|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5864 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Cherry Picking the Bible- Leviticus and Other OT Rules | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I'm glad ramoss brought in the Jewish understanding.
quote:Of the 613 laws from the Bible, which ones has God actually enforced? quote:But do they even follow the one's they pick? What you call cherry picking is nothing more than not following laws that have gone obsolete. Unfortunately they do dredge up old ones to suit their purpose. It is like pulling up an obsolete law that is still on the books and enforcing it today.
**Bathing is prohibited during the winter. **Citizens are not allowed to attend a movie house or theaternor ride in a public streetcar within four hours after eating garlic. Someone could bring them up and choose to follow them, but officials aren't enforcing them anymore. I guess they have to have a reason for their actions. Reminds me of an old Dead Zone show. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Given what ramoss has stated
Out of the 613 laws on the book, many are currently invalid, since they specifically deal with the Temple, and there isn't any temple. Out of the ones that are left, God does not 'enforce' any of them. They are rituals and restrictions that the Jews have 'chosen' to follow to be able to live a more sanctified life, and become closer to god. and that Chritianity proclaims they are not under the law, the question remains: Why dredge up old rules? I haven't had a Christian who dredges give me a reasonable answer to that question yet. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I think you need to read Genesis again. Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. No mention of marriage or what constitutes marriage. What I see above is a creative way of describing procreation. That's pretty standard for the animal kingdom that I have seen. As far as prohibition against homosexuality...
Lev 20:13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. this verse only concerns men and since there were some very strange religious rituals within other cultures, I wonder whether it concerns that, as opposed to, a loving relationship. You change it if you include women.
quote:But why aren't all the laws applicable today? Clean and unclean food, circumcision, not creating hybrids, etc. Why are only some still applicable? That is the question. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Not in the sense that you are. Maybe because I do genealogy, I have a different outlook. My husband and I are not one flesh. The child produced from our union is one flesh. So I agree with Ringo on that one. Sarah gave Hagar (her maid) to Abram for the sole purpose of bearing a child. Did Abram really become one flesh with Sarah's maid as well as Sarah? How many wives did Jacob have? One flesh? The Hebrew word "ishshah" translated as wife in this verse can also be translated as woman or female, just as the Hebrew word "iysh" which is translated man in this verse can also be translated as husband or male. I don't know Hebrew to know what nuances determine whether it is translated woman or wife. My guess is that it is possessive. When a man talks about his woman, then she is his mate and we translate that as wife and vice versa. Mating or procreation doesn't constitute marriage. The story of Adam and Eve is a very very very old story. Probably from the time of small tribes. Procreation and companionship were important, not the formalities. Even here in the states, early settlers would go ahead and consider themselves "married" and function as such until the traveling preacher could come around and perform the marriage ceremony. Not being legally married didn't stop them from procreating.
Ge 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. If this verse in Genesis is the basis for marriage, then why have the rules of marriage changed over time? I think it just shows that it takes a man and a woman to create a baby. Etymology of our English word "wife".
Ephesians 5:31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. This verse supposedly by Paul is over 500 years later and oddly enough I think it was used, in a time of arranged marriages, to get men (not that all men of the time did) to stop looking at women as just a means of procreation. This was a letter addressing a specific group. But that doesn't change the meaning of the Genesis story.
quote:But homosexuality isn't about marriage. It is about sexual relationships and companionship, which as I pointed out above, doesn't need "marriage" to happen. quote:Yep, that's pretty much the answer I usually get and it still doesn't make sense. It's purpose is over, but it still holds. So that means we should still be following all the laws. But we don't, not even the ones concerning marriage. Please show me how all those laws "still hold." Edited by purpledawn, : Fixed etymology link. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I didn't. I looked at the way it was used. There has to be something in the way that it is used, that determined which English word was used. I can understand why the English word "wife" was used. Eve was Adam's mate and vice versa. quote:Oddly enough male and female were thought by some to already be literally one flesh (Genesis 1-Male and Female) before God took the female part of Adam and made Eve. I have difficulty with the one unit idea since the mean were allowed to have more than one wife. My money is still on mating. They unite and a child is the one flesh that emerges.
quote:Why do you think they didn't want to wait for the preacher? Marriage is a formality. quote:That's the point. Marriage is a manmade formality. The rules change throughout the ages. quote:Levite marriages, dowry's, arranged marriages, mixed marriages, rights of the wife/husband upon the spouses death, etc. Having sex does not equal being married. If you want to say that making a pledge to the other person is what constitutes a marriage, that's fine, but no pledge was made in the Adam and Eve story. I always thought it was strange that the verse stated that a man would leave his father and mother and cleave to the woman, but makes no mention of the woman's family. But if you look at ancient marriages, it seems that the woman actually leaves her family and not necessarily because she wants to (Tamar).
quote:That's what I said: This verse supposedly by Paul is over 500 years later and oddly enough I think it was used, in a time of arranged marriages, to get men (not that all men of the time did) to stop looking at women as just a means of procreation. quote:And this is when the backpedaling starts. quote:But does the reality still exist? IOW, does the need for the law still exist? People still murder, so yes.People still steal, so yes. People still raise cattle, so ...? People still grow crops, so ...? Women still have periods, so ...? Do we follow all the laws or not? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Those situations still exist, so are those laws still needed? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Are you nudging me?
I think you already know my thoughts on Genesis 1 & 2 concerning their timeline. Sorry I hadn't read your post about the combined male and female aspects. I think that arises from people trying to reconcile them in the order they appear in the Bible.
quote:I feel that cleaving has sexual implications. Not as obvious as the uncovering the feet approach , but that's the impression I get. I think it is a birds-and-the-bees type of story. I agree that the story says man cleaves to woman because they are similar (unlike the other animals of creation), but I don't feel the story is mandating legal marriage. Marriage was already a part of the culture when the story was written down.
quote:I'm really glad we got you guys out of that mode. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Just something I remembered reading, although, I think it was a Jewish writing. Of course the idea of the "one flesh" being a child also came from a Jewish reading. So I guess they compliment each other. Separate so they can procreate. quote:I can accept it as a description of what was, but not a decree of what must always be. ABEI think we've gone a little past what my point was (which I apparently botched) when I first answered mjfloresta's Message 8 concerning his comment. mjfloresta writes: In Genesis, at creation specifically, when God established marriage and all of the accompanying relations as between one man and one woman...All of the Levitical laws pertaining to sexual relations fall under the umbrella of this "creation ordinance of marriage", including the prohibition of homosexuality... There isn't enough said in Genesis 2:24 to be an umbrella concerning all sexual relations. Since Genesis 1 is a priestly writing, I doubt that the A&E story carried much weight when the laws were established for the temple or otherwise. If you read the 613 Mitzvot, you will find no laws were pulled from Genesis 2, but "to be fruitful and multiply" was pulled from Genesis 1:28. Edited by purpledawn, : Added Comments "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:So you're saying that if the laws in the OT don't demonstrate love of God or Love of neighbors, then it need not be followed. Loving homosexual relationships don't interfere with loving God or loving your neighbor any more than a heterosexual relationship. So then why is that a law that is still pinpointed? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Don't leave me hanging.
I still want to discuss how the purpose of the law is over but they still hold even though we don't follow all of them. Please see my Message 45 quote:Also where is this explained? Mark 12:30 'And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and will all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' 12:31"The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." This just says that there are no commandments greater than these two, not that we stop following the others. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, which means to interpret them correctly. Not sure how that tells us today which OT laws to follow and which ones not to follow. So why dredge up the one about homosexual men? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I hate when that happens. In our own venacular fulfilling a law means to obey it and righteous means doing what is right or just.
quote:The Bible writings do not support that the law must be obeyed "perfectly", which I assume by saying that you mean never to miss the mark even a smidge. See below for those deemed righteous. As far as Romans 3:9. Paul (not Jesus or God) is making the charge that all people, Jews, and Gentiles alike are controlled by sin. His "quote" stating that no one is righteous is made up of verses from five different songs (Psalm 14:1-3 or 53:2-4, 5:9, 140:3, 10:7, and 36:2) and Proverbs 1:16.
Psalms 14:1 Fools say in their hearts. "There is no God." They deal corruptly, their deeds are vile, not one does what is right. quote:I agree with this in the sense that he followed the spirit of the laws, but I don't agree with the "no other can" part. Others were spoken of as righteous by the synoptic writers. Mark 6:20 for Herod was afraid of John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was very perplexed; but he used to enjoy listening to him. Luke 1:5-6 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. Luke 2:25 And there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him. Luke 23:50 And a man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council, a good and righteous man Even in Mark, Jesus supposedly didn't care to be referred to as good.
Mr 10:18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good ? No one is good except God alone. quote:That may help others to fulfill/obey the laws, but it doesn't change the laws. It should make it easier for us to follow them. Jeremiah 31:33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. quote:What life do you feel people were trying to earn? The laws weren't given to earn a life. They were devised for a budding nation. The punishments associated with the OT laws don't pertain to the afterlife, they pertained to physical life. If I break any of our laws, I still suffer the punishment, even if it is death.
quote:They are the spirit or the intent behind the laws concerning our behavior in life. Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. In the Jewish venacular of the time, to abolish or destroy the law means to interpret it incorrectly, just as to fulfill the law means to interpret it correctly. As you pointed out in the teachings of Jesus, he brought forth the spirit of the law which is interpreting them correctly. So given what we have both stated so far, what we have is Jesus teaching the spirit or intent behind the laws (love God and love your neighbor as yourself). That didn't change or stop any laws in his time. But as the teaching continued through Judaism and Christianity, those cultures as they matured continued to change and update their laws. Even the oral law came about as a way to upgrade and allow the laws to change with the culture. Since Jesus stresses the spirit of the law, the question still remains: Why dredge up old laws that are obsolete? The loving homosexual relationships today do not go against the golden rule or loving God. Why hang on to it. Adultery no longer carries a death sentence. The act of adultery is not a loving gesture towards one's spouse and is not a nice thing to do, but no death sentence. Divorce wasn't a two way street in Moses' time. Only men could give papers and just for the fact that the woman couldn't bear children. Not a way to love your neighbor. Now it is a two way street. It isn't loving to your neighbor to keep them in a bad or dangerous marriage. We no longer put mediums to death. The verse used against homosexuality only concerns men, but it has evolved to include women. Even adultery has evolved to be different than its origin.
Bible Encyclopaedia and Scriptural Dictionary, 1902 In the common acceptation of the word adultery denotes the sexual intercourse of a married woman with any other man than her husband, or of a married man with any other woman than his wife. But the crime is not understood in this extent among Eastern nations, nor was it so understood by the Jews. With them, adultery was the act whereby any married man was exposed to the risk of having a spuriious offspring imposed upon him. An adulterer was, therefore, any man who had illicit intercourse with a married or betrothed woman; and an adulteress was a betrothed or married woman who had intercouse with any other man than her husband. I understand why most of the OT laws are obsolete and how we (United States) have matured past the need for death sentences (except in extreme murder cases), but I don't understand why Christians need to dredge up the ruling against male homosexuals. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I fixed the link in Message 28 for the etymology of wife. Thanks
I read Arach's response, but I do feel they may have been more matriarchal in the ancient tribal times. Of course matriarchal doesn't play out the same way patriarchal does. Many of the Native American tribes were matriarchal.
My grandmother responded, “You can be the head, but I will be the neck, and wherever the neck turns, the head has to follow.” I have "The complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Judaism" by Rabbi Benjamin Blech. I like this statement made in Chapter 2.
The Midrash takes note of another difference between man and woman: Man was created from the dust of the earth, woman from a bone of Adam. Bone is stronger than earth; an earthenware jar when it falls shatters into may pieces; a vessel of bone remains firm and whole. Woman, concludes the Midrash, is blessed with greater emotional inner strength. A remarkable observation for an ancient text considering that Ashley Montagu, the respected American anthropologist and social biologist, wrote the following in the twentienth century: "Though women are more emotional than men, men are emotionally weaker than women; that is, men break more easily under emotional strain than women do. Women bend more easily, and are more resilient." This comment I find interesting also.
And when the Talmud wonders why, at the time of Revelation, God told Moses to first "speak to the daughters of Israel" before addresssing the men, and to ask them whether they wished to recieved the Torah, the response is: "Because the way of men is to follow the opinion of women." (Guess the world hasn't changed that much after all in thousands of years!) The book even addresses Arach comments on the way women were treated.
All of this, of course, doesn't mean that throughout Jewish history women were treated equally or acknowledged for their superior traits. Jews were affected by their environments as well as by the currents of foreign cultures inwhich they lived. Yet, Judaism rather than Jews always taught the nobility of women. It even made it a requirement for every Jewish husband to sing a song of praise to his wife on Sabbath eve extolling her virtes and calling her a "woman of valor." Just goes to show that what the Bible supposedly says isn't necessarily what is practiced. That's why I disagree with people pulling "laws" from the Bible out of context of the time and actual practice of the religion the law belongs to. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I tried to find more on the History of Wedding Vows but haven't come across much besides the link. I think they would much rather sell me a book.
In the early history of wedding vows, this commitment was not necessarily between two people, but between a person and an entire village. In ancient times, people drew together to find safety in numbers. The very first wedding vows in history were most likely a symbol of a newcomer’s commitment to watch over and protect a tribe or group, in exchange for their protection as well. Even as late in the history of wedding vows as the Middle Ages, marriages were considered more an affiliation between families than a symbol of romantic love. quote:That's why I don't think the term "one flesh" refers to the act of marriage or love and commitment between two people. Some Jewish sources consider the one flesh to be a child. The man and woman cleave together (sex) and the result is one flesh (child). It is a creative way to say that man needs a woman to have a child and not those other animals that Adam was checking out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Message 48
I understand why most of the OT laws are obsolete and how we (United States) have matured past the need for death sentences (except in extreme murder cases), but I don't understand why Christians need to dredge up the ruling against male homosexuals. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I wonder if these interpretation techniques arose from the need to keep the old writings applicable beyond their time. Just like the "cherry picking" today. People can let go of what they want or feel is obsolete, but hang on to what they want even if it is obsolete. Is that selective reasoning?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024