By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Jesus Christ of Nazareth loves you!

Scoobes on 17 September 2012
ninetailschris said:
Scoobes said:

They were in the link I gave you:

Acts 5:33-39 gives an account of speech by the 1st century Pharisee Gamaliel, in which he refers to two first century movements. One of these was led by Theudas (v 36) and after him another was led by Judas the Galilean (v 37). Josephus placed Judas at the Census of Quirinius of the year 6 and Theudas under the procurator Fadus[26] in 44-46. Assuming Acts refers to the same Theudas as Josephus, two problems emerge. First, the order of Judas and Theudas is reversed in Acts 5. Second, Theudas's movement comes after the time when Gamaliel is speaking.

In Bible scholarship, the sole reference to Theudas presents a problem of chronology. In Acts of the Apostles, Gamaliel, a member of the sanhedrin, defends the apostles by referring to Theudas:

"Men of Israel, be cautious in deciding what to do with these men. Some time ago, Theudas came forward, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. But he was killed and his whole following was broken up and disappeared. After him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census; he induced some people to revolt under his leadership, but he too perished and his whole following was scattered." (NEB, Acts 5:36-8)

The difficulty is that the rising of Theudas is here given as before that of Judas of Galilee, which is itself dated to the time of the taxation (c. 6-7 AD). Josephus, on the other hand, says that Theudas was 45 or 46, which is after Gamaliel is speaking, and long after Judas the Galilean.

There are several arguments put forward to solve this problem. The 18th century theologian John Gill wrote "Some think Josephus is mistaken in his chronology, and then all is right."[5] Another argument is that the author of the Book of Acts used Josephus as a source and made a mistake in a reading the text, taking a later reference to the execution of the "sons of Judas the Galilean" after the rebellion of Theudas as saying that the rebellion of Judas was later; however there is disagreement as to whether the author(s) of Luke used Josephus.[6] Other explanations are that he was referring to a different revolt by another Theudas, or that he mistakenly transposed the two names.[7]

Acts 2:41 and 4:4 - Peter's addresses

Acts 4:4 speaks of Peter addressing an audience, resulting in the number of Christian converts rising by 5,000 people. Professor of New Testament Robert M. Grant says "Luke evidently regarded himself as a historian, but many questions can be raised in regard to the reliability of his history […] His ‘statistics’ are impossible; Peter could not have addressed three thousand hearers [e.g. in Acts 2:41 without a microphone, and since the population of Jerusalem was about 25-30,000, Christians cannot have numbered five thousand [e.g. Acts 4:4]."[27]

Grant's estimate of the population of Jerusalem relied on an influential study by Jeremias in 1943.[28][29] However, Grant does not mention that Jeremias calculated a far higher population figure for festival seasons such as passover, at which he calculated Jerusalem would contain up to 125,000 pilgrims.[30] Furthermore, the lower estimate of Jeremias is significantly lower than the lowest of the moderate to high estimates made by Wilkinson in 1974 (70,398 under Herod the Great),[31] Broshi in 1976 (60,000),[32] Maier in 1976 (50,000, with three times that many during festival seasons),[33] and Levine in 2002 (60,000-70,000).[34] Accordingly, Cousland notes that "recent estimates of the population of Jerusalem suggest something in the neighbourhood of a hundred thousand".[35]

Estimates for the number of Christians in the Roman empire by the end of the 1st century range widely from 7,500,[36] to more than 50,000.[37][38]

Acts 6:9: The province of Cilicia

Acts 6:9 mentions the Province of Cilicia during a scene allegedly taking place in mid-30s AD. The Roman province by that name had been on hiatus from 27 BC and was re-established by Emperor Vespasian only in 72 AD.[39]

Acts 21:38: The sicarii and the Egyptian

In Acts 21:38, a Roman asks Paul if he was 'the Egyptian' who led a band of 'sicarii' (literally: 'dagger-men') into the desert. In both The Jewish Wars[40] and Antiquities of the Jews,[41] Josephus talks about Jewish nationalist rebels called sicarii directly prior to talking about The Egyptian leading some followers to the Mount of Olives. Richard Pervo believes that this demonstrates that Luke used Josephus as a source and mistakenly thought that the sicarii were followers of The Egyptian.[42][43] The hypothesis that Luke-Acts used Josephus as a source is rare.[citation needed]

