Pinky wrote: Oh man, I really do have a habit of killing threads when I'm drinking.
You do realize that was poor Ted you just hit with that bottle?
The Final Freedoms
The Final Freedoms
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Final Freedoms
Pinky:-6 :-6
No I don't need a bandage. LOL
I don't consider it arrogant. I said what I thought as everyone else has, including you.
I do think that my claim that anyone who thinks they have the ultimate answer is delusional is self evident. The "anyone" would also include myself. If I thought I had the final or ultimate answer I too would be delusional. No, I understand how little I really know' how m uch there is yet to learn and how short the time is. That is why I continue to study and read on my own and formally at the Vancouver School of Theology.
Shalom
Ted:-6
No I don't need a bandage. LOL
I don't consider it arrogant. I said what I thought as everyone else has, including you.
I do think that my claim that anyone who thinks they have the ultimate answer is delusional is self evident. The "anyone" would also include myself. If I thought I had the final or ultimate answer I too would be delusional. No, I understand how little I really know' how m uch there is yet to learn and how short the time is. That is why I continue to study and read on my own and formally at the Vancouver School of Theology.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Final Freedoms
People keep missing the very big point.
The ability to discover whether one is self deceived or not is exactly what distinguishes this teaching from everything else in history. For the first time in RECORDED history, unlike any other truth claim from any monotheistic traditon, I [or anyone] have the means to test my convictions within a moral proof by an act of perfect faith. That is exactly what my wife and I are doing. I DON'T NEED TO LISTEN TO ANY HUMAN OPINION AT ALL. So if I am self deceived by what I call this new revelation, than I shall find out, for the test will prove a failure. But if the test is successful, [In fact I am the one being tested] than the whole world and the whole of 'religious' tradition is in error.
Have your perceptions of God become so conditioned, seduced and prejudiced by candy coated, happy clappy spirituality or new age wishful thinking? Have your minds become so atrophied by orthodox tradition and the respectable impotence of scholastic theology, priestcraft, metaphysical fog, vacuous debate, doubthink and intellectual paralysis that after two thousand years of evolved human thought, you are no longer capable of imagining anything greater than pagan ritual, hocus pocus, obscruantism and theatre for revealed truth?
How many holocausts, wars, pandemics, how much injustice will it take to convince you?
The ability to discover whether one is self deceived or not is exactly what distinguishes this teaching from everything else in history. For the first time in RECORDED history, unlike any other truth claim from any monotheistic traditon, I [or anyone] have the means to test my convictions within a moral proof by an act of perfect faith. That is exactly what my wife and I are doing. I DON'T NEED TO LISTEN TO ANY HUMAN OPINION AT ALL. So if I am self deceived by what I call this new revelation, than I shall find out, for the test will prove a failure. But if the test is successful, [In fact I am the one being tested] than the whole world and the whole of 'religious' tradition is in error.
Have your perceptions of God become so conditioned, seduced and prejudiced by candy coated, happy clappy spirituality or new age wishful thinking? Have your minds become so atrophied by orthodox tradition and the respectable impotence of scholastic theology, priestcraft, metaphysical fog, vacuous debate, doubthink and intellectual paralysis that after two thousand years of evolved human thought, you are no longer capable of imagining anything greater than pagan ritual, hocus pocus, obscruantism and theatre for revealed truth?
How many holocausts, wars, pandemics, how much injustice will it take to convince you?
The Final Freedoms
goliah, I am pleased for you that you found literature that excites you. I know the feeling when you sense a life changing event and others are dismissive. How this literature will affect your life is something only time will tell.
I, myself, am not filled with that sense of truth that hits your chest when reading something that speaks to me on a deeper level. Perhaps it is because, if the goal is to discredit Christianity, they used a format that doesn't appeal to me. If they intend to discredit Christianity I don't think they should steal the format. Regardless of whether or not this writing "speaks to me" or not, it does not change the fact that you are on a quest that is worthwhile and personal. Don't be discourage if others do not follow your lead. You imply yourself that people should not believe everything they are told.
You mentioned that you could answer questions about the pdf.
Why does another interpretation of the same text matter? If I was trying to tell something important through a story and found the message hopelessly misinterpreted and lost, I would write a new book. Let the critics have the old one and do with it as they wilt.
also:
Why do you think this has a divine source? Did God buy a computer recently? I hope you don't believe this because someone told you. You must test the theory at least a little bit.
I, myself, am not filled with that sense of truth that hits your chest when reading something that speaks to me on a deeper level. Perhaps it is because, if the goal is to discredit Christianity, they used a format that doesn't appeal to me. If they intend to discredit Christianity I don't think they should steal the format. Regardless of whether or not this writing "speaks to me" or not, it does not change the fact that you are on a quest that is worthwhile and personal. Don't be discourage if others do not follow your lead. You imply yourself that people should not believe everything they are told.
You mentioned that you could answer questions about the pdf.
Why does another interpretation of the same text matter? If I was trying to tell something important through a story and found the message hopelessly misinterpreted and lost, I would write a new book. Let the critics have the old one and do with it as they wilt.
also:
Why do you think this has a divine source? Did God buy a computer recently? I hope you don't believe this because someone told you. You must test the theory at least a little bit.
The Final Freedoms
gol-
It's hogwash and nothing will come of it!
Ultimately, the Bible is going to be vindicated as truly being the word of God.
Like it or not.
d:-5
It's hogwash and nothing will come of it!
Ultimately, the Bible is going to be vindicated as truly being the word of God.
Like it or not.
d:-5
The Final Freedoms
downag wrote: gol-
It's hogwash and nothing will come of it!
Ultimately, the Bible is going to be vindicated as truly being the word of God.
Like it or not.
d:-5
I think you've mistaken your religious reference. The Koran is said to be the word of God, not the Bible.
It's hogwash and nothing will come of it!
Ultimately, the Bible is going to be vindicated as truly being the word of God.
Like it or not.
d:-5
I think you've mistaken your religious reference. The Koran is said to be the word of God, not the Bible.
The Final Freedoms
No no, Pinky - that's not how God would write a book. Leave it to the scribes to get wrong? I think not.
If I were the Spirit that moved over the face of the waters - and let's face it, there's at least a chance that I am - I'd pay particular attention (in my omnipresent mode) to anyone laying pen to paper in My name and you can be pretty sure that I'd whisper in his ear to get my ideas across accurately.
So that covers the creation of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad at least. For is it not truly said, "He who knows what is the oldest and greatest becomes the oldest and greatest among his kinsmen. The vital breath (prana) is indeed the oldest and greatest. He who knows this becomes the oldest and greatest among his kinsmen and also among those of whom he wishes to be so."
Om.
The problem with God being testable is that the response is a physiological one which is hard-wired into all of us. Priests have known how to invoke that response, I would suggest, since before recorded time. So may the author of your pdf file. An ability to invoke that response does not, in my mind, guarantee an underlying Godhead.
If I were the Spirit that moved over the face of the waters - and let's face it, there's at least a chance that I am - I'd pay particular attention (in my omnipresent mode) to anyone laying pen to paper in My name and you can be pretty sure that I'd whisper in his ear to get my ideas across accurately.
So that covers the creation of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad at least. For is it not truly said, "He who knows what is the oldest and greatest becomes the oldest and greatest among his kinsmen. The vital breath (prana) is indeed the oldest and greatest. He who knows this becomes the oldest and greatest among his kinsmen and also among those of whom he wishes to be so."
Om.
The problem with God being testable is that the response is a physiological one which is hard-wired into all of us. Priests have known how to invoke that response, I would suggest, since before recorded time. So may the author of your pdf file. An ability to invoke that response does not, in my mind, guarantee an underlying Godhead.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Final Freedoms
Pinky wrote: I should probably butt out of this thread, as I admit I am biased. I have done my own research and have found the bible sadly lacking, and hypocritical to a shocking extent.I like the bit where the bears tear the children to pieces.
I like it so much I'm going to find it and quote it.
And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.
They don't write them like that any more. Give it up for Elijah, ladies and gentlemen.
I like it so much I'm going to find it and quote it.
And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.
They don't write them like that any more. Give it up for Elijah, ladies and gentlemen.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Final Freedoms
The pdf file is an entire book. An entirely new and complete religious teaching. My guess is that the intention is to first distribute the teaching as far and wide as possible on the web in anticipation of a paper edition, one that can only be controversial in the extreme. Why do I think this has a divine source? To be convinced it is necessary to read the material. And as I have said in several posts, how can a living and testable proof of God come from anyone else but God?
This is no theological, ontological abstract, but a new moral paradigm which is only possible if the reality we call God is prepared to intervene directly into the natural world.
No doubt that those who will be particularly intersted are those looking for the means to effect change in the world. I first came across this not at a religious site, but a scientific forum and anti-war sites. And this teaching follows an empirical path. So if it can demonstrate its own efficacy, it exists as a standing denial of all mono-theistic claims to speak for the same reality!
In discussing the material, I should not wish to convince anyone until I have myself confirmed it in practice. But like it or not, this is something new to history as we understand that history. It deserves to be examined. But it does threaten to bring down every conception of the divine that has thus far been described by any religious claim.
This is no theological, ontological abstract, but a new moral paradigm which is only possible if the reality we call God is prepared to intervene directly into the natural world.
No doubt that those who will be particularly intersted are those looking for the means to effect change in the world. I first came across this not at a religious site, but a scientific forum and anti-war sites. And this teaching follows an empirical path. So if it can demonstrate its own efficacy, it exists as a standing denial of all mono-theistic claims to speak for the same reality!
In discussing the material, I should not wish to convince anyone until I have myself confirmed it in practice. But like it or not, this is something new to history as we understand that history. It deserves to be examined. But it does threaten to bring down every conception of the divine that has thus far been described by any religious claim.
The Final Freedoms
To make this statement: goliah wrote: it does threaten to bring down every conception of the divine that has thus far been described by any religious claim.
you would have to be familiar with all religions, not just the biggies. How well read are you on religion? It encompasses a large number of belief systems. Of which have you read?
you would have to be familiar with all religions, not just the biggies. How well read are you on religion? It encompasses a large number of belief systems. Of which have you read?
The Final Freedoms
goliah -
I don't think you've read much in the last while. Too busy posting the exact same thread on every forum you can find. 7 pages on a google search of "The Final Freedoms"+goliah.
Ya know what? That makes you a spammer.
lofi.forum.physorg.com/The-Final-Freedoms_3126.html
forums.hypography.com/theology-forum/5265-final-freedoms.html
http://killdevilhill.com/philosophyforu ... .php?p=165
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=41511&
http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat. ... n=30306409
the list goes on. for seven pages
I don't think you've read much in the last while. Too busy posting the exact same thread on every forum you can find. 7 pages on a google search of "The Final Freedoms"+goliah.
Ya know what? That makes you a spammer.
lofi.forum.physorg.com/The-Final-Freedoms_3126.html
forums.hypography.com/theology-forum/5265-final-freedoms.html
http://killdevilhill.com/philosophyforu ... .php?p=165
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=41511&
http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat. ... n=30306409
the list goes on. for seven pages
The Final Freedoms
I have been to many other forum to discuss The Final Freedoms. Some of my own and some started by others. And like this one, I have done so strictly under the rules of every forum I have visited. Nor have I ever send anything more than a single email to any individual and only when material on the web is related. All material mentioned is free. No cons, no hoaxes. To call that spamming is a sad and dishonest attempt to discredit the discussion. But since it is obvious that no one involved with this thread has yet bothered to read the material and continue to reply only to a ebook review. It doesn't bother me to end it here? The loss is not mine!
The Final Freedoms
spot wrote: I like the bit where the bears tear the children to pieces.
I like it so much I'm going to find it and quote it.
And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.
They don't write them like that any more. Give it up for Elijah, ladies and gentlemen.
A little common sense goes a long way. The children spoken of were probably in their twenties. In old Hebrew society, you weren't counted with the adults until you were 40 (kind of like the next generation). You could do certain things as a Levite Priest, except concerning things that were "most Holy". Hence the reason Jesus didn't start his ministry until he was 30 and became the "sacrifice of all time at 33. That can be found in the book of Numbers.
So dry your crying eyes for "little children" because it was deserving mocking jerks who got what they deserved for mocking a prophet.
d:-5
I like it so much I'm going to find it and quote it.
And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.
They don't write them like that any more. Give it up for Elijah, ladies and gentlemen.
A little common sense goes a long way. The children spoken of were probably in their twenties. In old Hebrew society, you weren't counted with the adults until you were 40 (kind of like the next generation). You could do certain things as a Levite Priest, except concerning things that were "most Holy". Hence the reason Jesus didn't start his ministry until he was 30 and became the "sacrifice of all time at 33. That can be found in the book of Numbers.
So dry your crying eyes for "little children" because it was deserving mocking jerks who got what they deserved for mocking a prophet.
d:-5
The Final Freedoms
goliah wrote: I have been to many other forum to discuss The Final Freedoms. Some of my own and some started by others. And like this one, I have done so strictly under the rules of every forum I have visited. Nor have I ever send anything more than a single email to any individual and only when material on the web is related. All material mentioned is free. No cons, no hoaxes. To call that spamming is a sad and dishonest attempt to discredit the discussion. But since it is obvious that no one involved with this thread has yet bothered to read the material and continue to reply only to a ebook review. It doesn't bother me to end it here? The loss is not mine!
If you had started threads in many forums where the content was written individually for each post I would not call it spam, I would consider it evidence of your fascination with the topic. Unfortunately your posts and responses are copy/pasted with content that is almost entirely identical. I am not an administrator so my classification of you as a spammer is entirely personal. I suspect that you are doing this to increase the hit count on the website and raise your search engine rank with links. I have not reported anything as a "bad post" so continue copy/pasting away. At least you read the responses and enter some words of your own.
The threads are all started by you and one other name, which might well be you under a different title. If not, you should hook up with the other guy as he obviously has the same level of interest in the papers.
If you had started threads in many forums where the content was written individually for each post I would not call it spam, I would consider it evidence of your fascination with the topic. Unfortunately your posts and responses are copy/pasted with content that is almost entirely identical. I am not an administrator so my classification of you as a spammer is entirely personal. I suspect that you are doing this to increase the hit count on the website and raise your search engine rank with links. I have not reported anything as a "bad post" so continue copy/pasting away. At least you read the responses and enter some words of your own.
The threads are all started by you and one other name, which might well be you under a different title. If not, you should hook up with the other guy as he obviously has the same level of interest in the papers.
The Final Freedoms
Of course there are many stories in the Bible that are rather sickening if you take them literally which the Hebrew people generally did not do.
The question to be asked is not whether a story is true but what does it mean. What is it trying to tell us.
In fact the bear story is not an historical story but a story only. It did not happen in real time or real space.
If one takes it all literally then one does find it a little ridiculous in many places. Read as midrash, allegory or metaphor it begins to make sense. As a work of history the Bible is poor. It does comtain some kernals of history but not a great deal. Its historical accuracy does not stand up to critical scruitiny. It cannot be supported by the historical, archaeolgical or scientific record.
None of this does not mean that it cannot or does not teach truth. Any teacher would know better than that.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The question to be asked is not whether a story is true but what does it mean. What is it trying to tell us.
In fact the bear story is not an historical story but a story only. It did not happen in real time or real space.
If one takes it all literally then one does find it a little ridiculous in many places. Read as midrash, allegory or metaphor it begins to make sense. As a work of history the Bible is poor. It does comtain some kernals of history but not a great deal. Its historical accuracy does not stand up to critical scruitiny. It cannot be supported by the historical, archaeolgical or scientific record.
None of this does not mean that it cannot or does not teach truth. Any teacher would know better than that.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Final Freedoms
Ted wrote: None of this does not mean that it cannot or does not teach truth. Any teacher would know better than that.
:o Double negatives...means "all of this means that it cannot..."
Obviously this is not what you meant. What is truth?
:o Double negatives...means "all of this means that it cannot..."
Obviously this is not what you meant. What is truth?
The Final Freedoms
koan:-6
You are quite right. That was a double negative. Cancel the negating part. LOL
I've been making my share of mistakes lately and all I can chalk it up to is a very low hemoglobin count and a reaction to a medication I was on. Things are improving slowly.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You are quite right. That was a double negative. Cancel the negating part. LOL
I've been making my share of mistakes lately and all I can chalk it up to is a very low hemoglobin count and a reaction to a medication I was on. Things are improving slowly.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Final Freedoms
koan:-6
"What is truth?"
Now that is a nasty question. Truth is many things to many people. I guess for me ultimate truth would be God. Yet here in the physical world it can have many definitions.
Shalom
Ted:-6
"What is truth?"
Now that is a nasty question. Truth is many things to many people. I guess for me ultimate truth would be God. Yet here in the physical world it can have many definitions.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Final Freedoms
Ted wrote: koan:-6
"What is truth?"
Now that is a nasty question. Truth is many things to many people. I guess for me ultimate truth would be God. Yet here in the physical world it can have many definitions.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You're right. It is a nasty question. Normally truth would be defined as that which one feels in their heart to be right, but two people can believe contradictory things and still both feel they know the truth. When it comes to religious truth that is what many feel capable of killing over. I doubt there will come a day when all people agree on a single truth. (I'd even disagree with "I think therefore I am" on the basis that "am" is subjective and debatable)
"What is truth?"
Now that is a nasty question. Truth is many things to many people. I guess for me ultimate truth would be God. Yet here in the physical world it can have many definitions.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You're right. It is a nasty question. Normally truth would be defined as that which one feels in their heart to be right, but two people can believe contradictory things and still both feel they know the truth. When it comes to religious truth that is what many feel capable of killing over. I doubt there will come a day when all people agree on a single truth. (I'd even disagree with "I think therefore I am" on the basis that "am" is subjective and debatable)
The Final Freedoms
koan:-6
As a Christian pluralist it is my hope that mankind will move ever closer to mutual tolerance and respect. It is difficult though when some one or other feels and openly claims that they have the ultimate truth about everything and then try to push their position down the throats of others.
After the many years of formal undergratduate and post graduate studies I have come to understand that anyone who thinks they have the ultimate are delusional. It is a nice idea but a non-starter as far as I am concerned.
