Jesus on Marriage...

[Buford]

Ah, so Paul was not a god, he was just a guy, and what he wrote was just.....letters from a guy. Thanks for clearing that up.

Whatever makes you comfortable, dear.

I really don't rely on millenium old letters to make me comfortable.

That's nice. Is that supposed to add something to the debate or are you just thinking out loud again?

 

[bodecea]

Whatever makes you comfortable, dear.

I really don't rely on millenium old letters to make me comfortable.

That's nice. Is that supposed to add something to the debate or are you just thinking out loud again?

Just replying to your post. Kind of our own "letters" in a way. I don't suppose they will be considered "scripture" in 2000 years tho.

 

[BluePhantom]

Take out Abomination and read what I Highlighted...

Seriously, not amount of New Liguistic Translation is going to Undo what that says...

Well I am getting about done with this because now we're just repeating what has already been said, but you are missing the point that the verse says that in English but it doesn't say it in Hebrew and it's not "new linguistic translation", it's accurate correction of a historically inaccurate translation. But you are not going to get this no matter how many times or how many ways it's pointed out to you, so whatever.

And none of you have Dealt with how the Beastiality Passage in Moral Law :Translates:...

Convenient that.

Sure I did. I addressed it in my long post.

 

[NLT]

Ah, so Paul was not a god, he was just a guy, and what he wrote was just.....letters from a guy. Thanks for clearing that up.

Whatever makes you comfortable, dear.

I really don't rely on millenium old letters to make me comfortable.

Makes Bodey comfortable

 

[BluePhantom]

It makes sense to me that homosexuality and other kinds of sexual practices would be "taboo", meaning OK for other cultures, but not us.

I think it's a reasonable interpretation. Given all of the stuff we have talked about it's certainly far more reasonable and likely than the traditional translation.

 

[bodecea]

Whatever makes you comfortable, dear.

I really don't rely on millenium old letters to make me comfortable.

Makes Bodey comfortable

Your fantasies and failures are amusing to say the least, hun.

 

[bodecea]

It makes sense to me that homosexuality and other kinds of sexual practices would be "taboo", meaning OK for other cultures, but not us.

I think it's a reasonable interpretation. Given all of the stuff we have talked about it's certainly far more reasonable and likely than the traditional translation.

Besides the fact that the ancient Hebrews were intent on repopulating and anything that prevented reproduction reproduction and more reproduction was frowned on.....masterbation, for example.

 

[Amelia]

Interesting. His argument seems based on Paul's faulty translation of Leviticus.

Whether or not Paul's translation of Leviticus is faulty, Paul's 50 A.D. understanding of the Septuagint would be germane to the discussion of the passages in question as they pertain to the OP.

And that may indeed be the case, but do not overlook that you are talking about almost 600 years between the time Leviticus was written to the time of Paul. That's a long time for original intent to change, become misunderstood, and become ingrained.

Think of Easter. Ask anyone today what the meaning of Easter is and they will tell you it's about the resurrection of Jesus. Then ask them what bunnies and eggs have to do with the resurrection of Jesus and the vast majority will say: "Uh......I don't know." Ok so why do we have bunnies and eggs all over the place on Easter when it's a celebration of the resurrection? Well the answer I have alluded to before. Bunnies and eggs are symbols of fertility linked to the goddess Eos (earlier Isis in Egypt, later Eostre in England, etc) and at Spring Equinox there would be a massive celebration to give thanks to Eos (or whichever goddess depending on your time frame and geography) and pray for fertile crops, children, etc. Through Eos the world was being resurrected. The fields would grow food again, the rivers would thaw and flow, and there would be plenty.

So the people would color eggs and offer them to Eos as a gift and paint bunnies on things and give her offerings of rabbit, etc but it was all fertility rituals about the rebirth of the Earth. Now the Popes, with their new found power granted by Rome, weren't going to have this because it was pagan, but no matter how hard they tried the people would still celebrate the Festival of Eos. So the Church simply declared that it was not the resurrection of the Earth, it was the resurrection of Jesus. They were not giving thanks and prayer to Eos, they were giving thanks and prayer to Jesus and to God. And they backed this up by killing anyone who said that they were celebrating Eos instead of Jesus.

So when children were raised parents made damned sure they told them that they were celebrating Jesus because of they didn't they would get killed and their children would probably get killed too. Over the centuries, it stuck...the idea became ingrained into our culture that we are celebrating the resurrection of Christ instead of Spring Equinox, Eos, and the resurrection of the Earth.

Now the same stuff happened way back then. Leviticus was written but then 600 years passed between it being written and the life of Paul. During that time similar stuff happened as it did with Easter and Eos, although it was more limited to Jewish culture. The Pharisees and Sadducees gained great power and through it the ability to influence behavior according to their wishes and personal agenda. Jesus flat out flipped a royal bitch over their corruption of the word of God, their arrogance, their hypocrisy, etc if you recall.

