Doc's bishopric Sunday School (Noun or adjective? One word or two?)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.22 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2014, 10:57 AM
RE: Doc's Cyrillic воскресная школа
(22-07-2014 10:29 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Wait: Matthew, Mark, and John were eyewitnesses? Based on what?

Well, the Catholic Church claims that Matthew and John are the apostles Matthew and John, and Mark was some sort of secretary to Peter (and therefore a sort of secondhand eyewitness), as well as possibly being the mysterious guy who fled the garden of Gethsemane without his cloak. I'm with you, though -- I see no actual evidence for any of that, other than the Church saying so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 11:07 AM
RE: Doc's Cyrillic воскресная школа
(22-07-2014 10:29 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Wait: Matthew, Mark, and John were eyewitnesses? Based on what?

Based on the fact that the books were ostensibly written by those men and millions of Christians believe it to be so.

There is a need to believe that the book were mainly written by eye-witnesses to validate the claims of Jesus. To believe otherwise is to admit that the books are nothing but hearsay which reduces their value significantly. Christians must then explain why non eye-witnesses (primarily Mark and Luke) sometimes provide more detail and lengthier narratives of the same event than eye-witnesses (Matthew and John) do.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 11:49 AM
RE: Doc's Cyrillic воскресная школа
(22-07-2014 07:39 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  ---

This, the last miracle performed by Jesus, is recorded in only one of the gospels (in Luke 22:49), but the amputation itself is mentioned in all four. To clarify, Matthew 26:51, Mark 14:47, and John 18:10 all describe the cutting off of the chief priest’s servant’s ear, with John even naming Peter as the assailant and Malchus as the servant, but all three writers completely fail to mention the vastly more impressive feat performed by Jesus of reattaching the ear to Malchus’s head. Odder still, of all the Gospel writers, it was exactly Luke who was not there in Garden of Gethsemane with Jesus to witness the event.

How is it that a non-witness (Luke) can provide more detail of an event than 3 eye-witnesses (Matthew and John. Mark, too, if he was the young man who fled the scene naked)? And how is it that 3 of the 4 writers record the attack but completely fail to record an impressive miracle?

Doc

Newts can regrow amputated appendages.
Perhaps, Malchus was a newt.

Maybe the actual miracle was that Jesus temporarily turned Malchus into a newt (as any good witch would surely be able to do) and Malchus was able to regrow his amputated ear. Then, Jesus changed him back into a man servant.

Two miracles all at once is a lot to absorb.
So, not really knowing how to explain all that, it was up to Luke to offer, "Oh, yea ... that servant guy? He got his ear cut off and healed by Jesus. Yea, Matthew and John saw it, and maybe Mark ... it was very cool. Although... probably not really relevant to the story, you know. But hey, that just shows how really into healing he was. Anyway... I thought it was cool.".
***

It's possible that the entire event was just not that big of a deal for the others. Or since they really didn't know how to fully explain it without sounding like they were accusing Jesus of witchery, they just glossed over it. Or maybe they were kind of downplaying the situation for Peter by saying, "Yea, he did it but, meh... Jesus took care of it so... not a biggie."

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 12:38 PM
RE: Doc's Cyrillic воскресная школа
(22-07-2014 11:49 AM)kim Wrote:  It's possible that the entire event was just not that big of a deal for the others. Or since they really didn't know how to fully explain it without sounding like they were accusing Jesus of witchery, they just glossed over it. Or maybe they were kind of downplaying the situation for Peter by saying, "Yea, he did it but, meh... Jesus took care of it so... not a biggie."

Kimmi,

One of the primary complaints against any healer is the inability to heal an amputated organ. So this relatively minor miracle of the healing of an amputated ear suddenly acquires more importance than a mere superficial reading of the passages involved would accord it and deserves our scrutiny, because such a healer is the genuine article. By rights, the gospel writers should have trumpeted the miracle to the sky.

If Mark had the time, space, energy, and inclination to record the relatively minor (though pruriently entertaining) event of a naked man fleeing the garden to escape arrest, why on earth would he fail to mention the much more important and edifying fact of the healing miracle? Why would Matthew and John record the amputation but not spare a few words to record the healing?

Reminds me of the game we used to play as kids. We called it Telephone. Others call it Chinese Whispers. You know the one. A sentence whispered to one child, who is then told to whisper it to another child and so on, will be unrecognizable when the last child is told to repeat it out loud.

If the story of Malchus's ear passed through many hands (to mix a metaphor), it is likely that it grew with the telling. Perhaps there was a scuffle in the garden and Peter boxed Malchus's ear or something (or Mike Tyson-like, bit it). With time, a minor injury could easily be turned into a major one which could then have a healing tacked on at the end of the story. Voila, instant miracle!

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 01:29 PM
RE: Doc's Cyrillic воскресная школа
(22-07-2014 12:38 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 11:49 AM)kim Wrote:  It's possible that the entire event was just not that big of a deal for the others. Or since they really didn't know how to fully explain it without sounding like they were accusing Jesus of witchery, they just glossed over it. Or maybe they were kind of downplaying the situation for Peter by saying, "Yea, he did it but, meh... Jesus took care of it so... not a biggie."

Kimmi,

One of the primary complaints against any healer is the inability to heal an amputated organ. So this relatively minor miracle of the healing of an amputated ear suddenly acquires more importance than a mere superficial reading of the passages involved would accord it and deserves our scrutiny, because such a healer is the genuine article. By rights, the gospel writers should have trumpeted the miracle to the sky.

If Mark had the time, space, energy, and inclination to record the relatively minor (though pruriently entertaining) event of a naked man fleeing the garden to escape arrest, why on earth would he fail to mention the much more important and edifying fact of the healing miracle? Why would Matthew and John record the amputation but not spare a few words to record the healing?

Reminds me of the game we used to play as kids. We called it Telephone. Others call it Chinese Whispers. You know the one. A sentence whispered to one child, who is then told to whisper it to another child and so on, will be unrecognizable when the last child is told to repeat it out loud.

If the story of Malchus's ear passed through many hands (to mix a metaphor), it is likely that it grew with the telling. Perhaps there was a scuffle in the garden and Peter boxed Malchus's ear or something (or Mike Tyson-like, bit it). With time, a minor injury could easily be turned into a major one which could then have a healing tacked on at the end of the story. Voila, instant miracle!

Doc

Of course redaction is the answer, since Mark is the first gospel, the subsequent gospels had a habit of adding to the early gospels and even engaging in one-upsmanship. The resurrection of Jesus was simply summed up as "he is risen" in Mark, the other gospels then have him appearing before the disciples, ascending to heaven. The story just gets bigger with each retelling.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 06:10 PM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2014 06:28 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Doc's Cyrillic воскресная школа
(22-07-2014 12:38 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  If Mark had the time, space, energy, and inclination to record the relatively minor (though pruriently entertaining) event of a naked man fleeing the garden to escape arrest, why on earth would he fail to mention the much more important and edifying fact of the healing miracle? Why would Matthew and John record the amputation but not spare a few words to record the healing?

Could it be that they were so distracted by a Tallywhacker dangling in the wind that everyone missed Jesus' sleight of hand?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
22-07-2014, 08:35 PM
RE: Doc's Cyrillic воскресная школа
(22-07-2014 10:57 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 10:29 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Wait: Matthew, Mark, and John were eyewitnesses? Based on what?

Well, the Catholic Church claims that Matthew and John are the apostles Matthew and John, and Mark was some sort of secretary to Peter (and therefore a sort of secondhand eyewitness), as well as possibly being the mysterious guy who fled the garden of Gethsemane without his cloak. I'm with you, though -- I see no actual evidence for any of that, other than the Church saying so.

What's with this "cloak" business ? Dodgy
I wonder if that small incident is a reflected "memory" of what the Secret Gospel of Mark talked about, http://www.thenazareneway.com/thomasgospel.htm, or the Gospel of Thomas ?

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
22-07-2014, 08:55 PM
RE: Doc's Cyrillic воскресная школа
(04-07-2014 07:14 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(04-07-2014 10:21 AM)Anjele Wrote:  PS - Thanks for reminding me of those books. I just ordered a couple of them. It's been years since I read them and I would like to read them again. Big Grin Thumbsup

I loved those books. They took me to a safe and happy place. Like the Jeeves and Wooster series. Enjoy!

Doc

Totally off topic, I know.

I finally started on the first book last night. It's been decades since I read it the first time. I am loving it! Brings back some memories though the names of equipment, meds, and maladies are quite different from the 60s and 70s. Loving it! Thanks Doc S, this reminds me of Doc Dad. Big Grin

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
23-07-2014, 06:54 AM
RE: Doc's Cyrillic воскресная школа
(22-07-2014 08:55 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(04-07-2014 07:14 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  I loved those books. They took me to a safe and happy place. Like the Jeeves and Wooster series. Enjoy!

Doc

Totally off topic, I know.

I finally started on the first book last night. It's been decades since I read it the first time. I am loving it! Brings back some memories though the names of equipment, meds, and maladies are quite different from the 60s and 70s. Loving it! Thanks Doc S, this reminds me of Doc Dad. Big Grin

Yayy! I'd also like to take this opportunity to plug my favorite books series of all time "The chronicles of Barchester" by Anthony Trollope. Why that man is not as well known or beloved as some of his contemporaries like Austen or Dickens is beyond me.
Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2014, 08:01 AM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2014 10:09 AM by docskeptic.)
RE: Doc's Cyrillic воскресная школа
(22-07-2014 08:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 10:57 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Well, the Catholic Church claims that Matthew and John are the apostles Matthew and John, and Mark was some sort of secretary to Peter (and therefore a sort of secondhand eyewitness), as well as possibly being the mysterious guy who fled the garden of Gethsemane without his cloak. I'm with you, though -- I see no actual evidence for any of that, other than the Church saying so.

What's with this "cloak" business ? Dodgy
I wonder if that small incident is a reflected "memory" of what the Secret Gospel of Mark talked about, http://www.thenazareneway.com/thomasgospel.htm, or the Gospel of Thomas ?

Nice one, Bucky. The Secret Gospel of Mark as preserved in Clement's letter to Theodorus goes as follows:

“And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me.’ But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand.

But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.”

This risqué gospel comes the closest to overtly suggesting what many have suspected, that Jesus may have been homosexual.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like docskeptic's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: