Posts by Jonathan Drake

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

Jonathan Drake

provide your sources for making the claim that in Jewish culture the phrase "son of <mother>" was ever used regarding another Jew.
The Bible is my source. Jesse and David, from Naomi, Ruth 4:17. In any event. Jesus was also called son of Joseph. Luke 1:27 specifically calls out Joseph as the descendant of David and only mentions Mary as "the virgin".
You've read the book, right? I only ask because, since you said you are hoping to be a NT scholar, you've several time made claims about the Bible that are demonstrably wrong.
also, in Jewish culture, if the father was unknown, this would have made it a derogatory reference to his illigitimacy.
Please provide your citation by actual scholars.

Your reference in Ruth is not an example of the same expression.

they said as a fact, "a son has been born to Naomi" they did not call the boy, "Obed son of Naomi"

"a son has been born to Naomi" in Hebrew is, " lə·nā·‘o·mî bên" it's just words stating a fact.

However the proper expression x son of x was, when a male, always like this, "Jesus son of Joseph" or "Yeshua ben-Yosef". I assume you can see the distinction here.

Thus the biblical reference you provided doesn't even apply. As to my scholarly references asserting this custom, I listed them in the other thread:

Daily Life in the Times of Jesus by Henri Daniel Rops

Lord Jesus Christ - Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity.

Would you like the page number and a link to purchase for your own study?

As to your Lukan reference, we are discussing mark. Thus it has no baring. Unlike mark, Luke includes a birth account. It is a separate subject.

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

Jonathan Drake

@ viv

provide your sources for making the claim that in Jewish culture the phrase "son of <mother>" was ever used regarding another Jew.

also, in Jewish culture, if the father was unknown, this would have made it a derogatory reference to his illigitimacy. Thus your suggestion is one of agreement with my comment. Please provide your reference before further commenting for either of your two positioned plausibilities. Further comments without such will be ignored by me.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

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 .

Jonathan Drake

I'm going to assume then that you have no such sources and have spent no time actually studying this beyond what you can find on the Internet, or your own uneducated cursory reading of scripture

Until this is proven wrong, I will not take anything you say as a serious educated discussion.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

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 .

Jonathan Drake

It wasn't a backport. You see it as such because you are looking back at it. What is being suggested is that they knew all along.

Let me ask you again:

1. Do you have or are you pursuing a degree in theology or history?

2. List your sources, as in, list the references YOU own and have read and studied.

My own answers to the above,

1. I have begun pursuing education in scholarly studies, in hopes of becoming s New Testament scholar.

2. Daily Life in the Times of Jesus by Henri Daniel Rops - owned, studied.

Lord Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity by Larry W. Hurtado - owned, studied

The Oxford History of the Biblical World, edited by Michael D. Coogan - owned, currently studied to page 265.

The History of the Hebrews by Frank Knight Sanders - owned, studied (slightly aged)

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham, owned

A copy of the bible in each of the following translations: KJV, NIV, NASB, and of course NWT. Each owned and studied with notations from start to end, containing references to Strongs hebrew and Greek index. - all owned, all studied separately and completely.

The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible by James Strong. Owned, used as reference tool

Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament words by W.E Vine. Owned, used as reference tool

----

i have studied more books, but as pertaining to this thread, only these have been called on by memory.

please provide the names of the sources you actually own, and have studied yourself.

92

GB says, "Our way of worship will soon be altered."

by Separation of Powers in

my mom called me yesterday to ask how i was doing.

i hadn't seen her in a while, so it was nice to hear her voice.

we went through the motions of jw small talk and then she started telling me about her co visit from last week.

Jonathan Drake

Reference to impending gay rights

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

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 .

Jonathan Drake

@viv

also could you list your references being used?

i really don't want to have a circular discussion with you. You're talking about the same God being worshipped different ways. I'm not sure why you're drawing a distinction and trying to assert that Moses was dealing with a complete different God. Moses, or whoever wrote these books, made no effort to hide that El Shaddai and yahweh were identical. They explicitly said so. You're arguing about the same God being worshipped in different ways. It's not an argument worth having. The only thing you are proving is that the God is older than the Israelites, and that only gives it more credence not less.

If the bible writers had made an effort to hide this gods history, I'd agree with you. But they didn't, so I don't. The Ugarit Tablets only show the God known by the biblical patriarchs is truly very old (dated to around 2000 B.C.E.). You seem to think this discredits the bible somehow, but it does not. Had the writer tried to hide it, like this God just chose him all the sudden, then it would - but that's not what happens in the books.

upon further research, I'm only seeing more biblical harmony. All through the New Testament yahweh is actually recalled from the Old Testament and applied to Christ (Hebrews 1 is an example). And it appears that in deut el Shaddai is shown to be a subordinate to El (requires more research, I literaly just read this). If this is the case, then that is only a better harmony. It would show that the God being referred to by Jacob and Abraham whom they spoke with was el Shaddai, later yahweh, and the being who becomes Jesus. While El, is the father of this being, the almighty who Christ refers to as greater than himself. It would fit the very binitarian view of the NT by demonstrating a similar view in the OT.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

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 .

Jonathan Drake

@viv

do you have or are you pursuing a degree in history or theology?

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

Jonathan Drake

From Jonathan:

"As far as the Mark account, the writer assumed knowledge of birth, death and resurrection was known. One way this is shown is by how the Jews use the phrase," son of Mary" instead of son of Joseph when referring to Jesus. This was a derogatory reference inferring his illegitimacy. It's a direct call out to the virgin birth story."
This is unsupported and goes against principles of scholarship and common sense.

The referrence to him as the son of Mary has been theorized to mean this for a long time. It was not normal for a male child to be referred to this way. They would have called him Jesus son of Joseph, not mary. Thus to ignore Joseph shows the public knew about the issue regarding his birth. It's difficult to ignore the implications. I can concede we have no way of knowing FOR SURE this had derogatory intent, but we do know for sure this demonstrates they knew about his birth. No way around it.

it is supported by cultural history, and common sense should tell you that since they never referred to a male this way they were doing it here with Jesus for a reason. Unless you have a better explanation for why this cukture would randomly choose Jesus as the only example of the feminine expression "Son of Mary"? Scholars do actually recognize it as meaning recognition of his birth story, the only contention is whether it was derogatory or not.

35

If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed ...

by Simon in

matthew 17:20 - he said to them, because of your little faith.

for truly, i say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, move from here to there, and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.. i get the 'message' - if you believe enough (in fact, even a tiny amount - a mustard seed being tiny) then nothing is impossible but really, what a ridiculous statement and idea for several reasons.. there are lots of people who believe things completely and sincerely even to the point of death.

so far i've not noticed any sudden movements of any mountain ranges.

Jonathan Drake

This is a very good point. So I'll have to concede it's possible. Because you're right, the terrorism found in radicalized islam (which I just assume is the terrorism you referred to) is a perfect example of a group hated and hunted but people still join. Gave me something to think about, very interesting,

10

Belief in God is our intrinsic and permanent nature, shows new findings!

by abiather in

there are many theories about the origin of belief in god, such as (1) ancient illiterate people feared forces of nature, which were then personified as gods and worshipped for protection.

(2) invention of agriculture and food surplus led to a new way of life, which included culture and religion..

yet such views are strongly being challenged today by various developments in our times.

Jonathan Drake

JD - I am wondering what part of the OP you are responding to?
In any case your topic is more interesting than Aba's.
It is beyond doubt that our personality, sexual orientation and even our religiosity is strongly influenced by our genes. That is not the same thing as fate. We are not entirely slaves of our genes.

I was responding to the idea that believing in God is inherent in our nature. I really don't believe that at all. I could concede it's normal to wonder how we got here, but I would challenge that studies in science specifically aimed at explaining this without God show its more about finding an answer to this - not about necessarily assuming it's God. Does that make sense?

Along with this, any familiar with Jesus deeds as they are recorded will remember that he wanted people to have faith of their own free will. I would challenge that putting into humans this intrinsic search would be like cheating. The bible says that those conscious of their spiritual need would be happy because it would be filled, therefore not everyone is conscious of it.

As far as how genes may influence us, I still would not be thrilled to know they influence us at all. I'd rather be completely free to make choices, not make choices that have been influenced. I.e., if I were a devout catholic, I'd feel kind of violated if I were to find out nature manipulated me to make that choice. If nurture influenced me that wouldn't bother me as much, since as an adult I'd be free of that influence. But genes would always be influencing me - I'd never be free, how could I trust my choices to be really me? Know what I mean?