Zwaarddijk wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

What book are you reading? WTF? Try rereading that passage, seriously.

Yup, did that.

So, where do you find anything about Moses divorcing anyone?

That I doubt. That's what the topic was though. I do remember Moses being cuckolded.

Some people are born with underdeveloped genitals - testicles that haven't descended, people that are of indeterminate gender at birth, etc.

I am fully aware of this. Just because I don't mention every possibility doesn't mean I haven't thought about them.

Yet you go ahead and dismiss all those pretty natural, pretty likely explanations out of hand. (There's actually a fair share of discussion about people with such features in the Talmud, quite a bit of it based on observation that kids like these actually are born. I would guess Jesus used a bit of a halakhic terminology - not medical terminology - when he said that. Those may not correspond. (Furthermore, we don't know whether Jesus' halakhic terminology even corresponds to tannaite such).)

No, I didn't dismiss them out of hand, I said it might involve gays.

Try re-reading.

Somehow I doubt that there were very many guys running around performing real miracles.

I fully agree. (However, people in sects do believe their leaders perform miracles (and may even convince themselves they've actually witnessed such!). Under some circumstances, I guess someone in a very strict Jewish-derived sect could conclude that although they had witnessed such miracles, and then in light of new experiences conclude that their leader is, in fact, a false prophet (and since Jesus would qualify for that, according to the OT laws, that could - for someone of a strict Torah-minded bent be enough to cause such a rethinking?). We don't need to posit actual miracles in order to posit that even close associates of someone can believe that miracles have, in fact, taken place!)

Meh. I still think his 'miracles' were a lot more like this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik0yz5Jo4Os[/youtube]

I was editing my previous post when you posted that: here's my edit:

So, where do you find anything about Moses divorcing anyone?
(Ok, now I see how you can misread it like that, but ... srsly dude, you should probably not do this because you're really genuinely not that good at it at times! At least have someone review it before posting.)

The KJV version could be read like you think:
"They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" if you ignore the next verse! Which makes it pretty damn obvious in what sense Moses commanded this ("command" when speaking of Moses except in some v. specific narratives, generally means "gave a law that specifies how we're to go about doing things"); Jesus' response shows him understanding it just exactly like that too - just like scholars as well as just about every christian ever does: he says Moses commanded this because the Jews had too hard hearts to be able to actual maintain a loving relationship with one wife throughout their life. What the Jews' hearts had to do with Moses' relation to his wife is kind of obviously nothing!
A few other versions do kind of similarly word that particular verse oddly, but with even the mildest sensitivity for context, this error would not have occurred for you.

Regarding versions, here are a few that do it differently:
NLT inserts some words to clear it up: ""Then why did Moses say a man could merely write an official letter of divorce and send her away?"* they asked. "
NIV : "“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
ESV: They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" (RSV is almost identical)
HNV (which is very terrible in most ways): They asked him, "Why then did Moshe command us to give her a bill of divorce, and divorce her?"

See, in a scholarly thing, an error or two *happen*. Thing is, you've got so many of them it weakens your credibility . A mistake like this is ... pretty damn bad for someone writing about the Bible.

Also, further point: cuckolded, moses, what? What are you reading? Genuinely.

Zwaarddijk wrote:I was editing my previous post when you posted that: here's my edit:

So, where do you find anything about Moses divorcing anyone?
(Ok, now I see how you can misread it like that, but ... srsly dude, you should probably not do this because you're really genuinely not that good at it at times! At least have someone review it before posting.)

The KJV version could be read like you think:
"They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" if you ignore the next verse! Which makes it pretty damn obvious in what sense Moses commanded this ("command" when speaking of Moses except in some v. specific narratives, generally means "gave a law that specifies how we're to go about doing things"); Jesus' response shows him understanding it just exactly like that too - just like scholars as well as just about every christian ever does: he says Moses commanded this because the Jews had too hard hearts to be able to actual maintain a loving relationship with one wife throughout their life. What the Jews' hearts had to do with Moses' relation to his wife is kind of obviously nothing!
A few other versions do kind of similarly word that particular verse oddly, but with even the mildest sensitivity for context, this error would not have occurred for you.

Regarding versions, here are a few that do it differently:
NLT inserts some words to clear it up: ""Then why did Moses say a man could merely write an official letter of divorce and send her away?"* they asked. "
NIV : "“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
ESV: They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" (RSV is almost identical)
HNV (which is very terrible in most ways): They asked him, "Why then did Moshe command us to give her a bill of divorce, and divorce her?"

See, in a scholarly thing, an error or two *happen*. Thing is, you've got so many of them it weakens your credibility . A mistake like this is ... pretty damn bad for someone writing about the Bible.

Also, further point: cuckolded, moses, what? What are you reading? Genuinely.

Moses being symbolically cuckolded was one reason given that he was given horns.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 453AAA3Hbk

Personally, I think it's crap.

As for the command of Moses for divorce, yes I did read that wrong.

I hope you enjoy your little victory dance.

Moses was married, it seems, though it doesn't explain how and why, to two women, one was the daughter of a Midianite, who is you remember were descended from Lot's little bit of drunken incest with one of his daughters (the other were the Amalekites), the other (Zipporah who believers claim was both an Ethiopian and the daughter of Reuel who was also called Jethro the Midianite priest) was an Ethiopian who Miriam didn't like very much and for which dislike she was temporarily infected with leprosy and forced to live outside the camp while it cleared up. This could be a "miracle" that Moses performed. Exodus 3:1, 4:18, 18:1-2

I don't see how he could be both a Midianite and an Ethiopian because Ethiopia wasn't exactly in Canaan, it was south of Egypt, which is where the Midanites lived east of the Jordan, although they were nomadic.

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-midianite-pottery.htm
http://www.ethiopianhistory.com/Ethiopia_in_the_Bible

NineOneFour wrote:
Personally, I think it's crap.

Think *what* in particular is crap?

That comment seems to be something you just inject at random, without it even referring to anything.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:
Personally, I think it's crap.

Think *what* in particular is crap?

That comment seems to be something you just inject at random, without it even referring to anything.

Do you always take everything to be as serious as lung cancer?

Corky wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:
Personally, I think it's crap.

Think *what* in particular is crap?

That comment seems to be something you just inject at random, without it even referring to anything.

Do you always take everything to be as serious as lung cancer?

No joke.

Gday,

NineOneFour wrote:Well, here is the dilemma: either Matthew is lying and making shit up, which is quite possible, given his previously proven mendacity, or Jesus is an idiot/liar/etc. and Matthew is reporting correctly.

Pardon?

So, you actually believe there are ONLY two types of writings ever :
1. true history
2. LIES
?

Seriously ?
If a book is not true history, then you think it MUST be a LIE !?
Have you never even HEARD of fiction? myths? legends? allegory? literature?

Because - according to your argument :
* Shakespeare is a LIAR - Romeo and Juliet are LIES.
* the greek myths are LIES - Isis and Osiris are a LIE.
* J.K. Rowling is a LIAR - Harry Potter is a LIE.
* Arthur Conan Doyle is a LIAR - Sherlock Holmes is a LIE.
* George Lucas is a LIAR - Luke Skywalker is a LIE.
* J.R.R. Tolkein is a LIAR - Frodo is a LIE.
* James Bond is a LIE
* Johny Appleseed is a LIE
* Homer Simpson is a LIE
* Robin Hood is a LIE
etc. etc.


Simply ridiculous.


Kapyong

In Ant. 18.3.3, Josephus supposedly said:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Now, as you can see, if you underline every thing Josephus would not have said, there's not much left and what is left makes no sense. It has to be entirely a forgery.

NineOneFour wrote:I'm on vacation at the ranch and have limited internet access, but I am preparing Chapters 9 and 10 henceforth.

For those upset about the sheer irreverence I show Matthew, I'm doing that deliberately, and I'll tell you why: one, it's fun, but two, and more importantly: we've all been acculturated to take these stories as true, as GOSPEL. We automatically afford them reverence and look for deeper meanings, holy sanctions, and are reluctant to just open fire. If we were demolishing the Epic of Gilgamesh or taking Suetonius to task for any errors he made, few would be offended or disturbed by any irreverence. And yet that is precisely what we must do: break through our collective cultural conditioning. These stories aren't special, they aren't unique, they aren't holy. Even atheists (at least a lot of them) tend to give respect to the gospel writers or Paul or whoever wrote the Pauline letters as some sort of ancient sages.

I say that's bullshit. We shouldn't give these folks any more credit than we give Benny Hinn or Pat Robertson. If they lurch into something resembling sanity from time to time (as Pat Robertson did this week when he decided the drug war was stupid and pot should be legalized), it's because even a broken clock is right twice a day.

It's true that the Gospels have had an unprecedented 1,900 years of good press ... of people saying that this is the greatest thing ever, when the whole thing doesn't make any more sense than Gilgamesh does. The differences between the Gospels and any other ancient mystical writing is purely based on this conditioning, not any serious textual difference. If the Babylonians had taken over the Roman Empire, then today we would have Benny Hinn healing people "in the name of" Gilgamesh, or one of his followers, in some obscure Ashurbanipal text. No one would know the difference.

As I like to ask my Christian friends, "Can you prove King Gilgamesh wasn't two-thirds divine and one-thind human?"

Corky wrote:In Ant. 18.3.3, Josephus supposedly said:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Now, as you can see, if you underline every thing Josephus would not have said, there's not much left and what is left makes no sense. It has to be entirely a forgery.

I don't see why Josephus wouldn't say that Jesus drew over to him many of the Jews and of the Gentiles, nor why he'd say the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at that day.

Sorry if this sounds like nitpicking, but if you're trying to be critical, I would suggest a slight measure of metacriticism as well.

Kapyong wrote:Gday,

NineOneFour wrote:Well, here is the dilemma: either Matthew is lying and making shit up, which is quite possible, given his previously proven mendacity, or Jesus is an idiot/liar/etc. and Matthew is reporting correctly.

Pardon?

So, you actually believe there are ONLY two types of writings ever :
1. true history
2. LIES
?

Seriously ?
If a book is not true history, then you think it MUST be a LIE !?
Have you never even HEARD of fiction? myths? legends? allegory? literature?

Because - according to your argument :
* Shakespeare is a LIAR - Romeo and Juliet are LIES.
* the greek myths are LIES - Isis and Osiris are a LIE.
* J.K. Rowling is a LIAR - Harry Potter is a LIE.
* Arthur Conan Doyle is a LIAR - Sherlock Holmes is a LIE.
* George Lucas is a LIAR - Luke Skywalker is a LIE.
* J.R.R. Tolkein is a LIAR - Frodo is a LIE.
* James Bond is a LIE
* Johny Appleseed is a LIE
* Homer Simpson is a LIE
* Robin Hood is a LIE
etc. etc.


Simply ridiculous.


Kapyong

I have actually known people who read only the Bible and newspapers and that all fiction is nothing but lies. My grandmother was one of those, she was naturally very very poorly educated. When her kids suggested that she read something other than the Bible, they said that all reading of anything other than the Bible and some selected newspapers was frivolous time wasting, the Bible was enough for her and that "the devil finds work for idle hands."

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Corky wrote:In Ant. 18.3.3, Josephus supposedly said:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Now, as you can see, if you underline every thing Josephus would not have said, there's not much left and what is left makes no sense. It has to be entirely a forgery.

I don't see why Josephus wouldn't say that Jesus drew over to him many of the Jews and of the Gentiles, nor why he'd say the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at that day.

Sorry if this sounds like nitpicking, but if you're trying to be critical, I would suggest a slight measure of metacriticism as well.

The reason why Josephus wouldn't say that Jesus drew over to him many of the Jews and of the Gentiles is because Jesus didn't draw over to himself any gentiles at all. Josephus also would not call gentile Christians a "tribe", as in a tribe of Israel - I seriously doubt that he would have even claimed Jews who were Christians as a "tribe". The most he would have said was "sect".

Anyway, I didn't intend to post that in this thread to start with. I thought that I posted it in the famous what can we infer about historical Jesus thread as that is where I was when I posted it.

I'm wana to co-author a new bible and claim it as the one and only true word of God himself and claim along with the other authors that God suddenly spoke to us one night, gave us each others email addresses and told each of us to write a book in this new bible..

Then Put it in order and Release it online for download, heck I'll even make a website for it.

Who wants in!

charlie1986 wrote:I'm wana to co-author a new bible and claim it as the one and only true word of God himself and claim along with the other authors that God suddenly spoke to us one night, gave us each others email addresses and told each of us to write a book in this new bible..

Then Put it in order and Release it online for download, heck I'll even make a website for it.

Who wants in!

I started that. I wanted to rewrite it, that's what caused me to start reading it in the first place.
After the first chapter, I realised that it was a waste of time but also that the stories are so improbable that it's just not worth the effort, so, instead, I just pointed out why it's improbable, and wrote a book about it.

charlie1986 wrote:I'm wana to co-author a new bible and claim it as the one and only true word of God himself and claim along with the other authors that God suddenly spoke to us one night, gave us each others email addresses and told each of us to write a book in this new bible..

Then Put it in order and Release it online for download, heck I'll even make a website for it.

Who wants in!

Just rewrite the gospel and claim that a vision of Christ told you what to write. Make it good, be convincing

charlie1986 wrote:I'm wana to co-author a new bible and claim it as the one and only true word of God himself and claim along with the other authors that God suddenly spoke to us one night, gave us each others email addresses and told each of us to write a book in this new bible..

Then Put it in order and Release it online for download, heck I'll even make a website for it.

Who wants in!

Hey, it worked for Joseph Smith.

Agrippina wrote:one was the daughter of a Midianite, who is you remember were descended from Lot's little bit of drunken incest with one of his daughters (the other were the Amalekites)

The Lot story is about the origin of Ammonites and Moabites, not Midianites and Amalekites.

Oops, serves me right for trying to access faulty memory chips in my brain!

Agrippina wrote:Oops, serves me right for trying to access faulty memory chips in my brain!

Now as for someone being called "ethiopian" and being at the same time the child of a Midianite, they could just be the child of a Midianite by a Nubian woman and be called "ethiopian" because of their maternal ancestry. There's not necessarily a contradiction on that one.