A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-05-2012, 07:08 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(29-05-2012 06:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(29-05-2012 09:13 AM)lucradis Wrote:  I was gonna say that KC.

Instead I'll add that I think what Mark is attempting to do is show that the words written contain no value because of their history.
Also I wouldn't personally flame the guys bible history knowledge. I'm not his biggest fan but he's fairly well versed on biblical history.

Correct me if I'm wrong Mark.

Also I think Bucky makes an interesting point in that the description of the New covenant should be laid out clearly.

That's right Lucradis. Although I'm not necessarily saying that they contain no value...I'm suggesting we look at who wrote them, when and why as the first step in assessing their value. I think ST wants to launch into a discussion based on the assumption that the bible is the word of god. I've upset him because I refuse to accept that premise without question.
Hello Mark, I will try to make this as easy as possible for you. You do not have to accept in the least that scripture is the word of God. That is not the issue.
What is the issue is this: you say you know the bible, boast 10,000 hours of study, so, lets look at the Bible, my friend.
Not the works of man. Because you and I are on an even plane , though we be directed in opposite directions, concerning that which we place our faith in. Your faith is in the works of men, mine are in the works of men.
One side claims they are the word's of God, the other side says they are not.
The major difference is, if we are going to examine what scripture teaches, then we must examine scripture itself...not what men have said or wrote about it.
Okay, I am tired this evening, so, just let me say sorry for yanking your chain a little (not that I don't think you didn't ask for it...lol), but I am truly interested in looking at scripture with you. I can with a little bit of confidence say that I believe it will be benficial to you, and to me as well.
Gotta go for now, look forward to getting back.
Have a good evening. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 08:17 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Ok, the following is lifted from wikipedia, so at least we should now be talking about similar things:


The Mosaic Covenant, which Christians generally call the "Old Covenant" in contrast to the New Covenant,The Mosaic Covenant (Law of Moses) or Sinaitic Covenant (Covenant of Mt. Sinai) are terms used for the biblical covenant between God and the Israelites and Proselytes. The establishment and stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant are recorded in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, which are collectively called the Torah or Pentateuch.The New Covenant (Hebrewברית חדשה • [url=undefined][/url] berit hadashah (help·info)Greek • διαθήκη καινή • diatheke kaine) is a concept originally derived from the Hebrew Bible. The term "New Covenant" is used in the Bible (both in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament) to refer to an epochal relationship of restoration and peace following a period of trial and judgment. It is often thought of as an eschatologicalmessianic age or world to come, and is related to the biblical concept of the kingdom of God. Generally, Christians believe that the epoch of the New Covenant began at the first coming of Jesus, who began his ministry saying "the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel".[3] They believe the New Covenant (along with the concept of the kingdom of God) defines and describes the ongoing relationship between Christian believers and God, and that it will be in full fruition after the second coming of Jesus; that is, it will not only be in full fruition in believing hearts, but in the external world as well. Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, and that his blood shed at the crucifixion is the required blood of the covenant. As all covenants between God and man described in the Bible, the New Covenant is considered "a bond in blood sovereignly administered by God."[4] The connection between the blood of Jesus and the New Covenant is seen at the Last Supper where Jesus institutes the rite of Communion saying "this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood".[5]Christian viewThe Christian view of the New Covenant is a new relationship between God and humans mediated by Jesus which necessarily includes all people,[21] both Jews and Gentiles. The New Covenant also breaks the generational curse of the original sin on all children of Adam if they believe in Jesus Christ, after people are judged for their own sins, which is expected to happen with the second arrival of Jesus Christ (see also Eternal life).[citation needed] Therefore the global missionizing of Jews (see the Gospel according to the Hebrews) or Muslims in the name of Christianity still remains an important pivotal Christian activity.In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:Jeremiah 31:29–31 KJV[22]Thus as the Apostle Paul advertises that the Old Covenant of Sinai does not in itself prevent Jews from sinning and dying,[23] and is not given to Gentiles at all (with the notable exception of Noahide Law and the rules for proselytes in the Torah), Christians believe the New Covenant ends the original sin and death for everyone who becomes a Christian and cannot simply be a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant since it seemingly accomplishes new things.[24] See also Types of Supersessionism.For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.—(John 3:16, KJV)Also based much on what Paul wrote, a dispensationalist Christian view of the nature of Israel is that it is primarily a spiritual nation composed of Jews who claim Jesus as their Messiah, as well as Gentile believers who through the New Covenant have been grafted into the promises made to Israelites. This spiritual Israel is based on the faith of the patriarch Abraham (before he was circumcised[25]) who was ministered by the Melchizedek priesthood, which is understood to be a type for the Christian faith of believing Jesus to be Christ and Lord in the order of Melchizedek. The Apostle Paul says that "it is not the children of the flesh (i.e. the natural descendants of Abraham), who are the Children of God, but the children of the promise (i.e. the spiritual descendants of Abraham)."Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.Romans 9:6–8 KJV[26]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 08:56 PM (This post was last modified: 29-05-2012 10:27 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(29-05-2012 07:08 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(29-05-2012 06:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  That's right Lucradis. Although I'm not necessarily saying that they contain no value...I'm suggesting we look at who wrote them, when and why as the first step in assessing their value. I think ST wants to launch into a discussion based on the assumption that the bible is the word of god. I've upset him because I refuse to accept that premise without question.
Hello Mark, I will try to make this as easy as possible for you. You do not have to accept in the least that scripture is the word of God. That is not the issue.
What is the issue is this: you say you know the bible, boast 10,000 hours of study, so, lets look at the Bible, my friend.
Not the works of man. Because you and I are on an even plane , though we be directed in opposite directions, concerning that which we place our faith in. Your faith is in the works of men, mine are in the works of men.
One side claims they are the word's of God, the other side says they are not.
The major difference is, if we are going to examine what scripture teaches, then we must examine scripture itself...not what men have said or wrote about it.
Okay, I am tired this evening, so, just let me say sorry for yanking your chain a little (not that I don't think you didn't ask for it...lol), but I am truly interested in looking at scripture with you. I can with a little bit of confidence say that I believe it will be benficial to you, and to me as well.
Gotta go for now, look forward to getting back.
Have a good evening. Smile


