The Christian Hedge Around the Law

[BluePhantom]

And of course the OP represents the arrogance common to many Christians, to be so presumptuous as to propagate the ridiculous lie that to be free from faith is to be 'ignorant' of Christianity – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Again....I never said that. Stop putting words into my mouth.

 

[Hollie]

So the best thing to do is avoid fretting about those contradictions and simply realize that one source says one thing and another source says something else. Usually, it's because the author is trying to make a theological point

Hmmm!

So let's see if we can decipher the theological point in this contradiction by the same author.

Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
- Matthew 5:22

Ye fools and blind.
- Matthew 23:17

Both statements are Matthew quoting Jesus. In one we have Jesus saying calling someone a fool means going to hell and in the other we see Jesus calling people fools.



Serious mixed message going on there WRT to the immortal soul of Jesus and it's ultimate destination from a theological point of view.

Matthew 5:22 is talking about getting right with yourself and God before bringing your offering to God. It is saying if you harbor ill toward your brother by calling him names it is you who will have ill will in your heart and be apart from God's best. Matthew 23:17 is saying essentially don't be a ding dong and misunderstand. Seriously...take a few verses before and after the few words you quote and the meaning is quite clear

Understood, but now you are crossing the line by saying that you must take the contextual word of God as opposed to the literal word of God.

There are a great many who believe only the literal word of God can be believed because it is too easy to change the context to suit whatever you want it to be. And to be fair, there are more than enough examples of people exploiting the bible for that very purpose by coming up with their own contextual interpretations.

And contextual interpretation is exactly why Christianity, like other religions, has splintered into so many competing, often antagonistic, subdivisions.

None of the gawds have chosen to put on theIf black and white striped referee shirts, grab a whistle and ref the matches between the various, competing cults / sub-cults. So were left with the situation we see on theses boards; every apologist is a self-defined holder of the "true version" of their religious belief.

 

[TrinityPower]

So the best thing to do is avoid fretting about those contradictions and simply realize that one source says one thing and another source says something else. Usually, it's because the author is trying to make a theological point

Hmmm!

So let's see if we can decipher the theological point in this contradiction by the same author.

Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
- Matthew 5:22

Ye fools and blind.
- Matthew 23:17

Both statements are Matthew quoting Jesus. In one we have Jesus saying calling someone a fool means going to hell and in the other we see Jesus calling people fools.



Serious mixed message going on there WRT to the immortal soul of Jesus and it's ultimate destination from a theological point of view.

Matthew 5:22 is talking about getting right with yourself and God before bringing your offering to God. It is saying if you harbor ill toward your brother by calling him names it is you who will have ill will in your heart and be apart from God's best. Matthew 23:17 is saying essentially don't be a ding dong and misunderstand. Seriously...take a few verses before and after the few words you quote and the meaning is quite clear

Understood, but now you are crossing the line by saying that you must take the contextual word of God as opposed to the literal word of God.

There are a great many who believe only the literal word of God can be believed because it is too easy to change the context to suit whatever you want it to be. And to be fair, there are more than enough examples of people exploiting the bible for that very purpose by coming up with their own contextual interpretations.

And contextual interpretation is exactly why Christianity, like other religions, has splintered into so many competing, often antagonistic, subdivisions.

None of the gawds have chosen to put on theIf black and white striped referee shirts, grab a whistle and ref the matches between the various, competing cults / sub-cults. So were left with the situation we see on theses boards; every apologist is a self-defined holder of the "true version" of their religious belief.

Of which you are a partaker of none...yeah we know so why are you putting so much energy in religious discussions when from what I understand you believe nothing and make sure everyone is aware. Guess what? WE GOT IT!! If you are not going to contribute more than saying nu-huh nope, no sir, I know you are but what am I then shove off. You have no interest in a real conversation beyond pushing your own views off on others which incidentally you seem to point out in others. Take the log out of your own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else's

 

[Derideo_Te]

So the best thing to do is avoid fretting about those contradictions and simply realize that one source says one thing and another source says something else. Usually, it's because the author is trying to make a theological point

Hmmm!

So let's see if we can decipher the theological point in this contradiction by the same author.

Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
- Matthew 5:22

Ye fools and blind.
- Matthew 23:17

Both statements are Matthew quoting Jesus. In one we have Jesus saying calling someone a fool means going to hell and in the other we see Jesus calling people fools.



Serious mixed message going on there WRT to the immortal soul of Jesus and it's ultimate destination from a theological point of view.

Matthew 5:22 is talking about getting right with yourself and God before bringing your offering to God. It is saying if you harbor ill toward your brother by calling him names it is you who will have ill will in your heart and be apart from God's best. Matthew 23:17 is saying essentially don't be a ding dong and misunderstand. Seriously...take a few verses before and after the few words you quote and the meaning is quite clear

Understood, but now you are crossing the line by saying that you must take the contextual word of God as opposed to the literal word of God.

There are a great many who believe only the literal word of God can be believed because it is too easy to change the context to suit whatever you want it to be. And to be fair, there are more than enough examples of people exploiting the bible for that very purpose by coming up with their own contextual interpretations.

And contextual interpretation is exactly why Christianity, like other religions, has splintered into so many competing, often antagonistic, subdivisions.

None of the gawds have chosen to put on theIf black and white striped referee shirts, grab a whistle and ref the matches between the various, competing cults / sub-cults. So were left with the situation we see on theses boards; every apologist is a self-defined holder of the "true version" of their religious belief.

And I suspect that the OP will agree wholeheartedly with that assessment.

He is probably one of the most honest and insightful Christians I have encountered. In that respect he is the one wearing the referee shirt in this thread.

 

[guno]

Jews and atheists/agnostics stand out for their knowledge of other world religions, including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism; out of 11 such questions on the survey, Jews answer 7.9 correctly (nearly three better than the national average) and atheists/agnostics answer 7.5 correctly (2.5 better than the national average). Atheists/agnostics and Jews also do particularly well on questions about the role of religion in public life, including a question about what the U.S. Constitution says about religion.

U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey Pew Research Center

 

[BluePhantom]

So the best thing to do is avoid fretting about those contradictions and simply realize that one source says one thing and another source says something else. Usually, it's because the author is trying to make a theological point

Hmmm!

So let's see if we can decipher the theological point in this contradiction by the same author.

Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
- Matthew 5:22

Ye fools and blind.
- Matthew 23:17

Both statements are Matthew quoting Jesus. In one we have Jesus saying calling someone a fool means going to hell and in the other we see Jesus calling people fools.



Serious mixed message going on there WRT to the immortal soul of Jesus and it's ultimate destination from a theological point of view.

Matthew 5:22 is talking about getting right with yourself and God before bringing your offering to God. It is saying if you harbor ill toward your brother by calling him names it is you who will have ill will in your heart and be apart from God's best. Matthew 23:17 is saying essentially don't be a ding dong and misunderstand. Seriously...take a few verses before and after the few words you quote and the meaning is quite clear

Understood, but now you are crossing the line by saying that you must take the contextual word of God as opposed to the literal word of God.

There are a great many who believe only the literal word of God can be believed because it is too easy to change the context to suit whatever you want it to be. And to be fair, there are more than enough examples of people exploiting the bible for that very purpose by coming up with their own contextual interpretations.

Just to follow up DT, this is another reason why scholarship is so important. There are so many things that have been changed or added to scripture over the years that it can be very difficult to know what is accurate and what isn't. I would have to look more closely at the verses you quote but there are a lot of things like Jesus turning win into water. Well that is only told in the Gospel of John. It's spoken of nowhere else, not even in the apocrypha that I know of. So according to the criterion of multiple attestation, that one is a bit iffy. Now (lets take an easy one) the crucifixion. Well that's attested all over the place. It's spoken of in John, Mark, the Q Gospel, the epistles of Paul, the apocrypha, Josephus...hell we have lots of independent sources talking about the crucifixion. So we can be more confident about the historical nature of the crucifixion than the water and wine story. That's not to say the water & wine story didn't happen. Only to say we should be less confident about it based solely on that specific criterion.

So as far as the use of mOre in Matthew 5 and Matthew 23, it would nice to be able to see if those things are attested by other independent sources. If they are, we can be more confident about their historical nature and if they are not...well it just might be something the author made up and tossed in and if that is the case, well...then that's on the author of Matthew and not Jesus. Follow me?

 

[TrinityPower]

For me what would be learned from much of the biblical text if it were not for reading for meaning? Some is literal. Go read Numbers...it is a bean counter's extravaganza but throughout history stories have been told to pass on teachings that stay with you. Even now people make up a story in their mind to remember a shopping list or people's names. Some of the events did happen, some are illustration. Both bring light to a situation and meaning brought to the reader.

 

[BluePhantom]

So the best thing to do is avoid fretting about those contradictions and simply realize that one source says one thing and another source says something else. Usually, it's because the author is trying to make a theological point

Hmmm!

So let's see if we can decipher the theological point in this contradiction by the same author.

Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
- Matthew 5:22

Ye fools and blind.
- Matthew 23:17

Both statements are Matthew quoting Jesus. In one we have Jesus saying calling someone a fool means going to hell and in the other we see Jesus calling people fools.



Serious mixed message going on there WRT to the immortal soul of Jesus and it's ultimate destination from a theological point of view.

Matthew 5:22 is talking about getting right with yourself and God before bringing your offering to God. It is saying if you harbor ill toward your brother by calling him names it is you who will have ill will in your heart and be apart from God's best. Matthew 23:17 is saying essentially don't be a ding dong and misunderstand. Seriously...take a few verses before and after the few words you quote and the meaning is quite clear

Understood, but now you are crossing the line by saying that you must take the contextual word of God as opposed to the literal word of God.

There are a great many who believe only the literal word of God can be believed because it is too easy to change the context to suit whatever you want it to be. And to be fair, there are more than enough examples of people exploiting the bible for that very purpose by coming up with their own contextual interpretations.

And contextual interpretation is exactly why Christianity, like other religions, has splintered into so many competing, often antagonistic, subdivisions.

None of the gawds have chosen to put on theIf black and white striped referee shirts, grab a whistle and ref the matches between the various, competing cults / sub-cults. So were left with the situation we see on theses boards; every apologist is a self-defined holder of the "true version" of their religious belief.

And I suspect that the OP will agree wholeheartedly with that assessment.

He is probably one of the most honest and insightful Christians I have encountered. In that respect he is the one wearing the referee shirt in this thread.

