• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
joobz said:
And i've stated that son of god doesn't mean "SON" of god in jewish writings. that was also explained in that article. You can also see it here.
from wiki on Son of GodWP
Click to expand...

But this isn't just some Jewish writer talking, Mark chapter 9 obviously implies it is God himself speaking out of the clouds. Mark chapter 9 verse 7 describes an audible voice coming out of a cloud saying "This is my beloved Son; hear him". You will also notice the word Son is capitalized. I know of nowhere in the bible where God calls a prophet his beloved Son.

joobz said:
So, Ehrman was right.
Click to expand...

I've showed above why he is not right on this.

joobz said:
Now, perhaps you'd like to offer the same curtesy and actually read something of Ehrman's? I would be happy to even buy you a copy.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to bring in the arguments Ehrman makes or post a website of his, nobody is stopping anyone from doing that.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Someone summarized some of his points in here and I've already shown he was wrong to say Jesus was just a prophet in the Synoptic Gospels. Mark chapter 9 shows Jesus was the Son of God and not just a prophet
Click to expand...

We'll take that as a "No", shall we?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
But this isn't just some Jewish writer talking, Mark chapter 9 obviously implies it is God himself speaking out of the clouds. Mark chapter 9 verse 7 describes an audible voice coming out of a cloud saying "This is my beloved Son; hear him". You will also notice the word Son is capitalized. I know of nowhere in the bible where God calls a prophet his beloved Son.
Click to expand...

Just some Jewish writer?
That's a flippant way to speak of some of the Bible writers.

And, what is Mark but some Jewish writer?

And, as far as the capitalization is considered, this is just a retarded argument. Back then, only capital letters were used.



I've showed above why he is not right on this.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think you have.
 
DOC said:
Someone summarized some of his points in here and I've already shown he was wrong to say Jesus was just a prophet in the Synoptic Gospels. Mark chapter 9 shows Jesus was the Son of God and not just a prophet
Click to expand...

Also, in DOC's own style:

Strawman!
He never say, just a prophet. Jesus certainly was considered to be one of the, probably the single most important prophet, ever. Not just a prophet.
The same way that Einstein was not just a guy that liked math and science.

But there is a difference between being the greatest prophet of them all and to be God incarnate.
 
Simon39759 said:
Just some Jewish writer?
That's a flippant way to speak of some of the Bible writers.
Click to expand...

I believe he used the contraction isn't, meaning: is not. So he was saying that this is not just some Jewish writer talking.

Other than that, it was a nice rant.

Sorry to slow you down.
 
Last edited:
So have we made any headway in figuring out if there is any evidence that the new testament writer's told the truth or is DOC still spouting Geisler nonsense?
 
DOC said:
But this isn't just some Jewish writer talking, Mark chapter 9 obviously implies it is God himself speaking out of the clouds. Mark chapter 9 verse 7 describes an audible voice coming out of a cloud saying "This is my beloved Son; hear him". You will also notice the word Son is capitalized. I know of nowhere in the bible where God calls a prophet his beloved Son.
Click to expand...
Ignoring the capitalization argument (Which is silly), can you show me in the original text what was said?


How do you know that this isn't another Son of God metaphor. Merely a discription saying that Jesus was a prophet or angel?


DOC said:
I've showed above why he is not right on this.
Click to expand...
Nope.


DOC said:
You're welcome to bring in the arguments Ehrman makes or post a website of his, nobody is stopping anyone from doing that.
Click to expand...
So you won't go read a short interview, while at the same time stating that others should read Geisler's book.
I've taken your requests in good faith. Are you capable of doing the same?
 
DOC said:
And secrecy is a mainstay of most cults.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Secrecy is a halmark of cults.

wiki on Gospel of mark said:
Two important themes of Mark are the Messianic secret and the obtuseness of the disciples. In Mark, Jesus often commands secrecy regarding aspects of his identity and certain actions.[6] Jesus uses parables to explain his message and fulfill prophecy (4:10-12). At times, the disciples have trouble understanding the parables, but Jesus explains what they mean, in secret (4:13-20, 4:33-34). They also fail to understand the implication of the miracles that he performs before them.[1]
Click to expand...
 
RobRoy said:
I believe he used the contraction isn't, meaning: is not. So he was saying that this is not just some Jewish writer talking.

Other than that, it was a nice rant.

Sorry to slow you down.
Click to expand...

Yes, but his sentences did imply that the other uses of the expression elsewhere in the Bible were due to 'just some Jewish writer'... That's how I take it, at least.
 
Simon39759 said:
Yes, but his sentences did imply that the other uses of the expression elsewhere in the Bible were due to 'just some Jewish writer'... That's how I take it, at least.
Click to expand...

If you could kindly point them out, because my re-reading of his statement seems to be saying nothing like that at all. I could be wrong, but he seems to be making an appeal to authority, in this case the author of Mark. I don't see where this appeal is meant to denigrate other authors within the Bible. <shrug>
 
DOC said:
Please list everything the Bible got wrong the first time ...
Click to expand...


Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalm
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

... and what is your source.
Click to expand...


http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?ver=kjv
 
Son of God was primarily used to refer to David (or another rightful king) and by extension to the Messiah. It did not mean that the person was an actual son of God -- that would be unthinkable in second temple Judaism since God was One. One of the psalms also spoke of sons of god -- "you too are gods, sons of the Most High", but this was in reference to gods other than El who will now die like men.

So, when Mark uses the phrase he means that Jesus really is the Jewish Messiah -- that is his major theme after all (that despite the fact that Jesus is a crucified criminal he is the Messiah but no one understood this during his life).

And, yes, Mark was not just some Jewish writer. He was probably a Roman gentile writer.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
So, when Mark uses the phrase he means that Jesus really is the Jewish Messiah -- that is his major theme after all (that despite the fact that Jesus is a crucified criminal he is the Messiah but no one understood this during his life).
Click to expand...
Just for clarity sake (on DOC's Behalf). The Jewish Messiah is NOT divine.
 
RobRoy said:
If you could kindly point them out, because my re-reading of his statement seems to be saying nothing like that at all.
Click to expand...

Sure Rob, here it is:


DOC said:
joobz said:
And i've stated that son of god doesn't mean "SON" of god in jewish writings. that was also explained in that article. You can also see it here.
from wiki on
Son of God is a phrase found in the Hebrew Bible, various other Jewish texts and the Christian Bible. In the holy Hebrew scriptures, according to Jewish religious tradition, Son of God has many possible meanings, referring to angels, or humans or even all mankind (...)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
But [in the case of Mark 9] this isn't just some Jewish writer talking
Click to expand...

So, I take it that, in Mark, this isn't just some Jewish writer talking, in contrast to the other time the term 'Son of God' is used in Jewish writings (including the Bible, as illustrated in the Wikipedia article linked).
 
Last edited:
Simon39759 said:
So, I take it that, in Mark, this isn't just some Jewish writer talking, in contrast to the other time the term 'Son of God' is used in Jewish writings (including the Bible, as illustrated in the Wikipedia article linked).
Click to expand...

Ah, I see where you're coming from. I don't agree, but I do see it.

While DOC may have been referencing other Jewish authors outside of the Bible (whom believers might be willing to discount), I don't see that his comment had to do with those of the Bible. Again, he's making an appeal to authority. Now, he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know why he would want to undermine the authority of the authors of the Bible just to provide more authority to Mark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom