Religion vs Homosexuality

[jimboston]

The New Testament was written largely by witnesses. Parts of the Old Testament were as well.

Most Theologians don't believe the Gospels where actually written by Mathew, Mark, Luke or John.
Rather they were verbally handed down, and then later consolidated.

This is partially true, however, much of Paul was apparently written by Paul, etc.

Furthermore, the Bible we have today is vastly different than the various bibles early Christians used.
The Bible was edited by the Council of Nicea, under the auspices of the Roman Emperor Constantine.
Many parts were edited or completely removed.

Very true. The Gnostic texts, in particular were quite popular. That is part of why the council was set to establish the criteria for what would be considered accepted and what would not. Even then, of course most Protestant Bibles differ from Roman Catholic Bibles.

Anyway, my point was not to debate the Bible... that belongs in another thread. Its just that the claim that all the Bible is just unproven fiction is often made, but not provable.

Just to be clear. You made a statement.
I refuted it.
You agreed... but acted as if your initial statement was still correct.

No. You did not really refute my statement. I said some of the texts were first hand accounts. Your responded that some were not. Both can be true. In this case, I would say they are.
but that's just semantics. No real argument here.

Reread your post.

The New Testament was written largely by witnesses. Parts of the Old Testament were as well.

That statement implies that the vast majority (largely) of the New Testament was written by witnesses.
This is NOT that same as saying "some".

I never said "some" of the BIble was written by witnesses. If anything my comment implies that very little if any was written by witnesses.

We are not in agreement.

Let me be clear on my understanding and position here.

I think very little if any of the Bible (New or Old Testament) was actually written down by witnesses. Furthermore, the Bible has been edited and translated so many times... that even if some small parts were written by witnesses, the end-result of what we have today (in the US; English versions, like the King James version), is substantially different than what was written supposedly 2000 years ago.

If this were not true, why is there more than one version of the Bible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_E ... anslations

If the book was written by witnesses and handed down without dispute, there should be only one... no?

[jimboston]

We as a society do need something (at the very least a belief system like secular humanism) to help us keep our baser instincts in check. No?

Yes, it's called the law.

That's fine...

Though the law is based on something.

So really you're saying (for USA at least) that it's called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
That's fine... that's still a believe system.

I know many who consider the Constitution to be their "Bible".

[mrswdk]

The law is not a belief system.

[waauw]

We as a society do need something (at the very least a belief system like secular humanism) to help us keep our baser instincts in check. No?

Yes, it's called the law.

That's fine...

Though the law is based on something.

So really you're saying (for USA at least) that it's called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
That's fine... that's still a believe system.

I know many who consider the Constitution to be their "Bible".

The law is not a belief system.

This, though you are right the law is based on some ethical standards, but those don't per sé have to derive from religion. Given, religions are a fine method of distribution, but so are the media and the educational system.

[tzor]

You aren't going to save me.

That's a good thing. My Superman Suit is in the cleaners.

People using religion as a weapon to oppress other people.

I hate that too ...

People using religion to suppress science and the advancement thereof.

I think suppressing science is wrong. But just like you can't force faith on someone you can't force science on them either. Some people will insist on a young earth. Some people will insist socialism actually works. You got to feel sorry for them ...

People who make blanket statements about religion.

You know, your statements are kind of blanket as well ... just saying.

i.e. Like Player's assertion that "Most" of the Bible was written by witnesses.

I'm really not in the mood to nit pick, especially from an era long before easy printing and publications where everything is written down. Whether it was written down by direct witnesses or from the testimony of direct witnesses or from the testimony of those who were taught by direct witnesses is kind of a moot point compared to something written after all the original witnesses are long dead.

You write a bunch of BS when such people are still living and you are going to get a lot of push back. Wait a second, you did get a lot of push back, there are lots of not to subtle complaints about the Gnostic writings in the writings of the Apostles. Enough said.

[jimboston]

People who make blanket statements about religion.

You know, your statements are kind of blanket as well ... just saying.

I try not too. I do make a serious attempt to say things like "most" or "many" or "some".
Though I will make blanket statements if I think a subject is beyond debate.

Whether it was written down by direct witnesses or from the testimony of direct witnesses or from the testimony of those who were taught by direct witnesses is kind of a moot point compared to something written after all the original witnesses are long dead.

Maybe or maybe not... and maybe it was written after all the witnesses were long dead. Neither of us knows for sure. I do know that most historians and bible scholars believe that the vast majority was NOT written by witnesses.

It may be moot if you have a strong oral tradition. It may be moot due to Divine Intervention. That's not the point.

My whole point was just to simple refute Player's erroneous claim.

You write a bunch of BS when such people are still living and you are going to get a lot of push back. Wait a second, you did get a lot of push back, there are lots of not to subtle complaints about the Gnostic writings in the writings of the Apostles. Enough said.

You can also get a lot of not too subtle complaints by people who just have different recollections, different views, or different goals. Thought that's not really got anything to do with any point I made.

[jgordon1111]

Hmm tzor, you seem to get the gist of it, now keep in mind the information that was handed down was accurate, that info was never edited or changed just because the person passing it on didn't like what was said, now saying it was never intentionally changed, now you have to take into consideration that all of them had edict memories , and the realm of that possibility diminishes that the whole truth and nothing but the truth is beyond the realm of feasible. Not many with edict memory today, the possibility that in that time period there were that many in a row in that geographical location, not likely or feasible.

[jimboston]

Eidetic memory???

[jgordon1111]

Yes jim, my memory isn't what it used to be, Ty for the assist with the spell check

[jimboston]

Yes jim, my memory isn't what it used to be, Ty for the assist with the spell check

No Eidetic memory for you.

However, your mistake proves your point.

[riskllama]

and you both should be thanking "the DaVinci Code"...

[jgordon1111]

Riskllama what does a movie have to do with this topic? If you think that is a reference for my point of view on this subject, you could not be more erroneous if you tried. If that was not what you meant,my mistake. Using a movie as a tool to make a point is like kicking a fighting bull in the nuts for fun, highly stupid, and that I am not,serious about most topics i choose to speak on I am.

[riskllama]

an eidetic memory became part of the north american 'zeitgeist" due the DaVinci Code book/movie(moreso the movie) in which the main character professes to have one, that was all i was saying...

[PLAYER57832]

Since you insist.....

Reread your post.

The New Testament was written largely by witnesses. Parts of the Old Testament were as well.

That statement implies that the vast majority (largely) of the New Testament was written by witnesses.
This is NOT that same as saying "some".

Not true. Both "some" and "largely" mean fewer than all. If you want to get truly technical, then "some" usually means "more than 4" and "largely" means more than half. Neither means "the vast majority", as you claim -- though the exact number is indeterminate enough to include a large majority, generally one would say "nearly all" if that is what one meant.

I never said "some" of the BIble was written by witnesses. If anything my comment implies that very little if any was written by witnesses.

You gave a couple of examples, you hardly stated that every book is written by non-witnesses. Also, yYour examples were disputed opinion, not verified fact.

We are not in agreement.

Let me be clear on my understanding and position here.

I think very little if any of the Bible (New or Old Testament) was actually written down by witnesses. Furthermore, the Bible has been edited and translated so many times... that even if some small parts were written by witnesses, the end-result of what we have today (in the US; English versions, like the King James version), is substantially different than what was written supposedly 2000 years ago.

If this were not true, why is there more than one version of the Bible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_E ... anslations

If the book was written by witnesses and handed down without dispute, there should be only one... no?

[/quote]
No. Having witnesses and being without dispute are 2 different things from the outset, also I never every said the Bible is without dispute, but this is getting into an involved tangent. its interesting, but way off topic... and a better subject than the topic.

[PLAYER57832]

an eidetic memory became part of the north american 'zeitgeist" due the DaVinci Code book/movie(moreso the movie) in which the main character professes to have one, that was all i was saying...

Uh.. no. That might be when you first became aware of the term, but it was definitely well used long before that. In fact, this is the first I have ever heard that the term was associated with the book. I, and many others have used this term long before the DaVinci code was written.

[riskllama]

nevertheless, i bet one of them lads got it from that movie. 'scuse me, smartypants...

[jgordon1111]

Sorry riskllama, I have used to the term since the6th grade when I used photographic memory in a report and my teacher politely told me the other was more accurate and easier to spell

[jimboston]

Since you insist.....

ugh... why do I both. You're right. I just need to ignore your BS.

Not true. Both "some" and "largely" mean fewer than all. If you want to get truly technical, then "some" usually means "more than 4" and "largely" means more than half. Neither means "the vast majority", as you claim -- though the exact number is indeterminate enough to include a large majority, generally one would say "nearly all" if that is what one meant.

Please tell me that you are not trying to say the words "largely" and "some" are synonymous.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/largely
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/some

I never said "some" of the BIble was written by witnesses. If anything my comment implies that very little if any was written by witnesses.

You gave a couple of examples, you hardly stated that every book is written by non-witnesses. Also, yYour examples were disputed opinion, not verified fact.

I gave enough examples (be it opinion or fact) to dispute your claim. Again, your post... the entire post...

first point of fact, the bible,koran or whatever text you follow wasn't written by any actual wittness of any of the events spoken of therein.

The New Testament was written largely by witnesses. Parts of the Old Testament were as well.

To prove you wrong I just have to prove that it wasn't "largely" written by witnesses. Or at least put the question of authorship in doubt. We can both claim that neither of us "knows" the right answer... hence the authorship is in doubt. Hence you are wrong.

We are not in agreement.

Let me be clear on my understanding and position here.

I think very little if any of the Bible (New or Old Testament) was actually written down by witnesses. Furthermore, the Bible has been edited and translated so many times... that even if some small parts were written by witnesses, the end-result of what we have today (in the US; English versions, like the King James version), is substantially different than what was written supposedly 2000 years ago.

If this were not true, why is there more than one version of the Bible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_E ... anslations

If the book was written by witnesses and handed down without dispute, there should be only one... no?

No. Having witnesses and being without dispute are 2 different things from the outset, also I never every said the Bible is without dispute, but this is getting into an involved tangent. its interesting, but way off topic... and a better subject than the topic.[/quote]

I said "handed down without dispute". Perhaps this is not the best way to say what I meant... I meant that it was "handed down without changing". If it was written by witnesses, and handed down over the centuries without change, then we'd only have one Bible. Wether or not the witness's version is in dispute is moot.

My whole point... it's not really written by witnesses. Even if parts were... these have been changes and translated so many times, that they are really nothing like the original. So to say "the Bible" as we read it today was "written" by witnesses... it's so much of a stretch that it becomes false.

[tzor]

Not many with edict memory today, the possibility that in that time period there were that many in a row in that geographical location, not likely or feasible.

You know, it wasn't that many decades ago that children in the United States were required to memorize the Gettysburg Address, and before that they were also memorizing many famous pieces of Shakespeare.

It has been proposed that Jesus probably had a three year active ministry. Given that, the amount of material that is in the Gospels is exceptionally sparse. Most of the first three Gospels seem to have come from a common source, but this source has never been found. Memorizing such a list of "common sayings of Jesus" with a mere span of decades is not a impossible task. The biggest thing of the Gospel writers were to add flesh to the bones of the common sayings by getting them arranged in a common narrative.

There are a lot of things in the details that really don't have much to do with the Gospel Message that gets confusing, especially when we add the fourth gospel to the mix. For example, when did Jesus have the anger moment in the temple? The synoptic gospels generally put it at the end of Jesus' ministry as a trigger point for the plot to arrest him. But John places it at the beginning, giving a reason for hatred from the religious authority and Jesus. Bill O'Riley even suggested that he might have done it twice.

Also note that a number of letters from the Apostles were already written and distributed before the first Gospel was written down. The earliest written account of the "last supper" comes from Paul.

[tzor]

Please tell me that you are not trying to say the words "largely" and "some" are synonymous.

Do you really want to get into a complex argument on the percentage values of adjectives?

(That's like the old joke ... 4 out of 5 doctors agree the fifth doctor is an idiot ... only the fifth doctor disagreed.)

[Bernie Sanders]

Don't let me interrupt your debates here. Just love the intellectual debate and back and forth and back and forth of frothing mouths, ha-ha-ha-ha!

[mrswdk]

That's like the old joke ... 4 out of 5 doctors agree the fifth doctor is an idiot ... only the fifth doctor disagreed.