Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Ricky Spanish on December 14, 2016, 06:36:27 PM
-
For instance, did the "Jesus Movement" start there or elsewhere?
But what about the region itself?
At the time of Jesus, it formed a little inland district of its own, bounded by mountains to the north, west, and south, and the Lake of Genneseret to the east.
Galileans lived among rocky hills and gentle valleys, dotted with small villages and abundantly watered by springs and rains. They were self-sufficient, producing a healthy economy of fish, wine, grains, olives, and fruits, as well as crafts. There were mineral hot springs at Tiberias and Gadara. These and the tropical climate around the "Sea of Galilee" made the area attractive as a health resort.
So with major roadways open to the main north-south highways, one along the seacoast and another across the highlands of the Transjordan to the east, Galilee had constant contact with the rest of the world.
During the Hellenistic period, Galilee was introduced to Greek language, philosophy, art, and culture through the founding of cities on the Greek model in strategic locations up and down the Jordan river valley (Caesarea Philippi, Philoteria, Scythopolis), on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee (Bethsaida, Hippos, Gadara), along the seacoast to the west (Ptolemais, Dora, Caesarea), and eventually within Galilee itself (Sepphoris, Tiberius, Agrippina). With them came Greek learning, Greek schools with their gymnasia, theaters, forums, and political institutions.
During the time of Jesus, there were twelve Greek cities within a twenty-five-mile radius of his hometown, Nazareth. https://www.enterthebible.org/media/maps/source/NT2_1cGalilee.jpg
Interestingly they had survived the foreign rule, at one time or another, of all the powers in the ancient Near East without, apparently, taking sides.
There is no record of Galileans fighting under their own banner, trying to rid their land of unwanted foreign kings.
They had no capital city to defend and no king to rule them.
They granted token allegiance to each new foreign king and then looked for ways to protect themselves from any "kings" long arm, neither were they open to, or easily annexed by, either the kingdoms to the north or to the south.
The people who lived in Galilee were Galileans, not Syrians, not Samaritans, not even Jews. It was, as later rabbis' would claim, the “district of the gentiles.”
Interesting place for the young Jesus to grow up in dontcha think?
-
The people who lived in Galilee were Galileans, not Syrians, not Samaritans, not even Jews. It was, as later rabbis' would claim, the “district of the gentiles.”
If this latter is the case, why did most of the people from Galilee travel to Jerusalerm every year to attend the Jewish temple? After all, it was within the borders of Judea, and within the area associated with the Naphtali tribe of Israel. Might not be quite as central as Bethlehem and Jerusalem, but still definitely Jewish.
Interesting place for the young Jesus to grow up in dontcha think?
No more interesting than many other areas of Ancient Israel.
For instance, did the "Jesus Movement" start there or elsewhere?
Could you explain what you mean by your phrase the "Jesus Movement", something that I understood to have started in 1960s/1970s California. ;)
-
If this latter is the case, why did most of the people from Galilee travel to Jerusalerm every year to attend the Jewish temple?
Did they? Or is that just what it says in the Bible?
After all, it was within the borders of Judea, and within the area associated with the Naphtali tribe of Israel.
Wrong.
Judea and Galilee were separate areas. In 4BCE they were both ruled by Herod as part of his Kingdom. After his death they were inherited by different sons. Judea became subject to direct Roman rule in 6CE.
The name Judea derives from Judah, the more southerly of the "two kingdoms", Israel being the Northern one. Galilee was not in Judah.
-
Did they? Or is that just what it says in the Bible?
It is, from what I have read, what most Jewish historians understood the situation to be.
Wrong.
Judea and Galilee were separate areas. In 4BCE they were both ruled by Herod as part of his Kingdom. After his death they were inherited by different sons. Judea became subject to direct Roman rule in 6CE.
The name Judea derives from Judah, the more southerly of the "two kingdoms", Israel being the Northern one. Galilee was not in Judah.
You are correct, jeremy. I wrote my original post sort of 'on the hoof' and have to admit to having always struggled to remember which kingdom was which. However, Galilee was and still is within the borders of the area that was known as Israel, and within the region that was given to Naphtali and his family/clan.
Ricky's suggestion that it was 'the district of the gentiles' according to later rabbis might be true - I have never heard a Jewish person describe it as such, but that was later if at all. Not at the time of Christ.
-
It is, from what I have read, what most Jewish historians understood the situation to be.
Do you mean most historians of this period in Jewish history or most historians who are Jews?
-
Do you mean most historians of this period in Jewish history or most historians who are Jews?
My original point referred to the former, as Ricky's OP seemed to be referring to 'Galilee circa 30 CE', but I believe that the latter also applies.
-
1Nevertheless the gloom will not be upon her who is distressed,
As when at first He lightly esteemed
The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,
And afterward more heavily oppressed her,
By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,
In Galilee of the Gentiles.
2The people who walked in darkness
Have seen a great light;
Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death,
Upon them a light has shined.
from Isaiah 9
-
1Nevertheless the gloom will not be upon her who is distressed,
As when at first He lightly esteemed
The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,
And afterward more heavily oppressed her,
By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,
In Galilee of the Gentiles.
2The people who walked in darkness
Have seen a great light;
Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death,
Upon them a light has shined.
from Isaiah 9
I'm aware of that reference (though have to admit that I'd forgotten that it comes in Isaiah), 2C. As far as I can understand from reading a variety of commentaries and listening to sermons, the point isn't that the people were regarded as being Gentile, but that the area was the first part of the land of Israel to be annexed by Gentiles - the Assyrians - and that it was effectively the first place to be given the good news of the Gospel - a symbolic reclamation, as it were.
-
That there were non Jewish settlements in the area is hardly new - after all, the first Greek towns appeared in Egypt around the 7th century BC, in what is now Turkey around the fourth, and after the Alexandrian conquest of the area, towns sprung up all over the place staffed with Greek and Roman Greek speakers from the third century BC onward.
-
Yeah but, it is also important to remember that Galilee was ruled by the kings of Jerusalem only twice in the preceding one thousand years and then for only brief periods of time.
David did add Dan settling there. However, these stories also say that the tribes of Israel were not able to drive out the indigenous inhabitants. And as for belonging to the kingdoms of David and Solomon, an arrangement that lasted less than eighty years (1000 to 922 B.C.E .), Solomon gave twenty Galilean cities back to Hiram, king of Tyre, in exchange for building materials.
Then, what was left of Galilee was part of the old northern kingdom of Israel centered at Shechem (Samaria), not Jerusalem.
After that kingdom came to an end in 722 B.C.E ., Galilee was ruled by Damascus, Assyria, Neo-Babylonia, Persia, the Ptolemies, and the Seleucids before it was again overrun by kings in Jerusalem (the Hasmoneans) in 104 B.C.E.
I mean we can all agree that Jesus grew up in Galilee in the 1st C.E. and apparently had some education. Right?
But if Galilee was a substantially Hellenised area at that time, does that mean the young Jesus was under its influence?
-
Doesn't that depend on just how cosmopolitan the Jewish inhabitants were? The population in Alexandria, whilst entertaining Hellenistic Egyptian ideas, seems to have maintained independence when it came to religion - after all, they had a fully functioning temple to YHWH in the Delta (as well as the earlier one at Aswan)
-
David did add Dan settling there. However, these stories also say that the tribes of Israel were not able to drive out the indigenous inhabitants. And as for belonging to the kingdoms of David and Solomon, an arrangement that lasted less than eighty years (1000 to 922 B.C.E .), Solomon gave twenty Galilean cities back to Hiram, king of Tyre, in exchange for building materials.
I don't think anybody called David ever ruled over Galilee. Do you have any evidence that the Northern Kingdom and Judah were ever one political entity prior to the Exile?
I mean we can all agree that Jesus grew up in Galilee in the 1st C.E. and apparently had some education. Right?
The only evidence of this is the gospels and they are somewhat dubious, historically.
-
OK.....there's mention of Judah on a victory inscription on the walls of the temple of Karnak, from the dyn XXII king Sheshonq I, on his campaign in Palestine, when he returned many citiies and towns there to paying tribute to Egypt, rather than Hatti or Mittani. The incident is also recorded in Scripture, dating it to the fifth year of Rehoboham, son of Solomon, kinjg of Judah.
-
Geeky bit. Here's a basic article from Wiki on the Sheshonq I inscription. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubastite_Portal
-
But if Galilee was a substantially Hellenised area at that time, does that mean the young Jesus was under its influence?
So, are you suggesting that, because Rome was Hellenized, it wasn't really a Roman city?
-
Quote
I mean we can all agree that Jesus grew up in Galilee in the 1st C.E. and apparently had some education. Right?
The only evidence of this is the gospels and they are somewhat dubious, historically.
But they are also remarkably reliable, historically, jeremy.
-
But they are also remarkably reliable, historically, jeremy.
The gospels reliable historically? There is no evidence to support that statement. ::)
-
The gospels reliable historically? There is no evidence to support that statement. ::)
Actually, there is. Have a shuftie at http://www.strangenotions.com/how-do-we-know-the-gospels-are-historical/
-
Actually, there is.
No doubt there was a bloke called Ali too but that does't make Jesus or Ali anything special, I would have to agree there proberbly was a Jesus that was a bit of a rebble giving the Romans directly or indirectly some bother, other than that the rest is all most likely made up esspecially the magical, mystical and superstition based fantacy parts supposedly involved.
But there you'll always get some that fall for a good story.
Ippy
-
Actually, there is. Have a shuftie at http://www.strangenotions.com/how-do-we-know-the-gospels-are-historical/
Anchorman
Blimey! That seems to me a very confused argument. The author talks of 'early Christian beliefs embedded in the writings of Paul', and then goes on to cite the epistles 1John and 1Timothy - both of which are very late documents, according to many scholars, certainly dating much later than the historical Paul himself. The quote from 1John has been well argued to have been written specifically to refute the increasing influence of Gnostic Christianity, (which asserted that Jesus did not come in the flesh, but was simply an 'appearance'). These teachings did not become a serious rival to what we now see as the emerging Christian Church till the 2nd century: so how do these quotes throw any light on the authenticity of the gospels?
From my reading, I've come to believe that only the parts of the gospels which speak of a completely Jewish Jesus have any spark of historical truth to them (and that only a not-too-clear reflection of anything Jesus may have said or did). All the claims about divine Sonship or divine Incarnation are simply theological speculations which the gospel authors and Paul laced their writings with, because that is what they believed about Jesus, not because he made any such claims himself.
I would qualify the above by saying that he may well have believed he was 'The Messiah', the anointed one, but I see no reason to believe that he thought he was 'divine'. And he may well have thought that the 'Son of Man' figure - prophesied to come in judgment - was some personage different from himself too.
-
No doubt there was a bloke called Ali too but that does't make Jesus or Ali anything special, I would have to agree there proberbly was a Jesus that was a bit of a rebble giving the Romans directly or indirectly some bother, other than that the rest is all most likely made up esspecially the magical, mystical and superstition based fantacy parts supposedly involved.
Do you have any firm evidence for this supposition, ippy, or is it yet another of your opinions masquarading as fact?
-
Do you have any firm evidence for this supposition, ippy, or is it yet another of your opinions masquarading as fact?
Hope you accuse others of things of which you are guilty!
-
Anchorman
Blimey! That seems to me a very confused argument. The author talks of 'early Christian beliefs embedded in the writings of Paul', and then goes on to cite the epistles 1John and 1Timothy - both of which are very late documents, according to many scholars, certainly dating much later than the historical Paul himself. The quote from 1John has been well argued to have been written specifically to refute the increasing influence of Gnostic Christianity, (which asserted that Jesus did not come in the flesh, but was simply an 'appearance'). These teachings did not become a serious rival to what we now see as the emerging Christian Church till the 2nd century: so how do these quotes throw any light on the authenticity of the gospels?
There is a difference between 'did not become a serious rival to ...' and 'didn't exist', DU. If you look at John's Gospel, it deals with this same issue, along with several others, even though it was written at the very end of the 1st century/very beginning of the 2nd century.
From my reading, I've come to believe that only the parts of the gospels which speak of a completely Jewish Jesus have any spark of historical truth to them (and that only a not-too-clear reflection of anything Jesus may have said or did). All the claims about divine Sonship or divine Incarnation are simply theological speculations which the gospel authors and Paul laced their writings with, because that is what they believed about Jesus, not because he made any such claims himself.[/quote]D, I'd be intere3sted to see your metaphorical workings that brought you to these conclusions. After all, they've been around for centiries and been refuted often enough - by a gospel writer!!
I would qualify the above by saying that he may well have believed he was 'The Messiah', the anointed one, but I see no reason to believe that he thought he was 'divine'. And he may well have thought that the 'Son of Man' figure - prophesied to come in judgment - was some personage different from himself too.
Again, I'd be interested to see why you believe these ideas, since John and others refuted them back in the day, and they've been refuted several time since.
-
Hope you accuse others of things of which you are guilty!
Whilst you and others do what you accuse others of doing. Over the years, a number of the belioevers here have posted evidence that they feel is appropriate to the challenges you have referred to. The only evidence I've seen for your position is that none of it follows the laws of nature - stated as if said laws are the sole arbiter of reality [a claim usually supported by itself alone(!!)] for which, again, there is no evidence.
-
From my reading, I've come to believe that only the parts of the gospels which speak of a completely Jewish Jesus have any spark of historical truth to them (and that only a not-too-clear reflection of anything Jesus may have said or did). All the claims about divine Sonship or divine Incarnation are simply theological speculations which the gospel authors and Paul laced their writings with, because that is what they believed about Jesus, not because he made any such claims himself.
I would qualify the above by saying that he may well have believed he was 'The Messiah', the anointed one, but I see no reason to believe that he thought he was 'divine'. And he may well have thought that the 'Son of Man' figure - prophesied to come in judgment - was some personage different from himself too.
Hi Dicky Underpants,
If Jesus did not claim equality with the Name (ie divinity itself), then what was the blasphemy of which he was found guilty by the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:64)?
If Jesus did not misuse the Name, then what caused the Chief Priests to be so poisonous in front of Pilate (John 19:6-7)?
God bless
-
Hi Dicky Underpants,
If Jesus did not claim equality with the Name (ie divinity itself), then what was the blasphemy of which he was found guilty by the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:64)?
If Jesus did not misuse the Name, then what caused the Chief Priests to be so poisonous in front of Pilate (John 19:6-7)?
God bless
It was calling himself the SON OF GOD. I think the first commandment of Christ gives it away.
If you love me, you will keep my commandments... Love the Lord thy God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself. At no time did Jesus make himself God.
-
It was calling himself the SON OF GOD. I think the first commandment of Christ gives it away.
If you love me, you will keep my commandments... Love the Lord thy God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself. At no time did Jesus make himself God.
Hi Sassy,
Thanks for the above post.
But Isaiah calls every Jewish male a son of God, so that cannot be blasphemy.
Leviticus 24:10-23 requires misuse of the holy Name Yaheh for blasphemy punishable by death. To call oneself Messiah or son of God is not sufficient. So Jesus must have misused the holy Name in front of the High Priest.
God bless
-
Hi Sassy,
Thanks for the above post.
But Isaiah calls every Jewish male a son of God, so that cannot be blasphemy.
Leviticus 24:10-23 requires misuse of the holy Name Yaheh for blasphemy punishable by death. To call oneself Messiah or son of God is not sufficient. So Jesus must have misused the holy Name in front of the High Priest.
God bless
I guess your reasoning is easily answered in that you misunderstood what I and Isaiah are speaking about.
King James Bible
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
To be a child of God, a Son of God which even Angels are, is to be and do as God does.
Christ and the Angels are all Sons of God. Even Adam was a Son of God.
I have said, ye are gods, lower case spelling. So not being called God but being called gods.
What about Moses...
King James Bible
And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
When people do the will of God and are sent to do his will and speak his word then they become like god to men.
But they do not and can never become God himself. You see made Sons of God by the power of God we are not born with any power of ourselves. The Jews did not know the truth it was Christ who was to make clear the truth to the Jews.
Did Christ heal the sick? Did he walk on water? Did he cast out demons? and what about the descendants of Adam?
King James Bible
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Is it our power of Gods power we do the things of God by?
They did not understand who the Messiah would be and that he like Moses would be like a god unto the people.
But at no time and never in the history of mankind has a human man become God himself.
You have to hearken unto Christ as Pharaoh should have hearkened unto Moses.
Mans biggest sin is putting himself on throne of of his own life, making life about himself and not the truth.
There is one God and Jesus came in the flesh. They did not understand but those who believed do.
-
Just because someone believes something to be true doesn't mean it is, unless there is verifiable evidence to support the belief. In the case of much of the Bible there is no such evidence.
-
OK.....there's mention of Judah on a victory inscription on the walls of the temple of Karnak, from the dyn XXII king Sheshonq I, on his campaign in Palestine, when he returned many citiies and towns there to paying tribute to Egypt, rather than Hatti or Mittani. The incident is also recorded in Scripture, dating it to the fifth year of Rehoboham, son of Solomon, kinjg of Judah.
I don't dispute the existence of Judah.
What I was questioning was the existence of the Davidic empire consisting of both Judah and Israel. There's nothing outside the Bible to suggest it ever existed.
-
But they are also remarkably reliable, historically, jeremy.
No they aren't.
-
Actually, there is. Have a shuftie at http://www.strangenotions.com/how-do-we-know-the-gospels-are-historical/
What specifically are we supposed to be looking at in that? It seems to me that the author was trotting out the usual suspects of well worn and easily discredited arguments.
Looking at the first two arguments (I stopped reading after the first two), we can see they do not hold water.
For example the criterion of dissimilarity makes the huge assumption that the gospel writers did not think of dissimilarity as a good thing. If you are a member of a smallish sect that is an offshoot of a larger religion, you will probably want to emphasise that you are dissimilar to that other religion. If your sect has decided that it's OK to break the Sabbath, what better way to justify that than to suggest your founding fathers also broke the Sabbath?
The criterion of embarrassment is equally useless. How do we know what a late 1st century community would have found embarrassing? Something actually happening is no bar to it being omitted from a story. Jesus losing his temper is supposed to be embarrassing and therefore must have actually happened. But, if it was so embarrassing, the gospel writers would not have put it in regardless of whether it really happened or not.
-
Hi Dicky Underpants,
If Jesus did not claim equality with the Name (ie divinity itself), then what was the blasphemy of which he was found guilty by the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:64)?
If Jesus did not misuse the Name, then what caused the Chief Priests to be so poisonous in front of Pilate (John 19:6-7)?
God bless
These are merely writings whose historical veracity you need to establish. These supposed claims of divinity by Jesus are contradicted by the synoptics. The only confirmation of something like a claim there is made in Matthew (which is not fully substantiated in the other synoptics)- and he tells Peter to keep quiet about it!
-
These supposed claims of divinity by Jesus are contradicted by the synoptics. The only confirmation of something like a claim there is made in Matthew (which is not fully substantiated in the other synoptics)- and he tells Peter to keep quiet about it!
Sorry, DU, but since the theology of Jesus' divinity pre-dated the synoptics and even Paul's appearance on the scene, AND there is plenty about his divinity in each of the synoptics, I find your claim otherwise somewhat spurious.
-
What specifically are we supposed to be looking at in that? It seems to me that the author was trotting out the usual suspects of well worn and easily discredited arguments.
In 50+ years of debating the issue, I've yet to see any of the arguments given in this article discredited (let alone easily discredited) jeremy. Yes, I've seen plenty of attempts to discredit them, but none that hold water when put to fairly rigorous testing. I've definitely never seen any attempt at discrediting them remotely wateright here.
-
I don't dispute the existence of Judah.
What I was questioning was the existence of the Davidic empire consisting of both Judah and Israel. There's nothing outside the Bible to suggest it ever existed.
There isn't much, I agree - and til relatively recently, there was no evidence that David existed outside Scripture - till a fragment turned up around 1993.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/davidjer.html
-
Sorry, DU, but since the theology of Jesus' divinity pre-dated the synoptics and even Paul's appearance on the scene,
How on Earth can you possibly know that? No writings about Jesus that predate Paul survive.
AND there is plenty about his divinity in each of the synoptics, I find your claim otherwise somewhat spurious.
I find almost all of your claims somewhat spurious, mainly because you seem to be inventing evidence.
-
In 50+ years of debating the issue, I've yet to see any of the arguments given in this article discredited
I just did two of them all by myself.
Yes, I've seen plenty of attempts to discredit them, but none that hold water when put to fairly rigorous testing. I've definitely never seen any attempt at discrediting them remotely wateright here.
I notice that, absent in your post, is any actual refutation of the points I made.
-
How on Earth can you possibly know that? No writings about Jesus that predate Paul survive.
One doesn't need writings to date a teaching, jeremy. I realise that in our modern society, anything not written down is regarded with suspicion, but that hasn't always been the case. Rather, it has only been remotely the case for a hundred years or two. I'd remind you that the church had been in existence for at least 10, perhaps nearer 20 years before Paul started writing his epistles, and .
[/quoteI find almost all of your claims somewhat spurious, mainly because you seem to be inventing evidence.
[/quote]Well, some of it is pretty common sense - such as my point above. Some of it is written in documentation dating back for decades, even centuries, and some of it is gleaned through listening to and even f2f discussions with Biblical scholars and theologians.
-
I just did two of them all by myself.
I hadn't noticed, jeremy. Queried them, yes, but discredited? Where is your evidence that discredits them?
I notice that, absent in your post, is any actual refutation of the points I made.
Well, I simply thought you were questioning them, and as Jim seemed to be dealing with your questions, ...
-
One doiesn't need writings to date a teaching, jeremy.
There is nothing else in this case.
I realise that in our modern society, anything not written down is regarded with suspicion, but that hasn't always been the case. Rather, it has only been remotely the case for a hundred years or two. I'd remind you that the church had been in existence for at least 10, perhaps nearer 20 years before Paul started writing his epistles
But we know absolutely nothing about the early church except what \Paul chooses to tell us. If there's some other piece of evidence, please tell us what it is.
Well, some of it is pretty common sense - such as my point above.
You didn't make any point above. The specific claim - I'll remind you - is that the pre Pauline church thought of Jesus as divine. You haven't provided a shred of evidence that this is the case.
-
I hadn't noticed, jeremy. Queried them, yes, but discredited? Where is your evidence that discredits them?
It's right there in reply #31.
-
There is nothing else in this case.
Actually, there are. The Mar Thoma Church in India predates any of Paul's writings, and has the divinity of Christ as one of its core beliefs. Many of the passages in Paul's writings aren't new teaching, but reiteration and reinforcement of existing teaching - some of which was clearly (from the context) in existence before Paul became involved.
But we know absolutely nothing about the early church except what \Paul chooses to tell us. If there's some other piece of evidence, please tell us what it is.
Never heard of Acts?
You didn't make any point above.
Read the post again: I made the point that one doesn't have to have written material for teachings to have occurred
One doesn't need writings to date a teaching, jeremy
-
King James Bible
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
To be a child of God, a Son of God which even Angels are, is to be and do as God does.
Christ and the Angels are all Sons of God. Even Adam was a Son of God.
Hi Sassy,
Thanks for the above post.
You could have also quoted Isaiah 63:16 - "thou, O LORD, art our father" and 64:8 " But now, O LORD, thou art our father".
So, everyone is a child of God and every Jewish male is entitled to call himself a son of God and it cannot be blasphemy for Jesus (or any Jewish male) to call himself 'Son of God'.
That being so, to commit blasphemy in front of the High Priest (Mark 14:64), surely Jesus had to misuse the holy Name (YAHWEH) by claiming equality with it (Leviticus 24:10-23)?
Do you agree?
God bless
-
These are merely writings whose historical veracity you need to establish. These supposed claims of divinity by Jesus are contradicted by the synoptics. The only confirmation of something like a claim there is made in Matthew (which is not fully substantiated in the other synoptics)- and he tells Peter to keep quiet about it!
Hi Dicky,
Thanks for your post.
Claims of divinity are not contradicted in the Synoptics. The quotation from Malachi 3:1 in Mark 1:2 and the OT quotes (Exodus 3:14 etc) in Mark 14:62 both deduce the divinity of Jesus.
The claim you mention in Matthew is, I presume, Peter's use of the word Messiah. Jesus (and later his followers) interpreted this as a peaceful divine Savior, while the Jewish population as a whole expected a human warrior king who would "drive out the godless nations" (see Psalms of Solomon, 17).
Jesus explained this to Pilate as "my kingdom is not of this world". Jesus was always equivical about unqualified use of the title, usually replying "you said it" and instructed Peter not to use it.
God bless
-
The claim you mention in Matthew is, I presume, Peter's use of the word Messiah. Jesus (and later his followers) interpreted this as a peaceful divine Savior, while the Jewish population as a whole expected a human warrior king who would "drive out the godless nations" (see Psalms of Solomon, 17).
And interestingly, this latter understanding had only been around for about 5 centuries prior to Christ, whereas the concept of 'Messiah' had been around for at least twice that long - with the idea of a divine Messiah being interwoven with the more prosaic idea of a human King/Redeemer. In fact, the early picture of Messiah had nothing to do with the politico/militaristic idea that the Jewish religious leaders and Zealots had at the turn of the eras.
-
Actually, there are. The Mar Thoma Church in India predates any of Paul's writings
No it doesn't. Even their own somewhat uncritical history suggests it was only founded in the 50's. And, of course, actual documentary evidence doesn't exist.
Many of the passages in Paul's writings aren't new teaching, but reiteration and reinforcement of existing teaching - some of which was clearly (from the context) in existence before Paul became involved.
Please give some examples.
Never heard of Acts?
Acts is much later than Paul is is not at all reliable as a history of the early church.
Read the post again: I made the point that one doesn't have to have written material for teachings to have occurred
What other evidence do you have? None.
-
No it doesn't. Even their own somewhat uncritical history suggests it was only founded in the 50's. And, of course, actual documentary evidence doesn't exist.
Thanks for the confirmation - it is understood that St Thomas arrived in India in AD 52 - about the same time as Paul was writing his first epistle. If, as you suggest, written material is so important, and remembering that Paul wrote to specific churches/congregations and not to the 'Church' as a whole - his writings only becoming available to others than their original recipients several decades later thasn their authorship dates, is it likely that Thomas would have known what he wrote?
Please give some examples.
The obvious one is the whole issue of Jesus' divinity, something that was clearly being preached before Paul appeared on the scene. Then there are a number of passgaes where Paul says - As you have heard before - clearly referring to previous teaching that the congregations had had from other believers. Thirdly, the very fact that he went to both Jewish synagogues and to existing congregations when he visited places. Remember too that he had been travelling to Damascus to arrest believers there when he had his vision of Christ. The church was pretty well-spread by the time he arrived. Furthermore John, in his gospel, talks about God and the divinity of Jesus as something that Jesus himself taught - not something that Paul introduced.
Acts is much later than Paul is is not at all reliable as a history of the early church.
Are you suggesting that evidence gathered over a period of time - even as far as decades later - can't be deemed to be legitimate evidence? If so, I think that you'll find that cold-case investigators would disagree with you.
What other evidence do you have? None.
Evidence of what?
-
Thanks for the confirmation - it is understood that St Thomas arrived in India in AD 52 - about the same time as Paul was writing his first epistle.
I didn't confirm it, I refuted it. Your claim was that the church existed before Paul was writing. Moreover the "founding in 52" thing is a bit of a legend. It isn't necessarily true.
If, as you suggest, written material is so important, and remembering that Paul wrote to specific churches/congregations and not to the 'Church' as a whole - his writings only becoming available to others than their original recipients several decades later thasn their authorship dates, is it likely that Thomas would have known what he wrote?
Can you show that Thomas even existed? Bear in mind the earliest and only reference we have is in John's gospel written about 40 years later.
