Posts by Leolaia

11

Leaky Belly Button

by peacefulpete in

john 7:38 is a weird verse, " the one believing into me, as the scripture said," out of his belly/womb will flow rivers of living water.

" it claims to be quoting scripture, yet it certainly is not quoting directly any ot passage known.

the folowing is from a conversation at another forum.

Jesus gave no signs

by peacefulpete in

according to mark 8:11-13 jesus was grieved even indignant at the request for some "sign".

had he not done many before and would he not do miraculous signs yet?

i propose (not original to me) that some early form of mark (urmark) or q contained no miracles.

I was thinking the other day about the lack of institutional memory which seemed a little odd. But within the context of the Synoptics, I think the policy on silence was more a narrative device that repeats and gives structure to the gospel in its repetition: the pre-Easter Jesus forbids the news that he is the Messiah to be spread by demons (Mark 1:25, 34; 3:12), by those he cured (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26), and even by the apostles (8:30; 9:9), and the silence was not to be broken until after his death (cf. Matthew 10:27), and once he rose from the dead, then it was alright to declare the news about Jesus (Mark 16:17). The Synoptics explain the silence and Jesus' desertions of his disciples as due to the danger he found himself in (Mark 5:19; Matthew 12:14-16), and John 6:15 also has a similar theme, of the crowds desiring to take Jesus by force and make him their king. Jesus' avoidance of publicity of his work is a theme possibly derived from the Suffering Servant songs in Isaiah where the servant explicitly avoids such publicity and does not make his voice heard in the streets or aloud (Isaiah 42:2-3). Matthew 12:17-21 directly cites this passage in Isaiah as the "prophecy" that Jesus had to fulfill. This might be an attempt to rationalize Mark's repeated emphasis on the theme in his gospel.

11

Leaky Belly Button

by peacefulpete in

john 7:38 is a weird verse, " the one believing into me, as the scripture said," out of his belly/womb will flow rivers of living water.

" it claims to be quoting scripture, yet it certainly is not quoting directly any ot passage known.

the folowing is from a conversation at another forum.

Leolaia

PP.....I'm actually working on a list of apocryphal and pseudepigraphal citations and allusions in the New Testament and Apostolic Fathers, and that was one of the scriptures I was researching. The γραφη quoted in John 7:38 cannot be explained satisfactorily from any OT parallels or rabbinic traditions and was probably drawn from an apocryphal source no longer extant:

ποταμοι εκ της κοιλιας αυτου ρευσουσιν υδατος ζwντος --- potamoi ek tes koilias autou rheusousin hudatos zontos --- "Out of his belly (ek tes koilias autou) shall flow (rheusousin) rivers of living water (potamoi ... hudatos zontos)" (John 7:38)

There are partial parallels, such as Psalm 78:15-16 (LXX) which, referring to the waters of Meribah, says that "he brought forth water (hudor) also out of a rock (ek petras), and caused waters (hudata) to run down like rivers (potamous)." Another partial parallel is Zechariah 14:8 which says that "in that day living waters (hudor zon) shall flow (exeleusetai) out of Jerusalem (ex Ierousalem)." Jeremiah 2:13 refers to God as "a fountain (pegen) of living waters (hudatos zoes)." Isaiah 30:25 refers to "streams (meteorou) of water (hudor)". But the wording and thought in John 7:38 is different, particularly in locating the waters in one's koilia and the use of the future active indicative of rheo "to flow," which constitutes an NT hapax legomenon. There is a connection between koilia and hudor "water" elsewhere in John: in John 3:4-5, Jesus likens being "born of water (hudatos) and the Spirit" in baptism with "entering the mother's womb (koilian) a second time". The expression ek tes koilias autou "out of his/her belly" is consistent with a birth metaphor which is itself consistent with the life-giving properties of the water. The closest parallel would be in Isaiah 66:7-12 which refers to Israel being reborn from a womb (steiras, not koilias) and being nursed by Zion "like a river (potamos)" and "like an overflowing stream (kheimarrous)." Ezekiel 47 in particular elaborates the notion of the restored Temple as flowing streams and rivers of life, "for wherever the water goes it brings health, and life teems wherever the river flows" (47:9). We therefore have a cluster of different motifs in the OT that contribute to the saying in John 7:38.

These various motifs from the OT Prophets were surely not assembled together by the Johannine author, who cites a pre-existing "scripture" (graphe), and just such an assembling of OT motifs occurs regularly in intertestamental pseudepigrapha, particularly Jewish apocalyptic literature. The inspiration behind of the text in John 7:38 appears to be one that designates the eschatological Zion or Jerusalem as a woman who provides rivers of life-giving water; there are traces of this in Revelation, of the woman in labor and giving birth to the eschatological kingdom in Revelation 12:1-2 and heavenly Jerusalem described "as beautiful as a bride all dressed for her husband" in 21:2, wherein flows "the river of water of life (potamon hudatos zoes)" (22:1), an expression clearly dependent on Ezekiel 47. 4 Ezra also draws on the same theme of Zion as a woman who gave birth to the Temple:

"This is the meaning of the vision. The woman who appeared to you a little while ago, whom you saw mourning and began to console, but you do not now see the form of a woman, but an established city has appeared to you, and as for her telling you about the misfortune of her son, this is the interpretation: This woman whom you saw, whom you now behold as an established city, is Zion. And as for her telling you that she was barren for thirty years, it was because there were three thousand years in the world before any offering was offered in it. And after three thousand years Solomon built the city, and offered offerings; then it was then that the barren woman bore a son. And as for her telling you that she brought him up with much care, that was the period of residence in Jerusalem. And as for her saying to you, 'When my son entered his wedding chamber he died,' and that misfortune had overtaken her, that was the destruction that befell Jerusalem." (4 Ezra 10:40-48)

A good candidate for the original source of the scripture quoted in John 7:38 might then be the Apocryphon of Ezekiel, of which only fragments survive but which show dependence on the OT Prophets and an apocalyptic orientation. One of the existing fragments (Fr. 3), explicitly describes a vision of a heifer giving birth, which (if related to 1 Enoch 90:37) may refer to the coming of the Messianic dominion. It would not be inconceivable for an apocalyptic vision to describe rivers of life flowing from a womb. Another possibility is that John is drawing his "scripture" from the Wisdom literature, which would describe in feminine language how Wisdom (=Sophia) provides life-giving water from her womb. Since John already draws heavily on the Wisdom literature, this possibility is also quite attractive. It is also probable that the two traditions have merged: Sirach 24:10-11 refers to Sophia as "established in Zion; in the beloved city he has given me rest," and v. 25-31 has Sophia making wisdom brim "like the Pishon, like the Tigris ... like the Euphrates, like the Jordan ... like the Nile, like the Gihon ... like a conduit from a river, like a watercourse running into a garden ... my conduit has grown into a river, and my river has grown into a sea." A third possibility is a pagan source. There is a rough parallel in Buddhist literature:

"That is the Tathagato's knowledge of the twin miracle? In this case, the Tathagato works a twin miracle unrivalled by disciples; from his upper body proceeds a flame of fire, and from his lower body proceeds a torrent of water." (Patisambhida, 1.53)

Hope this helps.

15

Whats the first thing you wanted to do?

by Strawberryfieldsforever in

jw
friends

after learning the truth about the truth, whats the very first thing you wanted to do?

Leolaia

GO TO AN R-RATED MOVIE!!!

36

How far back do you remember?

by dh in

jw
friends

what are your first memories?

i started to write a post about this the other day but it turned into a bio, so i deleted it.. my first memory is my mom carrying me into a house and putting me on the floor with another boy, and talking to some guy behind me while i watched the other kid playing with a board game.

it turned out that the other kid was my older brother, the man was my real father who i never met, and because of the time frame of events i was well under a year old when this happened.. i also remember being rocked to sleep as a baby by my mom, and trying to tell her i wasn't tired but not being able to.. do you have early memories?

Leolaia

It has been said that the brain is not capable of retaining memories from the first year of life. Nevertheless, I have a clear memory of an event that happened when I was 7 months old: the San Fernando earthquake. The thing is: I don't remember the event directly, what I recall is a series of recurring nightmares about the earthquake that I had throughout my early childhood (last dream was when I was 7). And there are elements to the memory which are definitely imaginary and derive from my nightmares. But there are other elements (especially the appearance of the room, the rattling floor boards, seeing through my crib) which are accurate, and which are probably real memories. For instance, several months after the earthquake the house was carpeted and then we moved from the house when I was 2. Yet I can still recall the rattling wooden floor which indeed was uncarpeted at the time of the earthquake.

Aside from that, I don't have any memories until I was 3. I recall setting the table for dinner around the time I turned 3, I recall going to daycare at the bowling alley, and I most vividly recall Christmas when I was 3 years old.

On edit: My earliest Dub-related memories are twofold. One was going to my first meeting in a very big building that had very rough stucco walls and there was a person in the back in a wheelchair. The second was of my mom reading me the pink Listening to the Great Teacher book and she showed me the picture of Jesus' tomb after the resurrection, and I pointed to the round stone that had been rolled away and asked, "Is that God?"

26

SUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIOUS

by dh in

jw
friends

the topic here is made up words, can you think of any good ones... .

keep the faith, .

dh'

Leolaia

Some ones I regularly use:

nerkle: (n.) A person who leaves their Christmas lights up all year. (in use since 1984)

remoriable: (adj.) Memorable. (in use since 1988)

okskie-dokskie: (interj.) Okie-Dokie. (in use since 1992)

22

Greatest tribulation upon Judaism?

by peacefulpete in

for jws and other fundementalists the destruction of jerusalem in 70ce is a unquestionably the fullfillment of the words in mark 13.19. however to see the city's leveling as the " tribulation such as has not occurred since the world's beginning until now" as referring to death numbers we must surmise the death toll to have been horrific indeed!

josephus is of course oft quoted for the numbers.

according to him 97,000 were taken prisoner while 1,100,000 were killed.

Leolaia

Peacefulpete.....Thanks for the link to Price's review of Eisenman's book. I have always meant to pick up Eisenman's tome but was somewhat intimidated by its length, but now I see what I was missing. Very fascinating synthesis. The thing I liked the most was his taking seriously the obscure Jewish-Christian writings that generally are overlooked (i.e. the Pseudo-Clementines, the Ascents of James, etc.), and treating them on par with Luke's Acts, as well as decentering Jesus from the James traditions. He may have solved some of the identity problems of those in the gospels and Acts, but bifurcation was not the only process involved and conflation of separate personages seems to have been underestimated to some extent. I am quite skeptical of some of the equations between names and some of the postulated etymologies (such as of Boanerges) look a little specious. I am even more dubious of identifying the Qumrun Teacher of Righteousness with James (are all those documents mentioning the ToR really that recent?), but I am not acquainted with the facts of the matter. It would have been something if an independent source like Justus of Tiberias had survived. But with what we have, it seems quite plausible that James was as Eisenman characterizes him, as an Essene or post-Essene Jewish leader affiliated with the Zealots and Nazorean and Ebionite groups. But, as carefully as he locates Peter/Cephas, John, and James in his reconstruction, I wasn't quite sure from Price's review what Eisenman regards as the identity and background of James' brother (son of Cleophas) who is otherwise known as Jesus.

36

Jesus gave no signs

by peacefulpete in

according to mark 8:11-13 jesus was grieved even indignant at the request for some "sign".

had he not done many before and would he not do miraculous signs yet?

i propose (not original to me) that some early form of mark (urmark) or q contained no miracles.

Leolaia

I was just reading this morning how the characterization of Jesus as an miracle worker in the Synoptic gospels was modeled partly on the Elijah/Elisha cycle and partly on the figure of Moses, as related in Exodus and the Book of Jannes and Jambres. The Moses theme is quite striking but little noticed because it draws on developments outside of the Torah. In Q 11:19, 24-26 (Luke 11:19, 24-26 = Matthew 12:43-45), Jesus critiques the exorcists of his day as making matters worse and resulting in greater possessions by "unclean spirits". The people assert that Jesus expells demons by the power of Beelzebub, "the prince of the demons" (Luke 11:15), while Jesus states that he acts with God's power (Luke 11:20). The people also demand from Jesus a "sign" (semeion) (Luke 11:29). All of this suggests that Jesus' relationship with other miracleworkers is akin to that of Moses and the magicians of Egypt (Exodus 7-9), where Pharaoh demands a "sign" (semeion) of Moses:

"When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a sign [semeion e teras],' then you shall say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh, and it will become a snake." (Exodus 7:9; LXX)

This parallel helps explain the use of "sign" to refer to a miraculous wonder; in the Masoretic text, the equivalent term is mwpt "wonder" and in the Targum Onqeles (Ex. 8:5) the term is gbwr' "mighty deed". The connection between Moses and "signs" also runs throughout the LXX (cf. Exodus 10:1-2; 11:9-10; Numbers 14:22; Deuteronomy 7:19; 11:3; 26:8; 34:11; Psalm 78:43; 135:9; Baruch 2:11; Wisdom 10:16; Sirach 36:5; 45:3). Psalm 78:43, for instance, refers to God "imposing his signs on Egypt, by displaying his wonders in the plains of Zoan."

