Posts by Viviane

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!

Viviane

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.

OK, I just read the Hurtado passage in full. He says, plainly, there are multiple possibilites and says why he favors one over the others, which is exactly what I said. He says, and I quote, "At least three possibilities might account for the expression in Mark."

You were supposed to provide a reference that showed no one else was ever referred by who their mother was in Jewish culture (despite the example I provided already existing in the Bible). You instead provided an example saying EXACTLY what I said, "Why couldn't it just as easily meant the father was unknown or they had a reason for NOT wanting people to know who he was?"

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!

Viviane

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.

It is being discussed. You want to have a discussion about what in the Bible proves what about Jesus, you don't get to cherry pick the parts that support your position and ignore the rest. Not how it works.

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.

Excellent, I own that book, but it's a Kindle version so I will have to find specifically what you are referring to since your page numbers don't match up with Kindle.

In any event, good job on the one source! Now provide the rest if you expect to be taken seriously (as per your request of me). Lead by example.

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

OK, you're not a scholar. Got it.

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!

Viviane

Your reference in Ruth is not an example of the same expression.

Citation, please. Remember, there is no direct translation between Hebrew and Greek, so any citation will need expertise in translation between those languages.

they said as a fact, "a son has been born to Naomi" they did not call the boy, "Obed son of Naomi"

Indeed, just as they spoke of Jesus being the son of Mary, Obed was spoken of as being Naomi's son. Any disagreement with this obvious similarity will require you to provide a citation by an expert in translating both Biblical Hebrew and Greek.

However the proper expression x son of x was always when a male like this, "Jesus son of Joseph" or "Yeshua ben-Yosef". I assume you can see the distinction here.

Citation, please, on that being the proper reference. Whoever you cite will need to be an expert in both Hebrew and Greek since the NT was written in Greek and the OT in Hebrew.

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:

Proper citation requires both a page number and paragraph (as well as edition, in fact). Properly cite your references, please, otherwise it's obvious you're not being serious.

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.

We are discussing Jesus, therefore it does. You seem to only want to use scripture that supports your positions then ignore those that don't. Sorry, no cherry picking. You don't get to claim "Jesus was called son of Mary" without also realizing he was also called son of Joseph. In fact, his two genealogies were through Joseph, not Mary.

7

why is this not an issue with the wt org?

by sowhatnow in

i watched this and thought hmm, so when getting a birth certificate, your handing your child over to be owned by the govt.

anyone with the 'stock certificate of manifest' [how much your worth] is owned by their govt.. the wt is ok with everyone including themselves being owned by 'satans govt' lol.. in theory no jw should have a birth certificate.

especially since they let people in the past, die over that refusal to have a govt issued certificate.. they assign you a bond /stock number, its the tiny red letters on your certificate.. and you are now property of that government , so you have no rights to your children, they can take them if they feel you are in the wrong.. they and we are slaves to a govt.. [our last names are a 'brand' creepy.

Viviane

So.... you realize this is all crazy talk, right?

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!

Viviane

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.

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 .

Viviane

I'm going to assume then that you have no such sources and have spent no time actually studying this beyond what you can find on the Internet, or your own uneducated cursory reading of scripture

No such sources? As I said, I am, in part, using yours, the sources you claimed were reputable. Why would you make such an ignorant assumption? If you are attempting to be an NT scholar, you should learn to not make ignorant assumptions.

Until this is proven wrong, I will not take anything you say as a serious educated discussion.

I am doing my best to educate you. I can't make you learn.

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 .

Viviane

It wasn't a backport. You see it as such because you are looking back at it. What is being suggested is that they knew all along.

Jesus was never called Emmanuel. Every man born was born of a woman. Lots of people were called King. Lots of people were beloved by little children. But, most importantly, NONE, not ONE of those scriptures says anything other than a very generic thing that never says who or what specifically it is about or when. Saying "this means Jesus" is adding on extra meaning by later readers to the text, not simply letting the text speak for itself.

You are using tortured, pretzel logic in an attempt to make the facts fit your predetermined beliefs rather than follow the evidence objectively and draw conclusions based on that.

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!

Viviane

Thus to ignore Joseph shows the public knew about the issue regarding his birth. It's difficult to ignore the implications. I can concede we have no way of knowing FOR SURE this had derogatory intent, but we do know for sure this demonstrates they knew about his birth.

Why couldn't it just as easily meant the father was unknown or they had a reason for NOT wanting people to know who he was? You are assuming the saying "son of Mary" automatically implies all of these other things and there is no evidence for that.

it is supported by cultural history, and common sense should tell you that since they never referred to a male this way they were doing it here with Jesus for a reason. Unless you have a better explanation for why this cukture would randomly choose Jesus as the only example of the feminine expression "Son of Mary"?

