Top Bible scholar leaves Christianity

This is a short interview with a renowned Bible scholar who talks
about why he left Christianity.

http://www.youtube.com/v/aYSDTXYmdvs?rel=0

thank you

On 03/14/2013 03:06 PM, BV BV wrote:
Top Bible scholar leaves Christianity

This is a short interview with a renowned Bible scholar who talks
about why he left Christianity.

http://www.youtube.com/v/aYSDTXYmdvs?rel=0

thank you

Yawn.

Probably the majority of scholars aren't Christians in any meaningful
sense. That's been true for probably 100 years.

The problem is that they start with the modernist template, so what do
you know, they look into Scripture and find their own assumptions coming
back at them. Which is both predictable and sad.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:24:37 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

Probably the majority of scholars aren't Christians in any meaningful
sense. That's been true for probably 100 years.

I know the problem. Every year, the ultra-orthodox factions in the
Knesset sponsor a measure declaring anyone that does not subscribe to
their traditional flavor of Judaism as not being Jewish. This seems
to be a common pastime among all the religions.

The problem is that they start with the modernist template, so what do
you know, they look into Scripture and find their own assumptions coming
back at them. Which is both predictable and sad.

Well, if one doesn't like the King James version of scripture, there
are a wide variety of updates, translations, plain English
simplifications, and interpretations to choose from.
http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Christianity/Bible/Translations/

I'm only interested in the Old Testament(© Moses). What I find odd is
that the various denominations keep trying to "educate" their
followers in the intricacies of ancient, archaic, and seriously
idiomatic translations. It would be much easier for them to simply
translate the various books into modern languages. From my
perspective, this is just a modern version of the church's ban on
translations into the vulgar. If they expect their followers to
understand and follow their teachings, the church should perform and
bless the various translations and be done with all the debate over
reverse engineering the bible, which can be safely left to the
archeologists.

Anyway, I've done my part in making Judaism accessible to Unix/Linux
programmers and users:
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.sco.misc/msg/ccef57b1a28ed0fd
Hmmm... I wrote that in 1997. Probably time for another update.

Cheers
Phil Hobbs

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 03/14/2013 10:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:24:37 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

Probably the majority of scholars aren't Christians in any meaningful
sense. That's been true for probably 100 years.

I know the problem. Every year, the ultra-orthodox factions in the
Knesset sponsor a measure declaring anyone that does not subscribe to
their traditional flavor of Judaism as not being Jewish. This seems
to be a common pastime among all the religions.

The problem is that they start with the modernist template, so what do
you know, they look into Scripture and find their own assumptions coming
back at them. Which is both predictable and sad.

Well, if one doesn't like the King James version of scripture, there
are a wide variety of updates, translations, plain English
simplifications, and interpretations to choose from.
http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Christianity/Bible/Translations/

I'm only interested in the Old Testament(© Moses). What I find odd is
that the various denominations keep trying to "educate" their
followers in the intricacies of ancient, archaic, and seriously
idiomatic translations. It would be much easier for them to simply
translate the various books into modern languages. From my
perspective, this is just a modern version of the church's ban on
translations into the vulgar. If they expect their followers to
understand and follow their teachings, the church should perform and
bless the various translations and be done with all the debate over
reverse engineering the bible, which can be safely left to the
archeologists.


The modernist template I'm talking about begins by denying the
possibility of miracles, which logically entails that God does not exist
and that the Incarnation is a myth. Then through "brilliant
scholarship" they discover that God does not exist and that the
Incarnation is a myth. For which they get paid. Nice work if you can
get it, and are crooked enough to take it, but not very illuminating.

I don't find any of the English translations difficult, at least not
from the POV of language. (Parts of it are very tough reading, but
that's because of my sin and lack of love, not reading comprehension.)

Some translations are less accurate than others, particularly the ones
where someone tried to simplify them or add context and interpretation
right into the text, rather than in footnotes. Bad examples are the
Living Bible, The Message, and parts of the New International Version.
The NIV is especially bad on the Pauline epistles, where they cram in
all sorts of Reformed theology that isn't there in the Greek. The
"inclusive language" versions such as the NRSV distort the meaning of
many passages.

Christianity is in a somewhat different position than Judaism, I think,
because modern Judaism doesn't closely resemble that of the Torah--no
Temple, no sacrificial cult, no Aaronic priests, no prophets, and so on.
(No pillar of cloud, either.)

Orthodox Christian theology and practice is a lot closer to the
scriptural standard, and the parts of the OT that are superseded are
clearly delineated in the NT, with careful attention to detail. For
instance, the High Priesthood of Christ is located in the order of
Melchizedek rather than Aaron, as explained in the Epistle to the
Hebrews. There are numerous covenants in the OT, from Adam through
Moses, so the very fact of covenantal development is continuous with the
OT as well.

(Muslims and Mormons claim to supersede Christianity, but their alleged
scriptures flatly contradict both the OT and NT. God does not
contradict Himself.)


Anyway, I've done my part in making Judaism accessible to Unix/Linux
programmers and users:
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.sco.misc/msg/ccef57b1a28ed0fd
Hmmm... I wrote that in 1997. Probably time for another update.

Just make sure you run the revisions past the author for approval.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs



--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:06:09 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

The modernist template I'm talking about begins by denying the
possibility of miracles, which logically entails that God does not exist
and that the Incarnation is a myth.

I have a problem with miracles. Ignoring some of my designs, which
would require a genuine miracle to function, most miracles eventually
have a mundane explanation. However, what bugs me is the
beatification of various Catholic dignitaries, which requires evidence
of a genuine miracle. Pope John Paul II managed to canonize 483
saints, and beatify 1,300 blessed people at the average rate of one
every 5.5 days. With an unofficial count of over 10,000 canonized
saints and beatified individuals, I submit that the honor is somewhat
oversubscribed. The side effect is a rather substantial stretch of
the imagination in what constitutes a genuine miracle, relegating it
to an almost common occurrence by Catholic standards.

As for the "modernist template", much as I like the term, I believe
you're simply renaming the term "denomination". There are currently
about 40,000 assorted Christian denominations or templates to choose
from, each of which proclaim that their practices and interpretations
are the only ones that are genuinely correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
I suspect that the most obvious indication that there is no God is his
unwillingness or inability to clean up the mess left by his followers.

Then through "brilliant
scholarship" they discover that God does not exist and that the
Incarnation is a myth. For which they get paid. Nice work if you can
get it, and are crooked enough to take it, but not very illuminating.

To be fair, the Catholic Church hasn't done any better in the areas of
scholarship and creative finance. The Inquisition, Borgias,
suppression of vulgar translations, molestation scandals, tithe,
indulgences, and rigid insistence on inflexible dogma tend have a
bigger effect than "brilliant scholarship".

My interest in religion is primarily history and archeology, both of
which are constantly changing. When the various Christian
denominations allow change in the same manner, I might be more
interested in theology. Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge,
Judaism is the only religion where the patriarchs were able to argue
with God, and win.

I don't find any of the English translations difficult, at least not
from the POV of language. (Parts of it are very tough reading, but
that's because of my sin and lack of love, not reading comprehension.)

I've learned more about scripture from the translations, than from the
originals. I'm not into estimating the number of angels on the head
of a pin. Just the general story, some of the details, and most
important, the missing justifications and motivations behind the
events in the Bible. The various translations allow me to concentrate
on my interests, rather than getting bogged down in archaic and
idiomatic language.

Some translations are less accurate than others, particularly the ones
where someone tried to simplify them or add context and interpretation
right into the text, rather than in footnotes. Bad examples are the
Living Bible, The Message, and parts of the New International Version.

I've read through TLB and the NIV. I somewhat agree. The TLB went
off the deep end by abandoning the structure of the original American
Standard Bible. There's no way you can do scholarship with such a
rearrangement. "Living" is the correct term as it squirms and
slithers through the events. The NIV is quite different, retaining
both the structure and organization of the original. In most cases,
each sentence is directly translated into the vernacular. The
translations were done by a huge and diverse committee, over a period
of 15 years. With such a large number of translators and experts
involved, there's no way that the result can follow any single
interpretation or style. The result is inevitably a compromise,
guaranteed to irritate everyone that reads it in at least some manner.

The NIV is especially bad on the Pauline epistles, where they cram in
all sorts of Reformed theology that isn't there in the Greek. The
"inclusive language" versions such as the NRSV distort the meaning of
many passages.

Sorry, but I'm not familiar with that section. My main interest is
the five books of Moses.

Christianity is in a somewhat different position than Judaism, I think,
because modern Judaism doesn't closely resemble that of the Torah--no
Temple, no sacrificial cult, no Aaronic priests, no prophets, and so on.
(No pillar of cloud, either.)

Judaism has had to adapt and change radically over the past 5773
years. What was retained over this time is more of a culture than a
religion. From Babylon to the middle ages, numerous rabbis annotated
and merged the original oral and written texts into the Talmud and
Mishnah, which are essentially study guides with explanations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah
http://www.coejl.org/_old/www.coejl.org/learn/pageoftalm.html
While the original 5 books of Moses remain unchanged (and copied by
hand letter for letter), the oral parts and interpretations constantly
change. Parts that are obsolete are generally ignored. For example,
the entire book of Leviticus, which details ritual animal sacrifice,
is generally ignored.

Orthodox Christian theology and practice is a lot closer to the
scriptural standard, and the parts of the OT that are superseded are
clearly delineated in the NT, with careful attention to detail. For
instance, the High Priesthood of Christ is located in the order of
Melchizedek rather than Aaron, as explained in the Epistle to the
Hebrews.

The entire priesthood (kohen) are from the tribe of Levi (including
Aaron). I find it difficult to believe that Christians could make
such a change, since they do not recognize the 12 tribes of Israel as
one of their own organizational divisions. Peter was from the tribe
of Simeon.

There are numerous covenants in the OT, from Adam through
Moses, so the very fact of covenantal development is continuous with the
OT as well.

Yep. We continue that to this day as much of the legal establishment
is Jewish. If you need a contract, you came to the right place.

(Muslims and Mormons claim to supersede Christianity, but their alleged
scriptures flatly contradict both the OT and NT. God does not
contradict Himself.)

There are plenty of contradictions and oddities in all versions of the
Bible. However, I don't want to get into this debate, as I'm neither
qualified or interested.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Anyway, I've done my part in making Judaism accessible to Unix/Linux
programmers and users:
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.sco.misc/msg/ccef57b1a28ed0fd
Hmmm... I wrote that in 1997. Probably time for another update.

Just make sure you run the revisions past the author for approval.

God or me? In both cases, I'm waiting for divine inspiration.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 3/17/2013 7:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:06:09 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

The modernist template I'm talking about begins by denying the
possibility of miracles, which logically entails that God does not exist
and that the Incarnation is a myth.

I have a problem with miracles. Ignoring some of my designs, which
would require a genuine miracle to function, most miracles eventually
have a mundane explanation. However, what bugs me is the
beatification of various Catholic dignitaries, which requires evidence
of a genuine miracle. Pope John Paul II managed to canonize 483
saints, and beatify 1,300 blessed people at the average rate of one
every 5.5 days. With an unofficial count of over 10,000 canonized
saints and beatified individuals, I submit that the honor is somewhat
oversubscribed. The side effect is a rather substantial stretch of
the imagination in what constitutes a genuine miracle, relegating it
to an almost common occurrence by Catholic standards.

As for the "modernist template", much as I like the term, I believe
you're simply renaming the term "denomination". There are currently
about 40,000 assorted Christian denominations or templates to choose
from, each of which proclaim that their practices and interpretations
are the only ones that are genuinely correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
I suspect that the most obvious indication that there is no God is his
unwillingness or inability to clean up the mess left by his followers.

Then through "brilliant
scholarship" they discover that God does not exist and that the
Incarnation is a myth. For which they get paid. Nice work if you can
get it, and are crooked enough to take it, but not very illuminating.

To be fair, the Catholic Church hasn't done any better in the areas of
scholarship and creative finance. The Inquisition, Borgias,
suppression of vulgar translations, molestation scandals, tithe,
indulgences, and rigid insistence on inflexible dogma tend have a
bigger effect than "brilliant scholarship".

My interest in religion is primarily history and archeology, both of
which are constantly changing. When the various Christian
denominations allow change in the same manner, I might be more
interested in theology. Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge,
Judaism is the only religion where the patriarchs were able to argue
with God, and win.

I don't find any of the English translations difficult, at least not
from the POV of language. (Parts of it are very tough reading, but
that's because of my sin and lack of love, not reading comprehension.)

