Fanny Cradock wrote: » The historical Jesus is widely regarded as having existing some 2000 years ago - and obviously this doesn't just include Christians. If you want unbiased sources that claim that he never existed then you wont find them because the claim in and of itself uses special pleading.Dan Barker is another one who apparently denies the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. He's quite popular in certain atheist circles - though I can't imagine why. You can watch him throw an extraordinary hissy fit in a debate entitled Was Jesus a Myth (at about 24 minutes in). He objected to his written work being critiqued, specifically his writings that promoted Jesus as myth.
marienbad wrote: » You keep conflating the two Jesus's , the historical Jesus and the God Jesus. I am not denying the historical Jesus. I am still waiting on unbiased sources for the God Jesus, documents that have a vested interests don't count.
marienbad wrote: » By the way PDN and ISAW , I think I asked earlier - On the mentioning rape in the bible, where does it mention condom in the bible ?
marienbad wrote: » Again no one is denying the historical Jesus ,
I am looking for credibile historians as sources for either side of the question.
That fact is most non-christians just don't care. This guy has is own ax to grind, makes some valid points though. But consistency tells me to ignore him.
I am looking for credible non biased sources for Jesus the God.
ISAW wrote: » That is quite a bizzare question. I'm assuming ( pardon my leap of prediction) you refer to Church policies about condoms or contraception or abortion not being mentioned in the Bible. Nor does it mention nukes, WMD, automatic rifles, electrocution, gas chambers etc. but Christians interpret Christ's views on the matter.
marienbad wrote: » So interpretation does come into to it then, and any reasonable interpretation of the disputed passage would agree that it is indeed rape.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » What we should be asking is how the Israelites understand the law. Not how you or me understand it so far removed from the events. I personally have no idea of the answer to this. PDN - any ideas/ sources?
PDN wrote: » I think it would be rather difficult to produce any sources from 1300 BC proving a negative. What kind of source would be sufficient to convince atheists that a passage in which rape isn't mentioned isn't talking about rape?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Presumably if a document was unearthed that be counted as evidence towards Jesus' divinity you would consider it a biased source and therefore unreliable. What exactly are you looking for? Please consider the possibility that in setting your "vested interest" criteria you are actually displaying your own bias.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Could you give me the verse in question again? I'd like to study it for myself.
PDN wrote: » Not at all, unless you're redefining 'reasonable' to mean 'one that suits marienbad's agenda'. Or maybe I'm missing a 'spirit'?
What kind of source would be sufficient to convince atheists that a passage in which rape isn't mentioned isn't talking about rape?
marienbad wrote: » Absolutely not Fanny, I am applying the same standards that would apply to any historical discussion ( or indeed any discussion). For example ISAW mentioned the Japanese version of Pearl harbour versus the American version of Pearl Harbour. Of course there is only one version and that can never be truly known, but by study of all primary and secondary sources and publication and discussion to and fro and the passage of time we can begin to approximate the truth, but it is a never ending process , incorporating more information as it becomes available. And finally nothing is sacred. All is subject to change if the evidence indicates so.
tommy2bad wrote: » While the word 'rape' isn't used, the fact that rules were made to deal with the situation kinda proves rape was happening. It's the exception proves the rule. What is interesting is that the Israelites had to deal with the situation and made rules to limit harm. From their point of view anyway.
marienbad wrote: » I will resist the obvious smart alec reply and ask you this PDN- is consent required for marriage ?
PDN wrote: » No, and neither is rape required for marriage. The passage in question neither says that consent was required, or that it wasn't. In fact, come to think of it, I've mentioned on this forum several times that I'm married. But I've never mentioned that my wife gave her consent. I do hope you haven't been presuming that I'm a rapist.
PDN wrote: » When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
marienbad wrote: » But marriage requires consent does it not ?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Thank you. But tell me something that every secondary level student isn't already aware of. I asked you what type of historical evidence you are looking for.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I would think it realistic to assume that in the time it might take for the new husband to reject his new wife (weeks or months ) that the marriage bed would have been consecrated, so to speak. If the woman did not want to have sex - and here I am talking about resisting the husband's amorous advances as opposed to viewing them as a necessary consequence of her new life - then what do we call this? Again, I'm wondering what rights the woman had to say no?
PDN wrote: » I wonder too. Maybe she had the right to say 'No' - maybe she didn't. I allow for either interpretation (unlike those who insist that they know, when they quite obviously don't).
PDN wrote: » It does today, in Western societies anyway. For much of history, in many cultures, arranged marriages have been the norm.
marienbad wrote: » so do you allow that if she did not consent she may be subject to rape ?
As for those that insist that they know ! I think you can number yourself chief among them PDN.
After all it is you who is stating catagorically that no rape is sanctioned .
marienbad wrote: » are you seriously saying that these were ''arranged'' marriages, more a case of to the victor belong the spoils I would have thought.
PDN wrote: » Wicknight (aka Zombrex) has made assertions that the Bible commanded rape. I pointed out that the passages he was quoting had a perfectly plausible interpretation where no rape is involved. He has offered no reason, other than his preference that it be so, why his interpretation is the correct one.
PDN wrote: » Your wording is somewhat ambiguous. That old clarity issue again! If you meant to say, "Do you allow that one possible interpretation of that passage is that those who did not consent were forced to marry?" Then, yes, I have stated several times that either interpretation is equally possible. If you rather meant to say, "Do you allow that any women who did not consent to marriage were forced to marry?" Then, no, I see no reason (other than an ideological agenda) why that interpretation should be favoured over the other possibility. That is a falsehood. I have stated all along that there are two equally plausible interpretations. You, in case you've forgotten, are one of the culprits who insists that there is only one possible interpretation - going so far as to label anyone who disagrees with your interpretation as being unreasonable and irrational. I love the way that those who are being dogmatic try to pin that accusation on someone who is perfectly happy to admit that two plausible interpretations exist. No, I'm stating that there is no categorical sanction of rape. There is a clear distinction between the two positions. If two plausible interpretations exist for a passage, then it is plainly dishonest to assert one over the other. Therefore it is wrong to assert that the Bible sanctions rape when a perfectly plausible alternative interpretation exists.
Zombrex wrote: » Er, no lets try that again shall we. You stated that the women might have freely gone with the men. This is not what one would call a perfectly plausible explanation, it in fact is ridiculous.
You are of course able to hold any position you like (just like people are able to hold that homosexual acts are not condemned in the Bible as sin, and that Jesus never existed), but simply because you hold it doesn't make it plausible.
You have interestingly refused to defend this position, stating that you are not asserting it is the correct interpretation but simply the one that makes the most sense to you and thus there is no onus on you to defend it.
