[Andyman_1970]

Yeah the 2 sentences that most of Western Christianity has ignored, gives great insight into the "why" of John's immersion (it was a Jewish mikvah) not something "new" that alot of Christian theologians think.

As to the 50 - 75 AD issue I disagree with your "only apologist" assertion.......John 5:2 where John uses "is" rather than "was" concerning the pool near the Sheep Gate. This may suggest a time before 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed.

From your favorite, Wikpedia.........

Today, most critical scholars are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three), beginning at an unknown time (50-70?) and culminating in the final edition (Gospel of John) around 95-100.

I'm not confusing it with Paul's letters........thanks..........

 

[Urban FR'er 666]

it is far cheaper to hold someone in prison for the entirety of their natural life then to put them to death.

WTF are you taking about?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mumble:
Are you out of your phucking mind?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To hold someone in prison, feed them 3 meals a day, supply electic/running water for the prison, hire guards to be there 24-7... All of this costs a #ell of a lott more that to put a rope around a persons neck, and pull the hatch release. Or to put them on a table and give them a shot. Or sit them in a chair and electricute them!

I got one word for you: "DUH"

 

[Silver]

WTF are you taking about?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mumble:
Are you out of your phucking mind?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To hold someone in prison, feed them 3 meals a day, supply electic/running water for the prison, hire guards to be there 24-7... All of this costs a #ell of a lott more that to put a rope around a persons neck, and pull the hatch release. Or to put them on a table and give them a shot. Or sit them in a chair and electricute them!

I got one word for you: "DUH"

That depends. If you're comparing what China spends to execute someone, I'd guess you're right. You are aware that executing someone in a civilized country usually has some other costs associated with it, no?

 

[Changleen]

WTF are you taking about?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mumble:
Are you out of your phucking mind?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To hold someone in prison, feed them 3 meals a day, supply electic/running water for the prison, hire guards to be there 24-7... All of this costs a #ell of a lott more that to put a rope around a persons neck, and pull the hatch release. Or to put them on a table and give them a shot. Or sit them in a chair and electricute them!

I got one word for you: "DUH"

You're wrong. In America, it does cost less to hold someone for their natural than for an execution. You're completely overlooking the thousands of associated costs. The same way it costs the US government 12,000 dollars to install a toilet in public building, or the $20p/h labourer who the government actually pay $120p/h once the costs have been passed up to the sub-contractor, the contractor, the project management company, the architect, and finally to the government department.

 

[Changleen]

Here you go: It apparantly costs Texas $1,500,000 more for each execution vs. the cost of life in prison. Ouch. That's a lot of teacher's salaries.

 

[Reactor]

Here you go: It apparantly costs Texas $1,500,000 more for each execution vs. the cost of life in prison. Ouch. That's a lot of teacher's salaries.

I'll second that. The cost of a death penalty case is in the millions, legal fees, transportation, court fees, tying up a staff of prosecution for years, multiple appeals to federal, circuit, and supreme courts.

 

[Urban FR'er 666]

Well that my friends is: "THE COST OF STUPIDITY", as it would appear in this case that China is the smarter half!!!(I can't believe who I just stuck-up for)

 

[JRogers]

Some of the lanugage used when Jesus references His disciples and John specifically in the Greek point to someone younger than 12.

I was not referencing the age question, just the authorship one.

About that, though- as a matter of curiosity, what parts point to Jesus addressing someone that young? I know enough Greek to get by (getting rustier by the day...) but cannot think of anything off the top of my head that appears in the gospels and would be an obvious tip off.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Yeah the 2 sentences that most of Western Christianity has ignored, gives great insight into the "why" of John's immersion (it was a Jewish mikvah) not something "new" that alot of Christian theologians think.

2 sentences. One of them is about the fact that Herod killed him. The other describes what he did. That's not "remarkable insight."

As to the 50 - 75 AD issue I disagree with your "only apologist" assertion.......John 5:2 where John uses "is" rather than "was" concerning the pool near the Sheep Gate. This may suggest a time before 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed.

From your favorite, Wikpedia.........

Low blow. I've stated I only use wiki for ease of use and only when it matches what other sources say (since anyone can change it.)

Also, I decided to double check your quote and I found it wanting.

From wiki:

Some other modern critical scholars concur with the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphical (i.e. those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). Some do not. For the Gospels, they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65, and Matthew some time between 70-85. Luke is usually placed in the 80-95 time frame.

