JESUS WAS GAY . . .

Nods.

0 Replies

margo wrote:

jespah wrote:
According to my cousin S___, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Oh!

You may be right at that!

It's Indians, isn't it? There are no gay Indians. Someone at work assured me of this in the past week!!!

Obviously not Village People fans...?

0 Replies

Jesus also had a really bad drinking habit, and he and all the apostles lived in continual poverty 'cause he'd bet on which way a locust would hop. Any time they got any cash, yer boy Jesus was rushing off to town to find some Roman soldiers who wanted to cast lots . . .

0 Replies

Nobody's perfect.

0 Replies

Francis

0 Replies

Hop, hop, hop, who's going to the hop.... hop hop..

0 Replies

Well, the idea of going to the hop was effervescent for me, at best (we moved, just as I was sort of popular - for the last best time in a while) and everybody was dancing, early '55..) But I remember the sounds.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I see your point, but in the case of Jesus, I would confine myself to his teachings rather than his deeds. And the only way to deal with the Falwells and Robertsons is to ignore them. I would never dignify their drivel with counter agruments.

Do you have any idea how many times the original texts of the bible were altered in its being copied over centuries? There is absolutely no freaking way we can ever know what Jesus' words actually were.

Unless I'm to believe that all umteen hundred people who copied the Bible were divinely inspired to "perfect" the "original" text.

Who's to say that I can't have a seizure, wake up, and copy the Bible in my own blood with the convenient omissions of homosexual condemnation, and the curious insertion of a hot threesome at the last supper, and it be as legitimate as some barely-literate nutsack in 400 A.D. who said, "Eh, surely this part is a mistake. I shall fix it for the Lord." And voila... the version that wound up printed on the press.

Such trash.

0 Replies

There's a group of credible scholars, referred to as The Jesus Seminar, who have investigated all the statements attributed to the historical Jesus. I believe they concluded that only 18% of such claims are solidly correct.
By the way, I am an atheist.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Jesus also had a really bad drinking habit, and he and all the apostles lived in continual poverty 'cause he'd bet on which way a locust would hop. Any time they got any cash, yer boy Jesus was rushing off to town to find some Roman soldiers who wanted to cast lots . . .

Well, yanno, if you're supposed to drink 64 oz of water, but you keep turning the water into wine, it's bound to have consequences.

Oh, and Eorl, I'll ask my Cousin S___ if she's a Village People fan but I'm unclear as to what that has to do with anything.

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

. . . Do you have any idea how many times the original texts of the bible were altered in its being copied over centuries? There is absolutely no freaking way we can ever know what Jesus' words actually were.

Unless I'm to believe that all umteen hundred people who copied the Bible were divinely inspired to "perfect" the "original" text. . .

Oddly enough, although the number may be zilteen hundred and they individually may not have divine inspiration, there is remarkably little difference between the various known manuscripts of either the Hebrew or Christian canons.

0 Replies

While noting that my remarks are not offered in support of Stlstrike's thesis (because i don't consider it reasonable), i would point out that if the texts to which you refer come down to us with very little to no variance from hundreds of sources of centuries of transcription and translation, that constitutes very good evidence of collusion to promote a particular point of view as the substance and meaning of scripture. And that is a very good reason to challenge the reliability of the source. Historical records of the same events from different sources notorious do not agree on particulars, and often even on major components of the story.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

While noting that my remarks are not offered in support of Stlstrike's thesis (because i don't consider it reasonable), i would point out that if the texts to which you refer come down to us with very little to no variance from hundreds of sources of centuries of transcription and translation, that constitutes very good evidence of collusion to promote a particular point of view as the substance and meaning of scripture. And that is a very good reason to challenge the reliability of the source. Historical records of the same events from different sources notorious do not agree on particulars, and often even on major components of the story.

True if there were sufficient evidence of conspiracy between the scribes. Do you know of such?

0 Replies

Yes, from Origen to Eusebius there was a concerted and publicly coordinated effort to determine which texts would be accepted as the official scriptural canon, as well as to edit them for errors. Origen, for example, was using a flawed copy of the Septuagint, and many of the errors he therefore made effected his judgment of the accuracy of portions of the scriptural canon. Nevertheless, the canon according to Origen has remained unchallenged, and the only editing that was done by Pamphilus and Eusebius was to remove transcribing errors which conflicted with Origen.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

stlstrike3 wrote:
. . . Do you have any idea how many times the original texts of the bible were altered in its being copied over centuries? There is absolutely no freaking way we can ever know what Jesus' words actually were.

Unless I'm to believe that all umteen hundred people who copied the Bible were divinely inspired to "perfect" the "original" text. . .
Oddly enough, although the number may be zilteen hundred and they individually may not have divine inspiration, there is remarkably little difference between the various known manuscripts of either the Hebrew or Christian canons.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Read "Misquoting Jesus" and if you can refute that historical data, then let's talk. Until then, I consider these comments of yours to be dreadfully uninformed.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Setanta wrote:
While noting that my remarks are not offered in support of Stlstrike's thesis (because i don't consider it reasonable), i would point out that if the texts to which you refer come down to us with very little to no variance from hundreds of sources of centuries of transcription and translation, that constitutes very good evidence of collusion to promote a particular point of view as the substance and meaning of scripture. And that is a very good reason to challenge the reliability of the source. Historical records of the same events from different sources notorious do not agree on particulars, and often even on major components of the story.
True if there were sufficient evidence of conspiracy between the scribes. Do you know of such?

"Conspiracy" isn't the right word, as mistakes being introduced into the biblical texts were a multifactorial event (genuine attempts to alter things it said that people didn't like, slips of the pen, attempts to fix what the copier thought the text should have said, etc.)

Nonetheless, lack of evidence for one position does not make the opposite position equally likely.

I'm more than happy to start cut-and-pasting out of reputable sources.... if I must.

0 Replies

You can take any of the common bible translations: King James, American Standard, etc. and you will find very little variation between the texts. Here is an example that few nominal christians like to admit:

Ecclesiastes 9:5

King James "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."

American Standard "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. "

Douay-Rheims " For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more, neither have they a reward any more: for the memory of them is forgotten. "

New World "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten."

0 Replies

Can't resist injecting a little of your particularist theology into the discussion, can ya Boss?

This thread is sooo gay . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Can't resist injecting a little of your particularist theology into the discussion, can ya Boss?

This thread is sooo gay . . .

Someone has to.

0 Replies

JESUS WAS GAY . . .

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know