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

[revrew]

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

The diversity of denominations within wider Christendom makes this complex. I will try to be as comprehensive as I can, which is why I insisted on creating this in its own thread.

The following is distinctively Protestant/Evangelical theology. I can't speak for Catholics, whose theology I'm less familiar with. Nor can I speak to "liberal" Mainline theologians or faux-Christian denominations like Universalism, who have their own systems (which I would categorize as "we don't need to understand the Bible if we simply disregard it completely"), but beginning with Martin Luther himself, through Billy Graham and so forth, those who have held that the Bible is authoritative (such as, but not limited to, the "Sola Scriptura" crowd) with some room for nuance and disagreement (no one argues theology more than theologians, even those from the same church!), the following is a guideline to orthodox Christian understanding of the "Law."

The average person in the pew doesn't necessarily understand any of this – hence, we get all kinds of half-truth slogans from your typical Christian ("Jesus nailed the law to the Cross, so we don't need the OT anymore" – yeah … not quite), but pastors or preachers educated in orthodox Protestant theology, or simply earnest students of the Scriptures as a whole, will follow a system at least resembling the following:

Overarching theme:

The Bible is, first and foremost, a story of God revealing himself, not just a list of rules. That's why we can't just point to a verse where it says, "No pork," or, "Stone adulterers," and assume it's a requirement for Christians or for civil government in, say, the U.S. From Creation to the end of time as recorded in the book of Revelation, the Bible has to be taken in its greater context. When in doubt, the phrase "Scripture interprets Scripture" is often cited, meaning that any one passage of the Bible must be understood in the light of the rest of the Bible. NO cherry picking.

OT Law

God gave to Moses a host of instructions called "the law," some 600+ instructions and requirements. These laws, however, were not all given for the same purpose, and therefore are not all applied the same way today. They break down into the following categories:

A. Civil Law (i.e. "Stone adulterers")
B. Ceremonial law ("Sacrifice two bulls")
C. Dietary law ("No shellfish")
D. Moral law (i.e. "Thou shalt not kill")

Some theologians recognize the 10 Commandments as a sort of category E., "Eternal law," a moral code that stands forever, above and more firm than moral law. I don't know if that's justified, or if the 10 are just a subcategory of moral law, so some rearranging may happen there.

Civil Law – Understood in context of its wider story, God established among the Israelites (prior to the anointing of King Saul) a theocracy, a form of civil government with laws handed down by God for governing a people. These listed crimes and punishments, financial laws, immigration law and all the trappings of a civil government.

That country, however, no longer exists. It was destroyed – some would say at the anointing of Saul, others at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., but either way, it's gone.

Therefore, unless we're living in an ancient Israelite theocracy, these laws are no longer applicable. This is why Christians don’t advocate we stone adulterers or govern divorce or slavery the way it's regulated in the OT. There's no hypocrisy in it. Those instructions are for governing a country that no longer exists, nor does God command that it be reestablished on earth.

We can, however, gain clues in the wider context to what God deems right and wrong. If he made a certain crime in OT Israel punishable by death, it's a clue that the action may be considered wrong. Not definitive, but a solid context clue. Something that would help when we get to the moral code, later.

Ceremonial Law – The system of sacrifices and feasts and celebrations and regulations.

Once again, this system of sacrifices has also passed into history, destroyed with the Temple in 70 AD. This is why neither Christians nor most Jews sacrifice pigeons and goats and bulls anymore, though Jewish people (and some Christians) do still observe the feast and holy days.

Yet even if the Temple were rebuilt in Jerusalem, Christians understand from the NT that the sacrifices (such as that of the spotless lamb, or the scapegoat) were but pictures pointing us to the great and last sacrifice, that of Jesus himself. I don't know what Jews would do, but for Christians, the sacrificial system has passed away permanently. That chapter in the story is closed.

Dietary Law – Shellfish, pork, etc. This is a bit more controversial. Some well-intentioned Christians believe these dietary restrictions are still in place today (I have friends who don't eat pork, etc), especially since the Bible uses language about dietary law that very closely resembles the language used in moral law.

Even the 1st century church debated hotly these questions. Eventually, the NT records, the leaders of the church met in Jerusalem to settle this issue that was being debated. Were these dietary laws part of the distinctly Jewish identity that God had established as part of his "peculiar people," or were these laws to be applied to the Greeks and Romans and other non-Jews that were coming to the faith? Did these "Gentiles" have to become Jews first, then become Christians?

The NT records the early church decided no, non-Jews don't need to adopt these "peculiar" practices, that the dietary laws were for the Jewish people only.

Then later, the NT records and incident where Peter (a Jewish Christian) was told by God that he could eat the "unclean" animals in his ministry to Gentiles, and that it wasn't what went into his mouth that could make him "unclean," but what came out of it.

Since that time, the vast majority of Christians do not observe the dietary laws. Again, there's no hypocrisy in it, when the greater story of the Bible specifically suggests these laws no longer apply.

Moral law – Some of the moral law is very clearly spelled out, literally written in stone. The 10 Commandments, for example, establish this is right this is wrong. Period. End of story. (But, you might say, "Christians often don't celebrate the Sabbath any more." To which I answer, that IS an example of rampant hypocrisy in the church. They should.)

Some of the moral law, however - the this is right, this is wrong, this is "an abomination," type stuff - appears in the text right next to the dietary or civil or ceremonial laws that no longer are in force. To enforce these moral laws, some would say, is cherry picking.

This is why it's important to ask, is this practice merely outlawed or condemned? Is its ban merely a civil requirement, or is it an implied moral requirement? Is it repeatedly condemned as immoral? Is it contrary to or a corruption of the Creation? Does the NT also speak to it?

Granted, this leaves things open for more controversy, but as you look at the whole of Scripture, the phrase, "If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and talks like a duck" applies. If it's labeled sin here, there and there, and if the reasoning for calling it a sin is spelled out… then it's a sin, whether it appears right next to ceremonial law or not.

For example: Many theologians make the case that financial giving to God's cause is a requirement of Christians. Yes, the "tithing" passages appear in the civil law passages, but the principle of first fruits was established even before Moses was given the law, it's affirmed by Jesus, and the 1st century church in the NT practiced it. Thus, it falls into moral law. Christians are morally required to give financially.

Another more feisty example: Divorce. God regulated divorce (civil law), but both OT and NT passages, Jesus own' words, Paul's, repeatedly affirm that – except in certain cases (an unbelieving spouse leaves the believer, and some would say, and I agree, infidelity) – marriage is for a lifetime. The rampant divorce rate within Christianity IS blatant hypocrisy.

Modern Christians, however, really kick against the goads on this one. They don't LIKE that they should be required to reconcile a broken marriage relationship. Whole denominations have decided that this clear, moral law of Scripture is just too hard to abide in today's culture, so they have – to the great discredit of themselves and the Christian religion – just ignored every principle of sound biblical interpretation and said, "Divorce is sad, but it's not bad."

This is one of the reasons so many nonbelievers are confused and think Christianity is cherry picking. Because these denominations ARE cherry picking. They don't want to abide by God's ethics, so they abandon sound theology and pick and choose the verses they like. No wonder nonbelievers scoff at Christianity! Believe me, I get it.

Last example: Homosexuality. Yes, the book of Leviticus condemns the practice, but is this merely a civil law, or a moral law that is affirmed throughout the rest of Scripture? Honest reading of the entirety of Scripture demonstrates that from the Creation account in Genesis, throughout the OT law, affirmed again in the NT and even reasoned in the NT back through the OT, that homosexuality, like fornication or prostitution, is repeatedly and clearly defined as a form of sexual immorality. It's clearly one of the moral laws, and not just a civil law (as if it could be a civil law at all – I guess it could be, if the government was just trying to produce children, but that's a fairly weak argument, especially since the passages don't say anything about children, but specifically mention the sex act itself as immoral).

Finally, NT "law"

In the New Testament, you have to ask the question, who is the person speaking to? That's part of sound interpretation of anything, biblical or not.

Jesus, for example, often makes sweeping pronunciations that would apply to everyone. You can bet if Jesus said it was sin, it is.

Paul, however, wrote letters to the churches, often giving instructions to Christians specifically. These are not the 10 commandments or moral laws that apply to everyone, but instructions on how to live the Christian life. They govern how Christians treat one another, how they operate within the church, how the church governs itself.

Sometimes, of course, Paul does speak to the culture at large. The book of Romans, for example, is a sweeping theological treatise that covers areas of doctrine, of universal truth. The point is to lay down the basic theology that's true for everybody. His condemnation of various sins in Romans 1, therefore, aren't for Christians only, but are expressions of theological truth. It's not as though murder and gossip (2 sins mentioned in Romans 1:29) are only sins in the church, but for everyone.

Other passages, however, address specifically the church and church government and would have nothing to do with civil government.

For example, Paul says that preachers are worthy of a double portion of income. Does this mean that the U.S. government should pass a law that all preachers must have a minimum wage of twice the national average? Of course not. That's a ridiculous reading out of context.

Similarly, does the passage that instructs Christians not to be unequally yoked with nonbelievers mean the U.S. government should ban interfaith marriages? Again, of course not. It's an instruction addressed to Christians, not to the civil government.

The question you have to ask is, who is he addressing? Christians specifically, or wider truths at large?



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. It's Christian Theology 101. Granted, there are variations, and granted, there are still debates within Christianity on how to best interpret this passage or that passage.

But the notion that Christians just don't make any sense, that their scattershot acceptance of one passage and not another is just based on bias and bigotry, that it's full of hypocrisy and self-contradiction … is just not true. At worst, it's a lie perpetrated by anti-Christian apologists and repeated so often, that most people believe it. At best, it's just a straw man argument.

If you still think I'm wacky, I'm not really surprised. The Bible specifically states that what is plain and obvious will fall on deaf ears, that some people walk around with darkened understanding utterly incapable of hearing truth, and wisdom will be rejected as foolishness. There are some that will rant and rave and foam at the mouth over what I've said. But if it's at all helpful to those that are genuinely curious, then I've done what I set out to do.

[molson]

"Honest reading of the entirety of Scripture demonstrates that from the Creation account in Genesis, throughout the OT law, affirmed again in the NT and even reasoned in the NT back through the OT, that homosexuality, like fornication or prostitution, is repeatedly and clearly defined as a form of sexual immorality."

Interesting stuff but I still have a question about this part. Where is homosexuality "clearly" affirmed as a form of sexual immorality in the New Testament (aside from just sexual immorality generally, and as its own specific thing that is really, really bad.) And more importantly, where and how did it became THE MOST IMPORTANT moral law to some modern Christians? Something that goes beyond merely "sin" that all humans commit, but as almost evil incarnate that so much opposition is organized around. I mean, do you believe it's "worse" than mere fornication? I could be wrong but my impression is that it's viewed that way. Is that importance evident in the new testament? If it's SO important why didn't Jesus talk about it at all?

