'Bad Religion'

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

What about all the other gospels that are left out? It would seem like the account of all the apostles would be important so we could get a solid understanding, but noooo, the gnostics and other sects of Christians were killed off for not believing correctly.

Do you think Christ would want us giving our money to an ostentatious organization like the Catholic Church? The same one that went out of it’s way to relocate and hide priests from prosecution after they molested and raped little children?

[/quote]

Exactly. Did you know that the Gospel According to Peter included an eye-witness account of the Resurrection? Did you know that Peter’s account was left out solely because he said that during Jesus’ torture, He ever appeared to be in pain? Because that fact somehow diminishes Jesus’ suffering for our sins?

There are verses from the apostles that contradict the words of God and Jesus, even outright defiance to the instructions given by Jesus Christ. Paul even says, in I Corinthians 19, that circumcision and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. And again, in 34-36, that it is OK to marry your daughter if she is past marriageable age and you just can’t help yourself.

So Paul trivializes obedience to God, yet the church follows his lead? [/quote]

I don’t think you read my (rather long) posts at the bottom of page 1, bro. You should - they point out exactly what the problems are with the nonsense you are spewing. But here we go again…

Here you have a big problem. You seem to think that the gospel of Peter is a credible document, and that it was only rejected because of a single anomaly (saying Jesus never appeared to be in pain). That is false. There were several other factors that contributed, even though the docetic influence of the text was clear. First of all, I don’t think you know anything about Docetism. Docetists had a problem with the TRADITIONAL church teaching that Jesus CHrist was fully God and fully human simultaneously; they thought the addition of a truly human nature would somehow show dishonor to God. Therefore, they argued that Jesus was NOT truly human, that his body was a mere apparition. Thus, they argued, Jesus did not truly experience any suffering, because God (in their view) was too special to suffer. Here’s the point - if Jesus didn’t experience pain, then yes, that fact DOES diminish his suffering. THERE IS NO SUFFERING WITHOUT PAIN.

Secondly, you are obviously reading from an English version of the gospel of Peter. The word translated “as” or “as if” doesn’t indicate a mere semblance of reality - i.e., Jesus only SEEMED to not be in pain - but rather an expansion of the main clause, and thus should be translated, “he did not cry out, having no pain.”

Thirdly, putting aside the obvious question of the dating of the gospel of Peter (which is so late that it COULDN’T HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY PETER), you actually think that it provides an accurate eyewitness account of Jesus’ death and resurrection? You know, it flat out contradicts the four gospels in several places? And that the supposed eyewitnesses to the event of Christ’s resurrection are the centurions and the Jewish elders? Where would Peter have gotten that information from, dude? And even if he did, why would the church hide it?! THAT IS THE EXACT HOLE IN THE JESUS STORY THAT EVERYONE WANTED FILLED! IF THE DOCUMENT WAS LEGITIMATE, the church would have jumped for joy to finally have an account from people who SAW JESUS’ GET RESURRECTED. The fact is that church authorities knew that the document was a forgery from the docetists; that’s why they rejected it. It had no more historical value or credibility than the gnostic forgeries.

Now as for your blatant misreading of 1 Corinthians, I want to make two points:

  1. 1 Corinthians only has 16 chapters in it, not 19.
  2. 7:34-36 is NOT talking about a man’s daughter. In the Greek, it refers to one’s virginal fiancee, NOT a man’s daughter. YOu need to get an accurate translation, or else learn to read Greek. Seriously. THe point is that, if a man has been betrothed a long time, and feels bad for waiting so long, he should marry the girl, since he has probably deprived her of other options in the interim. THAT is the point.

I’ve done both my undergraduate and graduate work in biblical studies, working in the original biblical languages (Hebrew and Greek). If you want to preach this crap, you are going to have to do a lot better than quoting outdated, inaccurate translations.

42

I quoted Isaiah, not Matt. If I had quoted Matt 16, I would have said so.

And I admit that I was throwing the ‘Peter is the rock’ thing back because of someone else’s post. That was wrong and misleading, and I apologize.

43

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I quoted Isaiah, not Matt. If I had quoted Matt 16, I would have said so.

And I admit that I was throwing the ‘Peter is the rock’ thing back because of someone else’s post. That was wrong and misleading, and I apologize. [/quote]Matt. 16 IS where the “Peter is the rock” thing is found. This is decent of you to admit though. I mean that. Do you believe that the apostles wrote the books bearing their names?

44

“nah see you got it all wrong cause the word you read is the wrong translation from other translations by men hundreds of years ago that argued about their translations and injected their own bias which then was translated into different languages that have nuanced meanings in their translations…therefore you’re wrong”

This thread highlights the shortcomings of thinking you are a scholar in a subject. There is always another translation by another “expert” opinion that contradicts yours.

45

[quote]storey420 wrote:
“nah see you got it all wrong cause the word you read is the wrong translation from other translations by men hundreds of years ago that argued about their translations and injected their own bias which then was translated into different languages that have nuanced meanings in their translations…therefore you’re wrong”

This thread highlights the shortcomings of thinking you are a scholar in a subject. There is always another translation by another “expert” opinion that contradicts yours.[/quote]

Good point - this is exactly why I always argue for providing evidence for your claims. But if you and others lack the skill set necessary to evaluate the arguments for yourselves, then yes, it does just sound like a bunch of contradictory opinions. However, if that’s the case, you really have no basis quoting scholars AT ALL, because you are incapable of handling the material. Thus, the choice of the non-scholar to accept one scholar’s argument (which the non-scholar doesn’t really understand) over another scholar’s argument (which the non-scholar also doesn’t really understand) is as arbitrary as the way most people pick their favorite baseball teams. The point is, if you cannot evaluate the argument, you cannot have a legitimate opinion.

46
  1. I beg your pardon. I Corinthians 7:19.
  2. The word can mean fiancee, daughter, or the ward of a guardian. I don’t know the customs of the time, but it doesn’t make any sense why a man would have his fiancee in his possession and not marry her.

I don’t understand why it diminishes anyone’s faith for Jesus to have appeared as though he wasn’t suffering. It would make me think more of Him, that He could take that pain and punishment without giving them the satisfaction of even wincing. I have only seen bits and pieces of the Gospel according to Peter, but I have read everything I have found and noticed no contradiction. I did not do a comparative study, though.

@Tiribulus. My mistake. Matthew and John are the only two Gospels, of the four that remain, that were written by actual apostles, to my knowledge. Mark and Luke, unless I am mistaken, weren’t even witnesses. I am not sure about all of the others that were left out.

47

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

Good point - this is exactly why I always argue for providing evidence for your claims. But if you and others lack the skill set necessary to evaluate the arguments for yourselves, then yes, it does just sound like a bunch of contradictory opinions. However, if that’s the case, you really have no basis quoting scholars AT ALL, because you are incapable of handling the material. Thus, the choice of the non-scholar to accept one scholar’s argument (which the non-scholar doesn’t really understand) over another scholar’s argument (which the non-scholar also doesn’t really understand) is as arbitrary as the way most people pick their favorite baseball teams. The point is, if you cannot evaluate the argument, you cannot have a legitimate opinion.[/quote]

Maybe but people do this with literally every subject they encounter. You see it on this site even with plenty of folks feeling that Thibs or Waterbury or whoever are experts or “scholars” if you will at this topic when in reality they might be operating off of entirely false premises. Everyone is a non-scholar on multiple subjects even if they are a scholar at one and guess what? They read and analyze opinions and form their own and are entitles to them. I agree if you cant evaluate an argument then how could you have an opinion but not sure where you draw the line to “have the skill set necessary.”
In previous posts you have dismissed someone as not quoting real bible scholars and they should look into your recommendations as the “real ones.”
Point being that with your background you have obviously spent a great deal of time reading other’s opinions and crafting a belief structure around what is correct but in the end it doesn’t necessarily make you or another scholar any more “right” about the subject. More well read on it? definitely More aware of various counter arguments, rabbit holes, and side theories? I’d say for sure. More correct about what is the true interpretations? Not so much or at least not any more than the next gut with his translations.

48

[quote]JayPierce wrote: @Tiribulus. My mistake. Matthew and John are the only two Gospels, of the four that remain, that were written by actual apostles, to my knowledge. Mark and Luke, unless I am mistaken, weren’t even witnesses. I am not sure about all of the others that were left out.[/quote]I wish you could believe that I am not out to pummel you in a debate or make you look bad here. I am asking you sincerely. Where are you getting this information? Honest man. I’m jist askin. These aren’t even standard liberal views if that’s where you were going. If by “remain” you mean autographical documents penned by the hand of the author himself? No such documents exist for ANY of the works of antiquity, including the canonical scriptural writings. You need to read KK’s explanation of the origins and compilation of the biblical texts. You CANNOT say. I like the gospels, but not the epistles because the same people and processes are responsible for both. (in a nutshell)

49

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

  1. I beg your pardon. I Corinthians 7:19.
  2. The word can mean fiancee, daughter, or the ward of a guardian. I don’t know the customs of the time, but it doesn’t make any sense why a man would have his fiancee in his possession and not marry her.

I don’t understand why it diminishes anyone’s faith for Jesus to have appeared as though he wasn’t suffering. It would make me think more of Him, that He could take that pain and punishment without giving them the satisfaction of even wincing. I have only seen bits and pieces of the Gospel according to Peter, but I have read everything I have found and noticed no contradiction. I did not do a comparative study, though.

@Tiribulus. My mistake. Matthew and John are the only two Gospels, of the four that remain, that were written by actual apostles, to my knowledge. Mark and Luke, unless I am mistaken, weren’t even witnesses. I am not sure about all of the others that were left out.[/quote]

First of all, just because a word has a range of possible uses, that doesn’t mean that the entire range fits a given context. In reality, context narrows the range of possible meanings. In this context, where marriage is clearly the focus, there is absolutely no way that parthenos is being used to denote virginal daughter rather than just virgin. Paul uses the same word (parthenos) earlier in chapter 7 (which is the immediate context that should determine how the word is interpreted) to clearly indicate virginal women in general, NOT daughters (7:25, 28). You have to read texts in context to understand them, dude. Paul’s is dealing with a complex issue - he has been asked by the Corinthians (7:25) how they should handle marriage. Paul believed that, if a woman is a virgin, it would be better for her to stay that way, and if a man has the option of marrying but chooses not to, the man made the better choice. That’s what Paul argues, for complex theological reasons.

Secondly, before you go accusing Paul of such immoral suggestions, you need to realize that he did things you and I are not even capable of, and if you and I are privileged enough to even stand in Paul’s presence one day, you probably don’t want to have besmirched his name that way. Compared to him, you and I are spiritual ants.

I understand your confusion, but it was actually very common in the ancient world. Marriages were often arranged many years in advance; husbands-to-be would often spend significant periods of time preparing their homes and developing their businesses before finally wedding their fiancees. Moreover, you have to read 1 Corinthians 7:34-36 in context - Paul is addressing the question of immediate relevance to his audience of whether or not those who are CURRENTLY BETROTHED AMONG THEM should marry. THAT is the focus of Paul’s statements. His point is not to lay down a specific law for all time, but rather to answer their immediate question - should we marry? Thus Paul is saying, “if you can control yourself, I’d encourage you not to. But if you really want to get married to your fiancee, go ahead.”

50

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Maybe but people do this with literally every subject they encounter. You see it on this site even with plenty of folks feeling that Thibs or Waterbury or whoever are experts or “scholars” if you will at this topic when in reality they might be operating off of entirely false premises. Everyone is a non-scholar on multiple subjects even if they are a scholar at one and guess what? They read and analyze opinions and form their own and are entitles to them. I agree if you cant evaluate an argument then how could you have an opinion but not sure where you draw the line to “have the skill set necessary.”
[/quote]

The necessary skill set/knowledge base is EASY to determine. If someone has never taken an anatomy course, hasn’t read an anatomy textbook, and learned the names of a couple muscle groups from some dudes in their gym, do they display the qualifications to tell you why you’re having pain from a particular movement? Sure, they are entitled to their opinions - “uh, your shoulder hurts because your calves are too small” - but once they start trying to tell others, “hey, guess what I know,” they are asking to be corrected.

In the case of biblical studies, if someone can’t read Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic, knows nothing about ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman cultures or history, and uses a universally -recognized-inaccurate version of the texts in question, then how do they possess the necessary tools to arbitrate between scholarly disputes? If one scholar argues that the article TOU in Greek indicates a masculine subject (meaning its referent is a person) and the other scholar says TOU is neuter (making its referent a thing), on what grounds is someone like JayPierce able to evaluate them? But if he cannot evaluate the argument, then he shouldn’t claim to be an authority for anyone else. His opinion is nothing more than that - an opinion. He’s totally entitled to it, but neither he nor anyone else should get mad if someone who DOES possess the above mentioned skill set thinks that opinion is worthless.

I am saying this right now, dude - there are NO legitimate biblical scholars (people trained in ancient languages, ancient history and archeology, etc.) - people who have the credentials I have mentioned - who believed the nonsense that guy was promoting. You’ve heard of pseudo-science, right? It’s the same thing - pseudo-scholarship. A dude with a poor English translation who read just enough to be dangerous without reading enough to understand.

[quote]
Point being that with your background you have obviously spent a great deal of time reading other’s opinions and crafting a belief structure around what is correct but in the end it doesn’t necessarily make you or another scholar any more “right” about the subject. More well read on it? definitely More aware of various counter arguments, rabbit holes, and side theories? I’d say for sure. More correct about what is the true interpretations? Not so much or at least not any more than the next gut with his translations. [/quote]

Here’s where you are wrong. We are dealing with ancient languages. do you know Greek or Hebrew? I don’t know. Does JayPierce? NO. If I know what the Greek says, and JayPierce only knows what his misunderstanding of an English translation says, then yes, it’s pretty obvious that I would be more correct about that subject. I don’t think you know very much about how scholarship works - it’s not just reading other people’s opinions. That may be what passes for scholarship among most people without graduate education in particular fields, but Bret Contrares would never get away with that kind of thing. Neither would a real biblical scholar, someone who knows the ancient languages.

51

To be fair, I am not trying to sound pompous here. I don’t want anyone to take my word for something just because I say it. I try to provide evidence to support my claims. That’s what real scholarship entails. I want to convince with evidence, not credentials.

52

“Parthenos” is not an usual way to say “daughter” in Greek. The greek word for daughter is “Thygater”. (both words are obviously etymologically related)
There is more than a few occurences of this word in the New Testament :
http://concordances.org/greek/thugate_r_2364.htm

53

[quote]kamui wrote:
“Parthenos” is not an usual way to say “daughter” in Greek. The greek word for daughter is “Thygater”. (both words are obviously etymologically related)
There is more than a few occurences of this word in the New Testament :
http://concordances.org/greek/thugate_r_2364.htm
[/quote]

Dead on Kamui. Thygater IS the more common word for daughter. Nevertheless, the key question remains how the context constrains the meaning in this instance. Parthenos in this case almost assuredly refers to virgins in general, not to a father’s virginal daughter.

54

The thing is, this is true of language universally including our own. The middle English of the 15th century is quite a bit different from the English we speak today. Shoot, the English of the colonies is quite a bit different than what we speak. I was telling TigerTime about this in the “Ask Moshe” thread recently. The vernacular. The common usage at the time in the culture and context in which the word or phrase under discussion occurs determines meaning there. What’s funny is that most will think “ok, big deal. This is common sense”. Yeah, except where the bible is concerned. Suddenly this goes out the window and websites go up claiming all kinds of absurdities, a very large percentage of which are simply the result of not practicing this principle.

