stephan huller

Is the fact that there is no sign explicit sign of the resurrection proof that Jews didn't believe in this originally

stephan huller

Is the fact that no explicit mention is made of the messiah proof that this was foreign to the Jews at this period.

stephan huller

That Jacob literally took a rock to be his pillow and then all that follows in this narrative is not meant to have been supplemented with some additional oral tradition

stephan huller

That the ambiguous account of Jacob wrestling with an angel was meant to be 'just as is' - i.e. nothing was 'missing'/ it was complete as it was - or that Ezra clearly intended more supplementary information to disseminate orally to explain this bizarre narrative.

stephan huller

The lesson should be that just because religious apologists argue for the infallibility of the Bible doesn't mean that atheists and skeptics should continue to 'dumb down' the text. The question of whether or not there is a God has nothing to do with the determination of how badly written the Bible is or isn't. Ezra could have been a great writer with a mystic literary purpose to deceive Israelites through mysticism. The only reason why the Bible is taken to be a purely literal attempt at history is because these people are locked in a battle with people who promote this idiotic view.

As Nietzsche once noted "be care that when you fight a monster you don't become one in the process" (or something like that)

stephan huller

The Samaritans did not preserve Marqe's thoughts on the creation of man (probably deliberately because they were problematic). Here is the closest we get at the beginning of Book Two of the Mimar:

MacDonald notes:

[1] Cf. John iv. 14; Rev. xxi. 6, xxii. I, 17
[2] Pss.viii.6 (LXX), lxxxii. 1, cxxxviii. 1; Heb. i. 6, ii. 7, 9. For the connection between the ideology of Hebrews with that of Marqah, v. R. J . F. Trotter, Did the Samaritans of the Fourth Century know the Epistle to the Hebrews? Leed University Oriental Society, Monograph Series no. 1, 1961. 1 A J J ,
[3] the body in the quantitative and extensive sense.
[4] I.e. beasts, birds, fish; man is the fourth species.
[5] Quoted in Matt.iv.4.

outhouse

Its not their work, they didnt write it.


does it matter if they used imagination to force a false interpretation ?



hearafter, not a chance

stephan huller

You didn't answer any of my questions (in no small part I suppose because you don't want to expose your inability to go beyond your one note samba with respect to the 'primitiveness' of the original composition). There is no question to any knowledgeable person that certain ideas were buried within Ezra's original narrative. The idea that land around Shechem was pardes is certainly one of those. Whether or not ALL the ideas developed within the earliest traditions were known or promoted by the original author (Ezra) is up for debate on a case by case basis. Of course you are in no position to take part in that debate at least until you've actually familiarized yourself with any of the relevant texts and traditions.

Please stop posting the idea that no surviving interpretation - no matter how ancient - is valid if it references mystical ideas. That's just plain stupid. If you want to dispute Marqe's interpretation of the material by all means. But please say something worth reading. Make a rational argument or at least say something substantive and informed.

outhouse

those were questions, I thought it was a rant

outhouse

yet you cannot explain why someone who interprets work not theirs at all, has a better take then modern scholarships with our complete knowledge they lacked.


You cannot even explain how the scripture can be interpreted as using parts of the hearafter using common sense. Because its not what it was about.