John the Baptist - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 07-08-2005, 03:34 PM
Veggie Regular
 
zoebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,451
apocrayphal books?
zoebird is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 07-08-2005, 09:17 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Annie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,124
The books that were taken out of the Bible for the King James revision. They were assumed to have good character stories, but to have been faked (written in a different place and timeframe).

Wisdom

Tobit

Suzanna

extra chapter of Daniel called "Bell and the Dragon"

I can't remember the rest. Google "Apocrypha"
Annie is offline  
#33 Old 07-08-2005, 09:51 PM
Joe
Veggie Regular
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoebird View Post

apocrayphal books?



The proponent of the "John was a vegetarian" thesis in the other forum quotes from something called the Gospel of the Holy Twelve. That book didn't make it into either Catholic or Protestant Bibles. It is more apocryphal than the Apocrypha.
Joe is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#34 Old 07-08-2005, 10:24 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Skylark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 15,684
Full list of the Apocrypha, as listed in the New Oxford Annotated Bible:



1st & 2nd Books of Esdras

Tobit

Judith

Additions to the book of Esther

The Wisdom of Solomon

Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach

Baruch

The Letter of Jeremiah

The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men

Susanna

Bel and the Dragon

The Prayer of Manasseh

1st & 2nd Maccabees

Q: How many poets does it take to change a light bulb? A: 1001...one to change the bulb, 1000 to say it's already been done.
Skylark is offline  
#35 Old 07-09-2005, 09:13 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Annie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,124
Skylark, do you know if these books are contained in the Catholic Bible? Maccabees and Baruch sound extra familiar. Might they (also) be in the Jewish Pentatuch?
Annie is offline  
#36 Old 07-09-2005, 11:23 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Mskedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,339
Yeah, they're in the Catholic Bible. Judith is my favorite.
Mskedi is offline  
#37 Old 07-09-2005, 11:10 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Skylark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 15,684
Annie, since some of the Apocryphal books were written during the "inter-testamental" period--meaning between the last of the Old Testament prophets and the time of Chris--many of them were widely accepted among the Jews. Some are additions to books that clearly are in the Jewish scriptures and Christian Old Testament. Eg. Esther, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Jeremiah.



It is also interesting to note that though the Hebrew canon and the Christian Old Testament contain the same books, they are in a different order to reflect different theological emphases. The Christian OT ends with the prophet Malachi, of which the last verse is a reminder of the coming Messiah. Then you can turn the page and read one of the geneologies of Jesus in Matthew. In the Jewish canon, the final book is Chronicles, ending with the command to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.



The Hebrew order is explained in more detail on wikipedia. The divisions for the Hebrew order and Christian order are also quite interesting.



This relates to John the Baptist because... um... the Bible talks about John the Baptist, and wikipedia also has a short commentary on the section talking about the man eating locusts.

Q: How many poets does it take to change a light bulb? A: 1001...one to change the bulb, 1000 to say it's already been done.
Skylark is offline  
#38 Old 07-10-2005, 08:13 AM
Veggie Regular
 
zoebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,451
i have a problem with the term apocryphal simply because it means erroneous or fictitous, as well as calling into the question of authenticity.



I have no problem with questioning the origins of texts, but sometimes that authenticity question comes down to 'was it inspired by God" and some people consider this the level of 'authenticity.' i find it difficult to discern something as being 'inauthentic' in relation to God's inspiration.



Similarly, when removed from the protestant canon, it was not a christian movement but a jewish one that didn't call into question the 'authenticity' of these texts, but rather their place in jewish tradition. were they as important as other texts? and why were these texts included by christians but not by jews? (hebrew is pretty much the answer to that question).



i understand which books are called 'apocraphal' from the protestant/catholic stand point. the catholic canon predates the protestant canon by hundreds of years. the protestant canon uses the jewish canon for the OT, which was canonized after the catholic canon to remove texts written in greek (even though they are diasporic texts). Similarly, in this process of jewish canonization, they didn't call these texts 'wrong' or 'unimportant' or question the authoral authenticity any more than they considered the 'talmud' wrong or unimportant--in fact many ex-canonical texts are important to the jewish tradition. So, i would be hard pressed to call any texts that the jewish peoples find valuable, yet are not in the canon, to be 'apocryphal.' in the texts related to this canonization, the deuterocanonical texts were removed because they were not in hebrew, and not consider as important as the other texts included.



similarly, prior to the catholic canon (as determined in the 400s and continued to today), there were other canons such as the ethiopian canon and the maronite canon which contained many more books. there were also regional letters, histories, gospels, revelations, poetic works, and others that many of the regional christian churches wanted included in the catholic canon during the canonization process of the 400s. The catholic church, via the councils, opted to choose only a few of these texts which seemed to be those that 'everyone' could basicly agree on (as always, there were lots of debates).



because many regional churches felt slighted or upset that their books weren't chosen, the church's official position on many of these books is that they are acceptable for use in regional churches, as teachings of church history and of experiences of Christ's presence in that church. These teachings could be openly shared between regional churches and adopted as part of that church's traditional literature, though not necessarily added to the canon.



In this way, it's difficult for me to call a text 'apocryphal' unless it is explicitly considered 'apocryphal' by the church. very few books have been considered thus, though i do not know specifically bout the text that Joe mentions. I'm sure i could find a reference to it if it is considered 'apocryphal' but otherwise, it would be considered an appropriate text for consideration regarding the revelations of christ to his bride the church.



The maronite and ethiopean canons are still used in some regions today. I do not have a copy of the maronite, but i do have a copy of the ethiopean. it has over 100 books. it's quite fascinating.



in light of this, i prefer the term "ex canonical" to refer to texts excluded from any canon unless expressly considered or labeled 'apocryphal' by the church; and in direct reference to the books, i prefer the term "deuterocanonicals" because there is a large segment of the christian population that do not consider these texts "apocryphal."



The term was used and coined to malign catholicism and differentiate protestantism--so it has large social/political underpinnings. while in common use today, it's an inappropriate term when discussing an entirely subjective process of canonization, and when many texts, while not included in the canon, were still considered valuable, important, useful for development of faith and knowledge, etc.



it's just a bug in my ear. no big deal.



BTW, i read the Nazirite vow in numbers. While it doesn't expressly state that the individual *can't* eat meat, it does state that the individual cannot be around the dead or touch a dead body. It doens't say if this only refers to dead human bodies (though it does make a direct reference to dead human bodies twice) or all dead bodies.



Interestingly enough, it says that if a nazirite's father, mother, or other family member dies, the nazirite cannot go to the funeral as this will contaminate the nazirite. he will have to shave his head, start the vow over, and give very specific sin, fellowship, wave, and other offerings (lots of killed animals). But, he doesn't actually do the sacrifices, those are done for him by the priests, and then he begins to grow his hair again. If a person drops dead in the nazirite's presence, the same rules apply as if he went to a funeral.



there is a direct statement (using the new american version--catholic) that says that the nazirite should not touch anything dead and that at the end of the vow, it will be noted or determined over when the nazirie cuts and burns his hair in sacrifice and the priest then places the nazirite's hands on the breast and thigh meat of the sacrifice and in the blood of the sacrifice offered at the temple at the end of the vow.



I'm inclinded to think, then, that a nazirite wasn't allowed to touch any dead body--even an animal's body--prior to the completion of his vow. Since it wasn't uncommon for kosher keeping jews to go vegetarian when kosher meats weren't available, it seems like it would be an appropriate 'set apart ness" of the nazirite vow to avoid all meats, as they come from the dead bodies of animals.



This is, of course, just my own thoughts on it, i have no textual evidence for or against it other than the strong statements against being around dead human bodies and the strong demonstration (uncommon in most jewish sacrifices) of having the hands touch the dead body parts of the sacrifice as well as the blood of the sacrifice offered at the end of the vow. Perhaps this allowed the Nazirite to return to touching dead bodies--those of animals and of humans.



Also, in matthew, i believe, there is a hint that jesus may have been a nazirite. In it, there is a story where i rich young man says to jesus, 'i will follow you, but i have to bury my father first' to which jesus says "let the dead bury the dead' which is a commonly understood phrase related to the nazirite vow.



it could be, then, that jesus was a nazirite, not a nazarene--which is also fascinating. He could also have been a nazirite from the nazarene region.
zoebird is offline  
#39 Old 07-10-2005, 08:34 AM
Veggie Regular
 
zoebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,451
here's a bit more about why i dislike the use of the term 'apocrypha' and 'apocryphal.' taken from the Easton's 1897 Bible dictionary, it represents the idea that these texts should not be considered the 'inspired Word of God' and thereby maligning those christians who take these texts as the 'inspired Word of God.'



Quote:
apocrypha



hidden, spurious, the name given to certain ancient books which found a place in

the LXX. and Latin Vulgate versions of the Old Testament, and were appended to

all the great translations made from them in the sixteenth century, but which

have no claim to be regarded as in any sense parts of the inspired Word.
(1.)

They are not once quoted by the New Testament writers, who frequently quote

from the LXX. Our Lord and his apostles confirmed by their authority the

ordinary Jewish canon, which was the same in all respects as we now have it.



(2.) These books were written not in Hebrew but in Greek, and during the

"period of silence," from the time of Malachi, after which oracles and direct

revelations from God ceased till the Christian era.



(3.) The contents of the books themselves show that they were no part of Scripture. The Old Testament Apocrypha consists of fourteen books, the chief of which are the Books of the Maccabees (q.v.), the Books of Esdras, the Book of Wisdom, the Book of Baruch, the Book of Esther, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, etc. The New Testament Apocrypha consists of a very extensive literature, which bears distinct evidences of its non-apostolic origin, and is utterly unworthy of regard.



unfortunately, these ideas don't bear out in church history. the catholic canon (also shared by many eastern orthodox groups) is considered--in it's entirity--to be the "inspired Word of God" and was canonized as such. Similarly, regarding the texts that could have been canonized in the NT, as i said before, regional churches and groups were allowed to use and share their own gospels and revelations within their churches and with other churches. Previous canons, such as the maronite and ethiopean were still considered 'acceptable for use by those who choose to use them" and so on.



it's important to understand the early church's perspective on these elements, and also notice the social and political change in language between protestants and catholics/orthodoxy in order to differentiate and demonstrate their 'higher' claim on christian thought and knowledge, inspiration of God, etc.



ok, just thought i'd put it out there, even though it's off topic. I'm looking to see if i can find a reference to the "Gospel of the Holy 12" and see whether or not it would be considered 'apocryphal.'



i'm inclined to believe, btw, that the nag hammadi library is actually part of these regional texts that were considered 'ok' or useful for inspiration and knowledge of God, potentially inspired by God, but not necessarily used in the canon because they do not demonstrate the same theological 'push' that the included texts do--which is the central idea of christianity. most of the regional stuff tends to deal with social and cultural details of a region. i find that fascinating.
zoebird is offline  
#40 Old 07-10-2005, 11:03 AM
Newbie
 
Yirmeyahu720's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post


3) Were Nazarites vegetarians? This is your implied question. I have seen no authoritative information that indicates that Nazarites were vegetarians or required to be vegetarians. The article in the Catholic Encyclopedia implies that they were not, since they were instructed to "purify" themselves in case of defilement by offering animal sacrifices--rather illogical for a vegetarian.



So, yes, he was probably a Nazarite, but no, he was not a vegetarian.



Everything i have seen on Nazarites says they are vegetarians. i have actually just read a bit on Nazarenes and it seems they were vegetarians as well.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/d...Tnazandeb.html

http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/d...e.net/nazb.htm

http://essenes.net/panarion.htm

Epiphanius(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphanius) explains in his book Panarion: "Nasaraeans, meaning, "rebels," who forbid all flesh-eating, and do not eat living things at all. They have the holy names of patriarchs which are in the Pentateuch, up through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun, and they believe in them- I mean Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the earliest ones, and Moses himself, and Aaron, and Joshua. But they hold that the scriptures of the Pentateuch were not written by Moses, and maintain that they have others." - Panarion 19.1
Yirmeyahu720 is offline  
#41 Old 07-10-2005, 11:21 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Annie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,124
Some of this makes me wonder...

If these books were in the Bible *before* the King James revision...

and the Bible clearly states "do not add to or take away from any words"...
Annie is offline  
#42 Old 07-10-2005, 05:28 PM
Joe
Veggie Regular
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu720 View Post

Everything i have seen on Nazarites says they are vegetarians. i have actually just read a bit on Nazarenes and it seems they were vegetarians as well.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/d...Tnazandeb.html

http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/d...e.net/nazb.htm

http://essenes.net/panarion.htm

Epiphanius(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphanius) explains in his book Panarion: "Nasaraeans, meaning, "rebels," who forbid all flesh-eating, and do not eat living things at all. They have the holy names of patriarchs which are in the Pentateuch, up through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun, and they believe in them- I mean Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the earliest ones, and Moses himself, and Aaron, and Joshua. But they hold that the scriptures of the Pentateuch were not written by Moses, and maintain that they have others." - Panarion 19.1



Sorry, but I am having trouble following your citations. Also, I do not agree that "Nazarites" and "Nazarenes" and "Nasaraeans" are all terms that mean the same thing.



