[kobi]

Here's what Thomas Jefferson thought about the bible.

The story is that after years of trying to explain his views on religion, Jefferson thought it would be better to create a bible via cutting and pasting a full bible into his version. Jefferson's version was only 46 pages long, after he cut out every miracle/supernatural event and all inconsistencies in the New Testament.

It's a great insight into the mind and religious attitudes to one of our greatest founding father. Kinda puts the whole argument that the US was founded on Christian values to task huh? That claim was always surprizing to me as almost all the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. If anything Jefferson's views of Deism are reflected in his bible.

Jefferson Bible Online
LA Times article
Amazon link to buy the Jefferson Bible
Jefferson Bible Wiki

[RAILhead]

Define "Christian Value."

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Define "Christian Value."

I believe for his purposes he's using as a definition this: "The modern views & values of Conservative Christianity including (but not limited to) such things as Biblical Inerrancy and literalism, all of which are being incorrectly put forth as being the same as the views of the Founding Fathers."

But that's just a guess on my part.

[lpkmckenna]

The JB is an interesting footnote in bible scholarship, but not really all that important. Jefferson just assumes everything supernatural never happened, and everything Jesus allegedly said is true. That just won't do in textual criticism.

The reality is that many of the supernatural events are based on real events or are symbolically-encoded history. Jesus may never have turned water into wine, but he certainly encouraged the abandonment of water-purification rituals and demanded that table-fellowship be extended to the sick and unclean. That's the real "miracle" of the water-to-wine story.

On the other hand, many of the things supposedly said by Jesus were not. We all love the story of Jesus saving the adulteress, but it's certainly not historical, even though it's seems believable enough. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Excellent sentiment, but it was never actually said by Jesus.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Jesus may never have turned water into wine, but he certainly encouraged the abandonment of water-purification rituals and demanded that table-fellowship be extended to the sick and unclean. That's the real "miracle" of the water-to-wine story.

Interesting perspective, but I don't see how teaching followers not to wash their hands before eating a meal and directly subjecting healthy people to contagious illness that called for quarantine is all that miraculous. What's so offensive about clean hands? The only type of disease that Jews would quarantine anyone over was biblical leprosy, and that was done because the Torah demands it. Not that I want to bash Christianity, but there's nothing miraculous in those teachings. Unconventional or radical, sure. The mark of a new religion perhaps. Miraculous, no.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

On the other hand, many of the things supposedly said by Jesus were not. We all love the story of Jesus saving the adulteress, but it's certainly not historical, even though it's seems believable enough. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Excellent sentiment, but it was never actually said by Jesus.

According to who? You?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

I believe for his purposes he's using as a definition this: "The modern views & values of Conservative Christianity including (but not limited to) such things as Biblical Inerrancy and literalism, all of which are being incorrectly put forth as being the same as the views of the Founding Fathers."

If you think that "Christian values" weren't a huge influence on this country, then you're wrong. If you think that the Christian values that were an influence on this country are the same as those espoused by the modern "moral majority", then you're also wrong. Christian values, from Jesus to Augustine to Aquinas and so on have had a very large impact on Western society. To extend that thought to somehow using the power and authority of government to control the behavior of others is an enormous insult to the tradition and its texts.

[Shaddim]

"Christian values" directly shaped all of western civilization.

[colourfastt]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"Christian values" directly shaped all of western civilization.

When Gandhi was asked what he thought of western civilisation, he replied: I think it would be a good idea.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

On the other hand, many of the things supposedly said by Jesus were not. We all love the story of Jesus saving the adulteress, but it's certainly not historical, even though it's seems believable enough. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Excellent sentiment, but it was never actually said by Jesus.

It might not have originally been in John, but I've always found that story more credible that most in the Bible — primarily because it includes the very strange detail of Jesus writing in the ground. That's a strange detail to include but not expand on if you're just making up a story to put in John, isn't it? It's obvious that whoever the story comes from couldn't read whatever Jesus was writing, because he offers no hint about that — but he makes a point to mention that Jesus was writing something, and it seems like that something must have convinced the Pharisees to walk away.

