Jesus Question

Bringerofpie · Post by **Bringerofpie** » 18 Dec 2007 14:16

I think he was referring to the 613 Mitzvot (of which "Be fruitful and multiply" is one of them). Mitzvot, by the way, literally translates to commandment.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 18 Dec 2007 15:16

huh? Some of those 613 are like huh? What? You needed to reiterate that point?

From the way it reads this only applies to Jews.

right?

Bringerofpie · Post by **Bringerofpie** » 18 Dec 2007 17:14

I didn't understand the first half of your post, but I think that the mitzvot apply to anyone who follows the old testament (but I could be wrong).

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 18 Dec 2007 19:42

Bringerofpie wrote:I didn't understand the first half of your post

Joe, I believe that what FlexThis was trying to say was that the list of mitzvot seems very repetative. For instance:

13. To love other Jews
--- and ---
15. Not to hate fellow Jews

That seems a bit redundant. Like, if I am commanded to love other Jews, it seems a little unnecessary to then command me to also not hate those same Jews. Its late, and I don't feel like digging too deep right now, but there seems to be quite alot of this sort of repetition involved. For instance:

157. Not to have homosexual sexual relations
158. Not to have homosexual sexual relations with your father
159. Not to have homosexual sexual relations with your father's brother

OKay, leaving aside the entire issue of the rightness-or-wrongness of homosexuality and/or incest, doesn't it seem that #'s 158 and 159 are simply unnecessary re-iterations, that they are pretty much already sufficiently covered by rule #157? I mean, if you're going to follow rule number 157, why would rules 158 and 159 even be necessary? Okay, forget I asked. I'm pretty sure I don't really want to even hear the answer to that one...

I really don't want to go on with this all night. I don't really have time to go through all 613 mitzvot tonight. I did just want to finish with this question, though:

Regarding the last three on the list, #'s 611, 612, and 613...
If I wish to follow all the Mitzvot, should I therefor purposefully and deliberately go forth and find a woman to take captive? Of do these only apply if some other unrelated circumstances should lead me to take some woman captive?

Post by **Zac Miley** » 18 Dec 2007 20:07

613 Mitzvot is pretty interesting.

I thought this was really funny though:

# He is never allowed to divorce her
# The slanderer must remain married to his wife Deut.
# He must not divorce her

This isn't just any marriage though, it's about if you rape somebody you have to marry them and blah blah blah.

Religion.

PoisonTaffy · Post by **PoisonTaffy** » 19 Dec 2007 00:00

Strange, I've looked it up and the list is totally different in Hebrew websites.
13 - don't feed passover food to a gentile slave
15 - don't put passover meat outside
157-159: disallowing to eat various types of non kosher animals

The translation is awful even where the commandments are similar, but I couldn't find any redundancy.

It is also said that the list was compiled around the 13th century, so trying to judge someone from Jesus's time according to it would probably be futile.

Sporatical_Distractions · Post by **Sporatical_Distractions** » 19 Dec 2007 10:43

I've never heard of a commandment to have children.

As far as I knew, there were only the 10 commandments

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 19 Dec 2007 14:15

Man... Every once in awhile someone on here or other forums posts a topic asking snarky questions about religion like they've found some amazing gap in honest, textual driven, Christian theology. Now I've never read the Da Vinci Code or any of that garbage, so I might be arguing from a higher plane here, but really you're questions are absurd to anyone with an understanding of Christ's teachings and their relation to the Jewish teachings that came before them.

First, one thing that should be established right away is that Jesus was no kind of a Jew. A descendant of the tribe of Judah he was, granted, but he was not Judean by nationality (For he was from Galilee and thus and Israelite) nor a Jew by spirituality as the scripture attests. He was certainly not was a follower of what American Christian gentiles or American Jews would consider "Jewish" by today's standards, or even by the standards of his time. When Jesus responded to Pilate that he was indeed "King of Jews", he wasn't saying he was leader of any particular religion centered in Jerusalem, but rather the son of man in general and heir to the monotheistic tradition. In fact, most of the "Jews" that Jesus railed against were descendent's of Esau and the Land of Edom, Esau being the brother of the Jacob founder of the Jewish religion.

Either way, our modern understanding of the terms "Christian" and "Jew" come more of the 4th century than our of 1st century CE realities, as most people tend to think.

