Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 09-23-2011, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I think that this makes sense, though I do not see it as a necessary assumption with regards to the origin of Christianity. I think that simply having a literal view of the Hebrew scriptures, mixed with some end of the age expectation and various philosophical and theological concepts in the air around that time can account for Christianity much more easily. No need to posit delusion, imo.

I definitely agree that there's some literary juggling going on, but on top of my logic above, there's the simple fact that "Paul" claims visionary experience (the religiously typical "X spoke to me and gave me a message, here it is") and that the only glimpse we have from him of what went on in his congregations on a day-to-day basis shows that it was what we now call "occultism".

I see. I would, however, suggest that a visionary experience does not necessarily mean seeing ghosts, for example. In fact, I think simply deriving some perceived hidden meaning may, itself, qualify for the phrase "visionary experience".

Possibly, but as I was saying in my post to Archibald, the word used of "was seen of x,y,z" in 1 Corinthians 15 is "ophthe", which (so far as I can tell from my amateur investigations) is used specifically for divine self-revelation in visual visions in the Septuagint and elsewhere in the NT. That "ophthe" is the same for the folks who "saw" Christ as it is for "Paul", so :huh:, looks like visions to me.

aa5874 · 09-23-2011, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

...Possibly, but as I was saying in my post to Archibald, the word used of "was seen of x,y,z" in 1 Corinthians 15 is "ophthe", which (so far as I can tell from my amateur investigations) is used specifically for divine self-revelation in visual visions in the Septuagint and elsewhere in the NT. That "ophthe" is the same for the folks who "saw" Christ as it is for "Paul", so :huh:, looks like visions to me.

How is it that you ADMIT you are an amateur and don't have the languages and is arguing about words in the Pauline writings?

Well, "Paul" was claiming to be a WITNESS not a dreamer of the resurrected Jesus.

As an amateur why don't you understand that "Paul" could be a FALSE WITNESS.

Look at the English translation of the Pauline writings if you don't have the languages.

1Co 15:15 -

Quote:

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

In the KJV English version, "Paul" is NOT talking about visions but about being a WITNESS for the resurrection.

Do you know the Greek word for "FALSE WITNESS"?

It is NOT "ophthe".

Now, look at 1 Cor 15.8.

1Co 15:8 -

Quote:

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time....

Do you know the Greek word for "HE WAS SEEN".

It is NOT "ophthe".

The word "VISIONS" is found only ONCE in the English KJV Pauline writings.

The Pauline writer is claiming to be a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus Christ.

Why do you fail to acknowledge that the Pauline writer was MOST likely a FALSE WITNESS?

gurugeorge · 09-23-2011, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you know the Greek word for "HE WAS SEEN".

It is NOT "ophthe".

It is in 1 Corinthians 15. Look at the Greek Interlinear here.

From Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives:-

"[...] the verb ophthe "he was seen by" or "he appeared to", is of great signifiance. Paul does not use this precise form elsewhere. Its emphasis is on the active role of Christ, who lets himself be seen by chosen witnesses. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, ophthe is used frequently in narrating theophanies, where it serves as technical vocabulary for "appearing from heaven" (see, e.g.., Gen. 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; Exod. 3:2; 4:1; 6:3). All uses of ophthe in the New Testament reflect similar contexts [Footnote: The term occurs eighteen times in the New Testament: Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 1:11; 22:43; Acts 7:2, 13:31; 16:9; 1 Cor. 15:5,6,7,8; 1 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 11:19; 12:1,3; 13:1. In each case, the reference is to an appearance from heaven. [...]], a fact that rases questions about interpreting the "seeing" literally. [My bold]"

IOW, it's possible that the narrator is not claiming (falsely) that these people saw a dead man(-god) risen, i.e. in resurrected fleshy form, but is claiming rather a "theophany", an instance of a divine being showing themselves - i.e., in modern parlance, a visionary experience, a kind of waking dream or hallucination, in this case shared collectively on several occasions.

J-D · 09-23-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Of course, every historical event depends upon what has gone before - nothing happens in a vacuum. There is no need, surely, to have to make such a point...

I agree. But I couldn't see that you had any other point to make. I still can't.I have considered your analogy. I did not find it illuminating at all. It struck me as another attempt to fit the minimum quantity of thought into the maximum quantity of words.Crucifixion, flogging, and beheading are things that happened to many people in Roman times. I don't see how this one particular instance is supposed to have special relevance to this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

It will take one back to Antigonus being taken prisoner to Rome in 63 b.c. It will take one back prior to that - to the time of his birth - which would have been during the later years of Alexander Jannaeus. And what happens then is that one is face to face with those old Jewish Toledot Yeshu stories. Whatever the strange goings on with these stories, one thing is very clear - they are set in a time period prior to Herod the Great, ie during Hasmonean rule. Why would a Jewish 'propaganda' story place a gospel parody years prior to the gospel time frame? Well, is it not that that gospel time frame is itself contradictory? And put gLuke on the shelve (being the last of the synoptic) and one does not have the 15th year of Tiberius as any sort of marker.

I do not know why the Toledot Yeshu stories are set in the time period in which they set. You haven't given any explanation, either.

One possibility could be that an earlier messianic story was linked to a figure born during the rule of Alexander Jannaeus. ie prior to the rule of Herod the Great.

You describe this possibility with your usual lack of clarity. In this hypothetical scenario, who linked 'a figure born during the rule of Alexander Jannaeus' to 'an earlier messianic story'? when? and most importantly, why? Which is the earlier messianic story, which is the 'figure born during the rule of Alexander Jannaeus', and what reason is there to posit either of them?

aa5874 · 09-23-2011, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you know the Greek word for "HE WAS SEEN".

It is NOT "ophthe".

It is in 1 Corinthians 15. Look at the Greek Interlinear here.

From Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives:-

"[...] the verb ophthe "he was seen by" or "he appeared to", is of great signifiance. Paul does not use this precise form elsewhere. Its emphasis is on the active role of Christ, who lets himself be seen by chosen witnesses. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, ophthe is used frequently in narrating theophanies, where it serves as technical vocabulary for "appearing from heaven" (see, e.g.., Gen. 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; Exod. 3:2; 4:1; 6:3). All uses of ophthe in the New Testament reflect similar contexts [Footnote: The term occurs eighteen times in the New Testament: Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 1:11; 22:43; Acts 7:2, 13:31; 16:9; 1 Cor. 15:5,6,7,8; 1 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 11:19; 12:1,3; 13:1. In each case, the reference is to an appearance from heaven. [...]], a fact that rases questions about interpreting the "seeing" literally. [My bold]"...

My source shows the word for SEEN as "optanomai".

See http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/view.cgi?number=3700

"Paul" implied he was a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus and did NOT claim he had a vision in 1 Cor 15.8

Now, look at 1 Cor. 9.1

Quote:

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? ...

The Pauline writer is NOT talking about visions. He is claiming to be a WITNESS to the resurrected Jesus.

Why can't you acknowledge that "Paul" most likely was lying about being a WITNESS of Jesus to APPEAR to be authoritative?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

....IOW, it's possible that the narrator is not claiming (falsely) that these people saw a dead man(-god) risen, i.e. in resurrected fleshy form, but is claiming rather a "theophany", an instance of a divine being showing themselves - i.e., in modern parlance, a visionary experience, a kind of waking dream or hallucination, in this case shared collectively on several occasions.

The narrator claimed THE RESURRECTED Jesus appeared to him and that he would be a FALSE WITNESS if the dead did NOT Rise.

Why can't you admit that "Paul" was most likely Lying?

The dead rise NOT.

maryhelena · 09-23-2011, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Of course, every historical event depends upon what has gone before - nothing happens in a vacuum. There is no need, surely, to have to make such a point...

I agree. But I couldn't see that you had any other point to make. I still can't.I have considered your analogy. I did not find it illuminating at all. It struck me as another attempt to fit the minimum quantity of thought into the maximum quantity of words.Crucifixion, flogging, and beheading are things that happened to many people in Roman times. I don't see how this one particular instance is supposed to have special relevance to this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

It will take one back to Antigonus being taken prisoner to Rome in 63 b.c. It will take one back prior to that - to the time of his birth - which would have been during the later years of Alexander Jannaeus. And what happens then is that one is face to face with those old Jewish Toledot Yeshu stories. Whatever the strange goings on with these stories, one thing is very clear - they are set in a time period prior to Herod the Great, ie during Hasmonean rule. Why would a Jewish 'propaganda' story place a gospel parody years prior to the gospel time frame? Well, is it not that that gospel time frame is itself contradictory? And put gLuke on the shelve (being the last of the synoptic) and one does not have the 15th year of Tiberius as any sort of marker.

I do not know why the Toledot Yeshu stories are set in the time period in which they set. You haven't given any explanation, either.

One possibility could be that an earlier messianic story was linked to a figure born during the rule of Alexander Jannaeus. ie prior to the rule of Herod the Great.

You describe this possibility with your usual lack of clarity. In this hypothetical scenario, who linked 'a figure born during the rule of Alexander Jannaeus' to 'an earlier messianic story'? when? and most importantly, why? Which is the earlier messianic story, which is the 'figure born during the rule of Alexander Jannaeus', and what reason is there to posit either of them?

I gave you two links in that post - two links to which you have chosen not to reply to..............:huh:

Epiphanius of Salamis links a Christ figure (ie an anointed figure) born in Bethlehem, to the time of Alexander Jannaeus.

As to providing you with my views on this account of Epiphanius - I already did so - and you have come back with "your usual lack of clarity". I suggest, therefore, that you endeavor to create your own scenario - if the account of Epiphanius interests you in any way...

gurugeorge · 09-24-2011, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you know the Greek word for "HE WAS SEEN".

It is NOT "ophthe".

It is in 1 Corinthians 15. Look at the Greek Interlinear here.

From Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives:-

"[...] the verb ophthe "he was seen by" or "he appeared to", is of great signifiance. Paul does not use this precise form elsewhere. Its emphasis is on the active role of Christ, who lets himself be seen by chosen witnesses. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, ophthe is used frequently in narrating theophanies, where it serves as technical vocabulary for "appearing from heaven" (see, e.g.., Gen. 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; Exod. 3:2; 4:1; 6:3). All uses of ophthe in the New Testament reflect similar contexts [Footnote: The term occurs eighteen times in the New Testament: Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 1:11; 22:43; Acts 7:2, 13:31; 16:9; 1 Cor. 15:5,6,7,8; 1 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 11:19; 12:1,3; 13:1. In each case, the reference is to an appearance from heaven. [...]], a fact that rases questions about interpreting the "seeing" literally. [My bold]"...

My source shows the word for SEEN as "optanomai".

aa please check, the Greek Interlinear Bible I linked above. 1 Corinthians 15.

mountainman · 09-24-2011, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

..... There were heretics around in the early days. They were slated. What I need is evidence that any of the heretics thought he hadn't existed in some form, on earth. Docetism doesn't seem to qualify....

Why does not the evidence qualify that show Christians believed a Phantom was a God on earth?

Your assertion is most absurd.

Jesus Christ in the NT was the Child of a Ghost which is a MYTH just like a Phantom.

The Phantom did NOT require an historical character since there would have been NO records of his birth, No records of any parents and no records of his Life BEFORE the Phantom came down to Capernaum directly from heaven.

Marcion's Phantom show that Christians did NOT need an HJ of Nazareth to believe the story about a GHOST/MAN called Jesus Christ.

It is IMPERATIVE that it is KNOWN that Christians of antiquity WORSHIPED GHOSTS and PHANTOMS as GODS.

Jesus Christ was one of them Ghosts.

Allowing for a little revision;

Why does not the evidence qualify that show that the messianist believed in a Spirit which was an elohim on earth?

Joshua the anointed one in the NT, was a spirit and begotten of a spirit, a MYTH, a legendary imaginary phantom, Who yet ably served the purpose.

This legendary hero did NOT require an historical character since being legendary and imaginary there would have been NO records of his birth, No records of any parents and no records of his Life BEFORE this legendary imaginary spiritual being was alleged to have came down to Capernaum directly from heaven.

Marcion's phantom shows that the messianists did NOT need any historical 'Joshua of Nazareth' to believe the story about a SPIRIT/MAN called Joshua the anointed. (recall, the word 'Christian' is an anachronism to the early messianic believers, it was only introduced (and in a foreign country) years latter)

It is IMPERATIVE that it is KNOWN that messianists of antiquity believed in spirits and in powers as being active elohim.
(elohim are not necessarily 'Gods', the English word is not exactly equivalent)

JOSHUA The Messiah was one of them elohiim, an unseen yet legendary hero, one to be believed in and invoked in times of trouble.
And effective within the minds of those believing, giving them unbounded hope and confidence in the face of overwhelming odds.
It WORKED, that is why it is still with us, albeit in a much corrupted form.

ודבר יהוה אל־משה פנים אל־פנים כאשר ידבר איש אל־רעהו ושב אל־המחנה ומשרתו יהושע בן־נון נער לא ימיש מתוך האהל׃
"And YaHWeH spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaks unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp:
but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of The Tabernacle."

ויאמר יהוה אל־משה קח־לך את־יהושע בן־נון איש אשר־רוח בו וסמכת את־ידך עליו׃
"And YaHWeH said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand upon him;"

נביא אקים להם מקרב אחיהם כמוך ונתתי דברי בפיו ודבר אליהם את כל־אשר אצונו׃
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put My words in His mouth; and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him.

והיה האיש אשר לא־ישמע אל־דברי אשר ידבר בשמי אנכי אדרש מעמו׃
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which He shall speak in My Name, I will require it of HIM.

ולקחת כסף־וזהב ועשית עטרות ושמת בראש יהושע בן־יהוצדק הכהן הגדול׃

ואמרת אליו לאמר כה אמר יהוה צבאות לאמר הנה־איש צמח שמו ומתחתיו יצמח ובנה את־היכל יהוה׃

והוא יבנה את־היכל יהוה והוא־ישא הוד וישב ומשל על־כסאו והיה כהן על־כסאו

"Take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the High Priest;

And speak unto him, saying, Thus says YaHWeH Tzbaoth, saying;
Behold the man whose Name is The BRANCH; and He shall grow up out of his place, and He shall build the Temple of YaHWeH:

Even He shall build the Temple of YaHWeH; and He shall bear the Glory,and shall sit and rule upon His throne; and He shall be a Priest upon His throne:.."

Behold Joshua the anointed Priest, the Redeemer and Deliverer of His people, Him of whom it was spoken, saying; "I will require it of HIM."

If a man might grasp it, the stories are stories, full of subtle allusions, and allegories, historical yet not actual history, a medium for a message to those who will hear it;
There is a spiritual Joshua present in all ages, able to help and to deliver all who believe upon His Name.

[A lot I am not saying here]

One small issue not mentioned about the evidence in our possession from the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Bible is that the names of "Joshua" from the LXX and the name of "Jesus" from the New Testament are identical - both names are represented by the same abbreviated encypted form "J_S" - JS over-barred. Is this a coincidence, or is this by design?

aa5874 · 09-24-2011, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you know the Greek word for "HE WAS SEEN".

It is NOT "ophthe".

It is in 1 Corinthians 15. Look at the Greek Interlinear here.

From Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives:-

"[...] the verb ophthe "he was seen by" or "he appeared to", is of great signifiance. Paul does not use this precise form elsewhere. Its emphasis is on the active role of Christ, who lets himself be seen by chosen witnesses. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, ophthe is used frequently in narrating theophanies, where it serves as technical vocabulary for "appearing from heaven" (see, e.g.., Gen. 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; Exod. 3:2; 4:1; 6:3). All uses of ophthe in the New Testament reflect similar contexts [Footnote: The term occurs eighteen times in the New Testament: Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 1:11; 22:43; Acts 7:2, 13:31; 16:9; 1 Cor. 15:5,6,7,8; 1 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 11:19; 12:1,3; 13:1. In each case, the reference is to an appearance from heaven. [...]], a fact that rases questions about interpreting the "seeing" literally. [My bold]"...

My source shows the word for SEEN as "optanomai".

aa please check, the Greek Interlinear Bible I linked above. 1 Corinthians 15.

Gurugeorge, please see See http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/view.cgi?number=3700

I have examined the passages that is found in your link.

1. Matt. 17.3 is not about a vision but the appearance of the resurrected Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration.

2. Mark 9.4 is not about a vision but the physical appearances of the resurrected Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration.

3. Luke 1.11 is not about a vision but the physical appearance of an angel to Zechariah.

4. Luke 22.43 is not about a vision but the physical appearance of an angel to Jesus Christ.

5. Acts 7.2 is not about a vision but the physical appearance of the glory of God to Abraham.

6. Acts 13.31 is not about a vision but the PHYSICAL appearance of the resurrected Jesus in GALILEE.

7. Acts 16.9 describes a VISION of "Paul". The word "vision" is clearly mentioned.

8. 1 Cor. 15.5-8 is not about visions but the post-resurrection PHYSICAL appearances of Jesus.

9. 1 Tim. 3.16 is NOT about visions but the physical appearances of angels to Jesus.

10. Revelation is clearly about a vision of the author.

The Greek word for "seen" is NOT used only for visions or heavenly appearances but also for physical appearances.

Nowhere does the Pauline writer claim he had a vision of the resurrection of Jesus.

The Pauline writer claimed he SAW the resurected Jesus and that he would be a FALSE WITNESS if the dead rise not. See 1 Cor 15.

Sheshbazzar · 09-24-2011, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountain man

One small issue not mentioned about the evidence in our possession from the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Bible is that the names of "Joshua" from the LXX and the name of "Jesus" from the New Testament are identical - both names are represented by the same abbreviated encypted form "J_S" - JS over-barred. Is this a coincidence, or is this by design?

I have given quite a lot of thought to this nomina sacra peculiarity, and there does seem that there are some quite reasonable and logical explanations for this practice of only supplying nomina sacra within the original texts.

I am convinced the earliest Jewish messianic believers employed a peculiar spoken form of the name 'Joshua' as an in-group 'shibboleth', a 'watchword' which they would have been extremely careful of maintaining their peculiar vocalization of.
Josephus informs us of his Jewish country-mens zeal for preserving their distinctive culture and religion, and the preservation of the Hebrew the language in the face of almost overwhelming pressure from both external and internal sources towards syncretisim and a wholesale adoption of Greek culture and language. 'Swine flesh'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josephus

Quote:

I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country,....
Chap 1 -Wars of the Jews-

.... as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I grew weary and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us unaccustomed language."
Chap 1 -Antiquities of the Jews-

.....I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations....
— Antiquities of the Jews 20,11.2

(remember this the next time a Christian tells you that Greek was the everyday language in 1st century CE Palestine)

Yet the NT texts show all evidences of having been originally composed in Greek. The employment of written nomina sacra from the beginning would have cleverly resolved several issues.
The Hebrew speaking or multi-lingual would be able to retain or pronounce that particular 'insider-group Shibboleth' that they felt their faith and unity demanded of them, while the Hellenistic factions or those lacking such religious zeal and 'particularness' (ha lo'ha'badel 'those that put NO difference between..' (Lev 10:10) would be free to provide whatever 'sibboleth' pronunciation pleased their ears or was presently current and most popular within their culture.
Or to be given over to 'preach another gospel which you have not received', or to preach in 'any other name'.
This 'name' being of a different and higher order of significance and durability than 'any other name under heaven given among men....'
This also explains the peculiarity that the NT writings are directed exclusively at such audiences as have already been personally visited, and have heard the WORD preached to them firsthand and with their own ears.

Getting the word of salvation out into the world at large was the primary thing at that point, it was expected that those sincere and zealous for understanding of the Scriptures, -(and the Torah with all of its detailed instructions and requirements was the perfect vehicle for instiling this type of 'particularness' and attention to exacting detail)- would be able to 'put a difference between' and so grasp the significance of this coding for THE NAME, and divine titles. Trusting that in due time nothing would being hidden that would not be brought to the light, nor covered up that would not become manifest and come abroad.

.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.