Posts by KalebOutWest

15

Dip Anyone?

by peacefulpete in

a quick comment regarding how subsequent gospel writers often felt an irresistible need to clarify or expand upon their sources.

in the last supper story, the gospel that came to be named after mark 14 has jesus declare that one of the twelve who eats with him from the same bowl will betray him.

17 and evening having come, he cometh with the twelve,18 and as they are reclining, and eating, jesus said, `verily i say to you -- one of you, who is eating with me -- shall deliver me up.

If you read any study Bible, like say the new SBL, it will always tell you, the author of John purposefully doesn't have a Seder or Passover. Instead the events of Passion are changed for theological purposes to Nisan 14 in order for Jesus to die at 3 pm, the hour that slaughtering of the Passover lambs begins in the Temple by the priests.

In John's gospel there is no Seder, only the washing of the feet and the discourse. There is a meal, and the anti-communion but no Passover. In John's gospel Jesus is "the lamb that takes away the sin of the world." John's gospel is a "signs" gospel, not a narrative.

Mark is the first or one of the first Gospels written. (According to the SBL the Mark-first theory is now in jeopardy and the traditional view that Matthew is first now seems promising.) All of the texts come from a Jewish and for the Jewish Christian community.

The text about "making all foods clean" at Mark 7:19 cannot be about relaxing kashrut (kosher) laws because when Peter, after Pentecost, receives his famous rooftop vision to "slaughter and eat," he tells God he has never eaten anything that wasn't kosher. (Acts 10) Later in Acts 21, Paul visits the Jewish Christians and gets arrested for demonstrating that he lives the Law of Moses just like other Jewish Christians.

The traditional take is that Mark is the secretary of Peter, and that the Gospel is Peter's take on the matter. I think that is more of a tradition. But, I think it is safe to assume that the text is not talking about the laws of kashrut, otherwise Peter and these Jewish Christians would have stopped observing these laws, like the bishop of Jerusalem, James whose representatives observed kosher and caused the problem that led to the division between Paul and Peter.

Mark's words are about whether it was necessary to visit the mikvah after each time one went to the market. The Pharisees said yes, since priests washed after handling sacrifices. The Pharisees also washed their foods and any bags and vessels they carried they products in.

Jesus was teaching that since the markets already sold kosher food (as they were within the walks of Jerusalem) then all foods were clean. Nobody needed to visit a mikvah (a ceremony bath) to be made clean either.

As for the Passover Seder in the other Gospels, they occur on the 15th of Nisan. This is why Jehovah's Witnesses have a problem dating the Memorial. Christians read the Passion account from John during Lent, and Pastor Russell thought this was literal. He dated the death of Jesus based on the Lenten readings used by the very churches he condemned.

I suggest it might be advantageous for you to take a college course in theology as well as Biblical history. I think you would enjoy both.

You post interesting things. I think you would make a great instructor. You should think about teaching on the academic level.

15

Dip Anyone?

by peacefulpete in

a quick comment regarding how subsequent gospel writers often felt an irresistible need to clarify or expand upon their sources.

in the last supper story, the gospel that came to be named after mark 14 has jesus declare that one of the twelve who eats with him from the same bowl will betray him.

17 and evening having come, he cometh with the twelve,18 and as they are reclining, and eating, jesus said, `verily i say to you -- one of you, who is eating with me -- shall deliver me up.

KalebOutWest

If you tell someone you were "carving pumpkins," you might expect them to imagine you were celebrating or observing Halloween. But if the person you were talking to lived in a country that had no Christians and did not observe the day (it is actually a North American phenomenon), they would not necessarily catch on.

The same goes for what you are reading here. The idea of "dipping" has to do with being at a Passover Seder in which foods are slightly touched or nibbled upon in an "order" (thus the Hebrew word "Seder") according to a strict liturgy.

The "bowl" and the "dipping" actually don't mean much. There is a bowl of salt water on the table. Over the centuries and (depending on which type of Jew you are or have been) certain of the Passover food item are dipped in this "bowl of tears" at certain moments during the Seder meal.

What is being emphasized in not necessarily Judas or the bowl or the dipping but the bread.

Why? Because according to Christian tradition (which oddly is not directly written in the text but only implied) Judas Isacriot does not partake of the institution of Holy Communion or what is termed the "Eucharist."

What he does receive is an anti-communion or one that induces the introduction of Satan the devil.

This is because what is being emphasized--according to Christology--is the "fulfillment" of Psalm 41:9: "Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who are of my bread, has lifted the heel against me"--even though the psalmist never says this is a prophetic forecast or is about a future messianic figure.

The language used in the Gospels is clearly chosen from Psalm 41 and from the fact that the maztah is not salted for Passover. To do so would make it impure, not kosher for a Passover Seder. (You never dip Passover bread in the bowl or add salt to it.)

The symbolism is that when one partakes of the Eucharist, one partakes of Christ. But Judas got bread dipped in saltwater, and next, as John wrote, "Satan entered into him."

These points aren't immediate since non-Jews are often reading the Gospels today. But the authors were Jewish and they were writing to Jewish Christians. Thus they often left things out because they didn't realize who else would ever be reading these texts.

18

Unlocking Hidden Meanings: A Fresh Look at the Creation of Eve

by TimWexler in

hello!i am an independent scholar and researcher with a deep curiosity for ancient cultures and texts.

i do not adhere to any religious tradition, but my passion for understanding the mysteries of our past has led me to explore biblical stories in depth.

my particular interest lies in the original hebrew text of the bible, which i find fascinating both as literature and as a source of historical riddles.i recently completed a study that might change the way you perceive some well-known biblical stories.

KalebOutWest

No more on this subject. I believe anyone can learn Hebrew if they put their mind to it.

As a last note, I notice many tend to use Biblehub, which is a fine source, except that it employs Ashkenazi pronounciation. That is only used by Haredi Jews (Orthodox in USA), but not all of them.

Most Jews employ Sephardic pronunication. It was even adopted for use in modern Hebrew. This is not used in Biblehub.

Scholars, academics and most Jews do not read or speak Hebrew as what you see spelled out in Biblehub. So be aware of that.

18

Unlocking Hidden Meanings: A Fresh Look at the Creation of Eve

by TimWexler in

hello!i am an independent scholar and researcher with a deep curiosity for ancient cultures and texts.

i do not adhere to any religious tradition, but my passion for understanding the mysteries of our past has led me to explore biblical stories in depth.

my particular interest lies in the original hebrew text of the bible, which i find fascinating both as literature and as a source of historical riddles.i recently completed a study that might change the way you perceive some well-known biblical stories.

KalebOutWest

I already told you the way it is said in English. I have also told you how you can learn Hebrew.

If you want to be precise, learn Hebrew. That is your only way to say it exactly as a Hebrew speaker. These is no other way without hearing you and you hearing me.

You have to learn another language to speak another language.

What are you afraid of? That you can't do it?

18

Unlocking Hidden Meanings: A Fresh Look at the Creation of Eve

by TimWexler in

hello!i am an independent scholar and researcher with a deep curiosity for ancient cultures and texts.

i do not adhere to any religious tradition, but my passion for understanding the mysteries of our past has led me to explore biblical stories in depth.

my particular interest lies in the original hebrew text of the bible, which i find fascinating both as literature and as a source of historical riddles.i recently completed a study that might change the way you perceive some well-known biblical stories.

KalebOutWest

I don't understand your obsession with just these two words. How about this? I recommend the following book. It will teach you Hebrew very, very quickly:

How to Read Hebrew In 6 Weeks! by Miiko Shaffier (ISBN 978-0-997-86750-3)

You can also contact you nearest Jewish synagogue for Hebrew lessons or the Union for Reform Judaism. While most charge a minimal fee, even if you cannot pay it, as long as you want to learn they will teach you (and no--they will not try to convert you).

The reason I suggest this is that if I try to teach someone to pronounce words where you cannot hear me and I cannot hear how you are pronouncing them, it doesn't work well.

Plus Hebrew is actually easier to read than English--toddlers learn it. There are no rules that break constantly like in the words cough, plough, dough, tough--each spelled the same but read totally different by rules you have to memorize in order to pronounce them. You never, ever have to do that in Hebrew!

Lastly, you apparently want something I cannot offer at the moment. I keep asking you "why" but you cannot explain or won't. Perhaps you do know, but don't know how to explain exactly. This way you won't have to rely on anyone but yourself.

As the saying goes: "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."

18

Unlocking Hidden Meanings: A Fresh Look at the Creation of Eve

by TimWexler in

hello!i am an independent scholar and researcher with a deep curiosity for ancient cultures and texts.

i do not adhere to any religious tradition, but my passion for understanding the mysteries of our past has led me to explore biblical stories in depth.

my particular interest lies in the original hebrew text of the bible, which i find fascinating both as literature and as a source of historical riddles.i recently completed a study that might change the way you perceive some well-known biblical stories.

KalebOutWest

It's probably because you keep using the word "English." You keep asking me how to say it in "English."

Are you asking for a transliteration as opposed to "translation"?

You may be phrasing things in a peculiar way. This is why I keep asking you to tell me "why" are you asking. It will save so much time.

90

What is Your Favorite WT Lie?

by Sea Breeze in

i would like to start a thread on lies that the watchtower and their reps have told.

surely we all have one or two that truly sticks out in our memories, no matter how much we would like to forget.

my favorite wt lie: the reason they don't want to release the name of the "scholars" who worked on the new world translation is because they do not want to accept "glory and honor" from others.

KalebOutWest

After all the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible (not that different to the GB’s only channel claim), transubstantiation takes place during mass, unbaptised children can’t enter heaven etc etc, and while we can call it all bullshit, can we call them lies?

These are Watchtower lies.

I don't believe in Catholicism, Christianity or anything supernatural for that matter, but all of the above I remember being told and reading (at least in substance) in Watchtower publications, from the platform and various teachers while at the Kingdom Hall, conventions, presentations, etc.

The actual Catholic teachings?

A pontifical leader is not infallible, but can, on rare occasions declare an issue that has been decided after much years of study within the Roman Catholic Church (usually after there has been a serious question or issue) and, speaking for all members of the Church, declare, dogmatically, that the issue has been settled. Only that declaration is an infallable statement. Since the Church's foundation, this has only happened once, in 1950, when Pope Pius XII defined the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary in his papal bull, Munificentissimus Deus. It merely means that the Bishopric of Rome speaks as an official mouthpiece once an official decision has been arrived at by the rest of the people or members of the Church. The Episopate does not necessarily, of its own office, have this ability, as without a Church there would be no issues nor people to decide the matters.

Transubstantiation does takes place outside of Mass as well. There are holy relics which, reportedly hold pieces of the Eucharist which still undergo study by independent researchers (I don't have their names at present) and in the presence of often holy people literally change their chemical nature unlike actual Eucharistic elements. Why or how these things do this may be a trick or a natural occurrence, but it is a good trick or interesting phenomenon either way to watch.

And, the Church recognizes the validity of the sacrament in Orthodox Churches as well as Anglican Churches (which, by the way, have had similar "miracles," so to speak).

It is also not a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that unbaptized children or even that non-Catholics do not enter heaven or gain salvation. What about Jews? It is official doctrine that they go to heaven. They also believe that people like Jehovah's Witnesses are saved without stepping one foot in a Catholic Church or ever believing a stitch of Catholic doctrine.

The USCCB and other local episcopates as well as the Holy See keeps the official CCC (Catholic Catechism) online, and any and all of its official teachings are on there for everyone to read at any time.

One thing the Watchtower was very good at lying about was teaching people about other religions (and what they believed) and claiming that once it did this, that 'we were now equipped to know the truth' about them.

That was a very big lie. If you have not updated your views about religion, atheism, agnosticism, philosophy and humanism since you left the Watchtower, you still believe in those lies of the big, bad W.

18

Unlocking Hidden Meanings: A Fresh Look at the Creation of Eve

by TimWexler in

hello!i am an independent scholar and researcher with a deep curiosity for ancient cultures and texts.

i do not adhere to any religious tradition, but my passion for understanding the mysteries of our past has led me to explore biblical stories in depth.

my particular interest lies in the original hebrew text of the bible, which i find fascinating both as literature and as a source of historical riddles.i recently completed a study that might change the way you perceive some well-known biblical stories.

KalebOutWest

If those are the letters, are they all found within the name (Joshua) you chose to use based on the Hebrew (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ) name?

I'm not sure what you are asking or, again, why. But that is not possible. If you would tell me "why" you are asking it would help.

The way we change names from other languages for pronounciation into English, especially when they do not employ the Roman alphabet, do not work anything like you are suggesting. Let me give you a funny example that will help you wrap your head around what is going on with the name "Joshua," as this is not what it really sounds like in Hebrew.

You are likely familiar with the Japanese movie monster Godzilla, I am sure. Well his name is actually not "Godzilla." It is ゴジラ which was developed back in the 1950s when they were constructing the original costume which was quite burly in the chest. If you have ever seen the original film, the original monster suit worn by the stunt man looked like a gorilla/lizard beast. Since it swam, they jokingly dubbed it "gorilla-whale."

In Japanese, the language allows you to combine the two words, unlike English, which is what happened. So that became the name of the monster. In the original tongue the name sounds something like "Gojira," with something of a "shhh" sound along with the "j" that you just pick up when you learn to speak Japanese.

When the film was picked up for American audiences, the original movie had an anti-nuclear war message that the distributor did not think would go over well immediately after WWII. So he recut the film and added some footage with American actor Raymond Burr as a reporter, turning the film into a monster movie. The American producer changed the name of the monster to "Godzilla" to make the creature sound more horrific. The rest is history.

This process is called "Latinization." It involves taking a name from an original language that does not employ Roman letters, sounds and sometimes even meanings and making them easier to pronounce, understand and use for Westerners.

The same goes for "Joshua." The name in Hebrew actually sounds something like "YehoeShooWah" except the first "e" after the "Y" is barely noticeable and the sounds after the "S" combine with and merge into the sound of the "W." It's something that comes with learning Hebrew. You can't actually reproduce it in English.

So you just scrap it altogether and develop something new and come up with Joshua. The Greeks did the same thing. The couldn't pronounce the Hebrew name either. They came up with Yesous as their way of doing it.

Thus the answer to your question is of course "no." Transmission and translation of names into other languages, especially ones that don't use Roman letters, don't work anything like that.

18

Unlocking Hidden Meanings: A Fresh Look at the Creation of Eve

by TimWexler in

hello!i am an independent scholar and researcher with a deep curiosity for ancient cultures and texts.

i do not adhere to any religious tradition, but my passion for understanding the mysteries of our past has led me to explore biblical stories in depth.

my particular interest lies in the original hebrew text of the bible, which i find fascinating both as literature and as a source of historical riddles.i recently completed a study that might change the way you perceive some well-known biblical stories.

KalebOutWest

This is what my Hebrew name was going to be at one time. Instead I was named "dog," which is what my Hebrew name "Kalev" or Caleb means.

This is "Joshua."

The letters are Yohd Hey Vav Shin Ayin.

The other word is the Shem Ha-Mephorash, Yohd Hey Vav Hey.

Why do you want to know?

17

Creation, Not Evolution Best Explains Genetics

by Sea Breeze in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umnhg0a9dlu.

evolutionists can change their model, and invent stories whenever they want to accomodate data.

biblical literalists are stuck with just one model, one account, and are unable to change it.

KalebOutWest

Sea Breeze--You just made up your entire post about the Jews. Like my grandmother used to say, the world is filled with unmarried marriage counselors.

"Orthodox" Jews only came into existence in the modern era once the Reform Jewish movement began in 1810. They did not exist before.

They are considered "Orthodox" only in the West, in the United States of America, for the most part due to the fact that Jews in the USA who did not join the Reform movement were labeled "Orthodox" by members in the Reform group who used to make fun of them.

This group further divided among themselves according to how they viewed Jewish tradition and application of Jewish law, the first significant division forming the Conservative Movement (meaning the group in the middle or "in between," the "so-called" Orthodox and the Reform). The movement is called "Masorti" in the UK.

A minor but significant branch would later influence all of modern Judaism via its founder, a small denomination known as Reconstructionism. After that a significant number of practicing atheist and agnostic Jews in various synagogues would begin a movement known as Secular Humanistic Judaism in 1966.

"Orthodox" Jews are actually called Haredi or simply "religious" Jews and are themselves divided into several movements, such as the Chasidim and the Modernist.

All of these are actually part of just one group of the Jewish culture, namely the Ashkenazi, the lighter skinned Jews of Eastern Europe origin. I am Sephardic, the darker skinned type of Middle Eastern origin, and we have no such denominational divisions.

Ashkenazi make up about 80% of the Jewish population in the US, but not in Israel where the numbers are equal. In the world, the Ashkenazi are outnumbered as along with other groups like the Mizrahi Jews, Ashkenazi are actually not as significant as they seem in the West.

In Israel, Jews are called merely "religious" or "secular," not "Orthodox" or otherwise.