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?.
Hey Doug! Good to see you here again.
I would advise anybody really interested in subjects such as this to become a Member on Bart Ehrmans' Blog.
You can try it for Month and decide.
The only definite thing anybody can say about Scripture with confidence is that it becomes all things to all people.
st john's wort is accepted by the medical literature for use in mild to moderate depression.
.
if anybody is using it could you share your experiences with it?
I tried several brands on only found one which actually worked.
What it did for me is this. It got me to a place inside my head where I could find peace. I memorized how
that felt and 'where' it was. Then, after about a year, I began finding that spot on my own without the SJW.
It made a huge difference.
I only started taking it because I hate pills and medicine and drugs.
I'm sorry I can't remember what brand helped me. It had a white bottle and a green sprig on the label.
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?.
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?
________________________
Scholar Bart Ehrman gives us a taste of the ancient interpretative schemes common in the early days of Christianity here:
"For ancient Jews and Christians, there were numerous ways sacred texts could be read. They could be seen as allegories, in which the literal meaning was simply the uninteresting surface of the text, and the real meaning was something else. They could be seen as containing secret teachings below the surface that could be unlocked by playing with the numerical significance of the letters of this or that word. They could be seen as looking ahead to people and events that the authors themselves were not aware of (but God, the author of the texts, was aware of). There were, in fact, lots of options."
Ehrman is referring to PESHER, which is Hebrew for interpretation. But, it is more than an interpretation because a secondary level consists of "reading into" the text, otherwise known in Greek as eisegesis. (The opposite of exegesis, extracting meaning.)
I can hear you asking your self, "WTF do I care?"
One answer to that is this. As Jehovah's Witnesses, our 'Truth' actually consisted of a similar scheme by various Watchtower Governing Body Presidents following the same tradition in modern times!
Why shouldn't we be interested?
The Dead Sea Scrolls community in Qumrum certainly depended on Pesher to fill their own day and time (2 B.C.E.--68 C.E.) with an extraordinary sense of prophetic significance--exactly the way modern day Bible students, such as in Pastor Russell's time, viewed the imminent arrival of earth shaking, supernatural happenings.
Such Pesher mentality was alive and well into the Apostolic period as well; " the literal meaning of these passages was not what mattered to the interpreter; indeed, the history of the Qumran community can be read from their own interpretations of the ancient prophecies." (Ehrmanblog.com)
Example?
"Matthew’s approach is very similar. Passages of Scripture that appear to us, who read texts literally, to be about one thing actually refer to something else – in this case, not his community but Jesus."
What Matthew and Paul were doing when they cited Old Testament Scripture and applied it to Jesus was Pesher.
The early Christian communities had their share of such Pesher interpretations, of course, and damned near became the most prominent branch of Christianity. I'm referring here to the Gnostics.
Example:
Some gnostics, for instance, believed the demiurge was ignorant and naïve rather than downright evil, and provided a very moving explanation to an otherwise ordinary story in the bible:
‘When [Jesus] entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.” And he said to him, “I will come and cure him.” The centurion answered, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” When Jesus heard him, he was amazed…And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.” And the servant was healed in that hour.’(Mt. 8:5-13)
The gnostics interpreted this paragraph with unparalleled beauty. The centurion, they argued, was the demiurge. The demiurge refers to his angels when he says he has soldiers under his authority. The paralyzed servant is humanity, which suffers from all kinds of spiritual diseases. The demiurge did his best to save humanity by means of the Mosaic Law. But the law brought only death; it failed to change people to the better and only brought penalties on the transgressors. Realizing his attempt to redeem humanity has failed, the demiurge resorts to Jesus. He tells him that he is not worthy to have him under his roof, which means that the demiurge doesn’t deserve to have Jesus come down to his lesser world. But he only asks Jesus to speak a word to heal his son. This perfectly accords with the gnostic doctrine, which holds that Jesus’ mission was to promulgate secret teachings, not to die for people’s sins. This interpretation is documented by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1.vii.4) and also survives in Heracleon’s commentary on John 4:46-54.
___________________________________
A modern type of hermeneutics loosely akin to Pesher is quite common in some charismatic Christian circles who think much of the Bible is specifically tailored to individuals today. How? Well, they would pick passages and verses, sometimes at random, and then ask what God is speaking to them TODAY, with minimal attention to the passage’s context. For example, back in 2000, Bruce Wilkinson published “The Prayer of Jabez: Breaking Through to the Blessed Life” which went on to become an international bestseller selling 9 million copies. It abstracts 1 Chronicles 4:9-10 from original historical context, and makes it a universal blessing God makes to Christians today.
Another message popular with charismatics is Jeremiah 29:11 (“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”) interpreted to mean God has these prosperity plans for whoever is reading the Bible (provide they hold to the right charismatic beliefs). (Hon Wai)
_________________
The above information, on Ehrmanblog.com, prompted a member of the Apostate community to chime in.
"I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness and I can assure you this way of finding hidden meaning in Bible accounts is alive and well. Witnesses see the original stories as “types” and consider themselves to be the “antitypes.” For example, Noah and the flood can be seen to have a modern day, “antitypical” fulfillment. Noah represents Christ. Noah’s wife represents the “bride of Christ” who are considered to be those faithful members of the 144,000 of Revelation who are alive in our day (many of whom are directing the preaching work of witnesses from Walkill, New York). Noah’s sons along with their wives represent those who are brought into the safety of the modern day “ark” which is God’s organization, otherwise known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. These followers of God will survive Armageddon just as those on the ark came through the flood. After Armageddon they will repopulate the earth. I don’t know if witnesses still have the same fondness for types and antitypes as in the past, but they definitely used to teach this stuff!"
I found the above to be very timely in view of the fact the Governing Body has rescinded this sort of Pesher in their current mad rush to totally revamp their bedrock system of theology! How? By doing it again, of course.
It is a kind of "magic slate" approach whereby yesterday's Pesher had a shelf date, and this caused a need for a modernization Pesher!
____________________
In Theological Seminary, the above would be studied under the boilerplate of HERMENUETIC.
So you can plainly discover from a brief consideration of Pesher, there is nothing unusual about the approach of Jehovah's Witnesses in 'pulling it out of their own ass' and making it up as they go along!
in threads concerning islam i've consistently argued for reforming the religion.
it unfortunately has pre-enlightenment doctrines and practices, or at least there exists pre-enlightenment interpretation of koranic scripture that support such doctrines and practices.
in a lesser way, and on a lesser scale, the wts too is pre-enlightenment in a sense.
The Universality of Math is such, no matter where you travel, all mathematicians have agreed upon conventions and standards, haven't they? Yes. Nobody divides by zero.
If the Watchtower Society were professing mathematicians endeavoring to spread accurate knowledge of math, wouldn't any error and corruption easily be demonstrated? Reform would amount to demonstrable, pragmatic corrections. Peer review would suffice to bring about identification of procedures needing attention.
If Watchtower leaders insisted on dividing by zero by claiming some transcendent principle, revealed to them alone by contact from the spirit world, (having been contacted and selected by the spirit of Archimedes), what would happen?
Frankly, it would be no different from what has been occurring for over 100 years! A great divide would ensue. WTS apologists would claim a higher platform of deep understanding while the world of academia would snort indignantly and turn away from the ideological stench of their radical misadventure.
You see, the premise, the foundation, the Raison d'être of Watchtowerism is self-identification as a transcendent body of elite, select, superior mensches.
In effect, this religion can mint its own currency!
Think of the Confederacy during the U.S. Civil War which created its own currency in order to finance its rebellion and you'll quickly get the Big Picture.
No reform is workable, practicable nor sufficient to disabuse these self-deluded mongrels of their magisterium.
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 .
Could you clarify what you mean about what exactly Peter gave Paul which Paul passed along?
To wit:
Some argue that the inclusion of the Gentiles explains it, but it does not. Because history attests that it began with the Jews, and even in the bible we see Paul stating that he passed on what he was given - which he got from Peter in Jerusalem.
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 .
Again, Ehrman:
"One day we were in Priene, a town on the west coast, looking at the ruins. There was a large temple with pillars lying all around and other remains. I was looking at a large ornamental stone that had an inscription on it. The inscription described the emperor Augustus and called him “god.” And something hit me. Surely I knew this before, but it had never really HIT me before. I don’t know why. But it hit me at this moment and it nearly took my breath away. This was really important. The Christians began calling Jesus God at just the same period that the Romans began calling their rulers God.
Of course I had known this, but it had never clicked. It can’t be an *accident* that Jesus was put on the same level as the emperor at almost exactly the same time that the emperor was being exalted to a divine status. Romans called the emperor the “savior” and the “lord” and even “God.” And these are things that Christians called Jesus.
Soon after the pagans were doing it. Moreover, the “son” of a divine emperor was the “son of God.” In fact, the only people in the empire to be called “son of God” were the emperor and Jesus. (Other divine men were called “son of Zeus” or “son of Apollo” etc. But the term “son of God” was used only of emperors. And then Jesus.)"
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 .
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 . . .
Here is an example of Bart Ehrman's contribution to his blog concerning what being 'GOD' meant in the NT era and beyond. Ehrman begins here with the question of Jesus being thought of in some way as "god."
__________________
" I have been insisting that if one wants to say that “Jesus is God” according to an early Christian text, one has to ask “in what *sense*” is he God? Now is a good time for me to lay out how I understand ancient people understood the divine realm. It was very different from the way most people today – at least the people I run across – imagine the divine realm. As I pointed out earlier, people today think of God as completely Other than us humans. We are mortal and limited in every respect; he is immortal and unlimited. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere-present. We are by comparison weak, ignorant, and in one place at a time. He is infinite and eternal; we are finite and temporal. There is an unbridgeable gap between us and God. (Although in Christian theology, it is Jesus who bridges that gap by being a divine being who becomes human; in traditional theology, he did that so that we humans could then become divine) People in the ancient world did not think of the divine realm in that way. True, the major Gods were enormously powerful and knowing and were immortal (you couldn’t kill them, and they couldn’t kill each other! And they never died). But there were lots of different gods with lots of different power and knowledge. And many of the gods (nearly all of them) came into being at some point in the past. They haven’t always existed. Like us, they get born. And like us, gods have strengths and weaknesses, and rarely were gods imagined as all-knowing, and almost never as all-powerful. But there were gods and there were gods. I try to illustrate the divine realm to my students by speaking in terms of a divine pyramid. So, imagine a pyramid. At the very top (where it is narrowest) some ancient pagans located a single most powerful (all powerful? ) divinity – call him Zeus, or Jupiter, or an Unknown God, or something else. This God was far more powerful than we can possibly imagine. Possibly he is the source of all things. Below this single divine power, on the next rung of the pyramid, were the great gods known to us from Greek and Roman mythology: the Greek Zeus (if he’s not at the top), and Hera, and Ares, and Aphrodite – or their Roman equivalents Jupiter, Juno, Mars, and Venus, and all the rest, the gods of Mount Olympus. These gods by and large have little to do with us, as they have their own concerns. But occasionally they interact with us. They too are enormously powerful, immortal, and superhuman in every way (even though in the myths they appear to be all *too* human with their jealousies, and anger, and loves, and lusts, and other human emotions; but it’s not clear that most ancient people – and certainly not most educated ancient people – actually believed the myths as telling events that truly happened). On the next lower rung on the pyramid, below the Olympian gods, were other gods of a more local nature and purpose. There were, in fact, gods of virtually every locality and function. Gods who inhabited and were in charge of certain mountains and fields and forests and rivers and streams; gods of war, love, health, childbirth, weather; gods of the local cities and towns, gods of the home, gods of the hearth, gods of the family. The gods on this realm were far less powerful and ubiquitous than the great Gods. But they were also far more powerful that we mere mortals. On the next lower rung on the pyramid, was an even less powerful group (and more numerous) set of divine beings sometimes called DAIMONIA. It’s not helpful or accurate to translate this term as“demons” – even though that is the precise equivalent – because these were not necessarily divine entities that always did harm and were out to hurt people. Sometimes they were, but sometimes they were good too. These are the divine beings closer to us, who have more to do with our daily affairs. They can be fickle, and some are nasty, but others were not. I prefer calling these daimonia, rather than demons, since demons in the Christian tradition are always malevolent. And there is another rung even below these daimonia, which is made up of beings who are in some sense partially divine, either because they were born to the union of a god and a mortal (like Hercules or Dionysus), or because they were adopted by a divine being to be his son, or because they were so powerful or wise that it was hard to imagine them as merely mortal (such as the emperor, or a great philosopher like Plato). Below that level of the pyramid were humans, some of whom were more god-like than others. Like my first wife used to say many years into our marriage: “I married a Greek God, and now I’m married to a goddam Greek.” The point is that divinity was a kind of graded, graduated affair. To call the emperor “God” was not to say that he was the one on the top of the pyramid. Quite the contrary! He wasn’t even on the level of the daimonia. But he was God, *in some sense.* Some of you (I can hear you thinking as I type) are wondering if any of this has any relevance to Judaism. The answer is yes, in some ways, and I’ll deal with that question eventually. For now let me simply stress that when Christians were most forthright in calling Jesus “God” without qualification (as in “Jesus is God” – a statement you hardly ever [maybe once?] get in the NT, but start getting frequently in the second century) Christianity had by and large stopped being a primarily Jewish affair and was, rather, primarily a Gentile affair. That is, most of its adherents were converts from paganism, who brought their views of the divine realm with them into the new faith they adopted."
the jesus believers were meeting in people's homes.
members of that community would take turns using private homes to gather.
thus, they went house to house.. these footstep tracers of jesus (they called themselves akolouthontes "followers" or some called themselves mathetai or "learners.
From Bart Ehrman's Blog to which I subscribe:
Believing Papias When It's Convenient
In my previous post I stressed that, contrary to what you sometimes may have heard or possibly will
hear, Papias is not a *direct* witness to what the apostles of Jesus were saying. That is an important
point because of the most important “testimony” that Papias gives, a testimony that is often taken as
very strong evidence that the second Gospel of the NT was written by Mark, the companion of Peter,
and that the first Gospel was really and truly written by Matthew, the disciple of Jesus. If these
claims were right, they would be highly significant. Matthew would have been written by someone
who was there to see these things happen; and Mark’s account would be based on arguably the most
important witness to Jesus’ life..
Here is what Papias says. Remember, when he indicates what “the elder” says, he is indicating what
he has learned from a person who was allegedly “companion” of the elder; the elder was someone
who allegedly knew the apostles.
“And this is what the elder used to say,
‘When Mark was the interpreter [Or: translator] of Peter, he wrote down accurately
everything that he recalled of the Lord’s words and deeds — but not in order. For he
neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him; but later, as I indicated, he accompanied
Peter, who used to adapt his teachings for the needs at hand, not arranging, as it were, an
orderly composition of the Lord’s sayings. And so Mark did nothing wrong by writing some
of the matters as he remembered them. For he was intent on just one purpose: to leave out
nothing that he heard or to include any falsehood among them.’”
This then is what Papias says about Mark.
And this is what he says about Matthew:
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN, OR
YOU WILL NEVER KNOW!!!
“And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted
[Or: translated] them to the best of his ability.”
In addition to my general doubts about the reliability of oral traditions – that will be the subject of
my next book – (and recall, these are fourth-hand accounts we’re hearing from Papias), I have two
clear reasons for thinking that these comments of Papias are not convincing “proof” about the
authorship of either Matthew or Mark. The first is that Papias can be shown not to preserve
historically accurate information passed down from the apostles of Jesus. The second is that what
Papias actually says about Matthew is not true of our Matthew, making it appear either that he
doesn’t have accurate information or that he is referring to some book other than what came to be
our Gospel of Matthew. And if he’s not right about Matthew, there’s no reason to think that he’s
right about our Mark.I’ll deal with the first reason in this post. The short story, as I have mentioned in shorter order on
the blog before, is that Papias is acknowledged by *everyone* — including the evangelical scholars
who trust him with respect to Matthew and Mark – to preserve traditions that are *not* historically
to be trusted.
Papias gives two traditions connected with the Gospel accounts of Jesus. Neither one is considered
by anyone I know as being anywhere near being accurate. First is an alleged saying of Jesus:
Thus the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, remembered hearing him say how
the Lord used to teach about those times, saying:
“The days are coming when vines will come forth, each with ten thousand boughs; and on a
single bough will be ten thousand branches. And indeed, on a single branch will be ten
thousand shoots and on every shoot ten thousand clusters; and in every cluster will be ten
thousand grapes, and every grape, when pressed, will yield twenty-five measures of wine.
And when any of the saints grabs hold of a cluster, another will cry out, ‘I am better, take
me; bless the Lord through me.’ So too a grain of wheat will produce ten thousand heads
and every head will have ten thousand grains and every grain will yield ten pounds of pure,
exceptionally fine flour. So too the remaining fruits and seeds and vegetation will produce
in similar proportions. And all the animals who eat this food drawn from the earth will come
to be at peace and harmony with one another, yielding in complete submission to humans.”
This is a very interesting claim about what Jesus taught. But no one thinks Jesus taught it. So what
does that say about the reliability of Papias’s sources for the words of Jesus and the traditions of his
apostles?
The second tradition is even more interesting – fascinating even. So, do you wonder how Judas
died? Here’s what Papias tells us, based on the “reliable” sources that he had at his disposal:
But Judas went about in this world as a great model of impiety. He became so bloated in
the flesh that he could not pass through a place that was easily wide enough for a wagon –
not even his swollen head could fit. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that
he could not see the light at all; and a doctor could not see his eyes even with an optical
device, so deeply sunken they were in the surrounding flesh. And his genitals became more
disgusting and larger than anyone’s; simply by relieving himself, to his wanton shame, he
emitted pus and worms that flowed through his entire body.
And they say that after he suffered numerous torments and punishments, he died on his
own land, and that land has been, until now, desolate and uninhabited because of the
stench. Indeed, even to this day no one can pass by the place without holding their nose.
This was how great an outpouring he made from his flesh on the ground.No one thinks this is what happened to Judas. Which means that the two traditions of Papias that
can be critically examined are clearly recognized as legendary, not historical. Why then would
anyone trust that Papias is reliable about something else he says – e.g., about Matthew and Mark?
Papias has been trusted in these sayings, for example by conservative New Testament scholars,
because these scholar want to trust him in these sayings, and for no other reason. They want to
trust him because he tells them what they want to hear. And when he tells them something they
don’t want to hear (in the other traditions he preserves) they choose not to trust him. This is not
critical scholarship. It is uncritical scholarship. Or perhaps we should call it what it is, credulous
scholarship.
these men are appointed by holy spirit,.
here is the source: http://www.economiadigital.es/es/notices/2015/01/la-fiscalia-imputa-una-estafa-de-mas-de-170-millones-de-euros-a-una-congregacion-de-testigos-de-jeho-65161.php.
basically, if you don't know spanish, it boils down to this: (my personal editorial of what i've read).
I'm finding corroboration!
http://infocatolica.com/blog/infories.php
01/23/15
The prosecution requested sentences ranging from 9 to 13 years in prison for a crime of fraud and other criminal bankruptcy for 6 of the 14 responsible for a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses to those accused of embezzling more than 170 million euroscollected, based on false promises, among more than 1,300 followers of the sect in Spain. He tells Carlos Quílez in Digital Economy .
The events date back to 2001, when 14 elders (the name by which Jehovah's Witnesses know their spiritual shepherds) using religious ceremonies to collect from his parish cash " to build a hospital in Barcelona , which under our direction, do not provide blood transfusions to patients of our worship " .
Some 1,300 members of the movement paid different amounts and at different times when the elders passed the brush. And they did so in the belief that their money would be used effectively for the construction of the hospital. But years passed and that did not happen. As is common ground in the trial against those responsible was recently followed by the Court of Barcelona, the accused spiritual leaders remained money .
these men are appointed by holy spirit,.
here is the source: http://www.economiadigital.es/es/notices/2015/01/la-fiscalia-imputa-una-estafa-de-mas-de-170-millones-de-euros-a-una-congregacion-de-testigos-de-jeho-65161.php.
basically, if you don't know spanish, it boils down to this: (my personal editorial of what i've read).
None of this makes the least sense whatsoever.
In fact, I'd almost be willing to bet it is fake.
Since when did JW's ever, ever, in their wildest dreams build a hospital?
Even raising ten thousand dollars would be a stretch, let alone millions!
I'm calling bullshit.
Somebody please convince me otherwise.
____________________________________________
