Zone1 I Would Not Want to Be The Little Sister of Jesus

[Donald H]

Tons. Because none of it is rhetoric. That's your word, not mine. You use the word rhetoric to imply regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. I couldn't disagree more with that assessment. I use the words allegory and embellishment.

To me, the word 'embellishment' usually means to exaggerate the truth and turn it into lies.

 

[The Original Tree]

That's not totally true. We know he had four brothers and at least 2 sisters. And that they did not believe he was divine..at first and were later convinced.

From where did this Man (Jesus) receive this wisdom and these works of power? Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Joses and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? . . . (Matthew 13:55 - 56).

James and Judas started out as critics of their brother and ended up as disciples. James and Jude in the New Testament were written by James and Judas.

 

[Calypso Jones]

I wonder at times why Jesus gave his mother into the care of John. What was going on there. This makes sense.

Why did Jesus entrust Mary to the apostle John instead of to His brothers? | GotQuestions.org

Why did Jesus entrust Mary to the apostle John instead of to His brothers? If Mary had other children, shouldn’t they have been the ones to take care of her instead of John?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[ding]

Then stop pretending that the bibles mean something other than what is stated, if the meaning can't be understood by anybody but a spirit!

It does mean something though. The OT is a collection of books that tells the account of a people who cycled between remembering and forgetting God and what happened to them when they did. It's also a how to book; how to live and how not to live. And that's just two meanings of many.

And it can be understood by anyone seeking to understand it.

 

[ding]

As humans we need to take each example of a story that can't work and analyze it to discover if it's literally true or is rhetoric or allegory. Or something else you choose to call it, that you haven't stated yet?

As a human you need to seek the message of what the author intended to convey. To do that requires understanding the literary style used and the context of the times. But you aren't interested in doing either, and your contempt shows that.

 

[ding]

Choose something and put it to me so that I can give you some material to take to the bullring, and then I'll decide the terms with you on how the debate will be conducted.

Way ahead of you, buddy. You'll either show or you won't.

 

[ding]

I'm fine with your using 'embellishment' instead of rhetoric. I'll use rhetoric or embellishment in instances where they mean the same thing.

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF RHETORICAL DEVICES IN PART THIRTY OF THE HOLY QURAN | Hamdard Islamicus

hamdardislamicus.com.pk

I already explained the difference to you and I explained why you use rhetoric instead of allegory or embellishment. I have nothing further to add.

 

[ding]

You shouldn't try to tell me what the word means to me!

It's a sight better than you stating I said something I didn't say. It's my observation. You don't have to agree with it.

 

[ding]

To me, the word 'embellishment' usually means to exaggerate the truth and turn it into lies.

What part of my explanation didn't you understand? Like I said before... The word of God is anything which is true because God is truth, as God is every extant attribute of reality. In other words, it doesn't necessarily have to be written in the bible to be the word of God. It only has to be the truth.

God didn't write the bible. Fallible men wrote the bible. Fallible men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit which used their fallibility to write these accounts in certain ways for certain purposes known only to the infallible Holy Spirit.

Lastly, the point of the historical accounts are true - historical battles did occur. The intent of the account is to record that history, not that God commanded it. The details are embellished for a number of reasons with the most obvious being since they were victorious they concluded God is great and on their side. In some cases the accounts were embellished to make the accounts more memorable (Genesis and Exodus to name two) so that they could be passed down orally from generation to generation more easily. In other cases the accounts were embellished so that a broader, more nuanced, truth across the books could be shown. You have to contrast the accounts of their victories with the accounts of their defeats and place that contrast in the context of their entire history to understand the broader, more nuanced truth which is this... the OT is the account of a people who cycled between remembering and forgetting God. Their experiences can be summarized by saying successful behaviors (remembering God) naturally lead to success and failed behaviors (forgetting God) naturally lead to failure. This is a true statement. Without the embellishment it wouldn't be possible to distinguish that truth from the historical accounts of victory and defeat. As it is in the accounts of defeat that they conclude that they didn't lose because God isn't great and not on their side, but because there was something God wanted them to learn.

 

[Donald H]

What part of my explanation didn't you understand? Like I said before... The word of God is anything which is true because God is truth, as God is every extant attribute of reality. In other words, it doesn't necessarily have to be written in the bible to be the word of God. It only has to be the truth.

I don't know of any truth that can be embellished and then still remain the whole truth. This is due to my understanding of the word, 'embellish'., Or 'embellishment'. Can you think of some exception?

embellishment: a detail, especially one that is not true, added to a statement or story to make it more interesting or entertaining.

There's more on 'embellish' but it doesn't pertain to our discussion.

 

[ding]

I don't know of any truth that can be embellished and then still remain the whole truth. This is due to my understanding of the word, 'embellish'., Or 'embellishment'. Can you think of some exception?

embellishment: a detail, especially one that is not true, added to a statement or story to make it more interesting or entertaining.

There's more on 'embellish' but it doesn't pertain to our discussion.

How many times more do I need to explain it? I'm thinking you didn't understand what I wrote.

 

[Donald H]

How many times more do I need to explain it? I'm thinking you didn't understand what I wrote.

I think I understand what you write and I also understand why you write it. You've said a lot so maybe you can be specific on what you think I don't understand.

Then maybe we can move on to you answering my question to you on whether or not truth can remain so if it's embellished?

For example, how can we find agreement on the 'man in the big fish's belly', bibles story if I accept your interpretation of the story being embellished?

 

[ding]

I think I understand what you write and I also understand why you write it. You've said a lot so maybe you can be specific on what you think I don't understand.

These accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts and accounts of history is wisdom that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong.

Some of these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. You shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. You read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make yourself feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

 

[ding]

Then maybe we can move on to you answering my question to you on whether or not truth can remain so if it's embellished?

I already did... at least four times.

The word of God is anything which is true because God is truth, as God is every extant attribute of reality. In other words, it doesn't necessarily have to be written in the bible to be the word of God. It only has to be the truth.

God didn't write the bible. Fallible men wrote the bible. Fallible men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit which used their fallibility to write these accounts in certain ways for certain purposes known only to the infallible Holy Spirit.

Lastly, the point of the historical accounts are true - historical battles did occur. The intent of the account is to record that history, not that God commanded it. The details are embellished for a number of reasons with the most obvious being since they were victorious they concluded God is great and on their side. In some cases the accounts were embellished to make the accounts more memorable (Genesis and Exodus to name two) so that they could be passed down orally from generation to generation more easily. In other cases the accounts were embellished so that a broader, more nuanced, truth across the books could be shown. You have to contrast the accounts of their victories with the accounts of their defeats and place that contrast in the context of their entire history to understand the broader, more nuanced truth which is this... the OT is the account of a people who cycled between remembering and forgetting God. Their experiences can be summarized by saying successful behaviors (remembering God) naturally lead to success and failed behaviors (forgetting God) naturally lead to failure. This is a true statement. Without the embellishment it wouldn't be possible to distinguish that truth from the historical accounts of victory and defeat. As it is in the accounts of defeat that they conclude that they didn't lose because God isn't great and not on their side, but because there was something God wanted them to learn.

 

[Donald H]

I already did... at least four times.

The word of God is anything which is true because God is truth, as God is every extant attribute of reality. In other words, it doesn't necessarily have to be written in the bible to be the word of God. It only has to be the truth.

I'm trying hard to accept that as your blanket explanation of everything in the bibles that is embellished, and I've provided an example that requires more explanation than just accepting an impossibility as having to be true because it's supposed to be the word of the god.

My interpretation of that story is that the people who wrote the story actually believed that it could actually be possible.

Likewise with a whole bundle of similar type imaginings that have been demolished by modern science.

And please! Don't interpret me being honest as being intended to insult you and your beliefs.

 

[Donald H]

These accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts and accounts of history is wisdom that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong.

Yes, fair enough, but not fair to refuse to provide explanations of specific bibles stories. This is where your 'embellishment' explanation requires some explanation. (big fish)

Some of these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. You shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. You read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make yourself feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

And again, fair enough! We should simply not believe the stories from a modern world perspective. I'm quite happy to believe as I've stated, that those who told the stories actually believed that the embellished stories could have been possible.

What more can I say? In 1900 somebody could tell a story about living in a big fishes belly for three days and get away with it.

What we can say about that story in 2023 will just have to be avoided? Is that what you want to do, or can you fix it to make it possible and hence worth the time to read it.

What is the story's message that I might be missing?

 

[Donald H]

I've moved on and learned for myself. Apparently it's a message to children that they can't outrun the god, and can be considered to be nothing more than that!

Well, I suppose that could be considered to be embellishment somehow.

I would say it's more like lying to kids, albeit lying with a purpose. It's no mystery what the purpose has to be!

 

[ding]

I'm trying hard to accept that as your blanket explanation of everything in the bibles that is embellished, and I've provided an example that requires more explanation than just accepting an impossibility as having to be true because it's supposed to be the word of the god.

My interpretation of that story is that the people who wrote the story actually believed that it could actually be possible.

Likewise with a whole bundle of similar type imaginings that have been demolished by modern science.

And please! Don't interpret me being honest as being intended to insult you and your beliefs.

That sounded sincere. It's ok that you don't accept it. I'm not trying to convince you. I am telling you it's more complicated than you imagined.

 

[ding]

Yes, fair enough, but not fair to refuse to provide explanations of specific bibles stories. This is where your 'embellishment' explanation requires some explanation. (big fish)

That would require us going through passage by passage, book by book but Jonah was allegorical rather than embellishment. The embellishments usually occur during telling of historical events like battles or exodus.

 

[ding]

And again, fair enough! We should simply not believe the stories from a modern world perspective. I'm quite happy to believe as I've stated, that those who told the stories actually believed that the embellished stories could have been possible.

That's not quite right either. It depends upon what you are talking about. But in each account there is something of value to be learned from each account if one is diligent enough, patient enough and open minded enough. It may not always be easy but it is almost always worthwhile. At least it was to me. It sharpens the mind.

But what you shouldn't do is take this conversation out of context and misstate what I say to use in an argument with someone else because you don't seem to be able to follow all of the nuances of what I am saying.