Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 29, 2006 14:48:43 GMT -5
mileslewis said:
I could say the same to you.
And that's probably more accurate than you know. You see, no one knows what Jesus of Nazareth said. He is quoted quite frequently, but of course the gospels were written some time after Jesus of Nazareth's execution. As a matter of fact, the first parts of today's NT were written by Paul, a man who never encountered Jesus.
Besides which, even if you did know what Jesus said, I get the vibe that you didn't hear what he meant.
Of course the Gospels were written after Jesus' death, the Gospels are about Jesus' death.
Paul wrote a lot of the New Testament but Luke wrote more than Paul; Luke and Acts.
Actually, the Gospels are about Jesus of Narareth's life, followed by his execution. Maybe I should have put "some time" in bold letters. John, for instance was written between 95 and 105 CE. If it is an eyewitness account, then John would have to have been around 90-100 when it was written. Today that is rare, it would have been nearly impossible in the first century. In regards to Paul, I was not referring to the size of his contribution but rather to the idea that Paul can not say what Jesus said.
Why don't you (in general terms, not just YOU specifically) quote some of what the Bible actually says to back up your claims about what the Bible really said then? The Christians on here use (usually) scripture scripture scripture to back up the claims they make. The unbelievers who claim to know all about the Bible seem to lack too many references to that Bible when trying to say that "the Bible doesn't say such and such".
I was merely pointing out that I could use the same arguements to say that my opinion of the 'word' is right. Juliot comes across as knowing undobtedly what the Bible says, and that anyone with a different opinion must be wrong. "how did you come to miss so much[?]" If I ask you that same question, it doesn't convince you does it? Well it won't convice any of us either.
I couldn't care less what the Bible "really" says. I only use it because it is the language which you understand.
I think Micah was referring to this qoute about what does inner city life have to do with justifying immorality...
I would encourage those of you who think that gay marraige is a moral issue to make a visit to our poorer inner-city neighborhoods before you criticise people for being immoral.
I ask as well... what does gay marriage have to do with poor inner city neighborhoods?
Ok, I understand the question now.
What I was referring to is a more universal debate than one finds here. I was referring to people who vote based on 'moral issues' e.g. gay marraige, abortion, etc. Well, I would argue that poverty is a moral issue. War is a moral issue. The corruption evident in our government is a moral issue. The removal of our civil liberties is a moral issue. So on and so forth. I was saying above that people like yourselves picket abortion clinics but belive in the death penalty. You oppose gay marraiges with signs outside of the San Francisco City Hall, but vote for a president that takes us into war. You rail against the mention of evolution in science textbooks in suburban schools while in inner-city schools the history texts refer to the president as Lyndon Johnson.
These are moral issues.