Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
delight

Founder of christanity?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

You like your friend prowl around the site as if you are leading authorities on the subject of Christianity, I'm sorry my friend but you misunderstand even the easiest thing in Christianity simply to make it a problem. And honeslty do you think that the Christians here don't back me on the things we agree on? Moreover I dont need the backing of ANY ONE Christian here to prove to you the conviction that Christ died and was raised on the third day.

Now see if any Christian will back me on this.

Edited by HolyHolyHoly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you even know what a Pentecostal is?The question was directed to him.But you have a habit of cropping up at a wrong place at a wrong time with a wrong response.

But as you have promised you will answer questions than tell me.Some of you worship Jesus as the main Godhead,some the Holy Spirit.If trinitarian believe all three as the same,why the discrepancy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You like your friend prowl around the site as if you are leading authorities on the subject of Christianity, I'm sorry my friend but you misunderstand even the easiest thing in Christianity simply to make it a problem. And honeslty do you think that the Christians here don't back me on the things we agree on? Moreover I dont need the backing of ANY ONE Christian here to prove to you the conviction that Christ died and was raised on the third day.

Now see if any Christian will back me on this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said... and I agree btw.. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well said... and I agree btw..  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I came this thread to read about who founded Christianity, not to see a "The_Way" and "HolyHolyHoly" group hug! If these gentlemen (or ladies) would stop throwing red herrings all over this forum and stick to the topic maybe we could all learn something here!

P.S. I don't see what the crucifiction has to do with this topic???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I came this thread to read about who founded Christianity, not to see a "The_Way" and "HolyHolyHoly" group hug! If these gentlemen (or ladies) would stop throwing red herrings all over this forum and stick to the topic maybe we could all learn something here!

P.S. I don't see what the crucifiction has to do with this topic???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unity in Christ my friend... maybe you could learn something from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unity in Christ my friend... maybe you could learn something from that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean; Unite with those who agree with you. That's something even a three year old child can master.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean; Unite with those who agree with you. That's something even a three year old child can master.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No.. I mean unity in Christ. That's not a hard concept to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No.. I mean unity in Christ.  That's not a hard concept to understand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So are you saying that those who disagree with you are not "in Christ"?? (like Catholics, for example)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you saying that those who disagree with you are not "in Christ"?? (like Catholics, for example)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Catholics are just as much "In Christ" as other denominations. You try hard to cause division and arguments between the different Christians here, yet fail so miserably.

If you have to resort to these tactics (I have yet to see a Christian here bring up issues between Shias and Sunnis, of which there are plenty), then so be it. You are only showing yourself up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catholics are just as much "In Christ" as other denominations.  You try hard to cause division and arguments between the different Christians here, yet fail so miserably.

If you have to resort to these tactics (I have yet to see a Christian here bring up issues between Shias and Sunnis, of which there are plenty), then so be it.  You are only showing yourself up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By all means BRING IT UP! (but please post in the Sunni/Shia dialogue forum). We as Muslims don't run away from our differences, we discuss them (unfortunately sometimes our emotions get the best of us as well).

I do point out, from time to time, how one group of Christians views another. This is to expose the falicy that many Christians here promote that all "Christians are "brothers in Christ". What about Christians that don't belive in the "divinity of Christ", are they your "brothers"? Does the term REAL Christian ring a bell (I didn't invent it)??

Edited by Ali Zaki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2005 at 10:29 AM, oldsword81 said:

what's the difference between Son of God and Son of Man? Son of Man is what Jesus says in the Bible. Is he calling himself in the third person? But why is "Man" used?

That's a GREAT question! Only in the person of Jesus, there is no difference. Jesus was fully God, incarnate by the Holy Spirit of God, and through the womb of Mary, a virgin, Jesus was given human birth, fully Man, the only one without sin. This qualified Jesus to identify with men and, because He was without sin, to give his life up to death as payment in full for the sins of those who would believe and be raised from the dead, literally the first-born from the dead, to show that we will live with Him after death, also.

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"
29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be.
30 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."
34 And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"
35 And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy-the Son of God. - Luke 1:26-35

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the Original Post-

The three authors are popular writers who have made no impact on professional scholarship. Their work is generally seen as highly imaginative, poorly thought out and irrelevant to the quest for the Jesus of history.

