Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
MOD HAT...
Everyone; this is a proposal thread, not a debate thread. If you are going to debate this, then post your intent and I will set it up. If you don't want to engage the proposer in a formal debate, then please don't try and do so informally here.
OK?
Mark
Staff Supervisor
I don't agree with you, but I can already tell I like you. It's obvious you've put some real thought into this and the way that you accept an evolving religious background is intriguing. I'm not sure it would measure up under real scrutiny, but I like that it has some depth as opposed to "ignore all evidence that disagrees with my wants". Kudos!
I don't know - now I'm kinda wondering about a debate over whether or not it is important to Christianity's core teachings.
I think I'd be more willing to go that route as well. Something like: "Is the truth of Christianity depend on the literal historicity of the Torah?"
Although I think it could be framed better, something that would both take into account that your "Yes" answer isn't the answer of a literalist Christian but rather of a non-religious historian, and take into account the fact that my answer is not an absolute "No" but a qualified "No."
However it's worded, I think a good jumping off point would be the argument Paul makes in Romans 9-11, especially his thematic statement in 9:4-5: "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."
This has been an interesting subject for me and I've read enough to have some familiarity with it. And I do think an orthodox case can be defended. But while I know enough to discuss it, my knowledge isn't deep enough for debate. Sorry.
I'm cool with it. I won't be responding as quickly as usual though. I'm a little burned out on long posts =)
I would actually like to learn more about the ugaritic texts. I would also like to see how much there is to support the idea that seems to be gaining popularity with scholars that the ancient Hebrew religion evolved out of the Canaanite people. I believe there is a fair amount of evidence, both archaeological and textual, that this is not so. This would also open the debate to more fields of expertise. And while I am anything but expert, I have familiarized myself somewhat with some of the archaeological evidence. But to try to prove either assertion from purely a textual standpoint, I feel is a somewhat fruitless endeavor. I have studied biblical redaction of the NT texts, and eventually came to the conclusion that it was all rather pointless by itself, and that other factors needed to be considered in determining what texts are the most reliable or "most original."
I would actually like to learn more about the ugaritic texts. I would also like to see how much there is to support the idea that seems to be gaining popularity with scholars that the ancient Hebrew religion evolved out of the Canaanite people. I believe there is a fair amount of evidence, both archaeological and textual, that this is not so. This would also open the debate to more fields of expertise. And while I am anything but expert, I have familiarized myself somewhat with some of the archaeological evidence. But to try to prove either assertion from purely a textual standpoint, I feel is a somewhat fruitless endeavor. I have studied biblical redaction of the NT texts, and eventually came to the conclusion that it was all rather pointless by itself, and that other factors needed to be considered in determining what texts are the most reliable or "most original."
I'm cool with it. I won't be responding as quickly as usual though. I'm a little burned out on long posts =)
No worries; we can make the post size a little smaller here, say 500-1000 words. Let's see what GCC thinks.
I'm cool with it. I won't be responding as quickly as usual though. I'm a little burned out on long posts =)
Something of that length sounds good. I'm pretty wordy as everyone knows, so I'd say put it at 1000 but give each of us longer times to respond. But I'm willing to go with whatever works best for BLTN.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?