Death of Paul

[flaja]

You can't see post #34? Here it is again.

Number 10 - To read the Shema` twice daily, as it is written "and thou shalt talk of them . . . when thou liest down, and when thou risest up" (Deuteronomy 6,7).
Number 11 - To learn Torah and to teach it, as it is written "thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children" (Deuteronomy 6,7).
Number 17 - For every man to write a Torah scroll for himself, as it is written "write ye this song for you" (Deuteronomy 31,19).
Thus the father was obligated as the sole teacher of his children in Jewish history (Deut. xi. 19).

I beg your pardon. You are 100% correct! I actually studied in college that it was highly unlikely that the Apostles could read and write. However, this clearly shows in Scripture that they could and should.

Here is the link:

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ucation#Israel"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ucation#Israel[/URL]

I am coming to the conclusion that I may need to get another ISP. You start this post with Number 10, but I don’t see 1-9. I would say that the trouble is with this board, but my ISP gives me trouble on other websites as well.

I’m glad that you brought up what the OT said about reading and writing. I was basing my conclusion about Jewish literacy on my general knowledge of history (40 credit hours in history along with my bachelor’s degree in biology, on top of the fact that I have studied history on my own almost for as long I could read) and my knowledge of Jewish custom. It used to be customary for Jewish mothers to cover a copy of the Torah with honey so their children would learn to associate reading the Torah with something enjoyable.

But, ironically the Schma Israel, one of the verses you mention, is probably the only part of the Bible that Jewish men were expected to memorize because they had to recite this prayer on each of their parent’s Yahrzeit, that is the annual anniversary of their death, and they are supposed to say the prayer for themselves when they know they are about to die. Herman Wouk, a Jewish writer, who served as the executive officer on a destroyer during WWII once commented that you may ask how anyone could have the presence of mind to say the Schma when they think they are about to die, but he recalls saying it many times while reaching for a lifeline when his ship was in a storm. But apart from the Schma I would venture that nothing else in the OT was to be memorized. The professional scribes that prepared copies of Jewish Scripture could not write one single letter from memory. They had to copy an existing copy and they had to read each word out loud before they wrote it.

My entire point is that the Jewish society in which Christianity started (both in Judea and in the greater Hellenic world) was highly literate. This means that the earliest Christians didn’t need to rely on an oral tradition.

An oral tradition, be it real or imaginary, makes it easy to see things that weren’t really there. Neither the Bible, nor (to my knowledge) any other written document, made any record of how, when or where Peter and Paul died. I would venture that no one on earth knew how to answer these questions because God didn’t want them to be answered. If the place had been recorded it could have easily become a center for pilgrimages and the veneration of relic, which are things that God does not want, but which the Roman Catholic Church encourages anyway. Basing the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church on an oral tradition that essentially has no foundation in fact, makes Roman Catholics look foolish.

 

[Lisa0315]

I am coming to the conclusion that I may need to get another ISP. You start this post with Number 10, but I don’t see 1-9. I would say that the trouble is with this board, but my ISP gives me trouble on other websites as well.

I’m glad that you brought up what the OT said about reading and writing. I was basing my conclusion about Jewish literacy on my general knowledge of history (40 credit hours in history along with my bachelor’s degree in biology, on top of the fact that I have studied history on my own almost for as long I could read) and my knowledge of Jewish custom. It used to be customary for Jewish mothers to cover a copy of the Torah with honey so their children would learn to associate reading the Torah with something enjoyable.

But, ironically the Schma Israel, one of the verses you mention, is probably the only part of the Bible that Jewish men were expected to memorize because they had to recite this prayer on each of their parent’s Yahrzeit, that is the annual anniversary of their death, and they are supposed to say the prayer for themselves when they know they are about to die. Herman Wouk, a Jewish writer, who served as the executive officer on a destroyer during WWII once commented that you may ask how anyone could have the presence of mind to say the Schma when they think they are about to die, but he recalls saying it many times while reaching for a lifeline when his ship was in a storm. But apart from the Schma I would venture that nothing else in the OT was to be memorized. The professional scribes that prepared copies of Jewish Scripture could not write one single letter from memory. They had to copy an existing copy and they had to read each word out loud before they wrote it.

My entire point is that the Jewish society in which Christianity started (both in Judea and in the greater Hellenic world) was highly literate. This means that the earliest Christians didn’t need to rely on an oral tradition.

An oral tradition, be it real or imaginary, makes it easy to see things that weren’t really there. Neither the Bible, nor (to my knowledge) any other written document, made any record of how, when or where Peter and Paul died. I would venture that no one on earth knew how to answer these questions because God didn’t want them to be answered. If the place had been recorded it could have easily become a center for pilgrimages and the veneration of relic, which are things that God does not want, but which the Roman Catholic Church encourages anyway. Basing the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church on an oral tradition that essentially has no foundation in fact, makes Roman Catholics look foolish.

You are not seeing things. I only copied from 10 down.

Lisa

 

[flaja]

You can't see post #34? Here it is again.

I think I see the problem now. While I was preparing a reply to the last post of yours that I saw, you posted a follow-up to your last post and it appeared here just before my reply did. But I was expecting wat you said in post #34 to follow my reply, which was #35. If multiple people are posting here at the same time you cannot simply use your back button and be up-to-date. You evidently have to re-boot the website to see what gets posted while you are replying to something that is already here.

 

[Lisa0315]

I think I see the problem now. While I was preparing a reply to the last post of yours that I saw, you posted a follow-up to your last post and it appeared here just before my reply did. But I was expecting wat you said in post #34 to follow my reply, which was #35. If multiple people are posting here at the same time you cannot simply use your back button and be up-to-date. You evidently have to re-boot the website to see what gets posted while you are replying to something that is already here.

Yeah, or just hit F5 to refresh.

Lisa

 

[marvmax]

One of my first threads on this board was in regards to the issue of Biblical inerrancy in terms of manuscript copies and translations of the Bible. I am not convinced that the Bible is inerrant in every single detail, but I do insist that it is a complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible record of doctrine, both in the original documents and in certain copies and translations thereof.

OK. Well like I said I'm new here.

Or they were false Christians, inspired by Satan and thus were doing everything they could distort doctrine and the Biblical record.

Well now that's a little harsh isn't it. You do know that it was men like Eusebius who participated in the Nicene Council where the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated. And if you don't follow the Nicene Creed then you owe them the very fact that you have a Bible at all because they are the ones who fought for the faith when it meant that you sometimes died for believing, or owning the sacred books of the Christian sect. I just can't believe anyone can say with a straight face that the think the patristic fathers were inspired by Satan.

 

[flaja]

Well now that's a little harsh isn't it. You do know that it was men like Eusebius who participated in the Nicene Council where the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated. And if you don't follow the Nicene Creed then you owe them the very fact that you have a Bible at all because they are the ones who fought for the faith when it meant that you sometimes died for believing, or owning the sacred books of the Christian sect. I just can't believe anyone can say with a straight face that the think the patristic fathers were inspired by Satan.

The Council of Nicea wasn’t binding on anyone. Although orthodoxy won out at the conference with Constantine seemingly agreeing, it wasn’t long before Constantine decided to favor the Arians for political purposes. Constantine exiled Athanasius from his post in Alexandria and Athanasius would spend the rest of his life repeatedly being recalled only to be exiled again.

As for Constantine himself, he wasn’t baptized until on his deathbed and it was an Arian bishop that performed the baptism. For all intents and purposes Constantine never accepted Jesus Christ as God; Constantine was not a Christian.


I owe a debt to legitimate Christians like Athanasius. I owe the Arians absolutely nothing.

Furthermore, during the persecution of Diocletian false copies of the Bible were in fact made. Diocletian had ordered that all copies of Christian Scripture be turned over to the government so they could be destroyed. Christians willfully disobeyed the emperor’s order and some of them suffered martyrdom. But other people, false Christians, willfully created altered and inaccurate copies of Scripture and gave them to the government as decoys.

 

[marvmax]

The Council of Nicea wasn’t binding on anyone. Although orthodoxy won out at the conference with Constantine seemingly agreeing, it wasn’t long before Constantine decided to favor the Arians for political purposes. Constantine exiled Athanasius from his post in Alexandria and Athanasius would spend the rest of his life repeatedly being recalled only to be exiled again.

As for Constantine himself, he wasn’t baptized until on his deathbed and it was an Arian bishop that performed the baptism. For all intents and purposes Constantine never accepted Jesus Christ as God; Constantine was not a Christian.


I owe a debt to legitimate Christians like Athanasius. I owe the Arians absolutely nothing.

Furthermore, during the persecution of Diocletian false copies of the Bible were in fact made. Diocletian had ordered that all copies of Christian Scripture be turned over to the government so they could be destroyed. Christians willfully disobeyed the emperor’s order and some of them suffered martyrdom. But other people, false Christians, willfully created altered and inaccurate copies of Scripture and gave them to the government as decoys.

I agree with everything you said. However, any early Christian whose writings we still have, such as Eusebius', we have because those Orthodox Christians such as Athanasius, kept them. I think saying any of them were inspired by Satan is ludicrous.

So just to be clear, you don't accept the Nicene Creed. I'm not going to make any assumptions.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The Council of Nicea wasn’t binding on anyone. Although orthodoxy won out at the conference with Constantine seemingly agreeing, it wasn’t long before Constantine decided to favor the Arians for political purposes. Constantine exiled Athanasius from his post in Alexandria and Athanasius would spend the rest of his life repeatedly being recalled only to be exiled again.

As for Constantine himself, he wasn’t baptized until on his deathbed and it was an Arian bishop that performed the baptism. For all intents and purposes Constantine never accepted Jesus Christ as God; Constantine was not a Christian.


I owe a debt to legitimate Christians like Athanasius. I owe the Arians absolutely nothing.

Furthermore, during the persecution of Diocletian false copies of the Bible were in fact made. Diocletian had ordered that all copies of Christian Scripture be turned over to the government so they could be destroyed. Christians willfully disobeyed the emperor’s order and some of them suffered martyrdom. But other people, false Christians, willfully created altered and inaccurate copies of Scripture and gave them to the government as decoys.

I have read about Arius and this counsel but have not heard about Constantine and the Arians (as you explained it) until now.

Interesting...

 

[flaja]

I agree with everything you said. However, any early Christian whose writings we still have, such as Eusebius', we have because those Orthodox Christians such as Athanasius, kept them. I think saying any of them were inspired by Satan is ludicrous.

Satan has no power of inspiration or preservation? Arianism is still around because un-Godly people wish to believe it, not because Christians preserved it.

So just to be clear, you don't accept the Nicene Creed. I'm not going to make any assumptions.

I do accept the Nicene Creed. God consists of three co-equal and co-eternal persons.