Jesus and the Bible

[bushidomartialarts]

this comes out of carol's homosexuality thread. i made some statements and mr. nhau had some good questions, but rather than hijack that conversation with a tangent, i figured we could open that discussion here.

Quote:
i support homosexuality. i believe in god. and frankly, there's very little i consider good and right and just that i can't find a bible verse to say is a sin.
on the other hand, there's very little i consider good and right and just that i can't find a bible verse to support.

Could you explain this? perhaps your verbage is making it confusing...

jesus got a bad rap. most of what he had to say boiled down to "listen, people. those rules and laws were just a fancy way of saying two things.
1. there's a god. remember and respect him.
2. be nice to each other, fer cryin out loud.
if you get those right, the letter of the law matters very little, if at all"

Sort of...

then saul/paul wrote those atrocious epistles which were often all about using rule one as an excuse to break rule two, and to put the focus right back on the letter of the law rather than the spirit.
jesus christ would be appalled that people hate anybody (not just the homosexuals and the muslims that are in the current vogue) on his account.

First, the epistles were not atrocious. Second, he did not write all of them. Third, its not about hating people. Even Jesus told people to stop sinning, often after he healed them. Would you call that hating sinners? I'd call that loving.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

to clarify my feeble attempt at rhetoric, i was saying that if you look hard enough, you can find a bible verse condemning just about any act. if you look equally hard, you can also find a bible verse celebrating that same act.

there are, of course, exceptions, but it's amazing how often this comes true for everything from lovemaking to helping friends to drinking heavily to infanticide.


also, i apologize if i offended you by calling the epistles 'atrocious'. i find them pretty offensive, but that's my opinion and you're welcome to disagree.

and you sort of helped make my point about them. jesus said over and over again to love people, even sinners (some might say especially sinners), to be kind and patient and nonjudgmental of others. very loving, as you say.

but paul/saul's epistles (you're right, he didn't write them all) frequently fall along unkind, impatient and extremely judgmental lines. i mean, they're essentially letters to various civilizations telling them how they need to clean up their act.

Jesus didn't take that kind of nonsense from the Pharisees. I doubt he would have approved of it from Christianity's first born-again evangelist.


mr. nhau (and others). i enjoy informed debate and would love to carry on this conversation. if this is not your idea of fun, let's go ahead and drop the thread. no sense in getting all our knickers atwist.

 

[mrhnau]

to clarify my feeble attempt at rhetoric, i was saying that if you look hard enough, you can find a bible verse condemning just about any act. if you look equally hard, you can also find a bible verse celebrating that same act.

there are, of course, exceptions, but it's amazing how often this comes true for everything from lovemaking to helping friends to drinking heavily to infanticide.

I think its easy to read into the Bible what you want. I think civilizations have been doing that for centuries. The first church splits (factions) occcured before even the 12 apostles passed away! I think thats one reason we have so many different demonimations these days. People simply can't agree with even simple principles.

also, i apologize if i offended you by calling the epistles 'atrocious'. i find them pretty offensive, but that's my opinion and you're welcome to disagree.

*nods* thanks man. You are welcome to view them as you wish. I don't tend to agree. More later on that.

and you sort of helped make my point about them. jesus said over and over again to love people, even sinners (some might say especially sinners), to be kind and patient and nonjudgmental of others. very loving, as you say.

I very honestly believe in loving sinners, but I also honestly believe that Jesus also told them to stop sinning. One reason I believe Jesus came was to reconcile man and God. As He said, its not the healthy people that need a physician, but the sick.

but paul/saul's epistles (you're right, he didn't write them all) frequently fall along unkind, impatient and extremely judgmental lines. i mean, they're essentially letters to various civilizations telling them how they need to clean up their act.

Jesus didn't take that kind of nonsense from the Pharisees. I doubt he would have approved of it from Christianity's first born-again evangelist.

Most of the letters are letters to churches. Many of them had started practices that were not in line w/ the truth, so most of the letters were corrective. There were alot of questions after Jesus went to Heaven, and alot of those questions desperately needed to be answered.

mr. nhau (and others). i enjoy informed debate and would love to carry on this conversation. if this is not your idea of fun, let's go ahead and drop the thread. no sense in getting all our knickers atwist.

I like informed debate. Often though, it seems, on matters of faith (Christianity, or any others really), debates tend to turn bitter and less debate/more arguement. I don't mind talking about it, as long as both sides can remain civil Might be slow though, since I'm heading out for Christmas I'm sure there are others that might like engaging in the conversation though.

 

[Carol]

Thanks for breaking this out in to a differnt thread Jason! I think you bring up some good points and I too would like to continue the discussion.

I think its easy to read into the Bible what you want. I think civilizations have been doing that for centuries. The first church splits (factions) occcured before even the 12 apostles passed away! I think thats one reason we have so many different demonimations these days. People simply can't agree with even simple principles.

I'd like to agree with you, Mr. H, but I'm not sure if it really is that easy?

In splits in religious factions, it seems to me as if simple principles are not always simple. And sometimes, what divides people is not so much the principles, but the way they are enforced.

I don't think different factions are a bad thing.

In the thead about alcohol use, IcemanSK highlights some of the larger Christian sects that forbid alcohol use for their congregation and describes how many reach out to people trying to recover from substance addictions.

In my own faith, there are many ongoing debates over diet. Our scriptures are silent on the issue. Many temples insist on a lacto-vegetarian diet for its baptized (closet English word) members. Some militant sects insist that baptized members can only eat food prepared by other baptized members.

I don't personally like to see some of the infighting that is going on. At the same time, I would rather have those that prefer a rigid and militant flavor of worship have the freedom to have their own temple and walk their own path, rather than trying to convert my temple to their way of thinking.

Likewise, when different points of view are brought about in Christianity, I don't see the different sects as being necessarily a bad thing.

 

[mrhnau]

Thanks for breaking this out in to a differnt thread Jason! I think you bring up some good points and I too would like to continue the discussion.

yes, makes it a bit more focused

I'd like to agree with you, Mr. H, but I'm not sure if it really is that easy?

In splits in religious factions, it seems to me as if simple principles are not always simple. And sometimes, what divides people is not so much the principles, but the way they are enforced.

I don't think different factions are a bad thing.

Some reasons for splits are just ridiculous though.. predestination vs free will. If you change your view, how exactly will that change your walk? We will have the same duties, the same commands from God, so, its absolutely ridiculous to have a split over some things like that. I call them superfulous doctrine. While the doctrines are distinct, the result is more or less meaningless to the average believer, and in reality anyone except for serious theologians.

I tend to think factions/denominations are wrong, but its difficult now to start unifying on a serious scale. They started up right after Christ left, so I'm not too suprised they are still here today.

I'll work on the rest of your post when I get back...

Have a good Christmas

 

[heretic888]

I have no interest in debating theology here, but I will debate history.

The seven or so "authentic" Pauline epistles --- generally dated 45 to 55 CE --- are the earliest Christian literature we have knowledge of. The notion that the canonical Gospels preceded them is erroneous and reflects theological bias, not historical evidence.

Furthermore, there is evidence to indicate that the earliest gospel writer, the author of the Gospel of Mark, had knowledge of the Pauline epistles when creating his storyboard. In his Excursus on Mark and Paul, scholar Michael Turton maintains that the Markan author used the Paulines as one of his sources. Mark, is of course, the source for later gospels such as the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew (please see the well-established Markan Priority Hypothesis).

There is also the issue of another early albeit non-canonical gospel, the Gospel of Thomas (which several scholars link to the hypothesized Q document). Saying 17 of Thomas, although it is recast as a saying of Jesus, appears to be borrowed from 1 Corinthians 2-9. In this epistle, Paul borrows and reworks an Old Testament passage believed to have been patterned after Isaiah 64:4, and attributed by Paul to "scripture" (by which he means the Septugaint). Some direct linkage between the Thomas version and Paul's use of it seems certain, since both Paul and Thomas contain a line about the human heart which is not found in Isaiah 64:4. They greatly resemble each other in usage, and are close to each other in form and content, and substantially out of step from the Isaiah original. The fact that both of them could independently fashion such similar versions from the same passage in Isaiah, seems highly unlikely.

Of course, all of this just goes to show that what so often passes for "history" concerning the Bible is little more than uncritically accepted Church tradition.

Laterz.