Vridar

Paul, I apologize if I mis-interpreted the intent of your post. George, IMO, understands respect and most likely understood the policies to keep the forum respectable. But, there must have been some disagreement what was respectful and George evidently decided he couldn't continue to post under this strict policy of respect. Goodbye my friends, Ron

<...It needs to be noted that there was no policy that saw the disengagement of George, other than his own convictions.> All, Reading the posts tells me George left because a post was deleted that should not have been according to George. It's my belief George left not because of policy but for strong-arm actions unexplained by Administration to him and the members. I'm not here to fight George's battles, I'm here to try to understand how a better forum can continue. George's comments are mostly why I'm here and now he's gone. Again, he was instrumental in my journey. Can anyone find in the 1900+ posts a post that is disrespectful or/and against stated policy? Respectfully, Ron

<> I don't think George's view was not tolerated because he did not agree with the powers that be, but rather that the judgement of those who are entrusted with the responsibility of keeping this site a place for respectful (my emphasis) discussion was not properly understood and accepted by George.> All, Obviously, I'm not unbiased in this discussion. But, an indication that George was not respectful grates at my respect for George. And, above all, he would understand respectability and understanding. Accepting them(?), obviously, he didn't. That's why he peacefully is gone - never to return, I know. I have no idea what went on behind the scenes but from the surface I assumed the Administrator felt the gun control discussion had run its course and he preferred it be dropped. The administrator has the power by definition to make those decisions and George of all people would understand that. It is my opinion George thought the gun issue was important enough to devote more time than the administrator did. Again, reading only the surface posts, I gathered that the Administrator and George were on opposing sides of this issue. I learned early that those with the money and power usually win most debates. I'm afraid the Administrator and the forum didn't win this debate. George will be missed. Are the number of postings diminished with George's absence? Does the Administrator have access to a trend? And is it a trend yet or am I too biased to see the truth? Are the posts more controlled and pacific? I may be biased in this area also. If the PC forum desires a more pacific, back slapping, let's all just get along forum, it is such, A wise person once told me the people will have what they want. I think we've got what we want if it's a homogeneous gathering. But there should be a place for vigorous debate some where on the spectrum between pacific and inflammatory. I'm still seeking a home. Ron Edited for punctuation.

Harper's Bible Dictionary under the definition of Sabbath pg 889 states: In the earliest Christian community, observance of Sabbath regulations fell into disuse among Christians of Jewish descent, principally because Jesus himself had been lax in his obedience to them (e.g., Matt. 12:1-8; Mark 3:1-5; Luke 13:10-17; John 5:1-10) even though he continued to take part in synagogue services held on the Sabbath (e.g., Luke 4:16). Jesus’ claim to lordship over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28) was an important element in the hostility he aroused in those who felt that Sabbath traditions were incumbent on all Jews (e.g., Mark 3:6; John 5:18). Jesus’ attitude toward the Sabbath, coupled with the tradition that his resurrection occurred on the first day of the week (Sunday; cf. Matt. 28:1), meant that Sunday rather than the Sabbath (Saturday) became the chief liturgical day for Christians. Achtemeier, Paul J. ; Harper & Row, Publishers ; Society of Biblical Literature: Harper's Bible Dictionary. 1st ed. San Francisco : Harper & Row, 1985, S. 889

George and George's Friends, Some may have read between the lines of some of my posts. George and I go back a long time. There are few days when I don't ask, "What would George do?" I'm not exaggerating. George and I met on another message board which was eventually joined with this forum. With George's and other's guidance I've become a "soft" atheist to the point I don't like being referred to as an atheist. George had much advice, mostly in question form, leading me to my current appreciation of religion and Jesus. He most famously always stated religion is not the problem, the people within religion is the problem. So prophetic. George knows my feelings for him and when I write these adulations I can imagine his flushing in embarrassment even though we've never met. George corrected when I was wrong, George acquiesced when I made good points. I know George has had the same effect on many others. I'm just sorry his tenure is over here. Knowing he is principled and when he says Goodbye he means it. Consequently, he will not see this and other posts but I would be interested, if not pressing a protocol button, if he has changed other members lives. George will be missed, but it's not George's loss, it is ours. In Total Respect for George, Ron

Bill, Thanks for the Cain recommendation. I just finished rereading Macobby's The Mythmaker and Cain may be my next read. Ron

Way, I'm not familiar with "Jesus' gospel." Am I behind times? Ron

Dr. Tabor's overall thesis, which is not unique nor new, is that Paul hijacked (my word) Jesus's religion. My take was the Jesus movement was within Judaism and was not to drastically change, just newly interpret, Pharisaism. Paul was in more conflict with the inheritors of the Jesus movement than is portrayed by ancient and current Christianity. And obviously Paul, not followers of Jesus, founded Christianity. Ron

Bill, Can't agree more with everything you wrote. Obviously, you're reading the same things I read. Have you read Tabor's Paul and Jesus, yet? Ron

Bound, Great topic. My reply to the instructor's question would be that Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. Ron

The reference to thievery in a culture reminded me of Sam Harris' FAQ on Violence rebuttal to criticism of his gun control stance. He quoted an interview of a couple of UK hooligans. The interview is worth reading. The difference in personal codes is pointed out in this part of the interview. - I: If you are such a good fighter why didn’t you have a fair fight with him? Steve: It was a fair fight. Where we come from that was fair an’ square. Just because we don’t follow Queensbury don’t mean that what we do ain’t fair. You know wot I’m sayin’. The only person at fault was the d**k I stabbed, he should ’ave know the rules. I mean, what the f***** ’e doin’ in Wood End and not knowin’ the crack. Maybe now he’ll learn.

I personally have no problem with it. Some situations might work. Jealousy is a spectrum sometimes to extreme, so in most cases this scenario would be a problem. Today's society is wont to accept only traditional relationships. It's pretty much only a mental exercise. Ron

Jonny, Dr. Ehrman's lay books are quite readable. There is overlap in some of his books as he likes to give background to most of his points. This makes each book pretty much stand alone. That is, they don't necessarily build on each other. A Brief Introduction to the New Testament might be a good start. It's not the usual 240 page-turner as some are, but I think it's a good starting point. Good Luck, Ron BTW, I didn't find Haidt's book easy to read. I think readability is dictated by the reader's interests. A friend once told me he never reads anything he doesn't agree with. Makes it simple, but very narrow reading unless one agrees with everything in the world. I guess that makes one less opinionated.

Mr. Orlando, Thank you so much for your post. And thank you so much for your promise to bring your film to Missouri. Within 150 miles, I promise to view it. There may be a supernatural watching over me after all. Thank you also for your input clarifying your understanding of Paul's bribe. Ron

Neon, Many months ago my quiz results came back as a non-believer. I don't recall the exact term, probably atheist (I dislike that term even though it would describe me so others can understand. I like Apatheist better, but is hard to explain). Thought I'd try again after your post. The quiz crashed prior to completion. Telling me something? BTW, I had been receiving a conservative newsletter, NewsMax, and never knew how I got on their list. Finally took time to unsubscribe during the election process. This morning I received another one from "NewsMax Media Beliefnet." Solves that mystery. The quiz seems to be a Trojan Horse, not the viral destructive kind, the kind that sucks you in under a clouded pretense. Just Saying! Unsubscribed again this morning.

Welcome, Kay, This is definitely a safe place to journey. Ron

Perusing this section it appears each of us have subsections within preferred written-word genres. A topic on the Old Bishop Spong message board asked our favorite books. A poster created a Spong Library which expanded my reading horizons. Would members be willing to post one or two books or authors they particularly follow? I will start - Dr. Bart Ehrman, Historical Christianity, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium Dr. Vardis Fisher, Historical Novels, Orphans in Gethsemane Mika Waltari, Historical Novels, The Egyptian Ron

George, Thanks for the Murphy recommendation. Found it for less than 10.00+. Until you mentioned The Early Christian Reader I had not heard of it. Ordered it that day. Should be in the mail today. Ron

Norm, Neon and George, The title of my topic should have been 2nd Temple Judaism as that was what I wanted to discuss. Thinking it was too broad I thought I could direct it that way. You have done that for me, thanks. My current readings lead me to believe our religious dogmas, whichever one believes in, were, and are currently being, developed around political and economic needs. The Essenes withdrew from the Sadducees because they were too liberal. The Pharisees let the Sadducees and the High Priest direct the Temple as long the Pharisees interpreted the law. The Jesus Movement questioned the law required such a narrow interpretation. The Zealots thought every other sect was too pacific. The Jesus Movement knew things were bad and a New World Kingdom had to come. The Jesus movement split to the Christians, Ebionites and who knows how many other sects. We could go on, but my point is that out of this came a couple general religions and many sects within each depending on ones needs, and sometimes only their current needs. Such as Rabbinical Judaism only because the Temple was no longer available. , Protestantism because the Pope's Basilica was costing too much. I know I'm generalizing, but hope most get my points, right or wrong. I enjoy discussing how this all developed. Ron

George, Your question is very interesting. Could we also ask, when did the Christian Jews make a definitive break from Judaism and became Christians abandoning Jewish tradition such as Saturday Sabbath? Was it gradual starting with the Jerusalem Council? I'm sure scholars have suggestions. Another challenge? Maybe others will have input. Ron PS Maybe we can now open the concordances.

Norm, Thanks for the encouragement. Recent readings have elevated my respect for the Jewish traditions, especially pre- and post-Second Temple traditions. If this thread develops further I'd like to expound on that. Ron

Daniel, Welcome. Appears you have much to offer. Ron

Skyseeker, Whew. Lots to look at. Like you I'm currently rereading parts of the New Testament while suppressing in my mind traditional orthodox Christian interpretations. I'm coming up with a new understanding of early Christianity. I will have to digest this for awhile. Ron PS. Welcome!

Neon, Don’t some scholars feel Mark was written prior to the 2nd Temple’s destruction? And, Matthew’s written just after the fall, or at least during the seige? If this holds, maybe Mark was more “relaxed” in that the Jewish people, both followers of Jesus and traditional Judaism, were not so concerned about being in the best of graces with the Empire. After the destruction, the people were less certain the Messiah was on his way to destroy the “Old Kingdom” and possibly the “New Kingdom” was a dream. Hence, to the point I’m making. After the destruction Judaism was in a more appeasement mode toward the Romans. There was a tension in that traditional Jewish people were in competition with the new Christian Jews for Roman favors. Hence, Matthew wanted Jesus to look less contentious to the Jews. And, maybe this is what most of you are saying. I’m new to this thinking. That’s a long way to say maybe Matthew put words in Jesus’s mouth to appease the Jews and Romans? After all, the Jewish religion had Rome’s favor, as an antiquated faith, and the new Christian Jews did not. This is not off topic of my intentions of the original topic. Where I'm headed is that Jesus, Paul and the Gospel's authors were living within the economic and political system and were compensating through what they knew at the time - metaphysical intervention (and possible manipulation of the metaphysical intervention). I know I'm getting into blasphemous territory on a Christian forum, but, I'm interested in other's thoughts. Ron

George, My reasoning for asking personal thoughts as opposed to quotes was to get members thoughts. My concerns were unfounded. You can so succinctly cuff me. It probably is without question some thought "Jesus came to abolish the law." The Christian traditional thinking is also that, no? Or, at least further it into the messianic era, no? I'm beginning to question His purpose after reading some recent sources, Tabor, Heemstra, Maccoby, Eisenman, Butz and others. Ron