Doctor X

Amaleq13:

We in New England learn not to get giddy what with sending our best players to New York. I thought for a moment they would send Adam Vinateri and Tom Brady to the Yankees for a relief pitcher. . . .

Anyways, in Mark the disciples never give any indication that he is the son of a god . . . or "the god." In fact, you have Junior asking in exaperation "do you not understand?!" I would have to review the relevant passages in Mt and Lk but I "think" they do not fully understand either. I have come in late in Vinnie's thread to comment yet. Surpise, I know, but sometimes I just read rather than post. . . .

Toto:

Dang! Now you have me interested! I had a Jewish friend who stated she asked a rabbi if [RIGHT STOP THAT!!!--Ed.] was kosher . . . seriously. People will take this stuff too damn seriously.

Anyways, so that this will not be all expunged with a Inappropriate Comments Deleted because he is a Time-Wasting Cretin a mentor explained much of the "legal" stuff as "and then the lawyers got involved. 'Do I have to save my SLAVE if he falls in a well on the sabbath?' 'Yes, you do!'"

As for the dietary rules, I will have to check, but I had thought it was "a reasonable practice if you live in a desert." However, some scholars suggest it was a way of establishing "differences"--"we are different from them because we______." Perhaps, refusal to follow these practices were a "difference" for groups in the beginning. However, I believe the Hellenistic groups would find following new dietary rules ridiculous.

Anyone know how "serious" the dietary rules were followed by Hellenistic Jews? The reason I ask is that I have heard that the Pharisees tried to "maintain tradition" by specifically adhering to them--because others had stopped.

--J.D.

Steven Carr

See http://www.tektonics.org/liblaw.html for an explanation of why OT laws no longer apply to modern, liberated Christians.

Amaleq13

I don't think that is how Mark understood the title. He appears to be using it as another way of saying "Messiah".

According to Vermes, this was a title commonly applied to Jewish holy men.

Kloppenborg, in Excavating Q, seems to agree:

"None of these considerations translates into a picture of a "Torah-true" Galilee, if by that rather vague term one means a population that demonstrated loyalty to the Judean Torah by strict observation of tithing, purity regulations, and regular pilgrimages. That some Galileans observed these should not be doubted. Nor should it be doubted that Galileans practiced circumcision, kept Sabbath in some form, and observed some form of kashruth. To assume more than this not only would be in the absence of supporting evidence, but would render nonsensical the numerous complaints of the sages who resettled in the Galilee after the failure of the Second Revolt." (p. 234)

7thangel

Christ was referring to prophesies regarding himself.

KJV Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

Didn't you read the part where Christ broke the law of the sabbath, and taught even to break it when someone needs to rescue his lamb in the pit? And also others.

Paul likewise teach that we should not be judge according to the law,saying, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"

As for the part where we should obey the law. Paul explained that before we receive faith, we are bound by the law. When we receive faith we "still" follow the law, not literally, but according to spirit. Christ said,
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. KJV Matthew 22:38-41

Paul also said, "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

There you see, Christ and Paul's teachings were very much the same, except the way of presenting them.

Amaleq13

Unfortunately for your claim, the verse does not support that interpretation. There is absolutely no indication that Jesus was qualifying the statement here. That you feel compelled to take a verse from a different book by a different author only supports my observation.

I agree that in Luke 24:44 Jesus is depicted as specifically referring to the portions of Scripture concerning himself. In Matthew 5:18, however, he appears to be referring to the entire Law. Note the absence of the reference to every "iota" and "tittle" in the verse you offered.

I'm quite familiar with the various inconsistences found in the text of the New Testament. Good thing for me I'm not trying to argue that they don't exist.

Why should I assume that those stories are true and the saying about nothing in the Law being changed is false?

I agree that Paul can be seen to reject the relevance of the Law. My statement, however, had nothing to do with Paul. He never knew a living, teaching Jesus.

Doctor X

Amaleq:

Methinks, as the other thread demonstrated, that Mk considered him more than a mere "Messiah." Indeed, he has the centurian use this construct--"(a) son of (a) god"--as perhaps a final slap at the idiocy of the disciples--a Roman can figure it out--almost--why cannot they?

Now that I have dashed your objection into the mud, allow me to polish it a little. THAT this term is "common" for holy men or whathaveyou who would not be considered an actual divine personage suggests that Mk conceived the disciples . . . and . . . Puff of Smoke! . . . by extension the Jerusalem group as NOT considering Junior a divine personage and . . . here, take a hit on this . . . colors! . . . perhaps a historical Junior did not consider himself such.

7Angel:

This is a bit of a strawman on the part of the writer. Jews had handled the "should I save my servant on the sabbath?" questions long ago. No Jew would have made this objection. It is--as with many if not all of Mk's "debates"--a "set-up."

Also, ala Amaleq's admonishion, you have to exercise extreme caution blending the opinions of writers--Lk and Mt rewrote Mk because, on some level, the disagreed with his version.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

Why should I assume that the centurion wasn't using the title in the same way (i.e. describing a miracle-working Jewish holy man)? It really isn't clear what motivated the centurion to this conclusion. The way Jesus "breathed his last"? He complained that God had forsaken him. How would that suggest to the centurion that Jesus was the Son of God?

Taking into account that Mark depicts Jesus as having to try twice to heal a blind man, I have a hard time believing that he considered Jesus to be equal in any sense with God.

Splashing mud from your own boots is not the same as throwing my argument to the ground.

Do not, under any circumstances, bogart that, my good man! I was surprised to see the time of your post was not 4:20.

Within the context of an (assumed) historical Jesus, I would tend to agree with your "inspired" suggestions.

Doctor X

I agree with a mentor who suggested that this was "Mk's last joke." The centurian does not opine--as modern translations which follow tradition suggest--that Junior is a divine figure. "Son of a god" is similar to calling Michael Jordan or, better example, Larry Bird a "god" of basketball. It is like a pun in that the centurian merely expresses admiration but Mk and his audience catch the irony.

I use the term "divine figure" because I do not wish to suggest that Mk portrays a character as modern religious sensibilities would view it--a "god" or whatever apologetic manefestation of a Supreme Being. "How divine" or "what" Mk considered Junior to have been is a topic in and of itself, and I would agree it is not what is preached in Christian churches now! Certainly, Mk is confortable with a limited Junior. On another thread, you, yourself, note the cases of Junior "hiding" from "da angry mob." Why would a "god" have to duck behind things to hide?!

When I wip'd them off on your backside, however. . . .

This is what I mean by "reasonable assumptions" that I ranted about in other threads. It is a legitimate way of looking at "embarrassing" traditions and wondering "what" could have led to them--"real history" or a good story. For example, with said Blind Man, the two attempts have a wonderful literary flavor in Mk. I particularly like the "partial sight" of the Blind Man after the first attempt. Of course, this portrayal is objectionable to someone who believes in a "god-on-earth" Junior.

So . . . this makes the "failure to heal" an "embarrassment" which means it must have happened.

Takes another hit. . . .

Clearly one has to exercise caution in "concluding" that "embarrassing" traditions means actual history!

--J.D.

Amaleq13

Surely, thou shalt be struck down for this most heinous blasphemy!

Larry Bird is a minor deity specific only to melatonin-deficient players. The One True God of basketball, Michael Jordan, cannot be denied His rightful place at the top!

Unless, of course, young Mr. James ends up replacing all the records.

So as to avoid total tangentiality, I think the previous subject will be explored in full if and when the highly touted NOGO vs Magus "discussion" begins.

Doctor X

Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God: [Amaleq--Ed.]

Know that St. Michael could never marshall his horn'd hordes to defeat the Galic Warriors led by Feather'd King and capture the Grail whilst the Feather'd King rul'd. . . .

Anyways, since Magus refused to defend his rejection of modern scholarship--actually scholarship of the last 500-odd years--I rather doubt we shall witness a debate betwixt he and NOGO. I will direct Seed to haul up an ancient cask should that glorious conflict ever take place.

--J.D.