Apologies to BK. You were right about gay marriages.

[N35t0r]

I wasn't the one making up stuff in order to discredit Christianity and the Bible.

You have a book, which is a compilation of many different writings from a relatively wide period of time, and in different languages, about the life and deeds of, ultimately, this one guy. The earliest verions which we have of these writings were actually set on paper many at least a hundreds of years after his death.

So I might have expressed things a bit ambiguously. There, better? I can hardly see how those are lies, and I can hardly see that I'm discrediting christianity.

It would be as if the writings of the 4 neo-nazi biographers were what large portions of people believed now and when people in the future look back at today they are the only things referenced to and that survived.

But why can't you be intellectual/reasonable/logical about this subject?

JM

What?

[Jon Miller]

I'm not the one claiming I know what jesus thinks about everything.

No, but even in your completely biased and suspect argument... the neonazi's would still have written about a real person who was the person they said they were writing about (Hitler), and would still contain real things he said and did.

No one is claiming to know what Jesus thinks about everything (well, Ben might, but the rest of us aren't).

What I am claiming is that what is written in the gospels is a reasonably accurate representation of Christ from a certain perspective. I will agree that that perspective is biased towards Him.

JM

[N35t0r]

Would it be ok if we based what we teach about Trotsky based on writings by Stalinists in the 50s?

Duh, no. That's my point.

Bias is everywhere, NES.

Duh, yes, that's my point.

[Jon Miller]

Not the earliest version. The earliest copy of one of the last written (the last written? I don't remember if it or Revelations was written last) books of the Bible.

This was less than 100 years after His death.

It must have been set on paper before that, and the other books must have been set on paper before that. So it is, if we have the first copy (which is a ridiculous notion), that the books were written at most 90 years after His death.

There was probably two languages. The different stories agree. and 20-40 years isn't such a great compilation time.

Why are you so intellectually dishonest in this subject?

JM

[N35t0r]

No, but even in your completely biased and suspect argument... the neonazi's would still have written about a real person who was the person they said they were writing about (Hitler), and would still contain real things he said and did.

No one is claiming to know what Jesus thinks about everything (well, Ben might, but the rest of us aren't).

Which is why my posts are directly addressed at Ben...

What I am claiming is that what is written in the gospels is a reasonably accurate representation of Christ from a certain perspective. I will agree that that perspective is biased towards Him.

JM

And I agree with this as well. I'm also saying that the Bible might not reflect Jesus' thought to the letter, especially with regards to some modern issues which he couldn't have addressed directly, and so it is better, IMHO, to extrapolate based on the generality of his actions rather than focus on one specific passage textually.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then what's the point? All historical sources have bias. It doesn't mean they cannot be reliable.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think you are sinning by pride and denial of Jesus's message of love for all. I don't think anyone is convincing anyone here, but I pray that the Holy Spirit finds you and convicts you as well as convinces you of the error of your thought.

One more try. Who's the earliest to interpret scripture to say that homosexuality is permissible?

[N35t0r]

Not the earliest version. The earliest copy of one of the last written (the last written? I don't remember if it or Revelations was written last) books of the Bible.

This was less than 100 years after His death.

It must have been set on paper before that, and the other books must have been set on paper before that. So it is, if we have the first copy (which is a ridiculous notion), that the books were written at most 90 years after His death.

There was probably two languages. The different stories agree. and 20-40 years isn't such a great compilation time.

Why are you so intellectually dishonest in this subject?

JM

I have read books translated from english to spanish where I can spot translation errors, especially badly phrased sentences. [edit:] And in may of these the translator has had the chance of consulting the author on the meaning of something.[/edit]

There are still arguments between philosophers on the correct translations of David Hume, to give an example I saw today in class, and you tell me that it's impossible that some nuances have been lost from Jesus' actions and words to when they were put in writing? That nothing was paraphrased?

I'm sorry, but I can't see how it's intellectually dishonest to believe this.

[Jon Miller]

It seems strange to believe that they made up this one statement, when it would fit with Christ being a Jew, being religious, and the statements of Paul.

But yeah, you do have different interpretations. Mine, Imran's, Ben's and MrFun's. But most of us don't go about saying that the gospels misrepresent Christ. Some might say they are mistranslated, some might say that there are cultural issues we don't understand, some might go with the traditional approach, others might point out that this is just one sin among many, that we all sin and need a savior, and that we shouldn't pick one sin out (that isn't mentioned much) and condemn people for it.

And I agree that it is the Book/Story that matters, not a specific passage.

But none of those points has anything to do with attacking the Bible/gospels and saying that they are full of lies/made up/are baseless/etc which you have been trying to do here tonight.

Your statements were an unreasonable and intellectually dishonest attack on Christ and the Bible. Which is why I responded. I personally have no desire to be defending Ben.

If you want to say biased, sure (They were His followers!). If you want to say misinterpreted, sure (we misinterpret the constitution now, no matter what your political belief). But you weren't doing that.

JM

[giblets]

What's bizarre is ascribing "sodomy is sinful" to Jesus when there's no textual evidence of him ever saying so. Good job Ben, putting words into someone's mouth after they're dead.

[Jon Miller]

What's bizarre is ascribing "sodomy is sinful" to Jesus when there's no textual evidence of him ever saying so. Good job Ben, putting words into someone's mouth after they're dead.

I don't think anywhere in the Bible (NT or OT) does it say that sodomy is sinful.

I think it is best to just ignore Ben and I recommend everyone else do to.

I know I have been in (for the most part) in this thread.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

There are still arguments between philosophers on the correct translations of David Hume, to give an example I saw today in class, and you tell me that it's impossible that some nuances have been lost from Jesus' actions and words to when they were put in writing? That nothing was paraphrased?

This is actually a point well taken. It goes to the translation history of scripture.

1, we have greek manuscripts from the early 4th centuries. This is the basic touchstone for all the rest. We can compare them against each other and against others that came later and compare the Greek.

While we don't have the english originals as we do With hume, we can always go back to the greek and what is written.

Then we have the Latin vulgates from the early 5th century, which pretty much remained unchanged. So we can compare the Latin/Greek against each other, even before we get to the English.

You are right that many of the modern translations do a poor job of translating, but we still have copies that are far superior to the modern translations.

[N35t0r]

But most of us don't go about saying that the gospels misrepresent Christ.

I NEVER SAID THAT!

But none of those points has anything to do with attacking the Bible/gospels and saying that they are full of lies/made up/are baseless/etc which you have been trying to do here tonight.

Your statements were an unreasonable and intellectually dishonest attack on Christ and the Bible. Which is why I responded. I personally have no desire to be defending Ben.

If you want to say biased, sure (They were His followers!). If you want to say misinterpreted, sure (we misinterpret the constitution now, no matter what your political belief). But you weren't doing that.

JM

Well, thank you for clarifying on what I've been doing. I'll let you know next time I want to know what I mean.

[Ben Kenobi]

Jon, Gribbler.

Not the point or the question. Who's the first to interpret homosexuality as permissible?

[giblets]

Who was the first to interpret homosexuality as a sin?