The great and all powerful religion thread!

[Zephyrus]

I am starting to dabble in Hebrew. There is less of a point in learning Greek, the majority of scripture is in Hebrew, to include some of the NT. All of the writers of the NT were Hebrew as well, so reading it from that standpoint makes much more sense.

Hebrew thought/language are entirely different from Greek thought/language.

I am appalled. Learning Greek is ESSENTIAL to understanding the New Testament. I thought that was a no brainer. Sure, the Gospel writers were familiar with the Hebrew tradition, but the lingua franca in that part of the Roman Empire was Greek, and it was the language of intellectualism and philosophy throughout the empire.

The Gospel of John is a prime example of Hellenism. The concept of the Word (logos) is all over it, which derives from the Stoic school of Greek philosophy. Thinking like a Greek is key to reading the gospels.

Also, Philo of Alexandria is an important interpreter of Hebrew scripture in terms of Hellenistic philosophy. He wrote in Greek, but wasn't Christian (he was Jewish). I recommend you check him out.

 

[Dak]

Thinking like a Hebrew is key to understanding the Gospels, since not only was Jesus Jewish, he was of his Father, who established the Israelites/Hebrews, and gave them their culture.

The writers were also all observant Jews, and the Greek/Roman culture was never accepted in Israel (look at the revolt history). The books were penned in Greek to aid their spread, the writers were not partial to Greek philosophy.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Correction. Technically it is a guy sleeping with another man's wife. Women (excepting prostitutes/slaves) were not in a position to be chasing married men at the time.

This makes me feel way better, especially with how it was worded!

 

[Blind Guardian]

Zeph, do you support the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? Personally I don't believe that the original language of any Gospel/philosophy/religion/whatever is necessary to know in order to fully understand it. To me it seems more like something the already fluent speakers of these languages simply find convenient to claim.

 

[Zephyrus]

Thinking like a Hebrew is key to understanding the Gospels, since not only was Jesus Jewish, he was of his Father, who established the Israelites/Hebrews, and gave them their culture.

The writers were also all observant Jews, and the Greek/Roman culture was never accepted in Israel (look at the revolt history). The books were penned in Greek to aid their spread, the writers were not partial to Greek philosophy.

Jesus himself didn't pen the Gospels, and the Judaism of their time was much different from the ancient Judaism of Moses. By the turn of the era, Judaism was HEAVILY influenced by both Greek and Persian (i.e. Zoroastrian) ideas, among which were reincarnation, life after death, Heaven and Hell, resurrection of the body, messianic prophecies and salvation. As I said above, many of these all culminate in Philo.

Religious texts are a product of their historical periods. The Gospel writers lived in a Hellenistic cosmopolis, and were heavily influenced by this international culture, especially John. This was not the case for the ancient Israelites, who practiced a backward tribal nomadic religion.

 

[Dak]

Zeph, do you support the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? Personally I don't believe that the original language of any Gospel/philosophy/religion/whatever is necessary to know in order to fully understand it. To me it seems more like something the already fluent speakers of these languages simply find convenient to claim.

I disagree. Many things can be lost not only in the basic act of translation, but by not understanding the culture/time period a writing was written in/ the culture/situation of the author, you cannot fully grasp the intent.

Instead you will always defer to understanding based off of your own culture and situation/time period.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Which is a pretty good reason why the Bible would be horribly incorrect in a multitude of various ways.

 

[Dak]

Jesus himself didn't pen the Gospels, and the Judaism of their time was much different from the ancient Judaism of Moses. By the turn of the era, Judaism was HEAVILY influenced by both Greek and Persian (i.e. Zoroastrian) ideas, among which were reincarnation, life after death, Heaven and Hell, resurrection of the body, messianic prophecies and salvation. As I said above, many of these all culminate in Philo.

Part of this is true. Rabbinical Judiasm was heavily influenced by the mystery religions of Babylon, and the Greecian pantheon was also influenced by these.

However, Jesus specifically spoke against Rabbinical Judiasm on multiple occasions, as the Talmud and Kabbalah have nothing in common with Torah. The OT is full of Messianic prophecies, mention of resurrection, the "afterlife", etc., all predating Rabbinical Judiasm

Religious texts are a product of their historical periods. The Gospel writers lived in a Hellenistic cosmopolis, and were heavily influenced by this international culture, especially John. This was not the case for the ancient Israelites, who practiced a backward tribal nomadic religion.

So then why would these writings re-affirm the teachings and prophecies OT, instead of announcing some sort of new understanding/dismissing the "old stuff"?

I am not suggesting that they wouldn't be living in a way that wouldn't be affected by the greek/roman occupations, but it's quite obvious that even in todays world, religious beliefs very often transcend/go against/in contrast to the "normal culture" for the region.

 

[Dak]

Which is a pretty good reason why the Bible would be horribly incorrect in a multitude of various ways.

I don't believe in the total infallibility of any english translation. This would be enough to have me branded a heretic by most Christians .

 

[Zephyrus]

I am not suggesting that they wouldn't be living in a way that wouldn't be affected by the greek/roman occupations, but it's quite obvious that even in todays world, religious beliefs very often transcend/go against/in contrast to the "normal culture" for the region.

Religion adapts to the times in order to survive. Think of Vatican II. Back in Jesus' day it was no different. The cultural influence simply cannot be ignored.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

How can you believe in something that was synthesized from what you even claim were predating religions and cultures? Honestly, if a belief system in a mythological higher power is "influenced" by anything earthly, that is a major fucking red flag. How can a higher power necessarily be influenced by something that already existed and which theologically and intellectually predates it?

 

[Zephyrus]

Also, the spoken language in that region was Aramaic, not Hebrew. I doubt the gospel writers even knew Hebrew. They probably read the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT from the 3rd century BCE. So already you have them interpreting their own religion through a cultural-linguistic lens.

 

[Blind Guardian]

I disagree. Many things can be lost not only in the basic act of translation, but by not understanding the culture/time period a writing was written in/ the culture/situation of the author, you cannot fully grasp the intent.

Instead you will always defer to understanding based off of your own culture and situation/time period.

Yes, but you'll want to apply whatever it is to yourself, in your own culture, and not the culture it originally sprung from.

Of course everyone has to be coloured to some extent by their origins, and therefore everyone will interpret things in somewhat different ways. However, assuming that the subject at hand is something as universal as religion (which deals with life itself, basically), I don't see how it should be impossible to translate the essence of the writing so that other human beings can take part of it at the same level of understanding.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

The purpose of religion has never been to have other humans understand the holy books of whatever religion...

 

[Einherjar86]

All he did was reteach His Father's original word.

I'm without a Bible at the moment, and I'm not home for the weekend, but there are other examples. When I get home I'll try and find them.

Hey Dak, tell me what you think about this in respect to the Sermon on the Mount.

The Old Testament God is commonly recognized as the vengeful, wrathful God, as shown in the Old Testament by the commonly perpetuated belief of just retribution. In my opinion, the New Testament differs greatly from the teachings of the Old because it completely opposes this theory of just retribution.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ speaks specifically to the poor and tells them that right and wrong are not based merely how you act, but also how you think. This inverts the established order of just retribution, which was based completely on action (an eye for an eye, etc.). For instance, the act of stoning someone to death was a form of punishment that had been institutionalized by Old Testament teachings; one foul act deserves another.

However, Jesus claims that this is not true in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus internalizes what were previously external social laws ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"); this completely inverts the system established by the Old Testament, which harbored a pretty clear "eye for an eye" mentality. The New Testament moves beyond retribution, and by doing so reverses the order of traditional Jewish society.

Am I wrong about any of this?

 

[Dak]

Hey Dak, tell me what you think about this in respect to the Sermon on the Mount.

The Old Testament God is commonly recognized as the vengeful, wrathful God, as shown in the Old Testament by the commonly perpetuated belief of just retribution. In my opinion, the New Testament differs greatly from the teachings of the Old because it completely opposes this theory of just retribution.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ speaks specifically to the poor and tells them that right and wrong are not based merely how you act, but also how you think. This inverts the established order of just retribution, which was based completely on action (an eye for an eye, etc.). For instance, the act of stoning someone to death was a form of punishment that had been institutionalized by Old Testament teachings; one foul act deserves another.

However, Jesus claims that this is not true in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus internalizes what were previously external social laws ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"); this completely inverts the system established by the Old Testament, which harbored a pretty clear "eye for an eye" mentality. The New Testament moves beyond retribution, and by doing so reverses the order of traditional Jewish society.

Am I wrong about any of this?

I wish I had the time to pull all the scripture out that would more thoroughly answer this, but the Sermon on the mount actually contains a very specific answer to this question:

Matthew 5:

17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The points made after about thinking sin is also sin was add to the understanding, to take it past a mere checklist to keep. It was always meant to be internalized. Just keeping the law perfectly was never enough to save, without having a relationship with the YHWH, and loving His most important creation (fellow human beings).

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

That's all fine and good, but those verses didn't provide an adequate answer to Ein's well-thought out point.

 

[Dak]

Yeah they do. Don't take this the wrong way, but you think the Bible is a big pill of shit like any other religious writing, so why waste your time jumping into discussions understanding a bunch of bullshit?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Because even if I think it's bullshit, if it was written by an all-powerful God with intent to serve as the holy book for the entire human race that he created, there should be some inalienable points in there that I could sink my teeth into, regardless of being a godless heathen.

edit: and granted there are some, but not in this instance

edit2: here's what just occurred how I see it...

"Hey Dakryn, please tell me what you think about this contentious issue. There are cognitive dissonances in the way the Old vs. New Testament teaches things and I'm interested to know where you stand on Old vs. New Testament believability"

"Well, here's some scripture. These verses by Jesus say that his sermon doesn't reverse any of the things said in the Old Testament. In fact, the sermon says that he came to fulfill the Law, not change or abolish it."

But there's still major dissonance in how the Old Testament god was vs. how Jesus acts in the New Testament. Jesus may, of course, wish to fulfill the Law dictated by the Old Testament, but the way he acts (which is pretty much the way to act if you're Christian, duh) is much more in line with how Christianity should be than the Old Testament's wrathful, vengeful god.

I'm reading the first link on Google right now regarding Christian apologetics about the Old Testament's wrathful god.

the bible consistently portrays God as a passionate individual, whose inner experiences of love, compassion, grief, delight, joy, peace, anguish, and moral outrage at atrocity dwarf ours in the extreme. The bible makes no apology for this, but rather exults in the Living One, in contrast to the dead and lifeless idols that surrounded its writers.

"The Bible speaks unashamedly of Yahweh's passion, presenting him as an intense and passionate Being, fervently interested in the world of humans. Not only is there no embarrassment on the part of the OT at Yahweh's possession of emotion, but rather, it is celebrated (see for example, 2 Sam 22:8, 9, 16; Ps 145:8). In fact, his passion guarantees not only that he is intensely interested in the world but that he is a person. This in turn opens up the possibility for communion at the heart of the universe. Therefore, his passion was seen to be continually linked with the implementation of his resolve, and in this, interaction with the world. The God of the OT desired fellowship and interaction with the other persons in his world, and his anger was seen to be part of the actualization of that desire.

So, what I am to understand from this is that the god of the OT was passionate, and thus, the fact that he was an utter douchebag is supposed to be handwaved...because...he was a person?

 

[Dak]

Jesus clearly stated that He was not there to abolish (do away with) the Law(Torah) or the prophets, and that anyone who believed so and taught others that would be least in the kingdom of heaven.

He also stated he was there to "fulfill" the Torah and the prophets.

Fulfill
1 archaic : to make full : fill <her subtle, warm, and golden breath&#8230;fulfills him with beatitude &#8212; Alfred Tennyson>
2 a : to put into effect : execute b : to meet the requirements of (a business order) c : to bring to an end d : to measure up to : satisfy

Now granted one of the definitions is "to bring to an end", which is how plenty of Christian denominations translate it. But that is obviously ludicrous if you substitute that into the context.

When you look at everything else said in the context, "to make full" or "to put into effect" or to "Satisfy" are the only options that can make sense. Jesus never sinned, so that means he kept the entire Torah (again, excluding commands to the temple workers). He also met all the messianic prophecies in the Prophets. This would be "meeting the requirements" or "satisfying".

By taking the commands to a deeper understanding, this would also count as "filling full".