Date: Thu Dec 19 2002 - 07:20:53 EST
In a message dated 12/18/02 8:08:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> Hello Rich,
> 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.
Yes, I agree that the Bible should be understood as a unity, but I see the NT
as the fulfillment of the OT. They are a unity. But not uniform. They
complement one another. I am using athropological labels because they are
valid. I believe the temple sysytem was always resisted by the tribal Hebrews
and that Jesus took that Temple and put it in a man's heart and that was the
death of the pollution of the primal religion that had entered ancient
'Judaism' when it encountered the religions of the landed states and socially
stratified into a tripartite system of purity. Jesus denied the gentiles when
they first approached him UNTIL they demonstrated faith. He would not deny
their faith and honestly told them their faith would save them. This was a
departure from the insularity of the OT.
Please forgive me if you did not intend to make these distinctions. I needed
to put them on the table. My purpose in engaging in these discussions is not
argument for its own sake but stimulation by new objections to hypotheses I
have, objections that may be correct so I elicit them. I cannot refine my
thought if I do not put it to the test.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 13:20:08 EST