"Get a sword", Jesus?

[telomerase]

So when the bible says the law will not be changed, that would mean (again, according to my understandiing) that God could prevent an incorrect translation. Say someone translates it wrong but God strikes them down before they can write the wrong translation down.

There are thousands of textual discrepancies between the different old scrolls that are the sources for the surviving books of the Old and New Testaments. (A famous one is that the popular "666" in Revelation is actually 616 in the oldest scrolls, probably because it was referring to a different Emperor).

There is no "one text", let alone one translation. And that's after massive pruning from various religous bodies over the years to cut away books they didn't agree with.

Have to agree this is an amazing thread, I had expected to see jihads raging.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

There are thousands of textual discrepancies between the different old scrolls that are the sources for the surviving books of the Old and New Testaments.

Unfortunately, this statement is also in error. We currently have over 6,000 copies of the Greek New Testament (the earliest of which from less than one hundred years from original authorship), and these copies are 99.5% pure. And if you examine the .5% disagreement, you will find that the majority are minor spelling errors and minor word alterations. None of these discrepancies have anything to do with any major theme or doctrine of the Bible.

In fact, if you compare the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament to the nearest contender ancient historical document, which is Homer's Iliad, the New Testament comes out much more accurate and historically reliable. We only have about 643 copies of the Iliad (the oldest of which written 500 years after the original) and they are only 95% textually pure. The verdict? The manuscripts we have are more reliable than ANY other historical document.

Source: Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore?

And that's after massive pruning from various religous bodies over the years to cut away books they didn't agree with

I believe my first post put this one to rest.

 

[cyco668]

Very interesting reading. I just want to bring up somethings about the Spanish Inquisition. A book that wasn't mentioned in this thread is the Malleus Maleficarum (Witch Hammer or Hammer of Witches). This book was #2 in Europe, right after the Bible. This is the book the used by the inquisitors to try the witches. The Spanish trials are the most famous, but was only one of many in Europe.
600 executed in SW france; 250 in Fulda; 900 in Bamberg; 1200 in Wurzberg; plus more in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and England. In Spain, very few were accused of being witches, but were on trial for being a heretic or Jew.
From the late 1400's - the mid 1700's, over 600,00 people were killed for being a witch or heretic. The Bible wasn't the book that the justified the killings, but the Malleus Malefacarum. Of course, people can use the Bible to justify any of their beliefs. Or to denounce anyone elses.

 

[kungfuhippie]

+1 cyco668, governments and institutions use any excuse to accomplish their ends. Be it religious text, local lore, fear, rumors, etc.
Religion/scripture is like a gun. It is the tool, the people using it incorrectly are the dangerous ones, and it being used improperly does not make it bad.

 

[LAK]

Tried n'True

Jesus' words are straight-forward and to the point. The Church has taught in opposition to his words, creating confusion in people's minds. I opt to ignore the Church's mis-direction.

Just for the record, the Church has never taught opposition to the words of our Lord. And further more, never denied the right to self defense and defense of property - with only the stipulation that killing someone who is stealing something trivial is wrong - a sin.

Check any copy of "My Catholic Faith" and the other teachings of the Church. Any teachings to the contrary do not come from the Church.

------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[BigG]

Tried n'True

Jesus' words are straight-forward and to the point.

This is a misunderstanding in itself. Jesus' words were obscured by parables as we see over and over. The conventional wisdom is parables are to explain things, but like most things everybody knows, it is wrong. The idea of a parable being straightforward and to the point is contrary to the teaching of scripture.

Mk4:33-34 "And with many such parables He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it. But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples."

Unfortunately, they did not record what he explained, for the most part and scholars today do not all agree what each and every parable means.

Mk4:10-12 "When he was alone, [i.e., in private] the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but not perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.'"

So, you can see that Jesus' teachings were anything but straightforward and to the point.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

Jesus' words were obscured by parables as we see over and over.

This is true. Jesus only spoke in parables to the crowds, so that:

"They may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!" -Mark 4:12

The reason?

"The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you (the Apostles and a few others). But to those on the outside everything is said in parables..."
- Mark 4:11

Everything Jesus said was engineered to teach his chosen apostles, and to make way for His crucifixion.

Unfortunately, they did not record what he explained

There are a few parts where He did explain the parables. In addition, many of the parables are pretty straight-forward.

Just for the record, the Church has never taught opposition to the words of our Lord.

I agree with you to an extent. The Catholic church did unfortunately fall into corruption (because of the decadence of its leaders) for about 800 years. Now I would say that they didn't teach opposition to the Scriptures, but their actions seemed to oppose Scripture.

 

[BigG]

Solascriptura

There are a few parts where He did explain the parables. In addition, many of the parables are pretty straight-forward.

Your quote of my post failed to acknowledge my recognition that he explained a few parables. So I don't see the point of your first sentence unless you stopped reading when you posted the partial sentence of mine.

Unfortunately, they did not record what he explained, for the most part...

Your second sentence - Not straightforward, but obscured. You have to put yourself in shoes of the average person who may read the bible. Not everybody reading this thread is a believer that the message in the parables will be revealed to. Even biblical scholars do not agree with the meaning of the parables.

You can look up several authorites who explain the parables very differently. Somebody has to be incorrect when there are differing views of scripture.

My favorite view is the bible explains itself.

But I have read commentaries that explain, for example "birds of the air" in the mustard seed parable as "people of all nations" when it is clearly the same "birds of the air" that represent evil spirits stealing away the word in the parable that is explained, that of the sower. If that is what you believe to be straightforward, why doesn't the commentator see it?

 

[SolaScriptura139]

You have to put yourself in shoes of the average person who may read the bible.

I guess you're right. I must have read your post wrong, sorry for the confusion. I don't understand why some commentators can make such broad and out there interpretations as they do from Scripture. Like the whole documentary hypothesis, I don't understand how anyone can see that line of thought from the books of Moses.

The straight-forward parables I was referring to were ones like where the man finds the pearl of great value and sells all that he has to buy that pearl.

But there is a lot of what Jesus taught (not the parables though) that is very plain and straightforward, like His teachings from Matthew 5 through the end of 12. I would think that from the Gospels, there is more direct teaching than parables, as the Gospels are a personal recording of Jesus' life from the eyes of His apostles. So I believe while Tried N' True's statement was a little too absolute, it is correct for the most part, with the exception of the parables.

 

[BigG]

So I believe while Tried N' True's statement was a little too absolute, it is correct for the most part, with the exception of the parables.

Hey, I thought we were on the same side all along.

Where I contend a little bit with the above quoted statement is, the Gospels do not purport to be a documentary of every moment of Christ's ministry, but a representative sample (I guess we could say). We have to read between the lines and realize that not every sermon Christ preached is recorded but just enough to give us the pathway to salvation - (if you are a believer).

It stands to reason when it says “He spoke to the crowds –“ etc., without further elaboration, he undoubtedly spoke in parables as his custom was. He explicitly says that in Mark.

The crowds are the great mass of people – everybody - you, me, and everybody else. Therefore, if the Bible is God's word to man - then the sayings of Jesus are obscured because we are part of the crowd. If we are given the light to see his meaning, we are special, but we should not believe this light is universal and everybody sees what we do. Scripture just does not support the viewpoint that these things are self-evident. I hope I am being clear.

There is even controversy about some of the simpler sounding parables. – I’ve heard some explained a couple of different ways. And so on. I have my own understandings of some of them but would need to look them up and refresh my memory.

Documentary hypothesis – while I am no great scholar of this idea, I do know that human nature is predictable and that people get excited to discover “new” and “interesting” facts about the Bible, often to the extent that they gloss over parts of the scripture they really should try to understand. (Aside - This sort of scholarship is also somewhat vain in the sense that the bible teaches vanity) "Oh how in vain they worship me, teaching as commandments the doctrines of men," etc. We have our Pharisees today, just as in the first century AD.

The idea of E, J, P, Q, etc. seems to me a stretch for guys to write PhD theses on.

It only takes a moment’s thought to realize the Torah speaks in different voices because it has different purposes to its different parts. Some scholars are too close to their work and can’t see the forest for the trees, so to speak.

I am enjoying this in depth discussion, by the way!

While I believe the Bible supports self defense, I don’t think the scripture about the swords is a good biblical basis for self defense.

 

[kungfuhippie]

we'd better start tying all this back to guns and self defense before we get locked down.

To answer my own post, 4 pages ago, other religions have a varied view of self defense. The sikh faith promotes self defense and requires all baptized members to open carry a ceremonial dagger called a kirpan.

The kirpan has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as a symbolic function. Physically it is an instrument of "Ahimsa" or non-violence. The principle of ahimsa is to actively prevent violence, not to simply stand by idly whilst violence is being done. To that end, the kirpan is a tool to be used to prevent violence from being done to a defenceless person when all other means to do so have failed. Symbolically, the kirpan represents the power of truth to cut through untruth. It is the cutting edge of the enlightened mind.

So, there are faiths that teach self defense and defense of the weak. Kids of this faith have a tough time in public school since their beliefs require the carrying of the kirpan (as well as 4 other symbols of their beliefs) and the schools prohibit weapons, my dad had a student that had to carry a plastic dagger on campus, I'm surprised they let him do that.

 

[BigG]

Symbolically, the kirpan [dagger] represents the power of truth to cut through untruth. It is the cutting edge of the enlightened mind.

Wow - I hope not anywhere near me.

 

[Eleven Mike]

The kirpan has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as a symbolic function. Physically it is an instrument of "Ahimsa" or non-violence. The principle of ahimsa is to actively prevent violence, not to simply stand by idly whilst violence is being done. To that end, the kirpan is a tool to be used to prevent violence from being done to a defenceless person when all other means to do so have failed.

That's quite well-said. Oleg needs to paraphrase that for a poster.

 

[kungfuhippie]

yep, lets replace kirpan with pistol.

The pistol has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as a symbolic function. Physically it is an instrument of non-violence. The principle is to actively prevent violence, not to simply stand by idly whilst violence is being done. To that end, the pistol is a tool to be used to prevent violence from being done to a defenceless person when all other means to do so have failed.

 

[Dan M.]

Count Glockula:

Majority of David's lifespan was during an era of war...fighting with the Philistines; guess what Goliath was? A Philistine; born in Gath.

True. But the lions and bears were not Philistines. And when David showed up with lunch for his brothers, and volunteered to fight Goliath, he wasn't a soldier of war, nor was he treated like one. But he invoked the God of Israel, went out with a weapon in his hand, and killed Goliath.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Kirpan = Pistol

Oh, yes, nicely said.

Anybody want to start a religion with the pistol as one of its main symbols?

Heck, I'd even go for a slung rifle as part of the trappings.

New thread:

• Most appropriate pistol to stand as a religious symbol of protection?
• Most appropriate rifle to stand as a religious symbol of protection?

Only kidding.

Or not.

 

[Richard.Howe]

Can I just say how happy I am this thread hasn't been closed yet? It isn't because the Mods are asleep; it's because no one has started slinging insults. Congrats. This really is a THR discussion.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Most appropriate pistol to stand as a religious symbol of protection?
Most appropriate rifle to stand as a religious symbol of protection?

Well, the pistol question is pretty simple. Which pistol is already the fetish of a large and dedicated cult? Come on, I don't have to answer that.

Rifle? Hmm.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Can I just say how happy I am this thread hasn't been closed yet? It isn't because the Mods are asleep; it's because no one has started slinging insults.

Yeah, it's usually those &*%$^ Presbyterians that start that nonsense. ^$%$)# #@*#))$&!!!

 

[kungfuhippie]

Anybody want to start a religion with the pistol as one of its main symbols?

I think Jesus doesn't want anymore religions started, he's got over 2000 in the US claiming him as Savior. IMHO

But from an outsider's view the mentality of using force to end evil seams nearly universal, just different approaches. Jesus turned the money tables in the temple to stop an evil practice, sikhism says you should stop oppression.

Anyone have a different faith not mentioned yet's perspective?

I think that if you look from a psycological point at world religions (to avoid adding personal bias). Most apear to have a set of laws or rules to better society. Most advocate charity, kindness, and fighting evil on some level even if not physically. It seams that spiritual beliefs are a great tool used by God to keep people civil. Even if only one church were the valid choice mandated by our creator(hypothetical for the sake of the statement), the rest contribute to helping keep civilization civil.

 

[MrDig]

Jesus also said "Go Fishing" if you want to paraphrase. This is the problem with paraphrasing, and or quoting out of context.

 

[kungfuhippie]

Well, the pistol question is pretty simple.

I was so excited that my daughter wanted to join the Brownies, until I realized they wern't talking pistols

 

[javacodeman]

The Catholic Church does condone self defense. It does not condone vengence. It condone Justice, but it does not condone eye for an eye (which is what the Jewish and Muslums do... and see what they get?)

I haven't made it through all of the posts yet, so I may be repeating a response but....

The "eye for and eye...tooth for a tooth" statements of the OT have largely been taken out of context by everyone (including Jews in the day of Jesus). You must realize that God was teaching Moses how to set up a Theocratic government. These statements where more oriented to government than to individuals. These statements correspond to our laws today that outline proper punishments for crimes. It was never supposed to be that an individual got revenge by taking "an eye for an eye" but that the judges and rulers of the day would seek fairness by ruling "an eye for an eye."

Standby for more comments as I finish this good thread!!

java

 

[Eleven Mike]

Java, let me see if I understand you. You're saying that "eye for eye" means that a punishment should be comensurate with the crime? Rather than punishing everything with death? On the other hand, I'll have to look at that passage in context.

Even if only one church were the valid choice mandated by our creator(hypothetical for the sake of the statement), the rest contribute to helping keep civilization civil.

I disagree.

 

[kungfuhippie]

I disagree.

about which part? the one church statement or the "most everyone else atleast contributes part)? why? I'd like to understand.