Little Dot

Can you prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt? :constern01:

aa5874

You forgot the most important word.

You forgot the word "REASONABLE".

It is "beyond the shadow of REASONABLE doubt.

It is REASONABLE to doubt UNRELIABLE sources.

That is standard practice UNIVERSALLY whether in or out of court.

Now, since you require such an UNREASONABLE request please provide PROOF beyond the shadow of a doubt for EVERYTHING you claimed about Paul and Peter.

These are your own words, "Can you prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt"?....

aa5874

You should have watched the back of your eyelids first because you have NOT proved what you claimed about Paul and Peter WITHOUT a shadow of a doubt.



These are your own words, "Can you prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt"?

It is ALREADY known that it is REASONABLE to doubt UNRELIABLE sources and that Scholars perhaps UNIVERSALLY and from both sides of the HJ/MJ argument AGREE without REASONABLE doubt that the NT is NOT reliable.

Anything you claim about Peter and Paul can be REASONABLY doubted since the NT is an UNRELIABLE source.

Solo

Really ?

I wonder how many Jews would agree with that. What would you say : 0.01 % ?

Good question ! True, the circumcision has never been a sacrament, as say 'baptism' has been for the Christians. Yet, I would like to see some reference to the assertions that you have been making: i.e. that infant circumcision of male offspring was not thought to be a part of Torah and the 'Abrahamic covenant', under which Yahweh delivered his people out of Egypt, and the house of bondage.

Thanks for the references, Stephan. However, these are tangential concerns here. The question that I have to you is something else: was there any movement within Judaism (before the 19th century 'Reformists') which would dispense with circumcision as a rite of the (Abrahamic) covenant ? Much obliged for any such information.

I am afraid I have not found any evidence for such a view in the NT. Paul was not making an argument against circumcision to begin with; he merely disputed the right of the Jerusalem Nazorean messianists to impose it on Gentiles who were not Jews by birth. The context was not that rite was it not handed down to Moses as part of the decalogue, but that in the apocalyptic end-times, the law (as a whole) was fulfilled in the revelations of Jesus Christ. Consequently, as Paul taught, circumcision did not matter at all (Gal 6:15).

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller

Solo,

I love you but I don't understand your line of reasoning here. The rabbinic tradition identifies early Christians as developing the traditional (Sadducean) understanding that only the ten utterances to the point that circumcision was rejected as man-made and without divine sanction. I have argued that this is a far more sensible explanation for the anti-circumcision position associated with the Pauline tradition (Marcionitism). The traditional Catholic position is senseless and corrupt so there is no point even attempting to make sense of it.

The beliefs of modern Judaism - no less than modern Christianity - are utterly irrelevant here. We are attempting to make sense of how Jews and Christians parted company in the first and second centuries.

The rabbinic literature says that an extremist position developed among Christians from a traditional emphasis on the sanctity of only the ten utterances (a position still preserved in the Samaritan writings of Marqe). One may argue that the name 'Dositheans' developed from this emphasis on only what was 'given' from God to Moses.

Heschel further points to an example of the extremist position in early Christian literature with respect to the Christian devaluation of what Moses gave with respect to divorce as opposed to what God gave. When the Pharisees argued that man can divorce his wife by note of dismissal? Jesus answered,

"It was because your minds were closed that Moses gave you permission to divorce your wives; but it was not like that when all began" (Matthew 18:6-8).

As Heschel notes The Church Fathers saw in this a confirmation that Moses instituted these laws on his own rather than with God. Heschel further connects these ideas to the Marcionite Antitheses. I think this is the only way to make sense of the original Christian position. Otherwise as I said already, it is utterly senseless.

I think the discussion of the greatest commandment also fits in here.

Doug Shaver

Since you're new here, you might want to know that most of the regulars here regard it as a complete waste of time to try reasoning with aa5874.

Not saying you will find it so, just don't be surprised if you do.

Little Dot

Thanks Doug, I should have waited for the person that I replied to to answer.

Guess we have to learn the hard way sometimes! :banghead:

aa5874

You seem to be promoting BLATANT false ERRONEOUS information. You may be VIOLATING the rules of this forum.

Please STOP your PROPAGANDA.

Toto and the Moderators should do something about you.

I am TIRED with your NONSENSE.

Doug Shaver

If I am, then no doubt I'll be hearing from one of the moderators. I can deal with it if that happens.

aa5874

This thread is about the author of Acts and Galatians.

Little Dot is asking for PROOF BEYOND a SHADOW of a DOUBT so I have asked Little Dot to provide the PROOF BEYOND a SHADOW of a DOUBT for whatever Little Dot claimed about Peter and Paul in Acts and Galatians.

These are your own words,