Quote from: drizabone on Jan 22, 2016, 05:28PM - I think the concept of keeping animals as pets is a fairly recent one. I think animals back then were used for pulling things or as idols. Dogs in the bible are considered carrion eaters, so probably went around in packs cleaning up the garbage - ie more small wolves than cuddly poodles.
There's a few points that interest me in this.
1) There's a spectrum of animal behaviour referenced here. On the margins there are no clear lines separating "wild" from "domesticated" from "pet" - obvious cases are obvious, but the wolf whose proximity nearby humans tolerate because it usefully eats their garbage, or the weak piglet that the farmer nurses to health, these aren't easily classified.
2) The ability to keep pets is linked to how easy life is to maintain - in a society like this, only the privileged would really have had the resources to consider keeping an animal for nothing more than companionship.
3) The desire to keep pets is one that varies and has varied over geography and history. We know that in Egypt cats were accorded high status and effectively treated as pets in the modern sense long before the time of Moses - though whether the Egyptians would have described it that way is an interesting one to ponder.
Seeing the laws of Israel effectively stigmatising cats so soon after the Israelite departure from an Egypt that venerated them is interesting. Some kind of minor kick-back reaction against Egyptian culture, perhaps?
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 22, 2016, 05:28PM - I don't think most Jews are concerned about the Law. They are more cultural Jews and not interested in the Religion. I don't even think that non-orthodox Jews care much. Id be interested to find out though.
Yes, you're right to point out that I'm in danger of confusing ethnicity with religion here. There are people online who've looked at this in more depth than is possible here, e.g. http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/165573/dogs-and-cats
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Leviticus 16 text
Highlights
- Yom Kippur
Summary
- Moses (as always claiming divine instruction) instructs Aaron to bathe and clothe himself particularly, then sacrifice a bull as a Sin Offering for his house and two goats as Sin Offerings for the whole of Israel.
- A date is specified as an annual festival to remember this (10th day of the 7th month), to be treated as a Sabbath day.
Questions and Observations
1) On the face of the narrative, this is continuing to make an awfully big deal out of what did not appear to be any kind of significant deviation from the prescribed. To recap, Lev 10:1 has "Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord". For this they underwent divine summary execution, and now Aaron and also the whole nation of Israel are being made to atone for their mistake also - to such an extent that people are still doing it today on their behalf. As described, this is so far from rational behaviour that it couldn't see it with a telescope. I think we must assume that there was more to it all than this, though this is the dodgy justification that has been inscribed in the recording documents. We know that Aaron has previous form for seeking to topple Moses (in particular, the Golden Calf episode, Exodus 32); it seems too coincidental by half that Aaron's eldest sons are disposed of and Aaron is forced to act penitently. I strongly suspect some serious power games going on here that the chronicler thought it wisest to omit. Further, the inclusion of all of Israel in the prescribed penance suggests strongly some larger rebellion-type behaviour.
2) In our modern standardised calendar, Yom Kippur falls in September or October, but the date is not fixed year on year.
3) In previous whole-book summaries, we've, despite some evidence, without quibbling gone with the line that it seems basically reliably narrated. I am 'losing faith' in this concept here rather, suspecting that an assumption of basic accuracy (i.e. let's work on the assumption that this isn't all a total fabrication at some level) implies important distortion of the record - and not for the first time either.
Highlights
- Yom Kippur
Summary
- Moses (as always claiming divine instruction) instructs Aaron to bathe and clothe himself particularly, then sacrifice a bull as a Sin Offering for his house and two goats as Sin Offerings for the whole of Israel.
- A date is specified as an annual festival to remember this (10th day of the 7th month), to be treated as a Sabbath day.
Questions and Observations
1) On the face of the narrative, this is continuing to make an awfully big deal out of what did not appear to be any kind of significant deviation from the prescribed. To recap, Lev 10:1 has "Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord". For this they underwent divine summary execution, and now Aaron and also the whole nation of Israel are being made to atone for their mistake also - to such an extent that people are still doing it today on their behalf. As described, this is so far from rational behaviour that it couldn't see it with a telescope. I think we must assume that there was more to it all than this, though this is the dodgy justification that has been inscribed in the recording documents. We know that Aaron has previous form for seeking to topple Moses (in particular, the Golden Calf episode, Exodus 32); it seems too coincidental by half that Aaron's eldest sons are disposed of and Aaron is forced to act penitently. I strongly suspect some serious power games going on here that the chronicler thought it wisest to omit. Further, the inclusion of all of Israel in the prescribed penance suggests strongly some larger rebellion-type behaviour.
2) In our modern standardised calendar, Yom Kippur falls in September or October, but the date is not fixed year on year.
3) In previous whole-book summaries, we've, despite some evidence, without quibbling gone with the line that it seems basically reliably narrated. I am 'losing faith' in this concept here rather, suspecting that an assumption of basic accuracy (i.e. let's work on the assumption that this isn't all a total fabrication at some level) implies important distortion of the record - and not for the first time either.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 23, 2016, 02:22AM...is so far from rational behaviour that it couldn't see it with a telescope.
That reminds me, I meant to tell you about I book I got for Christmas called "The Hunt for Vulcan: . . . And How Albert Einstein Destroyed a Planet, Discovered Relativity, and Deciphered the Universe" by Thomas Levenson. Its traces the history of the success of maths in describing gravity the universe and everything; how Le Verrier used it to work out that a so far undiscovered planet should exist and if you "looked that way" you'd find it; and somebody do look that way and found Neptune right where he saod it would be; so he did the same for Mercury and said that there was probably a planet inside Mercuries orbit, so everyone looked and said there it was; but it wasn't. And then Einstein came along and explained why. And now someone has done the same planet calculating again and says that there is a planet X (or should that be IX) out there.
That reminds me, I meant to tell you about I book I got for Christmas called "The Hunt for Vulcan: . . . And How Albert Einstein Destroyed a Planet, Discovered Relativity, and Deciphered the Universe" by Thomas Levenson. Its traces the history of the success of maths in describing gravity the universe and everything; how Le Verrier used it to work out that a so far undiscovered planet should exist and if you "looked that way" you'd find it; and somebody do look that way and found Neptune right where he saod it would be; so he did the same for Mercury and said that there was probably a planet inside Mercuries orbit, so everyone looked and said there it was; but it wasn't. And then Einstein came along and explained why. And now someone has done the same planet calculating again and says that there is a planet X (or should that be IX) out there.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 23, 2016, 02:22AMLeviticus 16 text
Highlights
- Yom Kippur
Summary
- Moses (as always claiming divine instruction) instructs Aaron to bathe and clothe himself particularly, then sacrifice a bull as a Sin Offering for his house and two goats as Sin Offerings for the whole of Israel.
- A date is specified as an annual festival to remember this (10th day of the 7th month), to be treated as a Sabbath day.
Questions and Observations
1) On the face of the narrative, this is continuing to make an awfully big deal out of what did not appear to be any kind of significant deviation from the prescribed. To recap, Lev 10:1 has "Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord".
it wouldn't have been any worse than the bass trombone improvising his own tasteful ad lib solo in the quiet section of the test piece in the nationals would it?
ISTM that their attitude was the issue, "I'm not going to follow the specifications", not the size of the deviation from the specifications.
QuoteFor this they underwent divine summary execution, and now Aaron and also the whole nation of Israel are being made to atone for their mistake also - to such an extent that people are still doing it today on their behalf. As described, this is so far from rational behaviour that it couldn't see it with a telescope. I think we must assume that there was more to it all than this, though this is the dodgy justification that has been inscribed in the recording documents. We know that Aaron has previous form for seeking to topple Moses (in particular, the Golden Calf episode, Exodus 32); it seems too coincidental by half that Aaron's eldest sons are disposed of and Aaron is forced to act penitently. I strongly suspect some serious power games going on here that the chronicler thought it wisest to omit. Further, the inclusion of all of Israel in the prescribed penance suggests strongly some larger rebellion-type behaviour.
I know the passage starts off saying that Moses got the instruction after the death of Aaron's sons but I'm pretty sure that Yom Kippur wasn't about atoning for Aarons sons' sin specifically and that the instructions would have been the same even if they hadn't ad libbed their tasteful soli.
My take on the rationale for the process was that Aaron (and whoever was High Priest at the time) had to atone for their own sins first, otherwise they wouldn't be Holy. They had to do this because this was the one time of the year that the High Priest, and they alone, were allowed to enter into the Holy Place where the Ark of the Covenant was. This was where God lived, anthropomorphically, and was the most special and dangerous place in the whole tabernacle/temple. If he didn't do it then zap! Rumour has it that they used to tie a rope around the High Priests ankle so that they could pull the charred corpse out if he did anything wrong. But that's probably just a wilderness myth.
Sure the details seem overly precise but the point is that the sin the offerings are dealing with are significant to God.
And it wasn't their sin that was atoned for every year. Sacrifices had to be made continually not as a reminder of Nadab and Abihu, or even that generations rebellion, but for all the sins since the last Day of Atonement. Those sacrifices didn't cover future sins.
Quote2) In our modern standardised calendar, Yom Kippur falls in September or October, but the date is not fixed year on year.
The Hebrews used a Lunar Calendar. So Yom Kippur moves around just like Easter.
Quote3) In previous whole-book summaries, we've, despite some evidence, without quibbling gone with the line that it seems basically reliably narrated. I am 'losing faith' in this concept here rather, suspecting that an assumption of basic accuracy (i.e. let's work on the assumption that this isn't all a total fabrication at some level) implies important distortion of the record - and not for the first time either.
I obviously disagree, but its still good hearing how you see the passages.
Highlights
- Yom Kippur
Summary
- Moses (as always claiming divine instruction) instructs Aaron to bathe and clothe himself particularly, then sacrifice a bull as a Sin Offering for his house and two goats as Sin Offerings for the whole of Israel.
- A date is specified as an annual festival to remember this (10th day of the 7th month), to be treated as a Sabbath day.
Questions and Observations
1) On the face of the narrative, this is continuing to make an awfully big deal out of what did not appear to be any kind of significant deviation from the prescribed. To recap, Lev 10:1 has "Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord".
it wouldn't have been any worse than the bass trombone improvising his own tasteful ad lib solo in the quiet section of the test piece in the nationals would it?
ISTM that their attitude was the issue, "I'm not going to follow the specifications", not the size of the deviation from the specifications.
QuoteFor this they underwent divine summary execution, and now Aaron and also the whole nation of Israel are being made to atone for their mistake also - to such an extent that people are still doing it today on their behalf. As described, this is so far from rational behaviour that it couldn't see it with a telescope. I think we must assume that there was more to it all than this, though this is the dodgy justification that has been inscribed in the recording documents. We know that Aaron has previous form for seeking to topple Moses (in particular, the Golden Calf episode, Exodus 32); it seems too coincidental by half that Aaron's eldest sons are disposed of and Aaron is forced to act penitently. I strongly suspect some serious power games going on here that the chronicler thought it wisest to omit. Further, the inclusion of all of Israel in the prescribed penance suggests strongly some larger rebellion-type behaviour.
I know the passage starts off saying that Moses got the instruction after the death of Aaron's sons but I'm pretty sure that Yom Kippur wasn't about atoning for Aarons sons' sin specifically and that the instructions would have been the same even if they hadn't ad libbed their tasteful soli.
My take on the rationale for the process was that Aaron (and whoever was High Priest at the time) had to atone for their own sins first, otherwise they wouldn't be Holy. They had to do this because this was the one time of the year that the High Priest, and they alone, were allowed to enter into the Holy Place where the Ark of the Covenant was. This was where God lived, anthropomorphically, and was the most special and dangerous place in the whole tabernacle/temple. If he didn't do it then zap! Rumour has it that they used to tie a rope around the High Priests ankle so that they could pull the charred corpse out if he did anything wrong. But that's probably just a wilderness myth.
Sure the details seem overly precise but the point is that the sin the offerings are dealing with are significant to God.
And it wasn't their sin that was atoned for every year. Sacrifices had to be made continually not as a reminder of Nadab and Abihu, or even that generations rebellion, but for all the sins since the last Day of Atonement. Those sacrifices didn't cover future sins.
Quote2) In our modern standardised calendar, Yom Kippur falls in September or October, but the date is not fixed year on year.
The Hebrews used a Lunar Calendar. So Yom Kippur moves around just like Easter.
Quote3) In previous whole-book summaries, we've, despite some evidence, without quibbling gone with the line that it seems basically reliably narrated. I am 'losing faith' in this concept here rather, suspecting that an assumption of basic accuracy (i.e. let's work on the assumption that this isn't all a total fabrication at some level) implies important distortion of the record - and not for the first time either.
I obviously disagree, but its still good hearing how you see the passages.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
"it wouldn't have been any worse than the bass trombone improvising his own tasteful ad lib solo in the quiet section of the test piece in the nationals would it?
ISTM that their attitude was the issue, "I'm not going to follow the specifications", not the size of the deviation from the specifications."
Nice touch, Martin!
ISTM that their attitude was the issue, "I'm not going to follow the specifications", not the size of the deviation from the specifications."
Nice touch, Martin!
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Leviticus 17 text
Highlights
- Centralisation of sacrifice
- Food regulations - don't eat blood, and mind eating animal-touched meat
Summary
- Moses (claiming divine instruction) decrees that it is now impermissible to sacrifice in the approved fashion anywhere but at the temple. The penalty for improper location of an otherwise correctly performed sacrificed is banishment.
- It is explained how blood is felt to be symbolic of life, and how it is felt that this makes eating it unacceptable.
- Prohibition of eating animals that died a death not desired by humans.
- Eating meat "torn by beasts" not forbidden, but makes the eater unclean, and they must wash.
Questions and Observations
1) Moses (or rather God, if you buy into the idea) is getting really intense with his religious nationalisation programme. One must do all these things, and do them in precisely this way and only this way. Only a leader with a high degree of detailed control could impose these kinds of diktats on their followers.
2) The blood stuff is all symbolic. An argument of literary rather than medical means.
3) Are Christians or observant Jews who eat black pudding in contravention of their faith?
4) Not eating meat that died a natural death can make sense - probably medically not a good idea to eat an animal that died of dysentery, for example.
5) Ditto meat that's been torn by wild animals - not going to be the most hygienic. But it doesn't forbid this - and having a bath afterwards is going to make zero difference to any food poisoning issues.
Highlights
- Centralisation of sacrifice
- Food regulations - don't eat blood, and mind eating animal-touched meat
Summary
- Moses (claiming divine instruction) decrees that it is now impermissible to sacrifice in the approved fashion anywhere but at the temple. The penalty for improper location of an otherwise correctly performed sacrificed is banishment.
- It is explained how blood is felt to be symbolic of life, and how it is felt that this makes eating it unacceptable.
- Prohibition of eating animals that died a death not desired by humans.
- Eating meat "torn by beasts" not forbidden, but makes the eater unclean, and they must wash.
Questions and Observations
1) Moses (or rather God, if you buy into the idea) is getting really intense with his religious nationalisation programme. One must do all these things, and do them in precisely this way and only this way. Only a leader with a high degree of detailed control could impose these kinds of diktats on their followers.
2) The blood stuff is all symbolic. An argument of literary rather than medical means.
3) Are Christians or observant Jews who eat black pudding in contravention of their faith?
4) Not eating meat that died a natural death can make sense - probably medically not a good idea to eat an animal that died of dysentery, for example.
5) Ditto meat that's been torn by wild animals - not going to be the most hygienic. But it doesn't forbid this - and having a bath afterwards is going to make zero difference to any food poisoning issues.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 25, 2016, 08:50AM - It is explained how blood is felt to be symbolic of life, and how it is felt that this makes eating it unacceptable.
This is an interesting evolution, because earlier it would seem breath is life, rather than blood.
This is an interesting evolution, because earlier it would seem breath is life, rather than blood.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 24, 2016, 07:20AM"it wouldn't have been any worse than the bass trombone improvising his own tasteful ad lib solo in the quiet section of the test piece in the nationals would it?
...
Nice touch, Martin!
Unfortunately I think my allegory fails because Dave would relate the bible more to a jazz setting with lots of improv by the people rather than a group controlled by a Supreme Being aka Bandmaster or MD.
...
Nice touch, Martin!
Unfortunately I think my allegory fails because Dave would relate the bible more to a jazz setting with lots of improv by the people rather than a group controlled by a Supreme Being aka Bandmaster or MD.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 25, 2016, 09:08AMQuote from: MoominDave on Today at 03:50:09 AM
- It is explained how blood is felt to be symbolic of life, and how it is felt that this makes eating it unacceptable.
This is an interesting evolution, because earlier it would seem breath is life, rather than blood.
Yeah its interesting. I think you're referring to Gen 2:7 "then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."
the Hebrew for breathe also means spirit. And English does the same with words with ...spire in them, inspire, respire ...
I think both metaphors* are used through the bible.
* I don't think metaphor is the right figure of speech, but that will have to do.
- It is explained how blood is felt to be symbolic of life, and how it is felt that this makes eating it unacceptable.
This is an interesting evolution, because earlier it would seem breath is life, rather than blood.
Yeah its interesting. I think you're referring to Gen 2:7 "then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."
the Hebrew for breathe also means spirit. And English does the same with words with ...spire in them, inspire, respire ...
I think both metaphors* are used through the bible.
* I don't think metaphor is the right figure of speech, but that will have to do.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 25, 2016, 08:50AMLeviticus 17 text
Highlights
- Centralisation of sacrifice
- Food regulations - don't eat blood, and mind eating animal-touched meat
Summary
- Moses (claiming divine instruction) decrees that it is now impermissible to sacrifice in the approved fashion anywhere but at the temple. The penalty for improper location of an otherwise correctly performed sacrificed is banishment.
- It is explained how blood is felt to be symbolic of life, and how it is felt that this makes eating it unacceptable.
- Prohibition of eating animals that died a death not desired by humans.
- Eating meat "torn by beasts" not forbidden, but makes the eater unclean, and they must wash.
Questions and Observations
1) Moses (or rather God, if you buy into the idea) is getting really intense with his religious nationalisation programme. One must do all these things, and do them in precisely this way and only this way. Only a leader with a high degree of detailed control could impose these kinds of diktats on their followers.
- Deuteronomy 12:15 and from v20 and on relax the requirement to sacrifice in the tabernacle any meat that you want to eat. This was just before they were going to enter into The Promised Land, so it was only required in the wilderness.
- But Lev 17:7 says "it shall be a statute forever". Maybe that was specifically about worshiping goat demons.
- v7 also gives the reason for the prohibition: so they don't sacrifice to goat demons, so it sounds like the prohibition was against the worshipping of other gods, maybe these were desert gods.
Quote2) The blood stuff is all symbolic. An argument of literary rather than medical means.
- given that blood is symbolic of life ISTM that the strong focus on not eating blood was to reinforce a respect for life.
Quote3) Are Christians or observant Jews who eat black pudding in contravention of their faith?
- I'd guess that orthodox Jews would be horrified at the prospect of eating black pudding, and that Liberal Jews wouldn't worry about it
- As far as christians go: in Acts 10 Peter the Apostle got a vision from God telling him that the classification of food into clean/unclean categories was revoked and that you could eat what you liked without any moral problems. This indicated that it was ok to take the gospel to those unclean gentiles.
- So eating black pudding isn't a contravention of christian faith, but why would you want to eat cooked blood. Yucky!
Highlights
- Centralisation of sacrifice
- Food regulations - don't eat blood, and mind eating animal-touched meat
Summary
- Moses (claiming divine instruction) decrees that it is now impermissible to sacrifice in the approved fashion anywhere but at the temple. The penalty for improper location of an otherwise correctly performed sacrificed is banishment.
- It is explained how blood is felt to be symbolic of life, and how it is felt that this makes eating it unacceptable.
- Prohibition of eating animals that died a death not desired by humans.
- Eating meat "torn by beasts" not forbidden, but makes the eater unclean, and they must wash.
Questions and Observations
1) Moses (or rather God, if you buy into the idea) is getting really intense with his religious nationalisation programme. One must do all these things, and do them in precisely this way and only this way. Only a leader with a high degree of detailed control could impose these kinds of diktats on their followers.
- Deuteronomy 12:15 and from v20 and on relax the requirement to sacrifice in the tabernacle any meat that you want to eat. This was just before they were going to enter into The Promised Land, so it was only required in the wilderness.
- But Lev 17:7 says "it shall be a statute forever". Maybe that was specifically about worshiping goat demons.
- v7 also gives the reason for the prohibition: so they don't sacrifice to goat demons, so it sounds like the prohibition was against the worshipping of other gods, maybe these were desert gods.
Quote2) The blood stuff is all symbolic. An argument of literary rather than medical means.
- given that blood is symbolic of life ISTM that the strong focus on not eating blood was to reinforce a respect for life.
Quote3) Are Christians or observant Jews who eat black pudding in contravention of their faith?
- I'd guess that orthodox Jews would be horrified at the prospect of eating black pudding, and that Liberal Jews wouldn't worry about it
- As far as christians go: in Acts 10 Peter the Apostle got a vision from God telling him that the classification of food into clean/unclean categories was revoked and that you could eat what you liked without any moral problems. This indicated that it was ok to take the gospel to those unclean gentiles.
- So eating black pudding isn't a contravention of christian faith, but why would you want to eat cooked blood. Yucky!
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 22, 2016, 08:45AM
2) What societal purpose does this fussy and rigid implementation of the concept of "uncleanness" serve? Surely making people jump through hoops in their daily lives for little obvious purpose would bore and alienate them? I suspect that there are a number of empirical learned precepts about what is harmful to eat behind this - and that, as is the nature of such collections of knowledge, there were a lot of unnecessary or plain wrong prohibitions mixed in with the sensible, that had been learned incorrectly in haste.
...
4) Making a distinction in the (admittedly already extremely artificial) concept of uncleanness between childbirth after male and female babies serves to make a big deal out of gender differences right from the start of life.
5) What does "in the blood of her purifying" mean in Lev 12? There seems a contradiction between Lev 12:4 and Lev 12:5 - 33 vs 66 days?
6) Childbirth incurs a Sin Offering. So childbirth is a sin? That seems... twisted. But consistent with many of the repressive attitudes towards women that one encounters in this kind of context.
7a) The practical quarantine measures regarding leprosy diagnosis are sensible, checking that the disease is definite before.
7b) The detail of how to diagnose leprosy is convoluted, counterintuitive, and beyond my knowledge. Would this procedure have worked?
7c) In fact, a wide variety of symptoms are here described as "leprous disease". I suspect that various diverse diseases are being classified together here?
7d) The segment on "leprous disease" in a garment I find puzzling. It seems to describe a malady of the cloth rather than a human disease being transmitted via garment contact. Have I read this right?
7e) Ditto the segment on the same in houses.
8) Sin Offerings for being cured of leprosy. The sense seems to be that such things are to be considered a divine judgement for having done some unspecified past sin. Very primitive.
9) "A discharge" deals with things such as diarrhoea and weeping sores, I guess. Very sensible medically to keep such things clean and to wash things that come into contact. Minimises infection; I approve.
10a) But the rules on uncleanness after semen emission are over-fussy, and seemingly aimed to stigmatise.
10b) And the rules on uncleanness after menstruation are ridiculously so, and seemingly aimed to stigmatise much more. I think that in verses like this we see arising a lot of the 'ickiness' with basic human biology that the Christian church has tried to imbue our Western society with. And worse - it institutionalises the second-tier status of women in minor but societally profound ways.
11) Essentially, these chapters all boil down to: Some things can be dangerous; we don't understand exactly why or how, but these are the rules we've evolved in order to minimise danger; "uncleanness" is the abstraction we've come to use to represent this danger. Some of these prohibitions I suspect were very old indeed even in Moses's day. Some are bang on the nail; others are unnecessary foliage that's got pulled along as they've travelled the route.
I'm not super comfortable with my understanding of clean/unclean and needing sin offerings to get clean so I baled up the minister at church on Sunday to try and sort it out, especially why they seemed to stigmatise females.
He said that being unclean and getting clean didn't necessarily indicate a moral problem because it applied to sores and mould on clothes. Specifically God commanded us to have kids so doing so isn't a sin and kids are actually called a reward from God. And that while there were instances of people stigmatising women using these rules, it was more a case of sexist men using them as an excuse to be sexist. Granted that in the middle of a noisy morning tea after church isn't the best place to sit down and do some good analysis and explanation, I'm still not confident I've got a good handle on it.
A different issue in trying to understand the text, is that the ESV translation we are using tends to be fairly literal, and makes us decode terms and figures of speech ourselves. eg leprous diseases on clothes and houses. If you switch the translation to "The New International Version" it translates the terms into more contemporary language and decodes idiosyncacies and figures of speech. So leprous diseases on clothes and houses becomes molds. It makes it easier, but sometimes misses double meanings and meanings that aren't as obvious in contemprorary english.
2) What societal purpose does this fussy and rigid implementation of the concept of "uncleanness" serve? Surely making people jump through hoops in their daily lives for little obvious purpose would bore and alienate them? I suspect that there are a number of empirical learned precepts about what is harmful to eat behind this - and that, as is the nature of such collections of knowledge, there were a lot of unnecessary or plain wrong prohibitions mixed in with the sensible, that had been learned incorrectly in haste.
...
4) Making a distinction in the (admittedly already extremely artificial) concept of uncleanness between childbirth after male and female babies serves to make a big deal out of gender differences right from the start of life.
5) What does "in the blood of her purifying" mean in Lev 12? There seems a contradiction between Lev 12:4 and Lev 12:5 - 33 vs 66 days?
6) Childbirth incurs a Sin Offering. So childbirth is a sin? That seems... twisted. But consistent with many of the repressive attitudes towards women that one encounters in this kind of context.
7a) The practical quarantine measures regarding leprosy diagnosis are sensible, checking that the disease is definite before.
7b) The detail of how to diagnose leprosy is convoluted, counterintuitive, and beyond my knowledge. Would this procedure have worked?
7c) In fact, a wide variety of symptoms are here described as "leprous disease". I suspect that various diverse diseases are being classified together here?
7d) The segment on "leprous disease" in a garment I find puzzling. It seems to describe a malady of the cloth rather than a human disease being transmitted via garment contact. Have I read this right?
7e) Ditto the segment on the same in houses.
8) Sin Offerings for being cured of leprosy. The sense seems to be that such things are to be considered a divine judgement for having done some unspecified past sin. Very primitive.
9) "A discharge" deals with things such as diarrhoea and weeping sores, I guess. Very sensible medically to keep such things clean and to wash things that come into contact. Minimises infection; I approve.
10a) But the rules on uncleanness after semen emission are over-fussy, and seemingly aimed to stigmatise.
10b) And the rules on uncleanness after menstruation are ridiculously so, and seemingly aimed to stigmatise much more. I think that in verses like this we see arising a lot of the 'ickiness' with basic human biology that the Christian church has tried to imbue our Western society with. And worse - it institutionalises the second-tier status of women in minor but societally profound ways.
11) Essentially, these chapters all boil down to: Some things can be dangerous; we don't understand exactly why or how, but these are the rules we've evolved in order to minimise danger; "uncleanness" is the abstraction we've come to use to represent this danger. Some of these prohibitions I suspect were very old indeed even in Moses's day. Some are bang on the nail; others are unnecessary foliage that's got pulled along as they've travelled the route.
I'm not super comfortable with my understanding of clean/unclean and needing sin offerings to get clean so I baled up the minister at church on Sunday to try and sort it out, especially why they seemed to stigmatise females.
He said that being unclean and getting clean didn't necessarily indicate a moral problem because it applied to sores and mould on clothes. Specifically God commanded us to have kids so doing so isn't a sin and kids are actually called a reward from God. And that while there were instances of people stigmatising women using these rules, it was more a case of sexist men using them as an excuse to be sexist. Granted that in the middle of a noisy morning tea after church isn't the best place to sit down and do some good analysis and explanation, I'm still not confident I've got a good handle on it.
A different issue in trying to understand the text, is that the ESV translation we are using tends to be fairly literal, and makes us decode terms and figures of speech ourselves. eg leprous diseases on clothes and houses. If you switch the translation to "The New International Version" it translates the terms into more contemporary language and decodes idiosyncacies and figures of speech. So leprous diseases on clothes and houses becomes molds. It makes it easier, but sometimes misses double meanings and meanings that aren't as obvious in contemprorary english.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Leviticus 18 text
Highlights
- God tells Israel to be holy, not like those Egyptians or Canaanites
Summary
- God tells Moses to tell the people not to do the things that the Egyptians or the Canaanites do
- don't have sex with close relatives
- don't marry your wifes sister while your wife is alive
- don't have sex with a wommen while she is menstruating and don't sacrifice your children to Molech
- no homo sex
- don't have sex with animals
- don't do these things because that's why I'm driving the gentiles out of the Land.
Questions and Observations
1. "uncover the nakedness" is a euphemism for intercourse with a person or their wife
2. Most of these rules are considered optional in todays society, except for offering your kids to Molech - burnt offerings are still frowned on.
Highlights
- God tells Israel to be holy, not like those Egyptians or Canaanites
Summary
- God tells Moses to tell the people not to do the things that the Egyptians or the Canaanites do
- don't have sex with close relatives
- don't marry your wifes sister while your wife is alive
- don't have sex with a wommen while she is menstruating and don't sacrifice your children to Molech
- no homo sex
- don't have sex with animals
- don't do these things because that's why I'm driving the gentiles out of the Land.
Questions and Observations
1. "uncover the nakedness" is a euphemism for intercourse with a person or their wife
2. Most of these rules are considered optional in todays society, except for offering your kids to Molech - burnt offerings are still frowned on.
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 12:44PMUnfortunately I think my allegory fails because Dave would relate the bible more to a jazz setting with lots of improv by the people rather than a group controlled by a Supreme Being aka Bandmaster or MD.
I think of it more as a folk song. One of those very long ones with half an hour's worth of verses...
Or rather, as a whole related tradition of folk songs. Each new generation brings their own musical baggage to the performance of each song within the tradition. Some songs become more favoured over time, others less. Some songs pick up ornamentation and substantial melodic and harmonic alterations over time, while others stay in pretty much the same form for long spans of time. Some songs pick up new verses over the years, and lose old ones. The process is quite random, and it would be very hard in advance to suggest which songs would reach their 'finished' form early on.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 01:35PM- Deuteronomy 12:15 and from v20 and on relax the requirement to sacrifice in the tabernacle any meat that you want to eat. This was just before they were going to enter into The Promised Land, so it was only required in the wilderness.
Emergency measures, in other words.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 01:35PM- given that blood is symbolic of life ISTM that the strong focus on not eating blood was to reinforce a respect for life.
Which is interesting. The narrative hasn't often seemed to be especially concerned about being respectful of life. Is this a new direction?
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 01:35PM- As far as christians go: in Acts 10 Peter the Apostle got a vision from God telling him that the classification of food into clean/unclean categories was revoked and that you could eat what you liked without any moral problems. This indicated that it was ok to take the gospel to those unclean gentiles.
Ah okay, good spot.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 01:35PM- So eating black pudding isn't a contravention of christian faith, but why would you want to eat cooked blood. Yucky!
Heresy!
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 02:18PMI'm not super comfortable with my understanding of clean/unclean and needing sin offerings to get clean so I baled up the minister at church on Sunday to try and sort it out, especially why they seemed to stigmatise females.
Good thought, that seems an excellent plan.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 02:18PMHe said that being unclean and getting clean didn't necessarily indicate a moral problem because it applied to sores and mould on clothes.
So the book specifies this concept unclearly, I think. Sin and uncleanness are all mixed up in the text, and it is left to the modern reader to deduce that the two concepts don't cover exactly the same ground.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 02:18PMSpecifically God commanded us to have kids so doing so isn't a sin and kids are actually called a reward from God. And that while there were instances of people stigmatising women using these rules, it was more a case of sexist men using them as an excuse to be sexist.
I'm totally with you/them on that. The trouble arises when people get too literal with the text, and start trying to use it as an inerrant guide specifying how to run their lives. It is way too easy for a sexist to use this stuff to cloak their sexist behaviour with a veneer of respectability.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 02:18PMA different issue in trying to understand the text, is that the ESV translation we are using tends to be fairly literal, and makes us decode terms and figures of speech ourselves. eg leprous diseases on clothes and houses. If you switch the translation to "The New International Version" it translates the terms into more contemporary language and decodes idiosyncacies and figures of speech. So leprous diseases on clothes and houses becomes molds. It makes it easier, but sometimes misses double meanings and meanings that aren't as obvious in contemprorary english.
Ah, yes, this is a good thought. Maybe I've been hammering through chapters too fast to allow subtleties like this enough room to breathe, as sometimes they vitally need to, like here.
I think of it more as a folk song. One of those very long ones with half an hour's worth of verses...
Or rather, as a whole related tradition of folk songs. Each new generation brings their own musical baggage to the performance of each song within the tradition. Some songs become more favoured over time, others less. Some songs pick up ornamentation and substantial melodic and harmonic alterations over time, while others stay in pretty much the same form for long spans of time. Some songs pick up new verses over the years, and lose old ones. The process is quite random, and it would be very hard in advance to suggest which songs would reach their 'finished' form early on.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 01:35PM- Deuteronomy 12:15 and from v20 and on relax the requirement to sacrifice in the tabernacle any meat that you want to eat. This was just before they were going to enter into The Promised Land, so it was only required in the wilderness.
Emergency measures, in other words.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 01:35PM- given that blood is symbolic of life ISTM that the strong focus on not eating blood was to reinforce a respect for life.
Which is interesting. The narrative hasn't often seemed to be especially concerned about being respectful of life. Is this a new direction?
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 01:35PM- As far as christians go: in Acts 10 Peter the Apostle got a vision from God telling him that the classification of food into clean/unclean categories was revoked and that you could eat what you liked without any moral problems. This indicated that it was ok to take the gospel to those unclean gentiles.
Ah okay, good spot.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 01:35PM- So eating black pudding isn't a contravention of christian faith, but why would you want to eat cooked blood. Yucky!
Heresy!
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 02:18PMI'm not super comfortable with my understanding of clean/unclean and needing sin offerings to get clean so I baled up the minister at church on Sunday to try and sort it out, especially why they seemed to stigmatise females.
Good thought, that seems an excellent plan.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 02:18PMHe said that being unclean and getting clean didn't necessarily indicate a moral problem because it applied to sores and mould on clothes.
So the book specifies this concept unclearly, I think. Sin and uncleanness are all mixed up in the text, and it is left to the modern reader to deduce that the two concepts don't cover exactly the same ground.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 02:18PMSpecifically God commanded us to have kids so doing so isn't a sin and kids are actually called a reward from God. And that while there were instances of people stigmatising women using these rules, it was more a case of sexist men using them as an excuse to be sexist.
I'm totally with you/them on that. The trouble arises when people get too literal with the text, and start trying to use it as an inerrant guide specifying how to run their lives. It is way too easy for a sexist to use this stuff to cloak their sexist behaviour with a veneer of respectability.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 02:18PMA different issue in trying to understand the text, is that the ESV translation we are using tends to be fairly literal, and makes us decode terms and figures of speech ourselves. eg leprous diseases on clothes and houses. If you switch the translation to "The New International Version" it translates the terms into more contemporary language and decodes idiosyncacies and figures of speech. So leprous diseases on clothes and houses becomes molds. It makes it easier, but sometimes misses double meanings and meanings that aren't as obvious in contemprorary english.
Ah, yes, this is a good thought. Maybe I've been hammering through chapters too fast to allow subtleties like this enough room to breathe, as sometimes they vitally need to, like here.
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 05:10PM - God tells Moses to tell the people not to do the things that the Egyptians or the Canaanites do
- don't have sex with close relatives
- don't marry your wifes sister while your wife is alive
- don't have sex with a wommen while she is menstruating and don't sacrifice your children to Molech
- no homo sex
- don't have sex with animals
- don't do these things because that's why I'm driving the gentiles out of the Land.
In a similar vein to the observation about the womanly uncleanness stuff enabling sexism in those that want to think that way, we touch on an infamous prohibition here - "No gay sex". While reasonable people like yourself and your minister are willing to take the time to filter this stuff through a 'commonsense' sieve, there are plenty out there who want a reason to treat gay people poorly, and for those of them that are keen on the Bible, here is the perfect justification. Arguments of consistency regarding these passages make no dent in their confidence - God meant it when he told gays not to, but he was only kidding around when he demanded that mixed fibres not be worn. Apparently.
In my opinion, Christianity would philosophically speaking do itself a great number of favours if it mercilessly edited out the Old Testament laws (and practically do those that it bashes in these passages a great number of favours in terms of not being assaulted and discriminated against). Mind you, it would by the same manoeuvre cause schisms, so I don't see it happening any time soon.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 05:10PM2. Most of these rules are considered optional in todays society, except for offering your kids to Molech - burnt offerings are still frowned on.
I'm always intrigued by how prevalent the concept of discarding possessions in religious honour was in very ancient times. This wasn't an idea that only occurred to the ancient Hebrews - the Celts were very keen on it too. I suppose the idea of giving things up to prove that you are big enough not to need them is one easily harnessed by a religious power structure.
It's also interesting to compare which of the sexual proscriptions still hold today, and to think in cold terms why they do or don't make sense. Note that comparisons are not all entirely straightforward - I've worked in terms of banned civil marriages here, unless it made more sense to simply work in terms of the sexual act.
- don't have sex with close relatives
- don't marry your wifes sister while your wife is alive
- don't have sex with a wommen while she is menstruating and don't sacrifice your children to Molech
- no homo sex
- don't have sex with animals
- don't do these things because that's why I'm driving the gentiles out of the Land.
In a similar vein to the observation about the womanly uncleanness stuff enabling sexism in those that want to think that way, we touch on an infamous prohibition here - "No gay sex". While reasonable people like yourself and your minister are willing to take the time to filter this stuff through a 'commonsense' sieve, there are plenty out there who want a reason to treat gay people poorly, and for those of them that are keen on the Bible, here is the perfect justification. Arguments of consistency regarding these passages make no dent in their confidence - God meant it when he told gays not to, but he was only kidding around when he demanded that mixed fibres not be worn. Apparently.
In my opinion, Christianity would philosophically speaking do itself a great number of favours if it mercilessly edited out the Old Testament laws (and practically do those that it bashes in these passages a great number of favours in terms of not being assaulted and discriminated against). Mind you, it would by the same manoeuvre cause schisms, so I don't see it happening any time soon.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 25, 2016, 05:10PM2. Most of these rules are considered optional in todays society, except for offering your kids to Molech - burnt offerings are still frowned on.
I'm always intrigued by how prevalent the concept of discarding possessions in religious honour was in very ancient times. This wasn't an idea that only occurred to the ancient Hebrews - the Celts were very keen on it too. I suppose the idea of giving things up to prove that you are big enough not to need them is one easily harnessed by a religious power structure.
It's also interesting to compare which of the sexual proscriptions still hold today, and to think in cold terms why they do or don't make sense. Note that comparisons are not all entirely straightforward - I've worked in terms of banned civil marriages here, unless it made more sense to simply work in terms of the sexual act.
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 26, 2016, 07:16AM
In my opinion, Christianity would philosophically speaking do itself a great number of favours if it mercilessly edited out the Old Testament laws
No need to follow God, just follow the herd, and all will be well with your soul.
In my opinion, Christianity would philosophically speaking do itself a great number of favours if it mercilessly edited out the Old Testament laws
No need to follow God, just follow the herd, and all will be well with your soul.
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
What's the problem? To pick the most obvious example, you got rid of 6 whole books from the Old Testament in relatively recent history.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 26, 2016, 07:56AMWhat's the problem? To pick the most obvious example, you got rid of 6 whole books from the Old Testament in relatively recent history.
Historically Christian theologians have a rather nuanced and well thought out handling of OT laws such as these. Essentially orthodox theologians have followed some sort of division into civil, ceremonial and moral laws, with only the latter still binding. Discerning what falls into what category has engendered considerable discussion, but a rather common consensus has been found. For example, if the New Testament repeats the command as binding, then it is still binding on today's Christians. Many of the laws on sexual behavior-- i.e. premarital intercourse, adultery, homosexual activities fall under that category.
There are other criteria as well. The best summary of how this has been worked out is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, perhaps the most widely used statement of faith in the Reformed tradition and, in this section, copied word for word by other traditions, such as the London Baptist Confession of 1689 with a couple of additional clarifying statements.
In chapter XIX of the WCF, sections 3 and 4 we find the following summary:
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]
IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.[7]
The last phase, "general equity" is a way of saying that while many of the specifics are not applicable to New Testament Christians, these OT laws still have a general thrust that is valuable.
The approach taken by the theologians at Westminster is typical of how this has been historically handled and is a carefully nuanced approach. It takes what is still "binding" very literally, but recognizes that the NT and the flow of the whole Bible need to be factored into understanding how these laws should be approached.
Historically Christian theologians have a rather nuanced and well thought out handling of OT laws such as these. Essentially orthodox theologians have followed some sort of division into civil, ceremonial and moral laws, with only the latter still binding. Discerning what falls into what category has engendered considerable discussion, but a rather common consensus has been found. For example, if the New Testament repeats the command as binding, then it is still binding on today's Christians. Many of the laws on sexual behavior-- i.e. premarital intercourse, adultery, homosexual activities fall under that category.
There are other criteria as well. The best summary of how this has been worked out is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, perhaps the most widely used statement of faith in the Reformed tradition and, in this section, copied word for word by other traditions, such as the London Baptist Confession of 1689 with a couple of additional clarifying statements.
In chapter XIX of the WCF, sections 3 and 4 we find the following summary:
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]
IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.[7]
The last phase, "general equity" is a way of saying that while many of the specifics are not applicable to New Testament Christians, these OT laws still have a general thrust that is valuable.
The approach taken by the theologians at Westminster is typical of how this has been historically handled and is a carefully nuanced approach. It takes what is still "binding" very literally, but recognizes that the NT and the flow of the whole Bible need to be factored into understanding how these laws should be approached.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
It seems to be more convenient than nuanced to me. Well, it's nuanced in the sense that a lot of nits were picked to support the conclusions, but not so much to develop the conclusions.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: timothy42b on Jan 26, 2016, 09:20AMIt seems to be more convenient than nuanced to me. Well, it's nuanced in the sense that a lot of nits were picked to support the conclusions, but not so much to develop the conclusions.
Some sort of approach is seen in the words of Jesus when he refers to some portions of the law as "weightier."
Here are a couple of the texts:
Matthew 23:23: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others."
Luke 11:42: "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.
Some sort of approach is seen in the words of Jesus when he refers to some portions of the law as "weightier."
Here are a couple of the texts:
Matthew 23:23: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others."
Luke 11:42: "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jan 26, 2016, 10:15AMSome sort of approach is seen in the words of Jesus when he refers to some portions of the law as "weightier."
Here are a couple of the texts:
I read him as saying we are more subject to the intent of God than the letter of the law. That is a large part of his ministry IMO.
I further think that religious figures of his time had been forced into a literal interpretation by circumstance. They had a contract (covenant) with Yahweh, and clearly he was not paying off, as they'd been defeated, conquered, subjugated, so obviously the Chosen People must not have been obeying the commandments sufficiently. The way to survive as a people was to obey more stringently - then Jesus comes along and says no, you've got it wrong, you don't need to obey the plain and clear directions of the text, you have to ascertain the Father's will. Of course they would see him as a threat.
But there's a problem. In striving for intent, you have to ignore some very plain and clear text.
Here are a couple of the texts:
I read him as saying we are more subject to the intent of God than the letter of the law. That is a large part of his ministry IMO.
I further think that religious figures of his time had been forced into a literal interpretation by circumstance. They had a contract (covenant) with Yahweh, and clearly he was not paying off, as they'd been defeated, conquered, subjugated, so obviously the Chosen People must not have been obeying the commandments sufficiently. The way to survive as a people was to obey more stringently - then Jesus comes along and says no, you've got it wrong, you don't need to obey the plain and clear directions of the text, you have to ascertain the Father's will. Of course they would see him as a threat.
But there's a problem. In striving for intent, you have to ignore some very plain and clear text.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
IMHO
- the Law was given to Israel
- God intended that they keep it
- over the years people added lots of fine print to the Law to fill in what they thought were gaps.
- Jesus said that the People could ignore that fine print
- Jesus came along and fulfilled a parts of it and abrogated some of it
- We're gentiles and not Jews so we follow what God tells us to do and don't worry about the Law unless we have too.
- we're going to find out if I'm right in about 5 years when we get to the New Testament.
- the Law was given to Israel
- God intended that they keep it
- over the years people added lots of fine print to the Law to fill in what they thought were gaps.
- Jesus said that the People could ignore that fine print
- Jesus came along and fulfilled a parts of it and abrogated some of it
- We're gentiles and not Jews so we follow what God tells us to do and don't worry about the Law unless we have too.
- we're going to find out if I'm right in about 5 years when we get to the New Testament.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
QuoteIMHO
- the Law was given to IsraelAgree
Quote- God intended that they keep itAgree
Quote- over the years people added lots of fine print to the Law to fill in what they thought were gaps.Agree
Quote- Jesus said that the People could ignore that fine printAgree
Quote- Jesus came along and fulfilled a parts of it and abrogated some of itNo, IMO that's a specific denominational revision not really supported by the text.
Quote- We're gentiles and not Jews so we follow what God tells us to do and don't worry about the Law unless we have too.We're as subject to the intent as they were. But not to the fine print.
And how to tell the difference? Ah, there's the rub..........
- the Law was given to IsraelAgree
Quote- God intended that they keep itAgree
Quote- over the years people added lots of fine print to the Law to fill in what they thought were gaps.Agree
Quote- Jesus said that the People could ignore that fine printAgree
Quote- Jesus came along and fulfilled a parts of it and abrogated some of itNo, IMO that's a specific denominational revision not really supported by the text.
Quote- We're gentiles and not Jews so we follow what God tells us to do and don't worry about the Law unless we have too.We're as subject to the intent as they were. But not to the fine print.
And how to tell the difference? Ah, there's the rub..........
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Leviticus 19 text
Highlights
- Israel to be holy because God is holy
Summary
- God tells Moses to tell the People to be holy because he is holy
- They are told:
- respect their parents, keep his Sabbaths and not make or worship idols
- make Peace offerings properly so that they will be accepted
- love their neighbour as themselves.
- keep different things different - excuse me generalising
- make atonement if a man sleeps with an "unassigned" slave women
- don't harvest fruit trees for 3 years after they are planted, and give the first harvest to God
- don't eat food with blood in it, don't round your hair around your temples, don't cut your body for the dead or tattoo yourselve
- don't make your daughter a prostitute
- don't turn to mediums or necromancers
- honour the elderly
- love migrants as yourselves
- don't cheat
- do these because "I am God"
Questions and Observations
1. There are some rules that are quite relevant to today (love migrants) and others that seem totally strange (keep different things different). either because they relate to old conventions or because they don't seem make sense from a human perspective.
2. It was a good reminder to see the "Love your neighbour" type rules in there from the beginning.
3. We seem to have had a shift from rules about how and when to sacrifice rules to rules about how to live, how the People should live and relate to each other.
4. And a late addition: I noticed
- that the reason Israel was to be holy because God is holy
- and being holy required you to do specific things, (ie the commandments) because that's what God was like
- I'm assuming that these things are "good"
- so seems to me that the things were based on his nature, ie holy
- if that's the case then he didn't specify the actions randomly, neither did he specify them because he was following an external std of what were "good" actions
What do you reckon?
Highlights
- Israel to be holy because God is holy
Summary
- God tells Moses to tell the People to be holy because he is holy
- They are told:
- respect their parents, keep his Sabbaths and not make or worship idols
- make Peace offerings properly so that they will be accepted
- love their neighbour as themselves.
- keep different things different - excuse me generalising
- make atonement if a man sleeps with an "unassigned" slave women
- don't harvest fruit trees for 3 years after they are planted, and give the first harvest to God
- don't eat food with blood in it, don't round your hair around your temples, don't cut your body for the dead or tattoo yourselve
- don't make your daughter a prostitute
- don't turn to mediums or necromancers
- honour the elderly
- love migrants as yourselves
- don't cheat
- do these because "I am God"
Questions and Observations
1. There are some rules that are quite relevant to today (love migrants) and others that seem totally strange (keep different things different). either because they relate to old conventions or because they don't seem make sense from a human perspective.
2. It was a good reminder to see the "Love your neighbour" type rules in there from the beginning.
3. We seem to have had a shift from rules about how and when to sacrifice rules to rules about how to live, how the People should live and relate to each other.
4. And a late addition: I noticed
- that the reason Israel was to be holy because God is holy
- and being holy required you to do specific things, (ie the commandments) because that's what God was like
- I'm assuming that these things are "good"
- so seems to me that the things were based on his nature, ie holy
- if that's the case then he didn't specify the actions randomly, neither did he specify them because he was following an external std of what were "good" actions
What do you reckon?
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Leviticus 20 text
Highlights
- reasons for being holy and consequemces for not being holy
Summary
- Execute anyone who sacrifices their kids to Molech
- If the community doesn't then God will be agains them
- God will be against anyone who prostitutes themselves to mediums or spiritists
- Consecrate yourselves and be holy because that's what God is
- various punishments ranging from death, expulsion and childlessness for having sex with the wrong type of people
- keep the decrees so that you don't get thrown out of the land, like the nations already there are going to be thrown out because they don't.
- make distinction between clean and unclean animals and birds
- "be holy because I am holy" and have set you apart from the nations.
- put mediums or spiritists to death.
Questions and Observations
1. Do the significance of the punishments indicate the significance of the infractions to God?
2. What are the reasons given for them to be holy?
3. How long do you think that the People would be able to keep up the standards?
Highlights
- reasons for being holy and consequemces for not being holy
Summary
- Execute anyone who sacrifices their kids to Molech
- If the community doesn't then God will be agains them
- God will be against anyone who prostitutes themselves to mediums or spiritists
- Consecrate yourselves and be holy because that's what God is
- various punishments ranging from death, expulsion and childlessness for having sex with the wrong type of people
- keep the decrees so that you don't get thrown out of the land, like the nations already there are going to be thrown out because they don't.
- make distinction between clean and unclean animals and birds
- "be holy because I am holy" and have set you apart from the nations.
- put mediums or spiritists to death.
Questions and Observations
1. Do the significance of the punishments indicate the significance of the infractions to God?
2. What are the reasons given for them to be holy?
3. How long do you think that the People would be able to keep up the standards?
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 26, 2016, 07:33PMLeviticus 19 text
1. There are some rules that are quite relevant to today (love migrants) and others that seem totally strange (keep different things different). either because they relate to old conventions or because they don't seem make sense from a human perspective.
2. It was a good reminder to see the "Love your neighbour" type rules in there from the beginning.
3. We seem to have had a shift from rules about how and when to sacrifice rules to rules about how to live, how the People should live and relate to each other.
4. And a late addition: I noticed
- that the reason Israel was to be holy because God is holy
- and being holy required you to do specific things, (ie the commandments) because that's what God was like
- I'm assuming that these things are "good"
- so seems to me that the things were based on his nature, ie holy
- if that's the case then he didn't specify the actions randomly, neither did he specify them because he was following an external std of what were "good" actions
What do you reckon?
1, 2, and 3 seem good to me. I too was cheered by the good socialist stuff about not allowing the rich to buy the law, etc.
4 we're broadly in agreement too. "Holy" is a funny word; it seems to basically mean "in the approved fashion of what is said to be of God". Its use neatly gives Moses, Aaron, and their power structure free rein to decree whatever they feel might be good - or to enforce existing conventions with greater zealousness, as they see fit. Whether you see the laws as divinely-given or as humanly-devised with the divine power idea to use as both a stick and a carrot to help make them self-policing.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 27, 2016, 06:39PMLeviticus 20 text
1. Do the significance of the punishments indicate the significance of the infractions to God?
2. What are the reasons given for them to be holy?
3. How long do you think that the People would be able to keep up the standards?
Moloch must have had quite an attraction as a deity for people in that place and time - this is the second time the worship of him has been specifically warned against. Evolutionarily speaking though, a deity that wants you to kill your offspring for him is almost guaranteed to run out of worshippers rather swiftly, due to both moral repugnance and breeding failure grounds...
1. You'd imagine so, no? Or at least to Moses and Aaron.
2. "Stick with it, the good stuff's coming". The story of Abraham's covenant has grown some real legs by this point.
3. I'd guess that we're going to find out... Past form suggests Moses is going to have to be a strong and brutal leader more than once in the time to come...
You didn't explicitly pull this out, but I think it worth dealing with, as it's at the root of so much modern-day misery. Here the specified punishment for male homosexuality is death. Interestingly, female homosexuality does not seem to be even acknowledged, an attitude that persisted in the West for a very long time indeed - British laws of a century ago had a similar division - the male version was a criminal offence, but the female version wasn't even considered worth describing, with some even denying its existence.
We know that Christianity as a whole has had and is still having a difficult time reconciling itself to treating homosexuals with common human decency. I read that Judaism has fraught relations with the subject, and that mainstream Islam (let along the barbarisms of ISIL that currently dominate our news headlines) looks thoroughly incapable of dealing with the subject with compassion.
It seems fair to conclude that the whole Abrahamic branch of religious thought has not as yet covered itself in glory regarding homosexuality.
1. There are some rules that are quite relevant to today (love migrants) and others that seem totally strange (keep different things different). either because they relate to old conventions or because they don't seem make sense from a human perspective.
2. It was a good reminder to see the "Love your neighbour" type rules in there from the beginning.
3. We seem to have had a shift from rules about how and when to sacrifice rules to rules about how to live, how the People should live and relate to each other.
4. And a late addition: I noticed
- that the reason Israel was to be holy because God is holy
- and being holy required you to do specific things, (ie the commandments) because that's what God was like
- I'm assuming that these things are "good"
- so seems to me that the things were based on his nature, ie holy
- if that's the case then he didn't specify the actions randomly, neither did he specify them because he was following an external std of what were "good" actions
What do you reckon?
1, 2, and 3 seem good to me. I too was cheered by the good socialist stuff about not allowing the rich to buy the law, etc.
4 we're broadly in agreement too. "Holy" is a funny word; it seems to basically mean "in the approved fashion of what is said to be of God". Its use neatly gives Moses, Aaron, and their power structure free rein to decree whatever they feel might be good - or to enforce existing conventions with greater zealousness, as they see fit. Whether you see the laws as divinely-given or as humanly-devised with the divine power idea to use as both a stick and a carrot to help make them self-policing.
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 27, 2016, 06:39PMLeviticus 20 text
1. Do the significance of the punishments indicate the significance of the infractions to God?
2. What are the reasons given for them to be holy?
3. How long do you think that the People would be able to keep up the standards?
Moloch must have had quite an attraction as a deity for people in that place and time - this is the second time the worship of him has been specifically warned against. Evolutionarily speaking though, a deity that wants you to kill your offspring for him is almost guaranteed to run out of worshippers rather swiftly, due to both moral repugnance and breeding failure grounds...
1. You'd imagine so, no? Or at least to Moses and Aaron.
2. "Stick with it, the good stuff's coming". The story of Abraham's covenant has grown some real legs by this point.
3. I'd guess that we're going to find out... Past form suggests Moses is going to have to be a strong and brutal leader more than once in the time to come...
You didn't explicitly pull this out, but I think it worth dealing with, as it's at the root of so much modern-day misery. Here the specified punishment for male homosexuality is death. Interestingly, female homosexuality does not seem to be even acknowledged, an attitude that persisted in the West for a very long time indeed - British laws of a century ago had a similar division - the male version was a criminal offence, but the female version wasn't even considered worth describing, with some even denying its existence.
We know that Christianity as a whole has had and is still having a difficult time reconciling itself to treating homosexuals with common human decency. I read that Judaism has fraught relations with the subject, and that mainstream Islam (let along the barbarisms of ISIL that currently dominate our news headlines) looks thoroughly incapable of dealing with the subject with compassion.
It seems fair to conclude that the whole Abrahamic branch of religious thought has not as yet covered itself in glory regarding homosexuality.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 28, 2016, 08:10AM
Moloch must have had quite an attraction as a deity for people in that place and time - this is the second time the worship of him has been specifically warned against. Evolutionarily speaking though, a deity that wants you to kill your offspring for him is almost guaranteed to run out of worshippers rather swiftly, due to both moral repugnance and breeding failure grounds...
I meant to say that the Moloch sacrifices have traditionally been understood to mean burning children alive to the god Moloch, some have suggested a rite of purification by fire instead, though perhaps a dangerous one. But I agree that it doesn't look sustainable in the long run.
QuoteYou didn't explicitly pull this out, but I think it worth dealing with, as it's at the root of so much modern-day misery. Here the specified punishment for male homosexuality is death. Interestingly, female homosexuality does not seem to be even acknowledged, an attitude that persisted in the West for a very long time indeed - British laws of a century ago had a similar division - the male version was a criminal offence, but the female version wasn't even considered worth describing, with some even denying its existence.
We know that Christianity as a whole has had and is still having a difficult time reconciling itself to treating homosexuals with common human decency. I read that Judaism has fraught relations with the subject, and that mainstream Islam (let along the barbarisms of ISIL that currently dominate our news headlines) looks thoroughly incapable of dealing with the subject with compassion.
It seems fair to conclude that the whole Abrahamic branch of religious thought has not as yet covered itself in glory regarding homosexuality.
Obviously your conclusion depends on the assumption of homo sex being ok, which depends on whether or not God created us with a specific standard of sex in mind. And obviously we're going to disagree.
I actually agree that christians haven't handled the issue or the people well. But I note that neither has secular society. When I was young, society was much more violently opposed to gay's (poofs ...) than christians were. Literal gay bashing was accepted as justified.
Moloch must have had quite an attraction as a deity for people in that place and time - this is the second time the worship of him has been specifically warned against. Evolutionarily speaking though, a deity that wants you to kill your offspring for him is almost guaranteed to run out of worshippers rather swiftly, due to both moral repugnance and breeding failure grounds...
I meant to say that the Moloch sacrifices have traditionally been understood to mean burning children alive to the god Moloch, some have suggested a rite of purification by fire instead, though perhaps a dangerous one. But I agree that it doesn't look sustainable in the long run.
QuoteYou didn't explicitly pull this out, but I think it worth dealing with, as it's at the root of so much modern-day misery. Here the specified punishment for male homosexuality is death. Interestingly, female homosexuality does not seem to be even acknowledged, an attitude that persisted in the West for a very long time indeed - British laws of a century ago had a similar division - the male version was a criminal offence, but the female version wasn't even considered worth describing, with some even denying its existence.
We know that Christianity as a whole has had and is still having a difficult time reconciling itself to treating homosexuals with common human decency. I read that Judaism has fraught relations with the subject, and that mainstream Islam (let along the barbarisms of ISIL that currently dominate our news headlines) looks thoroughly incapable of dealing with the subject with compassion.
It seems fair to conclude that the whole Abrahamic branch of religious thought has not as yet covered itself in glory regarding homosexuality.
Obviously your conclusion depends on the assumption of homo sex being ok, which depends on whether or not God created us with a specific standard of sex in mind. And obviously we're going to disagree.
I actually agree that christians haven't handled the issue or the people well. But I note that neither has secular society. When I was young, society was much more violently opposed to gay's (poofs ...) than christians were. Literal gay bashing was accepted as justified.
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
For sure society's problems dealing with people that behave in harmlessly but obviously different ways are wider than religion's part in them. But religion has been part of society for so long that it isn't really possible to pull the two apart on the subject. There are irreligious people with prejudices against homosexuality and there are people of every shade of religion with prejudices against homosexuality. One difference is that Christians of this cast of mind have this Biblical shield available to hide their prejudices behind - 'here is my line in the sand, no further'.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Leviticus 21 text
Highlights
- Rules for Priests
Summary
- God told Moses the Rules for Priests
- don't make yourselves unclean for the dead except for your closest relatives
- don't get edgy haircuts or body decorations
- only marry a virgin
- a priests daughter that becomes a prostitute shall be killed
- a high priest shall not let his hair hang down or tea his clothes for the dead, or touch the dead
- a priest must be without defect
Questions and Observations
1. Priests are held to a higher standard of holiness than others.
2. Daughters of priests were to be killed and burnt if they became prostitutes. A bit harsh.
3. I guess that "making yourself unclean for the dead" would be by touching them or be involved in the preparations for their burial. Incidentally their wife wasn't included in the list of closest relative. But the Talmudic law includes the wife among the persons of immediate relationship. It specifies, moreover, that it is the duty of the priest to defile himself for the sake of his deceased wife or, in fact, for any of his immediate kin, and that compulsion must be used in the case of any priest who refuses to do so, so they seemed to have thought that the wife wasn't excluded.
Highlights
- Rules for Priests
Summary
- God told Moses the Rules for Priests
- don't make yourselves unclean for the dead except for your closest relatives
- don't get edgy haircuts or body decorations
- only marry a virgin
- a priests daughter that becomes a prostitute shall be killed
- a high priest shall not let his hair hang down or tea his clothes for the dead, or touch the dead
- a priest must be without defect
Questions and Observations
1. Priests are held to a higher standard of holiness than others.
2. Daughters of priests were to be killed and burnt if they became prostitutes. A bit harsh.
3. I guess that "making yourself unclean for the dead" would be by touching them or be involved in the preparations for their burial. Incidentally their wife wasn't included in the list of closest relative. But the Talmudic law includes the wife among the persons of immediate relationship. It specifies, moreover, that it is the duty of the priest to defile himself for the sake of his deceased wife or, in fact, for any of his immediate kin, and that compulsion must be used in the case of any priest who refuses to do so, so they seemed to have thought that the wife wasn't excluded.
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 28, 2016, 12:29PMI meant to say that the Moloch sacrifices have traditionally been understood to mean burning children alive to the god Moloch, some have suggested a rite of purification by fire instead, though perhaps a dangerous one. But I agree that it doesn't look sustainable in the long run.
Perhaps sustainable in a time when people had many children, more than they wanted, and selling children into slavery was already on the table.
I doubt every child was highly treasured.
Perhaps sustainable in a time when people had many children, more than they wanted, and selling children into slavery was already on the table.
I doubt every child was highly treasured.
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
I've been thinking about this child sacrifice thing a bit more... we have recurring cases today where parents have intentionally killed their children
-They did it for revenge on an ex-spouse
-They wanted the insurance money
-They wanted the sympathy of society at having lost a child
-They believed their children were sinful or possessed by evil spirits
-They believed the world was doomed and wanted to spare their children the hassle
Whatever the reason, these people justified it in their own minds even though our culture makes it pretty clear that killing children is bad.
Now imagine a culture where they already have some religious expectation that it might be a good or rewarding thing. Making the leap would be very easy.
-They did it for revenge on an ex-spouse
-They wanted the insurance money
-They wanted the sympathy of society at having lost a child
-They believed their children were sinful or possessed by evil spirits
-They believed the world was doomed and wanted to spare their children the hassle
Whatever the reason, these people justified it in their own minds even though our culture makes it pretty clear that killing children is bad.
Now imagine a culture where they already have some religious expectation that it might be a good or rewarding thing. Making the leap would be very easy.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: robcat2075 on Jan 29, 2016, 06:08PMI've been thinking about this child sacrifice thing a bit more...
I've been trying to avoid thinking about this but you keep bringing it up
While I think that a lot of the commandments were to tell the People not to do things that they were likely to have done were they told not to do them**, I've never thought that the Hebrews would have done child sacrifice.
I think I thought that was because in my mind, they are the "good guys" and wouldn't stoop to that sort of thing. But while they were God's chosen, they were still human and not necessarily any better than average. Some of the later Hebrew kings and prophets condemned child sacrifice, so that seems to indicate that it was practiced.
** I also think that being told not to do something tends to be an incentive for some to do it.
I've been trying to avoid thinking about this but you keep bringing it up
While I think that a lot of the commandments were to tell the People not to do things that they were likely to have done were they told not to do them**, I've never thought that the Hebrews would have done child sacrifice.
I think I thought that was because in my mind, they are the "good guys" and wouldn't stoop to that sort of thing. But while they were God's chosen, they were still human and not necessarily any better than average. Some of the later Hebrew kings and prophets condemned child sacrifice, so that seems to indicate that it was practiced.
** I also think that being told not to do something tends to be an incentive for some to do it.
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
I imagine people one step out of the stone age had some pretty ghastly inclinations.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: robcat2075 on Jan 29, 2016, 08:18PMI imagine people one step out of the stone age had some pretty ghastly inclinations.
you don't have to go that far back
you don't have to go that far back
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Yeah, ghastly inclinations of various sorts seem to stick with us, though fashions in ghastliness change markedly. I imagine that if you time-travelled to find a Stone Age priest of some religion or other, supervising his 15th child sacrifice of the week in order to attempt to propitiate the deity imagined to be behind a particularly harsh drought, and whispered in his ear that we now have the ability to wipe out the whole of humanity with the touch of a few buttons, he'd be aghast. In many important ways, he would have the moral high ground at that moment.
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 28, 2016, 06:36PM - a priest must be without defect
This is a bit weird. Lev 21:16-23 -
16 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 17 Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, 19 or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, 20 or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. 21 No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord's food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things, 23 but he shall not go through the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries, for I am the Lord who sanctifies them.
Why is it commanded that the priests should be specimens of physical perfection? What if you develop long sight in middle age, as almost everyone does? Are you cast out from the priesthood? Are they selecting for only athletic young males? What is the purpose of that?
This is a bit weird. Lev 21:16-23 -
16 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 17 Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, 19 or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, 20 or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. 21 No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord's food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things, 23 but he shall not go through the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries, for I am the Lord who sanctifies them.
Why is it commanded that the priests should be specimens of physical perfection? What if you develop long sight in middle age, as almost everyone does? Are you cast out from the priesthood? Are they selecting for only athletic young males? What is the purpose of that?
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Leviticus 22 text
Highlights
- Further regulations for priests
- Regulations about animals for offerings
Summary
- A priest that has become unclean by the means specified earlier in the book (touching unclean meat and so on) must clean themselves and wait until the evening before resuming priestly things.
- Non-priests are not eligible to eat holy things, but the household of a priest is. Eligibility goes with residence - when a priest's daughter marries a non-priest, she loses eligibility to eat holy things, but if she is widowed or divorced and returns then she resumes it.
- Animals for offerings must be (like the priests offering them) specimens of physical perfection. No blemishes, no disabilities, no skin diseases, no ill-proportionedness, no geldings.
- Animals become eligible for offerings after 7 days of life.
Questions and Observations
1) I'm intrigued by the mention of divorce here. I read that Judaism has dealt with divorce sensibly for millennia, but that Christianity adopted the hardest of lines very early in its existence.
2) Sensible of the priests to insist on not being fed diseased meat... Wouldn't want to spoil their physical perfection!
Highlights
- Further regulations for priests
- Regulations about animals for offerings
Summary
- A priest that has become unclean by the means specified earlier in the book (touching unclean meat and so on) must clean themselves and wait until the evening before resuming priestly things.
- Non-priests are not eligible to eat holy things, but the household of a priest is. Eligibility goes with residence - when a priest's daughter marries a non-priest, she loses eligibility to eat holy things, but if she is widowed or divorced and returns then she resumes it.
- Animals for offerings must be (like the priests offering them) specimens of physical perfection. No blemishes, no disabilities, no skin diseases, no ill-proportionedness, no geldings.
- Animals become eligible for offerings after 7 days of life.
Questions and Observations
1) I'm intrigued by the mention of divorce here. I read that Judaism has dealt with divorce sensibly for millennia, but that Christianity adopted the hardest of lines very early in its existence.
2) Sensible of the priests to insist on not being fed diseased meat... Wouldn't want to spoil their physical perfection!
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 30, 2016, 03:29AMThis is a bit weird. Lev 21:16-23 -
16 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 17 Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, 19 or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, 20 or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. 21 No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord's food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things, 23 but he shall not go through the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries, for I am the Lord who sanctifies them.
Why is it commanded that the priests should be specimens of physical perfection? What if you develop long sight in middle age, as almost everyone does? Are you cast out from the priesthood? Are they selecting for only athletic young males? What is the purpose of that?
From an atheist point of view.
The next book tells us that priests were eligible to serve from 25-50 years old, and the criteria they had to meet weren't athletic, just were you health and normal. So weak and scrawny and the right age would have been good enough to get in, physically.
As far as sight goes I don't know whether being long sighted would have been an issue or prevented them doing any of their tasks, so they may not have tested for it.
But I'm now just imagining the Preistly Physical Test
1. Lift and arrange pieces from 10 bulls in 1 hour.
2. Successfully identify all the blemishes on a chosen selection of pigeons, sheep and bulls.
3. Are your testicles crushed?
4. ...
16 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 17 Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, 19 or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, 20 or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. 21 No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord's food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things, 23 but he shall not go through the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries, for I am the Lord who sanctifies them.
Why is it commanded that the priests should be specimens of physical perfection? What if you develop long sight in middle age, as almost everyone does? Are you cast out from the priesthood? Are they selecting for only athletic young males? What is the purpose of that?
From an atheist point of view.
The next book tells us that priests were eligible to serve from 25-50 years old, and the criteria they had to meet weren't athletic, just were you health and normal. So weak and scrawny and the right age would have been good enough to get in, physically.
As far as sight goes I don't know whether being long sighted would have been an issue or prevented them doing any of their tasks, so they may not have tested for it.
But I'm now just imagining the Preistly Physical Test
1. Lift and arrange pieces from 10 bulls in 1 hour.
2. Successfully identify all the blemishes on a chosen selection of pigeons, sheep and bulls.
3. Are your testicles crushed?
4. ...
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 30, 2016, 03:40AM
1) I'm intrigued by the mention of divorce here. I read that Judaism has dealt with divorce sensibly for millennia, but that Christianity adopted the hardest of lines very early in its existence.
According to the Torah, divorce is accomplished simply by writing a bill of divorce, handing it to the wife, and sending her away.
So "sensible" means that the husband can divorce the wife for any reason he likes but the wife can't initiate a divorce at all. Interesting. Does your lovely bride read these?
1) I'm intrigued by the mention of divorce here. I read that Judaism has dealt with divorce sensibly for millennia, but that Christianity adopted the hardest of lines very early in its existence.
According to the Torah, divorce is accomplished simply by writing a bill of divorce, handing it to the wife, and sending her away.
So "sensible" means that the husband can divorce the wife for any reason he likes but the wife can't initiate a divorce at all. Interesting. Does your lovely bride read these?
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: drizabone on Jan 30, 2016, 01:19PMAccording to the Torah, divorce is accomplished simply by writing a bill of divorce, handing it to the wife, and sending her away.
So "sensible" means that the husband can divorce the wife for any reason he likes but the wife can't initiate a divorce at all. Interesting. Does your lovely bride read these?
She has better things to do than read the thoughts of trombonists on religion (at this moment, sleeping). We, it seems, do not...
Actually, as she was formerly married to an extremely keen Catholic who was not very keen on divorce as an institution, she might have some sympathy with the position that the Christian church originally distanced itself from...
Okay, you got me. That isn't a happily balanced thing to us moderns. But the recognition that some marriages are unsustainable is a much more healthy position than the denial of the same, it seems clear to me.
So "sensible" means that the husband can divorce the wife for any reason he likes but the wife can't initiate a divorce at all. Interesting. Does your lovely bride read these?
She has better things to do than read the thoughts of trombonists on religion (at this moment, sleeping). We, it seems, do not...
Actually, as she was formerly married to an extremely keen Catholic who was not very keen on divorce as an institution, she might have some sympathy with the position that the Christian church originally distanced itself from...Okay, you got me. That isn't a happily balanced thing to us moderns. But the recognition that some marriages are unsustainable is a much more healthy position than the denial of the same, it seems clear to me.
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Leviticus 23 text
Highlights
- List of religious festivals
Summary
- Sabbath - in tribute to Genesis 2, where God rested after the Creation - regular day of rest, every 7th day off.
- Passover (Pesach) - celebration of the events of Exodus 12, sparing the Israelites from the death-of-first-born plague in Egypt - Month 1, Day 14 is Passover; Day 15 is the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the first of 7 consecutive days without leaven; the last of those 7 days is holy, a day of rest.
- Feast of Firstfruits (Bikkurim) - celebration of the harvest - held when harvest begins.
- Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) (Pentecost) - also a celebration of the harvest - held 7 weeks after the Feast of Firstfruits.
- Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah) - a day off, no reason given here, but the modern Jewish New Year - Month 7, Day 1.
- Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) - reminder of the need to be rigidly precise in one's offerings, cf. Leviticus 16 - Month 7, Day 10.
- Feast of Booths (Sukkot) - celebrating the Exodus - Month 7, Day 15, for 7 days; observant people must live in a 'booth'.
Questions and Observations
1) Month 7 is a busy one.
Highlights
- List of religious festivals
Summary
- Sabbath - in tribute to Genesis 2, where God rested after the Creation - regular day of rest, every 7th day off.
- Passover (Pesach) - celebration of the events of Exodus 12, sparing the Israelites from the death-of-first-born plague in Egypt - Month 1, Day 14 is Passover; Day 15 is the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the first of 7 consecutive days without leaven; the last of those 7 days is holy, a day of rest.
- Feast of Firstfruits (Bikkurim) - celebration of the harvest - held when harvest begins.
- Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) (Pentecost) - also a celebration of the harvest - held 7 weeks after the Feast of Firstfruits.
- Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah) - a day off, no reason given here, but the modern Jewish New Year - Month 7, Day 1.
- Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) - reminder of the need to be rigidly precise in one's offerings, cf. Leviticus 16 - Month 7, Day 10.
- Feast of Booths (Sukkot) - celebrating the Exodus - Month 7, Day 15, for 7 days; observant people must live in a 'booth'.
Questions and Observations
1) Month 7 is a busy one.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 31, 2016, 07:31AMLeviticus 23 text
Highlights
- List of religious festivals
Summary
- Sabbath - in tribute to Genesis 2, where God rested after the Creation - regular day of rest, every 7th day off.
- looking back at Genesis, its almost as though the day of rest is the climax of the passage.
Quote - Passover (Pesach) - celebration of the events of Exodus 12, sparing the Israelites from the death-of-first-born plague in Egypt - Month 1, Day 14 is Passover; Day 15 is the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the first of 7 consecutive days without leaven; the last of those 7 days is holy, a day of rest.
- conservative christians see (have appropriated) the passover as being fullfilled by the crucifiction of Jesus as "our lamb"
Quote
- Feast of Firstfruits (Bikkurim) - celebration of the harvest - held when harvest begins.
- v11 says "on the day after the Sabbath". Its seems a bit subtle but this is thought to indicate that Firstfruits was to be celebrated on the day after the Sabbath of the Passover.
- fullfilled in the resurrection. (this is short for conservative christians see this as being fullfilled ...)
Quote - Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) (Pentecost) - also a celebration of the harvest - held 7 weeks after the Feast of Firstfruits.
- Pentecost is the Greek word for 50 days
- fullfilled at Pentecost
Quote - Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah) - a day off, no reason given here, but the modern Jewish New Year - Month 7, Day 1.
- some think this was Adam and Eve's birthday.
Quote - Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) - reminder of the need to be rigidly precise in one's offerings, cf. Leviticus 16 - Month 7, Day 10.
- or a yearly sacrifice to atone for the nations sins and the one time of year that the High Priest gets to go into the Holy of Holies in the centre of the temple.
Quote - Feast of Booths (Sukkot) - celebrating the Exodus - Month 7, Day 15, for 7 days; observant people must live in a 'booth'.
- I thought that it was remembering the time when they lived in little huts in the wilderness.
- when they arrived in the land it celebrated the 2nd (autumn) harvest.
- some christians see this as looking forward to the resurrection at the second coming.
Quote
Questions and Observations
1) Month 7 is a busy one.
- as is month 1. There is a flurry of festivals in month 1 then pentecost/weeks, then a break and the second flurry.
- here is a site that sets out the feasts and their purposes from a Jewish christian (or should that be christian Jew) perspective. http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Holidays/holidays.html
Highlights
- List of religious festivals
Summary
- Sabbath - in tribute to Genesis 2, where God rested after the Creation - regular day of rest, every 7th day off.
- looking back at Genesis, its almost as though the day of rest is the climax of the passage.
Quote - Passover (Pesach) - celebration of the events of Exodus 12, sparing the Israelites from the death-of-first-born plague in Egypt - Month 1, Day 14 is Passover; Day 15 is the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the first of 7 consecutive days without leaven; the last of those 7 days is holy, a day of rest.
- conservative christians see (have appropriated) the passover as being fullfilled by the crucifiction of Jesus as "our lamb"
Quote
- Feast of Firstfruits (Bikkurim) - celebration of the harvest - held when harvest begins.
- v11 says "on the day after the Sabbath". Its seems a bit subtle but this is thought to indicate that Firstfruits was to be celebrated on the day after the Sabbath of the Passover.
- fullfilled in the resurrection. (this is short for conservative christians see this as being fullfilled ...)
Quote - Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) (Pentecost) - also a celebration of the harvest - held 7 weeks after the Feast of Firstfruits.
- Pentecost is the Greek word for 50 days
- fullfilled at Pentecost
Quote - Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah) - a day off, no reason given here, but the modern Jewish New Year - Month 7, Day 1.
- some think this was Adam and Eve's birthday.
Quote - Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) - reminder of the need to be rigidly precise in one's offerings, cf. Leviticus 16 - Month 7, Day 10.
- or a yearly sacrifice to atone for the nations sins and the one time of year that the High Priest gets to go into the Holy of Holies in the centre of the temple.
Quote - Feast of Booths (Sukkot) - celebrating the Exodus - Month 7, Day 15, for 7 days; observant people must live in a 'booth'.
- I thought that it was remembering the time when they lived in little huts in the wilderness.
- when they arrived in the land it celebrated the 2nd (autumn) harvest.
- some christians see this as looking forward to the resurrection at the second coming.
Quote
Questions and Observations
1) Month 7 is a busy one.
- as is month 1. There is a flurry of festivals in month 1 then pentecost/weeks, then a break and the second flurry.
- here is a site that sets out the feasts and their purposes from a Jewish christian (or should that be christian Jew) perspective. http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Holidays/holidays.html
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Leviticus 24 text
Highlights
- Some regular offerings
- Some justice
Summary
- Olive oil to be brought to keep the tabernacle lamps burning
- Bread to be brought as an offering to the tabernacle
- Two people fight, one uses God's name inappropriately. Moses (channelling God) commands he be stoned to death by the people of Israel.
- "An Eye for an Eye"
- The decreed stoning
Questions and Observations
1) The identity of the stoned man touches on a question I asked somewhere during Exodus - he was the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man. So I guess that he was one of those spared during the Passover.
2) Capital punishment for using God's name in anger. Different cultures indeed.
3) "An Eye for an Eye" is a very widely-known phrase, probably better-known than Jesus's later corrective "Turn the other cheek".
Highlights
- Some regular offerings
- Some justice
Summary
- Olive oil to be brought to keep the tabernacle lamps burning
- Bread to be brought as an offering to the tabernacle
- Two people fight, one uses God's name inappropriately. Moses (channelling God) commands he be stoned to death by the people of Israel.
- "An Eye for an Eye"
- The decreed stoning
Questions and Observations
1) The identity of the stoned man touches on a question I asked somewhere during Exodus - he was the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man. So I guess that he was one of those spared during the Passover.
2) Capital punishment for using God's name in anger. Different cultures indeed.
3) "An Eye for an Eye" is a very widely-known phrase, probably better-known than Jesus's later corrective "Turn the other cheek".
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Dave, be careful about using the word "corrective" for Jesus' turning the other cheek. There is more involved here, such as public vs. private, the role of the civil magistrate, etc, that needs to be taken in to account when comparing these two, besides the fact that Jesus was most likely correcting a rabbinical misunderstanding of how this was to be applied rather than the OT text itself-- we surmise this from other of his interactions with the Pharisees when that was clearly what he was doing. The interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is more nuanced that simply saying that Jesus was "correcting" the Old Testament.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 02, 2016, 02:30PM
- Two people fight, one uses God's name inappropriately. Moses (channelling God) commands he be stoned to death by the people of Israel.
I think the charge was that he cursed God, rather than casually used God's name in vain. But still a much different concern than we have nowadays.
Quote
- "An Eye for an Eye"
As we remember The OT Law also included in Lev 19:
"13 You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired worker shall not remain with you all night until the morning. 14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.
15 You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. 16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life[a] of your neighbor: I am the Lord.
17 You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord."
Which is not far different from "Turn the other cheek"
My take on "An eye for an eye" is that it was a first cut of making the punishment fit the crime, and making the powerful subject to the same rules as the powerless.
- Two people fight, one uses God's name inappropriately. Moses (channelling God) commands he be stoned to death by the people of Israel.
I think the charge was that he cursed God, rather than casually used God's name in vain. But still a much different concern than we have nowadays.
Quote
- "An Eye for an Eye"
As we remember The OT Law also included in Lev 19:
"13 You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired worker shall not remain with you all night until the morning. 14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.
15 You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. 16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life[a] of your neighbor: I am the Lord.
17 You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord."
Which is not far different from "Turn the other cheek"
My take on "An eye for an eye" is that it was a first cut of making the punishment fit the crime, and making the powerful subject to the same rules as the powerless.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Leviticus 25 text
Highlights
- laws to look after the land and the poor
Summary
- The Israelites are to work the land for six years and let it rest for the seventh - no sowing, pruning or reaping.
- The year after the seventh sabbath year is the Jubilee, that's the 50th year is Israel's reset button for people and property
- Every fifty years, most real estate purchased over the previous forty-nine years is returned to its original owner.
- Slaves also go free
- However, the legal framework also reflects a growing split between traditionally agricultural society and the shift toward urbanism. While the Jubilee mandates returning land outside walled cities to its original owners, owners of property in cities can keep theirs indefinitely.
- Land sale prices are to be based on the number of harvests the new "owner" will have before the next Jubilee.
- If they followed Gods decrees they would eat their fill and live safely in the land.
- The land would provide triple crops in the 6th year to allow for the rest year and the year after to sow new crops.
- The land shouldn't be sold permanently because it really belongs to God
- The poor and foreigners (strangers and travelers) are often linked because, like the poor, the foreigners in question do not own land.
- If anyone has to sell his land a relative should redeem (buy) it
- Israelite landowners cannot use their stronger financial position to exploit poor Israelites. Israelite cannot enslave Israelite, nor can an Israelite exploit his employees. Moreover, an Israelite cannot charge interest to or profit off of a poor Israelite.
- The reason for such rules, as before in Leviticus, is the relation between God and Israel: "for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the Lord your God." (25:55).
Questions and Observations
1. Leviticus 25:10 summarizes the Jubilee in words that have come to represent concepts of freedom beyond their original focus: "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you: and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family." On which bell is this quoted?
2. I can't see politicians trying to court fundamentalists by offering to implement these rules.
3. why weren't priests allowed to sell their land? v34
Highlights
- laws to look after the land and the poor
Summary
- The Israelites are to work the land for six years and let it rest for the seventh - no sowing, pruning or reaping.
- The year after the seventh sabbath year is the Jubilee, that's the 50th year is Israel's reset button for people and property
- Every fifty years, most real estate purchased over the previous forty-nine years is returned to its original owner.
- Slaves also go free
- However, the legal framework also reflects a growing split between traditionally agricultural society and the shift toward urbanism. While the Jubilee mandates returning land outside walled cities to its original owners, owners of property in cities can keep theirs indefinitely.
- Land sale prices are to be based on the number of harvests the new "owner" will have before the next Jubilee.
- If they followed Gods decrees they would eat their fill and live safely in the land.
- The land would provide triple crops in the 6th year to allow for the rest year and the year after to sow new crops.
- The land shouldn't be sold permanently because it really belongs to God
- The poor and foreigners (strangers and travelers) are often linked because, like the poor, the foreigners in question do not own land.
- If anyone has to sell his land a relative should redeem (buy) it
- Israelite landowners cannot use their stronger financial position to exploit poor Israelites. Israelite cannot enslave Israelite, nor can an Israelite exploit his employees. Moreover, an Israelite cannot charge interest to or profit off of a poor Israelite.
- The reason for such rules, as before in Leviticus, is the relation between God and Israel: "for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the Lord your God." (25:55).
Questions and Observations
1. Leviticus 25:10 summarizes the Jubilee in words that have come to represent concepts of freedom beyond their original focus: "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you: and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family." On which bell is this quoted?
2. I can't see politicians trying to court fundamentalists by offering to implement these rules.
3. why weren't priests allowed to sell their land? v34
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: drizabone on Feb 03, 2016, 03:39PM
2. I can't see politicians trying to court fundamentalists by offering to implement these rules.
It doesn't exactly sound like support for capitalism, does it?
2. I can't see politicians trying to court fundamentalists by offering to implement these rules.
It doesn't exactly sound like support for capitalism, does it?
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: timothy42b on Feb 03, 2016, 06:25PMIt doesn't exactly sound like support for capitalism, does it?
Its almost a welfare state
Its almost a welfare state
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: drizabone on Feb 03, 2016, 03:39PM1. Leviticus 25:10 summarizes the Jubilee in words that have come to represent concepts of freedom beyond their original focus: "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you: and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family." On which bell is this quoted?
It's...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Dd0EaEbqg
The Jubilee concept is what the earlier-discussed Book of Jubilees based its work upon.
Quote from: drizabone on Feb 03, 2016, 03:39PM2. I can't see politicians trying to court fundamentalists by offering to implement these rules.
Me neither. That said, some aspects of it must appeal to the classic conservative mindset. It lays obligations on family to look out for their own, a popular theme in conservative rhetoric, and it enshrines a concept of an original ownership that cannot be changed. Family values and a natural bias towards maintenance of the elite - it's not so far from what might be heard today, I suppose.
If you grow the concept of redeemer as used here so that everyone in the state is in the same family, then we reach the idea of a welfare state, albeit not in a form used today. Love your neighbour as yourself, not just your sibling.
Quote from: drizabone on Feb 03, 2016, 03:39PM3. why weren't priests allowed to sell their land? v34
To help maintain the flow of animal offerings, maybe?
4. Leaving off sowing seed one year in seven sounds like a version of crop rotation. Did different farmers all have the same year off, or did they stagger it? The latter would make much more sense to me - else surely a bad harvest in year six would cause disaster in year seven, in contravention of God's promise here, risking popular unrest with the rule of Moses. But I'm not quite sure how to read it.
5. This was a society in the middle of a forced long migration. What were they doing with rules about returning properties in cities after 50 years?
It's...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Dd0EaEbqg
The Jubilee concept is what the earlier-discussed Book of Jubilees based its work upon.
Quote from: drizabone on Feb 03, 2016, 03:39PM2. I can't see politicians trying to court fundamentalists by offering to implement these rules.
Me neither. That said, some aspects of it must appeal to the classic conservative mindset. It lays obligations on family to look out for their own, a popular theme in conservative rhetoric, and it enshrines a concept of an original ownership that cannot be changed. Family values and a natural bias towards maintenance of the elite - it's not so far from what might be heard today, I suppose.
If you grow the concept of redeemer as used here so that everyone in the state is in the same family, then we reach the idea of a welfare state, albeit not in a form used today. Love your neighbour as yourself, not just your sibling.
Quote from: drizabone on Feb 03, 2016, 03:39PM3. why weren't priests allowed to sell their land? v34
To help maintain the flow of animal offerings, maybe?
4. Leaving off sowing seed one year in seven sounds like a version of crop rotation. Did different farmers all have the same year off, or did they stagger it? The latter would make much more sense to me - else surely a bad harvest in year six would cause disaster in year seven, in contravention of God's promise here, risking popular unrest with the rule of Moses. But I'm not quite sure how to read it.
5. This was a society in the middle of a forced long migration. What were they doing with rules about returning properties in cities after 50 years?
-
ttf_MoominDave
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Leviticus 26 text
Highlights
- Carrot and stick
Summary
- If the Israelites stick by these rules, Moses tells them that God promises that their harvests will be bountiful, wild animals will leave their land voluntarily, and they will be lucky in battle.
- If they don't, Moses tells them that God promises that their harvests will be barren, their enemies will defeat and subjugate them.
- Continuing disobedience implies being attacked by wild beasts, children and livestock dying, population dwindling.
- Persisting in disobedience implies God arranging for them to be attacked with swords, plague in cities, unsatiable hunger even by large amounts of food.
- More disobedience implies having to resort to cannibalising their children, and utter destruction of their society, which will be reduced to a slave class under their conquerors.
- But Moses tells them that God will still be listening out for repentance in this circumstance, and that the covenant can be resumed if they are willing from there.
Questions and Observations
1) The consequences of disobedience are detailed much more thoroughly and vividly than those of obedience. This particular crowd of humans evidently needed more stick than carrot to be held in Moses's sway.
2) If I recall the story correctly, we are going to see all of this referenced in time...
Highlights
- Carrot and stick
Summary
- If the Israelites stick by these rules, Moses tells them that God promises that their harvests will be bountiful, wild animals will leave their land voluntarily, and they will be lucky in battle.
- If they don't, Moses tells them that God promises that their harvests will be barren, their enemies will defeat and subjugate them.
- Continuing disobedience implies being attacked by wild beasts, children and livestock dying, population dwindling.
- Persisting in disobedience implies God arranging for them to be attacked with swords, plague in cities, unsatiable hunger even by large amounts of food.
- More disobedience implies having to resort to cannibalising their children, and utter destruction of their society, which will be reduced to a slave class under their conquerors.
- But Moses tells them that God will still be listening out for repentance in this circumstance, and that the covenant can be resumed if they are willing from there.
Questions and Observations
1) The consequences of disobedience are detailed much more thoroughly and vividly than those of obedience. This particular crowd of humans evidently needed more stick than carrot to be held in Moses's sway.
2) If I recall the story correctly, we are going to see all of this referenced in time...
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible
Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 04, 2016, 02:19AM
To help maintain the flow of animal offerings, maybe?
I was thinking that Levite and their family could rely on being able to eat their share of the offerings, so that even if they were poor they still had a food source so wouldn't have to sell their farm.
Quote4. Leaving off sowing seed one year in seven sounds like a version of crop rotation. Did different farmers all have the same year off, or did they stagger it? The latter would make much more sense to me - else surely a bad harvest in year six would cause disaster in year seven, in contravention of God's promise here, risking popular unrest with the rule of Moses. But I'm not quite sure how to read it.
No it was the one rest year for everyone. The implication was that they had to rely on God's provision of the extra harvest the year before the rest and then sowing year. Similar to the way they got extra manna the day before the Sabbath.
Quote5. This was a society in the middle of a forced long migration. What were they doing with rules about returning properties in cities after 50 years?
God plans ahead. Remember he promised Abraham that they would be aliens and strangers in another land for 400 odd years before they would enter into the promised land. (Gen 15) So 50 years is just like tomorrow.
To help maintain the flow of animal offerings, maybe?
I was thinking that Levite and their family could rely on being able to eat their share of the offerings, so that even if they were poor they still had a food source so wouldn't have to sell their farm.
Quote4. Leaving off sowing seed one year in seven sounds like a version of crop rotation. Did different farmers all have the same year off, or did they stagger it? The latter would make much more sense to me - else surely a bad harvest in year six would cause disaster in year seven, in contravention of God's promise here, risking popular unrest with the rule of Moses. But I'm not quite sure how to read it.
No it was the one rest year for everyone. The implication was that they had to rely on God's provision of the extra harvest the year before the rest and then sowing year. Similar to the way they got extra manna the day before the Sabbath.
Quote5. This was a society in the middle of a forced long migration. What were they doing with rules about returning properties in cities after 50 years?
God plans ahead. Remember he promised Abraham that they would be aliens and strangers in another land for 400 odd years before they would enter into the promised land. (Gen 15) So 50 years is just like tomorrow.