Politcally Correct Christ

true, but i think because they had more run-ins with the pharisees, the authors talked about them more, plus the pharisees held goverment positions
the sadducees are what you mean about the documents and the length of time they existed, the only places they are known from are from enemy writings, plus the sadducees didn't believe in the spirit or the after life, the pharisees did

Yes.

I read something about Christ dying for the sins of mankind.But then if one is "God-inspired," which I am not, one can apparently interpret any Biblical passage any way one feels like.This we call "modernization."

sorry jar she is right, you are thinking of the sadducees not the pharicees, they did become orthodox judaism. the sadducees on the other hand disspeared aftter the temple fell. there are no writtings left of the sadducees, the talmud is the pharisees oral writings. as i said in the last post the sadducees are known only by what other sects wrote about them. they only believed the first five books were imspired by god, everything else is not. for different reasons, sadducees for disbelieving in the spirit and reserrection or angels
pharisees for making up rules they wouldn't bother following and reading old laws in an anal retentive way - or not reading the spirit of the words

no this is not modernization, i think you need to figure out what that is before you redefine what they really mean
wiki entry: Modernization theory - Wikipedia
i guess if you want to paint progress as being bad thats fine,sad but fine its your choice to do so. My point was that religion is subjective and no one shares the same views on the same subject or there would be one religion and no one would argue over this.
the fact that you don't bother to learn what people believe falls on your head not someone elses, just like its mine to know it too, as always you can't paint everyone with the same brushEdited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

Rabbinic Judaism may be the successor to the Pharisees and as I pointed out above the major difference was in the Pharisees accepting the oral traditions. But I know of NO existing Pharisee writings. The written Talmudic documents come from long after the temple destruction.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm talking about what it says in a book. To my mind, there's a lot about Christ dying for our sins in the Bible, but Jar and Ringo find it plausible to reject that idea, apparently thinking that they can just interpret a passage any way they care to to make it fit with their modern beliefs. That doesn't sound very legitimate to me. I don't know what you are referring to exactly, but if you are talking about Ringo's beliefs, I'm going to assume that he believes what Jar believes since he won't tell me straight out. I know exactly what Jar believes.

evidence please, chapter, verse too. other wise i don't think this makes much sense. by the way every religion interpretates things based on thier "modern" beliefs. do you really think people believe what they believe 200 years ago? 500? 1000? if you do i think you need to read more about religionnow people do believe what ringo quoted, you just don't agree with that interpretation, so its just a confliction of what a book says between people. jesus also shows himself that he didn't consider a lot of the laws the people of his day considered vital to gods worship important, but to be faithful in belief of god, which is what ringo quoted you as saying. He is right and many people consider this as true. yes jesus died for our sins, and calvinists say you need gods grace,but they also believe that you don't need to watch what you eat to be saved eather i was saying that you could go look at ringos posts instead of badgering him about what he believes in total, since it seems you want to dissect his views on everything

I thought dissecting views was what we did here.

Its not a modern view Robin - it's as old as the hills. In Romans, Paul constantly refers back to the OT in order to show that what he is arguing for is in fact something that has always been the case. For example, in his argument regarding righteousness by faith he points back to the very father of the nation, Abraham - and points out that the OT said it was his believing God which resulted in righteousness being credited to him. Jar and Ringo share the same blindness which caused the Pharisees then to see it as they did.Sure, there is some spannering at the edges, some moulding into current philopsopy but the essential view behind it is the same: your standing before God depends on what you do. What is 'behaving yourself' but another way of saying you need to adhere to Gods laws?There is nothing new under the sun Robin. Absolutely nothing. You say you've read The Problem of Pain. Well you will remember what it his CS says about the Fall. What it is that man sought and seeks to maintain - to not have to be dependant on God. There is, I repeat, nothing modern about the view which attempts to achieve own righteouness. You'll have seen as much of that in the Bible as you have Christ dying for our sins.Now I can understand how someone like me might argue with Ringo or Jar or the like. But given what you know - why are YOU dissecting their views. You trying to be an evangelist or something

This is exactly what the Christian authors of the New testament did to the Hebrew Bible. They mutilated the text to fit their own needs, look at how the author of Matthew has misinterpreted Isaiah 7:14 for example.Brian.

Robin is a Christian, you seem to be about the only one here doesn't know that.Apart from Delilah of course, but I think she is having her doubts too. Brian.

What! Did I miss an EvC confession of faith?

Evidently.It was a bit esoteric to be fair.Brian.

Uh, no, but this politically correct version of Christianity just bores me no end.