An eye for an eye...

[Cave Man]

...makes the world blind.

Gotta luv that Iranian justice...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.acid.justice/index.html

[Dont Hurt Me]

Got to love the old testament way of dealing with crime. Lucky for us Jesus replaced the old law.

[Gray-Wolf]

Islamic law, is behind this, not the bible. It's all about revenge.

Barbarians.

http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=124651&catid=40

[rendezvouscp]

It sounds to me like she wanted justice, not revenge. She says that she doesn’t want him to become disfigured ("because that would be [a] savage, barbaric act"), but just to be blinded (which sounds more than fair).

[mgguy]

I say take both eyes out.

[és:]

Barbarians.


You are aware that you country still puts it's own citizens to death, aren't you? Also Barbaric, don't you think?

This punishment is tame by Iranian standards and, unlike most of their punishments, can at least be argued as justice.

[leekohler]

Islamic law, is behind this, not the bible. It's all about revenge.

Barbarians.

http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=124651&catid=40

The old testament is from where Islamic law is derived.

[arkitect]

Islamic law, is behind this, not the bible. It's all about revenge.
Barbarians.


Oh, really?

The phrase "an eye for an eye", (Hebrew: עין תחת עין‎ ayin takhat ayin) is a quotation from Exodus 21:23–27 in which a person who has taken the eye of another in a fight is instructed to give his own eye in compensation.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_eye_for_an_eye)

Or do you use a "different" bible?

[bobber205]

The old testament is from where Islamic law is derived.

Sssssssssh.

;)

[abijnk]

Oh, really?


Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_eye_for_an_eye)

Or do you use a "different" bible?

It might appear in the Christian bible, but that's not what's going on here.

From the first sentence in the link:

under Islamic law demanding an eye for an eye.

So yes, they are technically using a "different bible." ;) (I know that's not 100% accurate, just saying...)

[arkitect]

So yes, they are technically using a "different bible." ;)

Sweetums, Did you even read what I wrote?
;)
I was refering to this post by iMac-Knight where he claimed "an eye for an eye" has nothing to do with the bible… I showed that yes, in fact it does.

Islamic law, is behind this, not the bible. It's all about revenge.
Barbarians.

(I know that's not 100% accurate, just saying...)
And I think the word you are looking for is Qur’an.

[adroit]

. . . It's all about revenge.

Barbarians.


I'm curious what your position on this subject was on Sept 12 2001

[Dont Hurt Me]

A better solution is to have this fool have to support this person the rest of his life, along with prison time and maybe a asskicking or two.

[skunk]

I say take both eyes out.How would that improve things?

[CalBoy]

There is no justice in retribution.

I wish I could say we are better in absolute terms, but we still like to kill our fellow man in this country.

[obeygiant]

Got to love the old testament way of dealing with crime. Lucky for us Jesus replaced the old law.

I'm not sure what the Old Testament has to do with this due to the fact that Iran is based in Islamic Law. The Bible, and Qur'an share the book of Genesis and no others if I'm not mistaken. The sermon on the Mount told Christians to "turn the other cheek" when wronged by someone instead of holding true to lex talionis, emphasizing forgiveness. Islamic law is founded on the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

[skunk]

What a remarkable coincidence then, that both Islamic and Mosaic law should call for "an eye for an eye".

[abijnk]

Sweetums, Did you even read what I wrote?
;)
I was refering to this post by iMac-Knight where he claimed "an eye for an eye" has nothing to do with the bible… I showed that yes, in fact it does.




And I think the word you are looking for is Qur’an.

Did you read what iMac-Knight said? He didn't say it isn't in the bible, he said the bible is not behind this.

And I am not your "Sweetums" :rolleyes:

[Macaddicttt]

Sweetums, Did you even read what I wrote?
;)
I was refering to this post by iMac-Knight where he claimed "an eye for an eye" has nothing to do with the bible… I showed that yes, in fact it does.

And I think the word you are looking for is Qur’an.

You're missing the whole point. The Bible is the Old and New Testaments. The idea "an eye for an eye" does not come from the Bible, as the New Testament quite clearly states that Jesus fulfilled and replaced the law and that you now should "turn the other cheek."

This retribution is related to and partly derived from Mosaic law, but the Bible does not promote Mosaic Law since the coming of Jesus, which was the point of Don't Hurt Me's post.

[EricNau]

The Bible is the Old and New Testaments. The idea "an eye for an eye" does not come from the Bible, as the New Testament quite clearly states that Jesus fulfilled and replaced the law and that you now should "turn the other cheek."
That would be the Christian Bible. The Jewish Bible doesn't contain Jesus' said fulfillment.

[Macaddicttt]

That would be the Christian Bible. The Jewish Bible doesn't contain Jesus' said fulfillment.

True, but the name "Bible" really is only correct when talking about the Christian Bible. The correct term is "Tanakh" or "Masoretic Text." What you said is pretty akin to saying, "The Muslim Bible doesn't contain Jesus' fulfillment." The only difference is that referring to the Tanakh as the "Jewish Bible" is more common than referring to the Koran as the "Muslim Bible" because we grew up in a Christian environment where "bible" = religious book. However, "The Bible" is the Christian Bible.

EDIT: Well, I did some more research. The term "Jewish Bible" is debatable.

[zap2]

You are aware that you country still puts it's own citizens to death, aren't you? Also Barbaric, don't you think?



Yes, yes it is...but you act as though the US governments actions(which I disagree with) somehow make it ok to do this....two rights make a wrong now?

[skunk]

Yes, yes it is...but you act as though the US governments actions(which I disagree with) somehow make it ok to do this....two rights make a wrong now?I believe the point was about the hypocrisy, not the justification.

[Macky-Mac]

I believe the point was about the hypocrisy, not the justification.

well, one can be a hypocrite and still be right

[CalBoy]

well, one can be a hypocrite and still be right

Yes, but it doesn't solve the problem of being wrong about the first issue.

Iran is wrong to allow this sentence as much as the US and the 38 states which practice the death penalty are wrong to use it.

Us pointing to the Iranians from our high horse only magnifies our own stupidity.

[mgguy]

Iran is wrong to allow this sentence as much as the US and the 38 states which practice the death penalty are wrong to use it.



What is your reference point for considering this as being "wrong?" A religious belief, personal conviction, ... ? The courts have upheld the legality of capital punishment in the US, so it can't be a legal constraint.

[NoSmokingBandit]

Oh, really?


Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_eye_for_an_eye)

Or do you use a "different" bible?

OT = not relevant today. Jesus showed up at the party and said that OT law doesnt mean anything anymore, thus "an eye for an eye" is no longer a Biblical law but is the law of whoever decides to enforce it.

[CalBoy]

What is your reference point for considering this as being "wrong?" A religious belief, personal conviction, ... ? The courts have upheld the legality of capital punishment in the US, so it can't be a legal constraint.

I find it hard to believe that you can execute anyone without inflicting cruel and unusual punishment.

Even if the procedure itself is flawless (which even lethal injection, largely considered the least painful, cannot promise all the time), the simple fact of knowing that one is going to die instills psychological torture of the highest magnitude.

Death row inmates have a suicide rate that is 6 times higher than the standard prisoner, and nearly 13 times higher than the population in general. If this doesn't speak to psychological torture, I don't know what does.

The courts have upheld their legality, but are gradually shrinking the pool of acceptable candidates for the death penalty. And let's not forget that the death penalty has not been free from dissent. The courts have generally upheld the death penalty by fairly thin margins.

Edit: I've created a thread on the death penalty so we don't take this thread off topic. :)

[Macky-Mac]

Yes, but it doesn't solve the problem of being wrong about the first issue.

Iran is wrong to allow this sentence as much as the US and the 38 states which practice the death penalty are wrong to use it.

Us pointing to the Iranians from our high horse only magnifies our own stupidity.

yeah but is there any relationship between the two? one wrong, another wrong........is there some relationship or connection between the two? Or are you simply telling us that only people who never screw up are allowed to criticize or comment when other people do something wrong?

[EricNau]

OT = not relevant today. Jesus showed up at the party and said that OT law doesnt mean anything anymore, thus "an eye for an eye" is no longer a Biblical law but is the law of whoever decides to enforce it.
According to your beliefs and interpretations of the Bible. Others, namely Jewish sects, disagree and maintain the Old Testament as relevant and having authority today.

[CalBoy]

yeah but is there any relationship between the two? one wrong, another wrong........is there some relationship or connection between the two? Or are you simply telling us that only people who never screw up are allowed to criticize or comment when other people do something wrong?

No, I'm not saying that others can't comment because no one would ever be able to criticize then.

If, however, we take away nothing from this for our own advancement, then it is all in vein and we are no better than they are because we too won't learn from our mistakes.

[Cave Man]

OT = not relevant today. Jesus showed up at the party and said that OT law doesnt mean anything anymore, thus "an eye for an eye" is no longer a Biblical law but is the law of whoever decides to enforce it.

So, that means I can:

1. Pray to other gods.
2. Become a (Billy) idol.
3. Use God's name in vain.
4. Party on Sunday's (NFL, here I come!).
5. Kill all those people who offend me.
6. Take whatever I want from anyone I want.
7. Tell my parents off.
8. Lie and cheat so I can get ahead in the company.
9. Screw my neighbors' wives.
10. Get it on with their pets.

Whoo-hoo! I'm becoming a Christian! Let the partyin' begin!

[imac/cheese]

So, that means I can:

1. Pray to other gods.
2. Become a (Billy) idol.
3. Use God's name in vain.
4. Party on Sunday's (NFL, here I come!).
5. Kill all those people who offend me.
6. Take whatever I want from anyone I want.
7. Tell my parents off.
8. Lie and cheat so I can get ahead in the company.
9. Screw my neighbors' wives.
10. Get it on with their pets.

Whoo-hoo! I'm becoming a Christian! Let the partyin' begin!

Not quite. Jesus replaced the law with the following Mark 12:

"The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

Other than singing "Eyes without a Face", the other 9 things you stated you could do, don't really go along with what Jesus taught.

[jonbravo77]

I'll be the odd man out here and say that I am glad that the "eye for an eye" practice happens in some circumstances. I think that criminals actually get a bit of a luxury in this day and age. Maybe if they experienced the pain they have inflicted then it might, just might cause others to think... Just my opinion though.

[NoSmokingBandit]

Not quite. Jesus replaced the law with the following Mark 12:

"The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

Other than singing "Eyes without a Face", the other 9 things you stated you could do, don't really go along with what Jesus taught.

Word.

Jesus didnt say the complete opposite of the OT law, which can be hard to understand Cave Man, so ill speak slowly. He established a new law (thus New testament) which is based on one principal: Love. Love God. Love Man. If you do that you wont be stealing/cursing god/lying/cheating/etc...

[freeny]

I'll be the odd man out here and say that I am glad that the "eye for an eye" practice happens in some circumstances. I think that criminals actually get a bit of a luxury in this day and age. Maybe if they experienced the pain they have inflicted then it might, just might cause others to think... Just my opinion though.

In this case I will agree with you. did you see the before and after pictures?
they are painful to look at.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/19/acid.attack.victim/index.html

[floyde]

Word.

Jesus didnt say the complete opposite of the OT law, which can be hard to understand Cave Man, so ill speak slowly. He established a new law (thus New testament) which is based on one principal: Love. Love God. Love Man. If you do that you wont be stealing/cursing god/lying/cheating/etc...

He might have changed his name, but it's still supposed to be the same God. I wonder why he didn't get it right the first time, though. Changing one's absolute mind seems somewhat ungodlike to me.

[jonbravo77]

In this case I will agree with you. did you see the before and after pictures?
they are painful to look at.

I saw them briefly on CNN. Link didn't work BTW

[freeny]

I saw them briefly on CNN. Link didn't work BTW

fixed
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/19/acid.attack.victim/index.html

[imac/cheese]

He might have changed his name, but it's still supposed to be the same God. I wonder why he didn't get it right the first time, though. Changing one's absolute mind seems somewhat ungodlike to me.

It is not a changing of the mind. The Law written down in the old testament was fulfilled by Jesus' sacrifice. A lot of the levitical law is about becoming clean and purification, and His blood cleansed what was before considered unclean. The Old Testament Law is not inconsistent with the New Law established by Jesus. It is just that certain aspects of the old law are no longer needed because of what Jesus has done.

[floyde]

It is not a changing of the mind. The Law written down in the old testament was fulfilled by Jesus' sacrifice. A lot of the levitical law is about becoming clean and purification, and His blood cleansed what was before considered unclean. The Old Testament Law is not inconsistent with the New Law established by Jesus. It is just that certain aspects of the old law are no longer needed because of what Jesus has done.

Hmm well, I still personally feel that it's a lot of unnecessary suspense and theatricality. Being omnipotent, he could've surely made all of that right from the beginning, without first needing purification and then canceling that by means of self-sacrifice. Did he really need to let his own son (who is also himself) go through all that? Couldn't he just have said "let it be X way" as he usually did back in Genesis?

[imac/cheese]

Hmm well, I still personally feel that it's a lot of unnecessary suspense and theatricality. Being omnipotent, he could've surely made all of that right from the beginning, without first needing purification and then canceling that by means of self-sacrifice. Did he really need to let his own son (who is also himself) go through all that? Couldn't he just have said "let it be X way" as he usually did back in Genesis?

He did make it all right from the beginning. But then Adam and Eve thought they had a better way than God's way and sin entered into the world. The entire old testament (from the story of Abraham and Isaac to the story of Joseph through all the histories and prophets) points towards Jesus and his sacrifice for the sins of man. Did God have to do it that way? No, of course not, but the entire story of man's fall and eventual redemption is an amazing example of God's love.

[freeny]

Hmm well, I still personally feel that it's a lot of unnecessary suspense and theatricality. Being omnipotent, he could've surely made all of that right from the beginning, without first needing purification and then canceling that by means of self-sacrifice. Did he really need to let his own son (who is also himself) go through all that? Couldn't he just have said "let it be X way" as he usually did back in Genesis?

Yes, but that would require logic, and the Bible is the furthest thing from logical.
And you cant have a debate with something that doesn't contain logic....

[floyde]

He did make it all right from the beginning. But then Adam and Eve thought they had a better way than God's way and sin entered into the world. The entire old testament (from the story of Abraham and Isaac to the story of Joseph through all the histories and prophets) points towards Jesus and his sacrifice for the sins of man. Did God have to do it that way? No, of course not, but the entire story of man's fall and eventual redemption is an amazing example of God's love.

Once again I feel a lot unnecessary suspense :o. I personally would've told Adam and Eve: "aw you guys screwed up, let's try that again because I love you :)" and then I wouldn't let all of their descendants share the blame for something which they didn't do. It seems like a lot of drama to wait until Jesus. Lol, but anyway, I guess this is the point where we get no further. This is just my point of view.

[imac/cheese]

Yes, but that would require logic, and the Bible is the furthest thing from logical.
And you cant have a debate with something that doesn't contain logic....

Floyde and I have had quite a few debates/discussions about the Bible. Your dismissal of the Bible as something unworthy of debate shows me that you are not really interested in debating or discussing the Bible but instead simply insulting it.

[freeny]

Floyde and I have had quite a few debates/discussions about the Bible. Your dismissal of the Bible as something unworthy of debate shows me that you are not really interested in debating or discussing the Bible but instead simply insulting it.

Nowhere did I say it was an unworthy debate.

I was only pointing out that Floyde was asking a logical question about an illogical writing.
Expecting a logical answer is a bit silly dont you think?
Or do you believe the Bible is logical?

[imac/cheese]

Once again I feel a lot unnecessary suspense :o. I personally would've told Adam and Eve: "aw you guys screwed up, let's try that again because I love you :)" and then I wouldn't let all of their descendants share the blame for something which they didn't do. It seems like a lot of drama to wait until Jesus. Lol, but anyway, I guess this is the point where we get no further. This is just my point of view.


Man has been screwing it up and rejecting God ever since. Adam and Eve were just the first to reject God, but every peson (except Jesus) since then has done it too. I guess that God knew what was going to happen (being all knowing) and knew that man would reject Him so he allowed it to happen. This way he can make a demonstration of His continued love for us and create a relationship with those of us that want to follow Him.


I understand your feelings. I often feel the same way and ask myself, "Why did God do things in this way and why is it so hard for me to understand sometimes." But the more I obey what I do understand, the more understanding God gives to me.

Nowhere did I say it was an unworthy debate.

I was only pointing out that Floyde was asking a logical question about an illogical writing.
Expecting a logical answer is a bit silly dont you think?
Or do you believe the Bible is logical?

I do believe the Bible is logical in many ways, but in others is goes against common logic. The Bible even acknowledges this in 1 Corinthians Chapter 1 when Paul writes about the "foolishness of god" being nonsense to man. It is really a great chapter.

[floyde]

I understand your feelings. I often feel the same way and ask myself, "Why did God do things in this way and why is it so hard for me to understand sometimes." But the more I obey what I do understand, the more understanding God gives to me.

Well I guess for me it's the opposite. These were some of the many questions I asked myself, which led me to become an atheist. The more of them I answered, the more I was convinced about a man-made origin for the notion of God and, eventually, all of the supernatural.

[freeny]

I do believe the Bible is logical in many ways, but in others is goes against common logic. The Bible even acknowledges this in 1 Corinthians Chapter 1 when Paul writes about the "foolishness of god" being nonsense to man. It is really a great chapter.

Well, there you have it ;)

[skunk]

He did make it all right from the beginning. But then Adam and Eve thought they had a better way than God's way and sin entered into the world. The entire old testament (from the story of Abraham and Isaac to the story of Joseph through all the histories and prophets) points towards Jesus and his sacrifice for the sins of man. Did God have to do it that way? No, of course not, but the entire story of man's fall and eventual redemption is an amazing example of God's love.Let's face facts here: the OT was only included in the Christian Bible as a kind of prequel because Jesus was said to have fulfilled its prophecies.

[imac/cheese]

Let's face facts here: the OT was only included in the Christian Bible as a kind of prequel because Jesus was said to have fulfilled its prophecies.

The entire OT is filled with foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Jesus. The Jews of that time had a completely different image of what the Messiah was going to be like, but looking back through the scripture with hindsight and knowledge of the NT, it is quite clear that Jesus fulfilled not only the prophesies, but also aligned so perfectly with so many of the OT stories. The OT is in the Christian Bible because it is the beginning of one continuous narrative from creation to eternity. Jesus and the majority of the writers of the NT were Jews who followed the OT. It is essential to the Christian faith.

[EricNau]

The Jews of that time had a completely different image of what the Messiah was going to be like, but looking back through the scripture with hindsight and knowledge of the NT, it is quite clear that Jesus fulfilled not only the prophesies, but also aligned so perfectly with so many of the OT stories.
Sounds a lot like Nostradamus, no? A failure to make proper predictions, but manipulate events after they occur to fulfill the prophesy. It's the scientific method in reverse.

[skunk]

Jesus and the majority of the writers of the NT were Jews who followed the OT. It is essential to the Christian faith.On the contrary, if Jesus replaced the Ten Commandments with his Two, it renders the OT entirely irrelevant.

[iJohnHenry]

I can accept the two, as long a "love" of God is not usurped for use by others.

#2 is a given, and covers all of the original 10. I also accept this precept in my life.

[skunk]

#2 is a givenand has been promulgated by almost every self-respecting philosopher since the Big Bang. You do not need to be a Christian to follow the Golden Rule.

[iJohnHenry]

and has been promulgated by almost every self-respecting philosopher since the Big Bang. You do not need to be a Christian to follow the Golden Rule.

Excellent, no "over-head". http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/j54.gif

[NoSmokingBandit]

Sounds a lot like Nostradamus, no? A failure to make proper predictions, but manipulate events after they occur to fulfill the prophesy. It's the scientific method in reverse.

I think you misunderstood him. The Bible makes proper predictions about Christ, but due to the Jewish preconceptions that Jesus was going to be a cross between the terminator and chuck norris they didnt believe it was him. He was saying that the OT is believed by christians, and not jews, because we can now look at what happened and see that the prophecies were fulfilled because we arent too busy looking for a jesus that will overthrow the roman empire.

[floyde]

I think you misunderstood him. The Bible makes proper predictions about Christ, but due to the Jewish preconceptions that Jesus was going to be a cross between the terminator and chuck norris they didnt believe it was him. He was saying that the OT is believed by christians, and not jews, because we can now look at what happened and see that the prophecies were fulfilled because we arent too busy looking for a jesus that will overthrow the roman empire.

I think what he means is that, it could've been way too easy for the Gospel authors to adjust their writings to make it seem as though the prophecies were fulfilled.

[zap2]

She said it wasn't for revenge...please! Don't lie right to me!

[NoSmokingBandit]

I think what he means is that, it could've been way too easy for the Gospel authors to adjust their writings to make it seem as though the prophecies were fulfilled.

You do realize that most of the authors of the OT will have been dead for quite some time before Jesus even showed up, right?

[QCassidy352]

A better solution is to have this fool have to support this person the rest of his life, along with prison time and maybe a asskicking or two.

Agreed. That would actually be productive.

What a remarkable coincidence then, that both Islamic and Mosaic law should call for "an eye for an eye".

"An eye for an eye" is one of the most misunderstood passages in the bible. It's not a call to revenge - it's a restraint on revenge. It used to be that an insult or a harm to one member of a family or tribe could and often would lead to all-out warfare, and the desire for revenge would result in an astronomical escalation in the violence. "An eye for an eye" is a modification of that old way of doing things - it LIMITS the revenge to the same harm that was originally done, at MOST.

I'll be the odd man out here and say that I am glad that the "eye for an eye" practice happens in some circumstances. I think that criminals actually get a bit of a luxury in this day and age. Maybe if they experienced the pain they have inflicted then it might, just might cause others to think... Just my opinion though.

You're not thinking about this from the perspective of the perpetrator here. He said he did this because he "loved her." He loved her so he threw acid in her face? And you think that the threat of a harsh punishment is going to deter this guy, or people like him?

Most criminals either aren't rational actors (like this guy) or think they're going to get away with it. Studies have shown that if the perceived chance of getting away with a crime is high enough, increasing the severity of the punishment is all but irrelevant to deterrence.

She said it wasn't for revenge...please! Don't lie right to me!

Agreed. If this were about preventing him from hurting others then imprisoning him for life would be far more effective. She wants him to suffer as she's suffered.

And you know what? If I were in her position, maybe I would too. But the law is supposed to be better than that. The law is supposed to be rational and just, not a manifestation of individual rage.

[floyde]

You do realize that most of the authors of the OT will have been dead for quite some time before Jesus even showed up, right?

Yes but I'm talking about NT authors. If I wanted to make it seem like some character which I'm writing about fulfilled a certain prophesy, all I have to do is read that prophesy and add the necessary events to my writings.

For instance, if there were a prophesy about a Messiah who would have an accident with a horse, and I wanted people to believe that JFK was the Messiah, I could simply fake an event in my JFK biography and claim that he indeed fell off a horse when he was young.

In other words, we don't know if Jesus actually did any of the things that would've fulfilled the prophecies. Gospel authors could've basically written anything that they wished (they could've added all the details necessary to fulfill the prophesy, for example). So it all boils down to whether we trust them or not. I for one see no reason to deem them reliable.

[Gelfin]

Yes but I'm talking about NT authors. If I wanted to make it seem like some character which I'm writing about fulfilled a certain prophesy, all I have to do is read that prophesy and add the necessary events to my writings.

For instance, if there were a prophesy about a Messiah who would have an accident with a horse, and I wanted people to believe that JFK was the Messiah, I could simply fake an event in my JFK biography and claim that he indeed fell off a horse when he was young.

In other words, we don't know if Jesus actually did any of the things that would've fulfilled the prophecies. Gospel authors could've basically written anything that they wished (they could've added all the details necessary to fulfill the prophesy, for example). So it all boils down to whether we trust them or not. I for one see no reason to deem them reliable.

This is particularly true if you were, say, trying to build an organized religious movement by compiling your "gospels" out of multiple versions of fragmentary writings and oral tradition that circulated for at least 70 years after the death and/or "ascension" of its central figure.

[imac/cheese]

On the contrary, if Jesus replaced the Ten Commandments with his Two, it renders the OT entirely irrelevant.

The two included all ten. Loving God includes the first four. Loving your neighbor includes the last six.

Yes but I'm talking about NT authors. If I wanted to make it seem like some character which I'm writing about fulfilled a certain prophesy, all I have to do is read that prophesy and add the necessary events to my writings.

For instance, if there were a prophesy about a Messiah who would have an accident with a horse, and I wanted people to believe that JFK was the Messiah, I could simply fake an event in my JFK biography and claim that he indeed fell off a horse when he was young.

In other words, we don't know if Jesus actually did any of the things that would've fulfilled the prophecies. Gospel authors could've basically written anything that they wished (they could've added all the details necessary to fulfill the prophesy, for example). So it all boils down to whether we trust them or not. I for one see no reason to deem them reliable.

Why do you think the NT writers would want to fake Jesus' divinity? These people were risking their lives by being Christians and they really must have believed that Christ was the Messiah or they wouldn't have continued following Him unto their deaths. I guess they could have been fooling themselves to solidify their beliefs and comfort themselves that what they believed was actually true.

This is particularly true if you were, say, trying to build an organized religious movement by compiling your "gospels" out of multiple versions of fragmentary writings and oral tradition that circulated for at least 70 years after the death and/or "ascension" of its central figure.

The multiple versions of fragmentary writings that we have discovered in various locations from different times are extremely consistent with each other.

[floyde]

Why do you think the NT writers would want to fake Jesus' divinity?

Well there are many possible reasons. It's not uncommon for people to exploit people's supernatural beliefs in order to cheat them out of their savings. It is also not uncommon for people to be intellectually dishonest and manipulate data to support their beliefs. There are many possible reasons, and I don't claim to know if any of them in fact happened in this case. But since there are countless earthly explanations, I feel it's a bit premature to jump straight to the supernatural one.

Think about something very important, though. Think about the Qur'an, the Vedas, Dianetics, the Book of Mormon, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, etc. Why don't you believe in them? Well why should you? It's imaginary stuff written by unknown people. Even if we knew anything significant about them, even if we could verify that they thought they were telling the truth. Who is to say that they were not mistaken? (Only one of them can be true and, then again, all of them could be false) Hearsay is never a good reason to believe in anything.

(*Mormons, remove the Book of Mormon from that list, and the same question applies)

I'm sure that if you made a list of the reasons you have for not believing in each of those texts, you would find that they also apply to the Bible. I suggest that the reason why you think the Bible is the exception to this, is a purely contextual one. If you had been exposed to a different cultural context, we might be discussing the Qur'an instead, and so forth.

These people were risking their lives by being Christians and they really must have believed that Christ was the Messiah or they wouldn't have continued following Him unto their deaths.

I don't know if there was much persecution at this very early stage of Christianity (I mean that matter-of-factly, I'm not acquainted with the subject :o), but even if there were, they could've still truly believed that Jesus was the Messiah. That in no way proves that he was, or rules out the possibility that Gospel authors added this stuff purposely. Besides, they were compiling hearsay, none of them were eyewitnesses. It's not hard to imagine how a story like this could've been augmented with legendary elements after several re-tellings; such things have happened countless times throughout history. In fact, I would be surprised if it didn't happen that way.

If the actual reason turned out to be their own personal gain, then it's not that hard to imagine them risking their lives for it. Much like drug dealers today, the benefits of their "enterprises" highly outweigh the risks (for these people).

I guess they could have been fooling themselves to solidify their beliefs and comfort themselves that what they believed was actually true.


Exactly.

[imac/cheese]

Well there are many possible reasons. It's not uncommon for people to exploit people's supernatural beliefs in order to cheat them out of their savings. It is also not uncommon for people to be intellectually dishonest and manipulate data to support their beliefs. There are many possible reasons, and I don't claim to know if any of them in fact happened in this case. But since there are countless earthly explanations, I feel it's a bit premature to jump straight to the supernatural one.

From what we know, the early Christians were not worried about money. They believed that the Lord would take care of them. They left on journeys without provision knowing that the people the taught would provide for them. The early christians also shared all of their money with each other. I do not see any justification of exploiting people to get their savings. People might make stuff up to support their beliefs but normally they are not willing to die for those beliefs if they know the evidence is lacking or that they had to make stuff up to make it believable. I might be able to see that early christians looked through rose-colored glasses when examining their beliefs.


I don't know if there was much persecution at this very early stage of Christianity (I mean that matter-of-factly, I'm not acquainted with the subject :o), but even if there were, they could've still truly believed that Jesus was the Messiah. That in no way proves that he was, or rules out the possibility that Gospel authors added this stuff purposely. Besides, they were compiling hearsay, none of them were eyewitnesses. It's not hard to imagine how a story like this could've been augmented with legendary elements after several re-tellings; such things have happened countless times throughout history. In fact, I would be surprised if it didn't happen that way.

There was quite a bit of persecution of the early Christians. Saul of Tarsis (Later known as Paul) was one of the Jews that hunted down Christians and killed them. The Christians believed in some things that were very blasphemous to the Jews. For Jesus to claim to be god, was something that really riled them up. The romans also persecuted the Christians on everything from being troublemakers to cannibals (this is my body...this is my blood...). Almost every one of the early church leaders ended up being executed for their faith. Paul and Peter were supposedly executed in Rome. Peter was crucified and Paul was beheaded (he was a roman citizen). James was executed by Herrod Agrippa I. Andrew was reported to have been crucified. James Alpheus was supposedly stoned to death after being thrown off a tower. Stephen was stoned to death. John was exiled to Patmos. Luke was hung in Greece.

I am not sure what you mean by saying none of them were eyewitnesses. Peter, Matthew, James, Jude, and John were all eyewitnesses. Mark wrote down the stories he was told by Peter. Luke wrote down the stories he was told by Paul and Peter. The Gospels were written by two eye witnesses and two people who were closely associated with the eyewitnesses. Paul was accepted as an apostle even though he didn't meet Jesus before the crucification. We believe he met Jesus on the road to Damascus.

You are right that normally legendary elements would be added to the stories, but in the case of the Bible, there is no evidence of the stories being elaborated upon. Nearly every copy of the early writings that we have discovered is identical to other copies independent of their location and date of origin. If the stories were re-told, augmented, and then written down, there would be considerable differences in versions found in different regions and from different times.

If the actual reason turned out to be their own personal gain, then it's not that hard to imagine them risking their lives for it. Much like drug dealers today, the benefits of their "enterprises" highly outweigh the risks (for these people).

Again, I do not see a personal gain in their manipulating the stories.

[floyde]

From what we know, the early Christians were not worried about money. They believed that the Lord would take care of them. They left on journeys without provision knowing that the people the taught would provide for them. The early christians also shared all of their money with each other. I do not see any justification of exploiting people to get their savings.

So they sort of depended on that to make a living. Either way, history is not accurate enough for us to know what earlier people felt or thought. We don't know for sure that these people were capable or incapable of fabricating the story of Jesus' divinity. Therefore that possibility must remain open always. As a skeptic, I must doubt these people's credibility for the simple fact that I can't possibly know their motives and that they're making extraordinary claims based on zero evidence.

Believing that these people were writing factual accounts seems, IMHO, to require some sort of circular validation such as:

- Jesus was God.
- These people believed in Jesus therefore they must've been honest.
- Therefore they were writing the truth.

But if we start the proper way:

- We don't know if God exists, much less that Jesus was God.
- There's this group of people, which we know little about, who claim that a Jesus of Nazareth was God.
- (Insert process to validate group's claims)

Why o why? I ask, must we believe these people at all? Why not believe everybody else who claimed something similar? What about the people who wrote about Muhammad? What's the difference between those people and the early Christians?

People might make stuff up to support their beliefs but normally they are not willing to die for those beliefs if they know the evidence is lacking or that they had to make stuff up to make it believable. I might be able to see that early christians looked through rose-colored glasses when examining their beliefs.


Maybe they just didn't think they would get caught, or maybe they were willing to die for the things which they actually believed, even if they had to make other stuff up to get more people to join them.


There was quite a bit of persecution of the early Christians.

Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that they believed enough to risk their lives has no bearing on whether they made up some or all of the elements of their writings.


I am not sure what you mean by saying none of them were eyewitnesses.


Well I'm basing this mostly on what is shown in this graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_of_the_Bible) (at the bottom). In recent times the identity of the authors of the gospels seems to be in dispute.


You are right that normally legendary elements would be added to the stories, but in the case of the Bible, there is no evidence of the stories being elaborated upon. Nearly every copy of the early writings that we have discovered is identical to other copies independent of their location and date of origin. If the stories were re-told, augmented, and then written down, there would be considerable differences in versions found in different regions and from different times.

There are considerable differences between the Gospels themselves. The legendary elements are usually added orally before there is a written copy (once it is written, a story can be copied with much higher fidelity).

Again, I do not see a personal gain in their manipulating the stories.

But personal gain is only one of the many possibilities. Hundreds of holy books have been written, only one can be true, all of them can be false. Think of all the reasons why these books were written and honestly tell me if you can't fathom the same being true about the Bible.

[Dont Hurt Me]

$$$ its a big business. Now throw in power and control over others. Irresistible. All religions have these 3 things.

[Counterfit]

Think about... Dianetics... Why don't you believe in them? Well why should you? It's imaginary stuff written by unknown people.
Dianetics was written by L. Ron Hubbard. Not exactly unknown. ;)

[floyde]

Dianetics was written by L. Ron Hubbard. Not exactly unknown. ;)

Oops sorry, and Joseph Smith was also known :o. What I mean is that not many believers knew them personally, so they're not really qualified to judge them as reliable. Besides, even if they were honest, it's clear that only one of them could've been right, the rest surely were victims of a misapprehension.

[TheQuestion]

All of this thinking is much older than Biblical Law or Mosaic law. Gotta go back much further. The thinking likely predates Hammurabi as he incorporated it into his laws around 1800-1700 BC.

196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. [ An eye for an eye ]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.html

It's been a point of justice for at least as long as 4000 years...I don't expect it to go away soon.