With all that in perspective, it is absolutely incorrect to expect Jesus to have gone about trying to fufill the Talmudic laws. What should be expected, on the other hand, is what Jesus actually did; which was to break the laws which by circumstance, or stance itself got in the way with holy living as Jesus went about his holy life. Off the dome, here are a few of the general Judaic laws (Whether traditional oral or Pharisaic) that Jesus broke:

Ignored the law of burial
Ate while "unclean"
Ate and fed others on a fast day
Gave "misleading" advice
Shamed a fellow "Jew"
Bore a grudge
Gave teachings different from traditional authorities

The overriding point here in regards to trying to hold Jesus up to modern Jewish standards, is that when Christ came, he wiped clean the sins of ALL mankind. With this came Christian liberation from the ancient laws of different tribes struggling to survive in a hostile environment.

As far as procreation goes, and whether it is frowned or smiled upon, the answer is neither. In my opinion, G-d prizes those who abstain from intercourse in the same way he prizes one who abstains from drink or unhealthy foods or curses. Still, I don't know why God would abhor the same process he implemented to keep us repopulating, assuming the process is used maturely.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 19 Dec 2007 14:18

The overriding point here in regards to trying to hold Jesus up to modern Jewish standards, is that when Christ came, he wiped clean the sins of ALL mankind. With this came Christian liberation from the ancient laws of different tribes struggling to survive in a hostile environment.

Repeated for emphasis.

Bringerofpie · Post by **Bringerofpie** » 19 Dec 2007 14:54

Isilwar wrote:613 Mitzvot is pretty interesting.

I thought this was really funny though:

# He is never allowed to divorce her
# The slanderer must remain married to his wife Deut.
# He must not divorce her

This isn't just any marriage though, it's about if you rape somebody you have to marry them and blah blah blah.

Religion.

I think we found different lists. As far as I know, the six-hundred and thirteenth commandment is to destroy the seed of Amalek.

And to the last poster (I forget who it was, sorry) I was under the impression that Jesus was of either Nazareth or Bethlehem, both of which were in Judea.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 19 Dec 2007 15:11

The fact that there are so many different gospels written about Jesus, some of which are completely contradictory to each other and some of which we know were hidden after the Catholic Church tried to suppress, but none of which give any real suggestion of a relationship is enough that we should confidently say, given the evidence, we should assume that theory is false.

Just to touch on something that I think has done a lot damage to Christian theology over the ages, and probably the root cause of most of the animosity that so many people feel towards Christianity today, is the merger between the Roman Empire and the greater Christian populace. This great transition from the Christianity of the Apostles to the pseudo-Christianity of the patriarchs and emperors--the transformation of Christianity to Churchianity, from Christ worship to Idol worship, began largely with Constantine and effectively wiped out the Christianity that had arisen in Alexandria. This is significant because for a long time Christianity had been a Greek based religion, with most of it's texts scribed in Greek and its greatest gains coming in lands conquered by Alexander and thus made Greek. The difference between the power shift from Alexandria to Rome has to deal with the more cheerful, sunny nature of Greek ideology, as opposed to the darker, more morose death worshiping off the Latin's. Thus, most of the injustices throughout Christian history can be attributed to the Heathenism of the Roman See, and not to the other See's in Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, or Jerusalem.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 19 Dec 2007 15:38

By the way Jeremy, I thought your post was very good. Israel and their Muslim enemy's deserve nothing but indifference from us, as long as they go about killing each other. Fact is, their is a powerful Jewish lobby in this country, and Jew's have been given worldwide victim status after the Holocaust. Where do you propose we go from here to resolve this issue?

And to the last poster (I forget who it was, sorry) I was under the impression that Jesus was of either Nazareth or Bethlehem, both of which were in Judea

.

Good question. Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem, in Southern Israel near Jerusalem, but he spent nearly His entire human life in Galilee, in northern Israel, first at Nazareth, and then at Capernaum. You're only error comes when you say that Nazareth was in Judea, when it is in fact nearly dead center in greater Galilee, just north of the town of Armageddon across the Valley of Jezreel. Jesus' disciples were fisherman of that sea, and most of his miracles were performed in that town. Jesus at times was even afraid for his life into and preach in Judea.

Bringerofpie · Post by **Bringerofpie** » 19 Dec 2007 16:47

Oh, okay. My knowledge is lacking in the area of Jesus's life. I do know, however, that his name was Joshua ben Judea. That's mostly it.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 19 Dec 2007 17:09

Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in Bethlehem. One only needs to look at the story to see that.

We are meant to believe that a census was carried out where the entire population was expected to move to the place where one of their ancestors was born 1000 years ago in order to be counted. We are meant to believe that the government had records of exactly where everybody's ancestors were born 1000 years ago, but didn't have records of where the people lived now. For 1000 years that would be, at a very conservative for the times generation gap of 30 years 33 generations to keep track of. We can probably assume it would only mean keeping track of the male side of the family, but that's still an exhaustive amount of records and for what purpose? Why would they need to return to the place their ancestor was born in 1000 years ago to be counted? Why 1000 years? Why not 500 years of 50 years? Who would be providing the business; the accommodation and the food while this was going on if everybody was moving around away from their jobs? Here's an even bigger question; when you consider the massive size of this census and the fact that governmental records seem very well preserved from that time, why is there absolutely no mention of it occurring anywhere apart from in a couple of books of the Bible? Why did nobody else feel the need to write about a census that required everybody in the country to travel to the birthplace of the ancestors 1000 years ago in order to be counted? Doesn't that sound like something people might record?

However it's important to note that the prophecy of the Messiah was that he would be born in the city of David; which was Bethlehem. If he wasn't born in Bethlehem he wouldn't fulfil all the of the prophecy (not that he did anyway; hence the second coming) and so Luke made up this story in order to claim that Jesus did fulfil the prophecy. It's important to note both Gospels that claim Jesus was born in Bethlehem were written over 80 years after Jesus was born, so with no records of his birth, this was an easy way of them to further try and convince people that he actually was the messiah.

mc · Post by mc » 19 Dec 2007 22:04

I always love reading your posts on this kind of matter, jeremy. they make me think so much.

my thought on that last one is that your proof that Jesus almost certainly was not born in Bethlehem is hinged on taking that explanation of what Mary and Joseph were doing in Bethlehem literally. If the Bible is as fallible a book as we seem to agree it is, it doesn't make sense to also hinge the validity of one of its assertions on the accuracy of one story.

I personally don't give the book much credit, but I haven't read it.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 20 Dec 2007 01:30

Good point, although it doesn't really make sense that Luke would make up a story to fulfil a prophecy, if the prophecy was fulfilled anyway. It makes far more sense that he made up the story for a reason, rather than there being a rational explanation and him just making up something ridiculous anyway. Of course that wasn't a proof, as you only really prove things in maths, but certainly part of the point is that the bible has no credibility for a book of any truth considering they make up stories deliberately to trick people into thinking that Jesus met prophecies that he didn't. Of course the same can be said for all ancient religious texts.

Guest_1 · Post by **Guest_1** » 04 Feb 2008 13:20

FlexThis wrote:huh? Some of those 613 are like huh? What? You needed to reiterate that point?

From the way it reads this only applies to Jews.

right?

Right! But if Jesus was a Jew, he would be obligated to have children.

Isilwar wrote:613 Mitzvot is pretty interesting.

I thought this was really funny though:

# He is never allowed to divorce her
# The slanderer must remain married to his wife Deut.
# He must not divorce her

This isn't just any marriage though, it's about if you rape somebody you have to marry them and blah blah blah.

This is to protect women. In secular life, a woman's consent doesn't seem very important. Very few people see an issue with drunk sex. Jewish law on the other hand states if a girl were to get drunk and have sex at a party, that would constitute rape. It's a much different circumstance, and the woman is not obligated to marry the man-he on the other hand can't refuse or divorce her.

InfecedTofu wrote:Strange, I've looked it up and the list is totally different in Hebrew websites.
13 - don't feed passover food to a gentile slave
15 - don't put passover meat outside
157-159: disallowing to eat various types of non kosher animals

The translation is awful even where the commandments are similar, but I couldn't find any redundancy.

It is also said that the list was compiled around the 13th century, so trying to judge someone from Jesus's time according to it would probably be futile.

The Mishnah has existed since the time the Torah was given at Mt. Sinai. The laws were always there but the Shulchan Aruch was compiled for easy reference.

Sporatical_Distractions wrote:I've never heard of a commandment to have children.

As far as I knew, there were only the 10 commandments

There are actually 613 for Jews. Non-Jews have 7 commandments they need to abide by.

Guest_1 · Post by **Guest_1** » 04 Feb 2008 13:30

Dan. I'm going to tear your argument apart

BainbridgeShred wrote: First, one thing that should be established right away is that Jesus was no kind of a Jew. A descendant of the tribe of Judah he was, granted, but he was not Judean by nationality (For he was from Galilee and thus and Israelite) nor a Jew by spirituality as the scripture attests. He was certainly not was a follower of what American Christian gentiles or American Jews would consider "Jewish" by today's standards, or even by the standards of his time. When Jesus responded to Pilate that he was indeed "King of Jews", he wasn't saying he was leader of any particular religion centered in Jerusalem, but rather the son of man in general and heir to the monotheistic tradition. In fact, most of the "Jews" that Jesus railed against were descendent's of Esau and the Land of Edom, Esau being the brother of the Jacob founder of the Jewish religion.

Neither Esau nor Jacob were the founders of the Jewish religion. In fact, Esau was a bad guy. Abraham was the founder of Judaism and Jacob and Isaac are two of the other forefathers.

With all that in perspective, it is absolutely incorrect to expect Jesus to have gone about trying to fufill the Talmudic laws. What should be expected, on the other hand, is what Jesus actually did; which was to break the laws which by circumstance, or stance itself got in the way with holy living as Jesus went about his holy life. Off the dome, here are a few of the general Judaic laws (Whether traditional oral or Pharisaic) that Jesus broke:

Ignored the law of burial
Ate while "unclean"
Ate and fed others on a fast day
Gave "misleading" advice
Shamed a fellow "Jew"
Bore a grudge
Gave teachings different from traditional authorities

The overriding point here in regards to trying to hold Jesus up to modern Jewish standards, is that when Christ came, he wiped clean the sins of ALL mankind. With this came Christian liberation from the ancient laws of different tribes struggling to survive in a hostile environment.

Actually Jesus was required to follow the Talmudic laws. The laws in the Talmud are an elaboration of the laws in the Torah. A man does not have the ability to decide laws are irrelevant or wrong when G-d has already decreed and explained them.

As far as procreation goes, and whether it is frowned or smiled upon, the answer is neither. In my opinion, G-d prizes those who abstain from intercourse in the same way he prizes one who abstains from drink or unhealthy foods or curses. Still, I don't know why God would abhor the same process he implemented to keep us repopulating, assuming the process is used maturely.

G-d actually does say to have children and smiles upon it. There's nothing wrong or sinful about sex when done in the appropriate manner (i.e. not getting girls drunk at a party to take advantage of them) but to make love to one's wife. You're also not supposed to abstain from drink either. You shouldn't abuse it, but you shouldn't 'abstain' from it either. In fact, very friday night Jews consecrate the Sabbath over a glass of wine. Pru Urvu is the law and it's quite clear men are obligated to have children. One boy and one girl.

Bringerofpie · Post by **Bringerofpie** » 04 Feb 2008 14:44

And the torah says nothing about some cussin'.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 06 Feb 2008 18:02

Dan. I'm going to tear your argument apart

Dude, if you're going to try and sound like me, then you better come through with the goods. Instead, the only thing your post tore apart was anyone's appreciation of you as a functioning human being; much less any kind of authority of scripture.

Neither Esau nor Jacob were the founders of the Jewish religion. In fact, Esau was a bad guy. Abraham was the founder of Judaism and Jacob and Isaac are two of the other forefathers.

Dude, is this something you even care about, or did you just run a quick Google search in order to come in here and try to prove me wrong or something?

No shit Esau wasn't a founder of the Jewish religion. That was a small part of the very point I was trying to prove. Go back and actually read my post this time. The Pharisee's that Jesus went up against were Edomite's, descents of Esau and not Jacob, and thus, not Jewish by origin! You are repeating the very things I've already said.

Trying to paint Esau as a Biblical "bad guy" however, is simplistic ans shows someone not well versed in his verse. Also, it's important to remember that during the time the two were fueding, Jacob wasn't such an upstanding character in a lot of ways himself.

Also, it's true that Abraham was indeed the Patriarch (And in some ways then, the "founder) of the Jewish religion, but when you say this you must also remember that Muslims consider him the founder of their religion too. Thus, it's more practical to consider Jacob the founder of what we consider Judaism, since he birthed the original 12 tribes. Like I already said though, our concept of "Christian" and "Jew" comes from the 4th century; not from the 1st; and certainly not from the times of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the 12 Tribes. So again, the way this discussion is being shapped is inherently wrong to begin with. Either way, to read one sentence of mine independently, without looking first at the context I wrote the said sentence in in this discussion, is misleading.

Either way MarvlMan, you focused on 3 sentences at the very bottom of my paragraph to "rip apart", which really didn't have much to do with the overriding point of who Jesus actually was and his relation to Old Testament scripture. What you chose to focus on instead was the identity of the people who Jesus railed against, which really didn't have much to do with the original topic. And still, you come up blank.

Actually Jesus was required to follow the Talmudic laws. The laws in the Talmud are an elaboration of the laws in the Torah.

Dude, are you kidding me? Have I not already thoroughly established that Jesus was hardly a Jew by the standards we have today. He was not nationally a Judean either, and as the scripture shows, not a Jew by his own standards either. So why are you expecting the founder of a new religion to continue with the dogma's of a religion established loooooong before Jesus' time? You clearly don't have a grasp of what is being discussed here.

Either way Mr. MarvlMan, who was it that "required" Jesus to follow the Talmudic laws? The Pharisee's? The Sadducee's? The High Priests? Obviously Jesus had no regard for them, so what point is it that you are trying to prove? Or is there no point, and are you just looking for silly intracacies in my post to try and "tear apart", while not even actually engaging in the original discussion.

It's like this kid: For you to look back at Jesus from now, in the year 2008, and say "Well I've been told all my life that Jesus was a Jew-and I know that Jew's have to follow A, B, and C laws sooo two and two together equals-" is absolutely terrible reasoning to follow. You say he was required to follow the Old Testament laws, but it is obvious from the scripture and the examples I already stated that he didn't when the situation called for it. So what can be deducted from the fact that you say he was "required" to follow these Jewish laws, but DID NOT in fact follow them? Makes sense that he never really was Jew in spirit to begin with, right?

So far you 2/2 for restating the things I've already proven. First you said, as I did, that Esau was not a Patriarch of the Jews, and that his descents were of a different nationality than those of his brother Jacob. As stated already, this is important because the people who hated and crucifiex Jesus were for the most part, not descendents of Jacob the founder of Israel. And here in your second paragraph, you further prove that Jesus was not a Jew in the traditional sense, since as you say he didn't follow those Old Testament laws that got in the way of his mission- a mission which was more important than silly trivialties regarding burial laws, and eating on holy days.

So instead of "tear your argument apart" you really should have said "Dan I'm going to co-sign your argument completely because I really don't know what I'm talking about but I dislike your personality so I'll assume you are wrong go on Google and look some things up real quick and then come back and write some stuff here and click submit." I do that shit sometimes too MarvlMan, and usually end up looking as dumb as you do right now. Well maybe not as dumb.

A man does not have the ability to decide laws are irrelevant or wrong when G-d has already decreed and explained them.

Hm.... Anyone with a 3 year old's understanding of scripture want to tackle this one for me? No three year olds out there? Alright, well MarvlMan, Jesus was God, and if not, had the backing of God, so that point is totally, 100% moot.

G-d actually does say to have children and smiles upon it. There's nothing wrong or sinful about sex when done in the appropriate manner (i.e. not getting girls drunk at a party to take advantage of them) but to make love to one's wife. You're also not supposed to abstain from drink either. You shouldn't abuse it, but you shouldn't 'abstain' from it either. In fact, very friday night Jews consecrate the Sabbath over a glass of wine. Pru Urvu is the law and it's quite clear men are obligated to have children. One boy and one girl.

You totally missed the point of what I was saying, in the same way that I figure you have missed the Gnostic and transendant ascept of Christ and his message. Christianity was never meant to be a religion where you could go open a book and say "Oh, look here, God is fine with sex and drinking as long as you do both to his accord".

Christianity is a religion that has to do with giving up the material world, which is where sex and drink fall. Christianity is a religion that says you are already saved from your sins and that God will care for you in the next life no matter who you are or what you've done. So for you to think that sex and drinking for humans, even in moderation, is "good" thing in God's eye, we'll it only furthers my point that you have not the slightest grasp of Christian theology. This isn't to say that God despises such behaviour, it's simply to say that God saved your soul by sending Jesus to die and that it'd be really cool to give thanks to him by getting above your pitiful worldy desires. This is what I meant when I said "In my opinion, G-d prizes those who abstain from intercourse in the same way he prizes one who abstains from drink or unhealthy foods or curses". All these things are worldly, so while not sinful or something that will ruin your life, you'd be better to leave them behind and devote yourself to the big man.