Julian

I agree, but I think that the separationist motivation is even stronger since that ties in neatly with the 'forsaken' statement at the crucifiction.

The christ spirit enter Jesus at the baptism and then leaves him again on the cross.

Julian

SaintCog

Praxeus you are championing a difficult argument. I'll give you that. I'd like to know how you explain the following:

1. Why would a scribe deliberately delete a resurrection appearance and end with a report of the women running away out of fear?

2. How do you account for the eight hapax legomena and numerous grammatical features that are found nowhere else in the gospel, all in the span of a few verses?

3. If 9-20 was the orginal ending and propagated as such by the early church, what do you make of the fact that both Eusebius and Jerome explicitly state that almost all the Greek MSS available to them end at verse 8?

Eusebius Ad Marinum 1 - "How is it that in Matthew the Savior, after having been raised, appears 'late on the Sabbath' but in Mark 'Early on the first day of the week'? The Solution to this might be twofold. For, on the one hand, the one who rejects the passage itself, namely the pericope which says this, might say that it does not appear in all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark. At any rate, the accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark with the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said to them, 'Do not fear. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene' and the words that follow. In addition to these it says, 'And having heard this they fled and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid.' For in this way the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in nearly all the copies."

Jerome 120 to Hedybia Concerning Twelve Questions 3 - "The solution to the question [of why the endings of Mark and Matthew contradict one another] is twofold. Either we do not receive the testimony of Mark, which appears scarsely in copies of the gospel, while almost all books in Greek do not have this pericope at the end..."

4. Take all of this together with the fact that the earliest MSS of Mark end at verse 8, corroborating the testimony of these two Church fathers, both of whom by all accounts were among the most erudite of their time.

Orthodox_Freethinker

I believe that the burden of proof would be on the one who claims that the conquering Messiah would cry such a thing.

I do not bypass this issue but fail to see the necessity that Jesus would repeat Psalm 23 on the cross.

Yes, which is one reason why I recommend it.

Does Psalm 22 also contain "For this I was spared!" in the Lamsa Bible?

Orthodox_Freethinker

While Luke appears to be dependent upon Mark as a historical source, John is independent of Mark.

I am honestly uncertain of that. Even if attempts at his life are not recorded in Mark, it is still rather amazing that Jesus was able to die on the cross rather from his earlier flogging. The cat of nine tails alone could kill a man.

Steven Avery

Hi Cog.. First please come up to speed on the earlier threads here, and the Jim Snapp material. (I can find his TWeb debates also). Most or all of your questions are covered. Then if you still have specifics, let's go to town.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=125251 - 05/05
On The Apostolic Preaching (Let Sleeping Dogmas Lie) - Authorship

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=126528
Dating of Mark [before 70 CE?]

URL Post
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...0&postcount=57

Nine ECW citations - http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...2&postcount=31

An earlier 2003 thread
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-54039.html

The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 - Jim Snapp
http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html

Is Mark 16:9-20 In the Original? - Jim Snapp debate
Theology Web 05/03-08/04
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ar...hp/t-4563.html

The authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 - Jim Snapp debate
Theology Web 08/04-07/05
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/pr...1&page=1&pp=16

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

The point is simple, and independent of one's doctrinal preferences.

If you acknowledge the Hebrew Bible on Psalm 22, then we know what the reading is there, there is no doubt. And then if the Aramaic is the same in NT and Tanach, you would have to give a reason for rejecting the Hebrew Bible in the Psalms with a translation that is simply not supportable (Or you would have to explain having two very different translations for the same Aramaic words).

And virtually nobody claims Peshitta primacy in Tanach over the Hebrew Bible, not even Younan et al. The Peshitta Tanach was simply an early, fairly good, translation (perhaps 100 AD) of uncertain provenance.

see above..
"Lamsa fudged around there "Why has thou let me to live"

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Orthodox_Freethinker

Are you truly certain of this? Could you please explain why Jesus would cry such a thing?

Amaleq13

It is odd to see you posting such a wide variety of links to multiple threads in multiple fora given your recent complaint that my posting of three links within the same thread constituted a "wild goose chase" that you refused to indulge.

Isn't there a word for doing exactly what you criticize others of doing?

Steven Avery

Yeah, the word is hypocrisy for your kvetch. I told you simply, keep the thread going at bottom, don't make vague claims that some thing unspecified is unanswered in some prior posts in a thread asking me to track down your unknown thoughts and answer your unknown questions.

<insult deleted>

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

OF, you miss the point. Folks have all sorts of excellent explanations for why Jesus would quote "...why has thou forsaken me" right before taking upon Himself the sins of the world. Similarly other folks have their explanations why they feel "for this I was spared" would be His cry. So I personally do not see any "doctrinal" basis whatsoever for deciding or changing the text. Perhaps your mileage varies, and you take the text you "prefer" doctrinally, that is common practice these days.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic