Suzanne wrote:
> "Libertarius" <Libertarius@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:46c914ba$0$5559$88260bb3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>Suzanne wrote:
>>
>>>"Libertarius" <Libertarius@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:46bba2b5$0$16274$88260bb3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't agree with your idea of the history of the
>>>Bible. It is just plain wrong.
>>
>>===>It is definitely not "wrong", just unknown and
>>unacceptable to fundamentalist bible wore****pers. -- L.
>>
>
> To the reader that is reading this, Lib. is trying
> to confer a label upon me so that he can sway
> anyone from trusting anything that I am saying.
> It is a favorite label to apply to someone that
> believes the Bible: "a fundamentalist." Often
> they will shorten it to the derrogatory "fundie."
> If they are somewhat not sure that this term will
> carry enough contempt, they will add that the
> Christian is a "bible wor****pper," being sure to
> spell bible with a little "b."
===>One should spell "Holy Bible" with captals,
but "bible" is just a word.
But Christians don't
> wor****p the Bible, they wor****p the one that
> taught us to read and study God's word.
===>By accepting the BIG LIE that it is "God's word",
you become a "bible wor****per".
By declaring it "inerrant", you become a "bible wor****per". -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
