Jesus
- Thread starter Brent
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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!
Last edited:
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...
Matthew makes it clear he drove people and not animals...
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
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
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...
Go Jesus!
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...
Go Jesus!
klaatu
Fusionist
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
Ahorrado por Gracia
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
Ahorrado por Gracia
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.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...
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
Last edited:
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
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
Ahorrado por Gracia
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
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
Last edited: