Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts of Christianity
* lack of precision in modern language
* translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.
Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.
While they are doing it, perhaps they could also consider incorporation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and dealing with the discrepancies between the various gospels.
However, one has to suspect that the "re-written without liberal bias" may become simply re-written with conservative bias.
Kilkrazy wrote:They need to go back to the original Aramaic.
The new testement was written in Greek.
Kilkrazy wrote:
While they are doing it, perhaps they could also consider incorporation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and dealing with the discrepancies between the various gospels.
This has allready been done in the New International Version.
GG
p.s. I can't get to that conservapedia website to verify whether or not this story is accurate or a bunch of bull.
They need to add in the one about the wolf pretending to be a young girls elderly relative in order to trick her into being eaten while they are about it
Though I think we should open up lots of the old archives *Looks at the Vatican* and compare and contrast bibles through the ages to see how they have been changed and used.
Kilkrazy wrote:They need to go back to the original Aramaic.
The new testement was written in Greek.
Kilkrazy wrote:
While they are doing it, perhaps they could also consider incorporation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and dealing with the discrepancies between the various gospels.
This has allready been done in the New International Version.
GG
p.s. I can't get to that conservapedia website to verify whether or not this story is accurate or a bunch of bull.
It was however 'lived' in Aramaiac.
It's the New International Version the conservatives reportedly don't like. They want to go back to the King James version.
I suspect it is a bullpoo story. It seems more like the kind of bull poo story that conservatives spread to smear liberal ideas (death panels, etc.)
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[1]
Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[2]
Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[3] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle"
Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[4] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities
Thus, a project has begun among members of Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found here.
hmm..
More seriously, the insane hubris of this really staggers the mind. These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it's wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don't worship God. They worship ideology
QFT.
....you'd think someone, one time, might even have railed against treatment of religious writings like this....
Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning:
* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts of Christianity
* lack of precision in modern language
* translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.
Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.
Most "modern language" bibles have been translated from the original language texts. KJV has also had its share of errors. Actually, many many translation errors. These guys are corner douche bags that speak for a very small minority.
Maybe they'll go all puritan-style and scream about how they're oppressed.
Then ship themselves off world to a new land in hopes of religious 'freedom'.
They'll inflict themselves on the natives, after those natives save them (the neo-puritans) from their own haplessness.
The later, more civilized, generations of the neo-purtians will poshly trace their linage back to the first planetary invaders.
The universe will wince as they release campy holiday specials depicting themselves as an innocent and peaceful people.
Finally the decadent fiends from the corrupt and bloated last generations will again vote liberal from their armchairs located on the harbor.
Which will set off the spawning cycle again.
Like a mushroom cap opening casting spores into the night's wind.
Well, you can apply all the logic and historical information we have, as well as taking actual real "near original" copies of the bible and deduce the logical translations of the words and stories they contain, and still people will argue and fight over how things should be translated, what was "really meant" by something, rather than accepting the plain translation/interpretation that is arrived at by logical study and interpretation of the written texts.
Although as I am sure you gathered and are responding to, I also refer in part to my belief that the most logical thing to do with the bible is to file it under the heading of "Fiction", but hey, there are plenty of people who would think I am wrong for saying so.
..and I have some sympathies for your thoughts there...
...but... time and a place. Ways and means. You dig ?
And, ultimately, I don't see it as illogical to hope for the existence of a (benevolent) God as such, even if I don't actually believe in the existence of said, or any, deity.
Much of the human experience is illogical and, perhaps, the better for it.
Frazzled wrote:And the Dakka tradition of slamming religion continues.
I find its nowhere near as challenging or rewarding to do here, where everyone agrees, than it is in real life, where you get a pat on the head accompanied by a "you're young, one day you'll see."
Lordhat wrote:Who cares? It's been re-written and added to and taken from so many times already, another revision won't amount to very much impact at all.
First of all when you say "It". Are you refering to a specific translation, or just the Bible as a whole? Your post implies that you can't trust the Bible because you believe that what we have now, is not the same thing they had in the early Church? (If I'm reading your post wrong, I apologize)
Technically you are right, in that English wasn't even around during the early Church. And that there are minor differences in the early texts, like Latin Vugate, textus receptus and others. (I confesss I'm not completely up to speed on Bible translations and the history thereof) However I would disagree strongly with the notion that the Bible we have now is not essentially the same one they had in the early Church.
King James was written in 1611, so that hasn't been changed or added to in 400 years, based on the textus receptus. I'm not sure about the catholic bible, but it's based on the Latin Vulgate(dates back to the 4th century), and I would be surprised if it has changed. We should have texts of Catholic Bibles from the middle ages to at least compare and see. I haven't heard of anything obviously changed. (Silvers Idea sounds like a good one).
As I alluded to in my post above, so much of religion appears to be based around interpretations, what does it matter what the bible actually said?
It seems that any of the modern bibles differs from pretty much every moden bible, as well as those that went before it in at least some small way.
Each edition is held as the "more accurate" text by whatever group or sect produced it and uses it. Some will print their own bibles because they object to god being referred to as "he", some will print a new edition because they think that word x was translated incorrectly from Y bible.
Whatever the reason may appear to be, so much of it is down to "I think this is right", rather than "We applied the best interpreters to the text and came up with as accurate translations of the original texts as possible".
Even if you did translate it "accurately", you still then need to (so I understand) interpret the translation through whatever "logic" appeals to you. If you have a view that you should only wear green on a Wednesday, you will go through the translated pages and interpret something to support your view. Or just argue with the translation, more likley.
One persons logic is another persons idea of a joke.
Whatever the reason may appear to be, so much of it is down to "I think this is right", rather than "We applied the best interpreters to the text and came up with as accurate translations of the original texts as possible".
****No, its not actually.
Even if you did translate it "accurately", you still then need to (so I understand) interpret the translation through whatever "logic" appeals to you. If you have a view that you should only wear green on a Wednesday, you will go through the translated pages and interpret something to support your view. Or just argue with the translation, more likley.
***No, you don't actually.
One persons logic is another persons idea of a joke.
***No its not actually.
Luckily for me I'm not going to get into an argument on this. If you're not of the religion, your ability to understand that religion is, at best, flawed. But you come to it with unclean hands so a discussion is not possible.
We seem to have hit it off on the wrong foot and you evidently don't feel particularly inclined to respond in any meaningful way to anything I have posted.
I am not attempting to argue. Though I guess it is hard to debate with someone filled with divine truth and light
And lack of belief does not translate to lack of comprehension and understanding.
The points I made above relate to many things in life, not just "religion". I have had english teachers (back in the days of carving my words into stone with a mammoth tooth) claim all sorts of interpretations of various literature and so on.
I went to an interview with a group of poets once and someone got the floor after about 10 minutes of spewing forth on what the poet was really saying, the poet just looked them in the eyes and said "well, no, actually it was not written to mean that at all and I don't quite understand how you came to those conclusions".
Unfortunately we don't have the original writers around to chat with on what they "really meant" when they recorded their various stories, sayings, laws, etc, so everything is open to interpretation, no matter how meticulously it is translated.
Even the translations can be suspect, with modern ideology and language colouring the work.
I am not going to respond to the details of your rather unimaginative responce to my own post individually, but hope that the above will perhaps illustrate you on the background thoughts behind the post.
I assume now then that the "unclean hands" comment was not infact a lighthearted jibe? I was attempting to reply in kind, but ah well.
You obviously have some problem with the way I view the world, even when I attempt to be civil and relatively polite (for example by taking your comment as a joke, rather than in any truely negative way).
I appologise for mistaking your tone, I will attempt not to do so again.
And how many angsty teens have told their parents they "just don't get it" over the years without realising that their parents went through the same things they did (although perahps with less technology involved) and so while not perhaps being able to entirely relate, do have a fairly good understanding of what is going on.
I at this point lack an entirely polite way to continue conversation (although what I mean to convey is not impolite, our track record of misunderstanding each other is not to be scoffed at), so I believe that I shall call it a day unless you particularly want to enter into debate without recourse to dialogue similar to that in above posts.
Each group that translated it thought they were doing so rationally and logically. It isn't as if some monks were sitting around learning Greek and thought, "hey, let's screw this up!". This is no different. Yes, it is hubris now as it was than to believe oneself to be infallible, or at least much more so than anyone else solely because of the time period they live in.
It is also more than likely we are talking about a very few people involved in this and not a vast number of so-called 'conservatives'.
Let's take the story of the adulteress. A woman had been accused of adultery and was due to be stoned to death. Parhsiees brought her to Jesus to test if he would uphold the law.
Jesus said, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."
Does this mean:
1. The death penalty is wrong.
2. If you genuinely don't have any sins, fire away with a clean conscience.
3. All men are sinners and should be merciful to each other.
4. Something else.
My point is that an accurate translation of the Bible is one thing. We can argue about whether it is possible and how accurately it might reflect the real lives of the prophets and Jesus, and so on, that's not relevant to this debate.
Interpretation of the meaning of the text is a different thing.
Clearly the aim of the conservative bible is to reinterpret the scriptures to support their world view. I would expect it to come out hard against homosexuality, for example.
Frazzled wrote:Unclean hands is a term of equity from several hundred years ago.
The application of logic suggested that it could have been used in such a way in your post, however, logical application of the use of language could also have lead to an interpretation of "unclean" to mean religiously impure, as well as several other meanings of varying relevance to the topic.
Indeed, in this case, I deduced that you may well be using it as a play on words related to my lack of faith and thus I replied in kind.
So you see, even by applying logic and understanding to relatively simple language, which is also a common language between us, can lead to all sorts of interpretations, without always giving us the "actual" meaning without recourse to actually asking the original writer.
So, imagine how difficult it is to get literal, "accurate" translations from languages and dialects which may well not longer be in use. Even dead languages like Latin (which is relatively fixed now) had hundreds of years through which it evolved and changed. The same word may well have different meanings and uses depending on the time it is used. Someone writing close to the period our modern understanding of the language is derived from could well understand the writer fairly well (given knowledge of social context etc), but take that same language and move it round a couple of hundred years, perhaps throw in a different culture or two and we have lots of problems.
And that is without the flowery language and abstract ideas.
Ahtman wrote:Each group that translated it thought they were doing so rationally and logically. It isn't as if some monks were sitting around learning Greek and thought, "hey, let's screw this up!". This is no different. Yes, it is hubris now as it was than to believe oneself to be infallible, or at least much more so than anyone else solely because of the time period they live in.
It is also more than likely we are talking about a very few people involved in this and not a vast number of so-called 'conservatives'.
Agreed totally....
