• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scriptural literacy

Radrook said:
Another example of scriptural illiteracy has just cropped up folks This one claims that God wants us to hate knowledge. Obviously its based on extremely self-imposed limited reading followed by an unjustified hasty conclusion. In short what Proverbs or any other part of the Bible tells us about the subject of knowledge doesn't matter. However, if you dissect the Bible into small pieces and ignore context-umm-you are OK. If you bring content to bear, then you are umm a silly cultish fundie. A reasoning which goes to show why some individuals are utterly unqualied to teach.

But hey! I'm not gonna tell em-you tell em! : )
Click to expand...

Where did this crop up?

Can you provide a link or a citation?

Sounds interesting.
 
Radrook said:
Another example of scriptural illiteracy has just cropped up folks This one claims that God wants us to hate knowledge. Obviously its based on extremely self-imposed limited reading followed by an unjustified hasty conclusion.
Click to expand...
One has to prove a so-called god first, then one can talk about its likes and dislikes.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
One has to prove a so-called god first, then one can talk about its likes and dislikes.
Click to expand...

Nah, I don't think so.

You can talk about the likes and dislikes of Zeus, or Klingons, or Hobbits, without having to prove they're real.
 
I agree that scriptural illiteracy exists in that there are those who are critical or dismissive while never having read them. This is akin to saying Life of Brian is a terrible film without having seen it (not that anyone would do such a thing).

The other kind of scriptural illiteracy seems to be where there is disagreement regarding the meaning of the text. This is more problematical. Is the Pope a scriptural illiterate? I think not. However, his reading is quite different from that of say the Seventh Day Adventists or the Christian Scientists not to say the Mormons. Can it be that there is sufficient ambiguity to allow divergence of opinion. Clearly, Radrook, you think not but strands of history would say otherwise.

Moreover I can't see the relevance of the distinction between the Godless and the Godfull. A text is just that, it has grammar, syntax and a historical context. This is true for all scriptures of all religions. Can we not read the Avesta of the Zoroastrians with some understanding unless we believe in Ahuru Mazda? I accept that unless one is a dedicated believer the texts will only have a limited emotional facet for the reader but that does not negate the understanding of the words or an understanding that these words have an emotional capability for believers. This is not scriptural illiteracy though, merely viewing the text dispassionately.
 
Piggy said:
Nah, I don't think so.

You can talk about the likes and dislikes of Zeus, or Klingons, or Hobbits, without having to prove they're real.
Click to expand...
Why don't you throw Harry Potter in there too, more magic stuff.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
Why don't you throw Harry Potter in there too
Click to expand...

Why not? Certainly we could talk about what Harry Potter likes and doesn't like without believing that Harry Potter actually existed.
 
Slightly off topic, but do you know why harry potter get flak from christians but not the golden compass?
 
Toke said:
Slightly off topic, but do you know why harry potter get flak from christians but not the golden compass?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?! GC got all kinds of hate, calls for boycotts, etc.
 
volatile said:
Can someone who Radrook hasn't got on ignore (I suspect Piggy has joined me on that fateful list) PM him or post here and ask him directly to engage with Piggy's fascinating posts? I think a good discussion could ensue, if only he was willing.
Click to expand...
Why would you think that? Are you seeing something in the strawmen he erects that I'm missing?

I say, let him stay sidelined with his vague off-topic ranting. Those who want to have a discussion about Biblical literacy can do so, but based on his record of evasions and non-answers, I don't expect Radrook would add much to the discussion even if he responded to every post.

volatile said:
FWIW, my path to full atheism began with a conversation of much this type with a JW acquaintance - every time I had a query about what I saw as a problem or contradiction in JW theology, no matter how politely I posed it, she'd walk away. It's their standard operating procedure to deliberately avoid pointed questions from intelligent, reasonable questioners.
Click to expand...
Some do. Some say they have to ask their authority figures and will get back to you, and if they do come back it's with some nonsensical fairy tale answer that strikes you dumb just to hear it and realize that somebody actually takes it seriously.
 
Ohh, that explains it, I must have missed almost all of it.

I must follow the wrong/right kind of news.

Thanks :)
 
Piggy said:
Where did this crop up?

Can you provide a link or a citation?

Sounds interesting.
Click to expand...
Probably the "Tree of knowledge" thread. God punished A&E for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so arguably god wants people to have less knowledge. I don't think it's a very strong case, since it was specific knowledge, and that cat's already out of the bag, but I'm pretty sure that's the thread to which R alludes.
 
Radrook said:
Another example of scriptural illiteracy has just cropped up folks This one claims that God wants us to hate knowledge. Obviously its based on extremely self-imposed limited reading followed by an unjustified hasty conclusion.
Click to expand...

Hey, wait a sec! Radrook's constant non-sequiters suddenly make sense! (Kind-of).

Radrook... Did you create this thread solely as a place to post examples of scriptural illiteracy found elsewhere? If so, you could have mentioned this three-hundred posts ago, or at least included the origins of these examples in your posts and saved us a lot of confusion. From our perspective, you've just been posting one strawman argument after another.
 
Brian-M said:
Hey, wait a sec! Radrook's constant non-sequiters suddenly make sense! (Kind-of).

Radrook... Did you create this thread solely as a place to post examples of scriptural illiteracy found elsewhere? If so, you could have mentioned this three-hundred posts ago, or at least included the origins of these examples in your posts and saved us a lot of confusion. From our perspective, you've just been posting one strawman argument after another.
Click to expand...

Oh!

Well, if that's the case....

Yes, Radrook, if you're posting actual examples of arguments from scriptual illiteracy, please do post links and verbatim quotations.

They could be very interesting to discuss!

(And yes, I'm dead serious.)
 
 
Thanks for the links. :)
What exitement over a fairytale, thin skin or what. :jaw-dropp
 
 
Radrook said:
That assumes that discussioin is possible with those hell-bent on foisting straw man arguments at every imaginbable and unimaginable opportunity. It isn't. What happens is they wind up arguing against their own propositions and I wind up watching the ridiculous time-wasting spectacle from the sidelines.
Click to expand...

You know what Rad? I don't see that here, this continues to be a very interesting discussion in history.
You keep bringing up versions of other discussions, but you aren't involving your biblical expertise into this one.

As your sig says; "The Woo Hoo Hoo is strong in this one", You have already assumed that illiterate interpretations are all this thread is about, nothing else.
You've assumed we are all Godless here and therefore you refuse to actually address the discussions here. Why?

I, for one, haven't spent anytime on theologian history except for reading from the bible, but this thread fascinates me and I don't presume anyone here to be Godless. I just hope Piggy, joobz, SK, MarkF, & Co. keep it going.
 
Piggy said:
Yes, Jesus' reference to the ox in the ditch was a response to a challenge regarding the issue of healing on the Sabbath.

It's 1:30 in the morning here, so a more complete response will have to wait til tomorrow, I'm afraid.

Regarding the Essenes it is extremely unlikely that the majority of early Xians would have come from their ranks, as I understand it.

The Essenes were a hermetic end-times cult. They lived apart, outside of Jerusalem, and had their own cult scriptures in addition to Biblical scrolls.

Xianity, by all accounts, was primarily a religion of urban Jews and of converted gentiles.

I've seen some attempts to equate early Xians with Essenes on the basis of certain similarities in doctrine and terminology, but these are much more easily explained by the fact that both were apocalyptic Judaic cults in the same time and place. Of course they shared many common terms and practices.

It's also been argued that Jesus must have been an Essene because he wasn't a Pharisee or Saducee, but this ignores the fact that the Jesus cult was its own school of thought.

When you read Essene documents -- which is possible to do now -- you do find a lot of the same language, but this was language that was all over the place back then, and there is absolutely no indication that the "son of God" or "son of light" of the Essenes was Jesus.

Instead, these references -- and others outside the Essene scriptures -- inform us that the terms applied to Jesus were common in their day.

And I don't know of any evidence that early Xian writers and preachers were targeting Essenes. You could hardly classify those guys as "low hanging fruit". The Essenes were already walking the walk, big time. They were out there living in the desert, waiting for the end of the world.

Their silence about the Essenes is more likely due to their having no contact with such a remote and insular cult which, while also apocalyptic, already had its own annointed one and its own doctrine.
Click to expand...


I've tracked down alot of the works of Josephus, in trying to find out more about the different sects,and here is how he described the Essenes in Antiquities xviii:

"
The doctrine of the Essens is this: That all things are best ascribed to God. They teach the immortality of souls, and esteem that the rewards of righteousness are to be earnestly striven for; and when they send what they have dedicated to God into the temple, they do not offer sacrifices (3) because they have more pure lustrations of their own; on which account they are excluded from the common court of the temple, but offer their sacrifices themselves; yet is their course of life better than that of other men; and they entirely addict themselves to husbandry. It also deserves our admiration, how much they exceed all other men that addict themselves to virtue, and this in righteousness; and indeed to such a degree, that as it hath never appeared among any other men, neither Greeks nor barbarians, no, not for a little time, so hath it endured a long while among them. This is demonstrated by that institution of theirs, which will not suffer any thing to hinder them from having all things in common; so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth than he who hath nothing at all. There are about four thousand men that live in this way, and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants; as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives the handle to domestic quarrels; but as they live by themselves, they minister one to another. They also appoint certain stewards to receive the incomes of their revenues, and of the fruits of the ground; such as are good men and priests, who are to get their corn and their food ready for them. They none of them differ from others of the Essens in their way of living, but do the most resemble those Dacae who are called Polistae (4) [dwellers in cities]."

Another story related by Josephus regarding Simon, a member of the Essenes:

"
Now, before Archelaus was gone up to Rome upon this message, he related this dream to his friends: That he saw ears of corn, in number ten, full of wheat, perfectly ripe, which ears, as it seemed to him, were devoured by oxen. And when he was awake and gotten up, because the vision appeared to beof great importance to him, he sent for the diviners, whose study was employed about dreams. And while some were of one opinion, and some of another, (for all their interpretations did not agree,) Simon, a man of the sect of the Essens, desired leave to speak his mind freely, and said that the vision denoted a change in the affairs of Archelaus, and that not for the better; that oxen, because that animal takes uneasy pains in his labors, denoted afflictions, and indeed denoted, further, a change of affairs, because that land which is ploughed by oxen cannot remain in its former state; and that the ears of corn being ten, determined the like number of years, because an ear of corn grows in one year; and that the time of Archelaus's government was over. And thus did this man expound the dream. Now on the fifth day after this dream came first to Archelaus, the other Archelaus, that was sent to Judea by Caesar to call him away, came hither also."

I am not finding references to the Essenes as an "end-times cult". It appears that some would have been active in the court as seers, so they would have some regular contact with society and city-life(BTW could the Simon mentioned here by Josephus, be the same Simon mentioned in Luke 2:25-35?? ) and Josephus seems to describe them as....communists(well, not politically....:)). Where should I be looking?

Where can one find the writings of the Essenes? I would love to read their text...

BTW:Josephus mentions a fourth sect. Here is that passage:

But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy."

Would this group make up the crack suicide-squad found in The Life of Brian??:D

Thanks for your patience and taking the time to share your knowledge with me regarding my various questions Piggy!
 
Piggy said:
Scrolls were certainly painstaking to produce, but you forget the tradition of public reading. Familiarity with the contents of the scrolls -- those considered sacred, as well as those not considered sacred -- which were used within a community was not rare. The scrolls may have been jealously protected, but the contents were well known.
Click to expand...
You don't gain literacy over some piece of text by hearing bits of it read out in public.
The original question was whether the NT writers would have been familiar with the Hebrew Bible. The answer is certainly yes, as they go to great pains to align their theology with it.
Click to expand...
An evasion, you doubted that the ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament would be an "unfamiliar tongue" for New Testament writers. I asked you what languages you believed the writers of Luke, Matthew and John would be familiar with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom