spin

I asked for you to parse the phrase in Mk. You remember, ton golgoQan topon: how does it hang together, to what is the ton attached? I've shown how Mt reworded the phrase and Mt has signs of often correcting Mk. Why is this case different, ie Mk was once again wrong?

Colourful, but no content.

You were responding to my statement that appeals to authority and not their evidence is meaningless. I gather you have no tangible response.

I think they may be tired of your contentless posts and exaggerated use of font size. They probably would like you to answer things for a change and with evidence rather than other people's opinions.

I'm always happy to be able to give anyone useful information. We need as much as we can get.

I'm glad you liked the smilie. I found it ummm, hysterical.


spin

Pilate

I told you folks, you need me around here to get "a second opinion." You want to compare opinions? Look in the previous postings how differently from me edit answered the questions of cass. (You will miss my point of view, when I get finally tired of this "scorn and bash" system of yours, or when you throw me out. Whichever comes first.)
He cannot read Greek, and Josephus wrote those statements in Greek. Folks, don't let the nurse perform surgery on your brain. Go to a doctor. Spin stick to what you know. Spino, havlas Espaniol? Esta es una comodia Pilateestee. Comprende amigo? No tengo hora por appeliar con sus gauchos. Qiero un taco!!! Por favor! Tira su dictionario Griego en la basura. Tu no puede explicar, lo que tu no comprende.

spin

cass256

I have tried to reason it, but must be missing something in their thinking.

Was the Septuagint ever translated into English and compared? I was wondering if the writer of the letter called "Hebrew" was using a different text when quoting the OT. I wasn't sure if the writer was purposefully twisting the OT quote, or if the Septuagint read differently.


This may be a stupid question, but..
What language did the Romans and Jews use with each other? I haven't spent a lot of time considering the factor of a difference in language. A big deal is made about the fact that Yeshau didn't speak much during his trial. to fulfill an OT prophecy. Maybe he just was not fluent in the language of the court.

If Mexico took over Texas, and I was arrested there, i'd be able to ask where the bathroom is, and what John's mother was cooking in the kitchen.


. That is another reason I have a difficulty with Christianity as a religion. Where are the letters the Jewish followers, the Apostles, wrote?? Paul makes a big deal over his being the one sent to the gentiles and the Apostles to the Jews. They found a gospel of Thomas where James/jacob was to be the leader. I find it hard to believe nothing was written to the Jewish followers that could be included in the NT, other than the letter called james that seems to directly contradict Paul.


or, at least had someone write it for him in Aramaic.
Jesus said he came for none but the lost sheep of Israel.
i don't buy the add on to the end of Matthew. They would not have thrown out circumcision or the sabbath for the gentiles, when the law was clear that a stranger had to be circumcised to partake of the Passover. They would not have jesus as a passover lamb and then throw out the rules and requirements.

with all the errors in the bible, i have to say that there is no reason to believe john is without flaw. Do you know what the difference in lettering the hebrew would take for Gulgoleth to be transliterated into greek? or would that just be a guessing game? With a copy of the Septuaging you probably look up a word where skull is used in the OT. At this point I am not sure I wan't to know.

There is probably just enough truth to make it dangerous. It is no wonder they say family should never talk Politics or Religion. Everyone has a completely different idea of what the truth is. I know so little, and the people who believe everything they read know even less.

I was going to edit something, but now I can't remember where it was. oh well..

cass256

Well, lets just say that the problem I have is what I had been taught about who John was doesn't mesh. the profile doesn't fit..

but... that does not necessarily mean John meant what Josephus did. josephus is supposed to have known Hebrew. We can't say that for the author of john, because we don't know who he is. His idea of the language of the hebrews could have been the language he heard them speak, which could have been... well, i won't say it..

I didn't realize he was actually Greek. See why this stuff is so confusing? You did say on that other short lived thread that if he lived he'd have probably spoken Aramaic. Don't know what his Momma named him, but I'd guess it wasn't Greek. A lot of Hebrew names were used abck then, no?
Well, lets just say, if he DID come back, as Christians expect, when the throng ran at him crying Jesus! jesus! jesus!, he would have no clue what they were calling, and probably take off in his cloud mobile. . :huh: If a Mexican american tells me his name is Jose', I don't call him Joseph, or joe.
I'm back and forth with Jesus, because if I want to think he existed, I wouldn't be calling him "Jesus" just because Greek speakers wrote about him.
Well, that is a hard thing to do 100%.

My shift keys do not work consistantly on this keyboard. I try to go back and change to caps when I notice it, but for now i'll just give my apology to anyone who is driven crazy reading it. it is that, or throw my keyboard off the porch!

cass256

Not if I knew for sure that he was a Hebrew speaking, Hebrew man. Take that out of the picture (john), and i would take that he meant the popular language used by the Hebrews. Actually, If I had never seen Hebrew people called Hebrews, then i would take it for granted Hebrew meant Hebrew, and think it strange that they would mention tongue. it should be self explanitory. but, I ain't no scholar.

Paul was a proud Jew too. I wonder if they ever met? (We are just 2 different. I just can't help speculating.)

Was Josephus proud as a Roman, that you know of?

spin

But then when we talk about Hebrew you mightn't mean the same as me. Is this a useful comment as well?

We don't know if the writer knew either language. He just mentions Hebrew. How do you get beyond that?

We are working with a literary text. You shouldn't reify the characters. The name given in the text for the character is Ihsous. Why go beyond the text without evidence to do so?

If you stick with what you can show, there's no confusion. There are just a lot of unknowns.

Lived in Galilee and IIRC I said either Aramaic or Greek.

All very interesting, but all in never-never-land, because it is all beyond the available evidence.

Sigh. That's the task before you.


spin

judge

Spin you do not even know what the evidence for an John being written in Aramaic is.
How could you possibly have open-mindedly exaimined it.

It might make you uncomfortable , but the truth is you have formed your opinion before you have examined the evidence.

Kinda like "creation science"

spin

Why should you? Why remove relevant evidence?

There's no problem with speculation, but speculation that can go nowhere, isn't helpful in a situation like ours here on the forum, as it can bear no fruit. It's like the cursed olive tree here.

What does the question mean exactly?


spin

Diogenes the Cynic

Can you cite an example of "Logos" being used in Aramaic? I don't necessarily mean the literal Greek word, I mean can you cite any Aramaic example of "the word" being used in any manner which is similar or analogous to the Philonic use of logos (which Philo himself took from Greek philosophy).

John's use of logos is so fundamentally Greek and Alexandrian that it would seem to put to bed any question of Aramaic origin for GJohn starting with very first line.