| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 10:59 pm Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
 |
|
On May 29, 3:02 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net>:
zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you want freewill? A gnostic lives a life of "thy will be done". It
is not an easy thing to give up.
I didn't realize the gnostic was fatalistic?
Isn't, of course. ZG misrepresents the gnostic outlook in
almost every post, confusing gnosticism with his personal
mish-mash of New Age nonsense and Christian orthodoxy. Leaving
room for differences and variations, as usual, the gnostics
rebel against fate -- _heimarmene_ -- which they associate with
cosmic tyranny.
-- Catawumpus
|
What? No reply for this gem of a question? Let me know if you need me
to answer this for you.
My other question is how can you have christian gnosticism if you
don't honor Jesus...it would seem that he's name is embedded in the
language of what it refers to??? |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:58 am Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | Being unable to even clarify myself
|
You clearly placed yourself into conflict with the gnostic
perspective -- not a problem, you're entitled to your own
outlook -- and then just as plainly misrepresented the gnostics
by pretending they agreed with you.
For instance, you denounce the idea that the maker of this
world isn't the true God, calling it "pure speculation and
arrogance." But gnosticism lowers the creator from God Supreme
to inferior demiurge.
You label the body "the temple of the soul." The gnostics
compare it with a prison, call it contemptible, and look
forward to leaving it behind: the very opposite of your stated
position.
You dislike the concept of a "doomsday message," while the
gnostics prophesy the destruction of this world, once more
putting your point of view directly in opposition to gnosticism.
Again, you're welcome to your opinions. Problem is you've
got a habit of distorting gnosticism to make the gnostics
accept them. For example, you falsely claim Valentinus rejects
the concept of the demiurge. Dead wrong according to the
historical evidence, as I demonstrated before: Valentinus very
clearly distinguishes "the uncreated Father" from the
demiurge, a being who's created by Sophia while she's "deprived
of her spiritual substance." (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1.) Ditto
other Valentinians like Ptolemy, who divides Bythos, located up
"in the invisible and ineffable heights above," from the
demiurge, "creator of all animal and material substances," once
again the product of Sophia's fall. (AH 1.1.1. and 1.5.2.)
You want argue against gnosticism, go right ahead. Want to lie
about it? Not so good.
| Quote: | so you can continue to twist my words
|
Since I never started twisting your words, I couldn't even
possibly continue -- I've simply been impolite enough to
remind you about what you said. I'll give message-ID's for the
posts if you want me to.
| Quote: | became tiresome....plus just not enough time. (I do like a good
debate)
|
On the contrary: instead of standing up for your opinions
over and against the gnostics' thinking, you've falsely
claimed they agree with you. As I already showed, the evidence
disputes you time after time.
| Quote: | in regards to one G-d with duality or two separate G-ds a mortal man
cannot answer such a question. I suppose you have special astral
powers that can prove one way or the other which is correct...
|
You're dodging again. Gnostics separate the true God from
the demiurge: the arrogant, ignorant maker of this world.
You say that's "pure speculation and arrogance," and you choose
Plato's flattery of the demiurge over the gnostics' critical
view, which you label a corrupted -- your word -- understanding.
| Quote: | No...I've empathized with the theory of a demiurge.
|
You labeled the division of the demiurge from the true god
"pure speculation and arrogance." Far from an empathetic
response. You also preferred Plato's notion of a good demiurge
to the inferior one pictured in gnosticism, claiming the
gnostics have a corrupted understanding. There again you quite
clearly rejected the gnostic view.
| Quote: | Knowledge allows us to escape from a spiritual place not a physical
place.
|
Both according to the gnostics: gnosis allows leaving the
material world behind -- e.g. escaping reincarnation -- and
the comsos as a whole will eventually be destroyed. I've given
chapter and verse.
Not according to you. You falsely compared the opposition
of the true God to the false one, spirit to matter, above to
below, etc. in gnosticism with the harmonious whole represented
by yin and yang.
| Quote: | and this divine realm in heaven can be found on earth. Jesus found it.
|
Depends where you read. In places Jesus teaches to become
a passer-by -- a saying that you quickly objected to --
prophesies the destruction of this world, preaches against life
on earth, etc.
| Quote: | Ptolemy is correct. To enter the pleroma is to become human.
|
You're wrong again. Ptolemy doesn't say that to enter the
pleroma is to become human. He contends the demiurge and
others like him are eternally barred, and that those who ascend
lose their souls. AH 1.7.1.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:59 am Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | So, in the concrete and practical, how does the gnostic idea of the
"body" play out in terms of someone like me with chronic pain and
depend on opioids to marginally function in the world? I was "given"
a flawed body...on the other hand, technology has given me the means
to deal with pain. I seem to have the means from man's ability to
manipulate this flawed world we live in...even to the point that
without pain meds I wouldn't be able to sit here for a few minutes and
converse with you about spiritual matters.
|
Perfectly fits the gnostic claim that the body is a prison
worth escaping. You could be strictly ascetic and refuse to
take the drugs -- like a prisoner who would rather be sick than
accept the jailer's medicine -- but it makes good sense to
fight back in any way you can, like a prisoner who tunnels with
the jailer's shovel.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 1:02 am Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you want freewill? A gnostic lives a life of "thy will be done". It
is not an easy thing to give up.
I didn't realize the gnostic was fatalistic?
|
Isn't, of course. ZG misrepresents the gnostic outlook in
almost every post, confusing gnosticism with his personal
mish-mash of New Age nonsense and Christian orthodoxy. Leaving
room for differences and variations, as usual, the gnostics
rebel against fate -- _heimarmene_ -- which they associate with
cosmic tyranny.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
shriven leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:03 am Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
On Thu, 29 May 2008 20:02:04 GMT, Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
| Quote: | Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you want freewill? A gnostic lives a life of "thy will be done". It
is not an easy thing to give up.
I didn't realize the gnostic was fatalistic?
Isn't, of course. ZG misrepresents the gnostic outlook in
almost every post, confusing gnosticism with his personal
mish-mash of New Age nonsense and Christian orthodoxy. Leaving
room for differences and variations, as usual, the gnostics
rebel against fate -- _heimarmene_ -- which they associate with
cosmic tyranny.
-- Catawumpus
|
Nice to see you're again active in the group, O Feline One. As
always, enjoying your posts.
- sl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | It is easier for a rope to enter the
eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of G-d. With that
said
|
Not the Biblical saying. We've been over this. Seems you
returned to ARG in order to repeat all your mistakes one by
one. The scriptural version runs, "It is easier for a camel to
go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to
enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25 and
Luke 18:25.) "Camel" isn't a mistranslation: the large
majority of manuscripts have "kamelos," i.e., "camel," and only
a few, late copies read "kamilos," meaning "rope."
Furthermore, the hermeneutic rule of thumb is that the
difficult reading is more likely the right one: a scribe could
easily have decided to fix a supposed mistake by changing
"camel" into "rope," but the converse is much harder to imagine.
Third, the Talmud talks about getting an elephant thru the
eye of a needle. "Perhaps you are from Pumbeditha, he
retorted, where they draw an elephant through the eye of a
needle." Baba Metzia 38b, Rabbi Shesheth, Soncinco translation.
Heideana:
| Quote: | My other question is how can you have christian gnosticism if you
don't honor Jesus...it would seem that he's name is embedded in the
language of what it refers to??? Apologies if I'm missing
something...thanks for both of your thoughts/fellowship...
|
ZG:
| Quote: | Good question for Catawumpus.
|
O.k. Christian orthodoxy dishonors Jesus by lining him up
with the creator of the heavens and the earth, but that's
nonetheless one style of Christianity. The canonical Christian
scriptures sometimes deify Jesus, but in other places they
show him distinguishing himself from God or denying his
divinity, while God is a shadowy figure with ambiguous identity.
In Christian gnosticism Jesus is usually a heavenly being
other than God, and needless to say God isn't the maker of this
world.
Not-incidentally, Christian gnosticism often discriminates
between Jesus and Christ, splitting them up in various
different ways, and sometimes multiplies them, resulting in two
Jesuses and two Christs.
Of course gnosticism isn't always Christian. The
Mandaeans, e.g., believe that Jesus is a dangerous sorcerer who
can't be trusted.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | What? No reply for this gem of a question? Let me know if you need me
to answer this for you.
|
Since your answers tend to be wrong, you're not the one to
ask.
Heideana:
| Quote: | My other question is how can you have christian gnosticism if you
don't honor Jesus...it would seem that he's name is embedded in the
language of what it refers to???
|
In Christian gnosticism, Jesus usually gets the honorable
role of heavenly being, although things can be more
complicated; Jesus and Christ are sometimes divided, multiplied
or both at once. And of course gnosticism isn't always
Christian. To the Mandaeans, for example, Jesus is a dangerous
sorcerer who can't be trusted.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
shriven leper <bastasch8647@comcast.net>:
| Quote: | Nice to see you're again active in the group, O Feline One. As
always, enjoying your posts.
|
Shriven, welcome back! If you were gone. Good to see you
here again, too. To be honest with you I'm more crow-like
than feline, and by a wide margin. But when I posted as Corvus
it didn't feel right: too Latinate. I considered trying
Corbie, but that would be much too Scottish, so I stuck with my
old theme.
Finally have my copy of _The Gospel of Judas_. I mean the
whole book, not just the selection that got onto the web.
Haven't read it yet, but at least it's here now, waiting for me
to find time.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
shriven leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:00:05 GMT, Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
| Quote: | shriven leper <bastasch8647@comcast.net>:
Nice to see you're again active in the group, O Feline One. As
always, enjoying your posts.
Shriven, welcome back!
|
Thanks!
I'd stick my nose in a few times off and on... but when I did, seemed
not a whole lot was going on...
snipped
| Quote: |
Finally have my copy of _The Gospel of Judas_. I mean the
whole book, not just the selection that got onto the web.
Haven't read it yet, but at least it's here now, waiting for me
to find time.
-- Catawumpus
|
That's great. After you've had a chance to read it, I'd love to get
your "take" on it...
- sl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:34 pm Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
On May 30, 1:51 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
It is easier for a rope to enter the
eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of G-d. With that
said
Not the Biblical saying. We've been over this. Seems you
returned to ARG in order to repeat all your mistakes one by
one. The scriptural version runs, "It is easier for a camel to
go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to
enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25 and
Luke 18:25.) "Camel" isn't a mistranslation: the large
majority of manuscripts have "kamelos," i.e., "camel," and only
a few, late copies read "kamilos," meaning "rope."
Furthermore, the hermeneutic rule of thumb is that the
difficult reading is more likely the right one: a scribe could
easily have decided to fix a supposed mistake by changing
"camel" into "rope," but the converse is much harder to imagine.
Third, the Talmud talks about getting an elephant thru the
eye of a needle. "Perhaps you are from Pumbeditha, he
retorted, where they draw an elephant through the eye of a
needle." Baba Metzia 38b, Rabbi Shesheth, Soncinco translation.
|
Actually these are not my "mistakes" but (as usual) the "mistakes" of
scholars who have studied in depth on this. I will email them about
their errors on account of some guy on the internet refuting it. The
following is but one example .
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. I will quote
from page 167.
"The Aramaic word gamla means camel, a large rope and a beam. The
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."
Most English versions of the Gospels came from Greek texts by
translators who may have known nothing about Aramaic. Thus "camel"
would have been translated instead of "rope". It takes little effort
to imagine Yeshua, while walking along the sea coast, pointing to a
rope and saying, "It is easier for a camel [a gamla, a rope] to go
through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the
kingdom of God".
| Quote: |
Heideana:
My other question is how can you have christian gnosticism if you
don't honor Jesus...it would seem that he's name is embedded in the
language of what it refers to??? Apologies if I'm missing
something...thanks for both of your thoughts/fellowship...
ZG:
Good question for Catawumpus.
