What Would Jesus Do?

[Nietzsche]

Male homosexuality is called an abomination in Leviticus.

So's shellfish, mixed fibers and eating milk-products with meat.

 

[fantome profane]

The great thing about this particular hypothetical question is that you can have your own personal Jesus do just about anything you what him to do. And you could probably find all kinds of reasons to rationalize it. You could have your Jesus bake the cake, not bake the cake, or even pie them in the face, whatever you really want.

That is what makes this so much fun.

 

[Sleeppy]

And? That might be your belief and mores the power to you but millions do not concur, including many Christians. So while you are welcome to your opinion, it is becoming less and less the norm these days.

The thread is less about our opinion, than it is about the normal Jewish opinion in the first century.

 

[Sleeppy]

So's shellfish, mixed fibers and eating milk-products with meat.

Which have nothing to do with the thread.

 

[Nietzsche]

Which have nothing to do with the thread.

Just pointing out that if you're gonna use that document, you've got to use all of it.

 

[Sleeppy]

The OT was not widely read either and had limited copies available as all had to hand scribed which takes an inordinate amount of time. Further, it would also depend upon the language it was written in. Even assuming it was Hebrew, we have no evidence Jesus could read.

The same evidence we're using to validate his existence necessitates that he was both literate and well versed. But in any case, in order for the average illiterate person to be a law-abiding citizen, the Tanakh needed to be communicated to them. It was read and taught to these citizens by those who could read.

 

[Sleeppy]

Just pointing out that if you're gonna use that document, you've got to use all of it.

Not necessarily. But I understand your point. I'm not here to offend anyone.

 

[RedDragon94]

The Bible wasn't written until decades after Jesus' death. So how could he have read it?

The Jews had the Old Testament. It was what they call the Tanakh.

 

[wizanda]

And is it about time they remembered?

Based on the Christian ideology of John - Get a Chord, tie knots at the end of it, so it becomes a cat and nine tails, and then drive the homosexuals out of the bakery door; whilst screaming about Sodom, and quoting Leviticus at them!!!

 

[Mycroft]

The Jews had the Old Testament. It was what they call the Tanakh.

But practically nobody could read it, and there's no evidence that Jesus could.

 

[JoStories]

The thread is less about our opinion, than it is about the normal Jewish opinion in the first century.

Jesus, who,preached compassion and love would have sold them the cake. The homophobic position is inconsistent with his message of caring.

 

[JoStories]

The same evidence we're using to validate his existence necessitates that he was both literate and well versed. But in any case, in order for the average illiterate person to be a law-abiding citizen, the Tanakh needed to be communicated to them. It was read and taught to these citizens by those who could read.

Source please? Scholarly opinion only of course. Making a statement such as you did requires substantiation.

 

[JoStories]

But practically nobody could read it, and there's no evidence that Jesus could.

Exactly what I said. And yet, one poster made the assertion that either he could or it was read to him, which is possible but given the extremely limited copies, only lives in the realm of possibility.

 

[Mycroft]

Exactly what I said. And yet, one poster made the assertion that either he could or it was read to him, which is possible but given the extremely limited copies, only lives in the realm of possibility.

That part of the world was renown for being an obscure, backward and largely illiterate part of the world. Not like China or Greece, where people were much more literate, numerate and could examine evidence. Makes you wonder why Jesus wasn't sent to either of those places...

Anyway, nobody can say for sure whether the OT was read to Jesus or not.

 

[Mycroft]

The same evidence we're using to validate his existence necessitates that he was both literate and well versed.

A carpenter would not have been literate, according to actual historical evidence and not 'what I'd like to believe' evidence.

 

[BSM1]

The NT is supposed to have been written decades later, not the entire Bible.

The Old Testament was never called the 'Bible".

Which have nothing to do with the thread.

Actually it has everything to do with the thread. Most of the self-righteous, it seems, pick and choose their self-righteousness.

But practically nobody could read it, and there's no evidence that Jesus could.

A carpenter would not have been literate, according to actual historical evidence and not 'what I'd like to believe' evidence.

Yeshua was described as reading and interpreting the Scriptures in a Synagogue at the age of twelve. I think you'll find most Jewish boys of the time had at least some religious instruction and teachings.

 

[leibowde84]

I wanted to like the post but this prevented me. If Jesus never read the Bible then why was he called Rabbi by his followers? (Matthew 26:25, Mark 9:5) And how did Jesus ever get to preach in a synagogue without knowledge of the Old Testament? (Luke 4:16-30)

The Bible didn't exist back then. The Torah did, but it was not the Bible ... it was merely a part of it. I think it is inaccurate to claim that Jesus read a book that was not compiled until long after his death. You can say that he was learned in the Torah though.

 

[leibowde84]

The NT is supposed to have been written decades later, not the entire Bible.

The Bible did not exist, as it was a compilation compiled long after Jesus' death. The Torah was eventually included as "the Old Testament", but it is inaccurate to say that Jesus would have been able to "read the Bible". You could say that he was learned in the Torah though.

 

[leibowde84]

Male homosexuality is called an abomination in Leviticus.

Nope. Only homosexual acts outside of committed relationships were mentioned, which are repeatedly said to be immoral, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Nothing at all in the old testament about committed homosexual relationships.

 

[BSM1]

Nope. Only homosexual acts outside of committed relationships were mentioned, which are repeatedly said to be immoral, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Nothing at all in the old testament about committed homosexual relationships.

Source? Not that it matters to me but this seems like a stretch.