Posted on 08/31/2002 5:30:20 AM PDT by vance
What ramblings of Paul are you refering to? The part where he lambasts "the Jews"? Read the rest of the story. Paul predicted that his people would one day come to see the light, even while he critized them for failing to do so in his day.
Where are you getting this stuff?????
do you fall into this catagory? just curious.
The rest of the story is that the massive law of Moses was dropped and replaced with the new law, a single law. All the OT was dropped. The NT is a collection of sayings in hidden language and a few symbolical stories. A lot of Apocalypse, which was a favored literary form at the time both in the Mystery Religions and in early Christianity and Gnosticism, makes up the best and favorite parts.
Luke 3:23 Much learned labour has been used to reconcile this genealogy with that in Matthew, , and there are several ways of doing it; the following, which appears to me to be the best, is also the most simple and easy. For a more elaborate discussion of the subject, the reader is referred to the additional observations at the end of the chapter.
Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed virgin, speaks of sons properly such, by way of natural generation: Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, etc.
But Luke, in ascending from the Saviour of the world to God himself, speaks of sons either properly or improperly such: on this account he uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed the son of Joseph-- of Heli-- of Matthat, etc.
This receives considerable support from Raphelius' method of reading the original oon (grk 5607) (hoos (grk 5613) enomizeto (grk 3543) huios (grk 5207) Iooseeph (grk 2501)) tou (grk 3588) Heeli (grk 2242), being (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, etc.
That Luke does not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation.
After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i. e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.
As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, Dr. Pearce has fully shown, nomizesthai (grk 3543) bears, in a variety of places-- Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli.
It is an excellent side-by-side of the claims of Islam and Christianity, and especially centers on the person of Jesus. It also includes references to the Hadith, the "other" holy book of Islam that all Muslims accept, but which no one mentions.
BTW, both the Hadith (and I think the Koran, though I could be wrong) says at least twice that Mohammad sinned daily. Sorry, I need a Savior who is sinless. I can sin on my own.
Yes the Egyptians did erase those they hated but scholars were able to find everyone erased.
How would we know? If they couldn't find them, we wouldn't know they were there (unless they were mentioned outside Egyptian records).
What's their official explanation on how the pyramids were built?
The issue shouldn't be Mohammad - rather, we should look to the social and technological issues as well as Mecca's position vis a vis "world trade".
In Mohammad's time, Mecca was a pretty good place to be compared to just about everywhere else in the world.
He certainly had plenty to say about the times he had occasion to meet with Jews. In fact, he had started out with the idea that he should reform Judaism.
The ones who have studied the matter the most say that Christianity is a perversion of Judism, that Jesus was a rabbi but no messiah, and that the last supper with its lamb was a Passover meal. I don't know and care less.
The flood story and many of the other Biblical stories are stock items in Middle East myth. The Babylonians had a Noah-type hero called Gilgamish. One of the kings justified his rule by claiming to have been saved by the gods when his mother placed him in a basket covered with pitch and set him adrift on the river where he was rescued by the king's daughter. These stories predate the OT by 1000 years. Kings regularly went up onto mountains to receive the law from the local god. There's a picture of it on the Hammurabi stele.
The Egyptian religion was in full flower in 3500BC when history begins and flourished until about 600AD. If you go back beyond 800BC you find Yahweh with a consort named Asherath, burnt offerings, and the occassional human sacrifice so I'm not sure where you would want to count from. At any rate, I think most people would agree that Christ was the founder of the Christian religion. To call Judism "proto-Christianity" is about as insulting to Jews as you could possibly be. That's the equivalent of calling Christianity "proto-New Age" or "proto-Scientology".
The cities founded centuries later were most likely re-establishments of the original destroyed cities.
This seems unlikely since standard procedure is to take digs down to bed rock. The earliest levels can be dated by pottery, coins, etc.
How many records would they find in Iraq 2,000 years from now of the American's victory in desert storm?
Since we no longer write on clay tablets and pottery shards records may be a bit more perishable--especially those on tape. I really doubt that you believe the "cleaning up" hypothesis.
Don't you find it strange that the pure Word of God requires so much explaining and adjusting of dates?
Uh, what holocaust?
I have no idea if God truly is or what God truly is but I'm quite sure that the Bronze Age children's stories cannot possibly be the answer. I remember a post by a (Jewish) FReeper which said that he didn't think that the God who created all the galaxies could be all that interested in the condition of his pickle.
Of course the Egyptians used chariots and very likely had some posted on the main route to the Levant. So?
The Sea of Reeds substituion for the Red Sea is one of those attempts to demystify the Bible. It's a swampy area which perhaps was passable in ancient times.
The Jews recorded victories and failures.
Which lost battles are recorded in the Torah?
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.