Just wanted to share a thought. What always puzzled me in the Tanakh - and
this turn is most often encountered in Isaiah - is the reference to certain
islands. They are clearly hostile to the Jews, and yet wait for the teaching
of the messiah.
These islands are usually brushed away as a reference to scattered small
nations, but this is ludicrous, since they are several times called, islands
of the sea.
Of course, there are no significant islands near Israel. The closest ones are
on the Red Sea, far from the ancient sphere of Israeli influence and concern.
Greek islanders were too far away to mount military offensive deep inland. In
fact, it is hard to imagine any sea nation threatening landlocked Jerusalem.
Maritime warfare is not an issue even for the present-day Israel.
I don't have any idea what are these islands.Perhaps anyone would venture a
suggestion?
On Monday 07 June 2004 11:25, VC wrote:
> Dear Dave,
>
> How about this statement of yours,
>
> >Learning about Christianity from a non-Christian
> >is like getting a kiss over the telephone.
>
> Should this Christian be white male, as well?
Yet another unfounded caricaturization. Am I a white male, Vadim? How do you
know one way or another? Where did I even imply such a thing? You pulled
that out of the air with no basis at all except your own imagination. Why
don't you try sticking to what people actually say instead of putting words
into our mouths that spring from nothing more than your own prejudice?
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Vadim Cherny
>
> > > > HH: The fact that the Christian approach requires more assumptions
> > > > does not necessarily make it weaker.
> > >
> > > Well, you studied logic, did you? More assumptions - weaker the
>
> argument.
>
> > > Or is the logic inapplicable here? Tertullian's argument about the
> > > absurdity still relied on logic.
> > >
> > > >The most simple idea is not
> > > > always correct. It may overlook some important fact.
> > >
> > > Taking the NT as a fact is itself an assumption.
> >
> > Actually, it's based on history. If you have an inescapable fact that
> > surrounds the material being examined, then it must be factored in,
>
> whether
>
> > one likes it or not. Your constant caricatures of this aspect of Hebrew
> > study are becoming tiresome. It's clear that either a) you don't really
> > understand the Christian perspective and basis, or b) you choose
>
> deliberately
>
> > to ridicule. Either way, I'm amazed at what the moderators have let you
>
> get
>
> > away with so far.
> >
> > > >The claim of
> > > > Christianity is that God was giving new revelation through Jesus
> > > > Christ. The claim is that he was a prophet and in fact the Messiah
> > > > prophesied in the OT.
> > >
> > > Only a prophet? Wow, you are very liberal. Every Muslim would agree
> > > with you
> >
> > Did you happen to read his entire statement? This is another clear
>
> example of
>
> > caricaturization and ridicule. If you insist on engaging in such ad
> > hominems, it's your prerogative, but please don't do it on this list.
> >
> > [snip]
> > --
> > Dave Washburn
> > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> > Learning about Christianity from a non-Christian
> > is like getting a kiss over the telephone.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
--
Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Learning about Christianity from a non-Christian
is like getting a kiss over the telephone.