I'm a big fan of the Bible

[Scuba]

[GP6971]

1. What?????

No war on women is mentioned?

[longship]

2. That would be the epistles of Paul.

Not the Gospels.

At least the way I understand the damned thing.

[hrmjustin]

10. I have to say when you read Paul you get thecsense he is afraid of women.

[longship]

11. Yup, but I'm of opinion that there was no Paul.

Of course, I am hugely influenced by the Bible Geek, who would never likely find his way onto a liberal Web site. But his arguments on the Bible are very interesting.

Did Paul write all the epistles attributed to him? I don't think any critical scholar of the Bible believes that (short of Biblical literalists).

But yes, what "Paul" wrote was not too friendly to women. And yes, Jesus did not say much about it in the gospels.

[hrmjustin]

12. I think paul existec but he clearly did not write every epistle attributed to him.

The Gospels don't have a clear moment where Jesus spoke sbout women's rights but throughout tne gospels we see clear respect and his defense of women.

[longship]

13. Of course, none of the gospels were written by the guys in the title either.

First, there's no record before the second century that any of the gospels existed. The earliest texts in existence are newer than that. Who knows who wrote them? Plus, why the four when there is significant evidence that there were more gospel histories written during those times.

Second, the texts conflict with one another and with known verifiable history.

They have the elements of myth that predate the alleged history.

A lot of this is still speculative, but one thing for sure is that there is no solid evidence that the writings in the Bible have anything close to historic accuracy.

Yes, that's my personal position, but I have not heard a convincing argument that would convince me that it isn't just myth.

As always, my friend.

[hrmjustin]

16. We have Constantine to thank for them.

Some date them as early as 30 years after Christ's lifespan and some date it several decades into the second century.

A great question for those who believe that everything in the bible is literally true is how do you explain the differences in the Gospels.

For the most part the first three follow similar timelines but John's gospel is completely different.

[longship]

17. Ah! The synoptic problem.

Mark -- the Messianic secret. The apostles are stoooopid!

Matthew and Luke -- what's with that? Two different genealogies? Two different and divergent birth narratives? (None in Mark, of course) then, there's the shuffling of Mark's narratives, but nevertheless still nearly word-for-word.

That's why scholars are attached to Markan Priority. It was the earliest written of the four. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source as well as other sources. Often the other source is labelled "Q", which is supposed to be a record of Jesus sayings.

This shit gets deep and I do not understand it all. But it does answer some of the synoptic gospel problems.

Regards.

[hrmjustin]

18. John's gospel is more of a theological work.

I always get a chuckle when you see the names are different.

[longship]

19. Yup! How many apostles?

And what are their names?

Funny how the gospels don't even get that straight.

[spin]

3. If you read the Gospels, Christ comes across as a strong supporter of women's rights. ...

Christ overthrew many centuries of Jewish law and custom. He consistently treated women and men as equals. He violated numerous Old Testament regulations, which specified gender inequality. He refused to follow the behavioral rules established by the three main Jewish religious groups of the day: the Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees. "The actions of Jesus of Nazareth towards women were therefore revolutionary."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/cfe_bibl.htm

The entire article is a worthwhile read.

[GP6971]

4. Thank you longship & spin

haven't read the bible so in reality, I was being "flip"

[spin]

5. Reading and understanding the Bible is a daunting task. ...

Many if not most Christians have not read the "Good Book" despite the fact that it is the user's manual of their faith.

Often they merely take it to church and follow along as a priest or minister selects a passage or some verses and expounds on their meanings. Often the readings are taken out of context and the truth ends up distorted.

It is also necessary to understand that he Bible is translated from a different language or languages and the translators didn't always use the original meaning implied by the words. Mistakes in translation were made and in some cases there is good reason to suspect that the meaning was altered to fit the views of the times.

One obvious example is the King James" version of the Bible translates one of the Ten Commandments as "Thou shalt not kill." Many feel the correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder." There is a big difference between the meaning of the two words and Jewish law did not totally forbid killing in self defense or in warfare.

If you ever decide to read the Bible I suggest you get a good study guide that will aid you to understand the times and places involved and also will point out differences in translations in an unbiased fashion. I found the ESV study Bible to be very helpful.

Of course if you feel the Bible is the literal word of God, you might be wise to not read the Bible with a good study guide as if you do, you will discover that God needed a good editor and proof reader. There are numerous discrepancies in the Bible which are difficult to easily explain away.

For example, right off in Genesis, you will find two different stories of creation and the details differ. Many Christians simply combine the two stories to produce one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

There is also two different versions of the Noah's Ark story and the number of animals that Noah takes on the Ark are different.
http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/cflood.htm

[GP6971]

6. Thank you Spin

My wife's cousin retired about 5 years ago and embarked on a campaign to read and UNDERSTAND both the bible and the Koran. I felt like saying good luck with that......so much is subject to interpretation. It's like spit shining shoes/boots in the military.......get a hundred guys and there will be a hundred "best ways".

[spin]

7. I am currently reading the Koran with a good study guide. ...

So far I have read just a small portion but I have found some gems of wisdom. At this point in my study I don't believe that Muhammad would have supported using suicide bombers to kill innocents as a promotion of his faith or as a tactic of warfare.

I remember spit shining my boots in the Air Force. I discovered a spray product from Amway that saved hours and hours. To me that was "the best way."

[frankroberts]

8. pat condell

[spin]

15. Very interesting video.....

I suspect it's also very accurate.

It's seems the major problem with most religions is that some manage to gain power and then corrupt and distort the message.

[A HERETIC I AM]

9. "Longship & Spin" would make a great name for either a Law Firm...

or a Rock and Roll band.


Just sayin'

[longship]

14. What say you, Spin?

Law firm?

Or Rock band?

I'm not sure I would like either, so I will defer to you. And then Jenny bar the doors. Either way, the world will be in deep poo-poo.