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post: I certainly get the difficulty in accuratley interpreting the Bible. The thing is, you have to let the Bible interpret Bible. I.E. if you look at a part of the Bible and study it, you need to compare what you are studying in light of other parts of the Bible to get a clearer picture of what is meant as a whole.
For example, Jesus said in Mark 16:18
(KJV) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
(NIV)they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
(DRB-LatinVulgate)They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover.
If you take this out of context you could interpret this to mean that any Christian can now go and pick up rattlesnakes and they won't get bitten, or that they can go out and drink poison and they won't die. And in fact there are some denominations that teach this very thing and practice this during their services. It's a perfect example of taking the Bible out of context and adopting that out of context scripture, to some religious practice.
It obviously can't mean that in "every" instance a Christian will never get bitten by rattlesnakes or that they won't get envenomated. It certainly means in at least some instances this will happen.
Kilkrazy wrote:Let's take the story of the adulteress. A woman had been accused of adultery and was due to be stoned to death. Parhsiees brought her to Jesus to test if he would uphold the law.
Jesus said, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."
Does this mean:
1. The death penalty is wrong.
2. If you genuinely don't have any sins, fire away with a clean conscience.
3. All men are sinners and should be merciful to each other.
4. Something else.
My point is that an accurate translation of the Bible is one thing. We can argue about whether it is possible and how accurately it might reflect the real lives of the prophets and Jesus, and so on, that's not relevant to this debate.
Interpretation of the meaning of the text is a different thing.
Clearly the aim of the conservative bible is to reinterpret the scriptures to support their world view. I would expect it to come out hard against homosexuality, for example.
Thats the problem though.
The Bible is the Bible. Literally translate it. There are the words, philosophy, or stories.
If the Bible says
"And jesus popped a cap in his for parking in his reserved parking space," in Greek then you translate that into english as
"And jesus popped a cap in his for parking in his reserved parking space," not
"Jesus shared a soda pop with the fellow," or "Jesus smote the sinner in righteous anger."
How you interpret it is a matter of faith, but how it is translated is a matter of language.
Frazzled wrote:
The Bible is the Bible. Literally translate it. There are the words, philosophy, or stories.
If the Bible says
"And jesus popped a cap in his for parking in his reserved parking space," in Greek then you translate that into english as
"And jesus popped a cap in his for parking in his reserved parking space,"
That's one of my favorite stories. Holy rage. "Reserved For Jesus" means reserved for Jesus Motha !!
Lordhat wrote:Who cares? It's been re-written and added to and taken from so many times already, another revision won't amount to very much impact at all.
the thing Im mostly raging about is the reason.
Sure it has been rewritten MANY times, the only problem is that the recent translations in the last 100 years has not been for anykind of political goal, which this clearly is. Will be fun to see them go apeshit and erase Jesus from the Bible, that bloody communist socialist liberal pothead!
That's what you get for allowing a bunch of schizophrenics who take fairy tales too seriously to tell you how to run your lives. The old testament is a collection of stories of alien abductions and misunderstood natural phenomena. The new testament was cobbled together from even crazier takes by the council of Nicea in 323 AD, where they took an ancient messiah story that had been kicking around in various forms since 3,500 BC and tacked on some details of a person who may or may not have actually existed. Your invisible man in the sky is four feet tall, rail-thin, grey-skinned and has a big head with big almond-shaped black eyes, and he does not love you.
The Bible isn't "the Bible". That's why these conservatives are having this argument now.
It is a collection of material covering a thousand years, with the New Testament events written down a couple of hundred years after they happened, in a different language to the one spoken by the participants, which has since been translated into Latin, then mediaeval Latin, then Shakespearean English, and refined from there over several different New English Bible editions.
Furthermore, a lot of what Jesus said is open to a variety of interpretations. That's why the stories are called parables. Jesus never said anything as simple and straight forward as "Pop a cop in his bum."
warpcrafter wrote:That's what you get for allowing a bunch of schizophrenics who take fairy tales too seriously to tell you how to run your lives. The old testament is a collection of stories of alien abductions and misunderstood natural phenomena. The new testament was cobbled together from even crazier takes by the council of Nicea in 323 AD, where they took an ancient messiah story that had been kicking around in various forms since 3,500 BC and tacked on some details of a person who may or may not have actually existed. Your invisible man in the sky is four feet tall, rail-thin, grey-skinned and has a big head with big almond-shaped black eyes, and he does not love you.
I'm neither Christian, Jewish, or Muslim and the sheer ignorance displayed here is insulting to even me. I could pick apart the gross inaccuracies, but I don't see the point. I do find it amusing that any religious experience is dismissed out of hand while aliens are absolute knowledge. Thinking it is a troll post, but not so sure.
Kilkrazy wrote:The Bible isn't "the Bible". That's why these conservatives are having this argument now.
It is a collection of material covering a thousand years, with the New Testament events written down a couple of hundred years after they happened, in a different language to the one spoken by the participants, which has since been translated into Latin, then mediaeval Latin, then Shakespearean English, and refined from there over several different New English Bible editions.
Furthermore, a lot of what Jesus said is open to a variety of interpretations. That's why the stories are called parables. Jesus never said anything as simple and straight forward as "Pop a cop in his bum."
Well, the original was in Greek. I'm saying translate that to English like any other document.
warpcrafter wrote:That's what you get for allowing a bunch of schizophrenics who take fairy tales too seriously to tell you how to run your lives. The old testament is a collection of stories of alien abductions and misunderstood natural phenomena. The new testament was cobbled together from even crazier takes by the council of Nicea in 323 AD, where they took an ancient messiah story that had been kicking around in various forms since 3,500 BC and tacked on some details of a person who may or may not have actually existed. Your invisible man in the sky is four feet tall, rail-thin, grey-skinned and has a big head with big almond-shaped black eyes, and he does not love you.
Hush now child, the adults are talking. The little table is in the other room. Here's some crayons and your coloring book, we'll call you once we're done.
So when can we expect the full biblical version of the gun rights loving, supply side Jesus?
Meanwhile, this thread hurts. Reducing 2,000 years of thought and endeavour about a relationship with the son of God to stories about alien abductions and misunderstood natural phenomena... thereby ignoring the morals and philosophy of the text, otherwise known as the point of the thing. Claiming that biblical translation is simple because words are words and there's no scope for interpretation... try using a babelfish site to translate part of the bible into Japanese then back into English and then consider how simple the process is.
There's a wackjob out there who's so certain of his perfect, conservative understanding of everything that he's got the hubris to re-write the Bible. We should be coming together to mock that nutter, and picking out what level of Dante's hell he's on his way to*, but instead we're on our way to yet another religious flamewar. And both sides are to blame, as they always are.
*I'd figure blasphemy, putting this guy in the seventh circle and giving him an eternity of lying on flaming sand, as fire rains from the sky.
SilverMK2 wrote:
The application of logic suggested that it could have been used in such a way in your post, however, logical application of the use of language could also have lead to an interpretation of "unclean" to mean religiously impure,
In this context the notion of religious impurity and a lack of bias carry the same meaning. If you don't believe in a Christian God you are both religiously impure, and afflicted with an unbiased stance which removes you from a situation in a way which prevents you from meaningfully arguing over the text.
SilverMK2 wrote:
as well as several other meanings of varying relevance to the topic.
Which you were able to eliminate based on either human, cultural, or ideological grounds. When we're discussing vagaries in the translation of the Bible we're really only discussing vagaries in ideology. Human grounds are certainly standard, and cultural grounds can largely be controlled for.
sebster wrote:So when can we expect the full biblical version of the gun rights loving, supply side Jesus?
What would Jesus shoot?
He'd shoot a Springfield M1 by God. By Americans, for Americans, blessed by the Higher Powers, all to improve your under MOA accuracy!
What would Jesus drive?
Well, like all good red blooded Americans, Jesus would drive a Honda. Duh.
What would Jesus eat?
Tex-Mex of course. Made by God, for God.
Why do Texans and the Irish talk with God so much?
In order to converse with their equals, they are forced to talk to God.
Ugh, the ESV is just fine. It doesn't include the word gamble because it's a modern concept. People are stupid. It's Zondervan's fault the NIV is so everywhere. Literally, they try to shove that translation down your throat if you ever try to work somewhere that sells religious books with their "educational course." They even bribe you with free crap to swallow their pills. Idiots.
I use the New Oxford Annotated Bible, which was what my uncle how was in the seminary for a while recommended. It's pretty ecumenical and has tons of notes and explanations.
I boot up the US Catholic Bishops bible online from time to time as well. Not only do Catholics get their own bible, but the American ones get the super secret one.
warpcrafter wrote:That's what you get for allowing a bunch of schizophrenics who take fairy tales too seriously to tell you how to run your lives. The old testament is a collection of stories of alien abductions and misunderstood natural phenomena. The new testament was cobbled together from even crazier takes by the council of Nicea in 323 AD, where they took an ancient messiah story that had been kicking around in various forms since 3,500 BC and tacked on some details of a person who may or may not have actually existed. Your invisible man in the sky is four feet tall, rail-thin, grey-skinned and has a big head with big almond-shaped black eyes, and he does not love you.
I'm neither Christian, Jewish, or Muslim and the sheer ignorance displayed here is insulting to even me. I could pick apart the gross inaccuracies, but I don't see the point. I do find it amusing that any religious experience is dismissed out of hand while aliens are absolute knowledge. Thinking it is a troll post, but not so sure.
youngblood wrote:
warpcrafter wrote:That's what you get for allowing a bunch of schizophrenics who take fairy tales too seriously to tell you how to run your lives. The old testament is a collection of stories of alien abductions and misunderstood natural phenomena. The new testament was cobbled together from even crazier takes by the council of Nicea in 323 AD, where they took an ancient messiah story that had been kicking around in various forms since 3,500 BC and tacked on some details of a person who may or may not have actually existed. Your invisible man in the sky is four feet tall, rail-thin, grey-skinned and has a big head with big almond-shaped black eyes, and he does not love you.
Hush now child, the adults are talking. The little table is in the other room. Here's some crayons and your coloring book, we'll call you once we're done.
Go ahead, admit it. You hate what you fear, and you fear what you are unable to comprehend. I will continue to bask in my serenity.
The hatred I've seen is from you, and I don't know how you define serenity but interrupting conversations with insults is probably not the part of any accepted definition.
If you're going to troll, just troll. I have no intellectual or spiritual beef with Atheism, but thinking it puts you on a higher moral plane makes you just as bad as the most intolerant zealot.
Some people are leaping in to help with this mighty deed
Revised Daniel 6 wrote: It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom,
2 with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The liberal satraps, who were all unionized, were made accountable to them so that cheats and frauds might not profit off the government and the backs of hard-working people.
