# Everything Else > Arts & Entertainment >  Jesus Camp Documentary

## Easy180

Documentary covering a hardcore Evangelical camp for kids mostly 5 to 10 years old it seemed....Not going to go into a rant over it, but it was both very interesting and very scary

Just interested in whether or not anyone else has seen it...On the new releases on Netflix

----------


## jbkrems

I saw the documentary when it was out in theaters (I believe the AMC at Quail Springs Mall showed it), and I thought it was very interesting, but I would NEVER say it was "very scary" or anything like that.

I know that since the production of this film, the actual camp has shut down, but I think what the lady who ran it did was a GOOD THING for kids.  I'm a born-again Christian, and I support Christian camps like the one featured in this film.

----------


## Easy180

That's cool jb...Just makes me uncomfortable watching adult's programming information into a child's brain before they can decide for themselves

One question for you...Would you feel the same if instead of religion this was a White Cause type of camp and the speakers were instilling their firm beliefs about race superiority into 7 and 8 yr old kids?...Not trying to debate just wonder if you would find that documentary scary or uncomfortable

----------


## Oh GAWD the Smell!

> That's cool jb...Just makes me uncomfortable watching adult's programming information into a child's brain before they can decide for themselves
> 
> One question for you...Would you feel the same if instead of religion this was a White Cause type of camp and the speakers were instilling their firm beliefs about race superiority into 7 and 8 yr old kids?...Not trying to debate just wonder if you would find that documentary scary or uncomfortable


That's how I was watching it....What if it were a Muslim camp? How about a camp for rabid Atheists? How would a born again Christian react to it then? People _always_ look spitfire bat**** insane when they're deeply involved in something you don't believe in.


That movie gave me the jeebie heebies and a nervous tic for a week.

----------


## jbrown84

I didn't see it, and I'm a Christian, but it did look a bit scary the WAY they were teaching these kids.

----------


## PUGalicious

I did see it, and I am a Christian, and it was indeed troubling.

----------


## BMG

I watched it and it reinforced my opinion of everything thats wrong with organized religion. Its cool to believe in things that help you become stronger on the inside but not crazy or programming children. Let charlie manson have a camp then compare it to the movie and it would be about the same minus some killing.

----------


## tacodome

I watched it and so no signs of brainwashing.  What I saw is kids who are on fire for Christ with a faith and devotion that would put most of us adults to shame.  I thought it was truly inspiring.

----------


## Easy180

I think you forgot to add the sarcastic smiley taco...At least I hope you did

Clearcut brainwashing...We call it so in the Middle East so we must apply it here as well...The kids in the documentary are going to be some scary adults

----------


## jbkrems

Easy180: I would not describe the events in the Jesus Camp movie as programming info into a child's brain or "brainwashing" if you will.  These kids voluntarily came to the camp because of their own interests.  The camp might have been promoted or marketed in their respective churches, but advertising is not the same as brainwashing.

To answer your question, I don't think you can compare this camp to something like the KKK.   On the other hand, I DO believe you can compare it to what you see in a lot of Islamic-based children's TV shows that feature the same kind of "indoctrination," if you will, into children of the Muslim religion.  That's kind of the whole point of the "Jesus Camp" move, to juxtapose these two "religions," or "lifestyles," and show how we as Christians need to instill beliefs into our children so they can go to battle for Jesus in a spiritual way (not in a physical way as the Muslim religion suggests with jihad).  To me, "Jesus Camp" is the same thing as the "Battle Cry" rallies that Teen Mania and Ron Luce hold across the country, except the "Battle Cry" events are geared towards teenagers, and "Jesus Camp" was geared towards elementary-age children.

----------


## Easy180

The old cause they do it we should do it argument

Guess it's time for the more radical Evangelicals to come up with their own version of the word Jihad

These kids voluntarily go to these brainwashing camps?...Not sure but I'm thinking the parents may have sent them

Cause it looked just like tons of fun for the kids....Anyways

----------


## BMG

> The old cause they do it we should do it argument
> 
> Guess it's time for the more radical Evangelicals to come up with their own version of the word Jihad
> 
> These kids voluntarily go to these brainwashing camps?...Not sure but I'm thinking the parents may have sent them
> 
> Cause it looked just like tons of fun for the kids....Anyways


QFT

----------


## jbrown84

There is a MASSIVE, GIGANTIC difference between indoctrinating Christian values and indoctrinating *violence* against those that don't believe like you.

----------


## Karried

> There is a MASSIVE, GIGANTIC difference between indoctrinating Christian values and indoctrinating *violence* against those that don't believe like you.


I wish it were that simple.. that the love of Christ would be the focus.. but sometimes, it's not.  Some people take it too far.. and when you start teaching that people who 'don't believe like you' are *Wrong & Evil Sinners* .. then you have problems.

"Three young men accused of brutalizing an 18-year-old *gay* man for hours last weekend have been charged with hate crimes, according to police, court documents and a prosecutor.

Prosecutor Donna Dagnall, who handles cases in Children's Court, said the 18-year-old man suffered bleeding on the brain and a concussion as well as facial lacerations and bruising, but has since been released from a hospital. Dagnall confirmed the three men allegedly responsible for the beating have been charged under New Mexico's hate-crimes law. "

"The fatal beating of a 72-year-old *gay* man last month in Detroit has sparked a campaign to update federal and state hate-crime laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity. 

Andrew Anthos was riding a city bus home from the library on February 13, *listening to his headphones and quietly singing along,* when another man asked if he was gay and called him a *''***got,''* according to police and family members. 

Anthos ignored him, but the man followed him off the bus and again confronted him. Anthos, *who was helping a wheelchair-bound friend* stuck in a snowbank, reportedly told the man he was gay. The man then struck him in the back of the head with a pipe, stood over him as he lay on the ground, and ran off after Anthos's friend yelled for him to stop. 

Anthos fell into a coma on February 21 and died two days later. 

Anthos ''was a patriot. He loved veterans.... He just happened to be gay,'' said Michigan state senator Hansen Clarke, who plans to introduce legislation to amend Michigan's Ethnic Intimidation Act. ''The whole point is making sure that *people have equal rights* in the legal system, people aren't picked on or *threatened just because they look or act differently.''* 

"It's pretty clear to us that his homosexuality was the reason for the beating," she said. "

Even though it can start out very innocently, some can't stop there.  There is quite a bit of violence out there towards those who don't believe the same things.

----------


## jbrown84

There's nothing in that article that says it was religiously motivated.

These anti-gay hate crimes tend to be much more about testosterone-driven homophobia.

----------


## Karried

Yeah, I can agree with that.... I just know that some people go overboard with everything... and when you start teaching young kids early on that everything in the Bible should be taken literally ( like in this movie) then you have kids growing up with this sort of propensity for non acceptance of those who have different beliefs. 

Where did most people first learn that homosexuality was 'wrong'?  Most people I know base their belief that it is wrong on the Bible and religious teachings.

I'm not saying that Christians are gay hating people who commit crimes against them.. I'm just trying to say that _violence_ can and does occur in all aspects of life.

----------


## Easy180

> There is a MASSIVE, GIGANTIC difference between indoctrinating Christian values and indoctrinating *violence* against those that don't believe like you.


I would agree with this statement if it weren't for the Christian value that banishes everyone to eternal damnation complete with torture and fire if they don't believe like you do

Extremists in both religions scare me equally

----------


## jbkrems

Karried,

I don't see an issue with teaching your kids early on that everything in the Bible should be taken literally.  After all, if we're Christian, then the Bible is what we believe.  For instance, yes, homosexuality IS wrong, because the Bible says it is wrong.  That does not mean we should be violent as Christians towards those who are homosexual (or gay, lesbian, transgender, etc.)  We need to love these people and be tender towards them.  But their behavior is still SIN, and its wrong and against God's Word.

If anyone here is interested, my pastor, Rickey Musgrove is beginning a new series on "Raising Children of Destiny."  I strongly recommend it, especially if you have any questions about how to raise your kids in a Christ-like manner.  If you're interested, you can come to Faith Church in Edmond, any Sunday, at 1700 S. Bryant (just south of the CVS at 15th and Bryant), and our services start at 10am.

----------


## dismayed

Take everything literally?  Really?  So eating lobster is as equal an abomination as homosexuality, as is divorce and re-marriage?  Stoning to death cheaters, casting out demons, jumping in the nearest lake if you accidentally brush up against a woman on her period, and so on... no explanation needed, just take it as an absolute?

What's that old saying, a text without context is a pretext....

----------


## jbrown84

> I would agree with this statement if it weren't for the Christian value that banishes everyone to eternal damnation complete with torture and fire if they don't believe like you do


Why worry about that if you don't believe it to be true?  There are no Christians attacking Muslim nations because they are sinners.

----------


## Easy180

Do you see worry in my post jbrown?

You were throwing around the standard Christian values argument and I stated my favorite part of it

----------


## jbkrems

Dismayed: The Bible is clear in a literal sense that the ceremonial/kosher dietary laws of the OT don't apply to Christians.  I do not want to switch to that topic, but if you read the Bible literally, Christ abolished the Law of Moses, and gave Christians the Law of Christ.

----------


## jbrown84

> Do you see worry in my post jbrown?
> 
> You were throwing around the standard Christian values argument and I stated my favorite part of it


That belief does nothing to lead Christians to do violence against others.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Karried,
> 
> I don't see an issue with teaching your kids early on that everything in the Bible should be taken literally.  After all, if we're Christian, then the Bible is what we believe.  For instance, yes, homosexuality IS wrong, because the Bible says it is wrong.  That does not mean we should be violent as Christians towards those who are homosexual (or gay, lesbian, transgender, etc.)  We need to love these people and be tender towards them.  But their behavior is still SIN, and its wrong and against God's Word.
> 
> If anyone here is interested, my pastor, Rickey Musgrove is beginning a new series on "Raising Children of Destiny."  I strongly recommend it, especially if you have any questions about how to raise your kids in a Christ-like manner.  If you're interested, you can come to Faith Church in Edmond, any Sunday, at 1700 S. Bryant (just south of the CVS at 15th and Bryant), and our services start at 10am.


I'm not that well versed regarding the part/parts of the christian bible where it uses the term "homosexual"  Can anyone enlighten me?

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Take everything literally?  Really?  So eating lobster is as equal an abomination as homosexuality, as is divorce and re-marriage?  Stoning to death cheaters, casting out demons, jumping in the nearest lake if you accidentally brush up against a woman on her period, and so on... no explanation needed, just take it as an absolute?
> 
> What's that old saying, a text without context is a pretext....


Amen, amen and amen! :Bow:

----------


## Easy180

> That belief does nothing to lead Christians to do violence against others.


Didn't say it did, but it sure is a lovely part of such a compassionate and understanding religion

----------


## jbrown84

The compassion comes in the fact that God provided a way to escape hell.

----------


## jbkrems

Grandmama:

Please read Leviticus 18:22 for starters (men lying with men is basically homosexuality).

Please also read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11.

Those are the three basic passages that address homosexuality as a sin.

----------


## Easy180

> The compassion comes in the fact that God provided a way to escape hell.


Pretty easy really...Just denounce what religion your parents taught you and crossover to Christianity...Easy sleazy for those born into Muslim, Buddhist and other religious societies

Just sucks they didn't luck out and be born into a mostly Christian society...Sorry bout your luck...Please take the packed rail car heading downward Mustaffa, Chen and Patel

----------


## jbrown84

I never said it was easy.

----------


## Easy180

Or even remotely fair to the billions w/o access to a Lifechurch on every corner 

Compassionate indeed

----------


## dismayed

> Dismayed: The Bible is clear in a literal sense that the ceremonial/kosher dietary laws of the OT don't apply to Christians.  I do not want to switch to that topic, but if you read the Bible literally, Christ abolished the Law of Moses, and gave Christians the Law of Christ.


Actually I think what you are referring to is the deuteronomic laws of the Torah.  You know, the passages in the New Testament you speak of have been interpreted many different ways, some Christians do not agree with what you just said in entirely, some not at all.  This is because if you read something literally, from a modern sense, it can have a very different meaning than what it did in its original language thousands of years ago.  This is why I believe you can't be a "literalist" in this sense; whose literature are you using as a common frame of reference?  Modern American values or 1st Century Greco-Jewish values....

----------


## jbkrems

Dismayed:

Just because some Christians disagree with what I said, in part or in whole, does not make them right.  I base my beliefs on what the Bible says, not on what I or someone else thinks it means.

In terms of how I interpret the Bible, I ask the Holy Spirit what it means, and a lot of my interpretation is called the "historical-grammatical" method that some scholars have developed.  I don't intentionally use that approach, but the Holy Spirit does illuminate and enlighten me through something very similar.

And lastly, I try to understand the Scriptures through first century Christian values, not values of modern American society, nor values of 1st Century Greco-Jewish people.  Both of those sets of values are worldly and opposed to the values of the Kingdom of God.

----------


## dismayed

So then you're not taking the words literally.  You said you interpret what is meant via a variety of ways.  You are "asking the Holy Spirit what it means."  

