What did our dear rabbi Jesus say that shocked the world with unprecedented knowledge

Milton Platt said:

As to the slavery issue...slavery is the correct term to describe the condition whereby someone can purchase another human being and have them as personal property to be passed down to his heirs, which was the case in the Bible.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

So, if the slave lives for at least a day or two before he dies from the beating, no punishment of the owner is required because the slave is the owners PROPERTY.

Exodus 21:1-36 ESV /
“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ ...

Special dispensation for a Hebrew slave only. But even then, the owner can keep his wife and children. Does this sound like a servant???

Deuteronomy 15:16-17 ESV /
But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you, then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave forever. And to your female slave you shall do the same.

Deuteronomy 20:14 ESV /
But the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.

Leviticus 25:45[edit]
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Leviticus 25:46[edit]
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Leviticus 25:44[edit]
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

There is never a justification for owning another human being as property. And to try and justify or minimize such acts in the Bible is to abandon the moral high ground.

Demons do not cause schizophrenia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I do not actually believe Jesus healed the sick anymore than I believe present day "faith healers" heal the sick.
My reasoning is not circular. The purpose was to point out that the writers of the Bible story didn't even know the cause of mental illness and attributed it to demon possession. How is that circular?

Yes, you can assert that Jesus was god and rose from the dead and turned water into wine, etc. But you have no credible evidence to support those assertions.

We can heal the sick...with modern medicine. We cannot heal the sick by praying or other such woo. We cannot raise the dead, period.
Once all brain activity ceases, there is no coming back.

I was not addressing sexual equality in some supposed afterlife. I was addressing the fact that women in ancient Israel were treated like property and had fewer rights and less personal freedom than men. Stop trying to redirect.

I don't hate Jesus. I don't even know if he existed.

Click to expand...

I realised something a few years ago which actually proved to me how one person's bias writings influences thousands because they never even bothered to go and find out if what they were taught was actually the truth or not.
In the case between you and me, Iwould say we have a display of the exact situation.

• the atheists for over 250 years accused the Bible of being the constitution of slavery.
• the Christian Bible readers would argue the opposite.
• The Atheist would then go and listen to other atheists, visit a concordance on slavery, and take verses from the Bible to strengthen their point.
• The Christian are then asked about the quotes, and come what may, no explanation will suffice the atheist.
• The atheist then accuses the Christian of spinning the Biblical verses to suit their position.
• The Christian eventually, like me, will take a full complete collection of everything the Bible say about slavery, enter into debates and discussions with the Atheist on the topic, but yet, even the smallest inclination of sone interperitation will be hanged on to demand the atheist view, and zero tollerance to the Biblical one.

Therefore, for 250 years, the atheist will continue to attack the Bible, presenting a case as if the Christian has no answer to anything the atheist compiled.
Now, I will give you an example of what I wrote to Yusuf Ismail from the islamic Propagation Centre International in Durban RSA.
Together with a few more Christian apologists who he attacked upon slavery, he had to hide from view on the accusations he made.
Now who better to argue against than the foremost Islamic scholars who is an Advocate, and an international presence in Islam on the forum of Comparitive religious studies.

Now, If you were to paste a few verses here thinking you somehow won some argument, why not go through my open letter I sent to Yusuf Ismail.
Then you think why this man refuses to debate the topic again with Usama Dakdok or me for that matter.
Up untill now he could not answer the Christian apologists in South Africa on what I wrote.
Now, I am not a writer, and you might find some grammatical errors in my letter, but get to the facts and then come back to me on your accusation that the Bible was the source of slavery.
or at least come and tell me if I am a liar or not.

oldbadger said:

Now that is a very interesting answer!
And so the vast majority of the Galilean people (if not all?) were poor and very hard worked peasants who had lkittle time for other than hardship and toil? Yes!

Click to expand...

I was trying to say that they would be too practically inclined to deal with this type of silliness that appears to enthrall you.

And when they trekked to Jerusalem for redemption with sacrifice they were ripped off by the locals for bed and board, ripped off at the Temple for currency exchange, probably ripped off for sacrificial offering purchases (since their own offerings could be condemned) and thoroughly insulted by having to even touch the Temple coinage.....

Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about.

Yes..... I think that they had a very poor lifestyle throughout, and that is why both the Baptist and (later) Jesus offered mercy, cleansing, repentance and redemption for absolutely nothing. Jesus was for 'Mercy and not sacrifice'.

Click to expand...

I don't think you know what you're talking about. It was not necessary to travel specially to Jerusalem for cleansing, repentance or atonement. For one thing, the ignorant masses didn't take care to purify themselves except on the way to pilgrimage. But even if they had, local rivers and mikvahs are always accessible and useful for all impurities except contact with the dead. For contact with the dead, priests would travel the land with water and Red Heifer ashes (stored in bamboo or something like that) for anyone who needed it. Repentance is not something that requires a Temple for in any case. That's something that's done privately. And sacrifices for atonement could be brought during the upcoming pilgrimage of which there was one every 6 months.

But if Jesus could assist further with cures, possibly using auto-suggestive techniques, and other amazing actions, yes, a poor, humbled superstitious people would very soon talk about a very wise and magical kind of person.

Click to expand...

There were such people around the country. I don't know if they had special titles, although the Pharisees obviously referred it to heresy and sorcery. I also don't know if they had the same appreciation for it as you do.


Regardless, considering the times, I think they were more interested in hearing about overthrowing the Romans.

I like your suggestion that the Galileans were fully occupied with toil.

Click to expand...

People would today. People did in the past. People would have back then, and before. Any person with unexplainable abilities can be revered as 'very special'.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood. Nagar is a carpenter or artisan. If he was a carpenter, people would call him a carpenter. If he wasn't a carpenter, people wouldn't call him a carpenter.

OK..... but they certainly lost the exclusive rights to that title.

It would appear that a long time before the early 1st century the Persian word Magush (magician?) had been adopted by the Greeks with their Magos, and by the Romans with their Magus, and so similar meanings for magical or amazing people had stretched far and wide.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying:


In Talmudic literature, the word magosh always refers to Persian magi. But perhaps that's why the NT had to specify "Magi from the East" to indicate Zoroastrian Magi of the Parthian Empire.

But I am interested in how a very superstitious group of peasant classes would have perceived a very wise and amazing person. For instance, Professor Dominic Crosson came to the perception that Jesus was probably a ;'Magic for Meal' Sage. The word 'magic', 'sage', 'miracle worker' feature regularly in the perceptions of the scholars.

Click to expand...

I am not a scholar of Jewish history and I don't know any sources that speak about this. I've never heard of such a concept. In Jewish sources ie. of Pharisaic sources, he's called a sorcerer (ie. transgressing the prohibition of sorcery). A cultist of his named Jacob who offers to heal a Rabbi's nephew with sorcery (there's an incantation bowl involved if I recall correctly) is called an heretic. More than that, I don't know.

But if you think that Galilean peasants were humdrum toilers without any superstitions or other interests then I can only say that they would have been the only people ever to have been so focused upon 'drudgery of survival'.

Click to expand...

Hardly humdrum. Let's not forget when the Zealots came from. First they had to deal with Herod, then an uprising by Judah and another by his two sons Jacob and Simon, with counterattacks by the Romans. I'd imagine as among the rest of the nation, Roman occupancy was more on the mind than minor tricksters.

I'm fairly comfortable with the perception that Jesus (and the Baptist) was considered to be a very very wise and magical person.

Click to expand...

Or at least believing that this was the perception.

SA Huguenot said:

And the word slave is obviously a wrong translation and was actually servants.

Click to expand...

See Strong's 1401.

A Vestigial Mote said:

Not necessary, for reasons already stated. You can keep your adoration for The Bible... just keep it to yourself. I'll continue searching for and incorporating more worthwhile philosophy into my mental diet.

Click to expand...

Of coarse pal.
No one will force you to swallow my adoration of the Bible.
But if I may ask a smoll curteousy call!
Please dont go around bashing the Bible, rather go to other religions in Quiet!

Tumah said:

I have no idea. Why would you think they would care about any clever or wonderful person? There was clothes to mend and fields to plow.


I don't see why they would call him either of those unless that was his profession.


It's not just me. Magi are the Zoroastrian priestly class. That's just what they're called.

Click to expand...

I just found it interesting that in 2030 AD, one man would speak and he would gain a crowd of 15 000 plus.
not just once, but many times.
Think about it.
He did not pay them, was no Caesar, the High priest, or anyone so special to have 15 000 people listening to him.
He was amaizing!

SA Huguenot said:

I just found it interesting that in 2030 AD, one man would speak and he would gain a crowd of 15 000 plus.
not just once, but many times.
Think about it.
He did not pay them, was no Caesar, the High priest, or anyone so special to have 15 000 people listening to him.
He was amaizing!

Click to expand...

You'll find it a lot less interesting once you consider that this probably never happened.

2030 AD is still 11 years in the future.

David J said:

What did our dear rabbi Jesus say that shocked the world with unprecedented knowledge?

No supernatural magic, that's cheating.

Click to expand...

What if he did say something stupendous and we don't know what he said?

Tumah said:

I was trying to say that they would be too practically inclined to deal with this type of silliness that appears to enthrall you.

Click to expand...

Firstly, thankyou for the time that you gave to write to me.
Silliness indeed? Just a second........... >>>

I don't know what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

And let's see why >>>>

I am not a scholar of Jewish history and I don't know any sources that speak about this.

Click to expand...

OK? And when you write:-

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

I can only reply that I have been a student of Early first century Galilee for some years.
For instance, you write:-

I'd imagine as among the rest of the nation, Roman occupancy was more on the mind than minor tricksters

Click to expand...

No!!!
There were no Romans occupying Galilee in the early first century. Herod Antipas ruled Galilee with his own officials and forces. And he was in (diplomatic) contention with the Roman Prefect who controlled Idumea, Judea and Samaria.

Sure the Galileans were revolutionary, but your calendar is skewed because the Zealots Movement did not rise up until after Jesus's time. Now Simon, nicknamed Zealot in the gospels, was probably a hardened campaigner who was given that name later at the time the gospels were written. In life he might have had a nickname with similar meaning.

It was not necessary to travel specially to Jerusalem for cleansing, repentance or atonement. For one thing, the ignorant masses didn't take care to purify themselves except on the way to pilgrimage. But even if they had, local rivers and mikvahs are always accessible and useful for all impurities except contact with the dead. For contact with the dead, priests would travel the land with water and Red Heifer ashes (stored in bamboo or something like that) for anyone who needed it. Repentance is not something that requires a Temple for in any case. That's something that's done privately. And sacrifices for atonement could be brought during the upcoming pilgrimage of which there was one every 6 months.

Click to expand...

And so I learn that priests were scamming the peasantry even in their own communities. Oh well.
Now...... exactly why did the people go to the Temple? You mention every six months, others mention for the three major feasts, but from G-Mark I reckon that the Northern peasants could only affors to go annually..... however.
I can tell you that both the Baptist and Jesus were totally against the wickedness, hypocrisy, greed and corruption that abounded within the Priesthood and the Temple. They both said so, and both did everything that they could do reduce Temple (and Priesthood) takings. And the people flocked to them for cleansing (psychological!) and redemption. And then they could go home, which (no doubt) is why Antipas was instructed to go and arrest the Baptist.

By the way, if your local temple (synagogue) was handing out coins with graven images, the features of Baal and the initials of (say) President Trump hammered therein, would you handle these...... well the Jewish people had to put up with that kind of thing as well, after being cheated in the currency exchanges.

There were such people around the country. I don't know if they had special titles, although the Pharisees obviously referred it to heresy and sorcery. I also don't know if they had the same appreciation for it as you do.

Click to expand...

Hurrah!! So after all that, the Priests were calling these two Sorcerers!
What do you think I have been talking about? What is the Eastern Aramaic for Sorcerer (heretic as well, please), and could this word also be Magos, Magus or Magi? If so, you've been waffling!
Of course they thought that both the Baptist, Jesus and some others were nasty people!

Regardless, considering the times, I think they were more interested in hearing about overthrowing the Romans.

Click to expand...

Galileans and Northern Province Jews were not fond of Romans, but they surely hated the Priesthood! There were no Roman officials apart from (maybe) observers, only in Samaria, Idumea and Judea.

I think you misunderstood. Nagar is a carpenter or artisan. If he was a carpenter, people would call him a carpenter. If he wasn't a carpenter, people wouldn't call him a carpenter.

Click to expand...

And I think you've got that wrong, as well. Nagar or Nagarra meant 'skilled worker, rather like the Greek tecton, which is where we get the word Technology from. You see? It means 'highly skilled'. And Jesus was considered to be Very Highly Skilled. (I think that Nagar can mean worker in bone, stone, wood and maybe even metal).
Jesus was more than a worker in the above. He was Amazing!

Hardly humdrum. Let's not forget when the Zealots came from. First they had to deal with Herod, then an uprising by Judah and another by his two sons Jacob and Simon, with counterattacks by the Romans. I'd imagine as among the rest of the nation, Roman occupancy was more on the mind than minor tricksters

Click to expand...

I have read that the true Zealot movement was not born until the Jewish uprisings after Jesus's time. Banditry like the Sepphoris (Zippori incident of 4BC was just that, brigandry.

SA Huguenot said:

Of coarse pal.
No one will force you to swallow my adoration of the Bible.
But if I may ask a smoll curteousy call!
Please dont go around bashing the Bible, rather go to other religions in Quiet!

Click to expand...

If you remember, this ALL started out with me actually extolling the possible virtues of the man Jesus. I didn't bash, didn't say one word of disparagement... but YOU engaged me anyway with a chip on your shoulder. You're obviously the one of the two of us who can't help himself. I only engage when I see what I consider wrong-thinking being employed. You apparently engage whenever you see the word "atheist" from someone no matter what is being said.

And as I hinted at earlier, all of the above and your behavior in this thread also informs me that I am making the right choice. Your philosophy and "spiritual path" are too far awry to be of any use.

A Vestigial Mote said:

If you remember, this ALL started out with me actually extolling the possible virtues of the man Jesus. I didn't bash, didn't say one word of disparagement... but YOU engaged me anyway with a chip on your shoulder. You're obviously the one of the two of us who can't help himself. I only engage when I see what I consider wrong-thinking being employed. You apparently engage whenever you see the word "atheist" from someone no matter what is being said.

And as I hinted at earlier, all of the above and your behavior in this thread also informs me that I am making the right choice. Your philosophy and "spiritual path" are too far awry to be of any use.

Click to expand...

Oh!
But dont you think to use me as an example to choose anything in life concerning Truth or Religion will be a huge mistake?
And Yes, anyone calling themself an Atheist are in my point of view someone that dont hesitate to mock and jerk Christian values.
I have yet to meet an Atheist with any descency, or moral values when it concerns the sincerity of Christians in their religion.
They all, including you, love to mock and fool with the Christian and their belief.
If you were to tell me you are not one of them, I will have to conclude that you are deceiving, or you are the first!

SA Huguenot said:

Oh!
But dont you think to use me as an example to choose anything in life concerning Truth or Religion will be a huge mistake?

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be interesting if you were the ONLY example of a Christian exhibiting poor modes of thinking, a tendency to jump to conclusions and be confrontational and penchant for mocking - that's right, I said mocking - the very thing you accused me of doing just because I am an "atheist." If you don't think you mocked me, see your very first reply to mine where you used my own words in a patronizing way to frame up your position. Heck, I'll just include it right here, since I have the evidence readily available:

SA Huguenot said:

keep in mind I an a Bible believing Christian as I reply to your post, so I honestly dont care more than as an intellectual excercise-trying to immagine why it is that you would "Imagine" something about Jesus without even an attempt to find out what He did.

Click to expand...

Do you at least see why I don't like your behavior? Do you understand? And I swear to you these ridicule-worthy aspects of your behavior are not at all uncommon within the group of people who label themselves "Christian." Not one bit. All too common, I am afraid. To the point that yes, YES I DO take your behavior, and the behavior of every other individual Christian who has displayed these characteristics as evidence that the overall path "Christianity" is not righteous, not worthwhile, not stable nor "good." In my personal experience, the Christian who is not willing to engage in these things within debate/argument is the EXCEPTION, nowhere near the rule. And so, it seems epidemic, and I take that as a sign that the "good" individuals within Christianity are good by virtue of the fact that they are "good" themselves... not because they are "Christian." It seems so obvious. Christianity DOES NOT teach a person how to be kind or good to their fellow man. If it did, then how might we come to have so many terrible people calling themselves "Christian?" Christianity is a waste of time. If you want to know how to become a better person, best to study from the people you find to be better people. Christianity is not going to help you in that endeavor.

Not to mention that I told you repeatedly that I HAVE read the texts and heard the messages and witnessed the arguments time and time again, and I have found NONE of it compelling. None. The only thing that is compelling is the sense of fellowship and community I have witnessed, though even that, I believe, is built on a sham, and many times the people involved are still very exclusionary when it comes to who they ultimately consider outsiders. Only as long as you "play by the rules" does a community of Christians tend to welcome you. I have been subject to that sort of prejudice first hand quite a few times, and have witnessed it many, many other times with others - even other members of the congregation who don't "toe the line!" We don't have to agree about the usefulness of Christianity. You understand that, right?

SA Huguenot said:

And Yes, anyone calling themself an Atheist are in my point of view someone that dont hesitate to mock and jerk Christian values. I have yet to meet an Atheist with any descency, or moral values when it concerns the sincerity of Christians in their religion.

Click to expand...

This is you doing exactly what you told me I shouldn't be doing - stereotyping, judging entire swaths of people based on one characteristic of them. But there is a difference. As I just alluded to above, I admit that there are good people who call themselves "Christians." You, on the other hand, seem entirely unwilling to admit that there might be good people who call themselves "atheist." Guess which one of us holds the more rational perspective there? I'm not even saying that I am one of the "good" atheists. I would never make such a claim.

SA Huguenot said:

They all, including you, love to mock and fool with the Christian and their belief.

Click to expand...

Be honest now... can you sincerely say that this is what you thought I was doing with that first post I made in this thread. In case you have forgotten what it was, it is here. Was I mocking, or "fooling" with your beliefs? I was honest about my position and intent, and I said what I wanted to say, and did not mock or attempt to fool anyone.

SA Huguenot said:

If you were to tell me you are not one of them, I will have to conclude that you are deceiving, or you are the first!

Click to expand...

Don't care what you think, and here's where I take you, individually out of the context of your religion and just judge you, the person, instead. I don't care what you think because you have proven yourself unworthy of my concerning myself with your opinion. You can think the same about me all you like - I don't care about that either.

David J said:

What did our dear rabbi Jesus say that shocked the world with unprecedented knowledge?

No supernatural magic, that's cheating.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not psychic. You're gonna just have to say, like in a normal thread.

Spartan said:

That there is eternal life for those who believe in him (John 3:16, etc.).

Click to expand...

Pay attention to my original post.

IndigoChild5559 said:

Sorry, I'm not psychic. You're gonna just have to say, like in a normal thread.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Ponder This said:

Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Maybe Jesus said somethings that were shocking?

Click to expand...

Maybe supply some substance.

David J said:

Maybe supply some substance.

Click to expand...

You want new (unprecedented) and shocking. Is there anything new under the Sun? If not, then maybe Jesus didn't say anything unprecedented... but I'll give it a try.

Matthew 5:

If it's true that it was said before to hate your enemy, then perhaps Jesus was saying something unprecedented and shocking! Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you?!?

Edit: (we'll just overlook that the Buddha already said to do this).