3 Daniel understood so well that the welfare state would bring all to ruin that his guidance was invaluable, and the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom.
4 At this, the liberals, who were jealous of Daniel’s skill, tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he paid all taxes due of him by law, although of course he did not pay more than was necessary and made sure to use all exceptions due him so that the government would not unduly profit.
5 Finally these men said, “We will never find any basis for charges against Daniel, unless we use the power of the state to crush his Christian faith.”
6 So the administrators and the satraps went as a group to the king and said: “O King Darius, you’re awesome!”
7 “We all want to pray to you, and to carved idols of you. So we think you should make it a law that nobody should pray to anybody but you or a carved idol of you. And if they do, throw them in the lion’s den.”
8 “And put it in writing. That makes it all legal.”
9 So King Darius put the decree in writing, and made it all legal.
10 But when Daniel heard of this law, he quietly said to himself “this is an enroachment of the State upon my civil liberties, which cannot be borne.” So he prayed to God anyway.
11 Then the liberals went as a group and found Daniel praying.
12 So they went to the king and said “hey, remember how you passed that law saying that anybody praying to anybody other than you would get thrown to the lions?” And the king said “yeah.”
13 Then the liberals said to the king, “Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or to the decree you put in writing. He still prays three times a day. To God. Not to you.”
14 When the king heard this, he was greatly distressed, because Daniel was the most effective counsellor he had, and Daniel’s policies had greatly stimulated his economy. He asked, “well, maybe he’s praying to me AND to God? That would work out all right, yes?”
15 And the liberals replied, “You put it in writing, remember?”
16 So the king gave the order, and they brought Daniel and threw him into the lions’ den. The king said to Daniel, “I don’t know how you’re going to get out of this one.” And Daniel said “God and the free market will rescue me.”
17 Daniel was sealed into the den with the lions, with the aid of teamsters, who had contacts with the liberal elite and would always benefit so long as they were in power.
18 Then the king returned to his palace and spent the night without eating and without any entertainment being brought to him. And he could not sleep.
19 At the first light of dawn, the king got up and drove to the lions’ den, putting his foot down against the gas pedal to go as fast as possible.
20 When he came near the den, he called to Daniel, “Daniel, has your God – or the free market – been able to rescue you from the lions?”
21 Daniel answered, “I’m fine, O king!”
22 “God sent forth an angel, and the angel gave the lions the power of economic responsibility. I convinced the lions that eating me would represent a progressive tax, since they would be redistributing my body amongst themselves, and I am much richer than they. I also pointed out that being thrown into this pit was a form of repressive regulation, and in the spirit of laissez-faire economics, thus did they refuse to eat me.”
23 The king was overjoyed and gave orders to lift Daniel out of the den. And when Daniel was lifted from the den, no wound was found on him, because he had trusted in his God and in the free market.
24 At the king’s command, the liberal union members who had falsely accused Daniel were brought in and thrown into the lions’ den, along with their wives and children and friends and Whoopi Goldberg and all the other liberals.
25 And before they reached the floor of the den, the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones, for the lions realized that these individuals were parasites, draining the market of vital resources.
26 Then the king said, “I shall make it law that all men shall worship God!” And Daniel agreed and embraced the king, for the nation had in fact always been a Christian one from its very inception
reds8n wrote: Some people are leaping in to help with this mighty deed
Revised Daniel 6 wrote: It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom,
2 with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The liberal satraps, who were all unionized, were made accountable to them so that cheats and frauds might not profit off the government and the backs of hard-working people.
3 Daniel understood so well that the welfare state would bring all to ruin that his guidance was invaluable, and the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom.
4 At this, the liberals, who were jealous of Daniel’s skill, tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he paid all taxes due of him by law, although of course he did not pay more than was necessary and made sure to use all exceptions due him so that the government would not unduly profit.
5 Finally these men said, “We will never find any basis for charges against Daniel, unless we use the power of the state to crush his Christian faith.”
6 So the administrators and the satraps went as a group to the king and said: “O King Darius, you’re awesome!”
7 “We all want to pray to you, and to carved idols of you. So we think you should make it a law that nobody should pray to anybody but you or a carved idol of you. And if they do, throw them in the lion’s den.”
8 “And put it in writing. That makes it all legal.”
9 So King Darius put the decree in writing, and made it all legal.
10 But when Daniel heard of this law, he quietly said to himself “this is an enroachment of the State upon my civil liberties, which cannot be borne.” So he prayed to God anyway.
11 Then the liberals went as a group and found Daniel praying.
12 So they went to the king and said “hey, remember how you passed that law saying that anybody praying to anybody other than you would get thrown to the lions?” And the king said “yeah.”
13 Then the liberals said to the king, “Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or to the decree you put in writing. He still prays three times a day. To God. Not to you.”
14 When the king heard this, he was greatly distressed, because Daniel was the most effective counsellor he had, and Daniel’s policies had greatly stimulated his economy. He asked, “well, maybe he’s praying to me AND to God? That would work out all right, yes?”
15 And the liberals replied, “You put it in writing, remember?”
16 So the king gave the order, and they brought Daniel and threw him into the lions’ den. The king said to Daniel, “I don’t know how you’re going to get out of this one.” And Daniel said “God and the free market will rescue me.”
17 Daniel was sealed into the den with the lions, with the aid of teamsters, who had contacts with the liberal elite and would always benefit so long as they were in power.
18 Then the king returned to his palace and spent the night without eating and without any entertainment being brought to him. And he could not sleep.
19 At the first light of dawn, the king got up and drove to the lions’ den, putting his foot down against the gas pedal to go as fast as possible.
20 When he came near the den, he called to Daniel, “Daniel, has your God – or the free market – been able to rescue you from the lions?”
21 Daniel answered, “I’m fine, O king!”
22 “God sent forth an angel, and the angel gave the lions the power of economic responsibility. I convinced the lions that eating me would represent a progressive tax, since they would be redistributing my body amongst themselves, and I am much richer than they. I also pointed out that being thrown into this pit was a form of repressive regulation, and in the spirit of laissez-faire economics, thus did they refuse to eat me.”
23 The king was overjoyed and gave orders to lift Daniel out of the den. And when Daniel was lifted from the den, no wound was found on him, because he had trusted in his God and in the free market.
24 At the king’s command, the liberal union members who had falsely accused Daniel were brought in and thrown into the lions’ den, along with their wives and children and friends and Whoopi Goldberg and all the other liberals.
25 And before they reached the floor of the den, the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones, for the lions realized that these individuals were parasites, draining the market of vital resources.
26 Then the king said, “I shall make it law that all men shall worship God!” And Daniel agreed and embraced the king, for the nation had in fact always been a Christian one from its very inception
Shamelessly swiped from MGK !
Haha.... brilliant.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One of my personal favorites comes from the Jive Bible...
1:1
In de beginnin' God created da damn heaven and da damn eard.
1:2
And da damn eard wuz widout fo'm, and void; and darkness wuz downon de face uh de deep. Jes hang loose, brud. And da damn Spirit uh God moved downon de face uh de boozes.
1:3
And God said, Let dere be light, dig dis: and dere wuz light. Man!
1:4
And God saw de light, dat it wuz baaaad: and God divided da damn light fum de darkness.
1:5
And God called da damn light Day, and da damn darkness he called Night. Man! And de evenin' and da damn mo'nin' wuz de fust day. Slap mah fro!
1:6
It is a bit hard for translators, readers, etc to understand the point of view so long since past. Bashing religion because you do not believe is very immature and narrow minded. Just because they can't hand you a scientific formula for their beliefs doesn't make them wrong either. Now religion has been abused by those in power for a long time but t the core of religion is to be a good person and make the best of the world. That really doesn't sound all that bad in a world of hypocrites and a lack of morality. Now as far as a grab bag of politicians dipping their fingers into religion, well I can't say I agree there. They can't even interpret todays laws let alone a piece written many years before the laws.
Belphegor wrote:Maybe they'll go all puritan-style and scream about how they're oppressed.
Then ship themselves off world to a new land in hopes of religious 'freedom'.
They'll inflict themselves on the natives, after those natives save them (the neo-puritans) from their own haplessness.
The later, more civilized, generations of the neo-purtians will poshly trace their linage back to the first planetary invaders.
The universe will wince as they release campy holiday specials depicting themselves as an innocent and peaceful people.
Finally the decadent fiends from the corrupt and bloated last generations will again vote liberal from their armchairs located on the harbor.
Which will set off the spawning cycle again.
Like a mushroom cap opening casting spores into the night's wind.
Your historical background is severely lacking....the Non-conformists who fled to the New World were nothing like the Jamestown settlers. They actually traded and lived peacefully with the Indian tribes around Plymouth, especially the Wampanoag, and even fought along side them against an invading tribe. It wasn't until 75 years after they arrived that the Indians attacked the New England settlers over land disputes.
warpcrafter wrote:That's what you get for allowing a bunch of schizophrenics who take fairy tales too seriously to tell you how to run your lives. The old testament is a collection of stories of alien abductions and misunderstood natural phenomena. The new testament was cobbled together from even crazier takes by the council of Nicea in 323 AD, where they took an ancient messiah story that had been kicking around in various forms since 3,500 BC and tacked on some details of a person who may or may not have actually existed. Your invisible man in the sky is four feet tall, rail-thin, grey-skinned and has a big head with big almond-shaped black eyes, and he does not love you.
Ah yes, someone has been either listening to late night talk radio or using the Dan Brown coloring book as his history text book.
sebster wrote:So when can we expect the full biblical version of the gun rights loving, supply side Jesus?
Please no....
sebster wrote:Meanwhile, this thread hurts. Reducing 2,000 years of thought and endeavour about a relationship with the son of God to stories about alien abductions and misunderstood natural phenomena... thereby ignoring the morals and philosophy of the text, otherwise known as the point of the thing. Claiming that biblical translation is simple because words are words and there's no scope for interpretation... try using a babelfish site to translate part of the bible into Japanese then back into English and then consider how simple the process is.
I appreciate this post quite a bit Sebster. Thanks for pointing out how horrible things said like that are.
sebster wrote:There's a wackjob out there who's so certain of his perfect, conservative understanding of everything that he's got the hubris to re-write the Bible. We should be coming together to mock that nutter, and picking out what level of Dante's hell he's on his way to*, but instead we're on our way to yet another religious flamewar.
He might give Brutus a shove out of Satan's mouth....
Go ahead, admit it. You hate what you fear, and you fear what you are unable to comprehend. I will continue to bask in my serenity.
Hmm... I guess he doesn't like to color. will someone go put some cartoons on for him?
Ok back to the adults. I think the problem is that there has not been a version of the bible that has been completely objective. At the beginning of common era there were still a lot of non judeo-christian sects which were once preached to by members of the early church established by Jesus. Once the apostles were killed, many sects allowed their old beliefs to mix with the teachings they received (like the gnostics who existed [IIRC] before the early christian church). Fast forward a couple hundred years to the various councils from the early catholic churches where the tenets and doctrines of the church were decided and it was decided which books to include in what we now know as the bible. It is my understanding that it was from the translation of greek and hebrew documents into latin, influenced by ideas from these sects, is where discrepancies appeared.
It's not just a matter of writing what was written in greek in english because a) those original documents aren't around afaik and b) you run into situations where one word has several meanings or there is no exact translation word to word. so the translator is forced to make an educated guess. and who could blame them for using their knowledge to make the jump from meaning to meaning?
So in short, I'm not a fan of rewriting the bible but it's not pure as is.
I'm of the opinion that the KJV is the closest we have to what the original writers wrote.
It's not just a matter of writing what was written in greek in english because a) those original documents aren't around afaik and b) you run into situations where one word has several meanings or there is no exact translation word to word. so the translator is forced to make an educated guess. and who could blame them for using their knowledge to make the jump from meaning to meaning?
So in short, I'm not a fan of rewriting the bible but it's not pure as is.
I'm of the opinion that the KJV is the closest we have to what the original writers wrote.
That I can understand. I would posit footnotes denoting the other potential meanings (I've seen that in several different types of work actually).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:Hahahahahaahahahahahahah!
Come on your can do better. If you're gonig to laugh with derision laugh like proper Irish.
Here, I'll help. What Da Boss meant to say was:
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
See thats much better and a laugh of derision I can respect.
sebster wrote:So when can we expect the full biblical version of the gun rights loving, supply side Jesus?
What would Jesus shoot?
He'd shoot a Springfield M1 by God. By Americans, for Americans, blessed by the Higher Powers, all to improve your under MOA accuracy!
What would Jesus drive?
Well, like all good red blooded Americans, Jesus would drive a Honda. Duh.
What would Jesus eat?
Tex-Mex of course. Made by God, for God.
Why do Texans and the Irish talk with God so much?
In order to converse with their equals, they are forced to talk to God.
That's beautiful and accurate Fraz. Suddenly I'm swelling with patriotic pride.
I wasn't laughing with derision, I was laughing with genuine amusement that you expected me to take your line as anything other than the usual Frazzled bait'n'switch.
You big cuddly texan troll you.
Don't ever change.
What are those right-wing turbo-christians going to do with Mark 10:25 I wonder: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
olympia wrote:What are those right-wing turbo-christians going to do with Mark 10:25 I wonder: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
They will probably bring forth the arguement that the "eye of a needle" is a reference to the slang term for city gates in the ancient world. The gates and porticullis were informally called "Needle's eyes." Meaning the camels had to crouch to get through the gate.
The American Standard Bible (which is different than the one above)?
The New International Version?
The New World Translation Bible (Jehovah's Witness version)?
The New Revised Standard Version?
Luther's German Bible?
The Jerusalem Bible?
Pick one.
You missed "the bible... according to Biff"
And Warpcrafter, welcome to GG's ignore list : ) I've kept our spot here warm and Godless for you (the way we like it!)
But seriously now... is there debate that the bible is being rewritten to form a book that more conforms to their ideals then changing their ideals to fit a book?... I guess the Right wings really don't like Socialist buddy Christ : (
There are lots of versions of the bible... and each one is different. In fact... some of the older ones missing the story of Jesus feeding the crowd with 2 fish and a loaf of bread... Turns out 600 years ago it was added to make him more appealing to the starving masses of European poor... :(
Much the same reason the immaculate conception is so close to Xmas... they moved the date to make the religion more appealing to the pagans with their Yul logs (spelling?)...
But nah... religions never cater to political groups...nope... never....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
That's beautiful and accurate Fraz. Suddenly I'm swelling with patriotic pride.
The one on the left reminds me of quagmire... but I can't figure out why...
frgsinwntr wrote:
There are lots of versions of the bible... and each one is different. In fact... some of the older ones missing the story of Jesus feeding the crowd with 2 fish and a loaf of bread... Turns out 600 years ago it was added to make him more appealing to the starving masses of European poor... :(
Much the same reason the immaculate conception is so close to Xmas... they moved the date to make the religion more appealing to the pagans with their Yul logs (spelling?)...
Christian influence in our society is dwindling, albeit at a painfully slow pace. It'll be long past my lifetime and yours before it gets to the 40% religious level of the UK. Perhaps things are being changed as an attempt to hang on, conform a bit to better fit into the future. I mean a couple years ago the Pope said it was okay to believe in aliens because if they do exist, God made them, too.
And Warpcrafter, welcome to GG's ignore list : ) I've kept our spot here warm and Godless for you (the way we like it!)
I abhor religion as much as the next outcast atheist, but the garbage Warcrafter spewed into this thread gave him no leg to stand on. It was about as useful as a bumper sticker that says, "God sucks and so do you."
I find it quite saddening that Jesus preached love and acceptance while these people would take the Bible and turn it into their own gospel.
They obviously forget that the only way to heaven is through Jesus, not their interpretation.
The worst, of course, is that the Bible is now just a political tool. Much like Jesus and him overthrowing the merchant tables at the temple, I'm sure that their new Bible will be cursed by true Christ-followers.
sebster wrote:So when can we expect the full biblical version of the gun rights loving, supply side Jesus?
What would Jesus shoot?
He'd shoot a Springfield M1 by God. By Americans, for Americans, blessed by the Higher Powers, all to improve your under MOA accuracy!
What would Jesus drive?
Well, like all good red blooded Americans, Jesus would drive a Honda. Duh.
What would Jesus eat?
Tex-Mex of course. Made by God, for God.
Why do Texans and the Irish talk with God so much?
In order to converse with their equals, they are forced to talk to God.
I'm fairly certain God would find time to fit in Thai, and Indian food in there as well. Hmmm... curry.
Falconlance wrote:
I abhor religion as much as the next outcast atheist,
You know that its possible to be a religious atheist, yeah? And without even being a Buddhist or something along those lines. Richard Dawkins is a great example of a religious atheist. I'll leave you to figure out why.
Falconlance wrote:
I abhor religion as much as the next outcast atheist,
You know that its possible to be a religious atheist, yeah? And without even being a Buddhist or something along those lines. Richard Dawkins is a great example of a religious atheist. I'll leave you to figure out why.
Guys kind of a douche, though. I get the feeling he does what he does simply because he likes to see people squirm when confronted with logic.
I'm proud to be on so many ignore lists. In fact, I formally request a list of the Dakkaites who have put me on their ignore list, just for my own amusement.
Falconlance wrote:
Guys kind of a douche, though. I get the feeling he does what he does simply because he likes to see people squirm when confronted with logic.
His logic is very, very poor. I mean, he frequently makes the cardinal error of assuming the absence of evidence for a God is evidence for the absence of a God. He's no better with logic than any other fundamentalist in the world. His douchiness is more of an intrinsic, personal characteristic I think.
If you look at the ancient religions, starting with Adam, there would be a prophet that interpreted God's will so all the confusion wouldn't be creeping in if people listened to them.
Eventually, people failed to listen and knowledge was lost and the masses were left to wonder what the real will of God was and interpreted it to suit their version of divine will.
Prophets would reappear and deliver the word from the source and set people straight for a while before they again fell away from truth through whatever reason made them ignore the prophets.
This is a cycle that's been continually enacted through history.
frgsinwntr wrote:
And Warpcrafter, welcome to GG's ignore list : ) I've kept our spot here warm and Godless for you (the way we like it!)
Your not on the list yet frigs, because you at least attempt to add to the dialogue. No matter how off base you may be.
frgsinwntr wrote:
... In fact... some of the older ones missing the story of Jesus feeding the crowd with 2 fish and a loaf of bread... Turns out 600 years ago it was added to make him more appealing to the starving masses of European poor... :(
Falconlance wrote:
Guys kind of a douche, though. I get the feeling he does what he does simply because he likes to see people squirm when confronted with logic.
The furthers you can go with logic is showing that god can be neither proven nor disproven. If you go any further, you're going on faith.
Frazzled wrote:What would Jesus shoot?
He'd shoot a Springfield M1 by God. By Americans, for Americans, blessed by the Higher Powers, all to improve your under MOA accuracy!
What would Jesus drive?
Well, like all good red blooded Americans, Jesus would drive a Honda. Duh.
What would Jesus eat?
Tex-Mex of course. Made by God, for God.
Why do Texans and the Irish talk with God so much?
In order to converse with their equals, they are forced to talk to God.
See, that's a Jesus I could have weekend bender with.
Falconlance wrote:They will probably bring forth the arguement that the "eye of a needle" is a reference to the slang term for city gates in the ancient world. The gates and porticullis were informally called "Needle's eyes." Meaning the camels had to crouch to get through the gate.
Yeah, that piece of retcon appeared in the 18th or 19th C in the US, appearing basically out of nowhere, as no record has ever been found in Jerusalem that was called the 'eye of a needle'. It neatly fit the need for an aspirational society to fit in with that part of the bible, but it didn't come from any serious scholarship.
Meanwhile, the writers of the conservative bible are going into great detail over the story of the adulterer, as that was apparantly a later addition. But I'm guessing that kind of scrutiny is going to be placed on all those liberally biased stories, and not the bits that explain why it really is okay to be rich and Christian.
frgsinwntr wrote:some of the older ones missing the story of Jesus feeding the crowd with 2 fish and a loaf of bread... Turns out 600 years ago it was added to make him more appealing to the starving masses of European poor... :(
Yay for unresearched and unsubstantiated claims! Lets just toss out the Latin Vulgate and Greek Septuagint which have been around since the early Church. Or we could just look at the logic surrounding this statement...or the lack thereof. Since at this time the people of Europe weren't allowed to read the Bible, that was reserved only for the clergy, and let us not forget that for this to be true it would have to be true in both of the major Christian factions at the time. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have had the same Bible, just in different languages for centuries. I call this history fail...
frgsinwntr wrote:Much the same reason the immaculate conception is so close to Xmas... they moved the date to make the religion more appealing to the pagans with their Yul logs (spelling?)...
