thelerner Posted December 12, 2012 There are many biblical translations that twist meanings like a pretzel. You have to be careful not to throw your own bias's in.. or not. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fū Yue Posted December 12, 2012 So long it has a name, it's not "THE TAO". It doesn't really matter if anybody can understand it or not, it's got a name. Then it belongs to this world. It ceases to be "TAO". It does matter if anybody can understand it or not. All of our names are conceived of by ourselves, based on our supposed understanding of things 'as they are' and the world around us as we 'think they are'. If we do not actually understand or know how it is now, our names are only 'accurate' in our imagination, not in reality. You say 'mind', but you do not actually understand what that is, so how can your idea, your name, be accurate in any way shape or form? How can you say 'mind belongs to this world', when you can't even locate this 'mind' in the first place? Ridiculous! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted December 13, 2012 There are many biblical translations that twist meanings like a pretzel. You have to be careful not to throw your own bias's in.. or not. Me ? I just found it a curious question. You have some experience with old documents no? Id ask you , Is the current naming tradition similar or not ? and do you see any implications in the name used. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted December 13, 2012 It's very easy to cite the source... My source for Chapter One 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hydrogen Posted December 13, 2012 My source for Chapter One haha, Thanks for making me smile today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hydrogen Posted December 13, 2012 Among preliterate peoples, the act of naming is a bestowal of a soul on the one who receives the name (Charles). In either case, though, the effect is the same: the person who receives a name thereby receives an identity and a place within the society. This bestowal of name and identity is a kind of symbolic contract between the society and the individual. Seen from one side of the contract, by giving a name the society confirms the individual's existence and acknowledges its responsibilities toward that person. The name differentiates the child from others; thus, the society will be able to treat and deal with the child as someone with needs and feelings different from those of other people. Through the name, the individual becomes part of the history of the society, and, because of the name, his or her deeds will exist separate from the deeds of others. Perhaps Jesus was being considered outside of the normal societal paradigm or was already in possession of a 'soul' ? I think it's on the right track. I think Jesus was out of this world. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made by him, and nothing was made without him" "The unnameable, it is the Originator of heaven and earth; The namable, it is the Mother of all things." If you think the above is nonsense, then I guess this topic wouldn't be any interest to you. The bible says the similar thing to Tao De Jing "the word (name) created the world". IF that's true, then basically anything in existence in this universe has a name, even we don't know it yet. But the real "tao" that cannot be named don't belong to this world. That's why I was so shocked when John said Jesus was that couldn't be named. How could be Jesus existed in this world and still couldn't be named? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
konchog uma Posted December 13, 2012 i dont think its that jesus couldn't be named, obviously his name was yeshua. it was that he had gone beyond the conceptual, the dual, into the primordial and beyond the limits of words to describe. So when john recognized this, jesus said that his knowledge was from the light, not from men, meaning that it was from the primordial, not from talking to teachers or to his fellows. just my take on it... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Me ? I just found it a curious question. You have some experience with old documents no? Id ask you , Is the current naming tradition similar or not ? and do you see any implications in the name used. Jews have historically used Hebrew patronymic names. In the Jewish patronymic system the first name is followed by either ben- or bat- ("son of" and "daughter of", respectively), and then the father's name. (bar-, "son of" in Aramaic, is also seen). If Joseph wasnt being considered the actual father of Yeshua ben Yehosef , essentially that Mary had a virgin birth event the naming might be difficult ,, (but I have no idea whether his contemporaries shared that opinion regarding him.) I am not necessarily the best person to ask. You're right biblically and historically Jews and Arabs went by the name Somebody son of somebody. Yet as far as I know, Jesus was never referred to biblically as Yehoshua Ben Yosef, though he I think he did go by ..of Nazareth. Course Joseph is relatively downplayed in the gospel. My main point was to beware using one line that may be translated in an unusual way to create a link that isn't historically there. Ofcourse in theology meaning is bent to the will of the interpreter. So Jesus can fit as comfortable in a fundamentalist right wing camp as a leftist hippy's. He's can be very Buddhist or in this case perfectly Tao. Personally I'd want to get a few translations of the same text. View them with an eye toward historical accuracy based on common language and idiom of Jesus's time. But how cold, boring and clinical is that, and in the end what does it really teach us? Ultimately the grand concept and paradigm of Jesus fits Hydrogen's thought. and that is why its Faith. Edited December 13, 2012 by thelerner 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted December 13, 2012 I don't suppose I can find the answer soon. Sure,...you may have all answers as soon as you read #282 http://thetaobums.com/topic/24959-religion/page__st__282 As for the actual documentation,....the so-called crucifixion was most likely a fabricated cruci-fiction, invented along with the resurrection story after 95 CE. Rabbinic law called for criminals to be stoned, not to undergo a Roman-style crucifixion, although hanging was acceptable for lesser offenses. Jesus was killed "by hanging him on a tree" (Acts 5:30 & 10:39); Jesus was "hung on a tree" Galatians 3:13; his "body [was] on the tree" 1 Peter 2:24. The so-called crucifixion was devised by the mid-second century author of the Gospel According to John. John was the last of the canonical gospels. Theophilus of Antioch appears to be the first person to mention its existence as a gospel (during the later half of the second century). However, the Rylands Papyrus, which could be part of a copy of John, has been paleographically dated to 150 CE, fifteen years after the Bar Cochba revolt. John’s gospel resonates more with the Jesus of the Talmud than the Jesus in the synoptic gospels. For example, John has his Jesus dying on the eve of Passover, as the slaughtered lamb, not following the Passover meal as the Jesus of Matthew and Luke. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cheshire Cat Posted December 13, 2012 I don't suppose Jesus didn't speak Latin either. And why did vatican become the authority on bible? Historians say that Jesus was a man with a great culture and probably could speak some Latin. The vatican is in no way an "authority" on the bible, yet they keep a very old version of the new testament Greek/Latin. I don't like the translations that they make from latin, but I'm quite sure that things like "you are that which cannot be named" are not present in this passage in any good historical version of this texts. In my opinion, comparing Christianity with Daoism is like comparing some naive new-age movement with the old religion of ancient Egypt... Daoism was old stuff at the time of Lao-Tzu: he speaks of "ancient sages" and Christianity is so naive.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bubbles Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Edited December 13, 2012 by bubbles Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idiot_stimpy Posted December 13, 2012 Jesus is the way. That way is love and surrender. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted December 13, 2012 There are many biblical translations that twist meanings like a pretzel. You have to be careful not to throw your own bias's in.. or not. ....... A decent Koine Greek interlinear New Testament is the closest you'll get to what passes for the original. And even then what you'll be reading is a gloss on original fragments that are just that... A jigsaw puzzle of re-assembled bits and the earliest of those not written until many years (about one lifetime) after Mr. Jesus allegedly left the stage, if he ever occupied it in the first place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted December 13, 2012 Jesus is the way. That way is love and surrender. ....... Truly the meek shall inherit the Earth... (If that'll be OK with the well armed guys). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted December 13, 2012 ....... Truly the meek shall inherit the Earth... (If that'll be OK with the well armed guys). It's about time the meek got something ... if only they would assert themselves more. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idiot_stimpy Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Return is the movement of the Tao.Yielding is the way of the Tao. Seeing into darkness is clarity. Knowing how to yield is strength. Use your own light and return to the source of light. This is called practicing eternity. When two great forces oppose each other, the victory will go to the one that knows how to yield. Thus whoever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death. Whoever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life. Nothing in the world is as soft and yielding as water. Yet for dissolving the hard and inflexible, nothing can surpass it. Edited December 13, 2012 by idiot_stimpy 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted December 13, 2012 It's about time the meek got something ... if only they would assert themselves more. .... Only way a lamb will ever lie down with a lion is if the lamb is inside the lion's tummy being digested. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted December 13, 2012 Can the true Tao be connected to the or a false Tao? Such is more mental dualism and speculation... thus it comes down getting on with it which granted, at some point includes such speculations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cheshire Cat Posted December 13, 2012 Jesus is the way. That way is love and surrender. Jesus spoke about tons of things. Surely he talked about love, yet the dialectic of love was already present in greek philosophy... and in a more valuable way, so valuable that was then copied in its entirety by later christians and it was integrated in more complex doctrinal system. Those system was attributed to Jesus. Surrender was the common men's approach to the Gods. Nothing new under the Sun. ....... Truly the meek shall inherit the Earth... (If that'll be OK with the well armed guys). This is somewhat daoistic. The meek usually don't engage fights and, if they are wise too, they fly when troubles come. There is a chance that if something remains to be inherited, they will get it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hydrogen Posted December 13, 2012 Nothing new under the Sun. I disagree. Please name any other major religious leader who was the first to die for his belief. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) In no particular order.... Druids, the Xtians did for most of them. Baal Priests, they got a bad deal. Queen-godess Cleopatra. The wicker lads and lasses, one was sacrificed every winter solstice to ensure next year's fertility. Devout Sodomites (who lived in Sodom) that was just plain wrong what happened to those poor guys. Shall I go on? Edited December 13, 2012 by GrandmasterP 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted December 14, 2012 In no particular order.... Druids, the Xtians did for most of them. Baal Priests, they got a bad deal. Queen-godess Cleopatra. The wicker lads and lasses, one was sacrificed every winter solstice to ensure next year's fertility. Devout Sodomites (who lived in Sodom) that was just plain wrong what happened to those poor guys. Shall I go on? We all feel for those Sodomites. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cheshire Cat Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) I disagree. Please name any other major religious leader who was the first to die for his belief. I talked about greeks... well, Socrates. He was a spiritual man, nobody exploits its figure to make religion goods... but he was a spiritual guy. Edited December 14, 2012 by DAO rain TAO 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted December 14, 2012 I talked about greeks... well, Socrates. He was a spiritual man, nobody exploits its figure to make religion goods... but he was a spiritual guy. Good example. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
