Foxy Methoxy Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 No man whose testicles have been crushed or whose organ has been cut off may become a member of the assembly of God. (because God hates colostomy bags) Deut 23:1 At this, the elders of the town should summon him and reason with him. If he still stands his ground and says I refuse to take her, his brother's widow must go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull his sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and declare, "Thus we requite the man who will not build up his brother's family. His family will be known in Israel as the house of the unsandalled man." (Oh, snap!) Deut 25:8-10 A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked. (Um... what? A streaker during Jesus' arrest?) Mark 14:51-52 You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them. (gold and silver dildos?) Ezekiel 16:17 Please add your own weird verses. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 At this, the elders of the town should summon him and reason with him. If he still stands his ground and says I refuse to take her, his brother's widow must go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull his sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and declare, "Thus we requite the man who will not build up his brother's family. His family will be known in Israel as the house of the unsandalled man." (Oh, snap!) Deut 25:8-10 Hard-core insult, there!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 No man whose testicles have been crushed or whose organ has been cut off may become a member of the assembly of God. (because God hates colostomy bags) Deut 23:1 This one is eunuchs. It also makes the story with Philip in Acts impossible since the eunuch couldn't have been Jewing it up in the temple. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Methoxy Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 By the time of Acts, centuries had passed and the temple was no longer following many of its older laws. That's not to say I give much credibility to any story mentioned in Acts, but a eunuch in the temple in Roman times isn't terribly far fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 By the time of Acts, centuries had passed and the temple was no longer following many of its older laws. That's not to say I give much credibility to any story mentioned in Acts, but a eunuch in the temple in Roman times isn't terribly far fetched. Now where did you get that from? mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Methoxy Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 Jesus and the money changers, for one.... Herod's temple was very Hellenistic. The laws of the Torah weren't being strictly followed and that was a major source of conflict between conservative jews and mainstream jews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Methoxy Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 And as far as the notion of Jews not strictly following their own traditions, one can easily spot evidence of that even to this day. The Old Testament is story after story of Israelis and Jews ignoring their own laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Jesus and the money changers, for one.... Herod's temple was very Hellenistic. The laws of the Torah weren't being strictly followed and that was a major source of conflict between conservative jews and mainstream jews. For one what? You got that eunuchs could just drop by the temple from that story? The money changers were there precisely because of the law. There was only one type of money that the temple could accept. The Jews could not mint it for themselves therefore they needed to exchange for it. The bit of irony was the coin needed was the Tyrian shekel and it had graven images on it (not unlike the Roman coins being exchanged of course) but that it all was brought within the temple space. Had they the power to mint silver coins, as opposed to just bronze coins as under Herod (and later Agrippa), this would not have been an issue. The exchange would have taken place but the other, exchanged, coinage could have been removed to some other place as opposed to being brought into the temple as part of the required tax under the law while the acceptable silver coinage taken into the temple proper. Notice that there is no problem when the temple tax is paid outside the temple. In the story of the shekel in the fish the temple tax is paid up in Galilee. Tables were setup ahead of time in the outlying regions to collect the tax and, if not paid prior, was collected at the temple. Here, Peter grabs up the fish and it has the same Tyrian shekel. The tax is collected and all the coinage is moved to the temple. All Jews, everywhere, paid to the temple (until it fell then it went to Rome). So why is this not a problem? It's where it's collected. It's a problem once the graven images are all brought to the temple just as when Herod hung the eagle there. Or the shields brought by Pilate and placed in the temple. Otherwise the graven image on the coin to Caesar would be a problem but it wasn't. The shields could be in Caesarea but not the temple. This has nothing at all to do with being Hellenistic. It has everything with trying to keep the law. They had to collect the silver coinage for the tax, under the law, and had to work with the graven images, also a part of the law, as part of that deal. And as far as the notion of Jews not strictly following their own traditions, one can easily spot evidence of that even to this day. The Old Testament is story after story of Israelis and Jews ignoring their own laws. And is this one of those times? It seems the new testament is all about the Pharisees and all being a rather legalistic bunch. Sticklers. And the Sadducees? You don't even want to get them started on those uptight Saducees. But maybe they relaxed the rules for eunuchs? All the ancient world did love them eunuchs after all. If there was a group to let into your club it was them, right? Nothing says "manly" more than "eunuch" and these ancient Jews were pretty cool with the "anything goes" lifestyles. So I can see them in them in the ritual baths getting ready to enter the temple and not noticing any "problems" with our eunuch pal but inviting him right on in to hear the Torah that they would ignore. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Methoxy Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 Some Jews kept the laws. Some didn't. There is little consistancy. We can speculate either way.My point is if we're going to note implausible things in Acts, the verse about Phillip is nowhere near the most questionable story in the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Okeee-dokeee. So our particular eunuch happened in with a pro-eunuch crowd. Eunuch-Tuesdays. Your argument of "Some Jews kept the laws. Some didn't." has convinced me. Some Americans keep the laws. Some don't. Brilliant. Makes getting things, and into things, much easier. Fort Knox here I come! I'll just tell them I don't keep the laws. Then all the gold is mine! mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Methoxy Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 Are you OK, man? I didn't realize we were arguing. I thought I was in a discussion forum where it was ok to discuss opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Actually, I was originally pointing out that your Deuteronomy 23 verse was about eunuchs (those having their penises and/or testicles removed/damaged) and so would not relate to a colostomy bag as you mentioned. The note about Philip and the eunuch was an addendum (ie. "it also"). It was to add to your post. That is to say because of Deuteronomy 23 the story of Philip and the eunuch cannot occur and therefore Philip cannot fly away at the end. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Methoxy Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 I see your point. Thanks for sharing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Foxy has this habit of mixing reality and fantasy. I do too. I have a fantasy that he'll one day become a man of integrity. In reality he won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Well, that derailed... Back to the OP. Zechariah 5:7, "Then the cover of lead was raised, and there in the basket sat a woman! He said, "This is wickedness," and he pushed her back into the basket and pushed the lead cover down over its mouth." Genesis 15:9, "So the LORD said to him, "Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Methoxy Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 Foxy has this habit of mixing reality and fantasy. I do too. I have a fantasy that he'll one day become a man of integrity. In reality he won't. What is this about, Legion? I'd be offended if that's what you're looking for, but it doesn't even make sense. There is a major cultural difference between the Hebrews who worshiped in the tabernacle and who wrote the Torah and the Jews who worshiped in Herod's temple in the 1st century. It should be obvious, but I guess it's not. If the subject of eunuchs in the temple is worth getting worked up over, then I'm sorry I pressed those buttons. It's very odd to me how opinions are not welcome on this site. The angry fundamentalist isn't far removed from many people who post here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Foxy, please relax man. We're in the Den and I feel the opportunity is here to basically free associate. So that's what I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Methoxy Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'm relaxed. You're just not making sense. That's all. Are you sober? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'm relaxed. You're just not making sense. That's all. Are you sober? Sober? You talking to me? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le9EZcyvY_U&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Foxy has this habit of mixing reality and fantasy. I do too. I have a fantasy that he'll one day become a man of integrity. In reality he won't. What is this about, Legion? I'd be offended if that's what you're looking for, but it doesn't even make sense. There is a major cultural difference between the Hebrews who worshiped in the tabernacle and who wrote the Torah and the Jews who worshiped in Herod's temple in the 1st century. It should be obvious, but I guess it's not. If the subject of eunuchs in the temple is worth getting worked up over, then I'm sorry I pressed those buttons. It's very odd to me how opinions are not welcome on this site. The angry fundamentalist isn't far removed from many people who post here. Holy shit. You're still on this? I told you why I posted what I did and let your derailment of your own thread go as a misunderstanding. But apparently this just was a load of shit on your part. You think your opinion assertion matters? Herod the Great couldn't go into the temple proper when he rebuilt the fucking thing and you think that they're just going to let some eunuch wander in because of your opinion that "times change?" Times didn't change. If the very king your talking about didn't have the power to break that law and had to circumvent it by building a tower so he could see into the temple while it was being build then I imagine his eunuchs didn't get to just walk around as they pleased much less some foreign convert from Ethiopia. The eunuch comes to town and apparently sits outside the temple to worship before going home. He'd have to since he wouldn't have been able to enter the temple. What a dedicated guy. The whole story is likely a reference to Isaiah 56 (where foreign eunuchs can be acceptable during the end times, Isaiah 53-56, if they're really sincere worshiper types...and just looky looky...our dear eunuch is caught by Phil reading Isaiah and needs a little consult before he is accepted into the tribe. Now he's not an outcast but a member of the true assembly. What a happy day.) In the same book of Acts we're told that simply letting Greeks into the temple (true or not) is enough to get Paul on the path to doom and destruction and yet eunuchs are running wild. Odd how Hellenism and progressiveness weren't helping them any. Maybe the authors weren't aware how the Greeks were involved in these things? You've made no case. None whatsoever. You've just relied on your opinion, some mention of Hellenism, vague allusions to lawless times past, and a loose reference to the story of the money changers. It seems you have a grand total of jack shit on your side. If it's so obvious then you should have it easy. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 The angry fundamentalist isn't far removed from many people who post here. You're the one who started the debate by trying to correct mwc, and now when he's schooling you, you're projecting the fault on others instead of backing down on a claim that you can't defend. Not trying to be an asshole here, just saying is all. Aside from this, I thought we all were aware of how passionate mwc is on these topics? Hell, he was in the trenches with the whole historical Jesus topic for ages so I wasn't surprised that he didn't let this slide either. Anyways, as for weird verses in the Bible, this one tops it for me at the moment: Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk. - Deuteronomy 14:21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephie Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I kinda don't want to get involved but how they know he's a eunuch? Would people tell? Or would his voice be high? Just curious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I kinda don't want to get involved but how they know he's a eunuch? Would people tell? Or would his voice be high? Just curious? I suppose he could lie. I doubt they did a "ball check" on everyone coming through the doors. I had read that eunuchs of the Greco-Roman period often identified themselves (their "condition") using jewelry and cosmetics. These could be removed but considering many of these people were slaves it was risky for them to hide their status in society. Getting caught in the temple as a eunuch could mean certain death and getting caught as a slave without properly identifying one's self could mean an equally cruel fate. Of course most toilets were very public and things like the Pools of Siloam (sp?) where it's thought people ritually bathed were also very public. I don't know how obvious a male castration is but I don't know if a person would be able to hide it for long under some of these circumstances. Jews, and others who practiced this, were sometimes thought to be "gay" (effeminate) in Roman baths because they were circumcised (the tips of their penises showing indicated they were excited over the sight of the others). I'm also wondering why someone who truly thought this god was THE god would lie to go to where this god was most powerful. It seems a risky business if you truly believe. You may have got into the temple but what is the risk of angering this vengeful god? We might think it no big thing but we're talking about people that believed disease was caused by demons and sacrifices protected them from harm. I don't know if I'd do it but I can't say there weren't eunuchs that wouldn't have done it. It just seems a lot of risk for little benefit. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephie Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I kinda don't want to get involved but how they know he's a eunuch? Would people tell? Or would his voice be high? Just curious? I suppose he could lie. I doubt they did a "ball check" on everyone coming through the doors. I had read that eunuchs of the Greco-Roman period often identified themselves (their "condition") using jewelry and cosmetics. These could be removed but considering many of these people were slaves it was risky for them to hide their status in society. Getting caught in the temple as a eunuch could mean certain death and getting caught as a slave without properly identifying one's self could mean an equally cruel fate. Of course most toilets were very public and things like the Pools of Siloam (sp?) where it's thought people ritually bathed were also very public. I don't know how obvious a male castration is but I don't know if a person would be able to hide it for long under some of these circumstances. Jews, and others who practiced this, were sometimes thought to be "gay" (effeminate) in Roman baths because they were circumcised (the tips of their penises showing indicated they were excited over the sight of the others). I'm also wondering why someone who truly thought this god was THE god would lie to go to where this god was most powerful. It seems a risky business if you truly believe. You may have got into the temple but what is the risk of angering this vengeful god? We might think it no big thing but we're talking about people that believed disease was caused by demons and sacrifices protected them from harm. I don't know if I'd do it but I can't say there weren't eunuchs that wouldn't have done it. It just seems a lot of risk for little benefit. mwc Oh okay that makes sense. I just wondered. Lol "ball check". It would make sense that people who are devoted would not risk angering their god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts