Suzanne wrote:
> "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.
===>It has been done over and over again, Suzie.
You are just describing the way your imagination works. -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
