Posts by Viviane

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

That is exactly how the Jews merged El and Yahweh into a single error, Terry.

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

Christianity mirrors a history of such battles from 1st century until this very hour.

Well said again, Terry. As Larry Hurtado says in chapter 1 of his Book "Lord Jesus Christ", Christianity was battling for converts and attempting to be relevant as well as gaining converts from non-Jewish cultures, there is no WAY they could not have been influenced by those ideas and religions. An example he gives is the ever increasing language around the Christ/God/Son/Father relationship parallels and is likely a reaction to increase of the same type of language in the popular emperor cult of the Flavians.

Scholars agree that the fingerprints, as you called them, of page, Jewish, polytheistic, Greek, Roman and other religions are all over Christianity. How could they not be,

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

Suffice to say, first century Christianity was a coalescence of streams of oral teaching, influences, debate, and stratification inside the community right up through the Nicene Council. The 'fingerprints' of neo-Platonic Christianity were everywhere in evidence.

Well said and absolutely correct, Terry. The evidence demonstrating the outside influences on Semitic Hebrew religious evolution, the later Israelite religious evolution and Christian thinking and doctrinal evolution are plain to see for anyone interested in looking. It always amazes me when I see people begin with the conclusion and then try to explain away, twist, misquote, change the meaning of words, ignore passage, cherry pick and resort to insults in an attempt to contort the evidence to fit their pre-conceived notions.

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

There, this will suffice. A son was always given his fathers name, not his mothers. It was part of their culture. Hence, because your example in Ruth does not follow this proscribed method of naming at all - it is not an example.

Whoa, slow down there, turbo dog. We are not discussing what Jesus name was as part of his community, we were discussing, and I'll quote you here, "The referrence to him as the son of Mary". If you want to discuss what his name would have been, that's fine and it's great, but it's an entirely different conversation. As I have shown, he WAS referred to as "son of Joseph" if you want to get into nameing, but, according to you, we are discussing a reference to him, not what his name would have been.

What you've not done is show that no one else, ever, in Jewish history, was referred to as being the son of their mother.

You also continue to refuse listing your owned sources and reference works.

I've been using your sources and the Bible. You assured me they were reliable. Do you now dispute that?

This tells me you are not really interested in anything but an argument, and have not actually studied anything what so ever.

Given the personal attacks and ignorance you've displayed so far, it's not surprising at all that you would continue that trend. This is, in fact, at least the fifth time you said you were done. I assume at some point you actually will be.

You are not worth responding to, and I mean no offense. You stand discredited, good day and farewell.

Yeah, you keep saying that. So far none of that has been true.

But as of this post, I will be ignoring any and all further posts by viv in the future that do not include a reference to book title, author, page number and paragraph supporting any and all statements she makes.

You forgot edition. If you want to rise above amateur, you'll need to include that. If you are going to steal my idea, at least steal it properly. It just feels like you're not even trying when can't even properly steal an idea.

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

You still have not responded as requested. I hope you don't drain your bank buying all the books I listed, kindle versions can still be expensive I.e., the one you bought.

Drain my bank account? Of course not. As I said, I already own the book, along with dozens of others. I'm not sure if you are ignorantly implying I'm poor (I'm not) or that I didn't actually own the book (I did). Either way, as you'll learn if you ever progress from amateur to scholar, you will immediately lose credibility if you attempt to make debate personal.

Since you continue to not list your sources, I again assume you have none, and have only purchased this one because of being called out.

I own books by Israel Finkelstein, William Devers, Elaine Pagels, Burton Mack, Bart Earhman, Richard Carrier, Mortimer Adler, Reza Aslan etc., etc.. Stop being ignorant and pretending to know things you don't know.

Btw check out page 332, I believe that's the page where it discusses Jesus being called Emmanuel - enjoy.

Yep, he discuses it in that he says that that claim is unique to Matthew. Jesus was never called Emmanuel in the Bible and Hurtado doesn't dispute that in any way.

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.