Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Angyson · 10-01-2004, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doc58

Bart Ehrman explains why this conversation could not have occurred as it is written.
The entire argument is based on the fact that Jesus is talking about being born from above, or spiritually born. Nicodemus misunderstands and thinks Jesus is talking about being born again. So the author's account of the conversation between Nic and Jesus is based on the Nic's misunderstanding of Jesus due to the ambiguous meaning of born from above in Greek.
The problem is this: Jesus and Nic would have been speaking Aramaic, not Greek. And the words in Aramaic are not ambiguous, born from above does not mean born again.
So, according to Ehrman, this conversation is not historical as written.

According to Lamsa, Nicki came from a different region than Jesus and was therefore unfamiliar with this idiomatic expression.

Chili · 10-01-2004, 01:01 PM

As I see it, the difference between being "born again" and being "born from above" is that when we are born again we can either be born from above or from below. Either way we are born again with the only difference that when we are born from above we will end up in heaven and if we are born from below we will end up in hell. The critical component of this real life melodrama is that our ego must die which will be our first death. After this happens there is not much that can go wrong for we have no choice but to take up residence in our subconscious mind (similar to voodoo, I guess). See also Mark Anthony's pivotal speach in "Julius Ceasar" just after Ceasar was slain (III.i.184-210). Same story, just different words.

The details of the above all over in the bible but there is one that I like where the Chief priests insisted that Jesus had to die lest he becomes the final imposter who will be much worse than the first = hell (Mat.27:64).

judge · 10-02-2004, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angyson

As I explained, I do not have a Lamsa bible, and they are difficult to come by. If someone has a link, I would appreciate it over my memory.

I'm not sure if
this will be any help.
From what I recall Lamsa, who grew up speaking Aramaic in the middle east, suggested 'born again" was a northern gallilean idiom for repentence which Nicodemus did not understand.
I'm not sure how someone living in the 20th cent could be sure about 1st century local idioms though. But his ideas are interesting and probably right at least some of the time

Cynthia of Syracuse · 10-03-2004, 10:37 AM

The derailment of this thread has been shipped off to ~E~, locked, and this one is going back to BC&H.

Chili · 10-03-2004, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

One could say that; however, I woudn't. The author must have known about the double meaning, and the expression has the most force understood as an intentional double entendre, which is how most scholars of John [proficient in Greek] see it (and find that the author of John has a liking to using words where both meanings fit). In any case, I don't know how such a person could argue and not just claim that it is inaccurate that the author had "again" in mind.

best,
Peter Kirby

To be consistent with John's Prologue he must use the word "again" because in Jn.1:13 he describes from above and from below: "who were begotten not by blood, nor by carnal desire, nor by man's willing it, but by God."

Here John is identifying all those who accept him (Christ) but not all will become empowered to overcome the darkness in life. Those who were begotten from carnal desire for different reason are born from below and would not be empowered (they get a scorpion) and those who are born from above will be empowered.

Toto · 10-03-2004, 10:47 PM

The digression on Greek insults has been split off here.

Angyson · 10-04-2004, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I'm not sure if
this will be any help.
From what I recall Lamsa, who grew up speaking Aramaic in the middle east, suggested 'born again" was a northern gallilean idiom for repentence which Nicodemus did not understand.
I'm not sure how someone living in the 20th cent could be sure about 1st century local idioms though. But his ideas are interesting and probably right at least some of the time

Look at his footnote explaining this idiomatic expression.

10-01-2004, 01:01 PM	#22
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	comedy versus tragedy As I see it, the difference between being "born again" and being "born from above" is that when we are born again we can either be born from above or from below. Either way we are born again with the only difference that when we are born from above we will end up in heaven and if we are born from below we will end up in hell. The critical component of this real life melodrama is that our ego must die which will be our first death. After this happens there is not much that can go wrong for we have no choice but to take up residence in our subconscious mind (similar to voodoo, I guess). See also Mark Anthony's pivotal speach in "Julius Ceasar" just after Ceasar was slain (III.i.184-210). Same story, just different words. The details of the above all over in the bible but there is one that I like where the Chief priests insisted that Jesus had to die lest he becomes the final imposter who will be much worse than the first = hell (Mat.27:64).

10-03-2004, 10:37 AM	#24
Cynthia of Syracuse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Vermont, USA Posts: 2,821	Mod notice The derailment of this thread has been shipped off to ~E~, locked, and this one is going back to BC&H.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-03-2004, 10:47 PM	#26
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The digression on Greek insults has been split off here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.