The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: franksolich on January 20, 2008, 05:39:33 PM
-
Okay, here's something I've been wondering about since I was first deeply immersed in British history when in college.
In 1531-1533, as Henry VIII was trying to divorce his first wife, Katherine of Aragon, so as to marry Anne Boleyn, his "attorneys" (quotation marks because they weren't quite that) argued that God was punishing the king (not giving him a son) because he had married his late brother's widow (Katherine of Aragon had been first married to Prince Arthur, older brother of Henry VIII, but he died young).
Of course, Henry VIII just wanted to hop around in the sack with the younger woman, nothing more, but the whole thing was facaded with the nobility of theology.
Apparently there is a passage in Leviticus, and a passage in Deuteronomy, which contradicts it. One says a man is obligated to marry his brother's widow, the other says a man should never marry his brother's widow.
Documentary evidence of this "trial," including near-transcripts word-for-word, exist.
The argument then turned to that one of these Books was "inferior" to the other, and the argument then switched to which one was inferior to the other, which one was superior to the other.
I'm not an attorney, and I wonder; they never bothered defining why one Book would be "superior," and another "inferior," and years later, I remain confused.
How is such a thing determined?
-
I'm an British history addict myself, Frank. Ever since I first saw "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" starring Keith Michell back in 1970 I was hooked. As a matter of fact I just received the DVD set for the holidays and spent a whole night watching all six episodes. :yahoo: However it's been years since I actually read any books on the subject even though I still have every book I bought on the Tudors.
As far as I can tell, whatever was expedient for King Henry at that time was considered the "superior" book. I'm not an attorney nor a theologist but the split with Rome would indicate that interpretation is left up to the individual (or group), thus confusion would ensue.
Interesting question though. Maybe someone who knows more about the religious aspect will chime in. I know - you posted this in "Religious Matters" - I just had to put in my .02. :-)
-
I'm an British history addict myself, Frank. Ever since I first saw "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" starring Keith Michell back in 1970 I was hooked. As a matter of fact I just received the DVD set for the holidays and spent a whole night watching all six episodes.
Not to hijack my own thread, getting away from the original question, but I must say that BBC series from the early 1970s is perhaps the most visually-accurate portrayal of the people, than any other movie or series of movies.
It was uncanny, how BBC managed to find actors and actresses who resembled the original people so well; they might as well have been twins. The guy who played Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, might as well have come to life out of the Holbein portrait. And ditto for nearly all the others, excepting Keith Mitchell, who resembled the real Henry VIII only somewhat; well enough, but only somewhat.
And in the other series, about Elizabeth I, Glenda Jackson was the real Elizabeth I in every physical feature and mannerism. Both series were great, when it comes to sheer accuracy.
-
Can you provide both passages...in context?
-
Can you provide both passages...in context?
Ooops, no, I can't, as the Bible here is a "modern" version, not one such as used in the early 1500s, and it has no index.
There is one passage in Leviticus that says a man is obligated to take his brother's widow as his wife.
There is one passage in Deutronomy that says a man is forbidden to take his brother's widow as his wife.
That was the argument in the "trial;" that Leviticus was "inferior" to Deuteronomy.
Nearly everybody here is far more knowledgeable of the Bible than I am, and so I'm hoping someone else can quote them.
But the question isn't really so much what the Bible says, or said, but more so how a particular Book of the Bible deemed to be "superior" or "inferior" to another Book?
-
Is an Interesting question. I imagine such a question has the potential of igniting heated debate between Catholics & Protestants though. Myself I blame the Greeks :old:
-
One last hijack just to say I agree with your assessment Frank of both series. There has been a resurrection of interest in the period as evidenced by the "Elizabeth" movies and "The Tudors" series. I've only seen the first Elizabeth movie and was disappointed in the fluff and glaring inaccuracies of that film that I haven't bothered to view anything on the matter since (with the exception of my BBC Dvds). It takes more than pretty scenery (both geographical and human) to keep my interest.
Anyhoo back to the thread in progress......... :whistling:
-
Can you provide both passages...in context?
