Definition of Christianity

larryone

How would you define what Christianity actually means
Belief that Jesus = God ??
Following Christs teachings more generically ??
Being a member of a Christian Church ??
Belief that you are a Christian => you are ??

hairyheretic

Quick (and generic) rule of thumb I would offer ...

- Believing in the deity(s) of your faith
- Acting in accordance with the tenets and beliefs of that faith
- Doing your best to follow the spiritual guidance of your faith

I wouldn't consider belonging to a church to be that important. For sake of arguement, if you were in a small village in rural China, with no other christians for perhaps thousands of miles around, would that make you any less of one?

robindch

(moved from the C4 fundie-thread)

> You can claim to be just about anything ... its how you behave that shows
> the truth of your claims, and what you really are.

Not at all. Even within this small corner of the ethersphere in the last couple of days, one believer (Excelsior) has said that a christian's behaviour is not as important a part of their make up as the fact that they believe a certain item of dogma -- in this case, it's the one I mentioned, that one "accepts christ as saviour". Excelsior, please correct me if I misinterpreted your posting(s).

So this means that this particular person (as far as I can see) believes themselves to be a christian because they believe that believing something makes them so. Or in simpler English, you are X because you believe that you are X. I know I've mentioned this before, but this tail-eating logic pervades religion from top to bottom (cf, the creationism thread where some posters are happy to say that the world *was* made 6,000 years ago, just because they believe it was. Belief about reality and reality are not the same thing!)

hh - I do note your critical hidden assumption, though, which is that people have a tendency to assume that one can divine (ha!) another person's belief system from just watching them. But far from validating this tendency, the facts unfortunately show that you generally can't tell a christian from a muslim from a jew from a buddhist just by looking at the non-religious things they do -- people are nice, warm, funny, dry, serious, unpleasant regardless of their religion (though in my experience, religion does tend to bring out the authoritarian instincts that many people have). Furthermore, this hopeless inability to identify fellow-believers at face means that you've to find another way to do it, and guess what, you can use clothes and symbols to do it instead! That's why so many religions require easily identifiable clothing or symbols -- so that you *can* identify your own religion or tribe from somebody else's, lest you inadvertently interact with them in an intra-religious way (generally being 'nice'), when you should have interacted inter-religiously instead.

hairyheretic

I'm not talking about divining anyone elses beliefs from how they behave.

My point was if I claim to be, for sake of arguement, christian, yet never pray or go to church, behave as an all round obnoxious b'stard, lie, cheat, murder, whatever, and *still* claim to be christian, haven't my actions shown that my declaration is lip service at best?

UU

It seems we all have different views of what Christianity really is. I think it is both beliefs (i.e. Jesus as son of God) but just as important imo, their actions (i.e. Jesus' teachings).

I was baptised Christian and attended a primary school with a strong but not oppressive Catholic ethos for years. From my own knowledge, being Christian back then (which was only a few years ago; 1992 - 2000) was following Christ. That was his teachings and beliefs such as praying and showing compassion to your friends and enemies, living according to the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 - 7) which has stood for 2,000 years as the standard by which all Christians must judge their own behaviour.

I can't comprehend that how certain oppressive fundamentalist Christian groups in America shoot abortion doctors? Or how some discriminate against Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, Humanists, etc. because they hold different beliefs. I have no problem whatsoever that certain fundamentalists believe in Creationism and reject Evolutionism but attempting to force educational committees to stop teaching it and replacing it with the account of Genesis is totally ridiculous and unfair! Even the Spanish Inquisition certainly didn't reflect the true spirit of Christianity by persecuting Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Pagans, etc.

A majority of Christians are really lovely people who just wish to spread world peace and happiness which I highly respect them for but, there are the few nutcases who give the majority a bad name because of their actions. What I think is truly marvelous about most Christians is how charitable they really are with societies like St. Vincent De Paul. A Catholic priest came into our school to talk about the good work he does with homeless a while ago. Apparently he's just won a well-deserved award for his work and has proven to be a true Christian in my terms.

Excelsior

You are off base on my views but I can understand that since they appear to be counter intuitive. My view is that the belief in Jesus' mission (orthodoxy) should lead to huge massive breathtaking good works (orthopraxis). I do think that adoption into the parenthood of God (which is what Biblical Christianity seems to me to finalise in) is by faith and not works. So I don't think it legitimate to say "Well X is a paedophile so he can't be a Christian" or "Y made that abhorrent racist comment live on the air so she can't be a Christian". But their behaviour is of great importance.

I asked my wife to define Christianity and she laughed and said "Its a mess". Christianity to her means the cultural movement including churches, parachurches and all the rest of it.

I think the OP had a different Christianity in mind and I would define it as the manifold approaches to following Jesus that have arisen in the last 2000 years. I would feel a need to root the definition with historical orthodoxy in some way that would rule out scientologists claiming to be Christians but I can't come up with it right now. In the 300s a couple of hundred church leaders came up with this formulation, which I like:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

UU

Well it seems that we all have different definitions of Christianity which is fair just as long as we can be all tolerant.

Verona Walker
I know this is rather long but I must tell you about a woman called Verona Walker. Her son Anthony Walker was killed with an axe in a racially motivated attack in Liverpool of last year. After the trial of the two men who perpetrated this unspeakable crime, Verona, an evangelist Christian, was interviewed by the press and in an answer to the question, 'Can you ever forgive your son's murderers?', she said simply, 'I do forgive them. What choice do I have? when Jesus was dying on the cross, he said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" and I have to forgive them too.'

Who could fail to be moved, or even shocked, by such words? Even the cynical journalists, eager for some call for revenge to incorporate into the next headlines - "Mother hopes son's killers will rot in hell" - seemed silenced by this noble woman's dignity. In yet another year in which we religious people seem to be making fools of ourselves, attacking this, protesting about that, demanding the other, Verona Walker expressed the essence of Christian morality in a couple of sentences, which have probably done more to further Christian cause than any number of sermons, public demonstrations, or theological treatises. 'What choice do I have?' she asks, implying that, in some particulars at least, the message of Christ is so clear, so unequivocal, that there is no room for casuistical interpretation. 'Jesus says we have to forgive our enemies, to pray for those who would injure us, and I, as a follower of Jesus, must do that. It is costly, but if I didn't do it, I would have to stop calling my self a Christian.' Such seem to be Verona's sentiments.

Majoring on the minor is not a characteristic of Verona Walker. she understands that forgiveness is one of the basic, defining principles of Christianity. The Gospels tell us that to forgive ones enemies he or she will be rewarded by God, but one is not to infer from this that the reward will be given when one dies. Verona Walker understands this. She said, 'Why should the actions of my son's killers condemn me to live with bitterness?' She truly deserves to be the woman of the year 2005! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/01/nwalk01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/01/ixnewstop.html

robindch

> I'm not talking about divining anyone elses beliefs from how they behave.

Hmm... I must have misinterpreted you when you said that "its how you behave that shows the truth of your claims, and what you really are"

> My point was if I claim to be, for sake of arguement, christian, yet never
> pray or go to church, behave as an all round obnoxious b'stard, lie, cheat,
> murder, whatever, and *still* claim to be christian, haven't my actions shown
> that my declaration is lip service at best?

No, not really. You'll have shown that your actions are lip service when compared with what some people believe that christians should be (ie, nice, friendly, helpful, church-going etc), but as I said before, it's completely up to each believer as to what they personally believe that christians should be before they can rightfully claim to be one. Some say that you've to sign up for the Nicene creed, others for the Athanasian or the Apostle's one or any of the other creeds, while other folks say that you've just got to behave nicely and you're thereby imbued with a "christian spirit" (and by implication, that somebody who doesn't demonstrate these virtues is not a carrier of the "christian spirit" and therefore not a christian, as you've pointed out). I'll mention, but not expand, on the fact of the christian invasion of Central and Southern America was carried out by christians who sincerely seem to have believed themselves not only to have been good christians, but also doing "god's work" in some sense, despite presiding over one of the greatest human disasters to befall any civilization (has anybody read the Cortes' despatches home?). And who's to say that these guys weren't christians, if they claimed they were?

Or, alternatively, look at it another way: if christians could agree amongst themselves what constitutes christianity, then there'd be just one global branding, and all the varities -- Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Menonites, Maronites, Orthodox believers, Melkite Greek Catholics and thousands of others -- would sink into the sand and disappear. But it doesn't happen.

Hence my point -- christians are "christian" according to their own criteria alone.

Scofflaw

Terminological inexactitude beckons:

I'm an atheist. I follow Christ's teachings.

What does that make me (zero points for 'confused')?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Excelsior

What about Christianity is the movement of collected Christians and Christians are people with an ongoing relationship with the Biblical God that affects their relationship with fellow man?

larryone

That definition is in terms of God, which many Christians believe does not necessarily mean Christ.
Perhaps an ammendment:
"Christianity is the movement of collected Christians and Christians are people with an ongoing relationship with God and Jesus Christ that affects their relationship with fellow man."
With regard to Scofflaw's question, I would think it necessary to believe in God in one way or another in order to be Christian. If you are an athiest that follows the teachings of Christ, then hats off to you sir - it's a good way to live. But I'm not sure if I would call it Christianity.


Actually you've now got me second guessing myself. I really dont know. I know some Christian Pagans, but I've never met anyone who could be considered a Christian Athiest.

robindch

> [Scofflaw] I'm an atheist. I follow Christ's teachings.

The word "teachings" is as meaningless as "ethos", the origin of much blather from me anon. Instead of this word, try playing with the phrase "I follow what Christ says", thereby begging the question of "well, which bit exactly of what Christ says?" Two points of view spring to mind. Firstly, the bad one:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html

...then the good one...:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/good/nt.html

...which may put the whole thing in a bit more perspective. As to what Christ himself thought -- well, who knows? The text is full of contradictions.

> What does that make me [...]?

No idea! Whatever you say you are, I suppose -- a christian atheist?

Excelsior

Excelsior draws on all his morning apathy to resist the urge to respond to Robin's "contradictions" comment and drag the thread off topic.

LarryOne, I'd be willing to take your definition if we just dropped God and had "relationship with Jesus". That would leave hardcore boys like me happy that we aren't splitting God and Jesus and it would leave slick new boys like you happy that you aren't subscribing too much to Christ.

Asiaprod

Excelsior wrote:

LarryOne, I'd be willing to take your definition if we just dropped God and had "relationship with Jesus". That would leave hardcore boys like me happy that we aren't splitting God and Jesus and it would leave slick new boys like you happy that you aren't subscribing too much to Christ.

Good edit, I would take it one step further and say:
Christianity is a collective of individuals that through their ongoing belief in, and relationship with, Jesus Christ are taught how to relate to their fellow man

UU

Well actually I follow Jesus' teachings but I don't consider myself Christian because I don't believe in Jesus as a son of God or the Messiah (hence I don't use Christ but Jesus) but as a moral - prophet, teacher, etc.

Back to the point, what's the actual point of people saying they're Christian when they won't even follow Jesus' teachings? It doesn't make sense to me. If I were to claim to be Christian, I'd try my best to follow Christ's footsteps (i.e. a follower of Christ and his teachings).

robindch

> Excelsior draws on all his morning apathy to resist the urge to respond
> to Robin's "contradictions" comment and drag the thread off topic.

...and I drew upon all the late-night enthusiasm which can arise from five pints and a querulous mood. But even allowing for that unforgiveable off-topic outburst, I'm still having a hard time reconciling "love your neighbour as yourself" Matt 19:19 with "I'm not here to bring peace but a sword, and I will split families to bits" Matt 10:34-36. Anyhow, this is off topic.

As for a definition of christianity?

What about starting from:

"A series of closely-related religions principally based upon varying intepretations of the Old and New Testamants which assert that Jesus Christ is a man who died then came back to life and flew bolidy to heaven to become (or return to being) one-third of a three-part deity; his death being believed necessary to atone for the actions of his distant ancestors and also to secure the possibility of eternal bliss for people who were made aware, and believed, this belief, with eternal proscription or void for everybody who was not aware of, or chose not to believe, this belief. The many rules for human interaction and predisposition contained within the text of the bible are asserted either inerrant or inapplicable on a per-denomination or per-sect basis."

Does that include most of the important items?

Excelsior

Interesting that you have gone down the root of nailing down beliefs Robin. I think that is a noble attempt at a specific answer that includes about half a dozen things that aren't Christian beliefs. He flew into heaven, Robin? You ****-stirrer!

Thankfully at 0620 my morning apathy is Everest like in scale or I'd be doling out the Flandersesque verbal lashing of a lifetime.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

The bad one:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html

...then the good one...:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/good/nt.html

...which may put the whole thing in a bit more perspective. As to what Christ himself thought -- well, who knows? The text is full of contradictions.

Well, I'd put a fair bit of the 'bad' down as preaching style, some as exaggeration on the part of the 'skeptics', and plenty more of it down as social context. Being an atheist, I'm not too worried about the apparent condemnation of entire cities to destruction by God (as far as I'm aware, nothing happened anyway). Obviously, I would be approaching the Bible as a historical document rather than the word of God, so I get to say things like "apparently that was added after they decided to preach to the Gentiles", or "textual analysis suggests this was a late insertion".

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> Interesting that you have gone down the root of nailing down beliefs Robin.

Well, what other way is there? Christianity is a set of beliefs which people share, or believe that they share, with other people concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ and how they should interact with him and the rest of humanity -- or is it something else completely? (btw, it's "down the route", not "root", the slip is interesting in this context )

> I think that is a noble attempt at a specific answer that includes
> about half a dozen things that aren't Christian beliefs.
> He flew into heaven, Robin? You ****-stirrer!

Cough, splutter! From your own posting of a day or two ago, you said that you believe that Christ "ascended into heaven". Now, do call me a s**t-stirrer as much as you like, but other than register, I can't see any difference between "ascend" ("was taken up" in the original greek) and "fly up".

Anyhow, what are the other five things which I messed up on?

robindch

> Well, I'd put a fair bit of the 'bad' down as preaching style, some as
> exaggeration on the part of the 'skeptics', and plenty more of it
> down as social context.

I agree, but it still begs the question of which bits of "christ's teachings" you follow. The bit about not killing people, doing unto your neighbour as you would do unto yourself is well and good (if hardly the moral equivalent of rocket-science) but putting my finger in the air and feeling which way the moral wind is blowing, I'd say that for every decent or humane quote or sentiment attributed to Christ, there's a compensating unpleasant, antisocial, or threatening one. So, in my reading of of the text of the NT, saying that one follows "christ's teachings" doesn't say very much other than you've got to pick'n'mix in order to get a set of coherent moral guidelines, most of the good ones of which are pretty obvious anyway.

UU

Excelsior wrote:

Interesting that you have gone down the root of nailing down beliefs Robin. I think that is a noble attempt at a specific answer that includes about half a dozen things that aren't Christian beliefs. He flew into heaven, Robin? You ****-stirrer!

Excelsior, that's an awful thing to call somebody! I do know what the stars mean. I thought being an observant Christian, you might show some virtue, compassion and less arrogance to others. Would Jesus call someone a ****-stirrer?! Jesus was taken up or flew up to into heaven: John 24-51 - "As he was blessing them, he departed from them and was taken up into heaven". If you want to make a point, being rude isn't going to help you.

Excelsior

Ah relax UU. It is not meant with any offence but as a term of affection for the healthy poking that Robin offers us Christians. I have never heard it used amongst Irish people except as a term of respect for the valuable role that a mischievious devil's advocate plays in any group.

Devil's advocate of course, is not meant as a term of offence either, lest anyong get annoyed or in case it knocks me out of the classification "Good Christian".

Robin, "Root" has more to do with early morning posting than any Freudian cake, I mean slip. But then I would say that. The ascension doesn't actually mean fly up, although the dreadful curse of Renaissance art has locked that idea in our heads like so many outer fallacies. The Ascension is to the higher plane/purpose, not to a bigger altitude.

There is no contradiction between Jesus coming on a mission of love and coming as a sword to divide people. It is only a contradiction if:

a) The approach to the text is fundamental and verse is compared against verse without recourse to context.

b) The assumptions brought to bear on the text are limited to an either/or categorisation instead of both/and.

c) The meta-narrative you hold to insists that God's love and God's judgement is incompatible.

Skip ahead if you want, here comes the preachy bit

At one point, Paul says "Concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge." and later in his career he writes, "You are able to admonish one another." Only the crudest of readers would read these words and declare a contradiction. There is no difficulty with someone writing these two things and meaning both at the same time. Even disregarding context, hearers and the circumstances of writing both of these sentences could apply to one group at the same time.

In fact, in another letter, Paul does put these two sentences together to apply to another group: "And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another." Full of goodness and filled with all knowledge isn't meant to read "sinless perfection" but rather capable for the ministry set before you. In that ministry, it is important to encourage each other towards improvement with admonishment.

Now considering how apparent contradictions align in the writings of Paul, let me explain why I see no difficulty in the picture of Jesus that says all the lovely modern things we happily embrace and simultaneously says things that talk about the destruction of families and coming judgement.

Jesus' mission, as I see it, is to usher in the Kingdom of God. They are words straight from his mouth. All his parables are framed in terms of elaborating what Kingdom values look like. All his teachings are about how to see it advanced or how to live in it. The word that is commonly used to characterise this Kingdom is "Grace". Jesus' teachings (and particularly his interpretations of the OT) are all about how citizenship of this Kingdom is established not by what we do but on how we do things. So for example, the widely accepted Sermon on the Mount (the Matthew 5-7 one and not the Luke 6 one) begins with "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven". Those who declare themselves spiritually bankrupt are the ones who get in. People can't earn their way in. Faith is the passport application for citizenship.

At this point, most people are starting to scan the paragraphs because I've just laid out the largely attractive Grace as a free gift idea. It all lines up with the teachings about avoiding hypocrisy, about being tolerant and so on.

But while Grace is free, it isn't cheap. The reason citizenship of this Jesus movement is free is because Jesus has taken the bankruptcies of his brothers and sisters on himself. If you imagine the free gift of Grace as the vertical alignment between God and man, then the cost is borne across Jesus' shoulders. These two apparently contradictory ideas (God's infinite mercy and God's infinite justice) are brought together like this on the cross.

If the entry into the Kingdom is free and a result of putting up your hands and saying "I want in", then the converse is that those who don't choose that are clearly on the other side of the line. The very nature of the openness of Jesus' offer (which is the uncontroversial aspect of his teaching) serves as a sword dividing the world into two groups. The free, liberal, inclusive, love-centred teachings of Christ are remarkable claims. But for those claims to mean anything at all, if Jesus is right when he prophesies that through his death people would be reconciled with God, then those that reject that offer of reconciliation go without it. (I think that if Jesus isn't right then Jesus' teachings really do collapse into irrelevancy)

So let me say it differently. Jesus' offer is so good because it is so valuable. This valuable gift is offered to us freely. But the offer neccessarily divides the world into 2 camps (sheep and goats if you will). Taking the offer is a case of telling Jesus, "Thy will be done". At the end, Jesus says, "So be it". Refusing the offer is a case of saying, "My will be done". At the end, Jesus says, "So be it". There is no contradiction then if Jesus says, "The offer is open to all, especially the bankrupt failures" and on the other hand saying, "Reconciliation with the living God matters. Those that don't show an interest in it are screwed".

As an aside, there is no benefit, either now or in 2nd Temple Judaism, in adding Judgement teaching to a belief system as radical as Jesus'. While the idea that all the bits we don't like must have been added later is often proposed, there is no textual evidence at all to support it and I have never actually had a scenario laid out that would explain why it would be profitable to artificially add teachings so offensive as Jesus'.

Scofflaw

Based on the evidence of these forums, Jesus' claim that he "comes not to send peace, but a sword" seems apt enough.

As for the "pick-and-mix" aspect of following Christ's teachings - I can read the Bible as well as the next person (better, if it's a fundie!). I have little interest in the "teachings" attributed to Jesus by even someone as early as Paul, because they are the interpretations of a little mind (whereas, obviously, mine aren't!).

As to the Old Testament aspects - Jesus was a Jew, and a believer in God. I am neither.

Look at Jesus' words as the words of a man - a man who was a great moral teacher, but was also a 30-something single Jewish carpenter from a small country town in the Roman Empire. The extent to which he managed to transcend the limitations of his time and place is the measure of his stature as a teacher. To the extent that he did not, he can be ignored (that might be in breach of Charter, but it's not meant offensively).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm an atheist. I follow Christ's teachings.

I might rephrase the above to say something like...

I'm an atheist, but my moral code has much in commmon with the teachings of Christ.

Scoffs original phrasing to me suggests that Christ has the monopoly on basic morality. As Robin suggests the "love thy neighbour" idea isn't exactly rocket science for a society that doesn't want to implode.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

I might rephrase the above to say something like...

I'm an atheist, but my moral code has much in commmon with the teachings of Christ.

Scoffs original phrasing to me suggests that Christ has the monopoly on basic morality. As Robin suggests the "love thy neighbour" idea isn't exactly rocket science for a society that doesn't want to implode.

I can live with the rephrasing - I didn't mean to imply that Christ's teachings were the only ones I followed (I'd love to live up to some of the pagan Roman virtues, for example, like gravitas), but on the other hand I can't think of any of his moral teachings that I would be in conflict with. Indeed, as the years have gone by, some of his teachings have resonated ever more strongly (simultaneously, one sees him more and more as a man, and as a Jewish reformer).

"Love thy neighbour" is obviously weak compared to Jain morality, or even Buddhist doctrines of compassion, but was, as far as I know, a definite improvement on the prior Semitic and proto-Semitic religions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

cmcg

Atheism is denying beliefs and God. how could we have Christ without God? we cant so by following his teachings you are not atheist. By acknowledging his beliefs are special enough to live by you put him up as apart from the rest of us. in essence you are not denying what many see as the saviour

Scofflaw wrote:

Terminological inexactitude beckons:

I'm an atheist. I follow Christ's teachings.

What does that make me (zero points for 'confused')?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Yossie

cmcg wrote:

we cant so by following his teachings you are not atheist. By acknowledging his beliefs are special enough to live by you put him up as apart from the rest of us. in essence you are not denying what many see as the saviour

Funnily enough the first christians were the one's who originally were given the name "atheists" by their pagan neighbours, for not believe in all the "other" gods. So really christians should be called atheists-1's, nearly atheists or some such.:p

cmcg

Yossie wrote:

Funnily enough the first christians were the one's who originally were given the name "atheists" by their pagan neighbours, for not believe in all the "other" gods. So really christians should be called atheists-1's, nearly atheists or some such.:p

i was just referring to the latter day meaning but interseting point

Scofflaw

cmcg wrote:

Atheism is denying beliefs and God. how could we have Christ without God? we cant so by following his teachings you are not atheist. By acknowledging his beliefs are special enough to live by you put him up as apart from the rest of us. in essence you are not denying what many see as the saviour

I think I can safely say it. I'm not convinced that there was such a person as Jesus - he's probably an amalgamation of several teachers and prophets who were wandering around during a major time of upheaval in Judaism.

Fine set of teachings though.


cordially,
Scofflaw