Raphael Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I have repeatedly googled to learn when was the first time fetuses were considered non-life and compensatable with fines by Israel beliefs. I found the Talmudic era popping up many times but also found other terms denoting other further eras of Israel's past and can't be sure of what's that about. I would like to know when was this fetus-fine-only-value first observed.. Was it already during Moses time? Already during Christ's time? About the seemingly-all-powerful Catholic church to easily admit, confess and even nonchalantly put into writings their heaven-given-power to not only change laws but also to render it binding to the conscience, through proof of seemingly timeless century old infinte number of follower adherence, even found to this day.. Therefore there's no mistake that whatever the Catholics proclaimed, will most highly likely be not from the (not Catholic) Bible.. That includes their proclamations and claims on abortion abhorrence.. http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception-Sabbath_Sunday_Catholic_Church On the other hand, there's clear facts on Jewish upholding fetus-fine-only-value.. The question I would like to know further.. Is since what history phase of Israel was this first observed.. Quote Test me with thy might but grant me safe passage. Now, who said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B/W Photodude Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) This may help: http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_53.pdf Edited May 22, 2015 by B/W Photodude Quote >>>Texts in blue type are quotes<<< ***************************************************************************** And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. --Shakespeare from Hamlet ***************************************************************************** Bill Liversidge Seminars The Emergent Church and the Invasion of Spiritualism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted May 22, 2015 Author Share Posted May 22, 2015 Ohh too late.. The Edit Button dissappeared.. Anyway here's what i wanted to add.. http://www.truth146.com/c_conf.asp There was a video version of this and was even shared at Facebook.. But couldn't find it anymore.. It was titled something Straight from the Horse' Mouth.. Quote Test me with thy might but grant me safe passage. Now, who said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted May 22, 2015 Author Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) Thank you Photodude. Your provided link shows that the Hamurabbi code developed by Israelites favoring to stay behind in Babylon relate to the eye for eye or lex talionis laws of the book of Exodus.. There were no Bibles back at that time I conclude.. And even lots of the current old testament that we know today were still missing.. Not to mention no invention of printers too.. The book of Exodus couldn't be easily multiplied and I guess ended up with a corresponding Hamurabbi code book. Which means the observance of fetus-only-fine-value were already in record observance during the Babylon reign.. That's mighty long ago.. Can easily assume that that observance was around already during Moses' day and guaranteed to be around during Christ's time.. All clear.. Now if there are changes (to this observance).. It's better to label these changes properly as CHANGES.. Not befuddle people's minds ahh and say Israelites down-back in (thousand of years) history must have gotten this wrong.. Thanks Photodude Edited May 22, 2015 by Raphael Quote Test me with thy might but grant me safe passage. Now, who said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted May 22, 2015 Author Share Posted May 22, 2015 I like the candid confessions and answers in that http://www.truth146.com/c_conf.asp Straightforward, clear and no mind-befuddling.. "I have the power.. So what can you do anyway?" sorta like that.. It's still ok cause honest. Quote Test me with thy might but grant me safe passage. Now, who said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeb Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) About the seemingly-all-powerful Catholic church to easily admit, confess and even nonchalantly put into writings their heaven-given-power to not only change laws but also to render it binding to the conscience, through proof of seemingly timeless century old infinte number of follower adherence, even found to this day.. Therefore there's no mistake that whatever the Catholics proclaimed, will most highly likely be not from the (not Catholic) Bible.. That includes their proclamations and claims on abortion abhorrence.. This is the strangest pro-abortion argument I've ever seen. Because the Roman Catholics are against abortion we should be for it.... Do you know what a partial-birth abortion is? The "doctor" grabs the head of the baby when it, but not the rest of the baby, is out of the birth canal and crushes it. Your argument is that life does not begin until the baby is out of the womb. Really? What was it before? Inanimate? Dead? If it was how did it grow and develop? Dead things, inanimate things, do not grow and develop. The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 (gcide)Conception Con*cep"tion, n. [F. conception, L. conceptio, fr. concipere to conceive. See Conceive.] 1. The act of conceiving in the womb; the initiation of an embryonic animal life. [1913 Webster] Note that Webster's dictionary says that conception is the initiation of life. That means abortion is the taking of a life of someone who cannot defend themselves. That's called murder. Edited May 22, 2015 by joeb Robert 1 Quote Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.Alexis de Tocqueville Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B/W Photodude Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 The "doctor" grabs the head of the baby when it, but not the rest of the baby, is out of the birth canal and crushes it. Great job. You put it nicely. However, the head is last out and it is a particularly gruesome procedure to take the head. Quote >>>Texts in blue type are quotes<<< ***************************************************************************** And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. --Shakespeare from Hamlet ***************************************************************************** Bill Liversidge Seminars The Emergent Church and the Invasion of Spiritualism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeb Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Great job. You put it nicely. However, the head is last out and it is a particularly gruesome procedure to take the head. The entire procedure, and even the idea of it, is gruesome. To think that there are people who think that this is morally acceptable boggles my mind. To think that so-called Christians support this, and the political party that makes it a part of their political platform, is to me beyond belief. How do they justify this to themselves? I just can't see how. It's so morally repugnant--and by that I mean all abortions--I just cannot understand how someone who calls himself a Christian can be in league with this. The Bible tells us to defend those who cannot defend themselves and abortion support is exactly the opposite concept. I just have to shake my head in disbelief. Robert 1 Quote Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.Alexis de Tocqueville Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeb Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I have repeatedly googled to learn when was the first time fetuses were considered non-life and compensatable with fines by Israel beliefs. I found the Talmudic era popping up many times but also found other terms denoting other further eras of Israel's past and can't be sure of what's that about. I would like to know when was this fetus-fine-only-value first observed.. Was it already during Moses time? Already during Christ's time? About the seemingly-all-powerful Catholic church to easily admit, confess and even nonchalantly put into writings their heaven-given-power to not only change laws but also to render it binding to the conscience, through proof of seemingly timeless century old infinte number of follower adherence, even found to this day.. Therefore there's no mistake that whatever the Catholics proclaimed, will most highly likely be not from the (not Catholic) Bible.. That includes their proclamations and claims on abortion abhorrence.. http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception-Sabbath_Sunday_Catholic_Church On the other hand, there's clear facts on Jewish upholding fetus-fine-only-value.. The question I would like to know further.. Is since what history phase of Israel was this first observed.. You are going to have to show your "evidence" that the Isrealites and the Jews of Christ's day thought a fetus wasn't alive. Your assertion falls completely flat without evidence. Quote Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.Alexis de Tocqueville Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B/W Photodude Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 You are going to have to show your "evidence" that the Isrealites and the Jews of Christ's day thought a fetus wasn't alive. Your assertion falls completely flat without evidence. You missed his later post where he read my post about injury to the unborn mentioned all the way back to Exodus. Quote >>>Texts in blue type are quotes<<< ***************************************************************************** And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. --Shakespeare from Hamlet ***************************************************************************** Bill Liversidge Seminars The Emergent Church and the Invasion of Spiritualism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeb Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 You missed his later post where he read my post about injury to the unborn mentioned all the way back to Exodus. I see no evidence in his post that his position has changed. He is still putting forth the idea that a fetus is not a human being. Quote Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.Alexis de Tocqueville Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherly love Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 What this person has done is brought in a a catholic conspiracy theory to the table to support his presupposition that the bible does not recognize the right of a child in the womb.I suspect he is using the passage in Lev 21 as the base proof text. Nothing could be further removed from biblical truth that the falsehood that the bible does not value the unborn as a human being, or that life begins after birth. The Catholic church has many strengths and weaknesses according to the Bible, its strength is in its stance on the sanctity of life, sexual morality and immorality-they have hit the target on this issue, while us Protestants are way off the target and our view has more in common with secularism than the Bible for the most part. This is why the question of why homosexuality, abortion, premarital sex, bestiality and others are a sin cant be explained. The article in the JHS website is just as strained as Raphael's viewpoint. The person mixes up the ancient near east laws with the Law of moses and comes up with his own conclusions by reading the law of Moses by the light of the code of Hammurabi. The Law of Moses would have similarities with the cultures around them, because they shared this culture. The Law of Moses would have been given to them in their understanding of the structures of a legal code, but not dependent on them. The author gives himself away when he claims that the Bible does not recognize that a person in the womb was not considered alive/human until it was born without no evidence other than the ancient near east. The evidence points in the other direction, and this is a thread that runs thru the fabric of the entire Bible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Yes, you are right Photodude.. I found clear evidence of the observance of fetuses as non life and fines compensatable only that dates back to the Babylonian era, an era far before Christ's time. And unto this very day, Jewish belief on that matter are still bedrock-unchanged on that.. On the other hand the biggest advocater and supporter of anti-abortion is the Catholic Church, which clearly has been shown to continually change laws and make them binding to the conscience.. Laws have been changed and new laws are continually concoted even as we speak.. I think the latest that is still pending approval is the law stating that no one can access or approach Christ except if through Mary His mother. So it is clear and factual about the thousands year old Jewish fetus-fine-only-compensation observance.. On the other hand it is clear and factual as well upon the constant and undying changes and efforts to change laws binding to the conscience.. Quote Test me with thy might but grant me safe passage. Now, who said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8thdaypriest Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Don't know if this is what you were looking for? Exodus 21:22 "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (NIV) The life of the fetus was NOT equated with the life of the mother. The Talmud says the "fine" was imposed when it could be determined that the fetus was male. Quote 8thdaypriest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted May 23, 2015 Moderators Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) Photodude said: However, the head is last out . . . Not for a normal human birth. If the head does not come out first, the doctor (midwife or whatever) must rotate the child so that the head does come out first. A failure to do so may result in the baby being deprived of oxygen with damage to the brain, as well as other issues. Not what I witnessed in the birth of my son. The following is a website that shows the stages of human birth by drawings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childbirth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childbirth#/media/File:Bumm_158_lg.jpg Another good one. If you prefer to see an actual birth, the Internet is full of such. The following is one such that clearly shows the head coming out first: http://www.dnatube.com/video/9509/Natural-Spontaneous-Vaginal-Delivery-Video In short: In a normal human delivery the head does come out first. Edited May 23, 2015 by Gregory Matthews Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherly love Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) Yes, you are right Photodude.. I found clear evidence of the observance of fetuses as non life and fines compensatable only that dates back to the Babylonian era, an era far before Christ's time. And unto this very day, Jewish belief on that matter are still bedrock-unchanged on that.. On the other hand the biggest advocater and supporter of anti-abortion is the Catholic Church, which clearly has been shown to continually change laws and make them binding to the conscience.. Laws have been changed and new laws are continually concoted even as we speak.. I think the latest that is still pending approval is the law stating that no one can access or approach Christ except if through Mary His mother. So it is clear and factual about the thousands year old Jewish fetus-fine-only-compensation observance.. On the other hand it is clear and factual as well upon the constant and undying changes and efforts to change laws binding to the conscience.. The Law of Moses views the unborn as human, and abortion would be murder under the Law. The commandment is to not kill, and the Law gives provisions of when there is a time to kill. a holy justified war, self defense and capital crimes would be an exception, there is no law that permits the abortion of a child that is not human. This has to be imposed on the text. The law concerning two men fighting and a pregnant woman has a counterpart in the Law of moses Exodus 21 22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. Here is the counterpart Deuteronomy 25:11-12 11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. The 2 laws deal with the seed of the man, and the seed of the woman. The seed of the man is not a human, but is potential life, so there is no death penalty for grabbing a man by the testicles and intent to injure. The message is to embrace life, not death- even a potential life inside a man. A man with crushed testicles was not allowed to enter the assembly, nor be allowed into the presence of God at the Temple. Deuteronomy 23:1 No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD. Nor was an animal allowed to be sacrificed if it had the same problem Leviticus 22:24 You must not offer to the Lord an animal whose testicles are bruised, crushed, torn or cut. The Law of Moses uses the culture to teach a theological point-we are to embrace life, not death. We dont need to cannonize the culture, we need to understand the message given in their cultural norms and understanding. The bible not only cherishes human life at all stages of development, it also teaches that potential life is important. Edited May 23, 2015 by brotherly love Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted May 23, 2015 Moderators Share Posted May 23, 2015 There is and always has been a range of opinion in Judaism as to abortion. For more on this see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/abortion.html http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html Some of the above will consider the range that existed in much earlier times in Judaism. If you are really interested, there is much more n this on the Internet. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B/W Photodude Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Not for a normal human birth. If the head does not come out first, the doctor (midwife or whatever) must rotate the child so that the head does come out first. A failure to do so may result in the baby being deprived of oxygen with damage to the brain, as well as other issues. Not what I witnessed in the birth of my son. I believe we were discussing partial birth abortion, not normal deliveries. In a partial birth abortion, usually the feet are delivered first then the procedure is completed. You can see the steps in this link at the bottom of the page: http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html However, I am not responsible for the results of viewing this page and I did not describe it here. It would be nice not to know some things. Quote >>>Texts in blue type are quotes<<< ***************************************************************************** And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. --Shakespeare from Hamlet ***************************************************************************** Bill Liversidge Seminars The Emergent Church and the Invasion of Spiritualism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted May 24, 2015 Moderators Share Posted May 24, 2015 Thank you for your clarification. There is always something for me to learn. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherly love Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 There is and always has been a range of opinion in Judaism as to abortion. For more on this see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/abortion.html http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html Some of the above will consider the range that existed in much earlier times in Judaism. If you are really interested, there is much more n this on the Internet. The problem with Judaism is the Talmud. It is a collection of post exillic rabinnical writings that can be quite strange and contradict each other badly at times. It was written long after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. In a Jewish perspective there were no prophets raised to guide them shortly before, during and after the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome. In the first Babylonian exile there were prophets raised to guide them. The problem is that the religion of the old testament cant be practiced apart from the Law of Moses. The Talmud is used to explain around their situation, and then created Rabbinical Judaism. My partner in ministry was a Bible only Jewess, apart from the Talmud. Her view from the bible and many generations is that the child is human in the womb or outside the womb. Location of a human does not matter under Torah and was under the protection of the Law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted May 26, 2015 Author Share Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) Thank you Gregory Mathews. You procided 3 links and I find the last one particularly argumentative.. The first 2 doesn't explicitly express going against the value of a fetus as a non-life or fine-compensatable and focuses more against the impression of abortion on demand. But even at that last link, shows statements going against each other.. Quote from last link: "The fact that the Torah requires a monetary payment for causing a miscarriage is interpreted by some Rabbis to indicate that abortion is not a capital crime4 and by others as merely indicating that one is not executed for performing an abortion, even though it is a type of murder.5 There is even disagreement regarding whether the prohibition of abortion is Biblical or Rabbinic. Nevertheless, it is universally agreed that the fetus will become a full-fledged human being and there must be a very compelling reason to allow for abortion." The author of this article totally forgot the origin of all this.. That this was about the the causing of a fetus-death from a fight! (check that Exodus verse again) Totally not some "justified" cause of saving the mother's life (in death-causing pregnancies). The arguement that the use of fine-compensation observance is justified cause it's an effort to save another (mother's life) is super weak as well.. The fine-compensation is there simply because it is and was God who declared and deem fetuses values as non life. Cause the origin of all this is from that Exodus verse on Les Talionis or the Eye for Eye rule.. Not trying to save some life.. I believe in the fact the Jewish Les Talionis was already in historic Babylonian records simply shows this observance was practiced and observed way off in B.C. and that it is observed to this moment in Israel and this just shows why the devil wants so much to erase Israel's existance as God's living proof of His Truths. Edited May 26, 2015 by Raphael addition to second to last paragraph Quote Test me with thy might but grant me safe passage. Now, who said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted May 26, 2015 Author Share Posted May 26, 2015 It's best to determine that value of the fetus first and foremost because that dictates the manner and value of the rest.. What's happening now is trying to formulate the abortion idea and concept and then force-fit the GOD-GIVEN-fetus-value into that abortion concept. Quote Test me with thy might but grant me safe passage. Now, who said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted May 26, 2015 Moderators Share Posted May 26, 2015 I provide links that I believe will be helpful to people who want to learn more about the issue. Sometimes I provide links that I believe support one position and sometimes links that support my personal position. At other times the links do not support my personal position. Sometimes I think that they do it well and sometimes I think that they do not do it well. But, in any case I think that they are helpful. The three links that I supplied came from the perspective of being helpful in respectful to an issue that I do not have a personal position and therefore do not think that they provide a full answer. My purpose was to stimulate further consideration. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherly love Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 To claim that the fetus has a status as non life is not rooted in Biblical reality, I will repeat my previous post and then expand on it The law concerning two men fighting and a pregnant woman has a counterpart in the Law of Moses, this is the fist one Exodus 21 22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. Here is the counterpart to the seed of the woman Deuteronomy 25:11-12 11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. This counterpart to the seed of the woman is the seed of the man. The farthest a person can go with Exodus 21 is that there was no intent to kill, not that the baby is not given protection or status under the law of moses as non life. The Torah gives instruction how we are to value life even if it is potential life in a man and a woman. The ceremonial laws cover this in regards to the seed of a man and a woman. This has to do with valuing life and not death. It is given in terms of seed Human life is equated as a seed. This Hebrew term is Zerah. This encompasses animals and plants, the seed of a woman, the seed of a man, the seed of a woman and man. It is life The New Testament and teachings of Jesus pick up on this and the living word of God is given in terms as the seed of life in many many cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.