Capital punishment vs. Abortion?

[Dog Welder]

Treading into new waters here...I don't usually come to this part of town.

I personally believe in the death penalty and abortion. I believe that the death penalty is flawed and that the system needs to be changed. But lets face it....some people in this world just need to be put out to pasture and shot.

I find it hypocritical how people who support the death penalty, flip their s#it when it comes to abortion. Or support abortion yet oppose the death penalty.

Discuss...

[stevew]

A fetus never killed anyone. Inconvenience, maybe...

[Silver]

I find it hypocritical how people who support the death penalty, flip their s#it when it comes to abortion. Or support abortion yet oppose the death penalty.


Without getting into a long discussion about the nature of a fetus (and aren't those always fun) I have no problem being anti death penalty and pro-abortion rights. I don't approach it from a sacredness of life angle, and if death penalty wasn't so uncertain, and application of it so capricious, I would support it's use.

[Silver]

A fetus never killed anyone. Inconvenience, maybe...

Is that an argument for or against? And to which point?

Doesn't matter, I guess, because it's wrong anyways...

[stevew]

Is that an argument for or against? And to which point?
Neither.

Doesn't matter, I guess, because it's wrong anyways...
Wrong how? What is considered life?

[Changleen]

What about a carrot?

[fluff]

Oh shucks, I thought this was gonna be a wrestling thread. My bad.

Good names for wrestlers though...

[narlus]

Oh shucks, I thought this was gonna be a wrestling thread. My bad.

Good names for wrestlers though...


now that's some funny stuff!

[Ciaran]

While I would be against my wife having an abortion I do not want her right to have one taken away. For me the debate isn't about whether abortion is right or wrong, it's about our government telling us what we can or can't do with our bodies. Moral debates belong in the home or in church, not the courtroom.

IMO no government has the right to tell me what I can or can't do with my body!

[valve bouncer]

IMO no government has the right to tell me what I can or can't do with my body!
Do they have the right to tell ya you can't flash ya knob at nuns?

[manimal]

For me the debate isn't about whether abortion is right or wrong, it's about our government telling us what we can or can't do with our bodies.

and here is the heart of the issue. at what point does is it no longer just "your body". if another body is in your body....then who can decide what to do with that body.

to me, this is the only reason that there is an issue. if i want a tatoo with a certain ink that will give me cancer...i can get it. if i want to get drunk every night and kill my liver....so be it. but if i want to kill (hottly debated part here) the living body inside a pregnant woman....it's no longer a "personal" decision...it is now pluralistic.

[Changleen]

and here is the heart of the issue. at what point does is it no longer just "your body". if another body is in your body....then who can decide what to do with that body.

to me, this is the only reason that there is an issue. if i want a tatoo with a certain ink that will give me cancer...i can get it. if i want to get drunk every night and kill my liver....so be it. but if i want to kill (hottly debated part here) the living body inside a pregnant woman....it's no longer a "personal" decision...it is now pluralistic.Only if you define a foetus as a 'person'. Which it clearly isn't, by any measure.

[Andyman_1970]

I'm personally pro-life, which includes the death penalty. I find it hypocritical to hear Christians who froth about abortion but turn a bind eye to capital punishment.......either all life is sacred or it's not.

[Silver]

I'm personally pro-life, which includes the death penalty. I find it hypocritical to hear Christians who froth about abortion but turn a bind eye to capital punishment.......either all life is sacred or it's not.

It's not. Who do you think is the pro-war contingent in this country? I'll bet if you drew a Venn Diagram with evangelical Christians and support for war (specifically Vietnam, Iraq, and our delightful escapades in Central and South America) you'd probably need a microscope to see that there were two circles.

If life is sacred, then killing innocent people in the name of fighting the godless Communists or Islamists shouldn't be justified.

edit: Dammit, quoted before I could fix it. Oh well...

[Changleen]

It's not. Who do you think is the pro-war contingent in this country? I'll bet if you drew a Venn Diagram with evangelical Christians and support for war in (specifically Vietnam, Iraq, and our delightful escapades in Central and South America) you'd probably need a microscope to see that there were two circles.

If life is sacred, then killing innocent people in the name of fighting the godless Communists or Islamists shouldn't be justified.If all life is sacred, what the fack are you going to eat?

[enkidu]

If life is sacred, then killing innocent people in the name of fighting the godless Communists or Islamists shouldn't be justified.
I totally agree. And Silver. . . I just started "The Sorrows of Empire" (Chalmers Johnson), which you recommended. Very engrossing and convincing.

[Silver]

I totally agree. And Silver. . . I just started "The Sorrows of Empire" (Chalmers Johnson), which you recommended. Very engrossing and convincing.

I think MikeD originally suggested Blowback by Johnson. So if you enjoy that book, throw a little credit his way...

(C'mon, no one picked up on the godless Islamists thing? I thought it was funny.)

[enkidu]

If all life is sacred, what the fack are you going to eat?
Any edible plants and animals. By eating them the "sacred life" will continue to live within you.

[Changleen]

Define 'animal' and why it is any different from 'human'.

[Jabuttri]

There are two distinct problems with the death penalty. First it is far cheaper to hold someone in prison for the entirety of their natural life then to put them to death. To that people respond that the death penalty is meant to be a deterant. However, it has been proven through a great number of studies that the death penalty isn't really much of a deterant to someone who is ready to take another life. With those two facts laid out there is really no reason to have a death penalty.

abotrion is also in the same category for me. However i am no a life starts at conception believer but rather in suport of an "untuched existance" philosophy where life begins when a fetus stands a significant chance of survival if not tampered with. About a week or two after conception. This argument doesn not ban the morning after pill or anything like that.

[Jabuttri]

[QUOTE=Silver]It's not. Who do you think is the pro-war contingent in this country? I'll bet if you drew a Venn Diagram with evangelical Christians and support for war (specifically Vietnam, Iraq, and our delightful escapades in Central and South America) you'd probably need a microscope to see that there were two circles.

If life is sacred, then killing innocent people in the name of fighting the godless Communists or Islamists shouldn't be justified.


Just for the Record Evangelical Christian who is not in suport of Bush or any of those wars. Im pretty sure KingHami is in the same ideological boat as well

[manimal]

Only if you define a foetus as a 'person'. Which it clearly isn't, by any measure.

again...the "hottly debated" part of the argument.

[kinghami3]

It's not. Who do you think is the pro-war contingent in this country? I'll bet if you drew a Venn Diagram with evangelical Christians and support for war (specifically Vietnam, Iraq, and our delightful escapades in Central and South America) you'd probably need a microscope to see that there were two circles.

If life is sacred, then killing innocent people in the name of fighting the godless Communists or Islamists shouldn't be justified.

edit: Dammit, quoted before I could fix it. Oh well...
Get your Evangelicals and your Conservatives straight in the first place. I believe the minority of Evangelicals support the war, and a diminishing majority of Conservatives support the war as well. Just take a sample from the Christians in this post, Andyman, JButtri, myself, and others, and you will find that our views are similar. We all are against abortion and the death penalty. Sometimes I get worked up over someone (Scott Peterson for example), but when I take a look back, I cannot bring myself to support killing a human in that context. War and self defense are different issues, but we must consider the reasoning behind each on a case by case basis. According to the Bible, Augustine's Just War, and views the Early Church on Christians in the Roman legions, I can say that killing is never good, yet is a necessity for the further preservation of human life. The War in Iraq does not fit in with that ideology.

[Old Man G Funk]

Like others that have commented, I have no problem with supporting abortion rights and being anti-death penalty. Personally, I think the death penalty violates the cruel and unusual punishment statute in the Constitution. Plus, economic reasons and the problems in the implementation of the death penalty also make for good arguments against.

For abortion, the government should not have the right to tell a person what to do with his or her own body, provided one does not violate the rights of others. The anti-abortion element will have you believe that the rights of another are violated in an abortion, but not by the state's standard. The state is not allowed to go by religious arguments (i.e. the soul enters at conception) and must rely on the scientific definitions of when the foetus becomes human. Also, it is a private matter between a woman and her doctor, so the state really has no business intruding into her privacy to even inquire as to whether she is pregnant or not.

[Old Man G Funk]

Get your Evangelicals and your Conservatives straight in the first place. I believe the minority of Evangelicals support the war, and a diminishing majority of Conservatives support the war as well. Just take a sample from the Christians in this post, Andyman, JButtri, myself, and others, and you will find that our views are similar. We all are against abortion and the death penalty. Sometimes I get worked up over someone (Scott Peterson for example), but when I take a look back, I cannot bring myself to support killing a human in that context. War and self defense are different issues, but we must consider the reasoning behind each on a case by case basis. According to the Bible, Augustine's Just War, and views the Early Church on Christians in the Roman legions, I can say that killing is never good, yet is a necessity for the further preservation of human life. The War in Iraq does not fit in with that ideology.
It is the vocal evangelicals (minority or not) that we hear the most from. If you do not like being grouped with them, perhaps you should speak with a louder voice? Protest instances where the evangelicals say they speak for your voice. They want to push for war? Protest against them. Make your voice heard so that the only voices we hear from the religious world aren't the most unreasonable.

[kinghami3]

It is the vocal evangelicals (minority or not) that we hear the most from. If you do not like being grouped with them, perhaps you should speak with a louder voice? Protest instances where the evangelicals say they speak for your voice. They want to push for war? Protest against them. Make your voice heard so that the only voices we hear from the religious world aren't the most unreasonable.
We do. I was in a particular protest that stopped I-5, which I am not particularly proud of. Until we get control of the media, it will remain that way.

[Old Man G Funk]

We do. I was in a particular protest that stopped I-5, which I am not particularly proud of. Until we get control of the media, it will remain that way.
Perhaps someone should call a fatwa on Pat Robertson?

Yes, the media are more than willing to report on the antics of these over-zealous evangelicals because it makes good copy. But, religious folks disavowing the evangelicals also makes good copy, and you do see articles from time to time, but not enough.

[Andyman_1970]

If life is sacred, then killing innocent people in the name of fighting the godless Communists or Islamists shouldn't be justified.

If we as followers of Jesus are going to take His teachings seriously I agree.............the problem is most Conservative Christians spend precious little time in the Gospels and more time in Paul's letters (which is backwards IMO)......and are thus ignorant of the difficult teachings of Jesus.

[Andyman_1970]

Perhaps someone should call a fatwa on Pat Robertson?

Don't get me started on Mr. Robertson.................:mumble:

[Old Man G Funk]

Don't get me started on Mr. Robertson.................:mumble:
That was supposed to be funny.

[Andyman_1970]

He makes me so ill I don't even take humorus comments about him well...............IMO he has done more to screw up the message of Jesus than anyone I can think of in recent years..........

[Old Man G Funk]

He makes me so ill I don't even take humorus comments about him well...............IMO he has done more to screw up the message of Jesus than anyone I can think of in recent years..........
Personally, if he didn't command such a loyal following, I think he would be one of the funniest people ever.

[kidwoo]

Personally, if he didn't command such a loyal following, I think he would be one of the funniest people ever.

I have no problem laughing at both him and his followers.

Then I remember that some of his followers vote............and I cry........in a manly sort of way.

[Andyman_1970]

If he wasn't a "spokesperson" for my faith so to speak, I'd feel the same way..................dude is out there..............

[enkidu]

Define 'animal' and why it is any different from 'human'.
A little tangential, but your musing about the validity of "eating human" brought to my mind some Biblical incidents. . . several incidents to tell the truth, but I'll restrain myself with only one for here. I hope you don't mind.

It's in John 6:31-58, where Christ famously says ". . . Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. . . For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

http://members.tripod.com/~Emmaus1/Emmaus.html will have the whole discussion about it, if you want to drill into it.

Yeah, so I guess, I do eat "human/God", just as Jews survived on mana, to remain in Him and He in me.

[Changleen]

I guess that's one passage that shouldn't be taken literally, then?

[enkidu]

I guess that's one passage that shouldn't be taken literally, then?
No, it's quite literal. All four gospels (eg. Luke 22:14-20) recount the last Passover supper he had with his apostles the night before he was crucified. He said, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. . . Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."

[JRogers]

Hmmm...Biblical Criticism on a Tripod site...mmmmmmm...suspect...


Anyway, yeah, Robertson is a nutter. Gives religion a bad name. He's the kind of clown that churches, if so many of them didn't have their heads up their own a$$es, should be renouncing. Absurd. I can't stand that crap.

[ummbikes]

If he wasn't a "spokesperson" for my faith so to speak, I'd feel the same way..................dude is out there..............

I am the rebel (not Republican....) Christian at my company (owned by a devout Christian, run by a former pastor, another former pastor is a salesman, my partner is a worship leader at our church) at any rate there are quite a few beleivers who could be called right wingers and even they are ready to have Robertson committed to an institution.


That said I am on record as being anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and anti-war.


Thou shall not kill. Exodus 20:13

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Romans 12:19

[enkidu]

Hmmm...Biblical Criticism on a Tripod site...mmmmmmm...suspect...
OK, try "Catechism of the Catholic Church", 1994. 2000 edition has useful Glossary and Index Analyticus. See under "Eucharist" and "Mass" for full discussions. Stuffy enough for you?:)

[Andyman_1970]

No, it's quite literal. All four gospels (eg. Luke 22:14-20) recount the last Passover supper he had with his apostles the night before he was crucified. He said, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. . . Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.".

You realize that to "drink blood" was to make oneself unclean according to Torah............remember Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, if He wasn't He would have been a false Messiah..........the early church was entirely Torah observant Jews until Acts 10.........Paul even says in Acts 23 he "is" a Pharisee (not was) which implies observance to Torah.

[Old Man G Funk]

No, it's quite literal. All four gospels (eg. Luke 22:14-20) recount the last Passover supper he had with his apostles the night before he was crucified. He said, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. . . Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."
And you don't think that the blood which had not yet been shed wasn't just symbolically represented by the wine in the cup?

