Why is Bob proud about being homophobic?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by karstkid
aikido7:

Q or quelle doesn't really exist as I said before.

Quite right. It's a purely hypothetical document made up in order to explain the similarities in the Synoptic Gospels. No copies, fragmentary or otherwise, have ever been discovered, nor do any references to such a document exist anywhere.

 

[Zakath]

In theory, woudln't the synoptics merely be corrupted copies of the Q document?

 

[karstkid]

Zakath:

Quote:
"In theory, woudln't the synoptics merely be corrupted copies of the Q document?"

You are talking about something that does not exist. It's like talking about the lost continent of Atlantis or El Dorado.

 

[.Ant]

Jefferson, you haven't responded to my previous post.

 

[aikido7]

This piece is mainly theological, not historical:

"...the historicity of traditions/teachings established by our Lord in the canonical Gospels." (My emphasis).

There are also some mispellings--which may be simply errors in copying the text to the website. But this is also a red flag to me because it leads me to believe that the post is less-than-scholarly as well. We must consider the source and carefully weigh our options. Barring the existence of a camcorder following Jesus around, we cannot go anywhere but the texts themselves, the cultural milleiu at the time, studies in histories of religion, anthropological and sociological correlation, DNA studies and archeological evidence. There really IS a difference between what we would wish and hope to be true and what can be said provisionally with a critical comparison of texts and extant knowledge.

Bumbulis himself seems to have had to "bend" a little in the direction of the sciences and common-sense traditions of scholarly study of Christianity. Note the quotation below, with my emphases:

But this observation turns on the ASSUMPTION that simpler accounts date earlier and this is far from universally true. Certainly, Jesus did not teach in soundbites, and people also have a tendency to compress teachings when they orally transmit them.

Few things in historical inquiry can be judged "universally true."

I think you are confused about Thomas and Q. Thomas is an extant manuscript. Q can be found in the synoptics and is the basis for the "Two source" hypothesis. Note the word "hypothesis." Scholars must work with rigor and to put the truth above personal preference. This is the scientific method. Facts are found, pointed out and then subjected to critical reveiw by peer journals. THEN comes the interpretation of facts--which varies from scholar to scholar.

Some on these boards might still be conflating the historical figure who walked the dusty roads of Palestine with the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Messiah and Son of God--all faith statements.

 

[aikido7]

My hunch was right. After my careful textual study of the URL provided by karskid and my further research using the internet I have concluded that Michael J. Bumbulis is a Christian apologist, not a historian or scholar.

This fact shows that his main concern is shoring up his beliefs by pretending to address real scholarly claims with evenhandedness and integrity.

 

[karstkid]

aikido7:

Quote:
"My hunch was right. After my careful textual study of the URL provided by karskid and my further research using the internet I have concluded that Michael J. Bumbulis is a Christian apologist, not a historian or scholar.
This fact shows that his main concern is shoring up his beliefs by pretending to address real scholarly claims with evenhandedness and integrity."

Two things. My user name is karstkid as in karst-kid, not karskid. Secondly, it is not that terribly important that Mr. Bumbulis be a historical scholar in order to find the truth about some thing or event. For example I am not a degreed historian or historical scholar but I made a discovery many years ago regarding the religious writings of other non-Christian religions. I discovered that there are very few real geographical place names and very few real historical people or events. By contrast the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are loaded with real geographical places and real persons and events. The contrast between Christianity and all other religions (save that of Judaism) is stunning and overwhelming. Archeologist William F. Albright was initially scoffed at when he said that he was going to unearth the ruins of the Hittites. After he dug them up his scoffers shut up. You can't do that with the Bagivad Gita, or the Vedic writings, or Buddha's writings. I was neither a historical or biblical scholar when I made that discovery. Nor did I approach this with a Christian bias. I was just examining religious writings and made a discovery. So just because Mr. Bumbulis is not to your definition a historical scholar doesn't me you can discount what he says if he examined the Gospel of Thomas and made discoveries about it.

 

[karstkid]

aikido7"

Quote:
"Some on these boards might still be conflating the historical figure who walked the dusty roads of Palestine with the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Messiah and Son of God--all faith statements."

