Bible Study

Originally Posted by Awakening

Jesus would have been black (by that I mean, Arab looking), if that is the case, why do most people draw him as white?

---------- Post added at 01:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 AM ----------

Also, can someone please explain to me why:

Homosexuality is a sin, but eating shellfish is not?

Leviticus 11:10 "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable"

Who in this thread follows this, if not, do you follow the homosexuality law too? Or do you ignore leviticus?

Thanks.

I don't think Jesus would have been exactly black, but I do believe he is darker than he is portrayed.(Middle Eastern more than likely)


I'm kinda odd when it comes to the topic of homosexuality and the Bible. I don't really support the idea of it, but I don't condemn anyone for being gay either.

Originally Posted by Awakening

Also, can someone please explain to me why:

Homosexuality is a sin, but eating shellfish is not?

It actually is for some Christians, such as Seventh Day Adventists.

I have a question: Is going for operation to change gender a sin in Christianity?

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 23:1 (NASB)

No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

Except for the case of circumcision, you're really not supposed to cut your genitals. Beyond that, while sex change surgery may change your appearance, you're still the same sex you were before the surgery. You've still either got two Xs or an X and a Y. You've just mutilated your genitals. A person who gets sex change surgery and then has sex with a member of the same sex is still committing the act of homosexuality.

[edit]
Oh, and MissNancy's spot on with Deuteronomy 22:5.

I would like to address my theology:

I believe in the Bible, but I think that "The Church" is corrupted and full of people who only want money.

I am not "Christian", I am a follower of the word.

What does the Bible say about this?

Do you believe in the teachings of Jesus and that he was the saviour?

If so, you're a Christian.

I am bumping this from page 3, because it wasn't addressed. Is it just that the majority of denominations don't feel that they are worthy of being included?

Originally Posted by Bartimaeus Sex

Why is it that the Book of Wisdom and Book of Sirach are often omitted from the Bible, except in certain denominations?

I find them to be among the most inspirational.

Originally Posted by Silver

Do you believe in the teachings of Jesus and that he was the saviour?

If so, you're a Christian.

Christians are followers of Christianity, I am not pleased with "The Church", nor am I pleased with the corruption that comes with it being religious. I view "Christianity" not as a religion, but as a way of life. I see it as the way I act, and I base my actions off the Bible. I have become irked with the actions of pastors, and I do not consider myself "Christian", rather, I consider myself a follower of the word.

My thoughts on the Bible, Christianity, and the Church as they are fit for contemporary society:

I've been a Roman Catholic since birth and while I am straight, I advance the messages advocated by the neo papacy of first John Paul II and now Benedict XVI to accept people for who they are regardless of sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. If I find fulfillment in my way of life that's great for me and if someone else is living the good life then that's fine by me as well and I'll refrain from intruding on their happiness.

You all should discuss the book of Judas. Left out of the bible, of course. Gospel of Judas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Goldfish

You all should discuss the book of Judas. Left out of the bible, of course. Gospel of Judas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This isn't a book of Judas conversation.

I wouldn't say it was left out. It just didn't need to be in.

Originally Posted by Cor Sicarius

This isn't a book of Judas conversation.

I wouldn't say it was left out. It just didn't need to be in.

It's bible study, and the Book of Judas is very strange regarding the bible and brings great discussion, but anyway. And it wouldn't have made a difference if it were in, half the new testament doesn't "need" to be in. It's the same story told about 5 different ways.

Originally Posted by Goldfish

It's bible study, and the Book of Judas is very strange regarding the bible and brings great discussion, but anyway. And it wouldn't have made a difference if it were in, half the new testament doesn't "need" to be in. It's the same story told about 5 different ways.

You're right. We definitely do not need to have the stories and passages that talk about Jesus. No need for any of it <Sarcasm>

That's quite enough, Cor Sicarius.

The Book of Judas is part of the gospels, thus it has every business being discussed here. Please do not rent-a-mod, and I'd appreciate it if you did not mock other posters.

I'm not at all qualified to talk about The Book of Wisdom or the Book of Sirach because I haven't read or looked into either of them. But I do feel qualified comment on the Gospel of Judas. It became pretty popular while the Da Vinci Code, and all the Bible conspiracy hubbub was popular so I looked into it and read it after reading The Da Vinci Code.

Firstly, almost no one, (neither religious scholars nor secular) believes this book came from anywhere near the time of Christ. Admittedly, many secular and a few religious scholars do argue that some of the books of the New Testament date to a matter of decades after the Resurrection, but no one anywhere argues that the Gospel of Judas is older than 180 AD.

Secondly, there are an uncountable amount of things contained within this book that flat out contradict the consistent story that the books of the Bible tell. Its not as if there's a debate going on between the books of the Bible about the Gospel, and that the Gospel of Judas is just another side of the story. Its version of events are completely contradictory to the story told by the various books of the Bible.

Thirdly, I find it outright laughable that the same people who accuse the books of the Bible of bias and collusion for this and that reason blindly accept this book as an honest account. Only the blindest of readers cannot immediately see that this is clearly a propaganda tool for the Gnostic movement of the early 200s. Its not an honest and heartfelt revelation. It is quite clearly a tool written by a person or group of persons in order to further their movement. "Oh that Jesus guy! Yeah, yeah! He really believed all the things we believe! No! Honestly! See, he said this here and here! Oh? You've never heard of this gospel? Well... Yeah... Judas wrote it!"

Fourthly, the Gospel of Judas is little different than the gospels of Mary, Thomas and company. No one believes they were inspired. No one believes they were from the period they claim to be from. Everyone acknowledges they were pieces written by a certain Gnostic sect, hundreds of years after the fact in order to further their sect. If the Gospel of Judas was something unique, it might warrant some serious thought, but its just another in a series of these kinds of gospels that all came out of the same place for the same purpose.

If anyone cares to look into it more, equip.org has a good piece on it.

Originally Posted by MissNancy

I would assume it is. I know the bible doesn't say anything about sex changes since they were not possible at the time but I do know it says something about a women wearing a mans clothing and vice versa being a sin.

Wasn't that part of the Law of Moses though?

I suppose it depends on the religion and interpretation of the Bible really =|

As someone who's transgender themselves, I actually do believe it to be a sin just based off my own religion. However, like MissNancy said, it's not really mentioned in the Bible like homosexuality is.

My study reveals to me that the Bible promises rewards for sacrifices we make in the here and now for rewards in the future, which is fine.
However, the factual or falsified nature of the Bible is suspect to me. Why be obedient to a supposed being that no one can agree about when they say it can speak to them-- yet insist this Being be known through personal faith and oral tradition meaningfully? I don't know how meaningful a statement "God" is if we don't actually fully understand it.

Originally Posted by BEASTJAZZ

My study reveals to me that the Bible promises rewards for sacrifices we make in the here and now for rewards in the future, which is fine.
However, the factual or falsified nature of the Bible is suspect to me. Why be obedient to a supposed being that no one can agree about when they say it can speak to them-- yet insist this Being be known through personal faith and oral tradition meaningfully? I don't know how meaningful a statement "God" is if we don't actually fully understand it.

I'd have to agree with you sort of. I can't see how anyone could build their lives around the Bible without experiencing the things in it. But, respectfully, I don't think that's an accurate description of the kind of relationship the Bible talks about. Faith is undeniably important, according to the Bible. But experience seems to be just as important. The Bible makes specific promises. If those promises had turned out to not be true when I tried them I wouldn't be a follower today.

I mean, what you're describing sounds a lot like a ponzi scheme. Gimme your money now and I'll give you unimaginable returns in the future. That only works until people start demanding their money. If Christianity was a ponzi scheme with no benefits whatsoever in the here and now, both physical, spiritual, and even miraculous people would have dropped it hundreds of years ago (at least). Especially today when anyone can join or leave whatever religion they want.

I have a question for any Christians out there:

What are the Bible's teachings on sinning when necessity demands it? Not current liberal interpretations, the actual Bible teachings.

If there is no clear definitive answer, what is the general consensus between books?

Well, what is a sin? A sin is when you knowingly and deliberately ignore God's will or - generally speaking - ignore what you think is right and choose what you feel is unjust. At the same time there is a difference between sin and sin. A false step, a moment of unwatchfulness or a second in which you falter is not as serious as a deliberate act with set purpose. And the shades are limitless, because the world is not only black and white, there's a wide range of grey in between.

At the same time, no, the Bible does not say anything about or give you an excuse for a sin demanded by necessity. Technically, almost every sin could be referred to as "it was demanded by necessity", so it would only give you a chance to avoid consequences. Globally speaking, if you knew/felt it was bad to do and you did it anyway, you sinned.

To quote John (1; 3:4), "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness."

At the same time, reading your question made me feel a bit unsure as to what you mean, so if I covered an area you were not interested it, ask away and I'm going to try to think more about it. =)