Speaking in 'tongues'

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

I'm an Android man.

Was the "man" required there?

[Alien]

Alien,

I'm an Android man.

Was the "man" required there?

[Outrider]

Alien,

I'm an Android man.

Was the "man" required there?

He was just trying to be polite, he missed a comma is all: 'I'm an Android, man."

O.

[Alien]

Alien,

I'm an Android man.

Was the "man" required there?

He was just trying to be polite, he missed a comma is all: 'I'm an Android, man."

O.

as well.

[Dicky Underpants]

Rosenstock-Huessy says, quote: "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". That's it, no explanation as to where Mark states this, but I have a few ideas which need more thought.

If he “states bluntly”, it means it will be pretty obvious where the statement is. Mark doesn't state anywhere that he is quoting Matthew (at least not the gospel we now call Matthew). Your source is lying.

Matthew introduces Jesus as 'Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham'. He concludes by saying (28:19) that Jesus is the Son of God (the second person of the Trinity). This is the point to which Matthew's gospel has progressed: the last step of thought. Mark begins by introducing Jesus as Christ the Son of God, thus beginning to think and to speak where Matthew had ended, and turning Matthew's last 'word' into an opening of a new drama.

The attempt to make a developing Christology from the synoptics in this way is very flawed, though. Mark may open his gospel indicating that he believes Jesus to be "The Son of God" (and maybe this opening verse's authenticity has been questioned, along with the 'Long Ending') - but in his account of Peter's affirmation of Jesus' true identity, he simply uses the words 'The Christ'. That would seem to be a back-tracking on Matthew, who adds "the Son of the living God". And Luke has only the words "The Christ" also.

No doubt, by the time the synoptic authors wrote, they had all come to consider Christ to be a divine personage in some sense, but the implication is much weaker in Mark. And Matthew's addition of theatrical effects rather obviously suggests that he is tarting up the plainer narrative of Mark to heighten the drama - to the extent that during the crucifixion story, his chronology is all over the place.

[wigginhall]

Yes, hence the argument that very early Christians did not see Jesus as God, and then some saw him as 'adopted' by God, some as the son of God (but not God), and some as the messiah - but then Jews did not consider the messiah to be divine (and still don't).  These arguments are summarized by Ehrman in 'Did Jesus Exist?'

[Alien]

Yes, hence the argument that very early Christians did not see Jesus as God, and then some saw him as 'adopted' by God, some as the son of God (but not God), and some as the messiah - but then Jews did not consider the messiah to be divine (and still don't).  These arguments are summarized by Ehrman in 'Did Jesus Exist?'

What is your evidence that "very early Christians did not see Jesus as God", please? I don't have a copy of "Did Jesus Exist?"

[Hope]

Yes, hence the argument that very early Christians did not see Jesus as God, and then some saw him as 'adopted' by God, some as the son of God (but not God), and some as the messiah - but then Jews did not consider the messiah to be divine (and still don't).  These arguments are summarized by Ehrman in 'Did Jesus Exist?'

What is your evidence that "very early Christians did not see Jesus as God", please? I don't have a copy of "Did Jesus Exist?"

Alien, his evidence is Ehrman.  In this respect, Ehrman is in the minority.

[wigginhall]

Yes, hence the argument that very early Christians did not see Jesus as God, and then some saw him as 'adopted' by God, some as the son of God (but not God), and some as the messiah - but then Jews did not consider the messiah to be divine (and still don't).  These arguments are summarized by Ehrman in 'Did Jesus Exist?'

What is your evidence that "very early Christians did not see Jesus as God", please? I don't have a copy of "Did Jesus Exist?"

I am not really going to present the complex arguments for this position!   It's not my evidence, in any case, as I am not a scholar of this material. 

Unfortunately, Ehrman's blog has a pay-wall, but he does release some chunks:

http://www.npr.org/books/titles/300245117/how-jesus-became-god-the-exaltation-of-a-jewish-preacher-from-galilee?tab=excerpt#excerpt

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, hence the argument that very early Christians did not see Jesus as God, and then some saw him as 'adopted' by God, some as the son of God (but not God), and some as the messiah - but then Jews did not consider the messiah to be divine (and still don't).  These arguments are summarized by Ehrman in 'Did Jesus Exist?'

What is your evidence that "very early Christians did not see Jesus as God", please? I don't have a copy of "Did Jesus Exist?"

Alien, his evidence is Ehrman.  In this respect, Ehrman is in the minority.

He doesn't claim Ehrman is the evidence, he says Ehrman summarises the arguments. Why are you misrepresenting the position? And also why the pointless use of the ad populum fallacy while you are at it?

[Hope]

No doubt, by the time the synoptic authors wrote, they had all come to consider Christ to be a divine personage in some sense, but the implication is much weaker in Mark.

Dicky, many scholars regard Mark's implication as being much stronger than Matthew's.  Remember that the Greek word 'Christ' is a "translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ) and the Syriac ܡܫܝܚܐ (M'shiha), the Messiah" (wikipedia).  For the Jewish leaders of the time, this referred to a military, political Saviour who would rid the nation of the invaders.  The word had possibly gained this meaning in the 4th century as a result of the Seleucid Kingdom that came into being in 332 BC, but it was the actions of the Hasmonian dynasty (110-63 BC) and the Romans that really underlined the idea.  However, the first mention of the term is probably in the Prophets - such as Isaiah, which was probably written during the 6th and 7th centuries BC.  I appreciate that  many Jewish scholars are at pains to state that the idea of the messiah as a spiritual saviour is a purely Christian concept, yet they then go on to express the view that there was a less physical/political/military concept prior to the Seleucids.

[Hope]

He doesn't claim Ehrman is the evidence, he says Ehrman summarises the arguments. Why are you misrepresenting the position? And also why the pointless use of the ad populum fallacy while you are at it?

But by referencing Ehrman as his source, wigs is putting his work forward as evidence. 

[Alien]

Yes, hence the argument that very early Christians did not see Jesus as God, and then some saw him as 'adopted' by God, some as the son of God (but not God), and some as the messiah - but then Jews did not consider the messiah to be divine (and still don't).  These arguments are summarized by Ehrman in 'Did Jesus Exist?'

What is your evidence that "very early Christians did not see Jesus as God", please? I don't have a copy of "Did Jesus Exist?"

I am not really going to present the complex arguments for this position!   It's not my evidence, in any case, as I am not a scholar of this material. 

Unfortunately, Ehrman's blog has a pay-wall, but he does release some chunks:

http://www.npr.org/books/titles/300245117/how-jesus-became-god-the-exaltation-of-a-jewish-preacher-from-galilee?tab=excerpt#excerpt

I've not read either, but the publishers also published "How God became Jesus" on the same date. Both "sides" did some interaction prior to the publications. There's an "Unbelievable?" podcast from Premier Christian Radio with Gathermole and Ehrman discussing stuff (Gathermole being one of the authors of the other book).

[Nearly Sane]

He doesn't claim Ehrman is the evidence, he says Ehrman summarises the arguments. Why are you misrepresenting the position? And also why the pointless use of the ad populum fallacy while you are at it?

But by referencing Ehrman as his source, wigs is putting his work forward as evidence.

No, he specifically says summarises the arguments. Further you seem entirely confused linguistically and historically about the method here. Arguments are not evidence.

[jeremyp]

Nope. In the feeding of the 5000+, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to feed 5000+ people. They had seen him perform miracles, including healing on several occasions, driving out demons and raising a dead girl to life. If you had asked them before he fed 5000+ people, "Having seen him heal people on several occasions, drive out demons and raise a dead girl to life, do you believe Jesus could feed this lot miraculously?", what do you think their reaction would have been?

A) Yes, but why would he?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons and raised a dead girl to life.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.

Of A) and B), I would suggest that A) is the more likely.

Come the time he takes pity on 4000+ gentiles, what would have been their answer?

A) Yes, but why would he feed gentiles?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons, raised a dead girl to life, walked on water and fed 5000+ Jewish people.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.


Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?

I'm just reading what the disciples said and interpreting it according to normal English usage. Why do you seem to be using a private language?

[jeremyp]

Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?

Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events.

[jeremyp]

However, a reasonable question would be: supposing you were reading Mark and you knew that Matthew had already written his gospel. Would you notice the link (suggested by Eugene R-H) between the beginning of Mark and the end of Matthew?

The problem is that I am reasonably sure that Mark was writing first.

Since Mark was probably written first, we can discount Eugene R-H’s hypothesis.

Just like that?

Yep.

[Alien]

Nope. In the feeding of the 5000+, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to feed 5000+ people. They had seen him perform miracles, including healing on several occasions, driving out demons and raising a dead girl to life. If you had asked them before he fed 5000+ people, "Having seen him heal people on several occasions, drive out demons and raise a dead girl to life, do you believe Jesus could feed this lot miraculously?", what do you think their reaction would have been?

A) Yes, but why would he?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons and raised a dead girl to life.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.

Of A) and B), I would suggest that A) is the more likely.

Come the time he takes pity on 4000+ gentiles, what would have been their answer?

A) Yes, but why would he feed gentiles?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons, raised a dead girl to life, walked on water and fed 5000+ Jewish people.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.


Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?

I'm just reading what the disciples said and interpreting it according to normal English usage. Why do you seem to be using a private language?

I'm not using a private language, so I suppose my answer to you as to why it seems to you that I am doing so is that you have not understood what is going on. Perhaps you are reading into the text something that is not there. Maybe you are right and I am wrong, but you don't seem to be providing any evidence or argument for what you are claiming.

[Alien]

Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?

Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events.

So, why do you think that he has grouped in three items about the gentiles receiving some sort of blessing? Why do you think it is evidence that it is a literary construct rather than grouping three actual events together? What evidence do you have for that?

[jeremyp]

Nope. In the feeding of the 5000+, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to feed 5000+ people. They had seen him perform miracles, including healing on several occasions, driving out demons and raising a dead girl to life. If you had asked them before he fed 5000+ people, "Having seen him heal people on several occasions, drive out demons and raise a dead girl to life, do you believe Jesus could feed this lot miraculously?", what do you think their reaction would have been?

A) Yes, but why would he?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons and raised a dead girl to life.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.

Of A) and B), I would suggest that A) is the more likely.

Come the time he takes pity on 4000+ gentiles, what would have been their answer?

A) Yes, but why would he feed gentiles?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons, raised a dead girl to life, walked on water and fed 5000+ Jewish people.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.


Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?

I'm just reading what the disciples said and interpreting it according to normal English usage. Why do you seem to be using a private language?

I'm not using a private language.

Your interpretation of “How can one feed these people with bread here in the desert” is at odds with the obvious meaning of the words in context.

[jeremyp]

So, why do you think that he has grouped in three items about the gentiles receiving some sort of blessing? Why do you think it is evidence that it is a literary construct rather than grouping three actual events together? What evidence do you have for that?

A lot of things come in threes as far as Mark is concerned.

There are the so called Sea Narratives of Mark 4 to 8.  There are three cycles consisting of three phases separated by two inland intervals consisting of three phases.

He also invents three women who appear three times at the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

Mark loves his threes.  And these are not the only literary artifice in the gospel.  There are other patterns too.

[Spud]

Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?

Because he loves groups of three. He has them all over the place in his gospel, and this is more evidence that his work is a literary construct and not a description of real events.

Its his way of making a point.

[Alien]

Nope. In the feeding of the 5000+, the disciples were not expecting Jesus to feed 5000+ people. They had seen him perform miracles, including healing on several occasions, driving out demons and raising a dead girl to life. If you had asked them before he fed 5000+ people, "Having seen him heal people on several occasions, drive out demons and raise a dead girl to life, do you believe Jesus could feed this lot miraculously?", what do you think their reaction would have been?

A) Yes, but why would he?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons and raised a dead girl to life.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.

Of A) and B), I would suggest that A) is the more likely.

Come the time he takes pity on 4000+ gentiles, what would have been their answer?

