Yeshua / Jesus Vs Saul / Paul Points

[wizanda]

Exodus 3:3-6

According to a Jewish professor, you can not even say 'I Am' in Hebrew or Aramaic, as there is no present tense; thus it says 'I shall be'.

Within places in the Tanakh it is translated as 'I Am', we find the Hebrew term 'Ani Hu', which means 'I he'... Which is the closest we get, and then it depends on the context, to if it is referring to God.

Thus when the context we find delivered in John, implies jesus led them through the wilderness, is the source of life, etc.... This is why people jump to the conclusion, he claimed to be God within it; yet there are no foundations for it in Hebrew or Aramaic, as you can't even say "I AM".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What we are comparing is the vocabulary of Yeshua

Which is accessible only through the gospel authors. As Matthew and Luke rely on Mark (in many places copying the Greek not only word-for-word but relying on the same lexical morphology), and as they share another common source that consists almost entirely of "sayings", their works are naturally going to reflect their compositional nature as well as match the parabolic Jesus of Mark who, when not telling a parable is offering some apothegm.

The composition of John is much different because it was written for different purposes with different perspectives/sources (hence the line by the "authors" at near the end: "Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ μαθητὴς ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ τούτων καὶ γράψας ταῦτα, καὶ οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία ἐστίν").

None of the gospels present what Jesus said, for among other things they were all written originally in Greek and it is unlikely that Jesus was able to speak much Greek (if he was able to at all) and what is preserved in the oral tradition of Jesus's teachings and doings in the gospels is changed merely by translation (as can be seen in e.g., the way that the Syriac translations of the Greek gospels had to inaccurately translate any line with the phrase "son of man" as a direct translation would have reflected the Aramaic idiom lost in the Greek).

The synoptics are called the synoptics for a reason, and it isn't because they faithfully reflect Jesus' speech. It's because they are interdependent

The statement you've put from Mark

The Greek is from Matthew, not Mark. I didn't quote from Mark I just noted that he also used the exact same phrase.

As a historian, theologian, etc it is far more accurate to first establish an authors character, before proceeding to talk about their beliefs.

Actually there is no real first step, but there are certainly steps in the wrong direction. To view the synoptics as three individual witnesses when they are independent is one. To go from there and then treat the similarities due to borrowings as independent attestations of Jesus' actual words is another.

 

[Simplelogic]

According to a Jewish professor, you can not even say 'I Am' in Hebrew or Aramaic, as there is no present tense; thus it says 'I shall be'.

Within places in the Tanakh it is translated as 'I Am', we find the Hebrew term 'Ani Hu', which means 'I he'... Which is the closest we get, and then it depends on the context, to if it is referring to God.

Thus when the context we find delivered in John, implies jesus led them through the wilderness, is the source of life, etc.... This is why people jump to the conclusion, he claimed to be God within it; yet there are no foundations for it in Hebrew or Aramaic, as you can't even say "I AM".

This means that Yeshua never claimed the title of God in Johns gospel!

 

[sojourner]

Before we start this, lets make one thing clear, John is made up and Simon was called a stone (peter) for a reason; so neither can be used to argue this case.

This article is old, so admittingly there are lots of things that could be improved on, and overall far more points than this; so feel free to add any you know of.

1. Christ said he came to fulfill the law and not to end it. Paul said he came to end the Law, and if we are in Christ we are free of the Law.

2. Christ said that we are judged by the commandments; Paul said we are free of them, if we are in Christ.

3. Christ said that we should not judge, Paul said that the spiritual may judge and should not be judged.

4. Christ said that God is the judge, Paul said Christ is.

5. Christ said that the inheritance is from God and they killed him to try and steal it, as in the parable of the vine dresser; Paul said that we have an inheritance because of Christ's death.

6. Christ said not to sacrifice the innocent, Paul praised the fact that Christ died.

7. Christ said that God is the lord of the living; Paul said that we should remain with Christ in death.

8. Christ showed that reincarnation happens, as he said John was Elijah, Paul said we only live once.

9. Christ said God is spirit, Paul said Christ is the image of God; breaking the second commandment.

10. Christ said he was sent and was a servant and a son, Paul said Christ is equal to God and even said he was God.

11. Christ said to worship God, Paul said to worship Christ.

12. Christ said to be one in God, Paul said to be one body in Christ.

13. Christ said that faith in God is powerful; Paul said that faith is "the faith' and so turning its meaning in to church attendance.

14. Christ showed and said to have faith in God; Paul said have faith in Christ.

15. Christ said have one father, Paul said he had begotten people in Christ so making him a father to them.

16. Christ said that we should want of nothing and trust in God, giving up wealth and helping the poor after his death, 3 thousand people were practicing this. Paul ended this and then said if we don't work we don't eat, and even went back to work while preaching him self.

17. Christ said it will be hard for a rich man to enter heaven; Paul aspired to have wealth and for two years he rented his own house.

18. Christ said we have forgiveness for forgiving others; Paul said we have forgiveness in Christ.

19. Christ said we are justified by our words, Paul said we are justified by Christ.

20. Christ said God would show mercy to the merciful, Paul said we have mercy in Christ.

21. Christ said to be like children to enter heaven; Paul said not to be like children.

22. Christ said to be the light of the world and to show the bad through love how to be good, Paul said to have nothing to do with bad people and push them out.

23. Christ and the Bible said wisdom will make you shine in heaven, and he said that we should increase the talents we are born with; Paul said to be simple in Christ.

24. Christ said, if you help collect in the harvest (works) you will receive your reward, Paul said it is not by works but by faith in Christ alone.

25. Christ said don't make vain repetition in prayers; Paul established it as a way to pray, through the wording he used and the Pharisee ways he showed.

26. Christ said hate self and love through God's love, then this is unconditional, Paul said who doesn't love them self's.

27. Christ said women can be sisters (equal), Paul said they should remain lower.

28. Christ said we should remember him through the sharing of bread (start of acts, only bread); Paul said to remember him through wine.

29. Christ said that his disciples should only drink water; Paul made the drinking of wine (communion) a religious Ritual.

30. Christ clearly showed and said do not worry about being accepted by man, Paul said to be accepted by many.

31. Christ said take up your cross and follow me, as the cross was a symbol in many cultures for God. Paul turned the cross into only a symbol of Christ's death, and caused it to become idolatry.

32. Christ said he came to bring division, meaning that we all follow God; Paul said Christ came to bring peace.

33. Christ said God is the teacher, Paul said him self is a teacher.

34. Christ warned of those who say the time is near, Paul preached the time is near.

35. Christ said invite the poor to your house and feed the hungry, Paul said let the hungry eat at home, and showed to only invite friends for food.

36. Christ says salvation comes from repentance, Paul said Salvation comes from the death of Christ.

Insipid load of junk that takes only the most surface of tidbits and proceeds to make mountains out of molehills.

 

[sojourner]

Outhouse…you seem to spend a lot of time on threads simply "discrediting" sources. Not sure why you feel so compelled to consistently hunt down threads for the sole purpose of discrediting them. Especially with comments like the one above. Who has the right to determine a sources absolute credibility?? You? Should not logic and reason be the foundation for intellectual discussion? Don't you feel like people should read for themselves to determine wether a source is "credible" or not? Or is that your job to protect them?

Back on the ignore list you go.

There's no logic or reason to the list. It's a comparison of apples and freight trains, and then holding the freight trains accountable for not being apples. That's unreasonable. Ever tried to transport one ton of freight 400 miles on a gallon of fuel on an apple? It. Doesn't. Work., because that's not what an apple does.

 

[sojourner]

So can we take that as an answer then, that you're incapable of arguing this case based on scriptural evidence? lol!

The argument for the case doesn't lie in scriptural "proofs," but in a hermeneutic of textual criticism.

 

[sojourner]

Riiiiight. Unless we get a rubber stamp from some false religious institution we can't have valid opinions? Ha!

What "institution" would that be, do you think? I don't get from his post that he's talking about an "institution."

 

[wizanda]

Insipid load of junk that takes only the most surface of tidbits and proceeds to make mountains out of molehills.

So since you didn't actually make any argument against the case, to substantiate what you're saying; your words mean nothing, other than just being insulting for the sake of it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So since you didn't actually make any argument against the case

Perhaps that is because to those familiar with the relevant work on this subject, you haven't presented a case, merely a lack of knowledge. Additionally, presenting an argument doesn't seem to have much effect, as you respond to them up to the point at which you seemingly can't, and then you ignore them.

Your case makes wild assumptions that scholars, believers and non-believers alike, would never make and for good reasons. You dismiss John (which, actually, is close to the norm when it comes to the historical Jesus) and then accept the synoptics not just as reliable but as actually reflecting Jesus' sayings (and you do what I've almost always seen those who don't know Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew and who are unfamiliar with the literature on early Christian studies and/or the historical Jesus do: use Yeshua rather than Jesus as if an alternate transliteration could possibly be of any relevance other than would-be erudite analysis).

other than just being insulting for the sake of it.

In fairness, analysis from ignorance "for the sake of it" isn't really of greater value than the response you criticize. You do not anywhere indicate a passing familiarity with a subject matter that practically gave birth to modern academia, you refer to no primary or secondary material apart from you own personal interpretations based upon translations of texts you can't read, and you do not use any sound or consistent methods to reach your conclusions. Why, then, should you be taken seriously by someone such as the member you write off?

 

[sojourner]

So since you didn't actually make any argument against the case, to substantiate what you're saying; your words mean nothing, other than just being insulting for the sake of it.

There's no argument to be made, because there was no substantial argument made in the OP. That's my assessment; it's not worth spending time haggling over. Deal with it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There's no argument to be made, because there was no substantial argument made in the OP. That's my assessment; it's not worth spending time haggling over. Deal with it.

And here I was hoping you'd take over and spare me.

 

[sojourner]

And here I was hoping you'd take over and spare me.

Oh, please! Do carry on! (This should be quite entertaining, because, of course, there's simply no reasonable argument against the points you've already made, nor against the ones you will make). It'll be great watching the sputtering, backpedaling, ad hominem fallacies, and other distracting "fireworks" courtesy of the other side.

 

[wizanda]

Actually there is no real first step, but there are certainly steps in the wrong direction.

Additionally, presenting an argument doesn't seem to have much effect, as you respond to them up to the point at which you seemingly can't, and then you ignore them.

Sorry for not replying straight away; did reply in the John thread, about the topics you had brought up, so didn't mean to ignore you. Also I've heard it stated multiple times, that they're all copied from each other; yet you coming across as if that was solid fact, shocked me.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sorry for not replying straight away

No problem. It was my mistaken assumption, and thus my fault.

Also I've heard it stated multiple times, that they're all copied from each other; yet you coming across as if that was solid fact, shocked me.

1) It is logically impossible for them to have "all copied from each other" (unless they each copied portions of the other), and nobody asserts this.
2) Can you read Greek and have you read the scholarship from Holtzmann onwards (including those who don't accept either Markan priority or the two-source hypothesis)? For that matter, can you read German? Ideally you'd want know French and Italian as well, but especially when it comes to the foundational arguments and the responses to criticisms of these, most are in German. That said, while there are arguments that attempt to show something other than that Matthew and Luke used Mark and a source we call Q, nobody argues that they are independent. The alternatives to the two source hypothesis don't include three authors writing independently. And you don't need to know German to show that (Greek is perfectly sufficient).

 

[wizanda]

.

End of the day though, it is a theology.... So regardless of this vast amount of scholarship supporting different view points; from a layman's perspective it doesn't matter to their belief.

I'm not saying the gospels are perfect or any of what you are saying isn't valid. It is all valuable information in understanding how untrustworthy the gospels are; yet religiously they're what sets the standard for the belief. So because John changes the perspective presented of Yeshua; we can clearly remove that for arguments sake, to make a clearer picture.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

End of the day though, it is a theology.... So regardless of this vast amount of scholarship supporting different view points; from a layman's perspective it doesn't matter to their belief.

That depends (and varies). Among the popular biblical scholars (i.e., those who write books for the layperson, not just for fellow specialists) one who I just recently regained some respect for was a born-again Christian. He lost his faith after his education first as a seminary student and then as a graduate student in a doctoral program. The evidence against his views was for him to overwhelming. This is not actually uncommon, especially for evangelical Christians who attend a seminary school with no knowledge of revelant scholarship and convictions that are hard to maintain given the evidence we have yet once challenged can't be accepted other than via denial. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians have it easiest, especially roman catholics as they not only don't subscribe to sola scriptura but believe that the church is at least as authoritative as the bible and also that the Pope fan speak for God.

That said, for most Christians I think you are right. For one thing, a strict historical approach to the gospels begins with the assumption that Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead. The extent to which any Christian holds a "faith through reason" stance varies considerably and naturally. Faith is always a component and thus even from a specialists perspective there is the scholarly analysis of the NT, the Bible, early Christianity, etc., and the religious approach. The two can overlap and often do.

 

[Simplelogic]

Perhaps that is because to those familiar with the relevant work on this subject, you haven't presented a case, merely a lack of knowledge. Additionally, presenting an argument doesn't seem to have much effect, as you respond to them up to the point at which you seemingly can't, and then you ignore them.

Your case makes wild assumptions that scholars, believers and non-believers alike, would never make and for good reasons. You dismiss John (which, actually, is close to the norm when it comes to the historical Jesus) and then accept the synoptics not just as reliable but as actually reflecting Jesus' sayings (and you do what I've almost always seen those who don't know Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew and who are unfamiliar with the literature on early Christian studies and/or the historical Jesus do: use Yeshua rather than Jesus as if an alternate transliteration could possibly be of any relevance other than would-be erudite analysis).

In fairness, analysis from ignorance "for the sake of it" isn't really of greater value than the response you criticize. You do not anywhere indicate a passing familiarity with a subject matter that practically gave birth to modern academia, you refer to no primary or secondary material apart from you own personal interpretations based upon translations of texts you can't read, and you do not use any sound or consistent methods to reach your conclusions. Why, then, should you be taken seriously by someone such as the member you write off?

How the name

 

[wizanda]

How the name

Thought Yehoshua was Hebrew and Yeshua is Aramaic?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How the name

Thank you for the link, but I can read Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and while I am not very good (indeed I'm pretty awful) at reading actual manuscripts from antiquity (e.g., Greek or Coptic papyri written entirely in some majuscule script), I have no problem whatsoever reading modern editions of texts written in ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, and decent enough when it comes to Hittite, Coptic, Gothic, and Sumerian. Which is why I find it particularly ridiculous to attribute or ascribe some special status to a transliteration of a language one can't read as opposed to a different transliteration that is more direct (Hebraic transliterations aren't actually transliterations but renderings of the Greek into the equivalent Aramaic and then transliterating this) and no more "authentic" or somehow more faithful than the transliteration "Jesus". Rather, the insistence upon a transliteration of a name that was never written because it is closer to the actual name of an individual in a language one can't read, pronounce, or speak is nothing other than a pitiful attempt to copy others in order to garner some semblance of authority.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thought Yehoshua was Hebrew and Yeshua is Aramaic?

Case in point.