Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria
View Post
The Israelites were bloodthirsty, as were most ancient Semitic peoples, and according to the Hebrew bible were guilty of quite a considerable amount of genocide that was ordained and approved of by their deity.
However, the ancient Israelites were not Jews.
That comment merely differentiates between practise and precept.
I have no idea what you are attempting to suggest by these remarks.
Mathematics is an exact science, theology is neither a science nor exact. Nor does history deal with exactitudes. History merely inquires in order to inform.
What does this mean? It is a rather broad-brush approach towards a complex topic.
This is all rather confusing. What historical periods are being referenced here?
All the numerous messianic claimants failed in their objectives. They all ended up dead, either killed in battle or executed.
The Book of Daniel belongs to the class of apocalyptic literature, and is dated to the Hellenistic period. Its eschatological speculations are not historical fact. In other words it is a work of Jewish religious literature.
During the early first century there was a widespread belief among a large portion of the Jewish population that they were living in the End Times and Jesus himself appears to have shared this belief.
This is merely your own subjective and theologically slanted interpretation.
He did not fulfil any of the Messianic requirements and did not inaugurate the Messianic Kingdom of God as specified by Jewish teachings.
Pardon? To what precisely are you referring? What requirements would these be?
The work[s] Luke-Acts form an apologetic interpretation of the rise of early Christianity and attempts to harmonise the dissension and disagreements among the various factions within the movement, which we know were considerable.
Acts propounds the legitimacy of Christianity as a largely gentile religion and as the valid heir to the promises God made to Israel. For a contemporary audience of observant Jews much of the work would be considered odious and its claims highly preposterous.
However, Luke’s objective was to emphasise that God's fulfilment of the ancient promises had led to the inclusion of gentiles and his task in this work was to demonstrate that it was gentile Christianity which had become the legitimate inheritor of those old promises. Moreover, it was a specific form of gentile Christianity that would fulfil this role, and that was the work of the Pauline mission.
In other words the "new Jews " would be Christians who rejected the Torah, which the essence of Judaism.
The Christian community in Acts continues the way Jesus himself had lived: truly Jewish, and at the same time, truly loyal towards Rome. Once we recognise this apologetic function in Acts we no longer need to worry about specific narrative details.
It can also clearly be seen that the author of Acts was a forthright and open apologist for Christianity.
However, the ancient Israelites were not Jews.
That comment merely differentiates between practise and precept.
I have no idea what you are attempting to suggest by these remarks.
Mathematics is an exact science, theology is neither a science nor exact. Nor does history deal with exactitudes. History merely inquires in order to inform.
What does this mean? It is a rather broad-brush approach towards a complex topic.
This is all rather confusing. What historical periods are being referenced here?
All the numerous messianic claimants failed in their objectives. They all ended up dead, either killed in battle or executed.
The Book of Daniel belongs to the class of apocalyptic literature, and is dated to the Hellenistic period. Its eschatological speculations are not historical fact. In other words it is a work of Jewish religious literature.
During the early first century there was a widespread belief among a large portion of the Jewish population that they were living in the End Times and Jesus himself appears to have shared this belief.
This is merely your own subjective and theologically slanted interpretation.
He did not fulfil any of the Messianic requirements and did not inaugurate the Messianic Kingdom of God as specified by Jewish teachings.
Pardon? To what precisely are you referring? What requirements would these be?
The work[s] Luke-Acts form an apologetic interpretation of the rise of early Christianity and attempts to harmonise the dissension and disagreements among the various factions within the movement, which we know were considerable.
Acts propounds the legitimacy of Christianity as a largely gentile religion and as the valid heir to the promises God made to Israel. For a contemporary audience of observant Jews much of the work would be considered odious and its claims highly preposterous.
However, Luke’s objective was to emphasise that God's fulfilment of the ancient promises had led to the inclusion of gentiles and his task in this work was to demonstrate that it was gentile Christianity which had become the legitimate inheritor of those old promises. Moreover, it was a specific form of gentile Christianity that would fulfil this role, and that was the work of the Pauline mission.
In other words the "new Jews " would be Christians who rejected the Torah, which the essence of Judaism.
The Christian community in Acts continues the way Jesus himself had lived: truly Jewish, and at the same time, truly loyal towards Rome. Once we recognise this apologetic function in Acts we no longer need to worry about specific narrative details.
It can also clearly be seen that the author of Acts was a forthright and open apologist for Christianity.
However, the ancient Israelites were not Jews.
Comment