Posts by Jonathan Drake

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

According to this explanation:

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_categoryerror.htm

I fail to see how this is a category error. The God yahweh was never given "properties" the God could not have, and certainly none it could not have because said properties already belonged to El. Nor are the two Gods separate categories - they all fall under the same category of an immaterial being. why should it be unacceptable that two immaterial beings separated only by a name are not the same God?

But I find myself giving no respect to belief in the undetectable, the unprovable, the unknowable. I find it hubris to pretend to know thing that can't possibly be know.
- Viv

Technically, all of this is theory. Looking up, I'm finding references stating this is really all theory since it's written like ancient Hebrew in that the full word isn't there. They assume "Yw" is "YHWH", it isn't a known fact. I enjoy the theory, and id like to read more about it, but if it cannot be asserted with certainty that Yw denotes YHWH, why argue that point? The bible claims El is Yahweh, the names such as israEL show this is very likely. But it nowhere shows a separate Canaanite God called Yahweh, and these tablets don't provide enough for more than a theory Yw in the tablet might be Yahweh, but it isn't a fact. It being only a possibility and not a fact doesn't appear to be disputed in what I can find online (which i plan to suppliment with a book). Hence, why position it as a fact?

10

PESHER: an Historic scheme of INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE. . . Watchtower style!

by TerryWalstrom in

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?.

Jonathan Drake

I have to wonder how 'knowingly' the person of C.T.Russell, J.F.Rutherford, N.H. Knorr, Frederck Franz, et al resorted to Pesher to force scripture into their modern chronologic schemes?
That is to say, did the feel historically justifed? Or, was it merely self-aggrandizment?
Maybe this process is not so binary as that . . .
How likely this pitfall is a trap of the ego must be considered, too.
Isn't Pesher a kind of shout-out to the Universe: "IT'S ALL ABOUT ME" ???

Russel I'm not sure about, I've wondered myself. But I am of the opinion that each leader after Russell definitely knew what they were doing.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Since you insist on unnecessary specificity...

Daily Life in the Times of Jesus page 107 para. 2, discussing the naming of Jewish children, says, "The name which was chosen corresponded to our Christian name: the Jews had no surname-it did not exist. This does not mean that the sense of family was not very highly developed among them: it was. A son necessarily bore his father's name, as among the Arabs of today. A man was called, "son of so and so", 'ben' in Hebrew and 'bar' in Aramaic: for example, John ben Zacharius, Jonathan ben Hannan. Or Yeshua Ben Joseph. And eldest son was very often given his grandfather's name to carry on the onomastic tradition of the family and also to distinguish him from his father."

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. The boy is not called, Obed ben Naomi. You are wrong. Comparison with Greek is unnecessary, you need only knowledge of some Hebrew and Jewish culture to see clearly the scripture is not naming the child Obed ben Naomi. Hence, matronymic expression used in mark is unique. The reason it's being singled out in Hurtado's book is because it is unique, abnormal in their culture and language. Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth discussing - but obviously it is.

Huge difference between, "lenaomi ben" and "Obed ben Naomi". The latter expression is found nowhere in the bible.

You also continue to refuse listing your owned sources and reference works. This tells me you are not really interested in anything but an argument, and have not actually studied anything what so ever. You are not worth responding to, and I mean no offense. You stand discredited, good day and farewell.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201:23
"...and they will call him Immamuel"

The angel thus applies the name to Jesus. You are, again, wrong.

@terry, I apologize for two of your threads being turned into a pseudo intellectual debate. 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. So, you can likely rest assured it won't happen again.

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

You still have not responded as requested. I hope you don't drain your bank buying all the books I listed, kindle versions can still be expensive I.e., the one you bought.

Please don't allow your need to behave this way create a financial hardship.

Since you continue to not list your sources, I again assume you have none, and have only purchased this one because of being called out. I hope you have a good afternoon, and enjoy that book. Btw check out page 332, I believe that's the page where it discusses Jesus being called Emmanuel - enjoy.

quote Viv:

Jesus was never called Emmanuel.

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

Also I direct this to you again Viv, failure to comply will be viewed as discrediting your comments going forward:

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.

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

Im well aware that Jesus was also called son of Joseph in the other gospels, that is not being discussed here. What is being discussed is the out of normal matronymic expression applied to a male child, which didn't happen in their culture, and how this expression infers prior knowledge being expected by the reader of Christ's birth story.

one reference will suffice, lord Jesus- devotion to Jesus in earliest Christianity page 319 paragraph 2 - page 322 paragraph 2

i provided you my cited reference. You may ignore if you wish, it seems you like ignoring such when you are incorrect.

Since you are the one who first took a Hebrew expression and compared it to a Greek one, please provide me your citation from an expert showing they are the same expressions being used in Ruth and Mark. If you can do this, I will accept it.

further, please refer to the other thread where I stated any posts by you that lack a reference I will no longer take seriously. It has been shown you own no such works other than a bible and believe you know everything about it because you speak English. Once you find proof the expression in Ruth is the same as the Jewish male connotation of x son of x, pm it to me and I will study it in detail. Until such time, please cease your pseudo intellectual debates.

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.