judge

Sorry could have been clearer..... the quote you included is not from Paul but rather from th HB .

Pauls letter to the Romans follows.

spin

Appealing to the ignorance of people is not good motivation.

OT, as you put it, implies that NT, being newer, is better. OT is second class religious material and naturally that's how most xians treat it. Referring to the Hebrew bible as Old Testament, merely adds to the ordinary daily xian abasement of the Jews.

I believe in calling a spade a spade: the texts aren't xian; they aren't inferior to the new testament; they comprise the Hebrew bible.


spin

judge

You really owe it to yourself and other infidels to do something about the dates supplied in the link I provided.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

I would love to see you do it if you can. I'm sure you can come up with something. It will take quite a while but as you do your best to deny anything and everything this will become apparent, to some enquirers at least.

Waddya think?

spin

I didn't have anything to do with the information. I guess it was provided based on xian conjecture.

I'm much more interested in other things than nt, this latter I find dull, boring and exceedingly difficult to work with historically.

I think you are too lazy even to contemplate the information I have already posted.


spin

rlogan

I do note that Judge has been calling the texts in question the "HB".

Good sport there, judge.


One must ask why all of these tracts are so hard to date. Wouldn't you think that a few of them would contain key citations enabling them to be pinpointed, just by random chance? You know - some trivial detail like the fall of the temple. Pilate massacres some Jews. Pilate gets the boot.

Why, its almost as if they are purposefully constructed in a way that defies dating them.

capnkirk

I am not appealing to ignorance; when conversing with people that don't have the foundation to appreciate your piercing insight, you communicate better when you use terms they understand. If the specific point of said conversation were whether the OT/HB was Jewish or Xtian, then the distinction is significant and worth making. Any other time, it just gets in the way of the point you are trying to make. So...You can call it the Spin Testament for all I care! I have agreed with you on everything you you have said about the OT/HB, EXCEPT that I choose not to go along with you on your personal protest movement! So just back-off.

capnkirk

The inclusion of the unattributed line that preceded the Romans 14 excerpt was accidental, but my point still is: Paul is the first to claim that Judaic prophesies referred to a divine human, and IMHO was a radical idea considered heretical by most Jews. Certainly those who were his disciples considered Paul's "Christology" thus. If you think that Xtianity naturally grew out of Judaism, let me refer you to a Talmudic scholar named Hyam Maccoby and a book of his called The Mythmaker. Paul and the Invention of Christianity. Reading that should disabuse you of any ideas that many observant Jews agreed with Xtianity's claims.

judge

??@?i]Originally posted by rlogan [/i]
I do note that Judge has been calling the texts in question the "HB".

Good sport there, judge.[/QUOTE]

Actually I don't relly care what anyone calls it... HB is fine.
It seemed to me that Spin was using circular reasoning. That being that because Christianity was not the fulfillment of the jewish hope they had in fact stolen the jewish scriptures.
But if the claims(of Christianity) are true then they have not stolen it because they are the heirs of it.

If someone wants to call it the HB then good luck but if they pretend they speak from some neutral position then this supposedly neutral position should be challenged.

Quote:

One must ask why all of these tracts are so hard to date. Wouldn't you think that a few of them would contain key citations enabling them to be pinpointed, just by random chance? You know - some trivial detail like the fall of the temple. Pilate massacres some Jews. Pilate gets the boot. Why, its almost as if they are purposefully constructed in a way that defies dating them.

Perhaps the root of the problem is that fundamentalists misunderstand what the bible is IMHO.
Protestants painted themselves into a corner. In order to reject the authority of Rome they were forced to come up with another authority. So the bible (their bible) became infallible.
If only we then had an infallible interpretation method.
The letters of Paul for example are just that letters They do contain the truth IMO but they were never intended to be what they have become (if that makes sense). They were just Paul writing to some people he knew.

spin

First, you are incapable even of crying circular reasoning, for you can only base your analysis on a conditional: "if the claims(of Christianity) are true", so we are left in the end with judge's bald assertion.

However, the validity of the assertion is based on his religion's claims of being the rightful heir of the Jewish religion, a body of heirs amongst whom very few can claim to be sons of Abraham at all and therefore ineligible of even being considered valid heirs. This is where one has to plead "metaphorical" -- that wonderful loophole which allows one to claim whatever they like and you should know because it's your metaphor --, the heirs are not literally sons of Abraham, but anyone who wants to claim they are sons of Abraham at least for the lipservice of being heirs of the religious ideas the religion has borrowed from the Jews.

Judge for some reason claims that it is circular reasoning to say that the Jewish literature is the intellectual property of the Jews because they wrote it. The reason for this position is after-the-event self-justification, having appropriated the Jewish literature and at the same time rendering it second-class material. The ideological implications are blatantly clear. The Jewish literature was in the earliest period a legitimization of xianity while xianity had no, or little, literature of its own, providing the fledgling religion with a proxy heritage which made it seem less of an upstart affair than what it really was.

However, despite the centuries of indoctrination, the texts of the Hebrew bible remain Jewish in origin and Jewish in content. The best that xians can do with it is say that this or that passage foreshadows the things that would be manifested through the work of the inventive, though philologically inept, early xian writers.


spin

judge

So is Jewish literature the intellectual property of Messianic jews (jews for jesus)?

Or aren't they real jews?