Protestant church close to splitting

[kalniel]

But if you're not basing your decision on that criteria then it's a non-existent criteria.

 

[Pladio]

Fundamentally it is. It is a desire that, at least according to the Bible, goes against God's laws.

Does the bible say it's a desire ?

I understand that this would be difficult. However, is it any more difficult than a person that just never finds the right person to marry, and abstains from sex? As for the why part of your question, because that is the law as God has laid it down, at least according to the Bible.

Yes, it would, since it would not be the same as abstaining before marriage. It would be abstaining for the rest of your life.

Not to get into a compartive religion discussion, but there is virtually no evidence of 'conversion by the sword' until after the rise of Islam and the introduction of the concept by the continual push of the Islamic armies. Not saying it justifies it, but it was more a reaction to a changing world (the wrong one IMO) than a staple of the religion.

What about Constantine's Law which changed the state religion to Catholicism?

Personally, I'd rather be converted than killed I think!

Doesn't change the fact that they're not fighting for conversion.

Pre-Roman to Roman occupation times particularly. Again, it probably is more political than religious, but the nation of Israel and it's Kings more than once rounded up and executed religious 'deviants.' And during the first century, the Jewish authorities were not particularly hesitatant about rounding up Christians, even the early ones that still thought of themselves as Jews.

Having a new religion undermined the political influence Judea had during that time. The Jews had a relative free life compared to other provinces thanks to a lot of deals made with the Romans. Pre-Roman was like you said more political than religious.

There has been a lot of research into oral traditions and amazingly, it's shown that people that belong to these traditions have a learned ability to memorize and recite very long works accurately and pass them down generation to generation. That doesn't prove that the Gospel's are perfect copies, but it allows it to be at least plausible.

Yes, but it still was written down by witnesses, and not by Jesus himself. (I know I'm going in circles, but that's the whole problem...)
They weren't prophets either... They could very easily have had their own agenda.

I think we're going a bit in circles here. The four that were chosen were chosen because the pwowers that be felt they were the most accurate representations of Christ and His message. Why would you include something if you didn't think it was accurate or if it could not be authenticated?

Because they were all Jesus' apostles. All twelve of them were apostles and leaving them out seems just like an agenda...

Gnostics sects are those that focused more on the self-enlightment teachings of Christ than what we now call the 'traditional' or Orthodox teachings. One reason there are so many Gospels is that after the ascention, the Apostles spread throughout the known world to spread the word of Christ. Their teachings became the Gospels. So a Church where Mathew went was using what is the Gospel of Mathew and a Church where Philip went was using what became the Gospel of Philip, etc. We'd probably be a lot better off if they'd all got together, hashed out a single Gospel, then split up. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. Probably more because of the tenuous political situation in the Holy Lands. So we are left with several different versions of many of the same events. Some with condradict each other. As a point of reference, there are several Old Testament books that were left out as well. Heck, there is even more than one version of Genisis, yet the Jews don't include both versions in the Torah either.

Thanks for the explanation

About Genesis, what's the other version ?

If he TRULY believes and repents? Yes. The question is does he truly? It's not as easy as sin your whole life, then on your death bed repent and get a free pass. God isn't going to be fooled by false repentence.

That's one of the questions I struggle with, and hence, I do believe in a 'last chance' so to speak between death and judgment. A bit of a cop out, I know, but it is how I reconcile a loving God with a strict God.

I know God wouldn't be fooled, but the problem with good and evil is just to present a contrast. There is no eternally good person neither.

The real problem lies in the fact that good people would go to hell.

Another question I had asked but no one answered I believe, was:

What about the billions of people who have not heard about Christ during these two millenia... Did they all perish and go to hell ?

It's not suprising, even if it occurred in the first century. People have always tried to mold religion to their own ends. I see no reason why a decietful person would not try to do it with a new religion as well.

How do you know then that the 4 gospels chosen weren't just molded together to fit these ends ?

 

[blatantninja]

First of, it's not the way those murderers are. They were either raised in a certain way or witnessed something that makes them not care anymore.

Many yes, but there are people that are simply true sociopaths from the day they come out the womb.

 

[Corwin]

"What about the billions of people who have not heard about Christ during these two millenia... Did they all perish and go to hell ?"

I don't have a clear answer, but the Bible does say that God's Laws and Precepts are written on people's hearts. The early Jews didn't know Jesus either, yet I'm sure many of them will end up in Heaven, ie Abraham, Moses, etc. Therefore, I believe and the Bible tends to support to some extent the idea that all these people, if they endeavour to live by these principles will go to Heaven if they never hear about Jesus. Once they hear the Christian message, then they have to make a personal choice. Not everyone will agree with me, but I feel this position is Biblically defensible.

 

[Pladio]

But if you're not basing your decision on that criteria then it's a non-existent criteria.

You base everything you believe on just one criteria ?

 

[Pladio]

"What about the billions of people who have not heard about Christ during these two millenia... Did they all perish and go to hell ?"

