tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post1153247076343290969..comments2023-11-05T20:19:44.812+13:00Comments on Ambassador Watch: Apocryphal ThoughtsGavinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03060097218905523899noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-8819744644204661262007-10-16T06:35:00.000+13:002007-10-16T06:35:00.000+13:00Do you have a reference in Josephus of that quote?...<I>Do you have a reference in Josephus of that quote? I believe that was James the Just, but I don't remember him being called the brother of Jesus Christ by Josephus.</I><BR/><BR/>The passage is found in Book XX, Chapter 9, of Whiston's old translation of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews:<BR/><BR/>"But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ <I>more recent translations render that phrase "the so-called Christ"</I>, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."<BR/><BR/>There is nothing about this episode that has the feel of Christian interpolation, quite unlike the Testimonium Flavianum which undoubtedly is interpolated by Christians if not completely forged. But it's almost certian that Josephus did mention Jesus and his execution. First, in describing the death of James, he identifies him as brother of "Jesus, the so-called Christ," as if his readers would know who he was referring to. If we remove the words "Jesus, the so-called Christ," then James remains unidentified, and the reason for Ananus' animosity and false accusation towards James is unexplained. But if Josephus explained who James was by saying he was brother of Jesus Christ, then it only makes sense that he would have previously explained who Jesus Christ was. The natural place for Josephus to do that is in his chapter on the outrages committed by Pontius Pilate, which is where all extant texts of Josephus place the Testimonium. The medieval Melkite Christian writer Agapius of Hierapolis quotes a version of the Testimonium Flavianum that lacks the obvious Christian interpolations -- the Agapius version reads like something a non-Christian Jew could say about Jesus, so it's likely that Agapius preserved the original text:<BR/><BR/>"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die." <BR/><BR/>That fits the report of Tacitus, who says the Christians took their name from Christus, who was put to death by Pilate.<BR/><BR/><I>As far as Christus and Chrestos, that has been down the pike too many times to rehash that fallacy again.</I><BR/><BR/>True -- it remains the case that it is a very plausible interpretation of Suetonius' "Chrestus" comment that it is a reference to Christ.<BR/><BR/>As for Thallus (1st century A.D.)and Phlegon of Tralles (2nd century) who reported the impossible "lunar eclipse" during the reign of Tiberius, their writings constitute independent witnesses to the darkness over the earth reported in the Gospels on the day of Christ's death.<BR/><BR/>Like I said before, for somebdoy who supposedly never existed, there were quite a lot of people in the first century and early second century who talked about him as a real person who lived and died in the first century. If that doesn't constitute historical evidence of a person's existence, then there is no historical evidence for anyone's existence prior to our own awakening to what some presumptuously call consciousness (for it is rash to believe that we are conscious, since we may not even exist at all -- we might be disembodied brains in a laboratory somewhere, you know).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-19421075528081469872007-10-15T17:02:00.000+13:002007-10-15T17:02:00.000+13:00Jared Olar said... Thallus and Phlegon also note t...Jared Olar said... <BR/><BR/><I>Thallus and Phlegon also note the surprising phenomenon of an eclipse of the sun during a full moon (something that is physically impossible) during the reign of Tiberius.</I> <BR/><BR/>Of course it's impossible but religious types will believe anything. If they can believe Adam lived 930 years - it's pretty much over with for rationality and reason ever being part of their thinking.<BR/><BR/>As far as Christus and Chrestos, that has been down the pike too many times to rehash that fallacy again.<BR/><BR/><I>there is also Josephus' account of the execution of James, "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ."</I><BR/><BR/>Do you have a reference in Josephus of that quote? I believe that was James the Just, but I don't remember him being called the brother of Jesus Christ by Josephus.Corkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15894537940881776504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-58375073802158141362007-10-15T12:22:00.000+13:002007-10-15T12:22:00.000+13:00"there's no serious question that Jesus existed as...<I>"there's no serious question that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man."<BR/><BR/>Depends on what one is willing to read.</I><BR/><BR/>There are no serious works of scholarship that raise the question of Jesus' non-existence, but yes, there are plenty of unscholarly publications out there that advance that thesis. One thing Armstrongists generally didn't/don't have, and were discouraged from developing, is a sense of what makes a writing serious scholarship and how to read the works of scholars. Armstrongists will mine the secondary, tertiary, and occasionally even primary sources for proof-texts they can take out of context as evidence for a conspiracy theory, but they don't usually have the ability or willingness to treat a source fairly and honestly. Having left the Armstrongist anti-intellectualism behind, we ought to begin to learn how to tell the difference between the serious works and the goofy stuff like the books and websites that peddle the "Jesus never existed" conspiracy theory. Otherwise, how is our intellectual apparatus essentially different or better than it was when we were Armstrongists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-54571430913379131632007-10-15T12:13:00.000+13:002007-10-15T12:13:00.000+13:00The contrast between the Apocrypha and the Biblica...The contrast between the Apocrypha and the Biblical canon is stark. Neotherm said: <I>To give the Apocrypha serious consideration is like saying that a comic book about the adventures of Donald Duck should be bound in with the writings of Albert Einstein.</I><BR/><BR/>That's an extremely inapt comparison, and suggest that you may not have read these books -- or if you did, you did not give them a fair shake or approach tme with an open mind.<BR/><BR/><I>These books are curiosities but they do not carry the theme of the Bible.</I><BR/><BR/>I'd invite you to give these books another read, Neo, if you've ever read them at all. Then tell me, if you will, why Proverbs and Ecclesiastes so obviously carry the theme of the Bible while Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom do not, or why Esther and Job carry the theme of the Bible while Judith and Tobit do not, or why I & II Kings carry the theme of the BIble while I & II Maccabees do not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-47325389514876526472007-10-15T12:08:00.000+13:002007-10-15T12:08:00.000+13:00However, aside from the NT and the forged passage ...<I>However, aside from the NT and the forged passage in Josephus, there is no evidence whatsoever of his existence.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, aside from all those people in the first century who wrote about the things Jesus said and did, there's no evidence whatsoever of His existence!<BR/><BR/>On the contrary, there is a passage in Josephus that is at least interpolated if not forged, but there is also Josephus' account of the execution of James, "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ." Tacitus also refers to the sect of the Christians, who took their name from Christus, who was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Suetonius also has a garbled reference to tumult among the Jews of Rome that had something to do with some Jewish guy named "Chrestus." Thallus and Phlegon also note the surprising phenomenon of an eclipse of the sun during a full moon (something that is physically impossible) during the reign of Tiberius. Then there are the 27 books of the New Testament, all of them written within 70 years of Christ's death. Sounds to me like an awful lot of near-contemporary historical primary sources mentioning the words and deeds of someone you claim never existed. To dismiss all of that evidence so casually is irrational and unscholarly.<BR/><BR/><I>Another man we should be aware of is Paul. He single handedly converted the whole of the Roman Empire to Christianity</I><BR/><BR/>He did? First I'd ever heard of that. He went on missionary trips around the Roman Empire, but it wasn't until the 300s and 400s A.D. that anything like "the whole of the Roman Empire" was converted to Christianity. I'm pretty sure St. Paul died long before that happened.<BR/><BR/><I>and he is mentioned by not even one historian of the time.</I><BR/><BR/>Except for St. Luke, that is. There are also St. Paul's letters which testify to his existence. Oh, but those are all forgeries, aren't they. His tomb has been venerated in Rome since the earliest centuries, but of course that's not really his tomb, since he never existed. He was just made up. Christianity has no founders -- the people who founded Christianity never existed. That's why Christianity doesn't exist, which is why you aren't claiming that Jesus and St. Paul never existed -- for if Christianity doesn't exist, there couldn't be anything for you to react against as you are doing.<BR/><BR/><I>The "that's been disproven long ago" line does not wash so well these days.</I><BR/><BR/>Sure it does. Geocentrism was disproven long ago, and it's still false. The nutty theory that Jesus and St. Paul never existed is right up there with geocentrism, and is supported by the kind of reasoning and abuse of historical sources that "establishes" other similar conspiracy theories such as British Israelism, the Apostasy of the Lost Century, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-3843423031301322722007-10-15T09:35:00.000+13:002007-10-15T09:35:00.000+13:00For being "eyewitnesses" the Gospel writers see to...For being "eyewitnesses" the Gospel writers see to have had to resort to much copying from each other and forming a story of Jesus based on OT scriptures rather than following him around. <BR/><BR/>Jesusneverexisted.com <BR/><BR/>will give a boatload of considerations to the questions about the story as we all received it as kids and our parents before us. <BR/><BR/>The "that's been disproven long ago" line does not wash so well these days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-69186453781970528882007-10-15T09:31:00.000+13:002007-10-15T09:31:00.000+13:00"there's no serious question that Jesus existed as..."there's no serious question that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man."<BR/><BR/>Depends on what one is willing to read.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-63353631420558553032007-10-14T16:41:00.000+13:002007-10-14T16:41:00.000+13:00Jared Olar said..."Whether or not one believes Jes...Jared Olar said...<BR/><BR/>"Whether or not one believes Jesus was or is "the perfect man," there's no serious question that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man."<BR/><BR/>Among the believers this is true.<BR/><BR/>However, aside from the NT and the forged passage in Josephus, there is no evidence whatsoever of his existence.<BR/><BR/>Another man we should be aware of is Paul. He single handedly converted the whole of the Roman Empire to Christianity and he is mentioned by not even one historian of the time.<BR/><BR/>Paul travelled to Arabia, Greece, Asia, Anatolia, Jerusalem, Syria and eventually to Rome and performing miracles and setting up churches all along his route. But, no one seems to recollect him as existing in actual history.Corkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15894537940881776504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-72030621859184957492007-10-14T03:19:00.000+13:002007-10-14T03:19:00.000+13:00Jordan said:In verse 27, God tells Moses to write ...Jordan said:<BR/><BR/><I>In verse 27, God tells Moses to write the words of verses 10-26 (in which the proposal of a covenant with Israel is restated)</I><BR/><BR/>Very curious indeed that in this "restating" that only one of the original commandments is included in this covenant. All these other provisions, like firstborn males and cooking a young goat in its mother's milk (very important stuff there) are not mentioned at all in Exodus 20.<BR/><BR/><B>Will the real covenant please stand up?</B><BR/><BR/>This is just another example of how the various authors of Torah often contradicted each other, no doubt because they did not know what the others had written, or were writing. At any rate, it's not called the "old" covenant for nothing. It's just that the Armstrongites here & there (and other assorted Jewwannabees) haven't gotten that message yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-61470635933058868392007-10-13T17:13:00.000+13:002007-10-13T17:13:00.000+13:00Tom the Hyper-Armstrongist said: The Apocrypha was...Tom the Hyper-Armstrongist said: <I>The Apocrypha was not included in the canon of Scripture because it was not directly inspired by God.</I><BR/><BR/>Ah, but history shows that the Apocrypha were indeed included in the canon of Scripture (or some of the more widespread and authoritative canons of Scripture). So, by your logic, that could indicate that the Apocrypha were directly inspired by God -- or perhaps the Christian Church botched the biblical canon.<BR/><BR/><I>We are told by the Apostle Paul that: "All scripture is given by the inspired of God..."</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, and we also know that St. Paul in that verse was talking about the Old Testament (including the Septuagint). St. Paul doesn't bother to tell us in that text which books are "scripture" and which books are are not.<BR/><BR/><I>And Peter also informed us that: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit." So according the Paul and Peter, both the old and new testaments were directly inspired by God.</I><BR/><BR/>Saints Peter and Paul certainly affirm the inspiration of the Old Testament and probably to some of the New Testament -- but in these prooftexts of yours, they never tell us which books belong in the Old and New Testaments.<BR/><BR/><I>On the other hand, the Apocrypha, like the Talmud and Josephus, contains some factual information, some speculation and much private interpretation.</I><BR/><BR/>Many people says the same thing about the Old and New Testaments.<BR/><BR/><I>For these reasons, it cannot be included in the canon of the OT and NT, which have been directly inspired by the Holy Spirit of Truth.</I><BR/><BR/>Be that as it may, the disciples of the apostles, such as St. Polycarp of Smyrna and St. Clement of Rome, seem to have thought books like Tobit, Judith, and Greek Esther belonged in the Old Testament.<BR/><BR/><I>In addition, the Catholic church is an obvious heresy.</I><BR/><BR/>Obviously.<BR/><BR/><I>So any decisions its leaders make about the books its followers should read is completely irrelevant to genuine Christians.</I><BR/><BR/>Fine, then tell us when the genuine Christians came together and published the inspired table of contents of the Holy Bible.<BR/><BR/><I>On the other hand, nominal Christians tend to believe any nonsense, for they are as unstable as water.</I><BR/><BR/>Nonsense like the belief that the Germanic, Celtic, and Ugric peoples of Europe are actually Hebrews disguised as Gentiles? Or that the Germans are actually Assyrians? Or that the world will end in 1972?<BR/><BR/><I>Of course, I can understand why Doug Ward would want to provide a platform for Jared to disseminate his heretical thesis</I><BR/><BR/>It's because Doug and I are friends (yes, a Hebrew Roots evangelical can be friends with a Mary-worshipping Papist, and they really can recognise each other as brothers in Christ).<BR/><BR/>As for my "heretical thesis," it's obvious that you didn't actually bother to read my two-part essay on "the Apocrypha" before coming here to post your Armstrongist fulminations. If you had read my words, you would have known that it is (or was intended to be), as Gavin said, a helpful backgrounder, and does not take a position in favor of one canon over another. My purpose was to note and describe the disagreements over the biblical canon and to provide some history of how those disagreements arose, not to advocate that the Catholic Church's canon is correct (even though as a Catholic I naturally think that it is).<BR/><BR/><I>Interestingly, the name Jared is mentioned the book of Hosea, as a person to whom many will turn to for help. But he won't be able to help them escape the judgement of God.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, and, go-o-olly!!!, the name Gomer is also mentioned in the book of Hosea. Amazing! 2,600 years before Jim Nabors was ever born, God had already given a TV Guide listing for his show!<BR/><BR/>You're so weird, Tom. You also need glasses -- Hosea mentions the Assyrian king under the symbolic name of "JAREB" (Hos. 5:13; 10:6), not "JARED." Yareb ("Contentious"), not Yered ("Descending"). I admit that I'm of German descent on my mother's side, but no one will ever confuse me with the King of Germany.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-56238407920555515802007-10-13T16:44:00.000+13:002007-10-13T16:44:00.000+13:00Corky said: All these writings over a God that doe...Corky said: <I>All these writings over a God that doesn't even exist and a man called Jesus of Nazareth who didn't exist either.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sure you're aware, Corky, that believing that Jesus of Nazareth never existed has all the scholarly respectability and intellectual heft of Flat Earthism and Geocentrism.<BR/><BR/><I>Religious men, wanting to be "perfect", need a perfect man as a pattern - that's Jesus. He did not exist as a flesh and blood man but as a personification of what they saw as the perfect man.</I><BR/><BR/>Whether or not one believes Jesus was or is "the perfect man," there's no serious question that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man.<BR/><BR/><I>This is what the argument between one group of Christians and another group was all about in the epistles of "John". The ones who said that Jesus was not a real man but a personification of a man, a perfect man, was the spirit of antichrist.</I><BR/><BR/>No, those early antichrists didn't say Jesus never existed but was just a fictional personification o a perfect man -- you're reading your own opinions back onto the Johannine texts. Rather, they said Jesus did exist, that He was a divine being, but was not really a human being -- that He only appeared to be human.<BR/><BR/><I>Ask yourself how some in that first generation of Christians could think that Jesus had not come "in the flesh".</I><BR/><BR/>It's because of the Platonic classification of matter and the body as evil, and the spirit and soul as good. They couldn't conceive of God being incarnate as a flesh and blood human being: it was a scandalous, foolish, to them, so they rejected it out of hand. So they reconceived of Jesus as a purely spiritual divine being, untainted by human flesh.<BR/><BR/><I>It was because they knew he had not but was their own invention of the perfect man. All very "spiritual" and all, some called them "Gnostic".</I><BR/><BR/>No, the Gnostics never thought "Jesus" was their own invention: they claimed He was a real person, just like the Christians claimed He was a real person.<BR/><BR/>Corky, just because you detect or experience conflict between Christians and those, like yourself, you claim Jesus never existed, that does not justify projecting that conflict back to the first and second centuries and discovering (what do you know!) a group of people who just happened to hold the same opinions about Jesus that you do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-49565817889337561862007-10-13T16:29:00.000+13:002007-10-13T16:29:00.000+13:00Read them for yourself. This second set became the...<I>Read them for yourself. This second set became the "Covenant," not the first set found in Ex. 20. Adultery, stealing and lying are out. But this set is really heavy into sabbaths and festival days.</I><BR/><BR/>I've read Ex. 34 many times -- there is no compilation of the Ten Commandments/Devarim in that chapter. You're not paying attention to what the text actually says, so you've reached an erroneous conclusion about what Ex. 34:27 means. In verse 1, God says he will write on the new tablets the words that were on the first tablets which Moses broke. There is not the slightest suggestion anywhere in Ex. 34 that the discourse in verses 10-26 were the words written on the new tablets. In verse 27, God tells Moses to write the words of verses 10-26 (in which the proposal of a covenant with Israel is restated), but it doesn't say Moses was to write them on the tablets. Verse 27 then says that "he" (which grammatically can mean either God or Moses, but which verse 1 shows must refer to God) wrote on the tablets the Ten Words of the Covenant, which answers back to verse 1.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-14770763445368149672007-10-13T11:08:00.000+13:002007-10-13T11:08:00.000+13:00Jordan said :Stingerski, you seem to be confused.N...Jordan said :<BR/><BR/><I>Stingerski, you seem to be confused.</I><BR/><BR/>No, I don't think so. If anyone was confused here is was YHVH. He gave Moses an almost completely different set of 10C the second time around.<BR/><BR/>Read them for yourself. This second set became the "Covenant," not the first set found in Ex. 20. Adultery, stealing and lying are out. But this set is really heavy into sabbaths and festival days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-43265665618979606472007-10-13T09:14:00.000+13:002007-10-13T09:14:00.000+13:00Stingerski, you seem to be confused. There is no ...Stingerski, you seem to be confused. There is no list of the Ten Devarim ("Word" or "Utterances" or "Declarations") in Ex. 34. The only places in the Bible that one finds the Ten Devarim listed all in one place is Ex. 20 and Deut. 5. So it's hardly surprising that one does not find the 9th and 10th Devarim (or 10th Debar) in Ex. 34.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-3470034928909438722007-10-13T01:08:00.000+13:002007-10-13T01:08:00.000+13:00Jordan wrote:"You shall not covet your neighbor's ...Jordan wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>"You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" together with "You shall not covet your neighbor's property," . . . </I><BR/><BR/>But that commandment is not part of the 10C. You will not find any mention of this injunction in Ex. 34, where Moses was told to record them on a new set of stone tablets.<BR/><BR/>About the only commandment the two sets have in common is a seventh day rest from all labor.<BR/><BR/>And lest anyone think that this second set has no real relevance, notice Ex. 34:28.<BR/><BR/>"And he [Moses] wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant -- the Ten Commandments."<BR/><BR/>So, will the REAL 10 Commandments please stand up?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-16770899326482450352007-10-12T10:50:00.000+13:002007-10-12T10:50:00.000+13:00Bamboobends said: Anyone ever notice how the Catho...Bamboobends said: <I>Anyone ever notice how the Catholics count the ten commandments differently than the Protestants? By slicing it differently they get around that graven images thing.</I><BR/><BR/>B as in B, S as in S. How does counting the Ten Commandments differently get around one of the Ten Commandments? Just because Catholics and Lutherans follow the Septuagint/Augustinian numbering, that doesn't mean Catholics and Lutherans believe it is okay to worship false gods and idols.<BR/><BR/>If we follow your reasoning, then we should conclude that because Protestants and Jews group "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" together with "You shall not covet your neighbor's property," that means Protestants and Jews believe wives are their husbands' property.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-43005009586192961852007-10-11T09:51:00.000+13:002007-10-11T09:51:00.000+13:00"AC graduates brought to their employers the price..."AC graduates brought to their employers the priceless gifts of honesty, integrity, loyalty and hard work."<BR/><BR/>*snort* *giggle* *lol* <BR/><BR/>You may be shocked to discover that I find that hard to believe, in a general sense. Especially the honesty and integrity part. Sadly, those two might have been given lip service at AC, but were definitely not encouraged as a matter of practice, you may be surprised to know!<BR/><BR/>PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-87548701830498546992007-10-11T06:06:00.000+13:002007-10-11T06:06:00.000+13:00NOE>>No doubt it had nothing to do with his AC edu...NOE>>No doubt it had nothing to do with his AC education and very likely related to a degree he already had when he came to AC -- my speculation.<<<BR/><BR/>Of course this may or not be true. But enlightened managers don't only recruit employees because of their qualifications. The adopted maxim in progressive companies is: "Recruit for attitude train for skill." AC graduates brought to their employers the priceless gifts of honesty, integrity, loyalty and hard work.Tom Mahonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02087223683733643082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-26669811470052173992007-10-11T04:40:00.000+13:002007-10-11T04:40:00.000+13:00"...the problem is God is not directly communicati..."...the problem is God is not directly communicating with people today in any speech form..."<BR/><BR/>And, he never did. Men have only said that he did. <BR/><BR/>In ancient times, as well as today, men have claimed communications with gods. <BR/><BR/>Nothing has actually changed except that men who claim communications with God are more careful about it. Well, except for Oral Roberts.<BR/><BR/>Nowadays we have a book of the revelations of the ancients and people don't believe gods literally talk to men anymore except through the book. So, God communicates in a different, more subtle way now.<BR/><BR/>Those communications are just as fake as they ever were, so nothing has really changed.Corkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15894537940881776504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-31946389903531603592007-10-10T17:14:00.000+13:002007-10-10T17:14:00.000+13:00"...the problem is God is not directly communicati..."...the problem is God is not directly communicating with people today in any speech form..."<BR/><BR/>And why not? Why the cut-off 2,000 years ago? <BR/><BR/>Seems a bit suspicious to me.<BR/><BR/><BR/>PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-22459468596397151382007-10-10T12:42:00.000+13:002007-10-10T12:42:00.000+13:00To anonymous who stated why should we care what th...To anonymous who stated why should we care what the Jews think. They were given the oracles of God and therefore we use their wisdom. <BR/>There were many Jews that believed in Jesus, in addition Christ stated that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the pharisees, we shall by no means be saved.<BR/><BR/>There is popular opinion that Jesus was a pharisee. Read the book, Jesus the Pharisee by Hyam Maccoby. (available from Amazon). <BR/><BR/>He alludes to the fact that many of Jesus' parables are taken from Chasidic sources, similar to chasidic stories. Though some of the claims are fanciful, claiming the church re-wrote major passages of Biblical text in an order to accuse the Jews of Jesus murder, instead of where the blames really lies--the hand of Rome. <BR/><BR/>He is right that some texts are unreliable and have been altered, the problem is God is not directly communicating with people today in any speech form, and if he did, we have become so far advanced that we probally wouldn't believe them anyway.Robert https://www.blogger.com/profile/12120572010028667586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-89072065429556313242007-10-10T11:50:00.000+13:002007-10-10T11:50:00.000+13:00One time almost all of the graduates of AC were hi...One time almost all of the graduates of AC were hired by The Work. They either went into the ministry or they printed magazines or ordered food for the cafeteria or some such similar occupation. Most were paid well and wore a suit to work.<BR/><BR/>When larger classes were accepted, the administration was not able to hire everybody. At that point, AC administration experienced a disconnect with reality. Rather than face the reality of needing to provide AC students with education for careers, they simply immersed themselves in denial. <BR/><BR/>An AC graduate told me back in the early Seventies of a conversation he had with Rod Meredith in Pasadena. Another AC graduate had managed to get a job with IBM. Who knows how or why. No doubt it had nothing to do with his AC education and very likely related to a degree he already had when he came to AC -- my speculation. <BR/><BR/>The graduate who spoke to Meredith knew about the hiring of this fellow AC graduate and the background details. But what RM said to him was that "IBM wanted to hire all the AC graduates that they possibly could" as if the AC training were highly prized. <BR/><BR/>The graduate explained to RM the background of this situation and that this was untrue about IBM's intents and went further to say that AC should create a placement office and seek to aid its graduates in finding jobs. RM's response was to look at him with incredulity for a few moments and then walk away. <BR/><BR/>Don Ward attempted to introduce Education into the AC curriculum. If it had been left up to people like RM, AC would have remained a backward little religious college with an idosyncratic curriculum forever. The real problem to RM and his ilk was that potential employers needed to awaken to the value of an AC degree not that AC needed to change. <BR/><BR/>I sat through many sermons where the salaries of AC graduates were compared to national averges and the AC grads were always head and shoulders above the mean. At one time, I believed the truth of this implicitly. Now I have my doubts. Many AC grads either had a degree when they came to AC or got another degree when they left. Unless the data were examined more carefully, it is hard to accept these statements from the pulpit as a measure the value of an AC degree.<BR/><BR/>-- NeoNeothermhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06546163563669263135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-46048829544462831102007-10-10T09:55:00.000+13:002007-10-10T09:55:00.000+13:00Bamboo Ends said:How can Christianity promote the ...Bamboo Ends said:<BR/><BR/><I>How can Christianity promote the 10 commandments when they don't even agree which ones make up the 10?</I><BR/><BR/>It gets even worse than that. The Bible itself cannot agree on what the Big 10 are. Compare Exodus 20 and the "first 10C" with Exodus 34 and the "second" 10C. (!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-6156795926841322132007-10-10T09:33:00.000+13:002007-10-10T09:33:00.000+13:00Add to that, the hilarious story that Moses trashe...Add to that, the hilarious story that Moses trashed the worlds most amazing archaeological artifact , a docuement written by the very finger of God, that said "You shall not kill," and then ordered "everyman to kill his neighbor and in that day about 3000 perished." <BR/><BR/>I suppose after that, Moses saih, "ahem..ok now where was I? Oh Yes, You shall not kill." <BR/><BR/>But that's how most Chiristians keep the Ten Commandments any how so Moses set a good example.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-41352395419344062772007-10-10T09:18:00.000+13:002007-10-10T09:18:00.000+13:00Anyone ever notice how the Catholics count the te...Anyone ever notice how the Catholics count the ten commandments differently than the Protestants? By slicing it differently they get around that graven images thing.<BR/><BR/>Then with the Protestants there's the oxymoron of the Sabbath being commanded for Sunday Worship. The basis of all those silly blue laws about alcohol and store hours.<BR/><BR/>How can Christianity promote the 10 commandments when they don't even agree which ones make up the 10? AMERICAN KABUKIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11064036099785125749noreply@blogger.com