Let's discuss a parable 3)- The two debtors

[Symmetry]

As always, the disclaimer that I'm an atheist. Previous threads in the series Here and Here.

The parable for this thread refers to Luke 7 36-50. regarding the parable of the two debtors (KJV):

Spoiler

36 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.
37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?
43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.
45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.
47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Personally, this is one of the toughest parables for me to accept. I generally take it as suggesting that there's a greater virtue relating to the thing you're forgiving. There's also the other side, though, that repayment can be in small acts, but a little complicated by the kissing the feet bit. Thoughts?

[jonesthecurl]

I'm not sure the event which sparks the story ismeant to be a parable.
To make your question clear, you have to tell the readers which bit you consider a parable. If only to reassure us that you know what a parable is.
No, this is not sarcasm, just a request for clarification.

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure the event which sparks the story ismeant to be a parable.
To make your question clear, you have to tell the readers which bit you consider a parable. If only to reassure us that you know what a parable is.
No, this is not sarcasm, just a request for clarification.

Fair enough, the parable is the bit about the two debtors. Probably should have made that clearer in the OP. As with previous threads I made on parables, the context is pretty key.

[safariguy5]

If I'm reading the passage correctly, I believe the woman is like the person who owed 500 coins and the man who invited Jesus in is like the person who owed only 50.

I see it as there being two viewpoints here. The first viewpoint is of the creditor (Jesus/God). In the creditor's mind, the debt is forgiven, so no matter the amount, the creditor will love both debtors equally. Sort of like going back to the workers in the vineyard.

The second viewpoint is from the debtor's perspective. If you're the debtor who only owed 50, then you'll be grateful but you won't show a lot of gratitude. If you're the debtor who owed 500, then you'll be really grateful and show a lot more gratitude.

By the way, I really enjoy these discussions.

[2dimes]

It really shows how different the culture is from our's.

[Symmetry]

If I'm reading the passage correctly, I believe the woman is like the person who owed 500 coins and the man who invited Jesus in is like the person who owed only 50.

I see it as there being two viewpoints here. The first viewpoint is of the creditor (Jesus/God). In the creditor's mind, the debt is forgiven, so no matter the amount, the creditor will love both debtors equally. Sort of like going back to the workers in the vineyard.

The second viewpoint is from the debtor's perspective. If you're the debtor who only owed 50, then you'll be grateful but you won't show a lot of gratitude. If you're the debtor who owed 500, then you'll be really grateful and show a lot more gratitude.

By the way, I really enjoy these discussions.

Thanks, I'm glad- I learn a lot of stuff from them. This is probably one of the toughest for me to understand. Jesus seems to say that both debts are equally forgiven, but also seems to praise the person who literally kisses his feet over his host.

If both are equally forgiven, why should one be better, or worse?

[2dimes]

The kissing is a really huge part of this one but even if you go hang around the middle east and watch guys kissing each other in plutonic greeting you probably still won't understand it.

[Symmetry]

The kissing is a really huge part of this one but even if you go hang around the middle east and watch guys kissing each other in plutonic greeting you probably still won't understand it.

Very possible. The past is a foreign country after all. I was looking at a few French sources from the 17th century for my research a few months ago, and they spoke about the habit of English men to kiss each other full on the mouth in greeting. Now, of course, kissing is a more French thing, albeit on the cheek.

[patches70]

In those days there were certain customs to be followed. Simon invited Jesus to dinner as he wanted to speak with him.

In these instances, the invited guest would have been greeted by a kiss, his feet washed and his head anointed with oil. This is the hosts obligation. Simon should have kissed Jesus on the cheek in greeting, one of Simon's servants (or Simon himself) should have washed Jesus' feet and anointed his head with oil. That was the custom on how to treat an invited guest. Simon did none of these things, though he invited Jesus and certainly wanted to speak and meet with him.

The woman was already there, waiting. She was a woman of...questionable circumstances. Maybe she was a harlot, a sinner of ill repute obviously though we don't really know what her sins were. Only that she was not the most respectable person.

The woman did not dare kiss Jesus. That is her own self image that prevented her from doing so. Humility I suppose. But she saw that Jesus did not have his feet washed and his head anointed with oil as was custom, so she did it. She had assumed that Jesus would have been greeted such. She brought the perfume and was hoping that would be enough for some grace.

She noticed that Jesus' feet had not been washed and she wept. She had brought no water, no basin, no towel. She had thought those things would have been done already as was custom. So her tears washed Jesus' feet and she used her own hair to dry them as she had no towel. That was how happy and glad she was.

Simon was happy to see Jesus as well. Simon invited Jesus, the woman upon hearing that Jesus would be there, traveled there in the hopes to maybe see Jesus and be forgiven for her sins. Simon had a feast ready for Jesus as a show of his gratitude. Thus, both were the debtors, both wanted Jesus' company and Jesus obliged them both.

By understanding the customs of the day you should now see the context of Jesus' rebuke of Simon. The cost to Simon was a simple invite and a meal. The woman on the other hand, her cost was humility as she kissed Jesus' dirty feet. Washed the dust with her own tears. A jar of expensive perfume. An even greater cost to the woman was the scorn and ill looks from the Pharisee, a scorn that Jesus did not have.

Imagine going to a place where you are going to be despised by all there. How uncomfortable it would be to you. The woman dealt with that just for a chance to see Jesus. A chance to be saved and Jesus (the creditor) allowed it.

Simon on the other hand, wanted to learn about Jesus. To learn if he really was a Prophet. Simon was cordial. He was logical in his thought process as he contemplated Jesus' treatment of the woman. Simon concluded that Jesus must not be a Prophet since he didn't seem to know the nature of the woman who washed his feet. Jesus knew (or guessed) what Simon was thinking and thus explained the truth to him in verses 40-47. A man like Simon would never have allowed the woman to touch him.

Jesus explained that those who are forgiven the most then love the most.

Where Simon would have cast out the woman but Jesus showed him that she had outdone him. Simon didn't follow his own customs of hospitality. The woman for being such a great "sinner" (in Simon's eyes), she showed the most respect for the very foundation of the customs that Simon should have held to.

Does any of that make sense? Or did I muck up the explanation?

[Symmetry]

In those days there were certain customs to be followed. Simon invited Jesus to dinner as he wanted to speak with him.

In these instances, the invited guest would have been greeted by a kiss, his feet washed and his head anointed with oil. This is the hosts obligation. Simon should have kissed Jesus on the cheek in greeting, one of Simon's servants (or Simon himself) should have washed Jesus' feet and anointed his head with oil. That was the custom on how to treat an invited guest. Simon did none of these things, though he invited Jesus and certainly wanted to speak and meet with him.

The woman was already there, waiting. She was a woman of...questionable circumstances. Maybe she was a harlot, a sinner of ill repute obviously though we don't really know what her sins were. Only that she was not the most respectable person.

The woman did not dare kiss Jesus. That is her own self image that prevented her from doing so. Humility I suppose. But she saw that Jesus did not have his feet washed and his head anointed with oil as was custom, so she did it. She had assumed that Jesus would have been greeted such. She brought the perfume and was hoping that would be enough for some grace.

She noticed that Jesus' feet had not been washed and she wept. She had brought no water, no basin, no towel. She had thought those things would have been done already as was custom. So her tears washed Jesus' feet and she used her own hair to dry them as she had no towel. That was how happy and glad she was.

Simon was happy to see Jesus as well. Simon invited Jesus, the woman upon hearing that Jesus would be there, traveled there in the hopes to maybe see Jesus and be forgiven for her sins. Simon had a feast ready for Jesus as a show of his gratitude. Thus, both were the debtors, both wanted Jesus' company and Jesus obliged them both.

By understanding the customs of the day you should now see the context of Jesus' rebuke of Simon. The cost to Simon was a simple invite and a meal. The woman on the other hand, her cost was humility as she kissed Jesus' dirty feet. Washed the dust with her own tears. A jar of expensive perfume. An even greater cost to the woman was the scorn and ill looks from the Pharisee, a scorn that Jesus did not have.

Imagine going to a place where you are going to be despised by all there. How uncomfortable it would be to you. The woman dealt with that just for a chance to see Jesus. A chance to be saved and Jesus (the creditor) allowed it.

Simon on the other hand, wanted to learn about Jesus. To learn if he really was a Prophet. Simon was cordial. He was logical in his thought process as he contemplated Jesus' treatment of the woman. Simon concluded that Jesus must not be a Prophet since he didn't seem to know the nature of the woman who washed his feet. Jesus knew (or guessed) what Simon was thinking and thus explained the truth to him in verses 40-47. A man like Simon would never have allowed the woman to touch him.

Jesus explained that those who are forgiven the most then love the most.

Where Simon would have cast out the woman but Jesus showed him that she had outdone him. Simon didn't follow his own customs of hospitality. The woman for being such a great "sinner" (in Simon's eyes), she showed the most respect for the very foundation of the customs that Simon should have held to.

Does any of that make sense? Or did I muck up the explanation?

No need to worry- that was a great response. Thanks for taking time to post it.

[BigBallinStalin]

All debts will be forgiven; therefore, "borrow" as much as possible, enjoy it, then come running back when it all goes bad.

[the carpet man]

ha, bbs. it remind me of the parable of the two monkey. one is lazy, and sits around all of the rainy season eating fruit and scratching. at the same time the other monkey is working hard, growing food and storing water for the future.

then it is dry season. the lazy monkey has no water and no saved crop. he gets hungry and thirsty. the hard working monkey, at this time, is drinking his saved water and eating the crops he grew in rainy season. and maybe scratching.

at the end of the parable, the hard working monkey shares his crop with the lazy monkey out of kindness. the message of this can only be that the lazy and feckless will always be save by those who work, so why bother? it certainly does not show the importance of work for the future. silly parable yet told the world over.

[2dimes]

Does any of that make sense? Or did I muck up the explanation?

Looks pretty solid to me. I had to make an effort to slow down and read what you wrote as a whole. I was trying to jump to conclusions initially.

Jesus did point out at the end of the story that everyone percieved the woman's sin to be a greater debt, as it would have been obvious and quite public, while Simon was well known and percieved to be a rightious person. By our logical human standards she is forgiven for more and moved to do what she did.

[Symmetry]

ha, bbs. it remind me of the parable of the two monkey. one is lazy, and sits around all of the rainy season eating fruit and scratching. at the same time the other monkey is working hard, growing food and storing water for the future.

then it is dry season. the lazy monkey has no water and no saved crop. he gets hungry and thirsty. the hard working monkey, at this time, is drinking his saved water and eating the crops he grew in rainy season. and maybe scratching.

at the end of the parable, the hard working monkey shares his crop with the lazy monkey out of kindness. the message of this can only be that the lazy and feckless will always be save by those who work, so why bother? it certainly does not show the importance of work for the future. silly parable yet told the world over.

Or perhaps that there's moral virtue in helping people even when they seem undeserving.

[patches70]

ha, bbs. it remind me of the parable of the two monkey. one is lazy, and sits around all of the rainy season eating fruit and scratching. at the same time the other monkey is working hard, growing food and storing water for the future.

then it is dry season. the lazy monkey has no water and no saved crop. he gets hungry and thirsty. the hard working monkey, at this time, is drinking his saved water and eating the crops he grew in rainy season. and maybe scratching.

at the end of the parable, the hard working monkey shares his crop with the lazy monkey out of kindness. the message of this can only be that the lazy and feckless will always be save by those who work, so why bother? it certainly does not show the importance of work for the future. silly parable yet told the world over.

Or perhaps that there's moral virtue in helping people even when they seem undeserving.

What is troubling to people like Simon in the story was that back in those days there were only two ways to deal with "sinners". You'd either kill them or cast them out. There was no forgiving, there was no redemption.

The Pharisees once determining that someone was a sinner, then that person was branded for life. And thus is why the Pharisees had such trouble with Jesus and understanding.
Jesus brought a new covenant. The Pharisees held to the old.

It is that hubris that perverts redemption. The old Catholic Church had the same problem, only the priests and bishops and Pope could interpret the word of God. All the serfs couldn't read let alone read the Bible (which was written in Latin) for themselves. The Pharisees, like the old Catholic Church, were the middle men.

Jesus explained that God is personal. That each can have a personal relationship with the Creator. Where the Pharisees and Popes of old would condemn sinners, Jesus taught that God loved the righteous and the sinner alike. Healthy people don't need a doctor, it's the sick that need the doctor. Just as the sinners need God.

The Pharisees and other religious leaders of the old days (and in these days as well in enough cases, sadly), presumed too much. Such power corrupts in itself until the supposedly "righteous" (in their own minds) justify casting out those they have declared sinners. They used their power and position to enrich themselves on the backs, blood and sweat of everyone else. Sound familiar?
God, as Jesus taught, had other ideas. It was a lesson that people like Simon had a hard time understanding but people like the unnamed woman in the parable understood.

[Symmetry]

ha, bbs. it remind me of the parable of the two monkey. one is lazy, and sits around all of the rainy season eating fruit and scratching. at the same time the other monkey is working hard, growing food and storing water for the future.

then it is dry season. the lazy monkey has no water and no saved crop. he gets hungry and thirsty. the hard working monkey, at this time, is drinking his saved water and eating the crops he grew in rainy season. and maybe scratching.

at the end of the parable, the hard working monkey shares his crop with the lazy monkey out of kindness. the message of this can only be that the lazy and feckless will always be save by those who work, so why bother? it certainly does not show the importance of work for the future. silly parable yet told the world over.

Or perhaps that there's moral virtue in helping people even when they seem undeserving.

What is troubling to people like Simon in the story was that back in those days there were only two ways to deal with "sinners". You'd either kill them or cast them out. There was no forgiving, there was no redemption.

The Pharisees once determining that someone was a sinner, then that person was branded for life. And thus is why the Pharisees had such trouble with Jesus and understanding.
Jesus brought a new covenant. The Pharisees held to the old.

It is that hubris that perverts redemption. The old Catholic Church had the same problem, only the priests and bishops and Pope could interpret the word of God. All the serfs couldn't read let alone read the Bible (which was written in Latin) for themselves. The Pharisees, like the old Catholic Church, were the middle men.

Jesus explained that God is personal. That each can have a personal relationship with the Creator. Where the Pharisees and Popes of old would condemn sinners, Jesus taught that God loved the righteous and the sinner alike. Healthy people don't need a doctor, it's the sick that need the doctor. Just as the sinners need God.

The Pharisees and other religious leaders of the old days (and in these days as well in enough cases, sadly), presumed too much. Such power corrupts in itself until the supposedly "righteous" (in their own minds) justify casting out those they have declared sinners. They used their power and position to enrich themselves on the backs, blood and sweat of everyone else. Sound familiar?
God, as Jesus taught, had other ideas. It was a lesson that people like Simon had a hard time understanding but people like the unnamed woman in the parable understood.

I'm not sure I'm entirely sold on the anti-Catholic bits of your post, but if you're genuinely interested in the how Christianity was practiced in the the middle ages, I can recommend a few good books.

[b.k. barunt]

I know you're well studied in 17th century literature Symmetry, but any books you recommend that disagree with Patches points on Catholicism would have to be Catholic propaganda, and a complete lie. During the Middle Ages it was a crime punishable by death to possess a copy of the Scriptures in the common tongue. The Bible lays waste to Roman Catholic tradition in numerous passages - I Timothy 4:1&2 refers to forbidding to marry (as priests for instance) and abstinence from meats (as in "Good Friday") as "doctrines of devils". Because of this and other passages the Catholic church could not have its parishioners reading the Bible for themselves. The Syllabus of Errors, a canonized document which i'm sure you're familiar with, declared a person in possession of a copy of the Scriptures in the common tongue to be "anathema" (accursed of God).

The main purpose of the Roman Catholic Church was not to spread the gospel of Jesus but to maintain power over the people. It wasn't until Vatican II that Catholics were allowed to read the Bible for themselves. Even the sermon in the church was done in Latin until then. Keep the people in darkness and ignorance and maintain their dependence on the priesthood. According to Hebrews chapter 10 there was no longer need for priests after Jesus offered the one perfect sacrifice for sin. The purpose of the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament was to offer sacrifices for sins. Once the perfect sacrifice had been made there was no longer any need for priests. Check any book of the New Testament and you'll find no record of any priests in the early church - only elders. The priesthood was a creation of the Roman Catholic Church, which was created by Constantine when he amalgamated Paganism and Christianity and declared it the new national religion.

I married into a Catholic family in south Louisiana in 1972, my wife having converted from Roman Catholicism to Biblical Christianity shortly before i met her. I wasn't familiar at all with Roman Catholicism and wanted to know if there really was a difference and so i studied the subject in depth for a good ten years - the more i studied the more horrified i was at the monstrosity of this pseudo-church. Robert Durant, one of the most respected historians of our time, said that Pope Innocent III (the man responsible for the Inquisitions) killed more Christians than all 10 Roman emporers who persecuted the church combined.

Believe me, Patches was rather subdued in his "anti-Catholic bits".

[AAFitz]

I know you're well studied in 17th century literature Symmetry, but any books you recommend that disagree with Patches points on Catholicism would have to be Catholic propaganda, and a complete lie. During the Middle Ages it was a crime punishable by death to possess a copy of the Scriptures in the common tongue. The Bible lays waste to Roman Catholic tradition in numerous passages - I Timothy 4:1&2 refers to forbidding to marry (as priests for instance) and abstinence from meats (as in "Good Friday") as "doctrines of devils". Because of this and other passages the Catholic church could not have its parishioners reading the Bible for themselves. The Syllabus of Errors, a canonized document which i'm sure you're familiar with, declared a person in possession of a copy of the Scriptures in the common tongue to be "anathema" (accursed of God).

The main purpose of the Roman Catholic Church was not to spread the gospel of Jesus but to maintain power over the people. It wasn't until Vatican II that Catholics were allowed to read the Bible for themselves. Even the sermon in the church was done in Latin until then. Keep the people in darkness and ignorance and maintain their dependence on the priesthood. According to Hebrews chapter 10 there was no longer need for priests after Jesus offered the one perfect sacrifice for sin. The purpose of the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament was to offer sacrifices for sins. Once the perfect sacrifice had been made there was no longer any need for priests. Check any book of the New Testament and you'll find no record of any priests in the early church - only elders. The priesthood was a creation of the Roman Catholic Church, which was created by Constantine when he amalgamated Paganism and Christianity and declared it the new national religion.

I married into a Catholic family in south Louisiana in 1972, my wife having converted from Roman Catholicism to Biblical Christianity shortly before i met her. I wasn't familiar at all with Roman Catholicism and wanted to know if there really was a difference and so i studied the subject in depth for a good ten years - the more i studied the more horrified i was at the monstrosity of this pseudo-church. Robert Durant, one of the most respected historians of our time, said that Pope Innocent III (the man responsible for the Inquisitions) killed more Christians than all 10 Roman emporers who persecuted the church combined.

Believe me, Patches was rather subdued in his "anti-Catholic bits".

So, what do you make of passages like these?:
And so there is no question, I ask with complete ignorance, and honest interest.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be cut off from their people
~Leviticus 20:18

People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God
~Leviticus 21:17-18

Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death
~Deuteronomy 13:5

The eating of fat is prohibited forever
~Leviticus 3:17

Entrance into the assembly of the Lord was granted only to those with complete testicles
~Deuteronomy 23:1

Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents
~Deuteronomy 21:18-21

False prophets are to be killed by their own parents
~Zechariah 13:3

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property
~Exodus 21:20-21

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives
~Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple
~Luke 14:26

[b.k. barunt]

I know you're well studied in 17th century literature Symmetry, but any books you recommend that disagree with Patches points on Catholicism would have to be Catholic propaganda, and a complete lie. During the Middle Ages it was a crime punishable by death to possess a copy of the Scriptures in the common tongue. The Bible lays waste to Roman Catholic tradition in numerous passages - I Timothy 4:1&2 refers to forbidding to marry (as priests for instance) and abstinence from meats (as in "Good Friday") as "doctrines of devils". Because of this and other passages the Catholic church could not have its parishioners reading the Bible for themselves. The Syllabus of Errors, a canonized document which i'm sure you're familiar with, declared a person in possession of a copy of the Scriptures in the common tongue to be "anathema" (accursed of God).

The main purpose of the Roman Catholic Church was not to spread the gospel of Jesus but to maintain power over the people. It wasn't until Vatican II that Catholics were allowed to read the Bible for themselves. Even the sermon in the church was done in Latin until then. Keep the people in darkness and ignorance and maintain their dependence on the priesthood. According to Hebrews chapter 10 there was no longer need for priests after Jesus offered the one perfect sacrifice for sin. The purpose of the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament was to offer sacrifices for sins. Once the perfect sacrifice had been made there was no longer any need for priests. Check any book of the New Testament and you'll find no record of any priests in the early church - only elders. The priesthood was a creation of the Roman Catholic Church, which was created by Constantine when he amalgamated Paganism and Christianity and declared it the new national religion.

I married into a Catholic family in south Louisiana in 1972, my wife having converted from Roman Catholicism to Biblical Christianity shortly before i met her. I wasn't familiar at all with Roman Catholicism and wanted to know if there really was a difference and so i studied the subject in depth for a good ten years - the more i studied the more horrified i was at the monstrosity of this pseudo-church. Robert Durant, one of the most respected historians of our time, said that Pope Innocent III (the man responsible for the Inquisitions) killed more Christians than all 10 Roman emporers who persecuted the church combined.

Believe me, Patches was rather subdued in his "anti-Catholic bits".

So, what do you make of passages like these?:
And so there is no question, I ask with complete ignorance, and honest interest.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be cut off from their people
~Leviticus 20:18

People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God
~Leviticus 21:17-18

Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death
~Deuteronomy 13:5

The eating of fat is prohibited forever
~Leviticus 3:17

Entrance into the assembly of the Lord was granted only to those with complete testicles
~Deuteronomy 23:1

Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents
~Deuteronomy 21:18-21

False prophets are to be killed by their own parents
~Zechariah 13:3

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property
~Exodus 21:20-21

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives
~Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple
~Luke 14:26

All the Old Testament passages that you cited were part of the Law of Moses - various laws that were an addendum to the Ten Commandments. Some of them sound pretty weird and even silly, but God had a purpose for each one. The main purpose was actually allegorical in many cases, to be applied as such when the New Covenant or Testament came to pass many years in the future. I spent the night at my wife's last night and i got here on the run so i don't have my Bible with me, But i believe the passage about the allegory is in I Corinthians 10. The law about the flat nosed, blind or lame i believe refers to priests. Just as a sacrificial lamb had to be without physical defects, priests also had to be without the same. This is a good example of the allegory i was talking about.

The Old Covenant was a harsh one and life was harsh back then. To understand the Old Testament you must study it - it's not easy to understand in some parts and you focused on some of the more abstruse points. To satisfactorily answer all of your points i'd need a few pages and i'd definitely need my Bible here with me. If you or anyone else honestly would like to discuss these laws, PM me and i'll give you my cell phone #. There's no way i'd attempt to answer such a barrage of questions in one post even if i had my Bible and the time - with my luck on computers i'd type out a novelette and some PC glitch would occur before i could post it. Believe me it's happened before. Like i said if you're really interested i'll give you my # and we can discuss it.

I will deal with the one example you gave from the New Testament however. "Love" and "hate" in the Scriptures have a different emphasis than you're used to in modern day usage in certain contexts. In the context of the passage you cited to "love" means to cleave or cling to strongly and to "hate" means to push away. One of the disciples that Jesus called said "i'll follow you, but first let me bury my dead father". Now this was certainly not an unreasonable request and in fact one of the Ten Commandments was "honor your father and your mother". Jesus however wanted to make a point of the importance of forsaking everyone and everything to follow Him and He said "let the dead bury their dead - follow me". If you put family before God you will never find Him. Jesus didn't ask the man to leave, or "hate" his sick father, but one who was already dead. God also tells us in the book of James that "he who does not provide for his own, and especially those of his own household has denied his faith and is worse than an infidel". So you see He's not telling us to forsake our familial responsibility, but He's saying that compared to the love, or clinging to, that we hold for Him the love for our family must be a hate, or pushing away to a lesser status.

[AAFitz]

I know you're well studied in 17th century literature Symmetry, but any books you recommend that disagree with Patches points on Catholicism would have to be Catholic propaganda, and a complete lie. During the Middle Ages it was a crime punishable by death to possess a copy of the Scriptures in the common tongue. The Bible lays waste to Roman Catholic tradition in numerous passages - I Timothy 4:1&2 refers to forbidding to marry (as priests for instance) and abstinence from meats (as in "Good Friday") as "doctrines of devils". Because of this and other passages the Catholic church could not have its parishioners reading the Bible for themselves. The Syllabus of Errors, a canonized document which i'm sure you're familiar with, declared a person in possession of a copy of the Scriptures in the common tongue to be "anathema" (accursed of God).

The main purpose of the Roman Catholic Church was not to spread the gospel of Jesus but to maintain power over the people. It wasn't until Vatican II that Catholics were allowed to read the Bible for themselves. Even the sermon in the church was done in Latin until then. Keep the people in darkness and ignorance and maintain their dependence on the priesthood. According to Hebrews chapter 10 there was no longer need for priests after Jesus offered the one perfect sacrifice for sin. The purpose of the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament was to offer sacrifices for sins. Once the perfect sacrifice had been made there was no longer any need for priests. Check any book of the New Testament and you'll find no record of any priests in the early church - only elders. The priesthood was a creation of the Roman Catholic Church, which was created by Constantine when he amalgamated Paganism and Christianity and declared it the new national religion.

I married into a Catholic family in south Louisiana in 1972, my wife having converted from Roman Catholicism to Biblical Christianity shortly before i met her. I wasn't familiar at all with Roman Catholicism and wanted to know if there really was a difference and so i studied the subject in depth for a good ten years - the more i studied the more horrified i was at the monstrosity of this pseudo-church. Robert Durant, one of the most respected historians of our time, said that Pope Innocent III (the man responsible for the Inquisitions) killed more Christians than all 10 Roman emporers who persecuted the church combined.

Believe me, Patches was rather subdued in his "anti-Catholic bits".

So, what do you make of passages like these?:
And so there is no question, I ask with complete ignorance, and honest interest.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be cut off from their people
~Leviticus 20:18

People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God
~Leviticus 21:17-18

Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death
~Deuteronomy 13:5

The eating of fat is prohibited forever
~Leviticus 3:17

Entrance into the assembly of the Lord was granted only to those with complete testicles
~Deuteronomy 23:1

Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents
~Deuteronomy 21:18-21

False prophets are to be killed by their own parents
~Zechariah 13:3

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property
~Exodus 21:20-21

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives
~Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple
~Luke 14:26

All the Old Testament passages that you cited were part of the Law of Moses - various laws that were an addendum to the Ten Commandments. Some of them sound pretty weird and even silly, but God had a purpose for each one. The main purpose was actually allegorical in many cases, to be applied as such when the New Covenant or Testament came to pass many years in the future. I spent the night at my wife's last night and i got here on the run so i don't have my Bible with me, But i believe the passage about the allegory is in I Corinthians 10. The law about the flat nosed, blind or lame i believe refers to priests. Just as a sacrificial lamb had to be without physical defects, priests also had to be without the same. This is a good example of the allegory i was talking about.

The Old Covenant was a harsh one and life was harsh back then. To understand the Old Testament you must study it - it's not easy to understand in some parts and you focused on some of the more abstruse points. To satisfactorily answer all of your points i'd need a few pages and i'd definitely need my Bible here with me. If you or anyone else honestly would like to discuss these laws, PM me and i'll give you my cell phone #. There's no way i'd attempt to answer such a barrage of questions in one post even if i had my Bible and the time - with my luck on computers i'd type out a novelette and some PC glitch would occur before i could post it. Believe me it's happened before. Like i said if you're really interested i'll give you my # and we can discuss it.

I will deal with the one example you gave from the New Testament however. "Love" and "hate" in the Scriptures have a different emphasis than you're used to in modern day usage in certain contexts. In the context of the passage you cited to "love" means to cleave or cling to strongly and to "hate" means to push away. One of the disciples that Jesus called said "i'll follow you, but first let me bury my dead father". Now this was certainly not an unreasonable request and in fact one of the Ten Commandments was "honor your father and your mother". Jesus however wanted to make a point of the importance of forsaking everyone and everything to follow Him and He said "let the dead bury their dead - follow me". If you put family before God you will never find Him. Jesus didn't ask the man to leave, or "hate" his sick father, but one who was already dead. God also tells us in the book of James that "he who does not provide for his own, and especially those of his own household has denied his faith and is worse than an infidel". So you see He's not telling us to forsake our familial responsibility, but He's saying that compared to the love, or clinging to, that we hold for Him the love for our family must be a hate, or pushing away to a lesser status.

Well, thank you for that, and I honestly was just wondering if people took these to actually be the word of some Good God, or the somewhat insane rambling suggestions they seem to be. And please, do not take this to be the trite answer Im sure it seems from your end. I asked you specifically, because you have studied the bible so closely, and because of this, I actually expected you to post, of course not everything in there can possibly be taken seriously, especially when juxtaposed with other completely contradictory ideas.

From my own personal point of view, they all sound pretty weird and silly.

[BigBallinStalin]

ha, bbs. it remind me of the parable of the two monkey. one is lazy, and sits around all of the rainy season eating fruit and scratching. at the same time the other monkey is working hard, growing food and storing water for the future.

then it is dry season. the lazy monkey has no water and no saved crop. he gets hungry and thirsty. the hard working monkey, at this time, is drinking his saved water and eating the crops he grew in rainy season. and maybe scratching.

at the end of the parable, the hard working monkey shares his crop with the lazy monkey out of kindness. the message of this can only be that the lazy and feckless will always be save by those who work, so why bother? it certainly does not show the importance of work for the future. silly parable yet told the world over.

Or perhaps that there's moral virtue in helping people even when they seem undeserving.

I know, right? Subsidize bad behavior. It's the "right" thing to do!

At times, good intentions don't lead to good outcomes. Why do so many moral standpoints ignore consequences?


@B.k. barunt: good posts! I enjoyed reading them.

[b.k. barunt]

Thanks BBS. Fitz, i can understand your outlook on the seemingly bizarre points of the Law of Moses, but like i say the Bible needs to be studied to be understood - God made it that way on purpose. A cursory glance will get you nowhere. I've put thousands of hours of study into it and by and of itself it would be enough to convince me of the reality of God. No man could possibly have written a book like that.

God has put me through a lot of pain, and in my resisting Him i've put myself through a lot more. His pain was for a reason and for my good, but because i couldn't understand it at the time and it seemed unfair i ran from Him for years. There are things in the Scriptures that are hard to understand and seem unfair, but if you take the time to search them out you'll find that they make perfect sense - more perfect and intricately crafted than anything we're capable of. If you just dismiss God as weird and/or silly you only sell yourself short.

[2dimes]

Deuteronomy 25:11-12
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

The Old Covenant was a harsh one and life was harsh back then. To understand the Old Testament you must study it - it's not easy to understand in some parts and you focused on some of the more abstruse points. To satisfactorily answer all of your points i'd need a few pages and i'd definitely need my Bible here with me.

I find the laws of Moses are difficult to understand in some ways because certain parts have been replaced and have not been practiced since. Many of those laws and even more so the sacrificial rules, don't make sense to me or even modern jews, partially because we can't aproach God the way Moses and the priests at that time did. Eventually none of them could either. Which is why the Pharisees and Saducees had replaced so much with oppressive rules writen up by their scribes.

I have spoke with modern day Hebrew people in Australia that refered to the people from the time of Moses as, "The members of the temple cults."

If you don't think that one I left from yout list there should be law I understand. Have a good day ma am.

[AAFitz]

Thanks BBS. Fitz, i can understand your outlook on the seemingly bizarre points of the Law of Moses, but like i say the Bible needs to be studied to be understood - God made it that way on purpose. A cursory glance will get you nowhere. I've put thousands of hours of study into it and by and of itself it would be enough to convince me of the reality of God. No man could possibly have written a book like that.

God has put me through a lot of pain, and in my resisting Him i've put myself through a lot more. His pain was for a reason and for my good, but because i couldn't understand it at the time and it seemed unfair i ran from Him for years. There are things in the Scriptures that are hard to understand and seem unfair, but if you take the time to search them out you'll find that they make perfect sense - more perfect and intricately crafted than anything we're capable of. If you just dismiss God as weird and/or silly you only sell yourself short.

Well, Ive studied many things, and much of it in human history and human psychology, and I feel that the fluctuations of the bible, are not a reflection as you say of the word of God, changing to meet mans situation, ie getting stricter and more lenient, but a clear reflection that it was man all along crafting it to fit the world man lived in at the time.

I absolutely would not dismiss God as weird or silly. I'm calling those passages weird and silly and not consistent and actually mutually exclusive of an actual true Good God, devoid of evil.

While you sound like a lawyer defending an incredibly guilty client, Im simply looking at the situation logically and rationally, with no previous assumptions. I think by assuming there is a God and crafting your words to make the Bible possible as you are, it is you who are selling yourself short.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thanks BBS. Fitz, i can understand your outlook on the seemingly bizarre points of the Law of Moses, but like i say the Bible needs to be studied to be understood - God made it that way on purpose. A cursory glance will get you nowhere. I've put thousands of hours of study into it and by and of itself it would be enough to convince me of the reality of God. No man could possibly have written a book like that.

I don't mean to be offensive with my sincere question, but here goes:

could you be mistaking God for the actions of many writers? To me, the Bible is an artifact which is representative of the cultures of that time. The actions, the consequences, and the trail-and-error learning process of over (roughly) 300 years have been compiled into one book.*

In other words, it seems that you have mistaken the cause of an outcome. In my opinion, the credit is due to the writers which have recorded the knowledge of their cultures. To use a (weak) analogy, it's like looking at a car (or whatever your most favorite object is) and claiming, "God made this for it is so complex and wonderful."

My second question is: how do you know that you aren't committing this error?


*Notwithstanding the "lost in translation" issue and the centuries of subsequent editing.

EDIT: Damn you, Fitz for ninja-posting me!