55

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The thing is, this is true of language universally including our own. The middle English of the 15th century is quite a bit different from the English we speak today. Shoot, the English of the colonies is quite a bit different than what we speak. I was telling TigerTime about this in the “Ask Moshe” thread recently. The vernacular. The common usage at the time in the culture and context in which the word or phrase under discussion occurs determines meaning there. What’s funny is that most will think “ok, big deal. This is common sense”. Yeah, except where the bible is concerned. Suddenly this goes out the window and websites go up claiming all kinds of absurdities, a very large percentage of which are simply the result of not practicing this principle. [/quote]

Nicely put. That’s dead on.

56

KingKai25 wrote: “You are extrapolating WAAAAAYYY too much out of that passage”

Nope, The Book Of Enoch beat me to it WAYYYYYY before that.

“The Nephilim are NOT Sphinxes or mermaids or any half-human, half-whatever mythical figure you can imagine; they are still counted among human beings.”

'Was exagerrating a tad of course with the Mermaid/Sphinx deal, I disagree about them not being
FULLY Human however, otherwise why would God have ordered Joshua to go to Canaan and kill everyone there,
even the INFANTS?
I believe those were the Rephaim in that place if I recall, unredeemable half-humans.

And yes, I’m fully aware of the Shift in belief MUCH later that in Gen. 6, that the ONLY other
alternative theory (and a big one at that) as to who the “Sons Of God” were, were people from the Godly
Line Of Seth…I did look and study that one, but NO cigar.
#1 How does the Marriage/Breeding of unbelievers from the line of Cain and Seth (believers) produce only “Men Of Reknown” and not a single Woman?
#2 One has to go WAAYYY outside of Scripture/Logic to even try to EXPLAIN that the “Sons Of God”
were people from the Godly line of Seth…being how that’s the main alternative explanation.
I mean, Why even WRITE about this Marriage of HUMAN Believers/Unbelievers in the first place?,
those Cain/Seth Marriages don’t seem like a big deal horrendous enough to end the world with the Flood IMHO.
And how does a Marriage of a line Believers/Unbelievers Produce Giants in the first place?
And if Mankind ONLY was so evil back then, why doesn’t he wipe US out TODAY? Surely “Man” was just as
evil in the genocidal, War filled 20th Century as in Noah’s Day…yes?
And who is to say Noah’s Era was NOT a technologically advanced society as well?, “All Flesh” was
corrupted must mean Animals as well.
Think about this, when the “Secular” world sez God was a MEAN God in the O.T. the “Rossetta Stone”
for understanding these 0.T. Judgments is that God was generally PROTECTING Humanity from the Nephilim/Rephaim
and their kind.
You ARE aware History is repeating itself here with SAME Flesh corruption, Spider Goats now that produce
Milk/Spider Silk, etc. you see the SAME pattern RIGHT in front of you, yes?..“As it was in the days Of Noah…”

57

[quote]Severiano wrote:
What about all the other gospels that are left out? It would seem like the account of all the apostles would be important so we could get a solid understanding, but noooo, the gnostics and other sects of Christians were killed off for not believing correctly.

Do you think Christ would want us giving our money to an ostentatious organization like the Catholic Church? The same one that went out of it’s way to relocate and hide priests from prosecution after they molested and raped little children?

[/quote]

The same Catholic Church that ran like a pack of scared hyenas from the Garden of Gethsemane?

Lol. What does your false non-sequitor have to do with tithing?

P.S. Want to show proof that the Catholic Church, as a whole, systematically, “went out of it’s way to relocate and hide priests from prosecution after they molested and raped little children?”, and nothing to reconcile that situation or protect the children?

58

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Ok, so then why did the church itself brand Peter a heretic? Why is that the only mention of those words out of the accounts of that moment, if those words are so important?

You keep following the Apostles. I’ll keep following Jesus. [/quote]

When did the Church brand Peter a heretic? He’d have to declare himself a heretic, being the Prince of the Church…quite strange.

59

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
He slipped into some judaizing legalism[/quote]

He’s talking about the Gospel of Peter.

60

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
John 8:12 “I am the light of the world. Anyone who follows Me will never walk in the darkness but will have the light of life.” No mention of the Church.[/quote]

The Church is the body of Christ, ergo Christ himself.