To tea with Scribes and Pharisees?

[oldbadger]

I go to a tea 'n' chat meeting at a church hall on Tuesday mornings and the conversation there (among all kinds of people) is brilliant. One of the people at this event mentioned that there is another very good tea meeting at another hall nearby on Mondays, and so I went along yesterday. I'm retired and can do this kind of thing, ok?

I arrived at this venue yesterday and found myself sitting within a group of men. It was pleasant enough but some of these people seemed to be very stern in countenance and speech, and as we discussed the gospels one of these men butted in with a very aggressive 'Every word in the bible was guided by the hand of Lord God Almighty!'. He didn't say anything else, either before of afterwards as we sat at this table.

But as I have said, the conversation was alright, although one man wanted to teach me about the flood and Noah's Ark, and mentioned very sternly that the only reason why there are no unicorns in the world is because Noah made a mistake and brought two male unicorns aboard by accident........ at that point he gave me a knowing look. Then one told me about Sodom and Gomorrah, another lesson, and so I did my very very best to reverse in to my most diplomatic mode and just asked questions. The thing is, my wife doesn't come to such events, and the lady who made the tea wanted to know all about my wife, and why had she not come along. After about 90 minutes the meeting ended and the organiser came to shake my hand and asked how I had heard about that weekly event. I mentioned that I had heard about it all at the Tuesday tea 'n' chat meeting just down the road.

The people around me fell silent..... One said, 'They don't follow the bible!' and then the comments followed like machine gun fire....
They marry Gays down there!
......... wouldn't go there.......
...wouldn't have anything to do with them...
Eventually the organiser told me 'They don't follow Jesus down there', and at that point I felt that nobody there could possibly know about how Jesus lived. You see, Jesus took his food and drink with the lowliest, most sinful and corrupt lowlifes in society and these people around me were talking like the Pharisees that Jesus had so despised. So the Pharisees would not sit with the kinds of people where Jesus enjoyed his meals.

I never told them that, I just asked the organizer what he thought Jesus would have said, and he answered that Jesus ordered 'No sinning'.

So I ask you, would I find the love and understanding at the Monday meeting like the one mentioned, or the Tuesday one where the priests will marry any who are in love, no matter who? I think I'll stick with the Tuesday group, but I would be interested to read any replies from members.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #35]

I would rather be 'herded' by rulers that are at least in theory subject to the checks and balances of legal challenge inquiry and investigation and the vote, than religious rulers who are answerable to no - one but the god i their heads.

Occam's Razor hardly applies since we cannot be sure what the 'Facts' are, never mind the 'Simplest explanation'.

... do you support the law that gives all newlyweds a year's holiday?

That was part of the Mosaic law connected with conscription into the army. Although Christians are not subject to "Old testament law" (and do not belong to a nation whose army is appointed by God) it was a good law. It meant that a married man didn't risk being killed in battle and leaving his widow childless. Thus his name and inheritance would not be lost. It wasnt a "holiday" so much as simply the rules of conscription , similar to age and othe constraints.

It applied to all newly weds, I think.

All newly wed ARMY conscripts.

Can you show me where it says that?

There was no social security , and few fathers in law would have accepted to support their new son in law for a year while he kicked back and did nothing.

The entire nation of the Israelites was a cohesive system that included support and care for all, by law.

My only comment here is that the parameter seems to be whether it was a good law to have - on practical terms. Not because a god said so. I am likely to be unconvinced by an argument that God's laws before Jesus are pick 'n' mix whether man made law deems them good, but the ones on the NT are somehow good laws (even if they are questionable and it can be agreed what is actually wanted) are to be followed because God said so, which would be a bad rule even if I believed any of it.

Even if the US had a state church I would advocate man made law, not religious, even if the constitution was not aimed at keeping the government apparatus free from religious control and ecclesiastical Herding.

[oldbadger]

My only comment here is that the parameter seems to be whether it was a good law to have - on practical terms. Not because a god said so. I am likely to be unconvinced by an argument that God's laws before Jesus are pick 'n' mix whether man made law deems them good, but the ones on the NT are somehow good laws (even if they are questionable and it can be agreed what is actually wanted) are to be followed because God said so, which would be a bad rule even if I believed any of it.