[DRB]

to me, this is the only reason that there is an issue. if i want a tatoo with a certain ink that will give me cancer...i can get it. if i want to get drunk every night and kill my liver....so be it. but if i want to kill (hottly debated part here) the living body inside a pregnant woman....it's no longer a "personal" decision...it is now pluralistic.

What about the effect your getting drunk every night has on your kids. Or the fact that you smoke 3 packs a day in the house with them with right next to you. Those all of a sudden aren't "personal" decisions. Or that you fix unhealthy food and feed your kids the same stuff.

And even take the kids out of the equation, your choices have an effect on me in that insurance rates are increased because of the excess hospitalization caused by your dead liver and your rotten lungs. Or the fact that you eat too many donuts.

[-dustin]

pro-choice, pro-death penalty

[enkidu]

And you don't think that the blood which had not yet been shed wasn't just symbolically represented by the wine in the cup?

You realize that to "drink blood" was to make oneself unclean according to Torah............remember Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, if He wasn't He would have been a false Messiah..........the early church was entirely Torah observant Jews until Acts 10.........Paul even says in Acts 23 he "is" a Pharisee (not was) which implies observance to Torah.
"This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"(John 6:60). . . That's exactly what many of his Jewish disciples said and left him. But Christ did not try to stop them from leaving, saying "Oh, wait, I only meant as a symbol and a metaphor!" His statement is quite unequivocal:". . . For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him" (John 6:56)

Paul reiterates the importance of this tradition / institution of the "breaking of bread" (1 Corinthians 11:23). He admonishes that "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" (27) and "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." (29) He clearly takes the sacrament of the Eucharist literally.

And Andyman: Can it be that "the blood of the New Covenant" of the "unblemished lamb" of the ultimate Passover is the cup accepted by him at the garden of Gethsemani? Dying ignominiously naked and bleeding on the cross with common criminals surely was an "unclean" scandal. Christ accepted that cup of blood. So we, too, hopefully are given the courage and humility to accept it.

[Old Man G Funk]

"This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"(John 6:60). . . That's exactly what many of his Jewish disciples said and left him. But Christ did not try to stop them from leaving, saying "Oh, wait, I only meant as a symbol and a metaphor!" His statement is quite unequivocal:". . . For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him" (John 6:56)

Paul reiterates the importance of this tradition / institution of the "breaking of bread" (1 Corinthians 11:23). He admonishes that "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" (27) and "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." (29) He clearly takes the sacrament of the Eucharist literally.
You still haven't convinced me that it wasn't just metaphor. Jesus says many times that people will not believe in him and that they will turn away from him, so when people turned away from his blood, he wouldn't have been surprised. So, he could still be speaking metaphorically instead of literally.

Besides, John is a second (at best) hand account of the events that happened. How do you know that the words that were said and the actions that were reported are correct?

[Reactor]

I think the death penalty is highly suspect as a form of punishment. Far too many innocent people are imprisoned and put to death. Especially in states like Texas which seem to impose the death penalty on a weekly basis. Then there is the issue of what it says about a society. If it's wrong to kill and we have a crime called "murder" why does society kill?

As for abortion, I'm highly conflicted. There are cases where it's medically necessary, in those cases I can't see the logic in allowing a living breathing person die or suffer severe injury to "protect" a potential life. If someone considers a fetus a life, where does it end? What about eggs and sperm? or Zygotes that don't implant? After all two out of three fertilized eggs don't implant and the small dividing cluster of cells leaves the body.

Ethically I can't see my wife having an abortion unless there were severe problems with a pregnancy. I thinks in a era where birth control is available, elective abortions are senseless, in all but a few circumstances are senseless. Unfortunately not all people have real sex education or access to contraceptives.

As for scriptural accuracy, my personal belief, and I can't prove it, is that much of ancient scripture, of many faiths, was "dumbed down". You have scholarly enlightened individuals, thinking in complex, often abstract terms, trying to get a message across to illiterate goat herders and fishermen. I believe many concepts were transformed into stories, not to be taken literally, but to provide examples of the original abstract concepts. Over time some of these stories have probably been altered and they are retold and recopied.

So when a scripture says for example "make a pilgrimage on your hands and knees praying at each step" it probably means something like "you must make a pilgrimage, no matter how hard it is or what it costs, and contemplate/pray/meditate on your religion and place in the world, not being distracted by worldly problems"

If a scripture says "she was turned into a pillar of salt" it may mean "she was stunned, motionless and white as a salt". This happens with when passages are translated, re translated, reretranslated, altered to meet an agenda, edited, sliced and diced and turned int multiple different editions.

Some scriptures, like the the Torah, have been painstakingly preserved, and although very old, are far less likely to have been mistranslated, edited and misinterpreted.

[Old Man G Funk]

Some scriptures, like the the Torah, have been painstakingly preserved, and although very old, are far less likely to have been mistranslated, edited and misinterpreted.
Except that the Torah itself was passed by word of mouth many times before it was ever committed to paper.

[enkidu]

As for scriptural accuracy. . . I believe many concepts were transformed into stories, not to be taken literally, but to provide examples of the original abstract concepts. . .
Yes! Anthony DeMello captures that essence of stories beautifully in "The Song of The Bird" and "Taking Flight".

His glossary defines Theology as "The art of telling stories about the Divine. Also the art of listening to them." And Mysticism as "The art of tasting and feeling in your heart the inner meaning of such stories to the point that they transform you."

[Old Man G Funk]

Yes! Anthony DeMello captures that essence of stories beautifully in "The Song of The Bird" and "Taking Flight".

His glossary defines Theology as "The art of telling stories about the Divine. Also the art of listening to them." And Mysticism as "The art of tasting and feeling in your heart the inner meaning of such stories to the point that they transform you."
So, why do you insist that it is literally Christ's blood and body that you are eating?

[fluff]

I'd guess he's catholic

[Old Man G Funk]

I'd guess he's catholic
It doesn't matter. He can't say that what is written is to be taken literally, then turn around and agree that it's not to be taken literally.

[fluff]

It doesn't matter. He can't say that what is written is to be taken literally, then turn around and agree that it's not to be taken literally.

Well, he can. But he can't be consistent doing so.

[enkidu]

It doesn't matter. He can't say that what is written is to be taken literally, then turn around and agree that it's not to be taken literally.
As a clueless, but trusting, child I can physically truly hold on to my father's hand as we stroll on a mountain path and at the same time revel on how good fatherhood is and rejoice with other children who are holding onto their own fathers. No?

(I'm off to work now. Take care.)

[Old Man G Funk]

As a clueless, but trusting, child I can physically truly hold on to my father's hand as we stroll on a mountain path and at the same time revel on how good fatherhood is and rejoice with other children who are holding onto their own fathers. No?

(I'm off to work now. Take care.)
And you can be completely inconsistent and illogical too.

No, really, your little thought there is heart-warming and all, but ultimately pointless. You are still contradicting yourself.

[Andyman_1970]

Except that the Torah itself was passed by word of mouth many times before it was ever committed to paper.

Yeah by people who a) took it very seriously, b) had all sorts of time on their hands for memorization. It was very common in Jesus day for 12-14 year olds to have the whole Hebrew Scripture memorized........which in our modern world with all the distractions we look at as a monumental feat........which was commonplace in their time.

Anyway.........just a little tidbit I thought I'd share.

[Old Man G Funk]

Yeah by people who a) took it very seriously, b) had all sorts of time on their hands for memorization. It was very common in Jesus day for 12-14 year olds to have the whole Hebrew Scripture memorized........which in our modern world with all the distractions we look at as a monumental feat........which was commonplace in their time.

Anyway.........just a little tidbit I thought I'd share.
Generation to generation by word of mouth....I don't care how good they were at memorization. I wouldn't take it to be a literal, accurate representation.

[Andyman_1970]

Besides, John is a second (at best) hand account of the events that happened.

That's assuming the "old skool" model of Jesus' disciples being middle aged dudes.........which a rabbi would never have called disciples older than about 20 at most (Peter was the oldest at 20 when he was called). Some scholars place John's age at about 10, which would mean it could have been John the disciple who wrote the Gospel, letters, and Revelation.

[Andyman_1970]

Generation to generation by word of mouth....I don't care how good they were at memorization. I wouldn't take it to be a literal, accurate representation.

Ok............so don't...............LOL :)

[Reactor]

For what it's worth I think Jews have put far more effort into maintaining the integrity of their scripture than just about any other group I can think of. I've heard stories of Rabbi running into burning synagogs to save a Torah, without thought of any thing else. Jews fleeing Germany and Russia would take the Torah in lew of personal possesions. They have the oldest and probably most dedicated class of religious leaders I can think of. Even with the often heroic measures they've taken it'd still possible in the passage of thousands of years some of the original meaning has been lost.

[Old Man G Funk]

That's assuming the "old skool" model of Jesus' disciples being middle aged dudes.........which a rabbi would never have called disciples older than about 20 at most (Peter was the oldest at 20 when he was called). Some scholars place John's age at about 10, which would mean it could have been John the disciple who wrote the Gospel, letters, and Revelation.
Oh please. You have no evidence to back that up. John's gospel was written when? We don't even know that John was really the author of that gospel. Parts of the gospels are cribbed from one another. Accounts of things Jesus said while alone are included. Yeah, we can take that as accurate. Plus, if John was actually around and saw all this, why did he wait so long to write it all down? Why did he not mention what Jesus looks like? Why a lot of things really.

[Old Man G Funk]

That's assuming the "old skool" model of Jesus' disciples being middle aged dudes.........which a rabbi would never have called disciples older than about 20 at most (Peter was the oldest at 20 when he was called). Some scholars place John's age at about 10, which would mean it could have been John the disciple who wrote the Gospel, letters, and Revelation.
Also, at that time, 20 WAS middle aged.

[Andyman_1970]

Why did he not mention what Jesus looks like?

That's not something the Jewish/Eastern way of thinking deems important...............see you're using your Greek/Western way of thinking on a Eastern/Jewish document..........

[Andyman_1970]

Also, at that time, 20 WAS middle aged.

Have you read Josephus???

[Old Man G Funk]

Have you read Josephus???
Josephus or Eusebius?

[Andyman_1970]

Josephus, the Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities......they give a remarkable view into 1st century Jewish life.

[Old Man G Funk]

Josephus, the Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities......they give a remarkable view into 1st century Jewish life.
A remarkable view into the history of lineages and events, but not life in general. Really, it reads just like other accounts of the same time, like it was passed from mouth to mouth until someone decided to sit down and write it out. To use it to defend another account that was passed from mouth to mouth is flimsy at best.

[Andyman_1970]

A remarkable view into the history of lineages and events, but not life in general.

Dude are we going to agree on anything............LOL........I disagree it gives some great insight into 1st century Jewish "thinking".

Really, it reads just like other accounts of the same time, like it was passed from mouth to mouth until someone decided to sit down and write it out.

Flavius Josephus wrote his accounts with the intent of recording the events he was a part of.......not recording some oral tradition.........

To use it to defend another account that was passed from mouth to mouth is flimsy at best.

While I don't use it as a "defense" of Jesus, at least the mentions of it in his text, it does give some great insight into John the immerser, and typical "phrases" used in that time..........like "repent and follow me........" esspecially when read in the Greek along with the Greek in the New Testament.

[Old Man G Funk]

Dude are we going to agree on anything............LOL........I disagree it gives some great insight into 1st century Jewish "thinking".
Never! I refuse!
Flavius Josephus wrote his accounts with the intent of recording the events he was a part of.......not recording some oral tradition.........
That's not my understanding of it. That would be more like an autobiography.
While I don't use it as a "defense" of Jesus, at least the mentions of it in his text, it does give some great insight into John the immerser, and typical "phrases" used in that time..........like "repent and follow me........" esspecially when read in the Greek along with the Greek in the New Testament.
I would hope that you don't use it as a defense of Jesus as it's pretty well founded that the passages referring to Jesus were probably inserted by Eusebius (which is what prompted my earlier question.)

Can you point me to the chapters that deal with John the Immerser so that I can see the text for myself? (Yes, I have access to the text.)

[Andyman_1970]

Josephus Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119

[Old Man G Funk]

Josephus Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119
It says that Herod slew John (the baptist). When did this allegedly happen? When did John allegedly write the gospels, et. al.?

Herod was also supposedly around during the time of Jesus, which Josephus was not. How do we reconcile that? How do we reconcile that if John was slain by Herod, there's probably no way he could have written the gospels, et. al. when they were written?

[fluff]

It says that Herod slew John (the baptist). When did this allegedly happen? When did John allegedly write the gospels, et. al.?

Herod was also supposedly around during the time of Jesus, which Josephus was not. How do we reconcile that? How do we reconcile that if John was slain by Herod, there's probably no way he could have written the gospels, et. al. when they were written?

John the Baptist and John the disciple were not the same guy. But I also doubt that either wrote the gospel of John.

[Old Man G Funk]

John the Baptist and John the disciple were not the same guy. But I also doubt that either wrote the gospel of John.
Thank you for clearing that up. I was confused on that point due to Andyman's argument. The more I see of his argument though, the more I think that it is all sidetrack.

The "remarkable insight" into John was simply that he was killed by Herod and that he thought immersion could purify the body if the sould was already purified. One, I'm not seeing how this is so remarkable and two I fail to see what it has to do with the topic at hand.

[JRogers]

Some scholars place John's age at about 10, which would mean it could have been John the disciple who wrote the Gospel, letters, and Revelation.

Come on, you have to acknowledge that the likelihood of this is slim to none. Aside from church tradition and contrived (though earnest) attempts to justify it, there is little to back this up.

[JRogers]

OK, try "Catechism of the Catholic Church", 1994. 2000 edition has useful Glossary and Index Analyticus. See under "Eucharist" and "Mass" for full discussions. Stuffy enough for you?:)
The day I start turning to the Catholic catechism for interpretation and discussion is a long way off. I'll stick with my own stuffy sources.

[Andyman_1970]

It says that Herod slew John (the baptist). When did this allegedly happen? When did John allegedly write the gospels, et. al.?

Herod was also supposedly around during the time of Jesus, which Josephus was not. How do we reconcile that? How do we reconcile that if John was slain by Herod, there's probably no way he could have written the gospels, et. al. when they were written?

First Herod is a reference to the king of Judea, they were a dynasty called the Herodians (half Jews who sold out to Rome).......the Herod of Jesus birth was different than the Herod that had JTB killed.

It does give insight as to what John was all about.........something alot of Christians don't get esspecially with reference to baptism.......which is why I find it insightful.

There are two camps scholarship with reference to John's writing of the Gospel of John, one camp is 50-75 AD and one is 85 AD or after.

[Andyman_1970]

Come on, you have to acknowledge that the likelihood of this is slim to none.

Some of the lanugage used when Jesus references His disciples and John specifically in the Greek point to someone younger than 12.

[Westy]

Some of the lanugage used when Jesus references His disciples and John specifically in the Greek point to someone younger than 12.


Resisting the urge to make catholic preist joke, gaah ack. Must control self..............:blah:

[Andyman_1970]

Yeah Yeah Yeah...............

[Old Man G Funk]

It does give insight as to what John was all about.........something alot of Christians don't get esspecially with reference to baptism.......which is why I find it insightful.
What, the 2 sentences?
There are two camps scholarship with reference to John's writing of the Gospel of John, one camp is 50-75 AD and one is 85 AD or after.
No one (besides apologists) is saying that Gospel of John was written as early as 50 CE. The earliest dates are around 70 CE. You are thinking of Paul's letters which date to around 50 CE. Gospel of John is widely thought to have been written about 20 years (at least) after Paul's letters.

[Andyman_1970]

Yeah the 2 sentences that most of Western Christianity has ignored, gives great insight into the "why" of John's immersion (it was a Jewish mikvah) not something "new" that alot of Christian theologians think.

As to the 50 - 75 AD issue I disagree with your "only apologist" assertion.......John 5:2 where John uses "is" rather than "was" concerning the pool near the Sheep Gate. This may suggest a time before 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed.

From your favorite, Wikpedia.........

Today, most critical scholars are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three), beginning at an unknown time (50-70?) and culminating in the final edition (Gospel of John) around 95-100.

I'm not confusing it with Paul's letters........thanks..........

[Urban FR'er 666]

it is far cheaper to hold someone in prison for the entirety of their natural life then to put them to death.

WTF are you taking about?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mumble:
Are you out of your phucking mind?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:nopity:
To hold someone in prison, feed them 3 meals a day, supply electic/running water for the prison, hire guards to be there 24-7... All of this costs a #ell of a lott more that to put a rope around a persons neck, and pull the hatch release. Or to put them on a table and give them a shot. Or sit them in a chair and electricute them!:dead:

I got one word for you: "DUH":rolleyes:

[Silver]

WTF are you taking about?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mumble:
Are you out of your phucking mind?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:nopity:
To hold someone in prison, feed them 3 meals a day, supply electic/running water for the prison, hire guards to be there 24-7... All of this costs a #ell of a lott more that to put a rope around a persons neck, and pull the hatch release. Or to put them on a table and give them a shot. Or sit them in a chair and electricute them!:dead:

I got one word for you: "DUH":rolleyes:

That depends. If you're comparing what China spends to execute someone, I'd guess you're right. You are aware that executing someone in a civilized country usually has some other costs associated with it, no?

[Changleen]

WTF are you taking about?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mumble:
Are you out of your phucking mind?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:nopity:
To hold someone in prison, feed them 3 meals a day, supply electic/running water for the prison, hire guards to be there 24-7... All of this costs a #ell of a lott more that to put a rope around a persons neck, and pull the hatch release. Or to put them on a table and give them a shot. Or sit them in a chair and electricute them!:dead:

I got one word for you: "DUH":rolleyes:You're wrong. In America, it does cost less to hold someone for their natural than for an execution. You're completely overlooking the thousands of associated costs. The same way it costs the US government 12,000 dollars to install a toilet in public building, or the $20p/h labourer who the government actually pay $120p/h once the costs have been passed up to the sub-contractor, the contractor, the project management company, the architect, and finally to the government department.

[Changleen]

Here you go: It apparantly costs Texas $1,500,000 more for each execution vs. the cost of life in prison. Ouch. That's a lot of teacher's salaries.

[Reactor]

Here you go: It apparantly costs Texas $1,500,000 more for each execution vs. the cost of life in prison. Ouch. That's a lot of teacher's salaries.


I'll second that. The cost of a death penalty case is in the millions, legal fees, transportation, court fees, tying up a staff of prosecution for years, multiple appeals to federal, circuit, and supreme courts.

[Urban FR'er 666]

Well that my friends is: "THE COST OF STUPIDITY", as it would appear in this case that China is the smarter half!!!(I can't believe who I just stuck-up for)

[JRogers]

Some of the lanugage used when Jesus references His disciples and John specifically in the Greek point to someone younger than 12.
I was not referencing the age question, just the authorship one.

About that, though- as a matter of curiosity, what parts point to Jesus addressing someone that young? I know enough Greek to get by (getting rustier by the day...) but cannot think of anything off the top of my head that appears in the gospels and would be an obvious tip off.

[Old Man G Funk]

Yeah the 2 sentences that most of Western Christianity has ignored, gives great insight into the "why" of John's immersion (it was a Jewish mikvah) not something "new" that alot of Christian theologians think.
2 sentences. One of them is about the fact that Herod killed him. The other describes what he did. That's not "remarkable insight."

As to the 50 - 75 AD issue I disagree with your "only apologist" assertion.......John 5:2 where John uses "is" rather than "was" concerning the pool near the Sheep Gate. This may suggest a time before 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed.

From your favorite, Wikpedia.........
Low blow. I've stated I only use wiki for ease of use and only when it matches what other sources say (since anyone can change it.)

Also, I decided to double check your quote and I found it wanting.

From wiki:
Some other modern critical scholars concur with the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphical (i.e. those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). Some do not. For the Gospels, they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65, and Matthew some time between 70-85. Luke is usually placed in the 80-95 time frame.
And this:
Though John is agreed scholars place the gospel anywhere between AD 65 and 85, some scholars place the writing of the final edition of John later in the first or early second century.
(note: I'm using wiki here to counter your claim that it supports you.)
I'm not confusing it with Paul's letters........thanks..........
Perhaps not, but once again I find your claims to be inaccurate.

[Andyman_1970]

I was not referencing the age question, just the authorship one.

About that, though- as a matter of curiosity, what parts point to Jesus addressing someone that young? I know enough Greek to get by (getting rustier by the day...) but cannot think of anything off the top of my head that appears in the gospels and would be an obvious tip off.

There’s a passage when Jesus says “anyone that gives a drink of water to one of these little ones……….” (the specific passage escapes me………Matthew something) the Greek there gives the indication that He is referring to children, not to mention He is referring to His disciples.

[Andyman_1970]

2 sentences. One of them is about the fact that Herod killed him. The other describes what he did. That's not "remarkable insight."

With respect to the understanding of John’s baptism it gives some excellent insight which supports that John the Baptist was a rabbi, and that his immersion was for repentance, which is what the Jewish mikvah (ritual immersion) was for. Now I find it useful because many Christians try to place all sorts of meanings and understandings on John’s immersion that don’t line up with either Judaism or what Josephus wrote….so this is why I find it insightful.

There being useful information in that 2 sentences is not incumbent on you finding it remarkable or not…………..

Low blow. I've stated I only use wiki for ease of use and only when it matches what other sources say (since anyone can change it.)

Also, I decided to double check your quote and I found it wanting.

(note: I'm using wiki here to counter your claim that it supports you.)

Perhaps not, but once again I find your claims to be inaccurate.

The passage from John 5 still gives some evidence that it was written (not finished) when the Temple was still standing…….

[Old Man G Funk]

With respect to the understanding of John’s baptism it gives some excellent insight which supports that John the Baptist was a rabbi, and that his immersion was for repentance, which is what the Jewish mikvah (ritual immersion) was for. Now I find it useful because many Christians try to place all sorts of meanings and understandings on John’s immersion that don’t line up with either Judaism or what Josephus wrote….so this is why I find it insightful.
I don't recall it talking about repentance, just spiritual cleansing.
There being useful information in that 2 sentences is not incumbent on you finding it remarkable or not…………..
True dat, but there's really not much there at all. You are stretching on this one.
The passage from John 5 still gives some evidence that it was written (not finished) when the Temple was still standing…….
If I were writing something that supposedly took place before the toppling of the Berlin wall for instance, would I write that the wall is there or was there? This goes into the category of being able to name places and other things. It's called good narrative.

[Andyman_1970]

I don't recall it talking about repentance, just spiritual cleansing.

True dat, but there's really not much there at all. You are stretching on this one.

Do some research on mikvah and t'shuva........both are intertwined (along with the terms shalom and olam haba) and maybe you'll see where myself and many Jewish scholars have made that connection.

If you had been in as many baptism discussions (what does it mean, does it impute salvation, etc) then you'd see why that passage has the "weight" that it does.

If I were writing something that supposedly took place before the toppling of the Berlin wall for instance, would I write that the wall is there or was there? This goes into the category of being able to name places and other things. It's called good narrative.

Your assumption seems to be that John was "telling a story" rather than recounting actual events........an assumption I don't make. You're more than welcome to your assumption and opinion on the matter, I just disagree with it.

[Old Man G Funk]

Do some research on mikvah and t'shuva........both are intertwined (along with the terms shalom and olam haba) and maybe you'll see where myself and many Jewish scholars have made that connection.

If you had been in as many baptism discussions (what does it mean, does it impute salvation, etc) then you'd see why that passage has the "weight" that it does.
Here's the passage in question. I'll let others decide, although I will say that you are including mikvah in there where it's not mentioned.

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

Your assumption seems to be that John was "telling a story" rather than recounting actual events........an assumption I don't make. You're more than welcome to your assumption and opinion on the matter, I just disagree with it.
It's not an assumption that John is "telling a story" but a pretty well established fact. How could he have known what Jesus did and said in private? Also, the time lines are just too long. The writer also never self identifies, nor does the writer say that he was there. I'm not the one making assumptions and your are unsubstantiated.

[Andyman_1970]

Here's the passage in question. I'll let others decide, although I will say that you are including mikvah in there where it's not mentioned.

So it's doesn't say "mikvah".......did you actually look up that term or are you just trying to be arguementative for the sake of it? John the Baptist was a Jew correct? So if he's teaching that Jew's need to immerse as a sign of repentance what is that Jewish practice called?? Hint...........it rhymes with "ikvah".........LOL

It's context man, context.

The writer also never self identifies, nor does the writer say that he was there.

Study ancient Jewish literary techniques and you'll see that one would not refer to themselves as we do today (remember John was a 1st century Jew, not a year 2005 Greek/Western educated Gentile) - you wouldn't say "I ran up to the tomb with Peter on that Sunday.......", John uses an ancient literary device he refers to himself as (which is a very humble title.......LOL) "the one Jesus loved".

Anyway..............where is this discussion going?????????

[Changleen]

Anyway..............where is this discussion going?????????I was wondering the same thing ;)

Did you guys decide on anything? I have to admit I've only been skimming over the last couple of pages and it's all got a bit.. erm.. off topic.

[Andyman_1970]

Yeah I agree..........off topic is an understatement.......

[Old Man G Funk]

So it's doesn't say "mikvah".......did you actually look up that term or are you just trying to be arguementative for the sake of it? John the Baptist was a Jew correct? So if he's teaching that Jew's need to immerse as a sign of repentance what is that Jewish practice called?? Hint...........it rhymes with "ikvah".........LOL
Purification of the body does not necessarily mean what you are trying to make it mean. That's what I'm talking about.
Study ancient Jewish literary techniques and you'll see that one would not refer to themselves as we do today (remember John was a 1st century Jew, not a year 2005 Greek/Western educated Gentile) - you wouldn't say "I ran up to the tomb with Peter on that Sunday.......", John uses an ancient literary device he refers to himself as (which is a very humble title.......LOL) "the one Jesus loved".
And your basis for that is a bunch of stories written as stories. Duh. If you knew as much about this as you claim to, you would know that most of the stories were passed by word of mouth from generation to generation, thus making it impossible for the writer to be anything but a storyteller.
Anyway..............where is this discussion going?????????
I was answering Enkidu's comments about taking the Bible literally. As it is, we are way off topic, and it was way off topic to begin with. I just had to satisfy my own ego and answer Enkidu's inane comments about Biblical literacy.

[Andyman_1970]

Purification of the body does not necessarily mean what you are trying to make it mean. That's what I'm talking about.

So John the Baptist wasn’t a Jew?

And your basis for that is a bunch of stories written as stories. Duh. If you knew as much about this as you claim to, you would know that most of the stories were passed by word of mouth from generation to generation, thus making it impossible for the writer to be anything but a storyteller.

I’ve never made the claim that parts of the Bible weren’t passed down by oral tradition and then written down – I have said that I don’t believe that to be the case with the Gospel of John.

If you want to have a civil discussion about this that’s great………but if you’re going throw around stuff like “If you knew as much about this as you claim to..” – which BTW you don’t know me very well at all, they you and I can conclude this discussion now with a friendly…………..we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I just had to satisfy my own ego………...

At least your honest about that………….

[Old Man G Funk]

So John the Baptist wasn’t a Jew?
Um, repentance is purification of the soul. It specifically says that the soul should already be purified.
I’ve never made the claim that parts of the Bible weren’t passed down by oral tradition and then written down – I have said that I don’t believe that to be the case with the Gospel of John.
And, you've done nothing to back it up.
If you want to have a civil discussion about this that’s great………but if you’re going throw around stuff like “If you knew as much about this as you claim to..” – which BTW you don’t know me very well at all, they you and I can conclude this discussion now with a friendly…………..we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Part of having a civil discussion is not misrepresenting facts. When you say things like, "Jesus is mentioned in such and such book written during his life" and I go check and find that not only was the book NOT written during his lifetime, but that it doesn't even mention him, then YOU are not having a civil discussion with me. When you link to Wikipedia and say that it supports you and then I have to go back and check only to find that it does NOT support you, then it is you who is not being civil.
At least your honest about that………….
I think the point is that I've been honest about everything.

[Andyman_1970]

Um, repentance is purification of the soul. It specifically says that the soul should already be purified.

That’s what a mikvah was, it was a ritual immersion to demonstrate that one had repented, or done t’shuva. This is what John the Baptist was doing. Did you actually check about t’shuva and mikvah?

Let me post some Jewish sources for you (so you don’t think I’m misrepresenting the facts):

http://www.nishma.org/articles/journal/tshuvah.htm#fn37

Some, like the Holy Ari'zal, even hold that a penitent should immerse him/herself in a mikveh when repenting, like a convert when converting, the analogy is so great. For immersion in a mikveh helps in rebirthing, because when a person, who is normally a land animal, immerses himself in the water of mikveh, his humanity becomes temporarily nullified in the all-water environment, and he comes out another person - i.e., reborn[38].

The process of rebirthing, by the way, solves a problem in tshuvah, which is: how can you be forgiven for something wrong you did in the world just by going through tshuvah, no matter how thoroughly? Can you deny the birth of an illegitimate child or bring a murder victim back to life?

(note the reborn language……..similar to Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus…..anyway)

Immersion and Teshuva http://www.mayyimhayyim.org/OurSourcesImmersion.asp

The Dynamics of Teshuva http://www.sichosinenglish.org/holiday/tishrei/teshuva.htm

"He who sets his heart on becoming purified (from ritual defilement) becomes pure as soon as he has immersed himself (in the waters of a mikveh), though nothing new has befallen his body. So, too, it is with one who sets his heart on cleansing himself from the impurities that beset man's soul - namely, wrongful thoughts and false convictions: as soon as he consents in his heart to withdraw from those counsels and brings his soul into the waters of reason, he is pure." (Note the analogy between teshuvah and the purifying waters of a mikveh.

So you can see (or I hope you can see) the relationship between mikvha (immersion) and repentance (teshuva), mikvah was done as a result of one repenting. Also to say that repentance, at least in the Hebraic understanding, is exclusively restricted to the purification of one’s soul does not capture the full meaning of teshuva.

Back to our “rabbit trail” of John the Baptist and Josephus. Josephus not only reinforces the Gospel accounts of JtB, but it also clarifies (and reinforces the meaning of mikvah) what John was doing………..which some sects of Christianity today fundamentally misunderstand.

And, you've done nothing to back it up.

So I didn’t state that the verse in John 5 gives an indication of such? While you may disagree with it, it is hardly fair of you to say I’ve done “nothing” to back up my point…..it’s more like “nothing you agree with”……let’s not misrepresent the facts now.

Part of having a civil discussion is not misrepresenting facts. When you say things like, "Jesus is mentioned in such and such book written during his life"

No where have I asserted that any of the Gospels were written during Jesus’ life or ministry. Also, I didn't asserted that the mentions of Jesus in the Mishnah were written during His life either. I would ask you as well to not misrepresent the facts.

then YOU are not having a civil discussion with me.

When you know me better you can make comments like “If you knew as much about this as you claim to”. However you’ve only been on here for like a month or two, and had interactions with me for less time that than……..that’s pretty rude making statements about what you think other people (who you barely know) know or don’t know……not being terribly civil.

[Reactor]

O.K.....
this seems to be getting way off topic. ;^)

[Andyman_1970]

Hey I'm not the one that started this rabbit trail.............take it up with the noob.

[Old Man G Funk]

Hey I'm not the one that started this rabbit trail.............take it up with the noob.
I see how it is. You want to blame it all on the noob. Ha ha ha ha ha. Go back and read it and see who really started it. Hint, it wasn't me.

[Old Man G Funk]

That’s what a mikvah was, it was a ritual immersion to demonstrate that one had repented, or done t’shuva. This is what John the Baptist was doing. Did you actually check about t’shuva and mikvah?
Ugh. Once again, it says that the soul would already be purified. What part don't you get about that? This isn't immersion to purify the soul, because the soul is ALREADY PURIFIED. Jeez.
Back to our “rabbit trail” of John the Baptist and Josephus. Josephus not only reinforces the Gospel accounts of JtB, but it also clarifies (and reinforces the meaning of mikvah) what John was doing………..which some sects of Christianity today fundamentally misunderstand.
Um, considering that you don't know the difference between a soul that was purified before immersion and one that is purified by immersion, I think you should take care in leveling charges at other people's understandings of scripture.
So I didn’t state that the verse in John 5 gives an indication of such? While you may disagree with it, it is hardly fair of you to say I’ve done “nothing” to back up my point…..it’s more like “nothing you agree with”……let’s not misrepresent the facts now.
One verb text does not overcome the sheer imposibility of the writer being a disciple of Jesus and is easily explained by the fact that the literature was supposed to be relaying a story seen from the eyes of someone there. It's called being a good story teller.
No where have I asserted that any of the Gospels were written during Jesus’ life or ministry. Also, I didn't asserted that the mentions of Jesus in the Mishnah were written during His life either. I would ask you as well to not misrepresent the facts.
Do you not remember our talks in the evolution thread? You specifically stated that the mishnah mentions Jesus and intimated that it was written during the time of Jesus' life. Neither was true.
When you know me better you can make comments like “If you knew as much about this as you claim to”. However you’ve only been on here for like a month or two, and had interactions with me for less time that than……..that’s pretty rude making statements about what you think other people (who you barely know) know or don’t know……not being terribly civil.
Not when you make factually incorrect statements. What's rude is for you to condescend towards others and act like you are all that, then not be able to get your facts straight. What's rude is for you to say that a source backs you up only to have me double check it and find that what you quoted is NOT THERE. What's also rude is for you to act like the fact that I haven't been here for very long somehow makes A) me unworthy and B) my arguments invalid.

[Changleen]

I personally think you are both lucky that you have found a place to go on the internet where you can have decent, in depth discussion about these things you both obviously care about.

I mean, you're both clearly enjoying yourselves. Remember that. Don't kill it with niggly crap.

Also, There's no harm in 'testing' your opponent's research and depth of knowledge. :) That's part of the fun.

[Andyman_1970]

Remember that. Don't kill it with niggly crap.


Yes dad, we'll behave........................:p

[Andyman_1970]

Nice to see you on this evening………….

Ugh. Once again, it says that the soul would already be purified. What part don't you get about that? This isn't immersion to purify the soul, because the soul is ALREADY PURIFIED. Jeez.

Maybe we got our wires crossed…………the “soul is purified” through tshuva and the mikvah being a statement and symbol of said t’shuva.

Um, considering that you don't know the difference between a soul that was purified before immersion and one that is purified by immersion, I think you should take care in leveling charges at other people's understandings of scripture.

I think we miss understood each other. Immersion in the Judaic sense never purified a soul.

One verb text does not overcome the sheer imposibility of the writer being a disciple of Jesus and is easily explained by the fact that the literature was supposed to be relaying a story seen from the eyes of someone there. It's called being a good story teller.

We’ll agree to disagree then……………

Do you not remember our talks in the evolution thread? You specifically stated that the mishnah mentions Jesus and intimated that it was written during the time of Jesus' life. Neither was true.

Yes I sure do. Per your last post the perceived implication was that I asserted that Jesus was written about either in the Gospels or in the Mishah while He was alive. I’ve never asserted that, and could have read that into your post.

Check my post on the Jesus was a bad carpenter thread there is some information about the Mishah and Jesus (BTW several of Jesus’ quotes mirror saying from the Mishah). I’ll post the specific rabbi’s name when I get home, but a “school” was started right after the destruction of the Temple to put the Mishnah in one document rather than lots of documents floating around several rabbinic schools. So I stand by that the Mishah was around in some written from (not completed) as early as 100 BCE, which is about when the rabbi’s first started coming on the scene.

What's also rude is for you to act like the fact that I haven't been here for very long somehow makes A) me unworthy and B) my arguments invalid.

I’ve never asserted you’re arguments are invalid, they have actually pushed me to research. However I stand by my statements that it is perceived to be rude for someone to make blanket statements (derogatory none the less) about another individual whom they do not know very well and have had limited interaction with…....once you get to know me feel free to bash me all you want………….LOL

[Andyman_1970]

I’ll post the specific rabbi’s name when I get home, but a “school” was started right after the destruction of the Temple to put the Mishnah in one document rather than lots of documents floating around several rabbinic schools. So I stand by that the Mishah was around in some written from (not completed) as early as 100 BCE, which is about when the rabbi’s first started coming on the scene.

Rabbi Johanan beb Zakkai escaped from Jerusalem (circa 70AD) and founded an academy to preserve, discuss and debate the Mishnah on the coast near Javneh (which was later moved to Galilee (the center for orthodox Judaism in the 1st century).

[Reactor]

Hey I'm not the one that started this rabbit trail.............take it up with the noob.


LOL... I'm only kidding. I saw the exchange and it's the first thing that came to mind.:)

[Old Man G Funk]

Nice to see you on this evening………….
My access has been rather limited this week, which explains the lack of replies...
Maybe we got our wires crossed…………the “soul is purified” through tshuva and the mikvah being a statement and symbol of said t’shuva.

I think we miss understood each other. Immersion in the Judaic sense never purified a soul.
If you are asserting that the mikvah is a statement of purification and not the actual act, then we can agree that that is what it says. I did not get that impression from your earlier comments, so mea culpa for misunderstanding.
We’ll agree to disagree then……………
Really, the timelines are very much stacked in my favor on this, but I'll let it drop for now.
Yes I sure do. Per your last post the perceived implication was that I asserted that Jesus was written about either in the Gospels or in the Mishah while He was alive. I’ve never asserted that, and could have read that into your post.
You certainly alluded to it and you definitely said Jesus was written about in the Mishnah. You responded in regards to a link I posted that dealt with the fact that no writings contemporary to Jesus mention him. Your response was that Jesus is mentioned multiple times in the Mishnah. I'm not sure how I could have taken that comment any other way.
Check my post on the Jesus was a bad carpenter thread there is some information about the Mishah and Jesus (BTW several of Jesus’ quotes mirror saying from the Mishah). I’ll post the specific rabbi’s name when I get home, but a “school” was started right after the destruction of the Temple to put the Mishnah in one document rather than lots of documents floating around several rabbinic schools. So I stand by that the Mishah was around in some written from (not completed) as early as 100 BCE, which is about when the rabbi’s first started coming on the scene.
It's a catch 22 though, because it still can't provide a contemporary reference to Jesus, let alone the fact that it doesn't mention Jesus at all.
I’ve never asserted you’re arguments are invalid, they have actually pushed me to research. However I stand by my statements that it is perceived to be rude for someone to make blanket statements (derogatory none the less) about another individual whom they do not know very well and have had limited interaction with…....once you get to know me feel free to bash me all you want………….LOL
My statement was towards some comments you have made on factual matters that I've found to be inaccurate. For that, I don't have to know you at all. If you make a factual error, then you simply don't know your facts as well as you say you do. The only thing I'm bashing is your condescension towards me and your inaccuracies.

[Andyman_1970]

Originally Posted by enkidu
No, it's quite literal. All four gospels (eg. Luke 22:14-20) recount the last Passover supper he had with his apostles the night before he was crucified. He said, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. . . Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."

You realize that to "drink blood" was to make oneself unclean according to Torah............remember Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, if He wasn't He would have been a false Messiah..........the early church was entirely Torah observant Jews until Acts 10.........Paul even says in Acts 23 he "is" a Pharisee (not was) which implies observance to Torah.

Enkidu, hey I want to publicly apologize for belittling your faith and the sacraments of your faith as well in this post. Lately I’ve come to realize that while I may think I'm (which I may or may not be) technically correct on an issue, more times that not “correcting” one of my brothers in the faith tends to do more harm than good. I think in the past there was a thread about Mary that I came down on you about as well……….again please accept my humble apology. It is certainly not my place to belittle a follower of Jesus, or the way they feel they are connected to Him, even if I disagree and/or don’t understand said sacraments.

Anyway………..this has been bugging me for a few days.

Shalom brother………..

[enkidu]

Enkidu, hey I want to publicly apologize for belittling your faith and the sacraments of your faith as well in this post. Lately I’ve come to realize that while I may think I'm (which I may or may not be) technically correct on an issue, more times that not “correcting” one of my brothers in the faith tends to do more harm than good. I think in the past there was a thread about Mary that I came down on you about as well……….again please accept my humble apology. It is certainly not my place to belittle a follower of Jesus, or the way they feel they are connected to Him, even if I disagree and/or don’t understand said sacraments.

Anyway………..this has been bugging me for a few days.

Shalom brother………..

Wow, I just came across this! (I was away on an assignment. I find it too time-consuming to keep up on the road.)

Andyman, no apology needed. I'm not offended at all. It's really refreshing to hear views from different perspectives. I appreciate your thoughts.

Oh, and that Anthony DeMello, the author of "The Song of The Bird" and "Taking Flight", whose definition of Theology and Mysticism I quoted earlier, is an Indian Jesuit priest. There's no theological "conflicts" between intuitive "knowing" and Biblical revelation. . . even for those in the midst of the Church. (. . . I guess I should be addressing this to Old Man G Funk.)

Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful note!

[Old Man G Funk]

Feel free to address your contradiction anytime.