Naysayers! Believers! Draw your swords!

neo wrote:

It does say all scripture, does it not? So, humor me as I claim that all of God's activities of the so called 'Old Testament' should harmonize with the teachings of the apostles.
Or, further, that all seeming contradictions or inaccuracies found anywhere in the Bible must have a logical explanation if the Bible is to be, as Paul claims " . . .beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight . ." (Continuation of vs. 16). If not, the Bible becomes, not a guide for salvation, but just another book.

Ok, but that doesn't negate the fact that you're reading that passage out of context, and that the writer isn't saying that all of God's activities of the so called 'Old Testament' should harmonize with the teachings of the apostles, or anything approximating that claim. You are using that singular passage to promote a theological stance.

The Bible becomes less thumpable upon closer examination.

Quote:

It has been and still is a weapon of mass "deinstruction" and proselytizing.

Proselytizing can be a royal pain, Timur, but I think less of a person who proclaims he/she has found "the answer" and doesn't attempt proselytizing than one who does.

When the Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door (something they do less and less these days, despite the fact that they walk our street relentlessly)...I invite them in and give as good as I get. I've got a bookshelf filled with Bibles (Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish) and they are annotated.

I use 'em like a weapon.

No. I would contend that once you become familiar with the Bible (original sources) you will no longer wish to "thump".
I would challenge you to prove me wrong on that.
Resources are provided.

Yup, I'm here chillin like a villain on the ceilin with pikachu, observin.
I don't see how you'll expect bible thumpers to appear here. Is it because you are assuming that they are necessarily interested in a dialogue that is not one sided, as well as an education?

I think I have backed myself into an etymological corner.

The term "bible thumper" in the derogatory has often been applied to me even though many of my most verbal opponents have been nominal christians.

I wish to separate myself from traditional christianity.

Part of my reason for starting this thread, and I believe some older A2kers have picked up on it, is to lure some of the more articulate members of thumperdom.

So far I have not succeeded. But I will thump if you want.

I agree that Paul was influenced by some Hebrew texts.
Look at all the hot debate surrounding circumcision in the letters attributed to Paul.
I do think you attempt to draw too lofty a connection though.
There was no "Old Testament" as a collection in Paul's day.

The Hebrew canon had been pretty well established for several hundred years.

Many Jewish people today use the term G_d in their texts. As if the word Yahweh would bring down fire from heaven.

Quote:

The Hebrew canon had been pretty well established for several hundred years.

What do you mean the "Hebrew canon". Are you saying the "Old Testament" was established only several hundred years ago?
When do you think the epistles attributed to Paul were written?

Quote:

Many Jewish people today use the term G_d in their texts. As if the word Yahweh would bring down fire from heaven.

Magical words, like getting bent out of shape over Jehovah verses Yahweh. I don't see how your views over the importance of a word, are much difference than some Jewish conceptions.