Ouija boards do not count as research, kanicbird.
Would you care to try it yourself if you feel so qualified to do so, I can give you the book and verses, I request that if you feel that you are so qualified and that you reply with your response here openly (and that you don’t use your Ouija board, or if you do please state so).
Although the canon of the NT wasn’t officially agreed upon until 367, it was pretty much in its present form much earlier, in the early 200s. According to your own link:
I’m not qualified to do so. I am qualified to judge that you aren’t qualified to do so either, by evidence of your really, really bad translation so far.
Of course, you might go into detail on how you got “hell” from “West” and “the unborn” from “South.” But…don’t bother.
You really have to read the psalms in Hebrew, and the KJV is not a good translation. For example, “Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me,” means something like, “Even if I have to walk through a bad neighborhood at night, I know you got my back.” It makes sense, then why something non-snuggly, like a rod and staff, are comforting.
If you can read them in Hebrew, you won’t ever really “get” them.
What is transliterated as North = underworld also
What is transliterated as South = sea (it does not even equal south in any sense)
So I take it no takers then :dubious:
Please do.
First of all, that still gives about two centuries in which the canon was not agreed upon, which is plenty enough time to support my point.
Secondly, however, I think the bit you quote from Wikipedia is rather misleading. It may be true that Origen and some others during the third century were focusing largely on the books we now regard as canon, and rejecting others, but many other people who regarded themselves as followers of Jesus clearly were not. It is not until accession of Constantine, and the Council of Nicea in 325 that Gnostic Christians (of various stripes), Arians, and the like were decisively and effectively declared to be heretical, not true Christians. Before that, the Church was a loosely organized, semi-underground organization (there was major persecution of Christians under Diocletian in the late 3rd to early 4th century), with no clear leaders, or certainly no-one who could enforce authority on people who were calling themselves Christians in distant parts of the Empire. This meant that different types, sometimes quite radically different types, of Christianity flourished in different regions, and sometimes many types in the same region. A local bishop might be able to declare some theological opinion or other heretical, or some purportedly Christian books as spurious and others as sacred,* in his own region*, and maybe sometimes even enforce that on the local Christian community, but even 50 miles away, other theological views might prevail, and the books that our first bishop thought spurious might be held as sacred, and vice-versa.
This all changed when Constantine came to power, made Christianity, in effect, the state religion, and encouraged, or even forced, the Christian leadership to get organized. The Council of Nicea was convened, more or less at Constantine’s insistence, so that the Christian leadership could come to a consensus about what Christian doctrine should be (including which books were sacred, and which spurious). After much heated argument, and probably under threat from Constantine insisting that they must come to some sort of consensus, they finally did so. Now, there was an “official” Christian set of doctrines, and the beginnings of an agreement (though not finalized until 367, if then) as to what Christian books were sacred canon, and which were spurious heresy. Once all this as largely agreed, the power of the Roman state could be, and was, used to enforce that orthodoxy (not necessarily by coercion: just the fact that there now was an established orthodoxy, and the ability to promulgate the word about it freely and openly around the Empire, probably made a lot of difference, although I dare say there was some coercion too).
More to the point for us, however, this newly agreed orthodoxy got projected back through history, so that those earlier followers of Jesus who had focused mostly on the books, or some of the books, that were soon to become the canonical New Testament, and whose theological views were not too far from (and, perhaps, had influenced) the consensus reached at Nicea (people like Origen), were retrospectively designated as true, or pretty good, Christians, whereas those who had focused on different books about Jesus, and/or had developed significantly different theological views, were retrospectively stigmatized as having been heretics or false Christians of various sorts (and in varying degrees) all along. This retrospective historical sorting, that began with Nicea, still affects how the history of early Christianity is often perceived today, especially (because virtually all modern versions of Christianity are still effectively Nicean) amongst Christians themselves. In actual historical fact, however, before Nicea (and even for a bit after) there were many people who, at the time, thought of themselves (and may have been thought of by many others) as good, devout Christians, even as mainstream Christians, who were treating some books that did not make it into the New Testament as sacred, and perhaps treating some of those that did make it as spurious.
The Wikipedia passage that you quote is, undoubtedly, still in thrall to this post-Nicean historiography. However, most academic historians today, including, it would seem, those teaching the OP’s friend, have largely moved beyond it.
[Fun non-fact: Before the Council of Nicea was convened, in a place chosen for its pleasant climate, the city was not known as Nicea. One newly arrived bishop said to another, “It’s nice ‘ere, isn’t it?” “Yes,” said the other. :D]
I’ll take this: You don’t know the meaning of the word transliterate.
Yes, I’d say there’s a lot of differences. Even modern texts don’t agree with each other. Take 1 Corinthians 6:9 for example:
So here we have 1 Corinthinians which was assumably written in the first century. It is using the word “homosexual” in many of the passages, a term which wasn’t coined for another 17 or 18 centuries later. The term that it’s subplanting is either *arsenokoites *or malakoi. Greek words that we don’t have an exact translation for actually.
Dr. Ann Nyland, Faculty in ancient Greek language and Ancient History in the Department of Classics and Ancient History says:
"The word arsenokoites in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 has been assumed to mean “homosexual.” However the word does not mean “homosexual,” and its range of meaning includes one who anally penetrates another (female or male), a rapist, a murderer or an extortionist.
And Malakia was a particular type of cowardice, associated with effeminacy in men, that was widely condemned in ancient Greek society. To the ancient Greek, bravery was such an essential character trait of manliness that its absence was associated with femininity. Malakia could also refer to races, cultures, and societies as a whole.
So with that information, which translation into English from Greek was accurate?
There are always splinter groups.
You know Constantine was an Arian, right? What Nicea declared to be Orthodox wasn’t what he wanted to be Orthodox, but rather what was already the consensus position.
A big part of the problem with rejection of homosexuality was probably that it was originally just a rejection of a pagan ritual where two men had sex as part of a fertility rite that originally involved a male-female couple, but late came to involve a male-male couple, with one man dressed as a female when female virginity at marriage became highly valued. Several tribes around the Israelites probably practiced this, and the Israelites were told not to do it, as it displeased their deity, which was what the word translated “abomination” meant. It’s just HaShem saying “We are not amused.”
Now, here’s the, no pun intended, rub. The reason this practice is rejected is that it requires one man to act as the woman, and that isn’t allowed. It violates another commandment on wearing the clothes of their opposite gender. The Torah is silent on relationships between men where neither is taking on a feminine role.
The Torah specifically permits threesomes among two women and one man, as long as the women are not sisters, but there is an explicit instruction to men with multiple wives that if they want to take two wives at the same time, the wives must not be sisters (a man can’t marry a mother and daughter, or that would be prohibited as well, one imagines). There are no directions to the women along the lines “If the man falls asleep, you must stop,” or that on a night you are not chosen, you can’t make out with one of the other wives." The males authors probably never envisioned this. But suffice to say the prohibition against “homosexuality” is against a very specific act, doesn’t apply to all gay, male sex, and is irrelevant to women.
IIRC, the Epistle prohibitions are based on the Septuagint reading of the passages in the Torah that prevent this ritual practice that is very specific. I don’t read Greek, but I am guessing that either the Septuagint alters the language enough to alter the meaning, or Paul colors the passage with his own weird beliefs about sex.
Now, don’t misunderstand me: ancient Judah was just as homophobic as any place, but not because of the bible. They were racist as well, but not because of the bible. People tend to read their prejudices into the scriptures, rather than finding them in the plain meaning, and adopting them against their better judgment. The use of the Tanakh to justify anti-Semitism is proof enough of that.
I take it you haven’t watched Ponyo.
Yeah, if anything, those ended up in the bible because they existed in the society(es) that created it. But as you say, some people have an enormous ability to read causality backwards and to twist anything to fit their prejudices.
There is no evidence that the Pauline prohibitions are based on the Septuagint, and, far from being weird, Paul’s beliefs about homosexuality were mainstream Jewish thinking on the subject. (N.B. I can’t tell if you know - the Septuagint contains only the Old Testament.)
The Pauline prohibitions extend to lesbian sex as well, not merely to male homosexuality.
This applies especially to people trying to talk their way out of the clear prohibitions of homosexuality in the Bible.
Paul was a Pharisee, and his education in the Hebrew scriptures was based on a tradition that well predates the Septuagint. He would have read mostly the Masoretic texts, which were in Hebrew.
There is no evidence that this distinction existed between ritual and ordinary homosexuality. It is a form of special pleading.
Regards,
Shodan
Cite?
The texts were already very old by the time Paul was using them, and removed from the society that created them. There probably was not a distinction between ritual and ordinary homosexuality in Paul’s time, but the texts were thousands of years removed even in Paul’s time, from the people who were dealing with pagan neighbors and their fertility rites.
Heck, they were also quite a ways removed from the text that gave them the whole idea of the virgin conception, a plain reading of which is simply “See the girl over there? She’s still unmarried now, but in the time it takes her to become betrothed, have a wedding, get pregnant, and have the baby, X will happen.” It’s a literary way of saying “about 18 months,” and a much less crude way of saying “She may be a virgin now, but not for long.”
Seriously: if I said “My friend Dina is a virgin, but she’ll have a baby before the year is up,” what would you conclude? virgin birth, or that Dina is engaged, the wedding is soon, and she’s champing at the bit to hit the sheets with her husband, once he is her husband.
All the cites are intra-textual (ie, in the bible), so it’s question begging at it’s finest.
Oddly enough I was able to give multiple cites, so no, that doesn’t apply here nor to Shodan’s (personal) interpretation.
That’s not exactly true. There were definitely some hierarchy that developed in the early 2nd Century. While Nicea established the position of Metropolitan Bishop, the position of bishop was already in existence (in fact the Arian controversy was an argument between bishops who were in charge of different areas). In addition, the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch had authority over other bishops. While it may not be modern papacy like stuff, it is a bit more than simply an underground, every area for themselves type of thing (may have been the case in the Apostolic Era, but that was soon over).
In addition Nicea wasn’t the first council held by Bishops. You had:
Nicea was, of course, far more organized.
And for what its worth, Nicea dealt mostly with the Arian Controversy, not Gnosticism (technically Arianism isn’t Gnostic belief - Arians actually accused the followers of Athanasias of Gnostic ideas regarding homoousia). The Nicean Creed was in direct result to Arianism.
Though, interestingly, Constantine was like an Arian as blindboyard points out and his next two successors most definitely were Arian.
Which books were in canon was NEVER discussed at Nicea. I’m not sure why people keep saying this, when it is obviously not true.