Christian ideas - any answers welcome!

Craven de Kere wrote:

It's a lot less absolute than your expression.

You are correct.

If you read my original post, you will see that all I was doing was to call attention to the fact that what we now refer to as "urban legands" have been around for a long while.

After Setanta posted his comments which seemed to be weaselling out of the conclusion he offered (despite the "reputed" and "putative"), I over reacted.

Perhaps I've even done that before.

In any case, the question of what Jesus meant (if Jesus said what was attributed in this passage) is still moot. Obviously if he meant a camel or a hawser going through the eye of a needle -- it would stress that it is impossible; but if he meant a low gate, it would stress that it would be difficult.

ASIDE: My comment was not "less absolute" (interesting choice of wording, all things considered; I hope it was purposefully done) -- but rather, "not absolute at all."

BOTTOM LINE: I repeat: You are correct.

Here are two more references on the issue:

<http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm>

<http://www.aramaicnt.org/HTML/LUKE/evidences/Camel.html>

0 Replies

husker wrote:

Frank I think you need to apologize for hijacking this topic with your bitterness.

1) I did not hijack this thread, my comments were directly on topic. This thread is about Christian ideas -- and more specifically about the issue I was discussing (the accumulation of wealth and getting into heaven).

2) You are, in effect, closer to hijacking this thread, because your comments are not about the subject of the thread.

3) I do not need help from you deciding when an apology is due -- or not necessary.

4) But I knew this was going no where the second I saw your words, "I think...."

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Priests had many luxuries also. Until pope Pelagius II decided that, due to somew funding problems because of the thing with these constant invasions by people with titles like Garths, and Flambes, decidewd to set up some new rules that kids of new priests (see there was a Grandfather rule even then), well these kids couldnt inherit their pops property. Pelagius II was calling this 'Church Property" Its like if you worked for the government, when you die , the government doesnt get your money (well yes it does sort of). Pelagius II had this all worked out and then he died of the Plague.
Along comes Gregory !, he thought this was kind of too radical so he recinded Pelagius II's edicts.
Well Pope Benedict VIII was really pissed about 500 years later.
" EY wheresa alla da m oney shes goin?" he asked
Well Greg 7 banned marriage but then that was recinded by his successor Pope John
Coupla years later Pope Gregory 7 comes along and sez. "Ifa you a married, you canna no saya da mass"
All this time there were lots of priests who just thumbed their noses at the popes
1139Pope Innocenti II voided marriage and required new priests to get a divorce . that was when the papal edict finally stood up

In the subsequent centuries, however, this
edict was brought forth and re- discussed and re-voted on. Through strong lobbying by the vatican consiglieris, the new laws of celibacy for priests was firmly established .
However the sacred laws and Jesus own rationale governing celibacy followed shortly thereafter (like another 300 years or so). The papal historians had to hunt for just the perfect language to make it sound like it was Jesus plan all along.
Cynical, ? me?

The entire issue was so that the Church could retain all property upon a clerics death and build wealth . It was nothing to do with celibacy and poverty winning your place in a heaven.
Just like everything else its power politics aided by the loyalty of a glacially obstinate church beuracracy.

Where in the world did you learn all that? Papal school?

0 Replies

The thing about the jesuits is that they respect history more than their own mythology. My first memoriy of school was in the Catholic persuasion. I spent my early years being drilled by The Baltimore Catechism and I never got answers to my questionswhenever i asked the Nuns. The priests , on the other hand, were quick to share their own history and tradition. I was told by Brother francis that papal history was full "of human frailty" (HA , he certainly wasnt kidding) I just remebered a few key words , like Pope PelagiusI and II and Innocent II, and then did a search on Google . the internet often makes us all sound more knowledgeable than we really are.
I must admit, that the lack of scholarly language was all my doing in that post.
This is off the topic but, sometimes we can all get caught in the spin of our own information that the internet provides in abundance. Thats why weve instituted , at the U where Im adjunct, a methods of research course for grad students so that we can learn things that are pointed in our grad thesis research , but not be led down blind alleys on the internet by self -serving spin meisters.
My area is geology and Im always amazed at how some of the Creation/Evolution lines are full of people spouting great theories in science that are very contemporary. Id ask myself'Damn, how did they get that that theory so presented? then I track some of their lines back by just typing the entire line into google and SUMBITCH , there is the very speech they just made as proof of creation (or substantiating evolution). they can get some of the facts correctly stated , but miss the point entirely.All they do is copy and paste and miss the entire point.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

The thing about the jesuits is that they respect history more than their own mythology.

Oh the irony!
I heard a comment once that really struck me; Jesuits, with few exceptions, are not Catholics.
That may be an extreme point of view but Jesuits really are on the outer fringes of Catholicism.

Have there been any recent popes who have come from the Jesuit order?

0 Replies

There has never been a Jesuit Pope. What are you kidding? Thatd be like turning over the tank keys to the terrorists.
One of the popes Gregory , something , around the 1770s had disbanded the Jesuits as a disruptive order. Yeh, they worry too much about things like truth

Thats why the association of the Catholic church and my science has always been championed by the Jesuit order.

Heres a little something to wow your friends. ALL 264 Popes and the 38 Antipopes. You can get pope tee shirts .

www.popechart.com

Scuse me, a lightning bolt just shot out of my coffee cup.

0 Replies

It'd be interesting to have a thread soley about the eye of the needle. There is a lot more to it than has been discussed or linked to on this thread.

BTW, Frank, the italics was supposed to denote intent.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

It'd be interesting to have a thread soley about the eye of the needle. There is a lot more to it than has been discussed or linked to on this thread.

BTW, Frank, the italics was supposed to denote intent.

For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.'" - Matthew 19:24-26

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

The "putative" obviously referred to Jesus; the "reputed" referred to what Jesus supposedly said (assuming he existed!)

Your "explanation" that "this saying had a particular meaning which would have been known to his audience" was wrong. It was just flat out wrong. And it wasn't qualified.

This is a good point, i did not take that extra step of qualifying that statement as i had the others. This is not sufficient reason, however, for this:

Quote:

You were talking as though you really knew what the statement would have meant -- but you were merely parroting a bunch of nonsense put out there by Christian charlatans who spread the story to justify the wealth they were accumulating.

The author of this thread calls for christian ideas. I provided one. It is the height of absurdity for you, who know my opinions on religious, to contend that i am "parroting a bunch of nonsense put out there by Christian charlatans." I have acknowledged that i failed to qualify that part of the statement. You should have the honesty (although i doubt that you will) to acknowledge that you've taken the ball to run with it in this case. I don't spread the stories of christian charlatans as idle amusement. The very fact that Snopes felt it justified to write an article debunking the "eye of the needle" story, which i repeated, as i've heard in sermons when i was still obliged (much against my will) to attend Catholic services, and as i have read it in books of sermons, a popular form of literature in 19th century in England, as i learned in completing an assigment in university--is evidence that this version, for however "wrong" it may be, is both prevalent and wide-spread among christians. Therefore, i did exactly what the author of the thread requested, provided a christian idea.

Quote:

I called the error to the attention of the participants. This particular bit of fluff has come up in dozens of threads on the Internet and I wanted to be sure the people participating in this thread discovered that it was phony.

I didn't try to rub you nose in your bullshit! I merely gave a link and noted that urban legends are nothing new.

I did not accuse you of rubbing my nose in anything--you are projecting your own nasty characteristics on me. Don't do it, because it is unwarranted. My comment about qualifying statements results from something internal--a lifetime of reading history, and commenting on it, has taught me to be careful about qualifying statements. I've given a mea maxima culpa for having failed to qualify the explanation that goes with that version of the parable, i'm not saying any Hail Mary's or Our Father's for this Frank, give it up.

Quote:

Now you are trying to weasel out of what you said with nonsense about qualifiers.

Get off it!

There is nothing for me to "get off." I've not attempted to "weasel" out of anything--i pointed out that my statement was qualified, and i've now acknowledged that i failed to provide the sort of point by point qualification which would have avoided this entire typically Frankian tempest in a teapot.

Quote:

And don't give me advice on what words I should and should not learn. You are not nearly bright enough to be giving that kind of instruction.

Given the poverty of your style of expression, and constant habit of statements from authority in which you indulge, it was really hilarious to have read this. The vicious personal comments are to be expected, you overreact to almost everything anyone writes in these foras which you construe as contradictory to your point of view. I long ago lost any respect for your intellect, Frank, so you might well imagine (if you have any imagination) that this sort of thing from you is water of the duck's back. For the record, i made no personal comments about you, and do so now only in response to your typical nastiness--my suggestion that you learn to qualify your statements is directly in response to your habit of statements from authority. Having no reason to consider you an authority on any subject, i don't accept them.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

It's a lot less absolute than your expression.

This is a good point, CdK. When i read the link, i in fact laughed aloud at the petty argument over the meaning of a word in Greek. Given that any rabbi in Palestine two thousand years ago would have addressed an audience in Aramaic, that is truly an absurdity.

From a strictly historiographic point of view, the New Testament is completely untenable as an historical document. There are gross errors in the descriptions of the Roman Empire (e.g., Joseph would never have been required to respond to a Roman census, he was not a Roman citizen; the idea that respondents would have been required to return to the town of their birth is preposterous--the logistics would have been impossible); there are gross errors of geography (the Gaderene swine running off in a frenzy to plunge into Lake Tiberius is either created from whole cloth, or a record of the most amazing porcine athleticism ever known--Lake Tiberius is more than 30 miles from the site of ancient Gaderes). But most of all, the sources for the New Testament are in Greek, they are the remanents of at least thirteen "testaments" once in common use, and the originals of them come from at least a generation, and likely more, after the events which they purport to describe.

I could go on for pages about the prostitution of history by Christian historians, but that would not serve any useful purpose--after all, the intent of this thread is to get christian ideas. The "eye of the needle," regardless of the interpretation one chooses, is obviously an important such idea.

0 Replies

Before you guys start choosing seconds. Lets review what weve learned.

GAML-can mean a big rope or, a large smelly beast.
Now, if Jesus wanted to make a point
Sticking a camel up a needles eye makes absolutely no sense. its got no timing, its not funny,Its illogical.

But sticking a hawser through a needle has a nice connection in logic. Its not possible but its logical.

I see Jesus like a "Shecky Christ" , hes gotta work the crowd. his stories and jokes have gotta catch the common people
So, with the understanding that the 'eye of the needle" post dates Christ by a few hundred years, and is attributable to Roman engineering after Jesus time (if, it even existed at all)
Christ had no reference of sticking a camel through a possibly non-existent gate.
So then the Rope through the needle works.
Ok, now you guys can get back to whatever your dissin each other about. Personally, i like to read posts from both Frank and set. they have equally valid points in many areas .Frank can get snotty, and set can write you three pages if you ask him for the time. But, both's points are valid here.

0 Replies

General, did you happen to inquire after the time?

0 Replies

Farmer, to further complicate the question, some argue that he really meant a camel and was not saying that it was hard for a rich man but rather impossible.

Just more grist.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

[I have acknowledged that i failed to qualify that part of the statement.

Yes, you just did.

Quote:

You should have the honesty (although i doubt that you will) to acknowledge that you've taken the ball to run with it in this case.

Well, I am scrupulously honest and I have acknowledged being wrong on many, many occasions in these fora. If you have something that you want me to acknowledge -- and if I think it should be acknowledged -- I will gladly do so.

But I don't have the slightest idea of what you want me to acknowledge because this sentence of yours is a piece of unintelligible garbage.

Re-write it in comprehensible form and I will consider it.

Edited to include the word "unintelligible."

0 Replies

Honesty only helps when sentient. A difference of opinion can render "honesty" moot.

0 Replies

Good post, Farmerman.

Gotta tell you something.

I watched Lincoln and Mary on PBS this week...and you did one hell of a job winning that war for Abe Lincoln.

We sure were lucky we had both him and you at that moment in our history.

Boy, that Mc Clellen sure was an ass!

0 Replies

You inability to follow a simple progression of statements is not evidence of unintelligibility on my part, Frank.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You inability to follow a simple progression of statements is not evidence of unintelligibility on my part, Frank.

Oh, really!

Then explain what this means:

Quote:

ou should have the honesty (although i doubt that you will) to acknowledge that you've taken the ball to run with it in this case.

Sounds like a bunch of unintelligible nonsense to me!

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Honesty only helps when sentient. A difference of opinion can render "honesty" moot.

Honesty can help under a variety of circumstances -- and to suppose that it can only help under one circumstance -- that being when it is "sentient" -- is laughable.

And suggesting that "honesty" -- a concept -- can be sentient is really far out there even for you, Craven.

0 Replies

Frank,

I was not suggesting "honesty" can be sentient but rather the person. Since honesty can't be sentient I thought it obvious that the person was being described.

Let me re-phrase it in simpler terms.

"Honesty" about a subjective issue can lead to two vastly different conclusions.

"Honesty" is also no aid when someone is not aware of something.

So all the honesty in the world won't help someone admit they are wrong if they do not agree that they are wrong (in a subjective issue) or if they are not aware that they are wrong (when it's not subjective).

It's a simple statement Frank, and is only "laughable" when you misinterpret it as much as you have done.

0 Replies

Christian ideas - any answers welcome!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know