O.k. Christian orthodoxy dishonors Jesus by lining him up
with the creator of the heavens and the earth, but that's
nonetheless one style of Christianity. The canonical Christian
scriptures sometimes deify Jesus, but in other places they
show him distinguishing himself from God or denying his
divinity, while God is a shadowy figure with ambiguous identity.
In Christian gnosticism Jesus is usually a heavenly being
other than God, and needless to say God isn't the maker of this
world.
Not-incidentally, Christian gnosticism often discriminates
between Jesus and Christ, splitting them up in various
different ways, and sometimes multiplies them, resulting in two
Jesuses and two Christs.
Of course gnosticism isn't always Christian. The
Mandaeans, e.g., believe that Jesus is a dangerous sorcerer who
can't be trusted.
-- Catawumpus
|
Be sure to tell them churches they dishonor Jesus with what they
do...good grief. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
| Quote: |
- Show quoted text -
I didn't realize the gnostic was fatalistic?
To negative...more like a believer in things such as destiny.
|
Destiny I can live with, since it casts fate as a kind of design that
allows for situational experience and isn't "fatalistic". As I think
about the lack of choice, or "fate" is also pre-determinism, yes?
| Quote: | I'm not a subscriber to
"radical freedom" in the Sartean sense, however I do subscribe to the
notion of situational freedom where I have the choice to act on what I
know and don't know within the context/bounds of my situation...Its'
not very Platonic, but I think its' rooted in certain readings of
Artistotle...practically speaking, I have the choice to take
medication or be in pain.
Through the actions of Jesus we know G-d does not want anyone to
suffer. Take the meds. btw...Have you tried G-ds best pain reliever
maryjane?
I have choice to respond to the resonating
call to me from Gnosticism. On the other hand I couldn't respond to
the call of say Gnosticism if I couldn't hear it because something in
the situation blocking the call...perhaps its' all interwoven with how
the "holy spirit" flows thru me and the situation...
Not everyone can hear the call. It is easier for a rope to enter the
eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of G-d. With that
said...seek and ye shall find. Patience and persistence are key.
|
I think we're on the same page! Situational issues can affect my
ability to hear the "call"....
| Quote: |
If I'm recalling correctly, the argument against "radical freedom"
hinges on the argument of being completely divorced from the situation
so it has no effect on your choices...you can never be free of your
situation, as it's inherent that your body is always already situated
in a situation by the very language you think and feel about things.
I can see this being amplified even further if we were given flawed
bodies by the creator and we are always having to "fix" them...
If I read right "radical freedom" is all about what's in it for me.
The opposite of gnostic thinking.
|
Sort of...its' the ability to choose whatever I want to do, regardless
of the situation or needs/freedoms of others. It divorces you from the
situation which negates the freedom of others. Or at least that's
what I was taught...problem is that this position assumes my needs are
the most important, despite the needs and freedoms of others. It took
me awhile to figure out why De Sade is discussed so much in post-
modern literature...he's the perfect example of radical freedom where
his need to sexually dominate others negates their freedom to not
wanting to be dominated/tortured/killed, etc. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
On May 30, 1:57 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
What? No reply for this gem of a question? Let me know if you need me
to answer this for you.
Since your answers tend to be wrong, you're not the one to
ask.
Heideana:
My other question is how can you have christian gnosticism if you
don't honor Jesus...it would seem that he's name is embedded in the
language of what it refers to???
In Christian gnosticism, Jesus usually gets the honorable
role of heavenly being, although things can be more
complicated; Jesus and Christ are sometimes divided, multiplied
or both at once. And of course gnosticism isn't always
Christian. To the Mandaeans, for example, Jesus is a dangerous
sorcerer who can't be trusted.
-- Catawumpus
|
According to Marvin Meyer, premier scholar of Gnostic and other
Christian literature, Jesus is presented as an "ultimate wisdom
teacher, a kind of mysterious Jewish Zen master, who scandalized
listeners by his radical egalitarianism (regarding women, slaves, the
poor, the marginalized as of equal status, or more, with establishment
male believers) and his insistence on living the message, spiritual
experience, vs. outer observance only."
