Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cege · 04-18-2011, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

A new theory on the date of the last supper

Quote:

Sir Colin's book, The Mystery of the Last Supper (or via: amazon.co.uk), out this week, uses astronomy to re-create calendars, plus detail drawn from texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls to propose a timeline for Jesus's final days.

...

Sir Colin argues that Jesus celebrated Passover early using the pre-exilic calendar, dating from before the Jewish exile to Babylon, but still used by some marginal groups in society at the time. It would have been understood by early Christians as operating alongside the official Jewish calendar, he said.

Pope Benedict XVI spoke of a similar theory in 2007, when he said Jesus probably celebrated the meal with his disciples according to the Qumran calendar, at least a day before mainstream observances.

But Sir Colin said astronomy showed the Pope's theory, although arriving at the same conclusion, was incorrect: the Qumran calendar puts Passover at least a week after the likely date of the Crucifixion.

Do you know if Sir Colin concludes that Jesus was crucified on Thursday or on Friday? The Friday crucifixtion date has always bothered me because it doesn't match up with a three-days-and-three-nights prophecy.

Frankencaster · 04-18-2011, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It is amazing how much horse-shit people can invent.

true.

Did you know that you can only kill a werewolf with a silver bullet

...because...because...?

It's like the hoopla around the Jesus myth...somebody makes it up and it keeps idiots arguing about the details for centuries.

Did you also know that only witches with black hats can fly on a broomstick?

stephan huller · 04-18-2011, 06:37 PM

Quote:

It is amazing how much horse-shit people can invent.

I am actually not sure the Jewish people 'invented' kabbalah as much as they adapted ideas from other people, most notably Pythagoreans or Pythagoras's source. I think Alexandria was the point of transmission and the Marcosians derive from here too. Samaritan kabbalah is even wackier.

I think we shouldn't lose sight that crypto-language was developed to hide meaning not necessarily to be content. That's why there are so many 'parables' and 'allegories' in the tradition.

When a tradition can't say what it wants to say for fear of persecution it develops clandestine means of expression. The closest modern example is hip hop/rap.

'know what I'm sayin' 'know what I'm sayin'

Frankencaster · 04-18-2011, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

It is amazing how much horse-shit people can invent.

I am actually not sure the Jewish people 'invented' kabbalah as much as they adapted ideas from other people, most notably Pythagoreans or Pythagoras's source. I think Alexandria was the point of transmission and the Marcosians derive from here too. Samaritan kabbalah is even wackier.

I think we shouldn't lose sight that crypto-language was developed to hide meaning not necessarily to be content. That's why there are so many 'parables' and 'allegories' in the tradition.

When a tradition can't say what it wants to say for fear of persecution it develops clandestine means of expression. The closest modern example is hip hop/rap.

'know what I'm sayin' 'know what I'm sayin'

I understand but it is still mostly horseshit.

Joseph Smith and his golden tablets....Mormons....horseshit
Ron Hubbard.............................Scientology... ..horseshit

Religions are not necessarily the outgrowth of some convoluted tradition of nomadic tribes,etc. There are liars who take advantage of the gullibility of folks. Happens today and happened 1000 and 2500 years ago. Sure folks adopted someone else's legends but it was originally horseshit.

'Crypto-language'. booga, booga, booga

As a Jew I'm quite confident calling the Kabbalah...horseshit.

Sheshbazzar · 04-18-2011, 08:20 PM

To me all of that old Rabbanic midrashim, continually manufacturing arguments or 'explanations' simply for the purpose of devising cleverly contrived elaborations upon previously manufactured 'interpretations', so they could 'make a name' for themselves, was so much 'Sooce tsow'ah'; Eating it up, it came forth, and they ate up yet again, the shit-eaters .

avi · 04-19-2011, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Six letters in Jesus name = Iesous. Irenaeus says it's two and a half = Ysu

Thanks, Stephan, my question remains, in Hebrew (since many argue about the need for conformance with OT prophecy) is his name not written in five, rather than six letters?

avi

stephan huller · 04-19-2011, 07:01 AM

But that's the whole point. The name of the star of the gospel wasn't the Jewish name Joshua per se. The Jews and at least some early Semitic Christians (Judaizing Christians?) remember it as Yeshu, other Greek speaking (Alexandrian Christians?) remember it as Iesous and the Marcionites as Isu (the 's' = samek not shin as in the Jewish remembrance of the name). It is a lot like when I say that Marcion = Mark. No one denies I think that Marcion is a diminutive of Mark. You can go to the southern United States and meet someone with the name 'Jimmy' on his birth certificate (i.e. you can't always presume that everyone named 'Jimmy,' 'Johnny' or 'Marky' is really named 'James,' 'John' and 'Mark').

Most people think that the Marcionite Isu is an attempt to transfer the Greek Iesous into Aramaic or Syriac. Most assume that Ishu is a form (diminutive?) of the long form of Joshua in Hebrew. Most also suppose that Iesous is a rendering of the same full form of Joshua. However Clement of Alexandria supposes the name comes from Jason and means 'to heal' (from memory).

So which was first? The start line of logic is that the Jewish remembrance of Ishu is the most original. After all it has Irenaeus c. 180 CE attesting to it. Nevertheless in the very place he says this he recognizes that his opponents take great interest in the Iesous (i.e. the gnostics). So it all comes down to whether Ephraim's allusion to Aramaic/Syriac speaking Marcionites in Edessa c. early fourth century). Is there use of Isu a corruption of Ishu or an example of the kind of 'heresies' who cling on to the name 'Iesous' even when speaking another language (and other forms of 'Joshua' are available to them). I think that the name Jesus was originally Iesous because of Clement of Alexandria's testimony (i.e. he's saying the name isn't Ishu or the Hebrew form of Joshua)

The bottom line is that no one thought Jesus's real name was the Hebrew form of Joshua until more recently.

Master Coelacanth · 06-11-2011, 03:02 PM

Pardon my ignorance, I don't quite get it: they are Judaic Greeks writing mostly for pagans and converted Jews, why should they use for references other than Roman or pagan calendars? Such a three days and three nights prophecy, shouldn't it be perfectly clear and accomplished??

By the way, when it comes to literary terms, aren't these guys horrible writers after all? The can't even get their accounts straight!!

JonA · 06-11-2011, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Chronology of Christ's last days confuses Christians

...

Most troubling for these believers is Jesus' own prophecy, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, that he will rise from the dead after "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
...

"To be technical, Jesus made a false prophecy, and that's not something most Christians would want to put that way," said Robert Miller, a professor of religion at Juniata College in Huntingdon, Pa.

Perhaps, assuming that such a 'prophecy' was actually spoken by Jesus.

More likely, though, this is just another example of Matthew's egregious use of Scripture to the point of ridiculousness. It isn't the only example of him saying something stupid in the name of 'fulfilling' the Scriptures:

Quote:

Matthew 21:1–11 (NRSV):

When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, 'Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, just say this, "The Lord needs them." And he will send them immediately.' This took place to fulfil what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,
'Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'
The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. The crowds that went ahead of him and that followed were shouting,
'Hosanna to the Son of David!
Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!
Hosanna in the highest heaven!'
When he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was in turmoil, asking, 'Who is this?' The crowds were saying, 'This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee.'

Jon

Vivisector · 06-11-2011, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Perhaps, assuming that such a 'prophecy' was actually spoken by Jesus.

More likely, though, this is just another example of Matthew's egregious use of Scripture to the point of ridiculousness. It isn't the only example of him saying something stupid in the name of 'fulfilling' the Scriptures:

Quote:

Matthew 21:1–11 (NRSV):

When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, 'Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, just say this, "The Lord needs them." And he will send them immediately.' This took place to fulfil what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,
'Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'
The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. The crowds that went ahead of him and that followed were shouting,
'Hosanna to the Son of David!
Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!
Hosanna in the highest heaven!'
When he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was in turmoil, asking, 'Who is this?' The crowds were saying, 'This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee.'

Jon

This is one of my all-time favorite passages, in which Matthew, slavishly faithful to the LXX as he read it, placed Jesus on *two* animals at the same time (Two! Two! Two animals in one!).

It brings warm, approving feelings to me to think of this as the "Yeehaw, Jesus!" scene.

Cheers,

V.

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

04-18-2011, 08:20 PM	#35
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	To me all of that old Rabbanic midrashim, continually manufacturing arguments or 'explanations' simply for the purpose of devising cleverly contrived elaborations upon previously manufactured 'interpretations', so they could 'make a name' for themselves, was so much 'Sooce tsow'ah'; Eating it up, it came forth, and they ate up yet again, the shit-eaters .

04-19-2011, 07:01 AM	#37
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But that's the whole point. The name of the star of the gospel wasn't the Jewish name Joshua per se. The Jews and at least some early Semitic Christians (Judaizing Christians?) remember it as Yeshu, other Greek speaking (Alexandrian Christians?) remember it as Iesous and the Marcionites as Isu (the 's' = samek not shin as in the Jewish remembrance of the name). It is a lot like when I say that Marcion = Mark. No one denies I think that Marcion is a diminutive of Mark. You can go to the southern United States and meet someone with the name 'Jimmy' on his birth certificate (i.e. you can't always presume that everyone named 'Jimmy,' 'Johnny' or 'Marky' is really named 'James,' 'John' and 'Mark'). Most people think that the Marcionite Isu is an attempt to transfer the Greek Iesous into Aramaic or Syriac. Most assume that Ishu is a form (diminutive?) of the long form of Joshua in Hebrew. Most also suppose that Iesous is a rendering of the same full form of Joshua. However Clement of Alexandria supposes the name comes from Jason and means 'to heal' (from memory). So which was first? The start line of logic is that the Jewish remembrance of Ishu is the most original. After all it has Irenaeus c. 180 CE attesting to it. Nevertheless in the very place he says this he recognizes that his opponents take great interest in the Iesous (i.e. the gnostics). So it all comes down to whether Ephraim's allusion to Aramaic/Syriac speaking Marcionites in Edessa c. early fourth century). Is there use of Isu a corruption of Ishu or an example of the kind of 'heresies' who cling on to the name 'Iesous' even when speaking another language (and other forms of 'Joshua' are available to them). I think that the name Jesus was originally Iesous because of Clement of Alexandria's testimony (i.e. he's saying the name isn't Ishu or the Hebrew form of Joshua) The bottom line is that no one thought Jesus's real name was the Hebrew form of Joshua until more recently.

06-11-2011, 03:02 PM	#38
Master Coelacanth Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Argentina Posts: 7	Pardon my ignorance, I don't quite get it: they are Judaic Greeks writing mostly for pagans and converted Jews, why should they use for references other than Roman or pagan calendars? Such a three days and three nights prophecy, shouldn't it be perfectly clear and accomplished?? By the way, when it comes to literary terms, aren't these guys horrible writers after all? The can't even get their accounts straight!!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.