Are there any "specific" scriptures condemning child abuse, incest & rape ?

And why are they not part of the 10 commandments ?

First things first....The ten commandments are relatively unimportant in that they are only 10 laws out of 613. The ten commandments are no greater or less then any of the other 613. It is a christian idea that the 10 commandments are important or are a "summary" of the other 613. Each and every commandment of the 613 commandments is just as obligatory for the Jews as every single other commandment in the 613.

As far as the Laws for Gentiles....it would be under "not being cruel to nature" that this would be mentioned. If one is more pious then it would be the laws which specify that you cannot have relations with a family member.


Are there any specific verses concerning child abuse? I'm certain there are, but I don't know what they are.

What do you mean by child abuse? (that might help).

emotional, physical, mental ?


Anything that hurts the child, and no, I don't mean "sorry son, but you can't have that cherry lollipop for dinner"

I looked up the 613 commandments.

Some "ahem" interesting, some useful. But what happened to free will in this jumble of 613 rules & regulations ?

It's short of telling you exactly how to wipe one's bum. That may be on their too, have to check.

Micro management at it's finest> control freak comes to mind >reminds me of someone in my family

Regardless, i shall have a l k

Hurt how though? Unreasonably harming your child is against Jewish law. A person (technically) isn't even supposed to have a child until the person is wise enough to be able to take care of a child and make good decisions concerning that child. Sure, halachically a person could beat his/her child with a rod. But that would mean the parents character is not too good either. I don't think the laws on it are too specific because "abuse" cases would be dealt with on a case by case basis. Obviously murdering the child would be wrong. Also, child neglect would definitely be halachically illegal. But yeah, an "abuse" cases would be handled on a case by case level.

I am not an expert on Jewish law, however, I do know that the Jews have a LOT of regulations. I (personally) keep 213 commandments. For a Jew, it is obligatory to follow these laws and they could be punished by a Jewish court for breaking them. Even though they are quite tedious, and they do create a ritual of sorts in a person's life, their free will remains in tact. In fact, a lot of different laws have different ways of being preformed. It all depends.


As far as gentile laws (which would concern the 99% of the world that isn't Jewish), child "abuse" would also be dealt with on a case by case basis. There is a law in the Sheva mitzvot which talks about cruelty to nature/animals. Children would fall under that category. In any case, it would have to be decided by a court what to do with a "child abuser". If a gentile law is broken, the court will probably administer the death penalty (It is commonly understood that all of the Seven Laws of Noah come with the death penalty if broken)

I believe that the most important two laws are to love the God with all thy soul and heart. and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. which would cover child abuse wouldn't it.

Not necessarily. You can love your child and abuse it halachically but think you're providing discipline. Or you could take some other law out of context and end up abusing your child (Ie "beat your child with the rod, he will not die")

I agree with both of you so far.

Not if your being honest with yourself

Self-delusion would allow for them to be honest with themselves and still claim love. Even belief allows for a person to be so sincere and so caring about it, that they would delude themselves into believing that they are "good" while still doing horrible things. I can think of no greater example than that of Holocaust germany where Hitler convinced millions that they were doing good by killing Jews.

Yea I know what you mean my father is like that.

Any reason why you only mentioned seven laws before and now you mention two-hundred and thirteen? Also what is the reason not to follow all of the Mitzvah?

I can not remember the exact verse but I have a quote from Jesus in my head that says

"A man would be better with a milstone around his neck and tossed in to the sea, than to harm a child"

This is not word for word, but it is a verse that has stuck with me through the years.

Edit to add:

Matthew18.6

" But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. "

he also didn't want anyone taking childhood away from any child. Don't know what age he thought childhood ended.

Because for a Non-Jew only 7 are obligatory. However, to show your devotion to God one may keep as many (additional) commandments as they want. If you are not a Jew (your mother is not Jewish) you are obligated to keep the Sheva Mitzvot.


