Leolaia
JoinedPosts by Leolaia
-
84
Awake!: Caption Time!
by Stephanus inhere's a typical awake!
cover showing the sorts of problems we have that won't be solved until 99.999% of the population die at armageddon:.
here's the cover with the text editted out to help you in your captioning quest:.
-
-
-
84
Awake!: Caption Time!
by Stephanus inhere's a typical awake!
cover showing the sorts of problems we have that won't be solved until 99.999% of the population die at armageddon:.
here's the cover with the text editted out to help you in your captioning quest:.
-
-
-
16
Alexander Hislop Two Babylons
by pc ini read the post about vine and was wondering if anyone has more information on hislop.
my family always quoted his book two babylons in regard to the cross and other so called pagan origins.
late this fall i started to research his book and found the inconsistencies with it.
-
-
Leolaia
Hey that was a great link. I enjoyed reading it.
-
16
Alexander Hislop Two Babylons
by pc ini read the post about vine and was wondering if anyone has more information on hislop.
my family always quoted his book two babylons in regard to the cross and other so called pagan origins.
late this fall i started to research his book and found the inconsistencies with it.
-
-
Leolaia
I have the book. I haven't read it in ages. From what I recall, it is a very old book. It has very archaic notions about Babylonia based not on the firsthand evidence of cunieform texts and archaeological finds but from unreliable secondhand information from classical sources like Herodotus. It also gives some very questionable etymologies of names and words.
-
16
Alexander Hislop Two Babylons
by pc ini read the post about vine and was wondering if anyone has more information on hislop.
my family always quoted his book two babylons in regard to the cross and other so called pagan origins.
late this fall i started to research his book and found the inconsistencies with it.
-
-
Leolaia
It's quite odd isn't it how the WTS quotes a book written by someone from Babylon the Great to prove who Babylon the Great is, yet the book was written to show how the author's religion was not part of Babylon the Great.
-
23
Jesus and the Fig Tree
by Leolaia inluke 16:19-31).
matthew 13:3-9; mark 4:2-9; luke 8:4-8; gospel of thomas 9:1).
" (luke 8:4-8).
-
-
Leolaia
But the gospels are rather "aggressive" in this regard. For instance, in Jewish culture, much like in Latin America, naming children after icons was the thing, so there were lots of Marys around, so many that in the company of women who took care of Jesus and the apostles there were three "Mary Magdalenes", women named Mary who served as personal assistants and companions. When Jesus died, each of them visited the tomb, but at different times. Thus the gospels had to account for all three visits.
Ummm, aren't the discrepencies better accounted for by positing different epiphany traditions than three different Mary Magdalenes? Why, for instance, does Jesus go to meet his disciples in the Galilee area in Mark, yet he meets them in Jerusalem in John? Why does the non-Markan ending in Mark 16:9 say that Jesus "appeared first" to Mary Magdalene, while Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:5 says that "he appeared first to Cephas"? Moreover, Matthew refers to the women as "Mary of Magdala and the other Mary," Mark refers to them as "Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James, and Salome," Luke refers to "Magdala, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James," and John just refers to Mary of Magdala. Mary was a common name; Mary of Magdala was not. So by positing three different visits by three different Mary Magalenes, not only were there three separate people with the same uncommon name but there would have to be at least two different "Mary the mother of James," and thus two different James who both had a mother named Mary. That's a bit much to swallow.
-
23
Jesus and the Fig Tree
by Leolaia inluke 16:19-31).
matthew 13:3-9; mark 4:2-9; luke 8:4-8; gospel of thomas 9:1).
" (luke 8:4-8).
-
-
Leolaia
Isn't "Infancy Thomas" a relatively late work, and thus not a good source?
Yes, indeed, that's my very point. It represents a much later development of the Fig Tree motif, but one that can still be traced back to earlier tradition. My hypothesis is that Infancy Thomas builds on the earlier miracle narratives which in turn build on a still earlier parable.
-
41
Simon, Cephas, Peter, Judas, Thomas, Didymus
by Leolaia inthis post is in response to peacefulpete's interesting post from my king david thread, which i quote below: .
leolaia...if you look again at 1cor you'll see peter is not there only an ebionite named cephas is.
the only reference to "peter" in any of "pauline" works is gal 2:7 and it is an interpolation made for the very reasons being discussed.
-
-
Leolaia
There is really no need to search the tons of texts of the Hebrew scriptures to find some veiled allusion to a canonical gospel line when the reason for a line is simply and clearly explained by looking at the text on the previous page and figuring out the plot. Its a little bit like searching the Aeneid for references to the God of War Mars to try to figure out why the so called American President announced a mission to Mars last week.
I have to disagree with this. It is quite clear that OT exegesis was involved in construing Jesus as a paschal lamb and as a scapegoat sacrifice, and the examples I showed attest the recruitment of motifs from these rituals. It is also quite apparent that similar motifs and elements were recruited from all over the OT to construct all sorts of things about Jesus' life -- many of these are even cited directly in the text (cf. Matthew 2:6, 15, 18; 12:18-21; 13:14-15; 21:5; 27:9; John 19:24, 28, 36-37). A better comparison would be if President Bush gave his speech about a mission to Mars but peppered his speech with a lot of references to the Aeneid, some in direct quotes and elsewhere in language borrowed from the Aeneid.
-
41
Simon, Cephas, Peter, Judas, Thomas, Didymus
by Leolaia inthis post is in response to peacefulpete's interesting post from my king david thread, which i quote below: .
leolaia...if you look again at 1cor you'll see peter is not there only an ebionite named cephas is.
the only reference to "peter" in any of "pauline" works is gal 2:7 and it is an interpolation made for the very reasons being discussed.
-
-
Leolaia
Thanks for posting this. I know I got the information from an exegesis of Matthew 26:50 where it addressed specifically the use of eph' ho in Greek literature, but I was going by memory and I will need to check where I read that (whether it was from an article, book, or commentary). It seemed a credible claim to me, but not being an expert in Greek I certainly acknowledge that the claim could have been erroneous. The discussion, as I recall it, concerned the relative pronoun ho and whether it could form an interrogative by itself. And my mind is open about this verse, if it turns out that the evidence goes the other way I wouldn't have a problem changing my position; as it is I really haven't delved into the literature on this verse very deeply, and I offered my opinion about the verse based on what I remembered reading about it and not through any sort of "deep study" of it. I'll be sure to let you know when I've found the source of the grammatical claim about ho in the main clause of direct questions.
-
23
Jesus and the Fig Tree
by Leolaia inluke 16:19-31).
matthew 13:3-9; mark 4:2-9; luke 8:4-8; gospel of thomas 9:1).
" (luke 8:4-8).
-
-
Leolaia
Peaefulpete....yeah, Jesus sure was a little snot in Infancy Thomas. He appears, even as a little boy, as a judger of those who "sin". Very different from the Synoptic and Johannine Jesus' emphasis on love, patience, not judging each other, and forgiveness. I wonder if this trend in Infancy Thomas has something to do with construing Jesus as the Son of Man figure from 1 Enoch who will sit on the Judgment Seat on the Day of the Lord and judge humankind of their sins. This certainly plays a role in the more apocalyptic sayings, and the denunciations and curses Jesus is made to say in the Synoptics.
