Corrupting the Old Testament at all costs?

Hi Bill,Israel and Syria were Roman provinces at this time, and their populations were subject to Roman rule.For example, the Sanhedrin could not sentence anyone to death, that's apparently why they had to get the Romans to condemn Jesus and that is why Jesus died by a Roman form of execution and not a Jewish one.if you even look at the stoning of Stephen there was no trial here, they apparently just decided to stone the guy.But under Pax Romana you were free to follow any faith you wanted to as long as you were not inciting rebellion.I am in uni tomorrow, so I will post something a bit more 'official' tomorrow evening about this as most of this is also off the cuff.Cheers.Brian.

What you say is true, of course, but despite the wonderful attributes of Roman law and order, I expect that dissidents (Hebrew nationalists) did whatever they could get away with: The stoning of Stephen for example. These acts were doubtless illegal in the context of Roman Law, although I expect they were readily justifiable in the context of Yahwistic fervor. Yes?db

Wasn't what Paul was allegedly doing a bit more organised and systematic then the lynching that Stephen got?I suppose a quick 'drive by' hit would more than likely be overlooked, but if it was systematic then the Christians could claim protection under Roman law.Brian.

You rightly point out problems and challenges for Paul's role as persecutor. I expect that a lot of illegal and unsavory activity was going on under the Roman nose but whether they knew of it, or cared about it, or had the manpower to deal with it is another matter.I'm glad you brought up this subject. I had never before considered this aspect of the story. For me, at this point, it seems all too believable. The Romans didn't really have as much control as they would have liked people to believe. Seems to me that if the situation had been easier for them to manage, they would not have found it necessary to sack Jerusalem.This is probably my last response for the moment. I look forward to taking this up later today.db

You are correct that is the point of the story. This is very interesting statement one that is self contradictory unless you have had intuitions into the nondual. If this statement about the Lord is true what does that imply about you and I and indeed all sentient beings?Second question before I must be off about my day. Do you think this Lord existing alone on the mountain top cares whether he is referred to as Yahweh, Siva, Brahman, the Absolute, the Source, What Is, etc.?lfen

I will start a seperate thread on this since it is really OT but definitely pointing towards my issue of missing records. I hope that you will join me there.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I believe that the Sanhediren could have someone stoned to death.But not cruxified.

Not sure that I follow. What does the implication mean? Well, for me I believe that He should be referred in the definition which He and I have agreed upon. I know that the thumpers quote that Jesus is the ONLY name to salvation, and I believe that He is.What of the seeker who has no Bible as a point of reference, however? Surely they are not unable to know Him! The Lord may have given different instructions to others, however....yet they and I know the same Lord if He so wills it.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-03-2005 00:49 AM

Hi Ramoss, Apparently, they lost the right to try capital cases c.30 CE.This is reflected in John 18:31: Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:There are some Jewish references to support this as well. I had a discussion about this with someone before and I had two references from the Mishnah Sanhedrin that supports the Sanhedrin losing the power to pass the death penalty about 40 years before the fall of the Temple in 70 CE.I don't have a copy of the Mishnah Sanhedrin to hand, but I can get a copy and get the exact references for you if you want, but I wouldnt be able to do this until 16th Feb.Brian.

That would be kind of you.. thank you.

That pertains to formal charges and sentence, IIRC, however there was no prohibition on mob rule and only if incitement could be proven were they threatened.That was the purpose of Saul. He was charged with indirect inforcement. He'd go to an area, investiagte charges, make a decision on the spot and then incite the locals to execute the offender. It was an informal situation and as long as it was kept within the Jewish community, overlooked.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The journey, the path up this mountain from any starting point, along any path eventually arrives at the same place, the summit. You stated that the Lord exists alone on the mountain top. So when anyone arrives at the summit they discover only One exists. What or who then were the multiplicity that appeared to exist along the path? If only God exists at the end of the journey, who are you? Who am I? Who or what is anything?lfen

Well, the way that I see it, God not only exists at the end of the journey but He exists "In the Beginning" of the Journey and is present during the Journey as well. Hopefully, I am In Christ. A man on a journey. John 1:3-4- Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Not sure that I follow. As a Deity, that is. I hope that He keeps us around to chill with Him as well! This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-03-2005 10:23 AM

Phat,Had I intended to mean that God didn't exist until the end of the journey I would have written, "God ONLY exists at the end". What I wrote was taken from your statement that God was alone on the summit, only he was there, no one else. So the metaphor of the mountain arrives at the end and you stated, I believe quite correctly, that at the end of the journey ONLY God exists. I recommended Bernadette Roberts book THE EXPERIENCE OF NO SELF. Bernadette has been a Christian all her life and spent some years in a convent as a contemplative nun the goal being uniting her will, or accepting the will of God as her will. When she felt she had done that she left to marry and raise a family and live in the "world". She discovered her journey was not complete and in her books she writes about what she found at the summit.lfen

Hi Jar,Don't you think that after a 'hit' or two, the Christians would be complaining to the Roman authorities who would then have a word or two with the 'hitmen'?Pax Romana was meant to gaurantee protection under Roman rule, I could see a few hits but if Jews were regularly lynching Christians I would think that sooner or later the authorities would do something about it.Brian.