My Dearest Love, Sometimes I (and I am not alone) do not understand. WTF? You got some splaining to do. I'm on the phone with your Sarah. I went for an interview this afternoon. Wow do I want to get this one. Just for the stability. I miss you so very much... I have an appt tomorrow with the dentist. Yay. I will write as soon as , rephrase I will send your kite out to you soon. I'm looking forward to hearing your voice. Oh how badly I need to see you. I also need to sleep. The place we are always together in the splendor of our love. Your Zahra
Thanks so much for writing! I just finished the transcription for your post. I liked the ironic twist at the end, with the blind man seeing more than he who could see. That theme can also be seen in Oedipus Rex, when the blind prophet Tiresias predicts the downfall of Oedipus, a seeing man. I like to think that great writers, musicians, and artists have a power like that of the blind man, being able to conceive new things which no one before has seen. Keep up the great work! --Calhoun25
Hey Kyle! I'm glad you've taken interest in examining the New Testament! This answer to your question about Acts is not mine, so I give all credit to the blogger who typed it:
"In the original Greek, however, there is no real contradiction between these two statements. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative). Therefore, as we put the two statements together we find that Paul's companions heard the Voice as a sound (somewhat like the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28, but perceived it only as thunder); but they did not (like Paul) hear the message that it articulated. Paul alone heard it intelligibly (Acts 9:45 says Paul ekousen phonen - accusative case)"
So, Acts 9 has the verb "hear" take the genitive case, meaning "to hear a noise"; in Acts 22, the verb "hear" takes the accusative case, meaning "to hear a thought-conveying message". There is no contradiction in hearing a meaningless sound and not understanding it as a meaningful message. For example, I can "hear" a loud thunder crash (takes genetive in Ancient Greek), but not "hear" it as some meaningful message (takes accusative in Ancient Greek).
The documents of the New Testament were all written within the first century AD: Mark (65-70 AD), Matthew (80 AD), Luke (85 AD), and John (90-95 AD). Paul's letters range from the 40s to 60s. The New Testament canon may have been arranged a lot earlier than 393 AD. We have scholars like Polycarp and Irenaeus and Justin Martyr quoting much of these Gospels around the end of the first century. We have the Muratorian fragment, which lists much of the New Testament canon; it's probably a copy of a Greek text from 170, although some scholars date it up to the 4th century. So although the New Testament may have been arranged as late as 393, there is evidence suggesting the canon was complied earlier (although with these sorts of topics, it's tough to know anything for sure), and the Gospels and Pauline Epistels are certainly first century.
As a way of living, we can learn from the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. As atheist philosopher Antony Flew said, "Read the Sermon on the Mount & you can tell that Jesus is a first rate ethicist."
But I definitely do agree with you, that the Holy Spirit's work is never done. According to Christians, it acts through true believers everyday, so it's not something just limited to the Apostles, like you said. In fact, many Christians believe the Holy Spirit to be part of the divine Trinity!
If naturalism should be true, then there would be no absolute standard for living; everything would be subjective. This meaninglessness is what existentialists struggle with.
I hope these answers are helpful, Kyle! Good luck with your spiritual journey, and keep writing! --Calhoun25
Thanks for writing! I finished the transcription for your post. Sorry about what's happening in your life. Keep your head up, everything happens for a reason. And by the grace of god you'll be just fine :)
I'm also not a huge fan of Romeo and Juliet, except in the limited sense that it is a brilliant and shining example of the cowardice of suicide.
Suicide is cowardice, because we don't know what is ahead, and the future could very well bring the love of your life, waking up from a drugged out coma.
As for Romeo, it's a bit of a mystery. But according to http://www.shakespeare-online.com/faq/romeofaq.html it says:
"How old is Juliet?
"Juliet is thirteen years old. In Shakespeare's primary sources, Juliet is considerably older than she is in the play. Why does Shakespeare change Juliet's age? Professor Gayle Whittier offers this explanation: 'Juliet's very age suggests that she both represents and defeats a translation of sonnet into flesh. At "almost" fourteen (and not sixteen, as in Brooke's earlier "Romeus and Juliet"), she has years almost equal to the completed form of the sonnet's fourteen-lined body.' (_The_Sonnet's_Body_and_the_Body_Sonnetized_in_Romeo_and_Juliet_, in _Critical_Essays_on_Romeo_and_Juliet_, Joseph Porter, ed., 63)"
RSS
Sometimes I (and I am not alone) do not understand. WTF? You got some splaining to do. I'm on the phone with your Sarah. I went for an interview this afternoon. Wow do I want to get this one. Just for the stability. I miss you so very much... I have an appt tomorrow with the dentist. Yay.
I will write as soon as , rephrase I will send your kite out to you soon.
I'm looking forward to hearing your voice. Oh how badly I need to see you.
I also need to sleep. The place we are always together in the splendor of our love.
Your Zahra
--Calhoun25
I'm glad you've taken interest in examining the New Testament!
This answer to your question about Acts is not mine, so I give all credit to the blogger who typed it:
"In the original Greek, however, there is no real contradiction between these two statements. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative). Therefore, as we put the two statements together we find that Paul's companions heard the Voice as a sound (somewhat like the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28, but perceived it only as thunder); but they did not (like Paul) hear the message that it articulated. Paul alone heard it intelligibly (Acts 9:45 says Paul ekousen phonen - accusative case)"
So, Acts 9 has the verb "hear" take the genitive case, meaning "to hear a noise"; in Acts 22, the verb "hear" takes the accusative case, meaning "to hear a thought-conveying message". There is no contradiction in hearing a meaningless sound and not understanding it as a meaningful message. For example, I can "hear" a loud thunder crash (takes genetive in Ancient Greek), but not "hear" it as some meaningful message (takes accusative in Ancient Greek).
The documents of the New Testament were all written within the first century AD: Mark (65-70 AD), Matthew (80 AD), Luke (85 AD), and John (90-95 AD). Paul's letters range from the 40s to 60s. The New Testament canon may have been arranged a lot earlier than 393 AD. We have scholars like Polycarp and Irenaeus and Justin Martyr quoting much of these Gospels around the end of the first century. We have the Muratorian fragment, which lists much of the New Testament canon; it's probably a copy of a Greek text from 170, although some scholars date it up to the 4th century. So although the New Testament may have been arranged as late as 393, there is evidence suggesting the canon was complied earlier (although with these sorts of topics, it's tough to know anything for sure), and the Gospels and Pauline Epistels are certainly first century.
As a way of living, we can learn from the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. As atheist philosopher Antony Flew said, "Read the Sermon on the Mount & you can tell that Jesus is a first rate ethicist."
But I definitely do agree with you, that the Holy Spirit's work is never done. According to Christians, it acts through true believers everyday, so it's not something just limited to the Apostles, like you said. In fact, many Christians believe the Holy Spirit to be part of the divine Trinity!
If naturalism should be true, then there would be no absolute standard for living; everything would be subjective. This meaninglessness is what existentialists struggle with.
I hope these answers are helpful, Kyle! Good luck with your spiritual journey, and keep writing!
--Calhoun25
If there was a good reason....well, then she'd need to come up with it. And then you could think about it carefully.
But if there isn't.....naw - he's your son.
He looks like you, too :).
JT
Suicide is cowardice, because we don't know what is ahead, and the future could very well bring the love of your life, waking up from a drugged out coma.
"How old is Juliet?
"Juliet is thirteen years old. In Shakespeare's primary sources, Juliet is considerably older than she is in the play. Why does Shakespeare change Juliet's age? Professor Gayle Whittier offers this explanation: 'Juliet's very age suggests that she both represents and defeats a translation of sonnet into flesh. At "almost" fourteen (and not sixteen, as in Brooke's earlier "Romeus and Juliet"), she has years almost equal to the completed form of the sonnet's fourteen-lined body.'
(_The_Sonnet's_Body_and_the_Body_Sonnetized_in_Romeo_and_Juliet_, in _Critical_Essays_on_Romeo_and_Juliet_, Joseph Porter, ed., 63)"