Let's Talk About Sin

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Honestly, given the bold sections, we are not even talking the same language. You believe the four gospels are "essentially identical" and that editing/translation/or sheer leaving out of whole Gospels from the Bible is just mere confusion of a word here or a comma there. We are just too far apart on the nature/reality of the Bible to have a meaningful conversation about such discrepancies.

Sure we're talking the same language. I offered you an example where four different authors recorded the same message years later, but you would rather focus on a single sentence from my post. Doesn't that illustrate you would rather argue semantics... i.e. picking out one small detail rather than discussing the primary example from my post? Can you or can you not provide another example where four different authors recorded the same story years later to the level of detail provided by the Bible?

As I've also said, the primary message of the Bible is the same in any major version you would choose to cite. However, if you would care to provide an example where one version is different from the other... which then leads to a different interpretation of the Bible... please provide that detail. Otherwise we are left with semantics.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I agree with much of your post, though I don't fully understand the history lesson as I never claimed racism didn't exist in the north. I simply corrected your statement suggesting that the Bible was against interracial marriage, and that it was possibly more attributable to someone's upbringing (i.e. something they learned growing up).

I am curious though... if you don't believe interracial bias is part of southern heritage, then what do you attribute it to?

Racism was alive and well in the entire country. Like I said, the victors write the history books. It's convenient to leave out your involvement in an atrocity when you have someone else to blame. The reason it's considered a "southern heritage" is that the north wrote the history books.

While slavery was more predominant in the south due to agriculture, it existed in the entire country to some extent. But, to read many history books and to listen to Jesse, et. al., you would think that there was never a slave trade in the north and that every southerner owned a boat load of black folks. Both ideas are completely wrong.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Married for 13 years….have come to learn that sin is "anything that makes my wife mad".

Wait until you hit 30 years, it isn't the number, just the magnitude.

 

[rjd970]

Can you provide another example where four different authors all recorded the same event years later, and the details provided were essentially identical? Just look at recent events with Trayvon Martin... there were stories being reported only weeks and months after the incident and there were tons of inaccuracies.

If you want to argue semantics that one translation might use one word in place of another, or a comma was left out of a sentence... I'm not interested. The Word of God, in it's fully intended meaning, has not changed.

You asked a question and I provided you with numerous examples as to why Christians believe the Bible is the Word of God. It's seems apparent that at this time you would rather look for reasons NOT to believe rather than TO believe.

Four different authors with varying details, written much after the "fact". Omitted other accounts not "canonized". Different biblical translations/versions of said accounts.

All seems rather careless of a supreme creator of the universe. Faith doesn't have to go anywhere if it is so important to the creator, but one would think we could get a single consistent story to start from.

 

[Weezer]

First off, thanks for the responses. It's given me some thoughts to mull over.

Second, just a funny aside, reading through I was reminded of the old Rodney Dangerfield movie "Back to School" I haven't seen the movie in forever, but I think it might have been a Vonnegut novel that he was supposed to write a report on about symbology and what the author was saying. So he hired Vonnegut to write the report and the professor slammed it as trash. It just reminded me how everything is open to interpretation, and even when the truth comes straight from the source, some refuse to accept it. People believe what they want to believe, and somehow that belief is innate. I think that's why twenty people can interpret one verse in twenty different ways.

Religion can be a great uniter of people, but it can also be a great divider. I think many devout followers miss that point. You can talk about your beliefs, but when you force them upon others, you do nothing to help your cause. I've been the victim of family trying to tell me what I believe, to the point I was told I was going to hell. How they believed that helped their cause, I'm not certain. What it enforced upon me is that at least some are hypocritical with what they preach. It was always my understanding that in Christianity, God/Jesus determined your fate, not mortal, fallible souls.

The one thing I know I believe for certain is striving for peace and living in relative harmony. As long as you are willing to accept the possibility you could be wrong, and accept the responsibility that comes with it, then I think religion, or lack thereof, should remain a personal choice that can be discussed, but should never be argued in a negative connotation. I find no benefit in disparaging what others believe to be true.

One final note, though this nation was founded by predominantly Christian men, with predominantly Christian teachings, I don't believe every law should have predominantly Christian leanings. Freedom of religion loses something when skewed toward the aspects of a particular religion.

 

[BadJerry20]

Well said Weezer

 

[Weezer]

One more question for those who have actually read up on all of this, which I admittedly have not, what is your opinion on the "supposed" Gospel of Judas? Judas, to me, was always one of the most... for lack of a better term I'll use a literary term, fleshed out characters of the Bible. It seemed his whole purpose was to be the betrayer, almost like he had no choice. In recent years, scrolls containing the Gospel of Judas were discovered, and if I'm not mistaken, dated to the correct time period of when the other Gospels were supposedly written down. I have not read them, but interviews I have read seem to insinuate they paint him in a more sympathtetic light.

And I guess I bring this up, because to be honest, Judas always struck a chord with me about whether or not our fate is predestined. His role in the Bible was key. He was the betrayer of Jesus. It was a role that had to be played, so did he really have a choice in the matter, or was it always his destiny to fulfill. And if that's the case, how do you fight off a destiny you don't want to follow?

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Four different authors with varying details, written much after the "fact". Omitted other accounts not "canonized". Different biblical translations/versions of said accounts.

All seems rather careless of a supreme creator of the universe. Faith doesn't have to go anywhere if it is so important to the creator, but one would think we could get a single consistent story to start from.

There is very much a single, consistent story. Jesus was the Son of God. He performed miracles witnessed by many, and he died for our sins... everyone's sins past, present, future... if they are willing to accept His grace and ask forgiveness. The Bible refers to him as our bond servant because He paid for our debts that we are unable to cover. I hope someday you'll choose to read it with the intent to seek rather than disparage. :hi:

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

One more question for those who have actually read up on all of this, which I admittedly have not, what is your opinion on the "supposed" Gospel of Judas? Judas, to me, was always one of the most... for lack of a better term I'll use a literary term, fleshed out characters of the Bible. It seemed his whole purpose was to be the betrayer, almost like he had no choice. In recent years, scrolls containing the Gospel of Judas were discovered, and if I'm not mistaken, dated to the correct time period of when the other Gospels were supposedly written down. I have not read them, but interviews I have read seem to insinuate they paint him in a more sympathtetic light.

And I guess I bring this up, because to be honest, Judas always struck a chord with me about whether or not our fate is predestined. His role in the Bible was key. He was the betrayer of Jesus. It was a role that had to be played, so did he really have a choice in the matter, or was it always his destiny to fulfill. And if that's the case, how do you fight off a destiny you don't want to follow?

Weezer... I remember reading about this "discovery" years ago, and the best I recall is that this book was written at least a century or two after the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Further, the author of the book was never determined. It is, I believe, a true historical document as it was referenced by another writer (can't recall the name) as being a false recording of the actual history (a conspiracy theory if you will), which is one of the primary reasons it is not accepted as a true Gospel. I'm sure there is much more information available on the subject if you'd care to research it, but my understanding is that there is vast agreement as to why it is not considered part of the Bible.

 

[Lexvol]

I bet she could tell a lot about YOUR sins LOL

You may as well join this discussion, I know you have good insight

Hehe…..I'm a practicing Christian who participates in organized religion even though I hate the idea of paid clergy….am a seminary grad….

Money and denominations have bastardized the purity of Christ's message. Collectively, christians have defined sins and then assigned degrees of separation that each particular sin will separate you from God.

Each denomination/segment then teaches based on their bias. For instance….the liberation theologian will tell you that greed and unfair consumption of resources is the primary sin in the world today. While an evangelical will tell you that sexual impurity and substance abuse are abominations.

In reality, these denominations find a base and milk them for money based on their world views.

I think sin is whatever personally separates us from the presence of God. That primarily happens when we act selfishly. Not really dramatic or interesting….but it is where my journey has taken me.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Weezer... I remember reading about this "discovery" years ago, and the best I recall is that this book was written at least a century or two after the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Further, the author of the book was never determined. It is, I believe, a true historical document as it was referenced by another writer (can't recall the name) as being a false recording of the actual history (a conspiracy theory if you will), which is one of the primary reasons it is not accepted as a true Gospel. I'm sure there is much more information available on the subject if you'd care to research it, but my understanding is that there is vast agreement as to why it is not considered part of the Bible.

Gnostic Gospels..Apocrypha?

 

[mtt2d]

One more question for those who have actually read up on all of this, which I admittedly have not, what is your opinion on the "supposed" Gospel of Judas? Judas, to me, was always one of the most... for lack of a better term I'll use a literary term, fleshed out characters of the Bible. It seemed his whole purpose was to be the betrayer, almost like he had no choice. In recent years, scrolls containing the Gospel of Judas were discovered, and if I'm not mistaken, dated to the correct time period of when the other Gospels were supposedly written down. I have not read them, but interviews I have read seem to insinuate they paint him in a more sympathtetic light.

And I guess I bring this up, because to be honest, Judas always struck a chord with me about whether or not our fate is predestined. His role in the Bible was key. He was the betrayer of Jesus. It was a role that had to be played, so did he really have a choice in the matter, or was it always his destiny to fulfill. And if that's the case, how do you fight off a destiny you don't want to follow?

I don't post on here much but I will try to give some direction to you regarding your second point.

I don't trust modern day preachers, plain and simple. I could go over the reasons why but I don't feel it's necessary as most people on here probably understand what I mean.

I trust the Bible, specifically the life of Jesus, the apostles, the OT prophets, and so on. I don't trust a specific version of the Bible. The Bible must be studied in the origional language in which it was written. There are tools to help with this but I prefer to research and learn from people who teach from the origional word. I'm 29 years old and very lazy (although I am trying to change.)

There are several bible teachers in our history who have taught on predestination (which is in the origional word). Just do a little research and you can find some. One I am starting to study and learn from is Charles Spurgeon. It won't all make sense overnight, but with prayer and diligence and the mercy and grace of God, He will begin to show you his way.

I hope that helps you some in regards to your question. I have questions like yours a lot and it's good to have men and women of faith around you if possible.

 

[Coastypop]

I don't post on here much but I will try to give some direction to you regarding your second point.

I don't trust modern day preachers, plain and simple. I could go over the reasons why but I don't feel it's necessary as most people on here probably understand what I mean.

I trust the Bible, specifically the life of Jesus, the apostles, the OT prophets, and so on. I don't trust a specific version of the Bible. The Bible must be studied in the origional language in which it was written. There are tools to help with this but I prefer to research and learn from people who teach from the origional word. I'm 29 years old and very lazy (although I am trying to change.)

There are several bible teachers in our history who have taught on predestination (which is in the origional word). Just do a little research and you can find some. One I am starting to study and learn from is Charles Spurgeon. It won't all make sense overnight, but with prayer and diligence and the mercy and grace of God, He will begin to show you his way.

I hope that helps you some in regards to your question. I have questions like yours a lot and it's good to have men and women of faith around you if possible.

I just wanted to address the two statement you made that I have bold-ed

1) I agree with the statement about modern day preachers, however faith should never rest in fallible man upon an infallible God ...

2) I was wondering how we (unless we are theologians, which I am not) can learn from or study the Bible in it's original form, when most of the original manuscripts no longer exists or have been destroyed. What we have is simply copies of copies of those manuscripts

 

[Coastypop]

Hehe…..I'm a practicing Christian who participates in organized religion even though I hate the idea of paid clergy….am a seminary grad….

Money and denominations have bastardized the purity of Christ's message. Collectively, christians have defined sins and then assigned degrees of separation that each particular sin will separate you from God.

Each denomination/segment then teaches based on their bias. For instance….the liberation theologian will tell you that greed and unfair consumption of resources is the primary sin in the world today. While an evangelical will tell you that sexual impurity and substance abuse are abominations.

In reality, these denominations find a base and milk them for money based on their world views.

I think sin is whatever personally separates us from the presence of God. That primarily happens when we act selfishly. Not really dramatic or interesting….but it is where my journey has taken me.

Good solid post imho :hi:

 

[Weezer]

Weezer... I remember reading about this "discovery" years ago, and the best I recall is that this book was written at least a century or two after the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Further, the author of the book was never determined. It is, I believe, a true historical document as it was referenced by another writer (can't recall the name) as being a false recording of the actual history (a conspiracy theory if you will), which is one of the primary reasons it is not accepted as a true Gospel. I'm sure there is much more information available on the subject if you'd care to research it, but my understanding is that there is vast agreement as to why it is not considered part of the Bible.

I'm going completely off memory, which is dangerous as bad as my memory is, but what I seem to recall is that original testing supports what you say about the writings being off by about a century. But it seems in the article I read, they did new testing that showed the original testing to be inaccurate. What I remember reading is that the original dating process relied heavily on the ink consistency on the parchment, the composition of which they didn't believe existed from the same time period as the Gospels you mentioned. However, newer studies supposedly showed that that composition was indeed used during that time frame, just in a different region. Based on where they discovered these scrolls, they believed them to be written in said region where that ink composition was used.

To be honest, it's all confusing to me. I have an analytical mind which makes me want to seek proof. At the same time, I want to believe in things bigger than what we can see. The two do not mix together well as fact and faith do not generally walk hand in hand.

 

[rjd970]

Weezer... I remember reading about this "discovery" years ago, and the best I recall is that this book was written at least a century or two after the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Further, the author of the book was never determined. It is, I believe, a true historical document as it was referenced by another writer (can't recall the name) as being a false recording of the actual history (a conspiracy theory if you will), which is one of the primary reasons it is not accepted as a true Gospel. I'm sure there is much more information available on the subject if you'd care to research it, but my understanding is that there is vast agreement as to why it is not considered part of the Bible.

Disconcerted science fiction as it may be, it makes more sense than the bad rap Judas has gotten for doing something that ultimately needed to be done anyway.

 

[Weezer]

I don't post on here much but I will try to give some direction to you regarding your second point.

I don't trust modern day preachers, plain and simple. I could go over the reasons why but I don't feel it's necessary as most people on here probably understand what I mean.

I trust the Bible, specifically the life of Jesus, the apostles, the OT prophets, and so on. I don't trust a specific version of the Bible. The Bible must be studied in the origional language in which it was written. There are tools to help with this but I prefer to research and learn from people who teach from the origional word. I'm 29 years old and very lazy (although I am trying to change.)

There are several bible teachers in our history who have taught on predestination (which is in the origional word). Just do a little research and you can find some. One I am starting to study and learn from is Charles Spurgeon. It won't all make sense overnight, but with prayer and diligence and the mercy and grace of God, He will begin to show you his way.

I hope that helps you some in regards to your question. I have questions like yours a lot and it's good to have men and women of faith around you if possible.

My first thought when you speak of modern day preachers is Orel Roberts. And you could throw in a handful of televangelists, but Roberts was the first one I remember going over the top.

Considering all we have are copies of ancient texts, I'm not really sure I understand your "original word" arguement. But let's assume that copies of the ancient texts are 100% accurate, you still face having to rely upon the interpretations of others unless you can translate yourself, and let's not forget, much of language is full of nuance, and the nuance of that time period has been lost to the ages. So even if you had the original texts themselves in front of you with the ability to translate them literally, you still don't have the nuance they were written in. The best example I can think of for this is the "rich man-camel-eye of the needle" verse. As a child, I could not understand the statement as I took it literally. It wasn't until I learned that the "eye of the needle" was a narrow gate into Jerusalem that the verse made sense.

To be clear, are you saying you do believe in predestination? I'm not sure if it exists or not, but the idea of it scares me. One of my biggest fears is that I'm destined to be a doomed soul, and that no choice I make can or will save me. And by doomed soul, I don't mean in just a religious context, but in a context of spreading true spiritual negativity in general. I want to be known as a good man, but fear that I am not a good man. And to put this into further context, I don't want to be known as a good man just for myself, but for my family as well. I want them to know that I try to do the right thing. I have no children of my own, but there are children in my life, and I want to be a positive influence on them. I want to be better for them.

And the response that some may take the wrong way, surrounding myself with people of faith has been my problem. I have found that many, not all, maybe not even the majority, but at least a vocal minority, people of faith expect you to follow drop step in with them. The slightest difference of viewpoint can become a major bone of contention. Before you know it, you don't measure up to their faith. And that unsettles me greatly considering the people I speak of are family. The people you hold closest to you inflict the deepest wounds.

And lest I forget, thank you for your thought out response. Sorry if I've rambled on a little much.

 

[Weezer]

Disconcerted science fiction as it may be, it makes more sense than the bad rap Judas has gotten for doing something that ultimately needed to be done anyway.

The most thought out explanation of Judas I have ever received is that betraying Jesus was not Judas's sin. Judas's sin was taking judgement from God by taking his own life. But I've never been satisfied with that explanation either. Operating under the assumption the Bible is factual (this is not meant to be offensive so apologize if you find it so), how is someone supposed to react when you discover you have betrayed not just a man, but the son of God? People have had nervous breakdowns over far less. So I still find it all perplexing.

 

[mtt2d]

I just wanted to address the two statement you made that I have bold-ed

1) I agree with the statement about modern day preachers, however faith should never rest in fallible man upon an infallible God ...

2) I was wondering how we (unless we are theologians, which I am not) can learn from or study the Bible in it's original form, when most of the original manuscripts no longer exists or have been destroyed. What we have is simply copies of copies of those manuscripts

To your second point, just ask your pastor

 

[mtt2d]

My first thought when you speak of modern day preachers is Orel Roberts. And you could throw in a handful of televangelists, but Roberts was the first one I remember going over the top.

Considering all we have are copies of ancient texts, I'm not really sure I understand your "original word" arguement. But let's assume that copies of the ancient texts are 100% accurate, you still face having to rely upon the interpretations of others unless you can translate yourself, and let's not forget, much of language is full of nuance, and the nuance of that time period has been lost to the ages. So even if you had the original texts themselves in front of you with the ability to translate them literally, you still don't have the nuance they were written in. The best example I can think of for this is the "rich man-camel-eye of the needle" verse. As a child, I could not understand the statement as I took it literally. It wasn't until I learned that the "eye of the needle" was a narrow gate into Jerusalem that the verse made sense.

To be clear, are you saying you do believe in predestination? I'm not sure if it exists or not, but the idea of it scares me. One of my biggest fears is that I'm destined to be a doomed soul, and that no choice I make can or will save me. And by doomed soul, I don't mean in just a religious context, but in a context of spreading true spiritual negativity in general. I want to be known as a good man, but fear that I am not a good man. And to put this into further context, I don't want to be known as a good man just for myself, but for my family as well. I want them to know that I try to do the right thing. I have no children of my own, but there are children in my life, and I want to be a positive influence on them. I want to be better for them.

And the response that some may take the wrong way, surrounding myself with people of faith has been my problem. I have found that many, not all, maybe not even the majority, but at least a vocal minority, people of faith expect you to follow drop step in with them. The slightest difference of viewpoint can become a major bone of contention. Before you know it, you don't measure up to their faith. And that unsettles me greatly considering the people I speak of are family. The people you hold closest to you inflict the deepest wounds.

And lest I forget, thank you for your thought out response. Sorry if I've rambled on a little much.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I didn't know the origional text was still around until about ten years ago. Faithful men and women have passed it down and it is available. I don't study it (yet) but several people before me did. That's why I mentioned spurgeon

Yes I do believ in predestination. Hardly anyone does these days. I don't know why it's not preached much anymore but it's crucial to salvation. And yes, it scare me too.

No one has ever followed christ's footsteps to a T. Don't let anyone fool you. I want to repeat what Phil robertson said here about those who will inherent the kingdom and it's true. We all have to repent and trust Christ.

I'm glad for your response Weezer. I've been in and out tonight. Sorry for the delay In response.

 

[rjd970]

The most thought out explanation of Judas I have ever received is that betraying Jesus was not Judas's sin. Judas's sin was taking judgement from God by taking his own life. But I've never been satisfied with that explanation either. Operating under the assumption the Bible is factual (this is not meant to be offensive so apologize if you find it so), how is someone supposed to react when you discover you have betrayed not just a man, but the son of God? People have had nervous breakdowns over far less. So I still find it all perplexing.

Operating under the assumption that the Bible is true, there could have been a more direct route to the same end state without throwing somebody under the bus.

 

[Weezer]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I didn't know the origional text was still around until about ten years ago. Faithful men and women have passed it down and it is available. I don't study it (yet) but several people before me did. That's why I mentioned spurgeon

Yes I do believ in predestination. Hardly anyone does these days. I don't know why it's not preached much anymore but it's crucial to salvation. And yes, it scare me too.

No one has ever followed christ's footsteps to a T. Don't let anyone fool you. I want to repeat what Phil robertson said here about those who will inherent the kingdom and it's true. We all have to repent and trust Christ.

I'm glad for your response Weezer. I've been in and out tonight. Sorry for the delay In response.

I have a sense that Phil Robertson is a subject we would disagree on. As an American, I support his right to have his opinion, but let's not mistake that with me agreeing with his opinion. Personally, I don't think the man knows what he speaks about so much as he regurgitates what he has been taught. Those kinds of opinions are dangerous, IMO.

As far as the rest, I'll need to research. All things considered, I find it hard to believe the "original" text is still around. Copies, maybe, but the originals, should they still be in existence, would be locked away in the Vatican(most likely) and access almost impossible. All that aside, I still stress my belief in understanding the nuance of a language. What is literal and what is figure of speech? Have you ever been around an adult trying to learn English? If so, then you understand what I mean by nuance.

 

[Daloth]

I think what most mean when they say studying "The original word" is by reading it in its native language of hebrew or latin.

People don't understand just how much is cut out in translation alone, let alone all out intentional removal (See, the Gospels Thomas, Nicodemus, Eve).

One of my very good friends is getting her masters in theology, she reads hebrew fluently and most latin, and whenever I read a verse that I think seems weird or don't like, I'll message her on facebook or call her up and ask her what the original says and ask her to translate it for me more literally or even less literally. I've found knowing the original language makes the already oft argued upon stories and verses much more clear, even in the instances where the literal translation is lost because its an aphorism or a phrase that doesn't make sense to us now.

 

[Lexvol]

I think what most mean when they say studying "The original word" is by reading it in its native language of hebrew or latin.

People don't understand just how much is cut out in translation alone, let alone all out intentional removal (See, the Gospels Thomas, Nicodemus, Eve).

One of my very good friends is getting her masters in theology, she reads hebrew fluently and most latin, and whenever I read a verse that I think seems weird or don't like, I'll message her on facebook or call her up and ask her what the original says and ask her to translate it for me more literally or even less literally. I've found knowing the original language makes the already oft argued upon stories and verses much more clear, even in the instances where the literal translation is lost because its an aphorism or a phrase that doesn't make sense to us now.

Agree completely. The English language simply isn't descriptive enough to capture the meaning or intent of the text. The other issue is the actual context. I guess that every society/culture is guilty of judging and interpreting cultures of different eras through their own lens. In many ways that is not always a bad thing.

However to completely understand the text, context can be as important as a pure interpretation of the language. Many people don't understand that.

 

[Coastypop]

To your second point, just ask your pastor

Are you speaking of the textus receptus ?