george bernard shaw said: no man ever believes that the bible means what it says.
he is always convinced that it says what he means.. shaw must have had pesher in mind!
but, what is pesher?.
I agree with that approach. That's what I've been doing. I've been studying the cultures around the Christian movement mostly right now. Only light reading of ancient customs (like ot).
So so far my favorite book on culture is Daily Life in the Times of Jesus by Henri Daniel-Rops. I really enjoy that book.
where we're at, we won't get it as bad as nyc, long island or new england.
even so, my university is closed until wednesday morning, and we're expecting well over a foot of snow.. anyone else out there "hunkering down"?.
around 600 ad a man named muhammed created a book called the quran.
a few hundred years later the followers of this new religion called islam went on a holy crusade out of arabia to spread their religion.
in one key battle they were met by the ruling government army and were out numbered at least by 3 to 1. they could of easily lost and if god would of made sure of this most likely thier religion would of stayed an insagnificant religion of just arabia.
Except the qoran does call Christ a messiah and states he was a death equal to Adam just like the bible does. It also states emphatically that the bible should be taken as inspire word and everything the qoran says is meant to be taken with the bible as a confirmation of it.
So, I would submit that the issue isn't the qoran, but rather how it's been twisted and interpreted- same as the bible.
consider for example how the western world responded to the Ottoman Empire. When the Muslims were on their crusade, they didn't harm the citizens of the countries they took over unless those people attacked - at which point they defended themselves. the only people they killed are those who attacked them like soldiers. If they could take them captive they did, at which point they accepted Islam or died.
Now compare that to the crusades headed up by the Catholic Church. They not only beat the Ottoman Empire back the the Middle East, but they invaded their towns, especially Jerusalem, and killed every man woman and child they came across. They had no mercy at all. The blood running in the courtyard of the temple area is recorded to have been ankle deep when the crusaders were finally done, with body parts piled up on street corners.
The Ottoman Empire showed far more mercy, and would never have killed innocents arbitrarily like the church army did (or, ironically, as Isis or alqueda do today).
personally, I think the crusaders were far more barbaric and terrible than the ottoman army was.
Source, this book: http://www.booksamillion.com/p/Templars/Piers-Paul-Read/9780312555382?id=6223161565069
which i I no longer have because someone borrowed and never returned.
john ekrann, a helper to the gb, revealed the true reason for the change was protecting jws from apostates and other "anointed" christians.. see: http://tv.jw.org/#video/vodprogramsevents/pub-jwbmw_e_201501_2_video (around 4:55ms).
.
He is so wrong. And it's so easy to prove it scripturally. notice he provides no real study or proof, he just says "it makes sense". I'd love to sit down with him and a bible and educate him on what a "Steward" was in Jewish culture and how they were appointed. (Isaiah 22:20-22; compare Matt 16:19)
george bernard shaw said: no man ever believes that the bible means what it says.
he is always convinced that it says what he means.. shaw must have had pesher in mind!
but, what is pesher?.
This is very interesting.
This Pesher is precisely what ended my meeting attendance. They apply this to the Faithful Slave in Matthew when it can be demonstrated that this has no future fulfillment and that he was talking to someone in particular - Peter. There is no reason to think this has some end times fulfillment.
ive also noticed how Old Testament scriotures are ascribed to Christ in ways that when I read it doesn't really make sense at times. Such as the Old Testament references used by Peter when they replaced judas. The only thing standing in my way of denouncing the bible as debunked because of the "Pesher" shown in it is because the Old Testament itself calls the future coming messiah an anti type of David's kingship. So all those psalms weren't being randomly applied to Christ, they were already understood to be a type antitype because the OT told them it was.
any Pesher developed after the death of the apostles was strictly denounced and prohibited by them before they died, and should thus be igored as in any way doctrinal truth. This applies to all religions founded on Christianity, including Jehovah's witnesses.
This is why I, personally, read the New Testament literally, and don't look for any meaning. I take it at face value.
the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
Your reference does not say they were distinct, it says they were the same and that it was Abrahams God. This is what I said, and that is what history seems to suggest. It is this God el, who later became yahweh. Still the same God, different name.
As far as how the Greek expression is different, just google it. I've already put my books away from earlier and I really dont want to go get them back out.
Actually I did it for you, this quote is confirmed by literally everything. Spend as much time as you want with Google, by as many books as you want - if they are credible sites and sources they will agree:
The New Testament features the indefinite "a son of man" in Hebrews 2:6 (citing psalm 8:4), and "one like a son of man" in Revelation 1:13 and 14:14 (referencing Daniel 7:13's "one like a son of man").[7] The four gospels introduce a totally new definite form, the awkward and ambiguous "ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου", literally "the man's son."[1] In all four it is used only by Jesus (except once in the gospel of John, when the crowd asks what Jesus means by it), and functions as an emphatic equivalent of the first-person pronoun, I/me/my.[8] Modern scholarship increasingly sees the phrase not as one genuinely used by Jesus but as a one put in his mouth by the early Church.[9][need quotation to verify]
im not sure where to post this but i think its telling.
not long but read it closely i get a bit confused on the latter half.
the question is did god establish his covenant with the gentile nations or the jews.. [though i have read from a jewish web source, that the jews have nothing to do with israel and the greek scriptures or half the hebrew scriptures ].
Oh also thisnis one place it's importsnt to see a distinction between the mosaic law and the ten commamdments. They aren't the same thing.
christ abolished the mosaic law, which was the judicial decrees including needing to make atonement sacrifice. He died once for all men's atonement, hence he abolished the law requiring the sacrifices and all the observances.
However, the Ten Commandments were directly from God and not through Moses. They were never abolished. (I.e., it's still not right to steal another's wife or kill someone)
(This is meant for consideration along with the post by living Quietly)
the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
There are reasons the Greek ohrase was unique to Christ.
Also your reference you quoted said the exact same thing I said. So I'm glad we agree now, but it was a very long journey getting here.
im not sure where to post this but i think its telling.
not long but read it closely i get a bit confused on the latter half.
the question is did god establish his covenant with the gentile nations or the jews.. [though i have read from a jewish web source, that the jews have nothing to do with israel and the greek scriptures or half the hebrew scriptures ].
Look at Romans 9:1-7. Here Paul expresses regret over the Israelites refusal to except Christ, and he says that, "not all who descend from Israel are really Israel" this is because their covenant was broken, they refused rhe messiah and the promise now goes to all nations.
look too at verses 30, 31, he further states that people of the nations, "though not pursuing righteousness, attained righteousness, the righteousness that results from faith" but contrasts that with literal Israelites saying, "but Israel, although pursuing a law of righteousness, did not attain to that law." He then says that they had no faith (because they denied Christ) and that they stumbled over the law instead of excepted the one who fulfilled the law.
So throughout this entire chapter, Paul is making the point that the Jews lost their special position with God when they denied the one who fulfilled the law. And shows that because of this the promise now was extended to all nations, even those who are not descendants of Israel, aka Jacob.(verse 6).
hebrews 9:27new international version (niv).
27 just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, .
.
@prologos
i should clarify I know the effects on history don't necessarily make it true per say. I meant only that the individual is special, made so by the devotion to the person existing for a little over 2000 years or so now. Your references thee to people like Buddha and such, by way of comparison, I would never say such men weren't special even though I don't follow the religion formed around them. They were certainly special in one way or another if they have effected the shape of an entire people's culture. That's what I meant. Regardless of its truth. I hope that I expressed my meaning better here.
