Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deepak Chopra
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 6 (37470)
04-21-2003 5:51 PM


I have new respect for the man.
I saw a few minutes of him along with a mixed bag of other religious leaders on Larry King Live last night.
The reason I gained this new respect is because he politely took on the fundie Christian preacher who was there. Chopra basically called the preacher a religious bigot, rigid, and close-minded, and said that fundamentalism, no matter what the religion, was a cover-up for insecurity, and because of this closed attitude, there was no possibility of discussion with the prescher.
The Fundie preacher just kept saying that people who didn't believe like he did were going to Hell, and he basically came across as a rigid, bigoted, close-minded, angry prick.
The nice, humble-seeming Catholic preist who was sitting next to the Fundie tried to help him out, but he wanted nothing to do with humility or anything even close to the notion that there just might be any other way of thinking other than his own that could possibly be OK.
The anger and insecurity and defensiveness radiating off of this guy was palpable.
At one point, in response to the Fundie's rigid insistance that believing in "the Jesus of the New Testament" was the only way to avoid eternal damnation, King said something about the Bible having many interpretations, and that it wasn't written in English, after all.
Fundie anwered back something about the New Testament being written in Greek, and Chopra chided him for not knowing his Bible, and corrected him, saying that the Gospels were written in Aramaic. The Fundie insisted that they were written in Greek, and then Chopra just looked over at King and shook his head and said something like, "See, there's no way to debate with someone like that."

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Silent H, posted 04-21-2003 9:50 PM nator has not replied
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 04-22-2003 10:06 AM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 2 of 6 (37496)
04-21-2003 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
04-21-2003 5:51 PM


I wish I had seen that.
It has been my experience that Xtian fundamentalists usually know what miracles happened, and can quote scripture to back it up, but have very little knowledge about the history and meaning of all those passages. Not knowing that portions of the Bible were originally written in Aramaic is priceless (you can get that fact from Hollywood movies at this point).
In the end I believe fundamentalism of any kind (religious or social [ie, feminism,communism,etc]) is simply a form of mental addiction.
Calling into question any of their beliefs, you get a very similar reaction to a drug addict who suspects you are about to take his stash.
You get a terrible fight, first a verbal one filled with illogic, and then violence.
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 04-21-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 04-21-2003 5:51 PM nator has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3 of 6 (37543)
04-22-2003 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
04-21-2003 5:51 PM


I'm the victim of a very long term misconception if the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 04-21-2003 5:51 PM nator has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 6 (37544)
04-22-2003 10:08 AM


Me too.
There is such a theory (I know judge on these boards is a proponent of it), but there are no original Aramaic manuscripts knocking around.
The OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by John, posted 04-22-2003 10:42 AM Karl has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 6 (37546)
04-22-2003 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Karl
04-22-2003 10:08 AM


I've been through this with Judge on several occasions and I can't find any good reason to accept aramaic as the original language. Judge cites precious few sources-- repeatedly-- as evidence, and it just isn't enough.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 04-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Karl, posted 04-22-2003 10:08 AM Karl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 04-22-2003 1:53 PM John has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 6 of 6 (37580)
04-22-2003 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by John
04-22-2003 10:42 AM


I knew portions of the Bible were originally written in Aramaic, though I wasn't certain how isolated these passages were... and if that ultimately excluded Aramaic from the New Testament.
Since Deepak and the fundie were discussing "the Gospels" in specific, which I take to mean just the NT, I decided to look for some info that might sort out if Deepak was mistaken.
As John has noted, there is not a lot of convincing evidence one way or the other. A safe default position would seem to be that while the oral teachings were almost certainly Aramaic and Hebrew, while travelling abroad and in writing them down Greek was probably the preferred method.
This does not discount the possibility that portions of the original text were written in Aramaic (mainly for personal reasons of the writer), just that when being assembled they were more likely to have been written in Greek.
Here are some basic links outlining positions on this:
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030227.html
[basic bible language info]
404 Not Found
[more basic language info]
http://www.metamind.net/biblemanus.html
[this is where the debate starts to get crazy. some of this sounds very reasonable as an argument that the NT was originally written in Aramaic, but the source itself seems biased and with no objective evidence presented (or references cited) I get a little sceptical]
Christianseparatist.org
[this is the other side of the argument. once again some very good arguments are made-- this time for the NT being written in Greek. however the hysteric, vitriolic, and racist nature of the commentary makes it hard for me to trust this as a source.]
http://www.bibleandscience.com/aramaic.htm
[this appears to be a more calm assessment of the issue, lending some credibility to the notion that some original NT texts were Aramaic. then again this appears to be a pro-jewish source, which if the previous site is to be believed, means this site is automatically to be disregarded.]
In the end I believe Deepak was less correct than the fundie, in asserting that the NT was definitively Aramaic. The major text was more than likely Greek.
However this doesn't exactly subtract from Deepak's overall point. Certainly one must use the OT in conjunction with the NT,and so both Aramaic and Hebrew are important languages to understand in order to put NT teachings in perspective, as well as understanding the "true faith of the Bible."
Oh yeah, and I want to correct my original post in this thread. Verbal fights with fundies are usually followed by violence OR a deep silence. Obviously on a forum, violence is an unlikely response. I have yet to hear a fundie of any stripe admit they were wrong, even when confronted with pretty solid evidence and arguments against their case. Just a deep dark silence.
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 04-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by John, posted 04-22-2003 10:42 AM John has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024