|
|
Post by zameel on Jan 27, 2010 9:20:04 GMT
Though it's nice to see you feverishly googling quotes from him which contradict your claim that he was opposed to Islam - speaking very favorably about Amr Yet the quote that I provided from him about Amr in my post comes straight from Kennedy's books (The Great Arab Conquests, 165), where Kennedy also emphasises John's dislike for Islam: "John was no admirer of Muslim government" (p 165) and "John was no apologist for Muslim rule. For him Islam was the "faith of the beast" (p 167). - I'm not sure that these can be found on google I suggest you use reliable scholars, not wikipedia (unless they have a source) or ancient texts like Baladhuri or Theophanius (which were written centuries after the conquests). The only major sack in the Rashidun's conquest of the Fertile Crescent was Istakhr. For the crusaders in the Arab world (let alone Europe) there were three sacks of major cities: Antioch in 1098, Jerusalem in 1099 and Acre in 1191; the only major Muslim one in response was Antioch in 1268. I refer you to your own thread on Jesus, where a member exposed you after you had claimed a certain historian had said something about Jesus' crucifixion that he never indeed said He did say it. I said The word used for spear thrust in John 19:34 is nyssein which as Raymond Brown explains in fact means a “scratch” not a forceful thrust or penetration - I probably should have added "means in this context...". Brown said Like the other soldiers he has seen that Jesus is dead, yet to make sure he probes the body for a telltale reaction by stabbing Jesus' side. Probably that is what is meant rather than the delivery of a coup de grace aimed to pierce the heart (pace Lagrange, Jean 499); yes Brown says "probably means" and I said "in fact means", and that was a minor error for not having checked the original (but used a secondary source); nevertheless the point remains. |
|
|
|
Post by penguinfan on Jan 27, 2010 18:06:48 GMT
Hey, I've actually taken the time to read Kennedy, who you are now quoting without having read his book.
I'm not even sure how you've come to the conclusion that I'm using wkipedia - *I was aware of these massacres through my reading of the early Muslim conquests*.
That was why I could not find several of these sacks/massacres early on through a google search.
I agree - Raymond Brown *did* say something that you originally claimed he did not say. No argument there.
The other poster pointed this out.
You wrote:
"The word used for spear thrust in John 19:34 is nyssein which as Raymond Brown explains in fact means a “scratch” not a forceful thrust or penetration;"
The other poster responds by posting what Raymond Brown *actually* said:
Brown:
Brown does not explain that it means "a “scratch” not a forceful thrust or penetration". Brown acknowledges that nyssein covers a spectrum of meanings from prodding to plunging deeply - a spectrum represented in the lexical entry I quoted. 'Scratch' is no doubt included in this spectrum but he does not say that 'scratch' is what is meant in this instance. He thinks it probably means 'stab'. Further, Brown does not state this is a fact or that nyssein "in fact means". Brown said "probably".
So for starters we have 'probably' spun to "in fact means" and 'stab' equivocated to 'scratch'. If I had the patience, I would go through and explicate every instance of this kind of tactic in your blog post, but I won't because as I've said previously, it is too reminiscent of the way YECers and Jesus mythers operate. Cherry pick and spin. But have a nice day and don't think the less of me simply because I'm not impressed.
First of all, Brown does not say that anything is a fact.
Secondly, do you not know the difference between a stab and a scratch? Brown does not even use the word 'scratch' in the quote provided.
LoL.
That is was a 'stab' instead of a 'scratch'? Also keep in mind the difference between a spear stabbing someone vs a small kitchen knife. In fact, you don't need to. A scratch and a stab are worlds apart.
Define 'major'? Also, if you're going to include the sacking of Acre, then I can include sacks and massacres carried out under the Umayyad Kalifa.
Only fair, right?
It would be a straw-man to compare centuries of European history with thirty years of Arab rule - for numerous reasons.
Lastly, do you now accept that Alexandria and Caesarea were indeed sacked and concede that you were originally wrong when claiming otherwise?
|
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Jan 27, 2010 23:01:56 GMT
First of all, Brown does not say that anything is a fact. Secondly, do you not know the difference between a stab and a scratch? Brown does not even use the word 'scratch' in the quote provided. LoL. I've already agreed with the first (he says "probably" not "in fact"), and with regards to the second, one of the meanings of "nyssein" is a nudge to waken someone from sleep. The crucial distinction that was the argument being made is: that the soldiers already believed Jesus was dead; they were not trying to kill him using the spear (why would they if they thought he was dead? - but they certainly were in doubt (as the Qur'an correctly states) which is why they sought to confirm it); rather, as Raymond Brown said, in all probability they pricked his side to see if he would respond (not to deliver a death blow) but they must have hit an artery which is why there was a sudden flow of blood (which in fact proves he was alive). My point in this discussion was to prove that Christians cannot with certainty prove that Jesus actually died, especially since Pilate was surprised, the Jews felt deceived, and the soldiers themselves were uncertain. If somebody claimed to be "resurrected", you would want to first ascertain if he was in fact dead; since there is no categorical proof that he was dead (like his head being chopped off), there is room to believe that he survived (considering especially the suspicious circumstances and the theological/scriptural arguments I used). Paul preached "resurrection" (perhaps spiritual) but James did not preach about the resurrection or the passion (as evidenced in the Epistle of James, the Gospel of Thomas and Q); James' christology as scholars on James have said came from a belief in Jesus as the Messiah whose touch healed men, and whose second coming will end history (and probably the "sophia" or "wisdom" christology of Thomas and Q). 1 Cor 15 from the Stephen-inspired Antioch "Christians" does emphasise the resurrection's impact on James, but this is a lone and unsubstantiated claim by a separate (and perhaps hostile) rival group to the Jerusalem apostles. The Gospel to the Hebrews (probably an early Gospel, lost but preserved in parts in later Christian writings) does mention James as refusing to eat until Jesus wakes up from "sleep" (which could mean unconsciousness or actual death), and then Jesus first appears to James who assumes the leadership after Jesus' ascent; what is significant is this Gospel does not mention a proper resurrection and believes in Jesus' vindication through ascension/assumption not resurrection (the translator says "with its omissin of all mention of the resurrection, (the Gospel to the Hebrews) might be construed as heretical"; and the Gospel itself says "After they had raised him up on the cross, the Father took him up into heaven unto himself" - www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-mrjames.html ). Furthermore, the idea that Jesus was vindicated by assumption not resurrection is a completely Jewish idea which can also be seen in the language of the authors of Q and Mark (Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in Mark and Q, Daniel A. Smith, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 45, Fasc. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 123-137). |
|
|
|
Post by penguinfan on Jan 28, 2010 2:33:56 GMT
That was some pretty impressive mental gymnastics. But in the end of the day, you claimed Brown said that nyssein 'in fact' meant scratch, when in reality, Brown said that nyssein's meaning, in the context of the crucifixion, 'probably' meant a stab to Jesus' side. The only part where Brown mentions 'a prick' is when he discusses the different meanings of the verb. But never does he say that nyssein in fact means, probably means, or could mean a scratch or prick in the context of the crucifixion as you claimed.
Here is Brown's quote, once again:
"Piercing the crucified evidently provided assurance of their death: "As for those who die on the cross, the executioner does not forbid the burying of those who have been pierced [percussos]" (Quintilian, Declamationes maiores 6.9). The action by the soldier in John 19:34 has the illogic of ordinary life: Like the other soldiers he has seen that Jesus is dead, yet to make sure he probes the body for a telltale reaction by stabbing Jesus' side. Probably that is what is meant rather than the delivery of a coup de grace aimed to pierce the heart (pace Lagrange, Jean 499), even though the verb nyssein ("to prick, thrust in") can cover both prodding (as to awaken a sleeping man) and plunging deeply."
Brown says that a stab to Jesus' side is what is 'probably' meant - not a stab or prick to his side.
Also, do you not agree that Alexandria was sacked after you claimed not once, but twice, that there was no sack of the city?
Where does Brown say that the soldiers 'pricked' his side? The quote says the soldiers 'probably' stabbed Jesus' side.
|
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Jan 28, 2010 3:54:59 GMT
But never does he say that nyssein in fact means, probably means, or could mean a scratch or prick in the context of the crucifixion as you claimed As far as I am concerned pierce, stab, scratch, prod and nudge (some I would think are synonyms) are all the same as they have the same purpose: to provoke a reaction and wake the person. "Plunging deeply" however would be the opposite, as Brown says. But probably what is meant is the former and not the latter, as the soldiers thought Jesus was already dead. do you not agree that Alexandria was sacked after you claimed not once, but twice, that there was no sack of the city? Does Kennedy or Donner say the city was sacked? |
|
|
|
Post by penguinfan on Jan 29, 2010 18:47:24 GMT
Any explanation for why you changed 'stabbed' Jesus' side to 'scratched' Jesus' side?
|
|
|
|
Post by penguinfan on Jan 29, 2010 18:48:52 GMT
I would imagine. I don't think there is any debate over whether or not Alexandria was sacked by the Muslims. The source I provided is on the first page of this thread where a near contemporary account and an account from a Muslim historian are both provided.
|
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Jan 29, 2010 23:25:10 GMT
Any explanation for why you changed 'stabbed' Jesus' side to 'scratched' Jesus' side? The word "scratch" as a translation of nyssein I got from Ruqayya Waris Maqsood's book The Mysteries of Jesus, and from another source that this view was supported by Brown's The Death of the Messiah. Brown does support the view that the purpose of the spear was to provoke a reaction not kill Jesus. |
|
deef
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 87
|
Post by deef on Jan 31, 2010 20:04:42 GMT
I just finished Stark's book on the Crusades, 'God's Battalions'.
Starks concludes the following:
- The Crusades weren't unprovoked. Stark thinks the Islamic Conquest and the occasional mistreatment of christian pilgrims and desecration of christian holy places were important factors.
- The Crusades was not 'European colonialism'. They were not conducted for loot or converts. The crusaders were sincere, thinking that they served God by attempting to recapture the holy land.
- According to Stark the Byzantines constantly failed to keep their promises towards the Crusaders. Crusaders felt they couldn't trust the Byzantines which only added to the tensions between Western and Eastern Christians.
- Stark disagrees with the popular idea that the crusaders were backwards compared to the cultivated muslims. Stark argues that the Christians were much more advanced technologically, having better saddles, stirrups, horseshoes, draft horses and harnesses, effective plows, shipwrights and especially crossbows and effective armor. Their technological superiority made it possible for the Crusaders to beat much larger opponent armies.
Reading Stark it's pretty obvious he wants to convey 'a message'. And the message is that the Crusades were much more 'understandable' than most people tend to think. This makes the book more of an essay than a historical work. Stark kind of makes the reader feel he's on the side of the Crusaders, the way it's written. It must be said though that Stark doesn't shy away of mentioning the massacres commited by the Crusaders. Also he provides plenty of useful footnotes and citations, all in all, making it a pretty useful (historical) book in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Jan 31, 2010 23:17:17 GMT
I just finished Stark's book on the Crusades, 'God's Battalions'. Starks concludes the following: - The Crusades weren't unprovoked. Stark thinks the Islamic Conquest and the occasional mistreatment of christian pilgrims and desecration of christian holy places were important factors. - The Crusades was not 'European colonialism'. They were not conducted for loot or converts. The crusaders were sincere, thinking that they served God by attempting to recapture the holy land. - According to Stark the Byzantines constantly failed to keep their promises towards the Crusaders. Crusaders felt they couldn't trust the Byzantines which only added to the tensions between Western and Eastern Christians. - Stark disagrees with the popular idea that the crusaders were backwards compared to the cultivated muslims. Stark argues that the Christians were much more advanced technologically, having better saddles, stirrups, horseshoes, draft horses and harnesses, effective plows, shipwrights and especially crossbows and effective armor. Their technological superiority made it possible for the Crusaders to beat much larger opponent armies. Reading Stark it's pretty obvious he wants to convey 'a message'. And the message is that the Crusades were much more 'understandable' than most people tend to think. This makes the book more of an essay than a historical work. Stark kind of makes the reader feel he's on the side of the Crusaders, the way it's written. It must be said though that Stark doesn't shy away of mentioning the massacres commited by the Crusaders. Also he provides plenty of useful footnotes and citations, all in all, making it a pretty useful (historical) book in my opinion. Having flicked through Thomas Asbridge's book (The Crusades: The War for the Holy Land) which has the most updated historical view, of the conclusions you mention, the first is incorrect (the crusades reflected more social and theological developments, in particular the need to exert papal authority, in Europe than it did any activity in the east, which is why "heretics" and Jews were also attacked not only Muslims), the second and third are likely true (contrary to what was previously thought) and the fourth applies quite strictly to military technology (the Europeans were backwards compared to the Muslims at the time). |
|
|
|
Post by penguinfan on Feb 5, 2010 17:23:40 GMT
Any explanation for why you changed 'stabbed' Jesus' side to 'scratched' Jesus' side? The word "scratch" as a translation of nyssein I got from Ruqayya Waris Maqsood's book The Mysteries of Jesus, and from another source that this view was supported by Brown's The Death of the Messiah. Brown does support the view that the purpose of the spear was to provoke a reaction not kill Jesus. Ok, so in other words, you don't actually read the authors you quote from. Which is what I thought, to be honest. I suppose the problem is with the lady you mention and why she chose to change what Brown said from 'stabbing' to a scratch. Obviously, the two words differ significantly in meaning - I'm quite surprised why you don't admit this, rather than trying to convince me that a pinch and punch are really the same, as long as the punch is not intended as a knock out. |
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 5, 2010 19:38:58 GMT
I suppose the problem is with the lady you mention and why she chose to change what Brown said from 'stabbing' to a scratch. She didn't cite Brown - she merely said nyssein in this context means "scratch". |
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Feb 5, 2010 22:08:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Feb 6, 2010 4:57:58 GMT
From "The New American", the magazine of the insane John Birch Society?! Is this a joke? How about a link to a review of a book on race relations by Stormfront or the Klan? I bought Stark's book this morning. I have a couple of other things to read first, but I'll be giving it a thorough analysis on Armarium Magnum soon. |
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Feb 6, 2010 6:01:15 GMT
From "The New American", the magazine of the insane John Birch Society?! Is this a joke? How about a link to a review of a book on race relations by Stormfront of the Klan? I bought Stark's book this morning. I have a couple of other things to read first, but I'll be giving it a thorough analysis on Armarium Magnum soon. Having since looked at the other content on that site, I fear you may have a point; although I must admit I've never heard of the John Birch society. Just looked it up on Wikipedia; apparently a rabid anti-communist group formed in 1958, wants the US out of the UN and most other wars. Apparently it accused Ike Eisenhower of being a communist dupe, and opposed the civil rights movement because of fears that some of its members were communists. Hmm. Thomas Madden, author of the original book seems to be a genuine academic historian, however. |
|
