Very well slortar, I will add crappy crapheads. Now, back to the Bible everyone! 
phew I was pretty worried there. I needed that.
Okay, you can go back to your reasoned debate now. 
Pull up a chair, Copa; you’re in for the bimonthly “Poly on the Gospels” post (I seem to do this on one board or the other about once every two months; you’d think I’d have the common sense to save it!)
First, Q is a hypothesis based on the fact that Matthew and Luke share a collection of sayings of Jesus – parables, short pericopés and such that is not found in Mark, using them, sometimes in the same words and sometimes in others, with different contexts giving them differing significance, in different places during Jesus’s ministry. Aside from this clear evidence of a common “sayings source” there is only one bit of historical evidence for its ever having existed. (I’ll get to that.)
Second, tradition and early Christian writers have always attributed the second gospel to John Mark, erstwhile companion of Paul and Barnabas (whose cousin he was), son of a Mary who was one of the early Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). He later ended up in Rome and then Alexandria, where he founded the church and became its first bishop. It’s quite likely that Mark did in fact know Jesus during his pre-Crucifixion life, and in fact some have hypothecated that he makes a cameo appearance in his gospel in Mark 14:51-52.
Papias of Hieropolis, one of the first writers to give any background to the writers of Scripture, says that Mark’s gospel was based on Peter’s reminscences.
Papias also claims that Matthew collected the logia (sayings, utterances, oracles) of Christ “in the Hebrew language,” and that this was earlier than Mark’s gospel.
Now, one of the most obvious things about Matthew is that it includes about 90+% of Mark’s gospel, mostly verbatim, but amplifies it with a number of parables and five long discourses on particular themes that Jesus is supposed to have given. Like the other gospels, it appears to be a narrative of Jesus’s life incorporating His teachings at specific times and places. But Matthew and Luke place the teachings of Jesus in different places.
If there is any truth to what Papias said, then why would Mark, supposedly working from Peter’s reminiscences, have drastically abridged Matthew’s gospel, largely by clipping out the teachings of Jesus? On the other hand, why would Matthew, presumably an apostle who knew Jesus, use a secondhand account from a man who barely knew Him as a teen as a framework for his own collection of Jesus’s teachings, instead of telling the story himself, since he was there.
My conclusion is (1) that Matthew Levi compiled – mostly wrote – what we now call call Q – that this is in fact what Papias is talking about; (2) that somebody did a free translation of it into Greek, since the Greek of the “sayings source” appears to be original, without Aramaizations; (3) that somebody else then took the original Matthew collection of sayings, sorted them according to theme if Matthew had not already done so, and inserted them into Mark at times Jesus was known to have preached. In the process he shaves a few rough edges off Mark’s work, since it depicts Jesus as sometimes very fallibly human. For convenience, call this latter guy “Matthew of Antioch,” since it appears that the Matthew gospel we know originated in Antioch. In particular, the imperfect used to introduce some of the five “sermons” of Jesus, particularly the Sermon on the Mount (rather than the past definite one would expect), suggests that what follows is not a verbatim transcript of what Jesus said then, but that “he would teach (like this): ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit…’” In short, what we’re getting is a Readers Digest Best Collected Sermons of Jesus, not five specific sermons he preached at the times and places they’re attributed.
Meanwhile (4) Luke, Gentile Christian companion of Paul, with a good classical education and a career as a physician, friend of Mary the Mother of Christ, decides the time has come to sort fact from legend in the growing complex of stuff about Jesus. Using the best First Century historiography, he winnows wheat from chaff, and comes up with a convincing narrative of what actually happened and what Jesus said when (see Luke 1:1-4 for the reasons I say this). Like “Matthew of Antioch” but independently, he uses Mark as a frame story and Matthew Levi’s logia collection (probably in the Greek rendition noted in 2 above), but places the teachings where his researches indicate that they happened, rather than in the five topical collections Matthew of Antioch had done.
Matthew was named, not after the anonymous editor who compiled it (the guy I’ve coined “Matthew of Antioch” for) but for the Apostle who contributed the collection of teachings that is its hallmark.
There are no reasonable grounds for suspecting that Mark and Luke were not written by their putative authors.
Copaesthetic, we have now come to the crux (as it were) of the situation. I am not about to debate your version of authorship of the “gospels” as I feel that others are able to do a much better job of that (Polycarp for one). I will leave it at the authorship can not be determined accurately. We now have two distinct types of sources in the NT, those claiming to be accounts of Christ’s life and words, and those that are the opinions of one man (or perhaps a number of men).
I would still claim that the words of Christ take precidence over the opinions of man. I would also argue that in a debate over the Biblical basis of a belief that the veracity of the Bible must be assumed to be complete (otherwise we get nowhere - but I am willing to take that debate up in a nother thread).
Your own arguments have stated that it would be wrong to expect that different accounts of the same events would include the same details, so the differences in the versions of the sermon on the mount in the different books does not bother me so much. It actually strikes me as more odd that someone would argue that the one of the four gospels that differs greatly from the other three is more genuine. If the Bible is the word of God written down by man, I would expect a greater level of similarity in the accounts than differences. I can recall my mother (who is a Lutheran pastor) refering to John as the “Renegade” gospel (though not in a tone of contempt).
I think we also need to realize that Paul was writing his letters to the various churches to address the situations that they were facing, not to set down a complete orthodoxy for the creation of a religion.
One final point on the subject of the inclusion of the Mosaic Laws in the philosophy/faith of Jesus is that the historical figure of Jesus was not trying to create a new religion. He was trying to rid Judaism of the tainted elements that had crept in to their religion. For more information on this, I recommend Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography by Bruce Chilton - really a great read. I think this view, more than any argument over which gospel to believe would carry the day in this sort of argument.
It has been 24 hours since I first posted this and I’ve gotten no reply. I think its pretty obvious where I am going with it, but here is one more try.
I think we can all agree that love God and love your neighbor as yourself forms the basis of the New Testament ‘moral code’. It seems that we agree that things done in order to turn away from God are also sin (though we likely cannot identify this sin in others). I’d like to think that, say, murder and theft would be immediately viewed as violating “love your neighbor as yourself” and considered sin.
What is the view on drunkenness? Drunkenness can be accomplished without sinning against your neighbor or turning away from God, and yet it is resoundingly warned against in both the Old and New Testaments.
I’ll tackle your question, Tertius.
I would say that drunkeness is both self destructive and destructive to the family. In other words, it can’t be accomplished without damaging one’s relationships and damaging one’s own mind and body. In that sense, then, it does “turn one away from God.”
akennett, in essense I agree with you. The problem is that we have the words of Paul, which clearly speak of the New Covenant, which supercedes the mosaic laws. My point in the diatribe, and Polycarp and I can hash out details later( Cites, Poly? I’d like to read some of your sources.) is that all of the authors of the bible were men, and we cannot therefore accept the word of Matthew on the word of Christ over the word of Paul on the meaning of the words of Christ. If we take the bible as a whole, then Paul must come too, along with his theology, if we seperate, then we seperate.
I would agree that Jesus was not trying to start a new religion in that sense, but a continuance of Judaism is not necessarily His goal either. As the messiah, Jesus is given greater authority over the law than Moses and Abraham, and He places love above all else. Love of God, and love of your neighbor.
As for Tertius, I agree with Diogenes, and Christ spoke often of drinking, and was an ‘imbiber’ Himself. The fig tree incident aside , I don’t believe He was ever drunk(And why would He be?) It is a destructive behavior, and may lead to sin, in the same sense that sharing the company of those who sin is spoken against as well. I’ll have to check on the Greek to see what He’s actually saying, and perhaps Polycarp can give a faster idea.
First, I’d like to thank Copaesthetic for starting this thread. While my fundamental views have not changed, through it I have become more humble and more conscious of the times when I incorrectly judge others.
A quick word on drunkenness…I think we all know the difference in drunkenness and having a drink. That being said, I disagreed with Diogenes when he basically said that damaging relationships and damaging one’s own mind and body were necessary consequences of drunkenness. Obviously, the potential is always there, but I think it is possible to be drunk and not sin against your neighbor or turn away from God (aside from the fact that you’d be disobeying the Bible when it says “do not get drunk with wine”). I do, however, believe that drunkenness is a sin because it is listed among the marks of unrighteousness.
My view on practicing homosexuality stems from a similar reading of the Bible. As has been brought up in Romans 1, Paul refers to “degrading passions”, “indecent acts” and “error.” Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11, homosexuality is listed as a mark of unrighteousness. I believe it requires substantial mental gymnastics to say the New Testament gives no evidence that it was considered a sin. If you would like to say that society has changed and it is no longer a sin, I respect your opinion (women are no longer veiled in church either) but disagree.
The real issue here though seems to be the judging of practicing homosexuals, and I can confidently say that on a pragmatic level, I do not. While in a large since no sin is worse than another, I basically think of practicing homosexuality as being equivalent to ordinary sexual promiscuity, and frankly, my life would be quite empty if I treated any differently those I knew who had at one time or another been promiscuous. I am not sure what I would do if I became close friends with a Christian who was also a practicing homosexual. I am fairly certain that I would avoid the subject altogether.
I completely agree with the purpose of this thread. God knows I have enough sins to deal with myself without having to turn my eye outward looking for others’ sins. I think for anyone to elevate homosexuality to some sort of pinnacle sin status is seriously mistaken and marginalizes their overall effectiveness as a Christian. I hope that you will agree that my view is not without Biblical merit, and though we may disagree, our external actions should be the same, displaying the love of Christ.
Cool, Tertius. The only way this thread hasn’t come to fruition the way I would have liked is that no Gay Christians(That we know of) actually posted to this.
I do agree that your view has biblical merit, and as I’ve always said, it might well be a sin that’ll keep you outside the gate. But, I’ve considered that more as something that a Gay Christian needs to evaluate for themselves, just as I look at my own sins and search. The truth of Christ binds us all, and it always will.
That goes for you too Diogenes. One day. . . naaaa.
Um. There’s a slight problem with what Tertius constructs as an analogy. Let’s start with the “drunkenness” side of it. I enjoy a glass of wine when my wife and I are socializing, particularly with friends from church. I’m acutely aware of a history of alcoholism and related diseases on both sides of my family – my father had a condition mimicking epilepsy that was induced by his drinking when I was small, and even one drink would thrust him into a seizure when I was grown. So I am very careful to drink rarely and very moderately when I do drink at all. This is the theological virtue of temperance, a term hijacked by the abstinence campaigners of the 19th century.
I do not consider my moderate and temperate use of wine a sin in any way. But I am well aware of the potential for sinful or illegal behavior it could induce, and therefore use wine rarely and in extreme moderation (oxymoron alert! :)).
There is no question in my mind that sexual license for the gratification of lust (in the theological sense, as opposed to the satisfaction fo sexual desire) is sinful, whether it be heterosexual, homosexual, bestial, or self-induced. There’s a distinction here that needs to be made on the need to relieve sexual tension and the seeking out of new pleasures for the sake of pleasure, but if no one objects, I’ll leave it at simply pointing it out.
Now, none of these is applicable to a situation where two persons join in a committed relationship founded on a romantic feeling of love between them and a desire to spend the rest of their lives as partners in a marriage. According to Scripture, that’s the basic purpose of sexuality in humans – the bodily celebration and reinforcement of the love that creates that union.
Leviticus is not applicable, unless you hold to some theory about the Law that contradicts the explicit words of Jesus and Paul.
Paul’s teachings directly condemn sex for sex’s sake – for exclusively personal gratification. Without focusing on sex in particular, John and Jude take the same sense – we are to be transformed into persons using our bodies for the advancement of spiritual ends, rejoicing in the good things that God has provided for us to enjoy physically (good food, a healthy sex life with your spouse, etc.) but devoted to Him rather than to them.
And IMHO the difference between what Paul condemns under the head of “homosexuality” and what our gay posters claim to desire as their inherent sexuality is the same difference between fornication and marriage.
And just as feeling sexual desire for a person you’re dating but have not yet made up your mind to marry is not necessarily sinful, so too is what happens to gay men seeking out Mr. Right (and Lesbians seeking out Ms. Right).
That all is a proposition expressing my views on the subject, propounded for debate. To disprove it, you need to demonstrate why Paul had all occurrences of gay sex in mind as condemnable. And, BTW, why in a love focused on grace there needs to be any law other than the Two Great Commandments.
I believe he may be confusing Matthew with Paul. Paul is confusing because you have Saul/Paul, and Paul, and it’s hard to tell who’s who sometimes.
Perhaps you can view sin as this: things which are harmful to your earthly self, and that the act of committing sin may lead to things which will drive you away from God, not necessarily God away from you. Look at some of the things set out in Mosaic law:
Shellfish: many people are allergic, therefore, eating shellfish is harmful
Pork: a pretty dirty animal back when they were fed trash, also, many people (especially descendants of the Jewish tribes who followed these laws) are allergic to it.
Fornication (straight or gay): is a type of behavior often associated with irresponsibility and being out of control. Also, many diseases (std’s) are associated with it, therefore it can be harmful to your body, and also lead you to a life of abandon and indulgence, which can be harmful to your earthly self in too many ways to list, but include social harm, physical harm, and being led to completely abandon all responsibility for pleasure, (which can be unhealthy), and at some point to reject God for being the source of moral rule.
Basically, it comes off as a rule book for how not to ruin your life. We are all sinners, and not worthy of God except through the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the only sacrifice big enough to be worthy of God’s grace, which we can partake in by believing.
Wow, I sound all religious and stuff!
I’m not sure whether it’s a shame or not that DrChuckie never showed.
For the record, I think that drunkeness falls into the area I like to call ‘Things I’d worry about if I wasn’t sinning so much already.’ In other words, I’ve been completely trashed, sat in front of the tube(I have no life. . .) and veged out. There are probably two sins in there, but I have enough trouble with trying to control my righteous ire(See OP) and arrogance(See OP) and other sins(That you don’t want to see ) that I’m not really as focused on that. I consider this to be a direction of the spirit, saying ‘Alright, have a beer, just don’t pit anybody, OK?’
I think it’s funny that you drink wine Poly. For some reason that’s what I’d pictured. I don’t suppose when you have friends for dinner you all sit on the same side of the table? [kidding]
Anyone else find this amusing?
Hell is populated by people who eat shrimp cocktails and sodomites.
I’m willing to give the eaters of shrimp cocktails a bye, but people who eat sodomites deserve to be sent to Hell! (Unless you’re using the term metaphorically, of course…)
Well now, Polycarp, I’m sure Jeffrey Dahmer is in hell…
:eek:
I’d eat a sodomite after thorougly washed. They are often high in protein.
(sorry I couldn’t resist)
People…people who eat people…
“…nearly everyone has slurped the creamy center.”
Eeeeewww…Poly, Twinkies are fucking NASTY.
Zingers are way better.
I believe Guin is right on this one Poly the additional frosting-like substance on top creates a much better effect than the raw sponge cake.