Scholar Says ....

Seattle said:
In case you are confused Xelasnave 1947, 20 years ago "we" we talking about Satan, and now we're talking about Satan again. OK, carry on...
Click to expand...

Please don't spoil the ending for me.

I have been reading about the gods the Hebrews drew upon to invent.. er well not really invent, given the ideas available were well worn...but ...to develop...their god..well hardly their god now considering the inroads from Christians and Muslims...not to mention mormons...nevertheless interesting and although I am sure something or someone like Satan may have been part of the mix I am not sure that I am correct and so he may not be relevant at all...to mention here.
However so interesting the history or should we call that earlier story prehistory but I can relate to an observation that reading something can in some way influence what one may think about a subject until at least you read something more and if that second reading presents something different to the first one may think differently than one had earlier, or perhaps not but indifference is unlikely to result unless it does.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Please don't spoil the ending for me.
Click to expand...
Don't forget to read the twelve arrowed links in the first nine lines of text. They lead to other lengthy Tiassa posts, vital to the understanding his last post.

Tiassa said:
Twenty years ago.

Here's something about evolution: Some changes don't occur unless they must. Never mind; it's a tangent. Twenty years ago I was working the same↗ jokes↗, building the same argument↗, I still use today. Actually, that last also points back to a 1999 version↗. But the later iteration of those two old threads includes a particular detail, which is information from a book by Jeffrey Burton Russell, an American historian and theologian who wrote a five-volume history of the Devil.

In the first posting↗, you can even see me withholding my own opinion, in doing so, a rhetorical form that hasn't aged well. But at the same time, it's true that back then I was building↗ the arguments↗ I still↗ use↗ today↗. And, well, something, something, mumble, murumur, really didn't age well↗.

But Russell's work has been there, influencing how I perceive the historical record of Christianity, for twenty years.

And this post isn't really about him.
​
Not quite twenty years ago↗
Click to expand...
 
foghorn said:
Don't forget to read the twelve arrowed links in the first nine lines of text. They lead to other lengthy Tiassa posts, vital to the understanding his last post.
Click to expand...
I have just arrived after ten hours driving ...you have made my day.
I like reading his posts but I had a peek earlier...I think it is competent to provide a context.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
I have just arrived after ten hours driving ...you have made my day.
I like reading his posts but I had a peek earlier...I think it is competent to provide a context.Alex
Click to expand...
''Context''. :)
In that case, you must also read the arrowed links in the'' linked to'' posts as well. No wonder there is a mention somewhere of twenty years???
:):)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top