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

[revrew]

I'm well familiar with most of this, and most of it is hooey. There are also those who say Josephus' mention is even a later addition, and that theory is more credible than the others.

Paul wrote within 20-25 years of Jesus' death, and no, outside of the Book of Hebrews (another animal altogether), there is little to no controversy - except among those purposefully trying to discredit the Bible - as to who wrote his letters. The wide consensus is that he did.

The idea that "none of them are actually thought to have been written by the disciples" ... thought by whom? The same people working so, so hard to cut and chop and discredit anything they don't agree with, especially inside "Christianity." Yes, there are debates and theories and questions, and I know about Q and M and the various theories, but the existence of questions do not discount the books' validity. Luke wrote Luke, and he was a traveling companion of Paul, and he interviewed eyewitnesses like Mary herself and others. John wrote John, and was the disciple who was with Jesus, etc.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

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.

No, we did not learn that. Nice try. There's no reasonable way to worm out of Paul's vivid description in Romans 1 to argue that he's talking about anything else but sodomy.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by revrew

I'm well familiar with most of this, and most of it is hooey. There are also those who say Josephus' mention is even a later addition, and that theory is more credible than the others.

Paul wrote within 20-25 years of Jesus' death, and no, outside of the Book of Hebrews (another animal altogether), there is little to no controversy - except among those purposefully trying to discredit the Bible - as to who wrote his letters. The wide consensus is that he did.

The idea that "none of them are actually thought to have been written by the disciples" ... thought by whom? The same people working so, so hard to cut and chop and discredit anything they don't agree with, especially inside "Christianity." Yes, there are debates and theories and questions, and I know about Q and M and the various theories, but the existence of questions do not discount the books' validity. Luke wrote Luke, and he was a traveling companion of Paul, and he interviewed eyewitnesses like Mary herself and others. John wrote John, and was the disciple who was with Jesus, etc.

But you understand that, even if we accept that your version of history is true, that these sources were all written by Jesus's disciples themselves, and are not independently verifiable?

That your statement of "historically verifiable" is essentially a load of hooie in and of itself?

There is no standard used in historical study today which would consider the life events of Jesus to be "historically verified".

I'm not saying they didn't happen, but you can't just throw that out there, and not expect that to be challenged.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by revrew

No, we did not learn that. Nice try. There's no reasonable way to worm out of Paul's vivid description in Romans 1 to argue that he's talking about anything else but sodomy.

Well _I_ just learned that. Before now I've never seen a bible with the word "Homosexual" in it.

And Sodomy is non-penile/vaginal copulation-like acts like oral or anal sex and also dealing with animal sex. Can be with a woman or a sheep...a gorgeous, cuddly attractive sheep...

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by revrew

Conclusion

This is not some off-the-wall crazy system revrew invented. This systematic, full-context, logical understanding of how to interpret Scripture is taught in churches, colleges and seminaries around the world.

I disagree with your use of "college" here. What you have presented is far from what a theologically academic, non-seminary (Divinity), university teaches.

The type of "logical understanding" I received in getting my Master of Theology was based on historical data, literary criticisms and philosophical inquiry. Never were the personal beliefs of the students or professors (mostly Jesuit priest) brought up. Certainty, there never was an attempt to prove why Christian faith is right or wrong.

What I appreciated about my approach was the notion that through a rigorous historical, anthropological and philosophical inquiry the new "truth" that emerges can be profound as well.

For example: One can look at the OT/NT as a journey of a people struggling with unjust suffering and faith. As the notion of God matures from a punishing parent to a forgiving redeemer, the notion of salvation changes from communal to personal.

I see a group of people struggling with their faith as other communities become rich and powerful. I see the use of The Laws as an attempt to show more faithfulness to a fickle "jealous" god. I see the earthly promise-suffering-redemption cycle repeating until Jesus comes and changes it to eternal reward-suffering-redemption approach.

My questions are then:
Can any of the success of Christianity be attributed to the the Church fostering a selfish desire in its believers to get the eternal reward (a reward that unlike previous ones cannot be proven wrong by the living)?

Moreover, has the manipulation of these rules for eternal life been in the best interest of the believers or current power structure?

In other words, is heaven more necessary for salvation or conformity?

