Our Tribe

Page: 1 2

RQC

Joined in 2012

October 26, 2012, 10:10

Like I said before, I hate a lot of yapping. ; )

When I say the "Bible" I mean what is the "core" of the Bible that includes the "Old Testament" (all of what we CALL the "Old Testament" (Torah, Writings, Prophets) we have is accepted by the Jews as their 'Gospel') The 4 Gospels accounts we have of Jesus and all that is written between up to the book of Revelations is the Bible we ALL agree by, both by Protestant and Catholic Churches. The only difference is the Catholic Bible includes some of the apocryphal works, though interesting, does nothing to change, or really highlight anything in the "core" Bible. Again, whatever variations, like the ending of Mark, does nothing to change the Gospel account.

There are other books like "The Gospel of Judas" and others that have popped up, but no one takes them seriously because they were composed at such later dates. Many of them, like the gnostic Gospels, are nonsensical and clearly shows lack of inspiration and they are out there for anybody to read if you want to be bored. As for the Holy Spirit as a "she," The Holy Spirit is an extension of a masculine God with a male Son in the Trinity. Even Christ calls him a "He" (John 16:7, 8). It's just an attempt to deny the Trinity. I like what Thomas Richard said about this:

"The notion of the Holy Spirit being feminine comes from the pagan view that God was once a woman before the patriarchs of Israel hijacked the people’s religion and made God a man around the time of King Josiah.They claim that the people retained the feminine deity in the form of Shekinah, which is a Hebrew name for the Holy Spirit."

I'm not saying man hasn't tried to butt in with bias, as clearly shown with anti-gay readings that are reading into the text, but all the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek) of the Bible are out in the open for discussion and debate. We are told to search the Scriptures and that includes finding the clarity in the languages they were inspired in.

ShadowBoxer
Moderator
Joined in 2005

October 26, 2012, 11:14

At the risk of Yapping – I dont really get your point(s).

However what I am saying is exactly this "We are told to search the Scriptures and that includes finding the clarity in the languages they were inspired in."

You actuall seem to implicitly acknowledge my points so I think we are actually in agreement – because although you talk about an (undefined) core bible you do acknowledge that there are variations. I would argue that understanding those variations ARE important – because I would say any understanding that relies only one variation and is at odds with others are suspect. Which is more or less what you assume when you say the variations dont alter the Gospel Account. (So yes – I agree – but Many of the current church doctrines are not so – and thats WHY there are so many denominations because they Disagree on various points – sometimes large sometimes tiny)

Also just to be clear – I wasnt proposing that the Holy spirit was Female – I was noting that there are doctrines that focus on specific versus and interpret them in a special way – whilst others that dont match are arbitrarily interpreted in a different way. I used the Gender issue because – the OLD testament does use female pronouns and so to say – the old testament female pronuns can be ignored but the ones WE Like (the male ones) we will say are significant.

This is exactly how the anti gay mob interpret the bible – they say – some verses in the old testament are MORE special than others so we should still be anti gay – but no longer is eating prawns – or mixing fibres or working on the sabbath work worrying about.

(For what its worth – I am NOT trying to say that God is female). The reason that the Zondervan New International Inclusive Language bible was not allowed to be published in the USA – was because the bible does actually use both Male and Female to refer to God in the old and new testaments. I am not saying either view is right. What I am saying is that Church politics has actually altered our translations and its worth KNOWING that. Exactly – as you say (again) We are told to search the Scriptures and that includes finding the clarity in the languages they were inspired in.

Personally I dont think it alters your Salvation if you think of God of Male or Female. My Opinion is that God is neither Male nor Female but God and I think attempts to put God in such a box are futile. I would say the one thing we know about God is we cant comprehend Gods nature – and I think to try to make God into some Patriarch and a beard is doing a disservice to God but as I said – thats just my opinion. God no doubt has male characteristics – but dont think I can make a case that the bible is INCORRECT when it refers to God using Female Gender and Im not willing to play the game of saying this verse is important because it agrees with my view – and that verse isnt important because it disagrees – and just because there is a historical reason for the language – which is definately worth knowing and was actually one of the points I was making above – – that its very important to know the historical context of the bible (so again we are in agreement) – I personally would not like to make the argument that when the bible DOES use the female to refer to God – the bible Bible is wrong. Rather – I would say its right in both cases.

As I say – dont mean to Yap

Sorry – dont mean to yap

RQC

Joined in 2012

October 26, 2012, 15:12

Please don't be offended. I just don't like long, drawn out questions or answers. That's ME, it's not you who has more patience and probably a bigger attention span than me.

I didn't define the Bible 'core' accepted by both Protestant and Catholic? I thought I did:

"…the "Old Testament" (all of what we CALL the "Old Testament" (Torah, Writings, Prophets) we have is accepted by the Jews as their 'Gospel') The 4 Gospels accounts we have of Jesus and all that is written between, up to the book of Revelations…"

To what level are you defining "variations?" A contradiction? An account that alters another? I don't think you're saying that. Even though different denominations have dis-agreements over doctrine (Baptists don't believe in the speaking of tongues from the book of Acts the way a Pentecostals does for instance), we still all hold Christ as the Saviour of our lives with the basic tenents of beliefs as taught to us from the Bible (Born of a virgin, Son of God in the flesh, sinless, died for our sins, resurrected, etc). Put a Methodist in the same room with an Episcopalian, a Pentecostal and a Nazarene and you won't find that much of a difference with how the Bible is read or being understood.

What I find wrong, along with anti-gay Christians holding up some verses over others to make a point, an incorrect point, are people who don't like what the Bible says (about Hell for instance) and try to dismiss or downplay it's Inspiration because they claim all these "variations" that are tantamount to mistakes, so how can the Bible be right? When I say inspiration, I'm not saying the Bible writers wrote by automatic writing and then woke up from their Holy Spirit induced trance saying; "What did I write?!" I'm saying the accounts given are correct, being from an eyewitness to the actual events or inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they wrote. Even Paul makes the distinction of what he writes is sometimes inspired and other times not. It's when you look at the Bible more CLOSELY is when these supposed variations leave and you start seeing the harmony that comes from inspiration, not the other way around. Did I answer your questions? I think?

I love you my brother and you have been so helpful to me on so many levels. If I offended you in any way, please forgive me.

ShadowBoxer
Moderator
Joined in 2005

October 26, 2012, 18:44

Mate

Not offended – as I said – I wasnt really sure what points u were making.

The point I was making about Core Bible – is that the protestant bible contained the same books as the catholic one until 1880 (and remember – I know people who STILL use the King James and in fact if you were to ask me to quote a number of verses – if I was to do it out of memory – there would be many I would quote the NIV – but many others I would quote the King James Version) So in fact most Protestants will have said – that their CORE bible was 80 books untill well into the 1900's. The bible is actually a book that HAS changed and will probably change again as we find (hopefully) other old preserved copies. The sad thing is that some will rather use a known incorrect translation rather than have to change their doctrine. The main churche's theology have not changed a great deal in the last centruy EVEN THOUGH our understanding of the language and meaning in the bible has changed out of sight.

Even today – There is not only the catholic bible and the protestant one. There are others – the orthodox church – the eastern catholic church and the eastern orthodox bibles are different and for the protestant bible there IS a reason there are so many different translations. Each one tends to make a theological position and by reading it you are accepting that position. People dont like one theological position – so there is a new translation. (Sadly theres a lot of politics in all this – although they wont call it politics – they call it making a better translation – but its done because of a differing point of view – and if you dont know the politics – you wont realise what the translators were trying to do)

The Coptic Orthodox church Alone has 18 Million members and they are only one of the eastern churches so their opinion is not a small one. Then there are groups more afield. 7th Day adventists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Closed Brethren etc etc.

One of my most treasured bibles is my darby Bible which IS a protestant bible but an attempt at a new translation dating to 1890. I know at least one denomination for which THAT is their definitive translation and they dont accept others.

It has the same books as the King James – but it has some interesting and thought provoking translations and I have great affection for it.

In short I was JUST trying to say that there is a richness of diversity in this whole area that many are not aware of and its worth knowing that it is such a diverse field

Ann Maree

Joined in 2008

October 27, 2012, 01:03

Hi RQC

You said:

There are other books like "The Gospel of Judas" and others that have popped up, but no one takes them seriously because they were composed at such later dates. Many of them, like the gnostic Gospels, are nonsensical and clearly shows lack of inspiration and they are out there for anybody to read if you want to be bored.

Really? I don't agree with that. I did a an extensive self directed study, mainly on Mary Magdalene taken from the main gospels, gnostic gospels, historical books and gnostic ideas, and found it fascinating. I went to my local library and dug out as many books on the subject as I could. I found stuff that just resonated with me, reinforcing what I already knew about self knowledge being linked with actualising and being closer to the divine. (Of course I'm biased because I work in areas of personal development and gnostic stuff is all about that). I guess the underlying principle is that we can't improve unless we truly know ourselves and what needs to be worked on. Gnosticism also values dreams, visions and mystical experiences of the divine. But then that happens in many parts of what you'd describe as the "core bible", and much of that seems nonsensical too.. I think it depends a lot on how you are reading it and what you are looking for or how you learn best as to what you will receive from a passage.

As for male and female parts of God, as I understand it, we are meant to be created in God's image and I believe we each have aspects of masculine and feminine within, at a psychological, energetic or symbolic level.. I believe we need both to be whole….. so why wouldn't our God also have that? Frankly I wouldn't want to believe in a God that only represented half the world. Remember that in ancient times, males were regarded as of the spirit and therefore allowed certain privileges that women weren't. And women were viewed as of the flesh because of their roles in birthing and nurturing. So with that cultural information, I would expect the writers of the bible would naturally reflect that bias and their God would be masculine. In contrast, Jesus stood out as radical compared to many men around him in honouring women and allowing them to have a voice and presence.. and this is seen even though men of the time, subsequent misogynistic translators and many churches since have tried to besmirch women and erase their roles from the bible.

Blessings,

Ann Maree

Page: 1 2

WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 99.9; Page loaded in: 0.072 seconds.