Robert said
Steefen said
Peter, merely called Jesus by a Greek term.
No, Robert.
Jesus supposedly did not speak Greek: “Whatchu talkin’ ’bout, Peter?, Aramaic or Hebrew, please?”
Jesus was not anointed by Mary of Bethany, yet. Matthew 16: 16 “Thou art the Christ” and the anointing by Mary of Bethany does not happen until Matthew 26: 6-13.
Steefen, you think that Peter ordinarily spoke Aramaic with Jesus except he used the Greek term when proclaiming Jesus to be the ‘Christ’??
Matthew is relaying a conversation.
Jesus, you are the Christ, son of the living God, not, Jesus, you are the Messiah, son of the living God.
Peter, you are the rock and upon this rock I will build my church, not, Peter, you are the rock and upon this rock I will build my synagogue.
Steefen said
StephenThe audience was more familiar with dying and rising savior/god/human cults than a Jewish messiah.
The whole “dying and rising gods” thing is completely overblown and tends to evaporate under a modicum of scrutiny.
Steefen
I do not sustain your objection, Stephen. It was not persuasive against how Barrie Wilson, Ph.D. mentioned it.
If you think Barrie Wilson needs to read Jonathan Z. Smith, write to Barrie Wilson or leave a comment on the YouTube video.
Let us know.
In other words you don’t know what the current scholarship is in the field any more than Barrie does or Richard Carrier does for that matter.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Jonathon Z Smith is a good place to start. See ** you do not have permission to see this link ** thinks the concept is still useful but specifically excludes Christianity!
Robert said
But Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek. That does not mean that the conversation depicted actually took place in Greek. Hence my question:Steefen, do you think that Peter ordinarily spoke Aramaic with Jesus except he used the Greek term when proclaiming Jesus to be the ‘Christ’??
Of the first four books of the New Testament, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark records Jesus using Aramaic terms and phrases, while in Luke 4:16, he was shown reading Hebrew from the Bible at a synagogue.
Second, you have not established that Peter or Jesus had ever attended a church, particularly using the etymology of the term which is a civic gathering of Greek citizens.
“I will build my church.” What? Jesus saw a civic gathering of Greeks somewhere and thought he would use the term to start a religion? What? Jesus and the disciples regularly went to the gym? Jesus came to the lost sheep of his own people. Whatever Jesus was going to build would have been in the Jewish vein, not the Greek vein.
What Jewish sect was using the term Christ?
The author/s of Matthew were certainly capable of recording Messiah and synagogue rather than Christ and church. This is a clear example that Jesus originally was not from the late 20s C.E. The composite character of historical fiction, Jesus of the gospels, clearly comes after Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles.
Jesus has not been anointed at that point in the gospel, Christ (anointed king, anointed king of the Kingdom of God/Heaven/Righteousness) is the incorrect term. God let Jesus go to Jerusalem and turn over tables. Jesus disrespects God with talk of Jesus’ body and blood as gifts. God would not anoint Jesus as king of anything with that sacrilege. God would not let a body and blood giving person before his face.
Jesus, you are the Christ, the anointed one, son of the living God is erroneous. God turns his face away and excommunicates anyone who advocates human sacrifice. Leviticus 17: 10-11.
Jesus was king of what, Robert?
When Jesus spoke of Son of Man in the first person, Jesus was the king of the kingdom of God, at hand.
But the Son of Man’s glorious kingdom post-Tribulation, Jesus didn’t make it that far. Jesus did not make it to the Tribulation in Jerusalem 67-73 C.E. and Jesus did not come back in 74 C.E. as King Son of Man. In the final analysis, Jesus was a self-proclaimed king for a phase of his ministry, not his whole ministry and not after tribulation and judgment to be followed by the Son of Man in glory.
Who was doing the judging during the Jerusalem Tribulation? General Vespasian and General Titus, later emperors, the both of them.
Jesus who develops an Our Father prayer is unprotected by that same Father who lets wicked tenants attack and kill him,and put him up for Roman capital punishment. Son of the living Father who does that?
Luke 2:43-49 Didn’t you know that it was necessary for me to be in the Temple, my Father’s house?
Jesus turns over tables out of honor for his Heavenly Father’s House of Prayer. But when Jesus prayed before doing that stunt, his Heavenly Father did not warn Jesus not to do that.
Son of the living God, Jesus’s Father who art in Heaven, in the final analysis does not work.
Stephen said
Steefen said
Stephen
The audience was more familiar with dying and rising savior/god/human cults than a Jewish messiah.
The whole “dying and rising gods” thing is completely overblown and tends to evaporate under a modicum of scrutiny.
Steefen
I do not sustain your objection, Stephen. It was not persuasive against how Barrie Wilson, Ph.D. mentioned it.
If you think Barrie Wilson needs to read Jonathan Z. Smith, write to Barrie Wilson or leave a comment on the YouTube video.
Let us know.
In other words you don’t know what the current scholarship is in the field any more than Barrie does or Richard Carrier does for that matter.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Jonathon Z Smith is a good place to start. See ** you do not have permission to see this link ** thinks the concept is still useful but specifically excludes Christianity!
In other words, you do not know that no matter what the current scholarship on the ancient myths are,
the myths are established.
Scholarship did not change the mythological meaning of Demeter, Hades/Pluto, and Persephone.
Robert said
Steefen said
Jesus was king of what, Robert?
According to the gospel of Mark, he was accused of having claimed to be the King of the Jews/Judeans (15,26). During his execution, the high priests and scribes mocked him as the anointed king of Israel. In the gospel of Mark, this was their understanding of the term Christ, ie, the anointed king of Israel: ὁ χριστὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰσραὴλ (15,32). This is obviously not a Pauline understanding of the Greek term ‘Christ’, but rather the meaning of the original Hebrew/Aramaic term. Do you see this now?
Wrong. 100% wrong.
When Peter claimed he was anointed, Peter was not inspired by Jesus’ enemies and the content of their accusations.
The question which you have over, and over ignored: when was Jesus anointed so that Peter could call him Anointed?
Read the question.
You cannot claim someone needs to clarify himself when you cannot clearly read and follow a line of reasoning.
No, I do not now see your erroneous and irrelevant conclusion.
Jesus Is King of a Kingdom on Earth during his lifetime (kingdom is at hand, now, within reach)
Matthew 3:2 Jesus’s kingdom was at hand. (Luke: it is here, but you cannot point to it: it is within you)
Matthew 11:3-5 Tell John the Baptist the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the dead are raised. Wait for no one else. I am the one. Look for no one else.
I am giving sight to the blind, I am raising the dead, I am the king of this kingdom.
When was Enoch anointed?
Neither Daniel’s one like a Son of Man, nor Enoch who was the Son of Man, nor Jesus who has people looking at him as the Son of Man instead of Enoch are anointed.
Before “Matthew” wrote his gospel, Paul in an authentic letter of Paul at 1 Thes. 1:1, uses the term church and uses the term Christ. Matthew is influenced by Paul moreso than by any Oral Tradition of reality.
Steefen said
Scholarship did not change the mythological meaning of Demeter, Hades/Pluto, and Persephone.
Scholarship absolutely changes our understanding of the meaning of myths, especially as we grapple to gain a better sense of their original context. I will note, as a very prominent example, that Joseph Campbell’s day appears to have come and gone.
JAS said
Steefen said
Scholarship did not change the mythological meaning of Demeter, Hades/Pluto, and Persephone.
Scholarship absolutely changes our understanding of the meaning of myths, especially as we grapple to gain a better sense of their original context. I will note, as a very prominent example, that Joseph Campbell’s day appears to have come and gone.
We are talking at least 1,900 years before Joseph Campbell.
We are not talking about modern interpretations of myths.
We are talking about the the characters (the who), plot (what happened), and timing (when) in the myths.
Steefen said
JAS said
Steefen said
Scholarship did not change the mythological meaning of Demeter, Hades/Pluto, and Persephone.
Scholarship absolutely changes our understanding of the meaning of myths, especially as we grapple to gain a better sense of their original context. I will note, as a very prominent example, that Joseph Campbell’s day appears to have come and gone.
We are talking at least 1,900 years before Joseph Campbell.
We are not talking about modern interpretations of myths.
We are talking about the the characters (the who), plot (what happened), and timing (when) in the myths.
We are always talking about our understanding of those things.
JAS said
Steefen said
JAS said
Steefen said
Scholarship did not change the mythological meaning of Demeter, Hades/Pluto, and Persephone.
