# Adultery Diogenes? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2003, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851 "2003-08-31T20:26:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/41 "2003-09-01T06:22:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by NaSultainne \* > \*\*Actually, you’re wrong. Morgan Edwards, founder of Rhode Island College, now known as Brown University, wrote an eschatological essay for a class, which was published in 1788 as: Two Academical Exercises on Subjects Bearing the Following Titles; Millenium, Last-Novelties. \*\* They were still wrong in their exegesis and still did not represent any part of traditional Christian teaching. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/42 "2003-09-01T06:26:50Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. Atonement is subrational and subethical. I forgot this one. Atonement by a human sacrifice is most definitely subrational and subethical. This is one of my biggest problems with Christianity. The idea that God would require a blood sacrifice strikes me as unbelievably primative and absurd. ---
**Author:** ![JerseyDiamond](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8491ac/32.png) [@JerseyDiamond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JerseyDiamond)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/43 "2003-09-01T06:30:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Q is the term for the common written source which is embedded in Matthew and Luke. Those two gospels contain quite a bit of material (mostly sayings of Jesus with some narrative framework) which agree word for word in Greek. \*\* Q is the term for the common written source which skeptics _believe to be_ embedded in Matthew and Luke. Fixed that for ya. If they agree, you say they must have copied. If they don’t agree, you say there is a contradiction. And you claim not to be biased?! > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Diogenes_ > **The passage you cite is not about the “Rapture” as envisioned by John Darby and Left Behind fans. I don’t say that because it doesn’t say the word, “rapture,” (that’s derived from the Vulgate) but because it doesn’t say that there is going to be some sort of preliminary ascension of the “saved” followed by a bunch of tribulations. The passage you quoted is merely an assurance to early congregations (who were still expecting Jewsus any day) that those who had already died waiting would still go to heaven (and that they would, in fact, rise up first before the living.) That’s all it meant. Nothing more.** Good thing your so smart. I dont know what I would do if you weren’t here to explain things for me. :rolleyes: The rapture is Jesus taking away his people. Don’t put your own spin on it then try to disprove _that_. I think you dopers call that a straw man. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Avalonian \* > \*\*You quote from _The Message_, perhaps the worst interpretation of the Bible I’ve ever seen, and you’re accusing **Diogenes** of selective interpratation? > > Damn, **Jersey** , you own me a new irony meter. You just blew mine to tiny bits. Carry on. \*\* First, what’s your authority for saying it’s a bad translation? Do you speak Greek too? Or do you just think it’s bad because it’s in modern english? But if it makes you feel better, here you go: > [@](#): > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: New International Version (NIV)** > 15According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words. > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB)** > 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. > 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. > 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. > 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words. > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: The Message (MSG)** > 15And then this: We can tell you with complete confidence–we have the Master’s word on it–that when the Master comes again to get us, those of us who are still alive will not get a jump on the dead and leave them behind. In actual fact, they’ll be ahead of us. 16The Master himself will give the command. Archangel thunder! God’s trumpet blast! He’ll come down from heaven and the dead in Christ will rise–they’ll go first. 17Then the rest of us who are still alive at the time will be caught up with them into the clouds to meet the Master. 18Oh, we’ll be walking on air! And then there will be one huge family reunion with the Master. So reassure one another with these words. > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: Amplified Bible (AMP)** > 15For this we declare to you by the Lord’s [own] word, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord shall in no way precede [into His presence] or have any advantage at all over those who have previously fallen asleep [in Him in death]. > 16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud cry of summons, with the shout of an archangel, and with the blast of the trumpet of God. And those who have departed this life in Christ will rise first. > 17Then we, the living ones who remain [on the earth], shall simultaneously be caught up along with [the resurrected dead] in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so always (through the eternity of the eternities) we shall be with the Lord! > 18Therefore comfort and encourage one another with these words. > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: New Living Translation (NLT)** > 15I can tell you this directly from the Lord: We who are still living when the Lord returns will not rise to meet him ahead of those who are in their graves. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a commanding shout, with the call of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God. First, all the Christians who have died will rise from their graves. 17Then, together with them, we who are still alive and remain on the earth will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and remain with him forever. 18So comfort and encourage each other with these words. > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: King James Version (KJV)** > 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. > 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: > 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. > 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words. > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: English Standard Version (ESV)** > 15For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18Therefore encourage one another with these words. > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: Contemporary English Version (CEV)** > 15Our Lord Jesus told us that when he comes, we won’t go up to meet him ahead of his followers who have already died. > 16With a loud command and with the shout of the chief angel and a blast of God’s trumpet, the Lord will return from heaven. Then those who had faith in Christ before they died will be raised to life. 17Next, all of us who are still alive will be taken up into the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the sky. From that time on we will all be with the Lord forever. 18Encourage each other with these words. > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: New King James Version (NKJV)** > 15For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18Therefore comfort one another with these words. > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)** > 15 For this we say unto you by the Word of the Lord: that we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who are asleep. > 16 For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; > 17 then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so shall we ever be with the Lord. > 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words. > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: American Standard Version (ASV)** > 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep. > 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; > 17 then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. > 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words. > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)** > 15 The Lord himself will come down from heaven. There will be a shout, a great angel will speak, and God’s loud horn or trumpet will be blown. > 16 Then we who are still alive on earth will be caught up together with those who were dead. We will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And then we will be with the Lord forever! > 17 Therefore, comfort one another with these words. > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)** > 15 for this to you we say in the word of the Lord, that we who are living – who do remain over to the presence of the Lord – may not precede those asleep, > 16 because the Lord himself, in a shout, in the voice of a chief-messenger, and in the trump of God, shall come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, > 17 then we who are living, who are remaining over, together with them shall be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in air, and so always with the Lord we shall be; > 18 so, then, comfort ye one another in these words. > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: Darby Translation (DARBY)** > 15 (For this we say to you in [the] word of [the] Lord, that _we_, the living, who remain to the coming of the Lord, are in no way to anticipate those who have fallen asleep; > 16 for the Lord himself, with an assembling shout, with archangel’s voice and with trump of God, shall descend from heaven; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; > 17 then _we_, the living who remain, shall be caught up together with them in [the] clouds, to meet the Lord in [the] air; and thus we shall be always with [the] Lord. > 18 So encourage one another with these words.) > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)** > 15 And we say this thing to you in the word of the Lord, that we that live, that be left in the coming of the Lord, shall not come before them that be dead. [Soothly this thing we say to you in the word of the Lord, that we that live, that be residue, or left, in the coming of the Lord, shall not come before them that slept, or died.] > 16 For the Lord himself shall come down from heaven, in the commandment, and in the voice of an archangel [in the commanding, and in the voice of the archangel], and in the trump of God; and the dead men that be in Christ, shall rise again first. > 17 Afterward we that live, that be left, shall be snatched (up) together with them in clouds, meeting Christ in the air; and so evermore we shall be with the Lord. > 18 Therefore be ye comforted together in these words. [Therefore comfort ye together in these words.] > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: New International Version - UK (NIV-UK)** > 15 According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. > 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. > 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord for ever. > 18 Therefore encourage each other with these words. And for the Greek Scholars in our midst: > [@](#): > > **1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 :: 1550 Stephens Textus Receptus** > 15 [symbol]TOUTO GAR UMIN LEGOMEN EN LOGW KURIOU OTI HMEIV OI ZWNTEV OI PERILEIPOMENOI EIV THN PAROUSIAN TOU KURIOU OU MH FQASWMEN TOUV KOIMHQENTAV[/symbol] > 16 [symbol]OTI AUTOV O KURIOV EN KELEUSMATI EN FWNH ARXAGGELOU KAI EN SALPIGGI QEOU KATABHSETAI AP OURANOU KAI OI NEKROI EN XRISTW ANASTHSONTAI PRWTON[/symbol] > 17 [symbol]EPEITA HMEIV OI ZWNTEV OI PERILEIPOMENOI AMA SUN AUTOIV ARPAGHSOMEQA EN NEFELAIV EIV APANTHSIN TOU KURIOU EIV AERA KAI OUTWV PANTOTE SUN KURIW ESOMEQA[/symbol] > 18 WSTE PARAKALEITE ALLHLOUV EN TOIV LOGOIV TOUTOIV Is that better? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic_ > \*\*Of course I read the whole thing. No “church only” loophole to be found. > > Here is the entire chapter:\*\* Thanks, I’ve read it. I’ll explain this to you, but I’m sure it’s unnecessary, since you are such a great scholar, and know so much about the context and culture in which it was written. :rolleyes: Under roman law, a woman was not allowed to interrupt, interject, or ask questions to anybody in a position of authority or instruction, aka priest, pastor, basically anybody speaking in a position of authority. Only the husband or father was allowed to do so. And since you are not in any authority, it’s perfectly ok for me to do what I do. Especially since I’ve already asked my husband for permission and his is all I need. Anyway, you have no authority for me to usurp, so there is no problem. But of course you already know the historical context, so this is all just review for you, right? ---
**Author:** ![JerseyDiamond](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8491ac/32.png) [@JerseyDiamond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JerseyDiamond)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/44 "2003-09-01T06:34:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Good thing your so smart That should be “you’re”. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![NaSultainne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@NaSultainne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NaSultainne)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/45 "2003-09-01T06:35:13Z")
[QUOTE] _Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic_ Actually, you’re wrong. Morgan Edwards, founder of Rhode Island College, now known as Brown University, wrote an eschatological essay for a class, which was published in 1788 as: Two Academical Exercises on Subjects Bearing the Following Titles; Millenium, Last-Novelties. In it he said: The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s “appearing in the air” (1 Thess 4:17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millenium, as we shall see hereafter; but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many “mansions in the father’s house” (john 14:2), and so disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for “now the time is come that judgment must begin” and that will be “at the house of God” (1 Pet 4:17) (pg 7) Another event previous to the millenium will be the appearing of the son of man in the clouds, coming to raise the dead saints and change the living, and to catch them up to himself, and then withdraw with them, as observed before [i.e., pg 7]. This event will come to pass when Antichrist be arrived at Jerusalem in his conquest of the world; and about three years and a half before his killing the witnesses and assumption of godhead… (pg 21) The last event, and the event that will usher in the millenium, will be, the coming of Christ from paradise to earth, with all the saints he had taken up thither (about three years and a half before)…(pg 24) In addition, Pseudo-Ephraem, written in the 6th century: For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins. (Section 2) …coming forward the Lord shall appear with great power and much majesty, with the sign of the wood of salvation going before him, and also even with all the powers of the heavens with the whole chorus of the saints, with those who bear the sign of the holy cross upon their shoulders…(Section 10) Two very clear declarations that a pre-tribulation taking away, rapture, of the saints occurs; at the end of the tribulation period, those same saints return with Christ as He sets His foot on the Mount of Olives, ending the age and beginning His millenial reign. Two quick and simple sources to dispute the nonsense that Darby was the originator of the Rapture of the church. Finally, see Paul’s words in 2 Thes 2:1-2: Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Note, the church in Thessalonica has become alarmed at false information attributed to Paul, indicating that the day of the Lord (the tribulation) had already begun. If there were only an end-time gathering of the saints, post tribulation, they wouldn’t be alarmed, rather, they would be rejoicing that their redemption was that much closer. No, instead, they are concerned that the coming of Jesus Christ and their being gathered to him had already occurred (the Rapture!), and they had been left behind to face the great tribulation! Paul reassures them with additional information and guidance to discern the end-time events and the timing of the gathering of the saints. There is much more scripture to support pre-tribulation rapture of Christians. Paul, as the apostle to the gentiles, was the one to deliver this “mystery” to the church for whom it was intended. At no time does the Bible tell believers to **prepare** for the tribulation; we are only told to **watch** for the early signs as indicators that our redemption draws near. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/46 "2003-09-01T07:09:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JerseyDiamond \* > \*\*Q is the term for the common written source which skeptics _believe to be_ embedded in Matthew and Luke. > > Fixed that for ya.\*\* Nope. It’s the common written soorce which has been _proven_ to be embedded in Matthew and Luke. > [@](#): > > \*\*If they agree, you say they must have copied. If they don’t agree, you say there is a contradiction. And you claim not to be biased?! \*\* By “agree” I don’t mean that they jibe without contradiction. They are _word for word identical_…in Greek. It is impossible for two independent writers to come up with precisely the same translations and precisely the same framing narratives. It can’t happen. It didn’t happen. Q is real. QED. No credible scholar seriously tries to even argue with it any more. > [@](#): > > **Good thing your so smart. I dont know what I would do if you weren’t here to explain things for me. :rolleyes: > The rapture is Jesus taking away his people. Don’t put your own spin on it then try to disprove _that_. I think you dopers call that a straw man.** I’m not putting any spin on it, I’m telling you what the plain reading says. And no, the rapture is not “Jesus taking away his people” Are you sure you really understand Rapture theology? The part that is made up…the part that is not in the Bible…is that there will be an ascension of the faithful _before_ the tribulations. It;s the _before_ part that is off the reservation for traditional Christian doctrine. Pretty much all Christians agree that Jesus is going to come back and save everybody. Many (probably most) Christians even think they’re going to sail up into the sky. The difference is that they think it’s all going to happen on the last day, not that Jesus is going to save _some_ people who are then going to watch with smug glee as all the sinners go through the tribulations. That part is not in the Bible. That part is what is conventionally called the “Rapture,” the _preliminary_ ascension not the ultimate one. > [@](#): > > \*\*First, what’s your authority for saying it’s a bad translation? Do you speak Greek too? Or do you just think it’s bad because it’s in modern english? > > But if it makes you feel better, here you go: > > And for the Greek Scholars in our midst: > > Is that better?\*\* Thanks. Eveyone of those translations backs up _my_ interpretation that it was simple a reassurance that the dead would go to Heaven with the living. > [@](#): > > \*\*Thanks, I’ve read it. > I’ll explain this to you, but I’m sure it’s unnecessary, since you are such a great scholar, and know so much about the context and culture in which it was written. :rolleyes: > > Under roman law, a woman was not allowed to interrupt, interject, or ask questions to anybody in a position of authority or instruction, aka priest, pastor, basically anybody speaking in a position of authority. Only the husband or father was allowed to do so. And since you are not in any authority, it’s perfectly ok for me to do what I do. Especially since I’ve already asked my husband for permission and his is all I need. Anyway, you have no authority for me to usurp, so there is no problem. > > But of course you already know the historical context, so this is all just review for you, right? \*\* That’s a nice, twisty-turny, convoluted, self-serving, non-literal interpretation of scripture isn’t it. BTW, cite for that Roman law? I call bullshit. From what I know of Roman law, women had it relatively good compared to some of the ancient world. (You have to ask your husband’s _permission_ to post on a message board? :eek: Creepy… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/47 "2003-09-01T07:15:59Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by NaSultainne \* \*\* > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic_ > Actually, you’re wrong. Morgan Edwards, founder of Rhode Island College, now known as Brown University, wrote an eschatological essay for a class, which was published in 1788 as: Two Academical Exercises on Subjects Bearing the Following Titles; Millenium, Last-Novelties. In it he said: > > The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s “appearing in the air” (1 Thess 4:17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millenium, as we shall see hereafter; but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many “mansions in the father’s house” (john 14:2), and so disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for “now the time is come that judgment must begin” and that will be “at the house of God” (1 Pet 4:17) (pg 7) > > Another event previous to the millenium will be the appearing of the son of man in the clouds, coming to raise the dead saints and change the living, and to catch them up to himself, and then withdraw with them, as observed before [i.e., pg 7]. This event will come to pass when Antichrist be arrived at Jerusalem in his conquest of the world; and about three years and a half before his killing the witnesses and assumption of godhead… (pg 21) > > The last event, and the event that will usher in the millenium, will be, the coming of Christ from paradise to earth, with all the saints he had taken up thither (about three years and a half before)…(pg 24) > > In addition, Pseudo-Ephraem, written in the 6th century: > > For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins. (Section 2) > > …coming forward the Lord shall appear with great power and much majesty, with the sign of the wood of salvation going before him, and also even with all the powers of the heavens with the whole chorus of the saints, with those who bear the sign of the holy cross upon their shoulders…(Section 10) > > Two very clear declarations that a pre-tribulation taking away, rapture, of the saints occurs; at the end of the tribulation period, those same saints return with Christ as He sets His foot on the Mount of Olives, ending the age and beginning His millenial reign. > > Two quick and simple sources to dispute the nonsense that Darby was the originator of the Rapture of the church. > > Finally, see Paul’s words in 2 Thes 2:1-2: > Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. > > Note, the church in Thessalonica has become alarmed at false information attributed to Paul, indicating that the day of the Lord (the tribulation) had already begun. If there were only an end-time gathering of the saints, post tribulation, they wouldn’t be alarmed, rather, they would be rejoicing that their redemption was that much closer. No, instead, they are concerned that the coming of Jesus Christ and their being gathered to him had already occurred (the Rapture!), and they had been left behind to face the great tribulation! Paul reassures them with additional information and guidance to discern the end-time events and the timing of the gathering of the saints. > > There is much more scripture to support pre-tribulation rapture of Christians. Paul, as the apostle to the gentiles, was the one to deliver this “mystery” to the church for whom it was intended. At no time does the Bible tell believers to **prepare** for the tribulation; we are only told to **watch** for the early signs as indicators that our redemption draws near. \*\* You’re only citing Rapture believers who make specious interpretations of scripture. You’re not proving me wrong. You’re right that there were precursors to Darby but really, this who Rature/end days theology is his baby. He synthicized some earlier elements into his own fevered thesis. The majority of Christianity never has, and still does not, believe in the Rapture. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/48 "2003-09-01T07:17:55Z")
## Diogenes the Cynic: quote: Originally posted by badchad Diogenes the Cynic: I also know something about the composition of the Bible which allows me to look at the intent of a given passage or book and the intent of the author in the dialogue he give to his characters. ## Poppycock. _How so?_ I don’t think having your degree in theology gives you anymore insight into the intent of thirdhand accounts of what a man said 2000 years ago, of which you think there is only a 25% chance (at most) that he even said at all. People mistake intent from one post to the next. Look how long it took for me and Rounder to reach agreement. For you to say you have special insight into the intent of the various characters of the bible is pure hubris if you ask me. ## quote: ## I agree there. Well, the “praise me or else” stance attributed to god throughout is pretty unified. _Except for the “praise me” part and the “or else” part._ Old testament; praise god or die. New testament; praise god or burn in hell. Need specific examples? ## quote: You’ll have to take that up with them. Polycarp can defend his church better than I can. ## As we have both seen of late Polycarp can’t even defend his own beliefs against well reasoned arguments, I doubt he would do much better with that of his church. So how is that an issue for me? It’s not. You mentioned his name and seeing as how Polycarp has chickened out of just about every discussion I have had with him all while promicing to answer my questions I just like to make it known that, I haven’t forgotten. (😉 for you Poly) _I tried to describe my understanding of the Anglican interpretation (that they interpret it within a specific historical and cultural context)._ Still sounds to me like the Anglicans aren’t interpreting anything on the given quote just making stuff up. _I apologize if it sounded like I was proposing a personal interpretation (although I do happen to think the Anglican interpretation is quite reasonable). I’m actually not too sure about that quote. Since I don’t think Jesus was God or that he thought he was God, I think it’s unlikely that his intent was to deliver some universal, eternal command about marriage. He was talking about marriage practices as he knew them. He had no way of knowing what marriage would be like in 2000 years, in some other culture, where the practices he was addressing no longer existed. (And that’s if he said that line at all)._ I got your point, I guess then we will have to let Polycarp answer as to why Jesus in his omniscience didn’t put a little more forethought into his statement. _It was not intended to an absolute, literal injunction for all time. That’s a fucking stupid, overly legalistic way to read it and that kind of pedantry was exactly what Jesus hated in religion._ What makes you so sure Jesus hated religion? Was it something Matthew made Jesus say that you have only %25 percent confidence that he said in the first place? ## quote: My point is that the Episcopalians have no obligation whatever to follow your’s and Jersey’s definition of Christianity or your simplistic interpretations of scripture. ## I’ll take simple interpretations over tortured cherry pickings any day of the week. _And I’ll take reasoned and compassionate contemplation over mindless literalism. Tomato, tomahto._ If you actually believed in any of this BS I would now ask for you reasoned and compassionate contemplation for why god unfairly distributes his gifts and then punished people for not receiving his gift that he offered to others but not them. Personally I don’t think the word “reasoned” should apply at all in these instances. \*The Angican position is that interpretation of scripture should be guided by the Holy Spirit. make of that what you will. At least it offers an alternative to irrational, “infallible” literalism.[/] Sure irrational subjectivism. \*2.) Timothy 2: 11,12 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. I don’t see anything about this only pertaining to church. Soounds like a selective interpretation to me.\* See Diogenes, it’s not so hard.😉 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/49 "2003-09-01T07:50:43Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t think having your degree in theology gives you anymore insight into the intent of thirdhand accounts of what a man said 2000 years ago, of which you think there is only a 25% chance (at most) that he even said at all. People mistake intent from one post to the next. Look how long it took for me and Rounder to reach agreement. For you to say you have special insight into the intent of the various characters of the bible is pure hubris if you ask me. I don’t think I have special insight (and my degree is in Religious Studies, not theology. There’s a difference) but there are certain that things that can be learned about the motivations of some Biblical authors by looking at such things as _when_ a book was written, who the _audience_ was, the literary style of the author, paralells to Hebrew scripture, overriding themes within a narrative, etc. It’s not that earth shaking and it’s not that speculative. There is a minimum level of consensus as to certain motivations and intentions by authors. I am not claiming any _new_ insights, only that I have been somewhat educated as to what the scholarly consensuses are and how they were arrived at. > [@](#): > > Old testament; praise god or die. New testament; praise god or burn in hell. Need specific examples? There are also examples where those ideas are contradicted. I wasn’t saying that “praise God or die” is not in the Bible, only that even _that_ can be contradicted. > [@](#): > > What makes you so sure Jesus hated religion? Was it something Matthew made Jesus say that you have only %25 percent confidence that he said in the first place? I didn’t say that Jesus hated religion, I said that he hated _pedantry_ in religion. One of the most overriding themes in the parables and other sayings is that compassion is more important than legalism. I don’t understand your Matthew question. If you’re asking how I got to the 25% figure, I think you’re misstating it. I am not saying I am 25% “confident” in any given saying. I am 99% confident that he said some specific things (about a quarter of what’s attributed to him) and 99% confident that he _didn’t_ say some other things. (I am 100% confident that he didn’t say a word after he died ;)) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/50 "2003-09-01T07:55:32Z")
BTW, \*_badchad_, do you know how to use the quote function? Just do it like this (but with brackets instead of parentheses) (quote) blah blah blah (/quote) ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/51 "2003-09-01T15:30:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Q is the term for the common written source which skeptics believe to be embedded in Matthew and Luke. > > Fixed that for ya. > > If they agree, you say they must have copied. If they don’t agree, you say there is a contradiction. And you claim not to be biased?! Hi, **Jersey**. With respect, both believers and nonbelievers alike believe that at one time, the Q Document existed. Also, their reasons for presuming its existence are rather more complicated than your epitome above would suggest. It is also not a _universally_ accepted solution to the synoptic problem, as **Diogenes** seems to argue. It is just _the_ most widely accepted solution. Also, a much more readable Greek text can be found [here](http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/gnt/chapters.html). For what it’s worth, **Jersey** , _The Message_ translation is pretty misleading. I am surprised that someone with your serious interest in the actual text of scripture uses it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/52 "2003-09-01T16:12:16Z")
It’s pretty universal that there was a common written source. That source may or may not have been a sayings gospel, but a common source is beyond serious dispute. (The only other possibility is that Luke directly copied Matthew but that hypothesis has a number of logical problems with it). ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/53 "2003-09-01T16:27:11Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s pretty universal that there was a common written source. _A_ common written source. _Not_ necessarily Schliermacher’s Q hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/54 "2003-09-01T16:41:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > \*\*_A_ common written source. _Not_ necessarily Schliermacher’s Q hypothesis. \*\* The exact nature of the source is not really that important. “Q” is used as a matter of convenience to refer to the common material in Luke and Matthew. The most likely theory, and the most agreed upon, is that Q was an early sayings gospel but it is conceivable the common source existed in some other form (a lost narrative gospel culled only for sayings? An apostolic “notebook” containing remembered sayings?) The part that _matters_ is that there was a common Greek source and that Matthew and Luke were not composed independently. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/55 "2003-09-01T16:57:43Z")
