Comic Strips

Jesus also said, “The law was made for the man, not the man for the law.”
...
You can always take verses out of context (both literary and historical) and make anything look horrible.

First off, it's amazing that you're pulling out "CoNtExT" on me here while doing exactly that.

^23^One Sabbath he was going through the grain fields, and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. ^24^The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” ^25^And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food, ^26^how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions?” ^27^Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath, ^28^so the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”
-Mark 2:23-28

Now lets talk about that context.

The first thing here is that they weren't harvesting or gathering. Harvesting is an entire process. With grains, they would use sickles to cut the grasses, stack them into sheaves to let the grass dry out, then take the bundles to the thresher, removing the seeds of grain, and bringing the grains into storage to keep it away from critters and such.

What is not prohibited is what the Disciples were doing. Plucking the heads of wheat and popping them into your mouth. That was not harvesting, except in the most pedantic and modern sense of the word.

Furthermore, most of the Laws have the exceptions for the preservation of life. The Disciples were hungry. Some translate it as 'starving'. And this is the argument Jesus is making here. That it was an act to preserve life, which is in fact permissible.

And right after that, he says, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” ... snip... ?You see, if you read the text thoughtfully and take its context into account, it says something quite different. It’s convoluted indeed, but that’s the literary style of the time. You can’t make strong assertions like that without studying the subject a minimum. You can’t read 2000 years old texts like they were written yesterday. Even in translation, they have to be decoded.

Sorry. You were lecturing me on context?

You should probably go study the basics. There are multiple legal codes being discussed in the passage. the author of Mark even explains this to you in a parenthetical aside, ya dingus. (Verse 3: "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, *thus observing the tradition of the elders,").

Jesus is advocating the written Law of Moses, as written in the Torah. Predominately, in Deuteronomy, but also in Exodus and Leviticus.

The Pharisees were citing the Oral Law, also called the Tradition of the Elders. (they, being the Elders.) the Oral Law fixes a large number of the things that went wrong in the written law. Like, for example, they knew (long before Jesus came around) that around half of women don't actually bleed the first time they have sex; and that using a bloody cloth as evidence of virginity (and the lack of a blood cloth justification for stoning new brides) is simply fucked in the head....

Or that it's normal for children to gripe about their parents, and normal for children to push boundaries as they grow up, and that stoning children for doing so is fucked in the head.

They also added things like "wash your food. and your hands." to it. Mostly it was ritual and not about practical hygiene.

I mean. if you had just read the damn passage you'd know these things. the washing of food and hands as a ritual purity was not part of the torah. it's part of the Oral Law.

So when he says "you're righteousness must exceed the pharisees"... He's saying they don't measure up because they are not following the Law of Moses.

Also, if you actually read Mark 7, you'd also know the answer to this:

I have no idea what you mean when you say that Jesus explicitly “cited a law that directs people to stone kids who talk back.”

Specifically, Jesus says in verses 9 and 10:

^9^Then he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! ^10^For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’

The first is found in Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16

Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
and Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

What they mean by "honor your mother and father" here includes obedience. (as well as holding reverence and respect).

The second is Exodus 21:17 and Lev 20:9. most christian translations will say "cursed" or "speak ill of" or something to that effect, for example, the NSRVUE:

Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.
and All who curse father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed father or mother, their bloodguilt is upon them.

the word being used in the original Hebrew is 'qalal', which yes, can mean "curse". It also means "to insult:", to "revile" or to "speak with contempt". when they do so, it's less in the sense of a ritual invoking harm on a person, and more speaking evil of them. (which is how Jesus phrased it. funny, huh?)

the JPS, though, as a jewish translation puts it as "insult"

Lev20:9, as the example:

Regarding anyone who insults their father or their mother: they shall be put to death; they have insulted their father and their mother—and the bloodguilt is theirs.

There’s no law in the Old Testament that says that.

lol. so, Jesus literally quotes the damn thing in the passage. still gonna lecture when you don't even know that much?

Yes, selling a daughter is a horrible practice, but it was the norm for much of human history. The Bible wasn’t written in a cultural vacuum. It takes people’s practices as they are and tries to push things in the right direction.

So you're saying an all-powerful god, dictating his eternal and absolute and perfect law to his bronze age idiots couldn't be like "don't do that, that's messed up", but he could say things like "don't wear clothes of blended fabrics," and "Don't eat shellfish or pork"- all of which was far, far more common?

But what you don’t understand is that only a small part of Christianity considers the Bible to be the “inerrant Word of God.” Jesus didn’t,

yes. he. fucking. did. Read your damn book.

^17^“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. ^18^For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. ^19^Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ^20^For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Earlier you said:

Here, Matthew is actually doing the opposite of what you think. When he writes, “Whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,”

lets summarize the meaning of the words on the page, shall we?

• "I didn't come to abolish the law of the prophets"
• "I didn't come to abolish [the law] but fulfill [the prophets]"
• "the law is eternal"
• "whoever breaks it will be the least"
• "you need to be more righteous than those asshats who don't even follow the law."

and you're lecturing me on context? about twisting verses? You're saying the exact opposite of what any honest person would read in that passage.

Now lets have some fun. the 'new covenant" comes from Jeremiah 31:31-37.

it says that god will create a new covenant because they broke the old one. And that god will do some magic binding rituals to ensure that this new covenant cannot be broken.

So if Jesus did what he said he came to do (fulfill the prophets)... we literally would be incapable of breaking the written Law of Moses. Further, if Jesus was Messiah, then we'd not be having this conversation, The Kingdom of Israel would lead the entire world, Rome would have fallen at the hands of Jesus, and all the Israelites would have been gathered back home and there would be peace because no one would be physically able to deny god.

Literally none of that happened. The very nature of the world as it exists today demonstrates the bullshit. So yeah. you actually did say one accurate thing:

He disobeys the law more than once and asks his disciples to do the same. Then, after Jesus’s death, Peter is instructed to disobey the law even more.

Being a blasphemer and false prophet is contrary to the Law of Moses. I get that's not how you meant it. but it is true all the same. Jesus didn't fulfill a single messianic prophecy.

the Bible is quite clear

No it isn't, or else this conversation wouldn't be happening.

The Bible is a thousands-year-old compilation of local folk tales and the musings of illiterate sheepherders, munged together by rich elites who saw its usefulness in controlling the masses, and has been translated. modified, and reinterpreted dozens of times to keep it effective at controlling the masses. It's fraught with inconsistencies, and calling anything in it "quite clear" is honestly just laughable.