The accusation that Jesus casts out demons by the prince of demons also mirrors the extrabiblical belief that Pharaoh's magicians, known otherwise as Jannes and Jambres, were in league with the Devil. Thus in the Dead Sea Scrolls, we read: "Moses and Aaron stood by the hand of the Prince of Lights and Belial raised up Jannes [yhnh] and his brother in his plotting, when Israel was first saved" (CD 5:18-19). In the Testament of Solomon, the demon Abezethibou asserts that "I am the one whom Jannes and Jambres, those who opposed Moses in Egypt, called to their aid" (25:3-4). Similarly, Jubilees 48:9 claims that the demon Mastema helped the Egyptian magicians against Moses. Against this accusation, Jesus declares that he casts out demons "by the finger of God" (en daktulo theou), which is a direct reference to Exodus 8:19: "And the magicians said to Pharaoh [in reference to Moses' signs], 'This is the finger of God (daktulos theou).' " (LXX). This quotation firmly establishes the link between Jesus' miracles and signs in Luke 11:14-32 and the miracles and signs of Moses in Exodus 7-9 and Jewish legend. Eusebius, for instance, recognized the parallel by quoting Exodus 8:19 and then saying: 'In like manner did Jesus the Christ of God say to the Pharisees, 'If I by the finger of God cast out devils.' " (Dem. ev. 3.2). Also telling is how Luke 11:20 links the allusion to Exodus to the Kingdom of God: "But if it through the finger of God that I cast out demons, then know that the kingdom of God has come upon you." This statement is legible by understanding that Jesus, as a modern-day Moses, has a similar role by bringing people under the bondage of sin (i.e. Israelite slaves) into the blessing of the eschatological kingdom (i.e. the Promised Land), just as he also parallels Moses in bringing a new relationship with the Law. Psalm 78:42-43 thus says that "he saved them from the oppressor by imposing his signs on Egypt", and Deuteronomy 26:8-9 says that "Yahweh brought us out of Egypt with mighty hand and outstretched arm, with great terror, and with signs and wonders. He brought us here and gave us this land, a land where milk and honey flow."

Another connection between Jesus in Luke 11 and Moses which is missing in the original Exodus narrative but found in extrabiblical sources is the mention is amazement; in the Book of Jannes and Jambres, Moses is described as "doing signs (semeia) so that all are amazed (thaumazein)" (Pap. CB XVI 26a-r). Similarly, Jesus exorcized a dumb man and "the crowds were amazed (ethaumasan)" and the growing crowds continued to seek "a sign (semeion)" (Luke 11:14, 29). In the Moses traditions, then, we find that Moses did miracles (Exodus 7-9; Jannes and Jambres), the people marvelled (Jannes and Jambres), there are competing miracle workers who do what Moses does and Pharaoh's magicians perform their magic through allegiance with the Devil (Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish tradition), Moses is asked to perform a sign (Exodus 7:9) and works his miracles by the finger of God (Exodus 8:19), and significantly Moses' competitors fail (Jannes and Jambres). In Luke 11:14-26, Jesus similarly performs a miracle (11:14), and the people marvelled (11:14), there were competing miracle workers who did what Jesus did (11:19, 24-26), while Jesus is accused of working through allegiance with Beelzebul (11:15). Jesus is asked to perform a sign (11:18), and works his miracles by the finger of God (11:20), while his competitors fail (11:24-26).

The characterization of Jesus as a miracle worker in Q (and the Synoptics) may therefore simply derive from extending the parallel between Moses and Jesus (already established by Jesus' role as a Law-giver/interpreter and Savior figure) further. However, since Moses was not specifically characterized as an exorcist, the Moses motif appears to be building on an earlier exorcist tradition.

Leolaia

102

The Trinity in the Old Testament

by hooberus in

"and god said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

" genesis 1:26 .

note the plural "our image", "our likeness" yet from other verses it is clear that man was created in gods image and likeness (singular).. "so god created man in his own image, in the image of god created he him; male and female created he them.

Leolaia

Herk....Misrepresentation occurs on both sides, my only point was that there are surely far better things to read from a unitarian point of view than the Trinity Broshure which deliberately and doggedly takes statements out of context and plays fast and loose with its sources.

102

The Trinity in the Old Testament

by hooberus in

"and god said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

" genesis 1:26 .

note the plural "our image", "our likeness" yet from other verses it is clear that man was created in gods image and likeness (singular).. "so god created man in his own image, in the image of god created he him; male and female created he them.

Leolaia

The dishonesty in that broshure was one of the biggest things that disturbed me before I left. You may not realise its dishonesty because you haven't checked the references and the sources it cites. I already knew very well the views of the church fathers, and I was truly shocked to see how beliefs of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc. were misrepresented. The Watchtower also published an article around the same time about Polycarp that even more blatantly misquoted him. If you are not acquainted with the primary sources misquoted and misrepresented by the Watchtower, how can you make a judgment that it is not dishonest?