PDA

View Full Version : Jesus



Brent
08-25-2006, 03:34 AM
Your opinion.

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 04:24 AM
Revolutionary itinerant philosopher who was diefied after his death by his followers.

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 04:32 AM
What do you think Brent? lol

FUCK THE POLICE
08-25-2006, 05:46 AM
You're using bad grammar again, Brent. You don't capitalize "son" in "son of God". "Son" isn't part of his name. "God" may be capitlalized, because that is a reference to a person.

AnyOldIron
08-25-2006, 05:57 AM
"God" may be capitlalized, because that is a reference to a person.

That's disputable....

charver
08-25-2006, 06:16 AM
Don't be silly.

Everyone knows Jesus was the Greek bloke who sailed off to find the Golden Fleece, in far-off Kolchis, with a bunch of his mates in an old ship, the Argo, having many adventures and japes in the process, i might add.

But now you can make Jesus into anyone you want to, here.
http://www.jesusdressup.com/#

uscitizen
08-25-2006, 06:59 AM
"God" may be capitlalized, because that is a reference to a person.

That's disputable....
Abolutely, Even among the believers is god a person ?

klaatu
08-25-2006, 07:26 AM
A Master of Wisdom who was endowed with Christ Consciousness .... which would make him one with God.

Damocles
08-25-2006, 07:41 AM
Abolutely, Even among the believers is god a person ?
He wants you to call him Father... I guess that would mean he wants to be spoken to as a person.

Let's ask an expert! Um... Who is an expert on what God wants? Roger Waters?

Care4all
08-25-2006, 08:12 AM
Well, as a Total Believer :D in this entire one God thingy...to me,

Jesus was a human, that tried to show us, what it would be like for us to be Perfect.

This was the difference in my very humble opinion between the Old Testament and the Gospel of Jesus Christ....setting aside that Christ died for all of our Salvation...which falls more in to the Spiritual side of the Gospel...,

is... that the Old Testament was a relationship between God and corrupt 'man'...A Great Deal of it involved instructions on how to handle their constant evilness...if there is such a word...

It was about dealing with the actions of man at the time...kinda like a history book...well, man kept f-ing up....wars, murders, rapes, incest, thievery etc...and alot of the old testament is God correcting and repremanding these people that just turn their back constanly on what is right and just....

Then these people even continued to mess up by taking some of God's instruction on what was right and wrong, like the 10 commandments and started overly issuing laws that OVER PUNISHED the guilty of breaking the Law and even became vindictive with their punishments...

So then they were corrected again for it with NEW LAWS of fairness...basically "An eye for an eye"... you all may think, because you do not know the Bible, that an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life is God teaching the Jews to be vindictive or something, but it was the COMPLETE OPPOSITE....those rules were to STOP the jews from punishing people UNFAIRLY, which they were doing.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...was to LIMIT THE JEWS IN THEIR EXCESSIVE punishments that they were putting upon the people that broke the 10 commandments...and God taught them, TRUE JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS.
-------------------------------------------------------------

What Jesus taught us on Earth... is how to be perfect in our behavior, thus needing NO LAW on how to repremand us...

For example: When Jesus said that instead on an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, we should turn the other cheek when struck by someone, and go ahead and walk an extra mile with the adversary that forced you to walk the first mile with him...He also said that we were to love thy enemy...He said to do these things to be perfect, as God would love to see us act, and He also said that this kindness and submission in turn... would be like burning coals on the adversary's or enemy's head...thus changing the adversary's mean spiritedness, through kindness and not through war or vindictiveness or punishment.

Then someone challenges Jesus on this, and paraphrased said...wait, wait, wait...what about God's "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth ....yahdeedah"...are you telling us that this goes away?" And Jesus basically said, an eye for an eye laws will not go away, (basically because he knew that man was NOT PERFECT and would not be able to turn the cheek and evil would continue) but He was telling them what being perfect would bring us...peace.

I can give a thousand other examples where Jesus shows these people another way...other than the LAW that they were following....following basically in the WRONG MANNER, not truely understanding the meaning of the Law...

The Good Samaritan Parable, the Priest and the Levite religious heads passed the hurt man by, and it is presumed this is because they had laws that ruled the religious heads as the levite and the priest...against touching an UNCLEAN man...

But Jesus taught...rules, schmools crap is for the Birds, that they were NOT interpreting the Word of God in the manner that the Word was intended...ESPECIALLY IF THEY COULD PASS A DYING MAN ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND NOT HELP HIM...then they were clueless to understanding the Law and why it was in place....and he said the Samaritan man, (thought of as the scum of the Earth by the Jews at the time), was the one that did God's will and acted perfect, (even though the Samaritan WAS NOT ONE of the CHOSEN PEOPLE'S tribe), by loving his enemy and neighbor as himself.

And then there is the example of the Adulteress being stoned to death in the public square....and Jesus's lesson there where these men were follow the Law so they thought, by stoning her to death....but Jesus did not tell them not to stone her to death, He did not tell them DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW....he said, paraphrased, go ahead and cast the first Stone against her, as you are suppose to according to the Law you follow, but I tell you do such, if you are free from sin or maybe even implied "this sin" yourself....

So Jesus was teaching that the Law should be followed, but on a completely fair basis...don't go and point fingers at others and punishing others for wrongs, unless you are squeeky clean as a whistle yourself....He taught fairness in this....

He also taught "forgiveness" in this....He sent the woman off and told her that He forgave her, before he told her to sin no more....so He gave forgiveness before repenting, before she changed her life....


There is a ton of this kind of stuff in there by Jesus...so final answer, Jesus is "perfect man".....He was sent here to show us the true meaning of God's fairness teachings for man and He was also sent to teach us what it would be like to be perfect. (setting aside salvation aspect of it)

care

uscitizen
08-25-2006, 08:27 AM
Good post Care, My only disagreement wis the concept that jesus was perfect. He suffered temptations and such. for isnstnce he asked God if this cup could not pass him by. But he faced up to his duty as he saw it. He was a very good, kind and gentle man, but he was a man so I respectfully disagree on the perfect aspect. But then perfection is in the eyes of the beholder. what I would view as perfection some others would find fault with and visa versa.

Damocles
08-25-2006, 08:42 AM
Good post Care, My only disagreement wis the concept that jesus was perfect. He suffered temptations and such. for isnstnce he asked God if this cup could not pass him by. But he faced up to his duty as he saw it. He was a very good, kind and gentle man, but he was a man so I respectfully disagree on the perfect aspect. But then perfection is in the eyes of the beholder. what I would view as perfection some others would find fault with and visa versa.
He was also very socially conservative, and not entirely peaceful. Whipping people in a church is not "peaceful"... This idea that Christ fit in with a modern political ideology is such total rubbish... He taught you about your personal responsibility to yourself and others, not to your nation or the body politic.

Care4all
08-25-2006, 08:51 AM
Good post Care, My only disagreement wis the concept that jesus was perfect. He suffered temptations and such. for isnstnce he asked God if this cup could not pass him by. But he faced up to his duty as he saw it. He was a very good, kind and gentle man, but he was a man so I respectfully disagree on the perfect aspect. But then perfection is in the eyes of the beholder. what I would view as perfection some others would find fault with and visa versa.

but this is why i say he was man, but perfect....he had temptations...all the temptations of man, but still stayed true to his father's will...to goodness and forgiveness... instead of fighting those that came to kill him, he was submissive, in the court systems that he was brought before, he was submisive....giving each entity a chance to show mercy on him to where pilot was feeling those burning coals on his head.... he forgave the other thief on the cross...he died following God's will for perfect man...obeidient, submissive, forgiving of others...''Father, they know not what they do....''.

an example to us on how God would really like us to behave...imho.

Care4all
08-25-2006, 08:55 AM
He was also very socially conservative, and not entirely peaceful. Whipping people in a church is not "peaceful"... This idea that Christ fit in with a modern political ideology is such total rubbish... He taught you about your personal responsibility to yourself and others, not to your nation or the body politic.


where did Jesus whip people in a church damocles? i have NEVER READ THAT IN THE BIBLE....!!!!?????

klaatu
08-25-2006, 08:55 AM
Yes ..Jesus was apolitical .. but he also advised people to pay their taxes and follow the law .. "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceaser's"
Jesus had a bone to pick with the Jewish hierarchy .... and money changing in Gods Temple was out of bounds ... just as Im sure he would have major problems with the activities that go on in that little city within the big city of Rome.

Care4all
08-25-2006, 08:57 AM
ANYWAY, I am not going to get in to this jesus was a conservative vs liberal debate...

klaatu
08-25-2006, 08:57 AM
where did Jesus whip people in a church damocles? i have NEVER READ THAT IN THE BIBLE....!!!!?????

Palm Sunday Care.. when he entered Temple in Jerusalem during the events of Holy Week .. he chased out the money changers ...

uscitizen
08-25-2006, 08:59 AM
Good point Damo. The only time he ever got pissed was rrunning the moneychangers out of the temple and that was the final straw with the jews, they had nim crucifed for it.

uscitizen
08-25-2006, 09:00 AM
ANYWAY, I am not going to get in to this jesus was a conservative vs liberal debate...
Wise move, we beat up on this pretty heavy a few times ion the other board :)

Care4all
08-25-2006, 09:09 AM
Palm Sunday Care.. when he entered Temple in Jerusalem during the events of Holy Week .. he chased out the money changers ...
yes. outside of the TEMPLE he flipped the tables of the money changers BECAUSE they were abusing God's laws by ''selling'' at a high price...the jews their reqiured ''baths'' to enter the temple area....and the Religious Hierarchy were making a pretty penny off of the bathing requirement....by charging them for it.... the money changers were collecting and exchanging money in the temple area for this purpose....for the Religious Leaders...to become overtly wealthy with.


he was NOT in a church, NOR did he WHIP anyone, is what i am saying about the money changer incident... unless damo is speaking about another issue

Care4all
08-25-2006, 09:11 AM
phone call! :) be right back...brb!

Damocles
08-25-2006, 09:24 AM
When he overturned the tables and threw the moneychangers out of the Temple? You didn't read that? He physically attacked people in the Temple.

klaatu
08-25-2006, 09:26 AM
Wise move, we beat up on this pretty heavy a few times ion the other board :)

Thats right.. when you try and make the point that Jesus would approve of legalized abortion .. correct? :rolleyes:

Care4all
08-25-2006, 09:33 AM
let me correct myself by saying they were selling cattle sheep etc that were used in required sacrafices as the temple...same inference though...at a profit for the church leaders

Damocles
08-25-2006, 09:36 AM
let me correct myself by saying they were selling cattle sheep etc that were used in required sacrafices as the temple...same inference though...at a profit for the church leaders
How do you think he "chased" them out without physical attack, care? Honestly. Did you just think he was able to chase them out with magic? It doesn't say it was a miracle.

Scholars believe that not only did he do it, but it was planned and he took allies with him.

uscitizen
08-25-2006, 09:49 AM
just as Im sure he would have major problems with the activities that go on in that little city within the big city of Rome.
//

Or with most televangelists ?

Care4all
08-25-2006, 10:00 AM
Thats right.. when you try and make the point that Jesus would approve of legalized abortion .. correct? :rolleyes:
i don't believe that Jesus would have been involved in a government law on abortion...

i believe, if he felt that abortion was an issue they were dealing with at the time, he would have spoken about it....perhaps,but he didn't so, i am uncertain on the ''law'' aspect of what Jesus would have done...

But I do know, from what we have been taught to know about Jesus, is that he would have FORGIVEN those that had the abortions and that is something that is lacking in the behavior or insides of those that are ardent prolifers...compassion, mercy, forgiveness...

And I think I know that he would have probably taught of the harm abortions can cause to the women themselves...but abortions are really not getting to the root of the problem so he probably would not have addressed this issue in the manner we would think but more on the approach of the teachings of the Church that Sex should be saved for marriage and commitment....if it was then there would be very few abortions compared to now where it is primarily single women that are having them...

and what he did teach is that NO ONE IS LESS OF A SINNER than the next guy,(this is why He focuses on forgiveness) because he specifically spoke in this sense, paraphrased, "just because you are not a murderer like that guy over there, but are an adulterer...doesn't make you any less of a sinner than the murderer"

Knowing this attitude of his through his teachings, I would venture to say that He would be appalled at the RR and their pure lack of compassion on the subject and their use of POLITICAL RHETORIC OF MURDER would appall him also, and he would probably telling them, "He, who is free from sin, should cast the first stone"

God's laws were about fairness and how and what you did to others...

if you were an alcoholic or a drug addict, there are no punishments in the Law for these kind of things because you are not harming another person or another person's property by being drunk.... but if you stole from another to get that "drink or drug" then you are causing harm type thing....or if you refused to go to work the next morning and failed at your responsibilty of providing for your family, then you are causing harm, but the vice itself...there are not laws that punish you for it.

There is not one instance that I could find where the word abortion is used.

There is a passage that goes in to what to do with someone else that caused harm to a pregnant woman and her baby...but that was someone else causing harm to this woman and her husband, therefore the punishments set upon him...

so really, it is very up in the air how Jesus would have handled this, in this day and age...but I believe he would be compassionate, loving and formost forgiving...before ever being controlling via using the government at hand, or vindictive.

care

Care4all
08-25-2006, 10:07 AM
How do you think he "chased" them out without physical attack, care? Honestly. Did you just think he was able to chase them out with magic? It doesn't say it was a miracle.

Scholars believe that not only did he do it, but it was planned and he took allies with him.

IT ALSO DOESN'T SAY that he WHIPPED THEM OR LAID ONE FINGER ON THEM DAMO, so you are changing the Word of God on this one....quite frankly, we weren't told such, amd there is no reason why they would not have told us that he WHIPPED THEM to remove them....

that's all, no further discussion needed! ;)

Damocles
08-25-2006, 10:10 AM
IT ALSO DOESN'T SAY that he WHIPPED THEM OR LAID ONE FINGER ON THEM DAMO, so you are changing the Word of God on this one....quite frankly, we weren't told such, amd there is no reason why they would not have told us that he WHIPPED THEM to remove them....

that's all, no further discussion needed! ;)
No, I am using logic to get a point accross. You are going beyond attempting to suggest one thing when it specifically talks about the physical of the attack (turning over tables and chasing..)

Care4all
08-25-2006, 10:11 AM
So a Carpenter on a Donkey, carried Whips with him? you are rewriting the Word imho...

Damocles
08-25-2006, 10:12 AM
IT ALSO DOESN'T SAY that he WHIPPED THEM OR LAID ONE FINGER ON THEM DAMO, so you are changing the Word of God on this one....quite frankly, we weren't told such, amd there is no reason why they would not have told us that he WHIPPED THEM to remove them....

that's all, no further discussion needed! ;)


Oh, and BTW, it does say that he whipped them...



"When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the Temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords and drove all from the Temple, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said: 'Get out of here.' (John 2:13-16)

uscitizen
08-25-2006, 10:14 AM
I don't recall the exact wording of the scripture, but remember seeing paintings, etc portraying Jesus using a whip to run the money changers out of the temple. They are of course someones interpretation and have been endorsed by at least some of the christian religions.

Damocles
08-25-2006, 10:15 AM
Read again. It says he made a whip out of cords and drove them out, and both their sheep and cattle...

Read the book, Care.

Damocles
08-25-2006, 10:15 AM
I don't recall the exact wording of the scripture, but remember seeing paintings, etc portraying Jesus using a whip to run the money changers out of the temple. They are of course someones interpretation and have been endorsed by at least some of the christian religions.
It says, "and he made a whip out of cords and drove them from the temple"

uscitizen
08-25-2006, 10:16 AM
So a Carpenter on a Donkey, carried Whips with him? you are rewriting the Word imho...
Actually the word in the origional biblical texts translates more to handyman than carpenter. This from friends in a thological seminary, and a pastor at the church I used to attend.

Damocles
08-25-2006, 10:17 AM
Actually the word in the origional biblical texts translates more to handyman than carpenter. This from friends in a thological seminary, and a pastor at the church I used to attend.
Yeah, it means "worked with his hands"...

Care4all
08-25-2006, 10:18 AM
The God within him chased the money changers away for making a fiasco and circus out of requirements of the Law....

not because they were capitalists, but because they were making profits and doing this at the Temple in the name of God's requirements of Sacrafice of these animals that they were marketing...is my understanding of it.

And I take it as it is writen, that he flipped the money changer's tables and chased them away....afterall, He was the Son of God :D and could accomplish anything, he had many miracle attributed to HIM BEFORE THIS, and he obviously according to the word, accomplished chasing the money changers away without having to whip them or hurt them or strike them in any maner....you are making Christ a hypocrite in my opinion by saying he struck them when he specifically teaches to not strike but turn the other cheek... imo

Care4all
08-25-2006, 10:19 AM
wow, i learned something new, I guess I should thank you...

Damocles
08-25-2006, 10:21 AM
The God within him chased the money changers away for making a fiasco and circus out of requirements of the Law....

not because they were capitalists, but because they were making profits and doing this at the Temple in the name of God's requirements of Sacrafice of these animals that they were marketing...is my understanding of it.

And I take it as it is writen, that he flipped the money changer's tables and chased them away....afterall, He was the Son of God :D and could accomplish anything, he had many miracle attributed to HIM BEFORE THIS, and he obviously according to the word, accomplished chasing the money changers away without having to whip them or hurt them or strike them in any maner....you are making Christ a hypocrite in my opinion by saying he struck them when he specifically teaches to not strike but turn the other cheek... imo
You keep not actually reading the text there Care. He made a whip of cords and drove them from the temple.

honorknght
08-25-2006, 10:23 AM
So a Carpenter on a Donkey, carried Whips with him? you are rewriting the Word imho...


Luke 22:36: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

Don't forget that He is both the Lion and the Lamb ;-)

Damocles
08-25-2006, 10:25 AM
I don't know how many times I have to reiterate... The text says he made a whip of chords and drove them from the temple.... It simply states that was what he did. I am not changing the text.

Care4all
08-25-2006, 10:26 AM
Damo, here is the text from Matthew:

Jesus at the Temple
12Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'[e] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'[f]"
14The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them. 15But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.

16"Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him.
"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read,
" 'From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise'[g]?"

17And he left them and went out of the city to Bethany, where he spent the night.



What I need to do is find the other texts involved in the other Gospels to get the whole picture, which I am doing right now...brb...

uscitizen
08-25-2006, 10:30 AM
How about the KJ version Care. The other versions just do not seem the same without the thees, and thous and such :)

Damocles
08-25-2006, 10:30 AM
Damo, here is the text from Matthew:

Jesus at the Temple
12Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'[e] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'[f]"
14The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them. 15But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.

16"Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him.
"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read,
" 'From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise'[g]?"

17And he left them and went out of the city to Bethany, where he spent the night.



What I need to do is find the other texts involved in the other Gospels to get the whole picture, which I am doing right now...brb...


I already posted the specific text of which I was speaking.

I even bolded the portion of which I am speaking...




"When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the Temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords and drove all from the Temple, and both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said: 'Get out of here.' (John 2:13-16)

Care4all
08-25-2006, 10:35 AM
It says, "and he made a whip out of cords and drove them from the temple"

no Damo, I finally found your passage that you are using from John 2:15 and it DOES NOT SAY THAT HE WHIPPED THE MONEY CHANGERS...

15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.


Note!

That the whip used to chase out both sheep and cattle is in a separated part of the verse saying he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their temples.

I believe it is you that has misunderstood this passage.

either way, I can agree to disagree with you. :)

Brent
08-25-2006, 10:36 AM
Revolutionary itinerant philosopher who was diefied after his death by his followers.

Any evidence to support that, AnyoldIron? Funny...you claim to believe only what is supported by evidence, but there is nothing whatsoever to support your claims regarding Jesus Christ. :)

Damocles
08-25-2006, 10:37 AM
And drove ALL OF THEM from the temple, <-there is a comma here to annotate a new group that he ALSO drove out... , the cattle and sheep... so forth...

Care, he used a whip to drive these people from the temple. To those who sold doves he only said 'get out'...

Of course, before you didn't even want to admit he had a whip at all.

Always read the text and note how careful they were with those commas throughout.

Damocles
08-25-2006, 10:39 AM
no Damo, I finally found your passage that you are using from John 2:15 and it DOES NOT SAY THAT HE WHIPPED THE MONEY CHANGERS...

15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.


Note!

That the whip used to chase out both sheep and cattle is in a separated part of the verse saying he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their temples.

I believe it is you that has misunderstood this passage.

either way, I can agree to disagree with you. :)


I believe you have misunderstood the passage. The comma separation denotes a new group that he also drove out. See the above post...

Previously you were attempting to say he didn't even HAVE a whip and because he was a carpenter on a donkey couldn't get one....

Now you are pretending that when he drove them out it was just the cattle and sheep...

Rubbish.

Damocles
08-25-2006, 10:41 AM
He also later orders his followers to sell their cloak to buy swords...

Damocles
08-25-2006, 10:42 AM
Luke 22:36: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

Brent
08-25-2006, 10:49 AM
I will take the middle-ground here (between Damo and Care...) Jesus was neither a zealot nor a pacifist. He did become angry in the Temple as Damo pointed out, but it was righteous anger -- there was NO SIN in him becoming angry and using force.


Luke 22:36: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

Good verse.

Damocles
08-25-2006, 10:51 AM
I will take the middle-ground here (between Damo and Care...) Jesus was neither a zealot nor a pacifist. He did become angry in the Temple as Damo pointed out, but it was righteous anger -- there was NO SIN in him becoming angry and using force.



Good verse.


In this verse he was warning his followers of the persecution that was to follow and was telling them to arm themselves against it.

Here is a decent site on the "pacifism" of Christ...

http://www.jamesanderson-writer.co.uk/jesus-not-a-pacifist.html

Care4all
08-25-2006, 11:28 AM
brent,

here is the verse in context....

Luke

35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.

36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.



now , Jesus did say to them when they reported back, that they had in their posession 2 swords, and he replied, ''That is enough''...

he was not sending them to war with anyone, he was telling them to be prepared to defend themselves.

soooooo, what is it that makes this...''a great verse'' to you?

Damocles
08-25-2006, 11:32 AM
brent,

here is the verse in context....

Luke

35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.

36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.



now , Jesus did say to them when they reported back, that they had in their posession 2 swords, and he replied, ''That is enough''...

he was not sending them to war with anyone, he was telling them to be prepared to defend themselves.

soooooo, what is it that makes this...''a great verse'' to you?
Read the article I posted. He was also clearly not telling them not to defend themselves.

You will also notice that in that article the whole of the scripture was listed. I am not avoiding the context, I include it in my interpretation.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-25-2006, 11:34 AM
he also advised people to pay their taxes and follow the law .. "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceaser's"

I think a lot of people presume that Jesus is saying, pay your taxes and follow the law, but you have to read it carefully to understand what he meant. It is more of an advocation of fairness than anything else, it is articulating the message that we should pay Caesar for what is due him, not simply whatever he says we owe. It is precisely this misconception people have, that allows our government to continue raping us, while do-gooders misuse this scripture to make it alright. This misinterpretation presumes that whatever Caesar claims, is rightfully his, and we should capitulate. Read carefully, Caesar deserves what is Caesars, and nothing more.

Care4all
08-25-2006, 11:43 AM
I believe you have misunderstood the passage. The comma separation denotes a new group that he also drove out. See the above post...

Previously you were attempting to say he didn't even HAVE a whip and because he was a carpenter on a donkey couldn't get one....

Now you are pretending that when he drove them out it was just the cattle and sheep...

Rubbish.

no, previously, i was reading the scripture from Matthew, which mentioned no such thing.

my comment about him being a carpenter that carried no whips was absolutely correct and a deduction on my part, i admit.

when i found the more descriptive scripture in a passage in the gospel of john that was given on the site, i immediately thanked you for making me aware of it.

this passage confirmed he carried no whips with him to punish and chase PEOPLE or ANIMALS away with and that i was correct in my assumptions, because it noted that he had to make them.

and i was also correct in that it says NO WHERE in this scripture that he used these whips he made to strike by whipping the men, these money changers...it specifically says, at least in the New International version that i posted from that he used the whips to chase out, ''BOTH sheep and cattle... and

16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

i am sorry you feel it is RUBBISH...let's just say, you are incorrect in prejudging such!!!!

care

Care4all
08-25-2006, 11:47 AM
Read the article I posted. He was also clearly not telling them not to defend themselves.

You will also notice that in that article the whole of the scripture was listed. I am not avoiding the context, I include it in my interpretation.

so please answer why the Bible says that Jesus answered that 2 swords were enough damo? do you know?

btw, i love this kind of discussion, hearing others thoughts on these things, and differences are MEANT to be discussed! :)

Damocles
08-25-2006, 11:52 AM
no, previously, i was reading the scripture from Matthew, which mentioned no such thing.

my comment about him being a carpenter that carried no whips was absolutely correct and a deduction on my part, i admit.

when i found the more descriptive scripture in a passage in the gospel of john that was given on the site, i immediately thanked you for making me aware of it.

this passage confirmed he carried no whips with him to punish and chase PEOPLE or ANIMALS away with and that i was correct in my assumptions, because it noted that he had to make them.

and i was also correct in that it says NO WHERE in this scripture that he used these whips he made to strike by whipping the men, these money changers...it specifically says, at least in the New International version that i posted from that he used the whips to chase out, ''BOTH sheep and cattle... and

16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

i am sorry you feel it is RUBBISH...let's just say, you are incorrect in prejudging such!!!!

care


Read the other one that I posted about the whole "market" thing.

It's all good. There are other verses that are also clear on the Jesus and Pacifist thing, that you would prefer to ignore. "he wasn't telling them to go to war... " Yeah but he sure wasn't telling them to sit on their hands either.

I think you put your prejudice, what you WANT to believe onto the scripture, while somebody from the outside reads what it actually says.

Damocles
08-25-2006, 11:54 AM
and i was also correct in that it says NO WHERE in this scripture that he used these whips he made to strike by whipping the men, these money changers...it specifically says, at least in the New International version that i posted from that he used the whips to chase out, ''BOTH sheep and cattle... and


You are wrong, he (John) was speaking of the types of changers Jesus drove from the temple... "both cattle and sheep" the only ones he didn't drive were also mentioned, he told them to "get out of here"...

I am not "interpreting" it to my personal prejudice of christ. I am reading what the text actually says.

uscitizen
08-25-2006, 11:57 AM
He made a whip, but did he actually whip them ?

Damocles
08-25-2006, 11:58 AM
he "drove them from the temple"

Damocles
08-25-2006, 12:04 PM
Anyway, here read this particular article...

http://www.compassionatespirit.com/JR-Hyland.htm

It's about the events that happened on Passover...



It was the cult of sacrifice that Jesus tried to dismantle, not the system of monetary exchange. In all three gospel accounts of the event, those who provided the animals for sacrifice are mentioned first: they were the primary focus of Christ's outrage.


Now if you take both of the verses into account... The one from John and the one from Matthew you find what I mean.

In John it mentions the whip and gives a detailed description of the groups of people he drove out.



In Matthew it shows that it was the PEOPLE he drove out not the animals. He was not outraged at the animals at all, it was the people who brought them to sell for slaughter that caused his outrage...




"Jesus entered the Temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 'It is written,' he said to them, 'My house will be called a house of prayer but you are making it a den of robbers.'" (Matthew 21:12-13)



Read also the different intention of wording "robber" is not in the modern context.

Care4all
08-25-2006, 12:06 PM
he "drove them from the temple"

yes damo, he drove them from the temple...he did not whip them from the temple, he used the whips to chase both CATTLE AND SHEEP is precisely what it says and in my opinion you are trying to depict a Christ that whipped people to get what he wants...

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

damo...

where have i changed the word of God like YOU DID saying specifically.

He was also very socially conservative, and not entirely peaceful. Whipping people in a church is not "peaceful"... This idea that Christ fit in with a modern political ideology is such total rubbish...

now...who is it that MADE UP THEIR OWN interpretation of scripture with no backing of such?

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

in addition to this the first point in the link you provided that I have started to read says this:

1) He was giving instructions to his followers on how they should respond to personal violence, against them as individuals. He starts by addressing all his listeners, using the plural, translated as you and ye, but then changes to the singular thee: "but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also".

Nowhere does he suggest that a man [or indeed a woman] should not defend and protect his country, his family and friends and those not capable of defending themselves.


Now, I happen to agree with that...no where does Jesus say that we can not defend ourselves... and defending oneself does not mean attacking someone and going to war with someone if they are NOT ATTACKING YOU....imo.

uscitizen
08-25-2006, 12:11 PM
Yes the whipping of the moneychangers is an assumption.

Care4all
08-25-2006, 12:13 PM
Anyway, here read this particular article...

http://www.compassionatespirit.com/JR-Hyland.htm

It's about the events that happened on Passover...



Now if you take both of the verses into account... The one from John and the one from Matthew you find what I mean.

In John it mentions the whip and gives a detailed description of the groups of people he drove out.



In Matthew it shows that it was the PEOPLE he drove out not the animals. He was not outraged at the animals at all, it was the people who brought them to sell for slaughter that caused his outrage...



Read also the different intention of wording "robber" is not in the modern context.

Chasing the animals out and flipping the money changers tables and scattering their money is what drove the money changers from the temple...they were probably going after their live stock which were driven out via the whips and were worth alot of money to these greedy people, as the Bible states...

Damo, even taking both verses I do not believe you can make the comment you did without total speculation.

and I am not willing to do that... there is no reason why the Scripture did not mention that He whipped the money changers to remove them, but it specifically does not... so I have to go with what I have read only on this one, ok?

again, agree to disagree...

and I still haven't made it even halfway on the first link and you are already giving me others so, if I disappear it is because I am reading them! :)

Damocles
08-25-2006, 12:20 PM
Not the moneychangers. But ignoring that he drove the people from the temple using whips that he created from cords is truly ignoring scripture. Put both scriptures together, two eyewitness accounts. He didn't drive animals he drove PEOPLE with those whips.

Matthew makes it clear he drove people and not animals...

Damocles
08-25-2006, 12:22 PM
Damo, even taking both verses I do not believe you can make the comment you did without total speculation.


I believe you cannot make any other comment without speculation. Taking the whole of the context, both scriptures it clearly describes a man who made a whip and drove those who sold cattle and sheep from the temple with that whip.

Care4all
08-25-2006, 12:35 PM
john:

13When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

matthew

12Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'[e] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'[f]"

I still DO NOT SEE where you get that he Whipped MEN,or struck these men via whip... the people in the crowd or the money changers without some sort of speculation, even with reading both verses...yes he drove them out of there...he flipped their tables ...yes, he shouted in disgust... yes, he scattered their money...yes, he drove their sheep and cattle out with whips...yes...

BUT DID HE CAUSE HARM TOWARDS ANOTHER MAN BY injuring him via USING A WHIP on him? NO. And that is what you impled in your initial statement...that Christ was not a peacemaker is what you implied in my opinion?

so please, I disagree with you and we must leave it at that...

care

Damocles
08-25-2006, 12:51 PM
Right here Care:

drove out all who were buying and selling there.

He didn't drive out all the cattle they were selling, he drove out the people who were buying and selling there... The people, not the animals. One gets more detailed. He specifically went after the people who were selling animals for "sacrifice" in the temple. Doves were purchased and released in ceremony, not killed, those people he just told to "get out".

The one verse compliments the other and gives a better picture of what was witnessed. With the two we see that he had a whip and that he drove people from the temple.

These verses are particularly interesting to a Buddhist who also sees the sacrifice of animals as a huge wrong...

:D Go Jesus!

klaatu
08-25-2006, 01:16 PM
i don't believe that Jesus would have been involved in a government law on abortion...

But I do know, from what we have been taught to know about Jesus, is that he would have FORGIVEN those that had the abortions and that is something that is lacking in the behavior or insides of those that are ardent prolifers...compassion, mercy, forgiveness...

so really, it is very up in the air how Jesus would have handled this, in this day and age...but I believe he would be compassionate, loving and formost forgiving...before ever being controlling via using the government at hand, or vindictive.

care

Of course he would be compassionate .. just as he was compassionate about everything else ...
But to say that pro lifers are not compassionate is out of line. To say that Im not forgiving of those who have had an abortion is doing something that Jesus does not approve of .. you are prejudging me. Being Prolife is having compassion... mountains of it... we have a passion for the lives of those who have a right to enter this world.
One of his main messages was that of having compassion for those who are unable to help themselves ... ;)

Brent
08-25-2006, 02:57 PM
Care4all,

What is so wrong with defending ourselves, or committing acts of violence for the sake of thwarting evil? Why in the world would Jesus oppose that?

Brent
08-25-2006, 02:59 PM
But I do know, from what we have been taught to know about Jesus, is that he would have FORGIVEN those that had the abortions and that is something that is lacking in the behavior or insides of those that are ardent prolifers...compassion, mercy, forgiveness...

IF abortion is murder, then abortionists should be treated the same as murderers. By this I am referring to the death penalty. As a pro-lifer, I believe abortion IS murder, and therefore abortionists should be put to death.

We can't just let people do whatever they want, Care. That's why we have prisons and other forms of justice, including the death penalty. God bless,

Brent

Brent
08-25-2006, 03:01 PM
Abolutely, Even among the believers is god a person ?

Yes. :) We are created in the image of God (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) and based on that, and personal spiritual experience, I would say God is definitely a person.

Care4all
08-25-2006, 03:36 PM
Of course he would be compassionate .. just as he was compassionate about everything else ...
But to say that pro lifers are not compassionate is out of line. To say that Im not forgiving of those who have had an abortion is doing something that Jesus does not approve of .. you are prejudging me. Being Prolife is having compassion... mountains of it... we have a passion for the lives of those who have a right to enter this world.
One of his main messages was that of having compassion for those who are unable to help themselves ... ;)

In all honesty Klaatu, I am not certain that they are compassionate. I am sorry if that is the "gut feeling" I get for the most of them leading this cause of making abortion illegal.... there is just too much hatred towards those that want free will to come in to play, that believe it is ultimately up to the woman that got herself pregnant because it is going to be her that will be going through the pregnancy in most cases alone.... and also responsible for rearing her child, and giving her child a good life and safe home.

But like I said, I don't see one nano-ounce of Christ in any of their public actions towards the pro-choice view...and my gut is telling me that He is not present in their own actions....(for the most part....because I do realize that there are some exceptions to the rule.)

They call the women murderers...(Point the finger when they are not free from sin themselves)

They call the doctors murderers and in few cases have killed them with terroristic actions...

They fight at every turn in Congress the Democrats efforts to help reduce abortions via birth control and abstinence. ( The repubs just blocked the democrats from adding money to the abstinence/birth control educational programs....there is a thread on it that is pretty recent.)

And in addition to this, most all of the men that are Pro lifers are hypocrits such as yourself.

Yep! I said it, and honestly mean it Klaatu.

They are men acting as though the abortion is where the problem begins, instead of God's word which tells you the sin, begins with the sex outside of marriage or with adultery, which then gets the girl pregnant.

And people like you tell people like Brent that his whole problem in life is because he needs to get himself a little bit of pussy or pung tang I think is how you put it in one thread to him....but I could be mistaken and it was someone else...that said something like that in his Red head Thread...

While you condemn the girl for not wanting to rear a child on her own and being stupid for getting pregnant in this day and age of birthcontrol and so on and so forth...

And yes I said alone for the girl...well let me tell you something buster, 40% of all the children born in this country today are born by single mothers....yeah, that's right! So women have come to the party, they are having their babies out of wedlock more and more today and are not aborting them, even though they know the man JUMPED THE FING SHIP, and has left her to rear THEIR child without a legitimate father...

So where are all these PIUS men when it comes to this issue of pregnancy out of wedlock? Yeah...maybe that is where your groups focus should be...convincing the man that he has an obligation to the woman if he gets her pregnant...he should probably marry her...

maybe that would stop men from so much "variety" in life...

you know what, as long as you, men stick your dicks in to those girls without covering yourselves, there are going to be unwanted pregnancies...that's a fact....

Oh, you can say that the girl should say no when you pressure her etc....sure ya can.

And as long as our society thinks that premarital sex is okay then there are going to be unwanted and unplanned pregnancies....And any man that WAS NOT A VIRGIN before he got married should just shut up and examnine themselves....

You know, Abortion wasn't even singled out in the Bible, yet your group focusses on this while Fornication and adultery as evils is mentioned hundreds of times in the Bible...more than any other sin from what I read somewhere... but to you all the focus is getting to the girl...? I just don't get it?

So, the whole focus of the religious right shedding their chosen wrath on to the women only is the biggest bunch of hypocrisy that is probably out there in a social issue today as far as I am concerned....it's a crock of it.

Parents need to teach morality...not the government's responsibility....and the PARENTS are the ones that are failing us today...along with some of the children.

Not one abortion was forced or even done by the government. They were done by people....to blame the government for mistakes of human beings is wrong in my opinion....and to control human beings free will is something even God didn't do.... so why don't you guys follow in His footstep?

Anyway...people make bad choices all the time in life....that is what life is all about...the only thing that people can do with their own personal transgressions, is to learn from them and become a better person.

No one is free from sin...forgiveness is the first step...before even repenting, Remember... Christ told the adulteress about to be stoned that her sins had been forgiven...then Jesus asked her to repent and sin no more!

In other words...forgiveness and compassion was given TO THE SINNER first before she was asked to repent and change her wild and crazy life....but because she was forgiven and shown compassion, I would bet my bottom dollar that she did, "sin no more" as Jesus had asked of her....just because of her gratefulness for the mercy and compassion... thus the moral of the story... :D

So in the case with the Pregnant girl, I think that if she was not made to feel like she is a piece of shit for getting pregnant outside of marriage would be a start...then show her that you can help her in her pregnancy, then show her you can help her and her child after her pregnancy on a personal one on one basis could probably reduce abortions in half....this is where family is also failing, by not being there for them.

nuff said...

care

Care4all
08-25-2006, 03:48 PM
IF abortion is murder, then abortionists should be treated the same as murderers. By this I am referring to the death penalty. As a pro-lifer, I believe abortion IS murder, and therefore abortionists should be put to death.

We can't just let people do whatever they want, Care. That's why we have prisons and other forms of justice, including the death penalty. God bless,

Brent

I do not believe it is murder Brent...that's the bottom line.

Even the Jews did not count their babies born in a census until they were 6 months old...

And many Jews believe that the soul enters the child at the first breath.... there is no consensus...

I do believe it is killing ones own potential child and that the baby in the mothers womb is alive....just not BORN...

They do not have equal weight in my mind...

Even Job had cried that he would have been better off if his mother had not gone to term with him...

Anyway, I don't want to make a final commitment of what I believe because I am still researching Jewis Scripture regarding this...so what I am thinking above could very well be wrong...

care

Care4all
08-25-2006, 03:54 PM
Care4all,

What is so wrong with defending ourselves, or committing acts of violence for the sake of thwarting evil? Why in the world would Jesus oppose that?

If someone was getting ready to attack us then we most certainly should defend ourselves....

If someone was attacking us, we have every right to defend ourselves.

Who said we didn't?

Brent
08-25-2006, 04:47 PM
I do not believe it is murder Brent...that's the bottom line.

Even the Jews did not count their babies born in a census until they were 6 months old...

And many Jews believe that the soul enters the child at the first breath.... there is no consensus...

I do believe it is killing ones own potential child and that the baby in the mothers womb is alive....just not BORN...

They do not have equal weight in my mind...

That is incorrect...

Exodus 21:22-25 states, "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

Above we see that if the infant is born prematurely, those who are responsible will pay for their crime. Of course, because the infant was not killed, there is no need to put the men responsible to death; another arrangement (i.e. restitution) can be worked out.

But IF the infant IS killed...

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Or as the New American Standard is translated: "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life. To which life is the Bible referring? Clearly, the unborn child's life! Otherwise they would say, "if the woman is killed, then... [insert punishment]."

Furthermore, the murder of a human adult is already prohibited in Exodus 21:12, "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." Why restate something which was already stated only a few verses beforehand?

In my opinion, the Scriptures clearly reveal abortion for what it is: Murder. It's on the principle of "life for a life" that I believe abortionists (the "Doctors" who perform abortions) should be put to death. They're the cruel of the cruel; they're butcherers of the most innocent amongst us. For their crimes they must die.


Even Job had cried that he would have been better off if his mother had not gone to term with him...

He was in misery, and wished we was never born. What does this have to do with whether abortion is OK or not OK as according to the scriptures? :)

As for modern Judaism, it is irrelevant. Reformed Judaism and much of Conservative Judaism barely resemble the Judaism of the Bible. Only the deeply Orthodox Jews (such as Michael Medved) follow their scriptures to the letter, and most of them are pro-life.

Brent
08-25-2006, 11:37 PM
Care4all -- On a final note, we can agree to disagree regarding the subject above, knowing how we've already been through this issue before, and never got anywhere with it. ;) God bless...

Care4all
08-26-2006, 06:22 AM
Brent...this Scripture does not even speak about abortion, but it does give value to the unborn, but not the same value as someone born...


22"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1996.

First off, it says miscarriage... it does not say that she bore a live child. And around 50% of all child births brought to the 9 months term, the child died, back then. I have even read as many as 80% of all childbirths resullted in a dead child, if not at birth then within the first 6 months of birth. Because of this, in the Jewish censuses, a child was not even counted in a census, unless they were older than 6 months.

So knowing that 50% of all children born after the 9 months of gestation were born dead..... Do you really believe that a woman that was pregnant brought forth a child that was living at 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 months prematurely? NOT!

There are arguments by recent theologians that the child was born alive, even though the text does not specifically say that in the most finite studies of the root of this passage....it says miscarriage...and miscarriage at that day and age ALSO makes sense.

So, what this verse is saying is that if a man's pregnant wife was struck by two men fighting....and this brought forth a miscarriage, the husband of the man could surely charge the man and bring him before the courts for restitution for the harm done to his wife/bringing forth an unborn child....and no other harm...to the wife, is implied.

But if further damage happens to his wife, then the husband can demand an eye for an eye, life for a life JUSTICE.

So, to me, (for now, until further research is done) this passage puts a value on the unborn's child's life, but puts a greater value on someone BORN already and living outside the womb.

note, this passage has nothing to do with abortion...it has to do with what punishment is allowed if someone strikes your wife and causes a premature miscarriage. And in today's world, more than 95% of childbirths result in a live child, so the circumstances are different from back then.

Yet it does seem to put a lesser value of life on to the unborn child but still of value as a living entity that was forced to be killed via the miscarriage from the strike...therefore, restitution to the husband is given for their loss?

care

Care4all
08-26-2006, 06:54 AM
what this passage does do is... definately give a VALUE to the unborn child's life and does not treat it like it is a ''blob'' of cells of nothingness!

Brent
08-26-2006, 11:20 AM
Care4all,

Then why do so many translations say "born prematurely"?

NIV: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely..."

NASB: "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely..."

NLT: "Now suppose two people are fighting, and in the process, they hurt a pregnant woman so her child is born prematurely..."

NKJV: "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely..."

I could go on. The point is, the vast majority of translations say "born prematurely," not miscarry. How could so many translators make the same mistake? The KJV is a very old translation. As a result, it uses terminology that we would not normally use.

NASB is actually considered the most accurate translation, and it says "born prematurely."


But if further damage happens to his wife, then the husband can demand an eye for an eye, life for a life JUSTICE.

I think it is obvious the Bible is referring to the infant. It was already established in verse 12 that murderers should be put to death. "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." Verse 23 by contrast is referring to the infant.

And yes, it does have to do with abortion. It demonstrates that the value of the infant is so great that anyone who kills it is worthy of death. This, I believe, emphasizes the rights of the infant as being equal, or at least near equal, to the rights of the mother.

Why are you so determined to reduce the value of unborn human beings?

Care4all
08-26-2006, 12:47 PM
born is not the hebrew word used, the word translated is ''come forth'' from what i have read so far....

and premature deaths, as i EXPLAINED to you, were automatically born dead in all probability, or within a couple of minutes depending on the length of gestation she was in... at the time and even if she went the whole 9 months 50% chance the child would be born dead, along with the mother being killed by childbirth in more cases than you'd like.... :(

care

Care4all
08-26-2006, 12:50 PM
come forth, brought forth prematurely.... still does not indicate the child was born alive...and more than likely not, as i explained....

Care4all
08-26-2006, 01:16 PM
no it is NOT clear at all bdw....just because they spoke of murder in an above verse...

they were covering a woman with child, what happens if she was struck by men fighting, which forced her to miscarry but lived herself through the birth....what penalty is paid in retribution for such.

then it covers any further harm that might occur to the mother, and the criminal punishment for that, being equal to murder.

So, in my opinion, this scripture's purpose was two fold....

1. if two men fighting...which means they are doing something that was not Godlike anyway ...proceeded to hurt a pregnant woman by striking her, which brought forth a miscarriage or premature birth which also means a dead baby...(There is no NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT at this time brent, use common sense), then the husband can bring charges against the man that struck her and brought on this miscarriage...it says no harm had been done to her at the time Brent....and the only harm that could have been done for the husband to collect restitution before a judge on was the death of his child prematurely....

If the baby was born alive Brent, and the mother was not hurt either as it says, why would the husband be allowed to collect damages when they have a miracle of a lifetime with a baby that was born prematurely and ALIVE!!!!????? just think about it.... so this verse is about the punishment for the death of an unborn child imo.

2. then the next verse is inregards to the mother...if she goes on to die then there should be death to the guy that struck her which eventually hurt her...they are saying, well in the case of the mother the laws of criminal justice come in to play and you should follow the standard of an eye for an eye, a life for a life.

The reason this is a different situation than the verse regarding murder is because in this case, these guys struck this woman and caused this by ACCIDENT, not by INTENT.....which usually would not be murder... but because they were engaging in dangerous behavior by fighting in public with other people around them that could be injured, our Lord is saying they are ultimately just as responsible for killing this woman as they would be if they had strangled her with their own hands....

Can you see what I am saying now?

Care4all
08-26-2006, 01:47 PM
brent, i am not saying the the unborn child has no worth, even the way i presented this verse shows that there is worth to the unborn child because it says that the husband/father can bring forth judgement against the man fighting that struck his wife and who harmed his unborn child by bringing forth a miscarriage....

like i said previously:

if the wife wasn't harmed and the baby was born alive, why would the husband have been able to get restitution for harm?

no reason at all that he could bring this case before justices!!

so, the unborn child has definate worth, not just a blob of cells of nothingness.....thus resitution to the father.

but the mother's life is worth more.

thus, abortion is causing harm, and even killing an unborn child....

but it IS NOT MURDER, AS YOU and others HAVE PROCLAIMED IT to be....imo,

and this was my point.

Brent
08-27-2006, 01:56 AM
Can you see what I am saying now?

No, I do not see what you are saying. I still disagree with you. From what you've said, it appears you believe killing an infant should be considered no different than killing your neighbor's ox.

Care4all
08-27-2006, 03:33 AM
No, I do not see what you are saying. I still disagree with you. From what you've said, it appears you believe killing an infant should be considered no different than killing your neighbor's ox.

Brent,

Answer this question...

If the pregnant woman was not harmed and the baby was not harmed but was just delivered to birth earlier than normal, prematurely...as you are saying is the case, what grounds does the husband have to charge the man and have a judge bring judgement upon him?

The baby was born ALIVE!!!(according to you) That would have been a MIRACLE to have a premature baby in those days and age to live!

So if one of the men fighting, causes a woman to deliver prematurely, with no harm done to any one at all,(as you are proposing), but a living, healthy baby birthed, which does not even come to pass when a woman delivers full term at the time 50% are dead,

what is the restitution he can bring against the man for?

He would have a lovely child and wife that was not harmed, and lived through the childbirth bdw?

no matter what you have been made to believe about this Scripture helping the base of prolifers, it does not, when you read it and have some understanding of the birthing conditions of the times in which it was writen, along with the specific interpretation of it,... along with many manuscripts have FOOTNOTES that say she brought forth a miscarriage....and with the fact that there would be no reason to have this in scripture other than giving us an isssuance of punishment for making a woman have a miscarriage.

And, the punishment due for a man who was fighting that harms another, EVEN IF BY ACCIDENT, which was the case with the pregnant woman in the 2nd part of the verse.

There are many other Scriptures, like the one that speaks of Elizabeth's baby in her womb jumping for joy in the pressence of the Lord, which I believe you had mentioned above, that fits more in what you believe...but not this particular passage, at least not without distorting it, imo.

care

FUCK THE POLICE
09-24-2009, 03:54 PM
I don't really even think Jesus was all that wise. I'm not sure if he existed, the records are all hundreds of years after his existence, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility. It's rare for prophets to be literally invented out of nowhere, but their actions are often hugely exaggerated.

Cancel 2018. 3
09-24-2009, 04:14 PM
You're using bad grammar again, Brent. You don't capitalize "son" in "son of God". "Son" isn't part of his name. "God" may be capitlalized, because that is a reference to a person.

i see you've been wrong for years.....nothing has changed....lol

FUCK THE POLICE
09-24-2009, 04:16 PM
i see you've been wrong for years.....nothing has changed....lol

I'm just trying to use appropriate grammar to describe him.

Cancel 2018. 3
09-24-2009, 04:24 PM
I'm just trying to use appropriate grammar to describe him.

no, you said it was incorrect grammar....

since he is the one and only holy Son....you capitalize it....so your grammar point is nothing but bs....it is your opinion, nothing more

next

FUCK THE POLICE
09-24-2009, 04:54 PM
no, you said it was incorrect grammar....

since he is the one and only holy Son....you capitalize it....so your grammar point is nothing but bs....it is your opinion, nothing more

next

He is one of many and non-holy son's. The deification of Jesus was an invention of later, dumber Christians.

Cancel 2018. 3
09-24-2009, 05:38 PM
He is one of many and non-holy son's. The deification of Jesus was an invention of later, dumber Christians.

hence your stupid grammar issue.....you need help dude

this has nothing to do with grammar spaz....it has only to do with your opinion/faith....

you fail

PostmodernProphet
09-24-2009, 05:51 PM
Jesus and this thread have something in common.....resurrection......

BRUTALITOPS
09-24-2009, 06:16 PM
no thanks to watermark

uscitizen
09-24-2009, 08:56 PM
Jaysus. Is the proper southern preaching pronunciation.

Damocles
09-25-2009, 08:38 AM
I don't really even think Jesus was all that wise. I'm not sure if he existed, the records are all hundreds of years after his existence, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility. It's rare for prophets to be literally invented out of nowhere, but their actions are often hugely exaggerated.
The miracle I'd most like to see is the feeding of the 5,000 men and their families with enough food for maybe one family...

Water to wine would be the next, but then that could be done by most modern magicians.

Cancel5
09-25-2009, 04:08 PM
The miracle I'd most like to see is the feeding of the 5,000 men and their families with enough food for maybe one family...

Water to wine would be the next, but then that could be done by most modern magicians.
I personally would want to see the raising of Lazarus or any dead person for that matter!

Damocles
09-25-2009, 05:58 PM
I personally would want to see the raising of Lazarus or any dead person for that matter!
Nah, back in that time people often were buried alive.

uscitizen
09-25-2009, 09:20 PM
On the day of crucifixion many were raised from the dead and seen wandering about the city. Jesus did not come back for 3 days.

From the Bible.

PostmodernProphet
09-26-2009, 06:44 AM
On the day of crucifixion many were raised from the dead and seen wandering about the city. Jesus did not come back for 3 days.

From the Bible.

what's your point?.....

DamnYankee
09-26-2009, 07:29 AM
I can see someone who lacks faith thinking that Jesus is not the son of God, but who is dumb enough to think that He never existed?

Mott the Hoople
09-26-2009, 08:09 AM
what's your point?.....Hmmmm...I've been asking the same thing about USC for several years now.:confused: