Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julio · 11-27-2009, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Of those “some” who doubted must have come some stories that were later included in the MANY accounts of Jesus’ life [Luke 1:1-3]. Luke gets it that the MANY he referred to had been eyewitnesses and MINISTERS of the word!

Where does Luke preamble speak of 'accounts Jesus' life' ? He speaks of eyewitnesses to the word ? Any ideas how that's done ?

Jiri

Well, I don't know. But they were anonymous ministers of the word, for Luke refuses to mention the names even of some of those MANY.
Why would he not mention the name of those eyewitnesses if he is going to base his text upon their accounts? Not one of them was an apostle?
Strange, very strange indeed.
Luke must have had some strong reason not to mention any names.
On the other hand, we know this "Luke" is a ghost writer.
Therefore, the entire scenario is possibly his imagination or fake? Not one of them was an apostle?

Julio · 11-27-2009, 08:19 AM

[repeated, sorry]

Solo · 11-27-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Where does Luke preamble speak of 'accounts Jesus' life' ? He speaks of eyewitnesses to the word ? Any ideas how that's done ?

Jiri

Well, I don't know. But they were anonymous ministers of the word, for Luke refuses to mention the names even of some of those MANY.
Why would he not mention the name of those eyewitnesses if he is going to base his text upon their accounts? Not one of them was an apostle?
Strange, very strange indeed.

Maybe, it will not be as strange if you stop reading as history but as historical allegory. In the first verse, Luke does not promise to narrate "things that happened" but "things that have been fulfilled in us". This leaves the door open to all sorts of interpretations. I choose the one that Jan Wojcik suggests in the Road to Emmaus : narrative gnosticism.

Quote:

“....any proposal for a new method of reading the Christian scriptures has to engage the question why it has not been used before. Perhaps it is because the tradition of biblical scholarship has suffered from what Whitehead calls the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness”. In order to deny the validity of any Gnostic imagination or thought in any document considered to be orthodox, it was necessary to claim that scriptural texts referred to literal facts.”

J.Wojcik, Road to Emmaus, Purdue U. Press, 1989, p.9

Quote:

Luke must have had some strong reason not to mention any names.

....it would appear that he had one, strong or not. What was it ? What is he saying ?

Quote:

Therefore, the entire scenario is possibly his imagination or fake ?

Not likely just his imagination, if he refers to predecessors and copies or adapts a lot of material known to us from other sources.

Fake ? What would he try to fake ? Knowledge of something that he does not have ?

Jiri

Julio · 11-27-2009, 08:59 AM

OK; but what do you make of the term "MANY" in the Introduction? Nobody of enough status to be mentioned?

arnoldo · 11-27-2009, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Matthew 28:17.
Three astonishing inspired words to describe the entire delusion.
Later in the centuries, it would compute into many MILLIONS who would doubt the choreography
presented in “The Passion” [the greatest farce ever to hit this planet!].
Who were those disciples who doubted?
Why did they doubt?
What happened to them after they doubted?
Remember that Matthew ends “officially” with those disconcerting words [the next three verses were inserted later].

Perhaps the writers of this NT writing were alluding to the Jews who doubted after witnessing all of the miracles in the OT Exodus account?

Julio · 11-27-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Matthew 28:17.
Three astonishing inspired words to describe the entire delusion.
Later in the centuries, it would compute into many MILLIONS who would doubt the choreography
presented in “The Passion” [the greatest farce ever to hit this planet!].
Who were those disciples who doubted?
Why did they doubt?
What happened to them after they doubted?
Remember that Matthew ends “officially” with those disconcerting words [the next three verses were inserted later].

Perhaps the writers of this NT writing were alluding to the Jews who doubted after witnessing all of the miracles in the OT Exodus account?

OK, but isn't that stretching the matter a bit too far?
I find it absurd that the author would end his production with such a short and negative sentence. To me, it was added in at a later stage. Exactly because it forces the gospel to end on a discouraging point.
[The next three verses are a late interpolation, for sure.]

arnoldo · 11-27-2009, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

. . .

I think Mark wanted to show that the Nazarene missions of Peter did not know resurrection the way Paulines believed in it. They had parallel sayings about rising from dead (derived from Hosea 6:2) but these did not reference actual death and resurrection from that state. There is a host of logia which exhibit traces of this Nazarene resurrection which is dissimilar to Paul's in that it referenced metaphoric death (,or "little death" as A.Maslow put it). Over time the two resurrectional scenarios would have converged to create the dead-man Jesus walking image.

Here are some examples that point to the original Nazarene resurrectional ideas:

Mt 8:22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead." (If this is an authentic dominical saying then Jesus himself did not believe in resurrection from the dead the way the Church came to believe after Paul) . .

Rather, this is an example of eisegesis, rather than any "proof" that Jesus did not believe in a resurrection. Lamsa explains this aramaic idiom in his book, Idioms in the Bible Explained and A Key to the Original Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

Product Description

World-renowned Bible translator and commentator George M. Lamsa explains nearly one thousand crucial idioms that will enrich reading of the Old and New Testaments for students and general reader alike.

Lamsa, who was raised speaking Aramaic in a community that followed customs largely unchanged since the times of Christ, offers fresh, accurate translations of important idioms, metaphors, and figures of speech found in the Scripture--and provides clear explanations of their meaning of biblical context.

Just as Shakespeare, Milton, and Browning wrote in the vernacular for English-speaking people, Moses the prophets, and the apostles wrote for their own people in the plain language of their times, so that even the unlearned might understand God's Word.Over the centuries, inaccurate translations and misunderstandings of customs and concepts have led to difficulties in bringing the biblical message to contemporary English-speaking readers.

For example, when a man says to Jesus, "let me bury my father," Lamsa points out that this expression means, "Let me first take care of my father until he dies." Traditionally, scholars assumed that this man's father was dead and that Jesus was not interested in his burial. Lamsa's scholarship offers a more accurate understanding of the intent and spirit of this passage.

Idioms in the Bible Explained and a Key to the Original Gospels goes far in correcting such errors that have crept into Biblical scholarship. Obscure and difficult passages from both Old and New Testaments are listed and compared with the King James version (though it will be helpful when used with any English version). These make clear the original meaning of such ancient idioms and assure that our grasp of the biblical message is more sound and rewarding.

To further uncover the original teachings of Scripture, Idioms in the Bible Explained and a Key to the Original Gospels, Lamsa discusses at greater length such topics as "The Language of Jesus," "Aramaic Phraseology," "The Sayings of Jesus," "Early Translations," and more..

Solo · 11-27-2009, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

For example, when a man says to Jesus, "let me bury my father," Lamsa points out that this expression means, "Let me first take care of my father until he dies." Traditionally, scholars assumed that this man's father was dead and that Jesus was not interested in his burial. Lamsa's scholarship offers a more accurate understanding of the intent and spirit of this passage.

It is not immediately clear why Lamsa's scholarship is superior in interpreting the passage. It may well be that certain people in the Christian community want believe that simply because they are embarrassed by Jesus' answer to the bereaved man. But, IMHO this interpretation makes Jesus equally, if not more, cruel in attempting to deprive the dying man of his son's service and comfort. :huh:

Jiri

kcdad · 11-28-2009, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

It is not immediately clear why Lamsa's scholarship is superior in interpreting the passage. It may well be that certain people in the Christian community want believe that simply because they are embarrassed by Jesus' answer to the bereaved man. But, IMHO this interpretation makes Jesus equally, if not more, cruel in attempting to deprive the dying man of his son's service and comfort. :huh:

Jiri

Not clear? He grew up in Syria, speaking the language and living the lifestyle of a people that hasn't changed significantly in 2000 years. he knows the idiomatic and metaphorical nature of that language. He understands the customs. Lamsa is not perfect, but he brings a different light to understanding The New Testament, a better light than the Greek and Roman interpretation that is modern Christianity... What we have today isa Greco-Roman translation of an interpretation colored by The Roman Empire and its polytheistic and pagan culture.
If you want to know where the ideas of hell, the trinity, virgin birth and all that other mythological nonsense came from, you look to Romans, not the Jews.

Solo · 11-28-2009, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

It is not immediately clear why Lamsa's scholarship is superior in interpreting the passage. It may well be that certain people in the Christian community want believe that simply because they are embarrassed by Jesus' answer to the bereaved man. But, IMHO this interpretation makes Jesus equally, if not more, cruel in attempting to deprive the dying man of his son's service and comfort. :huh:

Not clear? He grew up in Syria, speaking the language and living the lifestyle of a people that hasn't changed significantly in 2000 years.

Speaking which languge ? Also, I take it you don't consider the cca 1,400 years of Islamic dominance in the region to have left any significant imprint on the lifestyle of the people there, if one is to be so cavalier so as not to mention the Ottoman and French cultural influences.

Quote:

He knows the idiomatic and metaphorical nature of that language.

Why would the hyperbolic use of "bury" in Aramaic be any different than in any other language ? (famous example here.. K uses the same verb as Mt 8:21 in Russian, 'pokhoronitj') The variant is plainly possible in the English translation of Matthew 8:21: "Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father." Whether or not the old man was actually dead or on a point of dying is a moot point (the semanric tolerance aptly argued for by Eric Idle here). The crux of the matter is Jesus' refusal. If the man was actually dead Jesus' apparently cruel denial is to the follower's comfort. If the old man is dying Jesus denies him the service of his son. My exegetical preference would be strongly that the father of the disciple is actually dead because in that scenario Jesus' presence offers itself as the greater comfort to the grieving disciple. In the scenario of the man's not yet expired, he is denied dignity without cause !

Jiri

Quote:

He understands the customs. Lamsa is not perfect, but he brings a different light to understanding The New Testament, a better light than the Greek and Roman interpretation that is modern Christianity... What we have today isa Greco-Roman translation of an interpretation colored by The Roman Empire and its polytheistic and pagan culture.
If you want to know where the ideas of hell, the trinity, virgin birth and all that other mythological nonsense came from, you look to Romans, not the Jews.

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

11-27-2009, 08:19 AM	#42
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	[repeated, sorry]

11-27-2009, 08:59 AM	#44
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	OK; but what do you make of the term "MANY" in the Introduction? Nobody of enough status to be mentioned?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.