[Donna]

@Verv correlation does not equal causation though. When the overall long-term trend in American political life is the radicalization of conservatives and the growth of right-wing politics, we can expect it to play itself out in religious life as well.

[Verv]

@Verv correlation does not equal causation though. When the overall long-term trend in American political life is the radicalization of conservatives and the growth of right-wing politics, we can expect it to play itself out in religious life as well.

@Verv correlation does not equal causation though. When the overall long-term trend in American political life is the radicalization of conservatives and the growth of right-wing politics, we can expect it to play itself out in religious life as well.

Right -- for instance, in the Washington Post article (not quoted by me, though), one of the suggestions was that conservative churches experience more growth because, taking the content more literally, the followers feel a greater need for evangelization. They also did not write this part, but I would also suggest that they have generally higher birth rates.

There was a book put out about a decade ago (here on Amazon) that i have been meaning to read which deals with the fact that the high birth rates of radical religious groups indicate that religiosity is really the future. They make use of the Amish, Mormons, and ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel to really drive home the point.

This probably happens all the time between more moderate conservative versus liberal views, although on a smaller scale. While the button-down shirt conservative Christian guy from high school may not have 8 kids, he may be expected to have kids, and even if he only has 2.2 children, if the average dopesmoker from high school only has 0.8 children, it will play out that the society will still generally have a greater conservative parenting influence on it. Even though Button-down boy probably exerts less influence on his children than the amish and a significant amount will fall away through public school secular humanist propagandizing, the cycle may be strong enough to resist change.

radicalization of conservatives, growth of right wing

This is an amazing topic.

Yes, the conservatives have become more radicalized, but this is only because it is no longer 1996. Conservatives are now fully aware that they have been pushed out of mass media culture creation and journalism, and they are less interested in listening to the liberal mainline.

Conservative consciousness has grown because they have been cut out more.

I think you would also recognize, Donna, that LGBTQ has gone from obscurity and that's weird being the common sentiment in the 1980s to front & center, popularly endorsed. Moreover, the traditional white majority is viewed with more skepticism, having their identity and motives called into question by the mainstream media with regularity.

Is it really the conservatives who have been radicalized, or is it the conservatives who have sought to hang on to their classic identity?

It has become radical not because of them changing, but because of the society changing around them. It has become more dynamic because it now feels more isolated, and the whole of the Western world is experiencing regime cleavage.

[ingliz]

Jewish sages preceding the medieval scholar, Rashi, all believed this passage to be a description of the Messiah

Wrong!

Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual.

Origen of Alexandria Contra Celsum Book 1:55 (circa. 248 AD)

Note the date some 800 years prior to Rashi.

Isaiah 62:2... the Christian church

Only if you ignore context.

The righteous are Jews not Christians...

And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed... And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.

— Isaiah 61:9 ; 62:2

[Donna]

Right -- for instance, in the Washington Post article (not quoted by me, though), one of the suggestions was that conservative churches experience more growth because, taking the content more literally, the followers feel a greater need for evangelization. They also did not write this part, but I would also suggest that they have generally higher birth rates.

There was a book put out about a decade ago (here on Amazon) that i have been meaning to read which deals with the fact that the high birth rates of radical religious groups indicate that religiosity is really the future. They make use of the Amish, Mormons, and ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel to really drive home the point.

This probably happens all the time between more moderate conservative versus liberal views, although on a smaller scale. While the button-down shirt conservative Christian guy from high school may not have 8 kids, he may be expected to have kids, and even if he only has 2.2 children, if the average dopesmoker from high school only has 0.8 children, it will play out that the society will still generally have a greater conservative parenting influence on it. Even though Button-down boy probably exerts less influence on his children than the amish and a significant amount will fall away through public school secular humanist propagandizing, the cycle may be strong enough to resist change.

But we're not exactly talking about the Holy Spirit at work here, just the reproduction of social conventions via numerical supremacy.

Yes, the conservatives have become more radicalized, but this is only because it is no longer 1996. Conservatives are now fully aware that they have been pushed out of mass media culture creation and journalism, and they are less interested in listening to the liberal mainline.

I can remember the 1990's and if I recall conservatives wanted their morality to be sanctioned by law and forced down everyone else's throat and this is why they lost the culture war.

Moreover, the traditional white majority is viewed with more skepticism, having their identity and motives called into question by the mainstream media with regularity.

Can we really blame people for having this skepticism considering the way white people behave in the voting booth?

Is it really the conservatives who have been radicalized, or is it the conservatives who have sought to hang on to their classic identity?

In my experience I'm not seeing any kind of Neo-Burkean revival. I'm seeing a politics of resentment, psychosis and a lot of uncontrolled emotion.

It has become radical not because of them changing, but because of the society changing around them. It has become more dynamic because it now feels more isolated, and the whole of the Western world is experiencing regime cleavage.

I will cede that the world is a complicated place and it takes many years of study to understand just a small part of what is going on. Traditionally the majority of Christians required simple formulas because of the preoccupation of the Christian proletarian with her earthly tasks. This was a golden age for Catholicism and Protestantism in the US, of course. Today people have a lot more free time and the ability to propagate their own mediums and to a large extent the rise of "neo-orthodoxy" (i.e. the ortho-bro phenomenon in meme communities), nationalist christianities, sedavacantism, etc. is largely a manifestation of the wholly un-Christian and un-Biblical haughtiness it accompanies.

So we sort of now have two Christianities in America, regardless of denomination. We have the people who prioritize traditional liturgy and domestic conventions on the one hand and then we have the people who prioritize praxis, social justice, and charity on the other.

[Rich]

As I have been one of the only Christians posting in the last 6 pages, and was the starter of this thread, I am glad to hear that this has inspired you. It seems to be a bit opposite of what I wanted , but I have found that, through passion, we can sometimes punch through to the other side.

On a personal spiritual level, although I've never enjoyed Christian services, I do find Churches Christian monasteries and Cathedrals powerful places.

It is documented that Emperor Nero married a young boy that he had castrated named Sporus. This may be the first documented case of gay marriage, and certainly it may be the first time a prominent Western politician ever had a same sex marriage.

I support freedom for adult homosexuals, but that does not mean toleration for pederasty and homosexual paedophilia. I do not think it should be legal for a 45 years old man to bugger a sixteen year old boy.

Bigotry implies that someone has a really unjustifiable perspective, IMO, and so I do not think it is appropriate to refer to a clearly justifiable position (same sex marriage/relations are not positive for society) and say that it is inherently bigoted.

I certainly consider many Christian's views on homosexuality bigoted. For a large part of history Christians held a murderous bigotry. However I consider Islamic societies toleration of pederasty and homosexual paedophilia disgusting. But perhaps the most important thing for me is free speech. Many people, perhaps including yourself may consider my views bigoted, and i have no wish to stop them expressing their views.

I am glad you recognized that, in Christianity, the monastic vocations of women are valid.

You should also be aware that, in Shi'a Islam, women can actually become as high ranking as male ayatollahs -- they are called Lady Mujtahids. This would mean that there are literally women in Iran who outrank in terms of Islamic legal opinion 99% of Islamic clergy in the country.

There are also now Jewish sects that have female rabbis, including even... lesbian rabbis, like Sharon Kleinbaum.

Do you consider that to be legitimate? Obviously, on some level, this woman is a total contradiction to Jewish tradition. I do not really know how she goes about justifying all this other than by suggesting the first dozens of centuries are irrelevant to her status... But, IDK.

What do you think, Rich?

Female Christian monasticism certainly could be an escape for some women, just for this reason alone I'm obliged to give 100% support to the Christian crusades against the Muslims.

[Pants-of-dog]

In Acts, we know that Jews who were of the Sanhedrin or who were at least attending meetings of the Sanhedrin would do so. Later, we have St. Paul saying that he was receiving a letter addressed to the High Priest in the Temple of Damascus, presumably because the high priest in Damascus was involved in the persecution of Christians.

Can you please quote the relevant passages?

I personally believe all people have a right to freedom of conscience, freedom to speak their mind, as well. I would not come up with any law, though, that was meant to protect a specific group, but only laws which exist to give all people equal protection of the law and freedom, I guess.

So if straight people have rights, should LGBtQ people laso have them?

He was condemning the sin of sodomy, that much is clear, and the sin of sodomy does not have to exist within the context of a lifestyle.

But sodomy itself is very explicitly not allowed.

You could come up with a means to make alcoholism more disciplined, but it simply isn't allowed.

But in general, Christians do not condemn sodomy. After all, if a hetero couple engaged in oral or anal sex, it would not be a problem for Christians.

Rape is penalized in the Bible.

......because it robs the father of the woman, who loses the monetary worth of his daughter’s virginity.

It has nothing to do with women’s consent.

Because the oldest copies are in Greek..?

Do you suppose the Boo of Hebrews was also originally composed in Greek?

No, I think the author of Acts was a Roman Gentile because of the theology of Acts and how the book focuses on how Christianity is a Gentile religion.

But why is the assumption that the material is wrong. Of course, it is not verifiable. But why is the assumption that they have recorded lies?

When something gets translated, things get lost or changed in translation.

Well, we know that heresies were regional, while the Church was universal. I have heard, for instance, Collyridianism existed in pre-Islamic Arabia and not in other places.

It seems that orthodox Christianity was also regional.

[SpecialOlympian]

[KS mod note: If you have nothing to contribute other than riling up others do not post at all and never repeat posts that have been deleted.]

[Political Interest]

You're conflating autonomy with hegemony.

I have already explained the reasons for why the white elite has hegemony and these reasons are not some type of perennial whiteness as you seem to suggest. It's because the West is currently dominant, although this is changing.

The hypothetical scenario you described is an example of arbitrary power, not structural power. It is discrimination based on the personal whims of one individual who occupies a powerful office.

A society is made up of individuals. The prejudice of individuals is collective and structural prejudice and discrimination.

Those identities contain only cultural content though, have evolved closely with the secular nation-state and have since become universally-embracing world-cultures as the conditions of the nation-state changed. To identify with one's Germanic-ness or Celtic-ness on anything other than purely cultural terms is clearly a racist innovation.

They do not contain only cultural content, they are from our ancestors.

They are not world cultures. Perhaps some of them are globalised, but again that is only because of Western hegemony.

You are essentially saying that whites cannot be proud of their ancestry.

They have indigenous cultures which are engaged in a dialectical struggle with white supremacism. Part of that struggle is integrating themselves into the cultural forms of the colonizer while retaining their indigenous heritage.

The cultural forms of the coloniser in his own homeland? In the context of his own homeland he is not a coloniser. Colonies exist outside the homeland.

I don't understand what your point is. I have no problem with Europeans 'retaining' or celebrating their traditional cultural identities. It's fine if people wear kilts at a Scottish wedding or wear lederhosen at Bratwurstfest, or dress up as demons for Krampus. But if they want to identify as members of the "white race" they can go fuck themselves.

Yet they are already part of the white race by virtue of having the white privileges you are so insistent on.

Due to the contextual dynamics of global white supremacism it's not possible for someone who benefits from white privilege (i.e. someone who is white-passing) to "join" an indigenous culture that experiences systematic othering. This individual can only colonize and consume the cultural content.

But non-whites assimilating into white cultures is not cultural appropriation?

And what of whites as indigenous? Are whites not the indigenous peoples of Europe?

At the very least you seem to believe that race is real, that there is an inseparable union between race and culture, and that culture emerges at least partially from the machinations of race. While you might be able to check off all the boxes of a civil rights ally in 1965, it still appears your beliefs about human culture are rooted in a fundamentally racist cosmos, albeit a tolerant and idealistic one.

I don't believe race is real. I don't believe in a notion of a white race. There is no racial purity, every ethnicity is in a state of solution with many different racial and sub-racial elements in it. I am not a white nationalist. You seem to believe in it, though, because you believe in the concept of white privilege. And yet you are here pushing it as a social construct while simultaneously denying its existence. If we want to have pride in our ethnicity you say this is reactionary and racist because whites cannot do this. In doing this you are equating European ethnicity with whiteness. But I thought in pre-modernity at the time of the Germanic, Celtic, Slavic and Finnic tribes there was no whiteness?

About being an ally, I am not interested in your sort of allies. I am interested in POC of colour allies who respect me and I in turn respect them. Allies who are more interested in me doing my part to stop Western resource imperialism and interfering in their internal affairs than promoting communalism in Europe.

I disagree, I believe Europe is doing fine absorbing the refugees that they themselves created.

I am not talking about refugees, I am talking about normal immigration. A refugee is not a migrant.

Your position seems to be somewhere in the heavens because I haven't encountered it here on earth yet. You keep resisting my assertion that white identity is a scam to oppress people of color, so where do you really stand on this?

Well, that's just a little riddle you're going to have to figure out for yourself .

I don't believe in a white identity. I believe that there are historically constituted ethnicities in Europe that just happen to be white. Europeans have the right to be proud of these ethnicities and these white ethnicities can face discrimination and racism. However, I don't deny that POC face discrimination or structural racism. I also think that POC can assimilate into European ethnicities.

Are you white-passing?

Yes.

[Rich]

The White person is to the Cultural Marxist as the Jew was to the Nazis. The great problem for the Nazis was the incredible success of German Jews. Some of the figures are quite extraordinary. German Jews made a huge contribution to German national success, to the German economy, to German Culture and to Germany's ability to wage war But the success of German Jews produced a terrible inferiority complex in German nationalists. Particularly obviously in the humiliating aftermath of WWI. The Jews had to be demonised. The racism directed against the Jews was of a wholly different nature to the racism directed against the Russians, the Arabs or Blacks. The very existence of the German Jews became painful to German nationalists.

It is the same today with us White people. Anyone who spends five minutes studying history realises that the world owes us everything. Prosperity, advanced technology, human rights, modern medicine. The whole of the modern world is due to us. Non White people can tell us that slavery was wrong, but they only learnt that it was wrong through White people. It was White people that taught Africans that slavery was wrong. It was white people that pressured Muslim countries into at least pretending to give up slavery. Its white people who taught the rest of the world to treat women with respect.

So for Black nationalists and Muslims, our very existence is a humiliation. our achievements are a humiliation. They need to demonise us in the same way the Nazis needed to demonise the Jews. But this also applies to White Cultural Marxists who identify with Blacks and Muslims. This is why White Cultural Marxists are in a constant and never ending struggle to vilify, demonise, degrade and humiliate White people. A constant and never ending struggle to explain away the failings of Blacks, Muslims and other low achieving minorities.

For the Cultural Marxist there must be massive levels of racist discrimination, otherwise, low achievement of some minority groups would be the responsibility of those groups. The Cultural Marxist, rather like the Christian is caught in a constant cycle of guilt. The Cultural Marxist must forever be searching for unconscious racism in himself and his fellow White people. He must feel guilty for his racism, but the must also feel guilty for not being racist, because to think that one is not racist is the worst form of racism, as for a Christian the worst form of sinner is someone who believes he is not a sinner.

[Donna]

I have already explained the reasons for why the white elite has hegemony...

Interesting, I've already explained to you why it's in the interests of the ruling class to perpetuate white supremacism.

A society is made up of individuals. The prejudice of individuals is collective and structural prejudice and discrimination.

I don't agree. Individual prejudice isn't always a manifestation of structural racism. Your argument also intentionally tries to broaden the definition of 'structural' so as to render it meaningless, which is a bit of a dishonest trick.

They do not contain only cultural content, they are from our ancestors.

Ah, here it comes, the racial mysticism.

They are not world cultures. Perhaps some of them are globalised, but again that is only because of Western hegemony.

They are indeed world cultures because they are now universally inclusive.

You are essentially saying that whites cannot be proud of their ancestry.

Again, you're trying to sneak racial categories into cultural ones. Unless you were born into an animist culture any talk of "ancestry" is probably a euphemism for race.

The cultural forms of the coloniser in his own homeland? In the context of his own homeland he is not a coloniser. Colonies exist outside the homeland.

This is a pretty good example of how disconnected you are from indigenous perspectives. In the eyes of peoples who have been colonized by the British, French, Americans, et al., the British, French and American nations are colonizers.

Anymore hairs you'd like to split?

Yet they are already part of the white race by virtue of having the white privileges you are so insistent on.

As I've said, white-passing people benefit from the regime of white supremacism. The white race is the "branding" so to speak that all white-passing people are socialized into or are invited to identify with.

But non-whites assimilating into white cultures is not cultural appropriation?

Then yes, you benefit from structural racism and it's your moral and ethical duty to assist the world in the deconstruction of whiteness.

[Political Interest]

Interesting, I've already explained to you why it's in the interests of the ruling class to perpetuate white supremacism.

Sorry, mate, I don't agree.

I don't agree. Individual prejudice isn't always a manifestation of structural racism. Your argument also intentionally tries to broaden the definition of 'structural' so as to render it meaningless, which is a bit of a dishonest trick.

It's not a dishonest trick as much as its a difference of opinion.

Ah, here it comes, the racial mysticism.

It's not a myth, mate, every continent has different people. Whites from Europe, blacks from Africa and so on.

They are indeed world cultures because they are now universally inclusive.

Hardly. If you're not from London someone from London won't regard you as English, regardless of your race. It's the same with most British cities.

Again, you're trying to sneak racial categories into cultural ones. Unless you were born into an animist culture any talk of "ancestry" is probably a euphemism for race.

But people of every race have a culture that is inherited from the collective society of their ancestors. Have you not heard of folk traditions?

This is a pretty good example of how disconnected you are from indigenous perspectives. In the eyes of peoples who have been colonized by the British, French, Americans, et al., the British, French and American nations are colonizers.

Actually I think I'm quite well acquainted with indigenous perspectives coming from New Zealand. In a New Zealand context I fully support the reconstition of Maoris in New Zealand and look forward to the day there is a full Maori linguistic, demographic and cultural revival. I love seeing Maori on the TV and hearing it on the radio. I don't appropriate Maori culture but it makes me proud to be a New Zealander.

And to address your point, yes to colonised peoples all of those nations are colonisers. At the same time you can't be a coloniser in your own homeland. The white English have not colonised England, for example. And in spite of all discussions of neo-colonialism, which I do agree exists, the former colonies are for all intents and purposes self-governing.

As I've said, white-passing people benefit from the regime of white supremacism. The white race is the "branding" so to speak that all white-passing people are socialized into or are invited to identify with.

So, what you're saying is we can't really have any ethnic identity because that would be white supremacist because we're now all cosmopolitan and we have no real reason to.

Then yes, you benefit from structural racism and it's your moral and ethical duty to assist the world in the deconstruction of whiteness.

We will see who was right and who is wrong when we are judged by the Lord.

I think I've taken Verv's thread far too off topic now. I will leave you with this clip from Patriarch Kirill in which he discusses multiculturalism and communal harmony.

[Donna]

Sorry, mate, I don't agree.

Of course, you're an idealistic, velvet-gloved white nationalist, why would you?

It's not a dishonest trick as much as its a difference of opinion.

Obviously. Nonetheless, base and superstructure is a Marxian concept, so it's interesting that you partially ceded that.

It's not a myth, mate, every continent has different people. Whites from Europe, blacks from Africa and so on.

Oh God, now you're dragging out the 19th century taxonomy now.

But people of every race have a culture that is inherited from the collective society of their ancestors. Have you not heard of folk traditions?

What do folk traditions have to do with race?

Actually I think I'm quite well acquainted with indigenous perspectives coming from New Zealand. In a New Zealand context I fully support the reconstition of Maoris in New Zealand and look forward to the day there is a full Maori linguistic, demographic and cultural revival. I love seeing Maori on the TV and hearing it on the radio. I don't appropriate Maori culture but it makes me proud to be a New Zealander.

Yet the Maori are decidedly open to non-European immigration to New Zealand. The same thing with Australian aborigines and Canada's First Nation. Settlers like you don't get to decide who comes in.

And to address your point, yes to colonised peoples all of those nations are colonisers. At the same time you can't be a coloniser in your own homeland. The white English have not colonised England, for example. And in spite of all discussions of neo-colonialism, which I do agree exists, the former colonies are for all intents and purposes self-governing.

How do you reconcile that with the fact that colonialism still exists within countries like Canada and Australia and Israel?

So, what you're saying is we can't really have any ethnic identity because that would be white supremacist because we're now all cosmopolitan and we have no real reason to.

As I've already said: I have no problem with Europeans 'retaining' or celebrating their traditional cultural identities. It's fine if people wear kilts at a Scottish wedding or wear lederhosen at Bratwurstfest, or dress up as demons for Krampus. But if they want to identify as members of the "white race" they can go fuck themselves.

I think I've taken Verv's thread far too off topic now. I will leave you with this clip from Patriarch Kirill in which he discusses multiculturalism and communal harmony.

Kirill is a dangerous reactionary who believes that things like human rights are heretical. I have no interest in hearing what that fat little slug has to say.

[Verv]

Wrong!

Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual.

Origen of Alexandria Contra Celsum Book 1:55 (circa. 248 AD)

Note the date some 800 years prior to Rashi.

That is correct -- the whole quote, for those interested, is this:

Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations. And in this way he explained the words, "Thy form shall be of no reputation among men;" and then, "They to whom no message was sent respecting him shall see;" and the expression, "A man under suffering." Many arguments were employed on that occasion during the discussion to prove that these predictions regarding one particular person were not rightly applied by them to the whole nation. And I asked to what character the expression would be appropriate, "This man bears our sins, and suffers pain on our behalf;" and this, "But He was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our iniquities;" and to whom the expression properly belonged, "By His stripes were we 21 healed." For it is manifest that it is they who had been sinners, and had been healed by the Saviour's sufferings (whether belonging to the Jewish nation or converts from the Gentiles), who use such language in the writings of the prophet who foresaw these events, and who, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, appiled these words to a person. But we seemed to press them hardest with the expression, "Because of the iniquities of My people was He led away unto death." For if the people, according to them, are the subject of the prophecy, how is the man said to be led away to death because of the iniquities of the people of God, unless he be a different person from that people of God? And who is this person save Jesus Christ, by whose stripes they who believe on Him are healed, when "He had spoiled the principalities and powers (that were over us), and had made a show of them openly on His cross?" At another time we may explain the several parts of the prophecy, leaving none of them unexamined. But these matters have been treated at greater length, necessarily as I think, on account of the language of the Jew, as quoted in the work of Celsus.

Documenta Catholica

This is the only way that the Jews can interpret the text when they are engaged with the Christians who claim that Christ is the prophet, but notice the response of Origen. He talks about how the symbolism of the collective servant does simultaneously prophesy a man who would be led into suffering and pain because of the iniquities He bears for the sake of ISrael, this can really only be about a Messiah.

Surely He has borne our [g]griefs
And carried our [h]sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
[j]Smitten by God, and afflicted.

Isaiah 53:4

The Servant is acting separate from the collective, because He is subject to bearing the sorrows and being stricken by God on behalf of the Hebrews.

But perhaps more importantly, your original statement, which was actually much shorter, was...

Anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew can clearly see that the oppressed Servant is a collective Servant, not a single individual. The Hebrew word לָֽמוֹ׃ (lā-mōw), when used in the OT, always means "to them" never "to him".

(Post #15,086,604

The referring to him with a word that is occasionally pluralized is not an issue at all for the interpretation, as the original link I made told.

But, clearly, you were right in this thing: there were Jews who were bringing up this argument before Rashi, but I would note that this was (a) specifically to dispute with Christians and (b) fails to account for the passage properly.

Only if you ignore context.

The righteous are Jews not Christians...

[i]And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed... And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.

— Isaiah 61:9 ; 62:2

That is right: the seed was blessed, and the Messiah was born.

But even still, this was not something of a pure ethnos that is to be found in the blood. For the Amorites and others have converted into Judaism before, and now the whole of the world is completely open to the spiritual joining together with God, as Christians, and the new name is, of course, the Church.

The old covenant has been done away with, as stated in Hebrews 8:13, and the true sons of Abraham are those who live as sons of Abraham, not merely those who descend from him (John 8:39).

[Verv]

Can you please quote the relevant passages?

No problem -- here are some of the specific characters:

'Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. '

Acts 6:9

'And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, '



Acts 6:12

'And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.'

Acts 6:15

So, this would be the council of the aforementioned -- the Sanhedrin.

'Then said the high priest, Are these things so? '
Acts 7:1

After this, St. Stephen testifies to the Sanhedrin, and we are led to this event...

'Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul. And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.'

Acts 7:56-60

So, it is not overly specific as to who the crowd was, but it certainly provides us with locations and other reference points.

Bonus passage: In Acts 4:1, though not relevant to St. Stephen, it states

'And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, '

So if straight people have rights, should LGBtQ people laso have them?

Yes, of course: all rights that we can be said to have are given to all humans.

But in general, Christians do not condemn sodomy. After all, if a hetero couple engaged in oral or anal sex, it would not be a problem for Christians.

If you recollect your Catholic teaching, those two forms are disallowed. At least, as I have heard it described -- that all sexuality between husband and wife must be open to conception, meaning no birth control measures or sexual acts that make conception impossible.

Orthodoxy is more liberal, generally, but you will find many Priests like Fr. Josiah Trenham that would stand to this exact same standard. It is not, however, canonical to my knowledge.

......because it robs the father of the woman, who loses the monetary worth of his daughter’s virginity.

It has nothing to do with women’s consent.

I disagree with that. For instance, Boaz greatly loved his daughter, and respected her:

Then Boaz said, “The Lord bless you, my daughter. This act of kindness is greater than the kindness you showed to Naomi in the beginning. You didn’t look for a young man to marry, either rich or poor. Now, my daughter, don’t be afraid. I will do everything you ask, because all the people in our town know you are a good woman. It is true that I am a relative who is to take care of you, but you have a closer relative than I.

Ruth 3:10-11

It is a situation where the material elements are covered in the law because they are relevant, but the dignity of women is understood and addressed in other places.

The Bible talks about even how to materially compensate the murder of a son.

No, I think the author of Acts was a Roman Gentile because of the theology of Acts and how the book focuses on how Christianity is a Gentile religion.

What theology of Acts (besides Christainity as a "Gentiel religion")?

Is St. Paul also a gentile because He emphasizes Christianity is a religion for gentiles?

Wouldn't it be the case that the expansion of the religion to gentiles would form a significant aspect of Acts, naturally, because this is when the great commission begins..?

When something gets translated, things get lost or changed in translation.

Not to a great extent, I think. Obviously, sometimes a thing has to be more clearly elucidated and there can be dispute, but even professional translators of the Bible, likes James White, have said they get annoyed when people ask but what does this really say? about a passage. It's right there, in English.

It seems that orthodox Christianity was also regional.

How so?

[ingliz]

Stephen

Historicity was not a priority at that time. Besides the Lukan narrative preserved in Acts 6-8 there are at least three other texts and a multiplicity of translations of those texts describing Stephen's trial and martyrdom and they all differ markedly from one another - Never mind the trial, there are at least 9 different recensions in the martyrdom part to the story, alone!

Stories...

The flow of apostolic 'memories' kept coming well into late antiquity and were taken up and discarded according to the spiritual needs of the time.

[Pants-of-dog]

No problem -- here are some of the specific characters:

'Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. '

Acts 6:9

'And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, '



Acts 6:12

'And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.'

Acts 6:15

So, this would be the council of the aforementioned -- the Sanhedrin.

'Then said the high priest, Are these things so? '
Acts 7:1

After this, St. Stephen testifies to the Sanhedrin, and we are led to this event...

'Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul. And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.'

Acts 7:56-60

So, it is not overly specific as to who the crowd was, but it certainly provides us with locations and other reference points.

Bonus passage: In Acts 4:1, though not relevant to St. Stephen, it states

'And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, '

So, it is not Jews who persecuted Stephen. Though this takes place in Jerusalem, it is not even the local synagogues that get mad at him to begin with. Instead, this whole thing is started by 4 diaspora synagogues.

And at the time, there were between 450 and 500 synagogues in Jerusalem at the time. So, this is a vanishingly slim minority.

Yes, of course: all rights that we can be said to have are given to all humans.

So, straight people should have the right to not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. Right?

If you recollect your Catholic teaching, those two forms are disallowed. At least, as I have heard it described -- that all sexuality between husband and wife must be open to conception, meaning no birth control measures or sexual acts that make conception impossible.

Orthodoxy is more liberal, generally, but you will find many Priests like Fr. Josiah Trenham that would stand to this exact same standard. It is not, however, canonical to my knowledge.

In theory, yes, but in practice, no Christian (Catholic or otherwise) actually cares or does anything about it.

And when Christians agitate to have their religious policies made law, they do not oppose fellatio and cunnilingus, but instead oppose gay marriage.

I disagree with that. For instance, Boaz greatly loved his daughter, and respected her:

Then Boaz said, “The Lord bless you, my daughter. This act of kindness is greater than the kindness you showed to Naomi in the beginning. You didn’t look for a young man to marry, either rich or poor. Now, my daughter, don’t be afraid. I will do everything you ask, because all the people in our town know you are a good woman. It is true that I am a relative who is to take care of you, but you have a closer relative than I.

Ruth 3:10-11

It is a situation where the material elements are covered in the law because they are relevant, but the dignity of women is understood and addressed in other places.

The Bible talks about even how to materially compensate the murder of a son.

Ruth is not the daughter of Boaz, which is good since they are obligated by law to wed each other.

That was the law back then: when a young man died and left a widow, a close male relative of the dead guy had to marry and impregnate the widow to keep the family name going on. The story of Onan also deals with this law.

In this case, neither Boaz nor Ruth can choose not to have sex with each other. Well, actually, Boaz is not the closest male relative so he has to go and ask that guy if Boaz can take the other guy’s place and marry Ruth.

This is actually a story about how Ruth is a good woman because she shows a total lack of spine and embodies complete sexual submission.

What theology of Acts (besides Christainity as a "Gentiel religion")?

Is St. Paul also a gentile because He emphasizes Christianity is a religion for gentiles?

Wouldn't it be the case that the expansion of the religion to gentiles would form a significant aspect of Acts, naturally, because this is when the great commission begins..?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of ... s#Theology

Not to a great extent, I think. Obviously, sometimes a thing has to be more clearly elucidated and there can be dispute, but even professional translators of the Bible, likes James White, have said they get annoyed when people ask but what does this really say? about a passage. It's right there, in English.

This is all a moot point since all the evidence we have is that Acts was written in Greek and there is no evidence that it was originally written in another language.

How so?

Orthodox Christianity was initially confined to those areas where the first few Christians preached and spread their message.

[Verv]

Historicity was not a priority at that time. Besides the Lukan narrative preserved in Acts 6-8 there are at least three other texts and a multiplicity of translations of those texts describing Stephen's trial and martyrdom and they all differ markedly from one another - Never mind the trial, there are at least 9 different recensions in the martyrdom part to the story, alone!

Stories...

The flow of apostolic 'memories' kept coming well into late antiquity and were taken up and discarded according to the spiritual needs of the time.

I saw that there is an account of someone who was killed by a mob named Stephen in Josephus that some suggest may be the martyrdom of St. Stephen.

I am curious, what other sources are out there?

Moreover, do you have a response to what I wrote, or are you just covering what you want to cover, bringing things up, leaving them explained, etc.? It's having a negative impact on honest discussion, but maybe I have been mistaking this for us having it out over two conflicting views, and I really should just imagine this as two friends just throwing stuff out there.

I'd gladly change my perception to the latter of the two, if that is the case.

[Rich]

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Pretty clear, the complete opposite of what is stated in Acts. Paul says nothing about being in Jerusalem. nothing about being blinded. Nothing about Ananias. The story in Acts is manufactured to subordinate Paul to the Apostolic succession.

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.

2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.

Paul shows no interest in meeting the men, who supposedly had walked with God incarnate. No interest in meeting his family. No interest in visiting the Stable. No interest in going to the site of the crucifixion. The most important site in the history of the universe. Paul shows no interest in learning what the wandering Rabbi had taught. No interest in meeting the people healed by Jesus. No interest in meeting those raised form the dead by him.

The reason is simple, Paul knows nothing of Gospel story. Paul knows nothing of Galilean teacher, healer, necromancer and miracle worker. And neither did the proto Christians in Jerusalem.

[Verv]

So, it is not Jews who persecuted Stephen. Though this takes place in Jerusalem, it is not even the local synagogues that get mad at him to begin with. Instead, this whole thing is started by 4 diaspora synagogues.

And at the time, there were between 450 and 500 synagogues in Jerusalem at the time. So, this is a vanishingly slim minority.

They are synagogues attended by Jews, yes, but, obviously, not all Jews. Some segment of Jews did this.

Since the Sanhedrin was involved and such a commotion began, and we have other evidence indicating that a broad range of Jews disliked Christians, it would be safe to say that the cross-section of Jews (perhaps of simply conservative Jews, Sadducees & Pharisees) involved in this was significant.

So, straight people should have the right to not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. Right?

In what way?

All humans have a right to express themselves, practice their religion, own private property, self-defense, and perhaps some other things should be thrown in there, but I try to keep it minimal to what I believe human beings merit as positive rights.

In theory, yes, but in practice, no Christian (Catholic or otherwise) actually cares or does anything about it.

And when Christians agitate to have their religious policies made law, they do not oppose fellatio and cunnilingus, but instead oppose gay marriage.

In the US, I believe that there are actually laws on the books in places that have indicated that these are indecent and against the law, but are unenforceable and often function only as stand along charges in sexual crimes. But I do not know the details.

Regardless, I think you are wrong. Many Christians do not break these rules.

Ruth is not the daughter of Boaz, which is good since they are obligated by law to wed each other.

Thank you for that clarification! I was going quickly.

That was the law back then: when a young man died and left a widow, a close male relative of the dead guy had to marry and impregnate the widow to keep the family name going on. The story of Onan also deals with this law.

In this case, neither Boaz nor Ruth can choose not to have sex with each other. Well, actually, Boaz is not the closest male relative so he has to go and ask that guy if Boaz can take the other guy’s place and marry Ruth.

This is actually a story about how Ruth is a good woman because she shows a total lack of spine and embodies complete sexual submission.

The Bible says that men are also not allowed to deprive their wives of gratification in their marriage, but this is New Testament. I am not sure how this was ever handled in traditional Jewish society.

I think you also do not understand what life was like back then, and the importance of the conventions that were in place. These sorts of laws functioned as a social safety net -- so a widowed woman could be taken care of and not be abandoned, and also so that the family could grow and not be wiped out or burdened.

If you were more interested in anthropology/sociology, or in being fair to the religious, you would be connecting these dots, I'm sure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles#Theology

What am I looking for? What is relevant here?

This is all a moot point since all the evidence we have is that Acts was written in Greek and there is no evidence that it was originally written in another language.

Our oldest copy of Hebrews is also in Greek, but the consensus is that it was likely originally composed in Hebrew.

It would make sense that the original composition of Acts was in Aramaic or Hebrew, or that there was a predecessor to it, or an oral history held dearly, which detailed things like the martyrdom of St. Stephen.

Orthodox Christianity was initially confined to those areas where the first few Christians preached and spread their message.

... Which was a vast area that propagated outwards very quickly, and was the cradle of true Christianity.

It was not "confined" in the way that heresies were confined.

[Pants-of-dog]

They are synagogues attended by Jews, yes, but, obviously, not all Jews. Some segment of Jews did this.

Since the Sanhedrin was involved and such a commotion began, and we have other evidence indicating that a broad range of Jews disliked Christians, it would be safe to say that the cross-section of Jews (perhaps of simply conservative Jews, Sadducees & Pharisees) involved in this was significant.

According to the story, the Sanhedrin did not get involved until the folks from these four synagogues paid people to lie about it. So, if we are looking solely at the evidence presented, it is a tiny segment of the Jerusalem population of Jews at the time.

In what way?

All humans have a right to express themselves, practice their religion, own private property, self-defense, and perhaps some other things should be thrown in there, but I try to keep it minimal to what I believe human beings merit as positive rights.

What about being allowed to go to school or not get fired for being straight?

In the US, I believe that there are actually laws on the books in places that have indicated that these are indecent and against the law, but are unenforceable and often function only as stand along charges in sexual crimes. But I do not know the details.

Regardless, I think you are wrong. Many Christians do not break these rules.

Let us clarify what we have discussed so far.

St. Paul and other early Christians never condemned the modern gay lifestyle or identity or even having this sexual orientation, because these ideas did not exist at the time.

The actual laws are against non-procreation sex.

Christians often take part in such sexual acts, and these days never condemn them, despite the fact that this is what the Bible is actually condemning.

Instead, many Christians oppose gay marriage and discriminate against LGBTQ people
because of their identity or lifestyle, despite the fact that the Bible does not condemn these things.

Thank you for that clarification! I was going quickly.

The Bible says that men are also not allowed to deprive their wives of gratification in their marriage, but this is New Testament. I am not sure how this was ever handled in traditional Jewish society.

I think you also do not understand what life was like back then, and the importance of the conventions that were in place. These sorts of laws functioned as a social safety net -- so a widowed woman could be taken care of and not be abandoned, and also so that the family could grow and not be wiped out or burdened.

If you were more interested in anthropology/sociology, or in being fair to the religious, you would be connecting these dots, I'm sure.

You can accuse me of whatever you want.

No matter what nefarious motive I bring to the table, it is a fact that female consent is not important in the Bible.

What am I looking for? What is relevant here?

How the author of Acts expresses his view that Christianity is a Gentile religion because the Jews repudiated it, among other things.

Our oldest copy of Hebrews is also in Greek, but the consensus is that it was likely originally composed in Hebrew.

It would make sense that the original composition of Acts was in Aramaic or Hebrew, or that there was a predecessor to it, or an oral history held dearly, which detailed things like the martyrdom of St. Stephen.

Why would it make sense that it was written in Aramaic or Hebrew?

... Which was a vast area that propagated outwards very quickly, and was the cradle of true Christianity.

It was not "confined" in the way that heresies were confined.

The “heresies” were not confined any more than the proto-orthodox Christians were.

What are you talking about?