I had to look up what you were referring to DT in your quote as I have Hollie on ignore. In this case though I would agree with her. I have said many times that if the Bible was the inspired word of God, He sure wasn't terribly interested in preserving it. This has, indeed, led to a lot of friction throughout history and into the modern day. But again...this is where scholarship can help. We will probably never know what those books said the first time that they were written, but through scholarship we can get closer and start to cut through all the bullshit, misunderstandings, and deliberate misrepresentations by both atheists and theists alike.

As far as "the truth" ? Sorry, I don't have God on speed dial. I know what works for me and I recognize that it won't work for everyone. Thus, the relationship with God should be personal allowing each to choose their path. That goes for both theist and atheist alike

 

[bodecea]

This is directed primarily at sealybobo based on a side conversation on a different thread, but it's an open topic for discussion

In the early 1st Century CE there were four main political parties (so to speak) in Judea. You had the Zealots who were concerned with preserving the royal Davidic line and were pissed that Caesar was calling himself the king over the Promised Land. They were also very militant, what we might call "terrorists" today. You had the Essenes who were concerned with the sanctity of the holy land. They were pissed that the land itself was under pagan occupation. Their solution was to withdraw to communes. There were the Sadducees who were concerned with the Temple and dealing with Rome. Daily life wasn't as important to them. And there were the Pharisees who were concerned with keeping Torah in everyday life.

The Pharisees were very strict because there were things in the Law that were vague. The Law said not to work on the Sabbath, for example. Well what is work? If you are doing something you enjoy but it causes physical exertion is it work? What about cooking? What if you enjoyed cooking? Is that work? So what they did was to build a "hedge around the Law". The hedge represented the loosest possible definition of something and the theory was that if you didn't cross the hedge you would go nowhere near breaking the Law. So as far as cooking, even if you enjoy it, it's better not to take the chance. This is why some Jews do absolutely nothing on Sabbath except sit there and twiddle their thumbs. I have a friend of mine who is Jewish and he tears off toilet paper and stacks it up on Friday morning, because tearing the toilet paper off the roll might be considered work by God.

It's important to understand that the other three parties were not nearly as strict in their interpretations. But after the Second Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisees were all that was left. The Zealots were all dead from the war. Rome had taken an absolute stranglehold on the land and were ruling it far more powerfully than they had before so the Essenes lost their influence. The Temple was destroyed and Hadrian (I think it was) erected a statue of himself on top of its ruins as a sign that it would not be returning. So the Sadducees were out. So the Pharisees were all that survived and with them came their strict interpretations.

In early Christianity after the 1st century, what we had was a bunch of converts to the religion, many of which were converted Jews that were used to Pharisaic interpretations and so the hedge around the Law came with them. When we think of issues like impure thoughts being sinful, masturbation being sinful, or contraception being sinful, etc. These are not things that are supported by much in the way of actual 1st century Christian writings. Most scripture simply refers to "immoral thoughts". Well here we have the same problem as 'what is work'? Now we have 'what is immoral?' Christians in the 2nd century took on the Pharasaic tradition of the hedge around the Law and did the same thing. Anything even remotely considered immoral was the hedge and as long as you didn't cross the hedge, you were safe.

These traditions and interpretations were strengthened by later works such as The Shepherd of Hermas, wherein an impure thought once in your entire life wouldn't just fuck you for all eternity, it would fuck your entire family too. Over the centuries, these books were either not included or were thrown out of the canon and became apocryphal so people stopped reading them, but the traditions associated with them stuck. This is why you will see very conservative Christians today rail about impurity and masturbation and the sinfulness of it all. The problem is the Bible doesn't say that. You may have heard someone say "The Bible says that it is better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it upon the road....so there" Well guess what? That's not in the Bible. Search for it all you want...it aint there. That is an interpretation from later Church leaders, perhaps centuries later, that developed into tradition, but it is not supported by scripture.

The point is that many atheists don't understand what the Bible really says and what it is talking about. I can forgive that because they are not Christian so why would they care? But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

Funny that a christian thinks they really KNOW anything about the Hebrew Bible and Judaism,

And about atheists
Survey Atheists Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious The Two-Way NPR

Shut up you Nazi muslim. Reading you is like watching sh8t dry.
A waste of time.

One thing we know...that there are those 'christians' who indeed want to shut up everyone else. By any means they can get away with.

 

[BluePhantom]

For me what would be learned from much of the biblical text if it were not for reading for meaning? Some is literal. Go read Numbers...it is a bean counter's extravaganza but throughout history stories have been told to pass on teachings that stay with you. Even now people make up a story in their mind to remember a shopping list or people's names. Some of the events did happen, some are illustration. Both bring light to a situation and meaning brought to the reader.

I don't think I have ever gotten through Numbers. Talk about boring. I recommend the Cliff's Notes for that one

 

[BluePhantom]

This is directed primarily at sealybobo based on a side conversation on a different thread, but it's an open topic for discussion

In the early 1st Century CE there were four main political parties (so to speak) in Judea. You had the Zealots who were concerned with preserving the royal Davidic line and were pissed that Caesar was calling himself the king over the Promised Land. They were also very militant, what we might call "terrorists" today. You had the Essenes who were concerned with the sanctity of the holy land. They were pissed that the land itself was under pagan occupation. Their solution was to withdraw to communes. There were the Sadducees who were concerned with the Temple and dealing with Rome. Daily life wasn't as important to them. And there were the Pharisees who were concerned with keeping Torah in everyday life.

The Pharisees were very strict because there were things in the Law that were vague. The Law said not to work on the Sabbath, for example. Well what is work? If you are doing something you enjoy but it causes physical exertion is it work? What about cooking? What if you enjoyed cooking? Is that work? So what they did was to build a "hedge around the Law". The hedge represented the loosest possible definition of something and the theory was that if you didn't cross the hedge you would go nowhere near breaking the Law. So as far as cooking, even if you enjoy it, it's better not to take the chance. This is why some Jews do absolutely nothing on Sabbath except sit there and twiddle their thumbs. I have a friend of mine who is Jewish and he tears off toilet paper and stacks it up on Friday morning, because tearing the toilet paper off the roll might be considered work by God.

It's important to understand that the other three parties were not nearly as strict in their interpretations. But after the Second Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisees were all that was left. The Zealots were all dead from the war. Rome had taken an absolute stranglehold on the land and were ruling it far more powerfully than they had before so the Essenes lost their influence. The Temple was destroyed and Hadrian (I think it was) erected a statue of himself on top of its ruins as a sign that it would not be returning. So the Sadducees were out. So the Pharisees were all that survived and with them came their strict interpretations.

In early Christianity after the 1st century, what we had was a bunch of converts to the religion, many of which were converted Jews that were used to Pharisaic interpretations and so the hedge around the Law came with them. When we think of issues like impure thoughts being sinful, masturbation being sinful, or contraception being sinful, etc. These are not things that are supported by much in the way of actual 1st century Christian writings. Most scripture simply refers to "immoral thoughts". Well here we have the same problem as 'what is work'? Now we have 'what is immoral?' Christians in the 2nd century took on the Pharasaic tradition of the hedge around the Law and did the same thing. Anything even remotely considered immoral was the hedge and as long as you didn't cross the hedge, you were safe.

These traditions and interpretations were strengthened by later works such as The Shepherd of Hermas, wherein an impure thought once in your entire life wouldn't just fuck you for all eternity, it would fuck your entire family too. Over the centuries, these books were either not included or were thrown out of the canon and became apocryphal so people stopped reading them, but the traditions associated with them stuck. This is why you will see very conservative Christians today rail about impurity and masturbation and the sinfulness of it all. The problem is the Bible doesn't say that. You may have heard someone say "The Bible says that it is better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it upon the road....so there" Well guess what? That's not in the Bible. Search for it all you want...it aint there. That is an interpretation from later Church leaders, perhaps centuries later, that developed into tradition, but it is not supported by scripture.

The point is that many atheists don't understand what the Bible really says and what it is talking about. I can forgive that because they are not Christian so why would they care? But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

Funny that a christian thinks they really KNOW anything about the Hebrew Bible and Judaism,

And about atheists
Survey Atheists Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious The Two-Way NPR

Shut up you Nazi muslim. Reading you is like watching sh8t dry.
A waste of time.

One thing we know...that there are those 'christians' who indeed want to shut up everyone else. By any means they can get away with.

And there are many atheists who want to do the same...or have you not looked around these boards much? Intolerance goes both ways

 

[TrinityPower]

1 Chronicles 1-8ish is geneology. These type of things along with many others are expressed for a purpose. Much text of Old Testament has to do with events with military history entwined with religious practices. There are still books being written about WWII are we to dismiss those because they are told from different perspectives which tell more than the facts of the actual battles? There is still much being learned from WWII. Why would learning something more from a piece of history written in the bible be so debated?

 

[BluePhantom]

You know what occurs to me Derideo_Te is that religion is quickly becoming the political bullshit machine of the modern age. Now just think about this for a second. Republican politicians are full of shit. Democrat politicians are full of shit. Everyone knows it an no one even tries to pretend it isn't true any more. The battle between sides is not 'who is full of shit and who isn't', it's 'who is more full of shit than the other one in this election?'

Yet, due to political alliances we all pretend that only the other one is full of shit. Democrats know Hillary is totally full of steaming horseshit. They will just never admit it in public, especially not if there are Republicans around. Republicans...well take your pick of candidates so far, but they are all full of shit too. Now let's be honest...if we are really honest and forthright I simply can't imagine a rational thinking adult who truly believes that their chosen candidate is honest and working for the people. They are working for themselves, they are all a bunch of fucking liars and everyone knows it. IMO, anyone who thinks anything differently is an absolute "Raca mOre".

Is not religion becoming the same way? The entrenchment that we see on both sides is similar to the entrenchment seen in political identity. More and more I see people who either don't even listen to the argument being presented by the other side (that happened to me a couple days ago and landed someone on my ignore list). They just preach and blabber and totally ignore what is being said in response. Or they simply 'parrot the rhetoric' and hope no one has heard the counter argument. And if someone comes up with an argument they can't handle, revert to the former option. Take CCJ on this thread as an example. Made a charge against me that I said something that I never said, and when I responded he just said the exact same thing completely ignoring my point in response. In other words "who cares if it's true? If you say it enough times it becomes true". That's the game he is playing

Is this to say that religion is creating the same entrenchment and intolerance as political identity or is it to suggest that entrenchment and intolerance is a characteristic of modern society that is bleeding into any and all aspects of one's identity? What do you think?

 

[sealybobo]

This is directed primarily at sealybobo based on a side conversation on a different thread, but it's an open topic for discussion

In the early 1st Century CE there were four main political parties (so to speak) in Judea. You had the Zealots who were concerned with preserving the royal Davidic line and were pissed that Caesar was calling himself the king over the Promised Land. They were also very militant, what we might call "terrorists" today. You had the Essenes who were concerned with the sanctity of the holy land. They were pissed that the land itself was under pagan occupation. Their solution was to withdraw to communes. There were the Sadducees who were concerned with the Temple and dealing with Rome. Daily life wasn't as important to them. And there were the Pharisees who were concerned with keeping Torah in everyday life.

The Pharisees were very strict because there were things in the Law that were vague. The Law said not to work on the Sabbath, for example. Well what is work? If you are doing something you enjoy but it causes physical exertion is it work? What about cooking? What if you enjoyed cooking? Is that work? So what they did was to build a "hedge around the Law". The hedge represented the loosest possible definition of something and the theory was that if you didn't cross the hedge you would go nowhere near breaking the Law. So as far as cooking, even if you enjoy it, it's better not to take the chance. This is why some Jews do absolutely nothing on Sabbath except sit there and twiddle their thumbs. I have a friend of mine who is Jewish and he tears off toilet paper and stacks it up on Friday morning, because tearing the toilet paper off the roll might be considered work by God.

It's important to understand that the other three parties were not nearly as strict in their interpretations. But after the Second Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisees were all that was left. The Zealots were all dead from the war. Rome had taken an absolute stranglehold on the land and were ruling it far more powerfully than they had before so the Essenes lost their influence. The Temple was destroyed and Hadrian (I think it was) erected a statue of himself on top of its ruins as a sign that it would not be returning. So the Sadducees were out. So the Pharisees were all that survived and with them came their strict interpretations.

In early Christianity after the 1st century, what we had was a bunch of converts to the religion, many of which were converted Jews that were used to Pharisaic interpretations and so the hedge around the Law came with them. When we think of issues like impure thoughts being sinful, masturbation being sinful, or contraception being sinful, etc. These are not things that are supported by much in the way of actual 1st century Christian writings. Most scripture simply refers to "immoral thoughts". Well here we have the same problem as 'what is work'? Now we have 'what is immoral?' Christians in the 2nd century took on the Pharasaic tradition of the hedge around the Law and did the same thing. Anything even remotely considered immoral was the hedge and as long as you didn't cross the hedge, you were safe.

These traditions and interpretations were strengthened by later works such as The Shepherd of Hermas, wherein an impure thought once in your entire life wouldn't just fuck you for all eternity, it would fuck your entire family too. Over the centuries, these books were either not included or were thrown out of the canon and became apocryphal so people stopped reading them, but the traditions associated with them stuck. This is why you will see very conservative Christians today rail about impurity and masturbation and the sinfulness of it all. The problem is the Bible doesn't say that. You may have heard someone say "The Bible says that it is better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it upon the road....so there" Well guess what? That's not in the Bible. Search for it all you want...it aint there. That is an interpretation from later Church leaders, perhaps centuries later, that developed into tradition, but it is not supported by scripture. It represents the hedge around the Law.

The point is that many atheists don't understand what the Bible really says and what it is talking about. I can forgive that because they are not Christian so why would they care? But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

this is way too long but I am going to go back and continue reading it but for god sake please don't ever take me something this long.

 

[BluePhantom]

This is directed primarily at sealybobo based on a side conversation on a different thread, but it's an open topic for discussion

In the early 1st Century CE there were four main political parties (so to speak) in Judea. You had the Zealots who were concerned with preserving the royal Davidic line and were pissed that Caesar was calling himself the king over the Promised Land. They were also very militant, what we might call "terrorists" today. You had the Essenes who were concerned with the sanctity of the holy land. They were pissed that the land itself was under pagan occupation. Their solution was to withdraw to communes. There were the Sadducees who were concerned with the Temple and dealing with Rome. Daily life wasn't as important to them. And there were the Pharisees who were concerned with keeping Torah in everyday life.

The Pharisees were very strict because there were things in the Law that were vague. The Law said not to work on the Sabbath, for example. Well what is work? If you are doing something you enjoy but it causes physical exertion is it work? What about cooking? What if you enjoyed cooking? Is that work? So what they did was to build a "hedge around the Law". The hedge represented the loosest possible definition of something and the theory was that if you didn't cross the hedge you would go nowhere near breaking the Law. So as far as cooking, even if you enjoy it, it's better not to take the chance. This is why some Jews do absolutely nothing on Sabbath except sit there and twiddle their thumbs. I have a friend of mine who is Jewish and he tears off toilet paper and stacks it up on Friday morning, because tearing the toilet paper off the roll might be considered work by God.

It's important to understand that the other three parties were not nearly as strict in their interpretations. But after the Second Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisees were all that was left. The Zealots were all dead from the war. Rome had taken an absolute stranglehold on the land and were ruling it far more powerfully than they had before so the Essenes lost their influence. The Temple was destroyed and Hadrian (I think it was) erected a statue of himself on top of its ruins as a sign that it would not be returning. So the Sadducees were out. So the Pharisees were all that survived and with them came their strict interpretations.

In early Christianity after the 1st century, what we had was a bunch of converts to the religion, many of which were converted Jews that were used to Pharisaic interpretations and so the hedge around the Law came with them. When we think of issues like impure thoughts being sinful, masturbation being sinful, or contraception being sinful, etc. These are not things that are supported by much in the way of actual 1st century Christian writings. Most scripture simply refers to "immoral thoughts". Well here we have the same problem as 'what is work'? Now we have 'what is immoral?' Christians in the 2nd century took on the Pharasaic tradition of the hedge around the Law and did the same thing. Anything even remotely considered immoral was the hedge and as long as you didn't cross the hedge, you were safe.

These traditions and interpretations were strengthened by later works such as The Shepherd of Hermas, wherein an impure thought once in your entire life wouldn't just fuck you for all eternity, it would fuck your entire family too. Over the centuries, these books were either not included or were thrown out of the canon and became apocryphal so people stopped reading them, but the traditions associated with them stuck. This is why you will see very conservative Christians today rail about impurity and masturbation and the sinfulness of it all. The problem is the Bible doesn't say that. You may have heard someone say "The Bible says that it is better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it upon the road....so there" Well guess what? That's not in the Bible. Search for it all you want...it aint there. That is an interpretation from later Church leaders, perhaps centuries later, that developed into tradition, but it is not supported by scripture. It represents the hedge around the Law.

The point is that many atheists don't understand what the Bible really says and what it is talking about. I can forgive that because they are not Christian so why would they care? But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

this is way too long but I am going to go back and continue reading it but for god sake please don't ever take me something this long.

I am just quelling BS arguments before they begin. Had I shortened it someone would have said 'well what about the Zealots?' and that would have been a five page argument. By addressing it and nipping it in the bud, we avoid bullshit side points.

 

[sealybobo]

This is directed primarily at sealybobo based on a side conversation on a different thread, but it's an open topic for discussion

In the early 1st Century CE there were four main political parties (so to speak) in Judea. You had the Zealots who were concerned with preserving the royal Davidic line and were pissed that Caesar was calling himself the king over the Promised Land. They were also very militant, what we might call "terrorists" today. You had the Essenes who were concerned with the sanctity of the holy land. They were pissed that the land itself was under pagan occupation. Their solution was to withdraw to communes. There were the Sadducees who were concerned with the Temple and dealing with Rome. Daily life wasn't as important to them. And there were the Pharisees who were concerned with keeping Torah in everyday life.

The Pharisees were very strict because there were things in the Law that were vague. The Law said not to work on the Sabbath, for example. Well what is work? If you are doing something you enjoy but it causes physical exertion is it work? What about cooking? What if you enjoyed cooking? Is that work? So what they did was to build a "hedge around the Law". The hedge represented the loosest possible definition of something and the theory was that if you didn't cross the hedge you would go nowhere near breaking the Law. So as far as cooking, even if you enjoy it, it's better not to take the chance. This is why some Jews do absolutely nothing on Sabbath except sit there and twiddle their thumbs. I have a friend of mine who is Jewish and he tears off toilet paper and stacks it up on Friday morning, because tearing the toilet paper off the roll might be considered work by God.

It's important to understand that the other three parties were not nearly as strict in their interpretations. But after the Second Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisees were all that was left. The Zealots were all dead from the war. Rome had taken an absolute stranglehold on the land and were ruling it far more powerfully than they had before so the Essenes lost their influence. The Temple was destroyed and Hadrian (I think it was) erected a statue of himself on top of its ruins as a sign that it would not be returning. So the Sadducees were out. So the Pharisees were all that survived and with them came their strict interpretations.

In early Christianity after the 1st century, what we had was a bunch of converts to the religion, many of which were converted Jews that were used to Pharisaic interpretations and so the hedge around the Law came with them. When we think of issues like impure thoughts being sinful, masturbation being sinful, or contraception being sinful, etc. These are not things that are supported by much in the way of actual 1st century Christian writings. Most scripture simply refers to "immoral thoughts". Well here we have the same problem as 'what is work'? Now we have 'what is immoral?' Christians in the 2nd century took on the Pharasaic tradition of the hedge around the Law and did the same thing. Anything even remotely considered immoral was the hedge and as long as you didn't cross the hedge, you were safe.

These traditions and interpretations were strengthened by later works such as The Shepherd of Hermas, wherein an impure thought once in your entire life wouldn't just fuck you for all eternity, it would fuck your entire family too. Over the centuries, these books were either not included or were thrown out of the canon and became apocryphal so people stopped reading them, but the traditions associated with them stuck. This is why you will see very conservative Christians today rail about impurity and masturbation and the sinfulness of it all. The problem is the Bible doesn't say that. You may have heard someone say "The Bible says that it is better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it upon the road....so there" Well guess what? That's not in the Bible. Search for it all you want...it aint there. That is an interpretation from later Church leaders, perhaps centuries later, that developed into tradition, but it is not supported by scripture. It represents the hedge around the Law.

The point is that many atheists don't understand what the Bible really says and what it is talking about. I can forgive that because they are not Christian so why would they care? But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

does it say in the Bible that if you have lusted after a woman in your heart that you have already committed adultery?

