Re "I am not sure that Christianity necessarily reflects Jesus. Jesus did not sanction the future writing of NT, to the best of my knowledge. I see Jesus, as a Jew, with issues, not a Christian founder. " - Boaz

All 55 jewish prophets wrote their own, in Hebrew, and not one contradicted the OT. IMHO, it is a mystery, as a compulsion, that an advanced people like europeans would accept a 3rd/4th hand report of the gospel claims - without a single proof, then accept Paul's claims - who never even met Jesus - of claims and doctrines which are totally contradictory to logic and the laws they claim as their foundation.

Logic and truth says, they should have *DEMANDED* proof of resurrection - and even if this was true, never come to the conclusion the NT does; they should have nominated isaiah, who said the dead people - not the Messiah [!?] - was to rise; they should have demanded of Paul proof Jesus said so - and if this be true, totally rejected it. Now you know why the *stiff-necks* were chosen!

But the ubsurd reverse occured. What's it mean? IMHO, this was a mysterious compulsion, defying logic, making some see what others did not - and vice verse. This may be the means to wean the west from its historic paganism - by giving them a path which suits them ['He understndeth the nature of man']. Eventually, in its due time - all names will disappear and all will stand down on the base of the mount, as with Moses, who was the greatest human who ever lived. In its due time and in its correct way, the rest of humanity will also be shown what the hebrews were - this time has not yet come.

There is no alternative to Monotheism - scientifically and logically - even for atheists. The buck does not stop at 3 but "1". The best slight of hand selective maths notwithstanding.

"I AM THE LORD - THERE IS NO OTHER"

Boazy,

[1] “Christianity was developed centuries latter.” – O

“very subjective, if you ‘begin’ with this idea.. is it not possible you will then re-interpret all the evidence with that pre assigned conclusion in mind” – B.

- No, I have interpreted. I studied the historical events surrounding the development of the Gospels and other related literature: e.g., noting Herod was dead when Jesus was born. Let’s focus here:

Boazy: Was Herod alive or not when Jesus was born?

Boazy: Herod, Yes, no, resurrected? Matthew 2.16: fact or fiction?

I have read translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Bible, Roman historians, (some) Josephus, many academic civilizationists, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire and theist/academic theological works. I discovered my conclusion through research.

Given my penchant to cite sources, I think regular OLO colleagues would hardly call me, subjective. I look for “consistency” across sources.

Christian dogma was largely established at Nicaea from “selected” gospels. Mack [Claremont Theological College] describes the development of the many gospels very well, from folk lore to Nicaea. Objective history.

[2] Paul and The Galatians.

"'HELLENIZED' by Paul? … you really need to research this more thouroughly.” [condensed]

- Regarding Paul. “Paul, a citizen of the hellenised [sic. Hellenised] city of Tarsus, clearly found himself at home in this world, and indeed it was the existence of this layer’ which made his work possible at all. He wrote in hellenistic Greek, and needed no other language wherever he travelled. In most of the cities he visited, he found an established Jewish community. In some ways, because this was the culture through which he communicated, it is the hellenistic Paul who is most accessible to us.”

- Galatians. “For the Galatians, for most of their lives, ‘law’ had comprised just these local and Hellenised customs and codes. These and these 'only' [emphasis added] were the customs and codes in question when Paul first invited them to the new Christian way of life.”

Citation: The Three Worlds of Paul of Tarsus. Richard Wallace (1998)

Sources? Can produce scores more.

Regards,

O.

IamJoseph,

I doubt Boaz will accept authorship of the quotation you cite. But I will.

In the Flavian Dynasty, Serapis occasionally appeared on Roman coinage. The Serapis godhead had a trinity and was adopted by the Gnostics. That God, and the ousia of the godhead, existed a few decades after the time of Constantine. The Christian godhead appears have been a mirror trilogy. Between Constantine and Flavius Theodosius, inclusive, theistic syncretion would have the Christian godhead replace the Gnostic godhead: The same but different. A logical political move involving transference.

Christian leaders of the late four century, as I have mentioned to Boaz, were not unlike today’s Taliban, destroying else-than religious artworks. Christianity’s rampage is highlighted by the Christian destruction Serapis’ Temple, the Serapeum of Alexandria, in 385. Theodosian decree outlawed belief in Serapis, burying the true roots of the copied Christian godhead. Said Christian godhead was/is pagan not Jewish.

“The Serapeum was by all accounts a building of startling size and striking beauty. Ptolemy lll had had it built in honor of Isis and Serapis, a syncretistic Greek/Egyptian deity who combined aspects of Osiris, Zeus, Pluto and the Egyptian 'Apis' bull. He was associated with both the dead and healing. The temple itself opened onto a courtyard surrounded by a complex of buildings which included housing for the priests, priestesses, and people who came for a retreat. It also housed part of the public collections of the city's fabled Library.” - [Routery 1997]

- The Christians destroyed it!

“Courageously, they [The Christians] gave battle to the statues until they had vanquished and robbed them. Their military tactics consisted of stealing without being seen. As they could not carry away the pavement because of the weight of the stones that could hardly be moved, when they had simultaneously overturned everything in sight, these great and valiant warriors, whose hands though rapacious, were not stained with blood, declared that they had triumphed over the gods. They gloried in their sacrilege and impiety.” [Eunapius of Sardis, in Turcan 1985]

Boazy,

Christians can’t point the figure at the Taliban over Buddhas of Bamyan.

My gentle chiding must seem like soothing balm compared to the scholarly bashing that's going on here, Boaz.

But it would be polite of you to keep your battlefronts separate, so that we can at least maintain a level of continuity in debate.

I asked a question earlier on this thread:

"I am still agog for your interpretation of this little text of yours...'By "objective" meaning, and known meanings, we are speaking about the reality of the human/linguistic dynamic'."

You tried to sidestep.

>>Pericles.. I responded to your question in the Mindbodyspirit thread.<<

What I found there explained why you wanted to move the discussion away - you single-handedly destroyed your own argument.

>>Perciles.."Human Linguistic Dynamic" have a guess! "the way that language (linguistic) varies and changes with context and time (dynamic)I chose 3 words!<<

So let's refit these definitions of yours into your original offering, and see what happens.

"By "objective" meaning, and known meanings, we are speaking about the reality of the way that [human] language varies and changes with context and time"

You see what happened, Boaz?

You have moved 180 degrees from the point from which you set out - that there is some form of meaning that can be extracted objectively from a particular text.

This is important, because the entire basis for your excoriation of the Qur'an is that its meaning is somehow static, and that we should therefore derive our opinions of twentyfirst-century Islam from those invariant meanings.

Now you tell us what the rest of us have always known.

That language is locked within its own historical context, and cannot be removed from it.

Even Sells agrees. Go take a look at his discourse on the changed meaning of the word "enthusiasm". And begin to understand that your quest for objective, time-transcending meaning from a single text is over.

Done.

Ok, that was easy. Now I can hand you back to the scholars.

My position is not to downgrade christians, as I see their belief genuine and Gdly inclined. I do see they have been hijacked by forces not of their control, and a belief enforced and inculcated upon them, to the extent they cannot simply dislodge from it and jump in a vaccuos abyss.

Europe has never been monotheistic prior to christianity, thus they were exploited by an agenda which worked out what would be accepted and what would fail. For sure, no apostle could enable europeans to accept the OT: such attempts failed numerously before christianity emerged, specially with the greeks. The truth is, Jews failed the monotheistic test also, and had to be subjected to 40 years wonderings - perhaps one of the most pivotal periods in human history, because they ended up forever being ingrained with monotheism thereafter.

The problem is, while christians and jews are the closest in moral/ethical values, there is the sharpest variance in their core doctrines. The latter prompted the Gospel writers to introduce anti-semitism, based on the most absurd and totally false charges - but because these charges have been attached to christian belief in God - there is no way out of this dilema. But it can end up hurting christianity more than the Jews in the long run: falsehoods have a use-by date; truth prevails; crimes must be accounted for.

There is only the avenue of American christians nullifying these horrific and false charges - because american christians, or many of them, have clearly rejected medevial europe's traits and formed a new Constitution. America can thus be the savier of christianity - to save it from Europe. One can hold any belief they are born into - but not any wrong or bad deeds and actions. I note the OT safeguards all religionists, whatever their belief may be, whether that belief may or may not be true, by deeming their actions transcendent of their belief, with no immunity which belief they may hold:

'ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY' [OT]

bless you Pericles.. you are a sucker for punishment :)

You said:

"My gentle chiding must seem like soothing balm compared to the scholarly bashing that's going on here, Boaz."

There is no scholarly bashing going on P, and your saying that simply underlines your lack of knowledge of the issues. You see, when I read some of Oly or Joe' comments, I see an absolute panorama of information which is being neglected and I also see a time line.

Example. The old 'look what the cat dragged in' theory of Gnostism and the Trinity, Serapis etc.. is all out of whack with so much else.
I recommend a read of Pauls letter to the Colossians for some insights into how 'proto-gnosticism' was being addressed in his time, but the full blown version didn't arise till the 2nd and 3rd century.

OBJECTIVE/SUBJECTIVE. I didn't shoot myself in the foot. Language does change. To obtain the 'objective' meaning of a text, will inevitably involve the 'human linguistic dynamic' as I put it, in that we must examine the use of words, and all possible influences and circumstances surrounding a particlar text to find the closest thing to an 'objective' meaning. Language, being what it is, will always be subjective to a degree, depending on the type of text and ideas being communicated.

The simple example I gave "The black dog bit the white cat" can be quite 'objectively' understood as "one dog, of black color, bit another animal, a cat, of white color" THAT'S IT.... it is the full extent of 'objective' meaning, as long as we agree on the meaning of Cat, (furry animal that goes 'meouw' if domestic or ROAR if its a lion)
bit (past pefect tense of verb 'to bite')
Dog (furry animal which goes woof woof)
Black (a color)
White (a color)

As time goes by, the term 'cat' might include something like a thylacine, but it is not relevant really to the objective meaning of the sentence which is not trying to exhaustively define 'types of cat or dog'