Ben C Smith

Look here. Beer so Jewish it is almost cheesy. They even picked up on that brew pun in the word Hebrew.

Ah, great passage.

Ben.

PhilosopherJay

Hi ChandraRama,

Yes, Toto is correct that this is a hypothetical reconstruction. It is based partially on other hypothetical reconstructions. These reconstructions are based on a combination of semiotics, psychoanalysis, structuralism, post-structuralism, movie theory, Marxist ideological theory, Biblical Studies and simple reasoning.

I did a number of these reconstructions in a book I published called "Evolution of Christs and Christianities" a couple of years ago. I am now trying to clarify my methodology to make it more explicit and provide more proof in a follow up work.

At its best, this methodology is similar to the logical methodology that Ben Smith used in #5214512 / #13 to deduce that Jesus had blasphemied and used the name of God in the High Priest interrogation of Jesus episode.

The methodology (which I have referred to as narrative archaeology), leads to these reconstructions, where I find different, earlier layers of texts. When using this methodology, one has to be very careful not to impose solutions, but to allow the solutions themselves to fall into place. It is quite easy to mistake several layers for one layer. For example, I thought I had found a layer of text which expressed animosity towards Jesus' mother. A later, deeper reconstruction revealed that one of Jesus' wives/mistresses was the target and not his mother. In fact, I now believe the addition of the mother to the texts is one of the latest editorial changes made, coming in the second half of the Second century.

One result that I am pretty certain about is that there are two, originally distinct, First century layers of texts. The first centers on the sayings of John the Baptist/Nazarene and the second on Simon, an executed/crucified man who practiced magic. These existed separately before the fused text where the primary character's name became Jesus. My best guess at the moment is that this revision happened in the 140's.

My corollary idea in this thread is that the name Jesus/Yeshua was applied to the Hebrew God Yaweh in the First Century C.E. (and probably earlier). With this idea, we may take a phrase like the one we find at the beginning of the epistle of James, which is translated as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" and recognize that it originally meant "James, a servant of God and Lord, King (or Anointed) Jesus." In other words, James is not a servant of two entities, one a God and one a lord, but he is a servant of only one entity called King (or anointed) Jesus. This entity called King Jesus is both a God and a Lord.

Hopefully, I will be able to clarify my methodology to provide the proof for these perhaps strange-sounding results. Unfortunately, I am teaching three-four college classes for the next nine months, which severely limits my time and energy to devote to these researches.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

angelo

I wouldn't mind trying that Layla beer, that sounds awesome, using spring water would make all the difference.
But I'm not about to visit Israel just for a beer, no matter how much I desire one. If I got blown up by a terrorist while there, what would be on my headstone. ''He was only visiting to try a beer?'' Layla could use my demise in their ads. ''He came halfway round the world for a Layla'':Cheeky:

HaRaAYaH

[QUOTE=Ben C Smith;5232623]This is not accurate. The word singular/plural of Elohim is dependent on the verb. The English equivalent would be fish. The fish swims (singular) and the fish swim (plural). Any time the word Elohim is used in the Old Testament the verb is singular, so for biblical purposes, Elohim is singular.

angelo

Does it really make any difference what name is used? There all mythical anyway.
A mythical name for a mythical god. If Zeus was used instead, would it really make any difference? I think not. James Bond is a fiction character that no one takes seriously is he not?