aa5874

Whether or not you think water can remit sins is irrelevant.

We have stories that clearly state John the Baptist preached the Baptism of Repentance

Sinaiticus gMark It is the actual story that matters NOT what you believe should have happened.

Now, the Baptism story for Remission of sins show that we are dealing with UTTER Fiction and Myth Fables.

Now, there is something EXTREMELY important in the Baptism story that is completely missed.

In all the Baptism stories, Jesus did NOT CONFESS any Sins.

gMark's Jesus was NOT human--NOT a Sinner.

In fact, a VOICE from heaven claimed it was Pleased with Jesus in the Baptism stories.

The Voice from heaven claimed Jesus was his beloved SON in whom he was well pleased.

Sinaiticus Mark 1 gMark's Jesus did NOT Confess any Sins and was called the Beloved Son of the heavenly voice.

gMark is a Myth Fable.

gMark's Jesus was non-historical.

Diogenes the Cynic

Of the flesh, not the soul.



The atonement has already happened before the "flesh" is purified by water. There are two cleansings here, spirit and flesh.

Diogenes the Cynic

AA, I'm SAYING that John Baptized for remission of sins. I'm also saying (or rather Josephus says and the DSS backs it up) that the immersion in this type of baptism was only for the flesh after the spirit had already been cleansed by repentance. John is not depicted as claiming any special power or authority for himself.

I also happen to think that when John talks about "baptism by fire," he means it as a threat. "I dip you in water, but God will dip you in [either] the Holy Spirit [for eternal life] or fire [annihilation].

aa5874

How can it be shown you are right about what you think John means?? What you say is irrelevant since you have no means to prove you have some special understanding of gMark.

We can ALL see what is written.

1. John preached the Baptism of Repentance for Remission of Sins.

2. All the people of Jerusalem were Baptized and CONFESSED their Sins.

3. Jesus did NOT Confess any Sins in ALL the Baptism stories.

4. Jesus was called "My Beloved Son" by a voice from the heavens.

gMark is a Myth Fable about Jesus the Son of God without Sin who walked on water, transfigured and resurrected.

The Sinless gMark's Jesus is MYTH.

LegionOnomaMoi

What are you asking for? First, I never said he was an expert at "finding the Aramaic underlying a Greek document which translated that Aramaic." I said "underlying or influencing" (except in those cases where the author actually used transliterated Aramaic). I'm certainly not arguing that the NTwas translated from Aramaic. However, times have changed in the several centuries since early modern scholarship began to study languages (beginning within religious studies, but followed soon after by the forerunners of modern comparative linguists). Time was the Greek of the NT was thought to be unique. Thanks to massive amounts of scholarship and the building of several linguistic disciplines (Indo-European linguistics, comparative linguists, linguistic typology, etc.) as well as the discovery/recovery of a wealth of material written in Greek during the hellenistic period, we know quite a bit about the varieties of Greek beyond dialectical differences. Additionally, although the study of hebraic languages other than biblical Hebrew does not have the history of scholarship Greek does, we are now in a much better position here as well (take, for example, Florentin's Late Samaritan Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis of its Different Types, which devotes quite a bit to the influence of other Jewish dialects on this specific dialect of Hebrew).

The reason any of this matters is because "koine" greek isn't really a dialect of Greek the way Attic or Ionic is. As a "common tongue" it was influenced by the languages which were primary during or at least had been before the hellenistic era. And the Greek NT was a product out of a Jewish culture: it uses Jewish idea, scriptures, and even at times Jewish language (when the author uses a word like abba written in Greek letters).

I've read two of Casey's monographs on aramaic and the NT. Both are volumes from and edited series of monographs produced by the SNTS, and both have a section on methods. Both his earlier Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel and Aramaic Approach to Q not only describe the method he uses, but go into detail on the sources we have both for evidence of the influence of aramaic (and other languages) on extant greek, and the evidence for the relevant languages in general (both epigraphic and textual).

It is, I think, all to easy to see "underlying Aramaic" in this or that NT phrase/statement/line. But we have very good reason (apart from the actual use of transliterated aramaic in the NT) to think that certain lines were influenced by Aramaic, because we can compare the NT texts to 1) other hellenistic Greek texts from different cultural/linguistic contexts and 2) to idioms, phrases, constructions, etc., which are awkward or which make very little sense in Greek, but make perfect sense when translated into Aramaic.

If you are reading someone's writing online, and they keep putting a definite article in front of every noun (e.g., "I went to the bookstore on the wednesday, because I wanted the book to read, but I didn't know where the fiction was, so I looked for the employee..." etc), then you have good reason to think that there native language is not English. It certainly isn't straightforward to reconstruct an underlying linguist bases for a text when both the underlying language and the language of the text are dead languages, but it is certainly easy to tell whether or not the NT is influenced by Aramaic at all.

