Sojourner1 said:
It's not about a lack of interest, it's about choosing my battles carefully. I'm sure you have researched this question and have not found an answer that you find satisfactory. I also believe that your rejection of Christ isn't founded on this one Bible passage, therefore, spending time answering this question is not going to bear much fruit.
Who says I reject Yeshua?
I will quote you: "I find this explanation inadequate of a God with at least a middle school level education." Would you please explain then what you meant by this comment?
A god with at least a middle-school level education could create a law which is correctly applied to the intended target without targeting innocents.
I would venture to suggest that these were not innocent victims who were being excommunicated. The whole of Scripture clearly expresses who God is and what He requires and desires.
The text does not indicate this, it does not provide the reasoning which you assert, and I contend that your own religious bias is being placed upon a text which varies greatly from your beliefs.
I'm not saying you weren't being truthful in what you see as objectives to the explanation given. I am saying that your objections were not convincing enough to make the answer unreasonable or unacceptable.
I would have expected that you could have shown why they were unconvincing.
"But what, then, of the folks referenced in Deuteronomy? The Hebrew word here describing the damage done to the genitals is dakkah - meaning mutilated or wounded. Although some suppose that this can refer to an accidental or genetic defect [Merr.Dt, 307], the context and the difference in language from Leviticus suggests that this isn't a case of someone who has been through an accident or a fight and can't help what has happened.
The context nor the language show this. Your reference's assertion is provided carte blance, without any evidence.
Rather, as our socially-informed commentators tell us, this most likely refers to someone who has wilfully and purposefully damaged themselves, probably as part of a pagan religious ritual. And this is right in line with a theme of Deut. 23 itself, which forbids various foreigners from entering the assembly: The only person who would undergo such treatment would be a foreigner (in pagan practice, deformity was "not only acceptable but frequently central to the practice of the cult", as for example were the assinnu of the Babylonian rituals - Merr.Dt, 307) -- or else someone who so dedicated themselves to a pagan god that they took this extra painful step to demonstrate their devotion."
First, the theme of Deuteronomy 23 is not about foreigners. The commandment directly following the excommunication of injured males is a commandment that says people born out of wedlock are excommunicated from God (along with all of their descendants for ten generations). Obviously that is not just about foreigners, but about everyone. Why would we then think that the author went from "just foreigners" to "everybody" and back to "just foreigners" without telling us? And why does the author tell us when it is "just foreigners" later, but not when he writes about men with injured genitalia?
Also, I see zero evidence whatsoever that the assinnu crushed their testicles. Zero.
Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel - Robert R. Wilson - Google Books
I can't find anything on the reference your source gives for the assinnu mutilation idea, but the book I've provided you is the best compilation of info about them. And surprise, surprise, there's also nothing that I can find in Babylonian religious customs that includes mutilating genitalia. You'll also note that my reference I have provided you has tons of references available for everything it says... this is what scholarly work looks like. The apologetics site you gathered your information from is rather pathetic in that it makes unproven statements as fact, rather than identifying that it has no evidence whatsoever. Saying Deuteronomy 23 is about the assinnu is laughable.
If God had wanted to excommunicate the assinnu (a tiny, tiny number of pagan priests pretending to be both male and female), then why didn't he just name them in this law (by the way, there's no evidence the assinnu ever interacted with the ancient Hebrews)? What is much more likely is that your reference is doing
everything possible to come up with some reason for excommunicating men with damaged genitalia, other than just accepting what the text clearly says.
Here are some verses that explain the law of Christ:
Mark 12:29-31
Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, wthe Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Note that Jesus does not say other commandments are unimportant or done away with.
Galations 3:23-25
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian...
Yes, Paul disagrees with Jesus. Compare:
“Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." -- Jesus
Romans 7:4-6
Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
As I said, Paul obviously is teaching something in contradiction to Jesus. It's not unusual... Paul also purposefully misquotes the Old Testament on a fairly regular basis.
For example:
"What then? Are we any better? Not at all! For we have previously charged that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, as it is written:
There is no one righteous, not even one."
-- Romans 3:9-10
But what he quotes from is not even close:
"The fool says in his heart, “God does not exist.”
They are corrupt; they do vile deeds.
There is no one who does good.
The Lord looks down from heaven on the human race
to see if there is one who is wise,
one who seeks God.
All have turned away;
all alike have become corrupt.
There is no one who does good,
not even one."
-- Psalms 14:1-3
Paul says it is written that there is none righteous... but that is completely wrong.
"There they are, overwhelmed with dread, for God is present in the company of the righteous."
-- Psalms 14:5
Nowhere in the Hebrew bible does it say there is none righteous... not in the Septuagint, nor in the Masoteric. So why would we find it odd that Paul contradicts Jesus?
