(23 votes, average: 4.91 out of 5)
Loading...In my last post I pointed out that the famous passage of the so-called “bloody sweat” in Luke 22:43-44 is thought by some scholars not to have been original to the Gospel of Luke. I count myself in that number. One of my very first scholarly articles was devoted to the question; I wrote it when I was a first-year graduate student – or rather, I co-wrote it, with a friend of mine who was in the PhD program at Princeton Seminary with me, a fellow named Mark Plunkett.
Mark had done a study of the passage of Jesus’ prayer before his arrest and had realized something about the structure of the passage, which made me, in turn, realize, that if he was right, then the two verses about the bloody sweat could not have been original to the passage. I’ll say more about that in my next post. At the time, one of the reasons I thought that was so significant is that it confirmed what was already clear to me otherwise: these verses convey a theological understanding of Jesus going to his death that is completely unlike what you find in the rest of Luke. (Our article was published in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, in 1983, and was called “The Angel and the Agony: The Textual Problem of Luke 22:43-44”).
As a brief bit of background: Luke had several sources for his accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, most notably the Gospel of Mark. Mark was the first Gospel written, and both Matthew and Luke had a copy of it. Since that’s the case, it is possible to see how Luke has handled the one source of his that we still have, Mark – that is, to see if he has added anything to Mark’s account, taken anything away, or changed anything. That approach to Luke is called “redaction criticism” (because a “redactor” is an editor; and you are looking to see how Luke has “edited” his source, Mark).
Scholars for a long time have realized that Luke goes out of his way to<
Want to see why Luke is so very different from Mark in portraying Jesus in the face of death? If you were a member of the blog, you could keep reading to see. So Join! Click here for membership options
This also asks the question of why, if Jesus was God/Trinity, would he be this troubled and seem to need this help from the angels? Jesus is clearly very human as he nears his time of death. The redactions of Mark’s gospel by Luke’s author(s) certainly had intent to make Jesus more ‘divine-like’ on his nearing path to the cross, but there had to be some developing theology pushing those edits. I do not associate Paul with many angel stories, so I would expect there was some other Christian leader in the Lucian circle that was an early proponent of the earlier deification of Jesus (e.g. at baptism). Do we had a suspect, besides Paul or ‘Q’, for the attitude adjustments seen in Luke’s gospel?
Yes, it does. Luke, of course, does not think of Jesus as fully equal with God and a member of the trinity.
“Mark was the first Gospel written, both Matthew and Luke had a copy of it.” “you are looking to see how Luke has “edited” his source, Mark.”
Matthew written in 95-112 CE, Mark 68-70CE, Luke 90CE, John 100-120CE. Most Christians are unaware of the incorrect arrangement of NT. Compilation was not base on dates written. Christians believe Matthew was the first gospel without realizing it was written later and the two had copy Mark.
Paul’s books were written about 20-70 years earlier than the above four books. These four authors were indoctrinated by Paul with his Christian theology.
Paul’s books- 50 C.E.,1Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians; 51CE Galatians; 55CE,1 Corinthian and 2 Corinthians; 56CE, Romans; 59-61CE, Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians. These books should be placed correctly ahead of the gospels to prove Paul was actually the founder. Paul’s books like Hebrews,1&2 Timothy were written earlier than John.
Correct chronological compilation can demonstrate the true message of how Christianity started. Christianity is definitely the religion of Paul who invented it. Surely not Jesus and his disciples who wrote nothing. Groundless, unjustified to associate them with Christianity. Many evidence that they were actually Muslims.
How could they be Muslims when they lived 500 years before Muhammad was born?
I know you are trying to turn this blog into being about Islam, but this is ridiculous.
Yes, I am going to stop posting comments that advocate for one religion or another (any religion at all). I should have done so before. It’s not what the blog is about. (I will say, though, that in the early church, Justin Martyr and others claimed that Socrates was a Christian!)
If the agony and blood sweat verse isn’t original, then I can see an argument for what you are saying. If not, it just sounds just as passionate as the others– in just a different way. So Luke may have just wanted to make his gospel unique from Mark’s.
Which manuscripts is the verse not in? Is it in the Vaticanus or Siniaticus?
It’s not in P75 A B N T W 579 etc. It’s in the first hand of Sinaiticus but was erased by a later hand.
OK – some scribe or whomever edits Luke’s Passion to add a few sentences emphasizing the suffering of Jesus before his betrayal and crucifixion. But ‘sweating blood’? I did an internet search, and there is this hematidrosis condition, but it’s apparently very, very rare.
And so if it’s unlikely that it’s a literal account, well – there just seems like a lot of different things the scribe could have written to emphasize suffering, and this seems like an odd choice to me.
Perhaps it wasn’t enough to emphasize Jesus’ mental anguish and the author wanted to include something representing physical suffering and hence the mention of blood. And it would have been awkward to have Jesus fall and skin his knee or whatever, so the blood just sort of appears.
Are there other Gospels (canonical or not) that include this detail about the Passion (or something even vaguely similar)?
He actually doesn’t sweat blood in the account but sweats sweat as if it was blood. It’s not clear to me if that means large drops or “red”
Being as blood has lower surface tension than water or sweat, it would naturally form SMALLER drops. So, it’s a very curious expression.
Not sure these guys were scientists….
But blood flowing from a wound (esp. a head wound) is something they would be familiar with, and such blood flows can drop from the nose, chin, etc. To me, the passage speaks less for the style of drops but of the *quantity* of sweat being produced. Though it’s still a bit curious
One of my big problems with Christianity is the atonement doctrine . Yet, Jesus’s death for forgiveness of sin is at the core of Christianity (except for Luke; for some reason Luke’s interpretation doesn’t grab me). There’s something really profound and moving about the idea of someone, especially God, suffering so much to save others.
So, if only for fun, I’ve tried to come up with an interpretation that preserves the crucifixion’s centrality but makes more sense to me. One idea is that if God as Jesus was willing to suffer a hideous death for humanity’s sake, it demonstrates his unconditional love beyond question. Jesus’s followers (could/should have) realized that a love that great unquestionably forgives sin.
I’ve also tried to develop the idea that God pays a price for loving and therefore forgiving us. The price is the suffering that accompanies love. Certainly parents suffer for caring when their children go astray. If they chose not to care they wouldn’t suffer so much.
I realize this is theological and I don’t really have a question except maybe whether, in a broad sense, this interpretation is consistent with or builds on important strains of Christianity.
It’s a view that has also developed among modern theologians, that the suffering of Christ is God suffering with us. Why God would have to suffer to forgive us is a puzzling question though. Why not just forgive?
Personally, I think God suffering for mankind is one of the few ways to make sense of suffering in the world with God in control.
God allows mankind to suffer. But he himself suffered with us. So, in a sense, he inflicted the same pain upon himself that he allowed in the world. So it’s a way for God to identify with his creation. And he, being perfect, suffered the the greatest injustice.
But why allow suffering altogether? Why not create a world with just peace and happiness? The only true explanation would be if there were a life after to vindicate the suffering and bless them in a greater way in a world to come. Also, peace is understood/valued in the context of pain. If there is no pain, perhaps we don’t truly understand peace.
Of course, there is no evidence for this. But it’s a nice thought 😀
I definitely agree with almost all of your first statement along with most of the rest. However, I also think there’s little choice but to accept that God is not all-powerful and totally in control.
Except that some philosophers have worked out the idea that some very great goods would not be possible if there were not great evils to overcome. For example, humans wouldn’t fully develop their powers without there being great evils to overcome.
I think that view is flawed too. God would still be ultimately responsible for evil for which we condemn human beings. But one consideration that always sticks with me is that much of the world’s great imaginative literature would be missing critical elements if human beings did not have to deal with great evil. So that keeps the door open.
Or maybe there really is some kind of “Satan” with free will whom God allows to cause “natural,” non-human evil. Except that natural evil seems random from the standpoint of human well-being and explainable by “unintentional” natural law without the need for an intentional, supernatural being.
Meanwhile, we must cultivate our garden or we will have nothing to eat.
“So it’s a way for God to identify with his creation.”
how is a suffering human jesus identified as god? say that baby jesus got a cut on his hand and cried for hours, how is that god? how many humans do you know are able to turn suffering on and off like christian god did in the gospels? the father doesnt seem to be part of the dying, how is human to relate to the first member of trinity? father is too holy to suffer in god forsaken world?
In case it’s not clear, in the second paragraph I’m not saying that God planned or that it was necessary for Jesus to suffer for sin. I’m taking as an historical fact that that was the interpretation given to his death by the first Christians. They felt forgiven and saved when reflecting on Jesus’s death. They utilized the Jewish notion of atoning sacrifice to explain why they felt saved.
I’m suggesting an interpretation in which Jesus’s crucifixion was not necessary but that still preserves the first Christians’s subjective (and historically factual) sense of its linkage to forgiveness and salvation. They were correct to understand that God was forgiving but wrong to ascribe it to Jesus’s death. Rather, Jesus’s willingness to accept the hideous suffering of crucifixion, in order to stay faithful to his mission of announcing the nearness of God’s kingdom, clearly “demonstrates” that God’s love is so overwhelming that he cannot help but forgive sin.
So Jesus undergoing crucifixion did not “cause” God’s forgiveness but “revealed” how tremendously loving-and therefore also forgiving-God is and always has been. I see it as a possible modern reinterpretation of the original myth.
Also, it seems strange that God would need to sacrifice himself to himself, to make up for what were his own rules being broken by people. The rationale of that doesn’t make sense to me, beyond a post hoc attempt to make sense of a brutal end.
I am just taking the story at face value and having good results.
Jesus went through a “brief” crucifixion (there’s a guy in the Philippines who does it every year) and a sponge is what Roman Army physicians of that time used to knock people out, not for drinking. I mean, they had a cup, right?
https://journals.lww.com/anesthesia-analgesia/Fulltext/2012/12000/Mandragora__Anesthetic_of_the_Ancients.27.aspx
https://www.academia.edu/12018946/New_discoveries_in_a_Nabataean_tomb_Burial_practices_and_plant_jewellery_in_ancient_Hegra_Mad%C3%A2in_S%C3%A2lih_Saudi_Arabia_
Galilee was being co-ruled by a Nabataean princess, Herod’s wife (Nabataea had powerful women and Herod was also Nabateanized as an Edomite.)
When Herod attempts to restart the Hasmonean dynasty through Herodia (maternal lineages became codified in AD 10 by Pharisee pluralities overtaking Sadduccee) the Nabataean princess divorces and –that’s where Jesus’ ministry starts.
If you notice, it is converted-Pharisees who conceived Jesus’ resurrection moreso in that context, Jesus is just non-resistant.
If it got people into what the boy chosen by Nabataean magi was teaching, all good.
Jesus, imo likely ascended (~3,000 feet) to the Kingdom of Heaven, Nabataea (their emblem is the “Lord of Heaven”, Dushara) and King Aretas IV “Loving Father”.
While one of the Aretas was written to have “700 sons,” the last king they have is King “Savior.”
“the one who has given life and deliverance to his people”
🌞
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbel_II_Soter
Slightly off this specific topic, but I was having a discussion with a Catholic friend (my wife 😀) about whether there was much scope in the NT for a Catholic translation to upset Protestants and vice versa and we couldn’t think of anything. But then I happened to be reading a 1996 article about Jaroslav Pelikan’s book on the Virgin Mary and he had said Charis (Greek) is translated as ‘Grace’ in Catholic bibles and ‘Favor’ in Protestant ones, because Grace is too loaded a term for Protestants. Are there any other examples of this kind of thing?
I should have made clear in my comment above that I was referring to the annunciation scene (Luke 1:30). Saying Mary was ‘full of grace’, was a step too far for Protestants, according to Pelikan, because it implied Mary could dispense grace herself, normally a preserve of God.
No, I”m afraid I haven’t heard that.
Next time you’re on a translation panel, could you suggest they translate the second half of Mark 4:40 differently. NIV translates it as “Do you still have not faith?” but it would make me so happy if it was translated – somewhat freely – as “I find your lack of faith disturbing.” Extra bonus points if Jesus force chokes one of the disciples.
Since Mark should have been written around year 70 or documented earlier & edited around year 70.The more probable is that Yeshua didn’t know or expect that he would be publicly shamed naked nor executed, so he wouldn’t have had any Eucharist ceremony or garden passion as well.
What could be the explanation for source/reason to invent such gnashing passion & Eucharist narrative?
why did the author of Mark & Hebrews embrace it?
what was Paul’s hand in developing such?
Did the author ✍️ or John destroy the passion in the passion narrative?
Yes, not much passion in John or Luke. Lukan scholars used to talk about the passionless Passion.
Prof Ehrman, do you believe the Ebionite Christians were closer to the teachings of the historical Jesus than the Proto Orthodox Christians considering that Jesus’s brother to my understanding was leaning in the direction of the Ebionites? How different were they from the teachings of the historical Jesus?
Yes, they probably were. The main difference from Jesus is the key one: he almost certainly did not think he was to die for the sins of others.
At the risk of committing heresy, I’m looking for recommendations of a paraphrasing of the gospels in a modern idiom. Perhaps even better would be the gospels in the form of a story, ie, a single, modern novel or biography, something that has continuity and “flows” better than the gospels do (at least in my opinion).
Though I’d want it to have as good a scholarly foundation as possible, I’d be satisfied with something that wasn’t too far off base. And anything like a novel or biography is likely to utilize some degree of interpretation, imagination, and personal reflection that go beyond things with a scholarly foundation.
Sara Ruden, who I think is a classical though not a NT scholar, has done a more idiomatic translation that seems to have good reviews. But it follows the gospels pretty closely. Quite a few years ago I read a “biography” of Jesus by AN Wilson.
Actually, the ideal might be a book that uses the framework of your “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet…” and puts it into story form. Have you ever considered doing that?
There are soem serious paraphrases of the Bible — going back to Kenneth Taylors The LIving Bible. I believe “The Way” is that?
There are soem serious paraphrases of the Bible — going back to Kenneth Taylors The LIving Bible. I believe “The Way” is that?
“I count myself in that number.”
“Scholars for a long time have realized that Luke goes out of his way to edit, or redact” Is this one of the major reasons you have taken into account to drop Christianity? If not, Kindly summarize the main points for having given up Christianity?
It is interesting to note that what you believe “I count myself in that number.” has been revealed by God Most Merciful in His Book about the scriptures:
“Then woe to those who write the Books with their own hands, and then say:” This is from Allah,” to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.”
This message is to save those who believe and trust their books as Word of God to change for the better and accept the genuine one. Believers of the religion of God Most Merciful have been advised not to accept the scriptures which were written by men and not from God.
No my biblical scholarship had nothig to do with leaving the Christian faith. Christian faith is not in the Bible, but in Christ. I came to think there was no God over this world who interacted iwth it. The problem of suffering is what made me leave the faith. I talk about it at length in my book God’s Problem.
Maybe you did approach “The God” in the wrong way, expecting “It” to be only the God of Love and Comfort. Maybe suffering is part of the package of being human? Maybe suffering is partly part of what makes us fully human, alongside with other important life experiences? Maybe The God is not a “Father” who unconditionally spoils us, but a Creator who sees what how we react to sweet and bitter events, how we ease the suffering of each other and share the joy of life with one another? Of course the suffering of the innocent is hard to metabolize…does it prove there is no Creator and that our critical reason faculties are a random occurrence resulting from blind and unintelligent evolution?
You might want to read my book God’s Problem where I discuss all this.
David Burnett’s analysis of the two swords episode does give a reason for the angels to appear in Luke’s passion narrative and for Luke not to focus on the anticipated suffering: in Mark 1:12 the temptation by the devil ends with angels ministering to Jesus. Mat 4:11 same. But Luke omits the angels and says that the devil departed until an “opportune time” (4:13). Burnett argues that this is a set up for the passion narrative, when the devil has his opportune time, and then Luke says Satan entered Judas (22:3) angels ministered to Jesus (22:43).
Luke’s objective in his passion narrative, perhaps, is to focus on him being numbered among the transgressors (22:37) — his own disciples who reject his teachings of pacifism and take up the sword — rather than the anticipation of his suffering. This also shows why the disputed text was original.
1. How do Christians explain accusing the Jews with deicide. If God (the father) willingly, it is said “… GAVE his only begotten son”, it was his own doing, and if not, with Jesus being claimed to be co-equal to Almighty God, why would he allow mere mortals (the Jews) to have the means to actually kill him?
2. If the inception, meaning & purpose of Christianity as a new religious is fundamentally rooted & directly linked to the very death of Jesus, and ironically, not to any of his teachings, why don’t Christians thank the Jews for being instrumental in bringing about the necessary prerequisite to the dawning of their religion?
1. Because on the historical plane it wsa the Jews (in this Xn view) who rejected and killed him, even if were ordained. 2. They think it had to happen, but not necessarily at the hands of his own people
“They think it had to happen, but not necessarily at the hands of his own people.” As Dr. E is well-aware, this is exactly Melito’s (of Sardis) argument in his Peri Pascha late in the second Christian century.
Bam. What great ending sentences!
So the “angel that gives strength” is out. Thanks for the correction.
The -1 drama (blood) and +1 divinity (angel) might have a crude rational in rendering a passionless passion that would be more entertaining.
Gospel of Mark authorship is guessed to be afishermen apostle through a scribe, right? Like Peter, a trad former-Pharisee who would be moved by an act of physical resurrection.
Maybe it’s time for another post on the Secret Gospel of Mark, btw. By the criteria of embarrassment alone it’s real. (The Qumran yahad called being in an undergarment naked, idk.)
Maybe Luke can then relate to the syncretically-educated healer pov, if um, Jesus is patrilineally Nabataean.
Jewish matrilineal descent becomes formalized in AD 10. King Herod’s lineage is Arab, per Encyclopedia Brittanica. Edomite Arab semi-convert. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Herod-king-of-Judaea
His second wife Herodia is one of the few remaining female heirs to the *ethnically Jewish* Hasmonean Kingdom, through Mariamne.
Herod’s first wife, Phasaelis, is a Nabataean princess, also put on the Arab side of the ledger. Nabataean Queen of Galilee and Perea.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perea#:~:text=In%20the%20Bible,-Further%20information%3A%20Transjordan&text=New%20Testament%20commentators%20speak%20of,commencing%20from%20Mark%2010%3A32.
It is when Herod tries to sqrsh Judea back to a Jewish Hasmonean line that Jesus’ ministry is activated. Hmm.
I have a question unrelated to this blog post, but the “Contact Bart” section says to drop questions on any ol’ post, so…
Do you have any recommendations for scholarly books / journal articles on the Maccabee Revolt as well as the main two books of Maccabees? I know you’re more a New Testament sort, but figure you might know anyway. You use J.D. Shaye Cohen’s “From the Maccabees to the Mishnah” as a reference in “Heaven and Hell” on the martyred Woman with Seven Sons, and I did read it, but it doesn’t spend too much space on the Maccabees. I’ve read a few other sources but I’m frankly skeptical of some of the older ones like Martin Hengel that seem to float some weird theories.
While asking on this topic, was there any cognitive dissonance about the story of the Maccabees among Greek-speaking Pauline Christians? The Greeks & the Hellenized Jews are sorta the bad guys in those books but clearly Christianity did really well at recruiting exactly those people…
You might try Daniel Harrington’s book on the Maccabean revolt.
Dr Ehrman,
1. Is it possible that The Passion less passion story of original Luke maybe reflecting the similar doctrine held by Basilides and other Gnostics?
2. Is it possible that “a little bit of passion” was introduced into Luke to set it apart from the Gospel of Basilides (Maybe docetic views?) and or other Gnostic Gospels in circulation at that time?
Luke would have been written decades before the Gospel of Basilides or any Gnostic writings, which date to the second century.
And this is how Strabo in Geography (dated 7 BC for drafts, to 17 AD) relates how magi pick princes:
“The son does not succeed the father in the throne, but the son who is born in a family of the nobles first after the accession of the king. As soon as any one is invested with the government, the pregnant wives of the nobles are registered, and guardians are appointed to watch which of them is first delivered of a son. The custom is to adopt and educate the child in a princely manner as the future successor to the throne.”
It’s for some nations in Arabia Felix, but he counts Nabataea among them; this custom could be an influence.
You’re right in saying that the Messiah that Jews anticipated would be:
1. fabulously rich
2. command an army
3. that would free Judea
The Kingdom of Heaven “wholly destroyed” Herod’s army in AD 36. They def negotiated with Rome for Herod’s exile.
https://biblehub.com/topical/a/aretas.htm
As Nassim Nicholas Taleb points out, Jesus doesn’t want to be King of the Jews. Imo, it’s in the manner of a patrilineal *Nabataean* prince that Jesus heals and feeds people, and demos immortality
Are Yeshua and Joshua both Hebrew forms of Jesus or is one Aramaic? If not, is there an Aramaic form or is it the same as the Hebrew forms? I think I read that Joshua is derived from and/or later than Yeshua. Is Jesus actually an English form or just a “variant spelling” of the Greek? How is Jesus pronounced in Greek?
Has there ever been a serious movement to use Yeshua or Joshua instead of Jesus in NT translations?
I vote for Joshua. I mostly like Jesus as a religious and historical figure but there’s something about “Jesus” that is off putting. In Catholic schools in the 1950s, the good sisters taught that we shouldn’t say the name too often and to bow our heads when we do. It made the name sound too “precious” and sacred. And for some reason “Jesus” sounds more like a gentle, passive victim than a fiery prophet. And of course it’s become a common exclamation. I would take the name of the Lord in vain less often if it meant saying “Joshua!”
Yeshua and Joshua in one sense are both English because they are spelled with the English alphabet, but they are transliterations into English letters of Aramaic and Hebrew names, which mean the same thing; the Greek (same) name transliterated into Enlish letters is Jesus.
For a long time I’ve had the impression from the gospels that Jesus was often irritable if not angry and critical, judgmental, and “scolding.” This might be mainly in relation to his disciples and to the Jewish leaders neither of whom understood or agreed with him most of the time.
As an expert do you think my impressions are accurate? They could be prejudices that have become locked in. Maybe the parts where Jesus is irritable and scolding are the parts that make me most uncomfortable. So they stand out for me more than parts without those features.
If my impressions are largely accurate, do you think this portrayal of Jesus is meant to be factual or is it more of a literary device to highlight lack of understanding and agreement? Or I guess it could be both.
I would say that’s especially true for the Gospel of Mark; Matthew and Luke both edit out Mark’s expressions of Jesus’ anger.
This is off-topic but I wondered if you’d seen the new paper about an asteroid impact that may have inspired some of the stories in the OT?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97778-3
There’s a non-technical story here:
https://theconversation.com/a-giant-space-rock-demolished-an-ancient-middle-eastern-city-and-everyone-in-it-possibly-inspiring-the-biblical-story-of-sodom-167678
Haven’t seen it, sorry to say.
Dr Ehrman, I believe that you once said that some scholars think that about only 18 % of what is ascribed to Jesus is what they have concluded he said. Do you agree?
This would make the bulk of people believe to be the words or Jesus, have really been added, changed, or deleted.
I believe that there are only about 2, 020 verses in “red” in the KJV, meaning that Jesus spoke those verses.
Is there some place or book, where one can see this list of the 18%?
Would this 18% “list” guarantee a greater certainty of his words.?
Thank you.
I”ve never tried to put a number or percentage on it. The book that lays out the view is the Five Gospels by the Jesus Seminar; somehow I thought it was 23%, but I haven’t looked in a long time. I don’t believe they give a percentage per se (I might be wrong), but they put the sayhings they are sure Jesus said in red and those they think he preobably said in pink, and then someone can work out the percentage.
Just FYI, about the 18% percent, WM may have gotten that from Dr Ehrman’s January 29-31, 2016 lecture, How Jesus Became God – UCC Part 1 of 3, https://youtu.be/7IPAKsGbqcg?t=1072 (just happened to be watching it.)
Dr Ehrman, what do you make of the proposition that the author of Mark based his narrative on Homer?
I don’t think it’s plausible.
I am on the “deep agony” side. Crucifixion was frequently used to frighten people out of defying Rome. He knew what it would be like. He might have heard the screams. He was human (I subscribe to the adoption view) and understood what was about to happen to him; he would be exposed, naked, baked by the Sun, prey to birds attacking his face. Of course, he would be terrified. I also don’t subscribe to the “seven last words” idea because crucifixion leads to difficult breathing; he would have had trouble clearing his lungs and trachea. The idea of being able to sustain an intelligent conversation strikes me as almost absurd. It minimizes the stress Jesus would have been under.There’s a statement in the NT that bothers me. Jesus is quoted as saying “take up thy cross and follow me.” My sense says he wouldn’t have said that–couldn’t have said that.
Doesn’t Matthew’s version of Gethsemane look older than Mark’s?
Matthew’s Jesus “fell upon his face”
Mark has “fell upon the ground”
Luke “knelt down”
Matthew has the harshest version.
Hello Professor!
I have a question on the Dead Sea scrolls. Some claim that it mentions the messiah, baptism, Eucharist; strengthening Christian origins within Judaism? Thanks again!
To quote, “ (1QSa II, 17–21).
II, 17. And if they meet (by appointment) for the table of the church or to drink the new wine, the table
18. of the church (congregation) being prepared and the wine [pre- pared] for drinking, no man shall [put forth] his hand for the first of (or to begin)” (Nibley)
The messiah occurs in numerous texts of Judaism, as to ritual washings and special meals — and yes, ther are in the Scrolls as well. The commonalities do show that Christianity emerged out of Judaism.
