Robert said
Jarek said
My strawman does a simple job and nothing miraculous about it.
Indeed, nothing miraculous about it. Using a strawman to argue for your own position simply doesn’t work at all.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
That is funny to me.
What is your affirmative case for the resolution?
Answer: Strawman
Robert said
Steefen said
** you do not have permission to see this link **
But Jesus told them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well, because that is why I was sent.”
Steefen
So, Robert is saying when Jesus, not Peter, says, “I must preach the good news” and churches tell parishioners when you see “good news,” see “gospel;” hence, “Jesus told them, I must preach the gospel of the kingdom of God…” Robert is saying the exact translation at Luke 4:43 should be what, Robert?
I would probably translate it the same since English does not have a better way to translate the verb. To illustrate the difference, one might express the verb here in a hyperliteral way as “to gospel” but that would not be good English. We do have the verb ‘to evangelize’ but that would be anachronistic here in Luke’s gospel.
If we are looking for idiomatic English, how about “to bring glad tidings”? Or maybe “To make a happy announcement”?
Robert said
Steefen said
** you do not have permission to see this link **
But Jesus told them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well, because that is why I was sent.”
Steefen
So, Robert is saying when Jesus, not Peter, says, “I must preach the good news” and churches tell parishioners when you see “good news,” see “gospel;” hence, “Jesus told them, I must preach the gospel of the kingdom of God…” Robert is saying the exact translation at Luke 4:43 should be what, Robert?
I would probably translate it the same since English does not have a better way to translate the verb. To illustrate the difference, one might express the verb here in a hyperliteral way as “to gospel” but that would not be good English. We do have the verb ‘to evangelize’ but that would be anachronistic here in Luke’s gospel.
Jesus: I would gospelize the Kingdom of God/Heaven/Righteousness.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
I would be careful about that, Jesus. In the future, Bart Ehrman pointed me to Deut. 18:22.
When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD and the message does not come to pass or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
Jesus, even before you die, revealed to you will be the Parable of the Wicket Tenants. In the Parable, the Son (which is also the Son of Man) will be killed and you will refer to the Son of Man in the third person, but there will be no Jewish Son of Man.
There will only be one like Gaius Caesar where Gaius could be the Son of Gaia–long story short: a Caesar of the Roman Empire, which means
a Gentile kingdom will be the kingdom you originally preached, and
a tribulation by Gentiles will be the tribulation brought down on people.
Continuing,
Gentile Judgment will replace Jewish Judgment, and,
of course, the Glorious Jewish Kingdom of Righteousness will be the Glorious Kingdom, nay, Empire of Gentile Rome.
And that is how you will not be a false prophet, unless writers of the gospels have made you up and nothing is prophecy, everything is after the fact.
False prophet vs. failed hypothesis of Jewish Apocalypticsm. Neither is desirable. However, with Paul coming after you deliver the revealed Parable of the Wicked Tenants, Paul is a false prophet. You appear/inspire Paul and not tell him about being revealed the parable of the wicked tenants? That does not fly, Jesus. Paul is obligated to develop a religious thesis based on you and the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. There is no salvation in you, glorious kingdom was transferred away from you!
What have you done to the world for the last 2,000 years? The world has been misled.
Furthermore, you or someone writing about you ran afoul of Yom Kippur and Leviticus 17:10.
Robert said
Steefen said
I thought Robert was holding the traditional scholar version that the Gospels were written before Marcion’s Evangelion.
And, I thought Jarek’s was holding an alternative scholarly version that Marcion’s Evangelion came first.
That is how I got mixed up earlier: who would have thought Robert’s knowledge of Marcion’s collection would result in him going off the script of “the Bart Ehrman and the majority of critical scholars.”
What makes you think that I am departing from the consensus here???
I do think at least Matthew and Mark were written before the hypothetical, shorter version of Luke was written. And note also, Jarek is not arguing that Marcion’s Evangelion came first, but rather what Klinghard refers to as Ev*.
It is important to remember that the conflict over the gospel was not originally raised by conflicting leaders. This is evidently a specially created artificial reason first drawn by Irenaeus of Lyon. It began with mutual theological accusations. Only later was he accused of mutilating the gospel, after Marcion’s death. I believe that *Ev is the best gospel on the market in Marcion’s time and that there was no canonical gospel at that time
BTW Przyszyszywska’s book shows the master-disciple relationship between Eustathius of Sebaste and Basil the Great. They were friends until they had a disagreement over who had the right to ordain bishops in Armenia Minor. In conflict with each other, they accused each other of heresy and deviations from the doctrine. And since they knew each other well, they described each other’s faults in detail.
Marcion sat in Rome where a bunch of theologians and leaders discussed everything but there were important and more important things. For 5 years they were looking for an agreement. The most important was the appointment of the leadership and the rules of territorial division between the leaders. Marcion preferred to act freely alone throughout the Empire rather than submit to a structure. But everyone wanted to get rid of him – too talented and too effective. They started to ignore him and pushed him out of the organization.
He did his job so effectively that the rebuking began. at the beginning just a theological disputation of Justin the Martyr, accusations getting stronger, heresy, mutilation of the gospel, and so on for hundreds of years.
A decent benchmark?
Robert said
Jarek said
My strawman does a simple job and nothing miraculous about it.
Indeed, nothing miraculous about it. Using a strawman to argue for your own position simply doesn’t work at all.
The philologists I know claim that 2Thess is more Pauline than the genuine letters from the point of view of language, and point to the significant limitations of this method. Morton Smith proved it.
Proved it to whom???
My strawman works better than the letter hero. Thorgal was not written by Thorgal, a brave Viking, but by a guy at the desk.
Portions of the “Secret Gospel of Mark” are now accepted by some biblical scholars as true and by others as a forgery. Criticism of the text itself indicates that the text should be original. After doing all the professional research, long after the death of Morton Smith, it turned out that this book was published in 1946.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I can imagine the reaction of those who believe in the authenticity of the Secret Gospel
What camp do you belong to?
Robert said
Stephen said
There are many offers on the market.
Oh Jarek Jarek Jarek
There is no market here. Commodities like letters and gospels simply had no purchasing power whatsoever. They were forms of communication, functionally to freely provide information, metaphorically to establish a webwork of belief and spiritual tradition. There is no commerce to be found in these exchanges. If the value of a commodity is in other than its purchasing power, then you have no market. Freely given freely give.
Poor Stephen, I don’t think you understand the business model of creating smartphone content around 100 CE. Marcion sold these aps and content on Google Play and the Apple Store. Obviously.
Letters is a smartphone available in the 2nd century used masterfully by looking at a community of certain professionals that almost entirely follows beautiful, magnetic text…
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen said
Robert said
Jarek said
My strawman does a simple job and nothing miraculous about it.
Indeed, nothing miraculous about it. Using a strawman to argue for your own position simply doesn’t work at all.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
That is funny to me.
What is your affirmative case for the resolution?
Answer: Strawman
Good.
BTW There is an useful tool ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
Jarek said
Good.
BTW There is an useful tool ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Since that tool is based on translations, it will only confirm his mistake. Or is there a way to use the original languages in this tool?
** you do not have permission to see this link ** is better in that it allows you to see the underlying original language. I know I’ve seen even better tools online but don’t recall where. If I run across them again, I will post them here.
** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Porphyry said
Robert said
Jarek said
Good.
BTW There is an useful tool ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Since that tool is based on translations, it will only confirm his mistake. Or is there a way to use the original languages in this tool?
** you do not have permission to see this link ** is better in that it allows you to see the underlying original language. I know I’ve seen even better tools online but don’t recall where. If I run across them again, I will post them here.
** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Robert, Porphyry – Thank You
Robert said
Jarek is not arguing that Marcion’s Evangelion came first, but rather what Klinghard refers to as Ev*.
Wikipedia entry for
Matthias Klinghardt (born August 24, 1957 in Waldshut-Tiengen) is a German Protestant theologian and university professor. His theological specialty is the New Testament.[1] He is known as a revisionist historian of Eucharistic origins and as
a proponent of the Marcion hypothesis for the synoptic problem and the gospel of John.
Steefen
According to Wikipedia, Robert, you are incorrect.
I am looking at the Wikipedia entry for Marcion hypothesis
** you do not have permission to see this link **
It shows Marcion before Mark. Now, Ev* may be incorporated into Marcion, or Ev* brought to you by Marcion.
Robert said
Steefen said
Robert said
Jarek said
My strawman does a simple job and nothing miraculous about it.
Indeed, nothing miraculous about it. Using a strawman to argue for your own position simply doesn’t work at all.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
That is funny to me.
What is your affirmative case for the resolution?
Answer: Strawman
What strawman do you think I have created? If you read my posts you will see my arguments for ‘my’ position and how I have differentiated it from Jarek’s representations, which he admits is a strawman. By the way, you did not answer my question about what made you think I was departing from the scholarly consensus on this point. It’s OK if you’re unable to follow the discussion, but when that’s the case, it would be more polite not to detract from positions you don’t quite understand. 😉
Jarek said
My strawman
What? Robert. You have a stawman, also?
Porphyry said
Robert said
Jarek said
Good.
BTW There is an useful tool ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Since that tool is based on translations, it will only confirm his mistake. Or is there a way to use the original languages in this tool?
** you do not have permission to see this link ** is better in that it allows you to see the underlying original language. I know I’ve seen even better tools online but don’t recall where. If I run across them again, I will post them here.
** you do not have permission to see this link **.
preaching the gospel of the kingdom
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Jesus was no longer in a position to preach the gospel after the parable of the wicked tenants–and especially after taking a stance against Yom Kippur and Leviticus 17: 10. Jesus, then, was only misleading people to a religious practice that turns God’s face away from a person.
Jesus–for the lost sheep of Israel first–no longer stood with his father-god notion within Jewish Apocalypticism.
Jesus was no longer a Jewish purist, pious to the Torah.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)