And this:

Though John is agreed scholars place the gospel anywhere between AD 65 and 85, some scholars place the writing of the final edition of John later in the first or early second century.

(note: I'm using wiki here to counter your claim that it supports you.)

I'm not confusing it with Paul's letters........thanks..........

Perhaps not, but once again I find your claims to be inaccurate.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I was not referencing the age question, just the authorship one.

About that, though- as a matter of curiosity, what parts point to Jesus addressing someone that young? I know enough Greek to get by (getting rustier by the day...) but cannot think of anything off the top of my head that appears in the gospels and would be an obvious tip off.

There’s a passage when Jesus says “anyone that gives a drink of water to one of these little ones……….” (the specific passage escapes me………Matthew something) the Greek there gives the indication that He is referring to children, not to mention He is referring to His disciples.

 

[Andyman_1970]

2 sentences. One of them is about the fact that Herod killed him. The other describes what he did. That's not "remarkable insight."

With respect to the understanding of John’s baptism it gives some excellent insight which supports that John the Baptist was a rabbi, and that his immersion was for repentance, which is what the Jewish mikvah (ritual immersion) was for. Now I find it useful because many Christians try to place all sorts of meanings and understandings on John’s immersion that don’t line up with either Judaism or what Josephus wrote….so this is why I find it insightful.

There being useful information in that 2 sentences is not incumbent on you finding it remarkable or not…………..

Low blow. I've stated I only use wiki for ease of use and only when it matches what other sources say (since anyone can change it.)

Also, I decided to double check your quote and I found it wanting.

(note: I'm using wiki here to counter your claim that it supports you.)

Perhaps not, but once again I find your claims to be inaccurate.

The passage from John 5 still gives some evidence that it was written (not finished) when the Temple was still standing…….

 

[Old Man G Funk]

With respect to the understanding of John’s baptism it gives some excellent insight which supports that John the Baptist was a rabbi, and that his immersion was for repentance, which is what the Jewish mikvah (ritual immersion) was for. Now I find it useful because many Christians try to place all sorts of meanings and understandings on John’s immersion that don’t line up with either Judaism or what Josephus wrote….so this is why I find it insightful.

I don't recall it talking about repentance, just spiritual cleansing.

There being useful information in that 2 sentences is not incumbent on you finding it remarkable or not…………..

True dat, but there's really not much there at all. You are stretching on this one.

The passage from John 5 still gives some evidence that it was written (not finished) when the Temple was still standing…….

If I were writing something that supposedly took place before the toppling of the Berlin wall for instance, would I write that the wall is there or was there? This goes into the category of being able to name places and other things. It's called good narrative.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I don't recall it talking about repentance, just spiritual cleansing.

True dat, but there's really not much there at all. You are stretching on this one.

Do some research on mikvah and t'shuva........both are intertwined (along with the terms shalom and olam haba) and maybe you'll see where myself and many Jewish scholars have made that connection.

If you had been in as many baptism discussions (what does it mean, does it impute salvation, etc) then you'd see why that passage has the "weight" that it does.

If I were writing something that supposedly took place before the toppling of the Berlin wall for instance, would I write that the wall is there or was there? This goes into the category of being able to name places and other things. It's called good narrative.

Your assumption seems to be that John was "telling a story" rather than recounting actual events........an assumption I don't make. You're more than welcome to your assumption and opinion on the matter, I just disagree with it.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Do some research on mikvah and t'shuva........both are intertwined (along with the terms shalom and olam haba) and maybe you'll see where myself and many Jewish scholars have made that connection.

If you had been in as many baptism discussions (what does it mean, does it impute salvation, etc) then you'd see why that passage has the "weight" that it does.

Here's the passage in question. I'll let others decide, although I will say that you are including mikvah in there where it's not mentioned.

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

Your assumption seems to be that John was "telling a story" rather than recounting actual events........an assumption I don't make. You're more than welcome to your assumption and opinion on the matter, I just disagree with it.

It's not an assumption that John is "telling a story" but a pretty well established fact. How could he have known what Jesus did and said in private? Also, the time lines are just too long. The writer also never self identifies, nor does the writer say that he was there. I'm not the one making assumptions and your are unsubstantiated.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Here's the passage in question. I'll let others decide, although I will say that you are including mikvah in there where it's not mentioned.

