Posts: 60
Threads: 13
Joined: September 21, 2011
Reputation:
0
The historical Jesus--dead wrong, literally.
December 7, 2011 at 1:20 am
Two verses in (g)Mark especially reveal the plot line of Jesus' last hours:
Mark 14:62-63:
Again the high priest questioned him,82 “Are you the Christ,83 the Son of the Blessed One?” 14:62 “I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand84 of the Power85 and coming with the clouds of heaven.”86 14:63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 14:64 You have heard the blasphemy!
Mark 15:34
15:34 Around three o’clock55 Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
What did Jesus mean when he said, "And you will see". . ..?
The statement was Jesus' way of defending his claim to be the Messiah. I am interpreting the verb in the sense that the high priest will [soon]
see the inauguration of the Messianic Age as proof that he is the Messiah.
How that expectation failed is reflected Mark 15:34. Instead of an imminent arrival of the messianic age, Jesus wound up dead with a hope of the Messianic Kingdom dying with him, so according to Ur-Mark.
Needless to say, this interpretation of the last hours of Jesus will be not be widely accepted as it is distrubing to think that could have been so tragically wrong about his identity and mission.
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: The historical Jesus--dead wrong, literally.
December 7, 2011 at 1:28 am
What's the point of agonizing over the correct interpretation of a particular word in a piece of an out and out lie that has been purposedly edited to suit multiple unmentionable purposes and been intentionally and unintentionally transcribed a hundred times?
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: The historical Jesus--dead wrong, literally.
December 7, 2011 at 1:47 am
Quote:I am interpreting the verb in the sense that the high priest will [soon] see the inauguration of the Messianic Age as proof that he is the Messiah.
Yeah, early xtians had a problem with that too when it didn't happen. A little fancy footwork was necessary to get their godboy off the hook.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: The historical Jesus--dead wrong, literally.
December 7, 2011 at 1:56 am
Agreed. Barre, you might be better off trying to float this on some xtian forum. Around here the first step would have to be to demonstrate why we should take anything from the bible seriously, before disappearing down the rabbit hole chasing after some esoteric spiritual meaning of the story. Not all of us automatically buy into the veracity of holy books, especially when the text is known to be filled with inaccuracies. distortions and pure fantasy. Hardly a reliable source of information.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 60
Threads: 13
Joined: September 21, 2011
Reputation:
0
RE: The historical Jesus--dead wrong, literally.
December 7, 2011 at 7:38 pm
(This post was last modified: December 7, 2011 at 7:42 pm by Barre.)
(December 7, 2011 at 1:28 am)Chuck Wrote: What's the point of agonizing over the correct interpretation of a particular word in a piece of an out and out lie that has been purposedly edited to suit multiple unmentionable purposes and been intentionally and unintentionally transcribed a hundred times?
There is no agonizing, only an attempt to interpret a biblical text.
You seem unwilling for some reason to study something that you regard as a lie.
(December 7, 2011 at 1:47 am)Minimalist Wrote: Quote:I am interpreting the verb in the sense that the high priest will [soon] see the inauguration of the Messianic Age as proof that he is the Messiah.
Yeah, early xtians had a problem with that too when it didn't happen. A little fancy footwork was necessary to get their godboy off the hook.
Yes, I agree with you that early Christianity exhibits "Bad Faith." Do you think I have correctly interpreted, "you shall [soon] see."
Posts: 55
Threads: 3
Joined: May 31, 2010
Reputation:
1
RE: The historical Jesus--dead wrong, literally.
December 7, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Using the gMark to prove jesus ....its the worst thing you could have done...that and using the bible to prove itself another fallacy often attempted and failed by jesus followers..
Posts: 5097
Threads: 207
Joined: February 16, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: The historical Jesus--dead wrong, literally.
December 7, 2011 at 7:42 pm
(December 7, 2011 at 7:38 pm)Barre Wrote: (December 7, 2011 at 1:28 am)Chuck Wrote: What's the point of agonizing over the correct interpretation of a particular word in a piece of an out and out lie that has been purposedly edited to suit multiple unmentionable purposes and been intentionally and unintentionally transcribed a hundred times?
There is no agonizing, only an attempt to interpret a biblical text.
You seem unwilling for some reason to study something that you regard as a lie.
Will you have this much enthusiasm when presented with a native american religion, or how about the Norse?
Are you this passionate about Thor as you are with Jesus?
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: The historical Jesus--dead wrong, literally.
December 7, 2011 at 7:43 pm
(This post was last modified: December 7, 2011 at 7:44 pm by Cyberman.)
Whereas you (Barre) seem only too willing to study something that you appear to regard as true - and that's the part you have to establish first before you go running off into the sunset.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 60
Threads: 13
Joined: September 21, 2011
Reputation:
0
RE: The historical Jesus--dead wrong, literally.
December 7, 2011 at 7:44 pm
(December 7, 2011 at 1:47 am)Minimalist Wrote: Quote:I am interpreting the verb in the sense that the high priest will [soon] see the inauguration of the Messianic Age as proof that he is the Messiah.
Yes, early xtians had a problem with that too when it didn't happen. A little fancy footwork was necessary to get their godboy off the hook.
Yes, I agree with you that early Christianity exhibits "Bad Faith." Do you think I have correctly interpreted, "you shall [soon] see."
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: The historical Jesus--dead wrong, literally.
December 7, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Well....as Bart Ehrman has pointed out this shit has been edited/altered either intentionally/accidentally or both and we do not possess original documents so all we can do is debate what the copies say and hope that the various generations of scribes who copied this stuff were honest or competent.
I know there are plenty of people over at Freethought and Rationalism who get themselves all worked up over a given word but if you have no confidence in the source what's the point?
|
