dead bodies

[theterminator]

in the torah does blood atone for touching dead bodies?

[semiopen]

Giving the questioner the benefit of the doubt, this question is ignorant versus anti-semitic.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 717AAUAjHr

The best answer gives two links

http://mamaspajamaparty.blogspot.com/20 ... y-lie.html

http://mamaspajamaparty.blogspot.com/20 ... y-lie.html

I recently noticed that some US Christian mainstream bible study groups seem anti-semitc but they are careful to disguise it.

During the recent Gaza massacre a Christian woman called Stephanie Miller and suggested that since the Jews believed in an eye for an eye, their mistake was that Yoshke changed that or some idiotic shit. Her idea was that the Christians could somehow enlighten Jews about that. From hearing this, I figured that the woman had heard the eye for an eye rap in a church sponsored bible studies class which was designed for imbeciles.

Eye_for_an_eye has a cooler term - lex talionis. I posted some links involving Hector Avalos discussing this in the Pubic Hair Parsha.

The Talmud[13] interprets the verses referring to "an eye for an eye" and similar expressions as mandating monetary compensation in tort cases and argues against the interpretations by Sadducees that the Bible verses refer to physical retaliation in kind, using the argument that such an interpretation would be inapplicable to blind or eyeless offenders. Since the Torah requires that penalties be universally applicable, the phrase cannot be interpreted in this manner.

Whatever the ancient situation was for lex talionis, this was not changed by Yoshke and the assertion that it is still believed by Jews is also either anti-semitic or ignorant.

The OP seems to go even further overboard by bringing up something that can be tied to the Blood libel.

[theterminator]

i'll ask another question
according to the nt,
jesus touched the dead body of jarius' daughter , did jesus , according to the torah commit a sin against yhwh?

[DCHindley]

i'll ask another question ... according to the nt, jesus touched the dead body of jarius' daughter , did jesus , according to the torah commit a sin against yhwh?

It is not a sin to touch a dead body, it just defiles you until you have gone through a purification ritual. Hell, in 1st century Judea, Galilee and points beyond, most folks were in a state of ritual impurity pretty much all the time. It could not be avoided.

To make sacrifices in the temple, you had to be purified, and these purifications did not require a sacrifice, just time and water. During festivals, folks camped out for over a week in advance to go through the ritual purifications they needed to do before entering into the temple to offer sacrifices.

Where did you hear about this? I don't understand you at all ...

DCH

[theterminator]

Where did you hear about this?


http://contradictionsinthebible.com/dead-impure-or-not/


Anyone who has contact with a corpse of any human being will be impure for seven days. He must purify himself with the ashes…. (Num 19:11)
Anyone who has touched the corpse of any human being who had died and does not purify himself has defiled Yahweh’s Tabernacle, and that person will be cut off from Israel. (v. 13)
In the event that a human being dies in a tent, everyone who enters that tent and everyone found inside that tent becomes impure for seven days. (v. 14, v. 20)
And anyone having contact, in the open field, with a slain human body, or a corpse, or a human bone, or a grave, becomes impure for seven days. (v. 16)

The closest parallels to the treatment of the dead, a corpse, that I can find in the New Testament without entering into a discussion of the resurrection of the dead (see #6) are passages where Jesus walks into a house where there is a dead corpse (Mk 5:36-41; Matt 9:23-27; Lk 8:41-49, etc.)—thus according to the Yahweh of P contaminating himself with impurity/sin! (remember P’s red-heifer rite and its view on death were “an eternal law” decreed from “Yahweh”)—and passages speaking of Mary and company going to Jesus’ tomb to anoint his dead body—who would also contract impurity/sin according to the Yahweh of P! Likewise in Luke 7:14, Jesus would be contaminated by impurity for touching the coffin of the dead boy, and per P’s Yahweh’s “eternal law” would need to immediately expiate his impurity with the red-heifer ashes! There are other places in the NT where a corpse or death is portrayed as being benign—contrary to P’s and P’s Yahweh’s beliefs and worldview!

[semiopen]

theter, I had no time to answer your second question yesterday and was happy to see DC's excellent reply.

Touching a corpse is sort of similar to touching dog poop, or perhaps, more to the point, a used Kotex.

Your mistake is equating impurity with "sin" - These are totally different things.

There are many works dealing with this, for example -

Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism by Jonathan Klawans http://www.amazon.com/Impurity-Ancient- ... ty+and+sin

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/1 ... 0195132908

ABSTRACT
Much has been written about ritual impurity in ancient Judaism, but the question of how the ancient Jews understood the relationship between defilement and sin has largely been ignored. This book offers a systematic exploration of the topic. The book takes the results of current research on the Hebrew Bible and applies them to early Jewish and Christian groups. The Bible, it shows, considers the moral impurity generated by sin to be entirely distinct from (but no less real than) the ritual impurity generated by bodily function such as menstruation. The book then traces the relationship between ritual and moral impurity from early Jewish sects through the New Testament and the theology of Saint Paul, and shows how Christian theology arrived at the point where the need for ritual purity was entirely rejected.

I think you are also confusing yourself by referring to New Testament sources. Obviously there are issues with this.

In Quest of the Historical Pharisees by Jacob Neusner http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Historical- ... =pharisees

This book has in depth discussions of New Testament references to the Pharisees.

Your motivation is also very dubious because you ignore the changes in Judaism that occurred simultaneously with the development of Christianity.