What Jesus was trying, successfully, to do was to start off the Kingdom of God with himself at the head of it.

The historical records we have tell us this unambiguously. Whether it's in the telling of parables, the speeches of Jesus, the writings of those who came after him or whatever else, Jesus intention is clear. Carrying out God's promises to sort things out.

Not only is Christianity thoroughly Jewish, but could not exist without it's Jewish roots. This is where the writers in the OP got it very wrong. You can't go very far in the New Testament before you hit an Old Testament reference and the whole setup of Christianity needs its Jewish basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 12:52 AM, MartyS said:

what's the difference between Son of God and Son of Man? Son of Man is what Jesus says in the Bible. Is he calling himself in the third person? But why is "Man" used?

Man as in mankind, homo-sapiens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2005 at 7:13 AM, delight said:

On page 364 of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the authors,

l read this decades ago.

As far as Saul-Paul goes, the new book Satan Says outlines his objectives. [there is more than one book with this title, so you have to look for it. One of the others is poetry.]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 1:51 AM, Leslie P said:

What Jesus was trying, successfully, to do was to start off the Kingdom of God with himself at the head of it.

 

4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Man as in mankind, homo-sapiens.

Son of man from Shia Islam viepoint

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrase Son of Man can't really be dealt with properly in a brief way, but I can outline what it means as follows:

It is a very distinctive phrase that the evidence says goes back to the historical Jesus as a way of talking about himself.

The usage of the phrase goes back before Jesus, being there in the book of Daniel.

It is something like a substitute way of saying 'I' that also implies a special mission or function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 5:07 PM, hasanhh said:

The video says lineage in lslam passes through the father. Then why, per hadith, is lmam Mahdi said to be a descendant of Fatima?

Salam it said that all Shia Imams are descendant of lady Fatima (sa) & when Harun the Abbasid caliph asked about it from Imam Kadhim (عليه السلام)

With Harun al-Rashid[edit]

One of the stories about the Imam concerns an incident where Harun al-Rashid and the Imam were together before the tomb of Muhammad in Medina, when, to show his family ties to Muhammad, al-Rashid had said, "Salutation unto thee, O Prophet of God, unto thee who art my cousin!" In response, the Imam said, "Salutation unto thee, o my dear father!" which made al-Rashid furious. "Abul-Hasan, such glory as thine is truly to be vaunted of" said al-Rashid.[13] Later, al-Rashid found the opportunity to question him, asking why he had permitted people to ascribe him to Muhammad and to call him: "O Sons of Allah's Apostle", while he was actually the son of Ali, and that one is ascribed to his father, and that Fatimah, his mother, was a container, and that Muhammad was his grandfather on the side of his mother. The Imam replied, asking "If the Prophet was raised from the dead and proposed to your daughter, would you respond to him?" "Rather I would through that pride myself on the Arabs, the non-Arabs, and Quraysh," answered al-Rashid. "But he would not propose (to my daughter) and I would not marry (her) to him," said the Imam, "because he begot me and did not beget you." Al-Rashid, however, was not satisfied with this answer, insisting that "the progeny belongs to the male and not to the female", and that the Imams were Muhammad's daughter's children.[g][33]

The Imam quoted from the Qur'an, stating that in the Qur'an, God had said: "and of his descendants, David and Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses and Aaron; and thus do We reward those who do good. And Zechariah and John the Baptist, and Jesus and Elias: All in the company of the righteous"[h] "Who is Jesus's father, O Commander of the faithful?" asked the Imam. "Jesus had no father," said al-Rashid. The Imam argued that God had ascribed Jesus to the descendants of the Prophets through Mary; "similarly, we have been ascribed to the descendants of the Prophet through our mother Fatimah," said the Imam.[33] Nevertheless, al-Rashid asked the Imam to give him more evidence and proof, so he put forward another quote from the Qur'an, reciting the verse: "But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: Come, let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and ourselves and yourselves, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars." Then he said: "None claims that the Prophet made someone enter under the cloak when he challenged the Christians to a contest of prayer to God (mubahala) except Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn. Therefore the explanation of the verse is: Our sons are al-Hasan and al-Husayn; our women is Fatimah; ourselves is Ali

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_al-Kadhim

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X=3

Also X=1

If you do not believe in the above mathematics then you are lost heathen and going to the fires!~

No, X=4 lets not forget Mary.

And X=1 also because we're not polytheists, no no, not polytheists.

You must believe in a God who got crucified by a bunch of mortals toting pointy sticks in ancient times. Fire could have burnt them all but no no Fire not a God pagan magian. True God should die. Die for your sins. So keep on sinning. Or don't. And attend church on sundays lest ye be lost.

Jews conspired and got him killed but Jews friends, Jews our roots, Jews OT necessary with the bible.

I hope I did not make any sense heavens forbid.

If you say

X=1

you heretic! :o make sense!~

X=3 ALSO!!!! ARGH!@#!@#@!#@!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Javy was such fun. He trolled the site with a half dozen profiles. You could always tell it was him by the whiskey rants.

It took some 700 years to decide there was a trinity, (second council of Nicaea). If you take every divine reference in the Bible as  must be God, you don't have much choice.

Jesus never taught it, the disciples never taught it, Paul never taught it, so why?

 

 



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

It took some 700 years to decide there was a trinity, (second council of Nicaea). If you take every divine reference in the Bible as  must be God, you don't have much choice.

Jesus never taught it, the disciples never taught it, Paul never taught it, so why?
 

Jesus definitely said things about himself or the whole 'Jesus is God as human' thing would never have been started. The disciples must have taught it, or the New Testament wouldn't have been filled with 'Jesus is God as human' writing. And Paul demonstrably taught it in his writings (for example compare Isaiah 45:23 with Phil 2:9-11).

And that Paul was able to write in the way he did reinforces that the whole 'Jesus is God as human' thing was set in motion by Jesus and backed by the disciples, and that all this happened quickly after the resurrection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2019 at 1:19 AM, Darth Vader said:

Why is there never a mention about the angel Gabriel and how he, also, was determined to also be another equal and same God and worthy of worship?

I haven't read proper material about him yet.

I'd never mention it. First time I've heard of it.

On 9/26/2019 at 3:18 PM, Leslie P said:

Jesus definitely said things about himself or the whole 'Jesus is God as human' thing would never have been started. The disciples must have taught it, or the New Testament wouldn't have been filled with 'Jesus is God as human' writing. And Paul demonstrably taught it in his writings (for example compare Isaiah 45:23 with Phil 2:9-11).

And that Paul was able to write in the way he did reinforces that the whole 'Jesus is God as human' thing was set in motion by Jesus and backed by the disciples, and that all this happened quickly after the resurrection.

Is why I said, you don't have much of a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Darth Vader said:

Oh? Just who is the holy ghost then brother?

To be honest I'm not exactly sure, probably won't be while I'm alive. The first verse of Genesis introduces God, the second verse introduces "the Spirit of the LORD", (the Holy Spirit), the third verse introduces the creation of "light", prior to the creation of the sun. I believe these three are what would be known as the "Godhead". We know that God is the top of the hierarchy, we know that the kingdoms he established on Earth were a hierarchy, therefore it is not unusual to believe God has a host of subjects on all levels. 
If you go back to Abraham asking for God's name, three entities are mentioned. Jehovah, The Lord of hosts, and Elohim, who said His name was "I am". 
I believe they have come up with seven names for archangels, Gabriel being one of the most mentioned because he's the messenger, seems to work alone at very crucial times. I don't know of any lore that ever mentions him ever trying to reach the stature of God. It's a very dangerous thing to do.

The spirit world is a lot more than jinn.    This could go on for a while, tell me where I lose you.   
The Holy Spirit, the Lord of hosts, subject to God, would seem to have stature over the archangels, and hosts of angels able to do and be. The filling of the Spirit started after Jesus left Earth, as he said, (to his disciples), he would send a comforter. Shortly after while the disciples gathered, the Spirit fell on them...them. The courage and wisdom to be able to preach, to know stuff, and to do various miracles. There are certain people who have been filled since then, but not so many. 
It becomes a mockery when people go to church, get "filled with the spirit" and go home to continue their carnal/Christian lives. I don't believe God works that way. You get it or you don't, most of us don't, although many of us do get insight or gifts of the spirit. Divine insight and gifts are not limited to any religion. 

In the end, the only thing that really matters is your relationship with God. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2019 at 5:33 AM, Son of Placid said:

Is why I said, you don't have much of a choice.

We don't have much of a choice?

I think we may be muddling up two things here. For a Christian committed to a strong inspiration of the Bible, there would be an overwhelming argument in favour of viewing Jesus as God.

However there is a second statement I think can be made: there is powerful historical evidence that Jesus himself taught things that pointed his listeners to his divine status. Further, there is historical  powerful evidence that the Early Church rapidly concluded in the light of all they experienced that Jesus was the Presence of God in human form. This powerful historical evidence works independently of any particular belief. It is there for atheists, agnostics, Buddhists etc to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 12:52 AM, MartyS said:

That's a GREAT question! Only in the person of Jesus, there is no difference. Jesus was fully God, incarnate by the Holy Spirit of God, and through the womb of Mary, a virgin, Jesus was given human birth, fully Man, the only one without sin. This qualified Jesus to identify with men and, because He was without sin, to give his life up to death as payment in full for the sins of those who would believe and be raised from the dead, literally the first-born from the dead, to show that we will live with Him after death, also.

The phrase ο υιος του ανθρωπου/filius hominis being interpreted as a contrast with the son of God in order to reference Jesus' human nature is a traditional interpretation, but a simpler explanation might be more appropriate. The phrase is a translation of the Aramaic phrase bar-ěnāš/barnāš, barnāšā (ܒܪ ܐܢܫܐ، בַר אֱנָשׁ)which just meant "a man" in general or "someone", perhaps it can be equated to the Arabic word fulān (so-and-so) and perhaps even the English saying "John Q. Citizen" to refer to someone in general. You can read the full definition of this Aramaic phrase with reference to works in Jewish Aramaic dialects and Classical Syriac. It just seems to be an Aramaism the authors of the Gospels translated verbatim into Greek, which isn't strange seeing the sort of Semitic idiom NT Greek is often in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that the idea of “Son of Man” referencing Jesus' human nature is unlikely, since Jesus had no need to make that point. It was obvious by looking!

The next thing to say about 'Son of Man' is that there is no clear consensus at this time how Jesus used it of himself. Some theologians dislike going there at all.

It may be, as Ibn Al-Ja'abi suggests, an Aramaic phrase used as a circumlocution for 'I' or 'Someone in my position'; and there are may be instances where that could be how Jesus uses it (Mt 8:20 for example).

However not all passages work so well with that usage, and it may be that Jesus was referring to Daniel 7  in its usage of 'one like a son of man'. This would self-identify Jesus as the one who rescued God's people, and established the Kingdom of God.

 

This is reinforced by Mark 14:62 where Jesus is explicitly referencing Daniel 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 6:02 PM, Leslie P said:

It may be, as Ibn Al-Ja'abi suggests, an Aramaic phrase used as a circumlocution for 'I' or 'Someone in my position'; and there are may be instances where that could be how Jesus uses it (Mt 8:20 for example).

It's not "I" or "someone in my position", it's more "someone" or "a man". For example, the following passage:

וְאָנֹכִ֣י תוֹלַ֣עַת וְלֹא־אִ֑ישׁ חֶרְפַּ֥ת אָ֝דָ֗ם וּבְז֥וּי עָֽם׃

I am a worm, not a man*, scorned by men and despised by people. (Ps 22:7 -- 22:6 in English Bibles)

The word man is generically a human as opposed to specifically a male since it's being contrasted with the species "worm". In the Aramaic Targum of Psalms this verse is rendered:

וַאֲנָא זְחִיל חֲלָשׁ וְלָא גִבָּר סָכָל חִסוּדֵי בְּנֵי נָשָׁא וּמִתְרַמְרְמוּתָא דְעַמְמֵי:

I am a weak worm and not a man, a foolish shame among men and the object of contempt of people.

What is interesting to note is that in the above "a foolish shame among men" may be also translated "a foolish shame among the sons of man", that is to say just people generically (this is the translation of åδåm in the Hebrew). In the Syriac translation, the Pe[Edited Out]ta, you find:

ܐܢܐ ܬܘܠܥܐ ܐܢܐ ܘܠܐ ܒܪܢܫܐ܂ ܚܣܕܐ ܕܒܢ̈ܝ ܐܢܫܐ ܘܣܘܠܢܗ ܕܥܡܐ܂

I am a worm, not a man, shamed by men and despised by people.

Now in both instances "man" is "son of man" in the Syriac, just meaning someone or a man in general.

 

Now considering Mt.8:20:

και λεγει αυτω ο ιησους αι αλωπεκες φωλεους εχουσιν και τα πετεινα του ουρανου κατασκηνωσεις ο δε υιος του ανθρωπου ουκ εχει που την κεφαλην κλινη

To translate the intended idiom we would translate it:

And Jesus said to him: "Foxes have their dens and the birds of the heavens have their nests, but a man [or: someone] does not have a place to lay his head."

The Syriac translation of the Greek reads with that idiom of "someone":

ܐܡܪ ܡܪܢ ܠܬܥܠܐ ܢܩ̈ܥܐ ܐܝܬ ܠܗܘܢ ܘܠܦܪܚܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ ܡܛܠܠܐ ܘܠܒܪܗ ܕܐܢܫܐ ܠܝܬ ܠܗ ܐܬܪ ܕܢܣܡܘܟ ܪܝܫܗ

The preservation of this idiom in translations is ancient, even being maintained by Jerome who must have had some exposure to Aramaic as as a spoken vernacular -- as he'd spent time in Palestine to pick up on Hebrew and Aramaic for translating the Bible and records information about Aramaic and the people he'd encountered there:

Et dicit ei Iesus: Vulpes foveas habent, et volucres cæli nidos: Filius autem hominis non habet ubi caput reclinet.

On 10/9/2019 at 6:02 PM, Leslie P said:

However not all passages work so well with that usage, and it may be that Jesus was referring to Daniel 7  in its usage of 'one like a son of man'. This would self-identify Jesus as the one who rescued God's people, and established the Kingdom of God.

This phrase is again "someone" in Daniel, specifically a Messianic figure in the case of this passage -- remember that this section of Daniel is written in Aramaic, not in Hebrew:

 חָזֵ֤ה הֲוֵית֙ בְּחֶזְוֵ֣י לֵֽילְיָ֔א וַאֲרוּ֙ עִם־עֲנָנֵ֣י שְׁמַיָּ֔א כְּבַ֥ר אֱנָ֖שׁ אָתֵ֣ה הֲוָ֑ה וְעַד־עַתִּ֤יק יֽוֹמַיָּא֙ מְטָ֔ה וּקְדָמ֖וֹהִי הַקְרְבֽוּהִי׃

As I was seeing in the vision of the night that with the clouds of the heavens someone like a man was coming and was reaching into ancient days and he was presented to him.

The reading of "someone" or a man generally works again here. I came across this article a few weeks ago which discussed the possible significance of using the phrase which you may perhaps be interested in, it isn't necessitated that this person must be Jesus in fact, just the Messiah that the Second Temple period Jews writing Daniel had in mind. Reading Jesus is an interpretation of the text stemming from your sectarian persuasion, which is fine as long as its acknowledged it isn't evident in the text of Daniel alone. 

I'd recommend you read the CAL definition of this phrase, they also have a variety of examples in their definitions (including one from the Sefire steles from some seven hundred years before Jesus: bkl mh zy ymwt br ʾnš -- with anything from which a person may die). There is one important thing in considering the attestations of this phrase especially in the Biblical text and translations, the Aramaic is a very ancient language with a great many varieties attested over a longer period that Hebrew. The second definition of "person-hood" might fight the Syriac idiom better but "someone" (the first definition) seems to have been used pretty much continuously from Old Aramaic texts. I must also acknowledge that while Syriac wasn't the language of composition of the NT and it wasn't the dialect of Aramaic which Jesus spoke -- his being a transitional west Aramaic dialect while Syriac is the eastern Aramaic dialect of Edessa --, but looking at the Syriac is useful for considering the Semitic, and specifically Aramaic, idiom that Jesus was speaking in and the NT authors are trying to convey. It seems pretty clear that this phrase actually should be read as "someone".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the detailed analysis.

 

Much as there are significant issues I have with it, I won't be engaging directly for the following reasons:

1) The issues involved with the phrase “Son of Man” are lengthy, detailed and technical, and need something of at least the length of an academic paper to deal with properly.

2) There is no consensus in any respect in academia about it. Bultmann's 3 way ministry/suffering-death-resurrection/future role division remains the mode. Geza Vermes 3 way circumlocution I/someone in my position/modest self-reference remains highly influential. Sanders has no solution, and Borg/Crossan simply remove the question from study. See Wikipedia for more.

And so on. In short, if 150 years of intensive study by experts in the field have failed to even begin to approach a recognised solution, we're unfortunately not going to do it on this thread, and I would advise that it is not at all clear that 'someone' is the correct and exclusive usage.

An unnamed colleague quoted by N.T.Wright sums it up “Son of Man? Son of Man? That way lies madness”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 3:18 AM, Darth Vader said:

X=3

Also X=1

If you do not believe in the above mathematics then you are lost heathen and going to the fires!~

No, X=4 lets not forget Mary.

And X=1 also because we're not polytheists, no no, not polytheists.

You must believe in a God who got crucified by a bunch of mortals toting pointy sticks in ancient times. Fire could have burnt them all but no no Fire not a God pagan magian. True God should die. Die for your sins. So keep on sinning. Or don't. And attend church on sundays lest ye be lost.

Jews conspired and got him killed but Jews friends, Jews our roots, Jews OT necessary with the bible.

I hope I did not make any sense heavens forbid.

If you say

X=1

you heretic! :o make sense!~

X=3 ALSO!!!! ARGH!@#!@#@!#@!!!!!!

Now you know why it is said of evilgelicals: they spout bible babble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leslie P said:

2) There is no consensus in any respect in academia about it. Bultmann's 3 way ministry/suffering-death-resurrection/future role division remains the mode. Geza Vermes 3 way circumlocution I/someone in my position/modest self-reference remains highly influential. Sanders has no solution, and Borg/Crossan simply remove the question from study. See Wikipedia for more.

And so on. In short, if 150 years of intensive study by experts in the field have failed to even begin to approach a recognised solution, we're unfortunately not going to do it on this thread, and I would advise that it is not at all clear that 'someone' is the correct and exclusive usage.

Salams,

I think we're talking about approaching it from two different points of view. Bultmann's interpretation has to do with why it was used, an exegetical question I'll leave for Christians to answer for themselves. What I've done in the above was to show what it means, that is a philological question that must be observed through Aramaic sources -- since Aramaic is the language of Jesus and we get various Aramaic phrases translated into the Greek. As far as what it means, we can be reasonably sure that this is "someone" or "a man" based on the dearth of data in Aramaic sources ranging over a millennium. Unless Jesus wasn't speaking in Aramaic but it's reasonable to think he was considering in instances of dialogue we get Aramaic phrases like ܪܒܝ (rabbī -- my great one, my lord), ܛܠܝܬܐ ܩܘܡܝ (qūm ṭalīθa -- Girl! Stand up!), ܐܠܝ ܐܠܝ ܠܡܐ ܫܒܩܬܢܝ (ēlī ēlī lāmmā šβaqtanī -- my God, my God, why have you abandoned me?) -- I reiterate again I know Jesus didn't speak Aramaic but I used the Syriac script to write out the Aramaic because I can't figure out which key is which in the Hebrew keyboard while the Syriac keyboard is the same as the Arabic on my laptop and the Syriac Pe[Edited Out]ta exists already has a translation of the NT into a Middle Aramaic dialect close to what Jesus would've spoken and between Palestinian Aramaic and Syriac these phrases are mutually intelligible. So we can know what Jesus was saying, the question for why he said it is something I'll leave for the scholars to debate another 150 years although I find Vermes' point to be convincing (regarding it being a humble way to refer to oneself).

God knows!

1 hour ago, Leslie P said:

Thank you for the detailed analysis.

It's a fascinating topic and the research was truly fun, thank you for bringing it up.

 

Iltemas e Dua

Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...