WILLOWTREE

Not counting the ethiopic - greek is the most precise language ever conceived.

Your definition above, the "acquaintance with a person" is an exact synonym phrase for the definition I supplied.

gnosis: knowledge which can only be gained by experience. I defined gnosis in the context of John 17/Christ's prayer which He asked the Father for the sheep to gnosis Him the way He knew the Father - personally acquainted.

Whatever source you used for your defintion touched on the meaning. Every first year greek student learns this specific definition of gnosis.

God intentionally wrote/inspired His word to be written when greek ruled the world.

Up until Jesus the Christ, a man could shake his fist at God and say "you don't know what it is like down here". Suffering the penalty of the Fall under the jurisdiction of Satan.

That fist shaker was right - technically - God did not gnosis/know what it was like being flesh and blood - hopelessly marred.

But that complaint is no longer valid. The claim of scripture has Jesus triumphant and resurrected - ready to empower the person who relates to Him via gospel faith with an experience of deliverance and manifestation of Himself. (John 14:21) When this happens you "WILL KNOW THE ONE TRUE GOD AND JESUS CHRIST WHOM HE HATH SENT" ( John 17)

WILLOWTREE

You are asserting victory via a claim that your position reflects the mainstream which possesses the truth. You are simply calling the truth a lie. (Romans 1:25)

WILLOWTREE

Catholic Martyrology

This opinion/response makes no sense.

It is not a matter of opinion - to have Jesus refer to Himself as "Son of Man" HURTS his intent in the ears of gentiles.

IF Mark is a liar, perpetuating a fraud (Resurection claim) then there is no logical reason for him to have Jesus call Himself "Son of Man' when he could of just said "Son of God".

This is called by historians, "internal evidences of truth", and a liar telling a whopper would not have Jesus refer to Himself contrary to the claim.

Amaleq13

I you know you need to be more specific than that. Is this a book or what? If so, what page is the specific reference? Is there an online version?

It clearly is your opinion but you have failed to provide enough support to make it credible to others. Let me try to explain the problems with it again:

You claimed that using this phrase would hurt his intent because gentiles didn't understand the meaning. That makes no sense because, the first time the author depicts Jesus using it, he is clearly referring to himself and indicating that it should be understood as a title of power. Jesus identifies himself as Son of Man and, in the same sentence, declares himself capable of forgiving sins. Immediately following this statement, he heals a paralytic. There is absolutely no reason to assume that this passage would confuse a gentile audience unfamiliar with the phrase.

In addition (and to elaborate on Vorkosigan's criticism) you have offered no evidence to establish that the author was writing in order to convert unbelieving gentiles. The majority of scholars, Christian and non, consider this text to have been written to the author's community of fellow believers. You will need to provide evidence to support this assumption.

Even if we accept your assumption, however, you seem to also be assuming that this gentile audience would be reading Mark without any additional instruction from a Christian teacher.

So I have offered three different reasons your claim is not credible:

1. The text provides sufficient explanation to avoid the confusion you claim is inherent.

2. The text does not appear to be primarily intended as a tool for obtaining converts and the majority of scholars consider it to have been written for an existing community of already converted believers.

3. Assuming it was a conversion tool, one must also assume the presence of a teacher who would be expected to explain unfamiliar terms.

The phrase had meaning to the author and to his audience if the majority of scholars is correct but, even if we assume they are wrong, there would not appear to be any reason to think potential gentile converts would be confused by the phrase or allowed to remain confused.

Amaleq13

A reminder should not be necessary but ad hominem attacks have no place in rational discussions and will not be tolerated in this forum. Repeated violations of this rule suggest willful noncompliance which can result in more severe consequences.

If you want to post here, you have to follow the rules.

WILLOWTREE

Yes YOU ASSERTED.

Need I say anything more ?

Why do you assert this ?

Answer: Because what I pointed out evidences-against your 'a priori ' beliefs.

Prophecy fulfillment is a miracle and according to your worldview miracles cannot happen (perfect circle jerk) on Mark - for no other reason but a subjective absolute.

The problem is that you ASSUME Mark/Matthew a liar/fraud/whatever. The record was written under the assumption of truth and you treat it exactly opposite. This is common bias being implemented under the color of objective settled fact, which is also known as deception.

Define christian before attempting this insulting tactic.

Many atheists I know admit it is fulfilled prophecy.

Methodology is uniform in any enquiry of truth: Facts and only facts determine conclusions. This of course includes Biblical claims.

I know an atheist archaeologist/scholar. He declares "The conquest never happened, and if it did it happened in an era that disproves Biblical chronology.

I respond by saying " How do I know your admitted worldview is not operating upon your conclusions ?"

He replies " doesn't matter - the evidence says I am right."

This is the rock bottom issue - the evidence.

Because I respect this person and I have confirmed his integrity in other matters - I must remain silent until I can refute with evidence. I am not anywhere in his league of archaeology expertise, but I do know a thing or two.

My point is thus far, nobody has supplied any evidence against Matthew or Mark that is not worldview based. When you all graduate to my atheist acquaintances bare evidence alone standard then you all should do as I do to him and remain silent.

First, the analogy you give is offered to dismiss the Biblical record because the analogy is advocating what orthodox secular scholars call "DETAILS EXCLUSION".

This subjective criteria, as a historical tool for determining veracity, simply decides that if a source supplies details of memory or what a person was thinking is not possible, therefore, it is the indication of myth/fiction/legend a roundabout way of calling the source fraud.

How convenient to create a criteria which fits like a glove onto the Bible.

Scripture supplies details to a Divine exactitude. Hebrews tells us exactly what Abraham was THINKING as he scaled Mt. Moriah to offer Isaac.

Details like this can only be the product of Divine inspiration/control, therefore, secular status quo has their invention to invoke and subjectively without evidence toss the Bible and its claims. This is the exact philosophy employed by the Jesus Seminar: "The Bible cannot be true because no source can provide such details" I don't know why they even bother to vote, maybe just to give the appearance of objectivity, but the blackballs are the only color in their bag.

The report is assumed true, like any claim. The evidence supports the assumption.

Opponents assume not true from the get-go and this is dishonest.

I have provided the evidence and arguments in the OP - what challenged the OP ?

Answer: A flood of worldview assertions and an avalanche of "the mainstream has decided". When these "refutes" come in I know why: Non-evidenciary "refutations" are in reality a recognition of the inability to refute with convincing evidence.


The martyrdom of the apostles and disciples: source: Dr. Scott/many other sources.

Dr. Scott spent 3 1/2 years researching this exact question. He concludes
" There does not exist ONE shred of evidence against the claims". Imagine that, the most famous men of all time and no refuting evidence whatsoever.
Google your ass off - go go go !

All traditions have Mark dragged to death.

I suggest you surf around and get acquainted with the status of the research about Mark.

To a gentile, "son of man" will logically mean son of a man. Gentiles are not versed in Messianic sources of Daniel and Enoch where Son of Man has high Messianic connotations. For Mark to be a liar and have Jesus call Himself Son of Man when attempting to perpetuate a fraud of Jesus as Son of God is inconceivable.

My source is Dr. Scott.

Dr. Scott says the research has Mark writing to gentiles, he was tutored in missions to gentile peoples by Paul and Barnabas, who are known to be sent to the gentiles.

7Q5 says "many years after these events" to be ambiguous. Daniel B. Wallace says the weight of Theide's scholarship must be respected. (if you want a source cite just ask - don't have it with me)

I am not sure I understand what your German scholars are arguing here.

Why would a "scholar" use the word "easter" when it is a clear mistranslation of "Passover" ?

How so ?

I'll answer that with your next motor drone comment.

You are admitting that miracles are not possible, therefore, if one is reported - it doesn't matter it cannot happen. This is the epitome of circularity.

The evidence of Mark I am arguing says the Resurrection did happen.

You or anyone can discover for yourself IF you come to Jesus on His terms (faith). When this term is sufficently fulfilled HE WILL REVEAL HIMSELF TO YOU. (semi-preachy but nonetheless true)

People do not die ALONE horribly for a lie.

People do not sing praises to God as they march into the mouth of a lion - for lies/myths.

The Reformers could of recanted and walked away, instead they paid the price for the written word to be accessed by anyone.

Comfort yourself with freak shows committing suicide while banned together with their associates.

Reformers died alone with an escape hatch available - big difference.

You ended by invoking "christians" to support your view.

BTW, I am really an atheist.

Your ending tactic to invoke "christians" is a straw man with or without source.

Vorkosigan

Let's look at this. The reasons that scholars think Matthew made up stories out of the OT are manifold.

First, we know that Matthew copied Mark, and that he changed Mark's stories. For example, in Mark 7:33 Jesus heals a deaf-mute; in Mark 8:23 Jesus heals a blind man. Matthew didn't like that; he combined both of those into one story, Jesus healing a mute, and blind man (Mt 12). If Matthew had thought these history, he probably would not have altered the story.

Second, we know Matthew was at least familiar with the OT because he cites it at the appropriate moments. For example, he cites Hosea "out of Egypt I have called my son" to support his fictional tale of Jesus' sojourn in Egypt. The reason, however, that scholars believe Matthew made up this story out of the OT is that not only does he openly cite the OT to explain it, but also, the Greek of Matthew's account is taken from the Greek of the LXX. Matt 2:20 in Greek is almost word for word from Exodus 4:19 LXX.

The most famous example is Matthew's misreading of the Greek LXX to imply that two animals are meant in Zech 9:9. See Matt 21 for this hilarious error. If the misreading were not enough, Matthew then takes the Greek phrases directly from the LXX Psalm 117 and 148 in the "Hosanna" scenes. The usual scholarly practice, Willow, is that when a text repeats another text word for word, it is copying it.

In the betrayal of Judas Matt follows Mark. He is aware, however, that Mark is building on Zechariah. But Matt muddles up the source. He conflates Jeremiah and Zechariah, and has the chief priests buy a "potter's field." But that is a literal translation of Zech 11:12-13, where the thirty pieces of silver is tossed into the Treasury of the Lord, designated by the phrase "potter's field." Matthew did not realize this misreading.

There are also cases where Matthew corrects Mark's misuse of the OT. That is another sign of copying.

In short, there are many good reasons to imagine that the 4 evangelists copied the OT. They are (1) the evangelists signaled when they copied ("this is to fulfill the word of the scriptures...."
(2) the greek text of the NT follows the LXX word for word
(3) later evangelists corrected the use of earlier ones
(4) they occasionally made glaring errors that make it obvious they copied.

You will note that this doesn't mean that this isn't history. It is quite possible that Jesus really did heal a mute blind man, or enter Jerusalem riding on an ass and a colt (for example). The trick, however, is proving it. EP Sanders, also a believer, whose The Historical Figure of Jesus is very accessible, observes on page 274 of that work:

"The accounts of Jesus' crucifixion are full of quotations from, and allusions to Psalm 22...As usual in these circumstances, we do not know which elements really took place.

You should also note that my judgment does not hang on any a priori about prophecy. I have not deployed any argument about miracles here. Rather, this argument hinges on scholarly methodologies that are standard for any field. For example, it is obvious from Matthew's error about Zech 9:9 that he is writing off the OT. The same principle was used to determine that the Hitler Diaries and the famous Chinshan Diary of the Boxer Rebellion were forged; the forger had copied public documents word for word. The same principle was also used in the recent analysis of the James Ossuary -- the forger had copied a public inscription stroke for stroke. There has been no mention of miracles here, Willow.

Now it is your turn. I have listed four reasons why scholars believe these stories are built out of the OT. It is your turn to supply actual arguments (not "because Gene Scott says so...) for these stories to be be fulfilled prophecy.

I didn't assume anything about Matt. I let the words speak for themselves, using standard methodologies used by scholars in many different fields. Raymond Brown, the Catholic Priest who wrote a two-volume work on the Passion Story (Death of the Messiah, which I urge you to read)that is one of the major works of the field, notes:

"It is not tautological to insist that the Gospels are primarily evangelistic; to make them dominantly reportorial is a distortion."

The vast, vast, majority of scholars in the field would agree with this remark.

I can't define "Christian." Christians can't define "Christian." Anyone who says they are a Christian, I have to accept is a Christian.

That's fine, but I am only interested in what scholars say -- in what people with sound metholodogy and a lifetime of study say.

Good, I am glad you think that. So what is your methodology?

That is currently the majority position in Bible Archaeology. There is no evidence to support a Hebrew occupation of Canaan. Instead, archeology -- largely conducted by Jewish and Christian believers -- shows that the Hebrews were a Canaanite people, and their god one of several local gods.

Well, here it is. The ball is in your court now.

I think it is natural to ask -- how did the writer of Hebrews know that?

You mean people who write fiction don't explore the minds of their characters? Whose got the a priori here???

I am! The status of research on Mark is that (1) the gospel was written by someone else and later attributed to John Mark and (2) the tales of John Mark's death are later inventions.

Mark did not lie. He based his story on the OT. As far as I can tell, he was not lying in his own mind, but reconstructing Jesus' life based on the only source he had: the OT.

Willow, Dr. Gene Scott is not a recognized authority on the New Testament. Can you give us a list of his scholarly publications -- work published in peer reviewed forums?

7Q5 is not part of Mark, but actually probably part of Enoch. This is well known in the scholarly community. Theide's scholarship is poor on this point.

Because they are referring to Jesus' rising, not the Jewish ritual. The German scholars are arguing
that the son of man phrase is a post-Easter invention.