Acts 10:1: Roman troops in Caesarea

Acts 10:1 speaks of a Roman Centurion called Cornelius belonging to the "Italian regiment" and stationed in Caesarea. Robert Grant claims that during the reign of Herod Agrippa, 41-44, no Roman troops were stationed in his territory.[44] Wedderburn likewise finds the narrative "historically suspect",[45] and in view of the lack of inscriptional and literary evidence corroborating Acts, historian de Blois suggests that the unit either did not exist or was a later unit which the author of Acts projected to an earlier time.[46]

Noting that the 'Italian regiment' is generally identified as cohors II Italica civium Romanorum, a unit whose presence in Judea is attested no earlier than 69 CE,[47] historian E Mary Smallwood observes that the events described from Acts 9:32 to chapter 11 may not be in chronological order with the rest of the chapter but actually take place after Agrippa's death in chapter 12, and that the "Italian regiment" may have been introduced to Caesarea as early as 44 CE.[48] Wedderburn notes this suggestion of chronological re-arrangement, along with the suggestion that Cornelius lived in Caesarea away from his unit.[49] Historians such as Bond,[50] Speidel,[51] and Saddington,[52] see no difficulty in the record of Acts 10:1.

Acts 15: The Council of Jerusalem

Main article: Council of Jerusalem#Historicity

The description of the 'Apostolic Council' in Acts 15, generally considered the same event described in Galatians 2,[53] is considered by some scholars to be contradictory to the Galatians account.[54] The historicity of Luke's account has been challenged,[55][56][57] and was rejected completely by some scholars in the mid to late 20th century.[58] However, more recent scholarship inclines towards treating the Jerusalem Council and its rulings as a historical event,[59] though this is sometimes expressed with caution.[60]

Acts 24: Paul's trial

See also: Paul of Tarsus#Arrest and death

Paul's trial in Acts 24 has been described as 'incoherently presented'.[61][page needed]

Acts 15:16-18: James' speech

In Acts 15:16-18, James, the leader of the Christian Jews in Jerusalem, gives a speech where he quotes scriptures from the Greek Septuagint (Amos 9:11-12(Amos. Some[citation needed] believe this is incongruous with the portrait of James as a Jewish leader who would presumably speak Aramaic, not Greek. A possible explanation is that the Septuagint translation better made James's point about the inclusion of Gentiles as the people of God.[62] Dr. John Barnett stated that "Many of the Jews in Jesus' day used the Septuagint as their Bible".[63] Although Aramaic was a major language of the Ancient Near East, by Jesus's day Greek had been the lingua franca of the area for 300 years. It is also possible that James quoted Amos in Aramaic at the Jerusalem Council, but when Luke wrote it down he used the Septuagint translation since nearly all Christians outside Palestine used it as their bible.[citation needed]

 

Just from this small selection of examples we can see that even with a low context culture where oral information and communication should be highly detailed, inaccuracies (resulting from the writers experiences/bias or just gradual modification of second hand material/info with time) made it through.

Your assumption that lower context cultures must accrue and remember more information is just false. In the modern era the US is considered one of the lowest context cultures whilst Japan one of the highest. When it comes to recalling information accurately I'd give the nod to the Japanese. There are many other factors, education being one of them. Do you really think the people of that day were particularly well educated?

 

"Acts 5:33-39: Theudas"

Before I respond to some or all let me explain why didn't respond to wiki link. Wiki is unreliable and can be edit by anyone. You don't to know what your talking about to post on wiki and when I clicked it had almost no sources or links. Just passage and how they feel it's a contradiction.

"This claim has been circulated on several Web sites. The people who make this claim, whether they realize it or not, are assuming that there can only be one person named Theudas, when in fact there might have been more than one person with that name. In other words, Luke, the author of the book of Acts, and Josephus, a first century historian, could simply be talking about two different people named Theudas.

 

Luke's Theudas sounds like a religious leader who had a following of about 400 people. Josephus' Theudas sounds like a different person, a magician who claimed to be a prophet and who had a large following, one that was large enough to provoke a deadly confrontation from the government. For these and other reasons, many scholars and writers believe that Luke and Josephus are talking about two different people with the same name."

