Suzanne wrote:
> "althea" <althea@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:46b3bacc$0$27235$88260bb3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] napisal(a):
>>>
>>>
>>>>Libertarius skrev:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Libertarius skrev:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>===>That is totally false.
>>>>>>>NO ONE ever claimed that Isaiah was written by
>>>>>>>any "contem****ary" or "more contem****ary" author.
>>>>>>>You are totally misled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In fact there are THREE sections in that book:
>>>>>>> SECTION 1: Proto-Isaiah (Chapters 1-39) oracles of
Jerusalem,
>>>>>>>composed in the eight century BCE.
>>>>>>> SECTION 2: Deutero-Isaiah (Chapters 40-55) words of a sixth
>>>>>>>century BCE writer who was LIVING IN EXILE IN BABYLON.
>>>>>>> SECTION 3: Trito-Isaiah (Chapters 56-66) writings of
>>>>>>>post-Exilic author(s), most likely disciples of the Deutero-Isaiah,
>>>>>>>who
>>>>>>>continued
>>>>>>>his work after the return from exile, possibly even quoting some of
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>sayings of Deutero-Isaiah.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ALL OF THESE were long finished and compiled into the collection of
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>TA****H long-long before the production of the DSS copies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>one interesting aspect is that the temple at Elephantine is LATER
than
>>>>>>the events in yeshayahu.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>===>And the wor****pers and their priests were STILL accepting ANATH,
>>>>>the FEMALE deity.
>>>>>
>>>>>She is also the Queen of Heaven about whose wor****p Jeremiah and
>>>>>the people are arguing, and she is the one who also appears disguised
>>>>>as the goddess HOKHMA in the book of PROVERBS.
>>>>>
>>>>>Some of the Nag Hammadi material refers to her as SOPHIA, but the
"main
>>>>>stream" Christian propagandists simply did a *** change on Hokhma and
>>>>>used the statements about her as co-creator to refer to "Christos".
>>>>>-- L.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ah. in spite of my devotion to the sources this is an obvious hole
>>>>in my knowledge and evidences that perhaps i lacked the intelligence
>>>>to see the obvious.
>>>>
>>>>The "smoking gun" for such if you will .
>>>>
>>>>The implications to my other findings would be profound.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>well in lieu of your response i went and obtained [again] some copies
>>>of Philo's discourses and actually had a hell of a time discerning the
>>>essence of his writings.
>>>i had read them years ago but when reading them afresh lo and behold i
>>>see another aspect which i did not understand years and years ago when
>>>i first "perused" them.
>>>
>>>i now think Philo is much more im****tant [that is , a more significant
>>>component] to Christianity as a whole.
>>>
>>>can you elaborate [would you please elaborate] before i comment ?
>>>
>>
>>===>To the extent there is any "Judaism" in Christianity, it is adaptad
>>from this Hellenistic variety. Philo, an Platonist philospher from
>>Alexandria who relied on the Septuagint, was attempting to reinterpret
>>Judaism to harmonize with Platonic philosophy. His atetements about the
>>"LOGOS" as a "second god", etc. became the foundation for the
>>Christian idea of "Jesus" as the divine Christos.
>>As the Wikipedia puts it:
>>"Philo's works were enthusiastically received by the early Christians,
>>some of whom saw in him a cryptic Christian. His concept of the Logos as
>>God's creative principle apparently influenced early Christology." -- L.
>>
>
> No, you have been misled. There was no "idea"
> about Jesus, there was Jesus and his teachings
> and his events were recorded by people that
> lived in his day.
===>You are still keeping yourself in
ignorance of the historical facts. -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
