Question for the devout Christians or Jews only

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

About reading the gospels literally, this reminds me of the pro-establishing English as the national language fundamentalist Christians saying that if English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for us.

Anyone who read the gospels literally in English hasn't even the barest acquaintance with the history of the religion. They are hard to read literally in Greek because the meaning of phrases so many years later is not always clear, the gospels contradict one another (medieval theologians made extensive catalogues of the contradictions), and they were set down by numerous authors years after the fact.

Also, those who read it literally seem to think Jesus was and spoke as a lawyer, which he decidedly wasn't. Hard to think that someone who taught in parables wished his words to be taken literally.

It's not that bad, really. My mother (yes, my mother!) learned koine Greek to read the gospels and she found nothing very earth-shaking. It's true there are some differences among the four gospels as to what Jesus said or did, which is undoubtedly due to the nature of these witness accounts that were recorded after Jesus' death. But while you may not get the exact same parables or lineage in every gospel, the fundamental message is very much the same.

Pp, since your mother learned Greek in order to understand the gospel, curious, what does it say about homosexuality?

I'll have to ask her specifically about this. We have talked about homosexuality in the NT in general, though, but the conversations (maybe 2 or 3 conversations) have always been about Paul and how she interprets him. She has another point, something additional to what I always tell people about Paul being pastoral, and it was an additional reason for my mom to disregard Paul on the subject of homosexuality, but unfortunately I've forgotten what it was.

Anyway, I suspect that if even the folks putting together the King James version in the 1600s didn't translate any sayings from Jesus on homosexuality, then such sayings probably don't exist in the gospels.

[Anonymous]

Are the gospels the earliest known scriptures? Forgive my ignorance. Not Christian. I just find it strange that Christianity would permit homosexuality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are the gospels the earliest known scriptures? Forgive my ignorance. Not Christian. I just find it strange that Christianity would permit homosexuality.

Why? I find it strange that you would assume it would not "permit" it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the gospels the earliest known scriptures? Forgive my ignorance. Not Christian. I just find it strange that Christianity would permit homosexuality.

Why? I find it strange that you would assume it would not "permit" it.

the letters of Paul precede the earlier Gospel (Mark) by about 30 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the gospels the earliest known scriptures? Forgive my ignorance. Not Christian. I just find it strange that Christianity would permit homosexuality.

Why? I find it strange that you would assume it would not "permit" it.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Jewish with many Christian, Muslim and Hindu friends and colleagues.

[Anonymous]

Age old theme. Sexual immorality is a sin throughout the bible. Anything sexual outside of marriage is a sin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

About reading the gospels literally, this reminds me of the pro-establishing English as the national language fundamentalist Christians saying that if English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for us.

Anyone who read the gospels literally in English hasn't even the barest acquaintance with the history of the religion. They are hard to read literally in Greek because the meaning of phrases so many years later is not always clear, the gospels contradict one another (medieval theologians made extensive catalogues of the contradictions), and they were set down by numerous authors years after the fact.

Also, those who read it literally seem to think Jesus was and spoke as a lawyer, which he decidedly wasn't. Hard to think that someone who taught in parables wished his words to be taken literally.

It's not that bad, really. My mother (yes, my mother!) learned koine Greek to read the gospels and she found nothing very earth-shaking. It's true there are some differences among the four gospels as to what Jesus said or did, which is undoubtedly due to the nature of these witness accounts that were recorded after Jesus' death. But while you may not get the exact same parables or lineage in every gospel, the fundamental message is very much the same.

My point exactly--the message is generally the same in all the gospels but not the literal words. Reading the gospels literally actually promotes missing the larger message.

[Anonymous]

Haven't read all 5 pages. Just wanted to chime in and say I'm Catholic and have several close Muslim friends (as well as Jewish, Hindi, Buddhist and atheist friends).