Jesus: The Missing Years in the East

[godnotgod]

That's not rhyming nor does it clear up any problems. For example:
"Those Gospels which survive, however, all of them in the dialects of Aramaic generally known as Syriac, are translations from our present Greek Gospels into Aramaic. The process of translating the Greek Gospels into Aramaic is signficantly different from trying to reconstruct original sources. Nowhere is this better illustrated than with the term `son of man'. This was originally the Aramaic ברנשא, a normal term for `man'. By the processes of translation and Christological development, this became a Christological title in Greek,"ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου. Since it had become a Christological title, it could not be translated into Syriac with (בר (&#1488נש(א. Hence Tatian produced the expression ברה ראנשא, and later translators produced also ברה רגברא and ברה רבנשא. These expressions naturally lent themselves to interpretation remote from the original (בר (&#1488נש(א."
Casey, M. (1998). Aramaic sources of Mark's Gospel (Vol. 102). Cambridge University Press.

The single example you give isn't poetry or wordplay. It's a guarantee you'd get this from translating just about any text into any Semitic dialect. Why? Because all Semitic languages are built off of 3-consanent roots. So completely different words are guaranteed to be vastly more likely to be spelt similarly and sound similar despite being completely different in meaning given any Semitic language compared to just about any non-Semitic language. If you translate any Latin play, Greek play, even Shakespeare into Aramaic you'll magically find parallels exactly like that you did. That's simply the nature of the language. You can compare it to actual Semitic poetry (from e.g., the Song of Solomon to the Koran) and guess what? It differs.

But once translated, does the rhyming text make any sense?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

One would think it would make the language easier to learn.

It used to. Then, about 2,200 years ago, various Semitic peoples got together and said "look. We're getting beat out by Sanskrit, Hittite, and even Greek! What can we do?" And after years of debating they decided to use alphabets with one vowel and no diacritics, add gender to verbs, and take out a (now lost, of course) weakly developed modal verb system and a highly developed mood system. As a result, Aramaic turned into a rhyming language like Pig-latin and everybody else just made **** up.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But once translated, does the rhyming text make any sense?

It doesn't rhyme.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It used to. Then, about 2,200 years ago, various Semitic peoples got together and said "look. We're getting beat out by Sanskrit, Hittite, and even Greek! What can we do?" And after years of debating they decided to use alphabets with one vowel and no diacritics, add gender to verbs, and take out a (now lost, of course) weakly developed modal verb system and a highly developed mood system. As a result, Aramaic turned into a rhyming language like Pig-latin and everybody else just made **** up.

Yeah, it's beautiful. It's unfortunate that so many people are quick to take a huge dump on it -- intentionally. Pretending to know something about it (as our friend's source does) is far different from actually knowing about it. The unfortunate thing is that knowledge about these ancient things is more mundane than the poop that they peddle.

It's a rare thing for a scholar - someone who spends the entire day with good sources, developing reliable judgement, and producing good work - to be able to shape his/her findings into something sensational. In my field, Bart Ehrman is a superstar, but underneath his sensationalism he actually is a notable scholar. Then there's a whole galaxy of lesser beings, then their grad students, then me.

* I will add that I'm making my book as sensationalist as I possibly can.* And it will be about $35 in hardback so buy em up. So far it's about a thousand sold to libraries and five for my mom. It will be in your favorite bookstore by April. Hopefully.*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It doesn't rhyme.

You can make it rhyme.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Anybody here on goodreads?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh, and my poo smells fantastic. I've actually digested my material.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In my field, Bart Ehrman is a superstar, but underneath his sensationalism he actually is a notable scholar. Then there's a whole galaxy of lesser beings, then their grad students, then me.

I emailed Ehrman before I went to college, actually (I went late). I dropped him for a while and was bitterly disappointed because his books on textual criticism contradicted his own scholarship. I still read him (I loved his article in Early Christian Studies on Morton Smith's find) but not any of his sensationalist stuff. Then he wrote his latest piece and I regained all respect for him. It was awful and a waste, of course, as there are better books against mythicism and his was too simplistic and short to convince anybody who already believed the mythicist hype, but he did make an enemy out of most of his fans. And all because he had gotten to associated with anti-Christian arguments to the point where people actually believed he was a mythicist despite the fact that his (first, I believe) popular book was on the historical Jesus. Alienating all his fans for the sake of academic integrity was a move many wouldn't have made and I respect that.

* I will add that I'm making my book as sensationalist as I possibly can.*

The book form of your dissertation? I'd be interested in seeing how you sensationalize that. Writing the two idealized women's characters as actual lines? Maybe putting in an antagonist masculine character? This will be interesting.

Sure. Let's do that. In particular, how might early Christian women (or potential female converts) in the latter half of the first century and onwards have interpreted the NT and other texts which were disseminated during that period? After all, what better way to really understand the "message" of the various biblical texts and how they relate to women than by trying to ascertain how women understood them?

How, though, might one possibly do this? How could we know what some hypothetical women (some wealthy widows, perhaps) might read and interpret any given NT text? We are in luck. There is an excellent piece of scholarship designed to do just this: Barnes, Nathan John. "Reading 1 Corinthians with Philosophically Educated Women." Texas Christian University, 2012. (dissertation now available on ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, although the author has unfortunately not updated his website to reflect this).

Not only does the author provide us with hypothetical (but historically grounded) women capable of reading Paul ("Sophia" and "Fortuna") but demonstrates not simply how women of that day might have reacted to different components in Paul's letter, but also why. Additionally, you will find there all the references you could ask for.

Having done that, or even read a few of the works referenced (e.g,. Families in the New Testament World or A Women's Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity), you might be able to provide some of the "detail" you allude to.

 

[nash8]

I have no argument with that, but Legion wants to define Reality in terms of academia, logic, reason, and analysis, while frowning on the intuitive mind.

Naw, he's just saying, that you can't rely soley on the intuitive mind. Intuition leads you in the right direction, logic confirms that you've reached your destination. If you just use intuition, you never know that you've gotten to your destination. If you just use logic, it will probably take you forever and a year.

Yes, I am.

Naw, homie. I am a mirror.

Pointing out a flaw in his logic is not launching an ad hominem attack. I have nothing personal against Legion. If you've been paying attention, I have repeatedly pointed him back to his QiGong instructor that he might attain the balance between the intellect and the intuitive.

Yeah, nothing condescending about that.

You're much too kind. Here. Have a look-see what many say about Paul. It is common knowledge, and not a matter of opinion any longer. Sorry:

Statements about Paul by Prominent Theologians and Bible Scholars

So Theologians and Bible scholars are cool when they back up your point of view, but when they don't support your point of view their no good. Lol, everything is a matter of opinion, Sorry.

Sorry, but I am much harsher on Paul. I see in his writings an element of self-reward and self-importance. He portrays himself as privy to messages from Jesus. In some of his comments, I see outright fabrication as a means of feeding his own ego, and have little forgiveness for him.

How very Zen of you. I personally believe Paul might have met Jesus in person, so it is very possible for me that he was privy to messages from Jesus. You are entitled to be as harsh on Paul as you choose, based on your own interpretations of his writings.

Intuition is essential. It's just useless when not combined with any knowledge, research, logic, and/or analysis. From my qi gong teacher to Einstein to your sources, every single one has turned out to be a member of academia and to have professed the importance of all the things you are so utterly incapable of (research, logic, analysis, etc.). Your own sources belie you. You cite "experts" you hope are experts because you are so utterly incapable of evaluating a source on your own without relying on a "I like this so it must be true" litmus test.

Naw you got it wrong, Academia is all and well, as long as it supports the idea that Paul was an *** hole.

Internet fundamentalist mystics. What won't they think of next?

This
Site of Kundalini in the Body-MRI Scan | Dr Paulose @drpaulose

and this
Scientific Research on Brain Activity during Kundalini Awakening in the presence of Paramahamsa Nithyananda on the auspicious Guru Purnima day this 15th of July, 2011 | Nithyananda Mission's Official Web Site | Health, Wealth, Relationships, Excellen

(What does this mean by the way? what's a QEEG? Is this relevant neuroscientific research or a scam?)

and this
Everything you know is a lie !: Biophotons And The Universal Light Code

and this
Kundalini Yoga - Theory

And most interesting for this internet mystic is this
Endogenous Light Nexus Theory of Consciousness

Us internet mystics are a busy bunch.

Reality is first of all what it is without knowledge, research, logic, thinking, reason, analysis, or investigation.

Or it is nothing but knowledge, research, logic, thinking, reason, analysis, and investigation?

What occurs is that, in utilizing these tools, at some point the concepts they create are mistaken for the reality they are supposed to define.

For some, for others they are used to build upon the ultimate reality that they have come to realize. Once you reach the ultimate reality you can choose to stay there, as many do, or you can build upon it with a "firm foundation" so to speak.

The rational mind has been tricked into believing that the cave wall shadows really do represent Reality.

Naw my rational mind has actually merged with my "knowing mind" or whatever you wan't to call it, realizes that they don't represent reality, but at the same time they actually do.

It's all about seeing, not thinking.

The easist sense to trick is sight, in whatever aspect you wan't to define it. It's all about feeling for me.

But in the West especially, thinking is placed high on the pedestal as the pathway to 'Truth'. Many on this forum just assume that Western methods of validation are superior to those from other cultures. It's always the smug and self-assured: 'Your papers, please'; 'proof, please'; 'facts, please'.

IN order to demonstrate your validation to others, personal experience matters not. As for validation for your self, personal experience is the only thing that matters, and in the end personal experience is the only proof that one can truly have.

I love the example of Spinoza, with his infamous:

"I think, therefore I am"

self-deception. I love even more the Zen response to it:

"So when you're not thinking, you don't exist, right?" LOL

The problem is a thought is characterized by brain activity, so you can't, "not be thinking". At it's most basic level, thought is the transfer of matter from one state to another to induce this thought, so it could be argued that there is nothing in the universe that is "not thinking". Except for maybe, the stuff that is in between matter, but that's a whole nother can o' worms.

This has a strong Taoist flavor. I can agree that knowledge, research, logic, thinking, reason, analysis, or investigation can create bias/distortion in how we view reality. This is made evident in the counter-intuitive principles in Taoist philosophy.

Indeed, I would agree with this aspect of the assertation. Steadfast attachment to any conclusion, whether reached by intuition or logic, is harmful. And I would also agree that it is far more common, especially in the west, that attachment to an idea would be caused by a logical conclusion, because it seems as though physical evidence would be present where intuition can sometimes be in just the mind, where it makes it much easier to disregard physical attachment.

* I will add that I'm making my book as sensationalist as I possibly can.* And it will be about $35 in hardback so buy em up. So far it's about a thousand sold to libraries and five for my mom. It will be in your favorite bookstore by April. Hopefully.*

What's your book called, and what's it about?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This
Site of Kundalini in the Body-MRI Scan | Dr Paulose @drpaulose

and this
Scientific Research on Brain Activity during Kundalini Awakening in the presence of Paramahamsa Nithyananda on the auspicious Guru Purnima day this 15th of July, 2011 | Nithyananda Mission's Official Web Site | Health, Wealth, Relationships, Excellen

(What does this mean by the way? what's a QEEG? Is this relevant neuroscientific research or a scam?)

Haha! Not at all. QEEG is merely EEG with a letter added on for posterity. It's not unscientific at all. The studies you refer to are a different matter [which reminds me- I can't seem to find any meditation studies which exist and do justice to what you ask]. That said, the studies your post refers to are no worse than about half the neuroimaging studies out there in mainstream journals.

Us internet mystics are a busy bunch.

I've no problem with mystics or internet mystics. I've have problem with those who claim to be god-like in their knowledge. For background to this issue you might peruse this thread (although I am admittedly an ******* here more than once):

Yeah, nothing condescending about that.

Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming is not a Qigong instructor anymore than he is a kung fu instructor. He is a master of several styles and traditions of Chinese martial arts and medicine.

Here is an excerpt from "A Modern Definition of Qi" by Dr. Yang (emphasie added):

"It was not until the last few decades, when the Chinese people were more acquainted with electromagnetic science, that they began to recognize that this energy circulating in the body, which they called Qi, might be the same thing as what today's science calls 'bioelectricity.'

We must look at what modern Western science has discovered about bioelectromagnetic energy. Many bioelectricity related reports have been published, and frequently the results are closely related to what is experienced in Chinese Qigong training and medical science. For example, during the electrophysiological research of the 1960's, several investigators discovered that bones are piezoelectric; that is, when they are stressed, mechanical energy is converted to electrical energy in the form of electric current. This might explain one of the practices of Marrow Washing Qigong in which the stress on the bones and muscles is increased in certain ways to increase the Qi circulation"

He talks about acupuncture and acupressure in terms of both traditional Chinese medicine and neurotransmitters.

He's one of the foremost authorities of Chinese martial arts in the world, has two science degrees (one a doctorate), and has spent years training others and studying (even translating) ancient Chinese texts.

Are you saying book burning is a good idea? Even more importantly, why should we burn the books, the very things that have preserved the knowledge you could obtain in full, rather than the bastardized excerpts, quotes, etc., that you get off of the web?

Everything about Plato, the Upanishads, and every other text written in languages you can't read along with historical context has been made available to you through scholarship.

That's why my "Qigong" instructor advocates study, research, and scholarship. It's why (although you don't know it) you have the translations of texts by "spiritual practitioners", because these result from a long history of commentary, translations, and transmitted texts not to mention interaction between East and West centuries ago such that we can trace "the Western-influenced neo-Vedanta of Indians such as Rammohan Roy, Mahatma Gandhi, Vivekananda, Aurobindo and Radhakrishnan"and the way this influence played "a seminal role in the construction of contemporary notions of Hinduism as a universal world religion. This influence is so prevalent that today what most Religious Education courses mean by ‘Hinduism’ is a colonially filtered and retrospective Vedanticization of Indian religion"
King, R. (2002). Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and" The Mystic East". Routledge.

For someone who sympathizes with book burning, your cut and paste use of the internet seems pretty hypocritical.



Like Einstein, Plato, Swami Vivekananda, and the Western philosophers whose influence on the interpretations of the Upanishads you use without realizing it.

And as for Deepak Chopra? Either he's just a sell-out looking for money, or he believes quantum physics describes a particular reality and that this scientific field (which he has been able to speak about only because scholars since Newton have devoted their lives to the study of reality) is a worthwhile one. Either way, he's a scholar.


with a degree in law and a former professor of English, and whose first sentence in the first chapter of his translation of the Bhagavad Gita is "Many years ago, when I was still a graduate student..." But let's not read too much into this, as he grew up in India an gained his understanding of the Gita there, right? Wrong.

"I must have heard the Gita recited thousands of times when I was growing up, but I don’t suppose it had any special significance for me then. Not until I went to college and met Mahatma Gandhi did I begin to understand why nothing in the long, rich stretch of Indian culture has had a wider appeal, not only within India but outside as well. Today, after more than thirty years of devoted study, I would not hesitate to call it India’s most important gift to the world."

Yeah, he's no scholar. Just a guy who didn't understand the text he translated until college and 3 decades of study.

How many more times are you going to contrast esoteric knowledge with scholarship, such that you can write off the latter, until you realize that all the people you are claiming we should listen to are quite adamant about the need for study and for scholarship and are scholars?



Good. Then perhaps you can tell me why he wrote Timeless Wisdom, filled with translations from Greek, Arabic, and other languages he can't read (they aren't his translations, but those of scholars), and why he chose Daniel H. Lowenstein, MD to write the forward to his book The Mantram Handbook? Why did he devote years of study to be able to translate texts written in dead languages? Why did it take him until college and Ghandi (who studied in London and like so many before him incorporated Western esoteric philosophies into his own) to realize the appeal of the Gita? Why does he discuss the historical background of the text, including the scholarly consensus and his reasoning for thinking an earlier date?

Or, quite simply, why is it that everywhere we turn, you are pointing to someone who has studied for years and/or disagrees with your view on "reason, logic, and analysis"?

 

[godnotgod]

You think that Greek can't rhyme? Whatever, man.

It can't rhyme when translating from the Aramaic Pe****ta.

When someone is back translating from Greek to Aramaic (which is what he must do to reconstruct the text), he has the freedom to choose whatever words he likes. The argument is completely irrelevant.

As an Aramaic translator, one would use the words which the Greek scribes were only trying to copy, but whose meanings got lost in the translation.

Another thing to consider is that there's not much room for rhyming anyway, because there's only two quotes from poetry in the New Testament, and both of them are from Eurpidies. There are a few other tidbits, like the *Greek* poem in Phil 2, which only works in Greek. You source can abuse it all that he likes, but the *real aspects* of Greek poetry are present and cannot translate into Aramaic.

So why does the Pe****ta then contain such rhyming passages?

You're missing my point: I'm not saying that the Greek should rhyme; I'm saying it can't.

It's not just rhyming that is the issue; there are puns as well.

As for wordplay, I believe that your source is completely fabricating everything that doesn't already appear in Aramaic in the text (if he even had the foresight to do so whilst making all this stuff up). I'd bet my left nut that he used an English translation and converted that into a sloppy Arabic that forces wordplay and such. He *obviously* knows nothing about Greek - I can't speak with great authority on the Aramaic or Hebrew because this guy isn't worth looking up the words - but the Greek is the point, isn't it?

No.

Excuse me, but 'this guy', Paul Younan, is a native Assyrian who spoke Aramaic since his youth, is an Aramaic scholar, and translator of the Pe****ta in an online project, here:

Pe****ta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament

I don't know if he understands Greek, but I'd say watch your left nut as to your bet that he translated from the English.

There is an argument for *some* of Matthew originating in Aramaic, but this guy makes a mountain out of a molehill.

That might be true if this were the only example, but there are many others, as well as examples from the Tanakh.

 

[godnotgod]

Excuse me, and this is not intended as an ad hominem attack, but are you perchance an Idiot Savant? I ask, because, after having explained to you what the quote I made below actually means, you persist in dragging it back out of the grave and reposting it here to demonstrate what an idiot I am. So in order to clear my name, and to demonstrate for those reading your post out of context, I am going to provide (again) an explanation for my 'book burning' comment. In spite of your academic knowledge, you have a gaping hole in your understanding, which is the reason I continue to rib you about returning to your QiGong teacher, and precisely why you failed to understand what my original comment meant. So, for the benefit of those unfamiliar with that comment, here it is again:

Originally Posted by godnotgod
"If any of you have in your libraries the books by DT Suzuki, BURN THEM!,

Suzuki being the Japanese scholar who brought Zen teachings to the West through his books.

...to which you responded:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Are you saying book burning is a good idea? Even more importantly, why should we burn the books, the very things that have preserved the knowledge you could obtain in full, rather than the bastardized excerpts, quotes, etc., that you get off of the web?

Firstly, I did not speak those words; they were the opening words to a lecture given at a Zen monastery in San Francisco, which I attended. I got the message immediately. DT Suzuki was a Buddhist SCHOLAR, who wrote books ABOUT Zen for the West. The books themselves are not the Zen experience. The Zen experiences of Satori and Enlightenment come FIRST. The books are peripheral ideas ABOUT the Zen experience, but many become attached to the descriptions of the experience, and even mistake them for the experience itself, thinking they know all about Zen, or whatever. Yeshu made the same point when he said that some were searching the scriptures, thinking to gain eternal life.

Academia, knowledge, facts, books, etc. are not the reality they attempt to describe. From what you have stated on this forum, it appears you have not had much in the way of spiritual experience. You have a lot of facts and figures about this and that, but facts and figures are not reality.

Your comment about book burning is obviously an attempt to paint me as an ignoramus, but I am afraid the attempt has backfired. If you still don't understand the monk's statement, I challenge you to go see for yourself, which would entail sitting on your meditation mat until you DO see what is meant, after which you would realize that the description of reality pales in comparison.

What has 'preserved the knowledge' (LOL, as if it were some sort of jam or condiment), is not the academia, but those who keep the fire of the experience alive via direct contact.

Reality is complete all by itself. It does not NEED descriptions of it in order to exist.

 

[godnotgod]

Naw, homie. I am a mirror.

Naw, homie. If you truly were a mirror, you would know that everyone else is as well.

Let's just smash the mirror, shall we?

 

[godnotgod]

Oh, and my poo smells fantastic. I've actually digested my material.

You had to:

1. go to an institution of higher learning in order to learn digestion, and
2. hypnotize yourself to believe it actually does smell like Channel #5, when, in fact, it just smells like ordinary poo.

So....when are you planning your next Elvis impersonation trip to Las Vegas?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

which is the reason I continue to rib you about returning to your QiGong teacher

He isn't a "qigong" teacher, but as you have never been trained by any expert and rely on the internet for your expertise, the subtleties would escape you. The main point is that my "qigong" teacher totally disagrees with you about every point you made and yet he has dedicated decades upon decades to traditional eastern practices while you watch YouTube videos. Pathetic.

 

[godnotgod]

Naw, he's just saying, that you can't rely soley on the intuitive mind. Intuition leads you in the right direction, logic confirms that you've reached your destination. If you just use intuition, you never know that you've gotten to your destination. If you just use logic, it will probably take you forever and a year.

If you use intuition, you would realize you are already at your destination. There is no longer any doubt about that. It's not logic and reason that provide that information, but the enlightenment experience itself. One SEES that one has arrived beyond a shadow of any doubt.

 

[godnotgod]

He isn't a "qigong" teacher, but as you have never been trained by any expert.... the subtleties would escape you.

Apparently, the 'subtleties' have escaped YOU, since you failed with your QiQong instructor.

The main point is that my "qigong" teacher totally disagrees with you about every point you made and yet he has dedicated decades upon decades to traditional eastern practices....

One of the points I did make, taken from a QiGong website, is that QiGong breathwork can be a pathway to higher consciousness. If your QiGong instructor disagrees with that, then he doesn't know much.

I never said that academic study is bad. But your QiGong instructor would have to agree that any study about Eastern practices is about the practices themselves, which come first. I am also certain that study without practice is meaningless, especially where breathwork is concerned.

 

[oldbadger]

Excuse me, but 'this guy', Paul Younan, is a native Assyrian who spoke Aramaic since his youth, is an Aramaic scholar, and translator of the Pe****ta in an online project, here:

Pe****ta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament

QUESTION..... The Pe****ta Aramaic Gospels...... for whom were they written? Were they written for an Aramaic speaking readership, or Greek, or Latin..... ?????????????????

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
The single example you give isn't poetry or wordplay. It's a guarantee you'd get this from translating just about any text into any Semitic dialect.... If you translate any Latin play, Greek play, even Shakespeare into Aramaic you'll magically find parallels exactly like that you did. That's simply the nature of the language.

There would be more probability of 10,000 monkeys typing to produce the Bible than for the Pe****ta being translated from the relatively sterile Greek into Aramaic, replete not just with poetry, but with puns and meanings intact as well.

A quote from a Pe****ta primacy site:

"the significance of the poetic nature of the Pe****ta is largely due to the immense lack of such in the Greek. that is why the discussion is so important on this site of the poetry in the Pe****ta. true, any text can be poetic. that is not the point. rather, the idea that is here scoffed at is that of a text that has scant little poetic nature to it becoming sophisticatedly poetic when translated into a language with a completely different grammatical structure. yet the Greek primacists want us to believe this just happens to be the case with the Pe****ta. it is like shooting a paintball at a wall and producing the Mona Lisa. not gonna happen!

so what a sophisticated poetic structure / nature in ANY text so powerfully proves is that the text you are dealing with is the text in it's original language composition. "

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

Pe****ta.org • View topic - rival conjecture of "aphraates readings"

 

[crossfire]

I've no problem with mystics or internet mystics. I've have problem with those who claim to be god-like in their knowledge. For background to this issue you might peruse this thread (although I am admittedly an ******* here more than once):

Well, what do you know? Some mystics and some scholars have something in common--some claim to be god-like in their knowledge. {imagine that!}

I wouldn't say this is true of the majority of mystics or scholars, though.