Post Reply
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View apollonius of tyana
3 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 12:47PM #21
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,097

Apr 11, 2012 -- 9:57AM, Adelphe wrote:

Apr 11, 2012 -- 9:22AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Well, I've tried. I can only confirm what I've written at post #12 ...


Is royalty typically born on the way as the King and Queen travel on a donkey to register for a census in order to pay their taxes?


Does royalty typically find no room at some inn for the Queen to give birth?


Is royalty typically placed in beast of burden feeding mangers?


Do virgins typically get pregnant by "spirits"?


Do husbands typically believe their wives when they tell them they were impregnated by "spirits"?


Now that the sniping is (hopefully ...) over, I will repeat that all the above might, according to normal human standards, be perceived as "embarrassing" (in the obvious emotional sense of the word), yet Jesus' followers, and in particular the Evangelists Matthew and Luke were NOT "embarrassed" NOR deterred in the least by Jesus' lowly beginnings, so much so that they accounted for them ...



Two IS multi ...

I'm afraid it takes more than that ...


Orgasmic? (tri-syllabic)


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2012 - 5:26AM #22
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

Apr 11, 2012 -- 12:47PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Now that the sniping is (hopefully ...) over, I will repeat that all the above might, according to normal human standards, be perceived as "embarrassing" (in the obvious emotional sense of the word), yet Jesus' followers, and in particular the Evangelists Matthew and Luke were NOT "embarrassed" NOR deterred in the least by Jesus' lowly beginnings, so much so that they accounted for them ...



Two IS multi ...

I'm afraid it takes more than that ...


Orgasmic? (tri-syllabic)


MdS




[Patiently...]


Once again, this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether or not the Evangelists--or anyone else--recounted/accounted for them.


Embarrassment


The criterion of embarrassment, also known as the "criterion of dissimilarity", is an analytical tool that Biblical scholars use in assessing whether the New Testament accounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically accurate. Simply put, trust the embarrassing material. If something is awkward for an author to say and he does anyway, it is more likely to be true.[30]


The essence of the criterion of embarrassment is that the Early Church would hardly have gone out of its way to "create" or "falsify" historical material that only embarrassed its author or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Gospels.


The evolution of the depiction of the Baptism of Jesus exhibits the criterion of embarrassment. In the Gospel of the Hebrews, Jesus is but a man (see Adoptionism) submitting to another man for the forgiveness of the "sin of ignorance" (a lesser sin, but sin nonetheless). Matthew's description of the Baptism adds John's statement to Jesus: "I should be baptized by you", attempting to do away with the embarrassment of John baptising Jesus, implying John's seniority. Similarly, it resolves the embarrassment of Jesus undergoing baptism "for the forgiveness of sin," the purpose of John's baptising in Mark, by omitting this phrase from John's proclamations. The Gospel of Luke says only that Jesus was baptized, without explicitly asserting that John performed the baptism. The Gospel of John goes further and simply omits the whole story of the Baptism. This might show a progression of the Evangelists attempting to explain, and then suppress, a story that was seen as embarrassing to the early church.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]


CAPISCE???


Now go read your #8.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 28, 2012 - 8:00AM #23
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,097

There is evidently no hope that the lady will ever understand is written at post #10.


Let's now examine how sound is the criterion of "embarrassment", which the lady integrally quotes from Wikipedia > Biblical criticism >> Embarrassment, with one extensive application, that of the alleged "embarrassment" of the Early Church about Adoptionism that, according to the Wikipedia text, would have been fully present in the (Judeo-Christian, Ebionitic, Nazarene) Gospel of the Hebrews, and would have been gradually "suppressed or softened" (again according to Wikipedia) in the Canonical Gospels.


Apr 25, 2012 -- 5:26AM, Adelphe wrote:


Embarrassment


The criterion of embarrassment, also known as the "criterion of dissimilarity", is an analytical tool that Biblical scholars use in assessing whether the New Testament accounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically accurate. Simply put, trust the embarrassing material. If something is awkward for an author to say and he does anyway, it is more likely to be true.[30]


The essence of the criterion of embarrassment is that the Early Church would hardly have gone out of its way to "create" or "falsify" historical material that only embarrassed its author or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Gospels. [#]


The evolution of the depiction of the Baptism of Jesus exhibits the criterion of embarrassment. In the Gospel of the Hebrews, Jesus is but a man (see Adoptionism) submitting to another man for the forgiveness of the "sin of ignorance" (a lesser sin, but sin nonetheless). Matthew's description of the Baptism adds John's statement to Jesus: "I should be baptized by you", attempting to do away with the embarrassment of John baptising Jesus, implying John's seniority. Similarly, it resolves the embarrassment of Jesus undergoing baptism "for the forgiveness of sin," the purpose of John's baptising in Mark, by omitting this phrase from John's proclamations. The Gospel of Luke says only that Jesus was baptized, without explicitly asserting that John performed the baptism. The Gospel of John goes further and simply omits the whole story of the Baptism. This might show a progression of the Evangelists attempting to explain, and then suppress, a story that was seen as embarrassing to the early church.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] [bolding by Adelphe]


This is what we read in Wikipedia.


Let's now look at what the Gospel of the Hebrews says concerning the Baptism of Jesus (actually, the Wikipedia quotation at fn [124] is from the Gospel of the Ebionites, see Epiphanius, Panarion, Volume 1, Against Ebionites, section 13,6-8, page 130), and compare it synoptically with the relevant passages of the Canonical Gospels (the three Synoptics and the Gospel of John) in which, according to Wikipedia ...


“... embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Gospels.” [#]


“After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. As Jesus came up from the water, Heaven was opened, and He saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and [E1] enter into him. And a voice from Heaven said, ‘You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.’ And again, [E2] ‘Today I have begotten you.’ “Immediately a great light shone around the place; and John, seeing it, said to him, ‘Who are you, Lord?' And again a voice from Heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ Then John, falling down before Him, said, ‘I beseech You, Lord, baptize me!’ But Jesus forbade him saying, ‘Let it be so as it is fitting that all things be fulfilled.’” Epiphanius, Panarion 30:13 [emphasis by MdS]

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John to be baptized by him in the Jordan River. 14 But John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you come to me?” 15 So Jesus replied to him, “Let it happen now, for it is right for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John yielded to him. 16 After Jesus was baptized, just as he was coming up out of the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my one dear Son; in him I take great delight.” (Matt 3:13-17)


9 Now in those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan River. 10 And just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens splitting apart and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight.” (Mark 1:9-11)


21 Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized. And while he was praying, the heavens opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight.” (Luke 3:21-22)


26 John answered them, “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not recognize, 27 who is coming after me. I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal!” 28 These things happened in Bethany across the Jordan River where John was baptizing. 29 On the next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’ 31 I did not recognize him, but I came baptizing with water so that he could be revealed to Israel.”32Then John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. 33 And I did not recognize him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining – this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God.” (John 1:26-34)



The ONLY bits that we find in Epiphanius' quotation that have no correspondence in any of the Canonical Gospels are: 


[E1]  [He saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and] enter into him.


[E2] ‘Today I have begotten you.’


IF [E1] and [E2] were part of a more ancient tradition than that of the Canonical Gospels, then, undoubtedly, they would be "embarrassing" (in the scholarly sense of the word), because ...


[E1] would imply that Jesus was an ordinary man, conceived naturally, and that he became the "son" of God ONLY because and after "the Holy Spirit ... enter into him".


[E2] with its aptly placed quotation of Psalm 2:7, would underline that ONLY on the day of his Baptism the (merely natural) man Jesus became the "son" of God.


... and would be such that their absence form the Canonical Gospels could be interpreted along the lines of the Wikipedia comment [#]


Of course all this line of reasoning stands and falls on the essential assumption that the Gospel of the Ebionites, and in particular the tradition about the Baptism of Jesus reported in it, predates the tradition reported in the Canonical Gospels.


Is there ANY evidence to suppost this assumption? NONE ... ZILCH ...


... in fact it stands to reason that E1 and E2 were artful and deliberately distorting additions by the heretical Ebionites.


And with this the "baptismal embarrassment" has been reduced to smithereens ... Embarassed


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 28, 2012 - 8:37AM #24
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:00AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


There is evidently no hope that the lady will ever understand is written at post #10.


Let's now examine



LOL!!!


As the most (abrupt and) enormous


red herring


I've ever seen in my life follows...


LOL!  Can't stop laughing...


(Well that's okay...it is almost time for breakfast...)

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 28, 2012 - 11:46AM #25
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,097

There is definitively no hope that the lady will ever understand what is written at post #10 ...


... and there is also no doubt that the lady will never realize what a boomerang was for her her integral quotation of Wikipedia > Biblical criticism >> Embarrassment ... Embarassed


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 28, 2012 - 3:48PM #26
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

Apr 28, 2012 -- 11:46AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


There is definitively no hope that the lady will ever understand what is written at post #10 ...


... and there is also no doubt that the lady will never realize what a boomerang was for her her integral quotation of Wikipedia > Biblical criticism >> Embarrassment...


MdS




*bang head here*


[I really thought he finally understood it (and in his gargantuan pride was just changing the subject.)  Silly me.  When will I ever learn? 

I'm gonna have to retreat and reload...]

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 28, 2012 - 6:41PM #27
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,097

LOL! What a spectacular comedian!

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 28, 2012 - 7:56PM #28
Ed.W
Posts: 9,444

Apr 28, 2012 -- 3:48PM, Adelphe wrote:


Apr 28, 2012 -- 11:46AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


There is definitively no hope that the lady will ever understand what is written at post #10 ...


... and there is also no doubt that the lady will never realize what a boomerang was for her her integral quotation of Wikipedia > Biblical criticism >> Embarrassment...


MdS




*bang head here*


[I really thought he finally understood it (and in his gargantuan pride was just changing the subject.)  Silly me.  When will I ever learn? 

I'm gonna have to retreat and reload...]




Isn't it funny?  Banging your head is the only option.



A.  You note the embarrassing portrayal of the conception of Jesus.


B.  Mario, says that's not embarrassing, that's well accepted...


C.  You say not embarrassing that way, but in sense of validating a text.


D.  Mario says there's no difference in the two senses, so technically he is not "from under a rock"




‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 28, 2012 - 8:20PM #29
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,097

Unless Ed.W has something worthwhile to contribute to the dispute, why doesn't he quickly crawl back under his (rock)?

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 28, 2012 - 8:32PM #30
Ed.W
Posts: 9,444

Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:20PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


Unless Ed.W has something worthwhile to contribute to the dispute, why doesn't he quickly crawl back under his (rock)?




I did.  I don't recommend attracting any more attention to post #10 than necessary.  If I were you.

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook