Why didn't Yeshua write anything?

[Honorentheos]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What "question" are you talking about?

The OP, of course.

[Honorentheos]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Critical thinking is overrated. We definitely overrate our ability to use it wisely and the extent of the knowledge on which we base our enlightened critical thoughts.

It seems to me the real problem is that skepticism is too often underrated.

 

Critical thinking is essentially a set of tools. Saying they are overrated because they are so often amateurishly put to use is a bad argument.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The conflict is easily resolved.  Or explained at least.  If two different people would attempt to describe you, based on your posts here on this board, would they seem to describe the same person?  I doubt it.  But it wouldn't make you fictional.

An abbreviated example of why this doesn't stand when looked at more closely. I suggested looking to the birth and resurrection narratives in the Gospels and what that tells us regarding their reliability as well as how they provide evidence that the authors aren't describing events or people they witnessed first hand but are composing a narrative out of other sources. I'm essentially borrowing from something I've composed elsewhere but I think is helpful so let's call it economic self-plagiarism.  

Many modern scholars agree those who built a church up around Jesus after his death believed he was the Jewish Messiah. This would mean they believed Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah which were popular in Roman Palestine at the time. Examples included being a descendant of King David, being born in Bethlehem, and that he would come to the people riding a donkey or ***.

Using the examples of the gospels descriptions of the nativity and passion to make a case, let's first look at how the NT describes another event in Jesus' life that would require fulfilling Messianic prophecy - his birth.

Mark, the earliest and probably closest Gospel is silent. Why? We don't know. Some scholars have suggested that Mark does not describe a Jesus who sees himself as the Messiah, but rather one who is declaring the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel who would bring a literal Kingdom of God to the earth. Maybe that's true, maybe not. Either way, Mark does not try to show us parallels between Messianic prophecy and the life of Jesus.

John, the last of the gospels to be composed, is also silent on the physical birth of Jesus. Instead, we are given the poetic description of the Logos. I think it's likely that the author of John was not concerned with proving Jesus was the Jewish messiah (as the Gospel of John is also anti-Semitic in general), but instead focuses on showing the reader that Jesus is much more than that - Jesus is the Word of God and with God from the beginning. The John birth narrative isn't missing, IMO as is often stated. Instead, it tells the reader the question of what happened at Jesus' birth is the wrong question.

We are left with the two other synoptic gospels to find out about the birth story of Jesus. And they don't match up on almost every point. Why is that? Since they both used Mark and at least one other common source, this also suggests the earliest sources about Christ's life in circulation did not include a birth narrative. The scholarly suggestion is that there wasn't a codified version of the Nativity at the time of their writing. But the Messiah has to fulfill certain prophecies at his birth. What to do? Most likely, both authors took from legends being shared and fit them together as best they could. They may also have invented pieces of the story from whole cloth.

In Matthew, we see constant reference to prophecy being fulfilled. Jesus is born in Bethlehem. Matthew or his sources (from now on I'll just reference Matthew and Luke as short hand for the potential other source) tell a story about Herod killing all of the male children in Bethlehem age 2 or younger, has wise men from the east visit the infant, sends Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod's men, and of course tells us Mary was a virgin. And there is the genealogy that shows Jesus was a descendant of King David. All of the above are specifically included because there is a scripture somewhere that needed to be addressed associated with beliefs about the Messiah.

Yet none of this matches Luke’s telling other than the general idea that Mary was a virgin.

Luke invents the story of a census to get Jesus to Bethlehem, has shepherds visit Jesus, and tells us Jesus and John the Baptist are related. And there is a virgin birth narrative and a genealogy.

The core stories don't match where there is no original source material to provide background consistency.

The parsimonious answer for why, rather than the apologetic one, is simply that the authors invented a backstory for Jesus that met the requirements that showed Jesus was the Messiah. Because they did not/could not collaborate and there wasn't a common source available at the time, the stories differ.

This gives us a couple of general rules of thumb when examining the gospel authors and the Resurrection account.

First, it gives us a hint that if there is a commonly understood event in Jesus’ life and it has been recorded in one of the source gospels, it is likely to show up as common to Matthew and Luke. But absent such an account, they will fill in the gaps with an eye to ensuring the narrative fulfills Messianic prophecy.

Since the Messiah has to be raised from the dead, and Jesus was the Messiah, it is only natural that both accounts tell us this is so. Both Matthew and Luke had Mark as a source, so we should expect to see Mark’s narrative in the account of the passion leading to the resurrection.

We have Mark’s account in chapters 14-16. They tell us that the priests schemed to have Jesus arrested in Jerusalem but feared a riot by the people, there was a last supper of sorts, Jesus took his disciples and prayed before being betrayed by Judas, that before the Priests they ultimately convict him based on His claiming to be the Messiah, take him to Pilate and claim he called himself the King of the Jews which he does not deny. Pilate releases Barnabas when the Jews cry for Jesus to be crucified, and he is handed over to the Roman soldiers for execution. He is mocked as a would-be king, beaten, crucified, and dies at noon on the day before the Sabbath. His body is given to Joseph of Arimathia who places him in his tomb and has a stone rolled in front of it. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph see where he is buried. They wait until after the Sabbath (a night, a day, and a night) and go that next morning described as the first day of the week to wash the body. They wonder who will roll the stone away but find it is already moved. Instead they find a young man in a white robe who tells them that Jesus is not there but has risen. He charges them to go tell Peter and the disciples that Jesus has gone ahead to Galilee and will meet them there. But they don’t go to Peter and tell him as charged. Instead, they are afraid and run away. And Mark ends his story here as evidenced by early manuscript copies and the later inclusion of what is known as the Marcan Appendix. The last verse of Mark before the Marcan Appendix, 16:8, ends with the women who are told of Christ's resurrection leaving and not telling anyone. Why? I don't think anyone can say with certainty. What we do know is that the v. 8 ending is the oldest existent forms of Mark that we have. Not that there was variety in these oldest texts but that they end at v. 8 and others speaking of the Gospel affirm this was the case in the manuscript copies available. Early variants that then follow v. 8 seem to lack cohesive language to suggest the replacement of lost language. Rather, they seem to be there to fill in a gap based on various author's understanding of what followed. It could be that there were oral traditions being passed around and the written variants reflect this. But we don't know.

How the authors of Matthew and Luke deal with this further supports that the text they had ended at what we know as v. 8. So what do Matthew and Luke do with this story when they again lack guiding information in their sources?

Luke, at the end of chapter 23, tells us about the women seeing the body laid to rest and going on the day after the Sabbath to find the stone rolled away. But instead of a young man in a white robe, they are met by two men in heavenly glowing robes who tell them Christ is risen and to go to the apostles. They remember that Jesus said he would rise and do as they were told. Luke tells us of Peter visiting the tomb and wondering. He tells us of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. He tells us of a direct appearance to the 11 who were still in Jerusalem. He tells them all this was in the fulfillment of scripture and Christ ascends into heaven. The 11 rejoice and remain in Jerusalem going often to the temple until Acts tells us about the Day of Pentecost.

Matthew inserts a little piece between the women seeing the stone placed before the tomb and finding it moved away the day after the Sabbath. He has the priest going to Pilate on the Sabbath (but saying the day after preparation day instead of the Sabbath. Kind of like saying the day after Christmas Eve) and claiming that they heard that Jesus proclaim he would rise on the third day after his death. Matthew tells us they feared a deception and ask for a guard and for the tomb to be sealed. Pilate grants this. So when the women go and find the tomb open Matthew has a little story about an earthquake and angels that scare the guards so they leave and we learn they are paid off to tell no one what they saw. Instead, they are to tell everyone they found the small plates of Nephi because God knew the 116 would be stolen…wait, wrong story. They seem similar to me so I mix those up sometimes… Anyway, they are told to tell everyone that Jesus’ disciples stole the body and spread the lie about being resurrected on the 3rd day. Matthew tells us this lie is prevalent among the Jews even in his day. Matthew tells us the women go to the disciples being afraid (as Mark told us) BUT ALSO FULL OF JOY so they are doing as told. Then Jesus appears to them on the way to the disciples and tells them to have the disciples meet him in Galilee. They do so, and the 11 go to Galilee to meet Jesus who tells them they are to be filled with power and go to all nations. The end.

John has his own version of events and, as we’ve noticed with the birth narrative, he isn’t too concerned with what Mark or anyone else that we know of had to say. John includes many different stories of what happened during the passion, has Jesus executed on a different day to make sure it is clear he is the Lamb of God being sacrificed as the other lambs on the day before Passover. We have an entirely different account of who came to the tomb, who saw what, what was said, who saw Jesus where and when, and ultimately an extra chapter that the original author may not have written as the final word.

Like with the birth narrative, when Matthew and Luke are without a common source, their stories diverge wildly. One has the disciples remaining in Jerusalem, while the other has them go to Galilee. One has Jesus appear to many people, the other has Jesus appear to a few. Neither account matches up once we lose Mark as the common touchstone.

What we know: Mark was the first of the Gospels to be written and the other Gospel writers used Mark while not being eyewitnesses to any of the events described. This includes the resurrection of Christ.

I see no reasonable support for arguing that the central messages of the Christian gospels or their reliability should be assumed as a given rather than treated skeptically.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But you're always here trying to push your interpretation of what's important onto the rest of us... if you really believed this statement of yours, wouldn't you just leave us all alone in our blissful neoplatonism...?

Busted!

But I still don't know how you can believe that stuff.    If I could swallow it I would still be Catholic, but that was the beginning of the end.  Now if we could combine Mormon theology with high mass in Latin......  all bets might just be off!!   But I think they call that "Orthodoxy"
 

Quote

 

You sound like you're paraphrasing Satre here, so just to clarify: from your point-of-view, Mormonism is existentialism?

 

Well if you make that Kierkegaard instead of Sartre you would be very close!

Quote

(you must get attacked from both ends of the spectrum... academics attacking you for being Mormon, Mormons attacking you for being a philosopher. Kudos to you, Mark!)

Well I no longer have any need to get along with academics, poor guys, especially Mormon academics who are often apologists for the party line, because their jobs depend on it. But a couple seem to like me ok.

But yes I definitely get it from both sides.

[MiserereNobis]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Busted!

But I still don't know how you can believe that stuff.    If I could swallow it I would still be Catholic, but that was the beginning of the end.  Now if we could combine Mormon theology with high mass in Latin......  all bets might just be off!!   But I think they call that "Orthodoxy"

From previous posts I've figured that you love a good high ritual. Is that one reason why you are a temple worker?

 

Quote

Well if you make that Kierkegaard instead of Sartre you would be very close!

I thought that as I wrote my post, of course. Kierkegaard is the existentialist philosopher of Christianity. But... your quote was definitely pointing to "existence before essence" which is pure Sartre.

 

Quote

Well I no longer have any need to get along with academics, poor guys, especially Mormon academics who are often apologists for the party line, because their jobs depend on it. But a couple seem to like me ok.

But yes I definitely get it from both sides.

And I totally honor you for carving out your niche! Post-modern Mormonism... who would'a thought?

 

[Stargazer]

57 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

An abbreviated example of why this doesn't stand when looked at more closely. I suggested looking to the birth and resurrection narratives in the Gospels and what that tells us regarding their reliability as well as how they provide evidence that the authors aren't describing events or people they witnessed first hand but are composing a narrative out of other sources. I'm essentially borrowing from something I've composed elsewhere but I think is helpful so let's call it economic self-plagiarism.  

<snip />

I see no reasonable support for arguing that the central messages of the Christian gospels or their reliability should be assumed as a given rather than treated skeptically.

1

Well, I read this all the way through, and all I see is speculation.  You may believe that your speculations on the 2,000 year old narratives of the gospel hold water, but you will forgive me if I don't see it that way.

I've read much of what Bart Ehrman has had to write about it all, too, and he doesn't convince me to disbelieve in the reality of Jesus either.  

There are no doubt many doubtful details in the fractured record that we have.  Is all that we have all that there has ever been, or was there more?  What has been changed from the originals?  You cite many problems with the narrative, but really, there are scads more problems that are not addressed by an examination of the English versions of the gospels alone.  I would say that there is plenty of reason to be skeptical that what we have in our present versions of the New Testament is completely accurate.  But this does not make me think that the message of the gospels is false.  

I am reminded of the story of the old professor who made it his life's work to prove that the Iliad and the Odyssey were not written by the supposed blind poet Homer, but by another Greek of the same name.   

