Dear friends (and enemies :)

It seems that one of the biggest barriers we face in bring our various passionate discussion to a point of agreement is this area of 'how' do we interpret a document?

EXAMPLE 1 "Discretionary Trust":

We all know that the trust deeds of the above, will contain very specific and legal jargon having specific meaning for life and behavior.
The place to argue it out, is in court. A judge, based on his experience will then decide a matter 'IN TERMS OF' the trust deed.

EXAMPLE 2 "The criminal code"

As far as I know, all legal/criminal code/contracts etc, begin with 'definitions'. Then, they proceed to outline what is permissable and what is not, and the various penalties for any infringement.

"Offenses"

such as: 6B "Survivor of suicide pact who kills deceased party is guilty of manslaughter"

Clearly, understanding such a document is based on our basic education and understanding of meanings.

So, in the Religious realm... can we apply the same rules?

LITERAL verses SYMBOLIC.

Clearly, from reading the Bible, there are many 'types' of literature in it.
-Poetry
-History
-Laws and Commands
-Social codes.
-Exhortations
-Predictions.
-"Stories" (such as 'parables' of Jesus.)

When it comes to assessing any religion, all this must be taken into account.

HINDUISM.

contains a lot of stories, from which the adherent is supposed to gain insights into the Divine, and learn what he should or shouldn't do in life. But not a lot of emphasis is placed on the historicity (as far as I can see) of some of these myths.

SIKHISM.

Sikhs believe that the writings of their "Gurus" are the foundation of lifes behavior.

A key distinctive feature of Sikhism is a non-anthropomorphic concept of God, to the extent that one can interpret God as the Universe itself.

In each case, one needs to examine what type of literature the document is 'claiming' to be. (i.e.. internal claim in the document itself)

Agree? Disagree?

Interesting! Still on your relentless pursuit. Religion is the all foundation of mankind( I wont disagree with that)but its time to seek simplicity not complication. The more mankind looks into religion the more confused one gets. How interpreting will being one closer to god, I will never know. Its all a question of my god is better than your! ITS it David.
Its funny that we are all on the same page, but branching out in different directions.

That's why I find it better to be neutral.

Nothing lost nothing gained.

EVO

Where does it say they are open to interpretation? Was it declared by God or Jesus? And who has the authority to do so?

EVO :) please try to limit the discussion to the topic this time.

Forget "My God is better than yours".. we have a longggg way to go before discussing that.

STEEL.. "any" document is open to interpretation.. they use words and sentences.. and this is why I made reference to legal documents.

Have a look at the Crimes act.

One good example is the issue of 'reasonable force' in self defense.
This requires a close look at the dynamics of interpersonal physical conflict, but it is defined as "sufficient force to stop an attacker" and no more.

WE LIVE...our lives daily based on interpreting texts.. we sometimes almost DIE when the Pharmacist cannot 'interpret' the Doctors writing.

It surprises me that we even seem to need this 'clearing house' debate to prepare the way for some less than fuzzy thinking on other issues.

As soon as one mentions 'religion'.. aaah.. its like a cat among the emotional pidgeons :) We need to get PAST/over that people.

INTERPRETING THE BIBLE....

New Testament. (Mark 8:34)

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

Key elements.

"Come after" ...

"deny himself"...

"take up cross"

"follow"

These phrases need to be carefully looked at, and fleshed out.

Contextually, Jesus turned to address a 'crowd' which was following Him because of his miracles.

He was basically saying "This is no gravy train..it COSTS"

Only by knowing much more about the ethical and behavioral standards of Jesus, can we know what 'come after/follow' means.

Only by searching our own hearts can we know what 'deny self' means.
But one thing is clear.. it absolutely means "Christ first, me last.

The differences are that –

In secular terms, there is enough room to officially challenge on legal terms, which can be open to interpretation or circumstance. (Murder vs manslaughter). It’s possible to have laws changed, repealed or new ones implemented as society changes. It’s also possible to have a definitive judgement made on a ruling by people specifically appointed for that task.

Murder is legally unacceptable mainly because it creates social instability. It’s not a matter of morality because we sometimes execute our criminals and send our soldiers to kill others on our behalf. Laws are only there to create an environment for society to function in and like armies and police, they are really only there to protect the property of the lawgivers themselves.

In sectarianism, all we have is constant interpretation and reinterpretation without recourse to any real judgement. Some parts of religions exclude certain texts that others (of the same faith) do not. Some have even introduced new texts.

This is like having different versions of the same law applying to different people. Some people are not permitted to accept blood transfusions or go to war on religious grounds. Others are.

In Islam and Judaeism it’s not necessarily a mortal sin to kill somebody of a different faith – only in the legal sense.

You can’t apply legal rules to religion because religion is almost entirely symbolic.

Myth plays a significant part in the history of humanity and it is constantly being repeated because it reinforces social guidance and empowers the listener with a sense of understanding a greater purpose and is a constant part of our everyday lives. Many of the stories in the Bible have already appeared in previous religions. They tell of creation,heroes, messages, struggles, sacrifice, eternity and everything in between and they are universal and sometimes result in apotheosis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Comparative_mythology

It’s sectarian societies that create the Ayatollahs, fundamentalists and despots. It's also those who can't tell the difference between belief and social obligation and responsibility.

By the way, although we often disagree, I never regarded myself as your enemy.

David. I don't know if you are teaching religion or trying to convince yourself that god exists. But you certainly know your stuff.

Wobbles has beaten me to the punch line, as many of OLO people do.

All the best from

EVOLUTION.

Maybe runner or Gibo or one under God will want to answer those questions (will repeat here and offer what i think are the actual answers)

q. Where does it say they are open to interpretation?
a: It doesn't. It's God's Word.

q. Was it declared by God or Jesus as subject to interpretation?
a: No.

q. And why do followers think they have the authority to interpret God's Word? Furthermore, why do they think their interpretation is correct and say, anyone else's would be incorrect?
a: It's inexplicable... unless it's because they can't follow the rules laid down in it and it's easier to interpret it to fit their materialistic, sinful way of life than it is to follow God's Word. They think their interpretation is correct for the same reasons.

Hi Wobbly.. I didn't mean 'you' :) in the 'enemies' list.. in any case that was tongue in cheek... think "periscopes and see saws" :)

Now.. you showed an assumption there in your last post. Where you were raising the issue of 'Ayatollah's etc.. and sectarianism.

You mentioned 'judge' and 'legal terms' for what is in scripture.

But... consider this. If scripture (Bible) is not MEAN'T to be subject to court rulings.. and the Kingdom of God is not 'of' this world....then the idea of a judicial ruling on the meaning of a text is not relevant.
The reason is.. there is no 'Christian' State to be established :)
The hierachy in 'The Church' is one of honour..and nobility of heart and service..not of "power" in the worldly sense. As Jesus said "He would be first among you must become the slave of all"

EVO.. I have a few clues.. took me 3 yrs formal study and a lifetime to get there :)

TOPIC.. I'm simply arguing that words, sentences etc.. all have a context and fundamental objective meaning.... and from this, we often derive a subjective meaning.

The subjective meaning is fine as long as it is benign and peaceful.
"play with your train however you like, but don't crash it into mine"

ONLY...when the objective words have serious implications for the State and it's laws, and for those in it in legal terms.. must we pay microscopic scrutiny 'to' that objective meaning.

I wonder if we can agree on this ? :)... without mentioning anything specific. For example.. "Mein Kampf" had very real implications for Jews in Germany..it had 'objective meaning'.

OBJECTIVE meaning..

example: (Mein Kampf Ch11)

It is certain that the first stages of human
civilization were not based so much on the use of tame animals as on the employment of human beings who were members of an inferior race.

COMMENT. You don't have to be brilliant to know that SOMEthing bad is in store for the 'inferior' races, based on the plain objective meaning of this.

Boazy,

I hope you have merely people in opposition not enemies.

Trigulation of disciplines is important in interpreting data, religious or non-relogious. If the genaeologies in the Bible suggest the Earth is 6,000 years old, one can test said claim by the discoveries others and also documents of the time.

Humans are said to havereached Australia circa. 60,ooo BP. Fossils support this claim. There was a huge decline in animal species at that time suggesting a preditor far superior than any other suddenly hit on the scene. And plate tectonics suggest a land bridge at that time too. Science cross-checks claims with its counsin disciplines. The cosmologists and the quanum physicists are trying unify their differences, which will likely mean someone yeilding to some errors made.

Belief in god does not work like that. In Christianity, there are retort againsts knowledge, since at least the time of Constantine. I think I am correct in saying before the KJ Bible, attempts to translate the Bible to English were met a quick trip to one's personal BBQ.

Some doucments I have such that some people [Essenes?] in first century thought the Earth 12,000 years old; i.e., 14,000 BP. My guess is, this statement would be a regression, from superior Greek knowledge of 300 years beforehand.

The Bible is a valid and valuable document, but, it needs to seen as a document of the period, written by humans for the authors' purposes.

Cheers.

Dear Oly..of course my 'enemies' was tongue in cheek :) uuuu know.. just poking a bit of fun.

You have wandered a bit from the reason for the topic. Its not about 'truth' of the documents, it's about 'how to interpret' written language.

I'm seeking to build a concensus on this important matter.

An example from your Old Testament reference. The 'Generations' were often lumped as '40' when there were more people.. that's a cultural thing one needs to know :) its a round figure... if there were 42..its not a lie...its cultural. Technically and pedantically "42 generations is not 40..thus it is false"..but 'as a round figure.. approximately 40.. is not untrue.

Give me your thoughts on the 'objective' interpretation of the crimes act..and the Bible.. choose a passage :)

or.. just see if you concur with my reasoning in the previous post about 'deny/cross/follow' etc

We must distinguish between 'outright commands with eternal validity' and 'picture stories of a heavenly truth' which while having relevance for all time, do not portray a stictly analoguous relationship to all aspects of what is being communicated.

"Parable of the Sower" is close to an allegory.. "many type of people.. many attitudes.. many responses to the Gospel"

BUT.. "God did not go around dropping literal seeds..now did He? :) no.. of course not.
In the case of that parable... Jesus himself interprets it.

Mark 4:1-8 is the parable.(of the sower)

Mark 4:10-20 is..THE interpretation...there is no other possible, because Jesus explains his own words.

What IS a bit debatable.. is verse 12.... are..that seems unreasonable and out of character with the purpose of Jesus USING parables... quite deep that bit :)

Any thoughts ?

Speaking of "deep" and "thoughts" -

<< The 'Generations' were often lumped as '40' when there were more people.. that's a cultural thing one needs to know :) its a round figure... if there were 42..its not a lie...its cultural. Technically and pedantically "42 generations is not 40..thus it is false"..but 'as a round figure.. approximately 40.. is not untrue. >>

Boazy seems unaware of the enormous significance of the number 42 itself, which is of course the ultimate answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, as calculated over 7.5 million years by the supercomputer Deep Thought, in the sacred text "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". That is a critical hermeneutic point in the interpretation of the Old Testament - if nothing else, it brings the OT's postulated age of the earth (i.e. 6000 years) into some doubt.

Also, given that Boazy's only taken 3 posts in his own thread to mention Hitler, I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law :) Hitler isn't integral to the ostensible topic of the thread, which is undoubtedly another of Boazy's Islamophobic 'bait and switch' exercises.

Under Godwin's Law, Boazy's argument (whatever it is) is therefore declared lost. Interpret that :)

David, I am not sure what you are trying to argue (in fact I am not sure why I am here on another religious thread after promising myself to avoid them) :)

Legal Acts don't only include definitions but are based on precedents and sometimes this can mean delving into the various Courts either in Australia or sometimes in the UK or Canada, for example. Even the law can be interpreted in different ways depending on the particular nuances and circumstances. Sometimes Judges can set new precedents where variations to the existing 'rules' are demonstrated in a new or more complex context.

As far as biblical texts there is no comparison, they will always be subjective and at the mercy of the whims and prejudices of the would-be interpreter. That is why there is much discussion and dissection in bible classes despite the widely accepted 'given' meanings in some parables etc.

Re. "That's why I find it better to be neutral."

This can be a great crime also. One who witnesses his fellowman's innocent blood and remains idle, does not constitute a neutrality, but a fleeing from truth. An example:

Two years ago, there was a global rage over danish cartoons and a statement made by the Pope - which the muslims saw as a disrespect of their religion, and went on to murder nuns and destroy many christian structures. But no one took the muslims to task for their horrific anti-semtisim pervasive in muslim countries today, specially not Europe, who invented such false charges as blood libels, the Protocols, Jews drinking children's blood, etc - shamelessly shown on islamic TV and schools today as history. And not a whimper from European cristians and the so-called good muslim majority.

These falsehoods are paraded throughout the muslim world as true historical factors: so where is the Islamic respect for other religions? The Pope should be held responsible for silence here, as these false stories came from the vatican's own backyard in medevial Europe, and responsible for the deaths of 1000s of innocent peoples. Here, silence is not golden; here, both European christianity and islam show no fear of God and impudently foster anti-semitism, each believing they will win salvation and 70 vestal virgins - even when they foster total and evil falsehoods. But they may be surprised what really awaits them. Because:

'A FALSEHOOD AND THE HOLD ONE CANNOT ABIDE TOGETHER'

We saw also, the destruction of the Biddha relics by Muslim talibans in Afghanistan, their reason being the structures were pagan. But what about the pyramids, which is the worst example of paganism: while Buddha professed peace, the Pharoah claimed himself falsely divine and enslaved nations.

The so-called Muslim fervor for religious destruction appears very hipocritical - specially concerning the nation of india, which has been so generous to Muslims, giving them two states for naught, even after Muslims massecred over 7 million Hindus and persecuted them for many centuries. So silence or being neutral is a double edged coin: what if you were wring and others seeing this remained neutral? All great attrocities occur when others remain silent. Please re-consider.

'YOU SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE'[Moses]

Hey,

I'll have a crack at some interpretation if I may.

When Jesus is said to have uttered the words "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." he hadn't been crucified yet so the cross had little of the potency to his disciples and other followers that it gained post-crucifixion.

We have two choices on how we view the conundrum this presents.

We can say the chapter clearly states he described the manner of his death; it obviously had to include the fact that he was to be crucified, to the gathered throng.

Or far more likely, and in the best Jewish 'Midrashic' technique that is so obvious throughout much of the bible, the narrative was embellished and strengthened in order to deify Jesus.

To be able to display Jesus’ prophetic skills would have been of great value to his followers in their cult’s struggle with the mainstream Jews after the fall of Jerusalem.

Later Gospel's threw in a virgin birth among other things to cement their claim of Messiah/god status for Jesus.

This is by far the most logical interpretation one can make of the text but logic fears to tread where religion rules.

Ultimately the respect one has of Jesus also has to acknowledge the deep skills of the Gospel writers whose powerful story telling has elevated the man far higher than I get the sense he may have been comfortable with.

But the simple explanation is not possible for those who so desperately need the nurturing and comfort the narrative delivers. While Steel might well deny the right of followers to the reasoning afforded by interpretation, those of us who are not caught up in this belief system probably need to think about what we potential deny others by attacking it too strongly.

Therefore our interpretations are not so much about the validity of historical stories but more about the choices we have made about how we view the world. The issue becomes how much respect we are prepared to afford each others world views.

Boazy,

There are many different styles in the Bible written by different people for various purposes at different times.

Jesus reportedly spoke in Aramacic, but much of tenet of his manner of speech is Greek, His turn of phrases. Not surprising he grew-up in an area occupied by the Greeks for long time [300 years]. If educated, He may have spoken Attic Greek.

I have lost contact with a friend, who is a SDA pastor, whom for his post-grad. thought that at times Jesus used humour, as a pneumonic, via exaggeration [like MAD magazine]: e.g., the “Log” in one's eye. The vision of a large log, being absurd, so, the story would be remembered.

Daniel [OT] and Revelation [NT] adopt a similar style though presumably written over a thousand years apart:

Relatedly, Paul is alleged to have been on Patmos c.95 CE, Paul could borrow Apocalyptic style from Daniel, his template for battle across the Euphrates from Titus [c.70 CE], at time [C. 95, remember], when the Jewish Eschaton was predicted for 100 CE [4,000 on the Jewish calendar. The Annas' had won favour with Romans over the Herodians, and the Herodians had bunked-in with the idumaeans. It's a neat fit.

The Dead Seas scrolls are important because they would have been unknown to the Council of Nicaea. They contain knowledge on the Bible, Romans [ e.g., The Kittim were Roman warriors from the West, who captured Jerusalem] and religious groups: e.g., the Essenes.

How to Interpret Texts- Religious and Secular? We look at what these docuements say and try to verify or falsify each from external.
sources.

Scrolls were meant to be read from beginning to end. Codexes for cross-referencing. Did first & second century NT gospels appear on condexes with the OT? I don't know, but think it is a valid question.

Peace and happiness.

O.

the thought about how_to_understand the_holy-texts ,so-much depends upon knowing the-rules of the-people at the-time of the-story ,like casting-pearl before swine-[the-unclean],or casting seed-[wisdom]amoung the brambles-[trying-to-help-the-self-confounded].

Take the_writings of the four-deciples [who all noted according-to what-they-expected jesus to=be not_what_he is] ,

jesus said all we need to do is 'love god' , 'love neighbour'.. [the new test-i-meant]

jesus said so much wisdom ,but to see a god made flesh ,is to deney we_are_all sons/daughters of god the life-giver ,

indeed to miss the big one
that we all die
AND are all reborn again

[but only by knowing the jew believes in a grand reserection DAY]
but that jesus [as a jew ] died but was born again ,
as indeed we_all_are 'born again ,into the after-being

[but his_own missed the revelation]

[but no-doudt could repeat every_movement and_word he-spoke to initiate the 'neo' new-messiah- ritual]

Same with the 'miricle' of the whine-from-the-hand-wash-water-jugs

[where jesus clearly reveals 'it is not yet my time'
[he in-fact takes it further

[its not my problem ie'i dont care if you give them the-hand-washing water']
[as any jew would know that-is the-highest insult]

Then we come to the feeding of 4000 then 5000 when his diciples missed the REAL meaning ,[any jew will tell you 'if i cant wash my hands i refuse to eat; being unclean'']

thus 'feeding 100,000 jews 'all they wished to eat ' isnt no miricle ,its just fact
[they [his-own] wont eat with 'unclean' hands]

the parrable reveals how fixated-his-own are on-ritual ,
thus missing_god-the living-loving-good-all together

[note-next page , his_deciples eating [without-washing-their-hands]

jesus says

'it is not what a man puts in to his mouth that makes him unclean
[but the blashemy [against the living loving god ]
that ''comes out'' of their mouths

[ie only-honouring god with-their-lips]
[ie-adulterating gods_[good]_word'sss]

please_note
-the Quran/koran preceeds every_verse with-a-certain pre-condition :

''in the name of god ,the '' MERCY_FULL and COMPASSIONATE '']

that-allows only those-in gods-good to know;

'what is good in every verse'
alone
comes-from_god ,

[thus-as jesus_said
even-a-beast knows-its masters-[good/god]-voice]

A neutral can not be touched by heaven or hell. I stay out of the fight between them. My entity is safe as long as I don't believe!

Its a trap! There is a third choice. Stay here on earth and become what you will. As soon as you believe, you have signed a contract!

Don't say I didnt warn you.

SMILE! Have a nice day.

EVO

Dear_evo,

there-is-no con-tract

we-are all-[ALL] given this-gift_of-life
to-do -with-as we-chose
We_ALL_have_freewill

God_dosnt_judge no-one ,

we-can accept his_love [or-chosre-to-reject it]

just-as any good_parent lets their-own-children live-their 'life' as they-chose

[but hoping/trusting they discover the rewards that doing good brings]

We-ALL die my-brother
that-is a-fact

When-we_die more-of-that we-gave_will-be_given

[recall-''mine fathers_house has many-rooms''...]
[.. in heaven or hell ,
but each according to that we freely chose to-do with_passion

[for-eternity-doing-that-which-we in_this-life loved-to do]

Thus we-have here in-the_place some call-hell ,
but others heaven
[the_room-of those who loved-to-murder ]

all-in-it get-to murder [EACH OTHER] for_eternity

Here is another of our_fathers_many-rooms
[the room of those who love to steal ,but they love it so , but can only steal-[for_eternity if-so they_chose]-from each other

Here_is yet another_realm [sorry room]
here is the-room of those who ,....

[well you guessed the_deal ,
...the_room of those with the-SAME-loves of good or evil ,
there are uncountable rooms [realms]

where each_can_do as they love [LOVED] to do in life

Each has their own_ruling-passion
[love of that which they LOVE to be-doing

[remember god is a god-of-love ?]
even those-who hate god have their own_'heaven' ,

Its-not till they-we-have had their-our- fill
and begin hating-or-repenting- their-our ruling passion they-we--can-or-will-leave our-free-chosen-,-their_free-chosen-realm

[to go into their-our next passion realm] ,
from debators [by topic] to readers ,
to artists to pervets

all have their-our-own realm-

[but-they-[we]-can-only-do-their-[our]-debauchery-or-deceptions-blessings-or curse-upon each-other]

[vivasectionist-HELL-sounds-really-bad-but-they-so-love-disecting-each-other-with-such-eternal-unending-passion]

Each scism of believers have their own_realms ,

The wish to 'live forever' is divided into-what other_passions you so-enjoyed in this_realm

But be carfull what_you_wish for ,

because there-is better and worse than thee ,

many murderors love the being-in-this-room-of murder
but hate being murderd for eternity ,

to ye that have [passion ]
more of the same will-be-given]

for god_is_love ,
so love what you do ,
you could be doing it for eternity
but-WHat-is-salt-that-has lost-its-flavour ?

[i guess thats why i like to-serve ,and try-to help others
[i have allready chosen the realm
where i-will start my_eternity]

[i hope-not-with-the-decievers-in-the-lowest-realm]

which realm have you [by your =-own-very-deeds chosen?]

one_under-god, maybe you would like to answer the following questions?

- Where does it say the Bible is open to interpretation?

- Was it declared by God or Jesus as subject to interpretation?

- Why do followers think they have the *authority* to interpret God's Word/Bible, or decide to? Furthermore, why do they think their interpretation is correct and say, anyone else's would be incorrect?

Dear Oliver.. nice to see the evidence of some in depth reading of Josepus there :) *tick* 4 u.

Steely.. you asked "Where does 'it' say.. the Bible is open to interpretation"

I don't really know why you ask this question, because it is a written text, so obviously it, like any document, including the Quran, it must be understood in terms of some basic rules.

1/ Who was speaking? (including the narrator of a report)
2/ To whom was he/she speaking?
3/ What do we know about the social/cultural/political conditions of the day?
4/ When was it spoken?
5/ How was it communicated?

A simple example of point 5 is this, Paul used a secretary.. emmanuensis.. to record some of his letters.

e.g.Romans 16: 22

<<I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord.>>

So, Paul did not personally physically write 'Romans'..Tertius did.(As Paul dictated)
The only thing to 'interpret' here is to note the fact of it. Good ol Tertius slips in a personal greeting in the final chapter.

So..that little bit is not about 'doctrine' its just a personal greeting.

We need to know the difference between:

-Friendly advice/encouragement "But I think this is the best way"
-Outright 'command' a 'must'..."There is no other practice accepted"
-A permission. (to marry)
-A forbidden (like Idol worship or taking of blood)
-A report of other peoples actions or events (either good or bad)

etc.. then, we are in a good position to 'interpret' :)

For example, the presense in the Old Testament of the 'report' of Judah committing incest with his daughter in law or Lots daughters getting him drunk and seducing him... are "reports of events" not commands to emulate them.

"Its a trap! There is a third choice."

There is one factor in your favor: not all scriptures can be right - because they contradict each other. This applies most to the gospels and the quran: while both these scripures emerged around the same space-time, yet are in contradiction of each other in both historical and belief modes! This signifies at least one or both are wrong.

This phenomenon has subsequently caused widespread chaos and conflicts upon humanity, allowing no place to hide or to stay neutral. Take the example of the jews, who faced not only Rome's decree of worshipping its man made emperor, but also two religions who demanded alliegence - or be doomed.

Great destruction is pointed to ahead, before things can settle down and a new order becomes concluded. Humanity is hijacked by the gospels and the quran being in utter contradiction of both history and laws, each accusing the jews of chosen people, while both promoting a doctrine of rabid racism: exclusive kingdom keys, and no God but Allah and Mohammed.

The precarious situation is that if the Gospels falls, via some new discovery, then the Quran also falls - all in one single stroke. This is because the quran validates certain factors of the Gospels, such as an immaculate birth, while it rejects the resurrection: more chaos. So two of the world's greatest religious groups stand on thin ice, and one wonders what will happen to the plight of so many genuine and innocent believers - they will be trust into a vaccuum.

The two religions which were offshoots of Judaism, assumed themselves its owners, at a time when the jewish bible became public domain with Israel destroyed by Rome, and they have come to realise all their additions and subtractions came into chaos - each positing a doctrine the other denies, each claiming the only correct path is their own. But what if the Jews are right? Is that a terrible truth hovering?

Speaking of Mien Kampf Boaz may I quote Hitler from its pages "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."

I had a vision after reading Daniel Ch3. It was of a rat with a pope's mitre on his head at the feet of a huge gold statue of Jesus. The rat was busily polishing away while the smoke from what looked like concentration camp ovens billowed forth continuously over the scene.

"Whoever doesn't bow down and worship will immediately be thrown into a blazing furnace."

From the fires of the pogroms to the Inquisition and the burning of (predominantly Jewish) heretics at the stake, then to the ovens of Auschwitz, this prophetic vision has held true.

I'm sure you might agree that a Jewish person may well view interpret visions and scriptures from his/her own book differently than others who choose to use it to promote their own faith.

Re. "I don't really know why you ask this question, because it is a written text, so obviously it, like any document, including the Quran, it must be understood in terms some basic rules."

Ironically, only the OT has the mandated law, NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING FROM THIS BOOK OF LAWS. This means, technically, only the OT cannot be interpreted by discretion. It also means that it is possible a messiah can emerge, and order both christians and muslims to change their scriptures - while that Messiah will not be able to say the same to the jews: only the one who gave the Jewish bible can say that - which calls for a Sinai style open revelation. And here, this applies:

'GOD IS NOT LIKE MAN THAT HE WILL CHANGE HIS MIND' [Samuel]

" Paul used a secretary.. emmanuensis.. to record some of his letters."

There is no such thing as a prophet or messenger who has not written his own works. All 55 OT prophets wrote their own books. It is suspcious no writings of Jesus exist - which means words attributed to him may not be from him or from his space-time. It is also incorrect jesus spoke aramaic - if he was a Jew in Judea, he would have spoken, written and prayed only in Hebrew. These are false slants presented by europe to disassociate itself from the jews - or rather, from the truth.

"For example, the presense in the Old Testament of the 'report' of Judah committing incest with his daughter in law or Lots daughters getting him drunk and seducing him... are "reports of events" not commands to emulate them."

Wrong on both counts.

Judah did not commit the crime of incest, because he was unaware who the woman was - she disguised herself intentionally, and a sin is only applicable when it is done with knowledge of it.

The daughters of Lot also did what they did for the noblest of reasons: they thought all of humanity was destroyed as opposed only Sodom, and their purpose was to save humanity.

BOAZ

"1/ Who was speaking? (including the narrator of a report)
2/ To whom was he/she speaking?
3/ What do we know about the social/cultural/political conditions of the day?
4/ When was it spoken?
5/ How was it communicated?"

1. The prophets
2. The 'flock'
3. We know that what the prophets said were condidered facts and the Word of God. The Word of God was considered to be absolute.
4. When the prophets spoke it.
5. Voice or perhaps the prophets wrote it down.

In other words, no one has given any religious figure the authority to intepret the sacred religious texts like the new testament. In fact, knowing how superstitious and ignorant they were, we know they would have believed every last penny of what was written to the letter and expected it to be seen as such by the followers.

extracted from
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/index.html#alphabet

"Our sacred literature does not use obscure language, but describes most things in words
clearly indicating their meaning.
Therefore it is necessary at all times to delve into the literal meaning of words
to achieve complete understanding of what is actually meant."
--Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888)

Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings
Truth ~ emet
By Jeff A. Benner
--



The root of this word is aman, a word often translated as "believe"
but more literally means "support"
as we see in Isaiah 22:23
where it says "I will drive him like a peg in a place of support...
" A belief in God is not a mental exercise of knowing that God exists but
rather our responsibility to show him our support.

