mountainman

You seem to be trapped inside the "undeniable relevance"
of the Jewish context of the story", because you
conjecture the story may have an historical basis
(as depicted by the story, etc, etc, etc)

Does anyone really care that the story" has an
historical basis? Does anyone really care whether
the story" is in fact just a fiction, a fable, a
monstrous tale and the fraudulent misrepresentation
of ancient history by a 4th century military supremacist?
You tell me.



Well there's your assumption staring at you in the face.
Who wrote the "canonical NT text"? When and where are
questions which you cannot answer. You have no context
in history for your source, so you are at sea in the ocean
of chronology without any idea which century your authors
of the "canonical NT text" wrote.

You have no idea of a political setting for the gospels.
Plenty of conjectures, mind you, but no evidence at all
outside of the "canonical NT text".

So how in the name of Jesus F. H. Christ do you think
you can arrive at anything like "conclusions"? Over.


John was a severe ascetic. Any explicitly denial of
being an ascetic like John addresses the severity
of the asceticism. So the authors of the gospels
have Jesus denying he is a severe ascetic like John,
yet they paint him as a quasi-ascetic, who stresses
the importance of fasting and prayer.


No of course not! Just because the relevant authors
of antiquity interpretted the meanings of new testament
texts within a highly asceticized religious environment,
which clearly existed in antiquity, why should you or
anyone else do so? The notion is counter intuitive.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Toto

Not at all. Even if there is no historical basis for the gospel stories, there are clear Jewish elements and themes.


This sounds profoundly confused and confusing.

I have come across this:

Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity) , which can be previewed on Google books.

Jeffrey Gibson

You might also consult Holy Men and Hunger Artists: Fasting and Asceticism in Rabbinic Culture (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Eliezer Diamond. It's available on Questia and demosntsrates that Jewish the motive for fastsing in Judaisim has none of the elements social criticism or antagonisms to the world and to things of the flesh that is characteristic of, and the motive behind, most ancient asceticism.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

Nope. I make no assumptions about the historical reliability of the story in reaching my conclusion. Strike two. Got any more red herrings you want to throw out in an effort to distract from the fact you are clearly ignoring the text with your assertion/conclusion?

"[T]rapped"? What an odd way to refer to recognizing the blatant Jewish context of the story. Perhaps because you consider your unsubstantiated speculation to be conversely "free"?

Not with regard to this discussion. The historicity of the story seems entirely irrelevant.

That makes less sense than your assumption/conclusion. I'm impressed.

How is that relevant to understanding the story for its own sake?

No one can but the answers don't appear to be relevant to understanding the story.

How can questions neither of us can answer be relevant let alone supportive of your position over mine?

More red herrings. They stink of desperation. Given the utter absence of support from the text for your assumption/conclusion, I'm not surprised you want everyone to look elsewhere. Do you honestly think anyone will fall for such a transparent dodge? The "Chewbacca defense" really doesn't work in print.

"sever ascetic"? More manufactured terminology? Why should anyone take such nonsense seriously when it clearly has no connection to the text?

No, he simply denies being an ascetic like John. You are manufacturing "severe" from your assumption/conclusion and importing it into the text.

What an utterly disingenuous misreading of the text. He "stresses" nothing. The passage explains that this particular kind of demon is exorcised by prayer and fasting. We are, elsewhere, informed that Jesus and his disciples did not fast like the disciples of John or the Pharisees.

Have you even read the story you are claiming to interpret?

That others before you engaged in the same sort of selective interpretation doesn't change the flawed nature of the results.

You have also "created" something "new" that really has nothing to do with the actual story. Congratulations. :banghead:

Sheshbazzar

Let's see now, Those who have professed to be "Christian scholars", and who have claimed to have accurately translated and conveyed the correct sense of the Greek text into the English language, failed to do so.

But we are now to accept that Jeffery has a better grasp of the Greek language, and how it ought to be interpreted, than all of those foregoing faulty Christian scholars that were so irresponsible as to not have correctly conveyed into the English text such ideas as would agree with the great Jeffery's interpretation of Greek?

I always find it hillarious how these "Christians" will attempt to defend the great accuracy of their translation of "The Bible", yet want to rewrite the text or come out with a "new" and "improved" version everytime the text that they produced is shown to be both contradictory and faulty.
Why then should anyone accept Jeffery's latest rewriting, as it is likely that some other Christian will come along to dissmiss it and replace it with yet another variation.

Basicly, what Jeffery alleges by his position, is that the texts of English Bibles are not to be accepted at face value, and that the way to be a "true" Christian is to reject what the English text clearly says, and accept what he says.
Hey Jeffery, It is not our fault that you and your fellow Christians cannot agree as to how your sacred texts ought to read.

Jeffrey Gibson

Are you actually saying not only (1) that the translation of 1 Jn 3:4 that I offered is wrong but, and more importantly, (2) that no other scholar/translator of 1 Jn 3:4 has ever offered -- either in an English bible translation or in a commentary on 1 John -- the same translation of 1 Jn 3:4 that I gave? If so, what specifically is the basis of your claim?

Are you saying that you have actually shown that the text that "christians" have produced is contradictory and faulty?

On what basis do you claim that I've "rewritten" the text of 1 Jn 3:4?

Interesting. Besides your not being able to read and get right how my name is spelled, let alone say how you know how a Greek biblical text "ought to read" or why anyone should take your reading as authoritative, you've also dodged every single question I've asked you in the material of mine that you quoted. I wonder why?

I wonder too if you'd be kind enough to tell me the basis on which your statements that I am a Christian are made?

Jeffrey

Sheshbazzar

(1). I am saying that the majority English text says exactly what the majority English text says, and that that particular rendering was arrived at, agreed to by, and accepted as being the correct (even alleged to be "inspired" and "infallible") by the majority of Christian scholars, preachers, and millions of professed Christian believers;
"Hey Jeffery, It is not our fault that you and your fellow Christians cannot agree as to how your sacred texts ought to read."
(2) No doubt that a few will be found willing to support just about any variation or innovation upon the text that would tend to support their own particular bent.....perhaps you might even "find" some thousands that are willing to go along with your "translation", so what? like that is some big deal?
The Catholic Church, or The Jehovah's Wittnesses, et al, also produce their "translations" and "commentaries", is everything they write also to be accepted as being the correct translation and commentary?
"Hey Jeffery, It is not our fault that you and your fellow Christians cannot agree as to how your sacred texts ought to read."


I only pointed out but one example of where the Christian produced text as presented by their own scholars is patently contradictory. (and here, you are one contradicting that already well known, and well accepted Christian translation.)
Others here, have over the years presented hundreds of additional texts that cause contradictions to exist within Christian translations.
Even the very fact that you want to revert to re-translating and re-interpeting the Greek to support your interpretation is evidence that you yourself are admitting that the common English text as it presently appears in hundreds of millions of English Bibles is contradictory and faulty.


Sufficient to say, you have denied the reading and clear meaning of the English text that the majority of Christianty has long accepted as being correct and athorative.
OK, yes, I did misspell your name, and I suppose you have never in your life made any similar inadvertant mistake? crucify me for it then if you must.
I have made NO claims in this thread at all about "how a Greek biblical text "ought to read"
YOU are the one here making some claim about "how a Greek biblical text "ought to read".
I only quoted a verse exactly as it appears in most English Bibles.
Your choice to engage in the slippery tactics of Christian apologetics, to me, if it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it looks like a duck, well then I think it is quite reasonable to so identify it as a duck.
Call yourself whatever you fancy, (nothing new there.)

schilling.klaus

The canonical gospels have been written and interpolated against heretic
christians, such as Marcionites, who had been ascetic.
Alas, I wager that the explanation with the injustice of life was not
the the reason for hellenic/mediterranean cultic vegetarism at that time,
but mere impurity considerations.

Klaus Schilling

Jeffrey Gibson

I have no idea what you mean by the "majority English text", nor is it clear how you know that the reading of 1 Jn 3:4 you gave is accepted as being correct by the "majority of Christian scholars". Did you take a poll? Have you read any scholarly work on 1 Jn?

In any case, I suggest you do what it's obvious you haven't done -- and that's to go and have a look at the other sponsored English translations of 1 Jn 3:4 to see if the scholars behind these translations do what you say the majority of Christian scholars do.

"No doubt"? In other words, you really don't know. You are just guessing.

But what you ignore is that even if 1 Jn 3.4 does speak of "transgressing the law", this contradicts what you say contradicts only if (1) the law reputedly spoken of is the Mosaic law and (2) that it is Jesus who is being spoken of there as the transgressor. Notably however, you've simply assumed that this is so, but not offered one bit of evidence to show that it actually is the case.

And can you produce one bit of evidence that even one of the majority of Christian scholars you appeal to as accepting the validity of the translation you offer accepts as true the premises you are assuming?

But you haven't yet shown that I have "re-translated" or "reinterpreted" the Greek, even though I've no asked you more than once to do so.

Please tell me through an analysis of the syntax and grammar (and the context) of the Greek of 1 Jn 3:4, and not through the use of the ad populam fallacy - why the translation I offered is wrong and why the translation you offered is correct.

Even if so, so what? You yourself have claimed that the truth of something is not determined by how many people believe it or how long its been believed.

Yes you have, when you have claimed that the translation you offered is the correct one and says what the author of 1 Jn intended to say, but that the one I offered didn't.

Most? There are some 100 or more English Bibles. And there are as many more English translations of 1 Jn. as there are English commentaries on the Epistle. How many -- and which specifically -- of these English Bibles and how many, if any at all, of these commentaries on 1 John have you read.

Would you please demonstrate the validity of your claim that the translation of 1 Jn 3:4 that you adduce appears in most English Bibles?

And I ask again: Please tell me through an analysis of the syntax and grammar (and the context) of the Greek of 1 Jn 3:4, and not through the use of the ad populam fallacy - why the translation of 1 Jn 3:4 I offered is wrong and why the translation you offered is correct.

Jeffrey

schilling.klaus

To some limited extent, the canonical Jesus is a failed copy of Judas Maccabeus,
who retreated into the desert with his followers, leading and ascetic lifestyle
while preparing to overthrow the foreign idolatric oppressors.

As the temple priesthood had been controlled by heathens (the hellenic Antiochian regime)
it had been considered as corrupted by stern Tora believers. Thus the temple sacrifices
had been considered as unclean, in the same way as sacrifices to heathen idols.

Klaus Schilling