> [@](#): > > The exact nature of the source is not really that important. “Q” is used as a matter of convenience to refer to the common material in Luke and Matthew. This is entirely incorrect. The exact nature of the source is absolutely crucial. Q has never been referred to as a “matter of convenience” by scholars; rather, it has been the source of spectacular disagreement over its contents and its nature. Yes, anyone who reads Luke and Matthew can see that there is common material, but that common material hardly in and of itself justifies the existence of the Q Document let alone assumptions as to its content. > [@](#): > > The part that matters is that there was a common Greek source and that Matthew and Luke were not composed independently. Which does not in and of itself prove or even suggest the existence of a Q Document. I suggest you take a look at the Griesbach Two-Source Hypothesis, which is _now_ the most widely held solution to the Synoptic Problem. I suggest you look into the works of William J. Farmer, probably the most vocal modern champion of the Two-Source theory. Here is what Farmer says in a 1998 to the Society for New Testament Studies: > [@](#): > > The present state of the Synoptic Problem is characterized by a remarkable lack of consensus among practicing specialists in Gospel Studies as to the scientific grounds for their work. The fact is that the ongoing discussion of the Synoptic Problem has reached a “critical mass” where a “consensus” among experts on the Synoptic Problem (that the Streeterian arguments for Marcan priority are no longer to be relied upon) serves to raise questions about work based upon that hypothesis. We have already noted the way in which this has led some of the most creative Lucan scholars in the United States to prescind from use of the Two Source Paradigm. > > … > > We see then that the present state of the Synoptic problem, as represented by these five books, is one in which there appears to be no longer any theoretical basis for the existence of “Q”, and it appears that the old Streeterian reasons for belief in Marcan priority are no longer regarded as valid. None the less, most scholars continue to use the Two Source Hypothesis as the “best working hypothesis”. The reasons given for this vary. But the most recurring one is that all major alternatives appear to be fraught with even greater difficulties than those associated with the Two-Source Hypothesis. I think that your belief in the Q Document is a little complacent, \*_Diogenes_. There is a lot of good scholarship out there that can help you to reevaluate your views on the New Testament if you are so inclined. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/56 "2003-09-01T18:15:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*I guess you can look at it that way. I was trying to say that no religious belief can ever be _proven_ to be more valid than any other religious belief so it’s a pointless thing to argue about. \*\* What?! In what way can no religious beliefs be proven? There are plenty of religious beliefs that can be proven, and disproven. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/57 "2003-09-01T18:23:15Z")
**Maeglin** , do you have a link describing the Griesbach hypothesis? I’m not familiar with it. It’s been a few years since I was in college but at that time, at least, Q was pretty much considered gospel (so to speak) in Biblical criticism. I also haven’t heard any convincing reason to challenge the priority of Mark (there’s no question it was a source for Matthew). I can’t really evaluate Griesbach or Farmer without reading their arguments. Do you have a link that would would give a basic rundown of the theory? Or perhaps you could summarize it yourself. The only two-source hypothesis I’m familiar with is the Mark-Q hypothesis. What does Griesbach hypothesize? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/58 "2003-09-01T18:39:53Z")
My googling seems to show that Griesbach favors a Matthew -\> Luke -\> Mark succession with no Q. This seems unbelievably weak to me. The evidence for the priority of Mark is all but overwhelming. I also found the Farrer hypothesis (Mark -\> Matthew -\> Luke) which is not impossible, I suppose, but there is no real evidence that Luke used Matthew as a source (in fact, Luke _disagrees_ with Matthew quite a bit). I can’t find a rundown on the specifica arguments for these hypotheses, though. Perhaps you can help? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/59 "2003-09-01T18:59:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*\*\* What?! In what way can no religious beliefs be proven? > > There are plenty of religious beliefs that can be proven, and disproven. \*\* I am mystified by your assertions. If a religious belief could be proven it wouldn’t be a religious belief it would be known fact. It is a religious belief for many that God created Adam and Eve and that there was no evolution. The fact that these assertions can and have been disproven does not alter the fact that people still believe them. Religious beliefs are beyond Popperian falsifiability. Even if a test can be devised to falsify a belief, a _new_ assertion can always be made as to why the belief has not really been falsified (e.g God created the earth with all those fossils and made it look old just to fool people). You can’t ever falsify “Goddidit.” ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851/60 "2003-09-01T19:36:01Z")
That’s utterly ridiculous. Your assertion that religious beliefs cannot be known facts has no basis. And yes, you can falsify “Goddidit”; if God’s intervention cannot be distinguished from a lack of intervention in any way, it’s meaningless to say that God intervened. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adultery-diogenes/198851.md?page=4)