Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Davka · 04-18-2012, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

...All this to say that, by the time the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, sectarian Messianic theories abounded. Some of the writings found in Qumran attest to this trend. That the Pauline sect happened to win a great number of converts is likely due to two factors: First, it gave Jews hope that Messiah had not only come, but was about to return and kick some serious Roman butt. Second, by including Gentiles in the new mystery religion, it extended the "hope of glory" to anyone who was willing to join in. Yes, you too can be part of the Chosen People, just sign here and we'll promise you eternal life and a spiritual circumcision!...

The DSS do NOT mention Paul or any thing Pauline.

Nor did I claim that they did.

Quote:

You really don't seem to understand that the Pauline writings are Blasphemy to the Jews.

You don't seem to understand anything I wrote. Try again.

Davka · 04-18-2012, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

All this to say that, by the time the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, sectarian Messianic theories abounded. Some of the writings found in Qumran attest to this trend. That the Pauline sect happened to win a great number of converts is likely due to two factors: First, it gave Jews hope that Messiah had not only come, but was about to return and kick some serious Roman butt. Second, by including Gentiles in the new mystery religion, it extended the "hope of glory" to anyone who was willing to join in. Yes, you too can be part of the Chosen People, just sign here and we'll promise you eternal life and a spiritual circumcision!

I think it's the other way around. The gentiles invented the new mystery religion through the expedient of a radical interpretation of the scriptures that no rabbinical Jew would have made.

I'm not so sure about that. The Hellenized Judaism of antiquity was radically splintered, and wild interpretations abounded. While I agree that the idea of Messiah as G-D incarnate would have been considered blasphemous by any of the larger sects, I think it is marginally possible that some of the more radical fringe groups might have suggested it - especially those in the Diaspora.

Quote:

The goal was to secure monotheism and rebrand it as a religion safe for gentiles.

Here we agree.

Quote:

The vilification of Jews was seen as a necessary step to legitimize this process.

Unfortunately, the compilers of the NT neglected to leave out the obviously pro-Jewish passages. It's a mish-mash of post-Jewish antisemitism and Jewish braggadocio.

Quote:

The gospel of Mark was written as an allegorical story to dramatize how the supposed 'new covenant' was formed.

Allegorical? Or simply fictional?

Quote:

It had nothing to do with preserving the words and teaching of a "historical" Jesus.

This is an unsupported and unsupportable assertion. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was ever any historical figure who acted as a handy "framework" on which to hang the stories.

Davka · 04-18-2012, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is Documented that gMark did NOT introduce any 'new covenant'.

While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Mark 14:22-24, NASB

:huh:

Davka · 04-18-2012, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

At the end of 1 Samuel 31 you see that they placed him (tak'u) IN THE WALL.

Um - the prefix "B'" does not always mean "in." And in the context, tak'oo b'khoomath could just as easily mean "thrust into the wall," or "stuck to the wall." It's not crystal clear.

Godfrey · 04-18-2012, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfrey

Does it? What about all the many "miracle-working" gurus throughout history who have verifiably existed? Is Peter Popoff a real person?

Why couldn't Jesus have been such a sham artist? Or why couldn't the so-called miracles have been attributed to him after a very real death?

If the latter is the case, I'm interested in knowing where and how and why these stories originated.

Why couldn't a character be Mythological who was Sinless, the Son of God, God the Creator, that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended???

It is most absurd to suggest that a character is most likely historical if ALL we read about him is MYTH.

Jesus is a PERFECT Myth--No history and ALL mythology.

You seem very certain.

Duvduv · 04-18-2012, 04:54 PM

Yes, but as far as I know this form of the verb is only used in this case with Bechomat Beit Shan, into the wall of Beit Shan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

At the end of 1 Samuel 31 you see that they placed him (tak'u) IN THE WALL.

Um - the prefix "B'" does not always mean "in." And in the context, tak'oo b'khoomath could just as easily mean "thrust into the wall," or "stuck to the wall." It's not crystal clear.

James The Least · 04-18-2012, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

All this to say that, by the time the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, sectarian Messianic theories abounded. Some of the writings found in Qumran attest to this trend. That the Pauline sect happened to win a great number of converts is likely due to two factors: First, it gave Jews hope that Messiah had not only come, but was about to return and kick some serious Roman butt. Second, by including Gentiles in the new mystery religion, it extended the "hope of glory" to anyone who was willing to join in. Yes, you too can be part of the Chosen People, just sign here and we'll promise you eternal life and a spiritual circumcision!

I think it's the other way around. The gentiles invented the new mystery religion through the expedient of a radical interpretation of the scriptures that no rabbinical Jew would have made.

I'm not so sure about that. The Hellenized Judaism of antiquity was radically splintered, and wild interpretations abounded. While I agree that the idea of Messiah as G-D incarnate would have been considered blasphemous by any of the larger sects, I think it is marginally possible that some of the more radical fringe groups might have suggested it - especially those in the Diaspora.

Quote:

The goal was to secure monotheism and rebrand it as a religion safe for gentiles.

Here we agree.

Quote:

The vilification of Jews was seen as a necessary step to legitimize this process.

Unfortunately, the compilers of the NT neglected to leave out the obviously pro-Jewish passages. It's a mish-mash of post-Jewish antisemitism and Jewish braggadocio.

Quote:

The gospel of Mark was written as an allegorical story to dramatize how the supposed 'new covenant' was formed.

Allegorical? Or simply fictional?

Quote:

It had nothing to do with preserving the words and teaching of a "historical" Jesus.

This is an unsupported and unsupportable assertion. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was ever any historical figure who acted as a handy "framework" on which to hang the stories.

So you think Q is supportable? Isn't all of this speculative?

la70119 · 04-19-2012, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The Biblical descriptions of Josephus are as full of holes as Swiss cheese, and we have discussed this before, including in his fanciful tale of Massada. And since you don't like the word traditional let's use the word classic.

His account is no more full of holes than the original Hebrew, as we shall see. In otherwords, Byzantine, medieval and post-Medieval.

Quote:

You will not find a single classic Jewish commentary describe hanging the way you do in reference to the use of talah in the Scriptures.
And those commentaries can disagree on many things in historical events, often relying on different sources.

If they disagree with each other, then, why should I consider them to be reliable?

Quote:

In the case of Saul, the commentary ofRabbi David Kimchi disntiguishes a difference because of the use of the word TAKA in this type of hanging, which is not the same as TALA.

You got that right. תָּקַע, taqa, to thrust, clap, give a blow, blast, drive, beat (that last one sounds like hammering up with nails to me, doesn't it? Especially in Gen 31:25 which speaks of pitching tents. What do you do to pitch a tent? You hammer tent-pegs into the ground.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I did some further research and the distinction in the case of Saul is because it says "into the wall" such that taka and tala mean the same thing otherwise per Numbers 25 and 2 Samuel 21 regarding the other sons of Saul. The body of Saul was thus not just swinging from a rope at Beit Shean.

I did not find "into the wall" but rather, simply "the wall," "to the wall," "in the wall," "upon the wall," and "on the wall."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

At the end of 1 Samuel 31 you see that they placed him (tak'u) IN THE WALL. In 2 Samuel 21 the verse simply mentions them having been hung up as a word alone without the intent of having been attached into the wall. I presume that had 2 Samuel 21 restated the placing into the wall it would have used the verb taka.

That's a very bizaare translation, it's like the rabbis told you that the Philistines placed Saul and his sons in niches within the town wall. And hanged them with nooses at the same time. On the other hand, the Hebrew has תָּקַע, taqa, which as we have seen above, is inclusive enough to permit a fastening to the town wall by nailing. Let me clue you in: the Philistines were GOYYIM. They would have wanted to utterly HUMILIATE Israel. As ANE epigraphy abundantly shows, they would have IMPALED these men, like all the other goyyim round-about. On metal hooks or on wooden or metal spikes or pikes, it wouldn't matter. Now you see why I don't go by "traditional" or "classic" rabbinical sources?

Quote:

In Deuteronomy when the body was hanged up on the scaffold the hands were tied together and very shortly after the hanging by the hands the body was removed.

I suppose you're going by Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:4? Well, the rabbis disagreed with each other, even back then.

Quote:

But the Sages say; A man is hung, but a woman is not hung. Rabbi Eliezer said to them; But did Shimon ben Shetah not hang women in Ashkelon? They said to him; He hung eighty women [on that occasion], yet one may not try two on one day [thus obviously, there were special circumstances which warranted those actions and one cannot deduce anything from that occasion]. How do they hang him? A post is sunk into the ground with a beam protruding from it [at the top]. He places his hands together, one over the other and hangs him. Rabbi Yose says: The post is leaned against the wall, and he hangs him in the manner that butchers do. He is immediately untied [and let down].(Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:4)

Nota bene, Rabbi Jose contradicts the Sages both in how the post is erected, and how the stoned person is hung upon it. "in the manner that butchers do" = crucifixion-like, with ropes. Butchers do it similarly with large animals.

Also Paulus' commentary on this line, in Latin (of course he abridges it by leaving out enough so it looks like the Sages are instructing that the man be hanged "in the manner that butchers do.")

Quote:

Paulus (Commentar Th. 3 pag. 680) cites to this out of the Talmud (tract. Sanhedrin 6, 4 pag. 634?): “Quomodo fit suspendium? Trabs in terram depangitur, ex qua lignum exstet; dein revinctis manibus suspenditur (cruciarius).”
Translated from the German, Hermann Fulda, Das Kreuz und der Kreuzigung, pgh. [250], pag. 162

And now the translation of the Latin: "How then is he suspended? The trunk is driven down into the ground, from this the timber projects out, then he is suspended with the hands bound (a crucified person)."

la70119 · 04-19-2012, 04:02 AM

So if one rabbi is arguing with a bunch of others that the way the person was hanged was crucified with ropes, post-mortem, then clearly as the tradition goes back the perceived required type of hanging changes.

Steve Weiss · 04-19-2012, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

<snip> The claim for the existence of miracles excludes the alleged performers of same from serious consideration as real persons.

Does it? What about all the many "miracle-working" gurus throughout history who have verifiably existed? Is Peter Popoff a real person?

Why couldn't Jesus have been such a sham artist? Or why couldn't the so-called miracles have been attributed to him after a very real death?

If the latter is the case, I'm interested in knowing where and how and why these stories originated.

Since there are no miracles anyone claiming to perform such is an alleged miracle-worker. Far from miracles validating the existence of a miracle-worker they disqualify anyone who is claimed to have existed because they performed such miracles. No miracles, no miracle-workers.

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

04-19-2012, 04:02 AM	#99
la70119 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: The only Carribean port not in the Tropics. Posts: 359	So if one rabbi is arguing with a bunch of others that the way the person was hanged was crucified with ropes, post-mortem, then clearly as the tradition goes back the perceived required type of hanging changes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.