rodahi

I do wish that you could keep yourself from posting in separate blocks. It is annoying that you cannot offer this basic courtesy.

That said, here is your challenge:

You want to demonstrate that Jesus was not primarily concerned with the concept of love, and how human beings are to love God and our neighbours. Consider the evidence:

Mark 12:28-34 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

This passage is as clear as it gets. Now, from it, did Mark portray Jesus as seeing the two most important laws as being about love or not? As we can see, even (or especially) for those that wish to enter the Kingdom of God, they must first have love. That is the crux of the matter rodahi, and thus far, for all your typing you have not addressed it.

Now, what did Paul say?

1 Corinthians 13:1-8 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

Think larger rodahi. Do not remain trapped in your small world, thinking that you have all of the answers, and that Christians know nothing because of their biases and prejudices. You do not understand the message of the Gospel, even as you quote from it. Open your heart, and your mind.

Christ died once for all. He is God. Mark believed this, as did Paul and the early Christians. Even his own brothers came to see Him as Lord, and in so doing, embraced a message of love and obedience to God. This is the historical record.

Now, all you have to do is admit that Jesus' message was one of love, hope and the arrival of the Kingdom of God, and we can all move on. Again, you do not have to accept the message, but when it is so plainly taught in all of the Christian Scriptures, there is little point in debating it, is there?

Peace,

Nomad

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
rodahi

I do wish that you could keep yourself from posting in separate blocks. It is annoying that you cannot offer this basic courtesy.

Would you like me to list all the things you do that "annoy" me, Nomad? It would take a while, but I can do it. If you can't deal with the block posts, then don't.

That said, here is your challenge:

You want to demonstrate that Jesus was not primarily concerned with the concept of love, and how human beings are to love God and our neighbours.

I asked you to present textual evidence demonstrating Ish's claim: "Jesus main message was one of love for one's neighbor which he demonstrated constantly."

Consider the evidence:

Mark 12:28-34 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

I have already stated at least a half dozen times that Jesus said this in 12:29-33. Where else does he say anything about love of Yahweh and neighbors? That is my point! These three sentences DO NOT demonstrate that "Jesus main message was one of love for one's neighbor which he demonstrated constantly." AGAIN, in the WHOLE of "Mark's" 16 chapters, Jesus mentions neighborly love in only a couple of sentences.

Nomad: This passage is as clear as it gets. Now, from it, did Mark portray Jesus as seeing the two most important laws as being about love or not? As we can see, even (or especially) for those that wish to enter the Kingdom of God, they must first have love. That is the crux of the matter rodahi, and thus far, for all your typing you have not addressed it.

You have not addressed my point, Nomad. Ish claimed "Jesus main message was one of love for one's neighbor which he demonstrated constantly." You have presented a tiny section of "Mark" which I have already acknowledged as being there.

Now, what did Paul say?

1 Corinthians 13:1-8 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

Nomad: Think larger rodahi.

Would you point out where Paul quotes Jesus on the subject of love for one's neighbor? If you can, then you have a valid point. Otherwise, you do not.

Nomad: Do not remain trapped in your small world, thinking that you have all of the answers, and that Christians know nothing because of their biases and prejudices.

My "small world" is as big as yours, Nomad. I don't claim to "have all the answers." It doesn't take knowing all the answers to see the falseness of Ish's claim. All one must do is be able to read "Mark."

Nomad: You do not understand the message of the Gospel, even as you quote from it. Open your heart, and your mind.

Do you understand the "message" contained in the Zend Avesta or the Koran? Open your heart, not your mind. See how that sounds?

Nomad: Christ died once for all. He is God.

You have moved from the soapbox to the pulpit, preacher. I find it offensive.

Jesus was executed as a troublemaker. He was a man just like you and me.

Nomad: Mark believed this, as did Paul and the early Christians. Even his own brothers came to see Him as Lord, and in so doing, embraced a message of love and obedience to God. This is the historical record.

It is really hard to know for sure what anyone believed about Jesus originally. Every work in the NT has been tampered with. But, according to what is extant, Jesus was an angry, arrogant, and confrontational person on occasion. He had problems with his disciples, his family, the people of his hometown, and virtually all the rest of his fellow Jews. Please read:

"After this [problem] Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews' feast of Tabernacles was at hand. So his brothers said to him, 'Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing. For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.' For even his brothers did not believe in him."

How much intelligence does it take to see that Jesus most certainly DID NOT go around constantly telling his fellow Jews to love one another. The man had problems!

Nomad: Now, all you have to do is admit that Jesus' message was one of love, hope and the arrival of the Kingdom of God, and we can all move on.

Now, Nomad, all you have to do is admit that much of the NT embarrasses you and that you have to indulge in the spreading of propaganda to avoid having to deal with the actual text.

Nomad: Again, you do not have to accept the message, but when it is so plainly taught in all of the Christian Scriptures, there is little point in debating it, is there?

Still on the pulpit, Nomad?

If the text of the NT said what Christian apologists say it does, there would be no debates. That is the problem.

rodahi

Toto

If you want to find peace and love in the Bible, you can find it. If you want to find hatred and strife, you can find that too. You can observe the actions of Christians over the millennia and wonder why, if love is so plainly taught, it is so rarely observed. Perhaps that is because the character of Jesus has many more elements than peace and love, many of them contradictory.

Nomad implies that non-Christians just do not accept the message of love and hope, as if they prefer hatred and despair. This is disingenuous and arrogant. Most non-believers find that part of Christianity appealing. We reject the rest of the baggage that comes with it.

Gerd Ludeman inThe Unholy in Holy Scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible is another scholar who sees the personality of Jesus in Mark's Gospel as angry and unlikable. To pretend that there is no issue worth debating is to ignore the evidence.

I personally think that these anomalies in Jesus’ character make it more likely that he is fictional.

[This message has been edited by Toto (edited June 11, 2001).]

Ish: Since our debate seems to be devolving to "yak, yak, yaks" and cliches like "Keep your day job," I thought I'd simply present how I see things.

Actually, I thought Ish was presenting how he sees things all along.

Ish: Most didn't recognize or understand Jesus' message until after his death when the things he had said before began to dawn on them.

I would place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the messenger. Also, I find it quite odd that people understood Jesus better AFTER he was executed than before. Something strange is going on here.

Ish: Therefore, my original statement stands as to why many Jews did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. Paul said why, and I quoted him. That was the end of my case.

My point still stands as well. Many Jews destested Jesus, while he was alive and after his execution, because he was, at times, an angry, arrogant, and confrontational man. I quoted passages that clearly demonstrate this.

Ish: Then, I made the mistake of thinking I might point out Rodahi's biased views of Jesus.

My views of Jesus are BASED on what is contained in ancient literature, nothing more and nothing less.

Ish: He wants to focus only on Mark because he believes it to be the earliest. I have to admit that he has the backing on this point.

I agree totally!

Ish: However, there are more than a handful of excellent scholars that hold to Matthean priority, and I happen to subscribe to their substantive theories.

I find the arguments suggestng that "Mark" wrote first to be very convincing. My views are not influenced by the number of scholars who agree with me.

Ish: All that said, I still think that Rodahi is putting a negative spin on Jesus as portrayed in the book of Mark. Perhaps this is simply the difference between a pessimistic and optimistic view of the text.

Why should there be either a "pessimistic" or an "optimistic" view of Jesus? Why can't there be a view BASED on the text?

Ish: I'll leave that up to anyone who reads the Mark for themselves.

The problem is, most will not read the narrative themselves.

Ish: My biggest problem is with his choice of translations. I believe his choice of translations results in his negative understanding of Jesus.

My "understanding of Jesus," as he is depicted in "Mark," does not depend on a particular translation. I arrived at my "understanding" BEFORE I had read the Scholar's Version. The text of any translation demonstrates the falseness of Ish's claim that "Jesus main message was one of love for one's neighbor which he demonstrated constantly."

Again, I chose the Sholar's Version because I think it best reflects the words and actions of Jesus. There is another reason: In the Forward, Robert W. Funk states, "The Scholar's Version--SV for short--is free of ecclesiastical and religious control, unlike other major translations into English, including the King James version and its descendants...It also differs from most other English versions in that it is not a revision of previous translation."

I want to know what "Mark" actually reports about Jesus, not what some Protestant or Catholic WANTS me to think "Mark" actually reports about Jesus.

