Biblical Texts: explication & discussion

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Krumple
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 04:12 am
@KaseiJin,
Quote:
"Find a 33 year old man from peasant stock , make him and his message more influenced than Jesus. Make him walk on water, raise a man who was dead for four days and is stinking from decay, heal the blind, maimed and sick"

"Convict him falsely of a crime of blasphemy he did not commit, scourge him with sixty cat and nine stripes and crucify him , bury him in and waite outside for him to raise up from the dead after six days"


Alright I'm done, I got everything in the above list completed.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 05:11 am
@Krumple,
It is really hard to communicate with an insulting lamp post :perplexed:

Old Arab Curse

"May the fleas of ten thousand camels be lodged in your beard"

War
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 06:00 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;65940 wrote:
xris Paul had a epiphiny on the road to Damascus, were Jesus appeared to him as a bright light, blinding him with the words, Paul Pual why do you persecute me (he meant of course the christains)

Sorry if you know this

KaseiJin

Resectfully, could you post in more digestably chunks, you are one really imformed guys, but I dont think referal to numerous bible verses will make the participants in this thread really go and open there bibles and read the actual word Smile

A person once came up to Napoleon and said we should invent a better religion than Christianity. To which Napoleon is said to have replied OK

"Find a 33 year old man from peasant stock , make him and his message more influenced than Jesus. Make him walk on water, raise a man who was dead for four days and is stinking from decay, heal the blind, maimed and sick"

"Convict him falsely of a crime of blasphemy he did not commit, scourge him with sixty cat and nine stripes and crucify him , bury him in and waite outside for him to raise up from the dead after six days"

Let him say he is the Son of God

Then come back to me and I will start you new suggested religion

Peace to you

Alan
Alan his epiphany was the realisation he could make Christianity his own.He manipulated it from a simple message of hope from a wise man .He made it into something that controlled men not comforted them.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 06:29 am
@xris,
xris;65958 wrote:
Alan his epiphany was the realisation he could make Christianity his own.He manipulated it from a simple message of hope from a wise man .He made it into something that controlled men not comforted them.


Hmm!!!! xris I must think about that, was Jesus a Christian?
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 07:15 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;65940 wrote:
. . . KaseiJin

Resectfully, could you post in more digestably chunks, you are one really imformed guys, but I dont think referal to numerous bible verses will make the participants in this thread really go and open there bibles and read the actual word Smile


I will take the suggestion into consideration, Alan. I may be able to swing it, but the arrangement might become too loose to follow up on (for those reading, that is). I do agree that the length of my posts are a bit on the heavy side, and even that alone might cause some to skim them, rather than carefully read them.

I do think it is ashame that more people do not really study biblical works--not only canonical material. It would also be good to make efforts to do some study in the original languages, as well . . . but I know it's just not possible for most folk (time and daily routine and life style just really get in the way).

One thing that is good to keep in mind, I would urge (and as I will slowly present) is, just because some matter is in written form, and happened to have been on a document which through the course of practice and familiarity of usage was considered a standard (canonical process for first and early second century Christian works), it would be wrong to take the written matter at face value (as Napoleon is said to have done) without testing it for historical value; to the degree that it can be tested.

Anyway, I'll help with the testing. . .and will consider you suggestion very seriously. Thanks AM.


ps. We would not be able to consider Yeshua a Christian; he was a Jew.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 08:23 am
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin;65977 wrote:
I will take the suggestion into consideration, Alan. I may be able to swing it, but the arrangement might become too loose to follow up on (for those reading, that is). I do agree that the length of my posts are a bit on the heavy side, and even that alone might cause some to skim them, rather than carefully read them.

I do think it is ashame that more people do not really study biblical works--not only canonical material. It would also be good to make efforts to do some study in the original languages, as well . . . but I know it's just not possible for most folk (time and daily routine and life style just really get in the way).

One thing that is good to keep in mind, I would urge (and as I will slowly present) is, just because some matter is in written form, and happened to have been on a document which through the course of practice and familiarity of usage was considered a standard (canonical process for first and early second century Christian works), it would be wrong to take the written matter at face value (as Napoleon is said to have done) without testing it for historical value; to the degree that it can be tested.

