Love vs Tyranny

reply to post by windword


It had nothing to do with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That is when the Pharisees witnessed Jesus perform the miracles He did right in front of them and they attributed the miracle to the devil. And it's not my belief, not my interpretation.. the Torah is specific on sacrifices. They must come from the family's own flock and must be unblemished, their best specimen.

reply to post by windword


Great interpretation wind! I never thought of it that way. Those people who were selling "doves" in the temple weren't actually selling animals, they were trying to sell the holy spirit.

What descended on Jesus after his baptism? A dove, which represents the holy spirit. Just as churches today try to sell what everyone already has (holy spirit), the priests in the temple were doing the same with "doves" back then.

Sorry if that's not what you meant, but that's the way I took it.

reply to post by adjensen

Cite away!

Here are a few references relating to the historical Jesus:
The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999, Three Rivers Press)
Did Jesus Exist? by G. A. Wells (1975, Pemberton)
The Jesus Puzzle: Challenging the existence of an historical Jesus by Earl Doherty (1999, Canadian Humanist Association)
Deconstructing Jesus by Robert Price (2000, Prometheus Books)
The Jesus Legend by G. A. Wells (1996, Open Court)
The Historical Evidence for Jesus by G. A. Wells (1982, Prometheus Books) Jesus in History and Myth by Joseph R. Hoffman and G. A. Larue (1986, Prometheus Books)
Jesus: Myth or History? by A. Robertson (1949, Watts) Pagan Christs by J. M. Robertson (1911, London)
The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer
The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Acharya S (1999, Adventures Unlimited) Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman (2005, Harper San Francisco) (to document gospel discrepancies)
See also Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? by Dan Barker.
www.exminister.org...

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

What descended on Jesus after his baptism? A dove, which represents the holy spirit.

You have that bass ackwards. The Holy Spirit descended on Jesus like a dove would descend and land on something. It never states that a dove landed on Jesus or that the Holy Spirit is a bird.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Yes, that's exactly how I see it. Biblical symbolism is more important than the content of the story, many times.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


But it was still described as a dove wasn't it?

Luke 3
22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

You misunderstood what I was saying apparently, I didn't mean an actual live dove landed on him, I meant the holy spirit descended on him in the "form of a dove". Please don't twist my words to fit your meaning of them.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Yes, that's exactly how I see it. Biblical symbolism is more important than the content of the story, many times.

Right, of course. Exegesis be damned!

reply to post by windword


Okay, a blanket list of texts, which you've obviously never read, isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, though I can address three that I HAVE read:

The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer

Schweitzer actually repudiated the findings of those who were on this quest at his behest, because he realized that they were just finding the Christ that they wanted to find (one in alignment with German Liberal Theology in the 19th Century)

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Acharya S (1999, Adventures Unlimited)

Acharya S is one of those people that I was making fun of in my response to you -- she is not a historian, but does have a bachelor's degree in "Classics" and accepts the writings of Gerald Massey (known fraud) as completely true. She was pretty much the only source that Zeitgeist - the Movie used in its idiotic "comparative mythology" part.

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman

Ehrman is an agnostic who doesn't dismiss the historical existence of Jesus, just the supernatural claims in the New Testament. He's had some pretty nasty encounters with Carrier on this very subject.

So, on the whole... fail.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


No. It wasn't a dove, it didn't have the "form of" a dove. It's descending upon Him was likened to a dove descending and landing on something. Forget the bird, it's merely a rhetorical device.

If I said Bob snuck up on Tony like a ninja, would there be an actual ninja or someone dressed in a ninja suit anywhere in the actual event?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

ex·e·ge·sis
[ek-si-jee-sis]
- noun, plural-ses 1. critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible

How are you being "critical" of the bible if you're only taking it at face value? Being critical means to question, you do not question the bible, you just accept it.

How are you pulling out the meaning if you take it at face value? You obviously have no idea what exegesis is. Either that or you have an extremely skewed perception on its definition.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I didn't mean an actual dove, what don't you understand about that? Dove was used allegorically to describe the holy spirit, just as those selling "doves" in the temple is allegory for selling the holy spirit.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

just as those selling "doves" in the temple is allegory for selling the holy spirit.

The doves were being sold because they were proscribed for use in Temple ceremonies, as outlined in Leviticus, it has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. Poor people offered them as a sin sacrifice. (The Five Offerings)

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Lol, forgive me if I'm incorrect, but the mere fact that you ran to search out the definition tells me you haven't heard the term before. Also there are a few definitions for the word "critical" depending on the context of a sentence. Here, this is a great site explaining the difference between the exegetical and eisegeaical approach to scripture.

Question: "What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?"

Answer: Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Exegesis VS Eisegesis

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I didn't mean an actual dove, what don't you understand about that? Dove was used allegorically to describe the holy spirit, just as those selling "doves" in the temple is allegory for selling the holy spirit.

It's certainly not, but you can believe that. You can't make doctrine out of a literary device. Can we then say that when Noah let the dove out the third time and it didn't return then that means God abandoned Noah?

reply to post by adjensen

reply to post by windword


You've known me long enough to know that I don't watch videos

reply to post by adjensen


So why are doves specifically mentioned to be the tables that Jesus overturned in anger. Was everyone supposed to raise doves for sacrifice? Or is there a deeper meaning there?

In the New Testament, the dove represent the Holy Spirit. The symbolism is clear. It was a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and it was being done in the Holy Temple.

reply to post by adjensen


I don't care. These are scholarly debates on the existence of the Biblical Jesus, which claim don't happen, because every Biblical scholar believes that the Biblical Jesus did actually exist, as presented. That simply is just not true.

There are more, but I'm having a hard time finding the one I'm actually looking for.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

So why are doves specifically mentioned to be the tables that Jesus overturned in anger. Was everyone supposed to raise doves for sacrifice? Or is there a deeper meaning there?

Maybe, but not necessarily -- doves were used in Temple sacrifices (did you look at the link that I posted?) so it isn't surprising that they'd be noted.

In the New Testament, the dove represent the Holy Spirit. The symbolism is clear.

Actually, I'm only aware of two instances of the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament -- at Jesus' baptism, where he appears in a form "like a dove", and in Acts, where he appears to the Apostles at Pentecost, in a form "like flames", so I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that, because there were doves in the Temple (as there were supposed to be) it had some deep meaning. If there were flames that didn't consume anything, that would be far more obvious, but that isn't the case.

Saying that doves in Temple means anything other than doves in the Template would seem to be wishful thinking.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

every Biblical scholar believes that the Biblical Jesus did actually exist, as presented. That simply is just not true.

Well then provide evidence that Jesus didn't exist, from a reputable historian, not from a crackpot like Acharya S, or from someone with a biased viewpoint, who ignores facts, like Richard Carrier.