So it's not at all inconceivable for Paul's or anyone's understanding of the Septuagint (which was a Greek translation of the original Hebrew by the way) to be seriously flawed by that time due to corruption, power, simple misunderstanding sometimes, faulty tradition ingrained over time, etc. And again, as Paul had never met Jesus there would be no way for him to verify

Not to beat a dead horse (is it too late for that?) but for the purposes of the OP, the 50 A.D. understanding of Leviticus is arguably more relevant to the OP than the 600 B.C. interpretation.

 

[BluePhantom]

Not to beat a dead horse (is it too late for that?) but for the purposes of the OP, the 50 A.D. understanding of Leviticus is arguably more relevant to the OP than the 600 B.C. interpretation.

How do you figure? All it really suggests is that Leviticus was already being misunderstood and misinterpreted by 50 AD. I am not quite following you.

 

[Buford]

I really don't rely on millenium old letters to make me comfortable.

That's nice. Is that supposed to add something to the debate or are you just thinking out loud again?

Just replying to your post. Kind of our own "letters" in a way. I don't suppose they will be considered "scripture" in 2000 years tho.

Pauls letters were considered scripture by the Apostle Peter, not 2000 years later. Try again, dear.

 

[Amelia]

Not to beat a dead horse (is it too late for that?) but for the purposes of the OP, the 50 A.D. understanding of Leviticus is arguably more relevant to the OP than the 600 B.C. interpretation.

How do you figure? All it really suggests is that Leviticus was already being misunderstood and misinterpreted by 50 AD. I am not quite following you.

This thread is "Jesus on Marriage". A 30 A.D. man.

So he would have been communicating with people whose 30 A.D. understandings/misunderstandings were likely closer to Paul's than to the scribes of Leviticus.

 

[mal]

Ah, so Paul was not a god, he was just a guy, and what he wrote was just.....letters from a guy. Thanks for clearing that up.

Whatever makes you comfortable, dear.

I really don't rely on millenium old letters to make me comfortable.

Then why are you in this Thread?... You Miserable Twat.



peace...

 

[bodecea]

Not to beat a dead horse (is it too late for that?) but for the purposes of the OP, the 50 A.D. understanding of Leviticus is arguably more relevant to the OP than the 600 B.C. interpretation.

How do you figure? All it really suggests is that Leviticus was already being misunderstood and misinterpreted by 50 AD. I am not quite following you.

This thread is "Jesus on Marriage". A 30 A.D. man.

So he would have been communicating with people whose 30 A.D. understandings/misunderstandings were likely closer to Paul's than to the scribes of Leviticus.

Misunderstandings indeed.....believing the world was only about 6000 years old...that the world was flat...that the sun revolved around the earth...so on and so forth.

 

[BluePhantom]

That's nice. Is that supposed to add something to the debate or are you just thinking out loud again?

Just replying to your post. Kind of our own "letters" in a way. I don't suppose they will be considered "scripture" in 2000 years tho.

Pauls letters were considered scripture by the Apostle Peter, not 2000 years later. Try again, dear.

Dude, you are displaying incredible ignorance. Peter and Paul did not get along well. Peter accepted Paul's help because at the time Christians were not exactly a terribly popular bunch and Paul, as a Roman, had the ability to reach into Roman culture and draw support. But the two battled for power and had a legendary throw down at Antioch which history records as Paul being the victor in....but then again history would write it that way since Constantine adopted Paul's philosophy over Peter's, huh?


Let's break down 2 Peter 3:15-16

and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Now "...Paul, according to the wisdom given him....". Well that could be a compliment or an insult. If I said "Mal understands things according to the wisdom given him" I don't think he would take that real well. I would be implying that he tries to understand but lacks the intellectual capacity to do so and it's not his fault, he was just born stupid. (I am just using that as an example, Mal, no offense intended). Given that Peter and Paul didn't exactly get along, there's an argument to be made that it's an insult.

On the other hand it could indeed be that Peter is praising Paul for having exceptional wisdom that could only be given by God and as Peter is writing a letter it makes sense that he would want to give support to Paul on the surface even if he didn't quite agree with him in private. So there's an argument to be made that it's a compliment. But let's look at what Peter says next:

"...in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

What Peter is saying is that Paul discusses things in his letters that are way over the heads of most people and depending on how you interpret the first part, perhaps even over the head of Paul himself. Peter makes the point that Paul's philosophy is easily misunderstood by the untaught and unstable....in other words those who have not done their homework and those who have a particular agenda often misinterpret what Paul is trying to say and Peter points out that they do so "....to their own destruction."

So what Peter is saying here is essentially: "be real careful about Paul's teachings. It's easy to get the wrong idea and really fuck things up." Now whether he says that because he thinks Paul just doesn't "get it" (and there is support for that in other scriptures; Galatians 2 is a good example) or because Paul is too brilliant for the average Joe is somewhat debatable, but given the conflict the two had, it's not terribly unrealistic that the former interpretation may likely be the case.

 

[bodecea]

Just replying to your post. Kind of our own "letters" in a way. I don't suppose they will be considered "scripture" in 2000 years tho.

Pauls letters were considered scripture by the Apostle Peter, not 2000 years later. Try again, dear.

Dude, you are displaying incredible ignorance. Peter and Paul did not get along well. Peter accepted Paul's help because at the time Christians were not exactly a terribly popular bunch and Paul, as a Roman, had the ability to reach into Roman culture and draw support. But the two battled for power and had a legendary throw down at Antioch which history records as Paul being the victor in....but then again history would write it that way since Constantine adopted Paul's philosophy over Peter's, huh?


Let's break down 2 Peter 3:15-16

and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Now "...Paul, according to the wisdom given him....". Well that could be a compliment or an insult. If I said "Mal understands things according to the wisdom given him" I don't think he would take that real well. I would be implying that he tries to understand but lacks the intellectual capacity to do so and it's not his fault, he was just born stupid. (I am just using that as an example, Mal, no offense intended). Given that Peter and Paul didn't exactly get along, there's an argument to be made that it's an insult.

On the other hand it could indeed be that Peter is praising Paul for having exceptional wisdom that could only be given by God and as Peter is writing a letter it makes sense that he would want to give support to Paul on the surface even if he didn't quite agree with him in private. So there's an argument to be made that it's a compliment. But let's look at what Peter says next:

"...in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

What Peter is saying is that Paul discusses things in his letters that are way over the heads of most people and depending on how you interpret the first part, perhaps even over the head of Paul himself. Peter makes the point that Paul's philosophy is easily misunderstood by the untaught and unstable....in other words those who have not done their homework and those who have a particular agenda often misinterpret what Paul is trying to say and Peter points out that they do so "....to their own destruction."

So what Peter is saying here is essentially: "be real careful about Paul's teachings. It's easy to get the wrong idea and really fuck things up." Now whether he says that because he thinks Paul just doesn't "get it" (and there is support for that in other scriptures; Galatians 2 is a good example) or because Paul is too brilliant for the average Joe is somewhat debatable, but given the conflict the two had, it's not terribly unrealistic that the former interpretation may likely be the case.

Rather prophetic, don't you think?

 

[Buford]

Just replying to your post. Kind of our own "letters" in a way. I don't suppose they will be considered "scripture" in 2000 years tho.

Pauls letters were considered scripture by the Apostle Peter, not 2000 years later. Try again, dear.

Dude, you are displaying incredible ignorance. Peter and Paul did not get along well. Peter accepted Paul's help because at the time Christians were not exactly a terribly popular bunch and Paul, as a Roman, had the ability to reach into Roman culture and draw support. But the two battled for power and had a legendary throw down at Antioch which history records as Paul being the victor in....but then again history would write it that way since Constantine adopted Paul's philosophy over Peter's, huh?


Let's break down 2 Peter 3:15-16

and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Now "...Paul, according to the wisdom given him....". Well that could be a compliment or an insult. If I said "Mal understands things according to the wisdom given him" I don't think he would take that real well. I would be implying that he tries to understand but lacks the intellectual capacity to do so and it's not his fault, he was just born stupid. (I am just using that as an example, Mal, no offense intended). Given that Peter and Paul didn't exactly get along, there's an argument to be made that it's an insult.

On the other hand it could indeed be that Peter is praising Paul for having exceptional wisdom that could only be given by God and as Peter is writing a letter it makes sense that he would want to give support to Paul on the surface even if he didn't quite agree with him in private. So there's an argument to be made that it's a compliment. But let's look at what Peter says next:

"...in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

What Peter is saying is that Paul discusses things in his letters that are way over the heads of most people and depending on how you interpret the first part, perhaps even over the head of Paul himself. Peter makes the point that Paul's philosophy is easily misunderstood by the untaught and unstable....in other words those who have not done their homework and those who have a particular agenda often misinterpret what Paul is trying to say and Peter points out that they do so "....to their own destruction."

So what Peter is saying here is essentially: "be real careful about Paul's teachings. It's easy to get the wrong idea and really fuck things up." Now whether he says that because he thinks Paul just doesn't "get it" (and there is support for that in other scriptures; Galatians 2 is a good example) or because Paul is too brilliant for the average Joe is somewhat debatable, but given the conflict the two had, it's not terribly unrealistic that the former interpretation may likely be the case.

You talk a lot, but you don't say much. Here is the key phrase...."the rest of the Scriptures".
That tells me Peter was calling Paul's writing "Scripture". "the rest" implies other Scripture, as in "along wth". Peter would have worded it differently if he intended to state Paul's writing was not Scripture.

The rest of you analysis is partial truth and partial fantasy. That's called "crap".

 

[BluePhantom]

Not to beat a dead horse (is it too late for that?) but for the purposes of the OP, the 50 A.D. understanding of Leviticus is arguably more relevant to the OP than the 600 B.C. interpretation.

How do you figure? All it really suggests is that Leviticus was already being misunderstood and misinterpreted by 50 AD. I am not quite following you.

This thread is "Jesus on Marriage". A 30 A.D. man.

So he would have been communicating with people whose 30 A.D. understandings/misunderstandings were likely closer to Paul's than to the scribes of Leviticus.

Oh ok. I gotcha. Well I guess I would say a few things about that. First, yes it's probable that if Paul was misreading Leviticus by that point that it was probably common practice to do so, but from there we have to take a position on the divinity of Jesus. If he was just a man then there's an argument to be made that his opinions would be influenced like any other man and as such he would probably hold a similar view. But if we consider him divine then it must be assumed that Jesus had an understanding of God's intent that transcended men and as such he may completely reject what by then had become a common interpretation even if (and especially if) it was in fact a misinterpretation.

And Jesus did stuff like that all the time. He hung out with people that would have been in violation of Jewish law. He touched lepers which would have been...I mean...no fucking way. So Jesus broke Jewish law quite frequently

 

[BluePhantom]

Pauls letters were considered scripture by the Apostle Peter, not 2000 years later. Try again, dear.

Dude, you are displaying incredible ignorance. Peter and Paul did not get along well. Peter accepted Paul's help because at the time Christians were not exactly a terribly popular bunch and Paul, as a Roman, had the ability to reach into Roman culture and draw support. But the two battled for power and had a legendary throw down at Antioch which history records as Paul being the victor in....but then again history would write it that way since Constantine adopted Paul's philosophy over Peter's, huh?


Let's break down 2 Peter 3:15-16

and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Now "...Paul, according to the wisdom given him....". Well that could be a compliment or an insult. If I said "Mal understands things according to the wisdom given him" I don't think he would take that real well. I would be implying that he tries to understand but lacks the intellectual capacity to do so and it's not his fault, he was just born stupid. (I am just using that as an example, Mal, no offense intended). Given that Peter and Paul didn't exactly get along, there's an argument to be made that it's an insult.

On the other hand it could indeed be that Peter is praising Paul for having exceptional wisdom that could only be given by God and as Peter is writing a letter it makes sense that he would want to give support to Paul on the surface even if he didn't quite agree with him in private. So there's an argument to be made that it's a compliment. But let's look at what Peter says next:

"...in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

What Peter is saying is that Paul discusses things in his letters that are way over the heads of most people and depending on how you interpret the first part, perhaps even over the head of Paul himself. Peter makes the point that Paul's philosophy is easily misunderstood by the untaught and unstable....in other words those who have not done their homework and those who have a particular agenda often misinterpret what Paul is trying to say and Peter points out that they do so "....to their own destruction."

So what Peter is saying here is essentially: "be real careful about Paul's teachings. It's easy to get the wrong idea and really fuck things up." Now whether he says that because he thinks Paul just doesn't "get it" (and there is support for that in other scriptures; Galatians 2 is a good example) or because Paul is too brilliant for the average Joe is somewhat debatable, but given the conflict the two had, it's not terribly unrealistic that the former interpretation may likely be the case.

Rather prophetic, don't you think?

VERY! Historically, Paul has been used to beat the shit out of just about every segment of society that can be imagined.

 

[BluePhantom]

You talk a lot, but you don't say much. Here is the key phrase...."the rest of the Scriptures".
That tells me Peter was calling Paul's writing "Scripture". "the rest" implies other Scripture, as in "along wth". Peter would have worded it differently if he intended to state Paul's writing was not Scripture.

The rest of you analysis is partial truth and partial fantasy. That's called "crap".

Wow......you really hear only what you wish to hear and nothing else, huh? So what's the weather like on Planet Buford?

 

[Buford]

You talk a lot, but you don't say much. Here is the key phrase...."the rest of the Scriptures".
That tells me Peter was calling Paul's writing "Scripture". "the rest" implies other Scripture, as in "along wth". Peter would have worded it differently if he intended to state Paul's writing was not Scripture.

The rest of you analysis is partial truth and partial fantasy. That's called "crap".

Wow......you really hear only what you wish to hear and nothing else, huh? So what's the weather like on Planet Buford?

I hear the Word. The Word says Paul's letters were "Scripture".