Biblical literacy - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 121 Old 02-23-2004, 12:48 AM
 
dado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
another book for the list...

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/bibli...2-0802840981-0

"Text of the New Testament"

this book is the most current source i have for a complete list of early fragments etc. i don't believe there have been any major finds in the past 15 years, but if anybody does have a more up to date reference, i'd love to hear about it.
dado is offline  
#62 of 121 Old 02-23-2004, 03:36 AM
 
Sean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by tracymom
OR they were writing for a Roman audience in a Roman culture and it wouldn't have been too wise to make the Romans too culpable.
It's true that Mark was a Roman, writing in Rome, for a Roman audience. But Matthew, Luke and John weren't. Matthew in particular -- where the "His blood be on us" verse is found -- was a Jewish writer, writing for a Jewish audience, in Jerusalem. Of all the Gospels, his is the most chock-full of quotes from and references to Jewish scripture, which would have been lost on Gentile readers. (Even the "His blood be on us" line is probably a reference to Jeremiah 26:15.) So if he had any incentive to cater to his audience, it would have been the other way, to emphasize, not minimize, Roman villainy. (You could reply that it was still a "Roman culture" he was writing for, inasmuch as Israel was under the rule of Rome; but from what I gather, the Roman occupation wasn't much appreciated by his audience.)

Quote:
Originally posted by kama'aina mama
Everything written is viewed through the lens of the writers experience, feelings about the events, etc. I feel that to refuse to acknowledge that is perhaps more dangerous than anything.
You're right, of course! Even a thoroughly detailed completely factual account must of necessity leave some details out while including others. And those decisions are always conscious and deliberate.

But I thought Dado was arguing not just that the details were included to reflect a particular point of view, but that the details were demonstrably false, which is a very different thing. I sure didn't mean to misstate your position, Dado, and if I did, I withdraw it.

Quote:
Originally posted by dado
"The guilt of the Jews only grows deeper with successive generations, entailing perpetual slavery." - Gregory XIII, 1581
Well, you were right, Google turned up the document in question.
http://www.menorah.it/articoli/letto...i/dce/djud.htm
It's called "Antiqua Judaeorum improbitas." Only it's in Latin. I know some Latin, but it's hard slogging, and I can't find an English translation anywhere. Furthermore the one Latin text I found was only on one Italian website that might have an axe to grind (though my Italian's worse than my Latin!), so I can't be sure it's authentic. And even if the Latin's authentic, I can't seem to find that sentence you quoted anywhere. The first sentence, which is 134 words long (!), does contain the phrase "perpetuae mancipati," which for all I know can mean perpetual slavery, but the document, near as I can figure, is about prohibiting slavery, and outlawing heresies. It will be an interesting project to tackle when I have time to translate it. It's a bit off our topic, but thanks for the citation. And I'll grant at least that whatever it says about Jews, it doesn't seem to be at all complimentary. It looks like it says Judaism is a form of heresy, but that can't be right, because only Christians can be heretics. Maybe it says Jews are causing heresy? Beats me. I'll try to figure out what it says and get back to you, probably on a different thread.

Quote:
not sure what you're getting at there...a Jew could never properly be convicted of being Moschiach since Moschiach wouldn't be Moschiach if he was convictable. it's a proof in the pudding kind of thing.
Well, yeah. Similarly, nobody could literally be convicted of being the King of the Jews. How could being a king be against the law? No the treasonous charge was that He claimed to be the king, when of course the empire already had a king. On His cross the placard said "King of the Jews." When Pilate was informed that it would have been more correct to write "He said He was King of the Jews," he replied, "Quod scripsi scripsi." I wrote what I wrote! More of a brush-off than an answer.

Quote:
if you're saying he was killed for a secular - ie, Roman - crime, that's my current opinion and it makes a lot of sense to me.
Yup, that's what I'm saying. I'm glad we agree!
Sean is offline  
#63 of 121 Old 02-23-2004, 04:04 AM
 
barbara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 2,044
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Good discussion here while I was away.
I appreciate all the scholarly debate, and have learned a lot of historical information from several of the posters.

