Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 02-09-2012, 05:17 PM

I'm not trying to second-guess these guys or offer interpretations, Chili. I am simply making observations and inferences based on the similarities and differences of the contents and contexts involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The two accounts of the Last Supper in Mark 14 and in 1 Corinthians 11 are only superficially similar.

In Mark Jesus is involved in a story with his disciples. He takes bread and gives thanks (meaning makes the blessing over bread - hamotzi lechem min haaretz) and symbolically refers to the broken bread as his body. Then he took the wine and gave thanks again (meaning the grace after meals over a cup of wine - birkat hamazon) and distributed the wine (this is commonly done when the grace is recited over wine among Orthodox Jews) for each to take a sip. He symbolically refers to it as his blood of the covenant (evidently not all ancient manuscripts had the word "new") whatever that is supposed to mean because it isn't explained to the listeners, and announces he will not drink wine again until the Kingdom of God arrives. However, he is not instructing anyone to perform a ritual in his memory.This story in itself need not have anything to do with Passover at all, and neither does the story in Corinthians.

To keep this simple Mark did not realize the significance of the NEW Covenant and so it was just a casual snack during a meal, even is af mockery maybe as for him it meant back to Galilee again, and so it is not wise to instruct his disciples to do the same in memory of him.

Then to say 'drink it new in the reign of God' could also mean in the wrath of God and there new every day. As you may notice he said; "I will never drink of the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the reign of God."

And then please note, crucial even is that he actually said that your faith shall be shaken, instead of brought to a full stop when all doubt was removed by way of insight.

Then he goes on to say: "I will stike the shepherd [as if with a bolt of lightning] and the sheep will be dispersed [to now about 20.000 in number]," and then promised to start with that the day after he was raised . . . and back to Galilee he goes ahead of them, with all of them shaking in faith.

aa5874 · 02-09-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So Justin's story of the meal resembles that of GMark yet "he" describes it as from the "recollections" of the apostles called "gospels" with inference that this description of the meal of his Christ was the complete description, thus he was unaware of the versions that found their way into other gospels. On the other hand, despite its similarity to GMark 14, the similarity is not complete. Thus the so-called "Recollections" are not from the gospels or from Corinthians but from another source but from some story floating around that "Justin" thought referred to some story of his historical Christ.

It is reasonably accepted that word-for-word copying of passages or phrases most likely signifies that a later author was AWARE of an earlier source.

This is widely used to show that the authors of the Gospels and the Pauline writings USED Hebrew Scripture.

I did NOT claim Justin used gMark since it is already stated that he used the Memoirs of the Apostles

I have THEORIZED that the Pauline writer used gLuke for the Last Supper dialogue since there is word-for-word copying and other similarities in 1 Cor. 11 and gLuke 22.

Duvduv · 02-09-2012, 06:13 PM

But whatever the similarities you are then forced to say that the authors of the epistles knew the whole Jesus story of GLike despite the fact that "Paul" only has a revelation concerning a meal in a context totally different from that of GLuke and ignores the whole storyline which he could have had revealed to him as well, but didn't, according to the author of Corinthians or Galatians.

aa5874 · 02-09-2012, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

But whatever the similarities you are then forced to say that the authors of the epistles knew the whole Jesus story of GLike despite the fact that "Paul" only has a revelation concerning a meal in a context totally different from that of GLuke and ignores the whole storyline which he could have had revealed to him as well, but didn't, according to the author of Corinthians or Galatians.

Do you NOT understand that I am using the WRITTEN statements of Apologetic sources?

Those apologetic sources state that Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

See Origen's "Commentary on Matthew" and Eusebius' "Church History" 3.4 and 6.25.

ALL I need are written statements, evidence from antiquity, not imagination.

Paul was AWARE of gLuke and the so-called revelation of the Last Supper in 1 Cor.11 shows word-for-word copying of passages found ONLY, ONLY in gLuke 22.

Duvduv · 02-09-2012, 06:36 PM

In another thread Stephan Huller cites Irenaeus AH5.33 where Irenaeus makes reference to what seems to be Matthew's version of the Last Supper though instead of "all of you" he has "drink all of it". And it refers to the version that includes the word "new" with covenant.
Irenaeus must have known that the three Synoptic versions were not identical yet ignores two of his four gospels there.

Chili · 02-09-2012, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I'm not trying to second-guess these guys or offer interpretations, Chili. I am simply making observations and inferences based on the similarities and differences of the contents and contexts involved.

Oh, I was just trying to give 'the Shakers' a break.

I actually think that the intricate weave between these Gosples wherein the tragedies are presented before the comedies makes a mockery out of the current 'dating' analogy, which is not to say that Mark was not first, but it sure stinks to 'tuck' the details of a tragedy that later are placed opposite to perfection in the comedies before they are written. Mind you, these tragedies are always universal as there is only one sin against the Holy Spirit, but the manner in which they are tucked is very telling indeed.

Duvduv · 02-09-2012, 06:51 PM

If you examine both carefully you can see they are not identical. They are similar and it is equally possible the later author of GLuke used Corinthians, but in your view that would place the epistles before Luke's Acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

But whatever the similarities you are then forced to say that the authors of the epistles knew the whole Jesus story of GLike despite the fact that "Paul" only has a revelation concerning a meal in a context totally different from that of GLuke and ignores the whole storyline which he could have had revealed to him as well, but didn't, according to the author of Corinthians or Galatians.

Do you NOT understand that I am using the WRITTEN statements of Apologetic sources?

Those apologetic sources state that Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

See Origen's "Commentary on Matthew" and Eusebius' "Church History" 3.4 and 6.25.

ALL I need are written statements, evidence from antiquity, not imagination.

Paul was AWARE of gLuke and the so-called revelation of the Last Supper in 1 Cor.11 shows word-for-word copying of passages found ONLY, ONLY in gLuke 22.

Chili · 02-09-2012, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

In another thread Stephan Huller cites Irenaeus AH5.33 where Irenaeus makes reference to what seems to be Matthew's version of the Last Supper though instead of "all of you" he has "drink all of it". And it refers to the version that includes the word "new" with covenant.
Irenaeus must have known that the three Synoptic versions were not identical yet ignores two of his four gospels there.

Probably the 'secret version,' but it is obvious that doubt persisted or they would not go up the Mount of Olives (likely singing 'halleluia's on the way), where he promised that the flock will be scattered and then vowed to lead the way back to Galilee again.

But if it serves Stephan well that would be good for him, yes, it would be for sure.

Chili · 02-09-2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If you examine both carefully you can see they are not identical. They are similar and it is equally possible the later author of GLuke used Corinthians, but in your view that would place the epistles before Luke's Acts.

But wait a second, before you can tuck the details of a tragedy into the allegories you must know what a comedy is like or heaven would not be different than hell, so now the writer of Matthew and Mark had to know how it is supposed to be done before they could point out the error in the details they did.

Duvduv · 02-09-2012, 07:11 PM

I also find it intriguing that although GLuke relies so much on GMatthew, he doesn't do so in the details of the Last Supper, and GJohn ignores the ceremony entirely.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-09-2012, 06:13 PM	#13
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	But whatever the similarities you are then forced to say that the authors of the epistles knew the whole Jesus story of GLike despite the fact that "Paul" only has a revelation concerning a meal in a context totally different from that of GLuke and ignores the whole storyline which he could have had revealed to him as well, but didn't, according to the author of Corinthians or Galatians.

02-09-2012, 06:36 PM	#15
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	In another thread Stephan Huller cites Irenaeus AH5.33 where Irenaeus makes reference to what seems to be Matthew's version of the Last Supper though instead of "all of you" he has "drink all of it". And it refers to the version that includes the word "new" with covenant. Irenaeus must have known that the three Synoptic versions were not identical yet ignores two of his four gospels there.

02-09-2012, 07:11 PM	#20
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I also find it intriguing that although GLuke relies so much on GMatthew, he doesn't do so in the details of the Last Supper, and GJohn ignores the ceremony entirely.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.