[Young Drachma]

Yeah, this one is going to end well.

[Suicane75]

While I don't always agree with what you say, I more than appreciate how you say it. Have you ever read, or have an opinion on Tolstoys interpretation of the bible?

[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.

[molson]

And the other question I have is, are the "truths" of Christianity only intended by accessible to scholars and those with the intellect to comprehend everything you've laid out? My own personal, (very limited) understanding of Christianity was that Jesus (and based on the religion I was raised in, Martin Luther), kind of swept that away and made god accessible to the masses. The idea was that anyone could have a relationship with god, you didn't have to go through your government, or even the human leaders of your organized religion who wrote up the rules. Because they're just a human too and not any more loved or enlightened just because of the scholarly or intellectual (or financial) abilities.

[CrimsonFox]

I celebrate the Sabbath...

I listen to this !

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kz_6jagv_D4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[revrew]

Interesting stuff but I still have a question about this part. Where is homosexuality "clearly" affirmed as a form of sexual immorality in the New Testament (aside from just sexual immorality generally, and as its own specific thing that is really, really bad.) And more importantly, where and how did it became THE MOST IMPORTANT moral law to some modern Christians? Is that importance evident in the new testament? If it's SO important why didn't Jesus talk about it at all?

Last questions first:

The "most important" moral law to some Christians? I don't know any Christians (outside of Westboro Baptist) that would call it the most important, even if they accepted the Dante-like "ranking" of laws and sins, which most I know would reject. It's only prominent now, because it's a prominent political/cultural issue. If murder or stealing were the sin-du-jour people were trying to legalize, you'd hear Christians going nuts over those too.

Jesus didn't talk about it because he was a real person dealing with real issues. We have no record of anyone confronting him about it or questioning him about it, and the Jewish culture he lived in soundly condemned it ... so why would he talk about it? Paul, who ministered to a more Gentile audience, WAS confronted by it in the Greek and Roman culture, so he did talk about it:

Romans 1:25-27 "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. in the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified int eh name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

[revrew]

While I don't always agree with what you say, I more than appreciate how you say it. Have you ever read, or have an opinion on Tolstoys interpretation of the bible?

I understand, and thanks. No, I haven't read it.

[Subby]

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 kind of where I am right now. I see The Bible as a parable, nothing more. I don't trust men enough to deliver the Word of God without adding their own conceits.

[JediKooter]

:popcorn:

[revrew]

And the other question I have is, are the "truths" of Christianity only intended by accessible to scholars and those with the intellect to comprehend everything you've laid out? My own personal, (very limited) understanding of Christianity was that Jesus (and based on the religion I was raised in, Martin Luther), kind of swept that away and made god accessible to the masses. The idea was that anyone could have a relationship with god, you didn't have to go through your government, or even the human leaders of your organized religion who wrote up the rules. Because they're just a human too and not any more loved or enlightened just because of the scholarly or intellectual (or financial) abilities.

No, the truths are not intended to be accessible only by scholars. But God repeatedly commanded parents and pastors to teach those in their charge sound doctrine and the fullness of God's work, from Creation through the OT through today. That's why I said this is Christianity 101, basic stuff. This is what parents and pastors should be teaching those in their charge almost immediately after they come to faith.

The idea that Jesus abolished the Old Testament and that Christianity only uses the NT is simply some bad teaching.

And, yes, anyone can have and begin a relationship with Christ, regardless of understanding any of this stuff. But from there, we are called to grow, to study, to deepen our understanding, to learn, "work it out," and that's where this comes in.

[bhlloy]

Do you allow divorcees in your church rev? And would you stand in the pulpit and deliver a sermon or support someone who delivered a sermon about divorce along the same lines of condemnation that the church seems to reserve for homosexuality? Because that's by far the main hypocrisy I see today, not along the lines of theology but along the lines of what is condemned because it doesn't hit close to home

[panerd]

Yeah, this one is going to end well.

Might as well pick out the members who will get boxed in this thread and then the members that will be banned in the "WTF Skydog" thread ahead of time. Anyone want to set up a pool? :)

[spleen1015]

I'm in line with Subby (WTF am I thinking??), and Chief.

Other people are telling me that the Bible is the word of God. People aren't trustworthy. So, how am I to believe them?

Give me 2 thousands years, some charisma and I bet I could have millions of people believing that the potato is the physical form of God and they should be worshiped.

[tarcone]

I enjoyed reading this. Very informative.

The Bible is full of things that man cannot understand. We have to have faith. Belief that it is true.

Doctrines from denominations also muddy the water. Certain denominations, IMO, do not follow the teachings of Jesus. They are doctrines produced by pharisees. And thus make Christianity look hypocritical or wrong thinking.

[Chief Rum]

Give me 2 thousands years, some charisma and I bet I could have millions of people believing that the potato is the physical form of God and they should be worshiped.

As long as I can still consume said potato in any form I please, I will gladly be your first disciple! :D

[CrimsonFox]

This is kind of where I am right now. I see The Bible as a parable, nothing more. I don't trust men enough to deliver the Word of God without adding their own conceits.


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.
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[CrimsonFox]

As long as I can still consume said potato in any form I please, I will gladly be your first disciple! :D

damnit Chief! Stop eating God!
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[molson]

Might as well pick out the members who will get boxed in this thread and then the members that will be banned in the "WTF Skydog" thread ahead of time. Anyone want to set up a pool? :)

Eh, people say that in every thread about religion but it doesn't really get too testy here anymore. When was the last time people got banned for something besides posting offensive photos or complaining about modding?

[Chief Rum]

damnit Chief! Stop eating God!
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

I was raised Catholic. It comes naturally.

I don't know if I will be able to contain myself for an hour-long service waiting to walk up and take "O'Graten" every Sunday.

[CrimsonFox]

I was raised Catholic. It comes naturally.

I don't know if I will be able to contain myself for an hour-long service waiting to walk up and take "O'Graten" every Sunday.


I was too. So I assume instead of sacrimental wine, the chalices will be filled with sacred dipping ketchup?
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[Chief Rum]

I was too. So I assume instead of sacrimental wine, the chalices will be filled with sacred dipping ketchup?
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

Naw, we're going on full on potato. It will be potato cheese soup!

[CrimsonFox]

with croutons...
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[Blackadar]

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified int eh name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

That's one interpretation, but not necessarily the correct one. For instance, the English Standard version doesn't refer to "male prostitues" at all. In King James, homosexuality nor male prostitutes are mentioned at all. In other versions, the term "homosexual" has been substituted from the original Latin word catamite, which is a term for a boy in a homosexual relationship - which is different than a relationship between consenting adults.

And, of course, this is just one passage from a large book in a different language compiled some 250 years after the main protagonist supposedly lived and died.

[tarcone]

Ah Catholicism. Not a fan. Pharisee teachings, IMO.

On the news the other day, they were interviewing a minister about Stan Musial. He talked about how Stan was baptized into the church. Now, I took this as into the Catholic church. Not the church of Christ.

[markprior22]

Revrew...what are your thoughts on 2 Timothy 3:15 where Paul instructs to "rightly divide the word of truth?" What division is he speaking about in that verse?

[BillJasper]

Jesus didn't talk about it because he was a real person dealing with real issues. We have no record of anyone confronting him about it or questioning him about it, and the Jewish culture he lived in soundly condemned it ... so why would he talk about it?

But if it isn't a teaching of Jesus, why decide to follow it so strenuously?

[CrimsonFox]

That's one interpretation, but not necessarily the correct one. For instance, the English Standard version doesn't refer to "male prostitues" at all. In King James, homosexuality nor male prostitutes are mentioned at all. In other versions, the term "homosexual" has been substituted from the original Latin word catamite, which is a term for a boy in a homosexual relationship - which is different than a relationship between consenting adults.

And, of course, this is just one passage from a large book in a different language compiled some 250 years after the main protagonist supposedly lived and died.


I was about to call shenanigans on that myself as I was pretty darn sure the word homosexuality did not appear or even exist in the bible.

can't find my own at the moment tho.

No doubt it was "edited" by "God"

<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[tarcone]

I'm in line with Subby (WTF am I thinking??), and Chief.

Other people are telling me that the Bible is the word of God. People aren't trustworthy. So, how am I to believe them?

Give me 2 thousands years, some charisma and I bet I could have millions of people believing that the potato is the physical form of God and they should be worshiped.

There have been lots of charismatic leaders in the history of man. But only Ones teachings have stood the test of time. Interesting thought.

[ISiddiqui]

Also there is discussion that the Romans text that a lot of conservative Christians use to strike down homosexuality was really concerned with Roman temple prostitution (which did take homosexual nature at times). Kind of how Sodom & Gomorrah are about inhospitality rather than OMG, teh gheys!

Regardless, homosexuality is something mentioned very, very rarely in the text.

Furthermore, the majority of Christians do not take the text 100% literally (the reason I say majority, btw, is because the Catholic Church never has and that's 1.2 billion Christians). A lot of Christians see the Bible as inspired by God, but written by the hands of men, and thus we have to dig into what was trying to be said, knowing the cultural and era context.

[Chief Rum]

There have been lots of charismatic leaders in the history of man. But only Ones teachings have stood the test of time. Interesting thought.

Mohammad? Confucius? The Buddha? John the Baptist?

Seems to me that teachings of many have stood the test of time.

[revrew]

But if it isn't a teaching of Jesus, why decide to follow it so strenuously?

This goes back to the concept of the Christian faith being a full story, from creation, through BOTH testaments, until the end of time. Taking Jesus out of context is as theologically irresponsible as taking any passage out of context.

Were it not for the Old Testament, Jesus could have just as easily been an alien. I'm not even joking.

The full context of the Bible is clear (for all the above attempts at explaining it away) on the topic of God's design for sexuality vs. well, other designs.

Trying to divorce any part of Christian doctrine from the story as a whole creates theological errors.

[dubb93]

There have been lots of charismatic leaders in the history of man. But only Ones teachings have stood the test of time. Interesting thought.

That is an odd way of looking at things. On this planet we have 7,000 languages, and thus distinct cultures and belief systems.

Also depending on where you are born you usually either follow a religion that recognizes a distinct god(Western religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) or a religion that does not recognize a distinct god and instead sees divine power in everything(Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism).

I've literally only covered six of the "major" religions and there are more than three times as many other religions out there that those don't cover.

[dubb93]

Mohammad? Confucius? The Buddha? John the Baptist?

Seems to me that teachings of many have stood the test of time.

You beat me to this.

[spleen1015]

So, rev, what do you think about other religions? What about Muslims? Do you think they are wrong? Is it possible that they worship the same God, but interpret things differently?

[JPhillips]

Hinduism has been around since at least 1000 BCE and has a billion followers. I'd say it's passed the test of time.

[Coffee Warlord]

Ya know, as I've gotten older, I've realized my tolerance for debating religion with people has dropped dramatically. I used to love theological discussions.

[CrimsonFox]

Last questions first:

The "most important" moral law to some Christians? I don't know any Christians (outside of Westboro Baptist) that would call it the most important, even if they accepted the Dante-like "ranking" of laws and sins, which most I know would reject. It's only prominent now, because it's a prominent political/cultural issue. If murder or stealing were the sin-du-jour people were trying to legalize, you'd hear Christians going nuts over those too.

Jesus didn't talk about it because he was a real person dealing with real issues. We have no record of anyone confronting him about it or questioning him about it, and the Jewish culture he lived in soundly condemned it ... so why would he talk about it? Paul, who ministered to a more Gentile audience, WAS confronted by it in the Greek and Roman culture, so he did talk about it:

Romans 1:25-27 "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. in the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified int eh name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

This goes back to the concept of the Christian faith being a full story, from creation, through BOTH testaments, until the end of time. Taking Jesus out of context is as theologically irresponsible as taking any passage out of context.

Were it not for the Old Testament, Jesus could have just as easily been an alien. I'm not even joking.

The full context of the Bible is clear (for all the above attempts at explaining it away) on the topic of God's design for sexuality vs. well, other designs.

Trying to divorce any part of Christian doctrine from the story as a whole creates theological errors.

Then you have made a theological error and are being theologically irresponsible.
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[molson]

The full context of the Bible is clear

I respect religion, I respect believers, but even religious scholars can't agree on what the bible says. Not much about the bible is clear at all to me. Even the passages you cited where homosexuality is referenced have been reasonably interpreted a variety of different ways. Which, according to my own personal beliefs, is just because we're all imperfect humans who can only scratch the surface of what "god" even is, though I believe it's also a very worthwhile endeavor to try to have that relationship anyway, even though no human can definitively figure out all the mysteries of the universe and the human experience. My life is definitely better for have tried to explore those things, but I'm just never to going to be able to completely adopt any one other human's own personal vision for what it all means. I respect that for others, they can get closer to god through a more rigid personal belief system. I respect people's rights to pursue that, and even to make it a part of their government if they get enough votes. But human nature is to be more questioning and skeptical, that's part of how we advanced to this level of a species. We ask questions, develop our minds and souls, accomplish amazing things.

[Matthean]

And more importantly, where and how did it became THE MOST IMPORTANT moral law to some modern Christians? Something that goes beyond merely "sin" that all humans commit, but as almost evil incarnate that so much opposition is organized around. I mean, do you believe it's "worse" than mere fornication? I could be wrong but my impression is that it's viewed that way. Is that importance evident in the new testament? If it's SO important why didn't Jesus talk about it at all?

I think the issue is that it is viewed as a unrepentant sin. People get and accept that lying is bad. Not only is homosexuality not deemed sinful in the eyes of many, but it is this huge cause and there are parades and such for it.

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.

[revrew]

So, rev, what do you think about other religions? What about Muslims? Do you think they are wrong? Is it possible that they worship the same God, but interpret things differently?

First of all, careful examination of both gods, side-by-side, reveals they cannot be the same God. Both religions refute that they worship the same God; it's only outsiders trying to overlay some universalist theology that come up with that. And, to be blunt, it's baloney.

The world has always (at least in the days after Adam and Eve) been filled with various religions, various gods. The God of the Bible makes it clear He is the one and only true God and the various other gods are deceptions at best, demons at worst. Since I'm a Bible-believer, that pretty much tells you where I stand.

If I believed otherwise, if I believed any god is as good as another, then I certainly wouldn't be willing to take so much abuse around here, would I? ;)

[revrew]

Then you have made a theological error and are being theologically irresponsible.
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

I'm open to correction. How so?

[ISiddiqui]

The full context of the Bible is clear

Indeed. Love God with all your mind, heart, and soul & love your neighbor as yourself.

[revrew]

I respect religion, I respect believers, but even religious scholars can't agree on what the bible says. Not much about the bible is clear at all to me. Even the passages you cited where homosexuality is referenced have been reasonably interpreted a variety of different ways. Which, according to my own personal beliefs, is just because we're all imperfect humans who can only scratch the surface of what "god" even is, though I believe it's also a very worthwhile endeavor to try to have that relationship anyway, even though no human can definitively figure out all the mysteries of the universe and the human experience.

Cop out. Study it yourself. Do the legwork. Don't take my word or some theologian's word. People can be "reasonable" and completely wrong, as are the attempts to justify homosexuality as biblically moral. If you even remotely think that Jesus was who he said he was, then there's little excuse for ignoring Him, His Father or His Word.

[ISiddiqui]

Both religions refute that they worship the same God; it's only outsiders trying to overlay some universalist theology that come up with that.

Completely untrue and nonsense. 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).

[Drake]

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.
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

It actually would tend to enforce orthodoxy (multiple reviewers/editors over spans of time), sort of the way it works with good science --- peer review to weed out the results of the nut cases.

Whether or not that's a good thing would depend on your feelings about orthodoxy in general.

Then again, this is why document caches like the Dead Sea Scrolls are so valuable, because they give us dated texts to compare subsequent versions against. I'm not a DSS scholar at all, but what little reading I've done seems to suggest that the consistency between the later sources used for the modern bible and the DSS comparative texts are pretty remarkable.

If I was more of a conspiracist, I'd worry much more about what was going on in Babylon during the Exile when most of the OT texts were codified and written down than about the formation of the NT materials.

(But I'm not a conspiracist. I tend to believe that if God is who he says he is, then it should be no huge feat to get us a copy of what he wants to say in more or less the form he wants us to have it. If he's not able to do that, then there's not really any reason to bother with him in the first place, because he's not going to have the power to save me like he promised anyway. It's much less taxing to just decide whether or not I'm going to accept the biblical narrative on its own terms rather than having to wade through each individual piece and pick and choose only the parts that I agree with and then find justifications to toss out all of the others. This is one of the reason I'm just as cool with atheists as with evangelicals. At least they've both made decisions without trying to make it all about them and the things they think God should have said.)

[Blackadar]

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.

I have great respect for your opinion on this issue.

[tarcone]

Yeah. I misspoke. I was thinking more in the terms of modern day. I hadnt thought of the other religions of the world. I had blinders on. I take back my previous statement. But I dont think a potato would stand 2000 years. But as you have seen, I have been wrong once or twice in my life.

[molson]

If you even remotely think that Jesus was who he said he was, then there's little excuse for ignoring Him, His Father or His Word.

And all those times he gathered people and told them that as Christians, we need to be most concerned with homosexuality above all else. He did say that, right?

[ISiddiqui]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

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]

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]

Long story short: What makes yours so special?

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

[Matthean]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

And if it IS sin

The central question, "IF it is sin"

[Drake]

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]

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)

:banghead: 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]

:banghead: 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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[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]

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!
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[BillJasper]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Oh no doubt. Gotta be in the conversation.

[revrew]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script><script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[CrimsonFox]

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!

<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[DougW]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ORw4Q95PtZM/TaCKidmGeEI/AAAAAAAACgQ/Vr5iK4J5Qrw/s400/Wilder+and+Betsy+The+Sheep.jpg
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[AENeuman]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

I think I'll just go to Narnia and worship Aslan.
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

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]

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]

Mind==>>Blown

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

[Chief Rum]

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

Sorry, my sarcasm is apparently way too subtle. :)

[CrimsonFox]

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.
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[ISiddiqui]

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]

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]

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.


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]

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]

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]

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?
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[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]

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]

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]

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.
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[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?
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[CrimsonFox]

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.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0mohcOgaXKA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<script type="text/html" id="overlay_tmpl">
</script>

[Groundhog]

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.

[quote]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]

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]

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. :D

[Marc Vaughan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Subby]

So a person born and raised in a rural area of China and has the misfortune of never being exposed to Christianity - that person is going to Hell, right?

[Jughead Spock]

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.

Vulgarities aside, this is a pretty strong argument.

[Buccaneer]

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.

Blasphemy against God, His Son, the Holy Spirit, the Word and the Church is a clear sin but the Phariseatic tradition (as well as late religious traditions) made it punishable by death. But Saul was a blasphemer and a persecutor but he obtained mercy and forgiveness (as recorded in Timothy) and become Paul. Blasphemy against the Spirit cannot be forgiven for that simply means that one did not repent and did not receive the free grace and mercy (hardened against the gospel message) - a true, unrepentent unbeliever.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I have only looked at a few posts here... is this thread worth reading in depth, or is it much like the Bible... something that most people do just fine with catching the highlights.

[Buccaneer]

So a person born and raised in a rural area of China and has the misfortune of never being exposed to Christianity - that person is going to Hell, right?

Chris, that is a common question and not an easy answer. I don't know what they will be held accountable for but the path to salvation is a narrow one and cannot change. But you, I and many here have heard the gospel message and will be held accountable for our response to it. And as a believer, it is our responsibility to get the gospel message out to everyone.

[britrock88]

I have only looked at a few posts here... is this thread worth reading in depth, or is it much like the Bible... something that most people do just fine with catching the highlights.

Pretty good read, I'd say.

[Subby]

It got CrimsonFox boxed, so I would say it was wholly worth it.

[Buccaneer]

As a quick response bhlloy and drake (since I need to get to work and I'm on my iPhone), hypocrisy against the Word has been going on for a long time. Jesus several times slammed the Pharisees with their outward appearance of piety but their hearts were still evil. Sin is very much prevalent not only in our cultures but in our churches as well (many false teachers and deceivers). All those show the condition of man and the need for true repentance and redemption but most will go through the wide gate and not the narrow more difficult one. What men preaches and teaches can be like the Pharisees and one should not base their faith upon man and his institutions, only upon the Word, God's revelation to us.

[DaddyTorgo]

how did CF get boxed? was there a post deleted?

[GrantDawg]

how did CF get boxed? was there a post deleted?


Wondering about that as well.

[DanGarion]

how did CF get boxed? was there a post deleted?

I think it is the general acting like an asshat troll rule. Not that I agree he was acting like one, but his general comments that were OT of the thread might have done it?

[Coffee Warlord]

Looking through the last few pages, my opinion he was going above and beyond the usual sarcasm/mockery that we expect. Think he hit critical asshattery mass.

[Sun Tzu]

"We have a place for babies like you...THE BOX!"

http://deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/astreetcarnamedmarge4_thumb.png?w=512&h=384

[RedKingGold]

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

Nailed it, so glad I played risky and avoided the parlay.

[Young Drachma]

Nailed it, so glad I played risky and avoided the parlay.

Indeed. Good call.

[AENeuman]

Yet the manipulation of the doctrine of eternal salvation does not discredit the doctrine itself.


This line has stuck with me, I guess I take a more sociological view. In the case of every other religion, the "manipulation of the doctrine" is used by detractors as conclusive evidence of a religions illegitimacy.

For example, Bucc said, "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." This statement could (more or less) be claimed by a Jew, Muslim and even Hindu.

In nearly every case, religions provide a social, political and economic framework for a community. The need for a religious "sacred canopy" to protect a community from fear, death, chaos, and selfishness has been a necessary quality for any civilization to survive. (Certainly since Civ IV ;) )

In essence, to a Christian, the only difference between the western christian sacred canopy and all others, is they are merely spiritually right. However, in function, stability and meaningfulness, they are the same as every other one. Moreover, when a religion fails, it is not because it is proved wrong, rather, it is that it ceases to fulfill its essential function of meaningfulness and stability to a community; thus creating an opening for the uncontent to revolt (see Jesus, Luther, Stalin).

One can make the argument that the decline in religious attendance in America is not because the faith has been proven wrong, but that medicine, sports teams, political parties and internet forums are providing more meaningfulness and stability. Where religious memberships are increasing in the world, science, leisure and liberty are weak.

[Buccaneer]

The statement that other sacred claim the same is not true, as far as I can tell. The other religious works does not include the same prophetic content and certainly not the fulfillment of prophesy. Also (pasted from another site) the writings from the Far East, the teachings of Confucius, Buddhism and Hinduism do not even make a claim to be God&rsquo;s word. They present to their followers a path to a simpler, more satisfactory life. The Muslim Koran makes no claims to being words from Allah. Rather it is the writing of Mohammed, a religious leader, his record of history as well as his desire for the future. But has any prophecy in the Koran come to pass? Only the Christian Bible claims to be God&rsquo;s very word to man and only the Bible contains the verifiable track record of prophetic fulfillment as evidence of its claims. Biblical prophecies are batting 1000. No other religious group or religious writings can make the same claim. (Bible references related to this article: Jeremiah 25.11, Daniel 9.1-5, John 1.1-5)

[DanGarion]

Bible prophecies are batting 1000? Ok, I'm checking out of this thread and it's zaniness...

[Coffee Warlord]

*weeps*

Yeah. Nothing good is gonna come from going down that road.

[DaddyTorgo]

Only the Christian Bible claims to be God’s very word to man and only the Bible contains the verifiable track record of prophetic fulfillment as evidence of its claims. Biblical prophecies are batting 1000. No other religious group or religious writings can make the same claim. (Bible references related to this article: Jeremiah 25.11, Daniel 9.1-5, John 1.1-5)

Really?

I can write a book that claims to be God's own word to man too. No big deal there.

And not sure what NON-BIBLICAL evidence there is of Biblical prophecies batting 1000?

Because I can write a book that claims to be God's own word to man that attests that a bunch of things that the book itself prophecies also came true. That's not hard.

[Buccaneer]

Surely you don't want me to list them all and their fulfillment? ;)

[Jughead Spock]

The Muslim Koran makes no claims to being words from Allah.


What the huh?

[Matthean]

I can write a book that claims to be God's own word to man too. No big deal there.

You have as much chance as writing something Biblical as Joseph Smith does.

[JPhillips]

The statement that other sacred claim the same is not true, as far as I can tell. The other religious works does not include the same prophetic content and certainly not the fulfillment of prophesy. Also (pasted from another site) the writings from the Far East, the teachings of Confucius, Buddhism and Hinduism do not even make a claim to be God&rsquo;s word. They present to their followers a path to a simpler, more satisfactory life. The Muslim Koran makes no claims to being words from Allah. Rather it is the writing of Mohammed, a religious leader, his record of history as well as his desire for the future. But has any prophecy in the Koran come to pass? Only the Christian Bible claims to be God&rsquo;s very word to man and only the Bible contains the verifiable track record of prophetic fulfillment as evidence of its claims. Biblical prophecies are batting 1000. No other religious group or religious writings can make the same claim. (Bible references related to this article: Jeremiah 25.11, Daniel 9.1-5, John 1.1-5)

I'm no religious scholar, but I do know that the Natyasastra (The Holy Book of Theatre)has an authorship tradition very much like the Bible. It was compiled by Bharata, but all the knowledge was provided directly from Brahma.

[DaddyTorgo]

You have as much chance as writing something Biblical as Joseph Smith does.

:D

[AENeuman]

The statement that other sacred claim the same is not true, as far as I can tell. The other religious works does not include the same prophetic content and certainly not the fulfillment of prophesy. Also (pasted from another site) the writings from the Far East, the teachings of Confucius, Buddhism and Hinduism do not even make a claim to be God&rsquo;s word. They present to their followers a path to a simpler, more satisfactory life. The Muslim Koran makes no claims to being words from Allah. Rather it is the writing of Mohammed, a religious leader, his record of history as well as his desire for the future. But has any prophecy in the Koran come to pass? Only the Christian Bible claims to be God&rsquo;s very word to man and only the Bible contains the verifiable track record of prophetic fulfillment as evidence of its claims. Biblical prophecies are batting 1000. No other religious group or religious writings can make the same claim. (Bible references related to this article: Jeremiah 25.11, Daniel 9.1-5, John 1.1-5)

In general, one can say other religions see Christianity as the story of the prophet Jesus. In general, their argument is that the prophet of their religion got the full message, not Jesus. Jews, Muslims, Mormons all believe their prophets have a truth that is greater (word of god, god inspired, etc) than the one Jesus proclaimed. In Hinduism, the main text is believed to be divinely inspired and is translated as "Revealed." Again, they would say that which is revealed to them is more complete than that which was revealed to Jesus.

The problem comes in trying to "prove" which prophet is correct. It is this desire that has caused the majority of the suffering and cruelty of religions.

“Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.” St Francis.

[Matthean]

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.

An author wrote on this issue that if you are to take ten works of Shakespeare and see how authentic they are compared to the originals. The authenticity of the Bible is still stronger. I know he started as an atheist and tried to go out and disprove Christianity only to become a believer himself. I think his books have more notes than a number of school books I have read.

[Matthean]

“Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.” St Francis.

FYI, one of my pastors ripped on that phrase, and I agree with him. Without words, a Christian's actions are no different than a non-believer's.

[JPhillips]

An author wrote on this issue that if you are to take ten works of Shakespeare and see how authentic they are compared to the originals. The authenticity of the Bible is still stronger. I know he started as an atheist and tried to go out and disprove Christianity only to become a believer himself. I think his books have more notes than a number of school books I have read.

The problem with that is our lack of an "original" version. He was probably talking about the First Folio, but that was compiled and published after Shakespeare's death.

[heybrad]

In general, their argument is that the prophet of their religion got the full message, not Jesus. Jews, Muslims, Mormons all believe their prophets have a truth that is greater (word of god, god inspired, etc) than the one Jesus proclaimed.
Uh... that's not at all true for Mormons. They don't claim that Joseph Smith had some greater truth than Jesus. They claim that he restored the Gospel as it was with Jesus.

[ISiddiqui]

The Muslim Koran makes no claims to being words from Allah. Rather it is the writing of Mohammed, a religious leader, his record of history as well as his desire for the future.

This is just incorrect. The Koran is supposed to be Mohammed transcribing God speaking to him. That is why the Koran is not allowed to be translated - because Mohammed wrote God's word in Arabic and it should stay like that for all time. Obviously, Christianity has a diffierent viewpoint - but then again, Biblical literalism is a relatively new concept (like last 200 years)

But has any prophecy in the Koran come to pass? Only the Christian Bible claims to be God&rsquo;s very word to man and only the Bible contains the verifiable track record of prophetic fulfillment as evidence of its claims. Biblical prophecies are batting 1000. No other religious group or religious writings can make the same claim. (Bible references related to this article: Jeremiah 25.11, Daniel 9.1-5, John 1.1-5)

Here is the problem I have with the prophecy statement. Some prophecy HAS come true, but then when it doesn't, some Christians like to say, oh well that obviously means the end of time. Such as the Book of Daniel - it really nails the reign of Antioches Epiphanies, up until his death. Conservative Christians like to wave it away by saying instantly Daniel goes from BC era to the end of days, which makes little to no sense.

Men wrote down the revelations of God that they witnessed. Eyewitness reports are usually very accurate (that's why they are given such power in courts), but not perfectly so. We must remember the Bible is not itself revelation, but a record of revelation. Bibolatry is just as idolatry as anything else.

[ISiddiqui]

FYI, one of my pastors ripped on that phrase, and I agree with him. Without words, a Christian's actions are no different than a non-believer's.

I will side with St. Francis, one of the biggest lights of the Church. You are to act like Jesus with love towards neighbor in such a way that people are drawn to that light and ask why you are acting in the way you are acting. That's when you say it is the light of Jesus, the Son of God, King of Kings, Lord and Savior of Creation.

People are drawn to those whose faith results in action, not mere words & especially not words promoting fear (if you don't believe you'll end up in Hell, etc).

[Crapshoot]

The statement that other sacred claim the same is not true, as far as I can tell. The other religious works does not include the same prophetic content and certainly not the fulfillment of prophesy. Also (pasted from another site) the writings from the Far East, the teachings of Confucius, Buddhism and Hinduism do not even make a claim to be God&rsquo;s word. They present to their followers a path to a simpler, more satisfactory life. The Muslim Koran makes no claims to being words from Allah. Rather it is the writing of Mohammed, a religious leader, his record of history as well as his desire for the future. But has any prophecy in the Koran come to pass? Only the Christian Bible claims to be God&rsquo;s very word to man and only the Bible contains the verifiable track record of prophetic fulfillment as evidence of its claims. Biblical prophecies are batting 1000. No other religious group or religious writings can make the same claim. (Bible references related to this article: Jeremiah 25.11, Daniel 9.1-5, John 1.1-5)

Seriously Bucc? In what way has the Bible been prophetic except in parallel's? And your logic that other religions don't claim to the word of god is silly - that's exactly what Muslims believe the Quran is. Its hard to take you seriously on this when you don't demonstrate even a cursory knowledge of the other belief systems you're making claims about.

[Crapshoot]

Dola, I see Imran already made the same point.

[Buccaneer]

My earlier post was sloppy and posted without much thought or clarification. Sorry.

The prophecies mentioned were the prophecies of the Messiah fulfilled in Jesus Christ - all from the OT (54 of them).

[DaddyTorgo]

My earlier post was sloppy and posted without much thought or clarification. Sorry.

The prophecies mentioned were the prophecies of the Messiah fulfilled in Jesus Christ - all from the OT (54 of them).

Well that's nothing if not a circular example.

[Groundhog]

The prophecies mentioned were the prophecies of the Messiah fulfilled in Jesus Christ - all from the OT (54 of them).

The NT fulfilling the prophecies of the OT does not make the NT any more accurate a historic source as it does not address any of the issues regarding the accuracy of the NT...

