keyser_soze

So this would tie into the theory that they wanted judaism as a foundation to bypass the laws/social order denegrating "new" religions? I thought I saw you guys discussing this recently, and it would make a most reasonable reason for what seem to drastically different religions being melded into one, hence the flip-flop from one half to the other. Or am I way off?

CX

Actually I think the "new" religions issue is probably secondary and or unconsciously motivated. Mostly I think we are dealing with the fact of a former Pharisaic jew writing about a Jewish reformer. It seems the original attempts to tie the story of Jesus with the OT is mostly to convince Jews that Jesus was there messiah. Only when that failed did the other stuff creep in.

keyser_soze

Ah. But was there more than a social stigma attached to "new" religions? I seem to recall a roman rule in the matter. In any case, the religion seems obviously designed to tie in both the judaic crowd and gentile crowd...

CX

I disagree. I think it was originally interested only in attracting Jewish adherents to a purely Jewish movement. I suspect that was Paul's initial concern as well. Thus the vast majority of the retrojecting of Jesus into Jewish myth stands to reason. Only when the message failed amongst the Jews did Paul and later Xians alter it to make it palatable to Gentiles. It seems to me those alterations have little to do with giving the "air of antiquity" to the religion and everything to do with taking away the bits that Gentiles would have rejected (i.e. dietary laws, circumcision etc.) AMt, especially, is preoccupied with demonstrating to Jewish readers that Jesus fits the profile of the expected messiah.

On the other hand I guess it isn't inconceivable that the gospel authors were concerned with adding the "air of antiquity" to their movement amongst the gentiles. It just seems to me that wasn't the primary concern despite Hellenistic influences.

keyser_soze

Cross purposes, I would expect the tie to judaism to draw JEWS into the flock. The gentiles, I would agree, would be paul's direction.

keyser_soze

Where'd you go magus? We complied, two of us...immediately to your request. Perhaps you missed our answers in the bulk of everything, so I thought I would point out that myself and andrews both responded--on page 2. Please, by all means, continue with your point, since I assume that you needed the information to prove your point. Surely, you did not ask for it assuming that it did not exist.

Anyway, here's your opportunity to shine. Please address our responses at your earliest convenience, I'd hate to think that you post challenges and ignore them if you are wrong.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): I'm surprised no one has mentioned the negotiations between Abraham and God with respect to the future of Sodom. (Gen 18)
He changed His mind several times in that episode, as I recall.

keyser_soze

You would certainly think then, with all of the examples around, that magus would not have asked for them...It wouldn't be smart to support your argument on the basis of evidence that is CONTRARY to your beliefs.

lunachick

LOL!

Perhaps god doesn't change? And because he doesn't change, he gets extremely bored with himself and his eternal un-changing existance. And so every few thousand years, he gets just that little bit extra bored; enough to have to come down and rearrange the furniture, mess with peoples minds, and rewrite The Word (tm).

sakrilege

From dictionary.com

re·pent
To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite.
To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it: repented of intemperate behavior.
To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins.