Ask a Christian Theologian

[TheIceface]

I recently heard an interesting perspective on homosexuality from a different religious authority in my community, and I was wondering what your thoughts on it were.

Basically he explained that the Bible did 2 things. First off, it restricted marriage between a man and a woman. Secondly, it restricted sex to married couples.

He then explained that since homosexuals can't get married according to the Bible, they were thereby forbidden from sex. This would mean that a celibate homosexual relationship is not condemned by the Bible.

I hadn't thought of the concept like that before, but I suppose it makes sense.

 

[G_Wright]

but I suppose it makes sense.

yes it might if we were to ignore the scriptures & make it up how God feels on the subject

there is only a few references to homosexuality in the scripture's

homosexuals are cast in with the other behaviours & actions that get humans condemned to death

there are NO scriptures that say homo love is good or acceptable or dignified . not one single scripture casts homosexual behaviour in a positive light . none

God is not ignorant - he sees the problem each & every individual is facing , & he gives the help that each individual person needs to come to know him - as long as that person is searching him out honestly , that person will recieve the spirtual encouragement needed

the bible says we have to cast off our personality & put on / cloth ourselves with Gods way of life - this is HORRIBLE to the people who live for self satisfaction

& this world teaches that kind of lifestyle from day one of your exitsence

denying our sinfull ways & flesh is part of living Gods way of life - just because we have passions & desires doesnt make them right or justified or worthy . people who put personal pleasure above all else recoil at the thought of denying themselves

some things within humanity wont be fixed until after the armageddon

untill then , humanity is in a fallen state - as sinfull creatures , we have been breeding for 6000 years now . during that time all the corruption we see has developed

 

[clint eastwood]

you have yet to answer the question about how you can say the bible is the word of god and truly christian and yet it's been changed so many times, which you say change and adaption of it makes it not christian

I'm sorry but that's such a vague question. Please refer to something specific rather than 'the bible is unreliable'.

I think what they meant to say was: How can you know what the true word of God is with so many translations out there?

Ahh the 1001 translations issue. Admittably there does appear to be way to many translations which throws an image of doubt onto how accurate the modern translations are to the original text. For a small case study, let's take a look at the English Standard Version bible (ESV) which was first published in 2001. This translation draws upon the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version in that it uses a similar translation philosophy to achieve depth in meaning in the english translation. In the greek and more so in the hebrew texts, alot of translations paraphrase a tricky sentence which would have no meaning or convey little understanding among modern readers who don't have a working knowledge of hebrew or 1st century greek society and idioms. "The ESV translates each word and phrase by carefully weighing each of them against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text". The ESV is my preferred translation but it is by no means the only good translation. Other good translations off the top of my head are the NKJV, NASB, NIV... each of them would say the exactly the same thing in a different way.


John 14:6
NIV
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
ESV
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
NKJV
Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
NASB
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Each says the same thing.

As for the issue of the original greek texts: we should be right be skeptical about them at first but upon inspection, the copies of copies we do have can be shown to be reliable as being preserved in their original meaning. The more often we have copies which agree with each other that are found in different geographical areas, the more we can crosscheck them to see if they match up (and they match up!). There is also a mountain of texts which were translated into other languages such as Latin, Armenian, Gothic, and Coptic for example, and if we didn't have the greek new testament, we could completely reproduce the exact contents from these secondary translations. There are over 5000 greek new testament manuscripts with the earliest manuscript being dated at ca.130AD. There are in total (including the latin, greek, ethiopian, slavic and armenian) 24000 new testament manuscripts - copies of copies no less - which are regarded to be cross checked and stand up to the test of historical reliability.

The errors (and it is inevitable that there are errors) in these texts are mostly differences in names, and writing down the right words but in the wrong order. This doesnt affect greek however as one word functions as the subject of a sentence regardless of where it is placed in the sentence itself. Other errors include differences in spelling. As I said before, the new testament has survived in a purer form than any other book in antiquity. Such that it is 99.95% pure (see Geisler and Nix's 'A General Introduction to the Bible').

 

[Jaythulhu]

Ahh the 1001 translations issue.

The vatican has admitted to what ammounts to wholesale butchery and rewriting of the bible during the middle ages. What we have today is likely as accurate as those daft dan brown novels.

 

[Unholykrumpet]

you have yet to answer the question about how you can say the bible is the word of god and truly christian and yet it's been changed so many times, which you say change and adaption of it makes it not christian

I'm sorry but that's such a vague question. Please refer to something specific rather than 'the bible is unreliable'.

I think what they meant to say was: How can you know what the true word of God is with so many translations out there?

Ahh the 1001 translations issue. Admittably there does appear to be way to many translations which throws an image of doubt onto how accurate the modern translations are to the original text. For a small case study, let's take a look at the English Standard Version bible (ESV) which was first published in 2001. This translation draws upon the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version in that it uses a similar translation philosophy to achieve depth in meaning in the english translation. In the greek and more so in the hebrew texts, alot of translations paraphrase a tricky sentence which would have no meaning or convey little understanding among modern readers who don't have a working knowledge of hebrew or 1st century greek society and idioms. "The ESV translates each word and phrase by carefully weighing each of them against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text". The ESV is my preferred translation but it is by no means the only good translation. Other good translations off the top of my head are the NKJV, NASB, NIV... each of them would say the exactly the same thing in a different way.


John 14:6
NIV
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
ESV
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
NKJV
Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
NASB
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Each says the same thing.

As for the issue of the original greek texts: we should be right be skeptical about them at first but upon inspection, the copies of copies we do have can be shown to be reliable as being preserved in their original meaning. The more often we have copies which agree with each other that are found in different geographical areas, the more we can crosscheck them to see if they match up (and they match up!). There is also a mountain of texts which were translated into other languages such as Latin, Armenian, Gothic, and Coptic for example, and if we didn't have the greek new testament, we could completely reproduce the exact contents from these secondary translations. There are over 5000 greek new testament manuscripts with the earliest manuscript being dated at ca.130AD. There are in total (including the latin, greek, ethiopian, slavic and armenian) 24000 new testament manuscripts - copies of copies no less - which are regarded to be cross checked and stand up to the test of historical reliability.

The errors (and it is inevitable that there are errors) in these texts are mostly differences in names, and writing down the right words but in the wrong order. This doesnt affect greek however as one word functions as the subject of a sentence regardless of where it is placed in the sentence itself. Other errors include differences in spelling. As I said before, the new testament has survived in a purer form than any other book in antiquity. Such that it is 99.95% pure (see Geisler and Nix's 'A General Introduction to the Bible').

One thing I'd like to point out is that the people that checked up on the reliability of the greek texts and the other versions are a mix of believers and non-believers. I have heard claims that one of them even put out a book on the subject, but I couldn't tell you offhand the name of the book or the author.

 

[clint eastwood]

Ahh the 1001 translations issue.

The vatican has admitted to what ammounts to wholesale butchery and rewriting of the bible during the middle ages. What we have today is likely as accurate as those daft dan brown novels.

Scholars would baulk at your comment. Ungrounded and illogical. I'm talking about manuscripts written in the first few centuries of the first millenia, no serious historian would base bible translation on medieval retranslations of the latin vulgate

 

[Typecast]

Excuse me but since when was the Bible the word of God? The following scenario did not take place: "Moses? Take a memo: In the beginning..."
Also, with the Greek issue, just because sentence structure is almost absent, doesn't mean that the inherent meaning and use of the words doesn't mean something else in a broader context.
As a Christian, I think you should disregard the entire Old Testament, it serves as a context, but clearly Jesus intended people to follow his way and not the old ways(i.e. killing homosexuals, which he makes no reference to).
I also find it repellent that Christians get bogged down in discussions about the obtuseness of their derelict texts. A simplified coda, de-ritualized with an oral tradition would have survived intact and would have possibly held more closely to it's original tenets than the prattling garbage spewed out from the ungodly orrifices of a decadent culture on its last legs(Rome if anyone had trouble seeing through that vitriol).

I believe someone earlier said "God's way of life." Though I'm sure you didn't intend this, that is an exceedingly provocative statement, especially if I were God, I would think it very presumptious of you to tell me how I want you to live your life.

I don't think anyone really comprehends what they mean when they talk about God either. It is incredibly self-defeating to have such an all-encompassing entity, that would debase itself with such lowly creatures as us. In the entirety of eternity, the absolute completeness of time and space, to the end and beginning and what lies beyond, why would it trifle with the likes of us? If it's power is absolute, then IT must be absolute as well, which means God doesn't reside in within anything, but IS everything. God becomes the universe, not unsimilar to the Hindu version of cosmology which, no one in the West seems to acknowledge. If God is the universe, then all things are itself. There is no seperation between anything and God. If so, then its will could be the manifestation of the physical universe.
This is opposed to what people believe, glowing robes, clouds, lights, trumpets, which all fit with more classical theologies, greco-roman, assyrian, egyptian, norse, celtic, etc. These revolve around hero mythologies, but although these gods are arbitrary powers of their own will, and feed into the stories and myths that they were built on, they are NOT absolute, as in, omnipresent/+scient.

So I think it necessary for you to decide. Do you worship the current literarilly embellished version of the Herbrew tribe's god of war? Or do you follow the message of peace, brought by a man?

On that note, I'm a nihilist, and believe in no such thing, and have no hope for the redemption of mankind, because waiting for it to happen is EXACTLY the most useless thing to do. Unless you redeem yourself in your own eyes, mitigate own your sins(if you're comfortable using such a meaningless term) then it will never happen, and I certainly don't think it will because people believe themselves powerless. Worse than that, people don't think themselves responsible. "Oh it's for God to decide, he's got a plan" get a clue, if God doesn't tell you to get off your ass, don't take it as a free licence to do nothing. Which is what exegesis is: Doing nothing useful.

 

[jordan.]

And regarding predestination; it is impossible to argue AGAINST predestination from the Bible.
And also it is entirely impossible to argue against predestination from the PREMISE that God is Sovereign.

God can make what he wants to happen , happen

& he can use & shape the person he chooses to accomplish his will

humans are not predestined

you are not born to fail - or succeed

God has the right to lay tests on individuals - conversly we human beings dont have the right to put God to the test

humans dont know their position in their creators eyes , intelligence & rationality dont lead people to the correct understanding of what kind of position humanity is in

God had the bible written so we could know

Half of what you said was insightful - the other half proved my point.
You cannot refute predestination from a Biblical perspective.

Proverbs 16:4
"The LORD works out everything for his own ends?
even the wicked for a day of disaster"

Proverbs 16:9
"In his heart a man plans his course,
but the LORD determines his steps."

 

[Tranka Verrane]

Once again, I'll suggest the challenge.
Can someone please disprove the Christian God.
Stop beating round the bush by accusing him of murder etc. 1st grade atheist insults - tackle the real issue.
Why doesn't the Christian God exist?

Prove my brother doesn't exist. You can't prove an absence.

 

[Jaythulhu]

Ungrounded? There was a vatican priest on some natgeo show where they were debunking dan brown that spoke about it. Also, when was the discovery of a bible dating back that far? The most recent that I can find any mention of is one dating to circa 900AD.

The only thing that predates that bible I can find any mention of anywhere is the discovery of the commoran texts, which are said to be the source material of the dead sea scrolls, themselves sourced from an earlier "faith". Last mention of those scrolls I can find from any official christian source is that they were discredited.

An uncle of mine is a christian mystic. Next time he comes home from whever the hell he goes I'll ask him for some clarification.

