| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/19/2004 7:52:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
This thread has 183 abuse reports. It’s now locked. Maybe you can all get along better on the next thread. |
Posted on 03/10/2004 9:37:27 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Perhaps. Though I doubt unwarranted. He seemed a bit evasive in the posts I was reading and certainly took some shots of his own.
I've just noticed a certain self-righteous anger at those who disagree with him... regardless of whether it's a position he's held for a day, a week, or a year.
Others here have changed their minds but maintained a respectful level of debate with those who have not.
Besides... I thought it was a humorous jab. Perhaps "cheap" is all I'm up for. I've been a bit out of it for a few days.
I've been a bit slow lately. What am I missing?
Just not as sharp as I usually might be.
Chest pains. Turned out to be nothng to worry about. But I spent four hours waiting in the ER waiting room before they saw me, then another few hours checking me out then tread mill tests the next day. Blew out a vein taking blood (BIG bruise) and shaved a third of the hair off my chest.
Big waste of time. (ok, not really).
Yes, I'm now in Ft Worth.
I'm also off to Katherine's 1st birthday party.
If you died tonight, would you without one doubt go to heaven?
BigMack
Perhaps. Though I doubt unwarranted. He seemed a bit evasive in the posts I was reading and certainly took some shots of his own.
Not evasive. Just not letting him deceitfully change the topic to accomodate his spin. Aint gonna happen.
I've just noticed a certain self-righteous anger at those who disagree with him... regardless of whether it's a position he's held for a day, a week, or a year.
There's no anger here. Just facts. He lies. Not to say I'm without sin, but in this case he lied. Dems the facts. I don't feel more righteous at all that he lied. I'm aware it bothers you that when I see what I believe to be truth it changes me. I think thats rather a good quality. The alternative doesn't appeal to me at all.
Others here have changed their minds but maintained a respectful level of debate with those who have not.
Sorry. Again just calling it the way I see it. When one tells me my beliefs are foolish (which by the way you conveniently missed) I also question the respect level of the debate. Why are your judgements so onesided?
Besides... I thought it was a humorous jab. Perhaps "cheap" is all I'm up for. I've been a bit out of it for a few days.
No worries. But thanx for piling on. I enjoyed respectfully responding.
And Jesus sanctioned worship of demons? Or not? I forget how your version goes....
And Peter didn't.
1 Peter 1:2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
Prooftexting is fun. Your move. Oh and the bold is in the original text. (As long as we're making crazy claims on this board, (not you specifically, but in general) I'll up the ante)
Now, the uninitiate in the ways of your theology might read those statements with wide-eyed innocence and interpret them as saying that the Church (specifically blond-haired, blue-eyed male Greco Romans who read Plato for breakfast and Aquinas for lunch, even proleptically) made up all of Jewish history. That idea, specifically, that the Church has fabricated all of Jewish history, is dumb. capital D capital U capital M
Now you can say a little more specifically that the Church has appropriated Jewish history incorrectly and interpreted it for their own theological ends, but that's not quite as grabbing a statement and certainly won't start any debates.
After this rather, at the very least, inaccurate statement, the author meanders on with this quote: "The only alternative was to claim the whole of it for themselves and to antedate the rejection of the Jews and the emergence of the Church to the beginning of revealed history, by emphasizing the position of [Avraham] as the father of many nations, of whom only one, and that themselves, was chosen."
Now again to the unitiated such as myself, it appears that the author is rather unabashedly implying that the Jews read no particularism into God's promise to Abraham. I find that position untenable. More likely laughable. And given that, why is it ok for the Jews to see particularism in Gen. 12 but not Christians? You can disagree that it applies to the Christian, but you cannot pretend that the interpretation is invalid by its very nature. In other words, there is no inherent self-contradiction in the claim that God's promise to Abraham points to a particularism in YHVH's dealings with humanity. Obviously, where that particularism leads to theologically is a bone of contention between us.
It is here that we see how inevitable was the defamation of the actual history of the Jews, for if the Gentiles were the true Israel, then the Jews had all the time been sailing under false colours.
Um....doesn't replacement theology by its very name discredit this statement? But, it's not a good soundbite to say that those who believe on Jesus as the Christ are grafted into the promise of God, does it? That almost sounds level-headed. Much better to say that Christians defame all of Jewish history. And what they don't defame, they make up. And what they don't make up, they ignore. I'm sure there's more.
This deliberate and connived denial of Jewish history is called displacement (or replacement) theology, and the Church is still entirely dependent on it today, with no choice but to deny Jewish history - from Jews being the true and spiritual children of Avraham, to the history of Yisrael and Yehudah (as opposed to "Palestine"), and even the Holocaust.
Just in case we were to mistake the author's statement about the Christian fabrication of Jewish history, the author reiterates it here for us. And while Christians and Jews will by definition disagree upon the interpretation of Scriptural and historical accounts, it is hyperbole overdone to say that it is a denial of Jewish history to interpret the Tanakh in any other fashion than that of an orthodox Jew. And to put the capstone on the hyperbolic festival, the author throws in the Holocaust. Which, more than anything, seems to point to a very weak case. It is completely tangential and a weighted argument which does not at all speak to the depth and breadth of the Christian response to the Holocaust. But you knew that.
KJV Note renders mishpat variously as "lawful," "manner," "ceremony," "fashion," "cause" and "ordinance." Khüqim is rendered as "statutes."
Perhaps we should not translate the Bible anymore. Perhaps we should just make everyone learn the original languages. Then we would avoid pesky problems like differences in culture or languages. But then that would leave the power of the hermeneutic in the small number of hands of those who could actually study. Wait, that's starting to sound familiar. Oh, right. That's one of those things we disliked about the Catholics with their Latin and not letting people read the Bible.
Either the Gospel is accessible in other cultures or it is not. Either Jesus came to save the world or he didn't. And is salvation accomplished by converting someone to a culture? Or by transforming the individual within the culture in which they are living?
:-)
Yes. Without any shred of doubt.
I get extra credit for putting up with you. :-)
We're off to the zoo. See you later.
(Look, someone had to say it. LOL)
SD
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.