Weird Email From Pseudo Non Christian Trying To Break My Mom Down

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1240995' date='Apr 13 2007, 01:07 AM']They work together on a city council. She is going to make a reply, I just want to provide something rational for her.[/quote]
If this exchange would result in consequences for your mother at work, then it is not appropriate. Does the other person have any authority over her?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1243759' date='Apr 14 2007, 11:27 PM']This kind of deflection is going to get this moved back to the debate table. I'm not going to get into a debate about who wrote the first five books. It does not have any impact on the content of them. What the first five books do is outline the growth of faith by the Israelites.

Nothing that I've stated is in dispute. None of what I've written is considered liberal. Simply labeling as such just because it doesn't suit your fancy doesn't change the fact that the Israelites moved from a polytheistic system of belief to the monotheistic.

And btw you have offered nothing to dispute it[/quote]


"[i]Take the creation story "Let us make man in our image" Today we would attribute that to the three parts of the Trinity. But genesis was written well before the concept of the Trinity was revealed. For a time they believed that other gods existed and didn't realize that the god of Isaac, the god of Abraham, etc were just God.[/i]"

This statement does question the author of the Pentateuch, Moses would have understood when he was inspired to write ""Let us make man in our image" as that being the One true God, and when he wrote of the God of Abraham, Isaac and their sons he would have understood that God as being God. The author of the Pentateuch does have an impact on the books therein, because it does have an effect on the meaning of passages such as the one from Genius. It would also have an impact on the words of Christ and His Apostles, which say Moses is the author. If in fact Moses is not the author then what Christ and His Apostles say about Moses' authorship is brought to doubt.

I understand since the time of Abraham the Israelis believed in the One true God, yet they have fallen away and came back to Him many times. What I am disputing is the implication that the inspired word of God, hints that "polytheistic system of belief", in that other gods exist.

Traditional Catholic teaching based on great part of the words of Christ, and His Apostles which state that the serpent in Genius is Satan, you have said that the serpent is not Satan. Which sounds pretty liberal.

[Thumper]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1242834' date='Apr 14 2007, 11:03 AM']But here's the deal. God reveals himself bit by bit throughout OT. God doesn't reveal his fullness until his people have grown and learned as a society. So coming to this guys flaw, he is working from the premise that if God is unchanging, our understanding of his nature should have been full and complete from the beginning. And that's goofy.

We develop personally from fetus to baby, baby to child, child to teen, teen to adult. As we grow, our understanding grows. It is the same as a society. We see that culturally all the time. Pretty much everything we do on a daily basis would be considered magic by anyone even 100 years ago. And that's just technology.

How much more patience is needed in gaining a fuller understanding of the Nature of God?[/quote]

Well said, hot stuff. It is not until God becomes incarnate in Jesus Christ that we believe that the fullness of revelation is given. And even after receiving that revelation it takes years, centuries, millenia for the Church to try to faithfully explain and understand that revelation. In fact, the simple truth is that we're never gonna get it all, because we are finite beings trying to comprehend the infinite.

That doesn't mean that we don't try to say something, to put our understanding of God, ourselves, our world, and evil into words--that's exactly what is going on in Genesis. Is it historical fact? I doubt it. Is it true? I heartily believe so. Does it still need to be interpreted? Yes. Does the perspective from which we view something change our interpretation? Absolutely.

The benefit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the New Testament, 2000 + years of tradition, and advances in scholarship makes a difference between how Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses understood God and how Christians understand God. And it should, otherwise Christ revealed nothing.

[quote name='KnightofChrist']There is never one form of theology, what you have pointed out is commonly called is liberal theology. Traditional theology is that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, or the books were brought down from Moses, thus Moses would have know there is but one God, and his writings or stories would reflect that. It is Liberal Theology which says Moses did not write the first five books, or had nothing or little to do with them, someone else wrote the books. And the books came together from many sources. Which is only put in Moses' name.[/quote]

There is never any one form of theology, you're correct. However, I think you are erroneously equating a particular interpretation of the bible (that Moses wrote the first five books, etc.) with the Apostolic Tradition. The length of time that something has been in use is not in and of itself necessarily an argument for its truth--in other words, one cannot simply say that because something has always been done a certain way that it is automatically akin to faithfulness to the Apostolic Tradition (a.k.a., revelation). If one wishes to use imprecise language one can say that for a long time the Christians "traditionally" understood the first five books of the bible to be written by Moses. However, for a long time many people "traditionally" thought the earth was a flat disk around which the sun revolved. That traditionally held belief changed with the advent of scientific scholarship, and the Church's exegetical understanding has changed with the advent of new methods of scripture scholarship. The church has made no one exegetical system infallible, and approves of many of the modern exegetical techniques that you seem to find so liberal. Exegesis must find its context in the life of the Church--but we certainly don't just discard it.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1243945' date='Apr 15 2007, 12:43 AM']Traditional Catholic teaching based on great part of the words of Christ, and His Apostles which state that the serpent in Genius is Satan, you have said that the serpent is not Satan. Which sounds pretty liberal.[/quote]

This brings together my two comments. As Christians, we can look at the figure of the serpent in Genesis and make a hermeneutical connection with Satan--we see the serpent acting in a way that coheres with what we know as that evil which works to separate us from the love of God. As Christians who uphold the use of reason and who do not fear biblical exegesis, however, we also have to recognize that there may well be a very big difference between what we understand about the serpent and what the folks who originally told the story meant about the serpent. Such discrepancies in meaning can indeed be problematic, and there are many hermeneutical theories that attempt to resolve the issue. Our faith is that the Holy Spirit is active not only in the writing but also in our reception of Scripture, and that through the Spirit we will gracefully grasp the saving truth that underlies the human words.

[N/A Gone]

hot stuff..please keep going, im just curious how this will turn up.

[N/A Gone]

Hey look...round 2!!!!

[quote]I don't know how much I have told you about my background, so maybe I ought to make that clear. I have an undergraduate degree in religion and philosophy and a masters of divinity degree. I was studying for the ministry. All of the biblical verses you are quoting I know very well, so nothing you are telling me is new. I also have a background (albeit rusty) in biblical criticism (not in the sense of criticizing the Bible, but in the sense of looking at the Bible through critical, scholarly eyes), so I know, for example, how some of certain parts of the Bible were put together, who was borrowing from whom, what sources were being used, etc. The writer of the Gospel of Luke, for example, is thought to have borrowed from at least three sources in constructing his account of Christ — from the Gospel of Mark and from two sources known as "Q" (from a German word meaning "source" and containing stuff which both Matthew and Luke borrowed, but which does not appear in Mark or John) and "L" (so designated because that is believed to have been the source from which Luke borrowed material that is peculiar to Luke). Some biblical scholars even suggest that Luke may have written his gospel before Mark , then revised it after reading Mark, Q and L. Thus, they designate some passages of Luke as being from an earlier version, known as "proto-Luke." Matthew borrowed from Mark, Q and M (for Matthew source). Mark, generally believed to be the first extant gospel written, just seemed to do his own thing, though he may have had other written sources, too. Matthew, Mark and Luke are thus designated the synoptics because the "see together," to a certain extent, though none is trying to write straight history. Each is working with a particular audience and a particular purpose in mind. Thus, emphases change from one book to another. John is not a synoptic gospel and is off doing his own thing.

What's my point in mentioning all of that. Only this, that this is not history — at least not history as we understand it — that is being written. These writers were starting with a faith assumption and writing with that faith assumption in mind. I'm not saying they are right or wrong. I'm just saying that you have to understand that faith assumption is being made.

I am also saying that I understand that there are passages in the Bible that seem to mention certain things before the Babylonian captivity. But understand, supposed mentioning of the afterlife before the Babylonian Captivity does not mean that the ancient Hebrews had the notion of heaven and hell that Christianity has. Indeed, there is not now nor has there ever been in Christianity a consistent view of what heaven and hell or the afterlife is.

I've never heard of Peter Kreeft, but he certainly did not originate the Argument from Design, which is sometimes called "The Teleological Argument." The Teleological Argument is at least as old as St. Thomas Aquinas, and probably older than that. And yes, I've studied it quite a bit — Aquinas and his many followers. I'm also very familiar with the "first cause" arguments, also known as the Cosmological Argument. Both Plato and Aristotle had versions of it (Aristotle called it "The Unmoved Mover"), though the most famous argument was the one proffered by, one again, Aquinas.

I've also read the philosophers who show why such arguments don't work as far as proving the existence of God or even a pretty thick slice of God. Read David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion or Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Kant, by the way, believed in God (Hume didn't), but he thought that neither the Cosmological nor the Teleological Arguments held up. He also rejected the Ontological Argument set forth by St. Anselm. But, Kant gave his own "proof," what is sometimes called the "Moral Argument." But Hume, who pretty much tore about the other arguments for the existence of God, tore apart Kant's Moral Argument as well.

Which is why I said earlier that when it comes to arguments for the existence of God, none is very convincing. However, to those who have experienced a conversion experience, that experience is far more convincing than any rational proof will ever be. More about that in a minute.

When you talk about semantics and the Bible, you forget one thing: You are starting with a faith assumption, which is fine. But it will never be convincing to someone who does not start with that same faith assumption. Even if I concede that from a Christian perspective (not the Christian perspective, because there never has been just one perspective) all those names for the devil/Satan refer to the same being, that doesn't mean a thing. That doesn't mean that such a being exists (though I once read a philosophical paper on The Ontological Proof for the Existence of the Devil). To be convincing, you would first have to show that the Bible is true. And believe me, when you try to prove that, you are going to run into a host of logical fallacies.

Does that mean that the Bible is not true? No. It just means it doesn't lend itself to philosophical/scientific proof.

Which brings me to your point that every civilization has believed there is a supreme being. First of all, that's not accurate, but beyond that: That proves nothing, not in the philosophical or scientific sense. There is a lot of study on the development and what some scientists are calling "the God Gene," namely something within is that seems to lead us to believe in or at least seek out a higher power or supreme being. Interesting idea. But what does it prove? Ultimately, nothing. To believers, it shows that there is something built in to who we are as human beings that compel us to seek God. To believers, it proves that God has put within us a mechanism that makes us long for that which is beyond this world.

A perfectly understandable argument.

To the skeptic, it shows just the opposite. It shows that in the development of consciousness, we, as humans, also began to develop questions that could not be answered and a longing for something to answer those questions, such as the question of death. Because we could not answer those questions, we projected solutions on the heavens and called it God. Thus, it wasn't God who created humanity and placed within humanity a longing for God, but rather that humanity had a longing for something beyond itself and so it was humanity that created God.

Also, a perfectly understandable argument.

Which is right? Beats me. If I knew the answer to that one, I would be God or at least a god. And obviously, I'm not that.

And, by the way, even if the "God Gene" proves the existence, which it doesn't, it certainly doesn't prove that the Christian God is that God. That, too, is a faith assumption.

And please understand that when I say something is a faith assumption I do not mean that is a bad thing. I do mean, however, that it is not going to be very convincing to someone who does not have that faith. So you can toss out as many Bible verses as you want, but if a person does not have the same beliefs you have about the Bible, it will not be convincing, any more than it would be convincing to you if I threw out passages from the Book of Morman, the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita or Tao Te Ching. Unless you accept the particular faith assumptions espouses by those books (or more accurately by certain interpretations of those books), then you're not going to accept those books as having any sort of authority.

Which gets to Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard, by the way, was a Christian and is often thought to be the founder of (or at least precusor to) that branch of philosophy known as existentialism. He is different from Nietzsche and Sartre, however, in that he was a Christian/believer and they were atheists. But even though he was a Christian, as a philosopher, he rejected any sort of philosophical proofs for the existence of God. God could not be proven.

In a very famous book of his, Philosophical Fragments, Kierkegaard asks a fundamental question about Christianity — a question about the person of Christ and the Christian idea that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. Kierkegaard raises the question of whether such an idea can be proven historically. The answer, he says, is no. Even if you had known Jesus personally back in the day, that doesn't mean that you would have known him to be God. Though he doesn't use this language, Kierkegaard makes a distinction between what later theologians would call the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith. Jesus as an historical figure can be shown, to some degree. There is little historical doubt that Jesus existed. What can be said historically about this person, however, is very little. Most of it is a matter of faith.

Kierkegaard went further. He said, in fact, that ultimately what Christianity asks people to accept is absurd. It is what he called the Absolute Paradox. Before you get upset, the Apostle Paul said pretty much the same thing: "For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (I Cor. 1:22-24). The notion that Jesus was fully human and fully divine doesn't make sense — not from a logical, rational point of view. And no matter how much apologist try to make it rational, it will never totally be.

The image I used to use was that rational thought will take you so far, like climbing up a ladder and then having to have faith about certain things to get where you need to get. But Kierkegaard went even further. To him, in Christianity we are led up a ladder to the point of coming face to face with the notion of the Christ event — fully human and fully divine. That notion is, as Paul said, a stumbling and folly. So much, in fact, that it in essence knocks the ladder out from under us. The only thing we can do, Kierkegaard said, is to take a leap of faith. For him,that meant a passionate embracing of that which is not logical. It is truly an act of faith.

That I can agree with. What I can't do, however, is take that leap. It's not that I don't want to, it's that I can't. At least not where I am in my life at this point.[/quote]


I still feel this would fit better on the debate forum or trans lane. I do not feel it is properly open mic. Either it is debate, or it is apologetics. If A mod feels justified pm me.

[Jaime]

[quote]I understand since the time of Abraham the Israelis believed in the One true God, yet they have fallen away and came back to Him many times. What I am disputing is the implication that the inspired word of God, hints that "polytheistic system of belief", in that other gods exist.
[/quote]Well first they were Israelites in OT times. They didn't become Israelis until 1948.


Secondly If what you are saying is true, that the Israelites realized from day one that there was one and only one God, then why does Moses bother asking the burning bush

[quote] Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"

14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am . [b] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

15 God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, [c] the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.[/quote]

also why would the 10 commandments include this

[quote]And God spoke all these words:

2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 "[b]You shall have no other gods before [a] me[/b].

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.[/quote]

If the Israelites had always believed that there was only one deity, there would be no need for this commandment.

It was because the Israelites did not realize up to that point that there was one true God. That is why when they were in the desert that they forged a golden calf.

The Israelites believed prior to their exodus that there was a God of the Israelites, but that there were other gods as well. This is the critical point of the book. Its not so much their journey out of slavery, but their spiritual journey into a truer understanding that there is only one God.


And I'm just going to assume that you're conceding the point on the OT understanding of the role of Satan. You seem to have let that one go.

[Thumper]

Revprodeji--while I understand your concern for your mom's faith, I have to say that after reading this guy's e-mails, I really don't think he is the epitome of evil, or even that he is interested in trying to undercut her faith. In the end, he is pointing out precisely what we believe: you don't get to faith through unaided reason. You've got to have grace first, and if you don't have grace, then all the philosophical arguments in the world don't matter. Those arugments can help us out once we've accepted grace and they make faith plausible; but they don't give us faith in the first place.

He seems willing to concede that some people have an experience of God--otherwise he'd have to say that everyone who claims to have such an experience is a delusional nutbag--and he doesn't seem to be claiming that. If anything, I feel sorry for the place he is in--he apparently had some faith convictions at one point, but seems to have lost them. I'm gonna put him on my prayer list, and hope that his conversation with your mom will be a movement towards his own acceptance of grace.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' post='1241821' date='Apr 13 2007, 04:13 PM']I haven't had time to read through the thread but it sounds like your mom might just want to block this person. There is a difference between discussing faith with someone and just plain being mean, and it sounds like this guy has crossed the line.

Prayers![/quote]

I do not think that he stepped over any line other then seperating himself from the Church.

I think that it would be best to back up one step and point out that meaning in scripture cannot be seperated from the Church's authority. As far as the Old Testament goes, Rabbanic commentary is just as useful, though not complete with out the New Testament.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1244589' date='Apr 15 2007, 03:33 PM']Well first they were Israelites in OT times. They didn't become Israelis until 1948.[/quote]

Typos... whoops

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1244589' date='Apr 15 2007, 03:33 PM']Secondly If what you are saying is true, that the Israelites realized from day one that there was one and only one God, then why does Moses bother asking the burning bush[/quote]

Because God's name was unknown but not God being one God. The name was a mystery but that does not mean that God being one true God was not know to the Israelites.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1244589' date='Apr 15 2007, 03:33 PM']also why would the 10 commandments include this
If the Israelites had always believed that there was only one deity, there would be no need for this commandment.[/quote]

As I said since at least Abraham, the Israelites knew there was one God, but they fell away many times, and came back and repented. This is the reason for the commandment. And also since God wrote the 10 Commandments He being Enteral wrote the 10 commandments for all times and all people.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1244589' date='Apr 15 2007, 03:33 PM']It was because the Israelites did not realize up to that point that there was one true God. That is why when they were in the desert that they forged a golden calf.[/quote]


They did realize there was one true God. Yet they fell away time and again. The golden calf is an example of the Israelites falling away, they knew of the one True God but fell away, when Moses return with the commandments they returned to God.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1244589' date='Apr 15 2007, 03:33 PM']The Israelites believed prior to their exodus that there was a God of the Israelites, but that there were other gods as well. This is the critical point of the book. Its not so much their journey out of slavery, but their spiritual journey into a truer understanding that there is only one God.[/quote]

The OT is the inspired word of God, as the Church teaches free from error. The Israelites did fall away and believe in false gods, but if the OT suggests that other gods exist, then the inspired would of God suggest other gods exist, it would be contrary for God to suggest such a thing. The journey in the desert was a spiritual journey returning to the promised land, and a returning to the one true God that promised that land to them. There are elements of truth in your statements however you conclusions are wrong, the Israelites did fall away from God, but suggesting this great sin found its way into Holy Scripture is flawed. Moses as Christ states wrote the first five books of the OT, Moses being guided by God would have written those books with the understanding that there is One True God.


[quote name='hot stuff' post='1244589' date='Apr 15 2007, 03:33 PM']And I'm just going to assume that you're conceding the point on the OT understanding of the role of Satan. You seem to have let that one go.[/quote]

Your statement considering Satan in the garden is counter to Church teaching, I conceded nothing. Your conclusions do not match Church teaching on the role of Satan in the old testament, only the Church has the authority to teach its meaning, not theologians or their conclusions of the OT, and not your conclusions of the OT.

Edited April 16, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Sojourner]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1245624' date='Apr 16 2007, 10:01 AM']Your statement considering Satan in the garden is counter to Church teaching, I conceded nothing. Your conclusions do not match Church teaching on the role of Satan in the old testament, only the Church has the authority to teach its meaning, not theologians or their conclusions of the OT, and not your conclusions of the OT.[/quote]
His comment was not about Church teaching on Satan, but about the OT understanding of Satan. Two different things.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1245632' date='Apr 16 2007, 10:09 AM']His comment was not about Church teaching on Satan, but about the OT understanding of Satan. Two different things.[/quote]


No, not two different things. The Church teaches the true meaning of the OT, and no one esle. He said that the story from Genesis in the garden does not mention Satan. The Church says the story from Genesis in the garden does mention Satan.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1245716' date='Apr 16 2007, 11:30 AM']No, not two different things. The Church teaches the true meaning of the OT, and no one esle. He said that the story from Genesis in the garden does not mention Satan. The Church says the story from Genesis in the garden does mention Satan.[/quote]
But people in OT times did not have the benefit of the fullness of revelation that the Church now possesses. That's what he's saying. We know things now that they did not know then.

What they knew then: OT understanding.

What we know now: Church understanding.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1245724' date='Apr 16 2007, 11:37 AM']But people in OT times did not have the benefit of the fullness of revelation that the Church now possesses. That's what he's saying. We know things now that they did not know then.

What they knew then: OT understanding.

What we know now: Church understanding.[/quote]


The Church interprets scripture by the "original intent" of the author who is guided by God to write. He has claimed the OT "understanding" "then" suggest other gods exist and this is found in scripture. If the original intent of the author suggest other gods exist, then that is its intent now, because that revelation came from God. The OT is the inspired word of God, it can not suggest such an error then or now, if indeed it is the word of the one true God. The Israelites did fall away from God many times, but to suggest that this idol worship is found in scripture is wrong. And that would seem to be what he is saying.

[Jaime]

Ok well first of all, everything that I've stated is directly in line with Church teachings. You've just been a bit too reactionary to it see that.

Does the Church teach that Satan was the serpent in the Garden of Eden? Yes

Is he specifically named? No

Did the people of OT times understand that it was Satan? No chance


That is the point that the emailer is making. That is the flaw in his argument. He asserts that the fullness of understanding about the Nature of God was present from the beginning. And it simply wasn't. It didn't have a chance of happening until Christ came.

[quote]Because God's name was unknown but not God being one God. The name was a mystery but that does not mean that God being one true God was not know to the Israelite[/quote]In short, no

The Israelites (mistakenly) believed that there was an Israelite god and it was powerful. But there were other gods as well. When Moses asked for clarification, God's response dispelled that.

[quote]Since then the Hebrew imperfect is admittedly not to be considered as a future, and since the nature of the language does not force us to see in it the expression of transition or of becoming, and since, moreover, early tradition is quite fixed and the absolute character of the verb hayah has induced even the most ardent patrons of its historical sense to admit in the texts a description of God's nature, the rules of hermeneutics urge us to take the expressions in Exodus 3:13-15, for what they are worth. Jahveh is He Who Is, i.e., His nature is best characterized by Being, if indeed it must be designated by a personal proper name distinct from the term God (Revue biblique, 1893, p. 338). The scholastic theories as to the depth of meaning latent in Yahveh (Yahweh) rest, therefore, on a solid foundation. [b]Finite beings are defined by their essence: God can be defined only by being, pure and simple, nothing less and nothing more; not be abstract being common to everything, and characteristic of nothing in particular, but by concrete being, absolute being, the ocean of all substantial being, independent of any cause, incapable of change, exceeding all duration, because He is infinite:[/b] "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, . . . who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8). Cf. St. Thomas, I, qu. xiii, a. 14; Franzelin, "De Deo Uno" (3rd ed., 1883, thesis XXIII, pp. 279-86.[/quote]

This was a huge illumination for Moses. The name Yahweh literally told him that "I am the only God". He didn't have to be concerned with the Egyptian gods because they didn't exist.

This doesn't call into play the inerrant nature of scripture. There is nothing that is inerrant. It demonstrates the journey of the Israelites in their understanding the nature of the one and only God.

You even agree with this (even though you're arguing against me)

[quote]The Israelites did fall away and believe in false gods[/quote]Yes! They were false. But the believing in false gods demonstrates (wait for it)

A POLYTHEISTIC SOCIETY

[quote]Moses as Christ states wrote the first five books of the OT, Moses being guided by God would have written those books with the understanding that there is One True God.[/quote]

Interesting. So you are suggesting that Moses would change the facts of history because he knew better? That would be like someone writing a book on US history and leaving out slavery because that person understood that it was wrong. For scripture to be free from errors, (and it is) it also has to be historically accurate from a cultural standpoint.

[quote]Your conclusions do not match Church teaching on the role of Satan in the old testament, only the Church has the authority to teach its meaning, not theologians or their conclusions of the OT, and not your conclusions of the OT.[/quote]

my conclusions are entirely accurate. In fact my senior thesis was on Satan. The understanding of Satan and his role has changed dramatically from OT through NT to today.

And as Theo correctly asserts, you can ask any Rabbinical scholar if I'm off on that.

[Gershom]

If he wants proof that God exists, ask him to prove that your mother exists. Without faith, all arguments fail.