Let me bring up another point.  We've all heard it, someone wants revenge against someone and they proclaim "an eye for an eye," having read the scriptures literally, using this as a justification to really nail someone to the wall.  I wonder how many people realize that 1st Century Jews were notorious for calling for death for any number of crimes, some quite tame by today's standards (e.g. unwed mothers).  Many interpret the passage to mean 'let the punishment fit the crime,' or don't kill someone for crimes other than murder.  To me this would seem to be the point of clarifying the deuteronomic law at the sermon on the mound.  In any case I think it involves some investigation and forethought, and even with two people doing exactly that we might come to different conclusions.

I'm sorry if I'm harping on you, I'm just trying to point a few things out about literalism.

----------


## jbkrems

Dismayed:

Let me clarify something.  When I read the Bible, I ask the Holy Spirit to illuminate and enlighten me, in a sense, to interpret the text to me, and the Holy Spirit does so in a literal way.  So, I do take the words literally, as the Holy Spirit so directs.  There is ONE way in which I interpret the Bible, and I'd say its Spirit-led, "literal" interpretation.  Understand?

Actually, wishing revenge on someone else is not at all biblical.  If you read the Bible literally in its proper historical context, "an eye for an eye" deals with how the civil government punishes people for crimes.  Thus, it is a metaphor that on a basic level endorses the death penalty.  However, as a Spirit-led literalist, I cannot just take a Scripture like "an eye for an eye," and make a conclusion solely on that verse.  I have to look at the Bible in other verses that address the same subject.  For instance, I would also have to look at Romans 13, which deals with responsibilities for the civil government, and how they DO have the power of the sword, to put to death those who do evil, i.e. that is part of the function of civil government.  I have to take that verse literally as well, and let the Holy Spirit teach me how to put the verses together, in order to get the right, literal, historically correct, interpretation.

Make sense?  Other thoughts or questions - ???

----------


## Easy180

Sorry to say this, but isn't Bush also "Spirit led"??...Him saying he asks God about his major decisions scares me as much as this film...Thinking God would have went a different direction on the whole Iraq war thing

My best guess is Spirit led is actually just your brain and conscience at work jb

----------


## jbrown84

Just because G-Dub says he's Spirit-led doesn't mean he is.

----------


## BMG

[QUOTE=jbrown84;100096]Why worry about that if you don't believe it to be true?  There are no Christians attacking Muslim nations because they are sinners.[/QUOTE

Why are muslims sinners?

----------


## BMG

> Why worry about that if you don't believe it to be true?  There are no Christians attacking Muslim nations because they are sinners.





> Grandmama:
> 
> Please read Leviticus 18:22 for starters (men lying with men is basically homosexuality).
> 
> Please also read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11.
> 
> Those are the three basic passages that address homosexuality as a sin.


Yeah and divine conception right? NO

Mary ruined for all the other hoes in the world who cheated on their husband. 

Like um yeah I got pregnant but dont know how it happened would ever hold up again.

If the bible and god were true gays, muslims, lawyers, porn stars and everyone could just live and not have to worry about all the psycho bible bull**** that is force fed from birth.

I believe in law and order but all these different churches with different beliefs all saying they love god but all the other churches that dont believe in what they do is wrong imo simply cancels out all the jesus loving they do.

omg this is like politics..... we are all just wasting our time talking about it.

----------


## jbkrems

Easy180: I believe that Bush is also Spirit-led, which means he is a man of prayer, he prays, and the Holy Spirit gives him direction.  This is NOT your mind and conscious working together, as you suggest, but a whole other process that is supernatural, and bypasses the brain.

Not to get off on a tangent, but I don't think God would lead Bush to NOT engage with the war in Iraq.  IOW, I really DO believe that Bush was properly led by the Holy Spirit in regards to the Iraq War.  But please, if you disagree, Easy 180, lets not hijack this thread and discuss that.

jbrown: I agree.  Just because you say something about yourself does not mean its true.  However, as regards to GW, I really DO believe he is a man of prayer and is led by the Spirit of God in his decisions.  I'd much rather give him the benefit of the doubt then be suspicious of his claims.

BMG: Muslims are sinners, just like anyone else who does not accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

As for Mary, she DID KNOW how Jesus was conceived.  The Holy Spirit came upon her, and impreganated her.  Is that miracle?  YES.  Was that supernatural?  YES.  Do I believe that miracles and the supernatural is for today, that God wants to heal people, and deliver people?  YES.  Quite frankly, God wants to save you, heal you, and deliver you, BMG, from whatever oppresses you.  Are you interested - ?

----------


## jbrown84

> Why are muslims sinners?


I was referring to the fact that radical Muslims came over here and murdered 3000 people because they thought we were immoral.

But we are all sinners, not just Muslims.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Grandmama:
> 
> Please read Leviticus 18:22 for starters (men lying with men is basically homosexuality).
> 
> Please also read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11.
> 
> Those are the three basic passages that address homosexuality as a sin.


I don't believe that specifically answered my question...I asked, "Where is the term Homosexuality used in the bible?

----------


## jbkrems

Grandmama: Is the term "homosexual" not good enough for you?  Its in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:8-11.

----------


## dismayed

> Easy180: I believe that Bush is also Spirit-led, which means he is a man of prayer, he prays, and the Holy Spirit gives him direction.  This is NOT your mind and conscious working together, as you suggest, but a whole other process that is supernatural, and bypasses the brain.


Finally something we can agree on.  I agree that Bush's decisions have clearly been made by bypassing his brain.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Grandmama: Is the term "homosexual" not good enough for you?  Its in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:8-11.


Not trying to be disrespectful, but to which version of which bible are you referencing?

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Grandmama: Is the term "homosexual" not good enough for you?  Its in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:8-11.


So, you found ONE version, one mind you, that mentions the world homosexual..NIV....sorry, try again.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> So, you found ONE version, one mind you, that mentions the world homosexual..NIV....sorry, try again.


Apparently I'm missing why it is so important that the word "homosexual" is in the Bible.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Apparently I'm missing why it is so important that the word "homosexual" is in the Bible.


Because that was my question.  the subject was referring to what the bible says re: homosexuals and I wasn't aware of the fact that the word was ever used in that era or in the bible...I guess if one looks long and hard enough, one can find a reference to prove just about anything, right?NIV is a stretch though

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Easy180: I believe that Bush is also Spirit-led, which means he is a man of prayer, he prays, and the Holy Spirit gives him direction.  This is NOT your mind and conscious working together, as you suggest, but a whole other process that is supernatural, and bypasses the brain.
> 
> Not to get off on a tangent, but I don't think God would lead Bush to NOT engage with the war in Iraq.  IOW, I really DO believe that Bush was properly led by the Holy Spirit in regards to the Iraq War.  But please, if you disagree, Easy 180, lets not hijack this thread and discuss that.
> 
> jbrown: I agree.  Just because you say something about yourself does not mean its true.  However, as regards to GW, I really DO believe he is a man of prayer and is led by the Spirit of God in his decisions.  I'd much rather give him the benefit of the doubt then be suspicious of his claims.
> 
> BMG: Muslims are sinners, just like anyone else who does not accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
> 
> As for Mary, she DID KNOW how Jesus was conceived.  The Holy Spirit came upon her, and impreganated her.  Is that miracle?  YES.  Was that supernatural?  YES.  Do I believe that miracles and the supernatural is for today, that God wants to heal people, and deliver people?  YES.  Quite frankly, God wants to save you, heal you, and deliver you, BMG, from whatever oppresses you.  Are you interested - ?


It is my understanding, according to whichever bible you reference, that it doesn't matter who or what you accept as your Lord and Master, you are still a sinner, right?  That was directed to BMG.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> I was referring to the fact that radical Muslims came over here and murdered 3000 people because they thought we were immoral.
> 
> But we are all sinners, not just Muslims.


I'm curious as to how many people "radical christians have killed in their "quest to convert"?

----------


## jbrown84

Nobody in at least 400 years.  

And *of course* the word homosexuality wasn't used in biblical times, since they didn't speak English.  I'm sure there's a word in Greek or Aramaic that translates.  Stop playing semantics.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Dismayed:
> 
> Let me clarify something.  When I read the Bible, I ask the Holy Spirit to illuminate and enlighten me, in a sense, to interpret the text to me, and the Holy Spirit does so in a literal way.  So, I do take the words literally, as the Holy Spirit so directs.  There is ONE way in which I interpret the Bible, and I'd say its Spirit-led, "literal" interpretation.  Understand?
> 
> Actually, wishing revenge on someone else is not at all biblical.  If you read the Bible literally in its proper historical context, "an eye for an eye" deals with how the civil government punishes people for crimes.  Thus, it is a metaphor that on a basic level endorses the death penalty.  However, as a Spirit-led literalist, I cannot just take a Scripture like "an eye for an eye," and make a conclusion solely on that verse.  I have to look at the Bible in other verses that address the same subject.  For instance, I would also have to look at Romans 13, which deals with responsibilities for the civil government, and how they DO have the power of the sword, to put to death those who do evil, i.e. that is part of the function of civil government.  I have to take that verse literally as well, and let the Holy Spirit teach me how to put the verses together, in order to get the right, literal, historically correct, interpretation.
> 
> Make sense?  Other thoughts or questions - ???


No, none of it makes any sense unless it fits neatly into your personal agenda...you say that you take the bible literally, then you claim...metaphor when it doesn't exactly suit you...like the bible itself, it was conceived, written and translated by those with personal translations and agendas...

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> Nobody in at least 400 years.


And that is assuming the Catholic Church is Christian.

----------


## GrandMaMa

You're sure of that, huh?  If there was, you don't think that it would have been used long before NIV?


> Nobody in at least 400 years.  
> 
> And *of course* the word homosexuality wasn't used in biblical times, since they didn't speak English.  I'm sure there's a word in Greek or Aramaic that translates.  Stop playing semantics.

----------


## GrandMaMa

I just noticed that you wrote, "Nobody in the last 400 years"...was that in answer to my question re: how many people have the radical xtians  killed in their quest?  what about the bomb throwing antiabortionist?  what about the radical parents that have driven their normal teenagers to commit suicide because they couldn't live up to their nonsensical parents whims and beliefs?  I could go on, but I doubt that your attention span could handle it.


> Nobody in at least 400 years.  
> 
> And *of course* the word homosexuality wasn't used in biblical times, since they didn't speak English.  I'm sure there's a word in Greek or Aramaic that translates.  Stop playing semantics.

----------


## GrandMaMa

And I expect that in the next breath, you will attempt to also lump the Mormans into that basket as well, right?


> And that is assuming the Catholic Church is Christian.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> And I expect that in the next breath, you will attempt to also lump the Mormans into that basket as well, right?


Read the teachings of Jesus them read the teachings and actions of the Catholic Church.  And the Mormons, If you like.  They don't jive.

----------


## jbrown84

> I could go on, but I doubt that your attention span could handle it.


Great.  Another old person looking down on me because I'm younger and apparently ADD.  Nevermind that she posts in _comic sans_.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Read the teachings of Jesus them read the teachings and actions of the Catholic Church.  And the Mormons, If you like.  They don't jive.


And your point would be???????????

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Great.  Another old person looking down on me because I'm younger and apparently ADD.  Nevermind that she posts in _comic sans_.


And how would I know how old you are?  Or, for that matter, ADD?  Or, for that matter, what difference it makes whether I post in script or comic sans or in purple?  Dislike things that are different?

----------


## jbrown84

Your comment that I have a short attention span was condescending.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

1. Christian means to be like Christ (Jesus). 
2. To be like Christ means to follow His teachings.
3. Therefore, Christian means to follow His teachings
4. The teachings and actions of the Catholic Church and Mormon Church do not follow the teachings of Christ.
5. Therefore, both churches are not Christian.

Simple geometric proof.

Your attention span must be lacking if you cannot follow this thread.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Your comment that I have a short attention span was condescending.


It was referring to your inability to think outside the little box in which you have chosen to live and reason, and yes, it did sound condescending, didn't it?

----------


## jbrown84

Well aren't you rude?

You in no way have the ability to determine the size of the "box" I live and reason in based on one thread topic.


*1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)*
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

*1 Corinthians 6:9 (Contemporary English Version*
Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual

*1 Corinthians 6:9 (Youngs Literal Translation)*
have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

*1 Corinthians 6:9 (Wycliffe)*
Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men

*1 Corinthians 6:9 (King James Version)*
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,


I guess the 16th century British called them "effiminates".  Good thing we narrowed that down.

----------


## GrandMaMa

And I'm quite certain that is exactly how you would like to keep it, "SIMPLE".  Are you an expert on the teachings of both churches?  I doubt it or you wouldn't make those statements.  You seem to be speaking in a language that is easy to regurgitate when certain questions are raised or certain statements are made...let's take,  for granted, for a moment, the Jesus and his teachings that you have been taught to know, existed and walked some physical ground, you would have had to have walked with him, side by side to know exactly what he thought and taught...even those who lived in those times did not completely understand what who he was and what he taught.  


> 1. Christian means to be like Christ (Jesus). 
> 2. To be like Christ means to follow His teachings.
> 3. Therefore, Christian means to follow His teachings
> 4. The teachings and actions of the Catholic Church and Mormon Church do not follow the teachings of Christ.
> 5. Therefore, both churches are not Christian.
> 
> Simple geometric proof.
> 
> Your attention span must be lacking if you cannot follow this thread.

----------


## GrandMaMa

And furthermore, for an OLD PERSON, I don't think that I have too much difficulty with my attention span

----------


## jbrown84

Catholicsm, and especially Mormonism, are from from Biblical Christianity.

Mormons believe that good men become Gods and get their own planet, which they then populate with "spirit babies" birthed by their wives from earthly life.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Well aren't you rude?
> 
> You in no way have the ability to determine the size of the "box" I live and reason in based on one thread topic.
> 
> 
> *1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)*
> Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.
> 
> *1 Corinthians 6:9 (Contemporary English Version*
> ...


Preach on brother!!!  Like I said, if you need to put things in their little boxes to understand them, so be it.  I think that the topic was the Jesus Camp Documentary, wasn't it?  I had the displeasure of watching it and saw nothing but brain washing, much of it negative in manner.  I imagine those children went back to civilation, school (oops, they probably don't go to public school) and went to preaching and condemning, much like you are now.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

Well apparently you can't concentrate on the point I have made.

My point is that the Catholic church is not Christianity. I'm not trying to prove anything else here.

And it doesn't take an expert to know the history of the churches and their general doctrine.

----------


## jbrown84

> went to preaching and condemning, much like you are now.


All I did was provide you with the proof you were asking for.

The NIV did _not_ make up the part about homosexuality.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Catholicsm, and especially Mormonism, are from from Biblical Christianity.
> 
> Mormons believe that good men become Gods and get their own planet, which they then populate with "spirit babies" birthed by their wives from earthly life.


Not exactly, LOL

----------


## GrandMaMa

> All I did was provide you with the proof you were asking for.
> 
> The NIV did _not_ make up the part about homosexuality.


Did I say that they made it up?  I said that they were the only ones (the latest rendition) that interpreted it, using that word.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> All I did was provide you with the proof you were asking for.
> 
> The NIV did _not_ make up the part about homosexuality.


Proof??? Proof?  Regurgitating is not proof, it is what it is.

----------


## jbkrems

Grandmama: The New American Standard (NAS) Bible uses "homosexual" in both 1 Cor. 6 and 1 Tim. 1.  The New King James Version (NKJV) uses "homosexual" in 1 Cor. 6 and then uses the term "sodomite" in 1 Tim. 1.  Biblical history informs us that the sin of Sodom was basically homosexuality, and thus "sodomite" is a clear synonym for "homosexual," or one who practices homosexuality.  If you don't believe me, go to any state's law books and find the anti-sodomy law.  "Sodomy" is legally a "code word," if you will, for homosexuality.

Grandmama, I don't like the NIV.  It wasn't translated using the literal, historical-grammatical method.  Instead, it was translated thought-for-thought (not word-for-word).  The King James Version (KJV), and the aforementioned NKJV and NAS are all word-for-word translations, so they are better, in my humble opinion.

----------


## jbkrems

Grandmama, please hear me.  I don't have a personal agenda.  I really don't.  My one "obsession," if you will, in life, is Jesus Christ --- I want to be a passionate follower of Him, and I want everyone else to be one, too.  So any "agenda" that you might perceive on my part is NOT my personal agenda, but God's "agenda."

Further, I'd like to ask you, Grandmama, if you're a Christian, and do you know Christ as your Lord and Savior - ?

----------


## jbrown84

> Not exactly, LOL


Uh, yeah, exactly.  But either way, that is NOT Christianity.  Why do you think they had to write their own scripture?




> Did I say that they made it up?  I said that they were the only ones (the latest rendition) that interpreted it, using that word.


Uh, no they obviously are not, because I also quoted the CEV.  Do I need to also quote the New American Standard Bible, the Amplified Bible, the New Living Translation, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the Today's New International Version, all of which use the word homosexual?

WOW.




> Proof??? Proof?  Regurgitating is not proof, it is what it is.


see above

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

All you need to know about Mormonism, you can get from South Park.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> All you need to know about Mormonism, you can get from South Park.


I had a feeling that was your spiritual source, now I am certain...LOL

----------


## jbrown84

Of course, no response to me, since you got OWNED.

----------


## GrandMaMa

Don't you understand that people evolve, in every way...hopefully, most of us do anyway.  How many references have you quoted to me as reliable references (surely you wouldn't have quoted them if you didn't think that they were reliable) and you fault the Morman church for using two?  They also use the Bible and the Book of Mormon, how many do you use?  What references did you use to "discover" that the sodomites' sin was sodomy..?  LOL....they were called Sodomites because they lived in Sodom.  Their sin was that they lived a life of pleasure seeking, Pagan worshipping and self indulgence.  It had nothing to do with sodomy...what a lateral leap!

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Of course, no response to me, since you got OWNED.


Owned????

----------


## jbrown84

We are not arguing whether homosexuality is a sin.

You said the NIV is the only translation that includes that word, and you were completely, utterly wrong.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> We are not arguing whether homosexuality is a sin.
> 
> You said the NIV is the only translation that includes that word, and you were completely, utterly wrong.


WE are not arguing.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> We are not arguing whether homosexuality is a sin.
> 
> You said the NIV is the only translation that includes that word, and you were completely, utterly wrong.


People will, as they always have, continue to translate and retranslate until "the source" says what they want it to say.  Even the KJV is an example of that.

----------


## jbrown84

We can't read it in Aramaic or Greek, so we translate it.  I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.  And you STILL have not conceded that you were wrong about the word homosexual being exclusive to the NIV.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> We can't read it in Aramaic or Greek, so we translate it.  I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.  And you STILL have not conceded that you were wrong about the word homosexual being exclusive to the NIV.


Is that the only point that you are trying to make?  Oh, the KJV is in English, why is there a need for more translations if that is the reason?

----------


## jbrown84

Because it uses words like "lecher" and "beget" that nobody understands.   Why on earth would we keep using that when there are translations that are in modern English _AND_ are closer to the original text?

----------


## jbrown84

You may not realize that the subsequent translations are not translations of the KJV into more modern English, but have gone back to the original text are re-translated to today's vernacular.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> You may not realize that the subsequent translations are not translations of the KJV into more modern English, but have gone back to the original text are re-translated to today's vernacular.


My question was feeding off of your statement re: needing english, not my education nor lack of it.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> You may not realize that the subsequent translations are not translations of the KJV into more modern English, but have gone back to the original text are re-translated to today's vernacular.


Today's vernacular, but with the same agendas

----------


## okcguy

Even though I no longer post on this board, I do stop by occasionally to read.  I just had to come back again to say:  GRANDMAMA ROCKS!

----------


## jbrown84

I never said anything about a lack of education on your part.   That is not a commonly known fact and you sounded as if you believed that someone just went to the KJV and translated from that text.

----------


## GrandMaMa

awwwwwwww   :Smile: 


> Even though I no longer post on this board, I do stop by occasionally to read.  I just had to come back again to say:  GRANDMAMA ROCKS!

----------


## jbrown84

> Today's vernacular, but with the same agendas


If your so sure, why don't you show me an example of where the original Greek has been twisted to say something different in an English translation?

----------


## GrandMaMa

> I never said anything about a lack of education on your part.   That is not a commonly known fact and you sounded as if you believed that someone just went to the KJV and translated from that text.


If you will digress and review your posts prior to mine, you will see what I'm referring to.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> If your so sure, why don't you show me an example of where the original Greek has been twisted to say something different in an English translation?


I never said that I was so sure of anything, I just said or implied that you didn't have enough information of your own with which to formulate an opinion, nor the maturity to know it if you had it.

----------


## GrandMaMa

In my humble opinion, anyone who thinks that they definitely and absolutely know something for sure, needs to do some more evolving.

----------


## jbrown84

You claim it was translated with an agenda.  Prove it.  Obviously you can't because you keep dodging the question.

----------


## GrandMaMa

Now, why don't we go back to topic?

----------


## jbrown84

Dodge.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> You claim it was translated with an agenda.  Prove it.  Obviously you can't because you keep dodging the question.


You seem to keep forgetting your place...you are the one that is attempting to prove something, I just say that you cannot.  You know, they don't call it the KJV for nothing.  Do you know what happened to the first team of scribes that were commissioned to translate the "bible"?...they weren't doing it the way 'ole KJ wanted it done, so he killed them off and got some more...well, guess what, these new fellas didn't want to die, so they did it the way the boss told them to...want to take time to check it out before you reply?   :Pat Head:

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Dodge.


Actually, getting back to the topic is not a dodge, it's the rules and we veered way off, you and I both did...I just suggested that we get back on it.

----------


## jbrown84

Exactly why I (and the majority of today's Christians) do not use the KJV.





> Today's vernacular, but with the same agendas


_Prove_ it or concede that you only said that because that's what your fellow atheists told you.

----------


## jbrown84

I never purported that my views on homosexuality were _fact_.  YOU, however claimed that it was fact that the NIV was the only translation that used the word "homosexual", and you were dead wrong.  Now you claim to be fact something that you have no proof of.

----------


## Tim

Grandmama, having played this game before, I'd like to offer some friendly advice. It is highly unlikely that anyone on a forum will change their personal beliefs because of something they read on a board. I have my opinions, they have theirs and on the topic of religion, the believers and I disagree. That does not make either of us right, just convinced. These really are good people, but on this topic, emotions lie very close to the surface, and arguments and vitriol are generally unproductive. Just my two cents!

----------


## GrandMaMa

> I never purported that my views on homosexuality were _fact_.  YOU, however claimed that it was fact that the NIV was the only translation that used the word "homosexual", and you were dead wrong.  Now you claim to be fact something that you have no proof of.


Exactly what are you wanting proof of?

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Grandmama, having played this game before, I'd like to offer some friendly advice. It is highly unlikely that anyone on a forum will change their personal beliefs because of something they read on a board. I have my opinions, they have theirs and on the topic of religion, the believers and I disagree. That does not make either of us right, just convinced. These really are good people, but on this topic, emotions lie very close to the surface, and arguments and vitriol are generally unproductive. Just my two cents!


2 cents accepted, was I producing vitriol?

----------


## Tim

Can you prove you weren't?

----------


## jbrown84

> Exactly what are you wanting proof of?


I've asked several times...




> If your so sure, why don't you show me an example of where the original Greek has been twisted to say something different in an English translation?


Also, see post #103.  KJV doesn't count because that's not today's vernacular.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Can you prove you weren't?


Is it a requirement?   :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## GrandMaMa

> I've asked several times...


Why don't you just work on the "sodomite" thinghy, that should keep you busy for a while.

----------


## kmf563

WOW. and I thought my whole lifechurch 5 page argument was pointless. lol. this whole "give me references and then let me ignore them and say they aren't good enough" gives me de ja vu. did grandmama just tell you to get back in your place jbrown??  :Ohno:   :Boxing2:  

SERIOUSLY....

 :Backtotopic:  

Does anyone know the name of this video?? I really want to watch it to see what the hoopla is about.

----------


## jbrown84

> "give me references and then let me ignore them and say they aren't good enough"


Exactly.  And _I'm_ the immature one?


Obviously granny is full of wind, since she continues to dodge my request for proof of an "agenda" in modern translations.

----------


## GrandMaMa

> Exactly.  And _I'm_ the immature one?
> 
> 
> Obviously granny is full of wind, since she continues to dodge my request for proof of an "agenda" in modern translations.


One more time, and that's it!  I am not the one that is trying to convince you of anything, I have only, (through all of this obviously wasted effort) said things that I actually thought would convince you to think, it didn't work.  I never asked for references, I never wanted them and you couldn't provide any credible ones that could/would support your beliefs anyway, so I have no idea why you are sniggling.  The proof is there, if only read with an open mind.

----------


## jbrown84

Okay, well I have a college education, so I don't need you to tell me how to think.

Forget the argument about homosexuality.  That will never be solved.

You have yet to defend your assertion that the NIV was the only translation with that word, and you have also yet to defend your assertion that the original text has been twisted by modern translators with an agenda.

----------


## Patrick

> I'm not that well versed regarding the part/parts of the christian bible where it uses the term "homosexual" Can anyone enlighten me?


Verses using the actual term homosexuality have already been quoted. 

Even if the Bible hadn't used the term specifically, Romans 1 pretty much describes it in vivid detail as sinful: 

*God's Wrath Against Mankind* 

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

----------


## Patrick

> WOW. and I thought my whole lifechurch 5 page argument was pointless. lol. this whole "give me references and then let me ignore them and say they aren't good enough" gives me de ja vu. did grandmama just tell you to get back in your place jbrown??   
> 
> SERIOUSLY....
> 
>  
> 
> Does anyone know the name of this video?? I really want to watch it to see what the hoopla is about.


If someone can't back up their statements with facts, then they need to concede that they're wrong.

----------


## Patrick

> One more time, and that's it! I am not the one that is trying to convince you of anything, I have only, (through all of this obviously wasted effort) said things that I actually thought would convince you to think, it didn't work. I never asked for references, I never wanted them and you couldn't provide any credible ones that could/would support your beliefs anyway, so I have no idea why you are sniggling. The proof is there, if only read with an open mind.


You made the statement that the writers of the different translations had an agenda, yet, you can't prove your own statement to be true based on facts. Thus you have three options: 1. Back up your statement with facts or 2. concede that you have no facts to back up your claim and admit that you're wrong.   3. Claim that it's an opinion, not fact.

----------


## Patrick

> I never said that I was so sure of anything, I just said or implied that you didn't have enough information of your own with which to formulate an opinion, nor the maturity to know it if you had it.


He's already backed up his statements with facts.  You're the one who hasn't backed up your comments with facts. 

Maturity isn't the issue here.  It's making statements that are based on a foundation of good evidence.

----------


## Patrick

> In my humble opinion, anyone who thinks that they definitely and absolutely know something for sure, needs to do some more evolving.


 
So, are you saying that you're not definitely and absolutely sure that water is a liquid at temps ranging from 0 degrees C to 100 degress C?  Are you not for sure that babies grow?  Are you not for sure that the world is round?  Are you not for sure that grass is green.....really, is that an illusion made up by frogs? Are you not certain you're a female?  I could go on and on.

----------


## Patrick

> Now, why don't we go back to topic?


I love when people play this card, when they're pushed to the wall about their opinions and can't back up their statements with facts.   Why can't people just admit they're wrong?

----------


## jbrown84

Atheists and other non-religious people love talk about how the Bible is flawed, or contradictory, or fraudulent, but they never seem to have any proof.

I guess they are taking that on faith. :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Patrick

> Atheists and other non-religious people love talk about how the Bible is flawed, or contradictory, or fraudulent, but they never seem to have any proof.
> 
> I guess they are taking that on faith.


Guess what?  Elvis didn't really die.  He could still be alive.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

I think the point has been made.  It's time to lay off.  You are starting to sound like the people who you argue.

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

----------


## Patrick

> I think the point has been made. It's time to lay off. You are starting to sound like the people who you argue.
> 
> "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."


How are we sounding like the people we argue? We can provide facts, they can't.

So take that:  :Fighting32:

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

Be a graceful winner.

----------


## jbrown84

SOOOOOOO, how about that documentary Jesus Camp?

----------


## Patrick

> SOOOOOOO, how about that documentary Jesus Camp?


 :LolLolLolLol:

----------


## kmf563

Is that the actual name of it - Jesus Camp? LOL. I've been trying to figure out the title. I thought it was just that video about the jesus camp. word play. It can be tricky. Or I can be tired and oblivious to my surroundings.  :Doh:   :Lol2:

----------


## jbrown84

Jesus Camp (2006)

----------


## kmf563

:Ohno:   :Omg:  

The trailer alone freaked me out. Yea, I'm going to add it to my que. I'm sure you will hear from me after I watch it. 

(thanks for the link btw)

----------


## jbrown84

no problem.

it's queue, though.  :Wink:

----------


## kmf563

hehe. yep, sure is. told you I was out of it and tired. And with that, I'm out the door....have a good weekend everyone.

----------


## dismayed

> Atheists and other non-religious people love talk about how the Bible is flawed, or contradictory, or fraudulent, but they never seem to have any proof.
> 
> I guess they are taking that on faith.


I consider myself to be a Christian, but I'm also familiar with the origins of the Bible as well, and we could probably have a separate discussion on that and it really would be a 10-page document.

For example discussions on the "Q" source and the missing author of the first four books of the New Testament (e.g. what literary analysis tells us), what happened between 33 AD and when the books were written down in around 80 AD, the "lost gospel of St. Thomas," translation mishaps in the KJV and the exceeding strangeness of King James himself and how that may have impacted the KJV, the recent (last 20 years) unearthing  of Dead Sea transcripts which have a different number for the sign of the beast in Revelations, and so on.

To me its kind of pointless to have these arguments on religious texts and claim one person is right and the other is wrong.  I'm surprised someone from another faith hasn't posted in this thread yet telling us that we are all wrong.   :Smile:

----------


## Patrick

> the "lost gospel of St. Thomas,"  the recent (last 20 years) unearthing of Dead Sea transcripts which have a different number for the sign of the beast in Revelations, and so on.


The books you mentioned above were actually written by the Gnostics, which as you know were quite legalistic and anti-Christian in their day.

----------


## dismayed

> The books you mentioned above were actually written by the Gnostics, which as you know were quite legalistic and anti-Christian in their day.


The only gnostic text I mentioned was the St. Thomas one.  The Q source has to do with analysis of the first four gospels, and realizing through analysis that two of the books were probably authored by one person, one of the books another, and the fourth book a combination of one of the others and an unknown origin source, which theologians call the Q.   I think I said that right.  The rest of the stuff I mentioned was just questions swirling around the historical construction and what not.  

We could really have fun if we dove into the decision process of what was canonized in the early Christian church.  Third Council of Trent anyone?  The Reformation (e.g. the argument of whether the Catholics have extra books in their Bible or if Protestants removed books they didn't agree with)?  

All I'm saying is that things usually aren't as clear-cut as some would have you believe, and folks who don't take the time to understand the history of the church and how we got here today are really quite easily backed into a corner when they get into an argument with an atheist or one of the other types that was mentioned earlier in the thread who is familiar with it.  Years ago there was a local non-denominational church that actually went through the first 1000 years of the early church and tried to recount the history from a Christian perspective.  Personally I think it would be a great thing if more did stuff like that.

----------


## Patrick

Well, remember the Q source is a hypothetical lost text. 

The case against a common second source
Austin Farrer [1], Michael Goulder, and Mark Goodacre [2] have argued against Q, while maintaining Markan priority, claiming the use of Matthew by Luke. Other scholars argue against Q because they hold to Matthean priority (see: Augustinian hypothesis). Their arguments include:
There is a "_prima facie_ case" that two documents both correcting Mark's language, adding birth narratives and a resurrection epilogue, and adding a large amount of sayings material are likely to know each other, rather than to have such similar scope by coincidence.Specifically, there are 347 instances (by Neirynck's count) where one or more words are added to the Markan text in both Matthew and Luke; these are called the "minor agreements" against Mark. One hundred ninety-eight instances involve one word, 82 involve two words, 35 three, 16 four, and 16 instances involve five or more words in the extant texts of Matthew and Luke as compared to Markan passages.While supporters say that the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas supports the concept of a "sayings gospel," Professor Mark Goodacre points out that Q has a narrative structure as reconstructed and is not simply a list of sayings.Some make an argument based on the fact that there is no extant copy of Q and that no early church writer makes a (unambiguous) reference to a Q document.Scholars such as William Farmer maintain that Matthew was the first Gospel, Luke the second, and that Mark abbreviated Matthew and Luke (the Griesbach hypothesis). Q, part of the Two-Source Hypothesis, would not have existed if Matthean priority is true, as Luke would have gotten his triple tradition ("Markan") and double tradition ("Q") material from Matthew.Scholars such as John Wenham hold to the Augustinian hypothesis that Matthew was the first Gospel, Mark the second, and Luke the third, and object on similar grounds to those who hold to the Griesbach hypothesis. They enjoy the support of church tradition on this point.In addition, Eta Linnemann rejects the Q document hypothesis and denies the existence of a Synoptic problem at all.[2]Nicholas Perrin has argued that the Gospel of Thomas was based on Tatian's Gospel harmony the Diatessaron instead of the Q document.[3]
*[edit] History*

If Q ever existed, it must have disappeared very early, since no copies of it have been recovered and no definitive notices of it have been recorded in antiquity (but see the discussion of the Papias testimony below).
In modern times, the first person to hypothesize a Q-like source was an Englishman, Herbert Marsh, in 1801 in a complicated solution to the synoptic problem that his contemporaries ignored. Marsh labeled this source with the Hebrew letter _beth_.
The next person to advance the Q hypothesis was the German Schleiermacher in 1832, who interpreted an enigmatic statement by the early Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis, _circa_ 125: "Matthew compiled the oracles (Greek: _logia_) of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech". Rather than the traditional interpretation that Papias was referring to the writing of Matthew in Hebrew, Schleiermacher believed that Papias was actually giving witness to a sayings collection that was available to the Evangelists.
In 1838 another German, Christian Hermann Weisse, took Schleiermacher's suggestion of a sayings source and combined it with the idea of Markan priority to formulate what is now called the Two-Source Hypothesis, in which both Matthew and Luke used Mark and the sayings source. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann endorsed this approach in an influential treatment of the synoptic problem in 1863, and the Two-Source Hypothesis has maintained its dominance ever since.
At this time, Q was usually called the _Logia_ on account of the Papias statement, and Holtzmann gave it the symbol Lambda (Λ). Toward the end of the 19th century, however, doubts began to grow on the propriety of anchoring the existence of the collection of sayings in the testimony of Papias, so a neutral symbol Q (which was devised by Johannes Weiss based on the German _Quelle_, meaning _source_) was adopted to remain neutrally independent of the collection of sayings and its connection to Papias.
In the first two decades of the 20th century, more than a dozen reconstructions of Q were made. However, these reconstructions differed so much from each other that not a single verse of Matthew was present in all of them. As a result, interest in Q subsided and it was neglected for many decades.
This state of affairs changed in the 1960s after translations of a newly discovered and analogous sayings collection, the _Gospel of Thomas_, became available. James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester proposed that collections of sayings such as Q and Thomas represented the earliest Christian materials at an early point in a trajectory that eventually resulted in the canonical gospels.
This burst of interest led to increasingly more sophisticated literary and redactional reconstructions of Q, notably the work of John S. Kloppenborg. Kloppenborg, by analyzing certain literary phenomena, argued that Q was composed in three stages. The earliest stage was a collection of wisdom sayings involving such issues as poverty and discipleship. Then this collection was expanded by including a layer of judgmental sayings directed against "this generation". The final stage included the Temptation of Jesus.
Although Kloppenborg cautioned against assuming that the composition history of Q is the same as the history of the Jesus tradition (i.e. that the oldest layer of Q is necessarily the oldest and pure-layer Jesus tradition), some recent seekers of the Historical Jesus, including the members of the Jesus Seminar, have done just that. Basing their reconstructions primarily on the Gospel of Thomas and the oldest layer of Q, they propose that Jesus functioned as a wisdom sage, rather than a Jewish rabbi, though not all members affirm the two-source hypothesis. Kloppenborg, it should be noted, is now a fellow of the Jesus Seminar himself.

----------


## BMG

> SOOOOOOO, how about that documentary Jesus Camp?


ROFLCOPTERS

----------


## GrandMaMa

> I love when people play this card, when they're pushed to the wall about their opinions and can't back up their statements with facts.   Why can't people just admit they're wrong?


I am a bit surprised at you, of all people for sniping at someone who has realized just how far off the topic they have wandered and made the respectful suggestion that ALL should get back on topic...furthermore, I was not trying to trap anyone into anything, I sincerely never thought that the bible (which ever one that you use this week) did contain the term "homosexual".  You know yourself that 100 different churchs can, in fact, take the same text and use it to prove their point and their beliefs...if that isn't being biased and having personal agendas, I don't know what is.  One more thing, while I am still on here, I think that If any belief, no matter how "kooky" ,helps one become a better person and set a good life example for someone else to live and learn by, can't be all bad...BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, if it causes one to be hatefilled and judgemental of others, then how good is it and what good is it?  I have seen religion tear families apart, ruin lives and cause suicides, but then, that is what Jesus is supposed to have said was his purpose, wasn't it?

----------


## GrandMaMa

> So, are you saying that you're not definitely and absolutely sure that water is a liquid at temps ranging from 0 degrees C to 100 degress C?  Are you not for sure that babies grow?  Are you not for sure that the world is round?  Are you not for sure that grass is green.....really, is that an illusion made up by frogs? Are you not certain you're a female?  I could go on and on.


Am I to assume, Patrick, that those are rhetorical questions?  If not, are you wanting/needing answers?  re:  water...it would depend on where you were if that were true or not, wouldn't it?  re: babies growing...some actually do not.  re: the world being round....are you calling the earth the world?  if so, the answer likewise would be no, it is not exactly.  And again, re: grass being green, all grass is not green...the female question?  hmmmm, you are referring to physical attributes, correct?  Those questions did remind me of how holy books describe "the world" as the writer knew it, knew about it at that time...surely we all know that and should keep that in perspective whenever we read any book written before it was common knowledge that there are many worlds, many galaxies, etc, etc, etc.  Donlt you agree?

----------


## GrandMaMa

N/a

----------


## kmf563

holy smokes batman. I finally got to watch this over the weekend. I can't even begin to describe how this made me feel. Watching those kids cry and feel so horrible. The way they are being indoctrinated instead of taught. All I kept thinking was "don't drink the kool-aid." Let's just say I watched 'The Messengers' after this movie, and I don't know which one frightened me more.   :Ohno:   :Headscratch:

----------

