Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [John_Lit] Loaded Question

Expand Messages
  • Christopher Skinner
    John Lupia wrote: Do you see the logical possibility that ASQENWN may signify that he was very weak and feeble? Do you see the logic to the fact that being
    Message 1 of 29 , Feb 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      John Lupia wrote:

      Do you see the logical possibility that ASQENWN may signify that he was very
      weak and feeble? Do you see the logic to the fact
      that being raised from the dead, in this case, does
      not mean being raised to eternal life. Consequently,
      Thomas, do you see the logical possibility that
      Lazarus may have been a very old man who was weak and
      feeble who died? Jesus raised him from the dead, and
      he may have lived for some brief span of time, and
      possibly died around the time that Jesus was crucified
      and rose. So, therefore, it does not necessary follow
      that Lazarus was alive in the post resurrection early
      Church community.


      Has it occurred to you that you are arguing completely from silence? I would suggest that your solution is as lacking in substance as the view you are attempting to critique.

      Regards,


      Chris Skinner
      The Catholic University of America


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John Lupia
      Chris: Has it occurred to you that you are arguing completely from silence? John: By definition, an inductive argument holds that the premises provide, or at
      Message 2 of 29 , Mar 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Chris:
        Has it occurred to you that you are arguing completely
        from silence?

        John:
        By definition, an inductive argument holds that the
        premises provide, or at least, appear to provide some
        degree of support, but less than complete support for
        the conclusion arrived at. The point or crux of such
        an argument is to give reasons that support some
        conclusion. An argument commits a fallacy when the
        reasons offered do not support the conclusion.
        Therefore, in this case you are making a fallacy of
        distraction, the variety of which is known as an
        argumentum ad ignorantiam; since you have neither
        identified the proposition in question, nor have you
        argued that it may be true even though we don't know
        whether it is or isn't, something which I have shown:
        QED. Moreover, and for the sake of pellucidity: the
        burden of proof is a fallacy when it is placed on the
        wrong side. Alternately, when a lack of evidence for
        side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in
        which the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
        Consequently, your statement borders on �Poisoning the
        Well�.


        See Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, Introduction to
        Logic. 8th Edition. (Macmillan, 1990): 93.

        With warm regards,
        John

        =====
        John N. Lupia, III
        31 Norwich Drive
        Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA
        Phone: (732) 341-8689
        Email: jlupia2@...
        Editor, Roman Catholic News
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
        http://taxes.yahoo.com/
      • Thomas W Butler
        On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:30:56 -0600 fmmccoy ... Frank, I m fascinated by what you are saying. I like your questions and I can see
        Message 3 of 29 , Mar 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:30:56 -0600 "fmmccoy" <FMMCCOY@...>
          writes:
          >
          > You posit the thought sequence of Lazarus--> Eleazar-->
          > High Priest--> Temple Priesthood, so that Lazarus comes
          > to represent the temple priesthood.
          >
          > The longer the through sequence required, ISTM, the less likely
          > it becomes. So, ISTM, it is more likely that Lazarus represents
          > a real High Priest than that he represents an abstraction,
          > i.e., the temple priesthood.
          >
          > Indeed, there was a High Priest named Eleazar who had two
          > sisters: one named Martha and the other of unknown name.
          > Might not they be Martha and Mary, the two sisters of Lazarus?
          > Further, he had a brother named Simon (Simeon). Might he
          > not be the Simon, nicknamed the Leper, who, according to
          > Mark, owned the house in Bethany where the supper had
          > taken place?

          Frank,

          I'm fascinated by what you are saying.

          I like your questions and I can see where you are going with this.

          It seems to me that if a historical connection can be made
          between the figure of Lazarus and the High Priest Eleazar to
          whom you refer, the case can still be made that the writer(s)
          of the Fourth Gospel are using that figure figuratively :-) The
          text itself indicates that GROUPS of *Jews* followed Mary, heard
          the call of Jesus to Lazarus, and some of them became disciples.

          > The individual I have in mind is Eleazar, the son of Boethus,
          > who was appointed High Priest for a while by Archelaus. If he
          > was Lazarus, then, c. 30 CE, he would have been an old man.
          >
          > There was a daughter of Boethus, named Martha, who is
          > mentioned in the Talmud (Gittim 56a), and who died of
          > starvation during the Roman siege of Jerusalem.
          >
          > In addition, there was a daughter of Boethus, of unknown name,
          > who married a High Priest named Matthias (see Antiquities, Book
          > XVII, Chap. VI, Sect 4, where, Josephus relates, Matthias was a
          > brother in law of a son of Boethus named Joazar.).
          >
          > Finally, there was a son of Boethus named Simeon (Simon),
          > who lived for an incredible length of time--for Josephus has
          > him attaining the high priesthood for the first time c. 20 BCE
          > (see Ibid., Book XV, Chap. IX, sect. 3), and then (long after
          > losing it c. 5 BCE) re-gaining it briefly around 41 CE (Ibid.,
          > Book XIX, Chap. VI, Sect. 2).
          >
          > So, not only does it take a shorter thought sequence for
          > Lazarus to represent a real High Priest than it does for him
          > to represent the temple priesthood, but we know of an actual
          > High Priest, Eleazar bar Boethus, who matches everything we
          > know about Lazarus. The conclusion: It is more likely that
          > Lazarus represents a real High Priest named Eleazar bar
          > Boethus than that he represents the temple priesthood.
          >
          > If Lazarus be Eleazar bar Boethus, then at least three members
          > of the high priestly aristocracy had been followers of Jesus: this
          > Eleazar, his sister named Martha, and his sister who is unnamed
          > by Josephus but named Mary by John.

          Frank, my theory, as you know, is that Mosaic oracles are used
          as signs in the Fourth Gospel. I suspect that a Mosaic scholar
          of high quality would need to have participated in the writing of
          the gospel. The most prominent one named in the text is
          Nicodemus. He is paired with Joseph of Arimathea, who is
          identified as a secret disciple of Jesus in Jn. 19: 38-39.

          This opens the possibility that there may have been more than
          one secret disciple of Jesus, and that persons belonging to what
          you call the priestly aristocracy (what I think is meant by the
          gospel writer(s) when he/she/they make reference to *the Jews*)
          were among them.

          Craig Evans (in James Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea
          Scrolls, the Anchor Bible Reference Library, Doubleday, 1992, p240-
          253) writes a whole chapter on Opposition to the Temple. Evans
          sites Josephus in describing the Temple's great wealth and the
          political power of the ruling priests, especially the High Priest
          (Apion 2.185-87; 2.194; 20.181, 206-7). He also sites the
          Testament of Moses and the Tosephta and Talmuds where
          there are accounts of High Priests sending violent men to take
          away by force the offerings rightly belonging to lesser priests.

          One of these latter references includes these lines: *Woe to me
          because of the house of Boethus. Woe to me because of their
          staves. Woe is me because of the house of Kathros. Woe is me
          because of their pen. Woe is me because of the house of Hanin
          [=the family of Annas; cf. John 18: 13]. Woe is me because of
          their whispering. Woe is me because of the house of Ishmael ben
          Phabi. For they are high priests, and their sons [are] treasurers,
          and their sons-in-law [are] supervisors, and their servants come
          and beat us with staves.* (p. 240)

          If this is the same Boethus to whom you are referring, it hardly
          seems likely that this powerful theif would have become a
          disciple of the Jesus who cleansed the temple, driving the money
          changers out with a whip!

          What you offer seems to support the idea that priests were
          being abused, even to the point of starving at the gates of the
          temple as I suggested in my exegesis of the parable by Jesus
          as reported in the Gospel of Luke. This particular historical
          character, however, seems unlikely to have become a disciple
          of Jesus.

          It seems more likely that a caricature of this particular family
          was used to represent the corrupt priestly aristocracy and the
          power of Jesus to call even them out of their gilded tomb.

          I believe it was John Lupia who questioned what the historical
          situation might have been that would have caused temple priests
          to leave the temple. It seems to me that this level of corruption
          might be one such cause.

          > That all three, according to John, were loved by Jesus suggests
          > that Jesus was intimately acquainted with them. One possibility
          > is that, during a part of his "missing" years, he lived with them
          > at Bethany and was educated by them.

          Aren't you drawing an awful lot from the reference to Jesus' love?
          Following your suggestion that the simpler line is better, how about
          simply concluding that the message is that Jesus loved the people
          caught up in this corrupt priestly aristocracy or that he loved the
          priesthood?

          > (Tom)
          > > The sense I make of this, agreeing with Frank McCoy, is that the
          > > "death" from which Jesus resurrects Lazarus is spiritual death.
          > > (I go even further than Frank does, suggesting that the temple
          > > priesthood's spiritual life has died and that the tomb where
          > > Lazarus is when Jesus arrives is actually the temple. The temple
          > > priests come out of the temple, either following Mary of Bethany
          > > -Jn. 11: 31- or in response to the call of Jesus -Jn. 11: 43. Some
          > > of those who come out become disciples -Jn. 11: 45.
          >
          > (Frank)
          > Well, at least we agree on one point :-)
          >
          > Our initial division is over the nature of "Lazarus". I take "Lazarus"
          > to be a real person undergoing a spiritual resurrection from being
          > spiritually dead--a rebirth of the soul alone: which rebirth liberates
          > the soul from its dependence on the body (the tomb). You take
          > "Lazarus" to be a group of temple priests who undergo a spiritual
          > resurrection from a spiritual death in which they come out of the
          > temple (the tomb).
          >
          > I concede that you might be correct in thinking that the tomb where
          > Lazarus is when Jesus arrives represents the temple. In 11:38, this
          > tomb is said to be a cave (stelaion). This might allude to LXX Isaiah
          > 33:16, "He shall dwell in a high cave (stelaiw) of a strong rock".
          This
          > passage, in turn, might refer to the temple on Mount Zion. If so, then
          > there is a tomb--> cave--> temple thought sequence which would
          > support your interpretation of the tomb representing the temple.

          Ah! Another point on which we can agree! :-) This could get dangerous!
          >
          > The "proof of the pudding" of the line of interpretation you are
          > using would be evidence, in early Christian literature, to support
          > the conclusion of this line of interpretation: which is that a body
          > of priests came out of the temple, either following Mary of Bethany
          > or in response to a call by Jesus, with some of them even becoming
          > disciples of Jesus. Do you have such evidence?

          No, I don't. I wonder if you or John Lupia or someone else on the
          list could suggest where I (or we) might look for it.

          Yours in Christ's service,
          Tom Butler

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • John Lupia
          Thomas Butler: I believe it was John Lupia who questioned what the historical situation might have been that would have caused temple priests to leave the
          Message 4 of 29 , Mar 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Thomas Butler:
            I believe it was John Lupia who questioned what the
            historical situation might have been that would have
            caused temple priests to leave the temple. It seems
            to me that this level of corruption might be one such
            cause.

            John:

            Dear Thomas:

            I do not question the historical situation, which
            existed during the public ministry of Jesus, I was
            only pointing out critical sources that do reveal what
            it was. Let me make myself clear by explaining what
            the situation was.

            Saddukaioi = Tzaddikim = �the upright or righteous
            men� the chief Kohanim in the Jerusalem Temple. This
            cultic or sectarian group of Kohanim was so called
            drawn from the second oracle of Habakkuk (c. 597 BC)
            A TZADDIK shall live by his faith, (Habakkuk 2:4).
            Tzaddik [also spelled tsaddik or tsaddiq] is both and
            adjective (righteous) and a noun (one who is just).
            This group of chief-priests was Epicurean in their
            philosophical outlook on politics, life and religion.
            Consequently, they were materialists who rejected the
            ideas of spirit or incorporeal being, such as angels,
            and denied the resurrection since it implied spirit
            and life to dead inanimate matter, something that was
            very unscientific much like the skeptics today in the
            so-called Historical Jesus research. They also strove
            to eliminate the Jewish Apocalyptic literature, which
            Jews and Protestants today called the LXX Apocrypha
            and epigraphy and pseudoepigraphy, but which has been
            perpetuated in Jewish tradition with the misnomer
            �Oral Tradition�. Jewish Apocalyptic literature was
            considered very dangerous because it pointed to a
            Messiah who would lead what they thought was a
            political revolution. Being materialistic thinkers
            they translated this into a Messiah-Revolutionary who
            would throw off Roman suppression. This they saw as
            suicidal since they knew all too well that the Jewish
            nation could never endure such a revolutionary effort
            and would be completely defeated. They were right
            about that, but wrong about the import of Jewish
            Apocalyptic literature. Jesus continuously taught the
            true meaning of what this literature meant, counter to
            what they believed.

            The Tzaddikim composed their own literature to counter
            the Book of the LXX, and when Jesus began to teach
            they began to compose literature against him. Tzaddik
            literature depicts acts in opposition to a ma'aseh,
            i.e., a similar story, about a rasha, or a wicked man.
            (See Targum J. Numbers 31:8, Yalkut Shimoney 785,
            Zohar II 194 A).

            Fleer and Afterman tell us: �All distinction depends
            on the man who separates light from darkness. He
            knows, and he can interpret the great disparity
            between stories. For the stories of Tzaddikim come
            from the Side of Holiness and are the result of
            prayer. As is taught concerning the verse: "Tell me,
            please, of all the great things Elisha has done"
            (Kings II 8:4), the Talmud (Megilla 27) explains,
            "Elisha accomplished 'great things', miracles, through
            his power of prayer." But the stories told of r'shaim
            are rooted in wicked plans, deceptions, magic; those
            things that come from the Other Side of Holiness.�

            �Hence only one who knows how to separate light from
            darkness, good from evil, can differentiate between
            stories.� (cf. Jerusalem Talmud, Brachot, perak 5,
            halacha 2.) see Gedaliah Fleer and Alan Afterman,
            �Tales of the Tzaddikim,� B'or Ha'Torah (1986)
            Article online
            http://hasidicstories.com/Articles/Hasidic_Theories/tzaddikim.html#3n

            The Tzaddikim literature that began to circulate after
            the crucifixion and death of Jesus was propaganda to
            refute the earliest kerygma of the apostolic community
            in its very first few years. This I have identified
            as the Gospel of Thomas, a cacographic portrait of
            Jesus and the apostles meant to deride them and
            dissuade others from believing in him. I have already
            shown how the various logia in this corpus are ribald
            puns meant to elicit guffaws from the public who heard
            them.

            St. Luke�s prologue clearly shows that the many other
            writings were cacography which were intended to
            dissuade Theophilus, the High Priest in Jerusalem AD
            37-41. Consequently, Luke must necessarily be the
            first written Gospel since he tells us that he has
            gone over everything from the beginning. Since Luke
            did not characterize the Passion Narrative with
            complete accuracy: Jesus is not crowned with thorns,
            scourged and doe not carry his cross, St. John
            immediately seized the opportunity to compose his
            Gospel to add to that of Luke in order to establish a
            fuller and more complete picture and portrait of Jesus
            and the teachings conveyed by him in speeches which
            John had copies of suggesting that he was a
            stenographer who made the records. This too I have
            pointed out before that, he took down the lengthy
            speeches that comprise the Last Supper.

            St. John�s Gospel does not mention the Tzaddikim by
            name in translation in the Greek, but rather, uses the
            Greek DIKAIOS in John 7:24 "Do not judge according to
            appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

            Tzaddik Nistar (pl. Tzadikim nistarim) = concealed
            righteous ones. This is how St. John characterizes
            both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea (John 19:38-9).

            Tzaddik v'ra lo = a righteous man on whom evil
            befalls. This is how St. John characterizes Jesus and
            omits the account of the martyrdom of John the
            Baptist, because, it was already given by Luke and
            John wished to focus not on him, but on Jesus.


            The other leading sect were the P'rushim = Pharisees,
            commentators on Halakhah, hence called scribes,
            lawyers and teachers. These opposed the Tzaddikim and
            accepted the Jewish literature of the later books in
            the LXX. They maintained belief in spirits and angels
            and held the resurrection from the dead and also the
            Messianic Son of God who would redeem all of Israel.

            It was sometime after the Council of Jerusalem in AD
            54 when disciples of St. John the Baptizer were found
            at Ephesus and were rebuked for not baptizing using
            the Trinitarian formula that St. Matthew wrote his
            Gospel that gives this in Mt 28:19.

            As the Church began to make inroads into Rome and
            establish communities there it was then that St. Mark
            composed his Gospel to appeal to the Gentile audience
            in terms that made the theology of Jesus
            understandable to them.

            This is the thesis I had arrived at over a decade ago,
            but I still need to complete the manuscript. For the
            past 3 years I have been posting the crux of this
            thesis and have profited from many discussions to help
            tweak and focus the essential material.


            With warm regards,
            John


            =====
            John N. Lupia, III
            31 Norwich Drive
            Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA
            Phone: (732) 341-8689
            Email: jlupia2@...
            Editor, Roman Catholic News
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

            __________________________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
            http://taxes.yahoo.com/
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.