Solo

In the context of the SKANDALON that you think I misunderstood

Please, re-read the begining of the chapter. It clearly shows that those who knew Jesus took offence at his "teaching" in the synagogue, and the "wisdom" he was offering. For Mark, Jesus' career as a preacher begins with God's revelation of his status after JtB's baptism. I do not see how how one can reasonably object to reading Mark 2,3 and 6 as the external view of Jesus by the scribes, his family and his old neighbourhood, as someone who is self-deluded.

The dramatic suddenness of the change in Jesus is best attested by the 'hoti exestH' in 3:21, 'beside himself', not his usual self. There is another important clue in the preceding verse (3:20), which intimates that those in the union-with-Jesus state, don't even care to eat. (an important diagnostic clue in manic excitement). Joe Wallack's ironic Mark has the family declare Jesus out of his head.

I think you know very well that I was refering to Mk 2:5-7. This would be a pattern of behaviour exhibited by Jesus after his fugue.

So nothing. The debate here is whether the texts (and Mark specifically) support(s) the view that James the Just, the undisputed leader of the Nazarenes, was a blood relative of Jesus. I don't think they do (it does).

Got something of substance to counter that ? I would love to see it.

Jiri

jgibson000

Where does it appear within the context of SKANDALON?

But does Mark intend the charges to be seen as true, let alone as having some validity? Or is this part of his overarching theme of culpable "blindness" on the part of those who should have received Jesus?

You are assuming that the charge in Mk 3:21 is meant by Mark to be taken as true and as something known as true by the family of Jesus, rather than as a way of showing Jesus' family in a bad light and as an instance of the "hardness of heart" and "abandomnent" themes" that pervades GMark It is, after all, linked with the Beezebul charge, which Mark most definitely knows and portrays as untrue.

What fugue? Your confidence in your ability to see what's behind the text of Mark reminds me of the chuzpa shown by the the republican senator Bill Frist who diagnozed from afar and "knew" what Terry Schaivo's condition was having ever examined her.

Hardly nothing. That there is no narrative account in the NT of a given NT figure's change of mind, does not mean that there was no such change of mind.

And I thought that the debate here was whether Mark 6 rules it out.

JG

Malachi151

No, I'm saying that the association in GHebrews is between someone who was at the Last Supper and James the Just.

This would seem to exclude anyone who was not a supposed "disciple", as those were the only people supposedly at "The Last Supper".

Since there are two "disciples" named James, only one of whom was considered a "major disciple", this strongly implies that GHebrews is calling "James son of Zebedee", the major James, "James the Just".

This totally misses the whole point. This whole point is meant to argue against "James the Just", or the James who was considered a pillar of the community, being a literal brother of Jesus. If you already accept that that James was not a literal brother of Jesus then great. This is just one more piece of evidence that supports that view. I have no idea why you are even arguing other than just to argue for the sake of argument.

Great, good. This is a piece of evidence that supports the view that James the Just was not a literal brother of Jesus. If people already don't think that he was a liter brother of Jesus then great, this is just one more piece of evidence that supports that view.

I have no idea what you are even talking about, you seem to just rail against people for no reason at all, like Gibson does.

jgibson000

No reason, eh? I wonder what your criteria for determining "no reason" is?

It appears that basing apodictic claims on false assumptions, having no data to back up global pronouncements, criticizing the arguments of articles you've never read, and posturing as having knowledge of things you have never investigated -- all of which you do -- is conveniently among them.

But if these things are not reason to rail, I don't know what is.

JG

Chris Weimer

:rolling:

Solo

How about Galatians 3:13 ?

(Let me guess: no SKANDALON there, Jiri. You must be seeing things !)

Irrelevant, misleading. The above was answering another query, to wit:
You are mixing up two things: 1) Mark's commitment to Jesus and view of those who do not have this commitment and 2) Mark's setup of the story (whether worked over from tradition or a straightforward teaching through a fictitious travelogue). The latter not just admits, but assigns key importance to the themes of rejection and abandonment. Mark plays the theme based on Paul's paradox ("you saw me freaking out, and yet you accepted me as an angel, as the God-man I preach"), and takes it right up to Jesus' desperate cry on the Cross. So obviously, since this drama was in Mark's mind underwritten in the high place, the "witness" of the opposition is a part of the setting. In the setting, Mark's Jesus family fails to accept him as God's prodigy and Jesus rejects his family.

(Karl Polanyi said something which bears on this heavily: The opposite of trivial truth is falsehood; the opposite of profound truth is another truth).

So, just to recap, Jeffrey: I brought up the issue of Jesus' forgiving sins as something that would have struck his family and neighbours as a sign of his unsoundness. You objected saying that Jesus forgiving sins did not occur Mk 6, to which I wanted to reply that I was not aware Mark wrote for people with short-term memory challenge. I gave you the reference instead.

Now I have "chutzpa". I suppose, it's an invitation to trade insults. But the problem is, that I have been around for a while. I know these kind of desperate parries only materialize when one does not have a real point to make.

Jiri

Chris Weimer

Galatians 3.13:

Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα ὅτι γέγραπται΄ ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου

Nope. No SKANDALON there. You must be seeing things!

Steven Avery

Bill Frist reviewed the available video of Theresa Schindler. Many folks expressed opinions as to whether Theresa was in a "persistent vegetative state" with limited access to her personally (in fact access was being deliberately ultra-limited, one of the major problems facilitating the murder).

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/051...f,62489,6.html
Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder
Her crime was being disabled, voiceless, and at the disposal of our media
by Nat Hentoff - March 29th, 2005

As a heart surgeon Bill Frist was in a decent position to give his medical opinion and my view is that it was his responsibility to speak up if a women's life was being endangered improperly.

The Yiddish word is usually spelled chutzpah.

And thank you for reminding us.

http://theresa-schindler.memory-of.com/about.aspx
Memory of Theresa Marie Schindler (1963-2005)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

Funny that not a single one of the witness to the claim and the action that demonstrates its truth -- including the scribes -- who in Mk. 2:1-11 are said to witness Jesus "forgiving sins" -- take this as such a sign. In fact, as Mk notes in 2:11, they are delighted to see it and on account of it, glorify god (note the PAS).

It's only when Jesus begins to ride roughshod over such national badges of identity as sabbath, clean and unclean, etc. that they begin to turn on Jesus. And even then, and especially later when scribes once more come onto the scene -- in 3:22 no less -- they do not charge him with, or regard any of his objectionable actions or teachings as being due to, unsoundness of mind.

Please show me where the relatives of Jesus appear in Mk. 2:1-11 or are anywhere presented by Mark as having any awareness of what Jesus proclaimed and did in the incident described there. Please show me where the natives of Nazareth are presented by Mark as showing an awareness of Jesus' claim to have the authority to forgive sins and, especially, where and how they make it an issue in their wonderings about him, let alone how they echo the charge of 3:21 in the things they say and do in Mk 6.

Seems to me that I'm not the one without evidence. And I'm certainly not the one who is reading between (and into) the lines of Mark.

JG

Solo

Either that or you are <edited>. :wave:

Jiri