Sounds about right to me...did you miss or dismiss this definition? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
On May 30, 9:39 am, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: | - Show quoted text -
I didn't realize the gnostic was fatalistic?
To negative...more like a believer in things such as destiny.
Destiny I can live with, since it casts fate as a kind of design that
allows for situational experience and isn't "fatalistic". As I think
about the lack of choice, or "fate" is also pre-determinism, yes?
I'm not a subscriber to
"radical freedom" in the Sartean sense, however I do subscribe to the
notion of situational freedom where I have the choice to act on what I
know and don't know within the context/bounds of my situation...Its'
not very Platonic, but I think its' rooted in certain readings of
Artistotle...practically speaking, I have the choice to take
medication or be in pain.
Through the actions of Jesus we know G-d does not want anyone to
suffer. Take the meds. btw...Have you tried G-ds best pain reliever
maryjane?
I have choice to respond to the resonating
call to me from Gnosticism. On the other hand I couldn't respond to
the call of say Gnosticism if I couldn't hear it because something in
the situation blocking the call...perhaps its' all interwoven with how
the "holy spirit" flows thru me and the situation...
Not everyone can hear the call. It is easier for a rope to enter the
eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of G-d. With that
said...seek and ye shall find. Patience and persistence are key.
I think we're on the same page! Situational issues can affect my
ability to hear the "call"....
|
So do I...Speaking of situational issues I can relate to you my time
in a hospital undergoing toxic shock. While i cannot say I was near
death I most certainly felt like it. Point is I had a very vivid
waking dream in which a messenger asked me a question. The neat part
of this story is that my experience is pretty much universal
concerning NDE and very similar to the experience Jesus had in the
desert. Situational indeed!
| Quote: |
If I'm recalling correctly, the argument against "radical freedom"
hinges on the argument of being completely divorced from the situation
so it has no effect on your choices...you can never be free of your
situation, as it's inherent that your body is always already situated
in a situation by the very language you think and feel about things.
I can see this being amplified even further if we were given flawed
bodies by the creator and we are always having to "fix" them...
If I read right "radical freedom" is all about what's in it for me.
The opposite of gnostic thinking.
Sort of...its' the ability to choose whatever I want to do, regardless
of the situation or needs/freedoms of others. It divorces you from the
situation which negates the freedom of others. Or at least that's
what I was taught...problem is that this position assumes my needs are
the most important, despite the needs and freedoms of others. It took
me awhile to figure out why De Sade is discussed so much in post-
modern literature...he's the perfect example of radical freedom where
his need to sexually dominate others negates their freedom to not
wanting to be dominated/tortured/killed, etc.
|
Sounds like something the demiurge would approve of. Thanks for the
clarification. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | According to Marvin Meyer, premier scholar of Gnostic and other
Christian literature, Jesus is presented as an "ultimate wisdom
teacher, a kind of mysterious Jewish Zen master, who scandalized
listeners by his radical egalitarianism (regarding women, slaves, the
poor, the marginalized as of equal status, or more, with establishment
male believers) and his insistence on living the message, spiritual
experience, vs. outer observance only."
|
What you've pasted in is the publisher's blurb for Meyer's
book _The Gnostic Gospels of Jesus_.
| Quote: | Sounds about right to me...
|
Meaningless, since you've already demonstrated you have no
idea what _right_ is.
| Quote: | did you miss or dismiss this definition?
|
Did you get yourself all mixed up again? The blurb you've
quoted isn't a definition: it's advertising for Marvin
Meyer's book. He generally does o.k. I don't always agree with
him, but he's got the idea when he says that in Christian
gnosticism, "the revealer is Jesus the annointed," who "awakens
people who are under the spell of the demiurge," i.e., the
maker of this world, "distinguished from the transcendent deity
in gnostic texts." _Gnostic Bible_ 5. In other words
Christian gnostics put Jesus in opposition to the demiurge, and
divide the demiurge from God.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 12:34 am Post subject: Re: Re religion of Jesus was not Christianity |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | 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.
| Quote: | 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.
| Quote: | 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.
[Jesus and the Creator]
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