“Christian faith is not in the Bible, but in Christ.” Christianity derive their faith largely on the Bible. Without their Bible they know nothing about Christ, just blind faith. Christianity is the most unusual religion in the world. It is base on nothing directly from Christ or his disciples. There is no historical evidence that Christ believe in Christianity or that he was a Christian. On the contrary, they believe he was crucified, a degrading sign that he was cursed and a failure as a Messiah.
Please provide historical proves from Christ directly that Jesus had faith in Christianity?
“came to think there was no God over this world who interacted with it.”
Prophets of God represent God who answered all that mankind needs to know. Perhaps you could brief “who interacted with it”? The last Prophet Muhammad answered all the questions. God convince powerfully in His Book of His Existence.
“problem of suffering is what made me leave the faith.” Is it a general suffering or any particular suffering?
Suffering, like failure, are just temporary. Answers/solutions are available to overcome it. Destination without suffering is Paradise. Permanent Suffering/Torment is HELL.
I know lots of Christians who don’t believe in the Bible as the infallible word of God. Lots and lots.
“How could they be Muslims when they lived 500 years before Muhammad was born?”
legitimate question that deserve a rational answer. Google Arabic word Islam for the answer. Islam stands for submission of our will to God which Jesus and his followers preached and practiced.
Matthew7: 21 “Not everyone….shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that do the will of my Father(God) which is in heaven.” “he that do the will of my Father” translated into Arabic is Islam.
Matthew26: 39 “he(Jesus) fell on his face, and prayed, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt”
“fell on his face” is how a Muslim pray; “not as I will, but as thou wilt” Jesus submitted his will to God. (Meaning of Islam)
Christianity and Islam recognize Jesus. ONLY one of the two is true. You will be surprised Islam know more about Jesus including all the minor details of his second coming.
All the prophets from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus, and more including Muhammad, last prophet chosen by God Most Merciful to preach “submission our will to God.”, the ONLY religion accepted by GOD.
did jesus peace be upon him mention that God will make a new covenant and that the jews broke the covenant and that God will take the kingdom from them.
and is there a mention that there was a gospel given to jesus other than the bible historically and if so how did it get lost. i mean the gospel considered word of god.
thank you
Did Jesus himself think God had taken the covenant from his chosen people? No, certainly not.
maybe i have bad english so my question was not clear. well i know the answer i just thought you might know the evidence for it from historical or biblical texts. jesus did inform the jews of the last prophet and the best nation . so i think jesus did mention that there will be a new covenant. and i heard you say something about it in a video but didnt understand if you meant that jesus have said that there will be a new covenant.
but from my side im 100% sure that God made a new covenant gave us his words which jesus will descend to rule the world by .
after they crucified the one who was made to resemble jesus peace be upon him do you know if the jews or romans tried to kill jesus disciples also and tried to extinguish the knowledge of the goodnews by making the ones who had knowledge of jesus goodnews to believe in other strange things.
historically was it saturday when crucifixion took place
It’s a good questoin about the disciples: apparently the Roman authorities made no attempt to arrest them. They went after the leader instead of his followrs, as happened sometimes. The crucifixion took place on a Friday.
It’s a good questoin about the disciples: apparently the Roman authorities made no attempt to arrest them. They went after the leader instead of his followrs, as happened sometimes. The crucifixion took place on a Friday.
It’s a good questoin about the disciples: apparently the Roman authorities made no attempt to arrest them. They went after the leader instead of his followrs, as happened sometimes. The crucifixion took place on a Friday.
did any of church fathers mention of a coming prophet that will have on his back the mark of seal of prophets
Not that I know of.
in the gnostic texts is there evidence that someone tried to change the texts in the past
or is there evidence of recent changes to the text
Yes, we have some gnostic texts in multiple copies (such as the Apocryphon of John) and they do have significant differences between them. Most of our texts, though, come to us in only one copy.
I love Mark because it’s less corrupted than the later gospels, and Paul’s mischaracterizations of Jesus. Mark 14:32-42 shows Jesus’ concern that God had abandon him, and Jesus’ devotion to God. Jesus earned eternal life, because of his exemplary life and devotion to God.
We don’t know who wrote Hebrews 5:7-10, and it’s often forgotten in terms of Jesus’ role in salvation. Briefly, Jesus offered prayers with loud cries and tears to the one who was able to save him. He was heard because of his reverent submission. He learned obedience through his suffering and became the source of salvation for all who obey him [not for all who have faith that Jesus assumed all our sins and died for them] as Paul preached.
He was designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.