I know what I believe but understand and respect the positon of others as long as they show the same courtesy. In fact along with theologian Michael Fox I look forward to the day when we all get back to the original spirituality that is the basis of all faiths. Will it occur in my life-time? Not likely and not likely in the next several generations. But perhaps someday. The World Counsel of Churches is aimed in that direction in part and is to be commended for the effort.
Shalom
Ted:-6
As a Christian pluralist it is my hope that mankind will move ever closer to mutual tolerance and respect. It is difficult though when some one or other feels and openly claims that they have the ultimate truth about everything and then try to push their position down the throats of others.
After the many years of formal undergratduate and post graduate studies I have come to understand that anyone who thinks they have the ultimate are delusional. It is a nice idea but a non-starter as far as I am concerned.
I know what I believe but understand and respect the positon of others as long as they show the same courtesy. In fact along with theologian Michael Fox I look forward to the day when we all get back to the original spirituality that is the basis of all faiths. Will it occur in my life-time? Not likely and not likely in the next several generations. But perhaps someday. The World Counsel of Churches is aimed in that direction in part and is to be commended for the effort.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Final Freedoms
It almost seemed we had successfully hijacked this thread then we ended back at the bare bones of the whole debate. Most certainly we should follow the footsteps of Joseph Campbell and others who seek to find the common threads of belief systems and not focus on their differences so intensely.
Almost thought you were talking about Michael J Fox for a minute there then worked it out.
The main thing that made me roll my eyes about this "new" religion was that it was based on the same text and was being touted as completely different as if a different interpretation blows an entire religion apart. Maybe a few details, even important ones might differ but if they can't find the similarities when they're using the same text...
Almost thought you were talking about Michael J Fox for a minute there then worked it out.
The main thing that made me roll my eyes about this "new" religion was that it was based on the same text and was being touted as completely different as if a different interpretation blows an entire religion apart. Maybe a few details, even important ones might differ but if they can't find the similarities when they're using the same text...
The Final Freedoms
The BUSH administration should commission TED to do SPIN for them. He is an ace, at it!
He rips pages right out of the BIble with ease. Anything he doesn't like goes right out the window as "not real".
What a thin Bible Ted must have.
d:-5
He rips pages right out of the BIble with ease. Anything he doesn't like goes right out the window as "not real".
What a thin Bible Ted must have.
d:-5
The Final Freedoms
downag wrote: The BUSH administration should commission TED to do SPIN for them. He is an ace, at it!
He rips pages right out of the BIble with ease. Anything he doesn't like goes right out the window as "not real".
What a thin Bible Ted must have.
At least Ted admits the pages that contradict exist. Many people do not.
As Ted did not write the bible he is only accountable for how he interprets it. If he interprets it in a way that is entirely unique then good for him. This wouldn't be the first time people disagreed on what the bible means.
He rips pages right out of the BIble with ease. Anything he doesn't like goes right out the window as "not real".
What a thin Bible Ted must have.
At least Ted admits the pages that contradict exist. Many people do not.
As Ted did not write the bible he is only accountable for how he interprets it. If he interprets it in a way that is entirely unique then good for him. This wouldn't be the first time people disagreed on what the bible means.
The Final Freedoms
downag wrote: A little common sense goes a long way. The children spoken of were probably in their twenties. In old Hebrew society, you weren't counted with the adults until you were 40 (kind of like the next generation). You could do certain things as a Levite Priest, except concerning things that were "most Holy". Hence the reason Jesus didn't start his ministry until he was 30 and became the "sacrifice of all time at 33. That can be found in the book of Numbers.
So dry your crying eyes for "little children" because it was deserving mocking jerks who got what they deserved for mocking a prophet.
d:-5I'll make sure I don't mock a prophet then. obviously.
On a question of information, what does the word "little" mean in the verse, where it refers to "there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him"? Came forth little children seems odd in the context of these "deserving mocking jerks" you offer in their place. The Authorized Version's translation of the word used here as "little" breaks down as:
AV (101 uses) - small 33, little 19, youngest 15, younger 14, least 10, less 3, lesser 2, little one 2, smallest 1, small things 1, young 1;
Perhaps these were a derisive mob of thirty year old midgets? I have a hard time grasping any sense of "little children" other than pre-pubescent urchins being shredded and mangled to protect the dignity of the Lord's spokesperson here though. I'm sure it's just my lack of imagination, downag. That and what they were shouting, of course. "Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head" is so much more childrens-playground than you'd expect from forty-two twenty-year-old "mocking jerks" - I hear more of "Oi! Bald ****! Garn, show us wochoo did ter those Baal priests then! Load of old cobblers, you old boasting git, of course you didn't!". That's less "little children", I admit, but it might support your suggestion better than "go up, thou bald head" does.
I suggest you start by checking in your own bible - mine has "little children" coming forth, perhaps yours doesn't.
As an aside, just so this isn't entirely a flippant evisceration of a narrow-minded fool, I've always felt that number-use in some bible passages had a convention that became lost before the translators got their hands on the texts. I think the writers often had "x big-ones and y small-ones" in mind when they used the modifiers for thousands, hundreds, fifties, tens. I can so much more easily see "four bigger-ones and two smaller-ones" of little children rather than the ferocious precision of "forty-two". This applies especially to the use of "thousands" in David's census or the tribal counts of the Book of Numbers - as Fouts writes in the Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society [Jets 40/3 (September 1997) 377–387] "A Defense Of The Hyperbolic Interpretation Of Large Numbers In The Old Testament", "if indeed there were seven nations more numerous than Israel already in the land and if indeed Israel was the least of all nations as the Scriptures indicate (Deut 7:1, 7), the demographic problems increase exponentially." A consistent reading of thousands, hundreds, fifties, tens to be rank modifiers (for, in context, commanders, officers, heads of households etc) balances the counts. Given such a duality in the nature of the modifiers you can even hear the echo of what I take to be a clever pun in "Saul has killed his thousands, and David his tens of thousands".
So dry your crying eyes for "little children" because it was deserving mocking jerks who got what they deserved for mocking a prophet.
d:-5I'll make sure I don't mock a prophet then. obviously.
On a question of information, what does the word "little" mean in the verse, where it refers to "there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him"? Came forth little children seems odd in the context of these "deserving mocking jerks" you offer in their place. The Authorized Version's translation of the word used here as "little" breaks down as:
AV (101 uses) - small 33, little 19, youngest 15, younger 14, least 10, less 3, lesser 2, little one 2, smallest 1, small things 1, young 1;
Perhaps these were a derisive mob of thirty year old midgets? I have a hard time grasping any sense of "little children" other than pre-pubescent urchins being shredded and mangled to protect the dignity of the Lord's spokesperson here though. I'm sure it's just my lack of imagination, downag. That and what they were shouting, of course. "Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head" is so much more childrens-playground than you'd expect from forty-two twenty-year-old "mocking jerks" - I hear more of "Oi! Bald ****! Garn, show us wochoo did ter those Baal priests then! Load of old cobblers, you old boasting git, of course you didn't!". That's less "little children", I admit, but it might support your suggestion better than "go up, thou bald head" does.
I suggest you start by checking in your own bible - mine has "little children" coming forth, perhaps yours doesn't.
As an aside, just so this isn't entirely a flippant evisceration of a narrow-minded fool, I've always felt that number-use in some bible passages had a convention that became lost before the translators got their hands on the texts. I think the writers often had "x big-ones and y small-ones" in mind when they used the modifiers for thousands, hundreds, fifties, tens. I can so much more easily see "four bigger-ones and two smaller-ones" of little children rather than the ferocious precision of "forty-two". This applies especially to the use of "thousands" in David's census or the tribal counts of the Book of Numbers - as Fouts writes in the Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society [Jets 40/3 (September 1997) 377–387] "A Defense Of The Hyperbolic Interpretation Of Large Numbers In The Old Testament", "if indeed there were seven nations more numerous than Israel already in the land and if indeed Israel was the least of all nations as the Scriptures indicate (Deut 7:1, 7), the demographic problems increase exponentially." A consistent reading of thousands, hundreds, fifties, tens to be rank modifiers (for, in context, commanders, officers, heads of households etc) balances the counts. Given such a duality in the nature of the modifiers you can even hear the echo of what I take to be a clever pun in "Saul has killed his thousands, and David his tens of thousands".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Final Freedoms
koan:-6
Actually I am in the company of many theologians and Bible scholars: Borg, Crossan, Spong, Hall, Finkelstein, Silberman,O'Murchu, Drane, Gerstenberger, Anderson, Gordon and many more. These folks are not even way out in left field. They are in the mainstream of theology today.
No I do not give a unique interpretation to the scriptures. Yes I hold that the Bible is not inerrant and the literal word of God and never has been. Do I take what I like? No I take what makes sense and fits reality as I know it. Anyway you already knew that.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Actually I am in the company of many theologians and Bible scholars: Borg, Crossan, Spong, Hall, Finkelstein, Silberman,O'Murchu, Drane, Gerstenberger, Anderson, Gordon and many more. These folks are not even way out in left field. They are in the mainstream of theology today.
No I do not give a unique interpretation to the scriptures. Yes I hold that the Bible is not inerrant and the literal word of God and never has been. Do I take what I like? No I take what makes sense and fits reality as I know it. Anyway you already knew that.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Final Freedoms
I know i'm always butting in, my apologies. 
Hiya Ted, nice to see you
Hiya Ted, nice to see you
The Final Freedoms
abbey:-6
Good to "see" you as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Good to "see" you as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Final Freedoms
Ted wrote: Of course there are many stories in the Bible that are rather sickening if you take them literally which the Hebrew people generally did not do.
The question to be asked is not whether a story is true but what does it mean. What is it trying to tell us.
In fact the bear story is not an historical story but a story only. It did not happen in real time or real space.Spin this out slightly, Ted. Firstly, what can you advance as evidence that "the Hebrew people generally did not do" - I'm wondering whether you refer to the contemporaries of the writers, or subsequent generations of interpreters. A quote would go down nicely.
Second, go out on a limb and decide what the writers themselves thought the story was conveying, and why they included it. Or, if you think it was included because they'd heard it so many times round the campfires, why it was part of the folklore in the first place. Is it their understanding of the protective nature of God toward his prophets? Is it closer to Little Red Riding Hood?
Whatever it is, I bet they enjoyed watching their children as they told it, much as I enjoyed retelling the Brothers Grimm from memory to mine.
The question to be asked is not whether a story is true but what does it mean. What is it trying to tell us.
In fact the bear story is not an historical story but a story only. It did not happen in real time or real space.Spin this out slightly, Ted. Firstly, what can you advance as evidence that "the Hebrew people generally did not do" - I'm wondering whether you refer to the contemporaries of the writers, or subsequent generations of interpreters. A quote would go down nicely.
Second, go out on a limb and decide what the writers themselves thought the story was conveying, and why they included it. Or, if you think it was included because they'd heard it so many times round the campfires, why it was part of the folklore in the first place. Is it their understanding of the protective nature of God toward his prophets? Is it closer to Little Red Riding Hood?
Whatever it is, I bet they enjoyed watching their children as they told it, much as I enjoyed retelling the Brothers Grimm from memory to mine.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Final Freedoms
Pinky wrote: Sorry about the over-use of smilies, but I can't think how to express my absolute glee at reading this!!!
It's so true!My imagination failed when I tried to conjure up Christ saying "Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" while perching some twenty-something Skinhead Oi-Boys on his knee. Try fusing the two images below, and see if you can manage it. Not that I'm saying it wouldn't be a powerful image, mind - I'd use that in a church and be delighted to. But I doubt if it's what Matthew had in mind when he penned the words.
Attached files
It's so true!My imagination failed when I tried to conjure up Christ saying "Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" while perching some twenty-something Skinhead Oi-Boys on his knee. Try fusing the two images below, and see if you can manage it. Not that I'm saying it wouldn't be a powerful image, mind - I'd use that in a church and be delighted to. But I doubt if it's what Matthew had in mind when he penned the words.
Attached files
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Final Freedoms
spot:-6
"Our twentieth-century world, distorted by religious claims to possess objectivity and literalness, asks, "Did it happen"? The biblical writers deeply involved in the midras tradition were attemting to answer a quite different question, "What does it mean?" The Gospels, far more than we have thought before, are examples of Christian midrash. In the Gospels, the ancient Jewish story would be shaped, retold, interpreted, and eve changed so as to throw proper light on the person of Jesus. There was nothing abjective abou the Gospel tradition. These were no biographies. They were books designed to inspire faith." p19 "Born of a Woman", Bishop John S. Spong.
Of the Bible. "It is all a human product, though generated in response to God. As such, it contains ancient Israel's perceptions and misperceptions of what life with God involves, just as it contains the early Christian movement's perceptions and misperception." p27, "Reading the Bible Again For the First Time" Marcus Borg.
""What did this text mean in the ancient historicql setting in which it was written?" By "metaphorical approach," I mean most broadly a nonliteral way of reading biblical texts" p38, Ibid.
In thinking about the bear story it could mean that we were being cautioned to listen to and heed the words of the prophets. To disregard those words was to our own peril. I'm sure there are plenty of other explanations as well.
If you need more quotes I most certainly can deliver.
Shalom
Ted:-6
"Our twentieth-century world, distorted by religious claims to possess objectivity and literalness, asks, "Did it happen"? The biblical writers deeply involved in the midras tradition were attemting to answer a quite different question, "What does it mean?" The Gospels, far more than we have thought before, are examples of Christian midrash. In the Gospels, the ancient Jewish story would be shaped, retold, interpreted, and eve changed so as to throw proper light on the person of Jesus. There was nothing abjective abou the Gospel tradition. These were no biographies. They were books designed to inspire faith." p19 "Born of a Woman", Bishop John S. Spong.
Of the Bible. "It is all a human product, though generated in response to God. As such, it contains ancient Israel's perceptions and misperceptions of what life with God involves, just as it contains the early Christian movement's perceptions and misperception." p27, "Reading the Bible Again For the First Time" Marcus Borg.
""What did this text mean in the ancient historicql setting in which it was written?" By "metaphorical approach," I mean most broadly a nonliteral way of reading biblical texts" p38, Ibid.
In thinking about the bear story it could mean that we were being cautioned to listen to and heed the words of the prophets. To disregard those words was to our own peril. I'm sure there are plenty of other explanations as well.
If you need more quotes I most certainly can deliver.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Final Freedoms
spot:-6
Many modern theologians use the term "metaphor", I think, because it is a better understood word in the 21st Cent. The ancient term "midrash" has a much greater meaning than it does today. Today it generally means interpretation but to the ancients it was both a style of writing as well as interpretation. Here I refer you to the works of John Shelby Spong.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Many modern theologians use the term "metaphor", I think, because it is a better understood word in the 21st Cent. The ancient term "midrash" has a much greater meaning than it does today. Today it generally means interpretation but to the ancients it was both a style of writing as well as interpretation. Here I refer you to the works of John Shelby Spong.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Final Freedoms
Further understanding of midrash.
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflec ... upper.html
Jesus' Final Days
Shalom
Ted:-6
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflec ... upper.html
Jesus' Final Days
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Final Freedoms
Ted wrote: Further understanding of midrash.
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflec ... upper.html
Jesus' Final Days
Shalom
Ted:-6
Mid·rash (mdräsh)
n. pl. Mid·rash·im (md-rôshm, mdrä-shm)
Any of a group of Jewish commentaries on the Hebrew Scriptures compiled between a.d. 400 and 1200 and based on exegesis, parable, and haggadic legend.
(Right there, Ted is found to be not inaccurate. Midrash comes way after Christ even. How could it be said that the 2nd book of Kings was MIDRASH?)
Midrash (Hebrew: מדרש; plural midrashim) is a Hebrew word referring to a method of exegesis of a Biblical text. The term "midrash" also can refer to a compilation of Midrashic teachings, in the form of legal, exegetical or homiletical commentaries on the Tanakh
When used as a verb, "midrash" refers to a way of interpreting a biblical verse. Traditionally, understanding of Biblical text in Judaism is divided between peshat (direct meaning), remez (hints), derash (exegesis) and sod (mystical). The Midrash concentrates on remez but even more on derash
The "classical" Midrash starts off with a seemingly unrelated sentence from the Biblical books of Psalms, Proverbs or the Prophets. This sentence later turns out to metaphorically reflect the content of the rabbinical interpretation offered.
1 & 2 Kings and the Chronicles are not included in the MIDRASH.
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflec ... upper.html
Jesus' Final Days
Shalom
Ted:-6
Mid·rash (mdräsh)
n. pl. Mid·rash·im (md-rôshm, mdrä-shm)
Any of a group of Jewish commentaries on the Hebrew Scriptures compiled between a.d. 400 and 1200 and based on exegesis, parable, and haggadic legend.
(Right there, Ted is found to be not inaccurate. Midrash comes way after Christ even. How could it be said that the 2nd book of Kings was MIDRASH?)
Midrash (Hebrew: מדרש; plural midrashim) is a Hebrew word referring to a method of exegesis of a Biblical text. The term "midrash" also can refer to a compilation of Midrashic teachings, in the form of legal, exegetical or homiletical commentaries on the Tanakh
When used as a verb, "midrash" refers to a way of interpreting a biblical verse. Traditionally, understanding of Biblical text in Judaism is divided between peshat (direct meaning), remez (hints), derash (exegesis) and sod (mystical). The Midrash concentrates on remez but even more on derash
The "classical" Midrash starts off with a seemingly unrelated sentence from the Biblical books of Psalms, Proverbs or the Prophets. This sentence later turns out to metaphorically reflect the content of the rabbinical interpretation offered.
1 & 2 Kings and the Chronicles are not included in the MIDRASH.
The Final Freedoms
downag wrote: What on earth are you talking about. The reference was made to an incident from the period of Elijah during the Kingdoms phase of Israel's/Judah's history. The word used for the victims of the bear was CHILDREN which should be looked at from the HEBREW definitions, not Greek. And there was no LITTLE in front of it. Who said little children? Not I!
Leave it to you folks to screw it up so you win. Amazing! Outrageous!
Worthless!"Who said little children?" Well God, according to all I've seen you post here since you arrived - when he ineffably inerrantly typed the original Bible in Word Perfect 3.1 all those years ago. I did ask you to go and check your own copy. I take it that by now you've actually opened the pages and bothered to do that. Still, you're going to retain this image of a crowd of miniature thirty year old deserving mocking jerks in your mind for all time and I do admire stubborn brainless consistency. Stick at it downag, you brighten an otherwise dull afternoon. Seeing you post is like watching a car crash on a repeating film loop.
I subsequently mentioned the passage in Matthew because I've always felt Our Lord had Elijah and the bears in mind whenever he mentioned little children and the kingdom of heaven. He'd obviously met the passage. It's hard not to see the parallel. He does spend a lot of time overturning other Old Testament notions of justice too. I expect His [eventually in Matthew's text] Greek "little children" was a quote, don't you?
Leave it to you folks to screw it up so you win. Amazing! Outrageous!
Worthless!"Who said little children?" Well God, according to all I've seen you post here since you arrived - when he ineffably inerrantly typed the original Bible in Word Perfect 3.1 all those years ago. I did ask you to go and check your own copy. I take it that by now you've actually opened the pages and bothered to do that. Still, you're going to retain this image of a crowd of miniature thirty year old deserving mocking jerks in your mind for all time and I do admire stubborn brainless consistency. Stick at it downag, you brighten an otherwise dull afternoon. Seeing you post is like watching a car crash on a repeating film loop.
I subsequently mentioned the passage in Matthew because I've always felt Our Lord had Elijah and the bears in mind whenever he mentioned little children and the kingdom of heaven. He'd obviously met the passage. It's hard not to see the parallel. He does spend a lot of time overturning other Old Testament notions of justice too. I expect His [eventually in Matthew's text] Greek "little children" was a quote, don't you?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Final Freedoms
downag wrote: Mid·rash (mdräsh)
n. pl. Mid·rash·im (md-rôshm, mdrä-shm)
Any of a group of Jewish commentaries on the Hebrew Scriptures compiled between a.d. 400 and 1200 and based on exegesis, parable, and haggadic legend.
(Right there, Ted is found to be not inaccurate. Midrash comes way after Christ even. How could it be said that the 2nd book of Kings was MIDRASH?)
Midrash (Hebrew: מדרש; plural midrashim) is a Hebrew word referring to a method of exegesis of a Biblical text. The term "midrash" also can refer to a compilation of Midrashic teachings, in the form of legal, exegetical or homiletical commentaries on the Tanakh
When used as a verb, "midrash" refers to a way of interpreting a biblical verse. Traditionally, understanding of Biblical text in Judaism is divided between peshat (direct meaning), remez (hints), derash (exegesis) and sod (mystical). The Midrash concentrates on remez but even more on derash
The "classical" Midrash starts off with a seemingly unrelated sentence from the Biblical books of Psalms, Proverbs or the Prophets. This sentence later turns out to metaphorically reflect the content of the rabbinical interpretation offered.
1 & 2 Kings and the Chronicles are not included in the MIDRASH.
Do you use wikipedia for all of your scriptural interpretation needs?
I googled midrash chronicles kings and found a ton of references. I think you're in over your head here d
n. pl. Mid·rash·im (md-rôshm, mdrä-shm)
Any of a group of Jewish commentaries on the Hebrew Scriptures compiled between a.d. 400 and 1200 and based on exegesis, parable, and haggadic legend.
(Right there, Ted is found to be not inaccurate. Midrash comes way after Christ even. How could it be said that the 2nd book of Kings was MIDRASH?)
Midrash (Hebrew: מדרש; plural midrashim) is a Hebrew word referring to a method of exegesis of a Biblical text. The term "midrash" also can refer to a compilation of Midrashic teachings, in the form of legal, exegetical or homiletical commentaries on the Tanakh
When used as a verb, "midrash" refers to a way of interpreting a biblical verse. Traditionally, understanding of Biblical text in Judaism is divided between peshat (direct meaning), remez (hints), derash (exegesis) and sod (mystical). The Midrash concentrates on remez but even more on derash
The "classical" Midrash starts off with a seemingly unrelated sentence from the Biblical books of Psalms, Proverbs or the Prophets. This sentence later turns out to metaphorically reflect the content of the rabbinical interpretation offered.
1 & 2 Kings and the Chronicles are not included in the MIDRASH.
Do you use wikipedia for all of your scriptural interpretation needs?
I googled midrash chronicles kings and found a ton of references. I think you're in over your head here d
The Final Freedoms
Pinky wrote: Gosh, I hadn't seen that earler post.Since we seem to be having a downag discussion - and why not, after all - the reason you didn't see it is that he deleted it after (presumably) discovering how careless a hole he'd dug beneath his feet. Had he changed his post to anything at all appropriate to the occasion, I'd have thown his deleted text away. Since he decided to abandon Elijah's Bears' Oi-Boys without further comment on his part, I had nothing other than his deleted text on which to hang my observation. That's the only reason it saw the light of day.
I don't want to see a grudging "I messed up over the little" from downag, I'd be far more interested in his actually addressing the verse itself. We know he feels that Oi-Boys mocking God's Prophet are truly "deserving mocking jerks who got what they deserved" which says a lot about who we're talking to, but now he's finally seen the "little children" for what they are how supportable does he regard their punishment? I hope, if he takes nothing else from this thread, that he remembers "A little common sense goes a long way".
I don't want to see a grudging "I messed up over the little" from downag, I'd be far more interested in his actually addressing the verse itself. We know he feels that Oi-Boys mocking God's Prophet are truly "deserving mocking jerks who got what they deserved" which says a lot about who we're talking to, but now he's finally seen the "little children" for what they are how supportable does he regard their punishment? I hope, if he takes nothing else from this thread, that he remembers "A little common sense goes a long way".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Final Freedoms
Pinky:-6
I love it. LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
I love it. LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Final Freedoms
Another post on "midrash" that clearly shows the ancients used it both as a style of writing as well as a style of interpretation.
Craig
First of all the sermon on Sunday confirmed for me once again what I had come to believe years ago. D. Gordon was absolutely, in my mind and along with many theologians, correct.
I can be and am tolerant of all faiths. What I find intolerable is the bad theology and teachings of some churches. They claim to preach the "Full Gospel" when in fact they ignore, as Pam has noted, many of the other points in the Bible because it does not fit their preconceived ideas and also due to the fact that they have not kept up with reality.
Midrash--"Luke, aware of this Hebrew legend, had Jesus, in Elijah fashion, begin a journey with his disciples to his final destinay". p16, "Born of a Woman", John Spong."You mean," one of them said, "the
at maybe these things did not actually ahppen?"
"No," I suggesteed. "What we have in the Gospels is an interpretative narrative basedon the earlier part of the tradition and designed to enable the reader to see the reality of God in Jesus and to be drawn to this reality in faith.: p17, Ibid.
"She new nothing about the style of writing that was in vogue in the Jewish world when the Gospels were written" p18, Ibid.
". . . the birth narratives are illustrative of Christian midrash. The only obvious historical fact beneath these narrataives is that Jesus was born." p21, Ibid.
Re Jesus at twelve and his trip to Jerusalem "Or was it a midrash tale based on a story from the Book of Susanna that tells of Daniel at age twelve receiving the spirit of understanding?"
"However, if one has Jewish eyes, if one understands midrashic principles employed by Jewish people to tell their sacred story in scripture, then one finds a new angle of vision on this narrative." o319, "Liberating the Gospels", John Spong.
"There is also data to support the thesis that Luke wrote many of the episodes in Acts, not from memory or even from word of mouth, but midrashically from texts in the Hebrew scriptures, just as we have discovered hi did in the gospel." p176, Ibid.
If you read the text I listed from the site above and consider what I have written here you will clearly see that ancient midrash was both a style of writing as well as interpretation. The modern use is strictly interpretation but not the ancient use; Luke wrote midrashically.
Further is you read the above site you will see that there is strong speculation the the Gospels were in fact and early litergy and not biographical.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ps. Michael Goulder is one of the world's top experts on midrash.
I suppose if it is worthless to some it speaks loudly about them and not the author.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Craig
First of all the sermon on Sunday confirmed for me once again what I had come to believe years ago. D. Gordon was absolutely, in my mind and along with many theologians, correct.
I can be and am tolerant of all faiths. What I find intolerable is the bad theology and teachings of some churches. They claim to preach the "Full Gospel" when in fact they ignore, as Pam has noted, many of the other points in the Bible because it does not fit their preconceived ideas and also due to the fact that they have not kept up with reality.
Midrash--"Luke, aware of this Hebrew legend, had Jesus, in Elijah fashion, begin a journey with his disciples to his final destinay". p16, "Born of a Woman", John Spong."You mean," one of them said, "the
at maybe these things did not actually ahppen?"
"No," I suggesteed. "What we have in the Gospels is an interpretative narrative basedon the earlier part of the tradition and designed to enable the reader to see the reality of God in Jesus and to be drawn to this reality in faith.: p17, Ibid.
"She new nothing about the style of writing that was in vogue in the Jewish world when the Gospels were written" p18, Ibid.
". . . the birth narratives are illustrative of Christian midrash. The only obvious historical fact beneath these narrataives is that Jesus was born." p21, Ibid.
Re Jesus at twelve and his trip to Jerusalem "Or was it a midrash tale based on a story from the Book of Susanna that tells of Daniel at age twelve receiving the spirit of understanding?"
"However, if one has Jewish eyes, if one understands midrashic principles employed by Jewish people to tell their sacred story in scripture, then one finds a new angle of vision on this narrative." o319, "Liberating the Gospels", John Spong.
"There is also data to support the thesis that Luke wrote many of the episodes in Acts, not from memory or even from word of mouth, but midrashically from texts in the Hebrew scriptures, just as we have discovered hi did in the gospel." p176, Ibid.
If you read the text I listed from the site above and consider what I have written here you will clearly see that ancient midrash was both a style of writing as well as interpretation. The modern use is strictly interpretation but not the ancient use; Luke wrote midrashically.
Further is you read the above site you will see that there is strong speculation the the Gospels were in fact and early litergy and not biographical.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ps. Michael Goulder is one of the world's top experts on midrash.
I suppose if it is worthless to some it speaks loudly about them and not the author.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Final Freedoms
The following will clarify any question concerning the life span of the ancient middle eastern people.
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/people/
The people of ancient Egypt
Mortality, life expectancy, literacy
Ancient Egypt Egypt, Today (1) Uganda (2), Today
Infant mortality (1st yr of life) 30% 4.0% 11.1%
Child mortality (from 1st to 5th birthday) 20% 5.1% 18.5%
Life expectancy at birth (years) 20-30 (3) 65 44
Average age of grown-ups at death 30-40 (4) 60 (5)
Annual population growth less than 0.1% (6) 2.2% 3%
Illiteracy rate >90% (7) 49% 38%
From this site and chart it is clear that 1550 90.4% never made it past the age of 40.
While these figures speak of Egypt there is no reason to suppose that their next door neighbours faired any better.
Clearly in biblical times these folks died very young by comparison with today. I doubt very much that anyone at 30 would be classed as a child. They were "old" by then.
Shalom
Ted:-6
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/people/
The people of ancient Egypt
Mortality, life expectancy, literacy
Ancient Egypt Egypt, Today (1) Uganda (2), Today
Infant mortality (1st yr of life) 30% 4.0% 11.1%
Child mortality (from 1st to 5th birthday) 20% 5.1% 18.5%
Life expectancy at birth (years) 20-30 (3) 65 44
Average age of grown-ups at death 30-40 (4) 60 (5)
Annual population growth less than 0.1% (6) 2.2% 3%
Illiteracy rate >90% (7) 49% 38%
From this site and chart it is clear that 1550 90.4% never made it past the age of 40.
While these figures speak of Egypt there is no reason to suppose that their next door neighbours faired any better.
Clearly in biblical times these folks died very young by comparison with today. I doubt very much that anyone at 30 would be classed as a child. They were "old" by then.
Shalom
Ted:-6