Horatio Parker

"That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand..."

The events are not identical and the meaning is certainly not.

For example, in gMark, the stone was already rolled away when the women approached the tomb. In gMatthew, the stone was rolled away by an angel as the women approached. Why? In Matthew, Jesus' body must've been spiritual, to pass through the stone. In gMark, it could've been a resuscitated corpse that arose.

Or perhaps to you that is identical...

sotto voce

'Your' point of view is an interruption. The points of view of those present in that house are what mattered, and matter.

Did anyone fantasise about power via crucifixion? Does one fantasise about power via crucifixion?

It's who you are; and you find the answer in Jesus, according to this pericope, that finds men expecting an answer in Jesus, and apparently finding it. And according to the rest of the Bible. Of course, if you were not paralysed, or poor, hungry, or outcast, but were a member of the privileged Establishment, you also found, in the very same house, Jesus as the answer; which might not have been the answer you wanted. The roof was beside the point, either way.

The Bible view was that there was no need to find a way to deity, because the Bible itself informed that deity had found a way to mankind; that is why the first words of Genesis were written. If one strips away the context of what Jesus and his witnesses considered revelation from deity, one can of course make any pericope, any sentence, almost any word, mean whatever one likes.

In the biblical view, faith did and does not require courage, it required obedience. Jesus not infrequently castigated the Jews for lack of faith, and was surprised by that lack, because, in his view, it was due, especially in those with the privileges of the Jews. In the Bible perspective, the opposite of faith is fear, and fear is lack of faith in the innate and permanent value and of goodness. So courage is, in theory, anyway, unnecessary.

The Pharisees took sides. In their position, of self-appointment as the arbiters and interpreters of the lore of Moses and Abraham, they could do nothing else, short of emigration. To China, probably!

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

We should not be misled by the use of the phrases "Your sins are forgiven" and "the son of man". We should accept them as common everyday expressions. In the same way, we should not think that someone has made a theological statement when someone says "God bless you," after someone sneezes. The meaning of "God bless you" after a sneeze is normally closer to something like "I hope you don't get sick". Because someone says, "God bless you," we should not take it that the speaker is a holy man or prophet.

In the Jewish Culture of the time, being crippled (or blind or being a leper) was considered a punishment for sins against God. Saying, "Your sins are forgiven" is simply saying "You're cured". When the scribes think, "7“Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?” they are simply saying who is this guy to cure someone, only God cures people. Jesus' response "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins," simply means that men ("son of man") have the ability to cure people too. He tells the paralytic "get up, pick up your pallet and go home." This is just to show everybody that he is cured.

Jesus is a magician. The story is simply a tale about a magician among the Jews. This is indicated by the next miracle in Mark 3:

Jesus' question "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?" Obviously, it is lawful to do good things like saving lives and it is unlawful to kill on the Sabbath. The question is just rhetorical. Jesus is just doing his magician thing. He is coming right into the synagogue and challenging the authority of the Pharisees by practicing magic right in front of them. He is angry at them for opposing his use of magic.

The conflict is between a magician and Jews who don't like magicians.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

outhouse

he was a healer, any jewish teacher worth his salt would have been a decent healer.

this is a matter of a man more educated then most, people with knowledge were looked upon differently


he was only percieved as a magician by later roman scribes. this account is fiction and is a literary creation.


while alive to those he may have healed, it was percieved that he was doing gods work, but not pssessing gods power. they thought god worked through him. only later the fiction was added building a roman deity that had to compete with roman emporers, drawing large crowds and performing miracles.

sotto voce

Why would Jews not like magicians?

Horatio Parker

When a reader contemplates the story, the reader is involved. The reader matters.

To each his own. Ever hear of a martyr complex?

I agree that the suffering of the paralyzed man is a symbol for all suffering which includes those better off.

There's no way to know if the roof detail was meant to be trivial or not, those who've speculated that there may be more to the story that was somehow left out have a good point IMO. It feels incomplete. But when such a detail is contemplated in context and a compelling thought or symbol results, then I suspect the placement is intentional.

It's within one's self that the search for meaning takes place. The purpose of this story and all the others is to lead the reader into an altered state where God might be perceived. Whether or not that state is consistent with traditional Xtian theology is another matter.

I think the paralyzed man and his friends demonstrated courage, but whatever.

We're getting away from the OP, but....talk of obedience degrades the very thing that you purport to be uplifting. No religion or spirituality worthy of the name is idolatrous. The divine power is within all humans to create and to judge. One participates willingly or not at all.

But I think I know what you're getting at and the better word for it is submission. The universe may astonish us with its beauty or crush us like a bug. To acknowledge that reality is a form of submission.

Horatio Parker

My feeling is that these stories were used to demonstrate abstract concepts to the uneducated. How they originated; I have no idea.

You seem to be suggesting that they originated completely outside of a religious context and were then appropriated by the Gospel authors. Is that it?

outhouse

to say it is NOT or devoid of mythology

would require a credible explanation


so far we know it is not devoid of mythology

Iskander

Jesus in this story is providing treatment for an emotional disorder: psychotherapy at its most efficient.


He tells the man you are forgiven without the need to repent for your sin is the lack of love for yourself, but your companions have shown to you how valuable you really are to people of good will and I concur with them. The grieving man understood that he is good and walked away with a song in his heart.

Many years later Charcot, a neurologist, was doing much the same in Paris and much more besides.

http://www.richardwebster.net/freudandcharcot.html

outhouse

I stil think your all giving this way to much historicity, to even claim it has a plausible explanation residing in reality