Amaleq13

Could you explain what you mean by "best scholarship"? Can you also provide specific examples of who these scholars are?

Could you provide the specific basis for this conclusion?

What is your source for the death of the author of Mark?

Regardless of the intended audience, the author makes it explicitly clear that Jesus is the Son of God in his opening sentence. Also, the very first time Jesus is depicted as referring to himself as "Son of Man", he also claims he has the power to forgive sins and immediately heals a paralytic.

Even if the reader understood the phrase to mean something completely different, the author makes it very clear what he means by the phrase.

Your argument that his use of the phrase would hurt his attempt to identify Jesus as the Son of God is, therefore, not convincing.


Was Paul trying to convince others that Jesus was the Son of God?

philcya

Amaleq13, I'd bet my salary it's someone by the name of Dr Gene Scott!

Amaleq13

If that is the case, then I would prefer it clearly stated. Ultimately, regardless of the source, the basis for the claims will be what is important.

Isn't it illegal to gamble in Wheaton?

Vorkosigan

No, we asserted that Matthew constructed this out of the Old Testament. Whether he did so piously or maliciously is not relevant to whether it is an historical truth, Willow.

The issue is -- how do you know that this is a fulfilled prophecy, and not a construction, as many exegetes -- including many Christians -- believe? I am not asking you a question about Matthew. I am asking you a question about methodology.

For example, suppose you ask me -- "Michael, how do we know that the Battle of Alesia was fought?" I could then answer that we have a book from someone who claims he was the commander on the Roman side at the battle, that we have statements from other Roman historians to that effect, and most importantly, we have outside vectors -- archaeological research that, to a great extent, confirms at least the skeleton of Caesar's story. We get into murkier waters when we start speculating on Caesar's explanation of his and others' behavior, but we know that his basic descriptions are for the most part accurate.

So, what I would like to know is: how do you know that this report is history, and not simply fiction made up out of the OT?

I too would like to know about how you know where Mark was martyred. Also how you know that he wrote this gospel to the Gentiles. Jesus remains in Palestine, and there is very little that is overtly about any of Jesus interactions with non-Jews. Famously, he compares the Syro-phoenician woman to a "dog."

If the gentiles don't know what the son of man is, how could it affect them one way or another? Further, you haven't established that Mark wrote for Gentiles in the first place.

Mark was writing many years after these events. Scholars are divided on how Jesus referred to himself. For example, as Theissen and Merz, two German Christian scholars, note:

"In Mark 14:62 one could see a comparable claim in Jesus' announcement that he is sitting at the right hand of God (Catchpole, Trial, 271). However there is much to suggest that this statement pre-supposes the post-Easter confession of Jesus: Jesus was 'divinized' only on the basis of the Easter experience. Such a 'divinization' would especially be blasphemy if it implied the exaltation of a crucified man to God. Moreoever the combination of the three most important christological titles, Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man, in Mark 14:62f, suggests a post-Easter perspective and can hardly be historical (cf already Lietzmann, 'Prozess', 255f)."

To many scholars the "Son of Man" claim looks suspiciously post-Easter.

Additionally, your argument relies on a faulty claim about Gentiles. The Jewish scriptures were respected by many in the empire who were not Jews and had not read them, for they were held to be hoary with age and wisdom. Mark's use of Daniel in presenting the story of Jesus might add authenticity to his claims among gentiles by locating them in an earlier and respected document.

Alas, that is an error. Humans do not rise again once dead. A pity, that. You can believe that by faith, but the historical evidence only allows you to cay that Christians claimed Jesus rose and appeared to them.

Why whould 24 members of Heaven's Gate cult have murdered themselves if it wasn't true that they would be carried up to a UFO? People die for their social identities -- happens all the time. In any case this is regarded as legend by scholars. No one really knows who wrote Mark or when and how s/he died.

Where does this story come from? From the Egyptian Orthodox Church? Alas, it has all the earmarks of legend. Mark's gospel, according to reputable scholarship -- including Christians -- was written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. See Peter Kirby's excellent page of resources on Mark. The New Testament Gateway also has massive resources for this gospel.

Vorkosigan

NOGO

Nonsense!

...and you still have not answered my previous posts.

NOGO

This is a very interesting statement and I would like to explore it a bit further.

First Question:
When was Matthew's day ?

Here is a passage from Luke 4
You will agree that Jesus was not reading from the LXX.

So Matthew's teacher had a different Bible than Matthew, right?

Second question
Why does Matthew quote from the LXX and not from the same Bible as his teacher?

And do answer my previous posts as well.
Tell us why Matthew abandoned the LXX when he did not like what he found.

I eagerly await your answers.

Jack the Bodiless

WILLOWevcTREE:
Nope, it is really a recognition of the fact that "Matthew" actually was a liar, as evidenced by the Bible itself.

My statement stands. Here it is again:
...Now, if you want to discuss any of these proofs of the author's dishonesty (specifically, his tendency to invent nonexistent "prophecy fulfilments" using the Old Testament), let's do that.

Javaman

You have done no such thing. You ignored nearly every response on page one of this thread. Several posters, to include me, asked for a demonstration about why these passages should be considered prophetic in nature. Your only response was to one person and consisted of this:
You'll need to provide more than this. Psalm 8 is a song to God. How does Jesus' quoting it in an appropriate situation constitute prophecy regardless of translation? Look at the bones of the phrases in both Psalm 8 and Matthew 21 and point out how, in any way, this is prophecy/fulfillment. What I see (which may well be wrong, mind you) is this (paraphrasing):

Psalm 8:2 You, Lord (give strength to infants)/(make infants praise you) because of your enemies

Matthew 21:15-16 The temple folks saw what Jesus had done and mentioned children crying (out?) and got mad. Jesus quotes (sort of) Psalm 8.

This cannot be prophecy due to its sheer nebulousness. Psalm 8 can be "fulfilled" in perpetuity as long as someone quotes it when children cry around an adversary of the Lord.
You conveniently ignore the fact that pointing out the lies (whether intentional lies or not) in Matthew was an aside to the questions about why in the world these lines of scripture are prophetic anyway. Matthew's lies/mistruths are simply a "by the way" type argument. He is known to play loose with the OT even in chapter 21 so, however good it makes you feel to believe in this "prophecy", you'll find very little agreement to it being "stunning".
I must have missed that one. I'll go back and look for it.

funinspace

You will only find a vague statement drawn from the infamous Scotty tapes again. Here's where the made vague reference was made:
It goes something like this "gee just look at the names London and Denmark, can't you just see that they are from Isreal, like Dan's land". We went thru this in another thread ad nauseum. In the end, the only answer was go listen to the Scotty tapes.... :banghead: Hopefully this won't get rehashed again, since there is no evidence to back up the fabulous story...but again maybe there are UFO's out there...damn I missed the ride on that spaceship behind Hale Bob.

CX

Which points? If so it was an oversite on my part for which I apologize.