Tent.,
" I’m less sure that it would be so much as translation, but more as commentary."
This is my point. Thank you for making it so nicely. 
Dunamis
Jesus oriental gentleman ? that means that either his father or mother are
Oriental.Now from what I’ve read, his mother was jewish , so because of
Holy Trinity, Jesus is Oriental dude.It is either I do not understand your
Humor, or just a fact, that never in my life heard someone calling Jews,
Orientals.
But that is Very Irrelevant, Let me ask You what is " Son of God " Today,
when He’s among Us Again ??
Come On, You should Know that, we’re in Revelation 20 right Now !
the only way to feel that is if U are mentioned in john 6:44, or
matthew 16:17-19 .
Regardless, Bible reading days are Over,“He came in the Night as a Thief”
and now, you will be required to feel and find him if You want to live.
You will hear His Truth, and You will See Him on TV if You will be alive
than.Every single living soul will feel that "and of the life as we know it "
have come when He stop the Time .
And the Race to find out what is going on, will start to Dramaticaly reduce
Human Race. “Crazy People” will Live and Those who Believed they are smart for believing so crazy in their Beliefs will Die .
much respect !
Hi Dunamis,
sorry about the late answer, it has been such a nice day here.
At best it could be said for Paul that he argued against the applicability of the law after the reconciliatory crucifixion and resurrection and argued that the faith of the Gentiles was the fulfilment of the law – which is how I read him. But despite this influence, there still was diversity within the church even up until Constantine. That is why I say that it is a fallacy to claim that Paul unified the church. It was Constantine who enforced the unity of the church, placing pressure upon the bishops to impose an orthodoxy and consequently also a “heresyâ€. But you were right about Paul being instrumental towards that.
Jesus had made clear that the Torah was the book of the covenant from which, “till heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till all come to pass.†The sweeping changes promised for when the Messiah comes had not come to be, so Paul could hardly be “against†the law. Indeed, he does say in Romans that there must be two paths of salvation until the coming of the Messiah.
I would call it “hindsight†or the grace of a later birth. What I imply is that the strategy that Paul implemented left a lot of problems that the Church later had to forcefully correct. I think that what you seem to judge as a sweeping plan that fell into position and was successful, is portrayed differently by historians. Particularly the fact that this development has been brushed over, in particular by Acts, but also in records of Church history they don’t hide the fact that much of the assumed “plan of God†was a construction of following generations.
Despite Paul having seemingly taken the mythical figure of wisdom in Proverbs and associated it with the idea of Gods Christ, creating the grounds for the divine Logos, still this didn’t unify the church, but the church remained in diversity long after Paul had died. Is that sorted out enough?
The fact that you argue polemically is proof for me that you don’t really want to understand but want to browbeat me with your logic. You say I am not clear, but someone like yourself isn’t clear either, because you try to remain obscure about your purpose. There is nothing at odds when a person accepts disparity and is prepared to look at other attitudes, and you know that. So it wasn’t “out of nowhere†that I suggested that you were browbeating me – I feel my case is proven.
If you would look at the first post I made, you can see that I proposed that the fact that Jesus was from the middle east (orient) is something that theologians have ignored and something that modern Christians might feel uncomfortable with – especially as he might just look like some of those so called “rag heads†in television that we have so little respect for. I went on to show that there is a difference in our mentality, which is also apparent in the languages of the day. At many Bible meetings I have met many people who imagined that Jesus is God on earth when they read the Gospels and they give him divine attributes, almost defacing the man. A philologist was even met with impatience when he tried to show some of the finer points in the text, underlining an important point.
Now you mention it, you argue a lot like Uccisore, perhaps you are a conservative Christian, but I wasn’t talking especially about you.
Now that is interesting, because I believe that faith shouldn’t be suppressive, but accept doubt as the breeding ground for new faith. The Bible is full of examples.
Shalom
Bob,
At best it could be said for Paul that he argued against the applicability of the law after the reconciliatory crucifixion and resurrection and argued that the faith of the Gentiles was the fulfilment of the law – which is how I read him.
This of course is the universalizing of the Christian subject.
But despite this influence, there still was diversity within the church even up until Constantine. That is why I say that it is a fallacy to claim that Paul unified the church.
Constantine? The diversity within the church extends well into this century, the Council of Nicea or not. And who said “unified the church� I said provided the theoretical grounds for a universalized – hence exportable from Judaism – Christian subject.
“till heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till all come to pass.â€
He also – reportedly – claimed to be the fulfillment of that Law, and that the Law was made for man and not man for the Law, and that he was the way, the truth and the life, and endless other scriptural supports for Paul’s position.
I think that what you seem to judge as a sweeping plan that fell into position and was successful, is portrayed differently by historians.
It is you who seems to use words such as “strategy†and “plan†to describe Paul’s proselytizing. I take it as a genuine and personal spiritual conversion, and his acting on the truth of Christ as he saw it, marked by the transformational recognition of a moment in time, both in history and in one’s life. That this theology produces converts of poor quality in your judgment only shows that you understand spiritual quality in a sense different than Paul.
The fact that you argue polemically is proof for me that you don’t really want to understand but want to browbeat me with your logic.
