Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Existence of Jesus Christ
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 106 of 378 (213685)
06-02-2005 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by randman
06-02-2005 10:13 PM


Re: Jesus was real
For the average pagan and Jew, the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm (the "genuine" part of the universe) which began at the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven. Here a savior god like Mithras could slay a bull, Attis could be castrated, and Christ could be hung on a tree by "the god of that world," meaning Satan (see the Ascension of Isaiah 9:14). The plainest interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews 9:11-14 is that Christ's sacrifice took place in a non-earthly setting and a spiritual time; 8:4 virtually tells us that he had never been on earth. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:44-49 and elsewhere can speak of Christ as "man" (anthropos), but he is the ideal, heavenly man (a widespread type of idea in the ancient world, including Philo: see Supplementary Article No. 8: Christ as "Man"), whose spiritual "body" provides the prototype for the heavenly body Christians will receive at their resurrection. For minds like Paul's, such higher world counterparts had as real an existence as the flesh and blood human beings around them on earth.
It is in much the same sense that Paul, in Romans 1 and Galatians 4, declares Christ to have been "of David's stock," born under the Law. The source of such statements is scripture, not historical tradition. The sacred writings were seen as providing a picture of the spiritual world, the realities in heaven. Since the spiritual Christ was now identified with the Messiah, all scriptural passages presumed to be about the Messiah had to be applied to him, even if understood in a mythical or Platonic sense. Several references predicted that the Messiah would be descended from David: thus Romans 1:3 (and elsewhere). Note that 1:2 points unequivocally to scripture as the source of this doctrine. (As does 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 for the source of Jesus' death and resurrection.) Isaiah 7:14, to give another example, supposedly spoke of the Messiah as born of a young woman, and so Paul in Galatians 4:4 tells us that Christ was "born of woman". (Note that he never gives the name of Mary, or anything about this "woman." Nor does he identify the time or place of this "birth".) The mysteries may not have had the same range of sacred writings to supply their own details, but the savior god myths contained equally human-like elements which were understood entirely in a mythical setting. Dionysos too had been born in a cave of a woman.
Earl Doherty AgeOfReason
The mythicist argument is not that Paul never said those things. The argument is about what he was talking about. The resurrection did not take place on earth in recent times in Jerusalem. That is an idea that was developed later, perhaps by the author of the Gospel of Mark.
What the early chuch left of early writings is not an acurrate picture of the way people thought in the days of Paul. At this time there is not enough evidence to establish a historical vs. a mythical Jesus, but the mythicist have some strong arguments. Of course if you are a believer in the story Church authorities have been conveying then this argument is one you must resist and attack as an apologist. That is not the same sort of reasoned criticism a scholar would make.
Apologists use the emotional rhetoric of persuassion and ridicule. Perhaps this is very effective for the average church goer but I find it boring, empty and meaningless. Earl Doherty's study of the NT is in depth and he has some interesting perceptions. I don't think he has proved his case but given the evidence, propaganda and wishful thinking aside, not enough is known to establish the historicity of Jesus.
And yes, Christians, and believers in other mythical Truths have died for these truths. It's something some humans do.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by randman, posted 06-02-2005 10:13 PM randman has not replied

Brad
Member (Idle past 4787 days)
Posts: 143
From: Portland OR, USA
Joined: 01-26-2004


Message 107 of 378 (213692)
06-02-2005 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by randman
06-02-2005 10:13 PM


Re: Jesus was real
Careful with this logic. With your reasoning we can just as easily say that the heaven's gate people didn't meet their God, nor did they have any rational explination for their belief, yet they died for it. Isn't this proof that the apostles didn't need proof to die for their belief either?
Brad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by randman, posted 06-02-2005 10:13 PM randman has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3441 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 108 of 378 (213698)
06-02-2005 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Deut. 32.8
05-30-2005 11:09 AM


Re: Early church
Greetings again,
quote:
You're quite correct. My comment was poorly worded and I apologise.
Thank you :-)
It is easy to be mis-understood or to accidentally give offense.
quote:
At the same time, I've read your evidence more than once in the past, and my intent was certainly not to ignore it. I am simply concerned that this evidence may be reducible to a well researched argument from absence.
Well, that's a fair comment - certain absences do form a large part of my case.
quote:
And why would you think this? Why would an apparently Torah observant cult, presumably operating within the synagogue structure of the time (i.e., before the malediction/expulsion) choose to call the focus of their experience "Iesous Christos"?
Hmmm..
Perhaps calling it a "Torah observant cult" is a bit strong, considering we know very little about it.
Splits from Judaism were hardly un-common in those times - the early Jerusalem cult could have been a sect that had re-interpreted the Torah to suit their new beliefs, wherever they may have sprung (middle-platonism, Philo, Kabalah, Hermeticism ?)
In other words, we don't know the state of the Jerusalem cult, so I don't think there is much of an argument to be made from that.
To give a specific answer - I do not know why it happened.
But consider some other examples -
Why did Mohamed claim the Angel spoke to him?
Why did Joseph Smith claim an angel spoke to him?
(It's interesting - both accounts apparently refer to being "pressed" by a spiritual being - an experience sometimes reported by modern observers who claim to have encountered spiritual beings.)
Why did the Hermetic writings claim to cite a higher being?
Have you read he Ascension of Isaiah?
Or the Vision of Arideus? (from Plutarch's On the Dealy of Divine Justice.)
Or the Golden Ass?
These are exmples of contemporary writings which are rooted in experiences of spiritual beings.
We can see modern examples in the founding of the Golden Dawn - the various splits, the belief in meeting tha "masters"; or Theosophy - the various founders vying for favour with their "masters"
People believe they experience spiritual beings and form new cults as a result.
Some specific reasons that I think this model fits better than a historical Jesus :
* no contemporary evidence
* similarity with other pagan God-men stories
* the clear dependance of the Gospels on the OT
* the total lack of any specific evidence that any Christian ever met Jesus
* the spiritual wordings in Paul, and lack of earthly references
* Paul's usage of initiatory language (we speak wisdom among the telioi)
* Paul's mention of travelling to the 3rd heaven
* the many early Christians who denied an earthly Jesus (e.g. in John, Polycarp, Basilides, Bardesanes, Marcion, many Gnostics, Minucius.)
quote:
Have you not just said that it's 'POSSIBLE' yet deemed not possible?
Ummm..
Yes,
it's POSSIBLE Jesus existed.
No,
I don't believe that he did.
quote:
As for being absent from 1st century writings, why would that suggest, much less insure, that "there is no room for such a figure".
In Paul's description of his visit to Jerusalem, his actions and comments simply do not allow for a historical Jesus -
* Paul totally fails to mention the Gospel events and places even when he visits Jerusalem - without even mentioing e.g. Calvary - but a believing Christian would be expected to visit the sites etc.
* Paul dismisses the pillars of the Church - he is as much an apostle as them - this could not be true if they had met an earthly Jesus.
quote:
Paul's Gentile mission was clearly focused on a myth in progress. As for 2nd Temple Jews, one would hardly expect a literary legacy. What do we have from or about the Galilean, the Samaritan, the Egyptian, Hanina ben Dosa or Honi the Circle-Drawer, and are these references any less vulnerable to the type of arguments you've raised above?
Hmm .. not quite sure what you mean there...
I don't think Jesus Christ matches those figures very well.
quote:
"Must have been"? And where have I said this. Iasion? I merely point out that an historical Yeshu'a seems to me a more reasonable inference, while ...
Whoops, I exaggerated your statement - sorry.
quote:
the foundation of this theory of a Jewish initiation cult committed to Kashrut, not particularly excited about fraternizing with non-Jews, yet possessing some Greek-titled Gnostic focus? And what are we to make of the persistent Ebionites and 'Judaizers'? Finally, if you acknowledge the viability of "Q", where in this early tradition do we find evidence of an initiation cult divorced from a human cult leader?
Well, firstly, I take the view that Christianity started with much variation in views which merged, rather than a Big Bang model.
Ebionites and Judaizers would be some of the variant threads within the cult, I don't see why this would mean a historical Jesus.
As for Q - well, what signs of a historical Jesus are in there exactly?
quote:
Iasion, at issue is not the absense of a human Jesus in Paul or the absense of 1st century writings. At issue is the probity of that absence given the existence of a Torah-observant Jerusalem sect and a mid-1st century sayings tradition. You have suggested one story to explain what we see. People such as Crossan, Mack and Vermes have offered another. Both are, in my opinion, necessarily speculative, but I continue to feel that yours is more strained, more of an apologetic, i.e., a consequence of your position rather than a basis for it.
This a fair and valid criticism of my work.
It is true that I did not come to the mythical Jesus view based on what we know of the Jerusalem cult - I formed this view based on the totality of other evidence. The early Jerusalem church is a not something I know much about - I wonder if anyone does. In that sense, my comments are high in speculation I guess.
I have appreciated your knowledgable comments and questions, perhaps you would like to expound your ideas a bit more?
How do you see the early Jerusalem cult?
What do you think Paul believed about Jesus?
How about the origins and dating of the Gospels?
Why do so many 2nd century Christians not know, or even deny an earthly Jesus?
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Deut. 32.8, posted 05-30-2005 11:09 AM Deut. 32.8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Deut. 32.8, posted 06-03-2005 6:39 AM Kapyong has not replied

Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 109 of 378 (213707)
06-02-2005 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
05-27-2005 5:17 PM


There was a guy named Paul that believed in a man named Jesus?
note:Topic title existance (sic)

listen to phil collins and nas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-27-2005 5:17 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 110 of 378 (213712)
06-03-2005 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by arachnophilia
06-02-2005 10:32 PM


Re: Jesus was real
claims are not always true. lots of people are willing to die for their faith, no matter the religion or the veracity of it.
That's true but you guys are misreading Codetrainer's point. The point has been made here that Paul and Peter and the early church did not believe in a literal man Jesus that was crucified, buried and rose again.
Now, the fact they were willing to die for their belief in a literal Jesus and his resurrection does not by itself prove that Jesus rose from the dead, but it does prove they believed he rose from the dead.
As far as considering whether their faith is correct, one would have to start considering other factors, such as why did they beleive it. Were they deluded by a charismatic preacher that told them it was true, like the Heaven's Gate people?
No. They claimed to have direct personal experience with Jesus, something most believers claim although not to have witnessed his resurrected body as they claimed. But it's clear the religion is based on direct personal experience and testimony of that, and that the early apostles all believed they saw the resurrected Jesus.
Now, we could get into this, and some atheists have even come to faith reasoning on why would they accept Jesus as Resurrected if it did not happen, the empty tomb, etc,...
As far as this thread topic, I think it's safe to say they believed Jesus rose from the dead and were willing to be martyred for that belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by arachnophilia, posted 06-02-2005 10:32 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by arachnophilia, posted 06-03-2005 12:22 AM randman has replied
 Message 122 by lfen, posted 06-03-2005 9:18 AM randman has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 111 of 378 (213715)
06-03-2005 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by randman
06-03-2005 12:00 AM


Re: Jesus was real
i was making a slight ot comment. however.
The point has been made here that Paul and Peter and the early church did not believe in a literal man Jesus that was crucified, buried and rose again.
that wouldn't really suprise me, if it were true. there was actually a whole subset of the church who didn't believe in a literal jesus.
Now, the fact they were willing to die for their belief in a literal Jesus and his resurrection does not by itself prove that Jesus rose from the dead, but it does prove they believed he rose from the dead.
not neccessarily. that subset of believers that didn't believe in the literal jesus, the gnostics, also died for their faith. my point is that faith is a very strong thing, and really has nothing to do with the particulars of the belief.
Were they deluded by a charismatic preacher that told them it was true, like the Heaven's Gate people?
No. They claimed to have direct personal experience with Jesus, something most believers claim although not to have witnessed his resurrected body as they claimed. But it's clear the religion is based on direct personal experience and testimony of that, and that the early apostles all believed they saw the resurrected Jesus.
faith, to me, is not really valuable without doubt. if i can't doubt it, there's no reason for it to be special that i believe.
similar to your point, lots of buddhists have direct personal experiences with the buddha. heck, you can even get photos of him.
see? a real, tangible person that people can interact with. he's even given a lecture at my college. real personal experience is completely meaningless. even if jesus was real, he could still be lying, insane, a demon, or any number of other possibilities. people of other religions, ESPECIALLY cults like heaven's gate, all make the same claims christian do. except we don't claim our leader still walks around and lecture at colleges.
you have to remember also that we're only being told that someone, somewhere, at sometime had something like proof. maybe we're being deluded by some charismatic preacher, like luke for instance? how does a gospel testimony differ from the hypothetical heaven's gate testimony, if both only say they saw something?
As far as this thread topic, I think it's safe to say they believed Jesus rose from the dead and were willing to be martyred for that belief.
some, certainly. i've even heard suggestions that martyrdom was encouraged, like in some modern fanatical muslim circles. my point is that they truly believe SOMETHING, anything really. the specifics of it don't matter.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 12:00 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 1:25 AM arachnophilia has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 112 of 378 (213719)
06-03-2005 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by arachnophilia
06-03-2005 12:22 AM


Re: Jesus was real
Well arachno, people have spiritual experiences and interpret them differently or even disbelieve they happened after awhile. I tend think there will always be the opportunity to doubt, to reject the believing perspective because to believe contains an element of risk since perhaps one is wrong about what they think occurred.
Doubt too is risky.
For myself, I really have come too far with Jesus to doubt He exists. I can doubt I am hearing the right thing, that I understand His message, the Bible, etc,....but truth must be built upon truth, and for me, Jesus has proven Himself as real beyond all reasonable doubt.
And that's the thing about these discussions. The implication is that faith or beliefs can be arrived at exclusively via objective analysis, and unfortunately, there is probably no such thing as pure objective analysis in the human heart, and if there is, it is subject to the presuppositions one starts with.
For me, with or without the Bible, nor any other Christians, nor any academic study at all, I would and could still preach Jesus Christ born, crucified and resurrected. I was not taught these things from people, nor learned them from academic study but received them in an experience you would probably call highly subjective or something, but which was, imo, an experience of a more solid reality, the reality I would argue.
Let me add that perhaps everything boils down to subjective experience first, and then the objective analysis. Life consists of subjective experience. We base our objectivity then upon subjective experience first, not the other way around.
So we have different starting points due to differing experiences, and perhaps that makes convincing someone via reason alone insufficient. They must partake of the experiential knowledge of Christ somehow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by arachnophilia, posted 06-03-2005 12:22 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by arachnophilia, posted 06-03-2005 1:46 AM randman has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 113 of 378 (213722)
06-03-2005 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by randman
06-03-2005 1:25 AM


Re: Jesus was real
to believe contains an element of risk... Doubt too is risky.
seem to me that doubt is the risker of the two. if it's all a sham, christianity is not a loss. but if christianity is right, doubt will land your ass in hell.
there's a lot of "just in case" believers, i think. and i think that's part of how a lot of people are converted: fear of "what if it's true?" the story of my conversion had nothing to do with jesus or heaven or hell, it had to do with abraham i think. but i'd be lying if i said that didn't play a role.
So we have different starting points due to differing experiences
you assume alot. i've been just about every type of christian there is, short of a yec. i also spent alot of time trying to justify old-earth creationism and match with with evolution/geology/cosmology.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 1:25 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 1:56 AM arachnophilia has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 114 of 378 (213726)
06-03-2005 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by arachnophilia
06-03-2005 1:46 AM


Re: Jesus was real
Well, indulge me a bit then....
What sort of experiences did you have with the Holy Spirit, recognizing that maybe you are not sure, perhaps, if it was the Holy Spirit or something else?
In other words, what was your personal experience with what you felt was God at the time, and how have you come to think of it now?
Imo, I think like Paul, that if Christ is not risen, we are of all men most miserable, but trying to explain that gets into a lot of esoteric areas concerning the Cross and spiritual warfare.
I will say this about myself, at personal risk here on this board, in an effort to encourage you to disclose some of your personal history. Many of my ideas on reality, such as a non-static past, stemmed from direct experience and spiritual experimentation, mostly nearly 20 years ago as a young man.
But the discoveries and their implications were so astounding that I generally learned not to discuss them with people, and despite knowing their veracity, it was quite a shock to my world. Along with these revelations and discoveries were things like understanding there were such things as spiritual forces and beings, and not all good, and that was very unnerving considering I was not raised to consider anything like that to be anything other than a myth.
But what I found incredibly intriguing is how quantum physics and physics research began to explain my perceptions and experience of reality. It was amazing. Even side issues, such as one day thinking about how prime numbers were a key to understanding "superpositional math" (that was the phrase in my head that I felt like the Holy Spirit was discussing with me) that involved QM effects, well to learn that my idea which stemmed direct from God, imo, or some sort of communal ESP maybe, that there were a ton of folks working on that issue was very exciting as far the science.
But that was more of a thought, or inspiration, and perhaps not even from God or correct, though I think it is.
The experiences referred to earlier in the post were of a qualitatively different nature.
This message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 02:07 AM
This message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 02:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by arachnophilia, posted 06-03-2005 1:46 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by arachnophilia, posted 06-03-2005 2:26 AM randman has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 115 of 378 (213731)
06-03-2005 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by randman
06-03-2005 1:56 AM


Re: Jesus was real
What sort of experiences did you have with the Holy Spirit, recognizing that maybe you are not sure, perhaps, if it was the Holy Spirit or something else?
i hope you don't take this as dodging, or as a joke. but there are just some things i don't really discuss. and the inner workings of my faith i've never really shared with anyone, even the religious people i've been close to.
quote:
Mat 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
Mat 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
But the discoveries and their implications were so astounding that I generally learned not to discuss them with people, and despite knowing their veracity, it was quite a shock to my world.
well, i have a rather interesting belief regarding the future evolution of the human race, and our relationship to god. it's not one well recieved by most believers. or rather, it takes way too much debate to get across what i mean.
but as for actual experiences, i couldn't even find a framework with which to convey my relationship with my god to another, even if i wanted to.
sorry.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 1:56 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 3:32 AM arachnophilia has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 116 of 378 (213741)
06-03-2005 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by arachnophilia
06-03-2005 2:26 AM


Re: Jesus was real
That's sort of too bad if you cannot think of even how to relate your religious experience with God on a personal level.
But if you do not wish to discuss it, that's fine, and I mean that sincerely. At the same time, to post of how you used to think along similar lines or some such sort of violates that to a degree, but it is still understandable.
Imo, one's subjective experience of God or lack thereof, or failure to recognize something was indeed God, probably has a whole lot to do with their faith, and their presuppositions, and thus affects their suppossed objective analysis in this area.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by arachnophilia, posted 06-03-2005 2:26 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by arachnophilia, posted 06-03-2005 7:11 AM randman has not replied

Trae
Member (Idle past 4305 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 117 of 378 (213742)
06-03-2005 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by randman
06-02-2005 10:13 PM


Re: Jesus was real
Why couldn’t the Apostles be martyred, assuming they were, and not have a believe in the resurrection or some other specific Christian Doctrine? Even if your base argument is correct, why would it prove so specific a doctrine as resurrection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by randman, posted 06-02-2005 10:13 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 3:42 AM Trae has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 118 of 378 (213746)
06-03-2005 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Trae
06-03-2005 3:33 AM


Re: Jesus was real
Well, this gets back to why would Christ crucified be a stumbling block to the Jews and Gentiles in the way Paul presents it, and others?
If he were able to spin this as simply an esoteric mystery religion, it's hard to see how the pagans would have been offended.
If this were a gnostic thing with really more than one god, since Christ is rejected by the false god of material, then it is doubtful the pagans would have minded.
Basically, all the evidence we have suggests that they really believed in the Resurrection and were killed for that beleif. They deny Jesus' rose from the dead, and present him as an enlightened Rabbi, and they basically would have been fine, for the most part, and not faced such intense persecution.
Moreover, it's really a strain to place the New Testament date of writing outside of the first century. Basically, the scoffers want to remove all of the evidence we have, and then deduce from mere imagination what could have been, if we discount, without good reason I might add, the New Testament as historically being written by early Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Trae, posted 06-03-2005 3:33 AM Trae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Trae, posted 06-04-2005 5:26 AM randman has not replied
 Message 127 by Kapyong, posted 06-04-2005 10:26 AM randman has not replied
 Message 157 by lfen, posted 06-12-2005 3:26 PM randman has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 119 of 378 (213766)
06-03-2005 5:24 AM


Death of the Disciples
Does anyone recall the discussion where someone was trying to prove that the disciples all died horrible deaths but stuck to their belief in the ressurection?
If I recall correctly, that member was unable to prove a single martyrdom of any disciple.
Brian.

Deut. 32.8
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 378 (213770)
06-03-2005 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Kapyong
06-02-2005 11:14 PM


Re: Early church
quote:
I have appreciated your knowledgable comments and questions, perhaps you would like to expound your ideas a bit more?
And I yours.
Thank you for your extensive comments. I'll not be able to adequately respond for a week or two (long trip, grandkids, Bar Mitzvah, etc.) and I didn't want you to think that I had overlooked or ignored your post.
For now, let me just say that I see little in 'Q' or Acts to suggest anything other than Torah observant Jews. Put somewhat differently, I see little of Paul in 'Q'.
Thanks again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Kapyong, posted 06-02-2005 11:14 PM Kapyong has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024