FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Were the “Son of Man” and the “Messiah” two different characters according to GMark?
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 4 of 6 « First 23 4 56
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-06-2011, 03:47 PM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default
But there is the persistent claim that Peter misunderstood the gospel secret and falsely put forward that Jesus claimed to be the messiah. Jesus told him not to say that according to many - because it was a misunderstanding
stephan huller is offline  
Old 12-06-2011, 04:01 PM   #32
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Bultmann struggled with this question
But nobody else in 1800 years had even thought the question worth asking.
Is this supposed to make a point? For approximately 1800 years the Christian church established the correct interpretation of Scripture, based on its dogmatic authority and the power of the allied secular kings who ruled by the grace of the Christian god.

It has been only 1686 years since the council of Nicaea at which time the grace of Constantine liberated the canonical Christian cult from its obscurity and persecution described in graphic detail by the Christian Historian. Whatever happened 1800 years ago is anyone's guess, and unless there is new evidence that I am unaware of, its source is the Church Historian.

Quote:
It is only in the past few centuries that anyone outside the church hierarchy has been able to read the Bible and try to understand what it actually means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Analdo Momigliano
We sometimes forget that Eduard Meyer was, at least in Germany, the first non-theologian to write a scholarly history of the origins of Christianity, and this happened only in 1921.
mountainman is offline  
Old 12-06-2011, 04:07 PM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
But there is the persistent claim that Peter misunderstood the gospel secret and falsely put forward that Jesus claimed to be the messiah. Jesus told him not to say that according to many - because it was a misunderstanding
For how long has this claim persisted? Upon what is it based?
sotto voce is offline  
Old 12-06-2011, 04:24 PM   #34
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default
Its at least as old as the Gospel of Barnabas. That's where it is most explicit. It appears to be present in Tertullian's Adv Marc at least implicitly. I think (from memory; I'm driving) it is at least implicit in Origen's Coom on Matt
stephan huller is offline  
Old 12-06-2011, 04:28 PM   #35
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Its at least as old as the Gospel of Barnabas. That's where it is most explicit. It appears to be present in Tertullian's Adv Marc at least implicitly. I think (from memory; I'm driving) it is at least implicit in Origen's Coom on Matt
Not from any respectable source, then.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 12-06-2011, 05:08 PM   #36
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Its at least as old as the Gospel of Barnabas. That's where it is most explicit. It appears to be present in Tertullian's Adv Marc at least implicitly. I think (from memory; I'm driving) it is at least implicit in Origen's Coom on Matt
Not from any respectable source, then.
Please, I have no respect for such claims.

What respectable source are you talking about.?

You know that EXPERTS can disagree about anything.

It is just absurd to suggests that EXPERTS that disagree with others are somehow not respectable.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 12-06-2011, 05:32 PM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default
What's so disreputable about Marcion?
stephan huller is offline  
Old 12-06-2011, 07:16 PM   #38
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
What's so disreputable about Marcion?
The Catholic Church didn't like him???

No,... that would likely qualify as the very best endorsement of Marcion. :devil1:
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 12-06-2011, 07:17 PM   #39
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
What's so disreputable about Marcion?
What's reputable about Marcion?
sotto voce is offline  
Old 12-06-2011, 07:21 PM   #40
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
What's so disreputable about Marcion?
The Catholic Church didn't like him?
No, that would likely qualify as the very best endorsement of Marcion. :devil1:
Quite often, but not always. The RCC made much of its heroic orthodoxy, and 'essential' authority, in order to better introduce its own much more systematic heresies than the motley heresies of others. The Arian controversy is indeed a case in point.
sotto voce is offline  
 
Page 4 of 6 « First 23 4 56

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:43 PM.

Top

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