|
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-03-2010, 09:23 AM
|
#11 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
|
"Delivered up" versus "betrayed"
Hi All,
In talking about the one quote from an Earthly Jesus 1 Corinthians 11:23, the key is to look at the Greek: Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὁ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον The word παρεδίδετο can be translated as either "betrayed" or "delivered up" Paul has used the words παρέλαβον and παρέδωκα "delivered" just before this, so it is most probable that he is referring back to this "delivered" when he is using "παρεδίδετο" Imagine the sentence "I delivered a letter to you, which he delivered to me and on the night of the delivery, he called me" Now imagine someone taking the word "delivery" and thinking, the night of the delivery is the night of deliverance, which must mean Passover, therefore, I will tranlate the term "delivery" as Passover. The translator writes, "I deliverd a letter to you, which he delivered to me, on Passover night." The whole sense of the passage is changed into something the writer did not mean. The correct translation has to take into account the two antecendent uses of the term "delivered." Therefore, we should translate παρεδίδετο as "delivered up". When we asked what was deliverd up, it can only be the method of eating in rememberance of God that Paul got directly from God. Thus the translation should be: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you the same night in which the Lord Jesus delivered it up. He took bread." Once we translate it this way, it is obvious that Paul is referring to an event that happened, not at Passover eve (when Jesus wa captured), but an event that happened on the night Paul taught the Corinthians how to give thanks to God. Paul had a visitation from his God Jesus and his God Jesus taught him how to properly give thanks at a meal by breaking the bread and drinking from the cup. Paul immediately gave the information to the Corinthians. He delivered the message from God that very night. Thus this only quote from an historical Jesus is only a quote from an historical Jesus through a mistranslation. Warmly, Philosopher Jay |
|
|
03-03-2010, 12:55 PM
|
#12 | ||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
|
Quote:
  Yes, this is just the kind of thing that happens. There's a high chance it's happening right now in minor cults dotted here and there around the world. Hushed (or sometimes riotous!) assemblies, with people in trance states doing stuff and saying stuff, "delivering" messages from "gods", "ancestors", "yer auld granny", "spirits", "deities", "demons", etc. "'tis un phenomenon sociological". There's a fair amount of evidence in Paul that points to these sorts of goings-on. Just look at the glimpse of what went on in their little circles, in 1 Corinthians 12-13. There Paul is describing "what we (ought to) do/be/are like, at one point:- Quote:
This is what these people DID folks. They spent time doing this stuff, they did it together, they did it individually. They were no different from the equivalent of a minor modern-day "New Age" cult, doing spiritualist and mystical exercises. No different from the circles of well-to-do mediums at the root of the Shangqing school of Daoism. No different from the Hermetic circles. And going right back, no different from some Orphic or Pythagorean circles before that (although with the Pythagoreans one is starting to shade into ancient mysticism/philosophy proper, and a more dignified, disciplined and rigorous approach to these things, and an investigation of what their inclusion in the world entails), and the Egyptian priesthood (for a period) before that. Religion often starts as mysticism and/or occultism. (And of course, they might have done all this had there been a human Jesus, but a human Jesus (equivalent) is not necessary for this sort of startup, so it's not a problem for this theory if one can't be found - as indeed, he can't.) |
||
|
|
|
03-03-2010, 04:29 PM
|
#13 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
|
Quote:
The NT writings address all three versions and apparent contradictions may simply be the reader failing to distinguish which versions is being referred to. |
|
|
|
|
03-03-2010, 09:18 PM
|
#14 | ||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York, U.S.A.
Posts: 715
|
Quote:
1 Corinthians 2 - 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Corinthians 9 - 5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? Chaucer |
||
|
|
|
03-04-2010, 12:16 AM
|
#15 | ||
|
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Now, Microsoft Windows is not a person, a real person's physical characteristics and actual history cannot be altered like computer programs. But, after further consideration, I think comparing Jesus to a computer program is a very good analogy. Jesus was the product of someone's imagination and there are many versions. What version of Jesus do you have? Marcion's? |
||
|
|
|
03-04-2010, 03:27 AM
|
#16 | |||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
|
Quote:
You can't just look at a myth (in this case the mythological entity known as Jesus Christ) and simply assume all the references to the entity in question are euhemeristic, or the story of a man blown out of proportion. You can't blithely take any old reference to this entity that suits you and say "aha, here we have a mention of the actual man behind the myth". It's just a complete non-sequitur. You have to have grounds for the assignation of real-human-being-hood to that portion of the myth - principally, grounding in a reasonable supposition that there WAS such a man, backed by evidence. Quote:
But actually, of course, translating "sister" as "believing" only emphasises that the term "brother/sister" is a term of art in this context - it could just as easily have been translated say, "believing wife .... Lord's believers". It's just that the translator found it convenient to retain the slight hint that Jesus might have had actual brothers - and after all, nothing in the orthodox story seems to talk about Jesus' sisters. Yet (if we are to believe the term means siblinghood) here they are, in Paul! No, what's required to give some sort of plausibility to a historical-human-being-Jesus from internal evidence is something in the earliest texts (supposing Paul and Hebrews to be the earliest) that either the narrator or somebody known to the narrator knew personally, actually EYEBALLED, an human being called "Joshua" who they considered to be the "the Anointed One". That, plus some kind of external evidence for such a human being (e.g. mentions in non-Christian sources, or archaeological finds) would immensely proababilify the human-Jesus startup idea. But if there is no such evidence (and nothing has been found to date) then why not shelve an euhemeristic origin for this myth and look to other plausible origin theories that are also consistent with the evidence? |
|||
|
|
|
03-04-2010, 07:09 AM
|
#17 | ||
|
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
03-04-2010, 07:23 AM
|
#18 | ||||
|
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
03-04-2010, 07:35 AM
|
#19 | ||
|
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
The Father of Jesus, the God of the Jews, was quoted in Genesis when he used the Word, Jesus, to create heaven and earth. |
||
|
|
|
03-04-2010, 08:24 AM
|
#20 | ||
|
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
