NationStates

Salus Maior wrote:

Caliphate of the Netherlands wrote:Chapters such as?

Matthew, John, and a number of the Epistles.

Most of the books are named after them.

You do realise that they did not pen a single letter of those books I hope ?

Salus Maior wrote:

Caliphate of the Netherlands wrote:Chapters such as?

Matthew, John, and a number of the Epistles.

Most of the books are named after them.

Well, it was named so because it is the ''Gospel according to X'', not because there is direct evidence they are actually written by them.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Matthew, John, and a number of the Epistles.

Most of the books are named after them.

You do realise that they did not pen a single letter of those books I hope ?

According to....What?

The Alma Mater wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Matthew, John, and a number of the Epistles.

Most of the books are named after them.

You do realise that they did not pen a single letter of those books I hope ?

While it's true that several sections of the Gospels were not written by them, and were moreso added after-the-fact by later writers to provide context (John in particular had a habit of leaving a lot of details out), I don't know why you think the entirety of the Gospels were not written by their namesakes.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Constantinopolis wrote:What...? What do you mean it doesn't matter? The things we know about the author of a book don't matter in deciding how to interpret the message of the book?

Surely, the book in THIS particular case, is the ONLY thing we can know about the author.

Wait... or are you suggesting that 'the church' is the author?

Constantinopolis wrote:This is insane. You are literally arguing that the Gospels should be read out of context, ignoring our knowledge of history, and that this is the proper way to read them.

If the book is supposed to be timeless word of god - yes, it is only proper to read the text out of context.

If, on the other hand, you're arguing that Jesus' ministry was only supposed to be relevant to the time and place he preached... Okay.

Constantinopolis wrote:If the common people were uneducated and easily fooled, and the Church was engaged in some kind of conspiracy to deceive them,

There's no 'if'. The people definitely WERE uneducated. The scripture definitely WAS concealed from the common folk. Alternate views really WERE attacked.

That's not speculation. That's history.

Constantinopolis wrote:...then why didn't the Church simply edit the Gospels or even replace them with brand new texts altogether?

Why would they?

If you've got a companion text that carefully explains why what the text says should be interpreted as something else, why would you NOT preserve the text?

Constantinopolis wrote:Why carefully preserve and copy, over many hundreds of years, holy texts that contradict your teachings? It's not like the Gospels just copied and preserved themselves. Century after century, in a time before printing, whole armies of monks were engaged in the time-consuming and expensive work of making copies of the Bible. Why? Why did they do this? Why would a large organization devote extensive time, labour, and resources to preserving and copying information that [according to you] goes contrary to the goals and practices of this organization?

What else were the monks going to do?

I'm sure they really loved the text, and it was that, pray, or make beer.

Constantinopolis wrote:Your beliefs are utterly incoherent when exposed to the smallest historical questions, and your only answer is that you don't think history matters.

Not even vaguely. Literally, both those statements are false.

Constantinopolis wrote:In other words, read the Bible out of context, ignoring its history, ignoring what we know from other historical sources about who compiled the Bible and what those people believed and what kind of world they lived in. Read the Bible as if it was written yesterday.

Sure.

If it's timeless, and has a message that matters beyond early Judea, that meaning will be preserved.

Constantinopolis wrote:No thanks.

You're choice.

That's why you can't read the scripture objectively.

Constantinopolis wrote:You really can't even entertain the possibility that there may be a difference between your personal interpretation of a text and the Objectively True Meaning™ of that text, can you?

You're lecturing me, but you require a framework to tell you how to read the text, and literally just refused to look at it objectively.

Physician, heal thyself.

Sure, you can read it objectively. But even if you do, you can't understand a lot of the Bible without reading it in context of the Jewish people. Like the Book of Revelation. John wrote it as a warning to the people of the Infant Church, and passed around during the second century as a warning from God, and as a message of God's eternal providence. It still has messages that are relevant to us now, such as the ones I mentioned. On the flip side, take the Book of Matthew. A lot of the messages are easy to understand, but it's hard to get a full scope of them without understanding the audience Matthew was writing to, and also a little about Matthew.

And this is how you should read any book. You should read it holistically, taking into account the writer, the time period, events happening around the book's creation, all in tune with the text. It's like music. Think of a song that is truly timeless, something that anyone could listen to and perhaps relate to.

I'll use "Eleanor Rigby" by the Beatles as an example. A classic, and probably my favorite Beatles song, with lyrics that relate to anyone who has ever been heartbroken or lonely. I could show this to someone from maybe two hundred years ago, and someone who understand the lyrics. But you can't ignore the time period it was written in, and the events around its creation. "Eleanor Rigby" was written in 1966 by Paul McCartney, one of over a thousand songs that he and John Lennon wrote, and it was a strange song for its time. It was one of the first major rock hits to use a full orchestra as a part of its instrumentation. It was also a mark in a personal turn for the Beatles' music, as it was maturing and becoming darker and more unconventional.

If you ignore these things, "Eleanor Rigby" loses its significance as a song. If you put it all together, however, you get a piece of history that is both timeless and a mark of a unique period is musical history. You can choose to ignore these things if you want, but the events and facts around the song still exist, just as the facts and events around the Book of Revelation's creation exist.

I'll be honest, when this conversation was happening last night I was on my laptop writing, so if I miss things from the conversation I should apologize. I just wanted to add my own thoughts, if you don't mind.

Salus Maior wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:You do realise that they did not pen a single letter of those books I hope ?

According to....What?

The Gospels never actually say who they were authored by... then again neither do a lot of books in the Bible. That's all tradition.

Menassa wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
According to....What?

The Gospels never actually say who they were authored by... then again neither do a lot of books in the Bible. That's all tradition.

I mean, "I, John," appears at least in Revelation a few times.

We interrupt the current discussion to bring you Breaking News: The Incarnate Son of God has been spotted entering Jerusalem. Large crowds have gathered at the scene. News at 11.

Yes indeed, today is Palm Sunday. And because the paschal cycles for the Orthodox Church and the Latin traditions (Catholic/Protestant) happen to coincide this year, today is everyone's Palm Sunday. But this is going to be one of my customary posts for a Great Feast of the Orthodox Church, so I will focus specifically on the Orthodox celebration of this event...

The Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem
(also called Palm Sunday)



I'm sure I do not need to describe the event celebrated by this Great Feast, since it is observed as a special occasion by nearly all Christian churches. The Sunday before His crucifixion, one day after having raised Lazarus from the dead, Christ entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey. It was a triumphal entrance, as He was received by adoring crowds waving palm leaves and shouting "Hosanna in the highest!". This was a messianic act. Christ fulfilled three Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah of Israel (Genesis 49:8-12, Zephaniah 3:14-19, and Zechariah 9:9-15). It wouldn't necessarily be obvious to anyone seeing Him on that day that He was fulfilling these prophecies, except for one very explicit part:

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey." -- Zechariah 9:9

The rest of the prophecy is much more cryptic, but this part was fulfilled in a very simple and straightforward way: Jesus Christ rode the foal of a donkey into Jerusalem, and children of Zion rejoiced and shouted. By doing this, He was publicly proclaiming Himself to be the Messiah. The people may or may not have noticed the statement He was making, but the Sanhedrin certainly did. Thus, Palm Sunday is also the point of no return. Christ is openly declaring Himself to be the King of Israel, above all other Jewish religious authorities in the land. As far as they are concerned, this means war. Now they have to kill Him. Therefore, the triumph of Palm Sunday leads directly to the suffering of the Crucifixion five days later, and eventually to the Resurrection.

So what is the spiritual significance of Palm Sunday? Well, first of all, the resurrection of Lazarus on the previous day is extremely important in and of itself, because it was the act which prefigured the general resurrection of all the dead at the Last Judgment. Christ later rose from the dead Himself, of course, but it's very important that He also raised someone else from the dead - and did it in public - before His own death and resurrection. This was Christ's way of reminding us that the resurrection isn't just for Himself, but for everyone, for ordinary human beings.

As for the event that actually happened on the day of Palm Sunday itself - the entry of Christ into Jerusalem - it is significant on several levels. First of all, it symbolizes a perfect combination of triumph and humility. Christ is being received like a king, or like a victorious general. And this is as it should be, for He is the King of Glory who has won the ultimate Victory over Death. But at the same time, He rides on a donkey (or a colt, a very young donkey), not on a magnificent white horse or anything imperial like that. He humbles Himself, taking the form of a servant, and riding an animal typically used by the lower classes. He is one of us, not a conqueror from on high. He does not care for the material glory of kings.

The hymns of the Orthodox Church also invoke an addition layer of meaning: "Today, You mount an untamed colt as Your chariot, foretelling the conversion of the Gentiles..." Because the Gentiles were "untamed", as it were. The peoples who did not know God. By riding an animal widely known for stubbornness and refusal to obey, Christ is foretelling that the peoples who have so far rejected God will turn to Him. The stubborn Gentiles from all corners of the world will be tamed, and will come to worship the God of Abraham. And within a mere 300 years, the mighty Emperors of Rome themselves, the masters of the known world, would come to bend their knees before Him who was crucified. And they, too, would one day say:

Hosanna in the highest! Blessed is He that comes in the Name of the Lord!

Here are some hymns for Palm Sunday on YouTube:
Troparion of Palm Sunday (in English)
Troparion of Palm Sunday (in English; different version)
Troparion of Palm Sunday and Lazarus Saturday (in several different languages)
Canon of Lazarus (in English)
Rejoice O Bethany (in English)
Rejoice O Bethany (in Arabic)

Troparion:

By raising Lazarus from the dead before Your passion,
You did confirm the universal Resurrection, O Christ God!
Like the children with the palms of victory,
We cry out to You, O Vanquisher of death;
Hosanna in the Highest!
Blessed is He that comes in the Name of the Lord!

Kontakion:

Sitting on Your throne in heaven,
And carried on a foal on earth, O Christ God!
Accept the praise of angels and the songs of children who sing:
Blessed is He that comes to recall Adam!

Luminesa wrote:

Menassa wrote:The Gospels never actually say who they were authored by... then again neither do a lot of books in the Bible. That's all tradition.

I mean, "I, John," appears at least in Revelation a few times.

Well not all the books in the Bible, obviously.

Sanctissima wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:You do realise that they did not pen a single letter of those books I hope ?

While it's true that several sections of the Gospels were not written by them, and were moreso added after-the-fact by later writers to provide context (John in particular had a habit of leaving a lot of details out), I don't know why you think the entirety of the Gospels were not written by their namesakes.

Apart from the fact that the namesakes may never have existed, and the books were probably written after anyone involved in the described events would have died?

Well, apart from that... there are stylistic and linguistic clues.

But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? I mean, apart from the questionable historicity, the late creation, the style, and the language... what reason is there for not thinking the named authors actually wrote it?

Praise and glory to the martyrs we were blessed with today! Let us pray for their killers as our holy martyrs pray for us sinners.

Venerable Bede wrote:Praise and glory to the martyrs we were blessed with today! Let us pray for their killers as our holy martyrs pray for us sinners.

Rejoice Egypt, pillar and beacon of the Christian faith, for you have been crowned with martyrs and ascetics more numerous than your sands. May the light of Alexandria never fade.

Menassa wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
According to....What?

The Gospels never actually say who they were authored by... then again neither do a lot of books in the Bible. That's all tradition.

Although Luke drops some good looks when he stops saying "they" when talking about Paul's entourage prior to the time Luke joined, and after that starts saying "we".

In the Acts of the Apostles

Constantinopolis wrote:We interrupt the current discussion to bring you Breaking News: The Incarnate Son of God has been spotted entering Jerusalem. Large crowds have gathered at the scene. News at 11.

Yes indeed, today is Palm Sunday. And because the paschal cycles for the Orthodox Church and the Latin traditions (Catholic/Protestant) happen to coincide this year, today is everyone's Palm Sunday. But this is going to be one of my customary posts for a Great Feast of the Orthodox Church, so I will focus specifically on the Orthodox celebration of this event...

The Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem
(also called Palm Sunday)

(Image)

I'm sure I do not need to describe the event celebrated by this Great Feast, since it is observed as a special occasion by nearly all Christian churches. The Sunday before His crucifixion, one day after having raised Lazarus from the dead, Christ entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey. It was a triumphal entrance, as He was received by adoring crowds waving palm leaves and shouting "Hosanna in the highest!". This was a messianic act. Christ fulfilled three Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah of Israel (Genesis 49:8-12, Zephaniah 3:14-19, and Zechariah 9:9-15). It wouldn't necessarily be obvious to anyone seeing Him on that day that He was fulfilling these prophecies, except for one very explicit part:

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey." -- Zechariah 9:9

The rest of the prophecy is much more cryptic, but this part was fulfilled in a very simple and straightforward way: Jesus Christ rode the foal of a donkey into Jerusalem, and children of Zion rejoiced and shouted. By doing this, He was publicly proclaiming Himself to be the Messiah. The people may or may not have noticed the statement He was making, but the Sanhedrin certainly did. Thus, Palm Sunday is also the point of no return. Christ is openly declaring Himself to be the King of Israel, above all other Jewish religious authorities in the land. As far as they are concerned, this means war. Now they have to kill Him. Therefore, the triumph of Palm Sunday leads directly to the suffering of the Crucifixion five days later, and eventually to the Resurrection.

So what is the spiritual significance of Palm Sunday? Well, first of all, the resurrection of Lazarus on the previous day is extremely important in and of itself, because it was the act which prefigured the general resurrection of all the dead at the Last Judgment. Christ later rose from the dead Himself, of course, but it's very important that He also raised someone else from the dead - and did it in public - before His own death and resurrection. This was Christ's way of reminding us that the resurrection isn't just for Himself, but for everyone, for ordinary human beings.

As for the event that actually happened on the day of Palm Sunday itself - the entry of Christ into Jerusalem - it is significant on several levels. First of all, it symbolizes a perfect combination of triumph and humility. Christ is being received like a king, or like a victorious general. And this is as it should be, for He is the King of Glory who has won the ultimate Victory over Death. But at the same time, He rides on a donkey (or a colt, a very young donkey), not on a magnificent white horse or anything imperial like that. He humbles Himself, taking the form of a servant, and riding an animal typically used by the lower classes. He is one of us, not a conqueror from on high. He does not care for the material glory of kings.

The hymns of the Orthodox Church also invoke an addition layer of meaning: "Today, You mount an untamed colt as Your chariot, foretelling the conversion of the Gentiles..." Because the Gentiles were "untamed", as it were. The peoples who did not know God. By riding an animal widely known for stubbornness and refusal to obey, Christ is foretelling that the peoples who have so far rejected God will turn to Him. The stubborn Gentiles from all corners of the world will be tamed, and will come to worship the God of Abraham. And within a mere 300 years, the mighty Emperors of Rome themselves, the masters of the known world, would come to bend their knees before Him who was crucified. And they, too, would one day say:

Hosanna in the highest! Blessed is He that comes in the Name of the Lord!

Here are some hymns for Palm Sunday on YouTube:
Troparion of Palm Sunday (in English)
Troparion of Palm Sunday (in English; different version)
Troparion of Palm Sunday and Lazarus Saturday (in several different languages)
Canon of Lazarus (in English)
Rejoice O Bethany (in English)

Troparion:

By raising Lazarus from the dead before Your passion,
You did confirm the universal Resurrection, O Christ God!
Like the children with the palms of victory,
We cry out to You, O Vanquisher of death;
Hosanna in the Highest!
Blessed is He that comes in the Name of the Lord!

Kontakion:

Sitting on Your throne in heaven,
And carried on a foal on earth, O Christ God!
Accept the praise of angels and the songs of children who sing:
Blessed is He that comes to recall Adam!

This could be my least favorite holiday.

Yay Jesus Yay! Save us from our political problems! Save us from our economic problems! Hosanna!

Then a week later kill him, or stand back and let him be killed.

Big whoop

Luminesa wrote:Sure, you can read it objectively. But even if you do, you can't understand a lot of the Bible without reading it in context of the Jewish people. Like the Book of Revelation. John wrote it as a warning to the people of the Infant Church, and passed around during the second century as a warning from God, and as a message of God's eternal providence. It still has messages that are relevant to us now, such as the ones I mentioned. On the flip side, take the Book of Matthew. A lot of the messages are easy to understand, but it's hard to get a full scope of them without understanding the audience Matthew was writing to, and also a little about Matthew.

And this is how you should read any book. You should read it holistically, taking into account the writer, the time period, events happening around the book's creation, all in tune with the text. It's like music. Think of a song that is truly timeless, something that anyone could listen to and perhaps relate to.

I'll use "Eleanor Rigby" by the Beatles as an example. A classic, and probably my favorite Beatles song, with lyrics that relate to anyone who has ever been heartbroken or lonely. I could show this to someone from maybe two hundred years ago, and someone who understand the lyrics. But you can't ignore the time period it was written in, and the events around its creation. "Eleanor Rigby" was written in 1966 by Paul McCartney, one of over a thousand songs that he and John Lennon wrote, and it was a strange song for its time. It was one of the first major rock hits to use a full orchestra as a part of its instrumentation. It was also a mark in a personal turn for the Beatles' music, as it was maturing and becoming darker and more unconventional.

If you ignore these things, "Eleanor Rigby" loses its significance as a song. If you put it all together, however, you get a piece of history that is both timeless and a mark of a unique period is musical history. You can choose to ignore these things if you want, but the events and facts around the song still exist, just as the facts and events around the Book of Revelation's creation exist.

I'll be honest, when this conversation was happening last night I was on my laptop writing, so if I miss things from the conversation I should apologize. I just wanted to add my own thoughts, if you don't mind.

Knowing the history of Eleanor Rigby allows you to enjoy it in a different way. You might even enjoy it more. But the 'message' of Eleanor Rigby doesn't rely on knowing who wrote it, who sings it, or anything about it.

Sure, you can appreciate it in a different way if you know where it exists in a chronology. What it influences. What influenced it. How was it groundbreaking. And so forth.

But none of that changes the song, or it's meaning.

And if the song has any lasting significance, if it touches on something meaningful to the whole human experience, if it's timeless - all that other stuff is irrelevant.

This is arguably the difference between something like Eleanor Rigby by the Beatles.. and, say, "Da Dip" by Freak Nasty. One of them might be a message that will resonate for the ages, and the other was already outdated by the time people stopped doing the dance.

So... is the Bible "Da Dip"? Or is it Eleanor Rigby?

Because that's ultimately the choice you've got to make.

Pope Joan wrote:This could be my least favorite holiday.

Yay Jesus Yay! Save us from our political problems! Save us from our economic problems! Hosanna!

Then a week later kill him, or stand back and let him be killed.

Big whoop

It does say a lot about how fickle people can be. And how temporary is Earthly glory. It can even serve as an important political lesson: No matter how powerful you think you are, memento mori. The people who sing your praises today might be crucifying you next week.

Sanctissima wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:It did. The Apostles founded the Church, so yes, the Church wrote the New Testament.

That's... a rather nebulous assertion.

Early Christianity was never all that organized, and the term 'Church' was applied so loosely, that I don't think one could really consider it as having authored the New Testament.

Well yes, and that's precisely the reason why the best answer to the question, "who wrote the New Testament?" is indeed "the Church".

Because the New Testament came to look the way it does today as a result of a nebulous process that took a long time and involved a lot of people. It's impossible to pinpoint a specific list of individuals who could be called the authors and compilers of the New Testament. The best we can do is to say that "the Church did it".

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Luminesa wrote:Sure, you can read it objectively. But even if you do, you can't understand a lot of the Bible without reading it in context of the Jewish people. Like the Book of Revelation. John wrote it as a warning to the people of the Infant Church, and passed around during the second century as a warning from God, and as a message of God's eternal providence. It still has messages that are relevant to us now, such as the ones I mentioned. On the flip side, take the Book of Matthew. A lot of the messages are easy to understand, but it's hard to get a full scope of them without understanding the audience Matthew was writing to, and also a little about Matthew.

And this is how you should read any book. You should read it holistically, taking into account the writer, the time period, events happening around the book's creation, all in tune with the text. It's like music. Think of a song that is truly timeless, something that anyone could listen to and perhaps relate to.

I'll use "Eleanor Rigby" by the Beatles as an example. A classic, and probably my favorite Beatles song, with lyrics that relate to anyone who has ever been heartbroken or lonely. I could show this to someone from maybe two hundred years ago, and someone who understand the lyrics. But you can't ignore the time period it was written in, and the events around its creation. "Eleanor Rigby" was written in 1966 by Paul McCartney, one of over a thousand songs that he and John Lennon wrote, and it was a strange song for its time. It was one of the first major rock hits to use a full orchestra as a part of its instrumentation. It was also a mark in a personal turn for the Beatles' music, as it was maturing and becoming darker and more unconventional.

If you ignore these things, "Eleanor Rigby" loses its significance as a song. If you put it all together, however, you get a piece of history that is both timeless and a mark of a unique period is musical history. You can choose to ignore these things if you want, but the events and facts around the song still exist, just as the facts and events around the Book of Revelation's creation exist.

I'll be honest, when this conversation was happening last night I was on my laptop writing, so if I miss things from the conversation I should apologize. I just wanted to add my own thoughts, if you don't mind.

Knowing the history of Eleanor Rigby allows you to enjoy it in a different way. You might even enjoy it more. But the 'message' of Eleanor Rigby doesn't rely on knowing who wrote it, who sings it, or anything about it.

Sure, you can appreciate it in a different way if you know where it exists in a chronology. What it influences. What influenced it. How was it groundbreaking. And so forth.

But none of that changes the song, or it's meaning.

And if the song has any lasting significance, if it touches on something meaningful to the whole human experience, if it's timeless - all that other stuff is irrelevant.

This is arguably the difference between something like Eleanor Rigby by the Beatles.. and, say, "Da Dip" by Freak Nasty. One of them might be a message that will resonate for the ages, and the other was already outdated by the time people stopped doing the dance.

So... is the Bible "Da Dip"? Or is it Eleanor Rigby?

Because that's ultimately the choice you've got to make.

The Bible would obviously be "Eleanor Rigby". I've never even heard of "Da Dip". XD

No, if you take it out of its historical time period, it becomes just another sad song. But it's so important because for its time, this song was groundbreaking. That's what shot it into stardom (also, obviously, because it's beautiful, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make).

And yes, it kind of does rely on who wrote it. It's one thing if Joe Shmoo writes it. It's another if it's Paul McCartney, one of the greatest modern songwriters of all-time. The music itself is not just what is powerful, but the time-period. If you take away the history, you get nothing. There's no depth.

The Bible, in the same way, is poetry. Music. It's the history, the culture, and the values of the Jewish people and of Christians. And the history is the music behind the lyrics. The Ten Commandments are not simply the Ten Commandments. Passover is not merely the Passover. Christ's Sermon on the Mount is not just a random sermon. All of it flows together. If you acknowledge that all of these things are related, then you also acknowledge the history that created these events. You really can't separate them for whatever reason.

Constantinopolis wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:That's... a rather nebulous assertion.

Early Christianity was never all that organized, and the term 'Church' was applied so loosely, that I don't think one could really consider it as having authored the New Testament.

Well yes, and that's precisely the reason why the best answer to the question, "who wrote the New Testament?" is indeed "the Church".

Because the New Testament came to look the way it does today as a result of a nebulous process that took a long time and involved a lot of people. It's impossible to pinpoint a specific list of individuals who could be called the authors and compilers of the New Testament. The best we can do is to say that "the Church did it".

Eh, fair enough.

Pope Joan wrote:

Constantinopolis wrote:We interrupt the current discussion to bring you Breaking News: The Incarnate Son of God has been spotted entering Jerusalem. Large crowds have gathered at the scene. News at 11.

Yes indeed, today is Palm Sunday. And because the paschal cycles for the Orthodox Church and the Latin traditions (Catholic/Protestant) happen to coincide this year, today is everyone's Palm Sunday. But this is going to be one of my customary posts for a Great Feast of the Orthodox Church, so I will focus specifically on the Orthodox celebration of this event...

The Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem
(also called Palm Sunday)

(Image)

I'm sure I do not need to describe the event celebrated by this Great Feast, since it is observed as a special occasion by nearly all Christian churches. The Sunday before His crucifixion, one day after having raised Lazarus from the dead, Christ entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey. It was a triumphal entrance, as He was received by adoring crowds waving palm leaves and shouting "Hosanna in the highest!". This was a messianic act. Christ fulfilled three Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah of Israel (Genesis 49:8-12, Zephaniah 3:14-19, and Zechariah 9:9-15). It wouldn't necessarily be obvious to anyone seeing Him on that day that He was fulfilling these prophecies, except for one very explicit part:

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey." -- Zechariah 9:9

The rest of the prophecy is much more cryptic, but this part was fulfilled in a very simple and straightforward way: Jesus Christ rode the foal of a donkey into Jerusalem, and children of Zion rejoiced and shouted. By doing this, He was publicly proclaiming Himself to be the Messiah. The people may or may not have noticed the statement He was making, but the Sanhedrin certainly did. Thus, Palm Sunday is also the point of no return. Christ is openly declaring Himself to be the King of Israel, above all other Jewish religious authorities in the land. As far as they are concerned, this means war. Now they have to kill Him. Therefore, the triumph of Palm Sunday leads directly to the suffering of the Crucifixion five days later, and eventually to the Resurrection.

So what is the spiritual significance of Palm Sunday? Well, first of all, the resurrection of Lazarus on the previous day is extremely important in and of itself, because it was the act which prefigured the general resurrection of all the dead at the Last Judgment. Christ later rose from the dead Himself, of course, but it's very important that He also raised someone else from the dead - and did it in public - before His own death and resurrection. This was Christ's way of reminding us that the resurrection isn't just for Himself, but for everyone, for ordinary human beings.

As for the event that actually happened on the day of Palm Sunday itself - the entry of Christ into Jerusalem - it is significant on several levels. First of all, it symbolizes a perfect combination of triumph and humility. Christ is being received like a king, or like a victorious general. And this is as it should be, for He is the King of Glory who has won the ultimate Victory over Death. But at the same time, He rides on a donkey (or a colt, a very young donkey), not on a magnificent white horse or anything imperial like that. He humbles Himself, taking the form of a servant, and riding an animal typically used by the lower classes. He is one of us, not a conqueror from on high. He does not care for the material glory of kings.

The hymns of the Orthodox Church also invoke an addition layer of meaning: "Today, You mount an untamed colt as Your chariot, foretelling the conversion of the Gentiles..." Because the Gentiles were "untamed", as it were. The peoples who did not know God. By riding an animal widely known for stubbornness and refusal to obey, Christ is foretelling that the peoples who have so far rejected God will turn to Him. The stubborn Gentiles from all corners of the world will be tamed, and will come to worship the God of Abraham. And within a mere 300 years, the mighty Emperors of Rome themselves, the masters of the known world, would come to bend their knees before Him who was crucified. And they, too, would one day say:

Hosanna in the highest! Blessed is He that comes in the Name of the Lord!

Here are some hymns for Palm Sunday on YouTube:
Troparion of Palm Sunday (in English)
Troparion of Palm Sunday (in English; different version)
Troparion of Palm Sunday and Lazarus Saturday (in several different languages)
Canon of Lazarus (in English)
Rejoice O Bethany (in English)

Troparion:

By raising Lazarus from the dead before Your passion,
You did confirm the universal Resurrection, O Christ God!
Like the children with the palms of victory,
We cry out to You, O Vanquisher of death;
Hosanna in the Highest!
Blessed is He that comes in the Name of the Lord!

Kontakion:

Sitting on Your throne in heaven,
And carried on a foal on earth, O Christ God!
Accept the praise of angels and the songs of children who sing:
Blessed is He that comes to recall Adam!

This could be my least favorite holiday.

Yay Jesus Yay! Save us from our political problems! Save us from our economic problems! Hosanna!

Then a week later kill him, or stand back and let him be killed.

Big whoop

The Mass today was actually really nice, despite my dislike of having to read the, "CRUCIFY HIM!!!" parts. Because I just realized that, in Matthew's Gospel, when Jesus dies He basically causes a mini-apocalypse. And I can only think of Pontius Pilate, while the dead are walking through the city: "They had to put me in Israel. THEY HAD TO PUT ME HERE. GG ME."

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Luminesa wrote:Sure, you can read it objectively. But even if you do, you can't understand a lot of the Bible without reading it in context of the Jewish people. Like the Book of Revelation. John wrote it as a warning to the people of the Infant Church, and passed around during the second century as a warning from God, and as a message of God's eternal providence. It still has messages that are relevant to us now, such as the ones I mentioned. On the flip side, take the Book of Matthew. A lot of the messages are easy to understand, but it's hard to get a full scope of them without understanding the audience Matthew was writing to, and also a little about Matthew.

And this is how you should read any book. You should read it holistically, taking into account the writer, the time period, events happening around the book's creation, all in tune with the text. It's like music. Think of a song that is truly timeless, something that anyone could listen to and perhaps relate to.

