I already pointed this out but i wanted to do it again to make a point. John 8:2-11 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” the summary is that Jesus forgives us of our sins. How does this apply to this thread? the action (adultery in this case) is still a sin... Jesus forgave her and told her to stop sinning. going back to Leviticus 18:22, a man lying with another man (homosexuality) is a sin. Just because Jesus came doesnt mean the Old Testament was nullified. Adultery is still a sin. Homosexuality is still a sin. etc. The difference is that we are now forgiven of our sins by grace and faith. However, Jesus doesnt want us to continue living in sin. He wants us to change our ways. Hence “Go now and leave your life of sin.” there is an agrument to be made about the translation. however, i believe the scholars tried to keep the text faithful to the original. and i dont think they are trying to decieve readers by vague terms. furthermore, Jesus didnt nullify the old testament, he was the fulfillment of it. what about eating shellfish and pork. why is this allowed but homosexuality remains a sin??? i dont know. if you want to know, go ask someone who has gone through seminary. they should be able to give you a more educated opinion. is life fair? no. i believe some ppl were born with homosexual tendencies (another topic that i dont even want to get into). but according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. just like me wanting to go out, get hammered, and sleep with random hot chics. the Bible says what it says. its God's standards, not mans. you wanna say God is not fair, thats up to you--you have that freedom to choose. but i think it is pretty clear what the Bible says as far as homosexuality. with that said, im not saying homosexuals are horrible ppl. they are some of the most awesome, funny, down to earth ppl youll meet. however, they are sinners just like me.
I shouldn't be posting too much since I haven't seen Joel's interview. If you want my opinion ( ) what is the greatest sin? The only one to single out? - hypocrisy IMO if someone wants to know what Jesus was like, they should be able to get that message from observing the life of a Christian they know. *edit* as a pastor if someone asks me what I think of homosexuality (outside of the fantasy of D&D) I usually tell them to go volunteer at an Aids Hospice. Serve and love your fellow man and when asked a question speak the truth from your knees wiping their feet.
the point is....original sexual meaning is often not apparent in its actual usage. I believe this to be the case because, again, the word arsenokoitēs is used in other places with no sexual meaning whatsoever (screwed over on a deal). when used in the context that Paul was describing, he is insiuating cowardess/weakness (malakos) and those who take advantage of the weak/cowardess (arsenokoitēs). A good example of this would be how people in today's world use the term 'p***y' to describe someone who is soft and weak. And how people use the term '*******' to describe someone who might take advantage of the soft/weak. The actual definitions of the words p***y and ******* in this context are irrelevant as they don't fit the usuage of the term. the bottom line here is that it does not unequivocally indicate homosexual behavior.
What you believe is no doubt convenient, but even a small amount of research into the historical context of the bible or the progressive steps of the bible's construction/translation would rapidly prove you grossly wrong. Furthermore, the idea of "keeping to the original" when the original is itself a transcription of centuries of oral tradition is nonsensical. The fact that few adherents of the bible study these aspects and their implications is not coincidence.
I don't. In fact it's very clear that they didnt. Read up on any of the church's early ecumenical councils. With special attention to First Council of Nicaea and First Council of Ephesus and obviously the Council of Trent. Scholars often changed parts of the Bible to fit their needs at the time.
i hope you arent saying im a blind sheep following the mass. you have your opinions and i have mine. there was a time when i thought the Bible was full of errors and mistranslations. i am not blind to the fact that the Bible was oral traditions passed down from generation to generation before it was transcribed into written form. you could argue that there were errors along the way in telling the stories. you can also argue there were mistranslations going from one language to another. but you can also say that people didnt have writing back then, so they drilled everything into their heads word for word. Or that the people doing the translations were trained in the languages they were translating. so on and so forth till the end of time... blah blah blah blah blah... the only certainty is that there is no certainty. :grin: so i can be wrong and you can be wrong. heck we could both be wrong at the same time... :grin: but as i have come to learn, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then most likely its a duck. (but i cede the fact that there is an outside chance it may be a robot :grin: )
sure, you could say that. But I could also say that Scarlett Johanson gives me a hummer every night of the week. Of course, there is insurmountable evidence that neither are true.
So now, what you're telling me is that I'm supposed to believe that Paul did not really mean the word to be translated literally, but used it as a (sexually crude) metaphor for something more "innocuous" like defrauding? Paul, the apostle, who also charged the church to abstain from crude communication and lewd speaking? That's like a pastor writing a newsletter to his congregation and telling them not to "f*** each other over". Come on man. I'm convinced at this point that when people make up their minds what their opinion is on a subject, you could throw a spade at them and they'll find a way to call it a pair of sunglasses.
did these coucils actually change the Bible or issue positions/interpretations? im finding that these coucils were convened to issue a unified position in opposition to the teachings of various Christian leaders of the time. teachings that may have been questionable.
For future reference, I'd strongly suggest inserting the words "in my opinion" after this load of crap. It'll make you look like less of an uneducated jackass next time.
Danny: Factual research clearly shows that biblical texts were very often altered or reshaped as needed. Particularly the old testament (in the new testament, they tended to just add books when they felt the need and then burn all the others - e.g. 2 Peter). Translations are also a source of error and misrepresentation. Ancient Greek is particularly cumbersome - take for example the Greek word for faith (pistoio). Pistoio requires a preposition - you cannot say "I have faith." in Greek because it would not make sense; rather you must say "I have faith in XXX". This is extremely limiting and was a major source of the division between Gnostics and the early orthodoxy (and it still causes problems today). Similarly, the King James version is full of interesting edits and alterations - but this is hardly the beginning - the original hebrew is just as full of errors and alterations, the easiest example being Kings I and II - the Septuagint further altered those texts, and then the English translations changed it again. This is undeniable. The point is that there is a factual basis for Landry and my position. There is none for yours and accordingly it is a matter of faith. The obvious connection that the facts undo your faith is no doubt difficult to digest, which might explain your confusing and illogical post above.
it is what it is. people will always have their opinions. i dont think its something to get all worked up about.
If this is the first you have heard of a "(sexually crude) metaphor" being in the bible...well...wow. The old testament is full of them.
"Woe to the makers of literal translations, who by rendering every word weaken the meaning! It is indeed by so doing that we can say the letter kills and the spirit gives life." -Voltaire "God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice." -John Donne cervantes said something to the effect that it is like looking at the back of a tapestry.
doesn't bother me either. it bothers me that human beings project their own belief system onto the entire world expecting all others to understand their point of view like it is scripture itself. of course, a thread about a preacher's views on this subject is going to lead to plenty of Bible quotes, but quite simply, why are we holding onto these ancient words in a world of 6 billion people who follow different beliefs? 'cause all I see here is a bunch of poorly translated phrases that no one can agree on. if preacher Joel followed the basic tenets of his religion, he wouldn't have to worry about who's a sinner and who's going to hell. love they neighbor and accept him for who he or she is. buddha taught that too. so did Mohammed, no? my original point, Moniker, was to include all other non-religious posters in the conversation. where do they stand to you?
wow, this thread went from homosexuality to how the bible was translated... i accept your argument that there could have been errors in translation and there are structural limitations to different languages. if i have a passage where someone states their trust in Jesus by saying "I have faith." in Greek you cant translate "I have faith" so if the translator writes it as "I have faith that you are the Messiah" or "I have faith in you Jesus"... how does that change the main idea? is it not the same? yes it wasnt translated word for word but the original content is still conveyed to the reader. youre basically saying my arguments have no factual basis and it unravels my faith but im not going to lose any sleep tonight. your arguments have just as many holes to fill. i used to revel in arguing about this stuff. but in the end what does it accomplish?
i'm a tad bit curious as to how a homosexual would correct him/herself. maybe "28 days later style"? chain a guy who engages in butt darts to a lab table and force him to watch numerous televisions showing hetero sex? encourage him to marry, have a couple of kids, have "late meetings" at work, go to adult bookstores, engage in "bra" (butt related activities)/become reach around friendly, go home to wife to confess his "sin", divorce, and then leave his two children to grow up in a single family home? or is the solution purely religious? just how can i correct myself? the scenario above (minus the lab table) is a lot more common than you think... and all because said group of people need to correct themselves. how that is done? no one knows because you (the expert after "talking to a few last year") offer no solution. nice sample study. evidence? not saying that i agree or disagree. you're in a "debate" and discussion forum for... ? ok, freud.
