Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nations for Gesus
#11
"Did you make that up?"

No, I did not.
#12
ThomasDGW Wrote:"Did you make that up?"

No, I did not.

"The rabbis try to belittle his sin"

Then chose your words more carefully.

Avraham
#13
Quote:"Did you make that up?"

No, I did not.

So please explain how you came to this conclusion. I mean there are often times when Christians speak about Jews, and just go around in their own circle of thought.
Different rabbi's also told me that David sinned etc. We understand that we are not perfect etc. So why should we belittle all kind of things, or hide it, if we are not so addicted to the heaven-hell issues as most Christians.
#14
"So please explain how you came to this conclusion."

I heard it from an orthodox Jew whose name I do not want to bring up a this time.  In fact, I seem to remember hearing this from more than one, including someone on another forum.  He told me that rabbinical sources say that David sinned but his sin was not specifically deliberate adultery because Bathsheba's marriage to a Hittite was not legitimate and she was destined to be David's wife.  At the time I was told this I remember being impressed that the persons involved were trying to get around David being forgiven for a deliberate violation of the Ten Commandments.

For me it is something I heard personally.  For you it is hearsay, and not valid in a court of law.  Keep your ears and eyes open and look into rabbinical sources to see if it is really true.  You appear to not agree with such a belittling of sin.
#15
What you said was:

“The rabbis try to belittle his sin”

What you misunderstand is what the Rabbi’s are addressing:
There is a dispute in the Talmud whether or not Bathsheba was technically a married woman at the time. The Talmud rules that she was not. The law was that before a man went out to war he was required to divorce his wife. This was a necessary precaution taken to protect the wife. In case the husband would die in battle and no one could testify to the fact, the wife would not be an "Agunah" (chained to her possibly deceased husband) and would be free to remarry. If, however, the husband did return from the battlefield safe and sound – the couple was free to remarry. Uriah, too, issued this divorce to his wife and, according to Jewish law, King David had relations with a divorced woman.

That is why King David summoned Bathsheba he "sent and inquired about the woman”. If David, the absolute monarch, desired this woman and was willing to go to any length to fulfill his "fantasy," why did he first send messengers to inquire regarding Bathsheba?


No one is belittleing anything. It is an intelligent discussion between scholars of the Law. You did make that up!

Avraham
#16
Hi ThomasDGW,

Quote:He told me that rabbinical sources say that David sinned but his sin was not specifically deliberate adultery because Bathsheba's marriage to a Hittite was not legitimate and she was destined to be David's wife.

O.K. that's why I asked... I think I remember something like that indeed, by hearing from a rabbi. But I have to look up the sources. Maybe it was His opinion. But luckely we have often to deal with more opinions, and do research.
belitteling sin is often not bad, also Christianity belitteled the sin of the woman to be stoned... and it's just said, ''and sin no more''.

#17
So, you now see i was not making it up, but you have actually heard it yourself, but you don't think that is belittling sin?  Well, if a husband were to give this legal divorce before going to battle, is it with the intention that another man take his wife if he does not die?  Of course not.  So what difference does it make to the sin, and if it makes no difference, why even talk about it.  And it actually contradicts the text of II Samuel 12:9 that the prophet's message was that David had taken another man's wife.  That is adultery, regardless of any theoretical talk of a decree.  This is just the thing that Jesus faulted the Pharisees for: finding some legal loopholes to annul the intent of the Law.

"If, however, the husband did return from the battlefield safe and sound – the couple was free to remarry."

That is only if the divorced wife had not had relations with another man (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).  David had inquired after Bathsheba, according to II Samuel 11:3, probably pointing her out from the roof top, to find out who she was to find out where to send the messengers.  If David did this on the up and up, feeling legally free to take her as his wife, why did he not just declare to the world that Bathsheba was his wife?  His attempts to have Uriah lie with Bathsheba afterward were a worse sin yet.

Now, according to the teaching of Jesus, the technicality of a divorce paper does not change the fact of adultery, so to a believer in Jesus, David committed adultery.  Just ask yourself which fulfills the principle of loving your neighbor as yourself, Jesus, or the rabbi who debates legal loopholes.

Yetzirah, by belittling sin, I mean making a sin seem not so bad because of legal technicalities.  Telling a sinner that she has found forgiveness and to sin no more is not belittling sin any more than David's sin was belittled by God when God forgave David. David had to suffer consequences regardless of the forgiveness, and the woman Jesus sent away likely did also.
#18
Hi ThomasDGW,

Great ways of searching/questioning here I think...

I'm a bit sleepy, so shortly some thoughts on it:

I'm not so shure about that something is written about the womans concequences. Davids consequences are clear, and maybe some of them unclear.

The Almighty is THE Judge. But he also gave us Judges to do some things ourselves. Off course we didn't always directly get answers, but we had to find judgement with the right intention. And in courtcases this was mainly with more witnesses, and more judges.
It's betten not to stone somebody for a mistake might be made, or another law might overrule another, and we have a long tradition of mainly NOT stoning people.
So what the rabbi's might have done with Jesus, is just asking his opinion if he finds a loophole here. It's just searching how another person might judge. Anyway in those days there were hardly any rabbi's and everybody can ask eachother.
I hardly see any difference between the idea of Jesus or the Rabbi's here. Only Jesus claims maybe himself to have the power to forgive. Well people have the power to 'forgive/belittle' things on an earthly level.

Besides that it's a big question if this story with Jesus realy happened, for it's not found in most old versions of the Greek writings.
I don't know exactly what your legal technicalities has to do with it, in your own eyes. Every good judge judges according to legal technicalities, and searches into his heart if there are options to be strickt or lenient. This is often not different in Judaism or Christianity.
#19
"Now, according to the teaching of Jesus, the technicality of a divorce paper does not change the fact of adultery, so to a believer in Jesus, David committed adultery."

He went even further Thomas. If one even thinks about it he is an adulterer. So don't think about adultery. Oops you just did. Adulterer! According to you we are all adulterers.


"Just ask yourself which fulfills the principle of loving your neighbor as yourself, Jesus, or the rabbi who debates legal loopholes."

That's like asking "when was the last time you beat your wife?"
besides Jesus himself used "legal loopholes", specifically when his Apostles were picking ears of corn on the Sabbath, "did not David eat the shewbread", so please stop being so self righteous. If you understood Judaism you wouldn't make such ignorant statements.



Avraham
#20
"I don't know exactly what your legal technicalities has to do with it, in your own eyes."

David took a man's wife, then tried to cover up that he had done it by trying to get the first husband to lie with his wife. When the husband would not cooperate and knowing that the child to be born would soon give out the secret, David told his commander to put the husband in a tight spot and deliberately abandon him so he would die.  In a human court of law, sometimes loopholes based in legal technicalities and innocence until guilt is proven are used to not be able to give a person their just due.  These are due to human weakness and imperfect judges, and innocence until guilt is proven is a necessary safeguard to avoid widespread punishment of innocent people, where the law would become a terror.  However, in moral cases dealing with the judgment of God, we should go for the heart of the matter.  David committed adultery and murder in his heart intent, regardless of the legality of the first marriage, and regardless of the fact that David actually did not shoot Uriah and it appears that the plan David asked Joab to carry out did not even happen as David requested.  If I am lying in wait to shoot somebody and when they are coming they get killed by a car, I could technically have no liability for the death of that person, but in God's eyes, in moral truth, I would be a murderer.

The only reason to dwell on technicalities to make David actually not fully guilty is to try to explain how a deliberate sin such as that could be put away.  It is the righteousness that comes by faith even to a violator of the Law.  David was saved by his faith in Jesus.  Only the new birth of the Messiah's sacrificial death could explain how that could happen, and since the rabbis reject such a concept, they are left to massage legal technicalities to explain it away.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)