The word "emet" has the similar meaning of firmness,
something that is firmly set in place.
Psalmes 119:142 says, "the 'Torah' (the teachings of God) is 'emet' (set firmly in place).


The problem is compounded by the fact that a language is tied to the culture
that uses that language.

When the text is read by a culture different from the one it is written in,
it loses its cultural context.
A biblical example of this can be found in the Hebrew word tsur
which is translated as a rock -

He only is my rock and my salvation, my fortress;
I shall not be greatly moved (Psalm 62:2, RSV).

What is a rock and how does it apply to God?
To us it may mean solid, heavy or hard
but the cultural meaning of the word tsur is a high place in the rocks
where one goes for defense, a place of salvation.

see also
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-November/030891.html
http://www.skeptically.org/oldtestament/id8.html

The third choice is, without believing, or wasting time of life, or praying, going to church, making money from religion.etc.
Being born was the purity, and as long as you follow all the rules of the heart, and die with the purity, this is the neutral and you can stay out of the fight. Once you have committed to one side or other, you have automatically created war and have become a soldier, hence your everlasting fear of the devil.

Well, that's how I interpreted it.

EVO

Boazy,

Suppose when claiming Mout Everest, I come across a volume, containing related two books, claiming to be the Word of God. How do we test it as the Word of God? If we do not know it is the Word of God; how can we interpret the volume as the Word of God. Surely, not its self-reference, not because, it says so. Or some 325 years after the climax of the book a Council of Elders says it is the Word of God and super-add notions of a godhead, a Trinity, which was a theme developed by the Egyptians centuries beforehand. Herein, I posit, we cannot take the Book at its face-value. WE need more.

[1] We must know how to measure/recognize the Word of God.

[2] Only then are we confident that it is the Word of God we are
interpresting.

[3] We interpret by looking at alternative explanations and looking
for cultural, physical and political evidence: to confirm or
refute.

[4] We look for "borrowed" stories.

[5] We need to knew the source is God and not a religion, of which
there have been thousand throughout history.

Similarly, if come across an Arab guy, who has just spent a long time in the dessert, returning stating, he has the power to recite the Word of God, we need to test claim, before we can interpret it. Could it be, our voyger is trying to unite the Arabs against Chriatians, Jews and Persians, because, "united we stand divided we fall"?

We can only interpret the motiivations for creating The Shroud of Turin, after we have tested it and found it to be a fake. Not why did God send us this message; but why was the forgery created?

The same rules apply for alleged religious documents, as for secular documents; because, religious documents are secular documents, until proven otherwise.

Best wishes,

O.

Oliver you are forgetting one thing: The religious who hold the most power and get the most say in politics (and their religion) are the extremists. They are the ones who turn that harvested money into $$$ to influence and bribe politicians.

The moderates are irrelevant, except to prolong the death of religion and keep the funding base as wide as possible.Notice that the moderates never interpret the bible in opposition to the extremists point of view, or they will be expelled, shunned, demoted and excommunicated (if applicable).

Ok..I'm extending my 'shepherds crook' and reigning in some of you :)

TOPIC.. "how to interpret documents"....

Oliver said:

"How do we test it as the Word of God? If we do not know it is the Word of God; how can we interpret the volume as the Word of God."

Oliver.. excellent point. The 'point' I'm trying to make here..is..NOT "is this the Word of God" ..no no no :)

The POINT.....I'm laboring is.. 'WHAT DOES the 'text' SAY and what does it mean in everyday normal meanings of those words....

Now..on the issue of 'Word of God'.. that my friend will always be an act of faith. So.. lets try.. tryyyy oh so hard :) to separate 'what documents say' from 'the faith that they produce'.

For example.. Lets take Mark 1:1

"The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (a)the Son of God"

Now..I bracketed "Son of God" not because of any 'interpretive' operation, but because there are some early documents which do not have this phrase at that point. In the Gospel of Mark this is footnoted.

a.Some manuscripts do not have "the Son of God."

The fact that it is included.. reflects the weight of documentary evidence for that.

Leaving the faith aspects aside for a moment.. I think we can all agree on the following:

The book, called "The Gospel of Mark" begins with a self description as follows:

-The beginning of
-The 'Gospel'
-of Jesus...Christ.

Now.. requiring 'interpretation' are the following:

"Gospel"
"Christ"

We know that "Jesus" was the name of the subject, so..what do 'Gospel' and 'Christ' mean?

"GOSPEL" (Historic Background to the word)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_news_%28Christianity%29

[[the English translation of the Koine Greek (euangelion, "good message"). The gospel was the good news that runners carried throughout the Greek city-states proclaiming that the Saviour-King had ascended to his throne.]]

Now.. knowing that historic use of the word 'Gospel' from the Greek city states.. puts a rather higher level of import on the word than simple 'Good news'..right?

"CHRIST" can be next post:)

Belated response to Evo :)..sorry.. "No..I'm not trying to convince myself that God exists" I already know that, I'm jussssst trying to focus on 'how to interpret texts'.. which is a MOST needed lesson among many of us.. Pericles and CJ included ..bright as they appear to be.

I won't go into "Christ" in this post, but just want to raise a question for anyone interested to 'ponder'.

"The beginning" (of the Gospel..of...) in Mark 1:1... refers to... what? (specifically)

and if anyone thinks this is a trick question...nope.. its there in front of you, and is so easily missed.. like that 'how many f's in the following sentence' kind of illusion.
(Nothing to do with Genesis either nor the fact that it comes 'at' the beginning of what Mark has written) NO more hints :)

The self-congratulatory Boaz-David has set himself up as OLO's religious-instruction teacher. How very humble, how very demure, how very typical of Boaz, a man whose ego is only exceeded by his self delusion.

IamJoseph has succinctly illustrated other ways in which to interpret biblical texts; I hope Boaz realises that many other Christians take much of his interpretations with a grain (pillar?) of salt.

As an intelligent, independent woman, I find Boaz's interpretation vis-a-vis women's supposedly divinely-instructed subservience to men as highly offensive as well completely stupid. What if Goodwife is married to Dumbhusband? Who should take instruction from whom?

Boaz, not all Christians agree with you, and for those who have difficulty with his misogynistic version of the bible, please read:

"Even though the Scriptures never portray women as secondary to men, our male-dominated-religious-system still promotes a warped view of female inferiority. Women are tired of this, and as a man, so am I, because such demeaning attitudes don't reflect God's heart.

Jesus challenged gender prejudice at its core when He directed so much of His ministry toward women. In a Middle Eastern culture that considered women mere property, He healed women, disciplined them and commissioned them to minister. Yet today we spend much of our energy denying them opportunities and using the Bible to defend our prohibitions."

The above extracted from:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050204105114/http://godswordtowomen.org/Lee_Grady.htm

Which comprehensively lists 10-LIES-THE-CHURCH-TELLS-WOMEN

Such-as:

LIE #6. A WOMAN SHOULD VIEW HER HUSBAND AS THE "PRIEST OF THE HOME."
Search your concordance. Scripture never describes men as "priests of the home." This man-made concept was popularized in evangelical churches in the last century. We have one priest, Jesus Christ, whose blood atoned for our sins. It is a mockery of the gospel to suggest that any human being needs an additional priest apart from the Son of God.

The Bible says all believers are priests (see 1 Pet. 2:9, Rev. 1:6); there is no gender restriction. Husbands function as priests when they pray for their families or when they minister the Word of God to them, and wives also function in this role."

"The POINT.....I'm laboring is.. 'WHAT DOES the 'text' SAY and what does it mean in everyday normal meanings of those words." - Boaz

You mean a moral lesson not dependent on religion, like the words of the 1950/60s psychologist, Carl Rogers, that "we should have uncondition positive regard" for our feelow humans? You mean how do we interpret morality independent of any notion of the religious?

For one meanings will change over time. Translated, as mentiones onother post, the word faith meant "steadfastness" to Moses or people of his time [Catholic Enclyclopaedia], in Jesus' time "obedience and truth", from c. 1392, odedience and truth WITH conviction.

Another issue is one of authority; or, whose authority; do you belief the astrophyscist & geologist or the minister about the age of the Earth? Do yo belief the Historian, who tells you Herod was dead, when Jesus was born, or believe the priest, who says Herod was alive at the time?

Dear Fractelle and Oliver.

Fractelle.. believe it or not..I'm quite comfortable with your information. I might not view it as entirely Biblical (when correctly interpreted:)..but I rejoice that you are sussing out issues like this, and forming opinions on them. When you see how 'As Christ loved the Church' works between a man and woman in marriage, then I think your concerns over misogyny will dissappear.

I began this thread for an important reason.. "Understanding how to interpret" (any) document. Clearly there is some muddleheadedness out there.

We can see quickly if we have it, by testing our understanding of just 'one' verse from Scripture.. "Mark 1:1" as in my previous post.

I recall you asked me to read outside the loop once.. and I did, but when I responded..you ignored me...

Why not (in the interests of actual debate) look at the verse I mentioned..and advance an opinion on what it means? (Objectively..simply as a piece of written text)

Oly.. you went off into the scrub there.. way off the track.. 'come back' :) to Mark 1:1 please.

" recall you asked me to read outside the loop once.. and I did, but when I responded..you ignored me..." - Boaz

If me, I mised it. Please supply link to your response. Thanks.

Does one need to consider altrenatives to Jesus as to whom might be God? Christianity is only a fraction of the literature.

Here, I do appreciate the conflict with Moses and the Commandants, yet Moses needed to keep his peolpe on a nomadic footing [tribal god] and not have them settle, yet, [calf god]. Perhaps Moses did not want his peole to "jump the gun' with regards to The Promised Land, wherein, a settled farming gourp with a calf god would seem apt

Boaz

Were I to ever select a teacher of theology, it would not be a patronising egotist such as yourself.

Your innumerable postings to OLO filled with your adolescent lack of control over your multiplicity of biblical quotes, indicate a far too narrow intellect and vision that is required to interpret any tome of ancient or even contemporary endeavour. You can't even follow basic biology or astronomy. Did you miss the introduction to my last post? No-one has appointed you as OLO's theological interpreter. I notice in your heading you claim to interpret secular texts as well! How? You cannot even define the difference between secularism and atheism.

And you have to gall to state things like, "but I rejoice that you are sussing out issues like this", you know nothing about me, my back ground, my education, nor my literary interests AND YOU HAVE THE GALL TO REJOICE in what you see as my questioning.

You have not addressed a SINGLE point I raised in my last post.

You expect ME to read texts YOU have selected for me.

I can and have read the both the old and new testaments, but can you say the same about Darwin's "Origin of the Species"? Or even (a little more simple for the likes of you) David Attenborough's "Life on Earth"?

But why do I bother?

Arguing with a narcissist is like wrestling with a pig in mud, after a while I realise that the pig is simply enjoying it.

Hello people. Seeing though a clear glass window often tells the story or not if it is raining. Just a little joke!

I thought the world might of seen the past without judgement and the smaller words of understanding. But I guess not. One can only imagine tomorrow.

EVO

Of course you are, Boaz, of course you are.

>>I'm jussssst trying to focus on 'how to interpret texts'.. which is a MOST needed lesson among many of us.. Pericles and CJ included ..bright as they appear to be<<

All it is, as usual, is "jussssst" another way to draw attention to yourself in your seemingly never-ending crusade to diss Islam.

I do not need "lessons on interpretation", since I have absolutely no confidence in the raw material. And I have to say, if I did ever feel the need to explore the scriptures, you are by far and away the last person on earth I would turn to for illumination. How it never occurs to you that you are far too one-eyed to be able to teach anyone anything, is beyond me.

It is clear from your posts that you have absolutely no intention of engaging in debate. To illustrate this, here's your starter for ten points, using one of your earlier launch pads:

>>INTERPRETING THE BIBLE.... New Testament. (Mark 8:34)

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."<<

Before we get to discuss any interpretation of this, I'd like to hear from you the following:

What evidence do we have that this was said?

And a corollary:

Since there is no direct connection between the purported speaker and the purported scribe, how certain can we be that these were the exact words?

In short, how can we know who it was who spoke these words, or even that they were spoken at all?

Once we can agree on that, maybe there will be some point in discussing context, meaning and intent.

"How do we test it as the Word of God? If we do not know it is the Word of God; how can we interpret the volume as the Word of God."

There is much confusion with christianity and islam, in the interpretation of the OT, mostly because each became more interested in their egos: they Messenger became more important than the message - which borders on paganism. This factor led to a reverse mode of interpretation, namely everything had to fit to a belated, preferred conclusion, than what was actually being said: instead of the NT adhering to the OT as the transcendent factor, the reverse mode was adopted.

Thus we find that the NT rejects certain commandments and accepts others - depending on its alligning or not with the later NT. Here, christianity rejected the OT's oral laws, derived directly from Moses - because it contradicted the fulcrum doctrines of the gospels. This led to great calamaties, including the break of christianity from its mother religion, with the advent of Paul - a greek, secular figure who never even met Jesus, and gave the west what they wanted to hear.

At this time, Israel was seen as dead and gone forever, following the destruction by Rome, and the new christianity made whatever it liked of the OT, and spread it around, till it became inculcated into the veins of the west, including false charges of blaming jews for crimes actually perpertrated by Europe itself. Eg. Rome's murder of Jesus, along with millions of his kin, was placed on the Jews- in total antithesis if the truth; a sacrifice was promoted, in total omission a decree of heresy was hovering, which afforded no choice factor to Jesus. After centuries of such inculcations, christians believed these false charges, and anti-semitism was born - and christians became more compelled to follow a desired lie than a disdained truth.

contd 1/3

Then it turned out the NT was in error of israel, which returned as prophesized. Here, a host of false charges became over-turned, including blood libels, the protocols and other such false slander from Europe. Today, innocent and genuine christians have become quagmired - they cannot anymore disassociate the 100% false charges of the Gospels, because it has been attached to their belief in God! This same scenario is seen with muslims - they will not accept anything christians tell them, because their belief is also attached that way. This is an affliction: the NT & Quran both cannot be right or true, because they contradict each other in historical and theological terms - yet this ubsurd situation is blamed on the jews, who had no input here, and were themselves supressed and persecuted at this time by both these religions.

The situation is very diabolical, and humanity has been trust into chaos - with the victims being sincere believing christians and muslims. How will this be recitfied? Certainly not by how christians think it will: there is absolutely no point in awaiting a return of Jesus, and even if such occurs, it will not resolve anything. It failed the first time, and muslims will not accept JC w/o Mohammed, nor will cristians accept mohammed w/o JC. See the point here?

2/3

3/3

Instead, the issue can only be resolved by an OT figure, such as Moses, or a Sinai type revelation in the midst of all humanity. This is prophesized but has never occured again - the Messiah must allign itself with *ALL* factors listed in Isaiah [not what alligns with the NT or Quran!], without contradicting any factors of the OT. There has never been anything in the OT which has ever been disproven, while absolutely nothing in the NT or Quran has ever been ratified. These scriptures are based on belief, unlike the OT, with no historicity of specifics, such as verifiable dates, names and events. further, it appears the law was given to the hebrews because they were the hardest to convince - the stiff necked syndrome is in diabolical and polar variation from christians, who accepted a 3rd, 4th party reporting, without demanding proof of the Father. They aught to have. In cntrast, the hebrews battled with Moses and accused him of all sorts of charges, demanding that God anifest himself directly with no agents.

When the greatest revelation in the universe occured, Moses was told to stand down with the people. And this is what all humanity must also demand: nothing short of a direct revelation by the father - in the midst of all humanity - simultainiously. Elese be assured of more chaos! You don't like it - of coz you don't! But that's the problem!

Oly.. it was Fractelle who asked me..not you.. sorry for confusing u.

It seems Fractelle is a bit hot under the collar.. well.. that's life.
Frac, I was hoping for some serious engagement from any who came to this thread.. on something as simple as 'interpreting' a single verse of scripture... we could then move to 'verse 2' and see what we see, but honestly.. you are letting way too much emotion cloud your vision there.

Well if ur going to be here, I'd appreciate less personal attack and more rigorous examination of the text.. you might find we agree more than you think.

Pericles.. please understand.. (this is becoming quite a challenge..bigger than I expected) this is NOT...about "are the texts reliable".. oe "did so and so 'say' this or that".. its about just one thing..... 1

"What does it mean as it stands?" The reason I chose Mark 1:1 is because it does have a truckload of riches in it which won't be visible at first glance.

This is not about "me teaching" all youuz.. its about together.. examining some text, and seeing how far we can go before we diverge in our interpretation.

I truly hope you will put aside your Boazaphobia :) for a while and actually engage on this one simple point.. how about it?

If you are willing to participate, we can cover say.. just 4 verses.
In those verses (Mark 1:1-4) many of the elements which we should understand about Biblical interpretation are present.

The inductive method is most useful here. "if this is all we knew(about Christian things) ..what would we know?"

I promise you..it's a gold mine.

Boazy: << This is not about "me teaching" all youuz.. its about together.. examining some text, and seeing how far we can go before we diverge in our interpretation. >>

Isn't the sheer boofheaded arrogance sublime? Sunday bible class at OLO, led by Brother Boazy.

Go and teach your grandmother to suck eggs, you insufferable godbotherer.

Why is the word "secular" in the title of this thread? I don't see anyone putting their hands up to interpret any "secular" texts here (especially the original poster).

So why not let us interpret a text in its original format?

Everyone turn to page 7, Chapter 1, first paragraph.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F373&pageseq=23

Now what do you think the author was pointing at here? Any ideas?

If you keep reading, I promise you..it's a goldmine.

Perhaps you could use some inductive method on it Boazy. What do you think the author was trying to say?

begin with the earliest evidence
As it is written in Isaiah , "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way;
Mark is often accused of "error" in reference to (the citation is from Malachi rather than Isaiah),

note, the first two-[mark_1]-verses form’s a complete statement:
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet.

with reference to Isaiah 40:9:
You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings*

*"Good tidings" is euangelion (gospel) in Greek.

this verse is built out of Exodus 23:20 and a paraphrase of Malachi. 3:1.

Here is my herald whom I send on ahead of you

taken directly from the Greek of the Septaugint version of Exodus:

The passage in its entirety reads:
Exodus 23:20 "See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way.....since my Name is in him. (NIV)



Elijah will play an important role in the gospel of Mark.

v2: "the way." "The way" is an important motif in Mark.

Things are always happening "on the way." Isa 35:8, which appears to lie behind many of the healings in Mark, refers to "the holy way."

V 5. and so john came., then john died ,

then jesus came [god will not be thwarted]..

and they will call him emmanuEL=god with us

John1;1
in the beginning was the word and the word was =god with us
and the word was god

Through god all things were made
In him alone is life

And that life

Is the light unto men
His-[god's]-light shines in-the darkness

But the_darkness has-not understood
And there came a man john
To_testify concerning that light

His name was john>then>jesu
He himself was not the light
He_came only-as witness_to-THE-LIGHT

THE_true_light ,that gives_light as-was_and-is coming into the world

RE. 'Elijah will play an important role in the gospel of Mark.'

Or, 'Jews will play an important role in the gospel of Isiah.'

Lol. I think ET may be laughing at all of humanity, with each group swearing theirs the only road, while never knowing where any road is pointing.

And where is the road pointing?

EVO

Dear CJ... for one (you) who prides himself on pedantry, preciseness, prose and the absence of prejudice.... "you insufferable godbotherer" :) raises a few questions. I'm not sure how you thought that would help us reaching a concensus about how documents should be interpreted, but well.. there is more time yet.

PERICLES.. of all people in OLO, 'you' should be participating in this topic with considerable effort.. after all, it was you who said "You are not qualified to interpret texts" (perhaps you must mean 'their' texts?)

Either way, this thread should reveal the truth or lack thereof in your assertion.

BUGSY.. I'll happily take up your challenge, (after all..I began this topic by referring to both the crimes act and trust deeds..hardly 'Bible Study')

DARWIN.
<<No case is on record of a variable being ceasing to be variable under cultivation. Our oldest cultivated plants, such as wheat, still often yield new varieties: our oldest domesticated animals are still capable of rapid improvement or modification.>>

Ok.. it looks to me like he is referring to a class of plant life, and is saying that they don't remain static in biological make up when you repeatedly sow them generation after generation. His reference to 'new varieties' suggests this. He then carries the argument through to the animal world, and I would conclude that he is thus using both plant and animal life to support the assertion that 'Living things develop over time'....We could look more closely then, at exactly 'how' they 'develop'...but based on the text alone, there is not enough information to do that.

Any problems with my "interpretation" of that text?

As I said.. the point of the topic can be fulfilled equally be either secular or religious texts. I fail to see why when 'religious' texts are involved something seems to go haywire in some peoples brains.

Your track record says otherwise, Boaz.

>>I was hoping for some serious engagement from any who came to this thread.. on something as simple as 'interpreting' a single verse of scripture<<

What you were hoping for was to validate your own method of "interpretation", which you inevitably direct towards your preconditioning that the Qur'an is inherently evil.

This thread has nothing to do with understanding texts.

It has everything to do with furthering your agenda of channelling fear and loathing against Islam.

But, setting that aside for the moment, let's have a look at the fundamental fallacies inherent in your approach.

Discussing a paragraph of Darwin has advantages over discussing a paragraph from the New Testament.

For a start, there were many - very many, in fact, due to the nature of the material - third-party accounts of Darwin's work. In printed monographs and papers of course, but more significantly in the press and the public domain.

There can be little doubt therefore, given the wealth of contemporary attention that was paid, that i) the man existed and ii) that his life and work have been accurately recorded.

This cannot be said of Jesus, nor of the vast majority of the activities related in the New Testament. There are no contemporary accounts. No third-party corroboration. Which - given that the material should have been at least as attention-grabbing as Darwin - is a mystery that no-one has yet been able to explain.

Discussing a single verse, as you propose, therefore has absolutely no value.

>>In those verses (Mark 1:1-4) many of the elements which we should understand about Biblical interpretation are present.<<

Only, Boaz, if you can suspend disbelief for long enough to accept any part of the New Testamant at face value. Otherwise, it is as relevant as trying to find the meaning of life in the opening paragraph of a John Grisham novel.

>>I fail to see why when 'religious' texts are involved something seems to go haywire in some peoples brains<<

Not mine, Boaz. But I fear it may be true of yours.

Boaz

You invite personal attack when you wilfully refuse to engage in debate.

You desire to have the playing field only on your terms. I introduced a well reasoned and valid interpretation of women's status in the bible as interpreted by a male Christian.

How did you deal with that?

Let me remind you: ". believe it or not..I'm quite comfortable with your information. I might not view it as entirely Biblical (when correctly interpreted:)."

WHEN CORRECTLY INTERPRETED? - Whatthaf*ck does that mean?

Rhetorical question Boaz, because it means as interpreted by you.

And you wonder why I have referred to you as a narcissist.

You have not offered your interpretation of a single piece of secular philosophy. WHY?

Rhetorical question again. Because you simply are intellectually incapable of thinking laterally. You have the most narrow view of the bible of anyone I have encountered. You whine about personal insults, but don't realise that your weaknesses and failings are completely obvious to others.

You are always telling others what to read, what to view, but never return quid pro quo. This is why I, CJ, Pericles and many others find you completely disingenuous. A fake Boaz. A big blustering buffoon.

You have no credibility, because you do not treat others as credible.

Beware the man of one book

9)

The Jews were_not chosen, but were_urgent to-be-a Church, from their Love_of Pre-eminence

as-appears in many passages of the_Word,
"Jehovah said unto Moses, ...I will not go up in the midst of thee,
for thou art a stiff-necked people;...

..and Moses said unto Jehovah,..
.. Now, therefore, I pray Thee,
if I have found grace in Thine eyes, make known to me_thee,
I pray Thee, and_Thy way,
that I may know of Thee,
that I have found grace in Thine eyes;
and see that this nation is Thy_people.

(Exod. xxxiii).





Again: "Jehovah said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke Me?
and how long will they not believe in Me,


"Moses supplicated, and Jehovah being entreated said, "
I_will be propitious according to Thy word;

nevertheless I live,
and the_whole_earth shall be-filled with the_glory of_Jehovah.

For as to all these men who have seen My glory,
and My miracles,.. and yet have tempted Me these ten times,
and have not Obeyed My voice,

(Numb. xiv).

but that they were urgent,-had-a-passion-[were_salty]
and therefore it was done. (AC n. 4290)

They were urgent that a church should be instituted among them
but this was for no other end than that they-might-be distinguished above all-nations


For beyond others they were in the love of self,[and-the-rite/ritual]
and they-thus could not be exalted to eminence over them
by other means than that Jehovah,
and thus their church also, should HE_be among them
for where Jehovah is, there is the church.

That this was the end is evident from many passages in the Word;
as from these words also in this chapter

(Exod. xxxiii): "Moses said, Wherein shall it become known here
that I have found favour in Thine eyes, I and Thy people?

Is it not in Thy going with_us, and our being rendered excellent,
I_and_Thy people, above all the people that are on the faces of the earth?" (ver. 16)

Why the Jews are called in the Word a Holy-People

The reason why that people is called in the Word the people of Jehovah[is-that-they_alone-wouldst-preserve-these-words-]
[YET-miss-the living/loving/grace they reveal]


http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/comp/comp328to415.htm#third

boaz, if I may enlighten you as to some of the reasons why I think posters are reacting negatively to your comments here.

For starters, consider the title of the thread: 'How to interpret texts.'

Interpretation:

"An intellectual process in which you select, gather, and reassemble information and evidence within the framework of your own ideas."

www.lib.unc.edu/instruct/manuscripts/glossary/

So, 'interpretation' is a relative term. Effectively, in the title of this thread, you are implying there is a right way and a wrong way to interpret these documents.

This is not the case. There are only people, each with their own experiences and abilities to apply logic. Each will have a very different interpretation.

In saying that there is a 'right' and 'wrong' way to interpret a text, particularly one so old an unreliable as the bible, you are not discussing the neutral process of interpretation you seem to think you are.

What you are in fact saying, is that 'I am the only one here who is able to interpret these documents properly, and here is how you should do it. You should all interpret these documents in the way I do.'

Which, of course, is 'interpreted' by myself and most posters, as a particularly clumsy attempt to position yourself as an expert, when I for one, see it as more of a highhanded arrogant exercise in saying how everybody should just listen to your 'interpretation' because you're the only one who has the truth.

Or more simply: "I'm right, so listen up folks, here's how it is."

That's the core of this. Don't patronise us, boaz. We disagree. Many think you are wrong. But rather than politely disagreeing, you're coming back and saying there is only one right answer and you're the one with the keys to it.

But then, that's just my 'interpretation.' I accept that. At least, I don't try to pretend there is a right or wrong way to interpret such things.

Can you perhaps, see why your approach is seen as arrogant and offputting in the extreme?

Dear TRTL... I used the phrase "how to".. deliberately.. because there 'is' a way.. an accepted way used by lawyers, government, people.. every single day of their lives...

It seems there is so much hot air and bias going on here that this is being missed.

It is as simple as "what do words mean on paper"

I used the crimes act and a trust deed to illustrate how this is an everyday common thing.

Yet.........

as I said.. for some reason, mentioning 'religious' texts.. causes some kind of brain malfunction...

You are even suggesting that I'm inviting people to 'my' "interpretation" when I'm actually inviting people to 'walk the road with me'... in looking at..either .. Darwins paragraph, the crimes act, a trust deed..etttttcetera.

I used Mark 1:1-4 as an example.. of a text which we can ALL interpret based on the SAME principles as I myself applied to Darwins bit...

How hard is that? and..I get Pericles whining about 'oh but we know Darwin existed'..duh.. that has ZERO to do with interpeting a bit of written material attributed to Darwin 'as it stands'...

Yes, we CAN go deeper.. we can look at 'did he exist'..fine. It does not change the 'meaning' of the words attributed to him one iota.
What it MIGHT change is our response 'to' them.

Now..you say "Interpetation is a relative term"... agreed 100%, but.. how many 'different' interpretations of a piece of the crimes act do you think there are? Such things are deliberately written to have 'specific' meaning.
Defense councils don't challenge that meaning, they challenge technical points and try to claim their client 'was at his mothers place on that night' etc.

It looks like Pericles and Fractelle are beyond help with their biases.. you might still be able to participate meaningfully :)

Mark 1:1-4? c'mon..give it a go. What is it saying? "The beginning.....of....the...Gospel....of...

"Dear TRTL... I used the phrase "how to".. deliberately.. because there 'is' a way.. an accepted way used by lawyers, government, people.. every single day of their lives..."

No. There isn't. There are laws they have decided upon, and have thus agreed to abide by a particular interpretation, in order to facilitate their profession.

Actually, having a family member who practices law has given me a rather jaded view of how supposedly immutable these interpretations really are.

The mark of a good lawyer, is how he can best bend that mutually agreed upon interpretation.

No such interpretation can possibly exist for an ancient text, where the authors have been spaced over many years and have come from different cultures.

Hell, some of them believed in witches.

So no, there is no way to 'interpret' a document. Only what people have agreed upon. Even there, there is little consensus.

Clearly, there has been no agreement on the bible. To claim there is a right way to interpret it, is simply to claim that your opinion of it is the only 'right' one. I imagine the mormons, seventh day adventists, atheists, muslims and protestants would have a different interpretation of said book.

Actually, to further prove my point, you yourself are lobbying for change to the religious vilification laws, am I correct?

Putting aside issues of whether I agree or disagree, you would concur that you are aiming to change this interpretation?

If such a law can change so dramatically from its relatively recent inception to now, how on earth can you sit there and claim a biblical document should have any of the same meaning as the past? How can you maintain such a stance against homosexuality, for instance?

Let me guess - this is because your interpretation is that it's the word of god, and your interpretation is the 'right' one.

You can claim that Vanilla et al are beyond help with their biases, but this is just a whopping stone coming from a glass house. But I suppose that's just my interpretation of this debate.

Boaz,

The author is claiming that a Messiah will come to fulful the Second Coventant with reference to the OT.

Historically, baptism was a means to raise money, some of which went to build palaces for Herod. When the Hedodians were in favour with the Romans, the House of David was allowed to minister to the Gentiles. Jesus was from the House of David.

There is no way to know the validity of John's claims.

Peace.

boaz [your right ,some are blind-sided by the religious texts]

SO lets talk about mens law?

I give you the common wealth of australia ACT
[noting an act isnt a law but a juristictional standing]
those who fall under its en-ACT-meant is usually covered in the first few 'clauses'

thus with our constitution it ALL is subject to the 'pre-amble

to wit 'where as the people'... [a very precice word] 'the people ' meaning those [300,000] who 'rat-if-ied it in the ref-u-r-endumb]...
ie the elite landholders who alone were 'allowed' to vote then....

[IE not the sovereign people of these lands [thus it isnt a decree]
..did so under their supiriour juris-tiction of ...'''humbelly relying on the blessings of the ALMIGHTY GOD.

THat we [...have a-greed [thus chose;collude] ..'to unite as one in one INDISOLVABLE federal common-WEALTH''...

, under the [maritime foreign crown authority of matitime [trade.contract law] juristiction[ie contract LAW via thousands of acts and secret select advantage to us the elite.... under the crown of [their crowns maritime juristiction]..of the united kingdom of great britan [or more specificlly an act issued by its parlement]
..''and [thus]under the [their] constitution hereby established''.

''And where-as it [the british con]is expediant to provide for the admission ....etc

any way the constitution is preceeded with a pre=amble that are conditions ,that are all deemed to rule over any that follows ,being [i forget the term] the statement [and limitation] that auther-ises and validates that [constitutional power ] that follows

i hope by clearly explaining the subject clauses ,that others will lead us to understand god under pins them all ,

[thus we swear on the bible [wrongly] in court [and when we asume office]
note st mathew 23;16-23 ,st john7-24 ,james 5;8-12,19,20 ,1peter 2;11-25 ,issiah 39;10-15 ,41;28-29 ,42 in total

Well, I must say that if you were answering an exam question you would have failed that one Boazy, since I was referring to Page 7, not page 8. But never mind, your interpetation of the passage you chose to talk about is ok, not brilliant, but it's limitations can certainly be seen in the context of the text as read from the start.
Page 8:
<<WHEN we look to the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes us, is, that they generally differ much more from each other, than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature.>>

Now, from here on and through the chapter it's pretty clear that Darwin is talking about both plants and animals for each statement presented, presenting examples for both, not starting with plants and then using animals to merely further or extend the argument.

Also, he is not trying to find support for the assertion, "living things develop over time" at all. What he is doing is outlining observations that variability exists in all living things, and that under cultivation (later known as artificial selection) this variability can be pushed in directions not found in populations in their natural state.
cont'd...

Later on, of course he is talking about (as yet then) unknown processes, ie where does this variability come from? Embryonic development? Perhaps, but then suggests:
<<But I am strongly inclined to suspect that the most frequent cause of variability may be attributed to the male and female reproductive elements having been affected prior to the act of conception.>>

Wherein he is talking about what we now know as "genetics", one hundred years before we knew what the structure of DNA or genes were.

This little exercise shows what can happen when:
1) you are looking at the wrong text to start with
2) the that text is taken out of context

And this is from a text that was written a mere 150 years ago, by a man that repeatedly clarified and explained himself, the original texts are archived and he wrote them in English!

Now, you may understand why I don't really hold to too much "interpretation" of ancient translations of 2000+ year old texts, written by anonymous sources. Especially when some interpreters of said texts claim that it tells us exactly how we should live our lives and what supernatural beings really expect from us, when in fact we can be pretty sure that it's the interpeters will that we mostly see.

Boaz states: "It looks like Pericles and Fractelle are beyond help with their biases.. "

1. Neither I nor Pericles asked for your help.
2. You are, once again, attempting to side step any points on interpretation that other people make.

Furthermore:

3. You claim to have the right interpretation on the bible.
4. You dismiss anyone who holds a different interpretation as wrong.
5. You claim that your interpretation of the Quran is the right one.
6. You claim that your religion is the right one.
7. You claim you are always right.

Boaz can you see a pattern here?

You're such a spoilsport, Bugsy.

Boazy, since your premise for this thread has been effectively blown out of the water, would you mind returning to an unfinished matter?

You've stated elsewhere that your interpretation of the Bible holds that there is something you call the "Creation charter", and this is what causes you to say that women in your church should "ideally" cover their hair at prayer meetings, while men need not.

What is this "Creation charter", and how does it support discrimination against women in your church?

I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what BOAZ is on about and as for One Under God.............does anyone understand or am I the only one ? I sympathise with the attempts by Steel and Fractelle and Morgan with their intelligent and articulate attempts to express points of view in a most logical manner, but I think they should save their time and do something more worthwhile than try to persuade people who believe in myths and superstition. It's a no-win situation

Snake

Thanks for compliments :-)

You are not alone with difficulties in deciphering under-one-god - I start to read his posts and suddenly find I'm staring out the window. So I do save some time there and don't bother with his posts any more.

As for trying to reason with Boaz, heh heh; he is like one of those itches than you can ignore for a very long time, then you've just gotta scratch until it is raw, then you can leave it be for a while. I think I am reaching that point of satiation now.

Boaz, yeah, wot CJ said: "What is this "Creation charter", and how does it support discrimination against women in your church?"

Inquiring minds want to know.

This is why I claim religion is generally child abuse. The children who have these ideas will grow up and expect society to obey them (if they can't escape it) and also suffer many personal conflicts and shame as children because they are sinners and will be damned to hell and eternal torture. This will affect the normal development of their mind. many religious parents in the USA for example showed the R-rated Passion of Christ to their underage children.

Boazy,
"When the Armenian king visited Nero in the year 66, he knelt and addressed the emperor as “master” and “god.” At that point, apparently, Nero indeed viewed himself in terms approaching divinity. According to third-century Roman senator and historian Dio Cassius, Nero told the king, “You have done well to come here in person, so that by meeting me face-to-face you might enjoy my grace. . . . I have the power to take away kingdoms and to bestow them” (Roman History 63.5.3)." [in Hulme 2008]

Do you see any parallels to Mark 1 1-4? Herein a subordinate suplicates to a superordinate, whom claimed domain of kingdoms? Nero seems to agree that the king should see, He, Nero, as divine. How do we interpret this exchange? If this exchange is claimed secular and Mark 1 1-4 religious... Why? On what basis

Right on the money snake. Why otherwise very intelligent people bother rising to these baits is a mystery.

A troll's a troll. The worst thing you can do is feed them.

people dont get what im saying?

The commandments.

1. Belief in G-d given freedom
derived from the declaration in Ex. 20:2 beginning,

"I am the L-rd, your G-d...who brought you out of ..slavery"

[thus know your called to act as civilised freemen [being suns of god],
[knowing and following the freeman LAW of good[god]]

2. Prohibition of Improper Worship [of idols ,or faulse gods ,or unfair laws,
or any [things] you could value above god or put before god]

This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning,

"You shall not have other gods before me...
[explained further by listing idols 20;4
[ie anything above or below or on the earth"
remember 20;5 you shall NOT bow down to them
noting ;those who love me keep MY commandments

It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods
as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d,
such as worshiping G-d through an idol.[or son'of god' or any 'material' manifestations
man can put before god

3. Prohibition of Oaths
This category is derived from Ex. 20:7, beginning,
"You shall not take the name of the L-rd your G-d in vain...
" This includes prohibitions against [taking oath , thus commiting]perjury,
or accidently breaking or delaying the performance of vows or promises,
and speaking G-d's name or swearing unnecessarily.
as reconfirmed mathew 5;33-37 ,matt 2316-23



These 3are fairly simple_and_straightforward,

all of them are recognized by most of the world as sound moral principles.

Any non-Jew who follows these commandments has a place in the world to come.

The Noahic commandments are binding on all people,
because all people are descended from Noah and his family.

The Noahic commandments are applied more leniently to non-Jews than the corresponding commandments are to Jews,
because non-Jews do not have the benefit of Oral Torah to guide them in interpreting the laws.
For example, worshipping G-d in the form of a man would constitute idolatry for a Jew;

posted IN FULL here [ie no word limit][see johannine]
http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=718&p=7828#p7828
or more full at [one under god]
http://morgana.forumco.com

one under god: << people dont get what im saying? >>

Er, no, actually - I'm with Snake and Fractelle here: I've had a few attempts at trying to understand what it is you're on about, but I'm afraid your posts are incomprehensible, so I no longer bother.

Chainsmoker's quite correct of course. However, I think I must have a slightly masochistic streak where Boazy's concerned.

I'll write it in my diary for tomorrow: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.

:)

At LAST... the time/post limit is allowing me in here again:)

OneUnderGod.. I'm sure you mean well, but my goodness.. all that effort.. but...?
1/ Try to have a point.
2/ Try to make it clear
3/ Try NOT to break rules about using excessive "- and _" characters or.. your posts quite likely will be deleted..and/or..you might be banned.. just a friendly warning.
Are you a 'British Israelite' believer?

Oly.. so much to work with.. we must coffee sometime. On your post saying Jesus is coming to fulfill the 2nd covenant re the OT...
Good try, but you won't find that in Mark 1:1-4, but elsewhere.
The reason I'm sticking 'just' with the text given is an important one, it will reveal how much we read 'into' it :) as you did,..
Try again..but JUST... see what the 'text' itself says... k? :)
Forget ALL preknown things if possible. No Jargon.. no external reading.. 'just' Mark 1:1-4...
The other things you mentioned are not in the text.

CJ.. and Fraccy.. please stop projecting 'INto' this topic your sidetracking and personal abuse *pinch x2* or should I say 'Scratch'?:)

BUGGGGGGSSYYYYYY! you GOT IT!..Halelujah.. there is SOMEone from my usual 'critics who actually addressed thaaaaaaa "TOPIC".

Now..I just followed 'your' link mate.. and began reading.. I didn't realize I needed to click to another page.. you sneaky blighter*smile*

But given what I read.. yes..out of context.. I kinda nailed it as far as the 'text' I read went ..right?
Sure..more 'context'..more clarity. No argument with your 'out of context' point.

Now.. I did it for you.. can you please have a crack at Mark 1:1-4 and see what it's saying? (see my comments to Oliver above)

Forget that its a 'religious' text.. for this exercise..its just 'text'.

TRTL.. yes, there is a lot of 'interpretation' even about the crimes act. But I assert that there is a plain meaning, only disputed for reasons of vested interest. Space shuttles arrive at the moon based on...'specific' interpretations of written text.

Boazy,

"On your post saying Jesus is coming to fulfill the 2nd covenant re the OT...Good try, but you won't find that in Mark 1:1-4, but elsewhere." - Boaz

Malachi 3.1:

"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts". Matches to: Matt 11:10, "Mark 1:2" :-), Luke 7:27

But this a Christian interpretation. Is there an historical cross-validation?

You haven't commented Nero.

"'just' with the text given" - Boaz


Mark 4.1.

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Gospel = Greek euaggelion = message; bardardised in Anglo-Saxon to God-tell

Jesus = Greek transliteration of Iesous from Hebrew Jehoshua meaning salvation; The son of a Nun [Virgin] (First called Osee; Septuagint 'Iesoûs, first Aúsé), or, Josue, whom commanded a tribe of Isreal, after the Exodus.

Interpretation: Jesus was a saviour born into a family whom commanded the tribe of Israel, after the Exodus. His mother was engaged to be married, but became preegnant beforehand [She gave birth as a Nun][Numbers 27.18]. Josue is a successor of Moses, after the Exodus.

Christ = Hebrew Messias= appointed, consecrated, altar of the tabernacal or denoting dignity towards god; or prophetic utterances concerning the Messiah [Talmud]

Son of God: Intimate relation or connection to God; Sons of God [God's angels] stand against Satan [Job 1.6; 2.1]

Interpretation: One whom stands with God against evil.

-more later, very time consuming-

Don't forget link or Nero. Tah.

"TRTL.. yes, there is a lot of 'interpretation' even about the crimes act. But I assert that there is a plain meaning, only disputed for reasons of vested interest. Space shuttles arrive at the moon based on...'specific' interpretations of written text."

The difference here, boaz, is that there is a clear end result.

Tell me - if somebody else had read the same directions and built an entirely different space shuttle, which still made it to the moon, would the original 'interpretation' still be the only right one?

In fact, if many different people had all read the manual, and come out with a hundred different contraptions, each of which still got them to the moon, and they were so convinced theirs was the better shuttle they were willing to go to war over it - would there still be a 'correct' way to read the directions?

Or if you really want to get into it - riddle me this: if nobody knew what the directions meant, but one person read them and ended up building a time machine instead, would you still insist they were directions for building a space shuttle, if the directions were disputed and the time machine was the better machine?

Oly...I'll get to Nero in due course I'm sure.. (if not u'll remind me :)

This might seem petty..but if we can limit our 'information' interpretation to just the text.. without going to the various definitions..it would help in acheiving the goal here.

I'm not 'letting the cat out of the bag' or it would be pointless.

You are heading in the right direction, but you are still providing much much more than the text itself can give. This is very simple stuff.. by that I mean.. say "only" what we can...from the text itself..without referring to any other document, or.. to pre-existing definitions/information which you might know from other reading.

So..u've kind of said most of it.. but more also.

You gave wonderful definitions of 'Son of God' etc.. but you don't need to go that far for this particular task... if we were looking at it and trying to make all the terms meaningful to a wide audience..then yes.. of course we would seek to flesh out each word.
But for our little 'group' :) lets really try to stick to the words on the paper..rather than our knowledge of them from outside sources at this point.

Hint... "what" is the 'beginning' of the Gospel?

Think again..if 'THIS' is ALL we knew of Jesus and the 'Gospel'..what would we know?(only.. repeat..only..from the text at hand)

TRTL.. I honestly think you are just playing with semantics to avoid actually confronting 4 verses of text.
As I said..this is not any kind of trick question.. the only thing I'm heading towards is simply 'What the words on the page mean in everyday language'..not how they should be applied to our lives. So ur safe.

By doing this, and limiting the focus tightly, I'm sure most of us will at least realize how much we did 'not' see...at first.

Boaz, you are kidding no-one except yourself.

>>Forget that its a 'religious' text.. for this exercise..its just 'text'... As I said..this is not any kind of trick question.. the only thing I'm heading towards is simply 'What the words on the page mean in everyday language'.<<

The giveaway is, of course, that you have chosen bible verses as the basis of your disingenuous safari into the steamy depths of language and meaning.

If you were sincere - which of course you are not - you would be content to use Darwin or Grisham.

But that would not suit your purpose, would it? A purpose which you are becoming increasingly impatient to reveal to us.

>>I'm not 'letting the cat out of the bag' or it would be pointless.<<

But you actually want to let it out, Boaz, don't you? Because we're not playing nicely and sitting attentively at our desks, instead we're banging the lids and sending teacher running back to the staff room.

You'd like to send Fractelle and myself to stand outside the headmaster's study...

>>It looks like Pericles and Fractelle are beyond help with their biases...<<

...which has to be the most rib-tickling piece of pot-and-kettle you've produced for a while.

Biased? Boaz? Naaaah, surely not.

But I'm afraid I at least will be here until the bell goes, as I have appointed myself to the position of lookout, ready to pounce the moment you turn this into a whack-a-mozzie attack.

Oh, and I'm also blackboard monitor.

Can I look after the fish?

boaz>>''Are you a 'British Israelite' believer?''<<

Not in the least ,i got persicuted by mens law thus had to study it
then had to study gods law ,then found out courts dont use either ,but en-act contract law [the law of the seas [maritime law]

Judges make it up as they go

[knowing the higher court wont find against their ruling [because of the use of word meanings ;ie deciet/trickery ,

[ie if you have a lawyer [the court deems you lawfully in-compitant] the legal term is imbisile [but no lawyer tells you that]

further a lawyer is a 'servant' of the court [not the client]

When your standing before the court you are asked by the judge do you under-stand [yes] they are two sepperate words [you see in court it is all about standing [understanding means you acknowledge the power of the court to judge you]

Standing is required [meaning you are personally affected ][a point no procicutor will tell you]

They dont legally have standing [but no judge is going to point that out[because you all ready said you 'under'stand , thus claim to know it allready]

To try to explain it all dosnt work in a few word spaces ,people must be prepared to try and 'get' it..[not UNDERstand to it]

If people cant understand my cryptic efforts they will never understand either law.

But many arnt here to explain or understand anything [i note so many get off on ridiculing [or name calling [or critisisng posting teqnique],thus possably are being paid to distract or disrupt serious postings

But not even trying to reply or understand that being posted ,

our jails [and hell'sss] are full of them .
[ie jokers who think the court is there to protect their rights ,hah]

and they also think the police are there to keep peace
[not police us for our revenue raising fine defaulting]

one under god,
I interpret by the attitude in your last post you do not see Australian laws worthy - to be respected; therefore you may not be a citizen of Australia and have no allegiance to our institutions.

Because citizens swear allegiance to our laws and institutions. Since you dispise lawyers, police and our Australian laws then it is suggested that you should be watched carefully, such attitudes are characteristic of Muslim terrorists. Though you claim to be "under one god" it is not the God whom Christ represented but rather a god of rebellion and disorder.

Christ though a peaceful teacher and innocent Citizen under Roman laws governing Palestine at his trial before Pilate; Pilate stated "I find no fault in this innocent man". He was crucified by the incitement of religious zealots who incissantly shouted "Crucify him, he is a blasphemer" who they claimed dispised God's laws. In fact Christ had more praise for the Romans than for the religious zealots who were supposedly interpreting God's laws.

By your un-Australian ungodly attitudes you neither know God nor respect the institutions of this Great country. Joseph, Moses, Daniel, Esther, all foreigners in captivity in a foreign land displayed their relationship to God by their contribution to the nation of their captors and adherence of the governing laws. I strongly suggest you learn of their God and follow their devoted attitudes to the laws and institutions of this Nation.

Posted by Philo,

..>>I interpret by the attitude in your last post you do not see Australian laws worthy - to be respected; therefore you may not be a citizen of Australia and have no allegiance to our institutions<<..

WRONG on all counts bro

dear phillo see your reply 6-May-2008-10:28:22

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1757&page=0#34825

>>we vote to elect governments to represent the majority of the people's will. However in NSW the will of the people seems to be violated by a current Dictator<<

yes that is my point egsactly philo.

>>Any other system of law demonstrating mercy and justice must be educated logically to convince the majority of the population of its superiority and balance.<<

Well we have been taught this in school philo

But the reality is police arnt there to serve amnd protect you
nor are the polititions [nor the courts!

They are OUR public instruments THAT have been subverted to serve THEIR special intrests!

[like as per your prior winge in the first quote]

To wit to sell of OUR public assets , or ensure there are huge trust funds for PUB-licking-servants ,judges, po-lie-trick-ians etc sucking us dry VIA ever more hiden taxation and a court systen for just-us and revenue raising.


>>Then representatives elected to formulate the will of the people.<<

wrong bro its been done THROUGH the education system
[and the dumbed down media]
and further by double talking bloggers ,
blindsided by the very systems re-working of laws via changing the word's meanings

<<Let us hear of these superior, true and just laws. Otherwise the proposition is merely a racial winge.<<..

hear hear

so which supirior laws ?[gods command-meant-s]
see my previous post
OR your WEST-mine-ster F-laws ,that rat-if-y us into common oppression via evermore vile acts [
most VILE/EVIL/VEIL
[D-evil F-law EN-act]

..>>it is suggested that you should be watched carefully,
such attitudes are characteristic of Muslim terrorists<<..

does thiS apply to YOU TOO?

>>By your un-Australian ungodly attitudes you neither know God nor
respect the institutions of this Great country.<<

WHY ARE YOU PERSISTING IN TRYING TO SERVE TWO MASTERS philo?

One under god... for starters, calm down.

You state: "They are OUR public instruments THAT have been subverted to serve THEIR special intrests!"

Ah. The old 'them' chestnut. Who are 'they'? I have a sneaking suspicion that they're just people, like the rest of us. As for the entire system being one big conspiratorial edifice, my view is that whilst I think lawyers have subverted the profession somewhat to turn a faster buck, our government departments are often wasteful and inefficient and many politicians aren't particularly competent, I reject the idea of a vast conspiracy.
Those things I mentioned are just human nature, not a grand plan.
No offence, but that's just what crackpot conspiracists like to believe, and if you carry on in a similar vein to the post above, that's all you will sound like to most posters here. I'm not saying this to be harsh, I'm giving honest advice.

Boaz:

You state: "I honestly think you are just playing with semantics to avoid actually confronting 4 verses of text."

I could say the same for you and the many, many criticisms that have come your way in this thread... but it is not semantics at all.

The analogy you present is for a very specific end result. Religious texts in particular have no definitive measurable outcome. Instead, you attempt to make a correlation with laws, but again, laws have a more measurable outcome, and more importantly, they are open to change. They have been put in place comparatively recently and the meaning has been carefully explained by people in this culture, still practicing the same laws, so there is much less need for 'interpretation'.

Cont'd.

Pericles.. the 'cat' is simply some insights which have thus far been missed by all.

I'll bounce it off you this way. "If.. you only had the Gospel of Mark, and you have read the first verse. .. how much would you know about Jesus? and what would you make of the word 'Christ'? keep in mind, Mark was writing for a Gentile audience (though that's kinda cheating to mention that).. but even forgetting that external information, we are left with the 'meaning' of.. "Jesus..Christ".. grappling with this issue will shed a lot of light on the way Mark has structured his record. You might ask also 'where in his gospel is the word Christ used, and in what context?"
"What does this tell us about his structure and purpose, or about his audience "?

Why does he use the world 'Gospel'.. you could (in your most capable way) look this up.. aah.. information :) do you see why Mark used 'that' particular word?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_news_%28Christianity%29

Why didn't he just say 'story'..'report'.. 'account'? 'euangelion' had technical and historical meaning.

Again..this is not about 'is the text authentic or reliable' in the historical sense.

If you get nothing else out of this, at least you 'should' get the fact that I look at things rather closely when it comes to religious issues.

BUGSY.. how about having a go at Mark 1:1-4? at least try to give something along the lines I gave you for Darwin?

OLY.. I had a look at Nero, I don't really see any connection to Mark 1:1

One Under God.. try to relax a bit mate.. the topic is really not about most of those things you mentioned. What is your particular tradition or denomination or faith please?

c

Boaz,

Mark 1.1-1.4 & Nero

I put there are similarities between the exchange between the Nero & the Armenian King and Jesus & John the Baptist. The Emperor is greater than the King. A known high status person is supplicating himself before a person of even higher status.

Please look again and comment.

Mark:

I assume you require that the text be read, as if today, with no special knowledge of meaning or antiquity or other languages.

[No using dictionaries. Assuming no foreknowledge of uncommon vocabulary.]

The passages seem disjointed in time. The flashback is confusing,

Mark 1.1: Opens as if a fairy tail or fantasy, “Once upon a time….”, “In a Galaxy Far, Far, Away..|.” It does suggest a genesis-style of story, a beginning of the story. Perhaps something like: This is the commencement of a story about, Ares the Son of Zeus.

[Had Mark been a better writter he may have commenced; "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the spring of hope and the winter of dispair," [Dickens],

Mark 1.2-3: [disjointed, flashback]: A guide will come from the desert. Prepare the way for the [unidentified] Lord.

Mark 1.4: Baptising [what ever that means?] is performed by a person called John the Baptist, seeming a specialist in the craft of Bapting to make straight paths for this Lord from the desert. Maybe a Bapt is tool to make paths straight. People whom Bapt are forgiven their sins. Presumably, a sin is something one needs to be forgiven. A Bapt is a magical tool.

O.

topic is 'How to Interpret Texts- Religious and Secular'

i have stated at other times i am a thiest[I_love_god/creation[reading all the texts from gods many messengers]

So back to understanding texts

know we are given this gift of life/Spirit dwells within the Body

man is a spirit,
the body serves him for the performance in the world,
that the spirit is man's internal and the body his external

it-is the same with text.

http://www.swedenborg.org/odb/sermon_detail.cfm?sermonID=2496

The s/word in the scriptures is either truth or falsity used as a weapon.

Swedenborg tells us that when a man persistently refuses to live
according to a truth that he knows,...

http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/comp/comp480to560.htm

'providence leads man by his affections [love] not by thought'

'the particular type of 'love' leading us to the good or evil by deivine providence'[love/logus]

We are created so that we can choose to serve ourselves, and so risk become evil, because freedom to choose moraly is what makes us human and not animals.

We were made in the image of God and must be able to choose freely what we will love and learn to do.

BUT There would be no virtue or happiness in doing right if we could do nothing else.

Thus We are given freedom of choice [and mens texts to judge us should we go wrong].

comprehend how it is with respect to the spirit of man , his body and his texts
therefore
assert that the spirit dwells thus within the body,
and the body,as it were, incloses and invests it's power [spirit].

But it should be known, that the spirit within the body is in the whole Our choice ,
according as we love to see it.

a life of satisfying only our senses,
with no thought of whether we are doing right or wrong or whether we are substituting our natural pleasures for God,[a greater good].

Our choice could be for a beautiful, satisfying life serving the Lord and our neighbor.

God stands before us with his arms open, waiting for us.
but The choice is ours! Ahh -men

There truly is no end to your preening narcissism, is there Boaz?

>>Pericles.. the 'cat' is simply some insights which have thus far been missed by all.<<

How can that be? The combined intellects ranged here have failed to grasp some "insights". Well, shame on us, is all I can say.

>>I'll bounce it off you this way. "If.. you only had the Gospel of Mark, and you have read the first verse. .. how much would you know about Jesus?<<

Not a great deal. They are words without context.

Some of the context rests with the author (as I am sure you would agree, for your own reasons), some with the circumstances of the writing (with notes; with assistance; with personal knowledge of the events under discussion).

Without some understanding of these, the deconstruction of your text is pointless. As I said, just words.

But, in order to indulge you, here goes.

As requested, just the first verse.

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ"

Beginning: yep, got that.

Gospel: more difficult. But apparently from the Greek evangelion, via Old English, indicating "good news brought by an evangelist." So, colours have been firmly nailed to the mast here. This is not going to be a factual, unbiased account, but a spin-laden narrative designed to influence you towards whatever-it-is that the evangelist is selling.

Jesus Christ: presumably the subject matter. So, nothing illuminating except that the subject at least has a name.

How am I doing so far?

Note: according to some scholars, "the Son of God" was added later. Once again, underlining the need to be aware of the context.

OK, I've played your game, now you can play mine.

Where do I find one line of third-party evidence that any of the startling events in the life of Jesus actually occurred?

Without that, you can hardly consider the Gospels factual, can you?

Cont'd from last post:

Boaz, thus, I put it to you the questions I asked are indeed important questions and I'd be interested to know your answers.

I 'honestly think' you have devoted much of your life to the importance of religious texts, and as such you would not like to confront the fact that there is not a certain way to interpret them all - that the reason why there are so many offshoots of Christianity, is because each of these groups have rejected a single interpretation and fashioned another - because a concrete interpretation does not exist - and that is just the situation within the religion, not outside. Thus, I think it would be very unpleasant for you to confront this reality as it would invalidate the foundations upon which you have built your life and your world view.

Pericles points out the situation - given the vast majority of your discussions on OLO come back to attempting to persuade people that your concept of god is the correct one and you have a better handle on how to 'interpret' these texts than any others, would it not be reasonable to place this thread in context as an attempt to position yourself as placing a higher opinion and higher value on your ability to interpret a text than others, and would it not seem in keeping with the context of your other posts, that it does appear to be very much like a 'Trojan horse' to get others to consider the bible and come around to your way of thinking, disguised as a neutral essay on different (or in your eyes, singular) means of interpreting texts?

Regardless of your 'just consider the text' I don't believe this is a neutral exercise without ulterior motives and I don't think the source authors are relevant.

If genuinely discussing interpretation, I think my shuttle questions are far more relevant and probing in discussing these concepts, and they don't have the added baggage of appearing to be a stealthy attempt to consolidate a position which would increase your effectiveness at proselytising.

I agree that we need to comprehend the cultural bias of any text to be able to interpret it. Within that statement, we alson need to comprehend what cultural bias is, and how cultural bias is often defined by religious obligations. Therefore, only when we understand every of the religious obligations embedded in any religious text, will we be able to interpret it.

Meanwhile, interpreting secular texts, is just too easy by comparison, and it is worth noting, that people trained to interpret religious texts are more thorough than anybody else when it comes to interpreting secular texts.

There is one fundamental rule of every religion, without which no interpretation of any text is possible: that is to use your conscience.

Thereby religous reading is taught using our feelings to guide us into comprehending meaning. The difference is that feelings/emotions are taught as a human function which ought not have any negative expression, yet which is always beneficial to be attentive to. The basic lesson is that, when we avoid manifesting negative feeling contributions to the world, we live longer.

Read for longevity by conscience rather than conscious thought, and you will have mastered interpretative analysis. (Tafsir is the Arabic word for "interpretative analysis of scriptures")

Peracles and Curaezipirid,

Please see my post:

- Oliver, Monday, 2 June 2008 7:52:25 PM

Boaz did not want this analytical interpreation. I think, he wants use to read, as if, naive interpreters, without the knowledge of language or history or context?

The historical context is, Jesus was re-establishing the House of David, and, would have had problems owing to his illegimate birth. When a measure of power was given Herodians, the House of David was delegated the lowly task of ministering to the Gentiles.

Baptism was a means to joing the club and to pay a fee, a part of which, was used to build palaces for Herod. There is a religious interpretation too, based on a book called, The Bible, compiled as a works in 325CE.

Ok Boazy, since you specifically asked for it, I’ll give it a go.

>1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

I’m guessing this is the start of a book about a guy called Jesus Christ, so right there the author is treating their audience like a bunch of idiots, otherwise I would have thought it was the middle bit.

The Son of God bit sounds like advertising, a title to make him sound Important.

>2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

I interpret this as: As it was predicted long ago, (presumably God? said at some point) Have a Look, I’ll send a wingman to soften them up before you can show your face around those parts. My guess is God says this because anyone who just turns up out of nowhere claiming to be the Son of God could get lynched unless someone butters ‘em up first.

>3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Someone a having a bit of an emotional moment out in the wilderness, Get out the way, no gay people please (presumably the Lord doesn’t like gay people).

>4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

So, John was out in the wilderness baptizing and preaching. This doesn’t seem like a very productive exercise to me, as generally speaking there are not many people in the wilderness, otherwise it isn’t really wilderness, by definition. But then later on, I notice the guy has a serious insect fetish (as he only seems to eat locusts and wild honey), wears camel hair and pretends to drown people in the river to let them off the hook for anything they may have done, so I guess he’s a little odd.

How’d I do, do I get a lollipop?

Bugsy, you're not taking this exercise seriously.

You're hereby sentenced to picking up rubbish in the playground at lunchtime for a week. Any more insolence and it'll be off to Brother Gibo for six of the best.

Bugsy.. you did an excellent job!

There was just one minor point.. you could have tied 'John' to the 'voice/messenger' a bit tighter..other than that.. you did wonderfully.

I might add, I'm submitting your name to the next editorial committee for 'contemporary language translation' of the New Testament..(not serious, but the language is quite readable. Tidy the sarcasm and you have a winner)

The reason you did so well, is that you did not "inject" much if anything of what you already know into the text.. and that.. has been my point all along. (it's how I approach the Quran)

So..in all seriousness..thanx, not that you did it 'for me'..but that you 'did' it.

We could extend this a little further.. if you are willing.

If I told you how much 'time' in Jesus ministry is covered by chapter 1 to 8, it might give the game away, but consider this..

Chapters 1 to 8 cover a period of time, and 9-16 another period. Both are 8 chapters long, but the times are very different. Jesus had ministry for 3 yrs.. a little digging might show something VERY important (in terms of Marks method/structure/purpose) about when the next mention of 'Christ' is in the book.

To find where they are mentioned one can do a word search in bible gateway.

I still recall how blown away I was at college when I actually 'saw' what was there...

Now..to be fair.. would you like me do something along those lines with Darwin?(or some other) allocate a chunk and I'll see what I can do.

CJ.. nothing funnier than whining sideliners who tried to spoil the game but failed 0_

Actually Boazy, I think this thread is a complete wank.

"The Jews were_not chosen, but were_urgent to-be-a Church, from their Love_of Pre-eminence"

It does appear God was right for choosing the stiff-necks. Christians never demanded from the Gospel writers that the Father present himself - so they ended up with something else. Jews demanded this of Moses, and it resulted in the greatest OPEN revelation in Creation.

"For as to all these men who have seen My glory,
and My miracles,.. and yet have tempted Me these ten times,
and have not Obeyed My voice, (Numb. xiv). "

This is a lie-by-omission. The Jews were in fact forgiven - which is absent from your reporting. Technically, the Hebrews did not sin, because the law was yet not handed down - Moses was also right in asserting he will not go forth unless God forgives Israel - Moses was being tested here. What a difference with Moses and those Europeans who never confronted Rome which genicided 2 million Jews for refusing to worship a roman emperor, while the NT focuses on hapless money changers: there was obviously no Moses here! The law concerning image worship is foremost applicable to Europe - who would have failed the test: Heaven understandeth the nature of man.

"but that they were urgent,-had-a-passion-[were_salty]
and therefore it was done. (AC n. 4290)"

You cannot judge Jews, who have a seperate covenant - even the Pope has acknowkedged this reality. Judge christians - they commited more mass murders than any other peoples in Geo-History - even when disregarding their worst last two centuries, and spread more false charges of desperation than any other religion: blood libels, deicide, the protocols, muslims are Palestinians, a deathly 3-state is a 2-state in Palestine, zionists are zionising zion, etc, etc, etc.

European christianity has commited too many crimes, and has no business judging anyone else - least of all the Jews. Millions of otherwise innocent believers are tragically hijacked - because the NT hinged all belief in God dependent on falsehoods directed at a people they robbed and massacred.

EUROSTAN IS GUILTY AS HELL - THINKING GOD CAN BE FOOLED BY AN EVIL MULTITUDE.

"They were urgent that a church should be instituted among them
but this was for no other end than that they-might-be distinguished above all-nations

How dare Israel still *OCCUPY ALL OF 12%* of the land alloted her in the Balfour Declaration. How dare Jews genocide Europe's invented ' Pretend Pals' - who have more options & facilities than any other people in Geo-History. How dare the Zionists Zionise Zion. How dare the world not call a deathly 3-state as a 2-state. But the truth will never set Eurostan free - and the real Judas is one who sold out the Jews when they were most helpless - for 30 barrels of oil:

'IT WILL BE AN HISTORIC CONPROMISE TO GRANT TWO STATES IN PALESTINE - ONE FOR THE JEWS AND ONE FOR THE ARABS' - Churchill.

Briton lost her prefix of 'Great' when she corrupted the Balfour. Jews have never stolen anyone's land in all their 4000 year history - exactly the reverse of Eurostan's history - who murdered more innocent people than any other. Eurostan is hell-bent on killing the witness for Heaven's prosecution. Understandable. Go for it - fool Heaven. Hell is what happens to you while your busy making other plans.

IamJoseph,

I am not refuting the persecutions. But it was a case the Christians would not "pray for the safety of the Emperor" [as some churches do for the Queen today], the zealots wanted a Jewish chursh-state, and, the Jews would not allow Pagans into the Temple, becuase the latter had eaten unclean meat from the bone "like dogs". Also, there was much civil disobedience amongst the Christised Jews, as before adult baptism the Christian Jews would go on a sin-fest. The first 1-15 bishops of the Church were Jewish, not Gentile Christians. Later by having a Gentile leadership, Jews under Christian guise could move into the Holy Lands, overcoming sactions put into place by Hadrian.

What is your source for the two million number? Over what period? Nero, Diocletian & Caligula would have been this worse, I think.

The Romans, as pantheists, were generally tolerated all religions, yet were superstitious. Non-conformity by a Religion or an Emperor for that matter could lead to a down-fall. Judaism had the protection of antiquity, Christianity didn't. Albeit, we have Jewish-Roman Wars in 60s & 130s

Trying to pretend you don't notice when someone's having a lend is not a good look, Boaz, it makes you look very silly indeed.

>>Bugsy.. you did an excellent job!<<

What happened to dignity?

And finally - finally - you come clean with what we all knew, the whole way through.

>>The reason you did so well, is that you did not "inject" much if anything of what you already know into the text.. and that.. has been my point all along. (it's how I approach the Quran)<<

Quelle surprise énorme

This whole rigmarole has been yet another exercise in self-serving narcissism, with the sole objective of deflecting criticism of one of your nastier habits, the scabrous interpretation of carefully selected verses from the Qur'an.

Sorry. Didn't work.

But even worse, you have inadvertently drawn attention to one of the biggest holes in your entire argument.

You make a big deal of the Qur'an as a source document, and consistently compare it (via the highly selective process mentioned) with the Bible.

What you have placed in the spotlight is the huge number of question marks over the New Testament as a historical document - and by definition, the conclusions you draw about its content.

It is one of your more annoying habits, that you simply walk away from questions you cannot cogently answer, but nevertheless I'd still appreciate an attempt at the most recent one.

Can you point to one line of third-party evidence that any of the unusual, defining events in the life of Jesus actually occurred

"I am not refuting the persecutions. But it was a case the Christians would not "pray for the safety of the Emperor" [as some churches do for the Queen today], the zealots wanted a Jewish chursh-state, and, the Jews would not allow Pagans into the Temple, becuase the latter had eaten unclean meat from the bone "like dogs".

You understandably make excuses. But regretably, all the excuses are additional falsehoods - these continued throughout medevial Europe and prevail today. The original christians were NOT Jews, nor was Paul anymore a Jew after he was expelled and ex-communicated for desecrating the OT to appease Romans. Jews do not worship divine man - PERIOD - that is why they sacrificed over a million in its defense of Rome's decree, and lost their homeland for the noblest reason among all humanity's history - it is unpardonably omitted from the NT and distorted by malligning them. Alexander entered the temple as an honored guest, as did Queen Sheba and her entire party. But even Jews could not enter with forbidden meat [why do you disdain God's laws?], and only the High Preist could enter the H of H. The new christians freely worshipped Rome's images, else they would not have survived till Constantinople. However, this is their own belief and I do not question it - its the horrific false charges made which is the problem, and how a billion christians have come to accept it - this means christians can only be saved via Jews reminding them of the truth, and all Jews must help christians here. The church has not been a good example, and this is a tuff call for sincere believers to accept.

"Also, there was much civil disobedience amongst the Christised Jews, as before adult baptism the Christian Jews would go on a sin-fest. The first 1-15 bishops of the Church were Jewish, not Gentile Christians. Later by having a Gentile leadership, Jews under Christian guise could move into the Holy Lands, overcoming sactions put into place by Hadrian."

The term Baptism came later from Europe, and was never a christian, but a Jewish OT ritual ['Mikvah']. There's no such thing as a sin-fest, nor can one call defending against Rome's depraved decrees as disobedience - in fact, this is the greatest sacrifice by a people in all recorded history, and puts PAID to the false charges of dis-believers. I don't believe what is ascribed to Jesus - all we have is Europe's word for it.

"What is your source for the two million number? Over what period? Nero, Diocletian & Caligula would have been this worse, I think. "

The Josephus Documents list 1.1 million killed in the war with Rome/70 CE, giving breakdowns via towns and populations. The Roman decree to worship its emperor emerged with Caligua/10 BCE, and since this time, there were daily crucifixions, upto 800 a day, in all parts of Judea, which accounts for over a million again. Also, there were later rebelians upto 135 CE, when the name f Judea was changed to Palestina. the depiction of one Jew sacrificing himself - itself a lie, because Jesus would have had no immunity from the charge of heresy [all were killed by Rome, including Paul]- which the NT blames on jews [deicide], to appease Rome. I challenge you to evidence Jews revelling over the death of another, specially when the murders were Roman nazis, with beedy eyed snidings as per the gospels and Mad Mel's passion of a 1000 lashes per frame - choose from 4000 tears of history? if you cannot, then walk humbly with thy God and do not subscribe to false witnesses. Tuff call I know.

Well bugger me drunk - d'ye mean to say that Boazy was scheming to expose the Q'uran as a noxious religious document via a cunning hermeneutic strategy? Arrr.. if only he was such a cunning linguist!

One of Boazy's more pathetic traits is the way that he claims to have won over those who are having a lend of him. If he wasn't such an enthusiastic purveyor of hypocrisy and hatred I might have more sympathy for him when he makes an idiot of himself so regularly.

My first post to this thread indicated my attitude to Boazy's pretensions to teach some of us how to analyse texts. It hasn't improved.

..>>Can you point to one line of third-party evidence that any of the unusual, defining events in the life of Jesus actually occurred
Posted by Pericles<<..

http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/histjesu/histjesu.htm
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Is_There_Evidence_for_Jesus_Outside_the_Bible
http://www.gotlife.org/ramp.swf
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plin.+Nat.+toc
http://www.answering-islam.org/Intro/islamic_jesus.html
http://homepages.which.net/~radical.faith/reviews/harvey2.htm

OK thats only from the first page of my google search

Its not for any to prove anything [to anyone ]
as jesus reveals your faith alone

Its seek and you will find
[remembering that some [vile][evil] type person will gladly destroy any document ][or any paper or libery ] just to suppress ANY fool-proof truth

Its amasing the newtestimeant stories even survived as long as they have to this day

[let alone truths that proove definativly that jesus ever came[say the people who killed him [or athiests ;they arnt really a new invention]

To demand proof [yet not even bother to look ] is to presume your own position is secure
[the historians are saying that the people of god took others peoples stories ,that the old testiment didnt happen ,BUT so what?

Its the moral IN the stories that leads to god [jesus is only one of the narrow paths TO GOD [the living loving god of grace and light

[and here we are wasting typing on yet another messenger'smess-age]

jesus came to reveal to mankind OUR GOD
not ritual not the new testiment,not miricles

JUST GOD
and the best way to find GOD is by doing what jesus said
[love god [love neighbour]

Who cares to proove that to those who's ears are deaf
[who's eyes are blind [who cant be bothered confirming ,

only enjoy complaining ,mocking things that are greater than they can concieve, to discover greater things than holy texts
[or any holy prophet]
[find GOD]

the living loving god

THE one who sustains each of us our every breath

and we debate about the messengers
and yet still have no concept of or belief in WHAT they revealed
ie how to realise
A [THE] LIVING LOVING GOD
now

Pericles... I and others have provided all the information that relates to Jesus many times over.
-Josephus
-Herodotus
-Pliney
-and so it goes on.. you could actually do some googling on this.
I won't say anything about the various archeological finds which were not known by any other source than the Bible... there is too much. Particularly the New Testament. End of sidetrack.

Pericles, you said:

"the scabrous interpretation of carefully selected verses"

I've shown that you can arrive at the very same understanding of the intent of a biblical text as I do...yet you say the above? that is totally irrational.. I mean..it really is.

As for Mark 1:1-4.. Having now established what the text is 'saying'.. we can then ask 'Does this mean anything for us'.. that is 'interpretation'.. Thus far, we know very little on which to base any 'personal application'.
It doesn't tell us to 'do' anything. Get it?

BUGSY.. not at all. It has already been a very worthwhile exercise as it has shown that there is no rocket science to getting the plain meaning of a religious text...or.. a text written by Darwin.

The place where it becomes divisive is the 'application'.

It's a pity that Pericles has taken an irrational approach, bordering on bigotry to be truthful, 'scabrous interpetation' ...good grief.

If I said "Mark 1:1-4 means that the moon is made of green cheeze..THAT would be a 'scabrous interpretation'. Sorry Pericles, you shot yourself in the foot there mate.

If we could show that the Ananda Marga had a 'foundation text' which said "All people named Bugsy must be killed" and we then found that this text applies for all time, then Bugsy would rightly be concerned if the Ananda Marga applied to build a school in his street.

Boazy: << If I said "Mark 1:1-4 means that the moon is made of green cheeze..THAT would be a 'scabrous interpretation'. >>

Nope. It would be funny. One would think that a self-styled hermeneutic scholar would be able to spell "cheese".

Say CHEEZE Boazy :D

Now go and look up 'scabrous' in the dictionary.

Curaezipirid.. (welcome)

You said:

"I agree that we need to comprehend the cultural bias of any text to be able to interpret it."

Yep.. indeed we do. But what we should do prior to looking up external information, is closely examine the text as it stands, and see if it answers those kinds of questions itself. In the case of Mark, there will be some questions of that nature which we can only guess at.. such as 'It was set in an agricultural/fishing society'.. we can see this from the illustrations and imagery used in the language.

In some ways, its like a stone in a pond.. the ripples go ever wider.

Oliver

"Boaz did not want this analytical interpreation. I think, he wants use to read, as if, naive interpreters, without the knowledge of language or history or context?"

Exactly :) you were providing great information, but it was obtained outside the text...and for this exercise, I'm trying to focus 'just' on the information provided by the text.

TRTL said:
<you would not like to confront the fact that there is not a certain way to interpret them all>

Actually, I believe there is a 'zone' of acceptable interpetation.

Some churches differ on Baptism. "Sprinkle" or.."immerse" The simplest solution is to ask "How did the early church, John the baptist do it"?
Problem solved? :) I wish! Nope.. you can then see how a particular tradition, like 'child baptism', and 'confirmation'.

The message of John the Baptist and Jesus, and the Apostles was the same "Repent, and believe in Christ the Son of God -you will be forgiven and receive eternal life in so doing" There is not much to 'interpet' there..its mentioned so many times.

The only difference of opinion I believe I have with how John performed baptism is in the length of time the head is kept under water.

Also, as far as the answer to "how to interpret texts", it appears all you have to do is be able to read them.

As I said, it's a complete and utter wank, designed to get people to talk about Boazy's favourite subject (no not muslims, the other one).

Boazy,

With: Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 12:45:57 PM

I did try to exclude context, except Star Wars & Zeus.

As to your questions about Baptism, I have the answers in books recently arrived and locked-up in my garage. I think you will find Baptism, pre-dates John?

In the early centuries, there was one Baptism, which was taken later in life, often before death, so the folks would die sin free. This is why above I refer to the Christians being a civil problem for the Romans. Sin now repent and be forgiven later.

You may care to visit before I close it:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1841&page=8

Cheers.

You're panicking, Boaz. And it is starting to show.

>>Pericles... I and others have provided all the information that relates to Jesus many times over.
-Josephus
-Herodotus
-Pliney
-and so it goes on..<<

One line, Boaz, that's all I asked for. One line of a contemporary account that corroborates just one event of Jesus' - apparently highly unusual, and highly eventful - life.

Josephus: was not a contemporary, and doesn't mention any of the miracles. Which would have attracted some attention, surely.

Herodotus: really, Boaz? The only Herodotus I am aware of lived several centuries before Jesus was born.

Pliny: not contemporary. Repeated hearsay.

>>I won't say anything about the various archeological finds which were not known by any other source than the Bible... there is too much. Particularly the New Testament. End of sidetrack.<<

Please don't hold anything back. I'm happy to look wherever you wish to point me, but really, wouldn't it be much easier - if there is any evidence at all - just to let me in on it?

And sadly, it is not a sidetrack.

I would have thought that you would be particularly concerned about the historical foundations of the New Testament, given your almost fanatical fascination with that of the Qur'an.

Face it Boaz.

As one under god so wisely explained

>>Its not for any to prove anything [to anyone ]
as jesus reveals your faith alone
Its seek and you will find
[remembering that some [vile][evil] type person will gladly destroy any document ][or any paper or libery ] just to suppress ANY fool-proof truth<<

I think there's something in that for all of us. Don't you?

Come on now, this is getting a little painfull to watch. You are way out of your depth here, BD. Give in gracefully. In fact, now is probably the time to do your runner.

We know that you have an inflated idea of your own capabilities, but you should do a reality check here.

Look, when it was pointed out that you are making yourself look silly I think you probably took that as a phatic statement? Which it probably would be if you made it. But it meant just that. You really are. By choosing to try to engage with the topic of interpreting texts with people who have been doing it all their lives you are only exposing your own shortcomings in that area.

Come on now, give it up. Go start a new thread on gay people or muslims or something. This time you've bitten off a little more than you can possibly chew. You really are choking quite painfully.

Oliver, I read: Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 3:28:17 PM
and referred to: Oliver, Monday, 2 June 2008 7:52:25 PM

But I am not sure what point you are making, other than the bloody obvious, that Jesus inherits the line of David and Abraham.

What is there to interpret in the opening of Gospel that you wanted my attention drawn to?

There seems to be an over-emphasis in this thread, upon Jesus' being born to Mary a virgin, as though that made him a bastard. Actually the opening Chapter of Mathew tells us that Joseph married Mary, as he has already intended,but after he found out she was pregnant. You never know, perhaps it was one of those situations, where fluids mix without penetration, obviously leaving both parents virgins. (my own parents conceived me like that in fact, but I am not claiming to be nearly so capable and Godly as Jesus, just making the point that the story might be far simpler than folk usually imagine)

However, none of this really helps anybody to comprehend HOW to interpret religious and/or secular texts.

I like this thread though, since it is halfway decent at showing up the fact that believers in Jesus usually notice the joke against us, and have fun playing along. (I could say that those who are more likely to take offence are least likely to be sustaining real belief, but then, perhaps somebody might say something to offend me, and I don't want to go disproving myself before there is any reason, nor afterwards either, but the fact of debates around religious meanings, is that it is so bloody cut throat, that anybody familiar with religious discourse, is not too bothered by the nastier undercurrents in secular debate normally.)

Is the thread going anywhere useful though?

Dear Romany..what in the world are you muttering about there?

<<Look, when it was pointed out that you are making yourself look silly >>

I get called silly by irrational people each day here :) that doesn't bother me. Specially when (with the exception of naming Herodotus rather than Tacitus oops) I know my subject quite well.

<<By choosing to try to engage with the topic of interpreting texts with people who have been doing it all their lives you are only exposing your own shortcomings in that area.>>

Now..I'm totally mystified, and your chirpings and mutterings there need some definite interpretation:) Clearly you know MUCH more about each other poster than I do. Hmm have you some secret access to the Book Life or something?

And.. you are also suggesting that I've not been doing that very thing all my own adult life? How interesting.

I've been ignoring many posts which are not in the slightest on target, but I am curious about which one makes me look a dill...?

Ya know.. if you had followed 'c_l_o_s_e_l_y' you would have actually noticed that most of what I've been doing thus far is simply establishing WHAT the text “says”, let alone what it means.
Now..who is the dill here? Sorry but it looks like its....you.

Did you make any contribution to the topic? Err..no. In fact the sum total of your 'contribution' is.. “you-look-silly” gr8. * frown *

Pericles. You are sidetracking bigtime.

BACK_TO_TOPIC.

TOPIC IS NOT.. “reliability of the text”
TOPIC IS..........”what do the accepted texts SAY” and then..”What do they MEAN” (to adherents)

Matthew 28:18-20 might give us a better idea of a text which includes a “command' (people/disciples/Christians/then_only/Now_also?) to DO something.
THIS...requires “interpretation.”

Therefore go
and make disciples
of all nations,
baptizing them etc
and
teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Applies to Christians today or only the disciples then? (3rd line_is_a_hint)

Curae.."yes"-hang in mate:)

That was very churlish, Boaz, I hope Romany takes you to task for your petty sniping.

I'm pretty sure we are at the end of this particular thread, given that you are scratching around for some kind of exit that doesn't damage your self-image too much.

>>Pericles. You are sidetracking bigtime. BACK_TO_TOPIC.<<

Sidetrack? Moi?

A tiny touch of gentle re-direction, I will admit to, but certainly not the sort of deviation that you suggest.

>>TOPIC IS NOT.. “reliability of the text” TOPIC IS..........”what do the accepted texts SAY” and then..”What do they MEAN” (to adherents)<<

Well, isn't that interesting?

The topic we began with was - and these are your own words, Boaz -

>>In each [religious text], one needs to examine what type of literature the document is 'claiming' to be. (i.e.. internal claim in the document itself)<<

So we have moved - not very subtly - from examining the documents objectively, to discussing their meaning "to adherents".

Which makes me wonder why you called upon me to get involved:

>>I'm jussssst trying to focus on 'how to interpret texts'.. which is a MOST needed lesson among many of us.. Pericles and CJ included ..bright as they appear to be.<<

Since I have never for a moment suggested that I am an "adherent", why ask my opinion?

I then gave you my opinion, which was that this thread was simply a stalking horse for your campaign against the Qur'an. This, you eventually admitted.

So if you are looking to defend Romany's charge of looking silly, I would suggest that you address the two following points:

Changing the topic mid-thread simply because you are on the losing end of the discussion.

Pretending that your mission here is objective analysis, when in fact your agenda is entirely subjective. Moreover, to add to the silliness quotient, the fact that you really believed you had anyone fooled as to your intentions.

Probably best to back away quietly.

Apologies are optional - none owed to me, I hasten to add, I have enjoyed taking advantage of the free hit.

Curaezipirid,

Off thread, but, can't let your comments stand:

[1] Mary was a Nun in training for marriage. Seemly she broke her vows. [Thiering, University of Sydney] Matthew is a religious document. Irrelevant. Self-serving.

[2] The point about The House of David is Historical and goes back to Heli and Joseph. Jesus was trying to re-establish a ruling house.

Jesus’ claims for The House of David were quasi-secular towards the Romans and very religious towards the Jews.

Rome granted the Herods [Later the Annas] some provincial power. The Herods allowed the Davanics to minister to the Gentiles. The point is Jesus needed to establish temporal standing, as a bastard. Not easy.

[3] Mikveh or Miqvah had several versions. The tovelei shaharit were morning bathers [Clementine Homolies]. There is physical evidence of baths at Quam. The immersion in a river is mentioned in the Qumran Temple Scroll.

Non-Essene Immersion for; conversion by Gentiles to Christianity, Women’s monthly periods, before Yom Kippur, and pots, and using eating utensils manufactured by a non-Jews [related to what I said about Gentiles entering the Temple to pray... How the Gentiles prepared meat.]. Among B'nai-Amen the immersion means separation from all the world. There was an immersion pool at the Mount of Olives (Par. 3:7).

[4] The sin-fests. [Mack, Claremount Theological College]

[5] Baptism. Origin is Greek: Gr. [wont print], trans. Latin baptismus European: a1300 Cursor M. 12726 In is hali Ion time Was lagh bigun neu of baptim. c1325 E.E. Allit. P. A. 626 In e water of baptem ay dyssente. [OED – Unabridged, Etymology]

[6] I think you will find the largest genocide in History was the Russians against the Poles: 15 million? I am looking documents to find the correct number Jews persecuted in Rome, if recorded. Suspect it will be high, because Nero was really bad. Josephus is not really an impartial source. Also, numbers might include non-Jews

Ah well, I tried. If you did not recognise that as genuine advice or make any attempt to take it on board then so be it.

And...for what I hope will be the last time I have to say this: I do not "mutter", "chirp" "whine" "whinge" or any of the other verbs you constantly apply to me when I submit a direct and perfectly clearly articulated response. I write - to be absolutely correct. I also state. Sometimes I venture, or question or ask.

Why is it so hard for you to utilise any of these perfectly apt verbs in relation to any statement I make? If there is such a paucity in your understanding of the nuance of the English language then how on earth do you expect anyone to take seriously your "instruction" on interpreting texts which, by definition requires an adequate knowledge of the use of language?

Either you can claim ignorance as a defense or admit that you are being condescending and deliberately nasty. No middle ground there.
And you wonder why it is clearly obvious that no, you have not spent your life interpreting texts. Accepting the teachings of some bible college somewhere? Yeah, granted. Treating the perfectly complex and wonderful organ of your brain like one of Pavlov's dogs to react predictably to certain stimuli? Yep, also.

"Did you make any contribution to the topic? Err..no. In fact the sum total of your 'contribution' is.. “you-look-silly” gr8. * frown *". Nope. No frown. Genuinely trying to save you from yourself. It did't work. So yeah: silly me

Yes, I think this thread has been summed pretty well.

Boaz, I think it is quite clear that in this thread:

a) You have attempted to claim the mantle of teacher (for a particularly broad concept - I mean, to infer that you have the foremost skills in interpreting religious or secular texts? Interpretation varies from person to person.)

b) People don't like it when somebody tells them or hints they may have a better idea of how to 'interpret' things. Seeing as interpretation is by its very definition subjective, I can understand why people are distinctly put off by this. Even more so than most of your causes.

c) Perhaps its time to let this thread go the way of the dinosaurs.

[6] I think you will find the largest genocide in History was the Russians against the Poles: 15 million?

I am looking documents to find the correct number Jews persecuted in Rome, if recorded. Suspect it will be high, because Nero was really bad.

In first century Rome, the poor where sometimes crucified in times of food scarcity. [Josephus and the Jews: The Religion and History of the Jews as Explained by Flavius Josephus (1930), Foakes] Josephus is not really an impartial source: His wife and parents were killed by the Romans.

On the unreliability of ancient statistics, Talmud Gittin 57b, gives 4 "b"illion as the number of Jews killed by the Romans at Betar.

[7] Caligula's reign was 12-40 CE. You quote a period just before Pompei-Caesar Civil War. I don’t think the Romans would have been too concerned about the Jews.

If you reply, please use real History books: Gibbon; Toynbee; Wells; Quigley; McNeill, not the self-referencing Bible. At Forum we don’t always assume Gospels, gospel ;-). Dead Seas Scrolls and period documents okay.

The Jews [66 CE] revolted, because, priest, Eliezar ben Hanania, who was interrupted praying for the safety of the Emperor, led a revolt against the Romans, when Roman soldiers would stop Greek’s expressing their right of religious beliefs, sacrificing a pigeon close to the Temple. Bad taste, perhaps, but grounds for a war, silly. [Josephus, War of the Jews II.14.5]

Josephus claims 1.1 million Jews were killed in Jerusalem, but the Roman legions only numbers in the tens of thousands. Does gell.

Incidently, there was “no Roman census was imposed in Galilee, where he represents Jesus' family as living, or could have been. For there was no moment in the lifetime of Jesus when Roman tribute was raised in Galilee.” - The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337 (1993)., p. Fergus Millar - author. Publisher: Harvard University Press. Looking for Jerusalem. Think it was 600,000 in the first century, but need to check/confirm.

Biblical sources are too unreliable for the secular scholar.

Boazy,

Sorry. I felt compelled to address Curaezipirid's account history.

Hey Iamjoseph,

I'm wondering if you see the similarities I do between the Jews of the period of the revolt and the conditions within Iraq today?

Here you have bitter in-fighting between religious groups and the conflict between them is often as bloody as that with the invader. One might think of the Sunnis as the Zealots, the Shites as the Pharisees or Sadducees and Al Qeada as the Sicarii.

Today's invaders were prepared to sacrifice 500,000 Iraqi children even before they invaded.

The trial and death of Saddam Hussain certainly had the pseudo-legal echos of Jesus'.

Dear Pericles.. “free hit”:) hardly...

You quoted my words (here)

>>In each [religious text], one needs to examine what type of literature the document is 'claiming' to be. (i.e.. internal claim in the document itself)<<

Bingo! Mark 1:1 “the beginning of THE GOSPEL” -'that' is what it claims to 'be' you duffer..

You seem to be confusing “Christians claim Mark is the Word of God” with the above internal claim for it to be 'The Gospel'.

Now..how you convolute that into 'now I'm changing the topic' is.. well.. I'm speechless.
a)It 'is' the topic...
b)My words quoted by you underline that very fact.

But.. to bend as far as I reasonably can to to accommodate this 'interesting' thinking.. let me flesh out the intended meaning of “claims to be”. And “type of literature” and “internal claim”.

My goal is to examine 'some text' based on how it stands..objectively, without reference to external information which will unfairly influence out grasp of that text... then.. when we have looked closely at what is in front of us, and understand it, we can then move to “Interpretation”.

You 'interpreted' my words to mean “examine the historic veracity of the text” -how it came to be, and then, to -"Is it reliable factually?"

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there, and blame 'me'.. for not making it clearer...

But interestingly “to_its_adherents” varies according to social context. Western Muslims minimize problem verses, in Arab countries, Muslims just use them as they are. Can you think why this might be?

Dear ROMANY . If you think you have grounds for 'saving me'...please be specific or silent.

Your condescending tone could be 'interpreted' as.. arrogance? You came in..just criticized, without a shred of evidence...and demonstrated that you don't have a clue about this topic.

I'm sure you can interpret, but you clearly have missed what's going on here. I say this by way of advice, to save you from looking more of a dill than you think I am. "Specifics"?

Pericles, Romany came and sniped_at_me.... check_back.

Boazy and friends,

Always, I am leaving the most important word out.

The Jews attacked the Romans because the Romans would NOT stop the Greeks, sacrificing a pigeon. [First Jewish-Roman War].

Might be a day before I can post again.

Boazy,

Many posters, here, know the Mark text too well and project into. Want me to try and find something from China or Eygpyt of the same period, wheer the plays and terms will be less known?

BD -
"Be specific or be silent"? I specifically stated your were out of your depth. How much more specific could I possibly be?

Given that your stated purpose on this forum is to save, I am at a loss to know what grounds you could possibly have for regarding as intrusive, unwarranted, unwelcome or otherwise objectionable, someone attempting to save you?

I take on board completely however, the fact that you find my post patronising and condescending and are offended. Sorry. I honestly thought you were immune as your own condescending attitude, though consistently cited by posters as offensive, is something which you have never acknowledged, apologised for nor made any attempt to modify.

As to the risk that I may end up looking more of a dill (green and pickled?) than you? Not to worry, old son, I'll chance it.

And btw - regarding Olivers objectively fair and sensible suggestion about utilising one of the texts he suggests rather than Matthew? Go on, dare ya.

Besides being a hermeneutic scholar, Boazy has at times claimed expertise in anthropology. As Oliver and Romany suggest, why not choose a religious text that is neither Christian nor Muslim to interpret?

This is part of a very famous Native American myth:

<< The Story of Asdiwal (Part One)

Famine reigns is the Skeena valley; the river is frozen and it is winter. A mother and her daughter, both of whose husbands have died of hunger, both remember independently the happy times when they lived together and there was no dearth of food. Released by the death of their husbands, they simultaneously decide to meet and set off at the same moment. Since the mother lives down-river and the daughter up-river, the former goes eastwards and the latter westwards. They both travel on the frozen bed of the Skeena and meet half-way.

Weeping with hunger and sorrow, the two women pitch camp on the bank at the foot of a tree, not far from which they find, poor pittance that it is, a rotten berry, which they sadly share.

During the night, a stranger visits the young widow. It is soon learned that his name is Hatsenas, a term which means, in Tsimshian, a bird of good omen. Thanks to him, the women start to find food regularly, and the younger of the two becomes the wife of their mysterious protector and soon gives birth to a son, Asdiwal. His father speeds up his growth by supernatural means and gives him various magic objects: a bow and arrows which never miss for hunting, a quiver, a lance, a basket, snow-shoes, a bark raincoat, and a hat, all of which will enable the hero to overcome all obstacles, make himself invisible, and procure an inexhaustible supply of food. Hatsenas then disappears and the elder of the two women dies. >>

The myth continues, but perhaps Professor Boazy would like to interpret the first three paragraphs?

Well, you know Boaz, I think I must be a duffer.

>>Bingo! Mark 1:1 “the beginning of THE GOSPEL” -'that' is what it claims to 'be' you duffer..<<

I read your post from first word to last. I got to the end, and I realized that I hadn't understood a word of it.

It was a weird feeling.

Taken on their own, I recognized each individual word, but in the sequence that you put them together... nothing.

>>You seem to be confusing “Christians claim Mark is the Word of God” with the above internal claim for it to be 'The Gospel'.<<

But... but... how can this be? I don't even know what you mean.

Or at least, I know what you mean, but it just doesn't make any sense. How could anybody confuse a concrete statement "x does y", with an abstract concept that "x claims itself to be y".

I certainly had no idea that was what I was doing.

Then there's this bit:

>>a)It 'is' the topic...
b)My words quoted by you underline that very fact.<<

But... but... I thought the whole point was that you changed the topic.

Very specifically.

From objective assessment of text (the internal bit), to external understanding of said text by adherents. Which by any definition has to be subjective, no?

But oh, what's this?

>>But interestingly “to_its_adherents” varies according to social context. Western Muslims minimize problem verses, in Arab countries, Muslims just use them as they are.<<

Boaz, this is what the word subjective means. And it is how you yourself approach every single text, whether from the Bible or from the Qur'an.

You are an adherent of one specific interpretation of one specific religion.

There is no point in pretending that you have any objective insights into either your own, or anyone else's.

By the way, it might help the 'clarity' of your 'posts' if you didn't put 'quotes' around so many 'words'.

Apart from anything else, it makes you look indecisive.

CJ..you_first.

I read the myth.. it's a little difficult to give an interpretation without more, but, I'll give it a go.
It seems, that in the big picture sense, the myth is providing a kind of link between the hardship of the real world, and the spirit world. 'Bird of good omen' is a typical animistic idea that 'The_spirits_are on_our_side this time'. Bornean people will either continue with, or totally abandon a ripe rice crop based on the perceived 'omen' which they experience on the way to harvest. Kelabits would bury children alive based on the same idea, 'bad omen'..... child=bad.. etc.
So.. I would conclude on the basis of the limited story, that the idea is "be rightly related to the spirit world and all will go well with you"

Now..don't misunderstand me, I'm surely not claiming that as 'the' intepretation, just one. By all means (on the basis of that text alone) correct me.

Pericles. you claimed I changed the subject.

<<So we have moved - not very subtly - from examining the documents objectively, to discussing their meaning "to adherents".>>

Err... no, the interpretation of a text is, yes, a subjective process, but the point about 'to adherents' is that due to various identifiable factors, sometimes the most obvious meaning is either emphasized or de-emphasized. That does not change the obvious meaning.

The point I'm rather laboring here is that

a) Texts have an objective meaning (apart from the obvious problem of each word being subjectively processed by the observer)
b) The interpretation should, be based on agreed principles within a language group.
c) The problem comes when the obvious and agreed are bypassed in the interests of community protection or resisting criticism.

The classic example among our Muslim community is 'beat them'(wives) does not mean 'beat' them. Yet.. in the Arab world it means exactly that because such an understanding is based on the plain commonly agreed meaning of language itself.
(cont)

PERICLES.. lets_go_with_this:

<<Boaz, this is what the word subjective means. And it is how you yourself approach every single text, whether from the Bible or from the Qur'an.
You are an adherent of one specific interpretation of one specific religion. >>

yep.. quite true. But what you should have noticed (like Romany also should have) thus far in this 100+ posts, in none of mine have I said "This IS 'the' meaning of" (sorry...quotes needed there:)

I've tried to bring folks to a chunk of text and asked THEM to determine initially what this is saying in the objective sense, such as "The beginning" .. now.. we could ask here "why THE beginning, rather than "a" beginning? Does it mean 'the only' beginning, the definitive beginning..or just a convenient one for Marks documentary purpose. That is interpretation.

But I've not gone there, and would not until fellow posters at least demonstrate a grasp of the basic text.

THEN... we can discusssssss it... and look for strengths and weaknesses in the various opinions.. and we can then possibly see some of the biases which we bring to the written word.

Dear ROMANY, that was a nicer post. Yes, I'm fully aware of how I come across :) (remember Vanilla's "you can ignore him for a while, but then he's like an itch you need to scratch till it bleeds" :)

BIAS and PREJUDGMENT. It seems some regard me (this is a compilation) as a "Narcissistic, bigoted,biased, arrogant religious w_nker"
So..when you (and TRTL) assessed the topic title "The interpretation of" you saw it as "THE"(meaning BD's) interp.... rather than the more general subject of "Interpreting" which is the intended meaning of the title. Ya coulda read it either way cobber.0_^

CJ.. back to your myth. I think I went too far. Let me reappraise the partial myth. Meaning="When life sucks-The spirits will save us"

<<a bird of good omen. Thanks to him, the women start to find food regularly,>>

Once 'saved' the spirit withdraws and leaves them to continue life.

OLIVER..by all means. Go4it mate.(short please)

Humpty Dumpty had the goods on your position here, Boaz.

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'"

I'm with Alice:

"'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'"

http://www.sundials.org/about/humpty.htm

But hey, you are still not being honest with us, possibly even yourself, on the game that you are playing. Are you?

>>now.. we could ask here "why THE beginning, rather than "a" beginning? Does it mean 'the only' beginning, the definitive beginning..or just a convenient one for Marks documentary purpose. That is interpretation.<<

My first question would be, how can we possibly tell without referring to the original? There have been any number of scholars who have already come to their own conclusion on this.

But when we look, we find that there would appear to be no consensus...

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B41C001.htm

Which renders your question dead in the water. Or at least, any answer would simply be another voice in a long line of would-be textualizers, all with their own agenda and axe to grind.

So where does that leave your question? Pretty much nowhere, really.

But that isn't surprising, given that all this fol-de-rol has absolutely nothing to do with textual analysis, does it?

It is just another in a long line of stalking-horses for your pet theme, that you, Boaz, are intellectually capable of determining exactly how evil and dangerous Islam is, based upon their own scriptures. And consequently, how we should all share your fear and loathing.

If you have proven anything, it is not this:

>>Texts have an objective meaning (apart from the obvious problem of each word being subjectively processed by the observer)<<

In fact, you could say with confidence that you have conclusively proven the opposite. That any text can be ascribed any number of meanings, each uniquely determined by the reader.

All of which places you closer to Derrida and Foucault than to Aristotle or Kant.

But be of good cheer. That's at least an improvement over Mosley.

I'll have it know that I regularly beat my wife, at Scrabble AND Trivial Pursuit.

I'll give Boazy credit for practising what he preaches in this case, however he demonstrates perfectly the weakness of his hermeneutics-for-dummies approach.

That myth was collected by Boazy's namesake, the anthropologist Franz Boas, early last century, and was famously subjected to structural analysis by influential French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss half a century later. Anthropologists have been arguing about what it means ever since, but as far as I'm aware none has advanced quite as trite an interpretation as

<< Meaning="When life sucks-The spirits will save us" >>

If Boaz's pretensions to expertise in textual analysis weren't so obviously buffoonish they'd warrant serious intellectual attention. As it is, they provide the usual mildly amusing entertainment and schadenfreude that one expects from the village idiot.

However, there are evidently some deluded souls who are predisposed to take his cartoonish interpretations of Muslim myths seriously, which is of course why some of us persist in correcting his more egregious excesses.

Hi CJ..in good 'play the man' form as usual :) bless you.

While I completely accept that anthropologists are still arguing about what it means, they would be doing so I'm sure on the basis of the whole thing.
Now.. I analyised it in terms of 'the plain language' and the dominant themes.
If you were not so ...nah..I won't go there :)

Ok..back the themes AS contained in the myth, are limited.

1/ Life goes badly.
2/ Villagers seek help elsewhere
3/ A stranger with a 'spirit related' name suddenly appears
4/ That stranger provides for them and
5/ Enables them to go on living.

Gee...thats how the animists I know would read it. (and I know plenty) Back to undergraduate school CJ:) "cheese" happy?

Now.. CJ. with your background, you should know that u don't have to make something more complicated than it is. I'm sure you also know how animistic societies work, I went too far with my first attempt by using the term "rightly related" to the spirits. But then, on a re-think, I excluded that and limited it to the text. I did not say it was 'the' interpretation.. I simply had a go, and that's all I'm asking of you folks.

PERICLES.. well done. So glad you went as far as to look up the Greek.
I'm afraid though, that your attempt to 'embarras' me didn't work.

I have no idea how you look at the Greek manuscripts and decide "There is no concensus".. that statement itself must be explained.
No concensus on...WHAT? That every word should be identical?

There are very small differences from some manuscripts and it might be worth a dabble into textual criticism ourselves here.
Oliver picked it up (from external reading though)that Mark has brought together MALACHI 3:1 and ISAIAH 40:3.

Now..some of those greek Ms say "according to the prophets"
"en tois prophetais" The one adopted in the NIV has 'Isaiah'

Based on these facts, which do you think would be the more likely original?
Does it change the message?

All,

Is Mark a Myth or a Legend. What class of literature are we interpreting? Or is it up to us, the naive, to put our own stamp on it? Is there not a danger having a priesthood interpret for us?

"... legend is somewhat simpler than a myth. A legend is “an unverified popular story, ” apparently with sufficient entertainment value to survive through the generations. A myth, on the other hand, has more weight and probably more antiquity. It is a traditional story originating in a preliterate society, dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the world.”

"Or, alternatively but equally telling, it is a real or fictional story, recurring theme, or character type that appeals to the consciousness of a people by embodying its cultural ideals or by giving expression to deep, commonly felt emotions.” - Myth and History in the Creation of Yellowstone National Park. Paul Schullery, Lee Whittlesey (2003, University of Nebraska Press

cont.

What about Genesis, why in the West does it have standing above a thousand other creation stories? Boazy, are the other creation stories of equal merit to genesis?

I know I am not addressing Mark, here, in the latter part of this dual-post, yet, with creation stories, it is easier compare with other... realities? legends? Myths?

It seems to me, Christians will defend a proposition, as literal, until cornered, then, all-of-a-sudden, what was literal has always been known to be an allegory, not to be taken literally. Re-invention.

A grew-up in a lapsed Catholic household and occasionally went to church. We were told of the truth of this amazing Shroud of Turin. When the scientists proved it a fake, the Vatican announced the Church had held The Shoud forged, since the Middle-Ages: And I didn't see any Anglican clergy pointing this out in a critique of JPII.

If it is historically known that Herod was dead when Jesus was born and that there was no Roman census at the time, should the stories does stay in the Bible as a legend or myth? From reading Mark, how do we know these events happened? I am pretty sure that Julius Caesar was assassinated. Can we be so certain of Mark 1.1-1.4?

If its known to be wrong, why not tear the very pages from the Bible!

Knowledge has always been the Great Enemy of the Churches not an Anti-Christ, knowledge re-assigns authority and reasoning from the priesthood to the laity: And so it should be.

All,

Is the myth or legend borrowed/stolen? The Word was as it meant be read or spoken?

Regarding comparing Babylonian and Genesis 1: 1-5 accounts:

"The Masoretes who vocalized the Hebrew text could have decided the case in favor of the independent clause by vocalizing the opening preposition with a [unprintable], or in favor of the alternative by vocalizing the verb as berð. By doing neither the one nor the other, they ambiguated and thus enriched the opening five words of Scripture, suggesting what may have been a traditional syntax for an epic's beginning, and yet permitting us to hear the far grander apodictic tones of an unqualified assertion." - Poetic Readings in Biblical Beginnings. Contributors: Herbert Chanan Brichto (1998) Oxford University Press.

Boazy in particular, but all,

"Heidel (p. 101) confesses that day and night, already existing at the time of Apsu's revolt, are not part of Marduk's acts of creation. As for the illumination required to have daytime, he derives "the emanation of light from the gods" from "the radiance or dazzling aureole which surrounded Apsu." This figuration of a warrior's halo blinding and terrifying his enemies is so frequent in cuneiform writings as to be a cliché. How seriously this item should be taken as analogous to the creation of light in Genesis 1 we may glean, for example, from Sennacherib's boast that his own halo caused his royal Babylonian adversary to urinate in his chariot. Item [4], the creation of the biblical firmament, would be the first correspondence to an act of creation by Marduk, wherein--presumably--both heaven and earth were created by Marduk's splitting of Tiamat like a shellfish, the former corresponding to the upper shell and the latter to the lower shell." - Poetic Readings in Biblical Beginnings. Contributors: Herbert Chanan Brichto (1998) Oxford University Press.

Nonsense? What about Eve being created from Adam's Rib?

Think I am posted-out for a day.

Ah, Boazy.

When you began this thread I treated it with the contempt that I still think it deserves.

Let's get this straight: you're a Christian missionary who went through the requisite Bible College initiation, during which you were introduced to various subjects, including 'Hermeneutics For Dummies' and undoubtedly "Missiology", via which you were exposed to at least one interesting if outmoded anthropological esay (which you repeatedly 'misinterpret', by the way).

My introduction of 'Asdiwal' to this discussion was a deliberate invitation for you to display any actual knowledge you might have about textual analysis and anthropology. Unfortunately but predictably you actually don't seem to have any beyond what you learnt at Bible College all those years ago.

Just so you know, most anthropologists interpret the Asdiwal story as a kind of latter-day Creation myth, the narrative of which reconciles the contradiction of patrilateral cross-cousin marriage rules with matrilineal access to territory - at a time when the Tsimshian were moving moving into new territory due to encroachment on their land by European invaders.

I'm not trying to be a smartarse, rather I'm trying to elucidate what Romany meant when she said you're out of your depth on this subject. Further, your dismissal of Tsimshian myth as "animist" is a very strong clue as to how you so completely and utterly misinterpreted even the first few paragraphs of its rendition.

Absolutely no offence intended. Sweet Heaven Forfend!

Another backflip, Boaz.

This time with double twist and a pike.

It's positively breathtaking.

>>I have no idea how you look at the Greek manuscripts and decide "There is no concensus".. that statement itself must be explained.
No concensus on...WHAT? That every word should be identical?<<

Not every word, Boaz.

We were only - sorry, you were only - talking about one word.

>>I've tried to bring folks to a chunk of text and asked THEM to determine initially what this is saying in the objective sense, such as "The beginning" .. now.. we could ask here "why THE beginning, rather than "a" beginning?<<

So I then went to the trouble of finding out that some translations say a beginning, some say the beginning, and some just say beginning.

American Standard Version
1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Darby's English Translation
1:1 Beginning of the glad tidings of Jesus Christ, Son of God;

Young's Literal Translation
1:1 A beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, Son of God.

We could indeed ask why, Boaz, but as I said before, we would just be at the back of a long queue of people who had already addressed the issue and come to their own subjective conclusions.

According to you, this thread is all about (and I quote you verbatim)

>>I'm simply arguing that words, sentences etc.. all have a context and fundamental objective meaning<<

But, Boaz, they don't.

It is 100% crystal clear that the very verse you happened to choose completely at random without any bias or prejudice, cannot possibly have a "fundamental objective meaning" in its translated form.

Can we at least agree on this?

Or are you going to pretend that somehow you were right all along, and I'm just a muddled-up ignoramus?

Sorry, not ignoramus. Duffer.

Hmm. Having hailed from New Zealand, I am aware that the native Kiwi eats roots, shoots and leaves.

Or did I mean it eats, roots, shoots and leaves?

OLY :) man..I can see that you and I would be exhausted if we ever met... discussing from 'Generation' to 'Revolution' and all related texts eh :) I can't touch that stuff in this thread mate.. too far off topic.
The Rib? (along with the talking snake) probably the closest things in 'sound' to myths. We can tackle that one another time.

CJ :) you are really out of your depth brudder .. (doncha luv that too?)

You gave me the 'educated' explanation of the myth based on 2 things.

1/ LIBRARIES of external information.
2/ The FULL account.

I just wonder if any of these bright sparks thought of the obvious 'ASK THEM' what it means:).

In my case, I brought to the myth the most 'obvious' based on a knowledge of animism and an assumption based on the limited information I was provided with. I would not DREAM of trying to make a difinitive interpretation of that little slice without truckloads of additional facts.

I mean..its like me telling you this anecdote:

"I once was picked up by a tribal person in a car, and I asked his name. he almost choked with shock"

and expecting you to know why?

Of course you couldn't know that it went back to the slaving and head hunting days when raiders would ask 'what's ur name' to children they had caught as they were trying to identify those of high class to take as slaves.

But.. on the provided facts you might venture a "Oh..its not acceptable in there culture to ask names directly" and while you would be right, you would not know why.

Getting tired of treading water there mate ? :)

(see..I make these kinda snide comments to keep your interest...pretty skilful eh)

VANILLA...that 'itch' should be red hot by now.. I think you need to scratch it :)

Periclesssss.... I know you love these pedantic technical arguments, so I'll play along

upscope :)

Now.. I'm going to do a triple back somersault along with the pike and twist already mentioned.

Ok.. the text I offered, was the english..not the greek. So, the idea was to look at the text in english, as translated in one version.
There is no 'bomb' in this which will erupt if people get a different idea about the meaning.

While there is no definite article "ho" (the) before 'arche' (beginning) it is implied by context "as it is written/according to the prophets".

Let's piece it together.

"Beginning" + ["as IT is written" or "According to the prophets"]

Is highly suggestive of 'The' before 'beginning'.

In John 1:1 "en arche en ho logos"

"In (the-implied)beginning..was THE (ho) Logos" There is no definite article with 'arche' yet it is translated as 'the' beginning. Hmmm I wonder why?

Matthew 19:4 'ap archeis' where "AP"= preposition meaning 'from'.. archeis 'Beginning'

We would hardly translate 'from beginning'.. when the meaning of the greek is (in english) from 'the' beginning.

The only place you find 'a' beginning is in Youngs LITERAL translation, where the meaning of the Greek is not taken into account.
i.e.. if there is no definite article..he translates 'a' (but Greek does not HAVE a word for 'a' :) Context..context..context.

BUT.. that all aside, this isn't about Greek, but English.

I'm on about fellow enquirers seeing what is in front of their eyes.

It so happens that 'the beginning of' is what is before their eyes. This is connected with 'according to/as it is written in' Isaiah/the prophets'

And for crying out loud.. .. this isn't a doctoral examination.. all the bloke is saying is

"The Gospel of Christ (Son of God) begins in the prophets and was fulfilled in John who said a lot about repentance, forgiveness and baptism" (which for the moment remain undefined)

Now..does anyone have an argument with that 'interpretation'?

aah.. the topic is most refreshing when we revisit it.

Boaz, you can bluster all you like, but you cannot escape the facts here.

You yourself introduced into the discussion the potential difference between "a" and "the", hoping - I presume - to add some faux legitimacy to your objective assessment project.

But in doing so, you managed to highlight a very critical point.

You were attempting to draw conclusions from text that was itself dependent upon two important influences. One, the translation, and two, the original from which it had been translated.

And you should know better than anybody, Boaz, that the words "Son of God" do not appear in some of the codices.

>>all the bloke is saying is "The Gospel of Christ (Son of God) begins in the prophets and was fulfilled in John who said a lot about repentance, forgiveness and baptism" (which for the moment remain undefined) Now..does anyone have an argument with that 'interpretation'?<<

So the answer has to be a resounding yes, I have a problem with that.

My immediate question to you now is this, Boaz. Is this phrase "Son of God" important to the objective understanding of the text, or not?

If so, how do you account for its absence in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Koridethi? Surely, a scribe is not likely to omit such a significant phrase, if it existed in the source he was using?

Far more likely that some enterprising fellow, thinking to reinforce the work of religious propaganda, would add this phrase in the belief that he was helping things along?

