Under Law but no animal sacrifices?

[Radrook]

How do those who claim to still be under Mosaic law justify their neglect of offering up the specified animal sacrifices? Or of building a temple as Solomon did or at least a tabernacle in order to follow that law as specified?

[Tumblehome]

Probably the same way Christians justify contradictory or currently "immoral" teachings of a 2,000-year-old book.

"Oh, those parts are just metaphorical" or "That's a wrong interpretation", or whatever. You know the drill. ;)

[Piscivore]

How do those who claim to still be under Mosaic law justify their neglect of offering up the specified animal sacrifices? Or of building a temple as Solomon did or at least a tabernacle in order to follow that law as specified?

For the same reason I suspect you haven't lived up to Luke 14:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=14&verse=26&version=31&context=verse), Mark 10:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=10&verse=21&version=31&context=verse), Matthew 6:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=6&verse=6&version=31&context=verse)
, or Luke 12:33 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=12&verse=33&version=31&context=verse).

[Doctor Evil]

My understanding is that as long as there is no temple there will be no sacrifices. Moreover, it is believed that the third temple can only be built after the messiah arrives. So, if you worry about the poor animals you can hold your horses.



PS, you seem to be rather obsessed with Jews lately. Care to explain why?

[Loss Leader]

How do those who claim to still be under Mosaic law justify their neglect of offering up the specified animal sacrifices? Or of building a temple as Solomon did or at least a tabernacle in order to follow that law as specified?


The obligation to perform animal sacrifice ended with the destruction of the great temple in Jerusalem. It can only be rebuilt by the Messiah at the instruction of God. As of yet, the Messiah has not appeared to rebuild the temple. I will keep you updated as the situation warrants.

[Silentknight]

For the same reason I suspect you haven't lived up to Luke 14:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=14&verse=26&version=31&context=verse), Mark 10:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=10&verse=21&version=31&context=verse), Matthew 6:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=6&verse=6&version=31&context=verse)
, or Luke 12:33 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=12&verse=33&version=31&context=verse).

I'd worry more about Luke 6:27-42 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%206:27-42&version=31) first. ;)

[Tanstaafl]

My understanding is that as long as there is no temple there will be no sacrifices. Moreover, it is believed that the third temple can only be built after the messiah arrives. So, if you worry about the poor animals you can hold your horses.


PS, you seem to be rather obsessed with Jews lately. Care to explain why?


I was wondering this as well.

[Achán hiNidráne]

PS, you seem to be rather obsessed with Jews lately. Care to explain why?

Whisperingly, I think it's because that Radrook is a bigot. Shhhhhhhhhhh......

[Radrook]

Probably the same way Christians justify contradictory or currently "immoral" teachings of a 2,000-year-old book.

"Oh, those parts are just metaphorical" or "That's a wrong interpretation", or whatever. You know the drill. ;)

No I don't know the drill. Neither were the instructions to sacrifice animals metaphoirical as evidenced by the sacrifices that are recorded as being offered. In fact, the whole design of the tabernacle and temple was geared to receive sacrifices.


BTW
I know you enjoy this sort of thing but my question was, well, simply a question.
If you don't have an answer, why answer? In short, please stick to the subject.
That's if you're really interested in a good discussion. If not-well, then that's your choice I guess.

[Radrook]

My understanding is that as long as there is no temple there will be no sacrifices. Moreover, it is believed that the third temple can only be built after the messiah arrives. So, if you worry about the poor animals you can hold your horses.

PS, you seem to be rather obsessed with Jews lately. Care to explain why?

Your answer is partly informative but spoiled by your suspicions.
My questions a merely based on interest-nothing more. Is that a sin?

BTW

The question is directed at Christians who insist on tithing as well aince tithing was a law requirement. If they insist on tithing then why not go for the whole enchilada?

[Henners]

The question is directed at Christians who insist on tithing as well aince tithing was a law requirement. If they insist on tithing then why not go for the whole enchilada?

OP:How do those who claim to still be under Mosaic law justify their neglect of offering up the specified animal sacrifices? Or of building a temple as Solomon did or at least a tabernacle in order to follow that law as specified?


Shurely shome mishtake.

[slingblade]

Your answer is partly informative but spoiled by your suspicions.
My questions a merely based on interest-nothing more. Is that a sin?

Sin doesn't exist, but if it did, it would be embodied in the poking, prodding nature of asking a question here that can be answered in depth with a few search words plugged into Google.

When a person wants simple information, he should seek it from information sources first. It baffles me why someone who thinks many of the posters here are "biblically illiterate" would seek our ignorant opinions about biblical matters. It's almost as if you hope we'll say something that will illustrate just how biblically illiterate we really are....

At any rate, there is an in-depth answer here:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2091/why-do-jews-no-longer-sacrifice-animals

You will have to use your critical thinking skills to follow up on the information presented, to verify it for accuracy. Good luck.

BTW

The question is directed at Christians who insist on tithing as well [s]ince tithing was a law requirement. If they insist on tithing then why not go for the whole enchilada?

What would be in this "whole enchilada?" Because most Christians I know do tithe. They donate 10% of their incomes to the churches of their choice. What is missing from their "enchilada," as you see it?

You wouldn't be implying that a certain number of Christians cherry-pick their beliefs from the biblical menu, would you? Because that would certainly be news to us, here.

[Radrook]

For the same reason I suspect you haven't lived up to Luke 14:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=14&verse=26&version=31&context=verse), Mark 10:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=10&verse=21&version=31&context=verse), Matthew 6:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=6&verse=6&version=31&context=verse)
, or Luke 12:33 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=12&verse=33&version=31&context=verse).


The scriptures provided have to be understood in context:

Luke 12:33
33Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
=====================================

Again the emphasis is on placing our spiritual treasures above our material ones. Taken literally it would mean to become irresponsibly destitute to the point of not being able to care for self or family members.

Matthew 6:6
6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
==========================================

Jesus was referring to the Pharisees' habit of publicly praying in order to seem more righteous than others. Notice that he specifically mentions a reward. The reward the Pharisees sought was public recognition. A feeling of being above the people whom they considered cursed of God.

Luke 14:26

26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

excerpt

It may initially appear in this verse that Jesus is saying that we should have the emotion of hate for our families for His sake. But I do not think that is what He was intending with His words. The beginning point for properly understanding this statement is that in Jesus' ethic there is no room for truly hating anyone. We are to love even our enemies (Luke 6:27). As well, the fifth commandment instructs us: "Honor your father and your mother" (Exodus 20:12), a commandment repeated in the New Testament (Ephesians 6:1-3; Colossians 3:20).10 The Bible Knowledge Commentary notes: "Literally hating one's family would have been a violation of the Law. Since Jesus on several occasions admonished others to fulfill the Law, He must not have meant here that one should literally hate his family." Jesus in this verse is apparently using a vivid hyperbole (an exaggeration or extravagant statement used as a figure of speech). In understanding Jesus' point, one must keep in mind that in the Hebrew mind-set, to "hate" means to "love less" (see Genesis 29:31-33; Deuteronomy 21:15). Jesus is communicating that our supreme love must be for Him alone. Everything else (and everyone else) must take second place. This is in keeping with what Jesus said in Matthew 10:37: "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Measuring our supreme love for Christ against other lesser loves may make these lesser loves seem like hate by comparison. Other Bible scholars have suggested that while the terms "love" and "hate" are manifestations of emotion in the Western mindset, the ancient Jews used these terms to refer more to a decision of the will. To "love" often carried the idea of choosing to submit, whereas "hate" often carried the idea of choosing not to submit. "When Christ demanded that one hate those to whom he is bound by the closest of blood ties, He was not speaking in the area of emotions but in the area of the will


http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geunrHyvRIdnMBazhrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=1371luug4/EXP=1224088647/**http%3a//www.moriel.org/articles/discernment/church_issues/hate_our_mother_father.htm

==============================================


Mark 10:21
21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
==============================================
Jesus was speaking to a man who had an inordinate attachment to material things. So he addressed him that way in order to show his disciples that materialism can be a hindrance
to living a Christian life. That's why he said that it was more difficult for a rich man to get into God's kingdom than for a camel to pass through a needle's eye.

[I'm familiar with what a needle's eye refers to so no need to elucidate.]


BTW


This reminds me of a certain fellow named Origen who interpreted Jesus' words literally and castrated himself because Jesus had said that if your eye offends you pluck it out and if your hand offends you cut it off. Later when to his horror and dismay he realized Jesus used metaphor, simile and other such commonly employed symbolic language to get his point across he regretted it. Too little too late though since his member was gone. Probably he imagined it burning in a fiery hell since Jesus also used the word Gehenna and Gehenna an incinerator outside the walls of Jerusalem which eventually came to be understood as hell. In any case, the church cut him a break by not excommunicating him but nevertheless refuses to canonize him.

[Darat]

Your answer is partly informative but spoiled by your suspicions.
My questions a merely based on interest-nothing more. Is that a sin?

BTW

The question is directed at Christians who insist on tithing as well aince tithing was a law requirement. If they insist on tithing then why not go for the whole enchilada?

Because every single person on this planet who labels themselves a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian does not follow their "holy book" to the letter, they all choose some bits to follow and discard the rest of the instructions.

[Loss Leader]

Your answer is partly informative but spoiled by your suspicions.
My questions a merely based on interest-nothing more. Is that a sin?



I answered your question. You ignored my post.

[Radrook]

Because every single person on this planet who labels themselves a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian does not follow their "holy book" to the letter, they all choose some bits to follow and discard the rest of the instructions.

Yes, I am aware of that tendency and have witnessed the phenomenon much too often to be unaware of its existence. What I was hoping to get was the rationalization. Which one of the posters says is that they consider only the coming Messiah as having the authority to reinstitute the full measure of the law. So if that is the accurate explanation then I guess
that's the answer.

As to the Christian's insistence on tithing, that too must have an explanation of which I have as yet not come across. Usually the answers are cryptic and evasive.

[slingblade]

Yes, I am aware of that tendency and have witnessed the phenomenon much too often to be unaware of its existence. What I was hoping to get was the rationalization. Which one of the posters says is that they consider only the coming Messiah as having the authority to reinstitute the full measure of the law. So if that is the accurate explanation then I guess
that's the answer.

As to the Christian's insistence on tithing, that too must have an explanation of which I have as yet not come across. Usually the answers are cryptic and evasive.

It is simply amazing what one can discover, if one types a few words into a text bar and presses "enter."

www.google.com

may lead one to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe

but until one tries, one will never know....

[Darat]

It is simply amazing what one can discover, if one types a few words into a text bar and presses "enter."

www.google.com

...snip...

Thanks for that link - what a bloody useful site, surprised no one had thought of that before! Hope it catches on.


;)


______________________


As to tithing - the religious group my family belong/ed to believe/d in tithing, because it was a way of raising funds for the work they did. It's something that I've kept to and I've pretty much "manually tithed" 10% of my income since I started earning money.

[Beerina]

Probably the same way Christians justify contradictory or currently "immoral" teachings of a 2,000-year-old book.

"Oh, those parts are just metaphorical" or "That's a wrong interpretation", or whatever. You know the drill. ;)

Nah, the biggie is "that's just the old covenant. Jesus brought a new one and we can ignore the sacrifices and katy-dids and grasshoppers and not eating lobster and killing gays and stuff."


So, to sum up:

Christianity: A completely new religion with a radically different worldview that was popular with the masses, stitched atop the local, very different, dominant religion which it simultaneously disclaims 90% of, excepting the parts that aid the popularity.


Or, if you believe in it:

Christianity: The 3rd reboot of humanity, after the ejection from Eden and the Great Flood, by the perfect and all-knowing god.

[Safe-Keeper]

Luke 12:33
33Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
=====================================

Again the emphasis is on placing our spiritual treasures above our material ones. Taken literally it would mean to become irresponsibly destitute to the point of not being able to care for self or family members.So if it's a bad idea or you otherwise dislike it, it's a metaphor? How incredibly convenient.

[skeptical]

The scriptures provided have to be understood in context:

Luke 12:33
33Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
=====================================

Again the emphasis is on placing our spiritual treasures above our material ones. Taken literally it would mean to become irresponsibly destitute to the point of not being able to care for self or family members.


I see. So, "sell your possessions and give it to the poor", which seems to be very plainly a direct injunction from Yeshua himself to his followers, is in all actuality meant to be metaphorical and not taken seriously.

In contrast, "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day", which seems to be very plainly a nice little myth to be told around the camp fire, is in all actuality meant to be taken literally and if you don't, welcome to the fire pit heathen.

Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Kind of reminds me of this: http://russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/welcome.html

[Safe-Keeper]

http://russellsteapot.com/images/comics/2007/Image043.jpg:D


Jesus was referring to the Pharisees' habit ofHow do you know this? I cracked open biblegateway.com and found the whole passage. Excerpt:

Matthew 5
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&version=31#fen-NIV-23278h)] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&version=31#fen-NIV-23279i)] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


Matthew 6
1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites [...]

So Matthew 5 is for everyone, but Matthew 6, which appears to be part of the same sermon, suddenly applies only to a select few? I don't see a header saying 'If not Pharisee, please disregard', do you?

And then, on the same page:
25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=6&version=31#fen-NIV-23310b)]?Does this apply only to Pharisees, too, then, since it's in Matthew 6? And what about this, in the opening of Matthew 7?

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Does this apply only to Pharisees, too?

Again, where in the Bible do you find this disclaimer saying "If not Pharisee, disregard Matthew 6":confused:?

[Tumblehome]

BTW
I know you enjoy this sort of thing but my question was, well, simply a question.
If you don't have an answer, why answer? In short, please stick to the subject.
That's if you're really interested in a good discussion. If not-well, then that's your choice I guess.


First of all, I did answer your question to the best of my ability:

Probably the same way Christians justify contradictory or currently "immoral" teachings of a 2,000-year-old book.

"Oh, those parts are just metaphorical" or "That's a wrong interpretation", or whatever.


If you want it put another way, you yourself provided it in this very thread:

The scriptures provided have to be understood in context:


Of course, what really jumped out at me in your question is the irony. An apologist for all the contradictions in the bible pointing out the holes in another religion's beliefs is rather ironic, don't you think?

[Safe-Keeper]

How do those who claim to still be under Mosaic law justify their neglect of offering up the specified animal sacrifices? Or of building a temple as Solomon did or at least a tabernacle in order to follow that law as specified? Last time I checked there was a big mosque in the way, and its owners tend to be a bit territorial about it.

And yes, Radrook, your question's been answered in post two: the Jews get around the areas in their Holy books that they don't like pretty much the same way you Christians get around the uncomfortable areas in your Scripture.

[Tumblehome]

Nah, the biggie is "that's just the old covenant. Jesus brought a new one and we can ignore the sacrifices and katy-dids and grasshoppers and not eating lobster and killing gays and stuff."


So, to sum up:

Christianity: A completely new religion with a radically different worldview that was popular with the masses, stitched atop the local, very different, dominant religion which it simultaneously disclaims 90% of, excepting the parts that aid the popularity.


Or, if you believe in it:

Christianity: The 3rd reboot of humanity, after the ejection from Eden and the Great Flood, by the perfect and all-knowing god.


I vote for your first version. :) You hit the bulls-eye with that one.

[Radrook]

First of all, I did answer your question to the best of my ability:
If you want it put another way, you yourself provided it in this very thread:

Of course, what really jumped out at me in your question is the irony. An apologist for all the contradictions in the bible pointing out the holes in another religion's beliefs is rather ironic, don't you think?

And you care so much for other people's beliefs that you call their sacred book trash! Now that's the mother of all hiporcracies right there. As for your ability to answer, if that's all you got then that's all you got. However, that doesn't mean I havta have it on my screen like an eyesore dies it?

BTW
If I really wanted to punch holes, I wouldn't do it in a roundabout way. I'd simply go straight ahead and punch holes the way you and your cronies do but mich bigger. So please don't underestimate my ability to punch holes by tagging this simple question as an attempt at punching one.

[I Ratant]

...

Of course, what really jumped out at me in your question is the irony. An apologist for all the contradictions in the bible pointing out the holes in another religion's beliefs is rather ironic, don't you think?
.
Same thought here.
RR is looking for ways to deflect the attention his apologies for his flawed religion gather by pointing out flaws in other religions.. "See, they do it too!" kinda thinking.
All that diversion does, and should lead to, is , they can't all be right, QED, but they can all be WRONG!
It's truly boring to see it come up over and over and over...

[skeptical]

The scriptures provided have to be understood in context:

Luke 12:33
33Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
=====================================

Again the emphasis is on placing our spiritual treasures above our material ones. Taken literally it would mean to become irresponsibly destitute to the point of not being able to care for self or family members. (bolding mine)

Having thought about this a little more, I had one other comment.

The part I have bolded above is true, but it is only true in the light of 2,000 years of observational evidence that Yeshua is not coming back any time soon, the end is not "nigh", and the only practical thing to do is to interpret this passage metaphorically.

If you knew to a moral certainty that God's kingdom was coming in glory in the next few days or weeks at most, then there is nothing irresponsible at all about giving your possessions to the poor. After all, what good would material wealth do you when the physical world is about to end and a new reign of God on Earth is about to begin. Yeshua certainly preached that the end was nigh, that God's imperial rule was imminent, and it is beyond reasonable doubt that this was a widley held belief in early Christian circles. In that context, the passage is perfectly clear: give up your possessions, God is coming in a matter of days and give no thought to the future as long as you have repented your sins.

It is only because we have 2,000 years of no return of Yeshua, no rapture, no God's kingdom on earth and a lot of recorded examples of people who thought the world was about to end and who were wrong that believing this passage is meant to be taken literally seems "irresponsible". Only the evidence that we have observed makes it so.

This is exactly the same reason that rational people read the Genesis story as allegory: the observational evidence that we have accumulated makes a literal belief in those stories untenable. Those stories were as good as any for our origins before we had observational evidence, but now we know better. This is exactly the same situation with the Yeshua injunction. Without 2,000 years of contrary observational evidence, there would be no reason to doubt that the end of the world was imminent. (after all, this is coming from a guy who raised the dead, healed the sick and walked on water) But now that we have the observational evidence, it looks like Yeshua cannot have meant that to be taken literally. Same goes for Genesis.

There is no principled reason to read the Yeshua injunction metaphorically while reading Genesis literally. The only principled reason to reject either one is that they are in disagreement with a large body of observational evidence. By using this evidence, one would conclude that both were intended to be metaphorical and not literal. Or, one could reject that observational evidence is important and accept that both are to be taken literally.

In no case however can one reject one as literal and accept the other as literal in a principled way. To do so is just cherry picking what is subjectively comfortable, which hardly seems like a legitimate enterprise.

[Tumblehome]

And you care so much for other people's beliefs that you call their sacred book trash! Now that's the mother of all hiporcracies right there. As for your ability to answer, if that's all you got then that's all you got. However, that doesn't mean I havta have it on my screen like an eyesore dies it?

BTW
If I really wanted to punch holes, I wouldn't do it in a roundabout way. I'd simply go straight ahead and punch holes the way you and your cronies do but mich bigger. So please don't underestimate my ability to punch holes by tagging this simple question as an attempt at punching one.


Caring or not caring about others' beliefs has nothing to do with it. I don't know where you're coming from with that.

This is a skeptical forum where points are discussed/argued from a logical perspective. I merely pointed out, from that perspective, the irony of your OP.

You have every right to believe in a literal bible, but if you want to discuss it on this forum, then you're going to get what you get here because, like it or not, a literal reading of the bible does not make logical sense, no matter how it's fudged with "interpretation" and "context". And if you then question the logic of others' beliefs, that's just plain ironic. No way around it.

I'm sure I've never referred to the bible as trash, but I'll say right now it is trash as the literal truth. However, it is wholly understandable as a collection of metaphors and symbolism. I'm occasionally blown away by the level of creativity and the insights into human nature found in the bible. It gives us a peek into the mind of Middle East man 2,000 years ago, and shows us how different and similar we are today. From those perspectives, the bible certainly is not trash.

For the record, I think your question is legitimate, just as legitimate as questions about logical holes in Christian beliefs. I, just as legitimately, considered the source of the question. I have a tendency to be too glib in my replies sometimes, and if that's what you're reacting to, my apologies. I can understand that, but that's just me. You're free to put me and anyone else on ignore, but picking and choosing what you want to read on this forum defeats the purpose of being here in the first place, I would think.


Sincerely,

Tumblehome

[Tumblehome]

.
Same thought here.
RR is looking for ways to deflect the attention his apologies for his flawed religion gather by pointing out flaws in other religions.. "See, they do it too!" kinda thinking.
All that diversion does, and should lead to, is , they can't all be right, QED, but they can all be WRONG!
It's truly boring to see it come up over and over and over...


I agree with your logic, of course :), though I don't know what his motivation was for posting the OP. I have to admit I was surprised by it, considering who posted it.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by Tumblehome
Probably the same way Christians justify contradictory or currently "immoral" teachings of a 2,000-year-old book.

It isn't a 2000-year old book. That's basic knowledge which calls into question any other statements made.



"Oh, those parts are just metaphorical" or "That's a wrong interpretation", or whatever. You know the drill.

This is ridiculous!

There are legitimate reasons for biblical scholars saying that any given part of the Bible is metaphorical and they have absolutely nothing to do with what you imagine the reasons are.

BTW
What's your reason for saying that the Bible is only 2,000 years old?

[Radrook]

Because every single person on this planet who labels themselves a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian does not follow their "holy book" to the letter, they all choose some bits to follow and discard the rest of the instructions.


.If it catches on then 99% of the posts would be missing and you'd be our of a job. : )

BTW
I wasn't attacking your tithing custom. Just asking how it's justified. But since it seems to have struck a nerve and you are an administrator I apologize and promise to use the google whenever anything having to do with tithing comes t my mind. If there is any other subject that I should use google with instead of posting it here and offending people please let me know. Although I really don't see why the google suggestion isn't applied to questions having to do with non Jewish subjects. But who am I to say.

Galatians 3:10
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not -in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.


Romans 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

[Darat]

What on earth are you going on about?

[Safe-Keeper]

The part I have bolded above is true, but it is only true in the light of 2,000 years of observational evidence that Yeshua is not coming back any time soon, the end is not "nigh", and the only practical thing to do is to interpret this passage metaphorically.:slaps forehead: Of course!

Matthew 16:28: 'I tell you the truth: some standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.'

Should have thought of that. Thanks a lot. Makes perfect sense now:). Of course, as you said, if the end of the world is only a few days, weeks, months or years away... it doesn't matter. Might as well let the poor have a good life before the chaos starts.

PS: Sorry about the formatting. The forum keeps messing up my quote boxes no matter how many times I edit the post.

There are legitimate reasons for biblical scholars saying that any given part of the Bible is metaphoricalSuch as that it's the year 2008 CE and the godless liberals who threw God out of school also made it illegal to kill people who gather firewood on the Sabbath?

[Robin]

How do those who claim to still be under Mosaic law justify their neglect of offering up the specified animal sacrifices? Or of building a temple as Solomon did or at least a tabernacle in order to follow that law as specified?
Or slaughter disobedient children at the village gates as the law specified.

[fromdownunder]

It isn't a 2000-year old book. That's basic knowledge which calls into question any other statements made.

BTW
What's your reason for saying that the Bible is only 2,000 years old?

The Bible as we know it (unless you want to claim that the NT is not part of the Bible) must be less than 2,000 years old, since some of the events described in it occured less than 2,000 years ago, if in fact they happened at all.

As well as this, the Bible as we know it did not exist before the 4th Century of the Common Era - about 1,600 years ago. So would you please explain what you are trying to say here?

Norm

[Beerina]

"2000 years" is inaccurate. It is an assemblage of many books, each of which date to a different time across a thousand years or more. Their "final form as we know it", that is.

Most (all?) books themselves were modified over decades or centuries, and many are a conglomeration of different, earlier works, in and of themselves, making the whole date issue completely ludicrous. The date of the assemblage as a whole has nothing to do with the developmental history of the constituent books.

Even the strictest, believer viewpoint, that all the writings were guided by God, admits there were many different books by different authors at different times. Hell, most of the numerous, smaller books are named after their specific authors.

[slingblade]

What on earth are you going on about?

He got your post and mine confused.


I wasn't trying at all to say that questions shouldn't be asked here.

What I was trying to say is that if Radrook thinks Biblical illiteracy is so high here, then we are probably not sufficiently literate enough to answer his questions satisfactorily. Thus, asking us anything about the bible seems counter-productive for him, since he swears none of us know much about it.

See, it's badly done to accuse people over and over of ignorance, but still drag your questions to those same people. Oh, sure, I'm happy to try to answer that, just so I can invite more name-calling and insults from Rad about my supposed ignorance.

Thus, it would probably be better for him if he seeks answers from other sources, like google, and not from us dummies. Or else shuts up about how stupid we are.

[Tumblehome]

BTW
What's your reason for saying that the Bible is only 2,000 years old?


Oh, never mind. You keep saying it isn't 2,000 years old, but don't tell us why we're "wrong", just so you can feel superior.

I think now that I Ratant was right about your motivation for starting this thread. I was willing to give you the benefit of doubt, but that was wasted. I'm not interested anymore.

[Radrook]

The Bible as we know it (unless you want to claim that the NT is not part of the Bible) must be less than 2,000 years old, since some of the events described in it occured less than 2,000 years ago, if in fact they happened at all.

As well as this, the Bible as we know it did not exist before the 4th Century of the Common Era - about 1,600 years ago. So would you please explain what you are trying to say here?

Norm


My misunderstanding. I thought you were saying that it's individual books could not be traced beyond 2,000 years.

BTW
The OT makes up the major portion of the Bible from a Christian standpoint. As to your doubting the historical record, this is the first time that I come accross anyone doubting a written account of a people's history. Do you doubt the written history of any other Middle Eastern people? You know, like the Syrians, Arabs, Lebanese?

[calebprime]

grammar police derail.

it's =

it is

the possessive is just its.

It's wrong to use the possessive when its feelings are hurt.

[Achán hiNidráne]

And you care so much for other people's beliefs that you call their sacred book trash! Now that's the mother of all hiporcracies

No, it's not "hipocracy" (sic) to point out the factual errors and moral shortcomings of a "sacred book' when that tome is held over everyone's head as a source of science, history, law, and ethics.

I think this rather pretty young lady makes my case for me...

h1ImMtHrrKo

By the way, Troublehome is right, no one said your holy book is trash... untill now.

The Bible is trash.

Of course, Radrook has had me on "Ignore" every since I pointed out that he was lying about evolution, so I guess I'm preaching to the choir.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Double post.

[I Ratant]

No, it's not "hipocracy" (sic) to point out the factual errors and moral shortcomings of a "sacred book' when that tome is held over everyone's head as a source of science, history, law, and ethics.

I think this rather pretty young lady makes my case for me...

h1ImMtHrrKo

By the way, Troublehome is right, no one said your holy book is trash... untill now.

The Bible is trash.

Of course, Radrook has had me on "Ignore" every since I pointed out that he was lying about evolution, so I guess I'm preaching to the choir.
.
All books "revealing" the "truth" are trash.

[fromdownunder]

The Bible as we know it (unless you want to claim that the NT is not part of the Bible) must be less than 2,000 years old, since some of the events described in it occured less than 2,000 years ago, if in fact they happened at all.

As well as this, the Bible as we know it did not exist before the 4th Century of the Common Era - about 1,600 years ago. So would you please explain what you are trying to say here?

The OT makes up the major portion of the Bible from a Christian standpoint. As to your doubting the historical record, this is the first time that I come accross anyone doubting a written account of a people's history. Do you doubt the written history of any other Middle Eastern people? You know, like the Syrians, Arabs, Lebanese?

See the bolded part - where did I mention anything about the historcal record in my post. Perhaps you should reread my post, or you should have read it properly before responding. Or do you just like making stuff up?

Norm

[Radrook]

See the bolded part - where did I mention anything about the historcal record in my post. Perhaps you should reread my post, or you should have read it properly before responding. Or do you just like making stuff up?

Norm



The Bible as we know it (unless you want to claim that the NT is not part of the Bible) must be less than 2,000 years old, since some of the events described in it occured less than 2,000 years ago, if in fact they happened at all.....
Norm



What is described in the NT is part of the historical record. Jesus and the apostles and all the earliest disciples of Jesus were Jews. Christianity originated in Palestine. So are you saying that what is described in the NT should not be considered as part of their historical record? 'I'm not trying to be difficult or annoying. Just asking, But if you feel that I am being annoying then just ignore my question and I won't bring it up again.

[Parsman]

Most written "histories" from ancient civilizations of 2000 years ago are not regarded as 100% accurate by modern historians. For an example I just finished "The Roman Triumph" by Mary Beard. In it she pointed out that the histories and carved monuments we have from the Roman civilization, one of our better attested ancient civilizations, were often innacurate, contradictory or "legendary". I don't see why we should afford the bible any more regard than any other ancient historical writing and should therefore treat anything it says with an extremely large pinch of salt.

[Darat]

I'd suggest with a pillar of salt.

[Radrook]

Be my guest.

[Fiona]

Measuring our supreme love for Christ against other lesser loves may make these lesser loves seem like hate by comparison....

"When you say “hill,”’ the Queen interrupted, ‘I could show you hills, in comparison with which you’d call that a valley.’"


:D

[fromdownunder]

What is described in the NT is part of the historical record. Jesus and the apostles and all the earliest disciples of Jesus were Jews. Christianity originated in Palestine. So are you saying that what is described in the NT should not be considered as part of their historical record? 'I'm not trying to be difficult or annoying. Just asking, But if you feel that I am being annoying then just ignore my question and I won't bring it up again.

I am not saying that the NT could not be part of a "historical" record.

What my post intended to mean (and in retrospect, it was a bit blunt - for which I apologise) was that there is no more evidence for the Canonical Gospels, or the legitimate letters of Paul being genuine history than there is for Forest Gump being a real person.

There is simply nothing that tells me that these books are historical. Which is probably a discussion that belongs on another thread, since this thread is not about that subject, and already seems to be going in about thirty different directions anyway.

Norm

[tomwaits]

I am not saying that the NT could not be part of a "historical" record.

What my post intended to mean (and in retrospect, it was a bit blunt - for which I apologise) was that there is no more evidence for the Canonical Gospels, or the legitimate letters of Paul being genuine history than there is for Forest Gump being a real person.

There is simply nothing that tells me that these books are historical. Which is probably a discussion that belongs on another thread, since this thread is not about that subject, and already seems to be going in about thirty different directions anyway.

Norm

Well, there are other sources attesting to the existence of Jesus, like Josephus and Tacitus, so it is likely that there was a person named Jesus (or Christus/Yehoshua/Yeshua/Iesu) that had a small following. With all the followers who apparently knew Jesus, as well as other contemporaneous accounts, it can reasonably be concluded that this was a real person. However, many...ahem...liberties were taken with the life and various actions of the person.

[Wally]

To quote from the introduction to "Bored of the Rings":
The tale grew in the telling.

[fromdownunder]

Well, there are other sources attesting to the existence of Jesus, like Josephus and Tacitus, so it is likely that there was a person named Jesus (or Christus/Yehoshua/Yeshua/Iesu) that had a small following. With all the followers who apparently knew Jesus, as well as other contemporaneous accounts, it can reasonably be concluded that this was a real person. However, many...ahem...liberties were taken with the life and various actions of the person.

I agree, that the authors of the Gospels and Paul more than likely based Jesus on a real person. Josephus has two references - one or both possilbly partial interpolations. Tacitus, as a source, I am less convinced about. IIRC, his reference is about Christus, and Christians, and he does not mention Jesus (Yeshua, whatever) by name. And he was certainly writing several decades after Jesus was supposedly crucified, and after the synoptics and letters of Paul had been written.

Norm

[Radrook]

I see no reason why the two individuals would write the following about someone who never existed. If indeed they wrote this about someone who never existed they would have been ridiculed during their time. Where's is the expected contemporary ridicule which it is reasonable to expect when one makes supposedly false declarations of such a type? Josephus doesn't even challenge the veracity of the miracles! Why?



Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote:

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

Josephus, in the Antiquities, Book 20, 200. James, the Brother of Jesus is also mentioned.

"Convened the Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish religious court / governing body). He had brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law, and handed them over to be stoned."

=================================================

Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas


Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:

". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).
================================================
Luke 3:1
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/the-historical-jesus-faq.htm

If indeed Jesus never existed, it is reasonable to expect that his enemies would use that as an argument against him. But the don't, Anyone here willing to explain why the Jewish opposers to Jesus never used that argument and still don't? IN fact, they never even denied that he performed miracles. They said that the miracles he did perform were due to sorcery. So how does that fit in with a supposedly none-existent Jesus who never performed miracles?

Are we to gullibly believe that his enemies were so kind and generous as to cut him some rope? Since when do religious opposers practice that kind of leniency especially when the opposers were trying to get him killed? Unravel that tidbit with your supposed higher criticism.




There is also a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings that give a few clear references to Jesus called

the Babylonian Talmud
written approximately A.D. 70-500. The most significant reference from this period states,


"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald. . .cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.'" The name, Yeshu, is actually the name, Jesus, in Hebrew. However, upon reading the passage, we know for a fact that Jesus was not hanged, but that He was crucified, but the word, "hanged" serves as a synonym for "crucified." And what about the statement that Jesus was to be stoned? This could indicate that the Jewish leaders were planning to do just that, but the Roman Government intervened on those plans.http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/the-historical-jesus-faq.htm

Scriptural quotes and bolding mine

================================================

The truth of the matter is that all this casting of doubt on the veracity of the biblical historical record concerning Jesus is merely based on the popular belief that miracles are impossible and that the person reporting such miracles must be lying and that the person performing them must be mythical. That's the flimsy presupposition it's based on and nothing more.

The presupposition itself of course can be proven easily to be illogical but since when has logic been a serious consideration for this type of pseudo-intellectual pursuit?

bTW

I find thecounterarguments against Josephus' record of Jesus unconvincing. A desperate grabbing at straws at best.

[Old Bob]

This thread started out on animal sacrifice, it still goes on with blessing by the RSPCA. Kosher killings are disgusting, the priest (Jewish) mutters over the held beast and slowly slits its throat. To bled out brings on horrid cramps till death takes over, but that goes on under the guise of religion. Major abattoirs have a section for kosher meat ritual and it should be stopped. For a race that some say went through the holocaust they don't mind inflecting pain on animals.