NC Amendment 1 Passes (Constitutionally Prevents Gay Marriage)

Disclaimer - when I read the Bible I don't weight Jesus' words any greater than others. I view the Bible all as God's Word, so when Paul speaks against homosexuality in Romans, I view it as basically God being against it. (And let's not dive into old/new covenant stuff here with that statement, I get it seems paradoxical at first.)

That said, to a great extent I agree with you about importance in some churches.

 

Could explain what he meant when he said he was not yet ascended "to himself?" (John 20:17, looked it up)? He's the father and the son? Why does the concept of the trinity go unmentioned in the Bible? Why did it only come up in 431, to tie these sorts of inconsistencies together?

The whole religion screams of a tweaked man-made fabrication. A tall-tale run amok.

 

If it is all God's word, why did God change his mind about eating idol meat from Paul to Revelations? Which you think were both written at about 70 CE, I suppose, since you believe all of the books were written at their earliest possible dates?

 

Guilty. Hollywood parties with celebrities, breakfast with scholars--I'm definitely betraying my self-professed hatred of celebrity.

 

interesting. so is it your belief that even paul had a direct link to god or that god wrote the bible because if you accept the bible was written by man it seems logical that anything not directly attributed to jesus could be of questionable origin? i would also think that jesus' words should be weighted higher since he is the son of god and the basis for the religion.

 

I think you are referring to the Council of Nicaea in 325.

The Nicene Creed was formalized then, but the idea existed previously.

 

Divinely-inspired would be the correct phrase I would use. Man wrote inspired by God through the third member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Is there a minor translation error here and there? Sure. But the general big idea is the same.

My rebuttal to weighting words is that the entire Bible one way or the other is about Jesus. And thus, because it is, all words should be viewed equally.

 

gotcha. by minor translation errors do you mean in later versions or translation errors from god to human to the first version?

 

Was referring to the Ephesine formula when it was first fully defined. The Nicene Creed didn't actually fully flesh it out, just said it "was." It existed only after gentile Christians became prominent within the early Christian church, and they began introducing the concept from Assyrian, Greek, and Roman mythology. Paul did not believe in the Trinity and would have no idea what someone was talking about if he were asked about it. Clearly made a distinction between Father and Son.

 

The simple answer?

Two different types of things going on between the passages.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul is addressing people eating the food with no strings attached. They are eating the food for it being food. The only issue at hand here is mature vs. immature believers and the immature believers not thinking they could eat the food sacrificed to idols because of conscience.

In Revelation (singular, not plural by the way), the members of that church are essentially still practicing Pagan worship, part of which is taking part of the feasts sacrificed to idols.

Food, itself, is never the issue. Why you eat the food is the issue.

 

Later versions. Hebrew/Greek to English if you will.

 

What translation says "to himself?" I just looked thru 10 or so and they all have some variation of "to the Father."

 

Let's just agree to disagree on this one.

 

interesting. is there evidence that earlier versions had less contradictions?

 

Like to the Geneva Bible and such?

I'm sure there is one way or the other, although I don't know it.

I'm not saying there are more translation errors now that there were with the KJV for example, but more along the lines of that there may be translation errors in any translation regardless but that the big picture or idea remains the same.

If that makes sense.

 

it makes perfect sense. thanks for the responses.

 

Anytime.

 

I can't quote specifics off the top of my head, but i'd add that there are evidences of errors being perpetuated in copying of early texts in original languages. So western texts differed from eastern texts, for instance, because at some point, a vowel or word was missed here and there when being hand-copied.

As far as English translations, the most modern translations are far more closely aligned with the originals because of the number of manuscripts available now that were not accessible to Wycliffe, Tyndale, and the KJV translators.

 

9/11 terrorists did not meet the living Muhammed.

 

I'm not sure which strawman I am to be defending, sour grapes.