The obvious one is the whole issue of Jesus' divinity, something that was clearly being preached before Paul appeared on the scene.
And you have no evidence of this.
Furthermore John, in his gospel, talks about God and the divinity of Jesus as something that Jesus himself taught - not something that Paul introduced.
If we are to believe Mark. Jesus kept the whole thing secret until just before his death. If we believe John, he proclaimed it at every opportunity. Somebody is telling porkies.
Are you suggesting that evidence gathered over a period of time - even as far as decades later - can't be deemed to be legitimate evidence?
That's exactly what I am saying because we cannot be traced back to Jesus.
If so, I think that you'll find that cold-case investigators would disagree with you.
No, they would disagree with you. If somebody found a document today purporting to describe the real fate of Lord Lucan, do you think the cold case investigators would just believe it? No, they would try to determine its provenance and if they couldn't they would have to discard it as evidence.
-
If we are to believe Mark. Jesus kept the whole thing secret until just before his death. If we believe John, he proclaimed it at every opportunity. Somebody is telling porkies.
Hi jeremyp,
Thanks for the above post.
Mark reports what Peter, John and James told him. Jesus claimed the holy Name when getting into their boat after calming the wind (Mark 6:50).
Author of 4th gospel reports what Nicodemus told him Jesus claimed the holy Name debating with the Pharisees on last day of the feast of Tabernacles (John 7:37-8:59). Peter, John and James were not present at this debate as Jesus went separately to this feast (John 7:10). However, Nicodemus was there, see John 7:50.
The authors of Mark and 4th gospels report just what their witnesses told them.
God bless
-
If we are to believe Mark. Jesus kept the whole thing secret until just before his death. If we believe John, he proclaimed it at every opportunity. Somebody is telling porkies.
If I remember correctly, Mark tells us that he told the disciples 'at evrery opportunity', as you say, but also told them to keep it quiet until the time was right to spread the news. As such, both records can be correct.
That's exactly what I am saying because we cannot be traced back to Jesus.
Not aware that anyone is claiming that we can be traced back to jesus. What I said is that the whole idea of Jesus' divinity pre-dates Paul's arrival on the scene; this suggests that claims that it was he that instigated them are pretty far from the truth.
No, they would disagree with you. If somebody found a document today purporting to describe the real fate of Lord Lucan, do you think the cold case investigators would just believe it? No, they would try to determine its provenance and if they couldn't they would have to discard it as evidence.
But if its provenance was proved and showed that it was legit., they would at least study it with great care. What some here seem to argue is that because we, in the 20th/21st centuries, don't have written evidence to support the understanding that it was Jesus who claimed that he was divine - not some other person who might have been writing 20 years later, or someone who never met Jesus in the flesh - we have to treat everything has nonsense: despite the fact that they are quite happy to accept other historical details based on no more less evidence than there is for Jesus.
-
Mark reports what Peter, John and James told him. Jesus claimed the holy Name when getting into their boat after calming the wind (Mark 6:50).
That's something of an extrapolation from "It is I - have no fear"
I don't doubt that Mark and the other synoptics ended up believing that Jesus was 'The Son of God' (whatever that means). That's a bit of a distance from claiming identity with God all the time which is reported in John's gospel. How, if he believed he was God incarnate, could he simultaneously admonish his disciples to keep stumm on the matter, when he was simultaneously proclaiming his own divinity from the rooftops? The scenario is bonkers.
-
That's something of an extrapolation from "It is I - have no fear"
I don't doubt that Mark and the other synoptics ended up believing that Jesus was 'The Son of God' (whatever that means). That's a bit of a distance from claiming identity with God all the time which is reported in John's gospel. How, if he believed he was God incarnate, could he simultaneously admonish his disciples to keep stumm on the matter, when he was simultaneously proclaiming his own divinity from the rooftops? The scenario is bonkers.
Probably in the same way that subversive folk of all sorts will often teach their disciples/followers about their subversive ideas, but make sure that they don't start shouting them aloud until such time as they - the leader - has been arrested or killed. Its one simpole way of making sure that the ideas are spread once the leader is no longer in circulation.
-
That's something of an extrapolation from "It is I - have no fear"
Hi Dicky,
Check the original Greek of Mark 6:50. It reads "ego eimi" which literally translates "I AM" (not It is I). Check any study bible or the Greek text. They all confirm that.
'Ego eimi' is a literal translation of the Hebrew 'ehyeh' which is the holy Name in Exodus 3:14b. So, Mark reports that Jesus claimed the holy Name in verse 6:50 (same as 4th. Gospel).
Further, Matthew also indicates that this was a divine claim when he says the apostles "worshiped" Jesus after he climbed into their boat - see Mt 14:33.
I hope you find this interesting.
God bless
-
That's something of an extrapolation from "It is I - have no fear"
Which is, in itself, quite an extrapolation (in understanding) from the Greek for the term.
-
Hi jeremyp,
Thanks for the above post.
Mark reports what Peter, John and James told him.
That's just wishful thinking. There's no evidence that the author of Mark knew Peter, John or James. In fact, what evidence there is would point to the idea that Mark never met any of them.
Jesus claimed the holy Name when getting into their boat after calming the wind (Mark 6:50).
Please check that reference. Mark 6:50 says "for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.’" That was in the context of ther disciples seeing him walk on water. He is not claiming he is God here.
The authors of Mark and 4th gospels report just what their witnesses told them.
Let's assume they are for a minute: either Mark's source or John's source is wrong.
Here is a good starting point for the Messianic Secret (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Secret) in Mark.
-
That's just wishful thinking. There's no evidence that the author of Mark knew Peter, John or James. In fact, what evidence there is would point to the idea that Mark never met any of them.
Can you expand on that, Jeremy, maybe a few examples?
Please check that reference. Mark 6:50 says "for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.’" That was in the context of ther disciples seeing him walk on water. He is not claiming he is God here.
An interesting detail is that instead of climbing on board and helping to row, Jesus was about to walk past the boat.
Let's assume they are for a minute: either Mark's source or John's source is wrong.
Here is a good starting point for the Messianic Secret (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Secret) in Mark.
I think Jesus was at that point waiting for the disciples to understand his identity and mission. In this passage he seems to be showing them his glory by walking on water. In Exodus 33-34, in the context of a discussion between Moses and God in which Moses is worried about leading Israel to the promised land, God caused his glory to pass in front of Moses. God was also feeding Israel in the desert with manna. It seems Jesus fed the five thousand and was going to pass by the boat so that they would see his glory and understand that he had come to lead them to a new promised land - God's 'rest' (cf Ex. 33:14)
-
That's just wishful thinking. There's no evidence that the author of Mark knew Peter, John or James. In fact, what evidence there is would point to the idea that Mark never met any of them.
Ironically, Mark has long been regarded as the Gospel of Peter, jeremy. From very early days, it was understood that Mark acted as Peter's 'scribe', implyingnthat Mark had met at least Peter, and if Peter, why not James and John?
Please check that reference. Mark 6:50 says "for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.’" That was in the context of ther disciples seeing him walk on water. He is not claiming he is God here.
Let's assume they are for a minute: either Mark's source or John's source is wrong.
Was this merely in the context of the disciples seeing Jesus walking on water? Wasn't it equally in the context of the conditions they found themselves in - the Sea of Galilee is notorious for sudden changes in conditions? More importantly, the use of 'ego eimi' by Jesus would have had a specific meaning for Jews; it is the Greek version of the Old Testament 'I AM that I AM' that God instructed Moses to use when returning to the people of Israel prior to the Exodus. It is interesting that whilst many seem to assume that John introduces the use of the 'I am' phrase in his gospel dated sometime around the turn of the first and second centuries, Mark uses it in Mark 6 - some 40-odd years earlier.
Let's assume they are for a minute: either Mark's source or John's source is wrong.
And what makes you think this? After all, both sources use the term 'ego eimi'.
-
Please check that reference. Mark 6:50 says "for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, ‘Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.’" That was in the context of ther disciples seeing him walk on water. He is not claiming he is God here.
Hi jeremyp,
Thanks for the above post.
But we cannot deny that the Greek text reads "ego eimi" which is an emphasised "I AM" without a predicate. The text does not read 'ego esti'' (it is I).
The English translation "it is I" would answer a question which the apostles do not ask. They do not ask,'is that you Jesus?' The text contains no question from the apostles, but if one is implied, then it would be the terrified one of 'is that a daemon coming to kill us?'
To which Jesus replies, "take courage, I am God (not a daemon), do not be afraid". Matthew says they "worshiped" Jesus after he climbed into their boat (Mt 14:33).
God bless
-
Hi Dicky,
Check the original Greek of Mark 6:50. It reads "ego eimi" which literally translates "I AM" (not It is I). Check any study bible or the Greek text. They all confirm that.
'Ego eimi' is a literal translation of the Hebrew 'ehyeh' which is the holy Name in Exodus 3:14b. So, Mark reports that Jesus claimed the holy Name in verse 6:50 (same as 4th. Gospel).
Further, Matthew also indicates that this was a divine claim when he says the apostles "worshiped" Jesus after he climbed into their boat - see Mt 14:33.
I hope you find this interesting.
God bless
I agree here. 'ego eimi' is a wee bit difficult to articulate in modern English, but 'Iam' or 'I will be' come about as close as you're going to get without getting your tongue tied in knots.
-
Hi jeremyp,
Thanks for the above post.
But we cannot deny that the Greek text reads "ego eimi" which is an emphasised "I AM" without a predicate. The text does not read 'ego esti'' (it is I).
The English translation "it is I" would answer a question which the apostles do not ask. They do not ask,'is that you Jesus?' The text contains no question from the apostles, but if one is implied, then it would be the terrified one of 'is that a daemon coming to kill us?'
To which Jesus replies, "take courage, I am God (not a daemon), do not be afraid". Matthew says they "worshiped" Jesus after he climbed into their boat (Mt 14:33).
God bless
You're just making loads of stuff up to suit your narrative. Why not read what the text says instead of what you want it to sy?
-
You're just making loads of stuff up to suit your narrative. Why not read what the text says instead of what you want it to sy?
Hi jeremy,
The Greek text says 'ego eimi', an emphatic 'I AM'. The Greek text does not say 'ego esti' (it is I). Check any Greek manuscript or any study bible. They will confirm this. Facts are Facts.
The Greek 'ego eimi' renders the Hebrew 'ehyeh', the holy Name in Exodus 3:14b. Matthews says that the apostles 'worshiped' Jesus after he climed into their boat (Mt 14:33).
The English translation 'it is I' an extrapolation, not a direct translation. It is a made up answer to a question which is not in the text.
God bless
-
Hi jeremy,
The Greek text says 'ego eimi', an emphatic 'I AM'. The Greek text does not say 'ego esti' (it is I).
So? It's not the most unambiguous declaration of being God, is it? In fact it is not one.
Check any Greek manuscript or any study bible. They will confirm this. Facts are Facts.
The Greek 'ego eimi' renders the Hebrew 'ehyeh', the holy Name in Exodus 3:14b. Matthews says that the apostles 'worshiped' Jesus after he climed into their boat (Mt 14:33).
The English translation 'it is I' an extrapolation, not a direct translation. It is a made up answer to a question which is not in the text.
God bless
What about all the crap you made up about daemons? You have no idea about any of that, All you have is Jesus telling the disciples, it's him walking across the lake.
-
So? It's not the most unambiguous declaration of being God, is it? In fact it is not one.
The direct reference to, in fact the very same words, as Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint, there is not a smidgen of ambiguity about it.
-
Exactly, 2Corrie.
.... and
Rosindubh
The name 'Ehyeh' sometimes known as 'Ahayah' and also 'Ahayah Ashar Ahayah' is surely the nearest name for God as it translates to I AM, and I AM that I AM..
-
What about all the crap you made up about daemons? You have no idea about any of that, All you have is Jesus telling the disciples, it's him walking across the lake.
Hi jeremyp,
Calling something 'crap' is not a rational argument.
Mark 6:49 uses the Greek word phantasma'. Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines this as 'apparition or spectre', the later being unpleasant or menacing.
Mark 6:50 reports the apostles agitated and screaming, fearful of something unpleasant or menacing. A spectre, evil spirit, not something helpful.
The text contains no question to which "it is I" would be an answer, especially to something walking on water. Only God can protect them from that.
God bless
-
We lose much in the translation of Koine into English. Sometimes, in an effort to make the sentence scan in our time, a sense of the original Koine is sacrificed. We don't see the scandalous "I am" in Mark for what it is. Some of those who heard Him woulld have been at least semi literate; many more well versed in the Torah, and Jesus' scandalous words would not have been lost on them. This was a very provocative statement - and compiled with his actions shortly before (feeding the 5ooo compared with Moses) and walking on the water (again compared with Moses) must have stirred many people into asking questions. No wonder, then, when, later, Christ calmed the storm - and the disciples were terrified? Why were they terrified -AFTER - and not before? Because they knew of One, and One only, according to the Scriptures, who had power over the elements. By both His word and His actions, Jesus was making a startling claim to His identity.
-
So? It's not the most unambiguous declaration of being God, is it? In fact it is not one.
For a Jewish listener, it would have been far from ambiguous, jeremy.
-
Hi Dicky,
Check the original Greek of Mark 6:50. It reads "ego eimi" which literally translates "I AM" (not It is I). Check any study bible or the Greek text. They all confirm that.
'Ego eimi' is a literal translation of the Hebrew 'ehyeh' which is the holy Name in Exodus 3:14b. So, Mark reports that Jesus claimed the holy Name in verse 6:50 (same as 4th. Gospel).
Further, Matthew also indicates that this was a divine claim when he says the apostles "worshiped" Jesus after he climbed into their boat - see Mt 14:33.
I hope you find this interesting.
God bless
Hi Rosinbudh
I do indeed find this interesting, but I also find your argument inconclusive. I checked with my interlinear Greek Testament, to see the context, and you are of course right about the wording. However, as much ambiguity exists about the use of the phrase 'ego eimi' as there does about the use of that other notorious phrase 'The Son of Man' (the latter, according to Geza Vermes can simply be a means of referring to oneself obliquely, as one might say 'yours truly' - or be a direct reference to the Son of Man figure in Daniel).
According to a Catholic source (admittedly, trying to argue for the divine reference of 'ego eimi') does also admit that the phrase can have an everyday usage, just as 'The Son of Man' has:
"'Now, if you know anything about the Old Testament, you know that “I Am” is the divine name (see Exodus 3:14; Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 41:4, 43:10-11). However, ego eimi can also be used in a way to identify oneself, which is the reason why the modern translations render it “It is I.” For example, in Luke 24:39, after the Resurrection, the disciples do not recognize Jesus, so he says, “It is myself” (Greek, ego eimi autos)—that is to say, “Hey guys, it’s me.”'
catholicexchange.com/the-divinity-of-jesus-according-to-mark
The Catholic author, you note, cites a usage of the phrase in Luke which has almost certainly an everyday significance - unless of course you want to argue that the phrase in Luke 24:39 means "It is me, God himself"
In other words, you pays your money and you takes your choice
-
For a Jewish listener, it would have been far from ambiguous, jeremy.
See above, with reference to the quote in Luke.
-
If Jesus had intended to say simply, "it's me" in Mark 6:50, wouldn't he have said, "ego eimi autos" as in Luke 24:39?
-
See above, with reference to the quote in Luke.
See above, with reference to Spud's question. Why the different phraseology? Remember that Greek exists beyond 1st century Palestine and whilst it might well be the case that 'ego eimi' can be used to mean 'It's myself', Jewish understanding of the term would have a specific connotation. Interestingly, the Luke passage doesn't use the 'ego eimi' phrase, suggesting that Jesus (and the writer of Luke) was trying to make a different point than in the Mark passage.
-
The direct reference to, in fact the very same words, as Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint, there is not a smidgen of ambiguity about it.
God said I am who I am.
Jesus said I am who I am.
Popeye said I am who I am.
Saying "I am" is not the same as saying "I am God".
-
Hi jeremyp,
Calling something 'crap' is not a rational argument.
Making up nonsense about what the disciples were thinking is not rational argument.
Mark 6:50 reports the apostles agitated and screaming, fearful of something unpleasant or menacing. A spectre, evil spirit, not something helpful.
The text contains no question to which "it is I" would be an answer, especially to something walking on water. Only God can protect them from that.
God bless
Bullshit' It's Jesus saying it is Jesus.
-
Popeye said I am who I am.
I am sure that Popeye never said 'ego eimi'.
Saying "I am" is not the same as saying "I am God".
No Jew would have used the phrase if they didn't believe that they were entitled to, jeremy. Similarly, there are a number of sayings from the 20th and 21st century that no-one would use, unless than as quotes, other than the original user.