So it's doesn't say "mikvah".......did you actually look up that term or are you just trying to be arguementative for the sake of it? John the Baptist was a Jew correct? So if he's teaching that Jew's need to immerse as a sign of repentance what is that Jewish practice called?? Hint...........it rhymes with "ikvah".........LOL

It's context man, context.

The writer also never self identifies, nor does the writer say that he was there.

Study ancient Jewish literary techniques and you'll see that one would not refer to themselves as we do today (remember John was a 1st century Jew, not a year 2005 Greek/Western educated Gentile) - you wouldn't say "I ran up to the tomb with Peter on that Sunday.......", John uses an ancient literary device he refers to himself as (which is a very humble title.......LOL) "the one Jesus loved".

Anyway..............where is this discussion going?????????

 

[Changleen]

Anyway..............where is this discussion going?????????

I was wondering the same thing

Did you guys decide on anything? I have to admit I've only been skimming over the last couple of pages and it's all got a bit.. erm.. off topic.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Yeah I agree..........off topic is an understatement.......

 

[Old Man G Funk]

So it's doesn't say "mikvah".......did you actually look up that term or are you just trying to be arguementative for the sake of it? John the Baptist was a Jew correct? So if he's teaching that Jew's need to immerse as a sign of repentance what is that Jewish practice called?? Hint...........it rhymes with "ikvah".........LOL

Purification of the body does not necessarily mean what you are trying to make it mean. That's what I'm talking about.

Study ancient Jewish literary techniques and you'll see that one would not refer to themselves as we do today (remember John was a 1st century Jew, not a year 2005 Greek/Western educated Gentile) - you wouldn't say "I ran up to the tomb with Peter on that Sunday.......", John uses an ancient literary device he refers to himself as (which is a very humble title.......LOL) "the one Jesus loved".

And your basis for that is a bunch of stories written as stories. Duh. If you knew as much about this as you claim to, you would know that most of the stories were passed by word of mouth from generation to generation, thus making it impossible for the writer to be anything but a storyteller.

Anyway..............where is this discussion going?????????

I was answering Enkidu's comments about taking the Bible literally. As it is, we are way off topic, and it was way off topic to begin with. I just had to satisfy my own ego and answer Enkidu's inane comments about Biblical literacy.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Purification of the body does not necessarily mean what you are trying to make it mean. That's what I'm talking about.

So John the Baptist wasn’t a Jew?

And your basis for that is a bunch of stories written as stories. Duh. If you knew as much about this as you claim to, you would know that most of the stories were passed by word of mouth from generation to generation, thus making it impossible for the writer to be anything but a storyteller.

I’ve never made the claim that parts of the Bible weren’t passed down by oral tradition and then written down – I have said that I don’t believe that to be the case with the Gospel of John.

If you want to have a civil discussion about this that’s great………but if you’re going throw around stuff like “If you knew as much about this as you claim to..” – which BTW you don’t know me very well at all, they you and I can conclude this discussion now with a friendly…………..we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I just had to satisfy my own ego………...

At least your honest about that………….

 

[Old Man G Funk]

So John the Baptist wasn’t a Jew?

Um, repentance is purification of the soul. It specifically says that the soul should already be purified.

I’ve never made the claim that parts of the Bible weren’t passed down by oral tradition and then written down – I have said that I don’t believe that to be the case with the Gospel of John.

And, you've done nothing to back it up.

If you want to have a civil discussion about this that’s great………but if you’re going throw around stuff like “If you knew as much about this as you claim to..” – which BTW you don’t know me very well at all, they you and I can conclude this discussion now with a friendly…………..we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Part of having a civil discussion is not misrepresenting facts. When you say things like, "Jesus is mentioned in such and such book written during his life" and I go check and find that not only was the book NOT written during his lifetime, but that it doesn't even mention him, then YOU are not having a civil discussion with me. When you link to Wikipedia and say that it supports you and then I have to go back and check only to find that it does NOT support you, then it is you who is not being civil.

At least your honest about that………….

I think the point is that I've been honest about everything.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Um, repentance is purification of the soul. It specifically says that the soul should already be purified.

That’s what a mikvah was, it was a ritual immersion to demonstrate that one had repented, or done t’shuva. This is what John the Baptist was doing. Did you actually check about t’shuva and mikvah?

Let me post some Jewish sources for you (so you don’t think I’m misrepresenting the facts):

http://www.nishma.org/articles/journal/tshuvah.htm#fn37

Some, like the Holy Ari'zal, even hold that a penitent should immerse him/herself in a mikveh when repenting, like a convert when converting, the analogy is so great. For immersion in a mikveh helps in rebirthing, because when a person, who is normally a land animal, immerses himself in the water of mikveh, his humanity becomes temporarily nullified in the all-water environment, and he comes out another person - i.e., reborn[38].

The process of rebirthing, by the way, solves a problem in tshuvah, which is: how can you be forgiven for something wrong you did in the world just by going through tshuvah, no matter how thoroughly? Can you deny the birth of an illegitimate child or bring a murder victim back to life?

(note the reborn language……..similar to Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus…..anyway)

Immersion and Teshuva http://www.mayyimhayyim.org/OurSourcesImmersion.asp

The Dynamics of Teshuva http://www.sichosinenglish.org/holiday/tishrei/teshuva.htm

"He who sets his heart on becoming purified (from ritual defilement) becomes pure as soon as he has immersed himself (in the waters of a mikveh), though nothing new has befallen his body. So, too, it is with one who sets his heart on cleansing himself from the impurities that beset man's soul - namely, wrongful thoughts and false convictions: as soon as he consents in his heart to withdraw from those counsels and brings his soul into the waters of reason, he is pure." (Note the analogy between teshuvah and the purifying waters of a mikveh.

So you can see (or I hope you can see) the relationship between mikvha (immersion) and repentance (teshuva), mikvah was done as a result of one repenting. Also to say that repentance, at least in the Hebraic understanding, is exclusively restricted to the purification of one’s soul does not capture the full meaning of teshuva.

Back to our “rabbit trail” of John the Baptist and Josephus. Josephus not only reinforces the Gospel accounts of JtB, but it also clarifies (and reinforces the meaning of mikvah) what John was doing………..which some sects of Christianity today fundamentally misunderstand.

And, you've done nothing to back it up.

So I didn’t state that the verse in John 5 gives an indication of such? While you may disagree with it, it is hardly fair of you to say I’ve done “nothing” to back up my point…..it’s more like “nothing you agree with”……let’s not misrepresent the facts now.

Part of having a civil discussion is not misrepresenting facts. When you say things like, "Jesus is mentioned in such and such book written during his life"

No where have I asserted that any of the Gospels were written during Jesus’ life or ministry. Also, I didn't asserted that the mentions of Jesus in the Mishnah were written during His life either. I would ask you as well to not misrepresent the facts.

then YOU are not having a civil discussion with me.

When you know me better you can make comments like “If you knew as much about this as you claim to”. However you’ve only been on here for like a month or two, and had interactions with me for less time that than……..that’s pretty rude making statements about what you think other people (who you barely know) know or don’t know……not being terribly civil.

 

[Reactor]

O.K.....
this seems to be getting way off topic. ;^)

 

[Andyman_1970]

Hey I'm not the one that started this rabbit trail.............take it up with the noob.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Hey I'm not the one that started this rabbit trail.............take it up with the noob.

I see how it is. You want to blame it all on the noob. Ha ha ha ha ha. Go back and read it and see who really started it. Hint, it wasn't me.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

That’s what a mikvah was, it was a ritual immersion to demonstrate that one had repented, or done t’shuva. This is what John the Baptist was doing. Did you actually check about t’shuva and mikvah?

Ugh. Once again, it says that the soul would already be purified. What part don't you get about that? This isn't immersion to purify the soul, because the soul is ALREADY PURIFIED. Jeez.

Back to our “rabbit trail” of John the Baptist and Josephus. Josephus not only reinforces the Gospel accounts of JtB, but it also clarifies (and reinforces the meaning of mikvah) what John was doing………..which some sects of Christianity today fundamentally misunderstand.

Um, considering that you don't know the difference between a soul that was purified before immersion and one that is purified by immersion, I think you should take care in leveling charges at other people's understandings of scripture.

So I didn’t state that the verse in John 5 gives an indication of such? While you may disagree with it, it is hardly fair of you to say I’ve done “nothing” to back up my point…..it’s more like “nothing you agree with”……let’s not misrepresent the facts now.

One verb text does not overcome the sheer imposibility of the writer being a disciple of Jesus and is easily explained by the fact that the literature was supposed to be relaying a story seen from the eyes of someone there. It's called being a good story teller.

No where have I asserted that any of the Gospels were written during Jesus’ life or ministry. Also, I didn't asserted that the mentions of Jesus in the Mishnah were written during His life either. I would ask you as well to not misrepresent the facts.

Do you not remember our talks in the evolution thread? You specifically stated that the mishnah mentions Jesus and intimated that it was written during the time of Jesus' life. Neither was true.

When you know me better you can make comments like “If you knew as much about this as you claim to”. However you’ve only been on here for like a month or two, and had interactions with me for less time that than……..that’s pretty rude making statements about what you think other people (who you barely know) know or don’t know……not being terribly civil.

Not when you make factually incorrect statements. What's rude is for you to condescend towards others and act like you are all that, then not be able to get your facts straight. What's rude is for you to say that a source backs you up only to have me double check it and find that what you quoted is NOT THERE. What's also rude is for you to act like the fact that I haven't been here for very long somehow makes A) me unworthy and B) my arguments invalid.

 

[Changleen]

I personally think you are both lucky that you have found a place to go on the internet where you can have decent, in depth discussion about these things you both obviously care about.

I mean, you're both clearly enjoying yourselves. Remember that. Don't kill it with niggly crap.

Also, There's no harm in 'testing' your opponent's research and depth of knowledge. That's part of the fun.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Remember that. Don't kill it with niggly crap.

Yes dad, we'll behave........................

 

[Andyman_1970]

Nice to see you on this evening………….

Ugh. Once again, it says that the soul would already be purified. What part don't you get about that? This isn't immersion to purify the soul, because the soul is ALREADY PURIFIED. Jeez.

Maybe we got our wires crossed…………the “soul is purified” through tshuva and the mikvah being a statement and symbol of said t’shuva.

Um, considering that you don't know the difference between a soul that was purified before immersion and one that is purified by immersion, I think you should take care in leveling charges at other people's understandings of scripture.

I think we miss understood each other. Immersion in the Judaic sense never purified a soul.

One verb text does not overcome the sheer imposibility of the writer being a disciple of Jesus and is easily explained by the fact that the literature was supposed to be relaying a story seen from the eyes of someone there. It's called being a good story teller.

We’ll agree to disagree then……………

Do you not remember our talks in the evolution thread? You specifically stated that the mishnah mentions Jesus and intimated that it was written during the time of Jesus' life. Neither was true.

Yes I sure do. Per your last post the perceived implication was that I asserted that Jesus was written about either in the Gospels or in the Mishah while He was alive. I’ve never asserted that, and could have read that into your post.

Check my post on the Jesus was a bad carpenter thread there is some information about the Mishah and Jesus (BTW several of Jesus’ quotes mirror saying from the Mishah). I’ll post the specific rabbi’s name when I get home, but a “school” was started right after the destruction of the Temple to put the Mishnah in one document rather than lots of documents floating around several rabbinic schools. So I stand by that the Mishah was around in some written from (not completed) as early as 100 BCE, which is about when the rabbi’s first started coming on the scene.

What's also rude is for you to act like the fact that I haven't been here for very long somehow makes A) me unworthy and B) my arguments invalid.

I’ve never asserted you’re arguments are invalid, they have actually pushed me to research. However I stand by my statements that it is perceived to be rude for someone to make blanket statements (derogatory none the less) about another individual whom they do not know very well and have had limited interaction with…....once you get to know me feel free to bash me all you want………….LOL

 

[Andyman_1970]

I’ll post the specific rabbi’s name when I get home, but a “school” was started right after the destruction of the Temple to put the Mishnah in one document rather than lots of documents floating around several rabbinic schools. So I stand by that the Mishah was around in some written from (not completed) as early as 100 BCE, which is about when the rabbi’s first started coming on the scene.

Rabbi Johanan beb Zakkai escaped from Jerusalem (circa 70AD) and founded an academy to preserve, discuss and debate the Mishnah on the coast near Javneh (which was later moved to Galilee (the center for orthodox Judaism in the 1st century).

 

[Reactor]

Hey I'm not the one that started this rabbit trail.............take it up with the noob.

LOL... I'm only kidding. I saw the exchange and it's the first thing that came to mind.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Nice to see you on this evening………….

My access has been rather limited this week, which explains the lack of replies...

Maybe we got our wires crossed…………the “soul is purified” through tshuva and the mikvah being a statement and symbol of said t’shuva.

I think we miss understood each other. Immersion in the Judaic sense never purified a soul.

If you are asserting that the mikvah is a statement of purification and not the actual act, then we can agree that that is what it says. I did not get that impression from your earlier comments, so mea culpa for misunderstanding.

We’ll agree to disagree then……………

Really, the timelines are very much stacked in my favor on this, but I'll let it drop for now.

Yes I sure do. Per your last post the perceived implication was that I asserted that Jesus was written about either in the Gospels or in the Mishah while He was alive. I’ve never asserted that, and could have read that into your post.

You certainly alluded to it and you definitely said Jesus was written about in the Mishnah. You responded in regards to a link I posted that dealt with the fact that no writings contemporary to Jesus mention him. Your response was that Jesus is mentioned multiple times in the Mishnah. I'm not sure how I could have taken that comment any other way.

Check my post on the Jesus was a bad carpenter thread there is some information about the Mishah and Jesus (BTW several of Jesus’ quotes mirror saying from the Mishah). I’ll post the specific rabbi’s name when I get home, but a “school” was started right after the destruction of the Temple to put the Mishnah in one document rather than lots of documents floating around several rabbinic schools. So I stand by that the Mishah was around in some written from (not completed) as early as 100 BCE, which is about when the rabbi’s first started coming on the scene.

It's a catch 22 though, because it still can't provide a contemporary reference to Jesus, let alone the fact that it doesn't mention Jesus at all.

I’ve never asserted you’re arguments are invalid, they have actually pushed me to research. However I stand by my statements that it is perceived to be rude for someone to make blanket statements (derogatory none the less) about another individual whom they do not know very well and have had limited interaction with…....once you get to know me feel free to bash me all you want………….LOL

My statement was towards some comments you have made on factual matters that I've found to be inaccurate. For that, I don't have to know you at all. If you make a factual error, then you simply don't know your facts as well as you say you do. The only thing I'm bashing is your condescension towards me and your inaccuracies.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally Posted by enkidu
No, it's quite literal. All four gospels (eg. Luke 22:14-20) recount the last Passover supper he had with his apostles the night before he was crucified. He said, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. . . Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."

You realize that to "drink blood" was to make oneself unclean according to Torah............remember Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, if He wasn't He would have been a false Messiah..........the early church was entirely Torah observant Jews until Acts 10.........Paul even says in Acts 23 he "is" a Pharisee (not was) which implies observance to Torah.

Enkidu, hey I want to publicly apologize for belittling your faith and the sacraments of your faith as well in this post. Lately I’ve come to realize that while I may think I'm (which I may or may not be) technically correct on an issue, more times that not “correcting” one of my brothers in the faith tends to do more harm than good. I think in the past there was a thread about Mary that I came down on you about as well……….again please accept my humble apology. It is certainly not my place to belittle a follower of Jesus, or the way they feel they are connected to Him, even if I disagree and/or don’t understand said sacraments.

Anyway………..this has been bugging me for a few days.

Shalom brother………..

 

[enkidu]

Enkidu, hey I want to publicly apologize for belittling your faith and the sacraments of your faith as well in this post. Lately I’ve come to realize that while I may think I'm (which I may or may not be) technically correct on an issue, more times that not “correcting” one of my brothers in the faith tends to do more harm than good. I think in the past there was a thread about Mary that I came down on you about as well……….again please accept my humble apology. It is certainly not my place to belittle a follower of Jesus, or the way they feel they are connected to Him, even if I disagree and/or don’t understand said sacraments.

Anyway………..this has been bugging me for a few days.

Shalom brother………..

Wow, I just came across this! (I was away on an assignment. I find it too time-consuming to keep up on the road.)

Andyman, no apology needed. I'm not offended at all. It's really refreshing to hear views from different perspectives. I appreciate your thoughts.

Oh, and that Anthony DeMello, the author of "The Song of The Bird" and "Taking Flight", whose definition of Theology and Mysticism I quoted earlier, is an Indian Jesuit priest. There's no theological "conflicts" between intuitive "knowing" and Biblical revelation. . . even for those in the midst of the Church. (. . . I guess I should be addressing this to Old Man G Funk.)

Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful note!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Feel free to address your contradiction anytime.