FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-07-2006, 01:35 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 5 hours south of Notre Dame. Golden Domer
Posts: 3,259
Default

Quote:
Yep, but you'll notice that Paul says rather vociferously that the Law is defunct
Well defunct how though is the issue and question. Is the law entirely defunct in everyway imagineable as to lead to the conclusion it should never be followed? Paul says eternal life is not obtained by adherence to the law but I do not think he goes so far as to say it is defunct in such a way nobody should adhere to it.

Quote:
Don't confuse the Law with scripture. The Law is just a subset.
The law, in which we are talking about the Jewish Torah and as conveyed in the books of the prophets, is scripture. Paul is most certainly talking about theses texts and confirms 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. The NT was not in existence at the time and did not consitute as "scripture". By process of elimination then Paul is talking about the Torah and the books of the prophets. ALL of them are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in rigtheousness. Can they grant you eternal life according to Paul? No but since they are guides for right living then adhering to them will result in living right.
James Madison is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 01:55 PM   #22
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Madison
I looked up what the word "natural" meant in Greek in a Strong's dictionary. One meaning has it as "physical". Admittedly I do not have the text in front of me but a quick scan of the internet confirms "physical". Of course if this is true then I think the likely conclusion here is Paul is indeed condemning homosexuality and lesbianism.
The Greek words translated as "natural" and "unnatural" are phusin and para phusin. Phusis is a word which describes observable characterics or behavior. It does not connote any innate sense of how things ae supposed to be, it only describes how they are. Paul also says, for instance, that it is phusin for men to have short hair and for Jews to follow the law.

In the Romans passage, para phusin would be better translated as "uncharacteristic" than "unnatural." They became unlike their normal selves, but the Greek does not carry an implication of "unnatural" in the sense that they were doing anything contrary to some inherent purpose.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 02:08 PM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 5 hours south of Notre Dame. Golden Domer
Posts: 3,259
Default

Quote:
In the Romans passage, para phusin would be better translated as "uncharacteristic" than "unnatural." They became unlike their normal selves, but the Greek does not carry an implication of "unnatural" in the sense that they were doing anything contrary to some inherent purpose.
Diogenes:

Yeah this is possible and as I previously stated, I need to do more research on the word as it appears in Greek and its possible meanings. There is the Greek word phusikos foo-see-kos' "physical" and then there is, as you said, phusis foo'-sis . A preliminary search indicates the two words have different meanings.

Thanks for the input though.
James Madison is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 04:09 PM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Burlington, Vermont
Posts: 5,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WishboneDawn
Here's something by the The Alliance of Baptists from Clergy for Fairness



Evidently there are some Baptists who are stepping away from homosexuality as sin.
My guess is that these are pure "Baptists," not Southern Baptists (SBC), which is the largest of all Protestant denominations in the US today (and one of the few that are still growing). Southern Baptists split off before the Civil War and never came back again, unlike Southern Methodists. Oddly, the SBC doesn't seem to be at all embarrassed that it owes its origins to the fact that it defended slavery. (But then, are Anglicans at all embarrassed that they owe their origins to the desire of a horrible despot to get a divorce? Let bygones be bygones.) One would think that for consistency, they would at least soft-pedal that old chestnut that "God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow." But they don't.
EthnAlln is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 04:25 PM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Burlington, Vermont
Posts: 5,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
The Greek words translated as "natural" and "unnatural" are phusin and para phusin. Phusis is a word which describes observable characterics or behavior. It does not connote any innate sense of how things ae supposed to be, it only describes how they are. Paul also says, for instance, that it is phusin for men to have short hair and for Jews to follow the law.

In the Romans passage, para phusin would be better translated as "uncharacteristic" than "unnatural." They became unlike their normal selves, but the Greek does not carry an implication of "unnatural" in the sense that they were doing anything contrary to some inherent purpose.

As I said, I'm rather sure that the "use" of a woman referred to her use by a male, and "unnatural" meant oral or anal sex. The word "para" often means "from" when used with people. Marcus Aurelius begins his meditations with a long list of people "from" ("para") whom he got his various traits of character, and Xenophon says "hostis d'aphiknoito ton para Basileos pros auton" ("whenever anyone came to him of those from the King"). Possibly "para phusin" means "away from nature", and so "unnatural".

