|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Tithing an ancient Israelite law ALONE or is it a post-Easter law too? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 18854 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 3.5 |
That's a good question. What the hell does it mean? If God changes hearts, such as yours, why are you still such an angry hateful harpy? And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 18854 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 3.5
|
And what I mean is why, oh why, for the zillionth time, why is there no sign of a change? Why are Christians not better people than non-Christians? And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33102 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
The GOP in the 50s is certainly not the Fascist GOP of today. And no, I can't think of anything about socialism I disagree with, but I do disagree with the utterly ignorant caricature of socialism from you and Faith and so many market.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1725 Joined: |
Phat, let me skip the few sentences mentioning the Council of Nicea, in your quote. I will also change the format and remove the reference numbers.
Now your quote. Phat says: quote: So I split your Wiki quotes into five paragraphs. 1 Paragraph one is about Paul calling Jesus "Lord" which is not the same thing as "God". There was a distinction, and the issue is how many times he called Jesus "Theos" verses the "almost 230 times" he called him Kyrios. A noticeable difference that can't be ignored (endless headaches are caused by this one, but fundamentalists generally don't bother to be, um, "bothered" by the details of the problem OR THE PROBLEM ITSELF). 2 "Son of God" isn't the same thing as being God, even if there is some relation to the divine in that very thing. 3 You just quoted a line that references Richard Bauckham, who I have been quoting constantly since 2015. I will mention more about him later. 4 Paragraph 4 mentions the issue of pre-existing Christian communities (before Paul) being proof of certain (supposed) "Pauline" beliefs being held. It reminds me of certain Peshitta Supremacists (Aramaic Bible readers who say they had the original Bible and Greek was translated FROM the Aramaic Peshitta-type text) arguing that the "Aramaic Christians existed before Nestorianism" (and the 431 split), and then making the case that the Aramaic Christology of the Church of the East is actually from the time of Jesus. They also correctly point out that Aramaic speaking Christians existed before the 3rd-5th century translations from Greek into Aramaic (they deny that the translation came from GREEK TO ARAMAIC so they deny that textual history as scholars present), so they say, "How could Aramaic Christians exist without a Aramaic Bible translation" and they really resent being told that their first Aramaic Bible was the circa 180 Synoptic Gospel harmony called the Diatessaron from Tatian. Diatessaron was a super-popular Gospel harmony in Latin and Greek (Augustine had the Latin version committed to memory, and his Biblical quotations seem to often come from it), and it was translated into all sorts of European languages, including northern European ones, for over 1000 years. The Aramaic Supremacy Peshitta readers want to see Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as being 1st century documents that were first written in Syriac and/or related Aramaic dialects. They hate being told that they had no Aramaic Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John until well after 200 A.D. But scholars say their earliest synoptic Gospels all came from a date - much later - LATER than the Diatessaron of 180 A.D. 5 Paragraph 5 wants to speak for the earliest Christian leaders. By a broad-brush, they say the early Jewish Christians "would not have come to a widespread agreement that he was truly divine, but would have regarded Jesus as merely a teacher or a prophet instead" Now, back to the Richard Bauckham reference. From Phat's Wiki quote: quote: This causes me to quote James Tabor. James Tabor: quote: The "Two Assumptions" link is outdated and it leads to nothing. But Tabor has been big on making a distinction between James & the Jewish Christians on one hand and popular Christian views today. Bauckham seems to hold different views. Phat says: quote: Everything started somewhere. But does the fact that SOMETHING existed in the year 50 A.D. prove that something else that definitely existed 50-100 years later was the exact same thing 50-100 years earlier than what was clearly there 50-100 later. Does everything have to be the exact same thing just because there was a (evolutionary) relationship of some sort? One side demands that everything be seen as the exact same thing, due to the relationship. Skeptics and unbelievers seem to offer a more evolutionary view of Christology, I suppose.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1725 Joined: |
quote: Look at the situation from DECADES after Jesus dies. And we can look to the "Holy Land" of Europe, if it makes people uncomfortable to consider a middle eastern Jewish Christianity of Jesus and James.. In Acts 18:25, Apollos knows only the baptism of John In Acts 19:1-7, the 12 Christians from Ephesus only know the baptism of John. I just don't feel like the European Christians of today have a good grasp of what these early Christian communities taught. A European New Testament should be seen as something a follower of Jesus should reject (not embrace).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 14860 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1
|
I recently watched a great clip from Matt Dillahunty, respected atheist spokesman: I learn more from my opponents than I do from Pastors and Christian teachers. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1725 Joined: |
I was trying to watch that apologetic series that came after the atheist, but my computer kept crashing.
One part was talking about archaeology proving the Bible reliable, but do you ever wonder why we should have to keep looking for (so far NOT FOUND) early New Testament manuscripts in archaeological contexts? The answer is that European Christians destroyed everything that was Hebrew or early Semitic. Take the situation until 200 A.D. in the Aramaic and Persian east. Christianity in the Aramaic east, for example, was a Christianity that lacked what is TODAY'S Gospel of Matthew (they MIGHT have had an earlier Aramaic "Matthew" though it would have been very different than today's Matthew), as well as the Gospels of (3 gospels where there probably was roughly the same text originally as today's ) Mark, Luke, and John. What kind of a "Christianity" is must have been, in 150 A.D., for there to be no translation (from Greek) of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John! The Diatessaron of Tatian was not translated until after 175 A.D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron What was going on before 175 in the Aramaic east? Acts of the Apostles has Aramaic Christians from Persia and Iraq, as well as other places. In the first chapters of Acts, we see evidence of early communities.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1725 Joined: |
Back to the issue about human scriptures and humans making things up.
I want to get to the issue of the Sacred Measure or Canon as we look at the Christological issues as they relate to Paul. Phat: quote: I want to quote from a work, which covers the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus), and the issue of Christology comes up. That will be seen in my second paragraph, but my first paragraph will just be for context. (Sorry if this seems a little long, skip to my second quotation to get to the matter) All quotes from 2004 Brill book, The Pauline Canon, Pauline Studies Edited by Stanley E. Porter Professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario (reference (small subscript) numbers removed from text) My first quotation from the work. kerygma means proclamation quote: Now the Christology of Paul. Ýí ×ñéóôþ is "en Christon" or In Christ. quote: The Parousia is related to Christology, it seems. So I will pick up where I just left off. ðáñïõóßá is parousia (used by Paul) ÝðéöÜíåéá is epiphaneia (used by the Pastoral Epistles) Epiphany quote: The idea of ALL SCRIPTURE being inspired clearly points to a time period (late 1st century) that used to be called the "Council of Jamnia" when a Jewish Canon actually might have existed. Otherwise ALL SCRIPTURE could mean almost anything. But "Savior" used interchangeably between God and Jesus clearly indicates a move around 100 A.D. to see Jesus and God as the same thing, though it would take a while for the early Roman Catholic/Greek Orthodox texts (I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus) to trickle into broader Christian circles. This might be 1 area where the Pastorals were actually consistent with Paul's views, as I feel that Paul did come to see Jesus as a God of some sort. The question of Paul's views on Christological issues is controversial though.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1725 Joined: |
This board has seemingly froze over this weekend, so I will put up a "savior" concordance.
(Philippians 3:20, written 59-61 A.D., is in Paul's own words, and it, along with the very late book of 2nd Peter having the other 5 uses of the word, is the only Biblical use, of "savior", outside the Pastoral Epistles.) I Timothy: quote: II Timothy: quote: Titus: quote: Considering scholars date this book at roughly the same time as the Gospel of John, then it shouldn't be too much of a shock to see Jesus and God as a twin duo of Gods here. The Holy Spirit wasn't yet made out to be a God yet though. We were still very much in the formative period in European Christianity. At this early date, the "Trinity" doctrine did not yet attempt to reconcile the European polytheistic Christianity with a religion that had monotheistic Jewish Christian (Ebionite, Nazarene, Elkesaite, etc.) followers of James the Just, who was himself quite an authority as the brother of Jesus. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021