Scholarship absolutely changes our understanding of the meaning of myths, especially as we grapple to gain a better sense of their original context. I will note, as a very prominent example, that Joseph Campbell’s day appears to have come and gone.
We are talking at least 1,900 years before Joseph Campbell.
We are not talking about modern interpretations of myths.
We are talking about the the characters (the who), plot (what happened), and timing (when) in the myths.
We are always talking about our understanding of those things.
Platitudinous.
Robert
Peter need not be thinking of any specific act of anointing with oil or otherwise when he proclaims Jesus to be the Messiah, the Christ.
Steefen
Thank you, finally, for an answer.
Reply: Of course you’re going to say Peter need not be thinking of any specific act of anointing because there was no specific act of anointing at that time in the gospel of Matthew.
So, Jesus commends Peter
1) not because Jesus has been anointed by a prophet to be king
2) not because Jesus was groomed by the Empire to be a client king or an appointed king or governor.
Jesus commends Peter because when Jesus used Son of Man in the first person, being the Son of Man, as Jesus defined the term, meant being the Chosen One who made all people acceptable (no blemish, no blindness, no lame limbs, leapers cleansed) for being in the presence of God. Jesus spoke of the Son of Man and the Son of Man’s kingdom; hence, the Son of Man in Jesus’s retelling of Enoch > Son of Man > Angel
is a king.
Jesus breaks Jewish tradition by not being anointed because he is a false prophet, deluded, self-proclaimed, Son of Man king in the face of Emperor Tiberius, in the face of Pontius Pilate, in the face of the Temple Priests and the Temple establishment.
Jesus did what Menahem (One who comforts, Comforter [source: Encylopedia.com]) did during the Jewish Revolt: declare himself messiah and king.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
How nice: Jesus says he going to send a Comforter, the Holy Spirit. Menahem must be one of the composite figures that make up the composite figure of historical fiction, Jesus of the gospels.
Menahem (66 CE)
Sources: ** you do not have permission to see this link **, Jewish War 2.433-450.
Story: According to Flavius Josephus, the scholar Menahem was the son of ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
In the mean time, one Menahem, the son of that Judas, who was called the Galilean […] took some of the men of note with him, and retired to Masada, where he broke open king ** you do not have permission to see this link **‘s armory, and gave arms not only to his own people, but to other robbers also. These he made use of for a guard, and returned in the state of a king to Jerusalem; he became the leader of the sedition.note
After this, Menahem captured the ** you do not have permission to see this link **‘s palace at Jerusalem, laid siege to some minor Roman fortifications and ordered the execution of the high priest. He was now the only leader of the Jewish revolt, and could boast remarkable successes. However, the son of the high priest, Eleasar, was the leader of the temple guard and Menahem’s deadly enemy.
The overthrow of the places of strength, and the death of the high priest Ananias, so puffed up Menahem, that he became ** you do not have permission to see this link **ly cruel; and as he thought he had no antagonist to dispute the management of affairs with him, he was no better than an insupportable tyrant. But Eleasar and his party […] made an assault upon him in the temple, for he went up thither to worship in a pompous manner, and adorned with royal garments, and had his followers with him in their armor. Eleasar and his party fell violently upon him, as did also the rest of the people; taking up stones to attack him withal, they threw them at the scholar, and thought, that if he were once ruined, the entire sedition would fall to the ground. Menahem and his party made resistance for a while, but when they perceived that the whole multitude were falling upon them, they fled which way every one was able; those that were caught were slain, and those that hid themselves were searched for. A few of them escaped privately to Masada […]. As for Menahem himself, he ran away to the place called Ophla, and there lay skulking in private; but they took him alive, and drew him out before them all; they then tortured him with many sorts of torments, and after all slew him, as they did by those that were captains under him also.note
Comment: There is no need to doubt whether Menahem claimed to be the Messiah. He was a warrior, entered Jerusalem dressed as a king, quarreled with the high priest (who may have entertained some doubts about Menahem’s claim), and worshipped God in the Temple. We can be positive that Menahem wanted to be the sole ruler of a restored ** you do not have permission to see this link **. There are no indications that his rule was regarded as the inauguration of the end of times, but this was, of course, not necessary.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert