I've almost got enough energy for this again...
None of the above is true...
You just cannot lump all the hebrews as 'Jews' and claim that... In the historical era we are mainly concerned with they had been continuously invaded and scrapped with just about everyone. The Hebrews changed slowly from a the more typical worship of multiple gods and settled on a single god Yahweh. It wasn't a unanimous verdict by any means but the powerful 'single god' prophets won the argument. The firsts Jewish kingdoms were destroyed and a large part of the population exiled to Babylon where the priests developed that thinking further. Yahweh went from a god of the hebrews in a hebrew land to a universal god that had a personal relationship with every believer. Later the Judean kingdom fought a very bloody war of liberation and its thought that due to the many (many) martyrs in this war the idea of a life after death was 'developed'. ie its a lot harder to convince some poor sap to go on a suicide mission with out the old life after death thing. Its a great way to manipulate the huddled masses by promising something no one is ever going to be able to prove you cant deliver.
After that came the greek conquests and the roman empire so you can hardly claim that they were peaceful when living by their scriptures as the scriptures were developing and they were always fighting.
As for christ being well known - actually you DON"T know that at all. Its assumed because of a few scrappy mentions in texts 70 to 100 years after his death. Its accepted that he was a historical figure (mainly because of the pasting you get if you question this 'fact'.) and that he was crucified by the Romans. Nothing unusual in that as the Romans were in general quite keen on horrible ways to kill people but to be fair they actually had a pretty decent justice system. But getting back to the point - as far as I'm aware there is not a scrap of evidence dating from the actual time that refers to him. If he was really significant I'm reasonably confident we would have more actual records. At the time its possible that his execution was no more noted by the authorities than that of any other of the loin cloth wearing nut jobs that wandered in from the desert.
Because of the Roman Empire - early christians were spread quickly around the med. As it spread there was considerable diversity in belief and prectise. It was people like Paul a couple of generations later who unified and codified this belief into a religion and a church BUT its important to realize that chirsts significance is as much an act of rebellion against the organized state religion of the time and a rejection over the power of the priests as anything else. The personal relationship with god idea is transferred to christ and out of the hands of the priest class. Its the development of the original idea but without the need of the priest to intercede with god on your behalf. You can be forgiven and it does not cost you anything other than faith. Much as Martin Luther stated later and much like the Pentecostals restated in our generation.
Your comments about the Pharisees is misleading. They were generally thought to be a popular and enlightened sect and in most cases favorable towards the christian ideal. The Sadducee's were the reactionary and entrenched priestly class hell bent on ruling everything. Religious argument was rife and often not ill mannered - the 'arguments' with the Pharisees can be interpreted as a closer relationship and indeed many of christs followers were Pharisees (if the stories are true).
Ed - I'm trying to argue from historical fact as much as is possible and you are arguing from belief. You assume you know 'facts' about this and that everyone else is wrong simply because it disagrees with your faith. There is never going to be a conclusion to this because you cannot have a discussion with someone who follows his faith blindly. You may not see it but to the general populace you are one step off strapping on a bomb vest and blowing up an abortion clinic.
Your post is coming from what is a common view among many historians, but which does not reflect a thorough examination of history from both secular and Biblical "sides". It is an overview and on the face of it muchly true.
My faith is not blind and JW's are actively encouraged to do as much personal research as possible and we don't simply go by what the WTS publishes.
Aside from that, history, culture and language are interests of mine and it was specifically a disgust of religion that started me off back when I was still in my teens. I regretted not taking more advantage of school as it meant more study while working, but nevertheless it has been a fascinating on still ongoing subject to research.
Yes, I do have extensive resources for reference, both secular and scriptural, on many topics to do with Jewish history. There is not a huge amount of secular reference, with much reliance on those such as Herodotus and Josephus however there are many archaelogical references available now to confirm dates and places as well as documented discoveries of tablets, stones, etc. with accounts of events written on them.
A lot of manuscripts now date back to within a few years of the originals and so far all have only confirmed the reliability of scriptural texts to today, with only a few minor errors that are able to be resolved by cross-referencing and using Interlinear translations of scripture to get the original words and meanings.
Perhaps one of the best arguments about the historicity of Christ is the simple fact that Christianity and belief in him is pretty much universal and if he was no more than any other historical figure of note, would be on par with them. No King, no Emperor, no scientist or philosopher has anywhere near the profile of Jesus Christ.
The RR thread has examined many subjects in depth and members both for and against the Bible or God have brought out a huge amount of reference and evidence. Wolf was good as history is his forte. ( I don't know how to put that mark above the e...)
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
Maybe we can get back on topic...
How long does anyone think the cease-fire will last?
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
Thought there were still plenty of stones, hear they are good at stonings. Or has the world awoken and sending kids out to throw rocks at soldiers no longer get sympathy when the troops shoot back however launching a rocket from a populated area still works when the other side retaliates.![]()
Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. --- Unknown sage
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
Not too sure on that one.
Hamas was supposed to have around 12,000 missiles stashed away. Somewhere in the region of 400 Tamir anti-missile missiles were fired at incoming rockets (that were calculated to actually hit somewhere populated).
The odds are that there is still a good amount of terrorist rockets available, but IF there is a low stockpile of Tamirs a lot more civilians would be killed and only at that point a ground offensive would have to happen, to shut down the launch points and the mortar sites.
A cease fire is the best option for both combatants.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Rip down the fence and let the people move into the land separating the two. If they're leaders are going to be stupid enough to fight each other over, erm, erm, erm, perceived wrong doings, then let them have at it. Perhaps the people will stop their leaders from untertaking a bloody massacre in "their" name.
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks