Ass And A Colt?

[Ahh!]

Matthew 21:2-7

[Mythra]

Damn, Ahh. You really wore yourself out on that post, dude.

 

Lucky for you, I understand your quandry here.

 

WTF is up with Jesus summoning an Ass AND a Colt in Matthew 21?

 

Well, here is the answer:

 

It is another sloppy Matthean "fulfillment" of prophecy. Matthew misread Zechariah 9:9 -

 

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

 

Matthew messed up. He read the passage as being two animals. So, Jesus must have summoned two animals. Just another biblical blooper that provides another little insight into how the literary Jesus came to be.

[currentchristian]

Mythra, we must be clones.

 

I, too, knew exactly what he was getting at in that just-barely a post.

 

Mark, Luke and John got it right. Compare here. Matthew did not.

 

Looks like most of the artists got it right: A, B, C, D.

 

-CC

[Mythra]

Okay - so take it another step further:

 

What other "actual events" in Matthew's gospel came as the result of finding it in the OT and then writing it into the jesus story?

 

And Mark does the exact same thing. He puts words into Jesus' mouth in Mark 7. He makes an argument that only makes sense by quoting the mistranslated GREEK Septuagint.

 

What do you think the chances are that Jesus would be quoting a GREEK version of the Old Testament in a discussion with Pharisees?

[currentchristian]

Okay - so take it another step further:

 

What other "actual events" in Matthew's gospel came as the result of finding it in the OT and then writing it into the jesus story?

 

And Mark does the exact same thing. He puts words into Jesus' mouth in Mark 7. He makes an argument that only makes sense by quoting the mistranslated GREEK Septuagint.

 

What do you think the chances are that Jesus would be quoting a GREEK version of the Old Testament in a discussion with Pharisees?

 

I must learn more about the Septuagint. My knowledge is grossly limited here.

 

Mel Gibson tells us that Jesus spoke Aramaic. But his words were translated into Greek for the gospels. Did Jesus read from an Aramaic or Hebrew scroll? I don't know. Did he quote from the Hebrew text or the Septuagint, a Jewish translation into Greek? Or did he read an Aramaic text? I don't know.

 

I'm weak in this area. I'll have to put it on my "learn about this!" list.

 

-CC

[Mythra]

Well, to tell you the truth, I wasn't sure either. So I consulted Google the Omniscient, and came up with this:

 

The oldest written parts of the Bible found were transcribed in three languages. What scholars call the Hebrew Bible (the same books Jews call the Tanakh or Written Torah and Christians call the Old Testament) was first written in Hebrew with a few chapters of the books of Ezra and Daniel recorded in Aramaic. Hebrew had long been the language of the Jewish people, so their scriptures were passed down in Hebrew. Some of the books of the Hebrew Bible may have been written as far back as 1,400 B.C.E., although most of the text was probably written between 900 and 400 B.C.E.

 

Aramaic is a Semitic language that was widely spoken from 600 to 200 B.C.E. in the near Middle East. It was one of the common languages of the region until the 13th century, when Arabic became more prominent. Many people believe Jesus and his apostles spoke Aramaic.

 

The Christian New Testament was written in the first century C.E. in the common Greek of the Mediterranean area and parts of the Middle East at the time. This form of Greek is called Koine Greek. It developed from classical Greek spread by the conquests of Alexander the Great. As different people began to use the tongue, it evolved and changed into Koine Greek between 300 B.C.E. and 300 C.E. This form may have been the second language of Jesus and his apostles -- after all, the gospels note that Jesus spoke with Pontius Pilate, who would have been more likely to understand Greek than Aramaic. The New Testament was probably written in Greek because it was the most common language around the Mediterranean at the time.

