Greek New Testament: Strategic Changes on Ideological Grounds

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Archaeology actually shows that Yacob(James), Joshua(Yeshua), and Mary(Miriam) were very common names in Yeshua's day. Probably because these names were prominent in the Torah, and in Israeli foundational history.  The NT does things like saying "the other Mary." That doesn't sound too much like purposeful obfuscation. It seems more likely the names were just common like history shows, so I put his book on the dustbin to be read last... just sayin. There was a time in US history when it would not be uncommon to have 2-3 James' in a single classroom. Certain names are very common in Scottish history because of a habit of naming sons after their fathers and uncles - James/Yacob is one of those.

I believe the BoM is talking about changes which brought about doctrines - not name obfuscation.

Well  ...  the obfuscation of Mary Magdalene goes to preserving the "one substance" in Western Christianity.  If Mary is the Master's spouse, then the Master cannot be of "one substance."  This was a hugely important issue.  And very good motivation to obfuscate and obscure her position.

The James obfuscation is basically the same issue.  If the Master had siblings by Mary, then Mary was not a lifelong virgin worthy of veneration, as was held.  Obliterate James and you obliterate the possibility that Mary had later children with Joseph.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

So, you place his death during the first revolt?

No, I place  his death between the admin of Roman governors Porcius Festus and Lucceius Albinus (Josephus, Antiquities XX, 9), before the revolt.

[USU78]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

No, I place  his death between the admin of Roman governors Porcius Festus and Lucceius Albinus (Josephus, Antiquities XX, 9), before the revolt.

The sources are so confused.  Hard to know who was in a position to know what.  I confess I want his death to be one of the motivations for the revolts, as tragically as they ended.  Just can't bring myself to believe it.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The sources are so confused.  Hard to know who was in a position to know what.  I confess I want his death to be one of the motivations for the revolts, as tragically as they ended.  Just can't bring myself to believe it.

The HP did get replaced over the precipitate action by the Sanhedrin while no governor was present, but it seems unlikely that this would have been a reason for revolt.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Eusebius is confused, which is to be expected for someone so far removed from Jewish Christianity.  James would certainly not have any of the privileges of a Kohen, and would not have been allowed inside the temple.

The tradition that reached him isn't necessarily the Jerusalem temple is more what I was thinking of. But of course it just being a nonsense tradition is also possible. 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Some scholars have interpreted the conflicting information as evidence of competition for leadership between the Twelve and the Family of Jesus, much as we saw between Brigham & the Twelve versus Emma and Joseph Smith III.  

That's certainly one of many possible readings. I do wish we had more informaiton about the "pillars" in Jerusalem prior to 60 AD. I'd also love more details about what happened in the 60's when they were being killed and what happened after 70 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the beginning of the diaspora (even if it didn't really get going in full until after the Bar Kokhpa revolt 60 years later). My guess is that the deaths of Peter and James followed by the destruction is what set the apostasy into swing.

34 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The sources are so confused.  Hard to know who was in a position to know what.  I confess I want his death to be one of the motivations for the revolts, as tragically as they ended.  Just can't bring myself to believe it.

Yup. We really don't know for sure. All the main sources are rather late and contradictory.

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The tradition that reached him isn't necessarily the Jerusalem temple is more what I was thinking of. But of course it just being a nonsense tradition is also possible. 

In Eusebius' day, a priest was ordained, not lineal, and every cathedral/church was a temple with a sacrificial altar table.

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's certainly one of many possible readings. I do wish we had more informaiton about the "pillars" in Jerusalem prior to 60 AD. I'd also love more details about what happened in the 60's when they were being killed and what happened after 70 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the beginning of the diaspora (even if it didn't really get going in full until after the Bar Kokhpa revolt 60 years later). My guess is that the deaths of Peter and James followed by the destruction is what set the apostasy into swing.....................

Everyone tends to read those early texts in light of modern day practices.  We need to rid ourselves of presentism.

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In Eusebius' day, a priest was ordained, not lineal, and every cathedral/church was a temple with a sacrificial altar table.

Yes. And more or less what I'm suggesting is a middle ground when that transition took place.

