Understanding the Bible 101: Old Testament (OT) law and New Testament (NT) "law"

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by revrew

People can be "reasonable" and completely wrong, as are the attempts to justify homosexuality as biblically moral.

People can be "reasonable" and completely wrong, as are the attempts to condemn homoexuality as biblically immoral.

See how that works? I think that those who want to make homosexuality as biblical immoral completely miss the forest for the 1 or 2 trees. The wide arc of Scripture is that the people of God learn and understand more and more about God and how God is a loving and wonderful God, who wants everyone to love each other with all their hearts and His revelation continues in that manner. Scripture, even in the Epistles of Paul, appears to condone slavery, but we know that God comes to us as we are, in what we can understand (Calvin's Theory of Condescension) and that He has sent us the Holy Spirit to guide us. Why would the Spirit still be needed if God said all that He was going to say? The answer is that God's will is not done and will not be done until love conquers and evil is vanquished.

[Passacaglia]

Is a potato really that different from a cross?

[molson]

Originally Posted by revrew

Cop out. Study it yourself. Do the legwork. Don't take my word or some theologian's word.

I have, and I certainly don't. And my conclusions definitely exclude me from many organized religions. So I have two choices - go with what I believe based on my own spiritual journey, or take the word of human beings who claim a different truth - and specifically, to believe them INSTEAD OF what I believe of god. I'd have to make those men my god, over god, which feels a lot like worshiping a false idol.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I have great respect for your opinion on this issue.

Paul argued the same thing.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside.

[Coffee Warlord]

I'm going to pose a very simple, yet very hard to answer question(s). I ask not because I expect an answer that I find satisfying (or even, to me, reasonable), but because I'm curious as to how you answer.

What makes your God / your religion more valid than any other that has existed since the dawn of time? Why is yours right, and theirs wrong? Why was it that everyone who had a religion before Christianity/Judaism was so utterly and completely wrong?

Long story short: What makes yours so special?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Drake

Paul argued the same thing.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside.

Speaking of "clear", that's a lot more clear to me than any reference to homosexuality in the bible. So even assuming homosexuality is a sin - why is it OK to judge people with regards to that particular sin? Why is that so much worse than the 100 sins we all committed yesterday?

Edit: My father, a retired Lutheran pastor, was working part-time at a church but recently left it largely because of the way they treated a prospective full-time pastor, who is a homosexual. Let's assume that guy is a sinner. So is my father. So is the straight pastor that they'll eventually settle on. But of all those sins, it's only one, homosexuality, which excludes one's participation in that church's eyes. That single church, and I'm sure a lot of others, see homosexuality, as really, one of the "worst" sins there can be. I don't think the bible supports that proposition. They wouldn't have the same problem with almost any other identifiable sin short of maybe a violent crime. Homosexuality is in another stratosphere of importance, for some reason.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Is a potato really that different from a cross?

Not if God in the flesh was nailed to it and took all our sins to the grave. It sure isnt.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Someone I knew that went to seminary said they were teaching that each of the books was not in fact written by one person. But that it was written by lots of people who wrote like that. Like Matthew wasn't written by st matthew and luke wasn't written by luke,etc. But each book was sculpted through the ages by various people until it became the section of the bible that it is. And they were teaching this in a seminary. This kinda blew my mind that that was a possibility and even more that they would teach that.

So with that thoguht in mind, any old prejudice could easily just be thrown in by the bigot of the day who was editing that section in that time.

Not all seminaries are created equal, and I'm certain even within a seminary certain teachers can be rather off base. Just because Pat Robertson and Joel Osteen are well known Christians it doesn't mean they don't make me shake my head most times they speak.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by molson

Speaking of "clear", that's a lot more clear to me than any reference to homosexuality in the bible. So even assuming homosexuality is a sin - why is it OK to judge people with regards to that particular sin? Why is that so much worse than the 100 sins we all committed yesterday?

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Its not okay to judge people.
Remove the plank from your eye before you point out the speck in anothers eye. To paraphrase.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Long story short: What makes yours so special?

For Christianity, the resurrection. Without it, Christianity falls apart.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by molson

Speaking of "clear", that's a lot more clear to me than any reference to homosexuality in the bible. So even assuming homosexuality is a sin - why is it OK to judge people with regards to that particular sin? Why is that so much worse than the 100 sins we all committed yesterday?

It's not. It's most often referenced along with a list of other sins.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I'm going to pose a very simple, yet very hard to answer question(s). I ask not because I expect an answer that I find satisfying (or even, to me, reasonable), but because I'm curious as to how you answer.

What makes your God / your religion more valid than any other that has existed since the dawn of time? Why is yours right, and theirs wrong? Why was it that everyone who had a religion before Christianity/Judaism was so utterly and completely wrong?

Long story short: What makes yours so special?

Long answer short: Jesus.

Without Him, the Jewish books would look like any other culture's religious myths. Without Him, I might look to explain the modern church as fuzzy ideas and cultural phenomenon. But Jesus convinced me His indeed God, one with the Creator of the universe, the definer of right and wrong, the judge of heaven and hell, and therefore, I endeavor to listen to him.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Both affirm that they follow Abraham - however, they get mixed up basically from the time period after the Maccabean revolt (same goes for Judaism and Christianity, FWIW).

Yes, but it's at the point of Jesus that these 3 faiths really divide. My God made himself manifest in the flesh and died to save sinners. Neither Muslim nor (modern) Jewish God did so. The 3 faiths would all assert they follow a different God if the divinity of Jesus was the definition of God, and it's indeed part of Christianity's definition. That's what I'm saying.

[molson]

If I did decide to take a person's word on this ahead of my own beliefs, I'd take my father's word, who has spent a lifetime and a career on this. Why would god have led him so far astray as to have "tolerance" for homosexuals, even as pastors - something that's evolved for him over time? The guy lived his life in service of his faith. If he's a "false Christian" leading people astray, I can tell you, he's led a LOT of people astray over the decades. That'd be some heavy, evil stuff. So basically, even if I quit my job and try to dedicate my life to this - I could just not only be objectively "incorrect" about my faith, I could also be encouraging countless others to follow my incorrect ways.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by molson

If I did decide to take a person's word on this ahead of my own beliefs, I'd take my father's word, who has spent a lifetime and a career on this. Why would god have led him so far astray as to have "tolerance" for homosexuals, even as pastors - something that's evolved for him over time? The guy lived his life in service of his faith. If he's a "false Christian" leading people astray, I can tell you, he's led a LOT of people astray over the decades. That'd be some heavy, evil stuff. So basically, even if I quit my job and try to dedicate my life to this - I could just not only be objectively "incorrect" about my faith, I could also be encouraging countless others to follow my incorrect ways.

I'm sorry to hear about the close connection with your father to this issue. And not to sound harsh, or non-understanding, because I get the internal conflict, but when faced with the choice between the word of our father or Our Father, the choice is clear.

Though we do have to define terms and applications. The question of homosexuality, as it was brought into this thread, was whether or not it is sin, not how and where it should be "tolerated." And if it IS sin, then should any Christian man (pastor or not) walk in unrepentant sin?

You're right that homosexuality needs to be put in perspective like any other sin. It's not the bogeyman in the closet (oops, no pun intended, really) that many Christians make it out to be. It's not the evil spectre of doom upon society that Westboro would make it out to be. It's a sin like any other - lying, gossiping, cheating on your taxes. But like adultery, it is still not ethical.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by revrew

Yes, but it's at the point of Jesus that these 3 faiths really divide. My God made himself manifest in the flesh and died to save sinners. Neither Muslim nor (modern) Jewish God did so. The 3 faiths would all assert they follow a different God if the divinity of Jesus was the definition of God, and it's indeed part of Christianity's definition. That's what I'm saying.

The traditional Christian belief is that the Jews pray to the same God, but have an imperfect knowledge of Him (they only see God the Father and perhaps God the Holy Spirit - in certain Old Testament narratives it appears the Spirit is spoke of). I see in Islam the same issue - same God, but incomplete knowledge.

To believe the Jewish God is different than the Christian one is a long held heresy (ie, Marcionism)

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Is a potato really that different from a cross?

Apples to oranges (or potatoes). Cuz you can cut a potato into the shape of a cross, then fry it and eat it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by revrew

And if it IS sin

The central question, "IF it is sin"

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Long story short: What makes yours so special?

