James, Jesus' brother
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2015, 08:21 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(21-05-2015 06:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  “Yeshua in Hebrew is verbal derivative from "to rescue", "to deliver""
So, did Yeshua's parents think their own baby was a prophesised delieverer or did this baby upon growing up and having desire as a religious leader decide that the name "Yeshua" might help improve his public credibility?

…It seems the name Yeshua was common a

If Yeshua was a common name at the time, do you think every parent who named their child Yeshua thought that they were going to be a rescuer and deliver? How many parents do you think actually choose their child’s name based on what they think they will be?

I’m named after a Supreme polytheistic God, whose conceived as “The Preserver or the Protector”. My mother likely had no clue of this when she named me, and choose the name because she knew a local banker whose son was named this, and she really liked the sound of it.

There are plenty of people with this name in my home country, perhaps one of them will one day become a cult leader. Would we assume that his parents were acutely aware their son would end up being a cult leader, and that's why they chose his name? Probably not. They probably chose his name like every other parent chooses a kids name, because they like the sound of it. And this one son just ended up becoming a cult leader.

Quote:So the why call him Jesus?

Cause I’m an English speaker and Yeshua is too foreign sounding for me. In my mother’s language it is pronounced Yeshua, but more like Yeshu.

Quote:We also have accounts of Jesus' spoken words (sermon on the mount etc) where there was no documented manuscript, no documented eye witness accounts. Really nothing written down for at least 10 years and even then some material written down 100+ years later. To me it is obvious that this is a highly unreliable method when wanting to know what Jesus actually said.

These materials were not written 100+ years later, the early Gospels Mark, was likely composed somewhere between 30-40 years after his death, Matthew followed along shortly after. And these text were not created in a vacuum but were capturing the oral traditions, and used several earlier sources like the Q,M,L, a signs course, two discourse sources, and aramaic text. Luke even acknowledges that there were many of them, which he used in his composition. We may not have these sources any longer, but their existence can be inferred from the composition of the text itself, like puns, and jokes that can only be understood if the original Armaic is read back into it.

I’m assuming you know little about textual analysis, how scholar can often go through religious text, detect multiple writers, dissecting every word and line, noting oddities, and commonalities, etc… engage in a sort of literary forensics.

If you wanted to know what Jesus most likely said, you’d probably have to start by asking what do the Gospels say. What is the overall message the writers of any particular gospel was attempting to convey, and if you conceive a certain harmony of meaning, even if there are particular discrepancies here, you’ll see a body of a message, attributed to a person who was known as Jesus.

But for you that’s a problem, as you previously acknowledged these texts are difficult for you to make sense of, they might as well be just ink blots. You ignorance is likely a result of a confusion unique to those like yourself, but not present for actual historians or literary analyst doing this sort of work. You likely have to acknowledge your own limitation here, and realize that not everyone has these same limitations as you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 08:29 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(21-05-2015 07:59 PM)Free Wrote:  
(21-05-2015 03:36 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  So you believe Jesus was a real person? He performed miracles and shit?

Jesus was a real person who performed no miracles. His life was embellished by his followers who believed he was the Christ. Happens all the time with famous people.

After all, Elvis faked his own death, didn't he? Facepalm

I kinda agree, but it's also possible he was made up from a few different people, for the very reason that the story would be harder to prove. An example might be Paul (Saul of tarsus), he never actually met "Jesus" he had a vision, who knows who he was actually talking about. He was vague enough on his details anyone controversial at the time would fit -- like any good flim- flam man would be.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
22-05-2015, 09:28 AM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2015 10:03 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 08:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  …It seems the name Yeshua was common a

It was. Joshua.
Do parents who name their boys David think they will one day be King of Isreal ?
Quote:
These materials were not written 100+ years later, the early Gospels Mark, was likely composed somewhere between 30-40 years after his death, Matthew followed along shortly after. And these text were not created in a vacuum but were capturing the oral traditions, and used several earlier sources like the Q,M,L, a signs course, two discourse sources, and aramaic text. Luke even acknowledges that there were many of them, which he used in his composition. We may not have these sources any longer, but their existence can be inferred from the composition of the text itself, like puns, and jokes that can only be understood if the original Armaic is read back into it.

How on Earth with absolutely NOTHING to use as a memory aide could anyone reliably reporduce anything from even two months ago, let alone 50 years ? There was no tradition of inerrant oral transmission in that culture. Just because a source predates a later one, that is no indicator of reliability. (See JD Crossan's "How Parables by Jesus became parables about Jesus")

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-05-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(21-05-2015 03:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-05-2015 03:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So you think that when Matthew writes of the accusations of the disciples stealing the body, that this could just as easily be allegorical?

I SAID the understandings changed. How about you tell us what YOU think and stop with the inane questions. Or are you a chicken to reveal your own opinions ?

Meaning that by the time Matthew penned his gospel that the meaning changed, from supposed allegorical understanding of the resurrection to a literal one? It's evident by the fact that Matthew writes of the accusations of the disciple stealing the body, that he was presenting the resurrection as a literal event.

If Matthew is writing of these accusations, acknowledging them as being widely circulating to "this day", the notion of an actual empty tomb predates Matthew's writing, and if it was in wide circulation, most likely for some time.

It also seems quite hard to argue that there wasn't an empty tomb, if there were accusations of the disciples stealing Jesus's body, so well known at the time, that even Matthew has to make this embarrassing admission.

Do you think they actually stole the body? That there was no tomb, but those making these accusations just didn't know that? That the tomb and the resurrection where originally allegorical, but those making these accusations didn't know that either?

How do you explain the accsuations with your notion that these concepts were originally allegorical?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 10:06 AM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2015 10:38 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 09:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Meaning that by the time Matthew penned his gospel that the meaning changed, from supposed allegorical understanding of the resurrection to a literal one? It's evident by the fact that Matthew writes of the accusations of the disciple stealing the body, that he was presenting the resurrection as a literal event.

If Matthew is writing of these accusations, acknowledging them as being widely circulating to "this day", the notion of an actual empty tomb predates Matthew's writing, and if it was in wide circulation, most likely for some time.

It also seems quite hard to argue that there wasn't an empty tomb, if there were accusations of the disciples stealing Jesus's body, so well known at the time, that even Matthew has to make this embarrassing admission.

Matthew was writing to a small Jewish audience. If there was a crucified Jebus, he was tosssed into a common grave, just like all the others who got executed. I submit there was no tomb at all.

Quote:How do you explain the accsuations with your notion that these concepts were originally allegorical?

They made up the whole thing. From nothing. Long enough later that they seem to have gotten away with it. You don't know for sure anyone really did ask about a stolen body. It was just a "logical" objection to bring up, as anyone would have thought to ask about that, and writing about it pre-empted the question.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-05-2015, 10:41 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 10:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They made up the whole thing. From nothing. Long enough later that they seem to have gotten away with it. You don't know for sure anyone really did ask about a stolen body.

So the writer of Matthew made up the "accusations"? That there likely was no such accusations being made?

If so, why would he want to tell his readers and community, that these accusations were flying around?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 10:55 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 10:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 10:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They made up the whole thing. From nothing. Long enough later that they seem to have gotten away with it. You don't know for sure anyone really did ask about a stolen body.

So the writer of Matthew made up the "accusations"? That there likely was no such accusations being made?

If so, why would he want to tell his readers and community, that these accusations were flying around?

It was written into the plot to give it credibility -- it would be rather odd otherwise.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
22-05-2015, 11:07 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 10:55 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 10:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So the writer of Matthew made up the "accusations"? That there likely was no such accusations being made?

If so, why would he want to tell his readers and community, that these accusations were flying around?

It was written into the plot to give it credibility -- it would be rather odd otherwise.

But to give what credibility? Meaning that Matthew wrote it into the story to lend credibility to there actually being an empty tomb?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 11:13 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 11:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 10:55 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  It was written into the plot to give it credibility -- it would be rather odd otherwise.

But to give what credibility? Meaning that Matthew wrote into the story to lend credibility to there actually being an empty tomb?

If a writer were to make up a story about a "resurrection" they have to solve the problem of inconsistencies. First, the issue of burial, then later the removal of the body...a good writer, writing for a specific audience will understand what questions they (the reader) might have, and work that into the narrative.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
22-05-2015, 11:27 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(22-05-2015 11:13 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  If a writer were to make up a story about a "resurrection" they have to solve the problem of inconsistencies. First, the issue of burial, then later the removal of the body...a good writer, writing for a specific audience will understand what questions they (the reader) might have, and work that into the narrative.

But what arethe intention of the writer of Matthew in making up the accusations bit?

Just to give his work some sense of realism? Or to manipulate his audience into believing the events were real? Was he intentionally trying to pass off fiction, as history?

Wouldn't his audience, have read these aspects of be real, to have actually occurred, rather than as fictions? Would the writer have been unlikely to have been aware of this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: