"Libertarius" <Libertarius@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:46cb6110$0$12513$88260bb3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>
Well, I suppose you would just have to prove
that the Bible is not the truth, Lib., and you
can't do that.
>
The Lord speaks to us in several ways.
He speaks to us through his still small
voice, which is the Holy Spirit. He
speaks to us through some people,
and he speaks to us through his written
word. He also speaks ot us through
cir***stances. All of these ways are
scriptural. So if you tell people that
they are sinning by following the
Bible, you are not quite bright.
"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and
a light unto my path."
>
Best Regards,
Suzanne
|
