Religion

[Nosajimiki]

Paul had clearly taught that Jesus would be coming within the lifetimes of those alive at the time. This teaching led to concerns in the Thessalonian church over the fate of those who had died before the coming of the Lord. Would they share in the joy of the parousia? Paul writes to assure the Thessalonians that those who had fallen asleep in Christ would also profit from the coming of the Lord. Paul instructs them that the dead would come to life first and that they would join the living with the Lord when he comes.

Paul was an earlly church leader and numorus sources (this only being one of them) say that he made these claims to the Thessalonians because of presure over Christ not returning while people were dieing. This is coming from the same leader who's testimony was latter used as an excuse for slavery. If he lacked the prophetic ability to know the harm his one teaching would cause, what makes you think he would know what's gonna happen at the end of time to credibly give the other?

[Nakranoth]

That is not correct. The rapture was not invented by the early church leaders, but was written in the Bible in many places. Here is just one of the many verses backing up the rapture of the church(saved christians).

1 Thessalonians 4:16 - 17
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

This happens right before he destroys the earth in the battle of Armegedon(the judgment day on earth).

*cough* Early church leaders wrote the New testament *cough*

[Elros]

Paul had clearly taught that Jesus would be coming within the lifetimes of those alive at the time. This teaching led to concerns in the Thessalonian church over the fate of those who had died before the coming of the Lord. Would they share in the joy of the parousia? Paul writes to assure the Thessalonians that those who had fallen asleep in Christ would also profit from the coming of the Lord. Paul instructs them that the dead would come to life first and that they would join the living with the Lord when he comes.

Paul was an early church leader and numorus sources (this only being one of them) say that he made these claims to the Thessalonians because of presure over Christ not returning while people were dieing. This is coming from the same leader who's testimony was latter used as an excuse for slavery. If he lacked the prophetic ability to know the harm his one teaching would cause, what makes you think he would know what's gonna happen at the end of time to credibly give the other?

Ok, first of all the church has always since Christ's death looked foward to the return of Christ in thier lifetime. Even christians today look foward to God coming in thier lifetime. Jesus said for us to keep our eyes on his returning. So that is what the church has always done. Paul believed that Jesus would come in his day, just like many people believe that Jesus will come back in this generation. The Bible says:

James 5:8

Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

Jesus did not tell Paul, or anyone else for that matter the exact time when he would return. He kept it, and still has to this day, a secret. The Bible says that Jesus will return as a thief in the night(meaning we would not know it, and it would be unexpected).

1 Thessalonians 5:2

For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

So just because Paul thought that Jesus would come in his day does not discredit his prophecy of the last days. That was just one of the things that God had not revealed unto him, and he was just doing what God had told him by looking constantly for the coming of the Lord.

Secondly, you already know where I stand on Paul and the slavery issue. I do not believe that Paul condoned slavery as you all think of slavery, like the Americans and other countries have had before. He did condone indentured servants that sold themselves into slavery. He told them that they should stay with thier masters because he did not preach rebellion. They made an agreement to work for thier masters as servants for whatever the reason was, and they had to keep that contract is all Paul was saying. Paul wrote many times in the Bible that "men stealing" was wrong and was a sin. Men stealing is the kind of stuff that went on with the african slaves. Here is a verse that Paul himself wrote against "men stealing".

1 Timothy 1:

9. Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10. For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

11. According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

[Sicofonte]

Qué bonito... snif...

[formerly known as hf]

James 5:8

Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

He sounds drunk

[Elros]

What now, you can't come back with a decent argument, so you are all gonna crack jokes? Just Kidding.

[formerly known as hf]

Well, if you insist...

I undertsand your point about the slavery discussion, Elros.
And, I agree - I do not think the statement holds a lot of water for those who wanted support for 19th Century slavery, and that the extracts relate to slavery as it was 2000 years ago.
And, moreover, there are even more extracts which damn slavery.

But, that is not the argument.

The argument is that the Bible can and has been seen to uphold slavery.
And it clearly can be easily interpreted in that way.

There are some things which can be justfied by Bible extracts, with a lot of warping and conjecture.
There are many more things, abhorrent things, which can be justified with bible extracts, with a minimum of warping and conjecture.

That is my biggest issue with the Bible.
The level of interpretation it has been opened to makes it a very unfirm foundation upon which to base beliefs, morals and the such.



And that it is mostly fictitious, and our modern versions largely the product of 10th-16th Century authorship by rabid, patriarchal, egotistical, hypocritical clergymen.

[Elros]

I agree that some people do like to take the Bible out of context and use it to their advantage. Just because someone takes the truth and trys to warp it to justify their evil deeds is not a reason to condemn the truth. There are some lawyers, crooked cops, and other people that take the laws of the USA and bend them or twist them to justify the wrong-doing of some criminals or of themselves. That does not mean that we need to do away with our laws because some people can use them wrongfully to do evil. All that means is that we should study them out more to get a better understanding of their true meaning so we can discern what is right and what is worng according to the law. That is the same thing that should be done with the Bible.

[Pearl]

Disagree with 1, 2 & 3

Religion is poison.

We have been off that topic for about 70 pages. *smiles*

I'm not trying to be on topic Elros
I just wanted to vote, you see..

besides, I don't want to get into a religious discussion..

[Pie]

Well, if you insist...

I undertsand your point about the slavery discussion, Elros.
And, I agree - I do not think the statement holds a lot of water for those who wanted support for 19th Century slavery, and that the extracts relate to slavery as it was 2000 years ago.
And, moreover, there are even more extracts which damn slavery.

But, that is not the argument.

The argument is that the Bible can and has been seen to uphold slavery.
And it clearly can be easily interpreted in that way.

There are some things which can be justfied by Bible extracts, with a lot of warping and conjecture.
There are many more things, abhorrent things, which can be justified with bible extracts, with a minimum of warping and conjecture.

That is my biggest issue with the Bible.
The level of interpretation it has been opened to makes it a very unfirm foundation upon which to base beliefs, morals and the such.



And that it is mostly fictitious, and our modern versions largely the product of 10th-16th Century authorship by rabid, patriarchal, egotistical, hypocritical clergymen.

show me the scripture.

actually, we have the entyer new testiment down in record of the popes, or bishopes or whatever's, teachings about the bible, written down in books and things that date back to 200 A.D.

And must we go over the amount of concern jews took in copying the old testiment(and since the deciples were jews, also the new testiment)?

[Mafia Salad]

That is my biggest issue with the Bible.
The level of interpretation it has been opened to makes it a very unfirm foundation upon which to base beliefs, morals and the such.

Misinterpretation no matter how often does not make the truth of something any less true (whether it is true or false). The Medieval understand of the solar system with the earth at the center was a widely held misinterpretation of the sky. Does that mean we can't believe that what we see when we look at the sun or stars isn't really there? Should we stop looking at the sky to try to understand it because some other people were wrong in the past? Would we start to look at plants to explain astronomy since the sky is a shaky foundation? Should we disregard or readily accept modern astronomers because not everyone in the past came to the same conclusions as them? No, Why would it be any less true of scripture? I know it's been said a lot, but almost all the strange interpretations of the Bible used to justify stupid or immoral things are verses taken out of context or not actually based on the bible at all. That was true in the past and is true today.

And that [my other issue with the Bible] it is mostly fictitious, and our modern versions largely the product of 10th-16th Century authorship by rabid, patriarchal, egotistical, hypocritical clergymen.

I'd like to know why you think that our modern version of the Bible is a product of clergymen from 1000+ years after Christ. I've never heard that story before by anyone who's knows the history of Biblical manuscripts.

Here is an interesting evaluation historically comparing the Bible and the Qur’an, it brings up a lot of evidence that debunks the theory of later Christian leaders rewriting or writing the Bible for their own political gain.
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/contents.htm

[Nosajimiki]

Whether or not the bible is true or not is irrelvent since there is so much proof that it can be interpreted in so many different ways. You are applying your own ethics to it the same way the slavers did. The way they read it seemed just as true to them as the way you read it does to you. It is written by a wide spectrum of authors and interpreters each with thier own ethical standings, as such, you will find almost anything can be condoned or condimed by some part of it or another. Even if it is compleately true, you can not know that your interpritation is any more sound than any variety of others, so even if it is true, you may still be false.

[Nakranoth]

Besides, if you hadn't been taught that the sun was the center of the solar system, would you adamantly believe it to be so? After all, almost everything a person can see infers otherwise. This said, what new proof has shown up to show the validity of your belief structure over all others? What solid thing guides you interpratation? It can't be the bible, that's what's being interpreted; it can't be the popes, they're just as human as you and I, and as such are just as prone to misinterpretation as the rest of us. Furthermore, with this in mind, what prevented the ones who initially interpreted everything Jesus did into the biblical writings from getting the wrong message? Divine intervention? That goes directly against "true free will". Mankind is intrensically flawed, an thus, nothing created by man can be perfect. So how could I ever expect to extrude perfection from something so far removed from the original source?

[formerly known as hf]

That is my biggest issue with the Bible.
The level of interpretation it has been opened to makes it a very unfirm foundation upon which to base beliefs, morals and the such.

Misinterpretation no matter how often does not make the truth of something any less true (whether it is true or false).

That doesn't make sense.
If something can be interpreted in more than one way - how can there be 'one truth'?
How do you know your interpretation of the Bible is the 'true' interpretation?

I know it's been said a lot, but almost all the strange interpretations of the Bible used to justify stupid or immoral things are verses taken out of context or not actually based on the bible at all. That was true in the past and is true today.

Out of your context. The Bible promotes a different context to different people. Those that 'use the Bible to justify immoral things' could equally argue that you, yourself are taking the Bible 'out of context'
If the same argument can be used equally by both sides - maybe they are equally wrong?

And that [my other issue with the Bible] it is mostly fictitious, and our modern versions largely the product of 10th-16th Century authorship by rabid, patriarchal, egotistical, hypocritical clergymen.

I'd like to know why you think that our modern version of the Bible is a product of clergymen from 1000+ years after Christ. I've never heard that story before by anyone who's knows the history of Biblical manuscripts.

It's well-documented that various popes and other high-ranking clergymen have decided what to include in the Bible, and what not to include. Also, how to translate it.
Whilst the 'core story' may have stayed true to the 200AD roots, the detail has been skewed to fit the machinations of a wide variety of people over history.

[Elros]

It's well-documented that various popes and other high-ranking clergymen have decided what to include in the Bible, and what not to include. Also, how to translate it.
Whilst the 'core story' may have stayed true to the 200AD roots, the detail has been skewed to fit the machinations of a wide variety of people over history.

I take it that you are reffering to the "Latin Vulgate" Bible, which was translated by the clergymen and bishops of the catholic church to promote their wrong doings and beliefs. However the 50 scholars who translated the "King James Version" Bible despised the "Latin Vulgate" Bible for the evildoings that it promoted, and the unaccurateness it had to the original manuscripts. So they translated the "KJV" Bible from many different sources that had compiled the portions of the original manuscripts. Nowadays, 90% of the newer translations have been translated out of the "KJV". I do not agree with the newer translations, and I believe that the "KJV" is the accurate and right word of God, but that is a different topic.

What I am saying, is I do not think you can find a bible nowadays that is taken from the text translated by the clergymen and bishops that you have been reffering to, and even if you could, it is definetly not the Bible that we have been arguing our points from. So that whole argument that a few of you have been arguing about the clergymen and catholic church writing the Bible to condole their personal wrongdoings or beliefs is not a valid argument.