My guess is that it comes from an early gospel and was inserted into John when whatever text it came from fell out of currency.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's a strange detail to include but not expand on if you're just making up a story to put in John, isn't it?

They knew you'd think that.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by colourfastt 

When Gandhi was asked what he thought of western civilisation, he replied: I think it would be a good idea.

I've been to India, they still aren't there.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

If you think that "Christian values" weren't a huge influence on this country, then you're wrong. If you think that the Christian values that were an influence on this country are the same as those espoused by the modern "moral majority", then you're also wrong. Christian values, from Jesus to Augustine to Aquinas and so on have had a very large impact on Western society. To extend that thought to somehow using the power and authority of government to control the behavior of others is an enormous insult to the tradition and its texts.

I agree. I think that christian values have influenced this country, but this country wasn't founded on christian ideals. I do think that the founding fathers were smart enough to keep religion and government from mixing. You know the whole separation of church and state thing that John Locke came up with and Jefferson included in the 1st Amendment?

Quote by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Unfortunately we as a society haven't been that smart. We've allowed the two to mix and it's turned ugly. In modern politics since Kennedy's 1960 campaign speech about his Catholic religion/beliefs it's gone downhill.

My point about christian values was this, I hate the way the term "christian values" is used as a political football in reference to the founding fathers and foundation of this country. As it's clear most of the founding fathers/authors of the constitution weren't christian; Most were deists.

My argument is that the founding fathers being Deists, did not found this country on christian beliefs/values as they didn't believe in Jesus Christ. Some believe the founding fathers came here to escape christianity that was being forced upon them in England.

So my question is, how can you have current political figures claim the US was founded on christian beliefs, when the architects of this country weren't Christian and didn't believe in Jesus?

Here's a excellent article about religion and Presidential campaigns.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by kobi 

So my question is, how can you have current political figures claim the US was founded on christian beliefs, when the architects of this country weren't Christian and didn't believe in Jesus?

Do you think that when people claim the US was founded on "Christian values" they mean that the US was founded on the idea that Jesus died and rose from the dead, or do they mean something different?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by kobi 

So my question is, how can you have current political figures claim the US was founded on christian beliefs, when the architects of this country weren't Christian and didn't believe in Jesus?

and yet, they were still heavily influenced by Christianity. Amazing.

Tell me, how well do you understand Freemasonry?

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Do you think that when people claim the US was founded on "Christian values" they mean that the US was founded on the idea that Jesus died and rose from the dead, or do they mean something different?

It depends on the person who says it and the context in which it's said. If that person has expressed religious beliefs in political statements then I take it as the "Jesus rose from the dead" meaning of "christian values".

Again I think that using the phrase "christian values" in terms of the founding fathers or Constitution is a political football; as the masses don't know or bother to read a history book.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

and yet, they were still heavily influenced by Christianity. Amazing.

Tell me, how well do you understand Freemasonry?

I'll agree to a point. The founding fathers may have been influenced by Christianity in their personal lives, but Christianity didn't influence any of our founding documents or the beginnings of our Government. I.e., The Constitution, Declaration of Independence. Mostly what influenced those documents were English Common Law, John Locke's theories on social contracts, The Code of Hammurabi, science and Deism.

Not well versed on Freemasonry, at all. Any suggestion as to where to start my research?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by kobi 

I'll agree to a point. The founding fathers may have been influenced by Christianity in their personal lives, but Christianity didn't influence any of our founding documents or the beginnings of our Government. I.e., The Constitution, Declaration of Independence. Mostly what influenced those documents were English Common Law, John Locke's theories on social contracts, The Code of Hammurabi, science and Deism.

Not well versed on Freemasonry, at all. Any suggestion as to where to start my research?

Without having extensive knowledge on the subject matter, from what I do know...I would say that religion highly influenced our founding fathers.

Its apparent for the lengths they went to ensure that state and religion stayed seperate. They were wise enough not to forget the lessons of their fathers.

[hyteckit]

Sweet. Separate the wheat from the chaff.

Cut out all the BS from the Bible and just focus on the moral teachings of the Bible.

I guess it's missing many interesting stories from the Bible, but I'm sure those stories have already been made into movies.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

According to who? You?

The story of the adulteress isn't found in the oldest bibles. It is a later addition to John.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Interesting perspective, but I don't see how teaching followers not to wash their hands before eating a meal and directly subjecting healthy people to contagious illness that called for quarantine is all that miraculous. What's so offensive about clean hands?

The washing wasn't about eating with clean hands for reasons of hygiene; it was about religious purity. 1st century Judaism was obsessed with purity, well beyond any requirement of the Torah. These purity requirements were likely a reaction to the presence of non-Jews and Jews of other sects. A side effect of this purity obsession was the social marginalization of the "unclean." Jesus rejected these purity innovations with a return to a simpler, Torah-only approach.

The only type of disease that Jews would quarantine anyone over was biblical leprosy, and that was done because the Torah demands it.

It wasn't about quarantines, but simply avoidance and social ostracism.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It might not have originally been in John, but I've always found that story more credible that most in the Bible — primarily because it includes the very strange detail of Jesus writing in the ground. That's a strange detail to include but not expand on if you're just making up a story to put in John, isn't it? It's obvious that whoever the story comes from couldn't read whatever Jesus was writing, because he offers no hint about that — but he makes a point to mention that Jesus was writing something, and it seems like that something must have convinced the Pharisees to walk away.

My guess is that it comes from an early gospel and was inserted into John when whatever text it came from fell out of currency.

I don't think we are supposed to infer that they were reacting to what Jesus was writing, but to what Jesus said. Besides, I don't think he was actually writing anything, but just idling doodling as a way of ignoring their challenge. It has also been translated as "drawing a line in the sand," perhaps referencing an older story about a Roman official challenging someone in Egypt, and the adulteress story might be plagiarizing that story.

The real problem with the story is how stoning really worked. A person who was sentenced to be stoned would first be taken to the city wall and thrown off by the two eyewitnesses. If the convicted wasn't killed in the fall, only then would the community begin throwing stones. For Jesus to ask "Let he without sin cast the first stone" makes no sense. No one is gonna start throwing stones before the fall from the wall.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Kinda puts the whole argument that the US was founded on Christian values to task huh? That claim was always surprizing to me as almost all the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. If anything Jefferson's views of Deism are reflected in his bible.

Not really, considering that Jefferson was just one man. There's a lot more evidence that the majority of those involved in the founding of the United States believed that our rights where endowed by a "Creator" and that our government should reflect that. Doesn't mean they didn't want people to be free to believe otherwise, or practice otherwise if they chose, but it does mean that they believed that principles inspired by God where what would make America great.

Jefferson by the way, did consider himself a Christian, not a "Deist". At least that was his own claim. His "bible" was created because Jefferson felt that Jesus delievered "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man," and simply wanted to document his words, not actions attributed to him.

Jefferson may have been an unorthodox Christian, but he believed in the principles of Christianity, claimed to be a Christian and this surely influenced how the United States was formed.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The story of the adulteress isn't found in the oldest bibles. It is a later addition to John.

So?

I read a biography when I was young about Abraham Lincoln. I read another a couple of years back. Apparently, because the new book contained information that wasn't available in the book I read when I was young concerning things that Lincoln was said to have done, it isn't factual and didn't happen?

It's this sort of insistence on logical nonsense that fuels those who have already predisposed themselves that there has to be something wrong with certain religious beliefs. While it's POSSIBLE that's the case, stating it as fact reveals the agenda of those making the claim.

[lpkmckenna]

I'm so sorry that I insist on being logical. The point is: the Gospel of John was altered by an unknown party with a historically impossible story. The Bible needs to be read the same way every other book is read: with a critical mind.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So?

I read a biography when I was young about Abraham Lincoln. I read another a couple of years back. Apparently, because the new book contained information that wasn't available in the book I read when I was young concerning things that Lincoln was said to have done, it isn't factual and didn't happen?

It's this sort of insistence on logical nonsense that fuels those who have already predisposed themselves that there has to be something wrong with certain religious beliefs. While it's POSSIBLE that's the case, stating it as fact reveals the agenda of those making the claim.

If the stuff in your new Lincoln book isn't attested by any older evidence, then yes, it's made up. Much like if I write a book about Lincoln and claim that he was a unicorn, that doesn't magically make it true.

If the stuff in your Lincoln book is attested by older evidence, then it's not comparable.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'm so sorry that I insist on being logical.

"Logical nonsense" ≠ logic. It may be the case that your ability to think logically isn't much better than your reading comprehension.

The point is: the Gospel of John was altered by an unknown party with a historically impossible story. The Bible needs to be read the same way every other book is read: with a critical mind.

Making assumptions of fact based on a limited ability to check sources that may have been available at the time is above being "critical". It's simply looking for flaws with an agenda. It's fine to point out where there are POSSIBILITIES for other interpretations or for there to might be distortions in the official "record", but stating them as fact without any real evidence besides A LACK OF EVIDENCE isn't any better than blind faith IMO. Both are agenda based.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If the stuff in your new Lincoln book isn't attested by any older evidence, then yes, it's made up. Much like if I write a book about Lincoln and claim that he was a unicorn, that doesn't magically make it true.

You are assuming that "older evidence" that might have existed at the time is sure to STILL exist and be able to be documented. That's an assumption made illogically.

For instance, if a book on Lincoln came out during his life and then 2 years after he died another came out with additional non-footnoted information based on the word of several people who were direct witnesses, does that make the later book fiction just because 100 years later maybe no one knows that the info was passed on by direct witnesses? Based on your standard, it illogically would.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The washing wasn't about eating with clean hands for reasons of hygiene; it was about religious purity. 1st century Judaism was obsessed with purity, well beyond any requirement of the Torah.

The written Torah places a lot of emphasis on physical aspects of ritual purification of the physical. One very prominent manifestation of that practice is in ritual immersion, which is mandated after many events a person may experience. I was wrong to emphasize the hygiene aspect because it's more than just physical cleanliness, but that is a part of it. The oral Torah, which Christianity derides as worthless but which religious Jews recognize as coming from Mount Sinai along with the written Torah, mandates the washing of hands and the reciting of that blessing before eating bread. It's a very simple, painless commandment to fulfill, and most Jews observed it in the era of Christianity's founding, if the historical record is to be believed.

Lest you think there's no hand washing commandment in the written Torah, Aaron and his sons (the Kohanim) washed their hands and feet before officiating over an offering. Just as they did that explicitly, the Talmud (wherein the oral Torah was codified) tells us that all Jews are supposed to wash their hands and recite a blessing before eating bread; if they do not it is said to be akin to making an offering to a foreign deity. That's how the Pharisees would have viewed some random preacher's instruction to his followers not to abide by the ritual. The written Torah also warns Jews that if we eat and enjoy ourselves materially without remembering God we will soon be guilty of violating His Torah, so we are taught that it is important to recognize God during our meals, realizing that the source of prosperity that puts food on our table is ultimately from Him.

I know that critical theory and many Christians will claim that the rabbis invented all kinds of new rituals. Scholars will claim that the rabbis invented the washing of the hands because it is similar to Temple rituals. The problem is that class of claims sounds reasonable intellectually speaking but ultimately doesn't make any sense: The masses would not have followed after stringent rabbinic teachings if (as you would assume) those commandments did not exist prior and were instead of late origin and invention. They would have responded to such alleged innovation by noting that the Torah says nothing should be added to it or taken away from it. Josephus said the masses were aligned with the Pharisees, and is said to have told his followers in Matthew 23 that the Pharisees and Scribes sit in Moses' seat and that everything they teach the people to observe they should follow. That's telling because the gospel figure who is often so haughty doesn't claim himself to have the authority that descended from Moses. Those verses clearly mean he recognized the legitimacy of rabbinic/oral Torah observance, including the washing of the hands.

Sure, the gospel account has him claim that the rabbis don't practice what they preach, but it doesn't say (at least anywhere near those verses) that what they command the people to do was wrong. Quite the opposite. Those who he liked casting as hypocrites were (if those verses are to be trusted) seen by him as the true authorities who the people had to listen to. That means when he responded to the criticism about his followers not washing their hands by alleging that his accusers put ritual above their relationship with God, he was avoiding the issue, purposely allowing his followers to violate the ritual (even though he apparently knew the Pharisees were right), and violating his own admonishment to his followers that they should observe the teachings of the Pharisees.

lpkmckenna, I think you have a distorted view of Judaism that is tainted by Christian belief. You see certain parts of the gospels that don't accord with the facts as you perceive them, but then you unquestioningly accept the gospel's inconsistent claims about Judaism that are just as ridiculous. I think if you analyze it further you'll start to question those assumptions.

These purity requirements were likely a reaction to the presence of non-Jews and Jews of other sects.

Evidence other than your own interpretation? The Torah says that non-Jews are welcome at the table of Jews, but it's not a blanket invitation: They must be circumcised. That's in the written Torah explicitly. If the Torah mandates that level of commitment by non-Jews to share a dining experience, then certainly washing one's hands is a very light requirement by comparison.

A side effect of this purity obsession was the social marginalization of the "unclean." Jesus rejected these purity innovations with a return to a simpler, Torah-only approach.

See above. Also, what you call Torah-only could never have existed. The written Torah does not explain in detail every commandment to which it refers. Many of the commandments are referenced in the abstract and in such a way that one would not know how to fulfill them. There are many examples. The specifics on how to observe the mezuzah commandment or what defines tefilin, things the Torah tells us to interact with on a daily basis, are not sufficiently defined in the written Torah. The written Torah tells us to "afflict our souls" on the Day of Atonement. It does not explain what it means by afflict. However, the Torah explicitly tells us to learn all the details from the sages who came before us, who got their teachings from the instructions Moses taught to the elders of the children of Israel. We get such details and countless more from the oral Torah, which was passed down for generations until being put in writing in the Talmud. That's why rabbis spend so much time studying it and its commentaries, so that they can teach the rest of us.

But those who wish to doubt Jews know the faith they've practiced since the beginning of their existence believe that they somehow have a better idea of what true Judaism is. They completely ignore the ~1,500 Jewish record of information that goes along with the written Torah. They believe that their blind intuition about the Torah is somehow superior to informed understanding of the people who received it directly and who were commanded to live and defend it long before Christianity came and expropriated it as its own. It's similar to a foreign people invading America, coming to claim the Constitution as their own and then attempting to run the United States government with just the Constitution alone as their guide and none of the laws, acts of Congress, executive orders or jurisprudence that informs us on how the Constitution has been executed and interpreted over the last 222 years.

It wasn't about quarantines, but simply avoidance and social ostracism.

Evidence other than your own interpretation? The gospels say that the Christian deity was a friend of the lepers and those accused of sinfulness. As I said before, the Torah commands that lepers be quarantined in very specific ways. Moreover, the Torah isn't particularly politically correct about sinners. Jews were commanded to shun fellow Jews for not following the Torah. So much of the teachings found in the gospels are irreconcilable with Judaism and even conflict with some of the other teachings also found in the gospel accounts. If Jesus existed he may have been trying to start an alternative religion, one much more permissive and based on a cult of personality, but what was being taught wasn't Judaism. From the many inconsistencies found in the teachings attributed to him, it appears much more likely that if such a personage existed his true teachings weren't accurately preserved. I'm not trying to attack Christianity here, mind you. I'm just defending Judaism and the rational approach to the divine from the Jewish perspective.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are assuming that "older evidence" that might have existed at the time is sure to STILL exist and be able to be documented. That's an assumption made illogically.

For instance, if a book on Lincoln came out during his life and then 2 years after he died another came out with additional non-footnoted information based on the word of several people who were direct witnesses, does that make the later book fiction just because 100 years later maybe no one knows that the info was passed on by direct witnesses? Based on your standard, it illogically would.

We're not talking about another book. We're talking about later copies of a book that is supposed to be the same. The story was a foreign insertion. Like I said, I've always found the story strangely credible, but it unquestionably does not belong where it is today.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

We're not talking about another book. We're talking about later copies of a book that is supposed to be the same.

Who says that later copies are "supposed to be the same?" Books often times are updated and altered in later editions. More assumptions....

The story was a foreign insertion. Like I said, I've always found the story strangely credible, but it unquestionably does not belong where it is today.

Your theory is noted.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Who says that later copies are "supposed to be the same?" Books often times are updated and altered in later editions. More assumptions....

Yes, now that you mention it, I'm sure the original author came back 400 years later and decided to stick another story in the middle and reissue that as the official edition. I'm glad we have you here to set us straight from our unreasonable assumptions.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are assuming that "older evidence" that might have existed at the time is sure to STILL exist and be able to be documented. That's an assumption made illogically.

In the absence of new evidence to support new claims, those claims have no bearing. Logically they are useless and 'false' in the sense that they cannot be grouped along with supported facts.

It doesn't actually matter whether a claim is true or not, what matters is where the evidence points. It may very well be the case that Lincoln was bald and had a tattoo of a pink unicorn on his scalp (why else would he wear such a ridiculous hat?), but as we have no evidence to support that claim and some evidence that goes against it we have to assume that he had no such tattoo, and probably wasn't bald.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, now that you mention it, I'm sure the original author came back 400 years later and decided to stick another story in the middle and reissue that as the official edition. I'm glad we have you here to set us straight from our unreasonable assumptions.

No problem.

Though, I'm pretty sure it doesn't require an author to come back from the dead 400 years later in order to revise and update a historical document he's written if it's found that appropriate additional material had been erroneously omitted. I'm pretty sure that Fritz Lang isn't around anymore and they are soon to release a new, never before seen version of one of his movies.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

In the absence of new evidence to support new claims, those claims have no bearing. Logically they are useless and 'false' in the sense that they cannot be grouped along with supported facts.

We lack quite a bit of evidence to decipher what decisions where made and why they made them 2,000 years ago. None of us where there, and most of the documentation available back then no longer exists.

The evidence is that at some point some person or people with considerable religious authority either re-inserted information that had previously been there or felt that the information which had not been there previously was erroneously left out. All else is assumption or supposition. Not fact.

It doesn't actually matter whether a claim is true or not, what matters is where the evidence points.

See above in regards to the evidence. I'm not saying that it isn't a reasonable and plausible theory, but it's just a theory you probably will never be able to prove.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Though, I'm pretty sure it doesn't require an author to come back from the dead 400 years later in order to revise and update a historical document he's written if it's found that appropriate additional material had been erroneously omitted. I'm pretty sure that Fritz Lang isn't around anymore and they are soon to release a new, never before seen version of one of his movies.

That is quite a stretch to say the least.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That is quite a stretch to say the least.

No, seriously. Some people found footage that was determined to have been meant to be in the film Metropolis, that no one living had ever seen before. It was assumed to not have even existed, and they are going to insert it into a new version of the film. Fritz Lang has been long dead.

..of course that has to mean that the film element in question where never shot by Lang, since he's long dead and it was just assumed that the material in question didn't exist.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No, seriously. Some people found footage that was determined to have been meant to be in the film Metropolis, that no one living had ever seen before. It was assumed to not have even existed, and they are going to insert it into a new version of the film. Fritz Lang has been long dead.

..of course that has to mean that the film element in question where never shot by Lang, since he's long dead and it was just assumed that the material in question didn't exist.

He's not several centuries dead. The stretch is that some person in the fourth century somehow found some ancient manuscript by the author of John, magically knew that it was by him, magically knew that it was meant to be included in John, and released a new edition of the book with the passage inserted. That's like seeing a speed limit sign and saying, "You know, I think that was put there by bulimic fairies that vomit gold."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

He's not several centuries dead. The stretch is that some person in the fourth century somehow found some ancient manuscript by the author of John, magically knew that it was by him, magically knew that it was meant to be included in John, and released a new edition of the book with the passage inserted.

You are assuming it's all "magic" which is not required for explanation, though the subject matter well could have been inspired by some sort of metaphysical influence I do suppose.

"Oral traditions" of historical events have often times been passed down through the centuries when written texts where not available, for instance. John was simply giving the version of events as he remembered at the time. He possibly could have written more that was later edited into his other writings for all you know. You are also assuming that an explanation requires an "ancient manuscript" to be miraculously found when in fact it could have existed from day one (but no longer exists) and those compiling the books of the bible who acted as editors later decided that something excised or left out needed to be put back in for later editions.

I'm not saying that this is what DID HAPPEN, but it's just as possible as your theory. You insist your theory is fact. I'm open to different ideas. I'm looking at this with a "critical mind". I'm not just going to accept a theory as fact because someone really likes it. I'm the guy looking at all the possibilities. You're the guy shutting down possibilities regarding things there is no real evidence of that happened 2,000 years ago. Not exactly an example of "critical thinking" in my book.

That's like seeing a speed limit sign and saying, "You know, I think that was put there by bulimic fairies that vomit gold."

Not at all. There is a tree blocking a road. I assume it fell, but understand that other options are possible. You insist that it's a fact that it has grown across the road because you didn't see it fall, and no one told you it fell because they were not there to see it happen. It could well have grown there, but you are artificially limiting your search for the "truth" due to your belief in the theoretical dogma you've created.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The written Torah places a lot of emphasis on physical aspects of ritual purification of the physical. One very prominent manifestation of that practice is in ritual immersion, which is mandated after many events a person may experience. I was wrong to emphasize the hygiene aspect because it's more than just physical cleanliness, but that is a part of it.

Ok, but the clear purpose of ritual purity in the Torah was very limited: a ritually-impure person couldn't participate in the temple practices until they were again clean. By the first century, the expectation of ritual purity had been extended to all of daily life, with socially-divisive consequences.

The oral Torah, which Christianity derides as worthless but which religious Jews recognize as coming from Mount Sinai along with the written Torah, mandates the washing of hands and the reciting of that blessing before eating bread. It's a very simple, painless commandment to fulfill, and most Jews observed it in the era of Christianity's founding, if the historical record is to be believed.

Do you mean religious Jews then or now? Because I'm certain not all streams of present-day Judaism believe the oral Torah myth. EDIT: And of course, not all streams of first-century Judaism believed it then, either.

Lest you think there's no hand washing commandment in the written Torah, Aaron and his sons (the Kohanim) washed their hands and feet before officiating over an offering.

Like I said, it was part of temple practices, not a daily practice among the laity.

Just as they did that explicitly, the Talmud (wherein the oral Torah was codified) tells us that all Jews are supposed to wash their hands and recite a blessing before eating bread; if they do not it is said to be akin to making an offering to a foreign deity.

Gee whiz, talk about demonizing one's opponents.

I know that critical theory and many Christians will claim that the rabbis invented all kinds of new rituals. Scholars will claim that the rabbis invented the washing of the hands because it is similar to Temple rituals. The problem is that class of claims sounds reasonable intellectually speaking but ultimately doesn't make any sense: The masses would not have followed after stringent rabbinic teachings if (as you would assume) those commandments did not exist prior and were instead of late origin and invention. They would have responded to such alleged innovation by noting that the Torah says nothing should be added to it or taken away from it.

That's not very convincing. The illiterate "masses" will believe anything. Besides, the disruption of Judaism by the Babylonian captivity gave plenty of opportunity for innovation.

Josephus said the masses were aligned with the Pharisees...

Josephus was a Pharisee, and his testimony here is probably exaggerated. Besides, the Essenes were deliberately exclusionary and the Saduccees were aristocratic sell-outs. Not a lot of options for the masses. Moreover, there is always a disconnect between the demands of the leaders and the behaviour of the followers. The masses undoubtably viewed the rabbis' demands with wearisome submission.

...and is said to have told his followers in Matthew 23 that the Pharisees and Scribes sit in Moses' seat and that everything they teach the people to observe they should follow. That's telling because the gospel figure who is often so haughty doesn't claim himself to have the authority that descended from Moses. Those verses clearly mean he recognized the legitimacy of rabbinic/oral Torah observance, including the washing of the hands.

Matthew is struggling (unsuccessfully) to marry early Christianity with Pharisee doctrines. That gospel needs to be read with a critical eye to that reality. Jesus was not the "good rabbi" that Matthew paints him as.

lpkmckenna, I think you have a distorted view of Judaism that is tainted by Christian belief. You see certain parts of the gospels that don't accord with the facts as you perceive them, but then you unquestioningly accept the gospel's inconsistent claims about Judaism that are just as ridiculous. I think if you analyze it further you'll start to question those assumptions.

Au contraire, my views of first century Judiasm are informed by the best Jewish scholars of the twentieth century.

The Torah says that non-Jews are welcome at the table of Jews, but it's not a blanket invitation: They must be circumcised. That's in the written Torah explicitly.

Really? I somehow never noticed that. Got chapter & verse?

Also, what you call Torah-only could never have existed. The written Torah does not explain in detail every commandment to which it refers. Many of the commandments are referenced in the abstract and in such a way that one would not know how to fulfill them. There are many examples.

That's so true. But the "fleshing-out" was a reaction to the lack of detail.

The specifics on how to observe the mezuzah commandment or what defines tefilin, things the Torah tells us to interact with on a daily basis, are not sufficiently defined in the written Torah. The written Torah tells us to "afflict our souls" on the Day of Atonement. It does not explain what it means by afflict. However, the Torah explicitly tells us to learn all the details from the sages who came before us, who got their teachings from the instructions Moses taught to the elders of the children of Israel. We get such details and countless more from the oral Torah, which was passed down for generations until being put in writing in the Talmud. That's why rabbis spend so much time studying it and its commentaries, so that they can teach the rest of us.

I'm not going to comment on all of that, but the "tefilin" is an excellent example of a second-temple innovation. The scripture "And it shall be for a sign upon your hand, and as totafot between your eyes; for with a mighty hand did the LORD bring us forth out of Egypt" was certainly not read literally by early Jews. The Pharisees read an interpretation into something not intended by the author. But Christians did that too, a lot, then and now. Arguably, all religious innovations occur because some "prophet" reads a novel interpretation into an old text.

Evidence other than your own interpretation? The gospels say that the Christian deity was a friend of the lepers and those accused of sinfulness. As I said before, the Torah commands that lepers be quarantined in very specific ways.

To this day, no one has any idea what was meant by "leprosy" in the Torah or in the New Testament. It's definitely not what we identify as leprosy. That's another example of later living Jews having no idea what early Jews meant by certain words and phrases. The Torah is filled with words whose translation remains impossible. The lack of understanding of ancient writings was the cause of the oral Torah, an attempt to explain what was utterly obscure.

Frankly, I'm inclined to think that Jesus' healing of lepers is completely fictional, an attempt by Mark to make Jesus seem greater than Moses and the Torah. Less likely, "leper" was a catch-all term in the second-temple era to describe the permanently ostracized, similar to how we use the term today.

If Jesus existed he may have been trying to start an alternative religion, one much more permissive and based on a cult of personality, but what was being taught wasn't Judaism.

There was no "Judaism" in the first century, but several "Judaisms." That is a certainty. Jesus' "Torah-only" approach was certainly radical, but the difference between Jesus and the Pharisees was not greater than between the Sadducees and Essenes and Pharisees, and those are just the groups large enough to be worth noticing by historians. In fact, Jesus' ideas seem to mix the Sadducees' rejection of the oral Torah with the Pharisees' embrace of the prophetic writings and the Essene's emphasis on simplicity, celibacy, secrecy, and hostility to the current Temple establishment. Jesus was no Pharisee, but he was very much a man of first-century Judaism.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Define "Christian Value."

Christians can't even do that, that's why they split into sub groups.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Christians can't even do that, that's why they split into sub groups.

Depends on your definition of "Christian".

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Depends on your definition of "Christian".

Depends on your definition of "depends."

 

[SpaceMonkey]

That woman looks like she really let one go right at that moment.