Even if the US had a state church I would advocate man made law, not religious, even if the constitution was not aimed at keeping the government apparatus free from religious control and ecclesiastical Herding.

75% of all the gyides, rules and laws for Christians were written by Paul, I reckon.

And I feel sure that ALL the Old Testament Laws were written by men. As I read some of these delightful ones like those below, such as insisting that working oxen should be free to chew what they could as they worked, or a health and safety law about roof surrounds.......... and all the others, come to think of it........ written by men.

Deuteronomy {25:4} Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
Deuteronomy {22:8} When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

[TRANSPONDER]

That's my current hypothesis. The OT was compiled from maybe the 10th c BC when the Rules were made to ensure the Hebrews remained separate and distinct from the surrounding nations. To I suspect the Exile, when the (separate, original and best ) Origin stories were compiled using Mesopotamian records and legends, I suspect from Ut - Napishtim's Ark to Sargon in the Bulrushes, and I may suspect Marduk dividing the waters in creation to Ahmoses removing the Semitic peoples out of Egypt.

The NT began with a real Jesus, but a political messiah, as the Christian reading made no sense back then. The disciples hope for return of the Messiah, perhaps not even in the same human form. Paul taking that, stripping it of Jewish rules that the Greeks would never wear and peddling it to the Gentiles. From then on, I see Greek writers (who did not read Hebrew nor know their OT) turning the man - messiah into a god and the rejection of Jewish law into a pretty fair hatred of Jews. Which has shown as much persistence over 2000 years as the tribe of Jews themselves.

It's my take, and I could be wrong but it's a pet theory of mine.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #41]

Occam's Razor hardly applies since we cannot be sure what the 'Facts' are, never mind the 'Simplest explanation'.

Your claim that Occam's Razor cannot be applied to the text from Matthew 22:40 appears to be an overgeneralization or a misunderstanding.

The Usefulness of Occam's Razor

[JehovahsWitness]

... do you support the law that gives all newlyweds a year's holiday?

That was part of the Mosaic law connected with conscription into the army. Although Christians are not subject to "Old testament law" (and do not belong to a nation whose army is appointed by God) it was a good law. It meant that a married man didn't risk being killed in battle and leaving his widow childless. Thus his name and inheritance would not be lost. It wasnt a "holiday" so much as simply the rules of conscription , similar to age and othe constraints.

It applied to all newly weds, I think.

All newly wed ARMY conscripts.

Can you show me where it says that?
...

After you ...

It applied to all newly weds, I think.

[oldbadger]

After you ...

It applied to all newly weds, I think.

Of course........ Let me show you................

Deuteronomy {24:5} When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: [but] he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #41]

Occam's Razor hardly applies since we cannot be sure what the 'Facts' are, never mind the 'Simplest explanation'.

Your claim that Occam's Razor cannot be applied to the text from Matthew 22:40 appears to be an overgeneralization or a misunderstanding.

The Usefulness of Occam's Razor

I don't think so. You see, essentially it is a command to obey religious 'Play Nice' rules, which any religion can do, as they pretty much all try to exhort good behavior. Though as i was posting to our pal 1213 just now the 'fruits' of religion can be rotten indeed. There is also the cult aspect of the passage which became first evident to me in the hippy movement o the 60's. It only worked with a wider society not in the cult who would would be expected to support them financially.

None of which proves a god, or religion is true, as well as failing to be a recipe for a good society. That is why Occam's razor fails for you here, whichever way you try to slice it.

The floor is yours. You may now explain how Occam's Razor Does prove whatever you suppose it proves.

[JehovahsWitness]

WERE NEWLY WED MEN NOT TO CONDUCT ANY COMMERCIAL BUSINESS UNDER THE MOSAIC LAW?


No. The Hebrew translated "business" in the King James bible is in fact "dabar" ( דָּבָר) which literally means "WORD" or "talk". It indicates the word spoken but can also represent the action that is produced as a result of the spoken word ie. that which done as a result of a command, a dictate, instruction or exchange. So DABAR can be translated in an extremely broad number of ways depending on the context.

CAN DABAR REFER TO COMMERCIAL ENDEAVORS?

Yes, it can refer to any matter (in fact some bibles translate dabar as "matter" or "thing" in Deut 24) but we note that it was not that he was prohibited from doing business but he (as the object) was not to be obliged or imposed upon for a year. Further, the prohibition of impossing a DABAR ("word") on a married man, is sandwiched in the verse between his exemption from military duty and his year long stay with his wife. It is reasonable then that the man is not to be obliged to engage in any business /matter that would result in his prolonged absense from the family home. It's for this reason most bibles render the verse as follows :

New International Version
If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

New Living Translation
“A newly married man must not be drafted into the army or be given any other official responsibilities. He must be free to spend one year at home, bringing happiness to the wife he has married.

English Standard Version
“When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken.

Berean Standard Bible
If a man is newly married, he must not be sent to war or be pressed into any duty. For one year he is free to stay at home and bring joy to the wife he has married.

New American Standard Bible
“When a man takes a new wife, he is not to go out with the army, nor be assigned any duty; he shall be free at home for one year and shall make his wife whom he has taken happy.

NASB 1995
“When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken.

NASB 1977
“When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army, nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken.

Legacy Standard Bible
“When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give gladness to his wife whom he has taken.

Amplified Bible
“When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out [to fight] with the army nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home for one year and shall bring happiness to his wife whom he has taken.

Christian Standard Bible
“When a man takes a bride, he must not go out with the army or be liable for any duty. He is free to stay at home for one year, so that he can bring joy to the wife he has married.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
When a man takes a bride, he must not go out with the army or be liable for any duty. He is free to stay at home for one year, so that he can bring joy to the wife he has married.”

Contemporary English Version
If a man and a woman have been married less than one year, he must not be sent off to war or sent away to do forced labor. He must be allowed to stay home for a year and be happy with his wife.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
A man who has recently been married will be free from military duty or any other public service. For one year he is free to stay at home and make his new wife happy.

Good News Translation
"When a man is newly married, he is not to be drafted into military service or any other public duty; he is to be excused from duty for one year, so that he can stay at home and make his wife happy.

International Standard Version
"When a man is newly married, he must not be sent out to war or have a related duty placed on him. Let him stay home for one year and be happy with his wife whom he has married.

Majority Standard Bible
If a man is newly married, he must not be sent to war or be pressed into any duty. For one year he is free to stay at home and bring joy to the wife he has married.

New American Bible
When a man is newly wed, he shall not go out on a military expedition, nor shall any duty be imposed on him. He shall be exempt for one year for the sake of his family, to bring joy to the wife he has married.

NET Bible
When a man is newly married, he need not go into the army nor be obligated in any way; he must be free to stay at home for a full year and bring joy to the wife he has married.

New Revised Standard Version
When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be charged with any related duty. He shall be free at home one year, to be happy with the wife whom he has married.

Note the following commentary

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 5. - A man newly married was to be exempt from going to war, and was not to have any public burdens imposed on him for a year after his marriage. Charged with any business; literally, there shall not pass upon him for any matter; i.e. there shall not be laid on him anything in respect of any business. This is explained by what follows. Free shall he be for his house for one year; i.e. no public burden shall be laid on him, that he may be free to devote himself entirely to his household relations, and be able to cheer and gladden his wife (comp. Deuteronomy 20:7).

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #48]

Remind us again what that is supposed to prove? It sounds a good Law, but so what? It seems to confirm what the Badger said - it excused a man army service. Was there another law that said a man couldn't marry until he'd come back with his shield or on it? surely they saw that loophole needed plugging?

Yes, the Badger raised the point of whether JW supported the newlywed leave. JW said it was excusing army service. Also any kind of service that will make him get off his wife. at least for a year by which time, she's tired of him and is listing the furniture she wants after the divorce. How does that affect your point, Oldbadger?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #47]

The habitual creating of strawmen arguments is noted.

My comment was not about "proving Gods existence" but aligned with the subject matter and OP question.