USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus (page 2)

Jonathan Drake

The letters written by Paul are from the mid first century... and he wrote them.

as far as everything else you said it was just a different way of saying the same thing essentially. There is no basis for asserting any of these things you're saying. I already cited a good reference as to why. The issue with Peter had nothing to do with teaching, it was just his actions. Its clearly explained as such. And peters reaction to Cornelius shows he realized God is not partial. Thus to make the assertion you are is a real stretch.

If you read it for what it says, you reach the conclusion that Peter wasnt sure about Gentiles at first. Later understood there was no issue, but had trouble ridding his cultural customs out of his behavior just like other Jewish Christians. To make further assertions and ascribe meaning and indication is to verge on Pesher, which I won't do. It speaks for itself, and it's not saying what your posts are saying.

So I think we'll have to agree to disagree :). But I hope I haven't said anything taken personally by you, I really enjoy your posts even if I don't agree with every detail.

TerryWalstrom

Phizzy

Another good Thread Terry !

I think the problem Bible believers have is ignoring scholarship on the matter. As Bart Ehrmann points out, they read the Bible as though it is written in the 21st century, not with the recognition that it is at least 2000 years old.

The other connected problem is that they take the writings at face value, and as though they are a homogenous whole, hence the contradictions cannot be seen for what they are, they must be harmonised.

For example, they will use the words of the writer of Acts to explain what Paul wrote, ignoring the time of writing for Acts, and its agenda. Hence we get the idea that there was an Orthodoxy before Paul's conversion, but from a writer, Luke, whose grasp of history and truth are evidently not good.

They also do not seem to recognise the "forgeries" as such, the Books/Letters written under the name of Paul or Peter which were certainly (or almost) written by a much later hand.

This all makes for a totally errant exegesis of the texts.

Pistoff

From Jonathan:

"As far as the Mark account, the writer assumed knowledge of birth, death and resurrection was known. One way this is shown is by how the Jews use the phrase," son of Mary" instead of son of Joseph when referring to Jesus. This was a derogatory reference inferring his illegitimacy. It's a direct call out to the virgin birth story."

This is unsupported and goes against principles of scholarship and common sense.

Mark is nearly universally regarded as the oldest gospel, and does NOT include references to virgin birth.

What does that mean? Is it reasonable to conclude that a document purporting to tell the story of Jesus would leave out important details of his bona fides as son of God?

All of the gospels were written decades after Jesus died; their differences and their similarities tell us their order of writing, but also reflect the beliefs of the groups that authored them, and also the continually evolving mythology of Jesus as the Christ.

Jonathan Drake

From Jonathan:

"As far as the Mark account, the writer assumed knowledge of birth, death and resurrection was known. One way this is shown is by how the Jews use the phrase," son of Mary" instead of son of Joseph when referring to Jesus. This was a derogatory reference inferring his illegitimacy. It's a direct call out to the virgin birth story."
This is unsupported and goes against principles of scholarship and common sense.

The referrence to him as the son of Mary has been theorized to mean this for a long time. It was not normal for a male child to be referred to this way. They would have called him Jesus son of Joseph, not mary. Thus to ignore Joseph shows the public knew about the issue regarding his birth. It's difficult to ignore the implications. I can concede we have no way of knowing FOR SURE this had derogatory intent, but we do know for sure this demonstrates they knew about his birth. No way around it.

it is supported by cultural history, and common sense should tell you that since they never referred to a male this way they were doing it here with Jesus for a reason. Unless you have a better explanation for why this cukture would randomly choose Jesus as the only example of the feminine expression "Son of Mary"? Scholars do actually recognize it as meaning recognition of his birth story, the only contention is whether it was derogatory or not.

Viviane

Thus to ignore Joseph shows the public knew about the issue regarding his birth. It's difficult to ignore the implications. I can concede we have no way of knowing FOR SURE this had derogatory intent, but we do know for sure this demonstrates they knew about his birth.

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? You are assuming the saying "son of Mary" automatically implies all of these other things and there is no evidence for that.

it is supported by cultural history, and common sense should tell you that since they never referred to a male this way they were doing it here with Jesus for a reason. Unless you have a better explanation for why this cukture would randomly choose Jesus as the only example of the feminine expression "Son of Mary"?

Now you are assuming Jesus was the only person referred as being born of a virgin and as the son of woman. He was not.

Jonathan Drake

@ viv

provide your sources for making the claim that in Jewish culture the phrase "son of <mother>" was ever used regarding another Jew.

also, in Jewish culture, if the father was unknown, this would have made it a derogatory reference to his illigitimacy. Thus your suggestion is one of agreement with my comment. Please provide your reference before further commenting for either of your two positioned plausibilities. Further comments without such will be ignored by me.

Viviane

provide your sources for making the claim that in Jewish culture the phrase "son of <mother>" was ever used regarding another Jew.

The Bible is my source. Jesse and David, from Naomi, Ruth 4:17. In any event. Jesus was also called son of Joseph. Luke 1:27 specifically calls out Joseph as the descendant of David and only mentions Mary as "the virgin".

You've read the book, right? I only ask because, since you said you are hoping to be a NT scholar, you've several time made claims about the Bible that are demonstrably wrong.

also, in Jewish culture, if the father was unknown, this would have made it a derogatory reference to his illigitimacy.

Please provide your citation by actual scholars.

Jonathan Drake

provide your sources for making the claim that in Jewish culture the phrase "son of <mother>" was ever used regarding another Jew.
The Bible is my source. Jesse and David, from Naomi, Ruth 4:17. In any event. Jesus was also called son of Joseph. Luke 1:27 specifically calls out Joseph as the descendant of David and only mentions Mary as "the virgin".
You've read the book, right? I only ask because, since you said you are hoping to be a NT scholar, you've several time made claims about the Bible that are demonstrably wrong.
also, in Jewish culture, if the father was unknown, this would have made it a derogatory reference to his illigitimacy.
Please provide your citation by actual scholars.

Your reference in Ruth is not an example of the same expression.

they said as a fact, "a son has been born to Naomi" they did not call the boy, "Obed son of Naomi"

"a son has been born to Naomi" in Hebrew is, " lə·nā·‘o·mî bên" it's just words stating a fact.

However the proper expression x son of x was, when a male, always like this, "Jesus son of Joseph" or "Yeshua ben-Yosef". I assume you can see the distinction here.

Thus the biblical reference you provided doesn't even apply. As to my scholarly references asserting this custom, I listed them in the other thread:

Daily Life in the Times of Jesus by Henri Daniel Rops

Lord Jesus Christ - Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity.

Would you like the page number and a link to purchase for your own study?

As to your Lukan reference, we are discussing mark. Thus it has no baring. Unlike mark, Luke includes a birth account. It is a separate subject.

Viviane

Your reference in Ruth is not an example of the same expression.

Citation, please. Remember, there is no direct translation between Hebrew and Greek, so any citation will need expertise in translation between those languages.

they said as a fact, "a son has been born to Naomi" they did not call the boy, "Obed son of Naomi"

Indeed, just as they spoke of Jesus being the son of Mary, Obed was spoken of as being Naomi's son. Any disagreement with this obvious similarity will require you to provide a citation by an expert in translating both Biblical Hebrew and Greek.

However the proper expression x son of x was always when a male like this, "Jesus son of Joseph" or "Yeshua ben-Yosef". I assume you can see the distinction here.

Citation, please, on that being the proper reference. Whoever you cite will need to be an expert in both Hebrew and Greek since the NT was written in Greek and the OT in Hebrew.

Thus the biblical reference you provided doesn't even apply. As to my scholarly references asserting this custom, I listed them in the other thread:

Proper citation requires both a page number and paragraph (as well as edition, in fact). Properly cite your references, please, otherwise it's obvious you're not being serious.

As to your Lukan reference, we are discussing mark. Thus it has no baring. Unlike mark, Luke includes a birth account. It is a separate subject.

We are discussing Jesus, therefore it does. You seem to only want to use scripture that supports your positions then ignore those that don't. Sorry, no cherry picking. You don't get to claim "Jesus was called son of Mary" without also realizing he was also called son of Joseph. In fact, his two genealogies were through Joseph, not Mary.

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

Share this