• 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.

Scriptural literacy

No, right, I understand that they would have thought that wine, for instance, would have been healthier than water, but what I was wondering is if there is any evidence for what this would mean to them -- that the foods were processed, or if it would ever have been an issue.

Of course, it is always possible and likely that this is merely a modern concern. But I don't think it would pass everyone's attention that the foods required human intervention. What does it mean for the foods representing God to be processed?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
No, right, I understand that they would have thought that wine, for instance, would have been healthier than water, but what I was wondering is if there is any evidence for what this would mean to them -- that the foods were processed, or if it would ever have been an issue.

Of course, it is always possible and likely that this is merely a modern concern. But I don't think it would pass everyone's attention that the foods required human intervention. What does it mean for the foods representing God to be processed?
Click to expand...

Honestly, to me, it sounds like it's more of a modern concern. If I come across anything I'll post it. I just think that what we in the present day divide into the categories of "processed" and "natural", the people living in the 1st century just called "food".
 
Hokulele said:
Take this carrot and eat, it is my body. Take this water and drink, it is my blood of a new convenant. Take this ranch dressing and dip, it is my subcutaneous fat layer...

Sorry.
Click to expand...
LOL!:D


Pretty soon they would have to just put a salad bar in...
 
I'm reading through Luke and would like some input on this parable:

"Then Jesus said to the disciples, "There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property. So he summoned him and said to him, "What is this that I hear about you? Give me an accounting of your management, because you cannot be my manager any longer.' Then the manager said to himself, "What will I do, now that my master is taking the position away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.' So, summoning his master's debtors one by one, he asked the first, "How much do you owe my master?' He answered, "A hundred jugs of olive oil.' He said to him, "Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it fifty.' Then he asked another, "And how much do you owe?' He replied, "A hundred containers of wheat.' He said to him, "Take your bill and make it eighty.' And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes. "(Luke 16:1-9)

I'm not sure of the point Jesus is trying to make here. Ideas please?
 
Very interesting parable:)

It reminds me of the wineyard manager, and don´t question managements pay policy*.

Perhaps the point is that you should always use a position of trust to serve yourself first, and that kickbacks is a godly practice. :D

*heard that one 2. or 3. hand.
 
Don't know. I assume with the parables surrounding it that it has something to do with the way the disciples should use hook or crook to get people back into the fold (since it is preceded by the parables of the lost sheep, the lost drachma, and the prodigal son) and also preceded by a small discussion about how to be a good disciple and the "salt losing its taste" as a disciple may lose his/her enthusiasm.

However, it is also followed by the discussion over the right use of money (which fits with the theme of using hook or crook to produce converts, since that is what really matters) which also discusses those who are dishonest, as the steward is said to be.

Since the parable mentions "the children of this world", as in "this wicked and sinful age" I think it means that you should be crafty in the whole process of conversion since no one -- even the disciples -- is really good (in the sinful and wicked age), consistent with an apocalyptic view.
 
It has risen......

Ichneumonwasp said:
Different, but related, issue -- what do you think it means for the Eucharist foods to be what they are? Bread and wine are not natural foods but require some processing -- grinding and baking grain mixed with yeast, pressing grapes and fermentation. Do you think the early practitioners took this into account, the mix of man and nature?
Click to expand...

Thinking about this some more, the bread and wine offer symbolic unity. The Eucharist is a shared meal. Many grapes are pressed to make one bottle of wine. Many grains of wheat become one loaf of bread. Everyone comes together to partake of the Eucharist and become the one unified body of the church.
 
Greediguts said:
CHAPTER 9
9:1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.
9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.
9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs. (Didache 9:1-5)

The whole Didache can be read on-line here.
Click to expand...

Looking at this again, it now stands out that bread/wine are not really emphasized, but the cup and the breaking of the bread. The act of sharing the items with one another.
 
Greediguts said:
It has risen......



Thinking about this some more, the bread and wine offer symbolic unity. The Eucharist is a shared meal. Many grapes are pressed to make one bottle of wine. Many grains of wheat become one loaf of bread. Everyone comes together to partake of the Eucharist and become the one unified body of the church.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm, yes, very interesting. I think you may be onto something, again.
 
Greediguts said:
I think there is something here that can be discussed. Luke is the only Gospel writer who mentions this exchange between the others being crucified and Jesus. Mark & Matthew mention Jesus being mocked by the others being crucified, John mentions others being crucified, but they don't mock Jesus. Why did the author of Luke add this dialogue?
Click to expand...

Reading through Luke again, I think I can answer my own question. Luke's Jesus draws everyone to him; tax-collectors, sinners, Samaritans, and even (gasp!) women. He accepts all. This exchange is just keeping with the author's tradition of outsiders being drawn to and accepted by Jesus. Even at the very end, Luke's Jesus is forgiving and accepting of outcasts.

Interesting side note: Chapter 23:34 "Then Jesus said, "Father forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing" is considered by many scholars to be an addition to Luke ("textually doubtful" is the oft-repeated phrase when it comes to this verse).
 
Greediguts said:
Reading through Luke again, I think I can answer my own question. Luke's Jesus draws everyone to him; tax-collectors, sinners, Samaritans, and even (gasp!) women. He accepts all. This exchange is just keeping with the author's tradition of outsiders being drawn to and accepted by Jesus. Even at the very end, Luke's Jesus is forgiving and accepting of outcasts.

Interesting side note: Chapter 23:34 "Then Jesus said, "Father forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing" is considered by many scholars to be an addition to Luke ("textually doubtful" is the oft-repeated phrase when it comes to this verse).
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree. There is the additional issue that Ehrman often raises, as well, that it gives opportunity to show that this Jesus is in command and that he not only does not suffer bodily to any great degree (not like in Mark) but that he can proclaim what the immediate future holds.
 
OK, after having reread Acts, I have the feeling that the author of Luke/Acts may have seen Jesus as more of a super-prophet or the Old Testament Messiah than divine in his own right (see the comments by the angels after Jesus ascends into heaven and Peter's speech after the "speaking in tongues" episode). Both Luke and Acts seem to make an issue of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit being and acting as three distinct entities. Miracles abound, and are often performed by someone other than Jesus, such as Peter healing the lame guy, having the man and his wife who hold back money die at his words, and raising Dorcas from the dead.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele,

That fits with the way I have read it in the past, but I definitely need to go back to both those texts.

Another question or set of questions about Mark. I'm really bothered by this gospel, can you tell?

Two things that bother me -- the fact it was written at all if the author(s) thought the end was coming soon, and why does it have the form of, as Bart Ehrman has said, "a passion narrative with a long prologue"?

Possible solution that I hadn't earlier considered:

Maybe the author(s) really was(were) apocalypticists, but they were in a group where writing might be important -- say a group of educated gentiles on the fringes of Jewish communities.

There are a couple of bits of info that I knew previously but had never connected, and I wonder if they might be important. We know from Suetonius that Claudius ejected the Jews from Rome over some contention involving "Chrestus". What if this meant that there were a group of Jewish Christians in Rome that were ejected (or possibly all the Jews) leaving behind another group of Gentile Christians (Paul's letters seem to imply that the communities arose on the periphery of Jewish diaspora settlements, though this might just be me reading into them). This expulsion would have been around 47 CE or so.

And we know, or think we know, from Tacitus that Nero persecuted Christians around 63 or 64 CE. And we know that the Jewish revolt began around 66 or 67 CE culminating in Titus' waltz into Jerusalem around 71 or 72 CE.

If Mark was written around 70 or 71 CE, right after the destruction of the Temple and with the relatively fresh memory of Nero's persecutions (there could have been other local persecutions by citizens in Rome, since it was local citizens who seemed to start most of these persecutions), could it be that Mark's gospel was a message of "shine it on for a while longer because the end really is coming soon"? He did include the little detail of "before this generation has passed away all these things will come to pass", seemingly indicating that he thought the end was really, really going to come soon. What previously bothered me was, "why write this at all if you think the end is nigh?"

In the discourse about the end of days he includes these other two tidbits -- "brother will betray brother to death and the father his child....." and a reference to the fig tree as parable.

Why is this important? The fig tree was clearly identified not only with the temple but with the destruction of the temple (the barren then withered fig tree is presented as the bread sandwiching the scourging of the Temple, which is itself a parable of Temple destruction). And the brother betraying brother bit -- what do you think happened when Nero started using Christians to light his gardens at night? Some of them must have decided "screw this, you told me the end of the world was coming and it's 20 years later, and now wacko over there is using us as Tiki torches?" The whole point of the gospel may really have been, like 1Peter and Revelation -- just a little bit longer. Hold on. "He who stands firm to the end will be saved."

And the further bit may have been -- it's the gentile group, symbolized by the centurion who noticed "surely this was the son of God" -- not the Jewish group who (possibly) betrayed us -- let's create a story about Judas the betrayer while we're at it -- who will win out in the end.

Before the defections there was probably no need to write anything since they thought the end was coming soon, but if there were an immediate need? Some of them persecuted and now the Temple destroyed? If the author(s) felt a need to prevent future defections?
 
That all makes sense to me, but the one caveat I have is that how exactly are you picturing "apocalyptic" as it applies to Mark?

It seems to me that there are a few variations on that theme. Compare Revelation to Ezekiel to what modern apocalyptics believe, and there is a fairly wide range of end-time scenarios. What I get from the gospels (and some of Paul's letters) is that it isn't the end of the world as seen in Revelation and some modern fundamentalist sects, but rather an abandoning of this earth by the select few, and I guess the rest of us just carry on living and dying as we have always done.
 
Hokulele said:
OK, after having reread Acts, I have the feeling that the author of Luke/Acts may have seen Jesus as more of a super-prophet or the Old Testament Messiah than divine in his own right (see the comments by the angels after Jesus ascends into heaven and Peter's speech after the "speaking in tongues" episode). Both Luke and Acts seem to make an issue of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit being and acting as three distinct entities. Miracles abound, and are often performed by someone other than Jesus, such as Peter healing the lame guy, having the man and his wife who hold back money die at his words, and raising Dorcas from the dead.
Click to expand...

Acts has definitely raised a few questions for me regarding how the "Holy Spirit" was viewed or what it was understood to be by early Christians.

To say that the author did not see Jesus as divine, I'm not so sure...

The author obviously sees Jesus in OT terms - Jesus is an eschatological prophet, he is one with Moses and Elijah, and he is endowed with the Holy Spirit. The author presents Jesus as fulfilling the OT promises. So yes, Jesus is a prophet, but by including his birth story, Luke lets it be known that Jesus is divine. Luke 1:32 uses the phrase "The Son of the Most High". This title not only implies royal authority but also divinity. Plus, the "virgin birth" story itself would let the ancient readers know that Jesus was, at the very least, a demigod.
 
Greediguts said:
Acts has definitely raised a few questions for me regarding how the "Holy Spirit" was viewed or what it was understood to be by early Christians.

To say that the author did not see Jesus as divine, I'm not so sure...

The author obviously sees Jesus in OT terms - Jesus is an eschatological prophet, he is one with Moses and Elijah, and he is endowed with the Holy Spirit. The author presents Jesus as fulfilling the OT promises. So yes, Jesus is a prophet, but by including his birth story, Luke lets it be known that Jesus is divine. Luke 1:32 uses the phrase "The Son of the Most High". This title not only implies royal authority but also divinity. Plus, the "virgin birth" story itself would let the ancient readers know that Jesus was, at the very least, a demigod.
Click to expand...


Well, the Luke author always seems to place a buffer between terms such as "Son of the Most High" and him/herself. The angel said that others would use that term, not the author or Jesus directly. Almost all references to Jesus as the Son of God are made by others, not Jesus and not the author. I still see there being a bit of ambiguity, maybe deliberate?

ETA: Also, Luke and Mary in Luke refers to Joseph as Jesus' father (or the two of them as his parents), and makes a big deal over the whole genealogy of Joseph.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
Well, the Luke author always seems to place a buffer between terms such as "Son of the Most High" and him/herself. The angel said that others would use that term, not the author or Jesus directly. Almost all references to Jesus as the Son of God are made by others, not Jesus and not the author. I still see there being a bit of ambiguity, maybe deliberate?

ETA: Also, Luke and Mary in Luke refers to Joseph as Jesus' father (or the two of them as his parents), and makes a big deal over the whole genealogy of Joseph.
Click to expand...


The author has the man possessed by "Legion" refer to Jesus as "Son of the Most High God" implying again not only power in this world, but in the supernatural world as well (Luke 8:28-30). Jesus is also able to give the 12 disciples the power and authority to cure disease, cast out demons and heal people (Luke 9:1-2).


I think some of the problem may lie in how the author writes and who the audience was at the time it was written. It would appear to be written by a Gentile of faith for a person (or group of people) who already believed. I'll try to get back to this (and to Ichneumonwasp's post) but I have to be up very early tomorrow, so G'night!
 
Well, here's a question -- was the birth story original to Luke or a later addition? Marcion had a version of Luke with no birth narrative apparently.

I tend to think the birth story was there, but for a weird reason with which probably no one else will agree. I don't think there was ever a Q document. I've had this weird feeling for some time -- could be the tacos, I guess -- that Luke, when s/he referred to the other accounts didn't mean only Mark but also Matthew. I don't know why scholars think that Matthew and Luke were written independently, but not being a scholar it is probably just my ignorance. What if Luke, as Matthew was written in reaction to Mark, wrote in reaction to both Mark and Matthew and included and changed what was in Matthew?

I see this gradual accrual of stories that make sense literarily in one gospel but get incorporated into others with changes, and with the subsequent authors simply using them as stories, sometimes to further their own theological ends and sometimes just mentioning them as stories. So, for instance, as I asked about earlier, I see the transfiguration making perfect sense in Mark where the theme is -- none of you idiots gets it, even though the centurion did, Jesus was the Messiah who had to suffer and die and here he is not only equal to but above Elijah and Moses. This could have come from the perspective of a gentile with some anti-Jewish sentiment or a self-critical Jewish Christian living in Rome; in a way I guess a self-critical Jewish-Christian makes more sense because the allusions to earlier scripture are legion in that work.

Then the virgin birth story and all its surrounding bits makes perfect literary sense in Matthew because this was written by a Jewish-Christian almost assuredly, recasting Jesus as a new Moses with the now-famous mistranslation to virgin in the Septuagint (and allusions to the later non-biblical story concerning Moses' father not divorcing his wife like many of the other Hebrews who feared that Pharaoh would kill their children).

Luke takes the virgin birth story and recasts it in Hellenistic fashion to describe a Hellenistic demi-god hero/prophet who is rejected by his people (the story being continued in Acts) so the message goes to the gentiles.

Instead of a common source, what if these books reflect an ongoing conversation between various warring parties -- the Jewish-Christian sects vying against the Gentile-Christian groups -- with each writing versions of their own stories based on what came before? Matthew could be a little earlier than most think because it still seems to reflect the belief that the end is coming very soon (here the end does not mean end of the world, but the institution of the Kingdom), while I think Luke might be later than some suspect. The expectation of an imminent kingdom is downplayed in this account -- it has to wait for the word to spread to the world. Then John comes along saying that there is no coming Kingdom and Jesus finished his work on the cross.

ETA:

Sorry, forgot to mention above why I don't think there was a Q-document -- the five sermons in Matthew fit the Moses parallel (five sermons, five books as we all know) -- and the stuff in those sermons is really just a reworking of Jewish beliefs with a more stringent hand. What if Matthew created them? He needed five sermons for Jesus to give, so what if he created them just as Mark may have created the transfiguration scene? And then Luke simply incorporated that info into his own story not knowing where it came from (By that I mean that he would have known that it came from Matthew but not necessarily known where Matthew got it in the first place). The author of Luke admits that he is working from earlier source material which he thinks comes from eye-witness testimony.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom