It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

They Stole His Body - The Hijacking of Jesus

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Sigismundus
I'm glad you went into some of the mechanical difficulties in trying to "harmonize" the various canonical accounts, I was content to just say, "read the last two chapters of each gospel".
Logarock mentioned the Roman guards:


Lets not forget the Roman guards that were paid off by the Jewish religious leaders to keep quiet about what they saw.

which are only mentioned in Matthew. 27:62-66, 28:4, 11-15. I don't think any amount of money would be able to hush up what they had seen. So 1) They deserted and became the first Roman preachers. 2) were assassinated.



You hit the nail on the head there.....apparently they didnt shut up about it. The thing about the payoff became commonly known. Consider that Jesus followers had powerfull friends in the roman guard that would have verified what they saw at the tomb and how they were payed off or these romans were informed by the other soilders in that unit stationed at Jerusalem. And it was very well probably the same guard unit that oversaw the crucifiction that was ordered to guard the tomb and certainly some of the men were probably on duty at both events. A centurion who was in charge of the soilders and keeping order at the curcifiction is mentioned as saying that this man Jesus surely was the Son of God and it was certainly this man that had to give the order to break all the mens legs but did not break Christs legs seeing He was already dead. This centurion could also have very well been the same that Jesus healed the servant of and if not knowing his sympathy the centurian on duty at the tomb would have told the other of the event and payoff if not in fact the two men were really one in the same.

Also Jesus had an Uncle in the Sanhedrin and he certainly would have picked up the information from some of his sanhedrin colleagues if he himself were not close enough to the event to know about the payoff himself. Not only this but this man had connections strong enough to get Pilate to allow him to put Jesus in his personal tomb. However Pilate was then presuaded by the other sanhedrin to be sure and seal the tomb and guard it for
obvious reasons. So Pilate certainly saw the wisdom in sealing and guarding the tomb as not to allow Jesus followers to perputuate a hoax. But alas it were Pilates own gaurds that confirned the events that took place at the tomb whiel they were on duty and knowing the truth of their testimony the sanhedrin had no choice but to try and pay them off to keep still about it.

There were also the temple guards who probably knew about everything that took place in the temple not to mention that there was certainly some sort of liaison officers between the roman and temple guards that could have shared info.

As well Pilate certainly knew all about any sort of payoff offered to his soilders. Pilate also certainly recived a full report of the events around the tomb seeing he dispatched a company to guard the tomb and now suddently the body is missing. Someone had to answer for that. And seeing how the sanhedrin sought to pay the guards off to keep still about it, the offical story getting to Pilate in the officers report was that same that is reported in the gosple.




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Sigismundus
I'm glad you went into some of the mechanical difficulties in trying to "harmonize" the various canonical accounts, I was content to just say, "read the last two chapters of each gospel".


To my thinking the "difficulties" of harmonizing the gospel accounts only strengthens the varacity.

Had these writings been part of a conspiracy all the little ducks would have been in a row. Had thier later approval been part of a conspiracy they wouldnt have been so stupid to approve what looks like at first glance somewhat of a confliction. The only conspiracy that it would suggest is that the consil were trying to discredit the accounts to begin with! Certainly if these works were of a later date, after the death of the men that were reported to have writen them, and forgeries on top of that, the conspirators would have taken much greater effort to get those ducks in a row considering as some suggest that the whole of this conspiacy has been in the making for centuries.
edit on 5-9-2011 by Logarock because: sp



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock


To my thinking the "difficulties" of harmonizing the gospel accounts only strengthens the varacity.

Had these writings been part of a conspiracy all the little ducks would have been in a row. Had thier later approval been part of a conspiracy they wouldnt have been so stupid to approve what looks like at first glance somewhat of a confliction.

I've spent all day trying to think of a nice way to put this. Your response to NorEaster in this post decided me:

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by NorEaster
Everything that you know about Jesus - everything, including his name - has been provided to you by the Vatican. Everything that the Vatican possesses, concerning information about Jesus - everything, including the notion that he ever existed at all - was provided to them by the Roman Empire.

Try not to forget that one very important fact when dealing with this issue.

Thanks.


WOW! Talk about a statement wrought out of total ignorance.


Yes, it is ignorance that we are dealing with here. Specifically, the general illiteracy of the common people, compared with the education of clergymen and church theologians. Long before the papacy became official there was already a proto-orthodoxy extant. The Ante-Nicene Fathers right down to AD 325 were aware of the incompatibilities in the gospel accounts and didn't think much about doctoring them up, because, hey, they were the ones reading it, not the common parishioners, who were illiterate.

Try answering for yourself the simple question: Did the disciples immediately go to Galilee as specifically instructed to in Matthew 28:10, and see him there Mat28:16 and see him ascend into heaven from there? Or did they remain in Jerusalem as specifically instructed to in Luke 24:49 and did Jesus ascend from the vicinity of Bethany 24:50 and thereafter the disciples stayed in the temple of Jerusalem?

Did Jesus ascend to heaven and sit on the right hand of God the very same day as the resurrection as implied in the late addition to Mark in 16:19, or did he appear to the disciples over a period of 40 days as Acts 1:3 says before ascending from Mount of Olives (Acts 1:12) ?

The main point of having official lists of appearances as Mark 16:9-14 and 1Cor 15:5-8 is to minimize or discredit any other "unauthorized" appearances. So Jesus is put in "stasis" (suspended animation) on a throne, about as active as Abraham Lincoln of the Lincoln Memorial, rather than being loose in the world, liable to turn up anywhere at any time, like in some of Dostoyevsky's works. Or appearing as a beggar or homeless person, or person in prison. (see Matthew 25:37-45)

Religion that wants to rule the world requires their nominal king to be shackled to a throne in some far-off place, not free and active in the world, the very field of contention.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
I just want to thank the people who follow Jesus.

GO JESUS!



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock

Hi LogaRock--

YOU WROTE: QUOTE

'To my thinking the "difficulties" of harmonizing the gospel accounts only strengthens the[ir] varacity..."

UNQUOTE

There are NO 'difficulties' in harmonising the 3 canonical Greek Gospel accounts of the 'resurrection manifestations' (bearing in mind the 2nd canoncil Greek gospel 'according to Mark, whoever he was, ends in the middle of a sentence, Mk 16:8 Gk: 'EPHOBOUNTO GAR...' viz. 'they (the women) were afraid because...' without a Resurrection 'manifestation') there IS ONLY the UTTER IMPOSSIBILITY of trying to harmonise the 3 resurrection accounts with each other in the gospels as they stand in their mangled koine Greek texts. They DO NOT match each other.

The 3 non-Markan accounts ('according to Matthew', 'to Luke', 'to Yohannes' whoever they were) follow 'Mar'k as their source (with some gross liberties in terms of the nature of the shining-man in the tomb and their actual number !) but after Mark 16:8 they begin to diverge. Any text which continutes past Mark 16:8 is a late 'spurious' addition written in non-Markan & later more polished Greek - the attempts of baffled 'Christian' copyists to harmonise the confused Greek texts in front of them with the others - & failing..

What seems to be the main causes of the textual differences between the other 3 canonical gospels is their actual haggadic midrashic 'Hebrew-scriputral' base-source-text material - i.e. the specific 'old testament' verses used to 'make up a pious legend' (i.e. haggadic midrash) about 'what happened to the corpse of 'Iesous' when the tomb was found....well, empty.'

cf: Luke's give away : And he said to them, Midrash ('search out') the Scriptures and you will find the Bar Enasha ('son of man') spoken of in the books of Moses, and in the Psalms and in the Books of the Prophets' -

In other words, the earliest Nazorean Christians went back to the Hebrew scriptures to find out 'what happened' since apparently, no body knew where the corpse of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean was eventually disposed (evidently reburied somewhere, ending up probably in a Daviddic bone-box somewhere in Judaea)....

Here are some of the older Hebrew/Aramaic texts that the earliest Christian-Nazoreans used to make up their gospel resurrection narratives, often using the Aramaic Targum versions of these texts, not the Hebrew used by Jews and protestants to-day for the Hebrew scriptures....

The Three Days Time Table...the Royal WE (i.e. which the early Nazorean Chrstians interpreted as Messianic-Daviddic)

Hosea 6:1-2 - For Two Days, he shall punish us with Death, but on the Third Day, he shall raise us up.

The 'Angel from Heaven' saving /answering the Messiah ...

Psalm 20:6 - Now I know that YHWH shall save his Messiah ;
He shall answer him from his Holy Heaven, even with the saving power of his right Hand...

The source for the idea of ASCENT to the Temple at Jerusalem to offer thanks for Deliverance from Death - see John chapter 20: 17

‘And Iesous said to Miryam, “Stop clinging to me, woman ! for I have not ascended [the holy hill] to offer Thanksgiving to my Father…”

Psalm 118
Yea, I will not die but live, to proclaim what YHWH has done for me
For YHWH has punished me severely, but he did NOT give me over to Death.
Therefore open for me the Gates so that I might enter and give thanks to YHWH
Even the Gates through which the Righteous One may enter.

A last Minute Rescue of the Suffering Servant from certain Death...

Deutero Isaiah 53: 10

Yet it was will of YHWH to crush him & suited EL to make him suffer,
And after YHWH made his life a sin-offering, he shall prolong his days so he will see sons
And the Will of YHWH shall prosper by his hand
For after his suffering, he shall again see the Light of Life..

The Idea that the corpse of the Messiah would not rot....and sit at the Right Hand

Psalms 16:10 (=Psalms 49:15)

But YHWH shall not give [him] up eternally to the Grave -
Nor will he allow the Flesh of the Righteous One see rotting--
For you make me know the paths of the Living seated at your right hand...

Psalm 72 - Endow the Messiah with your justice, O EL ! May he endure as long as the Sun & as the Moon throughout all generations,

These Hebrew scripture sources are ARBITRARY source material for creating 'haggadic midrash' (legends) by pious Christians 'searching the scriptures' to find out why their Messiah failed to slay all the Gentiles (Romans) on the 100th anniversary of their invasion - (i.e. those who had invaded Eretz Yisro'el) & innaugurate the Kingdom of David on earth, with Jerusalem at its centre...
edit on 6-9-2011 by Sigismundus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

Twenty five years ago I decided I would make a list of discrepancies in the Gospels but did not get to far in actually writing it down, probably because it was annoying and I was never going to get any enlightenment from doing that. I think most Christians do something similar, to where they just decide it is not productive, and maybe has nothing to do with doctrine anyway.
I think you do a good job of pointing out how that sort of thinking is detrimental because there really is serious problems that can affect your whole way of thinking about God and Jesus and religion and how you deal with other people.
There was these people who are thought of as the early church fathers who were real zealots for the faith at a very early stage in the development of Christianity who somehow had freedom to form a private army to roam the empire to destroy competing gospels and to kill adherents to such gospels. Considering the discrepancies in the accepted gospels, then you could only imagine how diverse the ones were that were not accepted.
edit on 6-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus


Hosea 6:1-2 - For Two Days, he shall punish us with Death, but on the Third Day, he shall raise us up.

So the Aramaic is the only place 'death' appears in this verse. Is this the actual missing verse I've been looking for as quoted by the Luke "resurrected Jesus"? Do you have a reference to this? Is it Aramaic translation or commentary?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 
The NETBible translates verse 2 as:

He will restore us in a very short time; he will heal us in a little while, so that we may live in his presence.

The translator's notes says that it is a figure (idiom) of speech meaning a short while.
Also the word translated as, restore, could mean, to preserve.