Anyway, I'll help with the testing. . .and will consider you suggestion very seriously. Thanks AM.


ps. We would not be able to consider Yeshua a Christian; he was a Jew.


Thank you! Could you please give us a brief summary of your position relating to biblical text. Should we accept what we like and dismis what we find unpalatable if you get me drift.

Much beauty can be found in the word attributed to Jesus, but then in the Book of Revelations we are met with statements like chapter 2
verse 22 "And I will kill her children with death and all the churches shall know that I am he which searches the reins and hearts and I give every one of you according to your works " ??
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 12:15 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Who attributed these words to jesus..Alan..and i did know Jesus was a Jew..but who educated him is more to the point..
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 12:45 pm
@xris,
xris;66028 wrote:
Who attributed these words to jesus..Alan..and i did know Jesus was a Jew..but who educated him is more to the point..


Who actually educated Jesus is unknown , most likely the Pharisees (teachers) of the day. It is postulated that Jesus was hugely intelligent, thus he been able to confound the learned men in the temple while still only a child of twelve. By the way the only mention in the bible of him as a child

xris the writer of Revelations is said to be the apostle John in his old age, he was supposed to have written this book in a cave on the island of Patmos just off the coast of present Turkey , sometime in the late first century maybe AD 90

No one knows for sure, if I had not read the bible and I came across this book I would think it a work of science fiction or fantasy. I find it very hard to believe, all this wrath and everlasting punishment

But my disbelief or belief will not alter the truth about scripture, I simply don't know the answers

The truth will be the truth, whatever this mysterious truth is or is not
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 12:56 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;66040 wrote:
Who actually educated Jesus is unknown , most likely the Pharisees (teachers) of the day. It is postulated that Jesus was hugely intelligent, thus he been able to confound the learned men in the temple while still only a child of twelve. By the way the only mention in the bible of him as a child

xris the writer of Revelations is said to be the apostle John in his old age, he was supposed to have written this book in a cave on the island of Patmos just off the coast of present Turkey , sometime in the late first century maybe AD 90

No one knows for sure, if I had not read the bible and I came across this book I would think it a work of science fiction or fantasy. I find it very hard to believe, all this wrath and everlasting punishment

But my disbelief or belief will not alter the truth about scripture, I simply don't know the answers

The truth will be the truth, whatever this mysterious truth is or is not
Paul is the culprit, he transfers his own beliefs into the Jesus story.He is the power house that argues with Peter and stamps his mark on the new book.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 01:47 am
@xris,
xris;66044 wrote:
Paul is the culprit, he transfers his own beliefs into the Jesus story.He is the power house that argues with Peter and stamps his mark on the new book.


You don't like Paul xris, yes he was somewhat of a bragger and egotist.

Oh! I forgot to add It is Dual who came up with the idea of salvation by grace alone, based on this a good person could go to hell and a believer a sinning one at that, who dwells under the umbrella of grace is saved and happily bounces off to heaven

Jesus most definitely said we must try to be good and righteous ,he said we must earn our salvation and I can quote manner scripture verses to this effect

Peace to you xris
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 08:33 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;65993 wrote:
Thank you! Could you please give us a brief summary of your position relating to biblical text. Should we accept what we like and dismis what we find unpalatable if you get me drift.


Alan, we must endevour to seek out and associate as many details as possible on textual matters, so as to come to as accurate an average understanding as possible on these biblical textual matters. It would be very wrong to pick and choose--regardless.

Alan, our Bible of today is a collection of documents which a small number of people in the very far past had kept in a routine-like practice of usage (for especially the NT), and had come (therefore) to consider sactioned. While there are many documents from which they could have chosen, only a few were selected.

As I have pointed out, and as I am slowly presenting, these documents reflect the artistic imagination of the human brain in many ways, reflect the cultural social settings in other ways, and reflect the understandings of natural principles.

This is about as much of a summary as I can give. I will continue presenting the details which tend much more so than not, to back up this summary.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 12:55 am
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin;66821 wrote:
Alan, we must endevour to seek out and associate as many details as possible on textual matters, so as to come to as accurate an average understanding as possible on these biblical textual matters. It would be very wrong to pick and choose--regardless.

Alan, our Bible of today is a collection of documents which a small number of people in the very far past had kept in a routine-like practice of usage (for especially the NT), and had come (therefore) to consider sactioned. While there are many documents from which they could have chosen, only a few were selected.

As I have pointed out, and as I am slowly presenting, these documents reflect the artistic imagination of the human brain in many ways, reflect the cultural social settings in other ways, and reflect the understandings of natural principles.

This is about as much of a summary as I can give. I will continue presenting the details which tend much more so than not, to back up this summary.


Some people say the Bible is a guide to life, many truths reside in its words, but how do we sift out what is irrelevant to us in these latter days

Daniel "Book of Daniel" says In the last days men will rush to and fro and knowledge shall increase.

Gosh I cant think of a better desription of the present age we live in
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 12:21 am
@Alan McDougall,
Which 'Daniel' would you speaking of, then? Of course, I know which one, but this introductory question was simply to point out that there is more than one Daniel, you see. The Masoretic text does take one of them, but there is another too, and at what is essentially our present 12:4, the other text does not give us this, but instead says simply 'injustice will abound.'

However, at the same time, there are other texts which have this very same apocalyptic mantric model, such as the Akkadian Prophecies, or, the Enoch texts. The link between the Jewish textual traditions in apocalyptic texts and those of the Mesopotamia are greater than their differences, thus suggesting a strong line of influence in style and language mimic.

What we always have to look for, in finding things that are worth really holding on to, is the element of pure univerality and timelessness. We can check that for the Masoretic Daniel:

[indent] We will notice, in chapter eight, of Daniel, that the spokesman of the vision which is being described tells Daniel that the prophecy was about the appointed time of the end. (8:19, 26) We will also find that repeated in verses 9, 10 of chapter twelve. It cannot escape notice, when paying attention, that when the vision that is said to have occurred, Daniel had been told to keep the words secret and sealed until the end--a time when Michael was to 'stand up,' and 'a time of distress such as had not been made to occur, nor would ever occur again' was to occur.

We can see a type of play on this in the technique used at Revelation 22:6, 10, when the spokesman is said to have ordered that John to 'not seal the book,' for the end was to be then. This line of thought, the earlier sect's tenet (as highlighted and discussed above) is in those documents, just as the speech claimed to have been made by Peter (Acts 2:14~21, 40 --also compare Mt 24:15 regarding the prophecy of Daniel) is in that document, because they were expecting such to happen then and there, in their life times. They also attributed such a message to Yeshua. That claim was a false claim, just as the prophecy in Daniel is a false claim. [/indent]

There will be a tendency by some to attempt to apply the looseness① of Jewish apoclyptic literature (Revelation included) to anything in the present stream of time, and, if we were to allow it, such would continue for as long as any social group of human beings were to still hold to such documents as being anything but mere human creativity. If any 'last day,' or 'last days,' come before our sun expands out in size (some estimated 5.5 million years down the road [if my memory on that figure is correct]) so as to end life on this planet as we know it, even, there will surely be a last days during the period of dehydration of the planet. (but nothing like what the ancient Jewish [or other traditions for that matter] thought of it as being.)



① And it had to be loose in order to be interpreted in any number of associations as time went on--which may have well lead to scribal changes and alterations along the way.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 12:46 am
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin;67285 wrote:
Which 'Daniel' would you speaking of, then? Of course, I know which one, but this introductory question was simply to point out that there is more than one Daniel, you see. The Masoretic text does take one of them, but there is another too, and at what is essentially our present 12:4, the other text does not give us this, but instead says simply 'injustice will abound.'

However, at the same time, there are other texts which have this very same apocalyptic mantric model, such as the Akkadian Prophecies, or, the Enoch texts. The link between the Jewish textual traditions in apocalyptic texts and those of the Mesopotamia are greater than their differences, thus suggesting a strong line of influence in style and language mimic.

What we always have to look for, in finding things that are worth really holding on to, is the element of pure univerality and timelessness. We can check that for the Masoretic Daniel:
[INDENT] We will notice, in chapter eight, of Daniel, that the spokesman of the vision which is being described tells Daniel that the prophecy was about the appointed time of the end. (8:19, 26) We will also find that repeated in verses 9, 10 of chapter twelve. It cannot escape notice, when paying attention, that when the vision that is said to have occurred, Daniel had been told to keep the words secret and sealed until the end--a time when Michael was to 'stand up,' and 'a time of distress such as had not been made to occur, nor would ever occur again' was to occur.

We can see a type of play on this in the technique used at Revelation 22:6, 10, when the spokesman is said to have ordered that John to 'not seal the book,' for the end was to be then. This line of thought, the earlier sect's tenet (as highlighted and discussed above) is in those documents, just as the speech claimed to have been made by Peter (Acts 2:14~21, 40 --also compare Mt 24:15 regarding the prophecy of Daniel) is in that document, because they were expecting such to happen then and there, in their life times. They also attributed such a message to Yeshua. That claim was a false claim, just as the prophecy in Daniel is a false claim. [/INDENT]There will be a tendency by some to attempt to apply the looseness① of Jewish apoclyptic literature (Revelation included) to anything in the present stream of time, and, if we were to allow it, such would continue for as long as any social group of human beings were to still hold to such documents as being anything but mere human creativity. If any 'last day,' or 'last days,' come before our sun expands out in size (some estimated 5.5 million years down the road [if my memory on that figure is correct]) so as to end life on this planet as we know it, even, there will surely be a last days during the period of dehydration of the planet. (but nothing like what the ancient Jewish [or other traditions for that matter] thought of it as being.)



① And it had to be loose in order to be interpreted in any number of associations as time went on--which may have well lead to scribal changes and alterations along the way.


You are very informed on scripture from various belief system , all this great research by an intellectual like you, makes belief you are really trying to find puropse reason reality, the why?, who? how? where? when? what? then? when? that? this? I am being not flippant I have a similar drive an insatiably curiosity about nearly any topic one could think of , but I remain uncertain , perplexed will I only know truth after I die

From that I perceive within you a deep profound need to KNOW?
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 11:21 pm
@Alan McDougall,
In picking up from post #79 (second from bottom on page 8), we can see Luke tells us that after the incident at the tomb, the five or more women went back and told the eleven disciples, and the others but they did not believe the women. At that point in the text (vs 12) we have another spurious entry that probably wouldn't have been in the original. (about Peter's having gone off alone to view the tomb)

Luke then goes into a little side story about two of Yeshua's troupe traveling to a nearby villiage. (this is an error; there was no villiage of that name in that area) ① It was on into the night, or early evening, that these two are said to have arrived back at Jerusalem where we are told then that Yeshua had appeared to Peter. (cf. 1 Cor 15:5) Then, at about that very moment, Yeshua is said to have suddenly appeared in their midst, in the flesh.

This clearly contradicts Matthew's narrative report in a number of ways. First, Matthew (the text) tells us that Yeshua had told (direct quote) the two Marys to tell the disciples that he would meet them in Galilee (the 'angel' had too). In Mark's account, the same thing is told the women by the young man in a white robe sitting to the right side inside the tomb; not by Yeshua himself.

Then, since Yeshua is said to have met the women while they had been on their way back to the disciples (Mt 28:8) the account of Luke, in putting emphasis on the men and Peter's having met Yeshua, is awkward. Of course, John contradicts the whole of these narrative reports. Again, holding Luke as the control, the other accounts amount to hisorical error (in the sense that such did not occur in history, thus is an error of report). I'll pick up next, from here.





① This section has been very well shown to have been a take on the Jacob by the well story of Hebrew tradition.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 12:19 am
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin;69359 wrote:
In picking up from post #79 (second from bottom on page 8), we can see Luke tells us that after the incident at the tomb, the five or more women went back and told the eleven disciples, and the others but they did not believe the women. At that point in the text (vs 12) we have another spurious entry that probably wouldn't have been in the original. (about Peter's having gone off alone to view the tomb)

Luke then goes into a little side story about two of Yeshua's troupe traveling to a nearby villiage. (this is an error; there was no villiage of that name in that area) ① It was on into the night, or early evening, that these two are said to have arrived back at Jerusalem where we are told then that Yeshua had appeared to Peter. (cf. 1 Cor 15:5) Then, at about that very moment, Yeshua is said to have suddenly appeared in their midst, in the flesh.

This clearly contradicts Matthew's narrative report in a number of ways. First, Matthew (the text) tells us that Yeshua had told (direct quote) the two Marys to tell the disciples that he would meet them in Galilee (the 'angel' had too). In Mark's account, the same thing is told the women by the young man in a white robe sitting to the right side inside the tomb; not by Yeshua himself.

Then, since Yeshua is said to have met the women while they had been on their way back to the disciples (Mt 28:8) the account of Luke, in putting emphasis on the men and Peter's having met Yeshua, is awkward. Of course, John contradicts the whole of these narrative reports. Again, holding Luke as the control, the other accounts amount to hisorical error (in the sense that such did not occur in history, thus is an error of report). I'll pick up next, from here.





① This section has been very well shown to have been a take on the Jacob by the well story of Hebrew tradition.


Your painful logic needs reviewing, take this analogy a airplane roars over your home you rush out your front door and see it speeding off to the east

You go back inside converse with your spouse etc

Your next door neighbor hears nothing, until he takes off his headphones used for listening to music,then he rushes out of his back door and sees the plane going up in smoke far in the distance

You both make an account on paper, exactly as you both saw the event, "but your accounts differ hugely", but both of you remain truthful to what you have seen

There were hundreds of villages sprinkled all over Judea, how the heck can you say over two thousand years later what was actually there and actually not??

I once lived in a tiny village of Welverdeen in SA this tiny village will not appear in any history books


Get the point?

All this nitpicking is a little irritating, you appear to be relating the whole sarge as if you were a witness, were you there??
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 07:49 pm
@Alan McDougall,
In order to prevent any misconceptions or misunderstandings there are a few points which would best be expounded on here in a couple or so of posts. Of course, in presenting on this thread in a way so as to make it more readable, I am summarizing detail rather than presenting it here. (Of course there will be times that I will present detail.)

The first point I'll examine is that of the village name provided by Luke's narrative. There are two traditions of witnesses to the gospel documents, the Alexandrian tradition (AT), and the Western tradition (WT). In the later chapters of Luke we have a rather major division of exemplar tradition (that means, in lay terms, that the content of the writings is rather different). I'll provide the text content on this single point below:
[INDENT]Codex Bezae (AT)
hesan de duo poreuomenoi eks auton en auti ti hemera eis komen apexousan stadious eksykonta apo Ierousaleme onomati Oulammaus

Codex Vatianus (WT)
kai idou duo eks auton en auti ti hemera hisan poreuomenoi eis komen apekousan stadious eksykonta apo Ierousaleme hi onoma Emmaous

We will also find in various different renderings within individual witnesses in these traditions, oulamlouz and oumaous.
[/INDENT]The first thing that is seen that there is no firm opinion on the name of that said villiage, therefore we must check outside information (extra-biblical texts), and check archaeological studies using the distance (stadious eksykonta = 60 stadia [one stadia is about 1.1 kilometers]).

Josephus mentions one villiage which he gives as Ammaous which was at a distance from Jerusaslem of about 30~35 stadia. Also archaeological studies give us one El-Qubeiba (present name) which lies about 60 stadia from Jerusalem, which was probably a village in that general late 1st century BCE~1st century CE [ The Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE may have caused that area to have been vacated ].

However, we run into one more problem with a major text, Codex Sinaiticus (and also Nth 079vid) which gives us 160 stadia, rather than 60. Then, in summing up three other lines of evidence and reasoning, we can come to see the major possible problem here.

As the textual form evolved, later scribal tendencies were far removed from the early sect's emotional and understood attachment with Judaism, and details of tenets and teaching methods which were very Jewish, were lost, or somewhat weak in the minds of those scribes. There is an actual town named Emmaus which is about 175 stadia from Jerusalem. It is mentioned in 1 Maccabees 3:40, 57; 4:3 as the location where there had been an actual, historical battle. (the text's immediate and overall context does not allow for any 'spiritual' or prophetic meaning)

In the confusion (and we are talking late 2nd to early 4th century CE here) over what had originally been intended, some obviously penned 160 to meet the requirements of the actual distance to that real town (totally ignoring the other points in Luke's text). However, the more obvious intent of the original is that Luke had intended to present a teaching behind the words--telling a story which, while not really a true historical event, is used to instil a morale or point-of-teaching.

In the Hebrew Masoretic text tradition, at Genesis 28:19 (the story of Jaccob) we find that a name Beth-el was given to a place that used to bear the name Luts (or Luz, depending on the transliteration used). In the Septuagint (LXX) there at 28:19 we find that the name of that place had been given as Oulamlous. This was either an unitnentional misreading of the Hebrew (in Hebrew oolam loots means, formerly Luts) or an intentional alteration of the original text. At any rate, as time passed, later mid to late second century BCE Christian scribes had lost touch with the reality of the orginal intent.

Therefore, we can arrive at the secure conclusion that this short story given by Luke was to borrow on the story of Jacob, which it fits very, very closely (if one really studies it--and it was commonly used in Hebrew expositions and story telling in that era) to impart a teaching regarding those of that day (the early Christian people) being within the Jewish law and model, only to await the second coming to be freed from that. (this requires a thorough investigation of the intro of Acts too, since it is basically a two volume document)

So, in the end, we can determine that most likely this pericope (little story) was not even intended to be a report of actual history by Luke, but had been used as a fanciful and 'cryptic-like' instrument to communicate an early Christian teaching. It was not history, so the error was made by those who had lost touch with that Jewish element of the early sect, and tried to present it as an actual historical event.

But you see folks, this much to properly explain one single summarizing sentence I had earlier made, is a good example as to why I avoid the detail as much as I can, and make summary statements. Of course, however, if anybody doubts that summary, I'm always very willing to provide the detail on the grounds that the challenger carefully pays attention to the details and thinks logically and conscientiously on and over them !!

I will next explain why it is erroneous to appeal to creative analogies to try to make the incoherent, coherent, when it comes to the gospel narratives, and will carefully demonstrate the error you have committed, Alan. I encourage you to carefully consider it . . . each and every detail, please. Thanks ! KJ
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 12:35 am
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin;69522 wrote:
In order to prevent any misconceptions or misunderstandings there are a few points which would best be expounded on here in a couple or so of posts. Of course, in presenting on this thread in a way so as to make it more readable, I am summarizing detail rather than presenting it here. (Of course there will be times that I will present detail.)

The first point I'll examine is that of the village name provided by Luke's narrative. There are two traditions of witnesses to the gospel documents, the Alexandrian tradition (AT), and the Western tradition (WT). In the later chapters of Luke we have a rather major division of exemplar tradition (that means, in lay terms, that the content of the writings is rather different). I'll provide the text content on this single point below:[INDENT]Codex Bezae (AT)
hesan de duo poreuomenoi eks auton en auti ti hemera eis komen apexousan stadious eksykonta apo Ierousaleme onomati Oulammaus

Codex Vatianus (WT)
kai idou duo eks auton en auti ti hemera hisan poreuomenoi eis komen apekousan stadious eksykonta apo Ierousaleme hi onoma Emmaous

We will also find in various different renderings within individual witnesses in these traditions, oulamlouz and oumaous.
[/INDENT]The first thing that is seen that there is no firm opinion on the name of that said villiage, therefore we must check outside information (extra-biblical texts), and check archaeological studies using the distance (stadious eksykonta = 60 stadia [one stadia is about 1.1 kilometers]).

Josephus mentions one villiage which he gives as Ammaous which was at a distance from Jerusaslem of about 30~35 stadia. Also archaeological studies give us one El-Qubeiba (present name) which lies about 60 stadia from Jerusalem, which was probably a village in that general late 1st century BCE~1st century CE [ The Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE may have caused that area to have been vacated ].

However, we run into one more problem with a major text, Codex Sinaiticus (and also Nth 079vid) which gives us 160 stadia, rather than 60. Then, in summing up three other lines of evidence and reasoning, we can come to see the major possible problem here.

As the textual form evolved, later scribal tendencies were far removed from the early sect's emotional and understood attachment with Judaism, and details of tenets and teaching methods which were very Jewish, were lost, or somewhat weak in the minds of those scribes. There is an actual town named Emmaus which is about 175 stadia from Jerusalem. It is mentioned in 1 Maccabees 3:40, 57; 4:3 as the location where there had been an actual, historical battle. (the text's immediate and overall context does not allow for any 'spiritual' or prophetic meaning)

In the confusion (and we are talking late 2nd to early 4th century CE here) over what had originally been intended, some obviously penned 160 to meet the requirements of the actual distance to that real town (totally ignoring the other points in Luke's text). However, the more obvious intent of the original is that Luke had intended to present a teaching behind the words--telling a story which, while not really a true historical event, is used to instil a morale or point-of-teaching.

In the Hebrew Masoretic text tradition, at Genesis 28:19 (the story of Jaccob) we find that a name Beth-el was given to a place that used to bear the name Luts (or Luz, depending on the transliteration used). In the Septuagint (LXX) there at 28:19 we find that the name of that place had been given as Oulamlous. This was either an unitnentional misreading of the Hebrew (in Hebrew oolam loots means, formerly Luts) or an intentional alteration of the original text. At any rate, as time passed, later mid to late second century BCE Christian scribes had lost touch with the reality of the orginal intent.

Therefore, we can arrive at the secure conclusion that this short story given by Luke was to borrow on the story of Jacob, which it fits very, very closely (if one really studies it--and it was commonly used in Hebrew expositions and story telling in that era) to impart a teaching regarding those of that day (the early Christian people) being within the Jewish law and model, only to await the second coming to be freed from that. (this requires a thorough investigation of the intro of Acts too, since it is basically a two volume document)

So, in the end, we can determine that most likely this pericope (little story) was not even intended to be a report of actual history by Luke, but had been used as a fanciful and 'cryptic-like' instrument to communicate an early Christian teaching. It was not history, so the error was made by those who had lost touch with that Jewish element of the early sect, and tried to present it as an actual historical event.

But you see folks, this much to properly explain one single summarizing sentence I had earlier made, is a good example as to why I avoid the detail as much as I can, and make summary statements. Of course, however, if anybody doubts that summary, I'm always very willing to provide the detail on the grounds that the challenger carefully pays attention to the details and thinks logically and conscientiously on and over them !!

I will next explain why it is erroneous to appeal to creative analogies to try to make the incoherent, coherent, when it comes to the gospel narratives, and will carefully demonstrate the error you have committed, Alan. I encourage you to carefully consider it . . . each and every detail, please. Thanks ! KJ


I dont think it is helpful to post in another language such as Greek this is an English forum, and we are not theologians just a bunch of happy philosophers trying to understand what we do not understand and to do it in Greek , heck that makes it very very difficult. Smile

Respectfully I perceive you are deeply seeking some truth , some reliable rudder to sail your ship of life through the doldrums of life. ?

Why is that when in another thread you try your very best to convince us that we do not have a soul and the body is all he have and there is no life after death why do you need theology if that is your firm understanding on reality

Have a look at my very new web site , note it is rough and ready and needs a great deal of work I only started it a few days ago!!

http://christianmystersim.yolasite.com/





Peace to you Alan (your friend) Smile
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 02:35 am
@Alan McDougall,
With all that is mine to give, the very fatty substance of the cytoplasm itself, I honestly and with true heart-felt emotion wish that I could lead you to the waters of understanding of the value of carefulness needed for learning, Alan. I really, and honestly do. If an organism fails to learn, it cannot survive, and cannot add to, or assure the input of the gene pool with its genetic material.

