| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 12:36 am Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
 |
|
shriven leper <bastasch8647@comcast.net>:
| Quote: | I'd stick my nose in a few times off and on... but when I did, seemed
not a whole lot was going on...
|
Yeah, it's been quiet here. Such a small newsgroup. Lose
a few people, the place shuts down.
[_Gospel of Judas_]
| Quote: | That's great. After you've had a chance to read it, I'd love to get
your "take" on it...
|
I'll report back. Probably won't have anything new to say
about the Gospel itself (seems the same as the on-line
version), but I might have a comment or two after I've read the
rest of the thing.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
shriven leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 8:57 am Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:36:47 GMT, Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
| Quote: | shriven leper <bastasch8647@comcast.net>:
I'd stick my nose in a few times off and on... but when I did, seemed
not a whole lot was going on...
Yeah, it's been quiet here. Such a small newsgroup. Lose
a few people, the place shuts down.
|
Yep
| Quote: | [_Gospel of Judas_]
That's great. After you've had a chance to read it, I'd love to get
your "take" on it...
I'll report back. Probably won't have anything new to say
about the Gospel itself (seems the same as the on-line
version), but I might have a comment or two after I've read the
rest of the thing.
-- Catawumpus
|
That would be nice, when you get around to it.
- sl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:35 pm Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
On May 30, 2:34 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
Dr. George Lamsa, who has written extensively about the language and
in his book entitled "Gospel Light" clarifies for us the probable
meaning of Yeshua's words concerning the eye of a needle.
The meaning is obvious: Jesus teaches that rich folks are
very unlikely to enter the kingdom.
I will quote from page 167.
"The Aramaic word gamla means camel, a large rope and a beam. The
The NT saying is translated from Greek. The Greek word in
the large majority of manuscripts is _kamelos_ -- meaning
"camel" -- not _kamilos_, meaning rope. And what's more, logic
argues for the more difficult reading: a scribe might have
fixed a supposed mistake by changing "camel" to "rope," but the
reverse is hard to imagine.
meaning of the word is determined by its context. If the word riding
or burden occurs then gamla means a camel, but when the eye of a
needle is mentioned gamla more correctly means a rope. There is no
connection anywhere in Aramaic speech or literature between camel and
needle, but there is a definite connection between rope and needle."
Again, the saying is in Greek. Jesus refers unambiguously
to a camel except in a few, late copies. And as I already
demonstrated, Jewish literature talks explicitly about slipping
an elephant through a needle's eye.
|
What can I say...experts in the field who, unlike you(?), have
published works which disagrees with your analysis.
| Quote: |
[Jesus and the Creator]
Be sure to tell them churches they dishonor Jesus with what they
do...good grief.
Once again you're siding with Christian orthodoxy over and
against the gnostic perspective.
-- Catawumpus
|
I've already informed you as to why I would have been stoned to death
as a heretic by the Christian orthodox religion. Did you forget? Must
I repeat myself? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:05 am Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>:
[camel, needle's eye]
| Quote: | Again, the saying is in Greek. Jesus refers unambiguously
to a camel except in a few, late copies. And as I already
demonstrated, Jewish literature talks explicitly about slipping
an elephant through a needle's eye.
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
Easy. If you were able to correct your mistakes, then you
could say you were wrong. But as it stands all you can
respond with is a pathetic argument-from-authority evading both
logic and evidence, like so:
| Quote: | ...experts in the field who, unlike you(?), have
published works which disagrees with your analysis.
|
Very ineffective disagreement for the reasons I've already
supplied. Again, the Greek texts undisputedly refer to a
camel (_kamelos_), rather than to a rope (_kamilos_) aside from
a few, late manuscripts. What's more, logic argues for the
more difficult reading (a hermeneutic rule of thumb): a scribe
might have fixed a supposed mistake by changing "camel" to
"rope," but the reverse is hard to imagine. And Lamsa's remark
about the absence of parallels in Aramaic literature is
countered by the presence of one in the Talmud, Baba Metzia 38b.
| Quote: | I've already informed you as to why I would have been stoned to death
as a heretic by the Christian orthodox religion.
|
You've demonstrated that you side with Christian orthodoxy
against the gnostic perspective from your claim that it's
"pure speculation and arrogance" to separate the Creator of the
world from the true God to your sarcastic reply when I said
that orthodox Christianity dishonors Jesus by aligning him with
Yahweh.
Of course you're welcome to your opinions. Trouble is you
tend to confuse them with the gnostics' thinking and to
misrepresent gnosticism in order to make it conform to your own
point of view.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
