Sacred Tradition

Between now and Christmas I will be writing a short paper on the question of Tradition: Where Does the Authority Lie?

Speedy, do you care to vet/critique it?

How about I post a section at a time and we can discuss it. I would like to be as objective as I can be (I will write as a committed Protestant, of course /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

This is not for the sake of argument. I want it to be a reasoned and irenic discussion, but I invite you to poke holes in it. I want my thinking to be tested rigorously. How about it?

[GenX]

Sure.

But in the end, it would behoove you to check with a more authoritative source, I would think.

But I'll provide what I can.

[Soundbear]

http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-apostolic-fathers-catechism-class-for-catholics-and-orthodox.htm

hmm, Bible.ca .. I'd have to double check any of their facts. It appears to be a populist level website, with some pretty shoddy conclusions about ecclesiology.

Somehow I do not trust that website.

Any website that claims that evangelicals are pseudo-sola scriptura, doesn't even understand sola scriptura in the fist place. ANd for them to speak for thousands of churches world wide, and yet deny that they have any tradition is highly suspect in my mind. Clearly they try hard to make the Bible say what THEY want it to say.

[GRUMPY]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Clearly they try hard to make the Bible say what THEY want it to say.
</div></div>

A bit like the pot calling the kettle black wouldn't you have to admit.

Our resident gadfly shows up, right on cue.
Sure. Pot. Kettle. whatever.

[GRUMPY]

what I'm saying is that everyone who reads it has their own interpitation of it .

Grumpy, I understand that. The question is whether there is such a thing as an honest interpretation.

Can one actually understand what the original author's intention is or was? Does interpretation always have to involve revisionism to suit one's own palate?

I know that it is tempting to suspect that anyone who has an interest in religious things will interpret their sacred scriptures to make it suit their own tastes.

But surely not everyone is guilty of doing this all the time?

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But surely not everyone is guilty of doing this all the time? </div></div>

no, but I would wager the vast majority does.

[peterparker_sault]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Grumpy, I understand that. The question is whether there is such a thing as an honest interpretation.

Can one actually understand what the original author's intention is or was? Does interpretation always have to involve revisionism to suit one's own palate?

I know that it is tempting to suspect that anyone who has an interest in religious things will interpret their sacred scriptures to make it suit their own tastes.

But surely not everyone is guilty of doing this all the time?
</div></div>

Ah... finally, I've found a forum with some substance... and room for TRUE debate...

The PRIMARY basis for argument regarding the Bible IS it's interpretation, or more accuretly, it's TRANSLATION.

(This is where my facts get sketchy, but a good 15 minutes of Google searches should produce the correct results)

In the early 80's when "computerized" translation was cutting it's teeth in the big world, a group of computer scientist teamed up with some language experts, and developed an interesting test. They feed common sayings into there computer, had it translate it from English to (lets say) Russian, then from Russian to (lets say) French, and then from French to (again) Chinese, and then back to English. As you can imagine, it was like something out of the old "Telephone Game". Only WORSE! I wish I could remember the examples because it was just freaking hilarious..... (Okay Josh... bring us back to the point here). ...

The Bible has undergone SO MANY language changes and updates that there is no possible way for it to be accurate. Churches actually count on this, if they were all reading the same book, then with the same interpretation, then how could they have opposing views?

Now let's look at who DID the translating... We know what King James did for a living right? WHat about the Ceaser's... All Leaders... chosen by God, to rule over the lands and the people in their domains. And how better to rule, than by the force of God? I'm sure that Christ did say "Render Unto God the things that are God's." If YOU were Ceaser, would you be able to stop yourself from a little edit there? Maybe add, Render Unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's?"

The TRUTH is, aside from Michael J. Fox, his nutt professor frind, and Professor PeaBody, there is little chance that any of us will ever know... So we MUST continue to try to interpret it in such a way that makes sense.
Of course the corner stone of faith is doubt, but that a WHOLE different conversation.

Not sure how much of the is relevant to the post, but I find it interesting, so I hope someone else does too.
l8r
j

Peter Parker, let's just take one of your assertions:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Bible has undergone SO MANY language changes and updates that there is no possible way for it to be accurate. Churches actually count on this, if they were all reading the same book, then with the same interpretation, then how could they have opposing views? </div></div>

And let's take ONE text. Just one sentence. And let's push it to the limit, okay?
You choose the text. (Please use a New Testament text, I am a bit more conversant in Greek than Hebrew).

We'll trace it back as far as we can go. We'll track exactly how many language changes there are.

And we'll define the words in each language. Let's put this 'post office game' theory to the test.

[peterparker_sault]

Well... in this quest for perfection I pick Matthew 5:48
Here are a few to get you started...



New American Standard Bible
"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

GOD'S WORD Translation
That is why you must be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect. Don't Do Good Works to Be Praised by People

King James Bible
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

American Standard Version
Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Bible in Basic English
Be then complete in righteousness, even as your Father in heaven is complete.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

Darby Bible Translation
Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.

English Revised Version
Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Tyndale New Testament
Ye shall therefore be perfect, even as your heavenly father is perfect.

Weymouth New Testament
You however are to be complete in goodness, as your Heavenly Father is complete.

Webster's Bible Translation
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

World English Bible
Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Young's Literal Translation
ye shall therefore be perfect, as your Father who is in the heavens is perfect.

ANd Drum Roll please... the "Average Catholic" Version.
Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

Pay close attention to what I like to call the flying commas. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
Joshua (From the Greek for the Latin Jesus... or is it from the the Latin for the Greek... can't remember).

OK, very good. They all seem to say the same thing.
So.. the translation in all of these versions are very similar. But you said that these have been translated so many times that we cannot be sure what the original text said.

How are you going to prove that?

FYI, Commas are never a part of the text. We need to figure that out by contextual hints. Does comma placement make a difference in this text?

Another FYI, Joshua (or better yet, yeshua) is the Hebrew name for Jesus. It means, Saviour, or Deliverer

Jesus is the transliteration of the Greek, and because I don't have Greek fonts here, I cannot spell it.

question, Peter Parker:

You aren't assuming that all of those versions that you quoted in your above posts are all successive translation from one another, do you?

Most of them are direct translations from the Greek texts.
Thus, the English meaning in each of those versions are almost identical. How do you want to demonstrate that there is a problem?

Shall I list and define and parse each Greek word?

[peterparker_sault]

First... do comma's make a difference.... Uhhh... hmmm... YES.. A Panda Walks into a cafe and eats, shoots, and leaves. Did he just gobble a tree, or cause a riot? Just a subtle difference I would say.
They don't all mean the same thing some of them say you have to be perfect and some of them say you have to BECOME perfect. And the original text doesn't say you have to be perfect at all, it says you have to be spiritually mature.
Here's another coma issue I have...

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." The comma should not be after "thee", but "day." The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.

But the true issue is much deeper and further back, the majority (i would say All but I'm sure you can find some published text to prove me wrong) of published scripture is based on the Vulgate text (Thanks be to both God & Guttenburg)... which is... well... pretty much not very accurate. (Can't remember if it's based on the Koine or the Alexandrian... but the more I think about it the more I think they are the same.... check me on that)

In any case... PRETTY MUCH the same thing is no where near saying the same thing.
OMG.. I'm late for work...
Yeshua....

[peterparker_sault]

And no... translating the current version back into greek, and then defining the word... that sounds an awful lot like my telephone game in the beginning doesn't it. The WRITTEN word of God was actually the Orally recited word of god for the first 400 years... But that's a whole DIFFERENT issues I have with it.

No, these are all CURRENT translations (current of course being figurative. I consider something 300 years old to be current when talking about a span of 2000+ years i guess)
There are as many versions in the set of scripture from before 1600, and I'm sure they are all BASICLY the same as well. Then there are 300 versions from 500 years before that... etc

J

Why don't we focus on one issue at a time. You sound like you have some knowledge of the process of textual transmission.

What did you mean by "There are as many versions in the set of scripture from before 1600, and I'm sure they are all BASICLY the same as well."

Where did you glean this information?

But to the point:

So the question is, does this verse mean we are to be perfect or complete or spiritually mature?

I guess the first question we should ask is whether this is a translation problem or an interpretive problem?

There is a difference.

Interpretive problems would be determined by a different set of criteria, such as context, common usage, primary and remote definitions, etc. We face the same kind of challenge in the English language.

Secondly, I asked (or meant to ask) whether the comma in this particular context would make a difference? I understand generally, the function of a comma. Thanks for the lesson. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

The word, perfect:
Meaning: 1) brought to its end, finished 2) wanting nothing necessary to completeness 3) perfect 4) that which is perfect 4a) consummate human integrity and virtue 4b) of men 4b1) full grown, adult, of full age, mature
______________

So Peter, those are your choices with the Greek definitions.

now, take the Webster's New World dictionary and note how many definitions of perfect we have in the English language.

Yet, in the English language, we have no problem deciding what that word means, by its contextual usage.
Sometimes language is precise. Sometimes it is not.
But to walk away saying, "We can't determine the authorial intent because it has gone through so many translations" is giving away far too much.

Like I say, this is an interpretive issue, not a translation issue.

[dancingqueen]

please bear with me as I am not an expert on the subject, but wouldn't one's interpertation of something be completely dependant of the translation, and the translation of something be completely dependant on their interpertation?
If so, how can they really be two different issues?

Well, let me give you an example.

There are several different words for the word, love, in the Greek.

eros, phileo and agape

In English, we translate them all as love. That's translation.

Now, interpretation asks the question, 'what is it's intended meaning?'. COntext plays a significant role in interpretation.

Interpret the following.

I love chocolate chip cookies.

The pedophile obviously loves young children.

I love my faithful friends.

Each sentence requires interpretation, AFTER the translation work is done.

Obviously the word "love" has different shades of meaning.

[GenX]

Ummm, hi, I'm relatively new here. Can anyone point me to the "Sacred Tradition" thread?

I'm supposed to meet someone there.

I am up to my eyeballs in work.. anything substantive is going to be awhile.

[peterparker_sault]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, let me give you an example.

There are several different words for the word, love, in the Greek.

eros, phileo and agape

In English, we translate them all as love. That's translation.

Now, interpretation asks the question, 'what is it's intended meaning?'. COntext plays a significant role in interpretation.

Interpret the following.

I love chocolate chip cookies.

The pedophile obviously loves young children.

I love my faithful friends.

Each sentence requires interpretation, AFTER the translation work is done.

Obviously the word "love" has different shades of meaning.
</div></div>


Okay... hold on a sec.. THis is a whole NEW issue I have now. Your Phrasing is a bit pampas. Just because we speak English, does not make it the TRUE language on the basis of which all other languages should be judged or marked. (This should be especially apparent to Canadians....) Lets start by saying the Greeks have 3 (and they actually use 4, but I can't remember... i know it somehow translates loosely to charity, but is actually the Love either FOR or OF God. a whole different interesting side bar) words for which there is no literal translation in English.

One (Eros) is the Love of the Flesh. (We might call that Lust)
One (Phileo) is the Love of friendship.
One (Agape) is the Love Unconditional.

Eros is also the name of the Greek God Of Lust/Sexuality
Phileo can be seen in the "City of Brotherly Love" (Philadelphia)

I wouldn't say I lust after the oreo cookie.... Although I might have unconditional love for it. I don't lust after my friends... Nor do I feel Agape for the hot guy walking down the street.
Do they ALL basicly mean love? Well, yhea... kinda sorta... DO they have the same meaning? ABSOLUTELY NO. Is this how TRANSLATION ERRORS, and not just interprative errors happen... EXACTLY.

Thats All. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
J (Or Y as your language of preference dictates)

You are conflating interpretation with translation. CAhrity was a 17t century English word for love, yes.

And you're also overlapping classic with koine Greek. I left out storge, which was not used in koine.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just because we speak English, does not make it the TRUE language on the basis of which all other languages should be judged or marked. </div></div>

??? huh?

I'm not claiming that.
I'm using that as an example to distinguish translation from interpretation. I might have used a different language, but then I may have lost you. Sheesh!

It is precisely because we KNOW what those word meant that we can be quite certain of at least the distinctions. And thus errors are minimized.

Now to get back to your original assertion that we cannot possibly know what the originals were due to translational difficulties.

You have yet to demonstrate one.

[peterparker_sault]

Oh I was still waiting for an answer on the Mathew of posts gone by. Must I be perfect, or just be working toward perfect, or is it adequate that I should just be spiritually mature? Spiritually mature being..... And don't worry... you won't lose me in any language... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif (Thank goodnes for babble fish. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Josh

But Peter, I've been trying to tell you; the question you raise is NOT a translation problem. It is an interpretive one. Thus it doesn't hold up as an example of the objection you raised. In other words, the average Greek person in the first century hearing the original text would have the same struggle we have with understanding the meaning, because the word, 'perfect' has several inflections in Greek, just as it does in English. This problem does not come under the category of "post office" as you keep implying.

A "post office" problem such as you indicate is when the actual word (that may have 5 different definitions) is garbled over time, because of scribal error or amendation. We know what the original word for 'perfect" was in Koine Greek.

The interpretive problem exists in ANY language. You will have 4-6 definitions of any word in almost any language.

Are you familiar with hermeneutics?
Can you confirm that you understand the distinctions here?

[peterparker_sault]

Yhea... it's my refrence of the Koine Greek being accurate... This is exactly one of those instances. My stubleing block is that I don't remember the actual mistake, nor do I have the skill, nor time or patience to work it backwards. But lets try this.

"Be then complete in righteousness, even as your Father in heaven is complete"

the irony is, it actually makes more sense.
My original claim wasn't that it was a whole HOST of errors working together. Amedation, scribal error, mistranslation (which would be the number one scribal error).

Have we NOT just shown examples of all of these in the past 2 days?

J

Well, here is what you claimed originally:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Bible has undergone SO MANY language changes and updates that there is no possible way for it to be accurate. </div></div>

You have not demonstrated this. You have only thus far shown that there are some interpretive questions. Now, there ARE some translation problems. In some cases, we are not certain which m****cript best reflects the originals. Or there are words whose definitions we cannot ascertain. But there are no such instances that affect any main theme or essential doctrine affecting the core tenets of the CHristian faith.

I can understand if you made a generalization, but are now backing off because you cannot really take the time to give specific examples.

But I hope your authority for saying the above was not the fellow who wrote the Davinci Code or something as fictitious. I do realize it is a popular misconception being promoted by various writers who have realized that there is a lot of money to be made in deconstructing Christianity.

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ummm, hi, I'm relatively new here. Can anyone point me to the "Sacred Tradition" thread?

I'm supposed to meet someone there. </div></div>

I think it is over by the "I thought there might be" just take a right at the "Scandal Brewing at Oral Roberts" thread and you should be there /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, let me give you an example.

There are several different words for the word, love, in the Greek.

eros, phileo and agape

In English, we translate them all as love. That's translation.

Now, interpretation asks the question, 'what is it's intended meaning?'. COntext plays a significant role in interpretation.

Interpret the following.

I love chocolate chip cookies.

The pedophile obviously loves young children.

I love my faithful friends.

Each sentence requires interpretation, AFTER the translation work is done.

Obviously the word "love" has different shades of meaning.
</div></div>

I know what interpertation and translation are, and know they mean two different things, but what I am trying to wrap my head around is how can they both be two different issues when both interpertation and translation seem to be the problem here... since both aspects are interchangable I don't see how it's accurate to say one will always happen before the other in explaining how we read the bible.
I must say, a very interesting topic though /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[peterparker_sault]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I know what interpertation and translation are, and know they mean two different things, but what I am trying to wrap my head around is how can they both be two different issues when both interpertation and translation seem to be the problem here... since both aspects are interchangable I don't see how it's accurate to say one will always happen before the other in explaining how we read the bible.
I must say, a very interesting topic though /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

I think the difference is, you and I see it the same way, but not everyone does... Hope that helps. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
J

[peterparker_sault]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, here is what you claimed originally:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Bible has undergone SO MANY language changes and updates that there is no possible way for it to be accurate. </div></div>

You have not demonstrated this. You have only thus far shown that there are some interpretive questions. Now, there ARE some translation problems. In some cases, we are not certain which m****cript best reflects the originals. Or there are words whose definitions we cannot ascertain. But there are no such instances that affect any main theme or essential doctrine affecting the core tenets of the CHristian faith.

I can understand if you made a generalization, but are now backing off because you cannot really take the time to give specific examples.

But I hope your authority for saying the above was not the fellow who wrote the Davinci Code or something as fictitious. I do realize it is a popular misconception being promoted by various writers who have realized that there is a lot of money to be made in deconstructing Christianity.


</div></div>
My authority for saying this come almost 100% from my sheer nerdie-ness. (Yes it's true, some people still research stuff for the sheer joy of researching... can't help it... it's actually almost compulsive... comes from my personal HATRED of not knowing things... sick hey?) While I DO think the Davinci Code was a nice spin on the story, it was by no means unique, or even remotely original, in fact so much has been written on that theory over the past well, about 1500 years, that it's not even really all that exciting. As a fan of the written word though, the story really is a page turner.

And yes.. there is a WHOLE lot of money to be made in deconstructing Christianity. But no where NEAR the money that has been made in it's construction. But alas, who am I to judge, so I try not to... I will continue to celebrate Christmas in December, in honor of our pagan friends, and I will continue to celebrate Easter based, incorrectly, on the Phases of the moon, regardless of the fact that the Orthodox Easter REALLY does make more sense, (Didn't Jesus celebrate passover before going into the City?) I just have to draw the line at burning a bull to please god, and going to hell because I'm gay.
That's All. THis was fun though... Thanks for helping me flex my brain... Wouldn't mind checking out your Thesis... or what have you.

J

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: peterparker_sault</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just have to draw the line at burning a bull to please god, and going to hell because I'm gay. </div></div>

I don't really think the God of Catholosisim or Christianity really want us to go to hell, I think it is just what the radical Christians or Catholics want... that being said, they interperate the Bible to say what they want it to say, and sometimes I think it then gets in the heads of the more "non-radical" Christians and Catholics. (I am using catholosisim and Christianity as examples since they are more predominitory in our civilization here in North America I know other religious radicals have similar viewpoints on homosexuality)

thoughts?

[Soundbear]

"...they interperate the Bible to say what they want it to say,.."

So who would be more at fault? The one's who will NOT look at what the original writers intended, will NOT consider the depth and care with which Chritian theologians try to determine that intention was, will NOT recognize ANY rules of interpretation of ancient writings that interfere with their agendas, or us??

BTW, Christians hate the sin of homosexuality, not the homosexual himself. Those who ignore the difference do so at their peril.

DQ, it is not that God or the average Christians WANTS anyone to go to hell.

It is that people do not want God in their lives. And life, without God, is hell.

Right now, although people do not believe it or like it, God IS a part of their lives. Every good gift that they experience, every moment of health, every minute of beauty and love, is all a consequence of God's grace and kindness to them, in spite of their disbelief.

Once He withdraws completely, and grants people their wish, they will realize the folly of having dined at the the King's banqueting table for so long without gratitude or acknowledgment. While stuffing their faces with His blessings, they shake their fist at Him, shouting, "You do not exist."

There are only two choices in life, ultimately.

We either pray,
"Thy will be done"
or we insist
My will be done.

Either we say to God, "Have it your way.."
or God says to us, "Have it your way." (insert Sinatra's well known tune here, "I did it my way.."

[peterparker_sault]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"...they interperate the Bible to say what they want it to say,.."

So who would be more at fault? The one's who will NOT look at what the original writers intended, will NOT consider the depth and care with which Chritian theologians try to determine that intention was, will NOT recognize ANY rules of interpretation of ancient writings that interfere with their agendas, or us??

BTW, Christians hate the sin of homosexuality, not the homosexual himself. Those who ignore the difference do so at their peril. </div></div>

Yhea but they are also supposed to HATE the sin of eating shellfish.

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">DQ, it is not that God or the average Christians WANTS anyone to go to hell.</div></div>

Although the reasoning may not be there, I did kinda say that /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Although I have to say, the rest of what you say is a little hard to belive since crapy things happened in my life when I did have god in it as well... Really, nothing has changed /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> So who would be more at fault? The one's who will NOT look at what the original writers intended, will NOT consider the depth and care with which Chritian theologians try to determine that intention was, will NOT recognize ANY rules of interpretation of ancient writings that interfere with their agendas, or us??</div></div>
yes, and those are what I call radicals.

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: peterparker_sault</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"...they interperate the Bible to say what they want it to say,.."

So who would be more at fault? The one's who will NOT look at what the original writers intended, will NOT consider the depth and care with which Chritian theologians try to determine that intention was, will NOT recognize ANY rules of interpretation of ancient writings that interfere with their agendas, or us??

BTW, Christians hate the sin of homosexuality, not the homosexual himself. Those who ignore the difference do so at their peril. </div></div>

Yhea but they are also supposed to HATE the sin of eating shellfish. </div></div>

That is the problem with radicalisim (is that even a word?) you don't get the whole picture, you just get what they want you to get and miss out on the stuff that does not suit their needs

DQ, might I suggest that you cannot get 'the whole picture' by reading snippets.

Big pictures take a long time to develop.

Finding truth is lifelong and is sometimes very hard work.

Bad things happen. It's the human condition.
But they don't happen continuously. That's God's goodness.

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">DQ, might I suggest that you cannot get 'the whole picture' by reading snippets such as the 'shellfish' comment.</div></div>

Aydeloof, I don't think your really reading what I am trying to say... I think you may be excpecting me to be saying something that I am not... do you consider yourself a radical?

[dancingqueen]

The reason I am always asking more questions and making less judgment is because I know I don't have the big picture. I don't disbelive Jesus Christ, but I think radicalisim has changed the way your average joe follows Christianity or how disbelivers see the religion (if that makes any sence... I know it does in my head)

[KDawg]

Radical....radicalism. 2 words thrown out a lot these days. How do you define radical, DQ?

[dancingqueen]

Without going to dictionary.com I would define it as an attitude or method of using (in this example) faith in order to suit your own needs. Looking at one aspect and not others. I feel radicalisim is used in many other things and not just faith, but tend to be used with things people hold importaint. Maybe I'm using the wrong word?

I would be honoured to be called a radical follower of Jesus.

Whether I am a radical in your mind or others would be hard to judge without a personal knowledge of myself.

DQ, the major change or shift that has happened in the last 60nyears of Christianity is that an entirely liberal element has moved away from the historical faith, and they have turned and pointed the finger at the ones who remained behind and refused to jettison the tenets of historical Christianity and have labeled what they once were as 'fundamentalists' or even worse, 'radicals'. These labels are designed to make us look like we are wild eyed fanatics, and they lump us in the same categories as those who bomb themselves and their fellow countrymen into oblivion for the sake of their radical faith.

Radicalism is changing the way the average joe follows Christ.

I think many of us are being careful to separate social responsibility from political associations. Identifying ourselves with political movements can be misunderstood as a tacit belief that we can bring about spiritual change through political means. and often that tends towards radicalism.

Question: If a Christian becomes an activist in, say, the environmental movement, would you say he is a radical?

Follow-up question: if he becomes a pro-life activist, is he now a radical?
I see you've tried to define radical while I was posting. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[dancingqueen]

well, it appears I am using the wrong word, I went and looked it up online of the definition. so, I would now say in both ases with a little better understanding of the word, not nessesaraly, although it is possible. perhaps A better wording would be "manipulators"?

Yes, religion has a way of attracting 'manipulators'.

Then again, there are manipulators in all segments of the population. The money market is fertile ground for manipulators.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am up to my eyeballs in work.. anything substantive is going to be awhile.
</div></div>

That's actually a good thing, because I'm lamenting the fact there are only 24 hours in a day right now.

No hurry. As long as we know the schedule for posts/replies will be scattered for good reasons.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ummm, hi, I'm relatively new here. Can anyone point me to the "Sacred Tradition" thread?

I'm supposed to meet someone there. </div></div>

I think it is over by the "I thought there might be" just take a right at the "Scandal Brewing at Oral Roberts" thread and you should be there /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif </div></div>

I took a wrong turn by "Six Arkansas nuns excommunicated for heresy", but back-tracked a bit and found it. Thanks.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: peterparker_sault</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...
Yhea but they are also supposed to HATE the sin of eating shellfish. </div></div>

Oh, yeah?? Where???

[KDawg]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: peterparker_sault</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...
Yhea but they are also supposed to HATE the sin of eating shellfish. </div></div>

Oh, yeah?? Where??? </div></div>

God's dietary laws in Leviticus. Chapter 11:9-12:
These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers—that you may eat. But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales—that shall be an abomination to you.

Barry can be such a bait-chaser. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barry can be such a bait-chaser. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif</div></div>

how so? he wanted to know where it says god does not want you to eat shellfish, and there it is! there is nothing wrong with asking a question, people tend to take you more seriously when you do not claim to know all.

[peterparker_sault]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: peterparker_sault</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...
Yhea but they are also supposed to HATE the sin of eating shellfish. </div></div>

Oh, yeah?? Where??? </div></div>

I'm not exactly sure, but I'm guessing it doesn't matter where you eat it. As for where does it say it? The entire book of Leviticus is a great read. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

J

[peterparker_sault]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">DQ, might I suggest that you cannot get 'the whole picture' by reading snippets such as the 'shellfish' comment.

These one liner snippets only puff a guy's ego up and makes him think he wisely said something of a zinger that are so very misleading.

Big pictures take a long time to develop.

Finding truth is lifelong and is sometimes very hard work.

Bad things happen. It's the human condition.
But they don't happen continuously. That's God's goodness.
</div></div>

It's nice to see that the honest and intellectual discussions on here also end up resorting to name calling just like the rest of the boards. Does my heart good to see that adults can have differing opinions and show a modest amount or respect and decorum. Makes me wonder where there are wars at all.

My "Zinger" was certainly not meant to offer a brief synopsis of all that is right or wrong with the religions of the world, or the varying scriptures they follow. It was simply meant as a joke, as was the burning of the bull comment. My favorite source of humor is always the ironic (followed closely by the double entendre, preferably of the risque variety but as usual I digress). Nor is it my belief the DQ was here in search of the big picture, for that matter, I hope NONE of us are here in search of the big picture, as once again I say, you will not find it staring at you from behind this computer screen (please stand by while I check to see what exactly it IS that's sttaring at me from behind the screen....)

I have some how offended you with my pithy uneducated remarks, that I have so obviously gleamed from such secure sources as works of fiction that I, in my oblivious ignorance, have mistook for historical fact, proven by scientific method and endless research. For this I offer my most sincere apologies and seek your forgiveness. Cave ab homine unius libri!

Josh


(Which reminds me of another fav and somewhat appropriate quote though I have no idea why....Brevis esse latoro obscurus fio)

Oh my goodness..
Josh, you're a writer..

[Batman]

As my dear old Dad used to say, "Well it looks like somebody tripped over the dictionary this morning doesn't it?" ;-)

[KDawg]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barry can be such a bait-chaser. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
</div></div>

How does this comment apply to my response to Barry's question?

[Soundbear]

My point would be this. You guys said "..HATE the sin of eating shellfish." Didja notice that for dietary laws there is no penalty attached?? God knows better about food and told the Jews "don't eat that stuff". The penalty is clear, It'll kill you!!!

For other sins like rape or whatever, there were clear and severe penalties, like stoning. Or restitution for other sins.

So to say God "hates" eating shellfish is misleading at best. And dietary laws applied to the ancient Jews, quite good and logically. They don't necessarily apply to us.

I LIKE bacon!!!

[peterparker_sault]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh my goodness..
Josh, you're a writer..
</div></div>

I'm going to accept that as a compliment I think.....
j

And my point was the winkie..

I observe over time that just when a topic has been spent, someone will make a last-gasp off the cuff comment.. and Barry resurrects the theme and gives it more life.. was not meant to be a pejorative.

Besides, I was exhausted and irritable when I wrote that. Sorry one and all. I get like that someitmes.

Does anyone want to join my order?
It shall be called, the Fellowship of Messed Up Dudes.

[Batman]

Sorry, I can't join any fellowship that would have someone like me as a member ;-)

[Soundbear]

Amen to that!! All around!!

Actually, yer a brother so we have to keep you /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[KDawg]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
My point would be this. You guys said "..HATE the sin of eating shellfish." Didja notice that for dietary laws there is no penalty attached?? God knows better about food and told the Jews "don't eat that stuff". The penalty is clear, It'll kill you!!!

For other sins like rape or whatever, there were clear and severe penalties, like stoning. Or restitution for other sins.

So to say God "hates" eating shellfish is misleading at best. And dietary laws applied to the ancient Jews, quite good and logically. They don't necessarily apply to us.

I LIKE bacon!!! </div></div>

If you think God gave that dietary law to the Jews because to break it would be unhealthy (It'll kill you!!!), then how doesn't it apply to us? Jews have the same biology as everyone else.

[Soundbear]

True, but they didn't have the same refridgerators!!!!:) /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I said they didn't necessarily apply. And the point was the difference between a sin and a law about health.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Amen to that!! All around!!

Actually, yer a brother so we have to keep you /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

</div></div>

Isn't there a saying? You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your brothers..

[peterparker_sault]

It's my understanding that break the LEAST of Gods commands, or encouraging others to do so, is to break them all. I could be mistaken, (and am sure someone will let me know if that is the case) but if you don't follow every (and the bible is actually the only place you will see this phrase... also a fave of mine) jot and tittle (LITERALLY doting your i's and crossing your t's) than you are lesser. But Leviticus speaks to more than food laws. In fact the entire book is nothing but laws and rituals. The Shellfish & Bull are rather "popular", some of the other more popular ones are the rules regarding cloven hooves and the chewing of cud, which leads to the ban on pork. The treatment of women is predominately biased on this book as well, especially in their time of uncleanliness. The one that I find applies to me in particular is my inability to approach the alter of the lord... as I have worn glasses and suffered from imperfect sight for most of my life. It wouldn't matter much, provide round the clock care to developmentally disabled adults, and would be forced to take them to the alter with me, unfortunately, this is a no-no as well, as they suffer from some deformities. I won't bother with the rules of selling daughters as slaves, as I currently, and absent TRULY SERIOUS divine intervention, will not be able to have children (not to mention I desire not)... as some what of an Aber-Cloney though, I am unsettled about the forbidence on mixing garments of unlike fabrics. (I have a silk lined cotton vest that I must say, looks simply stunning on me. :))

Is the bible TRUELY the word of god? honestly... I don't know. Is the bible we read to day, exactly the same, in both meaning and context as was recited 1000 years ago? In my opinion? No. Is the bible as it is written and interpreted today, the same as it was presented for the very first time? No freaking way man!

If you have a sec, check out the Sunday September 17th entry at this site, http://www.scriptorum.blogspot.com/ and see if you can find any similarities between it and the opinion I have offered in the past few days.

good DAY.
(Said like P.H)
Josh

umm, thanks for the free ad, but I am the author of that blog, and I cannot find an entry for July 17. Mayhaps you meant June 17?

[peterparker_sault]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">umm, thanks for the free ad, but I am the author of that blog, and I cannot find an entry for July 17. </div></div>

LOL... Sorry... for some reason I just WISH it was July. (wow.. that was completely off the wall...) And as for you being the author... well of course you are silly... What you thought I was joking about researching for fun, not to mention being a fan of the ironic? Besides... Sun-Tzu gave me some great advice, so I thought I would give your blogs a read. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Josh

ahh, know your enemy. gotcha.
well, I hope I don't spoil your fun.

But I won't respond to posts that contain things like 1001 reasons why I don't believe the Bible.

[peterparker_sault]

That's kewl. But to my knowledge, we still only have my one reason... I was trying to illistrate that according to Christ, breaking a lesser rule was the breaking of all the rules, and that who among us hasn't cast a stone or two.... er uh... I mean to say... broken a rule. Anyhow.. it's still just the one reason that I've outlined from the start. It's lost something in it's translationS (emphasis on the plural) and re-interpretationS (ditto).

All blather aside... your lack of response does kind of take the fun out of though. (is that evil... if so add it the the paving stones piling up over there please).
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
Josh

Josh, you are mixing a few things up, but they are fairly insignificant.

James taught that to break one law is to break them all, because there is an indivisible unity to the moral code. Every trespass is a violation of the first and greatest command.

And Jesus taught that if you lust after a woman/man you are as guilty as if you committed adultery (assuming the woman/man is not one's wife/husband) (Okay, the gender distinctions are not in the text, but I suspect that women can lust as well). That pretty well sinks us all, if keeping the law is the requirement for a life of blessing. I recognized that my goose was cooked long ago.

But the whole point of the Greatest Story Ever Told, as I am sure you know, is that Jesus redeemed mankind from the law. No man of mere earthly origin , living or dead has ever been able to keep it.

Why did God give us the law then?
Well, that's another story.

[peterparker_sault]

I know that this is often an excuse used by people for disregarding the old testament and all of it's teachings. It's actually a handy tool for defending anti semantic sentiments, taking full note of the fact that I don't feel this is an issue here, just a comparison. What I find MOST ironic is that you would chose to make this argument so soon after my jot and tittle remark. In the sermon on the mount (possible one of the most favored of the sermons) does Christ not say
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Christ</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
</div></div>

I guess unless we know what "EVERYTHING" is we don't know when the laws were expunged.

Here I am stumped.. I don't think everything IS complete, so I would say the laws still apply, were I to follow the letter of the law that is.

Or is the interpretation.... The wages of sin are death, but since Christ died we don't have to? (As some one who worked in the funeral busniess for a fair amount of time, I'm going to say I have proof that THIS was not the interpretation).

Or am I just finding contradictions where there are none, and for such I should be labeled a heretic, and should be stoned? (I must confess, this is my choice... as I think a heretic is the answer to my "what to be for halloween delemia, and... welll (INNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNHALE) 'ERE (cough cough)... The punishment sounds great.

Josh

Yeah. Listen Peter, like I said, I'll not answer every post. You're just too smart for me. (cough cough)

[Soundbear]

I don't answer posts necessarily for other's sake, I do it for me!!

Peter you quoted Christ, " I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

How could He do that?? By paying the penalty for ALL of them, as the only (perfect) one who could, on our behalf. Like the Jews did in the Old Testament with blood sacrifices, Jesus became the one perfect, final sacrifice for all who will believe and submit to God.

Where does that leave the Old Testament rules?? Still in place, and a condemnation for all who cannot keep them (all mankind). But no longer bringing the penalty of death to believers in Jesus.

[KDawg]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Why did God give us the law then?
Well, that's another story.
</div></div>

The law is there so that we may recognize how inadequate we are, that we need Christ. That's not to say we should disregard ANY of God's laws -- He's the maker and He created all His laws for only one reason - so we know what is right.

So here's the question. Does that apply to ALL of God's laws, including His dietary laws?

[KDawg]

Apparently a tougher question than I thought.

My answer is yes.

[peterparker_sault]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KDawg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Apparently a tougher question than I thought.

My answer is yes. </div></div>

Well.. if anyone is interested... I'm having seafood gumbo for dinner, and hope to have eggs, bacon, and hash browns for breakfast... Here's my question... I usually put about a table spoon of milk in the eggs when I scramble them... So... do I use the dairy fork, or the meat fork?
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
J

[Soundbear]

I'm curious Peter.

Since you are having such a good time with this, perhaps you could specify which of God's laws you think are silly.

[Soundbear]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KDawg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Why did God give us the law then?
Well, that's another story.
</div></div>

The law is there so that we may recognize how inadequate we are, that we need Christ. That's not to say we should disregard ANY of God's laws -- He's the maker and He created all His laws for only one reason - so we know what is right.

So here's the question. Does that apply to ALL of God's laws, including His dietary laws? </div></div>

Jeus was asked and answered:

Matt 22:36-40
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

These make perfect sense to me. Love God. Love your neighbor, or in other words. do unto oters as you would have them do unto you. Golden Rule.

Dietary laws fall outside the above categories, but if the Jews defied those laws, they would probably pay with their lives. Which is why there were no penalties attached to them.

[peterparker_sault]

"God's Law" techniclly would apply to the laws that God has to follow... But I'm not one to point out errors. I think it should read... "the laws of God".

Anyhow... I don't think that the are all the laws of God. I think many of them are the laws of MAN. Regardless of that, if some of those laws were outdated with the advent of refridgeration, which God SHOULD have forsaw (being all knowing)... wouldn't (s)/he have put what the Senate likes to call a sundowner rule on... In effect indicating that it would be repealed at some point? OR... if we are to assume that the "living word of God" is ever evolving..... why does someone have to love the homosexual me, but hate the sins that are homosexual? When does that one get repealed?

Are women still to leave the village upon their time of uncleanliness? Who decides when the "living" word has undergone a metamorphosis?

It's the entire convoluted controlling aspect of it.

That's all.
j