USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus (page 3)

Jonathan Drake

Im well aware that Jesus was also called son of Joseph in the other gospels, that is not being discussed here. What is being discussed is the out of normal matronymic expression applied to a male child, which didn't happen in their culture, and how this expression infers prior knowledge being expected by the reader of Christ's birth story.

one reference will suffice, lord Jesus- devotion to Jesus in earliest Christianity page 319 paragraph 2 - page 322 paragraph 2

i provided you my cited reference. You may ignore if you wish, it seems you like ignoring such when you are incorrect.

Since you are the one who first took a Hebrew expression and compared it to a Greek one, please provide me your citation from an expert showing they are the same expressions being used in Ruth and Mark. If you can do this, I will accept it.

further, please refer to the other thread where I stated any posts by you that lack a reference I will no longer take seriously. It has been shown you own no such works other than a bible and believe you know everything about it because you speak English. Once you find proof the expression in Ruth is the same as the Jewish male connotation of x son of x, pm it to me and I will study it in detail. Until such time, please cease your pseudo intellectual debates.

Jonathan Drake

Also I direct this to you again Viv, failure to comply will be viewed as discrediting your comments going forward:

Let me ask you again:
1. Do you have or are you pursuing a degree in theology or history?
2. List your sources, as in, list the references YOU own and have read and studied.
My own answers to the above,
1. I have begun pursuing education in scholarly studies, in hopes of becoming s New Testament scholar.
2. Daily Life in the Times of Jesus by Henri Daniel Rops - owned, studied.
Lord Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity by Larry W. Hurtado - owned, studied
The Oxford History of the Biblical World, edited by Michael D. Coogan - owned, currently studied to page 265.
The History of the Hebrews by Frank Knight Sanders - owned, studied (slightly aged)
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham, owned
A copy of the bible in each of the following translations: KJV, NIV, NASB, and of course NWT. Each owned and studied with notations from start to end, containing references to Strongs hebrew and Greek index. - all owned, all studied separately and completely.
The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible by James Strong. Owned, used as reference tool
Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament words by W.E Vine. Owned, used as reference tool
----
i have studied more books, but as pertaining to this thread, only these have been called on by memory.
please provide the names of the sources you actually own, and have studied yourself.

Viviane

Im well aware that Jesus was also called son of Joseph in the other gospels, that is not being discussed here. What is being discussed is the out of normal matronymic expression applied to a male child, which didn't happen in their culture, and how this expression infers prior knowledge being expected by the reader of Christ's birth story.

It is being discussed. You want to have a discussion about what in the Bible proves what about Jesus, you don't get to cherry pick the parts that support your position and ignore the rest. Not how it works.

one reference will suffice, lord Jesus- devotion to Jesus in earliest Christianity page 319 paragraph 2 - page 322 paragraph 2
i provided you my cited reference. You may ignore if you wish, it seems you like ignoring such when you are incorrect.

Excellent, I own that book, but it's a Kindle version so I will have to find specifically what you are referring to since your page numbers don't match up with Kindle.

In any event, good job on the one source! Now provide the rest if you expect to be taken seriously (as per your request of me). Lead by example.

Also I direct this to you again Viv, failure to comply will be viewed as discrediting your comments going forward:

OK, you're not a scholar. Got it.

Jonathan Drake

You still have not responded as requested. I hope you don't drain your bank buying all the books I listed, kindle versions can still be expensive I.e., the one you bought.

Please don't allow your need to behave this way create a financial hardship.

Since you continue to not list your sources, I again assume you have none, and have only purchased this one because of being called out. I hope you have a good afternoon, and enjoy that book. Btw check out page 332, I believe that's the page where it discusses Jesus being called Emmanuel - enjoy.

quote Viv:

Jesus was never called Emmanuel.

Viviane

What is being discussed is the out of normal matronymic expression applied to a male child, which didn't happen in their culture, and how this expression infers prior knowledge being expected by the reader of Christ's birth story.

OK, I just read the Hurtado passage in full. He says, plainly, there are multiple possibilites and says why he favors one over the others, which is exactly what I said. He says, and I quote, "At least three possibilities might account for the expression in Mark."

You were supposed to provide a reference that showed no one else was ever referred by who their mother was in Jewish culture (despite the example I provided already existing in the Bible). You instead provided an example saying EXACTLY what I said, "Why couldn't it just as easily meant the father was unknown or they had a reason for NOT wanting people to know who he was?"

Viviane

You still have not responded as requested. I hope you don't drain your bank buying all the books I listed, kindle versions can still be expensive I.e., the one you bought.

Drain my bank account? Of course not. As I said, I already own the book, along with dozens of others. I'm not sure if you are ignorantly implying I'm poor (I'm not) or that I didn't actually own the book (I did). Either way, as you'll learn if you ever progress from amateur to scholar, you will immediately lose credibility if you attempt to make debate personal.

Since you continue to not list your sources, I again assume you have none, and have only purchased this one because of being called out.

I own books by Israel Finkelstein, William Devers, Elaine Pagels, Burton Mack, Bart Earhman, Richard Carrier, Mortimer Adler, Reza Aslan etc., etc.. Stop being ignorant and pretending to know things you don't know.

Btw check out page 332, I believe that's the page where it discusses Jesus being called Emmanuel - enjoy.

Yep, he discuses it in that he says that that claim is unique to Matthew. Jesus was never called Emmanuel in the Bible and Hurtado doesn't dispute that in any way.

TerryWalstrom

The Greek influence had penetrated into Jewish theology as to methodology both in pre and post Apostolic times:

TerryWalstrom

The most 'disturbing' influence of Greek thought and language is demonstrated by the fact actual words and language of Jesus weren't handled with respectful preservation. The Greek approximations do violence with exactitude of meaning. As the Rabbis taught, "All translations are lies."

TerryWalstrom

Stoic and Platonic philosophy were Pagan penetrations into Judaism and early Christianity.

Jonathan Drake

@ viv

Since you insist on unnecessary specificity...

Daily Life in the Times of Jesus page 107 para. 2, discussing the naming of Jewish children, says, "The name which was chosen corresponded to our Christian name: the Jews had no surname-it did not exist. This does not mean that the sense of family was not very highly developed among them: it was. A son necessarily bore his father's name, as among the Arabs of today. A man was called, "son of so and so", 'ben' in Hebrew and 'bar' in Aramaic: for example, John ben Zacharius, Jonathan ben Hannan. Or Yeshua Ben Joseph. And eldest son was very often given his grandfather's name to carry on the onomastic tradition of the family and also to distinguish him from his father."

There, this will suffice. A son was always given his fathers name, not his mothers. It was part of their culture. Hence, because your example in Ruth does not follow this proscribed method of naming at all - it is not an example. The boy is not called, Obed ben Naomi. You are wrong. Comparison with Greek is unnecessary, you need only knowledge of some Hebrew and Jewish culture to see clearly the scripture is not naming the child Obed ben Naomi. Hence, matronymic expression used in mark is unique. The reason it's being singled out in Hurtado's book is because it is unique, abnormal in their culture and language. Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth discussing - but obviously it is.

Huge difference between, "lenaomi ben" and "Obed ben Naomi". The latter expression is found nowhere in the bible.

You also continue to refuse listing your owned sources and reference works. This tells me you are not really interested in anything but an argument, and have not actually studied anything what so ever. You are not worth responding to, and I mean no offense. You stand discredited, good day and farewell.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201:23
"...and they will call him Immamuel"

The angel thus applies the name to Jesus. You are, again, wrong.

@terry, I apologize for two of your threads being turned into a pseudo intellectual debate. But as of this post, I will be ignoring any and all further posts by viv in the future that do not include a reference to book title, author, page number and paragraph supporting any and all statements she makes. So, you can likely rest assured it won't happen again.

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

Share this