There are only three living people mentioned in the narrative, with the exception of the unknown number of people who might find Cain and slay him. But even if we assume the story in Genesis is true, there’s still no reason there couldn’t be other kids of Adam and Eve (or grandkids, and so on) who just weren’t mentioned before because they weren’t important to the narrative.
Mines Mystique, I wouldn’t suppose we’ll agree on homsexuality, but if you’re still around I do have another question for you (or anyone else that might know). What is the Christian explanation for why there are two versions of how Judas died?
OK.
He never said "the desire could have been for a Big Mac. What he posted was
I suppose we have to parse this for you:
Orexexis is a pretty generic word. . . This would be where he indicates that he is describing a definition, not a translation of a passage. Note that he does not state “the passage means,” but says only this “is a pretty generic word.”
**. . . for “desire”. . . ** This is the meaning of the word. Not the whole passage, the word.
. . . which could apply to a desire for a Big Mac as easily as a desire for a well oiled stud. And here he notes that the meaning of the word could indicate any of several things, including an appetite for either food or sex. No declaration that the passage meant food; simply a statement regarding the general definition of the word as requested by gooftroopag.
So, basically, when you wandered in here claiming that DtC was carrying out an agenda, you were simply demonstrating that you are the one posting with a less than honest agenda.
Actually, DtC had already pointed out that that specific sentence did have a sexual image in context, (in his polite discussion with gooftroopag, despite your interruption). Having been given the more neutral definition of the word, gooftroopag then asked how DtC could know that that passage was sexual (a point that DtC had already acknowledged). DtC then pointed to the reference to men turning from their wives. That would indicate that his presentation was scholarly: he first noted that the definition did not require a sexual emphasis, following which he pointed out the context that gave it a sexual emphasis. Unlike your interruption, he actually examined the text, applied knowledge, and drew logical conclusions.
So, we have now seen two separate cases where you have been factually incorrect–and rather rudely, at that.
In light of this information I have a couple of questions.
You mention that it is unlikely that sunstantial passages were added of subtracted. I thought in the case of the dead sea scrolls there were some significant differences with what was accepted up till then. That may be one or two books in the OT not the NT.
Wouldn’t even just a change of a word or two have the potential to make a drastic change in overall meaning, especially if the word was changed to fit better with a presupposed doctrine.
What about the selection of which writings to include? You say the list developed long before the Nicene council which I have read before. There was also plenty of disagreement about doctrine. How likely is it that certain books became accepted at least in part because they supported the most popular doctrine? What about the NAg Hamadi library , The Gospel of Thomas and others?
What passages point to these men being married? How is it that you draw that conclusion? Is it merely an assumption based on clutural knowledge?
cosmosdan,
With the Qumran Scrolls, you shift the discussion away from the New Testament to the Tanakh or Old Testament. There we see some really interesting phenomena. Some texts, such as that for Isaiah, are outstandlingy close to the texts that the Masoretes (the Jewish scholars who undertook a several hundred year program to establish a pure Hebrew text) had produced by the tenth century. On the other hand, there are also a couple of works that have quite long passages that differ between what we recognize, today, and what we find in the Qumran scrolls.
However, my specific comments were directed toward the new Testament, so Qumran is outside the scope of my comments.
As to the issue of a passage or significant word being added or subtracted, I suppose that it is physically possible. However, we already have texts that differ in small ways. (E.g., a couple of late texts give the “number of the beast” as 616 instead of 666. There are a couple of manuscripts that do not include or include a variant of the odd passage at the end of Mark (16:9-20) with its claims of snake-handling and poison drinking.) This is what happens when there are dozens of hand-copied texts floating around. So, since the church did not “clean up” those manuscripts, and since we have very early translations of the manuscripts into other languages that agree with the Greek versions we have (warts and all), I find it less than plausible that the church was able (or bothered) to insert or delete whole other significant passages or changed key words and got all those changes into universal circulation while failing to clean up the odd stuff that we can still see.
As to the issue of popularity: that is certainly a valid observation from outside the faith community. Books were definitely chosen because they more closely adhered to the theology of the largest (or most powerful) groups within the church. However, we are, again, looking at events that had to have occurred within 150 years of the life of Jesus. Between the quite visible brawl that centered on Marcion’s attempt to create a “Jew free” canon around 140 - 144 and the close correspondence between the Muratorian Canon of 170 and the New Testament of the fourth century, we can see that the church, as a body, has settled pretty much on which new books would be considered Scripture before the end of the second century. (Debate certainly continued, but attempts to include works such as Shepherd of Hermas or reject works such as Revelation ultimately came to nothing.)
Does this mean the “right” books were actually chosen? It is the position of the church that they were. 
One thing to keep in mind in these discussions is that the Orthodox and Catholic view of Scripture differs, somewhat, from the Protestant view. The Orthodox Catholic tradtion is that Scripture arose from the Church. Inspired by God? Certainly. First among the authors who wrote it and then among the Fathers who selected it, and finally among the Councils that confirmed it, it is the position of that tradition that the best works were divinely inspired at all three stages. By definition, the correct works were chosen to be Scripture. Sola Scriptura, with its supposition that God commissioned certain works to be created is a Protestant view. (And I have oversimplified both sides. While I hang out on the Catholic side of the fence, I merely disagree with Sola Scriptura; I do not consider it a work of the devil.) So, from that perspective, while we can speculate about a church that might have embraced a Gospel of Thomas, or [shudder] the other Gospel of Thomas with an infancy narrative that makes Jesus into a murderous twit, the position of the Orthodox and Catholic traditions is that the correct works were selected by the intervention of the Holy Spirit.
A cultural asumption, yes. For one thing it refers to the women as “their (the men’s) women” which would indicate either wives, children or servants . For another it say says that the women exchanged their "phusiken use for the para phusin. The only acceptable sexual phusiken “use” (to use Paul’s rather jarringly archaic characterization) for a woman would have been as a wife.
It’s perhaps noteworthy that while Paul says the women gave up their customary (sexual) use for the para phusin, he does not actually explicitly say that the para phusin “use” was lesbianism. He does say the men went Brokeback (I don’t think there’s really a lot of question about that) but the text of the passage does not actually require a reading that the women had sex with each other. The text does not automatically proscribe other possibilities (such as an uncharacteristic yearning for non-procreative sexual acts with their husbands?) I’m not sure about that. It may be that Paul did intend to imply lesbianism but I think that without the accompaniment of verse 27 that might not automatically be the first possibility to come to mind.
You must be aware that your statement here is contrary to what Jesus himself said in the Bible, right?
I will assume you posted this because you actually believe it to be true. Can you see how illogical and unsupportable this type of belief is? **Everyone ** who believes the Bible to be the inerrant word of God is still filtering belief through their own interpretation, the same as those who do not believe that particular tradition. That would mean their ultimate authority is their own interpretation of the Bible, not God. This is obvious when we clearly see that even those who do hold this belief don’t agree with each other. Your interpretation is affected by your upbringing and experiences, your personality, emotional make up, and those people whom you are close to. It’s the same for everybody who reads the Bible.
If you and another person who also believes the Bible is the word of God, don’t agree on an interpretation, how is it that God is deciding what is true? By choosing a particular interpretation to believe, that was taught to you by some person or group, or simply reading the Bible and choosing on your own, it is you not God, who is deciding what is right. The same as myself or others in this thread who don’t agree with you. To convince yourself that your interpretation is letting God decide what’s right while others who disagree are idolatrous is a little arrogent and delusional. I don’t mean that as an attack or an insult, but simply an expression of my own belief and what I think should be fairly obvious.
[bolding mine]
I am not trying to reject the Bible in any way. I am concerned with discerning the difference between man’s tradition and the truth. I am interested in seeing the Bible for what it is and what it isn’t truly. This has not unraveled my faith in Jesus at all but rather deepened my understanding and faith. Concerning what I bolded.
Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, teach us the spiritual things of God, testify of Jesus, and witness to our spirit. He also gave us a very simple way to judge, by seeking the sincere fruits of the spirit in our own actions. That being the case how can you say there is no way to tell without the accepting the Bible as the word of God? Can’t I trust the promise of Christ about the Holy Spirit?
Where did you get the idea that the liberal church is dying? Perhaps it is because I am a believer in a very nontraditional and nonfundamental way that I tend to find lots of folks like myself who are comfortable with their faith being nontraditional. BTW, people who don’t hold the same fundamental views as you do haven’t nessecarily “lost” thier faith. It’s possible we have found our own relationship with God and Jesus that works great for us. I expect that kind of thing to grow rather than shrink. The church is made up of all those who sincerely seek to follow Jesus through communion with the Holy Spirit. It is not bound by doctrine or a religious label for an individual or building.
All that being said, I do respect your right to choose your own spiritual path and decide what is right for you.
Diogenes the Cynic and tomndebb My thanks for your input.
It is appreciated as always 
[QUOTE=Mines Mystique]
There’s a whole lot of stuff to respond too, and I’m sorry I’ve taken so long to reply. Ironically enough, I tried to access this thread from school today to post some replies, and was unable to due to the school’s firewall. Anyway, here I am, and here I go.
I haven’t done extensive study of OT stuff yet, but from my understanding, some sacrifices were intended as an atonement for sins, some were intended as worship offerings, and some were intended as tithe or gift offerings. While the priests did benefit quite well from some of the things, we have to remember that one of the functions of the priesthood was as an intermediary and the spokesperson to God for the people. I think, because of some of the verses referring to Jesus Christ as being our intercessor and intermediary to God now, that this was the main function for the priesthood.
As to your second question, we have to remember the historical context of when the laws were written. At the time the laws were given, there was nowhere near the scientific knowledge we have now, at least about what makes people sick. Also, the Israelites had just come out of several generations of captivity and slavery in Egypt. This would imply that they were probably clueless about why most of the laws were given, at least the safety-type lands. I think the safety-type laws, as well as the rest of them were given to set the Israelites apart from the nations around them, that basically did anything and ate anything they wanted to.
I didn’t think I had asked any questions of the board. Rather, I have noticed that there seems to be few people around the board who believe as I do, and so, in an attempt to fight ignorance about the Christian worldview, at least as I see it, opened this thread and opened myself to questions about my viewpoint. I in no way intended to convert anyone, all I wanted to do was to be able to set my viewpoint forth on issues that people brought up, as they were brought up.
God is said to be able to do anything He would like and given that he must like divisions, to enspire people to have different meanings to what men call His word.
Monavis
[QUOTE=monavis]
Sould have said inspire not enspire, Didn’t notice the error until after it was sent.
[QUOTE=monavis]
Sould have said inspire not enspire, Didn’t notice the error until after it was sent. I added some things as a postscript.
Monavis
Mines Mystique,
I know you’ve had a lot here to respond to. It seems like you skiipped over most of my previous post although the matter has been touched on. If you have time could you address them? I understand if you don’t have time. You’ve been busy in this thread.
to reiterate;
-
You readily admit that in the verses about a woman submitting to her husband {and keeping silent in church?} it’s more of a cultural thing of that era. I assume you feel the same about 1 Cor. 11 and a woman should cover her head and somehow nature tells us a man shouldn’t have long hair. That being the case can’t the brief mentions of homosexuality be the same thing? Many cultures throughout history have viewed homosexuality differently. It’s pretty obvious that we are still struggling with it 2000 years after Christ.
What about the great diversity of God’s creation? In thinking about this it has occurred to me that since we are spirit then no physical act in and of itself can be a sin. It is the intent behind the act that is a sin. It is the intent that separates us from God. That’s why Jesus said that secret lust is as bad as adultery and hatred as bad as murder. I fail to see how a physical expression of love can be a sin. So, after my mini rant, isn’t it possible that homosexuality as mentioned in the Bible is just one more cultural issue that we have to address with new understanding?
Perhaps Paul was biased against homosexuals in much the same way he advised against marriage. -
Your take on the Bible is much more open minded than many evangelicals. In my own studies I have come to believe that Jesus taught us to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit and gave us simple guidelines to know if we or others were. The fruits of the spirit. I see nothing in the Bible to indicate that it was ever God’s plan that we have one final authoritative collection of writings that we should base our spiritual life on. Also nothing to indicate that inspired writers were somehow inerrant. There is nothing to indicate that other people inspired by that same spirit wouldn’t write something new, more advanced, or at least just as useful, for guidance. Personally I think we short change ourselves when we revere the Bible too much, and others when we teach them to do the same. True spiritual insight springs from within and our communion with the spirit.
In studying the history of the scriptures and the church it’s seems what is revered is some group of men’s choices about what should be canon and what shouldn’t. Isn’t that the sort of thing Jesus taught us not to do?
Me too. It seems that I always get into these threads too late, and end up being a sigh in a hurricane. I also would like my post addressed, but having been on the receiving end of many a pile-on (not meaning necessarily any bad connotation, but merely a many on one discussion) I can completely sympathize, and hold nothing against Mines. The only frustration I have is not knowing whether he ignored me, or found my comment too excellent/horrible to address, or what.
I share your feeling Lib I’m just curious why my post was skipped. Tell you what. Just to get the ball rolling I’ll respond to yours and you can respond to mine
I completely agree. I really appreciate your wording here. My own studies in the past few years have led me to believe that what Jesus taught was to seek and have faith in the Holy Spirit, period. Not any book. The passage in Timothy says scriptures are a very useful tool, thats all. Often in discussions or books a scripture concerning the word of God is referenced as if it refers to scripture, when it actually refers to the living word, that dwells within. The Holy Spirit. It is also the Holy Spirit that heps us to spiritually understand what Jesus taught as we surrender our preconcieved notions to it’s influence. We can have complete faith in Jesus promise of the Holy Spirit as our guide.
I think your post makes perfect sense. I’m not sure why some evangelicals see homosexuality as some horrible sin. I’ve heard the argument that the problem with homosexuals is that they sin constantly; that is, they live an unrepentent “lifestyle” of sin (meaning that they continue having sex with each other rather than being celibate).
And yet, it is also true that the evangelical himself continues to live an unrepentent lifestyle of sin. If that were not the case, then he would have no need for Jesus. The evangelical will protest, “But I DO repent!” And I will respond the same way he does to the homsexual: the proof is in the pudding — if you repent, then stop sinning.
Possibly worse, even, at least aesthetically, is the Pharisaic evangelical. He’s the guy who thanks God that he isn’t cursed with homosexual tendencies, much like the Pharisee who prayed to thank God that he’s not like that sinner over there.
With respect to the Bible, it’s just a book. Nothing more. There’s nothing “holy” about it. Holiness belongs to the One who facilitates goodness perfectly.
As a side note; in some of my discussions it is presented that Christians continue to sin but are forgiven the moment they repent because they have accepted Jesus as savior. They must repent though. Considering the classic 11th hour salvation scenario where someone who has lived a horrible sinful life accepts Jesus moments before their death and recieves heaven, while the Jew who spent a lifetime in loving service to others goes to hell, I’ve asked about the possibility of 11th hour damnation. Say a good Christian person is killed in a car accident and the moment before their death they lashed out in anger and hatred toward another driver.
“What the hell is wrong with you you stupid so and so” CRASH!
Not having the opportunity to repent, does that mean their life of worshipping Jesus is for naught and they are damed?
How is it that certain scriptures are described are the plain truth while others are dismissed or rationalized away. The one you mentioned in the other thread comes to mind first.
Be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect, or not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, continue on to perfection.
It seems the common interpertation assumes, “Since we know we aren’t and can’t be perfect, the conclusion is that this was not meant to be taken literally no matter how it appears.” That seems like backward interpretation to me. How about assuming that since we are expected to be continue on to perfection then there must be a way to actually accomplish that.
The way I see it, repentance is not a check that is written, but a check that is cashed.
Meaning that repentance is not the statement of repenting but the actions of trying to make restitution and of avoiding the same sin in similar circumstances?
If men have free will, they can choose their actions. Many Christians essentially put this as choosing to follow or reject God. However, the penalty for rejecting God: Hell.
Is that a choice?
Say someone who had the power stood up one day and said, “I’m the new ruler of this country. I, being a just person, am going to give you, my people, the choice of following me. Those of you who give your life to me, I will repay you with everything you could ever want. Those of you who ‘choose’ not to follow me, I’m going to burn you slowly from feet to head with one match at a time.” Would this ruler be considered just?
I know there’s certain bad symbolic word choices there, but you get the point: is accepting God (and thus possibly going to Heaven) or not accepting God (and thus likely going to Hell to burn in a lake of fire) really a choice? Who would “choose” hell?