FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-06-2001, 03:22 AM   #41
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
Tercel: Mark 1:32 states that the townspeople brought all the sick and demon-possessed to Jesus.

Again, the text DOES NOT state that "Jesus healed all the sick." See below, Tercel:</font>
Substituting the NIV translation:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">32 That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed.
33 The whole town gathered at the door,
34 and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.</font>
Nowhere is it specifically stated that "Jesus healed all the sick". But this is implied. The people brought all the sick to Jesus. It does not say "he healed many of the sick" but rather that the total number of people healed was many. Since there is no mention of Jesus failing to heal anyone brought to him, then presumably he healed all who were brought to him. Since all the sick were brought to him he must therefore have healed all the sick.
 
Old 06-06-2001, 08:00 AM   #42
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I'm not finding the time to produce the kind of reply to Rodahi that I want. Unfortunately, Rodahi will simply claim this as some twisted sort of vindication of his ideas.

After comparing some of the "Scholar's Version" or Jesus Seminar (JS) Version, I am coming to the conclusion that it was meant to shock and grab the attention of the public. I provide a snippet of this on this thread.

Finally, I originally provided what was asked for in the original post. Paul stated that Jesus' crucifixion was a stumbling block to the Jews. Rodahi has not provided anything substantive against this. Rodahi denied that Paul said anything. I proved that he did. If anyone requires scholarly backing aside from the Bible verses, I can also produce this.

Wish I had more time to reply substantively. Rodahi's posts have been more unfriendly to Christianity than usual lately. What kind of chip do you have on your shoulder Rodahi?

Ish
 
Old 06-06-2001, 11:19 AM   #43
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

There are many reasons Jews did not and after 20 centuries of Christianity still do not believe in Jesus. First of all, the claims that Jesus is the JEWISH Messiah must be able to withstand the scrutiny of Judaism, not the Christian interpretation of Jewish scripture that develops post humus. Here is some of the strongest evidence found in Deuteronomy. Often times excerpts from these verses are used by Christians to say look – here is the Messianic prophecy that tells us of Jesus:

Deuteronomy 13:1 The entire word that I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it. [2] If there should stand up in your midst a prophet or a dreamer of a dream, and he will produce to you a sign or a wonder, [3] and the sign or the wonder comes about, of which he spoke to you, saying "Let us follow gods of others that you did not know and we shall worship them!" [4] do not hearken to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of a dream, for HASHEM, your G-d, is testing you to know whether you love HASHEM, your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul. [5] HASHEM, your G-d, shall you follow and Him shall you fear; His commandments shall you observe and to His voice shall you hearken; Him shall you serve and to Him shall you cleave. [6] And that prophet and that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death, for he had spoken perversion against HASHEM, your G-d Who takes you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeems you from the house of slavery to make you stray from the path on which HASHEM, you G-d, has commanded you to go; and you shall destroy the evil from your midst. (Artscroll)

Deuteronomy 18:15 A prophet from your midst, from your brethren, like me, shall HASHEM, your G-d, establish for you to him shall you hearken. [16] According to all that you asked of HASHEM, your G-d, in Horeb on the day of the congregation, saying, "I can no longer hear the voice of HASHEM, my G-d, and this great fire I can no longer see, so that I shall not die." [17] Then HASHEM said to me: They have done well in what they have said. [18] I will establish a prophet for them from among their brethren, like you, and I will place My words in his mouth; He shall speak to them everything that I will command him. [19] And it shall be that the man who will not hearken to My words that he shall speak in My name, I will exact from him, [20] But the prophet who willfully shall speak a word in My name, that which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of the gods of others that prophet shall die. [21] When you say in your heart, "How can we know the word that HASHEM has not spoken?" [22] If the prophet will speak in the Name of HASHEM and that thing will not occur and not come about that is the word that HASHEM has not spoken; with willfulness has the prophet spoken it, you should not fear him. (Artscroll)

Obviously the Judaic god told the Israelites that He will indeed send prophets from the brethren of Israel to test the loyalty of his tribes. He gives very explicit instructions on how to determine the authenticity of this prophet. One of the requirements is that if the predictions this prophets says do not occur (present tense) then the prophet is false, even if Hashem puts words into the mouth of the prophet. The true Messiah cannot die – death is the final sign that the prophet is false. There is nothing I am aware of in either the Midrash or the Torah that says the Messiah will die, be buried and in three days He will to Heaven.

Also, Judaism does not make the Messiah into a god, because that would be idolatry. There is only one god, whose face is unknown, whose attributes can only be known, but not his will and the Messiah is an instrument of god – but certainly NOT a god!
The only person claimed to have seen Yaweh face to face is Moses, Jesus did not even know the face of Him (who he is suppose to be.)

Numbers 23:19 G-d [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? (KJV)

Psalms 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, [nor] in the son of man, in whom [there is] no help. (KJV)

Jesus himself makes the claim that he is not a god, and subordinate to him. Subordination would suggest separation – not unity or an inseparable nature:
Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? [17] And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], G-d: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (KJV)

Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? [18] And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], G-d. (KJV)

Of course, there is more – but this is sufficient to begin a discussion on why JEWS don’t believe Jesus is Elijah – the Moshiach.


 
Old 06-06-2001, 12:12 PM   #44
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tercel:
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by rodahi:
There is no unanimity among scholars on ANY translation. All are problematic.

Tercel: Even the "best" Scholar's Version? Glad to hear it.

I will repeat what I said, Tercel. ALL translations are problematic.

[b]rodahi: Modern translators have a problem understanding the idiomatic Greek spoken two thousand years ago. What they do is offer their "best guess" in many cases.

Tercel: Does "Modern translators" include the writers of the Scholars Version? Why should their "best guess" be considered better than the "best guess" of every other major Bible translation?

Perhaps they have less Christian bias, Tercel.

[QUOTE]Tercel: 2. Rodahi quoted only a few passages from the Scholar's Version

Rodahi: I quoted NUMEROUS passages from the NT to support my argument. Thus far, you and Ish have not offered any textual evidence to support your respective views.

Tercel: You quoted a few passages in comparison to the entire contents of the Scholar's Version, which is what I'm refering to here if you bother to read it in context.

I quoted NUMEROUS passages. You have done zip. I think the readers can see that. The passages include the context. If you disagree present counter evidence.

Tercel: No, we haven't offered any textual evidence yet, I might if I feel like it and have time.

I have a feeling you won't because there is little to none in "Mark."

Tercel: It however was Ish's point not mine and I wouldn't want to intrude

Oh, but you have.

Tercel: - the only reason I jumped in was the craziness of your translation and interpretation.

Prove it!

[QUOTE]Tercel: and yet a number of those passages were significantly different from all other translations I could find, including both English and American translations. (If I missed any major translations availiable on the internet out by oversight then could readers please point out to me which ones I missed and where to find them)
This is simply unanimous professional evidence in the highest degree against the translation of the Scholar's Version.

Rodahi: Let's stick to the original issue: Are you going to offer textual evidence to counter my argument or not?

Tercel: Translation: I have no evidence whatsoever to support the accuracy of the Scholars Version. The only reason I think it is a good translation is because the picture is gives of Jesus fits well with my imagination.

Translation: "I, Tercel, as usual, don't know what I am talking about, but just wanted to butt-in and offer a bit of silliness."

Tercel: You did ask me to prove that the Scholar's Version is an inaccurate translation. I have done so, and I await a refution of my arguments (if one exists).

You have not proven anything, Tercel. You offered your opinion as well as that of another person. That does not qualify as "proof."

Tercel: If I do decide to offer textual evidence, rest assured, it shall not come from the Scholar's Version.

I knew that! You will offer a translation that best suits your Christian presuppositions, no matter how absurd.

rodahi
 
Old 06-06-2001, 12:43 PM   #45
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
I'm not finding the time to produce the kind of reply to Rodahi that I want. Unfortunately, Rodahi will simply claim this as some twisted sort of vindication of his ideas.

Take all the time you need, Ish.

Ish: After comparing some of the "Scholar's Version" or Jesus Seminar (JS) Version, I am coming to the conclusion that it was meant to shock and grab the attention of the public.

My challenge is still on, Ish. Present textual evidence from "Mark" demonstrating that "Jesus main message was one of love for one's neighbor which he domonstrated constantly."

Ish: Finally, I originally provided what was asked for in the original post. Paul stated that Jesus' crucifixion was a stumbling block to the Jews. Rodahi has not provided anything substantive against this.

No, Ish. You are mistaken. I spoke of what Jesus did BEFORE his execution. Jesus and his fellow Jews DID NOT get along BEFORE he was executed as a troublemaker. Also, there is evidence that Jesus had problems with his family. My WHOLE argument related to what Jesus BEFORE he died. Go back and read ALL of what I said.

Ish: Rodahi denied that Paul said anything.

Nope. I never said that. This is a strawman. (I am well aware that Paul spoke of the crucifixion as a stumbling block for Jews. That WAS NOT my point, and you know it.)

Ish: I proved that he did.

You have knocked down a strawman you created.

Ish: If anyone requires scholarly backing aside from the Bible verses, I can also produce this.

I see, Ish. You have skills that exceed those of the translators of the Bible. I don't think so.

Wish I had more time to reply substantively.

I think you do.

Ish: Rodahi's posts have been more unfriendly to Christianity than usual lately.

I have attempted to argue and present supporting evidence since I came here, Ish. Apparently, you are not too happy with what is contained in "Mark." Otherwise, you surely would have presented SOMETHING.

Ish: What kind of chip do you have on your shoulder Rodahi?

This is a blatant Christian apologetic tactic. It has nothing to do with the issue, does it, Ish?

If you can't present evidence to support your claim--"Jesus' main message was one of love for one's neighbor which he demonstrated constantly."--simply admit it. The text of "Mark" proves you wrong.

rodahi
 
Old 06-06-2001, 12:43 PM   #46
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tercel:
&lt;&lt;&lt;Jews are still waiting because if they weren't they wouldn't be of Jewish faith, they'd be Christian.&gt;&gt;&gt;

Well, as in all religions there are liberal versions. I was leaving myself an out and trying not to generalize.

&lt;&lt;And I have read of Jews that were converted to Christianity because realised their prophesies pointed to Jesus.&gt;&gt;&gt;

True but there are still 14 million or so Jews who have not converted. And what does this have to do with the original question: "Why don't Jews accept Jesus?"

&lt;&lt;&lt;Again we are back to the two-fold nature of the Jewish prophesies about the Messiah. Jesus would have known the Messianic prophesies when he claimed to be the Messiah. Yet he said "I do not come to bring peace, but a sword". While claiming Messiahship, he specifically denied that the peace prophesies would come to pass any time soon. Instead they are to come to pass after the 2nd Coming when the Messiah rules God's Kingdom.&gt;&gt;&gt;

I've heard that but I have also heard that the Jews only accept the Old Law (torah) and do not consider the New T as valid due to it comming after the last true prophets. (in the Jewish view)

The Torah says, "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God the Lord is One." To the Jew, the triune God is blasphemy and base their opinion on this and other verses.

Jesus, for Christians, replaced Jewish law. For traditional Jews, the commandments (mitzvot) and Jewish law (halacha) are still binding.

The Torah also warns against false prophets and some Jews believe Jesus might have been one.

"If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer and he gives you a sign or a miracle. And the sign or miracle comes to pass and he calls you saying 'Let us go after other gods, whom you have not known and let us worship them.' You shall not listen to that prophet or dreamer. For God is testing you, to see whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut. 13:2)

Which of course takes us back to Hubzilla's original point which is a good one: "Why should I accept the claims of Christianity if a majority of Jesus' contemporaries didn't?"

So, I guess it boils down to the fact that Christian and Jewish theologins can't agree on which texts are sacred--much less how to interpret them. To the Jew the Jew is right. To the Christian the Christian is right. Too bad the [God] of both did not forsee this calamity!

-T


[This message has been edited by Thomas (edited June 06, 2001).]
 
Old 06-06-2001, 01:02 PM   #47
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

The truth is that the Jews didn't really know exactly what to expect in the coming Messiah. Rabbi Akiba (one of the greatest rabbis of the Talmud) was fooled into thinking that Simon Bar Kokhba was the Messiah (you can find it right in the Talmud) that is until he died in the (peaceful?) war that he created with Rome around 135AD. There seems to have been more than one set criteria on the coming Messiah. Literature from outside both traditions (like the Dead Sea Scrolls, book of Enoch, etc.) give us insight on this.

Finally, look at the major changes in Judaism since that time. It seems to me that the majority of Jews do not believe in a coming Messiah anymore (could this be because they missed him?). They have taken a more mystical (Kabbalah) and agnostic route since that time with the exception of the minority Othodox. Todays Judaism comes from the Pharasees of Jesus' time. So, where did their belief in the Messiah, angels, and a bodily resurrection go? Could they have possibly taken the rebellious and unrepentant route they so often took in the Old Testament. How often did they ignore God's prophets? They were just as prone to ignore God during Jesus' time, most did, but some did not and followed their Meshiach.

Ish
 
Old 06-06-2001, 01:17 PM   #48
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
Quote:
Originally posted by rodahi:
Tercel: Mark 1:32 states that the townspeople brought all the sick and demon-possessed to Jesus.

Again, the text DOES NOT state that "Jesus healed all the sick." See below, Tercel:</font>
Substituting the NIV translation:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">32 That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed.
33 The whole town gathered at the door,
34 and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.</font>
Nowhere is it specifically stated that "Jesus healed all the sick". But this is implied. The people brought all the sick to Jesus. It does not say "he healed many of the sick" but rather that the total number of people healed was many. Since there is no mention of Jesus failing to heal anyone brought to him, then presumably he healed all who were brought to him. Since all the sick were brought to him he must therefore have healed all the sick.
KING JAMES VERSION:
"And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils. And all the city was gathered together at the door. And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him." (Mk. 1:32-34)

1. The townspeople brought "all" who were sick to Jesus. This is hyperbole. See no. 2 below.
2. "All" the people of the city gathered together at the house where Jesus was staying. Presumably, the "city" had thousands of people; hence, it would be impossible for all the people of the town to "gather together at the door." This is hyperbole.
3. Nowhere is it stated or implied that Jesus healed "all" the people of the city. The text simply states that he healed "many" and cast out "many" devils.
4. The text need not directly state that Jesus did not heal all to think that he actually healed MANY, and not all. All one has to do is be able to read and understand what he reads.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 06, 2001).]
 
Old 06-06-2001, 02:19 PM   #49
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Ish,

Since rabbinic (=Orthodox) Judaism believes all the rabbis who wrote the Talmud were inspired by God, later commentary (Qabbala especially) says Akiva wasn't wrong. They say Bar Kokhva was really supposed to be the Messiah, but because the nation of Israel wasn't yet worthy of salvation he failed. Bar Kokhva is held as "b'hezkat Mashiah", meaing "potential Messiah" - a man who could be a Messiah but the real result is dependent upon the whole nation of Israel. It's just like the Lubavitcher (Chabad) affair with their so-called Resurrected Messiah!
 
Old 06-06-2001, 05:43 PM   #50
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Then a leper comes up to him, pleads with him, falls down on his knees, and says to him, 'If you want to, you can make me clean.' Although Jesus was indignant, he stretched out his hand, touched him, and says to him, 'Okay--you're clean!' And right away the leprosy disappeared, and he was made clean. And Jesus snapped at him, and dismissed him curtly with this warning: 'See that you don't tell anyone anything, but go, have a priest examine (your skin). Then offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as evidence (of your cure).'" (Mk. 1:40-44)
This passage is an example of how Jesus expressed anger at someone who simply asked for help.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tercel: What translation are you using Rodahi? Your translation says "Although Jesus was indignant".
NIV, NASB, DARBY, YLT have that Jesus was: "moved with compassion".
Good News, Holy Bible, Living Bible, The Gospels in Modern English, RSV have that Jesus was: "moved with pity".
Worldwide English has: "Jesus was very sorry for him".
Whatever your translation is, it doesn't seem to match with any of the ones I can find. The only support I can find for yours is a footnote occurring only in the Good News that "some manuscripts have anger" instead of "pity".

Your translation "And Jesus snapped at him, and dismissed him curtly with this warning" uses stronger language than any others I can find for this.
The ones I listed above have either that Jesus: "talked strongly to him", "sternly warned him", "sharply charged him", "sternly charged him", "spoke sternly to him", gave him a "strict injuction", or "told him sternly".
Your translation "snapped" implies that Jesus is angry. No other translations imply anger.

Rodahi, I don't know whether you deliberately chose an iffy translation to try to illustrate your point or what, but I suggest that you use a different translation in future because whatever you are using does not seem to be accurate (Considering that not a single translation I can lay my hands on agrees with what yours says. [As well as what I listed above I have also just checked KJV, NKJV, KJ21 and the RSV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. They agreed with the ones I've listed above.]).


The following translations ARE NOT from the Scholar’s Version [emphasis added]:

"And a leper came to him beseeching him and saying to him, 'If you wish, you are able to cleanse me.' And becoming angry, reaching out his hand, he touched him and said, 'I wish, be cleansed.' And immediately the leprosy went out from him, and he was cleansed. And rebuking him severely, immediately he cast him out and said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing that which Moses commanded as a witness to them." But when he went out he began to preach many things and to spread the word, so that he [Jesus] was no longer able to enter publicly into a city." (Mk. 1:40-45) Bart D. Ehrman considers this the BEST translation of the passage. He states, "...some of you [NT scholars], especially my New Testament colleagues, are already aware of the problems surrounding Mark 1:41, where Jesus becomes incensed at a leper's request for healing." Ehrman IS NOT a member of the Jesus Seminar.

“A leper came to him begging him, and said to him, ‘If you choose, you can make me clean.’ Infuriated, he stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him. ‘I do choose. Be made clean!’ Immediately the leprosy left him. After growling at him, he thrust him out at once, saying to him, ‘See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.’ But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into town openly, but stayed out in the country.” Dennis R. MacDonald, “Secrecy and Recognitions in the Odyssey and Mark: Where Wrede Went Wrong,” [from Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative, pp. 145-146]

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 06, 2001).]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:42 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.