The Old Testament God is a Bumbling, Primitive, Idiot?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Yes, indeed there is.

Josephus gives us full descriptions of the Essenes, seeing them as one of the three Jewish philosophies of the period of Christian origins. After he has given a full account of the monastic Essenes, which agree at numerous points with the Scrolls, he goes on to "another order of Essenes", those who had to marry for dynastic reasons. He writes:

"They give their wives a three years' probation, and only marry them after they have by three periods of purity given proof of fecundity. They have no intercourse with them during pregnancy, thus showing that their motive in marrying is not self-indulgence but the procreation of children." (JW 2, 161).

In Jewish thought, menstruation is "impurity". The Scrolls are even stricter on this inhibition than orthodox Judaism, treating a menstruating woman as the equal of a leper (Temple Scroll 48: 14-19). "Three periods of purity" meant, for them, three successive occasions when there was no menstruation. When a woman becomes pregnant, her menstrual periods cease. It is the main proof of her "fecundity". Josephus is saying that Essene dynasts marry, holding a first ceremony beginning a trial period of three years, during which they have sexual intercourse. When the woman is three months pregnant and the danger of miscarriage is past, they enter a binding marriage, for life. After this ceremony there is no further intercourse, as it can be a danger to a pregnant woman. The husband returns to the celibate community.

The Essene woman in such an arrangement had to be a literal virgin before the first ceremony beginning the trial marriage. The high value placed on chastity would make that obligatory. Both before and after her two wedding ceremonies she would be committed to a lifestyle that upheld celibacy as far as possible. She belonged to an ascetic order, "another order of Essenes", for which there were parallels in the hellenistic world, such as the Roman Vestal Virgins. She was and remained a Virgin, with an upper-case V, all her life.

The rules limiting sex would have included a long period of betrothal before the first ceremony. It would be a time when the couple met, but with no sex. It could be so long that "passions became strong." Such a situation, practiced by Christians, is implied in 1 Corinthians 7:36. "If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly towards his virgin (Greek: parthenos), if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let them marry -it is no sin."
www.peshertechnique.infinitesoulutions.com...

reply to post by windword


...Dafuq did I just read? You may need to translate for this 21st century heathen.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

I think what you've written here, has some biblical and doctrinal basis. The problem though, is that neither Israel, nor Christians, would be free to live under the new covenant, unless and until the old covenant was fulfilled. Meaning completed. Not abolished. Since the old covenant was perpetual, per Gods own statements, the only way it could be fulfilled(completed) was for the husband to die. See the aforementioned Romans chapter 7 for Pauls analogy and explanation. This is part and parcel of the "mystery" that Paul says was kept since the beginning of the world.

My point being, Christs death was more than just the perfect sacrifice. There is a deeper, and more profound meaning that escapes biblical legalists, and has for centuries.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Translation: Virgins were betrothed to their future husbands, sometimes for many years. At some point there is an "informal ceremony" after which sex is permissible, but a woman who is still have monthly periods is considered "unpure". She is only considered pure, and is therefore able to formally marry her betrothed, after she ceases having monthly periods for 3 months in a row.

Therefore, a ceremonially unmarried woman is only considered to be pure when she becomes pregnant. Only then can she be formally married. However, upon marriage, her husband is not allowed to have sex with her, even though they're married. She must remain a virgin while pregnant.

reply to post by windword


How is a virgin defined?

Yossarian says it best: Catch 22

"And don't tell me God works in mysterious ways," Yossarian continued, hurtling on over her objection. "There's nothing so mysterious about it. He's not working at all. He's playing. Or else, He's forgotten all about us. That's the kind of God you people talk about - a country bumpkin, a clumsy, bungling, brainless, conceited, uncouth hayseed. Good God, how much reverence can you have for a supreme being who finds it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth decay in His divine system of creation? What in the world was running through that warped, evil, scatological mind of His when he robbed old people of their power to control their bowel movements? Why in the world did He ever create pain?"

"Pain?" Lieutenant Schiesskopf's wife pounced upon the word victoriously. "Pain is a useful symptom. Pain is a warning to us about bodily dangers."

"And who created the dangers?" Yossarian demanded, He laughed caustically. "Oh, He was really being charitable to us when He gave us pain! Why couldn't He have used a doorbell instead to notify us, or one of His celestial choirs? Or a system of blue-and-red neon tubes right in the middle of each person's forehead? Any jukebox manufacturer worth his salt could have done that. Why couldn't He?"

"People would certainly look silly walking around with red neon tubes in the middle of their foreheads."

"They certainly look beautiful now writhing in agony or stupified with morphine, don't they? What a colossal, immortal blunderer! When you consider the opportunity and power he had to really do a job, and then look at the stupid ugly little mess He made of it instead, His sheer incompetence is almost staggering. It's obvious. He never met a payroll. Why, no self-respecting businessman would hire a bungler like Him as even a shipping clerk!"

"You'd better not talk that way about Him, honey," she warned him reprovingly in a low and hostile voice. "He might punish you."

"Isn't He punishing me enough?" Yossarian snorted resentfully. "You know, we mustn't let him get away with it. Oh no, we certainly musn't let Him get away scot-free for all the sorrow He's caused us. Someday I'm going to make Him pay. I know when. On the Judgement Day. Yes, that's the day I'll be close enough to reach out and grab that little yokel by His neck and -"

Bumbling, primitive idiot works well too.

reply to post by charles1952


First of all, let me say "mad respect" for Charles1952 and Disraeli. (That means I respect them very much).

As God is presented as a father throughout the Bible, it makes me wonder then, how people can't reconcile a father-figure without the necessity of punishment also.

People on these threads, how would you, as a parent, expect your child to act, knowing that child's nature? If your kid were caught throwing the neighborhood cats off your roof, would you simply laugh at their antics?

What God was speaking to was the world they lived in at that time. It was a very dangerous world, and think about those nations that would have killed all the Israelites as well. God would defend as well. But those laws were not given so people could walk downtrodden and beat up.

I wish that people would understand a few things, the Israelites had just come out of 400 years of slavery and still carried with them that slave mentality. So it would take some time for them to overcome that. There were generations together that had known nothing else except that slavery. But in the meantime, they needed strong leadership as they were forming their own new culture. As they were living together in a new society, strong laws had to be given, because they were still not beyond the psychological effects of slavery.

How many parents make strong rules that there are things that cannot be approved of in the home? But you make them because you love your child. If God has to say "Don't throw the cats off the roof", well it wasn't for the child's benefit, it was for the cats.

And the neighboring people were not the ones who had just come out of slavery. And their faith systems pulled people back into it. You have to remember, this was the same people who gave Aaron gold, of which he put in the fire and said "I put the gold in and out popped this calf"...

Think of them at that time as toddlers, because that's basically what they were.

windword
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Translation: Virgins were betrothed to their future husbands, sometimes for many years. At some point there is an "informal ceremony" after which sex is permissible, but a woman who is still have monthly periods is considered "unpure". She is only considered pure, and is therefore able to formally marry her betrothed, after she ceases having monthly periods for 3 months in a row.

Therefore, a ceremonially unmarried woman is only considered to be pure when she becomes pregnant. Only then can she be formally married. However, upon marriage, her husband is not allowed to have sex with her, even though they're married. She must remain a virgin while pregnant.

Windword,

I think that during those times, birth was more difficult, and infant mortality was higher than today. I would imagine that great effort was taken to ensure a child would be born healthy.

And I think that is for most of the ancient world. I can see how they could view that as being necessary. I think it gets down to preservation of life, moreso than just telling them they can't have sex then. I think we should look at practical reasons first.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


There are a number of Hebrew words that translate "virgin".

Here Dr. Bob parrots the standard argument that the Hebrew word *'almah* does not mean virgin, but rather that the word *bethulah* has that meaning. In what follows I first demonstrate that the word *bethulah* does not always refer to a virgin, and next I demonstrate that in the Bible the word *'almah* always refers to a virgin.
www.answering-islam.org...

More Here

For example, a virgin was a young girl, not yet physically mature, a young women who is physically mature, and a betrothed virgin. There were Hellenistic perpetual virgin goddesses that were mothers, that were considered "born again" virgins after ritual bathing.

And there were women who were virgins in the purity within their hearts and their and their husband's abstinence from lustful sex. As long as these couples only had sex within the context of procreation, and not the desire of the flesh, and the woman had not yet given birth, she was still considered "virginal".

The Essene woman in such an arrangement had to be a literal virgin before the first ceremony beginning the trial marriage. The high value placed on chastity would make that obligatory. Both before and after her two wedding ceremonies she would be committed to a lifestyle that upheld celibacy as far as possible. ............. She was and remained a Virgin, with an upper-case V, all her life.
www.peshertechnique.infinitesoulutions.com...

Ultimately, virginity and purity go hand and hand, and a woman was at her purist when she was pregnant. If she got pregnant the first time she had sex, that was an especially "pure" pregnancy.

It was also my understanding that there was, at least with the Essene sects, a 3 year trial pre-marriage period, where if the woman failed to conceive, she could return to her family with her "purity" intact. (I've read about this in books and online, but I'm having a hard time finding sources right now, but will continue looking, if sources are being demanded. )

reply to post by WarminIndy

And I think that is for most of the ancient world. I can see how they could view that as being necessary. I think it gets down to preservation of life, moreso than just telling them they can't have sex then. I think we should look at practical reasons first.

Indeed! Josephus indicated that people thought that intercourse during pregnancy could harm the baby.

reply to post by windword


That's how they say Mary was a "Perpetual Virgin" then.

But I don't see that Mary was Essene, I believe she was Orthodox.

But in those days they also had Vestal Virgins in Rome. And these women never had sex. But at the same time, the ancient world was replete with temple prostitution.

So think about this, a dad (not a very nice one) would offer his daughter to the temple for prostitution and make money from forcing her servitude, then to marry her off, he would have to prove she were a virgin. How many guys have you met in your life that can sleep with 20 women, but the girl they marry must be a virgin?

So the double standard was then as it is now, nothing has changed, really.

But in some Islamic countries, they actually believe that they can resew a girl's virginity....

The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament (Jesus) are like two
totally different entities. The Old Testament God gets ticked off easily and is rather
deadly. He seems to like to play games. (Job) But, Jesus is mercy and kindness and forgiveness.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Perhaps the God of the Old Testament was "saved" through Jesus and was "born again"!

To me, many of the OT descriptions of "God" seem more like the devil. Perhaps, early church father, Origen, was correct in believing that Jesus will, eventually, even redeem Satan. Considering the the transformation of the Old Testament God into the loving representation of Jesus, maybe it isn't that far fetched.....

reply to post by windword


reply to post by FlyersFan




I think the answer is pretty obvious ladies... God doesn't change right... Yet the OT God did a 180...

SO Either Jesus was the true representative of the true God... OR God is a maniac with a rebellious son...

Both can't be God... makes no sense

Akragon
SO Either Jesus was the true representative of the true God...

I go with Jesus is the manifestation of the Mercy aspect of God.
I don't think the God of the Old Testament is really God.
Well .. not much of the Old Testament anyways ...
We'll find out when we are dead, right?

reply to post by Akragon

The Old Testament/New Testament relation is more complicated than people make it sound. It isn't just a straight contrast.
"Love your neighbour" and even "love your enemy" are present in the Old Testament.
While "God is coming in judgement" is present in the New Testament as well.
The real difference between them is that they offer different ways of escaping judgement.
In other words, the Biblical God does not change his character. Just his tactics.

Akragon
reply to post by windword

 

reply to post by FlyersFan

 

I think the answer is pretty obvious ladies... God doesn't change right... Yet the OT God did a 180...

SO Either Jesus was the true representative of the true God... OR God is a maniac with a rebellious son...

Both can't be God... makes no sense

Well Akra

I am pretty sure, that you as a dude, can take on many manifestations within your own character and still be Akra.

The Cheshire Cat appeared and disappeared many times, but still was the Cheshire Cat. And you have seldom seen a cat with a smile, but never a smile without a cat.

Or have you?

Lewis Carroll philosophy is, "It's never what you think or don't think, it's what you think you think that matters". And if you think you don't think, doesn't matter either, because maybe what you were thinking you thought, was what you didn't think.

Did you ever think of that, Cheshire Cat?

(PS, your signature is the Cheshire Cat)

reply to post by Pinke


Hiya back, Pinke!

Any monotheistic religion made by an infinite intelligence should make instant sense at all times unless that God is intentionally being confusing. If that God is intentionally being confusing, then I won't recognize them as God. Arrogant? Maybe, but I'd devote my life to attempting to understand such a being if I thought it existed.

I'm not an atheist, I believe in some kind of unifying force that evokes love. I think there are a lot of valuable allegorical lessons in the Bible, but I also think that its text was used to justify plain 'ole human greed and general bad behavior in the name of someone's god.

I think of the story of the "Gold Calf", and it makes me think, a lot of time the Bible itself is used as an idol and distracts us from the true harmony of our existence within the relationship of the physical and spiritual worlds. It is a "paper bull". Using the Bible to find God is, in my opinion, missing the forest for the trees.

reply to post by charles1952


I think your giving Akragon too much credit. I don't think this person knows what to believe. He believes Paul the Apostle to be an Apostate which is the ideology of some Jewish offshoot that supports a master race. Yet he seems to support the equality of all men and everyone already being saved. Most christians know no one worked harder than Paul to dispel the thinking of OT men and bring equality to all and being saved through Christ and only Christ, not the law of men or the works of men but through the love of God.

windword
reply to post by Pinke

 

I think of the story of the "Gold Calf", and it makes me think, a lot of time the Bible itself is used as an idol and distracts us from the true harmony of our existence within the relationship of the physical and spiritual worlds. It is a "paper bull". Using the Bible to find God is, in my opinion, missing the forest for the trees.

Windword, even Jesus said that.

But the Bible is certainly what we can go by, because we know Jesus' words from it. But never, never, never think that simply by reading the Bible is our eternal salvation, because it's not.