[sabotai]

Josephus (in 93-94 AD) wrote two passages about Jesus. The first was concerning the death of his brother James. The second, the one that the general consensus is that it was heavily edited but not entirely unauthentic, was about his crucifixion.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Josephus (in 93-94 AD) wrote two passages about Jesus. The first was concerning the death of his brother James. The second, the one that the general consensus is that it was heavily edited but not entirely unauthentic, was about his crucifixion.

Well, I knew it was very small.

So two sentence blurbs.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

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.

I don't see liking the things you pick as hypocrisy. Seems more like psychology to me.

What you can get me going on is why so many people pick the dominant religion of their cultural group and mistake that for faith (or even worse, a religious form of patriotism). Don't get me wrong here: I'm an American evangelical whose father was a reformed evangelical minister, so I'm not calling any kettles black, here. I just recognize that most people pick what their parents taught them -- religious or otherwise, and even on subjects unrelated to religion -- and replace critical examination with comfortable habit. Not arrogance, it seems to me, but socialization and a bit of intellectual laziness.

That doesn't preclude some people from owning their religious belief and verifying their conclusions, and it doesn't stop people from picking something else entirely...I just think that most people don't. Whenever I see people who are strident without compassion or a bit of doubt, I understand them as folks who believe they have received a direct revelation from God, or the sort that haven't ever looked closely at what they've been taught and really don't want to -- they'd rather shout than try to understand their own doctrine.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Never were the personal beliefs of the students or professors (mostly Jesuit priest) brought up. Certainty, there never was an attempt to prove why Christian faith is right or wrong.

Wait. You got a Masters of Theology without ever assessing whether the theology you were studying was bull$%^* or not? That's kind of funny.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

My questions are then:
Can any of the success of Christianity be attributed to the the Church fostering a selfish desire in its believers to get the eternal reward (a reward that unlike previous ones cannot be proven wrong by the living)?

Moreover, has the manipulation of these rules for eternal life been in the best interest of the believers or current power structure?

In other words, is heaven more necessary for salvation or conformity?

Can any of the spread of Christianity be attributed to manipulating the masses? Yes. But I wouldn't count that as "success." The fact that several actions of the church did reward the power structure (see Middle Ages) more than the believers themselves is why I say it wasn't a success, but a crime.

Yet the manipulation of the doctrine of eternal salvation does not discredit the doctrine itself. Eternal life is the point of salvation, and it has nothing to do with conformity.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

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

Maybe Im missing something in your comment. But C.S. Lewis is Christian and the books of Narnia are based on Christianity. So you going to Narnia to worship Aslan is in fact saying you want to worship Jesus. Ironic, huh?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Maybe Im missing something in your comment. But C.S. Lewis is Christian and the books of Narnia are based on Christianity. So you going to Narnia to worship Aslan is in fact saying you want to worship Jesus. Ironic, huh?

Mind==>>Blown

[revrew]

Look, y'all. We're coming to the end of the day for me here, and I've got to move on. I think most of the discussions we've had since the original post were interesting, but ancillary to the original point.

The original point, as best as I could describe it, is that the shouts of "hypocrisy" and "cherry picking" against Christians who dare call homosexuality a sin are not founded. That basic principles of Protestant/Evangelical biblical interpretation can reasonably demonstrate why it isn't inconsistent to eat pork and yet still call homosexuality a sin. That many of the people (especially celebrities, ala Jack Black) that mock Christians for their positions, are really just mocking, not making sound points of theology or pointing out flaws in the Christians' theology.

We've gone way, way off topic of late, and I have a few tasks I still need to get done. Thank you for keeping this (at least mostly) civil. Where I strayed into snarkiness or insult, I sincerely apologize.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Mind==>>Blown

Wait...the Narnia allegory stuff isn't common knowledge?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Drake

Wait...the Narnia allegory stuff isn't common knowledge?

Sorry, my sarcasm is apparently way too subtle.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Maybe Im missing something in your comment. But C.S. Lewis is Christian and the books of Narnia are based on Christianity. So you going to Narnia to worship Aslan is in fact saying you want to worship Jesus. Ironic, huh?

i prefer the lion form to the hippee form tho.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by revrew

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?

Lust is, of course, not the same as what homosexuals who are in monogamous committed relationships experience. Because, after all, if you think its all about lust, well then what's to prevent such a close relationship between you and another man? Is there perhaps something more there and simply wanting to have sex? There is something that God has placed in us which calls out for a great fellowship than simply a friendship - a relationship in which the ideal is for the other person to show us the closest approximation of the love of God that can be shown by another human to us. That has little to nothing to do with lust.

As for the Book of Job, I consider it to be one of my favorite books of the Old Testament. Not because God excoriates Job, no. But because he excoriates Job's friends, who said that Job must have done something sinful to deserve his sad place. God yells at them the strongest of anyone.

Also, of course, the vast majority of Biblical scholars see the Book of Job as a large parable rather than something that historically occurred.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Also, of course, the vast majority of Biblical scholars see the Book of Job as a large parable rather than something that historically occurred.

For Job's sake, I certainly hope so.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by revrew

Wait. You got a Masters of Theology without ever assessing whether the theology you were studying was bull$%^* or not? That's kind of funny.

That's kind of like saying: You got a degree in math without assessing whether a number, in and of itself, is real? Or: You got a degree in British Monarchy without assessing if monarchy is bullshit. Given me a break, if we only studied things to confirm what we already believed we'd still be in caves.

Originally Posted by revrew

Yet the manipulation of the doctrine of eternal salvation does not discredit the doctrine itself. Eternal life is the point of salvation, and it has nothing to do with conformity.

I think just the recent use of the Islamic promise of eternal reward shows you are vastly underestimating the power this promise has to conform and manipulate.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

For example: One can look at the OT/NT as a journey of a people struggling with unjust suffering and faith. As the notion of God matures from a punishing parent to a forgiving redeemer, the notion of salvation changes from communal to personal.

I see a group of people struggling with their faith as other communities become rich and powerful. I see the use of The Laws as an attempt to show more faithfulness to a fickle "jealous" god. I see the earthly promise-suffering-redemption cycle repeating until Jesus comes and changes it to eternal reward-suffering-redemption approach.

I haven't done the studying you have done, but this part resonated with me. When I read the bible (in Sunday school and now), I have always had the impression that the authors of the early books of the OT were trying to understand their faith and ascribing things they didn't understand to God. We know now that eating pork and shellfish when not properly prepared can make you very sick. In those times, I'm sure it could be deadly and it would be very easy to say that God must not want us to eat it since we die when we do. God must want us to conquer this nation, kill all the men, and take all the women for concubines since we prayed for that outcome and it happened. If God didn't want it, we wouldn't have won. When you don't have the tools to determine proper cause and effect, the logical effect is always "God did it".

[BrianD]

I'd also like to hear more about the dating of the Gospels. My understanding is that it is a very minority position that the Gospels were written by the names used as titles, or that they were written any earlier than a couple of generations after Jesus's death. I don't believe the books themselves even claim to be written in that time. I'd love to read more about it, though.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I think just the recent use of the Islamic promise of eternal reward shows you are vastly underestimating the power this promise has to conform and manipulate.

I think the point is that even if something can be used to manipulate, that doesn't necessarily make it untrue. If the Islamic promise of eternal reward is true, that makes manipulation that much easier.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

But you understand that, even if we accept that your version of history is true, that these sources were all written by Jesus's disciples themselves, and are not independently verifiable?

That your statement of "historically verifiable" is essentially a load of hooie in and of itself?

There is no standard used in historical study today which would consider the life events of Jesus to be "historically verified".

I'm not saying they didn't happen, but you can't just throw that out there, and not expect that to be challenged.

My number #1 interest above all else is history. Christianity as portrayed in the NT and, most importantly, the person of Jesus, most definitely are not historically verifiable in a way that would be acceptable for any other event in time that was not related to a religion.

As Chief says, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen, it just means you can't say with anymore certainty that it did than with any other religious or ancient text. Given the wonderous tales contained within... well... that's why people who aren't Christian aren't Christian. It's not like we are staring at hard actual facts and turning a blind eye, it's that the evidence is no more or less convincing than most other religions.

One of the great disadvantages that Christianity has re: the historicity of the bible is that the history of the Catholic church is very well known. These are the folks that quite literally gave you the NT you have in your bookcase today...

[CrimsonFox]

What's the third thing that Mary revealed and what is in the missing chapters of the bible?

[Buccaneer]

I just saw this and while I did not read much beyond the first page, I would have to add my (presumably only other) voice and support to revrew.

One of the points I want to emphasize from the original post was how the Jewish leaders (i.e., Pharisees, Sedducees) corrupted God's laws into something that was not intended, solely for self-righteousness and self-glorification (as well as power). In Matthew's account on the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is quoted as saying "You have heard that it was said..." or "it has been said..." or "you have heard...". These would include rules on murder (5:21-26) defining what God mean by murder (as in the commandment) instead of the strict, limiting way society defined it; adultery (27-30) where lust of the heart truly is adultery; divorce (31-32) where it was so easy to get a divorce (God hates divorce but recognizes that it will happen); retaliation (38-42) where "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" had been perverted to justify greater punishment. In each of these, Jesus contrasted these laws by saying "But I say to you...", given the true meaning that was intended in the first place.

God's words has not, does not and can not change and is inerrant in its original manuscript as something God-inspired can only be. Man's use of those words have been corrupting and blasphemous and were warned about by many writers. There are 17 mistakes or myths that people make about the Bible:

1. Assuming that the unexplained is not explainable
2. Presuming the Bible guilty until proven innocent
3. Confusing our fallible interpretations with God's infallible revelation
4. Failing to understand the context of the passage
5. Neglecting to interpret difficult passages in the light of clear ones
6. Basing a teaching on an obscure passage
7. Forgetting that the Bible is a human book with human characteristics
8. Assuming that a partial report is a false report
9. Demanding that NT citations of the OT always be exact quotations
10. Assuming that divergent accounts are false ones
11. Presuming that the Bible approves of all it records (e.g., it records some lies, like those of Satan's)
12. Forgetting that the Bible uses non-technical, everyday language
13. Assuming that round numbers are false
14. Neglecting to note that the Bible uses different literary devices
15. Forgetting that only the original text, not every copy of Scripture, is without error
16. Confusing general statements with universal ones
17. Forgetting that later revelation supersedes previous revelation

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I have always had the impression that the authors of the early books of the OT were trying to understand their faith and ascribing things they didn't understand to God.

Yeah, I think it is safe to say that when something unreasonable happens, there will likely be an irrational explanation...even today.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

God's words has not, does not and can not change and is inerrant in its original manuscript as something God-inspired can only be.

Yeah, but where's the original manuscript? What's in the NT is what a bunch of Catholic church leaders decided should have been included from a much larger selection of texts, centuries after the events they detailed, which in turn were written by non-contempories based on passed-down verbal reports. There are no original manuscripts. If Jesus came down to clear up some of the stuff in the OT, he should have picked a better audience than the remote and, in all likelihood, illiterate tribesmen that he did because the message is every bit as garbled and twisted by humans now (NT) as it ever was then (OT).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Yeah, but where's the original manuscript? What's in the NT is what a bunch of Catholic church leaders decided should have been included from a much larger selection of texts, centuries after the events they detailed, which in turn were written by non-contempories based on passed-down verbal reports. There are no original manuscripts. If Jesus came down to clear up some of the stuff in the OT, he should have picked a better audience than the remote and, in all likelihood, illiterate tribesmen that he did because the message is every bit as garbled and twisted by humans now (NT) as it ever was then (OT).

There are thousands of ancient manuscripts from the early centuries, as well as before the time of Christ (25,000 NT alone, 5600 in the original Greek) and the text has varied very little in all of this time. There are portions of early copies of Paul's letters from 150-200ad, for example. Altogether, we have 18 NT manuscripts from the 2nd century and one from the 1st. 43% of the NT verses are contained in just those early manuscripts. Compare to Homer's Illiad (which no one seems to question), we have only 643 copies of manuscripts, not to mention no surviving original copies of Shakespeare, which no questions either. Additionally, we record oral histories of many peoples, civilizations and tribes and most of those are not questioned either.

The academic discipline of "textual criticism" assures us that the Bible translations we have today are essentially the same as the ancient Bible manuscripts, with the exception of a few inconsequential discrepancies that have been introduced over time through copyist error (like the age of one OT king, forget which one).

As far as the canonical books, they did go through a rigorous process of authenticity with the Catholics including the Apocrypha books (which are not canonical, imo).

But if you step back and think about it, the Bible is God's revelation to us. Do you think He would allow man to change His words and message? The good news that Paul spread to the Roman empire (Jews and Gentiles alike), that Augustine (4th century theologian), that Martin Luther and that today's evangelicals spread is the same message of salvation, atonement, redemption and sanctification.

Historically, I think God's timing for His Son's arrival was brilliant. You had a common language (Greek) throughout most of the Western world (which much of the NT was written in), as well as local Aramaic. That provided the basis for the Latin (another "universal" language) translations that lasted for many centuries.

[CrimsonFox]

what do you guys have against WIndows NT? It was a great server. It didn't crash THAT much.

[CrimsonFox]

yuk that joke sucked as much as the Overtime joke I was trying to come up with

[Buccaneer]

I'll give you an example. The earliest known NT manuscript is from the Book of John, dated about 125ad - about 30 years after John's original writing. It's a small fragment with the words on it bolded below:

Recto: It is not lawful for us to put to death

No one; that the w ord of Jesus might be fulfilled;

Which he spoke signifying by what death

He was about to die. Entered therefore into the

Praetorium again Pilate and called

Jesus and said to him, "Are you the King of

The Jews?"



Verso: For this I have been born, and for this I have been born into

The world that I may bear witness to the truth.

Everyone that is of the truth hears my voice.

Says to him Pilate, "what is truth?"

And this having said again, he went out

To the J ews and says to them;

I not any fault find in him.

Compare what's in this NT manuscript to modern non-paraphrase translations we have today. If you really want to get overwhelmed, compare the Dead Sea Scrolls (dated about 300-400 years before Christ) to the modern OT translations.

[CrimsonFox]

What is this boldface code? The lyrics to eminem's latest hit?
The next da vinci code book?

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I'll give you an example. The earliest known NT manuscript is from the Book of John, dated about 125ad - about 30 years after John's original writing. It's a small fragment with the words on it bolded below:

Recto: It is not lawful for us to put to death

No one; that the w ord of Jesus might be fulfilled;

Which he spoke signifying by what death

He was about to die. Entered therefore into the

Praetorium again Pilate and called

Jesus and said to him, "Are you the King of

The Jews?"



Verso: For this I have been born, and for this I have been born into

The world that I may bear witness to the truth.

Everyone that is of the truth hears my voice.

Says to him Pilate, "what is truth?"

And this having said again, he went out

To the J ews and says to them;

I not any fault find in him.

Compare what's in this NT manuscript to modern non-paraphrase translations we have today. If you really want to get overwhelmed, compare the Dead Sea Scrolls (dated about 300-400 years before Christ) to the modern OT translations.

this really reminded me of Jesus Christ Superstar. Rice used the historical text for this really.

[Groundhog]

[quote=Buccaneer;2776800]There are thousands of ancient manuscripts from the early centuries, as well as before the time of Christ (25,000 NT alone, 5600 in the original Greek) and the text has varied very little in all of this time. There are portions of early copies of Paul's letters from 150-200ad, for example. Altogether, we have 18 NT manuscripts from the 2nd century and one from the 1st. 43% of the NT verses are contained in just those early manuscripts.

Compare to Homer's Illiad (which no one seems to question), we have only 643 copies of manuscripts, not to mention no surviving original copies of Shakespeare, which no questions either.

The difference is that the Illiad and the writings of Shakespeare are works of literacy, and don't claim to be the work of God. It doesn't really matter who wrote them or how much they've changed over the years, because they are stories, and very good ones. Some of the contain real characters or events, but no one claims they are word-for-word transcriptions of real events.

Additionally, we record oral histories of many peoples, civilizations and tribes and most of those are not questioned either.

We don't question them because that's all we have left of them in many cases. There's nothing to question because there are no answers - the oral history is the only human link to those peoples/civilizations. That's not the same thing as taking them at face value.

The academic discipline of "textual criticism" assures us that the Bible translations we have today are essentially the same as the ancient Bible manuscripts, with the exception of a few inconsequential discrepancies that have been introduced over time through copyist error (like the age of one OT king, forget which one).

Again, the problem is the manuscripts that were put to paper a century or more after Jesus was supposed to have lived, by people who weren't there, based on oral-traditions. It's the source that's the issue, not how accurately the source has made it's way down to us from those times.

But if you step back and think about it, the Bible is God's revelation to us. Do you think He would allow man to change His words and message?

"But if you step back and think about it, the Bible is Allah's revelation to us. Do you think He would allow man to change His words and message?"

Did it work, are you Islamic yet?

Historically, I think God's timing for His Son's arrival was brilliant. You had a common language (Greek) throughout most of the Western world (which much of the NT was written in), as well as local Aramaic. That provided the basis for the Latin (another "universal" language) translations that lasted for many centuries.

It was anything but. He came at a time when a minute fraction of people were literate enough to record Jesus' message, and it would take century after century after century for it to spread through the ancient/pre-medieval world, and that was only after adoption by a military power strong enough to force it upon its populace and its conquests.

[EagleFan]

Every devout Christian that I know holds the following statement to be true...

"God created us all in his image."


With that said. Homosexuality is not a choice, that has been scientifically proven. Which means that homosexuals were also created by God. Uh oh, the next step in this logic may cause an issue...

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Every devout Christian that I know holds the following statement to be true...

"God created us all in his image."


With that said. Homosexuality is not a choice, that has been scientifically proven. Which means that homosexuals were also created by God. Uh oh, the next step in this logic may cause an issue...

Man was given intellect, which means he could think and reason. As a rational being, man was unique in creation and clearly distinct from the animals. The image of God in man means he was "created in righteousness and true holiness" (before the Fall). After the Fall, man's sin nature became inherent and universal, as well as the consequences of sin.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Man was given intellect, which means he could think and reason. As a rational being, man was unique in creation and clearly distinct from the animals. The image of God in man means he was "created in righteousness and true holiness" (before the Fall). After the Fall, man's sin nature became inherent and universal, as well as the consequences of sin.

In other words; reasoning was a feature, not a bug.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by revrew

The original point, as best as I could describe it, is that the shouts of "hypocrisy" and "cherry picking" against Christians who dare call homosexuality a sin are not founded. That basic principles of Protestant/Evangelical biblical interpretation can reasonably demonstrate why it isn't inconsistent to eat pork and yet still call homosexuality a sin. That many of the people (especially celebrities, ala Jack Black) that mock Christians for their positions, are really just mocking, not making sound points of theology or pointing out flaws in the Christians' theology.

A quick query then - the bible and Christian points are against homosexual sexual acts themselves as most people interpret it (ie. the physical act).

At no point then does it say that two men can't be married - it just indicates that they shouldn't have sex, as such if two gay people wanted to live together and be in a loving relationship (ie. kissing, cuddling, sleeping together) and just not have sex would that be ok with you? ... if not why not?

I personally struggle to see why Christians as generally so obsessed with gay sex myself and over-react to it so hugely, I haven't seen them react this way about theft, murder, bigotry, marital cheating, sex outside marriage or stealing in recent years ..... all of which are also 'sins' but apparently far more acceptable ... why is being homosexual a 'super sin' which appears to trump all others?

(on the cherry picking front there are LOADS of items which are ignored by Christians because they don't fit into todays society (ie. a womans rights to divorce for instance) can you honestly reconcile all these issues but not fine acceptance for homosexual marriage despite the ambiguous nature of the language used and the numerous translations muddying the issue)

[Buccaneer]

The original point, as best as I could describe it, is that the shouts of "hypocrisy" and "cherry picking" against Christians who dare call homosexuality a sin are not founded. That basic principles of Protestant/Evangelical biblical interpretation can reasonably demonstrate why it isn't inconsistent to eat pork and yet still call homosexuality a sin. That many of the people (especially celebrities, ala Jack Black) that mock Christians for their positions, are really just mocking, not making sound points of theology or pointing out flaws in the Christians' theology.

I personally struggle to see why Christians as generally so obsessed with gay sex myself and over-react to it so hugely, I haven't seen them react this way about theft, murder, bigotry, marital cheating or stealing in recent years ..... all of which are also 'sins' but apparently far more acceptable ... why is being homosexual a 'super sin' which appears to trump all others?

There is no such thing, biblically, as super sin. Paul makes that clear in his letter to the church in Corinth, as well as to the Romans. It saddens me to see other sexual immoralities such as adultery and pornography ignored. But this yet another example of basing one's belief on the fallible and changeable authority of societal and cultural moods and trends instead of the authority of the scriptures.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by revrew

Paul wrote within 20-25 years of Jesus' death, and no, outside of the Book of Hebrews (another animal altogether), there is little to no controversy - except among those purposefully trying to discredit the Bible - as to who wrote his letters. The wide consensus is that he did.

This is one of the (many) problems I have with a literal interpretation of the bible.

I'm 41 at the moment, when I try and piece together my teenage years from memory I find it incredibly hard to put events in a coherent order and even very important events in my life at hard to recall accurately.

As such why should a report written that distance away from the facts be taken as anything but a very general indication of something colored by the tinge of time and personal bias to the events which occurred?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

There is no such thing, biblically, as super sin. Paul makes that clear in his letter to the church in Corinth, as well as to the Romans. It saddens me to see other sexual immoralities such as adultery and pornography ignored. But this yet another example of basing one's belief on the fallible and changeable authority of societal and cultural moods and trends instead of the authority of the scriptures.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember blasphemy being painted as the "super sin"? Blasphemy more in the sense of turning yourself from God throughout the span of your life, rather than shouting out Jesus Christ when you drop something on your foot.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by revrew

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.

I just can't buy it as a sin. I'm sorry, I just can't. If that means me and the big guy disagree, so be it.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

As such why should a report written that distance away from the facts be taken as anything but a very general indication of something colored by the tinge of time and personal bias to the events which occurred?

Bingo.

In no domain outside of religion would a single non-contemporary source written so long after the events - and even 20-25 years is an exceptionally long period of time that only seems slight due to the fact that we are talking about events from 2000 years ago - be considered proof of anything having actually occurred.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Bingo.

In no domain outside of religion would a single non-contemporary source written so long after the events - and even 20-25 years is an exceptionally long period of time that only seems slight due to the fact that we are talking about events from 2000 years ago - be considered proof of anything having actually occurred.

Whoops. You've got some misunderstanding there. Paul wrote 20-25 years after Jesus' death about things that happened 20-25 years after Jesus' death. His writing was contemporary to what was going on, writing about his own life and the life of the churches he was working in. He wrote of the apostles, whom he met and interacted with personally.

And if there's some confusion or minor discrepancies, such as faulty and fading memories would produce, those are reflected in the different Gospels, which don't always jive on the minor stuff (order of events, etc.). This, however, is what a person or even a modern courtroom would expect of actual eye witness testimony. Minor discrepancies are a badge of authenticity. When the stories all match perfectly, it's an indication of fabrication.

BTW, Thanks for chiming in, Bucc. I'm not going to be able to give this thread as much attention as I have already.

[Groundhog]

Confusing Gospels maybe but not misunderstanding. The point still stands.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

There is no such thing, biblically, as super sin. Paul makes that clear in his letter to the church in Corinth, as well as to the Romans. It saddens me to see other sexual immoralities such as adultery and pornography ignored. But this yet another example of basing one's belief on the fallible and changeable authority of societal and cultural moods and trends instead of the authority of the scriptures.

rev, bucc... do you accept divorcees at your church? Would you support (or do you think your congregation would tolerate) a pastor who regularly preaches against divorce as a sin as much as many christian pastors take a stand against homosexuality?

If so that's cool, and it's a genuine question. But this is the single most hypocritical thing I see in the church today.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But if you step back and think about it, the Bible is God's revelation to us. Do you think He would allow man to change His words and message?

Thats a cyclical argument - ie. the Bible is Gods word and he would protect it because its his message.

Its only a valid argument is you accept the first premise which many people don't.

[Passacaglia]

Aslan is Love, Simba is Not

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I personally struggle to see why Christians as generally so obsessed with gay sex myself and over-react to it so hugely, I haven't seen them react this way about theft, murder, bigotry, marital cheating, sex outside marriage or stealing in recent years ..... all of which are also 'sins' but apparently far more acceptable ... why is being homosexual a 'super sin' which appears to trump all others?

This plus abortion = sins most white heterosexual men are not tempted by, or are not applicable to white heterosexual men.

Porn and infidelity are much bigger issues in the church by volume of sin -- and I don't know of a church that would not agree that those are both sin -- but they don't get a tenth of the attention the super sins do. (I actually call them "The Special Sins" in air quotes when this topic comes up at my church.)

Homosexual sex isn't any more of a sin than, say, pre-marital sex (and a bunch of lesser moral crimes). You don't see the religious base getting riled up about legislation to punish 17 y.o. boys for fucking their girlfriends or laws forcing them to get married (or keeping them from getting married because their relationship is rooted in immorality, which would be a better cognate). The argument you hear most often has to do with the slippery slope of morality and "Godz gonna judge us for tolerating sin -- look at N'awlins!".

Seriously? You've left shutting down the porn industry largely to womens rights groups (of whom you're also terrified because they're upending the "natural order"), basic civil rights for minorities to the ACLU, and care for the poor and the widows to the fucking federal government...and you're worried that God is going to judge us because we tolerated some guys ramming their dicks into each other's assholes? That's where you're going to stake your claim to righteousness?

ETA: I want to be explicit here so you know where I'm coming from -- I do believe that the Bible teaches that homosexual sex is a sin. Since I also believe that the Bible is the word of God, I believe that homosexual sex is a sin. I equally believe that every time I look at a hot workstudy in my university office and wonder what it would be like to fuck her, I've committed an equally damnable sin. The Bible says a ton more about lust than it does about gay fucking, and that's a test I fail daily. I don't expect I'm going to stop giving the sex eye to hot 20 y.o. co-eds any time soon. It's built into my design as a dude. I try to be respectful and ask God to help me with my sin. Whatever. That's why I'm grateful for grace -- which God says that he wants desperately to extend to everyone who will have it. The worse sin, it would seem to me, is saying that my sin is less than someone else's and trying to set up an obstacle between them (and their sin) receiving the grace that God has so generously and freely given me when I do not and have not ever deserved it.

[CraigSca]

I can only guess it's coming to a head because both abortion and gay marriage are becoming government mandated.

As far as the church is concerned and its priorities, I can only speak personally that marriage was a huge issue in our church and many resources were spend on the covenant marriage. Our pastor spoke a lot about once you're married, it's supposed to be permanent and it's incumbent upon both partners to work out any issues you may have.

Oh, and he also spoke about pornography as well - even something as "harmless" as the movies you'll find in almost every hotel room in the US.

Oddly, I don't remember our church ever speaking about gay marriage or its policy for/against. As you all said, too many other problems to be concerned over.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

There are thousands of ancient manuscripts from the early centuries, as well as before the time of Christ (25,000 NT alone, 5600 in the original Greek) and the text has varied very little in all of this time. There are portions of early copies of Paul's letters from 150-200ad, for example. Altogether, we have 18 NT manuscripts from the 2nd century and one from the 1st. 43% of the NT verses are contained in just those early manuscripts. Compare to Homer's Illiad (which no one seems to question), we have only 643 copies of manuscripts, not to mention no surviving original copies of Shakespeare, which no questions either. Additionally, we record oral histories of many peoples, civilizations and tribes and most of those are not questioned either.

The academic discipline of "textual criticism" assures us that the Bible translations we have today are essentially the same as the ancient Bible manuscripts, with the exception of a few inconsequential discrepancies that have been introduced over time through copyist error (like the age of one OT king, forget which one).

As far as the canonical books, they did go through a rigorous process of authenticity with the Catholics including the Apocrypha books (which are not canonical, imo).

But if you step back and think about it, the Bible is God's revelation to us. Do you think He would allow man to change His words and message? The good news that Paul spread to the Roman empire (Jews and Gentiles alike), that Augustine (4th century theologian), that Martin Luther and that today's evangelicals spread is the same message of salvation, atonement, redemption and sanctification.

Historically, I think God's timing for His Son's arrival was brilliant. You had a common language (Greek) throughout most of the Western world (which much of the NT was written in), as well as local Aramaic. That provided the basis for the Latin (another "universal" language) translations that lasted for many centuries.

Just a side note as it is part of my world, there is a lot of academic discussion on what Shakespeare wrote. There are several different versions of Shakespeare's plays and the "modern" version that most everyone reads or performs is certainly not a copy of the original text.