Hi ST, thanks for your commentary.

Would you care to reread your post lines and rewrite it? As it is, I can only guess what you are trying to say. I don't think you intended to write "mine are in the works of men.' Or did you?

Now, it seems you are saying you want EVERYONE to, like you, assume scripture is the word of god, and take the conversation from there. I am guessing that is why you only want to examine "scripture itself." Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

You seem to want to refuse to discuss who wrote the scripture, when and why, as you think these things are not important, because of your undoubtedly correct presumption that we are dealing with the word of god.

You also seem to want to ignore the collective wisdom of nearly 2000 years worth of commentary on the bible. So I presume the article I've posted from wikipedia, which is a "work of man," is not relevant to this discussion either? All the billions of hours invested by scholars over the last few hundred years are to be deemed irrelevant?

Sorry ST, the world is not as simple as you would like. You can't simply demand people believe your assumptions; you have to present an argument first. You're a nice guy, but, as it is, your head is stuck so far up your own arse you can't see daylight.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 10:54 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(29-05-2012 05:08 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(29-05-2012 12:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  ST, I'm disappointed at your response.

These conclusions I have shared with you are the product of many years study....and I'm giving you the benefit of that, and you simply dismiss it as something i've read somewhere.


Always sorry to disappoint, but as far as I can see, what has been posted so far seems more like a negative campaign ad.



(29-05-2012 12:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I'm not "dancing around' anything...I'm questioning and explaining the very origin of Christian theology, and you quite clearly simply don't understand or are dismissing the points I am making.

The topic is the New Covenant, not "Your ideas" as to the origin of Christian Theology.

Scripture presents the origin of Christian Theology, and despite the "ideas" presented, Christian Theology predates Paul's conversion, as Christians can trace the covenant relationship they have with God to it's beginning with promise...in the Old Testament.


(29-05-2012 12:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Digest this...Yeshua, if he ever existed, knew nothing of a "new covenant." His surviving followers, 20 or 30 years later, dismissed Paul's "new covenant" as heresy and nonsense. It was only circa 140 CE, when Paul's letters resurfaced, in Rome, in the hands of a character named Marcion, that the people who would eventually create a new religion, Christianity, took any notice of them.


Are you not sure whether Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure or not?

Again a reminder, this discussion is to focus on what scripture teaches, not what man teaches. The "ideas" presented thus far are clearly an attempt to discredit Christianity through the use of "ideas " that are not presented in scripture.

The followers of Christ accepted the validity of Paul's Apostleship and doctrine.

(29-05-2012 12:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Now, ST, if you are going to contribute anything worthwhile to a discussion about scripture, you need to do some reading around these issues. This is not hard ....just use google. A whole new world will open up for you.


You suggest that I google, lol.

This is what I mean about the claim to know scripture better than Christians, you say that, then quote men.

I will admit you do better in the one post, actually including scripture.

(29-05-2012 12:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Please do not try to belittle my ideas, because you are, in fact, only demonstrating your own ignorance.


I do what I can...lol.

(29-05-2012 12:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Also, no more "god blesses' please. While I know you mean well, it is patronising to someone who has absolutely no belief in imaginary friends.


Tell you what, I will forego my usual ending if you will forego your foul language.

Deal?


ST, you only see my comments as a 'negative campaign ad" because you are emotionally attached to your scripture. I am discussing real history. My comments upset you because of cognitive dissonance. Just decide to not get upset, but to keep trying to discover truth.

I hear it that you would like to discuss scripture, and scripture only (based on the assumption it is inspired), but sorry, that's not on (particularly on a THINKING ATHEIST forum.)

I strongly disagree with the assertion that Christian theology predates Paul. At least this is a topic we can agree to discuss. Paul is almost universally recognised as the originator of Christian theology. You will find nothing about the divinity of Christ, salvation being the reward for faith in Jesus, or Jesus' death making up for mankind's sins, prior to the appearance of Paul. In case you believe jesus and his original disciples believed all this, you are mistaken, and if you are interested I will tell you why.

No, I am not sure that a real character, Jesus, ever actually existed. You will find that roughly half of all atheists doubt his historical existence.

I am sure the original followers of Jesus (assuming he existed) NEVER accepted the validity of Paul's doctrine. This is one of the great ironies of today's Christianity. I will explain this to you too if you are interested.

What "men" have I quoted? Do you mean wikipedia?

What foul language? Do you mean "arse?" You're a big boy, I'm sure you're not too offended.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2012, 02:21 AM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2012 02:35 AM by Jedah.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
As a spectator of this "debate", I have to say that so far all ST was trying to do was counter-productive.

If people spend their time & intellectual labor to give you a logical sound argument or physical evidence, you should at least return with the same quality of argument. I think it's a basic "politeness" in a discussion about truth.

You assume the bible is word of god and quote its contains as if it is an empirical and authetic "evidence". The problem is your "evidence" is as weak as any fairy tales.

As for "foul language" problem, I believe the act of trolling people who make their intellectual effort to reason with you is much foul than "This is fucking non-sense!". Just saying Evil_monster

Life is too important to be taken seriously.
- Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jedah's post
30-05-2012, 04:07 AM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2012 07:30 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
I would like to point out, that even before the Sinaitic Covenant, (the one which the many editorial revisionists of the eventual Pentateuch left us with), the original historical Covenant had to do with the origins of the Yahweh god.

Ancient Hebrew culture accepted MANY gods. (There are things which are somewhat incorrect about this video, but it's a start : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg ), and the rebuttal videos, are also interesting in their details, (which rebut some of the details, but NOT the essential premise).

In the group of available gods to them, was Yahweh Sabaoth, who was called the "God of the Armies", or (as we have heard so often in modern times, we don't really listen to the actual words), the Lord of Hosts. (The word "hosts" was an arrayed battle formation of fighting warriors). The ancient Hebrews were polytheists, (despite claims to the contrary that their contribution to human history was monotheism...which it was NOT). The "covenant" with the god Yahweh Sabaoth was that, of all the available gods, they would worship only the Yahweh god, (NOT because they only believed in one god, but), because the Yahweh god, (the God of the Armies), would assist them in their battles, with their neighboring cities. "For Yahweh is a jealous god"... Yahweh (they thought), wanted their total allegiance, and if they would worship only Yahweh, (instead of, or along with, all the others available), he would be of more help in the battles. The development of the "chosen people" business was an attempt to justify their expansionary ambitions, with regard to the "promised land" idea, which justifed the violent struggle with their neighboring city-states. That was the original agreement with the Yahweh god, (the "Covenant").

In light of the historical facts, it mystifies me how anyone could possibly ever take the Yahweh god seriously.
So New Covenant, Old Covenant, who cares. Find me a credible god first, then maybe we can talk.

As Mark has pointed out, the salvation paradigm did not arise in the Christian cult, (which was for many years a sub-group in Judaism), until Saul of Tarsus introduced it. The proof of that is that it is absent in the Q source, and the Gospel of Mark, (written first), but DOES appear in Paul, (written next)..and then in the other texts. The chronology is very good evidence for what Mark is saying. ((Actually the resurrection also was not a part of the original Gospel of Mark, which ended with (the far more poetic), empty tomb)).

As you can see over in the "Sympathy for Eve" thread, there is no need for a "salvation" paradigm in Hebrew culture, because that was not how they understood the human condition, (no "sin" idea). It would have made no sense, to them. The concept was an import from the Greeks. For many years, the Christians had no consiousness of themselves as a separate group. They thought they were good Jews. They did not really pull away definitively, from Judaism, until the Bar Kochba Revolt, (the Second Revolt), after the turn of the Second Century. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...tling.html , thus Paul's invention, (the salvation thingy), did not really take hold for many years.

When the separation did take place it was complex. The various Christian communities pulled away at different times, in different places. Even as late as the 5th Century, some STILL were going to Synagogue, and doing the Jewish festivals. The famous preacher/Archbishop (from Antioch and Constantinople), St. John Chrysostom, (died in 407 CE) bitches at the Christians in his sermons ... the series of eight sermons to his congregation, "you must stop going to the Synagogue, you must not think that the Synagogue is a holier place than our churches are." This is more proof that the break was gradual, and not uniform, or absolute, even that late. But in Paul's writings, which are the earliest clues we have, (apart from Mark and Q), the social separation in his foundational communities had already taken place. They're no longer meeting with Jews. By the time John was written, they hated the Jews, (in some places). They stopped going to Synagogue and met in private homes. Thus the change was NOT uniform, and certainly did NOT happen until late, (except in the Greek based communities), as far as we know.

Thus endeth the lesson. Thanks be to god ! Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
30-05-2012, 06:11 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(29-05-2012 08:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(29-05-2012 07:08 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Hello Mark, I will try to make this as easy as possible for you. You do not have to accept in the least that scripture is the word of God. That is not the issue.
What is the issue is this: you say you know the bible, boast 10,000 hours of study, so, lets look at the Bible, my friend.
Not the works of man. Because you and I are on an even plane , though we be directed in opposite directions, concerning that which we place our faith in. Your faith is in the works of men, mine are in the works of men.
One side claims they are the word's of God, the other side says they are not.
The major difference is, if we are going to examine what scripture teaches, then we must examine scripture itself...not what men have said or wrote about it.
Okay, I am tired this evening, so, just let me say sorry for yanking your chain a little (not that I don't think you didn't ask for it...lol), but I am truly interested in looking at scripture with you. I can with a little bit of confidence say that I believe it will be benficial to you, and to me as well.
Gotta go for now, look forward to getting back.
Have a good evening. Smile


Hi ST, thanks for your commentary.

Would you care to reread your post lines and rewrite it?

Actually, no. I would rather move forward with the conversation.


(29-05-2012 08:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  As it is, I can only guess what you are trying to say.


Yes, I realize that, but I am trying to make this easy. You claim to have 10,000 hours stubying the bible, when in all probability, what you have is 10,000 hours (and how you calculate this number I would be interested to know) invested in studying what other people have to say about scripture.

Understand I am not ridiculing you for this, it is actually just the norm, even among those that call themselves Christians. Most will go to Church and hear what the Pastor has to say about scripture, never actually looking at it for themselves.

One of the aspects of this discussion would be this point.

Another would be faith. And it is clear that both atheists and Christians are guilty of prooftexting and eisegesis.

(29-05-2012 08:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I don't think you intended to write "mine are in the works of men.' Or did you?

Absolutely. What this discussion was supposed to be about was what you have learned from your enormous time of study of the Bible. THe topic: the New Covenant. It seems to me that you really have no particular opinion of the New Covenant, and are merely satisfied to dismiss it, just as you dismiss Paul, despite the internal affirmation of scripture that Paul was a genuine Apostle.

But it comes down to faith, whether it wants to be admitted or not: I have faith that the scriptures have been given by God, and I believe that the content is worthy of acceptation; you have faith that those that deny it are correct. I will say again, I am not trying to "change your mind" about your convictions, I cannot do that. But what I can do is point out some aspects of your faith as we go.

(29-05-2012 08:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Now, it seems you are saying you want EVERYONE to, like you, assume scripture is the word of god, and take the conversation from there.

Actually no. It is God that gives that conviction, first to the unbeliever through the work of the Holy Spirit, then through the instruction of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of growth and discernment of good and evil.

Is this an attempt to rally support against a common foe...lol?

(29-05-2012 08:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I am guessing that is why you only want to examine "scripture itself." Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Let me put it this way: if we were talking about a Star Wars book, and I said, "Wait a minute, the book doesn't say Darth Vader really wasn't evil, what are you talking about?" we could discuss from the book the reasons why one might see his actions were evil and thae other does not. Then, one says, "Well, this is what the guy who portrayed Darth Vader says, he should know," that would be a good arguement, but not nearly as good as a direct statement from the book that says "the actions of Darth Vader were evil."

That would set the debate stragiht, right?

That is all I have attempted to do...look at the book.

(29-05-2012 08:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You seem to want to refuse to discuss who wrote the scripture, when and why, as you think these things are not important, because of your undoubtedly correct presumption that we are dealing with the word of god.

We are told in the book, in many places, who the actual writer was. For those that do not have an internal witness, there is a certain amount of faith required to accept the traditional view, though no-one is actually under a command to accept traditional views. The question is, what does that have to with the discussion?

It seems that you want to be in control of the situation, rather than just having a conversation. You ask me to pick a topic, then change the topic to how the Bible originated. While I can understand why you would wish to do so, I am a little disappointed.

(29-05-2012 08:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You also seem to want to ignore the collective wisdom of nearly 2000 years worth of commentary on the bible.

Do I? Not sure what would give you that impression. If the discussion was about "Commentary of Scripture over the Last 2000 Years" then I could point you to some excellent commentators, and give my opinion on that commentary.

But in view is a look at the claim "I have studied the Bible for 10,000 hours, I am an authoritative source of commentary...HEAR ME!"

lol

Along with that are a few other issues, one being, "My sources (extrabiblical sources) are authoritative, infallible, and cannot be questioned...and yours (scripture itself) are not!"

However, if an objetive look at the scriptures is desired, maybe we can begin to understand why there are so many groups that call themselves Christians, and why their doctrine is different. Maybe we can examine the claims of many here, "I use to be a Christian but now I am free of evil religion."

The question is, what is the claim that the many groups and individuals that call (or called) themselves Christians base their claim upon. As I have stated before, if their basis is not rooted in the record we have concerning Christianity...then it is bogus.

And if an individual is unaware of that which scripture teaches...how can they actually be a Christian? This does not mean one has to be a scholar, but, there are basic, fundamental truths associated with salvation that, if absent, causes us as scripture commands...to examine those claims, whether they personal or related to other groups or individuals.

If someone said, "Boy, that Darth Vader was a swell guy," one might be inclined to think that person was unfamiliar with the Star Wars story...right?

(29-05-2012 08:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  So I presume the article I've posted from wikipedia, which is a "work of man," is not relevant to this discussion either?

No, it is relevant in a number of ways. However, I was looking for what you have learned of the New Covenant in your 10,000 hours of study.

But as I said, this is a subject that for some reason gets very little attention.

(29-05-2012 08:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  All the billions of hours invested by scholars over the last few hundred years are to be deemed irrelevant?

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, yes.

And the minute we choose the commentary to believe, we express faith in those commentators. So the next step, if we want to approach this in the scientific manner that is constantly spoken of here, is to compare how that commentary stands up to the actual source of the commentary. Which we means, we have to examine the Bible.

(29-05-2012 08:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Sorry ST, the world is not as simple as you would like.

You have a habit of deciding things about me for some reason...lol.

Did I say the world was simple?

(29-05-2012 08:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You can't simply demand people believe your assumptions;

Could you quote me?

lol

(29-05-2012 08:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  you have to present an argument first.

If the conversation had actually went into a discussion of the topic...perhaps that would have occured. The only argument I could present at this time is that it is not the Bible that has been studied, it is the works of men, namely...commentatory on the Bible...

No-one that actually studies the Bible themself would come to conclusions that your posts have reflected.

(29-05-2012 08:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You're a nice guy,

Again an assumption: I don't see myself as a nice guy at all, but, I am working on that.

(29-05-2012 08:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  but, as it is, your head is stuck so far up your own arse you can't see daylight.

Isn't it interesting that both of us believe our truth...is light?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2012, 06:15 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(30-05-2012 04:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I would like to point out, that even before the Sinaitic Covenant, (the one which the many editorial revisionists of the eventual Pentateuch left us with), the original historical Covenant had to do with the origins of the Yahweh god.

Ancient Hebrew culture accepted MANY gods. (There are things which are somewhat incorrect about this video, but it's a start : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg ), and the rebuttal videos, are also interesting in their details, (which rebut some of the details, but NOT the essential premise).

In the group of available gods to them, was Yahweh Sabaoth, who was called the "God of the Armies", or (as we have heard so often in modern times, we don't really listen to the actual words), the Lord of Hosts. (The word "hosts" was an arrayed battle formation of fighting warriors). The ancient Hebrews were polytheists, (despite claims to the contrary that their contribution to human history was monotheism...which it was NOT). The "covenant" with the god Yahweh Sabaoth was that, of all the available gods, they would worship only the Yahweh god, (NOT because they only believed in one god, but), because the Yahweh god, (the God of the Armies), would assist them in their battles, with their neighboring cities. "For Yahweh is a jealous god"... Yahweh (they thought), wanted their total allegiance, and if they would worship only Yahweh, (instead of, or along with, all the others available), he would be of more help in the battles. The development of the "chosen people" business was an attempt to justify their expansionary ambitions, with regard to the "promised land" idea, which justifed the violent struggle with their neighboring city-states. That was the original agreement with the Yahweh god, (the "Covenant").

In light of the historical facts, it mystifies me how anyone could possibly ever take the Yahweh god seriously.
So New Covenant, Old Covenant, who cares. Find me a credible god first, then maybe we can talk.

As Mark has pointed out, the salvation paradigm did not arise in the Chritian cult, (which was for many years a sub-group in Judaism), until Saul of Tarsus introduced it. The proof of that is that it is absent in the Q source, and the Gospel of Mark, (written first), but DOES appear in Paul, (written next)..and then in the other texts. The chronology is very good evidence for what Mark is saying. ((Actually the resurrection also was not a part of the original Gospel of Mark, which ended with (the far more poetic), empty tomb)).

As you can see over in the "Sympathy for Eve" thread, there is no need for a "salvation" paradigm in Hebrew culture, because that was not how they understood the human condition, (no "sin" idea). It would have made no sense, to them. The concept was an import from the Greeks. For many years, the Christians had no consiousness of themselves as a separate group. They thought they were good Jews. They did not really pull away definitively, from Judaism, until the Bar Kochba Revolt, (the Second Revolt), after the turn of the Second Century. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...tling.html , thus Paul's invention, (the salvation thingy), did not really take hold for many years.

When the separatiion did take place it was complex. The various Christian communities pulled away at different times, in different places. Even as late as the 5th Century, some STILL were going to Synagogue, and doing the Jewish festivals. The famous preacher/Archbishop (from Antioch and Constantinople), St. John Chrysostom, (died in 407 CE) bitches at the Christians in his sermons ... the series of eight sermons to his congregation, "you must stop going to the Synagogue, you must not think that the Synagogue is a holier place than our churches are." This is more proof that the break was gradual, and not uniform, or absolute, even that late. But in Paul's writings, which are the earliest clues we have, (apart from Mark and Q), the social separation in his foundational communities had already taken place. They're no longer metting with Jews. By the time John was written, they hated the Jews, (in some places). They stopped going to Synagogue and met in private homes. Thus the change was NOT uniform, and certainly did NOT happen until late, (except in the Greek based communities), as far as we know.

Thus endeth the lesson. Thanks be to god ! Tongue
Oh, what a breath of fresh air to read this post! Bucky, I think I'm turning into your no 1 fan. Now we're talking history...

You make a great point about the so-called "old covenant." It was a fabricated relationship between one of the many gods the ancient Jews worshipped in the 6th century BC and the Jews, who felt threatened by the Babylonians. The whole "Law" i believe was only cobbled together at this time. The stories of Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon are fictional, as is the existence of a talking, opinionated, interfering Yahweh.

Thanks for pointing out how Paul invented the salvation paradigm. He also invented the divinity of Christ and his sacrificial death, and his resurrection i.e. the key tenets of Christianity. This amazing fact you won't find in most historical books, yet it is very obviously true. Poor old Jesus, if he ever existed, knew none of Paul's spiel, and Jesus' surviving apostles (including his brother James) fought bitterly against these ideas.

Hence the "new covenant" is an idea based on NOTHING MORE THAN THE IMAGINATIVE RAMBLINGS OF PAUL THE JEWISH HERETIC. So what? Good question! It means Christianity is a nonsense. That is big news.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2012, 06:33 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Hey ST, we are obviously poles apart, with almost no common ground. I suggest we stop playing tit for tat, and you just have your say about the new covenant, and invite responses. I will do the same and we can have parallel conversations happening.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2012, 06:43 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(29-05-2012 10:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(29-05-2012 05:08 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Always sorry to disappoint, but as far as I can see, what has been posted so far seems more like a negative campaign ad.




The topic is the New Covenant, not "Your ideas" as to the origin of Christian Theology.

Scripture presents the origin of Christian Theology, and despite the "ideas" presented, Christian Theology predates Paul's conversion, as Christians can trace the covenant relationship they have with God to it's beginning with promise...in the Old Testament.




Are you not sure whether Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure or not?

Again a reminder, this discussion is to focus on what scripture teaches, not what man teaches. The "ideas" presented thus far are clearly an attempt to discredit Christianity through the use of "ideas " that are not presented in scripture.

The followers of Christ accepted the validity of Paul's Apostleship and doctrine.



You suggest that I google, lol.

This is what I mean about the claim to know scripture better than Christians, you say that, then quote men.

I will admit you do better in the one post, actually including scripture.



I do what I can...lol.



Tell you what, I will forego my usual ending if you will forego your foul language.

Deal?


ST, you only see my comments as a 'negative campaign ad" because you are emotionally attached to your scripture. I am discussing real history. My comments upset you because of cognitive dissonance. Just decide to not get upset, but to keep trying to discover truth.

Emotionally attached...gee, I hope so. lol

Okay, I have decided not to get upset...feel better? lol Sorry, I just can't help yanking your chain a little, this is just one of my shortcomings...a strange sense of humor (of course I am usually alone in actuall believing it is humor...lol).

As far as discovering truth, no worries, it is an important part of the plan.


(29-05-2012 10:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I hear it that you would like to discuss scripture, and scripture only (based on the assumption it is inspired), but sorry, that's not on (particularly on a THINKING ATHEIST forum.)

Okay, we can end this discussion right here. I do not force an examination of scripture on anyone. It was you that brought it up. You first misrepresent me by saying I "claim to have a secret knowledge of scripture," then boast being an authority, then...avoid the chosen topic, change the topic, then seek to paint me as an intruder that is not welcome (this last goes without saying) in an effort villify me.

That's fine. Just don't claim to be openminded...okay?

(29-05-2012 10:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I strongly disagree with the assertion that Christian theology predates Paul. At least this is a topic we can agree to discuss. Paul is almost universally recognised as the originator of Christian theology.

Wait...are you saying that you want to discuss scripture, after just saying that it is improper on an atheist forum?

Because if you want to discuss Christian Theology, it is an impossibility without examining the authoritative source of the true believer. If you want to quote your authoritative sources only, well, it will simply be amatter of sharing opinions, and there are plenty of those out there concerning Christianity.

(29-05-2012 10:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You will find nothing about the divinity of Christ, salvation being the reward for faith in Jesus, or Jesus' death making up for mankind's sins, prior to the appearance of Paul.

Let me know if, this time, you actually want to pursue the topic. We can witch to that. But, if you want to try to dictate the terms, like the fraudulent false teachers of Media Christendom, that you might strengthen your position...forget it.

You supply your sources, I supply mine. Mine will be from scripture itself, yours can be...whatever you choose.

THere is no requirement on yours or anyone else's part to "accept the scripture is God's word," it can be objective. My personal views matter little, and should not interfere with the discussion.

(29-05-2012 10:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  In case you believe jesus and his original disciples believed all this, you are mistaken, and if you are interested I will tell you why.

But where do you get your information? Can you not see that you will, because you are not a physical witness of the events, have to reveal your faith in the works of men?

Here is a disciple of Christ that accepted Paul's salvation and validity:


2 Peter 3:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;


Now, it is your turn. Tell me how it is that Peter, after being confronted "to the face" by Paul for hypocrisy...counts him as a brother?

(29-05-2012 10:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  No, I am not sure that a real character, Jesus, ever actually existed. You will find that roughly half of all atheists doubt his historical existence.

There are those that call themselves Christians that doubt the historical veracity of Jesus Christ...this is irrelevant.

(29-05-2012 10:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I am sure the original followers of Jesus (assuming he existed) NEVER accepted the validity of Paul's doctrine. This is one of the great ironies of today's Christianity. I will explain this to you too if you are interested.

I will hear what you have to say. But...I would ask that you admit that due to your uncertainty, you will be forced to provide your own sources for what you may or may not believe.

With that said, I would only ask that keep in mind that in my view, it is what scripture has to say that takes precedence over what men say about what it says.
(29-05-2012 10:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What "men" have I quoted? Do you mean wikipedia?

If something is stated as fact, it is based upon something. My basis is scripture, what is yours? You say Paul basically stole Christianity and changed it, I say the record of scripture denies that, and the internal witness of scripture is that Paul's teaching come from God Himself.

It is ironic that you quoted Galatians, as we have some great material on the New Covenant in this book.

(29-05-2012 10:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What foul language? Do you mean "arse?" You're a big boy, I'm sure you're not too offended.

And you are right...I am not offended, I am used to it. I simply wanted to point out that demands are being made of me...as though you have the right to determine what is acceptable for me to say, and what is not. Think about that the next time you charge Christianity with being "controlling." You see, you can speak as you wish. It is your right as an American, and as a Christian I would not presume to tell you what it is you can say that is acceptable to me. If "God bless" offends you (and you might want to think about that as well), I will refrain from ending my posts to you with it, as I am commanded to "give none offense," and it is an easy enough thing to be obedient to God when one simply lets me know something has offended them.

So, feel free to speak your mind. Just try to afford the same respect to me, lest you be found to replicate the actions of certain religionists.

Have a great day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: