re: The bible doesn't forbid homosexuality - the left

quote:

---

I automatically sneer at anyone who uses “Koine Greek.” It’s Attic Greek.

---

I'd suggest that you go back and compare Attic Greek and Koine. It's much like the difference between middle English and modern English. The classics were written in Attic Greek and were penned long before the New Testament was written. During the first century, Greek was the common tongue of the region much as English is spoken and understood worldwide today. And, just as people who speak and understand English throughout the world today don't use thee, thou, thy, and thine when speaking or writing (nor all the associated conjugations) many classic Attic words, phrases, and conjugations were dropped in the Koine and other terms used.

There is a noticeable difference between the two, and the books of the New Testament were written in Koine Greek.

As to the earlier question of translating from Aramaic to Koine, recall the day of Pentecost when the apostles spoke to those gathered regarding Christ. (Acts chapter 2.) Each person heard in their own language. Whether the miracle consisted of the apostles speaking in various languages they had not studied, or whether the miraculous occurrence affected the ears of the audience could possibly be debated. The thing that we can take from this is that, if the Holy Spirit could act in such a manner as to ensure that the gospel of Christ was spoken/understood properly among a group of at least three thousand, then there is no reason to believe that anything should be "lost in translation" from Aramaic to Greek. To suggest such a thing would make suspect all the works of Jules Verne, Victor Hugo, Miguel de Cervantes, or any number of authors whose writings are translated into multiple languages.

To say that something regarding Christianity was lost in translation from the original language to various other languages is the weakest of excuses for those who seek a route to justify their non-belief as "intellectual." It's an excuse used by people who don't have the courage to stand up and say, "I don't believe that story of a Messiah because I simply don't believe it." It's an excuse used by double-minded cowards.

quote:

---

The thing that we can take from this is that, if the Holy Spirit could act in such a manner as to ensure that the gospel of Christ was spoken/understood properly among a group of at least three thousand, then there is no reason to believe that anything should be "lost in translation" from Aramaic to Greek.

---

by golly this is great.
essentially:
our process is magic.
magical pregnancy.
and apparently, as noted in the clipped quote, magical communication.
and magical translation.
once you go to the "magic happens here" defense you are unassailable within your circle willing to go with teen pregnancy by magic then the rest is feasible.
the coup d grace is how the murder of the central figure of a cult "purchases" a get out of karma card for anyone who is willing to think so.
magical.

quote:

---

I'd suggest that you go back and compare Attic Greek and Koine. It's much like the difference between middle English and modern English. The classics were written in Attic Greek and were penned long before the New Testament was written. During the first century, Greek was the common tongue of the region much as English is spoken and understood worldwide today. And, just as people who speak and understand English throughout the world today don't use thee, thou, thy, and thine when speaking or writing (nor all the associated conjugations) many classic Attic words, phrases, and conjugations were dropped in the Koine and other terms used. There is a noticeable difference between the two, and the books of the New Testament were written in Koine Greek.

---

If I had explained this in the same words, he would’ve simply said something insulting. We’ll see how he responds to you. It will be interesting.

quote:

---

To say that something regarding Christianity was lost in translation from the original language to various other languages is the weakest of excuses

---

So, you do not find it intriguing that the same Hebrew words were translated entirely differently in English, versus a host of other modern languages (German, Swedish and Norwegian, for example)? You completely reject the premise explored by Professor Oxford?

quote:

---

who seek a route to justify their non-belief as "intellectual." It's an excuse used by people who don't have the courage to stand up and say, "I don't believe that story of a Messiah because I simply don't believe it." It's an excuse used by double-minded cowards.

---

I agree with Thomas Jefferson that Yeshua Bar Yusuf was not remotely supernatural or divine, but was among the greatest moral philosophers of all time. For that reason among others, I want to actually understand his words. It seems to me that an accurate translation is rather important in that process.


EDIT
Impressive. First down vote recorded in less time than would’ve been required to read the first paragraph. Very little doubt as to who did so.

Only two reply posts from my favorite little gadfly, rather than a half-dozen. I must be slipping.

quote:

---

Impressive. First down vote recorded in less time than would’ve been required to read the first paragraph. Very little doubt as to who did so.

---

Ashamed to say i was the SECOND downvote, Aggie-X.

There are tons of people who downvote your pompous lies and bullshite, not just me.

BTW, do you have ANY sort of real life?

You seem to live on these forums.

quote:

---

CelticDog

---

Your take on it is correct from a non-believer's point of view point of view. However, Christianity is consistent throughout its teachings. It is "faith based." What is faith? See Hebrews Chapter 11 - verses 1-3 follow:

"1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

See also John 20:29 -
"“Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

Christians today have certainly not seen Christ in person, thus we must live by faith, and in this belief we are blessed.

You bring up the following point, which I admit caused me some confusion until I did begin to understand it when my faith finally matured a bit:

quote:

---

the coup d grace is how the murder of the central figure of a cult "purchases" a get out of karma card for anyone who is willing to think so.
magical.

---

The entirety of the 66 books that constitute what we call The Bible is the story of creation, mankind's fall from grace due to sin, and God's plan to redeem man unto Himself.

