Arg!!! Bible and spanking...again... - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-13-2006, 11:51 AM - Thread Starter
 
mrsfatty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Twin Cities area, MN
Posts: 1,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So I'm in a bit of a debate with a friend about what God has to say about spanking...and I of course, had this awesome debate...then he goes he throws this in my face:

There are two specific Proverbs passages that I studied that I cannot get beyond to say that physical correction (spanking, etc.) is not biblically consistent. The first is Proverbs 22:15 which reads (from the NKJV):

"Fooishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him."

Earlier in this section is the familiar verse discussing training up a child in the way they should go, and when they are old, they will not depart from it (Proverbs 22:6). I find it hard to translate this concept of correction of with a rod as anything but physical reprobation. Again, I do not find it proper biblical hermenutics to interpret this as merely symbolic.

Furthermore, the strongest passage is Proverbs 23:13-14. It reads,

"Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, and deliver his soul from hell."


And I asked him if he really thought that in bibletimes parents hit their children with shepherd's rods...and if so, shouldn't parents of today hit with shepherd's rods instead of their hands...couldn't this be an analogy??? He hasn't responded to me...but what do you think about those two passages in relation to gentle discipline?

I hope this is ok...I just didn't know where else to talk about it--It's so frustrating to have Christians justify this kind of violence, in the spirit of "God says so"...when I feel that the completely opposite approach is correct.
mrsfatty is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-13-2006, 11:57 AM
 
mama_b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,654
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't believe that those passages are meant to be taken literally. As a Christian it makes me angry that others use these passages to justify hitting children.
mama_b is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 12:04 PM
 
nora--not a llama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: (.)(.)UNpop Cleavage(.)(.)
Posts: 3,425
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't think that Christians should by any means disregard the teachings that can be found in the OT, but I think we are considered the NT church. Christ changed everything for Christians when he came, and we are followers of Christ, not bound by the old laws. That's just my take on it. HTH.
nora--not a llama is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 12:16 PM
 
Quinn'sMommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm not a christian but I do respect Jesus and I don't believe he would ever hit a child or tell someone else to do so.
Quinn'sMommy is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 01:37 PM
 
MissRubyandKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm not christian, but here's my opinion. How many different MEN'S hands has the bible passed through? How many times has the bible been rewritten and retranslated, some parts edited out, some parts added in? For that matter how many DIFFERENT translations and versions of the bible are out there today? Tell your friend to compare his bible version to several others and read the DIFFERENT translations for THE SAME EXACT PASSAGE before he decides HITTING A CHILD is something HIS GOD or JESUS would want a MAN to do, rather than a MAN'S literal translation of OLD, OLD words in a BOOK that have passed through several languages and hands over many, many years. Sounds more like a justification than a decree of divine will, IMHO.

blogging.jpg

MissRubyandKen is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 01:47 PM
Banned
 
boongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: a place where freedom lives
Posts: 4,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Aren't there all sorts of passages in the bible that even the most ardent christians don't follow? For example:

Deuteronomy 22 5 A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. 11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

There are passages about how a man should not be sent to war in the first year of his marriage and passages about how men can have more than one wife, all sorts of things that American Christians mostly do not follow. So, why can't you interpret the passages about spanking children as arcane and not in keeping with modern christianity?
boongirl is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 02:01 PM
 
familylove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Flyover Country
Posts: 491
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinn'sMommy
I'm not a christian but I do respect Jesus and I don't believe he would ever hit a child or tell someone else to do so.
MissRubyandKen I'm not christian, but here's my opinion. How many different MEN'S hands has the bible passed through? How many times has the bible been rewritten and retranslated, some parts edited out, some parts added in? For that matter how many DIFFERENT translations and versions of the bible are out there today? Tell your friend to compare his bible version to several others and read the DIFFERENT translations for THE SAME EXACT PASSAGE before he decides HITTING A CHILD is something HIS GOD or JESUS would want a MAN to do, rather than a MAN'S literal translation of OLD, OLD words in a BOOK that have passed through several languages and hands over many, many years. Sounds more like a justification than a decree of divine will, IMHO.



Follow your mommy instincts!
familylove is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 02:12 PM
 
Joannarachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ware, MA
Posts: 1,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The general consensus is that when those Scriptures mention 'rod' the translation is specifically a Shepherd's rod, which was never used to hit sheep, simply to guide them in the direction the shepherd wanted them to go.

Tell him to check up on his linguistics and history before misusing scripture.
Joannarachel is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 02:33 PM
 
GooeyRN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
WWJD? Can you see Jesus spanking a kid? I sure can't!
GooeyRN is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 10:00 PM
 
coloradoalice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joannarachel
The general consensus is that when those Scriptures mention 'rod' the translation is specifically a Shepherd's rod, which was never used to hit sheep, simply to guide them in the direction the shepherd wanted them to go.

Tell him to check up on his linguistics and history before misusing scripture.


That's exactly what I was going to say! Shepherds would never hit a sheep, that would scare them and scatter them and create distrust. They used the rod to guide them, coax them, direct them. Totally different implications!!
coloradoalice is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 10:01 PM
 
dulce de leche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
www.aolff.org does a good job of addressing those verses!

Do unto children as you would have them do unto you ::
dulce de leche is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 11:11 PM
 
Melis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hello
I just wanted to "second" the PP's suggestion to check out the link she provided. It's awesome and helped me a lot. You will also find many good threads on this topic at www.gentlechristianmothering.com.

~Melissa
Melis is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 12:52 AM
 
canadiyank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Also, I've found it intriguing lately that people think beating your kid can deliver him from hell. Hmmm. Really? Why do we need Jesus then, if we can beat salvation into him? Also, a few versus earlier it says to slit your throat re: gluttony...

Meghan, mom to 11yo, 8yo, and 3yo 

canadiyank is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 01:15 AM
 
Charles Baudelaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,882
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsfatty
So I'm in a bit of a debate with a friend about what God has to say about spanking...and I of course, had this awesome debate...then he goes he throws this in my face:

There are two specific Proverbs passages that I studied that I cannot get beyond to say that physical correction (spanking, etc.) is not biblically consistent. The first is Proverbs 22:15 which reads (from the NKJV):

"Fooishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him."

Earlier in this section is the familiar verse discussing training up a child in the way they should go, and when they are old, they will not depart from it (Proverbs 22:6). I find it hard to translate this concept of correction of with a rod as anything but physical reprobation. Again, I do not find it proper biblical hermenutics to interpret this as merely symbolic.

Furthermore, the strongest passage is Proverbs 23:13-14. It reads,

"Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, and deliver his soul from hell."


And I asked him if he really thought that in bibletimes parents hit their children with shepherd's rods...and if so, shouldn't parents of today hit with shepherd's rods instead of their hands...couldn't this be an analogy??? He hasn't responded to me...but what do you think about those two passages in relation to gentle discipline?

I hope this is ok...I just didn't know where else to talk about it--It's so frustrating to have Christians justify this kind of violence, in the spirit of "God says so"...when I feel that the completely opposite approach is correct.

Okay, to me, it's actually very simple. Ask him these questions, if you want:

1. Are you a Christian?
2. Who's the most important person to Christians?
3. So, Christ is more important than, say, Matthew?
4. How about Peter? Paul?
5. How about Abraham? Moses?

I am assuming that he will say "Yes" to #3-5. If he does, then ask him why Christ is more important than all of them.

6. So, if Abraham said X and Christ said Y, which one should a good Christian follow?
7. So, if the Old Testament said "An eye for an eye," and Christ said, "Turn the other cheek," which should I do?

By then, you have him boxed into a corner: you have him admitting that a central tenet of the Old Testament's law (an eye for an eye) is superseded by the Christian idea of "turn the other cheek." You have Christ being more important that Abraham and Moses, and that logically includes anyone of lesser importance...like Isaiah, whom I believe was the attributed author of Proverbs.

So, at this point, you get to move in for the coup de grace:

9. How hard did Mary spank Jesus?

If he argues that Jesus never misbehaved, bring up the fact that Jesus ran off from his parents and hung out in the Temple until they were frantic.

10. Would Jesus spank?

That should get him. Bottom line, if you're a Christian, you do as Christ does, or you try to. Otherwise, you're not really a Christian. You're a Testamentarian, or some other such thing, but you're not a CHRIST-ian.
Charles Baudelaire is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 01:19 PM - Thread Starter
 
mrsfatty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Twin Cities area, MN
Posts: 1,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thank you!

