AG: Out-of-state gay marriages likely valid in N.M.

snyper wrote:

I'm pretty much in agreement, but I think that the Sybil quality comes as the result of conflation of different sources with widely divergent agendas. There is even a certain amount of confaltion within single records because they are compilations of memories, and that not by very developed or competent writers by our standards. All too frequently, the message for the masses and the teachings to the future teachers get all mixed together adn present a very confusing picture. There is a great difference between the curriculum of teacher training and what is taught in the classroom. lol
A very clear core remains, but obscured by later sectarian agendas. Real study requires first distinguishing between the voices of the accounts, then discernment of the target audience of any statements. Perhaps the most difficult part is reduction. Stripping away the sectarianisms, especially the gentile interpretations. This is best facilitated by examination of Jewish thought and culture of the time, ideosyncratically and in context with the Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian and Roman cultural forces that had been at play.
It's not as hard as it sounds, but there is a basic library of knowledge necessary to do it with any competence.
For example, once gentile-ism have been identified and separated, it is possible to then see the bias in later sources such as Irenaeus. Reading his "Against Heresies" takes on a very different cast, and can be very useful in determining just who was around and giving the Saulians piles in their drive towards ideological hegemony.

WARRIOR wrote:

You're a NUTT!

Rick in Kansas wrote:

"Jesus" had become "Sybil Dorsett" long before there was an agenda to drive "him" into even more multiple personalities. Originally, having a faith in "Jesus" came with no written instructions, just a basic story, the details of which varied depending on who was telling it and whatever extrapolation of meaning from the story that the teller wanted to give it. As with any story that gets told and retold, especially when it hasn't originated from an identifiable first hand source, it's going to change and re-change.
When "Christianity" was in its infancy, small groups of believers, relatively isolated from one another, it really didn't matter that they all got to know a different personality of "Jesus". It was only when these different groups with their different "Jesus" began running into each other that a problem was noticed and agendas plotted. The compilation of "The Bible" was little more than a less than successful attempt at the "Christian" psychiatry of "Jesus", an effort to rid "him" of any personalities that didn't get along with the ones that came from the Sauline/Pauline traditions that its "authors" favored.
<quoted text>

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Originally, there was no "faith in Yeshua", just in his teachings. The focus on christology was a distraction from that message. This is one reason the sect to which I adhere consider the whole "christ" thing to be heretical. "Christos" is an Alexandrian Greek conceptualization that took hold in Antioch and was pushed by Saul; and is very different from the Jewish concept of an "annointed one".
I don't think that Reb Yeshua was crazy. I think the various takes on him are occasionally valid from the persepectives of the viewers. The problem is conflation. Also, not all accounts are created equal. lol Mark came first, with Matthew drawn from it and expanded. Luke is gentile Saulian. John is also gentile mixed with diaspora sectarian Judaism. Acts is Luke part two.

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
You two gentlemen have real intellect. If you wish to go slumming in a thread concerning religion go here.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...