All the time they do, Willow. Nobody really knows how Mark died, Willow.

They do, all the time. Are you saying that a UFO was really following Hale-Bopp and that the Heaven's Gate cult was for real? What about the Muslim martyrs? The Buddhist ones? Are all religions true?

The reality is that people do not die for lies or truths, but for social identities and social groups.

Ball's in your court. Let's here some argument about the historicity of Matthew.

Vorkosigan

NOGO

Objectivity starts with non-belief.
When you were born you did not believe in Christianity.
So we all start at the same place.
It is up to you to prove Christianity is correct.
You on the other hand assume that it is correct and use this to colour all you views on the evidence. You do exactly what you accuse other of doing.

Here is an example

Any person looking at the evidence will disagree with you.
The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew. There is no evidence that Jews in Palestine adopted the Greek version. This is most unlikely. So why do you adopt this most unlikely point of view?
On evidence?
No you don't.

There it is.
You assume the conclusion and feed it back on the evidence.

Your worldview forces you to believe that Jesus read from the Septuagint.
You have no other reason to believe this.

Your worldview forces you to believe that the Septuagint said what Matthew claims concernng the colt which Jesus rode when entering Jerusalem. The Septuagint does not say this, but you need to have it say it in order to support your worldview.
You must therefore
1. Assume that the Septuagint was changed and that it originally said what Matthew claims. (you have no evidence for this)
2. accept that Jesus rode two animals at the same time which is ridiculous.
3. believe 1 and 2 despite the fact that the other evangelists got the story straight with a single animal.

If you put aside your worldview you will realize what is obvious to everyone else. Matthew misread the OT reading "a donkey, even a colt" as two separate animals and put two animals in the story instead of one.

1. What is the likelihood that the OT said this?

KJV
Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

What is the likelihood that a person rode on two animals?

2. What is the likelihood that someone misread "even a colt" as "also a colt"?

[2] is much more likely than [1]
Add to this the fact that the other evangelists got it right you have only one possible conclusion.

That is the evidence.
Your worldview forces you chose the least likely of these possibilities.

My choice is strictly based on the likeliness of these two possibilities.

WILLOWTREE

This is your comment about Matthew 21/Psalm 8 prophetic fulfillment argument of mine.

You are feigning ignorance or you truly are ignorant, in case of the latter:

By definition, everything God says is prophetic and/or a promise.

Psalm 8, as corrected by me, says out of the mouths of little children [God] has perfected praise.

Matthew records what happened when Jesus entered the Temple prior to His crucifixion.

Little children began praising Jesus on sight spontaneously. The Pharisees become "indignant" and Jesus immediately quotes Psalm 8, pointing out that the verse in question WAS/IS fulfilled.

The indignant ones (the Pharisees) fulfilled the identification of who the "enemy" is of Psalm 8.

The Psalm is thus ratified/confirmed to be Messianic BECAUSE Jesus the Messiah quotes the fulfillment of the passage as previously described.

When Jesus cites this passage, and the stunning fulfillment - if it was unknown to be messianic then it is now suddenly confirmed to be because of what happened in the Temple.

To refute by asserting Matthew a liar is only done because you understand the fulfillment and are angry like the Pharisees which further identifies the "enemies" of Psalm 8 of this generation, which evidences the claim of the Canon that the Bible is the eternal word of God which is always applicable.

What does "nebulousness" mean ?

The exact circumstances can never be duplicated.

I am praising Jesus as the Messiah (me being a child of God) and you are angry because to you Jesus is not the Messiah.

By interpretation, the prophecy is being fulfilled right now.

The point is, God is in control, and Matthew 21/Psalm 8 is a beauty - Divine truth of prophecy eternally true in some context.

Then you accuse Matthew of "playing loose" with the O.T.

When Matthew cites the O.T. whatever he cites and however it differs from how we know it means Matthew is correcting it under the inspiration of the Spirit and his rendering is the correct one. This is Evangelical truth from the subjective mind of God which becomes THE objective truth IF HE IS.

WILLOWTREE

Hi Toto:

Dr. Scott stands behind what I said in the post from the other board.

Apparently, he is not in the least bit affected by the smears on Simonides.

Dr. Scott says the Codex is genuine and is only ignored because it single handedly refutes the positions of mainstream pseudepigrapha.

Dr. Scott refers to Simonides as "eminent scholar".

I have NEVER discovered Dr. Scott to be wrong, incorrect, or mistaken.

This means the Internet campaign against Simonides, and whatever truth there is to it has nothing to do with the genuiness of Codex Mayerianus.

Simonides sorted for Stobart not Dr. Scott.