date:20041123




The Midrash, I think, merely sated that Cain 
had no previous event upon which to base the severity of his action... and this 
may very well be true.However, in trying to read the best out of the 
situation, we cannot ignore the previous paragraph where God tells Cain to watch 
his attitude.

As far as the sacrifice goes, It is probably 
not the sacrifice that was incorrect. Torah gives accounts of sacrifices other 
than blood/flesh/animal sacrifices. Gen 4:5b-7 indicates a severe problem 
between the two men and God is addressing it with Cain (cf. Matt 5:23-24). The 
Prophets often speak of sacrifices not being given in the proper"spirit" 
as well.

I the end, the sacrifice (even if it 
contained all the right physical components) was an improper sacrifice because 
Cain's innards were at war.

-- slade

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 22 November, 2004 
  23.44To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Two Covenants
  
  Thanks for responding. I read several commentators views and only 
  one thought it was actually a physical mark. The article you sent was 
  interesting too. It is also interesting that some actually say the 
  murder he committed was actually not a transgression because the law against 
  murder was not yet given. The only transgression was bringing the wrong 
  offering. Laura

RE: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant




The 
logic you used in this post, John, is why I said it was a matter of perspective 
whether the covenant requires passive or active participation on Avraham's part. 
It's a matter of HOW one looks at the data and what data they choose to 
incorporate. It was not an attempt on my part to dodge the issue or to 
intentionally frustrate David M. The whole basis of my unwillingness to pin down 
an absolute answer is in the understanding that god GAVE the covenant promise to 
Avraham. This indicates ABSOLUTE passivity on Avraham's part. Avraham obeyed 
God's Wordand this indicates active participation.

- 
slade 

  
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 
22:55
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral 
covenantSo it is with the 
covenant. Gal 3:16 tells us that the covenant promise 
was given to Abraham and his seed, 
Jesus Christ. Christ has made it possible for God to view the 
heart of man, his intentions, his desire to live for others and be found in 
participation with the Communal God. So Abraham is 
"saved" in spite of his lack of faith (i.e. the circumstances involving 
his wife) and Samson is "saved" in spite of his continued lust and a 
vengeful attitude that resulted in his death. Did they 
participate? Of course. Did this 
participation result in their sanctification. Absolutely 
not.

[TruthTalk] Unilateral Covenant?

2004-11-23 Thread Judy Taylor




From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Suggestion:Combine 
rationalism with imagination. The role of imagination inbiblical and 
theological thinking is under rated.

jt: And well it should be lest we find at the end that 
we are holding to a god of
our own imagination - a figment if you 
will.

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral Covenant?

2004-11-23 Thread Lance Muir




Jt:'And well it (the imagination) should be'??? 


DearG:Might you be so kind as to provide a 'word' 
(No, forget that I saidA WORD) on the role of the imagination in the life 
of every human being? You are TT's most imaginative contributor.

Narrative comprises most of the Older Testament. 
Jesus employed 'story-telling'. I've come late to the table on this one. Think 
of Iris Murdoch (philosopher), John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progress), Les Miserable, 
Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, Edgar Allen Poe, JRRTolkien's masterful trilogy 
etc

Critiquing the imagination? Hello? Where would we 
be without it? We employ it in virtually every communication we 
make.

Perhaps the TT participlant with the most 
rationalistic bent is David but, I'd guess he read many great stories to his 
children when they were 'of an age to be read to'. (David: yes/no Smile David, 
it's not a 'shot' - I think).





  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: November 23, 2004 06:10
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Unilateral 
  Covenant?
  
  From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Suggestion:Combine 
  rationalism with imagination. The role of imagination inbiblical and 
  theological thinking is under rated.
  
  jt: And well it should be lest we find at the end 
  that we are holding to a god of
  our own imagination - a figment if you 
  will.

[TruthTalk] Unilateral Covenant?

2004-11-23 Thread Judy Taylor






From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jt:'And well it (the imagination) should be'??? 


DearG:Might you be so kind as to provide a 'word' 
(No, forget that I saidA WORD) on the role of the imagination in the life 
of every human being? You are TT's most imaginative contributor.

jt: Why ask G, I gave up trying to figure 
out what he is talking about long ago. He might be a nice guy but he is no 
communicator, what's the point of talking to yourself on a public list? 
Isn't this why Paul did not use sophisticated words of man's wisdom? He spoke 
plainly using words everyone could understand.

Narrative comprises most of the Older Testament. 
Jesus employed 'story-telling'. I've come late to the table on this one. Think 
of Iris Murdoch (philosopher), John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progress), Les Miserable, 
Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, Edgar Allen Poe, JRRTolkien's masterful trilogy 
etc
Critiquing the imagination? Hello? Where would we 
be without it? We employ it in virtually every communication we 
make.

jt: The only one worth anything on the above 
list IMO is Bunyan. Poe was a cocaine addict taken over by the dark side and as 
for Tolkien, he was a misguided RC - I am still kicking myself for being 
naive enough to buy his trilogy at a Christian Bookstore when our son was 11 or 
12yrs old; hewas immediately fished into that fantasy world and hasn't 
come out yet. Hopefully he draws the line at Harry Potter.

Perhaps the TT participlant with the most 
rationalistic bent is David but, I'd guess he read many great stories to his 
children when they were 'of an age to be read to'. (David: yes/no Smile David, 
it's not a 'shot' - I think).

jt: It's advised that we put away childish 
things, especially those that are destructive and anyway reality in Christ is 
way more exciting. Receiving the power to overcome temptation, bondage, 
and spiritual death rather than to be entertained by it. judy





  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: November 23, 2004 06:10
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Unilateral 
  Covenant?
  
  From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Suggestion:Combine 
  rationalism with imagination. The role of imagination inbiblical and 
  theological thinking is under rated.
  
  jt: And well it should be lest we find at the end 
  that we are holding to a god of
  our own imagination - a figment if you 
  will.

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral Covenant?

2004-11-23 Thread Lance Muir




Jt:Thanks for taking the time, as you always do, to 
read and, respond in detail. I do appreciate this about you.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: November 23, 2004 07:23
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Unilateral 
  Covenant?
  
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Jt:'And well it (the imagination) should be'??? 
  
  
  DearG:Might you be so kind as to provide a 'word' 
  (No, forget that I saidA WORD) on the role of the imagination in the 
  life of every human being? You are TT's most imaginative 
  contributor.
  
  jt: Why ask G, I gave up trying to figure 
  out what he is talking about long ago. He might be a nice guy but he is 
  no communicator, what's the point of talking to yourself on a public 
  list? Isn't this why Paul did not use sophisticated words of man's 
  wisdom? He spoke plainly using words everyone could understand.
  
  Narrative comprises most of the Older Testament. 
  Jesus employed 'story-telling'. I've come late to the table on this one. Think 
  of Iris Murdoch (philosopher), John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progress), Les 
  Miserable, Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, Edgar Allen Poe, JRRTolkien's masterful 
  trilogy etc
  Critiquing the imagination? Hello? Where would we 
  be without it? We employ it in virtually every communication we 
  make.
  
  jt: The only one worth anything on the 
  above list IMO is Bunyan. Poe was a cocaine addict taken over by the dark side 
  and as for Tolkien, he was a misguided RC - I am still kicking myself 
  for being naive enough to buy his trilogy at a Christian Bookstore when our 
  son was 11 or 12yrs old; hewas immediately fished into that fantasy 
  world and hasn't come out yet. Hopefully he draws the line at Harry 
  Potter.
  
  Perhaps the TT participlant with the most 
  rationalistic bent is David but, I'd guess he read many great stories to his 
  children when they were 'of an age to be read to'. (David: yes/no Smile David, 
  it's not a 'shot' - I think).
  
  jt: It's advised that we put away childish 
  things, especially those that are destructive and anyway reality in Christ is 
  way more exciting. Receiving the power to overcome temptation, bondage, 
  and spiritual death rather than to be entertained by it. 
  judy
  
  
  
  
  
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: November 23, 2004 06:10
Subject: [TruthTalk] Unilateral 
Covenant?

From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Suggestion:Combine 
rationalism with imagination. The role of imagination inbiblical and 
theological thinking is under rated.

jt: And well it should be lest we find at the end 
that we are holding to a god of
our own imagination - a figment if you 
will.

Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants





In a message dated 11/23/2004 4:46:25 AM Central Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  The Midrash, I think, merely sated that 
  Cain had no previous event upon which to base the severity of his action... 
  and this may very well be true.However, in trying to read the best out 
  of the situation, we cannot ignore the previous paragraph where God tells Cain 
  to watch his attitude.
  
  As far as the sacrifice goes, It is 
  probably not the sacrifice that was incorrect. Torah gives accounts of 
  sacrifices other than blood/flesh/animal sacrifices. Gen 4:5b-7 indicates a 
  severe problem between the two men and God is addressing it with Cain (cf. 
  Matt 5:23-24). The Prophets often speak of sacrifices not being given in the 
  proper"spirit" as well.
  
  I the end, the sacrifice (even if it 
  contained all the right physical components) was an improper sacrifice because 
  Cain's innards were at war.
  
  -- 
slade

I agree Laura

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral Covenant?

2004-11-23 Thread Bill Taylor

Cooel. I work something up this 
evening.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:19 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral 
  Covenant?

  On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:37:02 -0700 "Bill Taylor" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

A covenant demands the participation of two 
members.. 

  this makes sense, 
  Bill,sums up the issuesuccinctly,in 
  cntxt

  so what is a 
  (biblical?)'unilateral covenant'--in as many words as you want 
  me to read vbg

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant

In a message dated 11/23/2004 3:12:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Well put John,
 The keepers are accumulating, I think I'm going to have to start a file, hows this, "Smithson's Wisdom"
 or "Truth According to John"
 Jeff


Whoa -- you are being way to kind but thank you, anyway. I keep a floppy just for "keepers." You have a rather good representation in that file, as well. 

a friend and a brother,

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant

In a message dated 11/23/2004 2:50:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


The logic you used in this post, John, is why I said it was a matter of perspective whether the covenant requires passive or active participation on Avraham's part. It's a matter of HOW one looks at the data and what data they choose to incorporate. It was not an attempt on my part to dodge the issue or to intentionally frustrate David M. The whole basis of my unwillingness to pin down an absolute answer is in the understanding that god GAVE the covenant promise to Avraham. This indicates ABSOLUTE passivity on Avraham's part. Avraham obeyed God's Word and this indicates active participation.
 
- slade 


Slade, I hope you are not being desensive because of something I said. I could not agree more with your words above. 

As is the case in all honest disagreements (if, in fact, we are disagreeing), perspective is the reason. But I do not cast "perspective" as the "bad guy" because it is shared perspective that presents the possibility for growth. I have enjoyed your and Jeffs stay on this forum for exactly that reason. 

Gotta go. 

John

RE: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant

David
M was getting frustrated with me because I wouldn't give him a "straight answer"
to his passive/active question (like the only answer had to be active
or passive; like the question, "When did you stop beating your wife").
I was referring to his reaction to my "nonanswer" which in reality was the only
right answer because of the structure of his question.

--
slade

-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, 23 November, 2004
10.07To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Unilateral covenantIn a message dated 11/23/2004 2:50:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The logic you used in this post, John, is why I said it was a
matter of perspective whether the covenant requires passive or active
participation on Avraham's part. It's a matter of HOW one looks at the data
and what data they choose to incorporate. It was not an attempt on my part
to dodge the issue or to intentionally frustrate David M. The whole basis of
my unwillingness to pin down an absolute answer is in the understanding that
god GAVE the covenant promise to Avraham. This indicates ABSOLUTE passivity
on Avraham's part. Avraham obeyed God's Word and this indicates active
participation. - slade
Slade, I hope you are not being desensive because of
something I said. I could not agree more with your words
above. As is the case in all honest disagreements
(if, in fact, we are disagreeing), perspective is the reason. But I do
not cast "perspective" as the "bad guy" because it is shared perspective that
presents the possibility for growth. I have enjoyed your and Jeffs
stay on this forum for exactly that reason. Gotta go.
John

RE: [TruthTalk] Unilateral Covenant?




Sometimes the imagination can also be overrated. We have Christians and 
Jewish people who read all sorts of "spiritual truths" into passages and claim 
these "spiritual interpretations" are better than the plain sense interpretation 
of Scripture. In this scope, Judy [the pot] calls the kettle 
black.

-- 
slade

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy 
  TaylorSent: Tuesday, 23 November, 2004 06.10To: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Unilateral 
  Covenant?
  From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Suggestion:Combine 
  rationalism with imagination. The role of imagination inbiblical and 
  theological thinking is under rated.
  
  jt: And well it should be lest we find at the end 
  that we are holding to a god of
  our own imagination - a figment if you 
  will.

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant

2004-11-23 Thread David Miller

Slade wrote:
... like the only answer had to be active or passive;
like the question, When did you stop beating your wife.
The question, when did you stop beating your wife, assumes that the person
has been beating his wife, and if this assumption is not true, then it
becomes difficult to answer. My question was, would you characterize
Abraham as an active participant or as a passive participant in God's
covenant with him? The assumption in this question is that Abraham was a
participant. I thought we all agreed that he was, so this assumption should
not be a problem as it would be in the beating his wife question. The
question is simply whether YOU view Abraham as an active or passive
participant. I've read your answer, and I still think I asked a fair
question. You might consider that you have a reluctance to being
pigeonholed into a particular position.

Lest you think this is some kind of attack, I confess to you that I take a
similar position on the topic of Predestination. Was it God's will for
Jesus to be crucified? If yes, then why condemn those who did it? From one
perspective (the eternal perspective), it was God's will. From a more
proximal position, it was not. The Holy Spirit did not lead people to
crucify Jesus. Satan did.

Perspective certainly does play a role in answering any question, but when I
give you the freedom to answer from your own perspective, it should be easy
enough for you and others to consider the question and answer it based upon
your best judgment. Your answer can be short or it can be long. Of course,
if you are afraid of having to defend a particular position or would rather
not be known to view it in such a way, then you might dodge the question and
argue that it was a bad question anyway.

In this case, the question was most enlightening to me. John S. answered
passive. Most everyone else answered active. Some still have not
answered. Some hedged a good bit before answering. All of these responses
help me know where people are at in their commitment to the idea of a
unilateral covenant and their willingness to discuss it. If I decide to
pursue the matter further, it also helps me know what kind of questions to
ask.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.
p.s. I just ordered four books on this subject, so I might bring it up
again after I have had a chance to read them. On the other hand, I might
just keep my studies on this a private matter lest I cause any more grief to
those here who have figured it all out already. :-)

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant




Abraham was an active participant. He didn't just sit back and let 
God move - he had to ober God and do what God told him to do. 
Laura

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant

2004-11-23 Thread David Miller




John wrote:
 You seem to like the idea of a harsh 
God. 

Not exactly. It makes me tremble to think of 
how harsh he is. How is he able to create a hell and execute judgment the 
way he does? I am far from being able to do anything like that. 


John wrote:
 One is 
not a "passive participant" because he 
 violates accepted norms set by 
society. 

That was my point. Society accepts the 
passive participant, but God does not. It is a harsh reality taught in 
Scripture. 

Suppose a man is a coward. Suppose he is just 
flat out afraid to do anything. A timid man. Society has pity on 
him. God casts him into hell.What a contrast! Anything 
that does not bear fruit, God casts into hell. It is a terrible and 
sobering thought found in Scripture.

John wrote:
 You and I 
are passive participants, as I see it, in that life 
 comes to us through no effort of our 
own; our bodies survive 
 because, in part, of certain involuntary 
responses; age happens;
 our very personalities and many of our 
emotional and intellectual 
 concerns are gifts to us; our 
(read "my") ravishing good looks 
 are not indebted to personal effort; 
whether I am white, black, 
 yellow or whatever is of no personal 
effort --- in fact, I 
 could argue effectively that everything 
I am as a cultural being 
 is ultimately the result of influences 
not the result of personal 
 effort. 

Good points about those aspects of our lives 
that are passively attained. If I understand Scripture correctly, if we 
leave it at that, we will be cast into hell fire. Remember the parable of 
the talents in Mat. 25? The one whodid not produce something extra 
for hismaster, the one who wasafraid and buried his talentsso 
hecould give it back to his master when hereturned, what happened to 
him? He was cast into outer darkness. What kind of God is 
this?
John wrote: So it is with the covenant. Gal 
3:16 tells us that the 
 covenant promise was given to Abraham and his seed, 
 Jesus Christ. Christ has made it possible for God to view 

 the heart of man, his intentions, his desire to live for others 
 and be found in participation with the Communal God. 

 So Abraham is "saved" in spite of his lack of faith (i.e. 
 the circumstances involving his wife) and Samson is "saved" 
 in spite of his continued lust and a vengeful attitude that 
 resulted in his death. Did they participate? 
Of course. 
 Did this participation result in their sanctification. 
Absolutely 
 not. As high as we can jump -- we will 
never look anything 
 but silly when measured against how high we MUST go to find 
 ourselves in the heavenly place (think allegory). Our activity 
is 
 dwarfted by the benefits of God's promises as we stand ourside 
 our tent, left with nothing to do but count the stars and say, 
 Praise the Lord. 
Abraham's lack of faith? 
Abrahamis the father of faith. I wouldbe so afraid to say 
anything like you just said.

Some of the other things you say are 
good,but you also seem to be missing some important matters in 
Scripture. I'm not going to list them right now because you don't like 
long posts.

Peace be with you.David 
Miller.

RE: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant

DAVE... Perspective certainly does play a role in answering any question,
but when I give you the freedom to answer from your own perspective, it
should be easy enough for you and others to consider the question and answer
it based upon your best judgment.  Your answer can be short or it can be
long.  Of course, if you are afraid of having to defend a particular
position or would rather not be known to view it in such a way, then you
might dodge the question and argue that it was a bad question anyway.

SLADE... The question was faulty because Avraham's participation was not
defined. The question is too open ended and creates a lose-lose situation
just like the question about beating your wife.
 In other words, the question should have been one of the two following
(or something similar)
 (1) did Avraham have a participation in the construction of the
Covenant?
 (2) Was he a participant in the particulars of the agreement (i.e., was
there something for Avraham to do once the covenant was cut)?
 The answers from slade's perspective is (1) NO. (2) YES.

-- slade

P.S. Which four books did you purchase?

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant

2004-11-23 Thread ttxpress




while he wasasleep, 
Laura? how does this stuff work; e.g., what's the relationship betw sleeping 
anddreaming and/or 'visions'; e.g., even you and the seer jt 'see' during 
your dreams don't you(?)--in a way, although perhaps it's ovrlapping with 
Freudian modernityor something, isn't that vision (a) vision(?)...of what 
is anthr question(?)...food for thought...

also, keep in mind that th 
'evidnce' slade presentd in an earlier post suggstg thatAbe's a prophet does 
not occur in Gen 15, occus later acc to Moses,so we're talking about 
a normal Gentile recvg a revelatory vision from God there,perhaps even 
whilesleep walking w/ God (the upshot of slades notion, too:), aren't 
we?

also, Lance, a 'word' for 
you now--now a discourse for me:) ; was Moses using his imagination when (the 
Bible assumes) he wrote(e.g.) the'revelation/s'in Gen 
15...regardless, was he using it when he wrote Ps 90?

FTR,some scholars 
(e.g., Dr. Robt Hubbard, one ofthe leadg/formost OT scholars around, my OT 
prof here in Denvr w/ whom numeroushours of human co-cojitation have been 
virtually absorbd)say that ~35% of the Bible is poetry, and it seems 
thatpoetrycould bethe most imaginative methd imaginable of 
recordg (complex)biblical revelation...but, couldn't one surmise 
(extrapolate from that possibility) that God himself has an imagination(?); 
else, e.g.,biblical/prophetic poetry such asthe profound Mosaic 
theological art form in Ps 90is not 
revelation?

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:13:25 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Abraham was an active participant. 
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral Covenant?

2004-11-23 Thread ttxpress




great--take your 
time, no rush--i'm already abt 7000 emails 
behindvbg 

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:01:16 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Cooel. I work something up this 
  evening.
  
||

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant





In a message dated 11/23/2004 5:26:50 PM Central Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  while he 
  wasasleep, Laura? how does this stuff work; e.g., what's the relationship betw 
  sleeping anddreaming and/or 'visions'; e.g., even you and the seer jt 
  'see' during your dreams don't you(?)--in a way, although perhaps it's 
  ovrlapping with Freudian modernityor something, isn't that vision (a) 
  vision(?)...of what is anthr question(?)...food for 
  thought...

Sorry about that I was talking about something else. :0) 
 Laura

[TruthTalk] From Ishtar to Easter

While trying to find a cheaper copy of the The Old Syriac Gospels, Studies and Comparative
Translations, I came across this information. I
thought I'd bring it forward for your perusal and comment.
-- slade

FROM ISHTAR TO EASTER
On 1 April this year,
Christians churches around the world will celebrate "Eida Gowra" or the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the west this is called Easter. What
most Christians do not know is the Mesopotamian origin of the name Easter from
the goddess of fertility and war, Ishtar. The name Easter is a transliteration
of the word Ishtar, the goddess who descended to the underworld and brought her
lover Tammuz back to life.
The festival to honor Ishtar
was held on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox.
This is the same date Christians celebrate Easter. Here's an interesting article
written for a Pennsylvania newspaper, Intelligencer, last April which shows the
history of the transition of the word Ishtar to Eostre and finally Easter in
Europe.
"Egg, bunny, dawn service Today's Easter
traditions started eons before Christ" by Douglas
Harper Christian, Jewish and pagan traditions have
intertwined for a thousand years to form the modern celebration of Easter.
Neopagans, Jews and Christians all celebrate religious rituals at this time
of year. Wiccans hold one of their eight yearly Sabbats (holy days of
celebration) on the day or eve of the equinox, which happens about the third
week of March. Christians, following Jewish/ Babylonian calendar customs, wait
until after the next full moon to mark Easter. Near the Mediterranean,
this is the time when the summer crops sprout; north of the Alps, it is the time
for seeding. The pagan rituals of the spring equinox are meant to ensure the
fertility of the crops and animals in the coming summer.
Even the name given to the Christian holiday in English-speaking nations
seems to be derived directly from "Eostre," a Saxon fertility goddess.
Some scholars have been skeptical that the core Christian holiday would
blatantly bear the name of a pagan deity. But authority for this comes from The
Venerable Bede, a deeply pious Christian scholar of 8th-century England.
Alternate explanations of the name have been suggested in modern times, but
most are implausible.
The name of the goddess varied slightly in the Germanic tongues, and can be
spelled Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron
and Ausos.
Her name was rooted in a word-nexus that included the proto-Germanic words
for spring, the east and sunrise.
Not much is known about her. Some say she is just an alternate name for one
of the more important Germanic goddesses, like Frigg or Freya, with whom she
shares the overlordship of spring and the resurrection of life. But her
particular association with fertility suggests her as a maiden aspect of the
old, universal goddess Eostre.
The Saxons who conquered England in the 5th century seem to have kept her
name for the spring holiday when they were converted by missionaries from Rome
and Scotland. When they in turn evangelized their brethren on the mainland, they
evidently took the holiday name with them. English and German are the only
languages to use a word like "Easter" for this holiday.
Eostre's symbols were the hare and the egg, both representing fertility. From
them spring the customs and symbols of the Easter egg and Easter rabbit.
Of course, other civilizations -- from Egypt to China -- have taken the same
symbols to stand for life and regeneration. Dyed eggs played in rituals of the
Babylonian mystery religions and they were hung in Egyptian temples.
Pagan Anglo-Saxons apparently offered colored eggs to Eostre at the spring
equinox, placing them especially at graves, probably as a charm of rebirth (a
custom shared by Egyptians and Greeks, among others). The Goddess of Fertility
was also the Goddess of Grain, so offerings of bread and cakes were also made to
her.
Rabbits, especially white ones, are sacred to Eostre, and she was said to
sometimes take the form of a rabbit. One myth says she found a bird dying from
the cold. She changed it to a rabbit so it could stay warm. German children are
told that the Easter hare doesn't merely deliver the Easter eggs, it lays them.

Eostre is almost certainly to be identified with Eos, the dawn goddess of
ancient Greece. As such, the importance of sunrise services in her cult becomes
clear.
Some commentators connect the candles lit in churches on the eve of Easter
Sunday to the pagan bonfires at this time of year that welcomed the rebirth of
the sun god. These Easter eve bonfires continued in rural Germany well into the
1800s.
Spring fertility goddesses were known in ancient cultures around the
Mediterranean, goddesses such as Aphrodite, Astarte, Hathor and Ishtar. The
Roman form of "Aphrodite" gives her name to our month April.
But one of the most interesting

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant

In a message dated 11/23/2004 1:22:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


David M was getting frustrated with me because I wouldn't give him a "straight answer" to his passive/active question (like the only answer had to be active or passive; like the question, "When did you stop beating your wife"). I was referring to his reaction to my "nonanswer" which in reality was the only right answer because of the structure of his question.
 
-- slade


I think most of us felt the same way as you. 

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant

In a message dated 11/23/2004 2:14:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Abraham was an active participant. He didn't just sit back and let God move - he had to ober God and do what God told him to do. Laura


Was his obedience necessary to the continuance and fulfillment of the covenant promise?

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant

In a message dated 11/23/2004 2:35:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John wrote:
You seem to like the idea of a harsh God.

Not exactly. It makes me tremble to think of how harsh he is. How is he able to create a hell and execute judgment the way he does? I am far from being able to do anything like that.

A discussion for another day.

John wrote:
One is not a "passive participant" because he
violates accepted norms set by society.

That was my point. Society accepts the passive participant, but God does not. It is a harsh reality taught in Scripture.

You either forgot or did not read my post. I was saying that your example is one of active participation only. Passive participation is the receiving of life, the aging process, genetics and their influence, much of our early childhood education. much of our bias/prejudice and so on. This is important, to me, at least, in a discussion of the unilateral covenant. But I am not the one to defend the point (although I will give it a shot, if needs be). I beleive Bill is giving this some thought. Hope so. It's just that if it is God within us to will and work, how could the covenant not be unilateral to an amazing degree? I see that this point comes into play latter in this post -- perhaps you have not written clearly what you intend to say here -- could be that I missed the point.

Suppose a man is a coward. Suppose he is just flat out afraid to do anything. A timid man. Society has pity on him. God casts him into hell. What a contrast! Anything that does not bear fruit, God casts into hell. It is a terrible and sobering thought found in Scripture.

And where does grace and the continual flow of the blood figure in with your gospel.

John wrote:
You and I are passive participants, as I see it, in that life
comes to us through no effort of our own; our bodies survive
because, in part, of certain involuntary responses; age happens;
our very personalities and many of our emotional and intellectual
concerns are gifts to us; our (read "my") ravishing good looks
are not indebted to personal effort; whether I am white, black,
yellow or whatever is of no personal effort --- in fact, I
could argue effectively that everything I am as a cultural being
is ultimately the result of influences not the result of personal
effort.

Good points about those aspects of our lives that are passively attained. If I understand Scripture correctly, if we leave it at that, we will be cast into hell fire.

The parallel here is the fact that spiritual life, salvation, redemption, sanctification, justification, righteousness are given to us apart from our effort (read "obedience"). Because we have been redeemed, we act. Because he first loved us, we love Him.

Remember the parable of the talents in Mat. 25? The one who did not produce
something extra for his master, the one who was afraid and buried his talents so he could give it back to his master when he returned, what happened to him? He was cast into outer darkness. What kind of God is this?

If I remember this correctly, the single talent individual was censored because he made a choice. He had been called to be a steward for his Master. Each man knew their Lord very well. Each was already accepted by him. The single talent steward made a choice TO DO NOTHING for the Master. Does that mean that he did nothing? Of course not. He functioned for himself or in some way counter to his Master. His "position " as a steward was his to loose !! He buried the money, went off and did his own thing -- always a disaster -- and came to the returning Lord with nothing but words. What kind of God is it who ultimately hands over to destruction those who have lived a life of destruction? Fair and balanced.

John wrote:
So it is with the covenant. Gal 3:16 tells us that the
covenant promise was given to Abraham and his seed,
Jesus Christ. Christ has made it possible for God to view
the heart of man, his intentions, his desire to live for others
and be found in participation with the Communal God.
So Abraham is "saved" in spite of his lack of faith (i.e.
the circumstances involving his wife) and Samson is "saved"
in spite of his continued lust and a vengeful attitude that
resulted in his death. Did they participate? Of course.
Did this participation result in their sanctification. Absolutely
not. As high as we can jump -- we will never look anything
but silly when measured against how high we MUST go to find
ourselves in the heavenly place (think allegory). Our activity is
dwarfted by the benefits of God's promises as we stand ourside
our tent, left with nothing to do but count the stars and say,
Praise the Lord.

Abraham's lack of faith? Abraham is the father of faith. I would be so afraid to say anything like you just said.

Abraham was willing to have his wife sleep with men of power, on two different occasions to protect himself. Faith in God? Hardly.

RE: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant




That 
is a HUGE question, John. If Avraham's obedience was a necessary component to 
the continuance of the covenant, we're in a heap of. well, you know 
:)!

-- 
slade

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, 23 November, 2004 
  21.07To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenantIn a message dated 11/23/2004 2:14:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Abraham was an active participant. He didn't just sit back 
and let God move - he had to ober God and do what God told him to do. 
LauraWas his obedience necessary to the continuance and 
  fulfillment of the covenant promise?John

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant

In a message dated 11/23/2004 6:57:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


That is a HUGE question, John. If Avraham's obedience was a necessary component to the continuance of the covenant, we're in a heap of. well, you know :)!
 
-- slade


Oh no !!! Let's not go there again !! But I do get your drift. 


John

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant





In a message dated 11/23/2004 8:08:01 PM Central Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Was his 
  obedience necessary to the continuance and fulfillment of the covenant 
  promise?

I haven't really thought about it. I think I'd have to say yes. 
Anyone else disagree? Laura

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant

In a message dated 11/23/2004 7:09:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

In a message dated 11/23/2004 8:08:01 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
Was his obedience necessary to the continuance and fulfillment of the covenant promise?




I haven't really thought about it. I think I'd have to say yes. Anyone else disagree? Laura


Laura, bless your heart. I was kind of hoping for a little more meat on the bone. But "yes" may be profoundly to the point. 


John

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant





In a message dated 11/23/2004 9:16:13 PM Central Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Laura, 
  bless your heart. I was kind of hoping for a little more meat on 
  the bone. But "yes" may be profoundly to the point. 
  

I guess I am being simplistic but in order for God's plan to work (I 
realize that God knew what Abraham would do) he had to obey. We have been 
studying Genesis this quarter and I am once again amazed at these men. Can 
you imagine God appearing to a righteous man today and telling him to build an 
arkbecause though it had never rained it was going to (Noah) 
or in Abraham's case telling him that he is going to give him ason 
at his age and that he will have more or as many heirs as the 
stars? It kind of amuses me to think of that happening 
today. I wonder if I would believe someone who told me that!My 
daughter is an editor and her publishing house just finished a whole curriculum 
that encompasses all age levels from Preschool to adult. It has been 
interesting to read some of the lessons on a "lower" level and then study the 
same material on an adult level. Laura

Re: [TruthTalk] unsubscribe

2004-11-23 Thread Marlin Halverson

I have always appreciated your contributions. 
You will be missed. --Marlin

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 7:41 
  PM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] unsubscribe

  I have come to the 
  conclusion (duh!) that my participation on TT is not a worthwhile 
  contribution. I need to use my time wisely as a faithful steward. Please 
  unsubscribe me. Thanks and blessings to each one of you. Let me 
  know when you figure it all out. Just remember, its not what you know 
  but Who you know. See you on the other side. J 
  Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral Covenant?

2004-11-23 Thread Bill Taylor

I'm working even as we speak . . 
. vbg 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 4:35 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral 
  Covenant?

  great--take your 
  time, no rush--i'm already abt 7000 emails 
  behindvbg 

  On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:01:16 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Cooel. I work something up this 
evening.

  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant

2004-11-23 Thread ttxpress




not 
really.

give it 
time..

we'll see whatothers 
present about the quality/ies of theunilateral covenant 
(theconcept), but even now, through the Spirit, onecould imagine 
thatit has to with the fact that Abe was imposed upon, 
over-ridden,perhaps as below...

but being easily imposed 
upon is the substance of meekness

and, while obedience 
remains the perpetual endeavor of legalists, meekness, whenconfrontd by 
God, is sheer Spiritual genius

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:36:28 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  In a message dated 11/23/2004 5:26:50 PM Central Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
while he 
wasasleep, Laura? how does this stuff work; e.g., 
what's the 
relationship betw sleeping anddreaming and/or 'visions'; e.g., even 
you and the seer jt 'see' during your dreams don't you(?)--in a way, 
although perhaps it's ovrlapping with Freudian modernityor something, 
isn't that vision (a) vision(?)...of what is anthr question(?)...food for 
thought...
  
  Sorry about that I was talking about something else. 
  :0)  Laura

Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant