Lying about Scripture

[Villager]

I think leaving it out does a greater misservice. Although the text can't be authenticated that does not mean that it isn't authentic.

A heretic's passport.

However it would be just as bad to leave it in without brackets and footnotes to mention the lack of authentification.

To be fair, I think that all modern ones do that. But the position of the United Bible Societies is that there is no excuse even to include these passages and verses that found their way into medieval Bibles only due to the far smaller awareness of texts that obtained in those days. Ignorance is no precedent.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If it is unsubstantiated yes....

if not it is fine...

The OP is clear. It is so simple that it can't be "unsubstantiated." If you're adding to the words of Christ, you're a liar. There's no way to justify it. It's not an accusation but a simple statement of fact.

This fact is substantiated by the simple evidence in the body of literature that we're referring to - Jesus's sayings in the Gospels. This body of literature is limited by Christian tradition, so we can know quite well all of the sayings of Jesus that are preserved. When you add to those sayings, it is rather effortless to determine when a person is lying.

 

[sojourner]

The OP is clear. It is so simple that it can't be "unsubstantiated." If you're adding to the words of Christ, you're a liar. There's no way to justify it. It's not an accusation but a simple statement of fact.

This fact is substantiated by the simple evidence in the body of literature that we're referring to - Jesus's sayings in the Gospels. This body of literature is limited by Christian tradition, so we can know quite well all of the sayings of Jesus that are preserved. When you add to those sayings, it is rather effortless to determine when a person is lying.

But there are passages of scripture quoting Jesus that we know are most likely not authentic. Are you saying that the Biblical editors are liars?
I don't see how you can take such a cut-and-dried stance when the authenticity of many such statements is up for debate, and when there's such a disconnect between the traditional Jesus and the historic Jesus.

Or are you just referencing extra-biblical anomalies?

 

[Villager]

But there are passages of scripture quoting Jesus that we know are most likely not authentic.

There are passages of scripture quoting Jesus that we know some people calling themselves scholars say are most likely not authentic. But then they say such amusing things.

Are you saying that the Biblical editors are liars?

If they can be, 'scholars' certainly can.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Male-male relations were considered unclean. That is all. Lobster is unclean. Do Christians eat Lobster?

No, we eat homosexuals.

 

[sojourner]

There are passages of scripture quoting Jesus that we know some people calling themselves scholars say are most likely not authentic. But then they say such amusing things.

There are also passages that we know were later additions, and obviously not authentic...

 

[sojourner]

No, we eat homosexuals.

Now that's just dirty!:areyoucra

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Now that's just dirty!:areyoucra

Well, vegetables are too hard to get out of the wheelchair.

 

[sojourner]

Well, vegetables are too hard to get out of the wheelchair.

Have you ever tried eating while riding a bicycle? :faint:

 

[Villager]

There are also passages that we know were later additions, and obviously not authentic...

Why do so many posters have to be asked for evidence?

 

[Quagmire]

Why do so many posters have to be asked for evidence?

Because not everyone here is looking exclusively for confirmation of what they already believe.

Why do you answer people's questions with completely unrelated questions?

 

[Villager]

Because not everyone here is looking exclusively for confirmation of what they already believe.

Are there any such people? Can we have a list of names? Can we see evidence of this mindset?

Of course, one does not have to give detailed support for everything one writes. Threads would become overloaded with tedious factual statements if one had to do that. What is noticeable, though, is that some posters make contentious claims but without supporting evidence, and have to be asked for it. That does not seem appropriate, surely. Any student handing in an essay bearing only the opening statement will get no acceptable response. It's not usually that a whole essay is required here, but just a few alleged facts, that are open to scrutiny. Failure to produce them appears to be reluctance to support those bare claims.

So, for example, we have before us the proposition that the Bible contains passages 'that we know were later additions, and obviously not authentic', but no indication, thus far, of what those passages are. Do they exist? Nobody knows, apparently.

 

[Shermana]

John 7:53-8:11 the story of the adulteress and "He without sin cast the first stone" is pretty much unanimously considered to be a later interpolation, since it doesn't show up in critical early documents.

 

[sojourner]

Why do so many posters have to be asked for evidence?

When will all the rhetorical questions ever end?

 

[sojourner]

What is noticeable, though, is that some posters make contentious claims but without supporting evidence, and have to be asked for it.

What is also noticeable is that my claim isn't contentious. It's well known from several notable scholastic perspectives. Just because you haven't done your homework doesn't mean it's "contentious." There are people who contend that the earth is flat, but that doesn't mean that if one opines a round earth that the notion is "contentious."

 

[sojourner]

So, for example, we have before us the proposition that the Bible contains passages 'that we know were later additions, and obviously not authentic', but no indication, thus far, of what those passages are. Do they exist? Nobody knows, apparently.

any decent scholastic commentary (such as the Anchor) will tell you everything you need to know. I've already done my bit of homework. Now it's your turn.

 

[Katzpur]

So the question is this: is it immoral to lie about a text and use it to harm/ insult others?

Yes, it's immoral. It's also dishonest. Lying for Jesus is no more acceptable than lying for Satan.

This is a profound blasphemy to me and I wonder if I'm blowing it out of proportion.

I agree, and I don't think you're blowing it out of proportion.

 

[Me Myself]

I think that it is the greatest offense to lie about the text and thus attribute that content the authority of the religious figure.

I absolutely agree with you. One must be most careful when talking about reilgious understandings that are not one´s own, and when saying our own understandings we most be very clear of the sources if they are asked for and share them honestly if we are going to share them.

For, Jesus said nothing about lesbianism, at least as far as we know. If someone were to say that Jesus condemned lesbianism, that's not merely a misinterpretation of something that is written, but an outright fabrication. And the liar merrily goes about his business giving the divine authority of Christ to the liar's own fabricated views.

It is also important to notice if the person speaking believes himself. Many people say things along the lines of "Jesus believed in the jewish scriptures, and this say that lesbianism is bad, thus YES! Jesus condemned lesbianism!"

Now, while I do believe that is a stretch (and a far one because it is very easily understandable the opposite argument (Jesus didn´t have any problem with lesbianism) ) I do also understand that if that is the understanding or belief that person has or believes has of what Jesus said and believed, then s/he is not lying per se, s/he is just misinformed.

In this cases I would say the best is just to "fight" misconceptions with clear information and arguments.

Now if someone that was not christiasn said that Jesus condemned lesbianism without having read the bible and just because mainstream christianity or even asingle branch of it condemns it, then he is being disrespectful for dealing inormation on something which he doesn´t know nor cared to know and isn´t even because of his beliefs of what is moral but as an attack towards the deity in question.

i would see much more fault at that, even though I wouldn´t still call it lying, just reallhy rude and vocal ignorance.

So the question is this: is it immoral to lie about a text and use it to harm/ insult others?

This is a profound blasphemy to me and I wonder if I'm blowing it out of proportion.

About the bolded part well, yeah inprinciple lying is bad, I think in some cass may be justified but the part I emphasized further after it would make it a no brainer immoral action.

I mean you don´t have to be a christian, pretty much the ,ost widely accepted moral law in between cultures and religions is to not harm others as you do not want to be harmed.

In any case, all of those are my views regarding the subject.

 

[Quagmire]

Are there any such people? Can we have a list of names? Can we see evidence of this mindset?

I did say "exclusively". I think most people might let some element of their own bias enter into their responses, that's just human.

On the other hand if someone is so entrenched in their own agenda that it renders them incapable of (or just plain uninterested in) understanding what anyone else is saying, or unable to answer or even acknowledged a straight question, or if someone is so desperately lost in their own need for evasiveness that they have to reply to simple statements or direct questions with sanctimoniousness lectures or sermons that only superficially address whats been said...

Of course, one does not have to give detailed support for everything one writes. Threads would become overloaded with tedious factual statements if one had to do that. What is noticeable, though, is that some posters make contentious claims but without supporting evidence, and have to be asked for it. That does not seem appropriate, surely. Any student handing in an essay bearing only the opening statement will get no acceptable response. It's not usually that a whole essay is required here, but just a few alleged facts, that are open to scrutiny. Failure to produce them appears to be reluctance to support those bare claims.

So, for example, we have before us the proposition that the Bible contains passages 'that we know were later additions, and obviously not authentic', but no indication, thus far, of what those passages are. Do they exist? Nobody knows, apparently.

...at that point we're moving out of the realm of commonplace error due to basic human imperfection and into a whole other category of problem.

 

[Villager]

There are also passages that we know were later additions, and obviously not authentic...

Nonsense.