 

Source:http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/luke-gamaliel-theudas-judas-galilean.htm

Was going to link to rationalchristianity but this seem to fit the bill.

"Acts 2:41 and 4:4"

http://bible.cc/acts/4-4.htm

" However, many of those [who heard] the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand ."

The passage refers to the amount it became. Not saying he is addressing 5,000 people.

 What got me about one of the objections were that it said....."Peter couldn't address them by himself...." umm he didn't. Acts 4:1 makes a point that Peter was not the only speaker.

Acts 3: Peter performs a miracle healing someone who never could walk. Then after that  a crowd gathered before Peter and John and the two Apostles began preaching. So... wait they couldn't even get the number of people speaking? During this time there is no mentioning of crowd size. After that Acts 4:1-3, Peter and John are arrested after preaching about the resurrection of Jesus. Then Acts 4:4 then says: "However, many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand" (Acts 4:4, NIV). There were previous miracles so it would make sense if it were refering to ALL of the past events like what it is telling us. But again I showed how wiki couldn't even get the basic facts right. Who heard is means in total not at one event.

"Acts 6:9: The province of Cilicia"

 

That area, which was a south coastal region of Asia Minor, had been called Cilicia for many centuries, even before the existence of the Roman Empire. And the area continued to be called Cilicia long after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

 

When Luke refers to the area in Acts 6:9, he is not making a claim as to the provincial status of the area in regards to the Roman Empire, he is merely directly his reader to the geographical area that was commonly called Cilicia.

 

Some of these are outright laughable.

 

Acts 24: Paul's trial

Paul's trial in Acts 24 has been described as 'incoherently presented'.[61][page needed]

 

^ Are you serious? One sentence and no source at all or even PAGE? WHAT?  We just suppose to take his work for it with no reasoning?

Who wrote this articles a 15 year old ? Some of these articles only like 2-3 sentences with no real detail. Some of them just flat out ignore what is said in THE PASSAGES they mention!

 

Relationship to the Gospel of Luke

Since Acts is generally regarded as a continuation of the Gospel of Luke, problems with the historical reliability of the Gospel are also used to question the historical reliability of Acts.

No.....link....just refering to problem without addressing the problem.......this article can't be serious.  This is like me saying  x is wrong because something is wrong with y. WHAT is wrong with y? How do you even argue against this?

 

Clearly this person should show that how unreliable WIKI is lol. This guy looks like he put no effort in this.

There is like two things I didn't address but at this point they don't even look I need to.

"Just from this small selection of examples we can see that even with a low context culture where oral information and communication should be highly detailed, inaccuracies (resulting from the writers experiences/bias or just gradual modification of second hand material/info with time) made it through."

Horrible small selection...just horrible. No we didn't... see the any problems with low context we see a problem of BAD reserach. One guy said there wasn't anyone speaking beside Peter YET in the same passage they talk about John preaching BY NAME. "They were greatly disturbed because the [apostle(s) were teaching the people], proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead"

They say 4:2 that there were apostles that were teaching the people. THIS WAS ONLY TWO SENTENCES FROM 4.4 it was in 4.2. How do you miss that?  I don't even know what did they even got right in one part.

This is not worst then the other guy on here with the killzone  avater but this made me question why I was bothering with this wiki?

-------------------

Btw I made typo in my last response to you the Old testiment is a HIGH context society not low. That was mistake on my part.

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/high-low-context-cultures-catching-up-with-the-fundamentals/

Most of the modern world is low-context and Old testiment is high I made a mistake and switched the too.

"Your assumption that lower context cultures must accrue and remember more information is just false. In the modern era the US is considered one of the lowest context cultures whilst Japan one of the highest."

Will ignore because I switched the two by accident from all of responding. Since this doesn't relate to what I said because of this I will move on from point.

"There are many other factors, education being one of them. Do you really think the people of that day were particularly well educated?"

Don't need to know how to read or write to be good at HIGH context society. Actual most HIGH context societies aren't educated that well. Most are unable to write so there forced to act like a high context society.