There are three ways to know truth. One is through logic. A second is through experience. The third is through faith. For example, I will illustrate this in a short parable. Imagine secular scientists through logic and empirical proof are conquering the seas of ignorance and climbing the mountains of undiscovered knowledge only to find out that after the last highest rock they see a crowd of theologians already up there. The logic/science route is a very very long road to the knowledge of God. But, the theologians took the much much shorter faith route to discover God.

BTW, this thread did move far away from homosexuality.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by .Ant
What do you think the governing authorities used the "sword" in verse 14 for? Tickling?
Well, yes.

Doesn't the sword refer to punishment in general, not only the death penalty?

Perhaps as a metaphor but it certainly includes the death penalty.

I'll readily admit homosexuality deserves death. As does lying.

I'm talking about death via God ordained human governments. The Bible nowhere commands governments to execute liars except in cases of perjury in a capital trial.

I don't have a problem with the death penalty as such, but I do have a problem with the combination of the death penalty and our legal system.

Please elaborate.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by karstkid
Paul uses the word "formost" because he was the greatest of sinners. The context does not say anything about him being the first member of the Body of Christ.

You need to read things in context.

But not to the exclusion of syntax. Look at verse 16 more closely:

1Ti 1:16 But for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering, as a PATTERN to those being about to believe on Him to life everlasting.

Paul was the template - the first in line that created the pattern.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by aikido7
Sarcasm is ALWAYS a cover for anger.

Not in my case.

"Fun" is just a play on the double meaning of joy and theological liberation not usually found in dogmatic circles.

Now you can see first-hand that there's always more to learn![/i]

I consider myself to be both a fundamentalist and a Christian hedonist (click here for definition of Christian hedonism).

Now you can see first-hand that there's always more to learn!

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by karstkid
So if "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever," then "love your enemies" applies to you as well regarding homosexuals.

Homosexuals aren't my enemies, they are God's enemies. As a Christian, my duty is to obey I Timothy 1:8-10 and push for the government to reinstitute the death penalty for people who commit homosexual acts.

 

[Nova]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Homosexuals aren't my enemies, they are God's enemies. As a Christian, my duty is to obey I Timothy 1:8-10 and push for the government to reinstitute the death penalty for people who commit homosexual acts.

That's really horrible. I am all for people's freedom to disagree with and disapprove of homosexuality, and openly lobby against things like homosexual marriage, but the death penalty for gays is simply ridiculous. I was raised fundamentalist Christian and I have never come across the view that gays should be executed, even among the most conservative Christians I've met. Its especially disturbing coming from Americans, people of a supposedly free country. It seems like you would prefer something akin to the Taliban.

 

[karstkid]

Jefferson:

Quote:
"Homosexuals aren't my enemies, they are God's enemies. As a Christian, my duty is to obey I Timothy 1:8-10 and push for the government to reinstitute the death penalty for people who commit homosexual acts."

If that is case, then you need to be consistent. In Leviticus chapter 20 it condemns homosexuality to death. But, it also condemns to death adultery, bestiality, human sacrifice, incest, and occult involvement. I do not hear you preaching the death penalty for these sinful practices. Not committing adultery is one of the ten commandments as well. Show me your justification.

 

[karstkid]

Nova:

Quote:
"That's really horrible. I am all for people's freedom to disagree with and disapprove of homosexuality, and openly lobby against things like homosexual marriage, but the death penalty for gays is simply ridiculous. I was raised fundamentalist Christian and I have never come across the view that gays should be executed, even among the most conservative Christians I've met. Its especially disturbing coming from Americans, people of a supposedly free country. It seems like you would prefer something akin to the Taliban."

Nova, Jefferson thinks that way because he is a Ultradispensationalist. They believe that the writings of St. Paul are all that apply to Christians today. So, they do not take the whole counsel of God in mind. Therefore they can ignore the sayings of Jesus because those verses apply only to Jews. For example take Matthew 5:43-48:

"43“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47“If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

They can take what Jesus said with a grain of salt or ignore it all together. I consider it damnable for someone to call himself a Christian yet ignore obedience to the teachings of Jesus. In that area Ultradispensationalist are aberrant and cultic in their beliefs. So, when you read the extreme harshness in what Jefferson says, you have to understand that he is saying it through his denominational bias.

 

[AROTO]

QUOTE:
If that is case, then you need to be consistent. In Leviticus chapter 20 it condemns homosexuality to death. But, it also condemns to death adultery, bestiality, human sacrifice, incest, and occult involvement. I do not hear you preaching the death penalty for these sinful practices. Not committing adultery is one of the ten commandments as well. Show me your justification.


YES! THEY ALL SHOULD BE PUNISHABLE BY DEATH! Our society has fallen so far that we all could be condemned if it was not for the grace of God I too would be found guilty. I do think though that there should be a calling from society back to what God has set in front of us. We need to re-stigmatize that which is wrong, and punish those things which are wrong, it wont ever happen but we can not be silent. :think:

 

[karstkid]

Jefferson:

Quote:
"I consider myself to be both a fundamentalist and a Christian hedonist (click here for definition of Christian hedonism)."

First off, you are beyond fundamentalism in your beliefs.

Secondly, I went to the website you suggested. Christian Hedonism is an awful term and an oxymoron. It suggest that Jesus does not have to be your Lord just your savior. The term makes Christianity look like a pleasure boat religion. Christianity is a relationship with the Living God through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. It also goes against counting the cost. It looks at God as a vending machine for pleasure. Is sounds related to Luther's statement "Love God and do as you please." It's not that we can't derive pleasure and power from God, but our emphasis should be on the Lord himself and His will. Good feelings come and go. Sometimes one has to do things out of faith and obedience with no pleasureable feelings or even joy attached. A mature Christian is an obedient Christian.

 

[karstkid]

Aroto:

Quote:
"YES! THEY ALL SHOULD BE PUNISHABLE BY DEATH! Our society has fallen so far that we all could be condemned if it was not for the grace of God I too would be found guilty. I do think though that there should be a calling from society back to what God has set in front of us. We need to re-stigmatize that which is wrong, and punish those things which are wrong, it wont ever happen but we can not be silent."

I have a question for you. Have you ever lusted after a woman (assuming you are a man) since becoming a believer in Christ?

Matthew 5:27-28 says:
"27“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

So, if you have lusted, then you are an adulterer. Then, according to your beliefs the government should sentence you to death because you are an adulterer.

 

[AROTO]

Matthew 5:27-28 says:
"27“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Jesus is trying to prove a very valuable point here, often times the heart leads us to sin, it is truly our actions though that condemn us. We need to continue to work on your thoughts which for every man are evil and wicked, but we are judged on our actions, with that too I am exctremely grateful for the grace that God has given me. I can honestly say that I have done nothing punishable by death. You?

 

[aikido7]

Christianity is relatively recent, so I would expect to see more correlation by archeological evidence. But evidence is different than faith, which sometimes uses evidence to fashion a larger and more mythic meaning. Albright was unquestionably a giant in archeology, but was a product of his times. Much of archeology then could now be described as "cultural looting"--digging up treasures and putting them in museums. Now, archeology works contextually. Layers upon layers are unearthed and preserved with an eye toward reconstructing the social world of the times. This is similar to modern textual studies in which Bible verses are not pulled out like Chinese fortune cookies but are studied by type and pattern and theological meaning.

The Enlightenment is the basis of the Western post-modern world. Fundamentalists in America and in the Middle East still have an aversion to the modern view. That may be why critical scholarship has yet to be done on the Koran and the Hindu scriptures.

I would certainly not discount what Bumbulis says, but I would consider the source and use other sources to make up your own mind. Read progressive and conservative scholars and then make up your own mind.

By the way, to continue your allegory (not a parable), it sounds like the scientists had to do a lot of real-world hard work to get to the mountain top. All the theologians had to do was believe or perhaps pray or "have faith." Shows the power of faith allegorically. In the real world of common-sense reality, theologians zipping up to the top of a mountain would not work!