[Schmidty]

Not going to read this thread or post in it, as I have friends from FB here (which I never go to), but I'm assuming it's going to be a case of "Gangbang a Christian".

Facebook and FOFC has really changed the way I communicate. I'm not sure I think that's a good thing.

[Buccaneer]

The NT fulfilling the prophecies of the OT does not make the NT any more accurate a historic source as it does not address any of the issues regarding the accuracy of the NT...

There are several early non-Christian writers outside of the Bible that spoke to events of Christ and the early church. The list I have includes Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, the Talmud, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion and Acts of Pontius Pilate as referenced by Justin Martyr. But I go back to my earlier point about the sheer number of ancient manuscripts close to the time of the events of the 1st century and even if we had no manuscripts, nearly all of the NT can be reconstructed by the writings of the early church fathers. I understand the point of comparing to other ancient writings (where the earliest manuscripts can date to 1000 years later) in that no one is basing their life (or death) on those but the evidence is there if you chose to research what we have and see how the message have remained unchanged in all of those years since the early centuries.

[Marc Vaughan]

Bible prophecies are batting 1000

The thing with any book containing prophecies is its 'accuracy' is entirely dependent on how detailed it is in the descriptions of its predictions.

Its no coincidence imho that any 'accurate' books have incredibly vague wording and symbolism for their predictions - this allows each generation to read into the texts something which makes sense to them ....

If you doubt this look at any writing which predicts the future which still has supporters indicating it has credibility - ie. Nostradamus etc.

Only the Christian Bible claims to be God’s very word to man
You might want to read a little more regarding other religions beliefs and suchlike, many many religions have made claims regarding such things ..

Muslims believe that the Qur'an predicted many events years before they happened. They argue that such prophecies are proof of the divine origin of Qur'an. The Qur'an itself states "For every prophecy is a term, and you will come to know (it)." [Quran 6:67] Muslims also recognize the validity of some prophecies in other sacred texts like in the Bible; however, they believe that, unlike the Qur'an, some parts of the Bible have been corrupted over the years, and as a result, not all of the prophecies and verses in the Bible are accurate.[19]
Prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy)

[Lathum]

What did crimsonfox do?

[MrBug708]

I'm curious as to Revrew's view on Catholics.

[Buccaneer]

Marc, I did admit that it was a sloppy post. That's what I get for posting quickly on my phone instead of waiting till I got home.

[Glengoyne]

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.

+1

I was waiting for someone to come into this thread and make a reasonable facsimile of my argument on this topic.

That'll do Pig. That'll do.

:) good post.


Edit for when my wife reads this post. I don't know anything about these co-eds Drake is talking about.

[Groundhog]

There are several early non-Christian writers outside of the Bible that spoke to events of Christ and the early church. The list I have includes Tacitus,

BTW, the list you have is essentially complete - these are all the sources for a historical Jesus. None of them come even within the first decades following his death and, more importantly, none make any reference to a fantastic, divine, miraculous, deeds. They are merely used to demonstrate that Jesus existed - NOT that the events of the NT occurred.

Tacitus was born some years after Christ would have died, and his text on Christians was written around 116, so 80-90 years after Christ. From him we get a brief description of the crucifix and on Christian persecution. No mention of miracles, etc.

Non-contemporary, and dated after the earliest Christian texts were written anyway.

Suetonius
Born at least 30-40 years after Christ would have died. Again, very brief, mentions Christians, historians debate whether he was actually referring to Jesus Christ, and even if so, it's non-contemporary and contains no miracles/wonderous tales etc.

Josephus
'Josephus on Jesus' Written around 60-70 years after Jesus would have died. Mentions Christians and Jesus, nothing miraculous again. Parts of it widely considered interpolated later, but even this particular part of the text was regarding Jewish persecution IIRC, and nothing 'divine'.

Thallus
Nothing survives outside of a c. 221 AD reference to a history written by Thallus around 52 AD, so maybe 2 decades after Christ. Contains a story about an exlipse and earthquake that could be linked to a gospel episode.

Pliny the Younger
Born around 30 years after Christ. Simply mentions Christians who worship "Christus" rather than the Roman Emperor.

Emperor Trajan
Trajan was the recipient of Pliny's letter that mentioned Christus and the Christians above.

the Talmud
The Talmud was written between the 2nd and 5th centuries, putting it well out of the contemporary timeframe, and it's almost certain that parts of it were based directly on NT texts anyway.
Lucian

Born nearly 100 years after Christ. Insulted Christians and may have included a reference to Jesus' crucifiction. That is it.

Mara Bar-Serapion
Mara's letter to his son was written sometime between 73 AD and the 3rd Century. Not contemporary, and, at best, it might contain an early reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

and Acts of Pontius Pilate
A forgery from the 4th Century at best guess. Clearly written in different hands etc. Read the wiki page on 'Acts of Pilate' for the full info.

But I go back to my earlier point about the sheer number of ancient manuscripts close to the time of the events of the 1st century and even if we had no manuscripts, nearly all of the NT can be reconstructed by the writings of the early church fathers. I understand the point of comparing to other ancient writings (where the earliest manuscripts can date to 1000 years later) in that no one is basing their life (or death) on those but the evidence is there if you chose to research what we have and see how the message have remained unchanged in all of those years since the early centuries.

I'm sorry but that's completely wrong. NONE of the NT can be reconstructed by the above documents. Only, a) that Christians existed in the decades following the supposed death of Jesus and that, b) someone named Jesus Christ probably existed around that time. That's it.

[bhlloy]

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



I must have missed this first time through, but I couldn't agree with this more. We minimize the sins that we might be tempted by or even partake in and demonize the ones that have very little effect on our life or we are confident that we won't be ostracized for speaking out against. Refreshing honesty and an attitude that would possibly draw me back if I thought it was shared on any real level within the church.

[Groundhog]

Interestingly enough, and very surprising for me when I read up on Islamic history last year, Islam has a similar problem with their prophet too, which is more worrying considering he came centuries closer to our time.

[Buccaneer]

I'm sorry but that's completely wrong. NONE of the NT can be reconstructed by the above documents. Only, a) that Christians existed in the decades following the supposed death of Jesus and that, b) someone named Jesus Christ probably existed around that time. That's it.

You misunderstood. The early church fathers would not include any of the above documents. I was refuted the claim that there were no evidence of a historical Jesus. Besides, I'll give you a new list: Eusebius, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Tatian.

There were so many accounts in the early 2nd-4th centuries of the phenomenal rise of Christianity (esp. consider that some believe it came out of a delusional sect of illiterates) that there had to be something more than saying that Jesus did not exist or refuting His claims (and those of his followers). It would not have spread much outside of Judea, let alone Samaria and into Asia Minor and the seat of the Roman empire; nor would we have had the consistency of the Scriptures for 1600-1700+ years or the spread into every nation on earth. In other words, the same gospel message that Paul spread to Rome (or Pat Rick in Ireland if you would accept a couple of centuries later) and gospel message we have today. The early spread was into several different cultures and it was done by the Spirit instead of by force or by warfare (which, unfortunately later "missionaries" failed to learn).

Anyone can deny that Jesus was the Son of God but many learned (and unlearned) people have not and that's the point: it is your choice to believe based on the evidence we do have and the claims made in the Scriptures.

[Buccaneer]

I must have missed this first time through, but I couldn't agree with this more. We minimize the sins that we might be tempted by or even partake in and demonize the ones that have very little effect on our life or we are confident that we won't be ostracized for speaking out against. Refreshing honesty and an attitude that would possibly draw me back if I thought it was shared on any real level within the church.

And I think that was revrew's original intent - not to cherry-pick something out and make it a super sin. But one must not also make it less of a sin either.

[revrew]

I'm curious as to Revrew's view on Catholics.

Pick any denomination of Christianity, the issue isn't what church you belong to, but the condition of your own heart and faith. There are many Christians within Catholicism and many within the Catholic Church who are not. The same can be said of Baptists, Methodists, etc., etc.

I don't agree with wide patches of Catholic theology, but again, the same could be said of just about any denomination.

The point of this thread, however, was understanding and interpreting the OT. In my original post, I pointed out that the system I presented was widely accepted among Protestant/Evangelicals, and that I'm uncertain of a Catholic approach to the OT.

Full disclosure: I grew up Catholic, though left the church in my teens

[Groundhog]

You misunderstood. The early church fathers would not include any of the above documents. I was refuted the claim that there were no evidence of a historical Jesus.

There is no contemporary - or even within roughly 2 decades of his life - evidence of a historical Jesus. That's just a simple fact.

FWIW I have no doubt there was a 'Jesus' - as in, the origin of the stories and the Christian faith. My doubts are entirely about the accuracy of the NT, and there is no evidence within 100 years of his life to reconstruct that from.

But by saying, to quote you, "nearly all of the NT can be reconstructed by the writings of the early church fathers". If by "early" you are talking about people that lived a century or more after the life of Jesus writting about events they've read from sources we've already demonstrated to be 3rd/4th hand (at best) and put to paper decades (at best) after the event, then why are they proof of anything? This is the same as your statement re: God not allowing man to mince his words (to paraphrase), and the same logic could be used to demonstrate that Scientology with it's thetans and B-grade sci-fi origins is also authentic.

[MrBug708]

Pick any denomination of Christianity, the issue isn't what church you belong to, but the condition of your own heart and faith. There are many Christians within Catholicism and many within the Catholic Church who are not. The same can be said of Baptists, Methodists, etc., etc.

I don't agree with wide patches of Catholic theology, but again, the same could be said of just about any denomination.

The point of this thread, however, was understanding and interpreting the OT. In my original post, I pointed out that the system I presented was widely accepted among Protestant/Evangelicals, and that I'm uncertain of a Catholic approach to the OT.

Full disclosure: I grew up Catholic, though left the church in my teens

Fair enough, thanks!

[Groundhog]

Anyone can deny that Jesus was the Son of God but many learned (and unlearned) people have not and that's the point: it is your choice to believe based on the evidence we do have and the claims made in the Scriptures.

I guess the point I want to make is that you are not basing your Christian belief on historical evidence, you are basing it off the faith that what is in the NT is correct, without being able to correlate the events told within to other contemporary or near-contemporary evidence. It's a matter of faith.

[Buccaneer]

I guess the point I want to make is that you are not basing your Christian belief on historical evidence, you are basing it off the faith that what is in the NT is correct, without being able to correlate the events told within to other contemporary or near-contemporary evidence. It's a matter of faith.

Let me take a step back and ask you some questions so that I might understand clearly what you are stating.

Are you saying that Matthew (who was literate being a tax collector), who was called by Jesus and followed him through most of His ministry could not have accurately written his gospel (with his emphasis on Christ's Kingship) because he wrote it 20 years after the fact? Or Mark, not being a disciple but was good friends with Peter, could not have written his gospel? Or Luke, a physician and highly literate, because he did not explicitly state that he wrote his two books? Or if they did write the gospels, you cannot accept them only because we do not have their original manuscript in full? Or perhaps over a 30-40 year period, they colluded on the events and made it up? Or perhaps someone or a small group else took the gospels and Paul's letters and sometime before copies were made (the early manuscripts and fragments we do have), and rewrote all of them to be in harmony and tell the same story?

What is your evidence that any of the above took place?

If what they wrote were made up by someone else or what they wrote was not factual, why would most all of them (the disciples, Paul and Paul's and Peter's disciples), spend their remaining lives consistently preaching and teaching the gospel...and be killed for it?

[revrew]

I guess the point I want to make is that you are not basing your Christian belief on historical evidence, you are basing it off the faith that what is in the NT is correct, without being able to correlate the events told within to other contemporary or near-contemporary evidence. It's a matter of faith.

I would argue that by oversimplifying the case, you do it an injustice.

Everything any of us believe, we take as a matter of faith, believing that some evidence we've encountered is sufficient to convince us. It's not as though faith and logic are mortal enemies - they must work hand in hand, or neither works at all.

For example, we all believe the earth revolves around the sun. Why? Because we've seen enough evidence and heard enough testimony from trusted sources to believe it. None of us, of course, have actually witnessed this from space (I assume). But we've encountered enough evidence to put our faith in it.

That's an easy thing to put faith in. Not much of a "leap." The evidence is overwhelming, empirical and testable.

Now, most of us also believe Joan of Arc was burned at the stake. But on what evidence? Artwork, archeology, historical writings and stories. The evidence is even less observable, not empirical, requires even more of a leap from evidence to faith, but still sufficient most of us believe in the legend of a French heroine burned for alleged heresy.

A little tougher, but still fairly certain. Yet how about this one:

Most of us believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed J.F.K ... maybe ... well, even tougher. Or believe John Hinkley Jr. was really the one who took a shot at Reagan and not a patsy. If you really believe he did or didn't, you've been looking at a certain amount of evidence and testimony, and at some point, that evidence was sufficient you put your faith in that story. And if you aren't convinced one way or the other, all you're saying is that the evidence is not sufficient to secure your faith.

Or, do you believe Obama won the 2008 election? Of course you do. Yet you didn't count the ballots. You believe the testimony of others. You put your faith in the various officials, though you didn't see the evidence with your own eyes.

Now, to historical events even older. There IS contemporary or near-contemporary evidence of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Just as in Joan of Arc's case, we have artwork, archeology, historical writings and stories, some from those who lived at the same time as Jesus and his closest companions (I would point to Paul, Luke and those repeatedly mentioned and quoted in their works.).

I do find it somewhat suspect - and have pointed out - that many are willing to accept even less evidence for other ancient events, while resolutely dismissing the evidence for Christ, simply because it was later collated into "the Bible." It smacks of a double standard and an anti-religious bias.

If those same writings and historical evidences were never collected into the Bible, were not the foundation of a world faith, did not point to the deity of Christ or contain claims of the supernatural, but simply were stories about a historical figure named Jesus, we would all believe them as readily as we believe stories about Alexander the Great or Leif Ericson. We'd even believe he actually said certain things and presented certain teachings as readily as we believe Julius Caesar said, "Veni, vidi, vici." (while in fact the evidence for Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was, I AM" and "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but through me" dwarfs the evidence Caesar ever said, "I came, I saw, I conquered.")

To be fair, however, I do recognize the claims of Jesus are far more significant to us than the claims of Egyptian history, or Ericson's explorations, or even Joan of Arc or JFK's assassination.

I understand you want even more evidence before accepting the faith to believe. I get it.

All I can really say to that is to testify that I have seen enough to believe. It's not merely some cultural influence in my case (I abandoned the religion of my youth upon further research), not some blind leap of faith upon some moment of religious fervor, but the natural conclusion of believing that for which I have seen evidence. Yes, it's still faith. I would never say Christianity is not a faith.

But it is not a faith that stands in antithesis to reason or evidence. It is a faith that stands upon the evidence.

[Marc Vaughan]

I must have missed this first time through, but I couldn't agree with this more. We minimize the sins that we might be tempted by or even partake in and demonize the ones that have very little effect on our life or we are confident that we won't be ostracized for speaking out against. Refreshing honesty and an attitude that would possibly draw me back if I thought it was shared on any real level within the church.

+1

[Marc Vaughan]

I do find it somewhat suspect - and have pointed out - that many are willing to accept even less evidence for other ancient events, while resolutely dismissing the evidence for Christ, simply because it was later collated into "the Bible." It smacks of a double standard and an anti-religious bias.
I don't believe thats a credible argument - on one hand you're indicating believable actions which are attributed to normal humans.

On the other hand you're arguing that because of a historical document (the bible) saying it happened we should believe in occurrences which are beyond normal science (resurrections, miracles etc.).

This is even harder to accept when its obvious that such things remain impossible today even to those within the churches which state they will occur for their believers.

Even devout believers such as yourself seem to struggle with the confliction between reality and religion - for an example of this if an amputee asked you to pray that God would heal him and return his arm to him would you pray and if so would you really expect his arm returned to him? ....

I've seen many churches where leaders stand and say things like "I feel there is somone here with a bad back, Jesus has told me it'll be healed" ... yet I've never seen one say "You at the back with the missing leg, tomorrow morning it'll be back" ;)

[CraigSca]

I must have missed this first time through, but I couldn't agree with this more. We minimize the sins that we might be tempted by or even partake in and demonize the ones that have very little effect on our life or we are confident that we won't be ostracized for speaking out against. Refreshing honesty and an attitude that would possibly draw me back if I thought it was shared on any real level within the church.

Welcome to human nature V1.0.

[Autumn]

I do find it somewhat suspect - and have pointed out - that many are willing to accept even less evidence for other ancient events, while resolutely dismissing the evidence for Christ, simply because it was later collated into "the Bible." It smacks of a double standard and an anti-religious bias.

If those same writings and historical evidences were never collected into the Bible, were not the foundation of a world faith, did not point to the deity of Christ or contain claims of the supernatural, but simply were stories about a historical figure named Jesus, we would all believe them as readily as we believe stories about Alexander the Great or Leif Ericson. We'd even believe he actually said certain things and presented certain teachings as readily as we believe Julius Caesar said, "Veni, vidi, vici." (while in fact the evidence for Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was, I AM" and "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but through me" dwarfs the evidence Caesar ever said, "I came, I saw, I conquered.")

I don't think this is true at all. Well, it may be true for a large amount of uneducated folk, who believe whatever they've heard most often or seen on TV. But those people are just as likely to believe that Benjamin Franklin said, "Veni, vidi, vici."

However, among educated folk I don't think it's at all true to say that they would take something like the Bible as historical fact if it only wasn't religious. There are many, many, many historical texts that are written as fact and that we take with a grain of salt. The entire subject of history is the process of looking at historical documents and learning how to decipher what is true, what is not. There's not a single historical document that is assumed to be 100% fact. The entire field is about learning how to look beyond the author's biases and misunderstanding, how to translate correctly, how to account for the beliefs at the time it was written.

The fact is that history is looked at with very discerning eyes. And if someone says, "Caesar said veni, vidi, vici," someone else will say, "Wait, is that true? What's the evidence." The fact that many human beings will quote things without being sure it's true doesn't mean that we take these things on faith. It means many human beings don't really pay attention or think about things. And when they do they invent science and history and empiricism and rationalism and figure out what is more likely to actually be true.

[Autumn]

Yes, it's still faith. I would never say Christianity is not a faith.

But it is not a faith that stands in antithesis to reason or evidence. It is a faith that stands upon the evidence.

I can't follow you this far. I understand your point that we extend faith in anything we choose to believe is true. But in addition we extend larger or smaller demands for accuracy according to either how important or how believable we find something. And the fact is that Christians are asking us to extend a lower standard of evidence for the facts behind the Christian religion than we extend to similar things.

There are many, many historical claims to divinity, and many are recorded in historical documents and have eyewitness accounts. Until 1945 the Japanese Emperor claimed to be divine. We have all the historical evidence we need to confirm that. Yet, we don't believe it. Why not? Because we demand greater evidence for such an outlandish claim. It is true we tacitly accept what historians tell us about many things. But when the thing matters greatly to us, we demand more. When Holocaust deniers come out, we turn back to the evidence and demand the proof, and they provide it. That is the foundation of rational thought, that we always can return to the evidence and demand that it continues to support our theories.

Christianity stands upon *some* evidence. But the truth is that Christianity makes a very spectacular claim, but then does not want to be held up to the amount of scrutiny that spectacular claims are put under in history or science. There is a general consensus in history about many events, and some degree of dissent. If there was as much of a consent around the religious events of the Bible as there was around the signing of the Magna Carta, I'd believe it. But in fact there is only as much evidence about the supernatural nature of Jesus as there is about a million other claims made by historical figures that we can find no real evidence for, only hearsay.

[BillJasper]

Christianity stands upon *some* evidence. But the truth is that Christianity makes a very spectacular claim, but then does not want to be held up to the amount of scrutiny that spectacular claims are put under in history or science. There is a general consensus in history about many events, and some degree of dissent. If there was as much of a consent around the religious events of the Bible as there was around the signing of the Magna Carta, I'd believe it. But in fact there is only as much evidence about the supernatural nature of Jesus as there is about a million other claims made by historical figures that we can find no real evidence for, only hearsay.

+1

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At least for me.

[Coffee Warlord]

Furthermore, even today, historians and other types regularly try and re-create events that are described in historical texts, testing their feasibility. Naval exploration, military battles, feats of engineering, there are a myriad of examples of modern day people testing these possibilities.

Miracles / acts of divinity are very nearly impossible to re-create, thus their credibility are called into question far more. You can, using a fairly credible replica, build a Viking-era longboat and test its ability against what history has written down. You can't do that with the vast majority of extraordinary events the Bible claims.

Thus, historical events are far, far more credible in many cases, and can be shot down (or at least called into serious doubt) just as easily.

[ISiddiqui]

My earlier post was sloppy and posted without much thought or clarification. Sorry.

The prophecies mentioned were the prophecies of the Messiah fulfilled in Jesus Christ - all from the OT (54 of them).

Ah, ok. I agree with that then. I understand inadvertently making sloppy posts - I tend to make them myself far too much ;).

[ISiddiqui]

There were so many accounts in the early 2nd-4th centuries of the phenomenal rise of Christianity (esp. consider that some believe it came out of a delusional sect of illiterates) that there had to be something more than saying that Jesus did not exist or refuting His claims (and those of his followers). It would not have spread much outside of Judea, let alone Samaria and into Asia Minor and the seat of the Roman empire; nor would we have had the consistency of the Scriptures for 1600-1700+ years or the spread into every nation on earth. In other words, the same gospel message that Paul spread to Rome (or Pat Rick in Ireland if you would accept a couple of centuries later) and gospel message we have today. The early spread was into several different cultures and it was done by the Spirit instead of by force or by warfare (which, unfortunately later "missionaries" failed to learn).

Anyone can deny that Jesus was the Son of God but many learned (and unlearned) people have not and that's the point: it is your choice to believe based on the evidence we do have and the claims made in the Scriptures.

This.

N.T. Wright, a New Testament theologian (who has written some fantastic books, btw - probably my favorite theologian of the late 20th, early 21st century), has stated that the stunning spread of Christianity must have meant that something extraordinary happened. And that people would not have had such zeal to spread this faith unless they witnessed something absolutely amazing (he uses it to argue for the physical resurrection of Jesus - that it was so overwhelmingly incredible, it created an amazing religious zeal to spread this message, which somehow ended up spreading like wildfire contrary to what would be expected when discussing a Jewish Messiah who didn't actually do the things most Jews expected the Messiah to do).

[ISiddiqui]

On the other hand you're arguing that because of a historical document (the bible) saying it happened we should believe in occurrences which are beyond normal science (resurrections, miracles etc.)

I think you are confusing his argument (and Bucc's before that). I believe that this is in reference to people claiming that a historical rabbi named Yeshua, who is now called Jesus (due to the NT being written in Greek), didn't actually exist at all - or that there is no proof he did.

[britrock88]

I'm enjoying this thread.

[bhlloy]

This.

N.T. Wright, a New Testament theologian (who has written some fantastic books, btw - probably my favorite theologian of the late 20th, early 21st century), has stated that the stunning spread of Christianity must have meant that something extraordinary happened. And that people would not have had such zeal to spread this faith unless they witnessed something absolutely amazing (he uses it to argue for the physical resurrection of Jesus - that it was so overwhelmingly incredible, it created an amazing religious zeal to spread this message, which somehow ended up spreading like wildfire contrary to what would be expected when discussing a Jewish Messiah who didn't actually do the things most Jews expected the Messiah to do).

Surely that would be true for most other religions as well though that have spread rather quickly?

[molson]

Surely that would be true for most other religions as well though that have spread rather quickly?

IMO, ya, but that's only a small handful of religions. To me that speaks to all of them being worthwhile and "true" in at least some spiritual sense.

[ISiddiqui]

Surely that would be true for most other religions as well though that have spread rather quickly?

Well that depends on how they were spread, right? ;) One spread through conquest isn't necessarily as impressive as spread by missionary zeal (resulting in martyrdom - I mean why be so eager to run around telling people about this Messiah when like 9 or 10 of the original disciples, not counting Judas, got themselves executed). That's kind of the amazing thing about the spread of Christianity - it was done in the absence of state approval, until 300 years later.

And also what molson said right above. I'm not one of those Christians, mind, who thinks there is no truth in any of the world's other faiths. I think all that is true comes from God regardless of who espouses it (as Paul wrote in one of his letters, but I'm blanking on where).

[Autumn]

And that's the exact sort of claim that in historical or scientific studies is then followed up with study. It's an interesting observation, now let's see further evidence behind it. If someone says, "This must have happened, because of this and this," in other fields of history, historians then say, "Well, maybe. Let's check." That's not anything that passes for 'proof' in any other field of history.

[Autumn]

In other words, "I can't think of any other reason this would have happened," is not considered evidence. A conjecture is just as likely to be wrong as right, and requires further investigation.

[Young Drachma]

ISiddiqui really trying to for that comeback player of the year deal.

[Buccaneer]

Belief in Christ and His claims does require faith as shown through God's Words. If the evidence, of which much exist, was simply a matter of scientific facts, then it would not have the transforming power in people's lives - it would be taken for granted.

It is God that opens up the hearts and minds to accept His Words, to accept our condemned condition of sin and to have faith to believe that Christ has redeemed us through Him.

Faith has to be something extraordinary because it will transform believers to produce the fruit of the Spirit - from the inside out (as oppose to just a self-righteous charade which Jesus said of the Pharisees). Many intellectuals (and otherwise) throughout history (2000 years) have spoken and written about the theology and textual criticism of the scriptures, as well as the lessons from scriptures for daily living and spreading the gospel to others. But in all cases - rich or poor, intellectual or not, young or old, high born or low born - it begins with the personal acceptance that we need repentance and that only through belief and faith on Christ can we be saved and to follow Him.

[RedKingGold]

ISiddiqui really trying to for that comeback player of the year deal.

He's playing it way too conservatively, he's gotta take some chances if he really wants to get back in the hunt.

[Marc Vaughan]

Well that depends on how they were spread, right? ;) One spread through conquest isn't necessarily as impressive as spread by missionary zeal (resulting in martyrdom - I mean why be so eager to run around telling people about this Messiah when like 9 or 10 of the original disciples, not counting Judas, got themselves executed). That's kind of the amazing thing about the spread of Christianity - it was done in the absence of state approval, until 300 years later.

Nearly all religions though have spread through 'missionary zeal' combined with conquest.

The "Cruasades" for instance helped a lot with the spreading of the Christian message.

(even Buddhists who are traditionally thought of as peaceful were frequently involved in conflicts in the past)

[Marc Vaughan]

I think you are confusing his argument (and Bucc's before that). I believe that this is in reference to people claiming that a historical rabbi named Yeshua, who is now called Jesus (due to the NT being written in Greek), didn't actually exist at all - or that there is no proof he did.

Cool - I'm personally willing to accept the existence of a person named Jesus who have had a huge influence on history ... and for that reason I've been constantly intrigued by him, however I have found no credence for miracles (and particularly his 'resurrection') personally.

I put down such reports in a similar manner to how Elvis was continually spotted by his fans after his demise - wishful thinking combined with people of similar appearance.

Elvis Sightings - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_sightings)

[AENeuman]

But in addition we extend larger or smaller demands for accuracy according to either how important or how believable we find something.

There is where I think there is crossover with politics. I do not know many people who have empirically pondered the American system. For most Americans notions of liberty, democracy and capitalism are accepted without question (on faith).

Not enough time has passed to declare the American experiment successful. Despite concrete evidence, people are able live in a way that is stable, validating and meaningful. As a result, the American system and correlated religious beliefs are given credit for creating the good life/self.

[AENeuman]

This.

N.T. Wright, a New Testament theologian (who has written some fantastic books, btw - probably my favorite theologian of the late 20th, early 21st century), has stated that the stunning spread of Christianity must have meant that something extraordinary happened. And that people would not have had such zeal to spread this faith unless they witnessed something absolutely amazing (he uses it to argue for the physical resurrection of Jesus - that it was so overwhelmingly incredible, it created an amazing religious zeal to spread this message, which somehow ended up spreading like wildfire contrary to what would be expected when discussing a Jewish Messiah who didn't actually do the things most Jews expected the Messiah to do).

Wow, so Joseph Smith must have really seen those golden tabulates... who knew?

[ISiddiqui]

ISiddiqui really trying to for that comeback player of the year deal.

I ain't on the field enough for MVP - gotta get some hardware ;).

[ISiddiqui]

Nearly all religions though have spread through 'missionary zeal' combined with conquest.

I'm talking about the first 300 years of Christianity. For the first 100 years, it was considered improper for a Christian to be a member of the military at all (strictly pacifist) and willing martyrdom was celebrated. When Constantine "legalized" Christianity things became a slight bit different. But the massive spread of Christianity until the Edict of Milan was breathtaking in its speed and lack of violent conversion.

[Marc Vaughan]

I'm talking about the first 300 years of Christianity. For the first 100 years, it was considered improper for a Christian to be a member of the military at all (strictly pacifist) and willing martyrdom was celebrated. When Constantine "legalized" Christianity things became a slight bit different. But the massive spread of Christianity until the Edict of Milan was breathtaking in its speed and lack of violent conversion.

I agree that during the early years of Christianity it wasn't associated with violence - however I'm sure the same could be indicated of may religions in the world, some of which are undoubtably now defunct.

Hinduism for instance is a very peaceful religion - which is one of the reasons I believe its been successful (ie. people yearn for predictability and safety).

In case you're interested theres a small potted history of Hinduism here - Hinduism History (http://www.patheos.com/Library/Hinduism/Historical-Development/Exploration-Conquest-Empire-(incl-violence-persecution).html)

[ISiddiqui]

The interesting thing about Hinduism is its very amorphous nature. It has encompassed a wide variety of local deity beliefs (and hence why it has no real creeds). It is definitely something that can be learned from.

[Coffee Warlord]

As did Christianity.

[ISiddiqui]

Christianity had at its core that God became man, came to Earth, taught us how to live as God's people, and sacrificed himself to free us from sin, death, and the devil. There was also a definitive call to community. There was a definitive orthodoxy and creeds and not just a way of life.

[Buccaneer]

And thus, a condition applying to everyone regardless of culture, nationality, race, gender or caste.

[JPhillips]

I'm talking about the first 300 years of Christianity. For the first 100 years, it was considered improper for a Christian to be a member of the military at all (strictly pacifist) and willing martyrdom was celebrated. When Constantine "legalized" Christianity things became a slight bit different. But the massive spread of Christianity until the Edict of Milan was breathtaking in its speed and lack of violent conversion.

I think you do have to account for Mormonism if that is your theory. The spread from one to the current number of believers and global scope is pretty remarkable.

[ISiddiqui]

There are aspects of Mormonism that are very interesting. I think people are naturally drawn to those who are so full of grace and kindness (most people detail their interactions with Mormons to be incredibly positive - well, except blacks before the 1970s and homosexuals today).

The question also becomes how different is Mormonism from the Christian faith. Mormons claim they are Christians. Orthodox Christians claim they aren't (Mormons aren't Trinitarians), though Mormons do assert that they follow Jesus Christ and affirm His divinity (though their Godhead is Three and not Three-in-One).

Though Mormons are still a very very small percentage of the population. 6.1 million Mormons in the US as of 2010, which is like 2% of the United States. And apparently 13,824,854 worldwide members in October 2010. That's not very much at all.

[Groundhog]

Wow, so Joseph Smith must have really seen those golden tabulates... who knew?

Yep, that is not a convincing argument re: Christianity. And there are religions even more modern than Mormonism that demonstrate this.

[Autumn]

Yeah, if we judge the validity of a belief by how many people come to believe it how quickly, we're going to have a long list of things that "must be true" that clearly are not.

[AENeuman]

Christianity had at its core that God became man, came to Earth, taught us how to live as God's people, and sacrificed himself to free us from sin, death, and the devil. There was also a definitive call to community. There was a definitive orthodoxy and creeds and not just a way of life.

The general acceptance that "God became man" came hundreds of years after Jesus. Given that, you can argue that it is even more remarkable that the religion was able to survive which contained a Gnostic (never man, only divine) and orthodox theology at the same time.

This was a hot topic when I was in grad school, particularity after Raymond Brown spoke to us. He argued that it was the Christian leaders use of cultural specific rhetoric that was central to their rise and popularity.

[ISiddiqui]

Well it speaks some truth to me, especially since it went against what was valued at the time (ie, Christ's submitting to death as opposed to heroically killing His enemies). If it doesn't to you, then it doesn't.

[Groundhog]

Are you saying that Matthew (who was literate being a tax collector), who was called by Jesus and followed him through most of His ministry could not have accurately written his gospel (with his emphasis on Christ's Kingship) because he wrote it 20 years after the fact?

No, 'Matthew the tax collector' may well have been literate, but the true authorship of the 'Gospel of Matthew' is unknown. It was assigned to him a century or more later:

Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Authorship_and_sources)

This Gospel is not unique here, because:

Or Mark, not being a disciple but was good friends with Peter, could not have written his gospel?

Also assigned to Mark much later. Dated around 70 AD, putting it 40 or so years after the life of Christ.

Or Luke, a physician and highly literate, because he did not explicitly state that he wrote his two books?

Once again: Authorship of Luke–Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_Luke-Acts)

Or if they did write the gospels, you cannot accept them only because we do not have their original manuscript in full?

Ignoring the fact that I don't think they did write them, yes, for me to believe the wonderous things written in the NT, at the very least I'd want primary sources.

Or perhaps over a 30-40 year period, they colluded on the events and made it up?

Sure, but it was more likely 30-40 years of Chinese whispers combined with a good deal of exaggeration.

Or perhaps someone or a small group else took the gospels and Paul's letters and sometime before copies were made (the early manuscripts and fragments we do have), and rewrote all of them to be in harmony and tell the same story?

Sure, possible.

What is your evidence that any of the above took place?

I'm not sure why it's on me to provide any evidence re: the points you mention? I'm not arguing that any of them are true - they may be, they may not be. The questions re: authorship are certainly true, and there is a wealth of material on that. What I am arguing is simply that there is no contemporary historical evidence to back up the wonderous claims in the NT.

If what they wrote were made up by someone else or what they wrote was not factual, why would most all of them (the disciples, Paul and Paul's and Peter's disciples), spend their remaining lives consistently preaching and teaching the gospel...and be killed for it?

How do we know they were? Because of the same non-contemporary evidence that was penned much later?

[Buccaneer]

In the late 1st century, John wrote that the Word become flesh and dwelt among us. And the other gospels and the letters recorded Jesus claims to His divinity and that was the message that was spread, not hundreds of years later.

[Groundhog]

I would argue that by oversimplifying the case, you do it an injustice.

OK, but I would disagree with you. :D

Everything any of us believe, we take as a matter of faith, believing that some evidence we've encountered is sufficient to convince us. It's not as though faith and logic are mortal enemies - they must work hand in hand, or neither works at all.

If we use the word 'faith' to mean 'trust' then sure. I trust that medication I take will work, without knowing how or why. Faith and logic may not be mortal enemies, but there comes a time when if what you're seeing logically disagrees with what you have trusted in faith, then you dig deeper. The problem with religion is that you can't do that. You hit a wall where you are unable to dig any deeper.

Then all these questions start arising: who wrote these gospels, when were they written, where is the contemporary evidence for these fantastic claims of the NT? Why is this religion the correct one when these exact same problems exist for all of them?

For example, we all believe the earth revolves around the sun. Why? Because we've seen enough evidence and heard enough testimony from trusted sources to believe it. None of us, of course, have actually witnessed this from space (I assume). But we've encountered enough evidence to put our faith in it.

Yes, but again, I can dig deeper and find many correlating pieces of data that prove this.

Now, most of us also believe Joan of Arc was burned at the stake. But on what evidence? Artwork, archeology, historical writings and stories. The evidence is even less observable, not empirical, requires even more of a leap from evidence to faith, but still sufficient most of us believe in the legend of a French heroine burned for alleged heresy.

We have many, many primary sources for Joan of Arc's life, including the court papers of her trial and her investigation. Ironically, Joan of Arc is one of the best documented figures from the 15th century which, considering she was a peasant, is pretty remarkable.

There is no leap of faith needed to believe she existed, because the kind of evidence that we don't have for the events of the NT are abundant in this case - primary, contemporary records. And, more to the point, Joan of Arc did not bring the dead back to life or perform any wonderous miracles that would cause us to suspend belief.

Most of us believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed J.F.K ... maybe ... well, even tougher. Or believe John Hinkley Jr. was really the one who took a shot at Reagan and not a patsy. If you really believe he did or didn't, you've been looking at a certain amount of evidence and testimony, and at some point, that evidence was sufficient you put your faith in that story. And if you aren't convinced one way or the other, all you're saying is that the evidence is not sufficient to secure your faith.

No, I don't put faith in any story. I have no idea who shot J.F.K. I don't believe we will ever know unless there is some great discovery at a later date. Maybe it was Oswal, maybe it wasn't. I don't feel the need to lock in any answer right now given the information we have.

Or, do you believe Obama won the 2008 election? Of course you do. Yet you didn't count the ballots. You believe the testimony of others. You put your faith in the various officials, though you didn't see the evidence with your own eyes.

I certainly don't put faith in government, I can tell you that much. :D

Maybe it was rigged. I dont know. I trust that it's not, but again, it's not like I've locked this answer in. If evidence arose later that it was rigged, I would easily believe it.

Now, to historical events even older. There IS contemporary or near-contemporary evidence of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Just as in Joan of Arc's case, we have artwork, archeology, historical writings and stories, some from those who lived at the same time as Jesus and his closest companions (I would point to Paul, Luke and those repeatedly mentioned and quoted in their works.).

Again, Joan of Arc is a poor example on your part given the wealth of primary sources on her life. As mentioned earlier, the gospels were not written by their named authors, as these authors were assigned much later, and none were written within at least the first few decades of Jesus' death.

I do find it somewhat suspect - and have pointed out - that many are willing to accept even less evidence for other ancient events, while resolutely dismissing the evidence for Christ, simply because it was later collated into "the Bible." It smacks of a double standard and an anti-religious bias.

Again, not true. If we have one non-contemporary report about a historical event, this is not taken as proof that it definitely did happen. An entry from a diary of a Roman soldier quoting a now-lost 200-year old report about a battle is not proof that that battle took place. If there is no other evidence that it did, the best a historian can say is that maybe it did.

If that same diary stated that Ceasar performed a miracle on the battlefield and did grew wings or something, well... you are naturally going to be far less inclined to believe that such a thing took place than you would an ordinairy Roman battle.

If those same writings and historical evidences were never collected into the Bible, were not the foundation of a world faith, did not point to the deity of Christ or contain claims of the supernatural, but simply were stories about a historical figure named Jesus, we would all believe them as readily as we believe stories about Alexander the Great or Leif Ericson. We'd even believe he actually said certain things and presented certain teachings as readily as we believe Julius Caesar said, "Veni, vidi, vici." (while in fact the evidence for Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was, I AM" and "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but through me" dwarfs the evidence Caesar ever said, "I came, I saw, I conquered.")

I absolutely 100% disagree with this for all the reason stated above.

To be fair, however, I do recognize the claims of Jesus are far more significant to us than the claims of Egyptian history, or Ericson's explorations, or even Joan of Arc or JFK's assassination.

I think 'supernatural' would be a better word than 'significant'.

But it is not a faith that stands in antithesis to reason or evidence. It is a faith that stands upon the evidence.

I'm sorry, but it does. The things that Jesus does in the NT are antithesis to reason - miracles. And a lack of evidence (in this case, any primary sources within decades of the events) can itself be taken as evidence, especially given the enormity of the events we are talking about here.

[ISiddiqui]

The general acceptance that "God became man" came hundreds of years after Jesus. Given that, you can argue that it is even more remarkable that the religion was able to survive which contained a Gnostic (never man, only divine) and orthodox theology at the same time.

This was a hot topic when I was in grad school, particularity after Raymond Brown spoke to us. He argued that it was the Christian leaders use of cultural specific rhetoric that was central to their rise and popularity.

What Bucc said. In Scripture, Jesus seems to assert his divinity in more than a few places. Gnosticism didn't really go anywhere and Arianism arose in the late 3rd Century.

I would also indicate that even using "cultural specific rhetoric", you still have a God who was killed by his enemies and when he came back, he didn't take vengeance, but just taught love even for one's enemies and humility. These views were utterly alien in the Roman world and would have been seen as weakness (and in the Jewish world, the fact Jesus was killed would have been seen as proof that he wasn't the Messiah, a la Judas Maccabeus). That would not have been anywhere near an easy sell.

[Groundhog]

I would also indicate that even using "cultural specific rhetoric", you still have a God who was killed by his enemies and when he came back, he didn't take vengeance, but just taught love even for one's enemies and humility. These views were utterly alien in the Roman world and would have been seen as weakness (and in the Jewish world, the fact Jesus was killed would have been seen as proof that he wasn't the Messiah, a la Judas Maccabeus). That would not have been anywhere near an easy sell.

Doesn't this sound like a possible reason why Christianity was adopted by the Romans though? Forgive those who killed you. When you're building an empire made of conquered peoples, that's not an easy sell, sure, but it would be a useful one.

[Young Drachma]

Groundhog making the strong play for 6th man of the year. Clutch performances down the stretch.

[ISiddiqui]

Doesn't this sound like a possible reason why Christianity was adopted by the Romans though? Forgive those who killed you. When you're building an empire made of conquered peoples, that's not an easy sell, sure, but it would be a useful one.

What are you kidding me? Roman culture in particular frowned upon any form of weakness or forgiveness. Might made right and the pursuit of glory was the ultimate goal. It was the complete antithesis of Roman worldview. IIRC, Jesus was the first person who taught that humility towards equals (or lessers) was a virtue (at the very least in the West).

[Coffee Warlord]

Doesn't this sound like a possible reason why Christianity was adopted by the Romans though? Forgive those who killed you. When you're building an empire made of conquered peoples, that's not an easy sell, sure, but it would be a useful one.

Eastern Empire circa 300-400 AD wasn't in much of a position to conquer anyone. Stability was far more a pressing concern.

[booradley]

This is kind of where I am right now. I see The Bible as a parable, nothing more. I don't trust men enough to deliver the Word of God without adding their own conceits.

I know, and couldn't agree more. I still go to church because I find it comforting, and Christians make up the majority of the best people I know. But sometimes I find myself rolling my eyes during the sermons, or even suppressing a snicker. Then I feel like a lowly hypocrite. Shrug - never claimed to be perfect; God knows that all too well. ;)