The wordpress link is a good link on the society with High Context during Jesus time.

 

 


I'm going to keep this general rather than going through each point because my view can be summed up as follows:

Normally, I'd agree with you that wiki isn't the best source, but it's a good starting point. The article I linked to has a total of 96 references and usually scholarly based articles on wiki tend to be updated and maintained by scholars on a regular basis (I believe a test they did a few years ago which showed inaccurate information in articles was corrected on average of 20 minutes... don't quote me on that though). You know how the Harvard reference system works right? References 26-62 are all related to these claims and a large number are University based text books.

The reason you might see some contradiction is because their are 96 different sources each presenting a different interpretation in a historical context. Funnily enough, you having a contradicting interpretation to those above, that support your ideas of the bible being historically accurate. This sounds more like confirmation bias to me. I'm sure a Muslim or a Hindu (or anyone of any strong religious afiliation) would easily find ways to explain and interpret what others would see as inaccurate whilst ignoring evidence to the contrary.

You have contradicting viewpoint from the information and interpretations collated from a range of text books by historians whose purpose is to conduct historical research. I'm more likely to go with the information from historians. The reference list also looks far more reliable than the website you gave which looks more like a shameless plug of a single authors book.

Relevant Reference list from the article:

  1. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Theudas: "Bibliography: Josephus, Ant. xx. 5, § 1; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. II. ii.; Schmidt, in Herzog-Plitt, Real-Encyc. xv. 553-557; Klein, in Schenkel, Bibel-Lexikon, v. 510-513; Schürer, Gesch. i. 566, and note 6."
  2. ^ Grant, Robert M., "A Historical Introduction to the New Testament", p. 145 (Harper and Row, 1963)
  3. ^ Jeremias, "Die Einwohnerzhal Jerusalems z. Zt. Jesu", ZDPV, 63, pp. 24-31 (1943).
  4. ^ "Jeremias, for instance has estimated that there was a population of 25,000 in first century Jerusalem,", Rocca, "Herod's Judaea: A Mediterranean State in the Classical World", p. 333 (2008). Mohr Siebeck.
  5. ^ "Thus one would arrive at 125,000 festival pilgrims.", Reinhardt, "The Population Size of Jerusalem and the Numerical Growth of the Jerusalem Church", in Bauckham (ed.), "The Book of Acts in its Palestine Setting", p. 261 (1995). Eerdmans.
  6. ^ Wilkinson, "Ancient Jerusalem, Its Water Supply and Population", PEFQS 106, pp. 33-51 (1974).
  7. ^ "This also gives a figure of around 60,000 at the time of the first Christians.", Reinhardt, "The Population Size of Jerusalem and the Numerical Growth of the Jerusalem Church", in Bauckham (ed.), "The Book of Acts in its Palestine Setting", p. 247 (1995). Eerdmans.
  8. ^ Maier, "First Christians: Pentecost and the Spread of Christianity", p. 22 (1976). New York.
  9. ^ "According to Levine, because the new area encompassed by the Third Wall was not densely populated, assuming that it contained half the population of the rest of the city, there were between 60,000 and 70,000 people iving in Jerusalem.", Rocca, "Herod's Judaea: A Mediterranean State in the Classical World", p. 333 (2008). Mohr Siebeck.
  10. ^ Cousland, "The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew", p. 60 (2002). Brill.
  11. ^ Stark, "The Rise of Christianity", pp. 6-7 (1996). Princeton University Press.
  12. ^ Wilken, "The Christians as the Romans Saw Them", p. 31 (1984). Yale University Press.
  13. ^ "Estimates for the number of Christians by 100 C.E. range from as low as 7,500 to upwards of 50,000 out of the approximately sixty million inhabitants of the Roman Empire.", Novak, "Christianity and the Roman Empire: background texts", pp. 12-13 (2001). Continuum International Publishing.
  14. ^ A dictionary of the Roman Empire. By Matthew Bunson. ISBN 0-19-510233-9. See page 90.
  15. ^ Jewish War 2.259-263
  16. ^ Jewish Antiquities 20.169-171
  17. ^ Steve Mason, Josephus and Luke-Acts, Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody, Massachusetts, 1992), pp. 185-229.
  18. ^ Pervo, Richard, Dating Acts: between the evangelists and the apologists (Polebridge Press, 2006)
  19. ^ Grant, Robert M., A Historical Introduction to the New Testament, p. 145 (Harper and Row, 1963)
  20. ^ "The reference to the presence in Caesarea of a centurion of the 'Italian' cohort is, however, historically suspect. If a cohors Italica civium Romanorum is meant, i.e. a cohort of Roman auxiliaries consisting chiefly of Roman citizens from Italy, then such a unit may have been in Syria shortly before 69 (cf. Hemer, Book, 164), but was one to be found in Caesarea in the time just before Herod Agrippa I's death (cf. Haenchen, Acts, 346 n. 2 and 360); Schurer, HIstory 1, 366 n. 54)?", Wedderburn, "A History of the First Christians", p. 217 (2004). Continuum Publishing Group.
  21. ^ "As for the Italian cohort, Speidel claims that it is a cohors civium Romanorum. Speidel actually identifies a cohors II Italica c.R. that was in Cyria as early as 63 CE, though it moved to Noricum before the Jewish war. As he argues, this unit could be the one called the speire tes kaloumenes Italike in the New Testament's Acts of the Apostles. The unit is not mentioned by Josephus nor is there epigraphical evidence for it at Caesarea nor anywhere in Judea. It is possible that the unit did not exist or was a later Syrian unit displaced to a different place and earlier time.", de Blois et al (eds.), "The Impact of the Roman Army (200 B.C. – A.D. 476): Economic, Social, Political, Religious and Cultural Aspects: Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, 200 B.C. – A.D. 476), Capri, Italy, March 29-April 2, 2005", p. 412 (2005). Brill.
