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

yup
xo

Well, at least you know you're making stuff up and not hiding 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

You are not as knowledgeable as you think you are, and appear to be a bit of a would be bully.

Yeah, that's hilarious. "Failure to comply" wrapped with personal insults and constant threats to leave in a huff only to come back with more threats of failure to comply with insults and more threats to leave. It's quite comical watching JD attempt to distort research, what the Bible says and his own words (while declaring his words to be assured) in an attempt to justify his belief system.

Apparently "not backing down" is now being a bully. Boo hoo!

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

luck would be on your side Terry.
most of these 41,000 divisions are along the lines of tradition, governance, and organization. In fact, as far as the truth being taught most of the 41,000 are theologically identical.

That presupposes those divisions, no matter how tiny, aren't important or that the divisions are all about tradition and organizations or than Christianity is true or that any of those 41000 denominations are 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

This is what I have done myself. Which is why the factual statements made in these threads by me are assured. I.e, viv apparently didn't grasp that saying Yeshua ben Yosef is his actual name

Wow. Proclaiming yourself and proclamations to be assured if the first sign of delusional grandeur. Fortunately, we have a record of this most recent episode of duplicity on your behalf. For your benefit,I will quote me quoting you: 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.

You never said anything about his NAME until you needed to change the subject. If it is delusions of grandeur that prevent you from acknowledging your own words, see a doctor. If it's simply an inability to be wrong because of some belief system, well, you've been caught lying.

The surety in responses to my unchangable facts is, indeed, very repugnant to me.

That sucks for you, eh?

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?"