What to do with an atoning/non atoning Jesus?

11213141517

Comments

  • You do know that's not how to spell Wikipedia, do you?
  • @Nick Tamen
    Anyone can go to the thread in question, written sometime yesterday, and see if it does not appear that you sided with Bishop's Finger and others in defending the thesis that Aramaic was not widely used in writing in the time of Jesus, a thesis I find indefensible, as seen most clearly in a Wickipedia article I cited. I was not asking for a response from you, only drawing your attention and the attention of others to that imho fact.

    Link to Nick doing that. Or get off the pot.
  • Wikipedia. I see you are not interested in friendly discussion. Bye.
  • I guess not. What a terrible loss.
  • What's Nick got to do with it?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Wickipedia (sic) articles are not always 100% accurate - something worth bearing in mind when citing them.

    Just sayin'
  • LOL
    Someone point out all the errors:

    Wickipedia:

    Aramaic was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean during and after the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenid Empires (722–330 BC) and remained a common language of the region in the first century AD. In spite of the increasing importance of Greek, the use of Aramaic was also expanding, and it would eventually be dominant among Jews both in the Holy Land and elsewhere in the Middle East around 200 AD[6] and would remain so until the Islamic conquests in the seventh century.

    According to Dead Sea Scrolls archaeologist Yigael Yadin, Aramaic was the language of Hebrews until Simon Bar Kokhba's revolt (132 AD to 135 AD). Yadin noticed the shift from Aramaic to Hebrew in the documents he studied, which had been written during the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt. In his book, Bar Kokhba: The rediscovery of the legendary hero of the last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome, Yigael Yadin notes, "It is interesting that the earlier documents are written in Aramaic while the later ones are in Hebrew. Possibly the change was made by a special decree of Bar Kokhba who wanted to restore Hebrew as the official language of the state.
  • Help me understand why you have a mental block on spelling Wikipedia. My phone spells it for me. Doesn't yours?
  • @Nick Tamen
    Anyone can go to the thread in question, written sometime yesterday, and see if it does not appear that you sided with Bishop's Finger and others in defending the thesis that Aramaic was not widely used in writing in the time of Jesus, a thesis I find indefensible, as seen most clearly in a Wickipedia article I cited.
    Oh give me a freaking break. That’s plain bull. Link to the posts where “anyone can see” that. If my memory is faulty or my post is susceptible to that interpretation, even if not intended, I will readily apologize.

    But having looked through my posts from the last few days, I do not think you will find such a post to which to link.

    I was not asking for a response from you, only drawing your attention and the attention of others to that imho fact.
    Again, utter bull. You tagged me and only me, and then asked me three questions:
    Nobody wrote in Aramaic?
    Then why were six chapters of Daniel written in Aramaic?
    And are you totally unaware that the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran were written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic?
    Those aren’t questions asking for responses?

    Then you tagged mousethief and me and asked:
    Nobody wrote in Aramaic, eh?
    That’s not asking for a response?

    Good grief, at least own what you’ve said.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    @James Boswell II I didn't say the article was inaccurate - I only meant that there is a possibility that it is not 100% accurate, as I'm sure you realised.

    I leave it to others to comment further.
  • I said I didn't want the silver.
  • Also, I do hate to be a bore, but the section of the Wikipedia article you are using as evidence is supported by a single source.

    The second paragraph you copied and pasted appears to have no references at all.

    I'm sorry if pointing out the weaknesses of details of paragraphs from an online encyclopedia is considered unfriendly.
  • It is correct.
  • Maybe it is, but how do you know that?

    I think that's the point we're trying to make about Wikipedia, and/or other online sources.
  • @Blahblah
    It is correct.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    I said I didn't want the silver.

    No, no, no. Milly see. Sherry glasses. Cuh!
  • @Blahblah
    It is correct.

    Oh well that's ok then.

  • If it is not, show how it is not.
  • Tuesday.
  • If it is not, show how it is not.

    A thing does not become believable just because it is stated to be true in an encyclopedia.

    I don't need it to be true. I don't know or care one way or the other.
  • JB2, there are some posters who thrive upon argument for the sake of argument which misses the point of the argument. They are to remain nameless but normally they hang out under bridges and molest goats.
  • admin mode/
    But in order to better try to "persuade" you that "it matters," I must pm you and tell you about something I'm no longer allowed to mention here. (I assume one can do that in a pm.)
    @Blahblah
    I only wanted to tell you about something I have written that you might like to read. But I will gladly communicate with you only here on threads. Peace.

    The Ten Commandments, which include the Commandment not to advertise or spam, also apply to the Ship's messaging feature.

    If it comes to our attention that you've started abusing that feature it will merely hasten what is increasingly looking like the inevitable.

    /admin mode


  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    [ETA - cross-posted with Blahblah]

    Frankly, neither do I - but it would be satisfying to receive a proper answer to the question, 'How do you (James Boswell II) know the article is (presumably) 100% correct?'

    :wink:

    Meanwhile, @Martin54, Monday (which is green).
  • Rublev wrote: »
    JB2, there are some posters who thrive upon argument for the sake of argument which misses the point of the argument. They are to remain nameless but normally they hang out under bridges and molest goats.

    I'm sorry, are you accusing me of being an internet troll?
  • I actually think that I agree with your wife.
  • Trolls molest goats?
  • Did you miss out on the Three Billy Goats Gruff in your childhood?

    Trip trap, trip trap...
  • Evidently. Well now I know!
  • I always heard that trolls try to interfere with people who like to have serious discussions on bridges or anywhere else.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Host hat on
    Anyone who wants to accuse anyone else of trolling can do so in Hell, but not here.

    Discussions about folk tales belong on another thread, likewise colours of days of the week.

    This thread is difficult enough to host without those who should know better gratuitously adding to the problems.

    Anyone concerned about specific posts by a poster may Message a host, but should not attempt to do hosting themselves.
    Host hat off
    BroJames Purgatory Host
  • My apologies BroJames. Of course you are quite right.
  • I'm sorry.
  • A further word to the wise can be found here.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    @Martin54
    I'm always amazed at you, Martin, in a good sense. Your theology seems to range from believing the very , very high (divine and certain) all the way down to (I suppose) questioning the very, very low (human and questionable). It is in that sense wondrous.
    ...

    Thanks JBII. It will be a shame to lose you, despite everything :smile: My theology has been stripped of five decades of magical thinking. I wish it hadn't. Ignorance wasn't bliss, but God was always there, watching my back. The Holy Spirit had preserved the truth in the text. Prophecy was real. The Pericope Adulterae was the final impregnable redoubt of certainty.

    But Sherman's army of rationality has had its scorched earth way, its flag has set me free and Georgia is ruined to the sea. It's bizarre as it only began to really roll well in to my 7th decade. It took 30 years to get up to speed.

    God, if He is (and if He isn't, existence is beyond weird), is nothing like the anthropomorphic creation evolved through the Bible. Including in Christ. Almost. Almost utterly unlike. Even figuratively. Jesus believed in the God of the Bible and saw Himself in it, as both Messiah and God. He was wrong - errant=inculturated - on both counts. Which is irrelevant if He was right. Irrelevant if He was (the nature of) God incarnate half way through an eternity of doing that infinite times. Because He absolutely, rationally, axiomatically certainly couldn't have been any more than that. Unless there is a grey entity that is between a nature and a Person. Which looks like it only obeys the laws of syntax as a question and can have no semantic meaning.

    Behold, this is a new thing. No one but me has ever proclaimed it before. Arrogance? Nope. A fact.

    And where is He now? Who, what is He now? Where is that man? Transcended, sublimed to what? Is He just a Planck depth coat of infinitely attenuated experience on the 2nd Person? Or something more locally substantial? To Earth? And its still empty Heaven?

    At church yesterday He was grandiosely overstated as usual. He's humbler than that. And He has much to be humble about. I should fear and tremble in saying that. As I did when I said He was the apology of God here 15+/- years ago. But no. He'd accept my judgement.
  • Apologies.
  • Martin, there must be something about the 60s/70s. I reached that and felt sick of religion, not saying that you are. Burn out, maybe. I don't care, is what, very refreshing and liberating. An old guru that I know, says, nothing ever happened, what a bubble bath (laugh)..
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    q :smile: yeahhh, the 60s/70s, both ways. Why's it take so damn long and who knew? Because there must have been people at Oxford and Paris and Princeton and Bologna and Heidelberg and Salamanca and Cairo who did...? No they didn't. Nobody has put this together before, due to the two cultures problem. The theologians are too far behind the science and the scientists who get religion stop thinking. Alan Guth or Andre Linde might have done it, but they ain't sayin' The only fiction writer who could is Neal Stephenson. He hasn't yet. And Brian McLaren hasn't and can't and Rob Bell certainly can't. I love him dearly but. He's away with the fairies on one edge. Postmodernists can't do eternity.

    Nietzsche? Aquinas at the end? Did they know? A giraffe indeed. Trouble is I still damnwell care. It'll pass.
  • @Martin54
    Regarding your last post to me, thank you. I may speak again to that post (though your language always pulls me to heights that challenge my poor mind).
    Meanwhile I have posted in the Why Christians Always Left Me Cold thread a statement that you may find interesting, since you so strongly questioned my posting of the Jacinta Diaz story there.
  • Martin, there must be something about the 60s/70s. I reached that and felt sick of religion, not saying that you are. Burn out, maybe. I don't care, is what, very refreshing and liberating. An old guru that I know, says, nothing ever happened, what a bubble bath (laugh)..

    Hmm. As I approach 70, I'm feeling a bit like Martin54, and yourself, though I might not express it in the same way(s).

    Former certainty becomes doubt - but not necessarily unbelief, though.

  • One little thing:
    Martin said, "It will be a shame to lose you."

    Oh, I'm not gone yet, and I have now turned into the most loving of Christians, not answering some, perhaps, but open to any who approach me positively, or even negatively, if fair minded.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    @Martin54
    Regarding your last post to me, thank you. I may speak again to that post (though your language always pulls me to heights that challenge my poor mind).
    Meanwhile I have posted in the Why Christians Always Left Me Cold thread a statement that you may find interesting, since you so strongly questioned my posting of the Jacinta Diaz story there.
    @Martin54
    Regarding your last post to me, thank you. I may speak again to that post (though your language always pulls me to heights that challenge my poor mind).
    Meanwhile I have posted in the Why Christians Always Left Me Cold thread a statement that you may find interesting, since you so strongly questioned my posting of the Jacinta Diaz story there.

    The stream tumbles on and any can chase any eddy.
  • Martin, there must be something about the 60s/70s. I reached that and felt sick of religion, not saying that you are. Burn out, maybe. I don't care, is what, very refreshing and liberating. An old guru that I know, says, nothing ever happened, what a bubble bath (laugh)..

    Hmm. As I approach 70, I'm feeling a bit like Martin54, and yourself, though I might not express it in the same way(s).

    Former certainty becomes doubt - but not necessarily unbelief, though.

    Religion reminds me of the old phrase, not even wrong. For some reason, that often makes me laugh. I don't believe in hell or heaven. The presupposition of salvation, that I need to be saved, strikes me as unreal. Golden lads and girls all must, like chimney sweepers, come to dust.
  • edited September 2019
    Just a refocusing on the thread topic:
    what do we gain or lose with a non-antoning Jesus? Nothing much, just another life, a longer one, after death.

    There is the wisdom of annihilation from the Apocrypha -Wisdom of Solomon (2:1-ff). As I've aged, seen friends and family die, seen the obscenity of worldly life continue (cf Auden "Funeral Blues"), not being atoned, and fading from universal existence can be comforting in a Nietzsche sort of way...

    "For we are born at all adventure: and we shall be hereafter as though we had never been: for the breath in our nostrils is as smoke, and a little spark in the moving of our heart:
    Which being extinguished, our body shall be turned into ashes, and our spirit shall vanish as the soft air,
    And our name shall be forgotten in time....."

    What do you think of the implications? Can you live (and die) with this as a (non)comfort. Which ultimately doesn't matter at all: because what will be, whether our souls return to God or not.
  • In answer to your question - yes...
    :wink:

    I agree - ultimately, nothing matters.

    I'm reminded of Uncle Muskrat, in the Moomintroll books, who (IIRC) possessed a large Book entitled 'The Uselessness of Everything'.
    :smile:
  • . . . and I have now turned into the most loving of Christians, not answering some, perhaps, but open to any who approach me positively, or even negatively, if fair minded.
    Perhaps in the spirit of fair-mindedness, then, you can link to the post(s) where it appeared that I sided with those defending the thesis that Aramaic was not widely used in writing in the time of Jesus. Or, perhaps you can admit that I did not defend or even comment on that particular thesis and that tagging me 4 times in less than an hour-and-a-half to draw my attention to your your position on that particular thesis was unnecessary.
  • If you were locked in a room with Lilbuddha I wonder which one would come out.
  • Eh? What do you mean?
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Rublev wrote: »
    If you were locked in a room with Lilbuddha I wonder which one would come out.

    Did you mean to be posting on an entirely different thread, perhaps in hell? That comment seems neither relevant nor appropriate since it is overly personal.

    Gwai,
    Purgatory Host
  • @Nick Tamen
    I looked at all that again last night and I am not going to say much more about that than I have already said which was:

    "Anyone can go to the thread in question, written sometime yesterday, and see if it does not appear that you sided with Bishop's Finger and others in defending the thesis that Aramaic was not widely used in writing in the time of Jesus, a thesis I find indefensible, as seen most clearly in a Wikipedia article I cited."
    _________

    However, I will now admit that it is true that your siding with Bishop's Finger was with regard to old English, but @mousethief took that to mean decisive proof that writing was not done in Aramaic in Jesus' time, and it seemed to me that you were saying the same. However, I will here admit that technically you did not, and thus apologize for getting what may have been a wrong impression, but it seems to me you sure did lay yourself open to it.

    As I see it, the whole argument that Aramaic was not a written language among the Jews in Jesus' time is so utterly indefensible as to deserve no further attention from anyone here. But if anyone wants to continue that argument...
Sign In or Register to comment.