  22. ^ "There is inscriptional evidence for the presence in Syria in A.D. 69 of the auxiliary cohors II Italica civium Romanorum (Dessau, ILS 9168); but we have no direct evidence of the identity of the military units in Judaea between A.D. 6 and 41. from A.D. 41 to 44, when Agrippa I reigned over Judaea (see on 12:1), one important corps consisted of troops of Caesarea and Sebaste, Kaisareis kai Sebasthnoi (Jos. Ant. 19.356, 361, 364f.), who did not take kindly to the command of a Jewish king.", Bruce, "The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary", p. 252 (1990). Eerdmans.
  23. ^ "Acts x, 1, speirh Italikh, generally identified with cohors II Italica c. R., which was probably in Syria by 69 - Gabba, Iscr. Bibbia 25-6 (=ILS 9168; CIL XI, 6117); c.f. P.-W., s.v. cohors, 304. Jackson and Lake, Beginnings V, 467-9, argue that the events of Acts ix, 32-xi are misplaced and belong after Agrippa I's death (ch. xii). If so, the cohors Italica may have come in with the reconstitution of the province in 44 (below, p. 256).", Smallwood, "The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian: a study in political relations" p.147 (2001). Brill.
  24. ^ "Others date the incident either before Herod's reign (so Bruce, History, 261, following Acts' sequence) or more likely after it, unless one supposes that this officer had been seconded to Caesarea without the rest of his unit (cf. also Hengel, 'Geography', 203-4 n. 111).", Wedderburn, "A History of the First Christians", p. 217 (2004). Continuum Publishing Group.
  25. ^ "One of these infantry cohorts may well have been the cohors II Italica civium romanorum voluntariorum referred to in Acts 10; see Hengel, Between, p. 203, n. 111.", Bond, "Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation", p. 13 (1998). Cambridge University Press.
  26. ^ "Certainly after Titus' Jewish war the Flavian emperors revamped the Judaean army, and at the same time cohors II Italica seems to have been transferred north into Syria, as were ala and cohors I Sebastenorum of the same provincial army, yet for the time of the procurators there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Acts 10.", Speidel, "Roman Army Studies', volume 2, p. 228 (1992). JC Bieben.
  27. ^ "The Coh. Italica and, possibly also, the Coh. Augusta were prestigious regiments. Their operation in Judaea cannot be placed before AD 40 on the evidence available, but it is of course possible that they had been sent there before that, even under the first prefect after the fall of Archelaus.", Saddington, "Military and Administrative Personnel in the NT", in "Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt", pp. 2417-2418 (1996). Walter de Gruyter.
  28. ^ "In spite of the presence of discrepancies between these two accounts, most scholars agree that they do in fact refer to the same event.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
  29. ^ "Paul's account of the Jerusalem Council in Galatians 2 and the account of it recorded in Acts have been considered by some scholars as being in open contradiction.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
  30. ^ "There is a very strong case against the historicity of Luke's account of the Apostolic Council", Esler, "Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology", p. 97 (1989). Cambridge University Press.
  31. ^ "The historicity of Luke's account in Acts 15 has been questioned on a number of grounds.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
  32. ^ "However, numerous scholars have challenged the historicity of the Jerusalem Council as related by Acts, Paul's presence there in the manner that Luke described, the issue of idol-food being thrust on Paul's Gentile mission, and the historical reliability of Acts in general.", Fotopolous, "Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: a socio-rhetorical reconsideration", pp. 181-182 (2003). Mohr Siebeck.
  33. ^ "Sahlin rejects the historicity of Acts completely (Der Messias und das Gottesvolk [1945]). Haenchen’s view is that the Apostolic Council “is an imaginary construction answering to no historical reality” (The Acts of the Apostles [Engtr 1971], p. 463). Dibelius’ view (Studies in the Acts of the Apostles [Engtr 1956], pp. 93–101) is that Luke’s treatment was literary-theological and can make no claim to historical worth.", Mounce, "Apostolic Council", in Bromiley (ed.) "The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia", volume 1, p. 200 (rev. ed. 2001). Wm. B. Eerdmans.
  34. ^ "There is an increasing trend among scholars toward considering the Jerusalem Council as historical event. An overwhelming majority identifies the reference to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 with Paul's account in Gal. 2.1-10, and this acccord is not just limited to the historicity of the gathering alone but extends also to the authenticity of the arguments deriving from the Jerusalem church itself.", Philip, "The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology: the Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit", Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2, Reihe, p. 205 (2005). Mohr Siebeck.
  35. ^ "The present writer accepts its basic historicity, i.e. that there was an event at Jerusalem concerning the matter of the entry of the Gentiles into the Christian community, but would be circumspect about going much further than that. For a robust defence of its historicity, see Bauckham, "James", and the relevant literature cited there.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
  36. ^ Grant, 1963
  37. ^ Evans, Craig A., The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary, Cook Communications Ministries, Colorado Springs Colorado, 2004, 102.



Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
Farmageddon on 17 September 2012
Jay520 said:
richardhutnik said:

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

3. No. I don't say rape is wrong "because it is against the will of the woman." I say rape is wrong "because it against the will of the woman AND causes the woman extreme long-term mental and physical trauma  solely for the cause of pleasure by the rapist." 


Hm, I wonder if christians might have any kind of rule at all against that.



Scoobes on 17 September 2012
DaRev said:

I like the way you dealt with that. I find that people in here are like race horses with blinders on, and as they pic up on a particular point, they go speeding down the track blindly, unable to see  or think about anything that is not right in front of them. I find that people in here, or at least in relation to this toopic, have their blinders on, and can't imagine how particular rules in Biblical times worked for that time ONLY. They try to apply rules meant for a particular time to the time we live in now, and they think they are cleavery for doing this. But God through Jesus already noted that rules change over time, but the underlaying priciples of (1) love God and (2) love your follow man, these two trumps all, for example, Jesus in updating old rules said:

So. I don't think people can just take an old rule regarding rape and apply it trough out time. The only rules that God made that you apply thoughout time are as I quoted before (1) Love God and (2) Love your fellow man. So if these people in here would take their blinder off they would see that the rule regarding rape was meant to protect the woman, as women in those times weren't the IDNIPENDENT WOMAN of today.

@ bolded 1

You're basically admitting that large sections of the material in the bible is now morally useless which is essentially the point some of us were trying to make. If the rules have to relate to the time period then how can you look to a book nearly 2000 years old (well, older actually as we're talking about the old testament) for moral guidance?

@ bolded 2

That's your interpretation of the bible, but many different people can interpret the text in different ways. These varied interpretations have even lead to war in a number of extreme cases. As I tried to point out earlier in the thread, there is so much content in the bible that you can interpret and pick out passages to fit your own personal bias.




Get your Portable ID!

Jay520 on 17 September 2012
Farmageddon said:
Jay520 said:
richardhutnik said:

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

3. No. I don't say rape is wrong "because it is against the will of the woman." I say rape is wrong "because it against the will of the woman AND causes the woman extreme long-term mental and physical trauma  solely for the cause of pleasure by the rapist." 


Hm, I wonder if christians might have any kind of rule at all against that.


I'm not really sure if you're being sarcastic again.?



Scoobes on 17 September 2012
ninetailschris said:
Scoobes said:
ninetailschris said:
pezus said:
"Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Did you miss this?


What he quoted wasn't that so your point invailded.

The passages deal with two different issues.

But to answer this question.

First, you seem to think that is helping the rapist or screwing over the victum because she has to marry the rapist who raped. Your argument if we were talking modern times this would be great objection. But in OT days this was the best choice because she would no longer be regarded as marriageable and would therefore lose means of interdependent support. No one would marry her because she wasn't a virgin and therefor like previous stated she would be left to herself and mostly die. (note: there is nothing in the time as women fully supporting herself during those times because it would have been impossible.)In the passage we read "[He must] marry the girl, for he has [violated her]. [He can never] divorce her as long as he lives."  First,  we can see that the rapist is FORCED to marry the woman because he did in fact VIOLATE her and must support the women  FOREVER by never divorcing her. The woman/father/community leader at the time would have most likely demanded this happen because in this way the rapist would have been forced to support the woman and the woman would have financial support. Back in the OT times it wasn't about modern love and special feeling in your stomach it was about surviving and honor. This was a punishment to the man and is even phased as so.

Second,  with the father and the money related  to another ancient practice, the dowry. A girl who is married becomes part of a new family, which she goes on to support of her own means, and now relies upon for support; at the same time, her former family loses her support and assistance in daily survival, but gains nothing practical in return - hence the dowry.

 

This should answer the question.

 

 

 

So if a bloke really liked a girl, but neither she nor her family wanted the bloke, all he had to do was rape her and they could be married. I'm failing to see the punishment, especially considering that divorce back then was seen as reprehensible anyway and if you did divorce then you'd be shuned by the local community. 

It sounds more like the bloke has to marry the girl because, as a non-virgin, she wouldn't be able to marry anyone anyway so the bloke must. Not really much of a punishment if he desires her anyway. More like a punishment for the girl.

By marrying her he must support the woman being forced to never marry someone else. Plus he pay the father would is provider of woman previously. This is punished not only with his money in current but forever.  If he tried to date/whatever sexual anyone else while married he would have broke another law which would lead to a futher punishment which would have been death/prisionment most likely. Most rapist don't want JUST one girl as this is very black and white view in the moment. You competely ignore the long term effect of this. Basically losing his freedom of marriage and never able to diviorce.

On the point of punishing her you ignored all my points and side-steped everything. You ignored that she would left without support and would die quicker without a husband at all. You ignore that she  will know that she will have income until she dies. You act like this nothing 

better than  going weeks  with food and water see how fast you think that the alterinative is better. It's real nice in your house where you can go get a job if you need money or get help from the government. But back in time there isn't much food or water(sometimes and the only you get food is contributing to the society and if you don't you don't eat. So, right now your saying is better she not eat than have food and the man made sure to pay forever for you. The man will forced to work to pay both families so he has work harder to bring in more money then if he was single. 

Your view is so black and white and a little of light hearted joking about something that was very serious and life altering. I can't imagine if I was raped and told " well you will never have food/children. You can't work so you may as well kill yourself, good luck"  It's just pure ego to make it seem like woman would want that. This reality not walfare state. 

What you're basically saying then is that if a woman gets raped she had the choice of being shuned and starving or have the emotional torture of having to live with her attacker for the rest of her life... and because of the time period, that's OK and is morally fine. So the woman is victimised no matter what, that sounds so moral...

