Who Wrote the Bible and When?

Sorry, Dope. Somehow part of my earlier post got duplicated again and posted under your name. I don't know how that can happen, but I can't seem to correct it since now they're being fussy about my trying to do things to "your" post. So be my guest and erase it.

 

You got some more, you have said some really interesting things?

 

I am curious about what materials we may have lost as the result of codification. There are a few anomalies in the new testament, I think because the translation didn't seem to fit a prevailing idea.

One such thing is the word supersubstansalis, which was translated as daily bread in the lords prayer. Super substance, a far cry from daily bread but the term super substance doesn't mean anything to the translators.

Another curiosity is the transfiguration and the subsequent explanation of who Elijah was. The disciples asking isn't Elijah resurrected before the return of the Messiah. Jesus said he already had and the disciples took him to mean John the Baptist. This statement seems to suggest reincarnation. It is one description to say Elijah is resurrected, and quite another to say he returned to flesh as another person only to be ultimately beheaded. Was reincarnation taught by Jesus?

 

I recently read the Transmigration of Timothy Archer by Philip K Dick, and quelle is found, as well as another ur-quelle, and the ur-quelle, the original source reveals that early Christianity used the anokhi mushroom.
I think if he knew about this super substance, it could've added nicely.

But uh, even that couldn't be an original translation, there is no way that word is Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.

 

You're correct, it is Latin from a coined Greek term. There was no word in Greek for the term that was written.

 

Fair enough.

 

oops... Sorry, I was thinking of the wrong religion. Leviticus 15 is the extent of your punishment, so don't worry about it. Sorry for the mix up.

Try Leviticus 20:13.

Check out the rest of the chapter if you doubt the context, or if you're just in search of a fun read.

 

Leviticus 20:13 prescribes the penalty for the offense defined in Leviticus 18:22. My point was that I don't think "kill the fags" is an accurate interpretation. I understand it to mean: Kill the male ritual prostitutes and their patrons who engage in homosexual anal sex for reasons related to domination or exploitation rather than love and mutual regard--but only if you're Jewish.

 

How exciting. Round two the interpretation. Hopefully not to many get killed in the process.

Domination and exploitation. Try the average family.

In the good old days women were commonly treated like chattel, to be handed around and traded at tender ages. This may well have been both rational and sensible practice in some societies and is still practiced in some parts of the world today. Unfortunately.

 

They're more likely to get killed in round one. Is there homosexual penetration going on in the average family? I wasn't aware of that? As for chattel, that's exactly the point!

 

Just to be clear then, God (probably) is fine with gay people, but he did make men to dominate women, and for a man to be put in place of a woman is blasphemy?

Or are you saying that is was the prostitution aspect, and that god doesn't approve of prostitution?

 

In the context of Leviticus, as I interpret it, it would seem that God doesn't approve of male homosexual ritual (shrine) prostitution. And it was culturally accepted not only among Israelites but throughout most of the "civilized" world that women were subordinate to men and had the status of virtual chattel. So in the ancient world, to treat a man like a woman was to make him a mere object. Romans considered men on the receiving end of the transaction to be shameful. The Israelites were exceptional in punishing both parties. God didn't make men to dominate women, but the Jews who wrote Leviticus thought he did. Now we know better, thank God!

 

But... Jesus did say that he did not come to change the law, but to fufil it, and he (as far as I know) never condemned the law. This leads me to think that the old testament law wasn't just the work of man, but aproved by God.

That point aside, why is it that male prostitution is so different than female prostitution? If god was fine with men being in a relationship, the dominince thing wouldn't matter, because it would be happening anyway.

 

Actually he said he did not come to abolish the law. The law he is talking about is not the law of Moses, but the law of God. By fulfilling he meant demonstrating the way toward. He did make remarks about certain tenants being put forward to accommodate "hardness of heart"

I wouldn't think God would be the least bit interested at all, one way or the other. It is men that look for laws, men who are offensive and offended.

 

I didn't know it was specified which law he was refering to, (and I still don't)

but either way, this was a very small section of my post and not at all the point.

 

Yes, approved for the Jews. And I explained my interpretation of what the law is on the subject of homosexuality.

The law of Moses was given to the Jews. Gentiles aren't bound by it. Otherwise, there'd be no bacon or lobster Newberg or cotton/polyester blend clothes. Jesus did fulfill the law. According to Paul, not only are Gentiles not bound by the law of Moses; if they do get themselves circumcised and keep kosher it's a bad thing, because it shows lack of faith in Jesus' sacrifice. At least that's one way of looking at it. Some critics argue that Jesus did tell his followers to keep the law, so that Jesus' version of Christian teachings isn't the same as Paul's. Against this view is the fact that the Pharisees and Sadducees were constantly on Jesus' back about not washing his hands before he ate, healing on the Sabbath, hanging out with lowlifes, etc. In fact, he seemed to go out of his way to flout their rigid practices. So Jesus seems to have had a different idea of what the law was than they did. And if it come to His view versus theirs, I'd give Him the edge. There are also theologians who claim that not all of the law, but only part of it, was done away with by Jesus' crucifixion. They distinguish between the "ritual" parts, like circumcision and dietary laws, which are not binding on Gentiles, and other parts that are, like the sexual taboos. I could never understand the basis for this distinction, and suspect that it reflects a desire on the part of these theologians to keep the sexual taboos intact.

I guess I don't understand your question. Male prostitution, at least of the homosexual kind, among Jews, was considered worse than female prostitution because men were considered to be more important, so it was worse to degrade them. In fact there was a mandatory death penalty for it, for both parties! Also, I think there's evidence I brought out in an earlier post that the kind of male prostitution referred to was ritual shrine prostitution. Various pagan cults had prostitutes of both who volunteered their services as charity fundraisers. During a religious reform movement under King Josiah, the shrines were destroyed and the prostitutes were driven out.

 

My question is, why would they be against male prostitution but not againt male relationships when the reason for killing the prostitutes can be applied to gay people in general. If that was the reasoning, there's no reason it wouldn't apply to gay people in general...

 

I think they (the Israelites) probably did come to apply the law against all male homosexual relationships, because they didn't delve much into the meaning of the rules. Orthodox Jews today don't differentiate between male prostitution and any other kind of male homosexuality. In other words, they don't share my interpretation. The holiness laws in Leviticus were designed to set the Jews apart from the Canaanites by establishing differences between the Jews and pagan peoples and to preserve the covenant with Yaweh to worship him as their only god. As I said, male homosexuality was regarded as toevah because it was identified with Canaanite religious practices and the defilement of manhood by treating men like women. The Israelites simply didn't have the concept of what we call homosexual orientation (as opposed to sinful acts) and loving same-sex relationships. Sex of all kinds was mainly an expression of dominance. There's still plenty "meat market" sex of the kind that the Bible (and I) would regard as morally objectionable. To sum up, biblical condemnation of homosexual relations, whether in the Old or New Testament, is in the context of prostitution, promiscuity, pederasty, rape, and/or lust--because those were the forms familiar to people at the time. I see no basis for taking these rules out of historical context in a blanket condemnation of "homosexuality" today.

 

I dont think they ever shared you're interpretation, and I dissagree with you.

But this discusion is going nowhere, and niether of us can indisputably prove our side, so I think we should probably just drop it.

 

They're more likely to get killed in round one. Is there homosexual penetration going on in the average family? I wasn't aware of that? As for chattel, that's exactly the point!

Yes in round two Christians where doing the persecuting which meant that the persecution of homosexuals along with the subjection of women was to linger and persist well into the modern era. It can be argued that these evils have been diminished due in no small part by the advance of secularism and enlightenment values in western society.

I find that putting all these "prostitution, promiscuity, pederasty, rape, and/or lust" in the same basket is a little morally reprehensible.

How can anyone presume to know the mind or will of God in any detail. What excruciating vanity.