Luke 22:31 has Jesus telling Peter that Satan desires to sift him like wheat but Christ prayed for him that his faith would not fail him. So if Peter is Satan, why is Peter trying to sift himself from himself, and/or why would Christ pray that Satan not be able to sift himself?
Briefly, it is not as straightforward and simple to say "Peter is Satan".
Satan is concealed and hiding out within Peter's opinion that Jesus should spare Himself.
Again Paul's explanation about the evil spirit and the fallen mankind:
" ... the ruler of the authority of the air [Satan] ... the spirit who is now operating in the sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2)
The evil spirit is OPERATING in the sons of disobedience. It is not as simple as saying that a particular son of disobedience IS this evil spirit. It is more subtle than that. This evil spirit is OPERATING in this fallen person.
So the Devil is hiding out and operating in Peter's opinion as Peter's mind is on the things of man and not on the things of God. This subtlety is not too subtle for the Lord Jesus. Nothing is hidden from His insight and He discerns that behind Peter's suggestion that Jesus pity himself Satan is operating in Peter.
blackbuzzrd,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mark's a better source than the other gospels. The typical scholarly view is that the author of Matthew redacted the Gospel of Mark. That is, he borrowed some source material from Mark's Gospel and incorporated into his own writing.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
When I studied this matter long ago I remember reading that it was not at all a statistically easy problem to figure out who borrowed from who in the synoptic gospels. Where as some instances seem as if Matthew and Luke are borrowing from Mark there are other instances where it appears otherwise.
I think it is not universally agreed that we know how source material was copied in the synoptic gospels. I recall reading that some postulated that there was a fourth and unknown account.
If you have Mark telling us that Jesus is Son of God (Mark 1:1) and you have John telling us that Jesus is Son of God (John 1:49) and you have many many other parellels of equal importance, it weakens your argument that the real account is in Mark and the false account is John.
Why should it surprise you that the four gospels speak of the same amazing Person from four different angles? Mark wants to emphasize the servitude of Christ as a slave of God. John wants to highlight that the same Person is God Himself incarnate. This speaks of the profoundness of the all-inclusive character of this Person. It does not have to mean that Mark and John are at odds in their recollection of Jesus.
Jesus is exceedingly profound. Luke wants to portray that aspect of Jesus as being a normal and proper human man. So Luke includes a geneology going all the way back to Adam in Genesis. John wants to highlight that this same man is God Himself come to us in the flesh.
With an eternal God a geneology is a joke.
The two aspects of the one Person are not in rivalry. They are like different snapshots of the same profound Person from different angles. Mark contains no geneology, probably because the servile nature of Mark's narrative does not require it. A slave usually does not have a geneology in ancient Jewish writings. But Matthew seeking to highlight that Jesus is the Messianic King and descendent of David and fulfilled promised seed to Abraham, includes a geneology to strengthen that aspect of Christ's life.
John, wishing to underscare that this man is God Himself become a man, speaks of His eternal preexistence. Of course the eternal Logos has no geneology.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Matthew is thus not an independent source in those instances where the two Gospels tell the same story, and it would fail this test. Mark fares better in this test, but likely was not written by someone who witnessed every event narrated therein.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As I said before, it has yet to be determined how these accounts were related to each other. It is one of the liturary mysteries of the world. There are many theories. But it is not certain how and who copied who.
Rationals proposed to prove that Matthew and Luke were copying from Mark are not the only rationals. Others point out that sometimes it appears that the copying occured another way. And some propose that there must be an unknown other account which has influenced Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
Many agree that Mark was an assistant to the Apostle Peter. And many agree that Mark's gospel is a recounting of the many sermons of the Apostle Peter. But Matthew was ALSO one of the twelve disciples. And the proof that Matthew is the author of the gospel of Matthew I find very convincing. So you have two of the twelve original disciples leaving us a record of the life of Jesus.
I don't think most attempts to slice and dice the gospels from one another are motivated by objectivity for history. I think bias on the part of many skeptics seek to prefer the simplicity of Mark's account to some of the deeper features of John's.
You still end up with Mark and John both informing us that Jesus is the Son of God and died and rose from the dead to be Lord of all.
I think some skeptical people have an idea that the Jesus of Mark is less bothering to them then the Jesus of John.
Many skpetics of the Gospels tout objectivity. But I question thier advertized unbiasness just a little bit.