I ignored your points because for a religion and book that's supposed to be a moral code that people live by it contains material that's questionable in nature. Could they really not think of any other alternatives? Like, I dunno, all the money the man earns goes to the woman but they don't have to marry? Or the woman is not shuned for having been attacked? If they were really receiving moral advice from god, surely they'd be able to see outside of the box.

You expect me to think of it in the context of the time period, but the bible is a book that's held as an example of a moral code advising how people should live today. Yet how is this relevant to the modern day?




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
Farmageddon on 17 September 2012
Jay520 said:
Farmageddon said:
Jay520 said:
richardhutnik said:

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

3. No. I don't say rape is wrong "because it is against the will of the woman." I say rape is wrong "because it against the will of the woman AND causes the woman extreme long-term mental and physical trauma  solely for the cause of pleasure by the rapist." 


Hm, I wonder if christians might have any kind of rule at all against that.


I'm not really sure if you're being sarcastic again.?


You obviously see that the underlined answers the bolded, right? As in, raping is "against the will of the woman AND causes the woman extreme long-term mental and physical trauma  solely for the cause of pleasure by the rapist", which is in clear violation of one of the commendments, the most basic and most important of their rules, which says "love your neighbor as yourself".



Jay520 on 17 September 2012
Farmageddon said:


You obviously see that the underlined answers the bold, right? As in, raping is "against the will of the woman AND causes the woman extreme long-term mental and physical trauma  solely for the cause of pleasure by the rapist", which is in clear violation of one of the commendments which says "love your neighbor as yourself".


Obviously that commandment in itself is too vague. Otherwise, there would be no need for "do not kill", "do not steal" etc. 

And besides, "love your neighbor as yourself" is up to interpretation. Even "Love" is up to interpretation.



Farmageddon on 17 September 2012
Jay520 said:
Farmageddon said:


You obviously see that the underlined answers the bold, right? As in, raping is "against the will of the woman AND causes the woman extreme long-term mental and physical trauma  solely for the cause of pleasure by the rapist", which is in clear violation of one of the commendments which says "love your neighbor as yourself".


Obviously that commandment in itself is too vague. Otherwise, there would be no need for "do not kill", "do not steal" etc. 


Which is why Jesus condensed them in "love your neighbor as yourself and God beyond all things" if I'm not mistaken.

Beisdes, you said yourself that you don't expect the Bibble to address every possible issue. It's pretty obvious people don't like/want to get raped (it's kind of the definition of rape), so the love others as you do yourself, combined with all the new-age speechs about love should be plenty to make it obvious for anyone that God "doesn't like" rape.



Jay520 on 17 September 2012
Farmageddon said:

Which is why Jesus condensed them in "love your neighbor as yourself and God beyond all things" if I'm not mistaken.

Beisdes, you said yourself that you don't expect the Bibble to address every possible issue. It's pretty obvious people don't like/want to get raped (it's kind of the definition of rape), so the love others as you do yourself, combined with all the new-age speechs about love should be plenty to make it obvious for anyone that God "doesn't like" rape.


1. "Love your  neighbor as yourself" is a command on how you should love, not how you should act. It says you must be loving, not that you must act on it.

2. The "as yourself" component means this command is based on subjective preferences. Certain people may have different feelings on how they should be loved. 



Farmageddon on 17 September 2012
Jay520 said:


1. "Love your  neighbor as yourself" is a command on how you should love, not how you should act. It says you must be loving, not that you must act on it.

2. The "as yourself" component means this command is based on subjective preferences. Certain people may have different feelings on how they should be loved. 


Crhist does talk an awfull lot about love and what it means and how to treat the fellow man and about your relationship with God and how hurting other people hurts God and whatnot. There's a multi-thousand-pages book around these simple bullet-point rules which you're convinently ignoring. Supposedly there's also the Holy Ghost and prayer and what not which should guide your interpretation.

Besides  how you think a single or a few quick laws on all of behaviour should be worded? ? How would you generalize it that a little of "good will" on those reading wouldn't be necessary. Your being too dense just for the sake of being.

So, answering 1, loveand how you act aren't separable according to other passages, at least as I understand. And for 2, yes, technically you're right. But what is meant (don't do to others that which you wouldn't want them to do to you) is not hard to understand and is made more explicit by many other passages and sermons and what not.