From: Adrian Teo (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Dec 18 2002 - 20:07:27 EST
Your sociologically-informed comments seem to miss my point. I was
simply trying to make the point that the Bible should be viewed and
understood as an unity ( i.e. revelation from a God who is not of two
minds nor two natures), and not as two separate collections.
From: RFaussette@aol.com [mailto:RFaussette@aol.com]
Sent: Wed 12/18/2002 2:44 PM
To: Adrian Teo; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: Re: Infant murder in I Sam 15
In a message dated 12/18/02 4:57:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
The Israelites' understanding of God and His ways
appears to be less complete than that of the NT writers, but the NT
writers formed their understanding from and based on the OT material
handed down to them.
Yes, there was a general dissatisfaction in the NT period
with the Temple sacrificial system which was a tripartite sacrifical
system such as hinduism. People in the NT period looked back to the
pure religion before the tripartite system which had only arisen
during the conquest of the landed agricultural states by
pastoralists. Toynbee remarks that this polluted the religion of the
primeval shepherds with the baggage of social stratification. I base
part of that remark on melchizedek a mythological figure who comes
from a time before social stratification when priests and kings were
not different social strata but the priest was the king
(melchi-zedek, king/priest) and there was no social stratification.
This dissatisfaction is strongly attested in Hebrews 7.
Even in genesis it has been suggested that the refence to
melchizedek is an interpolation placed there by solomon to induce the
tribes to embrace the sacrificial system, the levitical priesthood
and the capital at jerusalem because they didn't want a kingdom, they
were tribal people.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 02:29:55 EST