Horatio Parker

This represents an orthodox view; God is external and through Jesus demonstrating his supernatural divine power men see the power of God and repent.

I don't think that's the case in gMark at all. The stricken see and recognize the divine incarnation and through having faith, overcome their problems. IOW it's an internal process they undergo, not a supernatural intervention.

Juma

It's not hard to imagine how this could be the result of a misunderstanding...

a: - ok, once more how did he get there? (into, the house, before jesus)
b: - (what got him into this?)he went through the roof! (thats how he got into this, thats how he got ill in the first place: he fell through a roof a week earlier)
a: - (how could he get through roof if lame?) how did he get there? he was lame!
b: - (lame? He wasnt lame before falling through roof? Ah he means how how he got to jesus) yes, but he was lifted, there was so much people. (there where lot of people to help him)

stephan huller

Jambo Juma

Kuna nchi moja tu unaweza kuwa na kutoka. Kusema tu hujambo.

sotto voce

Correct, straight thinking, yes. Even common sense. Dreams are not illegal.

Solo

As opposed to what ? History ?

Maybe I am missing something, but delivering the patient to Jesus by dismantling the roof in defiance of the impossible odds of getting through to him via the door strikes me as an illustration of faith. In contrast, just depositing the patient without the extra effort may well be saying to Jesus: 'here, you deal woth it !'. If Jesus was reported to be a great healer you didn't need faith to deliver patients to him. It was a rational calculation that he would be able to help.

You may know, or you may think you know, that Matthew edited the roof removal to save ink and papyrus. I simply observe that he edited it out at the expense of lucid story telling.

The problem with this of course is that Jesus cannot demonstrate his divinity, by neat sophistries or otherwise, to those who do not have faith in him. So the demonstration of faith would be important here (unless of course you are a closet Jewish legalist).

Best,
Jiri

sotto voce

Hermeneutics. Beginning with Genesis.

What you seem to be missing is that we agreed on that. The issue is whether faith demonstrated by roof access was what Matthew wished to convey to readers; if he knew about it. One cannot edit out what is not there. The confounding of legalists may have been the interest, here. The man came, like many others, to be healed. Yet Jesus did not say, 'Get up, you are healed." In the presence of law teachers, he said, "Your sins are forgiven," to be told by them that he was a blasphemer. It may be supposed that Jesus deliberately made use of the teachers, whose faith in Jesus was apparently of the reluctant kind, and with predictable effects.

That requires faith, does it not. The person who travels to see a Harley Street specialist, from Harley Street, may have no less faith than one who travels from Japan. It is not as though Matthew ignored, or wanted to play down, the role of faith. In chapter eight, he had related the incident in which Jesus was amazed at the faith of a centurion who believed that Jesus did not even need to be present in order to heal. Later, he wrote about the faith of a person who believed it only necessary to touch the edge of Jesus' outer garment. These are all different expressions of deep conviction.

The proof, for the Pharisees, came when the man walked away. Before their very eyes. Neither sleight of hand, nor of mind.

The relevant demonstration of faith was that of the Pharisees, who had faith that only God could forgive sins. Because it is easier to say "You are forgiven" than "You are healed," to do both and demonstrate that the harder statement is true indicates that both are true. How the patient had arrived was entirely immaterial to that argument.

Solo

Matthew knew about it if you accept - as most scholars do nowadays - that Matthew used Mark as a source.


This is bafflegab: the scribes have no faith in Jesus; they are portrayed as his adversaries. The difference is that in Mark Jesus seeks to demonstrate the superiority of faith to the written law. In contrast, in Matthew the focus is on Jesus' authority, specifically authority conferred to him as a human being (Mt 9:8). But this messes up Mark's story; it's punchline "we have never seen anything like this", references the whole pericope, i.e. the bizzare dismantling of the roof being an integral part of the surreal scene.


I am sure you have convinced yourself yourself of that. Note Mt 5:19-20. If that does not persuade you that Matthew worked had a different set of base priorities than Mark, nothing will.

Jesus in Mark demonstrates the superiority of faith to law.
Jesus in Matthew demonstrates his authority is superior to that of the scribes.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Your claims are completely CONTRADICTORY once you accept that the author of gMatthew used gMark.

The author of gMatthew COPIED virtually all of gMark word for word so gMatthew's and gMark's Jesus would be essentially identical.

The author of gMatthew after having copied gMark word-for-word wrote that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost but the events with Jesus are virtually identical.

sotto voce

A scholar is someone who tells you what you want to hear. Whether it makes sense, or not.

Adversaries have faith. That's why they are adversaries.

Mark is no different from any other gospeller, apostle, or later OT prophet. That's why each one is canonical.

That was of course Matthew reporting what people said.

That's circularity and eisegesis.

The Law of Moses still applied when that was spoken. It's purpose was to warn Jews that attempts to keep Law were doomed to failure.

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."' Mt 5:21-22 NIV

This why Jesus said to the paralysed man, "Your sins are forgiven." This soul remedy, by faith, not law, was more significant than the curing of his body. That's why Matthew, Mark and Luke did not omit to include it.

Horatio Parker

That depends on your point of view.

If you're fantasizing about power, Jesus is the one to identify with.

But if you're searching for answers, if you understand or are driven by vulnerability, the paralyzed man is who you want to be. You want to think that you would recognize the divine incarnation should your paths cross and you would want to feel that you would have the required faith(in Plato the term equivalent to Xtian faith is courage and in many ways it is a superior term) to do what's necessary to find your way to God.

The Pharisees are spectators; spearholders.