I've learned more about scripture from the translations, than from the
originals. I'm not into estimating the number of angels on the head
of a pin. Just the general story, some of the details, and most
important, the missing justifications and motivations behind the
events in the Bible. The various translations allow me to concentrate
on my interests, rather than getting bogged down in archaic and
idiomatic language.

Some translations are less accurate than others, particularly the ones
where someone tried to simplify them or add context and interpretation
right into the text, rather than in footnotes. Bad examples are the
Living Bible, The Message, and parts of the New International Version.

I've read through TLB and the NIV. I somewhat agree. The TLB went
off the deep end by abandoning the structure of the original American
Standard Bible. There's no way you can do scholarship with such a
rearrangement. "Living" is the correct term as it squirms and
slithers through the events. The NIV is quite different, retaining
both the structure and organization of the original. In most cases,
each sentence is directly translated into the vernacular. The
translations were done by a huge and diverse committee, over a period
of 15 years. With such a large number of translators and experts
involved, there's no way that the result can follow any single
interpretation or style. The result is inevitably a compromise,
guaranteed to irritate everyone that reads it in at least some manner.

The NIV is especially bad on the Pauline epistles, where they cram in
all sorts of Reformed theology that isn't there in the Greek. The
"inclusive language" versions such as the NRSV distort the meaning of
many passages.

Sorry, but I'm not familiar with that section. My main interest is
the five books of Moses.

Christianity is in a somewhat different position than Judaism, I think,
because modern Judaism doesn't closely resemble that of the Torah--no
Temple, no sacrificial cult, no Aaronic priests, no prophets, and so on.
(No pillar of cloud, either.)

Judaism has had to adapt and change radically over the past 5773
years. What was retained over this time is more of a culture than a
religion. From Babylon to the middle ages, numerous rabbis annotated
and merged the original oral and written texts into the Talmud and
Mishnah, which are essentially study guides with explanations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah
http://www.coejl.org/_old/www.coejl.org/learn/pageoftalm.html
While the original 5 books of Moses remain unchanged (and copied by
hand letter for letter), the oral parts and interpretations constantly
change. Parts that are obsolete are generally ignored. For example,
the entire book of Leviticus, which details ritual animal sacrifice,
is generally ignored.

Orthodox Christian theology and practice is a lot closer to the
scriptural standard, and the parts of the OT that are superseded are
clearly delineated in the NT, with careful attention to detail. For
instance, the High Priesthood of Christ is located in the order of
Melchizedek rather than Aaron, as explained in the Epistle to the
Hebrews.

The entire priesthood (kohen) are from the tribe of Levi (including
Aaron). I find it difficult to believe that Christians could make
such a change, since they do not recognize the 12 tribes of Israel as
one of their own organizational divisions. Peter was from the tribe
of Simeon.

There are numerous covenants in the OT, from Adam through
Moses, so the very fact of covenantal development is continuous with the
OT as well.

Yep. We continue that to this day as much of the legal establishment
is Jewish. If you need a contract, you came to the right place.

(Muslims and Mormons claim to supersede Christianity, but their alleged
scriptures flatly contradict both the OT and NT. God does not
contradict Himself.)

There are plenty of contradictions and oddities in all versions of the
Bible. However, I don't want to get into this debate, as I'm neither
qualified or interested.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Anyway, I've done my part in making Judaism accessible to Unix/Linux
programmers and users:
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.sco.misc/msg/ccef57b1a28ed0fd
Hmmm... I wrote that in 1997. Probably time for another update.

Just make sure you run the revisions past the author for approval.

God or me? In both cases, I'm waiting for divine inspiration.


If God really made the universe from nothing, He can do anything He
wants with it, at any time and at any place. That's why denying the
_possibility_ of miracles (as opposed to the veracity of any particular
claim of the miraculous) logically entails that God does not exist.

You seem to be in that camp, unless I'm mistaken.

Everything changes when you know God. May we both know Him better!

Cheers

Phil Hobbs





--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

If God really made the universe from nothing,

He didn't, because He cannot create something unlike Himself (a finite,
material universe).

He can do anything He wants with it, at any time and at any place. That's
why denying the _possibility_ of miracles (as opposed to the veracity of any
particular claim of the miraculous) logically entails that God does not
exist.

You have it exactly backwards. Miracles are impossible, because they would
require God to break his own rules, and God would be no different from a human
being, subject to the whim of the moment.

If the so-called miracles of the Bible actually occurred, then they are part
of the normal order of things, and not some special dispensation.

If you don't see that... I'm not going to discuss this any further.

On 3/17/2013 8:22 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
If God really made the universe from nothing,

He didn't, because He cannot create something unlike Himself (a finite,
material universe).

Where do you get that idea?

He can do anything He wants with it, at any time and at any place.
That's why denying the _possibility_ of miracles (as opposed to the
veracity of any particular claim of the miraculous) logically entails
that God does not exist.

You have it exactly backwards. Miracles are impossible, because they
would require God to break his own rules, and God would be no different
from a human being, subject to the whim of the moment.

Not so. God's eternal will is unchangeable, but we're in the time
stream, so we see different aspects of it at different times. God is a
God of order and not chaos, but there's nothing chaotic in His doing
different things in different situations.


If the so-called miracles of the Bible actually occurred, then they are
part of the normal order of things, and not some special dispensation.

Certainly. But "the normal order of things" means what God intends, not
what some random humans decide are Laws of Nature.

It really is possible to know God, because He wants us to--that was the
whole point of His creating us. Try the experiment and see.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 3/17/2013 7:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:06:09 -0400, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

The modernist template I'm talking about begins by denying the
possibility of miracles, which logically entails that God does not exist
and that the Incarnation is a myth.


I have a problem with miracles. Ignoring some of my designs, which
would require a genuine miracle to function, most miracles eventually
have a mundane explanation. However, what bugs me is the
beatification of various Catholic dignitaries, which requires evidence
of a genuine miracle. Pope John Paul II managed to canonize 483
saints, and beatify 1,300 blessed people at the average rate of one
every 5.5 days. With an unofficial count of over 10,000 canonized
saints and beatified individuals, I submit that the honor is somewhat
oversubscribed. The side effect is a rather substantial stretch of
the imagination in what constitutes a genuine miracle, relegating it
to an almost common occurrence by Catholic standards.

As for the "modernist template", much as I like the term, I believe
you're simply renaming the term "denomination". There are currently
about 40,000 assorted Christian denominations or templates to choose
from, each of which proclaim that their practices and interpretations
are the only ones that are genuinely correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
I suspect that the most obvious indication that there is no God is his
unwillingness or inability to clean up the mess left by his followers.

Then through "brilliant
scholarship" they discover that God does not exist and that the
Incarnation is a myth. For which they get paid. Nice work if you can
get it, and are crooked enough to take it, but not very illuminating.


To be fair, the Catholic Church hasn't done any better in the areas of
scholarship and creative finance. The Inquisition, Borgias,
suppression of vulgar translations, molestation scandals, tithe,
indulgences, and rigid insistence on inflexible dogma tend have a
bigger effect than "brilliant scholarship".

My interest in religion is primarily history and archeology, both of
which are constantly changing. When the various Christian
denominations allow change in the same manner, I might be more
interested in theology. Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge,
Judaism is the only religion where the patriarchs were able to argue
with God, and win.

I don't find any of the English translations difficult, at least not
from the POV of language. (Parts of it are very tough reading, but
that's because of my sin and lack of love, not reading comprehension.)


I've learned more about scripture from the translations, than from the
originals. I'm not into estimating the number of angels on the head
of a pin. Just the general story, some of the details, and most
important, the missing justifications and motivations behind the
events in the Bible. The various translations allow me to concentrate
on my interests, rather than getting bogged down in archaic and
idiomatic language.

Some translations are less accurate than others, particularly the ones
where someone tried to simplify them or add context and interpretation
right into the text, rather than in footnotes. Bad examples are the
Living Bible, The Message, and parts of the New International Version.


I've read through TLB and the NIV. I somewhat agree. The TLB went
off the deep end by abandoning the structure of the original American
Standard Bible. There's no way you can do scholarship with such a
rearrangement. "Living" is the correct term as it squirms and
slithers through the events. The NIV is quite different, retaining
both the structure and organization of the original. In most cases,
each sentence is directly translated into the vernacular. The
translations were done by a huge and diverse committee, over a period
of 15 years. With such a large number of translators and experts
involved, there's no way that the result can follow any single
interpretation or style. The result is inevitably a compromise,
guaranteed to irritate everyone that reads it in at least some manner.

The NIV is especially bad on the Pauline epistles, where they cram in
all sorts of Reformed theology that isn't there in the Greek. The
"inclusive language" versions such as the NRSV distort the meaning of
many passages.


Sorry, but I'm not familiar with that section. My main interest is
the five books of Moses.

Christianity is in a somewhat different position than Judaism, I think,
because modern Judaism doesn't closely resemble that of the Torah--no
Temple, no sacrificial cult, no Aaronic priests, no prophets, and so on.
(No pillar of cloud, either.)


Judaism has had to adapt and change radically over the past 5773
years. What was retained over this time is more of a culture than a
religion. From Babylon to the middle ages, numerous rabbis annotated
and merged the original oral and written texts into the Talmud and
Mishnah, which are essentially study guides with explanations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah
http://www.coejl.org/_old/www.coejl.org/learn/pageoftalm.html
While the original 5 books of Moses remain unchanged (and copied by
hand letter for letter), the oral parts and interpretations constantly
change. Parts that are obsolete are generally ignored. For example,
the entire book of Leviticus, which details ritual animal sacrifice,
is generally ignored.

Orthodox Christian theology and practice is a lot closer to the
scriptural standard, and the parts of the OT that are superseded are
clearly delineated in the NT, with careful attention to detail. For
instance, the High Priesthood of Christ is located in the order of
Melchizedek rather than Aaron, as explained in the Epistle to the
Hebrews.


The entire priesthood (kohen) are from the tribe of Levi (including
Aaron). I find it difficult to believe that Christians could make
such a change, since they do not recognize the 12 tribes of Israel as
one of their own organizational divisions. Peter was from the tribe
of Simeon.

There are numerous covenants in the OT, from Adam through
Moses, so the very fact of covenantal development is continuous with the
OT as well.


Yep. We continue that to this day as much of the legal establishment
is Jewish. If you need a contract, you came to the right place.

(Muslims and Mormons claim to supersede Christianity, but their alleged
scriptures flatly contradict both the OT and NT. God does not
contradict Himself.)


There are plenty of contradictions and oddities in all versions of the
Bible. However, I don't want to get into this debate, as I'm neither
qualified or interested.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html


Anyway, I've done my part in making Judaism accessible to Unix/Linux
programmers and users:
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.sco.misc/msg/ccef57b1a28ed0fd

Hmmm... I wrote that in 1997. Probably time for another update.


Just make sure you run the revisions past the author for approval.


God or me? In both cases, I'm waiting for divine inspiration.


If God really made the universe from nothing, He can do anything He
wants with it, at any time and at any place. That's why denying the
_possibility_ of miracles (as opposed to the veracity of any particular
claim of the miraculous) logically entails that God does not exist.

You seem to be in that camp, unless I'm mistaken.

Everything changes when you know God. May we both know Him better!

Cheers

Phil Hobbs





All that we consider that is currently alive are actually asleep, well
asleep compared to the level of existence...

When a living creature, us, animals or what ever, dies, only the
garbage is left behind, call it the bed, much like the after birth when
you come into this state of existence.

And when we awaken, it'll be like we are lifted out of a fog cloud that
lays over a swamp. The swamp being all the living organic matter that
is left behind and considered waste but fertilizer for those that descend
once again.

In this time we have been dispatch to this place ( our rest ), our
entity gets the chance to recharge and bring back with it vibrant
energy, much like we are when we wake up from a good nights sleep.

AS we are on the other side, our energy slowly depletes, getting us
tired and old, to the point we lose control and full back into that
swamp again, and thus get dispatch back here for another rest.

Every once in a while some one up there walks through or takes a
peek into the fog, which may explain why some people have been
visited in some manner from a loved one or even hauted!

Almost like the matrix...

So, putting that into context, it's possible that GOD, the creator
maybe many levels above that and it may take many cycles of rest for our
sole, if you want to call it that, before it actually gets to the point
where it stops coming back here and ascends even future!

That's my take on it ;

I'll have another beer, hiccup!

P.S.
Did my taxes today, just receive final confirmation from the state
which accepted it, fed was to problem.. I'am a happy camper!

Jamie