Incidentally, Paul uses the word "theleia" ("female," related to the word for nipple) instead of "gynaika" ("woman"), in this passage. One can't judge across languages (at least, I can't), but it sounds to a foreigner (me) as if he is referring to women by a body part. The phrase about men is "arsenes en arsesin" ("males in males"). As someone pointed out above, "arsenokoite" means "coitus with a male". In ancient Greece there were class distinctions between men who were "tops" and men who were "bottoms" in this act.
EthnAlln is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 08:02 PM   #26
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EthnAlln
As someone pointed out above, "arsenokoite" means "coitus with a male". In ancient Greece there were class distinctions between men who were "tops" and men who were "bottoms" in this act.
Not sure if you meant to imply this, but just for the record, there is no relationship between the Greek word koites and the Latin coitus (from co itus -- "coming together"). The Greek koites means "bed." As used in some vulgar compounds it basically translates to "bedder," but it only describes the penetrative partner, not the passive. Arsenokoites woukd be literally "male-bedder," but it probably only referred to the partner doing the penetrating. It's hard to know for sure because the word is mostly found on vice lists which give little context. The most likely meaning in my opinion (after having studied pretty much everything I can and tracking down every extant attestation I can find) is that it referred to the use of young male prostitutes (most of whom would have been slaves). My choice for translation would be "boy-fucker" or more politely "pederast."
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 06-08-2006, 06:34 PM   #27
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Madison

The law, in which we are talking about the Jewish Torah and as conveyed in the books of the prophets, is scripture. Paul is most certainly talking about theses texts and confirms 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. The NT was not in existence at the time and did not consitute as "scripture". By process of elimination then Paul is talking about the Torah and the books of the prophets. ALL of them are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in rigtheousness. Can they grant you eternal life according to Paul? No but since they are guides for right living then adhering to them will result in living right.
This argument fails since the Law requires such things as avoiding eating shellfish, which Paul rejects. There is no doubt he rejected the Law, period. All of it. Just as Jesus did. Thus they rejected the anti-homosexual provisions, which are no different from the anti-shell fish provision. The Law is all one.

Matthew 15:11 - not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

1 Corinthians 8:8 - Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.

Colossians 2:16 - Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath.
Gamera is offline  
Old 06-08-2006, 06:42 PM   #28
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

[QUOTE=noah]
Quote:
Nice try. Paul uses the word ALL. ALL means all. We don't need to go to a dictionary for that one do we Gamera?
I do. I just don't know what you mean.

Quote:
Sophistry. The scripture is the law. The law is scripture. The law is a part of scripture. Scripture is the word used for the bible. ALL of it.
No there is the Law and the prophets. Ezekiel has nothing to do with the Law, neither does Amos, etc.

Quote:
Meaningless unbiblical distinction. Your God says his laws are eternal and perfect. Period. How do eternal and perfect laws become subsets or cast out of scripture?
yeah, we all know this hobby horse of yours. Listen carefully: I'm not interested in the Old Testament, only the New Testament. And the NT rejects the Law. Does that make it clearer for you.

Quote:
Please tell me where your god says his laws are just a subset (grabbing popcorn).
Matthew 22:40 - On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." See: two things -- the Law and the prophets. Not one. Two.

Quote:
Really? Says who? I missed the part where your god say his perfect and eternal laws will become obsolete or set aside. Please point me to the verses in Psalms, Ezekiel, Deuteronomy, Isaiah and Mathew for example where your God says his perfect and eternal laws are finished.
Well read the NT and you'll get it.

Quote:
Or are you contending that Paul is God. Do you worship Paul?
Nope, I'm contending his writings are inspired by God, just like the OT authors were in a different time for a different purpose. Hence the law and hence it's abolition.

Quote:
Of course he would. He's a renegade. Most of what he says about your God's laws are violations of your God's laws.
Fine. The point is I agree with Paul. So we have different texts and you can stop riding your hobbyhorse.

Quote:
That's one Christian heard from. So much for being filled with the unifying spirit of Jesus.
If you're all filled with the Holy Spirit or Jesus or whatever it is, why can't you agree on anything?
We can. We agree on the gospel, which is all that counts.

Quote:
Hardly. The issue is Paul's credibility on this and any other topic for that matter. Paul can't be trusted to overwrite or set aside the law when he's a babbling idiot.
Sorry, I trust him. As do 1 billion Christians. That's what makes us Christians and you Jewish. Nothing wrong with that.
Gamera is offline  
Old 06-08-2006, 07:53 PM   #29
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 287
Default

I love the hobbyhorse charge.

First it evinces a frustration born of an (obvious) inability to defend your position.

Second, give me a break? It's you Christians who come prancing in here (and elsewhere) touting the fact that you've all been given a pass on your God's laws. You entered this thread saying it. The same with the other two threads we were on.
You act as though every time someone challenges you on your biblical nonsense, nonsense you repeat over and over again, that the person who challenges it is on some obsessive kick. Get with the program pal. You want to pump the B.S. don't act surprised or irritated if someone finally pumps it right back at you.

I'm sick of Christians wandering around here and elsewhere spouting their B.S. and I'm certainly not going to act as though I should listen to it and take it for granted. That's aiding and abetting a lie.


[QUOTE=Gamera][QUOTE=noah]

Quote:
I do. I just don't know what you mean.
Of course you know what I mean. All scripture includes your God's laws. All scripture means you have to obey your God's perfect and eternal laws. Simple no?

Quote:
No there is the Law and the prophets. Ezekiel has nothing to do with the Law,
Too funny. The prophets were spokesmen for your god. They delivered the Law to the people. Ever heard of a guy named Moses? Ever heard of Mosaic Law?

Do you suppose one day you might actually read the bible Gamera?


Ezekiel has nothing to do with the Law? Too funny.

Ezekiel 11:20
Quote:
That they may walk in My statutes, and keep Mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be My people, and I will be their G-d.
Ezekiel 37:24
Quote:
And David my servant [shall be] king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
Please note here that being Messiah means you obey that your God's laws. What was that about Jesus fulfilling your God's laws?

Ezekiel 18:5
Quote:
But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, [6] And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, [7] And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; [8] He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, [9] Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord G-d.
Too funny. This one ranks right up there with your teling me that Psa 119:152-160 and Psa 119:106-118 had nothing to do with your God's laws and that they actually said faith in Jesus was the key to salvation.

Quote:
yeah, we all know this hobby horse of yours. Listen carefully: I'm not interested in the Old Testament, only the New Testament. And the NT rejects the Law. Does that make it clearer for you.
Actually, no it doesn't. Your New Testament contradicts you.
Mathew 5:17-20
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35)

Don't forget Matthew 19:17, REV 12:17, 1 John 2:4, Revelation 14:12 and Revelation 22:14.

Quote:
Matthew 22:40 - On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." See: two things -- the Law and the prophets. Not one. Two.
How does this help your case? Of course there's two most important commandments. It's an ethics based religion with a god at the top.
What would be the point of faithful obeisance to the rest of your God's laws if you couldn't do these first two?

Second, where does it say the other 611 commandments of your God are erased, esp. as it relates to Mathew 5:17-20?


Quote:
Well read the NT and you'll get it.
I have and I do. You threw your lot in with a renegade named Paul and forsook the eternal and perfect word of your god as you did so.

Quote:
Nope, I'm contending his writings are inspired by God, just like the OT authors were in a different time for a different purpose. Hence the law and hence it's abolition.
But they weren't in three places that we know of. Why do you believe he's inspired elsewhere if he admits he's uninspired three times?

Second why would your God, who doesn't change (Malachi 3:6) become the very thing he warned against?
(Deuteronomy 4:2) (Deuteronomy 12:32) Jeremiah 44:23
(Isa 29:13) (Psa 50:16-17)

Third, how do perfect and eternal laws become abolished?

Quote:
Quote:
Noah:Of course he would. He's a renegade. Most of what he says about your God's laws are violations of your God's laws.
Fine. The point is I agree with Paul. So we have different texts and you can stop riding your hobbyhorse.
Nope. We have the same texts and you are knowingly now and willingly throwing your lot in with a verifiable renegade and turning away from the perfect and eternal word of your Creator.

Did Paul create you?


Quote:
Quote:
That's one Christian heard from. So much for being filled with the unifying spirit of Jesus.
If you're all filled with the Holy Spirit or Jesus or whatever it is, why can't you agree on anything?
We can. We agree on the gospel, which is all that counts.
Sure you do. Then you can go ahead and explain to me what the one Christian belief/doctrine is regarding:

The Trinity

Salvation

The Apostolic Succession

Baptism

Confession

Purgatory

Praying to the Virgin Mary


Quote:
Sorry, I trust him. As do 1 billion Christians. That's what makes us Christians and you Jewish. Nothing wrong with that
Sorry. I'm not Jewish.

1 billion mistakes don't equal a right.
noah is offline  
Old 06-09-2006, 12:29 AM   #30
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 78
Default

Noah you are priceless! Don't expect to get a reply to that last retort because that was a KO.

Hey Gamera...dig UP <edit>!



This graph saddens me, I mean 16%, come on! They need to do another graph showing what percent of that Christian 33% has actually read the Bible (closer to 0%) and what percent of Christians were born into Christian families (closer to 100%). If you're born a Christian you remain a Christian, unless of course you actually read the Bible, if you are smart enough TRUELY understand it all you will probably be smart enough to convert to Atheism.

This graph clearly shows that:

- 33% of all people are right
- 21% of all people are right
- 16% of all people are right
- 14% of all people are right
- 6% of all people are right
- 6% of all people are right
- 6% of all people are right
- 0.36% of all people are right
- 0.22% of all people are right
Quasimofo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:19 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.