I'll use "Eleanor Rigby" by the Beatles as an example. A classic, and probably my favorite Beatles song, with lyrics that relate to anyone who has ever been heartbroken or lonely. I could show this to someone from maybe two hundred years ago, and someone who understand the lyrics. But you can't ignore the time period it was written in, and the events around its creation. "Eleanor Rigby" was written in 1966 by Paul McCartney, one of over a thousand songs that he and John Lennon wrote, and it was a strange song for its time. It was one of the first major rock hits to use a full orchestra as a part of its instrumentation. It was also a mark in a personal turn for the Beatles' music, as it was maturing and becoming darker and more unconventional.

If you ignore these things, "Eleanor Rigby" loses its significance as a song. If you put it all together, however, you get a piece of history that is both timeless and a mark of a unique period is musical history. You can choose to ignore these things if you want, but the events and facts around the song still exist, just as the facts and events around the Book of Revelation's creation exist.

I'll be honest, when this conversation was happening last night I was on my laptop writing, so if I miss things from the conversation I should apologize. I just wanted to add my own thoughts, if you don't mind.

Knowing the history of Eleanor Rigby allows you to enjoy it in a different way. You might even enjoy it more. But the 'message' of Eleanor Rigby doesn't rely on knowing who wrote it, who sings it, or anything about it.

Sure, you can appreciate it in a different way if you know where it exists in a chronology. What it influences. What influenced it. How was it groundbreaking. And so forth.

But none of that changes the song, or it's meaning.

And if the song has any lasting significance, if it touches on something meaningful to the whole human experience, if it's timeless - all that other stuff is irrelevant.

This is arguably the difference between something like Eleanor Rigby by the Beatles.. and, say, "Da Dip" by Freak Nasty. One of them might be a message that will resonate for the ages, and the other was already outdated by the time people stopped doing the dance.

So... is the Bible "Da Dip"? Or is it Eleanor Rigby?

Because that's ultimately the choice you've got to make.

I'm sorry, but this is a sorry argument. A book or song means what the author or artist wants it to mean. Other people's interpretations are invalid. I don't get to decide that Tora Tora Tora! is actually a romance, for example.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Knowing the history of Eleanor Rigby allows you to enjoy it in a different way. You might even enjoy it more. But the 'message' of Eleanor Rigby doesn't rely on knowing who wrote it, who sings it, or anything about it.

Sure, you can appreciate it in a different way if you know where it exists in a chronology. What it influences. What influenced it. How was it groundbreaking. And so forth.

But none of that changes the song, or it's meaning.

And if the song has any lasting significance, if it touches on something meaningful to the whole human experience, if it's timeless - all that other stuff is irrelevant.

This is arguably the difference between something like Eleanor Rigby by the Beatles.. and, say, "Da Dip" by Freak Nasty. One of them might be a message that will resonate for the ages, and the other was already outdated by the time people stopped doing the dance.

So... is the Bible "Da Dip"? Or is it Eleanor Rigby?

Because that's ultimately the choice you've got to make.

I'm sorry, but this is a sorry argument. A book or song means what the author or artist wants it to mean. Other people's interpretations are invalid. I don't get to decide that Tora Tora Tora! is actually a romance, for example.

A controversial statement indeed...

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:I'm sorry, but this is a sorry argument. A book or song means what the author or artist wants it to mean. Other people's interpretations are invalid. I don't get to decide that Tora Tora Tora! is actually a romance, for example.

A controversial statement indeed...

To Christians and Cults.

Luminesa wrote:The Mass today was actually really nice, despite my dislike of having to read the, "CRUCIFY HIM!!!" parts. Because I just realized that, in Matthew's Gospel, when Jesus dies He basically causes a mini-apocalypse. And I can only think of Pontius Pilate, while the dead are walking through the city: "They had to put me in Israel. THEY HAD TO PUT ME HERE. GG ME."

Reminds me of the short-lived Christian drama series "A.D"

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:I'm sorry, but this is a sorry argument. A book or song means what the author or artist wants it to mean. Other people's interpretations are invalid. I don't get to decide that Tora Tora Tora! is actually a romance, for example.

A controversial statement indeed...

Tbh, I'm not sure if this is a joke or not, but, yeah, I feel pretty comfortable declaring it, unless you want to accept my opinion that the Twilight film series is about economic stagnation in post-industrial societies.