Religious

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yeah, okay Boxcar. He meant small pet and not huge dog...and he only used that term because he couldn't find another way of explaining that his mission involved only saving the "lost sheep of Israel". And I'll bet that, if you take another couple days...you'll also come up with an explanation for his "pearls before swine" comment.

As I said...you can have Jesus. He clearly wasn't for me...so...I am not for him.

But of course, you missed the central point of the exchange which was...Jesus tested her. And the commentary I posted made an excellent point (which I originally missed) about how His encounter with her demonstrated the truth he taught in Lk 18:1-8. Here this woman was pleading with the Righteous Judge of all mankind, and he listened to her request and granted it to her because she persisted -- much to the chagrin, no doubt, to the disciples who wouldn't even talk such people!

In short, Mr. Thask, Jesus was far more of "sweetheart" to this Canaanite woman than any of his disciples would have been who would not have given this woman the time of day.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But of course, you missed the central point of the exchange which was...Jesus tested her. And the commentary I posted made an excellent point (which I originally missed) about how His encounter with her demonstrated the truth he taught in Lk 18:1-8. Here this woman was pleading with the Righteous Judge of all mankind, and he listened to her request and granted it to her because she persisted -- much to the chagrin, no doubt, to the disciples who wouldn't even talk such people!

In short, Mr. Thask, Jesus was far more of "sweetheart" to this Canaanite woman than any of his disciples would have been who would not have given this woman the time of day.

Boxcar, your shtick doesn't work with me, because I've actually READ the bible. You called Jesus the "most likable fellow who ever lived"...even though you know damned well that he would be verbally abusive even to his own mother. Unless, that is, you consider sniping "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" to be a reasonable thing for a son to say to the mother who brought him into this world. Can you imagine how he must have talked to those who were more distant to him? Whenever he performed a "miracle, he was our "Lord and Savior"...but whenever he behaved like a jerk...he was just "testing us".

You Jesus apologists sicken me...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Boxcar, your shtick doesn't work with me, because I've actually READ the bible. You called Jesus the "most likable fellow who ever lived"...even though you know damned well that he would be verbally abusive even to his own mother. Unless, that is, you consider sniping "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" to be a reasonable thing for a son to say to the mother who brought him into this world. Can you imagine how he must have talked to those who were more distant to him? Whenever he performed a "miracle, he was our "Lord and Savior"...but whenever he behaved like a jerk...he was just "testing us".

You Jesus apologists sicken me...

Yes, you have read the bible and don't understand a thing that is in it because you CANNOT (1Cor 2:14)!

For a Greek who supposedly understands the Koine Greek, you continually betray your ignorance of the language. If you knew the language well, you would know that "woman" was a term of respect for his mother. And you would also understand, if you took the time to check it out, that the rendering in many translations of "what do I have to do with you" misses the mark. The literal translation reads much differently:

John 2:4
4 Jesus saith to her, 'What — to me and to thee, woman? not yet is mine hour come.'
YLT

In other words Jesus was putting both his mother and himself into one category and everyone else at the wedding in a separate one. The real question that he was asking his mother (to put it into today's vernacular) was: Why is this our problem? How is this our responsibility to save the groom and bride from this embarrassing set of circumstances? Lest you forget, Mr. Thask, Jesus, his disciples and his mother were all invited guests! How is it up to the guests to assume the responsibilities and duties of the hosts!? (Apparently, this was not a BYOB affair!)

Next, the term "woman" is a very respectful term. Even to this day in some households sons and daughters use terms of respect by calling their father "sir" or their mother "ma'am". Such terms express honor to the parents -- to whom honor is due by the way. (See the 5th commandment the first commandment with promise and the first commandment that regulates human relationships!)

What is pathetic about you skeptics (who are never skeptical, by the way, of their own worldview of Skepticism) is that you can never concede when you are wrong. Yesterday, I explained how Jesus was infinitely more gracious to the Canaanite woman than most Jews would have been. And you would know this is you had tried to honestly understand the culture of the time. But instead...you measure everything by today's standards which is analogous to comparing peaches to rock salt.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yes, you have read the bible and don't understand a thing that is in it because you CANNOT (1Cor 2:14)!

For a Greek who supposedly understands the Koine Greek, you continually betray your ignorance of the language. If you knew the language well, you would know that "woman" was a term of respect for his mother. And you would also understand, if you took the time to check it out, that the rendering in many translations of "what do I have to do with you" misses the mark. The literal translation reads much differently:

John 2:4
4 Jesus saith to her, 'What — to me and to thee, woman? not yet is mine hour come.'
YLT

In other words Jesus was putting both his mother and himself into one category and everyone else at the wedding in a separate one. The real question that he was asking his mother (to put it into today's vernacular) was: Why is this our problem? How is this our responsibility to save the groom and bride from this embarrassing set of circumstances? Lest you forget, Mr. Thask, Jesus, his disciples and his mother were all invited guests! How is it up to the guests to assume the responsibilities and duties of the hosts!? (Apparently, this was not a BYOB affair!)

Next, the term "woman" is a very respectful term. Even to this day in some households sons and daughters use terms of respect by calling their father "sir" or their mother "ma'am". Such terms express honor to the parents -- to whom honor is due by the way. (See the 5th commandment the first commandment with promise and the first commandment that regulates human relationships!)

What is pathetic about you skeptics (who are never skeptical, by the way, of their own worldview of Skepticism) is that you can never concede when you are wrong. Yesterday, I explained how Jesus was infinitely more gracious to the Canaanite woman than most Jews would have been. And you would know this is you had tried to honestly understand the culture of the time. But instead...you measure everything by today's standards which is analogous to comparing peaches to rock salt.

The word used in the bible for woman is "γυνη"...and it means "woman". It isn't a "very respectable term"...it's an everyday word used to describe any woman that one meets on the street. It is certainly not the word a Greek would use to refer to his own mother. You are making a fool of yourself when you try to tutor me in Greek...I've told you this before.

And I copied John's 2:4 right out of the King James Bible. If you bother to check...most of the bible translations side with my version...whereas your chosen translation is pretty hard to find.

As I said, try your shtick on someone who hasn't read the bible in its original Greek. You might have more luck that way.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The word used in the bible for woman is "γυνη"...and it means "woman". It isn't a "very respectable term"...it's an everyday word used to describe any woman that one meets on the street. It is certainly not the word a Greek would use to refer to his own mother. You are making a fool of yourself when you try to tutor me in Greek...I've told you this before.

And I copied John's 2:4 right out of the King James Bible. If you bother to check...most of the bible translations side with my version...whereas your chosen translation is pretty hard to find.

As I said, try your shtick on someone who hasn't read the bible in its original Greek. You might have more luck that way.

The term "woman" when used 2000 YEARS AGO in the ANE culture was a very respectable term!

And the YLT is probably the most literal translation of them all. What is even more interesting is that the NIV which is a dynamic equivalence translation (very different from the YLT which is a formal equivalence) reads this way:

John 2:4
4 "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time has not yet come."
NIV

Even the NIV translators understood that the term "woman" was a term of respect. All you want to do is impose your 21st century Western cultural interpretation upon the passage; for you have no interest in understanding Jesus' words in their historical-cultural context.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The term "woman" when used 2000 YEARS AGO in the ANE culture was a very respectable term!

Why wouldn't he have used the term "Mother?"

That seems more natural and respectable.
He refers to his "Father."
But not mother?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The term "woman" when used 2000 YEARS AGO in the ANE culture was a very respectable term!

And the YLT is probably the most literal translation of them all. What is even more interesting is that the NIV which is a dynamic equivalence translation (very different from the YLT which is a formal equivalence) reads this way:

John 2:4
4 "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time has not yet come."
NIV

Even the NIV translators understood that the term "woman" was a term of respect. All you want to do is impose your 21st century Western cultural interpretation upon the passage; for you have no interest in understanding Jesus' words in their historical-cultural context.

Stop telling a Greek what the word "γυνη" means...it makes you look more ridiculous than you usually are here. And it meant the exact same thing when Socrates uttered it, 2,500 years ago. It isn't a "respected way of addressing a woman". It's simply the Greek word for "woman"...and certainly not the word a respectful Greek would use to address his own mother.

Do you suppose that the Greek language lacks a word for "mother"?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Stop telling a Greek what the word "γυνη" means...it makes you look more ridiculous than you usually are here. And it meant the exact same thing when Socrates uttered it, 2,500 years ago. It isn't a "respected way of addressing a woman". It's simply the Greek word for "woman"...and certainly not the word a respectful Greek would use to address his own mother.

Do you suppose that the Greek language lacks a word for "mother"?

And do you suppose that when a son or daughter refer to their father as "sir" or their mother as "ma'am" that the English language lacks the word "mother".

When the angels called Mayr Magdalene "woman" and Jesus also called her "woman"Jn. 20:13-15, were they being disrespectful to her?

Or was Jesus being disrespectful to his mother again when on the Cross he called her "woman" (Jn 19:26), especially when He was entrusting her to the care of the disciple who loved Jesus very much?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Why wouldn't he have used the term "Mother?"

That seems more natural and respectable.
He refers to his "Father."
But not mother?

So, you're equating his heavenly Father with his earthly mother?

Jesus never called Mary his mother. And I believe the reason for this is because Mary was created by Jesus! Her very existence and, indeed, her calling was ordained by Him in eternity. She was as far removed from Him in her station in life as any other human being was from Him. Simply stated: He transcended her! Yet, He always respected her. He respected her request at the wedding before he formally launched his ministry; and he respected her in death by putting her into the care of the disciple who loved Jesus the most deeply.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Or was Jesus being disrespectful to his mother again when on the Cross he called her "woman" (Jn 19:26), especially when He was entrusting her to the care of the disciple who loved Jesus very much?

Yes...that was indeed a tender moment between a dying son and his suffering mother:

"Woman, behold your son."

He was indeed an affectionate fellow...

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, you're equating his heavenly Father with his earthly mother?

Jesus never called Mary his mother. And I believe the reason for this is because Mary was created by Jesus!

Freud used to say "The child is the father of the man."
Presumably "The child is the mother of the woman" would apply to women.
But saying Mary was created by Jesus?
Yikes. C'mon back to earth Boxcar.
Even the bible proclaims her as having him via a "virgin birth."
That would mean that she had a hand or an organ involved in creating him.
Did Mary have other children?
Would they have called her mother?
Would they say Jesus created her?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...that was indeed a tender moment between a dying son and his suffering mother:

"Woman, behold your son."

He was indeed an affectionate fellow...

For once in your life, study HOW words are used in scripture. Think beyond definitions, if you can. The term "woman" in the ANE was a term of respect, not a disrespectful term. If he didn't disrespect her at the Cross or didn't disrespect the other Mary after the resurrection, then neither did he disrespect His mother at the wedding.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Freud used to say "The child is the father of the man."
Presumably "The child is the mother of the woman" would apply to women.
But saying Mary was created by Jesus?
Yikes. C'mon back to earth Boxcar.
Even the bible proclaims her as having him via a "virgin birth."
That would mean that she had a hand or an organ involved in creating him.
Did Mary have other children?
Would they have called her mother?
Would they say Jesus created her?

Earth, calling Foxy: The entire universe was created by the preincarnate Christ!

Mary gave birth to the incarnate Christ. But Christ preexisted long before Mary. "Before Abraham was I AM."

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

For once in your life, study HOW words are used in scripture. Think beyond definitions, if you can. The term "woman" in the ANE was a term of respect, not a disrespectful term. If he didn't disrespect her at the Cross or didn't disrespect the other Mary after the resurrection, then neither did he disrespect His mother at the wedding.

As a true Jesus apologist...you go out of your way to find an excuse for the inexcusable. That's why you painstakingly searched for a bible translation which defines the word "γυνη" as "dear lady".

You are a true warrior of your Lord and Savior, Boxcar.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

As a true Jesus apologist...you go out of your way to find an excuse for the inexcusable. That's why you painstakingly searched for a bible translation which defines the word "γυνη" as "dear lady".

You are a true warrior of your Lord and Savior, Boxcar.

Actually, it said "dear woman" in the NIV. But still...this is a very common error in interpretation: Word Usage. Words are used in different ways.

But again...the term "woman" this isn't without its modern day parallels. "Madam" or ma'am", for example, are words of respect in our society.