kwrandolph at email.com
Thu Mar 16 18:30:00 EST 2006
I mentioned the what, you emphasize the why.
I think there is a lot more than just to prove worthy
of future life.
**Sigh*** You oversimplify what I say.
And I think you know it.
Karl W. Randolph.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Kirk" <peter at qaya.org>
> On 16/03/2006 17:22, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > Peter:
> > You're right for jumping all over me for a poor choice of words.
> > What I meant was not "important", but "relevant".
> > Further, I used the New Testament only as an illustration that it
> > follows the same pattern as Tanakh, namely not to dwell on the
> > afterlife.
> > After all, eating and drinking are important, but not relevant in
> > a discussion of Hebrew philology. Likewise a discussion of the
> > details of the afterlife is not relevant to a discussion of how
> > to live to be worthy in the present life. That's why neither
> > Tanakh nor the New Testament have much to say on the afterlife.
> Thank you, Karl. What you say now is certainly an improvement. But
> you still seem to assume that the NT is "a discussion of how to
> live to be worthy in the present life". While that is not wrong, it
> is only a partial picture giving a distorted emphasis. Even the
> Sermon on the Mount, the passage most focused on ethics, is full of
> promises of the Kingdom of God. Better, for the NT if not the
> Tanakh, would be "guidelines on how to live in the present life to
> be counted worthy in the future life", which explains why the NT
> has a lot to say about attaining the future life although little
> about its details.
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
More information about the b-hebrew