If you don't think yours is special, you've picked the wrong one. Dealing with gods is entirely too much work if you don't believe. If you do believe, then you don't need to be told it's special.

Why would anyone pick a religion they did not believe to be true? If you don't believe, admit it to yourself and get the fuck moving with your life. Don't waste your days trying to believe something you don't want to believe.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The traditional Christian belief is that the Jews pray to the same God, but have an imperfect knowledge of Him (they only see God the Father and perhaps God the Holy Spirit - in certain Old Testament narratives it appears the Spirit is spoke of). I see in Islam the same issue - same God, but incomplete knowledge.

To believe the Jewish God is different than the Christian one is a long held heresy (ie, Marcionism)

You're splitting hairs with me here and mischaracterizing my position. Of course, I don't subscribe to Marcionism. My previous statements, indeed this entire thread, make it clear I don't reject the God of the OT. Your point about the "incomplete" understanding of God, however, is better stated than what I spelled out earlier.

As for the Muslim Allah, however, the OT reflects/predicts that the sons of Abraham's Ishmael would be at odds with the sons of Isaac. Then, along comes Muhammad, helping to fulfill that prophecy.

But Muhammad's religion was revealed to him - according to Islam - by an angelic visitor in a cave hundreds of years after Jesus. Further, that "spirit" taught Muhammad to deny the divinity and Lordship of Christ, thus the NT - which specifically mentions this sort of thing - characterizes that "spirit" as a demon. Allah, after all, was Muhammad's tribal moon god, and therefore not one with the Almighty.

Though Muhammad did tell stories similar (bastardized from?) the OT, and though his line does descend from Abraham, that this demonic, tribal moon god and his doctrines could in any way be the "same" God as that of Yahweh and His doctrines is preposterous.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by revrew

You're splitting hairs with me here and mischaracterizing my position. Of course, I don't subscribe to Marcionism. My previous statements, indeed this entire thread, make it clear I don't reject the God of the OT. Your point about the "incomplete" understanding of God, however, is better stated than what I spelled out earlier.

As for the Muslim Allah, however, the OT reflects/predicts that the sons of Abraham's Ishmael would be at odds with the sons of Isaac. Then, along comes Muhammad, helping to fulfill that prophecy.

But Muhammad's religion was revealed to him - according to Islam - by an angelic visitor in a cave hundreds of years after Jesus. Further, that "spirit" taught Muhammad to deny the divinity and Lordship of Christ, thus the NT - which specifically mentions this sort of thing - characterizes that "spirit" as a demon. Allah, after all, was Muhammad's tribal moon god, and therefore not one with the Almighty.

Though Muhammad did tell stories similar (bastardized from?) the OT, and though his line does descend from Abraham, that this demonic, tribal moon god and his doctrines could in any way be the "same" God as that of Yahweh and His doctrines is preposterous.

You are the one who originally claimed "different God", so you must allow that you opened yourself up to that disputation.

Islam quite clearly does worship God the Father - the God of Abraham & Jacob. They talk about it quite often. However, of course, they get a few things jumbled.

Also the "moon god" crap is exactly that, crap. Allah means The God. Because the term "the God" was used by pagan tribes prior to Muhammed doesn't change the fact that when praying to the one God of the universe, saying "The God" is probably the best term. It is THE SAME GOD, regardless of whatever nonsense you'd like to spout. As one would like the Jews to acknowledge Jesus is the promised Messiah who fulfills Scripture, one would also like the Muslims to acknowledge that Jesus was not simply one of the major prophets, but was God Himself (interestingly some trivia: the person named most in the Koran - Jesus, called Isa in Arabic [as Moses is Musa]).

After all ARAB CHRISTIANS use the term Allah when discussing God.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I'm not even gonna get into the fact the NT was itself "cherry picked" into what would become its current form by theologians of the time some 300 years after Jesus was crucified, ignoring other Christian texts that didn't fit their opinion of Christianity.

I'm not saying those other books are "truth" either. Just saying the book on which you base what you wrote is itself as much a product of man as it is the word of God.

This is my main issue with the bible we have today. At the end of the day it's still a product of man from 1700 years ago.

I do appreciate revrew sharing this though.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You are the one who originally claimed "different God", so you must allow that you opened yourself up to that disputation.

Yep, I did. My bad.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Islam quite clearly does worship God the Father - the God of Abraham & Jacob. They talk about it quite often. However, of course, they get a few things jumbled.

Same name, same historical figures, but very different god.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Also the "moon god" crap is exactly that, crap.

No, it's not. It's verifiable history. Muhammad's unglamorized, un-glossed-over history is very specious-looking.

Regardless, you may be able to argue that the Native Americans, the Jews, the Muslims, the African pagans, the Norse, pick and ancient religion, were all worshiping "the same God," or at least they were all looking for the same God. Even Paul himself argued (on Mars Hill, I believe - didn't look it up - but as well in Romans 1) that people will naturally look for a god, even those who don't know who He or Jesus is. But that does not mean they all FIND the same God. Jesus revealed the One true God. Muhammad's demon revealed another one. Even if they share the same innate human longing, even if they have some of the same ancestors, the god Muhammad found is not the same God Jesus revealed. That's what I'm saying.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by revrew

Same name, same historical figures, but very different god.

Not particularly - The God of the Muslims is basically the same as the God of Jews - both are incomplete views of God the Father.

No, it's not. It's verifiable history. Muhammad's unglamorized, un-glossed-over history is very specious-looking.

Regardless, you may be able to argue that the Native Americans, the Jews, the Muslims, the African pagans, the Norse, pick and ancient religion, were all worshiping "the same God," or at least they were all looking for the same God. Even Paul himself argued (on Mars Hill, I believe - didn't look it up - but as well in Romans 1) that people will naturally look for a god, even those who don't know who He or Jesus is. But that does not mean they all FIND the same God. Jesus revealed the One true God. Muhammad's demon revealed another one. Even if they share the same innate human longing, even if they have some of the same ancestors, the god Muhammad found is not the same God Jesus revealed. That's what I'm saying.

I'll say it again, this is just absolute nonsense. Jews and Muslims both worship God the Father - they both trace their faith back to Abraham. The word Allah means "The God". Arab Christians use the same term. The Koran speaks of Abraham, Moses, Ellijah, Jesus (like I said, he is stated most of all and is spoken of as the prophet who will return at the end of days). Their God is the same as our God the Father. Do I believe their theology is incomplete and thus not fully correct, yes. But I also believe that of conservative evangelicals and I don't think they worship a different God.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Drake

If you don't think yours is special, you've picked the wrong one. Dealing with gods is entirely too much work if you don't believe. If you do believe, then you don't need to be told it's special.

Why would anyone pick a religion they did not believe to be true? If you don't believe, admit it to yourself and get the fuck moving with your life. Don't waste your days trying to believe something you don't want to believe.

I don't believe, nor am I trying to be sold on it. I find it a very valid question, though - for exactly the response you just gave. The most faithful of ANY religion, since the dawn of time, considers their religion to be the special religion.

One of the biggest things that bug me about religion in general is the utter hypocrisy in saying that their religion is the right and special one, and all others are wrong/misguided/uneducated. To me, it's the epitome of arrogance. I simply cannot fathom how anyone on this planet can claim they know what's really going on, and how they can dismiss those who do not agree as, at best misguided, at worst heretics.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Of course, I'm of the opinion that I have no real say to someone who is't a Christian. This is a huge point that certain Christians don't get. Those Christians want the law of the Bible to be the law of the land when it doesn't work for people who aren't Christians.

Makes it kind of hard to go into all the world, baptizing and preaching to everyone though.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I'm going to pose a very simple, yet very hard to answer question(s). I ask not because I expect an answer that I find satisfying (or even, to me, reasonable), but because I'm curious as to how you answer.

What makes your God / your religion more valid than any other that has existed since the dawn of time? Why is yours right, and theirs wrong? Why was it that everyone who had a religion before Christianity/Judaism was so utterly and completely wrong?

Long story short: What makes yours so special?

Probably the same reason that makes anyone follow a certain sports team, like certain characteristics on the opposite sex, etc etc.

Or why is Democracy a better form of government than a Monarchy? Anarchy? Communism? Socialism?

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

One of the biggest things that bug me about religion in general is the utter hypocrisy in saying that their religion is the right and special one, and all others are wrong/misguided/uneducated. To me, it's the epitome of arrogance. I simply cannot fathom how anyone on this planet can claim they know what's really going on, and how they can dismiss those who do not agree as, at best misguided, at worst heretics.

And what of Jesus? If He indeed was God and said these things (which He did), would it be arrogance? Or the truth?

That's the kicker. I'd agree with you ... if it weren't for Jesus.

[CrimsonFox]

I think I'll just go to Narnia and worship Aslan.

[Young Drachma]

It's early in the season, but if I had to vote for an MVP, I'd think ISiddiqui is putting work for consideration.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

It's early in the season, but if I had to vote for an MVP, I'd think ISiddiqui is putting work for consideration.

I'm rooting hard for CrimsonFox, might parlay with the over at 3.

[CrimsonFox]

Woof Woof ROAR!

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The central question, "IF it is sin"

I guess my question is why would God intentionally make "defective" people? The moment he created the concept of homosexuality, he committed X amount of people to Hell.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I guess my question is why would God intentionally make "defective" people? The moment he created the concept of homosexuality, he committed X amount of people to Hell.

Multiple assumptions in these questions:

1. Homosexuality is genetically programmed in - still debated

2. Even if it is, genetic predisposition is equivalent to "God made them that way" - the doctrine of the Fall suggests otherwise

3. Genetic predisposition = Genetic predetermination - not necessarily

4. Homosexuality, unlike other sins, automatically condemns a person to hell - Not so.

5. God can't predestine people to hell if He wants - Wow, THERE's a theological debate that's been going on for centuries.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by revrew

And what of Jesus? If He indeed was God and said these things (which He did), would it be arrogance? Or the truth?

That's the kicker. I'd agree with you ... if it weren't for Jesus.

Here's my kicker.

You can say you have faith that Jesus is God/Son of God.
You can say you have faith that God said everything you claim.
You can even say you've had deep personal revelations that have erased any doubt from you.

You cannot, however, legitimately say you *know*.

You have faith that that is the case. Faith is a powerful thing, and can be beneficial to many people. But it's not knowledge. It's belief in the unknown, and it's no more or less valid than someone else's faith - which need not match yours.

At the end of the day, Faith != Knowledge. And in my view, one person's faith is no less valid than another's. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows.

It'd sure be nice to know at some point, however.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by revrew

1. Homosexuality is genetically programmed in - still debated

Sure in the hell is likely since it's found in the animal world as well.

Why even create the concept if it serves no legitimate purpose?

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Here's my kicker.

You can say you have faith that Jesus is God/Son of God.
You can say you have faith that God said everything you claim.
You can even say you've had deep personal revelations that have erased any doubt from you.

You cannot, however, legitimately say you *know*.

You have faith that that is the case. Faith is a powerful thing, and can be beneficial to many people. But it's not knowledge. It's belief in the unknown, and it's no more or less valid than someone else's faith - which need not match yours.

At the end of the day, Faith != Knowledge. And in my view, one person's faith is no less valid than another's. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows.

It'd sure be nice to know at some point, however.

Very reasonable, and I understand your point. And since the Bible tells us "without faith, it is impossible to please God" and "the righteous shall live by faith" and so forth, it's clear Christianity requires faith.

I would challenge anyone, however, to look into what can be determined about Jesus. Can we say he lived? That he claimed to be God? That he died and rose again? I believe this much is historically verifiable.

If you get that far, then, you have to ask the question, who was He? Was he a magical liar? A supernatural lunatic? Or was he actually Lord of all? Those are really the only possibilities. And THAT is where faith comes in.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I'm rooting hard for CrimsonFox, might parlay with the over at 3.

Oh no doubt. Gotta be in the conversation.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Sure in the hell is likely since it's found in the animal world as well.

Why even create the concept if it serves no legitimate purpose?

Again, you say "create." The doctrine of the Fall asserts that though God made all things good, the introduction of sin into the world brought death, disease and brokenness. He did not create these things. In essense, man did. Including the genetic disease of old age and death we all suffer from, as well as the specific genetic diseases. And not just in people, but in all creation, even the animals. Even if homosexuality were a genetic predisposition, it's faulty to assume automatically that God "created" it.

[BillJasper]

It just feels like your trying to have it both ways. God created everything, except the bad stuff.

I'm not saying that as a criticism, just an observation from the outside looking in.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by revrew

Very reasonable, and I understand your point. And since the Bible tells us "without faith, it is impossible to please God" and "the righteous shall live by faith" and so forth, it's clear Christianity requires faith.

I would challenge anyone, however, to look into what can be determined about Jesus. Can we say he lived? That he claimed to be God? That he died and rose again? I believe this much is historically verifiable.

If you get that far, then, you have to ask the question, who was He? Was he a magical liar? A supernatural lunatic? Or was he actually Lord of all? Those are really the only possibilities. And THAT is where faith comes in.

Historically verifiable, with sources outside of the Bible?

I think the only thing we can reasonably say that is verifiable is that he lived, as there is outside corroboration of that. His profession to be God and that he died and rose again is not verified.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by revrew

Though we do have to define terms and applications. The question of homosexuality, as it was brought into this thread, was whether or not it is sin, not how and where it should be "tolerated." And if it IS sin, then should any Christian man (pastor or not) walk in unrepentant sin?

You're right that homosexuality needs to be put in perspective like any other sin. It's not the bogeyman in the closet (oops, no pun intended, really) that many Christians make it out to be. It's not the evil spectre of doom upon society that Westboro would make it out to be. It's a sin like any other - lying, gossiping, cheating on your taxes. But like adultery, it is still not ethical.

You can believe it is a sin all you want but what gives you the right to try and deny people their basic rights as citizens. Why do you care is people of the same sex get married ? You can still go to church, practice your faith, etc.

[ISiddiqui]

Genetic predisposition to sin resulting in eternal Hellfire is very problematic. Even if it comes from the Fall, having some people who are genetically predisposed to sin makes God look like a jerk, since God could, of course, prevent that from happening if He really wants to.

I don't believe in double predestination (except, perhaps, for the way theologian Karl Barth frames it) mostly because of what the story of God tells us about God. The God whom we are told wants us all to be with Him would not consign some to damnation because their ancestors (Adam & Eve) transgressed God.

Original Sin theology though is of great interest, especially when one believes in evolutionary creationism (as I do and many Christians do) and what that means for a world which was redeemed and freed from sin by the sacrifice and obedience of Christ Jesus, God the Son.

FWIW, I don't consider universalism to be an insult, though I know it is for a lot of evangelical right wing (yes, there are evangelical left wingers - examples being the "Emerging Church" as well as Jim Wallis) Christians.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Historically verifiable, with sources outside of the Bible?

We've been around and around this before on this board. If by "the Bible," you mean the book we hold in our hands today, I see the problem. But if you include eye-witness accounts and historians' research and ancient documents written within 20 years of an event that happened 2,000 years ago, then we have plenty, thousands of documents. Jesus' death and resurrection has been called "the most historically verifiable event in ancient history."

But as soon as you say, "Those don't count," because 400 years later, the church collated them and collected them into a bigger volume called "The Bible," you've just subjected the evidence to a test you require of no other ancient evidence. You want newspaper reports? They don't exist. A death certificate stamped, "Oh, wait, never mind" by the local registrar? These evidences don't exist.

The only evidences we have at all for most ancient historical events (outside of Rome) are the letters, stories, artwork and first-hand accounts of those who live during the events. And we have more of those for Jesus life, death and resurrection than any other event during the time period. It's as "historically verifiable" as anything we can verify at the time.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Genetic predisposition to sin resulting in eternal Hellfire is very problematic. Even if it comes from the Fall, having some people who are genetically predisposed to sin makes God look like a jerk, since God could, of course, prevent that from happening if He really wants to.

Of course, that's only if you buy genetic predisposition, which I don't. Or that genetic predisposition = genetic determination, which I also don't buy.

But really, I'm male. I have a genetic predisposition to want to bonk as many hot women as I can lay my eyes, hands and more upon. I'm pretty sure that's hard-wired. Yet lust is still called a sin. Predisposed or not, I'm still responsible for what I do with it.

And I'm not really concerned with God "looking like a jerk." He looks like a complete asshole in the book of Job. But as He explains, What is man's judgment of Me, that I should give a rip? You think finite humans are in a place to judge Me?

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by revrew

I would challenge anyone, however, to look into what can be determined about Jesus. Can we say he lived? That he claimed to be God? That he died and rose again? I believe this much is historically verifiable.

If you get that far, then, you have to ask the question, who was He? Was he a magical liar? A supernatural lunatic? Or was he actually Lord of all? Those are really the only possibilities. And THAT is where faith comes in.

I think its pretty established by non-Biblical sources that someone named Jesus lived and was crucified. Beyond that nothing else you mentioned is historically verifiable.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by revrew

We've been around and around this before on this board. If by "the Bible," you mean the book we hold in our hands today, I see the problem. But if you include eye-witness accounts and historians' research and ancient documents written within 20 years of an event that happened 2,000 years ago, then we have plenty, thousands of documents. Jesus' death and resurrection has been called "the most historically verifiable event in ancient history."

But as soon as you say, "Those don't count," because 400 years later, the church collated them and collected them into a bigger volume called "The Bible," you've just subjected the evidence to a test you require of no other ancient evidence. You want newspaper reports? They don't exist. A death certificate stamped, "Oh, wait, never mind" by the local registrar? These evidences don't exist.

The only evidences we have at all for most ancient historical events (outside of Rome) are the letters, stories, artwork and first-hand accounts of those who live during the events. And we have more of those for Jesus life, death and resurrection than any other event during the time period. It's as "historically verifiable" as anything we can verify at the time.

Actually, only the Book of Mark is purported to have been written within even 30 years of Jesus's death. Matthew and Luke followed within 40 years. And John was written some 50-60 years later. None of them are actually thought to have been written by the apostles themselves.

The actual best reference is Paul's letters, but there is a lot of doubt about the authorship and as to when those were really written.

And the main problem with all of them is not whether or not they are close enough to Jesus's time to be verifiable accounts of his life, but that they were almost certainly written by individuals with a bias--his own disciples and their followers.

Jewish historian Josephus, to my knowledge, is the only non-Christian source who makes even a mention of Jesus from that time, and Jesus was so "significant" at that moment that in Josephus's history of Israel, he got what amounted to a one sentence blurb.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Not all seminaries are created equal, and I'm certain even within a seminary certain teachers can be rather off base. Just because Pat Robertson and Joel Osteen are well known Christians it doesn't mean they don't make me shake my head most times they speak.

and thus, not all writers either. We've just learned in this thread that someone deliberately changed the bible to include the word homosexuals where it wasn't before in a way to prove God was against homosexuality and use it for someone's own agenda. Furthermore it is rather scary that people that are teaching future religious leaders can be "offbase" deliberately or simply from following a book. That's humanity for ya.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Jewish historian Josephus, to my knowledge, is the only non-Christian source who makes even a mention of Jesus from that time, and Jesus was so "significant" at that moment that in Josephus's history of Israel, he got what amounted to a one sentence blurb.

this made me burst out laughing as it reminded me of gregory hines in History of the World Part 1. Best joke in it...

Blind beggar Oedipus: Give to Oedipus! Give to oedipus!
(Josephus walks by)
Blind Beggar Oedipus: Hey Josephus!
Josephus (slapping his hand): Hey motherfucker!

[DougW]

Originally Posted by revrew

Though we do have to define terms and applications. The question of homosexuality, as it was brought into this thread, was whether or not it is sin, not how and where it should be "tolerated." And if it IS sin, then should any Christian man (pastor or not) walk in unrepentant sin?

You're right that homosexuality needs to be put in perspective like any other sin. It's not the bogeyman in the closet (oops, no pun intended, really) that many Christians make it out to be. It's not the evil spectre of doom upon society that Westboro would make it out to be. It's a sin like any other - lying, gossiping, cheating on your taxes. But like adultery, it is still not ethical.

I don't think Christians can put homosexuality on equal footing with other sins. In the Christian eye, a person can sin & seek forgiveness for his wrongdoing. But, a Christian generally doesn't see a garden variety homosexual taking that route. They are viewed as sinning, and "choosing" to continue sinning without remorse.