Good Christian Woman I met yesterday

The BBQ Pit
101

Please cite this. I don’t mean to be anal, but most of your posts are kind of one size fits all, universal things that you shoehorn into meaning what you want. We won’t make any head way this way. I’m willing to cite scrpiture and verse, including background context, to examine this. (which I think is what it will require)

No it is not.

I would like to see the context: Who is talking? Who is the audience? Where? The occasion? What’s the purpose? etc etc

If you simply lift a few verses (without even citing them) and offer no contextual background it is easy to make pat statements and state them as fact. But they mostly wither under informed scrutiny.

102

This is simply not true.

Earlier, Peter had a vision from God that indicated that henceforth Gentiles were not to be considered “unclean”–unclean in as much as Christian Judaism was now to [formally] welcome gentile converts. (there had always been ‘proseltytes’ that were non-Jews who were accepted within the Israelite nation and given respect. They were not a formal part of the Jewish religious establishment, and not given the same rights/accord as Jews)

By the time the dispute in Acts 15 took place, the decision to accept gentiles had been made and was moving forward. However, now that gentile converts were streaming in, questions/disputes arose. Among some, the new converts had to be circumcized according to the Mosaic Law, a law that they had lived with* for centuries.*

No one in that dispute grappled with the notion that ’ they were a separate belief system.’ With all due respect, this suggests you don’t understand the continuum. Both he Jews who accepted Christ, and those who did not, were waiting for the exact same thing: the arrival of the Messiah, something thaey had waited for for centuries. The apostles and the other followers saw Jesus Christ as the long awaited Messiah----while the majority of the Jews did not. Ultimately that majority had Christ killed as a seditionist.

But all of them—Christian Jews and non-Christian Jews—were convinced that they were practicing ‘correct’ Judaism.

The dispute had everthing to do with what role, if any, the Mosaic Law should/would have now that the Christ had come, and that resolution applied to Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles alike.

(The issue of circumcision brought this to a head (no pun intended) but we’re not talking about cirumcision as much as we’re talking about the ending of the whole Mosaic Law—a group of laws that numbered somewhere around 600 laws. The ending of the requirement of circumcision would have applied to Jews and Gentiles alike. (Jewish males were circumcised as infants) Further, hundreds of other ceremonial laws would be ended along with circumcision, like mixed threads, shellfish etc etc etc)

Paul arbitrated and made a forceful argumant that the Mosaic Law died when Christ died, and they were now under a new covenant–rather than the Law of Moses, Christian Jews (& Gentile converts) were now under the Law of the Christ.

Among those who insited that the gentile converts be circumcized, they weren’t asking for them to become Jews, (an impossibility) but rather insisting that the converts be subject to Jewish Law–the Mosaic Law.

But there is nothing to suggest that they were contemplating a “different belief system.” They were Jews, follwing what they considered to be Judaism.

103

The passage here seems pretty intolerant, at least in the beginning. Not trying to start an argument, just curious why He acted this way.

104

Teaching that Jews should show compassion and generosity to gentiles was not a radical idea. OTTOMH “and be compassionate to the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” The Hillel story I posted earlier has him teaching the golden rule. The Talmud says (we’ve had threads on this) that Sodom and Gammorah were destroyed for not being kind and generous to strangers.

Any expert in Jewish law would have already read quite a bit on love and compassion. Jewish law is not a self-contained seperate section. To fully understand the law, you’ve got to know the whole Torah. It’s impossible to miss all the ‘Heck yes you are your brother’s keeper!’ when you know the entire Torah.

I see it as a rhetorical device to remind somebody who has gotten obssessed with lawyering and trials and forgotten his other obligations.

How do you get that from talk of bread and dogs?

True. But, Jewish law and Jewish tradition are very clear that you can prove your point by pulling out enough related passages.

The Jewish messiah is expected to drive our enemies out of Israel, gather all Jews together in the Promised Land, and then usher in an era of world peace (“nation shall not lift up sword against nation”) and get all the gentiles to follow the seven Laws Of Noah. Saying that other sheep will follow him and that there will be one flock is easily interpreted as 'After I’m done gathering all the Jews, throwing out the Romans, and all that, I’ll convince all other nations to become Noahides and we shall all be united in peace."

105

I finally remembered a reply I heard once for the “have you found Jesus” line…
Found him? He’s missing? :smiley:

106

I hope I am misreading this, but you appear to be claiming that it was impossible to convert to Judaism. That is going to come as a surprise to the many scholars who have documented the growth of Judaism among the Diaspora through conversion (not through proselytization) between 250 B.C.E. and 50 C.E. (The numbers get a bit shakier once the people in Roman Palestine begin rumbling about throwing out the Romans, leading to the insurgencies of 67, 115, and 132.)

107

Pardon my clumsey wording. By insisting that the gentiles follow Mosaic law I interpreted that as wanting them to be Jewish. If expecting them to observe Mosaic law isn’t that then what is it? You claim it’s an impossibility. Tom disagrees with you.
From my own experience my exgirlfriends sister converted when she married a Jewish man.

Since the arguement seemed to be about is Christianity an exstention of traditional Judism or is it something different then it seemed to me that the term “seperate belief system” applied. Perhaps it is not accurate. As I said. I don’t care. That’s not the point for me.

108

Conversion to Judaism is a long and complicated process, a promise to follow Jewish law is a big part (unless you’re converting to Reform Judaism), but it is not the only part.

109

I see, thank you for the clarification.

110

No fooling!! Somebody tell Falwell and Swaggart. They think it was the buggering.

I confess almost complete ignorance of the Torah. The fact that he was an expert was part of the point I was making. It’s not just about knowing what it written but the spirit of the person who interprets the law. Why did the man ask “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus told a story about someone the Jews thought were less than them stopping to help a Jew. It wasn’t about Jews showing compassion to others. It’s part of Jesus larger message. “We’re all neighbors”
All children of the same God.

You are free to do so.

Many of Jesus healings were about the faith of the person recieving the healing. Another part of the teachings of Jesus was to break down traditions that seperated people {all children of the same God} from each other and to seek the spirit within the person rather than a worldly superficial label. Reading Mark’s version you see how this applies to both.

IS there a point you were trying to prove?

Easily yes. Accurately is still in question.

111

I echo this sentiment. I appreciate the standards here on the SDMB because it prompts me to delve into things more deeply than simply a superficial discussion. I recommend that to anyone else. If something here sparks your interest then look into it. The SDMB is also a decent place to get varied reading recommended.

I take things out of context because we are on a message board with limited time, not because I haven’t studied. You have offered a lot here without any textual reference at all. My own beliefs which might be accurately described as a mix of different things I have studied, don’t come form random and careless choosing but careful consideration.

I’ll let others decide how thorough my grasp is. I’m far from a scholar but I have put in more than a few hours. I would mention that many people who are considered biblical scholars still don’t agree on certain details. You and I obviously don’t agree but if your impression is that I randomly pick select verses that give me a warm fuzzy feeling that is incorrect. My goal was to try and understand what Jesus actually taught in my own way rather than accept tradition and second hand information from some particular doctrine. I’m sure you can appreciate that.

The Bible has a lot in it and is subject to interpretation. Your interpretation and mine won’t agree. I’d be interested in discussing it with you but my guess is it will take more time than we have to give.

I’ll give it a shot and no harm done if we simply don’t have the time.

112

Everybody interprets the Bible and based on their background and desire they also get the “meaning what they want” thing happening. You included.
The sermon on the mount seems fairly obvious to me.

Jewish law is do not Murder. Jesus expands this to if your heart is angry or even calls someone a fool is in danger of hell.
Doesn’t that seem totally unrealistic for anyone to say that? We are human and we will get angry. How can we escape hell fire if those are the terms? That’s the deeper spiritual meaning I referenced. An obedience to the rules is not enough. You must be transformed inside. This is referred to later as born again.

Same point.

Same thing. He goes beyond the letter of the law to try and get people to ficus on the inner person. The truth of what spirit lives within. Look at that last line.
Was he exaggerating?

Since I am aware that you are fairly well informed when it comes to the Bible I thought that was enough and you knew the answers to those questions you posed. You’re not the only one with limited time.
BTW. “informed scrutiny” is another way of saying , “different opinion” or different interpretation" but I’m always glad to learn something.
I’m not sure what you want besides what I’ve offered. It’s a small story in Luke 10.