But I think I need more...we'll see what he says to my last comment...

...he really does believe that the wisdom of proverbs is applicable today...even though Jesus demonstrated a different response.
mrsfatty is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 01:38 PM
 
Wugmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
on askdrsears.com there is a section on interpreting the rod versus - that is pretty helpful.

I know, this is the most frustrating thing ever. It is the one thing that has me on the verge of turning away from the church.

~Tracy

Rockin' mama to Allison (9), Asher (5) and Alethea (3), head over heels in love with my sexy husband, Tony.

Wugmama is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 01:46 PM
 
Millie Ivy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: TX
Posts: 3,546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
One other thing to add to the wisdom already shared...

He said there was nothing to suggest that the proverb was an analogy. Ask him how it could be written that beating with a rod surely will not kill. The only way to take that statement is as an analogy! Beating with a rod *CAN* kill some one!

Shelley, mom to dd 5/19/01, ds 9/06/02, and ds 4/01/07.  Lost babe 4/09

belly.gifDue 12/18/12!

Millie Ivy is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 04:54 PM
 
angelpie545's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Near water, with a refreshing rain
Posts: 6,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama_b
I don't believe that those passages are meant to be taken literally. As a Christian it makes me angry that others use these passages to justify hitting children.
As a Christian I do have to agree with you. I personally think when Jesus says "rod" He means discipline in general, not a rod to hit with. In those times, a rod was used to guide sheep. The sheep *feared* the shepard with his rod, becuase they knew he would keep them in line. When I say "fear" I don't mean the sheep were afraid they would hurt them, they just knew they had to listen to them.

I believe that Jesus simply means that we should not let our children run wild but rather guide them and raise them to be respectful and diligent. I do not think He meant we had to spank our children by any means. I think He was more saying that we need to protect our children and love them with discipline to warm their hearts to Him. I don't think by any means he mandated us to spank them, but rather to gently discipline them.

In Ephesians, it says "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right."
It also says in Ephesians "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger" and also in the new Testament(I'll have to find the passage and book, sorry: ) again no to provoke your children to anger and dishearten them. This, IMO, reiterates that we need to take great care with our children and discipline them with love and nuturing, not with anger and humiliation.

Bethany, crunchy Christian mom to Destiny (11) Deanna (9), and Ethan (2)

angelpie545 is offline  
Old 06-16-2006, 12:59 PM
 
Charles Baudelaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,882
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsfatty
Thank you!

But I think I need more...we'll see what he says to my last comment...

...he really does believe that the wisdom of proverbs is applicable today...even though Jesus demonstrated a different response.
Then hit him -- metaphorically speaking, of course -- with this: Jesus said, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12). Apparently, Jesus knew that there would be people out there who basically would not get it, and so he thoughtfully provided the Cliffs Notes version of his philosophy: that the whole of the law, the summary of the Law and the Prophets, all comes down to treating others as you yourself would be treated. The next time your friend offends you, would he appreciate it if you spanked him? How about if you offend him? That puts another twist in the "turn the other cheek" idea, doesn't it?

Bottom line -- no pun intended -- your friend is ignoring the fact that Jesus' philosophy is fundamentally incompatible with much of Old Testament philosophy, and helpfully enough, the Bible happens to agree on this point.

Proof:

Ephesians 2:15 states, "He [Jesus] did away with the law of the commandments in regulations." Moreover, Galatians 2:14 states, "I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Gal. 2:14).

In short, if your friend is a believer in the Old Testament's law and believes that it supersedes the philosophy of Christ, then by all means, I suggest he convert to Judaism, although learning Hebrew's a real pain.

If he wants more proof that the New Testament's law supersedes the Old for Christians, check these references. Good luck to your goy friend on his conversion.

(Rom.13:8,9 & 3:21 & 7:6 & 13:8 & 13:10 - 2Cor.3:5,6 & 3:13,16 - Gal.2:12 & 3:2,3 & 3:5 & 3:10 & 3:11 & 3:19 & 3:23 & 3:24,25 & 4:31 & 5:2 - Eph.2:15 & 3:4,5 - Phil.3:8,9 - Col.2:14 & 2:16 & 2:20 - Heb.8:7,8 & 10:20).
Charles Baudelaire is offline  
Old 06-16-2006, 05:17 PM
 
canadiyank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Some people just aren't going to be convinced...I believe the "rod" verses speak to discipline...how that looks is going to be different in every family. I would speak my conviction that the Bible does not say you *have* to spank and that non-punitive discipline works well for our family.

Meghan, mom to 11yo, 8yo, and 3yo 

canadiyank is offline  
Old 06-17-2006, 06:32 AM
 
MelanieMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In a state of confusion
Posts: 3,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire
Okay, to me, it's actually very simple. Ask him these questions, if you want:

1. Are you a Christian?
2. Who's the most important person to Christians?
3. So, Christ is more important than, say, Matthew?
4. How about Peter? Paul?
5. How about Abraham? Moses?

I am assuming that he will say "Yes" to #3-5. If he does, then ask him why Christ is more important than all of them.

6. So, if Abraham said X and Christ said Y, which one should a good Christian follow?
7. So, if the Old Testament said "An eye for an eye," and Christ said, "Turn the other cheek," which should I do?

By then, you have him boxed into a corner: you have him admitting that a central tenet of the Old Testament's law (an eye for an eye) is superseded by the Christian idea of "turn the other cheek." You have Christ being more important that Abraham and Moses, and that logically includes anyone of lesser importance...like Isaiah, whom I believe was the attributed author of Proverbs.

So, at this point, you get to move in for the coup de grace:

9. How hard did Mary spank Jesus?

If he argues that Jesus never misbehaved, bring up the fact that Jesus ran off from his parents and hung out in the Temple until they were frantic.

10. Would Jesus spank?

That should get him. Bottom line, if you're a Christian, you do as Christ does, or you try to. Otherwise, you're not really a Christian. You're a Testamentarian, or some other such thing, but you're not a CHRIST-ian.
:
As Christians we are bound to follow Christ over any Old Testament laws or sayings.
MelanieMC is offline  
Old 06-17-2006, 09:40 AM
 
beccaboomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,173
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTEAs Christians we are bound to follow Christ over any Old Testament laws or sayings.][/QUOTE] Can you please list some scriptures that indicate this for me to read?
beccaboomom is offline  
Old 06-17-2006, 10:11 AM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsfatty

"Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, and deliver his soul from hell.[sic]"
At the time this was written, the Hebews had no concept of hell. This is incorrectly translated. It must be from the King James Version which is notorious for mistranslations.

The correct word is sheol which means pit. At the time, it was thought all humans, no matter how virtuous, went to sheol when they died, so that verse is quite strange.
DaryLLL is offline  
Old 06-17-2006, 02:04 PM
 
Charles Baudelaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,882
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by beccaboomom
Can you please list some scriptures that indicate this for me to read?
Uhh...didn't you read my rather long and extensively cited post above, BBM?? In case not, here it is again:
*****************
Then hit him -- metaphorically speaking, of course -- with this: Jesus said, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12). Apparently, Jesus knew that there would be people out there who basically would not get it, and so he thoughtfully provided the Cliffs Notes version of his philosophy: that the whole of the law, the summary of the Law and the Prophets, all comes down to treating others as you yourself would be treated. The next time your friend offends you, would he appreciate it if you spanked him? How about if you offend him? That puts another twist in the "turn the other cheek" idea, doesn't it?

Bottom line -- no pun intended -- your friend is ignoring the fact that Jesus' philosophy is fundamentally incompatible with much of Old Testament philosophy, and helpfully enough, the Bible happens to agree on this point.

Proof:

Ephesians 2:15 states, "He [Jesus] did away with the law of the commandments in regulations." Moreover, Galatians 2:14 states, "I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Gal. 2:14).
In short, if your friend is a believer in the Old Testament's law and believes that it supersedes the philosophy of Christ, then by all means, I suggest he convert to Judaism, although learning Hebrew's a real pain.

If he wants more proof that the New Testament's law supersedes the Old for Christians, check these references. Good luck to your goy friend on his conversion.

(Rom.13:8,9 & 3:21 & 7:6 & 13:8 & 13:10 - 2Cor.3:5,6 & 3:13,16 - Gal.2:12 & 3:2,3 & 3:5 & 3:10 & 3:11 & 3:19 & 3:23 & 3:24,25 & 4:31 & 5:2 - Eph.2:15 & 3:4,5 - Phil.3:8,9 - Col.2:14 & 2:16 & 2:20 - Heb.8:7,8 & 10:20).
Charles Baudelaire is offline  
Old 06-17-2006, 02:31 PM
 
Charles Baudelaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,882
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hey! I bet BBM has blocked my posts!!! Would someone else copy what I said for her??? Far be it from me to prevent a soi-disant Christian from understanding that doing what Jesus suggested is really the right way to go.
Charles Baudelaire is offline  
Old 06-18-2006, 10:21 AM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by beccaboomom
Can you please list some scriptures that indicate this for me to read?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire


Uhh...didn't you read my rather long and extensively cited post above, BBM?? In case not, here it is again:
*****************
Then hit him -- metaphorically speaking, of course -- with this: Jesus said, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12). Apparently, Jesus knew that there would be people out there who basically would not get it, and so he thoughtfully provided the Cliffs Notes version of his philosophy: that the whole of the law, the summary of the Law and the Prophets, all comes down to treating others as you yourself would be treated. The next time your friend offends you, would he appreciate it if you spanked him? How about if you offend him? That puts another twist in the "turn the other cheek" idea, doesn't it?

Bottom line -- no pun intended -- your friend is ignoring the fact that Jesus' philosophy is fundamentally incompatible with much of Old Testament philosophy, and helpfully enough, the Bible happens to agree on this point.

Proof:

Ephesians 2:15 states, "He [Jesus] did away with the law of the commandments in regulations." Moreover, Galatians 2:14 states, "I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Gal. 2:14).
In short, if your friend is a believer in the Old Testament's law and believes that it supersedes the philosophy of Christ, then by all means, I suggest he convert to Judaism, although learning Hebrew's a real pain.

If he wants more proof that the New Testament's law supersedes the Old for Christians, check these references. Good luck to your goy friend on his conversion.

(Rom.13:8,9 & 3:21 & 7:6 & 13:8 & 13:10 - 2Cor.3:5,6 & 3:13,16 - Gal.2:12 & 3:2,3 & 3:5 & 3:10 & 3:11 & 3:19 & 3:23 & 3:24,25 & 4:31 & 5:2 - Eph.2:15 & 3:4,5 - Phil.3:8,9 - Col.2:14 & 2:16 & 2:20 - Heb.8:7,8 & 10:20).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire
Hey! I bet BBM has blocked my posts!!! Would someone else copy what I said for her??? Far be it from me to prevent a soi-disant Christian from understanding that doing what Jesus suggested is really the right way to go.
:
DaryLLL is offline  
Old 06-18-2006, 11:18 AM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL
At the time this was written, the Hebews had no concept of hell. This is incorrectly translated. It must be from the King James Version which is notorious for mistranslations.

The correct word is sheol which means pit. At the time, it was thought all humans, no matter how virtuous, went to sheol when they died, so that verse is quite strange.
Here is the RSV translation.

Pro 23:13-14 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. If you beat him with the rod you will save his life from Sheol.

Life, not soul. The second verse merely repeats the first. It says, beating your child will not cause death. It will prevent him from dying.

Now, we know we all die. We know that the Hebrews of this time did not have a concept of resurrection and everlasting life. We also know the Hebrews did not have semi-colons or other punctuation (or vowels for that matter!). So it could be expressed this way.

Do not withhold discipline from a child.

If you beat him with a rod he will not die.
If you beat him with the rod you will save his life from the grave.

If taken literally, this passage is a lie. We all know that a beating with a large wooden instrument, if long enough and hard enough, can cause death. One to two thousands children die from beatings every year in the US alone. So, it stands to reason, this passage is not meant to be taken literally. Proverbs is often poetic and metaphorical, and it is to me obvious this passage is a metaphor.


see http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin13.htm for both sides of the argument


Exodus 21 discusses situations in which a person must be punished if he beats someone to death.

Exd 21:12 Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.

Exd 21:20 When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.

So, it is acknowledged that striking someone can cause death. And the punishment for that is death of the perpetrator. This directly contradicts the literal interpretation of the Proverbs passage. The rod in Proverbs cannot be the same rod as is mentioned in Exodus. The "rod" in Proverbs is a metaphor for parental authority and guidance, like our saying, "the long arm of the law." It does not mean a literal arm.
DaryLLL is offline  
Old 06-18-2006, 12:17 PM
 
beccaboomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,173
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I bet BBM has blocked my posts!!!
I don't.

Matthew5:17-20 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until evertyhing is acoomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpassed the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

This is what Jesus had to say about the Law. The law was given so that we would now what sin is and how we are to live. Thanks to Jesus and his great sacrifice we live under grace and not the law. If we were to live under the law we would never be able to enter heaven. But , even though we live under grace, it does not make the law irrelavant. Jesus himself used quoted the Old Testament. If Jesus thought the Old Testament was the Truth, why should christian conveniently disregard what is taught in the Old Testament? It is a fine line between having freedom in Christ and living holy lives pleasing to God.

Romans 6:15-18 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer youselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey-whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you used to be slaves to sin , you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
beccaboomom is offline  
Old 06-18-2006, 03:24 PM
 
Charles Baudelaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,882
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by beccaboomom
I don't.

Matthew5:17-20 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until evertyhing is acoomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpassed the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."


This is what Jesus had to say about the Law. The law was given so that we would now what sin is and how we are to live. Thanks to Jesus and his great sacrifice we live under grace and not the law. If we were to live under the law we would never be able to enter heaven. But , even though we live under grace, it does not make the law irrelavant. Jesus himself used quoted the Old Testament. If Jesus thought the Old Testament was the Truth, why should christian conveniently disregard what is taught in the Old Testament? It is a fine line between having freedom in Christ and living holy lives pleasing to God.
Then riddle me this, Batman: What does Jesus mean when he says "the law"? Maybe this is more of a question for Darylll, but it would seem to me that the Law is the essential law of Moses, the ten commandments, and that they still apply.

However, the fact of the matter is that Jesus said many things which directly contradict the other ideas and philosophies of the Old Testament and chief among them is the notion under Mosaic law of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Christ's law, that of turning the other cheek and returning nonviolence for violence is clearly very different in purpose, philosophy, nature, and result. He also said that the fundamental summation of the law -- in case you weren't sure -- was to treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated, in agreement with Hillel. In short, I'm not a Biblical scholar; I like to keep things simple. If I want my husband to spank me for forgetting and leaving my purse in the car, I guess that's how I should treat my child...but I don't want him to do that. If I think I should smack my husband with a rod for not clearing away his crud from the coffee table, that's how I should treat my child...but I don't want to do that.

Now, just to be utterly nitpicky, BBM, how do you like your cheeseburger?

Oh, yeah -- that's right. If you're really obeying the law, you don't get to eat one of those because you might be eating a calf seethed in his mother's milk. Does your husband shake hands with women he meets? Because they might be menstruating (Leviticus 15:19-24) and they're considered unclean. Has he figured out a polite way to ask them? Oh, and it's okay to buy slaves from the nations around us, according to Leviticus 25:44. Are your slaves Canadian or Mexican? Oh, and I guess you're not going to be eating out at Red Lobster anytime soon (Leviticus 10:10), but gefilte fish is okay!

See my point? You said yourself you can't pick and choose.

Seriously, though -- I think Christ made it very clear how to treat others, and "others" includes kids.
Charles Baudelaire is offline  
Old 06-18-2006, 04:40 PM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well, strictly speaking, Charles, the "law" is the Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible. Proverbs is not part of the Torah.

But Exodus, where the punishment (ie: death) for beating someone to death, is.

As well, Jews have a strong tradition that the oral Torah, also given to Moses on Mt Sinai, expands and interprets the written one, and this further elucidation is included in the Mishnah.

BBM seems unable to comprehend that Jesus is shown as having softened parts of the Torah, and expanded other parts of it. As did other rabbis (esp Hillel) of his time. As did Paul from Damascus. As did the Essenes from the caves at Qumran on the Dead Sea. As did the Hellenists such as the Herods. As did the diaspora Jews in Alexandria and Babylon. The Bible clearly reflects the Hebrews' evolving view of god and community. Even the 5th book of the Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy (written post-exile), reinterprets the previous 4 books, by focusing on centralising worship in Jerusalem.
DaryLLL is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off