|
Post by clusium on Dec 30, 2022 15:03:11 GMT
Jesus never mentions anything about a husband beating his wife or kidnapping children neither, so do we then assume that he was ok with it? When you think about it It’s really just an argument from silence. It’s true he doesn’t mention homosexuality explicitly, but that doesn’t mean he condoned it. But he does address it 3 separate ways. Firstly, we know Jesus defined marriage as a unification between a man and a woman according to the way God created them. Secondly, Jesus said he didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfil it. And one of the Levitical laws flatly forbids homosexual practices. And lastly Jesus said that it is not what food goes into a man’s mouth that defiles them but what comes out of their heart, he then proceeds to list off sins of heart and one of those are sexual immorality. Sexual immorality is defined biblically as all forms of sex outside of the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman. If it was allowed in the Mosaic Law, then he couldn’t speak too much against it. He was already in hot water for telling men they should divorce since that constituted adultery. However, I daresay kidnapping a child was a serious offense that even the Romans frowned upon, but to stop beating a wife, that’s telling a man how to run his household. Think you meant to post " shouldn't divorce."
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,295
|
Post by The Lost One on Dec 30, 2022 15:09:57 GMT
Much better he used them as human ointment pads, apparently. If she used a cloth to spread the perfume, it would have wasted a lot of it. Using her hair means they share the perfume and in a very intimate way - the passage is meant to show her devotion to him, not her subjugation. He doesn't even ask her to do it, he just doesn't stop her or throw the gift back in her face like Judas wanted. So she just swiped a few tears away. Again, I just don't see the subjugation you're implying.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Dec 30, 2022 15:20:58 GMT
If it was allowed in the Mosaic Law, then he couldn’t speak too much against it. He was already in hot water for telling men they should divorce since that constituted adultery. However, I daresay kidnapping a child was a serious offense that even the Romans frowned upon, but to stop beating a wife, that’s telling a man how to run his household. Think you meant to post " shouldn't divorce." Yes, thank.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 30, 2022 15:36:56 GMT
Think you meant to post " shouldn't divorce." Yes, thank. 'Welcome.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Dec 31, 2022 0:03:51 GMT
Much better he used them as human ointment pads, apparently. If she used a cloth to spread the perfume, it would have wasted a lot of it. Using her hair means they share the perfume and in a very intimate way - the passage is meant to show her devotion to him, not her subjugation. He doesn't even ask her to do it, he just doesn't stop her or throw the gift back in her face like Judas wanted. So she just swiped a few tears away. Again, I just don't see the subjugation you're implying. I wasn't implying subjugation, I was implying--actually stating pretty directly--arrogance, of the sort most cult leaders end up displaying.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Dec 31, 2022 1:27:33 GMT
If she used a cloth to spread the perfume, it would have wasted a lot of it. Using her hair means they share the perfume and in a very intimate way - the passage is meant to show her devotion to him, not her subjugation. He doesn't even ask her to do it, he just doesn't stop her or throw the gift back in her face like Judas wanted. So she just swiped a few tears away. Again, I just don't see the subjugation you're implying. I wasn't implying subjugation, I was implying--actually stating pretty directly--arrogance, of the sort most cult leaders end up displaying. Let's not forget that this Same Lord Jesus, Who allowed St. Mary Magdalene to anoint His Feet, Had in turn, Washed the feet of His Apostles too (Gospel according to St. John chapter 13).
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Dec 31, 2022 6:54:44 GMT
I wasn't implying subjugation, I was implying--actually stating pretty directly--arrogance, of the sort most cult leaders end up displaying. Let's not forget that this Same Lord Jesus, Who allowed St. Mary Magdalene to anoint His Feet, Had in turn, Washed the feet of His Apostles too (Gospel according to St. John chapter 13). That was nice of him.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Dec 31, 2022 11:05:13 GMT
I wasn't implying subjugation, I was implying--actually stating pretty directly--arrogance, of the sort most cult leaders end up displaying. Let's not forget that this Same Lord Jesus, Who allowed St. Mary Magdalene to anoint His Feet, Had in turn, Washed the feet of His Apostles too (Gospel according to St. John chapter 13). All cult leaders have their roster of attractive deeds. It doesn't change the basic template.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Dec 31, 2022 11:23:53 GMT
Let's not forget that this Same Lord Jesus, Who allowed St. Mary Magdalene to anoint His Feet, Had in turn, Washed the feet of His Apostles too (Gospel according to St. John chapter 13). All cult leaders have their roster of attractive deeds. It doesn't change the basic template.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Dec 31, 2022 20:21:46 GMT
If he indeed existed, which I think he did because Paul of Tarsus was actively rooting out Jesus followers in Jewish communities about twenty years later, I think he was a preacher of Jewish End Times prophecy who thought fighting the Romans was futile. Judging by the content of message possibly influenced by Essenes teachings, which are teachings of love and peace. So, he wasn’t a zealot, but preached the opposite, not unlike Gandhi whom he influenced 2,000 years later. Interesting. I have missed your take on things, glad you are back!