Also, you have to be careful looking at "Aramaic" versions because usually they are just translations from the Greek into the Aramaic. That's why I gave up on going into that field of study.
edit on 6-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


Also, you have to be careful looking at "Aramaic" versions because usually they are just translations from the Greek into the Aramaic. That's why I gave up on going into that field of study.

It would be interesting to find when that particular version of Hosea was written. The quote from "Jesus" could be dated sometime after that. Give some idea how long the process of "correcting" the gospels may have gone on.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Here is something I just ran across that has to do with what you were saying earlier.
In Philippians 2:6, it is talking about someone being in the form of God. I took a look at the word translated as, form, and it is morphē, which interestingly is only found in one other place in the NT, which is Mark 16:12, "After these things he was revealed in another form to two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country."

According to Wikipedia, Philippians was written eight years before Mark, so one could speculate on what the writer of Mark may have been thinking if he had read that letter by Paul. How could you best convey the thought of Jesus somehow being different? You could choose a word that hearkens the readers mind to a time before he was born as the baby Jesus. (that could be one thing we could imagine today)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena

Hi Pthena

Very complex issue this--which Christians (& modern rabinnic Jews !) are rarely told about by their own ‘spiritual leaders…’

The Aramaic targum ‘paraphrases’ (written between BCE 200 & AD 400) were all based on DIFFERENT Hebrew text underlays known as a CONSONANTAL HEBREW VORLAGEN & the Greek NT freely quotes from these in translation as much as from the Greek LXX Septuagint - since they did not have a single authorised ‘Old Testament’ text-family to keep them in check until c. 180 CE

We see several of these different VORLAGEN (Hebrew textual underlays to the Greek translations) in the Dead Sea Scrolls (copied between BCE 300 & June of 68 CE when the Qumran caves were sealed up in their ‘time capsules’ during the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE) .

All the contradictory Vorlagen underlay Hebrew texts (not sealed up safe & sound in their time capsules at Qumran uin 68 CE!) were suppressed by the Rabinnic survivors of the 1st Failed Jewish War at the Rabinnic Council of Javnia/Jamnia in 90 CE, with the ‘proto-Masoreetic Babylonian’ consonantal underlay text family that was voted in as the one & only official Hebrew text of the Hebrew scriptures (ater became the Masoretic text family c. 1000 CE when vowels were added to the consonants to be read without guesswork – although even by 90 CE the Jews did not have an actual list of holy-books yet – they were still arguing whether ‘The Scroll of the Words of Henoch in the Last Days’ or ‘The Scroll of the Prophet Daniel’ or ‘The Scroll of the Book of the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs in the last Days’ or ‘The Book of the Divisions of the Times into their Jubilees & Weeks’ (='The Testament of Moses’) & ‘The Book of Esther’ as well as 'The Song of Songs’ and ‘Job’ etc. actually ‘defiled the hands’ i.e. were to be considered as ‘holy-inspired’ scriptures etc. Some like Daniel eventually got 'into the Bible' others did not.

The final canon of the OT was not settled until c. 180 CE after the 2nd Failed Jewish War against Rome (c. 136 CE, - a full 200 years after the Roman invasion of Judaea by Pompey back in 63 BCE) put a final end to ‘the ages of inspired writings/prophecy’.

So…the earliest Nazorean Christians prior to 90 CE were not very familiar with the proto-Masoretic Hebrew versions but used diffferent Hebrew & Aramaic OT versions underlaying the Greek LXX Septuaginta (BCE 250) or the Hebrew texts found at Qumran / Dead Sea Scrolls or the Hebrew underlay texts used by the Greek translator Symmachus or Theodotion or Aquilla c. 150 CE

The earliest ‘Nazorean Christians’ could only read & understand the Targum Aramaic versions of what ‘Jewish' books they considered ‘holy', which apparently also included ‘Henoch’ and ‘Jubilees’ and the ‘Testaments of the 12’ since they freely quoted from them ‘as proof texts’ see Jude 1:14 which quotes from Henoch as a ‘holy scriptural proof-text’ etc.)

So it is not surprising to see the eariliest Christians quoting non-familiar-forms of Hebrew scriptures (e.g. in the quotes of the OT in the first canonical Greek Gospel 'of Matthew’, whoever he was) whose weird wording is loosely extracted from the various Targum Aramaic versions of the Hebrew scriptures(‘Report back to Yohanon : The Blind receive sight, the Deaf get their hearing the Ebionim (‘Poor Ones’) have the Good News [of the kingdom] preached to them, and THE DEAD ARE RAISED UP …’) -- where the last part (‘the Dead are Raised up’…) is NOT part of the familiar Masoretic text family of the pointed (vowelled) consonantal Hebrew used by Protestants &Jews today, but found only in the Hebrew text underlay used by the Greek translators of the LXX Septuaginta used by Roman Catholics etc.

Hosea 6:1 and 6:2 has some variants & Targum Aramaic versions - with varied nouns and verb tenses

Here is was the ‘official’ later Rabinnic 10th century CE pointed (vowelled) Masoretic text has for these two verses

לְכוּ וְנָשׁוּבָה אֶל-יְהוָה, כִּי הוּא טָרָף וְיִרְפָּאֵנוּ; יַךְ, וְיַחְבְּשֵׁנוּ.

'Come, let us return to YHWH; for though he has gravely-torn us to pieces, yet later will he heal us; though he has severely-wounded us, he will cure us again.

יְחַיֵּנוּ, מִיֹּמָיִם; בַּיּוֹם, הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, יְקִמֵנוּ, וְנִחְיֶה לְפָנָיו

For within two days he will bring us back to life,
Yea, on the 3rd day he will cause us again to stand up [on our feet]
So that we might live before his face[s] [forever...

One of the Greek LXX Septuaginta texts of Hosea 6:1-2 has

Let us go and return to the Lord our god, for though he has torn us up he will heal us &though he will strike [us] he will bind us back up and he will heal us after 2 days for on the 3rd day we will rise again and live in his presence…

The point of all this is : the earlest Christians prior to Jamnia used whatever versions they had at their disposal....



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sigismundus
reply to post by Logarock

Hi LogaRock--

YOU WROTE: QUOTE

'To my thinking the "difficulties" of harmonizing the gospel accounts only strengthens the[ir] varacity..."

UNQUOTE

There are NO 'difficulties' in harmonising the 3 canonical Greek Gospel accounts of the 'resurrection manifestations' (bearing in mind the 2nd canoncil Greek gospel 'according to Mark, whoever he was, ends in the middle of a sentence, Mk 16:8 Gk: 'EPHOBOUNTO GAR...' viz. 'they (the women) were afraid because...' without a Resurrection 'manifestation') there IS ONLY the UTTER IMPOSSIBILITY of trying to harmonise the 3 resurrection accounts with each other in the gospels as they stand in their mangled koine Greek texts. They DO NOT match each other.

The 3 non-Markan accounts ('according to Matthew', 'to Luke', 'to Yohannes' whoever they were) follow 'Mar'k as their source (with some gross liberties in terms of the nature of the shining-man in the tomb and their actual number !) but after Mark 16:8 they begin to diverge. Any text which continutes past Mark 16:8 is a late 'spurious' addition written in non-Markan & later more polished Greek - the attempts of baffled 'Christian' copyists to harmonise the confused Greek texts in front of them with the others - & failing..



Well which was it? "Mangled koine Greek" or "polished Greek" in the 3 non-Markian text? If Luke and Matthew appear to be more "polished" remember they were educated men certainly Luke was. At an rate if "polished" greek appears to be used at one place and "mangled koine" in another this is hardly the grounds for anything but the simplist speculation of any sort of majior copy problem. An educated man trying to keep his writings in a koine might slip up and use some big words here and there.

To be honest it has always been a question for me why it would even appear that there was borrowing or following of another document. You have heard of the "Q" documnet certainly which for those reading and dont know was a speculated lost early version of the gospels written by an unknown but extant at the time and used by the writers as a guild.

However a close study of each of the four gospels really does show that hand of 4 diffrent authors that record some of the same events but whos theme is diffrent.

Also these examples in the NT were authors go back to the OT to show that Chirst fullfilled old prophecies about himself, in order to shore up the claim, is in itself not proof enough of a conspiracy. For one thing it was only discovered over time how many prophecies the gospels contained that were not refrenced at the time of the writings. As we have it some of the direct assotations with Christ and OT writings are given the benefit of events or an event to back up the claim that these prophecies were fullfilled. One that comes to mind is Christs being from the House of David. At least one account says His distractors answered that claim by calling his mon a s-l-u-t and Jesus a b-ast-ard.

And when the question came up of a prophet coming out of Nazareth his distractors even said "search the sciptures. Where does it say that a prophet would come out of Nazareth?" and yet although the author records the question he doesnt answer the question. He must have known that recording the question and not giving the scripture to answer was going to lead to problems. So why did he do it if he were so concerned with leading the readers on or if this section was part of a later "spurious" effort, to construct a fiction?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by pthena
 

There was these people who are thought of as the early church fathers who were real zealots for the faith at a very early stage in the development of Christianity who somehow had freedom to form a private army to roam the empire to destroy competing gospels and to kill adherents to such gospels. Considering the discrepancies in the accepted gospels, then you could only imagine how diverse the ones were that were not accepted.
edit on 6-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


This never happened in the very early days of the church. It is a fact that competing "gospels" and movements did arise but no there were not roaming band bent on the distruction of other groups. I am talking very early 100ad-.

As far as what was not accepted by say Paul in the early church......was this argument we are having right here. As well as an idea that Christ had already returned.

As far as ideas already expressed why did the early church fiction writers allow Pauls idea and belief that Christ was soon to return within that first century survive considering it makes Paul look bad? Certainly any conspiray would seek to keep this question open but at the expence of question to Pauls knowlege of things?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock

Hi LogaRock -

You seem a bit confused by my post with respect to 'mangled' and 'polished' material - let me break it down a little for you so you can get a clearer picture of the textual situation at hand here with the 4 canonical 'council approved' Greek gospels in the current NT.

'Mangled' refers to copyists errors and bad manuscripts (e.g. fragments, such as the ending of the 2nd gospel) - 'more polished' refers to the style of utterance in the Greek text itself (i.e. style, vocabulary, syntax, grammar, sentence length, spelling etc.) . Grammatical 'Howlers' refer to Grammatically Impossible Greek which compound the mangled process when copyists try to 'improve' a difficult textual reading - most grammatical howlers in the NT are Aramaisms which show the original form of the 'saying' or 'expression' was oral Aramaic - the very first stage of the canonical Gospel material transmission....before the logia-sayings and legendary midrashic fulfullment stories were carefully edited down and translated into Greek & in the process into something more 'Roman Empire Acceptable (i.e. to remove the seditious war-like poitically incorrect passages placed into the mouth of Iesous - to make him less of a seditionist etc)

The 2nd canonical Greek gospel 'according to Mark' whoever he was, chapter 1 through chapter 16:8 - was written andd originally amateurly copied in very bad 'childish baby-Greek' full of 'grammatical howlers' by an Aramaic speaker (may have existed in at least 2 versions - an earlier version known as Ur-Markus,and another version which scholars sometimes call 'Secret Mark' which was edited down to the 2nd canonical Greek gospel version(s) - content based midrashic expansions of OT Targum verses (Rabinnic prophecy-fulfillment haggadic Midrash) & Sayings-Logia (strings of Greek 'sayings' placed into the mouth of a Greek-speaking Iesous linked by 'catch words', e.g. all those separate sayings that mention FIRE /SALT in canonical Mark chapter 9:50-51

And if your eye makes you stumble, better pluck it out [of its socket]
for it would be more beneficial for you to enter the kingdom of God one eye'd
than having two eyes be cast into [the fires of] Hinnom
Where [as it is written] “‘the worms that eat them do not die & the FIRE is not quenched.’

