Posts by peacefulpete

15

Dip Anyone?

by peacefulpete in

a quick comment regarding how subsequent gospel writers often felt an irresistible need to clarify or expand upon their sources.

in the last supper story, the gospel that came to be named after mark 14 has jesus declare that one of the twelve who eats with him from the same bowl will betray him.

17 and evening having come, he cometh with the twelve,18 and as they are reclining, and eating, jesus said, `verily i say to you -- one of you, who is eating with me -- shall deliver me up.

peacefulpete

Glad others find some of this interesting. Also, glad you came back. We may not agree on everything, but I enjoy your perspective.

15

Dip Anyone?

by peacefulpete in

a quick comment regarding how subsequent gospel writers often felt an irresistible need to clarify or expand upon their sources.

in the last supper story, the gospel that came to be named after mark 14 has jesus declare that one of the twelve who eats with him from the same bowl will betray him.

17 and evening having come, he cometh with the twelve,18 and as they are reclining, and eating, jesus said, `verily i say to you -- one of you, who is eating with me -- shall deliver me up.

Kaleb.... An interesting take on John's version. An issue for me is that John is distinctly breaking from the Synoptics by having the meal not a Passover Sedar, but a meal shared on the day of Preparation. The Synoptics while expressly identifying the meal as the Passover do not have the connection between the act of dipping bread and Satan entering Judas found in John, so if your hypothesis was intended by the author of John, it was original to him. John has layers of redaction; I'm not therefore suggesting your hypothesis is proven wrong by its present text dating the story to before the Passover. One or the other element might be secondary.

As far as Jews writing for Jews, the consensus is that Mark was written by someone not familiar with Jewish practice in Judea for a Roman audience. Matt is a Judaizing revision of Mark but still makes errors (or liberties with) the OT throughout. He also has Jesus say,

"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man"; words that clearly show low regard for Kosher rules about diet much less salting bread on the Passover.

I could go on, but in the end the stories were framed with an imperfect understanding of Judaism and Judea and, are either ignorant of, or takes liberties with historical and geographical realities for narrative/theological purposes.

Ultimately, the point of the OP was simply the evolution of this small detail in the story, and your suggestion that John is linking the salting of bread with his abandonment, this might then be a further development not from Synoptic sources.

15

Dip Anyone?

by peacefulpete in

a quick comment regarding how subsequent gospel writers often felt an irresistible need to clarify or expand upon their sources.

in the last supper story, the gospel that came to be named after mark 14 has jesus declare that one of the twelve who eats with him from the same bowl will betray him.

17 and evening having come, he cometh with the twelve,18 and as they are reclining, and eating, jesus said, `verily i say to you -- one of you, who is eating with me -- shall deliver me up.

peacefulpete

A quick comment regarding how subsequent Gospel writers often felt an irresistible need to clarify or expand upon their sources.

In the Last Supper story, the Gospel that came to be named after Mark 14 has Jesus declare that one of the twelve who eats with him from the same bowl will betray him.

17 And evening having come, he cometh with the twelve,
18 and as they are reclining, and eating, Jesus said, `Verily I say to you -- one of you, who is eating with me -- shall deliver me up.'
19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say to him, one by one, `Is it I?' and another, `Is it I?'
20 And he answering said to them, `One of the twelve who is dipping with me in the dish;

IOW Jesus is made to say that one of the 12 who are sharing the meal will betray him. He is not identified here but of course the reader knows who because of vs 10.:

And Judas the Iscariot, one of the twelve, went away unto the chief priests that he might deliver him up to them,....

The writer (or redactor) of Matt 26 perhaps concerned it made Jesus appear unaware of who the traitor was adds material wherein Jesus makes an explicit identification to Judas.

20 And evening having come, he was reclining (at meat) with the twelve,

21 and while they are eating, he said, `Verily I say to you, that one of you shall deliver me up.'
22 And being grieved exceedingly, they began to say to him, each of them, `Is it I, Sir?'
23 And he answering said, `He who did dip with me the hand in the dish, he will deliver me up;...
25 And Judas -- he who delivered him up -- answering said, `Is it I, Rabbi?' He saith to him, `Thou hast said.'

Notice the subtle change in wording regarding the bowl. "One of the twelve who is dipping with me in the dish;" was turned into "`He who did dip with me the hand in the dish, he will deliver me up". The writer of Matt goes further and singles out Judas with a feigned query and Jesus direct identification. This might have been satisfying for this writer, but it creates a new question. How is it possible that no one showed any concern that Judas had just been identified as a traitor?

The writer of Luke 22, reorders Mark and Matt quite a bit as we know, but on the point of the betrayal, he follows Mark in leaving unsaid who was the traitor. Is this because his copy of Matt does not have these additions, or is it because he feels the addition complicated the narrative?:

21 `But, lo, the hand of him delivering me up [is] with me on the table,...23 And they began to reason among themselves, who then of them it may be, who is about to do this thing.

The Gospel John takes the version in Matt and expands further but also tries to explain things at the same time. He makes explicit that Jesus already knew who the betrayer was in his unique foot washing scene:

11 for he knew him who is delivering him up; because of this he said, `Ye are not all clean.'

The readers are fully aware of the traitor even earlier because he follows the Synoptics in telling the readers a few verses before that Judas was the guy.

2 And supper being come, the devil already having put [it] into the heart of Judas of Simon, Iscariot, that he may deliver him up,

Then at the dinner itself this writer attempts to find a way for Jesus to have disclosed the traitor but not to everyone just the ostensible author (John).:

21 These things having said, Jesus was troubled in the spirit, and did testify, and said, `Verily, verily, I say to you, that one of you will deliver me up;'
22 the disciples were looking, therefore, one at another, doubting concerning whom he speaketh.
23 And there was one of his disciples reclining (at meat) in the bosom of Jesus, whom Jesus was loving;
24 Simon Peter, then, doth beckon to this one, to inquire who he may be concerning whom he speaketh,
25 and that one having leant back on the breast of Jesus, respondeth to him, `Sir, who is it?'
26 Jesus answereth, `That one it is to whom I, having dipped the morsel, shall give it;' and having dipped the morsel, he giveth [it] to Judas of Simon, Iscariot.
27 And after the morsel, then the Adversary (Satan) entered into that one, Jesus, therefore, saith to him, `What thou dost -- do quickly;'
28 and none of those reclining at meat knew for what intent he said this to him,

Readers have been trying to make sense of this scene ever since. John asks Jesus which one and he straight-out says it is the one to whom he gives a morsel. He gives it to Judas but somehow John doesn't get it.

There are scores of interesting differences between these versions, even within the individual texts themselves. Just wanted to demonstrate a simple example of the Gospel revisions regarding the dipping into the bowl detail.

5

It Is Impossible for the governing body to be under The New Covenant. Jeremiah 31

by objectivetruth in

according to the insight book on the topic : "the house of israel".

"all the descendants of jacob, collectively, at any one time.

as the offspring and descendants of jacobs 12 sons, they were quite often called the sons of israel; less often, the house of israel, the people of israel, the men of israel, the state of israel, or the israelites.

peacefulpete

Something perhaps as old as 'prophecy' is the reinterpretation of prophecy when it fails. There was a crisis of faith when Babylon pillaged the Temple and the exile occurred. Some prophets promised a restoration and unprecedented national glory for Judah/Israel. Reality however was something different. Repeatedly those that clung to aspirations of national glory were crushed by Greeks and Romans.

As I see it there were two steps to the Christian reinterpretation of promises of prophets of the Exile,

1.For promises to "Israel" be selectively fulfilled (only the 'chosen holy' among the Jews would be 'real' Jews and miraculously get rewarded with glory to rule the nations of the world), such as we see in Qumran and Daniel and Enoch.

2. Once the words "Jew" and "Israel" had taken on a cultic meaning it was free to be further Interpreted. Non-Jews too could be counted as the 'real' Jews. Paul seems to have been an early promoter of this

30

Is it just me, or is Watchtower lowering its standards?

by ukpimo in

in the past, we used to hear talks on:.

avoiding sexual immorality and porn, as well as masturbation and other sexual practices.

why evolution cannot possibly be true.

peacefulpete

Two things came to my mind after reading this thread.

1. The ex-wife who sees the husband treat his second with more kindness who then gets angry because of his changes.

2 The Gospel story of Pharisees harshing on Jesus for not shunning sinners.

I'm sure some of you are simply noticing changes that surprise you and do not intend to sound negative about that; but if you really have a problem with the church becoming incrementally less controlling and judgmental, ask yourself why.

18

Unlocking Hidden Meanings: A Fresh Look at the Creation of Eve

by TimWexler in

hello!i am an independent scholar and researcher with a deep curiosity for ancient cultures and texts.

i do not adhere to any religious tradition, but my passion for understanding the mysteries of our past has led me to explore biblical stories in depth.

my particular interest lies in the original hebrew text of the bible, which i find fascinating both as literature and as a source of historical riddles.i recently completed a study that might change the way you perceive some well-known biblical stories.

peacefulpete

Tim is a science fiction writer according to his facebook page. I think he might have a knack.

Tim Wexler | Facebook

28

Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity

by joey jojo in

this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.

peacefulpete

Anony mous....I think you are correct. What was called Arianism was essentially a logos theology. An attempt to bridge the Logos of Philo et al with a historized understanding of the Jesus of the Gospels. I also liked your comment regarding the psychological underpinnings of the Trinity. It makes sense to understand your a singular deity as all things, Wise and Fatherly, Vital and powerful, and pervasive and omnipresent. Giving faces to those aspects is how humans understand things. We make models and symbols to conceptualize intangibles.

JWs unknowingly have done the same, they just dumbed it down. Either, or should I say any, conceptualization of deities will suffer from scrutiny and rational analysis, because they are the product of poets and diviners, not scientists.

28

Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity

by joey jojo in

this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.

peacefulpete

Funny how the pagans came up with the trinity beliefs first well before the Christians. So it's not a new belief the Christian just copied their pagan cousins.

Touchofgrey....can't the same be said for everything? God having sons, some of whom were thought to have walked on earth, for example.

28

Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity

by joey jojo in

this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.

peacefulpete

It was like attendees at a Star Wars convention voting which episode was the best. Oh, and agreeing that Star Wars is way better than Star Trek and Dr. Who.

28

Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity

by joey jojo in

this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.

peacefulpete

The council itself involved a narrow selection of attendees with views within the burgeoning Catholic church. These views did not include various adoptionist, docetic Christologies or most relevantly, Logos theology.

"Logos-theology which taught a two-stage existence for the Logos: He always existed inside God but became a separate Being - a distinct Reality - when God decided to create." wiki