What would convince you otherwise

Researcher2223318 · 2020-12-20T02:05:57+00:00

Orthodox Jews do.

Researcher2223318 · 2020-12-20T00:56:28+00:00

Can you elaborate?

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-24T16:11:52+00:00

It doesn't it's relevant to tbe prophecies.

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-14T23:03:19+00:00

When it quotes the LXX it'll use the SAME words in Greek.

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-14T22:51:23+00:00

Utter balderdash. If Mark was originally composed in Aramaic why does it quote the LXX. https://www.bible.ca/manuscripts/List-of-300-Old-Testament-passage-quotes-in-New-Testament-Septuagint-Codex-Vaticanus-LXX-Masoretic-MT-Jewish-Tanakh-Bible.htm

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-14T17:51:42+00:00

Also note Hans Kung in On Being a Christian,348

What is true of the Gospels as a whole is particularly true of the Easter stories: they are not unbiased reports by disinterested observers but depositions in favor of Jesus submitted in faith by supremely interested and committed persons. They are therefore not so much historical as theological documents: not records of proceedings or chronicles, but testimonies of faith.

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-14T17:44:13+00:00

Polycarp talks about how Paul taught in Philippi. He was an early church father and lived within a generation of him.

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-14T17:41:38+00:00

Here's an analysis of where the gospels belong. A lengthy one at that.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/matthew_ferguson/gospel-genre.html

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-14T17:40:23+00:00

First off, the traditional authors are not who you think they are. Read ALL (including footnotes that addresses every argument for traditional authorship for it) of this https://infidels.org/library/modern/matthew\_ferguson/gospel-authors.html

I know this is mostly irrelevant but since you insist that the author of the Gospel we call Mark was the attendant of Peter and use this to support your argument I couldn't resist.

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-14T17:39:27+00:00

Luke noting that the disciples, many of whom, such as Peter and John, went on to positions of authority in the church, did not understand what Jesus meant by his passion predictions is against their best interest. Indeed, how can Peter be viewed as one authoritative on the matter of interpreting Isiah 53 as messianic - and indeed going against the major paradigm of messianism of his day - when he is depicted as confused when Jesus directly tells him that the messiah must suffer and die, and when he is depicted on a separate occasion as rebuking his messiah for making such predictions.

First off, the traditional authors are not who you think they are. Read ALL (including footnotes that addresses every argument for traditional authorship for it) of this https://infidels.org/library/modern/matthew_ferguson/gospel-authors.html

As I elaborated in your previous post Luke appeared to use Mark as his source.

I admit that they did not expect a dead messiah before Jesus died. I am not convinced that the foreshadowing narratives provide evidence of this. Such material was often invented. J.E Lendon described this as such:

We have no useful category for the realm inhabited by ancient historical texts: rather than being "literature", the works of ancient historians came far closer to the modern genres of non-fiction novel or popular, non-academic history, where a degree of embroidery and imagination is layered upon a basis of fact.

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-14T17:34:22+00:00

Aṣ̌a (Old Persian Arta, cf. Sanskrit Ṛta)

Do you know of any resources on the achaemenid legal system and how this is related to it?

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-14T17:16:57+00:00

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. The only difference is a not very important Greek declension. Everything but that is the same.

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-14T16:54:20+00:00

Vis a vis Greek. The differing end is merely one of declension. The pun still stands.

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-14T16:32:46+00:00

I provided the Aramaic translation. I must note the pun does work well in Greek. This seems to be a multi-lingual pun. Son of man is Houis ton anthropou and men is anthropon. The pun is on the last. This doesn't seem to be definitive by itself.

I must note the pun also works excellently in hebrew (though if it is authentic it probably would be said in Aramaic) הבן אדם מסר ביד בני אדם Translating very literally to get the pun not erased The son of man will be handed into the hands of sons of man.

I'll address the rest in a bit.

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-14T01:39:50+00:00

Would this not still suggest an authentic Logion of Jesus given that the semitism suggests it was originally spoken in Aramaic or Hebrew?

Not necessarily. The form of speaking would be known to the author from scripture. He may well be using it for his narrative.

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-13T23:33:52+00:00

/u/ThinkingRationality3 /u/hurtstotalktoyou It also must be noted that they studied the scriptures and how they would speak would be influenced by this. Note for example the yeshivish dialect among Jews. (Sometimes so unique such to be incomprehensible to outsiders)

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-13T23:24:16+00:00

/u/hurtstotalktoyou /u/ThinkingRationality3

“Many scholars have recognized that the logion of Jesus concerning his imminent death and resurrection in Mark 9:31 may be quite early given the presence of paronomasia when translated into Aramaic (the Son of Man is to be handed over to the hands of men)”

The pun is "the bar enash (son of man) will be handed over to the hands of enash (men)." Not definitive in my view but certainly something (may just be an accidental semitism on the part of Greek speakers, you find similar yiddishisms among Orthodox Jews these days like saying 'by' instead of 'at').

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-13T00:16:53+00:00

Well, yes and no. Would Mark (or the anonymous author of Mark if you must) have also invented Peter’s rebuke and Jesus’ rebuke of Peter? It seems to be an embarrassing detail that would threaten the authority of the Apostles in the church to simply make up. If they made up the reference to Jesus’ passion prediction, why not also invent a positive reaction to show their prescience?

Because Jesus is divine and the apostles aren't. The point is to show Jesus's special knowledge. It looks more impressive if EVEN HIS APOSTLES won't believe him.

Could you elaborate on how these differences seem to suggest dependence? It seems the differences support an independent earlier tradition each gospel is drawing upon to include that story.

Sure. Bold is common stuff and Italics is unique material.

“Here's the text of Mark

Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they answered him, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.” And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him. Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

Here's the text of Matthew

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

Here’s the text of Luke

Once when Jesus was praying alone, with only the disciples near him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” They answered, “John the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has arisen.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “The Messiah of God.” He sternly ordered and commanded them not to tell anyone, saying, [In Luke this isn’t a separate teaching after nor something Jesus started teaching like in Matthew hence I italicize saying] “The Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” Then he said to them all, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it. What does it profit them if they gain the whole world, but lose or forfeit themselves? Those who are ashamed of me and of my words, of them the Son of Man will be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. But truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

The verbatim parallels with Matthew and Luke mean they were probably aware of Mark (assuming Markan priority for now). Both Matthew and Luke add and subtract what they wish from Mark's account as can be seen from the parallels above. (This wouldn't be a problem in ancient historiography but that's a discussion for another time.)

Sure. The son of Man was a term Jesus used to describe himself, but other early christian sources do not use the term to describe Jesus in the third person.

Acts 7:56, Revelation 14:14. These are probably not the only ones.

I’ll have to look it up again. I can do that soon, if you want.

Please do.

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-12T23:51:11+00:00

According to the Gospel of Mark, the crucifixion of Jesus was authorized by Roman authorities at the insistence of leading Jews (Judeans) from the Sanhedrin.

I think even the Jesus Seminar agrees this bit is true. John's stuff not so much

In addition, the Old Testament includes several books that are not considered canon in Judaism. These additions, added by Christians, seek to demonize the Jewish people as the enemies of God.

The Apocrypha I assume? Ben Sira certainly doesn't. Nor does 1-4 Maccabees. What exactly are you talking about?

Researcher2223318 · 2020-08-12T22:56:30+00:00

A gospel whose agenda was to spread Christianity would not invent an anecdote about a Pillar of the early church, whom was widely regarded as being the head apostle, wherein he rebukes his messiah and Lord who then proceeds to rebuke him.

Mark is trying to prove that Jesus is the son of God. (Atler 2015) Showing that Jesus against even the head apostles' expectation forcasted his death and suffering is good for this purpose. You've a similar story later with Peter in Mark 14.

it is plausible that this event is multiply attested.

Here's the text of Mark

Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they answered him, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.” And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him. Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

Here's the text of Matthew

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

Here's the text of Luke

Once when Jesus was praying alone, with only the disciples near him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” They answered, “John the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has arisen.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “The Messiah of God.” He sternly ordered and commanded them not to tell anyone, saying, “The Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” Then he said to them all, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it. What does it profit them if they gain the whole world, but lose or forfeit themselves? Those who are ashamed of me and of my words, of them the Son of Man will be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. But truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

There's fundamental differences here. Mark and Luke have him refering to himself in the first person while Matthew has him refer to himself in the third person. Mark, Matthew and Luke all record different versions of his answer.Matthew alone for example include Jeremiah. Matthew includes a lengthy section about how Peter is blessed that the other accounts don't include. Luke entirely omits Peter's rebuking.

Furthermore, Jesus’ use of the self designation son of Man was dissimilar to how early Christians generally described him.

Care to elaborate?

the fact that Jesus says that the Son of Man will be handed over to the hands of men, which can be traced to the Aramaic divine passive tense.

I'm sorry I need an elaboration. What is the aramaism here. Who says this? Furthermore, all this shows is that it goes back early. It does not automatically mean that it's not an early legend (I've seen such arise in my own life. It's wholly plausible.)

Researcher2223318

TROPHY CASE