Ken Starr and his homophobic agenda.

[Straybow]

A sophist? Really? I think it is obvious who is engaging in sophistry here. You can argue all you want about Greek grammar (which you said yourself is ambiguous in this passage, and therefore your argument is no more valid than mine).

To understand what Jesus means by "in the beginning" one goes to the source and studies that. There is nothing in the source material about mystical, neo-Platonic connections.

Now let's look at your actual argument. If there is a spooky connection between man and wife, and then the man marries another woman polygamously or after an invalid divorce, the spooky connection is "sloppy" and laps over to connect the two wives. This discordance makes God cry. Yeah, that's what Jesus was saying. He just didn't say it that way. At all. Or even remotely close.

[Whaleboy]

BK:

Popular opinion /= truth value

[Jon Miller]

that would mean monogamy was the practice from the beginning and it wasn't, the patriarchs pre-date Mosaic Law and all I see in the OT from God about the subject is repeated endorsements of polygamy.

Polygamy in the OT gets people in trouble over and over again. You are not reading the stories, rather assuming that everything that happens in them is good.

It is quite obvious that the OT has a lot of bad, wrong things in it. These are allowed, not the best possible option.

JM

[-Jrabbit]

It is quite obvious that the OT has a lot of bad, wrong things in it. These are allowed, not the best possible option.

OT = Old Testament?

...or Off Topic?

[MrFun]

Both are sacred, Jrabbit, so does it matter?

[Agathon]

A sophist? Really? I think it is obvious who is engaging in sophistry here. You can argue all you want about Greek grammar (which you said yourself is ambiguous in this passage, and therefore your argument is no more valid than mine).

How would you know? You're groping in the dark.

Some parts of the text are not as clear as one would wish. Some aren't. For example, the remark about "hardheartedness" uses the preposition "pros", which like all prepositions has a vague meaning when used in a non-physical sense (the same is true of English). So here it means something like "in regard to" or "on account of".

The general gist of the passage is crystal clear, however (the Greek is quite simple to translate).

To understand what Jesus means by "in the beginning" one goes to the source and studies that. There is nothing in the source material about mystical, neo-Platonic connections.

It's not neoplatonism (something else you know nothing about). It's much older than neoplatonism, or even platonism, as I pointed out above with examples. Platonism adopts the same idea, and there is later cross fertilization. But the idea of male and female as complementary natural cosmological forces, the union of which is ordained by nature and somehow holy, is one of the oldest human beliefs. That's why the King of Babylon got to diddle the priestess of Ishtar once a year.

It's only if you regard the Abrahamic religions as somehow being exempted from the influence of religious thought in the ancient Middle East, and as some pure fount of wisdom, that you wouldn't believe this.

The Ancient Hebrew religion came into being among other religious traditions, which influenced it. The influence of Zoroastrianism is pretty easy to spot, for example.

The only problem is that adherents of these religions cannot accept a historical account of them that does not fit with current religious orthodoxy in regard of reinterpretation of old beliefs. So, for example, there was a concerted effort to have Zoroastrianism given a fairly late date, so that no-one could say that Jewish monotheism wasn't borrowed from it. The motivation here is religious, not historical. Despite that, it seems pretty evident that Zoroastrianism may well have been the first properly monotheistic religion.

Now let's look at your actual argument. If there is a spooky connection between man and wife, and then the man marries another woman polygamously or after an invalid divorce, the spooky connection is "sloppy" and laps over to connect the two wives. This discordance makes God cry. Yeah, that's what Jesus was saying. He just didn't say it that way. At all. Or even remotely close.

How would you know? You can't read the text you're criticising.

If he doesn't say some variation of that, then his remarks on divorce are a non-sequitur. There certainly has to be some spooky connection, whatever this is, or his remarks on divorce make him a sophist. The connection is made in terms of some sort of consubstantiality, because that is what the text says.

It's quite simple. Either Jesus is mounting a reasoned defense of his (radical) beliefs about marriage and divorce based on the Genesis passage, or he isn't. If he isn't, then he's just BAMing and quoting scripture. That makes him a sophist. If he is mounting a rational defense, then there has to be something in what he says at first,that correlates with his view on the permissibility of divorce. That in turn cannot be merely figurative because it will not then support the latter. In turn, his rejection of the Mosaic law demonstrates that the marriage connection cannot be a mere convention.

It's quite simple and elementary logic.

If only you could read the text in the original language, then you might be competent to judge the matter. But you can't, so you aren't.

[Berzerker]

Polygamy in the OT gets people in trouble over and over again. You are not reading the stories, rather assuming that everything that happens in them is good.

It is quite obvious that the OT has a lot of bad, wrong things in it. These are allowed, not the best possible option.

JM

I'm not making assumptions, God repeatedly endorses, blesses (even promises), or arranges polygamous relationships among the patriarchs. That cannot be denied, its in the text.

