"Much of the OT adopts the style of a Rabbanical mystery. The Word of the Judaeo-Christian god is opaque."

The OT laws are majestic, and unequalled anyplace else. All laws followed by the world's institutions and judiciary, are OT contained. Not a single law is accepted by the world which is not OT contained: feel free to name a single law given to the world outside of the OT? Equal rights for inhabitant and stranger, democrasy, inalienable human rights, love the stranger, monotheism, anaimal rights [all of them], women's rights - all come from the OT. Those who don't follow OT laws, are acting outside the law.

"Josephus. I have not read any Josephus cover-to-cover, yet, I can appreciate why his observations are important to Christians. He treats Jesus favourably and does provide historical confirmation of the existence of Jesus, outside of the Bible. There are a few curiosities about Josephus, though. "

The Jesus passage in Josephus is seen by most christian scholars as a later addition, unfortunately, which means the Gospels has no contemporary evidence any place, making the Jesus story unverifiable. I doubt that Jesus would have condoned the gospels or its negation of the OT - this appears a later european scripture. But the NT does subscribe to the moral/ethical laws of the OT, specially so in the last century, and specially with american christians. European christianity has a horrific history.

"[3] Jesus’ Illegitimacy. My point was not biological; rather it was political. Jesus’ claim to the House of David would have been diminished by having been born to Mary as a Nun in preparation for marriage vows. "

There were no NUNS in Jesus' time [30's]. David's lineage is ongoing, and based exclusively in the OT laws. The psalms of David mention Moses numerously, and they allign with the OT narratives. The lineage prophesizes a Messiah - but this must allign with Isaiac's full criteria, not selected verses re-interpreted to allign with the NT or Quran.

It is the peoples, not the Messiah, which has to be resurrected, and the temple be rebuilt [Isaiah]: this temple was destroyed by Rome, with the cost of 1.1 million Jews defending their faith [Josephus] from desecrating the 1st & 2nd commandment, and from Rome's depraved degrees of man-gods, later fully condoned by Europe. The response to Rome by the Jews is the greatest show of faith in all recorded history, which is omitted from the gospels. Israel's return constitutes the greatest miracle the last 2000 years, but this is seen as an affront for europe and arabia, as opposed their percieving the sign it gives out: both JC & Mohammed have harkened to the true God of Israel, and turning cheek on the history and deeds of both religions forever seeking to destroy Israel and negate all her rights and history. These religions can only be judged by their deeds with Israel.

WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MOGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR.

Dear TRTL.. I won't labor the issue of 'objective meaning'... but if this helps..I'll try.

Simple language.. and concepts are easy to inteprret..

"The black dog bit the white cat" is a report of a physical incident about which I doubt any of us would argue. I guess if someone then 'intepreted' it saying "Thus, all black dogs hate cats" there would be obviously insufficient data to base such a claim on right?

But if a man said "I breed black dogs which hate cats"..aah.. different, agreed?

So, interpretation should go no further than the facts. Things are 'objective' insofar as they comply with culturally and linguistically agreed definitions. In the area of language and meaning, yes..I agree there is an element of fluidity in it as cultures are changing.
"wow..that was WICKED" now.. in youth culture means 'That was great'.
But.. we know this.

Other ideas are more difficult to set interpretive boundaries for, and I used "I am crucified with Christ" as one such example.

Expanding the context base helps set appropriate interpretational boundaries of written text.

PERICLES.. good comeback.

OLY.. I'm going to investigate some issues along those lines. But one thing for this post. It is not certain (from my reading) that Herod died prior to Christs birth. There appears to have been a couple of years overlap.

JOSEPH.. you said: "These religions can only be judged by their deeds with Israel."

Genesis 12:3 (God to Abraham)

I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."

Joseph, some of your ideas miss the reality of the early Church, and the Acts of the Apostles and letters of Paul would give you a better, more informed perspective.
-blessings

HISTORY and THE FAITH.

Oly.. I'm not sure where you get your information from, but this link is one of the most scholarly around. The Tubingen school (theology) was hyper liberal.. they began with the idea that much of early Christianity was myth based.. so there are certainly not evangelical.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/Bauer/bauer08.htm

In that link, Mr Bauer (called 'antiChrist' by some :) makes an important point.

In the 'Contra Celus' by Origen, it is clear that the Church, rather than embracing Greek platonist ideas, fought them vigorously.

It is often said that the early church theology emerged from an infection by Greek Mythology..and this is hardly the case as any serious scholar of the time knows.

William F Albright was a product of the Liberal Tubingen school, and went as an Archeologist to Israel/middle east with their view.

The evidence altered his stand.

The other usual attack is that Pauline theology emerged from the "mystery religions" and to say that is just a total 'load of crap' is a major understatement. Paul's own testimony is by far enough to dispel that sad idea.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/rusty_wright/newtestament.html

<<Mark writes of Jesus healing a blind man as He left Jericho.{23} Luke, apparently writing of the same event, says it happened while Jesus was approaching Jericho.{24}

Excavations in 1907-09 by Ernest Sellin, of the German Oriental Society, showed that there were "twin cities" of Jericho in Jesus' time--an old Jewish city and a Roman city separated by about a mile.{25} Apparently Mark referred to one and Luke referred to the other, and the incident occurred as Jesus traveled between the two.

William F. Albright, one of the world's leading biblical archaeologists, adds a helpful comment: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date of between A.D. 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.>>

Tacitus, Pliny, Seutonius and Josephus all add credibility.
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/tacitus.html

We can only offer 'compelling' evidence, not 'conclusive'..faith begins at this point. :)

Seems I was wrong to think that you had slunk away from this thread, Boaz. Although you still manage to avoid the questions put to you, by the simple expedient of ignoring them completely.

But it doesn't seem to me that you have advanced your argument at all.

>>So, interpretation should go no further than the facts<<

Which is, prima facie, a reasonably defensible position.

Unfortunately, it contains two rather significant problems.

One, that it is very rare in deed for a text to contain within itself sufficient facts to make the interpretation incontrovertible.

Your example "the black dog bit the white cat" might be one, in a simplistic world. Even here, though, since we are given insufficient data to properly define the combatants, I might personally be surprised that a toy poodle was able to get a nip into a snow leopard.

In contrast, it is simply impossible to ascribe to the phrase "I am crucified with Christ" anything but a subjective interpretation, even though it has fewer words than the dog/cat episode.

The other problem with the concept is that it tends to be expediently discarded at the earliest possible moment, by anyone with a particular axe to grind.

Like, for example, yourself.

Incidentally, I am still agog for your interpretation of this little text of yours from a previous post.

>>By "objective" meaning, and known meanings, we are speaking about the reality of the human/linguistic dynamic.<<

As far as meaning goes, this text seems to be bending over backwards to ensure that none is actually delivered.

Go on, Boaz, I dare you. Turn it into everyday English.

I love the "explanation" of the discrepancy in the Mark vs. Luke, coming vs. going story.

Two cities, next to each other, with the same name. Who'd 'a thunk it?

Mighty convenient. But still circumstantial, since there is nothing to support the theory that he was in fact travelling between the two, which would be the only circumstance that allows both to be correct.

Incidentally, Boaz, I notice that you are still repeating - as all Christians are bound to do, I suppose - the old canard that there is actual evidence, real evidence, to support all those tall tales in the New Testament.

I have to tell you, at the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, that stray references to the existence of Christians - which is not in any way in dispute, since you yourself present as such - cannot be taken as proof that water was turned into wine, the lame were made to dance the lambada, lepers were able to get their act together and Lazarus woke up saying "wow, what a party".

>>Tacitus, Pliny, Seutonius and Josephus all add credibility... We can only offer 'compelling' evidence...<<

Hardly compelling, Boaz.

In fact, does it not occur to you that the extraordinarily cursory nature of Tacitus' passing reference to Jesus' execution, actually tends to "prove" that there was absolutely nothing spectacular about his life?

Wouldn't you have expected at the very least a brief reference to the fact that Jesus had, during his lifetime, created the odd newsworthy item? Tacitus was, after all, a well-respected historian, and would hardly have omitted anything as significant as the re-appearance of a dead person executed by the state.

If it is a story that you need to believe in order to follow your religion, that's entirely fine by me.

But it is horribly shaky ground from which to criticise the scriptures of other religions, is it not?