quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then he went back to the synagogue, and a fellow with a crippled hand was there. So they kept an eye on him, to see whether he would heal the fellow on the sabbath day, so they could denounce him. And he says to the fellow with the crippled hand, 'Get up here in front of everybody.' Then he asks them, 'On the sabbath day is it permitted to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?' But they maintained their silence. And looking right at them with anger, exasperated at their obstinacy, he says to the fellow, 'Hold out your hand!'" (Mk. 3:1-5)
The above is an example of how Jesus expressed anger as he antagonized his fellow Jews.


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

Tercel: Your translation is letting you down again. "exasperated at their obstinacy" should read "grieved at their hardness of heart".

No, Tercel, it should read precisely as I quoted it.

Tercel: "The above is an example of how Jesus expressed anger as he antagonized his fellow Jews".
This is cleverly written: Jesus is expressing anger and he is antagonizing his fellow Jews. So what you've written is true so far as it goes. But of course it is false by the fact that it only tells half the story. If you care to read the passage in a more accurate translation you should see that Jesus is both right in his actions and just in his anger.

No, Tercel. You need to realize that what you have been reading is not the BEST translation of what Jesus said and did. Jesus was NOT justified in antagonizing his fellow Jews, nor showing anger toward them.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Then he goes home, and once again a crowd gathers, so they could not even grab a bite to eat. When his relatives heard about it, they came to get him. (You see they thought he was out of his mind.)" (Mk. 3:20-21)
Above, Jesus own family thought he had gone insane.


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

Tercel: Congratulations this is the first passage for which I agree with your interpretation. (If not the translation) Pity it seems to be irrelevant to the question at hand.

It is relevant! This is a terrific reason why Jesus' fellow Jews did not follow him. Who would want to become the follower of a nut?

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Then his mother and brothers arrive. While still outside, they send in and ask for him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they say to him, 'Look, your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside looking for you.' In response he says to them: 'My mother and brothers--who ever are they?'" (Mk. 3:31-33)
Above, Jesus shunned his own family.


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

Tercel: Your translation is letting you down again.
So I'll use the NIV (and add 34 & 35 which you'd conviently left off ):

My translation did not let me down. It reflects the Greek better than the NIV.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark 3
31 Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him.
32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."
33 "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!
35 Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tercel: The passage is not so much saying that Jesus shunned his own family

That is precisely what Jesus is depicted as doing.

Tercel: (It does not say "Family go away, I don't like you") as saying that Jesus rasied up all who do God's will to the level of his family.

Jesus shunned his family and insulted them by saying that his followers had become his real family.

Tercel: Jesus simply takes the opportunity of his family arriving to further his teaching by asking this rhetorical question.

No, Tercel, that is not what Jesus did. Read the passage again.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jesus used to tell them: 'No prophet goes without respect, except on his home turf and among his relatives and at home!' He was unable to perform a single miracle there, except that he did cure a few by laying hands on them..." (Mk. 6:4-6)
Above, we can see that Jesus failed in his own hometown and with his own relatives. These are the very people who knew him BEST.


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

Tercel: Again I agree with your interpretation, but its relevance to the point appears to be lacking. Your point was:

Jesus failed to convince the people who knew him BEST. How much simpler can I make it, Tercel? They did not follow him! Why would that be?

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ish: "Jesus...was antagonistic toward his Jewish relatives and neighbors"? This is an opinion based on your interpretations of a few hard to understand biblical passages, Rodahi.
Rodahi: On the contrary, my statement is based on a straightforward reading of easy to understand text in the NT.


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

Tercel: Not being able to heal many of his relatives and people in his home town because they had no faith and did not respect him hardly supports your point that "Jesus...was antagonistic toward his Jewish relatives and neighbors".

It perfectly supports my contention. Jesus failed to get his own family and the people of his own hometown to follow him during his lifetime. If he had been a kind, loving and peaceful man, ALL would have followed him. The textual evidence indicates that Jesus was an angry young man who antagonized his family and fellow Jews.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Then he summoned the twelve and started sending them out in pairs and giving them authority over unclean spirits...And he went on to say to them: 'Whenever you enter someone's house, stay there until you leave town. And whatever place does not welcome you or listen to you, get out of there and shake the dust off your feet in witness against them.'" Mk. 6:7;10-11)
Above, Jesus instructs his disciples to place a magical curse on those who do not receive them. "Shaking off a town's dust" is a gesture of contempt.


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

Tercel: I'm not quite sure its a "gesture of contempt" as opposed to a warning. Either way equating it with "a magical curse" is getting somewhat imaginative.

What do you think Jesus was warning the non-receptive Jews about? Once you figure that out, you will understand the magical implications.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And they went out to see what had happened. And they come to Jesus and notice the demoniac sitting with his clothes on and with his wits about him, the one who had harbored Legion, and they got scared. And those who had seen told them what had happened to the demoniac, and all about the pigs. And they started begging him to go away from the region." (Mk. 5:14-17)
It the above passage, Jesus is begged by his fellow Jewish people to get out of the area. He was frightening to them.


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

Tercel: Yes. Point?

Jesus frightened the people, and they begged him to leave the region.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And as (Jesus) was getting into the boat, the ex-demoniac kept pleading with him to go along. And he would not let him..." (Mk. 5:18-19)
Apparently, Jesus did not love the demoniac at first sight. Anyway, he refused to allow the poor man to come with him.


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

Tercel: Shall we include in a decent translation the parts you have left off here Rodahi?
NIV: Mark 5
18 As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him.
19 Jesus did not let him, but said, "Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you."
20 So the man went away and began to tell in the Decapolis [the ten cities] how much Jesus had done for him. And all the people were amazed.

So, Tercel, did Jesus take him with him or not? How do your added "parts" change my point?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As he was traveling along the road, someone ran up, knelt before him, and started questioning him: 'Good teacher, what do I have to do to inherit eternal life?'...Jesus loved him at first sight..." (Mk. 10:17;21)
Above, we see that Jesus did express love. The question is: What kind of love?


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

Tercel: egaproen is the greek word used here. According to my NT Greek-English dictionary this means Christian love.

In the phrase--"Jesus loved him at first sight"--the words "loved him" in Greek mean "became fond of him" or "caressed him."
Readers can draw their own conclusions.

rodahi

rodahi: "On the next day, as they were leaving Bethany, he got hungry. So when he spotted a fig tree in the distance with some leaves on it, he went up to it expecting to find something on it. But when he got right up to it, he found nothing on it except leaves. (You see, it wasn't 'time' for figs.) And he reacted by saying: 'May no one so much as taste your fruit again!' And his disciples were listening." (Mk. 11:12-14)

Above, we read about Jesus magically cursing a fig tree and killing it.

Tercel: Yes. Point?

You certainly seem to be missing a good number of points, Tercel. Jesus killed a fig tree simply because it had no figs. Does that sound like the kind of person who went around constantly telling his Jewish relatives and neighbors to love one another? Does it sound like a kind, peace-loving person to you?

rodahi

Mark 1:32 states that the townspeople brought all the sick and demon-possessed to Jesus.

The Scholar's Version? That would explain a lot. If you wish me to take your quotes from the Bible seriously in future, please use an unbiased translation.
It merely demonstrates the extremeness of your possition Rodahi when you start accusing a large number of mainline translations of mistranslation. If you want to believe a few of the Jesus Seminar extremists rather than the rest of the world's Biblical scholars that is fine with me. But if you chose to do so, I suggest you stop complaining about the quality of other people's evidence - take the log out of your own eye first.

But while you insist on taking the Scholar's Version seriously as an accurate translation, I do not see that I can have a serious debate with you.

Indeed they can. They can either believe what you say, or what a dictionary says. I don't think that's a difficult choice.

Wow, Rodahi! This is some of the biggest scripture twisting I've seen from you yet, a la Morton Smith... I don't know if I'm going to have time to address any of it, but I hope so.

You might try something other than the fancy sounding "scholar's version", though. It sounds as if you picked it for the impact of the name... It's no more "scholarly" or accurate than the other translations which Tercel quoted.

Finally, when did you become an expert in this Greek? I believe your translations are not entirely accurate. I just hope I have the time to show them so.

BTW, I don't know that I consider Mark the earliest gospel (though I reserve the right to be wrong here), so your arguments lose weight with me on two fronts. Yeah, I know it's a minority view, but then so is most of yours. Besides, you can't prove Mark wrote first.

Ish

Ish did not say that the resurrection was a stumbling block to the Jews, he said that the crucifixion was a stumbling block to the Jews.

Big Difference.

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
There is nothing "outrightly false" about my comment. As a matter of fact, you have misrepresented what the text says. Nowhere does the text state that Jesus "already healed all the sick." What the text does say is this: "And he healed many who were sick..." (1:34) Jesus avoided many and put his desires ahead of those who sought his help.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

"In the evening, at sundown, they would bring all the sick and demon possessed to him. And the whole town would crowd around the door. On such occasions he cured many people afflicted with various diseases and drove out many demons. He would never let the demons speak, because they realized who he was." (Mk. 1:32-34)

One more time: The text DOES NOT state that Jesus healed ALL the people who came to him. Also 1:32-33 are hyperbolic in nature. For example, how could "the whole town crowd around the door"?

rodahi