So how can I accept something said by Adam about Eve coming from his flesh (rib) as a condemnation of polygamy?

[Straybow]

The general gist of the passage is crystal clear, however (the Greek is quite simple to translate).

Translate, yes. Understand, obviously not. You keep injecting all kinds of things trying to reconcile it to your philosphy, instead of reading the translation with which you claim such familiarity.

It's much older than neoplatonism, or even platonism, as I pointed out above with examples.

All of which are invalid. They have no direct influence on Jesus' teaching, unless you're proposing, a la Baigent and that group of crackpots, that Jesus traveled the NME studying all these other religions. Of course, he must've been a bad student since he failed to teach those other religions.

The only problem is that adherents of these religions cannot accept a historical account of them that does not fit with current religious orthodoxy in regard of reinterpretation of old beliefs.

I will accept anything that is an actual historical account. What you have laid out for us is a (steaming) pile of revisionist assertions.

So, for example, there was a concerted effort to have Zoroastrianism given a fairly late date, so that no-one could say that Jewish monotheism wasn't borrowed from it. The motivation here is religious, not historical. Despite that, it seems pretty evident that Zoroastrianism may well have been the first properly monotheistic religion.

Non sequitur. You keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with what Jesus says or what Judaism taught. In particular these pontifications have nothing to do with this passage, since the ideas you bring up are not directly addressed in either the text or the midrashes. Which you apparently know nothing about.

How would you know? You can't read the text you're criticising.

I just don't bother propping up my ego by bring up Greek nuances when they have so very little to contribute.

If he doesn't say some variation of that, then his remarks on divorce are a non-sequitur. There certainly has to be some spooky connection, whatever this is, or his remarks on divorce make him a sophist. The connection is made in terms of some sort of consubstantiality, because that is what the text says.

Except "one flesh" in the reference passage has nothing to do with consubstantiality.

It's quite simple. Either Jesus is mounting a reasoned defense of his (radical) beliefs about marriage and divorce based on the Genesis passage, or he isn't. If he isn't, then he's just BAMing and quoting scripture. That makes him a sophist. If he is mounting a rational defense, then there has to be something in what he says at first,that correlates with his view on the permissibility of divorce. That in turn cannot be merely figurative because it will not then support the latter. In turn, his rejection of the Mosaic law demonstrates that the marriage connection cannot be a mere convention.

Again, if you knew anything about the midrash of that passage you would know neither it nor what Jesus is saying has anything to do with any of your suppositions of consubstantiality.

Furthermore, if you knew anything about Jesus' religious opposition you would know why he was stressing their abuse of the Mosaic code. You would also know he wasn't rejecting the Mosiac code by doing so.

[Straybow]

I'm not making assumptions, God repeatedly endorses, blesses (even promises), or arranges polygamous relationships among the patriarchs. That cannot be denied, its in the text.

So how can I accept something said by Adam about Eve coming from his flesh (rib) as a condemnation of polygamy?

No, God doesn't endorse or arrange the polygamous relationships of the patriarchs. He does bless the children that came from those unions. Again, Adam isn't saying, "Look, she's from my rib!" He's saying, "Here is one whom I will treat as important to me as a part of my body."

[Agathon]

Translate, yes. Understand, obviously not. You keep injecting all kinds of things trying to reconcile it to your philosphy, instead of reading the translation with which you claim such familiarity.

It ain't my philosophy. It's not even philosophy, it's just a belief that is as old as the hills. Some version of it happens to be required in order to make Jesus response to the Pharisees work as a defence and not a piece of BAMing.

You keep trying to change the subject when you can't even read the book you are attempting to interpret, and you have no comeback to the argument offered. What you have posted is irrelevant bull****, which you posted merely to try and disguise the fact that you don't have a response to the argument.

Again, either there is reason giving involved in the passage, or Jesus is a sophist. Your argument makes him a sophist, because you have him proposing some figurative bull**** such that he doesn't really offer anything in response to the Pharisees' attempt to make trial of him. But if he has something to offer, then his use of the Genesis passage can't really be figurative. Or, we should more accurately say, the author of the Gospel must have the character of Jesus do this, or there is no point.

Midrash has little to contribute here, since it's usual practice to stick to what the writer in question says first. And that's the point. The rational question is "what did this writer mean in this passage?", not "how is this consistent with the OT or other biblical writings?" for the simple reason that the latter involves the unwarranted and religious assumption that the Bible is consistent. But there's no rational evidence for that. As such, the obvious question is: "how do we make this passage work given the usual assumptions of charity involved in interpretation?"

So there is no need for rational people to assert that the entire Bible is consistent or that early Christianity is consistent with ancient Hebrew religious beliefs. People want to believe this for religious reasons, and the author of Matthew, and JC himself may well have believed it, but it is unlikely to be true. It's pretty obvious that Christianity is quite different and much more sophisticated and humane than the vile cult of the ancient Hebrews. This passage is just one of the places where that fact is evident. It's just a cover because Jesus really didn't like orthodox religious practice, but rather than proclaim himself a heretic, he does the usual trick of saying that he really understands the meaning of the original scripture.

And all of this is because your stupid church has told you something you have to desperately believe instead of actually reading what the text says. Religious scholars cannot usually be trusted for this very reason. Dumb American fundies have even less credbility.

The text says what it says, but you wouldn't know because you can't read it, and that's the real problem here. You are taking someone else's account of what it says on faith because you can't read it for yourself. You already got in trouble because you didn't understand which verbs were being used where. Now you're just floundering and making vague appeals to authority because you can't read Greek.

[Agathon]

I'm not making assumptions, God repeatedly endorses, blesses (even promises), or arranges polygamous relationships among the patriarchs. That cannot be denied, its in the text.

So how can I accept something said by Adam about Eve coming from his flesh (rib) as a condemnation of polygamy?

That's a different question.

I don't think the question of whether polygamy is justified by the Bible as a whole is a sensible question. Some of the writers thought it was justifiable, others didn't.

It's only a problem if you are compelled for religious reasons to make the Bible consistent. But that quest seems doomed to failure, because you really have is hundreds of years of people trying to push their own opinions in the name of God, and there's no reason to think that they must all be consistent.

[MrFun]

It ain't my philosophy. It's not even philosophy, it's just a belief that is as old as the hills. Some version of it happens to be required in order to make Jesus response to the Pharisees work as a defence and not a piece of BAMing.

You keep trying to change the subject when you can't even read the book you are attempting to interpret, and you have no comeback to the argument offered. What you have posted is irrelevant bull****, which you posted merely to try and disguise the fact that you don't have a response to the argument.

Again, either there is reason giving involved in the passage, or Jesus is a sophist. Your argument makes him a sophist, because you have him proposing some figurative bull**** such that he doesn't really offer anything in response to the Pharisees' attempt to make trial of him. But if he has something to offer, then his use of the Genesis passage can't really be figurative. Or, we should more accurately say, the author of the Gospel must have the character of Jesus do this, or there is no point.

Midrash has little to contribute here, since it's usual practice to stick to what the writer in question says first. And that's the point. The rational question is "what did this writer mean in this passage?", not "how is this consistent with the OT or other biblical writings?" for the simple reason that the latter involves the unwarranted and religious assumption that the Bible is consistent. But there's no rational evidence for that. As such, the obvious question is: "how do we make this passage work given the usual assumptions of charity involved in interpretation?"

So there is no need for rational people to assert that the entire Bible is consistent or that early Christianity is consistent with ancient Hebrew religious beliefs. People want to believe this for religious reasons, and the author of Matthew, and JC himself may well have believed it, but it is unlikely to be true. It's pretty obvious that Christianity is quite different and much more sophisticated and humane than the vile cult of the ancient Hebrews. This passage is just one of the places where that fact is evident. It's just a cover because Jesus really didn't like orthodox religious practice, but rather than proclaim himself a heretic, he does the usual trick of saying that he really understands the meaning of the original scripture.

And all of this is because your stupid church has told you something you have to desperately believe instead of actually reading what the text says. Religious scholars cannot usually be trusted for this very reason. Dumb American fundies have even less credbility.

The text says what it says, but you wouldn't know because you can't read it, and that's the real problem here. You are taking someone else's account of what it says on faith because you can't read it for yourself. You already got in trouble because you didn't understand which verbs were being used where. Now you're just floundering and making vague appeals to authority because you can't read Greek.

Excellent stuff!

[Berzerker]

No, God doesn't endorse or arrange the polygamous relationships of the patriarchs.

Abram had 3 wives and he was promised by God to have countless descendants, to be the father of many nations. That promise was not fulfilled by Sarah and Isaac...

[David Floyd]

Agathon, you may be full of ****, but I have no way of knowing, since, like Strawbow, I can't read Greek

In any case, it sounds pretty good. In fact, you should definitely talk to my mom about this. She thinks that because she went to seminary and got to degrees - neither of which have a thing to do with Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, or any other language - she is competent to interpret the Bible (from, of course, various English translations and other writings giving interpretive guidance for said English translations).

Anyway, I can always nail her on logic and consistency arguments (her only recourse here is to quote from the Bible, and to tell me that she wishes she was as smart as me so that she could give me an intellectual answer, but that in the end she's right [and trust me, she's said this many times]), but I don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to language.

[Ben Kenobi]

David, I know Agathon is doing it right. It's not as if it's his opinion, and everyone else, but he's right down the middle with how the passage ought to be interpreted.