Every[one] will be SALTED with FIRE.
SALT is useful but if it loses its flavour, can it ever regain its saltiness?
Have SALT among yourselves and be at peace with each other...

The later hand-written copies of the 2nd gospel ('Mark') show various attempts at 'cleaning up the baby Greek' in some MSS by more literate 4th century council-approved copyists - the horrid Greek of the 2nd Gospel must have been an insult to later professional 'post-Nicene church authorised' scribes (but apparently not the earliest copyists who were amateurs) - NB the so called Book of Revelation (which is a textual nightmare with only a few suriviving Greek MSS to work from) is written in even WORSE baby-Greek (thick Aramaic constructions that are impossible in Koine Greek, but fall back into 'Aramaic Qinah Metre lament poetry' when translated back into Aramaic )

Chapter 16: beginning at verse 9ff - written in later more sopisticated /polished koine Greek, clearly by another more educated writer (certainly NOT the same author of 'Canonical Mark' chapters 1 through 16:8 - which ends in the middle of a sentence !! ('ephobounto gar' - 'the [women] were afraid because....)

The 1st canonical Greek gospel 'according to Matthew' whoever he was, is written in far more polished Greek but with certain puzzling Aramaisms - whose Old Testament quotations do NOT match the Masoretic text, nor the Greek Septuaginta LXX in 1/2 of the cases - and when copying out long stretches of 'Mark', he 'grammatically improves' the 2nd Gospel's baby-Greek and puts his own unique Mathean 'Sondergut-M' Midrash + Logia material into the text

The 3rd canonical Greek gospel 'according to Luke' whoever he was, was written as part one of a 2-part book (including 'Acts') and is the most polished (comparatively speaking) of all 3 of the koine Greek canonical 'Synoptic' Gospels - & when the 3rd gospel copies out stretches of 'Mark' he improves 'Mark's' baby-Greek in his own way (differently from the way 'Matthew' did this 'Marcan' baby Greek-clean up attempt) & adds his own unique 'Sondergut-L' Midrash + Logia material.

The unique 'Sondergut' material are composed of Midrashic Haggadic Legends & Sayings-Logia passages placed into the mouth of a Greek Speaking Iesous that do NOT appear in any other canonical gospel - thus Sondergut M is Matthew's unique additions to Mark and Sondergut L is 'Luke's unique additions to Mark. As you know, both 'Matthew' and Luke' share a common Aramaic and/or Greek source called Q (for 'quelle', German for 'source') which are absent in 'Mark'.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 
You're just presenting an ideology.
Your narrative is disjointed and poorly written and incomprehensible.
You are talking about "fiction" which I never brought up and you seem to bring it up as a diversion from what I actually did say.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


How could you best convey the thought of Jesus somehow being different? You could choose a word that hearkens the readers mind to a time before he was born as the baby Jesus. (that could be one thing we could imagine today)

That would be a possible solution for some one wanting to keep a doctrine of pre-existence of Jesus(went back to former state).

But also from Philippians the concept of


Kenosis From Wikipedia
Kenosis is a Greek word for emptiness, which is used as a theological term. Ancient Greek κένωσις (kénōsis) means an "emptying", from κενός (kenós) "empty". The word is mainly used, however, in a Christian theological context, for example ἐκένωσεν (ekénōsen) in Philippians 2:7, "Jesus made himself nothing ..." (NIV) or "...he emptied himself..." (NRSV), using the verb form κενόω (kenóō) "to empty".
. . .
An apparent dilemma arises when Christian theology posits a God outside of time and space, who enters into time and space to become human (Incarnate). The doctrine of Kenosis attempts to explain what the Son of God chose to give up in terms of his divine attributes, in order to assume human nature. Since the incarnate Jesus is simultaneously truly human and truly divine, Kenosis holds that these changes were temporarily assumed by God in his incarnation, and that when Jesus ascended back into heaven following the resurrection, he fully reassumed all of his original attributes and divinity.
. . .
Protestantism

Another perspective is the idea that God is self-emptying. He poured out himself to create the cosmos and the universe, and everything within it.

That view under Protestant is my view. But Kenosis to me is both complete and permanent. As some one on some thread, probably dealing with hell, has said, "a couple day nap by Jesus earns us escape from everlasting punishment?" A valid objection to my thinking.

If God had someone like Jesus in mind while pouring Himself out (completely and permanently) then wouldn't that account for "The Word was with God, and the Word was God", since the word himself, when the time came poured himself out, (both completely and permanently)?

In my religion, neither pre-existence nor resurrection are required.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
I'll take this opportunity to offer a blanket thank you for contributing to this thread. I read the first couple of pages of your thread: Book of Revelation: A REAL Vision' or a FAKE Prophecy' PatchedTogether from Scraps of 'Old" Test
It seems that in the same way that Revelation was a patchwork of old texts, with a fabricated Jesus, much of the gospel Jesus is also patchwork. The real man under the patchwork is well nigh hidden.


The final canon of the OT was not settled until c. 180 CE after the 2nd Failed Jewish War against Rome (c. 136 CE, - a full 200 years after the Roman invasion of Judaea by Pompey back in 63 BCE) put a final end to ‘the ages of inspired writings/prophecy’.

Is there some significance to 100 years after loss of Judean independence with the appearance of a Messiah? (approximate time period given for time of Jesus). The actual insurrection doesn't seem to have happened for another 30 years or so. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Pompey actually forced the Judean Messiah of the time to fight along side the Romans in pursuit of Roman goals.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Logarock
 
You're just presenting an ideology.
Your narrative is disjointed and poorly written and incomprehensible.
You are talking about "fiction" which I never brought up and you seem to bring it up as a diversion from what I actually did say.



This is really not a responce to what i wrote but rather an avoidance of same. If its so disjointed and incomprehesible why not ask me to clarify what you dont understand.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

But Kenosis to me is both complete and permanent.
After doing the thread on the everlasting covenant, I pretty much decided that a god, of at least the same status as the god who made the old covenants in the Old Testament, had to die to break them. That would seem to me the role that Jesus did, that he had something, to begin with, that could be emptied, as in whatever it was about him that made him a god. People and animals have blood which makes them living physical beings, and the physical manifestation of the covenant would be signified by blood, but we don't have a way to signify what the counterpart of blood for a god is, unless it is the "a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch" of Genesis 15 being some sort of god essence.
If Jesus resorted to his pre-existent state, he may have appeared like the angel appeared to Moses, but he didn't, but appeared to be what they would have imagined a person may appear like, having come back up from Hades .
I had to laugh a little bit inside when I saw your post this morning. Probably the same time you were posting that article on Kenosis, I ran across an article that was very similar to the first part of what you quoted. I was doing some Google searches trying to find out the ancient meanings of what sin was, and there was this big long page full of different definitions and for some reason the one for Kenosis jumped out at me and I read it and thought, this looks like something I should know already.
edit on 9-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 

This is really not a responce to what i wrote but rather an avoidance of same. If its so disjointed and incomprehesible why not ask me to clarify what you dont understand.
I kind of figured it out as being a sort of apologist's tactic of saying, "If someone was just creating this fictional sort of story, they would never say it that way, so this means it must be true". So your whole post is different bits of rhetoric you picked up at church, interspersed with only slightly veiled personal attacks, which is the sort of attitude for the mentality of what goes by the name, Christianity, today but in actuality is nothing of the kind.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join