As I said. I don’t see this as instructing Jews to be compassionate to others because the story was about a Samaritan being compassionate to a Jew after other Jews passed by. The story IMO is obviously about breaking down barriers between social and superficial stigmas to see the spirit within the man.

The fact that Jesus was a Jew and the man he was speaking to was an expert in Jewish law are merely details of circumstance.

113

I don’t buy it. The parable of the Good Samaritan was definitely speaking directly to the Pharisees and Sanhedrin and how they should act.

The story was about a Samaritan who stopped to help someone, after the “good people” had passed him by. The story was telling these “good people” to straighten up their act.

Samartitans at that time were seen as the outsiders, the ones who “aren’t as good as us”, the trash, the false believers. Yet, this “trash” was keeping the true meaning of The Law better than the “holy people” did. He was better than they were.

That is the meaning of the parable.

The Bible is loaded with stories and warnings to be generous and care for fellow human beings, beginning in Genesis, with the famous “Am I my brother’s keeper” passage.

114

CosmosDan Mainstream Judaism condemns homosexuality rather strongly. AFAIK Rashi, Maimonides and all the great sages do. But, they cite a ban in Leviticus, and a passage where G-d speaks of making a man and wife “one flesh”, and other things. The average rabbi will tell you that homosexuality is a serious sin. They will also tell you that Soddom and Gamorrah were destroyed because they were without compassion and had no kindness for strangers.

RE The Good Samaritan

In case anybody doesn’t know, Levites (usually they go by Levy or Levi these days. And yes, the guy who started the jeans company was a Levite) were part of the priestly class. The actual priests responsible for officiating over sacrifices and for leading services in the Temple were the Kohanes (These days they are usuall Cohen, Cohn, Kaplan, and a few othera). Certain other duties and privileges were given to the Levites. So, the significance (regardless of your interpretation of the story as a whole) is that a man who has special obligations to G-d is ignoring his obligation to another human being.

115

You need to reread it. The Levite is not the main thrust of the story at all. The story was told in direct response to the question “Who is my neighbor?” The mention of the Levite and the priest before him {especially being told to an expert in Jewish law} were frosting on the cake to show that fancy titles and positions of status don’t matter, but the answer was

The man who showed mercy was the neighbor, the Samaritan who would be considered an outcast because of the spirit of mercy he showed was a neighbor to the wounded Jew not the two “religious” men who passed him by.

116

In the sense that Jesus is saying, the true spirit within and what you do with it is what counts, sure it’s telling people how to act. The man asking the question was an expert in Jewish law and Jesus finishes with “Go thee and do likewise”

What exactly about my take on it do you disagree with? I’m only saying that the story was a little deeper than “Hey Jews, be nice! Especially you religious leaders”

There is a significance to the fact that it was an outcast who showed mercy in light of the question asked and the answer given by Jesus.

117

I never said that he was.

But, having one of the men who passes by be a Levite is a very important detail. It isn’t just any Jew (all of whom are bound by G-d’s covenant with Abraham). It was a Levite who is bound by an additional covenant between G-d and Aaron.

Come to think of it, can somebody tell what word the original text uses for ‘priest’? I’m wondering if the reference might be to a Kohane.

I’m not disputing that.

I’m not disputing that either. IMO the parable boils down to ‘Only he who is truly his brother’s keeper is righteous’.

118

Lest anybody think I’m nitpicking a translation to prove my point, I’d like to relate something I learned from a Christian friend.

While it’s usually interpreted that the centurion cruelly responded to Jesus’ complaint of thirst by giving him vinegar, there are other likely translations of the word. It may have been refering to the wine centurion’s received as part of their rations. In that case we have not a sadist, but a man risking severe punishment by offering his own drink to a suffering prisoner. The word may also have refered to the use of vinegar as a solvent for medicines. In that case rather than a cruel bastard, we have a man risking a death sentence by comforting a dying man.

So, what word in the original text is translated as priest?

119

I see. I guess I misinterpreted your post. When you said

I took it as the real significance* instead of* my interpretation as a whole.
You meant it is significant in addition too? If that’s the case I agree.

Yes, and making the point that our brothers are not just members of our little group but all God’s creation.

120

A point which was not radical, and had been stated by Jewish scholars before Jesus ever said it.