While your claim to the timing of the Immaculate Conception is right, I wonder if you understand what you are referring to. The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a Holy Day of Obligation only within the Roman Catholic Church as it is one of the Marian Doctrines and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ specifically. Furthermore, this is largely restricted to only the Roman Catholic Church. It is undoubtedly true though that the birth of Christ is celebrated on December 25 in order to coincide with a pagan religious day, but since it is actually pretty close to when he was most likely born, I don't really have a problem with it.
dogma wrote:
Falconlance wrote:
I abhor religion as much as the next outcast atheist,
You know that its possible to be a religious atheist, yeah? And without even being a Buddhist or something along those lines. Richard Dawkins is a great example of a religious atheist. I'll leave you to figure out why.
Oh, you and that Dawkins! You have got to have some sort of man crush on the guy
Okay... what do you get when you cross two pumpkins? ...Well... you get two super-smashed pumpkins on your front lawn man... why did you harm the pumpkins GG... WHY!!!
Drunken pumpkin... that was the punchline... see what I did there... OMFGIZZLE
JEB_Stuart wrote:While your claim to the timing of the Immaculate Conception is right, I wonder if you understand what you are referring to. The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a Holy Day of Obligation only within the Roman Catholic Church as it is one of the Marian Doctrines and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ specifically. Furthermore, this is largely restricted to only the Roman Catholic Church. It is undoubtedly true though that the birth of Christ is celebrated on December 25 in order to coincide with a pagan religious day, but since it is actually pretty close to when he was most likely born, I don't really have a problem with it.
You sure about that? Sure gets cold at night in the desert. Way too cold for shepherds to be outside tending their sheep for a while, and certainly way too cold to travel. So if you believe the bible..
And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."
Then you can't believe he was born around december 25. It would be far too cold for shepherds to be in their feilds, let alone babies chillin out (lol) in a manger.
Falconlance wrote:You sure about that? Sure gets cold at night in the desert. Way too cold for shepherds to be outside tending their sheep for a while, and certainly way too cold to travel. So if you believe the bible..
It actually doesn't get that cold in Israel, with January being the coldest month, and it rarely reaches freezing. The temperature is moderated by the Mediterranean, and is generally cool year round. Here is the source...
http://www.myforecast.com/bin/climate.m?city=73565&metric=true
Falconlance wrote:And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."
Then you can't believe he was born around december 25. It would be far too cold for shepherds to be in their feilds, let alone babies chillin out (lol) in a manger.
The academic theory is that Christ was most likely born from late October to Mid-November. As the weather is warmer still at this time, I find it to be perfectly feasible. I am really not all that bothered by the fact that He was not born on December 25, it is merely a symbolical celebration of His birth.
Falconlance wrote:Also, whos the guy on the right?
Falconlance wrote:You sure about that? Sure gets cold at night in the desert. Way too cold for shepherds to be outside tending their sheep for a while, and certainly way too cold to travel. So if you believe the bible..
It actually doesn't get that cold in Israel, with January being the coldest month, and it rarely reaches freezing. The temperature is moderated by the Mediterranean, and is generally cool year round. Here is the source...
http://www.myforecast.com/bin/climate.m?city=73565&metric=true
Falconlance wrote:And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."
Then you can't believe he was born around december 25. It would be far too cold for shepherds to be in their feilds, let alone babies chillin out (lol) in a manger.
The academic theory is that Christ was most likely born from late October to Mid-November. As the weather is warmer still at this time, I find it to be perfectly feasible. I am really not all that bothered by the fact that He was not born on December 25, it is merely a symbolical celebration of His birth.
Falconlance wrote:Also, whos the guy on the right?
No idea...
Wasn't the celebration of Christmas just Romans imposing a Christian celebration on to an old pagan festival on winter solstice?
On the topic of biblical politics: If Jesus and the early Christians were so opposed to the Roman Empire (give to ceasar what is ceasar's, a man cannot serve two masters, the the beast/antichrist in revelations representing Rome/ Nero Ceasar etc.) then why would he not oppose The U.S.A. or other modern governments? Serious question, not trying to troll.
olympia wrote:What are those right-wing turbo-christians going to do with Mark 10:25 I wonder: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
They will probably bring forth the arguement that the "eye of a needle" is a reference to the slang term for city gates in the ancient world. The gates and porticullis were informally called "Needle's eyes." Meaning the camels had to crouch to get through the gate.
Yes this is the typical excuse. The other explanation is that it means what it says. Somethings are meant to be taken literally in the bible and others not I guess.
Hmm... I think we'd have to get lucky and find a set of scripture from the Ebonite sect of the early church. If I recall correctly, it was one of the few actually founded (or so they say) by some of the actual apostles.
Unfortunately, if I remember correctly, and I might not, they were largely wiped out by the Romans, and then polished off by their fellow Christians during the various schisms of the early church.
I wonder if they'll ever put back in the Testament of Mary Magdalene, or would making Christ and the Apostles you know, human, be too much for the rabid right to take?
BaronIveagh wrote:I wonder if they'll ever put back in the Testament of Mary Magdalene, or would making Christ and the Apostles you know, human, be too much for the rabid right to take?
This sounds like something out of the davinici code. If you are talking about the apocryphal book "the gospel of Mary", a copy of this letter was found in 1896 and is not entirely in tact. I.E it is mising many chapters. Also the chapters we do have are very weird in the concepts that are espoused, it's almost nature worship. When the books of the Bible were canonized many apocrypha were left out due to issues of authoriship, contradiction, or other criteria. Basically "if in doubt throw it out" was the motto. I haven't read all of the apocrypha, but the ones that I have read certainly have a different "feel" about them, than the cannonical books in the Bible. And I agree that they should have been left out.
Conservapedia is a clean and concise resource for those seeking the truth. We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here. Founded initially in November 2006 as a way to educate advanced, college-bound homeschoolers, this resource has grown into a marvelous source of information for students, adults and teachers alike.
Ooooooo.... Giving homeschoolers and home-grown cults the truth since 2006.
Teh_K42 wrote:
Wasn't the celebration of Christmas just Romans imposing a Christian celebration on to an old pagan festival on winter solstice?
On the topic of biblical politics: If Jesus and the early Christians were so opposed to the Roman Empire (give to ceasar what is ceasar's, a man cannot serve two masters, the the beast/antichrist in revelations representing Rome/ Nero Ceasar etc.) then why would he not oppose The U.S.A. or other modern governments? Serious question, not trying to troll.
The early Christians weren't really opposed to the Roman Empire. Israel, and the large Jewish diaspora through out the Roman Empire, had hopes that the Messiah would free them from Rome, so they could once again be sovereign. That's where a lot of the Roman hate comes from... they were being occupied.
There are groups that oppose the US and other governments. Pretty much all of your backwoods "militias" have a pretty strong christian bent. The real reason christians don't oppose the US is that historically the US has allowed religious freedom.
Keep in mind that there really is not Biblical support for a christian theocracy. The epistles sketch out the first inklings of one, but unlike the Torah or the Koran, the New Testament doesn't really have much to say on organizing a nation state around it's religion.
generalgrog wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:I wonder if they'll ever put back in the Testament of Mary Magdalene, or would making Christ and the Apostles you know, human, be too much for the rabid right to take?
This sounds like something out of the davinici code. If you are talking about the apocryphal book "the gospel of Mary", a copy of this letter was found in 1896 and is not entirely in tact. I.E it is mising many chapters. Also the chapters we do have are very weird in the concepts that are espoused, it's almost nature worship. When the books of the Bible were canonized many apocrypha were left out due to issues of authoriship, contradiction, or other criteria. Basically "if in doubt throw it out" was the motto. I haven't read all of the apocrypha, but the ones that I have read certainly have a different "feel" about them, than the cannonical books in the Bible. And I agree that they should have been left out.
GG
Be careful not to confuse the apocrypha with the "lost" gospels. the apocrypha are a collection of books between the old and new testament that catholic bibles include, but many protestant ones don't. The lost gospels never made it in to the bible in any form.
Conservapedia is a clean and concise resource for those seeking the truth. We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here. Founded initially in November 2006 as a way to educate advanced, college-bound homeschoolers, this resource has grown into a marvelous source of information for students, adults and teachers alike.
Ooooooo.... Giving homeschoolers and home-grown cults the truth since 2006.
The question becomes: what happens when reality supports a liberal view point? do you ignore reality to eliminate the liberal bias?
I'm as worried about non-objectivity as anybody, but I'm naturally skeptical of any attempt to remove a specific type of bias, particularly when branded as the ideological opposite. It's not that I don't trust the editors to not impose a conservative bias, it's that I wouldn't trust any human in that position to not impose a conservative bias.
Wow. So I read a few articles, and it's conservapedia is a pretty fascinating read. It's not just a conservative bias, it's a pretty middle to far right bias, with heavy evangelical overtones.
I think the best has to be this definition:
"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing. Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly statist, and in Europe even socialistic. "
This isn't buried in the article, that's the lead line:
I don't think they are trying to be objective. But you've hit the nail on the head. There is a large percentage of homeschoolers that are high on the conservative and religious scales. Thats two of four reasons I've seen homeschooling (and been around a good few). Others: *Kids have mental/physical problems that couldn't be addressed. *Level of local public schools is horrible and they can't afford or have access to decent private schools.
Falconlance wrote:
now THAT guys an ass. He makes some good points in debates but for f*cks sake, why does he have to be drunk all the time?
He has a kind of 'debate mode' which is very similar to the 'polemicist mode' he goes into when writing. When I've seen him speak outside of debate he's generally quite jovial.
I'm always a little sad that, while he makes good points, he fails to really deliver significant blows to the opposition because he lacks the ability to use the logic of the opposition in his argument.
Polonius wrote:Be careful not to confuse the apocrypha with the "lost" gospels. the apocrypha are a collection of books between the old and new testament that catholic bibles include, but many protestant ones don't. The lost gospels never made it in to the bible in any form.
My bad...I thought all of the books/letters left out were apocrypha. Thanks.
One does wonder whether, in the name of completeness and true accuracy, they intend to include all the bits of the Bible considered Heretical and Apocryphal by the Vatican. Like the Gospel of Judas which was translated relatively (60's I think) recently. In that, Judas (allegedly) writes that Christ ASKED him to betray him. Haven't read it myself, but I am told that Christ's instruction was something to do him throwing off the shackles of a mortal form, and thus fully uniting the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Something like that anyways.
From a largely atheistic point of view, I find it highly amusing that doubt is cast on the authorship of certain texts, whilst others are simply accepted with little to no question.
Sadly this is precisely why I shun organised Religion. There is always someone somewhere, higher up the ladder, calling the shots. And lets face it, they aren't about to endorse anything which scuppers their claims and world view are they? Now the entire Bible mihght ell be the irrefutable word of God, but the second some arse starts to manipulate the text through translation* and ommission, surely the whole endeavour is rendered futile, as the full Word of God is denied at the source?
*Translations worry me for the reason the Conservatives want to change the wording. It's always done to suit someone. Take the King James version. For all we know, there might well be a number of passages declaring all Kings and Leaders to be enormous floppy Donkey Cocks (and indeed, in that very language). But thats hardly going to make it into a version ratified by a King or a Leader now is it?
Sorry if I've managed to ham fistedly upset anyone with this, but please bare in mind my opinion here is more to do with your Religion, rather than your Faith!
Faith is fine and dandy in my book, as I truly believe that the majority all boil down to 'Be Excellent To Each Other'. I reckon if you took every Religious Text in the world, and compared and contrasted that the main thing they would all have in common would be 'don't be a prick to other people'. This my faith. Rather than any concern with appeasing a deity, or hoping for a favourable result in the after life, I follow the creed of 'be excellent to each other' in order to lead as peaceful and stress free a life as possible.
I doubt they'd include any texts like Gospel of Judas since they said that they were basing their translation of KJV. The authorship issue shouldn't seem that amusing. There are paper trails for certain authors and none for others. Some stories corroborate and others don't. Canonization is something of a mess for me though.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:One does wonder whether, in the name of completeness and true accuracy, they intend to include all the bits of the Bible considered Heretical and Apocryphal by the Vatican. Like the Gospel of Judas which was translated relatively (60's I think) recently. In that, Judas (allegedly) writes that Christ ASKED him to betray him. Haven't read it myself, but I am told that Christ's instruction was something to do him throwing off the shackles of a mortal form, and thus fully uniting the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Something like that anyways.
From a largely atheistic point of view, I find it highly amusing that doubt is cast on the authorship of certain texts, whilst others are simply accepted with little to no question.
Sadly this is precisely why I shun organised Religion. There is always someone somewhere, higher up the ladder, calling the shots. And lets face it, they aren't about to endorse anything which scuppers their claims and world view are they? Now the entire Bible mihght ell be the irrefutable word of God, but the second some arse starts to manipulate the text through translation* and ommission, surely the whole endeavour is rendered futile, as the full Word of God is denied at the source?
*Translations worry me for the reason the Conservatives want to change the wording. It's always done to suit someone. Take the King James version. For all we know, there might well be a number of passages declaring all Kings and Leaders to be enormous floppy Donkey Cocks (and indeed, in that very language). But thats hardly going to make it into a version ratified by a King or a Leader now is it?
Sorry if I've managed to ham fistedly upset anyone with this, but please bare in mind my opinion here is more to do with your Religion, rather than your Faith!
Thanks for making that distinction. So many people are so caught up with the beaurocracy of religion that they forget to separate it from its origin. They're the ham fisted ones. Now, I've got to clean chocolate milk off of my monitor thank you very much!
It's a rare TV show that even tries to, let alone manages to produce effective and measurable change in the system. Bear in mind that TV is primarily an entertainment medium and a personality cult medium. It isn't about social change.
Jamie Oliver's School Dinners managed to achieve real change in school dinner provision in England. That traded on the existing personality cult surrounding Jamie.
youngblood wrote:I doubt they'd include any texts like Gospel of Judas since they said that they were basing their translation of KJV. The authorship issue shouldn't seem that amusing. There are paper trails for certain authors and none for others. Some stories corroborate and others don't. Canonization is something of a mess for me though.
Yeah, I think the actual canon of books is subjected to far more scrutiny than anything not included. The good bibles discuss that, and in fact show how a passage in one gospel might be translated by showing similarities to another gospel.
Fateweaver wrote:
I've got the soft tipped darts...no marks. His show is so much fail even my cop buddies don't take him seriously.
Enlighten us as to why it's "so much fail". Is he not helping to rid us of the pestilence of online preds?
GG
The show is so centered around entrapment it is not even funny. Using an "adult" posing as a child to lure in some "would be" predator is entrapment. The decoys even go so far as to instigate the conversation to begin with at times. I've seen reports where several adult males will tell the "would be child" to leave the room and that "child" will start a conversation of an adult nature and then falsify and lie to get some adult to agree to do something, that while is sick and wrong, might have just been a fantasy and might never have gone that far.
I'm willing to bet 95% of the supposed molesters were never prosecuted. 'Tis why in Mn speed traps cannot be set that aren't visible to the public. A cop hides behind a billboard or building to catch a would be speeder is going to automatically lose the case when it's discovered he "hid" to avoid being detected until it was too late for the offender to correct his speeding.
Anyway, this is off topic so I won't go anymore into it. I don't condone molesters but his show is considered by many to be a misuse of police authority and entrapment and is just aired to get NBC ratings.
Yeah, the man was arrested even though he did not arrive at the house where authorities were trying to "lure" him. Just the fact the decoy, an adult male posing as a 13yo boy, was trying to "lure" him is entrapment. No judge is going to even accept a case based on entrapment.
As the judge himself said, the show went too far in trying to enforce their witch hunt.
frgsinwntr wrote:
And Warpcrafter, welcome to GG's ignore list : ) I've kept our spot here warm and Godless for you (the way we like it!)
Your not on the list yet frigs, because you at least attempt to add to the dialogue. No matter how off base you may be.
frgsinwntr wrote:
... In fact... some of the older ones missing the story of Jesus feeding the crowd with 2 fish and a loaf of bread... Turns out 600 years ago it was added to make him more appealing to the starving masses of European poor... :(
How about a source for that tidbit?
GG
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus
I've been reading pieces of it and have to say, there is a surprising bit added.... lots of versus
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:some of the older ones missing the story of Jesus feeding the crowd with 2 fish and a loaf of bread... Turns out 600 years ago it was added to make him more appealing to the starving masses of European poor... :(
Yay for unresearched and unsubstantiated claims! Lets just toss out the Latin Vulgate and Greek Septuagint which have been around since the early Church. Or we could just look at the logic surrounding this statement...or the lack thereof. Since at this time the people of Europe weren't allowed to read the Bible, that was reserved only for the clergy, and let us not forget that for this to be true it would have to be true in both of the major Christian factions at the time. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have had the same Bible, just in different languages for centuries. I call this history fail...
frgsinwntr wrote:Much the same reason the immaculate conception is so close to Xmas... they moved the date to make the religion more appealing to the pagans with their Yul logs (spelling?)...
While your claim to the timing of the Immaculate Conception is right, I wonder if you understand what you are referring to. The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a Holy Day of Obligation only within the Roman Catholic Church as it is one of the Marian Doctrines and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ specifically. Furthermore, this is largely restricted to only the Roman Catholic Church. It is undoubtedly true though that the birth of Christ is celebrated on December 25 in order to coincide with a pagan religious day, but since it is actually pretty close to when he was most likely born, I don't really have a problem with it.
dogma wrote:
Falconlance wrote:
I abhor religion as much as the next outcast atheist,
You know that its possible to be a religious atheist, yeah? And without even being a Buddhist or something along those lines. Richard Dawkins is a great example of a religious atheist. I'll leave you to figure out why.
Oh, you and that Dawkins! You have got to have some sort of man crush on the guy
I provided one of my sources for the first comment you made, and will avoid your flamebait attempt.
as for the conception story. If they can change the holiday for ONE, whats to say they haven't changed everything else? if you get my drift. Yes I understand this is a slippery slope argument.
frgsinwntr wrote:
Your 3rd point is flame baiting Dogma
No, not really. I mean, I understand that those of religious persuasions tend to be offended when they are confronted with contradictions inherent in their position, but that isn't flame bait so much as a statement of fact.
Fateweaver wrote:The show is so centered around entrapment it is not even funny. Using an "adult" posing as a child to lure in some "would be" predator is entrapment. The decoys even go so far as to instigate the conversation to begin with at times. I've seen reports where several adult males will tell the "would be child" to leave the room and that "child" will start a conversation of an adult nature and then falsify and lie to get some adult to agree to do something, that while is sick and wrong, might have just been a fantasy and might never have gone that far.
I was under the impression that entrapment was legitimate in the US. The George Michael/toilet/cop thing was entrapment IIRC. Could someone please clarify.
It's hard to prove entrapment but normally just means if someone is coerced into doing something by an officer of the law or someone acting on behalf of an officer of the law, they were entrapped.
It's hard to prove as it is the cops word against the perps and without video or audio evidence the law is going to favor one of its own.
Problem I have with "to catch a predator" is that it doesn't need to run for as long as it did. 1 or 2 episodes to show that online predators are real is more than enough, the fact NBC is paying PJ money to help them oust criminals speaks of it now being just a ratings game, and Perverted Justice makes it known to the public the addresses, names (first and last) of the "pedos" relatives, immediate family and friends.
This is grossly OT so if anyone wants to continue this discussion we should probably start a new thread, otherwise we'll just bury this and go on with the topic at hand.
No flamebaiting was intended, but I was being critical of the reasoning and support behind what was stated. Dr. Ehrman's work is somewhat strange in that he claims texts like that to be added in, but the Latin Vulgate had been around since the days of St. Jerome in the early 3rd century. I don't see how he can reconcile the two....
And the joke was only a lighthearted jab at Dogma's main man Dawkins. Which it seems he caught...
Teh_K42 wrote: On the topic of biblical politics: If Jesus and the early Christians were so opposed to the Roman Empire (give to ceasar what is ceasar's, a man cannot serve two masters, the the beast/antichrist in revelations representing Rome/ Nero Ceasar etc.) then why would he not oppose The U.S.A. or other modern governments? Serious question, not trying to troll.
The early Christians weren't really opposed to the Roman Empire. Israel, and the large Jewish diaspora through out the Roman Empire, had hopes that the Messiah would free them from Rome, so they could once again be sovereign. That's where a lot of the Roman hate comes from... they were being occupied.
There are groups that oppose the US and other governments. Pretty much all of your backwoods "militias" have a pretty strong christian bent. The real reason christians don't oppose the US is that historically the US has allowed religious freedom.
Keep in mind that there really is not Biblical support for a christian theocracy. The epistles sketch out the first inklings of one, but unlike the Torah or the Koran, the New Testament doesn't really have much to say on organizing a nation state around it's religion.
Before I reply I should make it clear that these are not necessarily my beliefs, but I am investigating them, for lack of a better word.
I agree completely with you that there there was a lot of hate for Rome from the Israelis and that they desired a triumphant militant saviour. But from what I can understand you are talking about Israel and the Jews and not the Christians. The early Christians were not opposed to the Roman Empire in the sense that they were trying to destroy it, but they were in the sense that they pledged no loyalty to it and did not conform to it's expectations. The titles Son of God, Gospels and Saviour were reserved for Ceasar. John (author of revelations) wrote of the beast, not as a monster at the end of time but as Ceasar Nero.
Perhaps Christians who read the commands of "Do not resist an evildoer" and "Love your enemies and bless those who persecute you" could not reconcile those words with a nation whose former president said "have no mercy on the evildoers"?
There are no plans for a theocratic state in the New Testament, but it does say a lot about the Kingdom of God. Could it be possible that the gospels imply anarchism?
The gospels don't imply any sort of politics, but they're certainly not anarchist. The parables often rely on structured communities, Jesus preached to the poor but had no message for them regarding their political situation. What Jesus did make clear was that God was in charge, and Jesus was the doorman. That's not really anarchist. Jesus also implies in the famous line "The poor you will always have, you will not always have me" that he was not concerned with worldly affairs.
The critical thing to remember about the early church is that it wasn't built to last. The early converts expected Jesus to return in their life times. "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Because of this, Revelation was written not just as eternal symbolism, but also as symbols of the powerful empires of John's time. If I wrote a symbolic work on the end of the world, I'd include Russia and China and Iran and the US and the UK and the EU. It doesn't mean I have a beef with those nations, just that they're the big guys at the moment.
Anyway, Nero also persecuted Christian, including by tradition a few of the apostles. If you kill a groups leaders, you're going to end up on their enemies list, turn the other cheek or no.
Polonius wrote:
The critical thing to remember about the early church is that it wasn't built to last.
Then why did they continue to call apostles after the death of christ and send out epistles to correct false doctrines and traditions cropping up in the church?
Polonius wrote:
The critical thing to remember about the early church is that it wasn't built to last.
Then why did they continue to call apostles after the death of christ and send out epistles to correct false doctrines and traditions cropping up in the church?
What?
I don't know what you're asking, so I'll simply clarify my point. The early church expected the second coming to arrive within a generation. There wasn't a lot of concern about long term planning. If you read the epistles, what's interesting is the urgency in many of them. They weren't blueprints for the new church, they were almost emergency instructions.
There is a theory that the lack of a second coming caused a lot of turmoil in the early churches, which makes sense. It was only after that initial generation died that they began planning and building for a future on this earth.
It's probably also a factor in why Christianity rubbed the romans the wrong way: they weren't just focused on the next life, they expected it any minute!
Polonius wrote:The gospels don't imply any sort of politics, but they're certainly not anarchist The parables often rely on structured communities, Jesus preached to the poor but had no message for them regarding their political situation. What Jesus did make clear was that God was in charge, and Jesus was the doorman. That's not really anarchist. Jesus also implies in the famous line "The poor you will always have, you will not always have me" that he was not concerned with worldly affairs..
I Disagree. As far as I can see, Jesus was absolutely political. Look at how a Roman emperor was coronated. Jesus' crucifixion was a mockery of it. When the Emperor went to his coronation he went on a mighty warhorse. He proceeded through the streets in glory, followed by a sacrificial bull and a slave with an axe to kill the bull. They walked to the highest hill in Rome, Capitolene (head hill) The candidate was then offered wine, which he rejected, after which the bull was killed. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he went on a donkey (a borrowed donkey at that) with the people waving palm branches (which were symbols of resistance to the Empire). When Jesus went to be crucified he marched through the streets suffering, Simon carried the cross and Jesus was the sacrifice. he was taken to Golgotha (skull hill, or if you want to split hairs, head hill) and was offered wine which he refused. Then he was crucified, praying for and blessing his enemies. What is that anti-triumphant procession if not a denunciation of Rome and a declaration of God's Kingdom?
All the language associated with Jesus like Christ, gospels, Son of God, Parousia (or second coming or return), faith and Lord were all words exclusive to the worship of Rome and the Emporer. These words were deliberately chosen because of their political connotations.
Polonius wrote:
The critical thing to remember about the early church is that it wasn't built to last. The early converts expected Jesus to return in their life times. "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Because of this, Revelation was written not just as eternal symbolism, but also as symbols of the powerful empires of John's time. If I wrote a symbolic work on the end of the world, I'd include Russia and China and Iran and the US and the UK and the EU. It doesn't mean I have a beef with those nations, just that they're the big guys at the moment.
Anyway, Nero also persecuted Christian, including by tradition a few of the apostles. If you kill a groups leaders, you're going to end up on their enemies list, turn the other cheek or no.
Yes, but he also said not to receive the mark of of the beast on the wrist or forehead. To enter the agora, the roman equivalent of a supermarket, one had to drop incense in front of an image of Ceasar. you then received a stamp on the wrist or forehead allowing you enter the market and trade. It instructed folks not to be involved in the worship or economy of Rome. Furthermore when John wrote of the great whore of Babylon, "For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries" and for whom the merchants wept, he called for us to "come out" of her, as in to interrupt sex before climax, to shun the things of the world. It wasn't proclaiming the end of the world as such, it was proclaiming the end of worldly nations and economies and proclaiming the Kingdom of God on Earth. (in my humble understanding)
Incidentally I'm getting most of this from Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw if anyone would like to read it.
Teh_K42 wrote:Would you care to explain? I don't quite understand what you mean.
That it doesn't translate to modern political philosphies such as anarchism, socialism, capitalism, liberalism, conservatism, anarcho-syndicalism...
That doesn't mean that Jesus was apolitical. Jesus may not have embraced a particular political system, but he certainly understood how Roman government worked with/against Jewish reign. For example, when Jesus traveled to cities, he didn't just do it at random. He knew the "friendliness" of each city towards him (both the general public and the rulers) and initially he begins at towns that would be very neutral towards him and it culminates with his trip to Jerusalem and the ultimate provocation of the jews.
Teh_K42 wrote:I Disagree. As far as I can see, Jesus was absolutely political. Look at how a Roman emperor was coronated. Jesus' crucifixion was a mockery of it. When the Emperor went to his coronation he went on a mighty warhorse. He proceeded through the streets in glory, followed by a sacrificial bull and a slave with an axe to kill the bull. They walked to the highest hill in Rome, Capitolene (head hill) The candidate was then offered wine, which he rejected, after which the bull was killed. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he went on a donkey (a borrowed donkey at that) with the people waving palm branches (which were symbols of resistance to the Empire). When Jesus went to be crucified he marched through the streets suffering, Simon carried the cross and Jesus was the sacrifice. he was taken to Golgotha (skull hill, or if you want to split hairs, head hill) and was offered wine which he refused. Then he was crucified, praying for and blessing his enemies. What is that anti-triumphant procession if not a denunciation of Rome and a declaration of God's Kingdom?
All the language associated with Jesus like Christ, gospels, Son of God, Parousia (or second coming or return), faith and Lord were all words exclusive to the worship of Rome and the Emporer. These words were deliberately chosen because of their political connotations.
Now this thread has gotten REALLY interesting. I wasn't expecting it turn this way.
Zecharia 9:9(KJV) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
Jesus was fulfilling this prophesy, and had nothing to do with politics. Although the Jewish zealots may have thought this way, and thats why they raised palm leaves and placed them at his feet. This was done to proclaim Jesus as messiah or King. (Certainly Rome, would have interpreted this as a resistive act) However most people didn't get that what was going on was spiritual, not secular, in nature.
The fact is Jesus knew that He was headed for His death. He knew that He was headed to the cross. The crucifixtion wasn't some surpise to Jesus, this was his whole purpose for taking on human form so that he would be the ultimate sacrifice, not take on some secular mantle of kingship. He was the passover lamb that john the Baptist described.
The wine Jesus refused to drink was a wine and gall mixture after tasting it. (Quite difefrent than the wine your ceaser refused). It is debated as to why Jesus refused the wine/gall mixture before crucifixtion, but accepted the vinegar on a sponge later. It has been theorized that the "gall" could have been poison, or a drug. The poison to help him die faster, or the drug to alleviate the pain. No one really knows the answer, but it's a bit of a stretch to claim that this was as part of a political statement.
As far Jesus' last hours (leading to crucifixion), I don't think that it was him making a political statement as much as the Jews/Romans mocking his heralded Kinghood. It was all a mockery of what he was supposed to be to the Jews. Hence the whole "king of the Jews" sign above his cross.
Teh_K42 wrote:
I Disagree. As far as I can see, Jesus was absolutely political. Look at how a Roman emperor was coronated. Jesus' crucifixion was a mockery of it. When the Emperor went to his coronation he went on a mighty warhorse. He proceeded through the streets in glory, followed by a sacrificial bull and a slave with an axe to kill the bull. They walked to the highest hill in Rome, Capitolene (head hill) The candidate was then offered wine, which he rejected, after which the bull was killed. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he went on a donkey (a borrowed donkey at that) with the people waving palm branches (which were symbols of resistance to the Empire). When Jesus went to be crucified he marched through the streets suffering, Simon carried the cross and Jesus was the sacrifice. he was taken to Golgotha (skull hill, or if you want to split hairs, head hill) and was offered wine which he refused. Then he was crucified, praying for and blessing his enemies. What is that anti-triumphant procession if not a denunciation of Rome and a declaration of God's Kingdom?
All the language associated with Jesus like Christ, gospels, Son of God, Parousia (or second coming or return), faith and Lord were all words exclusive to the worship of Rome and the Emporer. These words were deliberately chosen because of their political connotations.
I don't know anything about that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Jesus didn't come to earth to preach any specific type of government, or economy, or political system. Everything you described supports that, as it's Jesus devaluing the politics of Rome, and showing that God is the true emperor.
Yes, but he also said not to receive the mark of of the beast on the wrist or forehead. To enter the agora, the roman equivalent of a supermarket, one had to drop incense in front of an image of Ceasar. you then received a stamp on the wrist or forehead allowing you enter the market and trade. It instructed folks not to be involved in the worship or economy of Rome. Furthermore when John wrote of the great whore of Babylon, "For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries" and for whom the merchants wept, he called for us to "come out" of her, as in to interrupt sex before climax, to shun the things of the world. It wasn't proclaiming the end of the world as such, it was proclaiming the end of worldly nations and economies and proclaiming the Kingdom of God on Earth. (in my humble understanding)
Incidentally I'm getting most of this from Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw if anyone would like to read it.
And again, all of that makes sense in a community that thinks it has a few years before the Second Coming. Revelations is a fun book, but it's not the book I'd want to rely on in for making a solid point about Christianity. There are a lot of ways to interpret that book, and some thinkers like Martin Luther didn't even try.
I guess it's not technically the end of the world, but the coming of the Kingdom of God is basically the same thing in this case.