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Everyone tends to read those early texts in light of modern day practices.  We need to rid ourselves of presentism.

I don't think I'm doing that. Although I do think the question of the apostasy is a live one in the 1st century. But I rather doubt the apostasy took the form that say Talmage presents. Yet it seems required by our theology for there to be a kind of inner circle of teachings not spread past the 1st century in any robust form. Teachings claimed and counterfeited by gnostics and their like. Perhaps even teachings with more echoes of Egyptian practices as found in the coffin texts and appearing in syncretic traditions like 1 & 2 Jeu.

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

...................I don't think I'm doing that.

I agree.  I don't think of you as a presentist, and wasn't implying you were.

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Although I do think the question of the apostasy is a live one in the 1st century. But I rather doubt the apostasy took the form that say Talmage presents. Yet it seems required by our theology for there to be a kind of inner circle of teachings not spread past the 1st century in any robust form. Teachings claimed and counterfeited by gnostics and their like. Perhaps even teachings with more echoes of Egyptian practices as found in the coffin texts and appearing in syncretic traditions like 1 & 2 Jeu.

The real problem is loss of priesthood authority, and I don't know how or when that took place.  Any ideas?  Also, I think that many authentic teachings kept right on going well past the 1st century.  Holy Writ has exercised a powerful influence down through time.

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, USU78 said:

Well  ...  the obfuscation of Mary Magdalene goes to preserving the "one substance" in Western Christianity.  If Mary is the Master's spouse, then the Master cannot be of "one substance."  This was a hugely important issue.  And very good motivation to obfuscate and obscure her position.

The James obfuscation is basically the same issue.  If the Master had siblings by Mary, then Mary was not a lifelong virgin worthy of veneration, as was held.  Obliterate James and you obliterate the possibility that Mary had later children with Joseph.

But James is not really obfuscated. The NT clearly calls one of them the brother of Jesus - along with some others. It clearly calls another the son of Zebedee. That seems the opposite of obfuscation to me. Instead the Catholic Church has chosen to deal with the issue by treating Yeshua's brothers as his cousins or other disciples - even though the NT does not show Yeshua referring to his disciples as His brothers. But, I agree with you about the motivation to obfuscate the issue. Maybe it is worthwhile to ask whether there were such motivations regarding other issues. 

[Calm]

11 hours ago, USU78 said:

the obfuscation of Mary Magdalene goes to preserving the "one substance" in Western Christianity.  If Mary is the Master's spouse, then the Master cannot be of "one substance." 

Explain, please. Seems like if Mary can be his mother without it causing a problem for “one substance”, the other Mary could be his wife with even less difficulty. 

Edited June 28, 2019 by Calm

[USU78]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

But James is not really obfuscated. The NT clearly calls one of them the brother of Jesus - along with some others. It clearly calls another the son of Zebedee. That seems the opposite of obfuscation to me. Instead the Catholic Church has chosen to deal with the issue by treating Yeshua's brothers as his cousins or other disciples - even though the NT does not show Yeshua referring to his disciples as His brothers. But, I agree with you about the motivation to obfuscate the issue. Maybe it is worthwhile to ask whether there were such motivations regarding other issues. 

I agree they were irrational and ignorant.

[USU78]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Explain, please. Seems like if Mary can be his mother without it causing a problem for “one substance”, the other Mary could be his wife with even less difficulty. 

Yes. If we have two nubile Marys, we can infer they're just part of the scenery. If there's only one that is an intimate, and she's very important, then we've got problems.

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The real problem is loss of priesthood authority, and I don't know how or when that took place.  Any ideas?  Also, I think that many authentic teachings kept right on going well past the 1st century.  Holy Writ has exercised a powerful influence down through time.

I honestly don't have a good theory there. My basic conception is that the leadership simply died off after Peter and James were killed. John infamously is a weird case. But if there wasn't someone ordained with the full authority ala Peter or James what happens when they die? 

Think of our day. If all the apostles were suddenly killed, who is able to appoint new leaders? That means when the bishops die off, they may choose new ones, but it's no longer done with authority.

[mfbukowski]

On 6/27/2019 at 8:11 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Honestly, Biblical scholarship isn't an interest of mine. I guess superficially this is intriguing but I do find it minor. My faith doesn't rest upon the inerrancy of every word in the Bible. Instead, it is a gift given me by God through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Welcome to how I  feel about the Book of  Mormon.

Well except the BVM part-  sort of.  

Except I do accept the Divine Feminine as a member of the Godhead, whatever her name, as if we would know it anyway.  Wisdom?  Mary?  Heavenly Mother?  All could be titles for the same personage as far as my heart tells me.   But SHE  is quite real!

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, USU78 said:

If Mary is the Master's spouse, then the Master cannot be of "one substance."  This was a hugely important issue. 

An interesting  point at least to me.    I don't think I ever heard this argument before, though it is  not one I would usually care much about either way, which is probably why I do not recall  it.

Is this  a position of an early Church father?   It seems an odd argument to me that if there  are three persons of "one substance"  there could not be more--?

Or perhaps male and female  are different "substances"?  

I am mostly just interested in the medieval "logic" of alchemy going on here.   

Is the implication that one becomes "one substance" with one's spouse?  I kind of like that idea even  if  I disagree with the argument ultimately.  "One flesh" and all of that....   

Just don't turn me into a newt....   even if I get better....

 

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

An interesting  point at least to me.    I don't think I ever heard this argument before, though it is  not one I would usually care much about either way, which is probably why I do not recall  it.

Is this  a position of an early Church father?   It seems an odd argument to me that if there  are three persons of "one substance"  there could not be more--?

Or perhaps male and female  are different "substances"?  

I am mostly just interested in the medieval "logic" of alchemy going on here.   

Is the implication that one becomes "one substance" with one's spouse?  I kind of like that idea even  if  I disagree with the argument ultimately.  "One flesh" and all of that....   

Just don't turn me into a newt....   even if I get better....

Eisenman went on and on about it, as I recall.  I don't have my book any more.  A certain attorney friend of mine who happens to be pretty widely published on LDS/philosophy issues asked to borrow it almost 20 years ago.  I called him a couple of times to get it back.  He was still working with it each time.  I gave up.  I'm not entirely sure of the ownership of a whole bunch of the books on my own shelves and in boxes in my storage area.  I'm in no position to cast aspersions.

I don't remember his sources.  The argument, as I recall, went like this:  He cannot have had a spouse because (a) even the angels don't marry and aren't given in marriage, and they aren't even of the genus deus, and it's unthinkable that He, being much higher and of the genus deus with the Father and the Spirit would marry, and  (b) He was not subject to original sin, being of one substance with the Father, and would/could not defile Himself with womankind.

Then there's the issue of Mary being a lifelong virgin and, according to some, being of a virgin birth herself (immaculate conception).  If she herself were born without original sin because of her immaculate conception, and Christ was born not subject to original sin because His birth was immaculate itself, with His vessel (Mary) being immaculate, then she (Mary) could not have lowered herself to participate in the flesh by submitting herself to Joseph and giving birth to James, Joses, et al.  Holy Writ be verflucht!  Don't trust your lying eyes!  We've got a perfectly elegant syllogism going here!

[MiserereNobis]

57 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Then there's the issue of Mary being a lifelong virgin and, according to some, being of a virgin birth herself (immaculate conception). 

Just to clarify, the immaculate conception is Mary being born without original sin. The Catholic Church does not claim that she was of a virgin birth -- she has a father (Joachim) and a mother (Anne).

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just to clarify, the immaculate conception is Mary being born without original sin. The Catholic Church does not claim that she was of a virgin birth -- she has a father (Joachim) and a mother (Anne).

Yep!

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

I don't remember his sources.  The argument, as I recall, went like this:  He cannot have had a spouse because (a) even the angels don't marry and aren't given in marriage, and they aren't even of the genus deus, and it's unthinkable that He, being much higher and of the genus deus with the Father and the Spirit would marry, and  (b) He was not subject to original sin, being of one substance with the Father, and would/could not defile Himself with womankind

Ah yes, the base nature of Flesh and original sin figures prominently in that I think.

Ok that makes "sense" in the context.

It seems to be more about the base nature of matter compared to Spiritual substance, and then original sin than anything else.

That's why it is postulated that Mary must have been born without original sin to make it all work.

Okay thanks I get how they got to that conclusion now. Obviously I disagree with it but at least the logic given the assumptions seems sound.

They could have thought about throwing in some extra "natures "to compensate for all of that but I guess it never came up.

On this view of course Christ has two Natures so he can be both material human and God at once.

Maybe the human nature could have gotten married while the divine nature could not. If they postulated that maybe Jesus could have been married.

There's got to be a deus ex machina in there somewhere that they could have used but obviously that was not in the cards.

Thanks for the discussion. You've got a great memory to be able to remember that rather arcane line of thought.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Holy Writ be verflucht!  Don't trust your lying eyes!  We've got a perfectly elegant syllogism going here!

Their out in that is that it is "not translated correctly "

Sound familiar?

The way I learned it is that what is translated as brother could also mean any close blood relative like a cousin.

So they say it should have been translated as "cousins."

I'm not about to come down too hard on them for that since we use the same ploy ourselves. 

 

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, USU78 said:

If there's only one that is an intimate, and she's very important, then we've got problems.

How so?  Saying there are problems does not explain why there is a problem. 

One substance believers also believe Jesus was fully human. So I don’t understand the problem. 

Marriage is considered a Sacrament. How can it be sinful?

Edited June 28, 2019 by Calm

[USU78]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just to clarify, the immaculate conception is Mary being born without original sin. The Catholic Church does not claim that she was of a virgin birth -- she has a father (Joachim) and a mother (Anne).

Ya see?  That's why we need you around here.  Bukowski's sometimes wrong, but I'm inevitably wrong!

[3DOP]

On 6/26/2019 at 12:11 PM, USU78 said:

This is so very Book-of-Mormony:

https://today.duke.edu/2019/06/mary-or-martha-duke-scholars-research-finds-mary-magdalene-downplayed-new-testament-scribes?fbclid=IwAR1P7Y6owY_uJF-ZtQin9ZFboeHSnkrTRMqZ5O-2IiIYv6-A0u3eD8bVvRI

Oh shoot...USU...You finally found out our secret lies. Okay, I have to come clean. I am an apostate and love apostasy. Joke. Kidding. Not sure I follow the argument.

Actually, even if I were anti-Catholic, I couldn't think that Dark Age Catholics would make up stuff on purpose. Or hide stuff on purpose. To promote something they knew was not true? What would they get out of it? Not heaven, that's for sure. Were those monk copyists and translators just atheists, living for this life and getting a kick out of trying to trick people? I am convinced they believed in God and hell and heaven. Lying about something in the Gospel? Was that okay? What do those who think there was deliberate obfuscation see as a motive? A monk making up lies doesn't get to be the pope and have a harem. What does he get out of it besides hell and a guilty conscience?

 

[USU78]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

How so?  Saying there are problems does not explain why there is a problem. 

One substance believers also believe Jesus was fully human. So I don’t understand the problem. 

Marriage is considered a Sacrament. How can it be sinful?

I don't understand the problem either, and it's been 20-odd years since I looked at this stuff.  There's obviously some miso-soup-gyny going on, with all that "defiling Himself with womankind" being unthinkable, but that isn't all.  With the divide between genus deus and genus homo being infinitely vast, it's likewise unthinkable for One Who is of one substance with the Father to participate profoundly and intimately in the human condition by fathering children.  They didn't think like we do.

Did I get it right that time, Misere?

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Oh shoot...USU...You finally found out our secret lies. Okay, I have to come clean. I am an apostate and love apostasy. Joke. Kidding. Not sure I follow the argument.

Actually, even if I were anti-Catholic, I couldn't think that Dark Age Catholics would make up stuff on purpose. Or hide stuff on purpose. To promote something they knew was not true? What would they get out of it? Not heaven, that's for sure. Were those monk copyists and translators just atheists, living for this life and getting a kick out of trying to trick people? I am convinced they believed in God and hell and heaven. Lying about something in the Gospel? Was that okay? What do those who think there was deliberate obfuscation see as a motive? A monk making up lies doesn't get to be the pope and have a harem. What does he get out of it besides hell and a guilty conscience?

 

😂🤣😂