ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, June 06, 2018

Mailvox: there is no error

Peter Gent refuses to back down:
You are totally and absolutely wrong. I am neither a liar or a deceiver, but I am someone who challenged you accurately on your biblical error, which is important as you stand publicly for Jesus Christ.

You are intelligent, educated, experienced, and knowledgeable in many things, but theologically and biblically you are sometimes problematic and your lack in this area sometimes shows. Everything I said was sound orthodox theology and relevant to the situation. I am sorry if it didn't fit in with your argument or seemed to invalidate your position, but it appeared that you could not deal with the actual argument, which is too bad, since it is true both biblically and has been accepted within the Church since the beginning.

It is your blog and you do what you want. But know this. In this you are wrong. I am calling you on it. Scream at me all you want but that doesn't change the facts. You are wrong.
To which I replied:
You are persistent in your stupidity. You simply refuse to accept that there is a difference between a FACT: Jesus broke the law, and a JUSTIFICATION: Jesus was right to do so.

All of your blathering is irrelevant, because all of your blathering is focused on the justification rather than the fact. The claim was that Jesus never broke any law. That claim is conclusively false. Whether he was justified in breaking those laws or not is totally irrelevant.
Nevertheless, he persisted:
Then there are few who are, since I am 142 and have been a Christian for 45 years, am theologically trained, and have been in the wars standing for the faith for a long time. I have never been a churchian as you put it. I am about as far the opposite from that as a professing, believing Christian can be.

Re: Theology has NOTHING to do with straightforward factual claims.

It does when informs the underlying meaning of those factual claims and there is a category error being expressed.

For example: factual claim - Jesus broke some of the prevailing Jewish religious laws of his time. True. But his argument for doing so was that the laws he broke were invalid due to the fact they where not God's law but accretions (traditions) that had been added to God's law that destroyed the original intent. In addition, as pertaining breaking the Sabbath, he was the Son of God and as such was Lord of the Sabbath. Those are theological argumenst. So was Peter's argument before the Sanhedrin about who they should listen to. As a result, Jesus' actions can only be used to justify breaking laws today if they are in opposition to or violate God's law. Romans 12 makes this very clear. To use Jesus' example as a pretext for the breaking of any human law without that qualification is a serious error.  A theological error.
This is amusing. He just admitted what I have been pointing out all along: "Jesus broke some of the prevailing Jewish religious laws of his time."

There is no theological error. There has never been any "biblical error". Gent is arguing, irrelevantly, against a strawman of his own concoction. I am not saying that we are justified in breaking any laws we feel like breaking because Jesus Christ was a lawbreaker. I have never said that. I merely pointed out that the gentleman who claimed that "Jesus broke no law in his day" was absolutely, observably, and factually wrong.

I did not offer any argument on the basis of that observation.

Labels: ,

132 Comments:

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 06, 2018 4:03 PM  

Jewish religious law was the law of the land. No separation between church and state, at the generosity of the Romans.

Blogger wrf3 June 06, 2018 4:07 PM  

Gent is actually 142 years old? Wow.

Blogger Daniel Bendele June 06, 2018 4:16 PM  

wrf3 wrote:Gent is actually 142 years old? Wow.

He has quite clearly broken one of God's laws handed down in Genesis 6:3. You're dealing with a serious apostate here, Vox.

Blogger Raging Papist June 06, 2018 4:22 PM  

Gent should read a bit more St. Aquinas and St. Augustine. I wonder how he would handle an unjust law is not a law.

Blogger Nathan June 06, 2018 4:25 PM  

Anyone obsessed with the Law beyond its use to establish a personal connection Christ is in serious danger of Phariseeism.

Blogger Mark Stoval June 06, 2018 4:26 PM  

This is amusing. He just admitted what I have been pointing out all along: "Jesus broke some of the prevailing Jewish religious laws of his time."

Mr. Gent's words made my head hurt. He was arguing a total straw man and that always makes me crazy. I was watching two people have a conversation using a common language but Gent just did not admit to understanding a simple fact.

Jesus broke some laws of the land. Since we know he did not sin, he was justified in doing what he did. That does not mean he would have be justified in committing a murder -- only that he was justified in breaking the laws he did break. How hard is that to understand?

A good conversation would have been "why were those laws OK to break and not murder or stealing". Also, what does that say to us today. But NO, he had to go to a straw man and keep doubling down.

Wait, is there not a certain type of man who always doubles down?

Blogger Rhology June 06, 2018 4:27 PM  

I don't see how the two of you actually disagree on this topic. Just semantics.

Not everyone is always out to get you, VD.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine June 06, 2018 4:34 PM  

@Rhology, Gent went off after a straw man of his own creation, trying to say that it was what Vox was saying. That's the error.

Blogger VD June 06, 2018 4:37 PM  

I don't see how the two of you actually disagree on this topic. Just semantics.

What part of "You are totally and absolutely wrong... In this you are wrong. I am calling you on it" is hard for you to understand?

When someone is publicly calling you out, they are out to get you. It's not that difficult.

Blogger R Webfoot June 06, 2018 4:37 PM  

'A good conversation would have been "why were those laws OK to break and not murder or stealing"'

That would be a short conversation, consisting mostly of quoting Jesus on the subject: the Pharisaical laws of the time were unwilling to grant a loophole granted in the OT.

Blogger Rhology June 06, 2018 4:40 PM  

The "You are totally and absolutely wrong" part came late in the convo once y'all had already dug your trenches.
It isn't like I read the comments five times each, but shrug - you're saying the same thing basically. Semantics.

Blogger R Doom June 06, 2018 4:40 PM  

Didn't Jesus get convicted and punished for, like, something or other? Pretty sure it's a big deal for some religions on this planet, some even use a symbol of that punishment (coincidentally) to represent their brand of religion. By definition, if you're given a criminal punishment, you must have been previously found guilty of violating a law. I have to admit some puzzlement about there being any confusion here.

Blogger VD June 06, 2018 4:42 PM  

It isn't like I read the comments five times each, but shrug - you're saying the same thing basically. Semantics.

Bullshit. X can never be Not X. Either a law was broken or no law was. This is not semantics and this is not insignificant. It is the basis of all correct logic.

Blogger DJT June 06, 2018 4:42 PM  

If Jesus came to restore the law to its original integrity, he would have done so. He would have taught the Apostles to circumcise Gentile Christians.

The shadow of the law is passed away with the coming of grace.

It is usually Judeo-Christians who argue that the Law is still in force—and not in order that Christians may follow it, but that Jews may have a path to salvation apart from Christ. Sorry, there is no such path.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 06, 2018 4:46 PM  

Rhology - Peter is an idiot. He acknowledges that the totality of what Vox has said on this subject is correct and then proceeds to argue with him.

This isn't two people talking past each other or disagreeing about semantics, this is one person being stupid.

Blogger Lyon June 06, 2018 4:46 PM  

This is awesome! The post and the comments. Great stuff.

@4. Raging Papist

Aquinas and Augustine are two of my favorite theologians. Aquinas was aligned with Aristotle, who is viewed as the father of natural law. And Augustine leaned heavy on this, "In order to understand, you have to believe." That is subtle yet brilliant.

Blogger yoghi.llama June 06, 2018 4:55 PM  

He also told his disciples to steal a donkey, so he was like an accessory to horse theft.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 06, 2018 5:01 PM  

Jesus the Horse Thief

Blogger Resident Moron™ June 06, 2018 5:11 PM  

2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?


How can any Christian of 45 years not know this?

Blogger JJ from AZ June 06, 2018 5:15 PM  

@#2. Beaten to the punch! Now, if he just subtracts 100, he'll have the Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything!

Blogger James Dixon June 06, 2018 5:20 PM  

> He also told his disciples to steal a donkey, so he was like an accessory to horse theft.

In the King James Version, the exact wording is: Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

Blogger Unknown June 06, 2018 5:24 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Rhys June 06, 2018 5:25 PM  

That Florian douche was even worse in my opinion. There is no greater a contemptible creature than a concern troll.

Blogger Unknown June 06, 2018 5:25 PM  

Pettiness is clearly not everyone's cup of tea.

Blogger Lyon June 06, 2018 5:26 PM  

@ 18.

"Jesus the Horse Thief"

Better watch your ass.

Blogger SmockMan June 06, 2018 5:31 PM  

That was a quick flaying. It's a nice change of pace from the agonizing JBP stuff.

Blogger Cloom Glue June 06, 2018 5:35 PM  

@21 means the owners did not dispute offering the donkey to Jesus, Luke 19:29-37, and @17 is being a pesky accuser to muddy the subject of law, trying unsuccessfully to extend it to theft.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora June 06, 2018 5:41 PM  

He's 42 and has been a Christian for 45 years which is longer than he's been alive?

Blogger Mark Stoval June 06, 2018 5:45 PM  

Solaire Of Astora wrote:He's 42 and has been a Christian for 45 years which is longer than he's been alive?

I see you have not been exposed to Common Core Math.

Blogger Azimus June 06, 2018 5:50 PM  

Jesus broke The Law when he disrupted and dissipated the legal stoning of the adulterous woman. That's pretty straight-forward. This is not Phariseeical tradition but the Mosaic Law. There are probably other times, but this is the one I usually throw at people when they say Christianity says you should stone people for XYZ...

Blogger Rhology June 06, 2018 5:54 PM  

Jesus broke The Law when he disrupted and dissipated the legal stoning of the adulterous woman

@30

Not true.
Leviticus 20:10 - If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, ****the adulterer and**** the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

The Pharisees didn't bring the adulterer.
They didn't produce witnesses.
They were only after condemning Jesus, not establishing justice.

Jesus UPHELD the Law, over and against human tradition.

Blogger Welsh Woodsman June 06, 2018 6:02 PM  

@28
If you count the twinkle in his fathers eye along with the his gestation period...then just maybe he might be correct.

Blogger Daniel Bendele June 06, 2018 6:02 PM  

Rhology wrote:Not true.

Leviticus 20:10 - If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, ****the adulterer and**** the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


To be fair, you're assuming quite a bit. Azimus did as well. This probably isn't the best example.

Blogger Man of The West June 06, 2018 6:05 PM  

Leviticus 20:10 is the pre-Christ Old Testament though...

Blogger Orthodox June 06, 2018 6:21 PM  

FACT: Jesus turned water into wine.
FACT: Jesus did not have a license to distill/ferment alcohol or serve it.
FACT: Jesus fed hundreds of people with loaves and fishes.
FACT: Health inspectors were not present nor approved it, he was only licensed to serve 30 or less patrons.
FACT: Cannibalism is against the law.
FACT: Jesus fed his followers Hid body and blood.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia June 06, 2018 6:33 PM  

Except at the quantum scale.

Wave, particle, toemaytoe, toemahtoe
Let’s call the whole thing “off.”

Blogger SirHamster June 06, 2018 7:09 PM  

Rhology wrote:Jesus broke The Law when he disrupted and dissipated the legal stoning of the adulterous woman

@30

Not true.

Leviticus 20:10 - If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, ****the adulterer and**** the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

The Pharisees didn't bring the adulterer.

They didn't produce witnesses.

They were only after condemning Jesus, not establishing justice.

Jesus UPHELD the Law, over and against human tradition



Additionally, Leviticus 17:6-7 states that execution requires the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses, and that those witnesses shall cast the first stone.

When Jesus instructs those who are without sin to cast stones, he is encouraging them to follow the Law. Jesus is not the primary witness.
It is not his responsibility to execute her. He has not interfered with the process at all.

They abandoned the process. And when Jesus is the last one left, finding no witnesses to accuse and stone her, it is Lawful for him to withhold condemnation.

Blogger dienw June 06, 2018 7:39 PM  

Jesus did not break His Law. He rebuked the Pharisees and "broke" their laws of the elders; Thereby setting an example for His saints when the religious fake laws of men are in conflict with the commandments of God.

Blogger dienw June 06, 2018 7:45 PM  

@R Doom
By definition, if you're given a criminal punishment, you must have been previously found guilty of violating a law.

It was the testimony of Pilate that Jesus was innocent. It is the curse on the Jews that they didn't care; for they cried, "His blood be upon us!"

Blogger Markku June 06, 2018 7:47 PM  

I haven't heard an objection this stupid in a while here. This is actually stupider than the JBP fans.

Blogger Florian Geyer June 06, 2018 7:49 PM  

VD wrote:I don't see how the two of you actually disagree on this topic. Just semantics.

What part of "You are totally and absolutely wrong... In this you are wrong. I am calling you on it" is hard for you to understand?

When someone is publicly calling you out, they are out to get you. It's not that difficult.


Speaking on my own behalf, if someone says I'm wrong in a public forum, I don't assume that they are out to get me. An attack via argument is not a physical attack, after all; it is part of the traditional civilized discourse of Western man. If I am shown to be wrong, I admit it. If I think I'm right, I'll argue against the assertion my opponent made as long as he replies in terms of argument (or "dialectic").

Now in the case of Peter Gent, I can understand a certain degree of frustration on the part of our generous host. I read every post he made in the "Warriors" thread, and I have to say that his argumentation is labyrinthine and that it's hard to see the point he's trying to make. You need to step back, Mr. Gent, and ask yourself "What is the important, the crucial point at stake here?". For what it's worth, I don't think that Mr. Gent is a "liar" or "deceiver". He just has a somewhat disorderly mind, probably the result of reading too much theology. (Studied some theology myself; beastly stuff. Glad I stuck to philosophy.) Were this my blog, I would have just ignored the guy. But it's not.

Yes, Jesus broke the Sabbath laws. Was he justified in doing so? That's a stupid question--the Son of God does not require justification for anything he does. Nor was He obeying a "higher law", because our God is not a God of laws. If you think Jesus' actions have something to do with some hierarchy of laws--God's laws and man's laws--then you are missing the whole point of Christianity. There is but one Law: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Mt. 22:37). The law is One just as God is One. There is no divine legal code. The One Law is more like the law of gravity than, say, the law that enabled the income tax in the U.S.

As for man's laws, they are only an attempt by earthly rulers to impose order, and spring from all the variety of motives that are common to men. Jesus urged us to "render unto Caesar", because the principles, the impulse to order and government spring from God. So our laws are an imperfect attempt to make us behave to one another as we ought, to regulate our society. As such, laws should be respected, but some laws have been immoral or even evil. There is nothing wrong with ignoring an evil law.

[One last time, I point out that I was previously d.b.a. Sidehill Dodger.]

Blogger Markku June 06, 2018 7:50 PM  

Being quite familiar with theology myself, I of course know where it came from. The fact that Jesus never broke a single Commandment of God's law, is absolutely basic. All orthodox (lowercase-o) theology falls if that one falls. So, not reading the claim carefully, this was like RED ALERT! TRIGGERED TRIGGERED TRIGGERED! MUST BURN HERETIC!

Blogger VD June 06, 2018 7:55 PM  

So, not reading the claim carefully, this was like RED ALERT! TRIGGERED TRIGGERED TRIGGERED! MUST BURN HERETIC!

And remember, it wasn't even my claim in the first place. I simply objected to a false statement by someone else.

Blogger Markku June 06, 2018 7:57 PM  

It is precisely this kind of thing for which you have to walk on eggshells in church, because there's no telling who will hear your statement in what crazy ways, and go all Torquemada on you.

Blogger dienw June 06, 2018 8:00 PM  

If Jesus came to restore the law to its original integrity, he would have done so. He would have taught the Apostles to circumcise Gentile Christians.


Jesus Christ brought about a New Covenant; therefore, the sign of the old covenant of the flesh is not to be used. At the same time He did not do away with the Law; We are to obey the Commandments to show we love God even though we fail to keep them because of the weakness of our flesh; yet, we are not under the Law's condemnation: we are under Grace because we are justified and declared righteous through Christ's righteousness in obedience to the Law.

Blogger Mark Stoval June 06, 2018 8:03 PM  

@44 Markku

Amen brother, amen.

Blogger Markku June 06, 2018 8:07 PM  

"I have invested all these years in studying theology, so now I must get returns for my investment in some of that delicious sanctimony and righteous indignation when I hear a trigger word!"

Everybody knows That Guy...

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 06, 2018 8:08 PM  

Dienw,

We are not bound by the law. He kept the law in our stead. The law was done away with, one evidence is the destruction of the veil of the temple.

Blogger KPP June 06, 2018 8:10 PM  

On the idea that the Jewish religious laws of the Scribes and Pharisees weren't valid or binding, let's look to Jesus, shall we?

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others."

"Do and observe whatever they tell you" sounds like Jesus felt their authority and the authority of their religious laws were valid.

Yet Jesus didn't feel bound to follow them (such as his disciples "harvesting" grain on the Sabbath.)

Blogger Lovekraft June 06, 2018 8:25 PM  

Those of us know that what we are dealing with, and what Vox Day regularly drives home, is that there is some very evil forces at play in the world, and any attempt to downplay or deny them are rightly given swift rebuke.

The blood of the victims of jihadis all across Europe is still wet, so to speak. Any time for shrugging shoulders or sending out peace delegations is long, long gone. The invaders are INSIDE the gates.

Blogger Ken Prescott June 06, 2018 8:28 PM  

#sheepresisted

Blogger James Dixon June 06, 2018 8:28 PM  

> Yet Jesus didn't feel bound to follow them

Having been part of the creation, Jesus knew the law better than they did.

Blogger Tomislav Ostojich June 06, 2018 9:24 PM  

You know what else Jesus did? Die for the sins of the world and sit at the right hand of God the Father. You see it's not what would Jesus do but what did Jesus command us to do. He told us to submit to all governing authorities.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 06, 2018 9:33 PM  

Unequivocally, Tomislav? Whatever they tell you to do?

Blogger bw June 06, 2018 9:41 PM  

He told us to submit to all governing authorities.

Uh oh

Blogger Artisanal Toad June 06, 2018 9:59 PM  

Vox, there is a semantics problem here and you are at fault.

The problem lies with the definition of "Law".

Sin (for everyone) is a violation of God's Law. According to Romans 4:15 and 5:13, where there is no Law, there is no violation. Where there is no violation there is no sin imputed. No Law, no violation, no sin.

Deut. 4:2 and 12:32 specifically forbids adding to or subtracting from the Law. That means that the "law" of the Talmud that the little jewboy rabbis came up with is meaningless as far as God's Law is concerned.

If Jesus violated the Law of Moses (God's Law) then He sinned and was not a perfect sacrifice. If He sinned, then he could not have been the Messiah and all of the New Testament is a lie. If that's the case, we may as well party down at a whorehouse because Christianity is a lie.

The jewish "laws" regarding whatever do not have the force of Gods Law in terms of sin.

Now... Wouldn't it be better for you to carefully define your terms before you get into these kind of debates?


Blogger wrf3 June 06, 2018 10:01 PM  

Azimus: Jesus did not break the law at the attempted stoning of the woman allegedly caught in adultry. The Mosaic law is clear that, in capital cases, the accusers are to be the first to throw stones. None of them were willing to do that, even though that was what Jesus was telling them to do. Paraphrasing: “those of you who aren’t bearing false witness, do what the law commands you to do.”

Blogger Sean June 06, 2018 10:01 PM  

I don't understand why Gent went on the attack. He obviously misintepreted "Jesus broke laws" with "Jesus broke THE LAW". Just admit the mistake and move on.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey June 06, 2018 10:05 PM  

I got a feeling things are going to be going even souther.

Blogger Looking Glass June 06, 2018 10:05 PM  

@37 SirHamster

Further, the reason they had to go to Pilate to execute Jesus is that the local religious leaders weren't allowed to execute anyone (the Roman Law and all that) officially. The main "play" was to force Jesus into violating one of the two "Laws" around.

A might clever one, that Jesus.

Since I missed where this all broke out, Jesus followed God's Law. He, however, spent most of his ministry taking the "Hebrew Law of Virtue Signaling" and trampling on it. Then calling the Apostles to jump on it. Then calling down the Angelic Choir to sing an Irish Jig while all of the close followers did as well.

"Hippie Jesus" is the assumption of so many that they utterly miss when Jesus is "upending the apple cart" with a whip.


@58 Sean

I see you're new here.

Blogger Markku June 06, 2018 10:20 PM  

Here's Vox's original quote:

"Jesus broke the Sabbath law of the Jews, just to name one. I'm pretty sure he broke a few laws when he physically attacked the moneychangers in the temple too."

Not only was "law" in lowercase, where Artisanal Toad strategically put it in the upper, so that there would be absolutely no room for mistakes, he said "of the Jews".

Blogger Azure Amaranthine June 06, 2018 10:24 PM  

"you have to walk on eggshells in church, because there's no telling who will hear your statement in what crazy ways, and go all Torquemada on you."

I wish your church was around here. I have a feeling Torquemada wouldn't settle for less SJW and churchian scalps than anyone. Heck, even the wikipedia page (of all things) knows that Torquemada was after the crypto-Jews (it's right there in the first paragraph!).

"He told us to submit to all governing authorities."

Oh? Here's the trick. What makes a governing authority? A: It's one which can reasonably force one to submit anyway. If I don't like it, and I depose it, it's not a governing authority anymore, now is it?

"Now... Wouldn't it be better for you to carefully define your terms before you get into these kind of debates?"

Vox didn't jump to the conclusion. Peter Gent did.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine June 06, 2018 10:28 PM  

When you jump into an argument on one side or the other without knowing the context, people have a tendency to eventually figure out that you're irrationally biased "for some reason".

Blogger SirHamster June 06, 2018 10:46 PM  

Markku wrote:Here's Vox's original quote:

"Jesus broke the Sabbath law of the Jews, just to name one. I'm pretty sure he broke a few laws when he physically attacked the moneychangers in the temple too."


Gent surrendered the point from the start, but can this be challenged?

The first one can be disputed in that Jesus says it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, and as the Messaiah he owns Jewish law, so it doesn't count as lawbreaking. The Pharisees don't accept him, true, but they're just squatters from Jesus's point of view.

For the second, why wouldn't the Jewish leaders arrest him then? Judean police department taking an extended bagel break?


It is an interesting thought as to whether Jesus managed to stay completely within the bounds of Jewish law in his time so that they legally couldn't touch him (resorting to the fixed trial and false accusations), or if he had been breaking all sorts of laws (Pharasic interpretation & traditions) but escaped consequences due to popular support and boldness.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey June 06, 2018 10:48 PM  

The inordinate faith in laws is prime characteristic not just of the Pharisees, but of the SJWs. Who thinks they can lower the oceans, solve planetary climate, end gun violence, end poverty, etc, with laws?

They think they can change empirical reality with mere redefinition of terms. Males can become females. It's just a matter of permissible language and legislated social attitudes.

Law, capital "L", has always been a mystical force of wonderment and magical power for the progressives since the beginning. Wizened judges, crack administrators, skilled bureaucrats. Lead us to the Promised Land! Yeah, right.

It's all a bunch of hooey. Render upon Caesar what is Caesar's, file that away, and then do what's actually important and right despite all that baggage.

Blogger Markku June 06, 2018 10:51 PM  

For the second, why wouldn't the Jewish leaders arrest him then?

Because only Rome had the power to arrest, and they had specifically decided that they would not punish for breaking Jewish laws unless Roman laws were also broken by the act.

Blogger Markku June 06, 2018 10:55 PM  

Jesus was ultimately arrested because the Jewish religious authorities had - dishonestly - convinced the Romans that Jesus is leading an insurrection. Claim that Pilate stated was false, after examination.

Blogger Markku June 06, 2018 10:58 PM  

This dynamic greatly irritated the Jews, which is why you had the "zealots" who were terrorists.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine June 06, 2018 11:05 PM  

"or if he had been breaking all sorts of laws (Pharasic interpretation & traditions) but escaped consequences due to popular support and boldness."

The Pharisees can be viewed as proto-SJWs. And yes, it's because the Romans had the actual power.

Now think through that dynamic again.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine June 06, 2018 11:07 PM  

And wow, Ramsey and Markku ninja'd all my points in between refreshes.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey June 06, 2018 11:07 PM  

We need a lot fewer laws. It has always bugged me why we need to have constant legislative sessions with a constant stream of laws flowing out all the time. What is this need?

Not just legislatures, but all governing bodies these days. Why does the NFL feel the need to issue all these rule changes every year to a game that everybody's been playing since childhood? Thank God the game of chess does not have an NFL rules committee. What if it did, though?

Human nature doesn't really change, sorry to disappoint the evolutionary biologists in the room but the homo sapiens of 10,000 years ago are basically the same people as us, only somehow more miserable and wretched.

Blogger Arcane Rhino June 06, 2018 11:28 PM  

Like Looking Glass, I was not witness to the source of the immediate conflict. However, I have been studying translations from the Aramaic for a couple years now and have what I believe are some useful insights regarding the Law, and particularly the Commandments.
Most Greek to English translations of the Bible distinguish poorly between Torah (the written Scriptures) and Rabbinic tradition (the oral law). When Jesus states “it is written”, He is referencing Scripture. When He states, “you have heard”, He is referencing Rabbinical law.

Jesus never violated Torah. If He had, as was pointed out elsewhere on this thread, He would not have been the perfect sacrifice or been sinless. That said, He most certainly did break and discount the laws that were based upon oral traditions, to put it mildly. He is a man’s man, to be sure.

So, for example, while there is much to study and learn about the Sabbath, especially from Jesus Himself, in short it is, and always was, a respite from our daily work to enjoy Master YHWH's bounty in our lives. Consequently, Jesus and his disciples did not violate the Sabbath prohibition against working. They were not “harvesting” grain. They were picking grain and eating it. The Disciples were not farmers, they were not working.

Did He break Rabbinic law? I don’t know, maybe. But to put in perspective, His accusers are the same people who set up rules how far one could travel from home on the Sabbath, and then placed personal articles at increment distances so they could travel and, in their own reasoning, not be in violation of failing to observe the Sabbath. Quite simply, those who were accusing Jesus and His Disciples of violating the Sabbath were the ankle-biters of the times.

Blogger Were-Puppy June 06, 2018 11:31 PM  

@53 Tomislav Ostojich

You see it's not what would Jesus do but what did Jesus command us to do. He told us to submit to all governing authorities.
---

When President Hitlery commands you to enter the pizza dungeon, off you go.

Blogger Lazarus June 06, 2018 11:36 PM  

The
words of Miles Coverdale are much to the point here:

`It shall greatly helpe ye to understande Scripture,
if thou mark
not only what is spoken, or wrytten,
but of whom,
and to whom,
with what words,
at what time,
where,
to what intent,
with what circumstance,
considering what goeth before, and what followeth'.
The principle of right division.

Blogger Markku June 06, 2018 11:37 PM  

In Judea of Jesus's time, the ultimate governing authority with regards to laws that you can obey without disobeying God (note that the apostles refused the command to stop preaching) was Caesar. In a constitutional republic, it is the Constitution.

Blogger Markku June 06, 2018 11:39 PM  

If you are dealing with an enemy of the Constitution, and especially if you have made any oaths to that effect, you keep them. Especially with self-declared enemies of the Constitution.

Blogger Chiva June 06, 2018 11:42 PM  

@Arcane Rhino. I found your insights helpful. Thank you.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey June 06, 2018 11:42 PM  

God's law does not require accretion. It's by definition perfect as it stands. But state law apparently needs constant work. As time goes by it seems to need more and more! Every year we need more laws. If we don't get them, we are exhorted to rouse ourselves against those who deny the people's business!

Every legislative session tons of new laws are passed -- if that session is to be deemed SUCCESSFUL!

But if we had a good body of law already in place then it should not have happened at all. Very little if anything should have happened. No accretions necessary for the perfect!

But there are always accretions. They are always working either to advantage themselves temporally, or to correct the raging flood of swamping errors that their last round of wizened laws introduced.

Unexpectedly. (Ahem)

Blogger cyrus83 June 07, 2018 12:20 AM  

Ouch that was mind-numbing to read. This isn't that hard, the correct theological claim is that Jesus is without sin (a logical consequence of him being God), a completely different claim than whether he ever broke any laws. The discussion of law-breaking is pretty much irrelevant since the sinless nature of Jesus justifies all his actions, the only relevance of the law-breaking topic is to point out the error either of the human lawmaker or human interpreter of divine law.

Blogger Ian Stein June 07, 2018 12:52 AM  

If you search enough you will find that Jesus broke none of the 613 commandments. But it involves searching Jewish sources which most of you, I assume, would find discomforting at the minimum. Jesus was from Galilee which has some bearing on the subject of legal interpretation.
Hope this doesn't get me spammed and banned. Won't go into any more but you won't find the answer with Aquinas, Aristotle or Augustine.

Blogger SirHamster June 07, 2018 1:52 AM  

Markku wrote:

Because only Rome had the power to arrest, and they had specifically decided that they would not punish for breaking Jewish laws unless Roman laws were also broken by the act.


Have heard of Roman control over capital punishment, but that's new to me.

That would mean that the religious authorities only had the power of public shaming, which was ineffective with Jesus's control of the moral high ground.


But they do seem to have some sort of arrest power - the temple guard arrested and jailed Peter and John for preaching in the temple courts. (Acts 4)

They weren't able to do the same to Jesus for assault and disturbing the peace? That was not against Roman law?

Blogger Lyon June 07, 2018 2:01 AM  

@44. Markku

"...and go all Torquemada on you."

THAT is the reference zinger of the day. That made me laugh!

Blogger Azure Amaranthine June 07, 2018 2:04 AM  

"They weren't able to do the same to Jesus for assault and disturbing the peace? That was not against Roman law?"

Even if it were, I think Jesus had the shame high ground on that one. That typically gets you a pass.

Blogger tublecane June 07, 2018 3:21 AM  

@11- Not semantics. That's what I expected it to be when I first started reading: that Jesus had only broken the "law" but not the law-law.

No. The argument is much stupider than that. Peter Gent concedes the whole point by admitting, yes Jesus broke the law. Then he continues to speak, off-topic, as if he's arguing with a point someone has made. But he isn't. No one is having that argument.

Blogger tublecane June 07, 2018 3:27 AM  

@56- What are you talking about?

Seriously, what argument are you addressing?

Vox's says: "FACT: Jesus broke the law."

Gent says: "factual claim - Jesus broke some of the prevailing Jewish religious laws of his time. True."

That's it. That's the whole thing.

Blogger Paul M June 07, 2018 5:33 AM  

"I merely pointed out that the gentleman who claimed that "Jesus broke no law in his day" was absolutely, observably, and factually wrong."

It's astonishing that anyone could suppose that taking a whip to a squad of moneylenders parked out in front of a temple might be legal.

Blogger Resident Moron™ June 07, 2018 6:06 AM  

Arcane Rhino

That whole line of reasoning is irrelevant.

Jesus defended his disciples breaking the law of Moses by reference to (A) David doing the same but being celebrated not condemned, and (B) that same law explicitly states that the priests work on the sabbath (which was death to do) yet without sin.

He’s making a point that the law has a purpose and that purpose serves man and not the reverse. He says this explicitly.

My view is that people who call themselves Christian ought to have some familiarity with the words of Christ.

Call me a heretic ...

Blogger VD June 07, 2018 6:29 AM  

Vox, there is a semantics problem here and you are at fault.

No, there is not.

The problem lies with the definition of "Law".

No. The original statement was that Jesus broke no law. That means no law, of any kind, no matter how it is defined. The statement was observably false on its face, as I correctly pointed out.

The jewish "laws" regarding whatever do not have the force of Gods Law in terms of sin.

That is irrelevant. Sin is not always relevant to the simple existence of a law or the fact of its breaking.

Now... Wouldn't it be better for you to carefully define your terms before you get into these kind of debates?

No. Now shut up and stop trying to correct your intellectual superiors. All you do is irritate them while making yourself look like an idiot.

Blogger Markku June 07, 2018 7:58 AM  

the temple guard arrested and jailed Peter and John for preaching in the temple courts.

Herod the Great refurbished that temple to such a degree that it was actually called Herod's Temple. Everything that was noteworthy about the temple at the time, was all Herod. He had the Sadducees control it in name, but the Sadducees were religious liberals who went along with anything and everything, as long as they would be allowed to make money out of the offerings.

Blogger Markku June 07, 2018 8:04 AM  

In other words, it's pretty much guaranteed that what actually happened was that Sadducees went to Herod, and said that these men are threatening all their income and Herod should do something about it.

Anonymous Anonymous June 07, 2018 8:05 AM  

Jesus was not “gentlemanly”. He also wasn’t a fag wearing a bowtie.

Blogger The Gray Man June 07, 2018 8:49 AM  

I wonder what the average IQ of readers like @56 is.

Also Ian Stein above said Jesus did not break any of the hundreds of Hebrew laws. OK.

Ian, what did you miss in the post Vox made? Vox didn't say Jesus broke specific laws that we know about. We know only that Jesus did break a law that the Pharisees enforced.

If the Pharisees enforce a law non-Biblical law, then why do you even bring up that Jesus did not break any of the 600 or whatever laws that the Hebrews followed before the time of Jesus?

For some reason Vox usually makes perfect sense when he explains something this basic.

I think a lot of people with bad reading comprehension or who scan and knee-jerk reply instead of actually reading are the ones who make comments like this.

I really want to believe all of them aren't 100 or lower IQ but I would not be shocked if they were.

Usually when Vox looks intellectually superior isn't when he starts discussing complex ideas like the emperical and logical case against free trade. **It's when he makes a declaratory statement like correcting someone and saying that yes, Jesus did break a law.**

Glad to see a fun religious thread. I miss the old 400 comment Calvinist debates from the old days!

Anonymous Anonymous June 07, 2018 9:00 AM  

Where is the start of this conversation? Where can I catch up?

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 07, 2018 9:38 AM  

"you are sometimes problematic"

Unironic use of the word "problematic" is not typically a sign of well-constructed, rational argumentation.

Blogger Cloom Glue June 07, 2018 9:59 AM  

@93 It started with a false assertion by comment #6 that "Jesus broke no law ...". See here: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-warriors.html#comment-form

Blogger pdwalker June 07, 2018 10:31 AM  

Now shut up and stop trying to correct your intellectual superiors. All you do is irritate them while making yourself look like an idiot.

And that is how you deliver a sound spanking.

Blogger Arcane Rhino June 07, 2018 12:19 PM  

@Resident Moron™

For the reason stated, among others, I don't agree that they did break the "law of Moses" any more than Jesus did when He healed on the Sabbath.

However, your other point, "that the law has a purpose and that purpose serves man and not the reverse. He says this explicitly", is the more important one and one with which I agree whole heartedly.

Blogger Arcane Rhino June 07, 2018 12:22 PM  

@Chiva

You are most welcome.

Blogger SirHamster June 07, 2018 2:16 PM  

Markku wrote:In other words, it's pretty much guaranteed that what actually happened was that Sadducees went to Herod, and said that these men are threatening all their income and Herod should do something about it.

But when they hated the guts of Jesus even more, they didn't do the same when he was whipping the money lenders?

That should have a larger impact on the bottom line than talking about Jesus's resurrection, which isn't even a matter of ending temple worship and offerings.

My take has been that much like citizen arrest of criminals, or self-defense vs battery; what is generally not legal (deliberate violence) can be is in specific circumstances. The Pharisees and priests wouldn't like it, but realized they had no legal ground to prosecute.

I'm not committed to Jesus never breaking any law, but I think it better reflects his character as the perfect Son submitting to the Father's will and obedient to death. (This requires treating Pharisic interpretation as not the law; they would be recommended guidelines that help one follow the law, but not the law in of themselves.)

Also matters in the show trial, they couldn't recite a long list of broken laws over Jesus's 3 years of ministry to show that he is not innocent and deserves death. They had to twist his words with false witnesses and fake accusations. Why would they need any of that if Jesus had a real rapsheet?


One can argue that from the Pharisee's point of view, Jesus is breaking the law; I just think Jesus managed to stay even within their bounds to demonstrate their lack of righteousness in legalism when they chose to kill him as an innocent man.

But going back to the original discussion on law-breaking from the previous thread; we don't need to live up to the SJW conception of the law. We only need to be innocent in God's eyes. Desecrate their idea of the Sabbath, because it is lawful to do good. The one who has taken up his cross and died to self is no longer concerned about what the police state might do. Why fear man?

Blogger Peter Gent June 07, 2018 2:42 PM  

Here is the full dialog in two parts...
The original comment stream was from http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-warriors.html#comment-form

Peter Gent
Re: "You're a liar, Peter Gent. Go away. You're not permitted to comment here now. I do not permit liars and deceivers to comment here."

You are totally and absolutely wrong. I am neither a liar or a deceiver, but I am someone who challenged you accurately on your biblical error, which is important as you stand publicly for Jesus Christ.

You are intelligent, educated, experienced, and knowledgeable in many things, but theologically and biblically you are sometimes problematic and your lack in this area sometimes shows. Everything I said was sound orthodox theology and relevant to the situation. I am sorry if it didn't fit in with your argument or seemed to invalidate your position, but it appeared that you could not deal with the actual argument, which is too bad, since it is true both biblically and has been accepted within the Church since the beginning.
It is your blog and you do what you want. But know this. In this you are wrong. I am calling you on it. Scream at me all you want but that doesn't change the facts. You are wrong.
Grace and peace,
Peter Gent
-------------------------
Vox
No, Peter, I am not. You are simply not intelligent enough to understand what you are doing.

I will put this on the blog. You can show up and defend yourself. I think the public response to your argument should suffice to educate you. If it does not, then you are simply one of those who cannot be persuaded by information.

Theology has NOTHING to do with straightforward factual claims.
-------------------------
Peter Gent
Re: You are simply not intelligent enough to understand what you are doing.
Then there are few who are, since I am 142 and have been a Christian for 45 years, am theologically trained, and have been in the wars standing for the faith for a long time. I have never been a churchian as you put it. I am about as far the opposite from that as a professing, believing Christian can be.

Re: Theology has NOTHING to do with straightforward factual claims.
It does when informs the underlying meaning of those factual claims and there is a category error being expressed.

For example: factual claim - Jesus broke some of the prevailing Jewish religious laws of his time. True. But his argument for doing so was that the laws he broke were invalid due to the fact they where not God's law but accretions (traditions) that had been added to God's law that destroyed the original intent. In addition, as pertaining breaking the Sabbath, he was the Son of God and as such was Lord of the Sabbath. Those are theological argumenst. So was Peter's argument before the Sanhedrin about who they should listen to. As a result, Jesus' actions can only be used to justify breaking laws today if they are in opposition to or violate God's law. Romans 12 makes this very clear. To use Jesus' example as a pretext for the breaking of any human law without that qualification is a serious error. A theological error.
Re: I will put this on the blog. You can show up and defend yourself.

I don't have a lot of time. I work a 40 hour week. I have to take time off to do this and have a lot of other responsibilities. I don't need to defend myself. Nothing you have said in all of this has proven me wrong. I do not want to get into a long drawn out argument that people cannot even see the value of. You don't see any and you deal with that by saying I am not smart enough. Well maybe that is true, but in this I would suggest you are not as smart as you think you are.
Grace and peace,
Peter
-------------------------

Blogger Peter Gent June 07, 2018 2:43 PM  

Part Two
Vox
You are persistent in your stupidity. You simply refuse to accept that there is a difference between a FACT: Jesus broke the law, and a JUSTIFICATION: Jesus was right to do so.

All of your blathering is irrelevant, because all of your blathering is focused on the justification rather than the fact. The claim was that Jesus never broke any law. That claim is conclusively false. Whether he was justified in breaking those laws or not is totally irrelevant.
-------------------------
Peter Gent
Sorry, but I didn't see that claim stated as that. However, I would have still made the following argument since it seems to be lost on a lot of people.

The claim is made that Jesus never broke any law. That claim is false. He did break some of the prevailing Jewish religious laws of his time. That is a fact. For example he broke Sabbath law and he cleansed the Temple by driving out the money changers who were legally there. However, it must be noted that he did not break those laws without good reason. Those laws were invalid because they violated God's law and he stated so. So to say Jesus never broke any law is wrong, but use that as pretext for breaking laws today without understand his justification for doing so and applying it appropriately is wrong also.

I am not stupid and I am not blathering. Having all the facts sometimes helps and I obviously missed the context, but I would argue so did you and your inability to see through to the real issue and the solution surprises me, as does your falling back on degrading me at every opportunity. But thank you for taking the time to dialog with me.

Grace and peace (and I mean that),
Peter
-------------------------
Vox
You are still totally fucking wrong. I never argued anything of the sort. I made a point. Some idiot tried to go Churchian on me and I slapped him down for being absolutely and totally wrong.

Then you jumped in as if I was making a positive argument. I wasn't. I never did anything of the sort. You attacked a strawman of your own construction, presumably because you wanted to theologically virtue-signal. But regardless of your reasoning, your argument remains irrelevant.

Forget the ban. Comment as you see fit. I don't think your intentions were bad.
-------------------------
Peter Gent

Re: You attacked a strawman of your own construction, presumably because you wanted to theologically virtue-signal.
Maybe, but I have been contending for the historic truth for a long time so I don't think I was "virtue-signaling," but defending what I saw was true. If I had understood the flow I would not have taken the tact I did. For that I am sorry. I stepped in with an incorrect assumption and didn't realize I was constructing a straw-man at the time.

Re:But regardless of your reasoning, your argument remains irrelevant.
Here we will have to agree to disagree. Considering some of the things that are said in comments on this and many other posts, even by those who profess to be Christians, I think it is absolutely relevant. But I won't belabor the point.

I admire your energy, your ability to accomplish so much in so little time, and I thank you that you took this time out of your busy day to dialog with me. That in itself was a gift from you to me. Thank you.
Grace and peace,
Peter

Blogger Rabid Ratel June 07, 2018 2:52 PM  

@Peter Gent, thank you for demonstrating your gamma-tude for all of us to enjoy.

Blogger Peter Gent June 07, 2018 2:57 PM  

Rabid Ratel wrote:@Peter Gent, thank you for demonstrating your gamma-tude for all of us to enjoy.
You have a right to be wrong, but the whole conversation removes some things that the truncated version incorrectly implied, including not having my apology for starting the whole thing on a wrong assumption. Gammas don't admit error.

But, better to gamma and fixable than rabid and not.

Blogger Markku June 07, 2018 3:06 PM  

Act 4:21 And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people, for all were praising God for what had happened.

It was exactly like with Jesus. They came to Jesus too, while he was preaching daily in the temple, to interrogate him on whose power he's doing it by. But in the end, they had nothing. Just like with Peter and John. They were, in both cases, hoping that they could huff and puff, and intimidate them to either stop doing it, or else get themselves to incriminate themselves on something that would be against Roman law. In both cases, they failed.

Now, look at this:

Jhn 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”

"We have a law". Vox said, and I quote: "law of the Jews". Until this point, they had tried to establish that Jesus had broken Roman law by leading an insurrection against Caesar, and that was the grounds for his original arrest. When all that failed, they pulled this card. But they waited until this point because they knew that the Romans didn't care that they have a law.

However, "lucky" for them, Pilate had been in this exact same situation before. And he had also ignored the Jewish law then. This had lead to an insurrection that Pilate completely bumbled, and Caesar was already really angry and disappointed in him.

Jhn 19:8 When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid.
Jhn 19:12 From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.”

This was the nature of the threat, and why Pilate was "afraid". They were threatening to play things out the exact same way, and this time Pilate would almost certainly be executed.

Blogger Markku June 07, 2018 3:29 PM  

Now, you may wonder, if the law of the Jews had no power to punish, then why didn't other Jews just ignore it. Here's why:

Jhn 16:1 “I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away.
2 They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.

Putting someone out of the synagogue was perfectly adequate threat for fellow Jews, because the synagogue was the hub of all life, both social and business.

Blogger SirHamster June 07, 2018 3:51 PM  

Markku wrote:Jhn 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”

"We have a law". Vox said, and I quote: "law of the Jews".



That is an accusation. And Matthew describes the particular event they are describing:


The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

“You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.


He told the truth of his identity. They accused him of blasphemy; but it is not blasphemy, and thus not breaking the law, from the Christian POV.

An accusation of lawbreaking is not the same thing as actual lawbreaking.

And again, Christ owns the Jewish law as the Messaiah; so even adopting the Jewish POV, there is a question of whether or not Pharisic interpretation of the Jewish law qualifies as him breaking the law of the Jews; it'd be like a lower court trying to override a Supreme Court ruling.


The application is the same, either way. Break the law, or what is perceived as law, to do what is good. But even as interesting as Vox's line of thought is, I'd stick to calling Jesus not a lawbreaker.

Blogger Markku June 07, 2018 4:12 PM  

The point was to establish that there were two laws in Judea. And Romans did not care about the law of the Jews. Which is why the religious authorities didn't even bring it up until they had thrown everything but the kitchen sink in trying to make him guilty according to Roman law. The point was not to say that Jesus broke it on this particular instance, but that it existed as a separate concept from the law that actually had the power to arrest, and punish.

Blogger Markku June 07, 2018 4:42 PM  

Because you had made some arguments that would only be valid, if the Jewish law in fact had that power. Like Jesus not getting arrested for preaching in the temple.

Blogger SirHamster June 07, 2018 5:05 PM  

Markku wrote:Because you had made some arguments that would only be valid, if the Jewish law in fact had that power. Like Jesus not getting arrested for preaching in the temple.

Jesus not getting arrested for trashing the money changers' operations and hitting the temple's bottom line.

Your point about Peter/John getting arrested because Herod + bottom line has some plausibility, but needs something more to explain why Jesus did worse with no immediate reaction. The Acts account doesn't sound like any Roman soldiers were involved. (temple guard -> Jews)

One thing I've heard is that the Jews did have the power to execute someone for trespassing into the temple to protect its holiness; so lacking the power to arrest in general may not fully cover what the Jews were allowed to do when the temple was concerned.

If you have any reading to point me to on Jewish legal powers during Roman rule, that sounds like homework for me.


Markku wrote:[Jewish law] existed as a separate concept from the [Roman] law that actually had the power to arrest, and punish.

In John 18, when the Jews bring him to Pilate:

So Pilate came out to them and asked, “What charges are you bringing against this man?”

“If he were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed him over to you.”

Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.”

“But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected.


It's implied here that the Jews would have the right to use various punishments as long as it didn't involve execution. Though perhaps the Jews were supposed to get permission from the Roman governor for each judicial incident, I don't know.

It would be more consistent with Jesus being the unblemished sacrifice if he had zero lawbreaking, which is why I'm pulling the thread to see if it holds up or not.

Blogger SirHamster June 07, 2018 5:07 PM  

Paul M wrote:It's astonishing that anyone could suppose that taking a whip to a squad of moneylenders parked out in front of a temple might be legal.

It's not obvious to me that whipping money-lenders, in front of a temple or not, should be illegal. :)

Blogger tublecane June 07, 2018 5:13 PM  

@Peter Gent-

"Gammas don't admit errors"

You admit an error, but keep repeating the error of central importance for no reason, despite tacitly admitting it.

It's a repeating pattern of:

Vox- "You are wrong because X."

Gent- "I concur. However...[repeats error X]"

It's tedious.

Blogger Markku June 07, 2018 5:23 PM  

Right, on second thought, they did have the power to do up to forty lashes.

Blogger Markku June 07, 2018 5:29 PM  

However, here's what it says right after the moneychanger incident:

Mar 11:18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.
19 And when even was come, he went out of the city.

The way this sounds is that they would have had the ability to scourge him, but they were afraid it would do nothing to stop him, and would only make him more popular. Then, he was gone on the same day and they figured they'd get him the next time, in hopefully more advantageous circumstances.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 07, 2018 6:26 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 07, 2018 6:27 PM  

> Since I missed where this all broke out, Jesus followed God's Law. He, however, spent most of his ministry taking the "Hebrew Law of Virtue Signaling" and trampling on it. Then calling the Apostles to jump on it. Then calling down the Angelic Choir to sing an Irish Jig while all of the close followers did as well.

> "Hippie Jesus" is the assumption of so many that they utterly miss when Jesus is "upending the apple cart" with a whip.

Considering that the first "hippies" were (((you know who))), is it not surprising that "Hippie Jesus" is created in their virtue-signalling likeness?

Blogger Dirk Manly June 07, 2018 6:57 PM  

@86

"It's astonishing that anyone could suppose that taking a whip to a squad of moneylenders parked out in front of a temple might be legal."

Worse, they were money-changers

(exchanging one coinage from one nation for that of another.... for a percentage).

Blogger Dirk Manly June 07, 2018 7:06 PM  

@94

> "you are sometimes problematic"

> Unironic use of the word "problematic" is not typically a sign of well-constructed, rational argumentation.


In fact, the word "problematic" was invented in the academic soft-sciences (psych, I believe) specifically for the purpose of side-stepping a weakness in an argument (declaring A to be "problematic" so that they wouldn't have to deal with the issue of whether rational people consider A to be even undesirable, let alone a problem, in the first place).

ANYBODY who uses the world "problematic" is doing so because they're trying to bring the entire camel into the tent, while trying to specifically avoid even the slightest bit of discussion of whether the even camel's nose belongs inside the tent or not.

Blogger Markku June 07, 2018 7:13 PM  

They were moneychangers, yes, but there's more to it. You could only pay the temple with the temple shekel. Which was obviously something you had to do, in order to be considered a decent person, especially if you wanted anyone to do business with you. Well, guess where you could only get those temple shekels? And guess at what kind of exchange rates? This was a total racket, which held the entire religion hostage, and it made the Sadducees very, very rich.

Blogger Markku June 07, 2018 7:15 PM  

Mar 11:18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

Notice how THEY would be the ones who were enraged, and not the actual moneychangers. Because it was their wallets that got hit.

Blogger SirHamster June 07, 2018 8:00 PM  

Markku wrote:Well, guess where you could only get those temple shekels? And guess at what kind of exchange rates? This was a total racket, which held the entire religion hostage, and it made the Sadducees very, very rich.

Right, and they had to offer sacrificies, but moving livestock over long distances was impractical. So bring money instead to buy local, with price-gouging markets conveniently right inside the temple.

Jews jewing jews.

Blogger tublecane June 07, 2018 8:44 PM  

@117- I hate to even address such terminology, because I fear that's playing into their hand. But I don't think calling something "problematic" is chiefly a means of sidestepping weakness. Though it may very well be used that way.

"Critical thinking" has this thing where it takes normal, everyday things and pretends they're weird or that there's something wrong with them. Which is a form of estrangement.

Problems call out for solutions. If you don't like something, say the male sexual organ, you can treat it like it's a problem. Call it the Problem of the Penis. Your solution could be anything or nothing, but that's what "problematization" is. Turning something into a problem.

Once something has been "problematized," it can be said to be "problematic." Preferably it would be something that actually poses problems, but it could be anything.

Blogger Ian Stein June 08, 2018 12:45 AM  

Not aware of any law against driving money changers from the Temple. Can someone site a source? Or is this speculation?

Blogger Ian Stein June 08, 2018 1:16 AM  

@92 How did the Pharisees enforce laws? All laws were subject to some interpretation, hence my reference to Jesus being from Galilee and not Judea. Galileans were not as strict in interpretation as Judeans.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 08, 2018 1:45 AM  

1. You haven't read what the academics have said about the use of the word, (and how it "escaped" from academia into the wild, due to millenials using it willy-nilly as shorthand for "something I don't like"), and what it was originally intended for when they devised this locution back in the 1960's.

2. Your example proves my point. Anatomy is anatomy. It's not a problem, unless the person calling it a problem has a real (mental) problem.

Blogger tublecane June 08, 2018 4:30 AM  

@124- About #2, to "problematize" is to treat something AS IF it were a problem, even if it isn't. Those who use it may be mentally ill, but it also has strategic uses.

In the anatomical case, it's used to knock the patriarchy. T
Alternatively, take the nuclear family. That is only occasionally problematic But if you want to break families up, you could offer family-breakup as a solution to the pretend Problem of Families.

Sort of like how global warming is a solution--socialism--in search of a problem--um...climate.

Blogger tublecane June 08, 2018 4:40 AM  

@124- I don't actually know the origin of the term as academic fad, but I'm certain it predates the 60s. More like early-20th century.

It fits in with 60s-ish thinking, of course. Deconstruction and all that junk. But the sense in which you're using it must be a special subdefinition.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 08, 2018 5:22 AM  

That's it's ORIGINAL PURPOSE for use in academic papers.

Blogger Peter Gent June 08, 2018 12:18 PM  

problematic (adj.)

Dirk Manly wrote:@94

> "you are sometimes problematic"

> Unironic use of the word "problematic" is not typically a sign of well-constructed, rational argumentation.

In fact, the word "problematic" was invented in the academic soft-sciences (psych, I believe) specifically for the purpose of side-stepping a weakness in an argument (declaring A to be "problematic" so that they wouldn't have to deal with the issue of whether rational people consider A to be even undesirable, let alone a problem, in the first place).

ANYBODY who uses the world "problematic" is doing so because they're trying to bring the entire camel into the tent, while trying to specifically avoid even the slightest bit of discussion of whether the even camel's nose belongs inside the tent or not.

I will have to disagree with your sourcing of problematic.

c. 1600, "doubtful, questionable," from French problematique (15c.), from Late Latin problematicus, from Greek problematikos "pertaining to a problem," from problematos, genitive of problema (see problem). Specific sense in logic, differentiating what is possible from what is necessarily true, is from 1610s. Related: Problematical (1560s); problematically.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 08, 2018 6:12 PM  

Obviosly, a very different sense (doubtful, questionable) from which the SJWs and academics have been using.

Blogger Peter Gent June 09, 2018 12:05 AM  

Dirk Manly wrote:Obviosly, a very different sense (doubtful, questionable) from which the SJWs and academics have been using.
As Solzhenitsyn pointed out the one who controls the definition controls the argument.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 09, 2018 12:23 AM  

Which is why I NEVER use the word "capitalism" to advocate for free markets. Capitalism is a word invented by Marx, and defined for the specific purpose of being an easily destroyed straw-man.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 09, 2018 3:46 AM  

Addendum:

Marx's "capitalist" is really just some legally privileged "nobleman" living in a multi-tier legal system [King/nobility/(optional merchant/professional class)/(optional clergy class)/peasant].

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts