Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, Mark 7. 19 "Thus he declared all foods clean". This (i recall that I read) is not in the earliest manuscripts
and, if so, Matthew did not 'omit' it. Luke added his similar comment and others added it to mark, perhaps taking Luke as a prompt.
But even if the 'thus he declared all foods clean' gloss was in the earliest manuscripts it still isn't a problem because even it is is original and Mark wrote it, it is a parenthetical addition of Mark's, rather as Luke added to his copy. Thus both had reason to add it by way of clarification.
Though I will conceded that it could suggests that something along those lines could have been original and Matthew did omit it or even if not, that he didn't add his own claification might support you case that, because he was jewish, he had more respect for the Mosaic law.
.......
I just had a look and there was a lot of wrangling about the reading of the parenthetical remark, but nobody said that it wasn't originally there, so I must be misremembering. So Matthew being a converted Jew is at least as valid a claim as a Greco -Roman Christian with an interest in prophecy and the Law.
But what did Jews consider food and what did they consider not food?...
The 'Jesus was talking about Bread and not Pork' argument? as Old Goralsky told the Rabbi in one of the 'Rabbi' books that I so enjoy "What I put in my mouth and swallow, that to me is eating".
Well, Trans, Paul's "own reasons," and what Hannibal fails to grasp is that Paul recognized that Jesus' message was not ABOUT laws or religious practices, but about the PRINCIPLE that should animate laws and practices and DEFINES whether those laws and practices have any validity.
the 'jesus was talking about bread and not pork' argument? As old goralsky told the rabbi in one of the 'rabbi' books that i so enjoy "what i put in my mouth and swallow, that to me is eating".
You are sitting there making things up, Jesus said that if you wont keep the laws and you come here teaching people not to keep the laws, YOU are the least in the kingdom of heaven, not such a great goal.
I'm not the one who made up Moses. The biblical Moses is a culture hero who was the subject of campfire stories, probably for centuries before a written language existed to carve the stories in stone. The idea of him chiseling two sets of stone tablets with Egyptian hieroglyphics that most of them couldn't read while the tribes camped at the base of the mountain is vastly entertaining. I'm sure it caused a lot of campfire laughter before everyone started taking it so seriously. You have to wonder where he got the tablets. It's not like there were office supply stores in the Sinai.
Written proto-Hebrew was a thing by the 10th century, and the Torah was edited into its final form by the 7th century. Leviticus, in particular, is the work of a literate professional priesthood, with so many tabus it is a life's work to dodge all of them. They just gave author credit to Moses because everybody had heard of him, but a small town shopkeeper would have no idea what that meant. Deuteronomy is an obvious fake.
The whole Torah is woefully short on historic accuracy. Some of it is pure fairy tale, like the creation story and the Exodus. Other parts are translations of other myths, like Utnapishtim's flood, though the part about rainbows is a charming children's story. Archaeologists have pretty well established that the Exodus never happened, at least on the scale described, and Joshua's (Yeshueh's) conquest of Canaan didn't happen. The tribe of Dan was not Hebrew at all, and was more or less native to Canaan, and may have been a faction of Philistines. Solomon's stables didn't belong to him, and were built by another Israelite king.
If you are looking for an historical Moses, you will be looking for a long time, or you have to ramp up your credulity. Culture heroes are prominent artifacts of pre-literate societies. The comparison to Heracles is apt. Each tribe of Greeks had hero stories that were eventually edited into the 10 labors of Heracles, later expanded to 12. Adding a couple more commandments seemed irreligious to the Jews, so they wrote a whole new book of commandments instead. You have to admire their commitment.
Well, Trans, Paul's "own reasons," and what Hannibal fails to grasp is that Paul recognized that Jesus' message was not ABOUT laws or religious practices, but about the PRINCIPLE that should animate laws and practices and DEFINES whether those laws and practices have any validity.
I shall have to let Canniball Flavorless give his own take on that. But, getting back nicely to topic, I don't believe those were Jesus' teachings at all, but Paul's own idea for getting Gentiles on Board by taking Jewish away as a requirement for becoming God's people. That idea of his was taken and put into Jesus' mouth and that is why my General Theory is that there is a real Jesus story found in what is is shown as doing (give or take a good number of miracles) but I reckon that none of what he said - not a word - is authentic Jesus -quote. How can we think otherwise when John doesn't quote a single parable - not even the really good ones like the Good samaritan or the prodigal son (but then neither do the other two synoptics - Matthew and Mark) - and none of the synoptics mention any of the sermons we get in John - not even the really significant ones.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-07-2018 at 12:32 PM..
Most Christians don't have a clue what a Messiah is, and why the Jews are still waiting for one, though a lot of them thought Moshe Dayan was one. Joshua was the archetypal mashiach, a war leader who could call on Yahweh magic to wreck his opponents. He knocked down the walls of Jericho and made the sun and moon stand still in the sky with Yahweh magic. Jesus was a failed messiah.
I'm not the one who made up Moses. The biblical Moses is a culture hero who was the subject of campfire stories, probably for centuries before a written language existed to carve the stories in stone. The idea of him chiseling two sets of stone tablets with Egyptian hieroglyphics that most of them couldn't read while the tribes camped at the base of the mountain is vastly entertaining. I'm sure it caused a lot of campfire laughter before everyone started taking it so seriously. You have to wonder where he got the tablets. It's not like there were office supply stores in the Sinai.
Written proto-Hebrew was a thing by the 10th century, and the Torah was edited into its final form by the 7th century. Leviticus, in particular, is the work of a literate professional priesthood, with so many tabus it is a life's work to dodge all of them. They just gave author credit to Moses because everybody had heard of him, but a small town shopkeeper would have no idea what that meant. Deuteronomy is an obvious fake.
The whole Torah is woefully short on historic accuracy. Some of it is pure fairy tale, like the creation story and the Exodus. Other parts are translations of other myths, like Utnapishtim's flood, though the part about rainbows is a charming children's story. Archaeologists have pretty well established that the Exodus never happened, at least on the scale described, and Joshua's (Yeshueh's) conquest of Canaan didn't happen. The tribe of Dan was not Hebrew at all, and was more or less native to Canaan, and may have been a faction of Philistines. Solomon's stables didn't belong to him, and were built by another Israelite king.
If you are looking for an historical Moses, you will be looking for a long time, or you have to ramp up your credulity. Culture heroes are prominent artifacts of pre-literate societies. The comparison to Heracles is apt. Each tribe of Greeks had hero stories that were eventually edited into the 10 labors of Heracles, later expanded to 12. Adding a couple more commandments seemed irreligious to the Jews, so they wrote a whole new book of commandments instead. You have to admire their commitment.
I haver a theory about Moses... ....at first around 10-9th C BC, the Laws making El the go of the Hebrews were laid down and Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers were the first books of the Bible. It is interesting that the earliest knen Bibletext - the silver scroll dated 600 BC is related to these books of the law. Later there were the war -prophets during the wars (lost ) with Babylon and Assyria and then the exile. During that time, the hebrews had to become more separate and distinct from the Babylonians than ever before. They wrote an origin of the world and their history, borrowing Mesopotamian legends. Not only the Creation and Flood of Genesis but their historical appearance out of the hills and occupying Canaan in the time after the 11th collapse, I suggest that they used records of a Canaanite tribe being expelled from Egypt by a certain Amose, and made it a tribe of Hebrews leaving Egypt under a leader, Moses. During that time, the Laws were given and the existing laws and rules were backdated to then. And because of avoiding the Philistines who didn't exist at the time, and some disobedience or other they had to wander around before entering Canaan from the East rather than the west.
Even Moses' origins are borrowed from Mesopotamis - the life of Sargon of Akkad.
Most Christians don't have a clue what a Messiah is, and why the Jews are still waiting for one, though a lot of them thought Moshe Dayan was one. Joshua was the archetypal mashiach, a war leader who could call on Yahweh magic to wreck his opponents. He knocked down the walls of Jericho and made the sun and moon stand still in the sky with Yahweh magic. Jesus was a failed messiah.
But the disciples - Paul (referenced by Luke) says it was Cephas/Peter - got the idea that he hadn't totally failed. His spirit had gone to heaven and he'd be coming back to finish the job. They just had to be patient and steadfast and keep the faith. That idea is clearly what Paul got from the disciples, even though he says he got nothing from men, only from God, and it's still the message of the Gospels. He'd be killed, rise again and come back. Of course he had to predict all of this in his story - no hint could be given that it had gone wrong. It was all part of the plan.
Well, Trans, Paul's "own reasons," and what Hannibal fails to grasp is that Paul recognized that Jesus' message was not ABOUT laws or religious practices, but about the PRINCIPLE that should animate laws and practices and DEFINES whether those laws and practices have any validity.
Jesus spoke plain and simple so you would understand,'' THINK NOT that I come to do away with the law, Jesus told us who the least in the kingdom right there and you contradict Jesus making things up. Not only did he show us who was the least and the greatest by the law, he has much to say about people who disrespect the law, and that aint nothing nice when Jesus tells Christians that he never knew them because they despised tne law. The lawless one has you Nate.
You are making things up, and if Paul contradicts what Jesus said of the law and lawbreakers, then ne is making things up.......
This is something you can't understand Nate, you are always looking at people who love the law as if it has something to do with salvation because you don't know the law and you will never get past your concept of what the law is.......The lawless One who stands against everything called of God or worshipped of God.
Nate do you understand the mentality of lawlessness you have? Do you understand what lawlessness means and what it means to fight against the laws and worship system of God?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
is that there is a real Jesus story found in what is is shown as doing (give or take a good number of miracles) but I reckon that none of what he said - not a word - is authentic Jesus -quote. How can we think otherwise when John doesn't quote a single parable - not even the really good ones like the Good samaritan or the prodigal son (but then neither do the other two synoptics - Matthew and Mark) - and none of the synoptics mention any of the sermons we get in John - not even the really significant ones.
....at first around 10-9th C BC, the Laws making El the go of the Hebrews were laid down and Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers were the first books of the Bible. It is interesting that the earliest knen Bibletext - the silver scroll dated 600 BC is related to these books of the law. Later there were the war -prophets during the wars (lost 