The Bible says that John the Baptist ate locusts. I have not seen anything I regard as credible to challenge this statement, and I see no basis for asserting that this verse is some sort of mis-translation.
Joe is offline  
#43 Old 07-10-2005, 08:49 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Skylark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 15,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie View Post

"do not add to or take away from any words"



That verse is Revelation 22:18-19, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."



Revelation is an apocolypse, which is a specific genre that people used from likely the time of the later prophets to the end of the first century C.E. Common characteristics of apocolypses were dramatic descriptions of events, including many symbols. They even had a key of symbols, most of which has been lost. The Left Behind movement completely misses the point of Revelation, IMO. It's not meant to be taken literally or as a roadmap to future events.



Anyway, getting back to what I was saying about Revelation. Another common characteristic of apocolypses is a warning of a curse to fall on anyone who messes with the text. Since they had no copyrights or intellectual property laws, there weren't many ways of protecting one's work. Now, the ancient cultures frequently engaged in what we could consider to be plagiarism--sticking a famous person's name on something you wrote, rewriting major sections of one's religious history, etc. It wasn't a big deal to them. So with that in mind, apocolypsers (if that is a word) were unique in demanding that people leave their stuff alone. Maybe someone else here, like zoebird, has some info on why that is.

Q: How many poets does it take to change a light bulb? A: 1001...one to change the bulb, 1000 to say it's already been done.
Skylark is offline  
#44 Old 07-10-2005, 09:00 PM
Veggie Regular
 
MollyGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,159
My dad, who's a Biblical Greek scholar, says that the word for locust and the word for carob were the same. So take your pick. He thinks carob is more likely.



FWIW.
MollyGoat is offline  
#45 Old 07-10-2005, 09:50 PM
Veggie Regular
 
berrykat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,203
http://scriptures.lds.org/num/6 I think a nazerite was somebody who took a vow and for a period of time had to give up certain things like drinking wine or cutting their hair. The word might have developed more meaning later on maybe? Anyway here is a link to King James bible verse on nazerites.
berrykat is offline  
#46 Old 07-10-2005, 11:05 PM
cyk
Veggie Regular
 
cyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu720 View Post

Everything i have seen on Nazarites says they are vegetarians. i have actually just read a bit on Nazarenes and it seems they were vegetarians as well.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/d...Tnazandeb.html

http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/d...e.net/nazb.htm

http://essenes.net/panarion.htm

Epiphanius(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphanius) explains in his book Panarion: "Nasaraeans, meaning, "rebels," who forbid all flesh-eating, and do not eat living things at all. They have the holy names of patriarchs which are in the Pentateuch, up through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun, and they believe in them- I mean Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the earliest ones, and Moses himself, and Aaron, and Joshua. But they hold that the scriptures of the Pentateuch were not written by Moses, and maintain that they have others." - Panarion 19.1







The first two links that you provided are talking about Nazarenes... But they say different things about there diet...



From the 1st link above... "Disdain for eating meat and even the Temple slaughter of animals, preferring the ideals of the pre-Flood diet and what they took to be the original ideal of worship (see Gen 9:1-5; Jer 7:21-22; Isa 11:9; 66:1-4). A general interest in seeking the Path reflected in the pre-Sinai revelation, especially the time from Enoch to Noah. For example, divorce was shunned, even though technically it was later allowed by Moses."



From the 2nd link: "Both Matthew and Mark tell us that John ate locusts (Mt. 3:4; Mk. 1:6). Of course, Lev. 11:20-23 lists these insects as kosher. Now The Dead Sea Scrolls tell us that the Qumran community also made locusts as part of their diet. In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls even tell us how they were to be cooked (Dam. Doc. xii, 11-15)."



--



The reason why I think it really was a locust is because it is used throughout the bible (the insect or as enemies)... While carob isn't (I don't think?)... And if being 'clean' was part of the vow, then eating locusts wouldn't be objectionable. But that was interesting what Annie said about the carob pod being reffered to as St. John's bread!



I'm going to ask my greek teacher what akris means, and see what she says!



Great thread by the way! It's interesting, and I learned a lot!
cyk is offline  
#47 Old 07-11-2005, 07:20 AM
Veggie Regular
 
catswym's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoebird View Post




Also, in matthew, i believe, there is a hint that jesus may have been a nazirite. In it, there is a story where i rich young man says to jesus, 'i will follow you, but i have to bury my father first' to which jesus says "let the dead bury the dead' which is a commonly understood phrase related to the nazirite vow.



it could be, then, that jesus was a nazirite, not a nazarene--which is also fascinating. He could also have been a nazirite from the nazarene region.



except he goes around dead bodies (when he wants to raise them from the dead).
catswym is offline  
#48 Old 07-11-2005, 09:14 AM
Veggie Regular
 
zoebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,451
catswym:



yes, that's why there is debate about that particular verse. it is really an interesting 'inclusion.'



similarly, a nazirite vow only lasted for a period of time. Some speculate that jesus was a nazirite when he spent the '40 days in the desert' or that he was a nazirite when approached by that man--that at that time, he was under the nazirite vow and was encouraging the man to take the vow as well. there are a lot of debates about this.



the thing about nazirite vows is that they were nto often lifetime things. they were meant to be for a specific amount of time, specified before the priest when taking the vow. so, you could take a week long or a year long or whatever nazirite vow. So, perhaps jesus took the vow at one time, and then at other times wasn't under the vow, which is why he coudl raise lazarus and the little girl, and so on.



i think it's interesting.



skylark also has some really interesting points. Paul is also emphatic about not changing his words. i think that the only way people could protect their information was to put plagues on people. LOL i mean, if you were afriad of this or that plague, then you likely wouldn't mess with the text, right? but otherwise, it was common.



similarly, it was common to use pen names of famous people--living or dead. And sometimes you had permission and sometimes you didn't. Some of paul's letters (noteably hebrews) may actually have been written by a woman (priscilla) who was an educated disciple of paul's. the evidence to this claim is based on the use of language and grammar, more refined than paul's. reflecting that with other letters attributed to priscilla (or known to be written by her) it is believed that some of the letters attributed to paul were actually written by her. the early egyptian christian churches accepted these letters as 'paul's' but it was hotly debated even until canonization as to who the author was.



as for the type of text, skylark puts it well when discussing revelations. it's largely considered symbolic of the sack of jerusalem, which occured shortly after christ's death--a major impact on the early church and judaism. there is an arch (arch if tiberius, i believe) in the old roman forum, in rome of course, that depicts this occurance. similarly, the 'left behind' folks as well as the 'anti-catholic' folks, seriously missed the point of the text.
zoebird is offline  
#49 Old 07-11-2005, 10:21 AM
Newbie
 
Yirmeyahu720's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by catswym View Post

except he goes around dead bodies (when he wants to raise them from the dead).

going around them does not mean he comes in contact with them while they were considered "dead".
Yirmeyahu720 is offline  
#50 Old 07-11-2005, 10:45 AM
Newbie
 
Yirmeyahu720's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyk View Post





The first two links that you provided are talking about Nazarenes... But they say different things about there diet...



From the 1st link above... "Disdain for eating meat and even the Temple slaughter of animals, preferring the ideals of the pre-Flood diet and what they took to be the original ideal of worship (see Gen 9:1-5; Jer 7:21-22; Isa 11:9; 66:1-4). A general interest in seeking the Path reflected in the pre-Sinai revelation, especially the time from Enoch to Noah. For example, divorce was shunned, even though technically it was later allowed by Moses."



From the 2nd link: "Both Matthew and Mark tell us that John ate locusts (Mt. 3:4; Mk. 1:6). Of course, Lev. 11:20-23 lists these insects as kosher. Now The Dead Sea Scrolls tell us that the Qumran community also made locusts as part of their diet. In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls even tell us how they were to be cooked (Dam. Doc. xii, 11-15)."



--



The reason why I think it really was a locust is because it is used throughout the bible (the insect or as enemies)... While carob isn't (I don't think?)... And if being 'clean' was part of the vow, then eating locusts wouldn't be objectionable. But that was interesting what Annie said about the carob pod being reffered to as St. John's bread!



I'm going to ask my greek teacher what akris means, and see what she says!



Great thread by the way! It's interesting, and I learned a lot!

I am more tempted to go with the writings of Epiphanius, an orthodox early church father who had access to less altered or unaltered ancient documents and says they forbid eating flesh.

i can't find what the second site is talking about in the damascus document, does anyone have a link where i could read it(the Damascus Document)? my translation only goes up to column VIII
Yirmeyahu720 is offline  
#51 Old 07-11-2005, 10:58 AM
Veggie Regular
 
zoebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,451
does nag hammadi online have it?
zoebird is offline  
#52 Old 07-11-2005, 12:47 PM
Veggie Regular
 
catswym's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu720 View Post

going around them does not mean he comes in contact with them while they were considered "dead".



"51When he arrived at the house of Jairus, he did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, John and James, and the child's father and mother. 52Meanwhile, all the people were wailing and mourning for her. "Stop wailing," Jesus said. "She is not dead but asleep."



53They laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. 54But he took her by the hand and said, "My child, get up!" 55Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up. Then Jesus told them to give her something to eat. 56Her parents were astonished, but he ordered them not to tell anyone what had happened.

(from luke 8).



he touched her, commanded and then her spirit returned i.e. she became alive again.
catswym is offline  
#53 Old 07-11-2005, 02:32 PM
Newbie
 
Yirmeyahu720's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by catswym View Post

"51When he arrived at the house of Jairus, he did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, John and James, and the child's father and mother. 52Meanwhile, all the people were wailing and mourning for her. "Stop wailing," Jesus said. "She is not dead but asleep."



53They laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. 54But he took her by the hand and said, "My child, get up!" 55Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up. Then Jesus told them to give her something to eat. 56Her parents were astonished, but he ordered them not to tell anyone what had happened.

(from luke 8).



he touched her, commanded and then her spirit returned i.e. she became alive again.

what i read says that she was not dead. unless Jesus lied to them. Jesus knew what they did not know.
Yirmeyahu720 is offline  
#54 Old 07-11-2005, 02:38 PM
Newbie
 
Yirmeyahu720's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoebird View Post

does nag hammadi online have it?

i did not see it there
Yirmeyahu720 is offline  
#55 Old 07-11-2005, 02:41 PM
Veggie Regular
 
catswym's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu720 View Post

what i read says that she was not dead. unless Jesus lied to them. Jesus knew what they did not know.



he knew what they didn't because he knew what he was going to do.



but whatever, this is OT, and i shan't continue.
catswym is offline  
#56 Old 07-11-2005, 05:11 PM
Veggie Regular
 
zoebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,451
i think it could be read both ways: 1. jesus knew he was going to raise her, so he said 'she is not dead' (and that began the process of raising her), thereby he was by a dead body; or 2. jesus knew what they did not, that she was not dead even though they thought she was, and then he raised her, meaning that jesus was not by a dead body.



but whether or not jesus was by a dead body is irrelevant *unless* he was by that dead body while under the nazirite vow. it is entirely possible that while working these sorts of miracles, he was not under the vow, therefore it would not have been problematic for him to touch the bodies.



i love how scriptures can be so widely interpretive.
zoebird is offline  
#57 Old 07-11-2005, 06:15 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Annie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,124
Is nazirite a part of Jewish religion, or entirely different? Because I know that as a Jew, it was unlawful to heal someone on the Sabboth (which it was). Hence the " he ordered them not to tell anyone what had happened."
Annie is offline  
#58 Old 07-11-2005, 11:39 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Skylark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 15,684
Annie, as far as I know, Nazarite vows have accompanied the Jews for many centuries. Judges 13 in the OT is the first mention of Samson, who was 'ordained' if you will to live under a Nazarite vow from birth. If you remember the big deal about him cutting his hair later in chapter 16, as the secret to his strength, yes, that was part of the Nazarite vow.



zoebird, it strikes me that if Jesus was under a Nazarite vow at some point, he likely wasn't when he changed the water into wine at the wedding in Cana, if the Nazarite vow of Jesus' time was the same as Samson's. Samson was supposed to avoid "wine and strong drink"--I guess wine isn't strong?--and presumably Jesus drank some of the wine he'd changed from water. Of course there are other places like the Last Supper in Matthew 26 that portray Jesus as drinking wine more clearly.

Q: How many poets does it take to change a light bulb? A: 1001...one to change the bulb, 1000 to say it's already been done.
Skylark is offline  
#59 Old 07-12-2005, 01:12 PM
Veggie Regular
 
zoebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,451
i hadn't made the connection between samson and the vow.



but, a person needn't be under a vow forever. It could have been that he was only under the vow during the time that he made that particular statement.



i'll have to re-read regarding wine. perhaps they were allowed to be 'around' wine, but not allowed to drink wine.
zoebird is offline  
#60 Old 07-12-2005, 01:14 PM
Veggie Regular
 
zoebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,451
nazirite vow is part of the jewish religion.



healing on the sabbath was not allowed because it was considered 'work.'
zoebird is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off