I think Mark's gospel contains the least amount of the actual teaching of Jesus. So if you are made uncomfortable at Christ being self proclaimed as our God become a man, we may always rationalize that Mark's gospel is more reliable. Less actual teaching of Jesus is there. And its simplicity will somehow lessen the impact of the proclaimation that this man is God Himself.
I think it is vain to try to hide out behind Mark from the Lordship and Diety of Jesus Christ. Its easier to believe that Mark and John were just telling the truth, albeit with slightly different emphasises.
Originally posted by whodeyIf that's what I actually said, then I wouldn't even concur myself.
Have it your way. Evidence is only as good as it is able to be empiracally reproducable. However, I do not concur.
But that isn't what I said. I said that your analogy concerning smoking and cancer was not valid, because the two kinds of truth-claims (and the evidence that could be produced in support of each) are fundamentally different.
I think some skeptical people have an idea that the Jesus of Mark is less bothering to them then the Jesus of John.
Huh? What are you talking about?
For the record, I find the Jesus of Mark's Gospel much less aesthetically pleasing than that of the gospel of John. How can you not love the opening of the Gospel of John? It's just beautiful.
It's heavily flavored with gnosticism, of course, but that was already creeping into xianity by the time this gospel was written.
Mark, on the other hand, writes about a semi-cantankerous holy man named Jesus.
Many skpetics of the Gospels tout objectivity. But I question thier advertized unbiasness just a little bit.
As you should. I wouldn't claim to be unbiased; you should try to pick apart what I say. But you have to able to support what you say with logical reasoning that bears close scrutiny.
So if you are made uncomfortable at Christ being self proclaimed as our God become a man, we may always rationalize that Mark's gospel is more reliable. Less actual teaching of Jesus is there. And its simplicity will somehow lessen the impact of the proclaimation that this man is God Himself.
In fact, Mark as a gospel focuses very much on proclaiming the identity of Christ -- and way it works is that almost no one in the book recognizes him for who he really is. Not his family, not his disciples, virtually nobody. At the end, when he's crucified, the centurion says "Surely this man was the Son of God." The story's told from the perspective of someone revealing a secret truth that nobody was able to comprehend at the time.
That said, you missed the point. The subject here is what kinds of evidence a historian prefers.
Originally posted by jaywillWhen I studied this matter long ago I remember reading that it was not at all a statistically easy problem to figure out who borrowed from who in the synoptic gospels. Where as some instances seem as if Matthew and Luke are borrowing from Mark there are other instances where it appears otherwise.
When I studied this matter long ago I remember reading that it was not at all a statistically easy problem to figure out who borrowed from who in the synoptic gospels. Where as some instances seem as if Matthew and Luke are borrowing from Mark there are other instances where it appears otherwise.
I think it is not universally agreed that we know ho ...[text shortened]... forming us that Jesus is the Son of God and died and rose from the dead to be Lord of all.[/b]
No, redaction criticism is not a clear-cut business, anymore than any other kind of historical criticism. Again, you want to use the best evidence to create the most likely scenario of what probably happened.
I recall reading that some postulated that there was a fourth and unknown account.
More than that.
If you have Mark telling us that Jesus is Son of God (Mark 1:1) and you have John telling us that Jesus is Son of God (John 1:49) and you have many many other parellels of equal importance, it weakens your argument that the real account is in Mark and the false account is John.
The point's been lost here. My examples were intended to illustrate different criteria that historians use. I did not essay an evaluation of the origins of the synoptic gospels.
I did not argue that Mark was the "real" gospel and John was a "false" gospel. How could someone even answer a question like "which is the real gospel?"
OTOH maybe the false gospel has a beard, like Spock in that Star Trek episode "Mirror, Mirror."
As I said before, it has yet to be determined how these accounts were related to each other. It is one of the liturary mysteries of the world. There are many theories. But it is not certain how and who copied who.
Actually you'll find that there's a fair amount of scholarly consensus on what probably happened in terms of who borrowed from whom. It's the Four-Source Hypothesis:
1. Mark was a source of stories for both Matthew and Luke.
2. Q, a source lost to us, provided stories found in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.
3. M was another unnamed source for stories found only in Matthew.
4. L was an unnamed source that provided stories only found in Luke.
Sounds like you may have encountered some variant of it previously.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Huh? What are you talking about?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm talking about a matter of "Spirituality" in accordance with the nature of the Forum here.
Many people choose to play the gospels against one another in various ways to negate or weaken what I would say is the overall "spiritual" impact of the New Testament.
++++++++++++++++++++++
For the record, I find the Jesus of Mark's Gospel much less aesthetically pleasing than that of the gospel of John. How can you not love the opening of the Gospel of John? It's just beautiful.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wasn't speaking so much of aesthetic pleasure but trustworthiness of the proclaimation.
I think Luke is the most beautiful book I ever read. But beauty of style is really another matter to veracity of the witness. Fortunately Luke appears to be an excellent historian:
"Now in the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Caesar, while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zachariah in the wilderness." (Luke 3:1-2)
+++++++++++++++++++++
It's heavily flavored with gnosticism, of course, but that was already creeping into xianity by the time this gospel was written.
+++++++++++++++++
I think he adopted some gnostic sounding language for the purpose of refuting the gnostic perversions of the Gospel. In other words I think John was standing against the influence of gnosticism on the message rather than going along with it.
Similiarly, in the 21rst Century a gospel preacher might refer to astronomical themes to make a point about the Gospel. It doesn't mean that New Age philosophy is creeping into the message of Christ because of this.
That John refered to Logos and covered many mystical and divine truths about Christ is his way of refuting the influence of gnosticism not his going along with its influence.
I don't remember many things about the Gnostics. I barely have time to get into "the unsearchable riches of Christ" laid out as a feast in the New Testament.
But I do think the Gnostics believed that the material world was necessarily evil. So John goes out of his way to put his personal testimonial to the fact that he saw blood and water come out of the slain body of Jesus.
The Word became flesh, John tells us. He was not a phantasm. "I tell you, I saw blood come out of His body on the cross. He was not a phantasm. He was an actual human man." (To paraphrase John's tone).
Yes, I have wandered from your point on the historicity (a little). But I think the point of the Discussion is "Why did Jesus Die?"
Originally posted by jaywillYes, I have wandered from your point on the historicity (a little). But I think the point of the Discussion is "Why did Jesus Die?"
[b] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Huh? What are you talking about?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm talking about a matter of "Spirituality" in accordance with the nature of the Forum here.
Many people choose to play the gospels against one another in various ways to negate or weaken what I would say is the overall "spiritual" impact of th ...[text shortened]... ot a phantasm. He was an actual human man." (To paraphrase John's tone).
[/b]
You're right. I hijacked it! Sorry. Earlier posters did a fine job of expressing my opinion on it, so that's that.
Originally posted by jaywillOK , so "maybe" weakened my sentence.
Frogstomp
[b]But as I say, Maybe you can't.
The question really is - Can you? As evidenced from your answers below.
one: O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me:
nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
I don't see any explanation from Jesus in this passage as to WHY He must die. I see Him saying t ...[text shortened]... There are much clearer verses from the mouth of Jesus explaining why He has to die.[/b]
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's not like he committed suicide: it seems to me that he was charged with a political [I say political rather than religious, moral or philosophical since Jesus was way behind the heavyweight triumvirate of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who pre-dated him] crime that was punishable by death.
He was deluded.
EDIT - I guess you're looking for Muslim and other theist responses; people who believe Jesus was a prophet or something, right?
I don't think his politics were deluded, maybe naive but I would imagine that my political viewpoint will seem somewhat naive in 2000 years.
Originally posted by demonseedThat's my thought as well. Caused some trouble of the garden-variety disturbing-the-peace sort, and got executed for his pains.
It's not like he committed suicide: it seems to me that he was charged with a political [I say political rather than religious, moral or philosophical since Jesus was way behind the heavyweight triumvirate of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who pre-dated him] crime that was punishable by death.
I don't think his politics were deluded, maybe naive but I would imagine that my political viewpoint will seem somewhat naive in 2000 years.
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdYep. Just another day at the office. Thanks for demystifying 2000+ years of fuzzy thinking. And to think we could have avoided all of the confusion simply by putting the record straight right out of the gate. Wait a tic...
That's my thought as well. Caused some trouble of the garden-variety disturbing-the-peace sort, and got executed for his pains.
Originally posted by whodeyIt's nice to see that somebody is awake, but why did Christ call Peter, Satan?
Luke 22:31 has Jesus telling Peter that Satan desires to sift him like wheat but Christ prayed for him that his faith would not fail him. So if Peter is Satan, why is Peter trying to sift himself from himself, and/or why would Christ pray that Satan not be able to sift himself?
I don't really think froggy believes this, I think he just enjoys messing with us.