And I believe that the overarching story of Jesus as depicted in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is true.  Some of the details may be wrong; and many more things probably happened than ended up being described in those books of the New Testament.  But my testimony of Jesus Christ as a real man who lived and taught during his life, who was executed upon the cross as he carried out the Atonement, and who rose from the grave in the Resurrection, does not depend upon any intellectual exercise or critical interpretation of what is clearly an imperfect record.  In my youth, before finding the LDS Church, I became convinced that Jesus was indeed the Son of God -- but I couldn't have explained that conviction in intellectual terms.  Later, after finding the LDS Church I learned that it was the Spirit of the Lord that had striven with me in convincing me of Christ's reality.  And in finding the Church I discovered that God still speaks to his people, if they are willing to listen.  

But if you prefer to take counsel from your skepticisms, you're entitled to do so.  

 

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

38 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I read this all the way through, and all I see is speculation.  You may believe that your speculations on the 2,000 year old narratives of the gospel hold water, but you will forgive me if I don't see it that way.

I've read much of what Bart Ehrman has had to write about it all, too, and he doesn't convince me to disbelieve in the reality of Jesus either.  

There are no doubt many doubtful details in the fractured record that we have.  Is all that we have all that there has ever been, or was there more?  What has been changed from the originals?  You cite many problems with the narrative, but really, there are scads more problems that are not addressed by an examination of the English versions of the gospels alone.  I would say that there is plenty of reason to be skeptical that what we have in our present versions of the New Testament is completely accurate.  But this does not make me think that the message of the gospels is false.  

I am reminded of the story of the old professor who made it his life's work to prove that the Iliad and the Odyssey were not written by the supposed blind poet Homer, but by another Greek of the same name.   

And I believe that the overarching story of Jesus as depicted in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is true.  Some of the details may be wrong; and many more things probably happened than ended up being described in those books of the New Testament.  But my testimony of Jesus Christ as a real man who lived and taught during his life, who was executed upon the cross as he carried out the Atonement, and who rose from the grave in the Resurrection, does not depend upon any intellectual exercise or critical interpretation of what is clearly an imperfect record.  In my youth, before finding the LDS Church, I became convinced that Jesus was indeed the Son of God -- but I couldn't have explained that conviction in intellectual terms.  Later, after finding the LDS Church I learned that it was the Spirit of the Lord that had striven with me in convincing me of Christ's reality.  And in finding the Church I discovered that God still speaks to his people, if they are willing to listen.  

But if you prefer to take counsel from your skepticisms, you're entitled to do so.  

I've read a few of Bart Ehrman's works as well and was taken in by his thought that if God wanted us to have his words, he would have preserved them better. As Honorentheos outlined well, there are a lot of contradictions in the gospels that point to myth making. Jesus may have been a real person but it looks like a myth sprung up around him. Nevertheless, for me, the biggest hurdle to believing christianity is the claim of the necessity of an atonement for sin. If I imagine a God as our father, I imagine he can forgive sin without the human sacrifice, just like we can forgive one another. Also, if one thinks about it further, if God knew all along that Jesus would fulfill, why go through with the exercise? If God had some doubt, wasn't it a huge gamble with our souls? Seems problematic either way.

[Stargazer]

53 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I've read a few of Bart Ehrman's works as well and was taken in by his thought that if God wanted us to have his words, he would have preserved them better. As Honorentheos outlined well, there are a lot of contradictions in the gospels that point to myth making. Jesus may have been a real person but it looks like a myth sprung up around him. Nevertheless, for me, the biggest hurdle to believing christianity is the claim of the necessity of an atonement for sin. If I imagine a God as our father, I imagine he can forgive sin without the human sacrifice, just like we can forgive one another. Also, if one thinks about it further, if God knew all along that Jesus would fulfill, why go through with the exercise? If God had some doubt, wasn't it a huge gamble with our souls? Seems problematic either way.

Well, that's what Islam says about forgiveness of sin.  Allah can just say "You're forgiven" and Bing!  So Jesus was just a prophet who got executed because the authorities didn't like what he was preaching, and there was nothing in it that dealt with forgiveness.

It's apparently more involved in Christianity, but I am completely unsure why the Catholic Church, for example, thinks that Jesus' suffering on the cross was absolutely necessary.  Yes, he took the punishment for sin upon himself, but why? Why can't the Supreme Being of the Universe tap you on the head and say, as Allah might, "You're forgiven!" and it's done?

