a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by mk
mk  ·  4738 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Anti Abortion: The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal
I suggest reading The Sermon on the Mount. forwardslash is citing from it. Basically, Jesus gives a speech about how it's going to be now that he has come to Earth on God's behalf. It's probably the mose consolidated version of Jesus' message.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5-7%3A27...

One part I have always found interesting is this:

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

To me, that suggests that Christians ought to pray in private. But later on Jesus tells Peter to build a church.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. -Matthew 16:18

So, once again, you can take what you like. Catholics use this passage for the foundation of the Church, and the Pope.

When you combine prevalent culture and political motivations with edits, translations, and the removal of entire books, it's not very difficult to see that the book can easily serve people, probably more easily than people can serve the book. IMHO it would be fascinating to see a group that lives by a literal (as possible) translation of the New Testament.





b_b  ·  4738 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I've read it. Good speech, and worth. Really, the Hebrews quote above interests me so much as it relates to a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, because it says explicitly that the Old Testament is flawed. Yet, the ultra-fundamentalist doctrine in infallibility of the Word, literal interpretation. How can it be both flawed and infallible? Not that I'm the first person to point out an inconsistency, but that's a pretty fukn big wrench in the gears.
kleinbl00  ·  4737 days ago  ·  link  ·  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non-canonical_gospels

You really wanna see whackadoodledo, look at the history of the Book of Revelations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_revelation#Canonical_hi...

b_b  ·  4737 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Gospel of Judas is my favorite of the non-canonicals. I love the fact that Judas, in that Gospel, is the only one who can truly understand Jesus, and seems to believe that Jesus is otherworldly (I read one author interpret that as Judas thinking that Jesus was some kind of Alien, but I think the Gnostics took it to mean he was from one of the higher worlds, as their construction of the universe had many layers of heaven and earth). Of course this wouldn't (couldn't) have been chosen for the Canon, because its about subversion and rebellion, instead of strict obedience. In the Canon, Judas betrays Jesus and is punished as a result. Jesus, and by extension The Church, is not to be betrayed; hell awaits for any and all heretics. The Gnostics were persecuted to extinction in Europe for such beliefs.