The twenty-seven books we now have will be the twenty-seven books we will always have, till kingdom come. It costs less than an after dinner mint a day. Generate PDF.
In your class on the historical Jesus you said John does not work in Aramaic. Can you give more detail on that issue. See Genesis ; ; ; Deut. See Appendix, Born from the beginning.
I think he did — at least in normal conversation, for the most part, he did. At least, not a proper teacher, who instructed students, who made halakhic rulings or any of the other things that rabbis did back then. I think Jesus was by and large a prophet and preacher. Church leaders were trying to instruct new recruits as to the rules of being a Christian, so they attributed their rules to Jesus to give them extra legitimacy.
How many of his, at most, several dozen followers were burdened with a need to divorce their spouse at that point? Anyway, I digress. Well, the answer is right there in the Bible: they believed Jesus had a hotline to God, via the gift of the Holy Spirit, and by hitching their wagon to Jesus they were basically hedging their chances of surviving the impending Day of Judgment.
They already assumed that much. But what made Jesus special was that he was connected. Jesus could vouch for his followers, thus giving them special treatment. And that was why they followed him, all the way to Jerusalem during the Passover in 30CE, where he was ultimately, shamefully executed.
Those followers who realized Jesus was only a charlatan left the movement. Those who continued to believe, they became the Christians. But I think in addition to preaching making a public proclamation he certainly did explain his views to people. It appears to me that Matthew was written with the intent to provide foundation to the conclusion of the book — that disciples be made who would remain followers of his teachings — the interpretation and application of the Instructions, Psalms and Prophets — to also include what God desired all men iive who desired His kindness and blessing.
The teachings find foundation in the Torah, and he clearly said his disciples — and all men — should live by the word of God. Why lie about the truth?
Or, why not repent to believe the truth as given by God and the Holy Prophets? I would also add that its very likely Jesus was also illiterate just like his brother James; illiterate people are not good at having intellectual conversations, much less at teaching anything highly philosophical or political. I highly recommend reading the Dead Sea Scrolls that have been translated. Christians adopted a concept that had already existed in contemporary Judaism.
I would definitely agree with you that they existed probably as far back as the first century BCE. Read Josephus. The Dead Sea Scrolls put into explicit words what Josephus had already hinted at. Talmoore, How do you decide which preachings of Jesus to consider authentic and which to reject. I use a series of criteria. Well, the first version the one actually in Mark sounds like something a crazy person would say. Besides pathological narcissists, who talks like that?
That is, if we were to evaluate the probability of whether this was expressed by a narcissist or a sycophant, the odds are much more in favor of a sycophant. Just a follow-up question, Bart: Were there debates about the four gospels as well? Or were they always considered scripture well, at least suitable for reading by all proto-orthodox church fathers? The debates about John were pretty much on the margins, and we have no record of debates about the other three that I can recall.
The Words of Jesus in the Original Aramaic [Stephen Andrew Missick] on tnamotomar.gq *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Hard to find. User Review - Flag as inappropriate. This writer proves several important truths. First he proves Aramaic is not Hebrew it is a Babylonian language the Jews.
Other Gospels were sometimes debated — should the Gospel of Peter be accepted as a scriptural authority, e. You find this in many reformers—an impatience with an excessive fetishizing of ritual and tradition, which can become ends in themselves, and thus end up defeating their original purpose. And that, of course, is a debate that always exists in any religion. Therefore, the son of man a human is lord of the Sabbath. Yup, fair enough. The question is what Mark meant by the phrase son of man. And I believe in every other instance it refers to Jesus himself.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of interesting and crucial issues that are never discussed by church leaders. It seems to me that learning what we can about when and how books were selected to be included in the Bible is the very first step one needs to explore in studying the Bible. Who voted these books into the Bible?
The words of Jesus were no less important to Peter than they are to anyone else who has ever lived. He was willing to die and, indeed, did die for his Lord. So, we can rely on the fact that what we have in Mark is an accurate representation of the teaching of Jesus through the witness of Peter. Instead it is an authoritative presentation of what Jesus said as presented by dependable eye-witnesses.
Jesus no doubt said a great deal more than is recorded, he even said things in a different chronological order at times which a comparison of the gospels will demonstrate , but what we do have is a good and trustworthy representation of what Jesus did, in fact, say. The New Testament was written in Greek. Our Bibles are English translations of the Greek words of Jesus. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Aramaic is sort of a sister language to Hebrew think of the relationship of Spanish and Italian, for instance.
The average man on the street among the Jews of Palestine spoke Aramaic. But the New Testament was written in Greek. Why Greek? Because from the time of Alexander the Great 4 th century BC , the entire eastern half of the Mediterranean came under Greek domination, from Greece to Afghanistan, and Greek became the common language.
Even the Romans whose native language was Latin, of course , would ordinarily have made use of Greek in the eastern half of the Empire. When the New Testament was written, it was written in Greek not Aramaic because the church was spread broadly throughout this part of the world. Outside of Palestine, no one would have been able to read things written in Aramaic even Jews outside of Palestine spoke Greek.
So, when we read the words of Jesus in the Greek New Testament, we are actually reading the voice of Jesus who actually spoke these things in Aramaic conveyed to us through the words of the apostles now communicated via Greek. On a few occasions the gospel writers preserved for us direct verbatim quotations of the words of Jesus in the original Aramaic.
When they did so, they would usually provide a translation of the meaning of those words into Greek. For instance, consider these examples:. Notice that in each of these examples Matthew and Mark give the Aramaic phrase followed by a translation of that phrase into Greek. But…there would have been little sense in preserving everything Jesus said in Aramaic.
What benefit would that have served for the use of the early church? These isolated terms reflect a verbatim quotation of Jesus words. So what? What difference does any of this make?
At that they were utterly astounded. What, if anything, do they have in common? I think more so, because they mean something very specific to the culture of the people who are being addressed. We have so many words, that describe infinitesimal differences and nuance. Just my 2 cents…. Ephphatha means come open.