill the hell out quite frequently. But I would argue two things:

a) The Law, or any concept, is only applicable to the degree that it reflects the current norms of society. In other words, the Pharisees were the primary interpreters of the Law in 1st Century Judea. Thus, the Law was what they said it was because that was what would represent the application of the law in any meaningful way. The apologetic view is that Jesus 'got the Pharisees back on track' and there is merit to that argument. However, Jesus also rejected the practical and traditional application of the Law and, therefore, rendered the norms of society irrelevant.

b) It is completely understandable that some concepts that applied 2,000 years ago when Jesus lived are no longer meaningful to us today. Society has evolved, technology has advanced, and there is no need to do things such as worry about whether Nero will rise again as is suggested in Revelation, as a singular example. Similarly, Torah was at least 2,000 years old, probably older, when Jesus was alive. Similarly, there were certain concepts and principles in Torah that had become antiquated by the time of Jesus. One was stoning. Torah instructs stoning for several offenses, but by Jesus' time that wasn't done anymore. The point of the story regarding the woman taken in adultery was a trap. They said 'well you say to follow Torah and Torah says we should stone this woman'. If Jesus said not to stone her then he was violating Torah, but if he said to stone her he was endorsing a horrific course of action that had been abandoned long ago and would be viewed as barbaric by society. His solution was sneaky and magnificent, but that's not the point. According to Torah she should have been condemned and stoned, yet Jesus said "...neither do I condemn you" in violation of Torah's instructions.

This might not be strictly on subject, but I'm enjoying the discussion. It's been a few years, but I've done a little research on this. I'm pretty sure stoning had not been abandoned. When Steven was stoned, they would have probably have used another kind of capitol punishment if stoning had been long abandoned. Either way. the stoning could be stopped at any time until the accused was dead if new evidence was produced, or if the accusers dropped their accusation. It was quite common for stonings to be delayed at the last possible moment or even completely stopped. Also, there was a specific pattern to be followed with stoning. The accusers were responsible to carry out the execution. The first pushed the condemned into the pit. If death didn't occur from the fall, he was the first to drop the first heavy stone on the condemned's chest. If he still was not dead, the next accuser took a turn. Only after the first two accusers tried to kill them and failed, did the rest of the congregation join with smaller stones. Jesus asked her where her accusers were, indicating there was no one to perform the stoning. He was under no obligation to accuse her of anything unless he witnessed it himself. He didn't say she was forgiven, (even though he did tell someone else that later), so he only followed standard procedure and didn't violate Torah instruction at all.

You bring up many points that I am not aware of. Can you provide some links to support your explanation? It's not that I doubt you so much as we are entering a very specific topic regarding history that I would like to research more thoroughly prior to responding. It was my understanding that stoning had become antiquated. I could certainly be wrong.

One thing to keep in mind about that story though is that it was added to the gospel of John centuries after John was written. People discuss it because it is one of the major stories that we use to identify the character of Jesus and is one of the most loved stories in the Bible regardless of its historical accuracy. It could be....I am just tossing this out there as more of a brainstorm....that stoning was abandoned by the time the story was actually written (which was like the 4th or 5th century if I recall) as opposed to the actual time of Jesus. You are absolutely correct about Paul endorsing the stoning of Stephen and thus, according to Paul, the practice was still in use. But the story would make more sense, as far as the trap is concerned, when viewed from the perspective of a 4th or 5th century author.

Interesting...I have several thoughts but I would like to hear yours

I don't blame you for wanting a little more than "he said" and I have been wrong more than a few times. On this particular subject, I'd much rather get it right than to keep believing something that just ain't so. Like I said, it's been a while since I went through all of that, but I'll try to find some of my old research material. It might help if you understood my particular philosophy on the Bible. I believe the bible is mostly true even if some of it never really happened. That is to say that the stories are mostly a correct representation of what the original writers actually believed. They might have misunderstood what they were told about the things they write, or they might have been told totally inaccurate information, but for the most part, they wrote the truth as they saw it. It was much later, when the church realized how well it could be used as a tool to control the people that the really big changes were made.

I would agree on how you view the Bible. I view it quite similarly. I think the authors of the Bible acted in good faith to provide the best depictions they could, but sometimes they got it wrong. Of course there are some instances of pseudepigraphy such as the Pastoral Epistles, 2 Thessalonians, 2 Peter, etc and those I take with a grain of salt. I haven't ripped 1 Timothy out of my Bibles, but I certainly keep in mind when reading it that the author was just some guy and not Paul. I don't completely dismiss them but I don't give them nearly as much weight.

I also tend to be of the opinion that the Jesus that is depicted in the Bible was probably not the Jesus who actually lived. The difference may be minor or it may be vast, we simply don't know. So sometimes I have to ask 'which Jesus are we talking about? The theological Jesus or the historical Jesus?' So in other words, it's ok to discuss the woman taken in adultery, even though the story was a 4th or 5th century addition that probably never happened, because we are discussing the theological Jesus in that event and not the historical one.

For the most part, I think you and I are on the same page with differences that are relatively minor.

 

[Derideo_Te]

but boy it's going to be tough to get around Josephus.

How many references do you have of Josephus making anti-abortion comments amongst all of his many writings?

FYI Josephus was the son of a priest.

 

[BluePhantom]

but boy it's going to be tough to get around Josephus.

How many references do you have of Josephus making anti-abortion comments amongst all of his many writings?

FYI Josephus was the son of a priest.

The point is that he is not writing a history in Against Apion. He is making a rebuttal to an argument against Judaism. In the verse I quoted he is using that statement as a given to support a larger argument. In other words he is stating it as common knowledge such as 'since 2+2=4, therefore...'. So, Jospehus' use of the Jewish position on abortion is one of a given fact. That he is using that to support a different argument is irrelevant for our purposes. For us, it's enough to recognize that Josephus simply saw it as a given