Or someone added it in the margin as a note, with a question mark ("could this possibly refer to...?), and it simply became incorporated further down the track?

You do understand the reasons I am asking these questions, don't you Boaz?

It is to point out to you that what you see in front of you is already extremely subjective, and cannot therefore in a zillion years be ascribed any objective meaning.

And hey, guess what?

The same applies to your attempts to tell us all what you think the Qur'an means.

Objectively speaking, of course.

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the following line of simple logic be enough to lay this argument to rest:

1) Different posters have shown very clearly that their interpretations of texts, particularly those of a religious nature, are very different to that put forward by boaz.

2) Therefore, very different interpretations, with quite different meanings exist. Even if theoretically there was a single meaning, the fact that there is no consensus would nullify that, particularly given the unreliable nature of texts from so long ago.

3) Therefore, the idea that there is a unifying, overarching interpretation, is demonstrably false.

I dunno about you, boaz, but I'd say that's a pretty clear 'slam dunk.' My interpretation is that your responses to the recent posts have appeared lacking in persuasive argument.

Hello Boazy and CJ,

Anthropologists seem to lean towards the Tsimshian worshiping Light and a Raven of Light/Twighlight. They don’t present as animists: Not to me at least. Objects that would normally have spirits seem to be just parts of the continuum.

As Marjorie Halpin, after a thorough study of Tsimshian materials, concluded, "Light is thus a principal attribute of divinity, and implies power and (male) potency. Light and seeing are direct oppositions to such naxnox qualities as death and darkness, although in a religious sense they may be the same" Halpin (1981) Seeing in Stone: Tsimshian Masking and the Twin Stone Masks. In The World Is As Sharp As a Knife: An Anthology in Honor of Wilson Duff, edited by Donald Abbot, 269-88. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum.
“Creation was not a particular concern of the Tsimshian. Rather, the qualities and interrelationships of the universe received special attention in a series of adawx, sacred histories, which explained how things came to be as they are now and which ancestor of what house was involved in the process. Thus, in addition to general accounts of the rearranging of the universe, specific accounts, owned by named houses, indicated that everyone inhabited a world of the ancestors' making. While every habitat of sky, earth, and sea had its owners, leaders, and occupants, the being called Heaven, the source and deification of light, had priority among these chiefs. For Tsimshian (as for neighboring Tlingit, Haida, and others), the Raven naxnox or spirit known initially as Txaamsm and then as Wiget, literally 'wiigyet 'big person', did much to establish the present universe. Of all of his actions, the seminal one was the theft of bright light.” – A Light through the Ages. Contributors: Jay Miller (1997) University of Nebraska Press.

Of the World:

The world was unformed and in perpetual twilight. Many things existed in the sky, earth, and sea, but they were unconnected and the most advantageous were selfishly guarded from general knowledge. Only the members of chiefly families were distinct individuals!

-Cont.-

Dear Oly.. on the Tsimshian myth.. the words which leap out of the page to anyone who has lived in, and worked with traditional societies are "a bird of good omen" You might call this the 'core' or animism. "Omens" are the means by which the spirits communicate their will and pleasure or displeasure to the community. Its not that hard :) like I said "ask them"

PERICLES.. ur priceless.

"Son of God" may well have been added as you say.. shock horror. The circumstances and probability are the field of people amongst whom I will happily concede I'd be out of my depth. What you miss of course, is that even if it was added, as a kind of explanitory embellishment, it is in complete harmony with the rest of Scripture about which thee is no textual dispute. The Baptism of Jesus is one clear example "Behold you are.. MY SON with whom I am well pleased" just 8 verses later.

Now..don't misunderstand me, I absolutely admit and know, that for you to see the same Lord Jesus as I do, would involve conversion to Him.
This is another thing you are not yet aware of I feel, conversion, more appropriately described as salvation, is something which only God can work in your heart.
He can knock..and knock, but only when you open the door will He come in.
Now..you might counter "OH..but look at this unreliable text that your last sentense is based on".. to which I reply, God wills, what God wills.

Now.. returning to the issue of interpreting the 'text as it stands'.. and in particular the Quran... to be brutally honest, the Quran appears to have a more pure textual history than our Bible. There are of course understandable reasons for this, Othman BURNT all the fragments which did not fit his preferred text and thus, from 'that' point on.... it is a fairly pure text.

..continued)

...continued.

So.. given this fact, it is easier to interpret the text as it stands, without worrying about indefinite or definite articles etc. The simplest solution for the Arabic challenged is to take 3 independant translations, and compare the verses.
To make it even more stringent, one should compare the way one like Marmeduke Pickthal a British convert, translated to that of say Yusuf Ali and Shakir.
One would expect Pikthal to 'minimize' in the interests of his own kith and kin, but he still translates 9:30 as

Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! (i.e. Jews and Christians)

Noticably, Pikthals translation is the weakest.. when compared to Yusufali and Shakir.
Yusufali says :Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded
Shakir: may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

This of course leads to 'the plain sense of' the words. from Surah 9:29 "Fight those who" etc.. it doesn't take much interpreting. The only point which needs to be established is:

a)Was this understood by contemporary believers to mean such and such.
b)Did subsequent believers understand, use and apply that verse in the same way, under different circumstances.

Given that its a yes on both counts, to quote TRTL -that my friend is a slam dunk.

But I don't want to digress to there, it would make ur day too much :)
Its up to you whether you actually study those things about which you criticize me. You only have to answer to God ultimately and yourself in the meantime, certainly not to me.

TRTL.. hope ur reading here.

Mark.. I'd love to go through that, maybe we can some time:) much more edifiying than 'the other' text...no war... no intimidation with armies to induce belief..nope.. just wonders, signs and the Love of our Savior and His living Word.

"who is this man?, even the wind and waves obey him?" Mark 4:41

Boazy, there is a wealth of religious literature there for study. Sells I think makes the mistake of putting conviction before insight or research.

All,

A Tsimshiam Story:

“At one town, the chief and his wife were in mourning. Their only son had died. He was much loved and had shown great ability. Hearing the constant wailing of the chief and his wife made everyone sad.
Every day, the parents walked from their house to the tree that, in its upper branches, held the burial box of their son. As they went, they would sob and moan. Sometimes the wife would wail. They did this for a long time.

One day the wife awoke and began to wail, walking toward the burial tree. When she arrived, she saw a boy sitting on the box. His body shone as brightly as flames. Stunned, she stopped her crying and rushed back home. "Husband," she called, "Our son has returned." The man went back with her and everyone followed to find a boy sitting on the box. "Is it true that you have returned, my son?" the chief asked.

"Yes, I have come back," the boy replied. "Heaven felt your sorrow and sent me back. At first he was angry about the noise you caused, but, once he understood, he took pity."

"Come home with us," the man said. The boy climbed down and followed them. Everyone was amazed and pleased. The boy was given the place of honor in the house and esteemed as much if not more than the one who had died.” - [a different] Boas (1916).

A son returning from the Dead: Is it believable? - Boazy, fact, myth or legend?

- Birds in Myth & Legend:

”O deliver not the soul of thy turtledove unto the multitude of the wicked: forget not the congregation of thy poor for ever.’’ [Maschil] Psalm 74.19

“Raven himself was sent by Heaven, the ultimate source of this illumination, and the foremost of the naxnox spirits.’’ Tsimshian account

Bird power!

Happiness,

O.

Thanks Oliver - I hadn't read that myth. Fascinating.

However, I think the point has been well and truly made to Boazy by various people, but he is as impervious to reason on this as he is on any other issue. Indeed, it's been quite instructive as to how he constructs his twisted logic.

I think we should let him revel in the wonder of his own profundity.

CJ -

It appears that profundity is more extensive than had been realised. BD recently followed Oliver over onto the technical thread just in case he hadn't heard enough yet on the Chosen Subject. He concluded with:-

"It would be GREAT if OLO allowed greek characters..we could have a field day with 'cases, declensions, verbs nouns, articles and tenses'

Oh happy day :) "BD does some happy clapping" "

So you see we have misunderstood him: he is indeed capable of hiding his light under a bushel - and we were hijacked by his lack of facility with the English language into not realising that he was in fact a Greek scholar. And to think - he never breathed a word!

You continue to miss the point, Boaz, to the extent that I wonder whether this is not just a cynical ploy to wear down contrary argument until it disappears.

>>"Son of God" may well have been added as you say.. shock horror... What you miss of course, is that even if it was added, as a kind of explanitory embellishment, it is in complete harmony with the rest of Scripture about which thee is no textual dispute.<<

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.

If some versions have the text.

And other versions don't have the text.

Then there can be no possible objective assessment of its meaning.

Why is this such a difficult proposition for you to grasp?

You presented text for analysis.

I pointed out that it had been translated, and therefore had already been "tampered with".

You suggest that this doesn't make any difference, and proceed with your own version of an objective analysis of the text.

I pointed out that some of the words you used may, or may not, have been in the original, thus rendering pointless any attempt to derive from it untainted and objective meaning.

Look, you started this thread, and we are all know why.

>>It seems that one of the biggest barriers we face in bring our various passionate discussion to a point of agreement is this area of 'how' do we interpret a document<<

Your objective was to establish for yourself better credentials when offering your biased interpretation of Islamic texts.

Face it Boaz, you have not only failed spectacularly to achieve this, but you have also illustrated perfectly your unerringly flawed approach to the topic.

Bit of an own goal, really.

Incidentally...

>>only when you open the door will He come in. Now..you might counter "OH..but look at this unreliable text that your last sentense is based on"<<

The idea that my atheism has anything to do with the content of the Bible is frankly insulting.

>>You only have to answer to God<<

Nope.

None of us does.

Dear Pericles..no, wear_u_down? No, I'm just trying to bring them/you to the actual point of this thread.

Let me re-state it.. yet_again.

"How a text is interpreted AS IT STANDS".....by a faith community, and in the objective sense by ANY person who understands the language and its grammar.

Now.. [as it stands] may be

"The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ The Son of God"
OR..
"The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ"

EACH sentence has an objective meaning in terms of grammar!

So.. it doesn't matter (for the sake of this exercise) WHICH one you choose.. what matters is that the ONE you choose is properly understood AS-IT-STANDS..and how it used by a faith community. Sorry..but ur just not getting this..

Now.. it could be ANY chunk of text.

You said:

<<And other versions don't have the text.
Then there can be no possible objective assessment of its meaning.
Why is this such a difficult proposition for you to grasp?>>

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that ur missing the point:)

There is an objective meaning of this very sentence I'm writing.
There is of any sentence. You seem to be hung up on the idea that I'm saying "The Biblical Text says this and only this so help me God"
Er..no, I'm saying that words on a page have meaning.

If you wish to discuss the CORRECT or MOST RELIABLE verrrrsion of that text, then it's a different topic already.

A Muslim cares VERY much what "Allah" is supposed to have said in the Quran. (and when "I" am mentioned there...so do I!)

http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s287380.htm
Sheikh Fehmi Iman
<<Islam is the clear clean page which doesn't change. It didn't change in the past, is not changing now, it will not change in the future.>>

Do you understand the objective meaning of that part of the transcript Pericles? (and of course he is just the Mufti of Australian Sunni's)

You see.. the Muslim community believes that the Quran is (not 'contains') "The dictated words of Allah".. a rather important point I'd have thought.

"The opening verse of Mark appears straightforwardly simple in the usual translations that treat it as almost the title of Mark's work: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (NRSV). The phrase that appears in brackets in the Greek (“Son of God”) is acknowledged by a footnote saying that some ancient authorities lack it." - Reading Mark as Theology in the Context of
Early Judaism. - Marie Noonan Sabin (2002, p.34) - author. Oxford University Press.

Above, Sabin suggests that "Son of God" was added-in, not taken-out from the original. In the context of her book, the former shorter version was for the Jews and the "Son of God" version for the Christians. That is, are there two audiences over time? First the Jewish, then the Christian. I feel any Bible version footnote should be fully annotated to show this series of events in full. Not "some manuscripts omit", rather, "original Jewish manuscripts omit": It begs the reader to question. Questioning is good.

Boazy, Do you believe the Tsimshian resurrection story? What about turtledoves and ravens from heaven. Similiarities? What if 200 years latter someone added, the Son, He, returned as the Son of God?

Is this truncated poem, written by Lucretius, first century BCE, easier to understand the Bible? Why is the Bible so vague? This poem is esoteric but understable, methinks:

No need to closely examine word-by-word, just read fluently.

Now here is something we must not think probable,
Since space is infinite on every side,
Since atoms numberless throughout the mighty universe
Fly here and there, by motion everlasting, e’er implied,
That this one world of ours, this earth and sky
Alone were brought to birth.

Beyond the confines of this earth we know,
Nature does nothing.
Particularly as the world we know
Was made by Nature thus:
The atoms of their own accord
Jostled from time to time by chance,
In random fashion, clashed, and blindly, heedlessly
And oft in vain,
Until at last were unions suddenly achieved
To be the starting points of mighty things,
Of earth and sea and sky, of every living thing.

And so I say again, again you must confess
That somewhere in the universe
Are other meetings of the atom stuff resembling this of ours;
And these the aether holds in greedy grip.
For when the atom stuff is there,
And space in which the atom stuff may move,
And neither thing nor cause to bring delay,
The process of creation must go on; things must be made.

Now as it is,
If atom stocks are inexhaustible,
Greater than power of living things to count,
If Nature’s same creative power were present too
To throw the atoms into unions -- exactly as united now,
Why then confess you must
That other worlds exist in other regions of the sky,
And different tribes of men, kinds of wild beasts.

...

As much as ever human body here on earth,
As much as every class of things,
Abounding in examples, kind by kind.

The meaning is clear as crystal, I posit. Why not the Bible?

Hi Oly :)

Good thoughts about the footnotes, the story behind each would be too voluminous to fit. The Bible then would be 90% footnote explanations and 10% Bible.

Just out of curiosity.. on topic and regarding my last post "The words on a page have meaning".. do you see where I was heading with that? My contention all along is how to interpret the text as 'your/my' group accepts it(the_text).

So.. "love one another as_I_have_loved_you"

is a very straightforward command, which assumes a known meaning of 'love' and also a knowledge of 'how' Jesus demonstrated that quality.

There are easy ones and harrrrd ones.. I mean really hard.. such as

"It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" While I know what that means myself.. in terms of language alone, it surely does raise some/many issues of exactly how to interpret it no?

To your question.

No, I don't believe the Tsimshian myth. I believe it is their way of understanding their relationship to the cosmos and how they find self understanding. My wifes kinship/ancestral geneologies go back a longggg way.. name after name after name.. until after many many names.. they come to one 'Arang Bawang' who's father was.. the sun:)
His name means 'hanging around the place' in coloquial Aussiespeak:)

Here is a good one too..I worked among these people and was named after a headman there.

<<One popular myth among the Kelabit is that all human kind were originally from the highlands until a BIG FLOOD flooded the whole earth. Many people had to build rafts to survive and were brought to the coastal areas by the water. However, some had build big and heavy rafts, and therefore were stranded on the highlands. And, that is why and how the Kelabit remained on the highlands to this day.>>

http://www.unimas.my/ebario/community.html

TSIMSHIAN myth of CJ.
I was right:) "spirits help us"
See http://www.shannonthunderbird.com/Pacific%20Northwest%20Coast.htm
Section "The way it was"

"Living a good life depended on having good relations with the spiritual world"

This post is addressed to OLIVER, but also everybody who read my earlier posts and his response at "Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 2:06:40 PM"

To my own mind my own post is addressing the issue of the meaning in Jesus genealogy, by posing the possibility of another form of interpretation which might be more accessible to a modern audience. It does not mean that I myself beleive one thing or another, about whether God is able to cause a conception without a sperm involved. I think he is able, but because I know that many people in the modern world doubt that, I find myself asking people to consider another possibility that is not exactly denied in the language of the Bible, if we apply the same modern interpretations to that language.

When I read the poem you posted, only a few posts before this one, it struck a chord, of course as poetry can with everybody. But then after reading your comments about how we are enabled to interpret poetry more accurately than other religious texts at times, I went back and read you response to my own post.

It is meaningless to anybody who has not the same extent of scholarship in the specific mode of intepretation of religious text as happens within your own family and/or social network.

I happen to prefer Josephus as the most overtly Christian supporting historical record of Jesus life. And I know for an absolute fact, that within this understanding of the crucifixtion and resurrection, I am able to consolidate a far more sound and independantly established understanding of esoteric religious matters as well as of my own salvation and personal sanctity. Yet this is merely my own experience, and I can accept that your experience is what informs your own opinions. It is worthy to try yourself to apply that same logic in a way that enables us all to avoid blaming when perhaps we only have a various set of culturally determined modes of interpreting texts, and contemplating God.

I am interested also in the post I read, about the various translations of Qur'an, and am wondering how well read it is among Christians here in Australia.

As I have read a few post in this thread about translations, will state a little also about my own position about translations.

Most often, the meanings being embodied by patterns in language, lose their full currency, by losing their fluidity of comprehension, as soon as there are any changes to the language being spoken. Perhaps in fact, the first noting down of many major religious texts, has usually being through poetry, but has lost the rhyming in translation.

The religious texts which are best preserved in original, are Muslim, because the content of the text is demanding of that, as well as because it is the most recent major religion. Yet the texts also state that it would only be for three generations that Muslims would be able to adequately intepret those exact texts. After that time period, it was prophesied that it would be basically each man to his own in various modes of interpretation of any and all available religious texts, and within an understanding that every religion is one in Islam.

Each distinct Religion is sustained by its own dogma, and when that dogma, or pattern of language usage, becomes outmoded, then it is difficult always to get to the bottom of the originally intended meanings. These issues are critical if we are to be able to find a real lasting solution for world peace, within the context of what sorts of "quasi-religious excuses" the likes of George Bush have been using for war.

If there is any real genuine interest in my own interpretative analysis of the reconciliation of Abrahamic based religious texts, (given all I have already written in this thread), you can refer to an essay I posted last year, in the forums at http://www.altafsir.com which is the website run by the Royal family of Jordan, and also the main internation website for interpretative analysis of Qur'an. My post supports a Christian belief within Islam.

(continuing on from previous three posts)

However, as a person whom has often worked in making intepretations of religious concepts more accessible for a modern audience, I have to comment that the words alone will never teach, unless we are able to let the words guide the heart, and thereby let our emotions connect us into the world in which esoteric belief reigns. Hence the worth of religous poetry. I write much relgious poetry myself, but often need to provide a scientific and secular frame of reference also, only to communicate adequately with peers, as to why the methodology of religious belief still holds vast social relevance.

When society loses sight of the methodology of religion, it begins to lose also the means of religion, and then loses the means and method of sanctioning our behaviour into law abidance. Rising rates of crime, must be combatted with socially appropriate use of religious method. Therefore, even though discourse about translations of old religious texts is always going to be flawed, it is still relevant and necessary. But the efforts of interpretation, that do not get bogged down in condemnations of translators, or condemnations and any specific set of words in use, therefore, are not bogged down in sectarian debate, those efforts of interpretation are always vastly more valuable to enabling a law abiding society.

thanks for reading my three posts here: the post in the Al-Tafsir site I refer to, is under my name “Rebecca Copas” (often now I spell Rebecca as Rivaq)

Boazy,

According to one of my favourite Philosophers, Michael Polanyi, all personal meaning involves tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge as being co-efficient. The real stuff is far more sophicisticated, but simply put, we bring tacit ourselves to interpretting the explicit, which, of course would mean words.

Herein, A Frenchman and an Englishman are going to veiw a re-enactment of The Battle of Wateroo, differently. The Jews, the Christian Jews [in transition, 1st & 2nd centuries], and, Christian denominations have their own scriptural translations.

According to Sabib, "in the midrashic tradition, opening with the word Beginning, especially without either 'a' or 'the' before it, would have signaled the opening of Genesis". There seems to have been a style of expression used by the Jews that Gentiles would not readily understand.

Mark seems to evolved from the the Jewish tradition. Mark, if I recall was said to have been known Peter, but, there is little known about Mark himself ethnically.

In spoken lore, a problem for Mark [or whom he represents] could have been to make Hebrew or classical Greek comprehendable in Arimaic or Koine Greek.

Do I understand you correctly; you have worked directly with the Tsimshiasn. Thanks for the link. My reference also mentioned the importance of ancestors and houses, but, I didn't gain a strong sense of of spirituality about the Tsimshian. The traditional Han Chinese seem to acknowledge some forms of spirituality, but are day-to-day essentially secular.

What is my secular Roman poem saying? It isn't a case, I hope, of probing each word. Just read. The poem's claim is profound, especially given when it was written. The churches of old certainly would have burnt Lucretious at the Stake. Sells wouldn't even like its implications, today.

OLY.. we seem to have a_misunderstanding. Nope..I didn't work among the Tsimshian,but among the_Kelabit of Sarawak.

Your Poem.. yes, I kinda get that pretty easily I think. Rather self explanitory.

Mark was Peters nephew.. so he was quite close. You can see this from Acts where it's mentioned.

I don't think Mark was trying to be too esoteric in his use of 'the Beginning'.. keep in mind, we are dealing with translation, it just so happens that in Koine greek you don't have to have 'the' (Ho) for it to be implied by use, as I showed in a previous post.

CJ.. I love the way things unfold at times :)

1/ CJ gives a myth.
2/ BD gives an interpretation.
3/ CJ then slings off at BD
4/ BD confirms his interpretation from Tsimshian web sites
5/ CJ declares 'Boazy impervious to reason' :)

gotta luv that. Its like the dude in Kung Pow who the monks trained to think he was winning when he was beaten 0_^

Just because various antagonistic/critical posters say some unfounded, irrational things about me or what I say..does not mean they laid a glove on my argument. (u'll need kryptonite I'm afraid)

ARGUMENT
-"Text has known meaning".
-"Most text has a meaning known to most people"
-"The rules of grammar assist in determining that meaning"
-'Subject/Predicate' plus some verbs, nouns, pronouns, tenses participles and the odd conjuction or 3.. yep.. it has.. 'meeaaanning'.

"The black cat bit the white dog"

CURAE.. can you tell us a bit more about yourself please? What's ur background culturally and reliigously? I might be misunderstanding but it sounds like you came from some kind of middle east background with a Christian flavor? Anyhow.. you set me straight on this k.

I had a good read of your 3 posts Curae..and you observation that meaning is lost within 3 generations of a text being written.
Consider this, Jesus spoke mostly in..'timeless parables' :)

The stories Jesus told, were backed up by the many wonders and signs he did, all of which testify to his Deity, finality and authority.

Boazy: << CJ.. I love the way things unfold at times :)

1/ CJ gives a myth.
2/ BD gives an interpretation.
3/ CJ then slings off at BD
4/ BD confirms his interpretation from Tsimshian web sites
5/ CJ declares 'Boazy impervious to reason' :) >>

Did you actually look at that website, Boazy? It's many things, but hardly authoritative [ http://www.shannonthunderbird.com/ ] 'Shannon Thunderbird' indeed.

Obviously, you not only have no idea how utterly ridiculous you look on this thread, but you just keep making it worse.

<< Just because various antagonistic/critical posters say some unfounded, irrational things about me or what I say..does not mean they laid a glove on my argument. (u'll need kryptonite I'm afraid) >>

Getting a bit shrill now, old chap.

Actually, in the spirit of Pericles' suggested 'Golden Boazy' award for shameless hypocrisy, I'd like to propose a 'Black Knight' award to be awarded to those who doggedly maintain a completely discredited position in the face of any and all rational argument and evidence.

<<

BLACK KNIGHT: I move for no man.
ARTHUR: So be it!
[hah]
[parry thrust]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm off]
ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT: 'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm's off!
BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn't.
ARTHUR: Well, what's that then?
BLACK KNIGHT: I've had worse.
ARTHUR: You liar!
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on you pansy!
[hah]
[parry thrust]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right arm off]
ARTHUR: Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank thee Lord, that in thy merc-
[hah]

[cont]

[cont]

BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[bang]
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken!
ARTHUR: Look, I'll have your leg. Right!
[whop]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come 'ere!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a loony.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs!
Have at you! Come on then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's other leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow
bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you.
I'll bite your legs off!
>>

I hereby nominate Boazy as the inaugural recipient of the OLO Black Knight award for his efforts in this thread.

CJ.. you are too kind :) (and..good morning)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'discredited'.. after all, my "position" from which I'll move for no man, or woman.. is very simple.

That text has meaning.

The simpler and more straight forward the text.. "Black cat bites white dog" or. "The man said to the black cat 'sikim, go..bite that white dog'" the easier to interpret/understand it.

Dear CJ.. I don't have any real problem with your informed assessment of the myth..but I can guarantee you one thing, it was not arrived at on the basis of that little bit of text alone which you gave me, but rather the accumulated information of various individuals and the FULL version of the myth. What you offered is based on much more than the text you gave me. (Not 'out of depth' but.. lack of depth of information. )

You (like brother Pericles) are still not quite up to speed with the actual core topic, which is that when we are faced with limited information "Text on a page" it will have limited meaning aside from external knowledge that we might bring to it. (as with the Tsimshian myth)

We might derive immediate broader significance from the "Black cat bites white dog" as follows:

-Cats don't like dogs.
-Black cats don't like WHITE dogs.
-The white dog annoyed the black cat.

But when we only have the "Black cat bites white dog"...really it's all we can say "A black cat bit a white dog.. we don't know why"
But of course..if the report continues and fills in the blanks.. we have a better chance of knowing why.

Same with the Tsimshian myth:) so.. conclusion.."your attack (along with Romany's) is out of order and invalid".. Hacked off arm is hereby.. *RESTORED* aaah :)

Going back to the first page of this thread, about this portion of textual analysis, which is potentially one of the most important of all written words to be able to analyse:

That is, in respect of:
"come after"
"deny himself"
"take up the cross"
"follow"

The truth is this: if you can't believe in everlasting life being the result of following Jesus, then you are not truly following.

Remember that Jesus directed his disciples to follow him in death as well as in life, only AFTER Jesus faced Satan. Therefore, the ressurection is the defeat of Satan as a permanent endeavour. This is proven in the minds of real Christian believers, through internal psychological debates in which it will be either the part of Jesus or the part of Satan, whom prove to have the way into reality of future positive consequences. In my own mind, Satan is already, and has always been, bowing to Jesus, and that is what makes me able to say I am Christian.

Religious texts based only on belief per se has no meaning or reality - anyone can do so today and claim it as having substance and none can argue with it - but it is insubstantial. When a text also alligns with reality and is vindicated today, as with Genesis, it has substance. Eg:

1. That the universe was 'created' and is 'finite' - as opposed to which other scientific alternative theory?

2. That formless became formed [entropy] - how else?

3. That light was a primodial factor - what else would you nominate?

4. That the elements were critically seperated [eg. water from land; light from darkness; etc]- how else could life emerge?

5. That the first emergence of life forms were dual-gendered ['Man and woman created he them'] - this is a legitimate premise, with no alternative to a female emerging from a dual-gendered life?

6. That there was a graduating chronological order of life forms - sea born; air born, transit mamals, land based, humans [Evolution]?

7. That repro is via the seed factor - is this not manifest?

8. That a seed shall follow its own kind - is this not manifest?

9. That humans were the final life form?

10. That speech endowed humans are less than 6000 years old, vindicated by the world's most accurate and oldest calender - with no counter conclusive proof anywhere?

contd.

Christianity was correct in choosing the OT as its foundation - else it would never have got up. The power of Genesis:

I would say, science was introduced in genesis, with the first cosmological account of the universe's formation and that it is finite, given in an orderly, step by step description [scientific]. Medicine, a foremost faculty of science, was also introduced here, with the first seperation of it from the occult: consider the first recording, ID, treatment, quarantine of leprosy, which is a form of incurable malignancy, that it is both contagious and infecticious, that the victim requires seperation from the community, all possessions destroyed by fire - eg. wood, but not iron. Previous and outside of the OT, a leper was regarded cursed by an evil spell - while the OT was first to dislodge this notion.

The premise of ex nihilo also stands, because we have no alternative scientific explanation for the universe emergence. It had to be created, via something from nothing, because at one time there were no tools and elements to produce matter or energy.

Creationism and Monotheism are 100% scientific premises - with no alternatives.

The more you keep shifting the ground, Boaz, the sillier you look.

>>my "position" from which I'll move for no man, or woman.. is very simple. That text has meaning.<<

But you have moved from your immediately prior position, haven't you?

>>Just because various antagonistic/critical posters say some unfounded, irrational things about me or what I say..does not mean they laid a glove on my argument...(u'll need kryptonite I'm afraid)... ARGUMENT -"Text has known meaning".<<

The sequence of your stance has been: text has objective meaning, independent of writer and reader. Then, text has "known meaning" - without, of course, specifying to whom this meaning is known, and how it is determined.

Now you can only tell us that "text has meaning".

Well, duh.

I think you finally managed to supply your own kryptonite, Boaz.

And just to prove to us all that you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about, you come up with this gem:

>>The simpler and more straight forward the text.. "Black cat bites white dog"... the easier to interpret/understand it.<<

Reality is, the shorter the text, the greater the number of interpretations that can be applied to it.

Sometimes, it appears you do understand the subjective nature of textual analysis...

>>when we are faced with limited information "Text on a page" it will have limited meaning aside from external knowledge that we might bring to it<<

I.e., interpretation is entirely subjective.

In the end, there's no need to argue against you.

A couple of gentle nudges, and you will happily argue against yourself.

Ye gods, man. You objected to me coming into the post and now you're deliberately trying to bring me in again? Where's your logic?

However, I made it clear why I posted and what my purpose was. You chose to ignore my advice. Nothing I need say now: you've amply proven the validity of my concern.

Dear IamJoseph.. that was a very sound couple of posts re Genesis! Well done. Curae.. yours also felt good to read.

Pericles, now ur being overly pedantic. Don't try to separate "Objective meaning" from "Has meaning"..to do so is meaningless.

By "objective" meaning, and known meanings, we are speaking about the reality of the human/linguistic dynamic. If you argue against this, (and for the sake of trouncing me you actually might) you are arguing against all things rational. We humans define "objective" so.. it is subjective.. that is the 'duh' bit.

A judge would reprimand you for playing with words in an unproductive and vexatious manner.

Today, I had an interesting and blessed time with some men with long black bears, olive skin and white robes, from various Middle East countries at the Mind Body Spirit exhibition in Melb. We had our 'Religious nutter' stall there, and those white robed gentlemen had one also. You might call it:

John 14:6 meets Surah 9:30 .. and I'll explain what occured in a new topic I plan to launch soon.

I accepted a Quran from them, and.. (to be continued in new topic)

Dear Romany,
ur always welcome to partipate. I'm still mystified about your harsh but vague criticism.

If I failed to convey the purpose of the thread, I'm sorry. My experience today completely validated 100% actually it was 110% that all I've been saying from the Quran is absolutely spot on, based on very friendly conversations today with those white robed men from 'The heartland'

Strange how the soft left is out of touch with reality, yet so confident of it's waywardness being 'correct' :)

Curaezipirid,

Thank you for your comment. I look forward to re-reading it and responsing later this week.

All,

The poem I cited a few days back is entitled , "There Are Many Worlds", Lecretius, 1st Century BCE, from De Rerum Natura, Book II, trans, Winspea, in Davies 1995. It may have been based on the Greek the ideas of thinker, Epicurus, four century BCE?

What I find interesting is the secular Roman poem is not a code. The poem makes arguments, brings justifications and draws conclusions. In a way, the poem is democratic to the extent that most people can understand it, without special interprentation. That is, the poem states, we are not alone in the universe, for the various stated reasons.

The Bible seems to require a religion priest to interpret. Councils establish dogma. The "flock" is passive.

Much of the OT adopts the style of a Rabbanical mystery. The Word of the Judaeo-Christian god is opaque.

The final backflip, to surpass all previous backflips, Boaz.

>>Pericles, now ur being overly pedantic. Don't try to separate "Objective meaning" from "Has meaning"..to do so is meaningless<<

Let me remind you, that this thread began as follows:

>>It seems that one of the biggest barriers we face in bring our various passionate discussion to a point of agreement is this area of 'how' do we interpret a document?...In each case, one needs to examine what type of literature the document is 'claiming' to be. (i.e.. internal claim in the document itself)<<

Thus began your quest for texts to have some form of intrinsic meaning, discernible to all, derived only from the text itself.

Was this not your original, stated, intention?

Now we all know that your real objective was to establish a further bridgehead from which to vilify and excoriate Islam.

But even with this ulterior motive, it is essential that you keep within the rules that you set yourself.

Sadly, you have not done so, in that you failed in every argument you put forward for your position that a given text must have a meaning that is common to everyone who reads it.

So now you are reduced to trite, meaningless verbiage.

>>By "objective" meaning, and known meanings, we are speaking about the reality of the human/linguistic dynamic.<<

I challenge you you say that again, in English, in a way that has any meaning at all.

Objective or subjective.

And furthermore,

"......because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld

:-D

Curaezipirid et al.,

[1.] Josephus. I have not read any Josephus cover-to-cover, yet, I can appreciate why his observations are important to Christians. He treats Jesus favourably and does provide historical confirmation of the existence of Jesus, outside of the Bible. There are a few curiosities about Josephus, though.

- Josephus seems to have remained an orthodox Jew.
- He may have been a Roman collaborator. He escaped situations where all those around him were killed.
- One cannot dismiss re-engineering of his writings. Given sub-point one.

[2.] Interpretation. As mentioned to Boazy, on this thread,I posit, there is a tacit by explicit co-existence [Polanyi] regarding contextualised meaning, concerning how personal knowledge is held and is exhibited.

Herein, I guess contributors to this thread would have perhaps a greater knowledge of matters, first century, than the person on the street.

Moreover, we bring our own tacit convictions to the thread in the interpretation of selection and interpretation of data. Said convictions are highly cultural in nature, and, maybe, even histographical in form.

Regarding the latter, I am on the OLO record suggesting that Peter Sellick a.k.a. Sells [writes regularly for the Article section], accepts fourth century dogma and is in opposition to methods of interpretation, post the Enlightenment. Alternatively, I hold to examining source documents in their contemporary contexts and maintaining the post-Enlightenment methodologies flowing from the Great Divergence [c.1760], i.e., applying a scientific epistemology to techniques employed in an investigation. Two different people: Two different approaches.

Albeit, each person is unique, there could be sufficient similarities between various people to suggest at least two classes of people, theistic and secular. Where one sits depends greatly on how one manages and reviews knowledge.

[3] Jesus’ Illegitimacy. My point was not biological; rather it was political. Jesus’ claim to the House of David would have been diminished by having been born to Mary as a Nun in preparation for marriage vows.

The above said, if the formation Jesus’ zygote from gametes or otherwise, deviates away from natural biology, he is not God made Man. Rather The Jesus Unit becomes something of a hybrid: A god tethered simulation of human.

Way off topic? Yet, we do bring issues to interpretation. What we can reasonably believe given the evidence provided. Herein, perhaps, many a secularist has tested for the evidence of God and found it wanting. But would Boaz be willing to test "the other man's shoes" and consider the secular position valid, as a degraded heuristic, merely, not exclusionary.

0OOOOOk.... a light hearted distraction..

I think this thread has reached its end..so.. its joke time.

You have to imagine the pictures.

"Pericles (an Atheist) is walking through the wildneress in Canada..
he is appreciating all the natural wonder around him...
'What majestic trees!'

'What powerful rivers!'

'What beautiful animals!'

He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charging towards him

(IMAGE OF FEROCIOUS BEAR APPROACHING)

He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

(IMAGE OF FIERCE BEAR WITH OPEN MOUTH -GLARING TEETH)

At that instant Pericles cried out, 'Oh my God!'

Time Stopped.

The bear froze.

The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky. 'You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist, and even credit creation to cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?'

Pericles looked directly into the light and said, 'It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?'

'Very Well,' said the voice.

(IMAGE OF DOCILE PEACEFUL BEAR)

The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:

"Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty Amen."

Boaz, I dunno what that story about Pericles and a bear was aimed at, but I suspect your 'interpretation' is rather different to most, anyway.

Boaz, you claim your point is this:

"I'm not sure what you mean by 'discredited'.. after all, my "position" from which I'll move for no man, or woman.. is very simple. That text has meaning."

But there's more to it than that isn't there?

My point would be thus - yes, text has meaning. But when that meaning is disputed, there isn't an objective way of assessing particular texts. Sure, sometimes people come to an agreement on things like legal texts as to what they mean, but in those cases, they are recent texts and there is frequent communication.

So Boaz, what we've been getting at with your religious texts, is that you claim there is an objective manner in which they can be assessed.

No, there isn't.

Clearly, there is a great degree of disagreement, such a conclusion must be obvious to you. Therefore, there is not a 'meaning' that is not disputed.

So, there is no single way to read these texts. As has been very aptly highlighted by other posters, different translations of biblical passages sound very different, so before you can even start interpreting meaning yourself, you need to select which already interpreted meaning is there, then decide for yourself.

And each person will decide subjectively. So no - your 'interpretations' are just that.

One more opinion amongst the morass, no more qualified than any other. You may have religious or textual schooling, but most do not recognise the superiority of this method of interpretation.
That's what has people bothered here, boaz. The fact that you're positioning yourself as being better at reading these texts, and fail to grasp how this could be seen as incredibly arrogant by others.

I heard a different version, Boaz

"Boaz (a Christian) is walking through the wildneress in Canada..
he is appreciating all the natural wonder around him...

'What majestic trees!'

'What powerful rivers!'

'What beautiful animals!'

He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charging towards him

(IMAGE OF FEROCIOUS BEAR APPROACHING)

He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

(IMAGE OF FIERCE BEAR WITH OPEN MOUTH -GLARING TEETH)

At that instant Boaz cried out, 'Oh my God!'

Time Stopped.

The bear froze.

The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky. 'You've been a devout Christian for all these years, teach others I am merciful and forgiving, and credit me with sending my son to earth to cleanse your sins. I guess you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Because you deserve it, right?'

Boaz looked directly into the light and said, 'Absolutely not, O Lord, if it pleases you that I am to die, then die I shall, safe in the knowledge that I have done thy bidding'

"Spoilsport" said the voice.

The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear walked away, muttering to himself how atheists were so much more fun to eat than Christians.

Hello Boazy and Peracles,

Good joke. Good retort.

Why would God wait until Peracles' seemly pending demise to come to him as an epiphany?

Boazy, based on known secular history what parts of the Bible would you remove owing to inaccuracies: e.g., Herod being alive at the time of Jeses' birth, there being no record [and there would be] of an Egypian Pharoah and his army dying in the Red Sea?

In response, Boazy, it does not suffice to say that Historians would not believe in ancient cities until these cities are discovered. Herod's past existence is known in secular text.

I can write a book and in said Book claim its content is special. Special in that it is not to be doubted, absolutely, and it, the Book, is religious; and the reason it is not be doubted and subject to the rules of evidence and testing is, because it, the Book, says so.

Boazy, what would you think about the people who believe me? Should my claims be tested? What about people who have faith and faith alone in Olyism, stop? Is my text, religious or secular, in fact? An Olyist might trust in the textwork, adding it is a sin to be a Muslim, Christian or Jew. Each day, I thank the Olyist god that I am an Olyist.

Hmmm What is that behind me? A bear or an epiphony? [Turn, Check pulse, check sight and hearing, All A-OK] Nothing is behind me, neither bear nor god.

TurnRightThenLeft,

Yep. Agree text has meaning. Here, I have mentioned at least twice to our OLO colleague Boazy, Polanyi's notion that meaning is the co-efficent expression of tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Theists seem to "indwell" [Polanyi again] in their religion, perhaps representing the tacit nature of the equation in determining meaning from explicit facts, to which tacit knowlege is enjoined.

Where monotheist religious vis-a-vis secular texts differ is perhaps in the recognition of the alternatives. A Christian and a Muslim might have a greater a disinclination of recognising each others' validity in face of disagreement regarding the ousia of god, than might say would a Physicist's vis-a-vis a Biologist's perspective regarding a quality such as "conscienceness". The former has fights on the bases of religious dissimilarities; whereas, with the latter, secular script might lead to disagreement among the scientific disciplines, yet; co-operation towards ultimate knowledge discovery exists.

Herein, one can imagine a Physicist and a Biologist working together to understand the nature of conscienceness, but, it would hard to see a Muslim and Boazy co-operating to better understand godhood, based on the collective knowledge of the respective religious texts, as known to each party.

Modern science seems closer in approach to dualism, as seen in Greek and Roman religions; wherein, in those ancient days, religion could be used to fuse communities, say the Greeks under Roman occupation. Herein, the Dogma of the Egyptians, Romans and Greeks, perhaps, was more pliable than under the monotheism of the Christians, Muslims and Jews. On this topic; the words, "inclusionary" [science and the ancient high religions] and "exclusionary" [monotheism steming from tribal religiosity]comes to mind.

Cheers.

O.

"Much of the OT adopts the style of a Rabbanical mystery. The Word of the Judaeo-Christian god is opaque."

The OT laws are majestic, and unequalled anyplace else. All laws followed by the world's institutions and judiciary, are OT contained. Not a single law is accepted by the world which is not OT contained: feel free to name a single law given to the world outside of the OT? Equal rights for inhabitant and stranger, democrasy, inalienable human rights, love the stranger, monotheism, anaimal rights [all of them], women's rights - all come from the OT. Those who don't follow OT laws, are acting outside the law.

"Josephus. I have not read any Josephus cover-to-cover, yet, I can appreciate why his observations are important to Christians. He treats Jesus favourably and does provide historical confirmation of the existence of Jesus, outside of the Bible. There are a few curiosities about Josephus, though. "

The Jesus passage in Josephus is seen by most christian scholars as a later addition, unfortunately, which means the Gospels has no contemporary evidence any place, making the Jesus story unverifiable. I doubt that Jesus would have condoned the gospels or its negation of the OT - this appears a later european scripture. But the NT does subscribe to the moral/ethical laws of the OT, specially so in the last century, and specially with american christians. European christianity has a horrific history.

"[3] Jesus’ Illegitimacy. My point was not biological; rather it was political. Jesus’ claim to the House of David would have been diminished by having been born to Mary as a Nun in preparation for marriage vows. "

There were no NUNS in Jesus' time [30's]. David's lineage is ongoing, and based exclusively in the OT laws. The psalms of David mention Moses numerously, and they allign with the OT narratives. The lineage prophesizes a Messiah - but this must allign with Isaiac's full criteria, not selected verses re-interpreted to allign with the NT or Quran.

It is the peoples, not the Messiah, which has to be resurrected, and the temple be rebuilt [Isaiah]: this temple was destroyed by Rome, with the cost of 1.1 million Jews defending their faith [Josephus] from desecrating the 1st & 2nd commandment, and from Rome's depraved degrees of man-gods, later fully condoned by Europe. The response to Rome by the Jews is the greatest show of faith in all recorded history, which is omitted from the gospels. Israel's return constitutes the greatest miracle the last 2000 years, but this is seen as an affront for europe and arabia, as opposed their percieving the sign it gives out: both JC & Mohammed have harkened to the true God of Israel, and turning cheek on the history and deeds of both religions forever seeking to destroy Israel and negate all her rights and history. These religions can only be judged by their deeds with Israel.

WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MOGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR.

Dear TRTL.. I won't labor the issue of 'objective meaning'... but if this helps..I'll try.

Simple language.. and concepts are easy to inteprret..

"The black dog bit the white cat" is a report of a physical incident about which I doubt any of us would argue. I guess if someone then 'intepreted' it saying "Thus, all black dogs hate cats" there would be obviously insufficient data to base such a claim on right?

But if a man said "I breed black dogs which hate cats"..aah.. different, agreed?

So, interpretation should go no further than the facts. Things are 'objective' insofar as they comply with culturally and linguistically agreed definitions. In the area of language and meaning, yes..I agree there is an element of fluidity in it as cultures are changing.
"wow..that was WICKED" now.. in youth culture means 'That was great'.
But.. we know this.

Other ideas are more difficult to set interpretive boundaries for, and I used "I am crucified with Christ" as one such example.

Expanding the context base helps set appropriate interpretational boundaries of written text.

PERICLES.. good comeback.

OLY.. I'm going to investigate some issues along those lines. But one thing for this post. It is not certain (from my reading) that Herod died prior to Christs birth. There appears to have been a couple of years overlap.

JOSEPH.. you said: "These religions can only be judged by their deeds with Israel."

Genesis 12:3 (God to Abraham)

I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."

Joseph, some of your ideas miss the reality of the early Church, and the Acts of the Apostles and letters of Paul would give you a better, more informed perspective.
-blessings

HISTORY and THE FAITH.

Oly.. I'm not sure where you get your information from, but this link is one of the most scholarly around. The Tubingen school (theology) was hyper liberal.. they began with the idea that much of early Christianity was myth based.. so there are certainly not evangelical.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/Bauer/bauer08.htm

In that link, Mr Bauer (called 'antiChrist' by some :) makes an important point.

In the 'Contra Celus' by Origen, it is clear that the Church, rather than embracing Greek platonist ideas, fought them vigorously.

It is often said that the early church theology emerged from an infection by Greek Mythology..and this is hardly the case as any serious scholar of the time knows.

William F Albright was a product of the Liberal Tubingen school, and went as an Archeologist to Israel/middle east with their view.

The evidence altered his stand.

The other usual attack is that Pauline theology emerged from the "mystery religions" and to say that is just a total 'load of crap' is a major understatement. Paul's own testimony is by far enough to dispel that sad idea.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/rusty_wright/newtestament.html

<<Mark writes of Jesus healing a blind man as He left Jericho.{23} Luke, apparently writing of the same event, says it happened while Jesus was approaching Jericho.{24}

Excavations in 1907-09 by Ernest Sellin, of the German Oriental Society, showed that there were "twin cities" of Jericho in Jesus' time--an old Jewish city and a Roman city separated by about a mile.{25} Apparently Mark referred to one and Luke referred to the other, and the incident occurred as Jesus traveled between the two.

William F. Albright, one of the world's leading biblical archaeologists, adds a helpful comment: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date of between A.D. 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.>>

Tacitus, Pliny, Seutonius and Josephus all add credibility.
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/tacitus.html

We can only offer 'compelling' evidence, not 'conclusive'..faith begins at this point. :)

Seems I was wrong to think that you had slunk away from this thread, Boaz. Although you still manage to avoid the questions put to you, by the simple expedient of ignoring them completely.

But it doesn't seem to me that you have advanced your argument at all.

>>So, interpretation should go no further than the facts<<

Which is, prima facie, a reasonably defensible position.

Unfortunately, it contains two rather significant problems.

One, that it is very rare in deed for a text to contain within itself sufficient facts to make the interpretation incontrovertible.

Your example "the black dog bit the white cat" might be one, in a simplistic world. Even here, though, since we are given insufficient data to properly define the combatants, I might personally be surprised that a toy poodle was able to get a nip into a snow leopard.

In contrast, it is simply impossible to ascribe to the phrase "I am crucified with Christ" anything but a subjective interpretation, even though it has fewer words than the dog/cat episode.

The other problem with the concept is that it tends to be expediently discarded at the earliest possible moment, by anyone with a particular axe to grind.

Like, for example, yourself.

Incidentally, I am still agog for your interpretation of this little text of yours from a previous post.

>>By "objective" meaning, and known meanings, we are speaking about the reality of the human/linguistic dynamic.<<

As far as meaning goes, this text seems to be bending over backwards to ensure that none is actually delivered.

Go on, Boaz, I dare you. Turn it into everyday English.

I love the "explanation" of the discrepancy in the Mark vs. Luke, coming vs. going story.

Two cities, next to each other, with the same name. Who'd 'a thunk it?

Mighty convenient. But still circumstantial, since there is nothing to support the theory that he was in fact travelling between the two, which would be the only circumstance that allows both to be correct.

Incidentally, Boaz, I notice that you are still repeating - as all Christians are bound to do, I suppose - the old canard that there is actual evidence, real evidence, to support all those tall tales in the New Testament.

I have to tell you, at the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, that stray references to the existence of Christians - which is not in any way in dispute, since you yourself present as such - cannot be taken as proof that water was turned into wine, the lame were made to dance the lambada, lepers were able to get their act together and Lazarus woke up saying "wow, what a party".

>>Tacitus, Pliny, Seutonius and Josephus all add credibility... We can only offer 'compelling' evidence...<<

Hardly compelling, Boaz.

In fact, does it not occur to you that the extraordinarily cursory nature of Tacitus' passing reference to Jesus' execution, actually tends to "prove" that there was absolutely nothing spectacular about his life?

Wouldn't you have expected at the very least a brief reference to the fact that Jesus had, during his lifetime, created the odd newsworthy item? Tacitus was, after all, a well-respected historian, and would hardly have omitted anything as significant as the re-appearance of a dead person executed by the state.

If it is a story that you need to believe in order to follow your religion, that's entirely fine by me.

But it is horribly shaky ground from which to criticise the scriptures of other religions, is it not?

The topic was supposedly "How to Interpret Texts- Religious and Secular"

There has been no attempt or explanation on interpreting any secular text. Outside of the New Testament no religious text has been mentioned.

The topic is really "How to Interpret the New Testament?" It would have been straightforward to give the thread the right title.

I would have appreciated hearing about the texts of other religions.

The New Testament was not a document like a scientific paper subjected to peer review. It was a propaganda document by men of its time. To make sense of it one must examine the milieu in which it was written by looking at ancillary documents. Josephus' writings are most suspect because they have been modified by Christians to support the NT.

The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal much. They show, for one thing, that many of the tales concerning Jesus were given to an earlier figure. Jesus, if he existed at all, has been made into a mythic figure by having myths of the time put on him.

Anglican bishop Spong wrote "Christianity Must Change or Die." Among his ideas are:

1. Accounts of miracles that conflict with natural law are unbelievable.

2. The concept of a messiah is not believable.

3. Scripture was written by humans with the prejudices and concepts of their time and place. Mark 5:98 and 9:25 gives account of Jesus dealing with demonic possession. He was a man of his time with the knowledge of his time. We now know what was thought demonic possession was really mental illness.

4. Sickness is not a punishment from God.

5. A God who would subject his son to torture and death is a loathsome God.
That resonates with me as I find the story of the binding of Isaac a
horrible story. Abraham was a monster in being willing to sacrifice his son,
and a God who would ask him to do it is a loathsome creature.

Bishop Spong thinks it more important to bring reason to Christianity than
to seek converts to an unreasonable religion.

Damn well said david f.

Spong's approach to faith, I think, is far more persuasive, and doesn't entail enforced ignorance.

Boazy,

“Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.” – Bible, Matthew 2.16 KJV

The historical record demonstrates Herod died 4 BCE. Four years before Jesus' birth.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570553_2/Herod_the_Great.html

Boazy, I do appreciate Christians take supernatural occurrences “on faith”. Yet, to a secularist, the idea of Herod returning from the dead after four years, to direct a mass massacre of first-borns, is a huge stretch.

Albeit, as you have said previously, I do tend give weight to historically endorsed evidence, and can be influenced by that perspective. Alternatively, Christians are willing to accept the surreal, if the claim is in the Bible. I know/appreciate the stance, but less sure of its rationale.

Further, given the Romans, like the NAZIs, held records on just about everything; a mass-slaying, involving a resurrected Herod, I suspect would have been recorded.

More feasible, for me, is the Biblical writer [of Matthew] embellished Herod’s killing of his own first-born son to his first wife: An event that “is” recorded.

Also, in Mattew 2.15, there is reference to waiting in Eygpt until Herod’s death. The text reads as if it his first death, but given he had died already, when did Herod’s second death occur? If the King of Judea could come back once: Why not twice?

Would not, Jewish Ruler, Antipas, The Tetrarch of Galilee, need to have been involved in 1 CE? Why would the three wise men engage a live-dead person [it’s a bit like Schodinger’s cat :-) ] , rather than visit Galillee’s sitting Jewish ruler, Antipas?

Where was Herod during those four years Earth time of his death?

Regards.

Boaz: 'Joseph, the Acts of the Apostles and letters of Paul would give you a better, more informed perspective.
-blessings'

I see the historicity as transcendent of the theology, because the former gives the issue a premise which is not limited to belief. All life forms possess an inherent belief of a creator source, and this is the easiest premise to exploit, thus the historicity factor must be transcendent. IMHO, truthfullness is greater than truth, because the latter is subjective and elusive.

There is almost no histrical evidence of the NT writings, and the only thing which gives it a sense of possible vindication is not Josephus, but that there are 4 gospel writings; the inconsistancies in these 4 writings are actually in its favor, as opposed if these were perfectly alligned. However, there is still a vaccuum of authenticity of any contemporary evidence; not a single original copy has been found; not a single one which appears in Hebrew, in a period of extensive and commonplace writings.

What is says is, the christian belief is genuine and Godly inclined, while the veracity of the writing's original source points remain doubtful. In a sense, this too is in christian's favor, inferring a belief being inherent, rather than depending on the veracity of the Gospels - the belief would survive even if it were dislodged by some new discovery.

The situation is very chaotic: we have three seperate belief systems emerging out of the same vicinity, and all three are contradictory - meaning all three cannot be right. This precarious situation says that a revelation occuring again will not resolve the chaos if this comes from either christianity or islam, but only a Mosaic/OT revelation has the potential to resolve the contradictions: christians would not accept an islamic revelation w/o JC, and vice versa the muslims would not accept a contradicting revelation from Jesus. But since both the two later religions claim ascendence of the OT - only a Sinai style revelation would suffice. But strangely, this is not aspired for!

Christians claim to follow Jesus but reject his Jewish religion.

To remind people that Jesus was not a Christian and got his best lines from the Jewish Bible I wrote and sang the following to the tune of the jazz standard on the radio:

The Imitation of Christ

Six feet two, eyes of blue
Jesus Christ, he was a Jew
Has anybody seen my lord?

Big hooked nose, There he goes
Preaching so that everyone knows
Has anybody seen my lord?

Speared by a Roman
In the abdomen
Blood gushing out

Rose from the dead
So it is said
People believe without a doubt

Jesus died, still a Jew
He's a Jew so why aren't you?
Has anybody seen my lord?

“Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.” – Bible, Matthew 2.16 KJV"

It is precisely such premises which draw suspicion. Herod was surely not involved in any interaction with christianity or the 3 wise men. Herod's actions were strictly related to the rebelions of the Judeans to the implementations of decrees by Rome, which included the charge of heresy, forbiddence of circumsizion, the speaking of hebrew, the teachings of the OT, the sacrifising in honor of Rome, taxes, etc.

In fact, Herod did not implement Caligula's decree of heresy, which required Jews worshipping the image of a Roman emperor, realising this would cause guaranteed havoc; he was right - when Nero made the heresy factor encumbent in 65 CE, it resulted in Rome's greatest war - not recorded in the NT, thus 'suspicious', because it constitutes a lie-by-omission. The heresy charge was perfectly emulated by the Roman catholic church, in perverse contradiction of the OT laws, resulting in the murders of millions of innocent peoples: it is totally not credible that Jesus, or any figure in Judea, would condone the Gospels. That the last previous Pope finally declared that Jews had a seperate and independent covenant with the Father - indicates the wrong path adopted by the church for some 1800 years.

"LOVE THE STRANGER" is the correct test[OT]; here, "LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR" [NT] becomes a self-preservation premise.

david f,

For me Jesus was a first century Jew. Christianity was developed centuries latter. The Pauline writings Hellenised various gospels arising from spoken lore. Christanity's institutional foundation was established between the times of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople.

I am not sure that Christianity necessarily reflects Jesus. Jesus did not sanction the future writing of NT, to the best of my knowledge. I see Jesus, as a Jew, with issues, not a Christian founder.

The ousia of the Christian godhead relates more to the Egyptian Serapis godhead, than it does the OT's Council of El.

Dear Joseph...

I have a challenge for you :)

Read Pauls letter to the Romans.. as he unfolds the human condition, and have a real close look at chapters 9-11 about Jews.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=1&version=31

Pericles.. I responded to your question in the Mindbodyspirit thread.

David.f.. urs too.

We looked at an indian myth in this thread. refer CJ morgans posts about half way. (Tsimshian)

blessings all.

cheers all.. must away

Oly.. your last post does connect with the area of "Interpeting" so I'll address it.

You said:

<For me Jesus was a first century Jew.> (err.. so? No one denies this except Pericles:)

<Christianity was developed centuries latter.> (again..very subjective, if you "begin" with this idea.. is it not possible you will then re-interpret all the evidence with that pre assigned conclusion in mind?)

<The Pauline writings Hellenised various gospels arising from spoken lore.>

Please read Galatians (Pauls own letter) (Phil 3:5ff)

circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a PHARISEE; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

Do you honestly think a "Pharisee" would 'Hellenize' the Church or Jewish religion?

AUTHENTICITY OF PHILIPPIANS.

GENERAL VIEW:
Pauline authorship of Philippians is "universally accepted" (Beare, p. 1) by virtually all bible scholars, ancient and modern, with the exception of the kenosis passage in Philippians 2:5-11. This may have been an early Christian hymn that Paul quoted, rather than an original Pauline composition.

CRITICAL VIEW.
In 1845, F.C. Baur challenged the authencity of Pauline authorship of Philippians based on HIS BELIEF that the "bishops and deacons" in Philippians 1:1 must have been an ecclesiastical development that post-dated Paul. However, most scholars have rejected this argument as there appears to be no evidence that such offices could not have existed in Paul's day.

Oly..does Bauers argument carry much weight?

<Christanity's institutional foundation was established between the times of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople.>

COMMENT:
With this.. I tend to agree. Though contrary to Bauer, Bishops and Deacons were in existence much earlier.

"HELLENIZED" by Paul? :) (AGHAST LOOK) you reallllly need to research this more thouroughly. (it's the opposite)
cheers.

WOOPS.. typo there.. forget the reference to 'Galatians' next to Phil 3:5ff)

Though Galatians also is helpful. In it, Paul gives a biographical sketch of his life and conversion.

Don't confuse 'identifying' with Greek Culture to communicate the Gospel with 'hellenization' of the Gospel.

When Paul went to Athens he noted all the idols and said:

"Guys..I see you are very religious! hmm.. but I notice there is one monument to an unknown god .. THAT ONE I proclaim to you" (Paraphrase)

blessings.

Dear BOAZ_David,

You keep suggesting we read the New Testament. How much non-Christian scripture have you read? Are you open to the insights of other religions?

I consider the Gospels fairy tales. The fruits of Christianity are exhibited in its history. Actually the New Testament was not written until sometime after the death of Jesus.

I have suggested four books to you.

"Constantine's Sword" by John Carroll who was a Catholic priest. That tells of the militarism, intolerance and Jew hatred of Christianity since Constantine.

"Confessions" of Saint Augustine. I was impressed by his intelligence as he speculated on time and space. However, he also showed an unreasonable guilt that he has passed on to Christianity in the doctrine of Original Sin. The idea that humans are born in sin is an ugly one.

"The Closing of the Western Mind" by Charles Freeman. This tells how the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire brought in the Dark Ages as the faith demanded by Christianity destroyed the spirit of inquiry and questioning in the classical world.

"The Conversion of Europe from Paganism to Christianity: 371-1386" by Richard Fletcher. 371 was the date that the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a state religion. With the exception of Ireland the rest of Europe was converted by violence. 1386 was the date that Lithuania became Christian. There were a series of Crusades against Lithuania with great bloodshed for no other reason than that the Lithuanians wished to keep their status as a multicultural nation that tolerated all faiths. Some of my ancestors come from Lithuania.

Have you made any attempt to look at any of them? You keep pushing other people to look at what you think is important, but you don't seem interested in other points of view except to knock them down.

I consider Christianity like Marxism a massive failure. It has been tried and usually found wanting. Both Christians and Marxists will protest that their respective ideas have not really been tried. However, I doubt that new attempts to try either belief in unprovable propositions will result in anything better.

Re " And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ "

This post omits juice bits.

Islam says the same thing as does the gospels - but christians do not accept this - because they wanted their own messenger - yet christians demand this of others. It is of course incorrect that any Jew would call other Jews to harken to any other than the commands given them at Sinai via Moses. Specially with such a desecration of the foremost two commands from Sinai - and with no sight of Moses or the Giver of the law as at Sinai.

The truth is, not even the Holy One can change his commands - based on the attribute of truth ['The Lord is not like man that he will change his mind'/Samuel]. The truth is, both the NT and Quran make the same claims and demands, al biet with different names and doctrines and history. Here, the messenger has become transendent of the message - which is paganism - thus we see the majestic advocation not to worship anything within the created universe: logic says the Creator is - at least - transcendent of everything created. Logic says that christianity and Islam should be good to those who believe in God 2000 years before they emerged, and thus focus on the moral/ethical values which unite, instead of one's religion's egos and icons.

If one does not accept them - the rake and the sword is their answer, as history shows. Most believers in these two religions were enforced: Islam murdered millions in India and elsewhere unless they converted; Europe massacred millions of American natives, sending their children to convents, and enforced already exiled peoples when they refused the Gospels. Belief must never be enforced, and shown only by way of example - the true meaning of chosen and being a light unto the nations.

'WHAT IS HATEFUL TO YOU - DO NOT UNTO OTHERS' - Rav Hillel; 100 BCE, to a Roman soldier pressing a sword to his chest to bow to a Roman statue.

Re "I am not sure that Christianity necessarily reflects Jesus. Jesus did not sanction the future writing of NT, to the best of my knowledge. I see Jesus, as a Jew, with issues, not a Christian founder. " - Boaz

All 55 jewish prophets wrote their own, in Hebrew, and not one contradicted the OT. IMHO, it is a mystery, as a compulsion, that an advanced people like europeans would accept a 3rd/4th hand report of the gospel claims - without a single proof, then accept Paul's claims - who never even met Jesus - of claims and doctrines which are totally contradictory to logic and the laws they claim as their foundation.

Logic and truth says, they should have *DEMANDED* proof of resurrection - and even if this was true, never come to the conclusion the NT does; they should have nominated isaiah, who said the dead people - not the Messiah [!?] - was to rise; they should have demanded of Paul proof Jesus said so - and if this be true, totally rejected it. Now you know why the *stiff-necks* were chosen!

But the ubsurd reverse occured. What's it mean? IMHO, this was a mysterious compulsion, defying logic, making some see what others did not - and vice verse. This may be the means to wean the west from its historic paganism - by giving them a path which suits them ['He understndeth the nature of man']. Eventually, in its due time - all names will disappear and all will stand down on the base of the mount, as with Moses, who was the greatest human who ever lived. In its due time and in its correct way, the rest of humanity will also be shown what the hebrews were - this time has not yet come.

There is no alternative to Monotheism - scientifically and logically - even for atheists. The buck does not stop at 3 but "1". The best slight of hand selective maths notwithstanding.

"I AM THE LORD - THERE IS NO OTHER"

Boazy,

[1] “Christianity was developed centuries latter.” – O

“very subjective, if you ‘begin’ with this idea.. is it not possible you will then re-interpret all the evidence with that pre assigned conclusion in mind” – B.

- No, I have interpreted. I studied the historical events surrounding the development of the Gospels and other related literature: e.g., noting Herod was dead when Jesus was born. Let’s focus here:

Boazy: Was Herod alive or not when Jesus was born?

Boazy: Herod, Yes, no, resurrected? Matthew 2.16: fact or fiction?

I have read translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Bible, Roman historians, (some) Josephus, many academic civilizationists, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire and theist/academic theological works. I discovered my conclusion through research.

Given my penchant to cite sources, I think regular OLO colleagues would hardly call me, subjective. I look for “consistency” across sources.

Christian dogma was largely established at Nicaea from “selected” gospels. Mack [Claremont Theological College] describes the development of the many gospels very well, from folk lore to Nicaea. Objective history.

[2] Paul and The Galatians.

"'HELLENIZED' by Paul? … you really need to research this more thouroughly.” [condensed]

- Regarding Paul. “Paul, a citizen of the hellenised [sic. Hellenised] city of Tarsus, clearly found himself at home in this world, and indeed it was the existence of this layer’ which made his work possible at all. He wrote in hellenistic Greek, and needed no other language wherever he travelled. In most of the cities he visited, he found an established Jewish community. In some ways, because this was the culture through which he communicated, it is the hellenistic Paul who is most accessible to us.”

- Galatians. “For the Galatians, for most of their lives, ‘law’ had comprised just these local and Hellenised customs and codes. These and these 'only' [emphasis added] were the customs and codes in question when Paul first invited them to the new Christian way of life.”

Citation: The Three Worlds of Paul of Tarsus. Richard Wallace (1998)

Sources? Can produce scores more.

Regards,

O.

IamJoseph,

I doubt Boaz will accept authorship of the quotation you cite. But I will.

In the Flavian Dynasty, Serapis occasionally appeared on Roman coinage. The Serapis godhead had a trinity and was adopted by the Gnostics. That God, and the ousia of the godhead, existed a few decades after the time of Constantine. The Christian godhead appears have been a mirror trilogy. Between Constantine and Flavius Theodosius, inclusive, theistic syncretion would have the Christian godhead replace the Gnostic godhead: The same but different. A logical political move involving transference.

Christian leaders of the late four century, as I have mentioned to Boaz, were not unlike today’s Taliban, destroying else-than religious artworks. Christianity’s rampage is highlighted by the Christian destruction Serapis’ Temple, the Serapeum of Alexandria, in 385. Theodosian decree outlawed belief in Serapis, burying the true roots of the copied Christian godhead. Said Christian godhead was/is pagan not Jewish.

“The Serapeum was by all accounts a building of startling size and striking beauty. Ptolemy lll had had it built in honor of Isis and Serapis, a syncretistic Greek/Egyptian deity who combined aspects of Osiris, Zeus, Pluto and the Egyptian 'Apis' bull. He was associated with both the dead and healing. The temple itself opened onto a courtyard surrounded by a complex of buildings which included housing for the priests, priestesses, and people who came for a retreat. It also housed part of the public collections of the city's fabled Library.” - [Routery 1997]

- The Christians destroyed it!

“Courageously, they [The Christians] gave battle to the statues until they had vanquished and robbed them. Their military tactics consisted of stealing without being seen. As they could not carry away the pavement because of the weight of the stones that could hardly be moved, when they had simultaneously overturned everything in sight, these great and valiant warriors, whose hands though rapacious, were not stained with blood, declared that they had triumphed over the gods. They gloried in their sacrilege and impiety.” [Eunapius of Sardis, in Turcan 1985]

Boazy,

Christians can’t point the figure at the Taliban over Buddhas of Bamyan.

My gentle chiding must seem like soothing balm compared to the scholarly bashing that's going on here, Boaz.

But it would be polite of you to keep your battlefronts separate, so that we can at least maintain a level of continuity in debate.

I asked a question earlier on this thread:

"I am still agog for your interpretation of this little text of yours...'By "objective" meaning, and known meanings, we are speaking about the reality of the human/linguistic dynamic'."

You tried to sidestep.

>>Pericles.. I responded to your question in the Mindbodyspirit thread.<<

What I found there explained why you wanted to move the discussion away - you single-handedly destroyed your own argument.

>>Perciles.."Human Linguistic Dynamic" have a guess! "the way that language (linguistic) varies and changes with context and time (dynamic)I chose 3 words!<<

So let's refit these definitions of yours into your original offering, and see what happens.

"By "objective" meaning, and known meanings, we are speaking about the reality of the way that [human] language varies and changes with context and time"

You see what happened, Boaz?

You have moved 180 degrees from the point from which you set out - that there is some form of meaning that can be extracted objectively from a particular text.

This is important, because the entire basis for your excoriation of the Qur'an is that its meaning is somehow static, and that we should therefore derive our opinions of twentyfirst-century Islam from those invariant meanings.

Now you tell us what the rest of us have always known.

That language is locked within its own historical context, and cannot be removed from it.

Even Sells agrees. Go take a look at his discourse on the changed meaning of the word "enthusiasm". And begin to understand that your quest for objective, time-transcending meaning from a single text is over.

Done.

Ok, that was easy. Now I can hand you back to the scholars.

My position is not to downgrade christians, as I see their belief genuine and Gdly inclined. I do see they have been hijacked by forces not of their control, and a belief enforced and inculcated upon them, to the extent they cannot simply dislodge from it and jump in a vaccuos abyss.

Europe has never been monotheistic prior to christianity, thus they were exploited by an agenda which worked out what would be accepted and what would fail. For sure, no apostle could enable europeans to accept the OT: such attempts failed numerously before christianity emerged, specially with the greeks. The truth is, Jews failed the monotheistic test also, and had to be subjected to 40 years wonderings - perhaps one of the most pivotal periods in human history, because they ended up forever being ingrained with monotheism thereafter.

The problem is, while christians and jews are the closest in moral/ethical values, there is the sharpest variance in their core doctrines. The latter prompted the Gospel writers to introduce anti-semitism, based on the most absurd and totally false charges - but because these charges have been attached to christian belief in God - there is no way out of this dilema. But it can end up hurting christianity more than the Jews in the long run: falsehoods have a use-by date; truth prevails; crimes must be accounted for.

There is only the avenue of American christians nullifying these horrific and false charges - because american christians, or many of them, have clearly rejected medevial europe's traits and formed a new Constitution. America can thus be the savier of christianity - to save it from Europe. One can hold any belief they are born into - but not any wrong or bad deeds and actions. I note the OT safeguards all religionists, whatever their belief may be, whether that belief may or may not be true, by deeming their actions transcendent of their belief, with no immunity which belief they may hold:

'ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY' [OT]

bless you Pericles.. you are a sucker for punishment :)

You said:

"My gentle chiding must seem like soothing balm compared to the scholarly bashing that's going on here, Boaz."

There is no scholarly bashing going on P, and your saying that simply underlines your lack of knowledge of the issues. You see, when I read some of Oly or Joe' comments, I see an absolute panorama of information which is being neglected and I also see a time line.

Example. The old 'look what the cat dragged in' theory of Gnostism and the Trinity, Serapis etc.. is all out of whack with so much else.
I recommend a read of Pauls letter to the Colossians for some insights into how 'proto-gnosticism' was being addressed in his time, but the full blown version didn't arise till the 2nd and 3rd century.

OBJECTIVE/SUBJECTIVE. I didn't shoot myself in the foot. Language does change. To obtain the 'objective' meaning of a text, will inevitably involve the 'human linguistic dynamic' as I put it, in that we must examine the use of words, and all possible influences and circumstances surrounding a particlar text to find the closest thing to an 'objective' meaning. Language, being what it is, will always be subjective to a degree, depending on the type of text and ideas being communicated.

The simple example I gave "The black dog bit the white cat" can be quite 'objectively' understood as "one dog, of black color, bit another animal, a cat, of white color" THAT'S IT.... it is the full extent of 'objective' meaning, as long as we agree on the meaning of Cat, (furry animal that goes 'meouw' if domestic or ROAR if its a lion)
bit (past pefect tense of verb 'to bite')
Dog (furry animal which goes woof woof)
Black (a color)
White (a color)

As time goes by, the term 'cat' might include something like a thylacine, but it is not relevant really to the objective meaning of the sentence which is not trying to exhaustively define 'types of cat or dog'

Dear Joseph...

"Anti Semitism" in the Bible? Please realize the Gospel authors were Jewish except for Luke.

Paul was a Jew..and Pharisee at that. "A Hebrew of the Hebrews, as to the Law a Pharisee"

I, as a Christian, do not see anything 'anti Jewish' or anti semitic in the Gospels. Perhaps the closest is the quotation of the Jewish crowd in Matthew 27:25

24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, ...(said) "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"

<<All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!">>

Now..you might suggest "Oh.. because of this, Christians hate Jews and must seek to punish them for causing the death of Jesus"

Now..what is the Christian understanding of this? based on full counsel of the New Testament?

POINT 1: The death of Jesus was NOT because of Jewish animosity but the very will of God!

John (a Jew) 19:24 (Referring to the Crucifixion)

<This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said,
"They divided my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.">

John 19:37

36These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken," 37and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."

INTERPRETATION:
Question "Why"....did these things happen?
Answer "that the scripture would be fulfilled"

Clearly, based on the fundamental meaning of words.. Christians have NO basis for anti semitic feelings.

We can look at Isaiah 53 also:

4 ... yet we considered him (Messiah) stricken by God, (by who?)

Verse 5
But he was pierced for OUR transgressions,
he was crushed for OUR iniquities;
the punishment that brought US peace was upon him,
and by his wounds WE are healed.

Joseph..do you undersand? "WE" (our sin)...crucified Jesus...not the Jews.

It matters not that you may 'choose' to interpret Isaiah differently, but that is the Christian understanding and when you make allegations against us for anti semitism, it is that which you must take account of.

Boazy,

Greetings.

"The old 'look what the cat dragged in' theory of Gnostism and the Trinity, Serapis etc.. is all out of whack with so much else.
I recommend a read of Pauls letter to the Colossians for some insights into how 'proto-gnosticism' was being addressed in his time, but the full blown version didn't arise till the 2nd and 3rd century."

Citations, citations, citations outside of the Bible, my friend.

My case put is not out of whack with history. As I mentioned before, if someone finds a book claiming relevation and insights, yet there is nothing supporting the claim, the posit is small.

In this thread, were we to focus on the question of whether Herod [the Great] was dead or alive, we could use our respective approaches to analyse the Bible's claim Herod was alive when Jesus was born.

Boazy, I will try again:

- Was Herod alive when Jesus was born?

IamJoseph,

Thank you for your contribitutions.

I think most Christians brought up on Chalton Heston would believe that Moses' most significant contribution was The Exodus and taking people his [not himself] flock to The Promised Land.

Yet, I feel from the tenent of your posts that Moses' contributions to the Hebrews was, he moved them from a henotheist tribal god and established their new covenant with god, based on monotheism. When said folk tried jump the gun worshiping a calf [?], a god typical of a settled people, Moses held them in the Present.

Toynbee notes that persecuted groups in history tend to take flight to Archaism and Futurism. For example, look back to a classical era or adopt a "we will be saved" posit. While, I do see an element of Futurism is the OT; I also see Moses keeping his people in the Present avoiding a lapsing into the Past or Future.

Inaddition, Moses, in the eyes of the Hebrews, established a "special" monotheist conventant with his god. Special, because, the people were "Chosen". Unlike Moses, Akhenaten was unable to maintain monotheist religion/coventant for more than a generation.

Some might argue that Abraham is the most significant figure in the Sumer-to-Western path of history, because he is recognized as the source of three monotheist religions. One god, three coventants?

My comments about Serapis was aimed at showing that Christians were capable of the same bad deeds as the Taliban.

IamJoseph and Oliver

I commend you both on your erudite interpretations of biblical texts. Usually my eyes glaze over, but you have made them of interest to me.

Boaz, stop salivating, I am not about to undergo a conversion - I find Joseph's and Oliver's posts of intellectual interest only. Perhaps, if you stopped listening to the sound of your own voice, you too could learn from them both.

its not about debating to induce people, which is a bad thing to do. The better point is, how does humanity remove these negative syndromes and respect each other on their deeds, instead of their race or belief. If a great religion cannot perform this basic function, it has failed. When a belief system viillifies others, generically, for all of its period of existence, demanding only that others believe its own doctrines or be deemed evil - it is a failed belief system.

This is the factor christianity has to deal with - which Islam is clearly failing with at this stage: it is in fact emulating the medevial church, and worse - the church is not just silent of it, but in support and fostering of it. Both these religions share the same dctrine of villifying others, not on their deeds but what their scriptures tell. And when this is attached to their belief in God - it becomes very difficult to resolve. Reverse the position and consider it: would you call it love if some other religion did this to you?

Guess what this means? Both are going to fall. And I don't say this as an I TOLD YOU SO! - but as a means of christians saving themselves and their belief. The dual NT and Quran dctrines point only to destruction of calamity of each other when push comes to shove, and its got nothing to do with Jews: you two will still have to face each other if Israel was destroyed! Its insanity.

I would like to see a christian and/or a muslim tell how this can be resolved - aside from the deathly demand of conversion, or its stealth version: accusing zionists of zionising zion. It is as if two king kong religions will fall in a heap if Israel exists. Talk about insecurity, and the dismal failure of so-called beliefs based on love. Can you see christianity falling if it cannot fix its problem? I don't want this to happen.

"Paul was a Jew..and Pharisee at that. "

Paul was expelled by the Nasserites - the first early followers of JC. Paul was a secular greek, and the early Jesus followers issued a death sentence on him - he was saved by Queen Bernice, grand-daughter of Herod, who ordered him tried in Rome, because he was a roman citizen; he was then executed on the roman charge of heresy - along with other jews. Why do you pick such a figure, and dismiss millions of other Jews? Paul never even met jesus, and he was only followed by the greeks, then by europe - while millions of jews were massacred by Paul's followers.

"I, as a Christian, do not see anything 'anti Jewish' or anti semitic in the Gospels."

What you are saying then, a firey preist can tell you how jews caused your savier's death, via Mad Mel's 2000 lashes per frame, and beedy eyed, hooked nosed jews revelling - but still not hate them? That's a great feat. But can you show us one other example of jews doing what the gospels says? - choose from 4000 years of history? All today's islamist terror is caused by the same means, as was the holocaust.

Better you consider how many jews gave their lives for defending their faith. The gospels invented anti-semitism, but you cannot admit this because it is attached to your belief in God. When I first read quotes and passages of mathew - I honestly felt I was reading Mein Kampf - yet you cannot see anything anti-semitic in the gospels? Is it not false the sacrifice of 1.1 millions in the defense of their belief against Rome is not recorded in the gospels - while they are villified as hapless money changers instead? The gospels wont tell you that the money changers were doing what they did for 2000 years - observing an OT command - and that Jesus failed in confronting the real issue at this time: depraved Rome?

Dear Fractelle... I warmly accept your right to present your point of view. I hope I'm allowed to 'make my voice heard' on this thread at least :) seeing as I began it. (no saliva:)

Oly.. regarding sources outside the Bible.. that's kinda cart b4 the horse on the issue of doctrines like the Trinity, because the information is firmly fixed in texts that only the wildest most rabid liberal higher critic would dare deny it...

The 'doctrine' is there in the early first century, (most comes from Johns gospel)only 'formalized' in the 4th due to heresy.

The reason I provided both critical and conservative opinions about the authorship of Philippians is so you can see that it is valid evidence for the qualifications of Paul by his own confession.

If scholars accept a document as 'authentic' then why would you then not admit it as evidence? I am tempted to think of the word 'bias':)

The best way to evaluate Biblical documents is to look at their history. Not all have the same level of support, but those which DO.. are emminently worthy of serious consideration even for the secularist.

Joseph.. the Christian Gospel is this "Repent from sin, and embrace Christ Jesus as Savior and Lord"..it is an invitation, not a compulsion. If you elect NOT to believe, no one is going to tax you for that. Do you understand this basic difference between Islam and Christianity? Seriously.. do you?

The very fact that a religion 'taxes' unbelievers for that unbelief should tell you VOLUMES about the 'nature' of that faith. (i.e..it is a STATE)
So, looking for similarities between Christianity and Islam is impossible. West is west and East is east. We offer choice, they offer choice plus tax if you make the wrong one.

You ask "would you call it love if another religion did this to you"

Genesis 12:3 is very clear for YOUR religion "I (God) will curse those who curse you(Jews)"

Is that love? :) its not the right question I'm afraid.

"Joseph.. the Christian Gospel is this "Repent from sin, and embrace Christ Jesus as Savior and Lord"..it is an invitation, not a compulsion.'

Yes, I accept this is the situation 'TODAY' - which is very recent, and appears the result of America emerging as the first decent christian country - a true beacon for humanity. However, Islam is emulating European christianity - and Europe is silent and fostering it - via stealth. It should be telling muslims not to do the same. How can the Vatican, for example, remain silent of teachings such as the blood libel, the Protocols, prophet killers, etc - parading in islamic countries - when these false stories came from the vatican's backyard? If the Pope pointed out how muslims are disrespecting other beliefs - he would have answered well to those muslims enraged and murdering nuns over a cartoon - but he never did! If one looks at the racism of muslim teachings against others - they would have no claim on others doing the same to them. And pointing this out is the foremost job of the vatican.

Here, the OT command kicks in: 'YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS'; 'YOU SHALL SEE YOUR FELLOWMAN'S INNOCENT BLOOD AND REMAIN IDLE'. There is an onus on christians to cleanse their own false charges. The church is an historical witness of Israel's rights, and this is inescapable - a sure retort of Heaven to falsehoods.
Here's an example of what is going on in US, and what has already swept throught Europe, all resultant from focusing on the ozone layer, unstead of issue # 1, and eeriliy familiar with medevial Europe:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67063Among Quote: the commission's most disturbing finds was the teaching that it was the Jews who conspired to create the schism between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

A textbook on social science that the commission reviewed reads, "The cause of the discord: The Jews conspired against Islam and its people. A sly, wicked person who sinfully and deceitfully professed Islam infiltrated" the Muslim faith.

Boazy,

[1] Was Herod alive when Jesus was born?

[2] "Oly.. regarding sources outside the Bible.. that's kinda cart b4 the horse on the issue of doctrines like the Trinity, because the information is firmly fixed in texts that only the wildest most rabid liberal higher critic would dare deny it...

The 'doctrine' is there in the early first century, (most comes from Johns gospel)only 'formalized' in the 4th due to heresy." - Boaz

Boazy, please develop. The above read as if you given the matter a minute's consideration. What parts of John mention the NT godhead? How are these propisitions supported OUTSIDE of the Bible. Try not to interpret via the Bible. Herein, one should not build a universe in a cubical; The Bible, does not stand alone.

Biologists use physics. Historians use Science. What does the Bible use? Please don't say The Word of God; else, you put the Bible in the same sted, as Mohammed, a conduit from the the divine to humanity.

[3] You have started a new thread but haven't provided a one word answer to [1] above. Why race ahead with matters, when so much is unresolved here?

Pericles,

If the Bible is a wall, it is a wall made of loose bricks. Yet, Boazy and his Christian colleagues wont venture to answer a simple question like;

- Was Herod alive, when Jesus was born?

We both have presented questions, but, like Gallileo, frustrated.

[Galilleo, beckened the Vatican astronomers to look through his telescope, to see for themselevs, but the Vatican astronomers refused his invitation. Source: Bronowski.

Hello Bozy,

- Was Herod alive, when Jesus was born?

It is a straightforward question?

Oly.

No connection between Herod and the Gospel:

Wikipedia

Herod Death

Coin of Herod the Great, bearing a temple and star of davidThe scholarly consensus, based on Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews is that Herod died at the end of March or early April in 4 BC. Josephus wrote that Herod died 37 years after being named as King by the Romans, and 34 years after the death of Antigonus.[10] This would imply that he died in 4 BC. This is confirmed by the fact that his three sons, between whom his kingdom was divided, dated their rule from 4 BC. For instance, he states that Herod Philip II's death took place after a 37-year reign in the 20th year of Tiberius, which would imply that he took over on Herod's death in 4 BC.[11] In addition, Josephus wrote that Herod died after a lunar eclipse,[12] and a partial eclipse[13] took place in 4 BC. It has been suggested that 5 BC might be a more likely date[14] — there were two total eclipses in that year.[15][16] However, the 4 B.C. date is almost universally accepted.[17]

Josephus wrote that Herod's final illness was excruciating (Ant. 17.6.5). From Josephus' descriptions, some medical experts propose that Herod had chronic kidney disease complicated by Fournier's gangrene.[18] Modern scholars agree he suffered throughout his lifetime from depression and paranoia.[19]

After Herod's death, his kingdom was divided among three of his sons, namely Herod Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Herod Philip II, who ruled as tetrarchs rather than kings.

IamJoseph,

Contrary to the NT, multiple sources 4 BCE. Christians believe, 1 CE.

Christians seem to believe the NT is right and history is wrong. This an excellent example of variance been the secular posits and the [Christian] religious posits. Something we can investigate in terms of this thread. If only Boazy will contribute, please.

All,

A brief outline of the period, as presented by PBS and the WGBH education foundation:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/scrollmeaning.html

Please note, the direct reference to Herod and the absence of direct reference to Jesus.

Also, notice the reference Judaism"s". It seems Judaism may been going through some sort of crisis, with factionalism evident.

Herein, Jesus was a Je. After Jesus,there seems to have been a few centuries of proto-Christian branded Judaism. Thence, historical evidents caused the Christian-Jews to morph into what has become Christianty. Constaintine stole the Jewish ball and ran away with it, after overhauling dogma.

Sells,

If you are reading, when did Herod die? Is Matthew 2.16 true?