It was too much to hope the 2008 presidential race could give dirty tricks a rest. The New Hampshire attorney general is looking into “push polling†phone calls that negatively portray Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. Romney was right to characterize the calls as a religious attack and “un-American.†For his part, John McCain, who is mentioned favorably in the phone calls, called them “disgraceful†and “outrageous.†The calls are coming from Utah-based Western Wats, but their sponsor remains a mystery. Why can’t candidates’ supporters stick to the issues?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
175 Comments
Rhonda,
I am not sure about all the questions asked, but the ones about his faith don’t seem like “attacks” to me.
Lets look:
“that Romney’s faith did not accept blacks as bishops into the 1970s”
This is true. In 1978 the President of the church had a “revelation” that blacks could serve.
I believe some had served much earlier, but through “revelation” the President in the 40’s said they could not.
“and that Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is superior to the Bible.”
This one can be tricky. Superior probably isn’t the word I would use, but the Book of Mormon is held in great regard and does contradict the Bible.
These types of things are important to voters like myself.
Not the key issue in my opinion, but there are others who do value the faith of a candidate and do consider it to be an issue.
I wouldn’t expect you to understand Rhonda.
Just mentioning the FSM Nathan gets in a tirade about the Eagle being anti-Christian. However when it comes to attacking Romney for being a Mormon that is considered acceptable.
Now I wonder if I can look into any church history and pull out some atrocities. Yeah…I’m thinking I can. Reap what you sow bible thumpers (in case any Christians are confused by that it’s a reference to a bible verse which Christians have a habit of not reading).
Doug,
I believe my so called “tirade” consisted of one short sentence which said:
“Just another day of the WE Blogs biased views on Christianity.”
You appear to be very good at completely mis-characterizing what I said.
Who would most benefit from anti-Mormon propaganda?
Probably that good Baptist Huchabee.
“”"that Romney’s faith did not accept blacks as bishops into the 1970s”
This is true. In 1978 the President of the church had a “revelation” that blacks could serve. “”"
Well they at least beat the Southern Baptist who only a few years ago apologized for their wholesale and total support for chattel slavery.
I don’t like Mitt Romney or any of the Republicans and I love seeing them battle each other over whos God is the better God. You notice the Democrats don’t make an issue of it. I cannot even tell you which church any of our candidates belong to. How a man worships is between that man and his God. This stuff about Romney’s religion is stupid. Only stupid little brained Republicans worry about such things.
Given Karl Rove’s success at manipulating people of “faith” into, practically, coronating George W. Bush, I say a candidate’s religion is necessarily a thing to be questioned. 25% of Americans will forever believe God Himself whispered in Bush’s ear telling him to ivade Iraq. Really? Did he? God said, “Spend the next ___ (insert number of years this war is going to go on here) years waging a “liberation” of the Iraqi people that will result in 100,000 war-related deaths for them each year.”
Doesn’t it beg the question of what these believers’ God is like? And whether or not we want someone who thinks saying “Oh, God told me to.” is really holy, and justifies hundreds of thousands of lives lost and trillions of dollars wasted?
I mean, why didn’t someone ask. “Well, if God was going to whisper in his ear, why didn’t He share the cure for cancer and save hundreds of thousands of lives?”
I’m sorry, but some peoples’ gods are just evil, and the American people need to know this so that we don’t put those people into elected office.
It is rather interesting that it took until the year 1978 for Mormonism to recognize African-Americans as fully human. It is also, of course, disconcerting that the Bible could speak of slavery with blithe acceptance. And that it took Abraham Lincoln’s leadership to abolish this bestiality. Why, as well, was it not until the 21st century that the Pope in his infinite wisdom finally decided to allow altar girls to serve at Mass? Why did Martin Luther utter this delightful slice of gender equality: “If a woman grows weary from childbearing, let her die then. It is only her duty.” Why did the perceived “Holy Spirit” fail to infuse these learned souls?
I’m as perplexed as I’ve always been.
I don’t hold Romney accountable for the idiocies of any faith – either his or my own former Church. He may indeed be a very good person – much as the Osmonds are such wonderful people who command my respect and regard.
Then again, I can’t vote for him – I’m a Democrat. But I find the current smear campaign against him rather repugnant. If you don’t want someone to be President – don’t vote for him/her. It’s that simple.
Unlike much of the Bible and/or The Book of Mormon…….
Thanks, Nathan, for exposing the depths of your hypocrisy. Again.
*I*, the heathen atheist apostate, found those attacks disgusting. They had nothing to do with anything Romney had said or done, or anything he professed to believe.
Am I bothered by some of the odder aspects of Mormon history? Uh, yeah. I’m bothered by a good portion of Christianity’s history, right up until the present day. That doesn’t make me excuse “push polls,” fake deception devices wherein the “questions” are really propaganda for a particular point of view.
THAT’S DIGUSTING. No matter WHAT the point of view is, no matter what is being propagandized. Even if you don’t object to the inquiry, surely you can grasp (can you??), that the purpose of the question is NOT to gain statistical information, but rather to implant a particular bias in the mind of the questioned.
Maybe not: Global warming is all propaganda from Al Gore, right? (ahem: hundreds of peer-reviewed studies), the same with evolution (ahem: tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies). Nope: Doesn’t matter. Post-modernism rules, even if you have no clue what that means: truth is socially constructed. Ideology determines what is correct. And I LOVE Big Brother.
I welcome the fact that you and your dad are people of “good cheer.” I would share a burger with you, again. I would bring the beef, and the buns. I would gladly buy you a beer (if you ever drink).
But I will judge Mitt Romney not by his religion, but on who he is, and what he says, and what he does, just as I judged Jimmy Carter (Baptist), Ronald Reagan (who-the-hell-knows), George H.W. (Presbetyrian?), Bill Clinton (another Baptist!), and George W. (who-the-hell-CARES!?).
I’ve never liked religious bigotry. The reasons should be ridiculously obvious, at least to anyone who’s familiar with my comments here, and has open eyes.
Wow isn’t it interesting the ‘oh persecuted Christians’ Nathan now thinks this isn’t just as nasty as it can be. Well, it would be if his brand of Christianity was attacked, but we’re not supposed to talk about that I guess.
The only part of a candidate’s religion I worry about is if they plan to instill those beliefs on the rest of us. All of the candidates are religious, the difference is whether or not they believe in a separation of church and state. You could believe in anything and i wouldn’t care as long as you kept that straight.
Romney’s Mormon faith is a part of him. A big part. It is relevant, and a real issue if he wants to be president.
I don’t understand the attitude against Romney.
He was elected Governor in one of the most Liberal States in the Union, after all.
I have a “Terry Foxian” co-worker who tells me that neither Mormons not Catholics are ‘real’ Christians.
That’s sort of funny – I don’t know that I consider Terry Foxians to be real Christians …
“Anti-Mormon polling is disgusting”
I agree with that. Romney is accomplished, untouched by scandal, and a great family man. Right down the line, his views are down the line conservative. And yet we get people, primarily of my own faith and political orientation, engaging in religious bigotry.
If you are going to attack someone, do it on their record. Don’t reduce yourself to appealing to people’s base prejudices.
Well said outie —–
Don’t reduce yourself to appealing to people’s base prejudices.
Oh would that some Christians would hear you outalnder.
I don’t dislike Romney because he is a Mormon. I could not care less that he is a Mormon. I dislike him because he is a walking talking Ken doll Republican.
Shoot. Where would conservative Republican politics of the last 30 years be without “appealing to people’s base prejudices?” It’s the mother’s milk of reactionaries.
Let us not forget that the Baptists only recently, in the last ten years, considered allowing women to serve be ordained. The catholics still don’t.
As for the Book of Mormon being “more important” than the Bible, the Christians believe the New testament is more important than the old testament. Both Mormon and Christians do the same thing, use the original work to support the new work and ignore the inconvienient bits.
First the RepubliCONs do it to each other (cf., Bush’s attacks against McCain in 2000), then they do it to Dems (cf., Swift-boat lies).
This is not only how they win, it’s the only way they can win.
I don’t understand how conservative Christians can even consider supporting Romney. He’s a Mormon. Mormons aren’t Christians in the true sense.
These people wear magic underwear, for Crist sake!Mormon is nothing more than a screwball cult.
Magic underwear?
Ok I GOTTA know more about this!
What religious group was the only one to ever declare war on the United States?
Nope, it wasn’t the Baptists.
If you’re interested in the Mormon faith, its history, and places where it has gone a little wrong, read Jon Krakauer’s _Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith_. The Latter Day Saints did everything in their power to supress this story – read it and you will understand why. The book has been favorably compared to _In Cold Blood_. It is definitely not for those with a weak stomach. And, certainly not all mormons are like those portrayed in the book – but the origins of the faith alone is quite interesting.
Steven,
I’ve just finished reading Krakauer’s Under the Banner of Heaven. Your description is accurate. I was planning to send you the book as an attempt to repay you for the book you sent me. What book do you have your eye on next?
You know, I don’t even know what the religious preference of the many other candidates, from both parties are. No press announcements?
Hillary? I don’t know.
That’s how it should be.
This entire issue is MEDIA produces. It serves only one party.
This entire issue is MEDIA produced. It serves only one party – the newspaper/media advertising party.
No, “American Way” –
It typical Republic Party dirty politics. Like Karl Rove push-polling South Carolina in 2000 claiming John McCain had an ilegitimate black child. Like Lee Atwater push-polling on behalf of George HW Bush in 1988. Like Richard Nixon’s dirty tricks.
AmWay – I don’t think it was the media doing the push polls in New Hampshire.
It is the media which keeps this issue alive.
It is a dead issue, I would think, for most Americans.
I want to hear what the candidates will do about the issues confronting America – not their religious preference.
Religion means nothing. Are we still hearing about Obama’s?????
AmWay – the story was actually about the push-polling. Just like the one about the supposed dirt Hillary supposedly has on Obama – a story being pushed by the GOP’s Robert Novak.
Hey Linda,
Interesting. I was thinking about you when I wrote the above post. What was so deeply troubling to me was that the perps in the Krakauer book were not crazy people, but they did unbelievably crazy-vicious things to other people.
I believe why I was thinking about you in connection to that book, is I recall you commenting on how religion allows people to do fanatical things – this book was a troubling example of that.
Not long ago, the cops finally busted Warren Jeffs. They found him in Las Vegas. It is interesting to me how one can get by with crimes and all sorts of things in present-day parts of the mountain-west.
I don’t have a book in mind right now. Email me if there is anything you are looking for. I may have a copy I’m done with.
I can strongly recommend “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” about how multinationals screw the populace to get what they want from gov’t, any gov’t.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251
John Perkins describes himself as a former economic hit man – a highly paid professional who cheated countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars.
20 years ago Perkins began writing a book with the working title, “Conscience of an Economic Hit Men.”
Perkins writes, “The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been his clients whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits – Jaime Roldós, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Roldós and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in.
John Perkins goes on to write: “I was persuaded to stop writing that book. I started it four more times during the next twenty years. On each occasion, my decision to begin again was influenced by current world events: the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1980, the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the rise of Osama bin Laden. However, threats or bribes always convinced me to stop.”
But now Perkins has finally published his story. The book is titled Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
Transcript of an interview follows.
Say it ain’t so: the candidate who appears have the closest ties to the firm that carried out the anti-Mormon push-polls in New Hampshire appears to be…Mitt Romney.
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1045910
The fact that his campaign is calling the accusations “paranoid delusions” definitely trips the ‘methinks thou doth protest too much’ switch.
Guess Romney thought that being able to play the victim of anti-Mormonism would be one way to take the sting out of anti-Mormon sentiment on the Republican Right. Would have worked great if it had worked.
Kind of puts the whole “Hillary planted a shill question in the audience” thing to shame, don’t you think? It also says a lot about Romney’s “character.”
Hmmm . . . curious.
And if Mitt is “furiously denying” the charges, just imagine what it’s going to do to his campaign if it turns out to be true.
Yes, Steven, it seems down through the ages that religious intolerance has been a vehicle for hate, the kind of hate needed to kill in the name of your god. Takes a mighty bunch of intolerance to work up that kind of hate, don’t you think? The kinda religious intolerance hinted at here in this thread whereby people think their beliefs are superior to others.
I sure can relate to that, Linda!!
“Hmmm . . . curious.
And if Mitt is “furiously denying” the charges, just imagine what it’s going to do to his campaign if it turns out to be true.”
Posted by: CapnAmerica | November 20, 2007 at 12:16 PM
$$$ can keep a tongue still. Mitt has plenty of that.
Like Romney would expect a backlash Mormon sympathy vote. East is west.
Politics may be interesting, but in practice, sucks as a field of human endeavor.
The charges made in the push-poll calls are chapter-and-verse of evangelical “Christian” rhetoric against Mormons.
Pat Robertson, who (astoundingly) supports Rudy Giuliani, most certainly has the connections and inclination to gin up such an underhanded campaign tactic. Mike Huckabee, the evangelical Baptist, probably most benefits from erosion of the Religious Right from Romney’s backers. John McCain lost his 2000 presidential when he was targets by scurlous push-polling; and McCain has been running in this primary more and more like George WMD Bush did in that 2000 primary race.
It all comes down to just how sinister Republic Party politics can get. Democrats squabble, but are rank amateurs when it comes to Republic Party dirty tricks.
Very true MH – but the Republican operatives are sure happy to help the Democrats ’squabble’ by planting their own stories:
“Syndicated columnist Robert Novak is standing by his unsourced reporting … “
For those who asked before:
George H. W. Bush = Episcopalian
Reagan = Disciples of Christ
Huckabee = Southern Baptist
McCain = Just converted toSouthern Baptist
Clinton, Bill = Former Southern
Baptist – Now AME
Clinton, Hillary = Always been a
United Methodist
Romney = Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter Day Saints
Richardson = Unknown
Obama = United Church of Christ
oh myof course we are very surprised that politicians are scum of the earth.
hasn’t rove and bush taught you anything?of course not since you still buy into the pr they shove down your throat.
did you know that “mitt” fathered a black child…ohwaitthat’s the script for the south.
Let me say, that I don’t agree with the tactic of push polling either.
My point to begin with was that, simply because the tactic is wrong doesn’t mean you can get away with mischaracterizing some of the questions asked and then make a point about how it shouldn’t matter.
My point is that these things are important to some voters and are issues. Doesn’t mean I agree with the tactics used though.
who’s – you phrased it wrong. It’s “if you knew that … ?” That way you cannot be accused of actually saying anything and can claim it was only a hypothetical.
Linda,
I don’t think it is about being superior than others faiths.
There can only be one truth.
Either Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation or he is not.
Christians believe He is.
“Chas.” –
Wait a minute! According to the Faux Noise Channel, Barak Obama is a Manchurian Candidate Muslim.
So typical of the so-called “religious right.” They’re wrong. And not all that religious.
Obama = United Church of Christ
Posted by: Chas. | November 20, 2007 at 01:05 PM
Great, from the Phony Religious Blog Expert….
“Nathan” –
You’re getting really close to “the end justifies the means” kind of thinking.
Perhaps you should step back a moment and think that over.
“Either Jesus is the only way to salvation or He’s not?” you say.
So is it possible Jesus is *not* the *only* way? That there just might be another way to be “saved?” (And saved for what?)
Believe in what works for you, “Nathan,” and knock yourself out trying to persuade others that *your* faith is the one true faith; that your god is the one true *God!*
The more I learn about that Jesus guy, I think he was a pretty cool dude. But the more I know about that Jesus guy, the more I think he’d be angry at people who resort to lies and manipulation to win political power.
This man — Emanu-El (God With Us) — subjected himself to the worst possible injustice of earthly government because he believed there was something more important… the Kingdom of Heaven.
Sorry, “Nathan,” but I see way more evidence of so-called “christians” who seem way more concerned about earthly things. I suspect Jesus might see that, too, and be thoroughly disgusted with a lot of folks who claim to speak for Him.
Are you, “Nathan,” of a mind to turn the other cheek? Do you love your enemy as yourself? Do you render under Caesar that which is Caesar and render unto God that which is God’s?” (Without bitching about taxes, I mean.)
What Would Jesus Push-Poll?
Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, in Chicago, IL… Pastor – Jeremiah Wright.
Now, I supppose all you Right wingers will mke fun of it!! Obama has NEVER been a Muslim!!
His mother is from Kansas!!
Under that same heading, what about the peoples of the Americas (north and south) that had no way of knowing of Jesus? We had this conversation before, but never really answered this question.
Sol – Dont ask the Mormons that question… They have an answer…
Sol — not to mention all of the island nations, and those in the outer reaches of Mongolia, and China, etc., etc., etc. That question has never really been answered by anybody of the evangelistic persuasion…
Or the people who lived Pre JesusHow did Enoch get into heaven?
Certainly that person wouldn’t be Chas.
I believe in Christ and that He died for my sins. I just don’t believe that Jesus is the only true salvation. There are still communities untouched by the modern world. Who still have no way of knowing Christ.
By the current mantra, they are doomed to hell because of where they were born.
Money Hawk:I think you blew a gasket on Nathan! He now admits that there may be another god and another way to be saved!!!!
Nathan has doubt about Jesus being the one true god.
He better get down on his knees and pray that God was not reading the WE blog today.
“Poster Boy” –
Saved for *what?*
Money Hawk:I think you blew a gasket on Nathan! He now admits that there may be another god and another way to be saved!!!!
Posted by: Poster Boy | November 20, 2007 at 01:58 PM
Nathan has doubt about Jesus being the one true god.
He better get down on his knees and pray that God was not reading the WE blog today.
Posted by: Poster Boy | November 20, 2007 at 02:00 PM
******************************
Where are y’all getting this? I haven’t heard (seen) Nathan sway…
MoneyHawk:”Jesus Saves” I know I have seen that on more than one bumper. Perhaps he saves souls from the devil. Or Islam, or whatever.
Who knows?
Wishfull thinking
Moses Invests!
Judas Spends!
This thread states (Rhonda) that the person/organization/cadidate behind the “push poll” calls is unknown. Several credible news organizations – including CNN (for lefties) and Fox (for righties) have reported that the company responsible for the calls is currently working on projects in New Hampshire for Guiliani.
It will be interesting see who is behind the calls – but credible evidence based upon campaign expenditures currently looks as if Rudy is behind the nastiness.
My problem with Mormonism and is the same beef I have with several of the candidates – their religious affiliation(s) discriminate against populations of the American public – women – minorities – and else. For a candiate to receive my support they will need keep their religious biases out of the Oval Office, and I am not convinced that the majority of the leading candidates will keep their religous based discrimination under wraps.
Okay – believe in God, Allah, the FSM, or the Giant Pumpkin, but bias and discrimiation however it is justified is never justified – for me.
Obligatory:Jesus saves, passes to Moses, Moses shoots. . .scores!
Lonnie – I recall religion being raised in two prior campaigns. 1960 against JFK – “Not a real Christian” and “No Pope Here”
Then, ironically, with Jimmy Carter. It was some on the left concerned that a born-again Christian would get into shoving his faith down our throats. The infamous Playboy interview addressed that with his “I have lusted after women in my heart” comment. Basically he said he was a sinner and had no right to judge others.
With whatever flaws he might have (far too much the micro-manager IMO) Carter was the most Christian of any president in my lifetime IMO.
Ben, tell us about the old days. Did you really meet Lincoln and Grant? :)
No, the trip would have been too far. besides, I was on the other side.
Kansas, I dont believe Ben was born yet when Lincoln and Grant were presidents… He did say HIS lifetime!!
Four half-a-score and 7 years ago during the Kennedy campaign our country was in the early years of the religious influence in Presidential Politicking and Presidential Campaigns. An interesting article about modern day implications (which invokes the name of Kansas) can be found at http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/nicolaus_mills/2007/11/one_electorate_under_god.html
Sadly the manipulation of the Gods in politics is here to stay – me thinks.
“”"I believe in Christ and that He died for my sins. I just don’t believe that Jesus is the only true salvation. There are still communities untouched by the modern world. Who still have no way of knowing Christ.
By the current mantra, they are doomed to hell because of where they were born.”"”
If you are a CHRISTIAN as I am then JESUS CHRIST is OUR only salvation. You absolutely must believe in him and salvation through him. But if you are not a Christian, you should believe in your God- whichever God that might be. It might be Allah or Buddah or the Dolly Llama. But while I am a Christian and I have choosen that road to Heaven, I would never say that you God and the route you have chosen is in any way inferior to mine.
“”"Shoot. Where would conservative Republican politics of the last 30 years be without “appealing to people’s base prejudices?” It’s the mother’s milk of reactionaries.”"”
Yep. You are so right. Let’s see, the Republicans bashed blacks in the 80s (Reagan’s famous “states rights” speech in Neshoba Mississippi), the bashed homos in the 90s and now they are bashing Mexicans and Mormons! The Republicans always need a whuppin boy.
“If you are a CHRISTIAN as I am then JESUS CHRIST is OUR only salvation. You absolutely must believe in him and salvation through him. But if you are not a Christian, you should believe in your God- whichever God that might be. It might be Allah or Buddah or the Dolly Llama. But while I am a Christian and I have choosen that road to Heaven, I would never say that you God and the route you have chosen is in any way inferior to mine.
Posted by: Kev”______
Kev,
I’m loathe to jump in here, but that last post-modern rationale was self-contradicting. You absolutely must believe in Jesus… but only if you’re a Christian? How does one get to be a Christian? Are there geo-political lines that God uses to determine the method of salvation? Based on what? Region? Ehtinicity? Race? If I move to another culture and adopt it as my own, does the method of salvation change?
The Christian God claims Himself to be superior to all “gods.” He refers to them as idols, and no gods at all. Jesus said of Himself that He is the only way to the Father. The language in greek is strikingly clear and exclusive. To claim you follow Christ, who exerts his own superiority and exclusivity, and then to say any other way someone may choose is fine, is incompatible.
I noticed you used an interesting wording, too. You said, “I have chosen that road to heaven…” From a Christian standpoint, God chose the only way for morally decadent people to come to him. He wasn’t obligated to do anything. But He designated Jesus as the way. You didn’t choose the way; He determined it. When you encounter Jesus in the reality of who He is, you will then know the reality of His claims.
I don’t know…
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me….”
That always struck me as…defensive.
SUGGESTIVE that God is defending his turf against other gods? Why even mention them if he’s the only game in town?
Good point J R — The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is a “jealous” God — a term used many times in the Old Testament..
“no other gods before me” read: “no other gods higher/more important than me…” Even that ancient O. T. God recognizes there are other gods in the lives of other humans… But for that God’s Chosen people, HE is their God, they shall have no other!!
Jesus says “no one comes to the Father but by me” Translation from Koine Greek: No one comes to know about the Father, except through my teaching.” IOW, there may be other gods, and other religions, but THIS GOD, THIS FATHER, I have the way(knowledge/teaching)”
The Koine Greek is quite subtle in its choice of words, and somewhat difficult to grasp the underlying meanings, since the language itself is of “non-hebrew” and “non-biblical” origins.. Koine Greek comes out of the cluture of multiple deities. It is the language of the Empire.
Bottom line?? If you are a follower of Jesus, follow his ways to God… Dont try to mix and match with others… Paul said it fairly well, when he instructed people that once they were people led by idols… But now they were led by the Spirit of Christ. No longer should they offer sacrifices at the temples of their former deities.
The Apostle Paul says (I Cor. 5) that his judgment of others OUTSIDE the church is beyond his limits.. His judgments stop at the boundaries of the Church.
That statement has long been a problem of Christianity since the beginnings. And it is still a major problem in the present day.
The Church continually seeks to pass judgment on those outside the Church, as if they are those inside the Church.
The Church today needs to go back and read Paul’s words once again..And see clearly that Paul is instructing the early believers that the rest of the world is in God’s Hands… and not the job of the Church to pass judgment on others.
If the Church would only do that, many of the petty disputes between churches and others would simply go away! And the churches would also stop trying to run the legislative and judicial branches of government, and stay within their own ranks.
Chas – good point. Perhaps that was Jimmy Carter’s point that he had no right to judge others.
I found out the roots of my religious apathy/open mindedness!
I had an ancestor who was a Quaker! I didn’t know a thing about them. Cool folks.
Chas.,
Your interpretation of the Greek translation from John 14:6 is unique. The definite article “the” preceding way, truth and life is *not* subtle at all. The phrase you mixed in, “know about the Father” is interpretation, not translation. The unusual language structure (in Greek) at the beginning of the sentence that translates into English as “I am…” is deliberately worded in such a way as to identify Himself as the same God — “I AM”– of the Old Testament. The passage is neither difficult nor subtle, and is a first semester Greek assignment. The adoption of German higher criticism in approaching Scripture leads one to question, blur and obfuscate even the plainest of passages. You have tried to do so here. If you want to “interpret” the passage to fit your paradym, call it that. But don’t use words that imply you’ve accuarately translated something, when, apparently, you’re unskilled with the language.
As far as your reference to the First Commandment and supposition that God was competing with other gods, surely you have read that God declares any object of worship other than Himself is *not* a god–that is, a FALSE god. A concoction of one’s corrupt imagination. They are lifeless idols. You can’t take a serious look at the Old Testament without coming to that conclusion. Unless, of course, you simply pick and choose what you want to “believe.”
Jesus’ words will endure far beyond yours. He clearly says of Himself: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” Those are the words everyone must deal with.
Ben — That was certainly a large part of Carter’s belief system… I am not sure how large, but it certainly was part of his thinking!
David, I wil not bore you with the number of years I studied Koine Greek, or the semesters that I have taught beginning NT Greek… However, I am NOT interpreting anything… merely inserting the proper greek translation(which includes the thought behind the word — call it German higher critical method of you want) But it is part of the translation… The “Eigo Eimi” sayings of Jesus (The I Am) sayings do in fact relate to the I AM references in the OT…
With that in mind, Jesus can be read as saying “GOD(the I AM) is the way, the truth and the life”
Jesus “personalizes” the I AM, by calling GOD “father” (abba).
Thus, GOD is the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to GOD but as a child to a father…
Try that one on once… I think you will see how Jesus was considered a blasphemer by the Pharisees, and the literalistic interpretations.
BTW, the word “abba” is sort of a word we might use, like “papa” or “daddy” a very informal approach to “father”
Chas.,
Yikes! Chas! Are deliberately misrepresenting Paul, or doing so out of ignorance? Paul DID require repentance of everyone–all people–as did Jesus (Matthew 4:17). Paul’s judgement of the behavior of the Church stopped with God’s people, since God Himself will judge others. But that did not preclude calling people to turn from sin and turn to Christ. Consider:
“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone–an image made by man’s design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man [Jesus] he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”Acts 17:29-31
Ummm David — Your reference to Acts… A very STRONG reference by Paul, to a group of Greek philosophes on Mars Hill, of the importance of the “man” Jesus in judgment of the “world” since HE was raised from the dead… HE had been beyond, and back.. Therefore, his resurrection gives him the power to judge both the living and the dead.
Too deep fer me. The Quaker in me says let you all who spend so much time on this stuff sort it out.
Just don’t leave Fred Phelps in charge of anything.
And DO find out who is behind the push polling.
ALSO, this is an answer to the Greek question of why these new “christians” had no “god” of stone, or precious metal, to whom to make offering… That was a major issue to many of the Greek ideas of that time…
J R — as to the push polling, my suggestion is to “follow the money” — Find out who is paying for it, and you might find out who is behind it… My hunch is it isnt coming from any of the candidates themselves (not directly)
David – you sy He said “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.”
I seriously doubt it. To the best of my knowledge He did not speak modern American English.
So, we must rely upon translations.
I have many Muslim friends and have learned frm them that they must learn Arabic in ordr to read their Holy Book. I am allowed to read an English translation but I would not be able to claim that I am truly reading their scripture. In our case, however, we do not read our scripture in the Aramaic, Hebrew or other languages in which the various Books were written.
Chas.,
I note that you carefully did not deal with, “now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” You seem to strongly imply in your 8:25 post that Christians are not to say anything to “the world,” that could be construed as a judgment. In fact, if Christians are to call the world to repent, some judgment is necessary. Christians must judge what needs to be repented of (if you’ll pardon the dangling preposition). The “don’t judge me” defense, I think, rightly has a sense of “don’t de-value me as one made in God’s image” aspect to it. In other words, “Don’t think you’re better than me, or I’m worse than you.” To that degree, Christians are not to judge, realizing that ALL are sinners. But yes, discerning good from evil, and calling all people toward the one and away from the other is the clear assignment of Christ-followers. He, himself, commissioned his followers to “reproduce” by teaching others to follow his ways, which are holy. That requires judgment.
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment”John 7:24″But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.”1 Corinthians 2:15
“I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say” (1 Corinthians 10:15).
“For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God:. . .”1 Peter 4:17
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather REPROVE them.” Ephesians 5:11
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not YE JUDGE them that are within?13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?2 Do ye not know that the saints SHALL JUDGE the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?3 Know ye not that WE SHALL JUDGE angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?(1 Corinthians 5:12 – 6:3)The Bible CLEARLY, over and over commands the Christian to “judge” or “determine” what is right and wrong – with the light of the word of God. God gave us a book – the word of God – and we are to JUDGE anything and everything by the word of God –
Chas where does this give the world a pass on judgement? And which part of the giving of the 10 Commandments to Moses did you miss. Were not the children of Israel making a calf of gold when Moses desended from the mount? this went against the 1st commandment and hence the smashing of the tablets.
What in your Greek education changed these facts?
I’ll ask Chas or anyone who cares to answer an honest question.
Conservatively, what is the least number of times the Bible or portions of it have been translated through other languages? I don’t know. I’m guessing at least 3? Yiddish/Arameic/King GeorgeVEnglish.
I’d appreciate thoughtful answers only. It is honestly asked.
Ben,
Your comments of “doubting” what Jesus said are spurious, since you have no skill in the language. Your supposition is odd, that, since you don’t know Greek, you don’t believe anyone else’s translation. Perhaps your doubt of what Jesus said could be put to rest if you learned the language. But I’m not sure that you would believe what you read, be it in Greek, Aramaic, English or Pig Latin, because you don’t desire to believe that Jesus DID make those claims of Himself.
J R and Ben some good reading for your enlightenment would be Josh McDowells “Evidence that demands a verdict”. JR had a deal that if I would see ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ he would read it. I did he didn’t.
This man, an atheist, was writing a thesis for his masters and chose as his topic proving that Christianity is a hoax. He failed to do that and through his research became a Christian himself.
Just a challenge for inquiring minds.
David – so you are a mind-reader too! AMAZING!
Over the years I have studied both Old and New Testaments. What I have learned – from many people including Priests, Ministers and Rabbis – is that there are signifiant differences of opinion about the translations.
So, when I read your false words, I am reminded of another comment attributed to Christ – warning us about false teachers.
ksgrm – interesting – I’ll have o look at it. Some other books have been mentioned here – it would be fun if there were a convenient way for us to have some sort of book exchange – our own library of sorts. Althhough I read much less than I used to (not counting all that garage I HAVE to read) I still enjoy reading provocative books.
A funny – sort of. The other thread …
Is reading in decline? Yes, but do not panic
typo – GARBAGE I have to read …
Why do I get the feeling I am becoming illiterate?
;^)
I’m not buying it ksgrm. The book I mean. If the library ever has it, I’ll look at it.
The skeptic in me says calling yourself an atheist who has seen “the light” is a good way to sell books.
Ben the way he has looked at the book of Isiah and the things that were to happen in the future. And tied that to the New Testament. It will make you think.
I am currently reading a series of books on the Amish. Their non-aggression even when attacked interests me. I was interested in a background that brought them to this action in todays world. I became curious when the school children in the Amish school were killed not too long ago. It is fascinating in many ways.
A good book club would be great.
g’night all. Fighting off “WGA” – whats going around. Later.
Ben I never miss a John Grisham, David Baldacci, Patricia Cornwell, James Patterson – but they don’t write enough books so I have to branch out and read something to improve my mind ocassionally.
JR it is in the library. Read it with an open mind. Not saying he will change your mind but it will make you think that you might have missed something.
Ben,
Your ad hominem fallacy of me being a false teacher still does not deal with sentence structure in Greek, which I outlined in the post to Chas. Words have meaning, and are not open to biased interpretation in translation. These particular words were written, not in a post-modern context, but in a time when everyone was essentially working from the same Greek dictionary, which is still extant for the most part. If you’ve studied, point out the error of the translation. Your mere distaste of a translation doesn’t invalidate it, neither does your “opinion,” which, by your own admission, is derived from asking others their opinions. Aren’t you in academia? You should know better than that. Words cannot be made to mean other that what they are, and my original statement stands: Jesus clearly says of Himself: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” The translation is straigh-forward, and those are the words everyone must deal with, as they are. I’m not a false teacher at all. But I am an accurate translator.
Since you know so much why didn’t you answer my honest question there David?
Why pick on Ben who SAID he was leaving?
And don’t sharpen your darts for me. I just asked a question.
??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? Chas
Ancay ouyay sweranyay ymay estionquay ansasKay?
babelfish
????? ? ??????, ? ??????? ??? ? ???. ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??
Go fish!
Omnibus maximus pluribus whensthenextbus? Canyouaskgus?
OK here is Paul’s statement — if it contradicts other statements, deal with it..
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate withimmoral men; not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, sinvce then you w9ouold need to go out of the world. But rather I wrote(or now write) to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, revile, drunkard, or robber – not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whomyou are tojudge? God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”[I Cor. 5:9-13]
Now, go pick that one apart, if you want. If it contradicts other sections of Paul’s letters, so be it… Just another of the issues of bible interpretation… These words above are clear as crystal!
The Church judges the CHURCH — Let the rest of the world in God’s hands. BTW, that one reference to judging angels, etc., is an eschatological statement.. not one for current times.
Daavid, the translation you refer to is correct… as far as it goes… the Ego Eime (I AM) statement is a reference back to the OT I AM for the name of GOD..
So, translate what it REALLY says, and not just words. Because to not translate what it MEANS (idiomatic phrase) is to mis translate it!! You may have the translation down pat, but you are missing the boat on knowing or identifying the idiomatic phrases in the Gospel of John… You might want to go look it up, if you want to question what I am saying…
That was a cute try Kansas… But, Koine Greek doesnt have the same structure as English… ALSO, Koine Greek doesnt use Capital letters, or punctuation.
But, like I say, nice try!!
JR.,
I’m not sure how to answer your question, as it’s a bit broad. If you could define it better…
The Scriptures have been translated into many languages over the centuries. If you’re referring strictly to Engligh translations, I’m not sure how many translations there are at this point. The Twentieth Century brought a myriad of translations, many of them not needed. I’m guessing there are at least 12 or 15 new English translations over the past 50 years. The motivation for doing them has been at times, I fear, less than noble. Publishers make money by publishing books. While Bible translations are initially costly, publishers stand to do very well with their modern copyrighted translations over the long haul. Thus the recent surge of translations, and thus my comment that most have not been needed.
I’ll anticipate someone’s response, perhaps, by answering the question, “If a translation is accurate, why do we need to keep re-translating it?” If the current one is good, is a new one better or worse? It’s a valid question, and has at least three dimensions beyond the profit motive mentioned above.
1. Greek and Hebrew are “dead” languages, and do not change. Those words have always meant what they mean. They are not “evolving,” if you will. English (and most Western languages) is dynamic and has a constantly expanding and changing dictionary. New translations are occasionally necessary to update the language for contemporary readers.
2. “New” ancient texts are discovered, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, that bring added accuracy to extant translations. This is more of a theoretical motivation, since newly discovered ancient manuscripts continue to reinforce the accuracy of translations we already have.
3. New perspectives and paradyms crop up and run afoul of historic and accepted translations. It then becomes necessary to “re-interpret” some or all of the Scripture in order to fit the latest rage. I alluded to that in my initial post to Chas. I contend that prior to the 20th Century, the passage we were discussing in John 14 was simple and crystal clear. German higher criticism of the late 19th Century made what had been clear and accepted for almost 1,900 years cloudy and “difficult” to translate. This is an ignoble motive for translation.
NOW, to attempt to answer J R’s question —
There are the OT translations… the Masoretic Hebrew texts; the Septuagint OT (Hellenist Greek OT); There are numerous extant manuscripts in bits and pieces of NT letters, and gospels…
There is NO complete NT in Koine Greek, from beginning to end.
There came to be one text that was accepted — The Textus Receptus…
And later, there was the Vulgate (Latin Bible) — From the Vulgate, we get the Wycliffe Bible, of the 10th Century British;And we get the Guttenburg Bible (Luther’s translation into German from Hebrew, Latin and Greek – 16th Century) —
Then there was the King James Version (ordered by King James VI of England) for ordered readings in the Church of England.
There were a couple of later translations in German following Luther’s Guttenberg Bible…
After the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, came the Revised Standard Version, in 1952, IIRC…
After that came the Good News Bible, or TEV; There was another one that was a paraphrase, that was sold a LOT as a popular reading Bible, but it wasnt a translation, rather a paraphrase of the King James. There is the NIV, NAS, the Douey(Catholic), the Jerusalem Bible(Catholic Translators); and now there is the New RSV; and the New KJV….
I always recommend that whatever version people read, they read a translation, and not a paraphrase.
So, there you have it, J R — And I am not suggesting that my list is complete… I am sure I left out a few in there somewhere… But it is a whole lot more than most folks even imagine!!
Have fun with it J R!!
OH — I forgot the Schofield Bible (referenced for those with the 2nd coming-itis); The companion to the Bible, published by Mary Baker Eddy(Christian Science) — and of course, more to the topic of this thread, The Book of Mormon, which was once called by Mark Twain, “chloroform in print” — although it isnt quite as bad as that…
There have been certain other “editions” such as the “red letter” edition, and one called the “prophecy bible” that uses different colors of pages, or sections, to show what the publishers insist as “prophecy” –may or may not be accurate, depending on your theological pre-suppositions
David — In spite of what you say about Higher Criticism, I will stand with it, along with ALL of the mainline scholars, and about 99% of Catholic Scholars, and many of the Reform Judaism scholars as well… Other interpretive methods are minor by comparison… Again, just look it up!! Dont you dare take my word for it!!
You can include with higher criticism, Literary Criticism; Textual criticism; and Redaction Criticism; along with some other works by Shillibex, Bultmann, Brenner, Tillich, Raymond Brown, and MANY others!!
Ooops forgot to include Hans Kung in that list… so sorry!!
Chas.,
You are correct that most “mainline” scholars subscribe to higher criticism. But not evangelical scholars. You, evidently, fall into the former category, and I, into the latter. It is important to note here, though, that “mainline” does not equate to “main stream”.
Ahh but, there are many evangelicals who also embrace the Higher Critical methods, because the methodology is so compelling… I already figured out that you dont approve of Higher Criticism… which is why you dont agree, or fully comprehend what I said about the “Ego Eimi” sayings of Jesus relating directly to the I AM statements of the OT…
And, I dont know of many who would want to equate “mainline” with “mainstream” — mainly because I am not at all certain what “mainstream” means with regards to religious interpretation. “Mainstream” is more of a sociological term than a religious one…
Thanks the info.
I’ll not intrude where I barely understand the easy stuff let alone the intricacies.
And, to add to your list, Chas.:The Holman Christian Standard BibleThe English Standard BibleVarious editions of the New International Version, including the TNIV…
And with that, I bid you goodnight. And you can translate that however post-modernly you like and with the highest criticism you can muster. But it still means…
Good night.
One last post, just for you Chas._______________
Hermeneutics in Everyday Life________________________________________Suppose you’re traveling to work and you see a stop sign. What do you do? That depends on how you exegete the stop sign.________________________________________• A postmodernist deconstructs the sign (knocks it over with his car), ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.
• Similarly, a Marxist sees a stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeoisie use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers on the east-west road.• A serious and educated Catholic believes that he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and their tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn’t take it too seriously, he doesn’t feel obligated to take it too seriously either.
• An average Catholic (or Orthodox or Coptic or Anglican or Methodist or Presbyterian or whatever) doesn’t bother to read the sign but he’ll stop if the car in front of him does.• A fundamentalist, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go.• A preacher might look up “STOP” in his lexicons of English and discover that it can mean:1. Something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing;
2. A location where a train or bus lets off passengers.The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: when you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.
• An orthodox Jew does one of two things:
1. Take another route to work that doesn’t have a stop sign so that he doesn’t run the risk of disobeying the Law.
2. Stop at the stop sign, say “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast given us thy commandment to stop,” wait 3 seconds according to his watch, and then proceed.
3. Incidentally, the Talmud has the following comments on this passage:A. R[abbi] Meir says: He who does not stop shall not live long.B. R. Hillel says: Cursed is he who does not count to three before proceeding.C. R. Simon ben Yudah says: Why three? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.D. R. ben Isaac says: Because of the three patriarchs.E. R. Yehuda says: Why bless the Lord at a stop sign? Because it says: “Be still, and know that I am God.”F. R. Hezekiel says: When Jephthah returned from defeating the Ammonites, the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that a donkey would run out of the house and overtake his daughter; but Jephthah did not stop at the stop sign, and the donkey did not have time to come out. For this reason he saw his daughter first and lost her. Thus he was judged for his transgression at the stop sign.G. R. Gamaliel says: R. Hillel, when he was a baby, never spoke a word, though his parents tried to teach him by speaking and showing him the words on a scroll. One day his father was driving through town and did not stop at the sign. Young Hillel called out: “Stop, father!” In this way, he began reading and speaking at the same time. Thus it is written: “Out of the mouth of babes.”H. R. ben Jacob says: Where did the stop sign come from? Out of the sky, for it is written: “Forever, O Lord, your word is fixed in the heavens.”I. R. ben Nathan says: When were stop signs created? On the fourth day, for it is written: “let them serve as signs.”
J. R. Yeshuah says: … [continues for three more pages]• A Pharisee does the same thing as an orthodox Jew, except that he waits 10 seconds instead of 3. He also replaces his brake lights with 1000 watt searchlights and connects his horn so that it is activated whenever he touches the brake pedal.
• A scholar from Jesus seminar concludes that the passage “STOP” undoubtedly was never uttered by Jesus himself, but belongs entirely to stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.
• A NT scholar notices that there is no stop sign on Mark street but there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the ones on Luke and Matthew streets are both copied from a sign on a completely hypothetical street called “Q”. There is an excellent 300 page discussion of speculations on the origin of these stop signs and the differences between the stop signs on Matthew and Luke street in the scholar’s commentary on the passage. There is an unfortunate omission in the commentary, however; the author apparently forgot to explain what the text means.
• An OT scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the passage “STOP”. For example, “ST” contains no enclosed areas and 5 line endings, whereas “OP” contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author for the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the “O” and the “P”.
• Another prominent OT scholar notes in his commentary that the stop sign would fit better into the context three streets back. (Unfortunately, he neglected to explain why in his commentary.) Clearly it was moved to its present location by a later redactor. He thus exegetes the intersection as though the stop sign were not there.
• Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another OT scholar emends the text, changing “T” to “H”. “SHOP” is much easier to understand in context than “STOP” because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occurred because “SHOP” is so similar to “STOP” on the sign several streets back that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping area.
• A dispensationalist might reason, the sign was created for an earlier time and does not apply today and will continue on through the intersection oblivious to oncoming traffic. He might also reason that you may choose to obey the stop sign, but if you do you will have to obey all traffic signs.
One last post, just for you Chas._______________
Hermeneutics in Everyday Life________________________________________Suppose you’re traveling to work and you see a stop sign. What do you do? That depends on how you exegete the stop sign.________________________________________• A postmodernist deconstructs the sign (knocks it over with his car), ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.
• Similarly, a Marxist sees a stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeoisie use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers on the east-west road.• A serious and educated Catholic believes that he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and their tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn’t take it too seriously, he doesn’t feel obligated to take it too seriously either.
• An average Catholic (or Orthodox or Coptic or Anglican or Methodist or Presbyterian or whatever) doesn’t bother to read the sign but he’ll stop if the car in front of him does.• A fundamentalist, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go.• A preacher might look up “STOP” in his lexicons of English and discover that it can mean:1. Something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing;
2. A location where a train or bus lets off passengers.The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: when you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.
• An orthodox Jew does one of two things:
1. Take another route to work that doesn’t have a stop sign so that he doesn’t run the risk of disobeying the Law.
2. Stop at the stop sign, say “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast given us thy commandment to stop,” wait 3 seconds according to his watch, and then proceed.
3. Incidentally, the Talmud has the following comments on this passage:A. R[abbi] Meir says: He who does not stop shall not live long.B. R. Hillel says: Cursed is he who does not count to three before proceeding.C. R. Simon ben Yudah says: Why three? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.D. R. ben Isaac says: Because of the three patriarchs.E. R. Yehuda says: Why bless the Lord at a stop sign? Because it says: “Be still, and know that I am God.”F. R. Hezekiel says: When Jephthah returned from defeating the Ammonites, the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that a donkey would run out of the house and overtake his daughter; but Jephthah did not stop at the stop sign, and the donkey did not have time to come out. For this reason he saw his daughter first and lost her. Thus he was judged for his transgression at the stop sign.G. R. Gamaliel says: R. Hillel, when he was a baby, never spoke a word, though his parents tried to teach him by speaking and showing him the words on a scroll. One day his father was driving through town and did not stop at the sign. Young Hillel called out: “Stop, father!” In this way, he began reading and speaking at the same time. Thus it is written: “Out of the mouth of babes.”H. R. ben Jacob says: Where did the stop sign come from? Out of the sky, for it is written: “Forever, O Lord, your word is fixed in the heavens.”I. R. ben Nathan says: When were stop signs created? On the fourth day, for it is written: “let them serve as signs.”
J. R. Yeshuah says: … [continues for three more pages]• A Pharisee does the same thing as an orthodox Jew, except that he waits 10 seconds instead of 3. He also replaces his brake lights with 1000 watt searchlights and connects his horn so that it is activated whenever he touches the brake pedal.
• A scholar from Jesus seminar concludes that the passage “STOP” undoubtedly was never uttered by Jesus himself, but belongs entirely to stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.
• A NT scholar notices that there is no stop sign on Mark street but there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the ones on Luke and Matthew streets are both copied from a sign on a completely hypothetical street called “Q”. There is an excellent 300 page discussion of speculations on the origin of these stop signs and the differences between the stop signs on Matthew and Luke street in the scholar’s commentary on the passage. There is an unfortunate omission in the commentary, however; the author apparently forgot to explain what the text means.
• An OT scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the passage “STOP”. For example, “ST” contains no enclosed areas and 5 line endings, whereas “OP” contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author for the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the “O” and the “P”.
• Another prominent OT scholar notes in his commentary that the stop sign would fit better into the context three streets back. (Unfortunately, he neglected to explain why in his commentary.) Clearly it was moved to its present location by a later redactor. He thus exegetes the intersection as though the stop sign were not there.
• Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another OT scholar emends the text, changing “T” to “H”. “SHOP” is much easier to understand in context than “STOP” because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occurred because “SHOP” is so similar to “STOP” on the sign several streets back that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping area.
• A dispensationalist might reason, the sign was created for an earlier time and does not apply today and will continue on through the intersection oblivious to oncoming traffic. He might also reason that you may choose to obey the stop sign, but if you do you will have to obey all traffic signs.
Ouch! Sorry about that double post!
You won’t convince Chas he’s wrong on anything.
Even when he’s proven wrong on something he blames it on something else. :)
That was a cute post, David… I enjoyed that!!
Ummm sorry Kansas, I havent been proven wrong on anything here tonite… Try again!!
Good night; good luck; and God bless; whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings All!!
Enjoyed that David!!
So,
I read through all this after I got home from work.
Chas, is it your position then that Jesus is not divine and that you don’t have to have faith in him to be saved?
Just wondering what your point was in arguing that the context of the way most Christians take the I AM statement to mean is actually something else.
So, Nathan, can you still not READ?? I never said any such thing as to what you claim, but even if I did, what is it to YOU??? Nobody is asking you to believe what you dont want to believe — WH”Y must you keep on, and keep on, and keep on wanting to shove your narrow minded, stupid little teeny tiny faith down every body’s throat!!! DONT YOU GET IT… NOT EVERYBODY SHARES YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM!!! GET OVER IT!!! GET A LIFE!!! AND LEAVE MY FAITH THE HELL ALONE!!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, LITTLE BRAIN???
I just asked you a question.
I don’t think you would talk to me like that in front of your congregation would you?
German Higher Criticism has been around a LOT longer than your brand of neo-evangelicanism….
The I AM statements have NOTHING to say at all about the Divinity of Christ… So, dont try going there…. Even the Apostle Paul refers to Jesus as the MAN…. [Cf, I Cor. 15]
Your brand of simple minds/simple gospel has only been around for a couple of hundred years of christian history… get over it… a lot of us have background in faith going back a lot farther than that!! You know, like even back before the Reformation!!
The point is, Nathan, that not everybody WANTS your version of Christianity… Not everybody WANTS MINE!!
The difference between us is that you seem to think its your right, or your duty, to try to convince everybody else in the whole known world, that YOU are right, and everybody else is WRONG!!! And you know what?? THAT sir, just aint Christian!! I dont know what it is… sure is Jesus centered… But it aint Christian!!
So, when you want to talk to ME about anything on this blog, just keep your fundamentalist, pentecostal religion out of it… unless it is a religious subject… and if it is, just make your point, and let it be… Dont go after others who disagree with you!! Whether its me, or anybody else!!
I’m not trying to make fun of your beliefs… the way you do mine… another one of those really unchristian things you do…. All I am ASKING of you is to keep your religion to yourself… sort of like Body Odor… not everybody else wants to know about it ALL the time!!!
NO I wouldnt… I would point you in the direction of the door, and suggest you go find a church that shares your beliefs, and leave MINE ALONE!!
And furthermore, how many times do I have to tell you… oh ye of little mind… THIS BLOG IS NOT MY CONGREGATION!!! SO, I WILL TALK TO YOU HERE ANY WAY I THINK I CAN TO GET YOU OFF OF YOUR ONE TRACK MIND ON THIS BLOG!!
IT ISNT YOUR CHURCH EITHER, BY THE WAY!!
david – after you claimed to be able to read my mind you demonstrated clearly that you are a false teacher. Your ad hominum attack upon me terminated civil discussion.
By the way; even the New Testament was written long AFTER the time of Christ.
So then, Chas never answered the question about whether he thinks Jesus is a divine being.
Without answering, he cannot commit to Christianity.
If he says no, then he cannot be Christian, because the whole premise of being Christian is believing that Jesus is Christ and a divine being.
I wonder why Chas avoids basic questions that could simply be answered with a “yes or no” instead of going on a tirade of exclamation points and caps.
Right, “Kansas” –
*You* were ordained by God to determine others’ committment to Christianity?
All hail the prophet from Kansas!
Extend the Testaments! Let us have a book of “Kansas!” We shall hex the Pentateuch and slip you in neatly between Numbers and Deuteronomy!!
Ben,
Neither I nor anyone else claimed to read your mind. If we had, I’m guessing it would have been a short one.
You made assertions that demonstrated for all to see that you didn’t have skill in the language. You presented your assertions as authoritative. (”David – you sy [sic] He said “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” I seriously doubt it. To the best of my knowledge He did not speak modern American English.”) If you do that, I’m sure you have enough experience to know that you opened up your statement for rebuttal, which I did. You didn’t like being rebutted, and demonstrated it by ad hominem retorts, which had nothing to do with what was written. You have continued that in your last post at 8:58 this morning, and further demonstrated you lack of knowledge concerning the subject by adding this false statement, “By the way; even the New Testament was written long AFTER the time of Christ.” Where do you get this stuff? It’s simply untrue, and pulled out of thin air. The manuscripts, external evidence and internal all place the New Testament writings within 50 years or so of the death and resurrection of Christ–some earlier, some later. No serious scholar denies that. But then, you’re not a serious scholar, are you?
If Nathan continues to delve the faith of others, it may be time to expose the newer posters to his own particular take on it.
It is, as I recall, rather different.
Right, “Kansas” –
*You* were ordained by God to determine others’ committment to Christianity?
All hail the prophet from Kansas!
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | November 21, 2007 at 09:09 AM
By definition MH, one cannot be a Christian if they don’t consider Christ a divine being.
It’s a simple concept, really it is.
One can believe in God like the Jews do, but the Jews don’t consider themselves Christians now do they?
Ben,
Should you desire to do some brief study on the dates of New Testament writings, here’s a rather concise primer:
http://www.carm.org/evidence/gospels_written.htm
This, too, may be helpful:http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm
“because you don’t desire to believe that Jesus DID make those claims of Himself.”
David – since I never SAID any of that you eemed to be claiming to read my mind with that ad hominum attack. That is what I was responding to – it is pure BULL.
I don’t know what happened 2000 years ago; I wasn’t there. I try to read and understand the translations I have – both Scripture and other writings – particularly Josephus. I also have conferred with others as I noted above. That is why your absolutist preaching at me “you don’t desire” rubbed me the wrong way. THAT was an ad hominum attack; only one of many from you directed at me and others.
The Christianity I grew up with also taught humility. You just might try that some time.
Ben,
I noticed nothing in your post even attempted to defend what you said earlier or refute what David said.
JR,
I have nothing to hide about what I believe.
I have no problems answering questions about my faith either.
Chas is the only one who gets all upset when you ask him a question about his faith.
Nathan – he claimed that I had no desire. HE LIED. As for what I said earlier about translations I stand by it. Priests and Rabbis I have talked to all confirmed that Jesus did not speak English. That is what I said. They also confirmed that the Gospels were written after His death. Therefore they were recollections and interpretations of His words. I don’t think nyone recorded Him for transcription.
Ben,
Would you consider your children as accurate translators what you said in your life?
Not to the Nth degree, but your general attitude and philosophies? :)
Chas,
This is a religious discussion. You assert yourself as an authority on the subject.
When you claim to be an authority you subject yourself to being questioned.
Instead of simply answering the questions you act like a screaming child in a grocery store who didn’t get a candy bar.
So, either you want to be an authority on scripture and Christianity or you don’t.
I don’t really care. But if you are going to keep sticking your nose into things and asserting yourself as one, then don’t act like a little cry baby when people challenge you.
Ben,
Your statements now are much “nicer” and more clear than before.
Before you said the NT was written “long after”
What did you mean to insinuate by saying that then Ben?
You don’t want us to read your mind, but your statements were the same classic one liners many of us see all the time from those who want to use one liners to discredit the Bible.
So, please feel free to clear up the misconception and tell us what you meant.
With the caveat noted – yes. And I accept the general philosophy part with Jesus; just not the Nth degree.
Sort of a philosophical question: With God being the greatest and omni-everything why would He reveal Himself only to one nomadic tribe in the Middle East? Might He have also revealed Himself to my ancesters fr example? (According to Mormons He did via Jesus Christ after the crucifiction – I don’t know about that) Might He have communicated to other peoples though other prophets throughout the ages? Why would He have only reveled himself to one small group?
What we are relying upon are the writings of only that one tribe for our Old Covenant. Then we rely upon writings of a few men who knew Christ for a portion of the New Covenant and a man who never knew Him for most of it. We must take Saul’s word for his vision.
Decades fter crucifiction:
“According to tradition, the earliest of the books were the letters of Paul, and the last books to be written are those attributed to John, who is traditionally said to have lived to a very old age, perhaps dying as late as 100, although evidence for this tradition is generally not convincing. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185, stated that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would be in the 60s, and Luke was written some time later. Evangelical and Traditionalist scholars continue to support this dating.
Most critical scholars agree on the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphical (i.e., those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). For the Gospels they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65 and no later than 75. Matthew is dated between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed within 80 to 95.”
I just some of the newer posters might enjoy a tour of YOUR faith Nathan. Since you so enjoy exploring that of others.
I don’t want to remember incorrectly…
Calvinist right? I THINK it is your take that no matter WHAT only a select few are destined for heaven?
I apologize in advance if I am mistaken. But if I am correct it would seem faith in Jesus Christ would be useless to anyone not among the select.
Ben, the dates you gave are fine.
But one would have to set aside that the Bible was not written with some Divine guidance. Remember the warning written in Revelations?
If you don’t believe the Bible wasn’t written with divine guidance, then say so.
If you do believe the Bible was written with divine guidance, then I have a problem with your discussion about when, where and who. It would be irrelevant in my opinion.
What I meant Nathan was that the writings were done AFTER the fact. Therefore we are relying upon memory of fallable men (as we all are). I’m sure they did the best they could but also that they wrote in the contaxt of their time and culture. So, I question – especially the details. I don’t reject Nathan – I question. That is why I have sought out others over the years.
Add to the after-the-fact issue the translation issue. It is not as bad as when I grew up reading King James – the newer translations tred to go back to more original documents that King James did. But, there are still difficulties including:
“The common languages spoken by both Jews and Gentiles in the holy land at the time of Jesus were Aramaic, Koine Greek, and to a limited extent a colloquial dialect of Mishnaic Hebrew. However, the original text of the New Testament was most likely written in Koine Greek, the vernacular dialect in 1st century Roman provinces of the Eastern Mediterranean, and has since been widely translated into other languages, most notably, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. However, some of the Church Fathers seem to imply that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and there is another contention that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, which was translated into Greek by Luke. Neither view holds much support among contemporary scholars, who argue that the literary facets of Matthew and Hebrews suggest that they were composed directly in Greek, rather than being translated.
A very small minority of scholars consider the Aramaic version of the New Testament to be the original and believe the Greek is a translation (see Aramaic primacy).”
It is very complicated …
Kansas – I don’t know if it was or not Nor do I know if each and every Book by each and every author was so written. Add to that the possibility that even with devine influence it might not be intended to be a lab manual but rather more general guidance. Then add on top of that tranlators working without such guidence.
As fo the warning in Relevations – that is somewhat elf-serving by the author “What I write is 100% correct because I said so and I speak for God”
So I take it then Ben, you do not believe the Bible was written with divine guidance?
The discussion you are taking then is religious philosophy which has many avenues, all human oriented and directed.
That’s where the road gets muddy. :)
Nothing personal Ben, just trying to find out your focus.
To put a caliper on religious text is problematic.
I always found it best to find out the premise on which the speaker or writer relies.
Then one can muddle in the details if they bring their own soap. :)
JR,
No, I am not a traditional Calvinist.
I am an Arminian in my belief.
Regardless, I could still argue the Calvinist side of things if that is what you would like?
Kansas – this is the kind of discussion better done over coffee … or maybe some good Kansas wine for you. Not via blog – just doesn’t work as well.
True Ben…
However, you have the advantage with me in drinking wine. I have no ability to hold my “liquor.” Three sniffs and I’m incoherent.
I would go with tall mugs of coffee and perhaps a well read, worn newspaper setting on a cafe table with the never empty coffee pot.
Perhaps a pie carousel to tempt our appetites. :D
I was not attempting to define your faith for you Nathan. And no you don’t need to argue it from any but your own faith.
Am I correct that your belief is only a select chosen few are destined for heaven?
Did the Corinthians ever write back?
Ben,
Chas. and I were discussing translation. I presented an accurate translation of the passage we were discussing, which Chas. had to admit was accurate (”Daavid, the translation you refer to is correct… as far as it goes…”). It was somewhere around there you jumped in and said you doubted that Jesus said those words, since he didn’t speak English. Reasonable people would assume, in light of the context, that you were asserting that the translation was inaccurate. Again, since your skills are in other areas, you were not qualified to evaluate the translation. You have since clarified and moderated your position. One of the difficulties in this forum is that people respond in under-developed or half-baked sentences making it difficult to correctly interpret. Had you initially said that you doubted the authenticity of the original manuscripts I would have responded differently. The source material you pasted above is within the realm realiable scholarship, and it agrees with the position I already stated. Whatever the source you quoted (which is not credited), has a slight problem with nuance, though. It uses the term “According to tradition”. That is accurate to a degree, but it leaves the impression of the absence of archaeological discoveries and other evidence. The fact is that the more we discover, unearth and learn, the more the original autographs and manuscripts we have are proved authentic and accurate.
No attemt to gain advantage – coffee and pie does sound awful good. I thought I recalled you commenting about good KS wines on that thread – so just an option.
;^)
Calvin didn’t he torture and murder people in Switzerland? Same kind of asshole as Torquemada in Spain?
Calvin had a guy burned at the stake for the crime of having a different viewpoint on religion.
It’s interesting, isn’t it, “Ben” –
How “Kansas” was such an self-proclaimed expert on Kansas wines a couple of days ago but today announces he has “…no ability to hold [his] liquor. Three sniffs,” he writes, “and I’m incoherent.”
Given the qualities of some of his posts to this forum, I suspect “Kansas” consumes Kansas wines by the vat.
Ya Ben, I like wine, it just doesn’t like me. :)
In regards to all the discussion of those who follow the teachings of Christ and hold him as their personal savior, a prophecy from Corinthians about the time of rapture. That is, despite our differences, we are saved by grace and by grace we shall be delivered unto the the Lord.
Cor 15: 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Which means, if we have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as our savior, we have been saved. Our trite remarks and difference of opinions, however far apart are irrelevant. Only our confession to Jesus matters, our belief in Him that we might receive ever lasting life.
So you see all, we all will see each other after the rapture. Those who believe will rise again, that includes me, Ben, Nathan and Chas (if he believes Jesus is Deity, died for his sins and accepts him.)
With that bit of proselytizing, I wish all a Happy Thanksgiving. :)
Zombie worship?
MH – I’ll give kansas the benefit of the doubt on that one – one can like the wines as he notes but no longer consume them. And, if he is a KS native he might know those like I know the California ones – even though I’m not there any more.
And a happy Thanksgiving to you to kansas – I’ll need to make a final shopping run shortly.
A sort of sad comment about tone that happens. If kansas had replied “OK, lets meet at the Riverside Cafe” there are those who would have taken it as some sort of threat. Sometimes a cup of coffee is simply a cup of coffee.
Sort of like my wisecrack about Hank “threatening me” with a spatula! ‘^)
A sort of sad comment about tone that happens. If kansas had replied “OK, lets meet at the Riverside Cafe” there are those who would have taken it as some sort of threat. Sometimes a cup of coffee is simply a cup of coffee.
Sort of like my wisecrack about Hank “threatening me” with a spatula! ‘^)
JR,
First of all, both Calvinists and Arminians are of the same faith in Christ.
They are both different philosopies on the character of God and are both scripturally supported from the Bible.
I am good friends with many Calvinists, we simply hold a different view on certain things.
As far as your question goes, no I don’t think there are only a select few who are chosen.
That would be closer to the Jehova’s witnesses beliefs.