CNN: Passions over 'prosperity gospel': Was Jesus wealthy?

[techboy]

You're right, the Old Testament canon was established at the Synod of Dort in 90 AD primarily in response to Christian influence in the Synagogues, in 397 the council at Carthage chose to adopt the Jewish canon as well, as for the conspiracy theorists it would have been far more to Constantine's advantage to simply eliminate the Old Testament and rid Christianity of the Jewish influence, however his order of the 50 Bibles and call for an established canon did not lead him to micro manage the canonization process as the conspiracy theorists will claim, but instead the Council of Carthage met for three years deliberating on the canon.

An important note here is that the Council of Carthage was decades after the death of Constantine.

The Canon was well on its way to formation before him, and it wasn't officially closed until well after him.

I bet you also believe the Bible is the word of God right? I want you to explain to me how it is the word of God considering how it was assembled.

You're making a big assumption here.

Granted, God did not send anything down like a "fax from heaven" (excepting the 10 commandments, I suppose), to steal a phrase from an uninformed source, but that's doesn't mean that the Scriptures are not divinely inspired or the unquestioned Word of God. (Of course, it doesn't mean they are, either).

You have certainly presented no good reason (other than your own incredulity) why God couldn't have worked through men in this fashion, and there are actually good reasons to think He very well might.

Your argument is flawed. You cannot say the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.

That's true.

Ever play the telephone game?

This is a completely useless analogy. Oral tradition in Palestine was taken exceptionally seriously, and was very accurate.

What's more, the telephone game is a one to one to one passing of information, with no checks. The stories about Jesus were told to entire communities, who passed the stories along, and everyone (including eyewitnesses) was around to check and correct everybody else.

Even further, the telephone game is verbal, with no chance to practice. As Asbury alluded to, much of the information about Jesus was memorized by using hymns (the kerygma in 1 Corinthians 15:3 and on is an example of one very early case of this), practiced over and over.

This is not a reasonable argument against the information found in the Bible.

Things get manipulated and changed as they get passed down and the Church has been shown many times to manipulate things to suit their needs.

And again, by the time there was a capital "C" (Church), the texts were spread all over the world and well established. Far too late for political tampering.

Dont get me wrong, I agree the message is still there but its the semantics and such surrounding the message that get lost or changed through translations.

What translations? The texts of the Bible were written in Hebrew and Greek. If you like (and have the skill), you can read them in Hebrew and Greek. This doesn't wash either.

Thats another reason supporting my belief the Bible is not the word of God but is instead mans interpretation of God's word. The creation story was stolen from a polytheistic faith.

I'm sorry, but this is a pretty good example of a lay person reading more into a situation than can be supported by the evidence. This claim of "stealing" goes way beyond what scholarship can support.

The general theory that Genesis is a rip-off of Mesopotamian sources is a common one in the dark depths of the internet, and addressed in detail here with carefully detailed source citation. I'd just like to quote this:

This allegation -- that the the bible authors appropriated large (or 'controlling') amounts of material from Mesopotamian sources -- comes up with surprising frequency in the popular exchanges of the chat-argument rooms, apparently. This is surprising, since this position hasn't been the 'consensus' position of mainstream Assyriologist scholars in the field--regardless of 'confessional stance!--for over thirty years.

Emphasis mine. For the most part, the evidence cuts against any literary borrowing at all, for reasons that are discussed in that piece.

Of course, as it turns out, the one area that most scholars do agree that some sort of borrowing took place is, in fact, the stories of the floods in the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh. This is dealt with in detail here.

However, what is often implied by this is that this borrowing is literary (i.e. "copying"). It turns out that this is not what the scholars in the field mean at all. If I might quote one of my source's quotes:

“The derivative nature of the Biblical Flood narrative or rather the existence of an antecedent Mesopotamian tradition for the early forms of the Biblical story is undeniable. However, the extent to which the later narrative is derived from the earlier tradition remains uncertain. A direct form of literary influence cannot be asserted, as the distinctive features of the respective narratives are too plentiful to allow such an affirmation. All one can say is that the Biblical accounts must have been influenced by the Mesopotamian oral tradition or by a pre-existing series of such orally transmitted traditions.” [HI:IF, 4]

Emphasis mine.

If I might quote Miller (my source), since I'm basically just piggybacking his work:

Now, what is interesting about this assumption of dependence is that it is never asserted to be literary dependence—all scholars agree that the differences in detail and content between Genesis and Mesopotamian precursors are just way too determinative against it. Even while assuming/asserting dependence, authors are quick to point out that this is NOT literary dependence

and

In other words, the further apart the details in two accounts are, the less likely there is ANY literary dependence. And, since we only know about 'traditions' from actual 'texts' ('traditions' being the 'shared elements' or sometimes, 'family resemblances', between a multiplicity of disparate, but commonly-themed, texts), the further apart the details the specific text (the 'alleged borrower') are from the 'shared elements' of divergent-but-shared-theme texts, the less likely there is ANY tradition dependence. This only leaves two options: independent tradition about the same event(s); or independent events altogether.

The article I linked then goes on to demonstrate how the Genesis story could not have borrowed from the Sumerian story, leaving us with the reasonable conclusion that we have two independent accounts of the same event. The Flood. It's far too much to link, but I'll cite a sort of summary (found, oddly enough, in the middle):

The bottom 'borrowing' line is this:

The most probable 'entry point' into Hebrew thought life is via the 3rd millennium interactions between the Patriarchs and Babylonian culture, but there are (a) no flood traditions in OB GE at this point; and ( there is no evidence of non-flood influence of OB GE on ANYTHING in Hebrew literature.

The next most probable entry point into the Hebrews is through Moses in the libraries of Egypt, but there is no evidence GE was known there, the timeframe is STILL in that 'no flood story version' period, and there is STILL no evidence of it in Moses' lit. [Note: we do know that cuneiform was known by the Egyptian scribes, from the Amarna archives of the 14th century. This archive was mostly letters between nations and city-states of the day, but there is a small cache of Akkadian literary texts, most notably the stories of Adapa and of Nergal and Ereskigal. But there are no flood stories in these either.]

The next possibility is when Israel enters the land and starts interacting with the locals, but by this time cuneiform is not a live force there. It is too late for the newly-created-in-Babylonia “Standard Version” of GE to impact the Land. The original language is 'dead' and the newly created 'classical version' is essentially confined to legacy scholars in Assyria/Babylonia.

The final possibility is during the interaction exchanges under Solomon. His alliances with all the nations around him COULD have opened the door to access (via a translator, though) to the cuneiform SB version, but the kingdoms of Assyria/Babylonia at that time had essentially no contacts southward (they were fighting major challenges form nomadic tribes at the time): “Both kingdoms were in decline for most of the [10th] century, Assyria beginning to recover from about 925, and neither had contacts so far to the west and south because they were harassed by Aramean tribes moving east from the Euphrates.” [OT:AS, 47]. Solomon had explicit links with Egypt and theoretically could have gotten a copy from Egypt, I suppose, but once again, we have no evidence whatsoever that Egypt had a copy [the previous copy in Megiddo did not have a flood tradition], nor that they had translated it from cuneiform to hieroglyphic, nor that the relationship between Egypt and Assyria/Babylonia at the time was conducive to such a thing. Of course, no OTHER aspects of any GE document shows up in Solomonic area literature either.

So, there are decidedly difficult challenges to believing that the SB GE version (with the flood) could have influenced Hebrew literature to begin with.

I think that the Sumerian story is actually a point in favor for the Bible, an external verification, if you will, and there's certainly no grounds for a charge of "copying".

Now, you might reasonably ask then (and you did ), why the similarities? If you take a look at the literature, what you will find is that Genesis, being written by monotheistic Jews, was written as a repudiation of the polytheistic faiths around them. They used themes that were familiar to the cultures of the day, but they put a twist on them to show the singularity and primacy of God.

If its the word of God, how did that happen?

It's a literary technique.

I agree oral tradition is much stronger and I do know very well how oral traditions are learned and passed.

Well, good.

When do you do that over thousands of years, people take their own twist on things and incorprate them into the story.

Ah, no. We're talking about the texts of the New Testament here (since the topic is supposed to be Jesus), and that's not thousands of years. That's something like 10 to 70, depending on how you want to date the various texts.

As stories are translated from language to language, the meaning of certain things gets lost.

Again, there is no language change involved.

Its not like these are stories that were passed down from father to son since 1900.

Actually it is, because after that it was written down.

Of course, if you want to be really accurate, it's like these are stories that were passed down from father to son since 1990.

All three told similar stories but some of the details vary. If this is the word of God, how could that be?

Again, why couldn't it be? It's not a "fax", but if God inspired men to write the texts, why wouldn't it come out like that? How does it have to mean that it's not the word of God?

Again, there's no good reason to think God couldn't do it that way, and some pretty good reasons to think He might.

Just think about it for a minute. Let's say that all four Gospels were exactly the same, right down to the smallest detail, no disagreement real or imagined.

Would that convince the skeptic that this is the Word of God, or would he merely say that this is ironclad proof that there was a conspiracy, and that the apostles colluded and ironed out the kinks?

[twa]

INCOMING....

Techboy post;)

[techboy]

Erhman is a religious scholar and a leading authority on ancient texts of the bible. He reached adulthood as an evangelical Christian, and his beliefs changed over time with his intensive study of early Christianity and the various ancient Biblical texts.

Dr. Ehrman is a top-notch textual critic, who was the protege of the person widely considered to be the preminent textual critic of the 20th century, Dr. Bruce Metzger.

It's important, though, not to let the sensationalism of the popular media (or Dr. Ehrman himself), overstate the case.

First, as we have seen, people who talk about the Bible being hopelessly corrupt, changed, or unreadable are as outside the mainstream of the scholarly field of textual criticism as Young Earth Creationists are outside of the mainstream of science. Yes, I mean the "jesus rode a dino-horse" people.

But what about Dr. Ehrman, who I have already written is a top-notch scholar?

Well, it turns out that in Misquoting Jesus, one thing the careful reader will notice is that Dr. Ehrman, while talking about all of the variants I myself mention in the above linked post, and perhaps putting a slightly different spin on them (), himself admits that none of the disputed areas affect any major Christian doctrine, and that most of these are trivial matters like spelling issues and the like.

What's more, the issues he raises are already known and accounted for by textual criticism (if not by the average lay person), and so when I mention in the link that the text of the New Testament is around 98% established, with no significant Christian doctrine effected (quoting, among others, Ehrman's mentor Metzger), it already includes the areas Ehrman brings up.

Check out this review of Dr. Ehrman's book by Dr. Craig Blomberg. He speaks very highly of some of the work, but then there's this:

Thus a substantial majority of this book provides information already well-known and well-accessible in other sources, such as Bruce Metzger’s works on the text and transmission of the New Testament (including one that Ehrman himself recently helped to revise), but in slightly more popular form that is likely to reach a wider audience. What most distinguishes the work are the spins Ehrman puts on some of the data at numerous junctures and his propensity for focusing on the most drastic of all the changes in the history of the text, leaving the uninitiated likely to think there are numerous additional examples of various phenomena he discusses when there are not. Thus his first extended examples of textual problems in the New Testament are the woman caught in adultery and the longer ending of Mark. After demonstrating how neither of these is likely to be part of the originals of either Gospel, Ehrman concedes that “most of the changes are not of this magnitude” (p. 69). But this sounds as if there are at least a few others that are of similar size, when in fact there are no other textual variants anywhere that are even one-fourth as long as these thirteen- and twelve-verse additions.

Emphasis mine.