 

[sealybobo]

This is directed primarily at sealybobo based on a side conversation on a different thread, but it's an open topic for discussion

In the early 1st Century CE there were four main political parties (so to speak) in Judea. You had the Zealots who were concerned with preserving the royal Davidic line and were pissed that Caesar was calling himself the king over the Promised Land. They were also very militant, what we might call "terrorists" today. You had the Essenes who were concerned with the sanctity of the holy land. They were pissed that the land itself was under pagan occupation. Their solution was to withdraw to communes. There were the Sadducees who were concerned with the Temple and dealing with Rome. Daily life wasn't as important to them. And there were the Pharisees who were concerned with keeping Torah in everyday life.

The Pharisees were very strict because there were things in the Law that were vague. The Law said not to work on the Sabbath, for example. Well what is work? If you are doing something you enjoy but it causes physical exertion is it work? What about cooking? What if you enjoyed cooking? Is that work? So what they did was to build a "hedge around the Law". The hedge represented the loosest possible definition of something and the theory was that if you didn't cross the hedge you would go nowhere near breaking the Law. So as far as cooking, even if you enjoy it, it's better not to take the chance. This is why some Jews do absolutely nothing on Sabbath except sit there and twiddle their thumbs. I have a friend of mine who is Jewish and he tears off toilet paper and stacks it up on Friday morning, because tearing the toilet paper off the roll might be considered work by God.

It's important to understand that the other three parties were not nearly as strict in their interpretations. But after the Second Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisees were all that was left. The Zealots were all dead from the war. Rome had taken an absolute stranglehold on the land and were ruling it far more powerfully than they had before so the Essenes lost their influence. The Temple was destroyed and Hadrian (I think it was) erected a statue of himself on top of its ruins as a sign that it would not be returning. So the Sadducees were out. So the Pharisees were all that survived and with them came their strict interpretations.

In early Christianity after the 1st century, what we had was a bunch of converts to the religion, many of which were converted Jews that were used to Pharisaic interpretations and so the hedge around the Law came with them. When we think of issues like impure thoughts being sinful, masturbation being sinful, or contraception being sinful, etc. These are not things that are supported by much in the way of actual 1st century Christian writings. Most scripture simply refers to "immoral thoughts". Well here we have the same problem as 'what is work'? Now we have 'what is immoral?' Christians in the 2nd century took on the Pharasaic tradition of the hedge around the Law and did the same thing. Anything even remotely considered immoral was the hedge and as long as you didn't cross the hedge, you were safe.

These traditions and interpretations were strengthened by later works such as The Shepherd of Hermas, wherein an impure thought once in your entire life wouldn't just fuck you for all eternity, it would fuck your entire family too. Over the centuries, these books were either not included or were thrown out of the canon and became apocryphal so people stopped reading them, but the traditions associated with them stuck. This is why you will see very conservative Christians today rail about impurity and masturbation and the sinfulness of it all. The problem is the Bible doesn't say that. You may have heard someone say "The Bible says that it is better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it upon the road....so there" Well guess what? That's not in the Bible. Search for it all you want...it aint there. That is an interpretation from later Church leaders, perhaps centuries later, that developed into tradition, but it is not supported by scripture. It represents the hedge around the Law.

The point is that many atheists don't understand what the Bible really says and what it is talking about. I can forgive that because they are not Christian so why would they care? But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

you forget that I was a Christian for at least half of my life? I read the Bible and I agree I didn't read all the angry stuff in there but you're here conservative Christians preach about. but you gotta realize that even your interpretation or spin on the Bible in Christianity is just as much nonsense at the basic root of your premise. I find it amazing that's so much written history from the Greeks and the Egyptians and everywhere else in the world including Rome has such a well documented history and as far as I'm concerned not a thing survives from Jesus's day. I think the Bible was written hundreds of years after the supposed event.to me what it sounds like you're doing is telling me how your particular spin on religion from your particular cult just has a better spin on the story. no offense you seem like a nice guy but ultimately do you believe Jesus Christ was the son of God? Jesus of Nazareth? you believe that story literally?

 

[sealybobo]

But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

Except that "what it actually says" in one place is contradicted by "what it actually says" in another place so who is supposed to know which of the "what it actually says" is the right "what it actually says"?



AVG-JOE might want to address this dilemma for us since he has many profound insights IMO.

That is definitely true and that's why it is so important to take individual books of the Bible and allow them to stand on their own. In other words, in Luke and Matthew there are great contradictions regarding the genealogy of Jesus. Which is right and which is wrong? Are either right? They can't BOTH be right. Well the answer is to simply say "according to Luke, this was his ancestral line and according to Matthew that was his ancestral line." It doesn't really matter because each author crafted the genealogy in order to accomplish specific things.

In Matthew, his line is traced in sets of 14 back to Abraham. Every 14 generations something significant happens. 14 generations after Abraham came King David. 14 generations later came the Babylonian exile. Now 14 generations later comes Jesus, the next big thing, the direct descendant of Abraham who is coming in behalf of the Jews.

In Luke, the genealogy traces back to Adam. Why? Because in Luke-Acts Jesus is depicted as coming for all mankind and not just the Jews. So it is traced back to Adam to show that he is the direct descendant of Adam who has come for the good of mankind as a whole.

So the best thing to do is avoid fretting about those contradictions and simply realize that one source says one thing and another source says something else. Usually, it's because the author is trying to make a theological point

George Carlin was right it is the greatest b******* story ever told

 

[BluePhantom]

does it say in the Bible that if you have lusted after a woman in your heart that you have already committed adultery?

Only in Matthew so it is not very reliable. A single attestation makes that pretty questionable. Now if that was in Matthew, Mark, John, Corinthians,Titus, and Revelation it might hold more weight. Besides you overlook my language. I said there is very little support, not totally lacking in support. And it also misses the point that it is specific to adultery not feelings in general. What if I whack off in the shower thinking about my wife? Is that adultery?

 

[BluePhantom]

This is directed primarily at sealybobo based on a side conversation on a different thread, but it's an open topic for discussion

In the early 1st Century CE there were four main political parties (so to speak) in Judea. You had the Zealots who were concerned with preserving the royal Davidic line and were pissed that Caesar was calling himself the king over the Promised Land. They were also very militant, what we might call "terrorists" today. You had the Essenes who were concerned with the sanctity of the holy land. They were pissed that the land itself was under pagan occupation. Their solution was to withdraw to communes. There were the Sadducees who were concerned with the Temple and dealing with Rome. Daily life wasn't as important to them. And there were the Pharisees who were concerned with keeping Torah in everyday life.

The Pharisees were very strict because there were things in the Law that were vague. The Law said not to work on the Sabbath, for example. Well what is work? If you are doing something you enjoy but it causes physical exertion is it work? What about cooking? What if you enjoyed cooking? Is that work? So what they did was to build a "hedge around the Law". The hedge represented the loosest possible definition of something and the theory was that if you didn't cross the hedge you would go nowhere near breaking the Law. So as far as cooking, even if you enjoy it, it's better not to take the chance. This is why some Jews do absolutely nothing on Sabbath except sit there and twiddle their thumbs. I have a friend of mine who is Jewish and he tears off toilet paper and stacks it up on Friday morning, because tearing the toilet paper off the roll might be considered work by God.

It's important to understand that the other three parties were not nearly as strict in their interpretations. But after the Second Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisees were all that was left. The Zealots were all dead from the war. Rome had taken an absolute stranglehold on the land and were ruling it far more powerfully than they had before so the Essenes lost their influence. The Temple was destroyed and Hadrian (I think it was) erected a statue of himself on top of its ruins as a sign that it would not be returning. So the Sadducees were out. So the Pharisees were all that survived and with them came their strict interpretations.

In early Christianity after the 1st century, what we had was a bunch of converts to the religion, many of which were converted Jews that were used to Pharisaic interpretations and so the hedge around the Law came with them. When we think of issues like impure thoughts being sinful, masturbation being sinful, or contraception being sinful, etc. These are not things that are supported by much in the way of actual 1st century Christian writings. Most scripture simply refers to "immoral thoughts". Well here we have the same problem as 'what is work'? Now we have 'what is immoral?' Christians in the 2nd century took on the Pharasaic tradition of the hedge around the Law and did the same thing. Anything even remotely considered immoral was the hedge and as long as you didn't cross the hedge, you were safe.

These traditions and interpretations were strengthened by later works such as The Shepherd of Hermas, wherein an impure thought once in your entire life wouldn't just fuck you for all eternity, it would fuck your entire family too. Over the centuries, these books were either not included or were thrown out of the canon and became apocryphal so people stopped reading them, but the traditions associated with them stuck. This is why you will see very conservative Christians today rail about impurity and masturbation and the sinfulness of it all. The problem is the Bible doesn't say that. You may have heard someone say "The Bible says that it is better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it upon the road....so there" Well guess what? That's not in the Bible. Search for it all you want...it aint there. That is an interpretation from later Church leaders, perhaps centuries later, that developed into tradition, but it is not supported by scripture. It represents the hedge around the Law.

The point is that many atheists don't understand what the Bible really says and what it is talking about. I can forgive that because they are not Christian so why would they care? But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

you forget that I was a Christian for at least half of my life? I read the Bible and I agree I didn't read all the angry stuff in there but you're here conservative Christians preach about. but you gotta realize that even your interpretation or spin on the Bible in Christianity is just as much nonsense at the basic root of your premise. I find it amazing that's so much written history from the Greeks and the Egyptians and everywhere else in the world including Rome has such a well documented history and as far as I'm concerned not a thing survives from Jesus's day. I think the Bible was written hundreds of years after the supposed event.to me what it sounds like you're doing is telling me how your particular spin on religion from your particular cult just has a better spin on the story. no offense you seem like a nice guy but ultimately do you believe Jesus Christ was the son of God? Jesus of Nazareth? you believe that story literally?

Well your concept about the books in the New Testament being written several centuries after the fact flies totally in the face of scholarship. I am not talking about Christian belief. I am talking about atheist and/or agnostic scholars and even they concede that the New Testament books were written in the 1st century CE just a few decades after the death of Jesus. So you are not only arguing against people of faith, you are arguing against secular scholars on that one.

I have explained my belief about Jesus to you more than once. I see no need to go over it all again.

As far as little surviving from Jesus' day. Why does that surprise you? The assumption that there would be is the result of completely rejecting history. We don't have historical accounts for the overwhelmingly vast majority of people from antiquity. The ones we do know about were mostly kings or members of the aristocracy. We don't have anything from Socrates either. So why would you be surprised?