I don't have a clear answer, but the Bible does say that God's Laws and Precepts are written on people's hearts. The early Jews didn't know Jesus either, yet I'm sure many of them will end up in Heaven, ie Abraham, Moses, etc. Therefore, I believe and the Bible tends to support to some extent the idea that all these people, if they endeavour to live by these principles will go to Heaven if they never hear about Jesus. Once they hear the Christian message, then they have to make a personal choice. Not everyone will agree with me, but I feel this position is Biblically defensible.

There's a passage though that I've seen quoted many times... Something about The only way to the Father is through me... Or something like that... I'm sure you know what I mean...

 

[blatantninja]

Does the bible say it's a desire ?

Now that is an interesting question, and I'm not 100% sure of the answer. IMO, the Bible mearly describes the act, not the desire, though desires can certainly be considered sinful, IE inpure thoughts. Don't forget that if you trace the origin of the word that was translated into Adultery in the 10 Commandments, it pretty much meant at the time even THINKING of sex outside of marriage. Personally, I view out wayward desires as test, sort of 'your own cross to bear,' and I believe how you react to them determines your morality.

Yes, it would, since it would not be the same as abstaining before marriage. It would be abstaining for the rest of your life.

But in my explain, you ARE abstaining from it for life. More on point, Priests and Nuns (at least in Roman tradition) abstain for life. Regardless, there is far more to life than sex.

What about Constantine's Law which changed the state religion to Catholicism?

Actually Constantine didn't change the state religion to Catholicism. He didn't even convert until his death bed. A very common misconception. What he did do was legalize Christianity, where as before it was illegal and you could be executed just for being Christian. And it wasn't Catholicism, it was all 5 of the patriachs: Rome, Alexandria, Antoich, Constantionople and Jerusalem. Rome became the Catholic (West) Church, while Constantionople became the Orthodox (East) Church, Alexandra became the Coptic Church, Antoich and Jerusalem became split between the dominatn East and West Churches.

And Constantine didn't outlaw other religions, but it was obvious that while he did not officially convert to Christianity until the end, he favored the Christian religion over others. That alone probably caused the largest conversion of Christians in history because nobody wanted to be on the bad side of the Emporer! It wasn't until Theodosius, nearly 43 years later, that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire. And even then, there are few examples of people being forced to convert.

Having a new religion undermined the political influence Judea had during that time. The Jews had a relative free life compared to other provinces thanks to a lot of deals made with the Romans. Pre-Roman was like you said more political than religious.

I agree, but if you trace most Christian on Christian violence, just the same, it generally comes back to a power struggle where someone uses religion to bolster their claims.

Yes, but it still was written down by witnesses, and not by Jesus himself. (I know I'm going in circles, but that's the whole problem...)
They weren't prophets either... They could very easily have had their own agenda.

True, but the Koran was not written by Mohammed himself, nor was the Torah written by Moses. They were all written by people that followed these people (lesser so with Moses since the Torah covers such a longer period outside of his life). I don't know about the Buddists or the Hindus, but I'm guessing that the people quoted in their texts probably didn't write it down themselves.

Because they were all Jesus' apostles. All twelve of them were apostles and leaving them out seems just like an agenda...

Well, to be fair, according to most Christian tradition, Mary wasn't. She may have been first among women, but only a small minority has ever viewed he on the same level of the apostles. Some of the other simply couldn't be traced back to the Apostles. A good example is the (Proto) Gospel of James. A fantastic book about the birth of Mary, mother of Jesus. However it doesn't appear at all in the record until very late (late 1st century, early 2nd I believe). It may be true. It may because someone's inspirational writing trying to fill in the backstory of one of the most important people in the NT. Would you include that, just because it bears the name of an Apostle and is called a Gospel?

And again, just like with the court situation we discussed earlier, when you have people not agreeing, you have to make a judgement call at some point and believe some and not believe others. If they had included "all" the Gospels, for 2000 years anyone that could read would probably end up thoroughly confused about what they were supposed to do and which details were important, etc. And let's face it, the Bible is long enough as it is! And just because something was left out of the official Bible doesn't mean it was completely ignored. For instance, the Proto-Gospel of James was well known among scholars and priest into the middle ages, and not as being heredical.

One thing I found interesting were the 'other' apocolypse texts. There are three version of the Apocolypse of Peter out there, though most bear the same general text. So why were they left out? Well, for one thing, realize that the Bible is organized in many ways like a novel, with a beginning (Genisis), rising action (the first parts of each of the Gospels), climax (the cruxification and resurection), falling action (the letters of the Apostles) and resolution (Revelations). Hard to have more than one ending! I do like one of the Peter's out there as it goes along with my 'last chance' belief, to some extent. Peter, in a vision, is standing in Hell with Jesus watching all the sinners suffer. He turns to Jesus and asks basically how if God is a loving God can he let all these people suffer eternal torment, which is a question many Christians have asked themselves. Jesus basically says that they will suffer for their sins, but ultimately be forgiven and achieve salvation. Now, while I like that, and it helps with that question, I can see why the Church wouldn't want to spread that message because many people would take it as sin all you want, you'll be forgiven eventually anyway!

About Genesis, what's the other version ?

I can't say what they are called, but there are at least three different versions of the creation story in regards to Adam and Eve. In one, Lilith appears as a the first wife of Adam, who turns out to be an evil sucubus. Lilith does not appear in the Genesis in the Torah or Bible, though she is mentioned in the Book of Isaiah. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls apparantly reference her in alternate version of some of the OT books as well as some non-Canonical books. She appears in several other stories, though most are of the creative license variety and appear much later, including in the middle ages.

Some of the other Genenisis stories appear different as well.

What about the billions of people who have not heard about Christ during these two millenia... Did they all perish and go to hell ?

A tough question for sure. Hence why I chose to believe in a last chance before judgement, essentially a "Ok, you lived a really good life according to you beliefs, but your beliefs were wrong. Now is your LAST chance to accept Christ's sacrifice." As I said, a bit of a cop out, but I don't believe the God that Christ revealed to us would damn someone forever just because they were raised on the 'wrong' beliefs. It's how I reconcile it. That said, I'm not going to tempt it myself by rejecting Christ or anything!

 

[blatantninja]

How do you know then that the 4 gospels chosen weren't just molded together to fit these ends ?

I doubt they were changed (outside of unintentional error), the eveidence doesn't really bare it out, as we have physical evidence the authenticates the texts to the mid to late 1st century. If there was any real manipulation going on, it would have had to be then, however what would be the purpose? The Church was not a political institution at all at that point. It had no real power, and in fact it was more concerned with growth and survival than trying to control its members. So any manipulation, due to the evidence would have had to occur REALLY soon after Christ's death and the Apostles spread out, but their wasn't much motivation for it at that point.

That said, I'm sure there were individual figures who tried to use the message to their own benefit and highlighted some things in their teachings and avoided others. No doubt at all.

Now again, back to why those four? Well, out of the ones that can be considered at least possible Apolistic, they are the four that have the most in common (some even believe that Matthew and Luke are actually based of what is called the "Q Gospel", and earlier and unknown Gospel, because they share some many identical passages). Now you'll also find similarities between each of the 4 Cannonicals with each of the non-Cannonicals as well in terms of events, places, and even quotes of Jesus. For instance, in Mark, Jesus often demands secrecy regarding his actions and identity, and even eludes to a 'hidden' or 'secret' knowledge that is really what the Gnostics ran with. So again, why exclude? Well, how many times do you need the same thing said over and over? The redundency that helps to authenticates them also makes them a bit irrelevant. And then you add in the parts that ARE different, and we get back to confusion. Do you really want to confuse the people you are preaching to?

As I said before, I found nothing in the non-Canonical Gospels to make me believe the Canonical are anything but the truth. Despite what the media may say, they aren't that sensationalistic to me, though to the more rigid minds of the time, I can see why they may seem that way.

I think in summery, the main reason they were pushed out is less theological than it is political. The proto-Orthodox Churches were mainly the ones founded by the Apostles who authored the four Gospels in the Bible. These Churches subscribed to a more organized, heirarchal entity that Constantine, and his successors, found convienent to their ideas of unifying their empire. The Gnostic Churches were from regions where the other Apostles went, though certainly they grew into other areas just as the proto-Orthodox ones did. These Churches often rejected any form of heirarchal authority and thus were detrimental to the purposes of the Emporer. Thus, they got pushed aside.

If you are so concerned about these books that were left out, why not include them in your analysis of Christianity? I did and in the end, I found it much ado about nothing. I'm afraid that until you read through them yourself (and of course the Canonical ones as well!), you'll never be able to lay aside your concerns and no one will be able to explain it to your satisfaction.


This is the book I used: Lost Scripture Good book and generally makes it clear where they have substituted the 'likely' text for areas where the parchement had been destroyed. Actually introduced me to one of my favorite books, the Sheperd of Hermes. A lovely book that didn't make it into the Bible because despite it's wide use, it was known to have been authored by one of Peter's followers rather than Peter himself.

 

[Pladio]

Now that is an interesting question, and I'm not 100% sure of the answer. IMO, the Bible mearly describes the act, not the desire, though desires can certainly be considered sinful, IE inpure thoughts. Don't forget that if you trace the origin of the word that was translated into Adultery in the 10 Commandments, it pretty much meant at the time even THINKING of sex outside of marriage. Personally, I view out wayward desires as test, sort of 'your own cross to bear,' and I believe how you react to them determines your morality.

According to a Jewish scholar :

"Do not covet your neighbor's wife"

One is forbidden to desire and plan how one may obtain that which God has given to another. Maimonides makes a distinction in codifying the laws between the instruction given here in Exodus (You shall not covet) and that given in Deuteronomy (You shall not desire), according to which one does not violate the Exodus commandment unless there is a physical action associated with the desire, even if this is legally purchasing an envied object.

The difference between both is big and should be defined in Paul's letters accordingly ...
Is it the act which is sinful, is it the desire ? Is it both ?
If it's just a sin like any other, then why the big fuss about there being gay priests ? Does it say anywhere that homosexuality is a bigger sin ?

But in my explain, you ARE abstaining from it for life. More on point, Priests and Nuns (at least in Roman tradition) abstain for life. Regardless, there is far more to life than sex.

I don't understand what you're saying

Actually Constantine didn't change the state religion to Catholicism. He didn't even convert until his death bed. A very common misconception. What he did do was legalize Christianity, where as before it was illegal and you could be executed just for being Christian. And it wasn't Catholicism, it was all 5 of the patriachs: Rome, Alexandria, Antoich, Constantionople and Jerusalem. Rome became the Catholic (West) Church, while Constantionople became the Orthodox (East) Church, Alexandra became the Coptic Church, Antoich and Jerusalem became split between the dominatn East and West Churches.

And Constantine didn't outlaw other religions, but it was obvious that while he did not officially convert to Christianity until the end, he favored the Christian religion over others. That alone probably caused the largest conversion of Christians in history because nobody wanted to be on the bad side of the Emporer! It wasn't until Theodosius, nearly 43 years later, that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire. And even then, there are few examples of people being forced to convert.

According to Wiki, they're not sure when Constantine actually converted.

Also,

In 316, Constantine acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the heresy of Donatism. After making a decision against the Donatists, Constantine led an army of Christians against Christians. After 300 years of pacifism, this was the first intra-Christian persecution. More significantly, in 325 he summoned the Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified), to deal mostly with the heresy of Arianism. Constantine also enforced the prohibition of the First Council of Nicaea against celebrating Easter on the day before the Jewish Passover (14 Nisan) (see Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy).[199]

So, either wiki is wrong or you are. Since wiki might not be the best historical document, I'll look elsewhere if you prefer.

I agree, but if you trace most Christian on Christian violence, just the same, it generally comes back to a power struggle where someone uses religion to bolster their claims.

But you're saying that Christianity wasn't strong enough politically to back then, so why would anyone use it to bolster their claims.

True, but the Koran was not written by Mohammed himself, nor was the Torah written by Moses. They were all written by people that followed these people (lesser so with Moses since the Torah covers such a longer period outside of his life). I don't know about the Buddists or the Hindus, but I'm guessing that the people quoted in their texts probably didn't write it down themselves.

That's completely wrong though. If you're a Muslim and truly believe then you do believe the Quran was written by Muhammed and that it was by the divinely inspired angel Gabriel that he managed to do that.
If you're Jewish and truly believe you believe that the whole Pentateuch was written by Moses as a prophet, thus divinely inspired directly by God.
No Christian believes that the writings of the apostles were divinely inspired. They believe as any other person that they were regular human beings who lived besides Jesus. Their writing though could have easily been changed, because of the very fact of them being human.

Well, to be fair, according to most Christian tradition, Mary wasn't. She may have been first among women, but only a small minority has ever viewed he on the same level of the apostles. Some of the other simply couldn't be traced back to the Apostles. A good example is the (Proto) Gospel of James. A fantastic book about the birth of Mary, mother of Jesus. However it doesn't appear at all in the record until very late (late 1st century, early 2nd I believe). It may be true. It may because someone's inspirational writing trying to fill in the backstory of one of the most important people in the NT. Would you include that, just because it bears the name of an Apostle and is called a Gospel?

And again, just like with the court situation we discussed earlier, when you have people not agreeing, you have to make a judgement call at some point and believe some and not believe others. If they had included "all" the Gospels, for 2000 years anyone that could read would probably end up thoroughly confused about what they were supposed to do and which details were important, etc. And let's face it, the Bible is long enough as it is! And just because something was left out of the official Bible doesn't mean it was completely ignored. For instance, the Proto-Gospel of James was well known among scholars and priest into the middle ages, and not as being heredical.

One thing I found interesting were the 'other' apocolypse texts. There are three version of the Apocolypse of Peter out there, though most bear the same general text. So why were they left out? Well, for one thing, realize that the Bible is organized in many ways like a novel, with a beginning (Genisis), rising action (the first parts of each of the Gospels), climax (the cruxification and resurection), falling action (the letters of the Apostles) and resolution (Revelations). Hard to have more than one ending! I do like one of the Peter's out there as it goes along with my 'last chance' belief, to some extent. Peter, in a vision, is standing in Hell with Jesus watching all the sinners suffer. He turns to Jesus and asks basically how if God is a loving God can he let all these people suffer eternal torment, which is a question many Christians have asked themselves. Jesus basically says that they will suffer for their sins, but ultimately be forgiven and achieve salvation. Now, while I like that, and it helps with that question, I can see why the Church wouldn't want to spread that message because many people would take it as sin all you want, you'll be forgiven eventually anyway!

Thanks, can you tell me where I can find a version of the whole Bible ? Including the non-canonical texts ? It might take me 10 years to finish everything, but I'd like to know ...
Also, with Christian commentary or with some kind of commentary, so I at least understand what's written.

I can't say what they are called, but there are at least three different versions of the creation story in regards to Adam and Eve. In one, Lilith appears as a the first wife of Adam, who turns out to be an evil sucubus. Lilith does not appear in the Genesis in the Torah or Bible, though she is mentioned in the Book of Isaiah. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls apparantly reference her in alternate version of some of the OT books as well as some non-Canonical books. She appears in several other stories, though most are of the creative license variety and appear much later, including in the middle ages.

Some of the other Genenisis stories appear different as well.

Never heard of this before ...
From a fast read through wiki though, the text on Lilith is not featured in Genesis, but Proverbs...

A tough question for sure. Hence why I chose to believe in a last chance before judgement, essentially a "Ok, you lived a really good life according to you beliefs, but your beliefs were wrong. Now is your LAST chance to accept Christ's sacrifice." As I said, a bit of a cop out, but I don't believe the God that Christ revealed to us would damn someone forever just because they were raised on the 'wrong' beliefs. It's how I reconcile it. That said, I'm not going to tempt it myself by rejecting Christ or anything!

Thanks for your patience with me

 

[Pladio]

I doubt they were changed (outside of unintentional error), the eveidence doesn't really bare it out, as we have physical evidence the authenticates the texts to the mid to late 1st century. If there was any real manipulation going on, it would have had to be then, however what would be the purpose? The Church was not a political institution at all at that point. It had no real power, and in fact it was more concerned with growth and survival than trying to control its members. So any manipulation, due to the evidence would have had to occur REALLY soon after Christ's death and the Apostles spread out, but their wasn't much motivation for it at that point.

... (snipped) ...

If you are so concerned about these books that were left out, why not include them in your analysis of Christianity? I did and in the end, I found it much ado about nothing. I'm afraid that until you read through them yourself (and of course the Canonical ones as well!), you'll never be able to lay aside your concerns and no one will be able to explain it to your satisfaction.


This is the book I used: Lost Scripture Good book and generally makes it clear where they have substituted the 'likely' text for areas where the parchement had been destroyed. Actually introduced me to one of my favorite books, the Sheperd of Hermes. A lovely book that didn't make it into the Bible because despite it's wide use, it was known to have been authored by one of Peter's followers rather than Peter himself.

Thanks for the explanation, it does make more sense now, but I'm still skeptic ...
Like in the above post, do you know where I could find a book with all the texts and with commentary ?

 

[blatantninja]

The difference between both is big and should be defined in Paul's letters accordingly ...
Is it the act which is sinful, is it the desire ? Is it both ?
If it's just a sin like any other, then why the big fuss about there being gay priests ? Does it say anywhere that homosexuality is a bigger sin ?

I hate to say that one sin is worse than another, especially when parts of the Bible say that all sins are equal, but I do think there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary sin. Involuntary is desire. It's something that pops into your head whether you want it to or not. Voluntary is action. You don't just happen to do something, you choose to do it.

That doesn't mean it is ok to just go around fantasizing about immoral acts, but again, that is more voluntary than an involuntary urge.

I don't understand what you're saying

I guess what I am saying is that sex is not a mandatory part of life. Some choose to abstain, whether for the priesthood or nunnery, some for other reasons.

According to Wiki, they're not sure when Constantine actually converted.

Wiki should be taken with a grain of salt. On less controversial things it can be pretty reliable, but on others, not so much. A lot of people want to believe that Constantine was truly the first Christian Emporer. The belief of his vision before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge is imperative for some reason. As such, the facts can become clouded. I've read a good amount and I can tell you two things:

1) If Constantine was a Christian, he wasn't a very good one during his rule! He did a lot of decidedly unChristian things to people that opposed him. Especially given the pacifistic nature of the faith, across divides, at that time, it seems unlikely he would have been truly accepted as a Christian, even with his patronage.

2) The more scholarly accounts I have read have all indicated a death bed conversion at the behest of his wife, who was Christian either most or all of her life. Nothing is completely provable, in fact it is likely that Constantine hid his religion, whatever it was, so as to not further offend other powerful faiths (and many of the pagan faiths still have considerable power) anymore than he had already done by his patronage of the Christians.

So, either wiki is wrong or you are. Since wiki might not be the best historical document, I'll look elsewhere if you prefer.

None of that is factually wrong, but it didn't require Constantine to be Christian to do it. Constantine saw Christianity, regardless of his personal beliefs, as a way he could ultimately unite the empire under a single religious doctrine, though he knew it would take time. This i why he favored the proto-Orthodox Church of the Gnostics, for their hierarchy.

If you are referring to the Christian on Christian violence, that's factually correct as well. As the Churches morphed into political as well as religious institutions, the pacifism of the past was often cast aside to indulge the political ambitions of Church leaders. This is why I say Constantine was both the best and worst thing to happen to Christianity.

But you're saying that Christianity wasn't strong enough politically to back then, so why would anyone use it to bolster their claims.

Constantine changed all this. The period of the first half of the 4th century saw a very significant change in the influence and organization of the Church as an entity.

That's completely wrong though. If you're a Muslim and truly believe then you do believe the Quran was written by Muhammed and that it was by the divinely inspired angel Gabriel that he managed to do that.

There is a difference between authorship and transcribing. IIRC, it wasn't until towards the end of Mohammed's life that his followers decided it might be a good idea to start writing all this stuff down.

If you're Jewish and truly believe you believe that the whole Pentateuch was written by Moses as a prophet, thus divinely inspired directly by God.

True, but Moses wasn't there for most of it. Sure maybe God told him directly what happened, but he wasn't there, and he was human, so he might have got a few details wrong, unless God actually guided his pen on each stroke.

No Christian believes that the writings of the apostles were divinely inspired. They believe as any other person that they were regular human beings who lived besides Jesus.

I disagree with that. Jesus was divine and they were inspired by Him. Additionally, Jesus passed on to some of them the ability to speak in tongues as well as perform healing miracles. Paul was visited by Jesus after the crucification and changed from a persecutor to a preacher of the word. That is every bit as divinely inspired as either the Moses or Mohamed beliefs since we believe the Jesus was not just a prophet, but divine himself. In that sense, Paul is an equal to Moses and Mohamed in divine inspiration.

Their writing though could have easily been changed, because of the very fact of them being human.

All were human. All were divinely inspired one way or another. Any of their writings could have been changed by the person who wrote it down, by themselves, or someone down the line that ended up in control of the only copy (not that I think that last one is likely in the case of any of the three).

 

[blatantninja]

Thanks, can you tell me where I can find a version of the whole Bible ? Including the non-canonical texts ? It might take me 10 years to finish everything, but I'd like to know ...
Also, with Christian commentary or with some kind of commentary, so I at least understand what's written.

I'm not sure of a version that has all canonical and non-canonical. Best bet is a good Bible with commentary like Corwyn suggest couple with either the one I linked (Lost Scriptures) or one similar to it. None of the Gospels are that long, so reading all of them really doesn't take too much time. Sadly, some pieces (like the middle third of Mary) are, unless new copies surface, lost to history, but the jist is still there.

Never heard of this before ...
From a fast read through wiki though, the text on Lilith is not featured in Genesis, but Proverbs...

Yeah, I was surprised about that as well when I looked at the Wiki, however it does seem to make at least a reference to it in where it discusses Adam. I saw a think on the History Channel about it a few years ago and it was mentioned in one of my other books on extra-Biblical texts.

Thanks for your patience with me

Anytime. Always fun to challenge one's beliefs! In fact, when I start spouting this stuff off (and it at least makes a little sense to someone else!) it makes me feel a bit better about my faith!

 

[Benedict]

Well, it's not so much banning. As I said, I (and I think most Christians) don't support laws banning such lifestyles, but that doesn't mean I don't think they qualify as sinful and that a proper Church should condone it. That doesn't mean gays should be kicked out of Church or anything, far from it. Like any other sinner they should be welcomed and hope that they change their ways (which gets to your next question). .

Seems reasonable enough, if you're ascribing to an arbitrary system of morality where something's classed as sinful then you're allowed to say that something is sinful under that system of morality.

It's only when people forget that alternative moral frameworks are equally valid and should be respected that the problems start, which unfortunately is something people struggle with.

 

[Pladio]

I hate to say that one sin is worse than another, especially when parts of the Bible say that all sins are equal, but I do think there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary sin. Involuntary is desire. It's something that pops into your head whether you want it to or not. Voluntary is action. You don't just happen to do something, you choose to do it.

I don't know all the sins according to Christianity, I don't know if you follow the Seven deadly sins or if you follow another way of life...

However, I am sure that (almost) every priest in this world has sinned and still does to this day. I'm talking about voluntary acts of sin.
If the only sin in the world is your sexuality then maybe not, but if there are other sins then it's most probable that everyone is a sinner.

That doesn't mean it is ok to just go around fantasizing about immoral acts, but again, that is more voluntary than an involuntary urge.

Is the sin of pre-marital sex just a sin if you act on it or if you desire it ?
Also, can Christians have relationships with non-Christians ?

I guess what I am saying is that sex is not a mandatory part of life. Some choose to abstain, whether for the priesthood or nunnery, some for other reasons.

Yes, but that for some reason I do not understand, since sex is not a sin. Pre-marital sex is ...

Wiki should be taken with a grain of salt. On less controversial things it can be pretty reliable, but on others, not so much. A lot of people want to believe that Constantine was truly the first Christian Emporer. The belief of his vision before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge is imperative for some reason. As such, the facts can become clouded. I've read a good amount and I can tell you two things:

1) If Constantine was a Christian, he wasn't a very good one during his rule! He did a lot of decidedly unChristian things to people that opposed him. Especially given the pacifistic nature of the faith, across divides, at that time, it seems unlikely he would have been truly accepted as a Christian, even with his patronage.

2) The more scholarly accounts I have read have all indicated a death bed conversion at the behest of his wife, who was Christian either most or all of her life. Nothing is completely provable, in fact it is likely that Constantine hid his religion, whatever it was, so as to not further offend other powerful faiths (and many of the pagan faiths still have considerable power) anymore than he had already done by his patronage of the Christians.

I know wiki isn't the best, that's why I said I could look elsewhere. The thing is, wiki is the easiest place for quick info...

None of that is factually wrong, but it didn't require Constantine to be Christian to do it. Constantine saw Christianity, regardless of his personal beliefs, as a way he could ultimately unite the empire under a single religious doctrine, though he knew it would take time. This i why he favored the proto-Orthodox Church of the Gnostics, for their hierarchy.

So, he's the first one to make it political ?

If you are referring to the Christian on Christian violence, that's factually correct as well. As the Churches morphed into political as well as religious institutions, the pacifism of the past was often cast aside to indulge the political ambitions of Church leaders. This is why I say Constantine was both the best and worst thing to happen to Christianity.

I would only call it the best if you consider killing fellow-Christians a good thing.

Constantine changed all this. The period of the first half of the 4th century saw a very significant change in the influence and organization of the Church as an entity.

And then as two entities, and then as more than that.
That's another problem I don't understand. Christianity has become so political it's hard to know what to believe in.

There is a difference between authorship and transcribing. IIRC, it wasn't until towards the end of Mohammed's life that his followers decided it might be a good idea to start writing all this stuff down.

Again, if you believe in Islam then Mohammed wrote it all down while Gabriel recited it. Meaning it is DIRECTLY inspired by the divine.

True, but Moses wasn't there for most of it. Sure maybe God told him directly what happened, but he wasn't there, and he was human, so he might have got a few details wrong, unless God actually guided his pen on each stroke.

Same with Judaism, if you truly believe then God did tell Moses what to write, the only thing that isn't sure was if he got it all at once or he got it piece by piece. So there would be no details wrong.

I disagree with that. Jesus was divine and they were inspired by Him. Additionally, Jesus passed on to some of them the ability to speak in tongues as well as perform healing miracles. Paul was visited by Jesus after the crucification and changed from a persecutor to a preacher of the word. That is every bit as divinely inspired as either the Moses or Mohamed beliefs since we believe the Jesus was not just a prophet, but divine himself. In that sense, Paul is an equal to Moses and Mohamed in divine inspiration.

So, no it's not the same thing, Jesus didn't tell them what to write. They might have been divinely inspired, but they wrote what they wanted.

 

[Pladio]

I'm not sure of a version that has all canonical and non-canonical. Best bet is a good Bible with commentary like Corwyn suggest couple with either the one I linked (Lost Scriptures) or one similar to it. None of the Gospels are that long, so reading all of them really doesn't take too much time. Sadly, some pieces (like the middle third of Mary) are, unless new copies surface, lost to history, but the jist is still there.

What's a good bible with commentary then ? (and Lost Scripture, right ?)
Also have to consider that I learned a lot (well, not a lot at all, but some stuff) from a Jewish perspective so if I see just two different interpretations it might be a problem ...

Yeah, I was surprised about that as well when I looked at the Wiki, however it does seem to make at least a reference to it in where it discusses Adam. I saw a think on the History Channel about it a few years ago and it was mentioned in one of my other books on extra-Biblical texts.

But there are a lot of references to people from other books, doesn't mean there are multiple versions.

[quote[Anytime. Always fun to challenge one's beliefs! In fact, when I start spouting this stuff off (and it at least makes a little sense to someone else!) it makes me feel a bit better about my faith![/QUOTE]

I like talking about beliefs too, but there are so many things I see that show that even if God made a new Covenant, he wouldn't have broken the old one since it's a promise of God and he wouldn't break it.
There might be two Covenants though

 

[blatantninja]

Seems reasonable enough, if you're ascribing to an arbitrary system of morality where something's classed as sinful then you're allowed to say that something is sinful under that system of morality.

It's only when people forget that alternative moral frameworks are equally valid and should be respected that the problems start, which unfortunately is something people struggle with.

I agree with the last part. I wouldn't say that the system is arbitrary of course.

 

[blatantninja]

but if there are other sins then it's most probable that everyone is a sinner.

Yup. Because we are imperfect, even the clergy!

Is the sin of pre-marital sex just a sin if you act on it or if you desire it ?
Also, can Christians have relationships with non-Christians ?

Both are sinful. I would assume so on the relationships. I'm not aware of anything barring it.

Yes, but that for some reason I do not understand, since sex is not a sin. Pre-marital sex is ...

It kind of goes like this: Procreation is one of the greatest gifts of God. Procreation should only occur within the confines of marriage, therefore sex should only occur within the confines of marriage.

I know wiki isn't the best, that's why I said I could look elsewhere. The thing is, wiki is the easiest place for quick info...

Yeah, I love wiki!

So, he's the first one to make it political ?

I'm not sure if he was truly the first (First Roman I think though), but he certainly had the most lasting affect.

I would only call it the best if you consider killing fellow-Christians a good thing.

The best part would be that Christians no longer faced death simply for admitted their belief in Christ, which was the case before Constantine. It opened the door of Christianity to the largest population in the known world. Those are the good things! Christianity may never have flourished as it did without the Roman Empire.

That's another problem I don't understand. Christianity has become so political it's hard to know what to believe in.

That's one reason I have stayed away from the Roman Catholic Church. To each their own, but I think it is still too political. I'm Luthern for the record.

Again, if you believe in Islam then Mohammed wrote it all down while Gabriel recited it. Meaning it is DIRECTLY inspired by the divine.

I think that is a matter of debate. I asked a muslim friend of mine and he said that Gabriel recited it and Mohammed preached it. IIRC, the phrasing used means that it was 'given directly' not that he necessarily transcribed it right then and there. And then those that transcribed it were righting down exactly what Mohammed said, which is believed to be vertbatim what Gabriel gave him.

So, no it's not the same thing, Jesus didn't tell them what to write. They might have been divinely inspired, but they wrote what they wanted.

Fair enough. I don't really see it as a major point to me though. Of course that is probably because I don't believe that God told Moses or Mohammed exactly what to write down!

 

[blatantninja]

What's a good bible with commentary then ? (and Lost Scripture, right ?)
Also have to consider that I learned a lot (well, not a lot at all, but some stuff) from a Jewish perspective so if I see just two different interpretations it might be a problem ...

Perhaps Corwin can suggest one. I've never read one, so I can't really recommend any.

But there are a lot of references to people from other books, doesn't mean there are multiple versions.

I'll have to look further, a quick google search didn't pick anything up, but I'm pretty confident in what I said. There are at least three different Adam and Eve stories, one which includes Lilith, IIRC.

I like talking about beliefs too, but there are so many things I see that show that even if God made a new Covenant, he wouldn't have broken the old one since it's a promise of God and he wouldn't break it.
There might be two Covenants though

That's actually one of the reasons, IMO, that the more outlying tenants of Gnosticism developed. Some very small sects actually believe that the God of Creation and Father of Jesus was not the same God as the angry, vengeful God that appears in most of the Old Testament. In fact, they view that as a lesser God. I had a hard time grasping how they rectified it though, which maybe is part of the reason the idea never took hold!

But why wouldn't have God broken the old Covenant? He's been known to change his mind before! Look at the story of Noah. At first he is going to save Noah. Then he's going to wipe him out and completely start over. Then he's moved by Noah's faith and spares him and his family. Maybe he decided that the old Covenant wasn't getting it done!

 

[Pladio]

Yup. Because we are imperfect, even the clergy!

So why the ban on gay clergy ? Everyone sins, we agreed on that.
You said all sins are equal too...
So, why ?

Both are sinful. I would assume so on the relationships. I'm not aware of anything barring it.

Is that so with every sin ? Just the desire for it is a sin ?

It kind of goes like this: Procreation is one of the greatest gifts of God. Procreation should only occur within the confines of marriage, therefore sex should only occur within the confines of marriage.

Yes, but why can't Catholic priests marry ?

The best part would be that Christians no longer faced death simply for admitted their belief in Christ, which was the case before Constantine. It opened the door of Christianity to the largest population in the known world. Those are the good things! Christianity may never have flourished as it did without the Roman Empire.

You never know... Maybe it would have been the one and only religion by now if it hadn't become an organized one, look at Hinduism, Sikhism...

It would have been a religion that does what it says... a religion of good. Instead so many evil things done by people who have said that it was in the name of the religion...

That's one reason I have stayed away from the Roman Catholic Church. To each their own, but I think it is still too political. I'm Luthern for the record.

Isn't the Lutheran Church part of the Anglican Church ?

Fair enough. I don't really see it as a major point to me though. Of course that is probably because I don't believe that God told Moses or Mohammed exactly what to write down!

The point is that the Gospels are subjective while the Pentateuch isn't ...
They could have already then been written for their own political agendas ...

 

[Pladio]

Perhaps Corwin can suggest one. I've never read one, so I can't really recommend any.

Corrwwwiiiin!!!

I'll have to look further, a quick google search didn't pick anything up, but I'm pretty confident in what I said. There are at least three different Adam and Eve stories, one which includes Lilith, IIRC.

I believe those different stories were written later, such as in the Kaballah or the Talmud...

That's actually one of the reasons, IMO, that the more outlying tenants of Gnosticism developed. Some very small sects actually believe that the God of Creation and Father of Jesus was not the same God as the angry, vengeful God that appears in most of the Old Testament. In fact, they view that as a lesser God. I had a hard time grasping how they rectified it though, which maybe is part of the reason the idea never took hold!

Well, since it's supposed to be a monotheistic religion, that might have been a problem too. Except if you're talking about a Quadruplity Father, Evil God, Jesus, Holy Spirit ? It could make sense...

But why wouldn't have God broken the old Covenant? He's been known to change his mind before! Look at the story of Noah. At first he is going to save Noah. Then he's going to wipe him out and completely start over. Then he's moved by Noah's faith and spares him and his family. Maybe he decided that the old Covenant wasn't getting it done!

Well, you can't actually believe God changed his mind ... God knew what was going to happen, but he needed Noah proclamation of faith. Otherwise he could just have saved Noah... There wouldn't have been a real story then. It would just have been a flood with Noah and his family surviving. Noah had to attest his faith. It was a test like many other things.

God never broke a promise though, when he said he'd do something because of something, that thing happened. When he promised something to someone that thing happened. Breaking a promise isn't something God has done, not in the OT and not in the NT...