Posted on 09/27/2001 6:13:58 PM PDT by malakhi
| "I have seen in the last week much ugly use of religion for chest thumping and blaming 'ragheads' and even blaming our decadence for the events of the last week. I would rather that we continue here, respectful of our unity in citizenship, in displaying how religion can be talked about without veering off into ugliness." (SoothingDave, 9/19/01) |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 149
Your question has nothing to do with Taylor. It's about Your supposition that you don't think you have to prove anything you proffer as fact.
I asked that question because you cited her in a previous post as part of your documentation. Now you are avoiding it. You've been exposed and you can't deal with it.
You claim that Peter was in Rome then refuse to back it up with facts. Instead you give us references from books that are considered dubious and give us other unproven claims to bolster the original.
So is it your position that Eusebius is a liar?
So, are you going to keep up with attempts to change the subject?
I am on the subject, you are the one dodging questions. You also never answered my question regarding who was the first person to dispute that Peter was never in Rome. That shouldn't be hard to answer. And it also will demonstrate what a false premise you base your argument on.
I mean I understand we're in phase 3 now for you. That change the subject thing. Let me know when phase 4 arrives.
You're worse off than I thought, now you're talking to yourself.
In other words, at some point in time, the Church began to misinterpret it's own scriptures. At what point, according to your theory, did this misunderstanding begin to occur?
It began to occur when the church went from being predominantly Jewish to predominantly gentile. Jesus, his disciples, and the writers of the Christian scriptures were all Jewish. Their writings were written in a Jewish style, and with a Jewish context. Once they were lifted out of their cultural setting, and read by gentiles with no experience or context in Judaism, it is not at all remarkable that they would be read and understood differently.
Do you not respect those who eloquently defended, taught and loved the Hebrew scriptures? Hebrews 11, for instance? Jesus Himself knew them well enough to impress the Jewish priests, or was that fictitious in your view?
I have a great deal of respect for many Christians, particularly those who defend, teach and love the Hebrew scriptures. I may not agree with their interpretation of scripture, but I can certainly respect their love for God and their desire to do His will to the best of their understanding. I have no reason to believe that Jesus did not have an impressive knowledge of the Torah.
You're welcome. I was kinda surprised to see that none of the other fellows stepped up to the plate and knocked out Thread 150 while I was absent today. Good thing I checked in tonight (got the kids to bed and jumped on the ol' computer to see what was up). Fortunately, Thread 149 did not get too inconveniently long.
I see that in my absence, y'all reverted to your interdenominational disputes. ;o)
Well Havoc's back so that always spices things up. He's always a treat.
BTW did you notice that thread 148 got fixed?
Angelo wants us to accept a form of interpretation that neither Jesus nor Paul utilized but belongs to the period of post-Temple Judaism. But Christians believe that Jesus represents a new departure, not merely another Jewish section, and radically different from traditional rabbinical Judaism. Soon after 70 A.D. Christianity and Judaism went in different directions only in part because of ethnic differences. IMHO, traditional rabbinicalism is no older than Christianity.
If you are going to assert that this form of interpretation was not in use until subsequent to the destruction of the Second Temple, then you will need to provide some evidence to back it up. Ditto to your claim that traditional Judaism is no older than Christianity. I would, BTW, date the final split between Judaism and Christianity at circa 90 C.E. rather than at 70 C.E. It was at that later time that Christians were barred from continued participation in the synagogue.
I can now see how the development of the Canon proceeded...much in the way this thread has meandered...
Who knows maybe this thread will last long enough, say a 1000 years, so that no one will be able to discover its origin....some people will martyr themselves in the name of the "Apostles" Allend, ThomasMore, and Wideawake, who smote the heretics biblewonk, 808bass, and...
all in the name of the great Diety "TomB," who somehow got mixed up in a duality of Diety with his better half Yahweh "Angelo" about 500 years previously...
If I didn't believe their words I would think them fools for their collective claims, regardless of their literary skills. They must be liars or truth tellers, there is no grey area. I find their claims equal in boldness to the miracles God accomplished among Israel and if I did not believe the NT I would dismiss the OT on the same grounds.
If I can't prove that Jesus was God or that He was resurrected, how can one go back another 2000 years and prove that Moses spoke to God, or that Abraham almost sacraficed his son?????
Of course none of these events are likely to be "provable" in practice, in the sense of unearthing external sources to corroborate them. I have no problem admitting such. I am very familiar with the way higher criticism analyzes the Hebrew scriptures. There is a difference, however. The covenant with Israel does not depend upon the veracity of any particular miracle story; the "new covenant" of Christianity does. Scripture aside, I find the strict monotheism of Judaism to be much more logical than the Christian notions of trinity and incarnation.
I would never call anyone a liar, but I can't understand why Eusebius claimed that Christ wrote "The Legend of Abgar", or the portrait of Christ called "The Holy Face of Edessa", which he knew that Hannan, the archivist at Edessa and the painter to King Abgar had painted the picture, still he allowed it to be claimed that Christ painted it him self, and it became an object of general veneration.
Either your history is wrong, or he had a completely different set of standards then we do today.
As soon as Havoc admits that Peter was in Rome I'm out of here. Probably in a thousand years or so.
Granted, but if say, the account of Abraham were completely fabricated, how could one believe in Judaism either?
The core of Judaism is not Abraham, but Sinai and the Mosaic Law. Speaking for myself, and not for Orthodox Judaism, I view the Hebrew scriptures as an ongoing process of God's self-revelation, and of man's gradual growth in understanding God. IMO, the minimal requirement for Judaism to exist is for God to exist. You can throw out all of the miracles of the Hebrew scriptures, and mythologize everything prior to the Babylonian captivity (after which time the historical documentation for Judaism is readily available), and still you are left with a God and a people.
Actually, I don't think Jesus and Paul tried to change the law. Jesus just lifted the penalty of the law and laid it upon his shoulders.
An interesting approach. I must disagree with you, however. The consequences of disobeying the Law are part of the fabric of the Law itself. You cannot excise the consequence without rendering the Law meaningless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.