Teh_K42 wrote:I Disagree. As far as I can see, Jesus was absolutely political. Look at how a Roman emperor was coronated. Jesus' crucifixion was a mockery of it. When the Emperor went to his coronation he went on a mighty warhorse. He proceeded through the streets in glory, followed by a sacrificial bull and a slave with an axe to kill the bull. They walked to the highest hill in Rome, Capitolene (head hill) The candidate was then offered wine, which he rejected, after which the bull was killed. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he went on a donkey (a borrowed donkey at that) with the people waving palm branches (which were symbols of resistance to the Empire). When Jesus went to be crucified he marched through the streets suffering, Simon carried the cross and Jesus was the sacrifice. he was taken to Golgotha (skull hill, or if you want to split hairs, head hill) and was offered wine which he refused. Then he was crucified, praying for and blessing his enemies. What is that anti-triumphant procession if not a denunciation of Rome and a declaration of God's Kingdom?
All the language associated with Jesus like Christ, gospels, Son of God, Parousia (or second coming or return), faith and Lord were all words exclusive to the worship of Rome and the Emperor. These words were deliberately chosen because of their political connotations.
While I certainly find this theory interesting, I do not think that I can find any reason to support it. In history we find that the idea of the Emperor of Rome had not yet fully developed and was still in its early phases. Through most of Christ's life Tiberius was "emperor" and there had certainly been no lavish ceremony to make him as such. Instead it was a simple meeting of the Senate to extend the powers and office of Princeps, along with its titles, to Tiberius from Augustus. There was no recorded lavish ceremony, either from Tacitus or Suetonius, so I don't see how your theory will fit. As I said before it is at the least an entertaining thought, but I can't see it as being backed up by any reasonable history.
Teh_K42 wrote:Yes, but he also said not to receive the mark of of the beast on the wrist or forehead. To enter the agora, the roman equivalent of a supermarket, one had to drop incense in front of an image of Caesar. you then received a stamp on the wrist or forehead allowing you enter the market and trade. It instructed folks not to be involved in the worship or economy of Rome. Furthermore when John wrote of the great whore of Babylon, "For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries" and for whom the merchants wept, he called for us to "come out" of her, as in to interrupt sex before climax, to shun the things of the world. It wasn't proclaiming the end of the world as such, it was proclaiming the end of worldly nations and economies and proclaiming the Kingdom of God on Earth. (in my humble understanding)
Incidentally I'm getting most of this from Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw if anyone would like to read it.
Just a few quick corrections, as tedious as they might be, I value accuracy above all. The Romans did not have an agora, that was a purely Greek idea, they had the Roman Forum, at least during Christ's lifetime. I have never found any primary source claiming that a mark was needed to trade, although I may have missed that. Can you tell us where Mr. Claiborne and Mr. Haw get this idea from? As far as the point about Revelation, I find that the ability to interpret it is lost on any of us. The book is very clearly prophecy, and I do not have that gift, nor have I met anyone with that gift. True, there are probably some things directed as criticism to Rome, but I am hesitant to label it so quickly. I basically take the idea that whatever it predicts will happen, and since I don't know when or how, and especially since I can't stop it, I really don't worry about it. I try and focus on the here and now, leaving the speculation around prophecy to remain just that.
JEB_Stuart wrote:While I certainly find this theory interesting, I do not think that I can find any reason to support it. In history we find that the idea of the Emperor of Rome had not yet fully developed and was still in its early phases. Through most of Christ's life Tiberius was "emperor" and there had certainly been no lavish ceremony to make him as such. Instead it was a simple meeting of the Senate to extend the powers and office of Princeps, along with its titles, to Tiberius from Augustus. There was no recorded lavish ceremony, either from Tacitus or Suetonius, so I don't see how your theory will fit. As I said before it is at the least an entertaining thought, but I can't see it as being backed up by any reasonable history.
Teh_K42 wrote:
Incidentally I'm getting most of this from Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw if anyone would like to read it.
Just a few quick corrections, as tedious as they might be, I value accuracy above all. The Romans did not have an agora, that was a purely Greek idea, they had the Roman Forum, at least during Christ's lifetime. I have never found any primary source claiming that a mark was needed to trade, although I may have missed that. Can you tell us where Mr. Claiborne and Mr. Haw get this idea from? As far as the point about Revelation, I find that the ability to interpret it is lost on any of us. The book is very clearly prophecy, and I do not have that gift, nor have I met anyone with that gift. True, there are probably some things directed as criticism to Rome, but I am hesitant to label it so quickly. I basically take the idea that whatever it predicts will happen, and since I don't know when or how, and especially since I can't stop it, I really don't worry about it. I try and focus on the here and now, leaving the speculation around prophecy to remain just that.
Accuracy is good, thanks for your corrections.
However you say the ability to interpret Revelations is lost is lost to any of us, but you have interpreted it as a prophesy? Perhaps John, being in jail at the time of writing, couldn't have simply written 'Rome is corrupting influence' or 'we must reject ceasar' without execution or harsh punishment so he wrote it cryptically?
Also, those authors cite the following when they interpret revelations:
-Wes Howard-Brook and Anthony Gwyther, Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis 1999)
-Adolf Deismann, Light from the Ancient East (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910)
-G.B. Caird On Deciphering the Book of Revelation; Heaven and Earth , Expository times, 74: 13-15 (1962)
Polonius wrote:
I don't know anything about that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Jesus didn't come to earth to preach any specific type of government, or economy, or political system. Everything you described supports that, as it's Jesus devaluing the politics of Rome, and showing that God is the true emperor.
Emphasis mine. I wasn't trying to argue that Jesus preached specific politics or economics but simply that he, as well as the early questions, pledged no loyalty to Rome (I started with the word opposed, but that is too strong)
Polonius wrote:
The early Christians weren't really opposed to the Roman Empire.
Okay, so they might not be opposed as such, but devalued the politics of Rome as you say.
polonius wrote:
Teh_K42 wrote: Yes, but he also said not to receive the mark of of the beast on the wrist or forehead. To enter the agora, the roman equivalent of a supermarket, one had to drop incense in front of an image of Ceasar. you then received a stamp on the wrist or forehead allowing you enter the market and trade. It instructed folks not to be involved in the worship or economy of Rome. Furthermore when John wrote of the great whore of Babylon, "For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries" and for whom the merchants wept, he called for us to "come out" of her, as in to interrupt sex before climax, to shun the things of the world. It wasn't proclaiming the end of the world as such, it was proclaiming the end of worldly nations and economies and proclaiming the Kingdom of God on Earth. (in my humble understanding)
Incidentally I'm getting most of this from Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw if anyone would like to read it.
And again, all of that makes sense in a community that thinks it has a few years before the Second Coming. Revelations is a fun book, but it's not the book I'd want to rely on in for making a solid point about Christianity. There are a lot of ways to interpret that book, and some thinkers like Martin Luther didn't even try.
I guess it's not technically the end of the world, but the coming of the Kingdom of God is basically the same thing in this case.
I hadn't thought about that aspect of a sense of immediacy, thanks for raising it. But didn't Jesus say that we should always live with that immediacy since no-one knows when he will return? I know that people have been declaring the end of the world is imminent since it began (and we only have until 2012 apparently )but why should these people behave differently if they think they have 10 years until Jesus returns or 10,000? Why couldn't they simply have been trying to live Christ's word with everything they had regardless of timing?
I am enjoying this thread immensely, I don't often get a chance to discuss this stuff.
Well, there was the passages where Jesus says that he'll return within a single generation, and even then it will be a surprise. There were given two explicit instructions: spread the word, and get ready for me to come back. So, like all grass roots movements they took it viral. Sending small teams to cities to recruit, establishing locals all around the empire.
As for why they would act differently, it's pretty obvious: they didn't know that they would have at least 2000 years. They were told soon, and it had still been a short while, so they went nuts. I'm guessing there was a match up between when jesus failed to materialize and when the biggest communities started to mature and needed more structure.
As for why we don't' live that way now? You just can't. You can't keep that pace up, you need to grow crops and run the secular side too. In some ways it's like a new romantic relationship: why don't couples that have been together for a few years no longer have tons of crazy sex all the time? Because they've got other stuff to do!
[quote=Teh_K42
Accuracy is good, thanks for your corrections.
However you say the ability to interpret Revelations is lost is lost to any of us, but you have interpreted it as a prophesy? Perhaps John, being in jail at the time of writing, couldn't have simply written 'Rome is corrupting influence' or 'we must reject ceasar' without execution or harsh punishment so he wrote it cryptically?
Also, those authors cite the following when they interpret revelations:
-Wes Howard-Brook and Anthony Gwyther, Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis 1999)
-Adolf Deismann, Light from the Ancient East (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910)
-G.B. Caird On Deciphering the Book of Revelation; Heaven and Earth , Expository times, 74: 13-15 (1962)
Thank you for their sources, I will have to look into them. Just another note, John wasn't in jail, he was exiled to the island of Patmos off the coast of Asia Minor. According to tradition anyway...
@JEB:
John being in jail was just what was written in Jesus for President, I assumed that those authors had done their homework.
@Polonius:
So the way the early Christians lived was just unsustainable for the long term? I'm not sure about that, but you might be right. I still find the reports of them inspiring (although I probably have a romanticized mental picture of them).
Arisides 137 AD wrote:
It is the Christians, O Emperor, who have sought and found the truth, for they acknowledge God. They do not keep for themselves the goods entrusted to them. They do not covet what belongs to others. They show love to their neighbours. They do not do to another what they would not wish to have done to themselves. They speak gently to those who oppress them, and in this way make them their friends. it has become their passion to do good for their enemies. They live in the awareness of their smallness. Every one of them who has anything gives ungrudgingly to the one who has nothing. If they see a traveling stranger, they bring him under their roof. They rejoice over him as over a real brother, for they do not call one another brother and sister after the flesh, but they know they are brothers in the Spirit and in God. If they hear that one of them is imprisoned or oppressed for the sake of Christ, they take care of all of his needs. If possible they set him free. If anyone among them is poor or comes into want while they themselves have nothing to spare, they fast two or three days for him. In this way they can supply any poor man with the food he needs. This, O Emperor, is the rule of life of the Christians, and this is their manner of life.
I find the concept that people actually lived like that incredible and beautiful, even if they couldn't 'keep that pace up' in the long term as you say.
Teh_K42 wrote:@Polonius:
So the way the early Christians lived was just unsustainable for the long term? I'm not sure about that, but you might be right. I still find the reports of them inspiring (although I probably have a romanticized mental picture of them).
For the most part Polonius is right. Most early Christians thought the second coming was RIGHT NOW and so were fairly ascetic. It is a suprise that religion lasted beyond its infancy because many thought that celibacy was the way to go and didn't want to bring a child into a world about to end. It all worked out though.
for parking in his reserved parking space," in Greek then you translate that into english as