A) Yes, but why would he feed gentiles?
B) No, feeding 5000+ is not the sort of thing he could do even though he has healed people on several occasions, driven out demons, raised a dead girl to life, walked on water and fed 5000+ Jewish people.
C) Something else.
D) Don't know / prefer not to say.


Why do you think Mark grouped 3 miracles together where the recipients are all gentiles?

I'm just reading what the disciples said and interpreting it according to normal English usage. Why do you seem to be using a private language?

I'm not using a private language.

Your interpretation of “How can one feed these people with bread here in the desert” is at odds with the obvious meaning of the words in context.

Nope. You have yourself brought up that Mark likes to group things in threes. Thus you and I seem to agree that the pericope about the feeding of the 4000 is there because it relates to feeding gentiles. However, you then come up with this weird idea that it is part of a grouping of three this means it was made up. You might well have a point if you had said that it being part of a group of three means Mark has grouped these things thematically rather than chronologically, but you've given no reason for us to think that it thereby means it did not happen.

[Alien]

So, why do you think that he has grouped in three items about the gentiles receiving some sort of blessing? Why do you think it is evidence that it is a literary construct rather than grouping three actual events together? What evidence do you have for that?

A lot of things come in threes as far as Mark is concerned.

There are the so called Sea Narratives of Mark 4 to 8.  There are three cycles consisting of three phases separated by two inland intervals consisting of three phases.

He also invents three women who appear three times at the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

There you go again. Because he records three things rather than, perhaps, all of the things he knows about, this does not thereby mean they did not happen. You seem to be getting horribly confused.

Mark loves his threes.  And these are not the only literary artifice in the gospel.  There are other patterns too.

Yes, and? This says nothing about whether they happened or not. Surely you are able to see that. It's simple enough. Sometimes authors group things in ways that make them easier to remember. It neither adds nor subtracts from whether they happened or not.

[Spud]

Rosenstock-Huessy says, quote: "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". That's it, no explanation as to where Mark states this, but I have a few ideas which need more thought.

If he “states bluntly”, it means it will be pretty obvious where the statement is. Mark doesn't state anywhere that he is quoting Matthew (at least not the gospel we now call Matthew). Your source is lying.

Matthew introduces Jesus as 'Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham'. He concludes by saying (28:19) that Jesus is the Son of God (the second person of the Trinity). This is the point to which Matthew's gospel has progressed: the last step of thought. Mark begins by introducing Jesus as Christ the Son of God, thus beginning to think and to speak where Matthew had ended, and turning Matthew's last 'word' into an opening of a new drama.

The attempt to make a developing Christology from the synoptics in this way is very flawed, though.  Mark may open his gospel indicating that he believes Jesus to be "The Son of God" (and maybe this opening verse's authenticity has been questioned, along with the 'Long Ending') - but in his account of Peter's affirmation of Jesus' true identity, he simply uses the words 'The Christ'. That would seem to be a back-tracking on Matthew, who adds "the Son of the living God". And Luke has only the words "The Christ" also.

From the commentaries I've read, a key point Mark wants to get across is that the disciples didn't understand Jesus' divinity at that point. The first half of the book, up to then, is devoted to proving Jesus' identity as the Christ. The second half proves that he is the Son of God (see also where Paul says that Jesus is demonstrated to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead- can't recall the reference at the moment). The disciples cannot accept that the Christ should actually be put to death- they think he is going to defeat the Romans and rule in Jerusalem- and it is not until the final verses of the gospel, having met the risen Lord, that they understand and go out and preach everywhere. Mark 1:1(b) is therefore a summary of the whole book (The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ (chapters 1-8), the Son of God(chapters 8-16).)

No doubt, by the time the synoptic authors wrote, they had all come to consider Christ to be a divine personage in some sense, but the implication is much weaker in Mark.

Mark wants to demonstrate how the disciples' understanding of Jesus' identity unfolded.

And Matthew's addition of theatrical effects rather obviously suggests that he is tarting up the plainer narrative of Mark to heighten the drama - to the extent that during the crucifixion story, his chronology is all over the place.

Yes, it is interesting that Matthew adds a lot of theatrical effects. It may be to do with it being written for Jewish converts.