I have no idea what you're talking about

Post #175,398 by Nightowl 9/21/04 11:41:00 AM Reply	I have no idea what you're talking about The New Covenant had to do with the old ways being no longer necessary, and nothing to do with who was the chosen people, at least as far as I've been taught. Nightowl >8# "It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends." (Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
Post #175,402 by boxley 9/21/04 11:45:08 AM Reply	new covenant was made up by paul who took the teachings of a Jewish prophet and warped them into his own self serving misogynist religion then killed off any dissentors and started amassing worldly wealth making the priest class equal to the ruling class with no taxes levied or paid. thanx, bill These miserable swine, having nothing but illusions to live on, marshmallows for the soul in place of good meat, will now stoop to any disgusting level to prevent even those miserable morsels from vanishing into thin air. The country is being destroyed by these stupid, vicious right-wing fanatics, the spiritual brothers of the brownshirts and redstars, collectivists and authoritarians all, who would not know freedom if it bit them on the ass, who spend all their time trying to stamp, bludgeon, and eviscerate the very idea of the individual's right to his own private world. DRL questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #175,405 by Nightowl 9/21/04 11:48:18 AM Reply	WHA??? You and I must be thinking of two different things then. According to my church, the New Covenant was put into effect when Christ held the Last Supper, and gave us an out for our sins. We no longer had to sacrifice bulls and cows and things and no longer had to live by the old ways. I'm not sure what NC you all are talking about. Nightowl >8# "It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends." (Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
Post #175,411 by boxley 9/21/04 11:59:37 AM Reply	Your church is confused If you ask your pastor it was paul(who didnt attend the last supper) arguing that the apostles who did attend the last supper that they were wrong in demanding that converts be circumcised and eat kosher and do sacrifice. Also at Jesus trial he was charged with wanting to break the law, and he stated that the law would remain unchanged util the end of time. Not trying to bust your belief system but if you are happy worshipping the way you are there is no point in trying to examine the maskings of sausage like we do around here. You might want to stay out of theologic conversations. thanx, bill These miserable swine, having nothing but illusions to live on, marshmallows for the soul in place of good meat, will now stoop to any disgusting level to prevent even those miserable morsels from vanishing into thin air. The country is being destroyed by these stupid, vicious right-wing fanatics, the spiritual brothers of the brownshirts and redstars, collectivists and authoritarians all, who would not know freedom if it bit them on the ass, who spend all their time trying to stamp, bludgeon, and eviscerate the very idea of the individual's right to his own private world. DRL questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #175,418 by Nightowl 9/21/04 12:16:18 PM Reply	Maybe it's just me who's confused If you ask your pastor it was paul(who didnt attend the last supper) arguing that the apostles who did attend the last supper that they were wrong in demanding that converts be circumcised and eat kosher and do sacrifice. As I explained to Ben, I didn't know it was Paul who put it into effect, I just knew Jesus told them about it during the Last Supper, although rather figuratively, and that it went into effect when He died. Not trying to bust your belief system but if you are happy worshipping the way you are there is no point in trying to examine the maskings of sausage like we do around here. You might want to stay out of theologic conversations. Look, I normally try to stay OUT of religious (and political) discussions for the most part. The only reason I got into this one was I couldn't handle people saying that religion is the root of all evil. I don't know ALL about my old church's creeds and credences, because I'm not there anymore, and the Baptist church often says and does things quite differently, but I do remember the New Covenant being a promise for us from God/Jesus etc, that we were freed from our sins if we accepted him and no longer had to sacrifice cows and things. Maybe there's a lot more to it, but that's the part I remember most. And I forgot to mention to Ben in the other post, that I don't know where it's at in the Bible. I'm not that good at searching scriptures. Nightowl >8# "It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends." (Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
Post #175,419 by boxley 9/21/04 12:33:10 PM Reply	well the root of all evil is religion because evil must have a form and followers to create great death in the world. Ordinary people wont go out and do evil for fun or profit, they must believe in their hearts that evil is nescesary. This requires form and pomp, much public display and ritual. Religion, either creating or Hijacking one is the easiest and fastest way to get there. thanx, bill These miserable swine, having nothing but illusions to live on, marshmallows for the soul in place of good meat, will now stoop to any disgusting level to prevent even those miserable morsels from vanishing into thin air. The country is being destroyed by these stupid, vicious right-wing fanatics, the spiritual brothers of the brownshirts and redstars, collectivists and authoritarians all, who would not know freedom if it bit them on the ass, who spend all their time trying to stamp, bludgeon, and eviscerate the very idea of the individual's right to his own private world. DRL questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #175,421 by Nightowl 9/21/04 12:34:25 PM Reply	PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTT Nightowl >8# "It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends." (Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
Post #175,439 by pwhysall 9/21/04 1:51:03 PM Reply	Good comeback. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #175,513 by danreck 9/21/04 6:16:13 PM Reply	Re: Good comeback. You like that one, eh? Fwaaaap... :-O Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #175,424 by deSitter 9/21/04 12:48:43 PM Reply	Deep -drl
Post #175,430 by FuManChu 9/21/04 1:17:56 PM Reply	That's not a Hebraic idea The use of the word "evil" in the OT is extremely problematic. The same root gets used for every connotation from "bad" to "harmful" to "unfortunate" to "wicked" (disobedient). Regardless: Ge 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Ge 8:21 The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. No pomp or ritual is necessary. By the way, evil is not the same thing as sin. Lev 4 makes it pretty clear that sin is something which is unintentional, and only realized by the actor after the fact. Both the Old and New Covenants address sin, not evil.
Post #175,437 by boxley 9/21/04 1:47:35 PM Reply	no hebrew required :-) just looking at the historical record of evil as defined by me. Easiest and fastest way to kill,enslave and wreak havoc on a neigbor was wrap it up in a religious banner. thanx, bill These miserable swine, having nothing but illusions to live on, marshmallows for the soul in place of good meat, will now stoop to any disgusting level to prevent even those miserable morsels from vanishing into thin air. The country is being destroyed by these stupid, vicious right-wing fanatics, the spiritual brothers of the brownshirts and redstars, collectivists and authoritarians all, who would not know freedom if it bit them on the ass, who spend all their time trying to stamp, bludgeon, and eviscerate the very idea of the individual's right to his own private world. DRL questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #175,519 by Arkadiy 9/21/04 6:50:33 PM Reply	Say "ideology" and I'll agree. Non-monotheistic religions are mostly not strong enough ideologies to use for evil. The statement "I believe in Zeus" is just not serious enough, because it has to be followed with "... and Poseidon, and Athena, and Hercules, and Hermafrodit, and Narciss" - it gets ridiculous. To be powerful enough for evil, the ideology has to be able to de-humanise a portion of humanity. Before the advent of Christianity, world made do with non-religious ideologies for atrocities. Ellinistic culture and Roman Empire are two that we all know about. I have no idea what Genghis had for ideology, but there must have been some. The idea of Big Three religions - there is _nothing_ except God, free will is a paradox - introduced a new ideology, plenty powerful enough to be used for evil. I don't know if Hinduism was powerful enough from the beginning or "learned" from the Big Three. Also, please note that the development of ideologies did not stop on religion. Marxism produced a newer powerful ideology that was used for evil. The basic idea that those who have are all robbers and not quite people is powerful enough. Faschism, OTOH, is not new, just recycled Roman Empire, or Egyptian Empire or whatever else. The interesting thing about monotheistic religion is that, when applied properly, to its logical extent, it dehumanises entire humanity, not a part of it. In the end, a saint, a sinner and an unbeliever are equal before the infinity of God. That's more than can be said about the other ideologies I saw so far. That makes religion less suited to use for evil, and less responsible for the evils that are commited in its name in my eyes. -- ... a reference to Presidente Arbusto. -- [link\|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html\|Geoffrey K. Pullum]
Post #175,537 by a6l6e6x 9/21/04 8:32:43 PM Reply	But you're forgetting Mars, the God of War. [link\|http://www.meridiangraphics.net/mars.htm\|Mars]. Mars, the Roman God of War, was one of the most worshipped and revered gods throughout ancient Rome. He was the son of Jupiter and Juno and according to legend, fathered Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, with the vestal virgin Rhea Silvia. Because of this mythological lineage, the Roman people felt as though they were also the children of Mars and he was regarded as their protector. Mars held a special place in the Roman Pantheon not only for his patronly influence, but because of the importance of military achievement in the republic and the Roman Empire, conquering Northern Africa and much of Europe and the Middle East. Alex "If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -- Philip K. Dick, US science fiction writer
Post #175,586 by FuManChu 9/22/04 1:27:24 AM Reply	Intriguing concept But IMO there have been far too many polytheistic societies with "evil" behavior bound to one god or another. The most persistent in the Middle East for centuries was probably Moloch: [link\|http://www.fact-index.com/m/mo/moloch.html\|http://www.fact-inde.../m/mo/moloch.html] [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch] ...the most famous atrocity done in his name being the regular sacrifice of human babies. Although the original MLK deity may have sprung from a monotheistic culture (and even that's doubtful), he continued to appear well into the Babylonian period and beyond, each wave of conquest incorporating him into Yet Another Pantheon. One might also easily mention the Aztecs' god of war, Huitzilopochtli, and the ritual human sacrifice and cannibalism performed in his name (among others in the same pantheon). Before the advent of Christianity, world made do with non-religious ideologies for atrocities. Ellinistic culture and Roman Empire are two that we all know about. I would put that more at the feet of a general atheistic trend which always accompanies large people-movements. Both the Greeks and Romans brought about and therefore experienced a large number of cultural upheavals. An increase in the pantheon followed each such shuffling, to the point of unsustainability which you mention. So I think you're right to say "there's a point at which polytheism loses its potency as a ideological basis for behavior." But I don't think you can then say _all_ polytheistic systems have been impotent. There's a critical mass which has only occurred (to my knowledge) a few times in history.
Post #175,606 by Arkadiy 9/22/04 8:53:59 AM Reply	I have to agree that polytheistic civilization commited attrocities. But I am not sure if they indeed used religion as the excuse for real industrial-grade evil - killing off entire cities or nations, like Crusaders did to Constantinople, Nazies to Jews and Stalin to Chechens. Aztec gods and Moloch required human sacrifices, which is a horrible deed, but, when their followers set out to subjugate neighbors, did they do it because Moloch told them he needs more victims? I do not know enough about Aztecs, but Carthage's commercial expansion brought it in conflict with Rome, not religion. Mars is another good example. Are Romans favored by Mars because the conquer, or are they conquering to please Mars? I thing former is closer to Romans' feelings. -- ... a reference to Presidente Arbusto. -- [link\|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html\|Geoffrey K. Pullum]
Post #175,757 by FuManChu 9/22/04 2:30:24 PM Reply	In the Aztec case, yes The impetus for conquest was directly tied to the bloodthirstiness of the war god. They only killed and cannibalized their own when they ran out of nearby enemies. All I'm saying is that Rome, and to a lesser extent Greece, had atheistic "industrial-grade evil" because they had acheived a critical mass of polytheism after numerous waves of conquest. Early Rome was much more bound to its pantheon as a sincere justification for behavior than later Rome was. So it's not polytheism per se which diffuses religious justification, IMO--instead, there's a watershed point when enough cultures have collided and mixed their pantheons. The Aztecs never had the opportunity to attain that watershed point, for example; their one chance came with European contact, and they didn't survive that long enough to see the polytheistic results. One might argue that Europe, itself, has reached that point, and that Hitler and Stalin are outcomes. I would guess that Chang Kai-shek and Mao Tse-tung (and other atheistic communist revolutionaries) functioned equivalently; they all were attempting cultural consolidation in the face of cultural uncertainty (with an economic factor, to be sure). The fact that they were able to do so atheistically was dependent upon the number and frequency of those same cultural collisions which forced the revolutions themselves. IMO. I'm not going to make a doctoral thesis out of all this. ;)
Post #175,412 by ben_tilly 9/21/04 12:01:51 PM Reply	Nope, you're talking the same thing According to Paul, the New Covenant went into effect after Christ died for our sins. But where in the Bible is the new covenant actually specified? Cheers, Ben About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Post #175,417 by Nightowl 9/21/04 12:11:58 PM Reply	Re: Nope, you're talking the same thing That part, yes, it didn't go into effect till He died, I guess I didn't know it was Paul who explained it, I just knew Jesus brought it into effect. But Jesus TOLD them about it, so to speak. during the Last Supper. My pastor says frequently, during communion, that we drink to the New Covenant which was brought about by the shedding of Jesus blood. Nightowl >8# "It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends." (Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
Post #175,426 by ben_tilly 9/21/04 12:57:17 PM Reply	No, you don't know that You believe it, which is different kettle of fish entirely. And you believe it, not because you have examined your beliefs or the relevant text, but because your pastor keeps on telling you that that's what was meant. Maybe your pastor is right. Maybe your pastor is wrong. Maybe you'd agree if you looked into it for yourself. Maybe you'd disagree. But you know the answers to none of those questions because you've never attempted to apply critical thought to your own beliefs. You don't have to - lots of people don't. But I'd appreciate it if you could keep from confusing unexamined beliefs with actual knowledge. Regards, Ben About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Post #175,440 by Nightowl 9/21/04 1:55:08 PM Reply	Re: No, you don't know that You believe it, which is different kettle of fish entirely. I disagree. What people know is what they learn, see, or hear. I've learned and or heard it. Believing it is entirely different from having learned and or heard. I don't know any other description for know, other than, "I've thorougly researched this in triplicate and compared all the facts" and very very few people do that with anything or everything. For example, I KNOW the sky is blue. I don't know why it looks blue, but the evidence shows me it is blue. I know regular pianos have 88 keys, not because I've counted them, but because I've been told. So in this case, I know what I've learned, and I stated it. If it is incorrect knowledge, then that's different, I still know it as what I learned. And you believe it, not because you have examined your beliefs or the relevant text, but because your pastor keeps on telling you that that's what was meant. Maybe your pastor is right. Maybe your pastor is wrong. Maybe you'd agree if you looked into it for yourself. Maybe you'd disagree. I examined my beliefs long ago, and was happy in my original church. Since then, my faith was shaken, and I've been struggling with that ever since, so I am still re-finding my faith and my God. And I don't disagree. FuManChu gave you the scripture and said Jesus declared it, and that is what I said I knew. But you know the answers to none of those questions because you've never attempted to apply critical thought to your own beliefs. You don't have to - lots of people don't. But I'd appreciate it if you could keep from confusing unexamined beliefs with actual knowledge. How am I supposed to do that when I don't even know the difference? Like I said, knowledge is what I learn, see, or hear... it's not always correct. Some people analyze their religion, other people accept it. I don't analyze it, I believe in the basics, that God sent His son to die for us and take our sin away if we accept Him. That's the most important part to me, anyway. As I've said before... I don't normally get into religion discussions, and I've pretty much made my point where this one was concerned, thanks. Nightowl >8# "It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends." (Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
Post #175,829 by ben_tilly 9/22/04 8:01:44 PM Reply	Ah, the fun of epistemology First a disclaimer. Re-reading this thread I suspect that you may be saying, "I know what my Church teaches." While I've been reading that as, "I know what the Bible teaches." Those statements are different. If you meant the former, then everything else that I'm about to say can be disregarded... You believe it, which is different kettle of fish entirely. I disagree. What people know is what they learn, see, or hear. I've learned and or heard it. Believing it is entirely different from having learned and or heard. I don't know any other description for know, other than, "I've thorougly researched this in triplicate and compared all the facts" and very very few people do that with anything or everything. So if I tell you that up is down and the moon is made of green cheese, then you have heard that and by your definition now know that up is down and the moon is made of green cheese? I think