As you have presented a question and challenge in your earlier post here, I have been in response to that. I apologize for the time it has taken to get back . . . I have had a sudden burst of increase in my workload.

FIRSTLY !! I would like to suggest, please, to consider the fact that there is no real need to simply quote a whole post, Alan. Just any particular portion that you'd like to respond towards or challenge would be enough, or (since I yet have a fairly good memory) just to mention it in your text, and I'll know what you are talking about (if, of course, you do it properly).

Now there is nothing wrong with the logic that I am applying, as far as I can see. What we know is that after the events of the time, for a while there was nothing more than an oral tradition floating around, and maybe just a little bit of what has been called 'notes.' Then, in time, we are able to make an educated guess on what would likely have amounted to 'sayings' documents and a Q document. After some passage of time, these lines of narrative and saying materials were worked together, and many lost, most obviously, to Roman burning decrees.

The extant genre that we have, be they canonical or not, all point back to a single event in time, and are to that extent, historiographs. Therefore we do not need analogies, we can look to the reports themselves and reconstruct the event based on one document, hold it as a gauge for accuracy, and test the reports of the others . . . it's really as simple as that.

If we hold the report that at a single, fairly narrowed time block, a group of some 4 to 5 ladies entered a location, and then encountered a certain situation which led to a specific exchange of communication, we have to deny the truthfulness of a different report on the very same single, fairly narrowed time block, which claims that only two women approached that location yet experienced a certain situation without entering the center target (which the held report claims had been entered firstly) which would logically cancel out the need for any further situations of the kind, and had different specific exchanges of communication. Can you follow what I am saying here? (it's a bit long, but has to be this way, really)
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 01:21 am
@KaseiJin,
A few of the finer points would probably best be touched on, before moving to another point-in-case. We will notice, when looking over the report in the work attributed to John, that Yeshua is said to have suddenly appeared in a room with doors locked, and in a seemingly automatic manner, shows them his hands and his side. (vss 20:19, 20) The story points out that Thomas had not been there, and when later told, would not believe the story of the resurrection until he had seen with his own eyes, ' his hands with the nail prints in them, and stuck his hand into his side.' It is eight days later when again, in a room with the doors locked, Yeshua appears. He tells Thomas to see his hands and touch them, and to stick his hand in his side, and believe.

This of course does not match fully with Luke's report--in which he only shows his hands and feet, and eats something to prove being real, and where Thomas is present (this first and only time, according to Luke)①. We will find that Mark doesn't really touch on such an event, and Matthew does not ascribe to it as having happened.

One point to make here is that of contextual whole, because it is an important point when working towards understanding some things that are said to happen. We will find, at John 19:34 (see 31~37) that the text here tells us that a soldier sticks a spear into Yeshua's side. While John does have a few hands (different authors) in it, it is not easy to tell all possible additions or spurious lines, but since latter John is a different hand than earlier John, 19:34 could have been added to match that latter portion; or the other way around.

In the synoptic narratives, there is no spear event, so there is no need to cover for it, or to make story for it; as there evidently is in John. We will find that some text exemplars of a certain line do have the spurious verse added at Matthew 27:49b. It is obviously spurious and not in the original (perhaps a effort to reconcile with the John text?).

One additional point is that of what the Matthew texts gives us. According to that narrative, the eleven disciples went into Galilee, as had been prearranged according to the context of that flow. No meetings in any room in Jerusalem, and no staying there to await any holy spirit (Luke 24:49). We can posit that Luke had to take the text in the direction that he did (having them all stay in Jerusalem) in order to fit the larger context of the opening of Acts--which has everything happening in Jerusalem, rather than in Galilee (which is why this synaptic doesn't have the angels at the tomb talking about any 'going back to Galilee' stuff). (Mark 16:7; Matthew 28:7, 10)

This, then, is a major to point to always keep in mind, immediate and overall context plays as major role in working towards an understanding, and in reviewing possible reasons for some elements communicated within a single contextual whole.





① The ending of Luke does not match well with the beggining of Acts, which is a second follow up for this two volume report, so there is some unknown.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 09:50:46