Skip to main content

Over the weekend, I watched a well-made documentary. It discussed how the language and content of the New Testament changed considerably from the time of Jesus to hundreds of years later. During the program, multiple biblical scholars were interviewed, and many of them disputed the authorship of particular books.

The focus was specifically directed on the New Testament, the section that I hold in greatest reverence. According to leading authorities, of the fourteen letters and epistles attributed to Paul, only half of them were actually written by him. A compelling case was made by analyzing the writing style and choice of words contained within each book.

Those who hold Christianity in suspicion use facts like these to make their case. To them, organized religion is a scam, too manipulated by councils and emperors to be taken seriously. It is true that particular books and passages never made it into the full canon, many at the insistence of church leaders. Some of them can be safely eliminated as inauthentic and mere curiosities, but a few could very well hold great truth.

In the First Century A.D., which Christianity lionizes as a golden age, this new religion was a very small Jewish sect which had yet to take firm hold. The voyages of the Apostles and Paul to visit other churches are portrayed as dramatic events, but they are very unimpressive affairs. They produced beautiful written passages, but they struggled for oxygen with those who wanted to preserve a more Jewish religious heritage or were conflicted as to whether Gentiles could become Christians. Christianity was never a monolithic entity where everyone believed the same thing, as many think.

It took the Roman emperor Constantine the Great to embrace and expand a faith originally based in the Middle East. Christianity, now the state religion of Rome, was spread far and wide. Scholars have argued that Constantine’s conversion was undertaken for self-serving ends, rather than any particularly strong religious convictions. What cannot be denied is how quickly this new religion took hold and spread throughout the entire world.

The religion of Rome, especially those of soldiers, was homosexual in nature. Christians emphasized heterosexual unions and interpreted certain biblical passages as homophobic. Three passages in the New Testament have long been interpreted as homophobic, but in each of them, the translation and true meaning is not especially clear. In any case, regardless of implication and intent, these passages were interpreted as critical of homosexuality. Constantine wanted to swell the population of the Roman Empire, a move that would ensure that its borders were properly protected. Any faith that favored procreation would be satisfactory for his purposes.

I don’t think it really matters as to who wrote what, nor do I care about the precise chronology of what book or Gospel came first. These are interesting intellectual exercises, but undertaken by people who would find Christianity threatening unless it was reduced to a scholarly pursuit. The words that remain with us are significant. The wisdom, sayings, and acts of Jesus remain, though I’m sure that they aren’t 100% accurate. For a time, the Gospels, which tell the life and ministry of Jesus, were spread here and there by oral storytellers, not by a written text. I imagine a few details changed here and there with every retelling.  

What we have left is a singularly impressive story. I find it difficult to believe anyone could conjure the tale up purely out of thin air. Jesus was a radical prophet who made enemies by pointing out the hypocrisy of the elite priestly class. Eventually, this led to his death. History records many such people since then, but what made Jesus different is that he was human and Divine. God loved us enough, as flawed and imperfect as we are, to walk the earth in the form of his creation.      

In time, our own words will be garbled. Even with increased technological advances, the past will begin to slip away from our grasp. If we are significant enough to have our words carefully preserved, we may have the benefit of one or two generations of influence where our legacy and works are preserved with relative accuracy. But when primary sources are lost forever, copies of copies are the only documents remaining for us to shape our opinion. The same is true with the Bible and the New Testament.

In an area long before recording devices, it’s not surprising that the complete truth has gotten lost somewhat. We may desire immortality, but like a viral video, what strikes a chord with the audience is up to chance and luck. We are not in total control of our life story, nor how subsequent generations will perceive of us.

The book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament, written long before Jesus’ life and ministry, shows that humanity has known about its limitations for a long time.

 What do people gain from all their labors
    at which they toil under the sun?
Generations come and generations go,
    but the earth remains forever.
 What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
    there is nothing new under the sun.

 Is there anything of which one can say,
    “Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
    it was here before our time.
 No one remembers the former generations,
    and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
    by those who follow them.

What troubles us has troubled many who have come before us. Seeking perfection in belief will only produce anguish and frustration. We can try to strive for immortality, but our time in the sun is finite.

When I was on my Quaker Meeting’s Ministry and Worship committee, it was our responsibility to plan Memorial Services, which are the term we use for funerals. Many times, few of us could remember who the person was. I hope that when I die, the people in charge of planning my Memorial Service will not have forgotten me completely. In the meantime, I live the years given to me.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (12+ / 0-)

    I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I lead you in, some one else would lead you out. - Eugene Debs.

    by cabaretic on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 08:59:01 AM PDT

  •  The Bible (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I believe the whole Bible to be Gods word. God is still in control of Hi word.

  •  What was the documentary? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    prettygirlxoxoxo, Yasuragi

    Do you have a link?

    We do not forgive. We do not forget. The whole world is watching.

    by Tracker on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 09:14:57 AM PDT

  •  I believe the Bible is inspired by God. (0+ / 0-)

    Jesus Christ is real.

    "No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." Abraham Lincoln

    by appledown on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 09:23:17 AM PDT

    •  I believe (18+ / 0-)

      ...the bible was written over a thousand years' time by human beings for human ends and that, if he existed at all, Jesus was a first-century revolutionary rabbi.

      But I don't mind what you believe as long as you don't try to write it into my country's lawbooks or claim special privileges.

      America, we can do better than this...

      by Randomfactor on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 09:54:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One of the best books I've read about Jesus was (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, radarlady, petral

        written by a Muslim.  "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" by Reza Aslan.  

        Aslan shares your belief that Jesus was a revolutionary and makes a convincing case for the idea that Jesus' militancy against Rome was deliberately edited out by the gospel writers, in order to curry favor with the Romans.

        The first gospel was written about the time the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed, along with the Jewish population of Jerusalem, by the Romans in 70 CE.

        Aslan's theory is that the gospel writers wanted to very quickly dissociate Christianity from Judaism, so as not to suffer a similar fate at the hands of an angry Roman government, but also to appeal to potential Roman converts to Christianity.  One should note that all the gospel writers were writing in Greek and were associated with Christian communities in the Roman empire outside Judea.

        Their means of doing so was to portray the Romans, in particular Pontius Pilate as "innocent" of Jesus' blood, in an inexplicable departure from Pilate's brutal history of indifference to Jewish concerns and outright hatred of the Jewish people.  

        Pilate hated the Jews so much that he refused to live in Jerusalem, living in Capernaum instead, and coming to Jerusalem only during Jewish festivals like Passover.  He routinely sent Jews to their deaths by simply signing a warrant, no trial of any kind.

        If you read the gospels carefully in the order they were written (Mark first, then Matthew and Luke, and finally John) you find the story of Jesus' trial containing more and more incredible statements by the Jews who allegedly clamored for Jesus' crucifixion, including their yelling out their confession of guilt that Jesus' blood was on their heads and upon their children's heads.

        The gospel of John contains the most unlikely scene, with a crowd of Jews who hated Romans with a vengeance, responding to Pilate's question of "what he should do with their king?"  Their response?  "We have no king but Caesar!"

        While that response may have been understandable in the situation Christians found themselves at the time the gospels were written, it would have been patently absurd at the time the events actually occurred, when there was unconcealed mutual hatred that threatened revolt at any moment.  The Romans maintained a garrison within the temple walls themselves and stood guard atop the walls during festivals to put down any potential hostilities.

        A fascinating study, even if you don't accept it's conclusion.  

        Ted Cruz president? Pardon my Vietnamese, but Ngo Pho King Way.

        by ZedMont on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 01:50:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I find biblical scholarship and archeology (13+ / 0-)

    fascinating, but to get to what's real is much, much simpler.  I think the approach that Hillel suggested is wise:

    Once there was a gentile who came before Shammai, and said to him: "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot. Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding. The same fellow came before Hillel, and Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."
    To paraphrase him: "The essence of the teaching is right there.  Now go live it."  

    For Christians the heart of the Bible is the New Testament and the heart of the New Testament is the Gospels.  Within the Gospels there are a few pieces that stand out above the other parts of the "story".  The Sermon on the Mount, the judgment passage in Matthew 25 or if you really want "to the point", Jesus' two commandments.

    That last piece reminds me of Hillel's "get down to business" approach:

    When asked what was the great commandment, "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. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
    No human is "saved" by going to church.  No human is "saved" by "protecting traditional marriage".  No human is saved by saying they are Christian or by quoting from the Bible.  (I happen to also believe that following other traditions or no religious tradition at all does not necessarily separate a person from God's grace.)

    In the end all that counts is how we live up to those commandments and how we live in the mystery of how that all works out within out own life's path as we explore the nature and the depths of love.

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 09:54:48 AM PDT

  •  I belong to the Disciples of Christ (12+ / 0-)

    which arose as part of the Restoration Movement. The Restoration Movement came into being in the late 18th/early 19th Century. This was at a time when circuit-riding preachers were visiting small hamlets in what was, then, the frontier of the West, that would become the states of Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky. There were no churches, or even towns, per se, just collections of farms in somewhat close proximity to each other. The preachers were from different denominations: Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist. Some chose to only minister to those of "their" faith, but others realized there were times when each was the only minister to visit these small hamlets in years, and chose to minister to all.

    From this experience, the idea arose that since all accepted the same Jesus as the Son of G-d, and since it was specific doctrines that appeared well after the life, death, and resurrection of Christ that were separating Christians, why not create a Christianity as much like the Early Church as possible? Then all would be served, and all would be of the same non-sectarian faith.

    This is a lovely idea, and the Restoration Movement was born from it. It was originally a church that refused to call itself a denomination, preferring to be referred to as a Brotherhood (gender inclusive), and choosing to go, as the Early Church did, without clergy. However, people are people, and divisions arose after about the first forty-ish years of the life of the movement. By the end of the 19th Century, the Movement had split into three branches, shall we say, one liberal (Disciples of Christ, with women ministers, elders, decons, and about 1/3rd African-American), one conservative (Church of Christ, with no instrument-accompanied church music and strict male control of the congregation and Church Board), and one middle-of-the road-ish (Christian Church, which mixed both extremes, but has moved further right over the last 30 years). All claimed the legacy of the original founders, but, each went their separate ways.  

    Now, what does this have to do with the content of the diary? Exactly this: remember that lovely idea of "restoring" the Early Church? Now, think about what we know of the Gnostics, the Arrians, the Monophysites, etc. etc. Christianity has always been fragmented. In the First and Second Centuries, there were doctrinal differences that arose from each isolated region having a different set of Jesus sayings and stories, and having been established by different early missionaries. Today, there are other reasons for divisions in Christianity.

    So, that lovely idea falters on the shoals of historical fact, in that there was no unified Early Church to which we could all return. Instead, there is the idea that we should live and let live, which is what the regional churches mostly did in the First and Second Centuries. At least, that is, until Constantine saw the Catholic Church hierarchy as a convenient replacement for the Senatorial class, who had exterminated themselves choosing sides in the various civil wars of the previous century. Christianity became a secular power, and we've been living with that consequence ever since.

    Too bad the Fundies think history stopped when Christ rose from the dead, and/or Paul was beheaded in Rome. They miss the entire point of the past.


  •  Some organized religion is a scam. (5+ / 0-)

    Some isn't.
    Ultimately, sincerity can only really be held by the individual. Institutions do what they always do.

    There is organized religion in this country, then there is a political cult that seeks to hijack the religion in order to manipulate the people constituting the institution.

    The Bible is the story of the evolving relationship between Man and God (or Gods).
    Regardless of the validity of "eternal truth", there is another "eternal truth and that is that religions, like societies, evolve and adapt to reflect new social realities. This happened during Christ's time. All religion is syncretic.
    It would be nonsensical for it to be otherwise.

    Eventually there will be a change in the Christian religion such that those who want to build tribes, fortresses, enclaves, etc. will die out or destroy themselves from their own brittleness, and the "religion" that supplants them will acknowledge that we're all here rubbing elbows on a crowded planet, and we can't afford tribalism and the fear and loathing that comes with it anymore. It will also reflect an understanding of science.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 10:05:43 AM PDT

    •  As JFK Put It (7+ / 0-)

      I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

      For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

      I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I lead you in, some one else would lead you out. - Eugene Debs.

      by cabaretic on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 10:07:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I dearly hope you're right. nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  Believing in God is (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cabaretic, HeyMikey, radarlady, YellerDog

    different than believing in man's handling of GOD's Word. God is completely aware of humans failing to do anything as He would have it. So, it is written, "I will send you you a Teacher and a Comforter who will lead you into all Truths... He/She is the Holy Spirit." Not Peter, James, Paul, nor anyone else.God is not elitist nor exclusive. If he told them, and "Whosoever..." I am a "Whosoever".

    If He lives in our hearts, then so does His Word. The Bible is a revelation of different people's journey to establish the Perfection for which we are to strive. We often mistake their failures and inevitable misunderstandings and misguidance as the will of God.

    Inspired? Yes, always correctly written , interpreted, and executed? Hardly.

    Jesus reduced the Ten Commandments, which many other "non-Christians" also hold as pillars of their faith, into one Word, "God" .God is Love.Only God knows what He is and relying on His Spirit to speak to us in each situation seems like the only way we can live and come to know Him. Some people call this prayer which the Inspired Word says we are to do without ceasing.

    This is all I understand at the moment.

    For me, it is personal and individualized and dynamic.


  •  Say what? (6+ / 0-)

    "I find it difficult to believe anyone could conjure the tale up purely out of thin air."

    If you honestly believe that, you really should experience some fiction outside of the bible. Human creativity (and in some cases, weirdness) knows no bounds.

  •  Where the fuck did you read this? (6+ / 0-)
    The religion of Rome, especially those of soldiers, was homosexual in nature.
    This is pure bullshit.

    It is true that Greco-Roman culture was occasionally more accepting of gay people than modern cultures.

    It is definitely NOT TRUE that there was a homosexual cabal in charge of the chaos of Classical Paganism.

    Because that's what it was, chaos. You had competing religions, the household gods of each family, the mystery religions, various Eastern cults, the cult of the Emperor, and the official state cults.

    Among Roman soldiers, depending on the era, you have the worship of Mars, the Mithras mystery cult, Sol Invictus, and Christianity. And that's just the short list.

    In general, women were deeply involved in almost all the pagan religions, even Mithras. They played a pivotal role in the state cult of the goddess Vesta, thus the term Vestal Virgins.

    There was a powerful current of freedom of religion in Roman society. Whoever your personal gods were, that was your business, so long as your performed your duties to the state cult.  The archaeology on this is clear, numerous private shrines and statuettes have been found in Roman forts.

    So wherever you read that, they were full of shit.

    Join Essa in a revolt against the gods. Continue the fight, Causality.

    by rbird on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 10:33:20 AM PDT

    •  Yup. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rbird, blueoasis

      When the Romans conquered another nation (or city), they simply took on more gods (and other religions) along with it.

    •  Thank you for your harsh words (0+ / 0-)

      You clearly have some knowledge about Roman paganism. I was told that the religion of Roman soldiers was rooted in homosexuality. Not all Roman citizens. I'm not sure where I read it, but it was addressed as fact. Constantine was said to embrace Christianity because its emphasis was on procreation.

      Correcting me for some perceived lacking on my part would be fairer if you didn't lose your temper in the process. But you are the typical Daily Kos commentariat. Do you think you could manage to defy the stereotype?

      I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I lead you in, some one else would lead you out. - Eugene Debs.

      by cabaretic on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 12:38:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would instead (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rbird, Meteor Blades, sajiocity, petral

        suggest that when you run across something as inflammatory as the objected-to meme, you do some research rather than just posting it as an accepted truth.

        It is, after all, the passive acceptance of such inflammatory lies that corrupts the system.

        As for "harsh words"... on DKos, of all places, you should always be prepared when you get strong feedback to a virulently anti-gay meme.

        I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

        by trumpeter on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 12:53:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks, Trumpeter (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meteor Blades

          Exactly what I was going to say.

          Join Essa in a revolt against the gods. Continue the fight, Causality.

          by rbird on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 02:39:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Indeed. " I'm not sure where I read it" is... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          trumpeter, petral, ZedMont

 extremely poor citation for presenting something as fact. If you can't remember where you read it, it would be wise, at the very least, to hedge your presentation.

          BTW, Christianity didn't just spread. It was spread at swordpoint (and later gunpoint), destroying other religions and the people who believed in them. Sure, chalk that up to institutions and not to Jesus, whoever he was, but it shouldn't be sugarcoated.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 03:32:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It wasn't a religion. (0+ / 0-)

        Roman soldiers were not allowed to marry (and have children) -- at least for a time they weren't. It would interfere with their duties to Rome. So, many of them took on male lovers (or sex slaves) from conquered peoples/nations. Jesus may have run into one such Roman Centurion (and, cured his "pais").

        •  Not accurate at all! (0+ / 0-)

          Read this, the first few pages will enlighten you.

          Can't seem to copy/paste from this acrobat file...basically it is the difference between formal and informal marriage. Informal marriages were NOT banned.  We know they took place, because, as the document says, there are surviving papyri from Roman Egypt in which these matters are discussed. Further, there were exemptions granted by various emperors. My favorite line: "...a wide gap between legal fiat and social practice."

          Join Essa in a revolt against the gods. Continue the fight, Causality.

          by rbird on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 02:38:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, so it was (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            legal recognition that was lacking. Nevertheless, I don't see how that makes my comment "not accurate at all." The point was that it was not a religion that the Roman soldiers practiced when they had same sex relationships/lovers.

            There were exemptions? So what?

            •  Too many assumptions, not enough evidence (0+ / 0-)
              Roman soldiers were not allowed to marry (and have children) -- at least for a time they weren't. It would interfere with their duties to Rome. So, many of them took on male lovers (or sex slaves) from conquered peoples/nations. Jesus may have run into one such Roman Centurion (and, cured his "pais").
              Roman soldiers were permitted to have informal marriages. They were permitted to have families. Soldiers weren't forced into same-sex relationships because of a lack of female companionship. Even if informal marriages were not permitted, there is a mountain of archaeological evidence for brothels and an over-abundance of female prostitutes in Roman cities and near forts and barracks. Male prostitutes were also available, as were more long-term same-sex relationships. There was no compulsion or necessity in any of this.

              Where did you get the idea that the ability or inability to marry and have children has anything to do with sexual orientation or the choice of sex partners? We know from Plutarch, Catullus, and others that gay men could have wives and children. This is true today as well.

              As to same-sex relationships in the Roman army, read this:

              Real Roman history ain't an episode of Spartacus or Game of Thrones. There is literally a mountain of evidence about the lives of Roman soldiers, from surviving papyri letters and military reports, not only from Egypt, but also from Roman Britain and elsewhere, epigraphic evidence from soldier's tombstones, Roman authors like Caesar and Plutarch, and archaeological evidence from Roman forts. Go read the fucking paper, read the ancient authors if you want to know more. But then again, you're probably more interested in a god-damned internet argument than in self-education. I'm done with this thread.

              Join Essa in a revolt against the gods. Continue the fight, Causality.

              by rbird on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 11:47:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are the one making assumptions. (0+ / 0-)

                You are reading things into my comment that I never even stated. Where did I ever state that any Roman soldier was FORCED into a same sex relationship because of a lack of female companionship? I didn't. I'm quite aware of the abundance of brothels and female prostitutes in Rome. But, do you really think all the Roman soldiers would choose to go that route? I'm also aware of the male prostitutes and that some of the soldiers had long term same sex relationships. Did I ANYWHERE in that comment suggest otherwise? NO, I did not!

                The problem is that YOU THINK I implied something that I did NOT.

                And, where on earth (in my comment) is there anything about marriage and children having anything to do with sexual orientation. I neither said that, nor did I imply that.

                I did imply that some (perhaps my mistake was in using the word "many") of the straight soldiers probably had same sex relationships. We know that this happens just as some gay folks have straight relationships (for whatever reason(s) -- there could be many).

                I read your/the "fucking" paper! It does NOT negate anything that I stated. Nor, does your long-winded diatribe negate anything I stated. I AM interested in learning. Are YOU interested in LISTENING to what people actually say rather than making the ASSUMPTION that they are saying something they are not. Are you interested in knowing that others may know a few thing that maybe YOU don't, rather than just thinking everyone else is stupid and that you are just so much more intelligent and learned than they are? Apparently not.

  •  Part of the problem (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cabaretic, HeyMikey

    is that the NT was written in Koine Greek. But. Jesus spoke Aramaic much of the time. And, Aramaic is not the easiest of languages to translate. To complicate matters further, Paul apparently created a new Koine Greek word in one of the passages the fundies like to bash gays over the head with. So, we have mistranslations and at least one made up word (that no one really knows the meaning of).

    •  True (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      But the key meanings survive, though details differ from time to time.

      I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I lead you in, some one else would lead you out. - Eugene Debs.

      by cabaretic on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 12:40:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not so sure. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I asked a minister (with several doctorates in theology) if he thought the KJV of the Bible was an accurate translation. This was his response:

        the latin volgate was a translation of the greek, aramaic, and hebrew texts (some of which were actually fraudulent) into latin, and then john wycliffe translated the volgate into english (for which he was excommunicated) and then tynsdale came along a couple of hundred years later, followed by coverdale, and then finally the (not so) good king james came along wanting a transliteration of the bible which would place him above the holy see and give him the right to divorce his wife and live with his boyfriend. quite possibly due to the fact that he had the work done by mostly illiterate monks, it failed miserably to do as he wished, so he simply did it anyway and told the holy see to go screw itself.

        since those days what you have grown to know and love as the 'holy' bible has been transliterated many times to reflect the newer spoken language and make it easier to read due to the fact that trying to read the wycliffe bible gives most people who attempt to read it these days the strong urge to tear their own eyes out after a few minutes.

        if one is to take, however, the several renditions of the bible which have been printed since the original translation by john wycliffe, they would find that there is often little similarity in the written language found therein.

  •  Homosexuality in ancient Rome (0+ / 0-)

    Begin here.

    I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I lead you in, some one else would lead you out. - Eugene Debs.

    by cabaretic on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 12:43:55 PM PDT

  •  Jesus Is A Democrat! n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    decent wages don't eliminate jobs. Republicans eliminate jobs; and workers, and prospects, and then excuse it all and call for more austerity. there is no end to their ignorant, arrogant avarice. only political dinosaurs support their treachery.

    by renzo capetti on Mon Apr 07, 2014 at 01:21:21 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site