Now you are assuming Jesus was the only person referred as being born of a virgin and as the son of woman. He was not.

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 .

Viviane

also could you list your references being used?

I am using your sources, among others.

You're talking about the same God being worshipped different ways. I'm not sure why you're drawing a distinction and trying to assert that Moses was dealing with a complete different God. Moses, or whoever wrote these books, made no effort to hide that El Shaddai and yahweh were identical. They explicitly said so

Wow. Way to twist my words. El was the supreme god in semitic cultures. Yahweh was a lessor, minor god, brother of Ba'al. Later, the Hebrew people's, the Israelites, who claimed Abraham as their founder, just as Muslims do, who worshiped Yahweh, began to give him qualities of El. El and Yahweh were not the same. Later semitic peoples merged two distinct gods into one, but ONLY for a very small subset of the semitic peoples that shared this pantheon of Gods.

I am drawing a distinction because that is what the evidence supports.

If the bible writers had made an effort to hide this gods history, I'd agree with you. But they didn't, so I don't.

The Bible clearly shows the evolution of the merging of these two distinct gods, even your own sources.

You seem to think this discredits the bible somehow, but it does not. Had the writer tried to hide it, like this God just chose him all the sudden, then it would - but that's not what happens in the books.

You seem to think the default should be "Bible until proven otherwise". It's not. BTW, God choosing anyone is a theological argument, not a historical one. It's got no place in a discussion on history.

All through the New Testament yahweh is actually recalled from the Old Testament and applied to Christ (Hebrews 1 is an example

That's a perfect example of people taking things written in one context and backporting the idea to mean something entirely different! Jesus, specifically, was not predicted in the OT. A similar thing happened to Yahweh.... things written about a completely different God, El, were eventually claimed to be about Yahweh and eventually their distinct identities were merged by Hebrew semitic peoples.

It would show that the God being referred to by Jacob and Abraham whom they spoke with was el Shaddai, later yahweh, and the being who becomes Jesus. While El, is the father of this being, the almighty who Christ refers to as greater than himself. It would fit the very binitarian view of the NT by demonstrating a similar view in the OT.

That's an incredibly tortured, pretzel logic interpretation of what you are reading. Sadly, that's what happens when you try to make the facts fit your beliefs and not the other way around.

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

Viviane

Now why is it people are assuming that humans made them?

Because there is no other known process by which that a structure like that can occur. As soon as there is evidence suggesting otherwise, they will investigate that.

Why aren't scientists coming up with theories on how natural processes made it?

Because in all of history and observation, there is nothing to indicate that is likely or has ever happened.

A bunch of earthquakes and things could have caused the stones to get carved up, and then landshift and earthquakes cause them to get filled up and buried, etc.

Very true. It also could have been caused by your sister that you might not have even know you had traveling back in time in a TARDIS just to mess with you. But, since there is zero evidence that either of those things can, does or has ever happened, there is no investigation into it.

Anyway, how life first began, that is life on this planet, looking into intelligent life vs random as part of all possibilities then your claim that then one must look at a rhino made of pigs is a ridiculous comparison. One would consider the possiblity where any sort of intelligent life is responsible for life on this planet, whether biological alien scientists, God, a rhino of pigs, etc.

Well, first of all, it's not "random". Secondly, since there is no evidence of intelligent life outside of humans, one cannot assume what form it would take. You simply don't know. Therefore, if you claim that, to be scientific, one must look at ALL possibilities, that must be included. For all you know, God is a rhino made of pigs and that is what spirit is made of, pigs. All means all.

Anyway the scientific process doesn't mean that all hypothesis that life originates on this planet and by random chance and that is the only possibility that is considered and investigated.

No one said it did. You clearly didn't understand what you said, my response or the implications of either.

If that is what you believe then your as close minded as you were when you were a JW.

I don't believe it. Only and idiot would and only someone who doesn't understand the scientific method or basic logic would derive that from what I said.

The basic problem with "all" is that first, it's a logical impossibility. Even if you want to include only broad topics as "all", you can't ever know if there is something you don't know, therefore you can't say you've investigated "all", ever. Period. Full stop. Do not pass go.

Secondly, there are some topics that are outside investigative possibilities. You say "god may have done it and we should investigate", but there is no way to do that. God is invisible, made of undetectable stuff that no one can describe, able to perfectly hide from detection and, according to Christian scripture, will cause death just by even looking at him. It's a perfectly un-investigatable explanation. There is no way to move forward. There is no evidence that ANYTHING was every cause by an invisible undetectable intelligence made of unknown stuff.

Why should anyone investigate that?