After the fall of man, sacrifices were required by God to atone for these sins. The sacrifice had to be a blood offering of the firstborn of the flock, spotless, and without blemish. It had to be the best of the best to be acceptable. Anything less just wouldn't cut it.

In the days prior to the Flood, man had become so corrupt that God was sorry He had ever created mankind. Out of all the world population, only Noah and his family were found to be pleasing to God, and because of Noah's obedience to God (which included building an ark) were these eight souls saved from destruction.

Another day of Judgment, or destruction, os appointed to this world as well. It won't be by water this time though. Furthermore, the nature of man is so sinful that there is no way to redeem him as a whole, so God sent His only Son, the firstborn, without spot or blemish, so that through that perfect sacrifice man might be redeemed. (Doesn't make a lot of sense on the surface, does it?)

Think of it along these lines...

God created a creature in His own image. It has the power of reason, logic, abstract thought, the ability to think mathematically and to plan. With all these gifts/abilities, man becomes arrogant and turns his back on God and goes off to follow his own desires which include behaviors that we call "sins." Mankind gets so caught up in sin that it becomes the center of his existence as he seeks his own pleasures which become more and more perverted with each successive generation.

God sees the depravity of His creation and is absolutely disgusted with it. So mush so that He determines it's not worth keeping. Better to just trash the whole thing. Like in the days of Noah, there might be a very few who might be worth saving, but is it worth it?

God sends His Son to live in this world as a human to face the same temptations, to have the same physical needs, to have the same fears, to desire the same secular successes. In order for the Son to provide the route for the redemption of man, He would have to live a sinless life in order to show that it could be done, and that mankind had the ability to be pleasing to God. Such obedience by the Son would have to go up to, and include death in order to show that it was true and unsurpassed submission to God that would not fail in the face of adversity.

We are told by Christ as recorded in John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

By this we know that only through this perfect sacrifice can we enter into God's presence. If we believe Him to be the Son of the Living God and submit to Him then we have that hope of eternal life. There is nothing that we can do in our own right to make ourselves acceptable or worthy of being in the presence of a HOLY God.

On the third day after the crucifixion, Christ arose from the grave, triumphant over death. By this we know that God is not limited and that death is not the end of all things for those who seek Him and who enter into His presence through the door that is The Christ.

Now, to you that may be folly, but to believers it is a promise and it provides hope.

Let's consider for a moment that you may be correct in your assertion that Christianity is a bunch of hooey. We live, we die, and there is nothing more to it. You live your life doing as you will without worry of heaven or hell and you fully enjoy your life to the fullest extent possible. Believers live their lives in a manner such that they hope to be pleasing to a god that expects them to behave in a certain way. They, too, live a fulfilling life and have been satisfied with it. In the end, they die as well. In your view, there is nothing more. The way in which someone lives his or her life really doesn't matter in the end.

This is fine. Both have lived well and as they saw fit. Each had a good life and they were content. Now both are in the ground and providing nourishment for plants, worms, and little else.

But -- suppose that the believers are correct and that there IS a life after this one, and that those who believe and follow Christ will enter into the presence of the Almighty, the Creator, while those who did not believe, and those who scoffed find themselves cast into outer darkness in a condition of complete hopelessness with no chance for a "re-do" to try to get it right. Being eternally in the "right now" moment that will never change, and being cast out into darkness and nothingness save for eternal "right now" torment. Even if that torment is not one of literal burning of fire, but simply a burning of the spirit in the knowledge that had you just been a little more open to listening to what you were being told, then you might not have wound up in this hopeless condition.

When I consider the above options, I tend to respond with the answer found in Joshua 24:14-15

"14 Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord.

"15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

I'm not here to force you to believe one way or the other. That's your decision entirely and it's not my place to force you, or anyone else, to believe any of what has been presented. It IS my duty, however, to present it to you so that you have the opportunity to consider it.

quote:

---

Have you ever taken the time to read Jefferson’s “Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth?” It is a good read.

quote:

---

I have not.

---

---

You should.

It is simply a collection of verses from the four gospels, which Jefferson has attempted to put into chronological order and from which he has attempted to remove the supernatural.

If you read it, I think you will see that an outstanding moral code need not be based on the supernatural.

quote:

---

but was among the greatest moral philosophers of all time.

---

Why would that matter to a moral relativist? How do you even define “great” as someone who doesn’t believe in objective morality?

By whether it is consistent with and advances the best interests of the society in which it is implemented.

A moral absolutist will disagree with this concept, but the fact that the morals of a given society are subjective does not mean that they are either random or “evil.” and it certainly does not mean that they will be APLLIED subjectively, only that they did not originate with some Higher Power.

Like biologicsl systens, moral systems evolve. Perhaps most obviously, they evolve to their environment.

As just one example, a society in which men die young and women do not would evolve a morality which does not prohibit polygamy. It would be the only way for that society to maintain its population. For instance, a society in which the men hunt large, dangerous prey on foot.

By contrast, a modern society with low death rates might well evolve a morality which favors monogamy.

Those contrasting moralities would be perfectly reasonable in each of the societies in which they evolve and are implemented.