BANNED from the Bible - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-12-2006, 10:17 PM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Why not publish the Gospel of Deep?

are you ready to be saved?


it is easier than you think
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-12-2006, 10:36 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Why not publish the Gospel of Deep?

Can't we all re-invent Scripture? We can make ourselves equal to God!!!
Forgetting for a moment the lost, mislaid, or discarded books,
we are all playing god with our scripture interpretations, aren't we then? Secularists, etc, and Christians alike. Even if we were to accept the premise of the Bible being the word of God, ALL the interpretations are done by man.
__________________

__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 01-12-2006, 10:42 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint


Forgetting for a moment the lost, mislaid, or discarded books,
we are all playing god with our scripture interpretations, aren't we then? Secularists, etc, and Christians alike. Even if we were to accept the premise of the Bible being the word of God, ALL the interpretations are done by man.
I'd say the applications are done by man. And the best way to test the application is to compare to as much Scripture as possible.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-13-2006, 02:13 AM   #49
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,692
Local Time: 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I'd say the applications are done by man. And the best way to test the application is to compare to as much Scripture as possible.
But have you read and seen all the "erased" scripture?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-13-2006, 04:34 AM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But have you read and seen all the "erased" scripture?
Yes what about the Gospel of Thomas? That´s a good one, I tell ya.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-13-2006, 05:41 AM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 10:17 PM
Crusader,

Knowing the nature of man, do you think that a book of this magnitude would get put together without machinations of men. Errant men chose what books would be included, errant man interprets it (my word), the applications (your word) are made by errant man, the translations from original Hebrew/Greek were made by errant translators.

For example, Mark allows no reason for divorce. Matthew allows it on the basis of adultery (or in some translations, for unlawful marriage, which I suppose would include fraud). Either one or the other misquoted or it was mistranslated. So either here we have inconsistency (which is it?) or we are relying on errant translation being that most of us are not able to read the texts in original language, even assuming the original documents were available to us.

Referring to another thread, God did a lot of smiting in the Old Testament, none in the new. You could make a case, as you have, that capital punishment is allowed. I could make a case that it is not allowed. You provide your scriptural rationale. I provide my scriptural rationale. I could be right or wrong, so could you. If someone says, "the way I interpret it", I can't fault them. The statement is coming with a disclaimer. If someone says definitively, this is God's intent on this issue, that is playing God, isn't it?
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 01-13-2006, 08:23 AM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
Matthew allows it on the basis of adultery (or in some translations, for unlawful marriage, which I suppose would include fraud). Either one or the other misquoted or it was mistranslated.
Mistranslation? That would be Matthew. It's a mistranslation of the Greek word, "porneia," which refers to Jewish "blood mixing" purity codes--basically incest. An incestuous marriage, according to the spirit of Matthew, would be "unlawful." Since the first draft of Matthew was written by Jewish Christians (kind of like "Jews for Jesus" today), the intended audience would have cared about full adherence to Mosaic Law. I doubt Jesus would have said that.

Since Jewish Christianity was wiped out in the second century A.D., such an archaic concept is ripe for mistranslation and modern bias.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-13-2006, 10:49 AM   #53
Refugee
 
Eliv8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A Place Called San Diego
Posts: 1,842
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Saw parts of it last night - very cool - TiVo'd for the weekend
__________________
Eliv8 is offline  
Old 01-13-2006, 11:43 AM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Jesus refused to stone an adulterous woman to death, as prescribed by the Old Testament, and was an innocent man Himself subjected to capital punishment.

So not only does Jesus thumb His nose at capital punishment, not only does He reject Biblical authority in this instance, He also manages to be a living example of why capital punishment is flawed.

I certainly found my answers in Scripture.

Melon
Manipulating scripture to fit your own beliefs.
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 01-13-2006, 11:45 AM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
Crusader,

Knowing the nature of man, do you think that a book of this magnitude would get put together without machinations of men. Errant men chose what books would be included, errant man interprets it (my word), the applications (your word) are made by errant man, the translations from original Hebrew/Greek were made by errant translators.

For example, Mark allows no reason for divorce. Matthew allows it on the basis of adultery (or in some translations, for unlawful marriage, which I suppose would include fraud). Either one or the other misquoted or it was mistranslated. So either here we have inconsistency (which is it?) or we are relying on errant translation being that most of us are not able to read the texts in original language, even assuming the original documents were available to us.

Referring to another thread, God did a lot of smiting in the Old Testament, none in the new. You could make a case, as you have, that capital punishment is allowed. I could make a case that it is not allowed. You provide your scriptural rationale. I provide my scriptural rationale. I could be right or wrong, so could you. If someone says, "the way I interpret it", I can't fault them. The statement is coming with a disclaimer. If someone says definitively, this is God's intent on this issue, that is playing God, isn't it?
Your example regarding Mark/Matthew has one fatal flaw. You have read Mark to say "no divorce, and no exceptions". Now obviously, when you add that additional thought, you will find a conflict with Matthew.

The Gospels are written as mosaics. Four different recordings of one act. Pieces of one are not found in the others. There is a certain beauty to this and I'm sure God had a purpose in writing it this way instead of giving us one clear rule book.

As for capital punishment, you have simply created a different application. Both Old and New Testament tell us not to murder. And the OT also gives express command for capital punishment. Also, I would note that the book of Romans tells us that the OT law is not tossed away.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-13-2006, 11:48 AM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Mistranslation? That would be Matthew. It's a mistranslation of the Greek word, "porneia," which refers to Jewish "blood mixing" purity codes--basically incest. An incestuous marriage, according to the spirit of Matthew, would be "unlawful." Since the first draft of Matthew was written by Jewish Christians (kind of like "Jews for Jesus" today), the intended audience would have cared about full adherence to Mosaic Law. I doubt Jesus would have said that.

Since Jewish Christianity was wiped out in the second century A.D., such an archaic concept is ripe for mistranslation and modern bias.

Melon
That is a horrendously narrow translation of pornia - and one that is inconsistent with the body of Scripture. Pornia is widely translated as "sex outside of marriage" - a translation that does fit the body of Scripture.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-13-2006, 04:11 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


As for capital punishment, you have simply created a different application. Both Old and New Testament tell us not to murder. And the OT also gives express command for capital punishment. Also, I would note that the book of Romans tells us that the OT law is not tossed away.
In Romans 13 Paul seems to make quite a case for the enforcement of laws against wrongdoers, specifically mentioning the sword. He goes into this right after Romans 12, which is a chapter on love.

It seems that the early Christians didn't have a problem separating social justice (i.e., how we as private citizens treat one another -- love, forgiveness) from corporate law (the necessary enforcement of laws for a just society).
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 01-13-2006, 04:29 PM   #58
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,692
Local Time: 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


In Romans 13 Paul seems to make quite a case for the enforcement of laws against wrongdoers, specifically mentioning the sword. He goes into this right after Romans 12, which is a chapter on love.

The biggest problem with that is
Quote:
The authorities that exist have been established by God.
has to stand true for all governments. And if that's true, that would mean such goverments such as that of Saddams were established by God.

It's faulty logic. Paul had a tendency to inject his own beliefs quite a bit...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-13-2006, 04:38 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
The biggest problem with that is has to stand true for all governments. And if that's true, that would mean such goverments such as that of Saddams were established by God.

It's faulty logic. Paul had a tendency to inject his own beliefs quite a bit...
Why is this faulty logic?

Look at the example of Pharaoh during the time of Moses.

Definitely a “bad” leader. But one used by God. God specifically said the Hebrews would suffer 400 some years in captivity. At the end of the day, everyone knew who was the One True God.

I’d suggest that people like Saddam, or even GWB, play a part in God’s larger picture for this world.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-13-2006, 04:57 PM   #60
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Why is this faulty logic?




I’d suggest that people like Saddam, or even GWB, play a part in God’s larger picture for this world.
people are free to think what they like




this world view is very dangerous if it is held by one in a position of power
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com