USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom 52 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  TerryWalstrom

  Remember, the Watchtower Society was 'called out' for employing a 'spiritist' translation in propping up their controversial rendering of John 1:1? Johannes Greber's translation had been cited in support of ". . . and the word was <a>god."

  The GB and the writing committee were aware of what they were doing. 

  I am going to use this as an analogy. Early Christianity was equally aware of Pagan sources creeping into their teaching but found it useful in getting their mission into Gentile territory. Perhaps this is partially a Pauline strategy of "being all things to all people."

  Suffice to say, first century Christianity was a coalescence of streams of oral teaching, influences, debate, and stratification inside the community right up through the Nicene Council.  The 'fingerprints' of neo-Platonic Christianity were everywhere in evidence.

  http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/cp.htm
  
• 

  Viviane

  There, this will suffice. A son was always given his fathers name, not his mothers. It was part of their culture. Hence, because your example in Ruth does not follow this proscribed method of naming at all - it is not an example.

  Whoa, slow down there, turbo dog. We are not discussing what Jesus name was as part of his community, we were discussing, and I'll quote you here, "The referrence to him as the son of Mary". If you want to discuss what his name would have been, that's fine and it's great, but it's an entirely different conversation. As I have shown, he WAS referred to as "son of Joseph" if you want to get into nameing, but, according to you, we are discussing a reference to him, not what his name would have been.

  What you've not done is show that no one else, ever, in Jewish history, was referred to as being the son of their mother. 

  You also continue to refuse listing your owned sources and reference works.

  I've been using your sources and the Bible. You assured me they were reliable. Do you now dispute that?

   This tells me you are not really interested in anything but an argument, and have not actually studied anything what so ever.

  Given the personal attacks and ignorance you've displayed so far, it's not surprising at all that you would continue that trend. This is, in fact, at least the fifth time you said you were done. I assume at some point you actually will be.

  You are not worth responding to, and I mean no offense. You stand discredited, good day and farewell.

  Yeah, you keep saying that. So far none of that has been true. 

  But as of this post, I will be ignoring any and all further posts by viv in the future that do not include a reference to book title, author, page number and paragraph supporting any and all statements she makes.

  You forgot edition. If you want to rise above amateur, you'll need to include that. If you are going to steal my idea, at least steal it properly. It just feels like you're not even trying when can't even properly steal an idea.
• 

  Viviane

  Suffice to say, first century Christianity was a coalescence of streams of oral teaching, influences, debate, and stratification inside the community right up through the Nicene Council.  The 'fingerprints' of neo-Platonic Christianity were everywhere in evidence.

  Well said and absolutely correct, Terry. The evidence demonstrating the outside influences on Semitic Hebrew religious evolution, the later Israelite religious evolution and Christian thinking and doctrinal evolution are plain to see for anyone interested in looking. It always amazes me when I see people begin with the conclusion and then try to explain away, twist, misquote, change the meaning of words, ignore passage, cherry pick and resort to insults in an attempt to contort the evidence to fit their pre-conceived notions.
  
  
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  I'm not in the least disturbed by thrashings in a search for verisimilitude.

  It is a fine example of how those who care, each in his/her own way, work through tares to winnow the wheat :)

  We can all learn from each other. It is painful, certainly, because we (I know I do) find it hard to be wrong. But, intellectual honesty requires we suffer for our 'truth.'

  Christianity mirrors a history of such battles from 1st century until this very hour.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  We can all learn from each other. It is painful, certainly, because we (I know I do) find it hard to be wrong. But, intellectual honesty requires we suffer for our 'truth.'

  Win. 

  
  

  I agree with your comment about outside influence being evident through the nicene council. And your previous post addressing john 1:1, the book by Hurtado I just finished talks about it as well. It's kind of crazy how convincing their argument is when you're indoctrinated, but as soon as you put it under a microscope it falls apart fast. As with many of their other doctrines.

  
  
• 

  Viviane

  Christianity mirrors a history of such battles from 1st century until this very hour.

  Well said again, Terry. As Larry Hurtado says in chapter 1 of his Book "Lord Jesus Christ", Christianity was battling for converts and attempting to be relevant as well as gaining converts from non-Jewish cultures, there is no WAY they could not have been influenced by those ideas and religions. An example he gives is the ever increasing language around the Christ/God/Son/Father relationship parallels and is likely a reaction to increase of the same type of language in the popular emperor cult of the Flavians. 

  Scholars agree that the fingerprints, as you called them, of page, Jewish, polytheistic, Greek, Roman and other religions are all over Christianity. How could they not be,
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  I was talking to a Seminary student (Dallas Theological Seminary) recently. He was a good-looking, personable, charismatic, (in the Movie Star sense) and intelligent fellow.

  I really don't know how I manage to attract these discussions. Or do I?

  I spend most days sitting in a Starbucks writing away furiously. Curious people sit nearby and ask questions. I let slip this or that and---BINGO!

  Be that as it may . . .

  This magic Christian proceeded to confess he was on a personal Sabbatical, an Ad Hoc Rumspringa to reassess his life!

  All he had ever known was evangelical certainty, inerrancy of Scripture, and a deep-seated sense of heavenly entitlement--that is--until recently. One day, he was praying and suddenly became aware that he was 'talking to himself.'

  I confessed the exact same experience--and a dialogue quickly ensured.

  The empty feeling of being a 'fraud,' had haunted him. He was smart enough to step out of himself and see how religious fellowship was a self-reinforcing delusion. This led to an epiphany that Seminary was but an intellectual gasp and grasp at yet another self-reinforcing delusion!

  Holy tergiversation, Batman!

  We spoke for over an hour. Other patrons stood or sat nearby with eyes wide at the other-worldliness of our recherche!

  I've seen him twice since then. He always looks terribly happy to see me, and once more, we plunge into an odd dance. I guess I'm an old man (68) who fits into an Obi Wan template for younger aspiring Jedi. Dunno, really. Suffice to day, I profess only ignorance and experience at sloughing my own skin of absolute certainty---and it works a MIRACLE for the fellow to experience my experience of that journey!

  Apparently, there are 'True Believers' out there who aspire to doubt! The melancholy burden of 'proving the numinous' is too great a load to live with. The sense of falseness makes them sick of their own posture in the community of belief.

  I call it a 'thirst for authenticity of self.'  

  A person of intellectual bent wants to 'solve' the problem as though it were possible by KNOWING THINGS. Others, less honest, want to solve the problem by BELIEVEING THINGS. Lastly, come the wary, weary, wastrels (myself included) who solve the problem by ABANDONING every premise and starting anew.

  I too grow angry at sureness because I see it as repugnant, self-satisfied laziness.

  But--is it? Dunno. It feels that way at the moment.

  Doubt is as comforting as an empty bank account. Belief is writing bad checks.

  Hope is applying for a large bank loan by mortgaging the future.

  The Seminary guy grows happier each time I see him. He is wondering how to 'come out of the closet' as a non-believer to his Dad and Mom.  Yipes.

  He knows a HUGE RECKONING is in store and he'll have to 'explain' the inexplicable.

  He wanted advice from Obi wan.

  I quoted an old movie adage from WAR GAMES.

  "The only way to win is to---NOT PLAY."

  I said to him, "You parents and Christian friends either love the authentic you--or they've been lying to themselves by loving the version of you which pretends. Which do you want it to be?"

  To NOT have "THAT" conversation (in religious terms) is to be authentic.

  My takeaway from this exchange is this.

  We are all on a journey. Those who have absolute certainty are betting everything against the odds.

  There are 41,000 denominations in Christianity. How lucky can a fellow be to accidentally hit the 'true' one--IF there is a 'true' one?

  Perhaps a good life, well-lived, being a service to others is the better trade-off?

  Regardless, I use these religious discussions as a reminder of how much volatility

  there is in THINKING SOMETHING IS TRUE based on numinous ancient texts :)

  
  

  
  
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Lastly, come the wary, weary, wastrels (myself included) who solve the problem by ABANDONING every premise and starting anew.
  

  
  

  This is what I have done myself. Which is why the factual statements made in these threads by me are assured. I.e, viv apparently didn't grasp that saying Yeshua ben Yosef is his actual name. That is a example of a name. "Lenaomi ben" is not a name, at all. Historical fact, proven. Known. Unchangable. The surety in responses to my unchangable facts is, indeed, very repugnant to me. 

  Also I hope you read the rest of that glowing review and not just the part about Q. I can't tell now if you were serious in your opinion of the book.
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  I'm always serious; even when I'm kidding:)

  As Chaucer said, "Ful ofte in game a sooth I have herd saye!"
• 

  myelaine

  "There are 41,000 denominations in Christianity. How lucky can a fellow be to accidentally hit the 'true' one--IF there is a 'true' one?"...

  luck would be on your side Terry.

  most of these 41,000 divisions are along the lines of tradition, governance, and organization. In fact, as far as the truth being taught most of the 41,000 are theologically identical.