I could present my case for the necessity of the Atonement, but that would be a threadjack.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Stargazer

[USU78]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Here are some examples:

YHWH - letter by letter means Behold the nail, behold the hand. 
I believe the name YHWH means I am the breath/life/word. This is a name Yeshua had inherited probably when the Father told Him "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee."
I believe the Son is not El Elyon, the Most High Power, and does not share that title with Heavenly Father as yet, and thus says, the Father is greater than I. However, I disagree with Orthodoxy that El Shaddai is the Father. I believe Yeshua is telling us in John 8:58 that He is El Shaddai and is referring to Gen 17:1, and is the Power who weans us from the breast(Hebrew=shad; dai=enough). I believe Yeshua and the Father are one/echad LORD/YHWH, and as Gen 3:22 indicate are both YHWH Elohim or the I am of the life of your house of immovable forces. 
Lastly, I believe others will inherit this name per Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 33:16-17 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord/YHWH our righteousness.
 

You lost me. Please to elucidate

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, that's what Islam says about forgiveness of sin.  Allah can just say "You're forgiven" and Bing!  So Jesus was just a prophet who got executed because the authorities didn't like what he was preaching, and there was nothing in it that dealt with forgiveness.

Actually, the Koran says that Jesus didn't die, but it was only made to appear that way, so the Muslims believe that Allah saved Jesus because of his righteousness, although elsewhere the Koran says Jesus died. Allah didn't save Muhammed though from a long, painful death by poisoning by the hands of one of his slaves according to their own records. I also have an answer on the atonement but you're right I think that is getting too far afield. I looked up the thread, and several people discuss the issue at length in several posts on this page: 

 

Edited June 29, 2017 by RevTestament

[USU78]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

From previous posts I've figured that you love a good high ritual. Is that one reason why you are a temple worker?

 

I thought that as I wrote my post, of course. Kierkegaard is the existentialist philosopher of Christianity. But... your quote was definitely pointing to "existence before essence" which is pure Sartre.

 

And I totally honor you for carving out your niche! Post-modern Mormonism... who would'a thought?

 

Sartre=Schiller=Kierkegaard!

[Gray]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Here are some examples:

YHWH - letter by letter means Behold the nail, behold the hand. 
I believe the name YHWH means I am the breath/life/word. This is a name Yeshua had inherited probably when the Father told Him "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee."
I believe the Son is not El Elyon, the Most High Power, and does not share that title with Heavenly Father as yet, and thus says, the Father is greater than I. However, I disagree with Orthodoxy that El Shaddai is the Father. I believe Yeshua is telling us in John 8:58 that He is El Shaddai and is referring to Gen 17:1, and is the Power who weans us from the breast(Hebrew=shad; dai=enough). I believe Yeshua and the Father are one/echad LORD/YHWH, and as Gen 3:22 indicate are both YHWH Elohim or the I am of the life of your house of immovable forces. 
Lastly, I believe others will inherit this name per Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 33:16-17 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord/YHWH our righteousness.
 

 

Yahweh is usually taken to mean I AM, or I AM WHO I AM.

In other words, a first person rendering of the verb "to be." Or another rendering - Existence.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

You lost me. Please to elucidate

On what? How did I reach my conclusions? How YHWH can refer to "behold the nail, behold the hand?" That is because each Hebrew letter started as a pictogram which had a meaning. These were combined to form their words. It seems Hebrew was formed out of an early Aramaic past.

How El Shaddai does not mean "God Almighty" and does not refer to the Father like in the creeds?

What exactly do you want me to elucidate?

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

Yahweh is usually taken to mean I AM, or I AM WHO I AM.

In other words, a first person rendering of the verb "to be." Or another rendering - Existence.

The word seems to be based on a root verb to breathe or have breath which also means to have life. After God formed Adam, he had no life until God breathed his spirit into him. I believe Jesus alludes to the meaning here:

John 6:63,68

63 It is the ^aspirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Word = life 

According to Jesus I am the life = I am the word, although I only realized that after receiving my initial inspiration on it. It confirmed my inspiration.

[USU78]

28 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

On what? How did I reach my conclusions? How YHWH can refer to "behold the nail, behold the hand?" That is because each Hebrew letter started as a pictogram which had a meaning. These were combined to form their words. It seems Hebrew was formed out of an early Aramaic past.

How El Shaddai does not mean "God Almighty" and does not refer to the Father like in the creeds?

What exactly do you want me to elucidate?

All of the above. Please open Yeshiva

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

It seems to me the real problem is that skepticism is too often underrated.

 

Critical thinking is essentially a set of tools. Saying they are overrated because they are so often amateurishly put to use is a bad argument.

I endorse healthy skepticism including skepticism about the conclusions of critical thinking/skepticism.

[Gray]

50 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The word seems to be based on a root verb to breathe or have breath which also means to have life. After God formed Adam, he had no life until God breathed his spirit into him. I believe Jesus alludes to the meaning here:

John 6:63,68

63 It is the ^aspirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Word = life 

According to Jesus I am the life = I am the word, although I only realized that after receiving my initial inspiration on it. It confirmed my inspiration.

Do you have a source, or is this your own unique reading? That actual word Yahweh doesn't appear in the NT, although of course the phrase "I am" does.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Gray

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, USU78 said:

All of the above. Please open Yeshiva

Oh 

my 

gosh. 

I had a nice answer typed up for you and accidentally closed the window. I may have to return to this later.

top ancient paleo Hebrew  of the Tetragrammaton. The 4 letters are he, vav, he, yod. The he means to look or behold. The vav was a tent stake, peg, or nail. The yod was the hand on the right. The bottom is the aramaic block-lettering style adopted after the Babylonian captivity.

El Elyon uniquely refers to the Father in scripture. Luke calls Yeshua the son of the Most High/Highest. Yeshua too says the Father is greater than He. Next time you go to an endowment listen real carefully for the Most High, (who is El Elyon). 

El Shaddai got interpreted as the Almighty God in the Greek Septuagint probably by some Jews working for the Alexandrian library in Egypt in its drive to collect all books from everywhere. But it has no grammatical Hebraic basis for such a translation. It seems to have been adopted from El Gabbor which I translate as the Mighty God. This is a title the Son of Isaiah 9:6 is to receive. He will also be called the Eternal Father, although some orthodox Jews try to translate it as God on his shoulder. 

Jesus seemed to always teach out of the scriptures, so in John 8:58 He does not seem to be referring to the use of I am in Exodus, but rather to El Shaddai in Gen 17:1, and is the Power who weans us from the breast(Hebrew=shad; dai=enough). The Hebrew transliteration for breast is shad. For "enough" is dai. I realize that Hebrew grammarians won't read Shaddai that way, but some scribe could have easily contracted the sounds that way long ago. This meaning is consistent with what God says He is being for His people here:

Genesis 49:25

25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the ^aAlmighty/El Shaddai, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the ^bwomb:

It is also consistent with other parts of scripture in which the Lord speaks of weaning us from the breasts:

Isaiah 28:9

9  Whom shall he teach ^aknowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are^bweaned from the ^cmilk, and drawn from the breasts.

and Hebrews 5 which also speaks about the oracles. I will not attempt to reproduce what I had typed earlier when it got deleted so I will let the reader make the connections themselves for now. Suffice it to say as our Mediator Christ is the one who weans us from the breast as we are able to live the meat.

Edited June 29, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Do you have a source, or is this your own unique reading? That actual word Yahweh doesn't appear in the NT, although of course the phrase "I am" does.

Source for what? For the verb to breathe? I read that long ago as a possible iteration. I may be able to find something again. The Peshitta OT uses mar for Adonai or Lord, and marya for YHWH. Its Matthew does refer to Jesus as Marya. Unfortunately one of its other NT books doesn't seem to use it so consistently. 

In my other post which got deleted I commented that Yahweh is not a correct pronunciation. Jehovah is actually closer but the Hebrew has no hard J sound. It is closest to Yehovah(yea - ho - vah) or Yahowah as a possible ancient pronunciation.

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Source for what? For the verb to breathe? I read that long ago as a possible iteration. I may be able to find something again. The Peshitta OT uses mar for Adonai or Lord, and marya for YHWH. Its Matthew does refer to Jesus as Marya. Unfortunately one of its other NT books doesn't seem to use it so consistently. 

In my other post which got deleted I commented that Yahweh is not a correct pronunciation. Jehovah is actually closer but the Hebrew has no hard J sound. It is closest to Yehovah(yea - ho - vah) or Yahowah as a possible ancient pronunciation.

I'm not seeing anything connecting Marya to breathing. It seems to mean "Lord" - a way of avoiding saying name YHWH. If you have some further reading on the topic that you're referencing, I'd be curious to see it. When you have time.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I'm not seeing anything connecting Marya to breathing. It seems to mean "Lord" - a way of avoiding saying name YHWH. If you have some further reading on the topic that you're referencing, I'd be curious to see it. When you have time.

I thought I explained this - mar is Syriac for the common lord. Marya is apparently a new word "invented" for the purpose of referencing YHWH in the OT Peshitta. So it doesn't follow the Greek Septuagint convention of using common lord(Kyrios) for YHWH. Then in the Peshitta NT we see Marya used of Yeshua in Matthew. In what I believe was a book added to the Peshitta later, however, it seems marya also got used of common lord. Maybe a mistake of a translator but does present a departure from the rest of the Peshitta, and causes some problem in my attempt to show Yeshua is YHWH from the NT. So anyway Marya has no Hebrew root in a verb referencing "to breathe." I will add that I believe Jesus is also alluding to his life giving aspect when He breaths on His apostles in order for them to receive the Holy Spirit. In other words, this is when they became born in the spirit - rather than when they were baptized. But you are right the Jews at the time took pains not to transliterate YHWH into other languages. It was only retained in the Masoretic text. I do not have time to search out the Hebrew roots right now for you, but this references a few interpretations which align with mine:

BDB Theological Dictionary lists the following interpretations of the name YHWH, proposed by a score of venerated theologians (but note that, even though BDB is still considered "the finest and most comprehensive Hebrew lexicon available," it was published in 1906, and some views have changed in the last century):

BDB states, "Many recent scholars explain יהוה as Hiph. of הוה:

• The one bringing into being;
• Life-giver;

Edited June 29, 2017 by RevTestament

[Physics Guy]

The several gospel accounts of Jesus's death and resurrection agree in broad outline but disagree on details. They probably aren't reliable in detail, but their discrepancies actually make me think that they probably are reliable about the basic picture.

First of all the very fact that ancient Christians preserved four divergent versions, instead of combining them into one official version, shows a high degree of respect for sources. At least by the time the four gospels existed, people didn't feel free to change them.

Secondly, even eyewitness testimonies frequently do disagree on details. I once took part in a military summary trial at which four different eyewitnesses described an altercation that had taken place several months before. All of them gave clear, confident accounts that featured vivid details. They agreed on the basic course of events, but their details were impossible to reconcile with each other. After just a few months, memories of a brief and confusing episode had evidently become unreliable about details. The commanding officer nonetheless decided that the general outline of the story was reliably established. People who had experienced it from different viewpoints and who remembered it differently all agreed on the main points.

The New Testament accounts are not what I'd expect to see from modern embedded journalism. But if they were simply made up, I would think that they would either disagree more grossly (if there were independent inventions) or agree more perfectly (if there was a major effect at unifying the accounts). As it is, they look quite a bit like what I would expect if somewhat confused accounts by multiple eyewitnesses were compiled years after the events recalled.

The two accounts of Jesus's birth, on the other hand, disagree violently about major features like whether or not Jesus's family moved to Egypt. I still find it conceivable that they were both produced honestly by people who were trying to reconstruct the early years of a person who didn't become famous until he was thirty-ish, but I wouldn't want to base anything important on the birth stories.

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, USU78 said:

So much more efficient to discount people's offerings discussing actual evidence than to engage that evidence. Saves bandwidth

The post I responded to did not make a conclusion. That is all I was looking for. 

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, USU78 said:

You could ask

OK yes that was not nice of me. 

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I suppose that is the modern skeptical way to look at it. Or one could actually believe that the OT elucidated the prophet prophesied to come:

Deut 18:17 And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

D&C 77:12a

We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things.

Well yes it is skeptical. But all beliefs, assumptions, notions, things we hold to be true or dear in all areas should be challenged.  In my personal experience not doing so leads to bad decisions.