LegionOnomaMoi

How on earth do you get that from "the Transfiguration"? The "transfiguration" occurs in the presence of other humans with whom Jesus is compared (Elijah & Moses). In fact, Luke describes the other two as "appearing in glory" (hoi ophthentes en doxe). So we have Jesus, with two other humans, "transfigured" in that Mark, and the authors who rely on him, "reveals" Jesus' glory by placing him with other human (and dead) Jewish legendary figures and describes the change in his appearence (shining white) during this event. The reason it's called the "transfiguration" is because of Mark's lexical usage: metamorphothe. It's a specific event, and nowhere does Casey imply he thinks this is an indication of Jesus' divinity. He's quite explicity about what each author means when they use messianic/apocalyptic interpretations of "son of man", and only in Luke does he argue that the author intends for Jesus to be understood as divine.
That's only if you ignore 1) Casey's own description of Daniel and 2) the general scholarship on Jewish description of the end times, in which important Jewish humans, even those who had died, came in glory to play some role (or be present) at the end of days. Again, even in the Talmud we find Rabbi Akiba asserting that the figure in Daniel specifically is human. So your "inference" of divinity isn't supported by Jewish sources, let alone by Casey's actual writing. We have various so-called intertestamental descriptions of the end of days, along with Jewish post-christian writings, and in both we find particular humans coming or being present during the "end of days", and Jesus is not the only human who is described in the terms you think must imply divinity. So on what basis do you
1) argue that Casey agrees with your assessment here merely because his use of "transfiguration" when he goes out of his way to describe when he thinks an author is implying/asserting that Jesus is divine and does not do so here
2) argue that these descriptions, which we find elsewhere in Jewish literature applied to humans, somehow necessarily imply divinity when it comes to Jesus?

That would be great. I may do so as well.

Steven Carr

Casey argues that Mark was translating Aramaic wax tablets.

He also claims that he (Casey) can translate these Aramaic wax tablets better than a bilingual Aramaic speaker who has them in front of him, as 'Mark' made a lot of mistakes in the translation that he, Casey, can spot even though he has never seen the wax tablets, and is not a native Aramaic speaker.

All I want is the name of a Greek document where Casey has successfully reconstructed the (not necessarily on wax tablets) Aramaic it was translated from.

Just one.

The fact that the entirety of Mark is not translated from Aramaic is irrelevant to that, just as , if you claim to be the world leading expert on field goals, there should be a video of you kicking a field goal, even if not all a football game is comprised of field goals.

Rick Sumner

You're ignoring Casey's explicit distinction between Daniel, and Matthew's adoption of the term. Casey explicitly notes that the Greek Christological use of the term is distinct from the original episode in Daniel, and deliberately crafted in that capacity.

"General scholarship?" This rhetorical ploy borders on raw polemic. It's also a gross over simplification. Look, for example, at the figure of Melchizedek, whose humanity had little bearing on later divinity.


Which is irrelevant, and ignores the distinction Casey himself draws between Daniel and what he sees as Matthew's secondary adoption of the term.

This is so far removed from what I actually said that I'm not even sure how to respond, which is also why I snipped much of the above.

What specific figures (with citations, please) do you see them applied to, in pre Christian literature where, regardless of initial humanity, they are not acting in a divine capacity?


Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

LegionOnomaMoi

No he doesn't. At least not in the technical sense. He does claim that it is likely Mark had Aramaic texts (which, in his day, would probably mean such tablets) which he used in composing his gospel. This is quite a claim, but no more so than many of those concerning Q. We do not have any "Q" text, yet it is assumed by most that one existed. Many scholars go quite a bit further than the quite supportable argument that Q existed (either in textual or oral/aural form) and speak of "Q communities" and various "layers" of a document we don't even have.

The issue here is that somehow Aramaic influenced the gospels in various places. Is this because of an oral/aural tradition? Because of a written source which the authors or an author (Mark) had and we do not? Something else? Casey is proposing a particular solution, which (although I find unlikely) is not so bizarre one wouldn't find equally speculative solutions throughout reconstructions of ancient history.

That's actually a common assumption among pretty much all those who are specialists in ancient languages and texts. Casey uses quite modern academic analyses of translation and its relation to bilingualism. If you've spent a lot of time trying to translate two very different languages, you'll know that this is quite a difficult task. I typically do it by using several "/"s to represent various options (e.g., ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou means "the brother of Jesus, the one being called Christ/the one known as christ/called christ"). But a translation has to pick one way of rendering the phrase in the original language in the target language.



We don't know that the author of Mark is either. And what "mistakes" are you referring to?

Do you think Q existed?

Steven Carr

CASEY
These could be difficult to read, and Mark translated them as he went along, ...

(Jesus of Nazareth, page 77, which has a whole lot of talk about Mark translating documents)

Please try to do some research before posting. It saves time.