Ooops, no, I can't, as the Bible here is a "modern" version, not one such as used in the early 1500s, and it has no index.
There is one passage in Leviticus that says a man is obligated to take his brother's widow as his wife.
There is one passage in Deutronomy that says a man is forbidden to take his brother's widow as his wife.
That was the argument in the "trial;" that Leviticus was "inferior" to Deuteronomy.
Nearly everybody here is far more knowledgeable of the Bible than I am, and so I'm hoping someone else can quote them.
But the question isn't really so much what the Bible says, or said, but more so how a particular Book of the Bible deemed to be "superior" or "inferior" to another Book?
The word of God is inerrant. Man's interpretation is not.
-
The word of God is inerrant. Man's interpretation is not.
The idea that the Bible is inerrant may itself be an example of the fallibility of man's interpretation of Scripture. The Bible contains no claims that it is inerrant, but Biblical passages which describe the Bible as being inspired by God have been interpreted to mean that the Bible is inerrant. Is this interpretation correct? Who knows?
-
You're basing your assumption, on the Word of God and the Bible being one and the same... oh sheesh... :popcorn:
Many Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God and often refer to it as such. Regardless, the idea that the word of God, however we define it, is inerrant depends on mankind's fallible interpretation of something and, as we all know, fallible interpretations can be wrong.
-
You're basing your assumption, on the Word of God and the Bible being one and the same... oh sheesh... :popcorn:
Many Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God and often refer to it as such. Regardless, the idea that the word of God, however we define it, is inerrant depends on mankind's fallible interpretation of something and, as we all know, fallible interpretations can be wrong.
O lookie here...good 'ol circular logic. :whatever:
-
Leviticus 20:21
And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless
(Context: a list of sexually immoral things)
Deuteronomy 25:5-10
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.
-
Thank you, Celtic Rose; I got that turned around.
Leviticus said no, Deuteronomy said yes, not the way I had it.
And the "attorneys" for Henry VIII argued that Leviticus was "superior" to Deuteronomy, although nowhere in the contemporary reports is it mentioned how this was determined.
-
Thank you, Celtic Rose; I got that turned around.
Leviticus said no, Deuteronomy said yes, not the way I had it.
And the "attorneys" for Henry VIII argued that Leviticus was "superior" to Deuteronomy, although nowhere in the contemporary reports is it mentioned how this was determined.
Completely a hypothesis here, but it maybe it was a result of the names of the books :???: Leviticus means "the law" and Deuteronomy means "second". Perhaps the "attorneys" made the argument that "the law" would be superior to "second" **I thought we had a shrugging smilie, but I don't see it**
-
Well, additionally, Celtic Rose, this took place 1531-1533.
Back about 1507, after Henry VIII's older brother Arthur died at a young age, leaving Katherine of Aragon a widow, Henry had to seek permission from Rome for the marriage, as it was considered, uh, somewhat irregular.
At that time, Rome based its disapproval (of the marriage) on Leviticus, while the English based their arguments on Deuteronomy.
And so a quarter of a century later, the sides switched.
-
O lookie here...good 'ol circular logic. :whatever:
Actually, my logic follows a straight line. If mankind is fallible, then any pronouncement mankind makes, including your pronouncement that the word of God is inerrant, could be right or wrong. Of course, you could argue in the abstract that the word of God is inerrant, but that argument works only in the abstract.
-
The passage in Leviticus says he should not take his brother's wife.
The passage in Deut. says he should take his late brother's wife.
-
The marrying of a brother's widow is the law of the kinsman redeemer and only applies when the brother has not left a son to carry on his lineage.
Coincidently the "sin of Onan" does not refer to the practice of coitis interruptus but Onan's refusal to fulfill the law of the kinsman redeemer to protect the inheritence of his as yet to be concieved sons.[/rabbi]
I would have to double-check but I believe it is Ruth the Moabitess that earn her Israeli street cred by spitting in her BIL's face for his refusal to uphold the law. Her zeal for torah was seen as expurgating the prohibition against Moabites joining Israeli society.
It's been a while since I was able to pick-up a Bible without it bursting into flames.
-
The Bible like many religious books are interpreted by different people. So, I am free to interpret the Bible too. Speaking of that, the Bible calls for eternal damnation to Hell for all lagomorphs. Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because there were rabbit and hare towns. It was God's wrath for their genocide against ptarmigans. Also, Leviticus 11:6, says all rabbits are filthy vermins.
-
Is an Interesting question. I imagine such a question has the potential of igniting heated debate between Catholics & Protestants though. Myself I blame the Greeks :old:
Hey... I never did anything.
-
Authorship of The Bible
Forty independent writers were used in its compilation.
They wrote over a 1,500 year time span.
They lived in three different continents.. Asia, Africa and Europe. Moses wrote in the desert of Sinai, Paul wrote in a prison in Rome, Daniel from exile in Babylon, and Ezra in the ruined city of Jerusalem.
They spoke and wrote in three different languages
They had twenty different occupations, which included a couple of kings, a general, at least two fishermen, a musician, a priest, a tax collector, a physician etc.
It has a cast of 2,930 characters in 1,551 places.
It covers a huge number of different subjects. Isaiah wrote to warn Israel of God's coming judgment on their sin, Matthew wrote to prove to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah, Zechariah wrote to encourage a disheartened Israel who had returned from Babylonian exile, and Paul wrote addressing problems in different Asian and European churches.
it was written under many different circumstances. David wrote during a time of war, Jeremiah wrote at the sorrowful time of Israel's downfall, Peter wrote while Israel was under Roman domination, and Joshua wrote while invading the land of Canaan.
Its message is expressed in all literary forms (poetry, prose, etc.).
Yet
Without possible concert or collusion, they produced a book which, in all its parts, is pervaded by one spirit, one doctrine, one design, and by an air of sublime authority which is its peculiar characteristic. It is amazing that with such diversity, there is such unity in the Bible. That unity is organized around one theme: God's redemption of man and all of creation. Hundreds of controversial subjects are addressed and yet the writers do not contradict each other.
Such a book is a literary miracle. It is impossible to account for its existence upon ordinary principles.
No other book in history can make the same claim!
___________________________________________________________________________
The Christian’s Charter
This book reveals the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.
Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy.
It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.
It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the soldier's sword, and the Christian's charter.
Here, too, heaven is opened and the gates of hell disclosed.
Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end.
It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet.
Read it slowly, frequently, prayerfully.
It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.
It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever.
It involves the highest responsibility, will regard the greatest labor, and condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.
Owned it is riches; studied it is wisdom; trusted it is salvation; loved it is character; and obeyed it is power.
Author Unknown
______________________________________________________________________
God’s Sense of Humour..In the mid-1700s Voltaire, one of the most influential writers of his day, held a copy of the Bible in his hand and stated that within 100 years from his time, Christianity would be swept from existence and would pass into history. What's hilarious is that merely 50 years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society used his house and press to print and distribute stacks of Bibles! They even made his house their headquarters! (The Holy Bible: Wholly True. By Winkie Pratney)
-
O lookie here...good 'ol circular logic. :whatever:
Actually, my logic follows a straight line. If mankind is fallible, then any pronouncement mankind makes, including your pronouncement that the word of God is inerrant, could be right or wrong. Of course, you could argue in the abstract that the word of God is inerrant, but that argument works only in the abstract.
Actually if for the sake of argument, Diety be assumed true you would have to allow for the possibility that Deity--creator of Heaven and Earth--could see that its intentions were faithfully transmitted.
You're attempting to assign natural attributes to a process that by its very definition is super(ior)natural.
-
Actually if for the sake of argument, Diety be assumed true you would have to allow for the possibility that Deity--creator of Heaven and Earth--could see that its intentions were faithfully transmitted.
You are exactly correct... One can assume that God is inerrant, but that assumption works only in an abstract sense and is in no way provable. In other words, mankind can presume that God is inerrant, but mankind has no real way of knowing if God is inerrant or not.
Also, the concept of an omnipotent and inerrant being is one of the many paradoxes associated with the concept of God. If God is inerrant, then God is not able to make certain choices. If God is not able to make certain choices, then God is not omnipotent.
-
Actually if for the sake of argument, Diety be assumed true you would have to allow for the possibility that Deity--creator of Heaven and Earth--could see that its intentions were faithfully transmitted.
You are exactly correct... One can assume that God is inerrant, but that assumption works only in an abstract sense and is in no way provable. In other words, mankind can presume that God is inerrant, but mankind has no real way of knowing if God is inerrant or not.
As reality extends from the will of Deity what Deity wills is real thus all facts correspond to that Mind.
Also, the concept of an omnipotent and inerrant being is one of the many paradoxes associated with the concept of God. If God is inerrant, then God is not able to make certain choices. If God is not able to make certain choices, then God is not omnipotent.
1. See above
2. Logical contradictions cannot exist, i.e. immovable meeting the irresistable. One or the other would fail in terms of its label.
Thus we do not say evil is forbidden God either by power or choice. If God be good then He acts within His essential being. God need not be presented with capacity for evil to prove omnipotence. He is (for argument's sake) good and no power or mind will move Him from that goodness for such is His will and power from which reality flows.
3. To this I attach the Socratic notion of evil: evil is not an essence of its own being but privation and corruption of essential goodness. All evil be it lust, greed, ego, cruelty etc are distortions or dim shadows of love, pleasure, power, security; things in and of themselves that are good.
-
O lookie here...good 'ol circular logic. :whatever:
Actually, my logic follows a straight line. If mankind is fallible, then any pronouncement mankind makes, including your pronouncement that the word of God is inerrant, could be right or wrong. Of course, you could argue in the abstract that the word of God is inerrant, but that argument works only in the abstract.
And yet, it has not a thing to do with the topic of this thread and is incredibly distracting to those trying to follow along. Perhaps you could start your own circular logic thread?
Whether you choose to believe it or not for the purposes of THIS thread one needs to start from the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. No one cares about your opinion on the matter as it applies to this particular topic.
Cindie
-
Whether you choose to believe it or not for the purposes of THIS thread one needs to start from the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
My intent was not to debate whether God is inerrant or not. God's alleged inerrancy cannot be proven. My intent was to point out that if one really believes that mankind is fallible then one does not get to pick and choose what mankind is fallible about. Mankind is either fallible or it is not.
And, by the way, not all Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Some Christians believe that it is the work of men inspired by God.
No one cares about your opinion on the matter as it applies to this particular topic.
Cindie
Cindie... I don't post with the expectation that anyone should care about what I have to say. I post because I get something out of debating people with a different point of view than me.
-
Whether you choose to believe it or not for the purposes of THIS thread one needs to start from the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
My intent was not to debate whether God is inerrant or not. God's alleged inerrancy cannot be proven. My intent was to point out that if one really believes that mankind is fallible then one does not get to pick and choose what mankind is fallible about. Mankind is either fallible or it is not.
And, by the way, not all Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Some Christians believe that it is the work of men inspired by God.
No one cares about your opinion on the matter as it applies to this particular topic.
Cindie
Cindie... I don't post with the expectation that anyone should care about what I have to say. I post because I get something out of debating people with a different point of view than me.
Then start a freaking thread about what YOU want to debate about. This thread...this one right here was specifically related to 2 particular books of the Bible, especially as it related to a particular historical event. I don't have quarrel with your need to debate. I have a quarrel with your methods. I find it rather rude to interject a completely different subject into what was/is an interesting subject just so you can play "look how high and mighty I am" or "can I piss off the Christians" or "can I completely shut down a conversation by a LOOK AT MEEEEEE!!!!! LOOK AT MEEEEEE! thread-jacking post" or whatever your game is.
Truly, if whatever it is you're droning on about is important enough that you want to discuss it, start a thread where full attention can be devoted to YOU and your most important subject. In other words, try a little common courtesy. What you've done is the message board equivalent of walking up to a new acquaintance's table in a restaurant (even though you noticed they were having an intense discussion about something), sitting down, and chattering on about whatever was important to you. Not only did you interrupt said folks, you didn't even have enough class to at least contribute to the discussion they were already having.
Cindie
-
Then start a freaking thread about what YOU want to debate about. This thread...this one right here was specifically related to 2 particular books of the Bible, especially as it related to a particular historical event. I don't have quarrel with your need to debate. I have a quarrel with your methods. I find it rather rude to interject a completely different subject into what was/is an interesting subject just so you can play "look how high and mighty I am" or "can I piss off the Christians" or "can I completely shut down a conversation by a LOOK AT MEEEEEE!!!!! LOOK AT MEEEEEE! thread-jacking post" or whatever your game is.
Truly, if whatever it is you're droning on about is important enough that you want to discuss it, start a thread where full attention can be devoted to YOU and your most important subject. In other words, try a little common courtesy. What you've done is the message board equivalent of walking up to a new acquaintance's table in a restaurant (even though you noticed they were having an intense discussion about something), sitting down, and chattering on about whatever was important to you. Not only did you interrupt said folks, you didn't even have enough class to at least contribute to the discussion they were already having.
Cindie
I don't know which thread you're talking about, but in this thread, my comment about God's alleged inerrancy was in response to what someone posted. One of the nice features of message boards is that they allow people to respond not just to the original post but to responses to the original post. The style of discussion you seem to think we should be having is the kind which can be found on blogs, not message boards. That said, I suspect that your anger has nothing to do with what you claim to be my hijacking of this thread.
-
The passage in Leviticus says he should not take his brother's wife.
The passage in Deut. says he should take his late brother's wife.
lug-nut is absolutely right here. One passage refers to a widow (Deut) the other passage refers to what I assume to be a divorced woman. In that context there is not contradiction.
-
And yet, it has not a thing to do with the topic of this thread and is incredibly distracting to those trying to follow along. Perhaps you could start your own circular logic thread?
That all he knows how to do because he knows nothing of religion nor does he care to...so he must take these threads off topic.
Whether you choose to believe it or not for the purposes of THIS thread one needs to start from the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. No one cares about your opinion on the matter as it applies to this particular topic.
Cindie
Well said.
-
I wanted to make a comment about God's perfection vs omnipotence. You are attempting to humanize that which is divine. God is not bound by the same limitations as you or I. It is not that God is incapable, it is simply that God IS. He will always be good. The manifestation of his will is always just. If you want to try to humanize it, it would be the difference between cannot and will not. There is no paradox here.
-
Returning to the original issue, I'm no biblical scholar, but isn't this entire discussion rendered moot by the "New Covenant"......?
doc
-
Returning to the original issue, I'm no biblical scholar, but isn't this entire discussion rendered moot by the "New Covenant"......?
doc
That depends upon whether or not you presume the proscriptions against murder, adultery, theft, blaspemy et al are lifted by the covering of Grace.
-
Returning to the original issue, I'm no biblical scholar, but isn't this entire discussion rendered moot by the "New Covenant"......?
doc
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Matthew 5:17
A fairly decent interpretation of this can be found at http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/oldlaw.html.
An excerpt reads:
By fulfilling the law Christ satisfied it's requirements in our place. In other words, the 'required' obedience is accomplished in Him. Therefore, in Christ do we keep all the law faithfully, and cannot be accused. In this way, we are no longer judged by any of the everlasting laws, for we are under the Grace of God. The law doesn't condemn us.
Because we love Christ we try our best not to sin and the law defines what sin is. We are no longer under the penalty of the Law should we sin because Christ fulfilled that for us. However we must avoid sin which means that we must do our best to observe it and seek forgiveness when we break it.
Now the topic that started this tread concerned a wife who later remarried her husband,s bother. Those seem more like laws of social custom and were concerned with the family line being extended. Some laws of this nature did not need to be maintained once their usefulness had run its course. They weren't moral laws which is what God's laws mainly dealt with.
At any rate, MSB's answer is far more succinct and to the point.