Chili

And no, something that is not conceivable to exist does not need a word to describe it in the same way as theism is needed to make atheism know, or darkness would prevail . . . or does it maybe?

It think it means 'rock' and the more you learn about it the bigger you make it and increasingly more difficult to lift it up, and if you are standing on it.

It makes bible study a liability and counter productive and of course that argument will never fly here where kites are flown like knowledge in the wind that must be maintained by either running away with it or blowing hot air.

Truth is that the Gospels take place in Purgatory that they called Galilee where the messianic movement takes place between rebirth and resurrection, and that is a one-man-show called metamorphosis and nobody can tell you what to do next except your father in heaven and there is only one of those . . . and that is your father for you and my father for me and collectively is our father in heaven as sheep down below.

I am not sure why the word father is used for RCC priest in North America as I have never heard it used in Holland, not even even once -- which is no apology from me, but it seems like a contradicion with a reason behind it, while it may be used as a 'different realm in life' where the good shepherd leads us astray while 'singing our song' already on the way out, and out West further we go, each time, and time and time again as we go without as much as blinking an eye as we go. And do you think maybe that is why his clothes are so black?

JoeWallack

JW:
Oy, I think we need to back up here. The starting question is what were the candidates for "Teacher" in Jesus' supposed time? =

1) Hebrew = MWRH

http://concordances.org/hebrew/umoreh_3384.htm

Habakkuk 2:18
BIB: יֹֽצְר֔וֹ מַסֵּכָ֖ה וּמ֣וֹרֶה שָּׁ֑קֶר כִּ֣י
KJV: it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies,

2) Aramaic = TANNA (spin?)

Next question is what were the candidates for "Master" in Jesus' supposed time? =

1) Hebrew = )DNY ("Adonai")

http://concordances.org/hebrew/adonai_113.htm

2) Aramaic = MR (spin?)

Next step is the observation that starting in the 1st century but before the stock sacrifices crash of the Temple, Jewish religious teachers started to be referred to as RB. Post Temple, they were referred to as RBY.

http://concordances.org/hebrew/rav_7227.htm

Note that RB has a base meaning of "great" and contra Sotta Voice Over, is primarily quantitative (not qualitative).

So here we are at Mark 5:

http://biblos.com/mark/9-5.htm

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	And	Conj
611 [e]	apokritheis	ἀποκριθεὶς	having answered,	V-APP-NMS
3588 [e]	ho	ὁ	–	Art-NMS
4074 [e]	Petros	Πέτρος	Peter	N-NMS
3004 [e]	legei	λέγει	says	V-PIA-3S
3588 [e]	tō	τῷ	–	Art-DMS
2424 [e]	Iēsou	Ἰησοῦ	to Jesus,	N-DMS
4461 [e]	rhabbi	ῥαββί*	Rabbi,	Heb
2570 [e]	kalon	καλόν	good	Adj-NNS
1510 [e]	estin	ἐστιν	it is	V-PI-3S
1473 [e]	hēmas	ἡμᾶς	for us	PPro-A1P
5602 [e]	hōde	ὧδε	here	Adv
1510 [e]	einai	εἶναι	to be.	V-PN
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
4160 [e]	poiēsōmen	ποιήσωμεν	let us make	V-ASA-1P
5140 [e]	treis	τρεῖς	three	Adj-AFP
4633 [e]	skēnas	σκηνάς	tabernacles,	N-AFP
4771 [e]	soi	σοὶ	for you	PPro-D2S
1520 [e]	mian	μίαν	one,	Adj-AFS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
3475 [e]	Mōusei	Μωυσεῖ	for Moses	N-DMS
1520 [e]	mian	μίαν	one,	Adj-AFS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
2243 [e]	Ēlia	Ἠλίᾳ*	for Elijah	N-DMS
1520 [e]	mian	μίαν	one.	Adj-AFS

"Mark" uses transliterated Greek for the Hebrew RBY when Peter addresses Jesus. What are the possibilities?:

1) RBY is here an anachronistic usage for a Jewish religious teacher.

2) RBY is a greeting of "my master".

What are the problems?

1) (anachronistic usage for a Jewish religious teacher). No problem other than anachronistic and the usage can be easily explained as for "Mark's" audience which is contemporary with the proper usage (for those who need points sharply explained, like Judge, the anachronism makes it more likely that it is the intended meaning, not less).

2) (my master)

1 - "Mark" has a context for Jesus as Jewish religious teacher (kinda a primary theme):

Most of the narrative shows Jesus as a Jewish religious teacher.

The verse is comparing Jesus to Moses, the prototype Jewish religious teacher.

2 - "Mark" uses language for Jesus being a Teacher.

He consistently describes Jesus with the Greek word for "Teacher":

http://concordances.org/greek/didaskale_1320.htm

He avoids describing Jesus with the Greek word for "Lord"/"Master" (he reserves this word for God):

http://concordances.org/greek/kuriou_2962.htm

3 - "Mark" does not use the grammar of "my Master" to refer to Jesus.

Jesus is addressed without use of "my".

4 - The use of transliteration is evidence that a specialized meaning is intended.

5 - 1st known reaction to "Mark" = "Matthew"

"Matthew" understands "Mark's" usage of RBY as Jewish religious teacher:

http://biblos.com/matthew/23-8.htm

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
4771 [e]	hymeis	ὑμεῖς	you	PPro-N2P
1161 [e]	de	δὲ	moreover	Conj
3361 [e]	mē	μὴ	not	Adv
2564 [e]	klēthēte	κληθῆτε	shall be called	V-ASP-2P
4461 [e]	rhabbi	ῥαββί*	Rabbi;	Heb
1520 [e]	heis	εἷς	one	Adj-NMS
1063 [e]	gar	γάρ	indeed	Conj
1510 [e]	estin	ἐστιν	is	V-PI-3S
4771 [e]	hymōn	ὑμῶν	of you	PPro-G2P
3588 [e]	ho	ὁ	the	Art-NMS
1320 [e]	didaskalos	διδάσκαλος	teacher,	N-NMS
3956 [e]	pantes	πάντες	all	Adj-NMP
1161 [e]	de	δὲ	moreover	Conj
4771 [e]	hymeis	ὑμεῖς	you	PPro-N2P
80 [e]	adelphoi	ἀδελφοί	brothers	N-NMP
1510 [e]	este	ἐστε	are.	V-PI-2P

Does not get any clearer.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Elijah

So there are a couple of debates going on. One, is the word “rabbi” anachronistic or not and the other is questioning if the word is a mistranslation from the root of the word that means “my master”, without the “my” part.

The term competing for, should have been used in Mark, instead of “rabbi” is MWRH. Has anyone put together a list of how often MWRH appears, in how many different Jewish texts, from the (supposed) time of Jesus? 50bc-50ad Just to get an idea of the silence in regards to the term rabbi.

The other debating point is that while the texts we have now have the word “rabbi”, you believe that the translator of the version of Mark we have now had a choice to make when going from Hebrew to Greek and decided to go with what the root of the word became, instead of taking it to mean just what it was, which was “master”.

Thanks for the effort in trying to explain!

Iskander

http://files.meetup.com/598889/To%20...ed%20Rabbi.pdf





http://www.myjewishlearning.com/prac..._a_Rabbi.shtml

Chili

Wow, if Moses was 'laying his hands on Jews" to transfer his spirit and so make them "rabbi" he sounds worse that Billy Graham ever was, and I can sure see why Passover is the cry of their heart as if they are swimming in the blood of their past.

And is that maybe why on our Calenders we still have Sunday as the first day of the week instead of the Seventh? . . . as if Santa came but he left us nothing at all?

Or wait a second, is Moses seen as a good guy here maybe?

. . . and Joseph, Jesus was not a Jew or he would be a sinner like the rest of them too.

Edit to add: Oh wait Joseph, sorry, yes, the Mark Jesus was a Jew and thus is sinner too and missed heaven by an iota as the Son has nothing to say until after Crucifixion and that was his problem, and still is today. And of course John makes that very clear in the post resurrection appearance in particular 20-22. This then shows why Mark's Jesus was itching to get back to Galilee as leader of the pack, I agree, and so would our friend Billy here too.

JoeWallack

JW:
Caveat Empty. This is a [red flag]Messianic[/red flag] Sight.

JW:
We've demonstrated Ad Nazorean in this Thread that there is no evidence of any Jewish religious teacher being referred to as RBY before the Temple crash. Later in the quoted article the author says:

The article he refers to in Jewish Encyclopedia says:

JW:
RB ("rav") has a base meaning of "great", not "teacher". "Teacher" is a different word.

JW:
As spin would say, "yep", after the Temple crash.



JW:

ErrancyWiki

PhilosopherJay

maryhelena,

Dating the gospels is the trick.

We can get a pretty good idea of the date of the setting of the story from the mention of Pontius Pilate. This puts us in the 20's or 30's for the setting of the story. However when the gospels were actually written is far more problematic.

I just looked at the two versions of the movie "True Grit," the 1969 Henry Hathaway version and the 2010 Coen Brothers version. I was trying to tell by the narrative changes if we could actually tell which came first. The setting date in both cases is established at the end of the films. In the 1969 version the tombstone for Matte Ross' father reads 1880. In the 2010 version Rooster Cogburn's tombstone reads 1903 and Matte Ross tells us that a quarter century has passed since she had her "lively times" with Cogburn. Thus the chronological setting is approximately the same time, 1880 for both films. Yet the films were made 40 years apart.

There are significant differences in nearly all the scenes, but based on these differences it is still not easy to tell which came first. For example in the opening scenes, the 1969 film shows the killing of Matte's father. The 2010 version has Matte narrating the events of his death while the camera slowly tracks in on her father's dead body in the street. The 1969 version wants to establish the objectivity of the events. The 2010 version wants to establish that we are seeing things through Matte's eyes and she is the subjective narrator.

The next scene is a hanging of three men. The 1969 version pays more attention to Matte's reaction to the hanging. The men die silently. The 2010 version gives a little speech to each of the three men. One has to say that this time, it is the 2010 version which presents the event more objectively.

In the 1969 version we cut to Matte in the office of the sheriff. In the 2010 version, the Sheriff sees Matte at the hanging and starts talking to her. The static in the sheriff's office is made a little more lively by having Matte and the sheriff walking together outdoors instead of sitting indoors. Yet, in the 1969 version, immediately we have a scene where Matte walks following Marshall Cogburn as he brings some prisoners into a jailhouse. In the 2010 version, we have static shots of Matte standing outside and outhouse while we just hear Cogburn's irritated voice from inside the outhouse.

The relationship of these early four scenes seems to be opposites, but not in one direction. If the 1969 version had a static scene, the 2010 version added movement, but if the 1969 version had movement, the 2010 version made it static. If the 1969 version was objective, the 2010 version was subjective, but if the 1969 version was subjective, the 2010 version made it objective.

Based on the storyline developments and attitude of the filmmakers regarding the story, it was impossible to say which movie came first.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Chili

It is, but if it was a metaphysical event is sure was after the reign of Pilate, in the same way as Thomas Hardy wrote the same story after the Titanic met it's 'sinnister mate' to jar two hemispheres here:

The convergeance of the twian Hardy Poetry

maryhelena

Hi, PhilosopherJay

My thanks for your post. Indeed, trying to work out which version of the gospel JC story is the first version is not a simple exercise. Following the story in it’s proper developmental sequences presents more problems. On top of that there is the non-gospel material. From the Toldoth Yeshu and wonder-doer story in Slavonic Josephus to all the non-canonical versions of the Jesus story. Version upon version, scribal errors, additions and interpolations to a basic storyline about a miracle working man who was crucified and resurrected. The gospels are ambiguous as to the age this man was when crucified as well as the time of his birth. Yes, the gospel storyline gives us Pilate; ambiguously dated by Josephus. In other words, we have the full-stop, the ending of the JC story. The beginning is awash in gospel contradictions.

Additional to all of that is Jewish history. History for which is available the Hasmonean and Herodian coins. We have the writing of Josephus - a writer that has been called a prophetic historian.

And manuscripts? Dating these in no way offers anything in the way of understanding the JC storyboard. The JC story is not confined to any one piece of any one manuscript. Dating manuscripts can only testify that the JC story was known at such and such a time period. It says nothing about the origin of that story. All we have is the full-stop, the ending in the time of Pilate. Dating manuscripts is not going to change that one ‘fact’ upon which all the gospels agree on. Consequently, it’s the JC story, in and of itself, that has to be considered. Considered via the developments within that storyline - and considered in connection to the Jewish history at the time of Pilate - and the history leading up to that time. That is all we have got. Dating manuscripts is not going to bring any significant advantage in understanding the JC story. An understanding of which is necessary if it's early christian origins we are interested in. We need a motive; we need an answer as to the 'why' of that story.

I found this interesting point, re-dating manuscripts, on a blog of Markus Vinzent - Stephan Huller provided a link in another thread:

aa5874

Dating the gospels to a time period is NOT really problematic at all. There are many sources of antiquity, apologetic and non-apologetic, that easily provide enough clues to date ALL the NT Canon AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

We have Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Lucian, Celsus, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolutus, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Ephraim the Syrian, Julian the Emperor, Sulpitius Severus, Arnobius and the very Existing Codices.

Using narrative to date a movie is probably the least effective method.