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Jan 1, 2023 2:19:07 GMT
I think he's been embellished through tall tales written by people who never met him well after the fact. Maybe he was one of the first magicians at a time when magic was not understood.
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Jan 1, 2023 3:13:20 GMT
Matthew 21:12
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 1, 2023 13:11:22 GMT
All cult leaders have their roster of attractive deeds. It doesn't change the basic template. I noted that Clusium gave a like for this post, which is entirely her right; but I'd have to wonder a bit at why, considering that one of the bolded parts of your quotation underscores the fact that subjugation of women to men was clear part and parcel (in fact, essential keystone) to traditional rabbinic law, which Jesus assuredly approved of and expounded. Contrary to some popular revisionism on the subject, Jesus was not a religious reformer in that sense; he unquestionably supported traditional Jewish religious law, and was never hesitant to let it be known he did. Jesus would have certainly been in line with the idea that woman was inherently and forever subject to man, her earthly lord and master, and while he may not have given his imprimatur to domestic abuse, rape, or other violent forms of male subjugation of women, he would have endorsed those actions which made it quite clear where women's place lay within the faith (and home), as exemplified by actions such as foot-washing. To this day, the Orthodox Jewish men's morning prayer includes the phrase "I thank thee, Lord, that I was not born a woman", and there's no evidence that Jesus would have had any problem with this doctrinally approved line. Also, it's interesting to note that it is the wife (partner in intimacy on all levels), explicitly, who is commanded to bathing the husband's feet as opposed to any other female, of any relation or degree, who might belong to the household. This suggests a level of intimacy that renders the wife's place in particular as being the only one bearing the 'right' to this duty; and that Magdalene takes on this office herself in turn suggests the possibility of a level of intimacy between herself and Jesus that still causes the average Christian to head for the fainting couch at the merest hint of.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Jan 1, 2023 15:04:33 GMT
I think he's been embellished through tall tales written by people who never met him well after the fact. Maybe he was one of the first magicians at a time when magic was not understood. Do you think there was enough time for embellishments to develop though? Most of Paul’s epistles are dated to within 20 years of the crucifixion. In fact the Corinthians creed can be traced even further back to within 3 years of the crucifixion. There is also good evidence to believe that Matthew and John were written by the disciples themselves. And Mark & Luke students of Peter and Paul.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 1, 2023 16:03:21 GMT
I noted that Clusium gave a like for this post, which is entirely her right; but I'd have to wonder a bit at why, considering that one of the bolded parts of your quotation underscores the fact that subjugation of women to men was clear part and parcel (in fact, essential keystone) to traditional rabbinic law, which Jesus assuredly approved of and expounded. Contrary to some popular revisionism on the subject, Jesus was not a religious reformer in that sense; he unquestionably supported traditional Jewish religious law, and was never hesitant to let it be known he did. Jesus would have certainly been in line with the idea that woman was inherently and forever subject to man, her earthly lord and master, and while he may not have given his imprimatur to domestic abuse, rape, or other violent forms of male subjugation of women, he would have endorsed those actions which made it quite clear where women's place lay within the faith (and home), as exemplified by actions such as foot-washing. To this day, the Orthodox Jewish men's morning prayer includes the phrase "I thank thee, Lord, that I was not born a woman", and there's no evidence that Jesus would have had any problem with this doctrinally approved line. Also, it's interesting to note that it is the wife (partner in intimacy on all levels), explicitly, who is commanded to bathing the husband's feet as opposed to any other female, of any relation or degree, who might belong to the household. This suggests a level of intimacy that renders the wife's place in particular as being the only one bearing the 'right' to this duty; and that Magdalene takes on this office herself in turn suggests the possibility of a level of intimacy between herself and Jesus that still causes the average Christian to head for the fainting couch at the merest hint of. Absolutely. That is why, when the religious leaders brought the adulteress to Him, & asked Him if she should be executed, He Responded with "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." That's alright with me, that Orthodox men thank God for not making them women. Because guess which parent passes the religion down to the children, in Judaism? The Mother does!!!!
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 1, 2023 16:20:41 GMT
I think he's been embellished through tall tales written by people who never met him well after the fact. Maybe he was one of the first magicians at a time when magic was not understood. Do you think there was enough time for embellishments to develop though? Most of Paul’s epistles are dated to within 20 years of the crucifixion. In fact the Corinthians creed can be traced even further back to within 3 years of the crucifixion. There is also good evidence to believe that Matthew and John were written by the disciples themselves. And Mark & Luke students of Peter and Paul. Jesus, like John the Baptist, preached an apocalypse based on a non-authoritative reading of the Hebrew Scriptures. His mission was to prepare The Way for the New Israel with God reigning over it, telling his fellow Jews to get righteous with the Lord and each other if you want to be a part of it before it was too late. He told them how they should start behaving to be righteous enough to be called from the grave to populate a New Earth. He and his early followers were bands of roving preachers of End Times. In Jewish eschatology there will be a Great War between the forces of good and evil with the Messiah, the new earthly King David fighting the evil earthly kings; this sinful Earth will be destroyed; and all the righteous Children of Israel will arise from the grave. It’s this association with being this new King that gets Jesus executed. The Sanhedrin who controlled the Temple Cult did not support Jesus’ afterlife concept and the Pharisees were not sure and split on the issue. The whole point of these several heretical, end times/messianic cults was there absolutely was life after death. And that was a huge attraction to his preaching in an oppressive situation the Jewish found themselves at the time. He didn’t preach to gentiles because they were not going rise from the grave no matter how righteous they were. All they had was God’s mercy, he didn’t reject them, but only the Jews were entitled to The Way. That he as the warrior king messiah prophesied was probably attached to him while he was still alive, and he doesn’t seem to have discourage it, but he did not have any notion himself being any man-god that the Christian Messiah became a few generations later. That thought would have probably horrified him. And not unlike cults that form around popular preachers and celebrities, after Jesus was executed, rumors of his being still alive started, and his own message was about being freed from the grave, so a new hope was rekindled in his mission by his followers. Therefore, Paul’s Jesus is a buried human, now alive with a risen body, who meets enough of the criteria in Hebrew Scriptures…he was an educated Pharisee…to satisfy Paul he is the Messiah and currently with God in Heaven preparing to return during his followers lifetimes as he said. He also had a vision while he was snuffing out Jesus’ The Way cults in synagogues telling him he was to take up Jesus’ mission before it was too late. In his writings, Paul seems to be a loving man and he probably had some big guilt issues on his conscious. He hit a brick wall with the James cult in Jerusalem who thought only gentiles who converted to Judaism qualified for The Way. And the other Jews thought he was crazy. But he caught on with his gentile friends and business associates and hit upon the idea of expanding The Way to non-Jews.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 1, 2023 17:46:50 GMT
I think he's been embellished through tall tales written by people who never met him well after the fact. Maybe he was one of the first magicians at a time when magic was not understood. Try reading this book... from years ago. He and his best friend Biff traveled to the Orient and found the drug that made Jesus appear to die on the cross. Lots of other goofy, irreverent stuff in there too, you might like it!
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 1, 2023 19:10:38 GMT
I noted that Clusium gave a like for this post, which is entirely her right; but I'd have to wonder a bit at why, considering that one of the bolded parts of your quotation underscores the fact that subjugation of women to men was clear part and parcel (in fact, essential keystone) to traditional rabbinic law, which Jesus assuredly approved of and expounded. Contrary to some popular revisionism on the subject, Jesus was not a religious reformer in that sense; he unquestionably supported traditional Jewish religious law, and was never hesitant to let it be known he did. Jesus would have certainly been in line with the idea that woman was inherently and forever subject to man, her earthly lord and master, and while he may not have given his imprimatur to domestic abuse, rape, or other violent forms of male subjugation of women, he would have endorsed those actions which made it quite clear where women's place lay within the faith (and home), as exemplified by actions such as foot-washing. To this day, the Orthodox Jewish men's morning prayer includes the phrase "I thank thee, Lord, that I was not born a woman", and there's no evidence that Jesus would have had any problem with this doctrinally approved line. Also, it's interesting to note that it is the wife (partner in intimacy on all levels), explicitly, who is commanded to bathing the husband's feet as opposed to any other female, of any relation or degree, who might belong to the household. This suggests a level of intimacy that renders the wife's place in particular as being the only one bearing the 'right' to this duty; and that Magdalene takes on this office herself in turn suggests the possibility of a level of intimacy between herself and Jesus that still causes the average Christian to head for the fainting couch at the merest hint of. Absolutely. That is why, when the religious leaders brought the adulteress to Him, & asked Him if she should be executed, He Responded with "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." That's alright with me, that Orthodox men thank God for not making them women. Because guess which parent passes the religion down to the children, in Judaism? The Mother does!!!! Matrilineage doesn't excuse away misogyny. And I'm not sure precisely what the casting the first stone anecdote has to do with approval of the subjection of women in home, family and social life.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 1, 2023 23:15:48 GMT
Absolutely. That is why, when the religious leaders brought the adulteress to Him, & asked Him if she should be executed, He Responded with "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." That's alright with me, that Orthodox men thank God for not making them women. Because guess which parent passes the religion down to the children, in Judaism? The Mother does!!!! Matrilineage doesn't excuse away misogyny. And I'm not sure precisely what the casting the first stone anecdote has to do with approval of the subjection of women in home, family and social life. They brought an adulteress to Jesus to condemn her sin accordingly to Law, but it was a “gotcha” since Jesus had already weigh in on the hot “divorcing one’s wife” topic popular among the Pharisees at the time. By telling them to “cast the first stone,” he’s forcing someone to put their name as a formal witness to her adultery. Since no one did step forward, she probably was innocent and some poor slob they grab off the street to fuck over Jesus with.
|
|
monicah
Sophomore
@monicah
Posts: 300
Likes: 166
|
Post by monicah on Jan 2, 2023 10:38:24 GMT
He’s ight
|
|