not! As for your description of what "very very few people do", in fact it is what I have done on many things, and would likely do with everything had I infinite time to do it. Obviously there are different levels of certainty. But generally I won't grant that you know something until you have a pretty good idea why you think it, how to check it, and have enough knowledge to be able to answer common questions on it. For example, I KNOW the sky is blue. I don't know why it looks blue, but the evidence shows me it is blue. I know regular pianos have 88 keys, not because I've counted them, but because I've been told. Yes. And you know why you think it is blue. Furthermore if I came back with questions, you'd be able to make a reasonable attempt to answer them. For instance if I said, "If it is blue then why does it look at black at night?" you'd know about the role of the Sun. Also if I said, "But there's lots of grey and white up there" you'd know about clouds. As for pianos, if I challenged you on that, you'd know how to go to a piano and check for yourself how many keys it has. You might have trouble if I said, "Well I know that some pianos have 97 keys." But you'd guess that there are different models of pianos, even if you don't know that it is a Bosendorfer that can have that many keys. (I didn't know a second ago either until I checked Google.) So in this case, I know what I've learned, and I stated it. If it is incorrect knowledge, then that's different, I still know it as what I learned. How well do you know it? When boxley talked about Paul's role, you certainly didn't know what he was talking about well enough to recognize that he was talking about the same thing. That was even obvious to me - and I've never been inclined to Christianity nor have I ever studied the Bible! Nor, as you've admitted elsewhere, do you know the topic well enough to read the Bible and verify what you think it says. And you believe it, not because you have examined your beliefs or the relevant text, but because your pastor keeps on telling you that that's what was meant. Maybe your pastor is right. Maybe your pastor is wrong. Maybe you'd agree if you looked into it for yourself. Maybe you'd disagree. I examined my beliefs long ago, and was happy in my original church. Since then, my faith was shaken, and I've been struggling with that ever since, so I am still re-finding my faith and my God. And I don't disagree. FuManChu gave you the scripture and said Jesus declared it, and that is what I said I knew. If you read what FuManChu said in full, he went on to say that Paul wrote the end user documentation. What he means by that is that the majority of detail that people cite about what the New Covenant is and isn't comes from what Paul wrote. Which comes from a combination of Paul's understanding of what Jesus said and the particular situations that Paul was addressing. As FuManChu partially clarified, if you read what Jesus wrote and understand it in the same way that Paul did, you'll find that what Paul said logically flows from what Jesus said. However I think that FuManChu will agree that it is possible to read everything that Jesus said but not understand it like Paul did, in which case you'd think that Paul introduced stuff. FuManChu might go on to express his opinion that your understanding in this case would be a misunderstanding on your part. But deciding for yourself whether you agree with that further assertion would take learning a lot more about the Bible. But you know the answers to none of those questions because you've never attempted to apply critical thought to your own beliefs. You don't have to - lots of people don't. But I'd appreciate it if you could keep from confusing unexamined beliefs with actual knowledge. How am I supposed to do that when I don't even know the difference? Like I said, knowledge is what I learn, see, or hear... it's not always correct. Some people analyze their religion, other people accept it. I don't analyze it, I believe in the basics, that God sent His son to die for us and take our sin away if we accept Him. That's the most important part to me, anyway. You could eliminate this issue by learning the difference. As I've said before... I don't normally get into religion discussions, and I've pretty much made my point where this one was concerned, thanks. Understood. Ben About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Post #175,831 by Nightowl 9/22/04 8:09:33 PM Reply	It was the former. I know what my church (old one) taught. :) Nightowl >8# "It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends." (Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
Post #175,834 by ben_tilly 9/22/04 8:23:38 PM Reply	I realized that was likely... after I'd typed up the bulk of the post. I hate throwing that much typing away so I added the disclaimer and posted anyways... Ben About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Post #175,835 by Nightowl 9/22/04 8:27:10 PM Reply	That's ok It was still interesting to read, thanks. Nightowl >8# "It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends." (Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
Post #175,833 by daemon 9/22/04 8:18:42 PM Reply	Re: Ah, the fun of epistemology what does studying bare beavers have to do with religion? Oh, never mind, carry on regards daemon
Post #175,431 by FuManChu 9/21/04 1:27:53 PM Reply	Are you asking Owl or anyone? Luke 22, e.g. Jesus declared new_covenant() and Paul wrote the end-user documentation. ;)
Post #175,435 by Nightowl 9/21/04 1:37:52 PM Reply	Thanks! I KNEW He declared it. :) Nightowl >8# "It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends." (Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
Post #175,438 by boxley 9/21/04 1:48:05 PM Reply	thats an interpretation :-) These miserable swine, having nothing but illusions to live on, marshmallows for the soul in place of good meat, will now stoop to any disgusting level to prevent even those miserable morsels from vanishing into thin air. The country is being destroyed by these stupid, vicious right-wing fanatics, the spiritual brothers of the brownshirts and redstars, collectivists and authoritarians all, who would not know freedom if it bit them on the ass, who spend all their time trying to stamp, bludgeon, and eviscerate the very idea of the individual's right to his own private world. DRL questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #175,442 by FuManChu 9/21/04 2:16:13 PM Reply	Yessss...... You buy "WordPerfect for Dummies" and then declare that book to be a commentary on how to understand and use WordPerfect. If you want to call that an "interpretation", go ahead, I guess. ;) I can't think of a single concept which Paul introduces in his commentary which isn't fundamentally grounded in an OT mindset. I can think of plenty of ideas and motivations which have been ascribed to both Paul and Jesus which don't have that grounding, mostly along the lines of "behavior X means Y in 21st-century white American culture; therefore when Jesus or Paul did X it means Y". Appalling anthropology, akin to writing a "WordPerfect for Dummies" which only talks about MS Word.
Post #175,449 by boxley 9/21/04 3:10:41 PM Reply	Well not to revisit our pauline discussions his commentary about the role of women and men differs from the accepted norms of the OT. Actually his point about gentiles not having to convert to judaism to be christians was reasonable and being gentiles were not bound by contract to eat kosher but I dont recall where Jesus overthrew the covenant with the Jews and gave it to the gentiles, it was christians later that "interpreted" thats what Jesus really meant. thanx, bill These miserable swine, having nothing but illusions to live on, marshmallows for the soul in place of good meat, will now stoop to any disgusting level to prevent even those miserable morsels from vanishing into thin air. The country is being destroyed by these stupid, vicious right-wing fanatics, the spiritual brothers of the brownshirts and redstars, collectivists and authoritarians all, who would not know freedom if it bit them on the ass, who spend all their time trying to stamp, bludgeon, and eviscerate the very idea of the individual's right to his own private world. DRL questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #175,501 by FuManChu 9/21/04 5:26:06 PM Reply	Well, that's a guess on your part. "Can't I have just a little bit of peril?" ;) In the absence of a document where Jesus spells it out, you choose to believe it was a late idea, and therefore an extraneous one. I will point out that Luke records some divine corroboration for Paul's ministry to the Gentiles: in Acts 9, the Lord told Ananias that Paul was to bear His Name to them. But more importantly, Peter (and the others who had been given direct authority over interpretation of the Covenant) accepted Paul's arguments (cf Acts 10). Peter attests in that passage to the "gift of the Holy Spirit" (considered a sign of the covenant) being "poured out" on the Gentiles. Not to mention Peter's own vision, which he uses as his argument in Acts 11, and which his hearers accept as authoritative. Although there continued to be a vocal minority who wished for all Christians to be circumcised, the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 shows a leadership "having become of one mind" on the matter. All of which is to say, if you accept the visions and the apostles' consensus interpretation of prophecy as valid testimony, then there isn't much wiggle room. If you do not accept them, then you must guess what "really happened", since there is no accurate record. Again, I'm going to go with those who were actually there, witnesses to both Jesus in life and the events which transpired following his death--they had a much more complete picture of Jesus' position than you or I can have 2000 years later.

Welcome to IWETHEY!