Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote:Of course you didn't read beyond that because your sole purpose in doing research is to find 'evidence' for fringe theories. . . . .

I didn't bother to read beyond this Secret. If you want an honest discussion then refrain from such personal accusations.

Secret Alias wrote:No Jesus was the god Man. He wasn't the prophet. It was he who made Moses into the Man of God (because Moses backwards spells god). You have a picture of Moses and an anthropomorphic God standing beside him on Sinai (and grabbing Jacob's balls/thigh). Jesus is the God-man standing beside Moses and grabbing Jacob's balls/thigh. My only question is how did he make Benjamin?

Secret Alias wrote:No Jesus was the god Man.

Where did you get this dogma from?

Where did you get this dogma from?

Common knowledge (among those who are knowledgeable). But I guess if you track it down to a chronology it would go 1. being born Jewish 2. my grandfather 3. reading books 4. meeting Benny my Samaritan friend and comparing traditions 5. reading the early Church Fathers and especially Clement of Alexandria 6. not being a complete moron who studies a dead book and a dead tradition to either defend or destroy said book or tradition. If you want to see that such traditions exist look up any important passage in the Pentateuch that makes reference to an anonymous 'man' that appears before the Patriarchs in this book and see the notes on angel names or margin notes on the passage or compare where Clement sees 'Jesus' with the angel 'Man' listed here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=-wn8A ... el&f=false

I don't know. Human beings are such losers. They spend their whole lives defending or attacking phantoms of their past. Live in the present. See what is actually there.

If you want an honest discussion then refrain from such personal accusations.

Neil

For the life of me, I don't understand why it matters if someone is friendly or 'mean' or black or white or a Muslim or a Jew or fat or thin or tall or short or bearded or shaven or wearing a red shirt or a blue shirt or a t-shirt or a sweater or eating meat or vegetables or whatever when it comes to deciding about whether or not to listen to the evidence that person provides to help further your research. You obviously have an ax to grind with organized religion. That's cool I guess. But your attempt to minimize the importance of 'messianic expectation' in a religious tradition (second commonwealth Israelite i.e. Jewish and Samaritan) hit a brick wall when you acknowledge the facts - i.e. that the Pentateuch, a document which serves as the virtual 'constitution' of the Israelite theocracy in the period, has at its core the expectation of one like Moses. Yes you've cobbled together various possibilities from what amounts to being marginalia in the study of this tradition. But the fact that the Pentateuch tells the priesthood to look out for 'one like Moses' does not allow you to raise a blanket question about the tradition assumptions of messianic interest in Judea during the period just mentioned. The reason such an assumption exists is because earlier generations were paying attention to core texts for Judaism (i.e. the Pentateuch). The reason you dispute these assumption is because you are paying attention to marginalia. Change your focus and you will come around to see the truth. It is I guess understandable that an observer and indeed a champion of marginalia such as yourself might have been 'too distracted' before. Now that I have brought up what the core text of Judaism and Samaritanism to your attention you no longer have the 'distraction' excuse. If you continue to resist acknowledging the difference between a core text and marginalia you demonstrate your dishonesty. Best of luck on your future endeavors.

Secret Alias wrote:

Where did you get this dogma from?

Common knowledge (among those who are knowledgeable). But I guess if you track it down to a chronology it would go 1. being born Jewish 2. my grandfather 3. reading books 4. meeting Benny my Samaritan friend and comparing traditions 5. reading the early Church Fathers and especially Clement of Alexandria 6. not being a complete moron who studies a dead book and a dead tradition to either defend or destroy said book or tradition. If you want to see that such traditions exist look up any important passage in the Pentateuch that makes reference to an anonymous 'man' that appears before the Patriarchs in this book and see the notes on angel names or margin notes on the passage or compare where Clement sees 'Jesus' with the angel 'Man' listed here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=-wn8A ... el&f=false

I don't know. Human beings are such losers. They spend their whole lives defending or attacking phantoms of their past. Live in the present. See what is actually there.

Secret Alias wrote:Common knowledge ...

The CCC article 430 , refers to Luke 1:31 "which expresses both his identity and his mission.18", but this verse did not avoid the Arian controversy.


CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER TWO
I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD
ARTICLE 2
"AND IN JESUS CHRIST, HIS ONLY SON, OUR LORD"
I. JESUS
430 Jesus means in Hebrew: "God saves." At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which expresses both his identity and his mission.18 Since God alone can forgive sins, it is God who, in Jesus his eternal Son made man, "will save his people from their sins".19 in Jesus, God recapitulates all of his history of salvation on behalf of men.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c2a2.htm

18 Cf. Lk 1:31.
19 Mt 1:21;
Lk 1:31 31And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus
M 1:2121She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.’

Stephan wrote:

And what kind of retarded logic is it to cite Jeremiah to understand what the author of Deuteronomy meant?

I think Jeremiah (and/or his scribe Baruch) may have written Deuteronomy (and Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, i.e., the Deuteronomistic History), since he lived during the time it was arguably discovered and both books use similar language. Jeremiah is the only prophet who mentions Samuel, for example, and he is said to have written Kings in Baba Batra 15a ("Jeremiah wrote the book which bears his name, the Book of Kings, and Lamentations" http://halakhah.com/bababathra/bababathra_15.html).

As Kim puts it:

Scholars of Jeremiah have often asked the question about the relationship between the book of Jeremiah and the book of Deuteronomy ... the date of Jeremiah coincides with the discovery of the book of Deuteronomy ... there seems to be a similarity in language between the two books and some scholars feel that the similarities in language are stark enough to posit a direct influence (or commonality of influence) ... there is theological congruence on many points. Some scholars point to the strong commonality in ideas to posit that there was direct influence.

https://books.google.com/books?id=_VOYm ... my&f=false

Some examples of these commonalities are:

Jer. 4:4: "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, circumcise your hearts, you people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem ..."

Dt. 10:16: "Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer."

Jer. 8:2, 19:13: "They will be exposed to the sun and the moon and all the stars of the heavens, which they have loved and served and which they have followed and consulted and worshiped. They will not be gathered up or buried, but will be like dung lying on the ground."

Dt. 4:19, 17:3: "And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars--all the heavenly array--do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven."

Jer. 11:4: "'...the terms I commanded your ancestors when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the iron-smelting furnace.' I said, 'Obey me and do everything I command you, and you will be my people, and I will be your God."

Dt. 4:20: "But as for you, the Lord took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are."

Jer. 32:41: "I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul."

Dt. 4:29, 10:12, 11:13, 13:4: "But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul."

And this "heart and soul" expression, as far as I can tell, also only appears in Joshua, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles (which is a rewrite of the former).

http://biblehub.net/searchot.php?q=heart+and+soul

So I see Jeremiah as having possibly written Deuteronomy and Jer. 26:11-16 as being similar to (and explaining the meaning of) Dt. 18:17-22.

Dt. 18:17-22:

The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.

Jer. 26:11-16:

Then the priests and the prophets said to the officials and all the people, “This man should be sentenced to death because he has prophesied against this city. You have heard it with your own ears!”

Then Jeremiah said to all the officials and all the people: “The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and this city all the things you have heard. Now reform your ways and your actions and obey the Lord your God. Then the Lord will relent and not bring the disaster he has pronounced against you. As for me, I am in your hands; do with me whatever you think is good and right. Be assured, however, that if you put me to death, you will bring the guilt of innocent blood on yourselves and on this city and on those who live in it, for in truth the Lord has sent me to you to speak all these words in your hearing.”

Then the officials and all the people said to the priests and the prophets, “This man should not be sentenced to death! He has spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God.”

I think Jeremiah (and/or his scribe Baruch) may have written Deuteronomy (and Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, i.e., the Deuteronomistic History), since he lived during the time it was arguably discovered and both books use similar language. Jeremiah is the only prophet who mentions Samuel, for example, and he is said to have written Kings in Baba Batra 15a ("Jeremiah wrote the book which bears his name, the Book of Kings, and Lamentations"

I don't even know what to say to this. The Pentateuch was not written by Jeremiah. The use of Persian makes it clear - no absolutely certain - it was written in the Persian period or later. Please stop wasting my time with nonsense like this.

Secret Alias wrote:The use of Persian makes it clear - no absolutely certain - [the Pentateuch] was written in the Persian period or later.

Perhaps you could expand on this a bit.

I'm well aware of the use of Persian in late books like Esther and Ezra-Nehemiah, but apart from you I've heard no such claims about the Pentateuch. This site ends its brief discussion of biblical loanwords by noting:

Persian loanwords abound within the books that are obviously late, but do not appear at all in the Pentateuch.

Eshdat lamo = fire law. Pardes is another Persian loanword. Also Pardes is a Persian garden, the shape. No question about the provenance

So how do scholars get around the late dating of the Pentateuch? They typically assign only P to the Persian period. Clever bastards. But the ignore the inplicatons of the two powers tradition