Posts by peacefulpete

85

Physically in mentally agnostic ie sitting on the fence

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

hi everyone i’m not pimi or pimo i’m pima.. i don’t think the gb have everything right but i’m sitting on the fence that maybe they do some things.. if the great trib starts i will jump that side of the fence.. this is a definite little sneaky advantage dodging but even by their own doctrine last min some could come in.. i suspect many are like me.. i spent years in bethel and am very disappointed and disillusioned by it all.. but at the end of the day i love the bible and think it is the word of god and i don’t see any other religion that comes as close to what jesus describes his true followers or who are fulfilling mat 24:14..

peacefulpete

Welcome, No, you are not alone with your feelings. Many start out "seeing things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but eventually see everything with perfect clarity."

I was also a Bethelite.

3

Mesquite Mountain

by peacefulpete in

ok, the title may make more sense for those who enjoy grilling.

horeb (aka sinai).

most students of the ot are fully aware of the documentary hypothesis in some form, in short it is near universally recognized that the book of exodus, for example, is the composite work of a redactor who has collected the traditions of the judahite and israelite people.

peacefulpete

Ok, the title may make more sense for those who enjoy grilling.

I'm discussing the burning bush story in Ex 3. at Mt. Horeb (aka Sinai)

Most students of the OT are fully aware of the Documentary Hypothesis in some form, in short it is near universally recognized that the book of Exodus, for example, is the composite work of a redactor who has collected the traditions of the Judahite and Israelite people. J&E were understood as being fused prior to the introduction of P material. In this particular story this might help in making sense of an otherwise bizarre story.

Moses is at the base of a mountain called Mt. Horeb by E, Sinai by J and P and sees the burning (seneh (סנה‎ [səneh]) Yahweh speaks from the seneh and declares he is YHWH and he is their god who says:

When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you[b] will worship God on this mountain.”

Fast forward (chapt 19) and we have the Israelites freshly out of Egypt assembled again at the same mountain Sinai where:

3 Then Moses went up to God, and YHWH called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ....18 Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because YHWH descended on it in fire.

Back to the "bush". As I said the word is "seneh" it is an unknown word not found anywhere else but in this passage and the centuries later poetic retelling in Deuteronomy. If you look up the word you will find a definition as bush but that is merely repeating the traditional translation of this passage. The LXX did used Greek equivalent to the word bush/brambles reflecting a very old interpretation of the story.

A simple elegant solution was proposed long ago:

The word rendered "bush" () is found only in this passage and in Deut. xxxiii. 16, where, however, it is possible that the right reading is "Sinai."
BURNING BUSH - JewishEncyclopedia.com

It does seem a fine proposal. Early on, perhaps at the time when the J and E traditions were merged the J name of the mountain (Sinai) was slipped into the original E story that called the mountain Horeb. A very small copyist corruption made the word illegible as "sene" and the imagination took over from there. It has always seemed bizarre for the great and powerful YHWH to appear as a bush on fire, it seems much more likely the story E wrote has Moses stand before a mountain on fire and introduce himself. That is, he "spoke from fiery Sinai" just as he does in chapt 19.

Later P or a redactor made some adjustments to the story including the insertion of an 'angel' and possibly logical continuity elements like saying the bush was "not being consumed" etc.

I posted a thread on this before but was unable to locate it, maybe new ones might find it interesting.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

peacefulpete

Personally, again, I have no problem with it as it is written, but who knows. Wiki can be a great first peek at a topic but remember it is a crowd sourced encyclopedia. The accuracy of the info is inversely proportionate to the controversial nature of the topic.

I noticed the snip you posted from wiki says

:

'In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) first-century historian Josephus states that Jesus ben Damneus was made high priest after the previous high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, was removed from his position for executing James the brother of Jesus of Nazareth (James the Just).[2] This occurred after a large number of Jews complained and petitioned the king. Jesus ben Damneus himself was deposed less than a year later.

See how when identifying Jesus of the Gospels even this contributor identified him in the more neutral way, "Jesus of Nazareth" when making his proposal. If a secular Jew writing 50 years after Jesus (as is usually presumed) were to first introduce a new character to his readers, surely he would have identified him by his surname (ben Joseph) or his home (of Nazareth). If he meant to say this Jesus of Nazareth was a would-be Messiah he would also have defined his movement as he does with a half dozen other would-be Messiahs in his works.

The wiki contributor also summarily assumes Jesus of Nazareth is the same as the brother of James the Just. That is circular reasoning, an assertion, not evidence or even an argument. The very controversy in discussion is if 'James the Just' is to be identified as the James who was killed in Josephus OR with the James who led the Christain church in Jerusalem, OR a 'brother' of Jesus of Nazareth OR none of these Jameses.

Ask yourself why would the Jews be in uproar about the death of a Christian or subsequently blame the destruction of 70 on his murder as other writers assert? Recall it was they who are described as the ones who had Jesus killed and according to Paul were actively persecuting them at this time. Even 'James the Less" (aka apostle James ben Alphaeus) was said to have been killed as a result of persecution a around this time. Let it all sink in.

It is far easier to believe Joes was making a brief interrupting phrase to identify James by his association with the High Priesthood, (the topic in discussion) He summarily describes this Jesus as the anointed High Priest who gets the position as a response to the murder of his brother. It fits Josephus' pattern and context as well as sound logic.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

peacefulpete

I don't believe we have anything else regarding this High Priest.

In his paper Carrier wrote his analysis of the section:

Ananus was persecuting his rival [Jesus, son of Damneus] for office by attacking his brother, and the authorities achieved justice by punishing Ananus, and redressed his offense by giving the office to his enemy, the very man whose brother he had killed.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

peacefulpete

I like Erhman for his popularizing of critical scholarship but he has a blind spot regarding the historical Jesus discussion. He really was terribly disappointing in his debates (and book) with Carrier. Carrier can be a pill sometimes, I see him as one of those minds, as we say 'on the spectrum'. His mind is very sharp but people skills are nil. He was asked to investigate the topic, he came into it with no prejudices and dedicated a couple years to it. I don't always agree but I have yet seen anyone actually demonstrate the flaw in his logic. (tho he has many detractors who claim to).

To sum my thoughts, even if it was firmly established there was an historical Jesus, this passage in Josephus still would not be about him in my mind.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

peacefulpete

Regarding the appropriateness of saying, (who was named or "called" the anointed). It doesn't seem out of place for me, but if you do, maybe the single word was interpolated to easier make the passage appear to be about the Jesus of the Gospels. There are many such examples in Josephus as you doubtless know. Recall it was Christians alone that held the collection. Any way you look at it, it's a very tenuous thread to support the claim that the Jesus in the Gospels was in Josephus.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

peacefulpete

No, I didn't originate that understanding. As to the history of this simpler explanation, forgive me but I've seen it many times. I do think Carrier brought it up recently again. The simple explanation is generally the one to be disproven. It's just not the popular one with Christians trying to prove historicity that gets all the attention. The line "who was called/named the anointed" is an interrupter phrase for identification of the James he was then speaking about. ("You know that James, the brother of the High Priest") The following lines clarify when and how Jesus received his High Priesthood. Think about the context, it makes no sense at all to be referring to a Christian. It was all about a power struggle between rivals for the priesthood. Just before the passage I posted above, this describes the situation.

8. About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi. And now arose a sedition between the high priests and the principal men of the multitude of Jerusalem; each of which got them a company of the boldest sort of men, and of those that loved innovations about them, and became leaders to them; and when they struggled together, they did it by casting reproachful words against one another, and by throwing stones also. And there was nobody to reprove them; but these disorders were done after a licentious manner in the city, as if it had no government over it. And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, insomuch that it so fell out that the poorest sort of the priests died for want. To this degree did the violence of the seditious prevail over all right and justice......

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

peacefulpete

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, (who was named the (annointed) Christ,) whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

2. Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

peacefulpete

Reading the Josephus quote in context you will see the political struggles revolve around the High priesthood. Jesus who was named as the "anointed" is a clear reference to the Jesus named as High Priest just a few lines below. Christ is a loaded translation that to modern Christian ears can only mean THE Christ. IOW , I also feel the passage is perfectly authentic, it is not however referring to the Jesus of the Gospels.

I'm not really trying to convince you of this, just sharing with someone who sems to have an interest.

There is a lot to this topic and so much of what is assumed is actually supposition or tradition.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

peacefulpete

My opinion regarding the James ossuary claims. It has been determined to be a modern forgery. Sure, there are voices that disagree but that's not surprising in such a religiously loaded topic. Fact is the box was probably real and the inscription faked a few decades ago. It was in the 'collection' of known trafficker of forgeries. But apart from all the arguments about the inscription, what convinces me is the fact that the traditions that Jesus had a physical brother is from a second layer of tradition.

We have a couple historical Jameses. One was a murdered priest in the temple who was brother of the High Priest Jesus. It was due to this murder that many Jews blamed the Roman attack of 70. And there was a James who was one of the Christian leaders in the Jerusalem church. There were likely other Jameses among the early Christians whose names found their way into the Gospels. There was so much confusion regarding all the Jameses in early Christain circles that it was easy to conflate them or maybe even divide one into two or more.

wiki has a very introductory summary here:James, brother of Jesus - Wikipedia

Understanding the controversies of the early church might illuminate the topic as well. You seem to have read some on this topic by your earlier comments. Consider the value to the antiDocetist movement if Jesus had a physical brother. Then ask yourself the likelyhood of Doecistism ever starting if the earliest Christians knew Jesus had physical brothers.