Continuation of Christianity debate.

[Jenos Ridan]

As for the homosexuality part, rich Roman men of the Apposel's time were well documented to take little boys to bed with them. And the Old Testement doen't actually use that word, but rather describes in (thankfully) limited detail the act of homosexuallity.

So, the one line in Leviticus, which everyone uses to condemn homosexuality, may have been written to slight the Romans?

It is well established that the various codes and laws in Leviticus were written during a time when these things were deemed necessary. This was a time where if you planted wheat and barley in the same row that both plants would die. How do you get someone to not do that anymore? Threaten them with death.

Everything in Leviticus has been left behind, practically, except for that one line about homosexuality.

Maybe its time we moved on from that anyhow?

Ok, if you would like a New Testament reference to homosexuality, look at Romans 1:26&27. 26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. 27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. That last part is kinda scary, considering the AIDS crisis.

Thanks. Really, thanks. But I was looking for a verse in the New Testiment about the repeal of the dietary laws (ie: No rabbit, clams, etc.). I can't seem to find it. I'll keep looking.

[Guiscard]

Actually I wasn’t trying to assign any motive to them. You had ascribed some negative motives to them, So I argued a hypothetical. Then I stated, from my own experience, my reasons believing that they had positive motives too. It sounds as if you are ready to impune the character of one or more Early Christians. I have already stated that this is largely irrelvant if you can't provide evidence of any appreciable departures in the extant texts (ie. essentially if you can't prove the crime existed, It doesn't matter how nasty the suspect might seem). Also, If you do not attribute negative motives to them, because you can't really know what they are thinking, the translation errors remain translation errors common to any translated text, nothing more.

You ask me to provide source material, and I'm telling you that it the canonisation of the Bible is widely documented scholarly fact. The work of thousands of scholars (both religious or not) or ecclesiastical history will tell you exactly the same thing as I am - The books of the Bible which the element of the church that was in power approved of were canonised, and those books which supported more fringe groups, potentially a threat to the teachings and practice of the group in power, were not canonised. Whether or not they agree in parts with the 'actual' biblical canon doesn't matter. The Gnostic Gospels, for example, were not considered canon because they supported Gnositc Christianity, which was declared heretical.

I'm afraid I'm not at university currently, and I have exams when I return, so I really don't want to go searching about in the library for quotes and scholars to demonstrate the history of Bible canon, but as a point of faith will you not take my word for it and believe that I have studied this in depth at degree level under professors who are experts in ecclesiastical history?

Even a glance at wikipedia yields a quote from Eusebius of Caesarea which reads "... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."

There may well be diaries or journals which show admissions of 'non-spiritual' motives, but it would take me a fair while to find them and I'm not prepared to do that for what is, basically, a forum debate. We must be sensible about this. You cannot consider every person ever involved with the church infallible. We have paedophile priests, we have massive excess within the church itself (the Avignon papacy is perhaps the typical example)...

So ultimately it IS a question of faith, and I'm afraid that's why this debate is a little pointless. I'm arguing history, you're arguing faith.

[Colossus]

Okay, I have another question. I'm asking out of honest desire to hear your answer, not to push buttons. The Book of Genesis contains two creation stories. In chapter 1, on the sixth day God creates the animals and then creates man. In chapter 2, God creates Adam and then creates the animals, and then creates Eve. With a metaphorical reading of Genesis, this isn't a big deal because the 'day's are representative of millions of earth years, so the order isn't terribly important within the context of a given day. With a literal translation, though, this means that the Bible has contradicted itself within the first several verses. Doesn't that raise any question in your mind about the literal value of the creation story?


I would like to suggest to all an excellent book I read a couple of years ago when I was struggling with reconciling what I learned in classes and in my research with my faith. The book is called 'The Science of God'. It is by Gerald Schroeder, and it goes point by point through the story of creation that we are told in the Bible and demonstrates how a metaphoric reading of this story is entirely in agreement with current theories on the formation of the universe, earth, and life. Very interesting stuff, and it's actually pretty impressive that a 4000 year old version of the creation story can get so many things right metaphorically.

[b.k. barunt]

Okay, I have another question. I'm asking out of honest desire to hear your answer, not to push buttons. The Book of Genesis contains two creation stories. In chapter 1, on the sixth day God creates the animals and then creates man. In chapter 2, God creates Adam and then creates the animals, and then creates Eve. With a metaphorical reading of Genesis, this isn't a big deal because the 'day's are representative of millions of earth years, so the order isn't terribly important within the context of a given day. With a literal translation, though, this means that the Bible has contradicted itself within the first several verses. Doesn't that raise any question in your mind about the literal value of the creation story?

Evidently you didn't read my reply on the metaphorical issue, or chose not to answer it. Your making an issue about the order that he mentioned man and animals in the first 2 chapters brings to mind the nitpicking of the Pharisees when they would try to trip Jesus up with one detail or another. His reply, in Matthew 23:24 - "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

[Guiscard]

Evidently you didn't read my reply on the metaphorical issue, or chose not to answer it. Your making an issue about the order that he mentioned man and animals in the first 2 chapters brings to mind the nitpicking of the Pharisees when they would try to trip Jesus up with one detail or another. His reply, in Matthew 23:24 - "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

So to summarise your reply - 'It is metaphorical so details do not matter'???

[b.k. barunt]

To summarize it: if you want to nitpick down to that level, you're on your own.

[CrazyAnglican]

To me the chance of it being altered after the compilation is no different to that of Beowulf, and in fact perhaps a greater chance exists because of political motives.

The original manuscript of Beowulf (or at least the very first Icelandic translation) has remained unchanged since it was 'compiled' around the same time as the Bible was. The Bible, however, has been translated and interpreted differently (see my example about homosexuality) because it suits the purpose of the Church to translate it in a certain way. Beowulf, on the other hand, has no political ramifications and has no reason to be translated in a non-accurate way.

Hi Guiscard,

Yes, I know I'm busy too. Good luck on your finals (I remember those days ). Look, basically the bold statements are the only ones I dispute. You made them; I don't think I'm being unreasonable by expecting you to defend them. You can, of course, retract them, and I'll be happy to move on to canonical text choices with MeDeFe. My example of the Dead Sea Scrolls still stands as the only evidence given of pre and post Christian texts, and they show that, regardless of interpretation, the texts are largely similar.

THAT is what I've been arguing, ..... ( deleted text aimed at MeDeFe) .... There is no difference between the two in terms of accuracy in regards to the original translation.

It's interesting that you do seem to agree with me here, by the way.

My thesis remains the same. People do not tend to screw around with texts that they consider holy.



I will state it again, by the way. I do not believe that Early Christians were infallible. I actually believe the opposite Every Early Christian, indeed every human, was/is fallible. It's unfair, however, to dwell only on the worst examples of the faith without at least acknowledging the best.

[b.k. barunt]

When i think of the "early church", i think of the New Testament church, as described in the New Testament. I do not think of the post 324AD abomination that Constantine created as the early church. The early church was an underground church, and if any of you know how an underground or outlaw society works, you know there isn't a lot of casual attitude - especially with writings that were essential. By the time the writings got to within 100 years of Jerome, it was well established which ones were to be considered as having authority and which were not. But Guiscard is right - there is an element of faith involved. There is no way i can prove that the Bible is God's inspired Word, and there's no way i can prove that he also inspired the translators. However i think i can reasonably say that in this case if (A) is true, it would stand to reason that (B) is also.

[Jenos Ridan]

Actually I wasn’t trying to assign any motive to them. You had ascribed some negative motives to them, So I argued a hypothetical. Then I stated, from my own experience, my reasons believing that they had positive motives too. It sounds as if you are ready to impune the character of one or more Early Christians. I have already stated that this is largely irrelvant if you can't provide evidence of any appreciable departures in the extant texts (ie. essentially if you can't prove the crime existed, It doesn't matter how nasty the suspect might seem). Also, If you do not attribute negative motives to them, because you can't really know what they are thinking, the translation errors remain translation errors common to any translated text, nothing more.

You ask me to provide source material, and I'm telling you that it the canonisation of the Bible is widely documented scholarly fact. The work of thousands of scholars (both religious or not) or ecclesiastical history will tell you exactly the same thing as I am - The books of the Bible which the element of the church that was in power approved of were canonised, and those books which supported more fringe groups, potentially a threat to the teachings and practice of the group in power, were not canonised. Whether or not they agree in parts with the 'actual' biblical canon doesn't matter. The Gnostic Gospels, for example, were not considered canon because they supported Gnositc Christianity, which was declared heretical.

I'm afraid I'm not at university currently, and I have exams when I return, so I really don't want to go searching about in the library for quotes and scholars to demonstrate the history of Bible canon, but as a point of faith will you not take my word for it and believe that I have studied this in depth at degree level under professors who are experts in ecclesiastical history?

Even a glance at wikipedia yields a quote from Eusebius of Caesarea which reads "... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."

There may well be diaries or journals which show admissions of 'non-spiritual' motives, but it would take me a fair while to find them and I'm not prepared to do that for what is, basically, a forum debate. We must be sensible about this. You cannot consider every person ever involved with the church infallible. We have paedophile priests, we have massive excess within the church itself (the Avignon papacy is perhaps the typical example)...

So ultimately it IS a question of faith, and I'm afraid that's why this debate is a little pointless. I'm arguing history, you're arguing faith.

Gnostism and Arianism are not consistant with what we find in scripture. End of story.

[Jenos Ridan]

When i think of the "early church", i think of the New Testament church, as described in the New Testament. I do not think of the post 324AD abomination that Constantine created as the early church. The early church was an underground church, and if any of you know how an underground or outlaw society works, you know there isn't a lot of casual attitude - especially with writings that were essential. By the time the writings got to within 100 years of Jerome, it was well established which ones were to be considered as having authority and which were not. But Guiscard is right - there is an element of faith involved. There is no way i can prove that the Bible is God's inspired Word, and there's no way i can prove that he also inspired the translators. However i think i can reasonably say that in this case if (A) is true, it would stand to reason that (B) is also.

I was talking with someone at my church about at very same thing, how Comstantine warped the faith. However, though the church is in a state of disunity, the danger of heretical doctrine (with the granted expection of Branch Davidians, Watchtower and a few others) is signifigantly less. True, we'd all be better off without the Catholics or the Orthodoxs but what is done is done. All we can do it try to reunite the churches.

[Guiscard]

Gnostism and Arianism are not consistant with what we find in scripture. End of story.

And the reason you say that is because selective canonisation, for whatever reason, DECIDED what was scripture. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying it isn't holy, or that its wrong... Just that the early church chose what was considered canon and what wasn't. To me, as a historian, I see many and varied motives, and you see more spiritual ones. That's fine. But you won't find any serious scholars of ecclesiastical history who will disagree with me. Certain books were not included and adherents to some of the concepts suggested in those books were declared heretical.

[dnucci]

Please explain why gnosticism is contrary to scripture. Saying "end of story" doesn't really cut it.

[2dimes]

Where did Colossus go?

Ok, bk, I'll admit the why study question was a bit rhetorical. I read the Bible, and I think it contains great wisdom, but I find it impossible to believe that the ancient writings of any faith are the literal truth. Every faith has a Creation story, and they all vary in the details. I just wonder how you justify the creation story of the Bible as being the literal truth. And I would like an answer to the question of the different versions of the Bible that are presented by various faiths. Which is right and how does one know?

I have some quick questions for you.

What literal truths are you seeking from the bible?

That there was a man named Zecheriah that was too old to have a kid then his wife got pregnant with John the baptist.

Or something that a person interpreted like the rapture or the age of the earth?

As far as the difference in translations, unless you are trying to do some calculations on things you are interpreting like the date of the rapture. It pretty much comes down to differnt ways of saying the same things.

The only translations I have personally seen altered as to have things intentionally changed to meet an agenda are the ones by the watch tower society.

Usually diferences in the translations are like this.

The King James version says "The text hath thusly been colored a vibrant shade of navy."
The New Internation version says"This text is coloured blue."

[dnucci]

Oh not true, dude. For example, In John, there is a passage where in Christ asks Peter 3 times if he loves him, and Peter answers three times "of course I love you." But in Aramaic and Greek, there were two different words for love. One agape meant to love unconditionally. Jesus was using this form, but Peter was answering in the conditional form. This is the type of example wherein the translation has changed the actual meaning of the verse. So, it is not just a matter of factual items, but contextual items.

[2dimes]

Cyan huh?

[dnucci]

I guess so, but what do you think of that?

[2dimes]

The use of two different words for love or the fact that you just referred to Aramaic and Greek as if they were one thing?

[CrazyAnglican]

Hi MeDeFe,

How are you? Sorry to take so long to reply. I think we come off a lot closer than you think in opinion, which is why I waited to reply to you.

Based on nothing really more than (I’m paraphrasing) …but people actually believe the Bible. It’s an interesting point only the books you have an interest in refuting are admissible.

No, CA, no. But other books brought into the discussion should be comparable. Beowulf and the bible are not.

This is very convienient for you, isn't it? Never mind that a book is essentially a book, and the translation process is essentially the same with any of them. It was perhaps even more rigorous with the Bible.

That's what I said, isn't it? Ordinary (well, who could read and write) people who were given the task of copying it were likely to be more careful. Because they believed it was the word of god. It's hard to attack more importance than that to a book, most probably it's impossible, though I'm not speaking from personal experience here.
Someone striving to transfer his religious might into worldly might on the other hand... let's put it ironically: would be very careful in another way. I'm not saying that happened, but it's not impossible.

Okay fine, you don’t like Beowulf. I’ll drop Beowulf, in that it seems you did embrace my point that the Holy Bible wasn’t the only highly influential book that went through translations, and by contrast seems to have been treated with at least as much care, if not more.

I’m merely stating that you cannot refute the validity of the Bible based on supposed alterations that probably did not occur. If you, or Guiscard, would like to get back to the point and show me where these alterations occurred, I’m all ears.

I don't. But you cannot implicitly ascribe complete faith and fear of god to people you never met and who lived in a completely different society than you do by denying them what you called "atheistic motives". By doing that and bringing up that anecdote you evoke an image of old sages who believed in god and were guided by his hand.
Sometimes the important things are between the words.

I don’t ascribe piety to them. I had to conjure up my “old sages” to combat Guiscard’s “Greedy, misogynistic, paedophiles”. I don’t really like arguing from emotional appeal like that, but the Guiscard’s overall tone was demeaning to Christians in general and didn’t acknowledge the good that was most likely there as well. You, on the other hand ,attributed faith to the simple monk, and I appreciate your even handed approach.

I understand, fully that the canonization process was a tense time in the ecclesiastical history. Guiscard quoted Eusebius, and by no means, did he quote the worst things attributed to him. It is telling that a man, instrumental in the setting the canon, is not referred to as a saint. We do not look to him as a shining example of Christianity. It’s people, like him, a favorite of the emperor, given authority to handle establishing canon that makes me support the separation of church and state. Combining the two is never good for the Christian faith. I have said all along that I believe in each individuals right to choose Christianity or not. My responsibility is merely to let people see that it is a viable option.

That being said, I do not see how any of it takes away from the validity or reliability of scripture. Sure the Early Christian church decided which scripture was holy and which was not. Who better to do that? Who else would care? I mean really, do you care that the Gospel of Nicodemus was an account of the trial of Jesus, to which neither the author nor anyone he ever met was a witness? Of course, some of these books were canned. It seems like an internal matter to me.

I realize it led to persecution, and I abhor those persecutions as much as any other in history. As you said it was a different time, though. Whatever the motives (piety, greed, or plain fear of renewed presecutions), the decisions of these people can hardly be used to indict Christians today. Out of it we have a set of books that has, at the very least, stood the test of time to give us a glimpse at human nature over millenia and see that to be human is to be human. Whether you believe or not, is this a fair enough assessment?

[2dimes]

Is misogynistic like a chauvanist?

[CrazyAnglican]

Is misogynistic like a chauvanist?

Yeah, I think its a chauvinist on steroids

[2dimes]

Is misogynistic like a chauvanist?

Yeah, I think its a chauvinist on steroids

Gotcha. So why is it and greedy lumped in with pedaphile and black mailer.

Looks like two normal things one thing you could accedently get going because of one of the normal things gone too far and one bad thing that probably happens when you mistakenly force your self to be celibate against your nature.

[dnucci]

The use of two different words for love or the fact that you just referred to Aramaic and Greek as if they were one thing?

The idea that such contextual subtleties CAN be lost in translation and the impact that has on the meaning of scripture.

[Colossus]

Hey 2dimes, in response to your question, I am not seeking some particular literal truth from the Bible. I read the Bible as being symbolic, metaphorical, and full of hidden wisdom. I think that the words on the page rarely convey the full meaning. The point I was trying to make is that I don't understand how someone can read the Bible literally AND look for hidden meaning. It is an either/or proposition as I see it. The word 'literal' is a very concrete one, and it seems to me that a literal reading of the Old Testament, particularly Genesis, forces a very limited possible learning from scripture. As dnucci said in another thread, a literal reading of the Bible produces many inconsistencies and contradictions, but a metaphorical reading makes the seeming inconsistencies and contradictions unimportant. I also don't understand why a Christian who believes in the teachings of Jesus would insist on a literal reading of the Old Testament (again, especially Genesis) when nearly all of Christ's teachings were offered in parable, metaphor, and riddle. Why would God come to Earth in human form and start talking in confusing ways if His Book had been the literal truth for thousands of years? This, to me, is an irreconcilable difference. I do not see how a person can read the Old Testament one way and the New Testament another. As bk said, understanding of the Bible requires study. I agree with that. But a literal reading of the Bible requires that the meaning be in exactly what the words say, and if this was so, true study of the Bible would offer nothing. I know that study of the Bible offers more than what is in the words on the page, so if I find meaning in the latter parts of the Bible by knowing that there is more to be learned than just what the words say, why wouldn't I expect the same from the early parts of the Bible? Jesus said that faith is like a mustard seed. Surely, he didn't mean that literally. Genesis says the earth was created in 6 days; why should that be literal truth?

[Jenos Ridan]

Please explain why gnosticism is contrary to scripture. Saying "end of story" doesn't really cut it.

Gnostic teaching holds that the 'God' who was father to Jesus (and by way of the Trinity, Jesus too) was not the same 'God' who created the world. Scripture is clear on this point.

[b.k. barunt]

Colossus, could you give an example of hidden meaning that you have found by applying this metaphorical approach?