Zone1 If Jesus Was A Jew

[dudmuck]

You can't even interpret Leviticus 18:22 properly.

Here's what the Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 says:

And-with a male not you-will-lie ‘lyings-of’ a-woman.

Now, in Hebrew, the phrase "lyings of" can refer to somebody's bed. So the passage basically reads "you shall not lie with a man on the bed of a woman." Bruce Wells (University of Texas at Austin) interprets this as meaning that “Sex with married men, therefore, would be forbidden as well as sex with any males who are under the guardianship of a woman within the community.” Jan Joosten (formerly of Oxford University, removed following criminal conviction) concurs, arguing that the Biblical laws “prohibit homosexual intercourse involving a married man.”

A scholarly report from the Wijngaards Institute, the authors of which includes some of the most prominent OT scholars working today (such as Mark Smith), argues that “[the] traditional interpretation as condemning all male same-sex sexual activity is based on a mistranslation which is no longer tenable. Rather, the prohibition is limited to a specific type of male same-sex relationship.” The authors then note that “the fact that the prohibition addressed a specific type of male same-sex relationship suggests that same-sex intercourse with males outside the forbidden category was viewed as permissible.”

In addition, the report states that the homophobic interpretation “can only be reached by changing that original text considerably: it does so by adding the comparative particle ‘as’, and ‘with’, both words which are absent from the Hebrew, as well as by choosing to ignore the key expression ‘lyings-of.’”

 

[Lisa558]

my all time fave teaching is ding's-----ETERNAL HELLFIRE FOR
SIMPLE LACK OF "BELIEF"----some "our father...."

Really? Ding said that people who don’t “believe” (in Jesus, I assume) are going to hell?

 

[Rigby5]

Now, now…..stop putting words into Gd’s mouth. He has different laws for the non-Jews.

You are angry that we believe Gd gave the Law to Jews? Just think how Jews feel when Christians tell us that Gd will send us to hell unless we believe that Jesus the son of Gd.

You are starting to show an ugly side.

Having different laws for different groups is impossible.
For a "real" god, then all people would be his creations and have to follow the same laws.
It does not take a god to tell the Old Testament rules are awful, like stoning for adultery.
Not only would any decent person not do that, but no real god would even allow it.

 

[irosie91]

Really? Ding said that people who don’t “believe” (in Jesus, I assume) are going to hell?

it is my learned impression that he buys into the "salvation" thing

 

[Rigby5]

Here's what the Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 says:


Now, in Hebrew, the phrase "lyings of" can refer to somebody's bed. So the passage basically reads "you shall not lie with a man on the bed of a woman." Bruce Wells (University of Texas at Austin) interprets this as meaning that “Sex with married men, therefore, would be forbidden as well as sex with any males who are under the guardianship of a woman within the community.” Jan Joosten (formerly of Oxford University, removed following criminal conviction) concurs, arguing that the Biblical laws “prohibit homosexual intercourse involving a married man.”

A scholarly report from the Wijngaards Institute, the authors of which includes some of the most prominent OT scholars working today (such as Mark Smith), argues that “[the] traditional interpretation as condemning all male same-sex sexual activity is based on a mistranslation which is no longer tenable. Rather, the prohibition is limited to a specific type of male same-sex relationship.” The authors then note that “the fact that the prohibition addressed a specific type of male same-sex relationship suggests that same-sex intercourse with males outside the forbidden category was viewed as permissible.”

In addition, the report states that the homophobic interpretation “can only be reached by changing that original text considerably: it does so by adding the comparative particle ‘as’, and ‘with’, both words which are absent from the Hebrew, as well as by choosing to ignore the key expression ‘lyings-of.’”

That makes no sense because the Hebrew were illiterate, there was no written version of the Old Testament until around 200 AD, and it was all oral tradition. There were some earlier attempts around 500 BC, but they had to be in Greek or Aramaic, since there was yet no Hebrew script. So these word games on interpretation make no sense.

 

[Rigby5]

it is my learned impression that he buys into the "salvation" thing

I do not buy the "salvation" thing because then people not in contact with the Mideast religions would not get treated fairly.
Being saved and going to heaven should be dependent upon being good, not what religion you were born under.

 

[irosie91]

I do not buy the "salvation" thing because then people not in contact with the Mideast religions would not get treated fairly.
Being saved and going to heaven should be dependent upon being good, not what religion you were born under.

^^^^ that's the jewish position

 

[Rigby5]

No, they settled there peacefully after the first temple was destroyed.

Jews went to the Iberian Peninsula as Viziers, administrators, bookkeepers, etc., for the invading Moors.
They were on the side of the aggressors, even if they did not carry weapons.

The first temple was destroyed by the Assyrians around 850 BC, and there were no Jews in the Iberian Peninsula until around 711 AD.
Jews did not leave the Mideast until the 2nd temple of Solomon was destroyed by the Romans and they imposed a diaspora decree, around 160 AD.

 

[Rigby5]

MORAL LAWS are the same the world over????

They should be, if there is a god.

 

[irosie91]

Jews went to the Iberian Peninsula as Viziers, administrators, bookkeepers, etc., for the invading Moors.
They were on the side of the aggressors, even if they did not carry weapons.

The first temple was destroyed by the Assyrians around 850 BC, and there were no Jews in the Iberian Peninsula until around 711 AD.
Jews did not leave the Mideast until the 2nd temple of Solomon was destroyed by the Romans and they imposed a diaspora decree, around 160 AD.

Jelly-bean valedictorian

 

[irosie91]

They should be, if there is a god.

"they should be....." is your evidence in jelly-bean school?

 

[irosie91]

I do not buy the "salvation" thing because then people not in contact with the Mideast religions would not get treated fairly.
Being saved and going to heaven should be dependent upon being good, not what religion you were born under.

Jelly-bean valedictorian----the "HE" did not refer to you or
your jelly-bean "beliefs"

 

[dudmuck]

That makes no sense because the Hebrew were illiterate, there was no written version of the Old Testament until around 200 AD, and it was all oral tradition. There were some earlier attempts around 500 BC, but they had to be in Greek or Aramaic, since there was yet no Hebrew script. So these word games on interpretation make no sense.

The first five books—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, book of Numbers and Deuteronomy—reached their present form in the Persian period (538–332 BC)

the Phoenicians, are generally credited with inventing the 22-letter alphabet letters, each representing a sound, at about 1300 BCE.

 

[ding]

your saint adolf said "jews are wild beasts"? you got a citation.
You could cite the koran---it says jews are apes and pigs----but ADOLF
too? When jews do WHAT?

No, that's an assumption on my part. Do you think it was wrong?

 

[ding]

Judaism says otherwise.

How so? And feel free to share the reasons if you can.

 

[ding]

You keep saying but not only is it untrue, it isn't related to how you misrepresented what I said.

Feel free to explain. Because...

Standards do not exist to measure success or failure to the standard. Standards exist to prevent or mitigate certain consequences from occurring. Now here is the important part, standards exist for logical reasons. If you deviate from the standard the reason the standard existed will be discovered through outcomes or consequences.

Note that no where in there does an exception apply because of race, creed or color. The predictable surprises of normalizing one's deviance to the standard affect everyone exactly the same way. Which is to say in a probabilistic manner. Many times people get away with violating a standard. Which is why they normalize their deviance from the standard in the first place. But rest assured given enough time predictable surprises will occur.

 

[ding]

MORAL LAWS are the same the world over????

Right and wrong doesn't change just because people have different perceptions of right and wrong. So due to subjectivity not everyone will agree on right and wrong. Doesn't change the fact that there is an absolute right and wrong for all things. Maybe study up on the difference between subjective truth and objective truth?

 

[irosie91]

Right and wrong doesn't change just because people have different perceptions of right and wrong. So due to subjectivity not everyone will agree on right and wrong. Doesn't change the fact that there is an absolute right and wrong for all things. Maybe study up on the difference between subjective truth and objective truth?

C- ----you pass based solely on EFFORT

 

[ding]

You do not accept that Gd has more demanding laws for Jews, just as I do not accept that Jesus was Gd’s son and that those who don’t believe that don’t get to Heaven.

Different religions have different teachings.

If you are talking about out of date customs sure. If you are talking about moral truths, no.

 

[ding]

C- ----you pass based solely on EFFORT

That makes me sad because the battle between subjectivity and objectivity is at the heart of every major religion.