You take holding someone accountable for the implied contradictions in their words, polemical? Forgive me if I actually ask you to make consistent sense. Applying logic might to you feel like “brow-beatingâ€, I call it discussion and clarification. Do you suggest I simply let you make apparently contradictory statements, be confused by it, and remain silent? Why not just post your posts on a webpage then?
You say I am not clear, but someone like yourself isn’t clear either, because you try to remain obscure about your purpose.
Unlike you, if you ask me a question as to my meaning and purpose, I will answer it. I will also not accuse you of brow-beating me with your logic. My purpose so far is to understand what you mean and what you imply.
There is nothing at odds when a person accepts disparity and is prepared to look at other attitudes, and you know that.
I suggest that – as much as this is unbelievable to you – that there is an inner contradiction here, if by “look to other attitudesâ€, you mean look to other religious explanations for things you already have a religious understanding of. One, accepts the difference between positions, the other suggests that in that difference there is the answer to something you already assume there to be an answer for…a move toward unified thought.
So it wasn’t “out of nowhere†that I suggested that you were browbeating me – I feel my case is proven.
One cannot brow-beat with logic, you apply it. If the other person does not which to answer, you can either apply it again or give up. That you have no awareness of the inner contradiction of you position is not my fault. Again you assume I have willfully misunderstood your crystal clear and brilliant presentation. I suggest you are not as clear as you imagine you are.
At many Bible meetings I have met many people who imagined that Jesus is God on earth when they read the Gospels and they give him divine attributes, almost defacing the man.
What do any of your personal experiences with other people have to do with me , other than serving as a prejudice that has biased you? I have no problem understanding that Jesus was not “whiteâ€, with shining white teeth, and the eyes of a doe, or an emaciated Italian man, soulfully staring up through his sinewed-flesh. I also understand that Christ was all of these things, in the infinity of his incarnations over history. Including the Aramaic make-over in the reverse “translation†you currently are favoring.
Now you mention it, you argue a lot like Uccisore, perhaps you are a conservative Christian, but I wasn’t talking especially about you.
You mean that Uccisore doesn’t automatically agree with everything you say either. What in the world is wrong with him?
In addition, please signal me in your text (a double star will do **) when you launch into a polemic against a group – in contravention to your normal embrace of diversity – and have stopped referring to me. In general when you respond to my posts, I assume you are referring to my position.
Now that is interesting, because I believe that faith shouldn’t be suppressive, but accept doubt as the breeding ground for new faith.
Faith is the description of the suspension of or even release from doubt. It is you who seek to describe the faith of others and a suppression of something that is “normalâ€. Religiously, doubt may be “normalâ€, but it is the religious act which surpasses it.
Dunamis
At least when I use you as an example of someone that’s a pain in the neck to talk to, I do it in private messages.
Ucc.,
I think it was a compliment.
Dunamis
You didn’t respond as though it were.
Ucc.,
“You didn’t respond as though it were”
If you notice, Bob was equating my obstinacy with yours. (Something of course I could only consider a compliment). My reply was a sarcastic submission to his self-presumed over-riding clarity against which only the absurd would resist. While you and I may disagree at times, I have great respect for your opinions, in particular your refusal to toe the line of something that just does not make sense to you. It seems according to Bob, this is a trait you and I share. In a religious forum, one can do this admirably as a matter of faith, in a philosophy forum things get a bit more problematic.
Dunamis
Alright, alright, no need to stroke my ego. I think you’re pretty cool too. 
Just these kinds of situations should reveal the absurdity of bringing a bunch of experts into a room and expecting anything remotely sensible concerning the human condition.
If an expert sincerely wants to achieve agreement in such discussions, it is better to stick with the tried and true approach of blackmail and bribery.
Hi Dunamis,
I just have to face the fact - you bore me to death!
You have a great talent of dragging people into discussions they don’t really want to take part in and of missing the original issue. I am willing to talk to you about the for and against of allowing the broadness of an Aramaic translation give us an additional insight of what the Jesus of the Gospels was actually saying, but I have no interest in a discussion where my opposite is continually putting words into my mouth.
Forgive me
Bob
Yeah, that’s what they all say about the Dunamis.
The man has forgotten more than you will ever learn, Bob.
Hi de’trop,
I don’t know what it is to you, but isn’t it at least a little bumptious to presume you know Dunamis or me? I have no doubt that Dunamis is a clever person, indeed maybe brilliant, but that isn’t the point here.
There are those that use forums as a kind of stalking ground, waiting for someone to break for cover and then hound them, disregarding what purpose they were following. I can perhaps understand this kind of behaviour at a time in life when a person needs to strengthen their ego. Sometimes I observe my son doing the same. But I don’t need it, and I am too obstinate to break for cover.
Shalom
detrop,
Thanks for the support.
bob,
“You have a great talent of dragging people into discussions they don’t really want to take part in and of missing the original issue.”
I’m sorry, I think I realized how to engage your interest. Just tell you how much sense you make over and over, never question any of your ideas, and praise you for the good work you are doing reconciling the world of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, (while at the same time being incapable of entertaining ideas other than your own). Quite a feat!
“There are those that use forums as a kind of stalking ground”
I stalk for truth. It is discovered in the exchange of ideas.
Dunamis
I suspect that the misunderstanding going on here is that the original post wasn’t asking for formal debate, but an understanding that maybe, just maybe, an exploration of all the languages involved in the evolution of religious ‘scripture’ could perhaps lead to greater understanding between religions. Pretty simple stuff really.
That such an exploration could affect how we see the writings of various personages within each religion might help provide insight into the evolution of a religions’ scripture and commentary, and perhaps shed additional light on the origins of dogma and apologetics.
The tone of informal discussion was lost to formal debate with the attendant results.
It might not hurt to take a hard look at the intentions within a beginning statement. It could easily prevent the bristles from flaring.
JT
Tent.,
“I suspect that the misunderstanding going on here is that the original post wasn’t asking for formal debate, but an understanding that maybe, just maybe, an exploration of all the languages involved in the evolution of religious ‘scripture’ could perhaps lead to greater understanding between religions.”
These are nice “ideas”: “greater understanding”, an “exploration of all the languages”, what I object to is that beneath these ideas are much more complicated relations, which of course you hinted at. To “translate” the revered words of a particular holy text, a texts that many in a religion believe to be the literal word of God - even if you do not believe so yourself -, into a language more amenable to “greater understanding between religions”, might very well produce that understanding through a radical re-structuring of the host religion’s religious thought. When you alter the words of the God, even with the ambition of cross-religious communication, you are altering the anchor points of religious tenets. This is no small act. And I suggest that it should not be done lightly. The proposal to do such comes rather from a position which does not take religious text literally, and a general concept that the distinctions between religions are not important. I also imagine that the project itself understands the consequences of its ambitions, that a translation would be far more radical than a commentary. That this approach underlies such a project of re-translation, was my only point. It is one thing to think in nice terms of world peace, and everyone joining hands in unison, but the consequence of laying the grounds for such a vision, such as re-translating religious texts allegorically with depth, and erasing distinctions considered holy by some, has its dark shadow in the process. Sure its great to attempt to produce reconciliation, but at what process, by what path? Otherwise it is simply bunch of sentimental pipe-dreaming, or worse, imposed “unified thoughtâ€.
OP: “there is…room for…mystical fantasy…the ground on which reconciliation could be built between Judaism, Christianity and Islam”
Is mystical fantasy produced through the re-translation of holy texts the ground upon which we should build “reconcilation”? I’m unsure of this.
Dunamis
Dunamis,
So maybe you could start a thread asking just those questions? Perhaps it would be a useful exercise to ask what path, what process. Who knows?, we might screw up and come up with some plausible answers.
JT
Hello F(r)iends,
Is it common knowledge that Hebrew is “deeper” than Greek, and that Latin is shallow? Is Aramaic that much more expressive and effective than say German/English?
I have always thought that German/English/Latin were very useful languages in terms of science while Hebrew appeared more useful in terms of religion. Meaning that each language was developed to express precisely what each culture appreciated: the Romans were architects, engineers; the Jews were priests and merchants.
Perhaps I am unable to convey my questions… (maybe it’s the fault of the English language?).
-Thirst
Tent.,
“So maybe you could start a thread asking just those questions? Perhaps it would be a useful exercise to ask what path, what process. Who knows?, we might screw up and come up with some plausible answers.”
I find that discussion such things at the level of principle is both remote and ineffectual. One can easily say, “sure let’s promote understanding”, “let’s find a common language we all can share”, and who can oppose you? The true discussion comes over the instance of the execution of such a plan. In the particular is the sense of loss and change evident, that such larger ideas entail. It is no coincidence that reference to Communism and Nazism arose in this thread, for the nobility of the idea, even in the religious realm, imposes a kind of violence. I am not sure that theoretically you can thresh these things out. It is only in such instances of the application of a noble idea that it does particular violence - perhaps even necessary violence. The case in point, the simple and small example of this translation, even exposes a possible kind of violence to text, or at the least to cultural and religious underpinnings. But what happens when speaking in broad idealistic terms, it a) becomes very unpopular to oppose such thinking, because these ideals are things nearly everyone shares, and b), one never has to face the violence such “reconciliation” probably entails…that is until it is carried out.
Dunamis
Dunamis,
In no way am I suggesting that such an undertaking would be easy in itself, let alone asking the respective religions to begin the (perhaps) violent spiritual and social changes necessary to allow religions to accomodate one another. As broad and sweeping generalizations are refined into detail there is much blood sweat and tears. But you gotta start somewhere.
Even as fuzzy as I can be, at heart, I’m fairly pragmatic and I can see that there is a desperate need to begin some form of dialog that could result in, if nothing else, changed attitudes among the religions. The religious conflicts we see today are no longer regional, they are global, and before we devolve into us/them mentality (we’re close to that now), some effort need’s to be made to create some understanding that would allow the religions to back off and give us all some breathing room.
Difficult? You bet. But it isn’t enough to say, that’s just the way things are and hope we don’t get caught in sectarian violence. Some effort has to be made, why not start with us?
JT