FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-29-2008, 09:30 AM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
If Luke was a man, why did he focus so much on women and on womanhood?
What do you mean by "so much"? What makes his focus so anomalous that it demands an explanation?
Relative to the other Gospels.

IIRC, Randel Helms does a good job summarizing the evidence in Gospel Fictions
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 07-29-2008, 09:42 AM   #12
Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,686
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawtonfogle View Post
Maybe Luke was a male interested in females. I doubt that this is that rare back then.
REG:
Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN:
Or woman.
REG:
Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN:
Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS:
Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN:
I want to be one.

REG:
What?
STAN:
I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG:
What?!
LORETTA:
It's my right as a man.

JUDITH:
Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA:
I want to have babies.
REG:
You want to have babies?!
LORETTA:
It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA:
Don't you oppress me.
REG:
I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!


Derec is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 08:23 AM   #13
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Bernard Muller writes:
I am interested in any comments on what this masculine participle does with regard to the hypothesis that Luke was a woman. If Luke was a woman, why did she use the masculine participle to describe herself? If Luke was a man, why did he focus so much on women and on womanhood?

Ben.
Luke may have been a woman but was not a female. From the mythical perspective woman is the wherewithal of man (TOL) commonly known as the subconscious mind from where Luke was written. Matthew was written from the conscious mind werein we are human and at times all too human.

Luke is where womanhood equals manhood in the androgyne identity of God with woman being the storehouse of riches and man being the speaker in this Gospel.

Just my thought on this but thank you for reinforcing it.
Chili is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 08:31 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili View Post
Luke may have been a woman but was not a female.
:Cheeky:

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 08:31 AM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Perhaps the real question we need to ask is whether George W. Bush is black...
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 08:49 AM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
IIRC, Randel Helms does a good job summarizing the evidence in Gospel Fictions
<sigh>

Another "You've got to read the book."

Maybe someday. I'll try to remember to keep my opinions about Luke's gender to myself until then.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 10:33 AM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
<sigh>

Another "You've got to read the book."

Maybe someday. I'll try to remember to keep my opinions about Luke's gender to myself until then.
And it should be a different book by Helms.

Who Wrote The Gospels?

In response to the sigh, here are some easily extracted highlights:

2 of 4 miracles Luke adds to Mark are to the benefit of women

4 of the 8 sayings ("Apopthegmata") concern women

"In each case, Luke balances material about men and women equally, and in each group, puts the women first." (p.81)

IMO, the argument he presents is not sufficient for the conclusion but he does point out what seems to be a legitimate difference in this author's focus.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 10:49 AM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
<sigh>

Another "You've got to read the book."
The recommendation was for a book, not hari kari. So why the sigh?

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 10:52 AM   #19
Obsessed Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 61,538
Default

spelling is "Hara Kiri" (Seppuku).
premjan is offline  
Old 07-30-2008, 11:08 AM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by premjan View Post
spelling is "Hara Kiri" (Seppuku).
Okay, thanks. I see hari kari all over the internet, though. Is it possibly an alternate rendering into English?

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:14 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.