Great point, Rodahi! Jesus' brothers wanted him to reveal his heavenly powers, but Jesus would have no part of showing off:

Jn 7:6-8
"Therefore, Jesus told them, "The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil. You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come.""

It almost sounds as if Jesus is talking directly to Rodahi in this quote...

Jesus' brothers didn't even believe in him then because, like I said earlier, they didn't understand his message yet.

Yet...

Rodahi left out what is said about Jesus' mother and brothers in Acts.

Acts 1:14
"They all [the disciples] joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers."

That combined with the fact that Josephus mentions James as a Christian leader speaks against Rodahi's claims.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 11, 2001).]

Rodahi's opinion is that my claims about Mark are false. Yet, without addressing my evidence, he denies that the true translation of Mk 1:41 says that Jesus felt compassion.

Rodahi ignores the evidence and ignores the fact that Mark presents a Jesus who, all the way though Mark, heals, drives demons from people, acts as a servant, has compassion on hungry people, does without food himself so that he can teach, and teaches good things.

Apparently we will simply continue in our own views. I hope you see the evidence in a more positive light some day, Rodahi, because Jesus died for the bad things you do as well.

Ish

Another Jesus Seminarian? Like he wouldn't support the Funky Version , ok, ok, the "Scholar's Version".

As you can see from my previous post where I present the evidence, Toto, the evidence is totally against their claims and their reasons are weak.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 11, 2001).]

Ish: Obviously I cannot refute the whole "Scholar's Version" by the Jesus Seminar, but I can present examples. On a thread that I linked to in an earlier post, I gave an example of poor word choice that was geared toward contraversy and grabbing the attention of the media/public which Rodahi seems to have ignored.

The independent clause that Ish opens with says it all. The rest is apologetic tripe.

Ish: I also have a substantial scholarly problem with the underlying Greek variants chosen by his translations. I have picked one example which illustrates the difference between our views: Was Jesus "feeling compassion" or "being angry"? Here, the solid textual evidence is on the side of the majority of translations which have Jesus "feeling compassion", and I can't seem to get Rodahi to address this issue with any substance much less acknowledge that the evidence is against his position.

Ish misrepresents the facts here. There are two variant readings in "Mark" 1:41: I have presented my argument why I think "moved with anger" is the original and why "moved with compassion" is a later change in the text. Since he ignores this fact, I will present the argument again in another way. For example, please read what Frank W. Beare has to say:

“Both Matthew and Luke have provided a setting for the miracle, which in Mark has no indication of place or time. Matthew links it with the descent of Jesus from the Mount of the Sermon, as if to suggest the association of word and work in the mission of Jesus; Luke sets it vaguely ‘in one of the cities’. As a rule these stories of Jesus would be transmitted in oral tradition without indication of names and places and times--not as incidents in a continuous story, but as detached, self-contained anecdotes. Obviously Matthew and Luke do not feel in the least bound to use them in the same connection as that found in Mark; they exercise the same freedom of arrangement as Mark had used in the first instance.
The most striking changes made by Matthew and Luke are the omission of the participle (splagchnistheis--’moved with compassion’/ variant orgistheis--’moved with anger’) of Mark i. 41; and the omission of the entire v. 43: ‘And raging at him, he straightway cast him out.’ In v. 41, we must certainly regard orgistheis--’moved with anger’--as the original reading; the change from ‘moved with anger’ to ‘moved with compassion’ is easily comprehensible, whereas no scribe would think of altering ‘moved with compassion’ to ‘moved with anger.’ We can also see that Matthew and Luke must have found orgistheis in the text of Mark which they had before them; they too would have no reason to omit splagchnistheis if it had been the reading of Mark as known to them. These two astonishing and difficult expressions, which the other two evangelists have been moved to omit, indicate that in the primitive tradition which Mark follows, the cure of the leper was regarded as the exorcism of a demon.” [i]The Earliest Records of Jesus[/b], pp. 71-72.

John M. Hull is in agreement with Beare, Ehrman, MacDonald, Kummel, et al. See Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition, pp. 133-134.

Ish: Since Rodahi seems to believe that "being angry" is the appropriate translation, I would like for him to address the following:

"Being angry" is only found in the following extant ancient MSS:

1 Greek MS


"D" Codex Bezae - Greek - "Western" - 5th or 6th century
4 Old Latin Versions

"it(a)" Codex Vercellensis - Latin - "Western" - 4th century
"it(ff2)" Codex Corbiensis - Latin - "Western" - 5th or 6th century
"it(r1)" - Latin - "Western" - 7th century
"it(d)" - Latin - "Western" - actually the parallel Latin text written on the recto side of the diglot Codex Bezae mentioned above - 5th or 6th century.

So, there are 5 ancient witnesses to the greek variant "being angry", two of which are part of the same codex: [D and it(d)], it(a), it(ff2), and it(r1). One of these, it(a), dates to the 4th century. However, this 4th century codex is a translation, not the original Greek. So, the earliest Greek support is Codex Bezae of the 5th or 6th century. All of these codeces are of the text type labled "Western" by textual scholars.

The variant reading I think is correct is contained in Codex Bezae and other MSS, as Ish points out. Many scholars think it dates to early fifth century. If that dating is correct, only TWO or THREE manuscripts containing the variant that Ish prefers predate Codex Bezae, the earliest of which dates to no more than around fifty years earlier. Also, as he points out, there is attestation of the variant “moved with anger” dating to the fourth century. It seems when all the facts are considered, the variant “moved with anger” is attested only few years later than the attestation of ‘moved with compassion.” For paleographers this difference is insignificant.

Ish: Aland has this to say about the "Western" text type and Codex Bezae in The Text of the New Testament: "...innumberable additions, transpositions, omissions, etc. Undoubtedly the achievement of the original editor was significant, but only as a reviser who altered radically the text of his early exemplar in numerous passages. These alterations can make no claim to consideration as original."

ALL of the extant MSS have many “additions, transpositions, omissions, etc.” The Aland quote is irrelevant.

[/b]Ish: also

"...and elsewhere in the East a manuscript was written which was to become the ancestor of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D, 05, of the fifth century). In neither of these instances was the primary motivation of the revision philological. It was prompted rather by ecclesiastical or theological interests. The text of the exemplar (or exemplars, probably a different one for each group of New Testament writings) was revised not so much with a concern for establishing or restoring the original text as for determining the "best" text from a particular editorial perspective."[/b]

Again, this is irrelevant. What Ish does not tell his readers is that NO ONE KNOWS for certain what the original texts said.

Ish: Now, as to those Old Latin versions, the church father "Augustine complained, for example, in his De doctrina christiana (in a passage written before 396/397) that anyone obtaining a Greek manuscript of the New Testament would translate it into Latin, no matter how little he knew of either language (ii.16). This agrees with Jerome's complaint about the variety of texts found in the Latin manuscripts of his time (ca. 347-419/420)..." (Aland, Text)

This is more irrelevant verbage. It has no bearing on the variant reading of “Mark” 1:40-45.

Ish: So, this handful of texts supporting "being angry" are all of the inferior "Western" text type and show signs of theological tampering. Doesn't sound like the type of support for which I'd be looking.

ALL extant NT manuscripts have been tampered with for theological reasons.

Ish: Now, as I stated earlier, the greek variant for "feeling compassion" is has earlier, better attestation:

14 Uncials


"Aleph" Codex Sinaiticus - Greek - 4th century
"A" Codex Alexandrinus - Greek - 5th century
"B" Codex Vaticanus - Greek - 4th century
"C" Codex Ephraemi - Greek - 5th century
"L" Codex Regius - Greek - 8th century
"W" Codex Freerianus - Greek - 4th or 5th century
"Delta" Codex Sangallensis - Greek - 9th century
"Theta" Codex Koridethi - Greek - 9th century
"0130" - Greek - 9th century
"0233" - Greek - 8th century
"E" - Greek - 8th century
"F" - Greek - 9th century
"G" - Greek - 9th century
"Sigma" - Greek - 6th century

Miniscules
f1 (group of MSS), f13 (group of MSS), 28, 33, 157, 180, 205, 565, 579, 597, 700, 892, 1006, 1010, 1071, 1241, 1243, 1292, 1342, 1424, 1505, 2427

Byzantine MSS
The majority of Byzantine MSS (believe me, you don't want me to list them all - well over 1000)

Letionaries
The majority of Lectionaries (don't want me to list all these either, or at least I don't want to...)

Early Versions


Latin Versions (it) - aug, c, e, f, l, q, vulgate
Syriac Versions - s, p, h, pal
Coptic Versions - sahidic, boharic
Armenian
Ethiopic
Georgian
Old Slavonic

Early Church Fathers


Basil - Greek - 379 AD
Ambrose - Latin - 397 AD

Out of all the MSS mentioned by Ish, only TWO or THREE predate Codex Bezae. The rest are dated AFTER. It doesn’t take a great intellect to figure out that later Christians would have preferred a “compassionate” Jesus to an “angry” one.

Ish: The witnesses for "feeling compassion" are quite diverse, containing all different text types. As a matter of fact, this greek variant contains the best Uncial MSS of the best text type, the Alexandrian.

And all but TWO or THREE date LATER than Codex Bezae. Again, it doesn’t take a great intellect to figure out that later Christians would have preferred a “compassionate” Jesus to an “angry” one.

Ish: Aland says: "Only a few manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), Codex Vaticanus (B), L, and a small number of other manuscripts withstand the temptation and preserve the stylistcally embarrassing text." In other words, the witnesses supporting this variant come from the least modified textual family. Isn't this what Rodahi is looking for?

This is circular reasoning. Christians find the reading that suits them, then they say that every variant which deviates from this reading is not “original” or “correct.”

Ish: You can check the New Testament Greek on this website by entering the bk/ch/vs and clicking go. They have the very Greek word that I support for Mk 1:41 - SPLAGCHNISTHEIS. As a matter of fact, if you click on the greek word, the english definition will pop up - "feeling compassion". You can also check the translation of the greek word Rodahi has a problem with in Mk 1:43 by clicking on the word - EMBRIMESAMENOS [sternly charged/warned].

This is more irrelevant information.

rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
Another Jesus Seminarian? Like he wouldn't support the Funky Version , ok, ok, the "Scholar's Version".

Keep your day job, Ish.

Ish: As you can see from my previous post where I present the evidence, Toto, the evidence is totally against their claims and their reasons are weak.

Only in the minds of conservative Christian apologists.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi on Jn 7:1-5:
"After this [problem] Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews' feast of Tabernacles was at hand. So his brothers said to him, 'Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing. For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.' For even his brothers did not believe in him."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Great point, Rodahi! Jesus' brothers wanted him to reveal his heavenly powers, but Jesus would have no part of showing off:

Jn 7:6-8
"Therefore, Jesus told them, "The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil. You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come.""

Ish leaves out the fact that Jesus lied to his brothers--the brothers who didn't believe his act. Any reader can see that Jesus told his brothers he was not going to the feast. Yet, in Jn. 7:10-13, we read the following: "But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private. The Jews were looking for him at the feast, and saying, 'Where is he?' And there was much muttering about him among the people. While some said, 'He is a good man,' others said, 'No, he is leading the people astray.' Yet for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him."

Clearly, Jesus had a problem with his brothers and his fellow Jews. Even some of those who were not out to get him thought of him as a troublemaker.

According to Ish, Jesus had constantly spread much love, love, and more love, yet, many of his fellow Jews wished to kill him. I see a problem here.

Ish: It almost sounds as if Jesus is talking directly to Rodahi in this quote...

My gosh, another preacher. First Nomad, now Ish.

Ish: Jesus' brothers didn't even believe in him then because, like I said earlier, they didn't understand his message yet.

The people who knew Jesus best were the very ones who didn't take him seriously. I wonder why? Shouldn't the messenger be clear about his message?

Ish: Yet...

Rodahi left out what is said about Jesus' mother and brothers in Acts.

Yes, because it has nothing to do with what Jesus' family thought of him while he was still alive.

Ish: Acts 1:14
"They all [the disciples] joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers."

It is not uncommon for the family members of a convicted criminal to gather together after the criminal is executed.

Ish: That combined with the fact that Josephus mentions James as a Christian leader speaks against Rodahi's claims.

Even if James became a leader in the Jerusalem church, that does not mean that he ever thought of Jesus as anything more than a zealot.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 11, 2001).]