The Bible and Gay Relationships

[BluePhantom]

Because most cheaters and masturbators do not try to force their beliefs on every one...

You have clearly never been hit on by a married woman.

 

[Peach]

Sex ed classes talk about sex outside marriage and masturbation. So if your idiotic view is whatever is taught in classes is a way of forcing lifestyles on people, even that fails.

You're a hateful bigot looking for any reason to remain hateful. Thankfully christianity and christians have left your type in the dust and soon enough your kind will be nothing but a small black spot in U.S. history.

Since this nation isn't founded on religious beliefs, why bring up the KING JAMES VERSION of the Bible?

It is the version that most Americans are familiar with?

True, but our Constitution isn't founded upon any religious text.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

So why do not many treat cheating, masturbation and such with the same fervor as they do homosexuality?
Why are not pregnant unwed mothers scorned and hidden away like they used to be?

Because most cheaters and masturbators do not try to force their beliefs on every one, they leave it in the bedroom where it belongs. I personally do not care, God will judge them. I do care that they want to force their beliefs on every one else, especially in schools, that is crossing the line.

Double standard you want to justify. The religious can find a clause to justify any behavior they want.

 

[uscitizen]

So why do not many treat cheating, masturbation and such with the same fervor as they do homosexuality?
Why are not pregnant unwed mothers scorned and hidden away like they used to be?

Because most cheaters and masturbators do not try to force their beliefs on every one, they leave it in the bedroom where it belongs. I personally do not care, God will judge them. I do care that they want to force their beliefs on every one else, especially in schools, that is crossing the line.

Double standard you want to justify. The religious can find a clause to justify any behavior they want.

BINGO! And that is my main reason for not being religious. I grew up in a church and experienced this firsthand for the first 16 years of my life.

True Christians who do their best to live life like Christ taught are good folks. Those who use religion for their own purposes are scum.

 

[BluePhantom]

I am sorry. This will be very long but I think you will find it's worth the time to read. At least I hope.

One thing I see in this thread is a lot of ignorance from a specific couple of posters regarding what the scriptures say. I even saw one poster suggest that there was no form of writing when Leviticus was written.....wow!!! This is a very common problem though on several counts:

a) Lots of scriptures are looked at in a vacuum and their context is ignored because the context tends to blow their personal biases to shreds. This is just one problem with Leviticus 18:22. The context is discussing what should and should not be done in ritual, not in your every day life. Pagan rituals frequently used temple prostitutes where all forms of sexual acts could be performed in fertility rituals, just as an example, to please the gods. It speaks against that, not a homosexual relationship as we think of it today (incidentally there wasn't even a word for "homosexuality" in Hebrew at the time Leviticus was written).

b) People apply 21st century culture to Biblical concepts. For example in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah some will insist that is about homosexuality. Not the case on many counts but for the purpose of this point I will focus on the cultural aspect. A common argument is that God destroyed the cities after the men of the town insisted on sodomizing his angels. That's a complete misunderstanding of culture. First, we must recall that Sodom and Gomorrah were military outposts and were under siege by the Elamites and their allies (Genesis 14: 1-4). Next, the scriptures use the word "ya'da" to describe what the men intended with the angels. "Ya'da" means "to know". It can refer to "knowing someone sexually", but it's exceedingly rare that it was used that way. Most commonly it was used in regards to "knowing information". The most reasonable translation is that they wanted to interrogate the angels to determine of they were enemy spies. Now it's also important to understand that in the culture of the day enemy spies, ambassadors, kings, etc were commonly gang raped in the town square as a show of power during war. If the men had determined the angels to be spies during a time of war the custom would have been to gang rape them in the town square as a show of power and dominance. Well that kind of homosexual activity is a FAR CRY from a caring, loving relationship between two people of the same gender. The former speaks of rape. The latter of a relationship.

c) Midrash is a problem. Midrash is a tradition that does many things but one of them is to basically empower the church to look at a scripture that doesn't make sense (perhaps there's a hole in the parchment, or the words are unknown, or it just doesn't make sense) and...ahem...interpret it. Well this is the problem with a whole lot of those scriptures that are presumably against homosexuality. In Romans, for example, Paul used the Greek word "arsenokotai" to describe a group of people that God finds unsavory. The problem is no one knows what "arsenokotai" means. The word is found in no other scriptures or any kind of writing from that time, the context doesn't help because Paul was throwing out a list of things that were unsavory but completely unrelated to each other; we don't know what the fuck it means. We do know that the Greek term for homosexuality at the time was "pederasstie" so it seems that if Paul was referring to homosexuals he simply would have used that word. So why is "arsenokotai" translated into "homosexuals"? Damn good question. No one knows and the church hasn't been too eager to explain itself.

Midrash is also a problem in Leviticus. Translated literally it says "And you shall not with a man lay layings for a woman, it is to'ebah". Well two points. #1 the first part makes no sense at all. What does it mean to "lay layings"? No one knows. So using Midrash the church just popped in three little words to say "And you shall not with a man lay (as with the) layings of a woman..." Ok now it makes more sense but we also just completely changed the scripture. "lay as with the layings" is not what is written. #2 the word to'ebah has many different meanings. It can be translated as "abomination" but usually in reference to ritual (as this section of Leviticus is) it's better translated as "improper". Well there's a big difference between an "abomination" and simply "improper". It makes more sense from cultural, contextual, and linguistic points of view to say in regard to pagan sex rituals discussed in that section of Leviticus: "this is not a proper way to go about rituals for God" instead of "it's an abomination, God will be pissed, and you will burn in hell".

d) No one has the original texts of any of these books. What we have are the earliest copies of them and we know by comparing one version from a given era to another from a later era that they are not the same. They change as they are copied, usually for political reasons. For example: in The Revelation it has always been believed that the "Number of the Beast" was 666....which when you apply a little numbers and letters game in Aramaic spells the name of Nero. But suddenly, we find another version dated much earlier that says the Number of the Beast is 616...which when you apply the same numbers code spells out Caligula. Well which is it? Well the answer is clear. The author was referring in code to the Roman Emperor at the time as "the Beast" and when Caligula was the Emperor it was 616. Later when Nero became the Emperor they simply changed it to 666 to reflect what was going on at the time.

Anyhow, I could continue and hit every Bible passage "about homosexuality" one by one, but you get the point hopefully. The main thrust is that the scriptures we have today are frequently misinterpreted due to Midrash, ignorance of ancient culture, ignorance of ancient language, politics, and simple human error. To suggest, as the Westboro Baptist Church claims, that God hates homosexuals or even that homosexuality is an affront to God is a) based upon the aforementioned forms of ignorance, b) arrogant as hell since it means one presumes to know the will of God lacking any reliable sources of documentation, and/or 3) simply using the scriptural ignorance of others to further a particular anti-homosexual political agenda.

THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY

Beast's real mark devalued to '616'

And So It Begins . . .

 

[Peach]

I am sorry. This will be very long but I think you will find it's worth the time to read. At least I hope.

One thing I see is this thread is a lot of ignorance from a specific couple of posters regarding what the scriptures say. I even saw one poster suggest that there was no form of writing when Leviticus was written.....wow!!! This is a very common problem though on several counts:

a) Lots of scriptures are looked at in a vacuum and their context is ignored because the context tends to blow their personal biases to shreds. This is just one problem with Leviticus 18:22. The context is discussing what should and should not be done in ritual, not in your every day life. Pagan rituals frequently used temple prostitutes where all forms of sexual acts could be performed in fertility rituals, just as an example, to please the gods. It speaks against that, not a homosexual relationship as we think of it today (incidentally there wasn't even a word for "homosexuality" in Hebrew at the time Leviticus was written).

b) People apply 21st century culture to Biblical concepts. For example in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah some will insist that is about homosexuality. Not the case on many counts but for the purpose of this point I will focus on the cultural aspect. A common argument is that God destroyed the cities after the men of the town insisted on sodomizing his angels. That's a complete misunderstanding of culture. First, we must recall that Sodom and Gomorrah were military outposts and were under siege by the Elamites and their allies (Genesis 14: 1-4). Next, the scriptures use the word "ya'da" to describe what the men intended with the angels. "Ya'da" means "to know". It can refer to "knowing someone sexually", but it's exceedingly rare that it was used that way. Most commonly it was used in regards to "knowing information". The most reasonable translation is that they wanted to interrogate the angels to determine of they were enemy spies. Now it's also important to understand that in the culture of the day enemy spies, ambassadors, kings, etc were commonly gang raped in the town square as a show of power during war. If the men had determined the angels to be spies during a time of war the custom would have been to gang rape them in the town square as a show of power and dominance. Well that kind of homosexual activity is a FAR CRY from a caring, loving relationship between two people of the same gender. The former speaks of rape. The latter of a relationship.

c) Midrash is a problem. Midrash is a tradition that does many things but one of them is to basically empower the church to look at a scripture that doesn't make sense (perhaps there's a hole in the parchment, or the words are unknown, or it just doesn't make sense) and...ahem...interpret it. Well this is the problem with a whole lot of those scriptures that are presumably against homosexuality. In Romans, for example, Paul used the Greek word "arsenokotai" to describe a group of people that God finds unsavory. The problem is no one knows what "arsenokotai" means. The word is found in no other scriptures or any kind of writing from that time, the context doesn't help because Paul was throwing out a list of things that were unsavory but completely unrelated to each other; we don't know what the fuck it means. We do know that the Greek term for homosexuality at the time was "pederasstie" so it seems that if Paul was referring to homosexuals he simply would have used that word. So why is "arsenokotai" translated into "homosexuals"? Damn good question. No one knows and the church hasn't been too eager to explain itself.

Midrash is also a problem in Leviticus. Translated literally it says "And you shall not with a man lay layings for a woman, it is to'ebah". Well two points. #1 the first part makes no sense at all. What does it mean to "lay layings"? No one knows. So using Midrash the church just popped in three little words to say "And you shall not with a man lay (as with the) layings of a woman..." Ok now it makes more sense but we also just completely changed the scripture. "lay as with the layings" is not what is written. #2 the word to'ebah has many different meanings. It can be translated as "abomination" but usually in reference to ritual (as this section of Leviticus is) it's better translated as "improper". Well there's a big difference between an "abomination" and simply "improper". It makes more sense from cultural, contextual, and linguistic points of view to say in regard to pagan sex rituals: "this is not a proper way to go about rituals for God" instead of "it's an abomination, God will be pissed, and you will burn in hell".

d) No one has the original texts of any of these books. What we have are the earliest copies of them and we know by comparing one version from a given era to another from a later era that they are not the same. They change as they are copied, usually for political reasons. For example: in The Revelation it has always been believed that the "Number of the Beast" was 666....which when you apply a little numbers and letters game in Aramaic spells the name of Nero. But suddenly, we find another version dated much earlier that says the Number of the Beast is 616...which when you apply the same numbers code spells out Caligula. Well which is it? Well the answer is clear. The author was referring in code to the Roman Emperor at the time as "the Beast" and when Caligula was the Emperor it was 616. Later when Nero became the Emperor they simply changed it to 666 to reflect what was going on at the time.

Anyhow, I could continue and hit every Bible passage "about homosexuality" one by one, but you get the point hopefully. The main thrust is that the scriptures we have today are frequently misinterpreted due to Midrash, ignorance of ancient culture, ignorance of ancient language, politics, and simple human error. To suggest, as the Westboro Baptist Church claims, that God hates homosexuals or even that homosexuality is an affront to God is a) based upon the aforementioned forms of ignorance, b) arrogant as hell since it means one presumes to know the will of God lacking any reliable sources of documentation, and/or 3) simply using the scriptural ignorance of others to further a particular anti-homosexual political agenda.

THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY

Beast's real mark devalued to '616'

And So It Begins . . .

Very helpful, which is why I write King James Version. The translation is part of the debate, and hate.....................

 

[BluePhantom]

Very helpful, which is why I write King James Version. The translation is part of the debate, and hate.....................

Thank you. The reality is I am a very spiritual guy. Faith plays a significant role in my life. But I want that faith to be based upon an accurate reading of scripture (at least as much as can possibly be done) and not the scriptures that have been twisted and politicized by the processes I described in my post. This is why I can consider myself "committed to God" and have no problem whatsoever with defending the rights of gays to marry or enter into relationships. After a lifetime of research I simply can find no evidence that God has a problem with it, despite what modern translations (or perhaps more accurately "mistranslations") of the Bible say.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Because most cheaters and masturbators do not try to force their beliefs on every one, they leave it in the bedroom where it belongs. I personally do not care, God will judge them. I do care that they want to force their beliefs on every one else, especially in schools, that is crossing the line.

Double standard you want to justify. The religious can find a clause to justify any behavior they want.

BINGO! And that is my main reason for not being religious. I grew up in a church and experienced this firsthand for the first 16 years of my life.

True Christians who do their best to live life like Christ taught are good folks. Those who use religion for their own purposes are scum.

I went to a Catholic grade school and found so much a justification. Faith is pick an choose. You accept what you like and discard the rest. Makes minced meta of what is believed to be god's word by some.
If a person believe they certainly should be consistent. There is no consistency in many of the believers.

 

[Peach]

Double standard you want to justify. The religious can find a clause to justify any behavior they want.

BINGO! And that is my main reason for not being religious. I grew up in a church and experienced this firsthand for the first 16 years of my life.

True Christians who do their best to live life like Christ taught are good folks. Those who use religion for their own purposes are scum.

I went to a Catholic grade school and found so much a justification. Faith is pick an choose. You accept what you like and discard the rest. Makes minced meta of what is believed to be god's word by some.
If a person believe they certainly should be consistent. There is no consistency in many of the believers.

And many faiths whose "beliefs" conflict....................................

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Very helpful, which is why I write King James Version. The translation is part of the debate, and hate.....................

Thank you. The reality is I am a very spiritual guy. Faith plays a significant role in my life. But I want that faith to be based upon an accurate reading of scripture (at least as much as can possibly be done) and not the scriptures that have been twisted and politicized by the processes I described in my post. This is why I can consider myself "committed to God" and have no problem whatsoever with defending the rights of gays to marry or enter into relationships. After a lifetime of research I simply can find no evidence that God has a problem with it, despite what modern translations (or perhaps more accurately "mistranslations") of the Bible say.

Knowing the actual wording in the texts adds validity to your faith. I applaud your rational thinking about your faith. So many are willing to breeze by what they do not understand or accept whatever they are told.

 

[BluePhantom]

One other point I really have to make here is in relation to Paul and culture. Paul is a very problematic source of information for a lot of reasons (which I will explain thoroughly if anyone is really that interested) and frankly in my research I have gotten to the point that if it's written by Paul I generally take it with a huge grain of salt if not ignore it completely.

But sometimes Paul talks about "the effeminate" and "unnatural sexual acts" and how being effeminate is an affront to God, etc. Again we have have to understand some cultural points here. Paul was a Roman and in Roman culture (or Greek or frankly just about any culture of the time) they distinguished greatly between the dominant role in homosexual activity and the feminine role in homosexual activity. It was perfectly fine and natural to be the dominant male in homosexual activity. But the feminine male was a position reserved for young boys and slaves. It would be considered a social abomination; completely unnatural for a grown man to assume the feminine role.

In other words, in regards to homosexual relations it was no problem at all to be the pitcher; you just couldn't be the catcher. Now in the 21st century we don't distinguish between the two forms of homosexual roles. We tend to lump them together: gay is gay no matter what role you take and to suggest that there is a difference between the dominant role and the feminine role is ridiculous. But that is according to our 21st century perception. To Paul...a Roman....that would make perfect sense and indeed would be the precise way that he was brought up to think.

Anyhow...just thought I would toss that in there as well.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

BINGO! And that is my main reason for not being religious. I grew up in a church and experienced this firsthand for the first 16 years of my life.

True Christians who do their best to live life like Christ taught are good folks. Those who use religion for their own purposes are scum.

I went to a Catholic grade school and found so much a justification. Faith is pick an choose. You accept what you like and discard the rest. Makes minced meta of what is believed to be god's word by some.
If a person believe they certainly should be consistent. There is no consistency in many of the believers.

And many faiths whose "beliefs" conflict....................................

This is true. So many of the Christian faiths do have conflicts in belief's. I would think if people are studying from the same text they would reach a same or similar conclusion and this is simply not the case.

 

[BluePhantom]

I went to a Catholic grade school and found so much a justification. Faith is pick an choose. You accept what you like and discard the rest. Makes minced meta of what is believed to be god's word by some.
If a person believe they certainly should be consistent. There is no consistency in many of the believers.

And many faiths whose "beliefs" conflict....................................

This is true. So many of the Christian faiths do have conflicts in belief's. I would think if people are studying from the same text they would reach a same or similar conclusion and this is simply not the case.

Well the reason for that has a lot to do with political history and struggles for power and that's been going on since the moment Jesus died. I mean Peter and Paul were certainly battling between themselves for power. At the end of 2 Peter, for example, Peter has some rather nasty things to say about Paul. Essentially he says: "you know...Paul....he's a good guy and a brother, but you might not want to pay a whole lot of attention to what he says 'cause he has a tendency to screw it up". Some might view Peter's comments a bit differently but given the history between the two that's how I view it at least. Peter says Paul "understands according to the gifts God has given him". Wow...there's a lot of ways to take that comment, you know? And in reality it created two different sects among many others: those who sided with Peter and those who sided with Paul.

When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire he kind of settled that battle in Paul's favor. This makes a lot of sense because Paul's writings are a) very vague, ambiguous, and open to a lot of interpretation, and b) generally endorsed (when translated to do so at least) a far stricter model of society and behavior. Well, Constantine was a Roman Emperor and what a Roman Emperor wants most of all is order and obedience and Paul's approach was far more conducive to Constantine's goals and could be far more easily manipulated to create the society a Roman Emperor would want.

So when you trace back all these different beliefs based on (largely at least) the same or similar scriptures it can usually be linked to some form of political power struggle within the church that eventually caused a split, or the adoption of one approach over another.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

And many faiths whose "beliefs" conflict....................................

This is true. So many of the Christian faiths do have conflicts in belief's. I would think if people are studying from the same text they would reach a same or similar conclusion and this is simply not the case.

Well the reason for that has a lot to do with political history and struggles for power and that's been going on since the moment Jesus died. I mean Peter and Paul were certainly battling between themselves for power. At the end of 2 Peter, for example, Peter has some rather nasty things to say about Paul. Essentially he says: "you know...Paul....he's a good guy and a brother, but you might not want to pay a whole lot of attention to what he says 'cause he has a tendency to screw it up". Some might view Peter's comments a bit differently but given the history between the two that's how I view it at least. Peter says Paul "understands according to the gifts God has given him". Wow...there's a lot of ways to take that comment, you know? And in reality it created two different sects among many others: those who sided with Peter and those who sided with Paul.

When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire he kind of settled that battle in Paul's favor. This makes a lot of sense because Paul's writings are a) very vague, ambiguous, and open to a lot of interpretation, and b) generally endorsed (when translated to do so at least) a far stricter model of society and behavior. Well, Constantine was a Roman Emperor and what a Roman Emperor wants most of all is order and obedience and Paul's approach was far more conducive to Constantine's goals and could be far more easily manipulated to create the society a Roman Emperor would want.

So when you trace back all these different beliefs based on (largely at least) the same or similar scriptures it can usually be linked to some form of political power struggle within the church that eventually caused a split, or the adoption of one approach over another.

Peter and Paul also had very different backgrounds. Paul would have been viewed by Romans in a much better light. Though he was a throne in their sides and eventually died for it.
Paul was better educated as well.
Peter was trying to unite the Jewish community and Paul was out spreading his knowledge to everyone. Wasn't there question as to his passing the faith on the gentiles as well? They had a great deal of conflict. It seemed like Paul had a lot of conflict with many people.

 

[BluePhantom]

Peter and Paul also had very different backgrounds. Paul would have been viewed by Romans in a much better light. Though he was a throne in their sides and eventually died for it.
Paul was better educated as well.
Peter was trying to unite the Jewish community and Paul was out spreading his knowledge to everyone. Wasn't there question as to his passing the faith on the gentiles as well? They had a great deal of conflict. It seemed like Paul had a lot of conflict with many people.

yes I would agree with that. Especially the part about Peter focusing mostly on the Jewish community where Paul spoke to everyone. I think on one hand we can argue that Paul was in a slightly different position because, as a Roman, he would be listened to by Romans a lot more than Peter would have. But on the other hand it's also important to remember that Paul had a real bad habit of changing his story according to what suited him best at the time. For example, when talking to Jews he would claim to be of Jewish descent and then at other times he claimed to be a member of the Sanhedrian, then at other times he claimed to be nothing more than a Roman citizen.

And these weren't simply times in his life where his philosophy had developed to a point where suddenly he found that he identified more with one group than the other. He flipped flopped around more frequently than a porn star based upon what was best for him according to the circumstances he was presently dealing with. So the argument can certainly be made that Paul was at best a bullshit artist, and at worst a lying sack of shit. This is just one problem that I, and a lot of Biblical scholars, have with Paul.

Peter on the other hand seemed to be more concerned with finding unity within the Jews and conversely it can certainly be argued that his focus was that more because no one else was going to listen to him rather than a reluctance to reach out. No Roman was ever going to listen to what Peter had to say so why bother?

Sometimes you will hear arguments that "well Peter focused on the Jews and Paul focused on gentiles as a matter of strategy - they were working together and each had their own assignment of who to reach out to according to their position within society". I think perhaps it might have started that way, but I don't think it lasted long until the power struggle between them began and then it became a point of contention rather than a matter of strategy (assuming that was indeed their strategy to begin with). But yes, as you said, Paul had a whole lot of conflict. Tons of it in fact.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Peter and Paul also had very different backgrounds. Paul would have been viewed by Romans in a much better light. Though he was a throne in their sides and eventually died for it.
Paul was better educated as well.
Peter was trying to unite the Jewish community and Paul was out spreading his knowledge to everyone. Wasn't there question as to his passing the faith on the gentiles as well? They had a great deal of conflict. It seemed like Paul had a lot of conflict with many people.

yes I would agree with that. Especially the part about Peter focusing mostly on the Jewish community where Paul spoke to everyone. I think on one hand we can argue that Paul was in a slightly different position because, as a Roman, he would be listened to by Romans a lot more than Peter would have. But on the other hand it's also important to remember that Paul had a real bad habit of changing his story according to what suited him best at the time. For example, when talking to Jews he would claim to be of Jewish descent and then at other times he claimed to be a member of the Sanhedrian, then at other times he claimed to be nothing more than a Roman citizen.

And these weren't simply times in his life where his philosophy had developed to a point where suddenly he found that he identified more with one group than the other. He flipped flopped around more frequently than a porn star based upon what was best for him according to the circumstances he was presently dealing with. So the argument can certainly be made that Paul was at best a bullshit artist, and at worst a lying sack of shit. This is just one problem that I, and a lot of Biblical scholars, have with Paul.

Peter on the other hand seemed to be more concerned with finding unity within the Jews and conversely it can certainly be argued that his focus was that more because no one else was going to listen to him rather than a reluctance to reach out. No Roman was ever going to listen to what Peter had to say so why bother?

Sometimes you will hear arguments that "well Peter focused on the Jews and Paul focused on gentiles as a matter of strategy - they were working together and each had their own assignment of who to reach out to according to their position within society". I think perhaps it might have started that way, but I don't think it lasted long until the power struggle between them began and then it became a point of contention rather than a matter of strategy (assuming that was indeed their strategy to begin with). But yes, as you said, Paul had a whole lot of conflict. Tons of it in fact.

Paul played to the crowd and never looked back. He used whatever means he had to say what he believed needed to be said.
Peter seems more simple and tried to build a community. His was a harder task because he needed to be ever present to those followers in the home town. It was risky for him as so many I'm sure did not like what he was saying. He had to preach a consistent message.
Paul was a man at war with himself. IMO Life was a struggle and he was so important to many in the faith. His inability to get along with people pushed some away. Mark was a follower of his as I have read and didn't he write one of the gospels later on.
Paul even chased Barnabas away as I remember.
Peter and Paul were different breeds with totally different focus.

 

[BluePhantom]

Paul played to the crowd and never looked back. He used whatever means he had to say what he believed needed to be said.
Peter seems more simple and tried to build a community. His was a harder task because he needed to be ever present to those followers in the home town. It was risky for him as so many I'm sure did not like what he was saying. He had to preach a consistent message.
Paul was a man at war with himself. IMO Life was a struggle and he was so important to many in the faith. His inability to get along with people pushed some away. Mark was a follower of his as I have read and didn't he write one of the gospels later on.
Paul even chased Barnabas away as I remember.
Peter and Paul were different breeds with totally different focus.

Yes that's correct. You are well versed I must say. I think your characterization of Paul is spot on. In regards to Mark...well it gets interesting there because there's Mark the Evangelist, and then there's John Mark, and John who was called Mark. Traditionally, we assume they are all the same person but there's evidence, in fact, that they were different. My guess is that the traditional thought on that is probably correct although I am not willing to say that definitively.

John the Apostle for example is traditionally thought of as the author of The Revelation, based on the author identifying himself as John of Patmos. In reality though they were almost certainly two different people. So when you have that little name thing going on..Mark the Evangelist vs. John Mark vs. John who was called Mark....it very well might be the same person....on the other hand sometimes it's not and unfortunately at this point (some 2,000 years later) it can be almost impossible to tell.

But yes Mark was a follower of Paul...at least a follower in the sense that he appeared to side with Paul most of the time. Occasionally, though he would take Peter's side and at one point Mark and Paul had one hell of a falling out.

When you look at it scripturally there's a hell of a mess because there is debate on whose writings predated whose? So was the Gospel of Mark based upon the influence of Paul? It's just as possible that Paul's ideas were variations of Mark's writings. So from a strictly historical perspective it may actually be that Paul was more of a follower of Mark than the other way around. That's not what is usually accepted, but the way history reads is often far different than the way things happened.

Which brings us to the "Q source" which is a theoretical source that combined to heavily influence the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Well we have no proof that there ever was a Q source, but assuming just for the sake of argument there was; could Paul be the Q source? I have heard people argue that he was but frankly I doubt it because Paul's writings seem to be more of the result of other gospels instead of the inspiration for them. That of course is still speculation.

Anyhow, I am making a far bigger point of things than is necessary. Yes there was a significant relationship between Mark and Paul, and yes Mark wrote a Gospel although whether the Gospel was influenced by the relationship with Paul, or the relationship with Paul was influenced by the Gospel of Mark is a subject of debate. We're not quite sure which came first and indeed they probably overlapped to a large degree.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Paul played to the crowd and never looked back. He used whatever means he had to say what he believed needed to be said.
Peter seems more simple and tried to build a community. His was a harder task because he needed to be ever present to those followers in the home town. It was risky for him as so many I'm sure did not like what he was saying. He had to preach a consistent message.
Paul was a man at war with himself. IMO Life was a struggle and he was so important to many in the faith. His inability to get along with people pushed some away. Mark was a follower of his as I have read and didn't he write one of the gospels later on.
Paul even chased Barnabas away as I remember.
Peter and Paul were different breeds with totally different focus.

Yes that's correct. You are well versed I must say. I think your characterization of Paul is spot on. In regards to Mark...well it gets interesting there because there's Mark the Evangelist, and then there's John Mark, and John who was called Mark. Traditionally, we assume they are all the same person but there's evidence, in fact, that they were different. My guess is that the traditional thought on that is probably correct although I am not willing to say that definitively.

John the Apostle for example is traditionally thought of as the author of The Revelation, based on the author identifying himself as John of Patmos. In reality though they were almost certainly two different people. So when you have that little name thing going on..Mark the Evangelist vs. John Mark vs. John who was called Mark....it very well might be the same person....on the other hand sometimes it's not and unfortunately at this point (some 2,000 years later) it can be almost impossible to tell.

But yes Mark was a follower of Paul...at least a follower in the sense that he appeared to side with Paul most of the time. Occasionally, though he would take Peter's side and at one point Mark and Paul had one hell of a falling out.

When you look at it scripturally there's a hell of a mess because there is debate on whose writings predated whose? So was the Gospel of Mark based upon the influence of Paul? It's just as possible that Paul's ideas were variations of Mark's writings. So from a strictly historical perspective it may actually be that Paul was more of a follower of Mark than the other way around. That's not what is usually accepted, but the way history reads is often far different than the way things happened.

Which brings us to the "Q source" which is a theoretical source that combined to heavily influence the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Well we have no proof that there ever was a Q source, but assuming just for the sake of argument there was; could Paul be the Q source? I have heard people argue that he was but frankly I doubt it because Paul's writings seem to be more of the result of other gospels instead of the inspiration for them. That of course is still speculation.

Anyhow, I am making a far bigger point of things than is necessary. Yes there was a significant relationship between Mark and Paul, and yes Mark wrote a Gospel although whether the Gospel was influenced by the relationship with Paul, or the relationship with Paul was influenced by the Gospel of Mark is a subject of debate. We're not quite sure which came first and indeed they probably overlapped to a large degree.

When you get into the Q source you start with a text which may not have existed. That is true. Anything I have read about this tells me that there may have been something in which documents were written down about certain events. Source material for others to use as a basis for their interpretations and further stories.
It is a good question as to it being an actual document.
The four gospels are certainly very different. Mark seems to lay out a simple foundation. Matthew looks as if it tells the story from a Jewish perspective reaching the community closest to home. I think Luke had something from which he worked to adapt his writings. He added to the importance of some of the stories and took away from others as he made his points.
When you look at John you find a totally different focus. He relates more to the spiritual side of events and finds things important that the others ignored. You would get the feeling just from reading that he had a much closer personal relationship to the events he describes.
If in fact this text was panned by the Apostle it makes sense. He was close to Jesus as the scripture makes clear.
I find the description of what happened at the tome interesting. John took everything on faith about the resurrection whereas Peter began an investigative process. It illustrates the two sides of church.
I have done some reading myself in terms of general knowledge but the extent and depth is not all that great. The topic is one that does interest me.
I find it hard to believe that many believers can get to where they are today when you begin with a character like Jesus. I find it hard to understand that a person like Jesus who is based in love and forgiveness has been twisted to the point where everything he said comes out of the mouths of many followers today as judgement.
I guess that's what happens when 2000 years pass between visits.

 

[BluePhantom]

One other point I really have to make here is in relation to Paul and culture. Paul is a very problematic source of information for a lot of reasons (which I will explain thoroughly if anyone is really that interested) and frankly in my research I have gotten to the point that if it's written by Paul I generally take it with a huge grain of salt if not ignore it completely.

But sometimes Paul talks about "the effeminate" and "unnatural sexual acts" and how being effeminate is an affront to God, etc. Again we have have to understand some cultural points here. Paul was a Roman and in Roman culture (or Greek or frankly just about any culture of the time) they distinguished greatly between the dominant role in homosexual activity and the feminine role in homosexual activity. It was perfectly fine and natural to be the dominant male in homosexual activity. But the feminine male was a position reserved for young boys and slaves. It would be considered a social abomination; completely unnatural for a grown man to assume the feminine role.

In other words, in regards to homosexual relations it was no problem at all to be the pitcher; you just couldn't be the catcher. Now in the 21st century we don't distinguish between the two forms of homosexual roles. We tend to lump them together: gay is gay no matter what role you take and to suggest that there is a difference between the dominant role and the feminine role is ridiculous. But that is according to our 21st century perception. To Paul...a Roman....that would make perfect sense and indeed would be the precise way that he was brought up to think.

Anyhow...just thought I would toss that in there as well.

I want to toss in one final point on this line of thought. Let's consider, for the sake of argument, that the above is correct. Paul held the opinion that a dominant role in a male homosexual relationship was fine but a submissive role was not. How then do we approach that in the modern day according to modern culture?

It seems to me we have three options:

a) We can endorse that point of view literally and persecute only those homosexuals who are effeminate but that means we must regress culturally some 2,000 years. I don't think anyone, even the most passionate believer, really wants to go back to the way society was two thousand years ago because if we do that for one issue then there's nothing to say we shouldn't do it for all issues. At that point it becomes perfectly reasonable to stone people to death, slay daughters for talking back (even though on occasion I have been tempted by my own daughters ), etc. So I think we can toss that one out the window.

b) We can say "well in modern culture we do not discriminate between the dominant and submissive so we will persecute all homosexuals". Well doesn't that mean though, that even if we accept the word of Paul as the word of God (which personally I do not) then we are persecuting a sub-set of individuals who neither Paul nor God said to persecute? How are we following God's will in that case?

c) We shrug our shoulders and say "we are not going to persecute anyone; let God figure it out".

It seems to me that only option c can be reasonably adopted while maintaining what makes our culture unique and special and at the same time adhering to the love and worship of God.

Isn't it written in Matthew 22: 36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”​

Matthew 22 NIV - The Parable of the Wedding Banquet - Bible Gateway

Isn't it written in Matthew 7: 1-5

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.​

Matthew 7 NIV - Judging Others -

In Romans 13:10

10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.​

Romans 13 NIV - Submission to Governing Authorities - Bible Gateway

 

[BluePhantom]

When you get into the Q source you start with a text which may not have existed. That is true. Anything I have read about this tells me that there may have been something in which documents were written down about certain events. Source material for others to use as a basis for their interpretations and further stories.
It is a good question as to it being an actual document.
The four gospels are certainly very different. Mark seems to lay out a simple foundation. Matthew looks as if it tells the story from a Jewish perspective reaching the community closest to home. I think Luke had something from which he worked to adapt his writings. He added to the importance of some of the stories and took away from others as he made his points.
When you look at John you find a totally different focus. He relates more to the spiritual side of events and finds things important that the others ignored. You would get the feeling just from reading that he had a much closer personal relationship to the events he describes.
If in fact this text was panned by the Apostle it makes sense. He was close to Jesus as the scripture makes clear.
I find the description of what happened at the tome interesting. John took everything on faith about the resurrection whereas Peter began an investigative process. It illustrates the two sides of church.

Without question. Very astute observations. i think we could even go a step further...zoom out the focus a bit if you will and observe that (with some exceptions of course) the Old Testament seems to focus more on rules for society while the New Testament seems to focus more on rules for yourself. From a purely Christian concept this would make a lot of sense since Jesus was, in Christian thought at least, the fulfillment of the the prophecy in the Old Testament and with that fulfilled the focus changes as does the methodology. No longer must we sacrifice to reach God...the sacrifice has been made. No longer must we use an intermediary to reach God...now we can go directly to Him and that opens the door for a far greater personal connection to God as it becomes direct instead of indirect.

I have done some reading myself in terms of general knowledge but the extent and depth is not all that great. The topic is one that does interest me.
I find it hard to believe that many believers can get to where they are today when you begin with a character like Jesus. I find it hard to understand that a person like Jesus who is based in love and forgiveness has been twisted to the point where everything he said comes out of the mouths of many followers today as judgement.
I guess that's what happens when 2000 years pass between visits.

Well I think that's what happens when people confuse the "word of God" and the "word of man". When the latter is introduced you have political effects, power struggle effects, cultural effects...all the things I pointed out in my "long dissertation post" that are the results of "man" instead of God.