What does the term "Son of God" mean?
crunch
> On Nov 18, 9:57 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://thefriendlyfunnel.quakerism.net/
>
> > "I don’t believe Jesus was God. I don’t believe he was the son of God,
> > at least not in the virgin birth, unique way most Christians do. What
> > I do believe is that Jesus was a son of God....
>
> They'd need to demonstrate that there is a God first.
>
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse
This Friend (Friendly Funnel) speaks my mind. Here
is Dr. Thiering to show that the term ‘Son of God’
meant no more than a priest -
'Son of God' - looking closer to home.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1258
-----
Here is a straight answer to Roger Pearse on the
SHOCKING meaning of "God" in ancient sources -
From Lexicon on Dr. Thiering's official website
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_For_Reference.html
Extract -
God theos The title used for himself by an Annas priest, representing
God. "God" always has the meaning of a priest in the pesher. It was
held even by monotheistic Jews , especially in the Diaspora under
Hellenistic influence, that the high priest was above ordinary
humanity (Philo, On Dreams 2, 188-189). With the article, it refers to
his highest grade; without the article, his grade when he was "in the
body", at grade 3 in the village (John 20:17). The term theos was
applied to Jesus in John 1:1. He was called a god, theos, on Malta
(Acts 28:6 by RLR). Agrippa I was hailed as a god, Acts 12:22. Plu.
rep. gods, Acts 7:40. In the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,
substitute priests in the Diaspora are called "gods" and "priests" in
the Holy of Holies. 4Q400.
-----
David Christainsen
Tiglath
Son of God, is one of the many meaningless concepts of religion, which
includes God itself.
"Son" implies existence following the sexual reproduction of parents.
Which would mean that somehow Jesus came into existence after Yahweh
had procreated, which is absurd, even without bringing the
"mystery" (1=3) of the trinity."
Religion calls much for fantasizing about the deities, which being
perennially silent, invisible, and immaterial, compel those who abhor
the insufferable vacuum to fill it with displays of imagination.
It's all unsurpassed premium bullshit.
On Nov 20, 5:10 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 5:22 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 9:57 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://thefriendlyfunnel.quakerism.net/
>
> > > "I don’t believe Jesus was God. I don’t believe he was the son of God,
> > > at least not in the virgin birth, unique way most Christians do. What
> > > I do believe is that Jesus was a son of God....
>
> > They'd need to demonstrate that there is a God first.
>
> > All the best,
>
> > Roger Pearse
>
> This Friend (Friendly Funnel) speaks my mind. Here
> is Dr. Thiering to show that the term ‘Son of God’
> meant no more than a priest -
>
> 'Son of God' - looking closer to home.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1258
>
> -----
>
> Here is a straight answer to Roger Pearse on the
> SHOCKING meaning of "God" in ancient sources -
>
> From Lexicon on Dr. Thiering's official websitehttp://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_For_Reference....
Sir David
rode:
> Here is Dr. Thiering to show that ...
Carl rides his hobbyhorse
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
A begotten son of a father has the
same nature as the father. Since
God is divine and eternal, His son
has the same divine and eternal nature.
Jim
Joh 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory,
the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.
Stanley F. Nelson
myself.
And, gloriously, the idea of our Lord and Savior as the second Person of the
Holy Trinity gets even more glorious from there.
Mr. Tigiath, hold (or do not hold) whatever beliefs (or non-beliefs) you
wish. At the same time, please allow for the possibility that you may be
wrong.
Stanley F. Nelson
ACNA.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Gen
18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat
in the tent door in the heat of the day;
18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by
him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door,
and bowed himself toward the ground,
18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight,
pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
The icon of the Trinity was painted around 1410 by Andrei Rublev
It depicts the three angels who visited Abraham at the Oak of Mamre -
but is often interpreted as an icon of the Trinity.
It is sometimes called the icon of the Old Testament Trinity.
The image is full of symbolism - designed to take the viewer into the
Mystery of the Trinity.
http://www.wellsprings.org.uk/rublevs_icon/rublev.htm
Jim
Mt 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost:
(<<Kelly>>)
> What does the term "Son of God" mean?
Umm...it's not obvious to you...? (but I really think I smell a
"Thiering tie-in" in the making)
> Here
> is Dr. Thiering to show that the term ‘Son of God’
> meant no more than a priest -
Yep - just what I thought you were leading up to. You're so
predictible, Soggy-Flake.
Roger Pearse
this.
Friend, something is not refuted merely because someone else can adopt
a dumb-ass reductionist strawman caricature of it. You refute
something by engaging with it as it is.
Atheism seems to be the only religious position in which wilful
stupidity is considered a virtue. Don't do this.
> > Here is a straight answer toRoger Pearseon the
> > SHOCKING meaning of "God" in ancient sources -
>
> > From Lexicon on Dr. Thiering's official websitehttp://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_For_Reference....
>
> > Extract -
> > God theos The title used for himself by an Annas priest, representing
> > God. "God" always has the meaning of a priest in the pesher. It was
> > held even by monotheistic Jews , especially in the Diaspora under
> > Hellenistic influence, that the high priest was above ordinary
> > humanity (Philo, On Dreams 2, 188-189). With the article, it refers to
> > his highest grade; without the article, his grade when he was "in the
> > body", at grade 3 in the village (John 20:17). The term theos was
> > applied to Jesus in John 1:1. He was called a god, theos, on Malta
> > (Acts 28:6 by RLR). Agrippa I was hailed as a god, Acts 12:22. Plu.
> > rep. gods, Acts 7:40. In the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,
> > substitute priests in the Diaspora are called "gods" and "priests" in
> > the Holy of Holies. 4Q400.
>
> > -----
>
> > David Christainsen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Matt Giwer
> One of the reasons that atheism enjoys little respect is posts like
> this.
> Friend, something is not refuted merely because someone else can adopt
> a dumb-ass reductionist strawman caricature of it. You refute
> something by engaging with it as it is.
> Atheism seems to be the only religious position in which wilful
> stupidity is considered a virtue. Don't do this.
Perhaps then one can do it more simply. The mystery of the trinity does not
differ from the mystery of the four sided triangle. Neither can be understood
nor explained and must be accepted on faith. The requirement of acceptance was
created by people who also could not understand nor explain it.
Thus both concepts are indistinguishable from bullshit.
1 is 3 and 3 is 1 and up is down and left is right.
The trinity gem arose from halfwits who insisted mutually exclusive things
had to be true. That is not possible. But as both had to be true then their
truth becomes a mystery instead of eliminating one or more of the mutually
exclusive things as being untrue.
--
A biblical archaeologist is like an astrological astronomer
or an alchemical chemist. None are scientists.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4199
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Sat Nov 21 05:55:24 EST 2009
crunch
> Son of God, is one of the many meaningless concepts of religion, which
> includes God itself.
You passed over my post. Dr. Thiering explains that
ancient sources that tap into the sect of the Dead Sea
Scrolls show that the term ‘Son of God’ meant no more
than a priest. Further, "God" always has the meaning of
a priest in the pesher.
> "Son" implies existence following the sexual reproduction of parents.
> Which would mean that somehow Jesus came into existence after Yahweh
> had procreated, which is absurd, even without bringing the
> "mystery" (1=3) of the trinity."
Wrong - "Son of God" is a title in the sectarian language.
They were priests in the Diaspora.
> Religion calls much for fantasizing about the deities, which being
> perennially silent, invisible, and immaterial, compel those who abhor
> the insufferable vacuum to fill it with displays of imagination.
>
> It's all unsurpassed premium bullshit.
>...
Not necessarily. Also, my post deserves the attention
of honest-to-goodness ancient historians.
David Christainsen
Matt Giwer
> This Friend (Friendly Funnel) speaks my mind. Here is Dr. Thiering to
> show that the term �Son of God� meant no more than a priest -
> 'Son of God' - looking closer to home.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1258
The bastard son sent to Earth by a single parent on a suicide
mission.
The alternate title of Immaculate Bastard was not received well by
the Bishop of Rome.
--
Which is better? Many gods or one swiss army knife god?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4202
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Sat Nov 21 09:59:24 EST 2009
(<<Kelly>>)
> On Nov 20, 6:04 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> > Son of God, is one of the many meaningless concepts of religion, which
> > includes God itself.
>
> You passed over my post. Dr. Thiering explains that
> ancient sources that tap into the sect of the Dead Sea
> Scrolls show that the term ‘Son of God’ meant no more
> than a priest. Further, "God" always has the meaning of
> a priest in the pesher.
Thanks for admitting you just use these Christianese-sounding thread
titles to try and fool readers into thinking you want to talk actual
Christianity when your real goal is to get readers to wander into
Soggy's Hobbyhorse World.
In short - thanks for proving again you are an intentional liar and
deceiver.
> Wrong - "Son of God" is a title in the sectarian language.
> They were priests in the Diaspora.
Qumran is a destination in the "Diaspora"?
Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of "Diaspora".
> Not necessarily. Also, my post deserves the attention
> of honest-to-goodness ancient historians.
No it doesn't. It deserves that attention of honest-to-goodness
garbage collectors.
Larry Caldwell
@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, te...@tiglath.net (Tiglath) says...
> "Son" implies existence following the sexual reproduction of parents.
> Which would mean that somehow Jesus came into existence after Yahweh
> had procreated, which is absurd, even without bringing the
> "mystery" (1=3D3) of the trinity."
21st century attitude towards a 2nd century mythological transformation.
Throughout the Greco-Roman world, gods had intercourse with human women
and fathered children on them. If you set the New Testament in
chronological order of composition, you will see a steady progression of
Jesus as a Joshua-style messiah to a Greco-Roman human deity.As the
Greek writers of the New Testament translated Jewish mythology into
Greek tropes, Jesus became a deity.
If Judea had survived, Christianity may have ended with a very different
form, but the destruction of Judea left a vacuum that allowed the
Emperor to shape the religion to suit his political purposes. Any
Christian sects that protested the contamination of pure monotheism were
exterminated.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
crunch
wrote:
That's exactly why Dr. Thiering went to the trouble
to recover the Jewish origin of the Christian Religion -
'Son of God' - looking closer to home.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1258
"Certain men had the appropriate levitical descent to become a true
high priest, and if living in the Diaspora (as most preferred to do)
were given special functions and treated with the reverence expressed
by Philo. Such a man could be thought of as a particular 'God', and
his deputy, with similar functions, was called a ' Son of God'. Such
language was reconciled with Jewish monotheism by the theories of the
gnostics, that the God of the Old Testament was a lesser being, the
Demiurge who had taken part in creation, while the pure supreme only
deity was up there in the heavens out of reach of mortals.
When Jesus made a claim to the title of Son of God, he was simply
taking the next step, beyond that of the ordinary graduate priests,
'gods', with which they were familiar. Although without the correct
descent, he was claiming all the functions of the few men who did have
the correct descent. In other words, he was abolishing the ancient
levitical priesthood completely. Which was why they called him
'arrogant' (1QpHab 8:1-10)."
Please note - Dr. Thiering does not hesitate to find
Jesus Christ in scrolls such as 1QpHab.
-----
David Christainsen
(<<Kelly>>)
> On Nov 22, 12:31 pm, Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <387a2b5c-fcda-49aa-affd-b8365e70d0b8
> > @m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, te...@tiglath.net (Tiglath) says...
>
> > > "Son" implies existence following the sexual reproduction of parents.
> > > Which would mean that somehow Jesus came into existence after Yahweh
> > > had procreated, which is absurd, even without bringing the
> > > "mystery" (1=3D3) of the trinity."
>
> > 21st century attitude towards a 2nd century mythological transformation.
> > Throughout the Greco-Roman world, gods had intercourse with human women
> > and fathered children on them. If you set the New Testament in
> > chronological order of composition, you will see a steady progression of
> > Jesus as a Joshua-style messiah to a Greco-Roman human deity.As the
> > Greek writers of the New Testament translated Jewish mythology into
> > Greek tropes, Jesus became a deity.
>
> > If Judea had survived, Christianity may have ended with a very different
> > form, but the destruction of Judea left a vacuum that allowed the
> > Emperor to shape the religion to suit his political purposes. Any
> > Christian sects that protested the contamination of pure monotheism were
> > exterminated.
>
> That's exactly why Dr. Thiering went to the trouble
> to recover the Jewish origin of the Christian Religion -
>
>
> "Certain men had the appropriate levitical descent to become a true
> high priest, and if living in the Diaspora (as most preferred to do)
> were given special functions and treated with the reverence expressed
> by Philo. Such a man could be thought of as a particular 'God', and
> his deputy, with similar functions, was called a ' Son of God'. Such
> language was reconciled with Jewish monotheism by the theories of the
> gnostics, that the God of the Old Testament was a lesser being, the
> Demiurge who had taken part in creation, while the pure supreme only
> deity was up there in the heavens out of reach of mortals.
>
> When Jesus made a claim to the title of Son of God, he was simply
> taking the next step, beyond that of the ordinary graduate priests,
> 'gods', with which they were familiar. Although without the correct
> descent, he was claiming all the functions of the few men who did have
> the correct descent. In other words, he was abolishing the ancient
> levitical priesthood completely. Which was why they called him
> 'arrogant' (1QpHab 8:1-10)."
>
> Please note - Dr. Thiering does not hesitate to find
> Jesus Christ in scrolls such as 1QpHab.
Nobody cares.
Sir David
> That's exactly why Dr. Thiering <flush>
Carl rides his hobbyhorse
Larry Caldwell
@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, rosie...@rocketmail.com ((<<Kelly>>))
says...
> On Nov 22, 10:57=A0am, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 12:31=A0pm, Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article <387a2b5c-fcda-49aa-affd-b8365e70d0b8
> > > @m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, te...@tiglath.net (Tiglath) says...
> >
> > > > "Son" implies existence following the sexual reproduction of parents.
> > > > Which would mean that somehow Jesus came into existence after Yahweh
> > > > had procreated, which is absurd, even without bringing the
> >
> > > 21st century attitude towards a 2nd century mythological transformation=
> . =A0
> > > Throughout the Greco-Roman world, gods had intercourse with human women
> > > chronological order of composition, you will see a steady progression o=
> f
> > > Jesus as a Joshua-style messiah to a Greco-Roman human deity.As the
> > > Greek writers of the New Testament translated Jewish mythology into
> >
> > > If Judea had survived, Christianity may have ended with a very differen=
> t
> > > form, but the destruction of Judea left a vacuum that allowed the
> > > Christian sects that protested the contamination of pure monotheism wer=
> e
> > > exterminated. =A0
> >
> > That's exactly why Dr. Thiering went to the trouble
> > to recover the Jewish origin of the Christian Religion -
> >
> n_origin/message/1258
> >
> > "Certain men had the appropriate levitical descent to become a true
> > high priest, and if living in the Diaspora (as most preferred to do)
> > were given special functions and treated with the reverence expressed
> > by Philo. Such a man could be thought of as a particular 'God', and
> > his deputy, with similar functions, was called a ' Son of God'. Such
> > language was reconciled with Jewish monotheism by the theories of the
> > gnostics, that the God of the Old Testament was a lesser being, the
> > Demiurge who had taken part in creation, while the pure supreme only
> > deity was up there in the heavens out of reach of mortals.
> >
> > When Jesus made a claim to the title of Son of God, he was simply
> > taking the next step, beyond that of the ordinary graduate priests,
> > 'gods', with which they were familiar. Although without the correct
> > descent, he was claiming all the functions of the few men who did have
> > the correct descent. In other words, he was abolishing the ancient
> > levitical priesthood completely. Which was why they called him
> > 'arrogant' (1QpHab 8:1-10)."
> >
> > Please note - Dr. Thiering does not hesitate to find
> > Jesus Christ in scrolls such as 1QpHab.
>
> Nobody cares.
I think the superstitious and ignorant probably care. Christianson
needs to realize that Original Christianity (tm) is a dead religion that
hasn't been practiced in 1950 years. Nobody is going to revive it at
this late date. What we see today are the splintered remnants of the
Roman Imperial Thought Police.
(<<Kelly>>)
wrote:
> I think the superstitious and ignorant probably care.
Maybe - but that, of course, depends on who you think to be "the
superstitious and ignorant". From what you have to say below, I'm
going to bet you lump all Christians into "the superstitious and
ignorant" category, right?
> Christianson
> needs to realize that Original Christianity (tm) is a dead religion that
> hasn't been practiced in 1950 years. Nobody is going to revive it at
> this late date.
Obviously, you have a big hatred for Christianity - so be it. But
don't lump everyone else into your neat little box that makes you feel
better. With approximately 2 billion professing adherants of
Christianity worldwide, your sweeping generalization doesn't hold
water. Sorry.
Which now brings me to a question for you: if you hate Christianity so
much, why are you in a Quaker newsgroup?
> What we see today are the splintered remnants of the
> Roman Imperial Thought Police.
Who's "we"?
Ian Davis
>much, why are you in a Quaker newsgroup?
>
I doubt that Larry subscribes to SRQ. It is the nature of cross-posting
that rubbish posted by DC to multiple newsgroups has a greater chance of
generating responses on one forum, which are then presumed to be
responses on another.
DC's cross-postiong only amplifies the harm he does SRQ. I have asked him
to stop, but as someone said talking to DC is like talking to a brick wall,
or worse a recently demolished brick wall.
Most things I can forgive in DC. His cross-posting is an exception for this
in particular seems done out of complete disregard for any good but his own
selfish desire to be as annoying as possible on as many newsgroups as
possible. Were he to separately post on multiple forums, he would not
be encouraging the type of confusion that you demonstrate above as (presumed)
consequence of one of his started cross-posts. Since he does not I imagine
he enjoys being the source of much confusion.
Ian.
(<<Kelly>>)
wrote:
> In article <22bb5929-b3b9-4ab4-adc2-8ff565248...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Why are you responding to my post(s), Ian? I thought (or so you said)
you had me killfiled.
Roger Pearse
> Roger Pearsewrote:
> > One of the reasons that atheism enjoys little respect is posts like
> > this.
> > Friend, something is not refuted merely because someone else can adopt
> > a dumb-ass reductionist strawman caricature of it. You refute
> > something by engaging with it as it is.
> > Atheism seems to be the only religious position in which wilful
> > stupidity is considered a virtue. Don't do this.
>
> Thus both concepts are indistinguishable from bullshit.
>
> 1 is 3 and 3 is 1 and up is down and left is right.
>
> The trinity gem arose from halfwits who insisted mutually exclusive things
> had to be true.
Atheism seems to be the only religious position in which wilful
Matt Giwer
> On Nov 21, 11:14�am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Roger Pearsewrote:
>>> One of the reasons that atheism enjoys little respect is posts like
>>> this.
>>> Friend, something is not refuted merely because someone else can adopt a
>>> dumb-ass reductionist strawman caricature of it. �You refute something
>>> by engaging with it as it is. Atheism seems to be the only religious
>>> position in which wilful stupidity is considered a virtue. �Don't do
>>> this.
>> � � � � Perhaps then one can do it more simply.
>>>...
I invite the interested reader to review what was deleted.
>> Thus both concepts are indistinguishable from bullshit.
>> � � � � 1 is 3 and 3 is 1 and up is down and left is right.
>> � � � � The trinity gem arose from halfwits who insisted mutually
>> exclusive things had to be true.
> Atheism seems to be the only religious position in which wilful stupidity
> is considered a virtue. Don't do this.
The accusation of stupidity rings hollow from the camp which says
intelligence is of no value. There is intelligence involved in reason. There
is no intelligence involved in unquestioning acceptance of unprovenanced
religious tradition. The person who accepts such is no greater than the
paper upon which the words are written.
The alternative is that reason is of value else what is it good for?
Except computers and things like that. Reason must be considered a rational
alternative to ideas of no know source created by no known people for no
known reason. If reason is not to be considered of merit then all unsourced
material is of equal merit and value. That is the antithesis of the believer
position.
The other obvious possibility is that reason is useless and that
knowledge of the divine can come only from revelation. This was first
formally addressed by Julian who correctly pointed out, long before modern
anthropologists, that a perception of the divine is intrinsic to human
nature.
If reason is to be considered of value as it is in Christianity
since Aquinas then the unprovenanced idea that unprovenanced scripture is of
value certainly has to take a back seat to reason. Two unprovenanced ideas,
one building upon the other, cannot be given serious consideration in light
of reason.
While there is a spectrum of stupid to intelligent reason there is
no spectrum of belief and intelligence does not apply to it.
In no other area of human endevor is a phrase recited by a five year
old considered to be of equal merit to the same phrase recited by a learned
adult. In no other area of human endevor is the adult damned for not
agreeing with the five year old.
You have no space in which to introduce a discussion of stupidity or
intelligence.
--
It is an open secret that priests are atheists.
They know they are lying.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4188
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Mon Nov 23 07:23:41 EST 2009
Larry Caldwell
@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, rosie...@rocketmail.com ((<<Kelly>>))
says...
> Obviously, you have a big hatred for Christianity - so be it. But
> don't lump everyone else into your neat little box that makes you feel
> better. With approximately 2 billion professing adherants of
> Christianity worldwide, your sweeping generalization doesn't hold
> water. Sorry.
I don't hate Christianity, but I'm not going to cater to a mass delusion
either. The underlying assumptions of Christianity have all been
discredited, starting with the creation and original sin. There is no
curse of an implacable God, and no need for a savior, because there is
nothing to save you from.
Another basic premise of Christianity is life after death. It is now
well established that human consciousness requires a functioning human
brain. When the old squash rots, that's the end of you. There is no
life after death. It's an immensely attractive concept, but just
wishful thinking.
Not all of Christianity is nonsense. The Baptism of Repentance,
introduced by Jesus' cousin John, is an effective tool for dealing with
human guilt, but there is nothing supernatural about that.
crunch
wrote:
>...
> I think the superstitious and ignorant probably care. Christianson
> needs to realize that Original Christianity (tm) is a dead religion that
> hasn't been practiced in 1950 years. Nobody is going to revive it at
> this late date. What we see today are the splintered remnants of the
> Roman Imperial Thought Police.
>
Since you mention my name, I will attempt to educate
you. Here is a copy of my SRQ post of Nov 18, 2009 -
"Convergent Friends Community cannot say they are
reviving Primitive Christianity"
I find their website interesting in its own right.
Do check it out.
------
However, we cannot turn back the clock. I have
already shown on SRQ that the First Christians
were derived from the Essenes. Their political
circumstances heavily influenced their theology.
They were not mainstream Jewish - instead, they
had a tight hierarchy and valued celibacy. They
were harshly legalistic. They led the life of
Pythagoras according to Josephus. They held
property in common. Their apocalyptic timetable
did not materialize. They were wrong to insist
so heavily that God put order into the universe.
Their spirit was dedicated to religion but we cannot
go back to them.
-----
David Christainsen
crunch
wrote:
> In article <22bb5929-b3b9-4ab4-adc2-8ff565248...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
I have rarely seen such a tissue of distortion in my
life. Clean your mind, Ian.
So, if it takes cross-posting to spread publicity on
aspects of the Thiering Thesis, so be it.
My specific focus is to clear up Christian theology.
The reader will recall the redefinition of "Son of God"
and "God" with specific application to DSS & NT. I
personally see God as ineffable in the mystical tradition.
So, being forthright does great good for SRQ contrary to
Ian Davis's opinion.
-----
David Christainsen