PDA

View Full Version : John's Gospel vs. the Other Gospels



WSGAC
Feb 2nd 2011, 06:28 PM
You may be able to identify with this. When I first heard the gospel presented to me, the speaker used the words of Jesus found in John's gospel to show me that Jesus was who he said he was. The great "I AM" statements were used as a way of showing me that Jesus is God.

In fact, great evangelists like Billy Graham have done the same. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life...", Jesus said, "I am the resurrection", Jesus said, "I am the bread of life," Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I Am."....etc.

Always the gospel of John is used to show that Jesus identified himself as divine.

My question: If Jesus made such definitive statements about himself, statements we now use to proof-text his divine status, then why don't any of the other gospel writers record these definitive statements of Jesus? Or, to put it another way, if Jesus actually said something like, "Before Abraham was, I AM" why would the rest of the gospel writers choose to leave such definitive statements out of their gospels?

Vhayes
Feb 2nd 2011, 06:32 PM
My first pastor walked the congregation through the gospels. His explanation was as follows (or something like it):

Matthew was written to the Jew
Mark was written to the Roman or the man of action
Luke was written to the Greek or the intellectuals
John was written to the heart of all men

Not sure if that helps you or not.
V

BrckBrln
Feb 2nd 2011, 06:42 PM
The end of the Gospel of John says, 'Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written' (John 21.25). In addition to the limitation of the Gospels, I think the reason for the difference between the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel is that they come from different circles of eyewitnesses and traditions. And we also need to keep in mind that the authors of each Gospel had their own theological purposes as well.

RabbiKnife
Feb 2nd 2011, 06:42 PM
Matthew, Mark (actually Peter's story), and Luke (who was a reporter and not one of the 12, not an eye witness) wrote primarily historical narrative.

John was writing much later, from his own experience, written to demonstrate who Jesus was. The last verse in his Gospel demonstrates that he wasn't interested in writing every detail, but was trying to point out that Jesus was God.

Fenris
Feb 2nd 2011, 07:07 PM
The great "I AM" statements were used as a way of showing me that Jesus is God.

To be honest, I've never understood why this was such a great proof.

Vhayes
Feb 2nd 2011, 07:10 PM
To be honest, I've never understood why this was such a great proof.

Anyone who would say, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life - no one comes to the Father but through Me" - well, my guess is if you ran into someone who said that today, you'd lock them up in an I-Love-Me jacket.

Fenris
Feb 2nd 2011, 07:11 PM
Anyone who would say, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life - no one comes to the Father but through Me" - well, my guess is if you ran into someone who said that today, you'd lock them up in an I-Love-Me jacket.
I still don't see what makes that such a great proof.

WSGAC
Feb 2nd 2011, 07:18 PM
Matthew, Mark (actually Peter's story), and Luke (who was a reporter and not one of the 12, not an eye witness) wrote primarily historical narrative.

John was writing much later, from his own experience, written to demonstrate who Jesus was. The last verse in his Gospel demonstrates that he wasn't interested in writing every detail, but was trying to point out that Jesus was God.

John may have not been interested in writing every detail, as you say, but the "I AM" statements are no small things. They are significant statements about Jesus's person and identity. My question isn't about John's perspecive per se, but on why such definitive statements from Jesus were left out of the other gospels. If a gospel writer wants to present the good news of Jesus SO THAT the reader or listener might come to faith in Jesus as Son of God, why would Matthew, Mark and Luke choose to leave out such definitive statements?

WSGAC
Feb 2nd 2011, 07:21 PM
To be honest, I've never understood why this was such a great proof.

Well, it never proved anything to me either, but it seems to be a favorite approach for many who present the gospel.

RabbiKnife
Feb 2nd 2011, 07:22 PM
Perhaps because, as Fenris has indicated, the audience of the day did not find them nearly as definitive as 21st century North American evangelicals find them.

WSGAC
Feb 2nd 2011, 07:33 PM
Certainly John must have thought so. And he was a member of Jesus' original audience.

Vhayes
Feb 2nd 2011, 07:34 PM
The religious audience of Jesus' day tried to stone Him for one of those "I AM" statements.

RabbiKnife
Feb 2nd 2011, 07:34 PM
Certainly John must have thought so. And he was a member of Jesus' original audience.

So was Matthew, as was Peter (Mark) and the witnesses interviewed by Luke.

Fenris
Feb 2nd 2011, 07:36 PM
The religious audience of Jesus' day tried to stone Him for one of those "I AM" statements.

Why would they do that.

Vhayes
Feb 2nd 2011, 07:41 PM
Well, according to John, here's why:

John 10
31 - The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.

32 - Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?"

33 - The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

WSGAC
Feb 2nd 2011, 07:41 PM
The religious audience of Jesus' day tried to stone Him for one of those "I AM" statements.

Exactly! Clearly Jesus says something that enrages others, and that "something" had to do with his identity. He is the great I AM, which existed before Abraham. Now why would Matthew, Mark and Luke leave such a thing out of their presentations of Jesus? That has got to be either a major oversight on their part, or they chose to leave it out for a reason. Or, as some modern Jesus Seminar Scholars think, Jesus really didn't say these things at all. It's a difficult question.

Fenris
Feb 2nd 2011, 07:48 PM
Well, according to John, here's why:

Saying "I am" doesn't make one to be God, and claiming to be God isn't blasphemy in Judaism in any case.

Vhayes
Feb 2nd 2011, 07:49 PM
Then what was John meaning? I thought John was a first century Jew?

Fenris
Feb 2nd 2011, 07:52 PM
Then what was John meaning? I thought John was a first century Jew?

Ya got me. I have no idea. One of those reasons I remain unconvinced.

BrckBrln
Feb 2nd 2011, 08:09 PM
Exactly! Clearly Jesus says something that enrages others, and that "something" had to do with his identity. He is the great I AM, which existed before Abraham. Now why would Matthew, Mark and Luke leave such a thing out of their presentations of Jesus? That has got to be either a major oversight on their part, or they chose to leave it out for a reason. Or, as some modern Jesus Seminar Scholars think, Jesus really didn't say these things at all. It's a difficult question.

As I said in my earlier post, different circles would remember and emphasize and leave out different things. Or maybe the Synoptic writers weren't even aware of these sayings. Or maybe the author of the Gospel of John 'made them up', which does not mean the sayings don't reflect the reality of the situation, namely, that Jesus is God. It just doesn't seem to be such a big deal, really.

WSGAC
Feb 2nd 2011, 08:27 PM
As I said in my earlier post, different circles would remember and emphasize and leave out different things. Or maybe the Synoptic writers weren't even aware of these sayings. Or maybe the author of the Gospel of John 'made them up', which does not mean the sayings don't reflect the reality of the situation, namely, that Jesus is God. It just doesn't seem to be such a big deal, really.

So you would agree with many scholars who state that John's account of Jesus really isn't historical, but theological? In other words the sayings of Jesus in John's gospel really weren't said by Jesus, but instead are the theological reflections of the early church placed upon the lips of Jesus?

BrckBrln
Feb 2nd 2011, 09:11 PM
So you would agree with many scholars who state that John's account of Jesus really isn't historical, but theological? In other words the sayings of Jesus in John's gospel really weren't said by Jesus, but instead are the theological reflections of the early church placed upon the lips of Jesus?

No. In fact, I believe the Gospel of John to be the only Gospel actually written by an eyewitness. I think the differences can be explained by the author coming from a different circle than the one the Synoptics represent. All that said, I am open to the idea that in all of the Gospels there may be sayings or stories that Jesus never said or did but, in fact, do reflect the reality of who Jesus is.

WSGAC
Feb 2nd 2011, 09:21 PM
No. In fact, I believe the Gospel of John to be the only Gospel actually written by an eyewitness. I think the differences can be explained by the author coming from a different circle than the one the Synoptics represent. All that said, I am open to the idea that in all of the Gospels there may be sayings or stories that Jesus never said or did but, in fact, do reflect the reality of who Jesus is.

What do you mean by "different circle?" The gospel of Thomas comes from a "different circle" but did not make it into the canon of scripture. It was rejected as a false or pseudo gospel. If John's circle is different than the Synoptic circle then there seems to be a historical problem. Either Jesus proclaimed his identity openly and directly to his hearers (John's gospel), or he did not proclaim his identity openly and directly to his hearers (Synoptics). He can't do both. The bedrock of New Testament scholarship has said the Synoptics are historical, but John is not. In other words, Jesus really did not say the things that are recorded in John's gospel.

As Christians, shouldn't this conclusion and charge pose a problem to us....especially since preachers frequently quote the words of Jesus found in John's gospel as actually coming from the mouth of Jesus?

keck553
Feb 2nd 2011, 09:30 PM
Ya got me. I have no idea. One of those reasons I remain unconvinced.

do you think it's possible the lynch-mob mentality described in the Gospels has evolved in modern Judaism??? I think Jesus was lynched by a mob spurred on by folks who didn't want to upset thier position of power with Rome.

BrckBrln
Feb 2nd 2011, 09:33 PM
What do you mean by "different circle?" The gospel of Thomas comes from a "different circle" but did not make it into the canon of scripture. It was rejected as a false or pseudo gospel. If John's circle is different than the Synoptic circle then there seems to be a historical problem. Either Jesus proclaimed his identity openly and directly to his hearers (John's gospel), or he did not proclaim his identity openly and directly to his hearers (Synoptics). He can't do both. The bedrock of New Testament scholarship has said the Synoptics are historical, but John is not. In other words, Jesus really did not say the things that are recorded in John's gospel.

As Christians, shouldn't this conclusion and charge pose a problem to us....especially since preachers frequently quote the words of Jesus found in John's gospel as actually coming from the mouth of Jesus?

I mean a different circle of Jesus' disciples. It seems the Synoptics are largely based on the testimony of the Twelve (only the Synoptics give a list of the Twelve), while the Gospel of John, I think, is from a largely different circle of disciples, which would explain a lot of the differences. So I think it's wrong to say that just because something is found in John that is not found in the other Gospels, that therefore it is unhistorical. One thing we need to keep in mind is all of this stuff is very complex. Not only do we have have different circles of eyewitnesses and traditions, but also the theological purposes of the writers themselves.

Fenris
Feb 2nd 2011, 09:54 PM
do you think it's possible the lynch-mob mentality described in the Gospels has evolved in modern Judaism???No. I rather doubt the events occured as depicted.


I think Jesus was lynched by a mob spurred on by folks who didn't want to upset thier position of power with Rome.
Perhaps. If so they really wouldn't care that he said "I am...."

Butch5
Feb 2nd 2011, 09:58 PM
You may be able to identify with this. When I first heard the gospel presented to me, the speaker used the words of Jesus found in John's gospel to show me that Jesus was who he said he was. The great "I AM" statements were used as a way of showing me that Jesus is God.

In fact, great evangelists like Billy Graham have done the same. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life...", Jesus said, "I am the resurrection", Jesus said, "I am the bread of life," Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I Am."....etc.

Always the gospel of John is used to show that Jesus identified himself as divine.

My question: If Jesus made such definitive statements about himself, statements we now use to proof-text his divine status, then why don't any of the other gospel writers record these definitive statements of Jesus? Or, to put it another way, if Jesus actually said something like, "Before Abraham was, I AM" why would the rest of the gospel writers choose to leave such definitive statements out of their gospels?

Hi WSGAC,

The reason for the difference is in the purpose of the writing. The first three gospels were basically historical narrative given to show the life and ministry of Jesus. Johns' gospel, however, was written for a different purpose. While it does give a historical narrative of Jesus' life and ministry, it was written to refute Gnosstic teaching as was 1 John. I don't know if you know what the Gnostics taught, so I'll give a brief overview. Basically the Gnositcs believed that the flesh was inherently corrupt and incapable of salvation. They believed that only the spirit could be saved. Therefore they argued that "The Christ" was a spirit and this spirit came and dwelt in the man Jesus. They argued that Jesus (The man) was not the Christ. Their thinking was the savior could not be flesh because the flesh was corrupt. They denied the resurrection because it was a resurrection of the flesh. They saw no point in being resurrected if one was resurrected as flesh since they would once again be in a corrupt body. It is this teaching that John is refuting in both his gospel and his first epistle. Notice how John opens his gospel. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, then in verse 14 he says and the Word became flesh. He immediately shows that the Word who was with God became flesh. He is proving that Jesus was "The Christ" that was prophesied in the Old Testament Scriptures. He does the same in his first epistle, compare the two.


John 1:1-2 ( KJV )
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1:13-14 ( KJV )
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1 John 1:1-4 ( KJV )
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

Notice how John keeps emphasizing the fact that He was from the beginning and that the apostles had, seen, heard, and actually handled the Christ. His point is that the Christ is the man Jesus.

RabbiKnife
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:00 PM
Very good, Butch.

Butch5
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:06 PM
To be honest, I've never understood why this was such a great proof.

It's a great proof because He was claiming to be God. That's why the Jews took up stones to stone Him.

Exodus 3:13-15 ( KJV )
And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

John 8:56-59 ( KJV )
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Jesus was claiming to be the one in the burning bush who spoke with Moses.

Fenris
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:09 PM
It's a great proof because He was claiming to be God. That's why the Jews took up stones to stone Him.Claiming to be God isn't a capital offense in Judaism.



And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:It actually says "I will be that I will be" or I shall be that I shall be". It's future tense.

Bandit
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:15 PM
To be honest, I've never understood why this was such a great proof.

In part, because of how it is recorded that the Jewish leadership reacted to those statements. They knew who He was claiming to be, and did not like it. (But, of course, you would have to accept John's record as accurate.) See John 5:18 for example. And then there is John 8:33 through 59 - especially verse 58. That statement just drove most of the Jewish leadership mad with hate.

keck553
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:20 PM
Perhaps. If so they really wouldn't care that he said "I am...."

I have to believe it by default.

Anyway, I can understand the crowd supporting bar-Abba to be released. After all he was more likely to stab a Roman in the back.

WSGAC
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:21 PM
Notice how John keeps emphasizing the fact that He was from the beginning and that the apostles had, seen, heard, and actually handled the Christ. His point is that the Christ is the man Jesus.

Butch, do you believe Jesus actually said the words, "Before Abraham was, I AM" ? or was this an invention of John's to combat Gnosticism?

keck553
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:24 PM
Claiming to be God isn't a capital offense in Judaism.


It actually says "I will be that I will be" or I shall be that I shall be". It's future tense.

Do you know what the Greek translation of this is in Exodus 3:14? Isn't it something like "I am He who Is?" Has anyone compared the Greek statement Exodus 3:14 with the Greek statement in John? Can't remember. I do not have my Septuagint resource with me today.

Butch5
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:26 PM
Claiming to be God isn't a capital offense in Judaism.


It actually says "I will be that I will be" or I shall be that I shall be". It's future tense.

The Septuagint has "Ho on" and Jesus' quote in John 8 is "ego eime". They both mean the same thing, Jesus was claiming to be the one in the burning bush who spoke to Moses.

I don't really pay much attetion to the Masoretic text, simply because it is not that old, only about a thousand years or so.

Butch5
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:29 PM
Do you know what the Greek translation of this is in Exodus 3:14? Isn't it something like "I am He who Is?" Has anyone compared the Greek statement Exodus 3:14 with the Greek statement in John? Can't remember. I do not have my Septuagint resource with me today.

I just did. The Septuagint has "ho on" and Jesus said "ego eime". Here is the comparison in Kittle's Theological dictionary.


Theological Dictionary of the New Testament – Abridged

eimi G1510 [to exist] AND: ho on [ "I am"]

Details 1. Already in the LXX ho on is used for God (Ex 3:14). Philo has it too, and it is a divine predicate in Josephus. In the NT Revelation uses it in the formulas in 11:17; 1:4, 8; 4:8—formulas of worship, salutation, and self-predication. The non-declinability of ho on and the quasi-participial use of en the divine self-predication. The formulas express God's deity and supratemporality. Similar formulas occur in Judaism. The Greeks also use two and three-tense formulas to express eternity (cf. Homer, Plato, and an Eleusinian inscription). These possibly came into Revelation by way of the Jewish tradition, though a common source may lie behind the Greek and Jewish traditions. 2. ego eimi as a self-designation of Jesus in Jn 8:58 (cf. 8:24; 13:19) stands in contrast to the genesthai applied to Abraham. Jesus thus claims eternity. As he is equal to the Father (5:18ff.), what is ascribed to the Father is attributed to him too (cf. Isa 43:10 LXX). The context and the ego formulation are both Jewish. The point is not Jesus' self-identification as the Messiah ("I am he") but his supratemporal being. 3. For ego eimi with nouns of predication, see ego. [F. BUCHSEL] Refer To ego

Bandit
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:32 PM
You may be able to identify with this. When I first heard the gospel presented to me, the speaker used the words of Jesus found in John's gospel to show me that Jesus was who he said he was. The great "I AM" statements were used as a way of showing me that Jesus is God.

In fact, great evangelists like Billy Graham have done the same. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life...", Jesus said, "I am the resurrection", Jesus said, "I am the bread of life," Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I Am."....etc.

Always the gospel of John is used to show that Jesus identified himself as divine.

My question: If Jesus made such definitive statements about himself, statements we now use to proof-text his divine status, then why don't any of the other gospel writers record these definitive statements of Jesus? Or, to put it another way, if Jesus actually said something like, "Before Abraham was, I AM" why would the rest of the gospel writers choose to leave such definitive statements out of their gospels?


Exactly! Clearly Jesus says something that enrages others, and that "something" had to do with his identity. He is the great I AM, which existed before Abraham. Now why would Matthew, Mark and Luke leave such a thing out of their presentations of Jesus? That has got to be either a major oversight on their part, or they chose to leave it out for a reason. Or, as some modern Jesus Seminar Scholars think, Jesus really didn't say these things at all. It's a difficult question.


No, this is really not a difficult question. As someone has previously stated, the synoptic gospels were more of a historical narrative - they tell, from a common perspective, what Jesus said and did. His words and deeds in the synoptic gospels (like the forgiveness of sins in Matthew 9) provided evidence of His Deity. John's gospel, written many years later, appears to have been written specifically to address the notion that Jesus was not God; so John emphasized things not previously emphasized. The synoptic gospels and Johns gospel should be viewed as complementary - not contradictory.

And as far as the ‘Jesus seminar’ “scholars” go, those guys are unbelievers. No Christian crediblity among them

WSGAC
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:35 PM
I don't really pay much attetion to the Masoretic text, simply because it is not that old, only about a thousand years or so.

LOL...care to share which text you pay more attention to?

Bandit
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:37 PM
Saying "I am" doesn't make one to be God, and claiming to be God isn't blasphemy in Judaism in any case.

According to the gospel record, Jesus' claims (along with His words and deeds) constituted blasphemy. This guy was doing and saying things which no mortal man could do, nor dare say.

WSGAC
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:38 PM
As someone has previously stated, the synoptic gospels were more of a historical narrative - they tell, from a common perspective, what Jesus said and did. His words and deeds in the synoptic gospels (like the forgiveness of sins in Matthew 9) provided evidence of His Deity. John's gospel, written many years later, appears to have been written specifically to address the notion that Jesus was not God; so John emphasized things not previously emphasized. The synoptic gospels and Johns gospel should be viewed as complementary - not contradictory.

And as far as the ‘Jesus seminar’ “scholars” go, those guys are unbelievers. No Christian crediblity among them

So I will then ask you the question I asked Butch, Do you believe Jesus actually said the words, "Before Abraham was, I AM!" ?

Butch5
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:42 PM
Butch, do you believe Jesus actually said the words, "Before Abraham was, I AM" ? or was this an invention of John's to combat Gnosticism?

I believe Jesus really said it. Look at the conversation.
John 8:36-37 ( KJV )
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

Title : The Holy Bible, King James Version
Edition : Third
Copyright : Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.

John 8:39-40 ( KJV )
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
Title : The Holy Bible, King James Version
Edition : Third
Copyright : Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.

John 8:51-59 ( KJV )
Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

The Jews were telling Him they were the Children of Abraham and they asked Him if he was greater than Abraham. Notice Jesus' words, He is quoting. If Jesus was just saying He existed before Abraham he would say, before Abraham was, I was, or I was before Abraham. However, the phrase Jesus uses is not proper grammar, that is because He is quoting from Exodus, He is telling those Jews that it was Him in the burning bush.

WSGAC
Feb 2nd 2011, 10:49 PM
I believe Jesus really said it.

So if Jesus made such definitive statements about himself to the crowds during his ministry (as John depicts), why do you think the other gospel writers would leave such definitive statements out of their accounts of Jesus' teaching and ministry? Seems like a big omission if you ask me.

It really doesn't work to say, "Well the other gospel writers wanted to emphasize different things." If Jesus makes pretty clear statements about his divine identity, I would think all disciples would make it a point to repeat to others those particular words of Jesus. You just don't omit such statements with, "I need to focus on other things." And yet you suggest this is what Matthew, Mark and Luke did?

Butch5
Feb 2nd 2011, 11:26 PM
So if Jesus made such definitive statements about himself to the crowds during his ministry (as John depicts), why do you think the other gospel writers would leave such definitive statements out of their accounts of Jesus' teaching and ministry? Seems like a big omission if you ask me.

It really doesn't work to say, "Well the other gospel writers wanted to emphasize different things." If Jesus makes pretty clear statements about his divine identity, I would think all disciples would make it a point to repeat to others those particular words of Jesus. You just don't omit such statements with, "I need to focus on other things." And yet you suggest this is what Matthew, Mark and Luke did?

They were writing for different purposes. It doesn't matter if we think they should have done this or they should have done that. They used the Statements from Jesus that suited the purpose of their writing. I mean we could say the same thing about Mathew's gospel. The bulk of Jesus' teaching about how Christians should live is in Mathew's gospel in the Sermon on the Mount. One would think that this is a major subject to be taught, yet Mathew is the only one who mentions it. With all of the teaching from Paul, John, James, Peter, and so on, none of them record the Sermon on the Mount. We can't say, Oh well, so and so should have said this because it is important. Each writer had an intended purpose and an intended audience and they wrote accordingly.

Bandit
Feb 2nd 2011, 11:53 PM
So I will then ask you the question I asked Butch, Do you believe Jesus actually said the words, "Before Abraham was, I AM!" ?

Of course I do.

Butch5
Feb 3rd 2011, 12:05 AM
LOL...care to share which text you pay more attention to?

The Greek Septuagint that I spoke of in the other post. It is much older than the present Masoretic text. It was translated at least 200 years before Christ so it has "NO" Christian bias in it. The Masoretic text and the Septuagint differ in places and it is clear that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint and not the Hebrew text when they quoted the OT. Have you ever noticed that sometimes when you look up an NT quote it doesn't read the same in the OT? That is because Jesus and the apostles didn't use the Masoretic text that your modern OT comes from. For the most part they agree but there are some differences. Here are a few examples

New Testament
Hebrews 1:6 ( KJV ) 6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
The writer of Hebrews quotes this verse from Deuteronomy 32:43
Masoretic text
Deuteronomy 32:43 ( KJV ) 43Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.
Where are the words, "And let all the angels of God worship him"?
Septuagint
Deuteronomy 32:43 Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.
New Testament
Hebrews 10:5 ( KJV ) 5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
The writer of Hebrews quotes this verse from Psalm 40:6
Masoretic text
Psalms 40:6 ( KJV ) 6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
Where are the words, " but a body hast thou prepared me:"? This is an important part to leave out since it speaks of the incarnation of Christ.
Septuagint
Psalms 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.
New Testament
1 Peter 4:18 ( KJV ) 18And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
Peter quotes Proverbs 11:31

Masoretic text
Proverbs 11:31 ( KJV ) 31Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.
Septuagint
Proverbs 11:31 If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
New Testament
Matthew 3:3 ( KJV ) 3For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Here Mtthew quotes Isaiah 40:3

Masoretic text
Isaiah 40:3 ( KJV ) 3The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Septuagint
Isaiah 40:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God.
New Testament
James 4:6 ( KJV ) 6But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
Here James quotes Proverbs 3:34

Masoretic text
Proverbs 3:34 ( KJV ) 34Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly.
Septuagint
Proveerbs 3:34 The Lord resists the proud; but he gives grace to the humble.

New Testament
Matthew 15:7-9 ( KJV ) 7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Here Jesus quotes from Isaiah 29:13

Masoretic text
Isaiah 29:13 ( KJV ) 13Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
Septuagint,
Isaiah 29:13 And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.

New Testament
Matthew 21:16 ( KJV ) 16And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
Masoretic text
Psalms 8:2 ( KJV ) 2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
Septuagint,
Psalms 8:2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise, because of thine enemies; that thou mightest put down the enemy and avenger.

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 01:29 AM
They were writing for different purposes. It doesn't matter if we think they should have done this or they should have done that. They used the Statements from Jesus that suited the purpose of their writing. I mean we could say the same thing about Mathew's gospel. The bulk of Jesus' teaching about how Christians should live is in Mathew's gospel in the Sermon on the Mount. One would think that this is a major subject to be taught, yet Mathew is the only one who mentions it. With all of the teaching from Paul, John, James, Peter, and so on, none of them record the Sermon on the Mount. We can't say, Oh well, so and so should have said this because it is important. Each writer had an intended purpose and an intended audience and they wrote accordingly.

And yet the Synoptics all read alike. The three authors all tell the same stories pretty much, using similar, if not the very same words, and yet not one of the Synoptic authors thought it important enough to record the words, "Before Abraham was, I AM!" or "I AM the Resurrection!" or "I AM the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John writes his gospel, using the 7 great "I AM" statements of Jesus. These form the framework for his entire recounting of Jesus' ministry. And yet every other gospel writer neglects or intentionally deletes such definitive statements from the Master's lips?

If you were a fellow disciple with John, and you followed Jesus on his mission in Galilee and Judea, and you actually heard him say the I AM statements which are recorded by John, what possible reason could you give for not including any of those statements in your own telling of the gospel?

dagar
Feb 3rd 2011, 01:55 AM
Hi WSGAC,

The reason for the difference is in the purpose of the writing. The first three gospels were basically historical narrative given to show the life and ministry of Jesus. Johns' gospel, however, was written for a different purpose. While it does give a historical narrative of Jesus' life and ministry, it was written to refute Gnosstic teaching as was 1 John. I don't know if you know what the Gnostics taught, so I'll give a brief overview. Basically the Gnositcs believed that the flesh was inherently corrupt and incapable of salvation. They believed that only the spirit could be saved. Therefore they argued that "The Christ" was a spirit and this spirit came and dwelt in the man Jesus. They argued that Jesus (The man) was not the Christ. Their thinking was the savior could not be flesh because the flesh was corrupt. They denied the resurrection because it was a resurrection of the flesh. They saw no point in being resurrected if one was resurrected as flesh since they would once again be in a corrupt body. It is this teaching that John is refuting in both his gospel and his first epistle. Notice how John opens his gospel. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, then in verse 14 he says and the Word became flesh. He immediately shows that the Word who was with God became flesh. He is proving that Jesus was "The Christ" that was prophesied in the Old Testament Scriptures. He does the same in his first epistle, compare the two.


John 1:1-2 ( KJV )
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1:13-14 ( KJV )
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1 John 1:1-4 ( KJV )
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

Notice how John keeps emphasizing the fact that He was from the beginning and that the apostles had, seen, heard, and actually handled the Christ. His point is that the Christ is the man Jesus.Thank you!!!
Thank you!!!
Thank you!!!

dagar
Feb 3rd 2011, 02:12 AM
You may be able to identify with this. When I first heard the gospel presented to me, the speaker used the words of Jesus found in John's gospel to show me that Jesus was who he said he was. The great "I AM" statements were used as a way of showing me that Jesus is God.

In fact, great evangelists like Billy Graham have done the same. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life...", Jesus said, "I am the resurrection", Jesus said, "I am the bread of life," Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I Am."....etc.

Always the gospel of John is used to show that Jesus identified himself as divine.

My question: If Jesus made such definitive statements about himself, statements we now use to proof-text his divine status, then why don't any of the other gospel writers record these definitive statements of Jesus? Or, to put it another way, if Jesus actually said something like, "Before Abraham was, I AM" why would the rest of the gospel writers choose to leave such definitive statements out of their gospels?You've been told the books have different purposes. Should Hebrews say what 1Corinthians does etc....?
Adam was a man. A man given dominion and authority over all the works of God's hands. The second man came to restore that dominion and authority. That's what the 3 gospels are about -Kingdom. God ordained the kingdom ruled by man. BTW, the other gospels proclaim his diety as well.

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 02:25 AM
You've been told the books have different purposes. Should Hebrews say what 1Corinthians does etc....?
Adam was a man. A man given dominion and authority over all the works of God's hands. The second man came to restore that dominion and authority. That's what the 3 gospels are about -Kingdom. God ordained the kingdom ruled by man. BTW, the other gospels proclaim his diety as well.

So tell me what would be the "purpose" Matthew, Mark and Luke would leave out of the their gospel accounts such definitive teachings by Jesus? Your Hebrews vs. Corinthians analogy doesn't work. We are talking about the actual teachings of Jesus left to us by his disciples. Yet only one of the disciples records what are the most revolutionary words by Jesus. Seems an odd omission by the others. There must be a reason other than differences in perspective. If Jesus is the divine Son and taught his disciples this, using such elevated terms as found in John, what would be the reason for not recording any of those teachings in the other gospel accounts?

BrckBrln
Feb 3rd 2011, 02:33 AM
So tell me what would be the "purpose" Matthew, Mark and Luke would leave out of the their gospel accounts such definitive teachings by Jesus? Your Hebrews vs. Corinthians analogy doesn't work. We are talking about the actual teachings of Jesus left to us by his disciples. Yet only one of the disciples records what are the most revolutionary words by Jesus. Seems an odd omission by the others. There must be a reason other than differences in perspective. If Jesus is the divine Son and taught his disciples this, using such elevated terms as found in John, what would be the reason for not recording any of those teachings in the other gospel accounts?

I've given you another reason. The Gospel of John comes from a different circle of disciples. What do you think of this? And do you think the Synoptics teach the deity of Jesus?

Bandit
Feb 3rd 2011, 02:54 AM
So tell me what would be the "purpose" Matthew, Mark and Luke would leave out of the their gospel accounts such definitive teachings by Jesus? Your Hebrews vs. Corinthians analogy doesn't work. We are talking about the actual teachings of Jesus left to us by his disciples. Yet only one of the disciples records what are the most revolutionary words by Jesus. Seems an odd omission by the others. There must be a reason other than differences in perspective. If Jesus is the divine Son and taught his disciples this, using such elevated terms as found in John, what would be the reason for not recording any of those teachings in the other gospel accounts?

WSGAC,

You seem to forget (or do you deny?) that the Holy Spirit is the true Author of scripture. As such, He makes much of the call as to what goes in and when. There is sufficient enough evidence for the Deity of Christ in the synoptic gospels. What John does is assume and add to the synoptics. Your continual questioning appears to have the intention of instilling doubt concerning the Gospel of John. Every Christian I know accepts the Gospel of John by faith, as they do the rest of scriptures. Any doubts I have are directed toward your real purpose here.

dagar
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:45 AM
So tell me what would be the "purpose" Matthew, Mark and Luke would leave out of the their gospel accounts such definitive teachings by Jesus?Again, should Hebrews say what 1Corinthians does etc....?


Your Hebrews vs. Corinthians analogy doesn't work. We are talking about the actual teachings of Jesus left to us by his disciples.And this means what? The Spirit can't and didn't use different men to write different books for different purposes that still say the same things?


Yet only one of the disciples records what are the most revolutionary words by Jesus. Seems an odd omission by the others.Actually they all proclaim His deity.


There must be a reason other than differences in perspective.Such as?


If Jesus is the divine Son and taught his disciples this, using such elevated terms as found in John, what would be the reason for not recording any of those teachings in the other gospel accounts?Mat 16:16, 26:63-64
Mar 8:29, 14:61-62
Luk 4:41, 22:67-71

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:23 AM
WSGAC,

You seem to forget (or do you deny?) that the Holy Spirit is the true Author of scripture. As such, He makes much of the call as to what goes in and when. There is sufficient enough evidence for the Deity of Christ in the synoptic gospels. What John does is assume and add to the synoptics. Your continual questioning appears to have the intention of instilling doubt concerning the Gospel of John. Every Christian I know accepts the Gospel of John by faith, as they do the rest of scriptures. Any doubts I have are directed toward your real purpose here.

I am not discounting the deity of Christ. That is not my point. But it is quite apparent that the Jesus of John's gospel is quite different than the one in the Synoptics. In John, Jesus proclaims his divine identity on nearly every page (the I AM statements are the framework for this). Indeed, his person is his message. In the synoptics, however, the Kingdom is the message, with his identity as the Son of God only being definitively revealed by Jesus at the end of his ministry in Caesarea Philippi. A historical either-or arises. Either Jesus went about preaching his divine identity to the crowds (John) or he did not (Synoptics). He can't do both.

John's gospel is not historical. It is theological. If it were historical then such divine disclosures, as made known by John, were completely ignored by the other gospel writers in the telling of their gospel story. How does Jesus preach to the crowds that he is the Divine Son of God (John), and at the same time not do so (Synoptics)?

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:40 AM
I've given you another reason. The Gospel of John comes from a different circle of disciples. What do you think of this? And do you think the Synoptics teach the deity of Jesus?

I believe the Synoptics teach the deity of Jesus, but nowhere near what we find in John. I'm still not sure about the distinction you are trying to make with the "different circle of disciples" category. There were numerous circles and communities of Christians in the first century. But how do different circles account for differences in the gospels? If John was telling his circle of believers the great I AM statements of his Master, then Peter, James and the rest would be doing so as well. If Jesus actually made such bold statements about his own identity, how does any future account/gospel of Jesus arise where no such statements are mentioned (ie. Matthew, Mark and Luke)?

BrckBrln
Feb 3rd 2011, 05:19 AM
I believe the Synoptics teach the deity of Jesus, but nowhere near what we find in John. I'm still not sure about the distinction you are trying to make with the "different circle of disciples" category. There were numerous circles and communities of Christians in the first century. But how do different circles account for differences in the gospels? If John was telling his circle of believers the great I AM statements of his Master, then Peter, James and the rest would be doing so as well. If Jesus actually made such bold statements about his own identity, how does any future account/gospel of Jesus arise where no such statements are mentioned (ie. Matthew, Mark and Luke)?

Well the John I believe wrote the Gospel of John is not John the son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve, but a John the Elder. Like I said earlier, the Synoptics seem to be based primarily on the testimony of the Twelve, while John the Elder, an eyewitness himself, works in a different circle and, also, after the Twelve and most other disciples are dead. I think this accounts for the stories we find in the Gospel of John that are not in the Synoptic Gospels. It could also account for the 'I AM' sayings. I see no reason why it can't.

But let's say that Jesus never actually said some of the things attributed to him in the Fourth Gospel. Does that make it unhistorical? Well, in the sense that they weren't uttered by the historical Jesus, I guess, but that doesn't mean what John is saying isn't true. That is, John knew Jesus to be divine so he created these sayings of Jesus to reflect that reality to make the point to his readers. Now, I'm not saying this is the case, I'm only saying it's an open possibility that I wouldn't have much of a problem with (though, I imagine others here would).

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 12:13 PM
But let's say that Jesus never actually said some of the things attributed to him in the Fourth Gospel. Does that make it unhistorical? Well, in the sense that they weren't uttered by the historical Jesus, I guess, but that doesn't mean what John is saying isn't true. That is, John knew Jesus to be divine so he created these sayings of Jesus to reflect that reality to make the point to his readers. Now, I'm not saying this is the case, I'm only saying it's an open possibility that I wouldn't have much of a problem with (though, I imagine others here would).

I think that is a logical possibility, and probably accurate too!

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 02:05 PM
In part, because of how it is recorded that the Jewish leadership reacted to those statements.
Which I am rather skeptical of, to be honest.

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 02:25 PM
I don't really pay much attetion to the Masoretic text, simply because it is not that old, only about a thousand years or so.
Not the first time I've heard this. Of course, no one can produce an alternate Hebrew text either. So suddenly the Greek bible becomes the "official" one, even though that isn't even the bible's first language.

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 02:26 PM
According to the gospel record, Jesus' claims (along with His words and deeds) constituted blasphemy. Not according to Jewish law.

RollTide21
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:02 PM
delete message. *****************

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:11 PM
Not the first time I've heard this. Of course, no one can produce an alternate Hebrew text either. So suddenly the Greek bible becomes the "official" one, even though that isn't even the bible's first language.

Fenris, yes, this always baffled me. Why people bash the Masoretic text because it's not old enough strikes me as laughable, for one because our OT text comes from it, and two, the Dead Sea Scrolls showed the Masoretic text to be solid. But to defer to the Septuagint as the older, and thus more reliable text is hilarious. It's a Greek translation.

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:13 PM
It's a Greek translation.
Of unknown source, no less.

Who translated it? When? What are the oldest copies that we have? Do they all agree?

Butch5
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:53 PM
And yet the Synoptics all read alike. The three authors all tell the same stories pretty much, using similar, if not the very same words, and yet not one of the Synoptic authors thought it important enough to record the words, "Before Abraham was, I AM!" or "I AM the Resurrection!" or "I AM the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John writes his gospel, using the 7 great "I AM" statements of Jesus. These form the framework for his entire recounting of Jesus' ministry. And yet every other gospel writer neglects or intentionally deletes such definitive statements from the Master's lips?

If you were a fellow disciple with John, and you followed Jesus on his mission in Galilee and Judea, and you actually heard him say the I AM statements which are recorded by John, what possible reason could you give for not including any of those statements in your own telling of the gospel?

My friend, I think you are missing the point. It seems that this is of major importance in "Your" mind, that doesn't mean the NT writers saw it the same way. Firstly, we need to consider the purpose of the writing, we need to consider the audience, we need to consider the geopolitical events and so on. As I pointed out in my previous post, John's purpose in writing was to refute Gnostic doctrines creeping into the church, (They went out from us because they were not of us). The Synoptic writers were not refuting false teaching. They wrote many years before John when Gnosticism had not yet become a major problem. We see Paul dealing with Gnosticism somewhat in the letter to the Corinthians, but for the most part it was not yet a major issue. By the time John wrote his gospel Gnosticism was becoming a big issue and John was the "Only" authoritative eyewitness. Not to mention the other things that had changed by this time. We also have a different audience, John was most likely written from Ephesus, his readers would primarily have been Gentiles. Why? Because the Jewish believers would not have been easily lead into Gnosticism simply because of their Jewish background and familiarity with the OT Scriptures. Mathew on the other hand was written to Jews, Gnosticism wouldn't be an issue here. What Mathew set out to do was to show that Jesus was the the kingly seed promised from the line of David. The Jews were expecting a Messiah, they knew that He would be of the seed of Abraham and of the seed of David. That is why Mathew's geneology stops at Abraham and Lukes continues all the was back to God. Mathew's gospel was orignally written in Aramaic and later transalted into Greek. Luke on the other hand set out to record an Chronological history of the events in the life and ministry of Christ. However, Unlike John and Mathew, Luke was not an apostle of Jesus Christ. He recorded first hand testimony that he was given. Likewise Mark was not an apostle, He traveled with Peter and basically recorded what he heard Peter saying, well, again, Peter was an apostle to the Jews. It's possible that Luke and Mark never saw Jesus.

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:02 PM
My friend, I think you are missing the point. It seems the this is of major importance in "Your" mind, that doesn't mean the NT writers saw it the same way. Firstly, we need to consider the purpose of the writing, we need to consider the audience, we need to consider the geopolitical events and so on. As I pointed out in my previous post, John's purpose in writing was to refute Gnostic doctrines creeping into the church, (They went out from us because they were not of us). The Synoptic writers were not refuting false teaching. They wrote many years before John when Gnosticism had not yet become a major problem. We see Paul dealing with Gnosticism somewhat in the letter to the Corinthians, but for the most part it was not yet a major issue. By the time John wrote his gospel Gnosticism was becoming a big issue and John was the "Only" authoritative eyewitness. Not to mention the other things that had changed by this time. We also have a different audience, John was most likely written from Ephesus, his readers would primarily have been Gentiles. Why? Because the Jewish believers would not have been easily lead into Gnosticism simply because of their Jewish background and familiarity with the OT Scriptures. Mathew on the other hand was written to Jews, Gnosticism wouldn't be an issue here. What Mathew set out to do was to show that Jesus was the the kingly seed promised from the line of David. The Jews were expecting a Messiah, they knew that He would be of the seed of Abraham and of the seed of David. That is why Mathew's geneology stops at Abraham and Lukes continues all the was back to God. Mathew's gospel was orignally written in Aramaic and later transalted into Greek. Luke on the other hand set out to record an Chronological history of the events in the life and ministry of Christ. However, Unlike John and Mathew, Luke was not an apostle of Jesus Christ. He recorded first hand testimony that he was given. Likewise Mark was not an apostle, He traveled with Peter and basically recorded what he heard Peter saying, well, again, Peter was an apostle to the Jews. It's possible that Luke and Mark never saw Jesus.

Yes, it's possible that Luke and Mark never saw Jesus. But the teachings they received from the disciples of Jesus was what they wrote down for posterity. If Jesus said the things that John records him as saying, then those things are no small things. Stating that "Before Abraham was, I AM" is not insignificant. It's a claim to being YHWH himself. For 3 gospel writers to leave out such a claim by Jesus seems a bit odd. Afterall, we evangelicals are quick to quote those very words of John's gospel in our own presentations of Jesus, as a way of demonstrating to others who Jesus claimed to be. And yet none of the Synoptic writers thought it important enough to record those words for their faith community? Odd!

RabbiKnife
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:07 PM
Just because evangelicals do something is not evidence that God wants it done...

God is not accountable to us for the way in which He decided to reveal himself to us.

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:16 PM
Just because evangelicals do something is not evidence that God wants it done...

God is not accountable to us for the way in which He decided to reveal himself to us.

But if Jesus reveals himself as YHWH God to his disciples, it's not up to us to his disciples to share that revelation with others? That's an odd argument!

Butch5
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:21 PM
Not the first time I've heard this. Of course, no one can produce an alternate Hebrew text either. So suddenly the Greek bible becomes the "official" one, even though that isn't even the bible's first language.

My friend, it's simply because the Hebrew is not what Christ andthe apostles used, they used the Greek OT, the Septuagint. Why would we use Hebrew texts (especially texts that date about a thousand years "After" Christ), when Christ and the apostles used the Septuagint?

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:27 PM
My friend, it's simply because the Hebrew is not what Christ andthe apostles used, they used the Greek OT, the Septuagint. Why would we use Hebrew texts (especially texts that date about a thousand years "After" Christ), when Christ and the apostles used the Septuagint?

And you know this how?

When Jesus got up and unrolled the scroll to read from Isaiah in the synagogue, it is highly doubtful he unrolled a copy of the Septuagint! LOL!

Butch5
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:38 PM
And you know this how?

When Jesus got up and unrolled the scroll to read from Isaiah in the synagogue, it is highly doubtful he unrolled a copy of the Septuagint! LOL!

Are we going to have a real discussion? I gave the quotes from the different texts which shows that the quotes were not from the Hebrew but were from the Septuagint. Regarding Jesus' reading the scroll in the Synagogue, I didn't say the Jews used the Septuagint in the Synagogue, I said that Jesus and the apostles quoted from it. Greek was the major language at the time and thus the Septuagint was the copy of Scripture that was most used. The Septuagint was originally used by the Jews, it was their Bible, they only rejected it after the early Christians continually used it to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:42 PM
Are we going to have a real discussion? I gave the quotes from the different texts which shows that the quotes were not from the Hebrew but were from the Septuagint. Regarding Jesus' reading the scroll in the Synagogue, I didn't say the Jews used the Septuagint in the Synagogue, I said that Jesus and the apostles quoted from it. Greek was the major language at the time and thus the Septuagint was the copy of Scripture that was most used. The Septuagint was originally used by the Jews, it was their Bible, they only rejected it after the early Christians continually used it to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

Actually it was Aramaic that was most likely their language. And it's doubtful Galilean fishermen spoke Greek. The Maccabees kinda had some influence on that one!

RabbiKnife
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:46 PM
But if Jesus reveals himself as YHWH God to his disciples, it's not up to us to his disciples to share that revelation with others? That's an odd argument!

If you believe in inspiration of the Scriptures, you have to assume that the writers wrote what God wanted. Further, if you can't find evidence of the divine nature of Jesus in the Synoptics outside of John's gospel, there's a bigger problem. You are making an assumption that the "evidence" that evangelicals hang there hats on is the only "evidence" that the folks of the day would have cared about.

Jesus specifically told his disciples (the Twelve) not to reveal certain things about himself during at least a part of his earthly ministry. Jesus didn't usually accede to the expectations of the crowd, including those of his disciples (either then or now.)

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:58 PM
If you believe in inspiration of the Scriptures, you have to assume that the writers wrote what God wanted. Further, if you can't find evidence of the divine nature of Jesus in the Synoptics outside of John's gospel, there's a bigger problem. You are making an assumption that the "evidence" that evangelicals hang there hats on is the only "evidence" that the folks of the day would have cared about.

Jesus specifically told his disciples (the Twelve) not to reveal certain things about himself during at least a part of his earthly ministry. Jesus didn't usually accede to the expectations of the crowd, including those of his disciples (either then or now.)

Well, I'm not really talking about the inspiration of scripture. This is simply where the argument goes when answers can't be offered. I do not doubt the inspiration of scripture. What I question is the historicity of the "I AM" statements in John's gospel. They are theological statements placed on the lips of Jesus by the gospel writer, and I say this with good reason: If Jesus actually made such bold claims as found in John, why would other gospel writers not record at least one of these claims in any of their gospels?

Saying, "Well God inspired it that way" really is not an answer. Jesus told his disciples to go and make other disciples, teaching others all that he had taught them. And yet such bold declarations of his divine identity are kept from three of the 4 gospels and their record of Jesus's teachings? Not one of Jesus's "I AM" statements makes it into the other three gospels???

I believe the answer is: John is theological, not historical!

RabbiKnife
Feb 3rd 2011, 05:14 PM
False assumption. Just because something is written for a theological purpose does not mean that the events described are not historically accurate.

Your beef seems to be that God didn't write the Bible the way you demand that he should have in order to satisfy your manmade standard of divine revelation. John doesn't record a historical narrative, and says so; does that mean that the statements that he does make that are historical in nature are not true?

Seriously, I just can't get my hands around your argument from silence. God isn't required to satisfy your inquiry.

Butch5
Feb 3rd 2011, 05:25 PM
Yes, it's possible that Luke and Mark never saw Jesus. But the teachings they received from the disciples of Jesus was what they wrote down for posterity. If Jesus said the things that John records him as saying, then those things are no small things. Stating that "Before Abraham was, I AM" is not insignificant. It's a claim to being YHWH himself. For 3 gospel writers to leave out such a claim by Jesus seems a bit odd. After all, we evangelicals are quick to quote those very words of John's gospel in our own presentations of Jesus, as a way of demonstrating to others who Jesus claimed to be. And yet none of the Synoptic writers thought it important enough to record those words for their faith community? Odd!

My friend, are you considering the arguments put forth? It seems you keep saying, yeah but. Let's consider the events. firstly we have gospels from two apostles, Luke and Mark were not apostles. Luke said that he set out to record a Chronological history of the life and Ministry of Christ. He said he obtained his information from those who heard Christ. It is possible that no one mentioned the "I am" statements to Luke. He probably never saw Jesus since he was a Gentile. That leaves us with three gospels, we know John did record the "I am" statements. So, why would Mathew and Mark not record them? Well, Mark, not being an apostle, but being Peter's nephew got much of his gospel from Peter's preaching. Well, Peter was the apostle to the Jews, and most likely the bulk of his ministry was to the Jews. Therefore what Mark records most likely comes from this preaching. Mathew also wrote his gospel to the Jews. The purpose and the intended audience has a bearing on the way the writer approaches his letter. Now, there is a perfectly good reason why Peter and Mathew would not mention the "I am" statements, and we find it in John's gospel.

John 8:56-59 ( KJV )
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

If the Jews would not listen to the "I am" statements from Jesus Himself, they surely aren't going to listen to them from Peter (Mark's gospel) or Mathew. Both Peter and Mathew choose to show that Jesus was the seed promised from David's line.

Acts 2:22-36 ( KJV )
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

We can see this line of thinking even later. Here is an account of the Martyrdom of James the Lord's brother. Notice the praise of the people, it is the sames as that found in the gospels.


The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 8
Hegesippus. [a.d. 170.]


Fragments from His Five Books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church. I. Concerning the Martyrdom of James, the Brother of the Lord, from Book V,
James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people—so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel’s, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people. Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek Defence of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him. Now some persons belonging to the seven sects existing among the people, which have been before described by me in the Notes, asked him: “What is the door of Jesus?” 763 And he replied that He was the Saviour. In Consequence of this answer, some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects before mentioned did not believe, either in a resurrection or in the coming of One to requite every man according to his works; but those who did believe, believed because of James. So, when many even of the ruling class believed, there was a commotion among the Jews, and scribes, and Pharisees, who said: “A little more, and we shall have all the people looking for Jesus as the Christ. They came, therefore, in a body to James, and said: “We entreat thee, restrain the people: for they are gone astray in their opinions about Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat thee to persuade all who have come hither for the day of the passover, concerning Jesus. For we all listen to thy persuasion; since we, as well as all the people, bear thee testimony that thou art just, and showest partiality to none. Do thou, therefore, persuade the people not to entertain erroneous opinions concerning Jesus: for all the people, and we also, listen to thy persuasion. Take thy stand, then, upon the summit of the temple, that from that elevated spot thou mayest be clearly seen, and thy words may be plainly audible to all the people. For, in order to attend the passover, all the tribes have congregated hither, and some of the Gentiles also.” The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: “O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified, do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified.” And he answered with a loud voice: “Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven.” And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, “Hosanna to the son of David,” then again the said Pharisees and scribes said to one another, “We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him.” And they cried aloud, and said: “Oh! oh! the just man himself is in error.” Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: “Let us away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings.” So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to one another: “Let us stone James the Just.” And they began to stone him: for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said: “I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” And, while they were thus stoning him to death, one of the priests, the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, to whom testimony is borne by Jeremiah the prophet, began to cry aloud, saying: “Cease, what do ye? The just man is praying for us.” But one among them, one of the fullers, took the staff with which he was accustomed to wring out the garments he dyed, and hurled it at the head of the just man. And so he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. And shortly after Vespasian besieged Judæa, taking them captive.

We can see that the way to reach the Jews was to show that Jesus was the Son of David, the promised seed.

Butch5
Feb 3rd 2011, 05:29 PM
Actually it was Aramaic that was most likely their language. And it's doubtful Galilean fishermen spoke Greek. The Maccabees kinda had some influence on that one!

Well, I'm not going to derail the thread, just suffice to say, Alexander the great was not Aramaic.

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 05:33 PM
My friend, it's simply because the Hebrew is not what Christ andthe apostles used, they used the Greek OT, the Septuagint.
As noted above, they spoke Aramaic not Greek.


Why would we use Hebrew texts (especially texts that date about a thousand years "After" Christ), when Christ and the apostles used the Septuagint?The DSS agree far more with the Masoteric bible than the Septuagint, FWIW.

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 05:36 PM
Well, I'm not going to derail the thread, just suffice to say, Alexander the great was not Aramaic.

Yes, but the Maccabees had something to say about that. Antiochus IV, lost the battle to Hellenize Judea. They spoke Aramaic in 1st Century Judea/Galilee.

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2011, 06:58 PM
If you believe in inspiration of the Scriptures, you have to assume that the writers wrote what God wanted. Further, if you can't find evidence of the divine nature of Jesus in the Synoptics outside of John's gospel, there's a bigger problem. You are making an assumption that the "evidence" that evangelicals hang there hats on is the only "evidence" that the folks of the day would have cared about.

Jesus specifically told his disciples (the Twelve) not to reveal certain things about himself during at least a part of his earthly ministry. Jesus didn't usually accede to the expectations of the crowd, including those of his disciples (either then or now.)

The vast majority of people don't even realize that the majority of John was written about the last few months of the life of Christ. In the others... they write about a lot of things happening throughout the entire ministry of Christ but John spends very little ink on the early years... gets right to the point of time when Christ was pushing a bit. Simple truth... They killed Jesus for a reason. Jesus was much more open about whom He was in the end of his ministry and you can see that even in the other gospels. John simply spent the bulk of his writing about that time. Without looking... it is somewhere around chapter 5 and that's all withing the last months of His walk on the planet as a man. Likely the last 8, maybe 9 months of His life. He knew what was coming and His teaching simply took on a different flavor and He made it more clear who He was.

John gave me problems on this very thing years back. I looked at it very hard and studied it out hard. Follow the timeline backward and it became clear... John spent a great deal of ink space on the person of Christ and the divinity of Christ which became more clear towards the end of His ministry. When Jesus started telling them things like eat my flesh and drink my blood... this caused many to run like a scalded dog.

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2011, 07:01 PM
And Butch... seriously dude. They did speak Aramic in that time and that's pretty much settled save by a few scholars that just can't let it go. Hellinistic Jews were in fact prominent but not so much in Jerusalem. Most the Jews in Rome and Asia certainly... your case is clearly fact when speaking of Paul and his writings and as well Hebrews which is why I believe that Apollos was the likely author. Anyway... you're barking up the wrong tree here trying to make that the language in Jerusalem at the time of Christ. Just keeping it real on that front. ;)

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 07:18 PM
The vast majority of people don't even realize that the majority of John was written about the last few months of the life of Christ. In the others... they write about a lot of things happening throughout the entire ministry of Christ but John spends very little ink on the early years... gets right to the point of time when Christ was pushing a bit. Simple truth... They killed Jesus for a reason. Jesus was much more open about whom He was in the end of his ministry and you can see that even in the other gospels. John simply spent the bulk of his writing about that time. Without looking... it is somewhere around chapter 5 and that's all withing the last months of His walk on the planet as a man. Likely the last 8, maybe 9 months of His life. He knew what was coming and His teaching simply took on a different flavor and He made it more clear who He was.

John gave me problems on this very thing years back. I looked at it very hard and studied it out hard. Follow the timeline backward and it became clear... John spent a great deal of ink space on the person of Christ and the divinity of Christ which became more clear towards the end of His ministry. When Jesus started telling them things like eat my flesh and drink my blood... this caused many to run like a scalded dog.

It's because of Jesus' three visits to Jerusalem, in John's gospel, that some conclude his ministry lasted 3 years. It's not likely that the words in John are limited to the last months of Jesus' life. In addtion, nearly half of Mark deals with Jesus' last week of life. Yet we don't find any of John's Jesus in Mark.

RabbiKnife
Feb 3rd 2011, 07:24 PM
"John's Jesus" is certainly in Mark. Just apparently not in a way that satisfies your presupposition of how God should have revealed himself.

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2011, 07:32 PM
It's because of Jesus' three visits to Jerusalem, in John's gospel, that some conclude his ministry lasted 3 years. It's not likely that the words in John are limited to the last months of Jesus' life. In addtion, nearly half of Mark deals with Jesus' last week of life. Yet we don't find any of John's Jesus in Mark.
Um... sure you do to the extent Mark wrote it. Mark was very short in most all his accounts. Example early on... There was John the Baptist... he preached and baptized...enough said. Jesus was baptized by John... enough said. Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness... He was there being tempted by Satan... enough said.

You are totally discounting style and a lot of other things with your logic. And yes... John focused the majority of his writing on the last months of Jesus' life. That's clear if one simply looks.

Firefighter
Feb 3rd 2011, 09:12 PM
The rock bottom of New Testament scholarship has said the Synoptics are historical, but John is not. In other words, Jesus really did not say the things that are recorded in John's gospel.

There... I fixed it for you.

rejoice44
Feb 3rd 2011, 09:30 PM
You may be able to identify with this. When I first heard the gospel presented to me, the speaker used the words of Jesus found in John's gospel to show me that Jesus was who he said he was. The great "I AM" statements were used as a way of showing me that Jesus is God.

In fact, great evangelists like Billy Graham have done the same. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life...", Jesus said, "I am the resurrection", Jesus said, "I am the bread of life," Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I Am."....etc.

Always the gospel of John is used to show that Jesus identified himself as divine.

My question: If Jesus made such definitive statements about himself, statements we now use to proof-text his divine status, then why don't any of the other gospel writers record these definitive statements of Jesus? Or, to put it another way, if Jesus actually said something like, "Before Abraham was, I AM" why would the rest of the gospel writers choose to leave such definitive statements out of their gospels?

First, the other Gospel writers did not leave out definitive statements about the Deity of Christ, but they did not all write about the same definitive statements, nor in the same manner did they write these definitive statements.

As an example in Matthew 16:13-17 Jesus asks the disciples who they think he is, and when Simon Peter confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus tells Peter that the Father in heaven has revealed it to him. And then Jesus tells them to reveal it to no one that he is the Son of God. You see it is God that reveals the Son. You shouldn't have to just rely on flesh and blood to reveal it.

Time and time again the disciples were told not to reveal who Jesus was. Today, you can read over and over again that Jesus is God, but you will not believe it, except God reveals it to you.

Why would John reveal who Jesus was above the other three writers? If you read carefully the book of John, you might discover that John kept himself out of the picture. He did not speak of himself. If you read carefully in the first chapter of John, you might come to believe, as I do, that John was one of those two disciples of John the Baptist who followed Jesus. (John 1:36) We know the one was Simon Peter's brother, Andrew (John 1:40), but the other one John does not name. The two sets of brothers were partners in the fishing business. James and John, and Andrew and Peter.

John does not name the disciple who leaned on Jesus breast at the last supper. John does not mention the name of the disciple to whom Jesus gave charge of his mother, nor does he mention the disciple who left John the Baptist to follow Jesus. It was not the habit of John not to name the disciple he was speaking of, therefore one might conclude that he was speaking of himself. Remember, John the Baptist said, he must increase, and I must decrease. John the apostle was merely following John the Baptist's teaching.

What makes John different from the other three writers? He was the closest one to Jesus, for even Peter had to ask John to ask Jesus, who the one was that would betray Jesus.

Peter said the spirit of Christ was in the prophets (1 Peter 1:11). How is that much different from John saying that Jesus spoke to Abraham?

There are many such scriptures as the above that testify of the Deity of Christ, you just need to search for them. "Search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life."

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 09:35 PM
Um... sure you do to the extent Mark wrote it. Mark was very short in most all his accounts. Example early on... There was John the Baptist... he preached and baptized...enough said. Jesus was baptized by John... enough said. Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness... He was there being tempted by Satan... enough said.

You are totally discounting style and a lot of other things with your logic. And yes... John focused the majority of his writing on the last months of Jesus' life. That's clear if one simply looks.

Well let me ask it another way. If Jesus said the things John records, and he said most of these things in the last months of his life, as you say, then when did he say them? In all of the gospels Jesus is addressing the crowds in his discourses. So when does Jesus boldly proclaim his divine identity (John), and not proclaim his divine identity (the synoptics)? Did Jesus have two ministries....one bold, the other discreet? Was it a mixture? Did he proclaim the Kingdom on some days, and his divine identity on others? How do you put the two together?

Butch5
Feb 3rd 2011, 09:49 PM
As noted above, they spoke Aramaic not Greek.

The DSS agree far more with the Masoteric bible than the Septuagint, FWIW.

My friend, Are you really going to make the argument that Aramaic and not Greek was the predominant language in NT times?

I've given the evidence, it's not my opinion. Where the Masoretic text differs from the Septuagint, the NT quotes follow the Septuagint. I am not aware of a single place in Scripture where the Masoretic text and the Septuagint differ and the NT follows the Masoretic text, not one. So, what are we left with? If the Masoretic text is correct, then the apostles were wrong and wrongly quoted Scripture. The apostles who were under the inspiration of the Spirit. Or, the apostles were correct and they quoted from the Septuagint. You see, your problem is that the Masoretic text and the apostles quotes don't match, that means one of the two is wrong. My money's on the apostles, as opposed to a text that dates roughly 1000 years after them.

Butch5
Feb 3rd 2011, 10:01 PM
Yes, but the Maccabees had something to say about that. Antiochus IV, lost the battle to Hellenize Judea. They spoke Aramaic in 1st Century Judea/Galilee.

My friend, surely you don't think that it was only in Judea that Jews lived? The Jews who were dispersed throughout the nations would converge on Jerusalem on the feast days. The bulk of these Jews spoke Greek. I mean we see this in the Scriptures.

Acts 2:5-12 ( KJV )
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

They all spoke the language of the land in which they were born. However, Greek was the common language between these nations. It was necessary to know Greek to trade and do business with the different peoples.

rejoice44
Feb 3rd 2011, 10:24 PM
Are we going to have a real discussion? I gave the quotes from the different texts which shows that the quotes were not from the Hebrew but were from the Septuagint. Regarding Jesus' reading the scroll in the Synagogue, I didn't say the Jews used the Septuagint in the Synagogue, I said that Jesus and the apostles quoted from it. Greek was the major language at the time and thus the Septuagint was the copy of Scripture that was most used. The Septuagint was originally used by the Jews, it was their Bible, they only rejected it after the early Christians continually used it to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

May I ask which manuscript your Septuagint is derived from?

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 10:29 PM
My friend, Are you really going to make the argument that Aramaic and not Greek was the predominant language in NT times?Amongst Jews in Judea? They spoke Aramaic.


I've given the evidence, it's not my opinion. Where the Masoretic text differs from the Septuagint, the NT quotes follow the Septuagint.I am aware, and I consider this a point against the NT. These supposedly learned Jews couldn't even quote the bible in Hebrew?

So, what are we left with? If the Masoretic text is correct, then the apostles were wrong and wrongly quoted Scripture. Exactly.


The apostles who were under the inspiration of the Spirit. Or, the apostles were correct and they quoted from the Septuagint. You see, your problem is that the Masoretic text and the apostles quotes don't match, that means one of the two is wrong.Well, of course. You are a Christian.


My money's on the apostles, as opposed to a text that dates roughly 1000 years after them.
But it doesn't.

From wikipedia-


The MT was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries CE. Though the consonants differ little from the text generally accepted in the early 2nd century (and also differ little from some Qumran texts that are even older), it has numerous differences of both greater and lesser significance when compared to (extant 4th century) manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation (made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE) of the Hebrew Scriptures that was in popular use in Egypt and Palestine and that is believed by scholars to be the source often quoted in the New Testament.

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 10:31 PM
My friend, surely you don't think that it was only in Judea that Jews lived? The Jews who were dispersed throughout the nations would converge on Jerusalem on the feast days. The bulk of these Jews spoke Greek. I mean we see this in the Scriptures.

Jews are dispersed throughout the world right now too. Most of the Jews I know (I live in America) speak English. The only Hebrew they know is what they've learned at synagogue. Jews in Israel speak modern Hebrew. Kinda goes with the territory!

Likewise a diaspora Jew living in Ancient Alexandria probably spoke Greek, but Jews in Judea/Galilee spoke Aramaic. This isn't arguable!

David Taylor
Feb 3rd 2011, 10:53 PM
First, the other Gospel writers did not leave out definitive statements about the Deity of Christ

I found a good article by J.A.T. Robinson, that addressed the discussion of Jesus' deity found within the synoptic gospels.

"Jesus implicitly claimed deity in at least twelve ways. He claimed three divine rights:
(1) to judge mankind,
(2) to forgive sins, and
(3) to grant eternal life. He declared that
(4) his presence was God's presence as well as the presence of God's kingdom and that
(5) the attitude people took toward him would determine their eternal destiny. He
(6) identified his actions with God's actions,
(7) taught the truth on his own authority, and
(8) performed miracles on his own authority. He
(9) received worship or obeisance. He
(10) assumed that his life was a pattern for others, a "divinely authoritative form of life." He
(11) applied to himself OT texts that describe God and
(12) in several parables indirectly identified himself with a father or king who represents God"


Pulling out the scripture references....

1. Jesus judges mankind.
Matt 7:22-24, 9:4, 12:25, 16:27, 22:18, 25:34, 41

2. Jesus forgave sins.
Matt 9:3-6, Mark 2, Luke 5:17-26, 7:36-50, 18:9-14,

3. Jesus bestowed eternal life.
Matt 19:16-21, Mark 10:17-21, Luke 18:18-20

4. Jesus' presence is God's presence.
Matt 12:6, 18:20, 28:18

5. The eternal destiny of humans depends on their response to Jesus.
Matt 7:21-27, 10:32-39, 16:24-26, Mark 8:34-38, Luke 14:26-27

6. Jesus identified actions towards Himself as actions towards God
Matt 10:4, Mark 9:37

7. Jesus taught truth on His own authority.
(Contrarily, when OT prophets prophesied, they insisted the message was God's not their own)
Matt 5:18, 6:2, 7:24, 18:3, 24:35, 24:35, 28:18-19, Mark 3:28, Luke 12:27, 13:35

8. Jesus performed miracles on His own authority.
Matt 8:2-13, 14:33, 20:29-34

9. Jesus received worship and obeisance.
Matt 2:1, 17:6, 26:39, Mark 3:11, 5:6, 27, 33, 7:25, 10:17, 15:19, Luke 5:8, Luke 17:15-19, Luke 24:52

10. Jesus assumed His life a pattern for others.
Matt 5:44-45, 9:14-17, 11:19, Luke 8:19-21, 14:25-28, 15:1-2

11. Jesus applied to Himself OT texts ascribed to YHWH.
Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33

12. Jesus is a divine figure in His own parables
Matt 13:1-41, 18:21-35, 21:45-46, 24, 25, Luke 5:17-26, 7:36-50, 15:3-32, 20:19





John's Gospel is an amazing and awesome declaration to the diety of Jesus Christ....but we don't need it to stand alone, and it doesn't.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke's synoptic gospels do just fine on their own declaring the deity of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Butch5
Feb 3rd 2011, 11:06 PM
Very good, Butch.

Thanks, my friend!

ProjectPeter
Feb 4th 2011, 03:30 AM
Well let me ask it another way. If Jesus said the things John records, and he said most of these things in the last months of his life, as you say, then when did he say them? In all of the gospels Jesus is addressing the crowds in his discourses. So when does Jesus boldly proclaim his divine identity (John), and not proclaim his divine identity (the synoptics)? Did Jesus have two ministries....one bold, the other discreet? Was it a mixture? Did he proclaim the Kingdom on some days, and his divine identity on others? How do you put the two together?
Certainly I suspect He was much more clear near the end. Why not... He did have to die afterall? His time was up... He laid it down more clear. Even His lambasting of the Pharisee was times more harsh... woe to you... etc.

Butch5
Feb 4th 2011, 04:12 AM
Amongst Jews in Judea? They spoke Aramaic.

I never limited it to Judea. I said The Greek was the predominate language of that time. I made a statement about Alexander the Great.


I am aware, and I consider this a point against the NT. These supposedly learned Jews couldn't even quote the bible in Hebrew?

Who said they were learned Jews? It does seem Paul was educated.


Exactly.

You still have a problem, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Septuagint was translated from a a text that differs from the modern Masoretic text. You also have another problem. The Septuagint was translated by Jews and was the Jewish Bible for Greek speaking Jews for at least two to three hundred years before Christ. Why was it accepted for over two hundred years as the Greek copy only to be rejected later? It is my understanding that the Scrolls used to translated the Septuagint came from the temple and that it was the high priest who sent the translators. It would seem that you have to claim they translated the texts incorrectly, if that were the case then why was the copy accepted and used for over two hundred years? Surely the high priest would have have rejected an incorrect copy of the sacred texts, yet the evidence points to the use of the Septuagint without any rejection until after the Christians began to use it to prove that Jesus is the Christ.


Well, of course. You are a Christian.

But my friend, you still have the same problem, the Septuagint started out as the Jewish Bible, not a Christian Bible. It's validity was not questioned until after the birth of Christ.


But it doesn't.

The copies used today are not that old. Maybe I wasn't clear, the copies that are used today only date back to around 900 A.D. or so. I'm not saying the MT dates from 900, but the copies presently held are from around 900 A.D.

Butch5
Feb 4th 2011, 04:55 AM
Jews are dispersed throughout the world right now too. Most of the Jews I know (I live in America) speak English. The only Hebrew they know is what they've learned at synagogue. Jews in Israel speak modern Hebrew. Kinda goes with the territory!

Likewise a diaspora Jew living in Ancient Alexandria probably spoke Greek, but Jews in Judea/Galilee spoke Aramaic. This isn't arguable!

The Jews spoke the languages of the lands they were born in, we see that from Scripture. How do you suppose all of these different Jews communicated? They didn't all know Aramaic, plus there were many from these nations that were not Jews, you don't think they all learned Aramaic so that they could communicate and do business do you? These different nationalities needed a common language. If all of the Jews spoke Aramaic, there would have been no need for the miraculous exhibition of the gift of Tongues on the day of Pentecost. Peter and the others could have simply just spoken in Aramaic.

Acts 2:5-12 ( KJV )
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

In Judea, these Jews were amazed that these Galileans were Speaking the language of Judea. If the Galileans and the Judeans spoke the same language why would these Jews be amazed to hear Galileans speaking the same language?

rejoice44
Feb 4th 2011, 12:02 PM
I found a good article by J.A.T. Robinson, that addressed the discussion of Jesus' deity found within the synoptic gospels.



"Jesus implicitly claimed deity in at least twelve ways. He claimed three divine rights:
(1) to judge mankind,
(2) to forgive sins, and
(3) to grant eternal life. He declared that
(4) his presence was God's presence as well as the presence of God's kingdom and that
(5) the attitude people took toward him would determine their eternal destiny. He
(6) identified his actions with God's actions,
(7) taught the truth on his own authority, and
(8) performed miracles on his own authority. He
(9) received worship or obeisance. He
(10) assumed that his life was a pattern for others, a "divinely authoritative form of life." He
(11) applied to himself OT texts that describe God and
(12) in several parables indirectly identified himself with a father or king who represents God"



Pulling out the scripture references....

1. Jesus judges mankind.
Matt 7:22-24, 9:4, 12:25, 16:27, 22:18, 25:34, 41

2. Jesus forgave sins.
Matt 9:3-6, Mark 2, Luke 5:17-26, 7:36-50, 18:9-14,

3. Jesus bestowed eternal life.
Matt 19:16-21, Mark 10:17-21, Luke 18:18-20

4. Jesus' presence is God's presence.
Matt 12:6, 18:20, 28:18

5. The eternal destiny of humans depends on their response to Jesus.
Matt 7:21-27, 10:32-39, 16:24-26, Mark 8:34-38, Luke 14:26-27

6. Jesus identified actions towards Himself as actions towards God
Matt 10:4, Mark 9:37

7. Jesus taught truth on His own authority.
(Contrarily, when OT prophets prophesied, they insisted the message was God's not their own)
Matt 5:18, 6:2, 7:24, 18:3, 24:35, 24:35, 28:18-19, Mark 3:28, Luke 12:27, 13:35

8. Jesus performed miracles on His own authority.
Matt 8:2-13, 14:33, 20:29-34

9. Jesus received worship and obeisance.
Matt 2:1, 17:6, 26:39, Mark 3:11, 5:6, 27, 33, 7:25, 10:17, 15:19, Luke 5:8, Luke 17:15-19, Luke 24:52

10. Jesus assumed His life a pattern for others.
Matt 5:44-45, 9:14-17, 11:19, Luke 8:19-21, 14:25-28, 15:1-2

11. Jesus applied to Himself OT texts ascribed to YHWH.
Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33

12. Jesus is a divine figure in His own parables
Matt 13:1-41, 18:21-35, 21:45-46, 24, 25, Luke 5:17-26, 7:36-50, 15:3-32, 20:19


John's Gospel is an amazing and awesome declaration to the diety of Jesus Christ....but we don't need it to stand alone, and it doesn't.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke's synoptic gospels do just fine on their own declaring the deity of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Well presented. The Deity of Christ is only questioned by those that do not know him.

Fenris
Feb 4th 2011, 12:03 PM
I never limited it to Judea. I said The Greek was the predominate language of that time. Most Jews in Judea spoke Aramaic. What language did Jesus preach to them in?




Who said they were learned Jews? It does seem Paul was educated.Why does one of Rabban Gamliel's students quote the Greek bible?




You still have a problem, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Septuagint was translated from a a text that differs from the modern Masoretic text.
The DSS agree with the Masoteric text more than 50% of the time and the Septuagint only 5% of the time. I find this to be an interesting point.


You also have another problem. The Septuagint was translated by Jews and was the Jewish Bible for Greek speaking Jews for at least two to three hundred years before Christ.
No.

The five books of Moses was translated by Jews 200 years or so before Jesus. The rest of the bible was translated by unknown persons at an unknown date. The only copies of the Greek version of the OT that we have were carried down by (surprise!) the church, who obviously had an agenda to fulfill.


Why was it accepted for over two hundred years as the Greek copy only to be rejected later? It wasn't.





But my friend, you still have the same problem, the Septuagint started out as the Jewish Bible, not a Christian Bible. It's validity was not questioned until after the birth of Christ.Not the version you have today, my friend.




The copies used today are not that old. Maybe I wasn't clear, the copies that are used today only date back to around 900 A.D. or so. I'm not saying the MT dates from 900, but the copies presently held are from around 900 A.D.If they agree with older versions of the text, who cares how old they are?

rejoice44
Feb 4th 2011, 12:12 PM
My friend, it's simply because the Hebrew is not what Christ andthe apostles used, they used the Greek OT, the Septuagint. Why would we use Hebrew texts (especially texts that date about a thousand years "After" Christ), when Christ and the apostles used the Septuagint?

You often hear the Septuagint being touted, but where are you getting your Septuagint from? What is actually in it? Of all the lists of the findings of the Septuagint, where is the actual script? Take for instantance the Dead Sea Scrolls, where is an actual copy of Isaiah that we can compare? Most all the finds of the Septuagint are fragments, but where is the actual script of these fragments? Why are they so hidden? Why are they not published? How do you know what is actually in them?

Fenris
Feb 4th 2011, 12:22 PM
Whatever else may be said about the Septuagint, it remains a translation. It is not and cannot be the original text. Translations are always inferior to the original.

Butch5
Feb 4th 2011, 02:22 PM
Most Jews in Judea spoke Aramaic. What language did Jesus preach to them in?



Why does one of Rabban Gamliel's students quote the Greek bible?




The DSS agree with the Masoteric text more than 50% of the time and the Septuagint only 5% of the time. I find this to be an interesting point.


No.

The five books of Moses was translated by Jews 200 years or so before Jesus. The rest of the bible was translated by unknown persons at an unknown date. The only copies of the Greek version of the OT that we have were carried down by (surprise!) the church, who obviously had an agenda to fulfill.
It wasn't.



Not the version you have today, my friend.


If they agree with older versions of the text, who cares how old they are?

This is getting pointless. I personally am not interested in spending the time necessary to provide the evidence. The research is to time consuming. Here's the bottom line as I see it. The DSS will agree with the MT because the MT agrees with the Septuagint in most places. The issue is which do the DSS follow when the MT and the Septuagint differ?

Butch5
Feb 4th 2011, 02:24 PM
Whatever else may be said about the Septuagint, it remains a translation. It is not and cannot be the original text. Translations are always inferior to the original.

I think you're missing my point. You don't have the original text either. It may not be a translation but it isn't the original Hebrew either.

Butch5
Feb 4th 2011, 02:39 PM
You often hear the Septuagint being touted, but where are you getting your Septuagint from? What is actually in it? Of all the lists of the findings of the Septuagint, where is the actual script? Take for instantance the Dead Sea Scrolls, where is an actual copy of Isaiah that we can compare? Most all the finds of the Septuagint are fragments, but where is the actual script of these fragments? Why are they so hidden? Why are they not published? How do you know what is actually in them?

As I said to Ferris, I'm not interested in taking the time necessary to provide this information. I've been down this road before, As soon as something gets posted that we disagree with immediately the source is questioned. Obviously I cannot provide primary sources because I don't have the original manuscripts of the Septuagint. Therefore anything I present is going to be based on secondary or tertiary sources. So, what happens is, one source is presented and subsequently challenged, then it becomes necessary to provide support for that source in addition to the original. It winds up becoming a quagmire, and I'm really not that interested it going there. There is one simple fact that must be dealt with even outside of the Septuagint. That is the apostles quotes "DON"T" match the Masoretic text. That leaves us with two possibilities, either the apostles quotes were right or they were wrong. If they were right then it is obvious they were not quoting from the MT, if the MT is correct then the apostles misquoted Scripture.

Fenris
Feb 4th 2011, 03:18 PM
This is getting pointless. I personally am not interested in spending the time necessary to provide the evidence. The research is to time consuming. Here's the bottom line as I see it. The DSS will agree with the MT because the MT agrees with the Septuagint in most places. The issue is which do the DSS follow when the MT and the Septuagint differ?J. VanderKam & P. Flint "The Meaning of the DSS" (p. 143), gives these figures:

47% of DSS biblical texts reflect MT
47% are "non-aligned"
3.3 % reflect LXX
2.5 % reflect Samaritan Pentateuch

FWIW

Fenris
Feb 4th 2011, 03:19 PM
I think you're missing my point. You don't have the original text either. It may not be a translation but it isn't the original Hebrew either.
We don't know if I have the original or not. Whatever I have is at least not a translation. A translation done by unknown persons at an unknown date, no less.

Butch5
Feb 4th 2011, 04:05 PM
J. VanderKam & P. Flint "The Meaning of the DSS" (p. 143), gives these figures:

47% of DSS biblical texts reflect MT
47% are "non-aligned"
3.3 % reflect LXX
2.5 % reflect Samaritan Pentateuch

FWIW

Ok that would mean that 50.3% reflect the LXX

Butch5
Feb 4th 2011, 04:05 PM
We don't know if I have the original or not. Whatever I have is at least not a translation. A translation done by unknown persons at an unknown date, no less.

We do know, that's the point. The research is there.

Fenris
Feb 4th 2011, 04:08 PM
Ok that would mean that 50.3% reflect the LXX

No, 3.3 % reflect LXX.

Fenris
Feb 4th 2011, 04:09 PM
We do know, that's the point. The research is there.
Saying "I'm not going to prove my point because someone else proved it" is not a proof.

Allow me to reiterate. We do not know who translated the LXX and we do not know when.

Butch5
Feb 4th 2011, 04:13 PM
Saying "I'm not going to prove my point because someone else proved it" is not a proof.

That's not what I said. I didn't say I proved my point. I said the research is there. If any chooses to seek it out tuey can. I am not interested in spending the time required to gather it all together just for a post.


Allow me to reiterate. We do not know who translated the LXX and we do not know when.

Well, as you're welcome to your opinion.

Fenris
Feb 4th 2011, 04:19 PM
That's not what I said. I didn't say I proved my point. I said the research is there.
So you're saying "I'm right and if you did the research you'd see that I'm right".

Except that I did some research and it doesn't support your point.

Butch5
Feb 4th 2011, 04:25 PM
No, 3.3 % reflect LXX.

No, it would be 50.3%. You said,


Originally Posted by Fenris
J. VanderKam & P. Flint "The Meaning of the DSS" (p. 143), gives these figures:

47% of DSS biblical texts reflect MT
47% are "non-aligned"
3.3 % reflect LXX
2.5 % reflect Samaritan Pentateuch

Unless these figures are specifically related to the differences between the MT and the Septuagint, which is not stated, 50.3% of the DSS would agree with the Septuagint. This would be because everywhere the DSS agree with the MT, they would also agree with the Septuagint.

Butch5
Feb 4th 2011, 04:28 PM
So you're saying "I'm right and if you did the research you'd see that I'm right".

Except that I did some research and it doesn't support your point.

Seriously? I didn't say you're right and I'm not taking the bait.

Fenris
Feb 4th 2011, 04:54 PM
No, it would be 50.3%. You said,



Unless these figures are specifically related to the differences between the MT and the Septuagint, which is not stated, 50.3% of the DSS would agree with the Septuagint. This would be because everywhere the DSS agree with the MT, they would also agree with the Septuagint.

Please pay attention to the bolded text.

47% of DSS biblical texts reflect MT
47% are "non-aligned"
3.3 % reflect LXX
2.5 % reflect Samaritan Pentateuch

rejoice44
Feb 4th 2011, 07:12 PM
That's not what I said. I didn't say I proved my point. I said the research is there. If any chooses to seek it out tuey can. I am not interested in spending the time required to gather it all together just for a post.

And I am saying it is not readily available for research. You are throwing verses out there from the Septuagint without identifying the source or manuscript from which it comes.

I have attempted to come up with sources for the Septuagint and have been unsuccessful. Perhaps you could name three or four that are readily available, that one could compare.

WSGAC
Feb 4th 2011, 08:25 PM
I have attempted to come up with sources for the Septuagint and have been unsuccessful. Perhaps you could name three or four that are readily available, that one could compare.


Maybe it's the same sources the Masoretes used?

Things that make you go, "Hmmmmmmmm!"

rejoice44
Feb 4th 2011, 08:48 PM
Maybe it's the same sources the Masoretes used?

Things that make you go, "Hmmmmmmmm!"

Let us think about this. The Hebrew text has a chain of evidence going back to Moses. The Septuagint has a chain of evidence only going back to the reformation.

Butch5
Feb 4th 2011, 09:29 PM
Please pay attention to the bolded text.

47% of DSS biblical texts reflect MT
47% are "non-aligned"
3.3 % reflect LXX
2.5 % reflect Samaritan Pentateuch

I read the bolded text. I also explained that unless those numbers apply to the passages where the two differ, it indicates that the DSS agree with the Septuagint 50.3% of the time. It's simple, everywhere the DSS agree with the MT, they also agree with the Septuagint, because the MT and the Septuagint agree, however, there is a least 3.3% where the DSS agree with the Septuagint but not with the MT. Therefore we would add the 47% and htr 3.3% for a total of 50.3 %. You didn't state that these numbers only apply to the passages that differ, therefore I assumed that you are speaking of the texts in general.

Butch5
Feb 4th 2011, 10:28 PM
Let us think about this. The Hebrew text has a chain of evidence going back to Moses. The Septuagint has a chain of evidence only going back to the reformation.

Can you show the chain of evidence going back to Moses?

Butch5
Feb 4th 2011, 10:30 PM
And I am saying it is not readily available for research. You are throwing verses out there from the Septuagint without identifying the source or manuscript from which it comes.

I have attempted to come up with sources for the Septuagint and have been unsuccessful. Perhaps you could name three or four that are readily available, that one could compare.

What exactly are you looking? Are you looking to read the actually Greek manuscripts?

rejoice44
Feb 4th 2011, 10:44 PM
I read the bolded text. I also explained that unless those numbers apply to the passages where the two differ, it indicates that the DSS agree with the Septuagint 50.3% of the time. It's simple, everywhere the DSS agree with the MT, they also agree with the Septuagint, because the MT and the Septuagint agree, however, there is a least 3.3% where the DSS agree with the Septuagint but not with the MT. Therefore we would add the 47% and htr 3.3% for a total of 50.3 %. You didn't state that these numbers only apply to the passages that differ, therefore I assumed that you are speaking of the texts in general.

You need to take a step back and consider what Fenris's chart is saying. The word reflect is important.

The Septuagint is relevant to this chart only where it varies from the MT. Those variations that coincide with the Septuagint are reflected in only 3.3% of the total biblical manuscripts that are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The variations that coincide with the MT are reflected in 47% of the total biblical manuscripts that are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The fact is that the Septuagint varies from the MT, and those places that it varies are only found in 3.3% of the total biblical manuscripts.

I wouldn't know how else to put it, that it might be any clearer.

Butch5
Feb 4th 2011, 11:01 PM
You need to take a step back and consider what Fenris's chart is saying. The word reflect is important.

The Septuagint is relevant to this chart only where it varies from the MT. Those variations that coincide with the Septuagint are reflected in only 3.3% of the total biblical manuscripts that are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The variations that coincide with the MT are reflected in 47% of the total biblical manuscripts that are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The fact is that the Septuagint varies from the MT, and those places that it varies are only found in 3.3% of the total biblical manuscripts.

I wouldn't know how else to put it, that it might be any clearer.

I've stated twice now that we have no explanation of the numbers. Firstly, if we even accept these numbers ( hey have not been verified), if the DDS agrees with the MT 47% of the time, then it also agrees with the Septuagint at least 47% of the time, unless someone shows that these numbers refer only to the differences between the MT and the Septuagint. In which case I don't see why the others would be mentioned, which leads me to believe that these numbers are not referring only to the differences between the MT and the Septuagint.

rejoice44
Feb 5th 2011, 01:06 PM
I've stated twice now that we have no explanation of the numbers. Firstly, if we even accept these numbers ( hey have not been verified), if the DDS agrees with the MT 47% of the time, then it also agrees with the Septuagint at least 47% of the time, unless someone shows that these numbers refer only to the differences between the MT and the Septuagint. In which case I don't see why the others would be mentioned, which leads me to believe that these numbers are not referring only to the differences between the MT and the Septuagint.

If you have 100 animals, all having four legs, a tail, two ears, and paws, but 47 bark and growl, and 3 of them purr and meow, you could assume there was only three cats among them.

Butch5
Feb 6th 2011, 01:12 AM
If you have 100 animals, all having four legs, a tail, two ears, and paws, but 47 bark and growl, and 3 of them purr and meow, you could assume there was only three cats among them.

Do you understand what I said in my post?

rejoice44
Feb 6th 2011, 01:35 AM
Do you understand what I said in my post?

Of course I understand what you said. The problem is that you don't understand what the chart said.