 

[jordan.]

Typecast - can you back up your nihilist conclusion?
Because to me it sounded like your argument was a bunch of conclusions without a premise.

You obviously have NO clue who Jesus is.

Matt 10:34 - "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"

And "a man" - have you read the claims of Jesus?
He repeatedly, emphatically declared and was ultimately killed for saying "I AM GOD"

Dude, Jesus isn't a good teacher if his claims aren't true. He's probably the biggest jerk in the history of the world.
People worship him as God and pray to him as they die. Parents tuck in their children praying to Jesus.
Unless you have actually researched his claims and declare them to be true -
don't crap yourself talking about a man with a message of peace.
Because you believe he's a liar.

 

[Nalesnik]

@ OP: k, I got a question. I never really understood why Christianity got divided up into so many branches, and sects (some even isolating themselves completely) Was it cause of conflicting beliefs? What is your opinion of Christianity constantly being divided and subdivided? Would you like you see a unification of all the branches?

 

[jordan.]

Once again, I'll suggest the challenge.
Can someone please disprove the Christian God.
Stop beating round the bush by accusing him of murder etc. 1st grade atheist insults - tackle the real issue.
Why doesn't the Christian God exist?

Prove my brother doesn't exist. You can't prove an absence.

Once again, 1st grade atheist school answer. Dawkins would give you an A+

I'll repeat.
Why does an intelligent universe not have an intelligent source?

 

[clint eastwood]

Ungrounded? There was a vatican priest on some natgeo show where they were debunking dan brown that spoke about it. Also, when was the discovery of a bible dating back that far? The most recent that I can find any mention of is one dating to circa 900AD.

The only thing that predates that bible I can find any mention of anywhere is the discovery of the commoran texts, which are said to be the source material of the dead sea scrolls, themselves sourced from an earlier "faith". Last mention of those scrolls I can find from any official christian source is that they were discredited.

An uncle of mine is a christian mystic. Next time he comes home from whever the hell he goes I'll ask him for some clarification.

The Catholic Church may have done that during the middle ages, I don't know though I would check with church authorities rather than priests as the Church would tell you that the priests are fallible in their decrees. As for earliest bible... the codex sinaiticus springs to mind - being written in the 4th century which doesn't bode well for your case. Also, Athanasius around 360AD gave a complete list of the current bible canon. Sorry but case closed.

 

[jordan.]

@ OP: k, I got a question. I never really understood why Christianity got divided up into so many branches, and sects (some even isolating themselves completely) Was it cause of conflicting beliefs? What is your opinion of Christianity constantly being divided and subdivided? Would you like you see a unification of all the branches?

There is one concept of the Church in the Bible - which is people who believe in Jesus.
It's not defined by any denomination or preference as Catholics would have you believe, the Bible is clear that the true Church - which never has disunity - is the Church of true believers scattered throughout the world.

However, the Bible also says - humans suck.
So the reason there is a ton of churches that believe a ton of different things with a ton of different people is because people are sinful.
And Jesus prophesied this.
But he also said that the true Church Of God - people who Live with Jesus as God - will never fail.

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

Whats with the dirty dirty priests?

 

[Nalesnik]

@ OP: k, I got a question. I never really understood why Christianity got divided up into so many branches, and sects (some even isolating themselves completely) Was it cause of conflicting beliefs? What is your opinion of Christianity constantly being divided and subdivided? Would you like you see a unification of all the branches?

There is one concept of the Church in the Bible - which is people who believe in Jesus.
It's not defined by any denomination or preference as Catholics would have you believe, the Bible is clear that the true Church - which never has disunity - is the Church of true believers scattered throughout the world.

However, the Bible also says - humans suck.
So the reason there is a ton of churches that believe a ton of different things with a ton of different people is because people are sinful.
And Jesus prophesied this.
But he also said that the true Church Of God - people who Live with Jesus as God - will never fail.

well, I was actually looking for a more concrete answer than "humans suck". That's why I asked the OP (who said he has a degree in theology) cause I wanted his opinion on it.

But I still appreciate your reply ^__^

 

[jordan.]

Whats with the dirty dirty priests?

When Catholics ban priests from marrying they go horny for each other and then go for children.
The Bible lists banning marriage as a sin and a sign of false teaching - so blame the Catholic Church.
Same goes for stupid Catholic rules about foods.
Its a joke and the Bible openly calls the Catholic Church "hypocritical liars."

1 Timothy 2:2-4
"Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving"

 

[Jaythulhu]

The Catholic Church may have done that during the middle ages, I don't know though I would check with church authorities rather than priests as the Church would tell you that the priests are fallible in their decrees. As for earliest bible... the codex sinaiticus springs to mind - being written in the 4th century which doesn't bode well for your case. Also, Athanasius around 360AD gave a complete list of the current bible canon. Sorry but case closed.

If you can point out to me where I might obtain copies of said books for comparison? Forgive me for not taking you at your word, but that's all it is. If this turns out to be true, then I'll happily call myself wrong and be glad I've learnt something.

Also, what is the "current bible canon"? This does not sound the same as a Bible written during this time.

 

[clint eastwood]

@ OP: k, I got a question. I never really understood why Christianity got divided up into so many branches, and sects (some even isolating themselves completely) Was it cause of conflicting beliefs? What is your opinion of Christianity constantly being divided and subdivided? Would you like you see a unification of all the branches?

There is one concept of the Church in the Bible - which is people who believe in Jesus.
It's not defined by any denomination or preference as Catholics would have you believe, the Bible is clear that the true Church - which never has disunity - is the Church of true believers scattered throughout the world.

However, the Bible also says - humans suck.
So the reason there is a ton of churches that believe a ton of different things with a ton of different people is because people are sinful.
And Jesus prophesied this.
But he also said that the true Church Of God - people who Live with Jesus as God - will never fail.

well, I was actually looking for a more concrete answer than "humans suck". That's why I asked the OP (who said he has a degree in theology) cause I wanted his opinion on it.

But I still appreciate your reply ^__^

A theologians answer would be "mankind is totally depraved in that the effect of sin influences every decision, thought and action man makes". Paraphrased: humans suck.

To give you a brief historical overview of the development of the church: it started off as one church though the evidence for denominations were strong in the apostle Pauls leteers. Heresies were rife after a couple of centuries with the preludes to Arianism, Gnosticism and the like which forced the church to codify their beliefs in creeds. This church eventually developed into was then called the Catholic (meaning universal) Church and from very early on, the Church was headed up by 5 Patriarchs - one from Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and later on, from Constantinople. Up until the split of the main Catholic Church in 1054 (the date is disputed), the dominate factions centred around Rome and Constantinople differed in various beliefs. When they split, they formed the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (referred to these days by the nationality of the specific church i.e greek orthodox, russian orthodox).

The next major split in the church was in the 16th century in an event called the reformation where Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the door of his local Catholic Church - the theses refutting the catholic doctrine and the papal authority. This started the reformation where we get people like Zwingli and Calvin who along with Luther and others, helped develop the doctrine of the Reformed Protestant movement. To summarise their major issue with the catholics, you could say that the catholic church was robbing God of His glory. So the Reformers developed the protestant movement which flourished into the Lutheran Church, Reformed Church and later on, the priciples stated by Luther for interpretating the bible led to the establishment of the Baptist union, Presbyterian Church, the reforming of the Church of England (Anglican or Episcopalian these days).

And from that, you got the Puritan movement which was a group of Reformed christians who migrated to North America to escape persecutions. Now we have upwards of 38,000 denominations. Its funny that Catholics try and say that the protestant church has split tenfold whilst their church has stayed the same. But the amount of churches which claim to come from the 5 patriachal churches are huge so the Roman Catholics don't have much to back up their claim.