Rape

[Corp.Hudson]

I am sure many of you recieved the email from (i forget who), regarding deut. 22:28, which clearly states that rape victims must marry their rapists. That got me thinking a bit. My first reaction was to fire off an email, saying that that is not what Jesus intended us to follow, love was more important, etc.

But this seemed a little to easy to me. So, I started reading the new testament. In Matt. 5:17-20, Jesus clearly states that the jewish law is meant to be followed. So, why dont we follow jewish law? Why dont we kill witches, why dont we kill those who "lie" with animals? Jesus said to follow the jewish law, and those are just some of the mild ones.

[ISDAMan]

Corp.,

Hold tight. Your question will be answered in the Friday Night Sermon's to come.

The Lord Bless You And Keep You,
ISDAMan

[Micah]

Jesus came to free us from those laws, he came to teach us what is in the heart is more important that keeping crazy laws...

[Bowser]

Those were God's laws from the Old Testement or some Jewish social law which you are referring to as being "crazy?"

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited January 26, 2000).]

[Lori]

Hi Corp,

That same question has been posed many times on this forum, but within different contexts. I think that what Jesus meant is that we should all hold OURSELVES to the same standards and laws of the OT. But the NT CLEARLY gives a very different message regarding the atonement for sin. In fact, isn't that the very purpose of Jesus Christ, and of the NT? Jesus totally changed the way in which sin was to be atoned for. That is His purpose to this very day. He was the last Lamb that ever needed to be sacrificed. Sin is still sin. It's the same today as it ever was and that hasn't changed. We're all still sinners, and that hasn't changed. But the way in which we atone for those sins is by salvation through Jesus Christ. The God of Isreal in the OT is the very same God the Father in the NT. And what a gift He gave us in His Son Jesus Christ. Praise God.

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

[Tiassa]

Corp.Hudson--

Perhaps the best dismissal of Jesus' ministry I've ever encountered was the idea that the ministry was actually a political movement. A number of ideas contribute to this concept: Jesus was born in Galilee--professor C.G. Montefiore (this is a weak citation because I don't have a copy of the volume to rely on) noted that Galilee was a hotbed of political and religious zealotry, and asserted that Jesus could easily have developed such political affections. Some professors in Germany have pointed to Jesus' execution as a thief, which was the common label for political executions ... but this works the other way as well, suggesting that his executioners wanted to downplay the event. I've also read the assertion that some part of Jesus' family (earthly) belonged to the Pharisees (that's thinner than Montefiore; I'll have to dig that one up.)

Furthermore, we see in the philosophical reflections of the Apostolic Fathers constant citations of the Hebrew prophets, often in a grand context that can refer to A) the rising Christian church [if you're of the faith] or B) the contemporary political situation.

By the end of the first century of the common era, several prominent Christian authors began demonstrating (as a political gambit) the difference between Judaism and Christianity. Whereas Clement and Ignatius viewed Judaic ritual as a distraction from God, the rhetoric of Justin Martyr and Barnabas become much more direct.

This all goes to demonstrate the political considerations pestering the early church, nagging at its spiritual effectiveness. Stay tuned.

* * * * *

I want to bring up a theoretical aspect ... was Jesus married? The actual answer to that question is irrelevant, but it offers us some insight into how we might choose to regard ancient Law.

Though I've heard it before (university professors and such), most recently I came across the idea of Jesus being married in an A&E special on the Bible. The key point to the whole argument, though, seems to be a connection between the fact that he was called "Rabbi" by his disciples on more than one occasion. Contemporary Law and social mores regarded an unmarried rabbi as a disreputable servant. Such an idea begs the question of "Why?" (especially in light of later, Christian monasticism.)

I would submit the following idea: "Forty years in the desert." Wandering about in such a harsh environment, the Hebrews developed a strict sense of human preservation. Disease concerns brought about prohibitions against polygamy and adultery; also against tattoos, homosexuality, and--essentially--bowel movements (also touching the dead, wounding yourself in mourning ... is there a common, unsanitary theme?).

Is the idea of forcing the victim to marry the rapist part of this? Perhaps. Consider, please, two ideas:

* Monogamy was not just maintenance of social harmony; the woman has been with a man, and the Hebrews knew that promiscuity would lead to disease.

* The female is the childbearing member of society.

* Monogamous marriage (in general, as opposed to rapes) was a method of protecting the childbearing member against disease.

Therefore, I would note the importance of marriage, in general, to Jewish Law; and also the necessity of monogamy during Exile.

Is it possible, then, that such an idea in Jewish Law--that victims should marry their rapist--is a method of sacrificing the dignity of the one for the good of the community?

At some point, society may have decided that this method of function was not necessarily a positive one. It could have been decided that such forced marriages were unnecessary, or even barbaric (though I doubt this in the light of dowries and so forth).

As a base reason for not following Jewish law, though, I would offer the European tradition of whooping Jewish ass wherever it landed. (Explore a stereotype? Jews and money? What else is going to happen when you prohibit a group of people from owning property?) It could simply be that time and politics have created a Western stereotype that disrespects Judaism. Most of the kids I knew in school first became aware that the Jewish even existed (outside of Bible stories) when we learned that a guy with a pushbroom mustache murdered six million of them--that's not exactly a neutral introduction. Attached to that, though, are the foundations laid by writers like Barnabas and Justin Martyr, who, in their zeal, upped the ante and, essentially, made the issue "personal" in a sense. How has this affected Christian teachings within the churches? (I even remember Linus from "Peanuts" quoting Barnabas once.)

At any rate, I hope all of this comes together better than a Rorshach jigsaw puzzle. I don't have much more than these beginnings of ideas.

But it's a damn fine question, and a tough one at that. Thank you for that. :)

A few quick notes on "Why don't we kill the witches?" I have no real answer, or even general speculations. But, as regards killing witches:

* A scary thing about the Salem Witch Trials is that there was, apparently, no evidence of witchcraft; if you look at a town map, and start checking off who lived where and said what, the process that results largely resembles a property fight--strangely, all the accusers lived in one part of town, and most of the, uh, witches... lived across the main road.

* In 1850, or thereabout, residents of a Kansas town hanged a cow for sorcery and crimes against God.

* The last American arrest of a witch that I know of--where the charge was "witchcraft" (specifically--practicing divination without a license) was in the late 1970's, and rocketed Zsussanna Budapest's reputation to the highest echelon of modern witches. (Essentially a "mini-martyrdom", but without the blood and the torture and the burning and the lions, nya-hey.)

* The British revoked their last anti-sorcery laws in the 1990's.

But I've got nothing to offer about screwing a Saint Bernard. Or a hamster, in case you're dating supermodels.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

[Searcher]

Tiassa,


Though I've heard it before (university professors and such), most recently I came across the idea of Jesus being married in an A&E special on the Bible. The key point to the whole argument, though, seems to be a connection between the fact that he was called "Rabbi" by his disciples on more than one occasion. Contemporary Law and social mores regarded an unmarried rabbi as a disreputable servant.

I believe I recently saw the same A&E special, which was called, "The Unknown Jesus". It was suggested, based on the writings of the apostle Philip, that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. According to Philip, Jesus would often kiss Mary full on the mouth in the presence of the disciples, much to Philip's disapproval. Jesus responded to such disapproval with some remark about the mysteries of marriage. It was also supposed that the wedding at Canaan, where Jesus turned the water into wine, was actually his own wedding.

Another point that was made was that according to Jewish law, if a man had attained the age of 20, I believe it was, and was unmarried, it was better that he be killed. The point being that Jewish marriages were arranged by the parents according to Jewish tradition, and since Joseph was careful to follow all other Jewish laws and traditions, he would have also arranged his son's marriage as well.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

[Tiassa]

Searcher--

Thank you kindly. That indeed was the special. I did a messed up sketch about that wedding in high school. It had Donald Trump and Tommy Chong listed as wedding guests. Suffice it to say that the idea did not carry over well at Catholic School. Though they liked the bit about stuffing the messenger through a fax machine. Go figure. Oh, wait. There's a parable about a wedding too, isn't there? ( :o ) In that case, I have no idea anymore. But it was a cute sketch.

thanx much,
Tiassa

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

[Corp.Hudson]

Micah - Those "crazy" laws were handed directly to Moses from god, according to christians, jews, muslims, and mormons. god obviously meant for the laws to be followed or he would not have set them in stone (which he did literally and figuratively). Jesus by no means freed us from those laws, he explicitly stated that his intent was never to abolish or change the laws.

[Christian]

Corp,

Sorry - I don't put my e-mail address out there but this might help:

During Jesus' ministry his mission remained within the framework of the law with anticipation of the age to come.

If you look at Matthew 5:21-48 you will see the antitheses which follows. The turning of ages comes with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Mosaic law remained in effect until the turning of ages.

[Corp.Hudson]

Christian- how wonderful that would have been if you were right, but your not :(. Jesus does not abolish any jewish laws, simply makes a few <u>stricter</u>. Jesus death does not count as the age he is talking about, as evidenced by Matthew 5:18:
"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accopmlished." (RSV)

Maybe I missed something, but as I understand it, not everything is accomplished.

[Christian]

You seriously think Jesus taught us to kill?

OK then have it your way.

[Searcher]

Corp,

I think of all the people here on this board, I'm the most perplexed about who you are and what you stand for. At one point you admitted confusion as to what religion you are, but eventually you seemed to adopt the Christian religion. Have you changed your mind again? Did I miss something? Not that the entire religion of Christianity isn't confusing in itself, but...?

Also, try as I might, I can't figure out what Jewish laws were made stricter by Jesus?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

[Corp.Hudson]

Christian- No, I do not think that Jesus taught to kill, but I also do not think that he spoke against killing. Killing has never been forbidden by god (remember that modern trnalsations use the word murder in the commandment), and was seemingly endorsed by jesus. Of all the roman soldiers he preached to, not once did he tell them to lay down their arms. Not once.

Searcher- Sorry I can't be more specific, but I dont know what religion I am. First I adopted christianity, now I am agnositic. I have been researching several religions, and I am trying to find some mormon missionaries to talk to.

And the sermon on the mount makes laws stricter..no longer is cheating on your wife adultery, but thinking about it is. No longer can you not murder, you cannot be angry with your brother. No longer can you divorce your wife. See a pattern?

[Lori]

Just thought I'd pop in here with a question....What do we SEE happen to men who for one reason or another are abstained from regular and normal sexual activity?

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.