Steven Carr

So it is the law that we have to love of our own free will?

Slojodan

I'm seeing two main responses to my post, people who see the obvious that Jesus changed the law and saying that "love thy neighbor" does not include "Don't eat pork".

The other half is still saying Jesus didn't change, but "fulfilled" it. I'm curious, how did Jesus fulfill the law? What does that mean. You can say he fulfilled "Love thy Neighbor" by stressing it, but how did he fulfill "Don't eat pork" and "Adultery is _____"? You can't say he came to fulfill the law without him fulfilling EVERY law. And once again, I included several passages saying it's everlasting and forever. Even if you take the quote where G-d said 1000 generations literally, that's still well beyond the time when Jesus came, considerring there's maybe 4 generations a year.

Chili

To understand "fulfill the Law" we must go back to the purpose of the Law which was the conviction of sin . . . and thus not the prevention of sin or it could not be effective in the conviction of sin. Therefore sin is good as a tool and only as a tool that leads to the conviction of sin that in this case led Joseph the upright Jew to Bethlehem, which was the state of mind at his birth (and therefore the narrow gate), to give an account of himself out of which the Christ was born who found freedom from the law. In this sense the law had served its purpose in the mind of Joseph who was earnestly looking for the reign of God and had found it. In other words, the dual nature of Jesus set the Christ identity free from the law and allowed the human identity to be crucified under the Law. To deny this "fulfillment of the law" is to argue that sin can exist in heaven or in Galilee where purification takes place.

johntheapostate

Spoken like a "true" Christian.

Metacrock

First, the writer is assuming that the statements contained in the
Bible is the full Judaic teaching on the subject of sexual
relations. This is simply an unwarranted assumption. As Millers site
notes:

"The biblical law collections, even when considered in toto, fall
short of including all of the legal areas operative in ancient
Israelite society. There are, first of all, categories which appear
in the ANE laws but which are absent or unregulated in the OT law
collections. Many of these categories are, however, alluded to in
the Bible; thus, it is certain that they were operative in Israelite
society. So, for example, robbery (tangentially mentioned in Lev
5:21–26—Eng 6:2–7; 19:13), hire of wet nurses, lease and rental of
property, surety (cf. Gen 43:9; Prov 6:1; 20:16), hire of labor (cf.
Lev 19:13; Job 7:2), bride-price and dowry (cf. Exod 22:16; 1 Sam
18:25), and sale (e.g., Isa 24:2; 2 Sam 24:24; etc.). In connection
with sale, Jer 32:11 mentions the "sealed deed of purchase . . . and
the open copy." This custom finds parallels in the Dead Sea Scrolls
(DJD 2: 244–46), the Elephantine papyri (Porten 1968: 198–99), and
the Mishnah (B. Bat. 10:1). This type of document is ultimately
derived from the practice of using an inscribed and sealed clay
envelope to contain and protect a cuneiform document; the text
written on the inner tablet was duplicated on the outside envelope.

"Some of the other "missing laws" also appear in the Mishnah. While
one cannot assert that all regulations of the Mishnah go back to the
biblical period, some laws apparently do, at least to the extent
that they can be shown to have ANE parallels. For example, the
Babylonian laws treat the case of how to dispose of marital gifts
and property in a situation where either the bride or groom-to-be
has died before the wedding. This case appears in LE 17 and CH 163–
64. The case is not discussed in the Bible but does appear in the
Mishnah (B. Bat. 9:5). Another such case is "assault" upon the
dignity of an individual by slapping his face. This case is
considered in LE 42 and CH 202–4, and in the Mishnah (B. Qam. 8:6);
this offensive act is also addressed by the NT (Matt 5:39, Luke
6:29).

"One can look again to the Mishnah for "preservation" of laws
dealing with rental of houses and lease of fields (B. Mes\. 8:6–9,
10:1–10). These activities are highly visible both in the Laws of
Hammurapi (CH 42–47, E–G) and the contemporary cuneiform documents.
An arrangement modeled after a field lease may be reflected in Lev
25:15–16. Another such example is the special class of dowry
property (Akk muluµgu; Heb meáloµg) and the type of property for
which the user is responsible regardless of loss (Akk ul
imuµtuµ, "they shall not have died," said typically of livestock and
thus described as s\oµn barzel, "iron sheep," in the Mishnah; cf.
Yebam. 7:1, B. Mes\. 5:6).

"The paucity of ancient Hebrew records limits real knowledge about
the use of writing in Israelite legal practice. Scholars have noted
the absence of writing; for example, in the description of Abraham's
purchase of the cave of Machpelah (Genesis 23) as well as in the
redemption of Naomi's family property in Ruth 4:1–12. But documents
were written for the redemption of family property by Jeremiah (Jer
32:6–14) and were prescribed for divorce in Deut 24:1–3, Isa 50:1,
and Jer 3:8. Some scholars have seen the use of written documents as
a late development, perhaps reflecting increased foreign influences
and sophistications (cf. further Job 31:35). The biblical law
collections, however, are all represented as part of orally
delivered addresses or sermons. The renewal or rereading of the law
is similarly depicted; the laws are read out to the populace in Deut
31:10–13, 2 Kgs 23:1–3, and Neh 8:1–9:3. So it would seem that in
ancient Israel, as for her Near Eastern neighbors, writing was not
an indispensable feature of the legal tradition and practice but
functioned, rather, as an aid to memory (cf. Deut 31:22–26; Josh
24:26)." [ABD, s.v. "Law")

Miller continues later on in discussing polygamy:

In the ANE, monogamy was the rule and standard. The exceptions made
for polygamy in the law codes show how the normal standard of
harmonious monogamy was subservient to having a community-recognized
heir.

"Generally, marriage was monogamous, even among the gods."
[OTLAM:132]

"With rare exceptions, a man could not have more than one formally
recognized wife at a time. Both Babylonian law codes and court
proceedings indicated that only under exceptional circumstances was
a man permitted to have more than one wife at the same time."
[OTLAM:136]

"Polygamy was probably an option for the rich although we have no
instances of it (2400-2000BC)" [OT:LIANE:20]

"Monogamy was the norm, and two or three children was average (2000-
1800BC)…Kings and maybe other very rich people had polygynous
families" [OT:LIANE34]

"Monogamy continued to be the norm…Polygamy was possible, but
sources do not envision more than two wives (2000-1600BC)"
[OT:LIANE:51,52]

"The Middle Assyrian `laws' from shortly before 1077 BCE in the
north of Mesopotamia preserve older traditions, and they assume much
the same monogamous marriage as we see in the Code of Hammurapi from
the Old Babylonian period." [OT:LIANE68]

"Polygamy occurred among kings, but much less among private persons
(1600-1100bc)" [OT:LIANE:74]

"From the collection of Hittite laws we can see that the family was
monogamous, although kings had concubines whose children had lesser
status." [OT:LIANE:76]

"The structure of the family seems a continuation of earlier models.
Rich men, and kings especially, could afford more than one wife, but
most people were monogamous (1100-626bc)." [OT:LIANE:81]

"The rich, especially kings, had several wives, but otherwise
monogamy was the norm (Israel, 1100-626BC)" [OT:LIANE:87]

"In Israel, as in most of the ancient world, monogamy was generally
practiced. Polygamy was not contrary to law or morals, but was
usually not economically feasible. The main occurrence of polygamy
would be when the first wife was barren, but there are several other
factors which encouraged the practice, including (1) an imbalance in
the number of males and females, (2) the need to produce large
numbers of children to work herds and/or fields, (3) the desire to
increase the prestige and wealth of a household through multiple
marriage contracts, and (4) the high rate of death for females in
childbirth. Polygamy is most common among pastoral nomadic groups
and in rural farming communities where it is important that every
female be attached to a household and be productive. In the Bible
most cases of polygamy among commoners occur prior to the period of
the monarchy." [OT:BBCall, at. 1 Sam 1.2]

"Most marriages were monogamous, but because of the importance of
male heirs [in ancient Mesopotamia], fathers who lacked sons had the
right to marry a second wife." [CANE:478]

This is all found in an essay entitled "Good question…are the laws
in the OT about rape and virginity indicative of a God who is either
unfair to women (or maybe even just unrealistic/ignorant)?" which
can be found here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html

In a second, much shorter essay entitled "Pushback.... Wasn't there
a HUGE double standard in biblical sexual ethics?--weren't women
supposed to be 'good', but men didn't have to?" which can be found
here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/w2stds.html, Miller makes
the point that there are tons of passages in the OT that stress male
fidelity. Miller notes:

"On the other hand, we have TONS of passages that support (1) a much
greater emphasis on male fidelity and (2) preferential treatment for
women in disputes of this nature.

The 10 commandments SINGLE OUT the male (Ex 20.17b)...

in cases of rape, the woman is given the benefit of the doubt (Lev
19.20ff; Deut 22.25-27)...

and is protected from disastrous marriages from those (Ex 22.16)...
in cases of adultery, BOTH parties were killed--a fact noted by
authors as being a 'step forward' at that time (Lev 20.10-12)...
the male is CONSISTENTLY singled out for admonition in this area
(Lev 18; Deut 27; Jer 5.7; Ezek 18.6; 22.10ff)...

even the case of female war captives was regulated for the male!
(Deut 21.11)...

in some cases women were "excused from guilt" because of the guilt
of the men! (Hos 4.14ff)...

And remember, this "inequality" AGAINST the male would had to have
involved a female--but they do not get 'equal time' in the
warnings/admonitions! They are often simply assumed to be more
righteous in this area (cf. The "benefit of the doubt" passages
above).

Again, the data is simply otherwise--IF there is a double-standard,
THEN it is "against" the men!

Godfather

Matt 22:38 says: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind."

However in the Old Testament we see that Deuteronomy 6:5 says: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength."

:huh:

Looks like god feels just fine about changing his own laws even his "greatest commandment." Last I checked, strength and mind were different things.

Steven Carr

Metacrock posts a huge amount of references, too many to check (as he knows), so I just took one at random....

Leviticus 19
20 " 'If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. 21 The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting for a guilt offering to the LORD . 22 With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the LORD for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.


Where is the woman given the benefit of the doubt in that passage?

deut. 22:

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

Again Metacrock posts a load of crock. There is no 'benefit of the doubt' here. The girl is not killed if she is raped in the countryside.

But she would be killed if the rape took place elsewhere.

Remember this is just one thing taken at random. I don't have time for the rest.

David Irving was only tracked down by meticulous examination of sources.

apologists know that if they spew out enough, nobody will have time to check it all.

Miller (who Metacrock regurgitates) doesn't seem to write in less than 100K....

Only a theists can think that killing more people was a step forward.

Slojodan

In Response to Metacrock's post, it is true that there were elaborations on the laws orally, though the Mishnah cannot be certain to be certain representation of them. The point is though, that eaither way polygamy and remarriage was not a sin in either of them. You can say from your texts that monogamy was the norm, and only the rich had multiple wives, but that doesn't change that it was completely accepted as within the law in Judaism. So Jesus making remarriage a sin still IS a change in the law, which was forbidden.

And I noticed you had nothing to say about Jesus's abolishment of the dietary restrictions. I guess there is no real rebuttle for that besides the usual "He didn't change it, he fulfilled it!"

Slojodan

I'm not sure where' youre getting your purpose of the law from, but it was quite clear in the Old Testament that the rules were not to convict sin, but to DEFINE sin. Of course there was punishments listed in there, but the rules are the rules. And you can say that without fulfillment sin can exist in heaven, but in the end, you still sinned buddy. You may not be punished for it, but the sinners are still in heaven,.

Metacrock

Are you kidding? Christians love the OT! Most christians would rather give up their spleens than not accep the OT, that's why they are creationists!


But you dont' have a link with Judaism and the OT in the same way. The Christians think they own the OT, they have no Talmud. The Jews place Talmud almost as high as OT, at least the Tenoch.