Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    RE: 0
    
    REMARKABLE!  Can I post this in BLACKNOTES?
    
    Well, well, well, the Ethiopians may come through after all.
    
    I worked in the African Studies Center at MSU for a while and I had the
    opportunity to read the "Official History Text of Ethiopia", the book
    the desseminate for all who desire to know the history of Ethiopia, and
    do you know how it reads?  It speaks of Adam and Eve, and gets to Ham
    and Cush and goes from their!  I said, HOLD IT!  What is this all
    about!?!  But that's their official history!
    
    Playtoe

    Would someone tell me exactly what the "Ark of the Covenant" is?
    
    Bubba

    Bubba,
    
    	Yes, like in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark.'  I'm certain others
    will be pleased to supply you with the biblical details.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Re: 2
    
    If you saw Raiders of the Lost Ark it did give a pretty accurate
    description of the Ark of the Covenant, according to scripture, it
    contains the tables upon which God wrote the 10 Commandments.
    
    Whatever you do, Bubba, if you ever get near it, DON'T OPEN IT! :-)
    
    Playtoe

    The Ark of the Covenant held the stones with the 10 commandments.
    It was first kept in the tabernacle (a tent like portable place of
    worship) during the Exodus from Egypt. Later it was in the heart
    of the temple in Jerusalem. The ark is described in detail in Exodus
    chapter 25 starting at verse 10. The builders of the Ark for the movie 
    seems to have used the Bible account as their building plan.

    The Ark has been missing for I don't know how long.

    		Alfred

re:  .5  Alfred

>   The Ark has been missing for I don't know how long.

The ark disappeared when Jerusalem was desolated in 607 B.C.E., and 
Israel went into captivity in Babylon.

Roman historian Tacitus wrote that when Jerusalem was captured in 63 B.C.E.,
Cneius Pompeius entered the sanctuary of the temple and found it empty.
    
(Also see Re. 11:19)
    
    
Steve

    What is B.C.E.?
    
    Marc H.

>    What is B.C.E.?

	Before Christian Era. It's widely used in non Christian areas and 
	by non Christian groups because many of them prefer not to acknowledge
	that Jesus was Christ. It's concidered a more politically correct
	notation for our current dating system.

			Alfred

    It stands for Before the Common Era (not "Christian").  The equivalent
    abbreviation for AD is CE, meaning "Common Era".
    
    This terminology is not only used by non-Christians, but also by
    Christians who wish to show respect and tolerance for people of other
    faiths.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .9 You could be right. I've heard it the way I explained it
    as well. Of course AD and BC are used by non Christians who wish to
    show respect and tolerance for Christians. 
    
    		Alfred

    I suspect it is more often the case that AD and BC are used by
    non-Christians because those are the terms they have heard and used all
    their lives, and they generally just don't give it any thought.  I feel
    better about using BCE and and CE myself, but as a non-Christian I
    often find myself using BC and AD anyway most of the time.  I am
    creature of habit.  People of other faiths are used to being the
    minority in our culture, and by and large they probably just accept a
    lot of the Christian cultural icons that they inherited.  And while
    using BCE and CE makes sense in academic writing, in ordinary speech a
    lot of people are going to look at you and say "Huh?"

    It's kind of like the early Quakers, who refused to use the traditional
    names for the days of the week and the months, because they were named
    after pagan gods.  Nowadays, Quakers have generally dropped that
    practice, to one degree or another.  And Christians in general don't
    give it any thought when refer to, for example, Thursday (Thor's day).

    -- Mike

        Another bit of AD trivia:  it is properly used before the
        number, as in "AD 1992."

        There are a few people who consider the plaque left by the
        first Apollo astronauts on the moon to have an error, since
        it says "1969 AD."

        Bob

    
    
    Jesus was baptized when he was "about thirty years old" (Luke 3:23),
    "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:1)
    Historians have establised that Tiberius Caesar started his reign in
    14 CE (AD), so Jesus was baptized in the year 29 CE (AD).  At the time
    of Jesus' birth, the shepherds were living outside with their flocks,
    keeping watch in the night (Luke 2:8).  In that area during the winter
    months, it gets cold at night, and it is often rainy.  According to
    the book _Daily_Life_in_the_Time_of_Jesus_, the flocks passed the win-
    ter under cover.  Jesus was more liklely born around the fall of the 
    year 2 BCE (BC).  He would be one year old a few months before the "0"
    point (no year "0"), in 1 BCE (BC).  He was baptized in the fall of 29 CE
    (AD), so he would indeed be 30 years old at that time.  At his baptism,
    God's voice came from the heavens, identifying Jesus as His Son, approv-
    ing him; God's spirit came down upon Jesus, annointing him as the Christ
    (Messiah, meaning, Annointed One).  

    So, here we have Jesus born in the time BC (before Christ?).  Jesus wasn't
    the *Annointed One* until 29 AD.  So why doesn't the "zero" point line up
    with either one of these times?  Does this blur the meaning of BC and AD?
    Not really.  Those terms are just as understandable as BCE and CE, to 
    Christians and non-Christians alike.  

    As a Christian, I think the most important thing is recognizing Jesus as
    God's Son, the Christ/Messiah/Annointed One, and our King and Redeemer,
    not how we label the measurement of time.  In any case, we're getting
    the base note topic way off course with this BC/AD vs. BCE/CE discuss-
    ion.


    Steve

    Good Grief! B.C.E. to more politically correct? 
    
    I've heard the PC stuff and think that it's a sad commentary on the
    world today.
    
    I will always use AD and BC.
    
    Marc H.

     As I recall the interview with Mr. Hancock, he determined that the Ark
     was taken from the original temple (built by Solomon) during the reign
     of the king that installed a pagan statue in the temple - someone help
     me  here - in the Holy of Holies.  Mr. Hancock also figures the people
     that installed the statue were *not* the one's that removed  the  Ark,
     rather  it was removed by devout (my word) Jews who originally took it
     to an island in the Nile river occupied by  a  Jewish  community.   In
     fact, they built a temple for it, the remains of which have been found
     by archaeologists.  The purpose of a Jewish temple, by the way, is  to
     hold  the  Ark  and  that's  why a Jewish house of worship is called a
     synagogue, not a temple (or at least that's what I understand from the
     interview).

     Peace,

     Alvin

Re:  434.13
    
  >Jesus was more liklely born around the fall of the year 2 BCE (BC).

Historians are generally agreed that King Herod died in 4 BC placing
Jesus birth more likely around 5 BC.

Collis

    RE: 15
    
    I would have you note that these
    
>     rather  it was removed by devout (my word) Jews who originally took it
                                ^^^^^^           ^^^^
    
    may very well be Ethiopian Falasha Jews...Also this time period of the
    taking of the Ark from the Temple of Solomon corresponds with the
    Ethiopian ruled dynasties of Egypt 1000 B.C. to 600 B.C. approx. and at
    that time the Egyptian boundary encompassed Israel, Solomon's Temple.
    
    Playtoe

     re; 16
    
    Well, it was "two years ago" that the wise men had visited Herod, which
    is why he had males under two killed, so the birth of Jesus and the
    death of Herod had at least two years difference...and surely Herod
    lived another year or two after the decree (I guess), I've always
    imagined Jesus returned from Egypt at about 5 - 8 years of age.  
    
    Playtoe

	My take is that if Herod did indeed call for the death of all
male infants 2 and under, it was an overreaction; behavior not
atypical of persons who wield enormous power and who perceive the
threat of being overthrown.

	I bring to your attention once again that this story, which appears
only in Matthew, parallels the story of Moses' infancy.  This parallel is
no accident.  The gospel of Matthew is one of the most cleverly mapped out
compilations in the whole Bible (something I learned from Bishop Spong's
book).

Peace,
Richard