Reply to: Now the tories are attacking straight men

[Diver]

Interesting. One of the things I personally like about Cameron is that he's trying to drag the tories into the modern world. But hey, I guess every political party has it's dinosaur wing ...

Drag being the operative word I suppose?

[Cowboy Bob]

More nonsense. It's like the atheist/agnostic version of creationism. The Da Vinci Code is fiction, you know.

The gnostic gospels were written around 200AD. The accepted gospels were rather earlier: Mark 75AD, Matthew 85AD, Luke (and Acts) 85AD, John 100AD. The latest date for whole of the NT is 140AD. The manuscript evidence is that the Christians of that time (before Constantine, and before King James), rejected the newer writings, because they were not in accord with, or flatly contradicted what had already been written some 60-155 years earlier.

If someone for political reasons writes a "gospel" today that says that Jesus was in fact a Vietnamese woman living in New York, it would also be rejected, for pretty much the same reason.

Face it, none of them are contemporary with Jesus' lifetime (official or not), all the people who wrote them had their own agenda, and to top it all off, there is actually very little historical evidence that Jesus even existed in the first place.

And what's the Da Vinci Code got to do with the argument anyway?

[BrilloPad]

The Tories used get some funding from tangerine, mains leads, and plastic bag suppliers... plus the odd bob or two from manufacturers of whips, canes 7 chains....

Do you mean "got funding" or "spent their funding on"?

[contractor79]

but aren't the main parties just too similar now on all policies, there's no choice
do they get lots of funding from gay rights lobbyists?

[snaw]

does Cameron really think that people are turning to the Tories because his party are embracing gay 'rights'?

Interesting. One of the things I personally like about Cameron is that he's trying to drag the tories into the modern world. But hey, I guess every political party has it's dinosaur wing ...

[contractor79]

does Cameron really think that people are turning to the Tories because his party are embracing gay 'rights'?

[NotAllThere]

It's pretty difficult to do that as when you do look at the oldest extant versions we have, we see that half of the books have not even been included - the Gnostic Gospels for example - again for political reasons mostly, so my original point stands.

More nonsense. It's like the atheist/agnostic version of creationism. The Da Vinci Code is fiction, you know.

The gnostic gospels were written around 200AD. The accepted gospels were rather earlier: Mark 75AD, Matthew 85AD, Luke (and Acts) 85AD, John 100AD. The latest date for whole of the NT is 140AD. The manuscript evidence is that the Christians of that time (before Constantine, and before King James), rejected the newer writings, because they were not in accord with, or flatly contradicted what had already been written some 60-155 years earlier.

If someone for political reasons writes a "gospel" today that says that Jesus was in fact a Vietnamese woman living in New York, it would also be rejected, for pretty much the same reason.

[Cowboy Bob]

If you're going to dispute with Christians, you're on far better ground discussing the content of the bible, than the authenticity.

It's pretty difficult to do that as when you do look at the oldest extant versions we have, we see that half of the books have not even been included - the Gnostic Gospels for example - again for political reasons mostly, so my original point stands.

[NotAllThere]

...a book that has been rewritten for political reasons numerous times over the centuries needs their heads testing. All they're doing is falling in line with King James's morals (historians think he may have been gay which is interesting), or Emperor Constantine's morals or any number of others who have edited it. Since we don't have access to the original version, who knows what it said. Jesus could have been a rampant queen for all we know.

...The Bible as we know it now bears very little similarity to what the early Christians would have known and who's to say what was originally meant.

Total and utter nonsense.

A common view of people who have never read it, and have no knowledge of the provenance of current translations. I think those (rather ignorant) views originated in the 1800s, before modern archaeology started looking into these things. Whether you believe the Bible to be holy scripture or just a collection of writings with some political or religious agenda, or the product of eating too many mushrooms, do try to get your facts right.

First, there isn't "a book". There are 66 separate books in the bible written at different times. 39 of these make up the Old Testament, written in Hebrew, comprising of (supposed) history, prophetic writings, historical fiction, sayings and songs/poems. The remaining 26 make up the New Testament, written in Greek, made up of four accounts of the life of Jesus, further adventures of the apostles, and letters written by the apostles. ( There are other books sometimes included, but the current "canon" of 27 books was first listed in 367AD.

The oldest (nearly) complete text of the OT was found in the dead sea scrolls dating back to 200-100 BC. The OT canon was pretty much fixed by 80AD.

The various parts of the new testament have been dated from 45-140AD, by secular scholars. It is preserved in more manuscripts than ANY ancient work. The earliest date from 150AD. There are complete bibles in the world's museums dating from 350AD. Although there are variations in the texts between the various manuscripts used to produce a modern bible, there is sufficient agreement to produce a translation which would not be very far from the text as it was original written 1800-1950 or so years ago.

If you're going to dispute with Christians, you're on far better ground discussing the content of the bible, than the authenticity.

[NickFitz]

would you consider your comments scholarly? would they stand up under acedemic scrutiny?

Wot, as religious bigotry does?

BTW, the first letter of a sentence should be capitalised, and you spelt "academic" incorrectly.

HTH

[contractor79]

would you consider your comments scholarly? would they stand up under acedemic scrutiny?

[TykeMerc]

Anyone who takes their moral standpoint from a book that has been rewritten for political reasons numerous times over the centuries needs their heads testing. All they're doing is falling in line with King James's morals (historians think he may have been gay which is interesting), or Emperor Constantine's morals or any number of others who have edited it. Since we don't have access to the original version, who knows what it said. Jesus could have been a rampant queen for all we know.

WHS with huge shiny knobs on!!!!!!!

I'm afraid that I view people who spout Christian scripture as complete idiots. The Bible as we know it now bears very little similarity to what the early Christians would have known and who's to say what was originally meant.

[Cowboy Bob]

Anyone who takes their moral standpoint from a book that has been rewritten for political reasons numerous times over the centuries needs their heads testing. All they're doing is falling in line with King James's morals (historians think he may have been gay which is interesting), or Emperor Constantine's morals or any number of others who have edited it. Since we don't have access to the original version, who knows what it said. Jesus could have been a rampant queen for all we know.

[contractor79]

good post

And then people forget the next bit "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more".

And the same guy who said this also said

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill"

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery'. But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart"

good post

[Bob Dalek]

And then people forget the next bit "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more".

And the same guy who said this also said

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill"

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery'. But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart"

To quote Peter Cook: "Love thy neighbour. Or, Love Thy Neighbour, I don't half fancy her too, and rushing round for a quick one."