Do Jews ever read the New Testament?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 3.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2017, 09:12 PM
RE: Do Jews ever read the New Testament?
(26-07-2017 09:10 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  What's currently the best apologetic reason for why Mark didn't mention the birth of Jesus?

I heard the writers were on strike. Yes

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2017, 09:14 PM
RE: Do Jews ever read the New Testament?
(26-07-2017 09:10 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  What's currently the best apologetic reason for why Mark didn't mention the birth of Jesus?

For starters. Mark starts his Gospel at the beginning of Jesus's ministry. Jesus is already an adult.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2017, 09:20 PM
RE: Do Jews ever read the New Testament?
Mark starts nothing. The author of "Mark" is unknown.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-07-2017, 09:29 PM
RE: Do Jews ever read the New Testament?
(26-07-2017 09:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-07-2017 09:10 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  What's currently the best apologetic reason for why Mark didn't mention the birth of Jesus?

For starters. Mark starts his Gospel at the beginning of Jesus's ministry. Jesus is already an adult.

(26-07-2017 09:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Mark starts his Gospel at the beginning of Jesus's ministry. Jesus is already an adult

Jesus had been dead 40 years when whoever wrote Mark, wrote Mark.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2017, 09:41 PM
RE: Do Jews ever read the New Testament?
(26-07-2017 09:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-07-2017 09:10 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  What's currently the best apologetic reason for why Mark didn't mention the birth of Jesus?

For starters. Mark starts his Gospel at the beginning of Jesus's ministry. Jesus is already an adult.

Did your earlier post suggest Matthew and Luke were not really referring to a "Virgin" birth...? I don't want to misrepresent you. If there was no virgin birth, or belief that there might have been a miraculous or virgin birth, it would make more sense that Mark left it out. Mark would not bother to begin with something like "He was born, you know, pretty much like everyone else was. So let me skip ahead..."

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2017, 09:46 PM
RE: Do Jews ever read the New Testament?
Actually a miraculous birth would not have fit with the themes in Mark, one of which was the "Messianic Secret".
http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/art.../t94/e1244

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2017, 12:02 AM
RE: Do Jews ever read the New Testament?
(26-07-2017 09:41 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(26-07-2017 09:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  For starters. Mark starts his Gospel at the beginning of Jesus's ministry. Jesus is already an adult.

Did your earlier post suggest Matthew and Luke were not really referring to a "Virgin" birth...? I don't want to misrepresent you. If there was no virgin birth, or belief that there might have been a miraculous or virgin birth, it would make more sense that Mark left it out. Mark would not bother to begin with something like "He was born, you know, pretty much like everyone else was. So let me skip ahead..."

My own "unique" and totally untethered view is that Mary and her clan were not Christians, or modern Judaism, and neither were the people of that region. If you read the NT closely, you will see miraculous aspects which, in my opinion, are supposed to appeal to people for whom they mean something. It's not that Jesus has to be born of a virgin, he just has to have the "hallmarks" of the messiah in whatever the religion was. If you study the writing of the NT, it is considered that Matthew is a source of some of what is in the other gospels. They borrow from each other and there is an unknown source which is called "Q" or "Quelle". It would be redundant to keep reiterating the same story if you wanted to be "unique". lol

Fortunately, I grew up in an era when people spoke seriously about ancient religions and cultures and it made a lot more sense.




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2017, 12:13 AM
RE: Do Jews ever read the New Testament?
(27-07-2017 12:02 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  My own "unique" and totally untethered view is that Mary and her clan were not Christians, or modern Judaism, and neither were the people of that region. If you read the NT closely, you will see miraculous aspects which, in my opinion, are supposed to appeal to people for whom they mean something. It's not that Jesus has to be born of a virgin, he just has to have the "hallmarks" of the messiah in whatever the religion was. If you study the writing of the NT, it is considered that Matthew is a source of some of what is in the other gospels. They borrow from each other and there is an unknown source which is called "Q" or "Quelle". It would be redundant to keep reiterating the same story if you wanted to be "unique". lol
Ah I'm sorry I knew someone had the opinion that the virgin birth wasn't the case or at least wasn't for sure part of the narrative. My understanding is that Mark is generally thought by scholars to be earlier and that Matthew probably referred to it as well as (maybe) q. That would make it weird that he didn't mention the virgin birth, unless which seems most likely, that myth got added later when there might have been a more purposeful attempt to reach out to gentiles.

Steve Martin was an unbelievably funny stand up comic. Totally original, Jim Carey two decades before Jim Carey.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2017, 08:12 AM
RE: Do Jews ever read the New Testament?
(26-07-2017 07:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-07-2017 02:31 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Well, not exactly. There are two Gospels (Matthew and Luke) that give genealogies of Jesus.

Matthew only goes as far as Joseph, and then says that he was the husband of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus. It seems to me that he takes pains not to say that Joseph is the father of Jesus.

Luke says that Jesus was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph. So he also implies that Joseph was not the real father.

I'm pretty sure that Christian theology (no matter the denomination) universally professes the virgin birth, and Joseph as stepfather only. I have never heard any Christian interpret it as you do.

Only Matthew and Luke could be said to claim Jesus was born of a virgin. The writers of Mark and John didn't hold such a belief, and didn't see it as something of importance to assign to Christ.

How could you possibly know what beliefs Mark or John held regarding the virgin birth? They say nothing about it one way or the other.

I wasn't referring to them anyway. I was talking about Christian theology, as it exists and is practiced today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2017, 08:24 AM
RE: Do Jews ever read the New Testament?
(26-07-2017 08:41 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(26-07-2017 02:31 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Well, not exactly. There are two Gospels (Matthew and Luke) that give genealogies of Jesus.

Matthew only goes as far as Joseph, and then says that he was the husband of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus. It seems to me that he takes pains not to say that Joseph is the father of Jesus.

Luke says that Jesus was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph. So he also implies that Joseph was not the real father.

I'm pretty sure that Christian theology (no matter the denomination) universally professes the virgin birth, and Joseph as stepfather only. I have never heard any Christian interpret it as you do.

Yes, Mark begins with the story of John the Baptist, I recall, and John rambles on about the Word. If you read the gospels and compare various stories, they tend to cover different aspects of the narrative, as though they are filling in gaps in the story.

If the NT states that Jesus has a genealogy going back to King David, then, on it's face, its saying that Joseph was his father. That's is the plain reading of it and doesn't require one to "suppose" anything.

I'm not supposing anything. Luke himself says "as was supposed" -- it's right there in his Gospel. Now why do you think he did that? Why did he give the entire genealogy in a standard format and then depart from that format for Jesus, and only for Jesus?

Why does Matthew do the same thing -- use a standard formula right up to the end, and then change it for Jesus? Everyone else in the genealogy is father and son, and then "Joseph was the husband of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus".

You have to do some real twisting and stretching of the text to think that either of those "plainly" says that Joseph was the father of Jesus. They plainly go out of their way to avoid saying that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: