A must read for all Classicists here

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So you distort the truth for your religious audience? That makes no sense. I'm not a biblical scholar by any means, but I know enough to know that discussion piece is pure garbage. It distorts history, as known to most, and presents a dishonest view of what happened.

Could you specify the distortions?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So what's your definition?

He can't have one. From his perspective there can be no such thing.

[Archaea]

Read his last two paragraphs.

Read his discussion of ekkesia and apostasy.

You will see it for yourself.

As you know the Hellenic influences on Israel started no later than during the times of Alexander the Great in the fourth century BCE, not after the time of Christ.

[Indy Coug]

Since there is no canonized scripture from the Old World that dates between 400 BC - 1 AD, what relevance does that have?

Are you saying that Christ succumbed to Judaic Hellenistic traditions?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

C'mon. Give me a quick synopsis of the truth.

I did. I believe the ancient Greeks had an encounter with God. I don't believe they are the Great and Abominable Church.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I did. I believe the ancient Greeks had an encounter with God. I don't believe they are the Great and Abominable Church.

So what constitutes the Great & Abominable?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So what constitutes the Great & Abominable?

You know, since I truly regard the passage as an inartful anti-Catholic nativist screed reflecting mores of its day and no more I don't know why you care. But since you ask, I believe its author was indeed groping for something like Robinson identified. I think Robinson basically got it right. And I think I've made myself clear on this point already. I could turn his article inside out and call it a form of "exegesis," identifying the source and substance of the man-made Great and Abominable Church passage.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Read his last two paragraphs.

Read his discussion of ekkesia and apostasy.

You will see it for yourself.

As you know the Hellenic influences on Israel started no later than during the times of Alexander the Great in the fourth century BCE, not after the time of Christ.

I guess I'm missing something. I don't see where he makes the silly claim that Hellenic influences didn't exist before the time of Christ.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So you distort the truth for your religious audience? That makes no sense. I'm not a biblical scholar by any means, but I know enough to know that discussion piece is pure garbage. It distorts history, as known to most, and presents a dishonest view of what happened.

Hey Arch, aka Su's little bro, can you tell us exactly what was dishonest and distorting history about the article?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I guess I'm missing something. I don't see where he makes the silly claim that Hellenic influences didn't exist before the time of Christ.

Read this paragrpah and tell me you don't laugh out loud.

Babylon in the first and second centuries may even have been a collection of different movements. Some Jewish Christians couldn't let go of the law of Moses and eventually gave up Christ instead. The Orthodox Christians adopted Greek philosophy. The Gnostics wallowed in the mysteries and in unspeakable practices on the one hand or in neurotic asceticism on the other. Second-century compilers like Tatian and Marcion rewrote the scriptures, the latter boldly chopping out anything, he didn't like. And all of them together forced the virtuous woman, the true church of Jesus Christ, into the wilderness.