It would be interesting to see a translation of the "Antiqua Judaeorum improbitas." that your search found Sean. Maybe we should all brush up on our Latin and have a go at it.

Some one said about the Jewish mamas and papas that "They are frustrated by our lack of understanding of their central, sacred texts and traditions." I can certianly understand that and have felt that frustration for them on more than one occasion. I guess I feel that as a Christian I would have to say that I also feel that frustration myself, when my sacred texts are treated as fabrications. Again I appreciate a discussion of scripture from an historical perspective, but when talking about sacred texts, I feel that a certian amount of respect is due, regardless of one's own opinion of them. I hope that makes some sense in light of being respectful of the diversity on MDC.
barbara is offline  
#64 of 121 Old 02-23-2004, 05:05 AM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 21,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kama'aina mama
Everything written is viewed through the lens of the writers experience, feelings about the events, etc. I feel that to refuse to acknowledge that is perhaps more dangerous than anything.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean said
Quote:
You're right, of course! Even a thoroughly detailed completely factual account must of necessity leave some details out while including others. And those decisions are always conscious and deliberate.
hhmm... see I would disagree with that last statement. I think certainly slant is sometimes deliberate, but not always. It is easy enough to imagine potential motivation for various biblical scribes to have introduced this train of thought or that line of thinking.. but it is, in the final analysis unsupportable so cannot ever be anything but speculation. I think what is more supportable is to look at concurrent accounts of the same events or similar ones and simply try to make the most educated presumption as to what filters the writings may have been through.
kama'aina mama is offline  
#65 of 121 Old 02-23-2004, 09:39 AM - Thread Starter
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Last night's CNN thing, total waste of time. Same old, same old. Silly episode on what he looked like with a bust by a forensic sculptor. Snore.

An expert (full of bias) said:

"There is absolutely no evidence in the Bible Jesus was married."

"Of course it was completely common for Jewish men of the time to be celibate."

"Jesus was a humble carpenter."

Me talking to screen:

Yes, there is evidence he was married.

Of course it was required for all Jews to marry and breed, esp rabbis.

Jesus' stepfather was a "tekton." An architect (reference to the gnostic Demiurge, whom Joseph symbolizes). Whether Jesus was a carpenter or not is moot. He was seemingly a trained rabbi. He was called rabbi by his followers. Rabbis were required to be married by Jewish law.

So, back to my Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.

Sean, are you a lawyer? You have a very logical mind.
DaryLLL is offline  
#66 of 121 Old 02-23-2004, 11:24 AM
 
dado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by barbara
...as a Christian I would have to say that I also feel that frustration myself, when my sacred texts are treated as fabrications.
do you take that feeling into consideration when quoting Isaiah in a manner completely inconsistent with Judaism?

"my" text..."your" text...this implies ownership where there is none, imo.
dado is offline  
#67 of 121 Old 02-23-2004, 01:49 PM
 
Sean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
DaryLLL: No, I'm an ad man, not a lawyer. Thanks for the compliment, though. (It was a compliment, right?)

Quote:
Originally posted by dado
do you take that feeling into consideration when quoting Isaiah in a manner completely inconsistent with Judaism?
I'm all for doing away with the ignorance that can cause disharmony among people of different faiths, but I don't think that was a fair criticism.

Isaiah, like all the prophets, Psalms, Torah, and other Jewish sacred texts, is a Christian sacred text as well. The difference is, Christians interpret the texts in light of Christ's revelation, so in that sense it would be "in a manner completely inconsistent with Judaism." (I assume that's what you mean by that accusation.)

So a Christian might go and say something like...
Quote:
Isaiah 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.
...is actually a prophecy of Christ's mission. A Jew, naturally enough, would disagree. I don't think either party would be displaying ignorance or insensitivity, though. The Christian, having accepted Christ, is required to interpret Isasiah this way, because that's how Christ interpreted it!
Quote:
Luke 4:20-21
And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
But it surely shouldn't give any more offense than when a Jew interprets these texts in a manner inconsistent with Christianity? These particular disagreements don't arise from ignorance or any sort of ill feeling, but a genuine belief that Christ's revelation is -- or is not -- true.
Sean is offline  
#68 of 121 Old 02-23-2004, 02:27 PM
 
dado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sean
I'm an ad man

you write well, i was curious myself. (yes, it's a compliment )

Quote:
Isaiah, like all the prophets, Psalms, Torah, and other Jewish sacred texts, is a Christian sacred text as well.


i agree. that is why i dislike the idea that someone "owns" texts or has a special "right" to certain texts. ultimately - imo - it is about what the reader brings to and takes from the texts that gives them value. Matthew no more belongs to Barbera than Isaiah belongs to me: or even the reverse, Matthew belongs as much to me as Isaiah belongs to her.

(i'm not picking on you, B, just using your post as a convenient jumping off point.)

Quote:
I assume that's what you mean by that accusation
there was no "accusation". we're making more or less the same point.
dado is offline  
#69 of 121 Old 02-23-2004, 02:56 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 21,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I am afraid I am the one who started the "my text" "your text" loqution. Ooops.
kama'aina mama is offline  
#70 of 121 Old 02-23-2004, 07:13 PM
 
Chanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Between here and there
Posts: 3,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Nothing of substance to say except,
DaryLLL, keep up the talking. we are listening and taking it all in.
Fascinating stuff!
Chanley is offline  
#71 of 121 Old 02-23-2004, 07:34 PM - Thread Starter
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thx Chanley.

Maybe I should mention some reasons as to why I started this thread.

Philosopher King asked and this is my answer, whether he checks back in or not.

There is a conflict today in our culture between those who insist every word of the Bible be taken as inerrant, and those who see it differently.

Iwas raised in a conservative Lutheran church with an insistence on the first way to believe. Well, it just did not suit my personality or intellect. My mother (a closet atheist) encouraged me to question every assumption our pastor tried to force down our throats.

I left the Xtian church when I was about 15. When I was in college I learned more about Eastern religions.

Later I came across the writings of Joseph Campbell, who is a comparative mythologist. A great mind. He really clicked with me. Some Xtians object to the word "myth" as disrespectful, but IMO, all culture's sacred scripture is myth and it is not a dirty word. I find truth in myth.

I look at all sacred scripture/myth as beautiful and important and meaningful. Greek and ancient Egyptian as well. I have a new tender love of the Christ consiousness (in the Pauline, not the gospel sense) and it goes with Buddha nature and Krishna consciousness that I also hold dear. I am gnostic and look deeply into sacred scripture to find the underlying streams of relationship to God/dess.

I find the first several books of Paul to elucidate best my area of intersection with Xtianity. The rest of it is interesting and fascinating as a window into 2000 yr old politics and culture, but I do not find all the ideas and narratives to be convincingly or historically accurate. I enjoy the Tanakh for these reasons as well. I take Exodus as a gnostic myth of release from identification with the body and becoming subsumed into the spirit (as Paul did) .

To close, my sig is a Tibetan Buddhist mantra which calls to the foreground of consciousness the compassionate Buddha and goddess, Kwan Yin.
DaryLLL is offline  
#72 of 121 Old 02-23-2004, 07:58 PM
 
dado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by DaryLLL
I take Exodus as a gnostic myth...
Exodus is an awesome story that works on any number of levels - whether it happened or not. if nothing else, wandering the desert for 40 years is a cautionary tale on what happens when men simply refuse to stop and ask for directions.

dado is offline  
#73 of 121 Old 02-23-2004, 09:36 PM
 
Nemmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Happy Valley, but heart in Alaska
Posts: 3,291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
:LOL
Nemmer is offline  
#74 of 121 Old 02-23-2004, 10:15 PM
 
Sean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by kama'aina mama
I am afraid I am the one who started the "my text" "your text" loqution. Ooops.
"My" and "your" are what's called possessive pronouns, but they don't always denote possession or ownership. For instance, the United States is my country (but I am not claiming to own the United States any more than I own France) because I live here. English is my language (even though the guys who print the dictionaries don't pay me a nickel in royalties) because I speak it. See, sometimes the possessive grammatical form is used to modify aspects of a person besides ownership.

Barbara didn't speak of "my texts," implying some sort of proprietorship. She said "my sacred texts." There's a world of difference, and any speaker of English should know what she meant by that: the texts she believes to be sacred. Kama'aina mama similarly referred to "their central, sacred texts and traditions." They were both entirely within their rights to use these pronouns in this sense. It's common, standard, simple, English usage of the possessive, and I don't wish to see "my" branded as an insensitive word no one is allowed to utter for fear of offending the tender-eared.

So, Dado: you are quite right to assert that, say, the Gospel According to Matthew is not "Barbara's text" any more than it is "your text." Nobody ever claimed otherwise.

But if you do not believe the text to be sacred, and she does, then it is quite right to say it is her sacred text, and not yours. If you both believe the text to be sacred, it is her sacred text, and also yours. But either way, she should be allowed to number it among her sacred texts.

Yes, I think I'll allow that. (And remember, English is my language, so I can do that.)
Sean is offline  
#75 of 121 Old 02-24-2004, 08:48 AM - Thread Starter
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by dado
Exodus...is a cautionary tale on what happens when men simply refuse to stop and ask for directions.
Yeah. Too bad Miriam wasn't leading. They'd've been through that nasty desert in 6 months!
DaryLLL is offline  
#76 of 121 Old 02-24-2004, 11:37 AM - Thread Starter
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by DaryLLL
I find the first several books of Paul to elucidate best my area of intersection with Xtianity..
Want to correct myself. I also have spent time reading much of the Nag Hammadi gnostic texts, and the teachings of Mani, Marcion and Valentinus, who were called heretics by Eusebius.

Just because the early Roman Church wanted to edit and consolidate their belief system is not a reason for me to want to neglect the fascinating diversity of the writings of the first Christians.

Freke and Gandy (the Jesus Mysteries) elucidate how the inner (esoteric) teachings of Xtianity were neglected in favor of the outer (exoteric) teachings. These teachings were kept alive to an extent in certain monasteries, by alchemists and in certain parts of Europe outside the reach of Rome. We have Jews and Muslims to thank as well for keeping this heresy alive in their libraries and retreats. The underground stream keeps bubbling up here and there all along. William Blake, for ex., was an 18th-early 19th century poet/mystic/painter who was gnostic.
DaryLLL is offline  
#77 of 121 Old 02-24-2004, 12:37 PM
 
dado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by DaryLLL
Yeah. Too bad Miriam wasn't leading. They'd've been through that nasty desert in 6 months!
...and they wouldn't have ended up in the one place in the region without oil.

dado is offline  
#78 of 121 Old 02-24-2004, 02:07 PM - Thread Starter
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Um, well, Israel/Judah gots plenty of olive oil.
DaryLLL is offline  
#79 of 121 Old 02-24-2004, 03:27 PM
 
tracymom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In your soon to be locked thread.
Posts: 3,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
William Blake, for ex., was an 18th-early 19th century poet/mystic/painter who was gnostic.
I just knew I liked him for a reason. Course they don't tell you that in high school.
tracymom is offline  
#80 of 121 Old 02-25-2004, 02:21 AM
 
barbara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 2,044
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by dado
do you take that feeling into consideration when quoting Isaiah in a manner completely inconsistent with Judaism?

"my" text..."your" text...this implies ownership where there is none, imo.
My sincere appology if that offended you. I quoted Isaiah in order to answer a question asking for the Scripture chapter and verse. I understand that your interpertation of that verse would be different from the commonly accepted Christian interpertation, and it would have been more sensitive of me to have stated that at the time of quoting it.

In refering to the scriptures as "mine" I was stating that I hold them sacred, not that they in any way belong to me.
sorry,
~b

edited to say that I posted this before reading the posts that followed. It looks like Sean did a better job of explaining this than I. thanks!
barbara is offline  
#81 of 121 Old 02-25-2004, 01:40 PM - Thread Starter
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Was it fair of the proto-Xtian evangelists to use the Hebrew Scriptures in this way? Taking things out of context?

As I understand it, prophecy was not originally meant to be fortune telling.

Prophet-
1) A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
2)A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
3)A predictor; a soothsayer.
4)The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause

A soothsayer is only one meaning of prophet. Any Jews want to give insights as to the value of the prophets in Judaism today and in the past?
DaryLLL is offline  
#82 of 121 Old 02-25-2004, 03:54 PM
 
dado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by DaryLLL
Any Jews want to give insights as to the value of the prophets in Judaism today and in the past?
in the latest Heb/Eng JPS version of Tanakh, Torah proper comes in at 454 pages, Ne'evim, the books of the prophets, weighs in at 953 pages.

prophets were/are the spokespersons for G-d. the vast majority of prophets spoke to and for their own generations - you can think of them as social critics, generational conscience, etc - as role models, not for living, per se, but for the way to approach the process of living. for me, personally, the prophets are really the key, because they are the bridge between what is recorded so legalistically in Torah and the everyday acts of living. and also because they embody so much passion.

prophets are as necessary as ever today, and will remain so until Moschiach comes.

and since i'm sure someone is going to ask, no, daniel was not a prophet. his visions were just that, visions, not prophecies.
dado is offline  
#83 of 121 Old 02-25-2004, 06:27 PM
 
Sean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by DaryLLL
Was it fair of the proto-Xtian evangelists to use the Hebrew Scriptures in this way? Taking things out of context?
Fair or unfair? Those are loaded words, and that question is largely moot, at least for Christians. Bear in mind that for people who believe the Gospels are true and not fictional, it wasn't the "proto-Xtian evangelists" who interpreted Jewish scripture this way; it was Jesus Christ. That pretty much takes it out of the realm of fairness or unfairness, since it's not something a Christian is at liberty to contravene, without simultaneously rejecting Christ and His Gospel.

(For that matter, it wasn't just the evangelists; Paul did it too.)

Besides, we've already established that nobody "owns" the texts, so I don't see how fairness could be called into question.

If it makes you feel better about it, Christian scholars have always held that interpreting scripture is not necessarily an either-or choice. That is to say, the Holy Spirit could have put numerous meanings in a passage, all of which are true. So, assigning a new Christian interpretation to a text does not negate other true interpretations.

I should like to repeat that the differing interpretations Christians and Jews assign to the very same texts should not be taken as evidence of ignorance, bigotry, unfairness, or any other bad thingy. That would be a very bad path to go down.
Sean is offline  
#84 of 121 Old 02-25-2004, 09:36 PM - Thread Starter
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Sean
.If it makes you feel better about it, Christian scholars have always held that interpreting scripture is not necessarily an either-or choice. That is to say, the Holy Spirit could have put numerous meanings in a passage, all of which are true. So, assigning a new Christian interpretation to a text does not negate other true interpretations.
I do not see evidence they "always" held this viewpoint. They (scholars, bishops and Popes) were pretty big on rooting out "heresy" for centuries.

Leaving the Holy Pneuma and the "Truth" out of it , of course, any time an artist (writer/chronicler, poet, etc) puts something out there, people will read their own personal meanings into it.

Just like Charles Manson and Paul McCartney's song Helter Skelter. Was Paul comfortable with his song being used this way?

Quote:
I should like to repeat that the differing interpretations Christians and Jews assign to the very same texts should not be taken as evidence of ignorance, bigotry, unfairness, or any other bad thingy. That would be a very bad path to go down.
Leaving simplistic value judgements like "bad" out of it, let's say the syncretizing was very-- creative! (The Septuagint was not the only text the evagelists used. Paul quotes Plato, Jesus quotes Dionysus.)

I think it is worth pointing out that the Xtian interpretation of Jewish prophecies is not the only or original one, as I was led to believe and I am sure many Xtian children still are. Which is why I asked for the Jewish perspective.

Quote:
Bear in mind that for people who believe the Gospels are true and not fictional, it wasn't the "proto-Xtian evangelists" who interpreted Jewish scripture this way; it was Jesus Christ.
And I know one can be a Xtian and not take the Bible as literal historical fact, word for word.
DaryLLL is offline  
#85 of 121 Old 02-25-2004, 10:10 PM
 
dado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
yeah, i'm having trouble parsing that last sentence myself. anyway, i slogged through Tellurian's "Adverso", surprisingly benign stuff really. well not entirely benign, the quality of translation nearly killed me :LOL

i think next i'm going tackle pre-Jamnian material, starting with the Qumran scrolls.
dado is offline  
#86 of 121 Old 02-25-2004, 10:11 PM
 
Sean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by DaryLLL
I do not see evidence they "always" held this viewpoint.
Nonetheless.

Quote:
They (scholars, bishops and Popes) were pretty big on rooting out "heresy" for centuries.
And they still are. It's their job.

Quote:
Leaving the Holy Pneuma and the "Truth" out of it , of course, any time an artist (writer/chronicler, poet, etc) puts something out there, people will read their own personal meanings into it.
Yes, they will.

Quote:
Just like Charles Manson and Paul McCartney's song Helter Skelter. Was Paul comfortable with his song being used this way?
I expect not. (But then, Paul really did "own" that text, so might not the analogy suffer?)

Quote:
Leaving simplistic value judgements like "bad" out of it, let's say the syncretizing was very-- creative!
Very appropriate. Not to quibble, but I might capitalize Creative.

Quote:
And I know one can be a Xtian and not take the Bible as literal historical fact, word for word.
Indeed that's the case. Thank you for your response.
Sean is offline  
#87 of 121 Old 02-25-2004, 10:14 PM - Thread Starter
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Fair or unfair? Those are loaded words, and that question is largely moot, at least for Christians. Bear in mind that for people who believe the Gospels are true and not fictional, it wasn't the "proto-Xtian evangelists" who interpreted Jewish scripture this way; it was Jesus Christ. That pretty much takes it out of the realm of fairness or unfairness, since it's not something a Christian is at liberty to contravene, without simultaneously rejecting Christ and His Gospel.
Coming back to say, hey wait a minute! When did this thread become one for the literalist Xtian viewpoint only? Are you in charge of defining terms now?

You (and 2 or 3 other people) may have decided nobody owns the Hebrew Scriptures. I did not take place in that conversation. I feel the Hebrew Scriptures belong to the Hebrews. At least they get first dibs.

But that's just me.
DaryLLL is offline  
#88 of 121 Old 02-25-2004, 10:24 PM
 
tracymom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In your soon to be locked thread.
Posts: 3,714
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
You (and 2 or 3 other people) may have decided nobody owns the Hebrew Scriptures. I did not take place in that conversation. I feel the Hebrew Scriptures belong to the Hebrews. At least they get first dibs.

But that's just me.
Nope, not just you. Me, too.
tracymom is offline  
#89 of 121 Old 02-25-2004, 10:34 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 21,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Maybe someone can help me out. How many times did Jesus quote Hebrew scripture? And how many times did He specifically say that they refered to Him?
kama'aina mama is offline  
#90 of 121 Old 02-25-2004, 10:37 PM
 
dado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by DaryLLL
I feel the Hebrew Scriptures belong to the Hebrews.
it's ok. Yeshua was a Jew, too, so the interpretations attributed to him fall under the Fair Use umbrella. Saul would be provisionally covered thanks to the Beit Hillel connection attributed to him in Acts, but it has to be said there is now a lot of evidence the Gamliel story is a complete fabrication.

what's ironic is that Saul's brand of Paulinism gained prominence over the more jewish-flavored sects run by people who had actually known Yeshua thanks to the promotion of a Gnostic who himself was later declared heretical. it is interesting to wonder what c'ianity - and judaism - would look like today if constantine hadn't put the pagan stamp of approval on the Pauline stream.

sigh. two peoples separated by a common book.
dado is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off