I don't know if you know about the Chassidic movement. There are Chassidim and there are Misdanagim. Chassidim believe that by preforming the Mitzvot above and beyond what you are obligated to do, you are working to create a better world. Misdanagim do not believe this. A Chassidic Jew would be the one you see wearing a hat all the time, the one who never shaves his beard, the one who wears peyos and tzit tzits. A misdanagim will usually only keep what they are obligated to do. In the same way, a Noahide can be Chassidic in that he keeps more commandments than he is required. A Gentile only needs to keep seven. However, should he choose he can keep 30-or-66 (the usual number for Chassidic Noahides) or any other amount that he should desire. I personally keep 213. Some of them are difficult (like not eating dairy with meat). In any case, if I do break any of the extra commandments I create for myself, I am not penalized.

You ask why not keep all of the law? A person can keep all of the law. But the world isn't meant to convert (at least not according to the majority of Orthodoxy). A Jew (a person who's mother is Jewish) is OBLIGATED to keep all 613. Some will go above and beyond (like wearing a yarmulke 24/7) and become Chassidim. Some will not. However, so long as they keep the 613 they'll be good.

A Non-Jew is OBLIGATED to keep the Seven Laws o\f Noah. He may choose to go above and beyond (like eating Kosher, or following other commandments), but at the most basic level, there are seven...


Some (like myself) believe that Noahides are to keep the 66 laws (which are an expansion of the 7) as suggested by Rabbi Lichtenstein. There are many (like myself) who think that everyone should strive to be Chassidim. However, this is not required by the Sages of the Talmud, and since there is no Sanhedrin it has not been declared obligatory.


Orthodox Judaism is a religion with options, people say we pick and choose, but God gives us that choice. Granted, we can only pick and choose within our parameters. But if we stay within our parameters then it is up to us to decide whatever else it is that we follow. :-)

If you have any more question feel free to PM me! Or you can IM me on AIM.

Thanks Kaizen and I am familiar with Hasidism somewhat but not greatly. Are not both Hasidism and Misnagdim both only terms in relation to European Jews aka Ashkenazi. Do such terms apply to Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews as well? As far as I know they do not.

I guess Christ was not a good Jew. He didn't keep all 613 laws. He only kept the ones he wanted when he wanted too.

I think it applies to all three groups. I am not sure though. Chassidic means "Pious". So a person can be righteous (ie following the Seven Laws without accepting that they are from God) while not being pious (following the laws because God told them to).

But yeah, I'm not too sure. I know that at the very least Sephardic and Mazrahi Jews would fit into the Misdanagim group. It's all the same Torah, it's all the same Talmud. They're just from different parts of the world and have different traditions.


Jesus (calling him christ is like calling him "messiah") was not a "good Jew". He committed blasphemy before a Jewish (though not Orthodox, still Jewish) court.

He did not call himself christ before the court. he stated as you say. And yet the jews now claim him to be a prophet of God.

He was asked if he had claimed to be God. He said "It is as you say."

And no the Jews (Orthodox) do NOT consider him to be a prophet of God. Were he a prophet of God we would have to listen to him (Deut 18), however, he isn't, so we don't. Instead, he fits in as a false prophet (Deut 13).

Sorry you may not consider him a prophet but there are some who do.

At very best, he would be consider someone who taught good things. Aside from his blasphemy he taught basic Jewish concepts. However, he was not a prophet, and as far as Orthodoxy is concerned, it is a heresy to say that he is.

He did full fill alot of old test prophecies, and is soon to fullfill the rest. According to the old test, he is God.

That is clearly a Christian view preacherman and since Judaism does not accept the New Testament, recognize the divinity of Christ, and ascribe other meanings to every prophecy we believe are in reference to Jesus they simply cannot share our view. From a Christian perspective though you are totally correct and it is quite wonderful to study all the prophecies Jesus did fulfill and knowing more are on the way.

Just as the old test prophets fortold I love it when I see a Jewish person give there life to Christ. I think man how blessed they are going to be come that day.

Two of the three Bible quotes that immediately popped to mind have been quoted already - "do to others what you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:31), and "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew18.6)

To this, I would add: Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me." (Mark 9:36).

The second and third of these quotes are related directly to children. If we expand this to include passages against this behaviour (regardless of the victim's age) then I could quote dozens more. For me, I think the 10 commandments nicely sum up God's commands, and Jesus nicely sums up all the Law and the Prophets by giving us the two greatest commandments - Love God, Love your neighbour (our children are our neighbours also, remember).

To briefly touch on something that was said about the 613 laws being "micro management at its finest... control freak comes to mind", the Jewish view has already been represented. For a Chrsitian, these 613 laws show what God demands of us to be perfect. Since it is quite obvious that no one can ever hope to always follow all 613 laws, we believe that the Old Testament laws were written to condemn humanity - to show that we can not in any way reach God on our own. Thus we believe Jesus came, to save us. The Law condemns, God's Grace saves. So I don't see it as a matter of being a "control freak" but rather a way to show us that we ourselves cannot reach perfection (always following all 613 laws).

Just my view, of course

It depends on the translation you read. I honestly don't have enough knowledge of Greek to provide an opinion at this stage, and I don't have my Greek dictionary on me at the moment (upgraded computers, so I'm going to have to reinstall my software. Some versions translate this verse as "Yes, it is as you say". Other translations are a little more ambiguous, by writing "So you say" or something very similar. With the first translation, it's an absolutely affirmative "Yes", while the second could be interpreted as the ancient-day equivalent to pleading the American's 5th Ammendment -

Prosecutor: Do you claim to be the Christ?

Jesus: You have said so

Hopefully I can get time to get my dictionary back as soon as possible. All the best,

no Jews don't . muslims do.

and yet ---

Below is a list of objections answered in this volume:

5.1. The New Testament misquotes and misinterprets the Old Testament. At times it manufactures verses to suit its purposes.

5.2. According to Matthew 2:15, when the little boy Jesus, along with Joseph and Mary, fled to Egypt to escape from Herod, this “fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’” But Matthew only quoted the second half of the verse in Hosea. What the prophet really said was this: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.” The verse has to do with Israel, not Jesus, and it is recounting a historical event, not giving a prophecy. And you claim that Matthew was inspired. Hardly!

5.3. Matthew 2:23 says that when Jesus moved to the town of Nazareth, this “fulfilled what was said through the prophets: ‘He will be called a Nazarene.’” There’s only one problem. The prophets never said this! Matthew actually made it up.

5.4. Matthew 27:9–10 is totally confused. First Matthew quotes part of a prophecy from Zechariah, then he says it comes from Jeremiah, and then he takes the whole thing totally out of context. What a mess!

5.5. Hebrews 10:5 is one of the worst examples of New Testament Scripture-twisting. The writer quotes from Psalm 40, where the psalmist says, “You have opened my ears,” but he applies it to Jesus and changes the words to read, “A body you have prepared for me.” Could you imagine anything more dishonest?
5.6. The New Testament is full of historical inaccuracies.

5.7. None of the important historical writers of the period—Roman or Jewish—make mention of Jesus. It’s questionable whether he even existed.

5.8. Modern scholars are in complete agreement that the Gospels portray a mythical Jesus. There is very little that we can really know about his life.

5.9. Jesus was not born of a virgin. In fact, we have traditions that actually tell us who Jesus’ real father was—and it wasn’t Joseph! Anyway, the idea of a god being born to a virgin is just one of several pagan myths that made its way into the New Testament.

5.10. The genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and Luke are hopelessly contradictory.

5.11. The Messiah is David’s son. If Jesus were really born of a virgin, then Joseph was not his father and he is really not a descendant of David, even according to Matthew’s genealogy. And if you claim that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary, Jesus still doesn’t qualify, since the genealogy in Luke goes through David’s son Nathan, whereas the Messianic promises must go through David’s son Solomon. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

5.12. Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he is a descendant of King Jehoiachin. God cursed both this king and his offspring, saying that none of his descendants would ever sit on the throne of David.

5.13. Jesus did work some miracles, but they were not by God’s power. We have traditions that tell us he learned magical arts in Egypt.

5.14. Jesus didn’t fulfill any of the Messianic prophecies. We know that the New Covenant writers actually reconstructed the life of Jesus so as to harmonize it with certain predictions made by the prophets.

5.15. When Jesus failed to fulfill the prophecies, his followers invented the myth of his substitutionary death, his resurrection, and finally, his second coming, which, of course, they completely expected in his lifetime.

5.16. Do you want irrefutable proof that the authors of the New Testament didn’t know what they were talking about? Well, look at Matthew 23:35, where Jesus states that the last martyr spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures was Zechariah son of Berechiah. Actually, that was the name of the biblical prophet (see Zech. 1:1); the last martyr was Zechariah son of Jehoiada (see 2 Chron. 24:20–22). So, either Jesus, your alleged Messiah, didn’t know his Bible, or else Matthew (or the final editor of his book) didn’t know the Tanakh. Either way, this is a glaring error that cannot be ignored.

5.17. The New Testament is self-contradictory (especially the Gospels)!

5.18. Matthew claims that when Jesus died on the cross, “the tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people” (Matt. 27:52–53). This is obviously complete nonsense, without any hint of historical support. If such an incredible event ever took place—something like “the night of the living dead” in ancient Jerusalem—someone would have recorded it.

5.19. The teachings of Jesus are impossible, dangerous, and un-Jewish (“Hate your mother and father,” “Let the dead bury their own dead,” “Give to whoever asks you,” etc.). There’s no way he should be followed.

5.20. The New Covenant is anti-Semitic. It is filled with negative references to the Jewish people, and it blames them for the death of Jesus.

5.21. The Jesus of the New Testament is hardly Jewish. In fact, he even refers to the Torah as “your Law”—precisely because it was not his own.

5.22. Jesus was a false prophet. He claimed that his apostles would live to see his return, a prediction he missed by two thousand years. He also predicted that not one stone in Jerusalem would be left standing when the Romans destroyed it. Well, have you ever heard of the Wailing Wall?

5.23. Jesus was a cruel and undisciplined man. He violated the Torah by cursing—and hence, destroying—a perfectly good fig tree for not bearing figs even though the New Testament writers tell us that it was not the time for figs. So much for your wonderful Messiah! He even called a Gentile woman a dog when she approached him for help.

5.24. Actually, Jesus also taught that salvation came through obeying the Law. Just read Matthew 5:17–20; 7:21; 19:16–30; 25:31–46. This whole “gospel of grace” message is the invention of Paul and the other writers.

5.25. The teachings of the New Testament may have started out Jewish, but before long, they became totally pagan. This was done intentionally, since the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah and only the pagans would listen to the message.

5.26. Jesus was really all right. He was a good Jew and a fine rabbi. It was Paul who messed everything up and founded Christianity.

5.27. If you study world religions, you will see that the teachings of Jesus borrow extensively from Hinduism and Buddhism.

5.28. Jesus abolished the Law.

5.29. Paul abolished the Law.

5.30. The Torah is forever, every jot and title, and only traditional Jews keep it. In fact, even the so-called new covenant of Jeremiah 31 says that God will put the Torah in our hearts. Therefore, since Jesus abolished the Torah, he cannot be the Messiah.

5.31. Anyone who changes the Law—no matter what signs or wonders he performs—is a false prophet. That applies to Jesus!

5.32. Observance of the Sabbath has been the hallmark of the Jewish people, separating us from other nations and identifying us with the covenant of God. Since Christianity changed the Sabbath, Christianity is obviously not for the Jewish people.

5.33. According to Mark 7:19, Jesus abolished the dietary laws.

5.34. If the death of Jesus really inaugurated the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, then why hasn’t it been fulfilled?

http://www.realmessiah.com/Objections_vol4.htm

not to mention jesus told the disciples he was speaking too that he'd be back during their lifetime. not some future date.

Well nice list Ripley if one wants to learn the Jewish view. If that is the actual common Jewish view. It seems to just come out full stop with every point imaginable to contradict Jesus and when someone sets out to disprove something that is usually what they do. I have no time to refute every point or even offer an alternative Christian view but as I have stated before there is the Jewish view and the Christian view and they are sometimes not the same at all depending on the topic. That does not mean one is right and the other is wrong. It means both groups subscribe to different views. I have a feeling you, who are not Jewish, are just providing the information as part of your efforts to contradict Christianity and that is fine but it cannot be accepted by me as a genuine input of information. If you actually did adhere to Judaism then that would be different but I somehow suspect if Judaism was the most popular religion of the land you too would find ways to attempt to discredit it as well.

Regarding the 613 laws that is an excellent view PA. They were so hard to follow the ancient Israelites were always sacrificing to atone for their sins. Your theory though also inherently claims that Christianity is superior to Judaism and while some might claim we are arrogant for believing such we believe it is just a natural progression of things and the partial becoming perfect. I do believe that Judaism is still a valid path for coming to know God but oh how much easier it is to accept Jesus and allow the Spirit to guide.

Regarding the passage where the High Priest asks Jesus if he is Christ, the son of God, the part in question is actually two words in Greek: su and epo. Su means you and epo means speak or to say. He of course goes on into a longer response.

So, a child has to believe before s/he can be saved by JC? Yet, a child has to learn about religion -- it doesn't come naturally. It's not a belief we're born with...

Why don't christians see this type of thinking for what it is? It's *flawed*... How anyone can suggest belief in god or christ is a prerequisite for salvation of a child is beyond me.

Yet Romans 2 states (paraphrase) that those who follow the Word will be judge by it but those who do not will be judged by their conscience (v 15-16). Thus a child will have a clean conscience and will be saved. If anything is flawed it is the misconceptions one has about salvation.

This is a little off topic, so I won't go too deeply into it. Suffice it to say that the Bible does not say what happens to children who are too young to make a choice (nor does it give what age that is, though some churches for reasons beyond my understanding have put age-limits on when a child becomes "accountable"). A child who has not yet learnt to make choices has by default not learnt disobedience. It could then be argued that they never "sinned" against God and are thus blameless. On the other hand, you can also argue along the lines in your post. The bottom line is no one can know for sure.

the brain capabilities would be why, and level of experince would be another reason why....yes a child can make age appropriate decisions like where they want to be tickled , or how they want be held etc.. and choices should be given right away, but at 10 we would not put this kind of a decision on a child some parents decide this for the kid and some wait till the kid is old enough and can decide...

Also, in my opinion this is why Jesus spoke in parables to the ADULTS in the crowds -- they were too immature (too young, spiritually).

This is a subject shrouded in lack of revealed knowledge from Scriptures, BUT, there are many verses that point to a future life, when most humans will be resurrected to a physical, mortal life, in human bodies.

This topic is too big to be handled on a forum thread.
Regards,
Karlis

good call karlis exactly the parables are childrens stories....

Hi Sheri -- I think your post could be read/understood in many different ways. For example, your following statement, can have different meanings for different people:

".. a child can make age appropriate decisions like where they want to be tickled , or how they want be held etc.. ..."

Regards,
Karlis

Hi Sheri -- I am not sure if I understand you???
Did you mean that Jesus was NOT addressing adults, in adult terms?

Confused,
Karlis

This is what I use: E-SWORD

Tools to get the...job done right

I just mean a baby or young todlder can handle deciding how he wants daddy to tickle him or how he prefers to be held suh as on daddys shouders or moms hip but relgion is beyond his capabilites at this level....

yes karlis if jesus even came up with htese parables they would be for a childlike audience....As parents we have been known to do this to convey a principle we make up a story s that they can relate too...I have a post on here somewhere about this i will find it later and post it...

i also asked Inner space to provide some info and data on the brain and kids as this is her field of expertise .....

Likewise - E-sword is a great tool to get to know the Bible better. It's a free program too, which is always good (especially if you're a uni student with very little income)
I just haven't gotten around to downloading the program again after changing PC's.

Thanks for the information, anyway

what I posted is to point jesus didn't fulfull the OT standard to be concidered the christ/messiah. Plenty of others at the time were thought to be the messiah too - this is the one that took. that doesn't mean he was or is just because a religion started believing he was. that is faith not fact. and the fact is he didn't fulfill all of the prophesy.

as for the 613 laws --- sure hard for a sinful man , but one you think is God ?

actually being partly jewish I don't believe in the OT either. One doesn't need either the OT , the NT or jesus to know God.

Well your view is inaccurate if it believes that the Christian view that Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy is all based on faith. There is much literature showing exactly what prophecies were fulfilled and how. If your view states they are based on faith then your view is uninformed and does not understand the Christian view at all. Without understanding both views there is really no way in comparing them and then contrasting them. But as I stated before your view is likely based on intentions that only seek to disprove Christianity so since you neither take the Jewish or Christian views seriously or the Bible at all any proof you offer from the Bible or from the Jewish view in turn cannot be taken seriously by me either in this specific matter. There is a difference between real debate when both parties are interested and someone just taking information from one camp to disprove another camp when they have no vested interested in either camp. That is more akin to someone telling one person gossip about one person to make them an enemy of the other...it seems like fun and games and does not interest me. I have though and do respect your views on other issues when they feel like they are coming more from your heart and if one must make views from their intellect it is at least required they fully understand both views, the one they are supporting and the one they are attempting to discredit.

I don't call this debating ,you just tell everybody they are wrong and you are right but of course your not biased



fullywired

When you or her can express in your view that you understand how Christians believe that Old Testament prophecy is fulfilled in the personage of Jesus then a debate can occur. Without that understanding their can be no serious discussion on the topic. There are specific correlations made between the Old and New Testaments, scriptural comparisons, and without having compared them yourself, reading back and forth between Testaments, then one cannot simply say it is all based on faith. It is not saying anyone is wrong it is saying they cannot make a valid assessment and calling it faith is telling that they have yet to invest their time in doing so.

Also anyone who wishes to merely play devil's advocate and not truly support either position but is just using one to attempt to discredit another is never seen as an honest participant in a discussion. That also is not calling someone wrong it is merely saying there is really nothing to discuss. As far as right and wrong perhaps you and her would both like someone to be right and wrong but:






Now fullywired when you have any substantial comments to make towards the topic of prophecy being fulfilled in Jesus in feel free to. Your commentary on what you consider debate adds nothing to the conversation. And drive-by quips to merely comment on another poster off topic are hardly considered productive.

Oh please spare me the "Holier than thou routine" is that all you have ? You are always telling people they are wrong .I would remind you that your in the spirituality and scepticism section and subject to scepticism about your pronouncements.if you don't like that ,stick to the religion and beliefs section


fullywired

PS
who appointed you imprimatur on here????

why should we make the comparisons when the gospels already do that. specifically Mathew

Oh Lt. Ripley, how sorely ignorant of you. You have quoted a website that has answers to all those objections, if only you dig a little deeper.

Please if you would navigate to this page of the same website:

http://www.realmessiah.com/OBJnt.htm

There is only one thing wrong with your website. The jews do not recognize where one verse starts and where one verse stops.