 

After the Roman Empire itself was Christianized and Latin become the common language, the entire Bible was translated into Latin. The first Latin version is called the Vulgate. In the mid-15th century, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type, the Latin Vulgate edition of the Christian Bible was the first work he printed. from ask.yahoo.com

[Lycorth]

And therein we have the Babble's biggest problem - constancy. Different books say different things about the same subject. Yeah, what a divine revelation

[currentchristian]

And therein we have the Babble's biggest problem - constancy. Different books say different things about the same subject. Yeah, what a divine revelation

 

Wendywhatever* (aka Varokhar): How many times must CC tell you that it doesn't matter? If one gospel had Jesus crucified, one had him electrocuted, one had him living to 102 and one had him disappearing near the Dead Sea, we'd have a big problem. These inconsistencies about extraneous details mean nothing. At least to me.

 

(I do understand what you are saying, however, in terms of the "the bible is the holy, infallible, inerrent, God-dictated Word of God" crowd.)

 

Wendywhatever =

 

-CC

[Guest]

Mel Gibson tells us that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

 

Well then, it MUST be true if MEL GIBSON said it!!!!!

 

 

Didn't he also say a few things about the holocaust and the Jews?

[Vigile]

How many times must CC tell you that it doesn't matter? If one gospel had Jesus crucified, one had him electrocuted, one had him living to 102 and one had him disappearing near the Dead Sea, we'd have a big problem. These inconsistencies about extraneous details mean nothing. At least to me.

 

Yes we know. Which is why we keep telling you that you are cherry picking and writing your own gospel. The Gospel According to CC. It's an untenable position. That's fine and dandy, but how you think you are uncovering any truths by this method is beyond me and I'm sure everyone else here. I'm sure you think the holy spook guides you, but even what you know about him/her/it/whatever comes from The Gospel According to CC and cannot be relied upon.

 

 

(I do understand what you are saying, however, in terms of the "the bible is the holy, infallible, inerrent, God-dictated Word of God" crowd.)

 

At least they have some rhyme or reason to their madness.

[Lycorth]

Wendywhatever* (aka Varokhar): How many times must CC tell you that it doesn't matter? If one gospel had Jesus crucified, one had him electrocuted, one had him living to 102 and one had him disappearing near the Dead Sea, we'd have a big problem. These inconsistencies about extraneous details mean nothing. At least to me.

 

(I do understand what you are saying, however, in terms of the "the bible is the holy, infallible, inerrent, God-dictated Word of God" crowd.)

 

Wendywhatever =

 

And how many times must I tell you that, since there are no qualifiers anywhere in the text of the Babble that state otherwise, the entire text was clearly meant to be taken literally, given the overall seriousness of the subject matter presented?

 

Seriously, CC, no Xian has ever considered anything about the Babble to be anything other than the literal, unvarnished truth. Historically, that is. Only in the past few centuries have people been slowly relaxing that. The simple truth is because the Babble is considered to be the divine revelation of an infallible god, and hence is perfect and true in every way.

 

But if there are conflicting accounts and contradictions, then it clearly is either

 

1. A divine revelation from an imperfect god, and hence untrustworthy

2. A story made up by various humans who evidently didn't check the consistency of their tale.

 

I know that you look on the Babble as being mostly metaphor and non-literal, but that is not the clear intention one gets from reading the plain text nor is it the manner of belief which Xians have historically held - and many persist in to this day. Your interpretation of the Babble is surely more healthy than the traditional Xian approach, but it is still a modern concept, based not on the traditional teachings of any sect or individual except yourself.

 

Would you admit that your take on Xianity isn't true to the historical version of the religion? That it's ultimately your own opinion, based on what you find right and good? Personally, I look upon several religions (especially Asatru, the one I hold in highest regard) in that fashion, but I am honest enough to admit that I'm just doing my own thing and not being true to the authentic version. Know what I mean?

[Fweethawt]

Mr. Neil says it best...

 

 

[NotBlinded]

I don't think that it can be proven that the writings were meant to be taken literally. Yes, the council thought they should and hence the bible being taught as the literal truth. Which, IMO, is a corruption of the original intent.

 

Does anybody take any other mythology as historically and literally as being the truth? It's an absurd notion that literalists need to get away from in order to find anything spiritual about it. It has to be understood that it isn't what they (council) said it is, and that is obvious.

 

That is why you have to cherry-pick and see that many things were added and taken away in order to give a biased slant. It doesn't mean that everything in it is trash or fiction. Does anyone consider poetry or art as fiction?

[currentchristian]

Mel Gibson tells us that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

 

Well then, it MUST be true if MEL GIBSON said it!!!!!

 

 

Didn't he also say a few things about the holocaust and the Jews?

 

He was drunk and don't you know that being a drunkard gives you the perfect alibi for deplorable behavior! Too bad I'm a teetotaler and can't use that excuse the next time I say something stupid.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Yes we know. Which is why we keep telling you that you are cherry picking and writing your own gospel. The Gospel According to CC. It's an untenable position. That's fine and dandy, but how you think you are uncovering any truths by this method is beyond me and I'm sure everyone else here. I'm sure you think the holy spook guides you, but even what you know about him/her/it/whatever comes from The Gospel According to CC and cannot be relied upon.

 

We all cherry pick. About something. I plead guilty.

 

Regarding the holy spook guiding me. Absolutely not!! How dare you credit someone else for my work! I claim all my theories as my own ... or somebody's on the Internet!! No holy anything invovled.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

And how many times must I tell you that, since there are no qualifiers anywhere in the text of the Babble that state otherwise, the entire text was clearly meant to be taken literally, given the overall seriousness of the subject matter presented?

 

Seriously, CC, no Xian has ever considered anything about the Babble to be anything other than the literal, unvarnished truth. Historically, that is. Only in the past few centuries have people been slowly relaxing that. The simple truth is because the Babble is considered to be the divine revelation of an infallible god, and hence is perfect and true in every way.

 

But if there are conflicting accounts and contradictions, then it clearly is either

 

1. A divine revelation from an imperfect god, and hence untrustworthy

2. A story made up by various humans who evidently didn't check the consistency of their tale.

 

I know that you look on the Babble as being mostly metaphor and non-literal, but that is not the clear intention one gets from reading the plain text nor is it the manner of belief which Xians have historically held - and many persist in to this day. Your interpretation of the Babble is surely more healthy than the traditional Xian approach, but it is still a modern concept, based not on the traditional teachings of any sect or individual except yourself.

 

Would you admit that your take on Xianity isn't true to the historical version of the religion? That it's ultimately your own opinion, based on what you find right and good? Personally, I look upon several religions (especially Asatru, the one I hold in highest regard) in that fashion, but I am honest enough to admit that I'm just doing my own thing and not being true to the authentic version. Know what I mean?

 

I'm glad you took my "wendywhatever" joke as just that.

 

I don't have all the history at hand and am at work (don't tell!) so can't go on a rip-roaring research ride right now, but some church fathers read many of the OT stories metaphorically. Others have through the ages. But, yes, you are right that most have taken the stories as "gospel truth."

 

But I don't think either of your choices above is correct. I pick another one:

 

An anthology of writings (psalms, hymns, poems, histories, theologies, myths) by Hebrews and Israelites and Jews and Christians exploring the nature of God and the circumstances in which these individuals believed God to have been involved in their lives, culminating in the life of one Jesus of Nazareth.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Mr. Neil says it best...

 

 

 

Honest to goodness, I went looking for something like this last night and couldn't find it! I knew it had to be somewhere. Very funny!

 

Love it.

 

-CC

[Lycorth]

I don't have all the history at hand and am at work (don't tell!) so can't go on a rip-roaring research ride right now, but some church fathers read many of the OT stories metaphorically. Others have through the ages.

 

Such as?

 

The study of the early church was important to me as a Xian, and I never read of a single church father who thought that anything about the OT was figurative or metaphorical, especially the creation accounts and the blood-drenched stories of war and death the OT god is depicted as having partaken gleefully in.

 

They believed it was the literal truth.

 

But I don't think either of your choices above is correct. I pick another one:

 

An anthology of writings (psalms, hymns, poems, histories, theologies, myths) by Hebrews and Israelites and Jews and Christians exploring the nature of God and the circumstances in which these individuals believed God to have been involved in their lives, culminating in the life of one Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Which is basically:

 

2. A story made up by various humans who evidently didn't check the consistency of their tale.

 

And, can you answer the question I posed in that post?

 

Would you admit that your take on Xianity isn't true to the historical version of the religion? That it's ultimately your own opinion, based on what you find right and good? Personally, I look upon several religions (especially Asatru, the one I hold in highest regard) in that fashion, but I am honest enough to admit that I'm just doing my own thing and not being true to the authentic version. Know what I mean?

[Vigile]

We all cherry pick. About something. I plead guilty.

 

I'm going to take that as a non answer.

 

Vigile: You're painting a strawman of my views.

 

Responder: We all use strawmen.

 

Vigile: That's a red herring.

 

Responder: We all use red herrings.

 

Vigile: You are a very slippery fellow.

[currentchristian]

I don't have all the history at hand and am at work (don't tell!) so can't go on a rip-roaring research ride right now, but some church fathers read many of the OT stories metaphorically. Others have through the ages.

 

Such as?

 

The Gnostics, of course, rejected the God of the Old Testment as a demiurge, not worthy of our attention. The Epistle of Barnabas, for example, is a figuarate and spiritualized view of the OT.

 

The church father Bishop Marcion was excommunicated in the first half of the second century, not for allegorizing the OT, but for rejecting the entire OT and cutting out OT references from his "new and improved" NT.

 

The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria embraced an allegorical interpretation of the OT so as to better reconcile Judaism with Greek philosophy. His views were largely embraced by Clement and his student Origen of Alexandria. Origen's On First Principles promoted the allegorical method of Philo of Alexandria. This method was then passed to Ambrose.

 

Here's an excerpt that I like:

 

Allegory as it was developed by the early Church Fathers took up and expanded an ancient approach to the Hebrew Scriptures identified especially with the Hellenistic Jew Philo of Alexandria. In a word, the allegorical approach to interpretation sought to discern in the figures, events and rituals of the Old Testament a hidden reference to similar realities of the New Testament that fulfilled those earlier images. While the Fathers placed different emphases on the historical value of any given Old Testament passage, they tended to look beyond its purely historical significance, in order to discover the deeper, higher or fuller meaning that God Himself, acting through the Holy Spirit, wished to convey.

 

Source: http://www.oca.org/CHRIST-life-article.asp...y&YEAR=2004

 

While you are correct that most have assumed a literal understanding of the OT and in fact I do take much of it as originally written as literal history and in fact some of it as reliable history, there certainly is a precedent to allegorize it. One should do what one's conscience demands.

 

 

And, can you answer the question I posed in that post?

 

Would you admit that your take on Xianity isn't true to the historical version of the religion? That it's ultimately your own opinion, based on what you find right and good? Personally, I look upon several religions (especially Asatru, the one I hold in highest regard) in that fashion, but I am honest enough to admit that I'm just doing my own thing and not being true to the authentic version. Know what I mean?

 

I would say that my take is different that many, but not without precedent. I believe that the Kingdom is a gloriously large tree and many birds nest among its many branches. Each of us must find the branch that works for us. Or find another tree altogether in which to enjoy one's life.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

We all cherry pick. About something. I plead guilty.

 

I'm going to take that as a non answer.

 

Vigile: You're painting a strawman of my views.

 

Responder: We all use strawmen.

 

Vigile: That's a red herring.

 

Responder: We all use red herrings.

 

Vigile: You are a very slippery fellow.

We're all slippery fellows, Vigile_del_fuoco1!

 

-CC

[Lycorth]

The Gnostics, of course, rejected the God of the Old Testment as a demiurge, not worthy of our attention. The Epistle of Barnabas, for example, is a figuarate and spiritualized view of the OT.

 

The Gnostics weren't church fathers, nor did they have any hand in the formation of Xian tradition or theology.

 

The church father Bishop Marcion was excommunicated in the first half of the second century, not for allegorizing the OT, but for rejecting the entire OT and cutting out OT references from his "new and improved" NT.

 

That he was, but he wasn't a church father, and also had no hand in the formation of Xian tradition. Like the Gnostics, he was part of his own thing.

 

The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria embraced an allegorical interpretation of the OT so as to better reconcile Judaism with Greek philosophy.

 

He did, but wasn't a church father.

 

What I am talking about is the actual Xian church. Not any offshoot or breakaway sect, but the entity that formed and shaped Xian theology and teaching for centuries. The entity from which many sects sprang. The church that split to form the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, the former later giving birth to the Lutheran sect and so on.

 

Nowhere in this is ever to be found anyone who does not tout the Babble as being the literal truth, which is what I was getting at.

 

While you are correct that most have assumed a literal understanding of the OT and in fact I do take much of it as originally written as literal history and in fact some of it as reliable history, there certainly is a precedent to allegorize it. One should do what one's conscience demands.

 

There is precedent, but only amongst those who rebelled against the church and, ultimately, Xianity. That much I know you wouldn't claim to be.

 

I highlighted that last bit because, though I find it laudable, a statement like that puts you in the position of authority, an attitude that has never been supported by any Xian sect to the best of my knowledge. Say that to any serious Xian, no matter the sect, and you'd be accused of playing God.

 

And citing Gnostics and Philo, etc, is all well and good, but historically, people like these were always the interlopers, the rebels - not the originals. They did not first spread or codify the basics of the religion their own sects are spin-offs of - they merely did their own thing with something else as a foundation for that. They were the imitators, not the originators.

 

Just food for thought.

 

I would say that my take is different that many, but not without precedent. I believe that the Kingdom is a gloriously large tree and many birds nest among its many branches. Each of us must find the branch that works for us. Or find another tree altogether in which to enjoy one's life.

 

But is your take different from the original version, that which history can show us was the version first touted amongst believers to the whole world? Yes or no - and why. That's all I ask, not your opinions on the nature of the "Kingdom."

[currentchristian]

Varokhar, you left out this part of my post that dealt directly with church fathers:

 

His views [Philo's] were largely embraced by Clement and his student Origen of Alexandria. Origen's On First Principles promoted the allegorical method of Philo of Alexandria. This method was then passed to Ambrose.

 

Here's an excerpt that I like:

 

Allegory as it was developed by the early Church Fathers took up and expanded an ancient approach to the Hebrew Scriptures identified especially with the Hellenistic Jew Philo of Alexandria. In a word, the allegorical approach to interpretation sought to discern in the figures, events and rituals of the Old Testament a hidden reference to similar realities of the New Testament that fulfilled those earlier images. While the Fathers placed different emphases on the historical value of any given Old Testament passage, they tended to look beyond its purely historical significance, in order to discover the deeper, higher or fuller meaning that God Himself, acting through the Holy Spirit, wished to convey.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

I would say that my take is different that many, but not without precedent. I believe that the Kingdom is a gloriously large tree and many birds nest among its many branches. Each of us must find the branch that works for us. Or find another tree altogether in which to enjoy one's life.

 

But is your take different from the original version, that which history can show us was the version first touted amongst believers to the whole world? Yes or no - and why. That's all I ask, not your opinions on the nature of the "Kingdom."

 

The vision of the Kingdom I wrote of was Jesus' vision, not mine (Matthew 13.31,32 & Mark 4.30-32):

 

And He [Jesus] said, "How shall we picture the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil, yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree and forms large branches; so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches and rest under its shade."

 

It is my view that many Christians in history have chopped this tree to pieces, cutting off branches, shooing away various birds and eliminating the profound meaning of this teaching. I take this simile literally. The Kingdom is for everyone and all will find a branch to rest upon, eventually.

 

-CC

[Lycorth]

Varokhar, you left out this part of my post that dealt directly with church fathers:

 

His views [Philo's] were largely embraced by Clement and his student Origen of Alexandria. Origen's On First Principles promoted the allegorical method of Philo of Alexandria. This method was then passed to Ambrose.

 

Here's an excerpt that I like:

 

Allegory as it was developed by the early Church Fathers took up and expanded an ancient approach to the Hebrew Scriptures identified especially with the Hellenistic Jew Philo of Alexandria. In a word, the allegorical approach to interpretation sought to discern in the figures, events and rituals of the Old Testament a hidden reference to similar realities of the New Testament that fulfilled those earlier images. While the Fathers placed different emphases on the historical value of any given Old Testament passage, they tended to look beyond its purely historical significance, in order to discover the deeper, higher or fuller meaning that God Himself, acting through the Holy Spirit, wished to convey.

 

I bolded the most relevant bit.

 

I grew up Catholic and was steeped in the Church's teaching tradition and line of thinking. They were big on looking into virtually every part of the Babble, to find any and all deeper meanings and possible allegories and metaphors that they felt were useful. Then again, that's just human wisdom in action - to always look for deeper meanings.

 

Thing is, they did not deny the historicity of the Babble, or the events and individuals and places depicted therein. Noah and his ark were just as real as you or I, or the air we breathe - same goes for Nazareth, the virgin birth, the Tower of Babel, and so on. They sought to always interpret and re-interpret these things so that they always had meaning for the modern day. But they did not deny the literalist theme and atmosphere of their religion nor denied anything that the Babble taught.

 

You have no problem with people allegorizing the Babble, but where do you stand on the other side of the coin? Did all the events that took place in the pages of the Babble really do so, and did the individuals really exist, in history?

 

The vision of the Kingdom I wrote of was Jesus' vision, not mine (Matthew 13.31,32 & Mark 4.30-32):

 

And He [Jesus] said, "How shall we picture the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil, yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree and forms large branches; so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches and rest under its shade."

 

It is my view that many Christians in history have chopped this tree to pieces, cutting off branches, shooing away various birds and eliminating the profound meaning of this teaching. I take this simile literally. The Kingdom is for everyone and all will find a branch to rest upon, eventually.

 

Yet this parable presupposes acceptance of Xianity, as commanded by the Great Commission. Now, I know that your belief is that the Great Commission is over and done with, but nowhere in the pages of the Babble is it ever stated or implied that it will ever be so, until the end of the world, at which time there is no more need to convert people. But this isn't the idea one gets from reading the plain text of the Babble.

 

Heaven isn't for everyone, it's only for those who accept Jebus and obey him, as per the Babble itself.

 

Your view undercuts the traditional view of Xianity, and the plain text of the Babble, in many ways. Your view is nobly liberal, in regards to the oppressiveness of the Babble's teachings, but it boggles me how you seem to think your view (heretofore a modern one without any historical basis or precedent) is the True Way™ to look at the Babble.

 

I'm an Atheist, but I still consider myself Asatruar. However, I do not believe the gods exist as sentient, immortal beings in some alternate dimension or in our own. At best, the gods exist in our minds, in our hearts and in our imaginations, in regards to those who choose to believe in them in any way. I revere the religion of Asatru, both in its modern and ancient forms, but despite the reverence I have for it, I cannot be honest and yet fail to admit my take on it is anything short of a modern one, ultimately guided by my own desires and opinions. It would be nice, IMO, if Asatru were practiced in ancient times as I currently hold it, but I'm under no such illusions that it ever was so.

 

Why you cannot admit the same about Xianity, an inherently oppressive, anti-gay, exclusivist religion is beyond me