Krayola:

My broda, I no follow u do merry go round. The BIBLE was not written exclusively for the Church. Judaism does not believe in Jesus and uses the old testament. The Gospels were not directed at any specific community (arguably, Luke may have been), but written to be spread to show what they believed was the significance of the life and death of Jesus. Your assertion was inaccurate . . All it needs is to be reworded. . . most of the books in the New Testament were written for the church.

The End.

This has been a Krayola production. All rights reserved ®   

1. The OT was written exclusively for the jews.

2. The jews NEVER attempted to share their beliefs with non-jews.

3. the first christians were Jews

4. The NT was written as letters to believers in churches scattered all over the world.

5. This collection of letters plus the OT make up the bible.

6. As such the bible was NOT written to disbelievers but believers

7. Any attempt by non-believers to make sense of the bible is futile.

All rights reserved. . .noetic production  

Krayola is a confused agnostic.

I am davidylan and i approve this message.

imhotep:

Hmmmmm. . . good idea. . . I do not really think that a NL thread can capture the heart of the experience.
It was so intense and protracted. . . for instance, because I eventually lived among them, visitors also began to avoid me whenever they came around. . .thinking I had become one of them.
It was a revealing and PURIFYING experience for me to be treated as a leper a couple of times. I myself began to be fear whether I had contracted the disease. . .but eventually I did not care whether or not I had contracted it . . . a very liberating carefreeness.

I am planning to include the story in one of my long reflections.

It may not "capture the heart of the experience" but it may give us a small glimpse perhaps? I know it would be a welcome diversion from the usual MOG and Philosophical gymnastic threads. Even if one learns, it will be worth it so I hope you do it at some point .

---

InesQor:

@JeSoul: Thanks. It sounds like it's going to be one of my favorites (like AVATAR, The Matrix, etc) from the synopsis I read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Eli . And again it's Denzel Washington? Gotta grab the movie right away. LOL. Thanks again.

InesQor! you done gone and read all the spoilerz! lol

haha@  Noetic. . . it is kinda interesting how "Church" has now become "believers"  

Church = Believers in Jesus
Believers= Anything Noetic wants

This one pass 419, na 4019  

davidylan:

Krayola is a confused agnostic.

I am davidylan and i approve this message.

Davidylan is the Messiah . . CRUCIFY HIM!!!

Krayola:

haha@  Noetic. . . it is kinda interesting how "Church" has now become "believers"  

Church = Believers in Jesus
Believers= Anything Noetic wants

The church is the body of believers. In the NT, the term "church" was not merely used to describe a building but to describe the body of christians.

JeSoul:

InesQor! you done gone and read all the spoilerz! lol

No, JeSoul dear, I only skimmed through. . . enough to see what the very [b]Book [/b]of Eli contained, and when I saw it I stopped reading. Denzel is one of the few Hollywood actors who declares that he is Christian.

davidylan:

The church is the body of believers. In the NT, the term "church" was not merely used to describe a building but to describe the body of christians.

How does that apply to Jews who use the OT and reject Jesus.

Noetic said the BIBLE was written EXCLUSIVELY for the CHURCH. To be fair I'm sure he probably meant the New Testament, but his strong-head won't let him admit that his wording was messed up.

That said, the Gospels were not letters, but general narratives written to bring the message of Jesus to whomever was interested.

Krayola:

How does that apply to Jews who use the OT and reject Jesus.

Noetic said the BIBLE was written EXCLUSIVELY for the CHURCH. To be fair I'm sure he probably meant the New Testament, but his strong-head won't let him admit that his wording was messed up.

That said, the Gospels were not letters, but general narratives written to bring the message of Jesus to whomever was interested.

The BIBLE consists of OT and NT . . .the jews u mentioned read just the OT . . , .and they call it TORAH

MyJoe:

I agree about what James says. But Paul is clear that faith is all you need. A group of Christians I am sure you know their label have since run away with that.

We will hafta open an entirely different thread to hash that one out dude . Lets skip it for now.
 

No. It just proves my point. We have to insist on a basis for our faith. Faith is insufficient.

 I think the problem is you're looking at faith as a "community" thing instead of a "personal" thing. As I hinted at in my last post, ones faith is only unto oneself and is not meant to be projected onto others and become truth for them.

And faith is utterly sufficient - for the christian.
Romans 1:17
For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

We can begin by having a Bible that is an authentic to an objective observer as an encyclopedia. We don't have that if we forget about theology (where faith is fine) a bit and go into the Bible's historicity. If you read my response to Chukwudi44 you will get a glimpse of what I mean.

But in the truest sense of the phrase, is there such a thing as an "objective observer"? Let him that is without bias, cast the first stone.

Since you agree that people of non-Christian faiths also have faith, and you do not believe they can be right at the same time as Christians, you will agree that faith can mislead us. So an objective observer, one who has no faith in anything, looking at the religions ought to be able to spot some solid truths which will lead him to faith. That is why I do not accept that we can ever use faith as a starting point.

I absolutely agree with that - depending on what/who/why the faith was placed in/on something. Its a very strong point.

Will get the movie you speak of asap! Thanks.

Please do. I think it will help lubricate this discussion immensely. There was the man of faith, the "objective observers" who thot the man to be crazy for doing what he was doing and there was the man who abused the "faith" unto his own end. And we see an experience was his starting point, and a faith borne out of that experience was what carried him unto an end that proved true.

noetic16:

The BIBLE consists of OT and NT . .  .the jews u mentioned read just the OT . .  ,  .and they call it TORAH  

Chei. Noetic don wounjure me finish. The Torah is the Pentateuch, the 5 books of Moses. The hebrew Canon is the Old testament and they call it the Tanakh. See am. . . he wan do ojoro come win on technicality. Ole, barawo!!  

Tanakh = Torah + Prophets + Writings

Edit: Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh) = Pentateuch (Torah) + Prophets (Nebiim) + Writings (Ketubim)

InesQor:

Tanakh = Torah + Prophets + Writings

Abeg hellep me to told him o 

Krayola:

Chei. Noetic don wounjure me finish. The Torah is the Pentateuch, the 5 books of Moses. The hebrew Canon is the Old testament and they call it the Tanakh. See am. . . he wan do ojoro come win on technicality. Ole, barawo!!  

fine, I erred. but the bible aint the Tanakh . . . . .the jews do not subsribe to the bible cos of NT teachings.

haha. Aight. But the Tanakh is the Hebrew bible. Jews subscribe to the Old Testament, but not the entire CHRISTIAN BIBLE.

A bible is any book or collection of books that is viewed as authoritative. The word is just used mostly in a religious or Christian context. Technically, the QUran is a bible.

Krayola:

haha. Aight. But the Tanakh is the Hebrew bible. Jews subscribe to the Old Testament, but not the entire CHRISTIAN BIBLE.

A bible is any book or collection of books that is viewed as authoritative. The word is just used mostly in a religious or Christian context. Technically, the QUran is a bible.

I tot the subject of this debate is the xtian bible. . .no?

haha. I know. Which includes the Old testament, and the gospels.

oya I no do again. i dey go watch champions league.

@ Noetic. u were not entirely wrong, and I was not entirely correct. I did some research and the written form of the gospels were probably written by and, arguably, for communities of believers. Word about Jesus was initially spread orally, and when the generation of first believers were dying out, the "elders" of different communities probably wrote the narratives we have now as a means of preserving his memory. Eventually ( like 1500 years later after the printing press) they became a means of spreading the word, but that probably wasn't the reason they were written, as most people couldn't even read. So 1 point for u.  

actually 1/2 point.   

MASTER: “What is it you seek?”

SCHOLAR: “Life.”

MASTER: “If you are to live, words must die.”

SCHOLAR: "You have lost me, please explain what you mean . . ."

MASTER: “You are lost and forlorn because you dwell in a world of words.
You feed on words; you are satisfied with words when what you need is[b] substance[/b].
A menu will not satisfy your hunger.
A [b]formula [/b]will not slake your thirst.“

Krayola:

@ Noetic. u were not entirely wrong, and I was not entirely correct. I did some research and the written form of the gospels were probably written by and, arguably, for communities of believers. Word about Jesus was initially spread orally, and when the generation of first believers were dying out, the "elders" of different communities probably wrote the narratives we have now as a means of preserving his memory. Eventually ( like 1500 years later after the printing press) they became a means of spreading the word, but that probably wasn't the reason they were written, as most people couldn't even read. So 1 point for u.  

actually 1/2 point.   

u have always been honest and objective. . . . . . .but that does not take u to heaven

@InesQor:

I've been here all along but its always wisdom to show caution in posting when Krayola and Jesoul are around. Wouldn't do to be found foot in mouth at this age.

Plus I had to find a way to wrap my tongue around the Ketubim and Nebiim etal. You people want to break my head with Grammar. Wetin I know be say, take the message, not the words or technicality. And I think thats where science and Krayola miss it: the Bible is a message, not a physics textbook that deals with proof. Read it, work with its precepts and ideas, understand the allegories and "type" forms and you will find truth, absolute truth.

But when the "Kebulaisms" and "ontologies" and "historicities" come under the searchlight, the truth and reality under the words gets missing and it becomes "hey, the flood was local and covered only Asia". I say, what if ALL humans on earth at that time were only in Asia? Would that to any observer, not be the WHOLE WORLD? Abi Krayola dey Africa dey look the water that time with smoke swirling from nose and mouth?

Abeg gimme space jo and if una wahala me again, I do turn Krayola dey pass flying drop-kicks around like sugar for una tea-cup. Ewu over-english people. The Bible is inerrant when you leave the words and pick the message. At that point, Noetic suddenly looks a prophet. Finish!

Now, who gets the first drop kick?

@Nucelarboy: Points noted, bro . By the way, I totally agree with your point about the flood, twas the same point I was passing across to Imhotep in post #68 in response to his post in #60.

Abi Krayola dey Africa dey look the water that time with smoke swirling from nose and mouth?

haha. E be like say u wan chop drop kick. .     

When u hear me make comment about flood for this thread?  I dey come, make I go wear my Bruce Lee shoe. 

@ Bruce_Kray:

Ol'boy, I get 15 black belts O. Infact, the last time I show face, dem say na colorless belt I go dey wear now. You wan try Fighting Gigantor!

Meanwhile and sincerely, brilliance (even if inspired by swirling popping and crackling smoke) has its limitations. Life can oftentimes, look like a parable and thats what the Bible uses. I remember everything in Physics and Math needed to be shown PROVED! The Bible is not like that - look at your book of John; so what if it was written by someone (not saying it was O) who John told the story to? It remains JOHN's story, abi and THEREFORE John's book.

I think this is what Noetic is saying - that understanding will not come from a scholarly/scientific/historic/"gen-gen" approach but rather from a spirit teased point of view i.e. what is it saying, why is it saying it, what lesson do we learn from this etc. I remember tales by mooonlight where Mr. Tortoise said he'd not come back home till he was disgraced. I await the brilliant scientist who will say "its a lie etc". Yaba left still has space for that guy! So why is it the Bible which is in the same manner, purely allegorical, appealing to the mind rather than the intellect that is so vilified for not being scientifically sound?

Back to reality - I go like use you practise my colorless belt!

haha. your colorless belt will be red when I finish with u 

So what u are saying is that if a faith is based on Jesus and his teachings, and a document is found putting words directly in the mouth of Jesus, it doesn't matter if those words go back to Jesus or not. If we have several documents, both canonized and not, that fit into the context of first century Israel, the world in which Jesus lived and taught in, and then one that does not fit into that context, is it not reasonable to investigate the origin and authenticity of the claims it makes? DO u recognize that scholarship is responsible for finding some of the insertions in the bible, like 1 John 5:7, and that some of the books were, virtually certainly, not written by the people the Bible claims wrote them e.g. The 5 books of moses.

U insist these are of no consequence as long as one understands the message. . .  whose message?

Lol, these fellas wit colorless belts and bruce lee shoes. Make I get popcorn and siddon for corner enjoy show

Imagine a guy with a colored belt planning to try I, gigantor! No more fear in todays world! You don see where I demonstrate and opponent faint before? You go dey sing "come and see american wonder"

Anyway, drop kick or flying tackle, the point here is we, Christians believe the Bible as is, was determined to become as it is TODAY by the Almighty. Using whatever peoples and understandings He found useful, He looked ahead and decided who and want would fulfill His purpose and put the words He wanted down. He then made it happen and to some, that looks like chance. Fie!

If we believe God is an understanding that has supreme power, knowledge and capability, then He surely must be capable of arranging events to suit His particular purpose! That is what I personally believe. The credit for choice of what books went into todays Bible is assumed to belong to the RCC. Foul! My statement of God's supremacy negates that rubbish. We say He can do what He please and then believe His Word was designed by humans. Rubbish with pepperish ingredients (which I've prepared for Krayola's eyes if he tries any silly snake in the monkey shadow moves) and nonsense combined.

One pointer to "whose words" is this - anything that is not of God will after awhile peter out, but His, will stay! Why do we (regular people on the street) not discuss the lost books of eden as we do John? Your response to that is a sampling of my first drop kick!

nuclearboy:

Anyway, drop kick or flying tackle, the point here is [b]we, Christians believe the Bible as is, was determined to become as it is TODAY by the Almighty. [/b]Using whatever peoples and understandings He found useful, He looked ahead and decided who and want would fulfill His purpose and put the words He wanted down. He then made it happen and to some, that looks like chance. Fie! 

If we believe God is an understanding that has supreme power, knowledge and capability, then He surely must be capable of arranging events to suit His particular purpose! That is what I personally believe. The credit for choice of what books went into todays Bible is assumed to belong to the RCC. Foul! My statement of God's supremacy negates that rubbish. We say He can do what He please and then believe His Word was designed by humans.

Fair enough.

But I'll make a point that most bible scholars are Christians as well, and I'm pretty sure most will take issue with your generalization of what Christians believe. Christianity for some is not based on an assumption of the inerrancy of the Bible. Also, for a lot of these scholars, it is sincere interest in Jesus and his life and death that is their motivation, and it is kinda unfortunate how some paint them like they are just some uninspired people that just don't get it. A lot of premises that the view of inerrancy of the Bible is based on have been shown to be misguided. . . This does not make the bible a "fake" document or anything like that, hell NO!! It just means one should not take things at face value because one says he/she has "faith". Faith without understanding is, IMO, dangerous.

I appreciate your last response and I will spare you the karate chop that would most likely have crippled u.     

haha. it's funny i got caught up in this debate cause I've been making a real effort to avoid debates like this. It's that thread asking people to pray for me because i was hellbound and Noetic's yabs that got me into this.  Maybe I need to pray for the power to resist temptation 

^^^^

As usual, a very honest and INTELLIGENT response. I would have scored you 100% were it not for your delirious fantasy of an ordinary karate chop wounding me. You don see where person blow wind make wind cry b4? As my people say, who say im go catch today na tomorrow e go catch (when tomorrow comes). If not that I've become a great fan, I for e-blow you. One blow, two thousand die! One blow, fifteen people poo-poo! Na me be that!

As it goes, Krayola, your points are well made and carefully thought out. But you're still not getting one point here. What we say is that, whether Christian or not, these scholars are wrong looking at the book on the basis of scientific study. Look at it this way - lets suppose InesQor heard John's story from John and then wrote it as the Gospel according to InesQor, what impact do you suppose that would have? I believe it then would look watered down as hearsay to everyone knowing that InesQoe did not live during Jesus time. Now since it is John's story and named as his book plus IMO, only a very few of us are questioning the ontologies and all those other big words you guys love on NL, the watering down is not felt. Billions of simple minded people who have not heard the word "Ketubim" have read a story attributed to John as John's word, believed it, acted on it in simple faith and gotten value from it. We may wish to see them as simpletons and ignorant people but what does that do for us except make us swell and arrogantly stay away from the reality - the message underneath and its value to our life.

And yes, faith is dangerous is used without understanding. It brings a laundry list of issues into the lives of its practitioners. Well done, Bro!

haha. thanks for the nice words, my head is swelling big time.  U just avoided another death blow. Jeseoul will be disppointed. . .  She just waste money on top popcorn. Hours don pass nodody throw blow. 

This is what I'm pretty much saying. It wouldn't matter if John, the beloved disciple, wrote the document himself and has his fingerprints all over it, there is still reason to doubt the HISTORICITY of John. The historicity is doubted because of its content, and not because of its author. I'm not disputing the validity of the theological claims (I do not subscribe to them, but that's not what I'm disputing here). . . because there are some parallels between the ideas in John, and the Hebrew idea of wisdom (Sophia) articulated in the Book of Wisdom which is in the Apocrypha. It is whether the ministry and words of Jesus as described in John actually happened. I found some notes on John and I'll post them below. Just highlights some of what i'm trying to say.

To be honest i used to be very very cynical about Christianity, but after my schooling I'm not so much anymore because I discovered a lot of cynicism was misguided, and based on mostly faulty premises and conspiracy theories that fall apart under real scrutiny. Most of the things opponents use as reason to dismiss claims made can be explained quite reasonably. I learned this the hard way. . . . by being a loud mouth and challenging my profs and questioning everything they said. . . and after a while I just had to concede that there were a lot of valid explanations for the things I was suspicious about. That said, there are also valid reasons to be suspicious of some things, and even some of the most conservative of scholars will admit that. Not necessarily  suspicious as in someone had malicious intent, but suspicious in that some people may have integrated ideas of their own time, and imposed them onto Jesus' time, and other stuff like that that is just due to our human nature. People are victims of their own time and space. . . Even Jesus was. That church tradition says something is perfect does not make it so. . . Our understanding of human nature and the way cultures and ideologies evolve over time should inform us otherwise.

[size=13pt]The Fourth Gospel[/size]
A very different Jesus from the Synoptic gospels.
Written in opposition to the Synoptics?
Last written of the canonical gospels.
From perspective of Gospel of John, did the Synoptics get Jesus wrong?
Written in a culture with different philosophical, cultural expectations.
But also written in opposition to Gnosticism and gnostic Christology.
Jesus is human, has human flesh, but is essentially God.
Instead of pericopés of teaching that go back to the historical Jesus, long theological discourses --
-- mainly centering on Jesus’ identity and nature.




[size=13pt]John and the Synoptics [/size]
About 90 percent different from Synoptics.
Most of that 10 percent overlap centers on Passion narrative (but even here significant differences).
Portrays overlapping ministries of Jesus and John the Baptist.
Chasing money changers from Temple happens at beginning of Jesus’ ministry.
Portrays three Passovers.
Gives Jesus a ministry in Judea (around Jerusalem) -- synoptics see Jesus centered in Galilee.
Puts the Last Supper before Passover.
Contains very few of the Synoptic miracles.
And hardly any of the Synoptic sayings.
Instead a different set of miracles.
And long discourses.




Least historical of the gospels

Because of its rejection of the Synoptic tradition, scholars are generally suspicious of its historical character.
The discourses don’t address the culture and context of the Jewish world of Jesus and disciples.
It seems rather a late and highly theologized account.
But there are some independent Palestinian traditions.
And it’s fairly accurate in its Palestinian geography.
So it may come from Syrian or northern Palestinian traditions.
And it may contain some historical traditions about the historical Jesus – may not be just a late and highly theologized account.
But it is a late and highly theologized account.
In effect, a “channeling” of the risen Jesus; the writer is giving us what he believes is the essential nature of Jesus




Who wrote John, and when?
Gospel not mentioned by anyone before 180 C.E.
Earlier biblical scholarship assumed it was written mid-second century.
But papyrus fragments of gospel dated 125-150 C.E. discovered in Egypt.
So gospel must have been written before this time.
Gospel is aware of the expulsion of Christians from synagogues, 85 to 90 C.E.
Written perhaps 90 to 100 C.E.
Irenaeus, c. 180 C.E. says gospel written by John, son of Zebedee – on the authority of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna.
But does Mark 10: 39 imply John would be martyred, along with his brother James? (James, son of Zebedee, killed by Herod, around 44 – Acts 12: 1).



Who? 
There’s another John, John the Elder at Ephesus, circa 100 C.E., who is mention by Papias.
Gospel nowhere mentions authorship by a “John,” but at the end claims connection to “the beloved disciple”: “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.”
So the gospel (or an editorial appendix) connects the gospel in some way with the authority of “the beloved disciple.”
Who would have been extremely old in 90 to 100 CE, presumably too old in any case for literary endeavor.
Gospel wants to claim connection to the unnamed “beloved disciple.”
But the rejection of the Synoptic tradition makes this puzzling.
And the mystical character of the gospel makes authorship puzzling.
Writer seems to have more a mystical than historical connection with Jesus.
A writer with a visionary sense of the “real” Jesus, the Jesus whom the merely historical Synoptics got wrong?
In this sense someone like Paul, but two generations later, who links his mystical Christ to Palestinian traditions?
So, finally, an anonymous writer whom the text connects with “the beloved disciple.”




[size=13pt]Narrative character of John[/size]

Another “reader challenging” gospel, like Mark (though otherwise very different from Mark).
No actual parables, but stories to be interpreted as parables, puzzles for the reader.
All centered on the identity, nature of Jesus.
Full of symbolic language: “light,” “truth,” “water,” “vine,” “spirit,” “flesh.”
Longer speeches, discourses by Jesus.
Punctuated by an essentially new set of miracles, arranged in ascending order.
Culminating in the raising of Lazarus.
And the puzzle of how one ingests, takes in, this divine figure.




[size=13pt]John’s mystical prologue[/size]
Beginning of John: no infancy gospel.
Matthew and Luke begin with J’s birth, then through genealogies to Abraham (Matt.) and to Adam (Luke).
John pushes J’s origin back even further, “In the beginning” – echoing Genesis!
“Word” – Logos – Gk. means something like Reason, Speech, Thought.
So the true origin of the Christ is the pre-existent Logos of God; Jesus is the enfleshment (incarnation) of that Logos in human form.
All very philosophical, very Greek.
But relates to the idea of God’s Wisdom in Hebrew Scriptures.


Proverbs 8:22-31: the Wisdom of God

The Lord created me [Wisdom ] at the beginning of his work,

    The first of his acts of long ago.

Ages ago I was set up,

    At the first, before the beginning of the earth.

When there were no depths I was brought forth,

    When there were no springs abounding with water.

Before the mountains had been shaped,

    Before the hills, I was brought forth –

When he had not yet made earth and fields,

    Or the world’s first bits of soil.





When he established the heavens, I was there,

    When he drew a circle on the face of the deep,

When he made firm the skies above,

    When he established the fountains of the deep,

When he assigned the sea its limit,

    So that the waters might not transgress his command,

When he marked out the foundations of the earth,

    Then I was beside him, like a master worker;

And I was daily his delight,

    Rejoicing before him always,

Rejoicing in his inhabited world

    And delighting in the human race. 





The idea of Wisdom (Sophia in Greek) is also developed in the Book of Wisdom in the Apocrypha.
John takes this Hebraic idea of Wisdom and translates it into the Greek philosophical terminology of Logos.
Then asserts that the human person of Jesus was the enfleshment of that divine principle.
It’s a long distance from the Synoptic “son of Man,” “Son of God.”
But see the Pauline letter to Colossians (1: 15-17):
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in the heaven and in the earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions, or rulers or powers – all things have been created through him and for him.  He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together . . .”



John the Baptist
Interesting that the gospel begins by insisting that John the Baptist is not the Christ, but only bears witness to the Christ.
Why still a concern late in the first century?
Remember Acts 19 mentions the existence of a group that still followed John the Baptist's teachings in Ephesus.
All the gospels are concerned to show John the Baptist in a subordinate role to Jesus.
The first episode in John enacts the turn from John the Baptist and his teaching to Jesus as true light.
Note the conclusion in the two disciples of John leaving him and following Jesus.
One turns out to be Andrew, the brother of Peter, who becomes the link between Peter and Jesus.
Then the calling of Philip and Nathanael (who is not mentioned in the synoptics).
Jesus' first prediction here is not of suffering and death, as in Mark, but in a divine glorification (1:51)

http://www.english.ucsb.edu/faculty/oconnell/newtestament/John1.ppt.

noetic16:


2. The jews NEVER attempted to share their beliefs with non-jews.
All rights reserved. . .noetic production

Sorry to be a contradiction but the above is not true, in fact it is more that not true, it is absolutely very very wrong. Judaism was always a proselytising religion right from the very start up until they were banned from doing so by the christians and the muslims. Judaism was expanding so fast that the christian authorities felt completely threatened.


In fact, the success of jewish proselytism amongst slaves was so worrying to the authorities that in 541CE in the fourth synod of Orleans the following was decreed.



-"A Jew who, even with the promise of liberty converts a slave to the Jewish faith or takes his non-Jewish slavewoman for a concubine will be punished with the loss off all his slaves."

And the synod of Matisco in 581CE:

-"No Jew is allowed henceforth to keep a Jewish slave; a Jew trying to persuade his slave to enter the Jewish faith shall lose not only all other slaves but also the right to make a will."

Pastor AIO:

Sorry to be a contradiction but the above is not true, in fact it is more that not true, it is absolutely very very wrong. Judaism was always a proselytising religion right from the very start up until they were banned from doing so by the christians and the muslims. Judaism was expanding so fast that the christian authorities felt completely threatened.


In fact, the success of jewish proselytism amongst slaves was so worrying to the authorities that in 541CE in the fourth synod of Orleans the following was decreed.



-"A Jew who, even with the promise of liberty converts a slave to the Jewish faith or takes his non-Jewish slavewoman for a concubine will be punished with the loss off all his slaves."

And the synod of Matisco in 581CE:

-"No Jew is allowed henceforth to keep a Jewish slave; a Jew trying to persuade his slave to enter the Jewish faith shall lose not only all other slaves but also the right to make a will."

1. I will like to think that the emphasis of such persecution was on JEWISH SLAVES. implying that Jews were not allowed to persuade their JEWISH slaves to become adherents of judaism . . . , .I believe that judaism is mainly restricted to jews as depicted in the biblical separation of the jews and samaritans in their mode and place of worship.

2. Salves are bound by the whims and will of their masters. I am not aware of jews preaching to non-Jews to practise judaism. lets not forget that even today jews believe that they are the only people of God and consider all other races including whites as gentiles or outcasts.