Dr. Daniel Wallace has a similar comment in his review:

First is my plea to all biblical scholars to take seriously their responsibility in caring for God’s people. Scholars bear a sacred duty not to alarm lay readers on issues that they have little understanding of. Indeed, even agnostic teachers bear this responsibility. Unfortunately, the average layperson will leave Misquoting Jesus with far greater doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. A good teacher doesn’t hold back on telling his students what’s what, but he also knows how to package the material so they don’t let emotion get in the way of reason. The irony is that Misquoting Jesus is supposed to be all about reason and evidence, but it has been creating as much panic and alarm as The Da Vinci Code. Is that really the pedagogical effect Ehrman was seeking? I have to assume that he knew what kind of a reaction he would get from this book, for he does not change the impression at all in his interviews. Being provocative, even at the risk of being misunderstood, seems to be more important to him than being honest even at the risk of being boring. But a good teacher does not create Chicken Littles.74

Emphasis mine again.

For a more detailed analysis of each of the problem areas, see Dr. Wallace's review I linked earlier. For example, here is his response to Dr. Ehrman's discussion of Hebrews 2:8-9:

Hebrews 2.8–9

Translations are roughly united in how they treat Heb 2.9b. The NET is representative: “by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone.” Ehrman suggests that “by God’s grace”—χάριτι θεου'—is a secondary reading. Instead, he argues that “apart from God,” or χωρὶς θεοῦ, is what the author originally wrote. There are but three Greek manuscripts that have this reading, all from the tenth century or later. Codex 1739, however, is one of them, and it is a copy of an early and decent manuscript. χωρὶς θεοῦ is also discussed in several fathers, one Vulgate manuscript, and some copies of the Pe****ta.36 Many scholars would dismiss such paltry evidence without further ado. If they bother to treat the internal evidence at all, it is because even though it has a poor pedigree, χωρὶς θεοῦ is the harder reading and thus may require some explanation, since scribes tended to smooth out the wording of the text. As well, something needs to explain the several patristic citations. But if a reading is an unintentional change, the canon of the harder reading is invalid. The hardest reading will be a nonsense reading, something that cannot be created on purpose. Although χωρίς is apparently the harder reading,37 it can be explained as an accidental alteration. It is most likely due either to a ‘scribal lapse’38 in which an inattentive copyist confused χωρίς for χάριτι, or ‘a marginal gloss’ in which a scribe was thinking of 1 Cor 15.27 which, like Heb 2.8, quotes Ps 8.6 in reference to God’s subjection of all things to Christ.39

Without going into the details of Ehrman’s defense of χωρίς, we simply wish to note four things. First, he overstates his case by assuming that his view is certainly correct. After three pages of discussion of this text in his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, he pronounces the verdict: “The external evidence notwithstanding, Hebrews 2:9 must have originally said that Jesus died ‘apart from God.’”40 He’s still seeing things in black and white terms. Second, Ehrman’s text-critical views are getting dangerously close to rigorous eclecticism.41 The external data seem to mean less and less to him as he seems to want to see theological corruption in the text. Third, even though he is certain about his verdict, his mentor, Bruce Metzger, is not. A year after Orthodox Corruption was published, Metzger’s second edition of his Textual Commentary appeared. The UBS committee still gave the χάριτι θεοῦ reading the palm, but this time upgrading their conviction to an ‘A’ rating.42 Finally, even assuming that χωρὶς θεοῦ is the correct reading here, Ehrman has not made out a case that this is a variant that “affect the interpretation of an entire book of the New Testament.”43 He argues that “[t]he less attested reading is also more consistent with the theology of Hebrews.”44 He adds that the author “repeatedly emphasizes that Jesus died a fully human, shameful death, totally removed from the realm whence he came, the realm of God. His sacrifice, as a result, was accepted as the perfect expiation for sin. Moreover, God did not intervene in his passion and did nothing to minimize his pain. Jesus died ‘apart from God.’”45 If this is the view of Jesus throughout Hebrews, how does the variant that Ehrman adopts in 2.9 change that portrait? In his Orthodox Corruption, Ehrman says that “Hebrews 5:7 speaks of Jesus, in the face of death, beseeching God with loud cries and tears.”46 But that this text is speaking of Jesus ‘in the face of death’ is not at all clear (nor does Ehrman defend this view). Further, he builds on this in his concluding chapter of Misquoting Jesus—even though he has never established the point—when he asks, “Was [Jesus] completely distraught in the face of death?”47 He goes even further in Orthodox Corruption. I am at a loss to understand how Ehrman can claim that the author of Hebrews seems to know “of passion traditions in which Jesus was terrified in the face of death”48 unless it is by connecting three dots, all of which are dubious—viz., reading χωρὶς θεοῦin Heb 2.9, seeing 5.7 as referring principally to the death of Christ and that his prayers were principally for himself,49 and then regarding the loud cries there to reflect his terrified state. Ehrman seems to be building his case on linked hypotheses, which is a poor foundation at best.

I think the most telling point is that even if Dr. Ehrman is correct, it still doesn't change the reading of Hebrews or any important doctrine of the Church. I bolded that part, because I think it's representative of most of Dr. Ehrman's arguments. As another example, even if he's right that Jesus was angry, there are other places where Jesus shows anger (like cleansing the Temple). Another case of overstating the consequence.

I think this is where Dr. Ehrman goes off-course. He makes a good case for his variant readings, but blows the impact out of proportion.

Incidentally, it's often thought incorrectly that Dr. Ehrman left the faith because of his issues with textual criticism. That is incorrect. He has said on multiple occasions that it was due to his difficulties with the Problem of Evil. I'm not sure if that matters to anyone, but there it is.

[LaxBuddy21]

Techboy, I appreciate your posts. They are definitely well thought out and extensive. Unfortunately, I have to get ready to head down the road for New Years. Hopefully when I come back tomorrow, I can respond to everything you wrote. Thanks for the information. Its good to read some different sources on things whether I agree 100% or not. Happy New Years to you and everyone else and thanks to everyone for the intellectual discussion!

[Mickalino]

INCOMING....

Techboy post;)

(another long novel by techboy)

:hysterical: :hysterical:

jk Techboy

[DRSmith]

I already stated one earlier regarding suicide. If you kill yourself, God will destroy you but Jesus tells Judas he will see him in Heaven but Judas commits suicide. How is that not a contradiction?

Where does Jesus say he will see him in heaven?

[Dan T.]

Techboy, it's been awhile since I read Misquoting Jesus, but I don't recall having the impression that Ehrman tried to overstate the discrepancies in the various iterations of the text. My recollection is that he was very meticulous in laying the discrepancies out. And I agree that he doesn't shake the foundations of Christian belief as a result of his studies, but he does raise legitimate questions about the infallibility of the texts as we have them today. I only remember a few examples, because again it's been a long time, but one that sticks out is the marginalization of women, including Mary Magdalene, because of the cultural mores of the time in which giving any prominence to women would have hurt the prospects of the future growth and acceptance of budding Christianity.

The two overriding things I took away from reading Ehrman's book is that though Christianity believes that the Word of God is infallible, those many scribes over the ages were not. The other impression left with me was his ultimately futile attempt to reach back closer to the original text. He's seen the ancient texts, the oldest known, but they are still hundreds of years removed. Nobody knows how much the scribes of the texts undiscovered proved human by erring.

Its a conundrum of Christianity - the Word of God is infallible, but those who transcribed it were not.

__

Also, regarding Erhman's drift away from faith, I didn't mean to imply that it was a direct result of his textual studies. It may have sounded like it in my earlier post...

[twa]

Its a conundrum of Christianity - the Word of God is infallible, but those who transcribed it were not.

A bigger problem is those that read it are not infallible.

Just look at the various interpretations drawn from the exact same text.

Some of us believe God directed both the scribes and our own interpretations

But then we ain't perfect,nor infallible.:saber:

I sing because I’m happy,

I sing because I’m free,

For His eye is on the sparrow,

And I know He watches me.

“Let not your heart be troubled,” His tender word I hear,

And resting on His goodness, I lose my doubts and fears;

Though by the path He leadeth, but one step I may see;

His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me;

[Ryman of the North]

Asburyskins fan- I didnt get to read the rest of the thread ive been busy but I noticed you said you think the vault in the vatican is "davincicode bull****" I attended a private school run by monks in junior high and one of the monks there used to work in the vatican vaults. I assure you they are real and there is a lot of stuff in there that is kept away from the public eye.

I also noticed you made a comment about mary magdelen, did you not know that at one of the many councils it was decided to amalgamate all the marys in the bible into 2? one is the virgin mother, the other is a the whore/saved mary magdelen who was either a whore or a rich widow depending on the version of the bible you read.

we as so called educated people need to remember the time and context in which the bible was compiled. I am christian and believe in the message that doesnt mean I have to blindly believe everything.

[Thiebear]

True, wealth comes in many forms. And since the Bible is filled with metaphors, you might just have hit the nail squarely on the head.

~Bang

I see what you did there....

[Mickalino]

Where does Jesus say he will see him in heaven?

I don't remember see that, either.

[Chopper Dave]

Listen, Jesus was a carpenter. Considering he had magical powers, he was probably pretty good at what he did, and therefore probably made a pretty nice living. Question answered.

[Mickalino]

Listen, Jesus was a carpenter. Considering he had magical powers, he was probably pretty good at what he did, and therefore probably made a pretty nice living. Question answered.

Well yea.....he turned water into wine.....why settle for a drink from a well, when you can have Pinot Noir ?

[techboy]

Asburyskins fan- I didnt get to read the rest of the thread ive been busy but I noticed you said you think the vault in the vatican is "davincicode bull****" I attended a private school run by monks in junior high and one of the monks there used to work in the vatican vaults. I assure you they are real and there is a lot of stuff in there that is kept away from the public eye.

The Vatican vaults are definitely real. The idea that they harbor secret documents that tell a different story about Jesus is hogwash. Again, all of the important texts and doctrines of Christianity long predate the formation of any kind of centralized Church that would/could engage in a cover-up.

I also noticed you made a comment about mary magdelen, did you not know that at one of the many councils it was decided to amalgamate all the marys in the bible into 2? one is the virgin mother, the other is a the whore/saved mary magdelen who was either a whore or a rich widow depending on the version of the bible you read.

And this is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. It is totally true that Mary Magdalene, one of Jesus' more significant followers, was incorrectly made into a prostitute by the Catholic Church (this was based on a Papal sermon which incorrectly, intentionally or unintentionally, conflated one of the prostitutes with Mary Magdalene, even though there is no indication in the text that this is so).

That mistake can be easily caught, though, by actually looking at the text. Even if a later scribe, trying to help the Pope out, had added in an identification of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute to a copy he was making, the older texts and those from other parts of the world would have no such thing in them (although I don't think this happened in any case).

And, in fact, the Catholic church has renounced that position.

[Chopper Dave]

Well yea.....he turned water into wine.....why settle for a drink from a well, when you can have Pinot Noir ?

Jesus: Prophet, savior,.... entrepreneur?

Nazareth Vineyards?

[techboy]

Listen, Jesus was a carpenter. Considering he had magical powers, he was probably pretty good at what he did, and therefore probably made a pretty nice living. Question answered.

Funny. I thought the question was answered by the two qualified Jesus scholars quoted in the original article who indicated that Jesus was poor.

As Destino has mentioned (twice, I think), in those days there was no middle class. Laborers were most assuredly not in the upper class, either, especially laborers in backwater towns like Nazareth.

[Chopper Dave]

Funny. I thought the question was answered by the two qualified Jesus scholars quoted in the original article who indicated that Jesus was poor.

As Destino has mentioned (twice, I think), in those days there was no middle class. Laborers were most assuredly not in the upper class, either, especially laborers in backwater towns like Nazareth.

Obviously you've never had cabinets or an entertainment center installed.

Not to mention his bootlegging business on the side...

[DRSmith]

I only remember a few examples, because again it's been a long time, but one that sticks out is the marginalization of women, including Mary Magdalene, because of the cultural mores of the time in which giving any prominence to women would have hurt the prospects of the future growth and acceptance of budding Christianity.

I am not sure how women were marginilzed, considering Jesus first appears to women after being raised, Anna the prophetess also is mentioned out the outset of Jesus's life.

[Jumbo]

This makes me wish we had more Muslim scholars in the forum.

[twa]

This makes me wish we had more Muslim scholars in the forum.

I could always troll Beliefnet and drag a few back here:evilg:....there's some good discussions there

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2009/12/mousavi-is-not-husain-ahmadine.html

[Jumbo]

I could always troll Beliefnet ...

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

That's all we need in the tailgate...to start importing from other internet wastelands...

[Mickalino]

I could always troll Beliefnet and drag a few back here:evilg:....there's some good discussions there

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2009/12/mousavi-is-not-husain-ahmadine.html

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

That's all we need in the tailgate...to start importing from other internet wastelands...

So, I guess the saying "one man's trash, is another man's treasure" doesn't apply to Tailgate, huh

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

If God destroys you for killing yourself, somehow I doubt you get into heaven after that one.

Yep that's definitely the Catholic interpretation of that verse. The word "defile" is the word phtheirei which has a very wide symantic range, meaning that it has many uses;

1. Cause harm in a physical manner

cause harm, ruin financially 2 Cor 7:2;

destruction of a house in marriage contracts;

seducing a virgin;

2. To cause deterioration of inner life

ruin or corrupt erroneous teaching or immorality

ruin or corrupt something by misleading tactics

3. Inflict Punishment

4. Break rules of a contest

I also think its interesting that the translation you chose uses "defile" and not destroy, based on that translation defile can mean just about anything, what's more is that defile does not signify suicide.

What's also interesting and is the most critical factor in the interpretation here is that in verse 17; "and you are that temple" the "you" there is not singular but plural (humeis=you all) as such God's Temple is not each individual but instead the entire community. Not to mention that the same holds true for verse 16 "that you are God's temple" the "you" there is also plural yet the Temple is singular. If Paul meant to say that each one of us are God's Temples then it would have been plural, but its not therefor the reading is that the entire community is God's Temple and they are not to defile it with false teaching and immorality etc.

This is why its important to go back to the original languages instead of basing our theology off an English translation, because many times the English will let us down.

Dont get me wrong, I agree the message is still there but its the semantics and such surrounding the message that get lost or changed through translations. The minor details that some people cling so desparately to is where the differences arise. People who spend too much time focusing on those things instead of the overall message are the ones that miss the point!

See you say minor details and semantics like the things we hold true are peripheral issues; but the things you're talking about are central issues such as the divinity of Jesus Christ on that there can be no compromise, and anyone who claims to be a Christian and claims that Jesus was not divine simply does not understand what a Christian is.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Asburyskins fan- I didnt get to read the rest of the thread ive been busy but I noticed you said you think the vault in the vatican is "davincicode bull****" I attended a private school run by monks in junior high and one of the monks there used to work in the vatican vaults. I assure you they are real and there is a lot of stuff in there that is kept away from the public eye.

What I called BS is the idea that in those vaults is stored the secret texts of Jesus' sayings that would ruin the church which the conspiracy theorists like to ramble on about. Heck, my church has a vault...well a safe, that doesn't mean that we keep the secret sayings of Jesus in there, it means we have a place to protect valuable information.

[Mickalino]

What I called BS is the idea that in those vaults is stored the secret texts of Jesus' sayings that would ruin the church which the conspiracy theorists like to ramble on about. Heck, my church has a vault...well a safe, that doesn't mean that we keep the secret sayings of Jesus in there, it means we have a place to protect valuable information.

Oh, and don't forget the secret U.S. government vaults that contain extraterrestrial alien corpses, which would "disprove" Christianity